Canada – Northwest Territories Gas Tax Fund

Transcription

Canada – Northwest
Territories Gas Tax Fund:
Outcomes Report
November 2, 2009
Canada – Northwest Territories Gas Tax Fund: Outcomes Report
2
Table of Contents
Section One - Introduction............................................................................................... 5
Section Two - Partnerships ........................................................................................... 11
Section Three - Integrated Community Sustainability Planning..................................... 16
Section Four - Outcomes .............................................................................................. 17
Section Five - Conclusion and Challenges .................................................................... 33
Appendix A: Agreement on the Transfer of Federal Gas Tax Revenues under the New
Deal for Cities and Communities 2005-2015………………………….............................37
Appendix B: Gas Tax Funding Allocation…………………………………………………. 83
Appendix C: Joint Evaluation of the Gas Tax Fund and Public Transit Fund…………. 87
Appendix D: Eligible Project Categories and Costs…………………………………..… 111
Appendix E: Gas Tax Projects in the NWT as of March 31, 2009…………………….. 117
3
4
Section One - Introduction
The Government of Canada (Canada) and the Government of the Northwest Territories
(GNWT) signed the Agreement on the Transfer of Federal Gas Tax Revenues in
November 2005 (the Agreement). This Agreement allows for the transfer of Federal Gas
Tax revenues to the Northwest Territories (NWT) for the period of 2005 to 2014.
The Agreement provided the NWT with $37.5 million during the initial five-year period,
with an additional $15 million each year thereafter, until 2014.
Of the allocation, two percent is set aside for a Capacity Building Fund designed to
improve capacity at the community level via a territorial approach. A further one percent
is allocated to the GNWT for the administration of the agreement.
The Gas Tax Fund (the Fund) is designed to help strengthen NWT Community
Governments by providing a reliable and predictable funding source which supports the
implementation of municipal infrastructure that not only enhances the local economy,
but also improves the environment and quality of life.
In addition, the Fund benefits communities by providing funding to increase the capacity
of communities to undertake long term planning in a variety of areas.
Appendix A is the signed Agreement between Canada and the NWT.
i. Outcomes
Section 7.1.1.b of the Agreement states that the NWT will, “prepare, publish and
disseminate to the public, by no later than September 30, 2009, and periodically
thereafter, an Outcomes Report.”
This Outcomes Report will report on the cumulative investments made, including
information on the degree to which these investments have actually contributed
to the objects of cleaner air, cleaner water, reduced Green House Gas emission
and other positive environmental impacts or outcomes.
Schedule E of the Agreement lists five main outcome indicators which should be
reported on. They are:
a. NWT communities have access to a secure supply of high quality drinking
water;
5
b. NWT community enjoy a high standard of air quality;
c. NWT residents participate in active transportation to avoid greenhouse
gas emissions;
d. NWT communities are energy efficient; and
e. NWT communities manage solid waste and wastewater in a manner that
preserves the integrity of the natural environment.
ii. Examples of Gas Tax Investment
As of September 30, 2009, there have been a total of seventy-one individual
projects reported which received either full or partial investment from the Gas
Tax Program. This has resulted in a financial investment of $12,212,929 towards
achieving the desired outcomes of the Agreement and helping to preserve the
environment of the NWT.
Projects in the NWT have focused on each aspect of the desired outcomes in a
variety of different ways:
•
The Chipsealing projects in K’asho Got’ine (Fort Good Hope) and Fort
Simpson have helped to improve air quality for residents.
•
Gameti’s new sewage truck and newly expanded sewage lagoon have
helped to improve the collection and disposal of wastewater.
•
The communities of Sachs Harbour and Ulukhaktok have seen investment
made to improve their long term planning in the areas of project
management, capital planning and financial monitoring.
•
The City of Yellowknife has been able to implement many successful
water projects and a city wide energy plan.
Communities in the NWT have utilized Gas Tax funding for small projects such
as a small systems water treatment course ($250) and large projects such as the
replacement of the Pump House at the new Water Treatment Plant in Yellowknife
($3,965,000).
6
iii. Funding Allocation
After the signing of the Agreement in 2005, the GNWT consulted with the NWT
Association of Communities (NWTAC) to allocate funds for the initial five-year
period. The following three allocations of money were agreed upon:
•
Administration – One percent of the Funds received by the NWT over the
first five years ($75,000/year) would be used by the GNWT to administer
the fund. This funding would be used to monitor the fund and ensure that
responsibilities under this agreement were met. After the initial five year
period, the parties would consult to ensure that the one percent was
adequate and appropriate.
•
Capacity Building – Two percent of the Funds received by the NWT over
the first five years, would be available for capacity building on a territorial
approach. This allocation allowed the GNWT to host several workshops
and deliver training for Integrated Community Sustainability Plans, a
component required under the Agreement.
•
Community Funding – 97 percent of the Funds received by the NWT was
available for distribution among all thirty-three communities in the NWT.
The allocation methodology used to distribute the funds was a “Base-Plus”
approach. This produced communities a guaranteed one percent base per
year, to ensure each received an equitable amount of funding under the
Agreement. In addition, communities would receive additional funding
calculated on a per capita basis.
See Appendix B, for a full NWT funding allocation breakdown.
iv. Extension of the Gas Tax Agreement
Initially, the Agreement signed between Canada and the GNWT was to expire on
March 31, 2010, however the funding agreement was been extended, and will
now expire in 2014.
The parties entered into formal negotiations in 2008 to extend the funding
agreement to 2014. One of the factors which helped to guide the negotiations
was a joint evaluation of the program, which took into account the views of
stakeholders (see Appendix C). Generally, the evaluation indicates the Gas Tax
7
program in the NWT has been successful and is receiving support from large and
small communities.
As of September 30, 2009, the funding agreement between Canada and the
GNWT has not been signed, however there is agreement that funding will
proceed at the 2009/2010 level, which will provide the NWT with $15 million per
year.
v. Terms of the Agreement
a) How can the funds be used?
The Gas Tax funds can be used towards eligible costs in six different categories:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Water;
Wastewater;
Solid Waste;
Community Energy Systems;
Active Transportation Infrastructure; and
Capacity Building.
Consistent with the Agreement, eligible projects in the categories listed above
must fulfil the desired outcomes of the Agreement, listed in section 1.i of this
document and Schedule J of the Agreement. In essence, eligible projects are
those capital projects resulting in green infrastructure or capacity building which
helps community governments manage their infrastructure more effectively. As
an example, centralized composting for solid waste sites and wood pellet boilers
for arenas are eligible projects; which coal boilers and garbage trucks are not.
An important distinction must also be made between what is capital and what is
operation and maintenance (O&M), as the former is an eligible category for
funding, and the latter is not.
Projects resulting in new infrastructure (i.e. a new building or mobile equipment)
are capital expenditures and are eligible, as long as the infrastructure relates to
one of the six categories listed above.
Projects resulting in the betterment of infrastructure, by extending useful life and
increasing the output of the asset (i.e. installation of a fuel efficient boiler or
adding a new cell to a sewage lagoon) are also eligible.
8
Projects that are not extending the useful life of an asset, or enhancing its output,
and do not create new infrastructure are considered O&M expenses, and are not
eligible projects under the Agreement.
Communities are encouraged to speak with the GNWT’s Gas Tax Co-ordinator,
or their Municipal and Community Affairs Regional Office, if they have any
questions regarding project eligibility.
See Appendix D, for a complete listing of eligible categories and costs.
b) What’s an eligible recipient?
There are two significant requirements eligible recipients of Gas Tax funding
must comply with.
The recipient must report to the GNWT on Gas Tax fund activity. They must,
through their annual audited financial statements and quarterly reporting, share
with the GNWT the following information:
•
•
•
The total amount of Gas Tax funds received;
The total amount of Gas Tax funds spent;
o What eligible project the funds were spent on;
o What eligible category the project complies with; and
o What positive outcome the project will produce;
The amount of accrued interest on unused Gas Tax funds received.
As well, eligible recipients must provide the GNWT with additional information
relating to funds received and eligible projects, on an as needed basis.
Secondly, eligible recipients must complete an Integrated Community
Sustainability Plan (ICSP) by March 31, 2010. ICSPs, as defined by the
Agreement, “mean a long-term plan, developed in consultation with community
members that provides direction for the community to realize sustainability
objectives it has for the environmental, cultural, social and economic dimensions
of its identity...”
The Agreement does not stipulate the framework of an ICSP. Schedule H of the
Agreement requires Canada and the NWT to approve, by way of Oversight
9
Committee and consultation with the NWTAC, the components of the ICSP by
March 31, 2007.
The agreed upon framework of the ICSP are:
• A strategic plan;
• An energy plan;
• A human resources plan; and
• A five-year capital investment plan.
The GNWT and the NWTAC agreed in 2007 to create a Sustainability
Coordinator position through the NWTAC to assist communities in the creation of
ICSPs. The Coordinator has been actively working with communities to create
their ICSPs.
If recipients fail to comply with the requirements under their individual funding
agreements, the GNWT may withhold payments to communities. If a recipient
rectifies the situation in a timely and satisfactory manner, the funds withheld are
given to the community immediately.
10
Section Two - Partnerships
As with any program of this nature, there is a strong need for consultation, collaboration
and teamwork to ensure success. The GNWT has worked closely with three different
groups to ensure the Gas Tax program worked for all stakeholders.
Community Governments, Infrastructure Canada (INFC) and the NWTAC have all been
integral in the implementation of the Gas Tax program.
i.
Community Governments
NWT community governments have been an integral factor in realizing success
of implementation of the Agreement. The majority of communities have seized
the opportunity to invest wisely in environmentally sustainable municipal
infrastructure (ESMI) and innovative capacity building.
Innovative projects, such as the Centralized Composting project at the
Yellowknife Landfill or the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping of the
Town of Fort Smith’s infrastructure, illustrate the inherent need for this funding
and the innovative thinking in the NWT to develop and utilize new methods of
managing and monitoring community public infrastructure.
Community governments have expressed their satisfaction with the program, as
documented in the Joint Evaluation of the Gas Tax Fund and Public Transit Fund
(2009). Previous types of Federal infrastructure programs, such as the Municipal
Rural Infrastructure Fund (MRIF), where projects are funded on a reimbursement
basis, are not the types of program a NWT community desires. Of the $19.2
million available thru MRIF, $19 million was applied for, leaving $200,000
unallocated, which was returned to the Government of Canada.
Communities have spoken highly of their ability to use the GTF to boost capacity
within communities. It is well documented that many communities in the NWT
have capacity issues which can cause frustration in many areas, including
managing and monitoring finances and infrastructure. Fortunately, Schedule A of
the Agreement was negotiated to include capacity building as an eligible
category. Communities have utilized this category to improve their capacity in the
areas of: capital planning, project management, water treatment operations, and
many others.
11
Two conferences were held, with support from the Territorial Capacity Building
Fund, at the onset of the Gas Tax program to help foster effective relations
between the GNWT and communities. The Sustainable Communities Workshop
was held in 2006, and the Strengthening Communities Workshop in 2007.
These conferences allowed communities to build partnerships with not only the
GNWT, but other communities and organizations such as the Arctic Energy
Alliance and the NWTAC, to assist in the completion of ICSPs.
The conferences were also used to solicit input from NWT communities in
selecting the components and approved the template for the NWT ICSP.
Communities were thankful to be included in the decision making and
appreciated the chance to ensure the ICSP template would conform to, not only
the requirements of the Agreement, but also their long-term planning needs. This
approach will help to ensure ICSPs are practical and useful for community
governments that can help to guide future policy decisions.
ii.
Infrastructure Canada (INFC)
Infrastructure Canada was established as a federal department in August 2002.
Since then, the department has worked to:
•
•
•
•
Provide a focal point for the Government of Canada on infrastructure
issues and programs through the Building Canada plan;
Lead the Government of Canada’s efforts in addressing the infrastructure
challenges of the country;
Support infrastructure initiatives across the country; and
Facilitate world-class public infrastructure for Canada and Canadians.
INFC is the co-signatory to the Canada-NWT Gas Tax Agreement and has been
a major factor in developing and fostering infrastructure development in the NWT.
Unlike Federal infrastructure agreements before it, the Gas Tax agreement
allows for the greatest control by community governments to decide how to use
their funding. A long-term desire for communities has been a program which
allows them to have a stable, predictable source of income that can be used
towards environmentally sustainable infrastructure.
Prior to the Gas Tax program, community governments had relatively equal
opportunities for each federal dollar invested in the NWT. INFC, in partnership
12
with the GNWT, have listened and delivered a program that invests directly to
each of the thirty-three municipalities in the North.
As part of their capital investment plans, community governments can expect to
receive their allocation and plan for its use accordingly instead of the uncertainty
surrounding competitive infrastructure funding agreements.
The Gas Tax program gives communities ultimate responsibility to spend, save
and invest.
NWT communities can:
•
•
•
Spend the money as they receive it on a variety of vital infrastructure
projects;
Save the money they receive and use the funding received over two or
more years towards a larger project; and
Invest in the future and ensure their community continues to flourish. GTF
projects are essentially projects promoting healthy communities. Whether
they reduce green house gases (GHGs), provide for cleaner water or lead
to current infrastructure being managed better. 1
INFC continues to work with the GNWT closely to monitor and improve the Gas
Tax program in the north. In March 2009, an extension to the Agreement was
announced giving the NWT $15 million per year between 2010 and 2014. This
continued stable and predictable funding source will help to address the
infrastructure funding deficit prevalent in NWT communities and Canada as a
whole.
An issue facing many NWT communities is the lack of capacity and continuity
amongst senior administrative staff. This lack of capacity and turnover led to
some communities becoming non-compliant with the program. Non-compliant
communities have their funding held by the GNWT until such a time as the
community regains compliancy.
Non-compliant issues will be touched on later in this document; however these
issues range from a lack of appropriate accounting of funds received, and the
spending of the Funds on ineligible expenses.
1
Infrastructure Canada. “About Infrastructure Canada.” 27-08-2009. Infrastructure Canada <
http://www.infc.gc.ca/department/about-apropos/about-apropos-eng.html>
13
iii.
NWT Association of Communities (NWTAC)
The NWTAC is responsible for, “the promotion and exchange of information
amongst the Community Governments of the NWT and to provide a united front
for the realization of goals.” 2 The organization was formed in 1967 and currently
represents twenty-seven of the thirty-three communities in the NWT. The
NWTAC is governed by an elected board chosen from amongst its members.
Currently the Mayor of Yellowknife, Gordon Van Tighem, is the President of the
NWTAC.
The NWTAC has two major roles when it comes to the Gas Tax program: a voice
at the negotiating table for community governments and the provision of practical
advice to support ICSPs development.
The NWTAC is consulted prior to any major decision resulting in the use of Gas
Tax funds. For example:
•
•
•
Allocation of funds for GNWT Administration expenses;
Use of the Capacity Building Fund (NWTAC is a voting member of the
committee which determines its use); and
Finalization or modification of the formula allocating available Funds to
community governments.
In 2008, a decision was made by the committee responsible for the use of the
Capacity Building Fund to hire a Sustainability Coordinator through the NWTAC.
The Sustainability Coordinator’s mandate is to ensure that community
government’s meet the requirement in the Agreement to have an ICSP
completed by March 31, 2010.
Since that time, the Coordinator has been actively working with communities
focusing on their strategic and human resource planning.
Also in 2008, the Coordinator facilitated the purchase and distribution of a
strategic planning program that helps communities with the process. In 2009,
regional strategic planning workshops were held in each of the five different
regions of the NWT to implement the program.
2
NWTAC. “About us”. 2009. NWTAC <http://www.nwtac.com/aboutus.html>
14
Since the workshops, the Sustainability Coordinator has been visiting
communities, upon request, to help guide the development of their individual
ICSPs.
15
Section Three - Integrated Community Sustainability Planning
Integrated Community Sustainability Planning (ICSP) has three key elements: the
community government, community residents and the environment. Effective strategic
sustainable planning provides for a cleaner environment, a healthier citizenry and a
reduced operating budget for the community government.
It is well documented that the initial push to complete an ICSP may be costly as the
majority of NWT communities will struggle to complete them without the use of
consultants and contractors. However, once a community completes an ICSP, the
benefits are both tangible and intangible.
Of the NWTs’ ICSP template, all four components have a role to play in accomplishing
the outcomes of the Agreement.
The Human Resources Plan will help develop a community’s public service. This plan
will allow community governments to invest time and effort into establishing an
appropriate reporting and staffing framework. The end result is a clearly defined public
service that considers all areas required to provide necessary services to community
residents. For communities in the process of developing or that have completed
development of a plan, indicate priority for a position dedicated to efficient uses of
capital funding and energy consumption. These positions are integral to reducing a
community’s energy output, thereby reducing operating and maintenance costs which
can be reinvested into other capital programs and expenditures.
Energy and Capital Plans will help communities set infrastructure targets and allow
them to maximize the limited financial resources they have. This planning component
will allow them to understand their energy situation and be better suited to determine
ways to reduce their operating budget and provide for a cleaner community.
The Strategic Plan will bring all three components together and set a greater vision for
the community. Essentially, the community will be authoring a document which will
guide decision making well into the future. The Strategic Plan will be respectful of the
culture, democratic nature and fiscal abilities of the community.
By completing and implementing ICSPs, community governments are setting their own
outcomes, many of which will be similar in scope to the GTF, and are helping to
produce healthy and sustainable communities.
16
Section Four - Outcomes
As mentioned previously, the Agreement has the following five desired outcomes for
NWT communities:
1. Access to a secure supply of high quality drinking water;
2. A high standard of air quality;
3. Participation by NWT residents in active transportation to avoid greenhouse gas
emissions;
4. Energy efficiency; and
5. Management of solid waste and wastewater in a manner that preserves the
integrity of the natural environment.
To measure the impact of the GTF on these outcomes, the GNWT looked at four key
areas to measure the outcomes of projects in the NWT. These four areas were:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Cleaner Air and Reduction of Green House Gases (GHGs);
Cleaner Water;
Effective Management of Solid Waste Sites; and
Capacity Building.
As of September 1, 2009, there were a total of seventy-one individual projects partially
or completely funded through GTF. All seventy-eight projects fit under the four areas
listed above. This allowed the GNWT to quantify and gauge the success of the GTF in
meeting the outcomes in the NWT. See Appendix E for a complete listing of GTF
projects in the NWT.
The next four sub-sections will detail the findings of the GNWT’s study into the areas
mentioned above.
i.
Cleaner Air and Reduction of Green House Gases (GHGs)
This is a broad outcome and one that cannot be addressed without further
breakdown. In terms of this report, two subsections are needed and,
subsequently, two main types of projects were looked at.
a. Cleaner Air: Eligible projects fall under Dust Suppression, which is a subeligible category of the Active Transportation Eligible Category.
17
b. Reduction of GHGs: Eligible projects fall under the Community Energy
Systems Eligible Project Category.
a. Cleaner Air
Up until the meeting of the Oversight Committee on August 18, 2009, dust
suppression included asphalt, chip-sealing, calcium chloride, and other types of
dust suppression. To quantify the investment that GTF has made on cleaner air,
this report will look at the type of dust suppression used, the dollar amount
invested and the length (in kilometres) of road treated.
There are many detrimental effects of road dust on NWT communities including
safety, nuisance, vehicle damage, road maintenance costs and legal liability
concerns. No concern, however, is greater than the damage that road dust can
cause to the environment and the health of community residents.
According to the Dust Control Alternatives Cost Benefit Analysis (2005) by EBA
Engineering Consultants Ltd. dust from gravel roads can have the following
negative impact on the environment, “Large amounts of dust falling on vegetation
may stress plants due to increased heat absorption and decreased transpiration.
High levels of dust falling into aquatic systems may adversely affect aquatic
plants and fish that are not adapted to high levels of sedimentation.” 3
In respect to the health of residents, the report goes on to state that, “Particulates
are known to aggravate symptoms in individuals who already suffer from
respiratory or cardiovascular diseases” (Health Canada 2004). Very fine
particulate matter is of most concern from a health perspective because these
particles can enter the deepest parts of the lungs. A Canada-Wide Standards for
very fine particulate matter that has a diameter of less than 2.5 microns has been
established pursuant to the 1998 Canada-wide Accord on Environmental
Harmonization of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME).
This limit is for less than 30 μg/m3, over a 24 hour averaging time, to be
achieved by year 2010.” 4
3
4
EBA Engineering Ltd. Dust Control Alternatives Cost Benefit Analysis. 2005
18
As of March 31, 2009, the following communities have completed dust
suppression projects in their communities using the GTF:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Aklavik;
Fort Simpson;
Fort Providence;
K’asho Got’ine (Fort Good Hope); and
Whati.
Of these five communities, Aklavik, Fort Providence and Whati have used calcium
chloride on their roads instead of traditional methods of dust suppression (asphalt
or chip sealing). Calcium chloride is a water-absorbing dust suppressant that
slows the rate of evaporation of salt and water. These types of suppressants work
well in permafrost areas, like the NWT, because they mitigate ice formation and
hence can prevent cracking from freeze-thaw action. 5
As mentioned previously, calcium chloride was previously an acceptable project
under the program. However, clarification was made by the GTF Oversight
Committee that all calcium chloride expenditures after August 18, 2009, would be
deemed unacceptable due to concerns regarding the lifespan of calcium chloride.
While calcium chloride is an alternative type of suppressant that costs less, one
application typically lasts only seventeen months 6 and does not fit under the
definition of a capital cost.
The Federal Government and the GNWT have committed to work on a case-bycase basis to determine if other methods for traditional dust suppression could be
considered capital costs. Clarification of these methods will be released to the
public in 2010.
In total the amount of road treated with a form of dust suppressant was 58.64 km.
5
6
19
Table 4-1
Community
Aklavik
Type
of GTF Invested in Kilometres
Suppressant
Project
Treated
Calcium Chloride
$55,657
10 km
Fort Simpson
Chip Sealing
$413,443
3.9 km
Fort Providence
Calcium Chloride
$65,058
33 km
K’asho
Got’ine Chip Sealing
(Fort Good Hope)
Whati
Calcium Chloride
$87,043
3.74 km
$44,717
8 km
Case Study – Fort Providence’s Dust Problem and Solution
“Historically, northern communities have suffered from dust issues associated with
gravel roads in their downtown core. Gas Tax funding has provided our communities
with a mechanism to address this issue. The Hamlet of Fort Providence has used
Federal Gas Tax funds to procure and apply calcium chloride, a benign chemical that
keeps the dust down and greatly improves the quality of life in their community. Further,
the Hamlet of Fort Providence is in the process of applying an asphaltic surface
treatment (chip seal) to every road in the community. The chip seal treatment will last
much longer than calcium chloride and is awaited with great pride by all citizens in the
community. Gas Tax is funding this dust control project; the design is complete and
work is expected to start this fall (2009), with the anticipated completion date in the
summer of 2010.” Keith Morrison, Manager of Community Infrastructure Planning,
Municipal and Community Affairs, South Slave Region
As of March 31, 2009, the Hamlet of Fort Providence has utilized $65,058 in Gas Tax
funding for the purchase of calcium chloride to suppress dust in the community.
Since the project’s inception, the community has treated thirty-three kilometers of road.
However, the disadvantage of using this type of dust suppression is that the lifecycle of
the product is only seventeen months, which amounts to one summer season in the
community.
In the summer of 2009, the community decided to enter into discussions to have the
entire community undergo a chipsealing program. The project will utilize Gas Tax
funding and severely limit the amount of dust in the community.
20
b. Reduced Green House Gases (GHGs)
According to Environment Canada (EC), GHGs are “gases in the atmosphere that
trap energy from the sun. Naturally occurring GHGs include water vapor,
ozone, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Without
them, the Earth's average temperature would be about 33°C lower than it is,
making the climate too cold to support life (Schneider, 1989). While these naturally
occurring gases are what make life possible, a serious concern today is the
enhanced effect on the climate from increased levels of these gases in the
atmosphere, due mainly to human activities” 7.
Communities rely upon fossil fuel mediums which cause high levels of GHG
emissions. One of the desired outcomes of the Gas Tax program is to offer a
financial incentive for communities to provide a cleaner supply of energy to the
community. These methods include biofuel, solar and wind.
The eligible category which most compliments this outcome is the Community
Energy Systems category. Eligible projects in this category include:
•
•
•
Co-generation or combined heat and power projects (where heat and
power are produced through a single process);
District heating and cooling projects where heat (or cooling) is distributed to
more than one building); and
Use of proven technology to incorporate “alternative” energy sources (wind,
geothermal, biomass, sun, tide, waste heat recovery, etc.) for Community
Public Infrastructure, recognizing that only the energy efficient components
of such projects are eligible.
While there has been a direct investment of $706,465 of Federal funding towards
these types of infrastructure through the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund
(MRIF), there has been only $78,948 in GTF used towards energy efficiencies and
GHG reduction.
To quantify this reduction, the GNWT surveyed the two communities that used
GTF towards these projects and asked them to provide the quantity of kilowatt
hours saved by employing these new technologies.
7
Environment Canada. “What are greenhouse gases?” Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Information. 18-11-2006.
Environment Canada <http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/about/faq_e.cfm#gases>
21
The two projects combined have lead to a total reduction of 28,600 kwh/year
consumed in the NWT.
Table 4-2
Community
Fort Resolution
Inuvik
GTF Invested in Kilowatt
per
Project
year(kwh/year)
Hours Reduced
Energy Upgrade for $18,948
3,600
Arena
Recreation Centre $60,000
25,000
Energy
Upgrade
Project
Project Title
While the above projects are typically tied directly to fix asset community public
infrastructure, three other project types in the NWT have led to a direct reduction
in GHGs. They are: mobile stock drinking water distribution systems wastewater
collection systems, efficiency upgrades to existing water/wastewater systems
and active transportation/public transit.
Whereas southern Canadian jurisdictions benefit from water and sewer piping
connecting infrastructure and homes, many NWT communities rely on trucked
delivery and collection of water and wastewater. The NWT has received
clarification that under the terms of the GTF Agreement, mobile stock relating to
wastewater collection and water distribution systems are eligible projects.
Three communities have used GTF to purchase water trucks and four have
purchased vacuum trucks, used for the collection of wastewater. For the
purposes of measuring the magnitude in which these municipal service vehicles
have assisted in meeting the outcomes of the Agreement, the GNWT has
compared the reduction in fuel consumption from previous service vehicles to the
new vehicles.
The seven new service vehicles have led to a total reduction of 51,285.29 litres
per year of fuel consumption.
22
Table 4-3
Community
Fort Resolution
GTF
Litres (L) of Fuel
Invested in Consumption
Project
Reduced
Water Distribution Truck $176,900
Unchanged
Fort Liard
Unchanged
Fort Providence
1060 Litres
Gameti
Kakisa
K’asho Got’ine
Good Hope)
Tsiigehtchic
Project Title
Wastewater
Truck
Wastewater
Truck
(Fort Wastewater
Truck
Wastewater
Truck
Collection $132,750
Unchanged
Collection $99,950
Unchanged
Collection $131,250
43211.29 litres
Collection $150,655
7014 litres
Three of the tax based communities in the NWT have used GTF to improve the
energy efficiency of their water and wastewater systems. This has resulted in a
positive effect on reducing the amount of GHGs generated and led to a total
reduction of 120,000 kwh/year used by their distribution and collection services.
Table 4-2
Community
Project Title
Inuvik
Utilidor Upgrade
Norman Wells
Sewage Lift Pump
and
Electrical $20,773
Upgrades
Monitor and Controls
for Pump houses
$146,000
and Lift stations
Upgrades
Remote
Pressure
$7,000
and
Temperature
Sensors
Yellowknife
Yellowknife
GTF Invested in Kilowatt
Project
(kwh/year) Hours
Reduced Per Year
60,000 kwh/yr
$649,281
Project
Completed
Not
Project
Completed
Not
60,000 kwh/yr
23
Another important outcome of the Agreement is the model shift away from private
transportation towards public transit systems. To date, under the program,
$260,297 has been spent by Tuktoyaktuk and Yellowknife to initiate and improve
public transit services.
Tuktoyaktuk purchased a thirty-two passenger school bus which has been
converted into a community use bus. This unit resulted in a yearly ridership figure
of 6,000 people per year.
Yellowknife installed bus shelters and new high efficiency light emitting diode
(LED) traffic lights. 7 shelters have been installed throughout the city. The
increased number of shelters has given some protection to users during periods
of poor weather.
The traffic lights have led to an improved energy efficient system and a reduction
of 1000 kwh.
Case Study – City of Yellowknife’s Energy Conservation Program
“The Gas Tax fund is critical to change the processes used in the city. The fund allows
the city to put a focused effort towards being innovative, think innovatively and leverage
further sources of funding. The Gas Tax has allowed the city to lower our carbon
footprint and become more environmentally responsible.” Mark Henry, Energy
Coordinator, City of Yellowknife
As of March 31, 2009, the City of Yellowknife utilized $801,000 in GTF towards its own
Energy Conservation Program. A key facet of the entire program is the Energy
Coordinator. As the GTF is designed for the implementation of infrastructure projects
and capacity building, the City of Yellowknife applied for special dispensation to hire an
employee at the City on a fixed term basis to spearhead its energy conversation
program.
The program has been instrumental in completing and implementing the City’s Energy
Plan. The program has led to many energy efficiency projects in the City, including the
installation of wood pellet boilers.
Currently the City is exploring the possibility of utilizing GTF towards a proposed
geothermal extraction project at the former ConMine Gold Mine. This source of
24
geothermal heat will help to provide the City with a source of “clean” heat, as the City
makes a concentrated push to end its reliance on fossil fuels.
ii.
Cleaner Water
The health of NWT residents depends on the effective management,
protection and enhancement of natural resources. Preserving NWT water is
an important challenge and the continued care and management of NWT
water resources requires a large investment. Thanks to the GTF, there has
been an investment of $5,904,956 towards the preservation and treatment of
water and wastewater, as well as the installation of fixed distribution systems
(i.e. pipes) and storm water management.
This has been the single largest area of investment for the GTF and has been
identified as the most important area for future investment by the GNWT and
NWT communities.
In terms of drinking water treatment, there has been $4,030,303 spent on four
individual projects. This has resulted in 6,500 cubic metres of water being
treated to a higher standard per day.
Table 4-5
Community
Project Title
Fort Liard
Water Plant Retrofit
Fort McPherson
Water
Intake
$64,860
Upgrade
Water
Treatment
Plant
Capital $3,943
Upgrades
Pump
house
Replacement / New
$3,965,000
Water
Treatment
Plant
Norman Wells
Yellowknife
GTF Invested in Metres
Cubed
Project
Treated
to
a
Higher
Standard
per Day
Unchanged
$6,500
Unchanged
Unchanged
6,500
25
Three fixed asset water distribution system projects have been completed
resulting in an investment of $1,146,447. This has resulted in an increased
capacity of 287,956 cubic metres distributed per day.
Table 4-6
Community
Hay River
Hay River
Yellowknife
Project Title
GTF Invested in Increased
Project
Capacity of Water
Distributed
(Metres Cubed Per
Day)
Drive
143,978
and $423,604
Stewart
Drainage
Restoration
Rehabilitation
and
Sustainability of the
Town’s
Drainage
$602,843
and
Underground
Water and Sewer
Infrastructure
Pump house #4 New
$120,000
Piping
143,978
Project
Completed
Not
Communities have allocated $722,206 towards the treatment of wastewater,
resulting in an increased capacity to treat 5,028 cubic metres/per day to meet
safety standards.
Table 4-7
Community
Fort Liard
Fort Liard
Gameti
Project Title
Project
Capacity to Treat
Wastewater
(metres
cubed
reduced per day)
Lagoon $29,873.59
5,000 metres cubed
Sewage
Construction
Sewage Treatment $649,586
Facility
Sewage Lagoon
$42,746.35
Project
Not
Complete
28 meters cubed
In addition, the community of Aklavik has installed two culverts (132.2m) for
$6,000 to aid in the community’s drainage plan. The Hamlet of Aklavik lies in a
26
flood risk area and has perennially been a flood risk. The community has
engaged a northern firm to assist in the creation of a drainage plan to mitigate
further risks to community residents, interests and assets. The installation of
culverts to divert water from the community has been the first step in the
implementation of the drainage plan.
iii.
Effective Management of Solid Waste Sites
Effective management of solid waste sites by community governments leads to
lower operation and maintenance costs, and a longer lifecycle for the asset. Solid
waste sites were once operated and managed by the GNWT on behalf of
communities. Under the New Deal for NWT Community Governments,
responsibilities for solid waste sites are being transferred to communities. While
the transfer of land ownership is still on-going, community governments are
currently operating and maintaining solid waste sites independently of the
GNWT.
Through an investment of GTF, community governments are now able to look at
expanding current sites and to use new ideas and technologies to divert solid
waste to recycling or composting facilities.
A total of eighteen projects, in nine different communities, are tied directly to
effectively managing a solid waste site. These projects account for $924,502 of
the GTF utilized in the NWT since 2005.
When tracking these types of projects, the GNWT uses two primary outcome
indicators:
•
•
Increased capacity of site in tonnes; and
Increased tonnage of waste diverted from the landfill.
Two additional projects that fall into the overarching solid waste site category,
which have unique indicators and were tracked separately.
a. Increase capacity of site in tonnes
The largest GTF investment in the area of solid waste site management was
introduced to increase the capacity of the current solid waste sites. As of March
31, 2009, there were nine such projects with an investment totalling $595,494.
These projects have led to an increased solid waste capacity of 38,904 tonnes.
27
Table 4-8
Community
Increase Capacity of
Site (in Tonnes)
750 Tonnes
Norman Wells
GTF Invested
in Project
Gravel Berm at Solid $120,000
Waste Site
Development of New $78,530
Cell
Construction of New $18,263
Solid Waste Site and
Closure of Previous
Solid Waste Site
Solid Waste Site $42,746
Upgrade
Landfill Expansion
$177,857
Ulukhaktok
Rebuilding of Landfill
$79,098
6 Tonnes
Yellowknife
New Landfill
$56,000
Project Not Complete
Yellowknife
Landfill Expansion
$23,000
20,000 Tonnes
Aklavik
Fort Providence
Fort Liard
Gameti
Project Title
7 Tonnes
Project Not Complete
3,141 tonnes
15,000 Tonnes
When the new Yellowknife Landfill is completed, it is expected to add an
additional 150,000 tonnes of additional capacity.
b. Increased tonnage of waste diverted from the landfill
The City of Yellowknife has undertaken seven different projects which aim to
reduce the amount of waste deposited at the solid waste site and divert it to
either recycling or composting sites.
The seven projects total $223,000 of GTF investment, and have diverted 150
tonnes of waste from the landfill.
28
Table 4-8
Community
Yellowknife
Yellowknife
Yellowknife
Yellowknife
Yellowknife
Project Title
Project
Tonnage of Waste
Diverted
from
Landfill
Facility $46,000
Project
Not
Completed
Bailing
Mechanical
Upgrades
Transfer Station Bins $49,000
Landfill
Site $26,000
Restoration
Three Cell Salvaging $11,000
System
Centralized
$16,000
Composting
Pilot
Project
Project
Completed
Project
Completed
Project
Completed
150 Tonnes
Not
Not
Not
c. Other Solid Waste Projects
The other two projects tied to effective management of a solid waste site have
resulted in GTF investment of $106,008 for the Town of Fort Smith and the City
of Yellowknife.
The City of Yellowknife has instituted a new Landfill Fire Control system to
mitigate against potential fire damage to the asset and the subsequent pollution
that would be released into the air at a project cost of $25,000.
The Town of Fort Smith has concluded a site improvements project on their solid
waste site, the most notable inclusion to their current management system is the
addition of a ground water monitoring system. This is tied directly to the effective
management of solid waste sites and the eventual outcome of cleaner water by
increasing water conservation and protection.
29
iv.
Capacity Building
This area of GTF utilization has resulted in the second highest volume of projects
and funds used. Communities in the NWT need funding like the GTF, in order to
train their staff to effectively manage and monitor infrastructure and finances.
There has been many innovative and necessary capacity building projects
undertaken using GTF, including mapping community infrastructure using GPS
technology, project fundamentals coursework and effective solid waste
management.
There have been seventeen capacity building projects undertaken by ten
community governments. There has been a direct investment of $1,195,786 of
GTF in capacity building at the community level.
While conferences, courses and workshops relating to water, waste water, solid
waste, accounting, and ICSP development are prevalent, the City of Yellowknife
has utilized $881,000 to develop an Energy Conservation Program. This program
has been led by an Energy Coordinator whose position is funded out of the City’s
Gas Tax allocation. The position is term, non-permanent, and this investment has
produced the City’s Energy Plan and led to a reduction in GHGs emissions.
Since the approval of the Energy Coordinator’s position at the City of Yellowknife,
other communities have expressed their interest for a similar resource. In 2009,
the community of Paulatuk will be hiring their own Energy Coordinator to lead
development of an energy plan which will cut the Hamlet’s GHG emission
footprint.
30
Table 4-9
Community
Aklavik
Project Title
Strategic Plan Development
GTF Invested in Project
$12,024
$1,386
Deline
ICSP Strategic Planning
Tool Workshop
Property
and
Asset
Management
Human Resources Plan
Implementation
Small
Systems
Water
Treatment Course
Solid Waste Management
Deline
ICSP Regional Workshop
$14,446
Aklavik
Aklavik
Colville Lake
Deline
$427
$50,976.53
$250
$300
Fort Providence
Water and Waste Water $1,014
Training
Fort Smith
GPS
Mapping
of $54,468
Infrastructure
Fort Smith
GIS
Equipment
and $24,714
Software
K’asho Got’ine (Fort Good Water Conference
$34,877.76
Hope)
Lutselk’e
Financial Training
$1,175.85
Sachs Harbour
Capital Planning Workshop
$5,482.98
Ulukhaktok
Accounting Training
$10,836
Ulukhaktok
Project
Fundamentals $2,408
Course
YK
Smart
Growth $100,000
Redevelopment Plan
Energy
Conservation $881,000
Program
Yellowknife
Yellowknife
31
Case Study – Ulukhaktok Builds Project Management Capacity
“The project management courses that have been taken by the Hamlet staff will allow
them to understand project management basics and allow the individual to utilize these
new skills in managing their new infrastructure projects. Understanding the steps and
the processes for a project will allow for the implementation of project’s on time, on
budget and according to scope. It builds local capacity and assists the community in
ensuring projects happen as required to ensure optimization of their infrastructure. The
Gas Tax funds have allowed the community a vital chance to build their capacity and
further the goals of the program.” Lorie Fyfe, Manager Capital Programs and Works,
Municipal and Community Affairs, Inuvik Region
The Hamlet of Ulukhaktok is the second most northerly community in the NWT, situated
925 kilometers north of Yellowknife on Victoria Island. The community has a population
of 434 and is only accessible by the air or, seasonally, water.
The Project Management Certificate, which the Hamlet is aspiring to attain, is a program
offered by Aurora College and consists of ten courses with the goal of learning how to
manage a project on time and within budget.
The community plans to begin construction of a community hall in the near future. This
project is a Building Canada Plan (BCP) which requires project management knowledge
that the community has not yet been required to undertake on their own.
As of April 1, 2007 capital planning and infrastructure implementation responsibility
were transferred to community governments under the New Deal for NWT Community
Governments. This will be the first large scale capital project the community will
implement without the direct assistance of the GNWT.
The knowledge transferred by taking the Project Management Certificate will aid the
community to undertake this project. In this instance, one can see how the GTF is
helping to promote capacity among community governments and ensure the success of
the Building Canada Plan and New Deal for NWT Community Governments.
32
Section Five - Conclusion and Challenges
As a result of $12,212,929 in GTF invested in seventy-one projects in the NWT, the
following outcome indicators have been met:
•
•
•
•
Cleaner Air:
o 58.64 km of road treated with dust suppressant;
o 148,600 kwh/hr decreased;
o Reduction of 51,285.29 l of fuel;
o 7 bus shelters installed; and
o 6,000 people public transit ridership increased by.
Cleaner Water:
o 6,500 metres cubed of water treated to a higher standard;
o An increased capacity of 294,456 cubic metres distributed per day;
o An increased capacity to treat 5,028 cubic metres/per day of
wastewater to meet safety standards; and
o 132.2 metres of culverts installed.
Effective Management of Solid Waste Sites:
o An increased solid waste capacity of 38,904 tonnes;
o 150 tonnes of waste diverted from the landfill;
Capacity Building:
o Invested $1,195,786 towards capacity building.
The Gas Tax Fund has been a highly successful program in the NWT. It has led to
strengthened partnerships, increased long-term planning and stable funding which has
led to innovative thinking, as it relates to municipal infrastructure. However the program
is not without its challenges and issues.
Due to capacity issues and high staff turnover, not all communities are compliant with
their individual Gas Tax funding agreements with the GNWT. At the time that this report
was published, there were nine community governments currently non-compliant. The
main issues are:
•
•
•
•
•
Segregation of GTF from other sources of funding;
Failure to track interest earned on GTF;
Failure to report on GTF expenditures;
Failure to use GTF on eligible projects; and
Failure to submit a council motion in support of the ICSP deadline.
33
The GNWT is working closely with community governments and their auditing firms to
ensure that communities regain compliance with their agreements and receive the
funding currently being withheld.
Hindering this process is the lack of capacity in the NWT to consistently complete audits
on schedule. Therefore, MACA will institute, as of September 1, 2009, a quarterly
reporting schedule whereby Community Governments report on GTF every three
months. These reports are un-audited but certified by the SAO and are used as interim
data until such a time that a community’s annual audited financial statements are
completed. The quarterly reporting, or Community Expenditure Reports (CER), will also
be used to diagnose issues in reporting before the problem grows.
There have also been issues regarding the ten designated authority communities in the
NWT. Since these communities (two Settlements and eight First Nation Bands), cannot
own real property under their governing legislation, the GNWT has not provided their
GTF allocation. The GNWT has, however, reimbursed communities on a project by
project basis when the community purchases a piece of mobile equipment or completes
a capacity building course, which is an eligible activity under their legislation.
Bands have begun to create not-for-profit societies, so they are permitted to own the
property which allows the GNWT to flow funding to community governments. The
society will be governed by the council members, and communities are in varying
stages of creating this society.
Settlement Communities have two options. They can continue to be reimbursed for
individual projects, or they can change their status to either a Hamlet or Charter
Community. Both Colville Lake and Fort Resolution are are moving to one of these two
options.
As the GTF program continues to grow in the NWT, these challenges will be addressed.
Even though there are many issues, it should not diminish the positive effect that that
the GTF program has had on infrastructure development, promoting a healthier
environment and building capacity at the community level.
The GNWT remains committed to assisting community governments with infrastructure
financing, including the GTF program, and will continue to monitor the investment it has
made.
34
Appendix B
Allocation Methodology
GOVERNMENT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
JOINT EVALUATION OF THE GAS TAX FUND AND
PUBLIC TRANSIT FUND
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT
DATE: MARCH 11, 2009
Suite / Pièce 1605
130 rue Albert Street
Ottawa, ON K1P 5G4
(T) 613-567-7774
(F) 613-567-7790
cpm.ca
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. 2
1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................... 1
1.1. The Gas Tax Fund ....................................................................................... 1
1.2 The Public Transit Fund ............................................................................... 2
1.3 Methods Used for this Evaluation ............................................................... 2
2.0 Findings ..................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Overall ............................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Design & Delivery .......................................................................................... 3
2.2.1 Lack of Clarity with Respect to Eligibility Categories .................. 3
2.2.2 Weak Capacity for Small and Rural Municipalities to Meet
Reporting Requirements ............................................................................ 4
2.2.3 The Challenge of Flowing Funds to Settlements and
Designated Authorities ............................................................................... 4
2.2.4 The GTF Agreement is being Administered with the Appropriate
Rigour............................................................................................................ 5
2.3 Success ........................................................................................................... 5
2.3.1 Projects are Expected to Result in Improved Environmental
Sustainability ................................................................................................ 6
2.3.2 Reduction of Infrastructure Deficit is Essential to Community
Growth and is a Result of GTF/PTF......................................................... 6
2.3.3 Integrated Community Sustainability Plans .................................. 6
2.4 Cost-Effectiveness ........................................................................................ 7
3.0 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 7
4.0 Recommendations .................................................................................................. 7
4.1 Continue the Program Under the Current Design .................................... 8
4.2 Clarify the Reporting and Auditing Requirements for Small
Municipalities......................................................................................................... 8
4.3 The Eligibility Criteria Should be Made Clearer ........................................ 9
4.4 MACA Should Continue to Pursue Improved Options for Flowing
Funds to Settlements and Designated Authorities.......................................... 9
4.5 Provide Increased Training on ICSP Development, and Extend the
Deadline for ICSP Completion ........................................................................... 9
Appendix A: Documents Reviewed............................................................................ i
Appendix B: List of Interviewees .............................................................................. iii
Appendix C: List of Individuals Invited to Participate in the On-line Survey iv
Appendix D: Case Studies .......................................................................................... vi
Appendix E: GTF/PTF Evaluation Questions (Framework Matrix) ................ viii
1.0 Introduction
This Joint Evaluation Report describes the key findings and issues related to the design,
delivery and success of the Gas Tax Fund (GTF) and Public Transit Fund (PTF) for the
Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT). The findings contained herein are
based on data collection to date as part of a joint evaluation of these two programs for
the GNWT and Infrastructure Canada (INFC). The evaluation aimed to determine what
progress and success the programs have achieved toward their final outcomes to date.
There is also a cost-effectiveness component to this evaluation, the objective of which is
to determine whether the most efficient and appropriate means are being used to
achieve the programs’ intended outcomes.
1.1. The Gas Tax Fund
The Gas Tax Fund (GTF) is designed to contribute to the Government of Canada’s
environmental objectives through targeted support for sustainable municipal
infrastructure in Canadian communities. The GTF provides reliable, predictable and
multi-year funding to municipalities that enable them to make investments in
infrastructure projects that address local needs and help to produce the shared national
outcomes of cleaner air, cleaner water and reduced GHG emissions. For the Northwest
Territories, the GTF will also promote linking infrastructure investments to long term
Integrated Community Sustainability Plans (ICSPs), and strengthen the ability of
community governments to make integrated financing and investment decisions
reflecting their unique needs and circumstances.
Under the GTF agreement, funding is allowed to flow to community governments before
expenditures are incurred. However, the agreement contains a number of conditions
which must be fulfilled by the recipient prior to receiving the allotted money (e.g.
incremental spending and Capital Investment Plans). The GTF is a per capita allocation
that is transferred to a province, territory or other initial recipient on a semi-annual basis.
Allocations have been determined through fiscal year 2013-2014 (extending from 2005
until 2014).
Eligible investments include capital expenditures for environmentally sustainable
municipal infrastructure, which is defined as local infrastructure projects that contribute to
reduced GHG emissions, to clean water or air and fall in one of the following categories:
1. water;
2. wastewater;
3. solid waste;
4. public transit;
5. community energy systems; and,
6. active transportation infrastructure.
Funds can also be used to undertake capacity building projects.
Through the GTF, Canada promotes improved quality of life in Canada’s municipalities
and supports environmentally sustainable municipal infrastructure in support of the
shared national objectives of cleaner air, cleaner water, and reduced GHG emissions.
1
The GTF funding allocation for the Northwest Territories is $37.5M over the period from
2005 to 2010.
1.2 The Public Transit Fund
Modeled after the GTF, the PTF is a transfer payment program that supports the
environmental objectives of cleaner air, reduced GHG emissions, modal shift, reduced
energy use, increased ridership and improved quality of life to residents.
The PTF funding for the Northwest Territories was $535,898. Funding was provided to
the Northwest Territories in 2006-07.
1.3 Methods Used for this Evaluation
This evaluation used multiple lines of evidence to collect data and assess evaluation
issues from a variety of perspectives. No single evaluation module is able to address
the same issues with the same amount of depth, or breadth. This report summarizes the
findings and key messages through the execution of four evaluation methodologies.
The methodologies that were used for this evaluation are:
1. A review of documentation, files and other literature;
2. A series of interviews with GNWT program officials (initial recipients), officials
from Infrastructure Canada, municipal associations and municipal
representatives from a sample of municipalities (ultimate recipients);
3. A web-based questionnaire targeting ultimate recipients; and
4. A case study completed for select projects
Interviews were arranged and conducted in clusters. The groups of individuals
interviewed (to February 19, 2009) were program officials from the Northwest Territories,
program officials from Infrastructure Canada, a representative from the Northwest
Territories Association of Communities, and a sample of community representatives from
across the Northwest Territories.
The administration of a survey permitted the gathering of opinions with respect to various
projects funded under GTF and PTF from the communities. This information provided
insights into the issues that affect Managers and Staff in the communities.
The survey was fielded to 33 individuals from late December 2008 until February 19,
2009. A total of 6 responses were received. Given that this evaluation is comprised of
multiple lines of evidence, including a set of 11 interviews with community officials, there
is enough interview and survey data to be able to address the evaluation questions.
Additionally, the low response rate to our survey is evidence of weak capacity in
communities (discussed in Section 2.2.2 of this report).
Case studies allowed for an in-depth review of specific investments made through GTF
and PTF. These case studies consisted of a thorough review of documents; a number of
interviews with proponents, and/or project managers and others closely involved with the
projects.
The projects chosen for case studies were strategically selected. The goal was to select
a mix of cases with projects from across the Northwest Territories and from the full range
of areas of eligibility. Flexibility in selecting specific cases was necessary in order to
2
meet the timeframes for this study. A good mix of projects was covered through the
case studies process.
2.0 Findings
2.1 Overall
The Gas Tax Fund and the Public Transit Fund have brought financial assistance to
communities across the Northwest Territories, allowing for the development and
improvement of important infrastructure. The focus on environmental conservation,
community organizing, and personal health and safety has guided the development in an
appropriate direction. However, based on findings there appear to be elements of the
programs where there is room for improvement. Recently, there have been delays in
flowing funding to the Northwest Territories, since reporting has been late. This issue is
expected to be resolved over time as training programs continue to be delivered, as
officials gain experience with the program and as administrative capacity improves in
communities.
2.2 Design & Delivery
In the design and delivery of GTF/PTF in the Northwest Territories there are several key
findings that outline the success, obstacles overcome, and the challenges ahead for
these programs. The issues relate to:
•
project eligibility requirements;
•
the Integrated Community Sustainability Plans; and
•
flowing funds to Settlements and Designated Areas.
2.2.1 Lack of Clarity with Respect to Eligibility Categories
Findings suggest that there have not been issues related to funding for projects that
clearly meet eligibility criteria; however, there have been concerns raised by a small
number of interviewees around the language that dictates the eligibility of a project. The
agreement generally states projects must meet the requirements of eligible categories
(Schedule A), eligible costs (Schedule B), and the outcomes.. This includes the
requirement of environmental sustainability, meaning they must improve the quality of
the environment by contributing to reduced greenhouse gas emissions, cleaner water or
cleaner air. A small number of SAOs have indicated that projects have been declined for
reasons unclear to them, based on the agreement.
Despite comments by a small number regarding the lack of clarity with respect to
eligibility requirements, nearly all respondents (of the survey and interviews) believed
that the overall aim and objectives of the GTF/PTF agreements aligned well with
community and territorial infrastructure objectives. In some cases communities have
priorities that are outside the program criteria.. In general, when these were discussed,
some of these priorities related to community recreation facilities. It was understood,
however, that GTF and PTF target a specific type of project (e.g. environmentally
sustainable municipal infrastructure), so this was not an issue.
3
2.2.2 Weak Capacity for Small and Rural Municipalities to Meet Reporting
Requirements
One of the most frequent issues raised about GTF, by interviewees and survey
respondents was the lack of capacity of small and rural communities to meet the
reporting requirements of the program. The reporting requirements are the same for all
municipalities regardless of geographical size, population, amount of funding received,
and infrastructure need. Depending on the number of projects undertaken, there is a
substantial amount of reporting required, according to many interviewees, and smaller
communities do not have the staff to always be able to stay current on reporting. The
reporting by small communities was not as cumbersome when that community was
reporting on a single project; however, in the event that a community had multiple
projects funded through GTF, the reporting process was considered by interviewees as
being more difficult. This has caused some difficulties and delays in completing reports
and audits. One interviewee noted that the requirement to maintain a separate bank
account for GTF funds added an additional complexity to record-keeping and in some
cases could reduce the amount of interest earned on these deposits.
In addition, SAOs noted that the current deadlines present a challenge for small
communities, because it is often difficult for them to complete reports at the same pace
as a larger municipality such as Yellowknife.
As one might expect at the early stages of adopting such an approach, there is a
shortage of qualified and experienced program administrators across the Northwest
Territories to implement the approach to the program. An issue that exists relates to the
high turnover of former-MACA staff who had transferred to the different regions once
devolution was initiated. This staff was relocated in order to assist and be a source of
training within the communities on programs like GTF and others. GTF and PTF are
relatively new programs and this is a new approach in NWT. Over time, it is expected
that training will be delivered, and community officials will gain the knowledge and
experience to administer the program with success.
An additional challenge that MACA faces is the large geographic area that must be
covered and the cost of travel in order to visit communities. The geographic size of the
Northwest Territories presents a challenge for communication and for frequent
interchange between MACA officials and officials in the communities. MACA has made
its best efforts to visit the communities (for training and information purposes), and
generally these visits are viewed by community administrators to be of very high-value to
the communities, and very cost-effective in terms of the benefit of these visits to these
communities.
2.2.3 The Challenge of Flowing Funds to Settlements and Designated
Authorities
A difficulty that arose from the GTF/PTF agreements concerns a legal issue impacting
on First Nations governments.
Under Schedule C Section 12(a) an eligibility
requirement states; unless otherwise agreed to by Canada and the Northwest
Territories, the Eligible Recipient will retain title to, and ownership of the Community
Public Infrastructure resulting from the Eligible Project for at least ten (10) years after
Project completion. This requirement however, may be viewed as contrary to the Indian
4
Act (1985) as well as the Territorial Settlements Act, which do not permit band
communities to own real property (land, and any assets on the land). This situation has
presented a challenge for MACA, which has been unable to flow GTF/PTF money to
communities classified as Bands and Settlements. According to the narrative of the
2007-08 Annual Expenditure Report, MACA is working to resolve the issue, and
currently funds GTF/PTF projects through individual contribution agreements with Bands
and Settlements which do not produce fixed assets.
There were examples of MACA working with Settlements and Designated Authorities to
flow funds. For instance, in the case of Dettah, according to interviewees, all
requirements for funding were met, so a not-for-profit group was established to receive
and distribute the funds.
2.2.4 The GTF Agreement is being Administered with the Appropriate
Rigour
There were problems in the early years for the administration and reporting of GTF funds
in NWT, which have now been resolved in a satisfactory manner. During the production
of the 2006-2007 Annual Expenditure Report, MACA staff noted some errors made in
the previous year’s AER. The report erroneously stated that MACA had transferred
$1,809,344 to eligible local governments. MACA had transferred only $1,150,540. The
correction of these figures resulted in MACA restating the 2005-2006 financial data in
the 2006-2007 AER. The subsequent adjustment of the quantity of funding being flowed
to Local Governments also affected the stated amount of interest the GNWT earned on
held Gas Tax funding (from $46,133 to $43,227). The reason for these errors is
attributed by GNWT to the proximity of many Contribution Agreements being signed by
the respective Local Governments to the fiscal year end. These problems have been
resolved in a satisfactory manner.
MACA remains dedicated to applying the criteria for funding established in the
agreement to all projects and ensuring compliance with the agreement. Management
practices in this regard have been exemplary. This is evidenced by MACA’s request for
reimbursement from Fort McPherson for expenses that were deemed ineligible under the
agreement. 1 It is through MACA's effective management and rigorous implementation of
the provisions of the agreement that the Schedules to the agreement are clearly being
upheld by the GNWT.
2.3 Success
There have been many successful components of the GTF and PTF programs in the
Northwest Territories.
These include environmental benefits, addressing of
infrastructure priorities, increased planning in communities, and good collaboration and
communication between Infrastructure Canada, MACA and communities.
1
According to the narrative of the 2007-08 Annual Expenditure Report (At the time of this evaluation the 2007-08 AER is
not yet an accepted AER by Infrastructure Canada), the GNWT’s audit guidelines included schedules dedicated to the
Gas Tax agreement for the first year in 2007/2008. Due to this, MACA was initially unable to discover that Fort
McPherson had failed to adequately report this non-compliant expense until the inspection of their 2007/2008 audit. Fort
McPherson has been deemed non-compliant and the GNWT will not begin again to transfer Gas Tax payments until such
a time that the GNWT is reimbursed.
5
2.3.1 Projects are Expected to Result in Improved Environmental
Sustainability
All of the projects associated with funding from the GTF or PTF have been centered on
increasing environmental sustainability, along with the health and well-being of residents
and visitors. Some of the initiatives include:
•
Utilidor expansion and upgrading in Inuvik for water and sewage;
•
The Yellowknife Community Energy Plan, which promotes the use of efficient and
renewable energy and will be used as a model for the Northwest Territories;
•
Dettah was able to purchase an upgraded an more efficient van to transport the
local residents to Ndilo and Yellowknife;
•
The Village of Fort Simpson eliminated the need to continually water a stretch of
dirt road by undertaking a chip sealing project; and,
•
The Town of Fort Smith has purchased Geographic Information Systems
equipment to effectively plot infrastructure development.
All of these projects qualified as contributors to cleaner air, cleaner water, reduced
greenhouse gas emissions, and/or safer and healthier communities.
2.3.2 Reduction of Infrastructure Deficit is Essential to Community Growth
and is a Result of GTF/PTF.
Funding from the GTF and PTF initiatives has been an important source of funding for
many communities in the NWT. Much of the money was used for essential infrastructure
development and improvement that would not have occurred without this funding, or
would have been done over a longer period of time. Many SAOs indicated that the
funding contributed to reducing their infrastructure deficit, which impacts all residents
now and in the future. This impact was made possible by the close alignment that many
communities felt existed between the criteria for funding and municipal objectives.
2.3.3 Integrated Community Sustainability Plans
Another concern is that many communities indicated that there was a lack of capacity to
complete the ICSP, particularly due to lack of staff with the required knowledge and
experience, or to inadequate staff training. In response, MACA staff has facilitated
capital planning sessions to ensure that quality CIP’s, (Community Investment Plans -one of four components of the ICSP) are produced, and have developed a ‘Capital
Investment Tool’ to outline the steps required for creating a standard CIP. The result is
that 32 of 33 communities now have completed CIPs. The assistance from MACA is met
with a positive response by the communities but the administrative burden still remains
cumbersome for small communities.
Increased planning capacity is a goal of the GTF and PTF initiatives, and implementation
has started. However, it has been a slow start in some communities. Meeting the 2010
deadline for all communities to have submitted ICSPs will be challenging. This is in part
due to the aforementioned capacity issue and in part due to a lack of “buy-in” by some
communities, regarding the idea that the planning requirements are beneficial to the
process. Some communities were concerned that ICSPs would be completed only to be
filed or placed on a shelf and not used extensively. However, most SAOs see common
6
ground on the idea that greater emphasis on planning in general will have a high value in
most communities.
2.4 Cost-Effectiveness
The GTF and PTF are both cost-effective programs. We have identified no suggestions
for ways to deliver the program that would be more appropriate than the current
arrangements. The Northwest Territories has decided that they would flow these funds
to communities and expect the communities to set priorities, plan how they will use the
funding to meet their infrastructure priorities pursuant to the program requirements, and
implement their plan. This model for flowing the funding is well-appreciated and
supported by community officials.
3.0 Conclusion
In sum, the GTF and PTF programs are helping the communities of the Northwest
Territories to reach their objectives by funding key infrastructure priorities that otherwise
would not be completed. The program can be viewed as still at an early stage of
implementation in the Northwest Territories.
The program was well designed and took into account the needs and aspirations of
citizens of the Northwest Territories. Flowing the funding to the communities and having
communities make key decisions on plans, priorities and project implementation is much
appreciated by ultimate recipients.
In practice, results to date are mixed, with some excellent early successes as well as a
number of areas that require continued attention. Community administrators are
learning quickly to implement the program; but due to a lack of capacity in communities,
there have been some delays in reporting and therefore, flowing the funding in a timely
manner. The environmental and health benefits from completed and planned projects
are indicative of responsible governance and initiatives which will benefit generations to
come.
There are some program components that have started, but that have not advanced as
quickly as may have been hoped (development and use of ICSPs). There are
components which require continued work to resolve outstanding issues (flowing funds
to Settlements and Designated Authorities).
4.0 Recommendations
The programs are generally well-managed. The design ensures that many different
kinds of projects can be undertaken. It seems that any perceived “issues” with GTF and
PTF are outweighed by the benefits brought to the communities of NWT.
Nevertheless, there are issues that exist. One of the most common issues was that of a
lack of clarity about what projects are eligible and why. A better explanation of what is
eligible and ineligible would add an additional level of comfort to the municipalities,
according to the data. The result of high priority projects getting funding was due, in part
to trial-and-error as participants gained familiarity with the program eligibility criteria.
Another issue is the lack of capacity of particularly small and rural municipalities to meet
reporting requirements. The requirements are standard, and thus the level of effort for a
small municipality ends up being more significant for them than larger municipalities that
7
are equipped to handle such reporting. A more streamlined reporting structure may
improve this issue by limiting the frequency with which reporting is required.
The benefits of the projects funded under these programs range from improving
environmental quality to enhancing planning and cooperation amongst municipalities
and across levels of government. Qualitatively numerous benefits can be shown. In
terms of quantitative measurement, the NWT will need to work closely with communities
to ensure the measurement of long-term outcomes is undertaken.
There are several recommendations that should be implemented in order to continue,
and improve in some areas, the delivery and success of these programs, based on the
findings.
4.1 Continue the Program Under the Current Design
The design of the GTF and PTF programs work well. The programs have been
structured well for moving Federal dollars to municipalities across Canada, including in
the NWT. The funding allocation is appropriate from the Federal – Territorial standpoint,
and there were no significant issues raised about the Territorial – Municipal funding
formula.
4.2 Clarify the Reporting and Auditing Requirements for Small
Municipalities
Required reporting under the program is appropriate and commensurate with the amount
of money being distributed. Municipal officials, especially from communities outside of
Yellowknife, in the NWT raised reporting as an issue during this evaluation. Specifically,
communities are submitting incomplete and/or unaudited reports. There seems to be a
two-fold reason for this. First, communities tend to be unclear of the requirements
associated with GTF reporting. Secondly, the capacity to meet these reporting
requirements is so weak that the documentation is prepared quickly, and with minimal
attention to detail. After very careful consideration, we recommend that the current
design with respect to reporting be maintained. However, the reporting and audit
template should be made clearer by modelling it after the same form used for the AER.
Municipal officials are still learning and becoming familiar with the reporting requirements
and the templates and other reporting tools. It can take several years before these
instruments become well established in the routine practices of municipal officials,
especially in small communities. From experience with other programs when new
reporting or reporting tools have been introduced, each time they are used, they tend to
become easier for officials to complete over time. The key to gaining broad familiarity
across the NWT with the reporting system and tools is to set up a system and then avoid
making unnecessary changes.
Over the next few years, as more officials become more familiar with these reports and
reporting tools, assistance to municipal officials in the form of having MACA officials
available to answer any questions that come up would likely continue to be very well
appreciated, in particular by the smaller communities. MACA’s availability is also crucial
for clarifying the reporting and auditing requirements for communities. For the smallest
communities in the NWT, the cost of filling in the forms, and the cost of the audited
annual expenditure reports may still be high compared with the amount of money
received, a simplified reporting template may help in this regard.
8
In the government programs of this nature with which the evaluation team is familiar, if
money is transferred to an ultimate recipient, public expectations for stewardship of tax
dollars require that there must be accountability and reporting for the funds transferred.
It would not be acceptable from a public accountability perspective to flow funds for
several years to a recipient without any reporting or accountability, no matter whether the
amounts in question are seen as relatively small amounts.
4.3 The Eligibility Criteria Should be Made Clearer
Municipalities are generally pleased with the coverage of projects that the eligibility
categories provide; however, they are sometimes uncertain about whether or not their
proposed project would meet the criteria. A list of examples of eligible projects and noneligible projects, for each of the eligibility categories should be provided to municipalities
by the GNWT. This will offer an additional level of comfort to municipalities that are
planning projects to be funded by the GTF.
4.4 MACA Should Continue to Pursue Improved Options for
Flowing Funds to Settlements and Designated Authorities
Although it is a challenge to flow funds from the GNWT to Settlements and Designated
Authorities, MACA has done an exceptional job to get the funds into these communities
that are in need of important infrastructure. MACA should continue to be innovative in
this regard, and ensure that funding flows to these communities.
4.5 Provide Increased Training on ICSP Development, and
Extend the Deadline for ICSP Completion
Given that no communities have officially submitted completed ICSPs, it is going to be
very challenging for the GNWT to meet the deadline of March 2010. It is recommended
that the extension of the date from March 2010 to March 2012 be implemented as well
as increased training efforts with regard to ICSP development.
It will be important for MACA to continue its efforts with respect to training on community
planning in order to meet it’s goal on ICSPs for all communities. Most communities have
submitted completed CIPs, but there are still other components of the ICSP that need to
be done in most communities. Due the some of the scepticism on the part of
municipalities with respect to the potential usage of such plans, MACA will need to
provide continued assurance to municipalities that ICSPs are important and useful in
terms of long-term community sustainability.
This training could be provided along side the training offered for the New Deal Program.
A portion of New Deal workshops could be dedicated to the ICSP and its various
components. This may bolster support for the requirement, and should also increase
buy-in on the part of communities.
The other key issue here is that due to the size of the NWT and the distances involved
between communities, required travel can be very expensive. MACA’s success in
adequately training communities on ICSP development depends on their ability to travel
within the NWT.
9
Appendix A: Documents Reviewed
Agreements
Canada – Northwest Territories Agreement on the Transfer of Federal Gas Tax
Revenues under the New Deal for Cities and Communities (10 November 2005).
Contribution Agreement – Federal Gas Tax Revenue between the Government of the
Northwest Territories and the Hamlet of Aklavik (n.d.).
Contribution Agreement for Public Transit between the Government of the Northwest
Territories and the Town of Hay River (n.d.).
Annual Expenditure Reports
Annual Expenditure Report (2007-2008).
Annual Expenditure Report Narrative (2007-2008).
Annual Expenditure Report (2006-2007).
Annual Expenditure Report Narrative (2006-2007).
Meeting Minutes
Canada – Northwest Territories Gas Tax Funding Agreement: Minutes of Oversight
Committee Meeting (24 August 2006).
Applications for Funding
Application Public Transit Funding – Dettah/Ndilo (22 Feb 2008).
Application Public Transit Funding – Town of Fort Smith (9 May 2007).
Application Public Transit Funding – Yellowknife (n.d.).
Technical Documents and Reports
GTF-PTF Technical Document for Outcomes Reporting (n.d.).
NWT Greenhouse Gas Strategy (2007-2011).
Communications Documents
Community Government Tool Kit: Fort Liard Pilot Project Case Study (March 2007)
<http://www.maca.gov.nt.ca/toolkit/project_management/The%20Case%20Study%20For
%20Ft_%20Liard%20_04-9-07_1.pdf>.
Community Government Tool Kit: Integrated Community Sustainability Planning (n.d.)
<http://www.maca.gov.nt.ca/toolkit/sustainability_planning/>.
Community Government Tool Kit: Integrated Community Sustainability Plans Recap
PowerPoint (n.d.).
Community Operations: About the Public Transit Fund (n.d.)
<http://www.maca.gov.nt.ca/operations/transit/>.
Gas Tax Allocation Table (n.d.)
<http://www.maca.gov.nt.ca/operations/gastax/AllocationTableGasTax.pdf>.
I
Gas Tax Funding for Northwest Territories Communities Through Canada’s New Deal
for Cities and Communities – Backgrounder (n.d.)
<http://www.maca.gov.nt.ca/operations/gastax/NWTbackgrounder_gas%20taxfinal.pdf>.
News Release: Gas Tax Agreement (21 February 2006)
<http://www.maca.gov.nt.ca/resources/newsroom/minister_2006/gastax_agreement.html
>.
News Release: Minister Welcomes Federal Gas Tax Announcement (2 February 2005)
<http://www.maca.gov.nt.ca/resources/newsroom/news_2005/MinisterWelcomesGasTax
.html>.
News Release: Northwest Territories Public Transit Funding Announced (13 April 2007)
<http://www.maca.gov.nt.ca/resources/newsroom/publictransitfunding.htm>.
“Northwest Territories communities to benefit from more than $64 million through
Canada’s New Deal for Cities and Communities,” Infrastructure Canada, (10 November
2005), <http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/media/news-nouvelles/gtffte/2005/20051110yellowknife-eng.html>.
Northwest Territories Municipal and Community Affairs Newsletter (August 2007)
<http://www.maca.gov.nt.ca/resources/MACANewsletter_07_Aug.pdf>.
Northwest Territories Municipal and Community Affairs Newsletter (February 2005)
<http://www.maca.gov.nt.ca/resources/MACA%20matters%20feb%202005.pdf>.
Questions and Answers: How can my community use our capital funding? (September
2007)
<http://www.maca.gov.nt.ca/toolkit/infrastructure_plan/CPI%20Funding%20Policy%20Q
As_Final.pdf>.
Statement to the Legislative Assembly: Federal Support for Community Infrastructure
(25 February 2005)
<http://www.maca.gov.nt.ca/resources/newsroom/minister_2005/FedSupportforInfrastruc
ture_Feb2005.pdf>.
II
Appendix B: List of Interviewees
Northwest Territories
Ms. Eleanor Young, Director, Community Operations, Municipal and Community Affairs,
GNWT
Mr. Thomas Beard, Assistant Director, Community Operations, Municipal and
Community Affairs, GNWT
Mr. James Tolley, Financial Policy Analyst, Community Operations, Municipal and
Community Affairs, GNWT
Northwest Territories Association of Communities
Mayor Gordon Van Tighem (Yellowknife), Mayor of Yellowknife and President,
Northwest Territories Association of Communities
Sample of Northwest Territories Communities
Ms. Sara Brown, SAO, Town of Inuvik
Mr. John Carter, CEO, Yellowknives Dene First Nation (Dettah)
Mr. Scotty Edgerton, SAO, Hamlet of Enterprise
Ms. Christina Gaudet, SAO, Charter Community of Deline
Mr. Tom Matus, SAO, Village of Fort Simpson
Mr. Debbie Gordon-Ruben, SAO, Hamlet of Paulatuk
Mr. Troy Jenkins, SAO, Hamlet of Tulita
Ms. Stacey Marcellais, Jean Marie River - First Nation - Designated Authority
Mr. Terry Testart, SAO, Community Government of Behchokö
Chief Leon Lafferty, Behchokö Band
Infrastructure Canada Officials
Mr. Claude Blanchette, Director General, Partnerships and Operations Directorate
Ms. Megan Nichols, Manager, Bilateral Relations, Partnerships and Operations
Directorate – Program Operations Branch
Mr. Maurice Poulin, Manager, Horizontal Initiatives, Partnerships and Operations
Directorate – Program Operations Branch
Mr. Gallisedo, Bae, Program Analyst, Partnerships and Operations Directorate –
Program Operations Branch
III
Appendix C: List of Individuals Invited to
Participate in the On-line Survey
The list below summarizes the list of communities invited to participate in the survey.
For reasons of confidentiality the actual list of respondents is not identified.
Individuals Invited to Participate in On-Line Survey
Community
Participant
Aklavik - Hamlet of Aklavik
Evelyn Storr, SAO
Behchokö (Rae-Edzo) - Community
Government of Behchokö
Terry Testart, SAO
Colville Lake - Settlement Corporation
Joseph Kochon, Band Manager
Deline - Charter Community of Deline
Christina Gaudet, SAO
Enterprise - Hamlet of Enterprise
Scotty Edgerton, SAO
Fort Good Hope - Charter Community of
K'asho Got'ine
Greg Laboucan, SAO
Fort Liard - Hamlet of Fort Liard
John McKee, SAO
Fort McPherson - Hamlet of Fort McPherson
Mary Rose Tetlichi, SAO
Fort Providence - Hamlet of Fort Providence
Susan Christie, SAO
Fort Resolution - Deninoo Community Council
Tausia Lal, SAO
Fort Simpson - Village of Fort Simpson
Tom Matus, SAO
Fort Smith - Town of Fort Smith
Roy Scott, SAO
Gamètì - Community Government of Gamètì
Gaylene Moses, SAO
Hay River - Town of Hay River
Terry Molenkamp, Town Manager
Hay River Reserve - K'atlodeeche First Nation
Keith Marshall, Band Manager
Inuvik - Town of Inuvik
Sara Brown, SAO
Jean Marie River - First Nation - Designated
Authority
Stacey Marcellais, SAO
Kakisa - Ka'a'gee Tu First Nation - Designated
Authority
Ruby Landry, Council Manager
Lutsel K'e - Dene Band - Designated Authority
Susan Catling, A/SAO-Band
Manager
Nahanni Butte - Nahanni Butte Dene Band Designated Authority
Bernie Swanson, A/Band Manager
Norman Wells - Town of Norman Wells
Ian Fremantle, SAO
Paulatuk - Hamlet of Paulatuk
Ray Ruben, SAO
IV
Individuals Invited to Participate in On-Line Survey
Community
Participant
Sachs Harbour - Hamlet of Sachs Harbour
Raymond Kaslak, SAO
Trout Lake - Sambaa K'e Dene Band Designated Authority
Ruby Jumbo, SAO
Tsiigehtchic - Charter Community of
Tsiigehtchic
Roy Chenard, SAO
Tuktoyaktuk - Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk
Debbie Raddi, SAO
Tulita - Hamlet of Tulita
Troy Jenkins, SAO
Ulukhaktok - Hamlet of Ulukhaktok
Lena Egotak, SAO
Wekweètì - Community Government of
Wekweètì
Randy Bergen, SAO
Whatì - Community Government of Whatì
Dan Moore, SAO
Wrigley - Pehdzeh Ki First Nation - Designated
Authority
Paul Nadijwan, Band Manager
Yellowknife - City of Yellowknife
Max Hall, City Administrator
Yellowknife - Yellowknives Dene First Nation
(Dettah)
John Carter, CEO
Yellowknife - Yellowknives Dene First Nation
(N'dilo)
Chief Fred Sangris
V
Appendix D: Case Studies
Community of Dettah/Ndilo: Van Purchase
Dettah is a First Nation community located across the Great Slave Lake from
Yellowknife, a 27km trip in the summer or a 6.5km trip when the lake is frozen. The 223
residents do not have direct access to a community centre, arena, grocery store, bank,
or post office, forcing a reliance on the infrastructure of Yellowknife. It typically takes
thirty minutes to travel to Yellowknife, which amounts to a $60 taxi ride as most residents
do not own private vehicles. The Community Services Division transports youth/mentors
to recreation events, as well as community members and Elders to surrounding areas,
making up to 600 trips per year. The van used for this purpose was nearing the end of
its operational life and required replacement. Funding for a new van was supplied by the
department of Municipal and Community Affairs, through Public Transit Funding, for the
following reasons:
•
To reduce carbon emissions
•
To support environmental conservation
•
To promote accessibility to essential services for all residents of Dettah
Village of Fort Simpson Chip: Sealing Project
Fort Simpson is a community of just over 1200 residents, located on an island in the
Northwest Territories where the Mackenzie and Liard rivers connect. As with many
Northern Canadian communities the road surfaces in the community were primarily
composed of dirt. The community received funding for a chip-seal project through the
Gas Tax Fund for the following reasons:
•
To reduce greenhouse gases
•
To promote the health and safety of residents and visitors
Town of Fort Smith: Trail Development
The town of Fort Smith is situated on the border of Northwest Territories and Alberta,
and has a population of 2, 364. It is a community that promotes its connection to the
environment and active participation in outdoor activities. For these reasons, along with
safety concerns, the town council applied for and received funding to construct a crosstown multi-purpose trail. The trail allows residents to displace automobile trips for
travelling across town, contributing to reduced emissions and reduced GHG. In addition,
the trail gives residents an alternative to walking, cycling or skiing on roads. The money
was granted to the city through the Federal Government’s Gas Tax Fund.
Yellowknife: Trail Linking Project
As the capital city of the Northwest Territories, Yellowknife has to maintain its
infrastructure to accommodate the needs of more citizens than anywhere else in the
NWT. The city submitted a request for funding to construct new sidewalks and multi-use
trails throughout the city. Greater use of the trails would logically reduce the use of
VI
automobiles for some of these trips, reducing GHG and carbon emissions. The funding
was provided for the following additional reasons:
•
Promotion of a healthy and active community
•
Positive environmental impacts
•
Allow students and other residents a safe method of commuting through the city
Yellowknife: Community Energy Plan
In 2004 the City of Yellowknife was identified as having an average per-person
Greenhouse Gas output of 19,000 tonnes, nearly double the Canadian average. A
Community Energy Plan was established in 2005 as a result of the growing concern of
greenhouse gases, along with a commitment to Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Partners for Climate Protection Program. The plan was designed around 12 primary
focus points with the goal of 20 per cent reduction of GHG emissions in city operations
and six per cent for the entire community by 2014, the focus points and goal remains in
place. The City of Yellowknife applied for and received funding under the Gas Tax
Funds Agreement, to the amount of $405,000 over three years. Funding was granted to
this project because it strongly supports the overarching principle of the Gas Tax Funds
Agreement, which is the improvement of environmental sustainability. Environmental
sustainability in the agreement is taken to mean the development of infrastructure to
result in cleaner air, cleaner water and reduced GHG emissions.
VII
Appendix E: GTF/PTF Evaluation Questions
(Framework Matrix)
GTF/PTF Evaluation Questions (Framework Matrix)
Evaluation Questions With Answers
Success/Progress: What is the success/progress achieved to date?
1. What is the level of satisfaction with the GTF
and PTF programs for recipients and ultimate
recipients?
Based on the data collected it seems that
recipients of the program are very satisfied
with the funding provided for key
infrastructure priorities. Without the funding
many important projects would not have
been undertaken.
2. a) What have been the results of the GTF and
PTF projects so far?
There has been a good mix of projects
undertaken and/or completed as a result of
GTF/PTF funding. Projects include work on
pathways, utilidors (water/sewer), community
energy, and roads..
2. b) Is there a good alignment between project
selected, vs. category vs. benefits?
Yes. There is very good alignment between
these three elements.
No interviewee
suggested weak alignment.
2. c) Was the scope of eligible projects wide
enough?
There were some issues with the eligibility
criteria. It seems that for a small number of
interviewees, there is a lack of clarity about
what types of specific projects are covered
under GTF criteria. In some cases similar
projects would be approved or not approved,
and municipalities didn’t understand why in
their neighboring community a project was
funded,
but
in
theirs
it
wasn’t.
Understandably it is a result of the details of
the project, which has an impact on eligibility.
It is just not completely clear to recipients.
3. Did the GTF and PTF programs result in
environmentally sustainable community
infrastructure?
Yes; there are numerous,
projects illustrating such.
4. Did GTF and PTF contribute to increased
planning capacity of communities?
Yes; there is data to support an increased
planning capacity of municipalities.
5. Have the Gas Tax Funds and Public Transit
Funds produced incremental capital spending on
Yes; in most cases the projects undertaken
would not have otherwise been undertaken
documented
VIII
community infrastructure?
without GTF/PTF funding. In other cases, it
would have taken many years to initiate
projects.
6. Did the GTF and PTF programs contribute to
long term sustainability planning in communities?
Planning capacity has improved, but there is
still much work to be done with respect to the
ICSPs.
7. a) How do GTF and PTF align with the priorities
and objectives of the territory and communities?
The GTF program, in particular provides
strong alignment with priorities and
objectives of the NWT.
7. b) Has the program met the territory’s objectives
(priorities as per the bilateral agreement)?
Yes. The program has met the NWT's
objectives; see 7 a above.
7. c) Has the program met the objectives of
communities?
Generally municipal objectives are being met
with respect to environmentally sustainable
infrastructure. In addition there are some
infrastructure priorities which are outside the
scope of GTF (e.g. recreation) These
projects are not funded by GTF.
7. d) Have the optional commitments under GTF
chosen by the territory been met (as per the
bilateral agreements), and what were the
results/impacts?
There is compliance with all commitments of
the NWT pursuant to the bilateral agreement.
8. Did the Gas Tax Fund program foster
collaborative approaches across all levels of
government?
Generally it was found that there is strong
dialogue between the GNWT and other
jurisdictions. Additionally, the collaboration
between levels of government has been
good. The work of the MACA is very well
appreciated in communities. The relations
between the federal and territorial officials
are excellent.
9. What other effects, both beneficial and adverse,
have the GTF and PTF programs had on recipients
of funding? (e.g., innovation, capacity to meet
requirements of the programs, managing
expectations, obtaining support from INFC)
The key issue cited was that many small
communities do not have the required
capacity for the reporting requirements of the
program.
Training has been most
appreciated by community officials. INFC
workshops have been appreciated by GNWT
officials
9. i) Are some recipients of funding affected more
by the program than others?
Smaller communities have a more difficult
time meeting reporting requirements than do
the larger, more established municipalities.
IX
9. ii) Are there some effects due to limited
capacities?
Yes; limited capacity has slowed the
implementation of this new program. limited
capacity has slowed reporting from
communities; funding has been slowed from
Canada to NWT pending receipt of the
required accountability reporting through
expenditure reports.
10. Are there priority community infrastructure
needs that have not been met by the GTF and if so,
why not?
Yes;
GTF
meets
many
important
infrastructure needs in communities, as per
the eligible project categories. Outside the
GTF program, as noted, recreational
infrastructure is a priority in some
municipalities; however, GTF was not
designed to target this type of infrastructure,
and municipalities understand these projects
are outside GTF.
10. i) Was there enough funding available to meet
the needs?
Many needs are being addressed and met
across the Northwest Territories, but there
still remains a significant deficit and a great
deal of infrastructure work is required in
future.
10. ii) Was the scope of eligible projects wide
enough?
Yes. However, communities have additional
infrastructure requirements outside the
projects eligible for GTF funding.
11. Are there priority transit infrastructure and
transit management needs that have not been met
under the PTF, and if so, why not?
The PTF has provided important funding to
the completion of transit infrastructure.
Public transportation does not appear to be a
key priority for communities in the NWT at
this time.
Cost Effectiveness: Are the most appropriate and efficient means being used to achieve
objectives?
12. a) Have ways of determining the costeffectiveness of the projects in the GTF/PTF
programs been identified? If not, why?
Generally municipalities are very happy with
the programs and feel that they are costeffective.
X
12. b) Is it possible to identify a way to do it at the
project/program level?
If yes, how cost effective are the GTF and PTF
programs in terms of:
i)
Program management and control?
ii)
Funding allocation or delivery
mechanisms?
iii)
Is the reporting and administration
required under GTF (or PTF as
applicable) appropriate, or why is it
not?
13. What changes could be made to improve the
performance and success for GTF/PTF?
There were no suggestions with regard to
making the programs more cost-effective.
Generally the funding allocation is fair, wellunderstood and appropriate between the
Federal and Territorial Governments. There
were no significant comments or complaints
about the funding formula between the NWT
and the Communities.
There is solid control over the program –
projects that don’t fit eligibility criteria are not
approved; and if GNWT doesn’t receive the
required plans and reports then, as is fully
appropriate, the funds are withheld until the
proper documentation is provided. The
reporting requirements, although sometimes
perceived as difficult for the smaller
communities, are generally understood and
are appropriate. Sometimes there are delays
in reporting, but they are usually minor.
These are well-managed and effective
programs that are working well. The
programs are being implemented in a costeffective manner and are successful to date.
The ICSP work is progressing and is at an
early stage. There are no changes from the
current plans identified to improve
performance or success for the programs.
XI
Appendix D
Eligible Categories and Costs
Appendix E
Gas Tax Projects Completed by NWT Community Governments
Community
Project Name
Aklavik
Calcium Chloride (Material Cost)
Aklavik
Consultant - Strategic Plan Development
Aklavik
Aklavik
Aklavik
Culverts
Gravel for Berm at Solid Waste Site
Sander for Calcium Spreading
Aklavik
Training - ICSP Strategic Plan Tool
Aklavik
Deline
Training - Property Management
Human Resources Plan Implementation
Strategy
ICSP Regional Workshop / NWTAC AGM
2008
Deline
Small Systems Water Treatment Course
Deline
Fort Liard
Training - Solid Waste Management
Construction of New Solid Waste Site &
Closure of Previous Solid Waste Site
Fort Liard
Fort Liard
Fort Liard
Fort Liard
Fort McPherson
Fort Providence
Fort Providence
Fort Providence
Municipal Service Vehicles
Sewage Lagoon Construction
Sewage Treatment Facility
Water Plant Retrofit
Water Intake Upgrade
Calcium Chloride (Material Cost)
Development of Cells at Landfill
Development of New Cell at Landfill
Fort Providence
Fort Providence
Fort Resolution
Fort Resolution
Fort Simpson
Water and Waste Water Training
Water Truck
Energy Upgrade for Arena
Water Truck
Chip Sealing for Dust Control
Capacity Building - The ability to use GPS
software to map infrastructure points
Colville Lake
Fort Smith
Category (Agreement)
Active Transportation (Dust Control)
Capacity Building (Knowledge/Integration) ICSP Development
Wastewater Treatment
Solid Waste
Capacity Building (Knowledge - Use of New
Technology)
Technology)
Technology)
Solid Waste
Water/Wastewater (Distribution and Trucked
Collection)
Wastewater
Wastewater
Water
Water
Solidwaste
Solid Waste
Technology)
Water
Community Energy Systems
Water
Capacity Building (Knowledge - Use of new
Technology
1 of 3
Project Type
Sub Category: Dust Suppression
Capacity Building
Storm Water Management (Construction
of Culverts)
Landfill expansion
Capacity Building
Capacity Building
Capacity Building
Capacity Building
Capacity Building
Capacity Building
Landfill creation
Replacement of collection system
Construction of treatment system
Treatment system upgrade
Landfill expansion
Landfill expansion
Capacity Building
Building retrofits
Capacity Building
Fort Smith
Fort Smith
Gameti
Gameti
Gameti
Hay River
Hay River
Inuvik
Inuvik
GIS Equipment and Software
Landfill Site Improvements (Site Upgrades
& Groundwater Monitoring System)
Sewage Lagoon
Sewage Truck
Solid waste site upgrade
Rehabilitation and Sustainability of the
Town's Drainage and Underground Water
and Sewer Infrastructure (Multi-year)
Inuvik
Kakisa
Kasho Got'ine
Kasho Got'ine
Stewart Drive Drainange and Restoration
Recreation Centre Energy Upgrade Project
Utilidor Energy Upgrades
Utilidor System Efficiency Upgrade (MultiYear)
Sewage Truck
Chip Sealing
Sewage Truck
Kasho Got'ine
Lutselk'e
Norman Wells
Norman Wells
Norman Wells
Water Conference
Financial Training
Landfill Expansion
Sewage Lift Pump & Electrical Upgrades
Water Treatment Plant Capital Upgrades
Sachs Harbour
Tsiigehtchic
Tuktoyaktuk
Ulukhaktok
Ulukhaktok
Ulukhaktok
Whati
Capital Planning Workshop
Sewage Truck
Community Bus
Accounting Training
Project Fundamentals Course
Rebuilding of Landfill
Dust Suppression (End Dust)
Yellowknife
Baling Facility Mechanical Upgrades
Yellowknife
Bus Shelters
Yellowknife
Yellowknife
Yellowknife
Centralized Composting Pilot Project
Energy Conservation Porgram
Landfil Expansion
Technology)
Capacity Building
Solid Waste
Wastewater
Wastewater
Solid Waste
Landfill expansion
Water/Wastewater
Wastewater
Community Energy Systems
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Technology)
Capacity Building (Knowledge)
Solid Waste
Wastewater
Water
Wastewater
Active Transportation (Public Transit)
Solid Waste
Active Transportation
Replacement of pipes
Construction or expansion of culverts,
ditches, pipes, etc
Building retrofits
Building retrofits
Upgrade of replacement of collection
system or wastewater pipes
Capacity Building
$ Spent
Landfill expansion
Upgrade of treatment system
Capacity Building
New Rolling Stock
$ Spent
$ Spent
Landfill expansion
Expansion of recycling, composting,
gasification, waste diversion projects.
Solid Waste
Active Transportation Infrastructure (Associated
Iinfrastructure)
Sub Category: Capital Assets
Solid Waste
Capacity Building (Knowledge/Integration)
Capacity Building
Solid Waste
Landfill expansion
2 of 3
Yellowknife
Yellowknife
Landfil Fire Control (Tied to new Solid
Waste Site)
Solid Waste
Solid Waste
Yellowknife
Yellowknife
Landfill Site Restoration
Monitor and Controls for Pumphouses &
Lifstations Upgrade
New Landfill
Pumphouse #4 New Piping
Pumphouse Replacement / New Water
Treatment Plant
Remote Pressure & Temperature
Yellowknife
Yellowknife
Three Cell Salvaging System
Trafic Lights Replacement Program
Solid Waste p
Infrastructure)
Yellowknife
Solid Waste
Yellowknife
Transfer Station Bins
Waste Audit & Curbside Recycling (Tied to
New Solid Waste Site)
Yellowknife
Yellowknife
Weigh Scale & Site Work
YK Smart Growth Redevelopment Plan
Solid Waste
Capacity Building (Integration)
Yellowknife
Yellowknife
Yellowknife
Water/Wastewater
Solid Waste
Water
Water
Water/Wastewater
(
Solid Waste
3 of 3
Pump upgrade / replacement
Landfill creation
Pump upgrade / replacement
Drinking water treatment system
construction
Building retrofits
Capacity Building

Canada – Northwest Territories Gas Tax Fund

Transcription

Similar documents

Contact Us! - NWT Disabilities Council

Artists` Newsline -Fall/Winter 2011/12

coldwell banker northern bestsellers

NIP TUCK: private domain extraction and public

here - Yellowknife International Film Festival

here

Northwest bands welcome special guests during upcoming concerts

Picture - Nwt Spca

Message from the President

concertation tour of the ncc in the west and northwest regions