SD LIBRARY
274
It 1 I II
G040/1677/1979
HORIZON-21. A VISIONARY, BUT EDMONTON
HORIZON 21 A visionary - but practical - approach to the future.
@ THE CITY OF nit
474.1a .E37 E3 1978
INTRODUCTION For almost three decades, efforts by the City of Edmonton to achieve boundary adjustments regarded as essential to ensure that adequate land use planning controls could be exercised to safeguard options for long range development requirements in the Edmonton Metropolitan Area have been unsuccessful. In part, the lack of success has been due to the quality and comprehensiveness of a variety of earlier presentations advancing proposals for boundary rationalizations and government reorganization. Specifically, earlier proposals were perceived to be largely based on subjective interpretations and analysis. Very little attention was directed towards the presentation of a well researched technical assessment of the implications to all parties and interests of proceeding or failing to proceed with Edmonton's proposals.
The requirements for: a major adjustment in Edmonton's boundaries to ensure an adequate long_rang_e supply of develc ____Ipmentiand; — a review of jurisdictional alternatives leading to acceptance of anew_gpy_ernment structure tailored to more effectively match and accommodate the metropolitan political and administrative requirements; and reassessment of regional land use plannAg and development practices; has now reached—c— ritic—al-PrOPOrt' ions. Project Horizon 21 is being undertaken as an intensive effort to objectively assess the full range of land use and government form options available in the Edmonton Area.
HORIZON the range of an individual's knowledge, experience VISION intelligent foresight FUTURE (i) the indefinite period of time yet to come (ii) prospects of advancement, chances of success PLANNING to formulate, draw up, a detailed scheme or method for the accomplishment of an objective.
When Edmonton was incorporated as a town in 1892, the population was a mere 700.
In 1946, the population within Edmonton's city limits had reached 113,116.
Only 10 years later, by 1956, the population had increased 100 per cent to reach 226,002.
Today, the population of Edmonton stands at 480,000. (Edmonton sub-region :630,000)
During the past 20 or so years, a number of studies and reports have been commissioned in an attempt to determine what path the City should follow to ensure adequate land use programs; to provide services to the residents of the community; to ensure a quality of life that would make Edmonton a desirable place in which to live, to work, to raise a family, to enjoy life.
McNALLY COMMISSION -1956 0 Recommended that all lands with urban characteristics or potential be included within urban jurisdiction. BOUNDARIES
Existing •ii Recommended R.D.A.
MI
HANSON REPORT- 1968 • Recommended boundary adjustment and jurisdictional changes to recognize singular socio-economic character of the Edmonton Metropolitan Area.
'N BOUNDARIES Existing - Recommended Immmino R.D.A.
"FUTURE OF THIS CITY" - 1973 0
Recommended boundary adjustment and jurisdictional changes to achieve more efficient urban government, and ensure that assets and liabilities of urban unit are shared equitably by all citizens.
BOUNDARIES Existing I. ammilmom NI Recommended R.D.A.
ALBERTA LAND USE FORUM -1976 • Recognized problems created by large scale peripheral developments and recommended amalgamation of Edmonton with certain urban and rural areas adjacent to the City.
R.D.A. BOUNDARY SUBMISSION - 1977 * Recommended immediate boundary adjustment to R.D.A. to satisfy short and medium range land planning requirements. * Urged Provincial Government to establish a Public Inquiry Commission to make recommendations on long range boundary and local government structure requirements in Edmonton area.
BOUNDARIES Existing Recommended R.D.A.
BOUNDARY PROPOSAL INNER LIMIT OF R 0 A.
For a variety of reasons, the impact of these studies was limited. But the need to plan for the future of the City never diminished.
THE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE BOUNDARY REVIEW To ensure that future growth and development is in the best long term interest of the citizens of the Edmonton area. • To facilitate long range planning. • To maximize use of land resources. • To maximize diversity and choice in land supply. • To build in flexibility to satisfy varying needs of community. • To promote efficient long term financial planning.
Today, under the project title, Horizon 21, the City is embarking on the most detailed, professional, objective, comprehensive program possible to chart the future for the Edmonton area.
ORGANIZATION AND REPORTING RELATIONSHIPS
Reporting directly to the Commission Board and thence to the Mayor, the Horizon 21 project team has been assembled.
MAYOR COUNCIL
COMMISSION BOARD A
CHAIRMAN ANNEXATION PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE (AN. Savage)
DIRECTOR ANNEXATION PROJECT (D. Podmore) A
PROJECT CONSULTANTS
LEGAL COUNSEL ANNEXATION PROJECT (A. Ackroyd)
PROJECT CONSULTANTS Pulling together specialists in all aspects of urban planning and land use.
• Utilities • Legal - UMA Group - A. Ackroyd - P. S. Ross - Liden, Ackroyd et al • Transportation • Local Government - UMA Group - T. J. Plunkett - DeLeuw Cather - L. Axworthy • Land Use • Financial! Economic - P. S. Ross - K. C. Mackenzie - H. Harries - Thompson Berwick and Pratt ADVISORS Damas and Smith Gruen and Gruen Eric Hardy IBI Group Black and Veatch
STUDY PROCESS AND APPROACH The Horizon 21 team is undertaking the most comprehensive study of the future directions for Edmonton ever undertaken.
The objectives for the team appear simple to define.
• Centralized project management • City as "prime consultant" • Work Program and activities differentiated by discipline • Integration of technical studies and overall recommendations is responsibility of City, legal counsel, local government and financial consultants • Boundary and Government organization proposals selected on basis of: - minimizing financial impact to majority of affected parties - maximize resolution of planning and jurisdictional problems • Iterative procedure used in analysis and selection
PROJECT OBJECTIVES UNDERTAKE: • A comprehensive review of long range land and jurisdictional requirements • A detailed assessment of financial, governmental, utilities, transportation, legal, etc. implications of boundary adjustment • To present recommendations on boundary and jurisdictional change for Council's consideration and possible application to L.A.B. by spring 1979
The terms of reference add clarification/direction to the myriad details which must be researched, analysed and evaluated.
TERMS OF REFERENCE -1 • Investigate immediate and long range land supply needs • Conduct a preliminary review of government and jurisdictional problems
TERMS OF REFERENCE -2 • Examine financial, governmental, legal, environmental, administrative, servicing, transportation and other implications of alternative boundary adjustments and organizational mechanisms on all affected parties and jurisdictions
TERMS OF REFERENCE -4 • Present recommendations to Council in March 1979 outlining boundary and governmental reorganization proposals considered necessary to accommodate long range land supply, planning and jurisdictional requirements
TERMS OF REFERENCE -3 • Present results of technical analyses for Council's consideration before February, 1979
TERMS OF REFERENCE - 5 • Provide a concise report for Council submission to the Alberta Local Authorities Board recommending boundary and jurisdictional adjustment in the Edmonton metropolitan area.
SCHEDULE A detailed work schedule has been established, and is being adhered to.
• Organization - June-July, 1978 , • Research - July-August, 1978 • Consultant Seln. - September, 1978 • Inquiry Process - October, 1978 Work Program • Preliminary Analysis November-December, 1978 • Detailed Analysis - initiating application to L.A.B. January-February, 1979 • Integrated Report! Recommendations March, 1979 • Council Review - March-April, 1979 • Hearings - May-June, 1979
ANNEXATION PROJECT PHASING PHASING
r... ... I. . Nov. Dec. Feb. Jan. 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 2 9
Phase I Start-up and Assessment Phase II Review of Boundary Options Phase III Evaluation and Comparison Phase IV Detailed Analysis Phase V Integration
Apr. 'Mar. 16 23 2 - 16 23 30 6 13
Ell=
11111
• 1.1 MI
0-11 ili d 1.6 IP
i l l
..•••0;1
Phase I • Develop Land Use Planning Data for Base Case • Develop Regional Economic Development Scenarios
Nov. Dec 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 ILIM.111
Err" Iv.. 111111111
• Assessment of Existing Local Government Arrangements • Assessment of Existing Service/Transportation Systems • Financial Assessment of Base Case
Phase II
Vi V Nov. Dec. . Jan. Feb. 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 2
• Develop Land Use Scenarios for Alternate Boundaries
Phase III
•
Select Optimal Boundary
•
Select Optimal Government Structure
• Financial Assessment of Alternate Boundaries
• Discussion of Position al Key Interest Groups
Phase IV • Refine Government Structure Requirements and Land Use Potential
16 23
MEE.
%IT -
11111131r I
Feb. Mar. 262 9 16 23 2 9 16 23 1191111
• Detailed Financial/Servicing Analysis • Preparation of Sensitivity and Cost Benefit Analysis
Jan. Feb. 5 12 19 26 2 9
• Develop Range of Selection Criteria
• Service/Transportation Implications of Alternate Boundaries
• Discussion of Alternate Forms of Local . Government
EINE
Phase V
Mar. Apr. 2 9 16 23 30 6 13
• Preparation of Final Integrated Report • Development of Presentations to L.A.B.
IIII I
11 11
The major project activities have been identified.
MAJOR PROJECT ACTIVITIES: • Government Form Analysis • Legal Presentation • Financial/Economic Analysis • Utilities Analysis • Transportation Analysis • Environmental Impact • Land Use Planning • Integrated Reports and Presentation
PRELIMINARY BOUNDARY OPTIONS • Provide framework for analysis and presentation of recommendations • All options assessed against "Do-Nothing" option • Provides accurate understanding of impact on other jurisdictions • Facilitates analysis of a range of boundary and government structure alternatives • Facilitates review of long-range land supply, planning, and governmental requirements simultaneously • Full, accurate data base established • Flexibility in review of other alternatives which may be presented
But the prime objectives are being kept in mind. PROJECT OBJECTIVES UNDERTAKE: • A comprehensive review of long range land and jurisdictional requirements • A detailed assessment of financial, governmental, utilities, transportation, legal, etc. implications of boundary adjustment • To present recommendations on boundarylnd jurisdictional change for Council's consideration and possible application to L.A.B. by spring 1979
LIMITATIONS OF PIECEMEAL ANNEXATIONS • Limits effective financial planning. • Complicates facilities planning and development. • Reduces opportunities for servicing efficiency. • Does not contribute to achievement of municipal objectives designed to create diversity of opportunity in land supply. • Through lack of overall planning, public and private objectives may not be rationalized in the common interest.
Consideration of piecemeal annexation has been explored, but the limitations are clear, and the experiences of other North American municipalities are there to learn from.
Procedures for the presentation and review of recommendations emerging from the study provide an opportunity for all potentially affected parties to present their views and concerns.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION for further information on Horizon 21 . . . . • Project Management Dave Podmore /428-7977 • Legal Advice Ammon Ackroyd /428-7976
And the end result will be a comprehensive, detailed, objective evaluation of the future for the Edmonton area, a report entitled Horizon 21, a visionary — but practical — approach to the future.
Further information about project Horizon 21 is available, and we encourage your views and questions as together we face the next 75 years of Edmonton's dynamic and prosperous growth.