Restoring Local Control Starts With a Simple Audit

Programs and Partnerships, Grants, Targets and Carbon Credits

If I could make one recommendation to every municipal council in Canada — and, frankly, to local governments across UN member states — this fall, it would be this:

Ask staff to show you exactly what your municipality has signed up for, what it is costing you, and where those commitments are taking you.

Before debating the next bike lane, EV, retrofit, climate project or “funding opportunity,” go back to the beginning.

What programs and partnerships are you participating in?

What grants and funding agreements have you accepted, and what obligations came with them?

What emissions-reduction targets have you adopted, and what will it actually cost to reach them?

Not another presentation. Not another strategic plan.

Get the numbers and original agreements in front of your elected council.

I would start with three areas: programs and partnerships, grants and funding agreements, and emissions-reduction targets.

1. Audit the Programs and Partnerships

Start with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), ICLEI Canada and the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program, if your municipality participates.

If you are outside Canada, look for the equivalent organizations and programs operating in your country or region: municipal associations, ICLEI regional or national offices, climate networks, and programs promoting net zero, greenhouse-gas reduction targets or UN Sustainable Development Goals at the local level.

The names and structures will differ, but the questions are the same:

Who are we partnered with? What have we signed up for? What targets have we adopted? What data are we providing? What does participation cost us? And what policies, projects and spending are flowing from it?

Many of these programs are voluntary, and some, like PCP in Canada, promote membership as free.

But free membership is not the same thing as cost-free participation.

I have watched this distinction get conveniently blurred.

We will point to the staff time, data collection, inventories, reporting, planning and other work required by participation. A mayor will then ask the CAO, right in front of us, what the program costs.

And the answer will be:

“The membership costs nothing.”

That is not an honest answer to the question being asked.

The membership fee may be zero. The cost of participation is not.

Municipal staff collect and maintain data, establish inventories and forecasts, develop reduction targets and action plans, monitor implementation and report results. All of that consumes paid staff time and municipal resources before council spends a single dollar implementing the projects that follow.

And this is the bigger picture council needs to see:

Program → data → target → plan → recommendation → project → expenditure.

By the time council is debating an individual project, you’re already near the end of that chain.

So go back to the beginning and get the entire chain on the record.

The Report Council Should Request

That staff prepare a comprehensive report identifying all external organizations, associations, programs, partnerships and initiatives in which the municipality participates that influence municipal policy, strategic planning, capital planning, climate policy, energy policy, transportation, land-use planning or infrastructure investment.

For each identified organization or program, staff shall report:

The date participation commenced.

The council resolution or other authority authorizing participation.

Whether participation is statutory, contractual or voluntary.

Annual membership and participation costs.

Staff positions responsible for participation and estimated annual staff hours.

Data collected, submitted or shared through participation.

Reporting requirements.

Targets, benchmarks or commitments adopted through or in connection with participation.

Municipal plans, policies or strategies developed through or in connection with participation.

Capital projects undertaken or proposed pursuant to those plans.

Actual and projected municipal expenditures associated with those projects.

The procedure and any financial or contractual consequences associated with withdrawing from each voluntary program .

That puts the entire relationship in front of council instead of examining one project at a time.

2. Audit the Grants

Municipalities are constantly encouraged to take advantage of grants from senior governments, FCM and other organizations.

And understandably so.

If somebody is offering money for something your municipality already needs, it may make perfect sense to take it.

But “we received a grant” is not enough information for council.

Council needs to know what came with it.

Did the municipality have to contribute matching funds?

Did accepting the grant require participation in another program?

Did it require additional studies, data collection or reporting?

Did it create a new workload for existing staff — or require additional staff?

Did it fund infrastructure that the municipality will now be responsible for operating, maintaining and eventually replacing? Something can be largely paid for through a grant and still create ongoing costs that remain with the municipality long after the grant money is gone.

Does the funding agreement create obligations that extend beyond the funding period?

Take cycling infrastructure in a winter climate. Adding dedicated bike lanes can require additional snow clearing, salting, sweeping, specialized equipment or separate maintenance passes beyond what would otherwise be required for the roadway. Has that additional annual operating cost actually been calculated and presented to council — or did council only see how much of the initial construction was covered by the grant?

And there is one question I think councils should ask far more often:

Would we have undertaken this project — or created this internal workload — if the grant had not been available?

A project does not automatically become a good investment, or a good use of municipal staff time, simply because another level of government offered to pay part of the initial bill.

The grant is the beginning of the calculation, not the end of it.

The Report Council Should Request

That staff prepare a report identifying all grants, loans and external funding received or approved by the municipality during the previous ten years relating to climate, energy, transportation, sustainability, infrastructure or emissions-reduction initiatives.

For each funding agreement, staff shall identify:

The funding organization and program.

Total external funding received.

Municipal matching contributions.

Total project cost.

Conditions attached to the funding.

Reporting, data-collection and data-sharing requirements.

Staff resources required to apply for, administer, implement and report on the funding.

Any additional staff positions or consultant work created as a result.

Consultants retained and associated costs.

Ongoing operating, maintenance and replacement costs resulting from the funded project.

Continuing obligations after the external funding expires.

Whether the project or associated work was included in the municipality’s capital or operating plans prior to the funding becoming available.

Whether the municipality would have undertaken the project or work in the absence of the external funding.

Any repayment, contractual or other consequences should the municipality discontinue the associated program or project.

That tells council what the grant actually bought, what the municipality actually contributed, what workload it created, and what taxpayers will still be paying for after the outside money is gone.

3. Audit the Targets

This is the big one.

PCP’s own framework requires municipalities completing Milestone 1 to produce a business-as-usual emissions forecast. Its Scenario Builder can then estimate the potential greenhouse-gas reductions associated with different policies, programs and initiatives.

So, if your municipality is already participating in PCP, use the work you’ve already paid staff to do and put a very simple comparison in front of council. (And if you’re not in the program, I’m certainly not suggesting you join it just to do this exercise.)

I want to see three sets of numbers:

1. Business as Usual

What will municipal emissions look like if we continue replacing infrastructure and equipment on its normal schedule and make no extraordinary expenditures specifically to meet the emissions target?

What does that cost?

Where do emissions end up?

Council needs that baseline first.

How much reduction happens, and what does it cost us simply to continue doing our job?

Because emissions will naturally decline as older equipment and infrastructure are replaced with newer, more efficient options.

2. Business as Usual PLUS a Few Practical Upgrades

Now add the projects that actually make sense for the municipality.

Building-efficiency upgrades to existing facilities — not constructing brand-new LEED municipal buildings.

Equipment replacement.

Practical energy savings.

Fleet changes where the economics actually work — not extravagant EV Zambonis while people are struggling to stay in their homes because of property-tax increases.

In other words, projects that provide a measurable local benefit and a reasonable return for taxpayers.

What does that scenario cost?

How much additional emissions reduction does it produce?

And where does that leave us compared with the adopted target?

3. The Cost of Reaching the Target on Paper

Now take the reductions from business as usual and the practical upgrades above and compare them with the municipality’s adopted target.

SIDE NOTE: Where Did the Target Come From?

If your municipality adopted a 45% reduction by 2030 and net-zero by 2050, those numbers may not have originated locally.

The Partners for Climate Protection program recommends those targets, which it says align with IPCC recommendations. Participating municipalities then adopt their own targets through council resolution.

That is why I think of PCP as a municipal version of the Paris-style commitment process:

Join voluntarily → measure emissions → adopt targets → develop a plan → implement → report progress.

The important question for council is simple:

Did we determine what was practically achievable in our community first — or did we adopt the target first and then start figuring out how to reach it?

If business as usual plus every practical, economically defensible local project still leaves the municipality short of its adopted 2030 or 2050 target, how many tonnes remain?

And if carbon credits or offsets would be required to account for that remaining difference:

How many would we need to buy, and what would they cost taxpayers?

This isn’t just a theoretical question. Carbon credits and offsets are already being floated in municipal staff reports and policies as a way of accounting for emissions that remain after local reductions.

Put those three scenarios beside each other.

Then let council make the decision.

The Report Council Should Request

That staff prepare a financial and emissions analysis of each greenhouse-gas reduction target currently adopted by the municipality, presenting the following three scenarios:

Scenario 1 — Business as Usual

Projected municipal emissions under the current business-as-usual forecast.

Projected capital and operating expenditures under normal municipal asset-management and replacement schedules.

Projected emissions at each applicable target year without additional measures undertaken specifically to achieve the emissions target.

Scenario 2 — Business as Usual Plus Practical Local Reductions

Identify practical infrastructure, building, fleet, energy-efficiency and equipment upgrades that could reasonably be undertaken locally.

Identify the capital and operating cost of each measure.

Identify expected financial savings, where applicable.

Identify the projected emissions reduction attributable to each measure.

Calculate the cost per tonne of emissions reduced.

Identify projected municipal emissions after all identified measures are implemented.

Scenario 3 — Achieving the Adopted Target

Identify the remaining difference, in tonnes of CO2e, between Scenario 2 and the municipality’s adopted emissions target.

Identify any additional measures proposed to eliminate that difference and their estimated cost.

Identify whether achieving the adopted target assumes or requires the purchase or retirement of carbon credits, carbon offsets or similar instruments.

If credits or offsets are contemplated, identify the estimated number required, assumed price per tonne and total projected municipal expenditure.

Identify whether purchasing those credits or offsets would produce any direct emissions reduction within the municipality.

Identify whether achieving the target is a statutory requirement, contractual obligation or voluntary municipal commitment.

Identify the financial, contractual and legal consequences, if any, of council choosing not to purchase carbon credits or offsets and instead amending the voluntary target.

That’s the report I want to see.

Not simply:

“Are we on track for net zero?”

I want council to be able to look across one page and see:

Business as usual:
Cost: $___
Emissions: ___ tonnes

Business as usual + practical local upgrades:
Additional cost: $___
Emissions: ___ tonnes
Actual reduction: ___ tonnes

Adopted target:
Target emissions: ___ tonnes
Remaining gap: ___ tonnes
Carbon credits/offsets required to account for gap: ___
Estimated cost: $___

Now we’re having an actual municipal budget discussion.

Carbon Credits Are Where I Draw the Line

If practical local projects improve infrastructure, reduce energy consumption, lower operating costs or otherwise provide measurable value to residents, assess them on those merits.

But if council gets through all of those practical reductions and is still short of a voluntarily adopted target, and the proposed solution becomes spending municipal tax dollars purchasing carbon credits to make up the remaining tonnes on paper, my recommendation is straightforward:

Reject it.

One hundred percent.

Before a dollar is spent, council should know what happens if it simply doesn’t purchase them.

If the answer is that the municipality misses a voluntary target, put that fact plainly before council.

Then council can decide whether maintaining the target justifies the expenditure or whether the target itself should be reconsidered.

Follow the Chain Backwards

This is really the entire exercise:

Who are we partnered with?

↓

What did we agree to?

↓

What data are we collecting and reporting?

↓

What grants did we accept and what came with them?

↓

What targets did we adopt?

↓

What happens under business as usual?

↓

What practical local reductions can we actually achieve?

↓

What will those reductions cost?

↓

How far does that leave us from the target?

↓

What will it cost to account for the remaining gap?

↓

And what happens if council simply says no?

If I could make one recommendation to municipal councils this year, this is it.

Ask for the reports.

Get the original resolutions.

Get the agreements.

Get the numbers.

Separate what is legally required from what is voluntary.

And most importantly, separate actual improvements in your community from expenditures made simply to satisfy a target on paper.

Then council can decide what still makes sense for the people actually paying the bills.

That’s where restoring local control starts.

Good Luck Folks! We’ve got work to do.