Regionalization in Edmonton and Surrounding Municipalities

[nmckenzie]

Regionalization in Edmonton and Surrounding Municipalities

A Look at the Benefits Involved, Possible Challenges, Necessary Work, Where it Has Worked and Where it Hasn’t Worked
Internal communications specialists often note that an organization’s success is largely based on the quality of communication channels and processes between internal departments. In a political context, the same can be said about a Province.

In June, Premier Stelmach announced that the 24 communities in the Edmonton region should create a plan for working more closely together and warned that if the communities can not plan a sweeping regional growth management plan by January 2008, his government will step in and make a decision. Municipalities are expected to work together on everything from policing and waste management to planning for new housing and schools and the work will be supervised by provincial officials under Municipal Affairs Minister Ray Danyluk.

Before the implementation of an official regionalization plan, there are several details to consider, like: how would such an implementation help Edmonton and surrounding municipalities, the challenges that are involved, what needs to be done for successful implementation and what has and hasn’t worked in the past.

Regional governance is based on bringing together academics, business interests, community groups, residents and all levels of government into a common policy framework. All involved municipalities should have common aspirations, goals and a feeling of unity. If implemented, smaller municipalities can benefit from the booming economy in the larger municipalities. If not implemented, the affected municipalities, individually, are less likely to have a strong influence on political decisions made within the province.

The implementation would reduce that dependency on the province and make it easier to develop cohesive economic strategies that will better prepare all communities for the challenges in a service-based, global economy. For Edmonton, in particular, such integration will help the already booming economy transition into a more globalized capital city.

Another benefit for Edmonton and surrounding areas is that regionalization makes it possible to initiate new forms of integration and innovation and creates a region that has capacity to impose priorities on smaller, weaker sub-regions. In the healthcare industry, for example, there have been benefits to shutting down some hospitals and merging others. This kind of organization and restructuring centralizes quality service and raises the residents’ capacity to live better lives.

Regionalization, if not planned properly, can present several challenges. One big problem is that these different municipalities may compete with one another, so it is required that leaders identify ways to bring competing interests together and act collectively in accomplishing public policy goals and resisting the temptation to compete for economic advantage.

With all of the restructuring, there will likely be confusion about the role of the municipal governments and the regional government so organized and transparent laws and policies must be laid out democratically.

Another threat is that, for small municipalities who fear industrial Edmonton, the integration may increase feelings of alienation, undermine community spirit and reduce social cohesion. Priorities among communities must be equalized, and any form of annexation would not work and would be unproductive. Creating an equalized environment among all municipalities is a priority.

Another possible threat is that some municipalities might not want to continuously subsidize services to other communities while these residents might complain that their subsidized services are inadequate. To avoid this sort of antagonism, governance must be emphasized on acknowledging rural-urban differences and finding ways to enhance cooperation between communities. Unless achieved, the municipalities within the region won’t be united as a region; rather, they will be competitive and ultimately counter-productive.

At the community level, key stakeholders and decision-makers must be involved in the integration and must not feel threatened by the proposals. They must have regular discussion which would make partnerships of key leaders and raise the necessary community spirit required to implement such a plan. Success or failure is directly related to whether there emerges a credible, united ally that is capable of combining diverse interests towards a common objective.

Another associated challenge is that provincial-municipal relations are hierarchal in nature and municipalities come in various sizes with different needs so it may be difficult to create an appropriate balance that satisfies everyone. To work towards a balance, both
rural and urban communities should have opportunities to create community associations to ensure that local needs and priorities, within the municipalities, are met and to create more opportunity for advancement.

With all the obstacles, many things must be done to ensure a successful implementation. To gain the benefits and avoid the challenges of regionalization, there must be a sense of trust developed among key policy leaders, the public must be well-informed and the outcomes must be well predicted and measured. Transparency, accountability, financial support and citizen engagement are crucial for the creation of a new, successful region.

Multi-level governance requires the creation of non-hierarchical, flexible networks that are sustained by personal relationships and trust, not dominated by competition over power. There is a need for new multi-governmental partnerships that are capable of increasing collective learning while establishing trust in the entire region.

One possibility would be the formation of a tri-council, where regional, provincial and national officials could interact and negotiate power-sharing agreements with established guidelines and a system that ensures that the public is well-informed and remains engaged on all activities. A highly motivated and enthusiastic public response is required to reform governance within the proposed region.

Another possibility is to make Edmonton’s council responsible for providing municipal services while the councils in the smaller communities have the duty of keeping rural interests and concerns before the council. This way, Edmonton wouldn’t lose its power over non-devolved issues and there would be less of a threat to the centre of the region, where it would make sense that certain powers are retained. Politically, there would likely be less resistance with a tri-level political mechanism in place that would oversee the initiatives, and help outline and pool resources.

Ultimately, a strong centre means a strong region.
It would also be possible to create an independent Edmonton commission to challenge old ways of governance, monopolies and conflicts between rural and urban communities. This commission could include elected members from the labour and business sectors, academics, representatives of formed regional development authorities and health board members that would have regular meetings, test proposals and disseminate information for public consumption and debate. The best way to build regional power is to construct new forms of interaction, citizen engagement, support for ongoing knowledge and partnerships.

Lou Hyndman, Chair of the Alberta Capital Region Governance Review, prepared “Alberta Capital Region Governance Review, Final Report, 2000,” as an agenda for action to implement a regionalization strategy. His recommendations for successful regionalization include having a shared vision of the future, share leadership principles and behaviors, and his policy frameworks are based on growth management, the environment, economic development, and social responsibilities.

Hyndman highlights the need for a new partnership to strengthen and formalize decision making on a regional basis. He proposes that a regional partnership agreement should specify how shared priorities and policies should be developed and implemented, recognize the capital role of the City of Edmonton and should include a predictable voting formula that enables formal votes to be taken on motions where consensus is not possible. This formula, according to Hyndman, should reflect the population, diversity and geography.

In his report, he also detailed how fire and emergency services, transportation and utilities should be implemented for the region.
“…emergencies do not recognize boundaries,” Hyndman states. He suggests that municipalities should share emergency response resources, training of employees, risk profiles, strategic purchasing, recruitment and a comprehensive study of the full spectrum of emergency services.

For the transportation industry, including the transportation of people and goods by roads, rail and air, Hyndman lists priorities of establishing public transit corridors for high-density and fast-developing parts of the region, including quality radial links, maximizing opportunities for seamless regional road construction and planning, and dramatically increasing the convenience of traffic signal timing on major regional roads. He also suggests greater coordination of DATS (Disabled Adult Transit Service) across the region that could provide more seamless services for the disabled population of the region.

In relation to solid waste collection and disposal, Hyndman proposes the need for a new regional landfill for 2010 and also, the possibility to regionalize and integrate eco-stations (sites for the collection of toxic and hazardous household products) and composting facilities. Hyndman’s report provides strategic implementation towards shared regional goals and is useful for careful integration.

With the new forms of interaction, a key to successful integration would be ongoing, strategic, transparent planning. A good example is York Region, Ontario, which was created in 1971 and now has a large, growing economy that was created through the development of innovative products, international marketing, skilled human capital and an effective, supportive government.
“Defining who does what is important to the success of the Region,” says Neil Garbe, Executive Director of Strategic Initiatives and Administration. The federation of nine municipalities, ranging from a population of 18,000 (King Township) to 285,000 (Markham) splits the number of council members by the size of the municipality. Thus, five members represent Markham, while one represents King Township. Work load is divided equally, and council is aware of common goal of reducing provincial dependency and building a successful region that is a vital part in the global market.

With a clear vision and dedication, leaders worked hard into turning this originally agriculture-based economy into a more service-based, global-friendly spectrum of business activity. The region grew from 169,000 people in 1971 to 759,000 people by 2001 and the population is anticipated to reach 1.29 million by the year 2026. Through sound planning and design, the region has managed to increase opportunities to live and work in the same area which supports a better balance of employment and housing opportunities. This has allowed access to local supplies of labour and improves the quality of life for the employees.

This increase in services is successful partly because of the way all of the resources from the municipalities were pooled.

The pool flows money directly into new government programs that
were not previously funded and offered. A lot of these programs are able to attract immigration, especially from Toronto. Federal spending has increased, making it possible for the development of organizations that deal with language training and job search programs for residents that need them.

With this sort of strategic planning, the region has experienced a dramatic increase in employment. Jobs have increased from 49,000 in 1971 to an estimated 415,000 by the end of 2003. The employment growth, an indicator of the strength of the economy, has increased at a higher rate than the population growth and the number of the region’s residents who work outside the Region, primarily in Metro Toronto, is now approximately the same as the number of workers who travel into the Region each day.

To complement the employment plans and to support area municipalities, all new housing is directly linked with human and community services, meaning that a high quality of life is possible with many available facilities like transit, healthcare and ongoing employment opportunities.

All of the mentioned planning, and all planning in general, from council, the public and stakeholders, is made available to the public and direct 2-way communication is available for questions and concerns. This kind of strategic, intelligent and transparent planning has made the implementation of regionalization in York Region a success.

Another area where regionalization was a success is the Minneapolis-St. Paul region, dubbed the “twin cities.” The integration structure was developed by republicans in the late 1960s to “reduce barriers between municipalities so that all could share both the benefits and costs of growth.”

Thirty years ago, the Minneapolis/St. Paul area was facing a severe economic collapse. Their main industries were either closing down or moving away, they were losing population, the communities were competing with one another and the cost of doing business had increased dramatically.

Today, the economy in the region is flourishing and the metro area placed first, nationally, in the number of high-growth companies. The integration has helped the region move from 14th to 4th place nationally in per family income. The unemployment rate is now one of the lowest in the country, their job growth is exceeding most communities in the country and last year, the annual tax sharing pool totaled $580 million. This money goes directly to building commercial infrastructure, supporting business, job training, joint economic development, housing and regional marketing. Due to sprawl, the region is even able to save money; it has saved an estimated $29 billion in unnecessary infrastructure costs.

The region has incorporated a tax-base-sharing system that annually calculates the growth in value of the commercial and industrial tax base in each community and places 40 per cent of the increase in a pool. The region’s 184 municipalities then tax the pool at their own tax rates. Based on a formula, poorer communities get more of the pool then their richer neighbours.

About 75 per cent of the cities and towns gain under this system,
while 25 per cent lose.

"Cities that gain more than they give say it's a great regional policy," said Myron Orfield, a law professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. "The ones that give more than they get say it's communism." The tax-base-sharing system is a key component to the regional structure, complemented by a seven-county, organized and transparent planning council that oversees planning and development and operates regional sewer and transit systems. Sharing industrial and commercial growth reduces pressure to increase residential property taxes and decreases competition among cities fighting for revenue.

Because of the thriving economy and quality of life, the residents of the “Twin Cities” are happy. In a 2004 Metropolitan Council survey, the Twin Cities placed well when residents were asked about the quality of life. According to the survey, 97 per cent of residents consider the region to be a better place to live than elsewhere in the United States.

Unfortunately, regionalization has not always been successful in Canada. Part of the reason why there are many residents leaving Toronto to live in York Region, is because Bill 103, an unsuccessful provincial legislation, called for the amalgamation of Toronto and its five surrounding municipalities, into one big city in 1997.

There are many reasons why this amalgamation wasn’t successful. First of all, it is reported that in the beginning, about 1/3 of the best of city senior management were let go, and have never been replaced. This sort of change likely decreased morale and many politicians were reluctant to accept the merge. This hostility remained for a long time which meant that the dedication was not there when the hard work needed to be done and it especially showed once the new council got together to start planning the new city. This lack of dedication lead to unorganized, non-transparent leadership that was not communicating plans and processes to the region’s residents, leaving the residents upset and confused.

In the new city, communication was so absent that the direct telephone lines to councilors were replaced by an automatic answering system most of the time. It was difficult to talk to a councilor about plans unless you were privileged to have their unlisted cell phone numbers. Ironically, at the beginning of implementation, the mayor announced that people would not ever end up talking to machines in this administration, and soon, it turned out to be the opposite; taxpayers ended up talking to machines in the new Toronto. This sort of lack of communication lead to deep mistrust and now, many residents want a de-amalgamation.

The integration plan in Toronto might have worked if the newly elected city politicians had been dedicated and worked together on a practical, transparent implementation plan and were communicating the plans and processes to the new city’s residents. Looking at unsuccessful models of integration can help Edmonton reap the benefits of regionalization while avoiding the challenges it may present.

For most of the 20th century, modernization and needs of a natural resource economy were the focus of most political debates, and now, in the 21st century, globalization and the new economy have become the central focus. Regionalization can help Edmonton and surrounding areas become an innovative, capital city in the globalized world and can dramatically help the economy.

The proposed new region can avoid challenges by creating a noncompetitive region where all key leaders are trusted, all municipalities work together as one, all communication and services are distributed equally and all communities are effectively represented through council and community associations.

This implementation would require new, non-hierarchal, non-competitive, multi-governmental partnerships that are sustained by personal relationships and trust around the entire region.

The new region could look to York Region for good examples that could help in the new integration of all 24 communities in the Edmonton area. York Region has showed that ongoing, strategic, transparent planning can build a successful, globalized region, while Toronto’s amalgamation shows us that a lack of dedication and organization, with a lack of communication can leave an unsatisfied population that now just wants to de-amalgamate.

“After two years of examining trends, considering options,
and most importantly, listening to citizens and municipal leaders,
I have come to a single compelling conclusion:
Strengthening the region is not a choice – it’s a necessity. And the time to start is now.”

Lou Hyndman, Chair, Alberta Capital Region Governance Review.

[DebraW]

^ A very timely article and good discussion thread.

[TerryH]

I was in Winnipeg for a few months in the early 90's. At the time you could see that, even though the city and surrounding communities had almalgamated, there was still a lot of the identity of the former communities, so much so that the "Welcome to..." signs were still there and places like St. Boniface was still bilingual and St. Vital Francophone.

Some services were still split into their former communities, like school boards, which there may have been 9 in one city.

I just wonder if almalgamation has worked out there and if it's helped streamline Winnipeg.

[IKAN104]

wow I'll come back later and read this when I have more time.

[Ins]

Here's a view from the Cooperative Municipal Partnership. Click Here.

MOD EDIT - embedded the link within the text to keep the borders clean. Right click and select properties if you want the full URL text.

[RichardS]

I'm glad that Jennifer sent this in. Timely is an understatement, but it demonstrates that there are many apporaches, but all say some sort of tax/revenue sharing is in the cards. Period.

I harp on this alot, but I am tired of dealing with this selfishness when it comes to the region or fifedomes. I deal with it at work way too much, and I see this region being mopic and silly with this debate. The answers are simple, the politicial egos and empire builders are in the way. So, yes, I may swipe a little harshly at this at times, but I am just saying it is time to grow up, realize we are not different and that we are in this together, that none of the region is up for any recognition of being best-of-breed when it comes to planning, and move forward.

I've just lived in too many cities wher the region became too competitive and counter-productive. This article cites one that got its act together, but there are many many others that haven't.

We in Edmonton and area are at the right time and the right economic climate to make this change. Why repeat the stupidity of Seattle here? Because Issaquah is just sooooooo much better than Redmond...

[The_Cat]

I think that we have to take a look at reducing the competition between the municipalities. For example, could small business owners have the option of:

(a) A lower fee for doing business in their own region. Revenues can be kept by the local municipality;

(b) A higher (but uniform) fee that could be applied for those who want to do business in the Edmonton Capital Region. Half the fee can be kept by the local municpality, and the other half can be pooled, and allocated on the basis of population, perhaps weighted according to need.

How much longer can we keep planning in isolation?

[IKAN104]

After reading that article it sounds like "hit and miss" when it comes to amalgamation of cities. How can we be sure that it will work here?

I guess the question that needs to be answered first is, what will the province impose on us next year? Does the province even have plans ready to go or will they only start thinking about this in 2008?

[RichardS]

The amalgamation issue being only one solution...but since that was brought up...

What kills amalgamation is the lack of vision and the lack of follow through. If you simply redraw a border, say "you are now all Dickville", wipe your hands and walk away to let the minions fend for themselves, you’re doomed. You need to address the redundancies in services and bureaucracies, ensure that the naming is done quickly, have a solid plan for electoral boundaries and government set-up, address the regional funding and revenue sharing question with the remaining counties/neighbours, and additionally ensure that there is some carrot/stick process to address any feelings of individuality that want to and perhaps SHOULD remain (keep St Albert Place called St Albert Place, keep locations and names of festivals intact, have an entry gate for the community of Leduc or Beaumont or Sherwood Park like they have for Strathcona (the old city) or Old Towne Beverly) all while addressing the global identity of Edmonton. This collaboration involves everyone, but the strict guidance and timeline from a set milestone delivery schedule and overall visionary is essential to prevent tangents and ratholes from taking the discussion into areas where it isn’t needed. The edict is that uni-city is starting on date X, get your stuff together, layout your vision, but don’t let yourself think date X is movable, or that this decision is reversible under this administration.

…and this means that ALL areas are up for debate, including the civic and administrative functions of Edmonton itself. Lord knows there is some housecleaning that is needed here too.

The province gets involved for a major industry funding model that they can then employ province wide for urban areas abutting counties that have these major industries. The synergies are undeniable, and therefore so should the planning and revenue.

Mega-City in TO failed because it was unilaterally imposed without a deployment strategy or any vision. Simple as that.

Others fail because they stop the vision at amalgamation of services.

Still others retain redundant bureaucracies and escalate costs – killing a major financial benefit of amalgamation.

Amalgamation is probably the hardest solution to implement, but the biggest value if done correctly. But remember, amalgamation can be uni-city or borough a la NYC.