Upload
dodang
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
12016 PROVINCIAL ELECTION - MUNICIPAL ISSUES BACKGROUNDER - SASKATCHEWAN URBAN MUNICIPALITIES ASSOCIATION
32016 PROVINCIAL ELECTION - MUNICIPAL ISSUES BACKGROUNDER - SASKATCHEWAN URBAN MUNICIPALITIES ASSOCIATION
MAJOR
RICHMOUND
CONS UL
LON ERO C K
EATONIA
MARE NGO
SCEPTRE
MENDHA M
BURSTALL
FLAXCOM BE
SMILEY
PRELATE
GOLDENPRAIRIE
LUS ELAND
PRIMATE
SENLAC
KERROBERT
UNITY
MAIDSTONE
LASHBURN
DENZIL
TOMPK INS
WASE CA
COLEV ILLE
LANCER
ABBEY
CARMICHAEL
FRONTIER
NETHE RHILL
CUTKNIFE
LOONLAKE
PAYNTON
MERVIN
DE LM AS
TRAMPINGLAKE
LIVE LO NG
BROCK
HAZLE T
EDAM
GOODSOIL
PLENTY
ST.GE O R GE ' S
HILL
FISK E
PENNANT
LANDIS
CR YS TALBAY- SU N SE T
WE BB
BRACKEN
MAKWA
M O WE RYBEA C H
SO U THWATE R HE N
LAK E
GLASLYN
CO C H IN
GR E IG LAK E
FAIR H OL M E
DORINTOSH
WY M AR K
WALDECK
ZEA LANDIA
GREENLAKE
VALMARIE
DENHOLM
STE WARTVALLEY
BEA VE RFLAT
NEVILLE
SUCCESS
WISETON
RICHARD
RABBITLAKE
SPR U C EBAY
TES SIER
HODGEV ILLE
DINSM ORE
SPEERS
LUCKYLAKE
HERBERT
HARRIS
BEAUVAL
LEOVILLE
KINLE Y
PONTEIX
BEECHY
RUSHLAKE
KINCA ID
MORSE
DE M AIN E
M ULLI NG A R
M AYFA IR
HAFFORD
SLEDLAKE
CO TE AUBEA C H
BRODERICKGLENS IDE
KRYDOR
ERNFOLD
BATE M A N
MACRORIE
RIVERHURST
DEBDEN
LANGHAM
CHAPLIN
MARCELIN
M ISTU S INN E
CENTRALBUTTE
LAFLE CHE
DALMENY
GRAVELBOURG
WOODMOUNTAIN
SHAM ROCK
PH ILLIPSGR O V E
LAIRD
HAWARDEN
LEASK
THO D E
CANWOOD
LOREB URN
NE UH O R ST
HANLEY
STRONGFIELD
NE SS LINLAK E
ROSTHERN
CO N G RE SS
KENAS TON
MORTLACH
MOSSBANK
ROCK GLEN
CA RO N
LIMERICK
SC O UTLAK E
TUGASKE
CODE RRE
LISIE UX
HO LB EIN
M AC D OW ALL
ST.ISID O RE -D E- BE LLEV UE
PRUD'HOMME
DAVIDSON
BROWNLEE
KEELE R
WILLOWBUNCH
CR U TWE LL
ALVENACUDWORTH
NO R THGR O V E
CARONPORT
CHAMBERLAIN
HO E Y
TIM BE RBAY
WE YAK WIN
IMP ERIAL
PAR KV IEW
LIBERTY
CORONACH
PLUNKETT
OR M IS TO N
HA G EN
BAYA R D
FINDLATER
MEATHPARK
PADDOCKWOOD
DISLE Y
DRINKWATER
BRIERCREST
DILKE
BIGBEA VE R
CLAY BA N K
WILCOX
PILGER
NOKOMIS
OGEM A
PAR R Y
WE IRDALE
GOVAN
DRAKE
LANIGAN
BUENAVISTA
CEYLON
LUM SDENBEACH
ANNAHEIM
PANGMAN
BULYEA
EARLGREY
LAKELENORE
SPA LDING
GR O N LID
YELLOWGRASS
LAKEALMA
VALPARAISO
QUILLLAKE
KAN D AH A R
STARCITY
CUPAR
GA R RIC K
RIDGEDALE
LOVE
BEA U BIE R
QUINTONPUNNICHY
BRABA NT
WHITEFOX
ELFROS
ED G ELE Y
QU'APP ELLE
WIS HA RT
TRIBUNE
CODE TTE
HE ND O N
M O ZAR T
LEROS S
ARCHERWILL
WADENA
KYL EM O R E
LIPTON
FOAMLAKE
MONTMARTRE
KELVINGTON
MARGO
ROSEVALLEY
MIDALE
LINTLAW
LES LIE B EA CH
FOSSTON
TUF FN ELL
ITUNA
HALBRITE
FILLMORE
ABERNETHY
HUBBARD
KU RO K I
MIS TATIM
CH ELA N
BJORKDALE
LEMBE RG
CREELMA N
ROCHEPERCEE
WOLSELE Y
GOODEVE
WOLLASTONLAKE
HEWARD
WINDTHORST
NEUDORF
FENWOOD
DUFF
CO R N ING
SU M M ER B ER RY
OK LA
HA ZELDE LL
SHEHO
DUBUC
KIP LING
SU NS ET BE AC H
THEODORE
SPRINGS IDE
WALDRON
EBENE ZE R
ENDEAVOUR
US HE R VILLE
KIS BEY
KET CH E N
BUCHANAN
BANGOR
HUDSONBAY
CR YS TALLAK E
WHITE WOOD
CANORA
ALAME DA
PEL ICA N SH O RE S
TAD M O RE
FROBISHER
STE NEN
ATWATER
KENOSEELAKE
AM S TER D AM
LITTLESWA N
RIV ER
CHURCHBRIDGE
ESTERHAZY
HYAS
ER WO O D
NORQUAY
MANOR
WAWOTA
GLENEWEN
CA NN IN G TO NLAK E
YARBO
SWA NPLA IN
TOGO
ROCA NVILLE
RU N NY M ED E
TANTALLON
BEL LEG A RD E
MARYFIELD
CALDER
CARIE VALE
SPY HILL
MACNUTT
STORTHOAKS
WE LWY N
GE RALD
M AR TIN SO N ' SBEA C H
MIDDLELAKE
BENGOUGH
NEILB URG
WATSON
GRENFELL
LEADER
DA RLI NG SBEA C H
BR AN C EP ETH
MARQUIS
ST.LOUIS
PATU AN A K
TUR N O RLAK E
WE STV IEW
LESTOCK
BALCARRES
SANDYBAY
SO U THLAK E
SU N V ALLE Y
M ICH E LVILLA G E
ETT ER SBEA C H
FLEMING
MEDS TEA D
AIRRONGE
LITTLEFISH IN G
LAK E
NORTHPORTAL
M ISS INIP E
BIGGAR
GA INSBOROUGH
BLACKPOINT
FAIR YGLE N
DODS LAND
WALDHEIM
CABRI
EASTEND
INVERMAY
WY NYARD
JA N S B AY
STANLEYMIS SION
STO N YRA PID S
GLENAVON
PINEHOUSE
ENGLE FE LD
AQ U AD EO
GA RSONLAKE
SOUTHEND
BEARCREEK
MARS DEN
DESCHARMELAKE
CAMS ELLPORTAGE
URANIUMCITY
NIPAWIN
EVE R G RE ENAC RE S
SU NS ET VIE WBEA C H
BREDENB URY
WATROUS
FRE N CH M A NBU TTE
YOUNG
EDENWOLD
PR INC E
FAIRLIGHT
GO O DSPI RIT
AC RE S
OUTLOOK
FO RT SA N
AR LIN GT O NBEA C H
ROSETOWN
PREECEVILLE
ST.BENEDICT
FRANCIS
MARS HALL
BU RG ISBEA C H
SCOTT
BALGONIE
TURTLE FORD
GOODWATER
TUXFORD
GULLLAKE
GRANDCOULEE
MILESTONE
LA LOCHE
BIRCHHILLS
VANGUARD
TUR TLE LA KESO U TH BAY
WE EKES
SIM PSON
BETHUNE
RADIS SON
PENSE
HEPBURN
DO R ELAK E
ALBERTVILLE
ASQUITH
WE ST E ND
DELIS LE
WAPE LLA
MILDE N
ESTON
CARNDUFF
GRAYSON
PERDUE
CLIMA X
BUFFA LONARROWS
BRUNO
PARADISEHILL
PILOTBUTT E
ROULEAU
PAS Q UALAK E
ASSINIBOIA
MANK OTA
BIGRIVER
SHELLBROOK
SEMANS
STOCKHOLM
ST. GREGOR
ST.WALBURG
EXN E R' S TWIN B AYSM O OS E B AY
EYEBROW
TISDALE
MARK INCH
CLAVET
FORGET
ELROS E
REDVERS
CRAVE N
BIR D' S PO IN T
RAYMORE
SMEATON
SHAUNAVON
KENNEDY
LEBRET
STURGIS
MAPLECREEK
M ELVIL LE B EA CH
KAMSACK
WAKAW
KYLE
FOXVALLEY
CRAIK
BROADVIEW
AVONLEA
B-S AY-TA H
MCLEAN
ELBOW
BLAINELAKE
MACK LIN
LLOYDMINS TE R
WAK AW LAK E
BELLEPLAINE
DIS TR ICT O F KAT EP WA
SPIRITWOOD
M AN ITO UBEA C H
VANSCOY
AYLESBURYMELVILLE
M CC O R D
OSLER
CA ND LELAK E
DUNDURN
MINTON
LANGE NBURG
CUMBERLANDHOUS E
MARTENSVILLE
MEADOWLAKE
ESTEVA N
CADILLAC
RUDDELL
BORDEN
HUMBOLDT
REGINA
DUCKLAKE
BAR R IERFO RD
HIT CH C O CKBAY
FORTQU'APP ELLE
TO BINLAK E
ILE-A-LA-CROSSE
HO R SE SH O EBAY
OS AGE
CH ITE KLAK E
ABERDEEN
PR AIR IERIV ER
LAMPM AN
ZELMA
ARCOLA
TORQUAY
ALIDA
WILKIE
TAYLO RBEA C H
MOOS EJAW
SOUTHEY
MACOUN
LA RONGE
SH IELD S
BIE NFAIT
MAY MONT
KINDE RSLEY
PIE RCELAND
INDIANHEAD
RAMA
MUENSTER
WARMAN
KILLALY
RADVILLE
CHOICELAND
PRINCEALBERT
STOUGHTONWE YBURN
SHELLLAKE
OX BOW
LUM SDEN
SASKATOON
PELICANNARROWS
HAZENMORE
KO PP ' SKO VE
EVE R G RE ENBR IG HT SA ND
MEOTA
CONQUEST
PEB BL EBAY E
PEL ICA NCO V E PARKSIDE
BEA VE RCR EE K
ALLAN
COLONSAY
BLADWORTH
MEACHAM
VIS COUNT
HOLDFAS T
CR YS TALSPR IN G S
NO R TH SID E
GR A ND V IEWBEA C H
M ES KA NA W
BEATTY
STRASBOURG
SILTON
LEROY
DUVAL
JANSE N
NAICA M
DAFOE
GR AY
PLEAS ANTDALE
MELFORT
LANG
SN O WD EN
KR O NA U
RIC ET O N
DYSART
VIB ANKDAV IN
BAN K EN D
KELLIHER
KENDAL
PORCUPINEPLAIN
CH O R NE Y B EA CH
SINTALUTA
ARBORFIELD
PEE BL ES
CA ND IA C
GR E EN SP O T
OT TH O N
SALTCOATS
CREIGHTON
RHEIN
PELLYARRAN
FLIN FLON
NO R THWE YB UR N
WE LDON
TUR TLE LA KELOD G E
ELB OW LA KE
BRADWELL
CHRISTOP HERLAKE
SEDLEY
REGINABEACH
MOOS OM IN
ZENONPARK
DENARE BE ACH
VONDA
TRO S SA C HS
CO LE SD ALE PA RK
BAL ON E BE AC H
CU D SA SK WABEA C H
KINISTINO
SYLV AN IA
TWAY
EC HO B AY
BLU M EN TH A L
NE UA N LAG E
HAGUE
MCTAGGA RT
AYLSHA MBIG SH E LL
ELSTOW
ODESSA
CARLYLE
CARROT RIVER
ST. BRIEUX
ST. J O SE PH S
107°W
53°N
49°N
54°N
50°N
51°N
57°N
59°N
58°N
52°N
102°W105°W 103°W106°W
109°W110°W108°W
104°W
55°N
105°W107°W
59°N
103°W
56°N
102°W
49°N
104°W
57°N
109°W
58°N
50°N
108°W
54°N
110°W
53°N
52°N
51°N
106°W
55°N
56°N
UV21
UV4
UV13
UV35
UV6
UV55
UV8
UV3
UV48
UV9
UV18
UV32
UV47
UV20
UV39
UV19
UV26
UV37
UV7
UV42
UV22
UV44
UV49
UV58
UV52
UV4
UV36
UV34UV28
UV30
UV955
UV155
UV914
UV905
UV102
UV918
UV925
UV903
UV14
UV40
UV31
UV11
UV3
UV41
UV23
UV6
UV8
UV5
UV9
UV2
UV2
UV2
UV13
UV9
UV19
UV33
UV80
UV38
UV13
UV36
UV18
UV2
UV13
UV19
UV43
UV13
UV18
UV4
UV358
UV18
UV18
UV13
UV334 UV13
UV271UV21
UV18UV13
UV2
UV18
UV2
UV33
UV350
UV37
UV1
UV37
UV18
UV36
UV377
UV35
UV21
UV39
UV43
UV18
UV21
UV6
UV361
UV18
UV1
UV8
UV357
UV47
UV48
UV8
UV361
UV18
UV9
UV1
UV369
UV201
UV10
UV306
UV57
UV5
UV5
UV16
UV16
UV15
UV16
UV318
UV48
UV13
UV13
UV39UV18
UV47
UV9
UV47
UV48
UV9
UV49
UV49UV9 UV8
UV980
UV983
UV982
UV981
UV980
UV9
UV983
UV3UV3
UV55
UV9
UV123
UV167
UV106
UV135
UV135
UV911
UV106
UV102
UV905
UV905
UV914
UV165
UV165
UV910
UV935
UV165
UV2
UV915
UV102
UV2
UV102
UV969
UV165
UV912
UV106UV927
UV920UV913 UV912
UV120
UV106
UV55
UV6
UV35
UV35
UV255
UV55
UV123
UV23
UV335
UV23
UV38UV349
UV310
UV35
UV35
UV16
UV6UV20
UV22
UV35
UV310
UV15
UV20
UV20
UV35
UV210
UV56
UV1
UV339
UV2
UV11
UV301
UV364
UV363
UV367
UV42
UV19UV42
UV1
UV363
UV58
UV1
UV379
UV332
UV32
UV37
UV1
UV728
UV371
UV321
UV21
UV44
UV342
UV15
UV42
UV7
UV16
UV21
UV316
UV55
UV155UV916
UV21
UV16UV29
UV16
UV376
UV943
UV24
UV40
UV926
UV2
UV4
UV317
UV31UV374
UV17
UV3
UV55
UV955
UV903
UV40
UV946
UV51
UV21
UV26
UV12
UV21
UV909
UV926
UV40
UV26
UV945
UV378
UV265
UV324
UV908
UV4
UV919
UV2
UV3
UV304
UV3
UV922
UV55
UV955
UV942
UV956
UV20
UV24
UV302
UV924
UV4
UV41
UV155
UV263
UV312
UV924
UV11
UV3
UV3
UV55
UV12
UV943
UV51
UV25
UV303
UV51
UV5
UV302
UV307
UV12
UV240
UV21
UV5
UV55
UV355
UV14
UV120
UV7
UV2
UV212
UV2
UV2
UV342
UV19
UV2
UV354
UV15
UV365
UV45
UV334
UV15
UV219
UV44
UV45
UV45
UV306
UV11
UV15
ARM RIVER
ATHABASCA
BATOCHE
BIGGAR-SASK
VALLEY
CANNINGTON
CANORA-PELLY
CARROT RIVERVALLEY
CUMBERLAND
CUT KNIFE-TURTLEFORD
CYPRESSHILLS
ESTEVAN
HUMBOLDT-WATROUS
INDIAN HEAD-MILESTONE
KELVINGTON-WADENA
KINDERSLEY
LAST MOUNTAIN-TOUCHWOOD
LLOY
DMIN
STER
MEADOWLAKE
MELFORT
MELVILLE-SALTCOATS
MOOSOMIN
ROSETOWN-ELROSE
ROSTHERN-SHELLBROOK
SWIFTCURRENT
THEBATTLEFORDS
LUMSDEN-MORSE
WEYBURN-BIG
MUDDY
WOOD RIVER
YORKTON
SASKATCHEWAN RIVERS
REGINAWA SC ANA
PLAIN S
MARTENSVILLE-WARMAN
SASKATOONSTONEBRIDGE-
DAKOTA
The 2016 Provincial elecTionSaskatchewan voters will head to the polls on Monday, April 4, 2016 for the province’s 28th general election. Under law, the writ must drop between 34 and 27 days before Election Day, which means it will be called sometime between March 1 and 8, 2016.
When the election is called, the current Legislature will be dissolved and candidates for all political parties will have four to five weeks (depending on when the writ is dropped) to communicate with the electorate.
There are currently 58 seats, or constituencies, in Saskatchewan. To reflect the province’s growing population, the number of seats will increase to 61 during the 2016 provincial election. The provincial Constituency Boundaries Commission drew up a new political map in 2012, which takes effect in this election and includes three brand new constituencies.The current standing in the provincial legislature:
48 seats – Saskatchewan Party (in power since 2007)9 seats – New Democratic Party1 seat – Vacant
Urban MUniciPaliTies and The elecTionUrban municipalities are on the front lines of Saskatchewan’s growing economy — they provide the foundation for the growth our province has been experiencing over the last decade. Our cities, towns, villages, resort villages, and northern municipalities provide core services that are essential to our quality of life. These include the infrastructure and services we rely on and use every day:
• safe drinking water; • wastewater management; • streets and bridges; • police and fire services; • snow clearing; • public transit; • recreation, arts, and culture facilities and programming; • economic and community development; and• garbage and recycling collection/processing.
The success of Saskatchewan is inextricably linked to the success of our municipalities. More than 77 per cent of the population lives in the province’s cities, towns, villages, resort villages, and northern municipalities. When those communities do well, so
PRINCE
OF
WAL
ESD
R
3ND AVE N AVO
NH U RST DR
ARENS RD
OLD
BR
OAD
ST
PIN
KIE
RD
ALBE
RT
ST
13TH AVE
ARCOLA AVE
PAR
K ST
DEWDNEY AVE
9TH AVE N
HILL AVENUE
23RD AVE
OSL
ER S
T
CO
UR
TNEY
ST
WIN
NIP
EG S
T
FIN
ES D
R
THOMSON AVE
CAM
PBEL
L ST
PASQ
UA
ST
ARMOUR RD
RING
RD
FLEE
T ST
CO
UR
TNEY
ST
LEW
VAN
DR
25TH AVE
RING
RD
PRIN
CE
OF
WAL
ES D
RRING RD
DEWDNEY AVE
VICTORIA AVE
ROSS AVE
MC
CAR
THY
BLVD
1ST AVE N
RING RD
PASQ
UA
ST
WO
OD
LAN
D G
RO
VE D
R
WascanaLake
Wascana Creek
Wascana Creek
QU
EEN
ST
HILL AVE
BRO
AD S
T
HILL BLVDLAKESHOREDR
BEDFORD AVE
CAN
NO
N S
T
CO
LEM
AN C
R
ALBE
RT
ST
WIN
NIP
EG S
T
6
1
730
46
11
33
1
6
REGINACORONATION
PARK
REGINAGARDINER PARK
REGINADOUGLAS
PARK
REGINAELPHINSTONE-
CENTRE
REGINALAKEVIEW
REGINANORTHEAST
REGINA ROCHDALE
REGINAROSEMONT
REGINAUNIVERSITY
REGINAWALSHACRES
REGINA PASQUA
REGINA WASCANA
PLAINS
LUMSDEN-MORSE
LUMSDEN-MORSE
REGINAWASCANA
PLAINS
ISABELLA ST E
BRIA RWOOD RD
LOUISE ST
PRI MRO SE
DR
CH
APPE
LLD
R
ADELAIDE ST E
HE RITAGE CR
PINEHOUSE DR
8TH ST E
COLLEGE DR
IDYL
WYL
D D
R N
CIRCLE DR
RAN
GE
RD
. 305
0
HU
GH
ES D
R
FAIRLIG
HT DR
BERINI DR
WA
NU
SKEW
IN R
D
CIRCLE DR
CIR
CLE
DR
WA
RM
AN
RD
CIRCLE DR
LOR
NE
AV
E
LOW
E R
D
24TH ST E
TAYLOR ST E
115TH ST
CLA
REN
CE
AVE
S
TAYLOR ST E
BOYC
HU
K D
R
TAYLOR ST E
8TH ST E
33RD ST W
CIRCLE DRCLAYPOOL DR
Sout
hSa
skat
chew
a nR
ive r
South Saskatchewan River
South
Saska
tchewan River
BURMA RD
11TH ST W
FAIR
MO
NT
DR
MAT
HE
SON
DR
MASSEY DR
NORTHUMBE
RLAND
AVE
MILTONST
AIR
POR
T D
R
EAS
TLAK
E AV
E
MA
CKI
NN
ON
AVE
S
LOU I SE
AVE
ARLI
NG
TON
AVE
MC
KER
CH
ER
DR
BR
IAR
VALE
RD
20TH ST W
AVE
I S
19TH ST W
AVE
F S
17TH ST W
SPADINA CR W
38TH ST W
33RD ST W
32ND ST W
AVE
I N
13TH ST E
WIG
GIN
S A
VE
S
UV16
UV41
UV219
UV7
UV5
UV14
UV12
UV16
UV11
SASKATOON CENTRE
SASKATOONEASTVIEW
SASKATOONFAIRVIEW
SASKATOONCHURCHILL-WILDWOOD
SASKATOON MEEWASIN
SASKATOONNORTHWEST
SASKATOONNUTANASASKATOON
RIVERSDALE
SASKATOONSILVERSPRING-SUTHERLAND
SASKATOONSOUTHEAST
SASKATOONUNIVERSITY
SASKATOONWILLOWGROVE
SASKATOON WESTVIEW
SASKATOON STONEBRIDGE-DAKOTA
SASKATOON STONEBRIDGE-DAKOTA
4 2016 PROVINCIAL ELECTION - MUNICIPAL ISSUES BACKGROUNDER - SASKATCHEWAN URBAN MUNICIPALITIES ASSOCIATION
does the province. The province has a vested interest in urban municipalities that are a great place to work, play, and live.
Every year, Saskatchewan’s urban municipalities invest more than $1.2 billion into the provincial economy through spending on infrastructure, programs, and services. These expenditures are wide ranging and cover nearly all types of goods and services.
The majority of Saskatchewan’s growth can be attributed to the population and economic growth that occurs in our urban municipalities. In the last eight years, Saskatchewan has incorporated three new cities, each with at least 5,000 residents: Martensville, Meadow Lake, and Warman. In that time, we have also welcomed 135,935 people — enough people to fill the equivalent of more than 27 new cities.
Urban municipalities only collect eight cents of every tax dollar and have a limited ability to bring in revenue beyond property taxes and own-source revenues. Municipalities are also bound by legislation to run a balanced operating budget. Any capital borrowing beyond their established debt limit requires approval from the Saskatchewan Municipal Board. As a result, municipalities alone cannot support the incredible growth in their communities and rely on the province to broaden their revenue base.
Both municipal revenue sharing and infrastructure funding give municipalities access to another form of revenue. This grant support from the provincial government helps provide the services and infrastructure vital to growing the economy and keeping up with that growth; it supports Saskatchewan’s economic, environmental, cultural, and social quality of life goals.
We value the partnership we’ve developed with the province over the last decade. This collaborative relationship has resulted in provincial funding that supports municipal operational and capital expenditures. But there is still much work to do.
We want to continue being partners in the growth of our Saskatchewan. However, to do so, we need a provincial commitment to permanence on both municipal revenue sharing and infrastructure funding.
During the 2016 provincial election, the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association (SUMA) is calling on all provincial parties to present platforms that: a) commit to a permanent municipal revenue sharing agreement; and b) commit to a Made-in-Saskatchewan infrastructure program that is permanent, long-term, sustainable, and predictable.
This package provides key messages and background information on these two issues:
1) Municipal Revenue Sharing (funding for operational expenses) 2) Infrastructure Funding (funding for capital expenses)
Under each section you will find items marked as wins, fixes, and needs where applicable.
WINS: We see progress and are pleased with these results.FIXES: We believe the provincial government must revisit or reverse these decisions because of a negative impact on municipalities.NEEDS: We would like to see these changes, as they would have a positive impact on our communities.
This information will ensure you are well prepared to discuss and debate these issues with candidates and your residents.
SUMA will provide additional tools for members during the election campaign, including example letters to the editor and candidates, questions you can ask during local debates, a platform grid containing all political parties’ stances on our key issues (Saskatchewan Party, New Democratic Party, Liberals, and Green Party), regular updates on issues through email and our website, plus shareable social media content through Facebook and Twitter.
52016 PROVINCIAL ELECTION - MUNICIPAL ISSUES BACKGROUNDER - SASKATCHEWAN URBAN MUNICIPALITIES ASSOCIATION
MUniciPal revenUe sharinGHISTORICAL CONTEXT“[Saskatchewan mayors and councillors] wanted a new municipal operating grant, one based on the notion that urban governments provided services to citizens on behalf of the provincial government and, consequently, required a share of provincial revenues to sustain these core operations.” (Renegotiating Municipal Funding: The Case for Saskatchewan, Laurent Mougeot, Public Sector Digest, September 2012)
The first revenue sharing program was introduced in 1978 to support municipal governments and service delivery across Saskatchewan. It provided municipalities with annual unconditional operating grants for nearly 30 years.
The premise behind revenue sharing was that local governments would receive a source of financing that reflected the revenues of the province. The program was not always consistent, however, with the amount of funding flattening out in the late 1980s, dropping significantly in the early 1990s, then being capped for a number of years in the late 1990s, before being built up again in the early 2000s.
During the mid-2000s, SUMA’s members shared the opinion that the program needed to be strengthened if it was to continue to meet its original goals and objectives — especially since the funding didn’t account for growth in provincial revenues or the impact of inflation and other economic factors on municipal expenditures. SUMA members wanted a larger program that was long-term, predictable, and sustainable.
To get their message across to the province as effectively as possible, SUMA prepared to launch a public campaign in 2006. The province learned of the campaign before it launched, and committed to meeting with SUMA’s Executive Committee to discuss the principles of a new revenue sharing program.
“While funding would remain unconditional … the formula would ensure that provincial contributions would reflect provincial interests. Funding would be tied to the economy, and the parties would share good times and bad. All sectors would recourse the work teams, bringing the highest competencies to the table. Most importantly, the program would be predictable and long-term.” (Source: Renegotiating Municipal Funding: The Case for Saskatchewan)
Working groups from all sectors worked diligently to develop the key components and shared interests that would ultimately form the basis of a new relationship between the province and municipal governments. A new government was elected in 2007 and committed to continuing the work towards a new revenue sharing formula.
Cities identified the main areas of municipal service delivery that fit with provincial interests (i.e., policing; highways; recreation, arts, and culture; community and economic development; and transit). Work then moved to quantifying the costs of the services that were considered to be of shared interest. At the end of the day, research demonstrated that these costs were much more significant than anticipated and the total amount was close to one point of the Provincial Sales Tax (PST).
6 2016 PROVINCIAL ELECTION - MUNICIPAL ISSUES BACKGROUNDER - SASKATCHEWAN URBAN MUNICIPALITIES ASSOCIATION
At the SUMA Convention in 2009, the provincial government announced the Municipal Operating Grant (MOG), a brand-new municipal revenue sharing formula based on the premise that Saskatchewan’s municipalities would receive revenue sharing equivalent to one point of the PST (phased in with 90 per cent of one point in the 2009-10 fiscal year and one full point in the 2010-11 fiscal year). It was agreed that PST captures many elements of our economy, including the sale of construction material, disposable income, and inflation.
This marked a major milestone in the relationship between municipalities and the provincial government. It was an acknowledgement that many municipal services help achieve provincial policy goals and initiatives, and as a result, should receive provincial funding. Over the last 10 years, urban municipalities have relied on revenue sharing to use to support shared-interest services.
Table 1.0 on Page 7 summarizes the annual municipal revenue sharing received by cities, towns, villages, resort villages and northern municipalities from the province since 2007.
While this new agreement has been a significantly positive development in the fiscal relationship between municipalities and the province, one key piece is missing: permanence. Current legislation gives the Minister of Government Relations the power to take away or alter grants, with little formal process.
When oil prices dipped in 2014, provincial media reported that “everything was on the table” for the province in the lead up to the 2015-16 provincial budget. SUMA and our members were clearly concerned that this statement included municipal revenue sharing and we met with government officials to express our concerns. Government officials would neither confirm nor deny if revenue sharing would be cut. As a result, SUMA advocated for our members — both in private meetings and in the media — asking the provincial government to honour its promise to share one point of the PST with municipalities. Ultimately, the provincial government maintained its commitment to revenue sharing for the 2015-16 provincial budget.
While the revenue sharing experience in 2015 ended positively, it illustrates the need to update provincial legislation so the municipal revenue sharing agreement is both unconditional and permanent. Urban municipalities rely on predictable revenue sharing to provide the services that a growing province needs.
72016 PROVINCIAL ELECTION - MUNICIPAL ISSUES BACKGROUNDER - SASKATCHEWAN URBAN MUNICIPALITIES ASSOCIATION
Table 1.0 — Annual Municipal Revenue Sharing for Cities, Towns, Villages, Resort Villages and Northern Municipalities
Wins1) REvENuE SHARINg PROgRAmSUMA members applauded the revenue sharing program when it was introduced in 2009 because it created a predictable, sustainable, unconditional, and long-term solution to a decades’ old problem.
2) muNICIPAL/PROvINCIAL PARTNERSHIPThe revenue sharing program is the foundation of the provincial/municipal partnership in Saskatchewan – our pact to encourage and foster growth together.
Revenue sharing as it exists today was developed after a long process involving the government and the municipal sector. The committee engaged in this process tirelessly examined the costs associated with the operations of municipalities: policing, fire, transit, economic development, recreation, community development, and environmental services.
This partnership represents a solid foundation for growth.
3) mODEL FOR THE NATIONMany other Canadian jurisdictions are currently looking at our model to guide their interests in establishing similar revenue sharing programs.
QUOTABLE: “The aspect that municipalities and provinces are finding interesting and innovative is that the revenue sharing formula we developed together, in full partnership with the municipal sector in Saskatchewan, is designed to grow with the economy. It is a strong signal of our commitment to working together with municipalities, through our government-to-government partnership. It also helps illustrate the Saskatchewan Advantage, where people benefit directly from a strong economy.” – Former Saskatchewan Municipal Affairs Minister Darryl Hickie, Government of Saskatchewan News Release “Province’s Revenue Sharing Approach Gains National Interest,” June 3, 2011
8 2016 PROVINCIAL ELECTION - MUNICIPAL ISSUES BACKGROUNDER - SASKATCHEWAN URBAN MUNICIPALITIES ASSOCIATION
4) REFLECTS PROvINCIAL INTERESTSince the revenue sharing program’s inception, significant funding has gone to local governments to help deliver the daily services needed to provide a high standard of living. This funding is intended to reflect the value of the provincial interest in delivering municipal services.
5) PREDICTAbILITyUltimately, the government recommended that allocating one full PST point was the best way to fund revenue sharing. To ensure the predictability of the program, the government decided to calculate the overall amount of funding based on the amount collected from the second preceding fiscal year. This has since been entrenched in regulations.
QUOTABLE: “We are working with our municipal partners to keep Saskatchewan growing and moving forward. The new funding formula provides a predictable, sustainable way to ensure municipalities know the amount they will receive in the coming years. This will help municipalities with their future planning as they work to improve their communities and the great quality of life we all enjoy in Saskatchewan.” – Premier Brad Wall, Government of Saskatchewan News Release, “Government Keeps Revenue Sharing Promise,” January 31, 2011.
Urban municipalities were fully aware of the risks and benefits of this arrangement — specifically that there might be times when a downward adjustment would occur because of a slow economy. Urban municipalities accepted this scenario in part because as partners in growing the province, we agreed that municipalities should also absorb some of the effects of a weak economy.
Additionally, the predictability of the program removed any pre-budget lobbying for funding. This makes annual budget forecasting much simpler for municipalities, especially because municipal fiscal years begin in January, and the provincial budget does not come down until March.
6) uNCONDITIONALRevenue sharing is an unconditional grant to local governments. While the province has suggested that municipalities can use the funding to invest in infrastructure, this was not the intent of the revenue sharing program.
92016 PROVINCIAL ELECTION - MUNICIPAL ISSUES BACKGROUNDER - SASKATCHEWAN URBAN MUNICIPALITIES ASSOCIATION
FiXes1) mAkE REvENuE SHARINg PERmANENT THROugH CHANgES TO LEgISLATION.The current revenue sharing formula is supposed to be predictable (tied to the economy) and long term.
However, recent examples demonstrate it is not as permanent as urban municipalities would like. As it stands right now, the provincial government can easily modify the program without consultation with or notice to municipalities.
For example, revenue sharing was frozen in the 2010-11 fiscal year at 2009-10 levels, even though it was expected to grow that year from $167 million to $221 million. In late 2014, the provincial government suggested that it would be frozen again in the 2015-16 fiscal year. SUMA worked tirelessly to ensure this did not occur, as it went against the principles of the program and the spirit of partnership.
To ensure the security of the revenue sharing into the future, the government needs to commit to a permanent program.
2) STOP uSINg REvENuE SHARINg AS AN EXCuSE TO DOWNLOAD PROvINCIAL RESPONSIbILITIES ONTO muNICIPALITIES. Revenue sharing is intended to reflect the provincial government’s interest in municipalities providing critical, core services fundamental to our quality of life. The program is not intended to pay for services that are the responsibility of the provincial government.
Over the last few years, SUMA has seen a gradual shift of responsibilities from provincial to municipal governments — particularly to urban governments.
health careCommunities are expected to provide a local contribution of 20 per cent towards the construction of health facilities. In some cases, they are also paying for furnishing and equipping the facility. Many cities and towns end up paying much more than that, as other municipalities in the region are not required to contribute to a regional facility.
A lack of doctors in smaller centres has also led many urban governments to provide significant financial incentives to attract and retain medical practitioners in their communities.
educationUnder a new provincial government policy, municipal land for new schools is to be acquired at no cost to school divisions or the province. This leaves the cost of the land squarely on the shoulders of the municipality.
The province controls the education mill rate. No increase has been applied to this tax tool to reflect the cost of land for schools since the transfer of property taxation to the Ministry of Education. These revenue shortfalls should not be the burden of property-tax payers through the municipal tax base.
Para-TransitThe cost of providing para-transit services continues to increase. The Saskatchewan Disability Strategy released in June 2015 calls for a broader, better-integrated transit system for people with disabilities. Meanwhile, provincial grants for this service remain woefully insufficient. As an example, the province currently provides less funding to the entire province per year than the City of Regina spends on its para-transit system annually.
Pest controlDespite a provincial interest in health and the environment, pest control is downloaded to urban governments. Rural municipalities benefit from expanding programs designed to help eliminate rats, wild boar and beavers, but urban municipalities must address the environmental concerns of Dutch Elm disease and control mosquito populations to help prevent West Nile virus without any assistance from the province.
affordable housingIn the absence of a strong provincial program, many urban governments have had to develop their own programs for affordable and social housing.
disaster MitigationThe province shares the cost of disaster recovery through the Provincial Disaster Assistance Program and for flood mitigation through the Emergency Flood Damage Reduction Program. However, there is no funding available to municipalities for all-hazard disaster mitigation and emergency planning. This means that they are constantly in a reactive position, trying to rebuild after a disaster, rather than working to prevent the damage in the first place.
10 2016 PROVINCIAL ELECTION - MUNICIPAL ISSUES BACKGROUNDER - SASKATCHEWAN URBAN MUNICIPALITIES ASSOCIATION
librariesProvincial contributions to the Saskatchewan Integrated Library System have been frozen, while costs continue to increase year over year. The result is more and more of the cost being borne by urban municipalities.
Motor vehicle collision responseMany municipal fire departments attend motor vehicle collisions to provide services, including accident victim extraction. SGI does compensate fire departments, but at a fraction of the cost of providing the service. Motor vehicle collision services are complex and require expensive specialized equipment and training. This is not a required service for municipal fire departments, but they end up covering much of the cost themselves.
3) FuND REguLATORy CHANgES.From time to time, the provincial government makes changes to provincial regulations, and new responsibilities are transferred onto municipal governments. These changes rarely, if ever, come with attached funding for municipalities to pay for these responsibilities.
For example, the cost of environmental improvements to or the decommissioning of landfills is borne entirely by municipalities, even though they have no control over the environmental code or regulations.
Municipalities also bear the entire burden for building or improving wastewater treatment plants to meet new environmental standards and federal regulations.
The province simply cannot expect municipalities to take on new responsibilities resulting from changes to provincial regulations without providing funding to match.
inFrasTrUcTUre FUndinGHISTORICAL CONTEXTPeople living, working and playing in Saskatchewan’s cities, towns and villages rely on municipal infrastructure to go about their day-to-day lives. This vital infrastructure includes the streets and bridges we drive on, the systems that treat our wastewater, and all the equipment it takes to ensure access to clean, safe water.
Over the last 10 years, Saskatchewan has experienced unparalleled economic and population growth. With this growth comes increasing demand on existing municipal infrastructure and the need for new infrastructure to meet the demands of this growth.
Infrastructure demands created by Saskatchewan’s growing economy are a challenge for urban municipalities to meet and support, especially when much of Saskatchewan’s municipal infrastructure needs significant repair, replacement, and/or expansion. The situation is particularly tough where there is:
• rapid population growth in cities and surrounding area, and regional industrial hub areas;• eroding and/or limited municipal tax bases necessary to sustain services in many small municipalities across the province;• shifts in transportation modes and patterns;• expansion of rural and northern-based industries; and/or• increasing expectations and requirements for more robust public safety preparedness and response systems.
The Government of Saskatchewan publicly recognized that investment in municipal infrastructure is vital, especially in a growing economy, through the “Saskatchewan Plan for Growth.” Released in 2012, the plan has two main goals:
1) Ensure Saskatchewan continues to grow. 2) Ensure the province is meeting the challenges of growth.
One of the core activities identified by the plan that the province can undertake to achieve these goals is “investing in the infrastructure required for growth.”
Despite the provincial government’s investments in municipal infrastructure over the last eight years, urban municipalities still face a significant infrastructure deficit after decades of underinvestment.
112016 PROVINCIAL ELECTION - MUNICIPAL ISSUES BACKGROUNDER - SASKATCHEWAN URBAN MUNICIPALITIES ASSOCIATION
Saskatchewan’s municipal infrastructure deficit has been estimated a number of times in a variety of reports and studies. One common thread in all of these reports, regardless of methodology and definitions used, is that the infrastructure deficit is large and continues to grow. In Saskatchewan, we are confronted with crumbling roads, rusting bridges and sewer systems, and outdated water and wastewater treatment facilities.
Municipalities also face additional infrastructure costs with the introduction of new environmental standards and regulations for water and wastewater treatment facilities. These new standards mean that municipalities must upgrade, retrofit, or completely replace existing facilities without any matching funding from the provincial government.
The province’s “25 Year Water Security Plan,” released in 2012, makes many notes about water infrastructure:
“[N]ew infrastructure is costly to build and maintain, and requires significant ongoing funding. Long-term planning is needed to anticipate water supply needs, identify options to meet needs and design and construct new infrastructure.”
“Decisions made in the absence of a long-term plan could jeopardize our future by creating the risk of water shortages and deteriorating water quality.”
“Meeting standards can be difficult for some small communities as municipal water infrastructure requires ongoing maintenance and periodic renewal.”
“All residents, communities and levels of government share responsibility for the wise use and management of water.”
Municipalities across the province face significant capital costs to upgrade wastewater infrastructure — money that many small communities simply do not have.
Cities, towns, villages, resort villages, and northern municipalities do not have the revenue tools to rebuild our infrastructure on our own, especially while we are expected to meet growing needs for policing, housing, the environment, the settlement of newcomers, and many responsibilities downloaded from other orders of government.
12 2016 PROVINCIAL ELECTION - MUNICIPAL ISSUES BACKGROUNDER - SASKATCHEWAN URBAN MUNICIPALITIES ASSOCIATION
While municipalities own more than 60 per cent of public infrastructure, they collect only eight cents of every tax dollar paid, with the balance going to federal and provincial governments. Property tax alone cannot provide the level of funding needed to address growth.
To further illustrate the urgent need for a permanent, long-term, sustainable, and predictable infrastructure program, one need only look at the most recent round of applications to the New Building Canada Fund’s Provincial Territorial Infrastructure Component (PTIC).
Under the program, municipalities must apply to the province for funding for local infrastructure projects that meet criteria laid out by the federal government and projects are funded on a one-third/one-third/one-third model.
In 2015, municipalities submitted 334 applications for projects totaling a $1.5 billion. Only 26 applications were accepted for projects totaling $11.5 million.
Of $1.5 billion in eligible municipal projects – less than one per cent was approved, meaning there’s still roughly $1.5 billion worth of projects on the table. And that figure doesn’t take into account the next intake, which will occur in the next two to three years.
Public infrastructure is necessary to attract and retain private capital and residents. Investing in capital projects also produces direct and indirect returns for the provincial government and the Saskatchewan economy. Municipal infrastructure is essential to both growth and quality of life, and must be a top priority for government investment.
A new approach is also required to ensure municipal infrastructure assets are financed, funded, and managed sustainably so Saskatchewan municipalities remain vibrant and healthy.
Our urban municipalities are the engines of Saskatchewan’s economic growth. By putting in place a Made-in-Saskatchewan infrastructure program that is permanent, long-term, sustainable, and predictable, the province will be able to continue to meet the challenges of growth — one of two main goals identified in the Saskatchewan Plan for Growth.
In his State of the Province address which marked the release of that plan in 2012, Premier Brad Wall noted:
“Number one, first and foremost, our MLAs reported back that the people of Saskatchewan want to make sure we’re dealing with infrastructure challenges that we don’t make the mistake of some other jurisdictions, fast-growing jurisdictions, who have maybe not kept pace with the infrastructure demands that growth creates.”
To our municipal partners, we’ve said we will continue to work on a separate infrastructure program … We need something separate on infrastructure.”
Four years later, our cities, towns, villages, resort villages, and northern municipalities are more than ready for such a Made-in-Saskatchewan infrastructure program.
Wins1) NEW buILDINg CANADA FuND (NEW bCF)The federal government introduced the New BCF to replace the previous Building Canada Fund that expired in March 2014. The $14 billion fund supports projects of national, regional and local significance that promote economic growth, job creation and productivity.
Under this fund, the province of Saskatchewan contributes one-third of the cost of the Provincial Territorial Infrastructure Component, which supports infrastructure projects of national, regional and local significance that contribute to economic growth, a clean environment, and stronger communities.
The province’s share of this component was $240.2 million.
2) muLTI mATERIAL RECyCLINg PROgRAm (mmRP)Landfills are critical infrastructure for communities across Saskatchewan. When landfills fill up, both municipal dollars and land are consumed to manage the landfill’s spread. The MMRP is a key initiative to help manage landfills by increasing access to recycling and encouraging businesses to cut down the household packaging and paper they bring into Saskatchewan. This lengthens the lifespan of landfills while limiting their growth and environmental impact.
13Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association Federal Election Advocacy Campaign
3) COmmuNITy RINk AFFORDAbILITy gRANTThe Community Rink Affordability Grant helps municipalities maintain and operate their indoor skating and curling rinks. Municipalities can register their indoor rinks for the $2,500-per-ice-surface grant, which can be used to help pay for operating costs and put towards minor capital upgrades.
Between 2012 and 2015, this grant provided $6.6 million to municipalities, First Nations, and school boards.
4) SASkATCHEWAN INFRASTRuCTuRE gROWTH INITIATIvE (SIgI)SIGI was introduced in 2008 by the provincial government to support municipalities and address the pressures created by growth through the interest rate subsidies on loans for infrastructure projects. The initiative includes lot-development projects, as well as many of the project categories used in the New BCF and the Federal Gas Tax Program, including wastewater projects, drinking water projects, and other infrastructure projects that are in the public interest.
Between 2008-09 and 2015-16, the province loaned $36.1 million to urban municipalities through this initiative.
5) COmmuNITy AIRPORT PARTNERSHIP PROgRAmThe province’s Community Airport Partnership Program is designed to provide capital contributions to rehabilitate and upgrade the network of strategic regional community airports.
Saskatchewan’s urban municipalities received $5 million in funding under this program between 2007 and 2016.
FiXes1) ADEquATELy FuND THE uRbAN HIgHWAy CONNECTOR PROgRAm.“The Urban Highway Connector policy recognizes that our urban communities play an important role in the provincial economy as generators of economic activity. Urban communities serve as key collection points where manufactured goods are warehoused and shipped by truck or rail to and from gateway ports.
“Saskatchewan’s population and business activity is increasingly centered in cities and larger towns. These urban communities serve as key collection and interchange points where export bound products trucked along rural highways are linked to national and international transportation corridors.
“Urban connectors form an essential part of both the national and provincial transportation system. Efficiencies and the public interest are best served by the free flow of traffic, including travel on urban connectors. Producers and shippers cannot afford delays in urban areas caused by transportation bottlenecks.” (Source: Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure website)
The original agreements under this program stated that the province would undertake the first rehabilitation of all UHCP roads, but on their own schedule.
14 2016 PROVINCIAL ELECTION - MUNICIPAL ISSUES BACKGROUNDER - SASKATCHEWAN URBAN MUNICIPALITIES ASSOCIATION
The UHCP remains under-funded to the point where the province is failing to live up to its responsibilities and municipalities are being forced to pick up the slack. In fact, many of these roads have since deteriorated to the point that cities have to take on the rehabilitation themselves for public safety and liability reasons. Once rehabilitation has been completed, the province considers itself absolved of any further responsibility.
Between 2011 and 2015, the province provided $25 million to urban municipalities through the UHCP ($5 million/year on average).
At present funding rates, it would take roughly 20 years to rehabilitate all the outstanding UHCP roadways (assuming there is no growth in operations and maintenance grants given to cities and towns, which decreases the amount of available capital funding). Urban municipalities cannot wait that long; 71 kilometres of these roads are already in fair-poor to poor condition — the worst ratings given under the program.
2) REvISIT THE ORPHANED ENvIRONmENTALLy ImPACTED SITES FuND.In 2015, the provincial government initiated the Orphaned Environmentally Impacted Site Fund to provide funding to clean up abandoned contaminated sites. Through an amendment to The Environmental Management and Protection Act, the province acknowledged the negative health and safety impact these sites have on communities. The introduction of the fund also recognized the importance of restoring the land for the benefit of residents and communities, as well as to foster economic growth.
In theory this is a meaningful program. In practice, however, funding is minimal or non-existent, as fines collected from violations of certain environmental laws are the only source of revenue for the program. If the province wants to ensure the intent of this fund is actually reflected in practice, it must revisit the legislation and look at alternative funding models.
needs1) CREATE A mADE-IN-SASkATCHEWAN INFRASTRuCTuRE PROgRAm TO buILD RESILIENT, ADAPTAbLE COmmuNITIES. a. In addition to participating in the New BCF, the province should establish a provincial infrastructure program that addresses the infrastructure deficit in Saskatchewan. b. Capital spending for infrastructure must come from other sources. When the provincial government argues that municipalities can use revenue sharing for infrastructure it is technically correct. However, it violates the intent of the funding and the spirit of the partnership. c. The Municipal Economic Enhancement Program (MEEP) created in 2009, provided $100 million in per capita funding to local governments to invest in municipal infrastructure (streets, water systems, community development projects, etc.). The province alone funded this one-time program and nothing like it has existed since. d. A provincial program should be permanent, long-term, sustainable, and predictable. Both municipal and provincial governments need to start thinking long term. e. The program must be developed in consultation with the municipal sector. f. Any new program should be specific to municipalities and not open to all types of organizations. g. Assets covered by a new program must include streets, bridges, water and wastewater plants, and landfills — not schools or hospitals.
2) FIND INNOvATIvE OPTIONS FOR FINANCINg muNICIPAL INFRASTRuCTuRE.The province should work with municipalities to find innovative financing options to fund municipal infrastructure and encourage local solutions and local investment.