Yes Victoria: Counterpoint Q17

Counterpoint: Question #17
The Lindsay Post is running a weekly series of questions, with answers by both the "Yes" and "No" sides of the issues.

Amalgamation hasn't meant better service at a lower cost for everyone

Question #17:
Can you demonstrate, using credible data and supporting evidence, that a vote to de-amalgamate would initiate a political process and restructuring which would result in reduced taxation, equitable representation by population, no loss in the level and type of services, and that the cost of restructuring will not be borne directly by property taxpayers?

      This is a bit of a dog's breakfast of a question, but we can break it down into four issues: taxes, services, representation by population and the cost of de-amalgamation.

      Will taxes go down as a result of de-amalgamation? Not for everyone. Some (a few) have been winners with amalgamation. For most of us amalgamation itself has caused tax increases. People generally don't mind paying taxes, provided that they get value for their money. But no one likes their taxes going up just so someone else's taxes can come down. This unfairness was a major failure of amalgamation and it resulted from the averaging of tax rates.

      The argument that bigger government such as our mega-city is more efficient just doesn't hold water either. Even restructuring commissioner Harry Kitchen is on record as saying "The net result of moving to a one tier level of government rather than the two tier is an expected increase in overall cost." (Peterborough County/City Municipal Review.)

      Economist, professor Robert L. Bish, (Local Government Amalgamations) writes: "There is no evidence that per capita costs are lower in large municipalities or that they are better able to meet their residents' demands for services than small municipalities."

      But regardless of what the experts say, taxpayers will judge for themselves whether or not amalgamation has reduced their taxes.

      Will service levels stay the same after de-amalgamation? This will depend entirely on the wishes of local taxpayers. They can have whatever service level they want to pay for, and they will pay for only those services that they actually receive. In many cases the same tax dollar after de-amalgamation will provide better services than those being delivered by the mega-city. Amalgamation has not guaranteed better services at lower cost for everyone. Why is this?

      Coming back to Professor Bish, he explains it this way: "Activities that are labour intensive, difficult to measure, and performed frequently and regularly are likely to possess diseconomies of scale-that is, the average costs actually increase with the size of the organization producing the service."

      Will there be equitable representation by population after de-amalgamation. There can be if that's what people want, and probably they should want it. Is it fair that Bobcaygeon/Verulam with a population of about 8,000 has the same number of representatives on County Council as Lindsay, with a population of 17,000?

      Weighted voting, such as used to apply to the Conservation Authority in Victoria County, can be applied after de-amalgamation. The councillor from the municipality with double the population, can have twice the voting power of the councillor from the municipality with half the population. The system can be fine-tuned.

      Will the cost of de-amalgamation be borne entirely by the taxpayers of Victoria County, or will the provincial government pay its share? What did the government say, through its Minister of the Crown on November 12, 2002? "It will be the same process you went through the first time. You would apply to the province for restructuring funds and you would receive 75% of your eligible costs."

      The program is called the Municipal Restructuring Fund and it has been in place for the last ten years. Both opposition parties have made the same commitment for provincial funding too. The evidence supports the conclusion that the cost to local taxpayers could be a one-time $36 per household, with the provincial government picking up the rest.

      If the "No" side has any evidence that the province won't honour the commitment made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs they ought to share it with us.