The subject of amalgamation has been floating around for quite some time. Recently there was reporting on meetings between a number of communities that we are focussed on in the Imlocalca.ca network of community websites so we felt it was important to do a deep dive on the issue and look at all aspects both pro and con.
Municipal amalgamation – the merging of two or more municipalities into one larger jurisdiction – is a complex issue affecting many communities across Canada. In Ontario, the Progressive Conservative government under Mike Harris in the 1990s aggressively pushed amalgamation under the premise it would lead to cost savings and efficiencies. Over the past few decades, numerous small towns and municipalities in the Niagara region have been amalgamated into larger cities like Niagara Falls, St. Catharines, and Welland.
However, the benefits and drawbacks of amalgamation remain controversial and hotly debated. For some municipalities, joining forces makes sense financially and administratively. But for others, amalgamation threatens to dilute community identity and autonomy. This article will dive deep into the complex pros and cons of amalgamation, with a focus on impacts for smaller towns and communities in the Niagara region.
The Amalgamation Context in Niagara Region
To analyze this issue specific to Niagara, it is helpful to understand the broader context:
– Niagara region has 12 municipalities, including smaller cities like Lincoln, Port Colborne and Welland as well as larger ones like St. Catharines and Niagara Falls.
– Several rounds of municipal amalgamation occurred in Niagara during the 1990s and 2000s, reducing the number of municipalities from 16 to 12.
– Amalgamation was controversial, with some communities merging voluntarily while others were forced into it.
– Towns like Fort Erie, Port Colborne, Thorold, Niagara-on-the-Lake and others resisted amalgamation pressures.
– Remaining independent municipalities fear potential future amalgamation into Niagara Falls or St. Catharines.
– Niagara Falls itself was created from amalgamating smaller centres like Chippawa, Drummondville, Clifton and Queenston.
– St. Catharines also amalgamated with parts of Grantham Township and Merritton Ward.
– Amalgamated cities took on debt loads of the merged municipalities.
This amalgamation history shapes current attitudes toward merger proposals in the region. Next we’ll look at the potential benefits and drawbacks of amalgamation for Niagara communities.
The Pros: Potential Benefits of Municipal Amalgamation
Cost Savings:
– Eliminates duplicate administrative and service costs (e.g. CAO salaries)
– Economies of scale in services like waste management
– Efficiencies in procurement, equipment sharing, etc.
*Example: The 1970 amalgamation of Smithville, Grimsby and Township of North Grimsby achieved an estimated $200,000 in annual savings.*
Stronger Regional Planning
– Coordinated land use planning and development standards
– Consistent policies on issues like urban sprawl and industrial development
– Unified strategy for growth management and transportation
*Example: Amalgamation of Hamilton-Wentworth in 2001 enabled a coordinated growth management strategy.*
Increased Investment
– Larger tax base and population attracts more business investment
– Shared costs for major capital projects
*Example: Amalgamation helped Toronto attract investment and build infrastructure like the York University subway extension.*
Economic Development
– Streamlined business licensing, permits and processes
– Improved lobbying power for infrastructure funding
*Example: 1990s municipal mergers helped cities like Toronto, Ottawa and Greater Sudbury boost their economic development capacity.*
The Cons: Potential Drawbacks of Amalgamation
Loss of Community Identity
– Historical community names and boundaries dissolved
– Reduced local representation with larger wards
– Individual communities feel diminished
*Example: Saltfleet Township residents worried about losing identity during amalgamation talks with Stoney Creek.*
Service Disruptions
– Restructuring departments and systems can disrupt services
– Differing service levels get standardized
– Access to services reduced for outlying areas
Loss of Local Representation
– Larger wards mean less access to elected officials
– Reduced ability to advocate for specific community needs
– Risk of urban core dominance in politics
*Example: Toronto amalgamation diluted political representation for Scarborough compared to the old city.*
Tax Inequity
– Varying tax levels and debt loads consolidated
– Wealthier communities subsidize poorer ones
– Poorer communities resent subsidizing affluent areas
*Example: In Ottawa’s amalgamation, higher urban taxes subsidized lower rural taxes, causing resentment on both sides.*
Labour Disruptions
– Integrating workforces causes job uncertainty
– Wage parity issues emerge
– Potential for strikes during transition
*Example: Toronto amalgamation triggered contract talks with unions like CUPE, leading to a 2009 city worker strike.*
Implementation Challenges
– Merging operations, systems and databases is complex and costly
– Major transition planning and change management
– Timeline to achieve efficiencies can be lengthy
*Example: Hamilton spent $130 million on amalgamation transition costs, offsetting early savings.*
Loss of Trust in Government
– Forced amalgamation breeds public cynicism
– Lack of consultation damages community relations
– Seen as downloading provincial costs
*Example: Mike Harris’ forced mergers in the 1990s caused extensive Ontario public backlash about lack of choice.*
Weighing Amalgamation’s Efficiency
One of the most contentious issues is whether mergers achieve greater efficiency and cost savings overall.
Arguments That Amalgamation Improves Efficiency:
– Larger scale enables some services like garbage collection to be delivered more efficiently
– Combined purchasing power drives down procurement costs
– Savings from eliminating duplicate departments and roles
– Shared infrastructure reduces duplication
Arguments That Amalgamation Reduces Efficiency:
– Loss of specialized local knowledge and expertise
– Difficulty coordinating across larger geographic areas
– Super sized bureaucracies create inefficiencies
– Transition and harmonization costs cancel out savings
– Smaller municipalities often more responsive
Much depends on the pre-merger state of the municipalities involved. Two poorly managed towns merging may yield gains, whereas amalgamating a highly efficient small municipality into a dysfunctional large city is unlikely to improve efficiency.
Impact on Local Democracy
Some opponents argue amalgamation dilutes local democracy and accountability by having:
– Less access to elected officials in larger wards
– Reduced ability to influence decision-making
– Loss of community identity in voting/council
– Urban core dominance in mayoral elections
However, proponents argue amalgamation can strengthen democracy by:
– Simplifying municipal governance structure
– Having fewer municipalities reduces parochialism
– Resources to engage citizens across larger city
– Broader voter base increases diversity
Political representation is another contested issue. Large wards make access to councillors difficult compared to smaller towns. But larger cities enable hiring more qualified staff and larger councils can improve diversity.
Overall, amalgamation involves trade-offs between local accountability and the power of larger-scale democracy. Maintaining community councils or “boroughs” can help address this.
Alternatives to Full Amalgamation
Beyond full merger, intermediate options can achieve benefits while maintaining local representation. These include:
Shared Service Agreements
– Municipalities jointly provide services like fire and waste collection
– Maintains efficiencies without amalgamation
– Allows autonomy and identity
*Example: The Region of Waterloo municipalities operate a shared fire service.*
Voluntary Partnerships
– Jointly lobbying higher levels of government
– Sharing resources and equipment
– Cooperating on projects like transit and economic development
*Example: The Western Ontario Wardens’ Caucus allows voluntary rural county collaboration.*
Two-Tier Municipalities
– Separate lower-tier and upper-tier councils
– Lower-tier preserves community identity
– Upper-tier allows coordination on regional issues
*Example: The Regional Municipality of Niagara has 12 lower-tier municipalities and a regional upper-tier council.*
De-Amalgamation
– Reversing past amalgamations into smaller units
– Recognizes mistakes or changed circumstances
– Allows communities to regain autonomy
*Example: Referendums have been held on de-amalgamating parts of Montreal and other merged cities.*
While amalgamation is often presented as an all-or-nothing proposition, creative governance models can deliver some benefits of larger scale while maintaining local representation.
A Nuanced Issue
This analysis shows that municipal amalgamation has complex pros and cons. There are legitimate arguments on both sides. Amalgamation can yield efficiencies but also risks service declines and loss of community identity.
Rather than a blanket pro- or anti-amalgamation stance, the best position seems to be assessing each case based on the unique needs and conditions of the municipalities involved. Implemented thoughtfully with extensive public consultation, amalgamation can be beneficial. But forced mergers typically breed resentment.
Creative alternatives like shared services, voluntary partnerships and two-tier councils demonstrate there are intermediate options allowing communities to cooperate while preserving local governance. With an issue as multifaceted as amalgamation, nuance and flexibility are needed. Any changes require buy-in from all affected communities.
