City charter may be no cure- all, academics warn

Toronto cited as a city too reliant on provincial and federal funding

Calgary and Edmonton mayors may hope a big- city charter brings monumental improvements and solves their financial woes, but other Canadian cities with special deals have enjoyed no such good fortune, say a pair of research papers being released Wednesday.

Mayor Naheed Nenshi and his northern counterpart have long fought and negotiated for charters that redefine the roles and responsibilities of the Alberta government and its two largest cities.

Nenshi has urged the provincial government to include in the charter either new taxation powers or some special revenue- sharing to help the city grow its transit network and other services. Successive Tory premiers pooh- poohed that idea, and it’s unclear if the NDP will be different.

A handful of cities have fought for and secured charters with special powers, but they actually have little to show for them, according to two academic papers their authors will present Wednesday.

Their session is called “The False Panacea of City Charters,” at the Urban Policy Program Symposium hosted by the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

Political scientist Andrew Sancton will argue that the charter that Toronto leaders believed would create a new “city- state” within Ontario essentially had all the pop of a soggy firework.

Economist Harry Kitchen surveyed multiple big- city deals in Canada and suggests they’ve been more myth than solution for financing cities.

“Even if it hasn’t worked elsewhere, ( mayors) think: ‘ We’ll get it right here’ — and maybe they will,” Kitchen said in an interview Tuesday.

The Trent University professor emeritus said a well- designed charter could give cities “access to revenue tools — real revenue tools, not goofy tools like Toronto got.”

The discussion papers by Sancton and Kitchen both explore the deal Toronto negotiated after years with the Ontario Liberal government. It appeared to offer far less than its proponents had expected, and specifically bans the city from levying taxes on fuel, income, hotel stays, sales ( with a few exceptions) and highway usage.

What Canada’s biggest city got was the right to tax billboards, vehicle registration and property transfers. Rob Ford axed the vehicle fee when he became mayor, and the land transfer tax — which Kitchen believes is a dismal form of taxation — barely amounts to three per cent of Toronto’s revenue, his paper notes.

The city remains reliant on provincial or federal grants for many of its projects and ambitions, and that’s the case in other charter cities like Winnipeg and Vancouver, Kitchen writes.

“It has not provided cities with access to any significant and additional relevant tools and it has not given them significant autonomy over their fiscal matters,” his study says.

Calgary, Edmonton and Alberta first agreed formally to draft bigcity charters in June 2012, following a Tory leadership election promise by Alison Redford. New legislation was initially supposed to be in place by the 2013 civic election, but negotiations have dragged and stalled through four different premiers and five municipal affairs ministers.

Last fall, the cities and Jim Prentice’s government signed a second agreement in principle to negotiate some new powers for cities this year, and determine a new fiscal relationship by spring 2016.

Rachel Notley’s NDP has agreed to follow that timeline, but haven’t said much on what revenue tools the new government is willing to offer.

Last month, councillors debated a new study that suggests the city request powers to raise gas taxes and perhaps road tolls to fill a $ 1.4- billion gap in its transportation projects list over 10 years.

But provinces often like to retain control over cities and are reluctant to transfer powers, Kitchen said.

At the symposium, this Herald reporter will moderate a panel discussion on charters with Coun. Brian Pincott and former municipal affairs minister Ken Hughes.