MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1581393552

Le financement des arrondissements de Montréal : constats, principes et options

2012· article· fr· W1581393552 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jean‐Philippe Meloche, François Vaillancourt

Bibliographic record

VenueCIRANO Project Reports · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoroughAccountabilityAusterityContext (archaeology)FinanceEconomic rentBusinessPublic administrationEconomicsPolitical sciencePoliticsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report presents a reflection and recommendations on the financing of Ville de Montréal's boroughs. A consultation tour of the 19 boroughs, meetings with key stakeholders from the main central services and a review of several documents provided mainly by the Finance Department made it possible to establish a diagnosis of the situation. The problem of financing the boroughs stems from the establishment of historical budgets in 2002, which were considered relatively inequitable, and from the inability to migrate since then to budgets based on objective and uniform parameters for all the boroughs. The boroughs' participation in their financing remains relatively low and the austerity climate imposed by the City in recent years has caused a lot of frustration. Following this site review in Chapters 1 and 2, and using the principles of intergovernmental financial relations to be applied in a decentralized city context, we put forward eight main recommendations aimed at clarification, accountability and stabilization: That the services delegated to the boroughs by Ville de Montréal be clarified in terms of responsibility and funding; That participation in interborough services follow more equitable fixed cost sharing rules and that charges better reflect actual costs; That the responsibility for property management be clarified, fully assumed by the entity responsible for it (no sharing) and that appropriate rents be applied; That the network components of borough services be better identified and adequately funded. Network components that require a processing change have been identified in the following services: - Libraries - Roads and snow removal (portion affecting inter-borough transit streets) - Residual material collection - Sports and leisure centres That the boroughs themselves raise a portion of their core revenues from local property taxes (with equalization payments for the less fortunate); That the mooring between responsibilities and various sources of revenue, particularly from parking and advertising, be reviewed; That the envelope for central transfers to the boroughs be indexed to inflation and that it be based entirely on objective parameters (parametric budget) with a transition period; That the Development Fund, which has become useless through all these proposals, be abolished; That the distribution formula for the TNP be reviewed. All these proposals are intended to standardize the financial treatment of the boroughs and put an end to the legacy of historical budgets that has persisted since 2002. They are intended to make the City of Montréal's structure more efficient, in a context of reasoned decentralization, taking into account the network effects of services to the boroughs. Ce rapport présente une réflexion et des recommandations sur le financement des arrondissements de la Ville de Montréal. Une tournée de consultation des 19 arrondissements, des rencontres avec les intervenants clés des principaux services centraux et l'examen de plusieurs documents fournis principalement par le Service des finances ont permis d'établir le diagnostic de la situation. La problématique du financement des arrondissements découle de l'établissement des budgets historiques en 2002, jugés relativement inéquitables, et de l'incapacité à migrer depuis vers des budgets reposant sur des paramètres objectifs et uniformes pour tous les arrondissements. La participation des arrondissements dans leur financement demeure relativement faible et le climat d'austérité imposé par la Ville au cours des dernières années a suscité beaucoup de frustration. Suite à cet examen des lieux que l'on retrouve aux chapitres 1 et 2, et en faisant appel aux principes des relations financières intergouvernementales à appliquer dans un contexte de ville décentralisée, nous mettons de l'avant huit principales recommandations visant clarification, responsabilisation et stabilisation : Que les services délégués aux arrondissements par la Ville de Montréal soient clarifiés en termes de responsabilité et de financement; Que la participation aux services interarrondissement suive des règles de partage des coûts fixes plus équitables et que les charges reflètent mieux les coûts réels; Que la responsabilité de la gestion immobilière soit clarifiée, qu'elle soit entièrement assumée par l'entité qui en est responsable (pas de partage) et que les loyers adéquats s'appliquent; Que les composantes de réseau des services en arrondissement soient mieux identifiées et qu'elles fassent l'objet d'un financement adéquat. Des composantes de réseau qui nécessitent une modification de traitement ont été identifiées dans les services suivants : ­ - Bibliothèques ­ - Voirie et déneigement (portion qui touche les rues de transit interarrondissement) ­ - Collecte des matières résiduelles ­ - Centres de sport et de loisir Que les arrondissements prélèvent eux-mêmes une part de leurs recettes de base à même l'impôt foncier local (assorti de paiements de péréquation pour les moins nantis); Que l'on revoie l'amarrage entre responsabilités et diverses sources de revenus, provenant notamment des stationnements et de la publicité; Que l'enveloppe des transferts centraux aux arrondissements soit indexée à l'inflation et qu'elle se fasse entièrement sur la base de paramètres objectifs (budget paramétrique) avec une période de transition; Que le Fonds de développement, devenu inutile par l'ensemble de ces propositions, soit aboli; Que la formule de distribution du PTI soit revue. Toutes ces propositions ont pour but d'uniformiser le traitement financier des arrondissements et de mettre fin à l'héritage des budgets historiques qui perdure depuis 2002. Elles visent à rendre la structure de la Ville de Montréal plus efficace, dans un contexte de décentralisation raisonnée en tenant compte des effets de réseau des services vers les arrondissements.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCIRANO Project ReportsSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207