Saturday 13 December 2014

Village issues must form part of independent governance study

Village commissions are understandably frustrated by a recent review of provincial-municipal relations. They've been labelled redundant. Their future's under threat. At a Village of Kingston meeting held November 27 I witnessed a well-attended “save our village” rally. This week the Village of New Minas hosted a public meeting. Less well attended and less filled with fury, this meeting allowed a more open and balanced discussion to occur, and pointed to many unanswered questions that will need to be addressed.

Two of the review's recommendations are in the eye of this storm. One phases out villages. The other limits their power. Both are presented among forty or so others. Collectively the recommendations seek improvements in government structures, the services they provide and the overall economy. It's big picture thinking. The aim is more efficient use of our tax dollars. The goal is to streamline relationships between the province, its departments, municipal councils and the communities elected representatives serve.

The Kingston meeting clearly engendered an “us versus them” stance. The overview focused exclusively on the two village recommendations. Blame was laid by presenters at the feet of the towns, and particularly at those of Kentville's Mayor Corkum who was just ending his 1-year term as President of the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities (UNSM) when the report was released.

It was implied that the whole fiscal review happened behind the scenes without the knowledge or involvement of Wardens, Mayors, councillors or municipal staff. Was this so? I think not. It could only be seen as a sneak attack if attention wasn't being paid. For example, terms of reference for the study were published prior to the last municipal election in 2012. Since then, the work has moved steadily forward with updates at several Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities (UNSM) gatherings along the way.

It was nevertheless surprising to see such brash recommendations about villages. The reasons have been linked to dissolution underway at the Towns of Hantsport, Bridgetown and Springhill. A number of other towns are expected to follow suit soon. If the long-term goal is less government, it's thought towns should not have the option of morphing into villages. The majority of counties at a recent rural caucus teleconference were in agreement on this point.

Secondly, the question of whether counties can operate services more efficiently by amalgamating county and village services is being asked. The draft report weighs in with “yes” to this question of saving tax dollars. The villages answer that same question with a “no”. That question and how current services might be better managed needs to be satisfactorily resolved before villages any drastic step regarding current villages is taken.

Now is the time to find the right answers to pressing and interlocking questions. We have a shrinking economy as well as a declining and aging population. Worrisome change is upon us and it's demanding the smartest responses possible.

Even if blaming towns for the two recommendations on villages were warranted, time could be better used on a long overdue discussion between the county, towns and villages. The towns need our support and understanding in their struggle to resolve some costly road-related burdens downloaded to them by the province. We can use the review's findings to create an accurate understanding and assessment of our taxpayers' needs. A congenial, more productive way forward is crucial. Creating discord between the villages and the towns should not be the goal of any councillor or village commissioner. Town, village or county residents shouldn't settle for political shenanigans when it's solutions not rifts that are desperately needed.

Stances seeking to protect the "status quo" have a long history in Nova Scotia. The Now or Never report says that's why we continue to face hard times. We let old alliances lead us astray and in so doing we send more young families packing.

Kings County Council has now submitted its responses on the fiscal review. With unanimous support we've opposed the two recommendations against the demise of villages. This gives us time to do the analysis required to make the evidence-based decisions required to govern effectively and meet the challenges ahead. With a population of less than 60,000 people we have over 60 elected representatives at local levels. We have overlapping jurisdictions, multiple memorandums of understanding, protocols, inter-municipal contracts, and boundaries that are not meaningful to most. We need simpler, more streamlined governance to replace the hornet's nest of stifling bureaucracy patched together over several decades.

A decade ago New Brunswick eliminated county governments while keeping its villages and towns. Can we open our minds to a full slate of options now this report has grabbed our attention? A productive way forward could be placed within our grasp if we direct the energy generated by this fiscal review towards completion of an independent study of governance. The province promised financial help to move a review forward over a year ago. 

We now have the results of the fiscal review. While imperfections in the review have been noted, it and the Now or Never report underscore daunting and immediate fiscal challenges for all levels of government in Nova Scotia. 

We must face those by getting our governance house in order. Waiting, or endless debating of when or how to start a review of governance, ignores the need for change that the NOW OR NEVER commissioners note should have started many years ago.

Friday 21 November 2014

What to Do About Villages...

There is currently a lot of media and council attention regarding two recommendations (among forty or so others) contained in a recently released report. The recommendations threaten to phase out Nova Scotia's 22 villages. Seven are located in Kings County. The village commissioners are very upset. They want the status quo to be maintained.


My goal

My goal is to figure out what structural changes are needed to provide residents of Kings County with the right governance model for an efficient government... One that's fair and equitable for everyone and offers high quality service at the lowest cost possible. 

My beginning point is that whether we live in communities organized as towns, counties, villages, growth centres or hamlets in the end won't matter... If we keep our focus on an end goal that results in a more nimble system. To me a nimble system is one that represents good value and that's open and welcoming to those who pay the piper. That's taxpayers like you and me.


The importance of an open mind

Currently no one has a crystal ball that shows what the best model of governance for Kings County is... All possibilities need to be thoroughly explored versus rejected out of hand.

Would an urban district that joins highly serviced areas like Coldbrook, North Kentville, Kentville and New Minas into one municipal unit make sense?

Are there advantages to forming one regional government to provide services to all the towns, villages, rural areas, etc.?

Could there be advantages to having towns and larger villages as the only municipal units with rural municipalities (counties) being directly governed by the province?

Would a 100% amalgamated model here in Kings mirror the success of the Region of Queens where towns, villages and the rural municipality amalgamated several years ago?


What the Provincial Municipal Fiscal Review says about villages

The fiscal review's recommendations regarding villages are captured in two recommendations:

#13 No new villages will be created and no new powers will be given to villages beyond those that currently exist.

#14 All incorporated villages in Nova Scotia should be phased out. Existing villages should be given the opportunity to apply for town status, merge with an adjacent town, or dissolve into their encompassing rural municipality as they see fit. [In Kings County, prior to the release of the fiscal review, New Minas was already weighing the option of becoming a town].

In short, the working group, largely municipal and provincial staff, came to these two recommendations through two key conclusions.
  1. Villages create: “administrative redundancies”. Based on that, the report suggests that costs could be significantly reduced by eliminating villages as a level of government.
  2. Village residents are doubly represented at the local level. They elect village commissioners. They also elect a municipal councillor. The municipal councillor can find him or herself in contentious situations where expectations are to represent the village commission point of view regardless of whether that may be the best position to take for the municipality as a whole.
The review reports that the average village uses 20% of its operating budget on administration. This percentage for the seven villages in the Municipality of Kings ranges from 9.3 to 27.6 percent. Those who pay village “administrative costs” also pay municipal “administrative costs”. The report suggests that most of the village administrative costs would be saved if villages were phased out and administrative duties were taken over by counties. 

Basically, villages not in a favourable position to become towns would loss the ability to charge property taxes and would no longer be incorporated under the MGA. In that scenario, village commissions and administration would cease, there would no longer be “village taxes” and assets and services would become the property and responsibility of the rural municipality (county).

If and when a village commission is no longer present the community would likely form a development and/or ratepayers association that would work with the county councillor on local issues. We already have that model in several growth centres, some of which are more densely populated than some villages. The municipality would apply rates to cover services residents receive over and above what other rural residents. This type of administrative structure is already in place for growth centres, etc., and the county's administrative costs would likely not increase too significantly while the village administrative cost would be eliminated.

The Municipality of Kings response to the Fiscal Review

As soon as the report was released Kings County villages were enraged. This was understandable as they rightly felt they deserved to be more directly represented in the decisions made. Unfortunately, they hadn't been given any advance notice of the recommendations either. 

Commissioner wasted no time. They appealed to Kings County to defend the status quo. Subsequently, two motions were passed at the November 4, 2014 Council Meeting:
  1. Council does not support the sweeping recommendations stated in the Provincial-Municipal Fiscal Review at Recommendation #13 and Recommendation #14 and Council supports the continued existence of the Villages in the County of Kings.
  2. Council directs the CAO to form a Working Group consisting of representatives from each of the Villages (as chosen by the Villages) together with three (3) Councilors representing the Eastern, Central and Western regions of Kings County (as chosen by Council) and the CAO which shall provide recommendations to Council and the Village Commissions with respect to the input to be provided to the UNSM by the December 15th, 2014 target date.

Looking to the future and not to the past

As Councillor for District 3, I voted against the first and for the second motion. Why? 

For me the first motion jumps too quickly to protect the status quo. As a trained sociologist, my standard is to base decisions on careful study and discussion before rejecting or accepting any recommendation. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, Nova Scotia is at risk. Economics and demographics point to a great need for structural change.


Respect for the work completed to date

About forty recommendations have been brought forward in good faith after many years of study by a working group of the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities. Our council is an active member of the UNSM and has been aware of the working group's progress towards its recommendations. To be fair to that process, I believe there is an obligation for the merits of the suggested changes brought forward to be be fully and respectfully considered. 

It's also notable that three towns, in addition to seven villages, partner with us to supply services to residents of the county. The towns appear to strongly support phasing out villages and/or having the villages become towns where appropriate. 

It's my perspective that our council is too focused on two of many recommendations. The working group approved at council's November 4 meeting is the only working group formed with councillors. The plan to arrive at our "overall" position is as follows:
  1. November 25 (9:00AM to noon) Council will review the working group's input on the two village-related recommendations with staff presenting positions on close to forty other recommendations.
  2. December 2 (6PM) the plan is for Council to pass motions. These will become the Municipality of Kings official position with respect to the draft provincial municipal review and its many recommendations. Then a “written submission” will be prepared.
  3. December 15, the Municipality will submit its written position to UNSM.
Meanwhile the UNSM has organized a teleconference meeting where every rural councillor will have the opportunity to discuss the future of villages with their counterparts across Nova Scotia. It's unfortunate that the council workshop will take place before the opportunity (on November 26) to hear from other counties, UNSM, and provincial staff. 

If you want more details about the fiscal review's conclusions regarding villages I've included a summary from the policy department of UNSM below.

Please do not hesitate to keep in touch on this issue or any other issue. The opportunity and time for input is very limited but I can always be reached at 902.670.2949. Your questions and opinions are valuable to me, especially during these changing times.

SUMMARY FOR NOVEMBER 26 2014 DISCUSSION AMONG

ALL RURAL MUNICIPALITIES AND UNSM STAFF

There are 22 incorporated villages in Nova Scotia, located across 11 rural municipalities. Nova Scotia villages are represented by the Association of Nova Scotia Villages; they are not members of the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities. The following information was considered by the Fiscal Review Working Group in developing recommendations 13 and 14.

Financial Viability: Villages are not obligated to provide any services. They choose which services to provide, whereas as Towns or Rural municipalities are required to provide certain core services, including roads and police services. If a village commission is under financial strain, it has the ability to cede any services it provides to the encompassing rural municipality. As such, it is not the financial viability of villages that is in question but rather, the value of two-tiered government.

Two-Tiered Government: Villages represent a second level of local government, occupying the same jurisdiction as their encompassing rural municipality, which are enabled to provide all of the services that villages currently provide. This additional level of government has associated administrative costs to taxpayers, estimated at around $80 per household per year.
  • Independently elected representatives for the same constituents can have different mandates and priorities. When these representatives occupy the same sphere of jurisdiction, this can result in conflict between the two tiers.
  • Accountability can be degraded due to confusion over which tier provides a particular service.
    Rationalize Structure of Local Government: Historically, villages were created as a structure of government to provide services (e.g. water and wastewater services) that rural municipalities were unable to provide. Current legislation allows towns and rural municipalities to provide the same services, and can do so at the community level through application of an area-rate tax. This option has the potential to increase efficiency and improve value to taxpayers.
Financial Reporting: Villages are required to provide audited financial reports to the Department of Municipal Affairs on an annual basis, but are not required to submit the information used to calculate the Financial Condition Index (i.e. the Financial Information Return – FIR, or the Statement of Estimates - SOE).

LEGISLATION Service Provision
  • Villages in Nova Scotia occupy a wide spectrum of population, capacity, reporting, and level of service delivery.
  • Unlike towns which are required to provide particular services, villages are able to choose those which they provide, with some offering only sidewalks (construction, maintenance and snow removal), beautifications and streetlights, while others offer far more including:
    • Fire protection and emergency services
    • Sidewalk construction and maintenance
    • Snow and ice removal
    • Water, sewer or drainage system
    • Recreation programs
    • Beautification
    • Crossing guards
    • Street lights
  • In general, Police Services, roads and garbage collection are provided by the encompassing rural municipalities.
Elections
  • Villages are governed by a commission consisting of 3 to 5 commissioners, with the exact number being determined by village by-law.
  • The MGA permits the election of commissioners at the annual village meeting (or on a separate day as established through village by-law) for a 3 year term, and each village commission has a chair and a vice-chair.
Legislative Powers
  • Villages are granted taxing authority similar to municipalities under the MGA; indeed, villages have virtually all the same powers granted to municipalities except those related to municipal planning.
  • Historically, village status was a necessary precondition for communities within a rural municipality to be able to raise tax revenue and pursue certain social goods that rural municipalities were legally unable to provide (e.g., water and wastewater services).
  • Villages have been incorporated under general legislation since 1923, however, since the Municipal Government Act (MGA) came into effect in 1999, it has not been possible to incorporate any new ones. Currently the only way for a new village to be incorporated is for a town to dissolve into a village.
  • A village may be incorporated into a town by applying to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board. The application may be made by one third of the residents of the village.
Budgets and Financial Reporting
  • Based on the village financial information submitted to DMA, in 2012, villages collected $9.5M in total revenues, $6.9M of which was property tax revenue from residents. Their expenditures totaled $8.7M that same year.
  • The average portion of a village budget dedicated to public administration is about 20%, which is roughly the same as the average for towns.
    • On average, village residents pay an additional $80 (approximately) per household to support the administration of their village.
  • Most villages contract their encompassing municipalities for tax collection services, and most municipalities charge a fee for this service (a per cent of collected amount). The villages of Kingston, New Minas and Canning however, collect their own taxes.
  • The two largest villages in terms of budgets (New Minas and Bible Hill) collect 53% of all village property tax revenue and make 46% of the total expenditures.
  • Villages have not historically been required to submit financial reports to the Province with the same level of detail as municipalities (FIR and SOE are not required, but audited financial statements are). As such, it is difficult to assess how effectively they deliver services.
Additional Statistics
  • 5 villages collect 76% of all the village property taxes,
  • 5 villages make 72% of village expenditures,
  • Bible Hill, New Minas and Chester all have taxable assessments that exceed the smallest 20 towns,
  • In 2012, 8 villages did not file financial reports with the Department of Municipal Affairs. Of those 8, 5 villages have not filed financial reports in at least 5 years.
  • An annex to this note includes statistics on all 22 villages for comparison purposes.
WORKING GROUP CONSIDERATIONS
  • Under the MGA, rural municipalities now have the same authority to provide services as towns. Furthermore, rural municipalities are able to levy area rates to provide additional services that local residents may request from their council.
  • The PMFR Working Group was of the opinion that village powers have been rendered moot by the authorities granted to rural municipalities under the MGA.
  • The PMFR Working Group considered two-tiered municipal government as part of the jurisdictional scan and research supporting the structure options paper. Overall, two-tiered municipal government has been phased out in Canada, with some notable exceptions (e.g. British Columbia).
  • In those jurisdictions where it has been phased out, this was done for similar reasons to those considered by the Working Group in putting forward recommendations 13 and 14, in particular:
    • Independently elected representatives for the same constituents can have different mandates and priorities. When these representatives occupy the same sphere of jurisdiction, this can result in conflict between the two tiers.
    • Accountability can be degraded due to confusion over which tier provides a particular service.
  • Additionally, the principles of reducing duplication and rationalizing government structures are supported by the recommendations of the One Nova Scotia Report (i.e. Recommendation 18).
  • It was the opinion of the Working Group that the services currently provided by villages could, in many cases, be provided by the encompassing rural municipality within the general rate, or by an area rate. This has the potential to increase efficiency and improve value to tax payers.
  • The Working Group acknowledged the value of local community representation. However, it was felt that those needs could be met in other ways, including:
    • Community Councils
    • Ratepayer Associations
    • Downtown Business Associations
  • Furthermore, increased support for these forms of local representation could allow for communities without an existing village structure, within a rural municipality, to more fully represent the interests of their community as well.
  • According to the MGA (s. 448), the Minister may dissolve any village upon request of the following:
    • Village commission;
    • A municipality (if there has been no meeting of the electors of the village for at least two years; and 90 days notice of the proposed dissolution has been served to the latest village commissioners and clerk, and no objection to the dissolution has been filed with the Minister); and
    • The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board may dissolve a village on the request of not fewer than ten percent of the electors in the village.

APPENDIX

Village
Assessment 2013 ($)
Dwelling Units*
Taxes Collected (2012)
Public Admin as % of Total operating Budget**
Aylesford
40,757,000
1038
$77,283
16.2%
Baddeck
85,563,500
882
$399,630
9.7%
Bible Hill
261,073,300
3650
$1,670,435
23.5%
Canning
41,645,600
1035
$128,784
9.3%
Chester
340,900,300
1075
$646,347
8.3%
Cornwallis Square
253,324,200
-
$305,925
12.3%
Dover**
-
-
-
-
Freeport
16,280,900
-
$46,967 (2010)
18.9% (2010)
Greenwood
155,508,600
2142
$327,540
27.6%
Havre Boucher
-
590
-
-
Hebbville
Not reported
780
Not reported
Not reported
Kingston
194,540,400
2170
$550,666
21.5%
Lawrencetown
27,945,900
783
$179,989
13.8%
New Minas
357,428,200
2393
$1,991,825
19.7%
Port Williams
123,308,600
667
$314,601
13.7%
Pugwash
52,263,300
606
$163,763 (2013)
39.5% (2013)
River Hebert
21,330,573
595
$10,097
34.9%
St. Peters
Not reported
643
$182,247
18.8%
Tatamagouche
36,469,400
918
$152,699 (2011)
17.7% (2011)
Tiverton
7,300,100
-
Not reported
Not reported
Westport
13,949,200
-
Not reported
Not reported
Weymouth
24,934,500
769
$36,293 (2011)
15.4% (2011)

Assessment data on villages is from 2013. All values are Capped total assessment.
* 2011 Data from Community counts, – indicates data unavailable.
** Dover is a village in name only. Services are provided by the municipality.

Note on Data Sources for Structure Options Paper (Recommendations 1-14):
To inform the Structure Review Recommendations, the following information was collected:
  • Literature Review
  • Jurisdictional Scan
  • Community Counts (Department of Finance and Treasury Board Office)
  • Annual Financial Reports submitted by municipalities and villages to the Department of Municipal Affairs
  • Rural Municipality and Village Websites for village area rates
  • Assessment Data (PVSC)
    • Village Assessment Data retrieved from rural municipalities / villages
  • Financial Conditions Index (Department of Municipal Affairs)
  • Census Data (Statistics Canada)

Saturday 8 November 2014

Nova Scotia Electricity System Review

On October 26, 2014, I sent this response to Nova Scotia's Summary Report regarding Emerging Technology and Market Trend Studies


I began by emphasizing that addressing demand, supply and price in a system that is close to 100 percent dependent on a privately owned, and profit-driven grid system is a great challenge... despite the moderating role played by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board.

Price, we have learned, becomes a heightened problem when a province is committed to replacing the use of fossil fuels with cleaner, renewable energy. Cleaner, renewable energy comes at a higher price and for-profit organizations like NS Power are reluctant to pay more to generate energy that they want to sell at a profit. And so Nova Scotia has committed to underwriting much of this increased cost... putting the taxpayer and the consumer on the hook.

It needs to be noted that within the chambers of our municipal council there has not been an opportunity to discuss the Nova Scotia Electricity System Review. Therefore, the comments contained in this response are attributable to me solely. There is no intention for the opinions and views below to be seen as a position reached through discussion within the chambers of the Municipality of the County of Kings. My response to the review was provided as outlined below under five key headings. I trust you will find my responses of interest. I would welcome any feedback you may have.
  • Clean, “Electric-System-Free”, Renewable Heat in Rural Communities
  • Producing Electricity from Municipal Solid Waste
  • Reduction of Reliance on the Nova Scotia Power Grid System
  • Expanded Role for Nova Scotia Municipalities in Home Energy Conversation and Efficiency
    Examples:
    Halifax's Solar City
    Richmond County's Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Project
  • Collaborative Energy Systems
Clean, “Electric-System-Free”, Renewable Heat in Rural Communities

Many Nova Scotian homes (estimated at approximately 100,000) burn hardwood as their major source of heat each winter.

This renewable fuel makes little or no demand on the electrical system during winter months when demand for electricity triples.

This year, many families have experienced difficulty accessing this fuel. At least two factors could be contributing to this problem.

  1. Using wood for the generation of electricity at the Port Hawkesbury biomass facility.
  2. Exporting chipped hard wood for use in the manufacture of wood beams. This appears to be a new market with China for Canadian hardwood that is being discussed in rural communities.

It is notable that these uses require the transportation of wood over long distances. This use competes with local wood burning as a thermal heat source. This use requires relatively little transportation and reducing the need to burn fossil fuels for transportation.

Once, or if, the availability of hardwood for home space heating becomes scarce homeowners will be forced to switch to other forms of heat that may be much less efficient and could also create a greater need for electrical generation.

Nova Scotia needs to be more mindful of the choices being made.

Creating electricity from biomass that is then used by homes in the form of electrical heat is much less efficient that using biomass for local space heatiing through the use of wood burning stoves.

Producing Electricity from Municipal Solid Waste


Environmental stewardship has been greatly enhanced by forward looking policies in Nova Scotia and the creation of waste authorities in the 90s.

In recent years the Valley Authority has explored the diversion of municipal solid waste from the Chester landfill site. Hauling of waste there involves a cost of approximately $2 Million in trucking and tipping fees each year. Advances in gasification technology points to opportunities for not only using MSW as feed stock but also sewage where environmental standards can be met (applied in this way “sewage” can be viewed as an a renewable fuel).

Further inquiry into such sources of “biomass” needs to be considered as part of the Nova Scotia Electricity System. Efficiency, sound environmental stewardship, energy security and cost-effective management by municipalities of their solid waste could all be positively impacted by the potential use of these feed stocks as “biomass”.

Reduction of Reliance on the Nova Scotia Power Grid System


Earlier this year, the Electricity Reform Act opened up the renewable energy market to allow independent energy providers to produce electricity and retail it directly to customers. This cornerstone for diversification needs to be built upon. The anticipation of regulations that will allow Nova Scotians to purchase renewable energy directly from producers, other than Nova Scotia Power, by late 2015 is a welcome change.

Will the Department of Energy actively promote and offer support to local communities and not-for-profit organizations to engage in this opportunity?

Can incentives be provided, local EcoDistricts be created?

Will government buildings lead the way as customers for local renewable energy production?

The answer to these questions will be critical to the successful diversification of: who retails renewable energy; who benefits from renewable energy; and at what price.

    Expanded Role for Nova Scotia Municipalities in Home Energy Conversation and Efficiency


As a municipal councillor I believe municipalities can play a more significant role in helping home-owners conserve and use energy more efficiently. This in turn reduces demand on the electricity system.

We already have at least two municipalities with recent initiatives that could be adapted more broadly.

Halifax's Solar City

This pilot project was launched in 2012. The program helps home owners assess the suitability of solar hot water heating for their location and home. It follows through with financing through the municipality and boosts “typical lifetime savings of over $20,000” and “average yearly greenhouse gas reductions of 1,700 kg.”

An electric system review needs to include an assessment of the impact of a broad-based application of this use of solar energy across municipalities.

Do we know what the reduction in energy use would be if every home in Nova Scotia that could use solar energy for hot water installed such a system?

Richmond County's Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Project

In September 2014, Richmond County became the first rural municipality in Canada to pass a bylaw that allows home-owners to finance energy efficiency upgrades to homes through an annual charge on their tax bill.

Efficiency Nova Scotia has worked closely with Richmond County to ensure that the program meets appropriate standards and can be implemented efficiently. If this program was adapted by other/all municipalities it could have a substantial impact, especially for homeowners who live in low-income circumstances. Eligible upgrades for access to low-cost municipal financing can include insulation (ceilings, exterior walls, basements, crawl spaces); draft proofing (weather stripping and caulking); installation of Energy Star windows, doors, skylights; etc. Efficiency Nova Scotia incentives can be automatically deducted to reduce the financed amount.

Collaborative Energy Systems


Collaboration and community-based initiatives are being embraced in several cities and towns across North America to build energy systems that gain efficiency through conservation of energy and/or more direct use of energy where it is produced.

Is there an opportunity for more active collaboration between municipalities, their planners and engineers, the Department of Energy, the Department of Municipal Relations and local communities, organizations and businesses?

Could such collaboration be aligned with new funding incentives (provincial grants and/or loans) as the current COMFIT program nears its end?
    Could partnerships between municipalities, the province and local communities help achieve energy security and self-sufficiency for Nova Scotians?

    What is the potential of collaboration within local communities with regard to efficiency and energy security for Nova Scotians?

The review does not adequately address the impacts possible if community collaboration was broadly supported and promoted by governments.