Transcript Inter-municipal collaboration and forced amalgamations A summary of recent experiences

Inter-municipal
collaboration and
forced amalgamations
A summary of recent experiences
in Toronto and Montreal
Toronto post-war
Rapidly growing city and 12 suburbs in postwar era
Toronto had run out of developable land to
house growing workforce and industry

Suburbs needed to ease growth pressures on city
Suburbs lacked $ for infrastructure

Water, sewage, roads, transit, schools, etc.
Fragmented service delivery


163 separate municipal contracts
Better coordination and cooperation desired
The “Metro” solution
(1954)
1954 - creation of Regional Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto (Metro) by Province



Toronto + 12 suburbs = Metro
Two-tiered, federated structure
Viewed as compromise between outright
amalgamation and doing nothing
Benefits to Toronto and suburbs



Reduced complex & fragmented services delivery
New workers needed housing, transportation,
water, schools, etc.
Stronger region = stronger Toronto economy
Cooperation and
coordination under
Metro system
Metro councillors appointed from municipalities
Metro responsible for water, sewage treatment, major
regional roads, transit, social assistance, policing,
ambulance, regional parks and regional planning
Municipalities maintained autonomy; responsible for
local streets, local parks, recreation, community
centres, garbage
 Other services shared with Metro (snow removal,
seniors housing, childcare, street cleaning)
Effectiveness of the
Metro government
Generally viewed as successful model of
inter-municipal coordination

Achieved objectives of its mandate: water and
sewage issues dealt with, new schools built,
transit and highway systems built and enhanced,
equitable social services delivered throughout
region, regional planning established
Distanced from municipalities with creation of
directly elected Metro Board – 1988

Resulted in less inter-muni cooperation
Growth of Greater Toronto Area lessened
Metro’s relevance
Municipal amalgamation
Six independent municipalities of Metro merged into
one new City of Toronto
 2.4 million residents (was 650,000)
 Widely unpopular in all municipalities – nobody
asked for such a merger
 Accompanied by provincial cuts and downloading
Stated rationale for amalgamation
 Less waste and duplication of services, more cost
efficiencies, fewer bureaucrats
Unstated reasons for amalgamation
 Political differences with Toronto councillors
 Blunt calls for creation of larger Metro within GTA
Assessment of Toronto
amalgamation experience
Provincial downloads cloud analysis
Chaotic and costly process
Social and environmental outcomes not an objective
of process (social inclusion, regional sustainability,
comprehensive planning, etc.)
Cost savings have not materialized

Staffing levels higher, budget deficits ($575 million in
2007)
City government further removed from public




Less accessible than before
Citizen input funneled through Community Councils
Community Councils only advise City Council
Parochialism
Assessment of
amalgamation (cont.)
City Hall culture does not actively engage public and
civil society
 Episodic consultations rather than sustained or
institutionalized
 Limited opportunities to participate in activities or
forums with city-wide focus for sustained period
Still no mechanism to coordinate planning and
services with broader GTA (5.5 million residents)
 Greater Toronto Services Board disbanded
 No region-wide growth management strategy
 Bedroom communities and sprawl
Deterioration of municipal services
Montreal pre-2002
Two-tiered municipal governance, similar to
Toronto with Metro

28 independent municipalities + Montreal Urban
Community island-wide structure
Large discrepancy in municipal services,
standards and tax rates on Island of
Montreal, as well as in greater region
Montreal wanted greater share of suburban
taxes; lobbied Quebec govt for merger


“One island, one city” – Montreal
“Hands off!” - Suburbs
New Montreal megacity
Quebec govt legislates municipal mergers
across province

200 cities legislated out of existence - merged
Not expected, not requested, not
recommended (except by Montreal Mayor)
Very unpopular in Montreal suburbs
Less controversial in municipalities around
province outside Montreal area
Broader region-wide metropolitan governance
body also established (Montreal Metropolitan
Community)
Rationale for forcing
municipal mergers
Fiscal equity

Those who benefit from proximity to city and its
services should pay “fair share”
More centralized decision-making for
metropolitan area

Less competition between municipalities
Increased efficiencies; less fragmentation
Improve quality and consistency of services
Unspoken reason: merge English-speaking
suburbs into Montreal megacity to prevent
potential future secession from Quebec
De-merging process
New Quebec Liberal govt campaign
promise to allow merged munis to hold
referendum to demerge
15 of 28 former Island municipalities voted
to demerge; regained some – not all former
powers and autonomy
 Montreal city government now consists of
City Council, 19 boroughs and
Agglomeration Council

Municipal Governance
Montreal City Council



Mayor and 64 members from each of the 19
borough councils
Approves decisions made by borough councils
Responsible for broader urban issues
Borough councils



Mayor and borough councillors elected by
residents
Sit on City Council and borough councils
Boroughs manage local services: roads, garbage,
parks, recreation, culture, public consultation, local
planning
Municipal Governance
(cont.)
Agglomeration Council - 2006




Structure created to give representation to demerged cities proportionate to size (13%)
Mayor of Montreal chairs, appoints 15 city
councillors and 15 mayors of de-merged suburbs
Responsible for island-wide services: courts,
social housing, homeless issues, transit, water,
sewage treatment, etc.
Suburban mayors frustrated by lack of power on
council (13 percent of votes)
Regional inter-municipal
collaboration
Montreal Metropolitan Community (est. 2001)





82 municipalities, 3.6 million population
Mayors and councillors from around region have
weighted votes on council
Responsibilities include regional planning,
economic development, social housing, transit
planning, regional road network, air quality,
wastewater treatment
Funded by contributions from member
municipalities
Over half of budget goes towards social and
affordable housing programs
Assessment of Montreal
amalgamation experience
Still a work in progress
Projected cost savings can not be substantiated
City, borough and agglomeration council structure
confusing
De-merged municipalities dissatisfied with agglomeration
council
 Ongoing tinkering with governance structures
More equitable tax and service delivery across Island of
Montreal
Borough mayors and councillors close to their constituents
and local issues
Assessment of Montreal
amalgamation experience
More holistic approach to city and region
Responsibility for affordable and social housing
spread across region
 Quantifiable progress being made
Montreal policies emphasize strong commitment to
citizen rights, including public consultation and
engagement of civil society in decision-making
Montreal Charter of Rights and Responsibilities
 Office of public consultation
 Office of ombudsman
Lessons from Toronto &
Montreal experiences
Forcing municipal mergers not popular or productive
Senior levels of government have different agendas
than cities
Public buy-in and participation in process of
reforming governments would likely have improved
the outcomes
Clearly articulated vision, expectations and outcomes
required
Per capita costs tend to increase, not decrease after
cities reach a certain size
Lessons (cont.)
Big cities tend to be less accessible to citizens
 Less sense of ownership, less civic involvement
 Tendency towards parochialism in megacity
Inter-municipal consortium model (like Metro) seems
to promote more regional thinking, less parochialism
Region-wide cooperation (and structures) essential
for variety of reasons
Regional inter-municipal governance structures are
ignored and irrelevant without real power
Questions/Comments