Tuesday, 27 January 2015

Hantsport - a limited village

Should Hantsport become a "limited services" Village? 

Letter given to Hantsport Council, Committee of the Whole, Jan. 20, 2015

Last Spring, we all gathered in the Fire Hall to talk with the Utility Review
Board about an important part of our future together: Town or not, and if
not, what?

One idea that floated onto the table was a good ole Nova Scotia idea:
village.The Public Utility Board promised that that idea would be taken
seriously. Hantsport citizens then asked the Town to take it seriously and
the Council agreed. And so it became a key part of the Grant Thornton
Report. Hantsport as a Village: good idea or not?

Grant Thornton knew that Hantsport had operated very well as a Town for
over a century, and that "those who like it like it a lot." For the most part,
Hantsportians newcomers and old-timers alike, they like their town.
Grant Thornton also knew that, unless the current rules of the game were
changed, we probably could not afford to remain a Town. And when they
were hired by the Town to crunch the numbers, they were expressly directed
to look at the village idea.

And they did. And they took their job seriously. They listed the elements
of a "village" -- which is what you have to do before you can figure out the
costs. This is what would be involved, and this is what it would cost.

Knowing how much we liked being a Town, they imagined Hantsport as a
Village which is "almost a town." So, for example, the community would
keep the existing Town Hall ,which would become the Village Hall . And, as
a village, we would keep doing most of the things that a Town would do.

Unfortunately, it turns out that a "Village which is almost a Town"also costs
almost as much as a Town. So when the costs came in, they were like a
torpedo amidships to the 'village idea'. It just faded away, into the sunset .

I go to church in the Village of Canning. While there, I recently learned that
Canning's residential Village rate (including the fire rate) was 40 cents per
hundred. This caught my attention, since it was much lower than the
projected village rate for Hantsport. Why?I wondered; Canning is bigger
than Hantsport. So I asked for a copy of the Village budget. And the
answer is easy to see: they don't do "most of the things that a town can do."
They do just a handful of things. They are a different type of a village: call
it a 'small scale', or a 'limited services' village.

This prompted me to examine the budgets of a half-dozen villages, and talk
to their Clerks.What I quickly learned is that, quite unlike being clones of a
town, they are literally"all over the map." VARIETY is the order of the day
in Nova Scotia villages. They do very different things, and they do them in
very different ways. Some have 3 commissioners, some have 5. In some
(e.g. Weymouth), the commissioners serve a s volunteers; in others they get
a small stipend. Port Williams does a library. Weymouth, instead does a
medical clinic. Port Williams does water and sewers. Canning does water;
but not sewers (the County does the sewers). There is probably a village
out there that does neither water nor sewers! Some do sidewalks, others
do not. Some do snow removal, others do not. Some do streetlights,
others do not. And on and on it goes.

Interestingly most do fire departments. But here is what is really
interesting. Take Canning and Port Williams. It's their fire department;
they own the building; they run the department . BUT the country pays ALL
the operational costs! Why, because the county does not WANT to run a fire
department. They are delighted to have the village run it! And so are the
folks in Canning.

The bottom line is this: there is no fixed "recipe" for a village in N.S.
You can be a village to do just one thing. Or just two. Or just three.
Canning picked its things, Port Williams picked its things- - - and Hantsport
could pick its things. We could become a village to do just one thing:
secure the future of the new library. Or.... to secure the future of HMCC.
Which always has and probably always will, need some sort of municipal
support grant. As a village, the people of Hantsport could ensure that
support for the future. Or . . . .we could become a village to do both.

RecentlyI talked to a man who has moved here from away. He wanted to
find a home for his family within a hour's drive of Halifax. He drove all
around and eventually drove into Hantsport. The first thing he saw was the
Great Hantsport Park. The second thing he saw was the School. The third
thing he saw was a Church of his denomination. Check, check, check. The
next day -- literally -- he and his family decided to move here. I have
heard many stories like that. People who live here -- and people who move
here -- they know what is unique about Hantsport. What is special. That is
why they come, and that is why they stay.
No matter what happens, all of us want the same thing: we want to keep the
things that make Hantsport special, that make Hantsport unique, that make
this community an absolutely great place to live. The question is : How to
make that happen? One vehicle for making that happen might be. . . .
Hantsport as a 'small scale, limited services' village. "

Last night about a dozen of us met in the Anglican Church basement to talk
about this. We all agreed on this point: there are three things here that
we really, really want to preserve, and that we are sure almost every living
soul in Hantsport wants to preserve.
(1) The Fire Department
(2) The Great HMCC Park
( 3) The Hantsport Library.
Without them, Hantsport would just not be Hantsport. We think that one good way to secure their
future is for Hantsport to become a village which does those three things! Not "everything a Town does." Three things.That model of "small scale" village presents a distinct alternative to the
"Village that is almost a Town"model that has already been studied by Grant Thornton. This alternative has not yet been studied. But we think it has merit, and is worth a serious look.

I am asking you to do two things:( 1) think about it ; (2) meanwhile forward
this note to the Transition Team, and ask them to think about it too.
In the meantime, we are trying to do two things: First, using the factual
base of past Town spending, we are calculating what it would cost a Village
of Hantsport to do these 3 things: secure the Fire Department, secure
HMCC, and secure the new Library. Second, we are making up a chart
which will compare 7 or 8 villages roughly the same size as Hantsport, to
determine how they run their villages, what services they provide, and what
it costs them to do that, again based on budgets & financial statements from
those villages. In other words, we will be working from hard data, not just
from 'guesstimates.'
We hope to bring you results within 10 days.
Respectfully,

Joe Foy, 16 William Street, Hantsport

4 comments:

  1. Joe,
    Can't all the above things happen within the county as a community? Won't there be an increase in costs for every 'item' the village wants control over? I'm not against villages but rather against paying for duplicate services. As a village, I would still have to pay my base rate, area rate for the extras Hantsport currently has and then a village rate on top. Yes, the village rate would be taken out of the area rate but then I would be paying for a duplicate service to have someone monitor it because someone within the municipalities office would be already being paid to do it (double dipping). I believe in order for a village to fly and rates remain the same we would have to give up something in order to balance the cost. However, as a community, and having bylaws we could maintain the same level, if not improved, services that we currently have within raising the cost. Also, aren't the latest reports suggesting that all villages should consider dissolving into there municipality? Why would citizens of Hantsport want to possibly transition through change if the reports are correct?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am in favor of village status as well however it will come at a cost. We do not get anything for nothing. We need to preserve and service more than the HMCC, Fire Department and Library which will be secure regardless of our status. The taxes that's another matter tied into the infrastructure. Sometimes it is hard to see the forest for the trees.

      Delete
  2. Lorraine McQueen28 January 2015 at 09:44

    Thank you so much for posting this. And thank you to Joe for this thoughtful work on our behalf.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Martin Vanderbaaren28 January 2015 at 17:26

    Hi Joe,

    Thanks for the excellent observations, thoughts and comments. However, it may be a bit of wishful thinking that they will be forwarded to the Transition Team. Perhaps you can still submit these comments directly to the UARB, as the schedule for the application hearings shows March 11, 2015 as the deadline for “filing of Letters of Comment by the Public and Requests to speak at the Evening Session”.

    I can’t say how much else of what Jeff has commented is true or even sensible, but it is indeed unfortunate that The Provincial Municipal Fiscal Review that he is probably referring to seems to “have it in” for villages, as indicated in their recommendations no. 13 and 14.

    Since this fiscal review has been brought up, it is interesting that in the Executive Summary of The Provincial Municipal Fiscal Review – Consultative Report Summary, that they bring up the issue of road maintenance and who should be paying for it. Since infrastructure costs, including roads, was a big part of the argument for dissolution, I can’t help but wonder if this fiscal review impacts any of the underlying assumptions in the Opus Infrastructure Study, and hence the Grant Thorton report. If the underlying assumptions are possibly in question, then the conclusions and recommendations must also be suspect, and a critical review is certainly warranted.

    Actually, I just noticed that the Formal Intervenors (Think Hantsport) have submitted The Provincial Municipal Fiscal Review – Consultative Report Summary as “evidence” under Exhibit H-16, so perhaps they have the same concerns.

    Thanks again for your efforts.

    Regards,
    Martin Vander Baaren
    32 Main Street
    Hantsport

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for your comments. I will publish anonymous comments at my discretion.
-Heather