Inter-municipal collaboration and forced amalgamations

1. Inter-municipal collaboration and forced amalgamations A summary of recent experiences in Toronto and Montreal

6. Toronto post-war • Rapidly growing city and 12 suburbs in post-war era • Toronto had run out of developable land to house growing workforce and industry • Suburbs needed to ease growth pressures on city • Suburbs lacked $ for infrastructure • Water, sewage, roads, transit, schools, etc. • Fragmented service delivery • 163 separate municipal contracts • Better coordination and cooperation desired

7. The “Metro” solution (1954) • 1954 - creation of Regional Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (Metro) by Province • Toronto + 12 suburbs = Metro • Two-tiered, federated structure • Viewed as compromise between outright amalgamation and doing nothing • Benefits to Toronto and suburbs • Reduced complex & fragmented services delivery • New workers needed housing, transportation, water, schools, etc. • Stronger region = stronger Toronto economy

8. Cooperation and coordination under Metro system • Metro councillors appointed from municipalities • Metro responsible for water, sewage treatment, major regional roads, transit, social assistance, policing, ambulance, regional parks and regional planning • Municipalities maintained autonomy; responsible for local streets, local parks, recreation, community centres, garbage • Other services shared with Metro (snow removal, seniors housing, childcare, street cleaning)

9. Effectiveness of the Metro government • Generally viewed as successful model of inter-municipal coordination • Achieved objectives of its mandate: water and sewage issues dealt with, new schools built, transit and highway systems built and enhanced, equitable social services delivered throughout region, regional planning established • Distanced from municipalities with creation of directly elected Metro Board – 1988 • Resulted in less inter-muni cooperation • Growth of Greater Toronto Area lessened Metro’s relevance

10. Municipal amalgamation • Six independent municipalities of Metro merged into one new City of Toronto • 2.4 million residents (was 650,000) • Widely unpopular in all municipalities – nobody asked for such a merger • Accompanied by provincial cuts and downloading • Stated rationale for amalgamation • Less waste and duplication of services, more cost efficiencies, fewer bureaucrats • Unstated reasons for amalgamation • Political differences with Toronto councillors • Blunt calls for creation of larger Metro within GTA

11. Assessment of Toronto amalgamation experience • Provincial downloads cloud analysis • Chaotic and costly process • Social and environmental outcomes not an objective of process (social inclusion, regional sustainability, comprehensive planning, etc.) • Cost savings have not materialized • Staffing levels higher, budget deficits ($575 million in 2007) • City government further removed from public • Less accessible than before • Citizen input funneled through Community Councils • Community Councils only advise City Council • Parochialism

12. Assessment of amalgamation (cont.) • City Hall culture does not actively engage public and civil society • Episodic consultations rather than sustained or institutionalized • Limited opportunities to participate in activities or forums with city-wide focus for sustained period • Still no mechanism to coordinate planning and services with broader GTA (5.5 million residents) • Greater Toronto Services Board disbanded • No region-wide growth management strategy • Bedroom communities and sprawl • Deterioration of municipal services

18. Montreal pre-2002 • Two-tiered municipal governance, similar to Toronto with Metro • 28 independent municipalities + Montreal Urban Community island-wide structure • Large discrepancy in municipal services, standards and tax rates on Island of Montreal, as well as in greater region • Montreal wanted greater share of suburban taxes; lobbied Quebec govt for merger • “One island, one city” – Montreal • “Hands off!” - Suburbs

19. New Montreal megacity • Quebec govt legislates municipal mergers across province • 200 cities legislated out of existence - merged • Not expected, not requested, not recommended (except by Montreal Mayor) • Very unpopular in Montreal suburbs • Less controversial in municipalities around province outside Montreal area • Broader region-wide metropolitan governance body also established (Montreal Metropolitan Community)

21. Rationale for forcing municipal mergers • Fiscal equity • Those who benefit from proximity to city and its services should pay “fair share” • More centralized decision-making for metropolitan area • Less competition between municipalities • Increased efficiencies; less fragmentation • Improve quality and consistency of services • Unspoken reason: merge English-speaking suburbs into Montreal megacity to prevent potential future secession from Quebec

22. De-merging process • New Quebec Liberal govt campaign promise to allow merged munis to hold referendum to demerge • 15 of 28 former Island municipalities voted to demerge; regained some – not all former powers and autonomy • Montreal city government now consists of City Council, 19 boroughs and Agglomeration Council

24. Municipal Governance • Montreal City Council • Mayor and 64 members from each of the 19 borough councils • Approves decisions made by borough councils • Responsible for broader urban issues • Borough councils • Mayor and borough councillors elected by residents • Sit on City Council and borough councils • Boroughs manage local services: roads, garbage, parks, recreation, culture, public consultation, local planning

25. Municipal Governance (cont.) • Agglomeration Council - 2006 • Structure created to give representation to de-merged cities proportionate to size (13%) • Mayor of Montreal chairs, appoints 15 city councillors and 15 mayors of de-merged suburbs • Responsible for island-wide services: courts, social housing, homeless issues, transit, water, sewage treatment, etc. • Suburban mayors frustrated by lack of power on council (13 percent of votes)

26. Regional inter-municipal collaboration • Montreal Metropolitan Community (est. 2001) • 82 municipalities, 3.6 million population • Mayors and councillors from around region have weighted votes on council • Responsibilities include regional planning, economic development, social housing, transit planning, regional road network, air quality, wastewater treatment • Funded by contributions from member municipalities • Over half of budget goes towards social and affordable housing programs

27. Assessment of Montreal amalgamation experience • Still a work in progress • Projected cost savings can not be substantiated • City, borough and agglomeration council structure confusing • De-merged municipalities dissatisfied with agglomeration council • Ongoing tinkering with governance structures • More equitable tax and service delivery across Island of Montreal • Borough mayors and councillors close to their constituents and local issues

28. Assessment of Montreal amalgamation experience • More holistic approach to city and region • Responsibility for affordable and social housing spread across region • Quantifiable progress being made • Montreal policies emphasize strong commitment to citizen rights, including public consultation and engagement of civil society in decision-making • Montreal Charter of Rights and Responsibilities • Office of public consultation • Office of ombudsman

29. Lessons from Toronto & Montreal experiences • Forcing municipal mergers not popular or productive • Senior levels of government have different agendas than cities • Public buy-in and participation in process of reforming governments would likely have improved the outcomes • Clearly articulated vision, expectations and outcomes required • Per capita costs tend to increase, not decrease after cities reach a certain size

30. Lessons (cont.) • Big cities tend to be less accessible to citizens • Less sense of ownership, less civic involvement • Tendency towards parochialism in megacity • Inter-municipal consortium model (like Metro) seems to promote more regional thinking, less parochialism • Region-wide cooperation (and structures) essential for variety of reasons • Regional inter-municipal governance structures are ignored and irrelevant without real power

31. Questions/Comments