Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework Reform

One of the most common issues identified by RMA members is linked to this specific resolution, which is a lack of scope and clarity over what can be defined as a “service” for the purpose of ICF negotiations. RMA strongly believes that properly defining thresholds or indicators for how municipalities (and arbitrators) can define a service would further streamline the process, reduce conflict, and ensure that both parties come to agreement on commonly defined regional services.

In April 2023, the Minister of Municipal Affairs signed Ministerial Order No. MSD:024/23, which extended the mandatory ICF review period from five years to seven years, for one time only. According to a letter from the Minister, “this extension allows time for the legal appeals to be concluded, the ministry to engage with municipalities on potential legislative amendments to the ICF provisions, and municipal partners to work towards renewing their agreements.” RMA has recently discussed the ICF engagement process with Municipal Affairs.

While the extension was a positive step and increased the likelihood that the process could be improved before mandatory renegotiations are required, RMA remains concerned that municipalities may execute early renegotiation clauses within some ICF agreements to attempt to exploit the current flaws in the process outlined in this resolution. Alberta Municipal Affairs has indicated that no review or changes to the ICF process will be considered until the conclusion of ICF legal appeals currently underway. This means that the current terms will remain in place indefinitely, which poses risks to municipalities.

The second operative clause of the resolution requests that the Government of Alberta ensure that municipalities with a growth management board (GMB) are not required to enter into ICFs with one another. While the Municipal Government Act already exempts these municipalities from developing ICFs with one another, Alberta Municipalities (ABMunis) members have endorsed a resolution calling for mandatory ICFs within GMBs. Rural GMB members are already frustrated by the inequitable voting structures and added red tape associated with GMBs. Adding yet another mandatory intermunicipal service delivery requirement would create added complexity and tension to GMBs. Any issues typically addressed through ICFs could be discussed at the GMB table, or through voluntary ICFs or other agreements between GMB members. Mandating ICFs in this context will result in three distinct levels of decision-making: local (through municipal plans and decisions), intermunicipal (through ICFs), and regional (through GMBs). The benefits of this are minimal, and the risks of further confusion and conflict among decision-making levels is significant. As such, RMA will continue to support voluntary ICFs among GMB members.

Engagement began in early 2024, and RMA participated in this engagement process. It is disappointing that the Province’s response did not directly address the changes requested in the resolution itself.

The RMA released a member engagement guide for ICFs in March of this year, in response to the engagement survey released by Municipal Affairs that closed on April 19, 2024. RMA looks forward to reviewing the results of that survey. In April 2024, RMA submitted input on ICFs on behalf of members. RMA’s input into the process was informed by this resolution, and it made several recommendations to the Province:

• Clarify ICF Scope and Purpose:
  • Define criteria or threshold for “services”
  • Define thresholds or other guidance for “intermunicipal”
  • Clarify that third-party services cannot be addressed through ICFs
• Equitable ICF Process:
  • Implement baseline requirements for data related to service delivery costs and justification for existing service levels, including historical annual service delivery costs
  • Require ICFs to include agreement on both cost-sharing and joint input into service levels, service delivery mechanism, etc. for each service included within the ICF
• Fair and Effective Arbitration
  • Require arbitrators to prove a certain level of municipal knowledge or complete municipal training
  • Arbitration participants cannot introduce services during the arbitration process that were not discussed during the initial negotiations
  • Arbitrators cannot re-open or amend aspects of an ICF already agreed upon or not subject to arbitration
  • Arbitrators must abide by the same data expectations that will (hopefully) be implemented for the initial negotiation
  • The proportion of arbitration costs paid by any one municipality cannot exceed 90%

RMA has yet to receive a response to our submission from the Ministry, but will continue monitoring the ICF engagement process. As a result, the resolution is assigned a status of Intent Not Met and RMA will re-visit this resolution when we receive a response to our submission or have an update on the Province’s engagement.