Edmonton (Alta.) - 1979 - The basis of an application by the city of Edmonton to the local author...

SD L BRARY

I 11 11 G040/1675/1979 TON ANNEXATION PROJECT EDMONTON

3;494

P1011111n4

mu

Devitt:men:

City of tatoon.tot,

THE BASIS OF AN APPLICATION

BY THE CITY OF EDMONTON TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES BOARD OF THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA MARCH 22, 1979

Velt- 4

c3.,c4

474.1a .E37 E3 1977

o

THE BASIS OF AN APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF EDMONTON TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES BOARD OF THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA MARCH 22,1979 Plan.ning Departawzr I.

LIBRARY

INTRODUCTION

The City of Edroontor• The continued growth and development of the Edmonton area has been a source of concern not only to the City but its immediate municipal neighbours. This concern stems from the inadequacy of existing arrangements to plan and manage effectively the growth and development of the area.

As is the case in other metropolitan areas, Edmonton exhibits the characteristics of interdependence. The scale and intensity of urban development within the City, for example, gives rise to development on the periphery. Moreover, the orderly and prudent provision of certain basic services for the area, e.g., transportation, water, sewerage, etc., requires that municipal boundaries be ignored.

This important fact is

recognized by the municipal neighbours of Edmonton who have contracted with the City for some of these services.

The interdependence of growth, development and the provision of essential municipal services requires that these be planned and managed in an integrated fashion. Yet, under present arrangements this is not pos sible because of institutional and jurisdictional fragmentation.

With

responsibility for the planning and management of growth divided between several municipal jurisdictions there is a natural tendency for each to act in isolation.

And the consequence is that the interdependence of

growth and development is often overlooked and the integrated approach required cannot be secured.

The first requirement in securing an integrated approach to the management of growth and development is the determination of an appropriate boundary for what has been referred to as the "Edmonton area", and this is not a simple task for a number of factors must be considered.

Once such a boundary is delineated it then becomes necessary to set out an appropriate form of government organization to serve its needs.

It is in the light of these considerations that the City of Edmonton has, in the past, attempted to secure boundary adjustments.

For this

purpose it commissioned the Hanson Report in 1968, prepared the Future of

2

This City study in 1973 and submitted the Restricted Development Area Annexation Application in 1977. However, these submissions to the Province of Alberta were not successful.

Following the last submission it was suggested by the Minister of Municipal Affairs that the City should submit a formal application to the Local Authorities Bbard (LAB). To this end the Council of the City of Edmonton on June 13, 1978, directed the Administration to proceed with the studies necessary to support such an application.

These studies have

involved an assessment of the issues involved in the management of urban growth and development; the determination of an appropriate boundary for the Edmonton urban and urbanizing area; and, the requirements for the effective government of the area.

The studies which have been conducted to date suggest that much more is involved than securing a simple adjustment in the boundaries of the City of Edmonton.

Nor can the effective governance of any extended

"Edmonton area" be secured simply by extending the jurisdiction of the City's government in its present form. A number of issues are involved which are of prime importance not only to the governments of the City and the municipalities on the periphery but the residents of these jurisdictions.

The purpose of this statement is to provide a brief overview of some of the issues which must be considered in subsequent hearings by the LAB. Thus, this statement furnishes the basic rationale for the City's application to the LAB and will conclude with a series of specific recommendations relative to an appropriate boundary and the principal elements which should be considered in establishing any form of government for the area.

3

II. GRWTH AND DEVELOPMENT IN AN INTERDEPENDENT AREA

The extent of the growth and development of the City of Edmonton during the last three decades hardly needs any extensive elaboration. In the ten-year period from 1946-1956, for example, the City's population expanded from 113,116 to 226,002

an incrcasc of just about 100 per cent.

By 1967 the City's population had reached 381,230 and now exceeds 480,000.

Thus, in just over thirty years the population of the City has increased by more than 300 per cent over 1946 - an average increase of about 100 per cent each decade over 1946.

But growth and development has not been confined to the City.

Its

immediate municipal neighbours are also experiencing population growth.

Much of this peripheral growth has occurred in the City of St. Albert and the County of Strathcona although parts of the County of Parkland and the Municipal District of Sturgeon, on the immediate periphery of the City, have also experienced growth and development pressures. It has been estimated that the area made up of the present City and two of its immediate municipal neighbours - the City of St. Albert and the County of Strathcona - has added an average of just over 14,000 persons annually since 1967. Some two-thirds of this number located in the City and the other third distributed between the County of Strathcona and the City of St. Albert. (See tables in Appendix A).

Further evidence of growth and development just outside the boundaries of the City can be found in the annual requests for annexation as developers seek to secure City services in order to facilitate development. This continuous piecemeal annexation has been occurring with some regularity over the past thirty years: "Since 1947 there has been annexation or amalgamation on the average of once viery 19 months, the equivalent of 2064 acres per year."

At the present time, for example, several further requests for annexation are pending.

1

Statement on the Future of the City. Edmonton City Council, October 1, 1973, p. 16.

4

The Alberta economy is expected to remain strong over the next five years at least with real growth forecast to be in the neighbourhood of 6 per cent per year. The Edmonton area, which represents a major portion of the Provincial economy, should also prosper, particularly in light of the continued development of energy related projects in the northern half of the Province. Thus, it is anticipated that the City proper will continue to add some 9-10,000 persons per year in the foreseeable future.

When

this figure is taken into account in conjunction with decreasing family size and the continued migration of people from the older to the newer developing areas of the City, a demand for new serviced land sufficient for about 6-8,000 dwelling units per year will likely be generated. It is also likely that growth in the peripheral municipalities will continue on 2 at least the same scale as the recent past.

Continued urban growth, within and without the City, occurs primarily because of the City and what it offers in the way of occupational and economic opportunities furnished by its commercial, industrial and institutional sectors. As is the case in other metropolitan areas, it is frequently the availability of lower priced housing in peripheral municipalities which has been an important factor in attracting people to live there.

As the Alberta Land Use Forum noted (p. 69) many people are at-

tracted to these areas on the periphery of the City "by necessity rather than by choice of lifestyle" and the demands of this growing "suburban population on the amenities of the central city will be large." Moreover, these municipalities on the periphery can only accommodate their growing population through reliance on the comprehensive range of services provided by the City.

This suburban reliance on the services of the City of Edmonton takes several forms: - the willingness of the City to extend its basic service op:rations under con'..Izact to adjacent municipalities in such areas as, (for example, water, sewerage and transit); - the provision by the City of specific kinds of service exclusively for its own residents but which benefit increasingly the residents of peripheral municipalities 2 See Local Policy Plan, 1979-1983. City of Edmonton, pp. 23-24.

5

(for example, public low cost housing, preventive social services, major recreation and entertainment facilities, the pound); and, - the provision by the City of support or back-up services (for example, fire protection).

Without access to City of Edmonton services, the quality of life in the peripheral municipalities would either be less or considerably more expensive. Initially, peripheral communities can get by with the provision of a limited range of services. However, as these communities continue to grow the residents come to expect a more comprehensive range of services.

There are indications that this is occurring in some of the

developing areas on the periphery of the City.

While growth in the peripheral municipalities is primarily residential, some industrial and commercial expansion will also occur in these areas. Where, for example, industry has located in peripheral municipalities the bulk of the work force is usually drawn, in the main, from the City. This, of course, puts an additional strain on transportation facilities, both roadways and transit, already extended to accommodate the journey from residence to place of work and return of suburban residents, most of whom travel daily to the City. However, the tax yield from the industrial development assessment accrues exclusively to the municipality in which it is located while the additional service costs are borne by others, mainly the City. The result is fiscal inequity. More important, perhaps, is the fact that this situation can produce unhealthy municipal competition for industry without any real regard for the consequences.

From the foregoing it can be concluded that despite the interdependent nature of the growth, development and the provision of services the jurisdictional fragmentation of the Edmonton area produces fiscal inequity and a kind of competition for assessment which results only in further inequities as between municipalities in terms of service standards and revenue generation.

6

III. PLANNING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Despite the obvious interdependence which characterizes the Edmonton area, local government organization and jurisdiction tends to facilititate a movement in the direction of fragmentation. While the fragmentation of the organization of local government and of inter-municipal activities in the Edmonton area is not as extensive as is the case in some other metropolitan areas in Canada this condition is likely to change in the very near future. If, for example, the recommendations of the Edmonton Regional Utilities Study are implemented and the decision of the Edmonton Regional Planning Commission to opt for decentralized growth based upon existing municipal boundaries is allowed to stand, the consequence will be a proliferation of either ad hoc or special purpose bodies on a regional basis. This has been the experience of other metropolitan centres prior to more formal governmental integration.

In these circumstances the

result has been a confusion of governmental authority, for the expert as well as the citizen.

In addition to this fragmentation of governmental responsibilities another matter must also be considered:

the general ineffectiveness of

the Edmonton Regional Planning Commission (ERPC) as the appropriate agency through which to secure the management of urban growth. It has insufficient authority to over-rule the fragmentation of the area as municipalities adjacent to the City of Edmonton compete with it and among themselves for the industrial assessment needed to support the range of services increasingly demanded by their residents.

While the ERPC has the principal responsibility for the planning of the development of the area its ineffectiveness can be attributed, in part at least, to the political composition of the Commission. For example, of the twenty members appointed by local municipalities to serve on the Commission, the City can only appoint three representatives. This, despite the fact that the City has 73 per cent of the population of the Edmonton Subregion but has been allocated only 15 per cent of the vote in regional land use planning.

7

Tinkering with the composition of the Commission is not likely to render it more effective as an agency to manage growth. Indeed, it is doubtful if any single-purpose agency such as the ERPC can undertake this task. Growth management requires not only the power to formulate plans but the capacity to implement them. Among other considerations the latter involves the

power relative to major services, e.g.,

water, sewerage, utilities, etc., through which development can be directed to conform with approved plans. Equally important is the need to be able to follow through with an appropriate range of social and community services.

The control of land-use and development and the provision of services is so fundamental as to constitute the very essence and nature of local government.

It is not an exaggeration to say that planning is in fact

local government, and to separate the planning role from the general municipal role is to fragment the responsibilities and functions of local government.

The difficulties which arise as a consequence of the separation of planning from the general responsibility for governing can be illustrated by the City's own experience. In September 1978, the City Planning Department submitted a report to the Legislative Committee of the Edmonton City Council which identified some 70 instances during the period January 1975 to May 1978 in which the decisions of the ERPC were contrary to the views of the City. Of these 70 instances, 52 dealt with regional subdivision applications, 15 dealt with regional rezoning applications and three dealt with rezoning applications submitted by the City itself.

These

three applications refused by the Commission were appealed and in all three cases the Provincial Planning Board upheld the City's appeal.

Of

the 52 regional subdivision applications on which the Commission's decisions were contrary to the City's position, 21 were regarded by the City as having a major impact on Edmonton. Of the 15 rezoning applications dealt with by the Commission in contradiction to the City's position, nine were regarded as having a major impact.

The consequence of the foregoing situation is the erosion of the capacity of the City of Edmonton to govern - to make and carry out poli-

8

cies in the area in which its responsibilities are clear and in which its interests are most seriously affected.

There can be no doubt that a

considerable part of the development activity which occurs in the area is generated by the forces of urbanization at work in the City of Edmonton.

This impact of the urban centre on its surrounding area is universally 7-arngni7Pd. And just as the City has an impact on its surrounding area, so does development in the surrounding area have an impact upon the City.

It must be noted, however, that as a general rule, the force which the City exerts on its region diminishes with the distance from the City, as development in the region has its greatest force in the locations lying closest to the City. It is in this peripheral area, on the borders of the City, that it is most necessary for the City to be in control of development policy and land-use practice.

The question may be asked as to why the adjacent municipalities in which development is occurring should not be in control of the decisions affecting that development since that development is occurring within their own corporate area.

Several reasons can be offered in answer to

this question. One is that it is the presence of the City which is generating that development. If the City was not there the development would not take place. Development occurs in that location because the City conveys to that location certain advantages: ready access to urban amenities and services; the potential for windfall gains in the value of property; or, some other locational advantage. However, these peripheral developments have a profound effect on the City's own development programs, not only in the present but also in the future. They introduce uncertainties in the attempts to estimate population, the demands for land for all purposes, and the extent and level of services which must be provided. In short, they impair the City's capacity to govern and diminish its role as a government. For these reasons it can be argued that such development should be brought under the direct control of a single government for the area embracing the present City and its immediate periphery.

The foregoing raises the important question of determining the boundary most appropriate for the governing of the Edmonton area.

9

IV. A BOUNDARY AND A GOVERNMENT FOR THE EDMONTON URBAN AREA

Almost any boundary chosen for the government and management of growth in the "Edmonton area" will involve the consolidation of the City and territory and population currently under the jurisdiction of adjacent municipalir;.c.

The boundary selected must at least extend sufficiently

to embrace the urban and urbanizing areas on the immediate periphery of the present City of Edmonton. Several criteria are helpful in this task: the direction and pattern of development, utility service requirements, natural service areas, economic and topographical considerations. While these are all important and must be taken into account they cannot yield the total formula for determining the most appropriate boundaries.

Where a boundary is selected in accordance with the foregoing criteria it may well divide an existing municipality in such a way as to render doubtful the continuing viability of the residual part of that municipality. In determining the boundaries of the "Edmonton area" two principles should be considered. First, and where possible, only sufficient territory should be included from a peripheral municipality that it will not seriously affect its viability as a continuing municipal entity.

Second, where circumstances indicate that the territory required to be included is of such scale that its continuation as a viable municipal unit will be seriously impaired then the entire municipality should be included.

After examining several options the City of Edmonton has concluded that the most appropriate boundary for the "Edmonton area" is that set out on the map included as Appendix B to this statement.

The area proposed should be served by a single, unified city government. However, it must be emphasized that this means something more than simply extending the jurisdiction of the City of Edmonton's government in its present form.

Some key elements will need to be considered among

which are the following: - an adequate basis for securing effective representation of the diverse communities within the proposed area;

10

— the institutional means of securing some form of decentra— lization through which residents of communities and neigh— bourhoods can be formally consulted with and encouraged to participate in issues involving planning, development and the delivery of community services; and, — an equitable arrangement with respect to the taxation of those rural areas which will be incorporated within the new city boundaries bui. which ie not likely 11. urbanized for some time to come.

The City recognizes that what is being proposed is an extensive boundary adjustment that goes beyond a simple annexation.

Important

elements in the development of an appropriate government to manage, plan and direct the growth and development of the proposed area must also be considered and some of these have been indicated above. In the course of the hearings that will be held by the Local Authorities Board the City intends to put forward a comprehensive proposal with respect to the future government of the proposed "Edmonton area." In essence,

what is being

sought is a merger of the present City of Edmonton, the City of St. Albert and the County of Strathcona together with parts of the County of Parkland and the Municipal District of Sturgeon.

Before arriving at the decision to seek a unified city government along the foregoing lines the City did consider alternatives Which have been utilized elsewhere such as two—tier regional governments. However, it was concluded that the circumstances were entirely different in Edmonton.

In many other metropolitan areas where regional governments

have been established the central city was generally surrounded by a larger number of municipalities. In some instances the total population of these municipalities approximated that of the central city. Moreover, many of these municipalities have been extensively developed. Given these factors regional government has been the compromise. But this is not the case in Edmonton where the central city occupies the dominant position in the area indicated by the proposed boundary and will contribute 85 per cent of the total population.

is simply not practical. -

Regional government in this instance

11

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Some of the reasons Which have led the City to conclude that there is a need to establish more appropriate boundaries for the "Edmonton area" include the following: .The absence of effective institutional arrangements through which the planning and management of the growth and development of the area can be secured. .The likelihood that unless appropriate action is taken soon to establish an integrated approach to the management of growth the current jurisdictional fragmentation will become more extensive thus making effective and responsible government even more difficult in the future. .The increasing demands upon the major transportation, cultural, recreational and other facilities of the City as a consequence of continued growth in the peripheral area. .The fact that the City now provides the principal facilities necessary for growth and development throughout the area, e.g., water, sewerage, and certain utility services. .The need to avoid a settlement pattern which divides the area on the basis of homogeneous developments and to secure a pattern which provides a more balanced mix of people and choice of location. .The growing awareness on the part of residents of developments on the periphery of the present city for a wider range of community services.

For these reasons the City of Edmonton has decided to apply to the Local Authorities BOard to seek the estabishment of - boundaries for a new City of Edmonton which would encompass the "Edmonton area" as outlined on the map attached as Appendix B; and, - the erection of a unified form of government incorporating the principal elements indicated in the preceding section of this statement.

In submitting an application to the Local Authorities Board to establish new boundaries and an appropriate form of unified city government the

12

City is hopeful that the subsequent hearings will provide a forum in which the issues affecting all citizens of the "Edmonton Area" can be explored in terms of securing the effective management of growth.

VI

APPENDICES A

Population 1967, 1971 and 1978 (Selected Municipalities).

Map Outlining Proposed Boundary.

13

Appendix A A. Population 1967, 1971, 1978 (Selected Municipalities) 1971 (% of total) Population Population

1978

19_U

Municipality

(% of total)

Population

(% of total)

St. Albert

9,828

(2.4)

11,249

(2.4)

27,298

(4.9)

Strathcona

16,185

(3.9)

21,894

(4.6)

47,189

(8.4)

381,230

(93.7)

435,503

(93.0)

487.429

(86.7)

561,916

(100.0)

Edmonton Total

407,243 (100.0)

468,646 (100.0)

B. Total Population Increase 1967 - 1978 Total Increase 1967-1978

Estimated Annual Average Increase

(% of Total)

St. Albert

17,470

1,588

(11.3)

Strathcona

31,004

2,818

(20.0)

106.199

9,654

(68.7)

154,673,

14,060

(100.0)

Municipality

Edmonton Total

00.km-

01•••1•041 • 0;

if

4!: FORT .:

:

rod SASKATCHEWAN

• le"

.--te

' le ., tin

lw," •

3

S

••••••• ft...

/

EDMONTON•

ii•-••••• ,........•••••''''—' ..Nkli•dl•••1•4 •

•

'

SHERWOOD PARK 111=

02 I

sum. N.% II

NN.,„

1.13

q-,

41141011 v•••••••••10 • • • • • 0 • • 0 eplirt • ip re)••••••••••••• •

Annexation Project Staff March 2 L, 1979

(14.1W tap.,

000•00000000000000000 ":7777 .et 71.‘

PROPOSED BOUNDARY

:01friiiirule init,memill tititII 11111 I' Iii • 1111000114€11.0.041111177:::11 •••• bili'MP6.‘