Towns Task Force Report

The Collective Voice for Nova Scotia Municipalities.

A Path to Municipal

Viability

Towns Task Force

Presentation to UNSM

Spring Workshop

May 11, 2012



Regional Meetings – What we Heard • Presentation well received – no outright

objection to ideas put forward

• General comments included:

– a lot of good ideas/long overdue

– status quo cannot continue/need to find mutual solutions

– recognize towns and rurals impact each other - encouraged

to hear not just a towns caucus issue

– UNSM must lead by example, can't rely on Province to do

it on their own

– look at simple solutions to sell to the public - don't

complicate issues

– Name of Task Force should change to reflect all units


Purpose

• To make recommendations that will

address the many challenges facing Nova

Scotia towns

• All recommendations to be made in

context of the fiscal challenges facing the

Province and municipalities


Members

• Mayor David Corkum (Town of Kentville, Chair)

• Deputy Warden Jimmy MacAlpine (UNSM President)

• Warden Keith Hunter (County of Cumberland)

• Councillor Sandra Statton (District of Lunenburg)

• Councillor Russell Walker (Halifax Regional Municipality)

• Mayor Billy Joe MacLean (UNSM Past President)

• CAO Louis Coutinho (Town of Windsor and AMA

representative)

• Mayor Darian Huskilson (Town of Lockport)

• Mayor Barrie MacMillan (Town of New Glasgow)


Overall Principle

• Best value and fairness for tax payers

regardless of structure

• Note: Task Force does not support

annexation as an appropriate solution to

the challenges facing towns


Principle Achieved through Six

Themes:

1. Municipalities must be viable in the long term

2. Governance changes may be necessary

3. Resolving service issues should be less

confrontational, resulting in more efficient

municipalities

4. Fair tax burden to pay for regional services

5. More use of regional service delivery models

6. Incentives to increase economic growth in

downtowns


1. Municipalities must be viable in

the long term


Viability

RECOMMENDATION

• Increase transparency of the fiscal situation facing municipalities, promote public debate based on solid analysis – Critical indicators published on municipal state, available

for public review and comment

– Introduce a process to require additional studies if issues identified through critical indicators such as high property taxes

– Studies would require public engagement to discuss the issues

– Process to be entrenched in MGA


Comments on Viability

• Will Province cost-share on more detailed

studies?

– Task Force to discuss with Province

• Provide clear definition of viability

– Task Force to develop definition


2. Governance changes may be

necessary


Governance

RECOMMENDATION

• Introduce new mechanisms to facilitate

governance changes while avoiding high costs

and confrontational issues associated with

UARB:

(1) Dissolution and amalgamation

(2) When parties agree

(3) When parties don't agree


Amalgamation and Dissolution

• Introduce new provisions in MGA for more

effective voluntary dissolution and amalgamation

processes

– New Provincial programs to assist with transitional

costs, boundary reviews, etc.

– Develop best practice guides/lessons learned


When Parties Agree

• When parties agree to amalgamate or dissolve,

appoint commissioner to review request and

facilitate agreement

– Commissioner, municipalities, and SNSMR draft

an agreement; public engagement part of the

process

– Agreement ratified by the Province


When Parties do not Agree

• When parties do not agree to governance

changes, one party may request to appoint a

commissioner to facilitate an agreement that

better serves citizens

– Both parties are at the table, information is shared,

aim to reach a solution that meets needs of both

– Public engagement part of the process

– Municipality requesting Commissioner would fund

costs associated with this process

– UARB would be last resort if no agreement reached


Comments on Governance

• Create mechanisms that make it easier for a

town to revert to village status or another type of

governance structure.

– Task Force will explore

• Failed municipalities should become wards of

the Province and not the responsibility of the

neighbouring unit.

– Task Force did not agree


3. Resolving service issues should

be less confrontational, resulting

in more efficient and effective

municipalities


Resolving Service Issues: Dispute

Resolution

• Establish municipal arbitrator program to resolve

existing service issues between units

– Train former Councillors/Administrators

– Have professional arbitrators available if necessary

– All or one municipal unit may request service

– Binding – only for existing significant services

– Arbitration clause mandated for new provincially funded

projects, recommended for all other joint projects


Significant Services Definition

Proposed criteria to determine a significant service

• Large number of non-host municipal users

(30%)

• Service cost at least 10% of host municipal

budget

• No review of cost sharing formula in 3 years

• Arbitrator makes decision based on above

criteria


Comments on Dispute Resolution • Significant Service: Concern about arbitrator for

significant services? What is significant?

• No service is over 10% of the budget as per

significant definition

• Binding: A very powerful tool. Concern about

when it would be used.

• Be careful arbitrator does not become too

expensive

• Task Force supports the necessity of some form

of binding arbitration. Will further explore

“significant”


4. Fair tax burden to pay for

regional services


Fairness

• Task Force strongly believes in the overriding principle: best value and fairness for tax payers regardless of structure

• This means we shouldn’t waste money on inefficient services, and that we take responsibility for paying for services we receive

• Task Force looked at two cases - one for new services and one for existing services


Fair Tax Burden for New Services

• Discussion between municipalities should start early, so that needs of both are recognized

• Joint services may require revenue sharing

• One party may not be forced into taking part, however if a significant number of residents from non-host unit use the service, host unit may require arbitration at a later date


Fair Tax Burden for Existing Services

• Pertains to services provided by towns, rural and

regional municipalities equally

• Identify who benefits from the service through

study, study templates provided by

Province/UNSM

• Those who benefit from the service should pay

– ie: all pay, users pay, or those within a certain

distance of the service would pay, higher user fees

– Other mechanisms?


Comments on Fair Tax Burden

• Determining Benefits: There are economic

advantages/spinoffs to the municipal unit hosting

large facility such as an arena or community

centre. These need to be taken into account.

• User Fees:

– Be careful about overuse of user fees: some services

benefit all and all should contribute, other services

offer clearly defined benefits to individuals and are

more suited to user fees

• Task Force will review


5. More use of regional service

delivery models


Regional Service Delivery Models

• Provide incentives to share services, reach economies of scale, follow best practices to reduce costs to citizens. Examples include:

– Greater provincial funding for projects involving multiple units

– Province require study of shared services as part of application for funding

– Align provincial programs to reward cooperation

– Work with MFC to explore options for regional projects


Regional Service Delivery Models continued

– When an existing development requires infrastructure from an adjacent municipality, allow the costs to be recovered through an area rate levied by the adjacent municipality on the development. Would require agreement by both Councils.

– For new developments, allow a mechanism where the developer pays for costs in adjacent municipality. i.e. infrastructure charges


Regional Planning Models

• Difficult to achieve without legislation, many

competing interests

• Recommend at a minimum municipalities

developing or reviewing MPS must consult with

adjacent municipalities on land just outside

municipal boundary

• In future, look at provincial financial incentives

and/or legislation to encourage more holistic

regional planning models


Comments on Regional Service

Delivery

• Will Province help fund studies/projects that

encourage/facilitate regional service delivery?

– Answer: Task Force to discuss with

Province

• There are a number of good examples of

regional cooperation in Nova Scotia and

elsewhere – need to learn from these

– Task Force will document good examples


6. Incentives to increase economic

growth in downtowns


Business Attraction/Retention Strategies

• Review authority of BIDC’s to determine if new

tools would be helpful

• Enable towns to offer a lower commercial tax

rate in the downtown core defined by geographic

boundaries

• Provide a tax freeze as an incentive to renovate

older commercial buildings in the downtown core

(abatement and/or rebate)



• Review building codes to encourage commercial

and residential redevelopment in downtown core

• Ability to waive building permit fees and

development fees in the downtown area

• Provide financial tools to encourage brownfield

redevelopment – tax reduction over period of

time



• Reinstate Mainstreet Program

• Allow municipal facade programs

• Allow creation of joint development zones

between two municipalities with one residential

and one commercial tax rate

• Allow tax increment financing programs

• Other ideas?


Commercial/Residential Tax Gap

• Task Force does not recommend

mandatory limits on commercial-residential

property tax gap

• However, municipalities need to recognize

this as a growing problem and should

consider lowering commercial tax gap to

promote healthy commercial sector.


Comments on Incentives for

Economic Growth in Downtowns

• Building Codes

– Look at incentives for development on 2nd/3rd story

– Building code safety standards still must be met

• Other

– Look at role of Waterfront Development Corporations in

facilitating downtown revitalization

– Municipality constructs or renovates a building and leases

it back to private sector

• Task Force agrees safety is first concern. Task Force will

consider other suggestions


Outstanding Issues • The Terms of Reference identified a number of

issues that may require further consideration

– Towns lack of room to growth/ development on periphery

of towns: Task Force recommends Economic zones /

revenue sharing / less confrontation. Is this enough?

– Urban Core road issues: Further discussion required with

Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal

– Policing Costs: Discussions underway with Province on

joint committee to explore


Longer Term Strategy

• Task Force recognizes proposed

recommendations will not solve all problems. In

future, consideration must be given to:

– Reviewing roles and responsibilities between

provincial and municipal governments

– Undertaking a commission on municipal

governance/restructuring including better defined

boundaries (similar to Graham Commission)


Next Steps

• Incorporate feedback from regional meetings

and Spring Workshop

• Task Force will prepare report to be distributed

to all mayors, wardens, councillors and CAO’s

for further feedback

• UNSM Board to review and approve final report

from Task Force based on feedback received

from municipal units

• Final recommendations presented at Fall

Conference

• Next steps to be identified


Questions???

Documents

Towns Task Force Report