Entwistle Community Hub and Aquatic Facility Site Programming, Functional Plan and Costing

Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd.

September 20, 2016

Revision Description Author Quality Check Independent Review 0 original G. Middleton BC1201 S Fitzsimons BC1201 J. Ellis BC1165 1 Revised with G. Middleton BC1201 S Fitzsimons BC1201 J. Ellis BC1165 Client Feedback 2 Revised with G. Middleton BC1201 S Fitzsimons BC1201 J. BC1201 Client McLaughlin Feedback

Sign-off Sheet

This document entitled Entwistle Community Hub and Aquatic Facility Site Programming, Functional Plan and Costing was prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. (“Stantec”) for the account of Parkland County (the “Client”). Any reliance on this document by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the document, Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this document is the responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be responsible for costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this document.

Prepared by (Signature) Glynis Middleton

Approved by (Signature) Justin Ellis

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... I

1.0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT ...... 1.1 1.1 COMMUNITY PROFILE ...... 1.1 1.1.1 Population ...... 1.1 1.1.2 Age Cohort ...... 1.8 1.2 BENCHMARKING ...... 1.9 1.3 CURRENT UTILIZATION ...... 1.13 1.4 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: HOUSEHOLD SURVEY RESULTS ...... 1.15 1.4.1 Survey Results ...... 1.17 1.5 IMPLICATIONS ...... 1.20

2.0 FUNCTIONAL PROGRAM ...... 2.1

3.0 CONCEPT DESIGN ...... 3.1 3.1 SITING DESIGN ...... 3.2 3.2 FLOOR PLAN DESIGN ...... 3.4 3.3 MASSING DESIGN ...... 3.6

4.0 SITING OPTIONS ...... 4.1 4.1 CRITERIA ...... 4.1

5.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ...... 5.1 5.1 COSTING ANALYSIS (QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS)...... 5.1 5.1.1 Capital Cost Projections ...... 5.1 5.1.2 Proposed Funding Sources for Capital Costs ...... 5.3 5.1.3 Operating Revenue ...... 5.8 5.1.4 Operating Costs Estimates ...... 5.11 5.1.5 Life-Cycle Costing and 5-Year Operating Proforma ...... 5.13

6.0 RISK AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ...... 6.1 6.1 MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS (QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS) ...... 6.1

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary of Community Scan Planning Impacts ...... 1.2 Table 2: Comparison of Catchment Area Populations 2000-2015 ...... 1.7 Table 3: Comparison of Catchment Area Population Growth year over year from 2000-2015 ...... 1.7 Table 4: Communities in Close Proximity to Entwistle ...... 1.11 Table 5: Component Spaces and Space Allocation ...... 2.1 Table 6: Area Designations for Costing ...... 2.2 Table 7: Cost Database Sources...... 5.1 Table 8: Key Quantitative Assumptions for Capital ...... 5.2 Table 9: Summary of Capital Construction Estimate ...... 5.2 Table 10: Potential Funding Sources for a Canadian Public or Non-Profit Facility ...... 5.3 Table 11: Potential Capital Contributions from Provincial & Federal Funding Programs ...... 5.5 Table 12: Straw Dog - Capital Funding Estimates by Source ...... 5.6 Table 13: Long Term Debt Repayment Calculation ...... 5.7 Table 14: Entwistle Actual and Projected Annual Revenue 2010-2020 ...... 5.8 Table 15: Entwistle Actual and Projected Annual Attendance 2010-2020 ...... 5.8 Table 16: Calculation of Actual and Projected Revenue per Visit ...... 5.9 Table 17: Projected Indoor Pool Attendance ...... 5.10 Table 18: Projected Annual Indoor Aquatic Revenue ...... 5.10 Table 19: Operating Cost Projections ...... 5.12 Table 20: Projected 5-Year Indoor Aquatic Proforma ...... 5.13 Table 21: Number of Visits Necessary to Fund the Existing Cost Recovery Formula ...... 5.14 Table 22: Projected Per-Day Outdoor Pool Utilization (49-hr. week) ...... 5.15 Table 23: Projected Per-Day Indoor Pool Utilization (49-hr. week) ...... 5.15

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Capital Planning, Project Definition and Budget Accuracy ...... i Figure 2: Population Growth ...... 1.4 Figure 3: Population Growth Comparisons ...... 1.5 Figure 4: Comparison of Catchment Area Populations 2000-2015 ...... 1.6 Figure 5: Population by Age Cohort ...... 1.8 Figure 6: Population’s Median Age ...... 1.8 Figure 7: Entwistle Catchment Area Map ...... 1.10 Figure 8: Entwistle Pool Utilization Trends ...... 1.13 Figure 9: Entwistle 2015 Pool Revenue ...... 1.14 Figure 10: Entwistle Pool Revenue Trend ...... 1.14 Figure 11: Survey Divisions Map ...... 1.16 Figure 12: Overview of Total Responses ...... 1.19 Figure 13: Site Plan - Option 1 ...... 3.2 Figure 14: Site Plan - Option 2 ...... 3.3 Figure 15: Main Floor Plan - Option 1 ...... 3.4 Figure 16: Main Floor Plan - Option 2 ...... 3.5

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING

Figure 17: Massing - Option 1 ...... 3.6 Figure 18: Massing - Option 2 ...... 3.7 Figure 19: Aquatic Visits per Day Comparison ...... 5.16

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A COMMUNITY SCAN AND ANALYSIS PARKLAND COUNTY – REPORT, APRIL 2015 PREPARED BY ISL ENGINEERING AND LAND SERVICES FOR PARKLAND COUNTY ...... A.1

APPENDIX B DETAILED CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE REPORTS ...... B.1

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING

Executive Summary

Stantec Consulting Ltd. was engaged in 2015 to facilitate the development of a Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan. In the course of that work, discussion around the existing Entwistle Outdoor Pool and the future plans for this facility were initiated.

Parkland County invited Stantec to provide a feasibility study for an indoor aquatic facility and the possibility of establishing a community hub in the Entwistle area.

In the fall of 2015, Parkland County Council had already received a feasibility study and concept design for a new outdoor pool facility which recommended replacing rather than repairing the existing Entwistle pool facility. Council directed staff to evaluate the feasibility of an indoor pool and community hub facility instead of the proposed outdoor pool facility at the existing site.

Stantec has provided the following updated needs assessment, revised and expanded functional program, along with siting, financial, and risk assessments to inform the difficult decision of whether to proceed with building an exciting new indoor pool and community hub facility.

When we are performing a feasibility study, Stantec uses a capital planning model that allows for ever increasing degrees of granularity in cost estimates, the further along we proceed along the continuum of planning. For the purposes of this study, we are midway through the planning task, Evaluate (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Capital Planning, Project Definition and Budget Accuracy CAPITAL PLANNING, PROJECT

n DEFINITION & BUDGET ACCURACY u

r Maximum Probable r

e Cost v O

t e g d

u Most Probable Cost B

% $ TIME n u r

r e d n U

e Minimum Probable g Cost d u B

% PLANNING APPROVAL IMPLEMENTATION CLOSE OUT PHASE Design, Construct, TASK Intake Evaluate Define Approve Close Out Commission

PROJECT DEFINITION Facility Assess. Feasibility Study Business Cases Pre-Tender Tender As-Built

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING

The options presented in this report were determined, in part, through Class ‘D’ order of magnitude construction cost estimations as well as the ensuing capital planning implications.

This report is intended to assist the County in its long term strategic planning for aquatic fea·si·bil·i·ty stud·y noun recreation. We have refrained from 1. An assessment of the practicality of recommending a course of action as that is the a proposed plan or method domain of Parkland County’s elected officials. We have, however, provided information to inform deliberations and a lens through which a decision can be made regarding the proposed indoor aquatic and community hub facility.

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Needs Assessment September 20, 2016

1.0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Although a feasibility study and the associated needs assessment for a proposed replacement to the Entwistle Outdoor Pool was tabled in late fall 2015, the community profile is always a good starting place to establish the existing needs as reflected in ever changing demographic profiles. Stantec has reviewed the April 2015 Community Scan and Profile as it pertains particularly to the proposed Entwistle community hub and aquatic facility as well as undertaken a review of the existing facility’s utilization and an independent review and benchmarking of other similar facilities.

Further, we engaged the community through a community wide household survey administered in April and May of 2016, and a community open house held on April 6, 2016 all of which were part of the larger Parkland County Parks, Recreation & Culture Master Planning process. These engagements provided insights into current opinions, interests and demands of the county’s constituents regarding the proposed community hub and aquatic facility.

1.1 COMMUNITY PROFILE

In this section of the report, we outline the population and socio-economic characteristics of the community.

1.1.1 Population

For the purposes of providing a community profile, Parkland County supplied the April 2015 Community Scan and Analysis report completed by ISL Engineering and Land Services Ltd. in collaboration with Strategic Projections Inc. and SHS Consulting. A copy of which is included in Appendix A.

Below is a summary of the relevant elements as they affect Entwistle’s proposed community hub and aquatic facility.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 1.1

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Needs Assessment September 20, 2016

Table 1: Summary of Community Scan Planning Impacts

Geographic Entity Subject Previous Finding (1) Ref. Pg. Impact on Entwistle's Rec. Plans

Population is aging, increasing from a Plan program offerings to meet Parkland County Age Cohort 13 median age of 37.6 in 2001 to 40.6 in 2011. age-related interests

The County has experienced significant increases in all cohorts over the age of 50 Plan program offerings to meet Parkland County Age Cohort 13 between 2001 and 2011, as well as in the 15 age-related interests to 19 and 40 to 44 cohorts.

The County has experienced significant decreases in the three cohorts between the Plan program offerings to meet Parkland County Age Cohort 13 ages of 25 and 39 and in the 5 to 9 and 45 to age-related interests 49 cohorts.

Plan program offerings to meet Parkland County Age Cohort The County experienced modest increases in 13 age-related interests the 0 to 4, 10 to 14 and 20 to 24 cohorts.

The gap between the percentages of males to females is slowly narrowing. The ratio was Parkland County Gender 13 insignificant 51.6% to 48.4% in 2011, whereas it was 51.8% to 48.2% in 2001.

North American Aboriginal origin people are Try to engage aboriginals & be Parkland County Ethnic Origin the second largest group in Parkland County 13 sensitive to their cultural needs accounting for 7.2% of the total in 2011

Population aged 25 to 64 has a high level of educational attainment at the high school Parkland County Education and trade certificate or diploma level, likely 16 a reflection of the industrial and construction orientation of its employment base

Immigrants (people born outside of Communications should not be Migration & Canada) account for a small share (6.7%) of Parkland County 18 an issue, due to relatively Mobility Parkland County’s population in 2011 and homogenous population almost two thirds of them are from Europe.

1 Source: “Community Scan and Analysis.” ISL Engineering and Land Services, Apr 2015.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 1.2

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Needs Assessment September 20, 2016

Geographic Entity Subject Previous Finding (1) Ref. Pg. Impact on Entwistle's Rec. Plans

Population is very much home-grown. Most of its residents in 2006 either did not move between 2006 and 2011 or if they moved Stable population provides Migration & they did so from another place in Parkland predictability and possible Parkland County 18 Mobility County or another place in Alberta. These loyalty for recreation three groups collectively accounted for programming 96.1% of Parkland County’s population aged 5 and over in 2011

Parkland County is among the most affluent While one might conclude that census subdivisions (municipalities) in affordability is not an issue, the Canada with an average household average household income in Household income exceeding that of Alberta by 27% Enwistle and area is likely Parkland County 19 income and that of Canada by 62%. Households significantly lower than the receiving incomes exceeding $100,000 per County average, based on year are found far more frequently in observation of housing Parkland County than in Alberta as a whole. conditions.

Parkland County is a major net exporter of Significant travel is the norm for Parkland County Employment people commuting to jobs in nearby 45 work, but may not be as municipalities on a daily basis. acceptable for leisure.

Because owners tend not to Most dwellings in Parkland County are move as often as renters we Parkland County Housing owned (95.2%) and the proportion of owned 59 have, a relatively stable dwellings has increased from 2001 to 2011. population

… Division 6 experienced significant Significant population growth Electoral Division 6 Population 7 population decline unlikely

Hamlet of Between 1991 and 2011, Entwistle's Significant population growth Population 6 Entwistle population declined from 460 to 440 unlikely

The share of the County’s future population Population no significant population Electoral Division 6 growth assumed by 117 Forecast growth in west side of County electoral division 6 is 2.5% Forecast of Additional no significant population Electoral Division 6 51 between 2013 and 2043 125 Dwelling Unit growth in west side of County Needs

Hamlet of Population no significant population by 2061 - 565, under all scenarios 118 Entwistle Forecast growth in Entwistle

Forecast of Hamlet of Additional no significant population 12 between 2013 and 2043 127 Entwistle Dwelling Unit growth in Entwistle Needs

(1) Source: "Community Scan and Analysis", ISL Engineering and Land Services, April, 2015,

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 1.3 ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Needs Assessment September 20, 2016

Other (non-Demographic) Relevant Findings Geographic Entity Subject Previous Finding (1) Ref. Pg. Impact on Entwistle's Rec. Plans Private sector is and will Development continue to meet some of the There were 18 development permits issued Parkland County Permit Activity, 34 recreation needs, though these for "Outdoor Participant Recreation Services" 2010-2013 may be more oriented to Edmonton residents & tourists

As of 2013 the assessed values of all taxable The County's healthy tax base Assessment properties in Parkland County had reached Parkland County 36 should be able to support Growth $8.4 billion, up from $3.7 billion in 2006 or additional amenities by $4.7 billion Fairness, equity are key Residential properties accounted for the considerations in allocating tax Assessment Parkland County majority of Parkland County’s tax assessment 38 dollars for recreation to various Growth base in 2013 at 62%, locations throughout the County Community Entwistle Community League was founded Hamlet of They should be considered part Associations & in 1942; they have a hall at 5013-49 Ave, 71 Entwistle of the "leisure delivery system" Facilities & no other facilities

If membership hasn't increased Community recently, it is unrealistic to rely on Hamlet of Associations & Membership appears to be about 10 72 them for a significant Entwistle Facilities contribution. Can the County provide better/more support? (1) Source: "Community Scan and Analysis", ISL Engineering and Land Services, April, 2015,

In addition, for this study, we accessed Statistics Canada data over the last 4 census periods for Parkland County and compared it to Alberta and Canada data. The data indicates that the population growth rate in the County has slowed, to the point that it is below Alberta’s rate and the overall Canadian rate, (at least up until 2011).

Figure 2: Population Growth

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 1.4

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Needs Assessment September 20, 2016

The recent slowing of population growth is not unique to Parkland County and mirrors a country wide trend away from rural residence toward urban centers. These trends can be seen in Sturgeon County and Yellowhead County, while urban communities including the City of Spruce Gove and City of Leduc have experienced strong growth trends, as the chart below illustrates.

Figure 3: Population Growth Comparisons

Lac Ste. City of Parkland Sturgeon Yellowhead Anne Brazeau City of Spruce County County County County County Leduc Grove Alberta Canada 2001 10.01% 13.50% 5.77% 8.41% 4.57% 5.18% 12.12% 10.31% 4.02% 2006 7.34% 3.07% 1.36% 2.42% 4.46% 12.84% 21.84% 10.61% 5.35% 2011 4.53% 5.07% 4.29% 14.22% 2.10% 43.13% 34.23% 10.79% 5.90%

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 1.5

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Needs Assessment September 20, 2016

We further analyzed the population profile for neighbouring communities. It is important to see how these communities are growing since we anticipate drawing in part from these market areas.

Figure 4: Comparison of Catchment Area Populations 2000-2015

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 1.6

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Needs Assessment September 20, 2016

Table 2: Comparison of Catchment Area Populations 2000-2015

Lac Ste. Yellowhead Parkland Brazeau Anne Woodlands County County County County County 2000 24,769 3,699 2001 10,092 25,222 8,737 3,699 2002 9,881 27,252 6,895 8,948 3,818 2003 9,881 27,252 6,895 8,948 3,818 2004 9,881 27,252 6,895 8,948 3,818 2005 9,881 29,679 6,895 8,948 3,818 2006 9,881 29,679 6,895 8,948 3,818 2007 10,045 29,679 7,040 9,516 4,158 2008 10,045 29,679 7,040 10,220 4,158 2009 10,045 30,089 7,040 10,220 4,158 2010 10,045 30,089 7,040 10,220 4,158 2011 10,045 30,089 7,040 10,220 4,158 2012 10,469 30,568 7,201 10,260 4,306 2013 10,469 30,568 7,201 10,260 4,306 2014 10,469 30,568 7,201 10,260 4,612 2015 10,469 30,568 7,201 10,260 4,612

All of these regions represent flat growth rates of between 0.2% to 3% growth year over year between 2000 and 2015.

Table 3: Comparison of Catchment Area Population Growth year over year from 2000-2015

Lac Ste. Yellowhead Parkland Brazeau Anne Woodlands County County County County County Year-over-year 1.5% 0.2% 3.1% 0.6% 1.5% growth rate

It is clear that the region’s populations are stable and consistent. This would mean that we are comfortable planning for a low growth scenario; we can expect the numbers today to likely be the number of tomorrow and 10 years down the road.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 1.7

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Needs Assessment September 20, 2016

1.1.2 Age Cohort

When we analyze the age cohort for the Parkland County, it is clear that adults (45 to 64) and seniors are growing in number, as well as proportion of the community’s population. This is reinforced in the second chart showing median age increasing and higher than average. Facility programming should account for the growth in the older population segment while also providing programming attractive to the balance of the population that is under 45 years of age.

Figure 5: Population by Age Cohort

Figure 6: Population’s Median Age

60.0

40.0 42.2

20.0 34.9 31.3 35.3 37.6 33.4 37.6 40.2 35.0 39.5 36.5 40.6 Age (Years) Age 0.0 1996 2001 2006 2011 Census Year

Parkland County Alberta Canada

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 1.8

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Needs Assessment September 20, 2016 1.2 BENCHMARKING

To understand the relationship of community size, facility size, facility operations, and the existing inventory of aquatic and community hub facilities, we investigated several communities in the surrounding area as well as some substantial leisure facilities opened in recent years. Stantec reflects the highlights of this research in the table below.

# 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14 15

Wetaskiwin Mayerthorpe Westlock New Park Battleford Stony Plain Entwistle Entwistle Town of High Barrhead Pool Green Grove Tri-Leisure Park Valley Suncor Leisure Regional Facility Aquatic Aquatic Valley Pool Eastlink Centre Coop Aquatic Outdoor Pool & (proposed) Outdoor Pool Prairie (proposed) Pool Centre Pool Centre Aquatics Centre Centre (proposed) Centre Spray Park Facility

Mayerthorpe Niton Spruce Grove, Drayton Entwistle, AB Westlock, AB Ft. , AB Junction, AB AB Valley, AB Grande Wetaskiwin, North Stony Plain, Location TBD 4916 51 10450 – 106 TBD TBD McMurray, 5309—50 5307 - 50 221 Jennifer 5030 - 48 Prairie, AB AB Battleford, SK AB Street Street AB Avenue Street Heil Way Street 2015 Data Parkland 2015 TOTAL: 2015 Data County: 69,391 Parkland 30,568 Stony Plain: County: Yellowhead 14,177 Pop. at time 30,568 2011 pop. - County: 1,398 2,836 4,463 11,287 Spruce Grove: 4,982 91,612 50,227 12,525 14,695 15,051 of opening Entwistle: 461 6,893 10,469 24,646 (based on Entwistle: Parkland proxy 461 (based County: estimates) on proxy 30,568 estimates) Date Opened/ TBD Not Known May 2013 Mar 2011 1989 2018 not known Jun 2002 1985 2017 2010 2011 Jun 2013 Sep 2012 1972 Completed Annual Open TBD 20-May 01-Jun Indoor Indoor 23-May Indoor Indoor Indoor Indoor Indoor Indoor Indoor Outdoor Date Annual Close n/a 31-Aug 31-Aug n/a n/a 28-Aug n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 31-Aug Date Annual # of days of n/a 103 91 - n/a n/a 97 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 104 operation Facility Size TBD NOT AVAIL. NOT AVAIL. NOT AVAIL. NOT AVAIL. 2,390 sq. m. NOT AVAIL. 20,996.1 sq. m. 3,944.1 sq. m. 3,944.1 sq. m. 6,369.0 sq. m. 7,737.5 sq. m. 4,092.0 sq. m. 3,705.0 sq. m. NOT AVAIL. sq. meters Facility Size 0 0 0 0 0 25,726 sq. ft. 0 226,000 sq. ft. 42,454 sq. ft. 42,454 sq. ft. 68,555 sq. ft. 82,285 sq. ft. 44,046 sq. ft. 39,880 sq. ft. 0 sq. footage

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 1.9

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Needs Assessment September 20, 2016

Figure 7: Entwistle Catchment Area Map Further to the above, we investigated the neighbouring municipalities to inform a possible catchment area for the proposed community hub and aquatic facility.

We found there are several communities with outdoor pools and a few larger complexes surrounding Entwistle. These other facilities could provide some alternate leisure options that may compete with the proposed community hub and aquatic facility.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 1.10

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Needs Assessment September 20, 2016

To further inform the benchmark analysis, we investigated the aquatic services available in communities close to Entwistle and in other communities in Alberta that are similar to Entwistle. Specifically, we evaluated driving proximity of the facility to Entwistle, pool amenities provided and the community size. The closest facility is Drayton Valley’s Park Valley Pool which is 45 minutes (43.4 km) away.

Table 4: Communities in Close Proximity to Entwistle

Facility Name Municipality Distance Population Indoor/ Facility Amenities from Served Outdoor Entwistle Green Grove Yellowhead 54.1 km 8,475 Outdoor Swimming County Pool Pool2 Realty City of 73.7 km 26,171 Indoor  25m in length Executive Spruce Grove Pool  10 lanes Aquatic  Leisure pool Complex 3  Water Play Structure  Waterslide  Hot tub  Steam room Talisman Town of 100.3 km 8,475 Indoor  5 lanes Place Edson Pool  Waterslide  Hot tub  Sauna Park Valley Town of 43.4 km 6,510 Indoor  25m in length Pool Drayton Pool  5 swim lanes Valley  Ramp entry  Two slides  Tarzan rope  Hot tub  Viewing area Alliance Woodlands 93.1 km 4,306 Indoor  25 metre Pipeline County Pool  Tot pool Aquatic  Zero depth entry Centre4  Waterslide  Steam room  Lazy river

2 Green Grove Swimming Pool in Niton Junction was researched for this inclusion in this table. However, it yielded little relevant data. 3 This facility is part of the TransAlta Tri Leisure Centre. 4 Part of the Allan & Jean Millar Center

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 1.11

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Needs Assessment September 20, 2016

Other Alberta Communities: Olds Aquatic Mountain 258 km 8,235 Indoor  8m waterslide Center View County Pool  5 lanes  25m in length  Whirlpool  Tot pool  “Beach entry” St. Paul County of 282 km 5,400 Indoor  6 lanes Aquatic St. Paul Pool  25m in length Center  Steam room  Hot tub  Kids pool Hanna Town of 405 km 2,673 Outdoor  Water slide Swimming Hanna Pool  Lane pool Pool and (Special  Leisure pool Waterslide District) Fairview Peace 462 km 3,162 Indoor  Main pool Regional County Pool  Diving board Aquatic (North of  Hot tub Centre Grande  Waterslide Prairie)  Rope Swing  Climbing wall  Skywalker Devon Multi- Leduc County 108 km 6,510 Indoor  25m in length Plex Pool  Whirlpool (Proposed)  Viewing Area Stony Plain Town of 70 km 15,015 Outdoor  6 lanes Outdoor Stony Plain Pool  25m in length Pool  Diving board  Spray Park (Adjacent) Mayerthorpe Town of 50 km 1,398 Outdoor  25m in length Aquatic Mayerthorpe Pool  Water Slide Centre  Tot pool

Again, what appears is that there are several alternatives in the region that may compete with the facility’s proposed amenities.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 1.12

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Needs Assessment September 20, 2016

1.3 CURRENT UTILIZATION

Entwistle’s existing pool use is tracked by user’s geographic origin and type of use (i.e. lessons vs. open swim). Open swims account for over 92% of usage. The totals in the chart below combine open swims and lessons, but show the origin of participants.

Figure 8: Entwistle Pool Utilization Trends

The following observations of pool use are based on analysis of the above data;

 Usage has doubled in the past 5 year

 Use from Yellowhead County residents has remained relatively stable

 Projections are based on a simple continuation of past trends. However, we know from experience that due to the finite capacity of the pool and the negative impact of overcrowding on the quality of the experience that at some point usage will level off. Pricing of course can also impact demand.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 1.13

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Needs Assessment September 20, 2016

Another way to understand utilization is to examine pool revenues. An analysis of historical revenue data was undertaken and is presented in Figures 9 and 10.

Figure 9: Entwistle 2015 Pool Revenue

Figure 10: Entwistle Pool Revenue Trend

The following are observations from the above revenue data:

 While open swims comprise over 92% of pool use, they only contribute 36% of revenue, whereas lessons make up less than 8% of use but contribute 48% of revenue

 Revenue peaked in 2012 and for the last 3 years leveled off

 While attendance increased dramatically in 2015 over 2014, revenue was stagnant.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 1.14

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Needs Assessment September 20, 2016

1.4 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: HOUSEHOLD SURVEY RESULTS

In April and May of 2016, Stantec undertook a statistically valid household survey of County residents as part of the Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan process. A subset of those survey questions were related to the proposed community hub and aquatic facility proposed in the Village of Entwistle. What follows is a breakdown of that portion of the Household Survey Results that pertain to Entwistle’s proposed community hub and aquatic facility. In regards to the Entwistle community hub and aquatic facility, the survey sought to understand: - Opinions, - Interests, and - Demands

The Household Survey area was segmented into divisions to test potential differences in opinions, interests and demands based on geography. The divisions were as shown in Figure 11.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 1.15

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Needs Assessment September 20, 2016

Figure 11: Survey Divisions Map

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 1.16

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Needs Assessment September 20, 2016

1.4.1 Survey Results

Anticipated Usage

Participants were asked to indicate how likely they were to utilize an aquatic facility in Entwistle. Overall, the feasibility of the respondents using a multipurpose aquatic facility in the Entwistle area was low with 63.1% of respondents indicating that they were “not at all likely” to utilize the facility.

Likeliness Division 1 2 3 4 5 6 Moderate - 3.3 12.2 8.3 9.1 14.6 High - 3.3 7.3 2.8 16.4 64.6 Overall - 6.6 19.5 11.1 25.5 79.2 Not surprisingly, the respondents in Division 6 reported the highest likeliness of using or visiting a multipurpose aquatic facility in Entwistle. As the respondents progressively get further away from Entwistle, they were less likely to anticipate use of a multipurpose aquatic facility.

Facility Program

Overall, the top pool components that the respondents felt should be included in the multipurpose aquatic facility include:

Rank Pool Component Respondents 1 Leisure Pool & Learn to Swim 71.9% 2 Hot Tub 53.4% 3 Water Slide 50.1% 4 Swimming Lane / Lap Pool 45.5% 5 Family & Accessible Change 44.0% Room 6 Pool Seating & Viewing Area 38.1% 7 Lazy River 36.6% 8 Spray Features 34.2% 9 Wave Pool 25.1% 10 Diving Boards 21.9% 11 Warm Water Therapy Pool 20.6% 12 Sauna 17.6%

However, demands for the pool and community hub elements were not consistent throughout the County and varied based on where the respondent lived in the County. The following breakdown is provided to demonstrate differences in priorities of pool components according to division:

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 1.17

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Needs Assessment September 20, 2016

Top three priorities for Division 6: 1) Leisure Pool & Learn to Swim 2) Hot Tub 3) Swimming Lane Lap Pool

Top three priorities for Division 5: 1) Pool Seating & Viewing Area 2) Leisure Pool & Learn to Swim 3) Water Slide

Top three priorities for Divisions 1, 2, 3, & 4: 1) Leisure Pool & Learn to Swim 2) Spray Features 3) Water Slide

Respondents were also asked to indicate which of the Multipurpose Hub components they thought should be included in the multipurpose aquatic facility. Of the components listed, they were ranked accordingly:

Rank Multipurpose Hub Respondents Component 1 Fitness & Workout Spaces 74.8% 2 Café / Concession 50.1% 3 Child Play Spaces 45.4% 4 Gymnasium 37.1% 5 Outdoor Playground 35.4% 6 Flexible Programming Spaces 32.1% 7 Skate & BMX Park 22.0% 8 Indoor Fields 20.9% 9 Library 20.4% 10 Outdoor Rink 16.3% 11 Performing Arts Space 16.1% 12 Indoor Ice Arena 14.8% 13 Outdoor Sports Fields, & 13.5% Diamonds 14 Child-minding 13.1% 15 Community Kitchen 10.3% 16 Health Care Providers & 8.6% Wellness Offices 17 Retail Opportunities 7.4% 18 Indoor Dry Floor Arena 7.2%

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 1.18

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Needs Assessment September 20, 2016

The following breakdown is provided to demonstrate differences in priorities for the multipurpose hub components by division:

Top three priorities for Division 6: 1) Fitness & Workout Spaces 2) Café / Concession 3) Flexible Programming Spaces & Gymnasium

Top three priorities for Division 5: 1) Fitness & Workout Spaces 2) Café / Concession 3) Child Play Spaces & Gymnasium

Top three priorities for Divisions 4, 3, 2, & 1: 1) Fitness & Workout Spaces 2) Café / Concession 3) Child Play Spaces

Funding

Respondents were asked to indicate how much of an increase in property taxes they would support to see a multipurpose aquatic facility in the Entwistle area. Figure 12, provides an overview of the total responses:

Figure 12: Overview of Total Responses

None 16% Don't Know / No Response Over $200 22% 2% $151 - $200 4% $101 - $150 12% Up to $100 44%

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 1.19

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Needs Assessment September 20, 2016

Rank Willingness to Pay Respondents 1 Up to $100 44.7% 2 None 13.2% 3 $101 – $150 10.5% 4 $151 – $200 7.9% 5 Over $200 2.6%

It is worth noting that nearly half of respondents (44.7%) were willing to accept a property tax increase of up to $100 annually. An additional 18.4% of respondents were willing to accept an annual property tax increase of between $100 and $200. Very few respondents (2.6%) were willing to accept an increase greater than $200 annually. Finally, 21% of respondents didn’t know whether they were willing to pay, or did not respond to this question. When geography was considered, there was virtually no difference in the proportion of those willing to pay or the amounts they were willing to pay.

1.5 IMPLICATIONS

The data analysed through the Needs Assessment portion of the project gives guidance on a number of elements and consideration for facility design. The implications of the above are as follows:

 Significant population growth in the west part of Parkland County is unlikely. In fact, the population in Divisions 6, although stable over the course of several decades, has more recently begun to experience decline.

 The population in Division 5 and 6 are significantly older than the rest of the county. Children represent a small and declining proportion of the community makeup. Programming and the desired aquatic components should reflect the same.

 Although the economic prosperity of Parkland County as a whole is significant, there is some evidence that economic affluence is more modest in the west part of the county.

 The immediate population of Entwistle is under 500 and insufficient on its own to support any more than a small- to modest-sized aquatic and community hub facility. However, the proposed community hub and indoor aquatic facility will likely serve a larger market area that might include:

o The west end of Parkland County,

o The east portions of Yellowhead County, and

o Other visitors to the region.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 1.20

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Needs Assessment September 20, 2016

 There are several aquatic and community facilities within 1 hour of Entwistle’s proposed facility that are similar in size and amenities offered such a lane pool, slide, leisure pool, and warm water therapy pool.

 Utilization of the existing outdoor pool indicates a significant and growing use of this facility by both Parkland and Yellowhead County residents.

 Based on the household survey, there is demand for a West Parkland (Divisions 5 and 6) community hub and aquatic facility.

 Again, based on the household survey, among those wanting the facility, there is an apparent willingness to financially contribute to the support of a west Parkland community hub and aquatic facility.

 The closure of the coal fueled power generation stations in the western portion of the County may have additional future economic implications.

Based on the needs assessment, there is some support to proceed in developing a functional program that includes space considerations for a modest sized (maximum 100-bather load5) indoor aquatic facility that houses:

Rank Pool Component 1 Leisure Pool & Learn to Swim 2 Hot Tub 3 Water Slide 4 Swimming Lane / Lap Pool 5 Family & Accessible Change Room

And a community hub that would house:

Rank Multipurpose Hub Component 1 Fitness & Workout Spaces 2 Café / Concession 3 Child Play Spaces 4 Gymnasium 5 Outdoor Playground

When selecting a bather load to design to, we must consider the peak usage times as well as the average usage. Although during the majority of the time, the facility will not be at maximum capacity, a maximum bather load of 100 persons will allow Entwistle to program birthday parties, swim team training and small competitions, swim lessons, aqua size classes, free swim drop in times and other programming concurrently.

5 Bather Load: maximum of pool bathers in the locker rooms at one time.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 1.21

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Needs Assessment September 20, 2016

The maximum bather load is dictated by the locker rooms as the Alberta Building Code sets the minimum size for dressing room area based on occupancy. ABC 2014 7.2.4.3 states that exclusive of washrooms and showers, 0.5 sq. m. is required of dressing room area per bather. Typically the locker room area sets the bather load and pool tanks are sized appropriately for programming capability, not maximum bather load. The maximum bather load for the pool tanks based on volume and water treatment would be significantly larger than 100 bathers, however are designed to meet programming needs.

In the next section we consider the components of the proposed community hub and aquatic facility.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 1.22

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Functional Program September 20, 2016

2.0 FUNCTIONAL PROGRAM

Based on the community profile that suggests a small but stable population, the household survey which outlines the communities desired and prioritized amenities, and the mandatory architectural space components of an enclosed (i.e. indoor) aquatic facility and community hub, a preliminary functional program was drafted and circulated to Parkland County staff for review and finalization. The following is the agreed upon functional program:

Table 5: Component Spaces and Space Allocation Component Spaces sq. m. sq. ft. Aquatics Group Locker 63 678 Female Locker 64 689 Male Locker 64 689 Wet Storage 30 323 Office 14 151 Janitor Room 8 86 First Aid Room 10 108 Staff Locker Room 22 237 Storage 15 161 Control Desk 23 248 Lifeguard Station 32 344 Para-Health 50 538 Tenant Space (2) 30 323 Seating/Pool Viewing 60 646 Dockside View 19 205 Pool Deck 493 5307 Leisure Pool 252 2713 Swirl Pool 18 194 5 Lane lap Pool 322 3466 Slide 145 1561 Shipping/Receiving 30 323 Chemical Storage 30 323 Mechanical Room 65 700 Electrical Room 26 280

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 2.1

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Functional Program September 20, 2016

Component Spaces (cont’d) sq. m. sq. ft. Multipurpose Room 30 323 Party Room 23 248 Stairs 13 140 Subtotal Aquatics 1,951 21,000 Lobby Public Washroom 19 205 Public Washroom 19 205 Food Service 30 323 Seating 19 205 Vestibule 20 215 Subtotal Lobby 107 1,152 Library 160 1722 TOTAL Net Area 2,218 23,874 25% Gross up factor 555 5969 (aquatics and lobby) TOTAL Gross Area 2,773 29,843

Table 6: Area Designations for Costing Net Net Gross Gross sq. m. sq. ft. sq. m. sq. ft. Aquatic 1,951 21,000 2,439 26,250 Community Hub 267 2874 334 3,592 TOTAL 2,218 23,874 2,773 29,843

Description of Spaces Community Hub Community culture and recreation facilities should have the longevity to remain as established community fixtures, uniting people for decades to come. Mixed use facilities, such as the proposed Entwistle community hub and aquatic facility, have the ability to connect community members and create a stronger sense of pride and belonging. The lobby space will be the catalyst for this outcome; this space must be welcoming, spacious and have natural light. The lobby will provide views and connections to a variety of program spaces, while providing areas to sit, gather, meet and grab some refreshments.

The library, tenant spaces and multipurpose room are a few of the spaces that will be accessed directly from the lobby. The control desk will have direct sightlines to these access points; however they will not be controlled in a physical sense, like the aquatic center. The tenant and multipurpose spaces could be designed for a healthcare tenant such as physiotherapy or a

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 2.2

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Functional Program September 20, 2016 fitness space. Users from all of these spaces will be drawn to the lobby for food and beverages, public washrooms, or as a break.

Aquatics Today’s aquatic facilities are being designed to cater to all members of the community. They incorporate more shallow water, and various features for fun and therapeutic use; i.e., features to encourage use by every member of the family community, from our youth to our seniors, from our athletes to those with less mobility.

Trends in leisure aquatics are showing more popularity towards zero beach leisure tanks with jets and spray features for play and fun as oppose to lap swimming. It is likely that the leisure pool will be the most heavily used tank and is sized to accommodate this popularity. The leisure pool is designed with warm down lap lanes. This aspect of the leisure pool can accommodate for swimming lessons with small children, warm up or cool down of athletes, or offer a warmer temperature to the lap pool. Programming flexibility is provided as well; the lap pool can be booked for a practice or activity while drop in swimmers can still have access to lane swimming.

A 25m pool, with its specific physical requirements for competition events in swimming, diving, water polo, synchronized swimming, water aerobics, and underwater hockey, has proven over the years to have limited appeal to the recreational and leisure swimmers or those seeking the benefits of water therapy. However this is still a feature of aquatic facilities today because it allows for lap swimming on both a recreation and competitive level as well as leisure programming such as Tarzan rope swings and wall climbing. The lap pool is also desirable as it offers a cooler temperature and deeper water to the leisure pool.

The proposed aquatic program for the new community hub has been designed to be a multipurpose facility with equal emphasis placed on leisure, water therapy or relaxation, recreation swimming and play. The natatorium will house all the wet features such as pool tanks, water slide and deck area. The support spaces and community hub components will connect with the natatorium both visually and physically.

The following is a summary of the base program requirements and key elements for the natatorium and hub, as we understand them, based upon the Needs Assessment and meetings with Parkland County.

Competition Lap Pool The 5-lane 25m lap pool meets all the FINA (Fédération Internationale de Natation) standards for lane widths, depths, and lengths. The pool will include starter blocks, inserts for backstroke flags and could accommodate future touch-pads and timing equipment. The deck width around the perimeter of the pool is 2.44 to 3.05 m. (i.e. 8 to 10 ft.), allowing for circulation and non-fixed chairs. Pool side ladders will allow access to the lap pool; however stairs could be added to allow for easier access.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 2.3

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Functional Program September 20, 2016

When the lap pool is not being used for a competition, lane reels can be stored at the deep end of the pool on the deck. A pool side wet storage room is accessible directly from the lap pool deck, suitable for storage of flotation devices and swimming aids as well as pool toys.

Acoustic treatment of primarily fabric covered baffles suspended from the ceiling are appropriate materials for the pool environment and sufficient to provide approximately 2 to 2.5 second reverb time within the natatorium.

Zero Beach Leisure Pool A gentle ramp will provide access for general users, young children and persons with mobility challenges to the leisure pool at a zero water depth. The freeform zero beach leisure pool has many features which make it the most flexible of all bodies of water and is likely to be the most popular water body other than for lap swimming in the lap pool.

Tot’s Area Within the zero beach leisure pool, a tot’s area is a current trend. This area will vary in depth from 3.66 to 5.49 m. (i.e. 12 to 18 ft.) and can be separated from deeper water with a low wall in order to provide a safer environment to bring tots. Sprays, geysers and a bubble floor will entertain the tots and a bench seat will provide a relaxing opportunity for the parents to be close at hand.

T-Cup The T-Cup is a water feature which cascades water from above on all sides of the fixture. The cascading water is a fun water toy for kids to play around but also services as one of the best back massages you’ll ever get and hence is used by children, parents and seniors.

Water Features Interactive sprays and other features are provided throughout the leisure pool in addition to the T-cup. Lemon drops spray water horizontally and geysers spray water vertically all to the great enjoyment of the kids. Bubble floors churn up the water and provide endless play opportunities for the tots. All sprays and water features are controlled by the lifeguard in the Lifeguard Station and can be individually turned on and off depending on the programming of the pool.

The quantity and location of these water features will depend on the location of the pool pumps & filters, cost and programming. At the end or deepest area of the leisure pool, a built in bench offers back and neck jets for users to relax in a cooler water temperature to the swirl pool.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 2.4

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Functional Program September 20, 2016

Water Slide The water slide will add the adventure and excitement factor to draw kids, teenagers and adults to the facility. The slide will be fully indoor allowing operation during every day of the year. The slide will terminate in a separate shutdown lane as oppose to landing in a larger pool. This will allow the programming of the larger pools to continue during the times the slide is open, this is a safer alternative. A Juliette balcony at the top of the stairs on the landing will provide an exciting overlook on the entire facility.

Swirl Pool The swirl pool with a capacity for up to 10-15 bathers is designed in a “conversation pit” style with several areas for people to gather to enjoy the warm water and massaging jets while promoting interaction and conversation. The pool is raised to enable the disabled to transfer themselves and for users to take a break from the heat while still interacting with friends.

Deck side Viewing A deck side viewing area is provided for the convenient use of those who wish to remain outside of the natatorium or enter the natatorium onto a separated deck. Whether users are inside the natatorium exposed to the sounds of play or sitting beyond the large glazing, this place allows people to meet and gather before and after participating in any of the activities within the community hub.

Theming Theming can be a successful way to personalize the natatorium while providing visual interest and colour. The possibilities are endless and could range anywhere from a modern aesthetic to a more local interpretation of the history and culture of the community.

Locker rooms Men’s, Women’s and a Group locker room are provided. Within the men’s and women’s locker rooms, there is a division between the dry area and wet area to reduce wet floors near the locker areas. Pool users can enter the locker rooms and have quick access to the washrooms and showers, without entering into the locker areas.

The group locker room allows for male, female, transgender and those with reduced mobility to use private change and shower areas within a large locker room. This space is fully barrier free. The group locker room is also commonly used by mom or dad with young children.

An alternate solution for transgender locker rooms would be a flex-locker room. This would provide an extra level of privacy and consist of a separate private locker room, sometimes referred to as a universal change room. Although not incorporated into the concept plans currently, this could be a later refinement of the functional program moving into the schematic design phase.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 2.5

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Functional Program September 20, 2016

Control Desk The control desk has sight lines onto the main entry, the primary circulation corridors and public areas. It will act as the single control point for all visitors whether they are swimming or using any of the dry facilities. It is connected to the lifeguards station, administration offices and first aid room to take advantage of staffing synergies during slower times.

Staff areas

The control desk, office, staff locker room and lifeguard station make up the core staff areas. The control desk is sized to accommodate 2-3 staff members or zones for point of sale, administration tasks and general information. The lifeguard station is sized to accommodate workstations for 3-4 lifeguards, a small kitchenette and a meeting table for 4. The staff locker room will accommodate a universal shower, washroom, lockers and a washer/dryer unit.

Certain staff activities may require privacy and quiet. Although the lifeguard station will have a meeting table, the acoustics within this space may prohibit certain group tasks. In an effort to create multiuse, flexible spaces within this facility, staff could book either the party room or multipurpose room for these periodic meetings. This is a more sustainable approach to meet this space requirement as oppose to providing a dedicated meeting room for staff only. The party room in particular is typically used, for revenue generating bookings, during the afternoon and evening time periods, leaving it available in the mornings for staff bookings.

Party room

The party room is a multiuse room that can be booked by users for a variety of functions. It can be used for birthday parties, meetings, dry land training, and life safety training. This space has access to both the wet side and the dry side of the facility, providing flexibility in programming the space.

Pool Pumps and Filters The purpose of a pool pumps and filters room is to allow access to the under deck piping, pumps, filters and spray connections that service the pool bodies. This basement space will be full height for the main room containing all large equipment. Piping to each tank can be encased within the concrete or accessible via a tunnel. Tunnel access can save significant cost if the systems need repair or the facility wishes to upgrade their features. Within this program, tunnel area has not been accommodated. Due to cost, many facilities chose to use heavy duty piping connections and concrete mix additives to reduce the risk of pipe leakage as oppose to investing in tunnel access.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 2.6

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Concept Design September 20, 2016

3.0 CONCEPT DESIGN

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 3.1

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Concept Design September 20, 2016

3.1 SITING DESIGN

Figure 13: Site Plan - Option 1

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 3.2

3.1 SITING DESIGN Figure 13: Site Plan - Option 1

A main vehicular entry into the site has been located to align with the center of the buildings main façade. As vehicles approach a generous drop off zone the main entry is highly visible for clear wayfinding. A hardscaped main entry COMMUNITY HUB plaza provides exterior gathering opportunities when weather permits. Fire trucks can enter and exit the site easily due to the gentile turning radii and a layby area is located adjacent to the main entry and where the Fire Department Connection would be located. A loading zone is located to the side of the building, minimizing visual impact. 13 LOADING The parking area provides 266 stalls based on the Parkland County Bylaw for Community Recreation use; 10 stalls per 100sm of gross floor area (the MAIN ENTRY basement area has been excluded from this calculation). The parking, hardscaping, site circulation and loading area requires 11,000sm of site area. PUBLIC 2 4 DROP OFF 4 EMERGENCY

40 38 38 19 18 40 25

16 9 1 SITE PLAN - OPTION 1 A100 1 : 600

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Concept Design September 20, 2016

Figure 14: Site Plan - Option 2

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 3.3

Figure 14: Site Plan - Option 2

Option 2 has many similarities to the option 1 site plan. The main difference is the discreet loading area located at the rear of the building. This location eliminates the visual impact of loading for servicing and maintenance. A safe distance is provided between the public and servicing activities. COMMUNITY HUB Due to the layout of the option 2 floor plan, this site plan highlights the articulation of the main façade. In comparison to option 1, which offers a minimalistic main façade, this options façade steps back from the parking providing more opportunity for outdoor gathering.

The parking area provides 266 stalls based on the Parkland County Bylaw 13 for Community Recreation use; 10 stalls per 100sm of gross floor area (the basement area has been excluded from this calculation). The parking, hardscaping, site circulation and loading area requires 11,000sm of site MAIN ENTRY area.

PUBLIC DROP OFF 8 6 EMERGENCY

40 38 38 19 18 40 25

16 9 1 SITE PLAN - OPTION 2 A101 1 : 600

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Concept Design September 20, 2016

3.2 FLOOR PLAN DESIGN

Figure 15: Main Floor Plan - Option 1

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 3.4

WET STORAGE 3.2 FLOOR PLAN DESIGN 38 m² Figure 15: Main Floor Plan - Option 1

From the main entry vestibule, users enter a generous lobby. This 5 LANE LAP SWIRL POOL ‘Hub’ will be an active space with seating, viewing, food and POOL 22 m² beverage amenity and access to various tenant spaces and 322 m² multi-purpose rooms. The control desk has direct sightlines to the main entry and all spaces surrounding the lobby.

From the control desk, access is granted into the locker rooms via a large corridor filled with natural light. This corridor will offer an opportunity for users to take off winter shoes prior to entering the locker rooms. The locker rooms enter directly onto the pool deck POOL DECK 515 m² STAIR with lots of crush space beneath the slide. 12 m²

The zero beach entry leisure pool is front and center for viewing from the lobby, deck side viewing and the lifeguard station. This SLIDE will be a heavily used pool tank due to the varying depths and 145 m² warmer temperature. Warm up lanes are connected to the ELECTRICAL leisure pool for programming flexibility and to offer an alternative ROOM 25 m² to the cooler temperatures of the lap pool. LEISURE POOL 252 m² The five-lane, 25 meter lap pool offers 2.5m wide lanes and deck space to facilitate lessons, competitions and frequently used TENANT PARTY equipment. Wet storage helps to nestle the swirl pool which is 60 m² ROOM UP situated away from the activity of the leisure pool. 23 m² DECK SIDE A party room can be accessed from the lobby or the pool deck FIRST AID VIEWING MECHANICAL with great views towards the zero beach entry. All tenant and TENANT 24 m² ROOM 30 m² 9 m² ROOM multi-purpose spaces are located to allow for future expansion. 65 m² LIFEGUARD SEATING/ STATION MULTI- VIEWING 30 m² SEATING 52 m² PURPOSE 15 m² CHEMICAL 30 m² STORAGE STAFF MALE FEMALE ROOM LOCKER LOCKER LOCKER 30 m² FOOD ROOM ROOM ROOM SERVICE 25 m² 68 m² 68 m² 23 m² LOBBY 235 m² SHIPPING/ CONTROL RECEIVING OFFICE JANITOR DESK 11 m² 30 m² 23 m² ROOM 8 m² LIBRARY CIRCULATION 160 m² 66 m²

PUBLIC GROUP WASHROOM LOCKER 36 m² ROOM 67 m²

1 MAIN FLOOR - OPTION 1 VESTIBULE 18 m² A110 1 : 250

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Concept Design September 20, 2016

Figure 16: Main Floor Plan - Option 2

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 3.5

WET STORAGE 30 m² CHEMICAL SHIPPING/ STORAGE MECHANICAL UP STAIRS RECEIVEING ROOM ROOM SWIRL POOL Figure 16: Main Floor Plan - Option 2 13 m² 30 m² 30 m² 65 m² 18 m²

ELECTRICAL SLIDE Similar to Option 1, Option 2 guides users to enter a generous 145 m² lobby via the main entry vestibule. The lobby offers seating, food ROOM 26 m² and beverage amenity and access to various tenant spaces and multi-purpose rooms. The control desk has direct sightlines to the CIRCULATION 19 m² main entry and all spaces surrounding the lobby. A variation in this option is that the pool viewing area is located to the right, along with deck side viewing and the party room. The pool viewing area JANITOR ROOM has an abundance of natural light. This area could be closed off 8 m² from the main lobby for a special booking or reservation. This separation of spaces will provide for a more active area to the right of the plan and a more tranquil area to the left. Tenant 5 LANE LAP spaces and the library may benefit from this separation. POOL FEMALE 322 m² The zero beach entry leisure pool is front and center for viewing CIRCULATION LOCKER ROOM 64 m² from the deck side viewing and the lifeguard station. The leisure 64 m² pool is also visible from the parking lot, street views and the hardscaped plaza. This brings views of the activity within to the GROUP LOCKER outside. With both the library and the aquatics areas have street ROOM STORAGE 63 m² frontage, visitors will have a clear insight as to the function within. 15 m² CIRCULATION POOL DECK Both concept floor plan options are a single storey, with the 10 m² 493 m² exception of the pool pumps and filters basement space. This OFFICE MALE LOCKER single storey design, along with the appropriate clearances, is a 14 m² ROOM FIRST AID barrier free space. Universal design is more than simply providing 64 m² ROOM clearances, heights and turning radii for wheel chairs; it 10 m² incorporates clear wayfinding, smooth transitions between flooring types, appropriate selection of colour for colour blindness, STAFF audio and visual cues when necessary, door hardware and other TENANT TENANT LOCKER SPACE SPACE ROOM considerations. At the concept level, the design has set the stage 22 m² for further development of these concepts by creating clear 50 m² 30 m² LEISURE POOL 252 m² sightlines, single floor circulation and generous circulation CONTROL LIFEGUARD throughout. Future phases of design will explore, in more detail, DESK STATION the level of universal design that is appropriate for this Community 23 m² 32 m² MULTI-PURPOSE Hub. ROOM PARTY 30 m² ROOM 23 m²

LOBBY 216 m² SEATING/ POOL VIEWING DECK SIDE 60 m² VIEWING SEATING FOOD SERVICE 19 m² LIBRARY 19 m² 30 m² 160 m² PUBLIC WASHROOM 38 m²

VESTIBULE 1 MAIN FLOOR - OPTION 2 20 m² A111 1 : 250

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Concept Design September 20, 2016

3.3 MASSING DESIGN

Figure 17: Massing - Option 1

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 3.6

3.3 MASSING DESIGN

Figure 17: Massing - Option 1 POOL VIEWING NATATORIUM TENANT SPACES The massing begins to illustrate the 3D relationships between the program elements. The main entry and lobby area are LOBBY prominent with a double height volume. This form is a visual cue to users entering the site, signifying entry and the Hub of MAIN ENTRY the facility. LIBRARY The library and tenant spaces have their own volume while the locker rooms and service spaces are contained within another volume, both straddling the lobby and balancing the main facade.

The highest element is the slide. The higher this volume is, the longer the ride. Glazing and architectural design will have the ability to highlight this feature and provide views into the colorful element from the street. The main natatorium, as the largest volume, anchors the facility as all masses seem to connect to it.

SWIRL POOL & WET STORAGE

SLIDE

SERVICE SPACES

LOCKER ROOMS

1 MASSING - OPTION 1 A200

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Concept Design September 20, 2016

Figure 18: Massing - Option 2

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 3.7

SWIRL POOL & WET STORAGE

Figure 18: Massing - Option 2 LOBBY SERVICE SPACES

The main entry and lobby area, library and tenant spaces TENANT SPACES LOCKER ROOMS are treated similar to Option 1, however to the right, the façade steps away from the vehicular drop off and parking area. This opens up the main hardscaped plaza, MAIN ENTRY creating more opportunities for gathering and landscaping. LIBRARY The leisure pool is visible from the parking lot and street. Visual interest is created with views into the lobby, library, pool viewing and the leisure pool. This façade reveals the many functions within the Community Hub.

SLIDE

NATATORIUM

LEISURE POOL

POOL VIEWING

FOOD SERVICE & SEATING

1 MASSING - OPTION 2 A201

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Siting Options September 20, 2016

4.0 SITING OPTIONS

The Site Selection Criteria has been developed as a guide to evaluating potential site options based on various factors. The criteria identified may be weighted differently based on the project parameters and the guiding principles specific to the project.

Understanding that flexibility must be considered when referring to these criteria for site selection, weighting factors can be established for a specific project based on key site objectives. Typically, one site cannot meet all location objectives, however priority to each criteria and a weighting system can provide evaluation outcomes that establish a starting point.

 General land size to support the facility, parking and circulation  General servicing requirements such as water, sewer & power capacity to the site  Land characteristics  Transportation consideration (e.g. requirements for intersection to local roadways)

4.1 CRITERIA

The following criteria for site selection will be discussed within this section:

Site Size/Allowed Density

The site size and shape will dictate the available buildable area as well as possible configurations of the building footprint, parking capacity, landscaping and site access points. Construction laydown area and future expansion opportunities will also be affected by the overall site area available. A minimum parcel size requirement should be determined in order to address the needs of the new community hub facility. Based on the site location and zoning, the allowable Floor Arena Ratio (F. A. R) will dictate the density for the site. Site setbacks, utility right of ways, grade and contours, geographical (soils), easements and other specific by-law or zoning requirements will also influence the available buildable area on each site.

Based on the concept site and building design in section 3, the building footprint would require approximately 2,700 sq. m. and the site hardscaping (asphalt, plaza, sidewalks) would require approximately 11,000 sq. m. of area. Since these concepts are not based on a specific site, it is difficult to predict the additional site area required for setbacks, softscaping and construction laydown areas. Moving forward into a schematic design phase, a specific site should be selected to further investigate configuration, orientation and total site area.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 4.1

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Siting Options September 20, 2016

Site Access & Egress

Community Hubs can experience high traffic flows during peak times. Programming for large events can attract buses and large volumes of vehicular traffic. Safe and efficient public access, separate service and loading zones and Emergency Service circulation routes will be examined in conjunction with the site layout and building configuration. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation must be inviting and connect with surrounding infrastructure. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles should be applied for all site access and egress to encourage facility use.

Location

The site location, within the context of Entwistle and surrounding communities, should be informed by the needs, demographics, population growth and planning. Synergies with adjacent amenities such as a school, library, outdoor recreation/leisure, and other public facilities can play a positive role in the success and use of community hubs. Depending on the existing or future surrounding amenities, mixed use opportunities for the community hub could include retail, commercial or tenant leasable spaces, which will benefit from the traffic flow of the community hub. Surrounding residential, pedestrian and bicycle pathway systems, existing or planned for in the future will contribute to the activity and use of a Community Hub facility.

Visibility &Wayfinding

A site that promotes easy identification and access by the public would be considered ideal. Visibility from major thoroughfares will allow visitors to approach the site with clarity of wayfinding. A visible presence within the community can establish a sense of pride and a true “Hub” within the community.

Site Services

Existing site services (water, sewer, gas, electrical, cable, etc.) should be evaluated to determine the need and cost for upgrades or new services to the site. Depending of the level of existing site services and the location, new service lines can be costly. However, existing service lines through a site can limit the options of buildable area and site layout.

Ownership & Availability

Procurement of a site can depend on many factors, such as the current owner, joint ownership/partnerships and available funds. Based on the project delivery model, site ownership, leasing and lease-to-own options could be considered. All these factors can influence the construction cost, schedule and life cycle costs and should be considered when selecting a site.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 4.2

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Siting Options September 20, 2016

Schedule

Based on a desired schedule to complete construction, site selection can be a factor in meeting the schedule. Design will remain in a concept stage until a site is selected. The cost or negative impacts of selecting a site requiring a long schedule for procurement should be weighed against the benefits of selecting a more easily attainable site.

Environmental impacts

Factors such as wetland, flood plain, green space preservation, history/historic sites (archeology), drainage, and contamination and remediation of potential sites should be evaluated. These factors will impact the construction cost, schedule, available buildable area and design of the community hub.

Dangerous Goods Proximity

Consideration should also be given to a potential site’s proximity to hazardous goods routes and main rail lines, with a Plume Zone Analysis (site within a 800 metre radius of such routes) serving as reference whereby a site can be judged.

Construction Cost

The cost of construction can be influenced by many factors; site area and density, site remediation or improvements, location, soils/below grade construction, to name a few. The cost of construction will have a direct relationship to the program area, quality and aesthetics of the final built environment based on the project budget.

Cost of Land

Through information complied by analyzing available property assessments, any estimated land acquisition costs of potential sites can be identified for consideration.

High Traffic Proximity

Potential sites should be reviewed for their proximity to major traffic routes. Although the visibility from these routes can be seen as a positive, the traffic generated during peak hours of congestion can have a negative effect on the access and egress of the site. Traffic impact assessment studies may result in traffic light intersection requirements and additional site entry & egress points

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 4.3

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Siting Options September 20, 2016

Construction impact to the Community

Based on the existing surrounding community; construction noise, pollution and traffic delays should be considered. Community consultation may be required for acceptance of this disturbance and approaches to minimize the impact.

Visual integration

The building massing, form and materiality should relate to the existing surroundings. Street elevations and exterior views should be studied to illustrate integration with the context. Site selection should consider the visual outcome of the new facility as the appearance could be very different when built in either a residential, commercial or industrial area.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 4.4

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Financial Analysis September 20, 2016

5.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

5.1 COSTING ANALYSIS (QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS)

5.1.1 Capital Cost Projections

Detailed capital cost estimates are provided in Appendix B and summarized in the tables below. Note that these figures are representative of Class D estimates.6

Using the functional program in Section 2.0 and concept designs in section 3.0, a capital cost estimate was generated. Applying previous Stantec project quotes and the application of standard construction costs of other similar projects, we determined that the Construction Cost estimates would be as follows:

Table 7: Cost Database Sources

Construction Source/Data Base Location Building Type Cost/sq. ft.

Stantec Enclosed Swimming Edmonton $333 project experience Pool

RS Means, 2017 Edmonton Community Centre $170

6 A Class D estimates (±50%) is a preliminary estimate which, due to little or no site information, indicates the approximate magnitude of cost of the proposed project, based on broad requirements. This overall cost estimate may be derived from lump sum or unit costs for a similar project. It may be used in developing long term capital plans and for preliminary discussion of proposed capital projects.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 5.1

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Financial Analysis September 20, 2016

Our key quantitative assumptions for capital are: Table 8: Key Quantitative Assumptions for Capital

Aquatic Comm. Portion Hub Portion Construction Costs per gross sq. ft. Edmonton $333 $170 Location Adjustment for Entwistle 10% 10% Construction Cost per gross Sq. Ft. Entwistle $366 $187 Site Work & outside Parking as % of Construction Costs 2% 2% Soft Costs including Architecture, Engineering & Project Mgmt. fees 15% 15% as % of Construction Costs Contingency, as % of the total development cost 10% 10%

Based on the functional program’s gross areas that are estimated to be 26,250 sq. ft. for the aquatics portion and 3,592 sq. ft. for the community hub portions, these figures yield a capital construction cost of $13,842,000, summarized here:

Table 9: Summary of Capital Construction Estimate

Gross Area Type Rate Total (sq. ft.)

Construction Costs, Aquatics Portion 26,250 $366 $9,615,544 Construction Costs, Community Centre Portion 3,592 $187 $671,788 Sub-Total, Construction Costs $10,287,332 Soft Costs including Architecture, Engineering 15% & Project Mgmt. 7 $1,543,100 Site Work 2% $205,747 Sub-Total, Facility Development excluding Contingency $12,036,179 Contingency 10% $1,805,427 Total Facility Development Cost including contingency $13,841,606 Rounded to $13,842,000

7 Other soft costs include permitting, insurance, geotechnical and soil testing, survey, legal, pile monitoring, commissioning

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 5.2

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Financial Analysis September 20, 2016

5.1.2 Proposed Funding Sources for Capital Costs

Obtaining funding sources for the project costs is a significant element for the overall project plan. Below, Stantec has listed a number of potential funding sources:

Table 10: Potential Funding Sources for a Canadian Public or Non-Profit Facility

Type Legend: C To Fund Initial Capital Costs

R To Fund Capital Renewal Costs

TIE To Fund Initial Capital Costs of Tenant Improvements &/or Equipment

O To Fund Operational Costs

No. Funding Source Type 1 Provincial government's capital grants C/R 2 Federal government's Gas Tax Fund (GTF) C/R 3 Furniture and equipment vendors - financing/lease to own C/R 4 Proceeds from sale of naming rights for the entire facility, and portions within C/O 5 Charitable capital contributions from individuals C/R 6 Charitable capital contributions from corporations, including Gifts-in-Kind C/R 7 Reserves - Accumulated surplus funds not yet designated for spending C 8 Long-term debt, 25-year payback C/R/O 9 Capital contributions from a non-profit partner C/R 10 Capital contributions from a private partner(s) C/R 11 Capital contributions from a public partner C/R 12 Capital contributions from user groups TIE 13 Capital contributions by tenants for leasehold improvements TIE 14 Capital contributions from charitable foundations C/R 15 Capital grants from the federal government, e.g. for innovative technology C/R 16 Gaming revenue generated by volunteers - raffles, casinos, 50-50, sports pools C/R 17 Profit or revenue sharing with tenants O 18 Revenue from advertising and sponsorships O 19 Proceeds from sale of naming rights for facility components C/O 20 Proceeds from sale of site signage rights C/O 21 Provincial government's operating grants O 22 Revenue from lease of space in the facility to tenants O 23 Revenue from ancillary services - food, beverages, catering, vending, etc. O 24 Revenue from rental of specialized facility equipment O

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 5.3

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Financial Analysis September 20, 2016

No. Funding Source (cont’d) Type 25 Revenue from hosting accredited programs O 26 Revenue from lease of surplus buildings O 27 Revenue from lease of surplus land O 28 Revenue from product placement agreements in media productions at facility O 29 Revenue from rental of facility venues for special events O 30 Revenue from renting signage use, including digital signs O 31 Revenue from renting land for a telecommunications tower on site O 32 Revenue from sale of rights of way on site O 33 Revenue sharing from licensing associated with intellectual property O 34 Revenue from user fees O 35 Revenue from membership sales O 36 Revenue from surcharges on ticket sales O/R 37 Cost-sharing with neighboring landowners or municipalities for infrastructure C/R 38 Revenue from sale of surplus/waste energy O 39 Special, new tax, levied by a local taxing authority C/R/O 40 Municipal Tax Incentive (TIF) Financing C 41 Short-term debt, 10-year payback C/R/O 42 Grants from provincial gaming/lottery authority C/R/O/TIE

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 5.4

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Financial Analysis September 20, 2016

From the above list, we use a couple of options above, Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI) - Capital and Federal Gas Tax Fund (GTF), to provide a “Straw Dog” funding model, which while not a Capital Funding plan, does give us an example of what and how various funding sources could be used for the proposed Entwistle community hub and aquatic facility.

Table 11: Potential Capital Contributions from Provincial & Federal Funding Programs Parameter MSI8 GTF9 Alberta Population 4,049,407 4,049,407 Parkland County Population10 30,568 30,568 Parkland County's Share of Alberta population 0.754875961% 0.754875961% Parkland County's Share of Alberta Population (Rounded) 0.75% 0.75% Total Annual Funds Available to Alberta in Fund $1,180,000,000 $219,100,000 Estimate Maximum Annual Allocation to Parkland County $8,850,000 $1,643,250 No. of Development Years for Project 3 3 Estimate Maximum Allocation to Parkland County During $26,550,000 $4,929,750 Development Period Estimated County Council Share Allocation to Project 11 10.00% 10.00% Estimated County Council Allocation to Project $2,655,000 $492,975

8 MSI = Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI) - Capital 9 GTF = Federal Gas Tax Fund 10 Alberta Municipal Affairs 2015 Community Profile 11 This project would "compete" against other Parkland County infrastructure projects including roads and utilities. So, the percentage here is assumed.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 5.5

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Financial Analysis September 20, 2016

Table 12: Straw Dog12 - Capital Funding Estimates by Source No. Source Amt. Comment 1 Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI) – $2,655,000 See Table 7 above, for Capital assumptions & calculations 2 Federal Gas Tax Fund (GTF) $492,975 See Table 7 above, for assumptions & calculations 3 Furniture & equipment vendors - $210,000 Approx. 2% of Bldg. costs. financing/lease to own Pmts. over 5 years 4 Proceeds from sale of naming rights for $50,000 the entire facility 5 Charitable capital contributions from $20,000 individuals 6 Charitable capital contributions from $30,000 corporations, incl. Gifts-in-Kind 7 Reserves - Accumulated surplus funds Not yet determined. not designated for spending 8 Long-term debt, 25-year payback $10,384,025 Total Capital Funding $13,842,000

12 Straw Dog - This table and associated graphic are an example of what and how various funding sources could be used for the Entwistle Community Hub, not a proposed Capital Funding plan.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 5.6

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Financial Analysis September 20, 2016

We can use the estimates above to calculate possible long term debt repayments.

Table 13: Long Term Debt Repayment Calculation Principal $10,384,025 Amortization Period (yrs.) 25 Number of Payments 25 Payments Made at End of Period Interest Rate Posted on ACFA 2.6480% Rounded Interest Rate 3.00% Annual Payments $596,332.45 Annual Payments, Rounded $596,000

Source: Alberta Capital Finance Authority Web site http://www.acfa.gov.ab.ca/nav/rates.html Date 15-Aug-16

Other Key Assumptions are:

 Potential contributions through provincial and federal programs are based on current programs (MSI, GTF) and may change over time as governments, policies and programs change and evolve.

 The dollar amounts suggested from these programs are based on several factors outlined in the associated tables.

 Partnerships with public, non-profit or private entities are possible, but none have been assumed in the "Straw Dog".

 Although user groups are more likely to contribute to equipment, furnishings and, if they are a tenant, to Tenant Improvements, none have been assumed in the Straw Dog.

 Non-profit, community groups have the ability to apply for and access funds from the Alberta lottery Fund but none have been assumed in the Straw Dog.

 It may be possible to sell naming rights for components (e.g. the water slide) of the Entwistle Community Hub, but none have been assumed in the Straw Dog.

 While predictable and reliable revenue streams can be used to support capital debt payments, such revenue is more typically used to support operations (O), and is shown as such in our ensuing discussion of projected revenue below.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 5.7

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Financial Analysis September 20, 2016

5.1.3 Operating Revenue

Entwistle’s existing outdoor facility has four revenue streams: Lessons, Open Swim, Merchandise, and Pool Rentals which we anticipate would continue similarly in the proposed facility. However, with an indoor facility, all revenue would occur over 12 months of operation rather than the current four months. We have outlined our extrapolation of projected aquatic revenue here:

Table 14: Entwistle Actual and Projected Annual Revenue 2010-2020 Annual Revenue 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 1674 Lessons $ 8,997.50 $ 9,059.00 $ 11,095.00 $ 10,184.00 $ 8,745.00 $ 10,459.34 $ 9,466.89 $ 9,543.90 $ 9,706.17 $ 9,858.48 $ 9,946.71 1672 Open Swim $ 5,507.95 $ 6,949.56 $ 9,366.95 $ 8,220.26 $ 8,885.65 $ 7,985.22 $ 7,493.60 $ 7,888.97 $ 8,124.60 $ 8,240.05 $ 8,362.58 1678 Merchanidse $ 870.67 $ 1,023.31 $ 290.63 $ 334.84 $ 403.50 $ 482.54 $ 573.34 $ 531.94 1670 Rentals $ 2,131.91 $ 2,740.72 $ 3,385.25 $ 2,528.58 $ 3,058.58 $ 3,159.72 $ 2,727.91 $ 2,845.57 $ 2,886.46 $ 2,918.81 $ 3,026.27 Total $ 16,637.36 $ 18,749.28 $ 23,847.20 $ 21,803.51 $ 21,712.54 $ 21,894.91 $ 20,023.24 $ 20,681.94 $ 21,199.77 $ 21,590.68 $ 21,867.49

Table 15: Entwistle Actual and Projected Annual Attendance 2010-2020

Total Seasonal Swim Attendance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Parkland 1,273 1,091 1,675 1,848 1,851 2,467 2,062 2,302 2,543 2,784 3,024 Yellowhead 827 1,007 1,180 808 593 1,352 1,005 1,033 1,062 1,091 1,120 Other 194 308 486 425 551 584 537 612 686 761 836 LINE TOTAL 2,303 2,431 3,341 3,081 2,995 4,403 3,603 3,948 4,292 4,636 4,981

To translate these projected outdoor revenue figures into possible indoor revenue figures, we calculate projected Revenue per visit. Revenue per visit projection calculations are based on the trendline of revenue per visit (Table 16), and then multiplied by the projected swim attendance for the indoor pool (Table 17).

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 5.8

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Financial Analysis September 20, 2016

Table 16: Calculation of Actual and Projected Revenue per Visit

Year Revenue per visit 2010 $ 7.2242 2011 $ 7.7126 2012 $ 7.1377 2013 $ 7.0768 2014 $ 7.2496 2015 $ 4.9727 2016 $ 5.5571 2017 $ 5.2392 2018 $ 4.9395 2019 $ 4.6569 2020 $ 4.3905

To calculate the number of visits anticipated at the proposed indoor aquatic facility, we simply multiply the five year projected annual attendance figures in years 2016 through 2020 (above in Table15) by three to transform those four-month operating figures for the projected outdoor pool to a 12-month operation at the indoor pool (see Table 17, Projected Indoor Pool Attendance below).

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 5.9

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Financial Analysis September 20, 2016

Table 17: Projected Indoor Pool Attendance yr 1 yr 2 yr 3 yr 4 yr 5 Parkland 6,185 6,907 7,629 8,351 9,073 Yellowhead 3,014 3,100 3,187 3,273 3,360 Other 1,611 1,835 2,059 2,284 2,508 LINE TOTAL 10,810 11,843 12,876 13,909 14,942

To calculate the projected annual indoor aquatic revenue, we multiply the projected indoor attendance by the revenue per visit calculated in the Table 13 above. This yields a five-year projection of aquatic revenue which is then distributed amongst the revenue lines based on the average distribution of the previous five years.

Table 18: Projected Annual Indoor Aquatic Revenue yr 1 yr 2 yr 3 yr 4 yr 5 1674 Lessons $ 28,400.66 $ 28,631.71 $ 29,118.51 $ 29,575.43 $ 29,840.12 1672 Open Swim $ 22,480.79 $ 23,666.92 $ 24,373.80 $ 24,720.14 $ 25,087.73 1678 Merchanidse $ 1,004.53 $ 1,210.50 $ 1,447.61 $ 1,720.03 $ 1,595.81 1670 Rentals $ 8,183.74 $ 8,536.70 $ 8,659.38 $ 8,756.43 $ 9,078.81 Total $ 60,069.72 $ 62,045.83 $ 63,599.31 $ 64,772.03 $ 65,602.47

In addition to the aquatic revenue, the proposed community hub is anticipated to include the following:

 Library  Play place  Food concession, and  Tenant Space - commercial/retail space (rental) which may also house o a possible fitness centre; o pro shop; and/or o para-medical services like physio-therapy, massage, or chiropractic care The market analysis and potential for these services are beyond the scope of this study and we rely on the undertaking of this market analysis by Parkland County staff. Stantec has not attempted to identify possible rental prices for the Entwistle market area. This will have to be determined in subsequent planning activity to understand how these may contribute to facility revenues.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 5.10

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Financial Analysis September 20, 2016

5.1.4 Operating Costs Estimates

To extrapolate operating cost estimates for proposed indoor aquatic facilities, we utilize the current outdoor pool’s budget and adjust from four month’s operations to 12-month’s operations, and then escalate by 3.5% per year. Those items not associated with the pool operations (i.e. items not marked by *, an asterisk) are simply escalated 3.5% year over year.

The best practice for projecting costs is to model costs on existing and/or benchmarked costing from other similar facilities. This type of data is available on a subscription basis for Alberta facilities through ARPA’s13 RecFocus databases. However, we did not have access to this data. Without this data, we are left to project conservatively based on cost data from the existing outdoor pool. These cost estimates may be understated. To more closely project operating costs, further market and facility analysis should be performed. More refined market and facility analysis is beyond the scope of this study.

Capital Repayment amounts are from the debt repayment calculations included in Table 9: Long Term Debt Repayment Calculation.

13 Alberta Recreation and Parks Association (ARPA)

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 5.11

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Financial Analysis September 20, 2016

Table 19: Operating Cost Projections

ACTUAL PROJECTED EXPENSE 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Labour * 5370 72,273 65,662 85,819 88,387 274,443 284,049 293,990 304,280 314,930 Employer contributions * 5372 6,107 5,337 7,161 7,120 22,108 22,882 23,683 24,512 25,370 Telephone / Utilities 5374 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,973 14,462 14,968 15,492 16,034 Advertising 5376 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,035 1,071 1,109 1,148 1,188 Repairs * 5377 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 46,575 48,205 49,892 51,639 53,446 Chemicals * 5380 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 20,183 20,889 21,620 22,377 23,160 Material * 5381 1,600 1,600 1,600 2,000 6,210 6,427 6,652 6,885 7,126 Supplies - Pool * 5383 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 4,968 5,142 5,322 5,508 5,701 Supplies - Janitorial * 5382 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 6,210 6,427 6,652 6,885 7,126 Merchandise NEW n/a 700 700 1,000 1,035 1,071 1,109 1,148 1,188 SubTOTAL EXPENSE $ 119,580 $ 112,200 $ 134,181 $ 137,108 $ 395,704 $ 409,554 $ 423,888 $ 438,724 $ 454,080 Capital Repayment $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 596,000 $ 596,000 $ 596,000 $ 596,000 $ 596,000 TOTAL EXPENSE $ 119,580 $ 112,200 $ 134,181 $ 137,108 $ 991,704 $ 1,005,554 $ 1,019,888 $ 1,034,724 $ 1,050,080

* - Items associated with the pool operations.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 5.12

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Financial Analysis September 20, 2016

5.1.5 Life-Cycle Costing and 5-Year Operating Proforma

In addition to the consideration for revenue, expenses, and capital repayment the best practice of Life Cycle Costing includes a Capital Renewal allowance for the repair, maintenance, and upkeep of the facility. Generally, this allowance is anticipated to be 2% of the construction cost beginning in the third year of operation and continuing through the remainder of the useful life. In the case of the proposed Entwistle community hub and aquatic facility, this useful life would be anticipated to be 50 years.

Below, is the 5-year Operating Proforma for the indoor aquatic facility including a provision for Capital Renewal.

Table 20: Projected 5-Year Indoor Aquatic Proforma

yr. 1 yr. 2 yr. 3 yr. 4 yr. 5 Revenue 60,070 62,046 63,599 64,772 65,602 Ops Exp. 395,704 409,554 423,888 438,724 454,080 Net $ (335,634) $ (347,508) $ (360,289) $ (373,952) $ (388,477) Debt Repayment 596,000 596,000 596,000 596,000 596,000 Capital Renewal - - 276,840 276,840 276,840 (2% of capital estimate)

Net Operations $ (931,634) $ (943,508) $ (1,233,129) $ (1,246,792) $ (1,261,317) Cost Recovery 7% 6% 6% 5% 5% (incl. Capital Renewal) Cost Recovery 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% (excl. Capital Renewal)

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 5.13

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Financial Analysis September 20, 2016

Another way to look at this summary is to interpret the number of visits per day necessary to fund this pro forma scenario.

Table 21: Number of Visits Necessary to Fund the Existing Cost Recovery Formula

yr. 1 yr. 2 yr. 3 yr. 4 yr. 5 Target Recovery A 15% 16% 16% 17% 17% (incl. capital renewal) B Target Revenue $ 6,535,145 $ 6,433,409 $ 8,054,667 $ 7,909,536 $ 7,769,066 Revenue per visit C $ 5.5571 $ 5.2392 $ 4.9395 $ 4.6569 $ 4.3905 (from Table 12) D Target # of visits per year 1,176,005 1,227,940 1,630,667 1,698,441 1,769,498

E # of hours per week 49 49 49 49 49

F # of weeks 52 52 52 52 52

G Target number of visits per day 462 482 640 667 694 Notes: A = 2015 Target Recovery is calculated by taking the 2015 Budgeted revenue as a percent of 2015 Budgeted expenses and capital renewal allocations (which were allocated at $15K for the year). The 2015 recovery rate was then escalated by 3% each year for years’ 1 through 5. B = 'A' multiplied by total Proforma expenses (i.e. operating costs, debt repayment, and capital renewal). C = from revenue per visit calculations in Table 16. D = B / C E = existing operating schedule. This is adjustable up or down as needed by the County. F = # of weeks in a 12-month operating year. G = D / E / F The number of daily visits required to fund the above scenario is between 462 and 694 visits per day in the next five years which is a stark contrast to the current projected levels of about 75 to 220 bathers per day (reference the trendlines outlined in Figure 8, Entwistle Pool Utilization Trends). From the existing pool utilization data, we were able to apply a trendline analysis to determine projected daily pool attendance for the current outdoor pool (based on a 49-hour operational week):

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 5.14

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Financial Analysis September 20, 2016

Table 22: Projected Per-Day Outdoor Pool Utilization (49-hr. week)

Visits per 49-hour day (Outdoor) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Parkland 26 22 34 38 38 50 42 47 52 57 62 Yellowhead 17 21 24 16 12 28 21 21 22 22 23 Other 4 6 10 9 11 12 11 12 14 16 17 LINE TOTAL 47 49 68 63 61 90 74 81 88 95 102

From this data, we then extrapolated the potential visits per day for a year round, indoor facility might be in the range of 221 to 305 visits per day.

Table 23: Projected Per-Day Indoor Pool Utilization (49-hr. week)

Visits per 49-hour day (Indoor) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 yr 1 yr 2 yr 3 yr 4 yr 5 Parkland 126 141 156 170 185 Yellowhead 62 63 65 67 69 Other 33 37 42 47 51 LINE TOTAL ------221 242 263 284 305

In Figure 19 below, we applied the above data to compare the number of daily visits required to fund the straw dog scenario of 462 visits per day in yr. 1 through 694 visits per day in yr. 5, compared to the number of daily visits currently projected for the existing pool. We of course, assume all other factors such as admission price, number of lessons, proportion of instructional and leisure attendees remain equal.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 5.15

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Financial Analysis September 20, 2016

Figure 19: Aquatic Visits per Day Comparison

Some of the required funding may be offset by other revenue streams; however, the extent to which that is possible would need to be determined by further market analysis that is beyond the scope of this study.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 5.16

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Risk and Other Considerations September 20, 2016

6.0 RISK AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS (QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS)

There are a number of elements that present significant risk to the feasibility of this project.

Funding

 Although, there is a strong desire for a community hub in the west part of Parkland County, the community population in this market area is not likely large enough to drive large enough traffic to fund the facility.

 The capital required to build this facility will need a substantial commitment from the municipality over the next 25 years to fund.

 There is declining revenue per visit that could be addressed by increasing admission prices, however, there is reasonable expectation that a raise in admission prices could affect net attendance, which may or may not dampen revenue for the new facility.

Market Sensitivity

 The feasibility of this facility is also dependent on the viability of commercial/retail market interest. This study does not include a market analysis to evaluate the likelihood of finding tenants to occupy, lease, and operate resonant business enterprises.

 Similarly, there is no market information that would inform the amount of rental income that could be generated by the tenancy spaces included in this concept.

Attendance

 Current attendance projections are based on the outdoor pool attendance in summer months. There is no market analysis to support whether traffic is sufficient in the winter season to support the attendance necessary to generate adequate revenue.

 Although, pool attendance for swimming lessons in the summer month is sufficient to support the four-month operation of the outdoor pool, there is again insufficient market analysis to support the necessary swimming lesson attendance.

The question remains, once children and their families return to their winter activities and communities, will there be sufficient population willing to drive the distance to attend activities at the proposed community hub and aquatic facility.

gm rpt_entwistle commnity hub facility gm 2016-09-22.docx 6.1

APPENDICES

Appendix A COMMUNITY SCAN AND ANALYSIS PARKLAND COUNTY – REPORT, APRIL 2015 Prepared by ISL Engineering and Land Services for Parkland County

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Overview 1 1.2 Data Availability and Sources 1 1.3 Municipal Context 2 1.4 Communities 2 1.5 History 2 2.0 Population Growth ...... 4 2.1 Historical Growth of Parkland County 4 2.2 Historical Growth by Sub-Area 5 2.3 Historical Growth Comparisons 8 3.0 Demographic Characteristics ...... 10 3.1 Age and Gender 10 3.2 Ethnic Origin 13 3.3 Educational Attainment 15 3.4 Migration and Mobility 17 3.5 Household Income 18 3.6 Population Characteristics and Average Household Size by Dwelling Type 20 4.0 Land Use ...... 22 4.1 Land Use District Breakdown 22 4.2 Land Supply Status 25 4.3 Land Absorption 26 4.4 Full Build Out Analysis 28 5.0 Development and Economic Activity ...... 30 5.1 Subdivision Application Activity 30 5.2 Residential Lot Registration Activity 30 5.3 Development Permit Activity 32 5.4 Building Permit Activity 35 5.5 Development and Economic Activities 35 5.6 County Assessment Growth 36 5.7 Acheson Assessment Growth 39 5.8 Municipal Finance and Corporate Revenue and Expenditures 41 5.9 Acheson Land Values 42 6.0 Jobs and Employment ...... 44 6.1 Labour Market Activities by Place of Residence 44 6.2 Employment by Place of Work 46 6.3 Changes in Labour Force 49 6.4 Employment Growth versus Population Growth 49 6.5 Employment and Job Growth by Industrial Type 50 6.6 Underemployed Population: Current Employment versus Education and Training 50 6.7 Rural Commuting: Place of Work versus Place of Residence 50 6.8 Jobs and Employment Subsidization 51 7.0 Housing ...... 52 7.1 Dwelling Counts 52 7.2 Dwelling Characteristics 54 7.3 Housing Market Analysis 58 7.4 Housing Scan Summary 70

April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

8.0 Parks and Recreation ...... 71 8.1 Community Associations 71 8.2 Reserve Parcels 76 9.0 Agriculture ...... 78 9.1 Farm Area by Land Use 78 9.2 Total Farms by Type and Size 80 9.3 Crop Diversity 82 9.4 Demographics of Farmers 85 9.5 Suitable Agricultural Soils 87 9.6 Livestock 88 9.7 Vegetation Types 90 10.0 Plans in Effect ...... 91 10.1 Federal 91 10.2 Provincial 91 10.3 Regional 93 10.4 Municipal 99 11.0 Projections ...... 109 11.1 Highlights of the Projections 110 11.2 Details of the Projections 112 11.3 Total Population 112 11.4 Demographic and Economic Model 113 11.5 Analysis of Demographic and Economic Models 115 11.6 Population Model by Sub-Area 116 11.7 Housing 118 11.8 Subdivision, Development and Building Permit Activity 122 11.9 Land Supply Needs 124 12.0 Recommendations and Observations ...... 129

APPENDICES Appendix A Detailed Land Absorption History Appendix B Community Association Questionnaire Instrument Appendix C Reserve Lands Mapbook Appendix D Capital Region Growth Plan Materials Appendix E Demographic and Economic Model Variables Appendix F Bibliography Appendix G Glossary

April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

MAPS Following Page Map 1: Municipal Context ...... 6 Map 2: 2014 Land Use Districting ...... 22 Map 3: 1989 Land Use Districting ...... 24 Map 4: Land Supply Status ...... 26 Map 5: Land Absorption History ...... 26 Map 6: Agricultural Activity ...... 36 Map 7: Residential Activity ...... 36 Map 8: Commercial Activity ...... 36 Map 9: Industrial Activity ...... 36 Map 10: Coal Extraction Activity ...... 36 Map 11: Reserve Parcels ...... 76 Map 12: Agricultural Soil Suitability ...... 88 Map 13: Agricultural Soils Consumed ...... 88 Map 14: Vegetation Types ...... 90 Map 15: Area Structure Plans in Effect ...... 100 Map 16: Future Land Supply Needs ...... 126 Map 17: Future Land Supply Needs by Hamlet ...... 126 Map 18: Future Land Supply Needs by Industrial Area ...... 128

April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

FIGURES Figure 1: Federal Census Population History ...... 5 Figure 2: Population Trends by Electoral Division, 2005 to 2011 ...... 7 Figure 3: Population by Age and Gender, 2001 ...... 11 Figure 4: Population by Age and Gender, 2006 ...... 11 Figure 5: Population by Age and Gender, 2011 ...... 12 Figure 6: Population by Age and Gender, 2001–2011 ...... 12 Figure 7: Total Parcels Registered by Five-Year Interval, 1978-2012 ...... 27 Figure 8: Assessed Values of Taxable Properties by Type, 1991 to 2013 ...... 37 Figure 9: Percent Distribution of Assessed Values of Properties by Type, 2013 ...... 38 Figure 10: Assessed Values of Commercial and Industrial Properties by Area, 1991 to 2013 ...... 39 Figure 11: Assessed Values of Machinery and Equipment Properties by Area, 1991 to 2013 ...... 40 Figure 12: Acheson Change in Indexed Assessed Land Values by Zone, 2006 and 2013 ...... 42 Figure 13: Acheson Proportions of Assessed Land Values by Zone, 2013 ...... 43 Figure 14: Growth in the Number of Private Occupied Dwellings; 2001-2011 ...... 53 Figure 15: Dwelling Units by Type in Alberta, Parkland County, Stony Plain and Spruce Grove, 2011 ... 55 Figure 16: Proportion of Households by Age Range of the Primary Household Maintainer, 2011 ...... 56 Figure 17: Proportion of Dwellings by Period of Construction, 2011 ...... 57 Figure 18: Proportion of Dwellings by Dwelling Condition, 2011 ...... 57 Figure 19: Trends in Housing Tenure in Parkland County and Alberta, 2001-2011 ...... 59 Figure 20: Trends in Rental Vacancy, 2009-2013 ...... 61 Figure 21: Trends in Average Market Rents, 2009-2013 ...... 63 Figure 22: Number of Memberships by Community Association ...... 72 Figure 23: Types of Memberships ...... 73 Figure 24: Memberships Trends, Last Five Years ...... 73 Figure 25: Community Association Land Ownership Status ...... 75 Figure 26: MR Parcels Solely for Road Access Prevention by County, 1975-2013 ...... 77 Figure 27: Total Number of Farms by Land Use, 2011 ...... 78 Figure 28: Total Area of Farms by Land Use in Hectares, 2011 ...... 78 Figure 29: Extent of the North Saskatchewan Regional Plan ...... 92 Figure 30: Population Projection Alternatives, 2011-2061 ...... 113 Figure 31: Employment Projection Alternatives by EPOR and EPOW, 2011-2061 ...... 115 Figure 32: Household/Dwelling Projection Alternatives, 2011-61 ...... 116 Figure 33: Dwelling Growth Rates in Parkland County, 2001-2061 ...... 119 Figure 34: Projected Annual Subdivision Activity, 2014–2061 ...... 122 Figure 35: Projected Annual Development and Building Permit Activity, 2011–2061 ...... 124

April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

TABLES Table 1: Population History ...... 4 Table 2: Population History by Community ...... 6 Table 3: Population History by Electoral Division ...... 7 Table 4: Historic Population Growth of Comparator Municipalities ...... following page 8 Table 5: Historic Population Growth, Parkland County and Province of Alberta ...... following page 8 Table 6: Comparison of Recent Population Growth with CRB Forecasts ...... 9 Table 7: Age and Gender Breakdown, 2001–2011 ...... 10 Table 8: Population of Parkland County and Alberta by Ethnic Origin in 2011 ...... 13 Table 9: Aboriginal and Visible Minority Populations, 2001–2011 ...... 15 Table 10: Population Aged 25 to 64 by Educational Attainment in 2011...... 16 Table 11: Migration and Mobility in Parkland County and Alberta in 2011 ...... 17 Table 12: Household Incomes in Parkland County and Alberta in 2010 ...... 18 Table 13: Household Incomes, 2001–2011 ...... 20 Table 14: Parkland County Population by Age by Dwelling Type, 2011 ...... 21 Table 15: 2014 Land Use Breakdown by Land Use District ...... 22 Table 16: 1989 Land Use Breakdown by Land Use District ...... 24 Table 17: 25-Year Change in Land Use District Breakdown ...... 24 Table 18: Status of Land Supply by Land Use Bylaw District ...... 25 Table 19: Land Absorption through Plan Registration by Five-Year Interval ...... 27 Table 20: Estimated Years to Full Build Out by Land Use District ...... 28 Table 21: Subdivision Application Activity, 2010 to 2013 ...... 30 Table 22: Residential Lot Registration by District, 1975-2013 ...... 31 Table 23: Overall Development Permit Activity, 2010 to 2013 ...... 32 Table 24: Residential Development Permit Activity, 2010 to 2013 ...... 33 Table 25: Non-Residential Development Permit Activity, 2010 to 2013 ...... 34 Table 26: Overall Development Permit Activity, 2010 to 2013 ...... following page 36 Table 27: Development and Economic Activity, 2012 ...... 36 Table 28: Consolidated Revenues and Expenditures, 2006 and 2012 ...... 41 Table 29: Acheson Assessed Land Values by Zone, 2006 and 2013 ...... following page 42 Table 30: Labour Market Activities by Place of Residence in 2011 ...... 44 Table 31: Employment by Place of Work by Industry in 2011 ...... 46 Table 32: Employment by Place of Work by Industry in 2001, 2006 and 2011 in Parkland County ...... 48 Table 33: Labour Force Employment Status, 2001–2011 ...... 49 Table 34: Labour Market Activity, 2001-2011 ...... following page 50

April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Table 35: Trends in the Total Number of Private Dwellings, 2001-2011 ...... 52 Table 36: Trends in Residential Land Parcels, Buildings and Vacant Land Parcels, 2003-2013 ...... 54 Table 37: Trends in Dwelling Types in Parkland County and Alberta, 2001-2011 ...... 55 Table 38: Trends in the Proportion of Dwellings by Dwelling Condition, 2001-2011 ...... 58 Table 39: Trends in Average House Prices for Absorbed Single Detached Homes, 2009-2013 ...... 60 Table 40: Trends in Private Rental Vacancy Rates by Unit Size, 2009-2013 ...... 62 Table 41: Trends in Average Market Rents by Unit Size, 2009-2013 ...... 63 Table 42: Trends in Private Rental Market Universe, 2010-2013 ...... 64 Table 43: Supply of Non-Market Housing, Parkland Sub Region ...... 66 Table 44: Trends in Housing Starts by Dwelling Type, 2009-2013 ...... 67 Table 45: Trends in Housing Completions by Dwelling Type, 2009-2013 ...... 68 Table 46: Trends in Residential Building Permits in Parkland County, 2005-2013 ...... 69 Table 47: Trends in Development Permits in Parkland County, 2009-2013 ...... 70 Table 48: Community Associations and Responses to Survey ...... 71 Table 49: Community Association Buildings and Facilities ...... 74 Table 50: Breakdown of Reserve Parcels ...... 76 Table 51: Registered Municipal Reserve Parcels by Purpose ...... 77 Table 52: Farm Area by Land Use, 2001-2011 ...... 79 Table 53: Farms by Industry Group, 2001-2011 ...... 80 Table 54: Farms by Industry, 2006-2011 ...... 81 Table 55: Farms by Total Farm Area, 2001-2011 ...... 82 Table 56: Crop Diversity by Crop Groups and Types, 2001-2011 ...... 82 Table 57: Key Demographics of Farmers, 2001-2011 ...... 85 Table 58: Suitable Agricultural Land Consumed by Non-Agricultural Purposes ...... 87 Table 59: Livestock and Poultry by Type, 2001-2011 ...... 88 Table 60: Bee Farming, 2001-2011 ...... 90 Table 61: CRGP October 2009 Addendum Provisions Relevant to the REF ...... 94 Table 62: CRGP December 2009 Addendum Provisions Relevant to the REF ...... 95 Table 63: Capital Region IRTMP Provisions ...... 96 Table 64: Parkland County Projections Summary, 2011 to 2044 (High Case) ...... 109 Table 65: Parkland County Population Model by Sub-Area, 2011 ...... 117 Table 66: Population Projection Alternatives by Electoral Division and Hamlet, 2011-2061 ...... 118 Table 67: Dwelling Type Projections, 2011-2061 ...... 119 Table 68: Dwelling Type Projections by Electoral Division and Hamlet, 2011-2061 ...... 120 Table 69: Senior Dwelling Type Projections, 2011-2061 ...... 120 Table 70: Senior Dwelling Type Projections by Sub-Area, 2011-2061...... 121

April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Table 71: Dwelling Unit Needs by Electoral Division to 2043 ...... 125 Table 72: Residential Land Supply Needs by Electoral Division to 2043 ...... 125 Table 73: Non-Residential Land Supply Needs to 2043 ...... 126 Table 74: Dwelling Unit Needs by Hamlet to 2043 ...... 127 Table 75: Residential Land Supply Needs by Hamlet to 2043 ...... 127

April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Overview

Parkland County’s Community Scan and Analysis, prepared by ISL Engineering and Land Services Ltd. in collaboration with Strategic Projections Inc. and SHS Consulting, is one of two key background reports intended to inform the County’s preparation of a Community Sustainability and Development Plan (CSDP) to replace its current Municipal Development Plan (MDP). The other report is an Environmental Conservation Master Plan.

The majority of this report (Chapters 1.0 through 10.0) inventories, scans and analyzes a wide range of information that illustrates the County’s current state of conditions. Topics of information covered include population growth, demographic characteristics, land use, development and economic activity, jobs and employment, housing, parks and recreation, agriculture, and plans affecting land use and development.

The balance of the report (Chapters 11.0 through 12.0) looks at future trends and projections in areas including population growth, housing needs, development activity, job and employment growth and land supply needs. Findings from the Community Scan portion of the report are interpreted, and insights for County Administration are recommended for their consideration when preparing the CSDP.

1.2 Data Availability and Sources

Authorization to undertake this Community Scan and Analysis project was received in late 2013. After receiving final delivery of necessary custom census data from Statistics Canada in November 2014, a final draft was delivered to Parkland County in January 2015. Although this project was undertaken over the course of 2014, data presented herein is based on the latest data that was available to the consultant team. For example, population, demographic, and employment data is from the latest federal census and National Householder Survey by Statistics Canada (which were undertaken in May 2011), while subdivision, development permit, building permit, and assessment data was based on the County’s 2013 “year end” data that was provided to the consultant team in early 2014.

The following is a summary of the major data sources used for the purposes of this project:  1971, 1976, 1981, 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011 federal censuses (Statistics Canada);  2011 National Household Survey (Statistics Canada);  2005 and 2009 municipal censuses (Parkland County);  2010-2013 subdivision application activity (Parkland County);  2010-2013 development permit application activity (Parkland County);  2010-2013 building permit application activity (Parkland County);  1991-2013 assessment values and summaries (Parkland County);  2006 and 2012 corporate revenue and expenditures (Parkland County);  January 2011 to December 2013 CMHC Housing Now (Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation);  Fall 2010 to Fall 2013 CMHC Rental Housing Reports (Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation);  Regional Housing Plan – Sub-Regional Planning Framework (Capital Region Board);  2001, 2006 and 2011 Censuses of Agriculture (Statistics Canada); and  2011 federal census and 2011 National Household Survey custom orders (Statistics Canada).

April 2015 | Page 1

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Providers of mapping data included Parkland County; AltaLIS; Statistics Canada; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; GeoGratis; GeoBase; and Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation.

1.3 Municipal Context

Parkland County is a municipal district located near the geographic centre of Alberta within the western portion of the Edmonton Capital Region. As illustrated on Map 1, it borders the City of Edmonton to the east, Leduc County to the southeast, Brazeau County to the southwest, Yellowhead County to the west, Lac Ste. Anne County to the northwest, and Sturgeon County to the northeast. Parkland County is the second-most populated of Alberta’s 64 municipal districts with 30,568 residents, yet ranks 57th in terms of land area at 2,387.68 km² (2011 census).1 As a result, the County has the highest population density among all municipal districts at 12.8 people/km² (2011 census).1

1.4 Communities

Parkland County is home to numerous incorporated and unincorporated communities as well as two First Nations. Incorporated communities are municipalities separate from the County and not under its jurisdiction, while unincorporated communities are under the jurisdiction of the County. The two First Nations and their associated Indian reserves are under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Nine urban municipalities are geographically surrounded by Parkland County. These include one city (Spruce Grove), one town (Stony Plain), two villages (Spring Lake and Wabamun) and five summer villages (Betula Beach, Kapasiwin, Lakeview, Point Alison and Seba Beach). Unincorporated communities under the jurisdiction of the County include Parkland Village (a manufactured home community), seven hamlets – Carvel, Duffield, Entwistle, Fallis, Gainford, Keephills, and Tomahawk – and numerous rural subdivisions. First Nations within Parkland County include the Paul First Nation, occupying Wabamun Indian Reserve 133A/B near the centre of the County, and the Enoch Cree Nation, occupying Stony Plain Indian Reserve 135 at the east end of the County adjacent to Edmonton.

1.5 History

Parkland County was originally incorporated as a municipal district on January 30, 1942 under the name of the Municipal District (MD) of Stony Plain No. 520 through the amalgamation of three smaller MDs – the MDs of Spruce Grove No. 519, Inga No. 520 and Tomahawk No. 521. Since then, the municipality has experienced numerous status and name changes, and been subject to numerous separations to incorporate new municipalities and to accommodate annexations by nearly all of its neighbouring urban municipalities. These events, with the exception of the numerous annexations, are summarized below:

 April 1, 1945 – the MD of Stony Plain was renumbered from No. 520 to No. 84  January 1, 1946 – the Village of Wabamun dissolved to become part of the MD of Stony Plain No. 84  December 31, 1950 – lands were separated to incorporate the Summer Village of Point Alison  January 1, 1955 – lands were separated to incorporate the Village of Spruce Grove (reincorporated after originally dissolving from village status in 1916)  January 1, 1959 – lands were separated to incorporate the Summer Village of Edmonton Beach (now known as the Village of Spring Lake)  January 1, 1960 – lands were separated to incorporate the Summer Village of Betula Beach

1 Note that Strathcona County does not factor into the population, land area and population density rankings as it is incorporated as a specialized municipality rather than a municipal district.

Page 2 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

 January 1, 1969 – the MD, parts of Improvement Districts No. 77 and No. 78, and the Stony Plain School Division amalgamated to form the County of Stony Plain No. 31  January 14, 1969 – the County of Stony Plain No. 31 was renamed the County of Parkland No. 31  January 1, 1980 – lands were separated to reincorporate Wabamun as a village  December 31, 1987 – lands in the southwest portion of the County were separated to form part of Improvement District No. 222, which eventually became Brazeau County  September 1, 1995 – all counties in Alberta were automatically reverted to municipal district status but permitted to retain “county” in their official names as a result of the Government of Alberta’s repeal of the former County Act  February 22, 1995 – the County of Parkland No. 31 changed its name to Parkland County  December 31, 2000 – the Village of Entwistle dissolved to become part of Parkland County

April 2015 | Page 3

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

2.0 Population Growth

2.1 Historical Growth of Parkland County

Table 1 presents Parkland County’s population history since 1971 from federal censuses conducted every five years and from various municipal censuses. The original population counts are based on the boundaries of the County as they existed at the time of the respective censuses. The adjusted population counts are revised populations as a result of boundary adjustments that occurred during the five-year periods that followed the respective censuses. Figure 1 illustrates the County population history since 1971 based on federal census counts.

Note that those values in grey cells within Table 1 are derived from federal censuses, while the balance are derived from municipal census counts. Table 1: Population History

Original Adjusted Absolute Percent Average Census Population Population Change Change Annual Year Count Count (Five-Year) (Five-Year) Growth (%) 1971 11,933 11,595 – – – 1975 15,862 – – – – 1976 17,762 17,443 6,167 53.2% 8.9% 1979 22,989 – – – – 1980 23,703 – – – – 1981 25,829 22,966 8,386 48.1% 8.2% 1982 23,626 – – – – 1984 23,950 – – – – 1986 24,394 20,904 1,428 6.2% 1.2% 1991 22,550 22,527 1,646 7.9% 1.5% 1996 24,769 25,222 2,242 10.0% 1.9% 2001 27,252 27,217 2,030 8.0% 1.6% 2005 29,679 – – – – 2006 29,265 29,220 2,048 7.5% 1.5% 2009 30,089 – – – – 2011 30,568 – 1,348 4.6% 0.9% Sources: Statistics Canada and Alberta Municipal Affairs

Page 4 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Figure 1: Federal Census Population History

Source: Statistics Canada

The following are key observations from Table 1 and Figure 1. 1. Parkland County’s highest period of growth occurred in the 10-year period between 1971 and 1981 inclusive when its average annual growth rate fluctuated between 8.2% and 8.9%. 2. Since 1981, the County has experienced population growth at a significantly lower rates. Its average annual growth rate in this 30-year period has fluctuated between 0.9% and 1.9%, with it steadily declining since 1996. 3. The 1981 and 1986 federal census counts experienced the most significant adjustments due to adjustments in the County’s boundaries. The 1981 adjustment was mostly a result of Edmonton’s last annexation in 1982, while the 1986 adjustment was largely due to the separation of lands in 1987 to create Brazeau County in 1988.

2.2 Historical Growth by Sub-Area

Map 1 illustrates the geographic distribution of Parkland County’s seven hamlets and Parkland Village. Table 2 presents population history of these communities since 1971 where data is available. With the exception of Entwistle, federal census population figures between 1971 and 2011 respectively are from Statistics Canada’s unincorporated places (1971 to 1991) and designated places (1996 to 2011) programs. For Entwistle, population figures between 1971 and 2001 inclusive are based on its former village boundaries. All figures from 2005 and 2009 are derived from municipal censuses conducted by Parkland County. With the exception of Entwistle, note that the County’s and Statistics Canada’s boundaries for these communities may not be consistent.

Note that those values in grey cells within Table 2 are derived from federal censuses, while the balance are derived from municipal census counts.

April 2015 | Page 5

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Table 2: Population History by Community

Parkland Year Carvel Duffield Entwistle Fallis Gainford Keephills Tomahawk Village 1971 26 63 353 39 – – – 66 1976 29 83 380 – – – – 79 1981 21 76 462 59 122 16 – 95 1986 – 72 478 37 93 30 – 103 1991 – 57 460 50 60 21 – 97 1996 – – 453 – 104 – 1,247 92 2001 – – 404 – 98 – 1,401 61 2005 27 70 5452 –3 63 43 1,579 127 2006 – – 4414 – 132 – 1,5254 65 2009 19 69 5342 54 47 51 1,783 82 2011 – 75 440 60 140 50 1,910 70

Sources: Statistics Canada and Parkland County

The following are key observations from Table 2. 1. The population histories of Carvel, Duffield, Fallis, Gainford, and Tomahawk reveal modest growth or decline over the last 30 or 40 years. 2. Despite periodic modest population declines, Entwistle’s population has grown by approximately 25% since 1971. 3. Of the remaining hamlets, Keephills has grown fairly consistently since 1991 but remains one of the County’s smallest hamlets. 4. Parkland Village is the County’s largest urban community and has grown by 53% over the past 15 years.

Map 1 also illustrates Parkland County’s six electoral divisions. Their current boundaries were established in 2004. Table 3 and Figure 2 present the recent population history of the divisions derived from the County’s 2005 municipal censuses and the 2011 federal census. Table 3 also presents each division’s percentage share of the County’s total population.

Note that the population counts by division from the County’s 2009 municipal census are excluded. This is due to possible errors in the allocation of population by electoral division in the 2009 municipal census. This also enables presentation of simple population trend lines between 2005 and 2011 in Figure 2.

2 Parkland County advises there may have been an error in the definition of the census area for Entwistle in both the 2005 and 2009 municipal censuses, hence the significantly higher population counts in 2005 and 2009 compared to 2001, 2006 and 2011. 3 Parkland County’s 2005 municipal census originally reported a population of 259 in Fallis. This count was in error however due to an error in the definition of the census area. 4 Calculated using StatCan’s 2006 dissemination block boundaries.

Page 6 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Table 3: Population History by Electoral Division

Division 1 Division 2 Division 3 Division 4 Division 5 Division 6 Total Year Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. 2005 5,442 18.3% 5,406 18.2% 5,471 18.4% 4,537 15.3% 4,943 16.7% 3,880 13.1% 29,679 2011 5,455 17.8% 6,005 19.6% 6,150 20.1% 4,780 15.6% 4,905 16.0% 3,270 10.7% 30,565 Change 13 -0.5% 599 1.4% 679 1.7% 243 0.4% -38 -0.6% -610 -2.4% 886 Source: Parkland County 2005 Municipal Census and Statistics Canada 2011 Census Custom Profiles

Figure 2: Population Trends by Electoral Division, 2005 to 2011

Source: Parkland County 2005 Municipal Census and Statistics Canada 2011 Census Custom Profiles

The following are key observations from Map 1, Table 3, and Figure 2. 1. Parkland County’s most populous electoral divisions are Divisions 1 through 3, which are in the east and northeast portions of the County. 2. Divisions 2 through 4 experienced varying levels of population growth between 2005 and 2011 inclusive, while Division 6 experienced significant population decline. 3. Divisions 1 and 5 experienced relatively stagnant growth between 2005 and 2011. 4. Divisions 1 through 4 are located in the eastern third of the County adjacent to Edmonton and surrounding Spruce Grove and Stony Plain. 5. Division 3 is the most populous electoral division and experienced the highest growth between 2005 and 2011.

April 2015 | Page 7

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

2.3 Historical Growth Comparisons

2.3.1 Municipal Comparisons

Table 4 (following page 8) compares the historic population counts and average annual growth (AAG) of Parkland County with seven other municipalities. These seven include the three other municipal districts within the Capital Region, the Strathcona County Rural Service Area5 (RSA), two comparable municipal districts within the Calgary Region, and Parkland County’s three largest urban neighbours.

The following are key observations from Table 4. 1. Parkland County has the highest population among the rural municipalities in the Capital Region and is second only to Rocky View County among those within Alberta’s two metropolitan regions. 2. The County’s average annual growth (AAG) rates since 1981 have consistently exceeded those of Lamont County and Leduc County. 3. Sturgeon County’s AAG rates since 1981 have exceeded those of Parkland County’s in half of the five-year periods, but Sturgeon County’s rates have been much more volatile, ranging from 0.4% and 2.5%. 4. Parkland County’s AAG rates are most similar to those of the Strathcona County Rural Service Area. 5. Since 1981, with the exception of 1986, the AAG rates of the rural municipalities in the Calgary Region have significantly outpaced Parkland County and the other rural municipalities within the Capital Region. 6. The County’s population continues to exceed the populations of Spruce Grove and Stony Plain, though their AAG rates have consistently outpaced the County’s since 1981. 7. Prior to 1996, the combined populations of Spruce Grove and Stony Plain were less than those of Parkland County. In 2011, the combined populations of these two communities (41,122) exceeded the County’s population (30,568) by over 10,000 people. 8. Of the County’s three urban neighbours, the County’s AAG rates are most similar to those of the City of Edmonton.

2.3.2 Metropolitan and Provincial Comparison

Table 5 (following page 8) compares the historic population counts, the five-year percent changes, and average annual growth (AAG) rates of Parkland County with the Edmonton Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) and the Province of Alberta.

The following are key observations from Table 5. 1. Parkland County’s average annual growth (AAG) rates were generally consistent with those of the Edmonton CMA in 1986 and 1991. 2. The County’s AAG rates matched or exceeded those of the Province of Alberta between 1971 and 1996 inclusive. 3. The AAG rates of the Edmonton CMA and the Province of Alberta have exceeded those of the County since 1996 with the percentage differences widening at each of the three censuses.

2.3.3 Capital Region Forecasts Comparison

Table 6 compares Parkland County’s historic population counts and average annual growth (AAG) rates with four sets of forecasts of the County’s population prepared through various regional planning initiatives for the Capital Region between 2007 and 2013 inclusive. The first forecast was published in the Province of

5 The Strathcona County Rural Service Area (RSA) excludes the Sherwood Park Urban Service Area. The RSA is deemed equivalent to a municipal district by provincial legislation.

Page 8 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Alberta’s 2007 Capital Region Integrated Growth Management Plan (CRIGMP). It had a 35-year horizon from 2006 to 2041.

The second forecast was published by the Capital Region Board (CRB) in its Capital Region Growth Plan (CRGP) Addendum December 2009. This forecast, which was approved by the Province of Alberta, was more conservative than the CRIGMP forecast due to the 2008 downtown in the economy. It had a 35-year horizon from 2009 to 2044.

The final two forecasts are those recently accepted by the CRB comprising both low and high scenarios. It had also had a 35-year horizon from 2009 to 2044, which aligns with the horizon of the CRB’s CRGP.

Note that those values in grey cells within Table 6 represent extrapolations of population growth rates between federal censuses and forecast intervals. This allows direct comparison of all sets of forecasts at the various forecast intervals between 2014 and 2041 inclusive. Table 6: Comparison of Recent Population Growth with CRB Forecasts

2007 2009 CRGP 2013 CRB 2013 CRB Actual CRIGMP Addendum Forecast Forecast Growth Year Forecast Forecast (Low) (High) Pop. AAG Pop. AAG Pop. AAG Pop. AAG Pop. AAG 2001 27,252 – – – – – – – – – 2006 29,265 1.5% 29,290 – – – – – – – 2009 30,040 0.9% 31,323 2.3% 30,906 – – – – – 2011 30,568 0.9% 32,757 2.3% 31,944 1.7% 30,568 – 30,568 – 2014 – – 34,170 1.4% 33,568 1.7% 31,800 1.3% 32,200 1.7% 2016 – – 35,145 1.4% 34,682 1.6% 32,547 1.2% 33,368 1.8% 2019 – – 36,511 1.3% 36,424 1.6% 33,700 1.2% 35,200 1.8% 2021 – – 37,451 1.3% 36,902 0.7% 34,409 1.0% 36,290 1.5% 2026 – – 39,951 1.3% 38,126 0.7% 36,249 1.0% 39,166 1.5% 2029 – – 41,633 1.4% 38,880 0.7% 37,400 1.0% 41,000 1.5% 2031 – – 42,794 1.4% 39,279 0.5% 38,067 0.9% 42,099 1.3% 2036 – – 45,526 1.2% 40,293 0.5% 39,786 0.9% 44,978 1.3% 2041 – – 48,789 1.4% 41,334 0.5% 41,583 0.9% 48,054 1.3% 2044 – – – – 41,971 0.5% 42,700 0.9% 50,000 1.3% Sources: Statistics Canada, Government of Alberta Executive Council and Capital Region Board

The following are key observations from Table 6 and Table 1. 1. The 2007 CRIGMP forecast narrowly overestimated Parkland County’s baseline population and its actual average annual growth (AAG) rate of 2.3% significantly outpaced the County’s actual AAG of 0.9% between 2006 and 2011. 2. Though more conservative, the 2009 CRGP Addendum forecast also overestimated the County’s baseline population and its AAG rate of 1.7% nearly doubled that of the County’s actual AAG rate. 3. The CRB’s 2013 low forecast utilized AAG rates that are more comparable with the AAG rate of 0.9% most recently experienced by the County between 2006 and 2011 (refer to Table 1). 4. The CRB’s 2013 high forecast utilized AAG rates that are more comparable with the actual AAG rates the County experienced between 1991 and 2006 inclusive (refer to Table 1). 5. According to the CRB’s 2013 low and high forecasts, the population of Parkland County in 2044 is expected to be between 42,700 and 50,000.

April 2015 | Page 9

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

3.0 Demographic Characteristics

3.1 Age and Gender

Table 7 presents the age and gender breakdowns of Parkland County in five-year cohorts from the 2001, 2006, and 2011 federal censuses. The total percentages and median ages of the County’s population by gender are also presented for each census. Figures 3, 4 and 5 comparatively illustrate the distributions of the County’s populations by age cohort and gender for the 2001, 2006 and 2011 censuses respectively. Figure 6 compares the 2011 age cohort and gender distributions with the same from the 2001 and 2006 censuses for the purpose of graphically illustrating trends among the cohorts.

Table 7: Age and Gender Breakdown, 2001–2011

Age Group 2001 2006 2011 6 (years) Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male 0 to 4 1,625 785 840 1,625 785 840 1,660 815 845 5 to 9 2,505 1,195 1,305 2,455 1,150 1,305 2,220 1,080 1,145 10 to 14 2,220 1,035 1,185 2,355 1,120 1,235 2,285 1,065 1,220 15 to 19 1,215 570 645 1,415 650 765 1,510 700 810 20 to 24 1,135 585 550 1,115 570 545 1,205 585 620 25 to 29 1,660 855 805 1,485 790 690 1,500 780 715 30 to 34 2,435 1,270 1,160 2,055 1,070 980 1,880 970 910 35 to 39 2,760 1,325 1,435 2,790 1,405 1,385 2,335 1,170 1,165 40 to 44 2,470 1,205 1,265 2,925 1,380 1,550 2,960 1,470 1,495 45 to 49 2,140 1,015 1,130 2,035 975 1,055 1,980 965 1,015 50 to 54 2,110 1,010 1,100 2,630 1,275 1,355 3,020 1,450 1,570 55 to 59 1,710 795 910 2,155 1,060 1,100 2,570 1,230 1,340 60 to 64 1,210 560 655 1,625 750 870 2,010 975 1,035 65 to 69 875 370 505 1,105 480 625 1,500 680 820 70 to 74 585 260 330 720 295 430 930 410 525 75 to 79 350 180 175 415 180 230 580 250 325 80 to 84 180 85 90 225 105 115 265 120 145 85+ 80 45 35 150 90 50 160 90 70 All Groups 27,250 13,145 14,110 29,265 14,140 15,130 30,570 14,800 15,765 Gender 100.0% 48.2% 51.8% 100.0% 48.3% 51.7% 100.0% 48.4% 51.6% Percentage Median Age 37.6 37.3 37.8 40.2 39.8 40.6 42.2 41.8 42.6 Source: Statistics Canada

6 Selected age, ethnic origin, educational attainment, labour market activity, employment, migration, household group and farmer demographic values from the Census of Canada (2001, 2006 and 2011), National Household Survey (2011) and Census of Agriculture (2001, 2006 and 2011) are randomly rounded by Statistics Canada to the nearest 5 for privacy reasons.

Page 10 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Figure 3: Population by Age and Gender, 2001

Source: Statistics Canada

Figure 4: Population by Age and Gender, 2006

Source: Statistics Canada

April 2015 | Page 11

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Figure 5: Population by Age and Gender, 2011

Source: Statistics Canada

Figure 6: Population by Age and Gender, 2001–2011

Source: Statistics Canada

Page 12 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

The following are key observations from Table 7 and Figures 3 through 6. 1. Parkland County’s population is aging, increasing from a median age of 37.6 in 2001 to 40.6 in 2011. 2. The gap between the percentages of males to females is slowly narrowing. The ratio was 51.6% to 48.4% in 2011, whereas it was 51.8% to 48.2% in 2001. 3. The County has experienced significant increases in all cohorts over the age of 50 between 2001 and 2011, as well as in the 15 to 19 and 40 to 44 cohorts. 4. In the same 10-year period, the County has experienced significant decreases in the three cohorts between the ages of 25 and 39 and in the 5 to 9 and 45 to 49 cohorts. 5. Also in the same 10-year period, the County experienced modest increases in the 0 to 4, 10 to 14 and 20 to 24 cohorts.

3.1.1 Changes in Age and Gender Distribution

As presented as key observations above, Parkland County’s population is aging, while the gap between the percentages of males to females is slowly narrowing. The County has experienced significant increases in all cohorts over the age of 50 between 2001 and 2011, as well as in the 15 to 19 and 40 to 44 cohorts. In the same 10-year period, the County has experienced significant decreases in the three cohorts between the ages of 25 and 39 and in the 5 to 9 and 45 to 49 cohorts. Also in the same 10-year period, the County experienced modest increases in the 0 to 4, 10 to 14 and 20 to 24 cohorts.

3.2 Ethnic Origin

The population of Parkland County is primarily of European origin (mostly British and French but also other European) as this group accounted for 87.9% of the County’s residents in 2011. For Alberta as a whole the European share was 70.3%. The ratio of 87.9% for Parkland County to 70.3% for Alberta – which comes out at 125 in percentage terms (the final column in Table 8) – reveals that people of European origin are 25% more likely to be found in Parkland County than province-wide. Table 8: Population of Parkland County and Alberta by Ethnic Origin in 2011

Parkland Percent Percent Population by Ethnic Origin6 Alberta Index County Share (%) Share (%) Total population by ethnic origins 30,430 100.0 3,567,980 100.0 100 European origins 26,760 87.9 2,506,665 70.3 125 North American Aboriginal origins 2,190 7.2 263,720 7.4 97 Caribbean origins 75 0.2 25,035 0.7 35 Latin, Central and South American 95 0.3 54,650 1.5 20 origins African origins 105 0.3 78,580 2.2 16 Asian origins 710 2.3 551,715 15.5 15 Oceania origins 165 0.5 12,985 0.4 149 Other 330 1.1 74,630 2.1 52 Source: Statistics Canada

North American Aboriginal origin people are the second largest group in Parkland County accounting for 7.2% of the total in 2011, slightly lower than the Alberta share for this group. The third largest group is of Asian origin accounting for 2.3% of the total, a share that is much lower in Parkland County than the Asian origin share for the province as a whole.

April 2015 | Page 13

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

The following are key observations from Table 8. 1. Parkland County’s population is mostly accounted for by people of European, North American Aboriginal and Asian origin. 2. Parkland County’s population is considerably less diverse than that of Alberta as a whole.

3.2.1 Changes in Ethnicity

As presented above, Parkland County’s population is mostly accounted for by people of European (mostly British and French but also other European), North American Aboriginal and Asian origin. Parkland County’s population is considerably less diverse than that of Alberta as a whole.

Analysis on the changes in ethnicity in Parkland County is not possible as the data from the 2001 and 2006 censuses do not match the data from the 2011 National Household Survey. However, analysis on the changes in Aboriginal and visible minority population is possible. Table 9 on the following page presents the history of Aboriginal and visible minority populations in Parkland County from 2001, 2006, and 2011. The Province of Alberta’s 2011 Aboriginal and visible minority populations are also provided for comparison.

Table 9 reveals that the Aboriginal population of Parkland County has increased from 880 in 2001 to 2,190 in 2011. In terms of its percent share, the County’s total Aboriginal population increased steadily from 3.6% in 2001 to 4.9% in 2006 and to 7.2% in 2011.

Over that same span, the total visible minorities increased from 400 in 2001 to 835 in 2011. The visible minority share of the total population has therefore increased from 1.5% in 2001 to 2.0% in 2006 and 2.7% in 2011.

Page 14 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Table 9: Aboriginal and Visible Minority Populations, 2001–2011

Parkland Parkland Parkland Alberta, 2011 Population County, 2001 County, 2006 County, 2011 Characteristic6 No. % No. % No. % No. % Aboriginal Population Total population 27,170 100.0 29,215 100.0 30,430 100.0 3,567,975 100.0 Aboriginal identity 990 3.6 1,430 3.6 2,190 3.6 220,695 6.2 population Non-Aboriginal identity 26,175 96.3 27,785 96.3 28,240 96.3 3,347,280 93.8 population Visible Minority Population Total population 27,165 100.0 29,215 100.0 30,430 100.0 3,567,975 100.0 Total visible minority 400 1.5 595 2.0 835 2.7 656,325 18.4 population Chinese 135 0.5 70 0.2 110 0.4 156,665 4.4 South Asian 30 0.1 165 0.6 160 0.5 133,390 3.7 Black 70 0.3 115 0.4 105 0.3 74,435 2.1 Filipino 70 0.3 60 0.2 185 0.6 106,035 3.0 Latin American 25 0.1 10 0.0 70 0.2 41,305 1.2 Southeast Asian 10 0.0 0 0.0 110 0.4 34,920 1.0 Arab 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 41,025 1.1 West Asian 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 16,030 0.4 Korean 45 0.2 50 0.2 0 0.0 15,000 0.4 Japanese 10 0.0 110 0.4 65 0.2 12,415 0.3 Visible minority; n.i.e.7 10 0.0 10 0.0 20 0.1 6,270 0.2 Multiple visible 0 0.0 10 0.0 0 0.0 18,840 0.5 minority Not a visible minority 26,770 98.5 28,615 97.9 29,600 97.3 2,911,650 81.6 population Source: Statistics Canada 2001 and 2006 Census and 2011 National Household Survey

3.3 Educational Attainment

Persons aged 25 to 64 years of age account for the bulk of the working population in most communities across Canada and Alberta. Table 10 compares the education profile of those aged 25 to 64 in Parkland County to that base in Alberta.

7 n.i.e. stands for not included elsewhere.

April 2015 | Page 15

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Table 10: Population Aged 25 to 64 by Educational Attainment in 2011

Population by Educational Parkland Percent Percent Alberta Index Attainment6 County Share (%) Share (%) Total population 30,435 100.0 3,567,975 100.0 100 Total population aged 25 to 64 years by highest level of educational 17,560 57.7 2,035,330 57.0 101 attainment Total population aged 25 to 64 years by 17,560 100.0 2,035,330 100.0 100 highest level of educational attainment

No certificate, diploma or degree 2,175 12.4 250,265 12.3 101

High school diploma or equivalent 4,720 26.9 484,725 23.8 113 Post-Secondary certificate, diploma or 10,670 60.8 1,300,340 63.9 95 degree Apprenticeship or trades certificate 3,415 19.4 249,160 12.2 159 or diploma College, CEGEP or other non- 3,875 22.1 435,350 21.4 103 university certificate/diploma University certificate or diploma 595 3.4 95,155 4.7 72 below bachelor level University certificate, diploma or 2,780 15.8 520,675 25.6 62 degree at bachelor level or higher Bachelor's degree 2,105 12.0 359,350 17.7 68 University certificate, diploma or 680 3.9 161,320 7.9 49 degree above bachelor level Source: Statistics Canada

Those aged 25 to 64 account for 57.7% of Parkland County’s entire population, a share slightly higher than the 57.0% share characterizing Alberta as a whole.

Within Parkland County the share of persons aged 25 to 64 with no certificate, diploma or degree (12.4%) slightly exceeds that of Alberta (12.3%), while those with a high school diploma or equivalent (26.9%) exceed the provincial share (23.8%) by 13%. Those with postsecondary certificates, diplomas or degrees in Parkland County (60.8%) represent a smaller share than the same group across the province (63.9%).

Within this latter group, the largest group, those with apprenticeship or trades certificates or diplomas (19.4% of all persons 20 to 64) in Parkland County exceed the provincial share (12.2%) by a margin of 59% while those with college or other non-university certificates or diplomas (22.1%) exceed the provincial share (21.4%) by a small margin of 3%. In all other categories of postsecondary education Parkland County’s share falls short of that of the province by wide margins.

The following are key observations from Table 10. 1. Parkland County’s population aged 25 to 64 has a high level of educational attainment at the high school and trade certificate or diploma level, likely a reflection of the industrial and construction orientation of its employment base (see 3.4 below). 2. In all other categories Parkland County’s share of postsecondary educated residents falls short of the shares prevailing in the rest of Alberta.

Page 16 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

3.3.1 Changes in Educational Attainment

As presented above, Parkland County’s population aged 25 to 64 has reached a high level of educational attainment at the high school and trade certificate or diploma level. This is likely a reflection of the industrial and construction orientation of its employment base. In all other categories however, the County’s share of post-secondary educated residents falls short of the shares prevailing in the rest of Alberta.

Analysis on the changes in educational attainment in Parkland County is not possible as the reported age categories varied from census to census. The reported levels of education attained also varied.

3.4 Migration and Mobility

In 2011 according to Table 11 some 93.0% of Parkland County’s population was either born in Alberta (68.1%) or in another part of Canada (24.9%). Only 6.7% were born outside of Canada, and within that group (a total of 2,045 people) more than 6 out of 10 came from Europe. Parkland County’s non-immigrant share of the population and its total population share born in Alberta both exceed the non-immigrant and born in Alberta shares of the province as a whole.

Table 11: Migration and Mobility in Parkland County and Alberta in 2011

Parkland Percent Percent Population by Place of Origin6 Alberta Index County Share (%) Share (%) Total population in private households 30,435 100.0 3,567,975 100.0 100 Non-immigrants 28,310 93.0 2,864,245 80.3 116 Born in province of residence 20,740 68.1 1,911,800 53.6 127 Born outside province of residence 7,570 24.9 952,440 26.7 93 Immigrants 2,045 6.7 644,115 18.1 37 Americas 450 1.5 86,500 2.4 61 Europe 1,280 4.2 178,660 5.0 84 Africa 20 0.1 55,855 1.6 4 Asia 205 0.7 314,145 8.8 8 Oceania and other 90 0.3 8,955 0.3 118 Non-permanent residents 75 0.2 59,625 1.7 15 Total - Mobility status 5 years ago 28,780 100.0 3,324,205 100.0 100 Non-movers 20,585 71.5 1,830,575 55.1 130 Movers 8,200 28.5 1,493,630 44.9 63 Non-migrants 2,275 7.9 793,470 23.9 33 Migrants 5,920 20.6 700,160 21.1 98 Internal migrants 5,585 19.4 537,455 16.2 120 Intraprovincial migrants 4,790 16.6 321,605 9.7 172 Interprovincial migrants 795 2.8 215,850 6.5 43 External migrants 335 1.2 162,705 4.9 24 Source: Statistics Canada

Parkland County’s residents are relatively immobile compared to the residents of Alberta as a whole. Among those 5 years of age or older in 2011 in Parkland County (28,780), 71.5% (20,585) lived at the same address in Parkland County as they did in 2006. The 28.5% or 8,200 people in Parkland County in 2011 that moved between 2006 and 2011 break down by mover type as follows: 2,275 were non-migrants, meaning they moved from one place in Parkland County to another place in Parkland County; 4,790 were

April 2015 | Page 17

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

intraprovincial migrants, meaning they moved from somewhere else in Alberta to Parkland County; 795 were interprovincial migrants meaning they moved from somewhere else in Canada to Parkland County; and 335 were external migrants meaning they moved from somewhere outside Canada to Parkland County. The shares of Parkland County’s population 5 years and older accounted for by each of these categories are higher than the provincial shares for non-movers (index of 130) and for interprovincial migrants (172).

The following are key observations from Table 11. 1. Immigrants (people born outside of Canada) account for a small share (6.7%) of Parkland County’s population in 2011 and almost two thirds of them are from Europe. 2. Parkland County’s population is very much home-grown. Most of its residents in 2006 either did not move between 2006 and 2011 or if they moved they did so from another place in Parkland County or another place in Alberta. These three groups collectively accounted for 96.1% of Parkland County’s population aged 5 and over in 2011.

3.5 Household Income

Parkland County is a relatively affluent municipality within a relatively affluent province (see Table 12). In 2010 the average household total income was $127,864 in Parkland County, some 27% higher than the provincial average of $100,819 (the highest provincial average in Canada). By way of comparison the average household total income across all of Canada (including Alberta) was $79,102 so Parkland County’s average household total income exceeded the national average by 62%. On the basis of average household total income Parkland County ranks 36th among Canada’s 5,253 census subdivisions (cities, towns, etc.).

Parkland County’s median household total income (the income at which half the households have higher incomes and half have lower incomes) was $100,023 in 2010 which was also 27% greater than the provincial median and 64% higher than the national median household total income. Table 12: Household Incomes in Parkland County and Alberta in 2010

Parkland Percent Percent Household Income Category6 Alberta Index County Share (%) Share (%) Average household total income 2010 $127,864 – $100,819 – 127 Median household total income 2010 $100,023 – $78,632 – 127 Household total income in 2010 of 10,935 100.0 1,390,280 100.0 100 private households Under $5,000 235 2.1 37,520 2.7 80 $5,000 to $9,999 65 0.6 18,100 1.3 46 $10,000 to $14,999 145 1.3 31,510 2.3 59 $15,000 to $19,999 205 1.9 43,880 3.2 59 $20,000 to $29,999 430 3.9 87,985 6.3 62 $30,000 to $39,999 660 6.0 102,290 7.4 82 $40,000 to $49,999 495 4.5 100,165 7.2 63 $50,000 to $59,999 575 5.3 100,965 7.3 72 $60,000 to $79,999 1,435 13.1 184,540 13.3 99 $80,000 to $99,999 1,215 11.1 166,110 11.9 93 $100,000 to $124,999 1,450 13.3 158,540 11.4 116 $125,000 to $149,999 980 9.0 113,010 8.1 110 $150,000 and over 3,040 27.8 245,665 17.7 157 Population in private households 30,435 100.0 3,519,390 100.0 100 Less than 18 years 7,320 24.1 802,170 22.8 106

Page 18 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Parkland Percent Percent Household Income Category6 Alberta Index County Share (%) Share (%) Less than 6 years 2,070 6.8 281,690 8.0 85 18 to 64 years 19,840 65.2 2,356,095 66.9 97 65 years and over 3,270 10.7 361,125 10.3 105 Population in low income in 2010 2,190 100.0 376,820 100.0 100 Less than 18 years 585 26.7 107,535 28.5 94 Less than 6 years 140 6.4 39,715 10.5 61 18 to 64 years 1,445 66.0 241,025 64.0 103 65 years and over 155 7.1 28,260 7.5 94 Prevalence in low income in 2010 (%) 7.2 – 10.7 – 67 Less than 18 years 8.0 – 13.4 – 60 Less than 6 years 6.8 – 14.1 – 48 18 to 64 years 7.3 – 10.2 – 71 65 years and over 4.7 – 7.8 – 61 Source: Statistics Canada

Table 12 compares the distribution of average household incomes by income category in Parkland County to the distribution for Alberta as a whole. Households with incomes exceeding $100,000 per year in 2010 were overrepresented in Parkland County compared to the province while those with incomes under $100,000 were underrepresented. In 2010 the share of households in Parkland County with incomes exceeding $150,000 per year was 27.8% compared to a share of 17.7% for the province. In other words a household with an income of $150,000 per year or more is 57% more likely to be found in Parkland County than in Alberta as a whole.

Given Parkland County’s relatively affluent position it comes as no surprise that persons living in “low income cut-off” (LICO) situations are found less frequently there than in Alberta as a whole. Low income cut- offs are estimated by Statistics Canada as income thresholds below which a family will likely devote a larger share of its income on the necessities of food, shelter and clothing than the average family. The threshold is estimated to be at the income level at which families are expected to spend 20 percentage points more than the average family on food, shelter and clothing. In Parkland County persons living in such situations accounted for 8.0% of persons aged 18 or under, 7.3% of persons aged 18 to 64 and 4.7% of persons 65 and over in 2010. These shares are all significantly lower than the shares Alberta-wide for these same age groups.

The following are key observations from Table 12. 1. Parkland County is among the most affluent census subdivisions (municipalities) in Canada with an average household income exceeding that of Alberta by 27% and that of Canada by 62%. Households receiving incomes exceeding $100,000 per year are found far more frequently in Parkland County than in Alberta as a whole. 2. The share of persons living in low-income cut off situations is much lower than for the province. 3. Parkland County’s relative affluence is being achieved by a population aged 25 to 64 with education levels tilted heavily toward high school diplomas and trade certificates or diplomas, not college or university degrees.

April 2015 | Page 19

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

3.5.1 Household Income

As presented above, Parkland County is among the most affluent census subdivisions (municipalities) in Canada. In 2011, it had an average household income exceeding that of Alberta by 27% ($127,864 vs. $100,819), while 50% of its households received incomes of $100,000 or more per year compared to 37.2% province-wide.

Table 13 presents the household income history of Parkland County from 2001, 2006, and 2011. The Province of Alberta’s 2011 household income characteristics are also provided for comparison.

Table 13: Household Incomes, 2001–2011

Parkland Parkland Parkland Alberta, 2011 Household Income County, 2001 County, 2006 County, 2011 Characteristic6 No. % No. % No. % No. % Average household income $69,074 – $92,442 – $127,864 – $100,819 – Median household income n/a – $78,052 – $100,023 – $78,632 – Households with income 9,190 100.0 10,230 100.0 10,935 100.0 1,390,280 100.0 Less than $10,000 240 2.6 245 2.4 300 2.7 55,620 4.0 $10,000 to $19,999 570 6.2 445 4.3 350 3.2 75,390 5.4 $20,000 to $29,999 725 7.9 670 6.5 430 3.9 87,985 6.3 $30,000 to $39,999 840 9.1 725 7.1 660 6.0 102,290 7.4 $40,000 to $49,999 1,035 11.3 710 6.9 495 4.5 100,165 7.2 $50,000 to $59,999 885 9.6 825 8.1 575 5.3 100,965 7.3 $60,000 to $79,999 1,965 21.4 1,660 16.2 1,435 13.1 184,540 13.3 $80,000 to $99,999 1,175 12.8 1,410 13.8 1,215 11.1 166,110 11.9 $100,000 and over 1,755 19.1 3,540 34.6 5,470 50.0 517,215 37.2 Source: Statistics Canada 2001 and 2006 Census and 2011 National Household Survey

Table 13 reveals that the average household income is high and has almost doubled in the ten years between 2001 and 2011. It also reveals that the proportion of households in Parkland County with annual income of $100,000 and over has increased significantly from 19.1% in 2001 to 50.0% in 2011. Much of this increase is due to inflation. In contrast, the proportions of households among all other income categories has decreased, which is also due to inflation.

3.6 Population Characteristics and Average Household Size by Dwelling Type

In 2011, Parkland County had 30,415 people living in 19,380 dwelling units for an average of 2.78 persons per unit. As presented in Table 14, 88.5% of the total number of units – or 9,678 – were single detached dwellings. These dwellings provided accommodation to 90.3% of the population. The average number of persons per single detached dwelling was 2.84 people, higher than the County’s overall average of 2.78 persons per unit. Of the 1,252 dwelling units that were not single detached, most were movable units (1,177) while the remaining were semi-detached units (75). When combined, the movable and semi-detached units accounted for an average of 2.37 people.

Table 14 also indicates that single detached units provided accommodation to more people on average right across the age spectrum except for those aged 25 to 29 and those 30 to 34. The averages by age in single detached units exceeds the averages by age in all other units especially among those aged under 10 and those in five-year age categories ranging from 40 to 69 years of age.

Page 20 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Table 14: Parkland County Population by Age by Dwelling Type, 2011

Single Difference (SD Category All Other Detached (SD) less All Other) Population 27,450 2,965 – Dwelling Units 9,678 1,252 – Persons / Unit 2.84 2.37 0.47 Persons / Unit by Age Under 15 years 0.55 0.42 0.14 15 to 19 years 0.22 0.12 0.10 20 to 24 years 0.14 0.14 0.00 25 to 29 years 0.10 0.20 -0.11 30 to 34 years 0.13 0.15 -0.02 35 to 39 years 0.17 0.16 0.01 40 to 44 years 0.22 0.16 0.06 45 to 49 years 0.28 0.20 0.08 50 to 54 years 0.29 0.19 0.09 55 to 59 years 0.24 0.18 0.06 60 to 64 years 0.19 0.14 0.04 65 to 69 years 0.14 0.12 0.02 70 to 74 years 0.08 0.08 0.00 75 to 79 years 0.05 0.05 0.00 80 to 84 years 0.02 0.02 0.00 85 years and over 0.01 0.01 0.00 Source: Parkland County

April 2015 | Page 21

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

4.0 Land Use

4.1 Land Use District Breakdown

Table 15 presents a breakdown of Parkland County by land use district according to its current Land Use Bylaw (LUB). This breakdown is illustrated in Map 2. The names, codes and corresponding sections of the LUB are provided for each district. Similar land use districts are aggregated into generalized into five land use types – agricultural, residential, commercial, industrial, and parks and services.

It is important to note that Table 15 is based on the application of land use districts and not actual land use within the subject lands. For example, not every quarter section subject to:  the Agricultural General District is actively being farmed (some could be in a natural state);  the Country Residential District is subdivided for residential purposes (some could be in agricultural production or in a natural state); and  the Highvale End Land Use Direct Control District is actively being mined (some could be in agricultural production or in a natural state).

Section 4.2 will provide approximations of the amount of lands subject to each residential, commercial and industrial district that are absorbed for their intended use (i.e., zoned and subdivided) compared to the amount that is unabsorbed (i.e., zoned but not yet subdivided). Table 15: 2014 Land Use Breakdown by Land Use District

Land Use District Code Section Area (ha) Percent Agricultural General AGG 4.1 142,513.3 62.1% Agricultural Restricted AGR 4.3 7,058.4 3.1% Agriculture / Nature Conservation ANC 4.2 15,887.0 6.9% Sub-Total Agricultural 165,458.7 72.1% Country Residential CR 5.1 38,683.3 16.9% Country Residential Work / Live CRWL 5.2 0.0 0.0% Country Residential Restricted CRR 5.3 193.5 0.1% Cluster (Conservation) Country Residential CCR 5.4 0.0 0.0% Country Residential Estate CRE 5.5 544.1 0.2% Lakeshore Residential LSR 5.6 247.0 0.1% Residential Row Housing RRH 5.7 2.7 0.0% Manufactured Home Residential MHR 5.8 64.3 0.0% Bareland Recreational Resort BRR 5.9 229.9 0.1% Rural Centre RC 5.10 523.2 0.2% Entwistle Urban Village (EUV) EUV 5.11 93.7 0.0% - EUV Residential Single Family 5.11.a) 13.9 0.0% - EUV Residential Medium Density 5.11.b) 0.8 0.0% - EUV Residential High Density 5.11.c) 0.0 0.0% - EUV Main Street Commercial 5.11.d) 2.0 0.0% - EUV Direct Control 5.11.e) 9.2 0.0% - EUV Urban Reserve 5.11.f) 67.8 0.0%

Page 22 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Land Use District Code Section Area (ha) Percent Eden Lake Direct Control DC Area 5 9.6 128.4 0.1% Sub-Total Residential 40,710.1 17.7% Highway Commercial HC 6.2 98.7 0.0% Local Commercial LC 6.1 4.0 0.0% Sub-Total Commercial 102.7 0.0% Business Industrial BI 7.1 923.2 0.4% Industrial Reserve IRD 7.6 998.7 0.4% Medium Industrial MI 7.2 443.2 0.2% Heavy Industrial HI 7.3 0.0 0.0% Resource Extraction RE 7.5 4,121.0 1.8% Rural Industrial / Commercial RIC 7.4 12.5 0.0% Acheson Industrial Area Direct Control DC Area 1 9.2 97.0 0.0% Highvale End Land Use Direct Control DC Area 2 9.3 9,762.7 4.3% Whitewood Direct Control DC Area 3 9.4 3,743.2 1.6% Keephills Direct Control DC Area 4 9.5 577.1 0.3% Sub-Total Industrial 20,678.5 9.0% Conservation PC 8.1 2,024.1 0.9% Recreation PR 8.2 565.8 0.2% Public Services PS 8.3 16.6 0.0% Sub-Total Parks and Services 2,606.5 1.1% Total Zoned Lands 229,556.5 100.0%

Sources: Parkland County and AltaLIS parcel mapping

The following are key observations from Table 15. 1. Over 72% of lands within Parkland County are currently zoned for agricultural purposes, of which the majority (62%) is subject to the Agricultural General District. 2. Nearly 18% of the County’s lands are subject to residential zoning, of which the vast majority (17%) is subject to the Country Residential District. 3. The amount of lands subject to commercial zoning in the County is negligible. 4. Approximately 9.0% of lands are subject to industrial zoning, of which nearly half (4.3%) is subject to the Highvale End Land Use Direct Control District. 5. Just over 1% of the County’s land base is subject to zoning for parks and services, of which the majority (0.9%) is subject to the Conservation District.

Table 16 presents a breakdown by land use district from the County’s LUB as it was 25 years ago in 1989. This breakdown is illustrated in Map 3. Like in Table 15, similar land use districts are aggregated into generalized land use types. As industrial and commercial land uses were grouped together into two shared districts in 1989, a generalized commercial land use type is not available.

Also like in Table 15, it is important to note that Table 16 is based on the application of land use districts as they existed in 1989 and not actual land use within the subject lands at that time.

April 2015 | Page 23

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Table 16: 1989 Land Use Breakdown by Land Use District

Land Use District Area (ha) Percent Agriculture/Mixed Land Use 147,447.6 64.1% Urban Expansion (portion for an urban municipality) 1,482.0 0.6% Recreational (current LUB's ANC District portion) 15,698.3 6.8% Sub-Total Agriculture 164,627.9 71.5% Country Residential 41,297.8 17.9% Urban Expansion (portion for a hamlet) 758.4 0.3% Sub-Total Residential 42,056.2 18.3% Industrial/Commercial 1,103.8 0.5% Industrial/Commercial Reserve 2,544.8 1.1% Resource Extraction 18,444.4 8.0% Sub-Total Industrial 22,093.0 9.6% Recreational (current LUB's PC and PR District portions) 1,339.3 0.6% Sub-Total Parks and Services 1,339.3 0.6% Total Zoned Lands 230,116.5 100.0% Sources: Parkland County and AltaLIS parcel mapping

The following are key observations from Table 16. 1. Much fewer land use districts were available 25 years ago compared to the current LUB. 2. Nearly 72% of lands within Parkland County were zoned for agricultural purposes in 1989, of which the majority (64%) were subject to the Agricultural/Mixed Land Use District. 3. Over 18% of the County’s lands were subject to residential zoning, of which all but 0.3% were subject to the Country Residential District. 4. Total industrial lands amounted to 9.6% in 1989, of which the majority (8%) were subject to the Resource Extraction District while the balance were subject to the two shared industrial/commercial districts. 5. Less than 1% of the County’s land base was subject to zoning for parks and services.

Table 17 compares the total amount of lands by generalized land use type between the LUB as it existed in 1989 and as it exists in 2014. This allows for the observation in changes over the past 25 years. Table 17: 25-Year Change in Land Use District Breakdown

LUB in 1989 LUB in 2014 25-Year Change Land Use Type Area (ha) Percent Area (ha) Percent Area (ha) Percent Agriculture 164,627.9 71.5% 165,458.7 72.1% 830.7 0.5% Residential 42,056.2 18.3% 40,710.1 17.7% -1,346.1 -0.5% Commercial – – 102.7 0.0% 102.7 n/a Industrial 22,093.0 9.6% 20,678.5 9.0% -1,414.5 -0.6% Parks and Services 1,339.3 0.6% 2,606.5 1.1% 1,267.2 0.6% Total 230,116.5 100.0% 229,556.5 100.0% -560.0 0.0% Sources: Parkland County and AltaLIS parcel mapping

Page 24 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

The following are key observations from Table 17. 1. The 25-year changes among all generalized land use types were less than a percentage point. 2. The amount of lands subject to the Agricultural and Parks and Services zonings increased by 0.5% and 0.6% respectively. 3. Similarly, the amount of lands subject to the Residential and Industrial zonings decreased by 0.5% and 0.6% respectively. 4. A change in Commercial zoning cannot be determined as there were no exclusive commercial districts in 1989.

4.2 Land Supply Status

Table 18 presents a land supply status breakdown of those lands currently subject to the various conventional residential, commercial and industrial districts in the LUB. This breakdown is illustrated in Map 4. Those lands that are absorbed include zoned and subdivided land including vacant lots, as well as ghost subdivisions where lots are in place but infrastructure (e.g., roads) are not yet developed despite road right of way being dedicated. Absorbed also includes associated overhead lands. Overhead lands include zoned and subdivided land carrying environmental reserve, municipal reserve or public utility lot designations.

Those lands that are unabsorbed are also zoned but are either unsubdivided or large previously subdivided lots where there is a reasonable expectation that the lots could be further subdivided for intensified development under the provisions of the districts currently applied to the lots. Table 18: Status of Land Supply by Land Use Bylaw District

Absorbed Unabsorbed Total Land Use Bylaw District Gross ha Percent Gross ha Percent Gross ha Bareland Recreational Resort 44.2 19.2% 185.5 80.8% 229.7 Country Residential 16,549.4 42.7% 22,244.4 57.3% 38,793.8 Country Residential Estate 206.4 37.9% 337.6 62.1% 544.0 County Residential Restricted 86.1 44.5% 107.4 55.5% 193.5 Entwistle Urban Village 28.6 33.9% 55.8 66.1% 84.4 Lakeshore Residential 244.4 96.5% 8.9 3.5% 253.3 Manufactured Home Residential 64.3 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 64.3 Residential Row Housing 2.6 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 2.6 Rural Centre 143.3 27.5% 377.8 72.5% 521.1 Total Residential Districts 17,369.3 42.7% 23,317.4 57.3% 40,686.7 Highway Commercial 5.7 5.8% 92.1 94.2% 97.8 Local Commercial 4.0 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 4.0 Total Commercial Districts 9.7 9.5% 92.1 90.5% 101.8 Business Industrial 618.3 67.3% 300.0 32.7% 918.3 Industrial Reserve 36.7 3.3% 1,059.0 96.7% 1,095.7 Medium Industrial 416.4 93.6% 28.5 6.4% 444.9 Rural Industrial/Commercial 12.5 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 12.5 Total Industrial Districts 1,083.8 43.9% 1,387.4 56.1% 2,471.2 Total Districts 18,462.9 42.7% 24,796.9 57.3% 43,259.8 Sources: Parkland County and AltaLIS parcel mapping

April 2015 | Page 25

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

The following are key observations from Table 18. 1. Of the lands subject to residential districts, approximately 43% are absorbed while 57% are unabsorbed. 2. Lands subject to the Manufactured Home Residential and Residential Row Housing Districts are completely absorbed, while all but 3.5% of the lands subject to the Lakeshore Residential District are absorbed. 3. Approximately 57% of the Country Residential District, which is applied to the most lands, remains unabsorbed. 4. Of the lands subject to the remaining residential districts, the amounts that are unabsorbed range from 55.5% to 80.8%. 5. Of the lands subject to commercial districts, only 9.5% are absorbed while 90.5% are unabsorbed. 6. Lands subject to the Local Commercial District are completely absorbed while over 94% of the lands subject to the Highway Commercial District are unabsorbed. 7. Of the lands subject to industrial districts, approximately 44% are absorbed while 56% are unabsorbed. 8. Lands subject to the Rural Industrial/Commercial District are completely absorbed, while all but 6.4% of the lands subject to the Medium Industrial District are absorbed. 9. Nearly all lands subject to the Industrial Reserve District (almost 97%) are unabsorbed. 10. Just under one-third of all lands subject to the Business Industrial District are unabsorbed.

4.2.1 Residential, Commercial and Industrial Land Inventory

Parkland County’s residential, commercial and industrial land inventories are presented in Table 18. Overall, 57% of the County’s residential land inventory remains unabsorbed. Similarly, 56% of the County’s industrial land inventory remains unabsorbed. The County therefore has sufficient residential and industrial land inventory for beyond the medium-term. In contrast, over 90% of the County’s commercial lands remain unabsorbed, which is sufficient to accommodate the County’s needs in the very long-term.

4.2.2 Residential Land Inventory by Housing Type

Although Parkland County has sufficient residential land inventory to accommodate its needs beyond the medium-term, the extent of land inventory is not uniform among all of the County’s residential housing types. Though generally uniform among single detached housing types, the County has no remaining inventory to specifically accommodate manufactured homes within a manufactured home park environment (Parkland Village is built out) as well as row housing. It is recognized however that land use districts in Entwistle and the County’s other hamlets provide opportunities for row housing, as well as semi-detached/duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and low rise apartments. The County has sufficient land inventory within Entwistle and its other hamlets to accommodate long-term residential needs of all housing types.

4.3 Land Absorption

Table 19 summarizes the amount of lands absorbed from the subdivision plan registration process in five- year intervals between 1978 and 2012. This history is illustrated in Map 5. The total amount of lands absorbed prior to 1978 are provided as a baseline for the 35 years that follow. The total parcels, their combined area and their average area are provided for each interval. Municipal reserves and public utility lots are included within this analysis. Figure 7 graphically presents the total parcels registered in Parkland County in five-year intervals based on Table 19. A breakdown of Table 19 by year is included as Table 19A in Appendix A.

Page 26 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Table 19: Land Absorption through Plan Registration by Five-Year Interval

Total Total Average Period of Plan Registration Parcels Area (ha) Area (ha) pre-1978 6,214 12,631.7 2.0 1978-1982 3,665 6,723.5 1.8 1983-1987 204 766.6 3.8 1988-1992 298 1,504.0 5.0 1993-1997 498 2,602.1 5.2 1998-2002 824 2,804.7 3.4 2003-2007 1,300 2,692.6 2.1 2008-2012 1,279 4,883.5 3.8 Five-Year Interval Average 1,153 3,140 2.7 post-2012 89 480.4 5.4 Lands Within Registered Plans 14,371 35,088.9 2.4 Lands Outside Registered Plans 6,879 195,790.5 28.5 Total 21,250 230,879.4 10.9 Source: AltaLIS parcel mapping

Figure 7: Total Parcels Registered by Five-Year Interval, 1978-2012

Source: AltaLIS parcel mapping

April 2015 | Page 27

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

The following are key observations from Table 19 and Figure 7. 1. The average among five-year intervals is 1,153 parcels registered totaling 3,140 ha for an average of 2.7 ha per parcel registered. 2. The highest interval for land absorption was 1978 to 1982. At 3,665 registered parcels, the total amount of registered parcels increased by 59% over the 6,214 baseline parcels registered prior to 1978. 3. The economic downturn in the early 1980s contributed to a sharp decline in parcels registered followed by a slow recovery. 4. Over the last two five-year intervals, the total amount of parcels registered (1,300 and 1,279) has exceeded the overall five-year interval average of 1,153. 5. During the recovery period between 1983 and 2002 inclusive, the average parcel sizes significantly exceeded the average between 1978 and 1982 inclusive. This is likely due to the drop in lakeshore residential and country residential parcels while larger rural subdivisions, such as farmstead separations and first parcels out, continued at a reasonable rate. 6. Average parcels sizes in the last two five-year intervals (2.1 ha and 3.8 ha) are likely higher compared to the average between 1978 and 1982 inclusive (1.8 ha) due to limited lakeshore residential subdivision activity and increased subdivision activity in Acheson.

4.4 Full Build Out Analysis

Table 20 presents the estimated years to full build out of unabsorbed lands by land use district. For most land use districts, the estimated years to full build out are based on extrapolating their annual 1975 to 2012 consumption rates forward as constants until their remaining available lands are absorbed. Exceptions are used however for the Bareland Recreational Resort, Country Residential Estate, and Industrial Reserve districts, which are explained in their corresponding footnotes. Table 20: Estimated Years to Full Build Out by Land Use District

Past Consumption Available Full Build Out (1975 to 2012) Land Estimations Land Use Bylaw District Gross Area Gross Area/ as at 2014 Years To Year Of (ha) Year (ha) (gross ha) Bareland Recreational Resort8 52.0 5.2 185.5 36 2049 Country Residential 12,307.9 323.9 22,244.4 69 2082 Country Residential Estate9 208.6 7.6 337.6 45 2058 County Residential Restricted 101.2 2.7 107.4 40 2053 Entwistle Urban Village 16.5 0.4 55.8 129 2142 Lakeshore Residential 127.2 3.3 8.9 3 2016 Manufactured Home 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 2013 Residential Residential Row Housing 3.1 0.1 0.0 0 2013 Rural Centre 77.6 2.0 377.8 185 2198 Local Commercial 2.3 0.1 0.0 0 2013

8 The application of the Bareland Recreational Resort (BRR) District first began in 2011. As the BRR District was not applied between 1975 and 2010, it is flawed to generate a gross area per year value based on 38 years of history. For the purpose of the full build out analysis, an arbitrary gross area value of 5.2 ha per year has been assumed for lands subject to the BRR District. 9 The registration of parcels within the Country Residential Estate (CRE) District in significant numbers did not begin until 1992. As few current lots within the CRE District were registered prior to 1992, it is flawed to generate a gross area per year value based on 38 years of history. For the purpose of the full build out analysis, the gross area value of 7.6 ha per year has been assumed based on a 22-year history between 1992 and 2013 inclusive.

Page 28 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Past Consumption Available Full Build Out (1975 to 2012) Land Estimations Land Use Bylaw District Gross Area Gross Area/ as at 2014 Years To Year Of (ha) Year (ha) (gross ha) Highway Commercial 4.4 0.1 92.1 797 2810 Business Industrial 422.7 11.1 300.0 27 2040 Medium Industrial 411.7 10.8 28.5 3 2016 Industrial Reserve10 25.4 - 1,059.0 63 2076 Sources: Parkland County and AltaLIS parcel mapping

The following are key observations from Table 20. 1. Parkland County has sufficient lands zoned Bareland Recreational Resort, Country Residential Estate and Country Residential Restricted for the long-term at 36, 45 and 40 years respectively, while it has sufficient lands for conventional Country Residential for the longer term at nearly 70 years’ worth of land supply. 2. Within its hamlets, Parkland County has well over 100 years’ worth of land supply – 129 years within Entwistle and 185 years combined within its remaining hamlets. 3. There is less than five years of Lakeshore Residential land supply available while no remaining lands are available within the Manufactured Home Residential, Residential Row Housing and Local Commercial districts. 4. There is currently a significant oversupply of Highway Commercial land available at nearly 800 years’ worth based on past consumption rates. This is due to the advanced redistricting of nearly two full quarter sections at the northwest corner of Highways 16 and 44. The estimate of years to full build out of the Highway Commercial lands should be revisited if and when subdivision for these purposes occur. 5. Parkland County has 27 years’ worth of Business Industrial land supply based on past consumption since 1975. However, this amount of years’ worth of land supply is significantly less if factoring only the most recent land consumption trends from the past couple decades. Upon redistricting to Business Industrial, portions of the Industrial Reserve land bank should meet the County’s Business Industrial land requirement needs for beyond the medium-term. 6. The County has only 3 years of Medium Industrial land supply available based on past consumption since 1975. Upon redistricting to Medium Industrial, portions of the Industrial Reserve land bank should meet the County’s Medium Industrial land requirement needs for at least the medium-term. 7. Though the County has well over 1,500 years of Industrial Reserve land supply available based on past consumption rates, it is recognized that this district is largely intended to be a temporary industrial holding district prior to eventual redistricting to either Business Industrial or Medium Industrial within Acheson. It is therefore anticipated the County’s medium-term and short-term deficiencies in Business Industrial and Medium Industrial lands respectively will be accommodated through the redistricting of Industrial Reserve lands over time, particularly after the proposed new Acheson Industrial Area Structure Plan is approved by the Capital Region Board and Parkland County.

10 Parkland County introduced the Industrial Reserve District (IRD) in 2009, which essentially serves as a holding district prior to eventual rezoning to another industrial district such as Business Industrial (BI) or Medium Industrial (MI). It is therefore assumed that all lands zoned IRD will eventually be rezoned to a combination of BI and MI. For the purpose of this analysis, the annual land consumption assumptions for BI (11.1 gross ha) and MI (10.8 gross ha) will be accommodated by the current available IRD lands once the remaining available BI and MI lands are depleted by 2040 and 2016 respectively.

April 2015 | Page 29

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

5.0 Development and Economic Activity

5.1 Subdivision Application Activity

Table 21 presents the total amount of subdivision applications and proposed lots by application type for 2010 through 2013 inclusive. Application types include country residential, agricultural, industrial/commercial, lot line adjustments, bareland recreation resort and institutional/public. Table 21: Subdivision Application Activity, 2010 to 2013

Subdivision Application Type 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Average Country Residential 57 41 41 44 183 46 Agricultural 13 13 11 6 43 11 Industrial/Commercial 2 0 4 5 11 3 Lot Line Adjustment 1 0 4 7 11 3 Bareland Recreational Resort 2 1 3 1 Institutional/Public 2 1 1 4 1 Total Subdivision Applications 75 56 61 64 256 64 Total Proposed Lots 281 204 160 259 904 226 Source: Parkland County

The following are key observations from Table 21. 1. Over the past four years, most subdivision application activity has been for country residential at an average of 46 applications per year, of which Parkland County only exceeded in 2010. 2. The amount of agricultural subdivision applications averages to 11 applications per year between 2010 and 2013. 3. The County received an average of three industrial/commercial subdivisions per year over the past four years despite not receiving a single industrial/commercial subdivision application in 2011. 4. The average amount of proposed lots per year between 2010 and 2013 was 226, of which the County exceeded in 2010 and 2013.

5.2 Residential Lot Registration Activity

Table 22 presents the total amount of residential lots registered by residential land use district by year since 1975. Districts include Bareland Recreational Resort (BRR), Country Residential (CR), Country Residential Estate (CRE), Country Residential Restricted (CRR), Entwistle Urban Village (EUV), Lakeshore Residential (LSR), Rural Centre (RC) and Residential Row Housing (RRH).

Page 30 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Table 22: Residential Lot Registration by District, 1975-2013

Year of Residential Districts Total Registration BRR CR CRE CRR EUV LSR RC RRH Lots 1975 338 1 13 352 1976 754 43 2 799 1977 524 1 10 23 3 561 1978 877 6 2 45 11 941 1979 423 47 71 14 555 1980 795 2 21 818 1981 405 91 2 498 1982 183 5 32 220 1983 53 17 4 74 1984 7 1 6 2 16 1985 4 4 1986 2 9 1 12 1987 16 16 1988 3 3 1989 11 2 2 15 1990 22 1 8 2 33 1991 26 3 1 3 33 1992 19 38 2 9 68 1993 26 26 1994 26 3 3 32 1995 66 43 18 6 133 1996 33 1 3 37 1997 46 23 2 4 75 1998 93 31 1 1 126 1999 39 30 14 10 1 94 2000 40 37 1 78 2001 143 2 145 2002 60 34 2 1 2 99 2003 148 31 25 2 1 50 257 2004 166 5 1 172 2005 67 35 1 103 2006 223 1 3 227 2007 132 10 1 143 2008 112 4 3 2 121 2009 108 40 2 1 151 2010 65 65 130 2011 220 63 1 284 2012 68 7 75 2013 13 13 Total 220 6,199 438 50 166 317 99 50 7,539 Sources: Parkland County and AltaLIS parcel mapping

April 2015 | Page 31

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

The following are key observations from Table 22. 1. Parkland County experienced its highest Country Residential (CR) lot registration in 1975 through 1982. 2. Higher CR lot registration returned to the County between 2001 and 2009 inclusive. 3. Registration of Country Residential Estate (CRE) lots in significant numbers began in 1992 with the highest activity occurring in 2009 to 2010. No additional CRE lots have been registered in the three years since then. 4. The greatest Entwistle Urban Village (EUV) residential lot registration occurred over a five-year period between 1977 and 1981. Only 13 lots have been registered in the 32-year period since then. 5. The greatest amount of Lakeshore Residential (LSR) lot registration occurred between 1975 and 1980 inclusive. Since then, annual registration of LSR lots in the double-digits has only occurred four times. 6. Other than in 1978, 1979 and 1982, registration activity of Rural Centre (RC) lots (i.e., lots in hamlets other than Entwistle) is low.

5.3 Development Permit Activity

Table 23 presents the total amount of development permits by type for 2010 through 2013 inclusive. Development permit types include residential uses and non-residential uses. Non-residential uses includes commercial, industrial and institutional uses. Table 23: Overall Development Permit Activity, 2010 to 2013

Development Permit Type 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Average Total Residential Uses 771 730 704 771 2,976 744 Total Non-Residential Uses11 98 113 94 99 404 101 Total Development Permits 869 843 798 870 3,380 845 Source: Parkland County

The following are key observations from Table 23. 1. Parkland County has averaged 744 residential development permit approvals per year over the past four years. 2. Factoring in the 101 non-residential development permit approvals per year, the County overall has averaged 845 development permit approvals per year.

Table 24 disaggregates the total residential use development permits presented in Table 23 by residential use type for 2010 through 2013 inclusive. Five residential use types are excluded from Table 24 as no development permits were issued for any of them in the four-year period. These excluded residential use types are bed and breakfast homes, decks, design character, second residences and setback relaxations.

11 Non-residential includes commercial, industrial and institutional.

Page 32 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Table 24: Residential Development Permit Activity, 2010 to 2013

Residential Use Type 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Average Accessory Buildings and Uses 296 368 315 371 1,350 338 Demolitions 17 18 16 39 90 23 Duplex Dwellings 3 16 4 23 6 Dwelling Units on a Parcel 9 8 7 18 42 11 Garden Suites 7 6 8 6 27 7 Home Based Businesses 36 28 57 63 184 46 Manufactured Homes 15 4 17 13 49 12 Relocation of any Building/Structure 14 5 10 13 42 11 Residential Additions 40 34 29 27 130 33 Seacans 2 1 3 1 Secondary Suites 5 8 4 10 27 7 Single Detached Dwellings 200 159 175 159 693 173 Tree Clearing 1 1 2 1 Variances 28 34 26 15 103 26 Other (Fence) 61 2 4 7 74 19 DP Renewals 40 40 33 23 136 34 DP Amendments 1 1 0 Total Residential Uses 771 730 704 771 2,976 744 Source: Parkland County

The following are key observations from Table 24. 1. Nearly half of all residential development permits are for accessory buildings and uses. 2. Development permits were issued for 693 single detached dwellings over the past four years, which averages to 173 dwellings per year. 3. Development permits were issued for 23 duplex dwellings since 2010, of which the majority (i.e., 16) were issued in 2011. 4. The County has averaged 12 manufactured home development permits per year since 2010. 5. The County experienced a spike in development permits for dwelling units on a parcel in 2013 when it recorded 18. 6. The County issued development permits for 27 secondary suites and 27 garden suites between 2010 and 2013. 7. The amount of home based business development permits was 184 between 2010 and 2013. The amount of permits per year has been trending upward since 2011. 8. The amount of residential additions was 130 between 2010 and 2013. The amount of permits per year has been trending downward since 2010.

Table 25 disaggregates the total non-residential use development permits presented in Table 23 by non- residential use type for 2010 through 2013 inclusive. Three non-residential use types are excluded from Table 25 as no development permits were issued for either of them in the four-year period. These excluded non-residential use types are group homes (commercial), indoor participant recreation services (commercial) and public use (institutional).

April 2015 | Page 33

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Table 25: Non-Residential Development Permit Activity, 2010 to 2013

Non-Residential Use Type 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Average Accommodation & Convention Services 2 2 1 Agricultural Support Services 1 1 2 1 Animal Health Care Services 1 1 2 1 Antennas, Satellite Dishes & 2 6 3 4 15 4 Telecommunication Towers Apiary & Aquaculture 1 1 2 1 Automotive, Equipment and Vehicle 1 5 1 7 2 Services Convenience Retail Services 1 1 0 General Commercial Retail Services 21 20 9 28 78 20 Government Services 1 1 0 Horticultural Use 1 6 2 3 12 3 Indoor Eating Establishment 1 1 2 1 Industrial/Commercial Use 9 16 25 6 Kennel (Dog Breeding & Boarding) 3 3 1 Outdoor Participant Recreation Services 12 2 3 1 18 5 Personal & Health Care Services 1 1 0 Recreational Vehicle Storage 4 2 1 2 9 2 Recreational/Cultural 1 1 0 Show Homes 1 1 0 Tourist Campground 1 2 3 1 Total Commercial 50 46 35 54 185 46 Demolition 3 3 1 General Industrial 4 11 7 3 25 6 Manufacturing/Processing Industrial Storage & Warehousing 5 10 7 4 26 7 Natural Resource Extraction/Processing 5 5 12 8 30 8 Sign Regulations 1 3 7 5 16 4 Stripping, Filling, Grading 5 9 15 10 39 10 Tree Clearing 2 4 1 7 2 Utility Services (Minor/Major 2 1 1 1 5 1 Infrastructure) Waste Management Facility or Dry Waste 1 1 2 1 Landfill Total Industrial 25 46 50 32 153 38 Education Services 6 1 7 2 Religious Assembly 1 1 2 4 1 Total Institutional 7 2 2 11 3 Other (DP Amendments and Renewals) 16 21 7 11 55 14 Total Non-Residential Uses 98 113 94 99 404 101 Source: Parkland County

Page 34 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

The following are key observations from Table 25. 1. Parkland County averages nearly 20 commercial development permits per year for general commercial retail services and just over six per year for industrial/commercial uses. A total of 78 were issued for the former between 2010 and 2013 while 25 were issued for the latter during the same period. 2. The County processed 18 development permits for outdoor participant recreation services in 2010 but has averaged only two a year since. 3. Other regularly processed commercial development permits over the past four years include: antennas, satellite dishes and telecommunication towers (15); horticultural use (12); and recreational vehicle storage (9). 4. The County processed 25 industrial development permits for general industrial manufacturing/processing, 26 for industrial storage and warehousing, and 30 for natural resource extraction/processing between 2010 and 2013. Spikes in permits for the first two occurred in 2011 while a spike for natural resource extraction/processing occurred in 2012. 5. Other regularly processed industrial development permits over the past four years include stripping, filling, grading (39) and sign regulations (16). 6. The County has processed institutional development permits for seven educational services and four religious assemblies since 2010.

5.4 Building Permit Activity

Table 26 (inserted following page 36) presents the total amounts and values of building permits by type and sub-type for 2010 through 2013 inclusive. Residential building permit sub-types include single detached dwellings, singlewide mobile/modular homes, renovations/alterations/additions, accessory buildings/garages, multi-family dwellings and demolitions. Non-residential sub-types include industrial, commercial and institutional.

The following are key observations from Table 26. 1. Parkland County has issued between 542 and 624 residential building permits per year since 2010, with annual values ranging between $78 million and $92 million. 2. The amount of single detached building permits has been trending up since 2011. 3. The County’s total non-residential building permits has trended upward from 37 in 2010 to 63 in 2013 due to overall increasing amounts of industrial and commercial permits. 4. The total annual value on non-residential building permits has increased from $27 million in 2010 to $98 million in 2013. 5. Commercial building permits have consistently been responsible for the vast majority of annual non-residential building permit values over the four-year period.

5.5 Development and Economic Activities

Maps 6 through 10 illustrate development and economic activities in Parkland County. The activities are determined based on assessment codes assigned to parcels in 2012. Types of development and economic activities include agriculture (Map 6), residential (Map 7), commercial (Map 8), industrial (Map 9) and coal extraction (Map 10). Table 27 presents the total number of parcels subject to each activity, the total area of the parcels and the average area per parcel.

Note that determination of other extraction activities, such as sand and gravel extraction, is not possible due to limitations in Parkland County’s assessment coding system. Also note that a single parcel can be subject to two or more types of activities.

April 2015 | Page 35

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Table 27: Development and Economic Activity, 2012

Total Total Average Activity Type Parcels Area (ha) Area (ha) Agricultural 5,236 190,448.9 36.4 Residential 10,318 36,684.5 3.6 Commercial 226 3,483.8 15.4 Industrial 409 5,511.6 13.5 Coal Extraction 132 5,315.9 40.3 Sources: Parkland County and AltaLIS parcel mapping

The following are key observations from Table 27. 1. Over 10,300 parcels were subject to residential activities in 2012, while over 5,200 parcels were subject to agricultural activities. 2. The average size of an agricultural parcel is 36.4 ha, which is just over half of a quarter section. 3. The average size of a residential parcel is 3.6 ha. 4. The total parcels subject to: commercial activities is 226; industrial activities is 409; and coal extraction activities in 132. 5. The average sizes of these are 15.4 ha for commercial, 13.5 for industrial and 40.3 for coal extraction.

5.6 County Assessment Growth

As of 2013 the assessed values of all taxable properties in Parkland County had reached $8.4 billion, up from $3.7 billion in 2006 or by $4.7 billion over that 7 year period. The increase over that span was attributable to:  A gain in residential property values of $2.9 billion (from $2.3 billion in 2006 to $5.2 billion in 2013);  A gain in commercial/industrial property values of $862 million (from $352 million in 2006 to $1.2 billion in 2013);  A gain in linear (pipelines, etc.) property values of $873 million (from $809 million in 2006 to $1.7 billion in 2013);  A gain in machinery and equipment property values of $106 million (from $131 million in 2006 to $237 million in 2013); and  A slight decline in the value of assessed farmland of $1 million (from $45 million in 2006 to $44 million in 2013).

The two charts in Figure 8 on the following page present the historic growth in the assessed value of taxable properties in the County by type – residential, commercial and industrial, linear, farmland, and machinery and equipment.

Page 36 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Figure 8: Assessed Values of Taxable Properties by Type, 1991 to 2013

Source: Parkland County

April 2015 | Page 37

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

The following are key observations from Figure 8. 1. Most of the increase in the assessed value of taxable properties in the County occurred between 2006 and 2013. 2. The County experienced significant drops in the assessed value of taxable residential properties and machinery and equipment during the global financial crisis of 2007–08 but have both since rebounded, while the assessed value of taxable commercial and industrial properties was largely unaffected.

Figure 9 presents the distribution of assessed values of Parkland County’s tax assessment base in 2013.

Figure 9: Percent Distribution of Assessed Values of Properties by Type, 2013

Source: Parkland County

The following are key observations from Figure 9. 1. Residential properties accounted for the majority of Parkland County’s tax assessment base in 2013 at 62%, while linear properties accounted for 20% and commercial and industrial properties accounted for 14%. 2. Machinery and equipment accounted for 3% of the County’s tax assessment base in 2013, while farmland properties accounted for only 1% despite being the County’s dominant land use.

Page 38 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

5.7 Acheson Assessment Growth

Figure 10 presents the historic assessed value growth of commercial and industrial properties within the Acheson Industrial Area and the balance of Parkland County from 1991 to 2013. Figure 11 presents the historic value of machinery and equipment within the same two areas over the same time periods. Figure 10: Assessed Values of Commercial and Industrial Properties by Area, 1991 to 2013

Source: Parkland County

April 2015 | Page 39

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Figure 11: Assessed Values of Machinery and Equipment Properties by Area, 1991 to 2013

Source: Parkland County

The following are key observations from Figures 10 and 11. 1. The Acheson Industrial Area has played a major role in accounting for Parkland County’s assessment growth in the commercial/industrial and machinery/equipment categories. 2. Most of the growth in the assessed values in commercial and industrial properties within Parkland County since 2001 have occurred in Acheson. 3. Between 2001 and 2013, commercial and industrial property values for the County as a whole grew by $992 million from $222 million to $1.2 billion. Acheson accounted for $838 million of that gain while the rest of the County accounted for $154 million. 4. Most of the growth in the assessed values in machinery and equipment within Parkland County since 2001 have occurred outside of Acheson. 5. Between 2001 and 2013, machinery and equipment property values for the County as a whole grew by $134 million from $103 million to $237 million. Acheson accounted for $40 million of that gain while the rest of the County accounted for $94 million.

Page 40 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

5.8 Municipal Finance and Corporate Revenue and Expenditures

Table 28 presents Parkland County’s total revenues, expenditures and surpluses/deficits in 2006 and 2012. Revenues and expenditures are disaggregated by type, and changes among all categories across the six- year period are also presented. Table 28: Consolidated Revenues and Expenditures, 2006 and 2012

Change Revenue and Expenditure Category 2006 2012 06-12 Total revenues ($000s) $46,537 $85,840 $39,303 Net municipal taxes $20,929 $37,786 $16,857 Local improvement charges $778 $1,826 $1,048 User fees and sales of goods and services $9,161 $10,254 $1,093 Penalties on taxes $321 $622 $301 Investment income $7,941 $1,332 -$6,609 Federal and provincial transfers $2,462 $9,771 $7,309 Development charges and levies $0 $48 $48 Other revenues $4,945 $24,201 $19,256 Total expenditures ($000s) $37,036 $55,111 $18,075 Administration $4,472 $10,003 $5,531 Planning $1,744 $1,959 $215 Protection $6,809 $6,132 -$677 Engineering, road construction $10,804 $13,909 $3,105 Public works $6,046 $9,373 $3,327 Environmental $2,817 $5,607 $2,790 Recreation and parks $3,552 $6,712 $3,160 Agricultural $792 $1,416 $624 Surplus / deficit ($000s) $9,501 $30,729 $21,228 Accumulated surplus end of year $32,259 $383,354 $351,095 Source: Parkland County

Parkland County collected total revenues of $85.8 million in 2012 up by $39.3 million from a total of $46.5 million in 2006. Over that span major gains occurred in net municipal taxes (up $16.9 million from $20.9 million in 2006 to $37.8 million in 2012 mirroring the gain over that span in the property tax base). Other major revenue gains occurred in transfers from the federal and provincial governments (up $7.3 million) and from all other sources (up $19.3 million and mostly accounted for by contributed tangible capital assets). Over that span investment income fell from $7.9 million in 2006 to $1.3 million in 2012 (or by $6.6 million).

Parkland County’s expenses excluding capital items grew from $37.0 million in 2006 to $55.1 million in 2012 or by $18.1 million. Most of the increase was accounted for by gains in spending on administration (up $5.5 million), public works (up $3.3 million), recreation and parks (up $3.1 million), engineering and road construction (up $3.1 million) and environmental services (up $2.8 million).

The surplus of $9.5 million for 2006 increased to $30.7 million for 2012 and the accumulated surplus over that span had increased from $32.3 million to $383.4 million. The gain in the accumulated surplus of $351.1 million reflects the gain in the value of the County’s contributed tangible capital assets.

April 2015 | Page 41

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

The following are key observations from Table 28. 1. Parkland County collected total revenues of $85.8 million in 2012, up by $39.3 million from a total of $46.5 million in 2006. 2. Over that span, major gains occurred in net municipal taxes (up $16.9 million from $20.9 million in 2006 to $37.8 million in 2012, mirroring the gain over that span in the property tax base). 3. Other major revenue gains occurred in transfers from the federal and provincial governments (up $7.3 million) and from all other sources (up $19.3 million and mostly accounted for by contributed tangible capital assets). 4. Over that span, investment income fell from $7.9 million in 2006 to $1.3 million in 2012 (or by $6.6 million). 5. Parkland County’s expenses excluding capital items grew by $18.1 million from $37.0 million in 2006 to $55.1 million in 2012. 6. Most of the increase was accounted for by gains in spending on administration (up $5.5 million), public works (up $3.3 million), recreation and parks (up $3.1 million), engineering and road construction (up $3.1 million) and environmental services (up $2.8 million). 7. The surplus of $9.5 million for 2006 increased to $30.7 million for 2012 and the accumulated surplus over that span had increased from $32.3 million to $383.4 million. 8. The gain in the accumulated surplus of $351.1 million reflects the gain in the value of the County’s contributed tangible capital assets.

5.9 Acheson Land Values

Table 29 summarizes the land values in the Acheson Industrial Area by zone (overlay and land use district) between 2006 and 2013. Land values in millions of dollars, total areas in acres and land values per acre are presented. Figures 12 and 13 present the indexes and proportions of assessed land values by zone respectively.

Figure 12: Acheson Change in Indexed Assessed Land Values by Zone, 2006 and 2013

Source: Parkland County

Page 42 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Figure 13: Acheson Proportions of Assessed Land Values by Zone, 2013

Sources: Parkland County and AltaLIS parcel mapping

The following are key observations from Table 29 and Figures 12 and 13. 1. Between 2006 and 2013, the value of land in Acheson across all zones increased from an average of $61,580 per acre to an average of $241,754. 2. In index form, the increase across all zones was from 100 in 2006 to 393 in 2013. In other words, the average value per acre in 2013 was almost four times the average in 2006. 3. By zone, the largest index gain was in the Conservation District (from 100 to 1,476 or 15 times greater). 4. The biggest zones are the Business Industrial District (54% with a 2013 index of 377), followed by the Medium Industrial District (27% with a 2013 index of 322), and the Acheson Industrial Commercial Area Overlay (17% with a 2013 index of 775). 5. The average assessed value of an acre of land in 2013 was highest in the Medium Industrial District at $286,038, followed by $246,247 in the Business Industrial District, and $181,927 in the Acheson Industrial Commercial Area Overlay. 6. The lowest values were in the Country Residential District ($59,941) and Conservation District ($111,398).

April 2015 | Page 43

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

6.0 Jobs and Employment

6.1 Labour Market Activities by Place of Residence

The labour force source population – the non-institutionalized population 15 years of age and older – accounted for 80.9% of Parkland County’s population in 2011 thus matching the share at the provincial level (see Table 30). The share of this group participating in labour market activities – the labour force participation rate (including all those either employed or unemployed) – was 74.6%, slightly higher than that for Alberta. The unemployment rate in Parkland County at 3.3% was well below that of the province at 4.2%.

Employees (those working for an employer) accounted for 82.1% of the labour force in Parkland County compared to 87.0% across the province. The self-employed share in Parkland County (17.3%) exceeded the provincial share (11.7%) by almost one-half. Table 30: Labour Market Activities by Place of Residence in 2011

Labour Market Activities and Parkland Percent Percent Alberta Index Employment by Occupation6 County Share (%) Share (%) Total population 30,435 100.0 3,567,975 100.0 100 Labour force source population (15 24,625 80.9 2,888,735 81.0 100 years +) Labour force source population (15 24,625 100.0 2,888,735 100.0 100 years +) In the labour force 18,360 74.6 2,115,640 73.2 102 Employed 17,555 71.3 1,993,225 69.0 103 Unemployed 810 3.3 122,415 4.2 78 Not in the labour force 6,265 25.4 773,095 26.8 95 Participation rate 74.6 – 73.2 – – Employment rate 71.3 – 69.0 – – Unemployment rate 4.4 – 5.8 – – Total labour force aged 15 years and 18,355 100.0 2,115,640 100.0 100 over by class of worker Class of worker - not applicable 100 0.5 27,490 1.3 42 All classes of worker 18,255 99.5 2,088,150 98.7 101 Employee 15,075 82.1 1,841,365 87.0 94 Self-employed 3,180 17.3 246,785 11.7 149 Labour force by occupation 18,360 100.0 2,115,640 100.0 100 Occupation - not applicable 105 0.6 27,490 1.3 44 All occupations 18,255 100.0 2,088,150 100.0 100 0 Management occupations 2,870 15.7 248,520 11.9 132 1 Business, finance and 3,175 17.4 347,880 16.7 104 administration occupations 2 Natural and applied sciences and 1,095 6.0 168,725 8.1 74 related occupations 3 Health occupations 745 4.1 125,125 6.0 68 4 Occupations in education, law, 1,545 8.5 211,945 10.1 83 social, government services

Page 44 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Labour Market Activities and Parkland Percent Percent Alberta Index Employment by Occupation6 County Share (%) Share (%) 5 Occupations in art, culture, 260 1.4 45,140 2.2 66 recreation and sport 6 Sales and service occupations 2,980 16.3 438,865 21.0 78 7 Trades, transport and equipment 4,365 23.9 367,650 17.6 136 operators, related occupations 8 Natural resources, agriculture, 710 3.9 69,950 3.3 116 related production occupations 9 Occupations in manufacturing 510 2.8 64,345 3.1 91 and utilities Worked in 2010 17,745 100.0 2,025,020 100.0 100 Worked full-time in 2010 14,060 79.2 1,651,205 81.5 97 Worked part-time in 2010 3,685 20.8 373,815 18.5 112 Source: Statistics Canada

In 2011, a total of 18,255 residents of Parkland County had a job. In the next section of this report, it will be noted that employers provided a total of 9,220 jobs in Parkland County. Thus more than half of Parkland County’s employed residents must commute to nearby municipalities for their daily employment.

The mix of jobs held by residents of Parkland County by occupation (see Table 30) therefore reflects not only the industrial mix of jobs available in Parkland County but also the mix available in nearby municipalities. The index in the final column of Table 30 indicates that Parkland County residents employed as trades, transport and equipment operators and in related occupations (index 136), in management occupations (132) and in natural resources, agriculture and related occupations (116) are overrepresented while those in art, culture, recreation and sports occupations (66), health occupations (68) and natural and applied science and related occupations (74) are underrepresented.

Table 30 also reveals that the part-time worker share in Parkland County (20.8% of all workers in 2011) is slightly higher than the provincial share (18.5%).

The following are key observations from Table 30. 1. Parkland County is a major net exporter of people commuting to jobs in nearby municipalities on a daily basis. 2. The occupational mix of the jobs held by its residents reflects both its educational profile and the industrial mix of jobs available in Parkland County.

April 2015 | Page 45

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

6.2 Employment by Place of Work

Employment by place of work indicates where geographically employers provide jobs at various work sites. Data for 2011 indicate that employers in Parkland County provided 9,220 jobs at various sites throughout the municipality.

The distribution of jobs by industry reveals the extent to which any given community depends on certain industries over others for its economic well-being. Table 31 shows the distribution of jobs in Parkland County and Alberta in 2011. The index in the final column indicates which industries employ relatively more people in Parkland Country compared to the average Alberta community. The indices indicate that people working in utilities are found more than seven times more frequently (the index is 754) than they are elsewhere in Alberta. Construction (287), agriculture (228), wholesale trade (226), manufacturing (139) and mining (137) are all significantly overrepresented in Parkland County. Within manufacturing, non-metallic mineral products manufacturing (429), plastics and rubber products manufacturing (343), transportation equipment manufacturing (339), wood products manufacturing (309) and primary metals manufacturing (268) lead the way.

Significantly underrepresented in Parkland County on a place of work basis are all those industries with indices of less than 90 or so, most particularly information and cultural industries (15), retail trade (27), health care and social assistance (28) and finance and insurance (29). The very low indices in these sectors mean Parkland County residents must travel to nearby communities such as Edmonton, Stony Plain or Spruce Grove for these services. Table 31: Employment by Place of Work by Industry in 2011

Employed by Place of Work by Parkland Percent Percent Alberta Index Industry6 County Share (%) Share (%) Total employment by industry 9,220 100.0 1,707,390 100.0 100 11 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and 675 7.3 54,750 3.2 228 hunting 21 Mining, quarrying, oil & gas 735 8.0 99,685 5.8 137 extraction 22 Utilities 775 8.4 19,025 1.1 754 23 Construction 1,515 16.4 97,745 5.7 287 31-33 Manufacturing 825 8.9 110,200 6.5 139 311 Food 25 0.3 16,245 1.0 28 312 Beverage and tobacco product 0 0.0 1,780 0.1 0 313 Textile mills 0 0.0 155 0.0 0 314 Textile product mills 0 0.0 670 0.0 0 315 Clothing 0 0.0 855 0.1 0 316 Leather and allied product 0 0.0 165 0.0 0 321 Wood product 120 1.3 7,200 0.4 309 322 Paper 0 0.0 2,575 0.2 0 323 Printing and related support 0 0.0 5,725 0.3 0 activities 324 Petroleum and coal product 25 0.3 6,115 0.4 76 325 Chemical 40 0.4 7,380 0.4 100 326 Plastics and rubber products 100 1.1 5,405 0.3 343 327 Non-metallic mineral product 115 1.2 4,960 0.3 429

Page 46 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Employed by Place of Work by Parkland Percent Percent Alberta Index Industry6 County Share (%) Share (%) 331 Primary metal 50 0.5 3,460 0.2 268 332 Fabricated metal product 145 1.6 16,820 1.0 160 333 Machinery 80 0.9 13,505 0.8 110 334 Computer and electronic product 0 0.0 3,900 0.2 0 335 Electrical equipment, appliances 0 0.0 1,820 0.1 0 336 Transportation equipment 50 0.5 2,730 0.2 339 337 Furniture and related product 25 0.3 4,680 0.3 99 339 Miscellaneous 25 0.3 4,055 0.2 114 41 Wholesale trade 940 10.2 77,095 4.5 226 44-45 Retail trade 305 3.3 205,925 12.1 27 48-49 Transportation and warehousing 365 4.0 70,815 4.1 95 51 Information and cultural industries 25 0.3 30,750 1.8 15 52 Finance and insurance 100 1.1 64,445 3.8 29 53 Real estate and rental and leasing 150 1.6 33,755 2.0 82 54 Professional, scientific, technical 480 5.2 138,955 8.1 64 services 55 Management of companies, 0 0.0 2,335 0.1 0 enterprises 56 Administrative support, waste 255 2.8 46,120 2.7 102 management 61 Educational services 400 4.3 126,980 7.4 58 62 Health care and social assistance 280 3.0 187,215 11.0 28 71 Arts, entertainment and recreation 235 2.5 32,760 1.9 133 72 Accommodation and food services 340 3.7 112,830 6.6 56 81 Other services (except pub admin) 470 5.1 85,930 5.0 101 91 Public administration 360 3.9 110,065 6.4 61 Source: Statistics Canada

Table 32 shows for each of the major industries in Parkland County the levels of employment in 2001, 2006 and 2011 and the change for each five-year period and for the decade as a whole. Over the ten-year span, Parkland County’s total population grew by 3,390 while the number of jobs provided by employers grew by 3,540. In other words jobs by place of work grew by 150 more than the gain in population. Over that period, the activity rate – the number of jobs by place of work per 1,000 residents – grew from a very low 209 to a more respectable 301, a gain of 93, indicating that services required by the County’s population are increasingly being provided locally. By way of comparison, the activity rate across all of Alberta is 479, so Parkland County still has a long way to go before it matches the provincial level.

April 2015 | Page 47

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Table 32: Employment by Place of Work by Industry in 2001, 2006 and 2011 in Parkland County

Change Employed by Place of Work by Industry6 2001 2006 2011 01-06 06-11 01-11 Total population 27,220 29,335 30,610 2,115 1,275 3,390 Activity Rate (Jobs per 1,000 residents) 209 236 301 28 65 93 Total all industries 5,680 6,935 9,220 1,255 2,285 3,540 Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting 1,060 825 674 -235 -151 -386 Mining, oil and gas 590 740 734 150 -6 144 Utilities 645 320 774 -325 454 129 Construction 445 890 1,513 445 623 1,068 Manufacturing 550 960 824 410 -136 274 Wholesale trade 215 265 939 50 674 724 Retail trade 210 405 305 195 -100 95 Transportation, warehousing 225 290 365 65 75 140 Information, culture 20 30 25 10 -5 5 Finance, insurance 95 130 100 35 -30 5 Real estate, leasing 115 195 150 80 -45 35 Professional, scientific, technical services 255 295 479 40 184 224 Management services 0 10 0 10 -10 0 Administrative support, waste management 140 135 255 -5 120 115 Education 240 265 400 25 135 160 Health, social services 145 175 280 30 105 135 Arts, entertainment, recreation 165 270 235 105 -35 70 Accommodation, food 230 170 340 -60 170 110 Other services 270 325 469 55 144 199 Government 65 240 360 175 120 295 All other industries, excluding agriculture, 4,620 6,110 8,546 1,490 2,436 3,926 forestry, fishing, hunting Source: Statistics Canada

By industry, the major job gainers from 2001 to 2011 in Parkland County were construction (up 1,068), wholesale trade (up 724), government (up 295), manufacturing (up 274) and professional, scientific, technical and other related business services (up 224). These five industries collectively accounted for a gain of 2,585 new jobs, or for 73% of the total job gain in Parkland County by place of work.

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting – which in Parkland County would be almost entirely agriculture – shed 386 jobs between 2001 and 2011, the only industry to do so in the municipality over that span.

The following are key observations from Tables 31 and 32. 1. Parkland County’s economic base is heavily centred on industrial pursuits such as manufacturing, mining, wholesale trade and construction. 2. Jobs continued to grow in these industries in Parkland County between 2001 and 2011. 3. Parkland County’s representation in areas such as real estate, health care, etc. is very low meaning its residents must travel to nearby centres to obtain such services. Jobs in some of these industries grew in Parkland County from 2001 to 2011 (health, education) but not in others (retail trade, finance). 4. Parkland County’s activity rate improved significantly between 2001 and 2011 but it did so mainly due to gains in industrial jobs, not population serving jobs.

Page 48 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

6.3 Changes in Labour Force

Table 33 presents the changes in employment status among the labour force between 2001 and 2011. Table 33: Labour Force Employment Status, 2001–2011

Percent Changes Employment Status6 2001 2006 2011 01-06 06-11 01-11 Total population 15 years and over 20,870 23,150 24,625 10.9% 7.1% 18.0% In the labour force 15,680 17,565 18,360 12.0% 5.1% 17.1% Employed 15,155 16,935 17,555 11.7% 4.1% 15.8% Unemployed 525 635 810 21.0% 33.3% 54.3% Not in the labour force 5,190 5,580 6,265 7.5% 13.2% 20.7% Participation rate 75.1 75.9 74.6 1.1% -1.7% -0.7% Employment rate 72.6 73.2 71.3 0.8% -2.6% -1.8% Unemployment rate 3.3 3.6 4.4 9.1% 24.2% 33.3% Source: Statistics Canada 2001 and 2006 Census and 2011 National Household Survey

The amount of unemployed people in Parkland County increased by 54.3% between 2001 and 2011, while the amount of those that are employed increased by 15.8%. Meanwhile, the amount of those not in the labour force increased by 20.7%. These changes have resulted in small changes to the County’s participation and employment rates and an increase to its unemployment rate.

The occupation definitions of the labour market activities used by Statistics Canada have changed between 2001, 2006 and 2011. Table 34 presents a comparison among the three years that match for the most part.

Between 2001 and 2011, Parkland County has experienced increases in most comparable occupations. Those that experienced the greatest increases are: occupations in education, law and social, community and government services (up 118%); management occupations (up 61%); and natural and applied sciences and related occupations (up 47%). The others that experienced increases grew by between 4% and 20%.

In contrast, two sets of occupations experienced decreases between 2001 and 2011. The total amount of occupations unique to primary industries (e.g., natural resources, agriculture and related production) decreased by 55% from 1,565 in 2001 to 710 in 2011. A marginal 1% decline was experienced by occupations unique to processing, manufacturing and utilities.

6.4 Employment Growth versus Population Growth

Table 32 in Section 6.2 indicates that the population of Parkland County has grown by 12.5% from 27,220 in 2001 to 30,610 in 2011 – a net increase of 3,390 residents. Table 32 also indicates that the amount of jobs within the County has grown by 62.3% from 5,680 in 2001 to 9,220 in 2011 – a net increase of 3,540 jobs. In comparison, the County’s employment growth in terms of percentages is 4.8 times greater than that of its population growth (62.3% vs. 12.5%). However, this is largely due to the County having nearly five times the population as it did jobs in 2001 (27,220 vs. 5,680).

From an absolute growth perspective though, the total increase in jobs was 3,540 between 2001 and 2011, which was slightly higher than the 3,390 increase in population. This shows that the amount of jobs in Parkland County are slowly catching up to the amount of residents. This trend has resulted in the County’s population being only 3.3 times greater than its jobs in 2011.

April 2015 | Page 49

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

6.5 Employment and Job Growth by Industrial Type

As presented in Section 6.2, Parkland County’s economic base is heavily centred on industrial pursuits such as manufacturing, mining, wholesale trade and construction. In terms of change between 2001 and 2011, three of these four industries were among the top four industries that experienced the highest absolute growth in jobs. In particular, Table 32 in Section 6.2 reveals the NAICS Code industries that experienced the greatest absolute increases in jobs were construction (1,068), wholesale trade (724), government (295), manufacturing (274) and professional, scientific, technical services (224). Over the same period, there was a 386 decrease in jobs within the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting industry, while job growth was relatively stagnant among management services (0), finance and insurance (5), and information and culture (5).

6.6 Underemployed Population: Current Employment versus Education and Training

Table 30 in Section 6.1 reveals that the 18,355 members of Parkland County’s labour force (those residing in Parkland County who participate in labour market activities) are involved in the following major occupation groups from most to least:

1. Trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations (23.9%); 2. Business, finance and administration occupations (17.4%); 3. Sales and service occupations (16.3%); 4. Management occupations (15.7%); 5. Occupations in education, law and social and government services (8.5%); 6. Natural and applied sciences and related occupations (6.0%); 7. Health occupations (4.1%); 8. Natural resources, agriculture and related occupations (3.9%); 9. Occupations in manufacturing and utilities (2.8%); and 10. Occupations in art, culture, recreation and sport (1.4%).

These occupations reflect the industrial mix of jobs available in Parkland County and in nearby municipalities. Almost all of Parkland County’s labour force – 17,555 out of 18,355 – had jobs. Only 3.3% were unemployed.

6.7 Rural Commuting: Place of Work versus Place of Residence

Employers within Parkland County provided jobs to only 9,220 people in 2011. In other words, on a net basis, 8,335 of Parkland County’s employed residents worked outside of Parkland County. Parkland County was therefore a major “net exporter” on a daily basis of 8,335 people commuting to jobs nearby.

The major “net exporter” situation is not an unusual profile for a rural municipality within a major metropolitan area such as that of the Greater Edmonton Area. The Edmonton Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) comprises the City of Edmonton – the most populated municipality at the centre of the CMA and the municipality within which most major employers in the CMA locate their businesses – and a number of contiguous suburban and rural municipalities including Parkland County. In metropolitan areas, the core city serves to all residents of the suburban and rural municipalities within the CMA as the major supplier not only of jobs but also of entertainment and higher order health and education services.

Page 50 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

6.8 Jobs and Employment Subsidization

This situation can be viewed as one in which suburban and rural municipalities are subsidizing the core city by supplying workers for jobs in the core city. The core city (i.e., Edmonton) gains the property tax benefits inherent in having those jobs in the core city but does not need to provide the workers with municipal services because they live in other municipalities. However, the situation can also be viewed as one in which it would be better for all those working and living in the CMA if the suburban and rural municipalities did not exist. It would be better from the transit and public service viewpoints if all those working in the core city also lived there. Tensions between core cities and their suburban and rural municipal neighbours have existed across time so long as they have existed. A key point to remember is that in the absence of a core city providing jobs, entertainment, health care and education on a net basis to suburban and rural residents, the suburban and rural municipalities would not exist.

In the case of Parkland County where job growth significantly outpaced population growth in recent years, the degree of “subsidization” of the core city is in rapid decline. But with an activity rate of 301 in Parkland County compared to 479 for Alberta as a whole (refer to Table 32 and its associated discussion in Section 6.2), the County has a long way to go before reaching a non-subsidy status.

April 2015 | Page 51

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

7.0 Housing

Housing is vital to the creation of complete and inclusive communities. An appropriate range of housing forms is needed to meet the diverse needs of current and future residents of Parkland County. The following sections present an overview of the current supply of housing in Parkland County and examine indicators to identify the housing needs of current and future residents, including the senior population.

7.1 Dwelling Counts

Data from Statistics Canada shows that there were a total of 12,150 private dwellings in Parkland County in 2011 and 10,931 of these dwellings were permanently occupied. The total number of dwellings increased by 16.3% from 2001 to 2011. This increase was greater than that seen in Lamont County and Leduc County but less than that experienced in Strathcona County, Sturgeon County and the Province as a whole. The City of Spruce Grove and the Town of Stony Plain both saw a significantly higher increase in the number of private dwellings compared to Parkland County as a whole. In the period from 2001 to 2011, the total number of private dwellings in Spruce Grove increased by 79.4% while Stony Plain saw an increase of 80.6%. Table 35: Trends in the Total Number of Private Dwellings, 2001-2011

Total Private Dwellings Total Occupied Private Dwellings Municipality Change Change 2001 2006 2011 2001 2006 2011 2001-11 2001-11 Parkland County 10,444 11,064 12,150 16.3% 9,190 10,230 10,931 18.9% Spruce Grove 5,632 7,293 10,105 79.4% 5,460 7,068 9,619 76.2% Stony Plain 3,435 4,808 6,204 80.6% 3,330 4,613 5,820 74.8% Lamont County 1,869 1,676 1,817 -2.8% 1,545 1,514 1,581 2.3% Leduc County 4,758 4,915 5,494 15.5% 4,315 4,581 4,963 15.0% Strathcona 24,528 29,293 34,136 39.2% 23,890 28,647 33,129 38.7% County Sturgeon County 5,821 6,302 6,915 18.8% 5,560 6,037 6,546 17.7% Alberta 1,171,841 1,335,745 1,505,007 28.4% 1,104,100 1,253,192 1,390,275 25.9% Source: Statistics Canada 2001, 2006 and 2011 Census, Community Profiles Note: Total Private Dwellings refers to a set of living quarters designed for or converted for human habitation in which a person or group of persons reside or could reside. Occupied Private Dwellings refers to private dwellings in which a person or a group of persons are permanently residing.

The total number of occupied private dwellings in Parkland County also saw an increase from 2001 to 2011; increasing by 18.9%, which is greater than the increase experienced in Lamont, Leduc and Sturgeon Counties but less than that seen in Strathcona County and the Province as a whole. Spruce Grove and Stony Plain both saw an increase in the number of occupied private dwellings in the period from 2001 to 2011 (76.2% and 74.8% respectively). These growth rates were both greater than the increase experienced in Parkland County as a whole.

Page 52 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Figure 14: Growth in the Number of Private Occupied Dwellings; 2001-2011

Source: Statistics Canada 2001 and 2011 Census, Community Profiles

The assessment data from Parkland County shows that in 2013, there were 9,019 residential buildings on 8,867 parcels of land in the County. The number of residential buildings increased by 25.2% over a ten-year period, increasing from 7,202 residential dwellings in 2003. The number of residential buildings in a hamlet increased by 5.6% over the same period, increasing from 301 in 2003 to 318 in 2013. The data also shows that in 2003, there was about one residential building for each occupied parcel of residential land. This increased slightly in 2013 to 1.02 buildings for each occupied parcel of residential land.

The number of vacant parcels of land which are intended to be used for residential purposes decreased from 2003 to 2013. The overall number of vacant residential land parcels decreased by 23.5% while the number of vacant residential land in hamlets decreased by 15.6%. This data suggests that while there are still a number of vacant land parcels intended for residential purposes, this is decreasing at a steady rate, particularly the number of vacant parcels that are not in hamlets.

In addition to the residential land parcels, there are four land parcels owned by the Provincial government and used for non-market housing. There are also manufactured homes in manufactured home parks. The number of these manufactured homes has increased by 6.8% from 2003 to 2013, which is greater than the rate of increase seen in the number of residential buildings in a hamlet (5.6%) during the same time period. This suggests that the popularity of manufactured homes in Parkland County is increasing. It should be noted that this number represents the number of manufactured homes and not the land parcels as the land is rented from the manufactured home park.

April 2015 | Page 53

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Table 36: Trends in Residential Land Parcels, Buildings and Vacant Land Parcels, 2003-2013

Residential Outside Hamlets Residential Within Hamlets Social Housing

Manufactured Total

Year Homes in Land

Home Park Parcels

Occupied Land Buildings Vacant Land Occupied Land Buildings Vacant Land Provincial Land Buildings

2003 7,218 7,202 1,589 304 301 205 4 4 755 9,320 2004 7,387 7,383 1,580 303 297 203 4 4 769 9,477 2005 7,558 7,557 1,521 308 300 198 4 4 788 9,589 2006 7,797 7,851 1,502 311 300 193 4 4 773 9,807 2007 8,017 8,089 1,398 319 307 185 4 4 832 9,923 2008 8,164 8,221 1,368 320 310 188 4 4 884 10,044 2009 8,374 8,480 1,381 320 313 185 4 4 780 10,264 2010 8,524 8,658 1,346 323 318 181 4 4 795 10,378 2011 8,631 8,770 1,386 324 319 180 4 4 792 10,525 2012 8,764 8,905 1,336 323 317 177 4 4 797 10,604 2013 8,867 9,019 1,216 327 318 173 4 4 806 10,587 Change 22.8% 25.2% -23.5% 7.6% 5.6% -15.6% 0.0% 0.0% 6.8% 13.6% Source: Parkland County Assessment Summaries

The following are key findings from Table 35 and 36 and Figure 14. 1. The total number of private dwellings and private occupied dwellings in Parkland County are increasing; by 16.3% from 2001 to 2011. 2. The total number of private occupied dwellings saw a higher increase when compared to total dwellings, indicating an increase in the number of households in the County. 3. The total number of residential buildings is increasing while subsequently the number of vacant residential land is decreasing in Parkland County.

7.2 Dwelling Characteristics

7.2.1 Dwelling Types

The housing supply in Parkland County is largely made up of single detached dwellings. In 2011, 88.3% of the housing supply in Parkland County was made up of single detached dwellings compared to 63.5% in Alberta as a whole. While the proportion of single detached dwellings in Parkland County in 2011 decreased from the proportion in 2006, it still experienced an overall increase of 21.1% from 2001.

Page 54 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Table 37: Trends in Dwelling Types in Parkland County and Alberta, 2001-2011

Alberta Parkland County Dwelling Type % % 2001 2006 2011 2001 2006 2011 Change Change Single detached house 64.9% 63.3% 63.5% 23.2% 86.7% 96.1% 88.3% 21.1% Semi-detached house 4.3% 4.7% 5.2% 49.9% 0.1% 0.3% 0.5% 500.0% Row house 7.1% 7.0% 7.0% 25.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% -100.0% Apartment, detached duplex 2.0% 2.7% 2.4% 51.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% -50.0% Apartment, building that has 4.5% 4.4% 4.2% 17.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% five or more storeys Apartment, building that has 13.7% 14.7% 14.2% 30.7% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1% -66.7% fewer than five storeys Other single-attached 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% -32.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% -100.0% house Movable dwelling 3.3% 3.0% 3.4% 27.5% 12.3% 2.9% 10.8% 4.4% Source: Statistics Canada, 2001, 2006 and 2011 Census, Community Profiles and National Household Survey Profiles

A larger proportion of the housing supply in Parkland County is composed of single detached dwellings compared to the City of Spruce Grove and the Town of Stony Plain, which have a more diverse housing stock; likely a result of the large proportion of rural areas within Parkland County. Stony Plain has the smallest proportion of single detached dwellings, at 62.1% of all dwellings in 2011 compared to Spruce Grove (72.0%) and Parkland County (88.3%). Stony Plain also has the largest proportion of apartment buildings with fewer than five storeys (20.0% in 2011) compared to Spruce Grove and Parkland County as a whole. Figure 15: Dwelling Units by Type in Alberta, Parkland County, Stony Plain and Spruce Grove, 2011

Source: Statistics Canada 2011 Census and 2011 National Household Survey, Community Profiles

The following are key findings from Table 37 and Figure 15. 1. Most (88.3%) of the housing supply in Parkland County is made up of single detached dwellings. 2. The proportion of single detached dwellings in Parkland County is increasing while other dwelling types, other than semi-detached dwellings, are decreasing. 3. The communities of Stony Plain and Spruce Grove have a more diverse housing stock when compared to the County as a whole.

April 2015 | Page 55

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

7.2.2 Household Age

The need for housing is partly influenced by the age of households reflecting different housing needs throughout their life cycle. For example, young adults and seniors generally require smaller dwelling units while family-aged households generally require larger units to accommodate a growing family.

In 2011, the largest proportion of households in Parkland County was in the 45 to 54 age range (29.2%). While this trend is similar to what is seen in comparable municipalities, Parkland County had the largest proportion of these households compared to Lamont, Leduc, Sturgeon and Strathcona Counties. The second largest proportion of households in Parkland County were in the 55 to 64 age range (23.4%) while the smallest proportion were in the under 25 age range (1.7%) followed by the 75 and over age range (5.3%). This data suggests that more than half of households in Parkland County are older adults. This may partly explain the predominance of single detached homes in the County, as these households generally require larger homes as they may still have children living at home or may be caring for older relatives. In addition, older households generally have higher incomes and can afford larger homes. The larger proportion of older adult households may also suggest a need for housing options for seniors in the next ten to fifteen years. Figure 16: Proportion of Households by Age Range of the Primary Household Maintainer, 2011

Source: Statistics Canada 2011 Census and 2011 National Household Survey, Community Profiles

The following are key findings from Figure 16. 1. More than half of households in Parkland County are led by primary household maintainers in the 45 to 64 years age range. 2. Stony Plain and Spruce Grove had larger proportions of younger households compared to Parkland County as a whole. 3. The larger proportion of older adult households may suggest a need for housing options for seniors in the next ten to fifteen years.

7.2.3 Dwelling Condition

The largest proportion of dwellings (34.1%) in Parkland County was built between 1961 and 1980. This is similar to what is seen in comparable municipalities as well as the Province as a whole, although Parkland County has the largest proportion of such dwellings compared to Lamont, Leduc, Strathcona and Sturgeon Counties. Just over a fifth (22.9%) of dwellings in Parkland County were built in the last ten years with 10.3% being built between 2006 and 2011. Older dwellings tend to be less energy efficient, which may influence housing affordability. In addition, older dwellings tend to require more maintenance, which may be an issue for an aging population.

Page 56 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Figure 17: Proportion of Dwellings by Period of Construction, 2011

Source: Statistics Canada 2011 Census and 2011 National Household Survey, Community Profiles

In spite of their age, most dwellings in Parkland County (92.6%) required only regular maintenance or minor repairs in 2011. Dwellings requiring major repairs made up 7.4% of all dwellings in Parkland County in 2011. This was higher than the proportion of dwellings requiring major repairs in Strathcona and Sturgeon Counties but lower than the proportion in Lamont and Leduc Counties. Dwellings in Stony Plain and Spruce Grove were, in general, in better condition than the dwellings in Parkland County as a whole. Figure 18: Proportion of Dwellings by Dwelling Condition, 2011

Source: Statistics Canada 2011 Census and 2011 National Household Survey, Community Profiles

When compared to the Province as a whole, a larger proportion of dwellings in Parkland County require major repairs but this proportion has decreased by 6.9% from 2001 to 2011 while the proportion in Alberta as a whole has increased by 13.3% during the same time period.

April 2015 | Page 57

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Table 38: Trends in the Proportion of Dwellings by Dwelling Condition, 2001-2011

Alberta Parkland County Dwelling Condition % % 2001 2006 2011 2001 2006 2011 Change Change Only regular maintenance or minor 92.2% 93.3% 93.0% 27.0% 90.5% 93.2% 92.6% 21.7% repairs needed Major repairs needed 7.8% 6.7% 7.0% 13.3% 9.5% 6.8% 7.4% -6.9% Source: Statistics Canada, 2001, 2006 and 2011 Census, Community Profiles and National Household Survey Profiles

The following are key findings from Figures 17 and 18 and Table 38. 1. The largest proportion of dwellings in Parkland County was built between 1961 and 1980 and just over a fifth was built in the last ten years (2001 to 2011). 2. Most dwellings in Parkland County required only regular maintenance or minor repairs. 3. The proportion of dwellings requiring major repairs has been decreasing in the last ten years.

7.3 Housing Market Analysis

7.3.1 Current Housing Supply

Housing supply is measured by the available housing options for households within a community. An important aspect of assessing housing availability is to compare recent housing activity to housing demand characteristics and trends. This allows an examination of the extent to which housing supply matches housing demand and identifies any gaps in the current housing supply.

Homeownership Homeownership is the ideal form of housing for many households as it offers stability in day-to-day living. It is also viewed as the ideal form of personal investment as a mortgage is, in essence, a form of forced savings. Homeownership is also perceived as an effective way to build personal assets. In general, the higher the proportion of owner households in a community, the better that population tends to be housed in terms of quality of living environment, security of tenure and affordability.

Most dwellings in Parkland County are owned and this proportion is significantly larger than the proportion of owned dwellings in Alberta as a whole. In 2011, 95.2% of all occupied private dwellings in Parkland County were owned; increasing by 24.1% from 2001 to 2011. While Alberta had a smaller proportion of owned dwellings overall, this proportion saw a larger increase from 2001 to 2011; increasing by 31.5% compared to the increase seen in Parkland County of 24.1%.

When compared to other areas, Parkland County has the largest proportion of owned dwellings. In 2011, 95.2% of dwellings in Parkland County were owned compared to 89.5% in Lamont County, 86.2% in Leduc County, 90.4% in Strathcona County, and 87.8% in Sturgeon County.

The large proportion of owned dwellings in Parkland County may partly explain why most dwellings are in relatively good condition and need only regular maintenance or minor repairs. This data on housing tenure, as well as the data on dwelling types, also shows that the housing supply in Parkland County is not very diverse. This may become an issue as the population ages and more diverse housing options are required. The lack of diversity in the housing supply may also limit the ability of the County to attract new residents, particularly those who may require smaller dwelling units and rental housing options, such as young families and moderate income employees.

Page 58 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Figure 19: Trends in Housing Tenure in Parkland County and Alberta, 2001-2011

Source: Statistics Canada 2001, 2006 and 2011 Census, Community Profiles and 2011 National Household Survey, Community Profiles

The following are key findings from Figure 19. 1. Most dwellings in Parkland County are owned (95.2%) and the proportion of owned dwellings has increased from 2001 to 2011. 2. Parkland County has a large proportion of owned dwellings compared to the Province as a whole.

In 2013, Parkland County had the highest average house price for single detached homes at $756,017 compared to Leduc, Strathcona and Sturgeon Counties. In addition, Parkland County saw the highest increase in average house prices from 2009 to 2013; increasing by 41.4% compared to an increase of 9.3% in Sturgeon County and a decrease of 19.8% in Leduc County and 11.5% in Strathcona County. While average house prices in both Spruce Grove and Stony Plain increased (13.5% and 23.7% respectively), these increases were still significantly lower than the increase seen in Parkland County as a whole. The significant increase in average house prices for single detached homes in Parkland County may be partly due to the construction of high end homes. While this trend addresses some of the demand, it does not address the housing needs of younger families and first time home buyers. This suggests that while homeownership is the preferred housing tenure in Parkland County, increasing house prices for single detached homes and a very limited supply of other housing types may lead to an increasing need for rental housing options in the County for households for whom homeownership has become unaffordable.

April 2015 | Page 59

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Table 39: Trends in Average House Prices for Absorbed Single Detached Homes, 2009-2013

% Change Municipality 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 - 2013 Parkland County $534,598 $600,891 $717,933 $656,481 $756,017 41.4% Spruce Grove $397,553 $600,891 $440,537 $470,157 $451,072 13.5% Stony Plain $356,681 $374,321 $394,146 $420,039 $441,040 23.7% Leduc County $653,985 $456,611 $522,335 $503,671 $524,300 -19.8% Strathcona County $708,220 $601,874 $605,208 $607,709 $626,451 -11.5% Sturgeon County $580,411 $574,861 $571,464 $576,650 $634,202 9.3% Source: CMHC Housing Now: Edmonton CMA, January 2011, January 2012, December 2013 Note: House price for 2013 is for January - November 2013

The following are key findings from Table 39. 1. The average house price in Parkland County has seen the greatest increase in the last five years compared to Leduc County, Strathcona County and Sturgeon County. 1. Average house prices in Spruce Grove and Stony Plain have also increased in the last five years but the increase has been far less than that seen in Parkland County as a whole.

Rental Market Rental housing fulfills a number of roles in the housing market. For single individuals and non-family households, it can provide a flexible form of accommodation that supports an active and mobile lifestyle. It also provides an option for seniors who are facing challenges with the day-to-day upkeep of single detached homes. Rental housing is also, in general, more affordable compared to ownership housing. For these reasons, it is important that communities provide a sufficient amount of rental housing to meet the needs of current and future residents. It is also important that this supply of rental housing consist primarily of purpose-built rental housing to ensure the stability and security of the supply.

Rental market data was not readily available for Parkland County as a whole so data for Spruce Grove and Stony Plain are used to provide an overview of the private rental market in Parkland County.

Vacancy rates in Parkland County have decreased significantly in the last five years. Vacancy rates for all unit sizes in Spruce Grove decreased from 4.7% in 2009 to 1.0% in 2013 while the vacancy rate in Stony Plain decreased from 7.4% in 2009 to 1.3% in 2013. A healthy vacancy rate is generally considered at about 3.0%. This would indicate an adequate supply of rental housing to meet demand and provide a reasonable choice for residents. As the rate drops below 3.0%, it signals that the rental market is tightening and there would be limited options available to residents seeking rental housing. Considering that the vacancy rates in Spruce Grove and Stony Plain in 2013 are both significantly less than 3.0% suggests that there are very limited options in the private rental market in these municpalities.

Page 60 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Figure 20: Trends in Rental Vacancy, 2009-2013

Source: CMHC Rental Market Report: Edmonton CMA, Fall 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013

Table 40 shows three-bedroom units in Spruce Grove had the highest vacancy rate, at 3.3% in 2013 compared to 1.1% for one-bedroom units and 0.9% for two-bedroom units. This indicates that the supply of three-bedroom units in Spruce Grove is adequate to meet the demand while there is a need for a greater supply of one- and two-bedroom units in the area. Vacancy rates in 2013 in Stony Plain were consistent for all unit sizes but all were far less than the healthy vacancy rate of 3.0%. This suggests an overall need for additional rental housing options in Stony Plain.

April 2015 | Page 61

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Table 40: Trends in Private Rental Vacancy Rates by Unit Size, 2009-2013

Spruce Stony Edmonton Unit Size Year Grove Plain CMA 2009 2.0% 5.6% 4.5% 2010 2.4% 4.6% 4.1% 1 bedrm 2011 2.9% ** 3.5% 2012 2.3% 4.8% 2.0% 2013 1.1% 1.3% 1.6% 2009 5.9% 7.6% 4.7% 2010 3.9% 4.6% 4.2% 2 bedrm 2011 1.9% 7.8% 3.2% 2012 1.2% 4.0% 1.5% 2013 0.9% 1.2% 1.3% 2009 6.7% 9.1% 3.9% 2010 16.7% 12.2% 3.5% 3+ bedrm 2011 3.1% ** 3.2% 2012 0.0% 2.6% 1.5% 2013 3.3% 1.3% 0.8% 2009 4.7% 7.4% 4.4% 2010 3.9% 6.2% 4.1% Total 2011 2.4% 8.1% 3.3% 2012 1.5% 3.9% 1.7% 2013 1.0% 1.3% 1.4% Source: CMHC Rental Market Report: Edmonton CMA, Fall 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 ** data suppressed or not statistically reliable

The following are key findings from Table 40 and Figure 20. 1. Vacancy rates for all unit sizes in Spruce Grove and Stony Plain have decreased significantly since 2009. 2. One-bedroom units had the lowest vacancy rate in Spruce Grove in 2013 at less than 1.0% (0.9%). 3. Two-bedroom units had the lowest vacancy rate in Stony Plain at 1.2% in 2013. 4. Overall, vacancy rates for Spruce Grove and Stony Plain in 2013 suggest an inadequate supply to meet growing demand.

Average market rents in 2013 in both Spruce Grove and Stony Plain were higher than the average market rent for the Edmonton CMA as a whole. In addition, the average market rent in Spruce Grove increased by 14.1% in the last five years (from 2009 – 2013) while the average market rents increased by 12.4% and 12.5% in Stony Plain and Edmonton CMA respectively. The increasing average rents also indicate a tightening rental market and a need for additional supply of units.

Page 62 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Figure 21: Trends in Average Market Rents, 2009-2013

Source: CMHC Rental Market Report: Edmonton CMA, Fall 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013

Table 41 shows that average market rents for two-bedroom units in Spruce Grove and Stony Plain saw the highest increase in the last five years; increasing by 15.6% and 13.1% respectively. In contrast, average rents for two-bedroom units in the Edmonton CMA saw the smallest increase in the same time period; increasing by only 3.5%. This data suggests that while there is a need for additional rental units in all sizes in Spruce Grove and Stony Plain, there is a slightly greater need for two-bedroom rental units in these areas. This need for two-bedroom rental units may be partly due to the increasing average house prices in Parkland County, making homeownership less affordable for moderate income households. Table 41: Trends in Average Market Rents by Unit Size, 2009-2013

Unit Size Year Spruce Grove Stony Plain Edmonton CMA 2009 $856 $800 $842 2010 $856 $806 $844 2011 $869 $761 $857 1 bedrm 2012 $894 $808 $882 2013 $940 $854 $934 % Change 2009 - 2013 9.8% 6.8% 10.9% 2009 $1,007 $951 $1,105 2010 $1,019 $972 $1,146 2011 $1,022 $965 $1,037 2 bedrm 2012 $1,059 $1,024 $1,074 2013 $1,164 $1,076 $1,144 % Change 2009 - 2013 15.6% 13.1% 3.5%

April 2015 | Page 63

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Unit Size Year Spruce Grove Stony Plain Edmonton CMA 2009 $1,109 $1,105 $1,139 2010 $1,099 $1,146 $1,167 2011 $1,167 $1,060 $1,183 3+ bedrm 2012 $1,141 $1,107 $1,212 2013 $1,223 $1,216 $1,288 % Change 2009 - 2013 10.3% 10.0% 13.1% 2009 $964 $941 $936 2010 $972 $966 $943 2011 $987 $949 $958 Total 2012 $1,004 $996 $990 2013 $1,100 $1,058 $1,053 % Change 2009 - 2013 14.1% 12.4% 12.5% Source: CMHC Rental Market Report: Edmonton CMA, Fall 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 ** data suppressed or not statistically reliable

The following are key findings from Table 41 and Figure 21. 1. Average rents in 2013 in Spruce Grove and Stony Plain are higher than average rents in the Edmonton CMA. 2. The average rent in Spruce Grove increased by 14.1% from 2009 to 2013 while the average rent in Stony Plain increased by 12.4%. 3. Rents for two-bedroom units in Spruce Grove and Stony Plain saw the highest increase in the last five years; increasing by 15.6% in Spruce Grove and 13.1% in Stony Plain.

In 2013, there was a total of 963 purpose-built private rental units in Spruce Grove and 400 purpose-built private rental units in Stony Plain. These units include private row houses and apartments. Overall, the rental universe in Spruce Grove saw an increase of 12.6% from 2010 to 2013 while the rental universe in Stony Plain saw an overall decrease of 20.5% during the same time period. There was a decrease in the number of units in Stony Plain for all unit sizes but the largest decrease was seen in one-bedroom units; decreasing by 28.4%. The rental universe in Spruce Grove saw an increase in the supply of one- and two- bedroom units while the supply of three-bedroom units remained consistent. Table 42: Trends in Private Rental Market Universe, 2010-2013

Unit Size Year Spruce Grove Stony Plain Edmonton CMA 2010 252 109 27,847 2011 256 83 27,599 1 bedrm 2012 256 83 27,337 2013 278 78 27,234 % Change 2010 - 2013 10.3% -28.4% -2.2% 2010 564 302 26,439 2011 565 272 26,200 2 bedrm 2012 565 272 26,233 2013 646 243 27,139 % Change 2010 - 2013 14.5% -19.5% 2.6%

Page 64 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Unit Size Year Spruce Grove Stony Plain Edmonton CMA 2010 30 90 7,993 2011 30 78 7,832 3 bedrm 2012 30 78 7,843 2013 30 77 7,851 % Change 2010 - 2013 0.0% -14.4% -1.8% 2010 855 503 66,630 2011 860 435 65,873 Total 2012 860 435 65,510 2013 963 400 66,339 % Change 2009 - 2013 12.6% -20.5% -0.4% Source: CMHC Rental Market Report: Edmonton CMA, Fall 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 ** data suppressed or not statistically reliable

The following are key findings from Table 42. 1. The total number of purpose-built rental units in Spruce Grove increased by 12.6% from 2010 to 2013. 2. The total number of purpose-built rental units in Stony Plain decreased by 20.5% from 2010 to 2013 with a decrease seen in all unit sizes.

An environmental scan was undertaken as part of the work on the Regional Housing Plan: Sub-Regional Planning Framework. As presented in Table 43, this scan found that 565 households in the Parkland Sub Region (which includes Parkland County, Wabamun, Stony Plain and Spruce Grove) were served by non- market housing options; increasing by 74 households from the 2009 total. The majority of these households were senior households with 41% (227 households) being non-senior households.

The environmental scan also found that there are currently 551 non-market rental housing units in the Parkland Sub Region. According to the 2011 National Household Survey, there were a total of 3,175 rental dwellings in Stony Plain and Spruce Grove. Based on this, non-market rental housing units made up 17.4% of all rental housing units in this area. These non-market housing units are provided by management bodies (288 units), private sector housing providers (130 units), a municipality (6 units), a housing cooperative (90 units), and private non-profit housing providers (37 units). The only municipality that currently provides non- market housing is the Village of Wabamun. There are also 14 non-market ownership housing units provided by Habitat for Humanity to Spruce Grove and Stony Plain.

April 2015 | Page 65

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Table 43: Supply of Non-Market Housing, Parkland Sub Region

# of # on Waiting Provider Target Client Location Units List Affordable Housing Meridian Foundation Seniors 65+ 42 Stony Plain 13 Village of Wabamun 6 Wabamun not reported Low to moderate income Anderson Builders 103 Spruce Grove not reported households Strategic Group 27 Spruce Grove not reported Total 178 13 Cooperative Housing Grove Seniors Housing Low to moderate income 90 Spruce Grove not reported Cooperative households 55+ Total 90 Provincial Private Non-Profit Association for Supported Community Children/youth 6 Spruce Grove not reported Connections I Have a Chance Persons with mental health 23 Stony Plain not reported Support Services challenges Rehoboth Christian Persons with developmental Stony Plain = 2 8 not reported Ministries disabilities Spruce Grove = 6 Total 37 Rent Supplement Capital Region Housing Low to moderate income Spruce Grove = 36 54 19** Corporation households Stony Plain = 18 Total 54 19 Seniors Self Contained Stony Plain = 101 Meridian Foundation 135 Spruce Grove = 30 35 Wabamun = 4 Total 135 35 Supportive Living (Lodge) Meridian Foundation Seniors 65+ 57 Stony Plain 50 Total 57 50 Total Non Market Rental Housing 551 117 Ownership Low to moderate income Stony Plain = 8 Habitat for Humanity 14 not reported households Spruce Grove = 6 Total 14 Source: Regional Housing Plan - Sub-Regional Planning Framework Phase 1: Environmental Scan, Appendix C - Parkland Sub Regional Profile (undated draft received from the CRB in November 2013) ** Parkland County = 1, Spruce Grove = 14, Stony Plain = 4

Page 66 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

7.3.2 Recent Housing Development

The number of starts of single detached homes in Parkland County has increased by 22.7% from 2009 to 2013; increasing from 141 to 173. Conversely, there have not been any starts for row houses and apartments since 2009. This suggests that the composition of the housing supply in Parkland County remains the same and there is very little diversification. Spruce Grove and Stony Plain have seen greater increases in the number of housing starts for the different housing types since 2009, which may be expected considering that Spruce Grove and Stony Plain represent the more urbanized areas of Parkland County. Table 44: Trends in Housing Starts by Dwelling Type, 2009-2013

Type Municipality 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Parkland County 141 233 156 183 173 Spruce Grove 180 293 156 209 232 Stony Plain 93 116 83 113 74 Single Leduc County 63 118 189 265 108 Strathcona County 373 511 317 367 326 Sturgeon County 120 197 149 125 114 Parkland County 0 2 4 12 2 Spruce Grove 46 120 146 146 136 Stony Plain 4 16 20 64 34 Semi Leduc County 2 0 82 138 0 Strathcona County 114 98 74 112 108 Sturgeon County 2 0 0 0 0 Parkland County 0 0 0 0 0 Spruce Grove 8 16 28 106 98 Stony Plain 48 12 0 0 3 Row Leduc County 0 0 32 48 0 Strathcona County 31 70 59 74 55 Sturgeon County 0 0 0 0 0 Parkland County 0 0 0 0 0 Spruce Grove 0 99 103 92 143 Apartment Stony Plain 0 22 0 0 4 and Other Leduc County 0 0 207 0 0 Strathcona County 0 136 125 115 58 Sturgeon County 0 0 0 0 0 Parkland County 141 235 160 195 175 Spruce Grove 234 528 433 553 609 Stony Plain 145 166 103 177 115 Total Leduc County 65 118 510 451 108 Strathcona County 518 815 575 668 547 Sturgeon County 122 197 149 125 114 Source: CMHC Housing Now: Edmonton CMA, January 2010 – January 2013

In contrast to the trend seen for housing starts, Parkland County saw a decrease in the total number of housing completions from 2009 to 2013; decreasing by 15.1% from 225 in 2009 to 191 in 2013. This decrease is mainly due to the decrease in the number of completions of single detached homes; decreasing

April 2015 | Page 67

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

by 18.5% from 222 in 2009 to 181 in 2013. Spruce Grove saw an increase of 8.8% in the total number of completions from 2009 to 2013 while Stony Plain saw a decrease of 19.3% in the same time period. Similarly, Strathcona and Sturgeon both saw a decrease in the total number of housing completions while Leduc County saw an increase of 36.6%.

Table 45: Trends in Housing Completions by Dwelling Type, 2009-2013

Type Municipality 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Parkland County 222 171 199 177 181 Spruce Grove 181 283 222 173 188 Stony Plain 89 137 92 97 87 Single Leduc County 71 80 105 93 97 Strathcona County 297 477 411 383 306 Sturgeon County 170 142 184 160 102 Parkland County 0 0 2 8 10 Spruce Grove 84 96 122 130 132 Stony Plain 24 18 18 26 64 Semi Leduc County 0 2 0 2 0 Strathcona County 66 130 80 96 102 Sturgeon County 0 2 0 0 0 Parkland County 3 0 0 0 0 Spruce Grove 8 12 25 66 83 Stony Plain 47 16 28 4 16 Row Leduc County 0 0 0 0 0 Strathcona County 37 38 67 68 61 Sturgeon County 0 0 0 0 0 Parkland County 0 0 0 0 0 Spruce Grove 283 0 0 0 202 Apartment Stony Plain 47 0 141 0 0 and Other Leduc County 0 0 0 0 0 Strathcona County 310 0 75 266 69 Sturgeon County 0 0 0 0 0 Parkland County 225 171 201 185 191 Spruce Grove 556 391 369 369 605 Stony Plain 207 171 279 127 167 Total Leduc County 71 82 105 95 97 Strathcona County 710 645 633 813 538 Sturgeon County 170 144 184 160 102 Source: CMHC Housing Now: Edmonton CMA, January 2010 – January 2013

Page 68 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Table 46 demonstrates that the total number of residential building permits in Parkland County in 2013 has increased by 31.3% since 2005 although the annual number has decreased since a peak in 2007. The proportion of building permits for single detached homes has decreased significantly since 2005; decreasing from 71.5% of all residential building permits in 2005 to 28.2% in 2013. Building permits for multi-family dwellings remain very low, making up only 1.0% of all residential building permits in 2013. This data supports the findings in the previous sections of this report that the housing stock in Parkland County primarily of single detached dwellings and that there is no indication of increased diversity in housing types. Table 46: Trends in Residential Building Permits in Parkland County, 2005-2013

Type 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2011 2012 2013 Single Detached 336 288 389 214 195 155 166 174 Singlewide Mobile/Modulars 32 43 64 70 36 27 44 36 Renos/Alterations/Additions 93 133 155 167 116 169 190 176 Accessory 9 256 345 306 289 172 161 202 Buildings/Garages Multi-Family 0 6 3 0 0 2 8 6 Demolition 0 5 11 18 14 17 12 23 Total Residential Permits 470 731 967 775 650 542 581 617 Type 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2011 2012 2013 Single Detached 71.5% 39.4% 40.2% 27.6% 30.0% 28.6% 28.6% 28.2% Singlewide Mobile/Modulars 6.8% 5.9% 6.6% 9.0% 5.5% 5.0% 7.6% 5.8% Renos/Alterations/Additions 19.8% 18.2% 16.0% 21.5% 17.8% 31.2% 32.7% 28.5% Accessory 1.9% 35.0% 35.7% 39.5% 44.5% 31.7% 27.7% 32.7% Buildings/Garages Multi-Family 0.0% 0.8% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 1.4% 1.0% Demolition 0.0% 0.7% 1.1% 2.3% 2.2% 3.1% 2.1% 3.7% Source: Parkland County YTD Building Permit Data, Parkland County Note: No data available for December 2010 YTD

Development permit data from Parkland County shows that the total number of development permits increase by 59.4% from 2009 to 2013 while the total number of residential development permits saw an increase of 69.7% during the same time period. The number of development permits for single detached homes saw an even greater increase, increasing by 70.7%. The number of residential permits as a proportion of all development permits has also increased; increasing from 83.6% of all development permits in 2009 to 89.0% in 2013. The number of development permits for single detached homes as a proportion of all residential development permits decreased from 24.9% in 2012 to 21.1% in 2013. This trend is similar to that seen for building permits as well as housing completions data where the number of all residential development permits has increased while the proportion of these permits for single detached homes has decreased.

April 2015 | Page 69

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Table 47: Trends in Development Permits in Parkland County, 2009-2013

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Change Development 2009- Permit Type No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent 2013 Total 439 83.6% 771 88.7% 730 86.6% 704 88.2% 745 89.0% 69.7% Residential Single 92 21.0% 200 25.9% 159 21.8% 175 24.9% 157 21.1% 70.7% Detached Total Development 525 869 843 798 837 59.4% Permits

Source: Parkland County Development Permit Data, Parkland County

The following are key findings from Tables 44 through 47. 1. The total number of housing starts in Parkland County has increased in the last five years but the composition of the housing market remains primarily single detached homes. 2. The total number of housing completions in Parkland County has decreased in the last five years, mainly due to a decrease in the number of completions for single detached homes. 3. The total number of residential building permits in Parkland County has increased by 31.3% from 2005 to 2013 but the proportion of permits for single detached homes has decreased. 4. The total number of residential development permits in Parkland County has increased by 69.7% from 2009 to 2013 while the number of development permits for single detached homes has seen an even greater increase; increasing by 70.7%.

7.4 Housing Scan Summary

The number of dwelling units in Parkland County has experienced an overall increase since 2001. Most of these units are owned and a significant proportion is made up of single detached homes. The more urbanized areas of Parkland County, the City of Spruce Grove and the Town of Stony Plain, have a slightly more diversified housing supply although the large proportion is still made up of single detached homes. The average house price for single detached homes in Parkland County has increased considerably in the last five years.

The number of purpose-built private rental units in Spruce Grove has increased in the last five years while the number of units in Stony Plain has decreased. Vacancy rates for both areas have also decreased while average market rents have increased, indicating a tightening of the private rental market.

Municipal data on building permits and development permits indicate that a large proportion of the development that is currently occurring in Parkland County is residential and most of this is single detached homes. While the demand for single detached homes continues, demographic and economic trends indicate the need for a wider range of housing options, including smaller units, rental housing and housing for seniors, to be able to meet the shifting needs of Parkland County residents as well as to continue to attract future residents to the area. Additionally, the supply of vacant residential land is decreasing at a steady rate, indicating a need to consider other forms of dwelling units that use the available residential land supply in a more efficient manner.

Page 70 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

8.0 Parks and Recreation

8.1 Community Associations

Parkland County is home to 26 community associations. To inform its CSDP, the County sought current and historical information from the associations such as: number of years in operation, location, membership profiles, number of buildings, associated facilities, and land ownership. A questionnaire instrument was prepared to gather the desired information, which was circulated to community association representatives by Parkland County. A copy of the questionnaire instrument is included in Appendix B.

Table 48 lists the 26 community associations within Parkland County and their locations. For those that responded to the questionnaire, the year each was founded is provided. Of the 26 associations, 19 responded to the questionnaire. Table 48: Community Associations and Responses to Survey

Facility Response Founded Location (Address) Blueberry Community League  1959 53109 Range Road 15 Bright Bank Community League  1959 21023 Highway 627 Carvel Ukrainian Cultural Society  1928 52511 Highway 770 Clymont Community League  1963 #1, 51432 Highway 60 Duffield Community Hall Association  1949 #2, First Street Entwistle Community League  1942 5013 - 49 Avenue Fallis Community Association  Unknown 53303 Range Road 52 Garden Valley Community Centre  Unknown 52002 Range Road 274 Golden Spike Community Centre  1960 51302 Range Road 275 Graminia Community League & Social Society  1960 51101 Range Road 270 Hansen's Corner Community Society  1933 51216 Highway 770 Holborn Community Hall Association  Unknown 51132 Range Road 13 Hycrest Place Community Association  Unknown 53417 Range Road 14 Jackpine Corner Hall  1940s 53004 Highway 759 Keephills Community Association  1922 #15A, 51515 Range Road 32A Magnolia Community Club (1978)  1922 6504 Township Road 534A Manly Goodwill Community Association  1957 2322 Highway 16 Moon Lake Hoot Owl Community League  Unknown 7302 Township Road 520 Muir Lake Community League  1930s or 40s 53424 Highway 779 Parkland Village Community Centre  Unknown 53222 Range Road 272 Rosenthal Community Association  1973 & 2011 RR. 13 and Township Rd. 524 Sand Hills Community League  1980 52032 Range Road 270 Smithfield Community Hall Association  1940s 53211 Range Road 34 Tomahawk & District Sports Agra Society  Unknown 51122 Highway 759 Westland Park Community League  1986 #33, 53304 Range Road 32 Woodbend Community Association  1986 26002 Township Road 514 Source: Parkland County Community Scan and Analysis Community Association Questionnaire

April 2015 | Page 71

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

The following are key findings from Table 48. 1. Three community associations were founded in the 1920s – Carvel Ukrainian, Keephills and Magnolia. 2. Six community associations were founded in the 1930s or 1940s. 3. The highest activity of community association formations within the shortest period of time occurred between 1957 and 1963 inclusive when six were established over seven years. 4. Since 1963, only four more community associations were formed – Rosenthal originally in 1973 (and reformed in 2011 after a hiatus), Sand Hills in 1980 and both Westland and Woodbend in 1986. 5. The original founding dates of seven community associations are unknown due to non-responses to the questionnaire.

8.1.1 Number of Memberships

Figure 22 illustrates the total number of memberships by community association of those that responded to the questionnaire. It should be noted that the number of memberships is not indicative of the number of individual members in each association as the types of memberships issued vary by association. For example, some associations only issue family memberships while others only issue individual memberships. Some associations provide choice in their membership packages, offering individual and family memberships. Figure 22: Number of Memberships by Community Association

Source: Parkland County Community Scan and Analysis Community Association Questionnaire

The following are key findings from Figure 22. 1. The total number of memberships by community association varies from as few as 6 to as many as 300. 2. Those community associations with membership counts of 50 or more, from largest to smallest, are Clymont (300), Muir Lake (160), Woodbend (150), Blueberry (120), Magnolia (100), Graminia (55) and Westland Park (50).

Page 72 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

8.1.2 Membership Types and Trends

Figure 23 presents the types of memberships offered by the 19 community associations that responded to the questionnaire, while Figure 24 presents their membership trends.

Figure 23: Types of Memberships Figure 24: Memberships Trends, Last Five Years

Source: Parkland County Community Scan and Analysis Community Association Questionnaire

The following are key findings from Figures 23 and 24. 1. Membership offerings by community association fall into three categories: family, individual, and family and individual. 2. Of the responding associations, six only issue individual memberships (32%), while nine only issue family memberships (42%). 3. The remaining four associations offer both family and individual memberships (21%). 4. The majority of community associations (12) has experienced a decrease in total membership numbers over the last five years (63%). 5. Of the remaining associations, four have experienced an increase (21%), while the membership numbers have remained relatively stable for three (16%).

April 2015 | Page 73

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

8.1.3 Buildings and Facilities

The majority of community associations maintain more than just a community hall. They also offer a variety of additional facilities, which can include ball diamonds, playgrounds and rinks among numerous others. Table 49 lists the number of buildings and the additional facilities maintained by the 19 community associations that responded to the questionnaire. Table 49: Community Association Buildings and Facilities

Community Association Buildings Additional Facilities Blueberry Community League 1 Two ball diamonds, playground facilities Bright Bank Community League 1 Ball diamond, rink, playground, gazebo Carvel Ukrainian Cultural Society 1 Grassed area Ball diamonds, rink, playground, gazebo, Clymont Community League 4 unserviced camping Duffield Community Hall Association 1 None Entwistle Community League 1 None Golden Spike Community Centre 1 Ball diamond, horseshoe pit Graminia Community League & Social Riding arena, cross country course, playground, 1 Society ball diamond Hansen's Corner Community Society 3 Swing set, fire pit Jackpine Corner Hall 1 Yes (details not provided) Keephills Community Association 1 Rink, three ball diamonds, playground Magnolia Community Club (1978) 1 Ball diamond Manly Goodwill Community Association 1 Muir Lake Community League 1 Playground, two ball diamonds, batting cage Rosenthal Community Association 2 Sports field Sand Hills Community League 3 Three ball diamonds Smithfield Community Hall Association 3 Gymkhana grounds Westland Park Community League 1 Rink Woodbend Community Association 2 Ball diamond, soccer field, playground Source: Parkland County Community Scan and Analysis Community Association Questionnaire

The following are key findings from Table 49. 1. The majority of the responding community associations (13) have only one building. 2. Of the remaining associations, two have two buildings, three have three buildings, and the Clymont Community League has four buildings. 3. The majority of the responding community associations (16) have additional facilities. 4. Ten associations have one or more ball diamonds, while six have playgrounds and four have rinks.

Page 74 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

8.1.4 Land Ownership

Figure 25 presents the land ownership status of the 19 community associations that responded to the questionnaire. Figure 25: Community Association Land Ownership Status

Source: Parkland County Community Scan and Analysis Community Association Questionnaire

The following are key findings from Figure 25. 1. Of the responding community associations, roughly half of them (10) own their land (53%). 2. One association shares ownership of their land with another entity (5%). 3. Four associations lease land (21%), while two own some land and lease other land (11%). 4. One association indicated their land is part of a condominium (5%). 5. One association did not disclose its land ownership status.

April 2015 | Page 75

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

8.2 Reserve Parcels

Map 11 presents the distribution of reserve parcels throughout Parkland County. Maps 11-1 through 11-38 in Appendix C present the same by township in greater detail. Types of reserve include Environmental Reserve (lots carrying the ‘ER’ designation), Municipal Reserve (lots carrying the ‘MR’ or ‘MSR’ designations) and Reserve (lots carrying the antiquated ‘R’ and ‘P’ designations). Table 50 presents the total number and total land area of reserve parcels by type. Table 50: Breakdown of Reserve Parcels

Lot Total Parcels Total Average Reserve Type Designation No. Percent Area (ha) Area (ha) Environmental Reserve ER 183 12.4% 374.8 2.0 Municipal Reserve MR 307 20.8% 220.6 0.7 Municipal School Reserve MSR 7 0.5% 40.7 5.8 Park P 31 2.1% 39.1 1.3 Reserve R 948 64.2% 2,601.6 2.7 Total Reserves – 1,476 100.0% 3,276.9 2.2 Source: AltaLIS parcel mapping

The following are key observations from Table 50. 1. Parkland County has nearly 1,500 parcels designated as reserve parcels, which amount to nearly 3,300 ha of land. 2. The majority (64.2%) are generic Reserve parcels (parcels that pre-date the current ‘ER’, ‘MR’, ‘MSR’ and ‘SR’ lot designation format). 3. Of the remaining parcels, 20.8% are Municipal Reserve parcels and 12.4% are Environmental Reserve parcels. 4. The average size of the 183 Environmental Reserve parcels is 2.0 ha, while the average size of the 307 Municipal Reserve parcels is 0.7 ha. 5. The average size of the seven Municipal School Reserve parcels is 5.8 ha. 6. The average size of the 31 Park parcels is 1.3 ha, while the average size of the 948 generic Reserve parcels is 2.7 ha.

8.2.1 Comparison of Reserve Parcels by County

Table 51 on the following page compares the number and area of municipal reserve (MR) parcels by purpose among four counties in the Capital Region – Leduc County, Parkland County, Strathcona County’s Rural Service Area12 and Sturgeon County. The first two categories are the two most common purposes of MR parcels in the four counties – parcels used solely for road access prevention13 and parcels used solely for park space. The third category, “Partial and Other Purposes”, is an aggregation of three less common categories – parcels used solely for linear walkways, parcels used solely for other linear purposes and environmental reserve-related parcels, as well as any partial combination of the five total categories.

12 Strathcona County’s Rural Service Area excludes the Sherwood Park Urban Service Area. 13 MR parcels solely used for road access prevention purposes are narrow linear parcels between private parcels and public roadways.

Page 76 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Table 51: Registered Municipal Reserve Parcels by Purpose

Solely Road Access Prevention Solely Park Space Partial and Other Purposes County Area Avg. Area Avg. Area Avg. Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) Leduc 32 29.6% 5.58 0.17 42 38.9% 144.03 3.43 34 31.5% 40.56 1.19 Parkland 203 66.1% 18.75 0.09 57 18.6% 131.56 2.31 47 15.3% 60.39 1.28 Strathcona 70 33.2% 12.33 0.18 83 39.3% 365.31 4.40 58 27.5% 85.69 1.48 Sturgeon 49 42.6% 7.49 0.15 40 34.8% 103.49 2.59 26 22.6% 48.64 1.87 Total 354 47.8% 44.15 0.12 222 30.0% 744.40 3.35 165 22.3% 235.28 1.43

Parkland County’s total proportion of MR parcels solely for road access prevention purposes is 66% compared to the range of 30-43% in the other three counties. Conversely, only 19% of Parkland County’s MR parcels are solely for park space while the others range between 35-40%.

From these observations, it is evident that Parkland County’s greater use of MR parcels for road access prevention purposes is a contributing factor to its average size of park space being the lowest among the four counties at 2.3 ha. If the practice of road access prevention is abandoned, Parkland County’s future MR could be reallocated to create larger and more meaningful park space moving forward.

To investigate Parkland County’s high frequency of MR parcels solely for the purpose of road access prevention, Figure 26 below illustrates the annual frequency of registering these parcels among the same four counties between 1975 and 2013.

Figure 26: MR Parcels Solely for Road Access Prevention by County, 1975-2013

Source: AltaLIS parcel mapping

The above Figure 26 shows that the other three counties effectively abandoned using MR for this purpose in the mid-1980s except for a few minor relapses between 1998 and 2009 inclusive. In contrast, it also shows that Parkland County has continued the practice using MR for this purpose throughout the timeframe with exception of between 1983 and 1989 inclusive.

April 2015 | Page 77

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

9.0 Agriculture

9.1 Farm Area by Land Use

Figures 27 and 28 present the total number of farms and farm area by land use as defined by Statistics Canada for the Parkland County census consolidated subdivision (CCS)14 from the 2011 federal census. Figure 27: Total Number of Farms by Land Use, 2011

Source: Statistics Canada 2011 Census of Agriculture

Figure 28: Total Area of Farms by Land Use in Hectares, 2011

Source: Statistics Canada 2011 Census of Agriculture

14 A census consolidated subdivision (CCS) is a Statistics Canada geographic unit between census division and census subdivision (i.e., municipalities or municipal-equivalents). It is a combination of adjacent census subdivisions typically consisting of larger, more rural census subdivisions and smaller, more densely populated census subdivisions. The Parkland County CCS includes: Parkland County; the City of Spruce Grove; the Town of Stony Plain; the villages of Spring Lake and Wabamun; the summer villages of Betula Beach, Kapasiwin, Lakeview, Point Alison and Seba Beach; and the Wabamun 133A/B and Stony Plain 135 Indian reserves.

Page 78 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

The following are key observations from Figures 27 and 28. 1. With the exception of 58 farms that are summerfallow land, Parkland County’s total number of farms by land use type is fairly well distributed, ranging from 582 farms that are land in crops to 337 farms that are Christmas trees, woodlands or wetlands. 2. In terms of land use in hectares however, land in crops are the dominant land use with over 73,000 ha, followed by tame or seeded pasture and natural land for pasture at just over and just under 35,000 ha respectively.

Table 52 presents the total number of farms and farm area by land use for the Parkland County CCS from the last three federal censuses with a ten-year percent change comparison between 2001 and 2011. Comparison of totals is possible for four land use types across all three censuses – land in crops, summerfallow land, tame or seeded pasture, and natural land for pasture. Comparison is not possible for the remaining land use types due to changes in methodology over the course of the three censuses. The data within the 2011 columns were previously presented graphically within Figures 27 and 28 above.

Table 52: Farm Area by Land Use, 2001-2011

Change, 2001 Census 2006 Census 2011 Census 2001-2011 Farm Land Use No. of Area No. of Area No. of Area No. of Area Farms (ha) Farms (ha) Farms (ha) Farms (ha) Land in crops15 849 92,159 723 83,460 582 73,051 -31.4% -20.7% Summerfallow land 146 4,670 96 3,830 58 1,473 -60.3% -68.5% Tame or seeded 538 39,523 477 37,101 404 35,367 -24.9% -10.5% pasture Natural land for 668 38,487 543 35,967 433 34,983 -35.2% -9.1% pasture All other land16 867 17,761 All other land17 762 24,047 Area in Christmas trees, woodlands and 491 19,365 337 12,122 wetlands All other land 674 4,682 557 5,632 Total area of farms 1,144 192,600 979 184,406 782 162,628 -31.6% -15.6% Source: Statistics Canada 2001, 2006 and 2011 Censuses of Agriculture

The following are key observations from Table 52. 1. The total number of farms for each of the four core land uses have decreased between 2001 and 2011, ranging from -24.9% for tame or seeded pasture to -60.3% for summerfallow land. 2. Similarly, the total area of farms for each have decreased between 2001 and 2011, ranging from - 9.1% for natural land for pasture to -68.5% for summerfallow land. 3. For farms that are land in crops, tame or seeded pasture, and natural land for pasture, the decreases in total number of farms is not proportional to the decrease in total area. 4. Among all farms across the four core land uses, the change in total number of farms (-31.6%) is double that of the change in total area (-15.6%).

15 Excluding Christmas tree area. 16 Including Christmas tree area. 17 Including Christmas tree area, woodlands and wetlands.

April 2015 | Page 79

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

9.2 Total Farms by Type and Size

Table 53 presents the total number of farms by farm industry group for the Parkland County CCS from the last three federal censuses with five-year and ten-year change comparisons. Table 53: Farms by Industry Group, 2001-2011

Total Farms Percentages Changes (Total Farms) Farm Industry Group 2001 2006 2011 2001 2006 2011 01-06 06-11 01-11 Cattle ranching and 525 438 229 51.5% 44.7% 29.3% -87 -209 -296 farming Hog and pig farming 8 4 0 0.8% 0.4% 0.0% -4 -4 -8 Poultry and egg 9 12 9 0.9% 1.2% 1.2% 3 -3 0 production Sheep and goat farming 28 17 13 2.7% 1.7% 1.7% -11 -4 -15 Other animal production 182 236 198 17.8% 24.1% 25.3% 54 -38 16 Oilseed and grain farming 104 102 106 10.2% 10.4% 13.6% -2 4 2 Vegetable and melon 9 14 15 0.9% 1.4% 1.9% 5 1 6 farming Fruit and tree nut farming 6 14 8 0.6% 1.4% 1.0% 8 -6 2 Greenhouse, nursery and 38 38 30 3.7% 3.9% 3.8% 0 -8 -8 floriculture production Other crop farming 111 104 174 10.9% 10.6% 22.3% -7 70 63 Total farms reporting 1,020 979 782 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% -41 -197 -238 Source: Statistics Canada 2001, 2006 and 2011 Censuses of Agriculture

The following are key observations from Table 53. 1. The total number of farms within the cattle ranching and farming industry group has dropped significantly from 525 in 2001 to 229 in 2011. 2. As a result, its share of the total farms has declined from a slight majority at 51.5% in 2001 to 29.3% in 2011. 3. Other farm industry groups that have experienced drops are hog and pig farming, sheep and goat farming, and greenhouse, nursery and floriculture production. 4. The farm industry group that has experienced the greatest increase between 2001 and 2011 is other crop farming. 5. Other farm industry groups that have experienced increases are oilseed and grain farming, vegetable and melon farming, and fruit and tree nut farming, though these increases are modest. 6. Due to the drop in the proportion of farms in the cattle ranching and farming industry group (29.3% in 2011), the Parkland County CCS’ other animal production, other crop farming and oilseed and grain farming industry groups are now playing greater roles (at 25.3%, 22.3% and 13.6% in 2011 respectively).

Table 54 on the following page presents the total number of farms by industry for the Parkland County CCS from the 2006 and 2011 federal censuses with a net change comparison. The industries are a more detailed level below the industry groups presented in Table 53 above.

Page 80 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Table 54: Farms by Industry, 2006-2011

Farm Industry 2006 2011 Change Dairy cattle and milk production 14 10 -4 Beef cattle ranching and farming, including feedlots 424 219 -205 Hog and pig farming 4 0 -4 Chicken egg production 6 4 -2 Broiler and other meat-type chicken production 2 0 -2 Turkey production 2 3 1 Combination poultry and egg production 0 1 1 All other poultry production 2 1 -1 Sheep farming 13 10 -3 Goat farming 4 3 -1 Apiculture 14 8 -6 Horse and other equine production 166 140 -26 Livestock combination farming 26 -26 Animal combination farming 37 37 All other miscellaneous animal production 30 13 -17 Oilseed (except soybean) farming 35 41 6 Dry pea and bean farming 1 0 -1 Wheat farming 12 4 -8 Other grain farming 54 61 7 Potato farming 8 9 1 Other vegetable (except potato) and melon farming 6 6 0 Fruit and tree nut farming 14 8 -6 Other food crops grown under cover 2 1 -1 Nursery and tree production 27 21 -6 Floriculture production 9 8 -1 Hay farming 85 148 63 Fruit and vegetable combination farming 2 3 1 All other miscellaneous crop farming 17 23 6 Total farms reporting 979 782 197 Source: Statistics Canada 2006 and 2011 Censuses of Agriculture

The following are key observations from Table 54. 1. The Parkland County CCS experienced a significant decrease in farms within the beef cattle ranching and farming (including feedlots) industry, down almost 50% from 424 in 2006 to 219 in 2011. 2. Other industries with notable decreases are horse and other equine production (26 fewer farms), livestock combination farming (26 fewer) and all other miscellaneous animal production (17 fewer). 3. The Parkland County CCS experienced a significant increase in farms within the hay farming industry, up 74% from 85 in 2006 to 148 in 2011.

April 2015 | Page 81

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Table 55 presents the total number of farms by total farm area for the Parkland County CCS from the 2001, 2006 and 2011 federal censuses with five-year and ten-year change comparisons. Table 55: Farms by Total Farm Area, 2001-2011

Total Farm Area Census Years Percentages Changes (acres) 2001 2006 2011 2001 2006 2011 01-06 06-11 01-11 Under 10 55 35 30 4.8% 3.6% 3.8% -20 -5 -25 10 to 69 203 179 133 17.7% 18.3% 17.0% -24 -46 -70 70 to 129 127 123 100 11.1% 12.6% 12.8% -4 -23 -27 130 to 179 215 167 147 18.8% 17.1% 18.8% -48 -20 -68 180 to 239 43 46 32 3.8% 4.7% 4.1% 3 -14 -11 240 to 399 164 114 91 14.3% 11.6% 11.6% -50 -23 -73 400 to 559 90 83 59 7.9% 8.5% 7.5% -7 -24 -31 560 to 759 81 66 46 7.1% 6.7% 5.9% -15 -20 -35 760 to 1,119 81 67 55 7.1% 6.8% 7.0% -14 -12 -26 1,120 to 1,599 40 51 44 3.5% 5.2% 5.6% 11 -7 4 1,600 to 2,239 23 19 19 2.0% 1.9% 2.4% -4 0 -4 2,240 to 2,879 7 13 11 0.6% 1.3% 1.4% 6 -2 4 2,880 to 3,519 6 4 4 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% -2 0 -2 3,520 and over 9 12 11 0.8% 1.2% 1.4% 3 -1 2 Total number of 1,144 979 782 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% -165 -197 -362 farms Source: Statistics Canada 2001, 2006 and 2011 Censuses of Agriculture

The following are key observations from Table 55. 1. The Parkland County CCS experienced declines in total farms among all farm area categories below 1,120 acres (453 ha) between 2001 and 2011. 2. The total number of farms among the five categories over 1,120 acres (453 ha) was relatively stable with modest increases and decreases among them.

9.3 Crop Diversity

Table 56 presents the crop diversity of farms within the Parkland County CCS. It presents the total number and area of farms by crop groups and types from the last three federal censuses. Table 56: Crop Diversity by Crop Groups and Types, 2001-2011

2001 2006 2011 Crop Groups and Types No. of Area No. of Area No. of Area Farms (ha) Farms (ha) Farms (ha) Hay and field crops Total wheat 104 10,339 77 10,000 67 8,489 Spring wheat (excluding durum) 102 x 76 9,831 64 x Durum wheat 3 x 0 0 3 x Winter wheat 4 x 4 169 0 0 Oats 235 6,353 207 7,108 145 4,899 Barley 223 16,127 178 13,590 146 11,467 Mixed grains 33 1,487 27 1,783 18 533

Page 82 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

2001 2006 2011 Crop Groups and Types No. of Area No. of Area No. of Area Farms (ha) Farms (ha) Farms (ha) Total corn 14 552 10 1,085 Corn for grain 0 0 0 0 3 x Total rye 6 140 14 614 5 x Fall rye 6 140 12 x 4 66 Spring rye 0 0 3 x 1 x Corn for silage 1 x 14 552 8 x Alfalfa and alfalfa mixtures 520 31,345 416 22,754 350 21,072 All other tame hay and fodder crops 297 15,905 242 12,239 188 8,418 Canola (rapeseed) 97 7,988 111 12,812 116 14,839 Flaxseed 3 x 1 x 2 x Soybeans 2 x 0 0 0 0 Sunflowers 0 0 1 x 1 x Potatoes 23 638 20 1,108 20 1,069 Dry field peas 15 1,061 6 327 8 x Lentils 0 0 0 0 1 x Total dry field beans 6 122 Chick peas 2 x 0 0 0 0 Other dry beans 5 x 0 0 0 0 Canary seed 1 x 0 0 0 0 Triticale 4 65 1 x 4 x Forage seed for seed 5 215 0 0 Forage seed harvested as seed 4 172 Other field crops 0 0 2 x 2 x Fruits, berries and nuts Total area of fruits, berries and nuts (producing 27 51 25 62 19 42 and non-producing) Apples total area 6 2 0 4 x Pears total area 1 x 0 0 0 0 Plums and prunes total area 1 x 0 0 0 0 Cherries (sweet) total area 2 x 1 x 1 x Cherries (sour) total area 4 1 3 1 4 1 Apricots total area 1 x 0 0 0 0 Grapes total area 1 x 0 0 0 0 Strawberries total area 7 12 8 5 7 5 Raspberries total area 15 10 13 13 14 12 Cranberries total area 2 x 2 x 1 x Blueberries total area 1 x 1 x 0 0 Saskatoons total area 17 25 18 27 16 22 Other fruits, berries and nuts total area 3 – 6 13 3 1 Vegetables (excluding greenhouse vegetables) Total vegetables (excluding greenhouse 20 15 25 75 20 19

April 2015 | Page 83

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

2001 2006 2011 Crop Groups and Types No. of Area No. of Area No. of Area Farms (ha) Farms (ha) Farms (ha) vegetables) Sweet corn 3 1 6 2 4 1 Tomatoes 5 – 5 0 6 1 Cucumbers 9 2 5 1 5 1 Green peas 8 2 12 x 9 2 Green and wax beans 10 2 7 1 9 1 Cabbage 2 x 4 x 7 0 Chinese cabbage 0 0 0 0 1 x Cauliflower 0 0 2 x 2 x Broccoli 0 0 2 x 3 0 Brussels sprouts 0 0 1 x 0 0 Carrots 11 2 11 7 8 2 Rutabagas and turnips 1 x 2 x 4 0 Beets 7 1 9 1 11 1 Radishes 1 x 5 0 3 1 Dry onions 7 – Shallots, green onions and seed onions 1 x Shallots and green onions 5 0 5 1 Dry onions, yellow, Spanish, cooking, etc. 6 x 6 1 Celery 0 0 1 x 2 x Lettuce 1 x 8 x 7 1 Spinach 1 x 3 x 5 1 Peppers 1 x 2 x 4 0 Pumpkins, squash and zucchini 5 x 9 1 Pumpkins 3 0 5 0 Squash and zucchini 9 1 7 x Rhubarb 6 – Asparagus, producing 1 x 1 x 2 x Asparagus, non-producing 1 x 1 x 0 0 Other vegetables 8 1 12 8 7 3 Nursery and greenhouse products, sod and mushrooms Total area of sod under cultivation for sale 0 0 0 0 2 x Total area of nursery products grown for sale 30 110 29 148 22 152 Total greenhouse area in use on May 10, 11 28 15,552 21 – 23 – Total area under glass, plastic or other 28 15,775 21 – 23 – protection Greenhouse flowers 20 11,056 13 – 14 – Greenhouse vegetables 14 2,686 8 – 9 – Other greenhouse products 5 1,810 3 – 8 – Christmas trees Total area of Christmas trees grown for sale 6 16 9 56 2 x

Page 84 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

2001 2006 2011 Crop Groups and Types No. of Area No. of Area No. of Area Farms (ha) Farms (ha) Farms (ha) Forest products Sales of forest products 10 Source: Statistics Canada 2001, 2006 and 2011 Censuses of Agriculture

The following are key observations from Table 56. 1. The total areas subject to most of the various hay and field crop types have decreased between 2001 and 2011. Notable exceptions include canola (rapeseed), which has nearly doubled, and potatoes. 2. The top six crop types by total area are alfalfa and alfalfa mixtures (~20,000 ha), canola (~15,000 ha), barley (~11,500 ha), wheat (~8,500 ha), other tame hay and fodder crops (~8,400 ha), and oats (~4,900 ha). 3. Between 2001 and 2011, the total areas of saskatoons and strawberries have decreased while the total area of raspberries has increased. 4. In 2011, saskatoons (22 ha), raspberries (12 ha) and strawberries (10 ha) were the top types in Parkland County CCS within the fruits, berries and nuts crop category. 5. Overall, the total area subject to vegetable farming is up from 15 ha in 2001 to 19 ha in 2011, but its 2011 area is down from 75 ha in 2006. 6. The top three vegetable types in 2011 were other vegetables at 3 ha and peas and carrots at 2 ha each. 7. The total area of nursery products grown for sale has increased from 110 ha in 2001 to 152 ha in 2011. 8. In 2001, the majority of products under plastic or other protection were greenhouse flowers at ~11,000 ha followed by greenhouse vegetables at ~2,700 ha and other greenhouse products at ~1,800 ha. 9. The total area of Christmas trees grown for sale increased from 16 ha in 2001 to 56 ha in 2006. Though no data is available for total area in 2011, the total number of farms is down to 2 from 6 in 2001.

9.4 Demographics of Farmers

Table 57 presents the key demographics of farmers within the Parkland County CCS in 2001, 2006 and 2011. It profiles the total number of farm operators by gender and age group, with a breakdown by farms with one or multiple operators. It also profiles the average age of farm operators within the same breakdown. The residency of the farm operators (i.e., living on or off farms), their working hours on the farm, and their working hours off the farm (i.e., paid non-farm work) are also presented in Table 57. Table 57: Key Demographics of Farmers, 2001-2011

Totals Demographic Characteristic6 2001 2006 2011 Total number of farms 1,145 979 782 Total number of operators 1,665 1,460 1,145 Male 1,150 1,005 785 Female 510 460 355 Under 35 Years 165 100 45 35 to 54 Years 880 710 495 55 Years and Over 615 655 600 Farms with one operator 650 525 430 Male 565 475 375

April 2015 | Page 85

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Totals Demographic Characteristic6 2001 2006 2011 Female 85 60 60 Under 35 Years 45 25 15 35 to 54 Years 325 215 150 55 Years and Over 280 285 270 Farms with two or more operators 1,010 940 705 Male 585 530 405 Female 425 400 300 Under 35 Years 120 75 35 35 to 54 Years 550 495 345 55 Years and Over 335 370 330 Average age of all farm operators 50.4 53.2 56.0 Average age on farms with one operator n/a 55.7 58.6 Average age on farms with two or more operators n/a 51.8 54.5 Operators living off farm 100 90 115 Operators living on farm 1,560 1,380 1,030 Operators working less than 20 hours per week 535 500 385 Operators working 20 to 29 hours per week n/a n/a 235 Operators working 30 to 40 hours per week n/a n/a 165 Operators working 20 to 40 hours per week 530 450 400 Operators working more than 40 hours per week 605 525 355 Operators with no paid non-farm work 720 590 490 Operators with less than 20 hours of paid non-farm work 145 130 120 Operators with 20 to 29 hours of paid non-farm work n/a n/a 95 Operators with 30 to 40 hours of paid non-farm work n/a n/a 180 Operators with 20 to 40 hours of paid non-farm work 355 335 275 Operators with more than 40 hours of paid non-farm work 445 405 260

Source: Statistics Canada 2001, 2006, and 2011 Censuses of Agriculture

The following are key observations from Table 57. 1. The total number of farm operators has decreased by 31% between 2001 and 2011 (from 1,665 to 1,145), which is proportionate to the 32% decrease in total farms over the same period (from 1,145 to 782). 2. The proportion of female to male farm operators is up slightly from 30% in 2001 to 31% in 2011. 3. Among the three age categories for farm operators, those farmers under 35 years is down significantly (from 165 to 45) while those 55 years and over are relatively stable with a small decline (615 to 600). These observations are consistent among the three categories whether the farms are operated by one farmer or two or more farmers. 4. Between 2001 and 2011, the average age of farm operators has increased by nearly six years from 50.4 to 56.0. 5. Over the same period, the number of operators living off the farm has increased 15% from 100 to 115, whereas those living on the farm have decreased by 34% from 1,560 to 1,030. 6. As the decrease in farm operators is down by 31% between 2001 and 2011, the amounts of farmers by hours worked per week, both on the farm or off the farm, are down in all categories.

Page 86 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

9.5 Suitable Agricultural Soils

There are two primary systems available for use in determining suitable agricultural soils. One is the Canadian Land Inventory (CLI) agricultural soil suitability classification system and the other is the Farmland Assessment Rating (FAR) system. Geographic information system (GIS) mapping of the former is readily available through GeoGratis (Natural Resources Canada) in a clean GIS-ready state that is conducive to spatial analysis. Parkland County does have the latter readily available, but that mapping is not yet in a clean GIS-ready state. The CLI system was therefore used in place of the FAR system to identify Parkland County’s suitable agricultural soils.

Parkland County’s current MDP has an agricultural policy that states multi-lot country residential subdivisions may occur on lands with a FAR of 57% or less. This rating translates to Class 1 and Class 2 lands within the CLI agricultural soil suitability classification system. For the purpose of this analysis, we have therefore defined those lands subject to CLI Class 1 and Class 2 as being Suitable Agricultural Land.

Map 12, Agricultural Soil Suitability, presents the agricultural soil suitability of lands within Parkland County by CLI classification. Classes 1 through 8 as well as O (organic) are shown.

Map 13 isolates the extent of those areas that are Suitable Agricultural Land. Map 13 further identifies those sub-areas within the Suitable Agricultural Land that have already been consumed by non-agricultural development, and those that are designated for future non-agricultural development. Non-agricultural development includes residential, commercial and industrial developments.

Table 58 presents a breakdown of the total amount of suitable agricultural land consumed by non- agricultural purposes that are presented in Map 13.

Table 58: Suitable Agricultural Land Consumed by Non-Agricultural Purposes

Status of Suitable Agricultural Land Area (ha) Percent Consumed by Residential 1,695.8 3.3% Consumed by Commercial 5.7 0.0% Consumed by Industrial 348.5 0.7% Consumed by Non-Agricultural 2,050.1 4.0% Designated for Residential 3,680.9 7.2% Designated for Industrial 73.3 0.1% Designated for Non-Agricultural 3,754.1 7.3% Designated for Agricultural 45,461.1 88.7% Total Suitable Agriculture Land 51,265.3 100.0% Sources: GeoGratis (Natural Resources Canada), Parkland County and AltaLIS parcel mapping

April 2015 | Page 87

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

The following are key observations from Maps 12 and 13 and Table 58. 1. The County’s Suitable Agricultural Land are generally limited to two areas. 2. The larger of the two areas are the lands in the eastern portion of the County that are mostly south and southeast of Stony Plain and Spruce Grove. Some lands in this area are also to the north of these two urban municipalities, as are small pockets of land adjacent to Edmonton on the north side of Highway 628 and the south side of Highway 627. 3. The smaller of the two areas is in the far west end of Parkland County. This area includes lands south and southeast of Entwistle, and lands to the south and west of Tomahawk. There are two other small pockets in the vicinity of Magnolia and the far southwest near the Pembina River. 4. To date, only 4.0% of Parkland County’s Suitable Agricultural Land has been consumed by non- agricultural development. 5. An additional 7.3% of the County’s Suitable Agricultural Land is threatened for conversion to non- agricultural development as a result of past planning decisions that gave these landowners development rights for uses other than agricultural activities. 6. Overall, 88.7% of Parkland County’s Suitable Agricultural Land is not under immediate threat for conversion to non-agricultural development without first acquiring pre-subdivision approvals from the County.

9.6 Livestock

Table 59 presents the total number of farms by livestock and poultry inventory type and the total number of animals from the last three federal censuses. In consultations with Statistics Canada, this data cannot be broken down by electoral division for census privacy reasons. Table 59: Livestock and Poultry by Type, 2001-2011

2001 Census 2006 Census 2011 Census Livestock and Poultry Inventory No. of No. of No. of Type Number Number Number Farms Farms Farms Cattle and calves on Census Day Calves, under 1 year 602 30,358 494 25,291 327 17,140 Steers, 1 year and over 181 4,799 191 3,811 127 1,579 Total heifers, 1 year and over (54) 447 8,989 329 8,429 247 6,272 Heifers for slaughter or feeding 79 3,083 109 4,087 113 2,416 Heifers for beef herd replacement 396 5,202 266 3,842 165 3,155 Heifers for dairy herd replacement 22 704 14 500 13 701 Total cows (55) 603 33,252 491 29,769 328 19,262 Beef cows 583 31,471 477 28,343 317 17,601 Dairy cows 30 1,781 18 1,426 13 1,661 Bulls, 1 year and over 481 1,686 395 1,409 262 1,100 Total cattle and calves (53) 655 79,084 549 68,709 380 45,353 Sheep and lambs on Census Day Rams 57 132 37 125 29 123 Ewes 80 2,446 52 2,054 38 2,975 Lambs 69 2,953 42 2,418 38 7,324 Total sheep and lambs (59) 81 5,531 54 4,597 41 10,422 Pigs on Census Day Boars 24 37 12 x 9 x Sows and gilts for breeding 27 314 14 x 7 x

Page 88 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

2001 Census 2006 Census 2011 Census Livestock and Poultry Inventory No. of No. of No. of Type Number Number Number Farms Farms Farms Nursing and weaner pigs 21 951 9 x 4 10 Nursing pigs (56) n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 Weaner pigs (57) n/a n/a n/a n/a 4 10 Grower and finishing pigs 30 2,010 9 x 6 83 Total pigs (58) 46 3,312 23 1,700 14 x Other livestock on Census Day Horses and ponies 391 3,840 385 4,697 321 3,923 Goats 43 1,101 37 818 27 736 Llamas and alpacas 60 666 48 590 37 550 Rabbits (60) 3 85 n/a n/a 7 43 Bison (buffalo) 18 1,948 19 1,332 13 1,360 Elk 14 707 7 437 5 167 Deer (excluding wild deer) 5 173 2 x 0 0 Wild boars 1 x 0 0 1 x Poultry inventory on Census Day Pullets under 19 weeks, intended for 36 45,660 15 x 16 x laying (63) Laying hens, 19 weeks and over (64) 114 85,516 63 20,127 54 9,496 Layer and broiler breeders (pullets n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 66 and hens) (65) Broilers, roasters and Cornish (66) 61 57,285 32 x 16 1,877 Total hens and chickens (62) 142 188,461 80 114,022 67 x Turkeys (67) 27 x 18 x 12 x Other poultry 50 581 22 663 14 750 Source: Statistics Canada 2001, 2006 and 2011 Censuses of Agriculture

The following are key observations from Table 59. 1. The overall total for cattle and calves is down from ~79,000 in 2001 to ~45,000 in 2011. 2. The total numbers in all of the cattle and calves sub-types were down over the same time period, though heifers for dairy herd replacement only experienced a decrease of 3 (from 704 to 701) while dairy cows only decreased by 7% (from 1,781 to 1,661). 3. The overall total for pigs is also down from ~3,300 in 2001 to ~1,700 in 2006 (no data available for 2011). 4. Where data was available, the total numbers in all of the pig sub-types were down. 5. The overall total for sheep and lambs are up from ~5,500 in 2001 to ~ 10,400 in 2011. 6. Of the sub-types, only rams experienced a slight decrease of 9 (from 132 to 123), 7. Other types of livestock that have experienced increases over the same time period are horses and ponies (from ~3,800 to ~3,900). The balance (goats, llamas and alpacas, rabbits, bison, elk and deer), with the exception of wild boars (which have no numbers available), have all experienced decreases. 8. With the exception of other poultry (up 169 from 581 to 750), the total number of poultry animals is down in all inventory types where data is available. 9. Of all livestock and poultry inventory types, the only types to experience increases in total farms between 2001 and 2011 were heifers for slaughter and feeding (from 79 to 113) and rabbits (from 3 to 7).

April 2015 | Page 89

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Table 60 presents the total number of bee farms and their total number of colonies the 2001, 2006 and 2011 federal censuses. Table 60: Bee Farming, 2001-2011

2001 2006 2011 Bees on Census Day No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of Farms Colonies Farms Colonies Farms Colonies Honeybees n/a n/a 19 12,832 12 11,742 Other pollinating bees n/a n/a 2 x 1 n/a Bees 24 11,908 21 12,832 13 11,742 Source: Statistics Canada 2001, 2006 and 2011 Censuses of Agriculture

The following are key observations from Table 60. 1. The total number of bee farms is down nearly 50% between 2001 and 2011 from 24 to 13. 2. The total number of bee colonies is only down modestly however over the same time period from ~11,900 to ~11,700.

9.7 Vegetation Types

Map 14 illustrates the land cover vegetation types within Parkland County that were obtained from GeoGratis (Natural Resources Canada). Of the 11 different types within Canada, six are present within Parkland County – coniferous forest, deciduous trees, agriculture (cropland), agriculture (rangeland) and water.

The following are key observations from Map 14. 1. The vast majority of Parkland County is agricultural with cropland dominating the east portion of the County and rangeland dominating the central and west portions. 2. The configuration of the cropland agricultural area is similar to that of the CLI Class 1 and Class 2 lands presented in Maps 12 and 13. 3. Notable concentrations of deciduous trees are located in the southeast corner (Woodbend-Graminia area) and northwest corner of the County. 4. Notable concentrations of mixed forest are located in the southeast corner (Woodbend-Graminia area) and south-central and north-central portions of the County, as well as lands to the northwest of Tomahawk. 5. Water land cover (i.e., land that is often wet but not necessarily water bodies) is present along the southern shores of Isle Lake and Wabamun Lake, along the North Saskatchewan River and a pocket of land east of Tomahawk.

Page 90 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

10.0 Plans in Effect

10.1 Federal

The majority of planning legislation and policy influencing municipal land use decisions comes from the provincial level. Most applicable federal legislation and policy affecting land use involves federally owned lands (e.g., Indian reserves, Canadian Forces Bases, etc.).

At present, Parkland County is responding to the proposed development of an aerodrome southeast of Spruce Grove and west of Stony Plain Indian Reserve 135 of the Enoch Cree Nation. The federal government is the approving authority for aerodromes. With assumed certification of the aerodrome, the potential development of lands in proximity of the site may therefore be affected.

Aviation: Land Use in the Vicinity of Airports, published by Transport Canada, “describes the operational characteristics of airports which may influence land uses outside the airport property boundary and recommends, where applicable, guidelines for land use in the vicinity of airports.” In particular, the Transport Canada publication states the following regarding Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) contours:

“Transport Canada does not support or advocate incompatible land use (especially residential housing) in areas affected by aircraft noise. These areas may begin as low as NEF 25. At NEF 30, speech interference and annoyance caused by aircraft noise are, on average, established and growing. By NEF 35 these effects are very significant. New residential development is therefore not compatible with NEF 30 and above, and should not be undertaken.”

10.2 Provincial

10.2.1 Land-use Framework

The Land-use Framework sets out an approach to manage public and private lands and natural resources to achieve Alberta’s long-term economic, environmental and social goals. It provides a basis for land-use management and decision-making that addresses Alberta’s growth pressures.

Seven regions and two sub-regions (metropolitan) were created through the Land-use Framework. The seven regions are generally congruent with the province's major watersheds and aligned with municipal boundaries. Parkland County falls within the boundaries of the North Saskatchewan Regional Plan, and the Capital Region Growth Plan – one of the two metropolitan plans.

North Saskatchewan Regional Plan As shown on Figure 29, the North Saskatchewan Region is bounded by the Alberta-Saskatchewan border to the east, the Alberta-British Columbia border to the southwest. It arcs from the southwest where it includes Banff National Park to as far north as the northern limit of Smoky Lake County. The North Saskatchewan Region includes Parkland County and its neighbours to the southwest (Brazeau County), southeast (Leduc County) and northeast (Sturgeon County). It also includes Edmonton to the east and seven other cities. Parkland County borders the Upper Athabasca Region to the west and north.

April 2015 | Page 91

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Figure 29: Extent of the North Saskatchewan Regional Plan

Figure courtesy of Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Land Use Secretariat

Initial planning activities for the North Saskatchewan Region Plan (NSRP) were initiated in early 2014. The NSRP is scheduled for completion by the end of 2015.

10.2.2 Edmonton International Airport Vicinity Protection Area Regulation

The Edmonton International Airport Vicinity Protection Area (EIAVPA) Regulation applies to approximately 1,718 ha within 30 quarter sections, in whole or in part, in the southeast corner of Parkland County. Within these lands, approximately 929 ha are subject to the Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) 25 contour, while approximately 63 ha are subject to the NEF 30 contour. Under the EIAVPA Regulation, Parkland County must notify the Edmonton Regional Airports Authority (ERAA) of subdivision or development permit approvals that involve a change in land use to lands located within the NEF 30 contour. It must also refer any proposed application to adopt a statutory plan, a land use bylaw, or any amendments to either of these to the ERAA for comment prior to adoption by the County if the application relates to land within the EIAVPA.

10.2.3 Edmonton-Devon Restricted Development Area Regulations

The recently repealed Edmonton-Devon Restricted Development Area (EDRDA) Regulations applied to certain lands in the southeast corner of Parkland County overlooking the North Saskatchewan River from just shy of Highway 60 to the west to the City of Edmonton to the northeast. Under the EDRDA Regulations,

Page 92 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

any proposed subdivision or development application submitted to the County for these lands were subject to written approval by Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD) prior to approval by the County. During the course of this Community Scan and Analysis project, the EDRDA Regulations were repealed by the Government of Alberta by Order in Council 266/2014 dated July 8, 2014.

10.2.4 Capital Region Board Regulation

The Capital Region Board (CRB) was established by the Government of Alberta in 2008 when it adopted the Capital Region Board Regulation under the Municipal Government Act. The regulation provides direction on the CRB’s mandate, voting model, contents of the Growth Plan, and the CRB’s responsibility and authority to approve municipal statutory plans through the Regional Evaluation Framework. Ministerial Order No. L:270/10 outlines the CRB’s responsibilities associated with the Regional Evaluation Framework.

10.3 Regional

10.3.1 Capital Region Growth Plan and the Regional Evaluation Framework

Since its formation, the CRB has adopted numerous regional planning documents that guide land use, transportation and affordable housing decision making and service provision within the Capital Region in accordance with the CRB Regulation. These documents include:

1. Growing Forward: The Capital Region Growth Plan (CRGP), March 2009, inclusive of: a. Capital Region Land Use Plan (CRLUP), March 2009, b. Capital Region Intermunicipal Transit Network Plan (CRITNP), March 2009 c. Capital Region Geographic Information Services (CRGIS): Strategy and Implementation Plan, March 2009, and d. Capital Region Housing Plan (CRHP): Strategy and Implementation Plan, March 2009; 2. The Capital Region Growth Plan Addendum, October 2009; 3. The Capital Region Growth Plan Addendum, December 2009; 4. CRB Integrated Regional Transportation Systems Study (IRTSS), June 2011; 5. CRB Integrated Regional Transportation Master Plan (IRTMP), September 2011; and 6. CRB 30 Year Transit Service Plan, September 2011.

After adoption by the CRB in 2009, the first three sets of documents were approved by the Province in 2010. After adoption by the CRB in 2011, the last three documents were approved by Ministerial Order in 2013 as addenda to the CRGP.

Concurrent with its approval of the CRGP in 2010, the Province adopted the Regional Evaluation Framework (REF) requiring CRB member municipalities to submit certain proposed statutory plans and statutory plan amendments to the CRB for evaluation. The REF further provides criteria to allow the CRB to evaluate new municipal statutory plans and statutory plan amendments to ensure consistency with the long- term regional interests identified in the CRGP and the CRB Regulation. In short, statutory plans and plan amendments are required to be consistent with all objectives, principles and policies of the CRGP, as well as certain provisions of the CRGP.

Tables 61 and 62 summarize the regionally significant provisions from the two CRGP addenda that are criteria considered by the CRB in its REF evaluations. The extent and level to which they are applicable to Parkland County is included. The figures and tables referred to in Tables 61 and 62 are included in Appendix D.

April 2015 | Page 93

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Table 61: CRGP October 2009 Addendum Provisions Relevant to the REF

Figure or Table Provision Applicability to Parkland County Lands generally bound by Highway 16 to the north, Edmonton to the east, Highway 628 to the south and Range Road 12 to the west, as well as the eastern half of the Big Lake Area Structure Priority Growth Plan (east of Range Road 263) are located within the conceptual Areas (PGAs) boundaries of PGAs. All of these lands are within PGA ‘A’ except Figure 1: Priority for the southeast portion of the Acheson Industrial ASP, which is Growth Areas and within PGA ‘B’. Cluster Country Lands generally bound by Township Road 534 to the north, Cluster Country Residential Areas Range Road 263 to the east, Highway 16 to the south and Residential Range Road 12 to the west are located within the conceptual Areas (CCRAs) boundaries of CCRA ‘I’. Areas Outside The hamlets of Duffield, Entwistle and Tomahawk are PGAs and recognized as rural communities within the Capital Region that CCRAs are anticipated to capture some future growth. Lands north and south of Wabamun Lake are subject to a Compatibility Compatibility Buffer due to the presence of coal mining activity. Buffers Other types of Compatibility Buffers are not applicable to Parkland County. Edmonton The Edmonton International Airport Vicinity Protection Area International (AVPA) is applicable to certain lands within the Woodbend- AVPA Graminia ASP in the southeast portion of Parkland County. Figure 3: Regional Edmonton Buffer Areas Garrison Not applicable to Parkland County. Approach Path Conservation Numerous areas throughout Parkland County are subject to a Buffer Conservation Buffer. Safety & Risk Management Not applicable to Parkland County. Buffer The density target assigned to PGA ‘A’ is 25-35 dwelling units PGAs per net residential hectare (du/nrha). The target assigned to Table 3: Capital PGA ‘B’ is 30-45+ du/nrha. Region Density The density target assigned to CCRA ‘I’ is 2 dwelling units per CCRAs Targets and gross hectare (du/gha). Appendix B’s Figure Traditional 1: Hierarchy of The density target assigned to traditional country residential Country Capital Regional areas in Parkland County is a maximum of 50 lots per quarter Residential Priority Growth section. Areas Density Areas Targets Areas Outside PGAs and No density targets apply to Duffield, Entwistle and Tomahawk. CCRAs

Source: Capital Region Board

Page 94 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Table 62: CRGP December 2009 Addendum Provisions Relevant to the REF

Figure or Table Provision Applicability to Parkland County The Canadian National main line and its rail spur near Railways Wabamun Lake are identified as Existing Railways. An Existing Intermunicipal Bus route is depicted along Highway 16 between Spruce Grove and Edmonton. Long Term Intermunicipal Bus routes are also identified along Highway 628 between Stony Plain and Edmonton, and Figure 1: Regional Intermunicipal Bus portions of Range Road 272/Century Road (serving Spruce Transportation Grove) and Highways 16A and 60 (serving Acheson). Note: Infrastructure These long term routes were derived from the CRITNP and may have been superseded by the IRTMP, though the IRTMP provisions are not yet incorporated into the REF. Light Rail Transit Not applicable to Parkland County. Regional All numbered highways within Parkland County are identified Roads/Highways as Regional Roads/Highways. The Capital Region Parkland Water Services Commission (CRPWSC) operates an Existing Regional Water Line Regional Water between west-central Edmonton and Stony Plain. The Lines Figure 2: Regional entirety of this CRPWSC line is anticipated to be upgraded Water and or twinned. Wastewater The Alberta Capital Region Wastewater Commission Infrastructure (ACRWC) operates an Existing Regional Wastewater Line Regional between northwest Edmonton and Stony Plain. The segment Wastewater Lines of the ARCWC line between Parkland Village and Stony Plain is anticipated to be upgraded or twinned. Numerous existing substations and power corridors of varying sizes are located within Parkland County. The Figure 3: Regional Bulk System locations and alignments of these facilities are approximate. Power Substations and Refer to the Capital Region Regional Energy Corridors Infrastructure Power Corridors Policy Framework for more precise locations and alignments of these facilities. Multi-Use Not applicable to Parkland County. Corridors The North Saskatchewan River Valley within Parkland County is identified as a Recreation Corridor. A portion of the Recreation Future Trans-Canada Trail may be located within Parkland Corridors Figure 4: Regional County’s portion of this river valley between Devon and Corridors Edmonton. Waterway Lands along the Pembina River, Atim Creek and Wabamun Corridors Creek are identified as Regionally Significant Rivers/Creeks. Heartland Pipeline Not applicable to Parkland County. Corridors Parkland County was forecasted to have a population of Table 1: Alternate 41,971 by 2044, an average annual change of 0.9% from a Scenario 2009 base population of 30,906. Note: The CRB accepted Population 2044 Forecast new population projections in 2013 that forecast Parkland Forecast by County’s 2044 population as 42,700 under a low scenario Municipality and 50,000 under a high scenario. These updated forecasts are not yet incorporated into the REF.

April 2015 | Page 95

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Figure or Table Provision Applicability to Parkland County Table 3: Alternate PGA ‘A’ was forecasted to have a population of 68,971 by Scenario 2044, an average annual change of 1.5% from a 2009 base Population 2044 Forecast population of 41,009. CCRA ‘I’ was forecasted to have a Forecast by Growth population of 10,025 by 2044, an average annual change of Area 1.8% from a 2009 base population of 5,292. Parkland County was forecasted to have 11,935 jobs by Table 5: Alternate 2044, an average annual change of 1.3% from a 2009 base Scenario of 7,552 jobs. Note: The CRB accepted new employment Employment 2044 Forecast projections in 2014 that forecast Parkland County to have Forecast by 11,300 jobs under a low scenario and 14,600 jobs under a Municipality high scenario by 2044. These updated forecasts are not yet incorporated into the REF. Table 7: Alternate PGA ‘A’ was forecasted to have 21,532 jobs by 2044, an Scenario average annual change of 1.2% from a 2009 base of 14,007 Employment 2044 Forecast jobs. CCRA ‘I’ was forecasted to have 884 jobs by 2044, an Forecast by Growth average annual change of 0.6% from a 2009 base of 709 Area jobs. Source: Capital Region Board

Table 63 summarize the regionally significant transportation provisions from the Capital Region IRTMP that are applicable to Parkland County. Some of these provisions supersede or are in addition to provisions identified in the CRITNP or the October 2009 Addendum to the CRGP. Though the IRTMP has been approved by the Province, its provisions have yet to be incorporated into the REF. The figures referred to in Table 63 are included in Appendix D. Table 63: Capital Region IRTMP Provisions

Figure Provision Applicability to Parkland County Roads that are designated as Arterials include:  Highway 16A from Range Road 265 to Spruce Grove;  Highway 779 from Highway 16 to Stony Plain; Arterials  Range Road 272/Century Road from Highway 628 to Figure 2: Spruce Grove; and Roadway  Range Road 274/Campsite Road from Highway 628 to Classifications Spruce Grove. Freeways Highways 16 and 43 are designated as Freeways. All remaining numbered highways not designated as Expressways Arterials or Freeways are designated as Expressways. The following roadways are designated for future upgrades:  Highway 16 between Range Road 274/Campsite Road and Edmonton; Figure 3: Upgraded  Highway 44 between Highway 16 and Sturgeon County; Roadway Facilities Roadways  Highway 60 between Highways 16 and 16A through Acheson;  Highway 627 from Highway 60 to Edmonton; and  Highway 628 from Stony Plain to Edmonton.

Page 96 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Figure Provision Applicability to Parkland County The following roadways are designated as Long Combination Vehicle Routes: Long  Highway 16; Combination  Highway 16A from Highway 16 west of Stony Plain to Vehicle Route Edmonton; Figure 4:  Highway 44 between Highway 16 and Sturgeon County; Overdimensional  Highway 60 between Highway 16 and Devon. Vehicle Corridors A north/south Potential High Load Corridor is identified within the east portion of Parkland County. The corridor comprises: Potential High  Highway 60 from Devon to Highway 16; Load Corridor  Highway 16 from Highway 60 to Highway 44; and  Highway 44 from Highway 16 to Sturgeon County. Highway 16 from Range Road 272/Century Road to Regional Bus Edmonton is designated as a Regional Bus route. Figure 5: Transit Priority Highway 16 from Range Road 272/Century Road to Transit Facilities Corridor Edmonton is designated as a Transit Priority Corridor. Lifeline Bus Future Lifeline Bus Service from Devon to Edmonton is Service identified via Highways 60 and 628. Figure 6: Three Active CN Lines are identified including the CN main Regional Rail Active Lines line through the County and two rail spurs to the east and Facilities south of Wabamun Lake. The following roadways are identified for improvement within ten years of 2011: Figure 7: Roadway  Highway 60 from south of Highway 16 through Acheson to Ten-Year Roadway Improvements Highway 16; Priorities  Highway 627 from Highway 60 to Edmonton; and  Highway 628 from Highway 60 to Edmonton. Source: Capital Region Board

10.3.2 Current CRB Initiatives

The CRB is presently undertaking three initiatives that may or will affect preparation of Parkland County’s CSDP – a Regional Energy Corridors Master Plan, an IRTMP Implementation Plan and the CRGP Update.

Regional Energy Corridors Master Plan The CRB has identified that an integrated and coordinated approach is needed within the Capital Region to address the future needs for regional energy corridors in the Region; specifically for alignments of future petroleum pipelines and power transmission lines through the Region. In 2014, the Capital Region Energy Corridors Policy Framework concluded that there is a policy gap in the CRGP for planning future energy corridors – the current approach “to identify and protect” does not guide the CRB as to how to identify future corridors – as it assumes knowledge of where future corridors will be located.

April 2015 | Page 97

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

The purpose of the Regional Energy Corridors Master Plan (RECMP) project is to establish policies and criteria for accommodating and locating regional energy corridors within the Capital Region in a manner that is consistent and compatible with the principles and policies of the CRGP. Scheduled for completion in summer 2015, the outcomes of the RECMP are intended to meet the following objectives of the CRGP:

1. To promote an integrated and strategic approach to planning for future growth in the Capital Region; 2. To identify the overall development pattern and key future infrastructure investments that would best complement existing infrastructure, services and land uses in, and maximize benefits to the Capital Region; and 3. To co-ordinate decisions in the Capital Region to sustain economic growth and ensure strong communities.

IRTMP Implementation The CRB approved its IRTMP in September 2011. The Plan defines key elements of the Capital Region’s future transportation system over a 35-year time frame. The IRTMP builds upon and supports the policy framework established in the CRGP’s land use and transit components. The IRTMP also lists the ten-year roadway and transit investment priorities throughout the Capital Region.

Following provincial approval of the IRTMP, the CRB began implementing the IRTMP by developing a shorter term prioritization of the ten-year roadway and transit project list. The development of such a regional priority list was to foster coordination of regional transportation initiatives between municipalities, as well as enable better alignment of regional and provincial transportation priorities.

In the final IRTMP Prioritization of Capital Region Transportation Projects report, which was completed in June 2014, Highway 60 between Highways 16A and 16, and Highway 628 between Highway 60 and Anthony Henday Drive are identified for roadway improvements. Highway 16 from Spruce Grove through the City of Edmonton to Highway 28 is identified as a Transit Priority Corridor.

Capital Region Growth Plan Update The CRGP and its Addenda were first adopted in 2009. Since 2009, the Capital Region has experienced above average population and employment growth which is expected to continue. New investment in northern Alberta’s oil and gas sector is driving the Region’s economic growth.

In addition, working experience of the Plan has revealed that despite the solid policy framework within the document, there are some fundamental gaps which impair the CRB’s ability to identify and manage the investment in core infrastructure to support growth in the Region.

The CRB has initiated the update to the CRGP. Phase 1 of the update is complete, which included a review and evaluation of the Land Use Plan and Addenda, as well as an assessment of baseline data to be used throughout the Plan update. Phases 2 and 3 have since begun and involve development of the new CRGP including a vision, a policy framework, an infrastructure plan and an implementation plan. Phases 2 and 3 are scheduled for completion by the end of 2015.

Page 98 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

10.4 Municipal

According to Parkland County’s MDP update, an area structure plan (ASP) “means a statutory plan prepared pursuant to Section 634 of the Municipal Government Act, that applies to a ¼ section or more of land that provides a framework for more detailed subdivision and development. Staging of development, land uses, densities and infrastructure matters must be considered. The Area Structure Plan is adopted by bylaw.”

Parkland County presently has 10 ASPs in effect, which is one less than it did in 2006 during the last MDP update. The geographic locations of these ASPs are presented in Map 15, and a summary of each is provided below.

10.4.1 Glory Hills Area Structure Plan

The Glory Hills ASP was originally adopted in 1979 and was amended in 2002. It was originally bounded by Highway 779 (Range Road 10) to the east, the County boundary to the north and northwest, Lake Eden Road (Range Road 20) to the west, and Highway 16A to the southwest and south, excluding those lands within the Town of Stony Plain to the southeast. Lands in the southeast were removed in favour of the Fifth Meridian ASP in 2002.

The purpose of the Glory Hills ASP is to “identify ultimate land uses while at the same time protecting the outstanding aesthetics of the area and its potential for recreation uses.” The ASP designates lands for high density country residential with parcel sizes ranging from 0.8 to 4.0 ha to be serviced by individual wells and septic systems. It also designates lands for public recreation and recognizes existing agricultural operations.

The ASP provides for an open space network “to protect drainage courses, catchment basins and other unstable or environmentally sensitive areas from development activities and to provide for a continuous natural open space system.” Municipal reserve is identified to optimize natural areas, to provide access to natural areas, and to provide for school sites. The ASP further suggests acquisition of land by the County in the Chickakoo Lake area “so that a complete staging area may be established for recreational use of the lakes and trail systems.”

April 2015 | Page 99

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

The ASP does not provide a breakdown of land use statistics. However, it does suggest that the ultimate population within the plan could range between 20,000 and 23,000 people.

10.4.2 Jackfish Mayatan Area Structure Plan

The Jackfish Mayatan ASP was adopted in 1981. Comprising 40 sections of land, it was originally bounded by Highway 770 (Range Road 23) to the east, Highway 16 to the north, Range Road 32 to the west, and Highway 627 (Range Road 520) to the south. The Jackfish Lake ASP now overlaps with 25 quarter sections in the southeast corner of the Jackfish Mayatan ASP. Although the 25 quarter Sections in the southeast now make up the Jackfish Lake ASP, policies in both the Jackfish Mayatan and Jackfish Lake ASPs describe the need to protect the environment while still providing recreational development around the lake.

The Jackfish Mayatan ASP was prepared as a “result of the need to identify ultimate land uses while at the same time protecting the natural aesthetics of the area, and in particular, the recreation potential of the lakes.” The ASP describes the plan area as being well suited for medium to high density residential and public recreation developments, with limited commercial neighbourhood service developments. With the exception to the land uses listed above, the ASP states “no other land uses will be entertained” within the Plan area.

The ASP provides for an open space network “to protect drainage courses, catchment basins and other unstable or environmentally sensitive areas from development activities and to provide for a continuous natural open space network.” The open space network outlined within the ASP falls into three basic terrain categories: drainage courses, poorly drained areas and access corridors. The ASP provides for the minimum amount of municipal reserve to allow for more flexibility at the detailed design stage. “Without this flexibility, the County would have difficulty accommodating desires and concerns of the neighbourhood which are identified during the detailed planning stages.”

Page 100 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

10.4.3 Woodbend-Graminia Area Structure Plan

The Woodbend-Graminia ASP was adopted in 1984. Located in the southeast corner of Parkland County, it is bounded by the City of Edmonton to the east, Highway 627 (Range Road 520) to the north, Pioneer Road (Range Road 271) to the west, and the North Saskatchewan River to the south.

The purpose of the Woodbend-Graminia ASP is to “guide elected representatives, municipal officials and public and private interests in such a manner as to achieve the optimal outcome under the most desirable conditions.” The ASP looks to encourage residential growth in areas that are of “optimal capability and the creation and maintenance of attractive residential developments through proper design.” The ASP also looks to conserve suitable agricultural lands, while minimizing developments within areas that have been determined to be environmentally sensitive or having the potential for recreational uses.

The ASP lists agricultural, mixed use/country residential and open space land uses within the Plan area. Agricultural land uses represent “a portion of the most highly productive farmland in the County.” The ASP describes the Plan area as also being suitable for multi-parcel country residential development and it is intended that open space, “in view of the environmentally sensitive nature of the area, proposed developments should be carefully evaluated and the lands should remain predominantly in their natural state.”

The ASP does not provide a breakdown of land use statistics or estimate its population capacity.

April 2015 | Page 101

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

10.4.4 Big Lake Area Structure Plan

The Big Lake ASP was originally adopted in 1991 and has been amended on nine occasions between 1994 and 2009. Located in the northeast corner of Parkland County, it is bounded by the City of Edmonton to the east, Township Road 534 and Sturgeon County to the north, Highway 44 to the west and Highway 16 to the south.

The purpose of the Big Lake ASP is to establish the “general planning framework and guidelines for the future rural residential and recreational development of this unique area of the County.” The Plan area can be described as rural residential in nature, with tracts of open space to preserve the environmental quality and amenity of the area. There is provision for a small commercial area that is intended to provide minor highway commercial and convenience servicing for area residents. Due to its relatively small size, the ASP does not designate any lands within the Plan area for agricultural land uses.

The ASP designates roughly 44% of its land as residential with minimum residential lot sizes of 0.5 ha, while recreational, wetland conservation and environmentally sensitive land uses account for approximately 49% of the total land area within the ASP. The balance of the lands within the Plan area are designated as a combination of highway commercial and institutional land uses.

The ASP outlines that phasing will be driven by market-demand, and will likely begin along the eastern edge of the Plan area and generally continue westward.

Although the ASP does provide an approximate land use base for each land use, it does not however provide an estimate of its population capacity.

Page 102 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

10.4.5 Acheson Industrial Area Structure Plan

The latest Acheson Industrial ASP was adopted on March 24, 2015. The ASP is generally bounded by Hillview Road (Range Road 261) and the City of Edmonton to the east, Highway 16 to the north, a combination of the City of Spruce Grove and Spruce Valley Road (Range Road 265) to the west, and Highway 628 (Township Road 524) to the south.

The purpose of the Acheson Industrial ASP is to guide the long term development of the Acheson area for the next twenty to thirty years. The ASP identifies the major land uses within the Plan area as “industrial, commercial, residential, open space and parks.” The ASP also recognizes the Wagner Natural Area, an Environmentally Significant Area and Recharge Zone, as well as areas that will not be suitable for development until the long-term due to existing oil and gas activities, future transportation and servicing plans, and constrained land characteristics. The Acheson Industrial ASP designates the majority of developable lands for future industrial and commercial development. The development concept designates agricultural lands in two locations – south of the Wagner Natural Area and north of the Canadian National rail right-of-way, and in the southeast corner of the plan area west of Hillview Road and north of Highway 628. The ASP also designates three large sites for recreational purposes – one adjacent to Osborne Acres and two in the southeast quadrant of the Plan area.

The ASP provides land uses statistics, broken down by land uses within the Plan area, and also provides employment projections in three scenarios (low, medium and high) for the Plan area.

April 2015 | Page 103

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

10.4.6 Highvale Mine End Land Use Area Structure Plan

The Highvale Mine End Land Use ASP was adopted in 1997. The Plan area is generally defined by a drainage basin that slopes towards Lake Wabamun, extending along the south shores of the lake and south of Wabamun Indian Reserve 133A. The Plan area encompasses both the Keephills and Sundance power plants and the Highvale Mine.

The purpose of the ASP is “to provide direction to both TransAlta Utilities Corporation and Parkland County for the re-establishment of land uses within the area of the Highvale mine and Sundance and Keephills plant sites.” The primary land use designations are: agricultural mixed use, country residential, direct control and agriculture/nature conservation. Residential developments will be permitted within the agricultural mixed use, agriculture/nature conservation and country residential districts, while the direct control district will be established around the Sundance and Keephills power plants. Development phasing is directly related to mining activity and the subsequent reclamation of the lands. The ASP notes that flexibility is required “to allow the mine operators to select the most suitable areas for mine operations.”

The ASP does not provide any land uses statistics or population or employment projections for the Plan area. Parkland County initiated an update to the Highvale Mine End Land Use ASP in April 2015.

Page 104 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

10.4.7 Jackfish Lake Area Structure Plan

The Jackfish Lake ASP was originally adopted in 1997 and was amended in 2002. Located around Jackfish Lake in the southeast corner of the Jackfish Mayatan ASP, bounded by Highway 770 to the east, Range Road 25 to the west, Township Road 524 to the north, and Highway 627 a half mile to the south.

The purpose of the ASP is to “provide the means by which the principles for growth and development as outlined in the Municipal Development Plan, shall be elaborated upon in greater detail.” The philosophy of the ASP is to “successfully manage the environment and recreational resources of Jackfish Lake in a responsible and sustainable manner.” The ASP describes development, boating capacity, and the environment as major issues within the Plan area. “Generally, property owners see the lake as being near or beyond its development capacity.” The ASP also describes a perceived problem with demising water quality and congestion on the lake by property owners. The ASP has established goals which “provide the foundation for the specific objectives and policies which will guide the future land use and management of Jackfish Lake.” The goals include: preserving and enhancing the natural environment, promoting safe and responsible recreational uses and improving the quality and safety of the recreational experience.

The ASP does not provide land uses statistics or population projections for the Plan area.

April 2015 | Page 105

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

10.4.8 Fifth Meridian Area Structure Plan

The Fifth Meridian ASP was adopted in 2001. Located directly north of Stony Plain, the ASP is bounded by Highway 16 to the north, the Town of Stony Plain to the south, Rosenthal Road to the west and Boundary Road and the City of Spruce Grove to the east.

The purpose of the ASP is to “provide a planning framework for subdivision and development within the Area Structure Plan area to ensure orderly, efficient and compatible land uses and development.” The ASP plans for a variety of land uses ranging from residential to business/industrial. Country residential developments will encourage the clustering of developments and extensions to existing areas in the northwest portion of the Plan area. Country residential lot sizes must be larger than 0.4 ha. Smaller estate residential developments will be encouraged with a minimum lot size of 0.2 ha, provided that they can be serviced by municipal services (sewer, water and storm).

The ASP designates land adjacent to Highway 16A for highway commercial land uses. The highway commercial land uses would be an extension of the existing highway commercial land uses within the Town of Stony Plain adjacent to Highway 16A. The ASP also notes that environmental features such as Atim Creek and other streams located within the Plan area are important features that need to be protected and conserved and can be done so by integrating them within developments as parks and open spaces through municipal and environmental reserve dedication.

The ASP does not provide any population projections, but does summarize potential student generation that the proposed residential land uses could create. A breakdown of the land uses statistics is alsoprovided in the ASP.

Page 106 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

10.4.9 Atim Creek North Area Structure Plan

The Atim Creek North ASP was adopted in 2002. Located in the northeast corner of Parkland County, the Plan area is bounded by Highway 44 to the east, Highway 16 to the south, Highway 779 to the west, and Sturgeon County to the north and northeast.

The purpose of the ASP is to “provide land use strategy and related polices which provide a framework to guide the use of land in the plan area and to promote the effective implementation of the land use strategy and policies, including cooperation with adjoining municipalities.” Six land use policy areas are allocated within the ASP. The land use areas include: country residential core, fringe, Atim Creek floodplain, manufactured home community, highway commercial cluster, and open space areas.

Approximately 85% of the land within the Plan area has been allocated for country residential development. The fringe area includes land that has been deemed to be of interest to both the County and City of Spruce Grove. Unless otherwise stated, the lands within the fringe area will be for agricultural uses. The Atim Creek floodplain area refers to the lands within the 1:100 year floodplain of the creek. Land uses within this area will be for extensive agricultural purposes or habitat conservation. The manufactured home community area refers specifically to the Parkland Village community and acknowledges the fact it provides an alternate form of rural residential living. The highway commercial area refers specially to the “two quarter sections of land in the southeast corner of the plan area, being those lying west of Highway 44 and between Highway 16 and the back service road”. The open space area includes the existing County recreation facility at Muir Lake, as well as the potential open space around Gladu Lake.

The ASP does not provide any population projections or land use statistics.

April 2015 | Page 107

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

10.4.10 Entwistle Area Structure Plan

The Enwistle ASP was adopted in 2012. It applies to the entirety of the Hamlet of Entwistle (190 ha), which is located at the western edge of Parkland County overlooking the Pembina River. It also applies to another 193 ha to the east of the hamlet boundary, north of Highway 16, and another 158 ha to the south of the hamlet, west of Highway 22 and south of Highway 16. It includes the community of Old Entwistle and lands that were formerly subject to the Entwistle Business Park ASP that was adopted in 2005.

The purpose of the Entwistle ASP is to provide “direction for balanced and sustainable development” within the plan area and to “guide future development by supporting and directing growth that will be capable of meeting the residential, service, commercial, and community needs of the area’s residents.” The ASP designates lands within the plan area for a mix of recreation, public service, residential, industrial, commercial and agriculture restricted uses. In terms of phasing, the ASP anticipates build out of the hamlet portion of the plan area and some industrial lands to the southeast within the first three phases before progressing south along the river in the fourth phase and to the east in the fifth phase. The ASP does not provide a breakdown of land use statistics or estimate its population capacity.

Page 108 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

11.0 Projections

Table 64 summarizes the High Case projections for population, dwellings and employment prepared for the Community Scan and Analysis by Strategic Projections Inc. (SPI). The projections were prepared using a Parkland County version of SPI’s Community Projection System. Table 64: Parkland County Projections Summary, 2011 to 2044 (High Case)

Ten-Year Interval Projections 30-Year Projections Projection Characteristic 2011 2021 2031 2041 2014 2044 Change Population by major age group Total population 30,610 36,326 42,209 48,173 32,223 50,000 17,777 Persons 0-14 5,855 6,562 9,355 11,049 5,862 11,301 5,440 Persons 15-19 2,285 2,209 2,379 3,527 2,367 3,835 1,468 Persons 20-24 1,515 2,514 2,075 3,008 2,177 3,433 1,255 Persons 25-34 2,720 4,570 5,548 5,290 2,680 5,741 3,061 Persons 35-44 4,230 3,258 5,216 6,462 3,977 6,186 2,209 Persons 45-54 5,975 4,664 3,504 5,655 5,709 6,752 1,043 Persons 55-64 4,585 6,095 4,664 3,527 5,193 3,442 -1,751 Persons 65-74 2,430 4,238 5,490 4,212 2,974 3,937 963 Persons 75+ 1,015 2,217 3,978 5,443 1,284 5,373 4,089 Sources of population change Annual population change 255 587 589 605 580 611 31 Births 380 522 667 698 389 748 359 Deaths 173 297 446 568 202 590 388 Net natural 207 225 221 130 187 158 -29 Net migration 48 362 368 475 393 453 60 Dwelling units / Households Total dwelling units 10,930 13,038 14,627 15,839 11,493 16,242 4,749 Single detached 9,678 11,499 12,847 13,830 10,175 14,165 3,990 All other types 1,252 1,539 1,780 2,010 1,318 2,077 758 Persons per household 2.80 2.79 2.89 3.04 2.80 3.08 0 Labour market activity by place of residence (EPOR) Persons 15 and over 24,755 29,765 32,854 37,124 26,362 38,699 12,337 Labour force source population 24,625 29,608 32,681 36,929 26,223 38,496 12,272 Participation rate 74.6 74.6 73.4 72.4 74.3 72.1 -2.0 Labour force 18,360 22,081 23,993 26,733 19,496 27,755 8,259 Employment by place of residence 17,555 21,511 23,409 26,115 18,824 27,132 8,308 Unemployment 805 571 584 617 672 623 -50 Unemployment rate 4.4 2.6 2.4 2.3 3.4 2.2 -1 Employment by place of work (EPOW) Total employment 9,220 11,086 12,653 14,717 9,766 15,451 5,686 Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting 674 584 418 291 760 260 -500 Mining, oil and gas 734 922 996 1,052 842 1,064 222 Utilities 774 1,023 1,176 1,369 885 1,436 551

April 2015 | Page 109

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Ten-Year Interval Projections 30-Year Projections Projection Characteristic 2011 2021 2031 2041 2014 2044 Change Construction 1,513 2,320 3,160 4,275 1,693 4,678 2,985 Manufacturing 824 690 574 470 787 441 -346 Wholesale trade 939 965 1,064 1,168 851 1,199 348 Retail trade 305 343 363 382 315 387 72 Transportation, warehousing 365 444 492 549 394 567 173 Information, culture 25 20 18 17 20 17 -4 Finance, insurance 100 123 136 151 109 155 47 Real estate, leasing 150 185 205 226 163 233 70 Professional, scientific, technical 479 702 922 1,199 529 1,295 767 services Administrative support, waste 255 338 433 551 261 592 331 management Education 400 470 544 632 403 662 259 Health, social services 280 344 400 469 292 491 199 Arts, entertainment, recreation 235 278 305 338 250 349 99 Accommodation, food 340 419 495 590 353 623 270 Other services 469 503 505 508 485 508 23 Government 360 412 444 482 374 494 120 Activity Rate (EPOW / 1,000 Residents) 301 305 300 305 303 309 6 GDP and Household Incomes Total GDP ($2007 millions) $1,853 $2,528 $3,157 $3,983 $2,046 $4,283 $2,237 Total household income ($2007 millions) $1,699 $2,287 $2,637 $3,013 $1,898 $3,155 $1,258 Per household in $2007 Personal income $155,445 $175,380 $180,268 $190,226 $165,127 $194,278 $29,151 Disposable income $117,048 $132,789 $136,490 $144,030 $125,026 $147,098 $22,072 Consumer spending $100,346 $110,335 $113,411 $119,676 $103,885 $122,225 $18,340

Source: Statistics Canada and Strategic Projections Inc.

11.1 Highlights of the Projections

The total population projection for Parkland County is based on the Capital Region Board’s recently released High Case projection for the population of the County. The SPI projection system determines through an age cohort framework the amount of net in-migration required by Parkland County each year from 2011 to 2044 to meet the projected population total over that span given expected future fertility and mortality rates and the age distribution of migrants. Projections for the number of households and dwellings by structural type are based on the projected population by age.

Projections for employment in Parkland County are prepared separately for its economic-based (or export- based) industries – primary, mining and manufacturing – and for its community-based (those serving the local population) industries. Economic-based employment is assumed to grow in the future at the pace projected for it by SPI’s most recent projections for those industries for Alberta as a whole. Community- based employment per capita is assumed to grow for Parkland County at the pace projected for each industry by SPI’s most recent projections for per capita employment for Alberta as a whole. Thus, future community-based employment growth is primarily driven by population growth within the community.

Page 110 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

The first few columns in Table 64 show actual or projected values for each year in ten-year intervals between 2011 and 2041. The sources of population growth in these columns reflect average annual births, deaths, etc. over these ten year periods.

The next two columns show the estimated value for each of 2014 and 2044, while the final column shows the absolute change in each variable over the thirty-year span of 2014 to 2044.

In summary, the total population of Parkland County in the High Case is projected to increase from about 32,223 today to about 50,000 in 2044, a gain of 17,777. Total employment by place of residence is projected to increase by 12,337 and by place-of work by 5,686. The total number of dwellings is projected to increase by 4,749.

The changes in population by major age group are projected as follows:  The population of every age group will increase except that of persons 55 to 64 which will decline by 1,751 due to the aging of the baby boomer generation;  The population of persons under 15 will increase by 5,440 while that of persons 75 and over will increase by 4,089; and  Other major gains will occur among persons 25 to 34 (up 3,061), persons 35 to 44 (up 2,209), persons 15 to 19 (up 1,468), persons 20 to 24 (up 1,255), persons 45 to 54 (up 1,043) and persons 65 to 74 (up 963).

Births will add 18,355 new residents to Parkland County’s population over the 2014 to 2044 while deaths will reduce it by 12,512. Thus, net natural population growth (births less deaths) will increase Parkland County’s population over that timespan by 5,843.

The largest contributor to the County’s population growth will be net in-migration totaling 11,934.

Most of the new dwellings required will be single detached units (3,990 out of a total of 4,749).

Employment by place of residence (up 12,337) will grow almost twice as fast as employment by place of work (up 5,686) unless population-serving jobs are drawn to the community at a pace faster than that generated by the projection system.

Jobs by place of work will grow most in construction (2,985), professional, scientific and technical services (767), utilities (551), wholesale trade (348), and administrative support and waste management (331). A number of other service industries will each create between 100 and 300 jobs including, in descending order, accommodation and food (270), education (259), mining, oil and gas (222), education (199), transportation and warehousing (173), and government (120). Jobs in information and culture will decline by 4, in manufacturing by 346 and in agriculture by 500. Modest gains can be expected in the remaining industries.

The overall activity rate – jobs by place of work relative to the total population – will hold steady at around 309 over the projection horizon unless the community-based ratio can be increased by attracting more population-serving industries to the municipality.

Parkland County’s economic-based jobs – which are focused primarily in the primary, mining and manufacturing industries – will decline slightly reflecting provincial and national trends. The output of these industries will grow but because these industries are highly capital intensive (and therefore achieve significant productivity gains) jobs will decline even as output grows. Additional lands for these activities will be required in tandem with output growth in Parkland County but employment densities at these sites will continue to decline.

April 2015 | Page 111

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Summary In summary, Parkland County’s past and future population growth has been and will be fostered by strong commuter growth to nearby employment centres, most importantly Edmonton. Parkland County is an affluent rural bedroom community within the commuter shed of the City of Edmonton. Its traditional economic base industries face job declines in the future. This pattern will be reversed only if its economic- base focus can she shifted away from its traditional industrial base toward economic base jobs in professional and other business services and in higher order health and education services.

11.2 Details of the Projections

Two models were used by Strategic Projections Inc. (SPI) to develop demographic and economic projections, and allocate population growth for the Parkland County.

The first model used to develop demographic and economic projections for Parkland County is a version of the community-based model SPI has been using for decades to develop detailed projections at the sub- provincial level across Canada.

The second model was used to allocate the population of the County to its constituent electoral divisions and hamlets. This model was developed by SPI specifically for that purpose for this assignment.

The two models and their key results are described in Sections 11.3 through 11.6 below.

11.3 Total Population

The purpose of each model is to identify the changes that will occur in a number of demographic, economic and spatial variables under various assumptions regarding the County’s future total population.

The Low Case and High Case projections for Parkland County’s total population to 2044 generated by SPI for the Capital Region Board18 serve as the basis for the Low Case and High Case projections for the County for this assignment. Projections of Parkland County’s total population beyond 2044 to 2061 for both the Low Case and High Case scenarios were developed by SPI specifically for this assignment, drawing on SPI’s most recent base-case national, provincial and sub-provincial projections to 2061.

The CRB report for 2013 contained only High Case and Low Case projections for the population of Parkland County to 2044. The Base Case presented in this report was determined by taking an average of the High Case and Low Case CRB projections.

The three total population projections for Parkland County are illustrated in Figure 30.

Note the following:  The Base Case projection takes Parkland County’s population from 30,600 in 2011 to 55,700 in 2061 (all figures are rounded to the nearest 100). The Low Case reaches 49,500 in 2061 while the High Case reaches 61,900 that year.  In all three cases the population grows at a steady absolute annual rate through to 2044. Beyond 2044 to 2061 the absolute annual rate increases slightly each year. This pattern reflects the likelihood that over time population growth in the Capital Region area will likely need to be accommodated increasingly outside of the City of Edmonton due to limitations on potential densities within Edmonton itself.

18 As described in SPI’s report to the Board Capital Region Population and Employment Projections dated September 13, 2012.

Page 112 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

 In all three cases the average annual percentage gain in population declines slightly each year from 2011 to 2044 then holds steady across the remainder of the projection horizon, the net result of the assumptions made regarding future average annual absolute rates of growth.

Figure 30: Population Projection Alternatives, 2011-2061

Source: Strategic Projections Inc.

11.4 Demographic and Economic Model

The Parkland County demographic and economic model develops detailed projections for Parkland County as a whole of its population by age and gender, dwellings by structural type by age of household head, employment of residents, employment by industry by local employers, Gross Domestic Product by industry and household incomes of its residents under different assumptions regarding its future population growth. The model is based on population, employment, dwelling and income information for Parkland County available through the 2011 Census and the 2011 National Household Survey.

11.4.1 Population by Age and Gender, Dwellings and Labour Force

The demographic and economic model includes a standard age cohort model. Using a 2011 base year, the age cohort model translates the total population projected for Parkland County for each year from 2012 to 2061 into its single-year age cohorts and gender components and calculates various age and gender

April 2015 | Page 113

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

aggregations of the total population. The age distribution is projected based on assumptions regarding future fertility rates, mortality rates and migration flows by age and gender.

Based on the population data for 2011 and on assumptions regarding future migration flows and fertility and mortality rates, the model projects births, deaths and net migration for each year. Net migration is the “floating” variable in the model. It adjusts each year as required to generate the total population assumed for that year. In other words, the model ages the existing population “in place” adding to it or subtracting from it through net migration as required to reach the population total projected for it for each year.

Household headship rates by age of head, and dwelling propensities by age of head by structural type are used to project future households and future dwellings by structural type by applying these rates to the projected age structure of the population.

Labour force source population, participation rates and unemployment rates for the County are projected into the future assuming changes to these variables coincident with those expected for the Capital Region as a whole. The result is the projected labour force and number of job holders in the County on a place of residence (POR) basis.

11.4.2 Economic Base and Community Base Employment by Place of Work

The demographic and economic model also projects Parkland County’s employment by industry by place of work (that is, where the jobs are actually provided by employers) – employment in place of residence and employment in place of work.

These jobs are first separated in the base year into economic base jobs and community base jobs.

Economic base jobs in the County are found in agriculture, mining (including oil and gas) and manufacturing. Projections for employment by economic base industry from SPI’s projections for the Capital Region as a whole are used to drive the projections at the Parkland County level. It is assumed that the economic base jobs in the traditional export based industries in the County will grow at the same rate projected for them region-wide by SPI.

All other jobs in the County – the community base (or population driven) jobs – are projected to grow on a per capita basis at the same per capita rate projected for each industry region-wide by SPI. In this manner population serving jobs in the retail, health, education, food and accommodation and other service industries are determined by the future population growth of the County.

Total jobs by place of work by detailed industry in Parkland County equal the sum of all economic base and community base jobs.

11.4.3 GDP and Incomes

The Parkland County demographic and economic model also allocates to the County a share of the projected area-wide real GDP by industry and personal income and disposable income in both current and constant dollars.

GDP is allocated to the County assuming that the output per worker by industry – productivity – is the same in each municipality across the region. Productivity by industry region-wide is multiplied by employment for each industry in the County to obtain GDP by industry in the County.

These calculations provide a rough approximation of how much GDP is generated by workers in the County and how much personal income is received by residents of the County.

Page 114 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

A list of all the demographic and economic variables generated by the model appears in Appendix E.

11.5 Analysis of Demographic and Economic Models

In the base year of 2011, the number of Parkland County residents with jobs totaled 17,555, while the number of jobs provided by employers within Parkland County totaled 9,220. Therefore, in 2011, Parkland County was a net exporter on a daily basis of some 8,335 workers to jobs located in nearby communities (primarily in Edmonton, Spruce Grove and Stony Plain).

Figure 31 projects how Parkland County’s 2011 employment by place of residence (EPOR) of 17,555 and employment by place of work (EPOW) will grow through to 2061 under the County’s Low, Base and High Case scenarios.

Figure 31: Employment Projection Alternatives by EPOR and EPOW, 2011-2061

Source: Strategic Projections Inc.

As shown in Figure 31, this commuter gap will persist across the projection horizon. Narrowing the gap will occur only if (a) Parkland County achieves a higher share of the projected region-wide economic base job growth than other area municipalities, or (b) if community base jobs are provided locally to a much greater extent than in the past. This outcome would reduce the need for Parkland County residents to travel to nearby communities to purchase such services.

The wide-spread geography of Parkland County, and its proximity to major nearby service centres, favour the preservation of rather than the narrowing of the commuter gap.

April 2015 | Page 115

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Figure 32 reveals that the number of households and dwellings in Parkland County will need to increase significantly in the future to accommodate the total populations envisaged in the Low, Base and High Case scenarios. In 2011, the number of dwellings totaled just over 10,900. By 2061, the number would increase to 15,700 in the Low Case, to 17,600 in the Base Case and to 19,500 in the High Case. Over that span, the persons per unit ratio is projected to increase from 2.96 in 2011 to between 3.16 and 3.18 in 2061. The increasing persons per unit ratio reflects Parkland County’s role in the Capital Region as a consistently growing rural lifestyle municipality within a metropolitan context, catering to the single detached housing preferences of young families, most with children, whose major bread-winner commutes to a job elsewhere in the Capital Region.

Figure 32: Household/Dwelling Projection Alternatives, 2011-61

Source: Strategic Projections Inc.

11.6 Population Model by Sub-Area

The demographic and economic model of Parkland County based on federal census data suggests the population of the County in 2011 totaled 30,610. That total is based on a summation of the population estimates of the County for each single-year age cohort and gender category.

At the outset of the Community Scan and Analysis project, a custom geography order from the 2011 census of Parkland County’s population by sub-area was submitted to Statistics Canada. Sub-areas included the County’s six electoral divisions and eight urban communities (seven hamlets and Parkland Village). The 2011 population counts of Parkland County’s six electoral divisions and eight urban communities are presented in Table 65 on the following page.

Page 116 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

A summation of the population counts by the six electoral divisions in Table 65 suggests the County’s population in 2011 totaled 30,565, or 45 persons less than the 30,610 mentioned above. The negligible difference between the two 2011 population counts is a result of Statistics Canada’s random rounding policy to protect privacy.

Table 65: Parkland County Population Model by Sub-Area, 2011

Geography Population Parkland County Total (2011 Census) 30,610 Parkland County Total (2011 Census Custom Order) 30,565 Division 1 5,455 Division 2 6,005 Parkland Village 1,910 All Other Division 2 4,095 Division 3 6,150 Division 4 4,780 Division 5 4,905 Carvel 30 Duffield 75 Keephills 50 All Other Division 5 4,750 Division 6 3,270 Entwistle 440 Fallis 60 Gainford 140 Tomahawk 70 All Other Division 6 2,560

Source: Statistics Canada 2011 Census (Community Profiles and Custom Order)

SPI developed a model to project Parkland County’s population by electoral division and hamlet based on the following assumptions:  The population of the County as a whole will grow each year at the pace assumed for annual population growth in the demographic and economic model.  The share of the County’s annual growth by electoral division reflects the shares achieved in the past altered as appropriate by locational factors such as proximity to commuter destinations and shopping centres such as Edmonton, etc.

The shares of the County’s future population growth assumed by electoral division are as follows:  30% to Division 1;  25% to Division 2;  25% to Division 3;  15% to Division 4;  2.5% to Division 5; and  2.5% to Division 6.

April 2015 | Page 117

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Furthermore, it was assumed based on historical trends that the population of each hamlet will grow modestly at an annual rate of 0.5%.

Parkland Village is a manufactured home park. It is already built out and is not expected to expand. Therefore, it was assigned an annual growth rate of 0.1%. The population of the remaining portion of each division will therefore equal the projected total for each division less the totals projected for each constituent hamlet.

These assumptions were applied in creating each of the three scenarios: Low Case, Base Case, and High Case.

Table 66 summarizes the projections of the population to 2061 for each division and hamlet in Parkland County for each of the three scenarios.

Table 66: Population Projection Alternatives by Electoral Division and Hamlet, 2011-2061 2061 Projected Population Change 2011-2061 Geography 2011 Low Base High Low Base High Parkland County Total 30,565 49,429 55,647 61,865 18,864 25,082 31,300 Division 1 5,455 11,114 12,980 14,845 5,659 7,525 9,390 Division 2 6,005 10,721 12,275 13,830 4,716 6,270 7,825 Parkland Village 1,910 2,008 2,008 2,008 98 98 98 All Other Division 2 4,095 8,713 10,268 11,822 4,618 6,173 7,727 Division 3 6,150 10,866 12,420 13,975 4,716 6,270 7,825 Division 4 4,780 7,610 8,542 9,475 2,830 3,762 4,695 Division 5 4,905 5,377 5,532 5,688 472 627 783 Carvel 30 38 38 38 8 8 8 Duffield 75 96 96 96 21 21 21 Keephills 50 64 64 64 14 14 14 All Other Division 5 4,750 5,178 5,333 5,489 428 583 739 Division 6 3,270 3,742 3,897 4,053 472 627 783 Entwistle 440 565 565 565 125 125 125 Fallis 60 77 77 77 17 17 17 Gainford 140 180 180 180 40 40 40 Tomahawk 70 90 90 90 20 20 20 All Other Division 6 2,560 2,831 2,986 3,141 271 426 581 Source: Strategic Projections Inc.

11.7 Housing

11.7.1 Housing Projections by Type

Parkland County is expected to experience a 78.1% growth in the number of dwelling units from 2011-2061, at a rate of approximately 1.6% a year. Figure 33 presents the projected ten-year dwelling growth rates in the County.

Between the 2001 and 2011 censuses, the number of dwellings in Parkland County increased by 16.3%. In the next decade, the County’s dwellings are expected to increase at a similar rate of 19.3% by 2021 (or 150- 200 per year). In the following two decades, the dwelling growth rates are expected to be lower (at 50-100

Page 118 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

per year). The decrease in rates beyond 2021 are due to the cyclical nature of the changing age structure within the total population. That is, housing needs at different age levels are, relatively speaking, quite different and population growth rates at different age levels are quite different across the projection horizon. In other words, while population growth along the projection grows steadily by about 500 per year, and then gradually increases to 600 per year, housing growth occurs in a cyclical manner instead. Housing growth is cyclical due to the changing mix of population living within the households. Communities experience high housing growth rates when population growth is greatest among the age groups with high household headship rates (those aged 35 to 65). They experience low housing growth when population growth is greatest among age groups with lower household headship rates (those under 35 and over 65).

Figure 33: Dwelling Growth Rates in Parkland County, 2001-2061

Source: Strategic Projections Inc. and SHS Consulting

Table 67: Dwelling Type Projections, 2011-2061

Dwelling 2011 2021 2031 2041 2051 2061 % Change Type No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 11-61 Single 9,678 88.5 11,499 88.2 12,847 87.8 13,830 87.3 15,127 87.1 17,028 87.5 75.9 Detached Semi- 75 0.7 89 0.7 68 0.5 61 0.4 91 0.5 101 0.5 34.8 Detached Movable 1,177 10.8 1,450 11.1 1,713 11.7 1,948 12.3 2,151 12.4 2,335 12.0 98.5 Total 10,930 100.0 13,038 100.0 14,627 100.0 15,839 100.0 17,369 100.0 19,465 100.0 78.1 Dwellings

Source: Strategic Projections Inc. and SHS Consulting

As noted in Table 67 above, if current dwelling trends are maintained in the future, the majority of dwellings in Parkland County will continue to be single detached dwellings, with a small share of movable dwellings, and a few semi-detached dwellings. The growth rate attributed to semi-detached units decreases slightly

April 2015 | Page 119

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

after 2021 and this results in a decline in the number of units between 2021 and 2041. These projected trends indicate a need for the County to encourage other dwelling types to diversify the housing stock.

11.7.2 Housing Projections by Sub-Area

As Table 68 below demonstrates, growth in dwellings will vary by electoral division, and this is a direct reflection of the growth patterns anticipated for the County, as described in Section 11.4. Divisions 1, 2, and 3 will experience significant growth in dwellings (over 100% increases) from 2011 to 2061, and Division 4 will be close behind with a 74.5% increase from 2011 to 2061. In contrast, the remaining electoral divisions will experience little growth in dwellings. Entwistle and the aggregation of the hamlets of Duffield, Fallis, Gainford, Keephills and Tomahawk are each anticipated to experience growth of just 13.0%. Table 68: Dwelling Type Projections by Electoral Division and Hamlet, 2011-2061

% Change Geography 2011 2021 2031 2041 2051 2061 11-61 Electoral Division 1 1,881 2,485 2,990 3,405 3,886 4,507 139.6% Electoral Division 2 2,224 2,768 3,201 3,545 3,960 4,510 102.8% Electoral Division 3 1,984 2,458 2,833 3,131 3,491 3,969 100.1% Electoral Division 4 1,707 2,024 2,260 2,438 2,666 2,980 74.5% Electoral Division 5 1,817 1,879 1,867 1,823 1,818 1,855 2.1% Electoral Division 6 1,363 1,429 1,440 1,423 1,438 1,487 9.1% Entwistle 200 211 214 214 218 226 13.0% Duffield/Fallis/Gainford/ 172 181 184 184 187 194 13.0% Keephills/Tomahawk

Source: Strategic Projections Inc. and SHS Consulting

11.7.3 Housing Needs for Seniors

From 2001 to 2011, the number of dwellings maintained by seniors aged 65 years and older in Parkland County increased by 60.7%.

Senior-maintained dwellings are those that are occupied and maintained by seniors, and does not include assisted-living dwelling units.19 Parkland County is expected to see an additional 152.9% increase in senior- maintained dwellings, for a total of 5,020 dwellings in 2061. This equates to an annual increase in senior- maintained dwellings of 3.1% from 2011 to 2061. Table 69: Senior Dwelling Type Projections, 2011-2061

% Change Dwelling Type 2011 2021 2031 2041 2051 2061 11-61 Single Detached 1,788 3,332 4,844 4,857 3,993 4,472 150.0% Semi-Detached 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Movable 197 383 595 670 569 548 179.1% Total Dwellings 1,985 3,715 5,439 5,527 4,562 5,020 152.9%

Source: Strategic Projections Inc. and SHS Consulting

19 Urban centres, such as Edmonton, Spruce Grove and Stony Plain, are anticipated to service the assisted-living dwelling needs of Parkland County’s senior population.

Page 120 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Similar to overall trends, if current dwelling trends are maintained in the future, the vast majority of senior dwellings in Parkland County will continue to be single detached dwellings, with a small share of movable dwellings. These projected trends indicate a need for the County to encourage other senior housing options to diversify the housing stock for seniors.

Table 70: Senior Dwelling Type Projections by Sub-Area, 2011-2061

% Change Sub-Area 2011 2021 2031 2041 2051 2061 11-61 Electoral Division 1 345 630 887 834 672 819 137.5% Electoral Division 2 455 857 1,269 1,315 1,091 1,171 157.3% Electoral Division 3 235 427 597 552 443 552 134.7% Electoral Division 4 225 412 583 553 447 538 139.3% Electoral Division 5 395 748 1,116 1,175 979 1,030 160.8% Electoral Division 6 325 628 967 1,071 905 892 174.3% Entwistle 25 46 60 48 37 56 122.1% Duffield/Fallis/Gainford/ 15 34 60 81 72 55 268.8% Keephills/Tomahawk

Source: Strategic Projections Inc. and SHS Consulting

When broken down by area, projections indicated that all areas of Parkland County will experience a growth of senior-maintained households of at least 120%, with the growth in the Duffield / Fallis / Gainford / Keephills / Tomahawk and Entwistle area reaching as high as 268.8%.

11.7.4 Dwelling Units per Titled Area

Parkland County’s Land Use Bylaw (LUB) allows two to three dwelling units on certain parcels under certain conditions. As the LUB relates to single detached dwellings, it allows:  Two single detached dwellings on agricultural parcels of at least 28.3 ha (70 ac);  Two single detached dwellings on a parcel within a multi-parcel subdivision containing less than four parcels so long as one of the dwellings is a single-wide manufactured home;  A third single detached dwelling on agricultural parcels of at least 28.3 ha (70 ac) so long as it is a singlewide manufactured home and occupied by a full-time employee that is undertaking agricultural work on the parcel; and  A secondary suite attached to or within a single detached dwelling.

According to Table 24 in Section 5.3, the County approved 42 additional dwelling units on a parcel and 27 secondary suites for a total of 69 units between 2010 and 2013. During the same period, the County approved 693 single detached dwellings, 23 duplex dwellings and 49 manufactured homes for a total 765 units. With a combined total of 834 units, the 42 additional dwelling units accounted for 5% of the units while secondary suites accounted for 3% of the units. Together, they combined for 8% of the units.

Assuming these ratios will carry forward, the 8,535 new dwelling units projected by 2061 will result in 683 being either additional dwelling units on a parcel (427) or secondary suites (256). Further, assuming each new semi-detached dwelling will have its own titled area, the balance of the 7,852 units will be on their own titled areas. This results in an average of 1.09 dwelling units per titled area moving forward.

April 2015 | Page 121

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

11.7.5 Housing Conclusions

Based on population projections it is expected that the County will see a 78.1% growth in households/dwellings from 2011 to 2061. The most significant finding of the analysis of the population projections and housing needs is a 152.9% growth in dwellings maintained by a senior (65 years and older). While overall dwelling growth will vary by electoral division, all divisions will experience significant increases in senior-maintained dwellings.

11.8 Subdivision, Development and Building Permit Activity

11.8.1 Subdivision Activity Projections

According to Table 21 in Section 5.1, Parkland County processed 139 residential subdivision applications between 2010 and 2012. Table 22 in Section 5.2 indicates that 489 residential lots were registered over this time period. This averages to 3.5 residential lots for every residential subdivision application. The dwelling projections indicate the County will require 8,170 new dwellings between 2011 and 2061 in the high scenario.

Based on assumptions that 90% of new dwellings will be developed on newly registered lots and the average 3.5 lots per application will continue throughout the forecast period, Parkland County will process 2,102 residential subdivision applications between 2011 and 2061 that will create 7,353 residential lots. This translates to averages of 44 subdivision applications and 153 lots registered per year.

See Figure 34 for the projected annual residential subdivision application activity from 2014 through to 2061 inclusive derived from the dwelling projections and the assumptions presented above. Figure 34: Projected Annual Subdivision Activity, 2014–2061

Source: ISL Engineering and Land Services Ltd.

Page 122 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

According to Table 22 in Section 5.1, Parkland County processed 6 industrial/commercial subdivision applications between 2010 and 2012. A parcel registration analysis reveals that 95 industrial/commercial lots or condominium units were registered over this time period with an average lot size of 1.9 ha. This averages to 15.8 lots/units and 30.0 ha for every subdivision application. Though the average lot size is reasonable, the average of 15.8 lots/units per application seems high and unsustainable over a longer period.

Based on assumptions of 5 lots/units per subdivision application and an average lot size of 1.9 ha, as well as the assumptions presented in Section 11.9.1 (relationship between projected jobs and non-residential land requirements to accommodate the projected jobs), Parkland County will process 98 industrial/commercial subdivision applications between 2014 and 2061 that will create 766 new lots/units. This translates to averages of 2 subdivision applications and 16 lots/units registered per year.

See Figure 34 above for the projected annual industrial/commercial subdivision application activity through to 2061 derived from the employment projections and the assumptions presented above.

11.8.2 Development and Building Permit Activity Projections

Data presented in Tables 23, 24 and 26 within Sections 5.3 and 5.4 reveal the following averages among development permit (DP) and building permit (BP) applications experienced by Parkland County between 2010 and 2013 inclusive:  744 residential DP applications per year (Table 23);  205 DP applications for new residential dwellings (i.e., single detached dwellings, duplex dwellings, manufactured homes and additional dwelling units on a parcel) per year (Table 24);  539 DP applications for other residential purposes per year (Table 24);  101 non-residential DP applications per year (Table 23);  591 residential BP applications per year (Table 26);  220 BP applications for new residential dwellings (i.e., single detached, singlewide mobile/modulars and multi-family) per year (Table 26);  371 BP applications for other residential purposes per year (Table 26);  47 non-residential BP applications per year (Table 26).

These averages result in the following relationships:  93% of all BP applications were residential (591), of which:  37% of residential BP applications were for new residential dwellings (220); and  63% of residential BP applications were for other residential purposes (371); and  7% of all BP applications were non-residential (47);  88% of all DP applications were residential (744), of which:  27% of residential DP applications were for new residential dwellings (205); and  73% of residential DP applications were for other residential purposes (539); and  12% of all DP applications were non-residential (101); and  For every BP application for residential dwellings (220), there were 0.93 DP applications for residential dwellings (205).

As the housing projections in Section 11.7.1 by dwelling type (Table 67) only anticipate growth in single detached, semi-detached and movable residential dwellings, it can be assumed that every new single detached and movable dwelling will each generate one BP application. As semi-detached dwellings are two-unit dwellings, it can be assumed that there will be one BP application for every two units.

April 2015 | Page 123

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

The housing projections by dwelling type forecast a total of 8,148 new single detached or movable dwellings and 54 new semi-detached units between 2014 and 2061 inclusive, excluding demolitions of older housing stock during the forecast period. This results in a projected 8,175 residential BP applications between 2014 and 2061 inclusive. Using the residential dwelling relationship of one BP application for every 0.93 DP applications, the total DP applications for residential dwellings is projected to be 7,603. For other residential purposes, the relationships described above result in 13,919 BP applications and 20,555 DP applications.

For non-residential activity, the above application relationships result in 1,663 non-residential BP applications and 3,840 non-residential DP applications between 2014 and 2061 inclusive. Note that these might be conservative projections of future non-residential DP and BP applications as the recent approval of the updated Acheson Industrial Area Structure Plan (ASP) and the County’s recent completion of an Employment and Industrial Lands Strategy may facilitate a higher proportion of non-residential activity compared to the proportion in recent history.

Figure 35 presents the projected annual DP and BP application activities by type for new residential dwellings, other residential purposes and non-residential development between 2014 and 2061 inclusive.

Figure 35: Projected Annual Development and Building Permit Activity, 2011–2061

Source: ISL Engineering and Land Services Ltd.

11.9 Land Supply Needs

11.9.1 Overall Land Supply Needs

Table 71 presents the dwelling unit needs of Parkland County’s electoral divisions to 2043 using the population projections presented in Table 65 and average household sizes generated by the population model. Table 72 presents the residential land requirements by electoral division as a result of the projected

Page 124 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

change in dwelling units from Table 71 using assumed average lot sizes and overhead requirements for reserves, roads, etc. For the purpose of generating residential land supply needs, this analysis assumed that all projected dwelling units would be developed on country residential lands that were currently unabsorbed as of 2014. Table 71: Dwelling Unit Needs by Electoral Division to 2043

Population Average Household Size Dwelling Units Electoral Change Change Change Division 2013 2043 2013 2043 2013 2043 13-43 13-43 13-43 Division 1 5,684 8,975 3,291 2.90 3.17 0.27 1,987 3,493 1,506 Division 2 6,195 8,938 2,743 2.70 2.96 0.25 2,319 3,620 1,301 Division 3 6,340 9,083 2,743 3.10 3.39 0.29 2,066 3,196 1,129 Division 4 4,894 6,540 1,646 2.80 3.07 0.26 1,762 2,478 717 Division 5 4,924 5,198 274 2.70 2.96 0.25 1,826 1,818 -7 excluding hamlets 4,767 5,016 249 2.70 2.96 0.25 1,758 1,746 -11 Division 6 3,289 3,563 274 2.40 2.63 0.23 1,373 1,423 51 excluding hamlets 2,572 2,730 274 2.40 2.63 0.23 1,053 1,083 30 Parkland County 31,327 42,297 274 – – – 11,333 16,029 4,696 Parkland County 30,453 41,283 274 – – – 10,945 15,617 4,672 excluding hamlets

Source: Strategic Projections Inc. and ISL Engineering and Land Services Ltd.

Table 72: Residential Land Supply Needs by Electoral Division to 2043

Requirements Per Lot (ha) Requirements by Division (ha) Electoral Overheads Total Total Remaining Net Gross Division (MR, ER, Residential Residential Unabsorbed Area Area Roads, etc.) Required Available Land in 2043 Division 1 2.00 0.6 2.6 3,915 4,828 913 Division 2 – – – 3,045 3,215 170 Country Residential 2.00 0.6 2.6 2,707 – – Country Residential Estate 1.00 0.3 1.3 338 – – Division 3 2.00 0.6 2.6 2,936 9,053 6,117 Division 4 2.00 0.6 2.6 1,863 1,294 -569 Division 5 excluding hamlets 2.00 0.6 2.6 -29 2,977 3,007 Division 6 excluding hamlets 2.00 0.6 2.6 79 1,215 1,137 Parkland County – – – 11,808 22,582 10,774 excluding hamlets

Source: Strategic Projections Inc. and ISL Engineering and Land Services Ltd.

As shown in Table 72, all electoral divisions within Parkland County have sufficient residential lands to accommodate projected population growth to a medium-term horizon of 2043 with the exception of Division 4. Beyond 2043, Division 2 will likely run out of country residential land in the immediate short-term while Division 1 will likely run out of land not too long afterwards. Divisions 3, 5 and 6 have sufficient country residential land in the extended long-term beyond 2043.

April 2015 | Page 125

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Map 16 illustrates potential locations of future residential land consumption to 2043 based on the County’s projected residential land supply needs from Table 72. For the purpose of this exercise, it was assumed that neighbouring Division 3 would accommodate the 2043 deficiency of residential lands within Division 4. In determining lands likely to accommodate residential growth, efforts were undertaken to avoid Class 1 and 2 soils as best as possible. This can be observed particularly in area south of Highway 627 adjacent to the City of Edmonton and lands to the north of Highway 16 in the vicinity of Spruce Grove and Stony Plain.

Table 73 presents the projected non-residential land requirements for Parkland County in 2043. For the projection, it was assumed that jobs in all but the industry sector of primary industries were located within the County’s absorbed non-residential land supply of 1,093.5 ha (the sum of the absorbed commercial and industrial land supplies from Table 18 in Section 4.2). It was also assumed that the ratio between jobs and absorbed lands in 2013 would remain constant through 2043.

Table 73: Non-Residential Land Supply Needs to 2043

Employment Absorbed Lands (ha) Industry Sector Net Net Net Gross 2013 2043 Change 2013 2043 Change Change Primary Industries 2,498 2,744 245 165,458.7 – – Manufacturing and 2,420 4,993 2,572 Construction Retail and Wholesale Trade 1,153 1,574 421 1,093.5 1,910.9 817.4 1,062.6 Public Services 2,411 3,493 1,081 Business Services 1,146 2,402 1,256 Total 9,629 15,205 5,576 166,552.2 167,369.6 817.4 1,062.6 Source: Strategic Projections Inc. and ISL Engineering and Land Services Ltd.

As shown in Table 73, the County’s projected employment growth to 2043 will trigger an absorption of 1,062.6 gross ha of non-residential land. This compares to the 1,479.5 gross ha of unabsorbed non- residential lands that the County currently has available to accommodate future non-primary industries employment growth (the sum of the unabsorbed commercial and industrial land supplies from Table 18 in Section 4.2).

11.9.2 Land Supply Needs by Hamlet

Table 74 on the following page presents the dwelling unit needs of Parkland County’s hamlets to 2043 using the population projections presented in Table 65 and average household sizes generated by the population model. Table 75 presents the residential land requirements by hamlet as a result of the projected change in dwelling units from Table 74 using assumed average lot sizes and overhead requirements for reserves, roads, etc. Map 17 illustrates potential locations for future residential land consumption to 2043 by hamlet.

Page 126 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

Table 74: Dwelling Unit Needs by Hamlet to 2043

Population Average Household Size Dwelling Units Hamlet Change Change Change 2013 2043 2013 2043 2013 2043 13-43 13-43 13-43 Carvel 30 35 5 2.30 2.52 0.22 13 14 1 Entwistle 444 516 72 2.20 2.41 0.21 202 214 12 Duffield 76 88 12 2.30 2.52 0.22 33 35 2 Fallis 61 70 10 2.30 2.52 0.22 26 28 2 Gainford 141 164 23 2.30 2.52 0.22 61 65 4 Keephills 51 59 8 2.30 2.52 0.22 22 23 1 Tomahawk 71 82 11 2.30 2.52 0.22 31 33 2 Total Hamlets 874 1,014 141 – – – 388 412 24

Source: Strategic Projections Inc. and ISL Engineering and Land Services Ltd.

Table 75: Residential Land Supply Needs by Hamlet to 2043

Land Requirements Per Lot Total Min. Min. Min. Overheads Gross Gross Residential Hamlet Net Plus Lot Lot (MR, PU, Area Area Required Area 20% Depth (m) Width (m) roads, etc.) (m²) (ha) (gross ha) (m²) Carvel 62 30 1,860 2,232 670 2,902 0.29 0.3 Entwistle 34 16 544 653 196 849 0.08 1.0 Duffield 62 30 1,860 2,232 670 2,902 0.29 0.6 Fallis 62 30 1,860 2,232 670 2,902 0.29 0.6 Gainford 62 30 1,860 2,232 670 2,902 0.29 1.2 Keephills 135 30 4,047 4,856 1,457 6,313 0.63 0.6 Tomahawk 62 30 1,860 2,232 670 2,902 0.29 0.6 Total Hamlets 4.9

Source: Strategic Projections Inc. and ISL Engineering and Land Services Ltd.

As shown in Table 75, only an estimated 4.9 gross ha of land shared among all of the County’s seven hamlets are required to accommodate projected population growth in hamlets to a medium-term horizon of 2043. As presented in Table 18 within Section 4.2, Entwistle has 55.8 gross ha of unabsorbed land available to accommodate future growth, while the remaining six hamlets share 377.8 gross ha of unabsorbed land within their Rural Centre Districts. In comparing Tables 18 and 75, it is evident that all of Parkland County’s hamlets have sufficient land in the extended long-term beyond 2043 to accommodate projected population growth.

11.9.3 Non-Residential Land Supply Needs

Of the County’s absorbed non-residential land supply of 1,093.5 ha (the sum of the absorbed commercial and industrial land supplies from Table 18 in Section 4.2), 95.3% of it is located within the Acheson Industrial Area. Of the remaining 4.7%, the Fifth Meridian Business Park has 1.6%, Entwistle Industrial Park has 1.5% and the balance of the County has 1.5%, of which the majority is located elsewhere within Entwistle or within other urban communities (Parkland Village and the six other hamlets).

April 2015 | Page 127

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

By assuming the proportion of new non-residential development to 2043 will remain constant, 95.3% of the projected 1,062.6 gross ha of non-residential land requirement in Table 73 results in a land supply need of 1,012.7 gross ha within the Acheson Industrial Area. Map 18 illustrates potential locations for future non- residential land consumption to 2043 in the Acheson Industrial Area and Fifth Meridian Business Park. The assumed lands to be consumed within Acheson are influenced in part by the development staging presented in the new Acheson Industrial ASP. A potential location for future non-residential land consumption in the Entwistle Industrial Park is illustrated in the Entwistle inset of Map 17.

11.9.4 Agricultural Land Supply

There is a limited amount of CLI Class 1 and 2 soils in Parkland County; and much of the subject lands are located primarily in the eastern portion of the County, north and south of the boundaries of Stony Plain and Spruce Grove. There is also some CLI Class 1 and 2 lands west of Wabamun Lake.

In the County’s current MDP, there is a misalignment between the goal and associated objectives of Section 2 (Agricultural Lands). The goal identifies opportunities for non-agricultural uses within areas designated as Agriculture on Map 2 (Land Use Concept), yet the objectives speak to the conservation of agricultural lands and expansion of value-added agricultural uses.

The corresponding MDP policies direct the conditions for the subdivision of agricultural land for non- agricultural residential uses. Specifically, Policy 2.7 allows for the subdivision of three separate parcels in addition to the remnant for each quarter section. This contributes to the loss in viability of the land for agricultural purposes, and the increase in value of the land due to land development speculation, resulting in the pricing out of agricultural uses from these areas. If the conservation of agricultural land is a priority for the County, revisiting this policy is necessary.

Policy 2.10 also encourages the consumption of lands designated as Agriculture for residential uses. It establishes that where multi-lot residential subdivisions have been approved, that these serve as a precedence when considering additional residential subdivisions. Even though the policy provides a threshold for soil quality when considering residential subdivisions, the policy does not result in the conservation of agricultural lands or support agricultural uses.

Page 128 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

12.0 Recommendations and Observations

The following are recommendations and observations arising out of the preparation of the Community Scan and Analysis. Parkland County should consider undertaking the recommendations or addressing the observations either through its Community Sustainability and Development Plan (CSDP), future planning projects, other corporate projects and initiatives or its internal business practices. Some of the recommendations and observations, if addressed, will be beneficial to undertaking new Community Scan and Analysis projects in the future.

Municipal Census 1. In future municipal censuses, careful planning and preparation of municipal census forms should be undertaken so that the corresponding form for every dwelling/property in the County is properly assigned to the applicable electoral division and urban community (hamlets and Parkland Village). This will enable more accurate historic population trend analysis of these sub-areas in the future, as well as the most accurate census data for future municipal program and service delivery within these sub-areas. Federal Census 2. The County should consider requesting Statistics Canada to update its designated place boundaries for Gainford and Tomahawk to accurately reflect the County’s formal boundaries for these hamlets. This will further enable more accurate federal census community profiles and more accurate historic population trend analysis of these two hamlets between municipal and federal censuses in the future. 3. The County should consider requesting Statistics Canada to incorporate the County’s six remaining urban communities (Parkland Village and the hamlets of Carvel, Duffield, Entwistle, Fallis and Keephills) into Statistics Canada’s designated places program using the County’s formal boundaries for these communities. This will further enable more accurate federal census community profiles and more accurate historic population trend analysis of Parkland Village and these five hamlets between municipal and federal censuses in the future. Country 4. The County should avoid designating new lands to accommodate future country Residential Land residential development as it currently has sufficient country residential estate land supply to absorb projected population growth into the 2050s and conventional country residential land supply into the 2080s. Manufactured 5. As manufactured homes are a market affordable form of housing and since Home Parks Parkland Village is built out, the County may want to consider designating additional lands for a new manufactured home park in its CSDP, or including policy that supports an opportunity for the development of a second manufactured home park. If additional lands are designated, the location of said lands should be informed by access to municipal or regional water and wastewater service connections as well as the Capital Region Growth Plan. Similarly, if the County pursues the supportive policy route, the policy should require that locations under consideration be informed by the same. Residential Row 6. The County has one residential row housing development that is fully built out. If Housing the County desires more of this residential built form, it should consider including supportive policy within its CSDP with criteria requiring locations be informed by access to municipal or regional water and wastewater service connections as well as the Capital Region Growth Plan.

April 2015 | Page 129

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Highway 7. As 94% of the County’s highway commercial land supply remains unabsorbed, Commercial Land the County should not consider designating additional lands for these purposes until they become substantially absorbed. Alternately, the County may want to consider redesignating these unabsorbed lands for other purposes. 8. To encourage absorption of the 92 ha of unabsorbed highway commercial lands, the County may want to consider incorporating some business industrial land use class opportunities into the Highway Commercial District. Industrial Land 9. The County should consider designating sufficient industrial land – both business and medium in nature – to accommodate growth for at least the next 30 years (the medium-term). The focus of such land designation should be within the Acheson Industrial Area. Agricultural Land 10. The County should consider incorporating new land use classifications into its land assessment system so that the locations of all mining activities – coal, sand, and gravel – can be determined and differentiated from each other for monitoring and analytical purposes. 11. As the County has sufficient conventional country residential land supply to meet its medium-term needs and beyond, possibly to the 2080s, the County may want to consider redesignating those unabsorbed country residential lands in the MDP that have a Farmland Assessment Rating (FAR) of >57% (Class 1 or 2 soils) back to agriculture for the medium-term. If so, this would necessitate associated amendments to some existing area structure plans. 12. To further prolong the use of land within the County for agricultural purposes, the County may want to consider amending policy to protect lands with an FAR of 41-57% (Class 3 soils) from country residential subdivisions in addition to those lands with an FAR of >57%. 13. To protect the viability of farming operations in its agricultural-designated areas, the County should consider amending its land use bylaw (LUB) to reduce the number of residential parcels that can be subdivided out of a quarter section. 14. The County should convert its digital FAR mapping into a GIS-ready format to facilitate more robust agricultural land analysis in future projects. Parkland 15. The County should consider formally adopting guidelines from Transport Aerodrome Canada’s Aviation: Land Use in the Vicinity of Airports in its CSDP and/or LUB to guide land uses in the vicinity of the Parkland Aerodrome. Housing Stock 16. The County should define “low density residential” and “multi-family residential” Diversity in its CSDP, describing which residential built forms are included within each. The definitions should be informed by definitions used by the Capital Region Board. 17. The County should incorporate policy into its CSDP that identifies where “multi- family residential” is appropriate within the County. 18. While the vast majority of growth in dwelling types is expected to be in single detached homes, the County should consider taking steps to further diversify its housing stock. Demand for single detached dwellings will continue, however, demographic changes such as the aging of the population will likely lead to the need for a wider range of housing options to be able to meet shifting needs of Parkland County residents as well as to continue to attract future residents to the area. Options may include smaller housing forms such as row houses which require less home maintenance and are likely more affordable to households with lower or moderate income levels such as first-time homebuyers, seniors on a fixed income, or young families. Given the relatively low vacancy rates and increasing house prices, the County should also consider exploring opportunities to increase the rental market. North 19. The update of the MDP should be informed by the ongoing parallel progress of Saskatchewan the preparation of the North Saskatchewan Regional Plan (NSRP) as best as Regional Plan possible, and include implementation policy to amend the MDP to comply with

Page 130 | April 2015

- Re

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report

FINAL

the NSRP once approved. Reserve Parcels 20. The County should abandon its practice of dedicating MR parcels solely for road and Road Access access prevention purposes. Instead, the County should dedicate MR parcels Prevention that are larger and more programmable for either passive or active recreation. This, in turn, would make MR parcels more meaningful amenities for people who reside or work in the County. 21. To undertake the above, the County can introduce an MR dedication policy within its forthcoming CSDP, provide more specific details with respect to MR dedication in subdivision design guidelines or do both. As a consequence, however, the County should also investigate other mechanisms to prevent road access to private property where it is desired. The chosen mechanism could be embedded within the County’s new CSDP, subdivision design guidelines, other bylaws, or a combination thereof. Provincial 22. The CSDP should recognize the presence and development restrictions Regulations associated with the Edmonton International Airport Vicinity Protection Area Regulation. 23. The CSDP should exclude any policy associated with the former Edmonton- Devon Restricted Development Area Regulations, but the County may want to consider appropriate new CSDP policy to protect sensitive lands previously subject to the repealed Regulations. Capital Region 24. The preparation of the CSDP should be informed by the ongoing parallel Growth Plan progress of the update to the Capital Region Growth Plan (CRGP) as best as possible, and include implementation policy to amend the CSDP to comply with the updated CRGP once approved. 25. As the County’s CSDP will require review by the Capital Region Board under the Regional Evaluation Framework (REF), the CSDP should not only comply with the objectives, principles and policies of the CRGP, but also acknowledge and provide supportive policy to protect or address the regionally significant provisions from the 2009 CRGP Addenda within the County that are listed in Tables 61 and 62 of this report. The County should also consider incorporation of the applicable regionally significant provisions of the Integrated Regional Transportation Master Plan (IRTMP) listed in Table 63 of this report in anticipation that the IRTMP provisions will eventually be integrated as evaluation criteria in future iterations of the REF. Area Structure 26. The County should consider updating all of its area structure plans (ASPs) that Plans are of a vintage earlier than that of the current Municipal Government Act (MGA) to ensure compliance with the MGA’s current minimum ASP requirements. 27. In updating its ASPs, the County should consider consolidating the overlapping Jackfish Mayatan and Jackfish Lake ASPs into a single ASP. 28. The County should also amend those ASPs adopted since the enactment of the current MGA that do not fully meet the minimum requirements of the MGA. An example is the Entwistle ASP that does not yet describe “the density of population proposed for the area either generally or with respect to specific parks of the area” per Section 633(2)(2)(iii) of the MGA. 29. Per Section 638 of the MGA, “All statutory plans adopted by a municipality must be consistent with each other.” Should anything within the County`s new CSDP result in inconsistencies with the County’s ASPs, the County should endeavour to amend the ASPs accordingly.

April 2015 | Page 131

Community Scan and Analysis Parkland County - Report FINAL

Economic 30. The County’s labour force currently outnumbers the amount of jobs available Development within the County by a significant margin. The County should endeavour to create more jobs within its municipal boundaries to minimize its degree of subsidizing other municipalities with labour.

Page 132 | April 2015

Appendix B DETAILED CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE REPORT

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Appendix B Detailed Construction Cost Estimate Report September 20, 2016 APPENDIX B Detailed Construction Cost Estimate Report

Preliminary Cost Report Project Name: Entwistle Comm Hub 08/26/2016

Model Type: Community Center, Face Brick with Concrete Block Back-up / Bearing Walls Stories (Ea.): 1 Location: Edmonton, Alberta Story Height (L.F.): 12 Data 2016 Qtr. 3 Release: Floor Area (S.F.): 8085 Wage Rate: Union Basement: Not Included Costs are derived from a building model with basic components. Scope differences and local market conditions can cause costs to vary significantly. $Cost/ $ Total % Of Per S.F. Cost Sub-Total A Substructure 11.2% A1010 Standard Foundations 2.61 21,100.00 A1030 Slab on Grade 6.01 48,600.00 A2010 Basement Excavation 0.32 2,575.00 A2020 Basement Walls 6.18 50,000.00 B Shell 30.1% B1020 Roof Construction 8.97 72,500.00 B2010 Exterior Walls 18.99 153,500.00 B2020 Exterior Windows 2.94 23,800.00 B2030 Exterior Doors 1.22 9,875.00 B3010 Roof Coverings 8.41 68,000.00 B3020 Roof Openings 0.13 1,075.00

B.1

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Appendix B Detailed Construction Cost Estimate Report September 20, 2016

Preliminary Cost Report/…cont’d Project Name: Entwistle Comm Hub 08/26/2016

Model Type: Community Center, Face Brick with Concrete Block Back-up / Bearing Walls $Cost/ $ Total % Of Per S.F. Cost Sub-Total C Interiors 25.4% C1010 Partitions 6.62 53,500.00 C1020 Interior Doors 9.65 78,000.00 C1030 Fittings 2.02 16,300.00 C3010 Wall Finishes 3.12 25,200.00 C3020 Floor Finishes 5.13 41,500.00 C3030 Ceiling Finishes 7.73 62,500.00 D Services 31.4% D2010 Plumbing Fixtures 3.92 31,700.00 D2020 Domestic Water Distribution 11.56 93,500.00 D2040 Rain Water Drainage 0.65 5,250.00 D3050 Terminal & Package Units 12.24 99,000.00 D4010 Sprinklers 3.97 32,100.00 D5010 Electrical Service/Distribution 1.57 12,700.00 D5020 Lighting and Branch Wiring 6.56 53,000.00 D5030 Communications and Security 1.72 13,900.00 D5090 Other Electrical Systems 0.22 1,750.00 E Equipment & Furnishings 2.0% E1010 Commercial Equipment 1.13 9,100.00 E1090 Other Equipment 1.57 12,700.00

B.2

ENTWISTLE COMMUNITY HUB AND AQUATIC FACILITY SITE PROGRAMMING, FUNCTIONAL PLAN AND COSTING Appendix B Detailed Construction Cost Estimate Report September 20, 2016

Preliminary Cost Report/…cont’d Project Name: Entwistle Comm Hub 08/26/2016

Model Type: Community Center, Face Brick with Concrete Block Back-up / Bearing Walls $Cost/ $ Total % Of Per S.F. Cost Sub-Total Sub- 135.15 1,092,725.00 100% Total GENERAL CONDITIONS (Overhead & Profit) 25% 33.77 273,000.00 TOTAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION COST 168.92 1,365,725.00 TOTAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION COST/SQ. FT. 168.9208411 ROUNDED TOTAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION COST/SQ. FT. $170

B.3