IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/clh/resear/v8y2015i38.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Exploration into the Municipal Capacity to Finance Capital Infrastructure

Author

Listed:
  • Almos T. Tassonyi

    (The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary)

  • Brian W. Conger

    (The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary)

Abstract

Municipal governments own and maintain two-thirds of Canada’s stock of public infrastructure. This burden is met by municipalities within the parameters afforded to them by their respective provinces. As a result, municipalities throughout the country rely on three primary revenue streams: issuing debt, financing from dedicated revenue and transfers from higher levels of government. At the same time, strict rules on borrowing, sometimes self-imposed, have left municipalities with considerable unrealized borrowing capacity. Importantly, a shift towards increased borrowing, away from a reliance on intergovernmental grants, would reinforce the linkage between local government spending and accountability and keep spending priorities in order. This paper focuses on infrastructure spending in Alberta and Ontario to illuminate how municipalities in both provinces cope with demands to provide capital- and labour-intensive programs and services. In both provinces, transportation, environmental services and recreation and culture comprise the bulk of infrastructure expenditure. In Ontario, as of 2013, 18 of the largest municipalities held assets valued at $111.8 billion. After accumulated depreciation, those assets are now estimated to be worth $73.8 billion, having lost $38 billion in value since their acquisition — although municipalities’ diligence varies. Mississauga has preserved 82.6 per cent of its assets’ original cost; Thunder Bay has only managed 45.6 per cent. In Alberta, 21 of the largest municipalities held assets valued at $51.7 billion in 2013, although thanks to depreciation, their value is now estimated at $37.8 billion. Again, there is significant variability between municipalities, with Wood Buffalo having preserved 98.6 per cent of its assets’ original value, and Crowsnest Pass with 43.9 per cent. In both provinces, the older the municipality and the weaker its fiscal capacity, the lower the net book value of its capital assets. While an ongoing nation-wide shift to modified accrual accounting has encouraged municipalities to plan long-term, the legacy of past decisions means that substantial underinvestment in infrastructure exists, and that the net book value of municipal assets is generally below the cost of their acquisition. Through an examination of municipal budgeting and the revenue-generating means at municipalities’ disposal, this paper argues that fiscal policy reform is essential, if municipalities are to serve Canadians to the best of their abilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Almos T. Tassonyi & Brian W. Conger, 2015. "An Exploration into the Municipal Capacity to Finance Capital Infrastructure," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 8(38), November.
  • Handle: RePEc:clh:resear:v:8:y:2015:i:38
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/municipal-capital-infrastructure-tassonyi-conger.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zack Taylor & Alec Dobson, 2020. "Power and Purpose:Canadian Municipal Law in Transition," IMFG Papers 47, University of Toronto, Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.
    2. Bev Dahlby & Kevin Milligan, 2017. "From theory to practice: Canadian economists contributions to public finance," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 50(5), pages 1324-1347, December.
    3. Almos T. Tassonyi, 2017. "The Context and Challenges for Canada's Mid-Sized Cities," SPP Briefing Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 10(9), May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:clh:resear:v:8:y:2015:i:38. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bev Dahlby (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spcalca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.