Austrom Consulting & ZAP Municipal Consulting CPA 2010 Today…and into the Future Amalgamations and...

Austrom Consulting & ZAP Municipal Consulting CPA 2010

Today…and into the Future

Amalgamations and Dissolutions

GovernancGovernance Reviewe Review


Agenda

1. Review of Legislation 2. History of Amalgamations in Alberta

3. History of Dissolutions

4. Recent Studies 5. Planning Implications of Amalgamations and

Dissolutions


Municipal Government Act

• Amalgamations – Section 100 to 112 of MGA– May be initiated by Minister or Municipality– Minister may initiate if the he/she believes that

the operation would be more effective or efficient

– Must give notice to the municipal authorities– May invite comments from the municipal

authorities– May invite comments from the public– May hold public meetings



• Municipality may initiate by giving written notice to other municipal authorities (usually parties agree to consider amalgamation process together)

• Report on Negotiations to be prepared including summary of public consultation

• No legal requirement for vote in MGA, but all municipal initiated amalgamations have included vote



• Dissolutions – Sections 129 to 134 of MGA• The Minister must undertake a dissolution study

before a municipality is dissolved• The Minister must undertake a study if

– A request is received from the Council of the municipality

– A sufficient petition is received with 30% support of the population



• The Minister may undertake a dissolution study if the Minister believes:– The municipality cannot balance its revenues

with its required expenses– The municipality is no longer viable– The municipality does not meet the

requirements in Sections 78 to 82– Vacancies on a council cannot be filled, or– The dissolution will lead to more effective or

efficient municipal operations



• The Minister, before completing a dissolution study:– Must contact all local authorities that the

Minister considers would be affected by the dissolution and invite them to comment,

– May conduct a public meeting• After completing a dissolution study, the Minister

may hold a vote on the proposed dissolution


• Over the past 15 years several villageshave dissolved in Alberta to become hamlets. The most recent include:– Kinuso (2009)– Thorhild (2009)– Sangudo (2007)– Mirror (2006)

History of Dissolutions


Dissolution Process Issues

• History has shown that the majority of dissolution studies and votes result in the majority of residents opposing dissolution

• Currently the Minister has negative votes before him from dissolution studies for Donalda, Gadsby, Innisfree and Vilna

• Votes will be held in the next two months for New Sarepta and Derwent


• Crowsnest Pass

• Town of Drumheller

• City of Cold Lake

• Wood Buffalo (Fort McMurray)

• Lac La Biche – Lakeland County

• County of Thorhild

History of Regional

Municipalities


Specialized Municipalityof Crowsnest Pass

• Created by Special Act in Jan. 1979 • Formed as Town called the Municipality of

Crowsnest Pass from Towns of Coleman and Blairmore, Villages of Bellevue and Frank, and I.D No. 5


Town of Drumheller

• Amalgamated the City of Drumheller and the M.D. of Badlands to form the Town of Drumheller on October 31, 1997


City of Cold Lake

• Amalgamated the Town of Cold Lake, the Town of Grand Center and by annexation of land from the M.D. of Bonnyville on September 30, 1996


Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo

• Amalgamated Improvement District No. 143 and the City of Fort McMurray to form a specialized municipality having the name "Municipality of Wood Buffalo.”


Lac La Biche County

• Forms a municipal district having the name "Lac La Biche County" by the amalgamation of the Town of Lac La Biche and Lakeland County.


Other Regional Municipalities

• County of Thorhild• Strathcona County• Mackenzie County• Municipal District of Opportunity


Issues Facing Many Towns/Villages in Alberta

1. Ability to attract and retain staff;2. Rising cost of providing services;3. Dependent on residential tax based to fund

municipal operations;4. Limited commercial and industrial tax base;5. Limited financial resources to address rising

costs;


Issues Facing Many Towns/Villages in Alberta

6. Relatively high property tax rates;7. Aging Infrastructure;8. Many property owners are on fixed incomes;9. Most of the municipal equipment is old and

in need to replacement;10. Loss of elevators, railway, etc..


Advantages of Amalgamation

(Regional Government)

• One Stronger Municipality• Service Delivery• Better long term planning• Capital infrastructure• Staffing requirements• Utility Services• Financial savings (1 Council, 1 Administration,

Commissions, Authorities)• Equitable Distribution of Property Tax Base


Why Do Some Votes Succeed?

Why Do Some Votes Fail?


Lakeland CountyTown of Lac La Biche


Black Diamond Turner Valley


Town of Two Hills County of Two HillsVillages of Derwent, Myrnam, Willingdon


Why Should a County Worry about its Towns and

Villages?

• County residents are dependent on their urban neighbours for services, schools, hospitals, etc.

• A strong region needs vibrant towns and villages to attract new businesses

• Eventually most County residents will move into one of the urban centres when they retire

• Everyone benefits over the long term


County Issues Re: Amalgamation

• Staffing, severances, etc.• Council representation/size• Office consolidation• Land title changes/transfer• Policy coordination• Infrastructure


The Small Municipalities

• Sustainability . . . . . What Sustainability?

‘Staff and Councils of small municipalities dutifully completed their Municipal Sustainability Plans” .

. . . . with many projecting to their public that sustainability is at hand . . . Was that the most

prudent thing to do?”


The Small Municipalities

• Land Use Planning left many of them behind in 1995 . . . . Dissolution of the Regional Planning Commissions resulted in many municipalities being without reasonably priced professional advice . . . . .

• In the years following . . . Little long range planning projects were undertaken . . .


Planning Issues Following Dissolution/Amalgamation

• The good . . . .

– The dissolved municipality has a land use bylaw that is somewhat current (10 years old or newer)

– Few land use “variances” exist

– Infrastructure is adequate . . . and inventoried



• The good . . . .– Dissolved municipality to be incorporated

within the Land Use Bylaw as soon as possible following dissolution

– Community SWOT Analysis to be undertaken through engaging the community

– Area Redevelopment Plan to be prepared 12 months following dissolution

– Infrastructure Plan to be prepared 12 months following dissolution



• The bad . . . .– The dissolved municipality has a land use bylaw

that not current (20 years old or newer)– Some land use “variances” exist– Infrastructure is lacking . . . However inventoried

and been repaired where needed



• The bad . . . .– Community SWOT Analysis to be undertaken

through engaging the community– Area Redevelopment Plan to be prepared 12

months following dissolution– Infrastructure Plan to be prepared 12 months

following dissolution– Dissolved municipality to be incorporated

within the Land Use Bylaw upon completion of Plans



• The ugly . . . .– Municipality has a land use bylaw that is really old

(1980’s cookie cutter regional planning commission documents)

– Encroachments, sub-standard serviced lots and non-conforming uses abound . . .

– Infrastructure consists of a patchwork of pipes and roads that are mismatched and sized inappropriately for the community



• The ugly . . . .– Infrastructure Assessment and Plan to be

prepared immediately following dissolution– Community SWOT Analysis to be undertaken

through engaging the community– Area Redevelopment Plan to be prepared 24

months following dissolution– Dissolved municipality to be incorporated

within the Land Use Bylaw upon completion of Plans


Case StudyLac La Biche County• Amalgamation of the Town of Lac La Biche and

Lakeland County effective August 2, 2007• Total population 9,000 . . . . Equalized

Assessment $3,249,088,373 or $360,000 per person

• In comparison . . . The Village of Derwent, currently preparing for a vote on dissolution, has an equalized assessment per capita of $22,600 per person . . . . Clearly there are “haves” and “have nots” in the Province.


Case StudyLac La Biche County• High Priority for the Public was building

recreation and culture facilities• $2,000,000 community hall in Hamlet of Plamondon

(population 375)• $55,000,000 multiplex in Hamlet of Lac La Biche

(population 3,000)• Low Priority for the Public was updating land

use documents• To date no Municipal Development Plan created• Staff still work with two different land use bylaws . .

. Former Town and Former Lakeland County


Case StudyLac La Biche County• What has been learned

- Land Use Planning is as important as building roads and recreation and cultural facilities following amalgamation

- Community Engagement is vital and should not be ignored . . .

- Staffing is critical . . . . You need planning staff with an “urban” set of skill sets to handle issues relating to urban development


Case StudyLac La Biche County• What has been learned

- A new Municipal Development Plan, or alternatively, a new Hamlet Plan, should have prepared within one year following amalgamation or dissolution

- Land Use Bylaw maintenance issues should have been addressed quicker

- Staff need resources to do their jobs . . . Servicing Studies undertaken and standards prepared


Case StudyHamlet of Mirror

• Dissolution of the Hamlet of Mirror into Lacombe County effective January 1, 2004

• Lacombe County engaged its citizens through the preparation of an Area Structure Plan in 2006 and incorporated any necessary amendments into their Land Use Bylaw in 2007



• High Priority for the Public was maintaining “soft services” related to urban life- Library- Community Hall- Community Open Spaces- FCSS Services

• Low Priority for the Public was the tax savings. Town residents, in general, desired that some services be maintained and were willing to pay for them . . .



• What has been learned - Lacombe County proved that community

engagement is successful . . . - When tax rates in Mirror were lowered to the

County’s tax rates, the amount of money collected barely paid to keep the streetlights on . . . . .

- Some sort of equitable levy applied to Mirror properties may have enabled the County to direct funds towards community revitalization projects


Municipalities in Alberta

Cities 64Specialized Municipalities 5Town 109Villages 97Summer Villages 51Improvement Districts 7Total 339


“In the long run, are the smaller towns and villages in Alberta sustainable?

Is Regional Government Inevitable ?

Austrom Consulting & ZAP Municipal Consulting CPA 2010 Today…and into the Future Amalgamations and...

Documents

Transcript of Austrom Consulting & ZAP Municipal Consulting CPA 2010 Today…and into the Future Amalgamations and...