Educación virtual

Consolidationists argue that a single general purpose government is best suited to coordinate service delivery over a metropolitan area. Polycentrists on the other hand, argue for a more fragmented system on the basis that economies of scale and citizen preferences vary according to the service in question. Single-tier municipalities in Ontario are responsible for a wide range of functions. Under theMunicipal Act, municipalities in Ontario have been granted broad authority over 11 spheres of jurisdiction, but municipalities also provide services beyond these eleven spheres, and some spheres encompass more than one service. Table 3.4 outlines the suite of local government services (except for education) that are delivered in the City of London and the City of Hamilton, either through a municipal department (MD), a special purpose body (SPB), contracting with a private company (PC), service agreements with other municipalities (SA), or

22

in partnership with the province or the federal government. Services that fall directly under the eleven spheres are in italics. The areas where the cities differ in service delivery are in bold.

Table 3.4 Service Delivery in London and Hamilton

Function London Hamilton

Airports SPB (with federal and provincial reps)

PC (under contract with the City)

Animal Control MD/PC MD

Building Regulation MD MD

Cemeteries MD (Only one active municipal cemetery)

MD (19 active municipal cemeteries)

Culture and Heritage MD/SPB MD/SPB

Drainage and Flood Control MD/SPB MD/SPB

Downtown Revitalization MD/SPB MD/SPB

Economic Development MD/SPB MD

Emergency Planning and Preparedness

MD MD

Fire Protection MD MD

Harbours (Ports) N/A SPB

Land-Ambulance Services SA/SPB MD

Land-use Planning and Regulation

MD/SPB MD/SPB

Licensing of Businesses MD MD

Parking MD MD

Parks and Recreation MD/SPB MD/SPB

Policing SPB SPB

Property Assessment SPB (funded by all municipalities in Ontario) SPB (funded by all municipalities in Ontario) Public Health SPB MD Public Libraries SPB SPB Public Transit SPB MD Public Utilities SPB SPB Regulation of Noise MD MD Regulation of Taxis MD MD Roads MD MD Senior’s residences MD MD

Sewage Collection and Treatment

MD MD (PC until 2004)*

Ontario Works, Housing)

Storm Water Management MD/SPB MD/SPB

Structures, including Fences and Signs

MD MD

Tourism Promotion SPB MD (with advisory board)

Waste Management MD/PC MD/PC

Water Distribution MD MD (PC until 2004)*

Water Production, Treatment, and Storage

SPB/PC MD (PC until 2004)

*Explained under Water Production, Treatment, and Storage

In total, the table lists 34 services. A cursory look at the table shows that there are there are eight separate services for which service delivery is more fragmented in London than in Hamilton. These include: animal control, economic development, land ambulance services, public health, public transit, social services, tourism promotion, and water production, treatment, and storage.23 All are important municipal services. The one anomaly is with respect to ports: Hamilton has one while London does not. Some of London’s functional fragmentation is due to its status as a separate city, flanked on three sides by Middlesex County. However, services such as animal control, economic development, and public transit are delivered exclusively to residents of the

23

Five of these eight services were delivered by special purpose bodies during the study period. These were: economic development, public health, public transit, tourism promotion, and water production, treatment, and storage. The remainder were delivered by private contractors, or by a combination of different agencies. Some has been said about the decision to make comparisons for public health, economic development, and watershed management above, but not much about why these policy areas as opposed to others. Again public health was selected because health units must deliver the same provincially mandated programs regardless of structure, and they are all funded the same way. This facilitates comparison on financial and service quality indicators. It would have been much more difficult to make this comparison in a policy area like water production, treatment, and storage, especially since Hamilton experienced a major structural change in this policy area during the study period. Economic development was selected as an example of a policy area where the boundaries of the municipality and the specialized agency are concurrent. It is also a developmental policy area, whereas public health and watershed management are allocational. The boundaries are also concurrent for transit and tourism promotion, but tourism is discussed in the context of economic development, and Frisken (1991) and Kitchen (1992) have already done some work on specialized transit agencies. Economic development is also an area where private interests are considered to be very influential, so whether or not this influence is strengthened or reduced as a result of specialization is an important and interesting question. Finally, conservation authorities are responsible for watershed management in both London and Hamilton, but because the geographical reach of the main conservation authority in each city is so different, this policy area allows for a clear test of the hypothesis that board composition matters for policy

implementation. A similar comparison is possible for public housing, but there is less variation in terms of board composition in this policy area.

City. In Hamilton, all three of these services are delivered by municipal departments. Differences between the two cities are also supported by financial data regarding the size of the two

administrations. In 2011, the City of London spent $1003.72 per capita annually on staff salaries and benefits (City of London 2011b, E.39; Statistics Canada 2012q). The City of Hamilton spent $1202.78 (City of Hamilton 2011b, 2-37; Statistics Canada 2012k).24 Service delivery through any mechanism that is not a municipal department is explained below.

Airports

In the 1990s, the federal government made major changes to Canada’s airport system. The National Airports Policy (NAP) saw the federal government’s role change from that of owner and operator, to owner and landlord for the 26 airports that are part of the National Airports System (NAS). These airports are leased to and operated by local airport authorities. Airport authorities are not-for-profit corporations, governed by a board of directors. Board members are appointed by the federal government, the province, municipalities, and other local organizations. The airports included in the NAS are those in provincial capitals and those serving more than 200,000 passengers annually (Transport Canada 2010). The Greater London International Airport meets the latter criterion. The board of directors for the London Airport is made up of appointees nominated by the federal government, the provincial government, the City of London, the London Chamber of Commerce, and the board itself (London International Airport 2012).

The NAP grouped the remaining airports into four other categories: regional and local airports, small airports, remote airports, and arctic airports. The relationship with the federal government is different for all of these groups. The John C. Monroe Hamilton International Airport is classified as a regional and local airport. Under the NAP, the federal government

24

2011 figures were used because the latest census was taken in this year. Annual population estimates, which are more accurate, are available from Statistics Canada for Hamilton because it is a census division. However, London is a census subdivision, for which annual estimates are not made available.

transferred ownership of regional and local airports to local operators (Transport Canada 2010). In Hamilton, the municipality assumed ownership of the airport. The airport is managed and operated by Tradeport International Corporation Limited through a contract with the City (Hamilton International Airport n.d.).

Animal Control

In London, animal control and by-law enforcement are provided under contract by the London Animal Control Centre, a private corporation. However, barking dogs fall under the City’s Noise By-law, which is enforced by City enforcement officers (City of London 2012b). In Hamilton, these services are provided by Animal Services which operates as part of the Parking and By-law Services Division of the Department of Planning and Economic Development (City of Hamilton 2012c).

Culture and Heritage

Culture and heritage is a broad service category which a number of agencies are involved in both municipalities. In London, major changes were undertaken in this area in 2004, beginning with the formation of the Creative City Task Force. This ultimately led to the establishment of the City of London Culture Office, as part of the City Manager’s Office, and the London Heritage Council. The already established London Arts Council was granted extra funding (City of London 2012c). The London Heritage Council serves as an umbrella organization for many of the cultural organizations in the City. It is governed by a nine-member board of directors and receives financial support from the City of London, the province, and the federal government. A City-owned corporation also operates the City’s museums – Museum London and Eldon House. The City appoints one councillor to the 15-member board of directors and provides just over half of its approximately $3 million annual budget (Museum London 2010, 2011). The Community

Services Department provides funding for special events and festivals and for other cultural institutions that operate independently from the City, such as the London Regional Children’s Museum and Fanshawe Pioneer Village (City of London 2005d, 13). The City also owns Budweiser Gardens (formerly the John Labatt Centre), an arena and concert venue, Centennial Hall (a smaller concert facility), London Convention Centre, and the Covent Garden Market (a farmer’s market and cultural centre). All four are located downtown. The John Labatt Centre and Centennial Hall are operated by private management companies. The Convention Center is governed by a 12-member board of directors appointed by the City, which includes three municipal councillors and the city manager (London Convention Centre 2012). The Covent Garden Market’s nine-member board is appointed by the City and includes two councillors (City of London 2010a).

At the time of writing, Hamilton is in the process of updating its Cultural Policy and Plan, which was first enacted in 2004. The City of Hamilton has a Culture Division which is part of the Community Services Department. The Culture Division oversees special events and operates Hamilton’s civic museums, which include the Hamilton Children’s Museum, the Military

Museum and six National Historic Sites. The Arts Advisory Commission and the Hamilton Historical Board advise council on the city’s art community and heritage matters (City of Hamilton 2012e). The Art Gallery of Hamilton, a registered charity, receives financial support from the City, the province, and the federal government. Two municipal councillors sit on its 18- member board (Art Gallery of Hamilton 2010). Hamilton Entertainment and Convention

Facilities Incorporated (HECFI) oversees the City’s sporting and entertainment venues including Copps Coliseum, Hamilton Place, the Hamilton Convention Centre, and the Molson Canadian Studio. Governed by an independent board since its creation in 1985, council recently assumed

governance responsibilities. This move was brought on in part by the release of a report critical of the agency’s management (Nolan and Van Dongen 2011). Management companies have also since been contracted to operate Copps Coliseum, Hamilton Place, and the Convention Centre (Reilly 2013).

Drainage and Flood Control

In both cities, municipal departments are the lead agencies with respect to drainage. In areas regulated by the conservation authorities, they have some responsibilities as well. Conservation authorities (CAs) are the lead agencies for flood control. Their role will be explained more fully in Chapter Six.

Downtown Revitalization

This has been a priority of both cities of throughout the past few decades. In London, the Planning and Development Department is the primary municipal department concerned with downtown revitalization. There are also two autonomous agencies involved in downtown revitalization. These are the London Downtown Business Association and Main Street London. The boards of these two agencies are supported by the same staff, but they have different mandates. The LBDA concerns itself with supporting existing businesses, while Main Street London seeks to attract new businesses to the downtown. The LBDA is a business improvement area (BIA). The City collects a levy on LBDA members on its behalf, which is then transferred to the LBDA. Both the LBDA and the City provide funding to Main Street London. The City appoints a councillor and staff member to both of the 15-member boards (Downtown London n.d.). The Old East Village BIA operates in an area to the east of the downtown core and concerns itself with the revitalization of a commercial corridor there. It is funded in a similar manner to the LBDA but has also partnered with the City, the federal government, and

community-based agencies to implement a number of housing and employment programs. It is governed by a 15-member management board made up mostly of local merchants, but the board does include one councillor and one representative each from the Planning Department and London Police Services (Old East Village BIA 2011).

In Hamilton, the Urban Renewal Section of the Planning and Economic Development Department is the lead agency for downtown revitalization. It also coordinates the city’s 13 BIAs. Located in the central city and in the downtowns of the former lower-tier municipalities, each BIA is governed by a management board, which includes local merchants and property owners and at least one councillor. Members are taxed a special levy, collected by the City, which funds the activities of the BIA. These include physical improvements, promotion and event sponsorship (City of Hamilton 2012g).

Economic Development

Closely linked to downtown revitalization is economic development. In London, the London Economic Development Corporation (LEDC) is the City’s primary economic development agency. The LEDC’s work focuses on business attraction and retention, for which it receives funding from the City. The City’s representation on LEDC’s 14-member board has been reduced over the years. The City used to appoint five members of the LEDC’s board (City of London 2005c). The mayor is now council’s only representative and the city manager is an ex-officio member with no voting rights. While the LEDC is the lead, the City is still involved in economic development. For example, while the LEDC markets City-owned industrial land, the City of London’s Realty Services Division is charged with acquiring and selling these properties (City of London 2012e).

In Hamilton, economic development services are provided through the Economic Development Division of the Planning and Economic Development Department. For a brief period an advisory committee named the Jobs Prosperity Collaborative was charged with helping to promote the City and advise council on its economic development strategy. It was dissolved in 2011. Differences between London and Hamilton in this area will be explored more fully in Chapter Five.

Harbours25

The Hamilton Port Authority was established on May 1, 2001 under the Canadian Marine Act. It is one of 17 Canadian Port Authorities, which are all mandated to be financially self-sufficient (Sancton 2011; Hamilton Port Authority 2012b). The Port Authority’s seven-member board is made up of one federal, one provincial, one municipal, and four user representatives; none of whom are elected politicians (Hamilton Port Authority 2012a). The board oversees the

management and operations of the Port of Hamilton, which is Canada’s largest Great Lakes port.

Land Ambulance Services

Under the provincial Ambulance Act, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care designates consolidated municipal service managers (CMSM) to provide land ambulance services for specific areas. Middlesex County is the CMSM for land ambulance services for Middlesex County and the City of London. The County has administrative and planning responsibilities for land ambulance services but there is a Land Ambulance Municipal Service Agreement between the City and County. As part of this agreement, an oversight committee made up of staff from the City, the County, and the regional base hospital provides high-level policy direction and reports to City and County councils on matters such as budget requests and contracts with third

25

There are no ports within the jurisdiction of the City of London. The Thames River runs through the City but it is non-navigable.

parties (County of Middlesex and City of London 2006). Until August 2011, Thames Emergency Medical Services was contracted as the emergency ambulance provider. Since then a service commission model has been in place. The newly formed Middlesex-London Emergency Medical Authority (MLEMA) is an arms-length body of the County. The County CAO, warden, and a County councillor serve as chair, vice-chair, and secretary treasurer, respectively (MLEMA 2012). The Ministry of Health funds 50 percent of approved operating costs, as it does province- wide. The City and the County are responsible for the other 50 percent which is divided based on a weighted assessment. London’s current assessment ratio is around 85 percent. In 2011, the City’s contribution was over $10 million. The County’s was approximately $1.8 million (County of Middlesex 2012).

As a former regional government, the amalgamated City of Hamilton has full functional responsibility for all consolidated municipal services. Land ambulance services are provided through Emergency Medical Services, a division of Hamilton’s Emergency Services Department (City of Hamilton 2012f).

Land-Use Planning and Regulation

In both municipalities, municipal departments have primary responsibility for land-use planning. However, as will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Six, conservation authorities (CAs) do have considerable authority in the areas for which they have regulatory responsibility. There are three CAs with jurisdiction that covers a portion of the City of London, and four in Hamilton. However, Hamilton has stronger representation on the board of the CA with the largest

jurisdiction in the city, the Hamilton Conservation Authority (HCA), as compared with London’s representation on the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA), the largest CA there. The Niagara Escarpment Commission, a provincial agency, also has jurisdiction over the

Niagara Escarpment, a UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve, which runs through Hamilton. The Escarpment is protected by the provincial Greenbelt Act, 2005. The planning policies of the NEC are the policies of the Greenbelt plan for the Niagara Escarpment (NEC 2012, 8).

Parks and Recreation

Again, parks and recreation are primarily municipal functions in both municipalities, but CAs are involved as well. CAs own and operate conservation areas and also manage some city-owned parks and natural areas. In London, the UTRCA manages the City’s seven publically owned Environmentally Significant Areas. In Hamilton, the HCA manages Confederation Park and Westfield Heritage Village on behalf of the City.

Policing

In Ontario, all municipal police services must be governed by a police service board. The size of the board varies based on the population of the municipality: boards may consist of three, five or seven members. In all cases, the board consists of municipal, provincial, and community

representatives. The London Police Service Board has five members, consisting of two

provincial appointees, the mayor, one councillor, and one citizen representative (London Police Service 2008). The Hamilton Police Service Board has seven members; three provincial

appointees, the mayor and two councillors, and one citizen appointee (Hamilton Police Services