2016 provincial election - municipal issues ... provincial election - municipal issues backgrounder...

12016 PROVINCIAL ELECTION - MUNICIPAL ISSUES BACKGROUNDER - SASKATCHEWAN URBAN MUNICIPALITIES ASSOCIATION


MAJOR

RICHMOUND

CONS UL

LON ERO C K

EATONIA

MARE NGO

SCEPTRE

MENDHA M

BURSTALL

FLAXCOM BE

SMILEY

PRELATE

GOLDENPRAIRIE

LUS ELAND

PRIMATE

SENLAC

KERROBERT

UNITY

MAIDSTONE

LASHBURN

DENZIL

TOMPK INS

WASE CA

COLEV ILLE

LANCER

ABBEY

CARMICHAEL

FRONTIER

NETHE RHILL

CUTKNIFE

LOONLAKE

PAYNTON

MERVIN

DE LM AS

TRAMPINGLAKE

LIVE LO NG

BROCK

HAZLE T

EDAM

GOODSOIL

PLENTY

ST.GE O R GE ' S

HILL

FISK E

PENNANT

LANDIS

CR YS TALBAY- SU N SE T

WE BB

BRACKEN

MAKWA

M O WE RYBEA C H

SO U THWATE R HE N

LAK E

GLASLYN

CO C H IN

GR E IG LAK E

FAIR H OL M E

DORINTOSH

WY M AR K

WALDECK

ZEA LANDIA

GREENLAKE

VALMARIE

DENHOLM

STE WARTVALLEY

BEA VE RFLAT

NEVILLE

SUCCESS

WISETON

RICHARD

RABBITLAKE

SPR U C EBAY

TES SIER

HODGEV ILLE

DINSM ORE

SPEERS

LUCKYLAKE

HERBERT

HARRIS

BEAUVAL

LEOVILLE

KINLE Y

PONTEIX

BEECHY

RUSHLAKE

KINCA ID

MORSE

DE M AIN E

M ULLI NG A R

M AYFA IR

HAFFORD

SLEDLAKE

CO TE AUBEA C H

BRODERICKGLENS IDE

KRYDOR

ERNFOLD

BATE M A N

MACRORIE

RIVERHURST

DEBDEN

LANGHAM

CHAPLIN

MARCELIN

M ISTU S INN E

CENTRALBUTTE

LAFLE CHE

DALMENY

GRAVELBOURG

WOODMOUNTAIN

SHAM ROCK

PH ILLIPSGR O V E

LAIRD

HAWARDEN

LEASK

THO D E

CANWOOD

LOREB URN

NE UH O R ST

HANLEY

STRONGFIELD

NE SS LINLAK E

ROSTHERN

CO N G RE SS

KENAS TON

MORTLACH

MOSSBANK

ROCK GLEN

CA RO N

LIMERICK

SC O UTLAK E

TUGASKE

CODE RRE

LISIE UX

HO LB EIN

M AC D OW ALL

ST.ISID O RE -D E- BE LLEV UE

PRUD'HOMME

DAVIDSON

BROWNLEE

KEELE R

WILLOWBUNCH

CR U TWE LL

ALVENACUDWORTH

NO R THGR O V E

CARONPORT

CHAMBERLAIN

HO E Y

TIM BE RBAY

WE YAK WIN

IMP ERIAL

PAR KV IEW

LIBERTY

CORONACH

PLUNKETT

OR M IS TO N

HA G EN

BAYA R D

FINDLATER

MEATHPARK

PADDOCKWOOD

DISLE Y

DRINKWATER

BRIERCREST

DILKE

BIGBEA VE R

CLAY BA N K

WILCOX

PILGER

NOKOMIS

OGEM A

PAR R Y

WE IRDALE

GOVAN

DRAKE

LANIGAN

BUENAVISTA

CEYLON

LUM SDENBEACH

ANNAHEIM

PANGMAN

BULYEA

EARLGREY

LAKELENORE

SPA LDING

GR O N LID

YELLOWGRASS

LAKEALMA

VALPARAISO

QUILLLAKE

KAN D AH A R

STARCITY

CUPAR

GA R RIC K

RIDGEDALE

LOVE

BEA U BIE R

QUINTONPUNNICHY

BRABA NT

WHITEFOX

ELFROS

ED G ELE Y

QU'APP ELLE

WIS HA RT

TRIBUNE

CODE TTE

HE ND O N

M O ZAR T

LEROS S

ARCHERWILL

WADENA

KYL EM O R E

LIPTON

FOAMLAKE

MONTMARTRE

KELVINGTON

MARGO

ROSEVALLEY

MIDALE

LINTLAW

LES LIE B EA CH

FOSSTON

TUF FN ELL

ITUNA

HALBRITE

FILLMORE

ABERNETHY

HUBBARD

KU RO K I

MIS TATIM

CH ELA N

BJORKDALE

LEMBE RG

CREELMA N

ROCHEPERCEE

WOLSELE Y

GOODEVE

WOLLASTONLAKE

HEWARD

WINDTHORST

NEUDORF

FENWOOD

DUFF

CO R N ING

SU M M ER B ER RY

OK LA

HA ZELDE LL

SHEHO

DUBUC

KIP LING

SU NS ET BE AC H

THEODORE

SPRINGS IDE

WALDRON

EBENE ZE R

ENDEAVOUR

US HE R VILLE

KIS BEY

KET CH E N

BUCHANAN

BANGOR

HUDSONBAY

CR YS TALLAK E

WHITE WOOD

CANORA

ALAME DA

PEL ICA N SH O RE S

TAD M O RE

FROBISHER

STE NEN

ATWATER

KENOSEELAKE

AM S TER D AM

LITTLESWA N

RIV ER

CHURCHBRIDGE

ESTERHAZY

HYAS

ER WO O D

NORQUAY

MANOR

WAWOTA

GLENEWEN

CA NN IN G TO NLAK E

YARBO

SWA NPLA IN

TOGO

ROCA NVILLE

RU N NY M ED E

TANTALLON

BEL LEG A RD E

MARYFIELD

CALDER

CARIE VALE

SPY HILL

MACNUTT

STORTHOAKS

WE LWY N

GE RALD

M AR TIN SO N ' SBEA C H

MIDDLELAKE

BENGOUGH

NEILB URG

WATSON

GRENFELL

LEADER

DA RLI NG SBEA C H

BR AN C EP ETH

MARQUIS

ST.LOUIS

PATU AN A K

TUR N O RLAK E

WE STV IEW

LESTOCK

BALCARRES

SANDYBAY

SO U THLAK E

SU N V ALLE Y

M ICH E LVILLA G E

ETT ER SBEA C H

FLEMING

MEDS TEA D

AIRRONGE

LITTLEFISH IN G

LAK E

NORTHPORTAL

M ISS INIP E

BIGGAR

GA INSBOROUGH

BLACKPOINT

FAIR YGLE N

DODS LAND

WALDHEIM

CABRI

EASTEND

INVERMAY

WY NYARD

JA N S B AY

STANLEYMIS SION

STO N YRA PID S

GLENAVON

PINEHOUSE

ENGLE FE LD

AQ U AD EO

GA RSONLAKE

SOUTHEND

BEARCREEK

MARS DEN

DESCHARMELAKE

CAMS ELLPORTAGE

URANIUMCITY

NIPAWIN

EVE R G RE ENAC RE S

SU NS ET VIE WBEA C H

BREDENB URY

WATROUS

FRE N CH M A NBU TTE

YOUNG

EDENWOLD

PR INC E

FAIRLIGHT

GO O DSPI RIT

AC RE S

OUTLOOK

FO RT SA N

AR LIN GT O NBEA C H

ROSETOWN

PREECEVILLE

ST.BENEDICT

FRANCIS

MARS HALL

BU RG ISBEA C H

SCOTT

BALGONIE

TURTLE FORD

GOODWATER

TUXFORD

GULLLAKE

GRANDCOULEE

MILESTONE

LA LOCHE

BIRCHHILLS

VANGUARD

TUR TLE LA KESO U TH BAY

WE EKES

SIM PSON

BETHUNE

RADIS SON

PENSE

HEPBURN

DO R ELAK E

ALBERTVILLE

ASQUITH

WE ST E ND

DELIS LE

WAPE LLA

MILDE N

ESTON

CARNDUFF

GRAYSON

PERDUE

CLIMA X

BUFFA LONARROWS

BRUNO

PARADISEHILL

PILOTBUTT E

ROULEAU

PAS Q UALAK E

ASSINIBOIA

MANK OTA

BIGRIVER

SHELLBROOK

SEMANS

STOCKHOLM

ST. GREGOR

ST.WALBURG

EXN E R' S TWIN B AYSM O OS E B AY

EYEBROW

TISDALE

MARK INCH

CLAVET

FORGET

ELROS E

REDVERS

CRAVE N

BIR D' S PO IN T

RAYMORE

SMEATON

SHAUNAVON

KENNEDY

LEBRET

STURGIS

MAPLECREEK

M ELVIL LE B EA CH

KAMSACK

WAKAW

KYLE

FOXVALLEY

CRAIK

BROADVIEW

AVONLEA

B-S AY-TA H

MCLEAN

ELBOW

BLAINELAKE

MACK LIN

LLOYDMINS TE R

WAK AW LAK E

BELLEPLAINE

DIS TR ICT O F KAT EP WA

SPIRITWOOD

M AN ITO UBEA C H

VANSCOY

AYLESBURYMELVILLE

M CC O R D

OSLER

CA ND LELAK E

DUNDURN

MINTON

LANGE NBURG

CUMBERLANDHOUS E

MARTENSVILLE

MEADOWLAKE

ESTEVA N

CADILLAC

RUDDELL

BORDEN

HUMBOLDT

REGINA

DUCKLAKE

BAR R IERFO RD

HIT CH C O CKBAY

FORTQU'APP ELLE

TO BINLAK E

ILE-A-LA-CROSSE

HO R SE SH O EBAY

OS AGE

CH ITE KLAK E

ABERDEEN

PR AIR IERIV ER

LAMPM AN

ZELMA

ARCOLA

TORQUAY

ALIDA

WILKIE

TAYLO RBEA C H

MOOS EJAW

SOUTHEY

MACOUN

LA RONGE

SH IELD S

BIE NFAIT

MAY MONT

KINDE RSLEY

PIE RCELAND

INDIANHEAD

RAMA

MUENSTER

WARMAN

KILLALY

RADVILLE

CHOICELAND

PRINCEALBERT

STOUGHTONWE YBURN

SHELLLAKE

OX BOW

LUM SDEN

SASKATOON

PELICANNARROWS

HAZENMORE

KO PP ' SKO VE

EVE R G RE ENBR IG HT SA ND

MEOTA

CONQUEST

PEB BL EBAY E

PEL ICA NCO V E PARKSIDE

BEA VE RCR EE K

ALLAN

COLONSAY

BLADWORTH

MEACHAM

VIS COUNT

HOLDFAS T

CR YS TALSPR IN G S

NO R TH SID E

GR A ND V IEWBEA C H

M ES KA NA W

BEATTY

STRASBOURG

SILTON

LEROY

DUVAL

JANSE N

NAICA M

DAFOE

GR AY

PLEAS ANTDALE

MELFORT

LANG

SN O WD EN

KR O NA U

RIC ET O N

DYSART

VIB ANKDAV IN

BAN K EN D

KELLIHER

KENDAL

PORCUPINEPLAIN

CH O R NE Y B EA CH

SINTALUTA

ARBORFIELD

PEE BL ES

CA ND IA C

GR E EN SP O T

OT TH O N

SALTCOATS

CREIGHTON

RHEIN

PELLYARRAN

FLIN FLON

NO R THWE YB UR N

WE LDON

TUR TLE LA KELOD G E

ELB OW LA KE

BRADWELL

CHRISTOP HERLAKE

SEDLEY

REGINABEACH

MOOS OM IN

ZENONPARK

DENARE BE ACH

VONDA

TRO S SA C HS

CO LE SD ALE PA RK

BAL ON E BE AC H

CU D SA SK WABEA C H

KINISTINO

SYLV AN IA

TWAY

EC HO B AY

BLU M EN TH A L

NE UA N LAG E

HAGUE

MCTAGGA RT

AYLSHA MBIG SH E LL

ELSTOW

ODESSA

CARLYLE

CARROT RIVER

ST. BRIEUX

ST. J O SE PH S

107°W

53°N

49°N

54°N

50°N

51°N

57°N

59°N

58°N

52°N

102°W105°W 103°W106°W

109°W110°W108°W

104°W

55°N

105°W107°W

59°N

103°W

56°N

102°W

49°N

104°W

57°N

109°W

58°N

50°N

108°W

54°N

110°W

53°N

52°N

51°N

106°W

55°N

56°N

UV21

UV4

UV13

UV35

UV6

UV55

UV8

UV3

UV48

UV9

UV18

UV32

UV47

UV20

UV39

UV19

UV26

UV37

UV7

UV42

UV22

UV44

UV49

UV58

UV52

UV4

UV36

UV34UV28

UV30

UV955

UV155

UV914

UV905

UV102

UV918

UV925

UV903

UV14

UV40

UV31

UV11

UV3

UV41

UV23

UV6

UV8

UV5

UV9

UV2

UV2

UV2

UV13

UV9

UV19

UV33

UV80

UV38

UV13

UV36

UV18

UV2

UV13

UV19

UV43

UV13

UV18

UV4

UV358

UV18

UV18

UV13

UV334 UV13

UV271UV21

UV18UV13

UV2

UV18

UV2

UV33

UV350

UV37

UV1

UV37

UV18

UV36

UV377

UV35

UV21

UV39

UV43

UV18

UV21

UV6

UV361

UV18

UV1

UV8

UV357

UV47

UV48

UV8

UV361

UV18

UV9

UV1

UV369

UV201

UV10

UV306

UV57

UV5

UV5

UV16

UV16

UV15

UV16

UV318

UV48

UV13

UV13

UV39UV18

UV47

UV9

UV47

UV48

UV9

UV49

UV49UV9 UV8

UV980

UV983

UV982

UV981

UV980

UV9

UV983

UV3UV3

UV55

UV9

UV123

UV167

UV106

UV135

UV135

UV911

UV106

UV102

UV905

UV905

UV914

UV165

UV165

UV910

UV935

UV165

UV2

UV915

UV102

UV2

UV102

UV969

UV165

UV912

UV106UV927

UV920UV913 UV912

UV120

UV106

UV55

UV6

UV35

UV35

UV255

UV55

UV123

UV23

UV335

UV23

UV38UV349

UV310

UV35

UV35

UV16

UV6UV20

UV22

UV35

UV310

UV15

UV20

UV20

UV35

UV210

UV56

UV1

UV339

UV2

UV11

UV301

UV364

UV363

UV367

UV42

UV19UV42

UV1

UV363

UV58

UV1

UV379

UV332

UV32

UV37

UV1

UV728

UV371

UV321

UV21

UV44

UV342

UV15

UV42

UV7

UV16

UV21

UV316

UV55

UV155UV916

UV21

UV16UV29

UV16

UV376

UV943

UV24

UV40

UV926

UV2

UV4

UV317

UV31UV374

UV17

UV3

UV55

UV955

UV903

UV40

UV946

UV51

UV21

UV26

UV12

UV21

UV909

UV926

UV40

UV26

UV945

UV378

UV265

UV324

UV908

UV4

UV919

UV2

UV3

UV304

UV3

UV922

UV55

UV955

UV942

UV956

UV20

UV24

UV302

UV924

UV4

UV41

UV155

UV263

UV312

UV924

UV11

UV3

UV3

UV55

UV12

UV943

UV51

UV25

UV303

UV51

UV5

UV302

UV307

UV12

UV240

UV21

UV5

UV55

UV355

UV14

UV120

UV7

UV2

UV212

UV2

UV2

UV342

UV19

UV2

UV354

UV15

UV365

UV45

UV334

UV15

UV219

UV44

UV45

UV45

UV306

UV11

UV15

ARM RIVER

ATHABASCA

BATOCHE

BIGGAR-SASK

VALLEY

CANNINGTON

CANORA-PELLY

CARROT RIVERVALLEY

CUMBERLAND

CUT KNIFE-TURTLEFORD

CYPRESSHILLS

ESTEVAN

HUMBOLDT-WATROUS

INDIAN HEAD-MILESTONE

KELVINGTON-WADENA

KINDERSLEY

LAST MOUNTAIN-TOUCHWOOD

LLOY

DMIN

STER

MEADOWLAKE

MELFORT

MELVILLE-SALTCOATS

MOOSOMIN

ROSETOWN-ELROSE

ROSTHERN-SHELLBROOK

SWIFTCURRENT

THEBATTLEFORDS

LUMSDEN-MORSE

WEYBURN-BIG

MUDDY

WOOD RIVER

YORKTON

SASKATCHEWAN RIVERS

REGINAWA SC ANA

PLAIN S

MARTENSVILLE-WARMAN

SASKATOONSTONEBRIDGE-

DAKOTA

The 2016 Provincial elecTionSaskatchewan voters will head to the polls on Monday, April 4, 2016 for the province’s 28th general election. Under law, the writ must drop between 34 and 27 days before Election Day, which means it will be called sometime between March 1 and 8, 2016.

When the election is called, the current Legislature will be dissolved and candidates for all political parties will have four to five weeks (depending on when the writ is dropped) to communicate with the electorate.

There are currently 58 seats, or constituencies, in Saskatchewan. To reflect the province’s growing population, the number of seats will increase to 61 during the 2016 provincial election. The provincial Constituency Boundaries Commission drew up a new political map in 2012, which takes effect in this election and includes three brand new constituencies.The current standing in the provincial legislature:

48 seats – Saskatchewan Party (in power since 2007)9 seats – New Democratic Party1 seat – Vacant

Urban MUniciPaliTies and The elecTionUrban municipalities are on the front lines of Saskatchewan’s growing economy — they provide the foundation for the growth our province has been experiencing over the last decade. Our cities, towns, villages, resort villages, and northern municipalities provide core services that are essential to our quality of life. These include the infrastructure and services we rely on and use every day:

• safe drinking water; • wastewater management; • streets and bridges; • police and fire services; • snow clearing; • public transit; • recreation, arts, and culture facilities and programming; • economic and community development; and• garbage and recycling collection/processing.

The success of Saskatchewan is inextricably linked to the success of our municipalities. More than 77 per cent of the population lives in the province’s cities, towns, villages, resort villages, and northern municipalities. When those communities do well, so

PRINCE

OF

WAL

ESD

R

3ND AVE N AVO

NH U RST DR

ARENS RD

OLD

BR

OAD

ST

PIN

KIE

RD

ALBE

RT

ST

13TH AVE

ARCOLA AVE

PAR

K ST

DEWDNEY AVE

9TH AVE N

HILL AVENUE

23RD AVE

OSL

ER S

T

CO

UR

TNEY

ST

WIN

NIP

EG S

T

FIN

ES D

R

THOMSON AVE

CAM

PBEL

L ST

PASQ

UA

ST

ARMOUR RD

RING

RD

FLEE

T ST

CO

UR

TNEY

ST

LEW

VAN

DR

25TH AVE

RING

RD

PRIN

CE

OF

WAL

ES D

RRING RD

DEWDNEY AVE

VICTORIA AVE

ROSS AVE

MC

CAR

THY

BLVD

1ST AVE N

RING RD

PASQ

UA

ST

WO

OD

LAN

D G

RO

VE D

R

WascanaLake

Wascana Creek

Wascana Creek

QU

EEN

ST

HILL AVE

BRO

AD S

T

HILL BLVDLAKESHOREDR

BEDFORD AVE

CAN

NO

N S

T

CO

LEM

AN C

R

ALBE

RT

ST

WIN

NIP

EG S

T

6

1

730

46

11

33

1

6

REGINACORONATION

PARK

REGINAGARDINER PARK

REGINADOUGLAS

PARK

REGINAELPHINSTONE-

CENTRE

REGINALAKEVIEW

REGINANORTHEAST

REGINA ROCHDALE

REGINAROSEMONT

REGINAUNIVERSITY

REGINAWALSHACRES

REGINA PASQUA

REGINA WASCANA

PLAINS

LUMSDEN-MORSE

LUMSDEN-MORSE

REGINAWASCANA

PLAINS

ISABELLA ST E

BRIA RWOOD RD

LOUISE ST

PRI MRO SE

DR

CH

APPE

LLD

R

ADELAIDE ST E

HE RITAGE CR

PINEHOUSE DR

8TH ST E

COLLEGE DR

IDYL

WYL

D D

R N

CIRCLE DR

RAN

GE

RD

. 305

0

HU

GH

ES D

R

FAIRLIG

HT DR

BERINI DR

WA

NU

SKEW

IN R

D

CIRCLE DR

CIR

CLE

DR

WA

RM

AN

RD

CIRCLE DR

LOR

NE

AV

E

LOW

E R

D

24TH ST E

TAYLOR ST E

115TH ST

CLA

REN

CE

AVE

S

TAYLOR ST E

BOYC

HU

K D

R

TAYLOR ST E

8TH ST E

33RD ST W

CIRCLE DRCLAYPOOL DR

Sout

hSa

skat

chew

a nR

ive r

South Saskatchewan River

South

Saska

tchewan River

BURMA RD

11TH ST W

FAIR

MO

NT

DR

MAT

HE

SON

DR

MASSEY DR

NORTHUMBE

RLAND

AVE

MILTONST

AIR

POR

T D

R

EAS

TLAK

E AV

E

MA

CKI

NN

ON

AVE

S

LOU I SE

AVE

ARLI

NG

TON

AVE

MC

KER

CH

ER

DR

BR

IAR

VALE

RD

20TH ST W

AVE

I S

19TH ST W

AVE

F S

17TH ST W

SPADINA CR W

38TH ST W

33RD ST W

32ND ST W

AVE

I N

13TH ST E

WIG

GIN

S A

VE

S

UV16

UV41

UV219

UV7

UV5

UV14

UV12

UV16

UV11

SASKATOON CENTRE

SASKATOONEASTVIEW

SASKATOONFAIRVIEW

SASKATOONCHURCHILL-WILDWOOD

SASKATOON MEEWASIN

SASKATOONNORTHWEST

SASKATOONNUTANASASKATOON

RIVERSDALE

SASKATOONSILVERSPRING-SUTHERLAND

SASKATOONSOUTHEAST

SASKATOONUNIVERSITY

SASKATOONWILLOWGROVE

SASKATOON WESTVIEW

SASKATOON STONEBRIDGE-DAKOTA

SASKATOON STONEBRIDGE-DAKOTA

4 2016 PROVINCIAL ELECTION - MUNICIPAL ISSUES BACKGROUNDER - SASKATCHEWAN URBAN MUNICIPALITIES ASSOCIATION

does the province. The province has a vested interest in urban municipalities that are a great place to work, play, and live.

Every year, Saskatchewan’s urban municipalities invest more than $1.2 billion into the provincial economy through spending on infrastructure, programs, and services. These expenditures are wide ranging and cover nearly all types of goods and services.

The majority of Saskatchewan’s growth can be attributed to the population and economic growth that occurs in our urban municipalities. In the last eight years, Saskatchewan has incorporated three new cities, each with at least 5,000 residents: Martensville, Meadow Lake, and Warman. In that time, we have also welcomed 135,935 people — enough people to fill the equivalent of more than 27 new cities.

Urban municipalities only collect eight cents of every tax dollar and have a limited ability to bring in revenue beyond property taxes and own-source revenues. Municipalities are also bound by legislation to run a balanced operating budget. Any capital borrowing beyond their established debt limit requires approval from the Saskatchewan Municipal Board. As a result, municipalities alone cannot support the incredible growth in their communities and rely on the province to broaden their revenue base.

Both municipal revenue sharing and infrastructure funding give municipalities access to another form of revenue. This grant support from the provincial government helps provide the services and infrastructure vital to growing the economy and keeping up with that growth; it supports Saskatchewan’s economic, environmental, cultural, and social quality of life goals.

We value the partnership we’ve developed with the province over the last decade. This collaborative relationship has resulted in provincial funding that supports municipal operational and capital expenditures. But there is still much work to do.

We want to continue being partners in the growth of our Saskatchewan. However, to do so, we need a provincial commitment to permanence on both municipal revenue sharing and infrastructure funding.

During the 2016 provincial election, the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association (SUMA) is calling on all provincial parties to present platforms that: a) commit to a permanent municipal revenue sharing agreement; and b) commit to a Made-in-Saskatchewan infrastructure program that is permanent, long-term, sustainable, and predictable.

This package provides key messages and background information on these two issues:

1) Municipal Revenue Sharing (funding for operational expenses) 2) Infrastructure Funding (funding for capital expenses)

Under each section you will find items marked as wins, fixes, and needs where applicable.

WINS: We see progress and are pleased with these results.FIXES: We believe the provincial government must revisit or reverse these decisions because of a negative impact on municipalities.NEEDS: We would like to see these changes, as they would have a positive impact on our communities.

This information will ensure you are well prepared to discuss and debate these issues with candidates and your residents.

SUMA will provide additional tools for members during the election campaign, including example letters to the editor and candidates, questions you can ask during local debates, a platform grid containing all political parties’ stances on our key issues (Saskatchewan Party, New Democratic Party, Liberals, and Green Party), regular updates on issues through email and our website, plus shareable social media content through Facebook and Twitter.


MUniciPal revenUe sharinGHISTORICAL CONTEXT“[Saskatchewan mayors and councillors] wanted a new municipal operating grant, one based on the notion that urban governments provided services to citizens on behalf of the provincial government and, consequently, required a share of provincial revenues to sustain these core operations.” (Renegotiating Municipal Funding: The Case for Saskatchewan, Laurent Mougeot, Public Sector Digest, September 2012)

The first revenue sharing program was introduced in 1978 to support municipal governments and service delivery across Saskatchewan. It provided municipalities with annual unconditional operating grants for nearly 30 years.

The premise behind revenue sharing was that local governments would receive a source of financing that reflected the revenues of the province. The program was not always consistent, however, with the amount of funding flattening out in the late 1980s, dropping significantly in the early 1990s, then being capped for a number of years in the late 1990s, before being built up again in the early 2000s.

During the mid-2000s, SUMA’s members shared the opinion that the program needed to be strengthened if it was to continue to meet its original goals and objectives — especially since the funding didn’t account for growth in provincial revenues or the impact of inflation and other economic factors on municipal expenditures. SUMA members wanted a larger program that was long-term, predictable, and sustainable.

To get their message across to the province as effectively as possible, SUMA prepared to launch a public campaign in 2006. The province learned of the campaign before it launched, and committed to meeting with SUMA’s Executive Committee to discuss the principles of a new revenue sharing program.

“While funding would remain unconditional … the formula would ensure that provincial contributions would reflect provincial interests. Funding would be tied to the economy, and the parties would share good times and bad. All sectors would recourse the work teams, bringing the highest competencies to the table. Most importantly, the program would be predictable and long-term.” (Source: Renegotiating Municipal Funding: The Case for Saskatchewan)

Working groups from all sectors worked diligently to develop the key components and shared interests that would ultimately form the basis of a new relationship between the province and municipal governments. A new government was elected in 2007 and committed to continuing the work towards a new revenue sharing formula.

Cities identified the main areas of municipal service delivery that fit with provincial interests (i.e., policing; highways; recreation, arts, and culture; community and economic development; and transit). Work then moved to quantifying the costs of the services that were considered to be of shared interest. At the end of the day, research demonstrated that these costs were much more significant than anticipated and the total amount was close to one point of the Provincial Sales Tax (PST).


At the SUMA Convention in 2009, the provincial government announced the Municipal Operating Grant (MOG), a brand-new municipal revenue sharing formula based on the premise that Saskatchewan’s municipalities would receive revenue sharing equivalent to one point of the PST (phased in with 90 per cent of one point in the 2009-10 fiscal year and one full point in the 2010-11 fiscal year). It was agreed that PST captures many elements of our economy, including the sale of construction material, disposable income, and inflation.

This marked a major milestone in the relationship between municipalities and the provincial government. It was an acknowledgement that many municipal services help achieve provincial policy goals and initiatives, and as a result, should receive provincial funding. Over the last 10 years, urban municipalities have relied on revenue sharing to use to support shared-interest services.

Table 1.0 on Page 7 summarizes the annual municipal revenue sharing received by cities, towns, villages, resort villages and northern municipalities from the province since 2007.

While this new agreement has been a significantly positive development in the fiscal relationship between municipalities and the province, one key piece is missing: permanence. Current legislation gives the Minister of Government Relations the power to take away or alter grants, with little formal process.

When oil prices dipped in 2014, provincial media reported that “everything was on the table” for the province in the lead up to the 2015-16 provincial budget. SUMA and our members were clearly concerned that this statement included municipal revenue sharing and we met with government officials to express our concerns. Government officials would neither confirm nor deny if revenue sharing would be cut. As a result, SUMA advocated for our members — both in private meetings and in the media — asking the provincial government to honour its promise to share one point of the PST with municipalities. Ultimately, the provincial government maintained its commitment to revenue sharing for the 2015-16 provincial budget.

While the revenue sharing experience in 2015 ended positively, it illustrates the need to update provincial legislation so the municipal revenue sharing agreement is both unconditional and permanent. Urban municipalities rely on predictable revenue sharing to provide the services that a growing province needs.


Table 1.0 — Annual Municipal Revenue Sharing for Cities, Towns, Villages, Resort Villages and Northern Municipalities

Wins1) REvENuE SHARINg PROgRAmSUMA members applauded the revenue sharing program when it was introduced in 2009 because it created a predictable, sustainable, unconditional, and long-term solution to a decades’ old problem.

2) muNICIPAL/PROvINCIAL PARTNERSHIPThe revenue sharing program is the foundation of the provincial/municipal partnership in Saskatchewan – our pact to encourage and foster growth together.

Revenue sharing as it exists today was developed after a long process involving the government and the municipal sector. The committee engaged in this process tirelessly examined the costs associated with the operations of municipalities: policing, fire, transit, economic development, recreation, community development, and environmental services.

This partnership represents a solid foundation for growth.

3) mODEL FOR THE NATIONMany other Canadian jurisdictions are currently looking at our model to guide their interests in establishing similar revenue sharing programs.

QUOTABLE: “The aspect that municipalities and provinces are finding interesting and innovative is that the revenue sharing formula we developed together, in full partnership with the municipal sector in Saskatchewan, is designed to grow with the economy. It is a strong signal of our commitment to working together with municipalities, through our government-to-government partnership. It also helps illustrate the Saskatchewan Advantage, where people benefit directly from a strong economy.” – Former Saskatchewan Municipal Affairs Minister Darryl Hickie, Government of Saskatchewan News Release “Province’s Revenue Sharing Approach Gains National Interest,” June 3, 2011


4) REFLECTS PROvINCIAL INTERESTSince the revenue sharing program’s inception, significant funding has gone to local governments to help deliver the daily services needed to provide a high standard of living. This funding is intended to reflect the value of the provincial interest in delivering municipal services.

5) PREDICTAbILITyUltimately, the government recommended that allocating one full PST point was the best way to fund revenue sharing. To ensure the predictability of the program, the government decided to calculate the overall amount of funding based on the amount collected from the second preceding fiscal year. This has since been entrenched in regulations.

QUOTABLE: “We are working with our municipal partners to keep Saskatchewan growing and moving forward. The new funding formula provides a predictable, sustainable way to ensure municipalities know the amount they will receive in the coming years. This will help municipalities with their future planning as they work to improve their communities and the great quality of life we all enjoy in Saskatchewan.” – Premier Brad Wall, Government of Saskatchewan News Release, “Government Keeps Revenue Sharing Promise,” January 31, 2011.

Urban municipalities were fully aware of the risks and benefits of this arrangement — specifically that there might be times when a downward adjustment would occur because of a slow economy. Urban municipalities accepted this scenario in part because as partners in growing the province, we agreed that municipalities should also absorb some of the effects of a weak economy.

Additionally, the predictability of the program removed any pre-budget lobbying for funding. This makes annual budget forecasting much simpler for municipalities, especially because municipal fiscal years begin in January, and the provincial budget does not come down until March.

6) uNCONDITIONALRevenue sharing is an unconditional grant to local governments. While the province has suggested that municipalities can use the funding to invest in infrastructure, this was not the intent of the revenue sharing program.


FiXes1) mAkE REvENuE SHARINg PERmANENT THROugH CHANgES TO LEgISLATION.The current revenue sharing formula is supposed to be predictable (tied to the economy) and long term.

However, recent examples demonstrate it is not as permanent as urban municipalities would like. As it stands right now, the provincial government can easily modify the program without consultation with or notice to municipalities.

For example, revenue sharing was frozen in the 2010-11 fiscal year at 2009-10 levels, even though it was expected to grow that year from $167 million to $221 million. In late 2014, the provincial government suggested that it would be frozen again in the 2015-16 fiscal year. SUMA worked tirelessly to ensure this did not occur, as it went against the principles of the program and the spirit of partnership.

To ensure the security of the revenue sharing into the future, the government needs to commit to a permanent program.

2) STOP uSINg REvENuE SHARINg AS AN EXCuSE TO DOWNLOAD PROvINCIAL RESPONSIbILITIES ONTO muNICIPALITIES. Revenue sharing is intended to reflect the provincial government’s interest in municipalities providing critical, core services fundamental to our quality of life. The program is not intended to pay for services that are the responsibility of the provincial government.

Over the last few years, SUMA has seen a gradual shift of responsibilities from provincial to municipal governments — particularly to urban governments.

health careCommunities are expected to provide a local contribution of 20 per cent towards the construction of health facilities. In some cases, they are also paying for furnishing and equipping the facility. Many cities and towns end up paying much more than that, as other municipalities in the region are not required to contribute to a regional facility.

A lack of doctors in smaller centres has also led many urban governments to provide significant financial incentives to attract and retain medical practitioners in their communities.

educationUnder a new provincial government policy, municipal land for new schools is to be acquired at no cost to school divisions or the province. This leaves the cost of the land squarely on the shoulders of the municipality.

The province controls the education mill rate. No increase has been applied to this tax tool to reflect the cost of land for schools since the transfer of property taxation to the Ministry of Education. These revenue shortfalls should not be the burden of property-tax payers through the municipal tax base.

Para-TransitThe cost of providing para-transit services continues to increase. The Saskatchewan Disability Strategy released in June 2015 calls for a broader, better-integrated transit system for people with disabilities. Meanwhile, provincial grants for this service remain woefully insufficient. As an example, the province currently provides less funding to the entire province per year than the City of Regina spends on its para-transit system annually.

Pest controlDespite a provincial interest in health and the environment, pest control is downloaded to urban governments. Rural municipalities benefit from expanding programs designed to help eliminate rats, wild boar and beavers, but urban municipalities must address the environmental concerns of Dutch Elm disease and control mosquito populations to help prevent West Nile virus without any assistance from the province.

affordable housingIn the absence of a strong provincial program, many urban governments have had to develop their own programs for affordable and social housing.

disaster MitigationThe province shares the cost of disaster recovery through the Provincial Disaster Assistance Program and for flood mitigation through the Emergency Flood Damage Reduction Program. However, there is no funding available to municipalities for all-hazard disaster mitigation and emergency planning. This means that they are constantly in a reactive position, trying to rebuild after a disaster, rather than working to prevent the damage in the first place.


librariesProvincial contributions to the Saskatchewan Integrated Library System have been frozen, while costs continue to increase year over year. The result is more and more of the cost being borne by urban municipalities.

Motor vehicle collision responseMany municipal fire departments attend motor vehicle collisions to provide services, including accident victim extraction. SGI does compensate fire departments, but at a fraction of the cost of providing the service. Motor vehicle collision services are complex and require expensive specialized equipment and training. This is not a required service for municipal fire departments, but they end up covering much of the cost themselves.

3) FuND REguLATORy CHANgES.From time to time, the provincial government makes changes to provincial regulations, and new responsibilities are transferred onto municipal governments. These changes rarely, if ever, come with attached funding for municipalities to pay for these responsibilities.

For example, the cost of environmental improvements to or the decommissioning of landfills is borne entirely by municipalities, even though they have no control over the environmental code or regulations.

Municipalities also bear the entire burden for building or improving wastewater treatment plants to meet new environmental standards and federal regulations.

The province simply cannot expect municipalities to take on new responsibilities resulting from changes to provincial regulations without providing funding to match.

inFrasTrUcTUre FUndinGHISTORICAL CONTEXTPeople living, working and playing in Saskatchewan’s cities, towns and villages rely on municipal infrastructure to go about their day-to-day lives. This vital infrastructure includes the streets and bridges we drive on, the systems that treat our wastewater, and all the equipment it takes to ensure access to clean, safe water.

Over the last 10 years, Saskatchewan has experienced unparalleled economic and population growth. With this growth comes increasing demand on existing municipal infrastructure and the need for new infrastructure to meet the demands of this growth.

Infrastructure demands created by Saskatchewan’s growing economy are a challenge for urban municipalities to meet and support, especially when much of Saskatchewan’s municipal infrastructure needs significant repair, replacement, and/or expansion. The situation is particularly tough where there is:

• rapid population growth in cities and surrounding area, and regional industrial hub areas;• eroding and/or limited municipal tax bases necessary to sustain services in many small municipalities across the province;• shifts in transportation modes and patterns;• expansion of rural and northern-based industries; and/or• increasing expectations and requirements for more robust public safety preparedness and response systems.

The Government of Saskatchewan publicly recognized that investment in municipal infrastructure is vital, especially in a growing economy, through the “Saskatchewan Plan for Growth.” Released in 2012, the plan has two main goals:

1) Ensure Saskatchewan continues to grow. 2) Ensure the province is meeting the challenges of growth.

One of the core activities identified by the plan that the province can undertake to achieve these goals is “investing in the infrastructure required for growth.”

Despite the provincial government’s investments in municipal infrastructure over the last eight years, urban municipalities still face a significant infrastructure deficit after decades of underinvestment.


Saskatchewan’s municipal infrastructure deficit has been estimated a number of times in a variety of reports and studies. One common thread in all of these reports, regardless of methodology and definitions used, is that the infrastructure deficit is large and continues to grow. In Saskatchewan, we are confronted with crumbling roads, rusting bridges and sewer systems, and outdated water and wastewater treatment facilities.

Municipalities also face additional infrastructure costs with the introduction of new environmental standards and regulations for water and wastewater treatment facilities. These new standards mean that municipalities must upgrade, retrofit, or completely replace existing facilities without any matching funding from the provincial government.

The province’s “25 Year Water Security Plan,” released in 2012, makes many notes about water infrastructure:

“[N]ew infrastructure is costly to build and maintain, and requires significant ongoing funding. Long-term planning is needed to anticipate water supply needs, identify options to meet needs and design and construct new infrastructure.”

“Decisions made in the absence of a long-term plan could jeopardize our future by creating the risk of water shortages and deteriorating water quality.”

“Meeting standards can be difficult for some small communities as municipal water infrastructure requires ongoing maintenance and periodic renewal.”

“All residents, communities and levels of government share responsibility for the wise use and management of water.”

Municipalities across the province face significant capital costs to upgrade wastewater infrastructure — money that many small communities simply do not have.

Cities, towns, villages, resort villages, and northern municipalities do not have the revenue tools to rebuild our infrastructure on our own, especially while we are expected to meet growing needs for policing, housing, the environment, the settlement of newcomers, and many responsibilities downloaded from other orders of government.


While municipalities own more than 60 per cent of public infrastructure, they collect only eight cents of every tax dollar paid, with the balance going to federal and provincial governments. Property tax alone cannot provide the level of funding needed to address growth.

To further illustrate the urgent need for a permanent, long-term, sustainable, and predictable infrastructure program, one need only look at the most recent round of applications to the New Building Canada Fund’s Provincial Territorial Infrastructure Component (PTIC).

Under the program, municipalities must apply to the province for funding for local infrastructure projects that meet criteria laid out by the federal government and projects are funded on a one-third/one-third/one-third model.

In 2015, municipalities submitted 334 applications for projects totaling a $1.5 billion. Only 26 applications were accepted for projects totaling $11.5 million.

Of $1.5 billion in eligible municipal projects – less than one per cent was approved, meaning there’s still roughly $1.5 billion worth of projects on the table. And that figure doesn’t take into account the next intake, which will occur in the next two to three years.

Public infrastructure is necessary to attract and retain private capital and residents. Investing in capital projects also produces direct and indirect returns for the provincial government and the Saskatchewan economy. Municipal infrastructure is essential to both growth and quality of life, and must be a top priority for government investment.

A new approach is also required to ensure municipal infrastructure assets are financed, funded, and managed sustainably so Saskatchewan municipalities remain vibrant and healthy.

Our urban municipalities are the engines of Saskatchewan’s economic growth. By putting in place a Made-in-Saskatchewan infrastructure program that is permanent, long-term, sustainable, and predictable, the province will be able to continue to meet the challenges of growth — one of two main goals identified in the Saskatchewan Plan for Growth.

In his State of the Province address which marked the release of that plan in 2012, Premier Brad Wall noted:

“Number one, first and foremost, our MLAs reported back that the people of Saskatchewan want to make sure we’re dealing with infrastructure challenges that we don’t make the mistake of some other jurisdictions, fast-growing jurisdictions, who have maybe not kept pace with the infrastructure demands that growth creates.”

To our municipal partners, we’ve said we will continue to work on a separate infrastructure program … We need something separate on infrastructure.”

Four years later, our cities, towns, villages, resort villages, and northern municipalities are more than ready for such a Made-in-Saskatchewan infrastructure program.

Wins1) NEW buILDINg CANADA FuND (NEW bCF)The federal government introduced the New BCF to replace the previous Building Canada Fund that expired in March 2014. The $14 billion fund supports projects of national, regional and local significance that promote economic growth, job creation and productivity.

Under this fund, the province of Saskatchewan contributes one-third of the cost of the Provincial Territorial Infrastructure Component, which supports infrastructure projects of national, regional and local significance that contribute to economic growth, a clean environment, and stronger communities.

The province’s share of this component was $240.2 million.

2) muLTI mATERIAL RECyCLINg PROgRAm (mmRP)Landfills are critical infrastructure for communities across Saskatchewan. When landfills fill up, both municipal dollars and land are consumed to manage the landfill’s spread. The MMRP is a key initiative to help manage landfills by increasing access to recycling and encouraging businesses to cut down the household packaging and paper they bring into Saskatchewan. This lengthens the lifespan of landfills while limiting their growth and environmental impact.

13Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association Federal Election Advocacy Campaign

3) COmmuNITy RINk AFFORDAbILITy gRANTThe Community Rink Affordability Grant helps municipalities maintain and operate their indoor skating and curling rinks. Municipalities can register their indoor rinks for the $2,500-per-ice-surface grant, which can be used to help pay for operating costs and put towards minor capital upgrades.

Between 2012 and 2015, this grant provided $6.6 million to municipalities, First Nations, and school boards.

4) SASkATCHEWAN INFRASTRuCTuRE gROWTH INITIATIvE (SIgI)SIGI was introduced in 2008 by the provincial government to support municipalities and address the pressures created by growth through the interest rate subsidies on loans for infrastructure projects. The initiative includes lot-development projects, as well as many of the project categories used in the New BCF and the Federal Gas Tax Program, including wastewater projects, drinking water projects, and other infrastructure projects that are in the public interest.

Between 2008-09 and 2015-16, the province loaned $36.1 million to urban municipalities through this initiative.

5) COmmuNITy AIRPORT PARTNERSHIP PROgRAmThe province’s Community Airport Partnership Program is designed to provide capital contributions to rehabilitate and upgrade the network of strategic regional community airports.

Saskatchewan’s urban municipalities received $5 million in funding under this program between 2007 and 2016.

FiXes1) ADEquATELy FuND THE uRbAN HIgHWAy CONNECTOR PROgRAm.“The Urban Highway Connector policy recognizes that our urban communities play an important role in the provincial economy as generators of economic activity. Urban communities serve as key collection points where manufactured goods are warehoused and shipped by truck or rail to and from gateway ports.

“Saskatchewan’s population and business activity is increasingly centered in cities and larger towns. These urban communities serve as key collection and interchange points where export bound products trucked along rural highways are linked to national and international transportation corridors.

“Urban connectors form an essential part of both the national and provincial transportation system. Efficiencies and the public interest are best served by the free flow of traffic, including travel on urban connectors. Producers and shippers cannot afford delays in urban areas caused by transportation bottlenecks.” (Source: Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure website)

The original agreements under this program stated that the province would undertake the first rehabilitation of all UHCP roads, but on their own schedule.


The UHCP remains under-funded to the point where the province is failing to live up to its responsibilities and municipalities are being forced to pick up the slack. In fact, many of these roads have since deteriorated to the point that cities have to take on the rehabilitation themselves for public safety and liability reasons. Once rehabilitation has been completed, the province considers itself absolved of any further responsibility.

Between 2011 and 2015, the province provided $25 million to urban municipalities through the UHCP ($5 million/year on average).

At present funding rates, it would take roughly 20 years to rehabilitate all the outstanding UHCP roadways (assuming there is no growth in operations and maintenance grants given to cities and towns, which decreases the amount of available capital funding). Urban municipalities cannot wait that long; 71 kilometres of these roads are already in fair-poor to poor condition — the worst ratings given under the program.

2) REvISIT THE ORPHANED ENvIRONmENTALLy ImPACTED SITES FuND.In 2015, the provincial government initiated the Orphaned Environmentally Impacted Site Fund to provide funding to clean up abandoned contaminated sites. Through an amendment to The Environmental Management and Protection Act, the province acknowledged the negative health and safety impact these sites have on communities. The introduction of the fund also recognized the importance of restoring the land for the benefit of residents and communities, as well as to foster economic growth.

In theory this is a meaningful program. In practice, however, funding is minimal or non-existent, as fines collected from violations of certain environmental laws are the only source of revenue for the program. If the province wants to ensure the intent of this fund is actually reflected in practice, it must revisit the legislation and look at alternative funding models.

needs1) CREATE A mADE-IN-SASkATCHEWAN INFRASTRuCTuRE PROgRAm TO buILD RESILIENT, ADAPTAbLE COmmuNITIES. a. In addition to participating in the New BCF, the province should establish a provincial infrastructure program that addresses the infrastructure deficit in Saskatchewan. b. Capital spending for infrastructure must come from other sources. When the provincial government argues that municipalities can use revenue sharing for infrastructure it is technically correct. However, it violates the intent of the funding and the spirit of the partnership. c. The Municipal Economic Enhancement Program (MEEP) created in 2009, provided $100 million in per capita funding to local governments to invest in municipal infrastructure (streets, water systems, community development projects, etc.). The province alone funded this one-time program and nothing like it has existed since. d. A provincial program should be permanent, long-term, sustainable, and predictable. Both municipal and provincial governments need to start thinking long term. e. The program must be developed in consultation with the municipal sector. f. Any new program should be specific to municipalities and not open to all types of organizations. g. Assets covered by a new program must include streets, bridges, water and wastewater plants, and landfills — not schools or hospitals.

2) FIND INNOvATIvE OPTIONS FOR FINANCINg muNICIPAL INFRASTRuCTuRE.The province should work with municipalities to find innovative financing options to fund municipal infrastructure and encourage local solutions and local investment.

2016 provincial election - municipal issues ... provincial election - municipal issues backgrounder...

Documents