Report of the Long-Range Financial Plan SubcommitteeReport to: Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee, 07 October 2002 Report Recommendation Report RecommendationThat the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council adopt the recommendations of the Long Range Financial Plan Subcommittee, as outlined in the attached report. BackgroundDebt Eligibility During the review of the 2002 budget, staff indicated that the capital budget requests significantly exceeded the revenue available to finance the requests. Additionally, the requests would totally draw down reserve funds over the five-year period leaving no fiscal flexibility in future years. While the plan managed to hold the line on debt to ensure that the overall annual debt repayment requirements did not increase over the years, the amount of outstanding debt would increase slightly over the period. On top of all of these issues, there is an identified gap of over $270 million for which funding solutions were required. Direction was given to staff to develop a long-range financial plan that identified the 10-year needs of the City and a plan that would provide a financing scheme. Council also established a sub-committee of Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee to review the existing policies and to develop new policies regarding debt financing and pay-as-you-go or cash financing. The concept of pay-as-you-go is based on the fundamental goal of paying for capital works through cash on hand as opposed to borrowing for works and repaying the debt over time. The concept requires a detailed planning process to ensure that funds can be set aside to meet the long term requirements as they occur in the future. The following charts depict the effects of pay-as-you-go compared to debt financing for two different scenarios. The first chart compares the funding of an annual $1 million program under two scenarios: one completely funded by debt; and the other completely through pay-as-you-go. The chart below shows the annual tax payments required to fund this program each year. The debt is assumed to be issued each year for a ten-year term at 6%.
This chart shows over a 20-year period the annual payments financing on a cash basis versus a debt basis. As illustrated above the debt process is cheaper for the first 7 years but more expensive over the next 13 years. In addition at the end of the 20 years the debt option has $6.1 million of remaining payments or the equivalent of another 6 years of pay-as-you-go contributions. In this example the pay-as-you-go option will allow the construction of approximately 36% more during the 20-year period. A second option is to compare debt financing in year 1 versus saving towards construction. In this example, a $1 million project is constructed. Under the debt scenario the project is constructed in year 1 and debt issued and repaid over a ten-year period. Under the pay-as-you-go scenario, the equivalent of the annual debt payment is invested over time and the construction deferred until the project funds are available. The construction or delivery of the service would be deferred until year 7, however the same annual payments would allow for an additional 40% in projects to be constructed over the 10-year period. This option clearly requires a decision between immediate and long term financing and delivery of services. The chart below demonstrates the financial effects of indebtedness versus cash on hand.
The Committee recommends that the long-term goal of the City should be to minimize the use of debt. This goal can be achieved through an immediate introduction and phase-in of the principles contained in this report over an interim period. Given the current financing situation, it is necessary to identify those projects that could be eligible for debt financing so that there are limits placed on the creation of new debt. To understand the current situation the existing financing structure needs to be reviewed. It will also be helpful to differentiate the funding situation between the water and sewer funded system and the tax funded system. Projected Capital Reserve Fund Year End Balances
As noted above, the draw on the reserves far exceed the existing levels of funding available even with a continuation of $50 million per year of debt financing throughout the period. It is not prudent for a City of our size to leave itself with no reserves to meet emergency or unforeseen needs. The City should establish a policy of maintaining a minimum balance on the capital reserve funds for both the tax supported and water and sewer funded reserves. This minimum amount would allow the City to maintain financial flexibility, respond to emergent issues or meet the funding challenges of matching funding required by other government grant programs without incurring additional debt. It is recommended that staff be directed to research this issue and bring back recommendations on what balances should be maintained. This document will attempt to provide a context for future funding recognizing that the movement to maximized pay-as-you-go and minimized debt will be a long-term objective and will require significant discipline and the need to incorporate long-term priorities into the capital budget process. Debt EligibilityThe sub-committee feels that a long-term debt eligibility policy should be established that identifies those projects for which debt financing could be utilized if necessary. The sub-committee also acknowledges that this strict definition needs to be flexible during the period that the recommended enhanced pay-as-you-go policy is phased in and therefore some of the restrictions identified in the following sections need to be phased. The existing level of debt results in a debt-servicing ratio of 6.2%. This ratio is calculated by dividing the annual amount of debt repayment cost by the amount of revenues controllable by the Council (which is basically all revenues except provincial grants). This analysis compares the ability to repay the debt from the city’s controllable revenues. This measure is the most relevant comparator available for debt because it reflects the costs of repaying the debt and fluctuates with interest rates. The debt policy included in the 2002 budget restricted new debt issues to those that would not expand the annual debt servicing cost. To establish the policy the sub-committee reviewed the various types of capital projects typically undertaken by the City. Life Cycle ProjectsThe first category of capital works is life cycle projects which renew and rehabilitate existing assets. The Committee believes that in the long-term life cycle works should not be eligible for debt financing, regardless of their dollar size. A planning process needs to be developed that provides an annual tax contribution sufficient to meet the life cycle needs of all assets. By doing so sufficient funds are set aside each year in a reserve fund to meet the on-going capital rehabilitation and maintenance needs. Life cycle funding should be identified for all existing capital assets and incremented as new assets are constructed. This concept of identifying a small annual contribution each year eliminates the need to add debt and also ensures that the assets can be maintained in such a manner as to maximize their usage. The current funding does not come close to meeting this requirement and will be highlighted in the long-range financial plan document that will be tabled by staff. The following chart outlines the existing situation for both the tax and rate supported capital budgets. Comparison of Tax Supported Life Cycle Projects vs. Funding $000’s
Comparison of Rate Supported Life Cycle Projects vs. Funding $000’s
It is imperative that a strategy be developed that will ensure that our assets are protected and maintained at the lowest long-term cost to our taxpayers. Accordingly, the annual contributions to Reserves Funds need to be augmented and escalated on an annual basis with the goal of reaching full cash financing for all life cycle projects. To accomplish this the growth which new assets are being created also needs to be considered since they will also increase the long term life cycle costs. The following chart shows the impact of increasing the annual contribution for the tax supported projects to reflect the assessment growth annually as well as reflecting both assessment growth and annual increases to keep up with inflation. No changes are reflected for 2003 given the budget direction to freeze taxes. Comparison of Existing Pay-as-you-go Contributions and possible changes $000’s
It should be noted that even with these increases to pay-as-you-go, life cycle costs exceed the available funding. A review of standards and setting of corporate priorities will be required to deal with this shortfall. Growth projectsThe next categories of works are those related to increasing capacity and growth of the City. Many of the projects related to growth are now financed by development charges to varying extents. In some of the former municipalities of the City development charges captured the maximum recovery allowable under the legislation for those services that were formerly lower tier responsibilities. This is not uniformly the case but certainly was prevalent in many of the high growth neighbourhoods within the City. In some other cases, no development charges were in place meaning all growth projects were funded from the tax base. In the case of many citywide services the development charge captured only a portion of the full costs of growth. The portion of growth costs not captured by development charges forms a draw on the capital financing of the City. It is imperative that the City adopts a "growth pays for growth" policy. It is recognized that this may not be fully possible given the large portion of roads costs allocated to non-residential development and the resultant charge that would be very difficult to absorb. It is estimated that the roads component that will not be recovered from the non-residential sector will amount to approximately $250 million over a twenty-year period. When considering this it should also be recognized that the tax rate for non-residential properties is 2 to 2.5 times that of the residential sector, thereby providing an avenue for greater recovery from property taxes. However, a new policy should be developed that maximizes the recovery from development and should be put in place at the earliest date possible. Since these projects serve new growth areas and will serve future population in addition to the existing population, the Committee believes that the growth costs not recovered by development charges should be eligible for debt financing. The debt charges created by these projects will be paid through an expanded tax base including the new users of the service and reduce the net costs borne by the existing taxpayers. Projects included in this category would be transportation expansion as well as a share of community facilities such as arena, pools and libraries. In some instances the projects required to service growth are required in advance of the development. In these cases even if the development charges recover 100% of the development cost the City absorbs the carrying costs of the project unless a developer has front-ended the financing of the project. This is most commonly seen in the development of storm water management systems. While the City policy should be that developers finance these projects under a front-ending agreement, some projects, such as water and sewer plants, are likely to be borne by the City. Accordingly, this type of projects should also be eligible for debt financing and the full cost related to the debt be recoverable from development charges. Future development charges policy needs to ensure that the maximum recovery allowed in the legislation is achieved from growth. Consideration needs to be given to the non-residential charges to find ways by which a greater recovery is achieved. If growth cannot finance its’ way then consideration must be given to find ways to minimize the infrastructure required to finance growth or failing that growth may need to be halted. New Programs and InitiativesThe third type of projects is new programs and initiatives and those that improve the level of service within an existing area. These projects set new standards within the City and represent an increase in service or service levels but are not related entirely to growth. Examples of this type of project would be traffic control signals, sidewalk construction or the expansion of community services within an existing area. These projects should normally be planned significantly in advance of construction and therefore can be planned for financially by increasing the contribution to reserves annually to meet the financial requirement. This project type should not be debt funded under normal circumstances. There may be situations where non-traditional infrastructure, which is partially or primarily funded by other levels of government, requires a large capital investment. Since this type of project would likely have a long benefit period, it may be desirable to spread the cost over a longer period through the issuance of debt. This type of situation would be rare and would include an initiative such as rapid transit or to leverage other private sector funding or government funding such as the original Canada Ontario Infrastructure Works program. Summary of debt eligibilityThe following table summarizes the debt eligibility of various project types over time.
A long-term strategy should be to reduce the reliance on debt and as debt is reduced convert the annual payments to cash financing contributions to allow for a movement to maximized pay-as-you-go. In the interim every effort should be made to limit the debt creation to the types of projects identified in this report. Interim processBased on the identified capital spending program it is not possible to move immediately to a policy that would allow the City to finance capital with a maximized level of pay-as-you-go. In fact, it may be necessary in the early years to expand debt financing to include several critical life cycle projects within the water and sewer areas for which sufficient funds have not been fully set aside. Debt should be limited as much as possible to keep the debt-servicing ratio within existing levels. In order to move towards a cash financed program there may also be a need to reduce the speed by which the City achieves the optimal life cycle funding level. The movement to maximized pay-as-you-go requires discipline by all involved and re-evaluation and examination of existing Council priorities. Annual spending targets must be established that do not fully deplete the reserve funds and do not expand the overall debt repayment burden. These targets must be adhered to during the budget cycle. It will be necessary, in the short term, for Council to prioritize the available funding within both functional area (transportation, community services, environment etc.) and project type (life cycle, growth etc.). This priority setting should be based on a multi-year view, occur prior to budget development and should set envelope spending targets. Any new projects introduced during the budget process must be accommodated within the overall spending target and therefore projects must be substituted and not added to the overall budget. The level of projected spending cannot be accommodated without significant increases in taxes or water and sewer rates or depletion of reserves. These increases are required to meet a future pay-as-you-go policy and should be introduced over the 10-year period. Other revenuesUnder current priorities and resources the city will not be able to provide both the life cycle and new initiative funding within existing resources without very significant tax increases. The burden of property taxes in Ontario is more significant than in other provinces due to the inclusion of social, health and income redistribution programs. This leaves little room to be able to expand the tax envelope to the level necessary to provide the infrastructure and capital structures required to properly service the community. Many reports have identified the need to have a new funding arrangement between the upper levels of government and municipalities. Some of the proposed revenues that should be shared with municipalities include fuel tax, vehicle licence fees, income taxes, and hotel room taxes. Other suggested tax changes that have been raised include the provision of GST exemption for municipalities and an exemption from Provincial Sales Taxes. The City’s Task Force on Property Assessment and Property Tax Issues made a number of recommendations in regard to the responsibilities of the levels of government which are indicated below: The Task Force recommends to the Province of Ontario that property taxes should not form the basis of funding such income-redistributive social programs as education, welfare assistance, childcare subsidies, social housing, and public health; these programs should be funded from ability-to-pay tax revenues. The Task Force recommends that the Province of Ontario provide some portion of the fuel tax to municipalities, to be used to fund the provision of local transportation services (roads, sidewalks, public transit, etc.). The Task Force recommends that the Province of Ontario provide some portion of the vehicle registration fee to municipalities, to be used to fund the provision of local transportation services (roads, sidewalks, public transit, etc.). The Task Force recommends that the City of Ottawa, directly through its own provincial and federal representatives, as well as through the Association of Municipalities in Ontario (AMO) and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), press for an ongoing funding program from both federal and provincial governments to support municipal infrastructure, based on joint priorities Each of these options should be actively pursued in order to more effectively provide for funding of municipal services from a base that is more progressive than that of realty taxes. Since Ontario requires that the municipal sector provide funding for social & health costs on the realty tax bill, the relative property tax burden is higher in Ontario than most provinces, This reduces the ability of Ontario municipalities to increase their taxes to meet the infrastructure requirements faced by major cities. The City will need the addition of some or all of these optional revenues to meet the future capital requirements. RecommendationsGeneral
Debt Financing
Funding from other governments
ConsultationThe Long Range Financial Plan Subcommittee held a public meeting on 7 October 2002 and invited comment from members of Council and the public. This meeting was duly advertised in the three local daily newspapers and advance notification was sent to members of Council. The Extract of Draft Minute of the 7 October 2002 meeting, attached to this report, contains a summation of the comments received. AttachmentDocument – Extract of Draft Minute of the Long Range Financial Plan Subcommittee meeting of 7 October 2002. DispositionCorporate Services Department (Financial Services) staff will implement the policies adopted by Council. 1. DRAFT REPORT OF THE LONG RANGE FINANCIAL PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE - DEBT MANAGEMENT AND CAPITAL FUNDING STRATEGY ACS2002-CCV-LRF-0001 Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga That the Long Range Financial Plan Subcommittee approve the suspension of the Rules of Procedure (Section 74 (11) to consider this matter at today’s meeting. CARRIED Subcommittee Chair Chiarelli began by thanking staff for their assistance in helping the subcommittee in their efforts to put this report together. He noted the Subcommittee had met as a working group at least once each week since July, and commented that staff had provided them with a clearer picture of the issues and problems. Councillor Chiarelli, Councillor Stavinga and Councillor McNeely then provided an overview of their report. Councillor Alex Cullen commended the Subcommittee for identifying this very pressing problem facing City Council. He noted the City’s ability to meet the demands of growth and maintain the infrastructure, were important issues that needed to be considered. Referencing page 6 of the Agenda, Councillor Cullen noted that even with Pay-As-You-Go, the funding shortfall for 2006 for lifecycle projects would be $60 million. He stated that an 8% tax increase would be required to cover this shortfall. The report speaks of scaling back the lifecycle program and he asked for the Subcommittee’s comment. Councillor Stavinga responded that the Subcommittee had recognized the huge gap in lifecycle projects alone and that even with a 2% increase for inflation and 2% for growth, there is still a significant gap. She said it is imperative that the City move to Pay-As-You-Go and stressed the importance of prioritizing the projects for Pay-As-You-Go and reviewing the standards for lifecycle maintenance. For example, the Subcommittee in working on this issue, had been asking staff if they were providing "Cadiallac" or "Ford" standards. She agreed it is important to deliver on the lifecycle projects but to do so in a financially sustainable way. She pointed out one of the Subcommittee’s recommendations was to review lifecycle standards across other municipalities to compare where the City stands compared to similar municipalities. Councillor Cullen had questions with respect to the notion of using debt for non-traditional infrastructure. He asked if a new sewage treatment plant, a new water filtration plant or a new main library, would fall within the Subcommittee’s definition of non-traditional infrastructure. Chair Chiarelli responded these would not fall in this category, noting it would be predictable that these facilities would be needed and therefore the City should have been putting money away for these. Councillor Cullen put forward the argument that such a facility would last twenty to thirty years and, as future residents would benefit from this infrastructure, they should be contributing to it. He also pointed out this type of infrastructure was not something that would be needed every year. Chair Chiarelli responded by saying that "something" is built every year and if the City were to borrow every year to finance this infrastructure, it would end up paying 36% more of the taxpayers money. He also felt that public private partnerships should be pursued and in this instance, borrowing money to leverage third party money makes sense. Councillor Cullen then referenced page 8, the interim process, and asked for an explanation of the first line: "Based on the identified capital spending program, it is not possible to move immediately to a policy that would allow the City to finance capital with a maximized level of pay-as-you-go." Chair Chiarelli advised there are some projects in the works already, and it would be foolish to stop them at this point. As well, there could be instances, for example if the main water lines broke and there was not sufficient money in the reserve funds to replace these, where it would be necessary to borrow money. He stressed that the Subcommittee had recognized such realities in their examination of the issues. The Councillor drew the Subcommittee’s attention to the last paragraph on page 4, which spoke of the City’s debt-servicing ratio being 6.2%. He commented this was well within the Ministry’s guidelines and asked if information had been obtained on other cities. Lloyd Russell, Director, Financial Services advised staff were trying to gather this information and hoped to have it prior to this matter being considered by the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee (CSEDC). Councillor Cullen noted the Ministry of Housing had a survey of Ontario municipalities that would contain this information. At the Chair’s request, Mr. Russell explained that the debt-servicing ratio compares the cost of repaying the debt as a percentage of the funds that City Council controls (i.e. all of the revenues with the exception of transfer payments from other governments). The Province allows for up to a 25% ratio, however, he doubted that any large municipality was anywhere near this level. Councillor Alex Munter stated he was very excited about the debate this document would engender, particularly with respect to the notion of controlled growth that pays its own way. He stated it made sense to run the City of Ottawa like a fiscally responsible family runs its household (i.e. not borrowing to buy groceries but also not waiting to save all the cash to buy a house). He felt it important to recognize that in building the assets of the City, there will be instances where debt will be required. Councillor Munter noted there were certain similarities between the policies proposed in this document and the policies of the former City of Nepean. He pointed out the City of Nepean’s property taxes, in its last year, were between 10% and 15% higher than other municipalities (e.g. Kanata or Ottawa) and he asked if this document was proposing such a tax rate for the whole new City of Ottawa. Chair Chiarelli noted that Nepean, prior to adopting a pay-as-you-go philosophy, was one of the highest taxed townships in the Region and he acknowledged that Nepean did have a higher tax rate in the last year of its existence. However, prior to that Nepean’s tax rate (i.e. on a house with an assessed value of $150,000), was second lowest in the Region and he noted that for twenty-two years Nepean had a tax rate below the rate of inflation. Chair Chiarelli went on to say that the state of the City’s capital program leaves only three choices, going deep in debt, increasing taxes or going to a pay-as-you-go system. Councillor Stavinga stressed the importance of Council prioritizing the projects and determining what can be financed through development charges, through debt or through an increase in the property taxes. She stated at Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee, she would be providing the members with "sharp pencils", which she will encourage them to use to begin the multi-year priority setting. Councillor McNeely acknowledged the pay-as-you-go philosophy creates a real dilemma for the growth areas of the City. However, he felt this could not deter the City from running itself like a good business. Councillor Jan Harder stated she was excited to see this report come forward. She opined that if the City did not adopt a pay-as-you-go philosophy, it would end up in great trouble. She felt that Councillors, even in an election year, must prioritize and be able to stand up to the public and explain why certain projects cannot be undertaken immediately. The Councillor then had questions with respect to development charges and asked if there was the ability to use development charges generated in a growth area, in that specific area. Mr. Russell confirmed there was nothing in the legislation to prevent area specific development charges. However, a number of issues were identified when this concept was reviewed previously, such as the issue of transportation networks that are cross-community. He said it was possible to have area-specific development charges to a certain extent but there would be cross-city implications. Mr. Russell pointed out the last Regional review of Development Charges split it up into several zones. Councillor Harder asked if the Subcommittee had considered specific neighbourhood user fees for specific projects. Councillor McNeely advised the subcommittee did look at this and he saw this as one way for areas that really need facilities to obtain them earlier. He said however, it was his understanding from staff that special area taxes were not permitted. Mr. Russell confirmed that area-specific tax rates were not permitted. However, he said if Councillor Harder was referring to a specific user rate, he said there was nothing legislatively to prevent the City from doing this. He did note there were new regulations that restrict to a certain extent, how fees can be calculated (e.g. user fees can only be cost-recovery) but said it was his belief the capital element could be included in a user fee. Councillor Stavinga sought clarification that Councillor Harder was suggesting that a type of surcharge for a specific facility be applied to a reserve fund for that facility. Councillor Harder confirmed this was gist of her inquiry. Councillor Harder then asked who would be determining the City’s lifecycle standards and whether there would be a study done of other similar sized municipalities. Councillor Stavinga pointed out that Recommendation 4 in the report was asking that staff undertake a review of the City’s standards, including a comparison with other similar municipalities. She said it was very important to determine the benchmarks. Councillor Jacques Legendre stated he felt the Committee had done some good work and said he would agree with most of the recommendations contained in the report. However, he referenced the last recommendation on page 9, asking for an ongoing funding program and offered his opinion that this was vague and did not allow for good, stable planning. Chair Chiarelli pointed out this was in fact a recommendation taken from the Task Force on Property Assessment and Property Tax Issues, which was adopted by City Council. The Subcommittee was simply endorsing this position. He explained such third party funding was the reason the Subcommittee was advocating that the City be agile enough to handle such sudden announcements (i.e. through pay-as-you-go or through debt). Councillor Legendre countered that the City should be should be sending a message to the senior levels of government that they should not be employing this "agility aspect". He felt the most efficient use of the taxpayers’ dollars depended on stability and planning. Councillor Legendre asked for a definition of "maximized pay-as-you-go". Chair Chiarelli drew the Councillor’s attention to the table on page 8 and noted the maximized system is basically eliminating borrowing for lifecycle maintenance or new initiatives. Mr. Russell added that it reflects a reduction in the reliance on debt for the elements in that table and a movement towards pay-as-you-go for as much as possible. He confirmed at Councillor Legendre’s request that maximized pay-as-you-go did not mean that the City would eventually be 100% pay-as-you-go. Councillor Diane Deans thanked the Subcommittee for the work they had put into this report. She said the report raised many questions with respect to how the City should proceed. Councillor Deans asked if the Subcommittee had calculated for additional costs of over-deferring a project that was needed. Councillor Stavinga pointed out the report was not establishing the priorities in terms of the capital projects. It identifies the importance of defining projects with respect to lifecycle and moving away from using debt for that; looking at growth related projects and maximizing development charges; looking at new services and new initiatives and moving away from debt. However, she said the Subcommittee also realized there has to be an interim policy, recognizing the inherited needs from all of the former municipalities. She said Council will have to focus on the difficult process of determining its priorities and deciding what is affordable in the short term, the medium term and the long term. Referencing the table in the report that compared paying by cash versus debt and which indicated that debt would cost 36% more, Councillor Deans pointed out that in deferring a project for seven years, the community will have lost the use of the facility for these seven years. As well, it is likely the cost of building seven years later will have increased by as much as the 36% in any event. She said the question to be considered is how much actual benefit there is versus the cost. Chair Chiarelli noted some of the increased construction costs were built into the projection presented by the subcommittee. As well, if interest rates were to rise the effect on this equation would be compounded. The Chair also spoke of the flexibility that pay-as-you-go would allow the City if the market should dip, permitting projects to be built at reduced rates. Councillor Deans asked the Subcommittee to expand on the public private partnership (P3) aspect of the report. She asked if it was proposed that a P3 project would jump the queue. Chair Chiarelli noted with P3, a new initiative would be allowed to borrow to finance the City’s portion of the project. He said it would clearly be to the taxpayer’s advantage to proceed with such a project. Councillor Deans expressed her opinion that under this scenario, a "have and a have-not" City would be created. For example, one community in her ward would never be able to leverage money from a third party, because it is a poor community. She felt that the poorer communities would not benefit from this scenario. She asked how the City could ensure that the "haves" would not get more and the "have-nots" would get less. Councillor Stavinga expressed her opinion that it was a matter of looking at the priorities across the City. She said public private partnerships will be just one tool to be used and, although they could present certain opportunities, she recognized that P3’s were not necessarily the "pot of gold at the end of the rainbow". Councillor McNeely noted he had much confidence in P3 and he hoped this alternative would be given a chance. He said the concerns expressed by Councillor Deans were significant and he felt these would have to be resolved. Councillor Chiarelli said he was not sure that the method of payment (e.g. debt financing or public private partnership) would determine whether a community received a facility; rather, this would be determined by Council in setting its priorities. Having heard from all speakers, the Committee approved the following motion. Moved by Councillor P. McNeely That the Long Range Financial Plan Subcommittee approve the attached draft report. CARRIED Chair Chiarelli noted the report, together with the comments received at this meeting, would be forwarded to Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee on 15 October 2002. Also at that time, the Committee will be considering a report from staff on the Long Range Capital forecast. The recommendations rising out of CSEDC will then be forwarded to Council on 23 October 2002. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
W3001989