Community Consultation for Self Reliance

[ View the report below in .pdf format (1.03 MB) ]

Report Overview

• Introduction
• Reason for the Review
• Review Purpose, Scope and Approach
• Conclusions and Key Findings
• Key Recommendations

About the Program

• History
• Organization of Program and Services Provided
• Statistical Information

Review Purpose, Scope and Approach

• Purpose
• Scope
• Approach

Detailed Findings and Recommendations
Communities participating in or scheduled for Self-reliance

• The First Question
• The Second Question
• The Third Question
• The Fourth Question

Communities with A Population Under 75

• The First Question
• The Second Question
• The Third Question

---

Report Overview

Introduction

Mr. Joseph "Sonny" Klyne, President of the Northern Association of Community Councils, and Mr. Jim Perchaluk representing the Department of Northern Affairs, has prepared this Community Self-reliance report.

During the months of December, 1999 to March, 2000, this team undertook a consulting process, regarding the Self-reliance Initiative, involving the Communities in Northern Manitoba which are under the municipal authority of the Northern Affairs Act. During this time, community visits were made to meet with Councils and their staff, along with telephone discussions and written correspondence.

The comments and recommendations made by the Community Councils and their staff were recorded by the consulting team and compiled in this report. Based on the community input, the consulting team has identified "key" findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding the Self-reliance Initiative.

-- top --

Reason for the Review

Following the change in Government in the fall of 1999, the newly appointed Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs, the Honourable Eric Robinson, received numerous inquiries from communities regarding the Self-reliance Initiative. In consideration of these inquiries, the Minister initiated a review in an effort to more clearly understand the perspectives of the communities as they relate to the Initiative.

-- top --

Review Purpose, Scope and Approach

The purpose of the review is to consult with the community councils to obtain their views and recommendations regarding the Self-reliance Initiative.

The scope of the review included those communities presently working within the Self-reliance Initiative or scheduled for the Initiative at a later date, as well as those communities with less than 75 persons who are not presently scheduled for the Self-reliance Initiative.

Community councils were encouraged to participate through correspondence, telephone conversation, and at meetings to provide comments and recommendations in order to have input regarding changes and modifications, which may be required for the Initiative. Councils were encouraged to include their staff in the consultation process.

-- top --

Conclusions and Key Findings

Section A Communities participating in or scheduled for Self-reliance

1. In general, does your Council support the Self-reliance Initiative and its objectives or is Council opposed to it?
   
   We concluded those community councils, in the Self-reliance Initiative or scheduled to enter the Initiative, agree with the concept of the program, which will create a greater degree of independence at the local level.
   
   We found that:
   • Councils generally agree that a transfer of municipal responsibilities along with funding will create more local control and develop more autonomous communities.
   • Several councils scheduled for the Self-reliance Initiative required more information on the Initiative for a better understanding of the program requirements, funding details and community responsibilities.



2. What specific aspects, of the Self-reliance Initiative do Council support?

    

   We concluded that community councils supported the Self-reliance Initiative as it provides the community with greater local control over its finances and decision making.

   We found that:

   • The agreement provided the community with additional funding and authority, which allowed council to make their own decisions and did not have to wait for departmental approvals.
   • Councils were given more flexibility in handling their funds, which allowed them to carryout maintenance items and repairs without having to first obtain departmental approval.
   • Councils received additional funding which allowed them to create capital funding reserves, provide staff wage increases and make long term plans for the future.
   
   
   
3. What specific aspect of the Self-reliance Initiative does Council not support?
   
   

   We concluded that there are components of the Self-reliance Initiative that community councils do not support.

   We found that:

   • Community Councils generally did not support the twenty (20%) locally generated revenue requirement.
   • In varying degrees, there are community councils who did not agree with the proposed level of maintenance funding; degree of consultation with communities; communications with the Department, manner in which adjustments were made; and the lack of Departmental initiative in the areas of community development, housing and health.
   
   
   
4. What, if any, specific changes would Council recommend be made to the Self-reliance Initiative?

   We concluded that community councils have made well-founded recommendations to the Department to address their concerns and make improvements to the Self-reliance Initiative.

   We found that:

   • Councils are indicating that the twenty percent (20%) locally generated revenue requirement will create a financial burden on local residents, therefore Councils are requesting that the percentage be decreased.
   • Councils are requesting additional training in areas including financial planning and management, accountability, council responsibilities, staff supervision and performance reviews, and business planning.
   • Councils are relying on the Department for support to obtain the use and control in managing natural and non-renewable resources, within and around the community boundary.
   • Councils are relying on the Department for support in community development in the areas of economic development, housing and health.
   • Councils are requesting an increase in honorariums to compensate for the additional time and responsibilities which council has assumed as a result of the Self-reliance Initiative.
   • Councils are indicating the communication and consultation with the Department may be improved.
   • Councils are indicating that there is a need to make administrative changes to the Self-reliance Initiative that will lessen the workload, clarify expectations, and increase the support for communities.

   Section B Communities with A Population Under 75

5. Do you see your community receiving future municipal services? How should these services be administered?

   We have concluded that all of the communities, with populations under seventy-five, require the continuation of municipal services. Several communities have indicated that future municipal services may be required as part of community growth. All communities want to continue with the existing form of administration.

   We found that:

   • Community Councils and Contact Persons will not voluntarily move towards amalgamation for fear of being consumed by larger communities: losing their entity, losing funding and erosion of their local services.



6. What level of funding would your community require to provide the municipal services and/or capital projects?

   We have concluded that communities, with populations under seventy-five, will require funding similar to the existing level to provide municipal services and capital projects.

   We found that:

   • Communities are generally comfortable with the existing level of funds to maintain their existing infrastructure and administrative costs.
   • Most communities would require future capital funds to replace or maintain existing infrastructure.



7. In general, what approach do you and your council believe might best provide for the development of local government in your community?

   We have concluded that communities generally would like the assistance of the Provincial Government to develop, become self-sufficient and attain a higher level of independence.

   We found that:

   • Communities have indicated that they would require the assistance of the Provincial Government to grow through economic development ventures and activities.
   • Communities with populations under seventy-five would also like to have control or say in the use of resources within or adjacent to their boundaries.
   • Communities would like to benefit financially from land permits, leases and royalties.

-- top --

Key Recommendations

We recommend that the Department of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs:

1. Retain the Self-reliance Initiative concept, with adjustments as identified in this report and with a possible name change to "Local Government Agreement."



2. Authorize communities with populations under seventy-five to continue to provide local municipal services in accordance with the needs of the community. We also recommend that the Department allow the community to determine how the services will be administered.



3. Provide communities with increased authority and responsibilities, through the Self-reliance Initiative and Incorporation, which will enable communities to have greater local control in the development of local government in their community.



4. Reduce the community Locally Generated Revenue requirement from twenty (20%) to twelve percent (12%) and proceed through the budget process to obtain the difference of eight (8%) or $651.2. The agreement for the development of local government in Northern Manitoba should not be jeopardized by the inability of the community to raise a departmental prescribed amount of locally generated revenue.



5. Promote the need for Community Councils to prepare and adopt a training plan, that will address their community needs, and which will become a part of the Community Business Plan. We recommend that the training plan be developed in concert with the Department to obtain their advice and support where required.



6. Provide NACC with funding annually, in the amount of $10.0, to hold a training seminar in conjunction with the NACC Conference, to minimize costs.



7. Initiate negotiations with other departments to provide communities under the Self-reliance Initiative with opportunities to manage resources within their community boundaries. We also recommend that the Department support communities in reviewing their existing boundary and expanding it where justified.



8. Advocate and coordinate with health and housing authorities to allow communities under the Self-reliance Initiative to have an opportunity to initiate partnerships that will secure the level of services to meet their community needs.



9. Provide funds to NACC, in the amount of $300.0, for delivery of planning and training activities in the communities in the areas of economic and social development and in accordance with an approved business plan.



10. Budget for an increase in honorariums in comparison to the amounts paid to other municipalities and which recognize the additional responsibilities of Self-reliance.
11. Provide communities with continued access to capital funds for the future replacement of infrastructure.



12. Make administrative changes to the Self-reliance Initiative, as identified by the community councils, that will clarify understanding, lessen the workload and provide increased community support.



13. Provide detailed information to scheduled communities on the Self-reliance Initiative and clarify program requirements, funding details, and community responsibilities. This information must be provided well in advance of the date which they are expected to enter into agreement.



14. Consult with the Communities, which are considering entering into the Self-reliance Initiative, and work together to identify and make adjustments to financial shortfalls that may have been overlooked due to special circumstances.



15. Improve communications with Communities in the administration of the Self-reliance Agreement.



16. Review training needs with each Council following an election to determine training needs and to initiate a training plan where required. We also recommend that community administrators and clerks be trained so that they can provide an orientation to new council members.



17. Provide continued funding for the operations and maintenance of the municipal services in communities with populations under seventy-five, in accordance with the community needs. We also recommend that these communities have access to capital funding through the capital approval process to replace and upgrade municipal infrastructure as required.



18. Provide support services to the communities with populations under seventy-five to assist them in developing to a higher status of local government.

-- top --

About the Program

History

In 1970, a major policy shift within the Department of Northern Affairs led to an emphasis on community independence and after consultation with communities, a new Northern Affairs Act was passed in 1974 to facilitate community development in anticipation of incorporation. Over the past 25 years the focus has been on developing councils, community employees, and the provision of municipal infrastructure leading to a capability for independent delivery of municipal services.

A stage in the development process was reached where Departmental activity tended to foster dependence on the part of some communities rather than independence, or in some cases, may have posed a barrier to those wishing to proceed to greater independence. The Self-Reliance Initiative was conceived as a necessary catalyst in the process leading to community independence and autonomy while assuring quality of life and sustainability. The principles on which the Initiative was based are fairness and consistency in funding, an appropriate level of maintenance standards, guaranteed safe environment, shared responsibility, accountability and sustainability.

Consultations were held in November of 1997 with eight communities (Bissett, Camperville, Cormorant, Island Lake, Pikwitonei, Pine Dock, Wabowden, and Waterhen) and the Initiative was developed in light of these consultations. The funding formula and details of the Initiative were developed on the basis of research into practices in other jurisdictions (Saskatchewan, Alberta, Yukon, North West Territories and the Department of Indian and Northern Development) and established industry standards for the maintenance of infrastructure.

In August of 1998, the Government approved the Self-Reliance Initiative. An additional $2.2 million was approved as community funding for the Initiative based on an off-setting reduction to the Departmental budget beginning in the fourth year of the Initiative. This decision was based on the scenario of communities assuming greater control and autonomy and a complimentary reduction in the role of the Local Government Division.

The criteria for eligibility to participate in the Self-Reliance Initiative are a population of seventy-five (75) or greater with the capacity to maintain administrative costs within a range of 20 to 30% of operating budgets and to achieve a local contribution targeted at 20% of operating budgets. Fourteen of thirty communities eligible for participation in the Self-Reliance Initiative have signed partnership agreements. Of these communities, the Community of South Indian Lake became an incorporated community April 1, 1999, and the Community of Wabowden has petitioned the Department to proceed with incorporation.

Communities can incorporate under The Northern Affairs Act and become independent legal entities. In doing so they assume many of the rights and obligations of a municipal corporation. Incorporated communities assume ownership of assets within the community and have greater autonomy and control of community affairs.

The Self-Reliance Initiative was developed as a developmental stage, which could lead to incorporation if the community so desired. Communities joining the Self-Reliant Initiative, enter into a five-year partnership agreement with the Department of Aboriginal & Northern Affairs. The partnership agreement includes a funding formula based on existing infrastructure and services with an objective to increasing community self-sufficiency.

The Initiative was originally scheduled for delivery in three annual phases with completion in 2000/2001. All of the 16 remaining communities identified for transition to Self-Reliance did not sign agreements by April 1, 2000; therefore the time frame will have to be extended.

Following a change in Government in the Province of Manitoba in the fall of 1999, the Minister initiated a review to the Self-Reliance Initiative in response to issues raised by community representatives. Options proposed for the 20 small communities with populations less than 75 persons were discussed in the consultative review. The Minister appointed Mr. Jim Perchaluk of the Department to conduct the review with Mr. Sonny Klyne, President of the Northern Association of Community Councils. The review was completed by March 31, 2000.

-- top --

Organization of Program and Services Provided

Government approved the Self-Reliance Initiative in 1998, which was designed to assist communities in attaining their community vision in the following areas:

Quality of Life

• Meeting essential basic needs and services

Self-Reliance

• Developing confidence in exercising their powers and judgment as they see applicable to their community situation
• Having the right and will to be responsible to themselves

Sustainability

• Providing constant, continuing, permanent supported services
• Having solid leadership, fiscal management and adequate resources to support the services and economic means of the community

The guiding principles for the Self-Reliant Initiative are:

• Fairness
• Appropriate level of maintenance standards
• Guaranteed safe environment
• Simple and understandable formula
• Consistency
• Shared responsibility
• Accountability
• Sustainability

A funding formula was established for the Self-Reliance Initiative, which covers funding for maintenance of buildings, roads, water and sewer treatment facilities and waste disposal grounds. Services include municipal administration, public works, fire and emergency services, community constable and recreation directors. Key aspects of the agreement are increases to funding for wages, training and the establishment of reserves for contingencies and replacement of equipment. The intended result of the Initiative is to facilitate greater control and decision making at the local level.

In addition, the funding formula increases the capacity of community councils to facilitate:

• Increased control over day to day operations and decision-making
• Strategic planning to meet future requirements by:
  1. Establishing reserves for replacement of vehicles
  2. Raising revenues to meet cost of living increase

Evolving responsibilities of community councils include:

• Partnering and co-ordination with agencies to ensure adequate services are received
• Meeting accountability & performance standards
• Identifying and addressing advisory & consultative needs as required

Under the Self-reliance Initiative, the Department role shifted from "doing" functions towards "consultant and advisor." These changes included taking on a facilitating role, fostering partnerships with other service providers to enhance all aspects of community living, such as housing, youth programs and safety. More emphasis was placed on the coordination of broad-based community development, including economic development, education, training and health. In meeting these new challenges, the Department staff generally had to acquire new skills and train to meet community needs and the new relationship with councils.

The Department is working to encourage and develop more partnerships with other departments and agencies delivering programs to and with the communities. An example is the partnership with the Department of Highways, where the self-reliant communities have the opportunity to negotiate and purchase services directly from the Department of Highways. Previously, communities obtained highway services through the approval of the Department of Aboriginal & Northern Affairs.

-- top --

Statistical Information

Based upon the established funding formula, budgets for the communities under the Self-reliance Initiative were created. An increase in funding is provided to all communities upon entering the Initiative, based upon their infrastructure inventory and maintenance needs. A total increase of $2.4 million was projected for community budgets. This is approximately a 50% increase to community funding.

Following is a chart, which reflects the actual increase to each Community Operating and Maintenance Grant, which the community has or will receive from the Department upon entering the Self-reliance Initiative Agreement.

Self-reliance Initiative - Operating & Maintenance Grant

Locally Generated Revenue (LGR) - Self-reliant (SR) Communities

One of the requirements of the community entering the Self-reliance Initiative was to raise 20% of the community budget from locally generated sources. The following table identifies the impact of this requirement on each community.

Phase I: Implementation 1998/99

Phase II: Implementation 1999/2000

Phase III: Proposed Implementation 2000/01

Notes:

Column A: "LGR Present" amounts are based on a three-year average - 1995/96, 1996/97, and 1997/98.

Column C-A" "Impact LGR" amount indicates the level of revenue that must be raised to meet Council's contribution. If the amount of the total impact exceeds 10% of total budget, the department may provide a one-time supplementary contribution to LGR to allow for sufficient time to plan and implement the adjustment.

Status of Communities which are not part of the Self-reliance Initiative

-- top --

Review Purpose, Scope and Approach

Purpose

In the fall of 1999, the Minister received inquiries from communities under the jurisdiction of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs regarding the Self-reliance Initiative. In consideration of these inquiries, the Minister initiated a review of the program in an effort to more clearly understand the perspectives of the communities as they relate to the Initiative. The purpose of the review is to consult with the community councils to obtain their views and recommendations regarding the Self-reliance Initiative.

-- top --

Scope

The scope of the review included those communities presently working within the Self-reliance Initiative or scheduled for the Initiative at a later date, as well as those communities with less than 75 persons who were not scheduled for the Self-reliance Initiative. The review had two components, the first of which was to gather community perspectives as they relate to Self-reliance. The second was to review and gather perspectives of communities that fell outside of the Initiative.

-- top --

Approach

The review of the Self-reliance Initiative was a partnership between the Northern Association of Community Councils (NACC) and the Department of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs. NACC had identified Mr. Sonny Klyne, President of NACC, to be their representative to work with Mr. Jim Perchaluk who was appointed to represent the Department.

The Honourable Eric Robinson, Minister announced the review on November 25, 1999 through a letter to all communities under the jurisdiction of the Department of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs. The letter identified the purpose, scope and approach of the review. Communities were encouraged to participate in the review through comments and recommendations regarding changes and modifications to the Initiative. The review was to be completed by March 31, 2000.

Mr. Sonny Klyne and Mr. Jim Perchaluk commenced with the community consultation process on November 26, 1999. A letter was sent to all communities under the jurisdiction of the Department of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs. The letter identified the two components, the first of which was to gather community perspectives as they relate to Self-reliance. The second was to review and gather perspectives of communities that fell outside of the Initiative.

In the letter from the review team, four questions were raised regarding the Self-reliance Initiative for those communities participating in or scheduled for the Initiative:

1. In general, does your Council support the Self-reliance initiative and its objectives or is Council opposed to it?
2. What specific aspects of the Self-reliance Initiative do Council support?
3. What specific aspect of the Self-reliance Initiative does Council not support?
4. What, if any, specific changes would Council recommend be made to the Self-reliance initiative?

Three questions were also raised in the letter for those communities under 75 persons:

1. Do you see your community receiving future municipal services? How should these services be administered?
2. What level of funding would your community require to provide the municipal services and/or capital projects?
3. In general, what approach do you and your council believe might best provide for the development of local government in your community?

These questions were intended to stimulate community thinking and discussion as part of the consultation process, along with providing some consistency in approaching all communities. Discussions were not limited to these question areas. Communities were encouraged to participate through meetings to provide comments and recommendations in order to have input regarding changes and modifications, which may be required for the Initiative. Councils were encouraged to include their staff in the consultation process.

In situations where community visits did not occur, correspondence and telephone conference calls were encouraged.

NORTHERN AFFAIRS COMMUNITIES

-- top --

Detailed Findings and Recommendations

In the process of consulting with the communities under the jurisdiction of the Department of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs, thirty-six community meetings were conducted, along with obtaining two community letters, and conducting five telephone interviews regarding the Self-reliance Initiative. The following two sections provide a summary of what we heard, along with our conclusions and recommendations.

Section A
Communities participating in or scheduled for Self-reliance

The First Question
In general, does your Council support the Self-reliance Initiative and its objectives or is Council opposed to it?

What We Concluded

We concluded that communities in the Self-reliance Initiative or scheduled to enter into the Initiative agree with the concept of the program which will create a greater degree of independence at the local level.

We reached this conclusion by analyzing the comments made by communities at our meetings, in telephone interviews and in written correspondence. These comments are summarized in our findings.

Many of the communities have recommendations regarding the Initiative, however there is general agreement that a transfer of municipal responsibilities along with funding will create more autonomous communities. The Self-reliance objectives are supported by a majority of communities.

We recommend that the Department of Aboriginal & Northern Affairs retain the Self-reliance Initiative concept, with adjustments as identified in this report, and with a possible name change to " Local Government Agreement".

Several of the communities scheduled for the Self-reliance Initiative required more information on the Initiative for a better understanding of the program requirements, funding details, and community responsibilities. This information is required well in advance of the start of the fiscal year in which the community is scheduled to move into the Self-reliance Initiative. The Department is expected to explain details as to how cost details were calculated and be prepared to make adjustments if inaccuracies exist.

We recommend that the Department of Aboriginal & Northern Affairs provide detailed information to scheduled communities on the Self-reliance Initiative and clarify program requirements, funding details, and community responsibilities. This information must be provided well in advance of the date which they are expected to enter into agreement.

In two Communities, one already on the Self-reliance Initiative and another scheduled community, a major change occurred in council membership as a result of vacancies and a regular election. As a result of a new council being elected, few councilors had knowledge of the Self-reliance Initiative. Training and information on the program was identified, as an urgent need.

We recommend that the Department review training needs with each Council following an election to determine training needs and to initiate a training plan where required. We also recommend that community administrators and clerks be trained so that they can provide an orientation to new council members.

What We Found

Community	Comments
Barrows	Scheduled for Self-reliance in 2000/01. Council requires more information on the Initiative prior to deciding if they are in support.
Berens River	Scheduled for Self-reliance in 2000/01. Council experienced changes in their members as a result of the election in February 2000 along with recent changes in their administrative staff. Council therefore requests information on the Self-reliance Initiative prior to providing comments.
Bissett	Entered into the Initiative in 1998. Council is satisfied with the Self-reliance Initiative.
Camperville	Entered the self-reliance initiative in June/98. Council is in agreement with the Initiative and its objectives.
Cormorant	Entered the Self-reliance Initiative in 1998. Supports the Initiative. Was one of the first communities who signed the agreement. Viewed the change only as a new funding formula as the community was already working at self-reliant level.
Crane River	Scheduled for Self-reliance in 2000/01. Do not support the Initiative as originally presented. The concept would be supported, if the Locally Generated Revenue portion were decreased to a figure attainable by the Community.
Cross Lake	Scheduled for Self-reliance April/ 2000. Council agrees with the concept, however felt that they were being pushed into the initiative and wonder why? Council has some concerns about the level of funding for many of their maintenance items such as roads, hydro, fire fighting, etc.
Duck Bay	Entered the Self-reliance Initiative April/99. A new Council has recently been elected who require information on the Initiative prior to making comment.
Easterville	Scheduled for Self-reliance in 2000/01. Council supports the concept of the Initiative. Council looks forward to having more authority to make decisions themselves when necessary and in an expedient time frame.
Ilford	Scheduled for Self-reliance April 1/2000. Council is in general agreement with the objectives of the Initiative.
Manigotogan	Entered the Self-reliance Initiative April 1999. Council is uncommitted as to supporting the Initiative.
Matheson Island	Entered the Self-reliance Initiative in April 1999. Council is satisfied with the Initiative and supports its objectives.
Meadow Portage	Entered the Self-reliance Initiative in 1999, therefore the management of the Initiative is new for Council. Overall Council is happy with the agreement with some minor concerns.
Moose Lake	Scheduled for Self-reliance in April 2000. Council is in agreement with the concept, however require more information on the financial details.
Nelson House	Scheduled for Self-reliance April / 2000. Council has discussed the Initiative with other communities that are on the Initiative and feel that it is a good idea and would like to try it.
Norway House	Council entered the Self-reliance Initiative in April 1999. Council agrees with the concept and wants to get involved in new initiatives outside of the traditional municipal role such as health and economic development.
Pelican Rapids	Scheduled for Self-reliance April / 2000. Council agrees with the Self-reliance concept, with the exception of the 20% locally generated revenue requirement.
Pikwitonei	Council entered the Self-reliance Initiative in August/98. In general, Council is supportive of the Initiative.
Pine Dock	Council entered the Self-reliance Initiative in 1998. Council supports the Initiative.
Seymourville	Scheduled for Self-reliance April / 2000. Council likes the idea of becoming self-reliant, and did not believe that they had a choice in determining whether they enter the Initiative or not.
South Indian Lake	Council moved directly from self-administration status to Incorporation on April 15/99. Funding provided by the Department is similar to the Self-reliance model, with provisions and adjustments for highway maintenance and insurance.
Thicket Portage	Scheduled for Self-reliance on April 1/ 2000. Council agrees with the concept, but feel that they first require further training and development.
Wabowden	Council is supportive of the Self-reliance Initiative and the objectives of delegating greater responsibilities to a local community.
Northern Association of Community Councils	The Executive of the Northern Association of Community Councils indicates that they support the Self-reliance Initiative and its objectives.

-- top --

The Second Question

What specific aspects of the Self-reliance Initiative do Council support?

What We Concluded

We concluded that Councils supported the Self-reliance Initiative as it provided the Community with greater local control over their finances and decision making. The agreement provided for additional funding and authority, which allowed the Community to make their own decisions without waiting for departmental approvals.

Similarly, the Incorporated Community Council of South Indian Lake supported the aspect of obtaining local control, including negotiating power and being recognized as a legal entity.

Councils were given authority to move funds around in their budget according to local needs. This provision provided Council with a greater degree of flexibility. This provision allowed Council authority to carry out maintenance items and repairs without having to first obtain departmental approval. Surplus funds could be saved for needed community projects, equipment and repairs.

Councils were given additional funds for staff wage increases and remoteness allowances. These increases were needed to enable Council in securing and maintaining a good reliable staff.

Councils were given authority to establish reserve funds, which would enable them to replace infrastructure in the future without having to go through a formal project proposal process. This provision allows Council to secure funding and make long-term plans and financial commitments, which was not possible previously.

The additional authority and responsibilities delegated to Council under the Self-reliance Initiative makes Council responsible for their actions. Council, therefore, must be better business managers, maintain control of their local operations, monitor and analyze their activities, and make changes as necessary.

We recommend that the Department continue to provide communities with increased authority and responsibilities, through the Self-reliance Initiative and Incorporation, which will enable communities to have greater local control in the development of local government in their community.

Councils support the continuation of community access to capital funds. Many communities have infrastructure such as water systems, roads and community halls, which are aging and will require replacement in the future. Access to the Capital Program funds provides the Community with assurance that their future needs will be addressed.

We recommend that the Department continue to provide communities with continued access to capital funds for the future replacement of infrastructure.

What We Found

Community	Comments
Barrows	Council supports the aspect of local ownership and the development of an independent Community.
Berens River	Council experienced changes in their members as a result of the election in February 2000 along with recent changes in their administrative staff. Council therefore requests information on the Self-reliance Initiative prior to providing comments.
Bissett Council	responded in writing indicating that they were satisfied with the Initiative but did not indicate the specific aspects, which they support.
Camperville	Council supports the aspect of the release of funding in one allotment at beginning of year, more local decision-making, and continued access to capital funds.
Cormorant	Council supports the Initiative as it makes Council responsible for its own actions. Council must therefore be more business managers, to maintain control of operations, analyze and make changes as necessary.
Crane River	Council supports the possibility of developing new local initiatives such as lottery VLT's.
Cross Lake	Council supports the aspect of having local control of their budget.
Duck Bay	A new Council has recently been elected who require information on the Initiative prior to making comment.
Easterville	Council likes to make their own decisions, therefore support the aspect of additional local authority as provided by the Initiative.
Ilford	Council supports the aspects of receiving additional funding, provision of extra authority and responsibility, and the continuation of access to the Capital Program for future upgrading of the water system, roads and community hall.
Manigotogan	Council supports the aspect of receiving more funding, establishment of reserve accounts and the additional authority to fix things without having to phone for approval. The involvement of councilors in the monitoring process was a good experience.
Matheson Island	Council supports the freedom to make local decisions and the flexibility in the spending or saving funds without losing it.
Meadow Portage	Council supports the Initiative for the following reasons: additional funding; authority to do things without having to beg; Council can plan for activities such as road maintenance; long term commitment of funds allows Council to better plan for long term maintenance items.
Moose Lake	Council supports the aspect of receiving additional funds for items such as vehicles and buildings.
Nelson House	Council supports the aspect of obtaining increased authority and local decision making.
Norway House	Council supports the concept of local control.
Pelican Rapids	Council supports the aspect of obtaining local control, having the authority to proceed to do things without having to ask the Department.
Pikwitonei	Council supports the aspect of secure funding, obtaining long term stability. Council supports the increase in funds for wages and remoteness allowance for staff. Council also supports the portability of funds in their budget, allowing them flexibility. The Initiative allows the Community to get out from under the wing of the Department.
Pine Dock	Council supports the aspect of having more funding.
Seymourville	Council supports the aspect of obtaining an increase in funds for staff wages.
South Indian Lake	As an Incorporated Community, Council supports the aspect of obtaining the power to negotiate and be recognized as a legal entity. Council supports the aspect of obtaining a five-year funding agreement. Council acknowledges the support from the Regional Office of the Department, and the willingness to listen to the Community. Council supports the aspect of having continued access to the capital funds for infrastructure needs.
Thicket Portage	Council supports the aspect of obtaining the ability to manage and deal with their own affairs.
Wabowden	Council find that the flexibility in transferring funds between budgeted categories is a substantial improvement in providing greater latitude in designating funds for local priorities. This flexibility allows improved cost-effectiveness in providing municipal services.
Northern Association of Community Councils	The Executive of the Northern Association of Community Councils supports the aspect of providing Communities under the Self-reliance Initiative with additional funding and the establishment of more local control.

-- top --

The Third Question

What specific aspect of the Self-reliance Initiative does Council not support?

What We Concluded

We concluded that that there are components of the Self-reliance Initiative that Community Councils do not support. The degree of non-support varies with the issue. There are communities that are completely supportive of the Self-reliance Initiative, but a majority of communities disagree with at least one component of the Initiative. The areas of non-support are listed as follows:

• the locally generated revenue requirement of twenty percent (20%),
• the proposed level of maintenance funding,
• consultation with communities regarding the Initiative,
• communications with the Department,
• manner in which financial adjustments are made,
• the lack of departmental initiative in the areas of community economic development, housing and health.

Councils made recommendations to the Department to address their concerns about the Self-reliance Initiative. The Council recommendations are included in the next section, under the Fourth Question.

What We Found

Community	Comments
Barrows	Raising local fees for services such as community hall rentals will jeopardize recreation programs for the youth. The Initiative does not compensate the Community elected officials for the additional time spent in managing the program. Council members have reached their limits as volunteers.
Berens River	Council experienced changes in their members as a result of the election in February 2000 along with recent changes in their administrative staff. Council therefore requests information on the Self-reliance Initiative prior to providing comments.
Bissett	Council is concerned about the greater amount of workload and responsibilities placed upon the council members, as a result of the Initiative, without a corresponding increase in honorariums. In addition to the one regular meeting per month, Council must hold several special meetings in order to keep up with the expectations of the Self-reliance Agreement.
Camperville	The requirement to raise 20% of the budget from locally generated revenues is a concern. The Community has received additional funds under the Initiative, but this benefit is offset, as Council must now raise a substantially greater locally generated portion.
Cormorant	Council feels that the funding formula did not provide them with sufficient funds for equipment repair.
Crane River	Council is concerned about future community leadership and does not see safeguards in the system to ensure council funding is managed. Council wishes to see that controls are in place to ensure that future councils are accountable and that unreasonable expenditures do not take place. The Community can't raise the Locally Generated Revenue of 20%. Council can't raise the taxes any higher for a small population with limited income such as pensions or unemployment.
Cross Lake	Council does not support the level of funding being offered to them under the Self-reliance Initiative funding formula. Council would have liked to have had input into the design of the Initiative and didn't. The emphasis for funding appeared to be placed on justifying a formula as opposed to specific community needs. Council requires clarification to many questions and concerns about the initiative and funding. Council felt the Department was more concerned about getting a signature on an agreement as opposed to clarifying the issues.
Duck Bay	A new Council has recently been elected who require information on the Initiative prior to making comment. The Administrator, however, has indicated that the 20% Locally Generated Revenue is too high and will be a concern for this Community.
Easterville	Council does not support the aspect of having to raise 20% of the budget from locally generated sources. This level of locally generated funding is a concern for this community.
Ilford	Council feels that the 20% Locally Generated Revenue requirement is a bit high, as council will have to raise approximately another 5%.
Manigotogan	Council does not support the manner in which the Initiative was introduced. Council had the impression that there was no choice, therefore entered into agreement. Council does not support the 20% Locally Generated Revenue Target. They had to raise the water rates by 300% and got negative feedback from the residents. A target of approximately 15% would be more reasonable.
Matheson Island	Council does not support the restrictions or lack of local control in the establishment of liquor licenses and tax collection on leased land where there are arrears.
Meadow Portage	Council does not support the 20% Locally Generated Revenue as it may be difficult to achieve. Council does not support the requirement to produce monitoring reports for all programs every three months.
Moose Lake	Council does not support the level of information provided by the Department on the Initiative. Council does not have sufficient detailed budget information to enable Council to make a final decision regarding the agreement.
Nelson House	Council did not agree with the level of information, which they received on the Initiative prior to the review on January 19/2000. If Council is expected to sign the agreement before April/2000, they require more information from the Department regarding the Initiative along with the funding details. Council feels that the proposed budget may be too low.
Norway House	Council is unhappy with the lack of support in new initiatives such as funding for community health workers and economic development. Council disagrees with the lack of consultation regarding changes in funding provided under the Self-reliance Agreement. Council received three schedules which made adjustments to funding without community consultation: funding for water breaks were reduced; roads were under funded in view of a five year average. Council disagrees with the lack of information from the Department regarding adjustments to funding such as extra funds for fire equipment and auditing.
Pelican Rapids	Council does not support the requirement that 20% of the budget must be raised from locally generated sources. Council feels that the 20% target is too much for their community. Council do not support the aspect that communities with populations of less than 75 persons are being forced to amalgamate.
Pikwitonei	Council is opposed to the lack of information, which was provided to them at the time of signing the agreement, not allowing them to compare the old and new system. Council does not agree that they were not consulted in regards to the funding formula as each community is different and has different conditions to be considered. Council is opposed to the method in which the Department implemented the Initiative, whereas at the time of signing the agreement, an accounting system was not in place to guide council in making investments and consider accounting packages. There was no follow-up by the Department after the agreement was signed, to ensure that everything was falling into place. Funding was not made available to the Community to hire expertise to assist them in the implementation stage. Council does not agree with the level of technical support services, which was provided by the Department; no assistance was provided to assist them with 50/50 Grant-in-aid applications for street maintenance; no department follow-up was provided to ensure approved projects were delivered; difficulty experienced to obtain the services of the engineer during the construction season. The pain of learning was at the expense of the Community. Council does not support the manner in which funding was provided by the Department, whereas Council had to fight for the second year outstanding LGR supplement, and that capital funding for a tractor was held off until late in the year. Council had to top off the capital funding to obtain the purchase of their choice, as the vehicle replacement guidelines are not versatile. Council did not agree with the approach to signing the agreement. Council felt that they were pushed, as they were told that if they did not sign by a certain date, the funds would go to the next community. Council signed as they had invested a lot of time into the Initiative.
Pine Dock	Council does not have any specific concerns as Council is just getting to know and understand the agreement.
Seymourville	Council is concerned about the 20% Locally Generated Revenue requirement. Council is presently near 5%; therefore the increase from local generated sources would be dramatic.
South Indian Lake	Council has a concern about the level of funding which they received. Council needs more funding for additional policing and public works staff.
Thicket Portage	Council does not support the funding formula, as it does not address their local needs for public works staff. The present formula shows a reduction from two employees to one employee. Council does not support the 20% Locally Generated Revenue requirement, as it will be very difficult for the Community to reach this level. Council does not support the present agreement as it is written. It appears that the Community will be accountable for services, which they do not presently have, such as ambulance and recreation worker.
Wabowden	Council does not agree with the level of funds provided for training. Funds allotted under the current agreement appear to be designed to maintain the existing "as is" situation. This level is inadequate to meet the increased responsibilities of the Self-reliance Initiative. Council does not agree with the failure of the agreement to recognize the need for Community Development knowledge and the importance of developing a process so that local authorities have knowledge and input into the use of the resources surrounding the community.
Northern Association of Community Councils	The Executive of the Northern Association of Community Councils does not support the twenty percent (20%) Locally Generated Revenue requirement. This amount is too much for the communities to raise locally.

-- top --

The Fourth Question

What, if any, specific changes would Council recommend be made to the Self-reliance Initiative?

What We Concluded

We concluded that Community Councils have made well-founded recommendations to the Department to address their concerns and to make improvements to the Self-reliance Initiative. We have listed the community recommendations in order of the highest number of communities, which identified action.

The first recommendation therefore, has been made by a majority of communities. This approach does not mean that the later conclusions and recommendations are less important. It does indicate however, that there are different needs in different communities.

Nearly all communities recommended that additional training be provided to Communities. Areas of training which were recommended include:

• Development of Council and administrative staff on the budget process, financial management, accountability and council responsibility;
• Development of Council in the process to hire new staff, supervision and conducting performance reviews;
• Development of Council and administrators in program management;
• Community Council business planning;
• Development of Council and administrators in preparing local by-laws;
• Staff training for clerks and administrators on accounting procedures;
• Technical training in road development and the tendering process;
• Orientation for new Council members on their responsibilities;
• Council, administrator and public works employee development in the environmental matters which relate to their community;
• Public information on the provision of local municipal services, costs, need for volunteerism and community support;
• Community economic development planning and resource use;
• Community development of small business planning and applications.

At least one Council recommended that a community-training plan be developed with each Council, which will prepare them for their roles and responsibilities under the Self-reliance Initiative.

We recommend that the Department of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs promote the need for Community Councils to prepare and adopt a training plan, that will address their community needs, and which will become a part of the Community Business Plan. We recommend that the training plan be developed in concert with the Department to obtain their advice and support where required.

There are a number of training topics, which could be delivered to community representatives' at large seminars. One such gathering is the annual NACC Conference. Representatives from many of the communities attend the annual conference normally held in August. Since travel costs are already covered to attend the conference, it would be cost efficient to extend the travel status by one day to hold a one-day training seminar for elected officials.

We recommend that the Department provide NACC with funding annually, in the amount of $10.0, to hold a training seminar in conjunction with the NACC Conference, to minimize costs.

The Government approved the Self-reliance Initiative in 1998, which was designed to assist the communities in attaining their community vision, which included the area of sustainability. Councils entered the Self-reliance Initiative with visions to develop a solid leadership, fiscal management and adequate resources to support the services and economic means of the community.

Several communities were disappointed that the Self-reliance Initiative failed to recognize the need for community development in the area of economic development. Communities look to the Department of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs to share knowledge and provide a process so that the local authorities have input and access to the use of resources surrounding the community.

Community Councils feel that the Department has not moved from the mode of maintaining municipal services to a community development mode, which includes economic development. Communities are relying on the Department to support them in establishing a local economic base.

Community Councils are recommending that the Department support the Communities in obtaining some form of control over the resources within the community boundary and surrounding area. Communities have indicated a need for resource boundaries or larger community boundaries in which Council has some form of control.

Communities are requesting measures of control, which vary from having a "say" in resource allocation to managing the resources and deriving royalties and fees from the sale or rental of resources. In some instances co-management arrangements may also be desirable. Resources identified include logging, crown land rentals, leases and sales, mineral extraction, guiding and tourism.

Communities feel that it is important that long range planning takes place and that the Government supports communities in protecting and managing resources so that future generations may also enjoy them.

Communities realize that this is a major issue that may not be resolved overnight; however negotiations towards establishing an economic base must begin to occur.

We recommend that the Department of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs initiate negotiations with other department to provide communities under the Self-reliance Initiative with opportunities to manage resources within their community boundaries. We also recommend that the Department support communities in reviewing their existing boundary and expanding it where justified.

Communities have also expressed concern that the Department, under the Self-reliance Initiative Program, did not actively assist the Community in attaining essential needs and services in the areas of housing and health services. These services are a part of the community vision required to improve the quality of life, but are delivered by agencies outside of the Department of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs.

The Community of South Indian Lake, which is incorporated, has negotiated successfully for funding to allow them to venture into these service areas. The funding situation in South Indian Lake is unique due to its relationship with the Nelson House First Nation. The success in managing and providing health and housing services in this Community could be used as a model for other Communities under the jurisdiction of the Department of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs.

We recommend that the Department advocate and coordinate with health and housing authorities to allow communities under the Self-reliance Initiative to have an opportunity to initiate partnerships that will secure the level of services to meet their community needs.

Communities have identified a need to develop long term, realistic plans for the economic development of their communities that will serve as the foundation of real control over local activities. Communities have also identified the need to build a strong foundation for the long-term economic and social development of their communities.

NACC has prepared and presented, in the fall of 1999, a proposal to the Provincial Government to undertake activities whereas NACC would design, develop and implement planning and deliver training to improve the capacity of Councils to exercise effective control over community activities, including economic and social development.

We recommend that the Department provide funds to NACC, in the amount of $300.0, for delivery of planning and training activities in the communities in the areas of economic and social development and in accordance with an approved business plan.

Community Councils have indicated that they have spent more time in council affairs as a result of the Self-reliance Initiative. The additional time is associated with the increased responsibilities, which Council has assumed. Councils are meeting more often to monitor their activities and manage their local affairs according to the agreement.

Community Councils have recommended that honorariums be increased to recognize the additional responsibilities and time, which Councilors must spend to conduct their business. Several Councils have made recommendations in regard to actual increases, noting the present inequities with neighboring First Nations.

We recommend that the Department budget for an increase in honorariums in comparison to the amounts paid to other municipalities and which recognize the additional responsibilities of Self-reliance.

The Locally Generated Revenue requirement is a concern to one half of the Communities, which are on or scheduled for the Self-reliance Initiative. Presently most communities are raising locally generated revenues at a level much below twenty percent (20%). Raising locally generated revenues will be a financial burden for local residents and may jeopardize existing recreational programs for the youth and community citizens in general.

Locally generated revenues are presently being raised from local sources such as taxation, municipal fees for services such as water and sewage, hall and equipment rentals and fund-raising events such as bingo, socials and festivals. Unless new sources of local revenue are found, raising the local fees is the only option, which Council has to reach the 20% target.

Increasing local service and rental fees will have an impact on local incomes, which most Councils feel will cause difficulty for individuals and families with low financial incomes. This action may reduce the amount of usage of local services and facilities which are presently in place and available to the community residents. Reduction in recreational activities will impact upon the health and well being of the community, and result in higher crime and health care costs.

The Department responded to community inquiries about non-compliance of reaching the 20% Locally Generated requirement, indicating that the Department would not cancel the Self-reliance Agreement. The Department would continue to provide the agreed upon 80% funding. The shortfall, in the community 20% revenue portion, would mean that they would have to revise their annual budget and reduce service.

The objective of the Self-reliance Funding Formula was to provide the community with adequate financial resources to maintain and replace infrastructure as part of an agreement and plan. Any reduction in the community finances would impact upon the services and maintenance conducted, and possibly equipment replacement. The Community Self-reliance plan and results would therefore be affected.

Alternatively, if the Department was to raise their contribution from eighty (80%) to eighty-eight (88%), additional funds would have to be requested from government through the budget process. The financial impact of lowering the locally generated revenue requirement and increasing the Department's funding contribution may be seen in the following table.

Utilizing the figures in this table, a reduction of 8% Locally Generated Revenue requirement, would decrease community budgets by $651.2. If the Department was to make up this difference, the Department would have to obtain an additional $651.2 through the government budget process.

One half of the communities have indicated that the twenty percent (20%) requirement will be difficult to achieve without local hardship. The other half did not indicate this as a concern. Several communities had indicated that they have already achieved the twenty-percent local requirement.

By reducing the Locally Generated Revenue requirement by eight percent (8%), a majority of communities will be able to attain the requirement. Several communities may still have local hardship, however in these special circumstances; the Department should review the situation, to determine what level of local revenue is affordable by the community.

The following table reflects the locally generated revenue that each community presently must raise at the 20% level, the proposed 12% level, their present level and the amount that the community must increase to attain the 12% level.

We recommend that the Department reduce the community Locally Generated Revenue requirement from twenty (20%) to twelve percent (12%) and proceed through the budget process to obtain the difference of eight (8%) or $651.2. The agreement for the development of local government in Northern Manitoba should not be jeopardized by the inability of the community to raise a departmental prescribed amount of locally generated revenue.

Several communities indicated that they were not in support of the funding which was proposed for their communities. Councils indicated that there are differences between communities and their local needs, which were not taken into account in the financial formula.

These Councils felt that the funding offered was insufficient for maintenance of all of their community services. Most of the identified shortfalls were in the water, sewer and roads, but there were also some requests for funds for additional staff and staff development. Councils would have liked to have been consulted and have input into the design of the Initiative. All councils did not have an opportunity to do so, as consultation of the Self-reliance Initiative was limited to the communities in the first phase.

We recommend that the Department consult with the Communities, which are considering entering into the Self-reliance Initiative, and work together to identify and make adjustments to financial shortfalls that may have been overlooked due to special circumstances.

Several communities in the Self-reliance Initiative indicated frustration in the manner in which changes were made to the funding arrangement. Councils received schedules, which indicated that adjustments had occurred. Unfortunately, the Department did not consult with the affected community prior to the reduction.

Communications and follow-through by the Department may have been improved, as some communities received increases in funding and the information was not relayed to the community. In another situation, a community had to fight for an outstanding Locally Generated Revenue Supplement.

We recommend that the Department improve communications with Communities in the administration of the Self-reliance Agreement.

A number of concerns were identified by communities, which addressed administration of the Self-reliance Initiative Agreement. The communities made the following recommendations:

• That community reporting to the Department is changed; administrative and public works reports to be completed every six months as opposed to three months. The financial report may remain at three months as it is must be done monthly by the clerk for council, irregardless of the condition in the Self-reliance Agreement.
• That the consultants from the Department monitor the books in the community on a quarterly basis, as opposed to going into a community on a request only basis.
• That the requirement for quarterly public meetings be changed to one annual public meeting. A lot of work goes into preparing for the public meeting, and nobody from the general public attends the meeting. All regular council meetings are open to the public to attend throughout the year.
• That the Self-reliance Funding Formula be presented in a format similar to council budgets for easier understanding.
• That any reductions in funding under the Self-reliance Initiative are based on a five-year review period.
• That the Department assists communities in collecting local generated revenue by resolving the problems associated with tax arrears.
• That the Department provides the community with authority to amalgamate the reserve accounts into one bank account. The community would be responsible to keep ledgers to track the individual reserves.

We recommend that the Department make administrative changes to the Self-reliance Initiative, as identified by the community councils, that will clarify understanding, lessen the workload and provide increased community support.

What We Found

Community	Comments
Barrows	Council recommends: An increase of honorariums for elected officials; Continued support from the Department in training new councils; Provision for the education of community people on municipal services and costs, volunteerism and the need for community support; Provisions and support by the Province to the Community in the area of economic development and co-management of resources (logging, guiding, tourism).
Berens River	Council experienced changes in their members as a result of the election in February 2000 along with recent changes in their administrative staff. Council therefore requests information on the Self-reliance Initiative prior to providing comments.
Bissett	Council recommends that honorariums for councilors who are working with the Initiative be increased to reflect the increased workload and responsibilities. Council recommends an annual review of the Self-reliance Initiative.
Camperville	Council recommends that the Department: Lower the 20% Locally Generated Revenue Requirement to 12%; Change the need for reporting from quarterly to annual; Provide additional training to Councils and administrative staff in the area of budget process, accountability, and council responsibility; Departmental consultants should be monitoring books in the community on a quarterly basis as opposed to going into a community on a request only basis; Provide new funds should be provided for insurance and legal services; Provide an extension to community boundaries should be provided for the purpose of economic development.
Cormorant	Council recommends that additional funds be provided for equipment repairs such as water breaks, and for replacing council staff when they are away on sick leave or vacation. Council recommends that the standard to hold quarterly public meetings be changed to one annual public meeting. Council recommends that new Councilors receive training on Council responsibilities and financial management. Council does hold more meetings under Self-reliance; therefore an increase in honorariums would be appropriate. Council suggested an honorarium of $500.00 for the Mayor and $300.00 for Councilors.
Crane River	Council recommends that the Locally Generated Revenue Requirement be reduced from 20% to approximately 5%. Council recommends that provincial funding be available to assist in local economic development initiatives such as gas stations and VLT's.
Cross Lake	Council recommends that the Funding Formula be clarified and presented in a format similar to Councils budget to which Council is familiar. Council recommends additional funding be provided for adequate maintenance of infrastructure and programs. Council recommends that infrastructure be built up to standard prior to transferring responsibility from the Department to the Community. The vehicle replacement policy of the Department should apply to all communities whether or not they are in the self-reliance initiative. Council recommends that training be provided in the area of finances, community management, staff performance reviews and supervision. Council recommends an increase in honorariums, to have a monthly honorarium plus an additional amount for meetings.
Duck Bay	Council, who is newly elected, recommends that they receive information on the Self-reliant Initiative. Council recommends that their community boundary be expanded, within which they want control over the land and resources. Council recommends that the 20% Locally Generated Revenue requirement be lowered.
Easterville	Council recommends that more information on the Initiative be provided to Councils when considering the program. Council would be interested in talking to other communities already on the Initiative to find out how they are doing, what problems did they encounter, and sharing ideas in a partnership type of arrangement. Once on the Initiative Council sees the need for more training in areas such as business planning and budgeting.
Ilford	Council feels that there may be future reductions made by the Department in areas such as remoteness allowance. Council recommends that any budget adjustments downward should be based on a five year review period. Council recommends that the Province clean up the problems associated with tax collection arrears. Tax arrears are a concern and enforcement will help communities collect locally generated revenues.
Manigotogan	Council recommends that the Locally Generated Revenue Target be lowered to approximately 15%. Council recommends that training be provided for new councilors in the areas of council responsibilities and management. Council requires additional funds for road maintenance, either through the funding formula or grant-in-aid from the Department of Highways. Council recommends that resource boundaries be established which will give the community some say or control in managing the resources in and around the community. There is a need for local economic development, health, etc., but if Council was to become involved beyond the municipal responsibilities, Council recommends that remuneration for council members be increased in view of the extra workload. Council is at its limit for volunteering their time. Funding levels to the neighboring First Nation are noted. There should be at least one paid councilor for the additional workload.
Matheson Island	Council recommends that additional information be provided to break down the budget and financial reports so that Council can see how much is available for investments.
Meadow Portage	Council recommends that the Locally Generated Revenue target be reduced to a figure around 10 to 12% for a few years. Council recommended that the surplus at year-end be allowed as a contribution towards their 20% target. Council recommends that training for staff continue to prepare them adequately for the increased work. Council recommends that honorariums be increased for council members, suggesting $100.00 for councilors and $150.00 for Mayor. Council recommends that the requirement for program monitoring reports and public meetings be changed from three to six months. Financial reports may remain at every three months.
Moose Lake	Council recommends that the Department provide them with more information on the self-reliant budget for their community.
Nelson House	Council recommends that there should be more information sharing by the Department. Council recommends that training be provided on " how to manage," and "councilor responsibilities." The Department should be first training community councils as opposed to saying " you are on your own." Council recommends that additional funding and authority be provided to Council for more control in community education and health.
Norway House	Council recommends that the Department move from a maintenance level of activity to a development level. In the development level, issues such as economic development and health issues may be dealt with. Council recommends that additional funding be provided for municipal maintenance of roads and water systems, including additional public works staff. Council recommends that the Province delegate more authority to Council so that they would have jurisdiction to make decisions on development and resource use within and around the community boundaries. Council recommends that the Province provide "needed" support to northern communities to establish an economic base. There is a need for long range planning and government support to prepare and protect communities for future generations. There is a need for funds and human resources to deal with these global issues. Council recommends that the Department provide authority to the Community to amalgamate the present reserve accounts. Council recommends that experienced and qualified trainers be obtained to train and assist the Community in technical areas such as road development, tendering, business planning, small business applications and environmental matters. Council recommends that funds be provided for training Council members in personnel matters such as hiring staff, supervision and management controls. Council recommends that any decreases in budgets should be done after several years of monitoring as opposed to a one-year experience.
Pelican Rapids	Council recommends that an increase in honorariums be provided for the extra work, which will be incurred under the Self-reliance Initiative. Council suggested a per diem for special meetings. Council recommends that the Department allow for a future for the small communities with populations with less than 75 persons, and not allow their entities to be lost and taken over by larger communities. Council can relate to their own recent community dealing with a referendum in which community residents decided that Pelican Rapids would not become part of the Sapotoweyak First Nation. Council identified that they would require further training in the development of local by-laws.
Pikwitonei	Council recommends that a better accounting system (Self-reliance Agreement Budget) be adopted, which is understandable and workable by council members. Council recommends that the initial consultation process and communication with the communities be improved. A Departmental Contact Person would have been helpful to the Community. Departmental staff should conduct more community visits. Council recommends that the Department provides improved Technical Support, or provides funds to the Community to hire support services themselves. Council recommends that the vehicle replacement guidelines be improved, allowing communities to purchase equipment according to the community needs as opposed to a general policy for the entire Department. Council recommends that additional funds be provided for hiring an administrator in addition to their clerk, and another full time public works employee. There is a need for additional community staff to work on resource development. Council needs help in preparing a resource plan.
Pine Dock	Council recommends training to be provided at conferences, want opportunities to discuss problems and concerns with other communities that are in the Initiative. Council recommends training for staff supervisors on how to conduct staff evaluations.
Seymourville	Council recommends that more information be provided on the Initiative. They would like to talk to other communities on the Initiative. Council recommends that the 20 % Locally Generated Revenue requirement be flexible and not held against the Community if they couldn't achieve this level. Council recommends that adequate staff be trained to advise Council. Council recommends that qualified consultants from the Department conduct training. Training needs are in the area of community planning, business planning and community management. Council recommends that they have say in the use of resources in and around their community. Council recommends that honorariums be increased.
South Indian Lake	As an Incorporated Community, Council recommends that additional funding be obtained for legal purposes, additional staff in the public works and policing programs, an increase in honorariums, and capital funding for roads, water trucks, water & sewer, and community health unit. Council recommends that the Department continue to provide training support for new councilors, public works and clerical. Council recommends that other communities, considering advancing in local government status, ensure that they have a good administrator.
Thicket Portage	Council recommends that the Department complete the review of the program prior to moving more communities into the Initiative. Council recommends that the Department better prepare the Community for Self-reliance by developing a community training plan and providing training to both the council clerk and council on their roles and financial responsibilities under self-reliance. Council recommends that the 20% Locally Generated Revenue requirement be reduced to about 10%. Council recommends that the Self-reliance Agreement should be tailored to the Community situation as opposed to a generic agreement. Reference to non-existent services should be deleted. Council recommends that the Department provide further clarification of the Self-reliant Initiative. Council requests clarification on the funding formula, and what happens if a community cancels the self-reliance agreement. Do they go back to self-administration status?
Wabowden	Council recommends that improved information be provided to them concerning the detailed breakdown of the MCA funding allocation under the Self-reliance Initiative. Corrections occur and amounts are deducted without Council knowledge, which can readily result in mistrust and misunderstandings. Council should be able to analyze the details. Council recommends that increased funding be provided for elected representative workshops and staff development. Alternatively, the Department should develop workshops to improve local skills in the area of financial and program management, along with community resources use and economic development. Council recommends that the Department support the Community in economic development initiatives, which will include resource use within the community boundary.
Northern Association of Community Councils	The Executive of the Northern Association of Community Councils (NACC) recommends that more funds be made available for training of Councils and their staff. This is a continuous need. NACC have proposed in their business plan to have a more hands on approach to delivery of community training, by managing and overseeing the delivery. NACC recommends that community resource boundaries must be established for economic development purposes. An increase in local revenue through royalties, leases and permit fees, will assist Council to meet the Locally Generated Revenue requirement. NACC recommends that all Council honorariums be increased. The amounts of $300.00 for councilors and $500.00 for mayor were recommended. NACC recommends that Incorporation is the right direction for communities to pursue. Other communities should be given the same opportunities as South Indian Lake. NACC recommends that compliance issues be relaxed for communities in the Self-reliance Initiative. It was noted in the agreement, that the word "shall" was utilized when referring to requirements of the community. Where reference was made to a requirement of the Department, the word "may" was used. NACC recommend that the Self-reliant Communities receive additional funds for global issues such as memberships. Due to increasing costs of holding the annual conference, NACC must raise their community membership fees. Presently NACC has held off on raising the community membership fee as the communities cannot afford an increase. NACC recommends that the name of the Self-reliance Initiative be changed. Several options are Local Government Agreement or Municipal Government Agreement.

-- top --

Section B

Communities with A Population Under 75

The First Question

Do you see your community receiving future municipal services? How should these services be administered?

What We Concluded

We have concluded that all of the communities, with populations under seventy-five, require the continuation of municipal services. Several communities have indicated that future municipal services may be required as part of community growth.

There are three groups of administrative status in the communities with a population under seventy-five: Contact in Trust, Council in Trust, and Council in Self-administration. All communities want to continue to operate the existing municipal services and to maintain control of their budget. All communities want to continue with the existing form of administration except in several situations where councils are looking forward to further development and moving from Trust to Self-administration status. In two communities in Contact (Trust) status, the Contact Person would be prepared to buy administrative services from another community.

Amalgamation has been discussed and considered in many situations, but generally is not an option which communities will voluntarily move towards. In some locations it appears that amalgamation would be feasible. However, communities are afraid of being consumed by larger communities; losing their entity, losing funding and eroding of their local services.

We recommend that the Department authorize communities with populations under seventy-five to continue to provide local municipal services in accordance with the needs of the community. We also recommend that the Department allow the community to determine how the services will be administered.

What We Found

Community	Population	Comments
Aghaming	16	This is a Contact Community in Trust Status. The Community has a number of municipal services that they need to maintain; namely water supply, roads, subdivision and recreation services. The Community is prepared to buy administrative services from another community, however do not want to amalgamate, as they want control over their funds.
Baden	37	This Community recently moved from Council to a Contact Status in Trust due to the decline in population. The Community wants to retain its infrastructure and local government, and would be open to the idea of having their funds administered by another community.
Dallas/Red Rose	50	Council is in self-administration status and provides local municipal services which include roads, fire protection, a recreation hall and office facilities. Council would prefer to remain with the existing administration. The Department informed council that the status quo was not acceptable, however no alternative to the Self-reliance Initiative was provided. Council therefore had no choice, as they did not know what would happen, if they did nothing. Council held several meetings to get information on the Self-reliance Initiative and was discussing amalgamation with Fisher Bay and Harwill. Council felt that the Initiative and amalgamation could have worked, although there were still questions that remain to be answered about the arrangement, such as, could they keep all three fire halls or would some have to be shut down.
Dauphin River	16	Council sees the need to continue with municipal services in the Community. The local community council should administer these services. This Community was in existence prior to the establishment of the Department of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs and will continue without the Department.
Dawson Bay	53	Council presently is in Trust status, but has requested to move to self-administration. Community has good municipal infrastructure and wants to continue to operate the existing municipal services. Community has demonstrated through local business ventures that they can administer their own local affairs, which should include local administration of municipal services. The Community was in existence prior to the establishment of the Department of Aboriginal & Northern Affairs and will continue to be in existence without the Department.
Fisher Bay	59	Council is presently in Self-administration status and maintains existing municipal infrastructure, which includes a fire hall, streets, and administration office and community hall. Council wants to see the existing services continue and be self-administered by them. Council felt that the Department forced previous discussions of amalgamation and entering the Self-reliance Initiative upon the Community. There appeared to be no other option.
Harwill	28	Council is presently in Self-administration status and maintains existing municipal infrastructure, which includes a fire hall, waste management site, administration office and community hall. Council sees a need for these services to continue and be self-administered by them. Council were involved in discussions to amalgamate and become Self-reliant, however were under the impression that they had no choice. The Department did not clarify other options. Council supported the concept of Self-reliance, but were concerned that although the group would probably get more funds, they would all be losing something such as a fire hall, community hall or clerk.
Herb Lake Landing	19	A Contact Person represents this Community. The community maintenance budget is administered from the Departmental Trust Fund. The Community sees the need to continue with the provision of maintenance of their roads and basic fire protection. The Community prefers that the existing status continue. The Community would lose their control to provide local services if they were to amalgamate with the nearby municipality.
Homebrook	39	The Council maintains a number of municipal services such as roads, waste management and fire protection for a farming community. Funds are self-administered by Council. Council sees that these services will continue to be required, and should be administered by the local Council. Council has considered amalgamation, but are not interested to pursue this direction, as they will lose all local control of their services to a large municipality.
Little Grand Rapids	19	The Community is presently in Contact (Trust) Status and maintains local infrastructure, which includes a waste management site, roads, water supply system, community garage and dock. The Community wants to see these services continue through the present system.
Loon Straits	11	The Community is presently in Contact (Trust) Status and wants to continue with the existing administration arrangements. The Community is against amalgamating with another community, as the Community will lose its say in the provision of future maintenance services.
National Mills	43	Council is presently self administering the community budget and wants to continue with the present status of local government. The Community wants to retain its present infrastructure.
Powell	23	The Community is presently in Contact (Trust) Status and wants to continue with the present local government structure.
Princess Harbour	5	The Community is presently in Contact (Trust) Status and maintains existing infrastructure consisting of roads, fire equipment and waste management site. The Community wants to continue with the existing administration.
Red Deer Lake	39	Council is presently self administering the community budget and wants to continue with the present status of local government. The Community wants to retain its present infrastructure.
Red Sucker Lake	25	The Community is presently in Contact (Trust) Status and provides local municipal services, which include a water supply, roads and waste management site. The Community prefers that these services continue and be administered through the present arrangement with the Department.
Rock Ridge	56	Council is presently in Trust Status and working on a plan to return to Self-administrative Status. The Community has a municipal office building, housing subdivision, a community park and outdoor skating rink. The Community wants these services administered by a local council. Amalgamation with another community or First Nation is not desired.
Salt Point	24	The Community is presently in Contact (Trust) Status and provides local municipal services which include roads, waste management site, water supply system, community hall and recreation site. The Community sees a need for these services to continue and prefer that the existing administration remain through Trust.
Spence Lake	42	Council is currently in self-administration status, and provide a number of municipal services including water delivery, road maintenance, share a recreation director, fire protection, waste disposal site and have a part time clerk. Council sees these services continuing, with the services being administered by the present Council. Council provides road maintenance and waste management services for two adjoining cottage subdivisions, which are within the jurisdiction of Northern Affairs. There are 15 full time residents and approximately 45 seasonal residents in these two cottage subdivisions.
Northern Association of Community Councils		The Executive of the Northern Association of Community Councils recommend that the municipal services be maintained in the communities with a population less than seventy-five (75).

-- top --

The Second Question

What level of funding would your community require to provide the municipal services and/or capital projects?

What We Concluded

We have concluded that communities, with populations under seventy-five, will require funding similar to the existing level to provide municipal services and capital projects.

We found that Communities are generally comfortable with the existing level of funds to maintain their existing infrastructure and administrative costs. Most communities would require future capital funds to replace or maintain existing infrastructure. In two communities, where the Councils are presently in Trust status, they want to move to Self-administrative status. In these two situations, there may some increases required to compensate for the additional clerical and administrative costs. In two other communities, the Contact Person indicated that they would be prepared to purchase administrative services from another community. In these situations there may be a slight increase in funding necessary to purchase these services.

We recommend that the Department provide continued funding for the operations and maintenance of the municipal services in communities with populations under seventy-five, in accordance with the community needs. We also recommend that these communities have access to capital funding through the capital approval process to replace and upgrade municipal infrastructure as required.

What We Found

Community	Population	Comments
Aghaming	16	The Community could operate on the existing maintenance budget, if it was restored to the level, which it was one year ago. The Community budget was reduced by approximately $1200. This amount could have been used to purchase administrative services. No capital funds would be anticipated.
Baden	37	This Contact Community would be comfortable with the existing level of funds to maintain the infrastructure. No additional capital requirements are perceived.
Dallas/Red Rose	50	Council would require the funding in the existing budget to continue to provide municipal services in the community, along with future increases to keep pace with inflation.
Dauphin River	16	Council will require the present level of funding to continue to provide local municipal services. If Council advances to a higher form of administration, such as Block Funding, then an increase in budget will be required for additional clerical services. Council will require future capital funds for the development of a waste disposal site which is presently under study. The Department of Conservation is closing the existing site. In addition, Council is planning to submit a capital proposal to purchase a sewage pump out truck for their Community, which would be self sustaining by providing services to the adjoining First Nation.
Dawson Bay	53	Council would require the continuation of the existing level of funding to provide the municipal services for this Community.
Fisher Bay	59	Council would require the funding in the existing budget to continue to provide the existing local municipal services. No additional capital is foreseen.
Harwill	28	Council would require the funding in the existing budget to continue to provide the municipal services in the Community. No additional capital funding is perceived.
Herb Lake Landing	19	The Community will require a continuation of their existing budget ($ 4.0) for maintenance purposes. Future capital funds may be required for road gravel.
Homebrook	39	Council will require the existing budget to continue to provide the existing services. Existing road maintenance funds are low. Capital funds will be required in the future for roads and drainage.
Little Grand Rapids	19	The Community will require the existing operating budget to continue to provide the local municipal services. Future capital funds may be required for road gravel and fencing of the waste management site.
Loon Straits	11	The Community feels comfortable with the existing operating budget to maintain their local roads. Future capital funds may be required for road gravel.
National Mills	43	Council is comfortable with the existing level of funds, but would like the same level being offered to the Self-reliant Communities. Council however would not be able to achieve the 20% Locally Generated Revenue requirement.
Powell	23	This Contact Community would be comfortable with the existing level of funds to maintain the infrastructure. No additional capital requirements are perceived.
Princess Harbour	5	The Community will require the existing operating budget to continue to provide the existing municipal services.
Red Deer Lake	39	Council is comfortable with the present level of funds to maintain the existing infrastructure. The Community does want to obtain piped water and sewer services from the Capital Program. If successful, additional operating and maintenance funds would be required.
Red Sucker Lake	25	The existing operating budget is required to continue to provide the present local services. Future capital funding will be required for roads, fire hall, fire protection equipment and community hall.
Rock Ridge	56	Council requires the existing operating budget to provide for the existing municipal services. Council indicates that there is a need for future capital funds for infrastructure such as subdivision construction and community hall.
Salt Point	24	The Community is satisfied with the existing operating budget to continue to provide for the maintenance of the local municipal services. Future capital funds may be required for road gravel.
Spence Lake	42	Council requires the existing operating budget along with increased funding for public works, where they are presently experiencing a shortfall of $5.0 annually. Council is also requesting capital funds for a community water supply source. Presently Council has a water delivery truck which picks up water from the Community of Meadow Portage, approximately 5 miles away.
Northern Association of Community Councils		The Executive of the Northern Association of Community Councils recommends that an increase be given to all community councils. The amounts of $300.00 for councilors and $500.00 for mayors were recommended.

-- top --

The Third Question

In general, what approach do you and your council believe might best provide for the development of local government in your community?

What We Concluded

We have concluded that Communities generally would like to grow, become self-sufficient and develop to a higher level of independence. The communities have indicated that they would require the assistance of the Provincial Government to grow through economic development ventures and activities.

Similar to the recommendations of the communities under the Self-reliance Initiative, these communities would also like to have control or say in the use of resources within or adjacent to their boundaries. In addition communities would like to benefit financially from land permits, leases and royalties.

We recommend that the Department provide support services to the communities with populations under seventy-five to assist them in developing to a higher status of local government.

What We Found

Community	Population	Comments
Aghaming	16	The Community recommends that funding be restored and that they be allowed to purchase administrative services. The Community recommends that surplus from budgets not result in budget cuts, as the Community wants to save towards maintenance and repairs, purchasing of new equipment, and contributions towards the recreation program.
Baden	37	This Community would like to be left in Contact Status, but are open to the idea of having their funds administered by another community.
Dallas/Red Rose	50	Council prefers to remain in self-administration status, or move to Block Funding, to provide for the development of local government in the Community. Council would like to become self-sufficient and move to a higher level of independence, but will require more control or say in the use of natural and non-renewable resources within a land base around the Community.
Dauphin River	16	Council recommends that they continue with self-administration status, with advancement to Block Funding Status. Council would consider the Self-reliance Initiative, but will require more information. Amalgamation with the adjoining First Nation is not desirable, and the nearby municipality is not practical. The Community would lose their say in providing local services. Council recommends that the Provincial Government assist the Community to grow through economic development ventures and activities.
Dawson Bay	53	Council recommends that the best approach for the development of local government in this Community is to move to self-administration status. Council is interested in the Self-reliance Initiative, but would require more information on the Initiative to fully consider the option.
Fisher Bay	59	Council recommends that they continue with self-administration as a separate entity. Council would like to see their Community grow as there is potential to develop economically, however they would need government support.
Harwill	28	Council recommends continuation with the existing self-administration status. Council's second choice would be to amalgamate with Dallas. In terms of developing local government in the Community, Council would like to have say in awarding land leases and permits, and a portion of gravel royalties should return to the Community as revenue.
Herb Lake Landing	19	The Community recommends that they be allowed to continue with the present Contact status and administration through Trust.
Homebrook	39	Council recommends that they continue to develop and self-administer the local government affairs in this Community. Council does not see a need to amalgamate. Council meets all the criteria for Self-reliance, excepting the population. Why is there a magic number?
Little Grand Rapids	19	The Community wants to continue to provide local government services through the present system. Amalgamation with the First Nation is not desirable at this time as they are experiencing their own administrative problems.
Loon Straits	11	The Community recommends that the existing methods of providing local government be left as is.
National Mills	43	Council recommends that they continue as a separate entity to self-administer their funds. Council does not want to join a bigger community. Council would be willing to look at the Self-reliance Initiative if it was made available to them.
Powell	23	This Community would like to be left in Contact Status.
Princess Harbour	5	The Community wants to continue to provide local government development through the present arrangements with the Department in Trust Status.
Red Deer Lake	39	Council recommends that they continue as a separate entity to self-administer their funds. Council does not want to join a bigger community. Council would be willing to look at the Self-reliance Initiative if it was made available to them.
Red Sucker Lake	25	The Community prefers that the development of local government remain with them in the present administrative system through the Department.
Rock Ridge	56	Council wants to see the development of local government handled by the Community Council in self-administrative status. Council wants support from the Department to develop additional housing in the Community.
Salt Point	24	The Community recommends that the existing Trust arrangement with the Department continue. If there were a need to transfer the books, the Community would approach Waterhen to do bookkeeping services. However, due to the distance involved, it would not be practical for another community to provide any other service.
Spence Lake	42	Council prefers to continue with the present status of self-administration. Council would also be interested in the Self-reliance Initiative, however would require additional information to consider such an option if it was available. Council has considered amalgamation with the cottage areas, but require more information on self-reliance to share with the cottagers, for their consideration. If the status quo is not available, Council would pursue the Self-reliance Initiative, and recommend that taxation and assessment be considered as part of the criteria, and not only population.
Northern Association of Community Councils		The Executive of the Northern Association of Community Councils recommends that the communities with populations under seventy-five continue to provide local services in their present form of administration.

-- top --