Attachment 1
2002 Resolutions for Submission to the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association
- Special Capital Fund for Wheelchair Accessible Taxis
Submitted by: Transportation and Streets Department
- Harmonization of Federal and Provincial Programs for Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
Submitted by: Asset Management and Public Works Department
- Grants in Place of Taxes for Non-Profit Unsubsidized Seniors Housing
Submitted by: Community Services Department
- Provincial Support for National Affordable Housing Program
Submitted by: Community Services Department
AUMA
2002 Resolution No. ___
Edmonton
Special Capital Fund for Wheelchair Accessible Taxis
WHEREAS the Government of Alberta is committed to providing accessible services to people with disabilities; and
WHEREAS people with disabilities have the right, as do the general public, to on-demand accessible taxi services to meet their spontaneous travel requirements; and
WHEREAS private commercial taxi operators have the potential to significantly improve the quality of life for people with disabilities by enhancing availability of on-demand 24 hours/7 days per week travel mobility; and
WHEREAS the costs to purchase and operate wheelchair-accessible taxis are significantly greater than standard taxis; and
WHEREAS the private commercial taxi operators, municipal authorities, and Government of Alberta must work co-operatively to enable wheelchair-accessible taxi operations; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association requests the Government of Alberta develop a special 3 (three) year capital fund that may be available to registered private commercial taxi operators in Alberta to offset higher capital costs for the wheelchair-accessible taxi.
BACKGROUND
Demand for accessible public transportation services is increasing due to population growth, restructuring of health care and social service delivery, community based programming, mainstreaming of persons with disabilities into the community, and increased community based living options. Provincial government initiatives in the 1990’s towards community based service delivery has been a major driver of demand for accessible transportation services.
Accessible taxis have the potential to alleviate the increasing demand for the paratransit services offered in larger municipalities such as Calgary, Edmonton, Red Deer, Medicine Hat, Lethbridge, St. Albert, Strathcona County, Grande Prairie and Fort McMurray. In smaller communities, accessible taxis may be the only accessible public transportation option available.
The Government of Alberta has been a major sponsor and participant in accessible taxi initiatives throughout the province. Findings from various studies in Alberta are:
- Accessible taxi capital and operating costs are higher than those of standard vehicles; and
Resolution No. ___
Page two
- The economic viability of the service is dependent on some form of financial support to offset the higher capital and operating costs.
Accessible taxis may be converted mini-vans with retrofit costs between $10,000-$20,000 per vehicle, or the taxis may be a purpose built mini-van costing $50,000. Conventional taxis are typically used full-fixed sedans with an estimated purchase price of $15,000 to $22,000.
Funding to advance the establishment of accessible taxi vehicles facilitates enhanced travel mobility for residents and visitors to Alberta with disabilities. To provide on-demand taxi service in communities throughout Alberta, funding assistance of up to $15,000 per vehicle would significantly improve the economics of providing accessible taxis by private commercial taxi operators.
The total funding for this initiative is estimated at $1.5 million or less based on the following model:
- up to 25 (twenty-five) vehicles in large cities (Calgary and Edmonton);
- 4 (four) vehicles in medium-sized centres (such as Medicine Hat); and
- 1 (one) vehicle in smaller communities operating a taxi service.
Municipalities will encourage the development and sustainability of accessible taxi operations through regulatory controls and opportunities to encourage use in the community.
The capital fund program is modelled after the accessible taxi program announced in 2001 by the Ministry of Transport – Province of Quebec. This 5 year program provides funding of up to $19,000 for retrofit expenses for an accessible taxi, with a goal of up to 350 total vehicles in that time period.
AUMA
2002 Resolution No. ___
Edmonton
Harmonization of Federal and Provincial Programs forExtended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
WHEREAS Municipalities bear the costs of disposal of consumer packaging and products once they become waste; and
WHEREAS the Government of Alberta is responsible for regulations and policy that define waste management roles and responsibilities; and
WHEREAS the Government of Canada is responsible for environmental law and trade law that can effect waste management practices and the effectiveness of EPR initiatives, and
WHEREAS the development of individual and different EPR programs in the Provinces, by the Provinces, is difficult to achieve, results in duplication of effort, and can produce inefficiency in the delivery of such systems on a national basis
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association request the Government of Alberta and the Government of Canada to pursue a mechanism to achieve a harmonized national approach to develop EPR programs.
BACKGROUND
Extended Producer Responsibility refers to the shifting of responsibility for the management of waste products and packaging, in part or in whole, physically and/or financially, UP the line of the product lifecycle. This will have the effect of shifting responsibility from the municipality (and taxpayers) in dealing with disposal costs to users, sellers, manufacturers and brand owners.
EPR is based on principles of Polluter Pay and User Pay. This shift in financial responsibility will reduce the burden on municipalities. Another desired effect of EPR would be that the entire LIFE CYCLE cost of a product be incorporated into its cost, with the result that products with lower costs and impacts become predominant in the marketplace. Life cycle costs include the environmental costs of the product in the extraction of the resources to manufacture it, in its manufacture and in its use and final disposal.
EPR is an important national government policy in Europe, Japan and other developed countries and has been used to great effect. In Canada, there are many examples of successful EPR programs, such as beverage container deposit systems and advance disposal fees on tires. However, these programs and many others have been developed for the most part by individual provincial and municipal administrations working with particular industries to arrive at solutions. Sometimes solutions have been voluntary; sometimes mandated and supported by provincial legislation.
Resolution No. ___
Page two
With growing knowledge and concern over the environmental impact of a multitude of consumer products and with the continuing shift of financial responsibilities to municipal government, there are good reasons to pursue broader EPR policies. In attempting to advance this goal, provinces and municipalities find many industries and brand owners willing to seek solutions but struggling to deal with different approaches in different provinces while maintaining some efficiency in programs and competing in the national and global market. In many cases, these difficulties result in slow progress. Where programs have been established, they usually vary from province to province, causing confusion among consumers and creating a new driver that can move products and wastes across provincial boundaries, short-cutting the intent of such programs.
The most successful programs in Europe are national. Through empowerment of a federal government department or a new body to deal with these matters much more efficient and effective progress can be made. Such a body could take a multi-stakeholder approach and draft programs, or at least program policies, that would harmonize practices across the country with attendant benefits. The immediate benefit to municipalities would be the more rapid development of effective programs shifting responsibilities to reduce municipal costs and long term environmental responsibilities of products in landfills.
AUMA
2002 Resolution No. ___
Edmonton
Grants in Place of Taxes for Non-Profit Unsubsidized Seniors Housing
WHEREAS there are approximately 50 non-profit seniors housing facilities in Alberta that receive no Provincial operating subsidies;
WHEREAS these facilities provide services which range from no services beyond basic self-contained apartment housing to offering all of the services and care provided in a nursing home (e.g. lodge-type beds, communal meals, housekeeping, security, medication assistance);
WHEREAS changes to the Municipal Government Act in 1995 eliminated property tax exemptions for a range of non-profit agencies, including many operating seniors housing facilities;
WHEREAS the only non-profit agencies operating seniors housing which retained their property tax exemptions after 1995 were those providing subsidized seniors lodge facilities (i.e. seniors’ lodge foundation Management Bodies);
WHEREAS since 1997, the Province has provided “Grants-in-Place-of Taxes” to municipalities wherein non-profit unsubsidized seniors housing facilities are located to offset the foregone tax revenue stemming from those municipalities not taxing but providing municipal services to those facilities;
WHEREAS these “Grants-in-Place-of-Taxes” have prevented the non-profit agencies which own and manage these facilities from having to raise rents in order to cover property tax costs;
WHEREAS the Province is considering eliminating its “Grants-in-Place-of Taxes” program for non-profit unsubsidized seniors housing facilities;
WHEREAS, in the absence of a municipality granting property tax exemptions for such facilities, the elimination of Provincial “Grants-in-Place-of-Taxes” would require the non-profit agencies which own and operate such facilities to increase rents to pay for property taxes;
WHEREAS rent increases to offset the elimination of “Grants-in-Place-of-Taxes” would reduce housing affordability for all residents of such facilities, and could significantly increase the rent burden for all such residents with low and fixed incomes;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association urge the Government of Alberta to continue to provide “Grants in Place of Taxes” to non-profit agencies providing non-profit unsubsidized seniors housing which accommodates low and fixed-income seniors.
Resolution No. ___
Page two
BACKGROUND
There are an estimated 2,600 units in approximately 50 non-profit unsubsidized seniors housing facilities in the Province of Alberta (Edmonton, Calgary, Red Deer, Medicine Hat, Lethbridge, Bentley, Carbon, M.D. of Greenview and Linden).
Of this total, approximately 2,000 of such units, or about 75% of those in Alberta, are located in Edmonton.
These facilities range in size from 10 units (Magyar Home in Lethbridge) to 409 units (Meadowcroft Seniors Residence in Edmonton). They offer services which range from no services beyond basic accommodation (e.g. 56-unit Kensington Court in Edmonton) to services which include all those provided in a nursing home (e.g. 13-unit Agape Manor Hospice in Calgary).
Despite this wide range in size and services provided, most non-profit unsubsidized seniors housing facilities can be generally categorized as either:
- Self-contained facilities, where each resident is expected to live relatively independently in his or her self-contained dwelling unit (i.e. complete with living, sleeping, kitchen and bathroom facilities within the unit); or
- Lodge-type facilities, where the residents rely on communal meal facilities and support services provided by the facility (normally housekeeping, security, and medication assistance services) meaning that the individual units do not normally include kitchen facilities.
The variation in services provided reflects different focuses in resident age, health and income. Some facilities target mainly low-income seniors, while others have no income targeting.
The total cost to the Province to provide “Grants-in-Place-of-Taxes” to municipalities for non-profit unsubsidized seniors housing facilities in Alberta in 2001 was approximately $1 million.
The total annual Provincial “Grant-in-Place-of-Taxes” to the City of Edmonton for 2001 was approximately $730,000 ($372 per unit per year). Assuming the agencies which own these units would have to raise rents to cover this total amount if “Grants-in-Place-of-Taxes” were eliminated, the average required rent increase would be approximately $372 per unit per year or $31 per unit per month.
Assuming an average monthly income of $1,000 per month for a low-income senior, and an average monthly rent-geared-to-income of $300 per month (30% of total income), a rent increase of $31 per month represent a 10% increase in rent.
AUMA
2002 Resolution No. ___
Edmonton
Provincial Support for National Affordable Housing Program
WHEREAS access to safe, adequate and affordable housing is fundamental to the physical, economic and social well-being of individuals, families and communities;
WHEREAS many Alberta municipalities are facing significant affordable housing shortfalls due to population in-migration, the loss of existing rental housing due to condominium conversion, the replacement of that stock with only high-end rental stock and insufficient Federal or Provincial funding for additional subsidized rental housing;
WHEREAS this affordable housing shortfall is increasing the number of low and moderate-income households, including older Albertans and families with children, who are unable to obtain adequate housing because their incomes are insufficient to pay for rising market rents and other basic living needs following the payment of rent;
WHEREAS the growing affordable rental supply shortfall is aggravating homeless conditions in many Alberta communities;
WHEREAS the market economy cannot provide affordable housing for low and moderate-income households without some form of government assistance;
WHEREAS, in its January 2001 Throne Speech, the Government of Canada announced a National Affordable Housing Program to stimulate the creation of such housing through Federal capital grants provided subject to bilateral agreements signed by Provinces and Territories to cost-share those Federal grants;
WHEREAS a Framework for Bilateral Agreements Aimed at Affordable Housing was signed in November 2001 by the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers to provide $680 million in Federal capital funds nationally under the Program over five years; and
WHEREAS, despite its August 2000 Housing Policy Framework for Alberta acknowledging the inadequate low-cost housing supply in many Alberta communities, the Government of Alberta has not yet signed a bilateral agreement to take-up the total estimated $68 million Federal allocation to Alberta under the Program;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association urge the Government of Alberta to support the implementation of the National Affordable Housing Program by signing a bilateral agreement with the Government of Canada to increase the supply of housing affordable to low and moderate-income households in housing need in Alberta municipalities.
Resolution No. ___
Page two
BACKGROUND
On November 30, 2001, “A Framework for Bilateral Agreements Aimed at Affordable Housing by the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers Responsible for Housing” identified the following parameters for the development of bilateral agreements between the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Governments on the National Affordable Housing Program:
- The Federal Government has committed a total of $680 million over five (5) years to the Program nationally (Alberta’s total allocation is estimated at $68 million).
- The goal is to create affordable housing supply (including construction, renovation [beyond the existing RRAP commitment, rehabilitation, conversion, home ownership, new rent supplements, supportive housing programs).
- Units funded must remain affordable for a minimum of ten years.
- The maximum federal contribution is an average of $25,000 per unit over the duration of the program (funding is one-time, capital contributions).
- Provinces and Territories will be required to match Federal contributions overall. Provincial and Territorial contributions may by capital or non-capital in nature, and may be in cash or in kind. These contributions may by made by the Province or Territory or by a third party.
- The Federal Government will recognize as matching contributions those commitments made by Provincial and Territorial Governments and third parties for eligible programs, retroactive to January 1, 2001.
- Federal funding will not commence before a bilateral agreement is signed with a Province or Territory.
The following conditions demonstrate the significant need for Program implementation in Edmonton:
- Decreasing rental housing universe: 8,179 unit or 10% decline from 1991 to 2000 in the Edmonton CMA;
- Decreasing rental vacancy rate: 10.2% in October 1995 to 0.9% in October 2001. Rental housing vacancies are currently at their lowest levels in Edmonton in over two decades and are currently the lowest of all major metropolitan areas in Canada;
- Rising market rents: Average market rents in Edmonton have increased over 25% since 1997, rose over 9% in 2001, and are forecast increase another 6% in the first six months of 2002.
- Growing numbers of households paying more than 30% of income on rent:
From 1991 to 1995, the number of households in Edmonton paying more than 30% of income on rent increased from 42,740 to 45,385
From 1991 to 1995, the number of households in Edmonton paying more than 50% of income on rent increased from 18,845 to 20,870
Resolution No. ___
Page three
- Increasing number of applications on Social Housing wait lists: In the past five years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of families with children on Social Housing applications waiting lists in Edmonton (from 300 to 1,800). The average income of families with incomes from employment in these units is between $15,000 and $17,000 per year. Using the commonly accepted rule of thumb that in order for a household to afford a housing unit, it should pay no more than 30% of income on rent, these households should pay no more than $425 per month for rent. By contrast, the average rent of one-bedroom units in Edmonton in October 2001 was $533 per month. A family with one or two children seeking a two-bedroom unit would face an average Edmonton market rent of $667 per month. The average wait time on these wait lists has increased to 1 to 3 years in 2001 (from 6 months to 2 years in 1997).
On January 15, 2002, Edmonton City Council approved The City of Edmonton Low-Income and Special Needs Housing Strategy 2001-2011 to define the City’s role in low-income and special needs housing (including “affordable housing”) over the next decade. The Strategy identified a need for 5,000 additional low-income and special needs housing units over this time. One of the Strategy’s major recommended initiatives to meet this 5,000 unit target was the establishment of a Task Force on Affordable Housing.