MGB FILE NO. I6/IMD/001

IN THE MATTER OF AN INTERMUNICIPAL DISPUTE

INITIATING CITY OF CHESTERMERE MUNICIPALITY

RESPONDENT ROCKY VIEW COUNTY MUNICIPALITY

DOCUMENT SUBMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHESTERMERE

NAME C. Richard Jones (ORGANIZATION) McMillan LLP ADDRESS FOR 1700, 421 – 7th Avenue SW SERVICE Calgary, AB T2P 4K9 EMAIL [email protected] TELEPHONE 403.531.8739 (FOR PERSON FILING THIS DOCUMENT)

Tab 1: Economic Development

Tab 2: Regional Planning

Tab 3: Social Infrastructure

Tab 4: Stormwater Management

Tab 5: Transportation

MGB FILE NO. I6/IMD/001

IN THE MATTER OF AN INTERMUNICIPAL DISPUTE

INITIATING CITY OF CHESTERMERE MUNICIPALITY

RESPONDENT ROCKY VIEW COUNTY MUNICIPALITY

DOCUMENT SUBMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHESTERMERE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Prepared by Stephen Johnson (SJ Research Services) and Robin Woodward (RW Consulting) RETAIL GAP ANALYSIS

Prepared by Cushing Terrell Architecture Inc. Presented by Jean-Marc Lacasse

NAME C. Richard Jones (ORGANIZATION) McMillan LLP ADDRESS FOR 1700, 421 – 7th Avenue SW SERVICE Calgary, AB T2P 4K9 EMAIL [email protected] TELEPHONE 403.531.8739 (FOR PERSON FILING THIS DOCUMENT)

Tab A: Economic Impact of Conrich ASP on the City of Chestermere and Region – Summary Report

Tab B: Retail Gap Analysis – Executive Summary

2 2016 2016

City of Chestermere

Econ omic Impact of Conrich ASP on the

City of Chestermere and Region

SUMMARY REPORT

SJ Research Services SJ Research Services RW Consulting RW Consulting Consultants Consultants

02/24/2016 31/May//2016

3

DISCLOSURE

This report was prepared for the City of Chestermere, Alberta. The disclosure of any information contained in this report is the sole responsibility of the City. The material in this report reflects the consultant’s best judgment in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties.

4

______Stephen Johnson Robin Woodward SJ Research Services RW Consulting June 13, 2016 June 13, 2016

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...... v Conclusions ...... vii Background - Scope & Deliverables...... 1 Methodology ...... 2 The Conrich ASP Development Area ...... 3 Existing Inventory ...... 5 The City of Calgary ...... 5 City of Chestermere ...... 6 County of Rocky View ...... 8 Comparative Land Use Requirements ...... 9 Future Land Demand ...... 10 Employment Base Viability ...... 15 Multiplier Analysis ...... 21 Forecast Impact on Chestermere’s Long Term Revenues ...... 22 References ...... 24 Appendix 1 – Rocky View County Land Use ...... 25 Appendix 2 – Chestermere Land Use ...... 26

6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Delivered in 2015, the Conrich ASP lays out Rocky View County’s (RVC’s) plan for development of approximately 10,876 acres (4,402 hectares) in the ‘central east region’ of RVC. The Plan area is centered on the Hamlet of Conrich and encompasses 68 quarter sections of property (including road allowances). The Conrich ASP is seeking to develop 5,160 acres (2,088ha) of industrial land and an additional 1,419 acres (574ha) of commercial lands.

This proposed development will have significant impacts upon regional industrial and commercial property inventories, and will detrimentally impact upon regional growth plans in adjacent communities and the Calgary Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) as a whole. The Cities of Chestermere and Calgary, as well as current developments within Rocky View County itself, will be impacted.

Impact upon Existing Inventory Currently Calgary, Chestermere and Rocky View County have the following industrial/commercial lands available for development. The Conrich ASP will add 45% to this total.

Total Industrial / Commercial To be Developed % of Total (acres) (acres) Calgary City 38,103 8,733 44.0 Rocky View County* 20,233 3,594 18.1 - Conrich ASP 6,579 6,149 31.1 Chestermere City 1,768 1,350 6.8 66,683 19,826 100.0 Les Conrich double count*** -430 TOTAL** 66,253 * - Satellite imagery assessment; ** - Does not include other municipal entities within the Calgary CMA *** - Already developed areas in Conrich ASP area counted in the total for Rocky View County.

Future Land Demand Incremental (over 2015) industrial and commercial land demand in the Calgary CMA (including Rocky View County) is expected to vary between 1,883.2 and 2,817.7 additional acres until 2025. This is based on the Conference Board of Canada forecast to 2020, two different trend lines to 2025, and land use per employee based on an Alberta CMA of equivalent size. This is vastly exceeded by Conrich ASP which encompasses 68 quarter sections (including road allowances) for a total of 5,160 acres of industrial land and 1,419 acres of commercial land.

At an average absorption rate of 188.3 – 281.8 acres/year, current inventories provide 48-72 years’ supply; the Conrich ASP would add an additional 22-32 years’ inventory to the lands in the CMA, creating a 70-100+ year-supply of land. This is expected to have the following impacts:  Migrate business from existing industrial/commercial areas in Chestermere, Calgary, RVC and other local municipalities, to Conrich.  Extend the time required to complete existing developments.  Add to the Chestermere residential tax burden as projected industrial/commercial tax base does not materialize.

7  Prompt wage inflation as the regional jobs base expands significantly. Conrich ASP Employment Base Viability The labour force required to support the Conrich ASP is forecast to be 46,000 employees. The ability to support this growth is negligible within Conrich itself, and will impact on employment across the entire CMA, as follows:  The County’s available labour force is 833 today, rising to 2,423 in 2025 (@6.4% UI rate).  The labour supply in Rocky View County will not meet expected labour demand stemming from the Conrich ASP. At 46,000 positions, labour demand exceeds the entire labour force (working and seeking work) for the County and matches County population aged 15 and over until past 2035.  Labour demand for the Conrich ASP varies between a high of 109% and a low of 48% of the entire Calgary CMA available Labour Force between 2015 and 2045. In order to be staffed at capacity levels, undue upward wage pressures would be the result. Any saving in land costs as a result of a surplus in industrial/commercial land would likely be offset by corresponding upward wage pressures.

Conrich Proportional Land Requirements If Conrich was to follow historic and established population growth and industrial land development norms evidenced by Calgary, it is projected that Conrich would require between 9.6 and 35.5 acres (3.8 – 14ha) for industrial development, based upon its current and projected population. Not the 5,160 acres proposed.

If assessed based upon current developed (rather than un-developed) lands, similar comparatives can be generated. Today, Calgary has a ratio of 24 acres (9.7ha) of developed land per 1000 population. By comparison, Conrich would require 32 acres (13ha) to meet today’s industrial land requirements, and upwards of 119 acres (48ha) if a 5,000 population was attained. Again, far less than the 5,160 acres proposed.

Conrich ASP Impact on Chestermere’s Tax Base: Chestermere has developed a long term growth strategy to provide for its citizens, including the expansion of its tax base away from today’s reliance upon residential revenues to a wider residential/industrial/commercial base. If Chestermere was able to fill its industrial and commercial developments in line with projections, it is expected that the proposed industrial and commercial areas would generate $2.0M and $5.4M, respectively by 2026. When combined with the projected residential tax base linked to new developments, a revenue flow of $30M in 2026 would be attained. Projected revenues exceed $53M by 2038.

In comparison, if the Conrich ASP proposal was developed and filled in parallel to Chestermere’s, significant amounts of industrial and commercial development would be expected to migrate to those lands. This would result in a projected tax shortfall of -$6.2M by 2026 and -$12.2M by 2038. Given Chestermere’s then forced reliance upon residential taxes to maintain service, the shortfall would be passed to this tax base, necessitating a 25% increase in tax rate to maintain revenues.

8 For comparative purposes, if Chestermere was able to be disproportionately successful in comparison to the Conrich development, and achieve a 50% uptake rate, rather than the comparative rate, above, it would still project a funding deficit of -$3.7M and -$7.3M in 2026 and 2038. Thus requiring a 14% and 16% increase in residential taxes to maintain its revenue base.

Given location and proximity to Chestermere, development will negatively impact Chestermere’s ability to market and establish their own industrial parks in their development timelines:  This will not allow the city to expand its tax base.  This is expected to place a disproportionate burden on the homeowner tax base, perhaps making development uneconomic relative to similar land parcels in competing jurisdiction

Finally, it should be noted that the Conrich ASP provides minimal detail on how commercial and industrial growth will be supported by growth in Conrich’s populace. A report, Rocky View’s Industrial Land Capacity Study (2014) referenced in the Rocky View Conrich Station Conceptual Scheme1 has not been made available for this analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The proposed Conrich ASP vastly overestimates the amount of required industrial and commercial land based upon Conrich’s population growth targets.

2. The proposed Conrich ASP significantly extends the absorption period of industrial lands within the Calgary CMA, based upon growth trends and current plans for industrial land development in the CMA.

3. The proposed Conrich ASP will have a huge effect upon regional labour supply, and would be expected to produce significant upwards wage pressures across the Calgary CMA.

4. The proposed Conrich ASP, if developed, will create a competing growth pole for industrial and commercial lands. This will attract investment away from Chestermere’s industrial and commercial areas, and will negatively impact upon the projected tax revenues that would be generated.

5. From a provincial economic development perspective, a major industrial/commercial land project such as the Conrich ASP would have a larger positive economic impact if located in a larger and economically more self-sufficient community.

1 Brown & Associates, 2014, Conrich Station Conceptual Scheme, P. 26

9 BACKGROUND - SCOPE & DELIVERABLES In the spring of 2016 the City of Chestermere hired SJ Research Services and RW Consulting to perform an economic impact analysis of the proposed Conrich Area Structure Plan (“Conrich ASP”). The Conrich ASP proposes commercial and industrial development both north and south of the Trans-Canada Highway (Highway 1), starting immediately east of the municipal boundary of the City of Calgary and along the northern municipal boundary of the City of Chestermere.

The City of Chestermere maintains that the area of the Conrich ASP designated for industrial and commercial use greatly exceeds the area that the population of the Hamlet of Conrich can or may support, and population growth estimates for the Hamlet of Conrich and that the surrounding area can viably sustain.

As part of the undertaking the following materials are provided:

1. A detailed analysis of the commercial land areas to be developed in the Conrich ASP relative to the population of the Hamlet of Conrich and surrounding area. This includes an assessment of the long term sustainability of the development relative to the population base. 2. A detailed analysis of the industrial land areas to be developed in the Conrich ASP relative to the population of the Hamlet of Conrich and surrounding area. This includes identification of land areas designated for industrial use and assessment of the long term sustainability of the development relative to the population base and its viability relative to the provision of employment and services. 3. A detailed labour market analysis of the Conrich ASP’s commercial and industrial land areas to identify total labour requirements and identification of potential labour force shortages relative to the Conrich population base. 4. An assessment of adverse economic and social impacts of the Conrich ASP on the City of Chestermere.

10 METHODOLOGY The consultants utilized the following methodology to assess the Conrich ASP.

1. An economic model with a demographic projection module was developed to calculate employment growth, available labour force growth, and population growth for the next 5 to 10 years. High and low growth scenarios were generated for the region. This, in turn, generated population growth estimates for the Hamlet of Conrich and the surrounding area within the Rocky View County.

2. Forecasted employment across approximately 25 industries was generated. The forecast model converted employment to square footage and hectares of land required for commercial and industrial use. The model then estimated floor area requirements per employee across 13 industries. Projected demand figures were then translated into land area requirements using site coverage ratios typical for each industry. (Site coverage constitutes the percentage of a site that is covered by the built environment.) This formed the basis for future regional industrial and commercial land demand. 1. and 2., above then were used to analyze industrial/commercial land area relative to the population of the Hamlet of Conrich, population growth estimates for the Hamlet of Conrich and the surrounding area, and assessed labour force requirements. 3. An inventory of the available unused commercial and industrial land in the Chestermere region and the city of Calgary was developed. Available commercial and industrial land was reviewed to determine land that is currently being developed, has existing development plans or is expected to have future plans for usage in the next 5 to 10 years. The results of the labour force needs analysis above then was compared to the land usage analysis to determine if the Conrich ASP is needed. 3., above, provided the basis for the detailed analysis that shows that the area of the Conrich ASP designated for industrial use relative to market demand and the current and estimated growth of population of the Hamlet of Conrich and its surrounding area within the Rocky View County can or may be able to viably support through the provision of employment and services. 4. Adverse economic impacts on and social detriments to the City of Chestermere was summarized and framed against existing demand and future industrial and commercial land demand in the region. 5. Finally, Conrich ASP employment and population impacts was compared against economic growth opportunities to the City of Chestermere that would be forgone if this development was to proceed.

11 THE CONRICH ASP DEVELOPMENT AREA Delivered in 2015, the Conrich ASP2 lays out Rocky View County’s (RVC’s) plan for development of approximately 4,402 hectares of land in the ‘central east region’ of RVC. The following maps, drawn from the ASP, provide a general overview of the current and proposed land use.

The Plan area is centered on the Hamlet of Conrich and encompasses 68 quarter sections3 (including road allowances) for a total of approximately 10,876 acres (4,402 hectares). Table 2 of the ASP identifies the future land use in the development region as follows, and is provided below:

At the time of Plan writing there were 442 homes Planned Conrich Development within the ASP area. About half are located in the Land Use (acres) (hectares) vicinity of Conrich. Currently, the population in or Agricultural na na near the Hamlet is 687, while the population of the Residential 532 215 Hamlet itself is 26. With the addition of other Future Policy Area 2,717 1,100 smaller settlements the overall population in the Industrial 4,836 1,957 Conrich Plan area was estimated to be 1,358. The Highway Business /Industrial 324 131 ASP identifies the Hamlet of Conrich as a Highway Business 1,419 574 prospective full service rural community with a Institutional 78 32 range of land uses, housing types, rural services Long Term Development 970 393 and associated businesses. Full service hamlets Total 10,876 4,402 may have a population that ranges from 5,000 to 10,000 residents (p.6), thus setting a projected growth target for the community.

In 2012, Canadian National (CN) received federal approval to relocate its Railway Facility to the Conrich area. The Facility provides easy access for CN’s customers to retrieve their merchandise and is expected to result in a demand for a variety of warehouses and light industrial development in the Conrich area. This development forms a nucleus for industrial/commercial development in the ASP.

2 Rocky View County, 2015; Conrich Area Structure Plan 3 Conrich ASP documentation indicates 68 quarters within the ASP. A manual count only identifies 67 quarter sections, for an approximate area of 10,720 acres.

12

A review of current land use designation in the Conrich ASP area, overlain with satellite imagery identified which select areas are developed and undeveloped, as follows:

 Industrial lands: 344 acres, 50% undeveloped  Business: 213 acres, 0% undeveloped  Commercial: 344 acres, 87% undeveloped

Transportation infrastructure frames the pattern of development in the Conrich area4. The development of the CN line (Grand Trunk Pacific Railway), connecting Calgary to the CN mainline, triggered the Hamlet’s residential development. The angled north-east orientation of the rail line and its numerous road crossings provides a challenge to the safe and efficient movement of local traffic. The successful development of an efficient transportation network that minimizes impacts on existing and future residential development is one of the main challenges to successful development in the Plan area.

The Plan confirms that “Recent industrial development and the resultant increase in traffic has directly impacted existing residential areas along Township Road 250 and indirectly affected most residential areas through offsite impacts such as noise and lights.” (p.12)

The ASP provides minimal detail on how commercial and industrial growth will be supported by growth in Conrich’s populace. A report, Rocky View’s Industrial Land Capacity Study (2014) referenced in the Rocky View Conrich Station Conceptual Scheme5 has not been made available for this analysis.

The following map identifies the relative location of the Conrich ASP and the Cities of Calgary and Chestermere, and key infrastructure in the area. Note that both the cities of Calgary and Chestermere abut the proposed ASP area.

4 Rocky View County, 2015; Conrich Area Structure Plan. P. 12 5 Brown & Associates, 2014, Conrich Station Conceptual Scheme, P. 26

13 EXISTING INVENTORY Today, industrial and commercial lands exist in the Cities of Calgary and Chestermere, the County of Rocky View and in other incorporated entities in the Calgary Census Metropolitan area. The following section provides an overview of existing industrial and commercial lands and provision for long term development and use.

THE CITY OF CALGARY The City of Calgary has adopted a policy of maintaining a 30-year supply of industrial lands within its borders for future development. This policy ensure a long term, logical development process and ensures alignment with changing City needs. The City of Calgary Municipal Development Plan (office Consolidation 2015 December) identifies a strategic objective for the City to “Maintain Calgary’s ability to grow over the long term by ensuring that growth and change decisions facilitate a land supply that aligns with the direction of the draft CMP, MDP and CTP.” Embedded in the accompanying policies to ensure long term ability to accommodate industrial growth is the intent to maintain within the City’s jurisdiction at least a 30‑year supply of developable land for all uses.

As of 2013 Calgary held 15,420 hectares (38,103 acres) of industrial land within its municipal boundary. The 2013 Employment Areas Growth & Change Calgary Industrial Land Inventory, 2016 2013, report confirmed that 27,446 acres (11,107ha) Acres Hectares (71%) was developed at that time6. The accompanying Developed 29,371 11,886 table provides an updated inventory of undeveloped Undeveloped industrial lands as of 2016, as provided by the City of - N/NW 4,124 1,669 Calgary7. Fully 8,733 acres (3,534ha) of land remain within - SE 3,682 1,490 City limits for future industrial development. The 2013 - C 15 6 report confirms that even with historically high estimates - NW 571 231 of absorption and gross/net losses land inventory still - SW 341 138 leaves 29 years (excluding gravel extraction lands in the Sub-total 8,733 3,534 long term inventory) of industrial land supply within the

City of Calgary. The report concludes that “the City of TOTAL 38,104 15,420 Calgary has a significant inventory of industrial land available for future industrial development” (p.1-13)8.

Since 2013 industrial land consumption has slowed (see forecast). Today, with a supply base of 8,733 acres and based upon recent land consumption trends, a 34.5-year supply of industrial lands remain. While 758 acres (307ha) of land was developed between 2013 and 2015, declining demand has extended the forecast absorption period.

6 City of Calgary, 2013, Employment Areas growth & Change, Monitoring Growth and Change Series, City of Calgary Land Use Planning & Policy, p. 1-4 7 Francisco, Jim; City of Calgary, email correspondence 8 The City of Calgary does not forecast commercial land consumption. Commercial lands are not a major consumer of land in the City (on the scale of either residential or industrial development) and are not tracked.

14 CITY OF CHESTERMERE Evolving from a recreational summer village / bedroom community in close proximity to Calgary, Chestermere was granted City status in 2015. Chestermere has no developed industrial land and a modest level of commercial lands within its municipal boundaries. The City has only recently begun to develop its own industrial land base.

Annexations have expanded Chestermere’s developable areas. As stated in Chestermere’s Municipal Development Plan (MDP), “in 1995, the City of Chestermere annexed 1,373 acres of land to accommodate 30 years of growth to a population of 9,000 by 2025. This significantly underestimated the rapid growth in the area, with the population reaching 9,564 by 2006 and all lands within Chestermere absorbed by new development by 2010.”

The 2016 Chestermere MDP Chestermere Land Area (acres) signalled a long term need to 2009 expand its non-residential land Original Annexed 2016 Total uses, including retail, business-park Designation Area Area Area and industrial. The MDP recognized that a long term reliance upon a Residential 1,104 3,040 4,144 residential tax base will put Commercial 88 307 395 pressure on municipal budgets, with - Downtown 50 50 a potential impact upon services - Centre 0 117 117 and residential property taxes.9 - Neighbourhood 38 149 187 - Corridor 0 40 40 The adjacent table summarizes Employment Lands 0 1,373 1,373 existing land use. Note the lack of - Highway Commercial (A) 0 203 203 industrial lands now in service. A - Light Industrial (B) 0 477 477 100 acre parcel is under - Light Industrial (C ) 0 694 694 consideration for the south / Parks / Open Space 1,256 1,199 2,455 southeast area. TOTAL 2,448 5,919 8,367

The “Employment Lands” areas Total Commercial 598 have been established to support Total Industrial 1,170 future industrial and commercial Industrial Under growth. The areas will emphasize Development 100 single uses, such as corporate or Industrial Remaining: 1,070 multi-use office, industrial, and power centres. Each identified area leverages adjacent amenities, including highways, a railway, and existing commercial corridors, to identify the best and most appropriate development for the sites in question.

Chestermere also has developed a long term growth forecast to guide decisions on land use and development. By 2038 the City is expected to grow to a population of 53,600, an increase of 35,200 over today’s level of 18,400, a tripling of the population in the next 20+ years. This is

9 City of Chestermere, 2016, Municipal Development Plan, By-law 015-15, P. 19

15 significant and will challenge civic resources. The City’s growth plans seek to expand the types of land use within its boundaries to diversify the tax base and to increase local amenities and areas of employment, as the City’s population increases.

The accompanying table identifies the Summary Table City’s population growth projections and Projected Development - Chestermere intended commercial and industrial land development. As shown, by 2038 nearly Commercial and Industrial Land all of the lands now deemed commercial will be developed – fully 168 of the 180 2014 Population 18,400 developable acres are projected to be 2026 Projected Population 34,800 utilized (68 of 73ha). During the same 2038 Projected Population 53,604 period extensive growth in industrial Hectares Acres land use is anticipated. Current plans Commercial Lands 242 598 identify approximately 1,170 acres Total Commercial Lands (developable) 73 180 (473ha) of industrial land for future use. Commercial Developed - 2026 39 97 Today, the first of these areas – The Commercial Developed - 2038 68 168 Chestermere Industrial Park10 – is under Commercial Remaining - 2038 5 12 consideration. This will establish the Industrial Lands 474 1,170 Total Industrial Lands (developable) 474 1,170 first 100 acres of Chestermere’s Industrial Developed - 2026 138 341 industrial land base. By 2038 fully 708 Industrial Developed - 2038 287 708 acres (286ha) are projected to be Industrial Remaining - 2038 187 462 developed.

By its nature and proximity, the proposed Conrich industrial/commercial development will impact upon Chestermere’s long term ability to meet its targets for land development. Simple competitive market opportunity will drive potential investment decisions into several development locations rather than select sites in the local area.

10 McSweeny & Associates, 2015; Chestermere Industrial Park Location & Market Analysis

16 COUNTY OF ROCKY VIEW With a population of 38,055 in 2013, Rocky View County is the most populous municipal district in Alberta. Though predominantly agricultural in nature, Rocky View County is home to 14 hamlets and is part of the Calgary census metropolitan area. Rocky View County has significant amounts of developed and undeveloped industrial and commercial lands within its jurisdiction.

Data provided by Rocky View County11 Rocky View County Land Use confirm that the county is approximately Uses Acres % 2 1,532 square miles (3,969.5km ) in size. Agriculture 879,221 89.60% While predominantly agriculture, it has a Residential 62,753 6.40% growing residential and business/ Business 10,905 1.10% industrial/commercial component. Part Commercial 3,879 0.40% Three of RVC’s General Regulations within their Land Use By-law stipulate that all Direct Control 1,043 0.10% Business, Industrial, Commercial and Storage and Sales Industrial 545 0.10% Storage/Sales areas shall be governed Industrial 15,252 1.60% through common regulation12. When one - Hamlet Industrial – HI 176 1.20% removes gravel extraction from the industrial - Industrial Activity District – I-IA 3,301 21.60% land category, fully 3,862 acres (1,563ha) of - Industrial Direct Control – I-SS 384 2.50% land are designated for industrial - Natural Resource – NRI 11,391 74.70% development. A total of 20,233 acres Mixed Use 1,209 0.10% (8,188ha) of lands are committed to Public Service 5,040 0.50% industrial/commercial purposes in RVC (not No Designation 142 0.00% including gravel deposits) Appendix 1 Airport 913 0.10% provides a summary of land use and location in Rocky View County. Total 980,900 100% Summary : Commercial Business, Direct Control, 20,233 2.10% Based upon a comparison of land use Storage, Industrial (HI, IA, SS) designation and satellite imagery to identify if a property is developed or undeveloped, the following development status is identified for Rocky View County. As noted, a significant Rocky View County - Development Summary amount of undeveloped Developed Undeveloped Unknown Total % commercial and industrial Business 6,507 3,594 804 10,905 53.9% property – 8,271 acres - Commercial 2,982 777 120 3,879 19.2% already exists within the Industrial 1,334 2,528 0 3,862 19.1% County. The addition of the Direct Control 177 866 0 1,043 5.2% Conrich ASP development I-IS 38 506 0 544 2.7% would add approximately 57% more land to this base. Total 11,038 8,271 924 20,233 100.0%

11 County of Rocky View, Geographic Information System (GIS) data provided by the County. 12 Rocky View County, 1997; Rocky View County Land Use By-Law Office Consolidation, p. 54

17 COMPARATIVE LAND USE REQUIREMENTS To compliment the forecast provided herein, an assessment of comparative land use needs based upon land uptake has been provided. This process identifies land requirements based upon population base and projected growth, as identified in official plan documents.

Calgary has developed an extensive inventory of industrial land available for future development. It has 8,733 acres (3,534ha) available, and has developed almost 30,000 additional acres (12,140ha) since its inception. With a population of 1.23 million, Calgary has a ratio of 141 people per acre of undeveloped land. In comparison, Conrich has 1,358 people; the Conrich ASP is seeking to develop 5160 acres (2,088ha) of industrial land (not including an additional 1,419 acres of commercial lands). This equates to 0.3 persons per acre, and rises to only 1.9 persons/acre if Conrich’s population was to grow to become a full service hamlet of 5,000 people.

If Conrich was to follow historic and established population growth and industrial land development norms evidenced by Calgary, it is projected that Conrich would require between 9.6 and 35.5 acres (3.8 – 14ha) for industrial development, based upon its current and projected population. Not the 5,160 acres proposed. Comparatively, the City of Chestermere today would require 131 acres (53ha) to match Calgary’s forecast development. Today Chestermere is looking to establish its first industrial area of 100 acres (40.5ha).

If assessed based upon current developed (rather than un-developed) lands, similar comparatives can be generated. Today, Calgary has a ratio of 24 acres (9.7ha) of developed land per 1000 population. By comparison, Conrich would require 32 acres (13ha) to meet today’s industrial land requirements, and upwards of 119 acres (48ha) if a 5,000 population was attained. Again, far less than the 5,160 acres proposed. Similarly, Chestermere would require 441 acres (today) and 1,265 acres (expected population growth) (178 and 512ha). Chestermere’s initial industrial park will provide less than 25% of its comparative industrial land requirements. Based upon these metrics, Chestermere’s long term demand for 1265 acres (512 ha) exceeds current planned development of 1,170 acres (473ha), and will be in a relative industrial lands deficit for the foreseeable future.

The addition of the Conrich industrial areas will impact upon the long term industrial land demand. As noted previously, current industrial lands available within the City of Calgary provide the City with approximately 34.5 years of industrial lands. The Conrich ASP is projected to add another 20.4 years of supply. In effect, the regional supply of industrial lands will expand to nearly 55 years. Chestermere’s development plans would add approximately 4.5 years of available property to this total.

It is questionable that the market in the Calgary region is sufficiently robust to be able to absorb such a large amount of industrial lands without impacting upon development plans now in place for existing industrial locations.

18 FUTURE LAND DEMAND A forecast of long term industrial land requirements was prepared to assess future need. The basis for the land requirement forecast is the Conference Board of Canada’s (CBOC) Metropolitan Forecast for the Calgary Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) Winter 2016, the latest available at the initiation on the study.

Key to assessing future industrial/commercial land demand is sectoral employment:

Sectoral Employment (000’s) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Manufacturing 46.5 42.3 41.4 42 43.8 44.8 Construction 76.6 72.1 72.3 72.4 73.3 74.2 Primary and Utilities 66.6 61.9 64.0 64.6 65.5 66.6 Transportation and Warehousing 56.1 54.8 55.1 56.2 57 58 Information and Culture 14.0 13.8 14.2 14.4 14.6 14.8 Wholesale and retail 115.1 111.1 113.6 114.4 115.5 116.4 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 44.8 45.3 43.4 44.2 45.4 46.8 Business Services 117.3 119.4 121.0 123.4 125.9 128.6 Personal Services 113.9 113.9 116.8 119.8 122.9 125.2 Non-Commercial Services 141.9 142.7 143.4 147.0 151.8 155.9 Public Administration 23.4 21.8 21.6 21.9 22.2 22.4 Total 816 799 807 820 838 854 Source: Conference Board of Canada: Metropolitan Outlook 1 – Winter 2016

Noting that the CBOC’s forecast extends to 2020 only, a five year average growth rate was calculated to extend the forecast to 2025. Two growth trend scenarios were developed. In the High Growth Scenario, the average growth from 2016 to 2017, 2017 to 2018, 2018 to 2019, and 2019 to 2020 by industry was applied to 2020 sectoral employment to generate 2021 to 2025 sectoral employment.

In the Low Growth Scenario, the average growth from 2015 to 2016, 2016 to 2017, 2017 to 2018, 2018 to 2019, and 2019 to 2020 by industry was applied to 2020 sectoral employment to generate 2021 to 2025 sectoral employment.

In addition, noting that the CBOC sectoral employment is at a high level of aggregation, sectoral employment was disaggregated into finer, and more useful, industry detail based on 2015 (the latest full year) industry breakdown for the Calgary CMA available in Cansim Table 282-0131.

19 Calgary CMA Sectoral Employment Forecasts to 2025 are presented below:

Low Growth Sectoral Employment Forecast (000s) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Crop and animal production 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 Mining and oil and gas extraction 56.3 52.3 54.1 54.6 55.3 56.3 56.3 56.3 56.4 56.4 56.4 Utilities 9.0 8.4 8.7 8.8 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 Construction 76.6 72.1 72.3 72.4 73.3 74.2 74.2 74.2 74.2 74.2 74.2 Manufacturing 46.5 42.3 41.4 42.0 43.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 Wholesale trade 34.4 33.2 34.0 34.2 34.5 34.8 34.9 35.0 35.0 35.1 35.2 Retail trade 80.7 77.9 79.6 80.2 81.0 81.6 81.8 82.0 82.2 82.4 82.6 Transportation and warehousing 56.1 54.8 55.1 56.2 57.0 58.0 58.4 58.8 59.2 59.6 60.0 Information and cultural industries 14.0 13.8 14.2 14.4 14.6 14.8 15.0 15.1 15.3 15.5 15.7 Finance, insurance, real estate and rental and Leasing 44.8 45.3 43.4 44.2 45.4 46.8 47.2 47.7 48.1 48.5 49.0 Professional, scientific and technical services 87.6 89.1 90.3 92.1 94.0 96.0 97.8 99.6 101.5 103.3 105.3 Administrative and support, waste management and remediation services 29.7 30.3 30.7 31.3 31.9 32.6 33.2 33.8 34.4 35.1 35.7 Educational services 45.2 45.4 45.6 46.8 48.3 49.6 50.6 51.5 52.5 53.5 54.5 Health care and social assistance 96.7 97.3 97.8 100.2 103.5 106.3 108.3 110.4 112.5 114.6 116.8 Arts, entertainment and recreation 12.7 12.7 13.1 13.4 13.8 14.0 14.3 14.6 14.8 15.1 15.4 Accommodation and food services 66.7 66.7 68.4 70.1 72.0 73.3 74.7 76.1 77.6 79.1 80.6 Other services (except public administration) 34.5 34.5 35.3 36.2 37.2 37.9 38.6 39.3 40.1 40.9 41.6 Government sector 23.4 21.8 21.6 21.9 22.2 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 Total 816.2 799.1 806.8 820.3 837.9 853.7 862.8 872.0 881.4 891.0 900.7

20

High Growth Sectoral Employment Forecast (000s) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Crop and animal production 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 Mining and oil and gas extraction 56.3 52.3 54.1 54.6 55.3 56.3 57.3 58.4 59.4 60.5 61.7 Utilities 9.0 8.4 8.7 8.8 8.9 9.0 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.7 9.9 Construction 76.6 72.1 72.3 72.4 73.3 74.2 74.7 75.3 75.8 76.4 76.9 Manufacturing 46.5 42.3 41.4 42.0 43.8 44.8 45.5 46.1 46.8 47.5 48.2 Wholesale trade 34.4 33.2 34.0 34.2 34.5 34.8 35.2 35.6 36.0 36.5 36.9 Retail trade 80.7 77.9 79.6 80.2 81.0 81.6 82.6 83.5 84.5 85.5 86.5 Transportation and warehousing 56.1 54.8 55.1 56.2 57.0 58.0 58.8 59.7 60.5 61.4 62.3 Information and cultural industries 14.0 13.8 14.2 14.4 14.6 14.8 15.1 15.3 15.6 15.9 16.2 Finance, insurance, real estate and rental and Leasing 44.8 45.3 43.4 44.2 45.4 46.8 47.2 47.6 48.0 48.4 48.9 Professional, scientific and technical services 87.6 89.1 90.3 92.1 94.0 96.0 97.8 99.6 101.5 103.4 105.3 Administrative and support, waste management and remediation services 29.7 30.3 30.7 31.3 31.9 32.6 33.2 33.8 34.5 35.1 35.8 Educational services 45.2 45.4 45.6 46.8 48.3 49.6 50.7 51.9 53.0 54.2 55.4 Health care and social assistance 96.7 97.3 97.8 100.2 103.5 106.3 108.7 111.1 113.6 116.1 118.7 Arts, entertainment and recreation 12.7 12.7 13.1 13.4 13.8 14.0 14.3 14.7 15.0 15.4 15.8 Accommodation and food services 66.7 66.7 68.4 70.1 72.0 73.3 75.1 76.9 78.7 80.6 82.5 Other services (except public administration) 34.5 34.5 35.3 36.2 37.2 37.9 38.8 39.7 40.7 41.6 42.6 Government sector 23.4 21.8 21.6 21.9 22.2 22.4 22.6 22.7 22.9 23.0 23.2 Total 816.2 799.1 806.8 820.3 837.9 853.7 868.0 882.7 897.5 912.7 928.2

Land use requirements by sector were based on a similar study conducted for the city of Edmonton. Edmonton was chosen because it is an Alberta CMA of roughly equivalent size. This study estimated floor area requirements per employee across 13 industries. Projected demand figures were then translated into land area requirements using site coverage ratios typical for each industry. Site coverage constitutes the percentage of a site that is covered by the built environment.

21 Floor Area Per Employee Industry (Square Metres) Site Coverage Ratio Primary Industries 30.5 0.20 Manufacturing 38.2 0.20 Construction 21.7 0.10 Utilities 32.2 0.15 Transportation and warehousing 48.6 0.15 Wholesale and Retail Trade 54.9 0.28 Finance, insurance, and real estate. 8 0.25 Professional, scientific and technical and Management services 8 0.25 Accommodation and Food Services 18.2 0.20 Educational Services 18.2 0.20 Health and Welfare Services 18.2 0.20 Commercial Services 18.2 0.20 Government Services 19.2 0.30 Source: City of Edmonton – Economic Insights – Demand Forecast of Industrial Lands 2012-2025

Low Growth land requirements by industry are presented below:

New Land Requirements per year in Hectares (vs. 2015) Low Growth Floor Space per Coverage employee ratio 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Crop and animal production 30.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Mining and oil and gas extraction 30.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 Utilities 32.2 0.15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 Construction 21.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Manufacturing 38.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wholesale trade 54.9 0.28 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 7.6 9.3 11.0 12.6 14.3 16.0 Retail trade 54.9 0.28 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 17.9 21.8 25.7 29.6 33.5 37.5 Transportation and warehousing 48.6 0.15 0.0 0.0 3.2 29.2 61.6 74.4 87.2 100.2 113.3 126.4 Information and cultural industries 8 0.25 0.0 0.6 1.3 1.9 2.6 3.1 3.6 4.2 4.7 5.3 Finance, insurance, real estate and rental and Leasing 8 0.25 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.9 6.4 7.8 9.1 10.5 11.9 13.4 Professional, scientific and technical services 8 0.25 5.0 8.8 14.6 20.5 27.0 32.7 38.5 44.4 50.5 56.6 Administrative and support, waste 8 0.25 1.7 3.0 4.9 7.0 9.2 11.1 13.1 15.1 17.1 19.2

22 New Land Requirements per year in Hectares (vs. 2015) Low Growth Floor Space per Coverage employee ratio 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 management and remediation services Educational services 18.2 0.2 2.3 4.3 14.8 28.7 40.5 49.2 57.9 66.9 76.0 85.3 Health care and social assistance 18.2 0.2 5.0 9.3 31.6 61.4 86.9 105.3 124.1 143.2 162.7 182.6 Arts, entertainment and recreation 18.2 0.2 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.2 11.5 13.9 16.4 19.0 21.6 24.2 Accommodation and food services 18.2 0.2 0.0 15.5 31.4 48.0 60.2 73.0 86.0 99.3 112.8 126.6 Other services (except public administration) 18.2 0.2 0.0 8.0 16.2 24.8 31.1 37.7 44.4 51.3 58.3 65.4 Government sector 19.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total HA 15.6 52.5 124.1 240.4 362.4 439.9 518.6 598.5 679.7 762.1 Total Acres 38.5 129.8 306.8 593.9 895.5 1087.0 1281.5 1479.0 1679.5 1883.2

High Growth land requirements by industry are presented below:

New Land Requirements per year in Hectares (vs. 2015) High Growth Floor Space per Coverage employee ratio 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Crop and animal production 30.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.9 Mining and oil and gas extraction 30.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 32.0 48.5 65.3 82.4 Utilities 32.2 0.15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 7.2 11.0 14.8 18.6 Construction 21.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 Manufacturing 38.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 19.1 32.4 Wholesale trade 54.9 0.28 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 7.6 15.6 23.7 31.9 40.2 48.6 Retail trade 54.9 0.28 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 17.9 36.7 55.7 74.9 94.3 114.0 Transportation and warehousing 48.6 0.15 0.0 0.0 3.2 29.2 61.6 88.4 115.7 143.4 171.4 199.9 Information and cultural industries 8 0.25 0.0 0.6 1.3 1.9 2.6 3.4 4.2 5.1 6.0 6.9 Finance, insurance, real estate and rental and Leasing 8 0.25 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.9 6.4 7.7 9.0 10.3 11.6 13.0 Professional, scientific and technical services 8 0.25 5.0 8.8 14.6 20.5 27.0 32.8 38.6 44.6 50.7 56.9 Administrative and support, waste management and 8 0.25 1.7 3.0 4.9 7.0 9.2 11.1 13.1 15.1 17.2 19.3

23 remediation services Educational services 18.2 0.2 2.3 4.3 14.8 28.7 40.5 50.7 61.0 71.6 82.4 93.5 Health care and social assistance 18.2 0.2 5.0 9.3 31.6 61.4 86.9 108.5 130.7 153.4 176.5 200.2 Arts, entertainment and recreation 18.2 0.2 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.2 11.5 14.6 17.7 20.9 24.2 27.5 Accommodation and food services 18.2 0.2 0.0 15.5 31.4 48.0 60.2 76.2 92.5 109.3 126.4 144.0 Other services (except public administration) 18.2 0.2 0.0 8.0 16.2 24.8 31.1 39.4 47.8 56.5 65.3 74.4 Government sector 19.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total HA 15.6 52.5 124.1 240.4 362.4 504.8 649.8 803.4 966.9 1140.3 Total Acres 38.5 129.8 306.8 593.9 895.5 1247.4 1605.8 1985.2 2389.4 2817.7

In summary, incremental (over 2015) industrial and commercial land demand in the Calgary CMA (including Rocky View County) is expected to vary between 1,883.2 and 2,817.7 additional acres until 2025. This is based on the CBOC forecast to 2020, two different trend lines to 2025, and land use per employee based on an Alberta CMA of equivalent size.

EMPLOYMENT BASE VIABILITY The Conrich ASP is seeking to develop 5,160 acres (2,088ha) of industrial land (not including an additional 1,419 acres of commercial lands).

Employment density per acre figures from a 2014 study on industrial land in Parkland County (an adjacent county to Edmonton, an Alberta CMA of equivalent size) where used to estimate future employment demand. Parkland County Employment Density on Recently At an average density of 7 jobs per acre, the Developed Industrial Lands Conrich ASP can be expected to require Construction 6 46,053 employees. (5,160 plus 1,419 acres Distributor / Wholesale Trade 6 time 7 jobs per acre.) Manufacturing 8 Primary - Energy sector 3 Population estimates for Conrich vary Transportation 6 widely. As noted above, at the time of Plan Other Services 4 writing there were 442 homes within the County - wide 7 ASP area with approximately 50 percent Source: MDB, Parkland County, Employment and Industrial Land located in the vicinity of Conrich. Currently, Strategy, November 19, 2014. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. the population in, or near, the original Hamlet is 687. With the addition of other smaller the overall population in the Conrich Plan area was estimated to be 1,358. However, Rocky View County Census identifies a 2013 population of 26.

24

Unfortunately, detailed Statistics Canada does not collect Census data for Conrich and it is included in Rocky View County Data. However, 46,000 employees is clearly beyond the Hamlet’s capacity to generate.

In order to expand the potential available regional labour market, a long term population forecast was undertaken for SOURCE: "COUNTY CENSUS IDENTIFIES DIVISIONAL POPULATION Rocky View County. While trend analysis CHANGES". ROCKY VIEW COUNTY. SEPTEMBER 23, 2013 provides a basis for future population counts based on previous patterns, trend analysis does not typically provide the detail necessary to estimate population by age group and, therefore, population of working age.

A customised population forecast model was built for Rocky View County. The population model is a simple cohort survival model using birth and death rates and migration data from Statistics Canada. In its basic form, a cohort-survival model estimates future population based on the previous period’s population plus natural increase (births less deaths) and net migration:

Population [t+1] = Population[t] + Natural Increase + Net Migration

This is calculated for men and women for each age-group. The time interval is determined by the age cohorts. The smallest time interval for which an estimate can be made is the length of time it takes all the members of an age cohort (e.g., age 10 - 14) to pass on to the next age grouping (e.g., the 15 - 19 year-old group). All of the cohorts must be the same dimension (e.g., 5-year increments, 7-year increments), since over the course of the analysis each group must pass from one cohort to the next. All estimates must use time-intervals which are multiples of the cohort size.

Natural increase is the difference between the number of children born and the number of people who die during one time interval. The analysis, however, is being done in terms of age-cohorts for each sex. Children can only be born into the first cohort but people die in all of the cohorts (including the birth cohort). Further, the number of males has no direct effect on the number of children born. Children are born only to women of childbearing age based on historical births per female population by age group. Deaths by age group are also based on historical deaths per age group population.

Migration, both in and out, includes international, inter-provincial, and intra-provincial.

Based on provincial average birth and death rates, provincial average propensity to in and out migrate by age group, and a population based proportion of Census Division 6 migration across

25 the last 5 year average rates of international, inter-provincial, and intra-provincial migration, a population forecast was derived for Rocky View County for 2016 to 2025 and beyond.

Rocky View County Population Forecast 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 0-4 1,894 1,764 2,459 3,148 3,478 3,524 3,564 5-9 2,463 2,068 1,938 2,631 3,319 3,648 3,708 10-14 3,022 2,583 2,188 2,058 2,750 3,438 3,579 15-19 3,157 3,212 2,774 2,380 2,250 2,941 3,135 20-24 2,244 3,922 3,976 3,540 3,147 3,018 3,181 25-29 1,273 3,196 4,868 4,922 4,487 4,095 4,045 30-34 1,461 1,898 3,814 5,481 5,535 5,102 5,089 35-39 2,009 1,859 2,294 4,204 5,865 5,919 5,882 40-44 2,860 2,311 2,162 2,595 4,494 6,146 6,221 45-49 3,570 3,036 2,492 2,344 2,772 4,654 5,088 50-54 4,060 3,607 3,080 2,544 2,397 2,820 3,183 55-59 3,397 4,022 3,577 3,060 2,534 2,389 2,475 60-64 2,547 3,317 3,925 3,493 2,990 2,478 2,498 65-69 1,654 2,428 3,167 3,752 3,338 2,856 2,834 70-74 1,012 1,534 2,256 2,946 3,493 3,108 3,000 75-79 699 884 1,342 1,982 2,595 3,083 3,087 80-84 444 558 707 1,073 1,590 2,086 2,178 85-89 258 308 386 490 741 1,100 1,205 90+ 29 137 203 266 342 494 604 Total 38,055 42,643 47,608 52,907 58,117 62,897 64,556 Source: Alberta Municipal Affairs, SJ Research Services

Application of the latest participation rates and unemployment rates available for Rocky View County from the 2011 Statistics Canada National Household Survey, yields the following estimate of the available labour force in the County.

Rocky View County Available Labor Force at 3.7% Unemployment 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Population 15 and over 30,676 36,228 41,024 45,071 48,570 52,288 53,706 Participation Rate1 2011 73.4 Labour Force2 22,516 26,591 30,112 33,082 35,650 38,379 39,420 Unemployment Rate3 2011 3.7 Available Labour Force 833 984 1,114 1,224 1,319 1,420 1,459 1 Participation rate: Total labour force expressed as a percentage of the population aged 15 years and over. The participation rate for a particular group (for example, women aged 25 years and over) is the labour force in that group expressed as a percentage of the population for that group. 2 Labour force: Civilian non-institutional population 15 years of age and over who, during the survey reference week, were employed or unemployed. 3 Unemployment rate: Number of unemployed persons expressed as a percentage of the labour force. The unemployment rate for a particular group (for example, age, sex, marital status) is the number of unemployed in that group expressed as a percentage of the labour force for that group

26 Noting that the 3.7% unemployment rate for 2011 is unlikely to apply in 2016 and until resource prices recover, a higher unemployment rate was applied. Using the 2015 Calgary CMA unemployment rate of 6.4% yielded the following:

Rocky View County Available Labor Force at 6.4% Unemployment 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Population 15 and over 30,676 36,228 41,024 45,071 48,570 52,288 53,706 Participation Rate 2011 73.4 Labour Force 22,516 26,591 30,112 33,082 35,650 38,379 39,420 CMA Unemployment Rate 2015 6.4 Available Labour Force 1,441 1,702 1,927 2,117 2,282 2,456 2,523

It is clear from the analysis above that the labour supply in Rocky View County will not meet expected labour demand stemming from the Conrich ASP. At 46,000 positions, labour demand exceeds the entire labour force (working and seeking work) for the County and matches County population aged 15 and over until past 2035.

A similar exercise was undertaken for the entire Calgary CMA using the same previous 5 year historical migration patterns:

Calgary CMA Population Forecast 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 0-4 91,493 99,678 105,181 110,375 115,604 119,112 119,152 5-9 87,356 97,426 105,586 111,078 116,259 121,476 122,868 10-14 76,807 91,466 101,530 109,686 115,175 120,353 121,366 15-19 79,817 83,415 98,047 108,088 116,234 121,713 122,528 20-24 95,544 106,257 109,843 124,429 134,438 142,562 143,750 25-29 121,242 128,271 138,943 142,517 157,055 167,029 167,308 30-34 135,431 142,522 149,522 160,158 163,722 178,215 181,561 35-39 121,363 148,854 155,922 162,892 173,486 177,038 180,214 40-44 111,491 131,489 158,825 165,864 172,793 183,318 184,915 45-49 101,466 117,425 137,231 164,304 171,291 178,152 182,791 50-54 101,500 103,022 118,766 138,293 164,982 171,885 171,418 55-59 93,901 100,881 102,363 117,813 136,958 163,121 162,401 60-64 72,265 91,770 98,561 99,987 115,019 133,613 140,052 65-69 53,522 68,856 87,563 94,080 95,423 109,845 114,906 70-74 34,293 49,690 63,958 81,415 87,503 88,716 89,429 75-79 24,435 30,046 43,637 56,212 71,679 77,084 78,192 80-84 18,682 19,697 24,196 35,097 45,161 57,657 57,770 85-89 12,261 13,100 13,806 16,905 24,417 31,335 32,961 90+ 6,887 8,887 10,038 10,829 12,646 17,035 18,609 Total 1,439,756 1,632,749 1,823,518 2,010,022 2,189,845 2,359,260 2,392,189

Application of the latest (2015) participation rates and unemployment rates yields the following estimate of the available labour force in the CMA.

27 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Population 15 and over 1,184,100 1,344,179 1,511,221 1,678,883 1,842,807 1,998,318 2,028,803 Participation Rate 2015 73.8 Labour Force 873,866 992,004 1,115,281 1,239,016 1,359,991 1,474,759 1,497,257 Unemployment Rate 2015 6.4 Available Labour Force 55,927 63,488 71,378 79,297 87,039 94,385 95,824

Assuming a return to 2013 oil prices and labour force characteristics and using the above CMA population forecast, the available labour force is as follows:

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Population 15 and over 1,184,100 1,344,179 1,511,221 1,678,883 1,842,807 1,998,318 2,028,803 Participation Rate 2013 74.1 Labour Force 877,418 996,037 1,119,815 1,244,052 1,365,520 1,480,754 1,503,343 Unemployment Rate 2013 4.8 Available Labour Force 42,116 47,810 53,751 59,715 65,545 71,076 72,160

The Conference Board of Canada also conducts its own population forecast as part of the Metropolitan Outlook series of publications and forecasts Calgary CMA population to be 1.465 million in 2020, based on lower in-migration stemming from lower employment demand, notably in the energy sector. This can serve as a “worst case” population outlook. Application of this trend to 2045 and using the same proportion of age 15+ to total, as well as 2015 participation and unemployment rates, yields the following estimate of future available CMA labour force.

CBOC Actual and Trend Forecast 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Population 1,441,000 1,465,000 1,489,400 1,514,206 1,539,425 1,565,064 1,591,131 Assumed Population 15+ 1,185,123 1,206,078 1,234,324 1,264,750 1,295,463 1,325,626 1,349,430 Participation Rate 2015 73.8 Labour Force 874,621 890,086 910,931 933,385 956,052 978,312 995,879 Unemployment Rate 2015 6.4 Available Labour Force 55,976 56,965 58,300 59,737 61,187 62,612 63,736

Using 2013 labour force characteristics and the CBOC CMA population forecast, the available labour force is as follows:

CBOC Actual and Trend Forecast 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Population 1,441,000 1,465,000 1,489,400 1,514,206 1,539,425 1,565,064 1,591,131 Assumed Population 15+ 1,185,123 1,206,078 1,234,324 1,264,750 1,295,463 1,325,626 1,349,430 Participation Rate 2013 74.1 Labour Force 878,176 893,704 914,634 937,180 959,938 982,289 999,927 Unemployment Rate 2013 4.8 Available Labour Force 42,152 42,898 43,902 44,985 46,077 47,150 47,997

Clear from both forecasts and both labour force scenarios is that the labour demand for the Conrich ASP varies between a high of 109% a low of 48% of the entire Calgary CMA available

28 Labour Force between 2015 and 2045. In order to be staffed at capacity levels, undue upward wage pressures would be the result. These can be expected to be felt by all employers in the Calgary CMA and any saving in land costs as a result of a surplus in industrial/commercial land would likely be offset by corresponding upward wage pressures.

Summary of Available Labour Force vs. Conrich ASP Labour Demand 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Available Labour Force Customized Population Projection and 2015 CMA Labour Force Characteristics 55,927 63,488 71,378 79,297 87,039 94,385 95,824 Conrich ASP Labour Demand 46,053 46,053 46,053 46,053 46,053 46,053 46,053 Labour Demand As % of Available Labour 82% 73% 65% 58% 53% 49% 48% Available Labour Force Customized Population Projection and 2013 CMA Labour Force Characteristics 42,116 47,810 53,751 59,715 65,545 71,076 72,160 Conrich ASP Labour Demand 46,053 46,053 46,053 46,053 46,053 46,053 46,053 Labour Demand As % of Available Labour 109% 96% 86% 77% 70% 65% 64% Available Labour Force CBOC Population Projection and 2015 CMA Labour Force Characteristics 55,976 56,965 58,300 59,737 61,187 62,612 63,736 Conrich ASP Labour Demand 46,053 46,053 46,053 46,053 46,053 46,053 46,053 Labour Demand As % of Available Labour 82% 81% 79% 77% 75% 74% 72% Available Labour Force CBOC Population Projection and 2013 CMA Labour Force Characteristics 42,152 42,898 43,902 44,985 46,077 47,150 47,997 Conrich ASP Labour Demand 46,053 46,053 46,053 46,053 46,053 46,053 46,053 Labour Demand As % of Available Labour 109% 107% 105% 102% 100% 98% 96%

29 MULTIPLIER ANALYSIS Multipliers measure the response of the economy to a change in demand or production. Multiplier analysis focuses on the effects of outside or exogenous changes on: a) output of the sectors in the economy, b) income earned by households because of the new outputs, and c) employment (usually measure in jobs) that is expected to be generated because of the new outputs.

The concept of multipliers rests upon the difference between the initial effect of an exogenous change in demand and the total effects of a change. Direct effects measure the response for a given industry given a change in demand for that same industry. Indirect effects represent the response by all local industries from a change in final demand for a specific industry. Induced effects represent the response by all local industries caused by changes in expenditures of new household income from the direct and indirect effects of the change in demand. Total effects is the sum of direct, indirect, and induced effects.

There is a significant body of literature that points to larger multipliers in larger communities. For example, “The success of economic development initiatives in achieving a significant and sustained improvement for a target area is strongly influenced by the size of the local multiplier. New economic activity is generally site specific and the proportion of spending and re-spending that generates local multiplier effect will vary with the hierarchical level of community in which the activity is located.” “The resulting multipliers are found to vary with functional level, with the smallest communities having the smallest multipliers.” (Olfert and Stabler, 1994).

“Results indicate that the induced impact of autonomous expenditure increases anywhere in the system will be the greatest at the top of the hierarchy, that autonomous increases at higher levels have a larger local impact than they do at lower levels, and that equal expenditure increases across the hierarchy will have a disproportionate impact at the top of the hierarchy, as well, due to a combination of higher own-community multipliers and spending up the hierarchy by residents of lower level centers.” (Olfert and Stabler, 1999).

Furthermore, “Secondly, because small regions generally have high leakages, their multiplier(s) will usually be smaller than those of a larger more self-sufficient region. For example, a multiplier for a state will generally be larger than the multiplier for any region within a state.” (Godfrey and Beutler, 1993).

In short, multipliers are larger at successively higher levels in the trade centre system (or community size) because leakages in the form of imports diminish with community size.

Viewed alternatively as an economic base model (Biles, 2003), the size of the community becomes larger, so too does the economic base multiplier). In a larger community it is therefore more likely of their existing the necessary demand for a project of this size. Additionally, less goods and services would need to be imported in a larger centre and the expenses required for the project would therefore contribute further to the local economy.

30 In summary, from a provincial economic development perspective, a major industrial/commercial land project such as the Conrich ASP would have a larger economic impact if located in a larger and economically more self-sufficient community. With a larger multiplier in a more highly integrated economy, such as a major city, the additional regional economic activity (indirect and induced) generated will larger than that generated in a smaller centre, more heavily reliant on imported inputs and subject to higher degrees of out-shopping.

FORECAST IMPACT ON CHESTERMERE’S LONG TERM REVENUES The development of a large commercial / industrial complex in close proximity to Chestermere will impact upon the City’s ability to diversify its tax base. Today Chestermere relies predominantly upon residential taxation to fund municipal services. As noted previously, it has recognized this dependence, and is seeking to mitigate this risk through the creation of commercial and industrial parks. The adjacency of a potentially large commercial/industrial development, as proposed, will create a competing growth pole. This is expected to impact upon growth and revenue projections for Chestermere.

If one assumes that the Conrich industrial and commercial lands are developed along roughly the same timelines as the Chestermere development, the regional land base available for commercial and industrial growth increases from 1,680 acres (1,170 industrial, 510 commercial) in Chestermere to 6330 acres overall (including Conrich’s 5,160 and 1,419 acres of industrial and commercial land).

Conrich ASP Projected Impact Chestermere Industrial / Commercial Development Forecast Industrial Industrial Commercial Industrial Commercial Land Commercial Developed Developed Developed Developed (acres) Land (acres) 2026 (acres) 2026 (acres) 2038 (acres) 2038 (acres) Chestermere 1,170 180 341 97 708 168 Conrich 5,160 1,419 1,503 765 3,122 1,236 Total Regional Supply 6,330 1,599 1,844 862 3,830 1,404 % Chestermere 18% 11% 18% 11% 18% 12%

As shown above, the City of Chestermere expects to develop a total of 1,170 industrial and 180 acres of commercial lands. This will be accomplished over the next several decades, with upwards of 341/97 industrial/commercial acres developed by 2026, and 708/168 industrial/commercial acres developed by 2038. If the Conrich development was to follow similar growth patterns, 3,830/1,404 industrial/commercial acres would be developed by 2038.

If the Chestermere plan evolved in isolation, it would be expected to deliver to the City the tax base by 2026 and 2038, respectively, the amounts identified in columns 2 & 3, below. A total tax base generated by the new developments is projected to exceed $30M by 2026 and $53M by

31 2038. The impact of the Conrich ASP proposed development is then provided, along with a comparative where Chestermere does relatively well compared to its land base and is able to capture 50% of the growth, rather than the relative amount projected.

Chestermere Projected Tax Revenue If only the Proportional uptake 100% Uptake (above) is Achieved* If 50% Uptake Achieved 2026 2038 2026 2038 2026 2038 Commercial $2,018,000 $3,489,000 $228,000 $418,000 $1,009,000 $1,745,000 Industrial $5,390,000 $11,198,000 $997,000 $2,071,000 $2,695,000 $5,599,000 Residential $23,048,000 $38,695,000 $23,048,000 $38,695,000 $23,048,000 $38,695,000 Total $30,456,000 $53,382,000 $24,273,000 $41,184,000 $26,752,000 $46,039,000 Shortfall -$6,183,000 -$12,198,000 -$3,704,000 -$7,343,000 Residential increase needed to maintain tax base 25% 30% 14% 16% * - As described on previous table, if 18% and 11% industrial and commercial lands are developed rather than the full 100% that is planned.

If Chestermere was able to fill its industrial and commercial developments in line with projections, it is expected that these areas would generate $2.0M and $5.4M, respectively in 2026. When combined with the projected residential tax base linked to new developments, a total budget of over $30M would be attained. Projected taxes received by 2038 exceed $53M.

In comparison, if the Conrich ASP proposal was developed and filled in parallel to that planned for Chestermere, significant amounts of industrial and commercial development would be expected to migrate to those lands. This would result in a projected tax shortfall of -$6.2M by 2026 and - $12.2M by 2038. Given Chestermere’s then forced reliance upon residential taxes to maintain services, the shortfall would be passed to this tax base, necessitating a 25% increase in tax rate to maintain revenues.

For comparative purposes, if Chestermere was able to be disproportionately successful in comparison to the Conrich ASP development, and achieve a 50% uptake rate, rather than the comparative rate, above, it would still project a funding deficit of -$3.7M and -$7.3M in 2026 and 2038. Thus requiring a 14% and 16% increase in residential taxes to maintain its revenue base.

The offsetting tax load will impact Chestermere in a number of ways. There would be a longer carrying period, and carrying cost, associated with the extended time needed to fill the industrial and commercial areas. And, the relative increase in the tax load on residential customers may well price Chestermere properties out of the market relative to other residential areas in the Census Metropolitan Area.

32 REFERENCES

Brown & Associates, 2014; Conrich Station Conceptual Scheme

City of Chestermere, 2016; Municipal Development Plan, By-law 015-15

City of Edmonton – Economic Insights – Demand Forecast of Industrial Lands 2012-202

Community Level Multipliers for Rural Development Initiatives, Olfert, M. Rose and Jack C. Stabler. 1994. GROWTH AND CHANGE, 25: 467-486.

Conference Board of Canada: Metropolitan Outlook 1 – Winter 2016

County Census Identifies Divisional Population Changes. Rocky View County. September 23, 2013.

Economic Multipliers: A Comment E. Bruce Godfrey and Martin K. Beutler RANGELANDS 15(3), June 1993

McSweeny & Associates, 2015; Chestermere Industrial Park Location & Market Analysis

Multipliers in a Central Place Hierarchy. M. Rose Olfert and Jack C. Stabler. Growth and Change Volume 30, Issue 2, pages 288–302, Spring 1999

Rocky View County, 2015; Conrich Area Structure Plan, By-law C-7468-2015

Rocky View County, 1997; Rocky View County Land Use By-Law Office Consolidation

Using Spatial Econometric Techniques to Estimate Spatial Multipliers: An Assessment of Regional Economic Policy in Yucatán, Mexico. James J. Biles. The Review of Regional Studies, Vol. 33, Num. 2, pp. 121 - 141. 2003.

Regression Estimates of Economic Base Multipliers for Small Communities Gordon F. Mulligan; Lay James Gibson Economic Geography, Vol. 60, No. 3. (Jul., 1984), pp. 225-237.

33 APPENDIX 1 – ROCKY VIEW COUNTY LAND USE

34 APPENDIX 2 – CHESTERMERE LAND USE

35 Appendix – PROFESSIONAL RESUMES Stephen Johnson, MA [email protected] – 306-539-4320 Education: B.Comm. University of Saskatchewan M.A . University of Saskatchewan

Economic Assessment Specialist

Summary: Stephen Johnson holds a Bachelor of Commerce and a Masters of Economics from the University of Saskatchewan and has had over 15 years of experience with development and use of economic impact models for the Federal and Provincial Governments and for private sector clients. He has been the principle of SJ Research Services Inc. for the past 14 years. Stephen has developed provincial and territorial models for five provinces, two territories and several sub- provincial economic impact models. He has successfully completed over 100 economic impact and demographic projection projects including environmental impact assessments for fourteen oil sand developments, six potash mines, two nuclear reactors, and three arctic mines. His work experience includes the provincial and national statistics agencies, economic development, housing, health, and gaming.

Work Experience: Date Title and Role 2002 to Senior Economist, Praxis Consulting/McNair Business Development/SJ Present Research Services

Provide specialized consulting services to government, business, and non- profit organizations. Conduct economic impact studies and construct user- friendly economic impact models. 2005 to 2013 Research Manager, Saskatchewan Gaming Corporation

Planning and directing all internal and external research for the corporation, including managing a $300k annual research budget. Presentation of research results to senior management. Mining of casino data to profile characteristics, betting, and spending habits of current patrons. Development and maintenance of predictive model to forecast casino revenues and door count. Calculating return on investment for marketing promotions and events. Supervise a staff of three research analysts.

2002 to 2005 Policy Analyst, Saskatchewan Health Developed a Primary Care funding model based on demographic, health

1

36 and socio-economic status variations in Saskatchewan’s population. Prepared policy and program recommendations, briefing notes and discussion papers. Provided training in research and statistical analysis techniques. Managed an annual $70 million medical remuneration budget. 2001 to 2002 Director of Strategic Development, Regina Regional Economic Development Authority

Managed a project to develop an industry driven regional economic development strategy including a $200k annual budget. Directed a project team of four, including two industry facilitators. Prepared statistics and reports for investment attraction purposes. 1999 to 2001 Market Analyst, Saskatchewan Housing Corporation

Developed population, demographic and provincial housing start forecasting models. Formulated program and policy recommendations based on economic and market factors. Developed and maintained a system of automated technical data on housing markets. 1998 to 1999 Economist Statistician, Statistics Canada

Developed inter-provincial trade flows for provincial input-output tables. Evaluated data sources for timeliness, consistency, reliability and comprehensiveness. Implemented data development methodologies when gaps or inconsistencies were revealed. Reviewed current and historical economic events to ensure they were reflected by the data. 1992 to 1998 Economic Policy Analyst, Saskatchewan Economic Development

Prepared and presented cabinet decision items and briefings on the provincial economy. Designed inter-industry models of the provincial economy and sub-provincial regions. Conducted economic impact assessments of industrial projects, events, and policy initiatives. Performed labour demand and employment forecasting. Managed a variety of economic information for external and internal users. 1990 to 1992 Economist, Saskatchewan Bureau of Statistics

Maintained and developed the portions of the Saskatchewan Economic Accounts, a computer model that records and calculates the value of goods and services produced in the province. Maintained the provincial input- output model, refined the conceptual and theoretical framework and

2

37 incorporated new methodology and data changes. Represented the province at federal-provincial conferences. Provided economic impact studies to internal clients for major developments and events.

Project Experience:

 Economic Impact of Euromax Resources Ilovica Mine, Macedonia. Prepared for Golder Associates. In Progress.  Economic Impact of Saskatchewan’s Creative Industry. Prepared Creative Saskatchewan/Praxis Consulting. In Progress.  Economic Impact Assessment - Gateway Keewatin Corridor. Prepared for Gateway Keewatin Corridor Inter-Provincial Group/Praxis Consulting. In Progress.  Mining Supply Chain – Economic Impact. Prepared for The Saskatchewan Industrial and Mining Suppliers Association/Saskatchewan Ministry of The Economy. In Progress.  Rural Residential Land Supply & Demand Assessment. Prepared for Brandon & Area Planning District, Manitoba. In Progress  Sakimay First Nations Market Study (Phase I). Prepared for Sakimay First Nations/Praxis Consulting. In Progress  Economic Development Strategy for Mountain View County, Alberta. Prepared for Mountain View County/EcDev Solutions. In Progress  Day Supply Analysis. Prepared for the Pharmacy Association of Saskatchewan. In Progress.  Employment and Economic impact of Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd. Whale Tail Satellite Pit Project. Prepared for Golder Associates Calgary. In Progress  Economic Impact of the 2015 Saskatchewan Jazz Festival. Prepared for Saskatchewan Jazz Festival/Fast Consulting. In Progress.  Economic Impact of the Outfitters Industry on the Saskatchewan Economy. Prepared for the Saskatchewan Commission of Professional Outfitters. In Progress.  Paper Excellence Current and Future Operations Benefits Foot Print Study. Prepared for Paper Excellence Canada. February 2016.  Market Analysis and Development Forecast for the Industrial Area in the City of Brandon, Manitoba. Prepared for the City of Brandon. February 2016  Economic Impact of the University of Regina. Prepared for University of Regina/Praxis Consulting/Regina Regional Opportunities Commission. January 2016.  Economic Impact of the Masonry Industry on the Provincial Economy. Prepared for the Saskatchewan Masonry Institute/McNair Business Development. September 2015.  Saskatoon International Airport Arrivals – Economic Impact Study. Prepared for the Saskatoon Airport Authority. September 2015.  Regional Demographic Impacts – PTTEP Thornbury Oil sands Project. Prepared For Matrix Solutions. May 2015.  Economic and Demographic Impact of the YanCoal Longlaketon Project on the Local and Provincial economies. Prepared for Golder Associates. January 2015.  Economic Impact of the TCPL Dawson Creek Project on the Local and Provincial Economies- Prepared for Golder Associates. January 2015.  Economic Impact of the 2014 North American Indigenous Games-Prepared for NAIG 2014-December 2014.

3

38  Economic Impact of the Carlton Trail Regional College on the Local and Provincial Economies Prepared for Carlton Trail Regional College. December 2014  Economic Impact of the Cumberland Regional College on the Local and Provincial Economies- Prepared for Cumberland Regional College. December 2014  Economic Impact of the Great Plains Regional College on the Local and Provincial Economies-Prepared for Great Plains Regional College. December 2014  Economic Impact of the Northwest Regional College on the Local and Provincial Economies- Prepared for Northwest Regional College. December 2014  Economic Impact of the Northlands Regional College on the Local and Provincial Economies-Prepared for Northlands Regional College. December 2014  Economic Impact of the Parkland Regional College on the Local and Provincial Economies-Prepared for Parkland Regional College. December 2014  Economic Impact of the Southeast Regional College on the Local and Provincial Economies- Prepared for Southeast Regional College. December 2014  Economic Impact Assessment - SAASE Supported Fairs and Events -Prepared for Saskatchewan Association of Agricultural Societies and Exhibitions/McNair Business Development -October 2014  Regina Census Metropolitan Area Sector Study Prepared for Regina Regional Opportunities Commission October 2014  Labour Market Analysis for the AREVA Kiggavik Uranium Project- Prepared For Golder Associates - September 2014  Vale Kronau Operation – Benefits Footprint Study- Prepared for Vale Canada – July 2014  Multi-Community Tourism Economic Impact Models Prepared for Tourism Saskatchewan. March 2014  Analysis of Mining Employment Opportunities in Nunavut Territories as a Mitigation Measure for the Temporary/Final Closure of the Agnico-Eagle Mines Meliadine Gold Project –Prepared for Golder Associates – April 2014  Regional Demographic Impacts – Koch Dunkirk In-Situ Project – Prepared For Matrix Solutions. April 2014.  Economic Impact – Kelsey Campus - Prepared for SIAST/McNair Business Development- April 2014  Economic Impact Assessment – Destination Marketing Fund and Regina Convention Team Prepared for Regina Hotel Association/McNair Business Development-November 2013  Economic Impact Assessment – College Operations and Student/Graduate Spending Prepared for Great Plains College/ McNair Business Development November 2013  Saskatchewan Heavy Construction Industry Economic Impact Assessment Prepared for Saskatchewan Heavy Construction Association/McNair Business Development November 2013  Bakken Formation Economic Impact Assessment Prepared for Southeast Regional College/McNair Business Development November 2013  Regional Demographic Impacts ConocoPhillips Oil Sands Project Prepared for Matrix Solutions November 2013  SREDA Regional Housing Study. Prepared for Saskatoon Regional Economic Development Authority/McNair Business Development November 2013  Housing Supply & Demand Gap Analysis & Operational Employee Housing Strategy. Prepared for BHP Billiton/McNair Business Development June 2013

4

39  Agnico-Eagle Mines Meliadine Gold Project DEIS Information Request Prepared for Golder Associates. June 2013  Economic Impact of the Cenovus Phase H Project on the Local and Provincial Economies Prepared for Golder Associates. May 2013  Regional Demographic Impacts – Athabasca Oil Corporation Hangingstone SAGD Oil Sands Project. Prepared For Matrix Solutions. May 2013  Ten-Year Saskatchewan Infrastructure Forecast Prepared for SaskBuilds/McNair Business Development April 2013  Foreign Direct Investment: Tracking System & Economic Impact Reporting Prepared for Ministry of the Economy/ McNair Business Development March 2013  Regional Demographic Impacts – Osum Sepiko Kesik In-Situ Oil Sands Project. Prepared For Matrix Solutions December 2012  Economic Impact of the Regina Revitalization Initiative on the Local and Provincial Economies. Prepared for the City of Regina December 2012  Film Sector Analysis. Prepared for the Saskatchewan Parks, Culture, and Sport. October 2012  Economic Impact of the 2012 Canadian Western Agribition on the Provincial and Local Economies Prepared For Canadian Western Agribition December 2012  Economic Impact of a Second Prince Albert Bridge Construction and Operation on the Local and Provincial Economies Prepared for McNair Business Development Inc. October 2012  Economic Impact of the Agnico-Eagle Mines Meliadine Gold Project on the Nunavut Territories Prepared For Golder Associates October 2012.  Economic Impact of the Western Potash Milestone Project the Local and Provincial Economies Prepared for Golder Associates September 2012.  Economic Impact of the Vale Potash Kronau Project the Local and Provincial Economies. Prepared for Golder Associates September 2012  Regional Demographic Impacts – MEG Surmont Oil Sands Project. Prepared for Matrix Solutions June 2012  Regina Hotel Association Destination Marketing Fund -Conferences and Conventions - Economic Impact Assessment Prepared for the Regina Convention Team April 2012  Downtown Housing / Office Complex– Construction Economic Impact Assessment Prepared for Bruce Anderson Consulting March 2012  Saskatchewan Film Employment Tax Credit Analysis Prepared for Saskatchewan Tourism, Parks, Culture and Sport. March 2012  Regina Hotel Association Destination Marketing Fund Economic Impact Assessment Prepared for Regina Hotel Association December 2011  Regional Demographic Impacts - Canadian Natural Resources Limited Grouse In Situ Oil Sands Project Prepared for Matrix Solutions Inc. December 2011  Economic Impact of the Kirby Expansion Project on the Local and Provincial Economies Prepared for Golder Associates October 2011  Economic Impact of the Cenovus Pelican Lake Grand Rapids Project on the Local and Provincial Economies Prepared for Golder Associates October 2011  Economic Impact of Evraz Place on the Local and Provincial Economies Prepared for Evraz Place August 2011  Regional Demographic Impacts - Dover Commercial Project Indirect and Induced Employment Prepared for Golder Associates July 2011

5

40  Economic Impact of the NICO Cobalt-Gold-Bismuth Project on the Northwest Territories Prepared for Golder Associates February 2011  Readership Trends and Demographics. Prepared for Regina Leader Post July, 2010.  Regina North Central High School – Economic Impact Assessment – Saskatchewan and Canada. Prepared for Centre for Management Development – University of Regina July 2010  2010 SaskTel Saskatchewan Jazz Festival– Economic Impact Assessment. Prepared for Fast Consulting September 2010  Economic Impact of the Dover Commercial Oil Sands Project on the Alberta and Local Economies. Prepared for Golder Associates. November 2010  Saskatoon International Airport Arrivals – Economic Impact Assessment. Prepared for the Saskatoon Airport Authority. July 2010  2013 Juno Awards in Regina – Economic Impact Assessment. Prepared for Regina Regional Opportunities Commission June 2010  Economic Impact of the Cenovus Narrows Lake Oil Sands Project on the Alberta and Local Economies Prepared for Golder Associates May 2010  Economic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Dome Stadium on the Regina and Saskatchewan Economies. Prepared for Blue Roo Inc. February 2010  Priority Mining Infrastructure Needs and Industry Economic Impact Study Prepared for the Saskatchewan Mining Association. December 2009  Economic Impact of the Agrium Triton Potash Mine on the Local and Provincial Economies Prepared for Golder Associates August 2009  Economic Impact of the Potash One Legacy Potash Mine on the Local and Provincial Economies Prepared for Golder Associates September 2009  Economic Impact of the Iogen Cellulosic Ethanol Facility on the Prince Albert and Provincial Economies. Prepared for Golder Associates. September 2009  Economic Impact of the Burr Potash Project on the Provincial and Local Economies. Prepared for SNC-Lavalin Environment Inc. May 2009  Economic Impact of the RCMP Training Academy on the Regina and Provincial Economies Prepared for RCMP Depot Division January 2009  Saskatchewan Film and Video Multiplier Analysis Prepared for SaskFilm December 2008  Economic Impact of PotashCorp Capacity Expansion on the Provincial and Local Economies Prepared for PotashCorp. September 2008  Preliminary Economic and Financial Impact Analysis of a Potential Nuclear Power Generation Facility in the Saskatchewan Prince Albert Economic Region. Prepared for Golder Associates/Bruce Power. August 2008  Preliminary Economic and Financial Impact Analysis of a Proposed Nuclear Power Generation Facility in the Peace Country of Northern Alberta. Prepared for Golder Associates/Bruce Power Alberta July 2008  MEG Energy Corp- Christina Lake Regional Project – Phase 3 Socio-Economic Impact Assessment. Prepared for Golder Associates February 2008  Impact Analysis of the RCMP Heritage Centre. Prepared for the RCMP Heritage Centre July 2008  Economic Impact of Ipsco Place Phase 1 Revitalization on the Regina and Provincial Economies Prepared for Ipsco Place February 2008  Economic Impact of North Saskatchewan Water Management Options on the Provincial Economy Prepared for Golder Associates June 2007

6

41  Economic Impact of Ipsco Place on the Regina and Provincial Economies Prepared for Ipsco Place March 2007  Economic Impact of a Diamond Mine on the Provincial Economy. Prepared for Service Canada December 2006  Economic Impact of the Major Projects Inventory on the Census Division 18 Regional Economy. Prepared for Service Canada December 2006  Economic Impact of the 2005 Canadian Western Agribition on the Provincial and Local Economies Prepared for Canadian Western Agribition October 2006  Economic Impact of Moose Jaw Festivals and Events on the Provincial and Local Economies. Prepared for Tourism Moose Jaw September 2006  Economic Impact of First Nation’s Gaming Governance Scenarios on the Manitoba Economy. Prepared for Manitoba Gaming Control Commission and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs (sub-contracted) August 2006  Economic Impact of the Moose Jaw Communiplex on the Provincial & Local Economies. Prepared For the Moose Jaw Chamber of Commerce April 2006  Economic Impacts of Casinos Regina and Moose Jaw on the Local and Provincial Economies. Prepared For the Saskatchewan Gaming Corporation December 2005  Economic Impact of the Lieutenant Governor’s Celebration of the Arts on the Provincial Economy. Prepared for the 2005 Saskatchewan Centennial Committee April 2005  Economic Impact of the 2003 Grey Cup on the Provincial Economy. Prepared For the 2003 Grey Cup Committee August 2003  Economic Impact of an Ethanol Plant on the Provincial Economy Prepared for Saskatchewan Industry and Resources. May 2002  Economic Impact of a Saskatoon Film Project on the Provincial Economy Prepared for Saskatchewan Industry and Resources. May 2002  Economic Impact of a Newsprint/Sawmill Operation on the Provincial Economy Prepared for Saskatchewan Industry and Resources. April 2002

7

42 Robin Woodward, MA 2211 Cameron Street, Regina, Saskatchewan CANADA S4T 2V9 ● (306) 961-2879; 565-3201 [email protected]

Robin Woodward has held progressively more responsible positions in the public/private sector, including Chief Executive Officer. Initial employment with the Saskatchewan Government equipped him with critical policy and finance skills that underpins his career and helped create 4 unique companies.

15 years senior leadership, working with Boards of Directors and staff on strategic direction, corporate design & implementation. He is able to translate significant, diverse policy and special interests into concrete results. He recognizes the importance of productive relationships with government, the Board of Directors and key stakeholder groups.

Education MASTER'S DEGREE University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, USA THESIS The Changing Pattern of Land Use and Community Services in Kendall, FL, USA The thesis estimated the number of dwelling units, population, and the number of persons served by various public and private community services within the Kendall region of Metropolitan Miami. By correlating the change in population with the change in services in this growing region, and comparing these findings with established norms, a determination as to whether the policy objectives for managed growth in greater Miami was established. Self-developed geographic information systems and aerial photo interpretation provided the database for the analysis.

WORK EXPERIENCE RW Consulting; Sole Proprietor 2012 to date  Delivered a wide range of consulting services to a variety of clients.  Defined corporate growth opportunities through business plans, provided public policy assessment, and created client specific market evaluations.  Developed Solutions for Private Non-Profit, Urban Native and Coop Housing; Manitoba Housing.

CBE Management; Associate 2009 - 2012  Applied expertise to assess emerging new energy opportunities like cellulose ethanol and bio diesel, energy production from municipal waste, and carbon offset credit production and sale.  Developed a variety of business and funding models for initiatives like the privatization of the Indian Head Tree Nursery, wood pellet opportunities and IT broadband development in Rural Saskatchewan.

ForestFirst/Sask Forest Centre; Chief Executive Officer 2001 - 2009  Established company focussed on fostering new value-added areas within the provincial forest sector.

8

43  Identified the fundamentals to support agroforestry as a viable crop option for farmers; led carbon sequestration assessment process to identify CO2 volumes and potential revenue flows to landowners from plantation (afforestation) forest establishment.  Executive duties included creation of alternative uses (ethanol, bio-diesel, energy) for forest biomass, grew the value added industry tied to the forest, established science base for improved sustainable forest and fire management for SK.  Negotiated partnership agreements, established business units of 20+ staff and oversaw annual budgets.

SK Economic and Coop Development; Executive Manager, Forest Sector; Senior Analyst 1997 - 2001  Responsible for policy analysis of province-wide economic development initiatives.  In partnership with SK Environment delivered Saskatchewan’s forest industry development plan.  Developed Report on Recommendations to Improve the Competitive Position of SK’s Economy.  Developed job creation and economic components of Saskatchewan’s Poverty Reduction initiative.

SK Municipal Government, Sask Housing; Manager, Policy Research & Information Systems 1990 - 1996  Oversaw planning, production and delivery of policy and program activities, program cost analysis, research projects, and management support services for Municipal Government Housing Division.  Managed corporate computer information systems, and staff (consulting) base.

Newfoundland & Labrador Housing Corporation; Senior Policy Analyst 1994 - 1995  Seconded to NFLD to help formulate national policy initiatives and recommendations to establish new directions for Canada's housing industry/sector.  Reviewed NLHC’s social housing portfolio and developed a long term strategic plan.

Created Strategic Vision for Tourism for the Community of Big River; Big River, SK  With Les Cooke & Associates consulted, researched and wrote the tourism strategy for Big River.  Defined vision for long term tourism growth for the community.

Developed Solutions for Private Non-Profit, Urban Native and Coop Housing; Manitoba Housing  Defined corporate strategy to improve governance and operations of privately-managed social housing.  Developed strategy to support renewal of funding agreements that were expiring in the next five years.  Identified solutions and mentored implementation processes for project-specific re- developments.

9

44 Established ForestFirst, a technology transfer company focussed on the Province’s forest sector  Led strategic process to establish the Company, including corporate plan, consultation & securing funding.  CEO/executive duties included establishing & staffing business units, building HR and Administration.  Established Board governance and accountability processes.  The company was mandated to foster the expansion of forest based businesses, and contribute to the long term competitiveness of SK forest operations.

Completed Foreign Direct Investment Strategy for Northeast Saskatchewan, Community of Tisdale  Participated in the development of a pro-active approach to foreign direct investment attraction for Northeast Saskatchewan.  Product included: 1) creation of industry-sector profiles; 2) identification of key firms as investment attraction targets; 3) completion of significant economic database analysis; 4) creation of sector-specific fact sheets; and 5) delivery of a Foreign Direct Investment Strategy with marketing and action plans.

Completed Business Plan & Attracted Development Partner, Nipawin Assisted Living Residence  Developed business plan and financing model for “Warren Estates” Assisted Living Residence.  Created financial pro forma and preliminary facility design; vetted analytics.  Completed investment discussions with potential development partners.

Developed recommendations for Public Safety Licensing and Inspection; Province of Saskatchewan  With Les Cooke & Associates, consulted, researched and wrote the framework plan to migrate Provincial safety-related services to the new Technical Safety Authority of Saskatchewan.

Developed a ranking process and project ‘work-out’ plan for social housing projects, Manitoba Housing  Identified projects with greatest need of provincial guidance and support, then developed work out approaches specific to each program area (Non-Profit, Co-op, Urban Native) and/or project.  Developed ‘tool-kit’ of work-out options to address management challenges within the portfolio.  Prepared Executive Committee decision items.

Completed Technical Memoranda for Tree Farm Operations: AECOM/City of Regina  Waste water treatment plant review including tree farming as a disposal method.  Site identification; water resource requirements; base costing & infrastructure assessment.

Conducted Fleet Vehicle Cost Assessment, Manitoba Housing & Renewal Corporation

10

45  Developed independent policy for the management and use of MHRC’s vehicle fleet.  Costed alternative approaches to corporate, private and leased vehicle use for MHRC staff.  Developed submissions for MHRC Executive consideration.

Completed Business Plan & Proforma, Nipawin Student Housing, NE Regional College, Nipawin  With Strategy by Design, developed business plan and financial proforma for the construction and operation of a student housing project in Nipawin Saskatchewan.  Identified cost points for long term financial viability; located potential fund sources for development.

Completed Business Plan for the Wood Chip Enterprise Project: Agency Chiefs Tribal Council (ACTC)  Under contract to the Blaine Lake/Marcelin & District Community Access Project, assessed the market opportunities of producing/exporting wood pellets for ACTC.  Wood supply assessment, machinery identification and costing.

Completed Business Plan for Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation for Solutions for Wood Waste/Fuel Plan  Market opportunity assessment of producing/exporting wood pellets.  Financing assessment and materials handling identification.

Completed Proof of Concept, Rural Broadband Infrastructure for SW Sask; SW Enterprise Region  Developed participation models for large broadband providers (SaskTel, etc.) to expand broadband service delivery in SW Saskatchewan.  Identified funding approach and delivery framework for broadband delivery.

Completed Business Plan and Identified Financing; Nipawin Cellulose Ethanol  Led implementation strategy to produce ethanol from forest/farm fibres (cellulose vs. grains).

 Identified CO2 offset revenue potential from cellulose ethanol.  Coordinated detailed pro-forma, fibre security, and R&D oversight.  Vetted & identified financing partner for plant construction.

Completed Waste to Energy Feasibility Assessment for Belfast, UK: Partners Energy Group  Business plan and project coordination for a 20MW power facility.  Identified feedstock requirements, including wood waste, manure, and other refuse.

Completed Business Plan for the Purchase of the Indian Head Tree Nursery (PFRA Tree Farm)  On behalf of the Provincial Council of ADD Boards (PCAB), assessed taking control of the the Federal Prairie Shelterbelt Program (the Indian Head tree farm), with focus being the ‘tree distribution’ program.  Guided industry and government engagement process to identify partners and government sale process.

Completed Feasibility Assessment to Purchase the Prince Albert Pulp mill

11

46  Developed full pro-forma for future operation of the PA pulp mill and defined power production potential on site as additional revenue stream; identified potential partners for consortia ownership.  Engaged owner (and government) in discussion regarding terms of sale.

Completed Site Assessment & Selection Analysis – Clean Power Concepts  Assessed site condition and building requirements for green fuel processing facility.  Assigned value to potential site and processing infrastructure required for operation.

Secured Funding and Established Prince Albert Green Industrial Park  Secured $3M provincial funding for green industrial park.  Identified location for development.  Worked with City of Prince Albert to deliver infrastructure to create park.

Completed Public Consultation for Assiniboine River Basin Initiative  With Prairie Practitioners Group, engaged with citizens’ based organization to develop stakeholder inclusion plan for long-term management of the Assiniboine River Basin.  Identified key Saskatchewan-based groups interested in participating on a planning committee.  Outlined key policy and funding challenges for gaining Saskatchewan participation on ARB process.

12

47 MAY 2016 RETAIL GAP ANALYSIS Prepared for the City of Chestermere

Prepared by Cushing Terrell Architecture Inc. Executive Summary

48 iPREFACE

Cushing Terrell Architecture Inc. (“Cushing Reference material for this report was obtained Terrell”) was commissioned by the City of from, but not limited to: the City of Chestermere, Chestermere in February 2016 to conduct a Retail Commercial Real Estate Brokerage Firms, Market and Gap Analysis for the City. Conference Board of Canada, Local Commercial Developers (Melcor, Truman), International The study was carried out over the period of Council of Shopping Centers, and Cushing Terrell March to May 2016. Architecture Inc.

The objective of this study is to document Cushing Terrell does not warrant that any in detail the City of Chestermere’s current estimates contained within the study will be retail inventory and estimate the Trade Area achieved over the identified time horizons, but that they have been prepared conscientiously retail expenditure profile across various retail and objectively on the basis of information categories/store types as an indication of retail obtained during the course of this study. inflow/outflow, which is also known as surplus/ leakage. Also, any tenant references made in the report are for illustrative purposes only and should not Retail spending (i.e. demand), the City’s retail be taken as guarantees that they will locate in the inventory, and its corresponding productivity (i.e. City of Chestermere, but rather that they could supply) was estimated and supplemented by a represent compatible “target” retailers. detailed Consumer Intercept Survey conducted by Keyfax Market Research to further identify This analysis was conducted by Cushing Terrell as gaps in Chestermere’s current provision of shops an objective and independent party, and is not and services. an agent of the City of Chestermere.

This document is intended to assist the City As is customary in an assignment of this type, of Chestermere in promoting the community, neither our name nor the material submitted may be included in a prospectus, or part of working with developers and investors, as any printed material, or used in offerings or well as attracting new or expanding retailers representations in connection with the sale of and formats. It further aims to retain existing securities or participation interest to the public, retailers and provide an overall strategy for future without the expressed permission of the City of developments which could feature retail. Chestermere or Cushing Terrell Architecture Inc.

Cushing Terrell Architecture Inc. - May 2016

i | Modified Retail Market & Gap Analysis - City of Chestermere, Alberta 49 i i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION With land recently annexed, the City’s boundaries The objective of this study is to thoroughly have expanded, providing the opportunity document the City of Chestermere’s current for further future development. This includes areas allocated for a variety of commercial retail inventory and estimate the Trade Area opportunities, ranging from local shopping retail expenditure profile across various retail nodes to large commercial nodes, intended to categories/store types as an indication of retail attract local and regional residents. inflow/outflow, also known as surplus/leakage. Chestermere is very well connected to both LOCATION CONTEXT SUMMARY Calgary and the surrounding region: Highway The City of Chestermere possesses a peaceful 1 and Highway 1A are directly accessible from country lifestyle while still being a short drive the City, and the new Stoney Trail/Calgary Ring away from metropolitan amenities such Road (Highway 201), a popular transportation as Calgary’s Downtown and International route, is only a ten (10) minute drive away. These routes combine to make Chestermere accessible Airport. This attractive balance has resulted in to both neighbouring and distant centres: a a fast growing municipality with an advancing benefit for potential multi and chain store retail identity of its own, presenting the undeniable operations for whom timely access to markets opportunity for further commercial and retail are important. expansion. The City itself has a population approaching 20,000 while its Trade Area caters to an estimated 45,000 people, spanning the City itself and the neighbouring Rocky View County mainly Regional Context to the south and east including numerous hamlets, as well as the Town of Strathmore and the surrounding Wheatland County.

The significant population growth of Chestermere and recent annexation of surrounding land in 2009 suggests an attractive market for many types of retailers and

30 km businesses. Given the advantageous regional 15 km 10 km location of Chestermere, the community’s 5 km growth and development is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. As Chestermere continues to grow, the Waterbridge Master Area Structure Plan (MASP) and in particular the Chestermere Gateway Area Structure Plan (ASP) represent among the best geographic locations in the east Calgary region for future retail opportunities capable of tapping into an under-served, affluent, and rapidly growing residential market.

Modified Retail Market & Gap Analysis - City of Chestermere, Alberta | ii 50 i i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The widely accepted notion that “retail follows Secondary Trade Area East (STA East) includes rooftops” is proving to be valid in the City of the residents of Rocky View County in Delacour, Chestermere where retail growth and tenant but is primarily east of Highway 9 in Wheatland prospects are supported by strong locational and County including the Town of Strathmore, the site context attributes. Hamlets of Lyalta and Ardenode, as well as the Eagle Lake area. RETAIL TRADE AREA SUMMARY The Trade Area for the City of Chestermere Chestermere’s Retail Trade Area reflects a realistic comprises the following Primary and Secondary look at where the majority of customers are likely Trade Areas: to come from and with which shops and services they are most likely to spend their money. Primary Trade Area (PTA) includes the City of Chestermere and the surrounding area east East Hills in Calgary is currently open and of the Stoney Trail Highway and within an developing to full buildout; CrossIron Mills is fully approximate 10-minute drive time, such as the operational and undergoing an expansion. These Hamlets of Conrich and Janet. power centres as well as Deerfoot Meadows Secondary Trade Area South (STA South) is include Chestermere in their PTA, and therefore it represented by the area located south of the PTA would be a challenge for the City of Chestermere to Highway 22X and east to Highway 24 including to compete directly against these nodes. the Hamlets of Langdon, Cheadle, and Indus. Chestermere is under-served significantly by Retail Trade Area retail which represents a significant opportunity for tapping into spending that is leaking out of the community today.

The Retail Trade Area for Chestermere takes into account the reality of competitive influences nearby, and is adjusted accordingly. This includes the realization that residents of Chestermere and

STA the communities to the east and south will favour PTA EAST the convenience and accessibility provided by retail in Chestermere in comparison to traveling further to the Calgary area. STA SOUTH The total Trade Area Demographic Profile illustrates a very strong local Trade Area that will grow from 45,000 in 2016 to approximately 54,000 over the next decade.

iii | Modified Retail Market & Gap Analysis - City of Chestermere, Alberta 51 i i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Chestermere’s strengths lie in its demographics, RETAIL SUPPLY SUMMARY which are supported by a significant household The resulting inventory for the City of income well above the regional and provincial Chestermere illustrates a community oriented averages. Secondly, the Trade Area has a strong retail offering that provides essential shops and and dynamic young family profile who are services for residents of Chestermere as well both mobile in their shopping patterns, yet are as populations within an approximate 15 - 20 increasingly seeking opportunities to spend their minute drive, primarily north, northeast and east money closer to home. of the City. Overall, Chestermere represents a $690 Million The City of Chestermere has an estimated total (2016 estimates) retail market in which categories retail floor space of approximately 275,000 such as Grocery, Automotive/RV, Restaurants, and square feet (sf) including vacant retail space. Electronics & Appliances represent significant spending segments. When applying the retail inventory for the City As will be seen in forthcoming sections, of Chestermere against the City’s population, the Chestermere’s retail demand and prospects for resulting per capita ratio is approximately 15 sf, retail growth will mirror the desire of residents which suggests the City is under-retailed and has to spend their dollars in their own community a current day residual demand that could be as versus outside (i.e. retained spending versus little as 5 sf to as much as 15 sf per capita, which outflow). translates to as little as 95,000 sf to 285,000 sf respectively.

Retail Spending Inflow / Outflow Estimates

Est. Chestermere Existing Est. Current Annual Chestermere Expenditure Inventory Sales by Category Outflow / Inflow Merchandise Category Potential 2016 (SF) (SUPPLY) Estimates (DEMAND)

Grocery & Specialty Foods 87,600 $43,800,000 $50,900,289 -$7,100,289 Alcohol & Tobacco 16,000 $2,875,000 $8,436,970 -$1,147,965 Pharmacy 5,750 $8,000,000 $4,022,965 -$436,970 Personal Services 57,975 $8,696,250 $10,137,399 -$1,441,149 Clothing & Apparel 1,000 $250,000 $17,644,170 -$17,394,170 Footwear 0 $0 $4,893,917 -$4,893,917 Jewelry & Accessories 0 $0 $2,873,547 -$2,873,547 Health & Beauty 8,750 $3,281,250 $4,965,015 -$1,683,765 Home Electronics & Appliances 0 $0 $17,448,650 -$17,448,650 Home Furnishings & Accessories 0 $0 $24,434,035 -$24,434,035 Home Improvement & Gardening 0 $0 $5,936,688 -$5,936,688 Books & Multi-Media 0 $0 $3,643,776 -$3,643,776 Sporting Goods & Outdoor Recreation 0 $0 $4,230,335 -$4,230,335 Toys & Hobbies 0 $0 $2,766,900 -$2,766,900 Specialty Retail 12,950 $3,237,500 $6,191,456 -$2,953,956 Full Service F&B 42,500 $19,125,000 $35,663,026 -$16,538,026 Limited Service F&B 28,075 $15,441,250 $25,824,950 -$10,383,700 Entertainment & Leisure 0 $0 $10,439,566 -$10,439,566 VACANT 14,007 TOTAL 274,607 $104,706,250 $240,453,654 -$135,747,404

Modified Retail Market & Gap Analysis - City of Chestermere, Alberta | iv 52 i i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The biggest threat to Chestermere’s retail outlook, RETAIL DEMAND SUMMARY particularly from a larger retail perspective will Based on the City’s current retail inventory of come from the newest developing project at East approximately 275,000 sf (260,600 sf occupied), Hills in Calgary. the City’s residents are garnering a retained market share of approximately 37%. That said, there is sufficient growth forecast in Chestermere over the next decade to suggest The remaining almost 63% of Chestermere that retail development closer to the City has the resident spending is considered outflow and true potential to attract competing retailers who spent elsewhere in either the City of Calgary, may not wish to locate at East Hills, but for whom Rocky View County, Strathmore, or elsewhere. the current voids in Chestermere, combined with The resulting figures in depict a market that its Trade Area represent an ideal fit. retains a strong market share for conveniences The City’s current retail inventory clearly and necessity goods and personal services, but illustrates an absence of a local presence for much of the Department Store Type Merchandise numerous retail categories and demonstrates the (DSTM) or Comparison Goods purchases are made outside of Chestermere. untapped potential for a wide variety of retail in the community. These findings are further validated by the Consumer Intercept Survey results. Given the population of the Trade Area which is steadily increasing and has been doing so for Cross-referencing the City’s retail spending some time, the opportunity exists in particular against the actual retail sales estimated for its for retailers such as Canadian Tire, Real Canadian current inventory yields an estimated total sales Superstore or Home Hardware to enter this outflow of $136 million dollars. market. At a minimum the Chestermere Gateway ASP provides a competitive alternative to East If the City were able to increase its retained Hills for retailers looking to locate and tap into market share of resident spending, then the Chestermere Trade Area. corresponding demand could further increase at the following levels: On the basis of the City’s current retail inventory, 50% retained market share = additional 94,000 sf there is clearly a correlation between the City 60% retained market share = additional 165,000 sf of Chestermere’s evolution from a town to a city, whereby retail opportunities will follow 70% retained market share = additional 235,000 sf demand. Accordingly, the City of Chestermere On the basis of the above retail expenditure-based with its population approaching 20,000 residents, demand forecasting for the PTA and STAs, as well as represents one of the best untapped retail the per capita methodology, Chestermere’s present opportunities in the entire Calgary region. day residual demand is reasonably estimated to be at a minimum of 95,000 sf.

v | Modified Retail Market & Gap Analysis - City of Chestermere, Alberta 53 i i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

These figures only represent the amount of space CONSUMER SURVEY SUMMARY as of today. However, when factoring into the The Consumer Intercept Survey yielded findings equation forecasted population growth in the that validated the identified Trade Area, as well Total Trade Area of approximately 9,200 people as the inclination of Chestermere’s current need over the next decade to 2026 (the majority of for more retail especially as the community which will be in the City of Chestermere), then continues its growth and expansion. estimated future floorspace demand above and beyond residual demand could grow by Chestermere Station which has a Safeway and approximately 180,000 to 230,000 sf (based on 20 Sobeys Liquor, and East Calgary Costco served to 25 sf per capita). as substantial draws for Primary Convenience shopping. When factoring future growth against the current residual demand, the forecasts suggest the City Sunridge Mall and CrossIron Mills are the most should focus its retail tenant recruitment strategy dominant specific Primary Comparison shopping on specific tenants and merchandise categories choices for respondents. that match Chestermere’s strong spending profile and the noticeable gaps in the market, while Interestingly, the highest number of responses also taking into account the competitive nature was garnered by the response “No Primary of projects such as East Hills. Examples of target Comparison”, which is an indicator of the mobility categories include Home Improvement, Sporting of people to likely patronize other shopping Goods, House & Home and General Merchandise. nodes in the region beyond the list surveyed.

Consumer Survey Respondents t of 1 by Forward Sortation Area un t of 1 by Sortation Forward Co

Legend 31 + 21 to 30 11 to 20 6 to 10 3 to 5 0 to 2

0 km 10 20 30 Modified Retail Market & Gap Analysis - City of Chestermere, Alberta | vi 54 i i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The majority of respondents indicated a In fact, brands and categories of Full Service desire to have more Full Service Restaurants, restaurants were mentioned 267 times when Entertainment & Recreation, Home Improvement respondents were allowed to provide open & Garden, and Clothing/Apparel retail options. ended responses with multiple brands, thus by These categories were also identified as high far the most sought after category type desired by residents and visitors to Chestermere. spending categories for the entire Retail Trade Area. Excluding Home Improvement categories, which garnered an overwhelmingly significant Specifically,the Top 3 Full Service Restaurants most response, the Top 5 retailers most sought in sought after in Chestermere by respondents were: Chestermere by respondents included the following: 1. The Keg 2. Earls Kitchen & Bar 1. Canadian Tire 3. Cactus Club 2. Sport Chek 3. Chapters/Indigo 4. Best Buy Top Comparison Retailer Responses 5. Real Canadian Superstore

Top Comparison Number of (10 or more responses) Responses

Home Hardware 50 Top Full Service Restaurant Responses Canadian Tire 49 Home Depot 38 Full Service Restaurant Tenant Number of Sport Chek 37 (5 or more Responses) Responses RONA 29 Chapters/Indigo 28 The Keg 36 Best Buy 25 Greek/Italian 23 Real Canadian Superstore 23 Earls 22 Lowes/REVY 21 Cactus Club 18 Staples 20 Ricky's Grill 17 Mark's 18 Olive Garden 16 Swiss Chalet 16 Winners 16 Denny's 14 WalMart 16 Joey Tomatoes 9 Michaels Crafts 16 Red Lobster 8 Costco 15 Cora 8 Old Navy 12 Montana's Cookhouse 7 Home Sense 12 Chinese 6 Toys R Us 11 Chili's 5 Reitmans 10 Thai 5 Payless Shoes 10 East Side Mario's 5 The Brick 10 IHOP 5 vii | Modified Retail Market & Gap Analysis - City of Chestermere, Alberta 55

MGB FILE NO. I6/IMD/001

IN THE MATTER OF AN INTERMUNICIPAL DISPUTE

INITIATING CITY OF CHESTERMERE MUNICIPALITY

RESPONDENT ROCKY VIEW COUNTY MUNICIPALITY

DOCUMENT SUBMISSIONS OF THE CITY OF CHESTERMERE REGIONAL PLANNING

John Popoff, Director of Development and Infrastructure Services (City of Chestermere)

NAME C. Richard Jones (ORGANIZATION) McMillan LLP ADDRESS FOR 1700, 421 – 7th Avenue SW SERVICE Calgary, AB T2P 4K9 EMAIL [email protected] TELEPHONE 403.531.8739 (FOR PERSON FILING THIS DOCUMENT)

56

City of Chestermere

Regional Planning Analysis: The Conrich Area Structure Plan

57

Table of Contents

1.0 Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………………Pg.2

2.0 Recommended Action …………………………………………………………………………Pg.3 Growth Management Overlay Growth Management Overlay Implementation Figure 1.0 – Rocky View County Conrich Land Use: Proposed GMO (Separate PDF) Table 1.0 – Conrich ASP GMO relevant Policies

3.0 Tools for Chestermere…………………………………………………………………………Pg. 4

4.0 Detrimental Effects to the City of Chestermere ……………………………………Pg.4 Figure 2.0 – Rocky View County Conrich ASP Transportation Plan (Separate PDF)

Appendix A.0…………………………………………………………………………………………… Pg. 9 Conrich ASP GMO Relevant Policies

Appendix B.1……………………………………………………………………………………………Pg.12 Supporting SSRP Policy

Appendix B.2……………………………………………………………………………………………Pg.14 Supporting SSRP Policy

Appendix C.0……………………………………………………………………………………………Pg.16

1 June 2016 58

Regional Planning Analysis: City of Chestermere 690 Appeal

1.0 Executive Summary

This regional planning analysis has been undertaken to support of the City of Chestermere’s (‘Chestermere’) 690 appeal of Rocky View County’s (‘RVC’) Conrich Area Structure Plan (‘ASP’). A thorough review of the Conrich ASP has been undertaken and cross referenced against provincial and regional planning policy to identify any potential inconsistencies and evaluate for consistency with industry best practices and standards of good planning practice.

The Conrich ASP was reviewed with respect to the following pieces of legislation, policies and plans:

• Municipal Government Act (R.S.A. 2000, C-M26) • Alberta Land Use Framework (2008) • South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (2014) • Calgary Metropolitan Plan (2014) • Calgary Regional Transportation Plan • Rocky View County Plan • Rocky View County Letter to Minister Larivee (March 2016) on Growth Management Boards • Conrich-Chestermere Area Structure Plan by Rocky View County 2004 • Review Janet, Bayfield ASPs and quantities of non-residential land supply • Adjacent Chestermere ASPs to examine interface issues • Review of the City of Calgary 690 appeal on Conrich ASP

The City of Chestermere has a number of concerns with the Conrich ASP which relate directly to the long term sustainability and development of Chestermere as a complete community. While RVC has the right to plan the lands within its boundary and provide for commercial and industrial land requirements as it deems necessary, the act of doing so through the Conrich ASP is inflicting ‘harm’ on the City of Chestermere. This harm has been defined as:

Harm in this instance is to be defined as economic, social or environmental damage or injury, an act that causes the other party to be made less sustainable or viable in relation to their identified growth ambitions and mandate as a municipality. 2.0 Recommended Action

2.1 Growth Management Overlay The City of Chestermere requests the MGB introduce a growth management overlay (‘GMO’) on the subject lands as shown in Figure 1.0 – Chestermere 690 Appeal Growth Management Overlay. The GMO’s purpose is to support collaborative inter-municipal planning outcomes that allow both RVC and Chestermere to develop in a complementary manner that does not inflict harm on the other. In order to foster a collaborative approach and illustrate that Chestermere is willing to work with RVC; the GMO has

2 June 2016 59

been placed over lands located within the Conrich ASP as well as lands within the Waterbridge Master ASP, which is located within the municipal boundaries of Chestermere.

It is recommended that the GMO may be lifted once an agreed upon Intermunicipal Development Plan (‘IDP’) is in place that supports collaborative and comprehensive planning and which explores cost and revenue sharing of the subject lands.

In addition, imposing a GMO on the subject lands allows time for the Alberta Transportation Strategy and Calgary Regional Transportation Plan to be completed. Both of these Plans will address Conrich in terms of the CN inter-modal site and its strategic importance as a regional economic asset. This will have a direct implication on the form and function planning of the Trans-Canada Highway (‘TCH’) corridor between Calgary and Chestermere, which are the primary lands of concern in this appeal. It is recommended that the GMO be placed on the following lands:

• S ½ of 27-24-28-4; • S ½ of 28-24-28-4; • SE ¼ of 29-24-28-4; • NE ¼ of 20-24-28-4; and • N ½ of 21-24-28-4.

This recommended action is supported by various SSRP polices including: 1.1, 1.5, 5.1, 8.1, 8.3, 8.6, and 8.7. The support provided by these policies is outlined in Appendix B.1 and Appendix B.2 as they relate to the recommended appeal statements identified in this report.

2.2 Growth Management Overlay Implementation In order for the GMO to minimize or mitigate the harm caused by the Conrich ASP, parameters for what the GMO mandates on the lands and what its conditions of removal are required. The GMO should restrict/require the following items:

• Subdivision of land is not permitted with the exception of first parcel out until the GMO is removed. • Land use redesignation shall not be approved on the lands by either Council until the GMO is removed. • Within the area of the GMO, no new ASPs or ASP amendments are to be contemplated by either municipality (except to implement and remove the GMO and implement the IDP) until the GMO is removed. • All discretionary use development permit applications within RVC are circulated to Chestermere until the GMO is removed. Policy with regards to notification after the GMO removal will be identified within the IDP. • All discretionary use development permit applications within Chestermere are circulated to RVC until the GMO is removed. Policy with regards to notification after the GMO removal will be identified within the IDP.

These requirements set forth by the GMO will provide enough time for the required plans to be completed. Upon completion of these plans the GMO can be removed from the Conrich ASP and the Waterbridge Master ASP. In order to remove the GMO the following conditions ought to be met:

3 June 2016 60

• An IDP is complete and passes third reading by both RVC Council and Chestermere Council. o The IDP addresses the following: § Funding mechanisms for interchanges within the GMO. § Interface of development within the GMO. o If the Conrich ASP and Waterbridge Master ASP are not in alignment with the newly passed IDP, amendments to bring these plans into alignment and passes third reading by their respective Council’s. • The Alberta Transportation Strategy is complete and approved by Cabinet. • The Calgary Regional Transportation Plan is complete and approved. • A regional stormwater solution is identified and in place.

The GMO ought to be framed as working through a variety of higher level policies included within the Conrich ASP. These policies are included in Appendix A.0.

3.0 Tools for Chestermere

The MGA provides a limited set of tools for Chestermere in regards to the Conrich ASP. As a result, the City of Chestermere has the following tools at its disposal:

1. Section 690 Appeal; and, 2. Annexation of the subject lands.

4.0 Detrimental Effects to the City of Chestermere

In this appeal, the City of Chestermere seeks a resolution that promotes collaboration and mutual benefit to Chestermere, RVC, and the broader Calgary Region.

Two concerns are identified in the body of this report that and are supported by good planning principles. An additional two concerns are identified in Appendix C.0.

4.1 The CN Intermodal Site is a regional asset for Southern Alberta. The Conrich ASP fails to address the importance of this site in terms of transportation and appropriate land uses and as such causes detrimental harm to Chestermere and the surrounding Calgary Region.

According to the press release dated January 10, 2013 from CN Rail, the:

“…logistics park is strategically located between the ports of Prince Rupert and Vancouver and major cities across Canada and mid-America. The park's intermodal terminal, along with very competitive ocean and rail transportation times, will provide Alberta businesses ample capacity for consumer goods and industrial materials and effective export routes for forest products, plastics and agri-products.” (https://www.cn.ca/en/news/2013/01/cn-opens-new-intermodal- terminal-at-calgary-logistics-park)

4 June 2016 61

The CN Intermodal site (‘CN site’) is of strategic economic importance to the entire Calgary Region and has an intimate relationship to the logistics and warehousing industry in the region. Chestermere respectively requests that a GMO be in place to ensure the Provincial Transportation Strategy (currently on-going) and the Regional Transportation Plan (on-going in 2016) are complete before development takes place in the lands shown on Figure 1.0. Allowing regional policy to be completed will inform transportation decisions for Chestermere, RVC and the Calgary Region. All parties including Chestermere and RVC stand to benefit economically from the CN site.

Figure 2.0 – Rocky View County Conrich ASP Transportation Plan illustrates the transportation planning concerns currently posed within the Conrich ASP that poses significant risk of harm to the City of Chestermere. Range Road (RR) 283 is identified as a four (4) lane major and provides a direct connection from the CN site to the Trans-Canada Highway (‘TCH’). The TCH is the closest highway to the CN site at a distance of 3.2km south, whereas Stoney Trail is 4.0km west.

As TCH is the closest highway to the CN site and the primary east-west highway connection in Southern Alberta; a significant amount of heavy truck traffic will utilize RR283. With the increased truck traffic, an interchange will be required at the intersection of RR283 and TCH. However, funding for this infrastructure is development driven and currently not planned for. Given that both municipalities will require these interchanges; collaborative cost sharing agreements are required to ensure that the efficient transport of goods from the CN site is not hindered.

In addition RR283 travel through the future policy area; which will likely have some aspect of residential uses as the hamlet of Conrich grows. Residential units and local commercial businesses will suffer from the nuances that come with the frequency and types of products transported along RR283; but more importantly traffic from these uses will hinder efficient transport of goods to and from the CN site.

To ensure prosperous growth for the CN site and future businesses attracted to the area, a transportation network that properly accounts for the increased truck traffic and intrusive nature of traffic that comes with industrial designated lands should be planned in collaboration with adjacent, municipalities with secure funding mechanisms in place. The absence of inter-municipal planning for this corridor poses significant risk to the efficient transport of goods from the CN site and therefore poses significant of harm to the interests of the City of Chestermere and the Calgary Region economic growth.

Chestermere requires appropriate interface planning and the Conrich ASP currently fails to do so in relation to heavy truck traffic travelling south towards Chestermere. Business will be impacted on both sides of TCH from the heavy truck traffic. Rocky View took steps in the Conrich ASP to alleviate this for their constituents, but not for Chestermere and its constituents.

Placing a GMO on the lands, and collaborating on an IDP; the lands will be jointly planned in a complementary manner that ensures: • an appropriate interface, • the viability of the CN intermodal site, and • does not inflict harm on the other.

Appendix B.1 provides a breakdown of the SSRP policy in support of Chestermere’s concerns.

5 June 2016 62

4.2 The Conrich ASP in its current form harms the City of Chestermere as a Complete and Sustainable Community.

The City of Chestermere’s ability to balance its tax base through the establishment of a strong and viable non-residential component is harmed through the over-supply of commercial and light industrial adjacent lands by RVC. Chestermere has been working diligently to establish a strong sustainable commercial sector and light industrial base in order to deliver an affordable balanced community for families that provide residents the opportunity to live work and play in their City.

A non-comprehensively planned Trans-Canada Corridor as proposed by RVC will siphon economic development and social capacity away from Chestermere’s downtown bringing the overall sustainability of Chestermere into question as vital tax revenue dollars are pulled out of the City. To mitigate this, Chestermere is requesting a GMO be placed over the subject lands to facilitate comprehensive inter- municipal planning. The comprehensive planning should include cost and revenue sharing across both jurisdictions to mitigate potential harm to Chestermere. This approach is supported by Section 8.0 Community Development - Planning Cooperation and Integration in the SSRP.

The TCH is Chestermere’s most important gateway in and out of the City. The Conrich ASP proposes 574 ha (1,419 ac) of Highway Business land use along the TCH which represents 13% of the total Conrich ASP plan area. In the absence of an approved IDP; disjointed and segregated planning along this corridor will occur between Chestermere and RVC.

During the IDP process Chestermere and RVC will work through corridor design, cost sharing and revenue generating agreements and gateway policies that will create unified and overall complete community designs that will benefit both municipalities. To illustrate the importance of a comprehensively planned corridor, two development scenarios have been created to illustrate potential development outcomes. Figure 3 – Disjointed Development Scenario depicts a scenario of ad hoc disjointed development, which the Conrich ASP allows for; whereas Figure 4 – Collaborative Development Scenario depicts a scenario where the TCH corridor is planned comprehensively and collaboratively between RVC and Chestermere by way of an IDP.

Noted in both Chestermere and RVC’s MDP is the need to increase the non-residential tax base. (Rocky View County Plan Section 14.0 – Business Development: Goals / Chestermere MDP – Section 2.4 Sustainability Approach and Section 3.6 Employment Lands).

Chestermere notes that it is in the interest of both parties to plan for the most complete community both practically and economically. Given the size and scope of the Conrich ASP (largest and most industrial concentrated in the area) it is of tremendous planning value, to avoid detriment to Chestermere, to have the IDP in place before a local plan such as the Conrich ASP.

While there have been ASPs approved in proximity to the Conrich ASP by both the City of Chestermere and Rocky View County without an IDP (i.e. the Janet ASP in Rocky View County and Waterbridge ASP in the City of Chestermere); the Conrich ASP is unique in the following ways:

• it straddles the TCH, which is the most important gateway for Chestermere and east side of the Calgary Region;

6 June 2016 63

• The Chestermere and Rocky View IDP will include a comprehensive joint planning initiative and cost and revenue sharing around the lands in question • Further to this, the Conrich ASP states on page 24 that “Development within all phases should be allowed to proceed when logical extensions of infrastructure are made available by Rocky View County or a developer, a market demand is identified, and a commitment is made to implement a regional stormwater conveyance system” • Given the above statements which indicates a number of to be determined factors; Chestermere requests that additionally, an IDP be also included as a clause in the ASP as it will provide economic benefit to both municipalities and unified planning for this important corridor not only for Chetermere but Western Canada. • Without the IDP in place before the Conrich ASP both municipalities would be continuing down the same path of individual and segregating planning along the highway 1 corridor and areas of collaboration on economic sharing will be missed, and Chestermere will be economically harmed.

Appendix B.2 provides a breakdown of the SSRP policy supporting the above.

7 June 2016 64

Appendix A.0

Table A1.0 – Conrich ASP GMO Relevant Policies Conrich ASP Policy How the GMO aligns with 10.2 Development areas should proceed in an orderly The use of a GMO ensures the orderly and and efficient manner and be supported by cost efficient use and development of land. effective and efficient changes to the County’s existing infrastructure and transportation networks. 15.5 Rocky View County will collaborate with Alberta The GMO requires an IDP to be completed Transportation, the City of Calgary, and the City of and approved by both Councils, thereby Chestermere in creating an attractive gateway ensuring collaboration. along Highway 1. 22.5 The County shall collaborate with the Province The GMO requires the completion of the regarding regional road connections and Alberta Transportation Plan and the interchange designs with respect to Highway 1 and Calgary Regional Transportation Plan and Stoney Trail. the IDP. This will ensure that interchange design will be coordinated and meet the long-term goals of the Calgary Region. 22.6 The existing at-grade intersections on Highway 1 The GMO requires the completion of the at Garden Road, Conrich Road, and Rainbow Road Alberta Transportation Plan and the are considered temporary and will ultimately be Calgary Regional Transportation Plan and removed and replaced by grade separated the IDP. This will ensure that interchange interchanges at the locations indicated in Alberta design will be coordinated and meet the Transportation's Functional Planning Studies, as long-term goals of the Calgary Region. generally shown on Map 8. 22.7 The County will work with the Province to monitor The GMO requires the completion of the the operation of the existing at-grade Alberta Transportation Plan and the intersections on Highway 1 within the Plan area, Calgary Regional Transportation Plan and and ensure that growth within the Plan area does IDP. This will ensure that interchange not adversely affect the safe and effective design will be coordinated and meet the operation of these intersections and / or the long-term goals of the Calgary Region. operation of Highway 1. 22.8 Subdivision and/or development within the Plan The GMO requires the completion of the area that affect these at-grade intersections must Alberta Transportation Plan and the be closely reviewed by Rocky View County and the Calgary Regional Transportation Plan and Province to ensure the intersections operate the IDP. This will ensure that infrastructure safely on an interim basis. Infrastructure will be coordinated, properly funded and improvements to support subdivision / meet the long-term goals of the Calgary development are to be constructed by the Region. proponent(s), and may consist of construction of upgrades to the existing at-grade intersections to improve safety and operations, or the redirection of traffic to an intersection location with additional capacity.

8 June 2016 65

22.9 The County encourages and supports The GMO requires the completion of the opportunities to connect to a regional public / Alberta Transportation Plan and the private transportation system. Development of Calgary Regional Transportation Plan and such a system shall consider design standards, the IDP. This will ensure that regional costs associated with upgrading the road network, transportation will be coordinated and and long term operation and maintenance meet the long-term goals of the Calgary requirements. Region. 22.11 The County should collaborate with adjacent The GMO requires the completion of the municipalities to ensure connections of streets, Alberta Transportation Plan and the pedestrian, and bicycle networks align and Calgary Regional Transportation Plan and transition smoothly across municipal boundaries. the IDP. This will ensure that transportation needs will be coordinated across municipal boundaries and address the needs of the Calgary Region. 22.23 Further transportation planning analysis and The GMO requires the completion of the design shall be required for the area identified as Alberta Transportation Plan and the ‘Intermunicipal Transportation Study Area’ on Calgary Regional Transportation Plan and Map 8 prior to the approval of a local plan for the IDP. This will ensure that lands within the area. transportation needs will be coordinated and meet the long-term goals of the Calgary Region. 22.24 Rocky View County shall work collaboratively with The GMO requires the completion of the The City of Calgary, The City of Alberta Transportation Plan and the Chestermere, and Alberta Transportation to: Calgary Regional Transportation Plan and a) resolve transportation requirements the IDP. This will ensure that within the ‘Intermunicipal Transportation transportation needs will be resolved and Study Area’; and meet the long-term goals of the Calgary b) develop access that is safe, efficient, and Region. consistent with the Conrich Land Use Strategy (Map 5). 24.1 The County shall work collaboratively with The GMO requires the a regional adjoining municipalities, the Western Irrigation stormwater solution is created and in District, Alberta Environment, and Ducks place. Unlimited to develop a comprehensive and regional approach to stormwater management. 27.9 As part of the local plan approval process the The GMO requires the completion of the identification, timing, and funding of any required Alberta Transportation Plan and the off-site improvements is required. Off-site Calgary Regional Transportation Plan and improvements that are: the IDP. This will ensure that 27.10 internal to the Plan area will be determined to the transportation needs will be coordinated satisfaction of the County; or and meet the long-term goals of the 27.11 external to the Plan area, including provincial or Calgary Region. adjacent municipal infrastructure will be determined to the satisfaction of the County, in consultation with the relevant municipality and / or provincial department. 28.1 The County shall consult with the City of Calgary The GMO requires the completion of the

9 June 2016 66

and City of Chestermere on planning processes IDP. This will ensure that an appropriate affecting land that borders the adjacent interface is created that does not cause municipality and / or on other matters identified harm to either municipality. through an Intermunicipal Development Plan as areas requiring planning coordination. 28.2 The County shall work with the City of Calgary and The GMO requires the completion of the City of Chestermere to deliver a IDP. This will ensure that a meaningful and coordinated planning process and ensure agreed to communication process is continued meaningful communication between created. the three municipalities as subsequent local plans are prepared. 28.3 Intermunicipal circulation of planning proposals The GMO requires the completion of the shall comply with the MGA, the Rocky View / IDP. This will ensure that a meaningful and Calgary Intermunicipal Development Plan and any agreed to circulation process is created. other agreement(s) or new intermunicipal development plan(s) jointly approved by adjacent Municipal Councils 28.4 Development adjacent to the City of Chestermere The GMO requires the completion of the shall be coordinated between Rocky View County IDP. This will ensure that an appropriate and the City of Chestermere, or as otherwise interface is created that does not cause required by any future intermunicipal harm to either municipality. development plan.

10 June 2016 67

Appendix B.1

Table B1.1 – Supporting SSRP Policy Misalignment of the Legislation Section Policy Direction Conrich ASP South 8.0Community Make efficient use of land, The land use patterns and road Saskatchewan Development infrastructure, public services network coming from the CN Regional Plan and public facilities to establish intermodal site directly south land-use patterns that influence towards Chestermere does not human activity, facilitate health promote land use patterns that and well-being and promote promote human activity but social interaction and inclusion. rather showcase incorrect land- Contribute to the development use interface issues. of healthy, safe and sustainable communities Safety should be of concern for Contribute to a safe, efficient residential land uses fronting and cost-effective provincial hauling roads. transportation network. No cost sharing or revenue generating programs are in place. Chestermere is advocating for this during the IDP development. Calgary 3 Create 2.b Jobs and employment: New The CMP does not list the Metropolitan Sustainable Industries and jobs will be Conrich area as a priority growth Plan Communities strategically integrated into area and this new intermodal priority growth areas site has not been strategically integrated with the current transportation system. Calgary 4. Integrate and 4.a.2 – Integrated planning of Metropolitan invest in land uses and infrastructure . Plan regional CRP and member municipalities infrastructure will integrate the planning funding and staging priorities of regional infrastructure systems with the implementation of identified priority growth areas, including commercial and industrial areas as specifically identified in the CMP. Calgary 4. Integrate and Infrastructure System Cost. CRP Chestermere is looking to Metropolitan invest in and member municipalities will collaborate and build off of this Plan regional ensure fairness, accountability policy by better recognizing the infrastructure and efficiency in the way needs in the Regional regional infrastructure and Transportation Plan and the

11 June 2016 68

services are provided and Provincial Transportation funded, including recognition of Strategy. (Confirm with investments to date. Chestermere if any cost sharing has been done on the interchanges) Calgary 4. Plan for 4.b.3 Proactive transit planning. The Conrich ASP has not Metropolitan regional CRP and member municipalities appropriately interfaced land Plan transportation will support the proactive uses with increased industrial and complete advancement of regional transit traffic and nuances. Regional mobility investments in order to cooperation is not happening stimulate desired land use either on desired land use patterns and transit oriented patterns for all municipalities. nodal development Calgary – 4.5 Highway 1 4.5.1 Rocky View and Calgary Recommendation for Rocky View IDP East Corridor should ensure that The Town of Chestermere to discuss with the Chestermere is engaged as a City of Calgary this policy and stakeholder in planning whether RVC has properly processes that occur within this engaged Chestermere as a Key Focus Area and that are stakeholder. adjacent to the Town’s boundary. Land use has not been carefully 4.5.2 Coordination of land use considered within this key focus policy and transportation should area and disjointed development be carefully considered as future will occur. development will be contiguous across the boundary.

12 June 2016 69

Appendix B.2

Table B-1.2 – Supporting SSRP Policy Misalignment of the Legislation Section Policy Direction Conrich ASP Calgary – 2.4 Town of Chestermere – The current Area Structure Chestermere Intermunicipal Plan from 2004 anticipates an Corridor Plan Planning Policies Page 6: IDP will be in place in the 2004 future. Given the current ….. It is anticipated that, in the circumstances it would be future, an IDP will be jointly shortsighted not to pursue an developed with the Town, at IDP before this ASP. which time, policies existing within the Calgary Chestermere Corridor ASP will play a significant role in the development of land use policies that will be incorporated into that statutory plan. South 8.0 Community Planning Cooperation and If an IDP was in place a proper Saskatchewan Development Integration avenue for dispute resolution Regional Plan and the planning of this Objectives: important corridor leading • Cooperation and into Chestermere would have coordination are been dealt with. An IDP should fostered among all land take precedence over the use planners and Conrich ASP. decision-makers involved in preparing and implementing land plans and strategies • Knowledge sharing among communities is encouraged to promote the use of planning tools and the principles of efficient use of land to address community development in the region.

Policy 8.7 – Consider the value of intermunicipal development planning to address land use on

13 June 2016 70

fringe areas, airport vicinity protection plans or other areas of mutual interest.

Calgary 3.b.3 – Create Scenic corridors – CRP and Metropolitan Sustainable and member municipalities should Plan resilient identify and encourage the communities protection of scenic corridors and major view sheds

14 June 2016 71

Appendix C.0

Other Concerns of Chestermere – Detrimental Effect In addition to the two concerns set out above, there are two other concerns.

B.1 The industrial land use policies presented in the Conrich Area Structure Plan fail to promote the efficient use of land and sustainment of agricultural lands.

The Conrich ASP proposes to convert 10,876ac (4,402ha) of primarily agricultural land to commercial and industrial land uses. Based on Rocky View County’s 2014 report on the progress of the County Plan; from 2009 to 2013, Rocky View County averages 70ac (28ha) of net industrial land absorption.

Within the Conrich ASP alone there are approximately 4,836ac (1,957ha) of land designated for industrial development.

If it were assumed that all industrial development within Rocky View County were to be concentrated within the Conrich ASP, and no industrial development were to occur outside of the Conrich ASP; the 4,836ac of industrial lands equates to approximately 69 years of industrial land supply. As it is unrealistic and against Rocky View County land use plans for all industrial development within the County to be concentrated within the Conrich ASP, this 69 year land supply is an absolute minimum timeframe for development.

With the rates of industrial absorption as identified by Rocky View County, the Conrich ASP represents a gross exaggeration of industrial zoned lands for the Conrich ASP. Classifying such a large amount of land for industrial development would be unprecedented and extremely detrimental to the City of Chestermere and the Calgary Region.

Due to the intrusive nature of industrial uses and the sheer amount of land designated industrial; the City of Chestermere respectively argues that the Conrich ASP actively promotes the inefficient use of land and does not promote the conservation of agricultural lands.

The Conrich ASP is inconsistent with a number of land use planning policies and legislation which promote the efficient use of land and the protection of land for the use of agriculture.

Table C1.1 - Supporting SSRP Policy identifies the relevant policies which promotes and required the preservation of agricultural lands and the efficient use of land.

Table C1.1 – Supporting SSRP Policy to Potential Secondary Appeal Statement #1 Misalignment of the Conrich Legislation Section Policy Direction ASP Calgary – 5.1 General Premature conversion of The current ASP from 2004 Chestermere – Land use agricultural land discouraged discourages the premature Corridor Plan Policies conversion of agricultural land. 2004 The land use designation given to

15 June 2016 72

much of the plan is Agricultural Priority. Chestermere respectively suggest that this designation should still hold true and the amount of farm land being converted to industrial is beyond the appropriate absorption rates. South 1.1 Agriculture Maintain an agricultural land The Conrich ASP is slated to Saskatchewan base by reducing convert over 10,000 acres of Regional Plan fragmentation and conversion mostly agricultural land to mostly of agricultural land. industrial and commercial. South 5.0 – Efficient The Amount of Land that is Rather than reducing the rate at Saskatchewan Use of Land required for development of which land is converted from an Regional Plan the built environment is undeveloped state into a minimized over time permanent built environment, Conrich ASP encourages it by inappropriately zoning land beyond absorption rates possible in a realistic time frame.

The minimum amount of land necessary for industrial development is not adhered to in the Conrich ASP. South 8.0 Community Strategies for Land Use Surrounding a small agricultural Saskatchewan development patterns: hamlet with industrial uses which Regional Plan 8.11 - Municipalities are cannot be sustained at current expected to establish land-use rates of absorption is not using patterns which provide an land in an efficient or compatible appropriate mix of way. agricultural, residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, public and recreational land uses; developed in an orderly, efficient, compatible, safe and economical manner.

Calgary 3.a.1 Efficient Member municipalities will As stated above it would not be Metropolitan Use of Land ensure that new development an efficient use of land to over Plan occurs in ways that achieve zone industrial when current efficient use of the land and rates cannot support this. infrastructure. Calgary 3.c. – Support Sustain agricultural lands. The Conrich ASP does not Metropolitan for Sustainable minimize the fragmentation and

16 June 2016 73

Plan rural conversion of better agricultural development lands to other uses. While there are agricultural policies in place within the ASP (Section 12) the over dedication of industrial uses beyond current means by Rocky View certainly trumps the spirit of those policies and goes against the minimization of converting agricultural lands. Calgary Planning Priority Growth Areas. The Conrich Area Structure Plan Metropolitan Concept Map – is not listed as a priority growth Plan April 2014 area for Commercial/industrial uses in the CMP. Land-Use Priority Actions Reducing the fragmentation As stated above. Framework for the Land-Use and conversion of agricultural (2008) Framework land.

Part B. Addressing provincial policy gaps and areas of provincial interest

17 June 2016 74

B.2 Stormwater management in the Conrich Area Structure Plan is not properly addressed and as such will detrimentally affect the City of Chestermere.

On page 62 of the Conrich Area Structure Plan it states that the Cooperative Stormwater Management Initiative (CSMI) is the preferred solution for stormwater management by the RVC in Conrich. The CSMI option is for an out-of-canal solution whereby all stormwater runoff is diverted away from the WID irrigation canal by utilizing WID rights-of-way to build a separate conveyance system that discharges to Weed Lake. This policy is contradicted by the phasing plan of the Conrich Area Structure Plan in which development is allowed to occur in Phase 1 of the plan without the CSMI in operation. Given the regional implications of stormwater management in this Area, RVC’s own assertion that the CSMI is the preferred option it would be premature and detrimental to the area to allow Phase 1 lands to move forward under interim and least preferred stormwater management methods. By this account the Conrich ASP is moving forward with development before agreed upon and regional systems of stormwater infrastructure are in place.

Table C1.2 – Supporting SSRP Policy Misalignment of the Legislation Section Policy Direction Conrich ASP Calgary 1.a.3 – Planning CRP and member The appropriate policies for Metropolitan for Stormwater municipalities will identify stormwater management are Plan Management locations where storm water not adhered to in the Conrich management may impact ASP. No regional stormwater regional infrastructure conveyance system is in place systems, develop appropriate and the preferred method of policies and approaches to stormwater management, address potential areas of stated in the ASP is ignored in impact and address cumulative Phase 1 of the development. effects management considerations. Calgary 4.a.1 Regional Calgary Regional Partnership As stated above the Conrich Metropolitan infrastructure (CRP), in concert with member ASP does not fully account for Plan systems municipalities, will identify, the regional stormwater issue map and plan for three major and prematurely will allow regional infrastructure development with least systems: 1. Regional water, preferred / interim solutions. wastewater and storm water 2. Regional transportation and transit system 3. Regional waste management (organic and solid)

18 June 2016 75 JOHN SAMUEL POPOFF, MCIP, MSC, PMP, RPP 2016

PH: 1.403.207.7069 164 West Creek Pond [email protected] Chestermere, Alberta, T1X 1H4

Introduction

John S. Popoff is a Local Government Professional with over 21 years of experience working for the Public and Private sectors in Alberta and British Columbia. John is passionate about empowering people and organizations to achieve exemplary results. John is a patient listener who cultivates the strengths of others and enables them to succeed. John firmly believes that by executing proactive management and leadership, organizations can improve dramatically and achieve the vision and goals they create.

Professional Credentials

Project Management Professional (PMP)  Credential awarded March 15, 2008 from the Project Management Institute Full Member Canadian Institute of Planners (MCIP)  Membership granted 1998 Registered Professional Planner (RPP), Alberta Professional Planners Institute (APPI)  Membership granted 2010 Registered Planner (MPIBC), Planning Institute of British Columbia (PIBC)  Membership granted 1998, transferred to Alberta (APPI) 2010

Formal Education

Master of Science (MSc), University of Guelph (1993), Planning and Development Bachelor of Arts (BA), University of British Columbia (1991), Geography Management Skills for Supervisors Certificate, Thompson Rivers University (2006) Urban Design Certificate, City Program, Simon Fraser University (2009) Certificate in Municipal Management and Leadership (CMML), University of Alberta (2014) Enrolled in NACLAA Level 1, University of Alberta, 5 of 8 courses completed

1

76 JOHN SAMUEL POPOFF, MCIP, MSC, PMP, RPP 2016

Employment Experience

Director of Development and Infrastructure Services, City of Chestermere, March 2014 to Present  Accountable for over 45 employees, 5 direct reports  Building, Development, Engineering, GIS, Roads, Mechanical Shop, Planning, Purchasing, Project Management Office and Building Maintenance functions  Responsible for Capital and Operations budgets in department, including roads  Participate on Corporate Leadership Team  Coordinate Leadership and Innovation Team for department  Implement Council policy, projects and priorities, as directed by the CAO  Motivate staff, retain and manage consultants

Director of Development Services, Town of Chestermere, March 2010 to March 2014  Directed Building, Development, Engineering, Planning Department, +20 Staff  Assumed responsibilities for Engineering and GIS Staff in March 2010

Director of Planning and Development, Town of Chestermere, October 2009 to March 2010

Associate/Project Manager/Senior Planner, MMM Group Limited, September 2007 to October 2009 Offered Associate Status in 2008 based on positive performance

 Built positive client relationships  Managed Project Teams  Supervised efforts of Project Planner  Managed land development projects  Undertook business development and marketing  Prepared proposals, reports, plans and regulations

Planning and Development Supervisor, City of Kamloops, July 2006 to September 2007  Supervised all Planners and Planning Technicians at the City, 7 Staff  Oversaw daily processing of applications  Coordinated Staff workloads  Prepared Council Reports

Community Planning Supervisor, City of Kamloops, July 2004 to July 2006  Ensured Official Community Plan (OCP) and Neighbourhood Plans were current  Conducted formal planning processes  Prepared Neighbourhood Plans  Managed Staff and Consultants

2

77 JOHN SAMUEL POPOFF, MCIP, MSC, PMP, RPP 2016

Senior Planner, Regional District of Kootenay Boundary, March 1999 to July 2004  Coordinated activities of Planning Staff in support of planning projects and current operations as required  Structured activities of planning advisory committees including meetings  Conducted public consultation  Prepared Plans and Regulations  Represented interests of Planning Department in Planning Director’s absence

Assistant Planner, Regional District of Kootenay Boundary, December 1994 to March 1999  Processed OCP amendments, rezonings, and other applications  Responded to Public inquiries  Participated in Public Hearings/meetings

Planning Consultant, Independent, 1993 to 2004  Assisted business and homeowners with applications to local government  Provided independent planning advice to engineer firms working outside RDKB

Planning Assistant Internship, Regional District of Kootenay Boundary, April to September, 1992

Chestermere Experience

While employed by Chestermere, I have either managed, sponsored/overseen or been involved as a contributor to a wide array of municipal activities, initiatives and projects including:

 Create Amazing, Employee Recognition Program, 2016  Prepared annexation application under Section 126 MGA, December 2015  Appealed Conrich ASP under Section 690 MGA, participated in mediation, 2016  Attend Inter-municipal Committees with Calgary and Rocky View County  LEAN evaluation of permitting process in Development Services, 2015  Participated in major corporate restructuring, doubling department size, 2013 to 2014  Municipal Development Plan and Master Transportation Plan review, 2014 to present  Ongoing Area Structure and Outline Plans for 6500 acres of annexed lands  Development Agreement, Off-Site Levy Bylaw, Land Use Bylaw, Bylaw Enforcement  Participate in Calgary Regional Partnership initiatives, Urban Municipalities Task Force  Implemented Project Management Process, based on Project Management Body of Knowledge  Major Capital Projects, including road rehabilitation, drainage works and park construction  Coordinate with Chestermere Utilities Incorporated (CUI) for service delivery

3

78 JOHN SAMUEL POPOFF, MCIP, MSC, PMP, RPP 2016

Leadership Accomplishments and Training

 Master Capacity Builder, Communities of the Future (COTF), ongoing  Proud Member of Chestermere Toastmaster’s Club  Distinguished Toastmaster Designation (DTM), awarded April 2013, Highest Distinction  Leadership for the Emerging New Economy, YouMeThink course, October 2013  Effective Negotiation Certificates, Levels One and Two, 4 training days, 2011  Leadership Challenge Certificate, Seminar and Conference, 4 training days, 2010  Project Management Bootcamp, PSMJ Resources, 3 Day Course, 2008  Leadership Excellence Certificate, City of Kamloops, In House Training, 2007  Area Governor, Toastmasters International, 2008/2009, Kamloops and Merritt  President, Overlander Toastmasters Club, 2007/2008, Kamloops  Advanced Communicator Gold (ACG) earned 2009, Toastmasters International  Chairperson (1993/1994), Union of Youth Organization, Castlegar  President (1990/1991) Geography Students Association, University of British Columbia

Memberships

 Alberta Professional Planners Institute (2010 – Present)  Canadian Institute of Planners (1991 – Present)  Project Management Institute (2007 – Present)  Toastmasters International (2004 – Present)  Planning Institute of British Columbia (1995 – 2010)  Ontario Professional Planners Institute (1991 – 1995)  American Planning Association (2005 – Present)  Urban Development Institute (2009 – Present)  Community Planning Association of Alberta (2012 – Present)

Personal Initiatives

 Taught in and coordinated Masters Level University Course, Project Management for Planners, University of Calgary, 2012, 2013 and 2014  Speaker, APPI Conference Jasper, Negotiation for Planners, October 2013  Delivered two 3 hour educational workshops in Project Management to Community Planning Association of Alberta and Alberta Professional Planners Institute in 2012, upon request  Speaker, APPI Conference Red Deer, Project Management for Planners, October 2011  Speaker, Buildex Vancouver and Edmonton, Project Management, February/March 2009  Workshop Leader at Project World in Vancouver on Conflict Resolution/Negotiation, Oct. 2008 4

79 JOHN SAMUEL POPOFF, MCIP, MSC, PMP, RPP 2016

 Award winning public speaker, Toastmasters International Speech Contests, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2012, 2013, 2016  Session facilitator and speaker, World Urban Forum, Vancouver June 2006, Soft Skills for Professionals and Team Building Workshop  Contributed to organizing Small Cities Forum, Kamloops B.C., 2006  Speaker at Planning Institute of British Columbia’s annual conference, 2005, on National Homelessness Initiative in Kamloops  Speaker at 2008 Planning Institute Conference in Prince George, made presentations on: o Project Management for Planners o Sustainable Neighbourhood Planning o Incredible Benefits of Street and Urban Trees  Member of the Planning Institute of BC Conference Planning Committee organizing the Annual Planning Institute Conference in Nelson, BC, January 2002 to May 2003

Previous Experience

Copper Fields Residential Development (January 2008 – 2009) Led a multi-disciplinary team planning a 1200 unit eco-resort residential development, from the conceptual stage to the final subdivision layout including annexation. www.liveincopperfields.ca.

Integrated Growth Strategy, City of Merritt (February 2008 – 2009) Oversaw the preparation of an integrated growth strategy which identified a community vision and associated infrastructure while addressing municipal sustainability.

Chase Lakeshore Estates, Chase, BC (December 2008 – 2009) Senior Planner conducting Public Consultation in support of a highly controversial residential land development proposing redevelopment on a former part of the municipality’s waterfront golf course.

North Shore Neighbourhood Plan, City of Kamloops (2004 – 2008) Received Canadian Institute of Planners “Award for Planning Excellence” in the Neighbourhood Planning category for 2009 over 43 national submissions While employed by the City of Kamloops, coordinated the efforts of City Staff and consultants to prepare a planning strategy and planning process for the North Shore (35,000 residents). Activities included overseeing efforts of the Project Planner and a citizen advisory committee. This process involved extensive public consultation including web-based surveys and open houses. While employed by MMM, retained by City to prepare an Incentive Based Development Checklist for the Plan with team.

Village of Lumby Background Report and Zoning Bylaw (2008 – 2009) Project Manager responsible for preparing a background report on issues including new zones, hillside development, stormwater management and density bonusing to incorporate in a new zoning bylaw. 5

80 JOHN SAMUEL POPOFF, MCIP, MSC, PMP, RPP 2016

Kamloops City Centre Neighbourhood Plan (Nov. 2004 – Nov. 2005) Responsible for revising the City Centre Plan for Kamloops’s downtown. Coordinated the efforts of city staff and consultants in public consultation including stakeholder meetings, an on-line survey and open houses. Part of this exercise included reviewing one-way versus two-way traffic circulation.

KAMPLAN, Kamloop’s Official Community Plan (August 2004 – July 2005) Completed Kamloops Official Community Plan review through the referrals and legal process.

Battle Street Design Charrette (January 2005) Facilitated creative multi-day design focused exercise to achieve an overarching vision for one complete block in downtown Kamloops.

Riparian Areas Regulation, Kamloops, Development Permit Area (January 2006 – June 2006) Implemented a Riparian Areas Regulation into the Kamloops Official Community Plan.

Property Tax Exemption Bylaw, Kamloops (November 2005 – December 2006) Prepared property tax exemption bylaw, to promote infill development and revitalization downtown.

Waterfront Hotel Proposal (January 2005 – April 2005) Prepared concept for a contentious waterfront hotel on City land and presented at Public Hearing.

Christina Lake Official Community Plan (2001 – 2004) Prepared new Christina Lake Official Community Plan. Worked with Steering Committee including the elected Politician. Conducted a comprehensive mail-out survey of all property owners, organized open houses, researched policy alternatives and wrote the final plan.

Big White Ski Resort Official Community Plan (1999 – 2002) Prepared new Official Community Plan for BC’s second largest ski resort. Worked with a Steering Committee comprised of Big White Management, Professionals, Citizens and elected Politician.

Christina Lake Commercial Area Design Charrette (2003) Organized and facilitated a Design Charrette for the central commercial area at Christina Lake.

City of Greenwood, Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw review (1996) Project Planner, reviewed City of Greenwood’s Official Community Plan and Zoning.

References Available Upon Request

6

81 ROCKY VIEW COUNTY CONRICH LAND USE

PROPOSEDPROPOSED GMOGMO

FIGURE 1.0 Chestermere, AB June 2016

82 CONRICH REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION NETWORK CN INTERMODAL SITE - TRANSCANADA CORRIDOR

CN INTERMODAL SITE DIRECT ACCESS TO TRANS CANADA HWY 1

REGIONALREGIONAL FLOWFLOW OFOF GOODSGOODS ANDAND SERVICESSERVICES

DEVELOPEMENT DRIVEN INTERCHANGES

PROPOSEDPROPOSED GMOGMO

FIGURE 2.0 Chestermere, AB June 2016

83 ExampleDESKTOP of Typical STUDIES Design Process

POLITICAL USERS MARKET LAND USE POLICY NDITIONS G CO STIN EXI

PROJECT CHARTER MEETING

STAKEHOLDER MEETING DESIGN STUDIO STAKEHOLDER MEETING GOALS

VISIONING/DESIGN OBJECTIVES WORKSHOP

PROGRAMMING DESIGN REFINEMENT

VISION/CONCEPT DESIGN

CIRCULATION INFORM & PLAN PUBLIC POLITICAL PROCESSING DISCUSSIONS

APPROVAL PROCESS

84 Example of Collaboratively Planned Scenario

TransCanadaTransCanada HighwayHighway

•Strong design elements •Strong relationship connecting building design to Trans-Canada Corridor •Strong transportation connections •Efficient Use of Land Supply •Shared revenues, increased economic opportunity

85 Example of Independently Planned Scenario

TransCanadaTransCanada HighwayHighway

•Disconnected development •Inefficient use of land •Inefficient transportation connections •Increased costs, missed opportunities for economic growth •Weak relationship across Trans-Canada Highway

86 Collaborative Concept Design Bubble Diagram

TransCanadaTransCanada HighwayHighway

•Shared land-use relationships across TransCanada Highway •Supports strong Inter-municipal interface •Establishes strong gateway feature

87 Massing Example of Collaboratively Planned Scenario

TransCanadaTransCanada HighwayHighway

88 Massing Example of Independently Planned Scenario

TransCanadaTransCanada HighwayHighway

89

MGB FILE NO. I6/IMD/001

IN THE MATTER OF AN INTERMUNICIPAL DISPUTE

INITIATING CITY OF CHESTERMERE MUNICIPALITY

RESPONDENT ROCKY VIEW COUNTY MUNICIPALITY

DOCUMENT SUBMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHESTERMERE SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Prepared by Laura Brankovich

NAME C. Richard Jones (ORGANIZATION) McMillan LLP ADDRESS FOR 1700, 421 – 7th Avenue SW SERVICE Calgary, AB T2P 4K9 EMAIL [email protected] TELEPHONE 403.531.8739 (FOR PERSON FILING THIS DOCUMENT)

90

Social Infrastructure Impacts on the City of Chestermere As a Result of the Conrich Area Structure Plan

Laura Brankovich, MSW Social Planning Consultant

Prepared for the Municipal Government Board Merit Hearing of September 12, 2016, regarding the City of Chestermere’s appeal of Rocky View County’s Conrich Area Structure Plan, under Section 690(1) of the Municipal Government Act

June 3, 2016

91

Table of Contents

Social Infrastructure Impacts ...... 1 Definition of Social Infrastructure………………………………………………………………………………..1 Scope of the Report……………………………………………………………………………………………………..2 Legislation and Plans Relevant to a Discussion of Municipal Social Infrastructure………….2

Social Planning Concerns Related to the Conrich ASP………………………………………………….3

Social Planning Deficiencies in the Conrich ASP…………………………………………………………..5

Social Infrastructure Detriments to the City of Chestermere……………………………………….8 1. Disaster and Emergency Services…………………………………………………………………………....8 2. Protective Services…………………………………………………………………………………………………8 Policing Services………………………………………………………………………………………………….8 Fire Services……………………………………………………………………………………………………...10 3. Community Services……………………………………………………………………………………………..11 Family and Community Support Services (FCSS)………………………………………………….11 Early Childhood Development and Parent Link Centre………………………………………….12 Emergency Services…………………………………………………………………………………………...12 Library Services………………………………………………………………………………………………...12 4. Recreation, Parks and Culture……………………………………………………………………………….13 Chestermere Regional Recreation Centre…………………………………………………………….13 Chestermere Conrich Regional Recreation Board (CCRRB)…………………………………...16 Chestermere’s Outdoor Recreation Amenities and Events……………………………………..16 Attempt to Establish a Joint Regional Recreation Strategy Committee…………………..16 Deficiencies of Section 17 of the ASP……………………………………………………………………16

92

Executive Summary

This report addresses social infrastructure impacts on the City of Chestermere as a result of Rocky View County’s Conrich Area Structure Plan (ASP). It details specific detriments to the following aspects of community social infrastructure that fall directly within the mandate of municipalities to provide: A. Disaster and Emergency Services B. Protective Services C. Community Services (i.e. Family & Community Support Services (FCSS), Early Childhood Development Services and the Parent Link Centre, Emergency Social Services, and Library Services) D. Recreation facilities and amenities

This ASP, in general, does not demonstrate an understanding of, nor commitment to, the importance of regional coordination and planning of social infrastructure. There is no identification of the anticipated impacts of the ASP on the social infrastructure of its neighbour, the City of Chestermere, nor strategies identified to mitigate the negative impacts. The approval of this ASP by Rocky View County (RVC) Council, preceded approval of an Intermunicipal Development Plan and a Recreation and Culture Master Plan, and without agreements being in place re key aspects of social infrastructure, which could have built on mutual interests and benefits, and prevented future problems between these municipalities.

It is of particular concern that an Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP) was not in place before Rocky View County (RVC) Council approved the Conrich ASP. If the ASP goes ahead in its current form, Conrich will be the second hamlet that RVC is expanding, in proximity to Chestermere, with no IDP in place to help guide and coordinate planning that is in the interests of both municipalities.

The experience in the other hamlet, Langdon, is a clear indication that the population growth planned for Conrich will have impacts on Chestermere. These impacts are expected to continue at least until Conrich has reached population benchmarks where it would be expected that the community be more self-sufficient in terms of services and facilities being located in the community. However, realistically, with the maximum population being planned as 10,000 people, Conrich will not have the population to support some major facilities and amenities, and regional planning will be required to meet residents’ needs.

There are five major concerns with the Conrich ASP, from a social planning perspective: 1. Little or no mention is made in the ASP of how the County plans to address particular social infrastructure needs of this increased population. 2. No social planning documents were used to inform the development of the ASP, and the County does not have plans in place for key aspects of municipal social infrastructure. 3. There is no Intermunicipal Development Plan with the City of Chestermere, and the draft IDP makes little reference to social infrastructure. 4. Intermunicipal plans and agreements are not currently in place to address the social infrastructure matters that already exist. 5. No mention is made in the ASP with regard to Community Services Reserve land (as defined in the MGA Amendment Act 2010).

Laura Brankovich, MSW, Social Planning Consultant i 93

Specific Detriments 1. Disaster and Emergency Services The industrial and commercial being planned, and the CN logistics hub, increases hazard risks in the region and puts more people on the road commuting to work in Conrich. There is little mention in the ASP as to how RVC plans to minimize hazard risks, or how they plan on dealing with disaster and emergency situations (as defined in the Emergency Management Act). This lack of planning would put a large burden on Chestermere’s Emergency Management resources in the event of a disaster or emergency, due to Chestermere’s proximity to Conrich. An intermunicipal agreement for Disaster and Emergency Services management does not currently exist.

2. Protective Services A. Police Services: The RCMP detachment serving Conrich is located in Strathmore, 39 km to the east of Conrich, whereas the Chestermere detachment is only 9 km to the east. Currently there is a verbal agreement between the two detachments to provide each other assistance when needed. The Conrich ASP will create a major imbalance in what is, at this time, a reciprocal agreement.

The ASP uses the population benchmark of 5,000 (established by the Provincial Policing Agreement) when referring to policing needs in Conrich. It does not take into account increased policing needs related to having high value targets in the large industrial and commercial areas, and the high number of non-residents who will be in the community for work purposes. This would result in underestimating the actual policing needs of the community and under-resourcing these needs. This would be to the detriment of Chesteremere.

Should the Conrich ASP go ahead, a verbal agreement between the two detachments for mutual assistance will no longer be sufficient, as the imbalance in the relationship would have budgetary implications for Chestermere City Council.

B. Fire Services The existing mutual aid agreement between the County and the City with regard to fire services is insufficient for the increased population, and hazard risks associated with the planned development in Conrich. Currently, Chestermere’s assistance is on Rocky View’s request, dependent on availability. The County’s closest fire stations to the Conrich development are the fire station in Balzac, 23 kms away, and its volunteer fire station in Langdon, approximately 29 km away, whereas Chestermere is only 9 kms from Conrich. The ASP does refer to an Emergency Services site being required at some time. Of concern for Chestermere, however, are the demands that there will be on their resources, until such time a site is built and has appropriate staffing to meet the protection needs of Conrich.

3. Community Services Three programs that are the responsibility of the City’s Community Services Department (CS) will have detrimental impacts as a result of the Conrich ASP, i.e. FCSS; Early Childhood Development and Parent Link programs; and Emergency Social Services. Library services are also included in this section of the report, although they are not the responsibility of the Community Services Department. A. FCSS: The City of Chestermere has historically provided services to residents of SE Rocky View County through an annual grant process with RVC’s FCSS. There is no Laura Brankovich, MSW, Social Planning Consultant ii 94

Social Plan (or equivalent social planning documents) that indicates how RVC intends on meeting the social infrastructure needs of their hamlets as their populations grow. The amount of funding provided to the City for providing these services is not based on a population and needs-based funding formula/agreement.

B. Early Childhood Development Program and Parent Link Centre: Child and Family Services contracts with the City of Chestermere’s CS Department to provide Early Childhood Development and Parent Link Centre services on a regional basis to SE Rocky View County residents. An increased population in Conrich would greatly tax this program’s capacity, without increased funding.

C. Emergency Social Services (ESS): The CS Department is responsible for meeting the emotional and physical needs of individuals and families affected by an emergency or disaster for up to 72 hours. These services could include emergency food, lodging, clothing, emotional support, first aid, childcare, transportation, pet care, and volunteer services. In lieu of an intermunicipal agreement being in place for the City to provide ESS services to RVC residents in the region, and the ASP not recognizing that planning needs to occur for the Emergency Social Services needs of its new resident and workforce populations, the burden of providing ESS will fall on the City of Chestermere, in the case of an evacuation or highway closure.

D. Library Services: Chestermere library is a regional facility operated by a non-profit board. If the Conrich ASP goes ahead, the library will need to move out of the City’s Municipal Building, where they currently get free space, as the current space was underbuilt for the population growth that has already occurred in Chestermere. This will incur capital costs.

4. Recreation, Parks, and Culture

The Conrich ASP has major deficiencies in that there is no recognition of the impacts of the ASP on recreation infrastructure located in Chestermere (either existing or being planned). This is of concern, given the ongoing, unresolved difficulties with regard to the sustainability of the County’s recreation facility in Chestermere, i.e. the Chestermere Regional Recreation Centre (the Rec Centre), and the need that has been identified for another regional recreation complex that would fulfill unmet recreational needs in the the region.

The County and the Chestermere Regional Community Association (which operates the Rec Centre on the County’s behalf), have been at variance for a number of years. The County has reportedly not provided funding to its Rec Centre in over two years; has downgraded its classification from a regional to a district facility (thus making the CRCA eligible for less funding from them); and is currently preventing the CRCA from doing what is needed for the Rec Centre to be sustainable, until such time as the CRCA agrees to a new lease that is agreeable to the County.

The City and the County currently have no relationship regarding the Rec Centre or the planning of the future facility: i) The City withdrew from a 2014 capital cost-sharing agreement with the County regarding the Rec Centre, after the County turned down the City’s offer to buy the facility. Chestermere has, however, subsequently provided one-time operational funding to keep the Rec Centre sustainable in the near term until current challenges can be addressed.

Laura Brankovich, MSW, Social Planning Consultant iii 95

ii) The City’s planning for the new recreation complex is being held up until the issue of the Rec Centre’s sustainability is addressed, as the Rec Centre was counted as part of the region’s recreation inventory when the feasibility study was conducted, and moving ahead with a new facility is contingent on the existing facility being sustained.

The Recreation section of the ASP (Section 17) is built around a Recreation and Culture Master Plan that has not/not yet been adopted by the County. The draft of this plan (Nov 2014) identified $230M of new and upgraded facilities desired by residents of RVC and its adjoining municipalities. Since that time, the City has seen nothing indicating what the County’s recreational infrastructure priorities will be, how they plan on supporting existing recreational infrastructure (specifically their Rec Centre in Chestermere), nor how they plan on meeting the future recreation needs of their growing population.

Given the current situation, and the fact that the County does not have a Recreation and Culture Master Plan, approval of the ASP by the RVC Council was premature. If the ASP were to go ahead, this would be of further detriment to the City, who at the moment appears to be bearing the brunt of responsibility for meeting the current and future recreation needs of the region, without any plan or agreement from the County re how they intend to contribute toward meeting the needs of their residents, both present and future.

Summary Statements

One of the stated objectives of the ASP is to “ensure a coordinated and cooperative approach to planning with adjacent municipalities” p. 79. With the difficulty to-date of establishing an IDP, the County’s lack of key social infrastructure planning documents, the unresolved conflicts over the Rec Centre, the intermunicipal agreements that are not in place, and the failed attempt to establish an intermunicipal regional recreation strategies committee, the only way to ensure that regional social infrastructure planning will occur, is if the necessary plans and key agreements are in place prior to the MGB giving consideration to approving the Conrich ASP. It would be unrealistic to expect that cooperative/collaborative regional planning will occur after the ASP is approved.

To go ahead without an Intermunicipal Development Plan and intermunicipal agreements being in place with regard to existing social infrastructure, would be to the detriment of the City of Chestermere. Mechanisms need to be put in place to ensure that regional planning occurs, and that the County pays its fair share of the capital and operating costs of regional facilities, as well as a fair portion of the costs of services used by their residents.

Laura Brankovich, MSW, Social Planning Consultant iv 96

SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS ON THE CITY OF CHESTERMERE AS A RESULT OF THE CONRICH AREA STRUCTURE PLAN

Developing sustainable communities requires that attention be paid, from the beginning, and through all stages of the planning process, to all four kinds of infrastructure planning that are the responsibility of municipal governments: 1) physical (’hard’) infrastructure; 2) governance infrastructure; 3) economic infrastructure; and 4) social infrastructure. This report addresses the impacts and detriments of Rocky View County’s Conrich Area Structure Plan (ASP) on the City of Chestermere’s social infrastructure.

Definition of Social Infrastructure For the purposes of the Merit Hearing, Social Infrastructure is defined as: the facilities, organizations, services, and activities that: • result in the formation, development, and maintenance of a sense of community identity and community belonging; • protect the community and its residents; and • maintain and grow the quality of life of residents, and the community overall.

The following are considered to be aspects of a community’s Social Infrastructure: • Recreation and Leisure Facilities: sports fields, recreation facilities, parks, pathways, performing arts theatres, museums, libraries, community centres, community gathering places • Recreation and Leisure Organizations: sports organizations, theatre groups, youth leadership organizations, etc. • Protective Services: RCMP, fire, and ambulance • Disaster Services and Emergency Social Services • Public Transportation • Schools • Health Services and Facilities • Places of Worship • Family and Community Support Services (FCSS) • Community Development: Municipal staff who work with residents to identify issues that affect/could affect the quality of life of the community, and who work with residents to build the community’s capacity to address these issues. • Non-profit and Charitable Organizations (also referred to as Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)) • Service Groups • Community Volunteers

Laura Brankovich, MSW, Social Planning Consultant 1 97

Scope of the Report In this report, consideration of social infrastructure impacts has been limited to those aspects of community social infrastructure that fall directly within the mandate of municipalities: A. Emergency and Disaster Services B. Protective Services: fire and police C. Community Services (Family and Community Support Services); Early Childhood Development Services and the Parent Link Centre, Emergency Social Services, and Library Services) D. Recreation facilities, amenities, and services

Legislation and Plans Relevant to a Discussion of Municipal Social Infrastructure Two pieces of provincial legislation are relevant to the municipal provision of community social infrastructure: i) the Municipal Government Act (2000) and ii) the Family and Community Support Services Act (2000): 1. Municipal Government Act (MGA) Municipal Development Plans (MDP): In the current MGA, Section 632 (3)(v), it is stated that a Municipal Development Plan must address “the provision of municipal services and facilities either generally or specifically”. Intermunicipal Development Plans (IDP): In Section 631 (2) (a)(iii) it is stated that an intermunicipal development plan may provide “for any other matters relating to the physical, social or economic development of the area that the councils consider necessary…”

2. Family and Community Support Services (FCSS) Act Under the Act, a municipality may (a) provide for the establishment, administration and operation of a family and community support services program within the municipality, and (b) enter into agreements with other municipalities to provide for the establishment, administration and operation of joint family and community support services programs. 1981 cF-1.1 s2 FCSS is a cost-sharing program under the Alberta Human Services Ministry, in which the province will contribute up to 80% of the costs of a municipality providing services of a preventive nature that “enhance the social well-being of individuals and families through promotion or intervention strategies provided at the earliest opportunity”. Source: http://www.humanservices.alberta.ca/documents/FCSS-what-is-FCSS.pdf

South Saskatchewan Regional Plan In the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan 2014 – 2024, it is stated: “Alberta’s Social Policy Framework’s vision focuses on the creation of inclusive and welcoming communities, where every resident has opportunities to fulfill their potential and benefit from a thriving social, economic and cultural life. Decision-makers in the region will need to deliberately cooperate and coordinate their planning to meet the physical and social infrastructure needs of their communities and to ensure the quality of life for all residents is enhanced in thriving urban and rural communities.” (bolding added) p. 34

Laura Brankovich, MSW, Social Planning Consultant 2 98

Social Planning Concerns Related to the Conrich Area Structure Plan

In Rocky View County’s municipal development plan, the County Plan (Bylaw C-7280-2013, Section 9.8 (c)), it is stated that: “An area structure plan for a hamlet shall address the following planning and design matters… population estimates and impact on existing services, infrastructure, and amenities”. However, from a Social Infrastructure planning perspective, these design considerations are either not addressed at all, or are insufficiently addressed in the Conrich Area Structure Plan (ASP).

The ASP does not demonstrate an understanding or commitment to the importance of regional coordination and planning of social infrastructure. There is no identification of the anticipated impacts of the ASP on the social infrastructure of its neighbour, the City of Chestermere, nor strategies identified to mitigate the negative impacts. The development of this ASP was not used as a stimulus to get intermunicipal plans and agreements put in place that would build on mutual interests and benefits, and that could prevent future problems between these municipalities.

Lack of an Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP) It is of concern that an Intermunicipal Development Plan was not put into place before Rocky View County (RVC) approved the Conrich ASP. If the ASP goes ahead in its current form, Conrich will be the second hamlet that RVC is expanding, in close proximity to Chestermere, with no IDP in place to help guide and coordinate planning that is in the best interests of both municipalities, as well as both hamlets.

The other is the hamlet of Langdon, which could be viewed as an indicator of things to come in Conrich. Langdon’s population grew +87% during the last federal census period, to close to 5,000 people (4,897). With this population, its high school students still attend school at Chestermere High School; Chestermere’s Community Services Department and a non-profit developed by the City provide FCSS-funded services to the hamlet; the only public recreational facilities in the community are a small community centre in Langdon Park and a golf course; the community’s policing needs are still met through the Strathmore rural RCMP detachment; the fire department is voluntary; and Langdon residents access the Chestermere library.

The experience in Langdon is a clear indication that the population growth planned for Conrich will have impacts on Chestermere, at least until Conrich has reached population benchmarks where it would be expected that the community be more self-sufficient in terms of services and facilities being located in the community. The ASP should recognize the impacts that the Conrich development will have on the City, and RVC should be considering how it is going to compensate the City for meeting the needs of County residents until these services/facilities are no longer needed. But, realistically, with the population intended to be 10,000 maximum, there may be services and facilities that will never be sustainable at that population level, where there will need to be regional solutions to meeting these residents’ needs.

No population benchmarks have been established in the ASP for development of any social infrastructure, with the exception of policing (which is set by the Provincial Police Service Agreement), so it is difficult for Chestermere to plan for dealing with this increased regional population that will require Chestermere-based services and who will be using Chestermere’s facilities and community amenities.

Laura Brankovich, MSW, Social Planning Consultant 3 99

In the ASP, the following reference is made to the lack of an IDP: A portion of the Conrich Plan area borders the City of Chestermere. Intermunicipal coordination with the City of Chestermere, in the absence of an Intermunicipal Development Plan, will address issues related to interface planning, land use compatibility, and joint infrastructure requirements affecting both municipalities. An Intermunicipal Development Plan may be adopted in the near future. “ p. 16

This part of the ASP is not at all sufficient to ensure coordinated planning, given the difficulty of getting agreement to an IDP to-date, and the current breakdown in the relationship between the two Councils with regard to the Chestermere Regional Recreation Centre. There is great risk that if the Conrich ASP is implemented without an IDP in place, that development will proceed, to the detriment of the City of Chestermere, as there is no requirement after-the-fact for RVC to reach agreement with the City on key issues.

It is stated on page 18 that the development of an ASP would provide the opportunity to “…provide for the development of a land use pattern that results in cost effective infrastructure systems, public facilities, and community services.” Requiring an IDP to be in place, prior to the MGB considering approving the ASP, would increase the likelihood of achieving these outcomes.

Laura Brankovich, MSW, Social Planning Consultant 4 100

Social Planning Deficiencies in the Conrich ASP

There are five major concerns with the Conrich ASP, from a social planning perspective: 1. Little or no mention is made in the ASP of how the County plans to address the social infrastructure needs of this increased population. The population of the Plan Area in 2013 was estimated by Rocky View County (RVC) to be 1,358 residents. The Plan could have this population growing to as high as 10,000 individuals, as a full service rural community. This is a significant population increase that will have detriments to Chesteremere’s social infrastructure if the ASP were to be implemented in its current form.

2. On the County’s website, in the section delineating the County planning documents that informed the Conrich area structure planning process, there is no mention of social infrastructure, social services, etc. The County currently does not have plans in place for key aspects of social infrastructure, ie there is no Social Plan or its equivalent, and the Recreation and Culture Master Plan has not/not yet been adopted by RVC Council. There is a document, the Chestermere-Conrich Recreation District Recreation Master Plan 2007 – 2011. However, it is very dated, and not of current value as a planning document. County FCSS’ social planning documents include a 2010 survey and the RVC Family and Community Support Services Strategy Road Map (2012), which establishes FCSS values and criteria to be used in determining what programs to fund.

Without a Recreation Master Plan or social planning documents that fill the function of a Social Plan, the City has no ability to see how the County plans, even from a broader perspective, to support the social infrastructure needs of their hamlets as they grow. This is of concern because of the previously noted Langdon example.

3. As mentioned previously, an approved IDP with City of Chestermere does not exist. Getting accord on an IDP needs to be a priority. In the draft IDP, it states that under Section 631 of the MGA, an IDP: …must address future land uses as well as the manner of, or proposals for, future development in the plan area. In addition, Councils engaged in the development of the IDP may consider the inclusion of any other matter relating to the physical, social or economic development of either municipality. P 4 There is little mention made of social infrastructure in the draft IDP. It would be to the advantage of both the County and City to increase the presence of social infrastructure considerations in this key planning document (particularly with regard to regional recreation infrastructure), in order to maximize the resources of both municipalities.

4. Intermunicipal plans and agreements are not currently in place to address the social infrastructure matters that already exist. There is a surprisingly low number of agreements between the County and the City, given what is common practice elsewhere in Alberta. All that exists is one agreement with regard to mutual aid for fire services, and a one year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the provision of FCSS services to RVC residents.

In 2003 and 2005, the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties (AAMD&C) commissioned a review of Inter-Municipal Agreements that its member rural municipalities had with neighbouring municipalities. What was found in 2005 was that the average number of inter-municipal agreements, per municipality, was 13, more than double what it had been two years previously. It was also discovered that

Laura Brankovich, MSW, Social Planning Consultant 5 101

agreements related to social infrastructure services were the most prevalent types of agreements.

Fire, recreation, FCSS, libraries and ambulance services made up the top five most frequently found inter-municipal agreements. They also constituted the bulk of the costs associated with these agreements: “While these five service areas represent 74% of the reported agreements, the dollar value of those agreements represents over 88% of the values of agreements reported” (p. 10)

Of particular concern is that inter-municipal conflict over the Chestermere Regional Recreation Centre, has resulted in termination of the intermunicipal capital cost-sharing agreement that existed with regard to this facility, and its sustainability may be at stake.

Services Received from Other Municipalities (excerpted and adapted from AAMD&C Inter-Municipal Agreement Review Project, 2005, p. 9)

TYPE OF SERVICE ACQUIRED # OF AGREEMENTS % OF TOTAL AGREEMENTS Fire/Mutual Aid 160 33% Recreation/Culture 98 20% FCSS 49 10% Library 27 6% Ambulance 23 5% Economic Development 12 2% Water Supply 11 2% Airport 9 2% Transportation Services (road works, etc) 9 2% Solid Waste Collection 9 2% Animal Control 9 2% Special Constable 9 2% Special Transportation 7 1% Weed Control 6 1% Assessment 6 1% 911 Dispatch 5 1% Sanitary Sewer 5 1% Landfill 4 1% Land-use Planning 4 1% Recycling 3 1% Cemetery 3 1% Medical/Dental Facilities 3 1% Toxic Waste Roundup 2 >1% Disaster Services 2 >1% Policing 2 >1% Mosquito Control 1 >1% Bus Stops 1 >1%

Laura Brankovich, MSW, Social Planning Consultant 6 102

TYPE OF SERVICE ACQUIRED # OF AGREEMENTS % OF TOTAL AGREEMENTS Transit Service 1 >1% Tourism 1 >1% Inspection Services 1 >1% IT Services 1 >1%

TOTAL 482 100%

5. No mention is made in the Conrich ASP with regard to Community Services Reserve land (as defined in the MGA Amendment Act 2010). It would be advisable to add a similarly- worded sentence to what is found in the County’s draft Langdon ASP, i.e.: “Prior to the disposition of municipal or school reserve land declared surplus by the school board, the County shall determine if the land is required for community services reserve land as provided for in the Municipal Government Act. Having land available on which to construct social infrastructure facilities is important in meeting needs locally, as the needs arise. It would also diminish dependence on neighbouring municipalities’ social infrastructure, in cases where it is determined that it would be advantageous/desirable/necessary to have particular services located right within the community.

According to the MGA Amendment Act, Community Services Reserve land can be used for: • a public library; • a police station, a fire station, or an ambulance services facility, or a combination of them; • a non-profit day care facility; • a non-profit senior citizens facility; • a non-profit special needs facility; • a municipal facility providing service directly to the public; and • affordable housing.

Also, allowing for Community Services Reserve could make spaces available in the community for Chestermere programs, organizations, and the City’s Community Services Department, to offer programs at a convenient location for Conrich residents , should the organizations wish/be able to do so.

Laura Brankovich, MSW, Social Planning Consultant 7 103

Social Infrastructure Detriments to the City of Chestermere

1. Emergency and Disaster Services The increased industrial and commercial being planned, and the CN logistics hub, increases hazard risks in the region by, for example, increasing the hazardous materials in transit through or near Chestermere. As well, it puts more people on the road commuting to work in Conrich. Issues include: • There is currently no intermunicipal agreement in place for Emergency and Disaster Services Management between the County and the City, never mind being able to deal with increased risks being put in such close proximity to the City. • Not much consideration is given in the ASP as to how RVC plans to minimize the hazard risks, or recognition of the need to do so. For example, no mention is made of requiring a risk assessment process in land-use planning to determine what industrial and commercial will be allowed. • No mention is made of how the County intends on dealing with Disaster and Emergency situations, as defined in Alberta’s Emergency Management Act, i.e.: 1(e) “disaster” means an event that results in serious harm to the safety, health or welfare of people or in widespread damage to property; 1(f) “emergency” means an event that requires prompt co-ordination of action or special regulation of persons or property to protect the safety, health or welfare of people or to limit damage to property; p. 2 The only reference to emergency or disaster situations is in Section 21.9, which states: “The County shall collaborate with CN to develop an Emergency Response Plan to mitigate delays to emergency response due to train movements.”

This is insufficient to deal with the risks and hazards. This lack of planning, would put a large burden on Chestermere’s Emergency Management resources in the event of a disaster or emergency.

2. Protective Services A. Policing Services The increased population and business activities in Conrich will increase the policing demands on the Chestermere RCMP detachment. Under Section 21 of the ASP, the County states that its objective is to: “Ensure an appropriate and efficient level of fire and protective services is made available for current and future residents in order to provide for a safe and liveable community.” However, the policies that follow are not sufficient to achieve this. Current Situation: The RCMP detachment serving Conrich is located in Strathmore, 39 km to the east of Conrich, whereas the Chestermere detachment is only 9 km to the east. Currently there is a verbal agreement between the two detachments to provide each other assistance when needed. However, the Conrich ASP will create an imbalance in this reciprocal agreement, and not just in terms of the population increase being planned. The type of development being proposed, with its high industrial and commercial component will increase policing needs.

Laura Brankovich, MSW, Social Planning Consultant 8 104

Policies The policies in Sections 21.1, .4, and .5, do not reflect an understanding that the type of development being planned also has an impact on policing needs, the brunt of which will be borne by the Chestermere detachment:

21.1. In association with County Fire Services, the RCMP, and other emergency service providers, an adequate level of service shall be provided to meet current needs, as well as future needs, based on projected population growth and demographic change in the Plan area. 21.4. Policing will be provided by the RCMP as per the Provincial Police Service Agreement, until such time as another policing solution is required or sought out. 21.5. Prior to the approval of a development that will result in the Conrich area’s population exceeding 5,000 residents; the County will review the policing requirements for the Conrich area and identify additional resources needed.

It is not enough to just consider population growth and demographic change in determining adequate levels of policing services. Policing needs related to the type of development being planned also need to be factored in. The ASP does not take into account increased policing needs related to the non-residential portion of their plan, i.e. policing needs related to having high value targets in their large industrial and commercial areas, and the high number of non-residents who will be in the community for work purposes (what Chestermere RCMP referred to as the “shadow population”, which for policing purposes is a component of the population to be served).

The ASP only takes into consideration the 5,000 resident population benchmark where a Municipal Policing Agreement becomes necessary, thereby underestimating and under-resourcing the policing needs for this proposed development. To base decisions regarding policing needs, solely on the census population of Conrich, would be to the detriment of Chestermere.

Chestermere has a service standard of one RCMP officer for every 1,000 residents. The Chestermere detachment’s closer proximity to Conrich will increase demands on the Chestermere detachment. Increased staffing costs required to maintain Chestermere’s service standard, while providing assistance to the rural detachment in servicing Conrich, should not be borne by the Chestermere taxpayer.

Laura Brankovich, MSW, Social Planning Consultant 9 105

B. Fire Services The existing mutual aid agreement between the County and the City with regard to fire services is insufficient for the increased population, risks and hazards associated with the planned development in Conrich. Currently, Chestermere’s assistance is on Rocky View’s request, dependent on availability. The County’s closest fire stations to the Conrich development are the fire station in Balzac, 23 kms away, and its volunteer fire station in Langdon, approximately 29 km away. It has to be asked whether this meets the standard of “ensur(ing) an appropriate level of fire and protective services” as was the objective set out in Section 21 of the ASP. Please refer to Figure 1, which pictorially illustrates the relative distances between the fire station in Balzac that RVC intends to service Conrich’s needs, and the proximity of Chestermere fire services. The ASP does refer to an Emergency Services site being required and provides specifications for the site. Of concern for Chestermere, though, are the demands that there will be on their resources, located 9 kms from Conrich, until such a site is built and has appropriate staffing to meet the protection needs of the residents and business community. Figure 1: Geographic Locations of Existing Fire Services in Proximity to Conrich

Chestermere is also concerned about their ability to provide timely response, as this would be dependent on access points and the timing in which the planned road infrastructure upgrades actually occur.

Laura Brankovich, MSW, Social Planning Consultant 10 106

3. Community Services Three programs that are the responsibility of the City’s Community Services Department (CS) will have detrimental impacts as a result of the Conrich ASP, i.e. FCSS; Early Childhood Development and Parent Link programs; and Emergency Social Services. Library services are also included in this section of the report, although they are not the responsibility of the Community Services Department. A. FCSS Two structural models for FCSS exist in the province: the single municipality or multi- municipality FCSS models (where two or more municipalities come together to form a regional FCSS program). Chestermere and Rocky View County are each set up under the single municipality structural model.

FCSSs operate under three different models: i) a municipal FCSS may act as a service provider, providing many/most of the community’s programming and service needs, ii) the FCSS may act as a funder, providing grants to other organizations to provide programming and services to its residents, iii) or there is a combined model, where some mix exists of FCSS service provision by the municipality as well as their providing funding to other organizations.

RVC’s FCSS operates under a funder model. i.e. it does not provide FCSS services directly to its residents, but contracts other organizations to provide these services. Chestermere’s Community Services Department (CS) has provided FCSS services to SE Rocky View County residents for many years, including Conrich, through an annual application and grant process with RVC’s FCSS.

Chestermere historically operated under the service provider model, but in recent years has transitioned to being both a service provider and funder. FCSS falls under the Community Services Department, which has a broader mandate than that of FCSS. The City accesses funding from a variety of sources beyond FCSS to meet the larger needs of the region, and has a funding partnership with the Calgary and Area United Way.

The County does not have a Social Plan (or equivalent social planning documents), so it is not known how the County intends on supporting the people of its developing hamlets in terms of programs, services, and community development activities. A Social Plan establishes the social priorities of a Council and its Administration.* It builds on the MDP, with a focus on the people side of what makes a community. It identifies issues that relate to individual and community quality of life, and articulates the community’s vision for the kind of community it wants to be. It provides strategies to achieve this vision, and is intended to be a framework from which decisions will be made regarding activities, funding and resource allocation. * As an example, the Chestermere Social Plan 2012-14 can be found at http://www.chestermere.ca/DocumentCenter/View/2730

The County has two public social planning documents, the Rocky View County Community Needs Assessment Study (2010), and the Rocky View County Family and Community Support Services Strategy Road Map (2012). The survey provided information (now out-dated), but did not lead to development of a Social Plan, or equivalent social planning documents. The Strategy Road Map provides some aspects of a Social Plan in that it articulates the FCSS Board’s values and includes criteria for decision-making.

Laura Brankovich, MSW, Social Planning Consultant 11 107

There has been no discussion with the City’s Community Services Department regarding the impacts of the Conrich ASP, of adding additional population to the area where Chestermere currently provides services, programs, and amenities used by SE Rocky View residents.

It would be helpful if the County were to involve its FCSS in addressing the social infrastructure impacts on Chestermere. Given that RVC FCSS does not provide direct services to its residents, and that there is a long-standing relationship between the County and City FCSSs, consideration could be given to multi-year funding, and development of a funding formula that takes into consideration both population increases and the needs in SE Rocky View County.

B. Early Childhood Development Program and Parent Link Centre Child and Family Services contracts with the City of Chestermere’s CS Department to provide Early Childhood Development and Parent Link Centre services on a regional basis to SE Rocky View County residents, including Conrich. An increased population would greatly tax this program’s capacity. Also, Parent Link does not have the space to offer increased programs, according to the CS Director.

C. Emergency Social Services (ESS) The CS Department is responsible for meeting the emotional and physical needs of individuals and families affected by an emergency or disaster for up to 72 hours (possibly more in extraordinary circumstances). These services could include emergency food, lodging, clothing, emotional support, first aid, childcare, multicultural assistance, transportation, pet care, and volunteer services (source: ESSNA). Concerns include: • No attention is given in the ASP to how RV County plans to meet its ESS needs in the case of an evacuation, or when a highway closure occurs due to dangerous winter driving conditions (as has happened twice in recent years). • There is no existing agreement with the City re the provision of ESS services to RV residents and RV County does not have a plan that addresses ESS. In lieu of an intermunicipal agreement being in place, and the ASP not recognizing that planning needs to occur for the Emergency Social Services needs of its new resident population, as well as those who work in their community, but don’t live there, the burden of providing Emergency Social Services will fall on the City of Chestermere, in the case of an evacuation or highway closure.

D. Library Services The Chestermere Public Library is operated by a non-profit board. It is located in Chestermere’s City Hall, where the City provides space, without cost, as an in-kind contribution to the library. RVC residents are able to use the library, as RVC is a member of Marigold. Also, the library receives an annual population-based payment from RVC for operating costs. Currently this amount is $35,000.

The biggest impact of the Conrich ASP, according to the library, is that the increased population would put additional pressure on them when they are already under pressure for space.

Laura Brankovich, MSW, Social Planning Consultant 12 108

4. Recreation, Parks, and Culture Section 17 of the ASP has significant deficiencies. To understand the degree to which it is deficient and the detriments it will cause for Chestermere if the Conrich ASP goes ahead, some context needs to be provided with regard to the Chestermere Regional Recreation Centre, the Chestermere-Conrich Regional Recreation Board, the City of Chestermere’s outdoor recreational amenities, and the unsuccessful attempt to establish a Town of Chestermere/Rocky View County Joint Regional Recreation Strategy Committee.

A. The Chestermere Regional Recreation Centre Background: There is one public indoor recreation facility in the Chestermere- Conrich region, the Chestermere Regional Recreation Centre (the Rec Centre). It is located on approximately 28 acres of Rocky View County land, in what is now the heart of Chestermere. It is an aging facility that dates back to when Chestermere was a summer village. It has been operated under a lease agreement between Rocky View County and the Chestermere Regional Community Association (CRCA), since 1980.

Although it is not the City’s facility, the Town/City of Chestermere has, over time, contributed almost two million dollars ($1,920,966) for capital/life cycle expenses of the facility. A Dissolution Agreement, dated May 15, 2007 exists between RVC and Chestermere, where “in the event of a winding up or dissolution of the Chestermere Regional Recreation Centre, or in the event of any substantial changes in the nature of the organization operating the Project…” the County will pay Chestermere a pro-rata portion, i.e. 13.5% of the proceeds of the sale of the Rec Centre (both facility and land). This was based on Chestermere having contributed $1,185,000, as of 2005, towards the costs of a facility that cost $8,771,770 to construct. The subsequent $735,966 that the City has contributed towards capital costs of the Rec Centre is not covered by a dissolution agreement.

In April 2014, RVC and Chestermere entered into a cost-sharing agreement regarding capital and lifecycle costs of the Rec Centre, where each party committed to giving $200,000 per year (minus debenture payments for the phase 2 development of the Rec Centre). However, the relationship between the two Councils has subsequently deteriorated, to the point of there being no relationship between them, with regard to the Rec Centre, and the City has withdrawn from the agreement.

There are also major issues in the relationship between the CRCA and RVC, which are long-standing and remain unresolved. The City of Chestermere has stayed out of the dispute, as it was felt they have no mandate to be involved, as they are not the owner/leaseholder.

Chronology of Events: The following is a timeline of events over the last three years. Although an attempt has been made to provide the most salient points, it may not capture everything the three parties consider to be important, as this is a complex situation:

June 2013 City of Chestermere enters into an agreement with the CRCA to provide $150,000 toward the Rec Centre’s Life Cycle Replacement costs, with RV County matching this amount.

Laura Brankovich, MSW, Social Planning Consultant 13 109

November 2013 RVC and City of Chestermere express concern over conflicts of interest in the membership of the newly elected CRCA board.

April 2014 RVC and Chesteremere enter into an equal cost-sharing agreement for capital and lifecycle costs of the Rec Centre.

May 2014 RVC sends letter to CRCA board advising them that there will be an investigation of their board governance.

July 2014 RVC demands resignation of CRCA board. Board refuses. Aug 2014 Chestermere sends Letter of Intent (LOI) to RVC offering to buy the Rec Centre.

Sept 2014 Both RVC and City of Chestermere withdraw funding to the CRCA due to conflict of interest on the board.

October 2014 RVC notifies Chestermere by letter, that it is not in a position to sell at that time, but that a decision to sell would be based, at least partially, on market value of the facility, through a public sale process.

December 2014 Chestermere gives 6 months notice of withdrawal from the capital Cost- Sharing Services Agreement with RVC, as the City is not the owner/leaseholder of the facility, and it was felt that RVC’s response to the LOI did not recognize the City as a partner with regard to the almost $2M capital contributions that the City had made to the Rec Centre.

December 2014 Information presented to RVC Council re the County’s Recreation and Culture Master Plan, including an identification of $230M worth of facilities that residents desired in RVC and neighbouring municipalities. The plan was not adopted.

March 2015 New CRCA Board elected.

July 2015 CRCA approaches Chestermere Council for operational funding. Supported.

July 2015 CRCA approaches Rocky View Council for funding. Motions tabled “pursuant to legal and administrative advice provided in camera and; that Administration be directed to communicate requirements of the County to Chestermere Regional Community Association Board in line with the legal opinion.” RVC Council Minutes July 14, 2015 April 2015 RVC sends letter to CRCA regarding requirements to be met prior to RVC considering any funding for the Rec Centre

December 2015 CRCA votes against the license proposed by RVC December 2015 RVC Council votes to reclassify (downgrade) the Chestermere Regional Recreation Centre “from a regional recreational facility to that of a community (district) facility with the applicable policies of district facilities” (ie making it eligible for lesser funding from RVC). RVC Council Minutes of Dec 8, 2015

January 2016 City of Chestermere enters into a Contribution Agreement with the CRCA regarding a one-time Revitalization Grant of $200,000. This grant was provided to: 1) ensure operations of the Chestermere Recreation Centre will continue without disruption… 2) support the implementation of the Chestermere Regional Laura Brankovich, MSW, Social Planning Consultant 14 110

Community Association 2015/2016 operational business plan to ensure the sustainability of the Centre. February 2016 RVC Council votes that the “County’s approval for permits required for developments, renovations, and improvements within the Chestermere Regional Recreation Centre be withheld until the ‘head’ lease with the Chestermere Regional Community Association is renegotiated to the County’s satisfaction.” RVC Council Minutes of Feb 23/16

Current Issues: The long-standing nature of the issues between the County and the CRCA, with no apparent end in sight, is of concern to the City, as the Rec Centre is an important community hub for residents of Chestermere and SE Rocky View County.

In the News tab, on the County’s website, there is an article titled “County Continues Support of Chestermere Recreation Complex”, dated December 18, 2014. In this article, a County Administrator is quoted as saying: “In the immediate future, Rocky View County will continue to provide its residents, and the residents of Chestermere, with the recreation opportunities they want and need for their families….In the longer term, we have a number of important decisions to make as we undertake County recreation master planning and consider the role of the Chestermere Regional Recreation Complex.” This commitment to support the Rec Centre has not subsequently demonstrated itself in terms of funding. RVC has not provided capital funding to its Rec Centre in over two years (not since March 2014). Additionally, as indicated in the timeline, RVC is now preventing the CRCA from doing any developments, renovations or improvements to the facility (which curtails the CRCA’s efforts to increase their financial sustainability), until the CRCA agrees to a new lease that is to the County’s satisfaction. The CRCA’s representative indicated that they have not yet seen a proposed new lease, but RVC has approached them with a license, which they voted against, as it does not mention their right to be paid for the facility if RVC terminates the lease. The lease reportedly expires in 2029.

Issues between RVC and the CRCA are a detriment to Chestermere in terms of planning for new recreation facilities. In Chestermere’s Master Recreation Plan 20141, the need for a regional recreation and leisure centre was identified, that would provide indoor amenities the community does not have. Subsequently, the City commissioned the Future Recreation and Leisure Centre Feasibility Study (February 2016). In this study, the Rec Centre is counted as part of the recreation inventory in the city, and RC Strategies emphasizes in the report that ”Ensuring that existing facilities are sustained is an important consideration for City decision-makers prior to contemplating major investment in new, expanded service levels”, and “It is important to note that the following levels of development assume the sustained operation of the Chestermere Regional Recreation Centre and the current amenities found within it.”

However, there are no assurances that this will be the case. With the County not providing funding to the Rec Centre; not allowing the CRCA to develop, renovate or improve the building; and the unresolved lease dispute, the future of the facility is uncertain.

1 http://www.chestermere.ca/DocumentCenter/View/1632

Laura Brankovich, MSW, Social Planning Consultant 15 111

B. The Chestermere-Conrich Regional Recreation Board (CCRRB) According to RVC Bylaw C-6336-2006, Section 2.2, the purpose of this board is to: …foster, create, develop, maintain and operate parks, recreation program facilities and services, and other recreation facilities in the cooperating town and regional area under their joint control and management. However, in practice this is not what the CCRRB does. There is no joint control and management of parks, recreation programs and facilities. The CCRRB functions as a joint grant-giving body that provides funding to organizations that provide leisure and recreation programming in the Chestermere-Conrich region. The City administers the funds on behalf of the board, and both municipalities contribute equally to the amount of funding to be distributed.

The future of this board is uncertain. RVC intends on reviewing the recreation district boards, which were deemed to be unsustainable in their draft Recreation and Culture Master Plan. http://www.rockyview.ca/Portals/0/Files/Government/Boards/PP/2014/2014-12-02-Policy- Priorities-Agenda.pdf

C. Chestermere’s Outdoor Recreation Amenities and Events Outdoor recreation is an important aspect of Chestermere’s identity, dating back to its origins as a summer village built around the lake. Over time, the community has built an extensive inventory of outdoor recreation amenities that includes a number of specialized parks (a state of the art mountain bike skills park, skate park, two beach parks, one waterfront park with boat launch access, off-leash dog park), numerous other parks, soccer fields, baseball diamonds, a football field, tennis courts, hard courts, outdoor rinks, and an extensive pathway system. The City also hosts three major festivals annually at John Peake Park, to which no admission is charged. These amenities and events incur significant operating expenses each year.

It is anticipated that due to the proximity of the planned Conrich development, and the fact that there are no fees associated with usage, that Conrich residents will be using these facilities and attending City festivals, stressing the City’s parks and events budgets and increasing maintenance and lifecycle costs of recreational amenities. The ASP does not recognize these amenities as regional assets that would be used by RVC residents. Without compensation from RVC for their residents’ use of these amenities, Conrich residents’ use of these facilities would be to the financial detriment of the City and Chestermere taxpayers.

D. Attempt to Establish a Town of Chestermere/Rocky View County Joint Regional Recreation Strategy Committee In 2013, RVC management approached Chestermere about developing a proposal that would be jointly submitted to both Councils regarding the formation of a committee that would provide an opportunity to work together to: assess recreation and culture needs within Chestermere and the surrounding RVC area; plan and develop recreation facilities that would meet the needs of both municipalities and be financially sustainable; and benefit from economies of scale. The intent of the committee was to take a regional approach, while respecting local municipal decision-making. They were almost at the point of making a presentation to the Intermunicipal Committee, prior to jointly presenting at each other’s Council meetings, when RVC Administration put it on hold. This promising initiative was not brought to fruition. Laura Brankovich, MSW, Social Planning Consultant 16 112

Deficiencies of Section 17 of the Conrich ASP: The Recreation section of the ASP is built around a Recreation and Culture Master Plan that has not/not yet been adopted by the County. The draft of this plan (Nov 2014) identified $230M of new and upgraded facilities desired by residents of RVC and its adjoining municipalities. Since that time, the City has seen nothing indicating what the County’s recreational infrastructure priorities will be, how they plan on supporting existing recreational infrastructure (specifically their Rec Centre in Chestermere), nor how they plan on meeting the future recreation needs of their growing population.

To accept Section 17, which is based on a plan that has not been adopted, would require the City to take a leap of faith that is unrealistic given the breakdown in the relationship between the two municipalities with regard to the Rec Centre, and the situation between RVC and the CRCA.

The ASP reflects limited understanding or commitment to the importance of regional planning for recreation infrastructure. There is no recognition of the impacts of the ASP on recreation infrastructure located in Chestermere (either existing or being planned). Nor are there structures in place to facilitate regional planning: • The efforts by staff of both municipalities to create a joint planning committee did not come to fruition, as noted previously. • Rocky View County has a Regional Recreation Board whose role includes “acting in an advisory capacity to Council, as required on a variety of matters impacting or potentially impacting regional recreation and cultural initiatives for Rocky View County”. However, its membership consists solely of Rocky View Council. http://www.rockyview.ca/Government/BoardsCommittees/RecreationBoards/Regi onalRecreationBoard.aspx

Realistically, the population being planned for Conrich is not sufficiently high as to be able to sustain much in the way of recreational amenities. Regional planning would make sense for both municipalities. Conrich residents would benefit from having access to facilities that are in proximity to where they live, and the increased population in Conrich would create more users for facilities in Chestermere, increasing the sustainability of these facilities.

The City and County have two major issues that need to be dealt with: 1) a sustainability plan for the existing Rec Centre: In the Chestermere Regional Community Association’s Business Plan 2013: Redevelopment and Expansion, prepared by Paul Conrad & Associates, $31,750,00 was identified as being needed to repair building deficiencies, address lifecycle issues, and construct additional amenities that would make the Rec Centre more financially sustainable. 2) planning for a new regional recreation facility that would add amenities that do not exist at the Rec Centre. This facility was estimated as having a total cost of $76,943,913, with phased construction.

To approve the Conrich ASP would be to the detriment of Chestermere, with the situation being what it is currently. It would leave Chestermere with the brunt of the responsibility for meeting the recreation needs of residents in the region, with their hands being tied, as they cannot move forward with plans for a new recreation facility as long as the Rec Centre’s sustainability is uncertain. Laura Brankovich, MSW, Social Planning Consultant 17 113

With the City’s tax base being almost exclusively residential, Chesteremere’s position with regard to indoor recreation facilities (both the Rec Centre and the new facility that is being planned) has been that they need to be operationally sustainable, i.e. that the facilities will generate enough revenue to cover the costs of running the facility), once they are constructed. That is why, up until this year, the City did not provide operational funding to the CRCA (except through the Chestermere Conrich Regional Recreation Board). However, the City broke with precedent this year, as a temporary measure, as the sustainability of the Rec Centre was at stake.

At a time when the City is the only one funding the County’s facility (the County has not provided funding to its Rec Centre for over two years); when the County has rejected the City’s offer to purchase the facility; is preventing the CRCA from developing, renovating or improving the building (necessary for their sustainability), and with the lease dispute continuing, is not the time for RVC to be increasing the regional population.

Approving the ASP would be of further detriment to the City, who at the moment appears to be bearing the brunt of responsibility for meeting the current and future recreation needs of the region, without any plan or agreement from the County re how they intend to contribute toward meeting the needs of their residents, both present and future.

It would be unrealistic to expect that cooperative/collaborative regional planning will occur after the ASP is approved. At a minimum, an IDP needs to be put in place, that addresses the outstanding major recreation infrastructure issues, before any consideration is given to approving the Conrich ASP.

Laura Brankovich, MSW, Social Planning Consultant 18 114 LAURA BRANKOVICH 411 High Park Place NW, High River, AB T1V 0A6 | 587 896-7767 | [email protected]

EDUCATION

Master of Social Work, University of Calgary 1996 Specialization: Community Organizing, Management, Social Policy and Planning • Masters Practicum: Office of the Commissioner of Services for Children and Families, Government of Alberta • Masters Project: The Redesign of Children’s Services: Challenges of Integrating Child Welfare Into an Integrated Services Model from a Planning Perspective. • Options courses in the MBA Program – Human Resources field

Bachelor of Social Work, University of Calgary 1992

Bachelor of Arts, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba 1977 Major: Psychology Minor: English literature

TEACHING EXPERIENCE

Sessional Instructor: Community Practice 375 2001 University of Calgary, Faculty of Social Work Developed syllabus and co-taught a community development course for third year social work students.

WORK EXPERIENCE

Social Planning Consultant 2014 - present

Provision of social planning services to municipalities and non- governmental organizations. Services have included:

• Town of High River, Economic Renewal division: Secured funding for community economic development post-flood. • Community Services Department, City of Chestermere: community socio-demographic analyses; analysis of the integration of municipal planning documents across departments;

115

identification of priority planning documents for updating Social Plan; provided recommendations on committee restructuring; provided wording and social indicators (community quality of life indicators) for updated MDP (Municipal Development Plan; created and analyzed surveys to establish Family & Community Services (FCSS) 2016 service delivery priorities for the SE Rocky View County area. • Worked with a non-profit agency to respond to the City of Calgary’s call for proposals for community economic development, strengthening neighbourhoods, and social inclusion projects. • Development Services (Planning), City of Chestermere: drafted documents and correspondence; analysis of social infrastructure impacts of proposed development in a neighbouring municipality.

Social Planner, City of Chestermere 20102010 – - 20132014 • Worked with Community Services Board to draft Town Council’s first Social Plan. This plan focused on promoting community quality of life in Chestermere through i) growing the small town sense of community, ii) being a welcoming and inclusive community, iii) community safety, iv) increasing the ability of residents to meet their daily needs in the community, and v) increasing the ability of seniors to stay in the community as they age. • Project managed the Town Survey 2012 (marketing, promotion, development of survey, data analysis). Survey addressed: community quality of life issues, satisfaction with Town services, and recreation facility planning. • Provided input to Municipal Development Plan re social infrastructure • As a member of the Town’s Facilities and Amenities Strategic Plan Committee: reviewed recreation planning documents from neighbouring municipalities; created median population benchmarks for development of specific recreation facilities based on Alberta norms; did literature review of factors affecting recreation facility development; helped plan and host planning open house; consulted with developers and recreation stakeholders; co-drafted the Master Recreation Plan on behalf of committee. This plan addresses: i) development of a major regional multi-use recreation facility in Chestermere, ii) increasing the kms of pathways and pathway connectivity, and iii) planning for parks and open spaces as Chestermere moves toward complete build-out of the community. • Member of the committee initiated by Rocky View County to form an inter-municipal recreation planning committee • Recreation responsibilities: o Project-managed development of a state of the art mountain bike skills park, developed jointly by a committee of residents, the Town of Chestermere, the Rotary, and Alpine Bike Parks.

2 116

o Managed the Community Recreation Coordinator position • Emergency Social Services Team Leader for Lodging and Clothing. Responsible for organizing lodging for evacuees in case of disaster and attending to evacuees’ needs for clothing. • First Impressions Community Exchange Committee, Co-Lead for Chestermere’s Community Assessment of Beaumont, Alberta. Provincial program where communities were matched with a community similar to theirs, and a team from each community would make a secret visit to their matched community and assess it based on criteria provided by the province.

Community Development Manager and Social Planner, 2007 - 2010 Town of Chestermere

• Managed Community Development staff, program evaluation, securing and maintaining funding for these positions: Volunteer Coordinator, Youth Coordinator and Youth Leaders, Anti-Bullying Coordinator, Community Resources Coordinator, Langdon office staff, and Stepping Stones to Mental Health staff (in partnership with Rockyview Schools) • Chaired the Healthy Community Initiative (an interagency created to identify concerns and trends in the community and jointly develop strategies to address these upcoming issues. Members included school board trustees, school personnel, RCMP Staff Sergeant, Mental Health, Addictions, FCSS, etc.) • Advisor to YELL Youth Council • Seniors Service Provider Committee: facilitated community survey re seniors’ needs • Stepping Stones to Mental Health Advisory Committee, Rocky View Schools • Chair, Chestermere ACE Committee (Active, Creative Engaged Communities). Chestermere was selected as an ACE community, through a joint application between the Chestermere Regional Recreation Centre and the Town of High River. • Member of the first planning committee for Chestermere Arts Days

Community Programs Manager, Aspen Family & Community 2004 - 2007 Society 2004 - 2007 • Managed 19 staff in the following programs: Family-School Liaison Program with the Student Health Partnership (Calgary Board of Education); Youth Matters (a program working with at-risk youth): Building Futures (a program for youth with barriers to employment); Better Choices (a program for youth

3 117

with Child Welfare status who were suspended from school); the United Way Learning Village project; a multi-cultural project for youth in early stages of gang involvement/at risk of gang involvement. • Outcome measurement, evaluation, relationship with and accountability to funders, preparing funding proposals and grant applications.

Community Development Manager/Specialist, 1997 - 2003 Province of Alberta • Recruited from the City of Calgary to implement the community portion of the Redesign of Children’s Services Plan for Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority, Region 3. • Created Community Coordinating Councils (CCCs) to be the voices of their communities to the Authority, both geographical communities and the Children with Special Needs CCC. • Worked with communities to establish and support the operations of Community Resource Centres; assisted with doing community assessments and helping communities determine the services and supports needed to address identified needs and strengthen their communities. • Worked with the Community Liaison Committee of the Authority’s Board. • Geographical areas of responsibility: North Central Calgary, NE Calgary, SW Calgary, Airdrie, Cochrane, Chestermere

Community Development Social Worker, City of Calgary 1995 - 1997 • Worked as a member of the City’s community team in NE Calgary (Community Development Social Worker, 2 Community Recreation Coordinators, Community Liaison Police Officer). • Worked with North Properties/North of McKnight communities to secure funds for projects, develop a Community Resource Centre, conduct a community assessment, secure programs and services needed by the communities, help establish a Youth Justice Committee, and mediated community association conflict, etc.

Youth Probation Officer, City of Calgary 1992 - 1995

Supervisor, Young Offenders Open Custody Facility, Justice 1988 - 1989 Department, Tyne Valley, PEI

Assessment Units Manager, Child and Family Services of 1981 - 1986 Western Manitoba

4 118

Youth Counselor, Seven Oaks Centre for Youth, 1980 - 1981 Winnipeg, Manitoba

Youth Counselor, Manitoba Youth Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba 1977 - 1980

FUNDING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Town of High River, Community Donations Advisory 2013 - 2016 Committee Advised Town Council on how to allocate the funds donated to the Town following the flood of 2013.

The Calgary Foundation, 1996 - 2001 Neighbourhood Grants Funding Advisory Committee Advised the Calgary Foundation on proposals that came from the community that built sense of community, and promoted resident engagement, volunteerism, and inclusion.

C-CALA (the Calgary Community Adult Learning 1997 - 2002 Association) Together with representatives from Calgary FCSS and the United Way, advised C-CALA on grants to non-profits that provided shelters, skills training opportunities for the homeless, literacy programs, parent education, etc. in Calgary.

PUBLICATIONS AND PAPERS

All Kids Have Dreams: Immigrant Youth in Greater Forest Lawn (2007). ISBN: 0-9738482-0-0. Project Manager and Editor

A Guide for Successful Groups (2004). ISBN: 0-9735635-0-8 A guide for community groups deciding whether to apply for non-profit and/or charitable status. Publication of The Calgary Foundation. On project advisory committee.

Community Assessment Handbook (1996). City of Calgary. On project advisory committee.

A Handbook for Planning Integrated Services (1996). Brankovich, Laura; McCullough, Beth; Wotherspoon, Evelyn.

5 119

PRESENTATIONS

SPARC BC (Social Planning and Research Council of BC) ACSW Conference (Alberta College of Social Workers). 1997 Joint presentation on Planning Integrated Services

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT/TRAINING ATTENDED

5th Annual Community Development Conference: The Social 2008 Side of Growth, Centre for Social Work Research and Professional Development

Boomers and Beyond, Mount Royal Centre for Continuous 2008 Learning

Community Economic Development Symposium: Creating 2008 Value Through Social Entrepreneurship

Leadership that Transforms Communities, Intensive 2011 Professional Development Institute (City of Calgary, Tamarack, Calgary Counselling Centre)

Multi-Municipal Cooperation – Why and What? ACE 2010

Celebrating Diversity Conference, CMARD Lethbridge 2012

Leadership Safety Course, Occupational Health and Safety 2012

Emergency Social Services Training, City of Chestermere and the 2013 Red Cross

Emergency Social Services Forum: Mitigating the Impact on 2013 People, ESSNA Managing Change in the Alberta Government 2002

6 120

SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY

Community Mentor, Our High River current A post-flood community development initiative that: i) celebrates High River, and ii) brings people together around their passions and offering their skills and talents to assist organizations and individuals who have a dream that will enrich the community.

President, High River Gift of Music Society 2015 – present

Regreen High River 2014-15 • Developed a Facebook page that was a resource to High River residents who were revitalizing their yards and gardens after the flood • Organized two plant shares in High River, in conjunction with the Lethbridge Horticultural Society and the Nobleford Agricultural Society • Researched grants and funding available for High River organizations recovering after the flood, and made the information available throughout the community.

Community Murals Project 2014 Worked with the Parks Manager, Town of High River, to secure funding for a project to celebrate community resiliency during and after the flood, through the Arts and Culture Board.

Political Campaign Manager 2013 Managed husband’s successful campaign as Town Councillor, High River

Volunteer, Blackie Evacuation Centre 2013 Volunteered during the four days that followed the evacuation of High River during the flood.

7 121

MGB FILE NO. I6/IMD/001

IN THE MATTER OF AN INTERMUNICIPAL DISPUTE

INITIATING CITY OF CHESTERMERE MUNICIPALITY

RESPONDENT ROCKY VIEW COUNTY MUNICIPALITY

DOCUMENT SUBMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHESTERMERE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

Prepared by Liliana Bozic, M.Sc., P.Eng of Urban Systems

NAME C. Richard Jones (ORGANIZATION) McMillan LLP ADDRESS FOR 1700, 421 – 7th Avenue SW SERVICE Calgary, AB T2P 4K9 EMAIL [email protected] TELEPHONE 403.531.8739 (FOR PERSON FILING THIS DOCUMENT)

122 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IMPACTS ON THE CITY OF CHESTERMERE AS A RESULT OF THE CONRICH AREA STRUCTURE PLAN

PREPARED FOR: THE CITY OF CHESTERMERE JUNE 2016

Prepared by:

Suite 101 - 2716 Sunridge Way NE, Calgary, AB T1Y 0A5 | T: 403.291.1193

123 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IMPACTS ON THE CITY OF CHESTERMERE AS A RESULT OF THE CONRICH AREA STRUCTURE PLAN

This report addresses the impacts and detriments of Rocky View County’s Conrich Area Structure Plan (ASP) on the City of Chestermere, related to stormwater management.

Stormwater management is an important consideration during a community development process. Stormwater infrastructure is critical to serving the demands of a growing community and protecting property from flooding and erosion. Properly designed and constructed stormwater systems also ensure that long term environmental objectives, such as wetland and natural areas preservation, are balanced with community growth.

The majority of Conrich ASP area drains south towards Hwy 1 and the City of Chestermere, with a small northeast portion draining to the east towards WID B/C canals (Figure 1). Ultimately, the Conrich drainage discharges to the WID canal system, or directly into Chestermere Lake via the Rainbow Falls underdrain. Because Chestermere is downstream of Conrich, how stormwater is managed within Conrich ASP will have a significant impact to the City.

The review of Conrich ASP and its supporting documents1 has identified several concerns related to stormwater management, which are described below.

Lack of Regional Infrastructure Due to the long-standing moratorium to stormwater drainage to WID system, there is currently no regional drainage infrastructure that services Conrich and Chestermere. Both the City of Chestermere and the Rocky View County have been working with other stakeholders on a regional solution. There are two potential options for regional servicing, the Shepard Regional Drainage Plan (SRDP), and the Co-operative Stormwater Management Initiative (CSMI) plan. The SRDP option proposes to take the drainage south to the Bow River, through a series of naturalized drainage channels and underdrains under the WID canals. The CSMI option proposes to take the drainage to the east, eventually discharging to Serviceberry Creek.

Both of these options have been reviewed by Chestermere and Rocky View Councils, but at this time no decision was made on the preferred option for implementation, until uncertainties related to costs, financing, governance and infrastructure timing are resolved.

1 Conrich Master Drainage Plan (MPE Engineering, 2015) was reviewed as well as it informs stormwater management within Conrich ASP area

1

124 In Section 24.1 of Conrich ASP, it is explicitly stated that Rocky View County shall work collaboratively with adjoining municipalities to develop a comprehensive and regional approach to stormwater management. This statement is supported by the City as it is clearly in stakeholders’ best interest that there is a regional solution that is cost effective, addresses everybody’s needs and interests and supports appropriate development staging.

However, when describing proposed stormwater management, Conrich ASP as well as the Conrich Master Drainage Plan state that the County’s preferred regional option is the CSMI option. This is a concern because other municipalities in the region have not made a decision regarding a preferred option until all appropriate studies have been completed and infrastructure cost and timing concerns have been addressed. Stormwater planning for Conrich area based on a regional option that ultimately may not be acceptable to Chestermere and other municipalities in the region can pose a financial and environmental risk to the City.

West Creek Drainage The West Creek basin, shown on Figures 2 and 3, encompasses approximately 3,000 hectares of land that contributes runoff to West Creek. West Creek is a drainage course that originates in Rocky View County and generally flows in the north-south direction, passing through the City of Chestermere and discharging to Chestermere Lake. Several studies have characterized the catchment area and predevelopment hydrology of West Creek.2

West Creek is comprised of two drainage channels north of Chestermere. The west branch has a catchment area of close to 300 hectares and enters the City boundary through a culvert under Highway 1. The east branch has a contributing catchment area of over 2,700 hectares and enters the City boundary via existing culverts under Highway 1 and Rainbow Road. The east channel drains to a large wetland which the City of Chestermere wishes to preserve.

Downstream of this wetland the east and west channels merge and flows continue east under Rainbow Road through an existing box culvert, and through a naturalized drainage system that flows though several residential communities including Westmere, Lakeside Greens, West Creek, and Rainbow Falls. This naturalized drainage system has become a valued amenity for the surrounding communities and needs to be preserved.

2 Determination of Predevelopment Peak Runoff Flow of the West Creek Basin at the Irrigation Canal, Southwell Trap, 2000 West Creek Drainage Study, Southwell Trap, 1997 West Chestermere Stormwater Master Drainage Plan, Stantec, 2010 West Creek Basin Stormwater Outfall plan, Eclipse Engineering, 2006

2

125 After leaving Rainbow Falls, West Creek flows enter an existing underdrain and then a bypass outfall that allows the drainage to discharge to Chestermere Lake without entering WH Canal.

Although West Creek drainage is an important consideration for the City of Chestermere, the Conrich ASP is silent on this issue. Both interim and long-term term stormwater plans for Conrich ASP area have the potential to reduce or eliminate West Creek flows north of City of Chestermere municipal boundaries. Specifically, long term CSMI solution proposes to divert the Creek east to Weed Lake. For interim servicing, zero-discharge facilities are proposed, which would result in large areas be essentially taken out of West Creek catchment. Reducing or eliminating West Creek flows will impact the naturalized drainage channel through Chestermere, affect the existing water licences, and impact the significant wetlands and environmentally sensitive areas.

It is important to note that, due to restrictions imposed by WID, post-development drainage cannot enter West Creek as long as the Creek discharges to Chestermere Lake, i.e. until regional infrastructure is available to service the west part of the City of Chestermere. This means that, after development starts in Conrich area, even the option of allowing baseflows (or pre-development flows) to West Creek from Conrich will not be acceptable to Chestermere. The 2007 WID Stormwater Guidelines state that new development will not be permitted access to the WID system, unless the stormwater is treated to the levels that cannot be achieved by conventional means. Due to WID water quality guidelines, post-development and pre- development drainage to West Creek cannot be mixed regardless of restrictions placed on flow rates or volumes. The baseflow in West Creek can only be maintained with pre-development drainage, which essentially means that area that is within West Creek catchment cannot be developed with interim drainage solutions.

Interim Stormwater Servicing In the absence of regional stormwater infrastructure, Conrich ASP proposes implementation of interim stormwater servicing for the first development stages. The proposed interim servicing is based on large-scale stormwater reuse and zero-discharge concepts. Zero-discharge facilities take up to 50% of developable land and pose an operational challenge for property owners.

In the Section 24.13, the ASP states that “the management and operation of the interim ponds and local stormwater systems is the responsibility of private landowners”. This presents a significant risk to the City of Chestermere, because it is not clear how Rocky View County plans to enforce proper operation and maintenance of numerous private zero-discharge systems. If these facilities overflow or are pumped out to roadside ditches, the runoff may find its way to West Creek or flow to Chestermere though various culverts along Hwy 1. This can result in pollutant discharges, impacted water quality, and increased flood risks within Chestermere.

3

126 Figure 1 – Stormwater Servicing Map (from Conrich ASP)

4

127 Figure 2 – West Creek Basin

5

128 Figure 3 – West Creek through City of Chestermere

6

129 130 Liliana Bozic, M.Sc., P.Eng. Senior Water Resources Engineer

Liliana is a senior water resources engineer with expertise in watershed management, integrated urban water management, water reuse, water policy and regulatory issues. She is very familiar with municipal and provincial policies and regulations around water use, watershed planning and protection initiatives. She has both private and public sector experience. Liliana’s current focus is on working with municipalities on the development of watershed protection strategies, addressing water quality issues, and developing tools for implementation of sustainable water management.

EXPERTISE opportunities and gaps, and determine the Watershed Protection and SUMMARY OF RELEVANT financial viability of practice and Management EXPERIENCE appropriateness to the City of Edmonton. Urban Water Management The project also included quantification of Stormwater Management STRATEGY AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT stormwater sources and potential uses, Sustainable Development River for Life Strategy classification of source suitability with Water Policy and Regulatory Senior Engineer and Project Leader for the respect to water quality and reliability of Issues development of a River for Life Strategy for supply, analysis of market demand, and Water Reuse the City of Edmonton. River for Life is a opportunities for implementation. Green Infrastructure and Low 30-year strategic plan that supports the Impact Development Strategies Stormwater Management Strategy (2005) City’s mission to “prevent pollution of North Saskatchewan River by continuously Under the direction of Director of Water Resources, developed the Stormwater EDUCATION reducing discharges of contaminants M.Sc. Civil Engineering (Water towards a goal of net zero impact from Management Strategy for the City of Resources) human activity”. The strategy was Calgary, aimed at protection of watershed University of Calgary developed in three phases over a four year health, implementation of sustainable Calgary, AB period. Phase 1 focused on the stormwater solutions and pollutant loading B.Sc. Civil Engineering (Water development of a high level framework and management. Provided annual reports to Resources) City Council on Strategy implementation University of Belgrade included extensive stakeholder Belgrade, Serbia consultation and research. Phase 2 and progress in meeting TSS loading focused on the development of programs objectives. and short, medium and long term Variable Drainage Charge Study EMPLOYMENT BACKGROUND 2010 – Present implementation plans. Phase 3 included Managed the feasibility study for Senior Water Resources development of financial resources and implementation of a variable drainage Engineer capacity for implementation. charge (stormwater utility) for the City of Urban Systems Ltd. City-wide Stormwater Targets Project – Phase 1 Calgary. Variable drainage charge is an 2005 – 2010 equitable way to charge for runoff and Strategic Services Engineer Project Leader for the first phase of City- The City of Calgary wide Stormwater Targets Project for the pollutant contributions, based on land use 2001 – 2005 City of Calgary. The project objectives and impervious cover. The study identified Water Quality and Research included the development of watershed- the most appropriate type of drainage Engineer specific runoff rate and volume control charge for the City, established draft rates The City of Calgary targets to ensure City's regulatory for various land use categories, and 1997 – 2000 compliance and support watershed developed implementation Development Engineer recommendations. The City of Calgary protection commitments. 1995 – 1997 Stormwater Reuse in the City of Edmonton Stormwater Utility for the City of Airdrie Water Resources Engineer Cochrane Engineering Project leader for the stormwater reuse Leading the development of a stormwater investigation and reuse strategy 1991 – 1994 utility for the City of Airdrie. The project Water Resources Engineer development for the City of Edmonton. The includes the development of short and long WER Engineering Ltd./AMEC project included a comprehensive review of term stormwater programs for the City to stormwater reuse strategies across meet their regulatory and watershed Canada and internationally to establish key protection obligations, analysis to establish drivers for change, highlight barriers, the most equitable type of utility,

1

131 Liliana Bozic, M.Sc., P.Eng. Senior Water Resources Engineer

development of draft rates and credit The development incorporated an PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Association of Professional options, recommendations for stakeholder integrated water management concept that Engineers and Geoscientists of consultation process, and development of considers an entire water cycle. To achieve Alberta a utility implementation strategy. the “zero discharge” vision, both Canadian Water Resources stormwater and wastewater are fully INTEGRATED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Association reused. Innovative strategies, such as PLANNING Water Reuse Association undertaking a health risk assessment for Alberta Low Impact City of Chestermere, Integrated Stormwater recycled water use, were employed to Development Partnership – Master Plan overcome policy and regulatory gaps and Founding Member and Past Project Leader for the development of an secure project approval. Vice-President Integrated Stormwater Master Plan for Bow River Basin Council 2,500 ha of newly annexed lands in the University of Calgary Integrated Stormwater City of Chestermere. The Plan includes Master Plan (ISMP) both interim and ultimate drainage planning Provided project leadership for the scenarios that meet regional drainage Integrated Stormwater Master Plan for objectives and City’s sustainability goals. redevelopment of the Main and West Widespread LID and stormwater re-use Campuses of University of Calgary. The applications are recommended to achieve project includes an assessment of minor restrictive discharge targets. The Plan system, development of stormwater included an intensive engagement with targets, development of an LID strategy to regional stakeholders including WID, CSMI meet the targets, and an integrated capital and regulatory agencies. plan to ensure implementation of Town of Cochrane Integrated Stormwater stormwater upgrades over the 30 year Management Plan growth period. Project Leader for the development of an SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND LID integrated Stormwater Management Plan for the Town of Cochrane, a Sustainable Stormwater Management for Land comprehensive stormwater strategy which Development Projects includes policy and regulatory alignment, In a senior role, contributed to the sustainable stormwater planning for new development of sustainable stormwater development areas, stormwater quality strategies and LID design for a number of improvement strategy, an LID strategy, and innovative land development projects, a planning process improvement. including Currie Barracks, Bingham Crossing, Harmony, and South Seton. Rangeview Master Drainage Plan LID Research Projects Project Leader and senior engineer for the development of a Master Drainage Plan in Involved in a number of research projects support of an ASP for Rangeview area in to assess the effectiveness of stormwater south east Calgary. The MDP included source control practices under local development of stormwater servicing conditions, including oil/grit separators, options to meet very restrictive stormwater bioretention, and porous pavements. The project stakeholders included municipalities volume targets, as well as assessment and (Calgary, Edmonton, Cochrane), University preservation plan development for several of Calgary, non-profit organizations, and important wetlands within study area. independent industry experts. Harmony Integrated Water Management Plan LID Guidelines and Technical Tools In a senior engineer role, contributed to the Led the development of Stormwater development of Integrated Water Capture and Reuse Technical Guidelines Management Plan for Harmony, a fully for the City of Calgary. Managed the sustainable community under development development of the Stormwater Source on 800 hectares in Rockyview County.

2

132 Liliana Bozic, M.Sc., P.Eng. Senior Water Resources Engineer

Control Handbook for the City of Calgary Canal. Carried out hydrologic modelling (2007). and impact analysis of storm water runoff on operation of Western Headworks Canal. Water Reuse Initiatives Initiated and managed a research study VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE with the University of Calgary to assess Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership how stormwater reuse can reduce the (ALIDP) vulnerability of water supply under a Co-founded the Partnership in 2004. Acted changing climate. as co-chair from 2004 to 2006, and as In a technical advisory role, provided input Vice-president from 2006 to 2011.

to the development of Alberta Guidelines Bow River Basin Council (BRBC) for Residential Rainwater Harvesting and Volunteer since 2001. Involved in various contributed to the development of a technical subcommittees. national rainwater harvesting strategy. UDI Water Management Committee Championed water reuse on a number of Volunteer since 2010. Contributes innovative projects (Harmony, Bingham, technical expertise to stormwater Chestermere). Extensively presented and planning, water quality and treatment WATERSHED PLANNING issues. In various technical capacities, participated in the development and implementation of watershed plans for Nose Creek and Bow River Basin.

In a senior role, contributed to the development of several source water protection plans in interior BC. The projects typically included assessment of watershed health responses for a number of future land use change scenarios, development of options for reduction of pollutant loadings and assessment of their effectiveness, and recommendations for implementation of plans and programs to mitigate impacts.

Contributed to the assessment of the total annual pollutant loading from the City’s stormwater system to the Bow River (2002- 2005).

DRAINAGE STUDIES

East Springbank Stormwater Drainage Study Developed innovative stormwater drainage options for 10 sections of land in East Springbank area, taking into account water quality considerations to protect watershed health.

South East Calgary Storm Drainage Study Developed drainage solutions for a large area in SE Calgary that drains to WH

3

133

MGB FILE NO. I6/IMD/001

IN THE MATTER OF AN INTERMUNICIPAL DISPUTE

INITIATING CITY OF CHESTERMERE MUNICIPALITY

RESPONDENT ROCKY VIEW COUNTY MUNICIPALITY

DOCUMENT SUBMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHESTERMERE TRANSPORTATION

Prepared by Stephen Power of Parsons Corporation

NAME C. Richard Jones (ORGANIZATION) McMillan LLP ADDRESS FOR 1700, 421 – 7th Avenue SW SERVICE Calgary, AB T2P 4K9 EMAIL [email protected] TELEPHONE 403.531.8739 (FOR PERSON FILING THIS DOCUMENT)

134

Technical Memorandum

City of Chestermere Conrich Area Structure Plan

Memo Number: 1 Title: Transportation Issues

Date: June 13, 2016 Version: 1.0

INTRODUCTION

This memo provides an analysis of the transportation issues in support of the City of Chestermere’s Section 690 Appeal of Rocky View County’s Conrich Area Structure Plan. The analysis is based primarily on a review of the Conrich ASP transportation planning documents. Given the proximity of the Conrich area to the City of Chestermere, and the future importance of Rainbow Road as a primary access to both Conrich and Chesteremere, the nature and amount of traffic generated within the proposed ASP area is of concern to Chestermere. Specifically, the concerns are:

 Potential for increased heavy vehicle traffic through Chesteremere, particularly on Rainbow Road;  Insufficient capacity on the future Highway 1 / Rainbow Road interchange, which will affect access to Chestermere; and  Increased traffic on Rainbow Road that may cause the capacity of the the roadway to be exceeded, or accelerate the need for improvements to Rainbow Road. The transportation plans prepared in support of the Conrich ASP do not adequately address the potential impacts on the City of Chestermere.

CONRICH ASP TRANSPORTATION STUDIES

Several documents were reviewed as part of this analysis, including:

 Conrich Area Network Study, February 2015 (Watt Consulting Group);  Rocky View County Traffic Model, February 2016 (Watt Consulting Group);  Conrich Area Network Study Complementary Analysis, February 2016 (Watt Consulting Group);  Various output from the RVC Traffic Model. It should be noted that Parsons did not have access to the actual traffic model, only the supporting documentation.

Conrich Area Structure Plan, City of Chestermere Section 690 Appeal – Transportation Issues Version 1.0 2016-06-13 135 1

The primary transportation planning assessment for the Conrich ASP was the 2015 Conrich Area Network Study, which defined two phases for the plan area, with full development by 2035. That analysis was undertaken using Rocky View County’s 2010 traffic model. A subsequent analysis was undertaken in 2016 using the updated 2015 traffic model. However, in the later analysis, a lower level of development was assumed by 2035 as follows:

 Country Residential – 10 to 30% built out  Hamlet – 50 to 100% built out  Commercial areas – 10% built out  Industial areas – 10 to 50% built out The original (2015) analysis was conducted on the full build-out of the ASP. With an assumption of a considerably lower proportion of the total ASP area built-out, the 2016 Complementary Analysis relflects a much lower total traffic generation. It should be emphasized that the 2016 Complementary Analysis does not reflect the full potential impact of the Conrich ASP. In particular, the commercial and industrial areas are closest to Chestermere will have the greatest effect on Chestermere. Only a small portion of the commercial and industrial areas have been included in the Complementary Analysis and therefore, the effect of the commercial and industrial development on Chestermere has not be been assessed. Without a significant portion of the commercial and industrial traffic generation, it is not surprising that Complelmentary Analyis shows a relatively small proportion of traffic generated in Chestermere associated with Conrich. The original analysis for full development of the ASP area (2015 study) showed a total PM Peak Hour trip generation of 28,982 for the proportion outside the hamlet. Of these trips, 27% were anticipated to be heavy vehicles. The trip generation for the 2016 Complementary Analysis was not provided in the report. Figure 1 shows the PM peak hour traffic volumes at the Rainbow Road / Highway 1 interchage based on full build-out of the Conrich ASP and based on the 2010 traffic model. It should be noted that the 2010 traffic model assumed very little development within the annexed areas of Chestermere (Waterbridge in particular).

Figure 1: PM Peak Hour Forecast Traffic Volumes, 2015 Conrich Area Network Study (Full ASP Build-out, 2010 Model, 2035 Horizon Year)

As the figure shows, the eastbound off-ramp is forecast to carry over 3,000 vehicles/hour at full build-out of the Conrich ASP. It is also important to note that this analysis included very little development in the northeast sector of Chestermere and therefore the total volume on the ramp would be considerably higher. In either case, the forecast volume is beyond the realistic capacity of that ramp.

Conrich Area Structure Plan, City of Chestermere Section 690 Appeal – Transportation Issues Version 1.0 2016-06-13 136 2

The 2016 Complementary Analysis shows much lower traffic on the ramp due to the lower proportion of build-out. These volumes are shown on Figure 2.

Figure 2: PM Peak Hour Forecast Traffic Volumes, 2016 Complementary Analysis (Partial ASP Build-out, 2015 Model, 2035 Horizon Year)

As expected, with much of the industrial and commercial land assumed to be not developed by the 2035 horizon year, peak hour volumes are considerably less than in the previous analysis.

CHESTERMERE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN

The Draft Chestermere Transportation Master Plan (TMP) was completed in 2016. It does not include modelling, but a manual traffic forecast was undertaken. Trip generation for future developments was completed manually and trip distribution was undertaken with the aid on the Calgary Regional Transportation Model. The analysis determined that new land use in Chestermere would generate almost 32,000 new PM peak hour trips, of which 40% will have an origin or destination external to Chestermere. The foreast did not anticipate the Conrich ASP and therefore no trips were assigned to the ASP area. Given the nature of future growth, Rainbow Road will become the City’s primary and busiest north-south corridor. The future Rainbow Road / Highway 1 interchange will be critical for providing access to the future growth areas of Chestermere. Figure 3 shows the forecast PM peak traffic volumes on the Chestermere network.

Conrich Area Structure Plan, City of Chestermere Section 690 Appeal – Transportation Issues Version 1.0 2016-06-13 137 3

Figure 3: PM Peak Hour Forecast Traffic Volumes, Chestermere Transportation Master Plan (2039 Horizon Year)

The Rocky View County model (2015) has assigned considerably fewer trips to Rainbow Road than the analysis for the TMP. Without access to the RVC model, it is not possible to determine where the trips associated with growth in Chestermere were assigned, although it appears that Conrich Road carries a higher proportion of traffic in the model than assumed in the TMP. Figure 4 shows a comparison of the total trips forecast from the 2016 Complementary Analysis and the TMP. The TMP volumes are shown as boxed.

Conrich Area Structure Plan, City of Chestermere Section 690 Appeal – Transportation Issues Version 1.0 2016-06-13 138 4

Figure 4: Comparison of PM Peak Hour Forecast Traffic Volumes, 2016 Complementary Analysis versus Chestermere Transportation Master Plan

The results from the RVC model used for the 2016 Complementary Analysis appear to indicate that the majority of traffic on Rainbow Road would be generated north of Highway 1, and thus would be a result of the Conrich ASP (note that only 54 vehicles are shown on the eastbound to southbound off-ramp).

CONCLUSIONS

It is difficult to draw firm conclusions since no analysis has been completed for full development of the Conrich ASP using the more up-to-date model that better reflects the current and future conditions in Chestermere. Since the 2016 Complementary Analysis includes only a small portion of the commercial and industrial land use in the ultimate build- out of the Conrich ASP, it under-represents the effects of the ASP on Chestermere. In fact, without the industrial and commercial components, the Conrich ASP has minimal and mitigable effects on Chestermere. However, based on the original 2015 Conrich Area Network Study, which considered full build-out, it is clear that the industrial and commercial components will have a negative impact on Chestermere, and to simply ignore those effects because they are not expected to be developed until after 2035 does not mean those effects won’t occur. The specific effects are noted as follows:

 Insufficient Rainbow Road Interchange Capacity – The original analysis showed over 3,000 PM Peak hour trips using the eastbound to northbound off-ramp. This is beyond the capacity of the ramp. In addition, the original analysis did not account for significant traffic growth on Rainbow Road generated by new development in Chestermere. The congestion caused by the traffic attempting to reach the Conrich ASP via the eastbound to northbound ramp will prevent drivers from being able to access Rainbow Road southbound. The result will be use of other streets such as Conrich Road and Chestermere Boulevard, and then various neighbourhood streets via a more circuitous route.

Conrich Area Structure Plan, City of Chestermere Section 690 Appeal – Transportation Issues Version 1.0 2016-06-13 139 5

 Increased Truck Traffic on Rainbow Road – Although trucks will generally want to access the provincial highway network as early as possible, there will be a number of trips between various industrial areas. Of particular interest is the relationship between the Conrich and Janet industrial areas. The shortest distance between Conrich and Janet will be via Rainbow Road for much of the future industrial land. Although trucks can travel faster using Stoney Trail, the extra distance needed to be travelled negate the time savings associated with higher speeds on Stoney Trail. Without the benefit of updated modelling, it is not possible to quantify the number of heavy vehicles that will use Rainbow Road (and Conrich Road), but at full build-out the analysis indicates there will be almost 8,000 PM peak hour heavy vehicle trips. Even a small portion using Rainbow Road will have a detrimental effect on the adjacent residential areas and on traffic flow.  Insufficient Capacity or the Need to Accelerate Capacity Improvements on Rainbow Road – By 2039, the section of Rainbow Road north of Memorial Drive will be be two-lanes while the remainder will be four lanes, based on the TMP results. Even if only the land use associated witht the 2016 Complementary Analysis is considered, the northern section of Rainbow Road will need to be upgraded to four lanes earlier than anticipated, although the exact timing is unclear since no interim horizon years for the Conrich ASP have been provided. It is likely that some of the traffic on Rainbow Road will be destined for Conrich, but without the commercial and industrial components, it is unlikely there would be a large number diverted to Conrich. No modelling or analysis has been undertaken for the full build-out and current land use forecasts for Chestermere. However, when the location of the proposed commercial land use in particular is considered, it is clear that Chestermere will be a major source of trips for the commercial development. The Hamlet is expected to generate approximately 3,600 PM peak hour trips from residential land use, while the future residential growth in Chestermere to 2039 is expected to generate almost 11,000 PM peak hour trips. Given that these two areas are the closest residential development to the proposed commercial development, Chestermere will be a significant source of traffic for the commercial areas once they are developed.  Impacts Based on the 2016 Complementary Analysis are Mitigable – The level of land use included in the 2016 Complementary Analysis will not generate major traffic impacts on Chestermere, and those impacts such as the additional capacity requirements on Rainbow Road are mitigable.

The full effects of the Conrich ASP have not been fully assessed. The effects generated by full development of the commercial and industrial components will have a detrimental effect on Chestermere’s transportation network.

Conrich Area Structure Plan, City of Chestermere Section 690 Appeal – Transportation Issues Version 1.0 2016-06-13 140 6

Stephen Power, P. Eng., MCIP Transportation Manager

Education Profile Master of Engineering (M.Eng), Both a Planner and an Engineer, Mr. Power is able to bridge the two disciplines to ensure the (Transportation) vision and overall concepts of a project translate effectively and practically as the project University of New Brunswick progresses from the conceptual to detailed engineering phases. His focus has been in the areas of 2002 transportation planning, traffic engineering and site development in urban and rural environments. He is routinely involved with projects that include multiple disciplines, functional planning, and Bachelor of Science Engineering multiple accounts evaluations. In addition to extensive work on transportation projects, he has (B.Sc. Eng.), (Civil) completed a range of feasibility and functional planning assignments, from landfill site selection University of New Brunswick to transmission line route selection and water supply protection. 1988 Project Experience Professional Associations / Memberships Town of Canmore, Bridge Road Pedestrian and Cycling Safety Review Association of Professional Engineers Project Manager and technical leader for an assessment of pedestrian and cycling safety issues on and Geoscientists of B.C. the Bridge Road crossing of the Bow river in Canmore. The bridge is the meeting point of vehicle and pedestrian/cycling crossings of the river as well as for trails that parallel the river. Potential Association of Professional Engineers options from improved pedestrian crossing measures and wayfinding to new pedestrian and and Geoscientists of Alberta cycling connections were investigated.

Roads, Circulation and Site Planning Leader. Integrated Team Solutions (Ellis-Don), Canadian Institute of Planners / Saskatoon Civic Operations Centre P3, Saskatoon, SK. Alberta Professional Planners Institute ITS is currently constructing the first phase of the City of Saskatoon Civic Operations Centre to

house a wide range of City operations. The first phase includes a new Transit Operations Facility Institute of Transportation Engineers and a redeveloped Snow Management Facility that will include among the highest environmental

controls for similar facilities. This first phase will be delivered through a public-private- partnership. Stephen led the roads, circulation, servicing and overall site layout components for the pursuit phase and the traffic engineering and circulation planning for the design phase. Project Manager, Central Okanagan Second Crossing Planning Study, BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Project Manager for a corridor planning study to review the performance of the highway system in the Central Okanagan and to recommend short-, medium-, and long-term solutions. The study is the first phase of the Okanagan Second Crossing Project, and will result in recommendations regarding the need for, alignment, and form of a second crossing of Okanagan Lake in Kelowna. The project is highly sensitive and has generated considerable political and public interest. Stephen is working with a technical advisory committee comprising staff from all of the affected municipalities, regional districts, and first nations, as well as Ministry staff. City of Calgary, Southeast Calgary “Quick Wins” Transit Priority Projects Stephen is currently project manager for a series of 12 transit priority projects identified as “quick win”, near term improvements for transit operation in southeast Calgary. The corridor is identified in the City’s transit strategy as an LRT route, and is initially intended to be developed as a bus-only transitway. However, the required investment is significant and funding is not yet

committed. Stephen is leading these projects from concept development to construction. The solutions investigated range from basic traffic signal retiming and queue jumps to dedicated bus corridors and bus lanes, and also include innovative solutions such as bus lanes with intermittent

priority.

City of Chestermere, Boulevard Corridor Plan Stephen was project manager for the development a corridor plan to transform Highway 1A to a Town street – Chestermere Boulevard – following transfer of control from Alberta Transportation

to the Town of Chestermere. He led general stakeholder workshops, as well as individual engagement activities with specific stakeholders such as developers, City of Calgary and Rocky View County. The corridor plan provides for better integration of the corridor with the adjacent land use, a variety for cycling facilities and accommodation for pedestrians along and across the corridor.

Page 1 of 2 141 Stephen Power, P. Eng., MCIP Transportation Manager

City of Kamloops, Lorne Street Parking and Traffic Assessment Stephen led a study reviewed traffic patterns and parking requirements along Lorne Street in

Kamloops. The study evaluated operational changes including changes to the existing one-way operation and turn restrictions, and considered the impacts of heavy pedestrian volumes, particularly during special events at Riverside Park and Interior Saving Centre. With the proximity to the City Centre, Lorne Street was a popular location for workers in the City Centre to park since parking was free. The study considered parking fee implementation and included a feasibility assessment for a new parking structure along Lorne Street. The parking structure feasibility assessment included a full life-cycle financial assessment for a variety of options and cost-share models. Due to some specific sensitivities associated with potential land-swap arrangements, there was considerable Council involvement. Stephen in an advisory role to senior City management and Council throughout the study period. City of Chestermere Transportation Master Plan Project manager for the update to the City’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The City of Chestermere is currently undertaking integrated updates to their Municipal Development Plan and Transportation Master Plan. Chestermere is experiencing rapid growth. With the opening of Stoney Trail, transfer of Highway 1A to the City and recent annexation of the land between Chestermere and Calgary by the Town, the nature of travel is for residents of Chestermere is changing rapidly. The TMP update is re-evaluating how people travel between Chestermere and the rest of the Calgary region, and seeking opportunities to enhance mobility within Chestermere. Stephen is also undertaking an update to the transportation components of the Town’s off-site levy bylaw as an extension to the TMP. Town of Canmore, Integrated Transportation Plan Project Manager and Senior Transportation Planning Advisor to the Town of Canmore. Canmore has recognized a need to protect its small-town “feel”, but at the same time to accommodate the transportation needs of rapidly growing community. The study included a full review of the Town’s transportation and parking system, with a particular emphasis on the Town Centre, including long-term parking demand, future parking structure and potential intercept and RV parking lots. City of Kamloops MacDonald Park Neighbourhood Traffic Study Lead Transportation Planner. Following up on an overall neighbourhood study conducted by UBC students, Stephen conducted a more detailed traffic study for the MacDonald Park neighbourhood in North Kamloops. Local residents had expressed concerns related to travel speeds and shortcutting through the neighbourhood. Speed and license plate surveys were conducted to determine the extent of the problem, and recommended practical solutions intended to support a more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly neighbourhood.

Auckland Manukau (New Zealand) Eastern Transportation Initiative and Rapid Transit Network Extension Lead Transportation Planner for a multi-modal transportation plan and extension of Auckland’s Rapid Transit Network (RTN) in the Pakuranga suburb of the eastern suburbs of Auckland. Stephen’s responsibilities included assessments of busway arrangements, cycling and pedestrian facilities, station locations, conceptual layouts for a major Pakuranga Town Centre Station in addition to report writing and leading of stakeholder workshops.

Christchurch Transport Plan Technical Leader for the development of a new master transportation plan for the City of Christchurch. The Christchurch Transport Plan (CTP) is a multi-modal plan that is intended to provide better transportation choices with a focus on active modes and public transit. The Plan addressed access and mobility within the region and supported the Urban Development Strategy growth management objectives. Although road capacity expansion was not a priority in the plan, the CTP did address key freight routes and connections to the national highway system. For the first time, a hierarchical public transit network was introduced, with a particular emphasis on development the rapid transit network (RTN). Significant expansion of the on-street bike lanes and off-street cycleways were combined with policies targeted at end-of-trip facilities to better promote cycling in this city that has ideal size, climate and topography for cycling. Mobility hubs, shared street strategies, a TDM plan and parking initiatives were all combined to create the CTP.

Page 2 of 2 142