Edmonton (Alta.) - 1980 - Submission to the Local Authorities Board of Alberta on behalf of the... by Edmonton Tower Resource Centre Online Library

SD LIBRARY

126164

G0401866

Submission to the Local

SUBMISSION TO

THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES BOARD OF ALBERTA ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF EDMONTON

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF EDMONTON, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 20 OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT FOR ANNEXATION OF THE COUNTY OF STRATHCONA No.20, A PART OF THE MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF STURGEON No.90, ALONG WITH THE CITY OF ST. ALBERT & A PORTION OF THE COUNTY OF PARKLAND No.31.

WRITTEN REBUTTAL

SEPTEMBER 1980

PREFACE

Edmonton's Written Argument effectively answers the major issues raised in the briefs submitted by Strathcona, St. Albert and Parkland/Sturgeon. However, the City does take issue with the position advanced by Strathcona over certain specific issues and with the argument advanced by St. Albert. As well as the critical generalization contained in the Parkland/Sturgeon submission. Some miscellaneous submissions bear comment. In conclusion the City appreciates and respects the contributions made by all Consultants who offered opinions to the Board during the course of this inquiry.

11 September, 1980.

INDEX Page

Edmonton's Written Argument Effectively Answers the Major Issues Raised in the Briefs Submitted by Strathcona, St. Albert and Parkland/Sturgeon.

However, the City Does Take Issue With the Position Advanced By Strathcona Over Certain Specific Items.

The County's concept of decentralization within the Edmonton Region asserted at pp. 26 - 27 42 and 61.

1 - 5

The County's claim that it has achieved a balance between jobs and resident labour force (pp.4748.)

5 ET 6

The County's concept of where and when the central city's boundary should be extended and particularly the eastern boundary of the City. (pp. Xl., 40, 41)

7 - 9

Strathcona would have us lay to rest the McNally Commission Report (p. 28)

9 - 13

The County's treatment of the 'parasite' issues (pp.70 - 72).

13 - 25

The County's consideration of agricultural implications (pp. 3233.)

25 - 29

The County's position on roadways (p. (vii).)

The County's position on transportation issues (p. 54 -57.)

30 - 33

Page 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

2. 3. 4. 5.

33 & 34

The County's claim of contradiction (p. 13.)

34 & 35

The County's u/se of Winnipeg (p. 19.)

35 & 36

The County's comments on assessments (p. 66.)

36 & 37

The County on utilities and education finance (p. 62 - 63.)

37 & 38

The County recommendations (pp. X.- Xl.)

39 - 41

Exception is Taken with the Argument Advanced by St. Albert: 1.

The County's position on alleged inconsistency (p.19.)

St. Albert's criticism of Edmonton's methodology (p.32.)

41 & 42

St. Albert's inability to interpret the City's case (p.12.)

St. Albert's fear of loss of Community (p.12.)

42 & 43

But St. Albert must meet the Western tradition (p.37.)

43 - 45

St. Albert's claim to costs was not raised as an issue.

45 - 46

The Critical Generalizations Contained in the Parkland/Sturgeon Submission are not accepted.

Supposed errors of fact(p.9.)

46 - 48

Misleading and unsubstantiated statements (p.32.)

48 - 51

Some Miscellaneous Submission Bear Comment. 1.

The position of the Edmonton Regional Planning Commission.

51 51 - 52

Page _ 2. 3. F.

Inland Cement and transitional commitments.

The quest of Calgary Power.

The City Appreciates and Respects the Contributions Made by All Consultants Who Offered Opinions to the Board During the Course of This Inquiry.

vi.

53 - 54

PLANNING SECTORS • ANNEXATION STUDIES

BOUNDARIES Municipal

•

Recommended

•

R. D. A.

Sector

ST U R G

CO U

r—O

18 c —$

FONT i SASKATCM6VAN

0 0 P. .....K .

•1' —

_ ft• 0

.•

• 0 ..

.•

•3

•,,• , 0,,e

......

Mama°

•

•, 1

St ALIIENT :l.l.

•

18 b

0 $

474.; /I

0 0 0

//7

ELK ISLAND PANE

I. -- ----

(.4 EDMONTON

STONY

c--. •

) .1 •.° t z: 8 •

a,/

I0.

•4

• r ?" •J

PLAIN

F•13b

136

•A‘ *

18a

•• • '•• • • 10 •

COUNTY

ST R A T HCON A

AP"

&K.(

-v14

0 0 4

• / 6EAU;0000

ntstik

Jo•••olo Lake • • NEW SAN (PTA

CAL MAR •••

••

EDMONTON'S WRITTEN ARGUMENT EFFECTIVELY ANSWERS THE MAJOR ISSUES RAISED IN THE BRIEFS SUBMITTED BY STRATHCONA, ST. ALBERT AND PARKLAND/STURGEON The Written Argument submitted by the City of Edmonton was

necessarily extensive. A review of the issues raised by those opposing the application would confirm that the Edmonton brief substantially offers its full answer. Where no exception is taken, in this rebuttal, to statements contained in opposing briefs it is simply intended that the initial written argument effectively deals with the subject matter.

HOWEVER, THE CITY DOES TAKE ISSUE WITH THE POSITION ADVANCED BY STRATHCONA OVER CERTAIN SPECIFIC ITEMS

The County's concept of decentralization within the Edmonton region asserted at pp.26-27 - 42 & 61. The position advanced by Strathcona is to the effect that population

growth and development of land uses within and around Sherwood Park and St. Albert constitutes a form of decentralization which has the approval of the Provincial Government. No party to the proceedings advanced a definition of decentralization authored by the Provincial Government or its Cabinet. The City submits that the most articulate treatment of the concept of decentralization, and the Government's intention in that regard was expressed by Mr. K. C. MacKenzie in his evidence (Transcript Vol. 32, pp. 3621 - 3625.) For convenience, his evidence on this subject is reproduced fully below: "Q. There is another term, Mr. MacKenzie, which occurs frequently in the cross-examination and in reports that have been referred to you, and that is the term decentralization. I wonder if you would please define what you understand to be decentralization and perhaps distinguish that definition or those definitions from some other meanings which may be an abuse of that term, in your opinion?

2. A.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have found that the term decentralization has been used in at least four different senses in the hearings to date, and we would propose to define and comment upon each of the different types of decentralization which have been discussed. First, decentralization at the provincial scale has been mentioned. It is well known that decentralization of population growth is a major policy objective of the Provincial Government. Although that policy has not been specifically articulated, we understand it to mean that the government will encourage major employment generating activities which will cause population growth to locate, where possible, beyond the influence of Alberta's two major metropolitan centers. This policy has been implemented through two major streams of activity: First, the government has encouraged within individual departments, a maximum level of governmental activity in Alberta's smaller communities. A well-known example of this type of decentralization is the recent establishment of the Environmental Research Laboratory in Vegreville. Secondly, another area where the government exercises its significant influence over the location of economic activity is the location at which major energy related industries are approved for development. As a principal expression of its policy on this matter, the government approved the Corridor Development Plan as a guide for the location of major petrochemical and refining operations in east central Alberta. This document in recommending the development of heavy industry at locations beyond the commuting range of Edmonton, is a significant expression of what the province intends by its decentralization policy. It is quite obvious that decentralization at the provincial scale involves the location of major employment generators well beyond the influence of Alberta's two metropolitan centres. Turning to a second form of decentralization, sir, that term has been used to describe the emerging settlement pattern of the Edmonton region in a different context to the one we have previously mentioned. That pattern, which is basically embodied in the proposed draft of the Edmonton Regional Plan, involves the encouragement of growth at a number of major and minor growth centres in the Edmonton region. Surrounding Edmonton, it envisions the continued growth of Fort Saskatchewan, Leduc, and Spruce Grove as increasingly self-sufficient satellite communities in the region, and also envisions the growth of smaller centres such as Morinville, Gibbons, and Devon. Decentralization at the regional scale, therefore, is something which is already taking place, and which will probably be embodied in the Edmonton Regional Planning Commission plan

for the region. It is significant to note, we believe, that the City of Edmonton, as the central city in the region, endorses this regional decentralization and that it goes so far as to include, in its own Draft General Municipal Plan, a provision which recognizes the status and growth requirements of its three major satellite communities which include Fort Saskatchewan, Spruce Grove, and Leduc. A third context, Mr. Chairman, of meaning which has been suggested for the term decentralization is that the development and the future expansion of Josephburg somehow represents a form of decentralization. This type of development pattern should not, in our opinion, be regarded as decentralization in any sense of the word. The communities of St. Albert and Sherwood Park and any future development at Ardrossan or Joshephburg would be nothing more than functional extensions of the nearest urban municipality. A development pattern which they would produce would be nothing more than a form of urban sprawl, and we would suggest that any use of the term decentralization to describe its evolution would be a serious abuse of that term. Finally, sir, the fourth context in which decentralization is being used is in reference to the delivery of public services, particularly social services, within the City of Edmonton. Mr. Podmore has described to some extent, and other members of our team will describe more fully, a concept which is being applied within Edmonton's boundaries that will provide certain services to City residents within the general district in which they reside. This is another type of decentralization and one which is entirely valid, but it should be clear that it refers only to the delivery of certain public services. It should not be confused, therefore, with other proper uses of the term decentralization which refer to the evolution of the land use and development pattern at the regional or provincial scales. In summary, sir, there is decentralization at the provincial scale which means one thing, decentralization at the regional scale which means another thing, and the decentralization of the delivery of public services within the Edmonton urban area. In each case, decentralization has a different meaning, and occurs within a different context. Each of these types of decentralization seek to achieve valid objectives in their individual spheres of reference and all of them enjoy some form of political blessing. We would caution your Board, sir, however, against presuming that any of the merits, or benefits, of those valid forms of decentralization will necessarily flow to that other form of development, which we have described as urban sprawl, and which others will attempt to cloak, in the respectability of the proper forms of decentralization we have defined."

4. Mr. N. Giffen, Director of the E.R.P.C., confirms Mackenzie's view of decentralization as it relates to the settlement pattern of the Edmonton region. His evidence was reproduced on pages 4, 5 and 6 of the Edmonton Written Argument and a portion is reproduced below: "Q. So that growth that would be distributed to Fort Saskatchewan would be, in your view, decentralized growth? A.

Yes.

Growth that would be distributed to Stony Plain/Spruce Grove would be decentralized growth; growth that would be distributed to Leduc, in your view, would fall within the characteristics of decentralized growth? That's correct.

A. Q.

And growth that would fall within the inner metro area of Edmonton, Sherwood Park, St. Albert, would be decentralized growth?

No.

What would that be?

Well, it's city centered, in terms of the growth factors. We are looking at the inner metropolitan area as a unit, with three parts.

I see."

It is somehow difficult to perceive of the industrial and residential development (refinery row and Sherwood Park) as decentralized from the City of Edmonton. Mr. W. Zukousky, giving evidence for the Strathcona Industrial Group (Transcript Vol. 92, pp. 10460 - 10461) acknowledged that about 76% of the employees who laboured in the industrial developments on the eastern fringe of the City came from Edmonton and probably lived in the nearby subdivisions. The Strathcona County Residents Survey conducted by T. L. Burton, (Exhibit 46), shows at p. 19 that only about 26% of the heads of households in Strathcona had a place of employment within the County of

5. which only 7.5% were employed within the specific urban centre of Sherwood Park. To use a nice word like 'decentralization' to cover up 'spillover' and 'urban sprawl' seems in our view to be misleading.

The County's claim that it has achieved a balance between jobs and resident labour force (pp. 47-48). This interesting proposition of the County deserves scrutiny.

At pages 47 and 48 the County argues: "It is interesting that Mr. Mackenzie views Strathcona's success in achieving a rough balance between employment opportunities and resident labour force with such apparent distaste, when it is the very lack of jobs within St. Albert for which he criticizes that municipality and calls it a dormitory suburb. In addition to this apparent inconsistency in reasoning, the fact is that it is a proper and universally accepted planning objective to try to achieve an approximate balance between jobs and resident labour force, and the County of Strathcona has an enviable record in this regard." There seems to be a veiled suggestion that Strathcona has achieved the ideal of a balanced free-standing community. But is Sherwood Park any less a dormitory of the City because jobs exist within the bounds of the County in sufficient numbers to equal the work force? If 76% of the available jobs in refinery row are held by Edmontonians, where does the County work force earn its living? If only 7.5% of the heads of households surveyed in Sherwood Park have a place of employment within a hamlet of 30,000 where do the rest of the residents of Sherwood Park spend their time during working hours? (Burton Survey, Exhibit 46, p. 19.) Could it be that the suburban, middle class, automobile oriented, (Burton, Exhibit 46, p. 19., 75 percent own two or more cars) families actually prefer the white collar life of the office, government and university positions available in the City of Edmonton?

6. Mr. G. Walker of Nu-West made a submission, fully supported by Strathcona, with respect to the proposed new 'hamlet' of Ardrossan. His definition of a dormitory community seems especially fitting to Sherwood Park and indeed the projected development of Ardrossan itself. At p. 10322 of Volume 90 of the Transcript: "Q. (Mr. Ackroyd): What is your concept of a dormitory community, sir? A.

I believe I defined that in my evidence. I will read the definition again, if I may.

Certainly. You see, I don't have a transcript.

A residential area from which a high percentage of persons travel to work in another locality, typical examples are the suburbs of a big city where people live and from which they commute to their offices and factories in the central area.

What I was interested in, sir, was what your definition of a high percentage is?

High percentage, I would say, if I may speak off the top of my head from some areas that I know, maybe 60, 70, 80 percent. There are many dormitories that don't have any employment at all in peripheral areas.

So you are saying that as low as 60 percent commuters would make it a dormitory community?

There are possibilities it could be as low as that. I don't think it usually is. It is usually quite a bit higher than that.

But as low as 60 percent?

In some instances."

The balance sheet type of reasoning employed in the Strathcona brief hardly portrays what is 'on the ground'. What is on the ground is a dormitory appendage of the City of Edmonton.

7. 3.

The County's concept of where and when the central City's boundary should be extended and particularily the eastern boundary of the City (pp. 40, 41 and p. xi). The County proposes a formula which suggests an incremental ex-

tension of the City's boundaries on undeveloped County land where a clear need for future urban development is demonstrated, and that any current considerations be contained within the R.D.A. Firstly, the inner R.D.A. proposal represents a departure from the earlier position of the County which was graphically demonstrated by a sweeping gesture of the County's witness Mr. D. Makale when he demonstrated the willingness of the County to contribute 67 square miles to the southeast and southern extension of the City, much of which would have been beyond the R.D.A. At page 1235 of Vol. 12 of the Transcript Mr. Makale, with the further assistance of Mr. A. Brownlee explains: "MR. MAKALE: Mr. Chairman, the first 20-section area comprising 27 sections was the one that was covered by the resolution of the County of Strathcona, which included Mill Woods, and then straight boundary -- south boundary west to the North Saskatchewan River, which would cut square the City boundary at that time. The next 40 sections were in this southern area annexed to the east of the City, south and southeast. They were wrapped around in a half moon or crescent type of configuration. Q. MR. BROWNLEE: In any event, Mr. Podmore, we were talking about discussions which were extended from at lease October 20th of 1969 to late July of 1970, and the City of Edmonton learned within that period of time of Strathcona's willingness to give to the City or surrender to the City some 67 sections of land; is that correct? A. MR. PODMORE:

Yes, Sir."

The second feature of the Strathcona annexation policy might best be described as the 'Maginot Line' theory. Put in a more colloquial way, the County seems to say:

8. "If it's occupied it's ours; if its vacant prove you need it." If one were to apply the Strathcona theory of urban boundary adjustment throughout the region it can readily be demonstrated that each adjoining 'rural' county or municipality, once given subdivision approval authority, could effectively sterilize the City's potential for growth by permitting residential and industrial nodes to develop on the City's periphery. The present application of that theory would preclude any adjustment of the Edmonton boundary to the east and to the northwest. This 'Maginot Line' proposition would permit the continued urbanization of the County and enhance or hasten the spectre of the new City of Strathcona, rising, as it were, like the Phoenix from its ashes Mr. J. Lore's thesis that, given the current rate of fragmentation of agricultural land in Strathcona, none would be available by the year 2020 should not be taken lightly. Mr. K. C. Mackenzie's accusation that the planning policies of the County are purposely designed to thwart annexation so as to maintain and encourage industrial tax windfalls and selected urban enclaves is not to be disregarded. In the City's Written Argument, reference was made to a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, Re Brantford Annexation, (1954) 0.W.N., 834. A portion of that reference bears repeating. At pp. 845 - 846: "The third major objection advanced on behalf of the Township was to the effect that the City's application was made too late, and that it should have taken steps to extend its boundaries before the Township had built up a new urban community outside the City. On behalf of the City it was admitted that annexation proceedings might well have been commenced some years ago and in explanation of the delay reference was made to an accumulation of the City problems at the end of the war and a failure to foresee the extent of postwar expansion common to nearly all the industrial cities

9. in the Province. This argument is familiar to the Board as a result of previous hearings. The proper timing of an annexation application presents many practical problems and the question whether annexation should take place before or after the urban development in the adjacent areas has commenced gives rise to sincere difference of opinion. In the present case the Board agrees that, in the light of what has happened, the City should have taken steps to provide for its outward expansion long before it did. The Board does not agree, however, that this delay justifies a dismissal of the present application. This contention of the Township implies that it should now be permitted to surround the City with what is, in effect, a new town or city that will be practically identical with the existing City in everything but its name and its political organization. In the opinion of the Board, the undesirable results of such a development are too obvious to require further mention. The urban growth of the Township is part and parcel of the growth of the City and on the evidence there was no basis for the contention that it was or is an independent phenomenon. The municipal services now required by the area are substantially identical with those required and supplied in the City and in the interests of efficiency and economy alone they should be planned, constructed and financed by a single authority. In advancing the present application, the City has recognized its obligation to provide for its own growth by making the financial and other resources of the present City available to assist in the development of the adjoining area. In the opinion of the Board, notwithstanding the objections of the Township authorities, it is still not too late to undertake this task." 4.

Strathcona would have us lay to rest the McNally - p. 28). Commission Report ( Contrary to the Strathcona submission one of its witnesses

recently observed: "I have quoted Report because as valid today to Calgary and

these remarks from the McNally Commission the case could hardly be better put. They are as when they were made, with specific reference Edmonton, twenty-two years ago."

(Exhibit 207, p. 24, J.R.W. Sykes - before the Local Authorities Board, Calgary Annexation 10 January, 1978) At the outset of these proceedings Counsel for Strathcona argued to the effect that the Report of the McNally Royal Commission should be

10. disregarded because the members of that Commission would not be available to be cross-examined. (Transcript Vol. 2, pp. 71-72 and 73.) It is now suggested at page 28 of the County's Argument that: "it is high time that the McNally Commission Report be allowed to rest in peace." With the concurrence of Counsel for the County, the City, in lieu of indulging in lengthy cross-examination, filed as exhibits three submissions prepared by one of Strathcona's witnesses. These submissions have been presented to the Local Authorities Board on earlier occasions involving the major annexations affecting: The City of Calgary - January 1978

Exhibit 207.

The Town of Fort Saskatchewan 1979

Exhibit 206.

The City of Lethbridge May 1977

Exhibit 208.

Mr. J.R.W. Sykes' presentation to the Local Authorities Board in 1978, Exhibit 207, the Calgary case, contains some 17 separate references to the McNally Report in a brief of 33 pages. He concludes glowingly at page 32 of that Exhibit: "Whatever is right, we cannot know now. But McNally says, in a context similar to that we face now: "It would be folly ... not to lay forward-looking plans to take care of ... possible expansion" and "Yet the plans must be flexible, both upward and downward, since no one can forestall accurately what the future holds in store". and "There is no doubt that land which may be needed for urban purposes in the future is more easily controlled by the city if that land is within the city" ... and, finally " ... it is probably better to over-annex than to underannex"."

In his 30-page submission to the Local Authorities Board at the Fort Saskatchewan hearings, Exhibit 206, a half dozen references are made to the McNally Report, key among them being this extensive morsel at page 5 of his chapter on growth: "First, however, let me refer to some remarks on economic prospects contained in the Report of the McNally Royal Commission, with which the Board is familiar: McNally says: "It is hard to see how any realistic population estimates can be made, other than guessing the future by what has happened in the past, unless some idea of the economic base is held." "... the Commission assumes that the further industrialization of Alberta is a consummation devoutly to be wished ..." "... the base of an area ... consists of those industries or economic activities which cater for the outside ..." "What is forgotten ... is that every great development of natural resources causes the cities and towns to grow much more than the farming, forest and mining frontiers which are being developed ..." "... the resource development of the hinterland ... has stimulated urban areas and added to their population far more than to the population of the hinterland itself ..." "... resource development creates a demand for goods and services, of both a capital and consumer nature, which is supplied by the urban centres and thus the financial, commercial and industrial development of the urban areas is stimulated." I have quoted McNally's remarks because the facts could hardly be better put. What happens outside Fort Saskatchewan, beyond the control of the Town, determines to a very large extent the Town's future - that may be the 'reward' for being in the right place at the right time." Finally in the submission before the Board in the North Lethbridge Annexation, Exhibit 208, the former Mayor of Calgary, referred to the McNally Report at least 28 times in laying ground work for criteria

12. to be applied by the Local Authorities Board. The 54 page brief ranges widely over the spectrum of issues presented to your Board. Perhaps a few references from that report would be helpful: On the high cost of housing in Calgary and Edmonton at pp. 32 and 33 of Exhibit 208. "As for Calgary's general planning guidelines for comprehensive annexation, they were endorsed by the Calgary Planning Commission and the City Council and are, therefore, as near official policy as any such principles may be. By and large, they coincide with the McNally principles, subject to a naturally more explicit recognition of the fact that development must be permitted to take place in a number of different directions at the same time. This is absolutely essential if a competitive market is to be maintained, and we have learnt by grim experience in recent years in terms of rapidly-escalating housing costs the colossal costs of restricting growth, and thereby reducing competition. Indeed, from claiming the lowest-cost major city housing in 1972 we have now one of the highest housing costs in the country. Both Calgary and Edmonton produced this situation through restrictive land development policies in the years 1972-1976 with the Provincial Government as a willing accomplice. We have shown that we cannot restrain or control growth by restrictive measures: we can merely fail to cope with our responsibilities; and the cost of our mistaken policies to those who need housing now and in the future is very great." -

At pp. 43-44 on the prospect of planning a separate community of West Lethbridge, independent of the present City:

"The planners who advise the city are apparently planning for a completely self-contained city across the ravine. They forecast a city of 30,000. A city the size of Red Deer. A city with a commercial centre of its own, a University of its own, a city with a 250-acres clean industrial park, so that its residents will no longer have to travel into old Lethbridge to work or to shop and do business. Indeed, they have even provided for the payrolls of heavy, noisy, dirty industry: that is to go to Coalhurst with the railyards, close enough for the benefits, far enough away to avoid the costs. Mr. Chairman, these are the dreams of creating a new OttawaHull; a new Buda-Pest; a new Minneapolis-St. Paul; a new Edmonton-Strathcona; a new town across the river that will be "better" than the old town that fathered it.

13. If we ever worried about social attitudes, about living on the 'wrong' side of the tracks, how will we like the 'new-town' versus 'old-town' rivalries of the future, if this is made to happen. What about living on the 'wrong' side of the river?" -

At p. 44-45 on adjoining competing communities.

"The McNally Report warned of the danger of competing communities too close to the city. It recommended a distance of 20 miles for such satellite communities." -

At p. 19 on the criteria in the McNally Report.

"The principles set out in the McNally Report have influenced municipal growth policy in Alberta for the past 20 years, and it is probably fair to say that they have provided the basis for growth policy for most of the cities of the Province in that period. They were intended to fill this role, in fact." -

At p. 54 in his concluding breath:

"Perhaps McNally should have the last word. He said: "It is probably better to over-annex than to under-annex." It takes little imagination to see why Strathcona reacts to the McNally Report like a wild horse to a burr under its blanket. The county does not bear lightly the cross of a 'metropolitan tragedy'. Nonetheless, if, as the County suggests, "the McNally Commission Report be allowed to rest in peace," then the County's most prominent local consultant, J.R.W. Sykes, should, with proper solemnity, be laid out beside it.

The County's treatment of the 'Parasite' issues (pp. 70-72). Much energy was expended by both Strathcona and St. Albert to

show that Edmonton became, in the final analysis, the net benefactor amongst the triology comprising the Inner Metropolitan Area. In order to arrive at this rather puzzling conclusion certain fanciful theories were advanced.

14. Perhaps the Oscar should go to Francine Rabinovitz for her performance on the application of the theory of valuation known as 'replacement cost' as applied to itinerant Edmontonians when picnicing on private agricultural land in Strathcona County. Here it is (Transcript Vol. 69A,

pp.

7682-7685):

"A. Since it wasn't surprising that somebody would ask what the bottom line was, we thought we would simplify the presentation and what it shows is that the difference between the flows is about $611,000, that is, Strathconans are providing, per annum, about $611,000 more than Edmontonians are providing the other way. Now, I might add a footnote to this, because of our discussion before, the discussion here before about the whole issue of how you measure costs and benefits. On the table which refers to the Strathcona County, that's Table 4B on page 25, we have included a benefit which some observers may want to exclude, and one could do that very easily, and it is really up to the analysts and the readers to decide which kinds of definitions they think are more relevant and which they think are less relevant. We have included a figure for agricultural land recreation, and this, in the economist word, is something like the replacement cost estimate. What we have said is the following quote: it is clear that Edmonton residents use private agricultural land in Strathcona County as a way to recreate, picnic, be outdoors and so on. From an economist perspective, that is something called an opportunity benefit. That is, if those residents did not have that land to do some recreation or picnicing on, they would press the City Government to provide similar facilities for them, and then there would be a cost to the City in providing those benefits. We have included the cost or the benefit of that privately provided service in some sense in the net flow, but if you decided that, in fact, in reality the City of Edmonton simply wouldn't have the resources to provide that benefit within the city limits, so that it would not make that expenditure, what you need to do is simply deduct that benefit, the $217,740, from the other flows, which are all involved with the actual cost of public facilities and the patronage consequences therefrom; and

15. then the bottom line would be that Strathcona residents are contributing $393,000 per year more than Edmonton residents. So really it is a matter of your choice as to what one regards as the cost measurement technique, the fullest version, which includes an opportunity benefit involving picnicking and outdoor activities on agricultural land is higher obviously than if you include -- if you exclude that private benefit. And our view is that that is a benefit which is really there, but that also one might argue that the City wouldn't provide it, because it wouldn't have the resources to replace it, and, therefore, the flow needs to account only for the facilities which are actually being provided on both sides. And that would lower the bottom line to $393,000. And we are agnostic as to which of those choices one wanted to make. Economists make perfectly reasonable sounding arguments for doing the one, and equally perfectly reasonable sounding arguments for doing the other. And all we are saying is the product of one is a $611,000 per annum flow from Strathcona residents to Edmonton, and the product of the other is the $393,000 flow in the same direction. Choose your poison, I guess, and use the methodology with which you find yourself most in agreement." Ms. Rabinovitz use of a replacement cost estimate approach is hardly shared by any authorities in the field. Bonright, Valuation of Property, Vol. 1, p. 163, dismisses the theory: "In such cases, the hypothesis that the value of the existing property is derivable from the current cost of constructing or buying a substantially identical property is always invalid." Peter Nichols, for Sturgeon/Parkland, seems to agree with Bonbright. The following exchange takes place at pp. 11218 - 11282 in Volume 100 of the Transcript:

"Q.

(Mr. Ackroyd): I found it difficult. And then, finally, sir, there was another one. Mr. Welsh will surely know about this. Francine Rabinovitz suggested that some figure between 300,000 and 650,000 dollars should be accredited to the County of Strathcona by virtue of among other cultural pursuits, picnickers from Edmonton using private property, and that you might be able to arrive at that figure through some application of the principle of reproduction costs new. Do you recall that, sir?

16. A.

Yes, I do.

Q. And do you agree with that proposition? A. I probably wouldn't have carried out a similar analysis. Q. Now, did you see any picnickers from Edmonton when you visited the 50 farms that were fragmented? MR. LEFEVER:

Other than the witness himself? Other than the witness? You don't have to

MR. ACKROYD: answer that.

I can't recall whether I did. They may have been hidden away behind the trees, etc."

The runner up theory is advanced by St. Albert's consultants, Mr. D. Paterson and Ms. C. L. Kilgour. Here is the explanation advanced in Volume 84, pp. 9492 - 9495 of the Transcript:

"Q.

(Mr. Ackroyd): In other words, there is more than 7300 St. Albertans earning their living in Edmonton?

Oh, yes, that's in the chapter as well, sir.

Yes, indeed. It might as well come out in the open. Now, you say there is 220,000 jobs available in Edmonton?

Yes, our source for that was an Edmonton report, and it's given in the chapter.

Then you took the commercial-industrial assessment for Edmonton, the total, I would assume, commercial-industrial assessment for the City, correct?

That's correct.

Then you divided that by what?

We divided that by the 220,000 total Edmonton jobs.

So then you were able to arrive at a figure of $10,955, correct?

That's the average live commercial-industrial assessment per job in Edmonton.

So that, and assuming then that each job would yield, in terms of the assessment, about $10,955, good. Now, if you take that assessment, I gather, and you multiply it by the mill rate which is applicable for commercial and industrial, you come up with a value per job in terms of tax dollars?

17. A.

Yes.

Of $322.05?

Yes, that's the total, and that includes the business tax as well as the municipal tax.

Oh, yes. Now, then, servicing costs per Edmonton job, do we get a credit here, do I gather, for wear and tear on the streets or something?

Yes, it is quite a comprehensive analysis in a slightly earlier section of that Chapter which establishes the service cost to industrial commercial development in Edmonton.

I see.

That's what went into that offsetting service cost figure. It is based on this fairly lengthy analysis a little earlier in the chapter.

But it's calculated to the preciseness of 35 cents?

Well, sure. When you do these things, you get a figure.

Yes, you sure do. And then when you subtract that wear and tear figure from the yielding figure of three twentytwo-o-five, you come up with a surplus benefit per job held by Albertans, St. Albertans, and Edmonton of $137.70?

Yes, that's right.

Magically. Now, then is that whole exercise based upon a proposition that the St. Albertan created the Edmonton job?

It's indicating that for every St. Albert resident who works in one of those jobs, there is a tax profit, if you will, generated to the City of Edmonton, but Edmonton doesn't bear any of the costs of housing that worker or his dependents or of schooling his children.

Nor does he get the taxes from that St. Albertan?

No, but they're getting the surplus tax from the job that he works in. They wouldn't get it without that job.

Now, of course the equity of that has got to mean that the St. Albertan created that job for the Edmonton city?

Well --

18.

So he should get credit for it?

It's chicken and egg deal, in a way. You have to have the job, but you also have to have the worker. An unfilled job doesn't generate in the way that a filled job does.

You know, I can't help thinking, Mr. THE CHAIRMAN: Ackroyd, as we listen to this, you and I as lawyers have heard the old saw that equity was measured by the length of the chancellor's foot at one time. These intermunicipal equities are measured by the social concept of the observer. Mr. Peter Nichol, for Parkland/Sturgeon, Economic Consultant refused to speculate on the Paterson theory. At p. 11281, Vol. 100 of the Transcript: "MR. ACKROYD: Here's another one. I believe -- and, again, Mr. Lefever, please feel free to interject here I'm in the area of recollection, and it's a Mr. Paterson, who appeared on behalf of the City of St. Albert, and he was demonstrating to us that there was a net figure of some 7,000 odd persons in St. Albert who came into Edmonton to work in the offices and in the commercial enterprises of the City, and that, as a consequence of coming in here, they assisted in the overall generation of the business tax of the City, so that, if you took those 7,000 people and divided them, everybody who worked in here, into that figure, you would come out with a net benefit to Edmonton of something like $137.42 per person, as being a credit which St. Albert should receive. Now, did you follow that sort of philosophy that was being advanced? A

MR. NICHOL: I recall the evidence.

Well, was he suggesting that the City should write a cheque to St. Albert for that amount?

I think you'd have to ask him."

Finally, it was argued throughout that Edmonton made a profit on its distribution of services and that those who shopped in the City contributed indirectly to its tax revenues. (Strathcona Argument, p. 71.)

19.

Perhaps the City's position was too apparent and simplistic to compete with the complicated vagaries of replacement cost and per capita distribution of business tax after deducting wear and tear. Common sense would seem to tell one that stores, specialty shops, and other mercantile enterprises locate and operate in Edmonton because of a potential market of 485,000 customers. Those coming into the City have the advantage of the impact of mass market and volume on the range of goods and services available. This proposition is exemplified in one of the infrequent exchanges between Mr. Lefever and the City's Counsel (Transcript Vol. 100, pp. 11287-11288.)

"Q.

MR. LEFEVER: Mr. Nichols, Mr. Ackroyd cross-examined you about how much he was assisting Mr. Gour in attending various cultural events in the City of Edmonton. I take it that the figures that you were being asked to comment upon did not include any additional funds that Mr. Gour might have spent while in the City of Edmonton?

No, they didn't. In other words, he could have stopped off at the Safeway store and spent part of his paycheque on groceries, which could have enhanced the commercial assessment base of the City of Edmonton.

MR. LEFEVER: Thank you. MR. ACKROYD: Now, Mr. Nichol, on the other hand, he could have gone to Cheap Charlie's out on Highway 16 and paid twice as much." Dr. Harries maintained throughout a constant barrage of crossexamination that economic advantages accrued to Strathcona and St. Albert residents by virtue of their inter-relationship with Edmonton. That advantage, he asserted, could be described as the difference between St. Albert and Sherwood Park providing water treatment, public transit, etc., independently of the central City.

20.

Mr. Ed Thomlinson for Strathcona admitted that the County had not even bothered to price alternative services. Typical of some of the exchanges on this issue are found below: -

As between Mr. Welsh and Dr. Hu Harries (Transcript Vol. 39, p. 4483):

"A. DR. HARRIES: No, as a matter of fact if one were looking at equity I would wonder why in the mischief would the, the existing City of Edmonton people are asked to carry a deficit for a system that serves the whole region. That's really the nub of the question in my mind is that these central services are now provided for the region and paid for by the people within the corporate boundaries of the city and you scab onto those services ones that are specifically designed to assist particular segments of the regional population." -

And again between Mr. Welsh and Dr. Harries (Transcript Vol. 39, p. 4484):

"DR. HARRIES: You see, there is an inherent inequity, I believe, in scabbing onto an existing system for, and pricing it without taking into account the backup that you have, the costs of maintaining that backup are very real, but in an accountant sense it's extraordinarily difficult to allocate them." -

And as between Mr. Thomlinson, County Administrator and Mr. Ackroyd (Transcript Vol. 55, pp. 6138-6140):

"Q. MR. ACKROYD: Then, sir, are you familiar with what your neighbors down the road pay, let's go to another hamlet, like, the City of Camrose, it's 12,000 people, has its own water system, has to have its own treatment plant, has to transport and distribute that water through a franchise company, the same as the one you deal with. Do you know what its water rates are?

A. MR. THOMLINSON: I have no idea.

21.

If I were to suggest that they are more than 100 percent higher than you pay, would you disagree?

I have no idea what their rates are, Mr. Ackroyd.

If I were to suggest to you that the monthly service charge to that water utility is $6 as compared to 3.25, I'm not quite a 100 percent, I'm sorry. Would you disagree?

I can't agree or disagree, because I have not had access to the information.

Charges for such things as hydrants and sprinklers under the Sherwood Park arrangement, for each hydrant, 4.60 per month, as compared to the City of Camrose, $14.70 per month?

Well, I might as well set it straight, I do not know what the rates are in Camrose, so I can't comment on your figures.

Then, sir, am I correct in saying that when you say to us that you do not necessarily obtain a benefit by dealing with the City of Edmonton water services, you made no comparison as to what other communities might have had to pay for that service by providing their own water? You have made no such comparisons?

No, no.

Nor have you compared the cost of other small cities within this province, where they have to provide their own sewage treatment service with the cost that you have to pay under the Edmonton contract; is that correct?

No, I have made no comparisons, the reference I made here, is that it is our feeling that the City of Edmonton receives a reasonable return on the service that is provided and contracted to the County of Strathcona.

But you didn't bother to assess the benefit that you got from scabbing onto the system, did you, Mr. Thomlinson?

Sir, I resent the fact that you say we scabbed onto the system, because we --

Well, if I may apologize in using Dr. Harries language.

Well, with all due respect to Dr. Harries, I still resent the term.

22.

Well, I think everybody did; but then, he explained its a simple carpenter's expression about tapping a couple of boards together?

Well, I'm a farmer, I'm not a carpenter."

The City's Basis of an Application (Exhibit 1) made this unchallenged proposition clearly, and well: "Without access to City of Edmonton services, the quality of life in the peripheral municipalities would either be less or considerably more expensive." (page 5) The point was made frequently throughout the proceedings that neither St. Albert nor Sherwood Park would exist, as they stand, if they were located some distance from Edmonton. For but one of many examples: "A. (Dr. Lightbody): The point I was trying to make, sir -I have examined Mr. Bowes' report, and I could refresh my memory from his basic report, but the point I was simply trying to make, sir, is that, if Sherwood Park were at the location of Fort McMurray, would it be able to provide a comparable level of service, at the same cost? I do not have the professional qualifications to ascertain that. I think, if I may speculate, that it could not. Q. (Mr. Welsh): Now we're going back into A.

Speculation.

-- agreeing to speculate, yes.

But I have also noticed in the press, sir, that Fort McMurray is attempting to put together a transit system, and it is a very costly proposition. If you have contrary evidence, I would be happy to examine it.

The comparability of Fort McMurray to this, is it a good comparison, Dr. Lightbody?

Well, sir, we could put Sherwood Park at any distance removed from a core city, such as Edmonton. We could put it in the Gobi Desert, but I think the question is: Could it provide similar service? And I think not."

23.

If St. Albert were a hundred miles from Edmonton, or if Strathcona were juxtaposed with the County of Lac Ste. Anne, what would one expect to see? Certainly, not the creatures as they now stand. The interdependence of their populations, and services, with Edmonton's, militates strongly in favour of the City's case. Similar conditions to those demonstrated above, were dealt with by a panel of the judiciary in an annexation involving the City of Richmond and the County of Henrico in the State of Virginia in 1940. Mr. W. Bain, in reviewing the use of the judicial process for re-adjusting city-county boundaries in the State of Virginia, in his book Annexation in Virginia, (The University Press of Virginia), has this editorial comment to make at pp. 125 and 126 of his book: "For a number of years the primary emphasis in the oral and written opinions in which community of interest figured prominently was upon the homogeneity between the fringe area and the city resulting from conditions from within the city. The majority opinion in the famous Richmond-Henrico annexation case of 1940 emphasized this factor in the following words: "Many people in the territory proposed to be annexed derive their living directly from the City of Richmond. Many more of such people obtain their living indirectly from the City of Richmond. The compensation and remuneration, received by the latter for services rendered, goods purchased and other things, originated in the City of Richmond as earnings of persons employed or in business there, but who reside in the territoy proposed to be annexed. "A few lines later, in what Professor Victor Jones has termed 'the bovine theory of integration of fringe areas with the central city,' Judge Frederick W. Coleman made the same point: "This condition of affairs which justified the Supreme Court of Appeals in reversing the Circuit Court of Alexandria and decreeing the annexation of the territory proposed to be annexed, may be likened in rural parlance, to a well-fed milk cow whose head is feeding from the manger, which is the City of Richmond supplying the feed, but whose body is largely in the County of Henrico, and whose milk is yielded and drawn

24.

in the County of Henrico. Continuing the analogy, it would seem more desirable to have the whole cow under one jurisdiction that she might be properly looked after, nourished, stabled and cared for, and if veterinary services be needed, instead of two veterinarians, one for the head and one for the body, not always working together or in harmony, have but one veterinarian, whose skill and ability would best promote, not only the particular, but the general welfare of the cow." Mr. Bain continues with the treatment of this subject matter through p. 126 of his book, which is reproduced below for convenience: "On appeal, the Supreme Court's conclusion was the same, but the language was less colorful. Drawing from the city's brief, the court said: "It is estimated that 80% of the suburbanites who earn a living are employed or earn their livelihood in the city. Even a larger per cent of these market and shop there, use its streets and the facilities furnished by its public utilities. That the city is the center of the commercial, civic and social life of these people cannot be questioned. As is said in the city attorney's brief, 'How long would the Westhampton community continue to exist if the City of Richmond were moved fifty miles down the James River?' To ask this question is to answer it. "The identity of the community of interest of those living within the city and those living in the area sought to be annexed, the court felt, demanded 'a unified central administration for the whole urban area.' Under a central administration, the combined resources of the city and the annexed territory 'should result in better facilities for the territory as a whole.' "Although community of interest has figured in a number of annexation proceedings, perhaps the clearest statement of its nature was made by the Court of Appeals in the unsuccessful proceeding by the City of Falls Church against Fairfax County. In upholding the annexation court's refusal to grant a motion for annexation, the court said: "Generally annexations are brought about by the growth of cities from within, caused by the expanding of the industrial development through the enlargement of manufacturing plants located within their borders or the bringingin of new enterprises. In such cases the population at times becomes overcrowded and people move beyond the corporate limits to live. These citizens moving from the city to the suburbs continue to work in the city, looking to the city for their livelihood. They shop there, seek amusement there, enter into the city's social life, and receive the benefits of city dwellers without paying for the privilege. In such cases, there is a definite community

25.

of interest between the people of the city and the suburb which is an outgrowth of the city. In these cases if the city can meet the requirements of section 15-135 of the Code of 1950 annexation will be ordered." It is, incidentally, unsurprising that the County's consultants were so confused about the definition of a government. (City of Edmonton, Written Argument, p. 73.) What, as a local government, does Strathcona do? It contracts for: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)

Wholesale water - City of Edmonton. Distribution of water - Calgary Power. Sewage Collection - Calgary Power. Sewage Treatment - City of Edmonton. Solid waste - Central Dispose All, Ltd. Public Transit - City of Edmonton. Policing - R.C.M.P. Electrical energy - Calgary Power. Planning - Makale-Kyllo. Pound - S.P.C.A. Edmonton.

It is not a government but a contract services plan. It affords no municipal government for its urban unit which approximates the size of Red Deer. What significant negative impact would the elimination of the County Council have upon the delivery of municipal services? None: 6.

The County's Consideration Of Agricultural Implications (pp. 32 - 33) The entire discussion in the County's argument in this area is

either erroneous or misleading. The City's evidence was put before the Board in Exhibit 17, Agricultural Implications of the Edmonton Annexation Project and in testimony by Mr. J. Lore. It is regrettable that it has been subject to such misinterpretation. Thus, for example, Strathcona claims: "However, the bulk of Mr. Lore's evidence concerned the effect of annexation on large-scale commercial agriculture, not overall agricultural productivity or output (Vol. 99, p. 11135, lines 13-19)."

26.

This statement is not factual. Table 13 of Exhibit 17 clearly illustrates that commercial agriculture and overall agricultural productivity are highly correlated. Strathcona further claims that: "Random review of some of these "sterilized" farms indicated that two of the quarter sections are farmed by Hutterites; two of the "sterilized" quarters contain Villetarde Eggs which produces 10% of all Alberta eggs; one of the "sterilized" quarters in a cow-calf operation of 100 head; one "sterilized" quarter carries 200 sheep; and so on (Vol. 16, pp. 1830-46)." "Random review" is hardly the correct term. These are obviously selected as specific exceptions. The facts are, as shown on page 12 of Exhibit 17 that the concentration of livestock farms are about the same as the rest of the province, while the number of "small farms" (ie. producing less than $10,000.00 gross), is much higher in the County of Strathcona. The Strathcona argument continues: "This contention was refuted by Mr. Nichols whose analysis of agricultural statistics suggest that on a per acreage basis, small agricultural holdings generally produce more output than do larger holdings (Vol. 99, pp. 11136-37)." This statement is not factual as it stands, that is "small agricultural holdings generally produce more output..." What Mr. Nichols did say was: "vegetable gardening can yield a gross revenue of $2,000 to $5,000 per acre..." (Transcript Vol. 99, pp. 1136, 1. 23). The facts are as shown in paragraph 2 on page 22 of Exhibit 17. That is to say, these vegetable farms are nearly all located in the irrigation areas of southern Alberta.

27.

The reason is that small vegetable producers are not in a position to supply quality, quantity or security of supply to the retailers, and must depend on seasonal marketing, which tends to be low price, due to excess supply, making them non-viable. Further, in Transcript Vol. 99, (pp. 1137, 11. 1-11) Mr. Nichols again uses the words "can produce" as a qualifier (at line 9). He also relies on the experience of one personal acquaintance to back up his thesis. If statistics of production were available to back up his thesis he would have used them. The facts are that such statistics discount his thesis. The validity of the Nichols' statistics is also questionable (Note Exhibit 260, Economics and Financial Implications of the Edmonton Annexation Proposal). Table 3, "Agricultural Revenue by Size of Census Farm", between pages 31 and 32, requires particular comment. These figures are very misleading because: 1.

These are gross sales figures, and include livestock production.

It is common in farm management analysis to deduct production

imputs that are purchased (ie. livestock feed or replacement stock) in order to measure the real productivity of the farm. Census Canada simply measures gross sales. Therefore, poultry operations, of which there are 15 in the County of Strathcona, and several more in the County of Parkland and M. D. of Sturgeon annexation areas, are producing a high gross revenue per acre according to Statistics Canada but much of this is due to purchased feed and purchased chicks, which are not produced on the acreage which accomodates the poultry operation. Nichols then states that the 40 percent of all farm units in Alberta selling 15 percent of total gross production uses only 10 percent of the

28.

land area. He concludes that this refutes the argument that they are less productive.

(Exhibit 260, pp. 33, 11. 7). Nichols ignores the

methods of statistical reporting, as well as the fact that many of these small operations are concentrated livestock operations. Nichols' table 3 shows 43 census farms ($1200 or more gross sales) under 9 acres and 350 under 69 acres. Table 9 on page 8 of the McKinnon-Allen report (Exhibit 17) shows the ERPC approved 487 small farms and 2317 three to 20 acre parcels from 1970 to 1977 in the County of Strathcona. Only 350 of these 2804 parcels, or less than 13 percent, even qualify as a census farm. Nichols' conclusion on page 33 "because of the observed productivity of small farms, it cannot be concluded that there has been a loss of agricultural production ... due to ... smaller holdings", is simply not supported. It is also to be noted that in testimony (Transcript Vol. 99, page 1137, 11. 21-26) Mr. Nichols does not define "some type of agriculture". Much of this type of land is used for the pasture of a few recreational horses, because it is so fragmented it is not economical to apply modern technology. This land does not contribute to the agricultural output of the county. A further Strathcona contention, on page 33, is that: "(Lore's) conclusion that "Both the City of Calgary and the City of Edmonton have prevented the fragmentation of land within their jurisdiction" (Exhibit 17, p. 14) is fallacious in that, among other reasons, such land is being held for what may be termed the ultimate fragmentation -- urban development". The facts are clearly outlined in the McKinnon-Allen Report (Exhibit 17). In Table 14 of that Report, it is shown that urban development accomodates 15 people per acre while country residential accomodates only 0.35 people per acre.

29.

Consequently, the County further charges on page 33 that: "Mr. Lore omits mention of the effect on agricultural production of the City's proposed peripheral expansion, particularly to the south where Canada Land Inventory Class 1 and 2 soils predominate" This is quite misleading. The effect of urban development vs. country residential on land use is obvious: 0.35 people per acre (Country residential) 15 people per acre (urban development)

=2.3%

Country residential is only 2.3 percent as efficient in terms of land for housing as is urban development. Further, country residential development on CLI soils 3, 4 and 5 force urban development on CLI 1 and 2. The above answers to the Strathcona Summary apply equally to the weakly advanced propositions in the Written Argument submitted on behalf of Parkland and Sturgeon at page 38. Finally, Strathcona's allegation (page 33, 1. 11) that Mr. Lore's statements with respect to City aldermen and administrators are "outside the scope of Mr. Lore's expertise" ignores the fact that Mr. Lore had 16 years experience on the Appeal Board of Zoning, County of Mountainview, a rural municipality. 7.

The County's Position On Roadways(p. viii) In the executive summary of its Concluding Argument, the

County of Strathcona advances this claim: "An issue which the City did not address is the responsibility for planning, construction and maintaining provincial highways, secondary highways and major rural roads within the annexation boundary. Apart from some very vague and unsubstantiated assumptions in its transitional document (that the Province would continue its active role and funding, notwithstanding the fact that the roads would then be within the City's boundary), the City ignored the major involvement of Alberta Transportation in this area." (page viii)

30.

To suggest that the City did not address its responsibility for construction of primary, secondary and rural highways within the annexation boundary is simply incorrect. Financial responsibility assumptions with and without annexation are clearly spelled out in pages 27 and 28 of Exhibit 19, Edmonton Annexation Project Roadway Transportation Study. These statements are not vague and they are conservative in terms of the analysis of annexation vs. no annexation. These estimates assumed that the provincial government would continue to pay 100% of the capital costs of primary and secondary highways in the rural municipalities with "no annexation" whereas the City would fund its normal 30 to 33 percent share of such routes if the area was to be annexed. Also, a program for assisting arterial road construction, which does not now exist, was assumed to be available to the rural municipalities under no annexation. As far as the "major development of Alberta Transportation in this area" goes, statements on Pages 23 (third paragraph) and 24 (second full paragraph) of Exhibit 19 clearly show the City's recognition of Alberta Transportation's role as well as the foregoing information on provincial funding which all comes from Alberta Transportation. 8.

The County's Position On Transportation Issues (pp. 54-57) The Strathcona County Concluding Argument raises several

issues in the area of transportation planning which require clarification and correction. For instance, at page 54, it is insinuated that the City's engineering consultants (UMA) employed a transportation planning tool which was:

31.

"certainly not accurate or sensitive enough to analyze the problem or draw the conclusion which they did. It is significant to note that Mr. Savage acknowledged that UMA had never before used this approach in a study area of this size (Vol. 18, pp. 2064-2065)". It is, however, unfortunate that the County fails to mention Transcript Vol. 19, Pages 2145 to 2147, in which Mr. Vandertol of DELCAN, a large and highly regarded Canadian specialist group with substantially more experience in transportation planning in Canada than either Grimble or Voorhees, fully supports the modelling technique applied by UMA. Similarly, Strathcona on page 54 charges that: "Further, it was shown that there were serious deficiencies in the data concerning the distribution of employment, supplied by Mackenzie, Spencer Associates, which they utilized. Under the decentralized scenario, there was a significant redistribution of the population to the outlying municipalies (outside the RDA) as compared with the centralized scenario. However, there was no corresponding decentralization of employment. (Vol. 103A, p. 11638, lines 6-12)". This assertion is factually incorrect. Addition of tabulated values on pages 8 through 15 of Exhibit 19 shows that employment opportunities within and outside the existing city have been increased in direct proportion to forecast population increases on an overall basis. It follows, therefore, that the succeeding comments on page 54, in paragraph 2, are incorrect. In a similar vein, the Strathcona argument asserts that: "As an example, existing southbound traffic volumes already exceed UMA'as projected southbound volumes for 1996 by a significant amount (Vol. 18, pp. 2073-2082)". This allegation was totally and successfully refuted in Transcript Vol. 19, p. 2107, 11. 15-21). Another frivolous contention is located on page 56 where the County comments upon the operating deficit of the public transit system.

32.

While DELCAN'as report did show the $3.8 million increase in transit deficit, the County conveniently omits mentioning that this figure is accompanied by a commensurate increase in the level of transit service, particularly in other than peak periods and for the transit dependent people of the area to be annexed. In like and unsupported fashion, the County produces this utterance on page 55: "Therefore, it was the conclusion of Strathcona's experts that forcing traffic to cross the RDA to get to work will cause more congestion or require the City to spend more money on transportation improvement in suburban areas (Exhibit 89, pp. 27-37)". Unfortunately, statements regarding the City having to spend more money on transportation improvements cannot be supported by Exhibit 89 because Strathcona's consultants did not, by their own admission, assess capital or operating costs in any manner. Finally, on page 57, the County contends that Mr. Savage of UMA incorrectly interprets Alberta Transportation's position. In Exhibit 19, at pages 23 and 24, it is clear that UMA recognizes and acknowledges Alberta Transportation's role in the area. In addition, the repetition of Alberta Transportation's comments by the Alberta Planning Board in Exhibit 144 reinforce the interpretation given by the City of Edmonton and indicate that the County's opposite interpretation is wishful thinking at best. With respect to the arguments of St. Albert, Parkland and Sturgeon, the City observes that there are no utility or transportation arguments of any value in those submissions. It should only be noted, in this context, that Inland Cement has continued discussions with the

33.

City with respect to necessary roadway improvements to assist their business, even though their municipal taxes are directed to the County of Parkland. This clearly illustrates the kind of complication and inequity that arises when developments of an urban character are separated by artificial boundaries. (Note Exhibit 287). 9.

The County Allegation Of Alleged Inconsistency (p. 19) In the Strathcona argument, there is a thoroughly unprofessional

attempt to insinuate that City witnesses do not believe their own evidence. Thus, for example, the County argues at page 19: "Furthermore, it would appear that some of the City's own experts, specifically the Hon. Dr. Axworthy, have profound doubts about the success of the unitary system in Winnipeg... Not surprisingly, his words are taken out of context, and the citation refers to the County's own consultants quoting Dr. Axworthy's remarks. It should be observed that Dr. Axworthy was earlier crossexamined, by counsel for St. Albert, also about those precise comments in that same speech. His comments about it at that time were these:

"Q. (Mr. Drewry): Do you still take that position sir? A. (Dr. Axworthy): Yes, Mr. Drewry. I should point out that, for the sake of others who may not have had the benefit of listening to me give the speech, that the prelude to that was that I was at the time, was when I gave the speech and still am, a very strong supporter of the uni-city concept and that is unchallengeable. Q. (Mr. Drewry): I think we all know that sir. A. (Dr. Axworthy): Well fine. Let's just get that straight. Let's also get straight the fact that one of the reasons I raised that criticism was from my experience as a Member of the Legislature where we had debated that Bill and I had been involved in the Legislative Committee in reviewing it where there had been very strong commitments by the Province to the support of a Resident Advisory Committee system which would provide for a decentralized access, which I happen to believe in, and that's why, and you will see if you read our report on

34.

the Edmonton system there is a very strong assertion made that under amalgamation there should be a strong commitment to the decentralization of services and ward boundaries. That happens to be a principle that I have come to believe in through my own experience in local government. It's one, I think, that was betrayed by some fairly weak-kneed provincial governments in the Manitoba system and with great sad consequences, and I think it did not help the unitary scheme in Winnipeg and that's one of its drawbacks." (TRANSCRIPT Vol. 37, pp. 4228-4229.) It should also be observed that the residents of Winnipeg now evince a very high level of support for the unitary form of government despite the pains experienced in its birth. (City of Edmonton, Written Argument, page 113.) 10.

The County's Claim Of Contradiction (p. 13) The assertion that City consultants contradicted

themselves is supposedly proven by sentence fragments quoted without the full context. For example, at page 13 of the Strathcona argument, it is claimed that Professors Plunkett and Lightbody are at odds, although even a superficial reading of the quotations cited does not demonstrate this. But the claim raises an issue which should be highlighted. Professor Plunkett's observations that the Edmonton region's governmental fragmentation "is not as extensive as is the case in some other metropolitan areas in Canada" are fully set out in the City's Written Argument at page 77, and are fully supported by Dr. Lightbody's comments during rebuttal testimony: "And at this point in time as I noted before, the municipal structure has not been overlaid with a patchwork quilt of special purpose coordinating bodies. In comparative terms, a structure is not overly complicated, and I would say is easily amenable to reform." (TRANSCRIPT Vol. 1038, page 11686.)

35.

Professor Plunkett, in the Transcript Volume cited by Strathcona, also made the same basic point: "If the opportunity is not grasped such fragmentation will only become more extensive in the future, and the effective government of the area will become more difficult, if not impossible to realize. And the approach required here, I think, is the establishment of a unitary form of government for the Edmonton metropolitan area. In my view at least, it's the only possible arrangement which offers real possibilities for providing the governmental arrangements necessary to meet the needs of the area." (TRANSCRIPT Vol. 4, page 476.) Only a deliberate mis-reading of the testimony would suggest a lack of consistency in testimony and that both local government experts anticipated a proliferation of agencies, boards and local governments, consistent with the experience of every other Canadian metropolitan centre but Calgary, if the reform initiative is not now seized. 11.

The County's Use Of Winnipeg (p. 19) The County, in its argument, wishes to have its cake and eat

it too: One example is the use of the Winnipeg experience when, where, and how convenient. Hence, at page 19, the County suggests: "As Mr. Feldman and Mrs. Graham indicated in their testimony, the circumstances and characteristics of Winnipeg and of the Edmonton area are markedly different..." Yet, at page 64, the Winnipeg Unicity case is sufficiently similar to be used as an example of, and to raise the spectre of, presumed cost escalation following boundary adjustment. Incidentally, the quotation from Dr. Axworthy's now-familiar speech on page 64 is taken out of the context of time and place again. This precise quotation was directed to Dr. Axworthy during cross-examination by counsel for St. Albert with the question:

36.

"Q. (Mr. Drewry); Does that remain your position? A. (Dr. Axworthy): Well, I think, Mr. Drewry, that you should recognize that the City of Winnipeg situation was substantially different from that that you face in Edmonton, that the incorporation of municipalities you had several large municipalities of substantial size, not one where there was a large city with only two very small, smaller settlements on its outskirts. As a result there had to be a large number of civil servants incorporated under the system, several thousand in fact, under that. As we point out in the report any incorporation in the Edmonton system would be -- we are talking about only two or three hundred and where the costs were incurred were on things like pension fund adjustments and personnel adjustments, but that was having to swallow several thousand new employees and that substantially increased the problems of the uni-city which would not occur here. Secondly, that where some additional costs were received, and I think if you read the report fully it endorses, is that the upgrading of services was necessary because in many cases there was a low level of service and as the City has expanded to grow into those undeveloped areas the area of service is now appropriate." (TRANSCRIPT Vol. 37, pp. 4225-4226.) Simply for the record, it should be noted that the Unicity reorganization of 1971 required

the melding of 3,238 employees from 12 municipalities

with the 4,003 of the City of Winnipeg. The magnitude of reorganization was indeed different: 12.

The County's Comments On Assessment (p. 66) At page 66 of its argument, the County of Strathcona makes

this allegation: "A significant amount of time was spent on the question of assessment. The differences in the results can be reduced to several main sources. Harries/Ross utilized live assessment figures, on which basis intermunicipal comparisons are impossible.

37.

In order to make their calculations for the annexation scenario, they then had to translate assessments for Strathcona, St. Albert, etc. into Edmonton assessment base terms. Both Strathcona's and St. Albert's consultants utilized Provincial equalized assessment which allows such inter-municipal comparisons to be made readily and which require no such translation." It may be helpful to remind the Board of the testimony of the County's own experts on this subject. In Transcript Vol. 67, page 7394, this exchange occurs: "Q. (Mr. Ackroyd): Now, sir, perhaps before we might adjourn your cross-examination until tommorrow, one of the other areas that I need a little explanation from you on is the criticism that you have of the Ross/Harries report based upon its failure to utilize equalized assessment in the same manner in which you have utilized it in your work. A. (Mr. Irwin): No sir, if you read my testimony, I did not criticize their method. I was setting that in context of a response to Mr. Welsh's question of differences. I did not, and I specifically said that their method was quite acceptable.

(Mr. Ackroyd): That certainly is of assistance.

(Mr. Irwin): It's a basis of equalization, and I don't quarrel with it. It's just different than the one we used, that's all.

Q. (Mr. Ackroyd): You were simply pointing out differences? A.

13.

(Mr. Irwin): That's all, yes, but I didn't use the word "inequity", you will notice."

The County On Utilities And Education Finances (pp. 62-63) Strathcona alleges, in its written summation that the City's

financial analysis was incomplete in areas such as education taxes and utility charges. These accusations against a summary document despite being disposed of during cross-examination (for example Transcript Vol. 41, pp. 4765 ff.), were echoed by St. Albert (page 35) and Parkland/Sturgeon (page 3). Strathcona's assertions take this form at page 62,63:

38.

"In many respects, the Harries/Ross report lacked detail and showed itself to be incomplete. The explanation for this (Vol. 103B, p. 11658, lines 6-12) was that it was intended merely as a summary report. The report, however, and its accompanying testimony virtually ignored several important areas such as education and utility charges to customers, despite the fact that the so-called secret report, entitled "City of Edmonton Boundary Options, Financial and Economic Impacts", prepared by the same authors, was prominent in covering these areas. Again, the explanation for these omissions was insufficient. Indeed, the evidence of Messrs. Irwin and O'Donnell was that inclusion of these matters would reverse the results produced by Edmonton's evidence (Exhibit 129, pp. 44, 45 and 55). That is, that even if the Harries/ Ross methodology were used intact, the results would show the unicity form to be more expensive if education taxes and utilities charges were included. On the other hand, the Winspear Higgins, Paterson, and Nichols reports covered these important areas and provided detailed explanation of their methodology." The horribly contorted cross-examination of Mr. D. D. Irwin (Vol. 68A, pp. 7424-7466) by both City Counsel and Counsel for Strathcona essentially produced this conclusion: "Q. (Mr. Ackroyd): Now, the Ross Harries proposition is this, as I gather, that if there is an increase in revenues obtained from the.. .utility facility, and we were talking then specifically about Edmonton Power.. .that this increased revenue could be applied to the advantage of the various residents with the effect that it would eliminate some of the revenues requirements through taxation.." (TRANSCRIPT Vol. 68A, p. 7425, 11.7 - 19.) "Q.

(Mr. Welsh): Now, the question that I pose to you is, that if annexation goes ahead, if Sherwood Park is taken into the City of Edmonton, and take it from me, it shouldn't be, but, in any event, if it is taken into Edmonton and if Edmonton Power equalizes the utility rates as between the, presently an Edmonton resident, and Mr. O'Donnell, a new City resident, then that will result in a 27 percent saving to Mr. O'Donnell..." (TRANSCRIPT Vol. 68A, p. 7443, 11.22-26, 7444, 11.1-3.)

"A.

(Mr. Irwin): I'll answer that one, okay, it sounds sensible to me."

(TRANSCRIPT Vol. 68A, p. 7446, 1.14.)

39.

14.

The County Recommendations (pp. X-XI) The County of Strathcona puts forth a series of recommendations

on pages X and XI of the document entitled Summary and Concluding Argument. These recommendations are designed to ensure the preservation of the fragmented form of local government which is responsible for the majority of planning and development problems confronting the immediate Edmonton area. A review of these recommendations clearly demonstrates that the County's position is either internally inconsistent or contrary to the position expressed by other parties that would be directly affected by the County's recommendations. For example, the County continues to maintain in recommendation v that Alberta Transportation should and will strengthen its role in the "planning and coordination of roadway transportation and public transit..." This blantantly contradicts the role that Alberta Transportation perceives for itself as documented in its brief transmitted to the E.R.P.C. regarding the Draft Regional Plan (Exhibit 68). The County suggests in recommendation vi that it is only prepared to concede to the City two small areas of rural land located to the east of Mill Woods and in the Riverbend/Terwilleger area. While this comment is dissected in detail below, it is to be observed that this concession is not consistent with the County's apparent position as expressed by its planning department(Mr. Makale, Transcript Vol. 12, p. 1235 - 1240). He intended to surrender to the City large tracts of land to the south, in an area located well beyond the current Restricted Development Area.

40.

The County in recommendation vii continues to register support for a decentralized pattern of growth in the Edmonton area.

The City

supports this general principle, but as applied by the County, this approach is simply a guise for justifying the sprawling and uncoordinated pattern of development that has been permitted, even encouraged, within the County during the last 25 years. This abuse of the concept of growth decentralization is not only contrary to sound planning practice but contradicts the established position of the regional planning authority (Transcript Volume 96, pp. 10779 - 10782). The County's misguided decentralization concept also contradicts Provincial Government objectives which support the dispersal of growth away from the Inner Metropolitan Areas of Edmonton and Calgary. The City of Edmonton supports the Provincial Government view. This is evidenced by its position before the E.R.P.C. on the Edmonton Regional Growth Strategy. The City supports growth decentralization to the three satellite communities outside the Inner Metropolitan Area. Internal inconsistency in the County's position is demonstrated by its support for "an early implementation of the recommendations of the Edmonton Regional Utilities Study..." (recommendation iv) at the same time that it recommends that "the link between planning and servicing be strenghtened" (recommendation i). Obviously, implementation of the Regional Utilities Study, which was produced in the absence of a Regional Plan or any comprehensive development strategy for the Edmonton area, contradicts the objective for improved coordination in planning and the provision of services.

41.

It should be noted that three of the more important recommendations of the County represent positions or concepts that have been expressed by the City of Edmonton for a number of years. More specifically, the need to link planning and servicing (recommendation i), adjust the structure of the E.R.P.C. (recommendation ii) and improve area-wide transportation planning (recommendation v) are representative of the issues which have encouraged City boundary adjustment initiatives over the years. It is ironic that these very major issues should only now appear to be of concern to the County of Strathcona. Finally, the overall inconsistency of the County's recommendations is demonstrated by recommendation i which asks for an additional level of government which negatesthe substance of most of the recommendations which follow, but most specifically (ii) (iv) and (v). C.

EXCEPTION IS TAKEN WITH THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY ST. ALBERT:

St. Albert's Criticism of Edmonton's Methodology (P. 32) St. Albert attempts to discredit the methodology of the City's

planning exercise and submits: "In cross-examination, Mr. Comay indicated how the planning study could have been carried out. It is significant that Mr. MacKenzie did not rebut Mr. Comay's criticisms of his methodology." This claim is not at all supported by the citation provided: "Q

(MR. ACKROYD): Tell me what methodology would you have followed in seeking what would be in the ultimate - -, in the ultimate, recommend to a City Council to come up with a boundary which they might present for an annexation proposal? How would you have done it?

(MR. COMAY): I can - - I don't think I can describe to you a methodology at this point. I think it would take a fair amount of thinking though." (Transcript Vol. 87B, pp. 99349935.)

42.

What on earth did St. Albert expect Mr. MacKenzie to rebut? His study stands as the sole comprehensive regional planning document prepared for these proceedings. 2.

St. Albert's Inability To Interpret The City's Case (P. 12) St. Albert's argument (at page 12) submits that: "the only need to annex St. Albert was that Edmonton must treat St. Albert the same way as Sherwood Park, supposedly for reasons of equity." The citation is from Mr. Eli Comay's direct evidence, and in

the reference given by St. Albert the Board should recognize that Mr. Comay's comments about an assessment of the City's case are described by him as follows: "Now, that is, I suppose, in a sense, a land use planning evaluation... It's obviously the kind of discussion that one would have expected the City Council...the corporation of the City of Edmonton to engage in; but the material from which the evaluation has been made does not seem to have been produced..." (Transcript Vol. 87A, page 9626, 11. 1825.) Mr. Comay ought not to have been so surprised; as he concedes at the outset of his evaluation (p. 9624) his assessment was based upon a perusal of the Thompson, Berwick and Pratt materials which never formed a part of the City's case before this Board: As the City's Written Argument well demonstrates, the case for a City-City consolidation rests upon many issues beyond the basic question of equity. 3.

St. Albert's Fear Of Loss Of Community (P. 12) Throughout its written argument, but most poignantly at page

12, St. Albert clouds the issue of boundary adjustment with assertions that Edmonton's proposal "is a poor justification for demolishing a community structure and local institutions". This bizarre allegation assumes its most illogical form at page 5, however, where this is submitted:

43.

"So many people are new to St. Albert and to the region, that it would be foolhardy to remove by annexation institutions with which citizens have some familiarity and which they support..." The substantial in-migration generated by Alberta's economy brings people to Edmonton's Inner Metropolitan Area and it is simply ridiculous to claim that the form of municipal government plays a major role in their choice of a home. People "new to Alberta" are, in any case, unlikely to be familiar with local government form beyond knowledge that they are moving to Edmonton. This lack of local knowledge was vividly demonstrated by Dr. Angus Reid in Exhibit 134, The Results of a Three Community Citizens' Survey, page 19: "61% of respondents from Sherwood Park were unable to name at least one member of their local county council compared with 43% of those from St. Albert. In Duggan, on the other hand, only 14% could not name a member of their City Council." It is more important to recognize that a boundary adjustment does not destroy a community; it is simply a jurisdictional shift while the community itself remains intact. Community leagues, service clubs, voluntary organizations, church associations, sporting groups - - indeed, the social fabric of society is less affected by boundary adjustment than by the sort of massive population explosion St. Albert has experienced in the 1970's. (NOTE the City's Written Argument on this very point at pages 131-132.) To assert otherwise is an affront to good sense. Communities exist because of the people living there; municipal government is but a form of social organization by which some services can be provided collectively. 4.

But, St. Albert Must Meet The Western Tradition (P. 37) St. Albert submits that unitary government, the prairie approach

to metropolitan government, is not appropriate to Edmonton due to "specific local factors inapplicable to Edmonton? (page 38) They say:

44.

"The issue is whether the western tradition calls for supercities absorbing viable surrounding municipalities and communities." This issue is confronted squarely by the City in its Written Argument at page 79. The City cites an essay by David Siegel published just this summer: "There are no two-tier governments in Alberta; instead, the usual method of expansion has been for the core city to annex areas surrounding it." In this context, the Board should be made aware of the fact that at the March 31, 1980 meeting of the Lethbridge City Council, the following resolution was passed: "Whereas it is recognized in the General Municipal Plan that Lethbridge has several bits of tidying-up of boundaries to do; And whereas the Local Authorities Board has told the City that the annexation application must not be piecemeal; Therefore be it resolved that Council request the City Manager to direct the Planning Department to review the Directions of Growth and present a report to Council as an outline brief for an annexation application." The rationale for the application is remarkably parallel to the needs defined by the City of Edmonton, and the issues at stake, in this application. As defined at page 4 of a brief approved by the Lethbridge Council on August 18, 1980 are these comments: (Full text available from the Lethbridge Planning Department) "The most satisfactory means of protecting the fringe areas, since it gives the City ultimate control over the subdivision, use and development of the land, is through a comprehensive annexation. Previous Local Authorities Board statements, and other annexation applications within the Province indicate that this is a suitable policy direction. An annexation of a large area surrounding the City would mean that development would proceed according to statutory plans adopted by City Council and that areas of high natural resource capabilityagricultural lands, the river valley - could be protected from urbanization for as long as possible, or permanently.

45.

An important benefit of such an annexation is that it would remove for an extremely long time the question of municipal jurisdiction as it relates to urban expansion. Development of new areas would not have to be preceded by further annexation applications, and future planning would not be bound by possibly illogical municipal boundaries, but could advocate expansion in the most economical or desirable directions. It should be noted that the areas within the County bordering these greatly expanded City boundaries would have significantly fewer restrictions placed on them than in the present fringe area, since the City would have sufficient "buffer" within its boundaries to provide adequate separation from most uses for a very long period of time. There will obviously be some uses that could not locate even within the new fringe areas, however. An annexation of this magnitude will be referred to henceforth as a "comprehensive annexation", as it embodies land use demand and land use protection and control." An application for a "comprehensive annexation" is now the City of Lethbridge's official policy. 5.

St. Albert's Claim To Costs Was Not Raised As An Issue In response to a call for written argument, the Board received

a response from a Mr. Brown, St. Albert's City Solicitor. He makes a claim for costs. We are not aware of this issue having been raised through Mr. Drewry, Counsel of record for St. Albert. It is our understanding that it is not in the tradition of the Local Authorities Board to impose costs in annexation proceedings, short of the applicant municipality furnishing facilities and matters of that nature. We would assume that if your Board had considered costs as an issue, the parties would have been invited to speak to the matter and accordingly, we will leave things at rest unless otherwise advised.

46.

It might be sufficient for Mr. Brown's purposes if he were directed to Mayor Purves'opening remarks at page 8 of Exhibit 5: "In the early part of 1978 I made several personal inquiries of the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Dick Johnston, as to whether the government contemplated taking the initiative on the Edmonton boundary issue, but received advice that we would have to submit a formal Annexation Application through the Local Authorities Board. Finally in May of 1978 Mr. Johnston, on the floor of the Legislature, made strong indications that the issue of boundary adjustment within the Edmonton Metropolitan Region should be processed in the normal way through the Local Authorities Board." D.

THE CRITICAL GENERALIZATIONS CONTAINED IN THE PARKLAND/STURGEON SUBMISSION ARE NOT ACCEPTED

Supposed Errors Of Fact (p. 9) With sweeping generalizations, it is asserted by Counsel for

Parkland and Sturgeon that, "In cross-examination of Drs. Lightbody and Axworthy, it became abundantly obvious that a true appreciation of services in the outlying jurisdictions was lacking.. 12

The example cited

in the argument is the County of Parkland and the deficiencies cited related principally either to questions of degree or to sewage disposal in hamlets (TRANSCRIPT Vol. 37, pp. 4248-4253.) Perhaps this short exchange is best summarized by this excerpt: "MR. ACKROYD:

All I muttered was, tell us what these little municipalities or hamlets are.

THE CHAIRMAN: Let's not argue it. Proceed; proceed. MR. LEFEVER:

Thank you.

THE CHAIRMAN: I was just thinking that you're perhaps doing, oh, a successful job of plastic surgery getting your client's nose straightened out. MR. LEFEVER:

Well, that remains for argument, sir.

THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I concede you'd do that." (TRANSCRIPT Vol. 37, pp. 4252-4253)

47.

No errors or misinterpretations were revealed through crossexamination for the M.D. of Sturgeon. The City's basic position that municipal services provided to residents of the sectors proposed for annexation would improve dramatically following annexation was unassailed. This position has been graphically illustrated by events occurring during the very preparation of this rebuttal. On Wednesday, September 10, the front page headline of the Edmonton JOURNAL read thus: "firemen helpless as luxury home burns." The story, inpart, read: "St. Albert - A $355,000 dream house in Manor Estates burned to the ground early today while firefighters watched helplessly. The house, complete with multiple fireplaces and a maid's quarters, was ablaze when Canadian Forces Base (Namao) and St. Albert fire departments arrived about 45 minutes after the alarm was turned in.

The house was the second in the high-income rural area to burn to the ground in the year. On June 18 firemen, hampered by availability of water, were unable to save a house in nearby Viscount Estates valued at $98,000. Fire departments today used tanker trucks to shuttle water to the scene but when they arrived the fire was already out of control. A number of residents watching the house burn to its foundations, expressed concern about fire protection in the area. "I'm considering buying a fire truck," said Mr. Danyluik. His wife Judy says when residents call either Nameo or St. Albert fire department for assistance there is an argument about whose territory it is." St. Albert deputy chief John Cameron said the difficulty in saving burning houses in the area was not distance but water. Mr. Todd said many subdivisions and even industrial areas outside Edmonton lack hydrants.

48.

If a blaze of any size starts in a home there, "It's gone. People living out there are really living at risk." Harold Wevill said firemen at today's fire were just observers. "If it's a house fire out here what can they do? There are no fire hydrants." The fire, regrettably, is reminiscent of the fire at the five-storey St. Albert Inn during the course of the proceedings: it is to be recalled that the Edmonton Fire Department was required to attend with its aerial equipment and additional pumper capacity. Further, it is suggested that "In ultimately presenting rebuttal evidence before the Board, Dr. Lightbody appeared to have shifted entirely the emphasis of his report..." (page 9). Surely such a statement mis-reads the entire purpose of rebuttal, that being not to reiterate evidence not seriously challenged through either cross-examination or other testimony. These same observations would apply to St. Albert's ability to deliver services (St. Albert, Argument, page 26). 2.

Misleading And Unsubstantiated Statements (P. 32) The written submission of the County of Parkland and Municipal

District of Sturgeon includes a number of unsubstantiated, misleading and totally inaccurate statements. For example, the following is stated in the brief at page 32: "The evidence adduced before the Board clearly demonstrates that Sector 14 will primarily be developed as country residential developments. This has been recognized by Parkland, and by the Edmonton Regional Planning Commission. Mr. Driver clearly testified and was not contradicted nor challenged on the point that the City has in most instances supported country residential development in Sector 14."

49.

The suggestion that the City has supported country residence development within this Sector simply does not reflect the facts. The City traditionally has not supported country residence development within a 5 mile radius of its corporate limits which includes the majority of the land located in this Sector. This position and the City's concerns regarding development activity in this area is demonstrated at page 190 of Transcript Volume 3: "Given the undesirable impact of peripheral country residential development on the City, the prime purpose for including this sector is to give the City the necessary control to restrict the further concentration of country residential types of development in the area." Moveover, to suggest that the Edmonton Regional Planning Commission supports the development of this Sector for country residence purposes seems somewhat premature given that a Regional Plan has yet to be adopted and approved by the Commission. Another clear example of the inaccuracies included within the Parkland/Sturgeon submission appears at page 32 in which the following is stated in reference to Sector 16: "the suggested reasons for inclusion of the area to receive governmental services have been shown to be fanciful and of little relevance to what is in fact occurring and has occured in the area." The City of Edmonton continues to maintain that the County of Parkland has been unable to meet specific and significant servicing requirements in this area. This position is supported by Alberta Environment in its response to the Winterburn Area Structure Plan, as Noted in Exhibit 225, at page 4: "Those applications east of the Winterburn Road would generally not receive our support at this time because drainage on the subject lands generally flows easterly towards the City of Edmonton. Until the City of Edmonton agrees to accept all runoff waters into their underground storm sewer system, we are of the opinion that piecemeal rezoning will only complicate the existing drainage problems

50.

It is suggested that the foregoing clearly demonstrates that there are serious servicing problems confronting development in Sector 16 which can only be satisfactorily resolved by the City and which can hardly be considered "fanciful" and of "little relevance." The brief reiterates on a number of occasions that the City lacks consistency and integrity in respect to the manner in which the City presented its population projections. For example, at page 27, the following is stated: "Suddenly at some point in the course of the present hearings, the City's time has again been telescoped dramatically and the City now endorses the time lines and projections of the developers. Consistency and integrity by the City would have been appreciated, and would have stood them well. It would have been very easy for the City to present to the Board evidence to had changed and that the commitment should be revised and reviewed. Unfortunately the City chose not to follow this approach." Again, this and similar statements within the Parkland/Sturgeon brief simply ignores the record. Mr. K.C. Mackenzie responds to this issue in rebuttal at page 11772 and 11773 of Transcript Vol. 103B. "First, the county's evidence suggests that our ERPC based population and land demand forecasts are conservative. We agree, sir, they are, and we did point this out on several occasions during these proceedings. We chose, in fact, to use the ERPC projections, knowing they were conservative and cautious, for one reason only, and that reason was to avoid unnecessary squabbling among the many participants to these hearings over irrelevant numbers which might have obscured the far more important issues that the numbers, even the conservative numbers, raise. So we agree with Makale and Kyllo that there will probably be many more people coming to the Edmonton region than the projection we used would indicate. All that means, however, is that the land use pattern which we outlined on maps 4 and 5 could become a reality far sooner than the year 2020, as we predicted."

51.

In addition to the foregoing inaccuracies and errors, it is suggested on page 27 that the City "opposed" the West Annexation Application. This does not reflect the fact that the City took a "neutral" position. The accusation on page 35 that Mr. K.C. Mackenzie suggested that the Case I developments projected to the north of St. Albert would occur within the M.D. of Sturgeon is not substantiated by any evidence we have examined. It should be obvious from this discussion that the Parkland/ Sturgeon brief represents a failure to document the propositions advanced. The entire 38 page document contains but one specific reference to an Exhibit, and but five direct references to the Transcript. E.

SOME MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS REQUIRE COMMENT

The Position Of The Edmonton Regional Planning Commission It is significant that the Edmonton Regional Planning

Commission did not, contrary to the specific instructions of the Local Authorities Board, produce a summary of its position on the City application. Instead, the Commission unilaterally chose to reserve for itself a privileged position by simply retaining the right to rebut the positions of the other parties to the hearings. It is submitted that this approach, while not an unusual posture for the E.R.P.C., graphically illustrates the basic dilemma confronting the Commission because of the political structure within which it must operate. This is perhaps best enunciated by Mr. J. R. W. Sykes in Exhibit 208 at page 51: "I would go further, even, than McNally and say that it is equally evident that a regional planning commission cannot serve two masters. It cannot plan simultaneously the city's future in the best interests of the city, and the future of the rural areas in their best interests".

52.

Sykes emphasizes and reaffirms the City's contention that the Commission is simply not capable of providing any meaningful direction in respect to the growth management of the Inner Metropolitan Area where development pressures and the potential for inter-municipal conflict are the most severe. Finally, it is submitted that any rebuttal testimony filed by the E.R.P.C. should be rejected outright by the Board in light of the Commission's decision not to articulate its own position so as to avoid scrutiny by other affected parties. 2.

Inland Cement And Transitional Commitments The Inland Cement "Argument" asks that a special or explicit

condition of the annexation be imposed on the City in the form of a cost sharing arrangement - presumably with Inland - for extensions to a road and overpass. While the City, like any other municipality, is able to make arrangements for road improvements with major users as a matter of policy the City prefers that such arrangements be worked out through the usual channels. Special or specific conditions contained in Annexation Orders take on the effect of a legislated directive and many such conditions prevail for years to be removed only through additional legislative or legal action. The City would prefer that the Board avoid, where possible, imposing specific conditions that might place the parties in some difficult or inflexible position in future years.

53.

The Quest Of Calgary Power Calgary Power essentially requests that the Board exercise

its authority pursuant to Section 20(3)(d) of The Municipal Government

Act in order to maintain the status quo with respect to the delivery and generation of power in the subject area. At page 5 of Calgary Power's pleading, an attempt is made to suggest that the adjustment of service areas as between Calgary Power and Edmonton Power would result in a one billion dollar expenditure for power generating capacity that would not otherwise occur. In response, it seems appropriate that the City's position on this matter should be reiterated (Exhibit 5, "Suggested Policy Directions for Implementation of the Annexation Proposal", p. 20.): "That the City undertake to provide power service to the annexed area at the earliest opportunity dependent only on the City meeting the requirements of provincial legislation governing such transfers of servicing responsibility (including the City's capability to provide efficient and effective service) from the utility presently providing that service;" In light of the foregoing policy statement and the primary role of the Energy Resources Conservation Board in deliberating on this matter, the City maintains, as it has during the course of the hearings, that the doom and gloom scenario of Calgary Power is simply a "red herring". Calgary Power beseachingly asks that its fish be fried before the L.A.B. when in fact and by law it must do its angling before the E.R.C.B. F.

IN CONCLUSION THE CITY APPRECIATES AND RESPECTS THE CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY ALL CONSULTANTS WHO OFFERED OPINIONS TO THE BOARD DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS It was surprising that the arguments of Sturgeon/Parkland, and

particularly that of St. Albert, directed personal attacks on Consultants

54. who offered opinions on behalf of the City of Edmonton. (St. Albert Argument pp. 37-38). Perhaps this is an eastern practice. A word about the process followed in bringing material before your Board might be helpful. Unlike any previous annexation proceedings conducted by the Local Authorities Board, the City accepted the responsibility of submitting its reports and direct evidence in advance of responses having been prepared to Edmonton's Application by any of the Intervenors. The only truly original research conducted independently of opposing studies was done by the City witnesses and consultants. Perhaps the local consultants might be criticized for, in a sense, taking judicial notice of what must have appeared to them as being patently obvious to the native eye. For this they were accused of generalizations. On the other hand, and as noted in the City's Argument, it is appreciated that the work of Edmonton's consultants has drawn an accumulation of responses which make the entire exercise one of the most thoroughly documented urban boundary studies in Canada. In conclusion, the undersigned wishes to express appreciation to the Local Consultants and particularly to Dr. James Lightbody of the University of Alberta for his major contribution to the authorship of the Edmonton Argument and Rebuttal.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MONTON BY TS COUNSEL

Per: A. 0. ACKROYD, Q.C.