Municipal Monitor Q4 2015

The Case for De-amalgamaTion

Why municipal mergers aren’t alWays the right decision

ALSO•ranked Balloting – easy as 1-2-3?

•the Future of infrastructure in ontario’s municipalities

•Beyond data release: merging analytics and engagement

•ontario’s Business tax capping legacy

Q4 2015

The Official Publication of AMCTO – The Municipal Experts Municipal Management & Leadership

Trust. It flows from experience & commitment.

Coming from Ontario, land of freshwater, perhaps our dedication to water quality and

innovation shouldn’t be surprising. The Ontario Clean Water Agency has earned a

world-class reputation in the operation of clean water and wastewater facilities.

Collaboration flows through everything we do. If you’d like to discuss your municipality’s

needs, whatever the size, wherever you are, we look forward to talking with you.

For sales enquiries call 1-855-358-1488 or visit www.ocwa.com. Follow us on Twitter. Like us on Facebook.

Trust. It flows from experience & commitment.

Coming from Ontario, land of freshwater, perhaps our dedication to water quality and

innovation shouldn’t be surprising. The Ontario Clean Water Agency has earned a

world-class reputation in the operation of clean water and wastewater facilities.

Collaboration flows through everything we do. If you’d like to discuss your municipality’s

needs, whatever the size, wherever you are, we look forward to talking with you.

For sales enquiries call 1-855-358-1488 or visit www.ocwa.com. Follow us on Twitter. Like us on Facebook.

Infrastructure Ontario is dedicated to the modernization and

renewal of Ontario’s public infrastructure through its main services:

infrastructure lending, major project delivery, real estate services and

asset planning.

As a North American leader in infrastructure delivery and innovation,

we are driven to provide value for money and exceptional service to

our customers.

With more than $6.7 billion in affordable long-term infrastructure

financing delivered to municipalities and other broader public sector

clients and 78 major projects brought to market using an Alternative

Financing and Procurement delivery model, we are helping to make

projects happen in Ontario.

For more information about Infrastructure Ontario, our services, or our projects please visit our website at: www.infrastructureontario.ca.

Partnering to modernize infrastructure in Ontario

IO Services

Infrastructure Loan Program Low cost financing for eligible public sector clients

Alternative Financing and Procurement Pre-transaction assessment, advice and analysis

Management of procurement process (market sounding, RFQ/RFP etc.)

Project cost analysis Oversee scope detail, preparation of performance output specifications and project agreements

Construction oversight

Telephone: 416-212-7289Information Hotline: 1-800-230-0937Email: [email protected]

Municipal_Monitor_2015.indd 1 7/3/2015 7:46:17 AM

CONFERENCE FOR AUDIT COMMITTEES

<OPTIONAL INFO>

A must-attend conference, providing in-depth coverage of the latest issues—corruption, IT risk, ethics and much more!

DECEMBER 1-2, 2015 Sheraton Centre Toronto, ON

Optional one-day pre-conference workshop Monday, November 30, 2015 Fundamentals of Audit Committees’ Membership

Sponsor to date:

FOR MORE INFORMATION AND TO REGISTER, VISIT: cpacanada.ca/AuditCommittees

KEYNOTE SPEAKERS

Linda Nazareth Economist, Author and Broadcaster

Andrew Fastow Former CFO, Enron

Audit Committee-Municipal Monitor Ad FINAL.indd 1 10/2/2015 11:34:59 AM

Published four times a year for the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario (AMCTO)

2680 Skymark Ave., Ste. 610 Mississauga, ON L4W 5L6 Phone: 905-602-4294 Fax: 905-602-4295 www.amcto.com

editorial manager Craig Wellington, Director, Programs & Services, AMCTO

Published by

701 Henry Ave. Winnipeg, MB R3E 1T9 Phone: 204-953-2189 Toll-Free: 1-866-953-2189 Fax: 204-953-2184 www.lesterpublications.com

President Jeff Lester

Vice-President & Publisher Sean Davis

Director of Business Development Jeff Wall

eDiTorialeditorial Director Jill Harris

managing editor Kristy Rydz

editorial assistant Andrew Harris

aDVerTisingBook leader, Quinn Bogusky senior account executive, Louise Peterson account executive, Colleen McDonald

Design & laYoUTart Director, Myles O’Reilly Crystal Carrette, Jessica Landry, John Lyttle, Gayl Punzalan

DisTriBUTionJennifer Holmes

© 2015 Lester Communications Inc. All rights reserved. The contents of this publication may not be reproduced by any means, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the publisher.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the authors and/or editorial sources contained in Municipal Monitor are those of the respective parties and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the publisher.

Publication Mail Agreement #40606022.

Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to: 701 Henry Ave. Winnipeg, MB R3E 1T9

Printed in Canada. Please recycle where facilities exist.

CONTENTSQ4 2015

feaTUres

The Case for De-amalgamationWith no hard evidence that merging municipalities is beneficial and the lack of an effective way to reverse them, governments should carefully consider the risks ahead of action

easy as 1-2-3?Ontario municipalities move towards optional ranked balloting

The future of infrastructure in ontario’s municipalitiesRethinking the way we plan for, fund and make decisions about the assets we will depend on for decades to come

Beyond Data release: merging analytics and engagementA comparative exploration of the implementation of open data initiatives in Canada and the United States

ontario’s Business Tax Capping legacyA call to arm municipalities with the tools to fully opt out of the mandatory program

DeParTmenTs

President’s messageONWARD and Upward – An Example of CollaborationBy Chris Wray

6

10

14

18

22

5

CO

vER

PHO

TO: P

OG

ON

ICI/

SHu

TTER

STO

CK.

CO

M

ABO

vE P

HO

TO: R

uSL

AN

GRu

MBL

E/SH

uTT

ERST

OC

K.C

OM

3mUniCiPal moniTor

AMCTO is inviting submissions of original, unpublished articles for publication in future editions of the Municipal Monitor. AMCTO’s mandate is to promote excellence in municipal management and administration. We are looking for thought-provoking articles featuring innovative ideas and practical solutions that advance the knowledge and management capacity of Ontario’s municipal sector.

Themes we would like to see covered include:

• Strategic leadership

• Staff and operational management

• The staff/council dynamic

• Public engagement

• Sustainability

• Infrastructure

• Financial management

• Performance management

• Public-private partnerships

• Service delivery

If your municipality has developed an innovative initiative that has resulted in significant improvements in organizational processes or service delivery, and is replicable in other jurisdictions, please let us know so we can share your story.

For more information or to submit an article outline, please email [email protected].

CALL FOR SUBMISSIONSShare your story and contribute to the Municipal Monitor

www.amcto.com

onWard and upward – an example of collaboration By chris Wray, amct

president, amcto

Board of DirectorsChristopher Wray, amCT President Municipality of Wawa

michelle smibert, Cmo Immediate Past President Municipality of Middlesex Centre

stephane Palmateer, amCT Vice President/Zone 8 Board Director City of Timmins

John hannam, Cmo Director at Large City of Thunder Bay

lois o’neill-Jackson, Cmo Director at Large Municipality of Trent Lakes

Yvonne robert, Cmo, amCT Director at Large Township of Elizabethtown-Kitley

robert h.a. Tremblay, Cmo, Dipl.m.a. Director at Large Municipality of Meaford

michelle Casavecchia-somers, Cmo Zone 1 Board Director Township of Malahide

Pamela fettes, Cmo, Dipi.m.a. Zone 2 Board Director Township of Clearwater

angela morgan, Cmo Zone 3 Board Director City of Burlington

stephen huycke Zone 4 Board Director Town of Aurora

Candace Thwaites, Cmo, amCT Zone 5 Board Director Town of Gravenhurst

Dean sauriol, Cmo, Dip.m.m Zone 6 Board Director Township of Laurentian valley

Carol Trainor, amCT Zone 7 Board Director Township of St. Joseph

marcella Vallelunga Zone 9 Board Director City of Thunder Bay

p r e s i d e n t ’ s m e ssag e

As an association and as a sec-tor, there are a number of chal-lenges ahead of us. Perhaps one of the most urgent issues is the

looming staffing crisis that is now upon us, with so many of our members eligible for retirement. In 2012, Jim Pine, Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of Hast-ings County, brought together a number of CAOs to discuss the issue and lay the groundwork to address this matter. The Leadership Excellence Advancement Pilot Project (LEAPP) report was the re-sult of the hard work of Jim and his team. More importantly, Jim and our own Tony Haddad, CAO, Town of Tecumseh, among others took the time to make many pre-sentations on this project around the province – presentations that are ongo-ing to this day. In the spring of 2013, the leadership initiative was launched and an “associations” working group formed. The group quickly rebranded and formed the ONWARD Project – Building Tomorrows Ontario Municipal Leaders. Participation in this project continues to include repre-sentation from:• The Ontario Municipal

Administrators Association (OMAA)• The Municipal Financial Officers

Association (MFOA)• The Ontario Municipal Human

Resources Association (OMHRA)• The Ontario Municipal Employees

Retirement System (OMERS)• The Association Municipalities of

Ontario (AMO)• The Association of Municipal

Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario (AMCTO)In my last message, I wrote of the

importance of collaboration and cooperation between the municipal

staffing associations across Ontario. The ONWARD initiative represents a great example of such collaboration and coop-eration between organizations that have a common goal of serving the municipal sector and their respective communities.

As the ONWARD Project moves for-ward, our members and the members of our sibling associations will see that each organization has its own role to play, lending its expertise to the overall goal of creating a climate that attracts new talent to our sector – new talent that will develop and retain the next generation of leaders.

The ONWARD Project is not the only collaborative effort that involves AMCTO. In fact, in the month of September, I attended the OMHRA and MFOA conferences to speak about our collaboration with both of those excellent organizations, respecting our co-branded Executive Diploma in Municipal Management (EDMM). This was an excellent opportunity to show the members of other associations how we are all cooperating together for the betterment of the municipal sector.

We need not stop there, however. Several associations, including AMCTO, have produced a document entitled Enhancing Association Coordination & Cooperation, which speaks to the many opportunities that the participating organizations and other similar orga-nizations could embrace to improve our individual mandates and collective responsibility.

To that end, it is about time that we talk about a united front and about ways that we can improve collaboration and cooperation while maintaining our separate identities and autonomy.

5mUniCiPal moniTor

Study after study has found that the benefits of munici-pal amalgamation have failed to materialize. Costs generally increase after amalgamation, largely due to a harmonization of costs and wages and increases in

service efficiency remain elusive. The transitional costs after amalgamation are often quite high and, in some cases, reduce or even eliminate any anticipated immediate cost savings.

Mounting evidence suggests that amalgamation in Ontario has not led to more efficient service production or delivery. Municipal mergers reduce competition between municipalities, which weakens incentives for efficiency and responsiveness to local needs, while also reducing the choice of residents to find a community that best matches their ideal taxation and service rates. Since municipal mergers

d e - a m a lg a m at i o n

With no hard evidence that merging municipalities is beneficial and the lack of an effective way to reverse them, governments should carefully consider the risks ahead of action

By lydia milljan, university of Windsor and Zachary spicer, Brock university

ThE CAsE for

de-amalgamation

RuSL

AN

GRu

MBL

E/SH

uTT

ERST

OC

K.C

OM

6 Q4 2015 www.amcto.com

“ municipal mergers reduce competition between municipalities, which weakens incentives for efficiency and responsiveness to local needs, while also reducing the choice of residents to find a community that best matches their ideal taxation and service rates.”


ThE CAsE for

de-amalgamation

7mUniCiPal moniTor

rarely result in boundaries that encompass entire metropoli-tan regions, externalities may still exist in transportation and land use planning. Municipal amalgamations have some-times forced rural residents to pay for urban services they do not have access to.

With so many negative aspects, it is no surprise that restructuring proposals have often been met with stiff resis-tance from local residents. It also comes as no surprise that many residents argue that their communities were better off prior to consolidation. In the wake of lingering resentment regarding amalgamation, de-amalgamation is often sug-gested as a solution.

We have seen the call for de-amalgamation emerge in many cities and towns across Ontario, including Toronto. After the last municipal election, there was a great deal of discussion about Toronto being a “divided” city. The suburbs, we were told, were hopelessly pitted against the down-town core, which was, for the most part, blamed on the city’s 1998 shotgun marriage. Outside of Toronto, the idea of de-amalgamation has also been raised. For instance, the Municipality of Killarney recently passed a motion asking the province to de-amalgamate part of the community. Others, such as Essex, Sydenham and Kawartha Lakes all have groups calling for de-amalgamation.

Despite this opposition, municipalities very rarely de-amalgamate. There are good reasons for this. First, there

are significant costs to reverse consolidation. In fact, during amalgamation, much of the cost savings promised by pro-vincial administrations evaporated during the transition process. The list of transition tasks is seemingly endless. From transferring assets to holding new elections, the costs incurred through consolidation quickly mount. Reversing an amalgamation would no doubt require similar costs. In fact, new costs may even need to be incurred. If amalgamation is similar to a marriage, de-amalgamation is akin to a divorce. Separating assets can be tougher than combining them, meaning that the transition costs for a de-amalgamation could conceivably be higher.

Second, there is no guarantee that a municipal govern-ment would be any more efficient after de-amalgamation than before. Governments both large and small can be prone to maladministration and financial mismanagement. In other words, de-amalgamation may not be the silver bullet that some may hope for, especially if the same set of politi-cians and administrators remain in place.

Finally, there is no guarantee there would be community consensus to move forward with such a plan. During the amalgamation wave of the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Ontario provincial government never seriously consulted the public. Amalgamation was not put to a vote and many com-munities were erased from the map without the approval of residents. Any de-amalgamation proposal should be held to

d e - a m a lg a m at i o nA

ND

REA

CRI

SAN

TE/S

Hu

TTER

STO

CKC

.OM


a higher standard than the consolidation process previously used. Citizens should be consulted.

Despite these concerns, de-amalgamation proposals con-tinue to emerge in amalgamated communities. Some more vocal than others, but lingering concerns about the efficiency, cost and the nature of representation within amalgamated communities persist.

Taken together, the prospect of de-amalgamation raises two important questions. First, is it possible to reverse a municipal amalgamation? And, second, if so, is it even desir-able to de-amalgamate? Two examples are worth taking a look at: Montreal, Que. and Headingley, Man., which seceded from Winnipeg. After provincially imposed amalgamations, residents of both communities demanded institutional reforms.

In Montreal, a change in provincial governments led to a de-amalgamation referendum and communities within the newly amalgamated city were given the opportunity to leave. While many opted to stay, some did leave, which created a patchwork of governance on the Island of Montreal, which eventually forced the creation of a new level of government to coordinate government activity. Enter the Agglomeration Council, a cumbersome addition to an already complex gov-ernance environment.

In Headingley, community residents demanded they be allowed to secede from the amalgamated City of Winnipeg. After many years of trying, the Province of Manitoba finally took up their case and legislated their removal from the City of Winnipeg, sparking bitter separation negotiations that nonetheless finally restored Headingley’s independence.

There is no reason why de-amalgamation cannot be pursued; however, it is not often desirable. Provincial gov-ernments have the ability to amalgamate municipalities and, therefore, also have the ability to separate them. While Headingley provides support for de-amalgamation propo-nents, Montreal should give us pause.

Post-merger Headingley remains small, which is what the de-amalgamation proponents advocated. They are also a fis-cally healthy community with a $30 million surplus in 2011.

Yet the Montreal example demonstrates that if de-amal-gamation is not done correctly it is very possible to further complicate the governance of a region and distract from much more important conversations about regional policy integration and planning. The key lesson from Montreal’s experience with de-amalgamation is that allowing certain


areas to de-amalgamate and others to stay can create a frag-mented patchwork of governance across the region.

If de-amalgamation were to be pursued in Toronto, the return of a two-tier structure would be the best option, but, of course, there’s always the possibility that the city’s gover-nance structure could look very much like Montreal.

The difficulty in successfully implementing de-amalgama-tion means that amalgamation is something that cannot and should not be easily entered into. More care needs to be taken in finding the best institutional structure for our municipal governments.

Lydia Milljan is an Associate Professor at the University of Windsor and Zachary spicer is an Assistant Professor at Brock University.

“ if de-amalgamation were to be pursued in Toronto, the return of a two-tier structure would be the best option, but, of course, there’s always the possibility that the city’s governance structure could look very much like montreal.”

OUR MUNICIPAL GROUP

Thomson, Rogers is a leader in Municipal and Planning Law. Our dedicated team of lawyers is known for accepting themost difficult and challenging cases.

Put the land minds at Thomson, Rogers to work for you.

CALL THE LAND MINDS

TF: 1.888.223.0448 T: 416.868.3100 thomsonrogers.com

L to R: David Germain, Denitza Koev, Roger Beaman, Jeff Wilker, Stephen D’Agostino & Al Burton

9mUniCiPal moniTor

“ City clerks want the same things we want: they want an engaged electorate and they want things to be done in a way that is transparent.”– Katherine skene, raBiT


They do it in Berkeley and Oakland, Minneapolis and San Francisco. They’re planning it in Memphis and Santa Fe. And in 2018, some Ontario municipalities may join the growing list of places where electors can vote for candi-

dates using ranked ballots.Also known as ranked choice voting (RCV), ranked ballot

systems are an increasingly popular alternative to the “first-past-the-post” (FPTP) system used in most Canadian elections. All Ontario provincial parties and Canadian federal parties already use ranked ballots to choose their leaders; organiza-tions like the National Hockey League, the National Basketball Association and Hollywood’s Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences use them to choose award winners.

Instead of voting for a single candidate per office, as in the FPTP system, with ranked ballots, voters indicate a first, second and third choice. When ballots are counted, if no first-choice candidate has received a 50 per cent majority, the second-choice votes are tabulated for an “instant run-off.” Third-place votes may also be counted if needed.

Supporters of ranked balloting point out that the system ensures elected candidates have the support of at least 50 per cent of voters. Also, since alienating a rival’s supporters could hurt a candidate’s chances in a run-off, ranked balloting tends to keep the campaign discourse on a civil footing. These advan-tages are thought to contribute to fairer elections and, perhaps, more voter engagement.

Since a May 28 announcement by the Hon. Ted McMeekin, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the door has been opened for Ontario municipalities to use ranked balloting as early as the 2018 municipal elections, but the idea has been around for several years. Toronto-based group RaBIT (Ranked Ballot Initiative), created by community organizer Dave Meslin, has led the cause since about 2010. It has been supported by politicians, including the Hon. Mitzie Hunter, former Toronto councillor Case Ootes and former MPP Jonah Schein.

r a n K e d B a l lots

easY as 1-2-3?

ontario municipalities move towards optional ranked ballotingBy sarah B. hood

ALE

xAN

DRu

NIK

A/S

Hu

TTER

STO

CK.

CO

M

11mUniCiPal moniTor

In July of 2012, Toronto’s mayoral executive committee and council’s government management commit-tee directed staff to look into ranked ballots. Their April 2013 report on Proposed Electoral reforms identified numerous important considerations, such as testing and auditing of voting technologies and “extensive public consultation,” since “every jurisdic-tion that has contemplated alternative voting systems has appointed a task force to explore the matter in detail and held a referendum.”

The report discussed the need for intensive voter education and staff training, the challenges of design-ing the ballots, the potential for voter confusion and polling delays, increased complexity for voting-day workers and higher administrative costs. It also stated that current vote-counting equipment would need to be replaced. (It did not suggest a cost, but in July 2012, Toronto Councillor and Government Management Chair Paul Ainslie told the Toronto star that he expected new tabulation machines would cost between $4 to $5 million.)

Despite the challenges, support for ranked balloting has continued to spread among both politicians and members of the public. RaBIT Co-chair Katherine Skene says so many people outside Toronto were expressing interest that RaBIT decided to create a provincial umbrella called 123 Ontario, which embraces groups based in Ottawa, Windsor, Guelph, Barrie, Whitby, Sudbury and London.

Last May, Minister McMeekin announced that Ontario was taking

steps towards giving municipalities the option of using ranked ballots in future municipal elections. He also set up a working group, a public consultation and a review of the Municipal Elections Act. The new leg-islation “might be introduced before the House recesses for the winter break; that allows time for councils to consider their options and make a decision based on input from their citizens before the 2018 municipal election period,” says McMeekin.

Response to the public consultation was “overwhelmingly positive,” but he emphasizes that “not all municipalities are the same” and that ranked balloting will not suit everyone.

“The goal is to shine a light on the importance of municipal gover-nance, to put in place a mechanism that will, ideally, incent more people to get involved and to make sure that whoever gets elected has a legitimate mandate,” McMeekin says.

Stephen O’Brien, City Clerk for Guelph, served on the Ranked Ballot Working Group.

“The work that comes out of those consultations will dictate how admin-istrators and clerks across the province will move ahead with recommenda-tions to council. As municipal election officials and clerks, we probably all see that there is a very strong benefit when the community can elect a candidate with over a 50 per cent mandate,” he says.

Nonetheless, the committee identi-fied similar challenges to those brought forward by Toronto staff: training, ballot design, public education and

thorough logic and accuracy testing. When the legislation is introduced, “some councils may opt to go for ranked balloting for head of council, not councillor and we expect not the school board race,” O’Brien suggests.

Casey Joe Carl, City Clerk for the City of Minneapolis, has first-hand experi-ence with RCV, adopted in Minneapolis by referendum in 2006.

“In 2009, their first use, there were mostly incumbents,” he says, “so it was much more focused on the actual tab-ulation. There was no equipment, so we had to do a hand count. It took 15 days!”

In 2013, even with 35 mayoral candi-dates and “the longest ballot in voting history,” new equipment that gener-ated results as exportable spreadsheets smoothed the process. The city actually held a mock election to demonstrate the new machines and let staff “play with these exportable data files,” he says.

Carl’s first Minneapolis election was 2013.

“We started planning in March 2012 for November 2013,” he says. To educate voters, the city created a RCV website, bought public advertising, assembled “voter ambassadors” by reaching out to community groups to identify influ-encers and delivered a voter guide to every household, which included pre-cinct-specific sample ballots.

After the 2013 election, “we decided to post everything on our website, including results of every tabulation, in our four major languages [English, Spanish, the Vietnamese language Hmong and Somali].


“ The goal is to shine a light on the importance of municipal governance, to put in place a mechanism that will, ideally, incent more people to get involved and to make sure that whoever gets elected has a legitimate mandate.” – hon. Ted mcmeekin, minister of municipal affairs and housing


© Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd

Have a municipal budget—and private sector expectations?We understand the pressure municipalities are under to deliver ever greater results with ever shrinking resources. Our public sector professionals have extensive experience working with municipalities all across Canada. They’re well versed in the unique challenges you face—and they

may not be aware of.

Give us a call. We can help take the pressure off.

Audit • Tax • Advisory

Michelle Sautner T +1 416 607 2790 E [email protected]

Melanie Dugard T +1 289 313 3378E [email protected]

“We found in the 2013 election much more engagement and a much more civil discourse,” he says.

Turnout was about 33.3 per cent, up about 10 per cent from 2009, but Carl says it’s too early to say whether RCV played a role. By other standards, it has certainly been successful.

“We did surveys in 2009 and 2013 with voters, non-voters, candidates, election workers and the media,” he says. “Across the board we got good results; the most important thing was the sample ballot.”

RCV has been a success for Minneapolis, but may not be “a silver bullet to improve elections” for every


municipality,” says Carl. “It’s not as easy as 1-2-3 when you’re a clerk, ensuring the integrity of the voting process for every single elector and losing sleep over it. Ultimately, you’re talking about the cornerstone of democracy; any switch needs to be considered very carefully.”

“City clerks want the same things we want: they want an engaged elector-ate and they want things to be done in a way that is transparent,” says Skene. “They really do have the best inter-ests of citizens at heart and that’s why they worry about things like voting machines and education; they don’t want people to give up on the system.”

“I think we all recognize it’s a good thing,” says O’Brien. “We all just want to get it right.”

“ some councils may opt for ranked balloting for head of council, not councillor or school board.”– stephen o’Brien,

City Clerk, guelph

a raBit group photo with dave meslin in the second row, on the right with a dark sweater and a white open-neck shirt

CO

uRT

ESy

OF

RaBI

T

13mUniCiPal moniTor

ALL

PH

OTO

S C

Ou

RTES

y O

F TH

E RE

SID

ENTI

AL

AN

D C

IvIL

CO

NST

RuC

TIO

N A

LLIA

NC

E O

F O

NTA

RIO

The future of infrastructure in Ontario municipalities looks a lot brighter after the Wynne government’s budget pledge of

$130 billion over 10 years. But we need to choose the “right” infrastructure and to build it right. We need to build it using long-term, forward-thinking financial instruments and tax policies. To overcome short-term thinking, gov-ernments at all levels will also need to adopt more integrated decision-mak-ing models, better asset management practices and to work collaboratively.

The Residential and Civil Construc-tion Alliance of Ontario (RCCAO), which represents Ontario’s construc-tion industry and construction unions, recently released a report looking at infrastructure into the year 2030. The report, Building our Tomorrow: The future of ontario’s Infrastructure, addresses how major trends or move-ments – so-called “megatrends” – and the rise of new infrastructure will affect Ontario’s communities over the next 15 years.

To position the province properly for prosperity, we need to identify the key megatrends that will change our communities and then design and build infrastructure with these ideas in mind. These megatrends include, obviously, the pace and scale of tech-nological change, but also energy and

environmental impacts; impending economic and workforce changes; demographic changes – both at home, like aging, and abroad, like economic migration; the local effects of global-ization, connectivity and urbanization; and, of course, the political and fiscal responses to these developments.

What should our municipal and provincial leaders be doing now to anticipate that rapidly changing world? Will societal trends and new tech-nologies render some infrastructure unnecessary or misdirected, or open the door to different solutions?

Big decisions = big implicationsInfrastructure decisions are both big decisions and long-term decisions. In a constrained fiscal environment, we must build the right infrastructure. Good infrastructure decisions pay dividends for generations. But short-sighted infrastructure decisions can burden us for decades.

A few prerequisites are required in order to make the “right” infrastruc-ture decisions: (1) a clear-sighted economic development strategy; (2) high-priority, focused, evidenced-based decision-making from our municipal, provincial and federal governments; and (3) strong partner-ships with industry and civil society. Our society and governments will

need to respond more quickly and think differently about infrastructure than we have in the past. Remember the practical advice of Walter Gretzky to his son Wayne: “Don’t skate to the puck. Skate to where the puck is going to be.”

A great example of such innova-tive infrastructure planning occurred almost a century ago. When Toronto’s first Bloor-Danforth subway opened in 1966, it saved money and construc-tion time using infrastructure built under the Bloor Viaduct in 1918 for a subway that didn’t exist and wasn’t planned. The moral of this story: today’s infrastructure seems expensive, but yesterday’s infrastructure seems like a prudent investment. Today, rapid bridge replacement programs, like the Carling Bridge in Ottawa and the Aberdeen Bridge in Hamilton, demon-strate the same ingenuity.

To understand the changes we might see in the next 15 years, think back. Fifteen years ago, the iPhone did not exist, nor did Twitter or Facebook; 9/11 had not happened; only 11 per cent of people in developed countries used the Internet (now it’s 45 per cent of China and 250 million in India). Apple stock had fallen to two dollars per share, but Blockbuster was a good investment because everyone needed to rent VHS movies.

the Future of infrastructure in ontario’s municipalitiesa call to rethink the way we plan for, fund and make decisions about the assets we will depend on for decades to come

By michael Fenn, Fenn advisory services


t h e F u t u r e o F i n F r ast r u c t u r e

energy infrastructure will be under increasing demands from burgeoning electronic communications and electricity-powered transportation, with “pinch-points” in transmission and increasing demands for higher (millisecond) tolerances in electricity stability

15mUniCiPal moniTor

What are these megatrends?Technological trends and the pace of technological changeInfrastructure is, at its heart, technol-ogy. As a result, technology trends will most conspicuously affect infrastruc-ture. Recent trends in technology in all fields have taught us a common lesson: many of our conventional assumptions and established practices can be swept away in a very short period of time by the advance of new technology and the public’s embrace of it.

Advanced transportation technol-ogy will combine to change the look of our suburbs, urban cores, country-side and the transportation and energy infrastructure that serves them.

Consider the infrastructure impacts of emerging technologies:1. “Driverless” vehicles2. Swedish-inspired road fatality

reduction programs3. Fully automated transit systems

with generic, world-standard designs and equipment

4. Re-engineered road-intersections, cycling, pedestrian and parking arrangements

5. More efficient and flexible modes of local public transit, school trans-portation and inter-urban trains

6. Mobility “hubs”, like Madrid’s intercambiadores

7. Widespread and more efficient mobility-assisting transportation designs

8. Commercial use of drones and local-ized logistics for Internet-based goods-delivery “fulfillment”

9. Very low energy-consumption vehicles and long-charge electric cars; and

10. Entirely new types of personal vehicles, business vehicles and transit systems address-ing the issues of “the first/last 400 metres,” customization of routing, “urban market” business-support vehicles and multi-modal connectivity

Future transportation infrastruc-ture can give us faster and less con-gested trips, enabling long-distance commuting and dependable logis-tics. Broad-based acceptance of

innovations – auto-mated vehicle control, driver-assisted vehicles, road-pricing regimes, in-vehicle technology for distance-separation and collision-avoidance, expressway system-access controls, drone technology, vehicle-and-ride sharing, computer-aided logistics and dis-patch, high-speed trains and a renaissance in water transport – will combine to revolution-ize Ontario’s transporta-tion system.

A similar renaissance is occurring in rapid transit and public transit. Platform-side doors and automated train control in rapid transit and time-of-day and distance-sensitive, universally accepted, bank-linked, multi-purpose fare media will increase throughput and reduce congestion, despite increasing passenger volumes. Fare media will also be used for park-ing and convenience incidentals, like coffee and lottery tickets. As an appendix in the report notes, whether driver-assisted and automated cars will be positive or negative depends upon how these developments unfold and the extent to which municipal and provincial governments act pro-actively to plan and manage them, through regulatory and other means.

social and demographic trendsAs demographers have pointed out, since the “baby boom” generation learned to walk, Ontario’s patterns of social demands (and related infrastruc-ture demands) can be tracked closely to the annual aging of the post-war demographic cohort. As elementary and secondary schools built decades ago for boomers and their children pro-gressively empty, facilities for the frail elderly are in great demand, with some-one in North America turning age 65 every seven seconds. Suburbs designed for families need to be re-engineered to deal with changing housing and mobility needs and the advent of new transportation technology.

environmental and energy trendsSanitary sewers and storm water drain-age systems, which were once adequate to face the “hundred-year storm”, are increasingly incapable of with-standing periodic extreme weather events. Water quality and availability are emerging as major issues across North America and around the globe. Environmental impacts are motivating the Gates Foundation to offer rewards for re-inventing sewage systems and household toilets.

Energy infrastructure will be under increasing demands from burgeoning electronic communications and elec-tricity-powered transportation, with “pinch-points” in transmission and increasing demands for higher (milli-second) tolerances in electricity stability. Technological progress and rising elec-tricity costs will also give rise to a wave of localized micro-generation, from inex-pensive rooftop solar generators to dis-trict heating and cooling systems.

Political and fiscal trendsAt the fulcrum of all of these trends lie government and the public purse. How will these megatrends affect those charged with the responsibility for leading change and mitigating its impacts? In a constrained fiscal envi-ronment of capital rationing, with a huge overhang of ( for now) inexpen-sively financed debt, governments have another challenge. Infrastructure must be well chosen.

Government tax regimes associated with physical assets, fixed-location



Consulting Services Include:

Tel: (905) 272-3600e-mail: [email protected]

•

• •

Municipal/Education Development ChargePolicy and Cost Sharing Water/Sewer Rate Setting/Water Financial PlansBuilding Permit/Planning and Development Fees

• Long Range Financial Planning for School Boards and Municipalities• Asset Management/PSAB Compliance• Fiscal and Economic Impact, Service Feasibility

and Needs Assessment• Growth Management Strategies/Employment

Strategies• Land Needs Studies, Demographics and

Fiscal/Economic Impact Analysis

website: www.watson-econ.ca

retailing, local transactions and cor-porate head offices will need to adjust to new economic models. This is espe-cially true for municipal governments, which build and operate much of our basic public infrastructure using property taxes, utility rates, transfer payments and development charges.

What principles should guide municipalities?Going into the future, over the next three municipal council terms, there are baseline assumptions or “guiding principles” we need to respect:• Distances, scale and elapsed times

will shrink; in all areas, just as they have in communications

• Functions will converge and mar-gins of all kinds will be squeezed

• Individual customization will be both possible – and expected

• As we said earlier, global impacts will become local impacts, especially climate change effects, like more frequent extreme weather events

• Demographics will change our priorities

• Customer choice and preferences will determine our urban designs and planning

• But, we will also be plagued with short-term thinking and resistance to necessary change

What will this mean to municipalities and the communities that they serve?With the convergence of miniaturiza-tion, pre-constructed components and new building materials and processes, the infrastructure of tomorrow will include more “light infrastructure.” It will have a shorter life expectancy, new materials and designs, more capac-ity to be adjusted to meet changing, demographics, economics or use-pat-terns, along with a lower community impact and price tag.

In areas like transportation, new technologies, processes and designs may make long-distance commuting practical, predictable and cheap. By

increasing throughput, we may see less severe congestion in areas like the Greater Toronto Area and Ottawa – and a revolution in everything from logistics and goods movement to land-use planning and community building across southern Ontario.

The bricks-and-mortar side of health care delivery and post-secondary edu-cation will be less important than technologically-enabled service deliv-ery of all kinds, from care of chronic disease in the home and community, to the world’s best scholars and teachers being available to you in your home or on your wrist. But we will need the new infrastructure to make all this possible.

The study’s approach has not been to try to use a crystal ball. Realistically, we cannot predict the direction of infrastructure with great accuracy, nor can we anticipate all the spin-off effects that might be generated by new tech-nology. But we can provide a telescope and a compass, in the form of practical guiding principles to better anticipate, prepare and seize opportunities early on and with more confidence. Of equal importance, an awareness of big trends can help us preempt, deflect or mitigate the avoidable risks and misdirection.

Above all, we need to have the right framework for making Ontario’s infrastructure decisions. Among other recommendations, the report suggests these ingredients for a “future of infra-structure” strategy for the Ontario government:1. Make infrastructure investment

decisions based on an under-standing of megatrends and using the most sustainable and forward-looking financial instruments and tax policies

2. Develop a future-oriented economic development and infrastructure strategy

3. A new, integrated decision-making structure for infrastructure deci-sions by the Ontario government and its partners

4. A suite of infrastructure innova-tion grant funds to promote

future-oriented infrastructure investment and evidence-based benchmarking, in collaboration with municipalities, Aboriginal communities and private-sector firms, to address identified local challenges

5. Create an Ontario Future Council, focused on the future of Ontario’s infrastructure, to give all of civil society – not just governments – a voice on these crucial issues

Overall, the report concludes that our civil society leaders must keep the future in view when making today’s decisions. But we can’t just leave it to the leaders, as we have in the past. We need to take an all-encompass-ing approach to policy-making that involves everyone.

Michael fenn, President of fenn Advisory services, is a management consultant specializing in the public sector and healthcare. over the course of an extensive career in public service, he has been an ontario Deputy Minister under three premiers, Municipal Chief Administrator in hamilton and Burlington and the founding CEo of both regional transportation authority Metrolinx and regional health author-ity Mississauga halton, LhIN.

to read the full Building Our Tomorrow: The Future of Ontario’s Infrastructure report, please visit: www.rccao.com/news/files/rccao_Future-of-infrastructure_sept2015.pdf


17mUniCiPal moniTor

B e yo n d data R e l e as e :

Merging AnAlytics And engAgeMent a comparative exploration of the implementation of open data initiatives in canada and the united states

Syd

a P

rod

uc

tio

nS/

Shu

tter

Sto

ck.

co

m


In 2010, the City of Boston announced the establishment of the Mayor’s Office of New Urban Mechanics (ONUM) whose mandate is to support a more innovative and citizen centred government. Subsequently, both Mayor Marty Walsh and

Councillor Michelle Wu announced an undertaking to make the operation of city government more transparent. Their first initiative: open data. Within weeks, the city released hundreds of municipal data sets, through their visually oriented, inter-active website. Updated weekly, citizens, businesses and bu-reaucrats have access to datasets that have produced offshoot analysis, mobile apps and have spawned partnerships with lo-cal universities.

The establishment of Boston’s open data program was carefully developed to not only release and collect data, but to engage citizens with it. The city, working alongside ONUM, has created a number of user-friendly mobile applications, like Street Bump, which collects data about the smoothness of your car ride (and differentiating between a pothole and a train track). This information helps the City of Boston acquire details about urgent problems and informs the city’s long-term invest-ment plans having informed the city of over 1,300 potholes. This application is only one of many transformative applications that are changing the narrative around how citizens receive and provide information to their governments.

evolution of civic participation and open dataAlthough developing advanced mobile applications and data analytics may seem like a far-off reality for many municipal governments, it should act as a mark as to how governments are pushing to transform what is understood as the citizen-government paradigm.

Over the last number of years, there has been a renewed interest as to the role of local governments in facilitating and encouraging civic participation. Although there is a desire for governments to foster a culture of greater public participation in their communities, little guidance is provided as to what constitutes good governance at the local level and how to eval-uate the quality of participatory activities. Civic engagement is defined as “people participating together for deliberative and collective action within an array of interests, institutions and networks, developing civic identity and involving people in the governance process” (Bryer, 2013). However, how governments at all levels choose to engage citizens rarely meets the criteria set out by Bryer. There needs to be greater advocacy to rede-fine the relationship between citizens and their governments to better engage citizens as a main stakeholder in the government decision-making process.

open data as an engagement toolOpen data is often defined by greater access to government information, the availability and accessibility of good qual-ity open data sets and the routine disclosure of information requested through formal access to records requests. However,

o p e n data

“ open data program success was found to be, in large part, due to the merging of both staff and political support for the program.”

B e yo n d data R e l e as e :

Merging AnAlytics And engAgeMent a comparative exploration of the implementation of open data initiatives in canada and the united states

By melissa Bauman, ministry of municipal affairs and housing

19mUniCiPal moniTor

as demonstrated in Boston, they have challenged the tra-ditional rhetoric to make their processes more about open government than simply open data. Within five years, Boston has transformed its governance framework into one that is more collaborative in nature and views data not as a default to release, but to collect, use and re-release data to help inform government and citizen decision-making.

Conversely, open data in the Canadian context has only scratched the surface of its potential for program develop-ment and engagement when compared to many of their American counterparts. Given the formal and informal influ-ences of power at the municipal level in both countries, I examined local and state/provincial government structures and their influence on the development of open data pro-grams. In my analysis, I also reviewed the rationale behind their development and best practices that can be generalized for municipalities in designing and implementing their pro-grams and how open data can support broader innovative practices at the local level.

Although there are challenges to comparing Canadian and American municipal programs, doing so inherently sup-ports broader sector innovation. The research focus of local government in Ontario often fixates on benchmarking, most often comparing policy actions to other municipalities in the region. Although regional benchmarking provides legitimate comparisons in regards to geography and legislative envi-ronment, to support innovative practices at the local level municipal administrators must look beyond the processes of their neighbours. Comparing municipal policies and pro-grams beyond provincial borders enriches the discussion as to how municipal administrators can challenge the status quo in policy making and foster more collaborative para-digms of both the perceptions and application of municipal governance.

finding political and staff championsThere are inherent differences that exist when compar-ing American and Canadian government culture, however, through my research, I found that municipalities, despite structural differences including the legislative impact from upper levels of government and the prominence of open data advocacy groups in the United States, successful open data programs are driven (and maybe not surprisingly) almost exclusively by municipal actors.

Open data program success was found to be, in large part, due to the merging of both staff and political support for the program. As mentioned above, Boston’s mayor and coun-cillor were actively engaged in the implementation of open data from the onset. Municipal staff worked closely with poli-ticians to ensure both internal and external benefits of the program would be realized. This included promotion of the program by politicians to involve the community in utilizing the city’s open data, while staff engaged individual depart-ments to support the program by giving them the autonomy to upload their own data to the city’s public open data site. Engaging staff in the implementation of the program allowed a number of people to become internal champions, which

helps support the longer-term sustainability of a municipal open data initiative.

Build and sustain external partnershipsIn addition to internal support there also needs to be strong relationships built outside of the organization. As the intent of open data and open government programs is to be more transparent and accountable to the public, engaging citizens with data is a key success factor.

Strong programs were fostered when municipalities part-nered with rooted organizations, such as universities, to engage student and faculty expertise. Engaging with univer-sities was considered the most sustainable form of external engagement and provided a number of benefits to looking at open data including technical expertise that may not be available internally. Having external partners assisting the municipality in interpreting data is also a driver of program success and supports innovation and community networks that helps to open up the conversation about open data.

In conclusion, municipal open data programs in Ontario are emerging and are achieving relative success. Cities such as London, Guelph and Toronto have begun to engage their citizens in the open data conversation; however, much more can be done to support successful, sustainable implemen-tation. Citing American examples as a benchmark is often refuted as inaccurate comparisons to the Ontario munici-pal experience, however, my research indicates that in the program and policy development field there are similar chal-lenges that must be addressed on both sides of the border.

There are inevitable challenges to establishing a success-ful open data initiative and supporting continued innovation in the municipal sector. Municipal governments are under stress to achieve day-to-day operations and may not perceive they have the resources to achieve a comparable program to Boston. The challenges of merging staff and council visions and priorities also come into play when designing any gov-ernment program. However, despite these challenges and the resources available in your municipality, Boston’s expe-rience demonstrates an evolution in local government that is not simply tied to big budgets, but rather rethinking how to engage employees, local institutions and the public in the process. Open data is also about exploring inventive ways of using government information to solve community problems which supports more informed decision-making, ideally, within a shorter amount of time.

Rethinking how your municipality engages with staff, poli-ticians, the public and, most notably, its data is a tool that can help to transform processes, whether big or small in size. Open data is a tool that can be ingrained in the processes of day-to-day government to support both a smarter and more connected government.

Melissa Bauman is a former AMCTo Municipal Management Intern and a recent graduate of Western University’s Masters of Public Administration, Local Government Program. she is cur-rently working as an Economist with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and housing.

o p e n data


The new CMO will be Ontario’s only municipal management designation that maps onto and accredits the specific professional skills and knowledge required to be a successful local government manager, regardless of operational area.

The CMO remains a competence-based designation, requiring applicants to prove skills and knowledge in eight management competency areas.

Do you have what it takes?For more information about the CMO designation, please contact AMCTO Membership Services at 905-602-4294 or by email at [email protected].

THE NEW

CMOCertified Municipal Officer

The PremierDesignationFor Municipal Managers And Leaders

amcto is pleased to announce the re-launch of the certified municipal officer (cmo) accreditation, as the management and leadership focused designation for municipal professionals.

www.amcto.com

2015 was a banner year for property taxation in Ontario as municipalities and taxpayers alike celebrated the 18th year of mandatory business tax capping.

While the task of drumming up wide-spread enthusiasm for the preceding statement would be difficult indeed, finding supporters for business tax capping in 1998 may have been equally challenging if it had been sold as a plan to ease taxpayers into a new assessment and tax regime over the better part of two painful decades.

Of course, such support was not sought or needed at the time because Ontario’s business tax capping program was never part of a long-range strategic policy plan nor was it crafted within the context of enlightened political discourse. Instead, today’s capping regime was born of reaction-ary policy patching, survived its early years as one of many provincial puppet strings used to micromanage municipal taxation on an account-by-account basis and then settled into a long life of simple path dependency.

This is a difficult legacy for any public policy to overcome and while there have been some programmatic adjustments made over time, none have been successful in polishing capping into an effective and efficient component of our province-wide property tax system. The inherent deficien-cies and shortcomings of Ontario’s capping policies have been documented and discussed in detail over time so they won’t be given exhaustive treatment here. It is suffice to say that, since its inception, the program has created inequities for taxpayers, extensive administrative challenges for munic-ipalities and general confusion for all.

The state of thingsLeaving aside the policy decisions of the past, if we are to take a critical look at the current state and condition of Ontario’s capping regime, a number of shortcomings in the current leg-islation become readily evident. Most notably – and of central interest to this discussion – is the increasingly problematic circumstance whereby property level capping adjustments are rapidly disappearing but the larger processes surround-ing the program are not winding down.

Since the advent of Current Value Assessment (CVA) exclusion options in 2009, the actual impact of capping on the taxpayers’ final liabilities has become marginal or non-existent within many jurisdictions. However, while the benefits and burdens of capping are being lifted from the tax-payer, no mechanism exists to relieve municipalities of their administrative responsibilities. Regardless of whether an actual capping adjustment is processed, municipalities must establish capping policy each and every year and go through all the motions of the capping exercise.

From briefing council and passing by-laws to preparing Schedule 3s that show no change, the overall administration of a capping program remains a significant element of the annual tax cycle. Even where a municipality has excluded all of its capped class properties, the skeleton of the capping exercise continues.

Ultimately, this can be attributed to the introduction of a property-level exit strategy, with no consideration or contin-gency for class or municipal-level program cessation. That is, municipalities were given the tools necessary to eliminate capping adjustments, but not the capping program.

ontario’s Business tax capping legacya call to arm municipalities with the tools to fully opt out of the mandatory programBy peter. r. Frise, municipal tax equity consultants inc.

“ While the benefits and burdens of capping are being lifted from the taxpayer, no mechanism exists to relieve municipalities of their administrative responsibilities.”


ta X c a p p i n g

PRET

TyBO

y80/

SHu

TTER

STO

CK.

CO

M

23mUniCiPal moniTor

emancipation is overdueFrom a public policy perspective, the current state of Ontario’s capping legislation is somewhat akin to requiring every municipality to run a bus down Main Street, but leaving it up to them whether or not they are going to allow passen-gers. Perhaps this might be a bit dramatic, but there is an element of the current capping policy that harkens back to its early roots as a remedial measure imposed on municipali-ties as much as being a solution for the taxpayer.

The original political architects of capping were quite partial to prescriptive municipal finance policy and much of the rhetoric surrounding the introduction of capping sug-gested a general concern for the taxpayers’ dollar and their new taxation system if left unattended in the hands of local municipalities. Time, however, has proven this to be quite a misguided perception. Despite the burdens posed by the business tax capping regime, Ontario’s municipalities have accepted the associated challenges and have devoted sig-nificant resources to ensure compliant and appropriate implementation of the mandatory tax capping program since its inception. Since the original introduction of optional cap-ping tools in 2005, municipal staff and decision makers have shown a keen interest and willingness to capitalize on the various options provided by the province.

Civil / Municipal

Land Development

Environmental

Solid Waste Management

Urban & Regional Planning

Geographic Information Systems

Mechanical

Electrical

Structural

Architecture

OTTAWA

KINGSTON

SUDBURY

TIMMINS

NORTH BAY

HAWKESBURY

GUELPH

www.jlr ichards.ca

Looking back on 18 capping cycles, it would be difficult to make an argument against placing stewardship of the program in the hands of local decision-makers. Every indica-tion suggests that municipalities are more than willing and capable of making their own capping decisions in a manner reflective of local priorities and in the interests of their local taxpayers. In fact, many of Ontario’s municipalities have already made their capping decisions; the intended outcomes cannot be fully realized until a real exit option is provided.

Change is good, results are betterIf the progress gained by existing capping tools is to be measured purely in terms of the number of properties with adjustments applied, then they have worked well. If, however, one is to take a more critical view and consider the broader policy outcomes related to the program, including emerging issues such as those discussed above, then more room for improvement would likely come into view.

Again, ignoring the more subjective issues and arguments surrounding the value and appropriateness of capping, it seems obvious that capping policy needs to be brought into sync with the reality of capping outcomes. It is this observer’s opinion that in order to do this and to create the necessary agreement between local capping policy and local cap-ping outcomes, the reins must be handed over to the local taxing authorities. More precisely, municipalities need to be given the authority and discretion to fully opt out of manda-tory capping, particularly if they have already done so on a taxpayer-by-taxpayer basis.

Peter frise is the Director of Corporate and Client services for Municipal Tax Equity (MTE) Consultants Inc. MTE provides advice and support on matters related to assessment and prop-erty tax at both practical and policy development levels. MTE’s unique blend of expertise is drawn upon by hundreds of stake-holders in the property tax community including provincial and municipal governments and various professional associa-tions. Learn more at www.mte.ca.

“ every indication suggests that municipalities are more than willing and capable of making their own capping decisions in a manner reflective of local priorities and in the interests of their local taxpayers.”

vALE

STO

CK/

SHu

TTER

STO

CK.

CO

M

ta X c a p p i n g

an aerial view of the town of haliburton, ont.


Explore your municipal insurance options.

Are your claims handled and approved in Canada by a team of experts who understand the local environment?

Do you have access to a municipal specific GPS system that helps reduce the cost of road-related risks?

Are you working with a stable, long-term partner who invests heavily in the municipal sector and advocates on behalf of Canadian municipalities?

1-800-265-4000 | frankcowan.com |

Built with integrity, leading through innovation.

ASK the Right Questions. GET the Right Answers.

Cleaner air. Bigger dreams.In 2014, we stopped burning coal to make electricity. It was North America’s largest action to combat climate change. And the power we now generate is 99.7 percent free of smog and greenhouse gas emissions. Because we know the future is our most powerful resource.

Clean, reliable power. For the future.

opg.com

Documents

Municipal Monitor Q4 2015