Advocacy & Monitoring Committee Agenda Thursday, March 9, :30-8:45 a.m. Leland Room Chateau Louis Conference Centre Kingsway, Edmonton

Transcription

1 Agenda Thursday, 7:30-8:45 a.m. Leland Room Chateau Louis Conference Centre Kingsway, Edmonton Agenda 1. Call to Order Mayor Greg Krischke, Chair 2. Chair Opening Remarks Mayor Greg Krischke, Chair 3. CRB Strategic Plan KPI end-year Report Malcolm Bruce, CEO Pg. 2 of 45 Recommended Motion That the recommend the CRB Strategic Plan Priorities Measurement Key Performance Indicators (KPI) end-year Report to the Capital Region Board for information. 4. Capital Region Growth Plan: Monitoring and Reporting Indicators Malcolm Bruce, CEO Pg. 7 of 45 Recommended Motion That the Advocacy and Monitoring Committee recommend the Growth Plan: Monitoring and Reporting Indicators report to the Capital Region Board for approval and forward to the Government of Alberta as part of the Annual Report. 5. General Advocacy Update Roundtable /18 CRB Budget & Committee Schedule a. CRB Budget/Advocacy & Monitoring Work Plan Malcolm Bruce, CEO b Advocacy & Monitoring Meeting Schedule Malcolm Bruce, CEO Pg. 44 of 45 Pg. 45 of Adjournment Mayor Greg Krischke, Chair Updated: March 1, 2017 Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 45

2 Item 3 Administration Recommendation to the CRB Strategic Plan KPI end-year Report Recommended Motion That the recommend the CRB Strategic Plan Priorities Measurement Key Performance Indicators (KPI) end-year Report to the Capital Region Board for information. Background: The Capital Region Board (CRB) approved a Strategic Plan for in June 2014 Four Strategic Priorities were identified: Regional Vision, Collaborative Culture, Regional Growth Plan and Global Competitiveness Key measurement of Strategic Plan priorities against Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) is to be reported annually to highlight and assess the Board s progress Highlights of the last six months: Most progress has been made on Priority 3 Regional Growth Plan: o The Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan (EMRGP) was approved by the Board o Meeting with Ministers successful in helping drive the EMRGP through the provincial approval process o Communications planning, advocacy, and execution is ongoing o An updated CRB website was launched o Updating of the REF process is near completion Other examples of progress as a result of collaboration and advocacy: o Three of four REFs approved (one in process) o 2017/18 budget was approved with a membership contribution o Supporting the rewrite of the regulation o Transition plan developed and approved to help the Board transition through the election, implementation of the new growth plan, and the update of the CRB regulation, which will include a reduction in membership o Governance Manual Completed and approved o Growth Plan Road Shows complete, Regional Needs Assessment Road Shows complete November, and semi-annual CEO tours about to begin Prepared on: February 24, 2017 Recommendation to AMC: Page 1 of 2 Page 2 of 45

3 Administration Recommendation to the o Incubation of regional economic development is ongoing and gaining momentum o Three Year Advocacy Plan was approved Attachment: 1. CRB Strategic Plan Priorities Key Performance Measurement Mid-year Report 2016/17 Prepared on: February 24, 2017 Recommendation to AMC: Page 2 of 2 Page 3 of 45

4 CRB Strategic Plan Priorities Measurement Key Performance Indicators (KPI) end-year Report 2016/17 Strategic Priorities Purpose Key Results Previous Status 1- REGIONAL VISION The Board develops a KR 1.1: Regional stakeholders and strong, long-term citizens are engaged, and they vision for the whole develop a long term vision for the region based on the whole region. desires and dreams of KR 1.2: The Board adopts its long the region s term Regional Vision. municipalities and citizens. 2 - COLLABORATIVE CULTURE (The How) The Board s activity promotes a collaborative culture among members. CRB focuses its efforts on high level issues that impact the region. KR 2.1: The Board understands the distinctive characteristics and needs of rural and urban members. KR 2.2: CRB improves collaboration and governance practices through education, best practice research, educational speakers and workshops. KR 2.3: CRB members agree on priority high level issues for the region and are validated on a regular basis. KR 2.4: CRB actively pursues partnerships and collaboration with specific regional stakeholder organizations. Current Status Progress - Board approved Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan (EMRGP) and subsequently sent it to the Province for approval - Developed regional narrative that aligns with Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan (EMRGP) - New website launched - Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan materials developed including an interactive online growth plan -The Board is scheduled to work on a new strategic plan after the election as part of the 2018/19 budget year Key Result Three REFs approved in the last six months and one in process - Province is in the process of updating the CRB regulation to include regional economic development and a regional services master plan - CEO planning to visit member municipalities - Regional transit continues to be discussed Key Result CRB Governance Manual complete and approved by the Board - Pay-to-participate policy developed and to be reviewed after the 2017 election /18 Budget approved with membership contributions - Transition plan approved Key Result Board approved workplan for 2017/18 including a regional agriculture masterplan, regional housing plan, recreation/open space/wildlife corridors study CRB Strategic Plan KPIs 2016/17 end-year Report Prepared February 28, 2017 Page 1 of 3 Page 4 of 45

5 CRB Strategic Plan Priorities Measurement Key Performance Indicators (KPI) end-year Report 2016/ REGIONAL GROWTH PLAN (The What) The Board develops and implements a high level, long term growth plan for the region, which is approved by the Government of Alberta. KR 3.1: A high level growth plan is prepared and adopted by the CRB. KR 3.2: The GoA reviews and approves the Regional Growth Plan. KR 3.3: A process for approving and incorporating the Capital Region Growth Plan into GoA policy environments is developed, negotiated with Government of Alberta and approved by Capital Region Board. KR 3.4: Municipal members ensure that municipal and sub-regional plans conform to the Regional Growth Plan. KR 3.5: Outcomes of the Regional Growth Plan are measured, monitored and reported. Key Result CEO update monthly to all member CAOs - Discussions with GOA Ministers regarding the EMRGP (KR 3.2, 2.4) - Developed three year Provincial Advocacy Strategy and Plan - Developing relationship with new government (political and administrative) Key Result Board approved Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan - GIS informs the next iteration of indicators- underway Key Result Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan delivered to the Province on October 19 Key Result Discussions advocating for the growth plan at Ministry meeting (KR 3.3, 2.4) -Ongoing Board and CEO engagement with individual Ministries. Key Result Updated REF process being developed, near completion - Timeframe given for municipalities to submit updates or amendments to the CRB Key Result Review of KPIs and the new Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan to begin CRB Strategic Plan KPIs 2016/17 end-year Report Prepared February 28, 2017 Page 2 of 3 Page 5 of 45

6 CRB Strategic Plan Priorities Measurement Key Performance Indicators (KPI) end-year Report 2016/ GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS (The Why) The Board understands the global situation and positioning of the region and the strategic opportunities to compete globally. KR 4.1: The CRB explores the regional economic development landscape and identifies opportunities for CRB to add value. KR 4.2: The economic landscape is mapped and understood, and regional stakeholders are educated on our regional strategic advantages. KR 4.3: Through this research on the economy, trust and collaboration increases and mutually agreed new roles evolve. KR 4.4: Development approval processes across the region are improved and streamlined. KR 4.5: A uniform regional site selector tool is developed. Legend: Colours Green significant progress; Yellow a work in progress; red either yet to be initiated or just started Arrows Up progressing according to plan; side ways no progress started Key Result 4.1 -Economic development currently being incubated and gaining momentum (KR 4.1, 4.2) Key Result GIS content expansion continues with an updated site soon to be announced - Ongoing support of Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan implementation Key Result Economic development to be added to the CRB mandate Key Result GIS is background work for site selector - Work commencing in collaboration with EIA and EEDC and others to create a regional EcDev database CRB Strategic Plan KPIs 2016/17 end-year Report Prepared February 28, 2017 Page 3 of 3 Page 6 of 45

7 Item 4 Administration Request For Decision (RFD) to the Advocacy and Monitoring Committee Capital Region Growth Plan: Monitoring and Reporting Indicators Recommended Motion That the Advocacy and Monitoring Committee recommend the Growth Plan: Monitoring and Reporting Indicators report to the Capital Region Board for approval and forward to the Government of Alberta as part of the Annual Report. Background The Capital Region Board (CRB) completed a Monitoring and Reporting Project for the Capital Region Growth Plan (CRGP) in On June 12, 2014, the Board approved the implementation of Phase 1 of the Monitoring and Reporting Project. On March 10, 2016, the report was approved by the Board with 14 of the 16 indicators having been updated. Indicator 7 was left unreported on as the data would not become available until the completion of the housing sub-region reports, and Indicator 10 due to the information resources not being available as of The report for, includes 15 of the 16 indicators, less once again, the available data for Indicator 10 Household Spending. The current report has been updated to include 2016 data where available o Indicators 1-4 have been updated with 2016 population and dwellings figures from the federal census o Indicators 5,6,7 and 16 have been updated with 2016 data from their sources o Indicator 7 has data for the first time from the completed housing sub-region reports o Indicators 9-15, less indicator 10, do not yet have 2016 data pending further federal census data to be released later this year Attachment: Growth Plan: Monitoring and Reporting Indicators Report Prepared on: February 21, 2017 Recommendation to AMC: Page 1 of 1 Page 7 of 45

8 Growth Plan: Monitoring and Reporting Indicators Page 8 of 45

9 Table of Contents Introduction... 5 Indicator 1 - Total Regional Population... 6 Table 1.1: Total Regional Population... 6 Figure 1.1: Total Regional Population... 6 Table 1.2: Total Population by Member Municipalities... 7 Indicator 2 Population Growth Rate... 8 Table 2.1: Population Growth by PGA... 8 Table 2.2: Population Growth by CCRA... 8 Figure 2.1: Map of Population Growth... 9 Table 2.3: Population Growth by Municipality Indicator 3 Distribution of Population Growth Figure 3.1: Distribution of Population Growth by Policy Areas (2006 to 2011) Figure 3.2: Distribution of Population Growth by Policy Areas (2011 to 2016) Figure 3.3: Distribution of Population Growth by Individual Policy Area (2011 to 2016) Indicator 4 - Dwelling Unit Density Table 4.1: Dwelling Unit Density by PGA Table 4.2: Dwelling Unit Density by CCRA Figure 4.1: Map of Dwelling Unit Density by Dissemination Area Table 4.3: Dwelling Unit Density by Urban Municipalities in PGAs Indicator 5 Fuel Sales and Vehicle GHG Emissions Figure 5.1: Total Fuel Sales and Fuel Sales per Capita by Year Figure 5.2: Total GHG Emissions and GHG Emissions per Capita by Year p a g e Page 9 of 45

10 Indicator 6 - Ambient Air Quality Figure 6.1: AQHI Index Legend Figure 6.2: Tomahawk Station AQHI Ratings by Year Figure 6.3: Genesee Station AQHI Ratings by Year Figure 6.4: Edmonton Station AQHI Ratings by Year Figure 6.5: Fort Saskatchewan Station AQHI Ratings by Year Figure 6.6: Bruderheim Station AQHI Ratings by Year Figure 6.7: Lamont Station AQHI Ratings by Year Indicator 7 Distribution of Market and Non-Market Housing Figure 7.1: Market vs Non-Market Housing Stock by Sub-Region (2011) Indicator 8 Funding for Non-Market Housing Figure 8.1: Provincial Funding for Non-Market Housing by Fiscal Year Indicator 9 Housing Mix Figure 9.1: Regional Housing Distribution by Structure Type (2011) Table 9.1: Housing by Structure Type and Municipality (2011) Indicator 10 Household Spending Indicator 11 Commuting Duration Table 11.1: Commuting Duration by Municipality (2011) Indicator 12 Commuting Mode Split Figure 12.1: Community Mode Split in the Capital Region (2011) Table 12.1: Commuting Mode Split by Municipality (2011) p a g e Page 10 of 45

11 Indicator 13 Employment Diversity Figure 13.1: Employment Diversity in the Capital Region by NAICS Job Class (2011) Indicator 14 Employment Rate Indicator 15 Distribution of Regional Employment Table 15.1: Regional Employment by Municipality (2011) Indicator 16 Planned Densities of Newly Approved Residential Areas Table 16.1: Planned Densities of Approved New Residential Areas* Since March p a g e Page 11 of 45

12 Introduction With the Capital Region Growth Plan (CRGP) in place, the next step is focusing on the implementation of the recommendations from the plan. An important component of implementation is monitoring the success of the outcomes of the CRGP based on specific measurable policies in the plan. Why Monitor? Monitoring is valuable when done effectively and consistently. Key benefits of monitoring and reporting include: Tracking progress in achieving goals: Monitoring creates a means and process to track changes occurring in the region over time that are relevant to the Capital Region and the CRGP. Assessing the effectiveness of policies: Monitoring helps evaluate how well the actions are assisting in achieving the overarching vision of the CRGP, along with its strategic principles and policies. This helps to assess the effectiveness of the policies and provides supporting information to guide future decisions. Encouraging accountability and transparency: Ongoing reporting establishes a platform for consistently communicating outcomes of the implementation of the CRGP. The benefits of this are that it a) promotes transparency in the CRB s activities; b) celebrates accomplishments and focuses attention on the areas that need work; and c) demonstrates accountability to implementing the CRGP. The purpose of a monitoring and reporting program is to enable the CRB and its provincial partners to assess whether the CRGP and its related implementation actions are having the desired effect. The objectives are two-fold: 1. To assess whether or not the sum of actions being taken in the Region are in line with the vision, principles and policies of the CRGP, and 2. To provide feedback to the Board on the regional sustainability within the Capital Region. Overall, monitoring helps to gauge the effectiveness of the policies in the CRGP and can be used to identify areas where changes in the CRGP may be required in subsequent updates. The following 16 indicators in this report are based on the feedback and recommendations of the regional stakeholders. This list of indicators was originally reviewed and presented to the Governance Committee in March p a g e Page 12 of 45

13 Indicator 1 - Total Regional Population Description This is a measure of the aggregated population in the region. Why is this Indicator Important? Regional population directly influences the region s economy and the pace and extent to which the communities in the region are developing. This indicator provides context for the principles and policies in the Growth Plan. Table 1.1: Total Regional Population Census Year 2001 Federal Census 2006 Federal Census 2011 Federal Census 2016 Federal Census Population 939,597 1,035,878 1,161,551 1,321,498 Figure 1.1: Total Regional Population 1,161,551 1,321,498 Population 939,597 1,035, % +12.1% +13.8% Census Year 6 p a g e Page 13 of 45

14 Table 1.2: Total Population by Member Municipalities Municipality 2001 Federal Census 2006 Federal Census 2011 Federal Census 2016 Federal Census Beaumont 7,006 8,961 13,284 17,396 Bon Accord 1,532 1,534 1,488 1,529 Bruderheim 1,202 1,215 1,155 1,308 Calmar 1,902 1,959 1,970 2,228 Devon 4,969 6,261 6,510 6,578 Edmonton 666, , , ,546 Fort Saskatchewan 13,121 14,957 19,051 24,149 Gibbons 2,654 2,642 3,030 3,159 Lamont 1,692 1,669 1,753 1,774 Lamont County 4,167 3,905 3,872 3,899 Leduc 15,032 16,967 24,279 29,993 Leduc County 12,528 13,135 13,524 13,780 Legal 1,058 1,192 1,225 1,345 Morinville 6,540 6,775 8,569 9,848 Parkland County 27,252 29,220 30,568 32,097 Redwater 2,172 2,202 1,915 2,053 Spruce Grove 15,983 19,541 26,171 34,066 St. Albert 53,081 57,764 61,466 65,589 Stony Plain 9,589 12,363 15,051 17,189 Strathcona County 71,986 82,511 92,490 98,044 Sturgeon County 18,067 18,566 19,578 20,495 Thorsby Wabamun Warburg Total 939,597 1,035,878 1,161,551 1,321,498 Data Source Federal Census Method of Measurement Collect population data for each community and calculate the sum total. 7 p a g e Page 14 of 45

15 Indicator 2 Population Growth Rate Description This is a measure of the rate of population growth experienced in the region as a whole, and the proportion of the growth that is occurring in the Priority Growth Areas (PGAs), Cluster Country Residential Areas (CCRAs), and in other areas. It measures the growth rate over the five-year period between Census years. Why is this Indicator Important? Tracking growth rates helps interpret the pace of growth in the region. The growth rate informs the timeframe requirements for implementing new initiatives, such as new housing and transit. Table 2.1: Population Growth by PGA PGA Population Change % Population Change % A 32,534 41, % 52, % B 836, , % 1,036, % Cw 451 2, % 22, % Ce 12,308 22, % 27, % E 17,167 24, % 30, % F 3,590 4, % 3, % G 15,043 19, % 24, % Total 917,600 1,037, % 1,196, % Table 2.2: Population Growth by CCRA CCRA Population Change % Population Change % S 2,734 3, % 2, % O 2,494 3, % 3, % I 3,028 3, % 3, % Q 1,300 1, % 1, % Total 9,556 12, % 12, % 8 p a g e Page 15 of 45

16 Figure 2.1: Map of Population Growth 9 p a g e Page 16 of 45

17 Table 2.3: Population Growth by Municipality Municipality Population Change % Population Change % Beaumont 8,961 13, % 17, % Bon Accord 1,534 1, % 1, % Bruderheim 1,215 1, % 1, % Calmar 1,959 1, % 2, % Devon 6,261 6, % 6, % Edmonton 730, , % 932, % Fort Saskatchewan 14,957 19, % 24, % Gibbons 2,642 3, % 3, % Lamont 1,669 1, % 1, % Lamont County 3,905 3, % 3, % Leduc 16,967 24, % 29, % Leduc County 13,135 13, % 13, % Legal 1,192 1, % 1, % Morinville 6,775 8, % 9, % Parkland County 29,220 30, % 32, % Redwater 2,202 1, % 2, % Spruce Grove 19,541 26, % 34, % St. Albert 57,764 61, % 65, % Stony Plain 12,363 15, % 17, % Strathcona County 82,511 92, % 98, % Sturgeon County 18,566 19, % 20, % Thorsby % % Wabamun % % Warburg % % Total 1,035,878 1,161, % 1,321, % Data Source Federal Census Method of Measurement Collect population data for each municipality and dissemination blocks from federal census data. Calculate the difference in population between years and map based on dissemination blocks. Determine which dissemination blocks are in which PGAs and CCRAs and aggregate the total population changes for each. 10 p a g e Page 17 of 45

18 Indicator 3 Distribution of Population Growth Description This is a measure of the distribution of population growth experienced in the Priority Growth Areas (PGAs), Cluster Country Residential Areas (CCRAs), and in remaining areas. It measures the growth rate over the five-year period between Census years. Why is this Indicator Important? This indicator directly measures where growth is occurring in the region in relation to the defined growth areas. A high share of growth located within the growth areas indicates growth in occurring in a compact manner. A compact urban form supports more efficient use of infrastructure, transit and the protection of the environment and natural resources. Figure 3.1: Distribution of Population Growth by Policy Areas (2006 to 2011) 95.80% 2.30% 1.90% PGAs CCRAs Remaining Area Figure 3.2: Distribution of Population Growth by Policy Areas (2011 to 2016) 90.54% 0.92% 8.54% PGAs CCRAs Remaining Area 11 p a g e Page 18 of 45

19 Figure 3.3: Distribution of Population Growth by Individual Policy Area (2011 to 2016) 78.40% 3.98% 1.69% 2.10% 2.28% 0.25% 1.83% 0.23% 0.28% 0.28% 0.14% 8.54% Data Source Statistics Canada Method of Measurement Using the data from the previous indicator (Indicator 2 - Population Growth Rate), percentages of the total population changes are calculated for each PGA, CCRA and Remaining Areas. 12 p a g e Page 19 of 45

20 Indicator 4 - Dwelling Unit Density Description This indicator measures the number of dwellings per net residential hectare within municipalities, and within PGAs. Why is this Indicator Important? Knowing the dwelling unit density will show how concentrated growth is. Comparing these results over time will demonstrate how density is changing in each PGA and the related municipalities relative to other areas. Table 4.1: Dwelling Unit Density by PGA PGA Occupied Dwelling Count (2016) Net Residential Area (ha) 2016 Du/Nrha* 2011 Du/Nrha* Density Target (Du/NRha*) B 399,521 15, E 11, Cw 8, A 19,686 1, G 9, Ce 9, F 1, Table 4.2: Dwelling Unit Density by CCRA CCRA Occupied Dwelling Count (2016) Gross Area (ha) 2016 Du/Gha** 2011 Du/Gha** Density Target (Du/Gha**) S 950 1, O 1,180 4, I 1,434 5, Q 572 5, Sorted in descending order *Du/Nrha = Dwelling Units per Net Residential Hectare **Du/Gha = Dwelling Units per Gross Hectare 13 p a g e Page 20 of 45

21 growth plan: monitoring and reporting indicators Figure 4.1: Map of Dwelling Unit Density by Dissemination Area (Based on Table 4.1) 14 p a g e Page 21 of 45

22 Table 4.3: Dwelling Unit Density by Urban Municipalities in PGAs Private Occupied Net Du/Nrha** Municipality Dwellings (2016) Residential Area (ha)* City of Edmonton 360,828 13, City of Leduc 11, City of Spruce Grove 12, Strathcona County: Sherwood Park 26,132 1, City of St.Albert 23,954 1, Town of Stony Plain 6, City of Fort Saskatchewan 9, Town of Beaumont 5, *Last calculated March 2016 ** Du/Nrha = Dwelling Units per Net Residential Hectare ( Sorted in descending order) Data Source Statistics Canada, Member Municipalities a) PGAs (Table 4.1) The number of Private dwellings occupied by usual residents is collected for each dissemination area in the region from federal census data. Dissemination areas are then assigned into PGAs based on if the majority of each dissemination area is within a PGA. The sum total of dwellings between all dissemination areas in each PGA is then calculated. Residential zoning/districting for the region is then clipped to each PGA to determine the amount of designated residential area in each PGA. Sub-divided land parcels of 4ac/1.62ha or less are then overlaid with the residential area of each PGA to determine the net residential area in hectares for each PGA. The dwelling counts are then divided by this net residential area to achieve dwelling units per net residential area in hectares for each PGA (Du/Nrha). Method of Measurement b) CCRAs (Table 4.2) - The number of Private dwellings occupied by usual residents is collected for each dissemination area in the region from federal census data. Dissemination areas are then assigned into CCRAs based on if the majority of each dissemination area is within a CCRA. The sum total of dwellings between all dissemination areas in each CCRA is then calculated. The total dwelling count is then divided by the total gross area of each CCRA to achieve the dwelling units per gross area in hectares (Du/Gha). c) Municipalities (Table 4.3) The number of Private dwellings occupied by usual residents is collected for each dissemination area in the region from federal census data. Residential zoning/districting for each municipality is then overlaid with sub-divided land parcels of 4 ac/1.62ha or less to determine the net residential area of each municipality. The number of dwellings are then divided by the net residential area to achieve the dwelling units per net residential area in hectares (Du/Nrha) 15 p a g e Page 22 of 45

23 Indicator 5 Fuel Sales and Vehicle GHG Emissions Description This indicator measures the total fuel sales (in litres) for vehicles and the GHG emissions that are created and emitted into the atmosphere when the fuel is used. The fuel sales are based on available data for a subset of communities in the Capital Region. Why is this Indicator Important? Vehicles use a significant portion of the total energy use and GHG emissions. Fossil fuels are a non-renewable form of energy that exist in finite quantities and therefor need to be managed. The burning of fossil fuels contributes to climate change and impacting the environment. Figure 5.1: Total Fuel Sales and Fuel Sales per Capita by Year Fuel Sales (L) 2,000,000,000 1,900,000,000 1,800,000,000 1,700,000,000 1,600,000,000 1,500,000,000 1,400,000,000 Fuel Sales Year Fuel Sales per Capita (L/cap) Fuel Sales (Litres) Fuel Sales Per Capita (L/cap) 16 p a g e Page 23 of 45

24 Figure 5.2: Total GHG Emissions and GHG Emissions per Capita by Year GHG (tonnes of CO2e/L) 4,900,000 4,700,000 4,500,000 4,300,000 4,100,000 3,900,000 3,700,000 3,500,000 GHG Emissions Year GHG per Capita GHG (tonnes of CO2e/L) GHG per Capita Data Source Kent Group Ltd. Fuel Sales data is surveyed for Beaumont, Edmonton, Fort Saskatchewan, Leduc, Parkland County, Spruce Grove, St.Albert, Stony Plain and Strathcona County. Method of Measurement This data is aggregated for total Fuel Sales in the region and divided by population to determine the Fuel Sales per Capita. GHG Emissions are determined by the following formulas: For gasoline: L of gasoline x tonnes of CO2e/L For diesel: L of diesel x tonnes of CO2e/L 17 p a g e Page 24 of 45

25 Indicator 6 - Ambient Air Quality Description This indicator measures the percentage of hours in a year that each air quality reporting station in the region experienced the various risk levels of the Air Quality Health Index (AQHI). The AQHI uses readings from three air pollutants which are required to calculate a single numerical value to evaluate the health risk associated with air pollution. The three pollutants are fine particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and ground-level ozone. The charts are presented here in geographical order from West to East. Why is this Indicator Important? The AQHI is a health protection tool that is designed to help the public make decisions to protect their health by limiting short-term exposure to air pollution and adjusting their activity during increased levels of air pollution. Figure 6.1: AQHI Index Legend Figure 6.2: Tomahawk Station AQHI Ratings by Year 100% 95% 0.05% 0.21% 0.24% 2.75% 1.11% 0.99% 0.72% 2.25% 1.10% 90% 85% 97.20% 98.69% 99.01% 99.28% 97.51% 98.90% 80% 75% Low Moderate High Very High 18 p a g e Page 25 of 45

26 Figure 6.3: Genesee Station AQHI Ratings by Year growth plan: monitoring and reporting indicators 100% 0.05% 0.15% 0.33% 0.82% 0.50% 0.78% 0.38% 0.88% 0.38% 95% 90% 85% 99.13% 99.35% 99.22% 99.62% 98.79% 99.62% 80% 75% Low Moderate High Very High Figure 6.4: Edmonton Station AQHI Ratings by Year 100% 0.58% 0.18% 0.73% 0.01% 0.43% 0.11% 95% 12.79% 13.56% 8.94% 8.41% 90% 20.99% 18.36% 85% 80% 75% 90.63% 91.47% 87.03% 86.43% 78.42% 80.91% Low Moderate High Very High Figure 6.5: Fort Saskatchewan Station AQHI Ratings by Year 100% 95% 0.18% 0.03% 0.45% 0.13% 0.29% 0.06% 4.68% 6.11% 5.72% 5.33% 8.22% 7.88% 90% 85% 91.60% 95.29% 91.68% 93.77% 93.98% 94.60% 80% 75% Low Moderate High Very High 19 p a g e Page 26 of 45

27 Figure 6.6: Bruderheim Station AQHI Ratings by Year 100% 95% 0.30% 0.22% 0.31% 0.05% 0.29% 2.40% 4.34% 4.38% 6.53% 9.30% 90% 85% 80% 93.17% 97.39% 90.39% 95.62% 95.33% % 75% Low Moderate High Very High Figure 6.7: Lamont Station AQHI Ratings by Year 100% 95% 0.06% 0.03% 0.01% 0.09% 0.40% 0.19% 1.77% 5.71% 4.32% 2.98% 3.08% 5.24% 90% 85% 94.24% 98.20% 95.67% 96.93% 94.36% 96.72% 80% 75% Low Moderate High Very High Data Source Method of Measurement Clean Air Strategic Alliance (CASA) 1. Go to CASA website to download data: 2. Select Data Reports link 3. Select AQHI Data Download link 4. Select Start and End Date for the full calendar year 5. Select Stations Bruderheim, Edmonton, Fort Saskatchewan, Lamont County 6. Run Report 7. Calculate the total number of hours in each AQHI category by year 20 p a g e Page 27 of 45

28 Indicator 7 Distribution of Market and Non-Market Housing Description This indicator measures the distribution of market and non-market housing units as a proportion of the total number of housing units, by sub-region. Why is this Indicator Important? A housing market should provide housing to a range of family types and income levels. This requires different housing types, including subsidized housing (ongoing government subsidies), non-market affordable housing (no operating subsidies), market affordable housing (housing available for moderate incomes but not requiring government subsidies) and market housing. Having a range in housing affordability options is important because it will attract and retain a stable workforce. Figure 7.1: Market vs Non-Market Housing Stock by Sub-Region (2011) % 98.00% 96.00% [VALUE] (26,869) [VALUE] (214) [VALUE] (791) [VALUE] (616) [VALUE] (931) [VALUE] (742) [VALUE] (30,163) 94.00% 92.00% 90.00% [VALUE] (324,760) [VALUE] (2,630) [VALUE] (22,455) [VALUE] (26,640) [VALUE] (40,460) [VALUE] (34,970) [VALUE] (451,915) 88.00% Edmonton Lamont Leduc Parkland Strathcona/Fort Saskatchewan Sturgeon Total Market Non-Market 21 p a g e Page 28 of 45

29 Indicator 8 Funding for Non- Market Housing Description This indicator measures the amount of funding provided for non-market housing development by the province, and by the federal government. Why is this Indicator Important? Non-market housing requires subsidies and on-going funding from senior levels of government. It is the Province s role to ensure sufficient and sustainable funding is available to meet the needs of non-market housing across the Capital Region. Figure 8.1: Provincial Funding for Non-Market Housing by Fiscal Year $100,000,000 $80,000,000 Funding $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $0 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 Fiscal Year Data Source Method of Measurement Government of Alberta, Ministry of Seniors and Housing Collect funding data and aggregate by fiscal year. 22 p a g e Page 29 of 45

30 Indicator 9 Housing Mix Description This indicator measures the distribution of housing types across the Capital Region. Why is this Indicator Important? The full range of housing types is necessary to create complete communities. A diversity of housing types suggests greater choice for a variety of lifestyles and budgets and supports improved housing affordability. This measure is also useful for monitoring policies related to minimizing the regional footprint. Increasing the share of multi-unit dwellings uses land more efficiently and promotes population densities that are better able to support walking, cycling, and transit. Energy, materials, and water consumption also tend to be lower on a per capita basis. Figure 9.1: Regional Housing Distribution by Structure Type (2011) 58.70% 15.15% 24.45% 1.69% Single Detached Semi-Detached/Row/Duplex Apartment Other 23 p a g e Page 30 of 45

31 Table 9.1: Housing by Structure Type and Municipality (2011) Municipality Single Detached Semi- Detached/Row /Duplex Apartment Other Total Beaumont 3, ,375 Bon Accord Bruderheim Calmar Devon 1, ,385 Edmonton 165,760 55, ,280 3, ,750 Fort Saskatchewan 4,795 1,335 1, ,335 Gibbons ,075 Lamont Lamont County 1, ,580 Leduc 6,085 1,265 1, ,290 Leduc County 4, ,965 Legal Morinville 2, ,080 Parkland County 9, ,195 10,940 Redwater Spruce Grove 6,930 1,245 1, ,620 St. Albert 16,690 3,365 2, ,515 Stony Plain 3, , ,820 Strathcona County 27,375 2,945 1, ,125 Sturgeon County 5, ,550 Thorsby Wabamun Warburg Total 265,295 68, ,505 7, ,915 Data Source Statistics Canada Method of Measurement Collect housing structure data for each community and calculate the sum total. 24 p a g e Page 31 of 45

32 Indicator 10 Household Spending Description This indicator measures the average household spending on housing and transportation costs as a percentage of total household spending. Household spending categories include: food, shelter, household operation, clothing, transportation, etc Why is this Indicator Important? Affordable housing is more prevalent in suburban or rural areas however a direct trade-off of living in these areas is increased car dependency resulting in higher commuting costs. This measure tracks the proportion of spending on shelter and transportation. If the livability of communities is strengthened, households will be able to reduce their spending on transportation without compromising the affordability of their housing. Data source terminated in 2009 (Statistics Canada Table ) 25 p a g e Page 32 of 45

33 Indicator 11 Commuting Duration Description Median commuting duration. Why is this Indicator Important? Knowing how far residents are traveling to work is an important first step in developing strategies to reduce commuting distances through such things as increased transit options and creating more local jobs. The median commute duration in 2011 for the Capital region: minutes 26 p a g e Page 33 of 45

34 Table 11.1: Commuting Duration by Municipality (2011) 2011 Median Commuting Time Municipality (Minutes) Leduc 15.6 Fort Saskatchewan 20.3 Devon 20.7 Edmonton 20.7 St. Albert 20.7 Spruce Grove 20.9 Strathcona County 20.9 Beaumont 23.7 Leduc County 25.1 Calmar 25.4 Lamont 25.5 Bruderheim 25.6 Stony Plain 25.6 Lamont County 25.7 Parkland County 30.0 Morinville 30.1 Gibbons 30.3 Sturgeon County 30.3 Bon Accord 35.1 Legal * Redwater * Thorsby * Wabamun * Warburg * Total (Average) Sorted in ascending order * Data for this area has been supressed for data quality or confidentiality reasons Data Source National Household Survey Method of Measurement Collect median commuting duration for each municipality and calculate the total. 27 p a g e Page 34 of 45

35 Indicator 12 Commuting Mode Split Description This indicator measures the distribution of transportation modes used to travel to work, expressed as a percent. The breakdown includes: motorized vehicles (driver), motorized vehicles (passenger), transit, cycling, walking and other. Why is this Indicator Important? Mode split shows how people are travelling in the region and helps track the success of reducing car dependence. Figure 12.1: Community Mode Split in the Capital Region (2011) Driver 4.1% 1.1% 1.3% Passenger Public Transit Walked Bicycle 5.5% 11.3% 76.7% Other 28 p a g e Page 35 of 45

36 Table 12.1: Commuting Mode Split by Municipality (2011) Municipality Driver Passenger Public Transit Walked Bicycle Other Beaumont 91.5% 3.2% 1.2% 1.9% 0.5% 1.6% Bon Accord 89.3% 2.7% 5.4% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% Bruderheim 86.0% 8.8% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% Calmar 84.2% 7.7% 0.0% 4.8% 0.0% 3.3% Devon 91.2% 4.6% 0.3% 3.2% 0.0% 0.8% Edmonton 72.2% 5.7% 14.8% 4.6% 1.4% 1.3% Fort Saskatchewan 84.1% 5.9% 2.7% 5.1% 0.5% 1.6% Gibbons 83.7% 9.3% 3.0% 1.0% 0.0% 3.0% Lamont 92.1% 3.3% 0.0% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% Lamont County 91.2% 2.6% 1.5% 3.2% 0.0% 1.5% Leduc 87.2% 4.9% 1.6% 3.8% 0.8% 1.7% Leduc County 89.8% 3.6% 0.4% 5.1% 0.0% 1.1% Legal * * * * * * Morinville 89.6% 4.5% 1.3% 3.5% 0.0% 1.1% Parkland County 90.6% 4.8% 1.9% 1.5% 0.0% 1.3% Redwater * * * * * * Spruce Grove 87.2% 6.1% 1.7% 3.1% 0.6% 1.3% St. Albert 84.8% 4.7% 5.6% 3.2% 0.3% 1.4% Stony Plain 87.3% 6.5% 1.7% 3.0% 0.3% 1.1% Strathcona County 87.4% 5.0% 3.9% 1.8% 0.4% 1.5% Sturgeon County 91.3% 3.2% 1.6% 1.9% 0.2% 1.8% Thorsby * * * * * * Wabamun * * * * * * Warburg * * * * * * Total 76.7% 5.5% 11.3% 4.1% 1.1% 1.3% * Data for this area has been supressed for data quality or confidentiality reasons Data Source National Household Survey Method of Measurement Collect median commuting duration for each municipality and calculate the total. 29 p a g e Page 36 of 45

37 growth plan: monitoring and reporting indicators Indicator 13 Employment Diversity Description This indicator measures the distribution of employment by industry category. Why is this Indicator Important? Measuring employment diversity helps understand the underlying economic health of communities. A labour force that is employed by a broad range of industries increases resiliency to economic downturn because diverse economies tend to experience lower employment volatility. These trends can be used when developing employment strategies and in identifying economic opportunities. Figure 13.1: Employment Diversity in the Capital Region by NAICS Job Class (2011) 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Data Source National Household Survey Method of Measurement Collect industry data for each member municipality and aggregate the regional totals. 30 p a g e Page 37 of 45

38 Indicator 14 Employment Rate Description This indicator measures the number of employed people as a proportion of the total labour force (where labor force is population 15 years of age and over, excluding institutional residents). Why is this Indicator Important? The employment rate is a measure of the proportion of working age population that are working for pay, and thus in a position to earn income to take care of themselves and their families. A high employment rate is a good marker of a healthy economy. Total Regional Labour Force (2011): 683,480 Total Employed Labour Force (2011): 645,240 (94.4%) Data Source Method of Measurement National Household Survey Collect labour force data for each member municipality and aggregate the regional totals. 31 p a g e Page 38 of 45

39 Indicator 15 Distribution of Regional Employment Description This indicator measures where people are reporting they work within the Capital Region. It provides an understanding of how employment is distributed in the region, both by PGAs and by municipality. Why is this Indicator Important? Knowing how employment opportunities are distributed throughout the region helps plan for potential additional housing and infrastructure. Table 15.1: Regional Employment by Municipality (2011) Municipality Total Labour Force Employed Unemployed % Employed % of Regional Labour Force Beaumont 7,565 7, % 1.11% Bon Accord % 0.12% Bruderheim % 0.10% Calmar 1,145 1, % 0.17% Devon 3,685 3, % 0.54% Edmonton 480, ,395 29, % 70.33% Fort Saskatchewan 10,915 10, % 1.60% Gibbons 1,645 1, % 0.24% Lamont % 0.14% Lamont County 2,385 2, % 0.35% Leduc 14,555 13, % 2.13% Leduc County 8,530 8, % 1.25% Legal * * * * * Morinville 5,090 4, % 0.74% Parkland County 18,360 17, % 2.69% Redwater * * * * * 32 p a g e Page 39 of 45

40 Spruce Grove 15,470 14, % 2.26% St. Albert 36,430 34,870 1, % 5.33% Stony Plain 8,255 7, % 1.21% Strathcona County 54,780 52,460 2, % 8.02% Sturgeon County 11,480 11, % 1.68% Thorsby * * * * * Wabamun * * * * * Warburg * * * * * Total 683, ,240 38, % * Data for this area has been supressed for data quality or confidentiality reasons Data Source Method of Measurement National Household Survey Collect labour force data for each member municipality and break it down by member municipality. 33 p a g e Page 40 of 45

41 Indicator 16 Planned Densities of Newly Approved Residential Areas Description This indicator measures the planned densities of new residential areas in priority growth areas (PGAs) approved since the original Growth Plan went in to effect in March of Why is this Indicator Important? Knowing what is planned gives us an idea of what to expect in the future. This indicator also shows the direct effect that density intensification targets in the Growth Plan has had on newly planned residential areas. 100% of residential plans approved since the Growth Plan have met density targets. Residential plans approved since the Growth Plan: 39 Data Source Approved Residential Plans (NSPs and ASPs) Method of Measurement The planned densities for each NSP/ASP is collected and put into a single table 34 p a g e Page 41 of 45

42 Table 16.1: Planned Densities of Approved New Residential Areas* Since March 2010 Municipality Name PGA** Planned Residential Area (ha) Planned Dwelling Units Planned Density (Du/Nrha***) Density Target (Du/Nrha***) Meets Density Target Beaumont Dansereau Meadows Ce Beaumont Ruisseau Ce Edmonton Decoteau B , Edmonton Goodridge Corners B , Edmonton Maple B , Edmonton Crystallina Nera East B , Edmonton Cy Becker B , Edmonton Hawks Ridge B , Edmonton Starling B , Edmonton Desrochers Cw , Edmonton Cavanagh Cw , Edmonton Hays Ridge Cw , Edmonton Heritage Valley Cw , Edmonton Graydon Hill Cw Edmonton Keswick Cw , Edmonton Edgemont Cw , Edmonton Glenridding Heights Cw , Edmonton Riverview Cw , Edmonton Horse Hill F , Fort Saskatchewan Southfort G , Leduc West E , Leduc Southfork E , Leduc Blackstone E , Leduc Brightwell E , Leduc South East Leduc E , Leduc County East Vistas Ce , Spruce Grove East Pioneer A , Spruce Grove Shiloh A , Spruce Grove West A , Spruce Grove Heritage Estates A , St. Albert Ville Giroux B St. Albert Avenir B , St. Albert Jensen Lakes B , Stony Plain Fairways North A Stony Plain East Boundary A , Stony Plain Parkland Gateway A p a g e Page 42 of 45

43 Strathcona: Sherwood Park Strathcona: Sherwood Park Strathcona: Sherwood Park growth plan: monitoring and reporting indicators Salisbury Village B Emerald Hills B , Cambrian Crossing B , * New Residential Areas - Newly planned residential areas where no prior plans existed. ** PGA = Priority Growth Area as defined In the Capital Region Growth Plan ***Du/Nrha = Dwelling Units per Net Residential Hectare 36 p a g e Page 43 of 45

44 Advocacy & Monitoring A List Projects 2017/18 A List Projects Funded Priority "A" Projects April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018 Listed by in priority Committee Workplans List # in Priority Project Description Dates/approx. A AMC- 2017/18-1 General Advocacy GR: Continuation of Value Add campaign and government relations A AMC 2017/18-2 Energy Corridors Management Strategy (Advocacy) Rationale for project start dates 2017/18 Materials to support outreach activities: Advocacy retreats and consultation, particularly to inform New Board Proposed Strategic Budget Priority In House 4 Advocacy and Implementation 2017/18 Forum and advocacy In House 4 Subtotal: $0 March 2, 2017 Page 1 of 1 Page 44 of 45

45 Meeting Schedule Criteria for cancelation of a meeting: No fiduciary decision, no needed Board decision, no time sensitive issues. Date Time Location Agenda Items June 8, :30 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. Chateau Louis Leland Room September 14, :30 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. Chateau Louis Leland Room ADVOCACY & MONITORING October 12, 2017 *CANCELED* November 9, 2017 December 14, :30 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. 7:30 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. 7:30 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. Chateau Louis Leland Room Chateau Louis Leland Room Chateau Louis Leland Room 1. Selection of Committee Chair 2. TOR Review and Recommendation 3. AMC Budget/Workplan Review and Recommendation 4. Strategic Plan KPIs 5. Website Analytics 6. Growth Plan KPIs for Review and Recommendation 7. Three Year Strategic Comms Plan Review & Recommendation Due to this being a transition year (election, new regulation, new growth plan) highlighted meetings are recommended to be cancelled. Revised: February 28, 2017 * Bold agenda items are either new or have been moved to an alternate meeting 1 of 1 Page 45 of 45