Date:
Expiry Date:
Current Status:
Sponsors:
District:
Year:
Convention:
Category:
Status:
Vote Results:
Preamble:
WHEREAS the Government of Alberta has legislated intermunicipal collaboration frameworks (ICFs) in part 17.2 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA); and
WHEREAS ICFs are intended to support collaboration between bordering municipalities to ensure shared planning, delivery, and funding of inter-municipal services; and
WHEREAS municipalities that cannot create an ICF by the required date must refer matters of disagreement to an arbitrator; and
WHEREAS the scope and definition of municipal services are not clearly defined within the MGA leading to signifncant utilization of arbitrators; and
WHEREAS municipalities that reported difficulties and, in turn, unfair arbitration rulings related to the ICF process attributed unsatisfactory outcomes to the ambiguities associated with the scope of services and quantifying verifiable service costs; and
WHEREAS arbitrators do not have the appropriate data and, in some cases, the appropriate knowledge base regarding municipal governance to make informed decisions concerning ICF rulings; and
WHEREAS arbitration rulings can have unintended, detrimental financial impacts on municipalities hindering their operations and services to ratepayers;
Operative Clause:
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) request the Government of Alberta amend the Municipal Government Act to define “core municipal services” for the purpose of intermunicipal collaboration frameworks and mandate that municipalities present verifiable costs to justify cost sharing for the aforementioned defined core municipal services;
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the RMA request that the Government of Alberta ensure that members of a growth management board are not required to enter into an intermunicipal collaboration framework with each other.
Member Background:
RMA Background:
RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.
Alberta Municipal Affairs
The implementation of intermunicipal collaboration framework (ICF) requirements has been broadly successful in the large majority of cases, as evidenced by 99 per cent of municipalities finalizing agreements on ICFs by the legislated deadline.
The Municipal Government Act provisions governing ICFs have been designed to streamline the ICF process and increase flexibility and creativity regarding how those services are managed and funded to meet the unique needs of each partnership.
Municipal Affairs intends to review of the ICF legislation, processes, and procedures ‒ with an initial focus on the arbitration process ‒ to identify any potential improvements to legislation and/or practices that may be appropriate. Engagement with municipal stakeholders – including the Rural Municipalities of Alberta and Alberta Municipalities – will be a key part of this review. The ministry expects the review to take place following completion of the ongoing judicial processes.
Municipal Affairs will continue to track suggestions and feedback.
Development:
The GOA passed the Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act (Bill 50) in April 2025. Bill 50 completely restructured the ICF process as described in the Municipal Government Act (MGA). The amendments to the MGA were significant. They include a defined scope of core municipal services that must be included in an ICF, stricter rules around inclusion of other municipal services that may be included, and new data sharing and good faith negotiation requirements into the development of ICFs.
Mandatory Services
There are now five mandatory services that must be included in ICFs: transportation, water and wastewater, solid waste, emergency services, and recreation. Where parties cannot agree on the delivery of one or some of the mandatory services, municipalities will be required to go to binding arbitration. The arbitrator will create an ICF for the service in dispute that must be implemented by the affected municipalities.
If a service does not fall under one of the mandatory categories, parties may unilaterally revoke consent to include the specified service in the ICF. Parties are not required to negotiate or proceed to binding arbitration on the delivery of any service that falls outside the scope of the mandatory services.
“Third-party services” are now defined. A “third-party service” is one for which a third-party is legislatively required to provide the service in question. It is RMAs understanding that this would apply to libraries, policing, post offices, and other services for which there is legislation providing for oversight and management of the delivery of the service.
The combination of these amendments cements a definition of “core mandatory services” as requested by the resolution, fulfilling the resolutions first requirement. The five mandatory services are “core” services; the remainder fall outside the definition.
Mandatory Verifiable Costs
While Bill 50 signals an expectation that municipalities will collaborate in good faith when developing a cost calculation model as part of the ICF process, apart from during participation in the arbitration process, there is no explicit mandate to do so.
Parties may establish a cost calculation model respecting intermunicipal services when outside of arbitration, and, concerningly, there is no requirement to ensure that the information shared is verifiable. Instead, parties must share information, data, or assumptions relied upon in forming the cost calculation model. This is a far lower standard than the requirement of the resolution to mandate municipalities present verifiable data to justify cost sharing.
GMB Involvement
In November 2024, Municipal Affairs announced that both the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board and the Calgary Metropolitan Region Board would no longer receive funding from the GOA. Both Boards elected to dissolve in December 2024.
Both Boards represented the total number of practicing Growth Management Boards (GMBs) in Alberta at the time, and their dissolution represents the discontinuation of GMBs in Alberta. Regardless, the Bill 50 amendments to the MGA do not require the participation of GMBs in the creation of an ICF.
However, former GMB member-municipalities are still required to enter ICFs for the designated core mandatory services. RMA has concerns that this may increase the level of complexity from the totality of applicable ICFs on any individual former member, potentially increasing associated time, effort, and costs. These concerns are magnified as former members will be required to enter ICFs with the two large municipalities: Edmonton and Calgary.
While the creation and definition of “core mandatory services” is a welcome amendment, the failure to mandate municipalities present verifiable costs and the new practical realities of ICF negotiations overall prevents the complete fulfillment of this resolution. RMA assigns this resolution a status of Accepted in Part.
Provincial Ministries:
Provincial Boards and Organizations:
Internal Notes:
