Edmonton’s Profile as
Alberta’s Capital City
Opportunities to Capitalize on
Edmonton’s Capital Status
Recommendation:
That the June 6, 2008, Deputy City
Manager’s Office report 2008DCM011 be
received for information.
Report Summary
The report outlines considerations
for building Edmonton’s status as
Alberta’s capital city and highlights
relevant findings of a Canadian
Capital Cities Organization (CCCO)
report on the costs and benefits of
being a Canadian capital city.
Report
City of Edmonton context:
Previous Councils have discussed
Edmonton’s status as a capital city and
opportunities for Edmonton to benefit
from this status.
In 2005, Administration conducted
interviews with City Council members on
capital city issues, and these interviews
formed the basis of an Executive
Committee motion to develop a capital
city strategy for Edmonton. Key areas
identified for further research in the
development of a strategy were:
 Identity - community pride, history,
culture, defining City of Edmonton
versus the Edmonton Region.
 Marketing and Communications messaging and branding, tourism.


Relationships - with provincial and
federal governments, other
municipalities, other local
stakeholders; narrowly-defined
relationships to carry out specific
projects.
Mechanisms - capital commission,
City of Edmonton charter.
Further work on this issue was
superseded by Council’s focus on the
Regional Growth Initiative.
Council may now wish to consider
whether there is value in purposefully
exploring and elaborating a capital city
strategy for Edmonton.
Canadian Capital Cities Organization
Report:
A report on the costs and benefits of
being a Canadian capital city was
commissioned by the Canadian Capital
Cities Organization (CCCO), to which
Edmonton belongs.
The CCCO includes membership from
Canada’s provincial and territorial
capitals, as well as the national capital.
It aims to create links among the
country’s capitals and promote a greater
knowledge of Canada’s heritage, culture
and political development.
The CCCO report finds that sufficient
data is not available to determine
quantitatively the extent to which
differences between capital cities and
other cities can be attributed to capital
city status.
Comparing capital cities across Canada
(and their relative impacts on their
respective provinces) is also a challenge
given that capital cities vary greatly in
population size and that some capital
PAGE
ROUTING - City Council - Intergovernmental | DELEGATION – J. Tustian/M. Ulmer-Johnston
WRITTEN BY – M. Wispinski | June 6, 2008 – Deputy City Manager’s Office 2008DCM011
Page 1 of 3
E
1
Edmonton’s Profile as Alberta’s Capital City
cities are located in provinces in which
another (non-capital) city is as large as,
or larger than, the capital is.
However, the report concludes that
federal and provincial capital cities play
a unique cultural and symbolic role in
celebrating and representing the history
and spirit of Canada, and its respective
provinces and territories.
The report also outlines the role that
capital commissions and collaborative
enterprises may play in this respect.
Capital Commissions and Collaborative
Enterprises:
Capital commissions are defined as
special purpose bodies at the federal or
provincial level that focus exclusively on
the protection and promotion of the
capital city.
Collaborative enterprises are described
as sharing many of the same
characteristics as capital commissions;
however, they are not specifically
mandated to engage a provincial or
national constituency. Collaborative
enterprises, such as those described in
the report, are not exclusive to capital
cities.
Including the National Capital
Commission, a total of seven capital
commissions and collaborative
enterprises have been established, or
are in the process of being established,
in capital cities.
These organizations are located in
Ottawa, Victoria, Quebec City,
Fredericton (capital commissions);
Winnipeg and Charlottetown
(collaborative enterprises). The City of
Regina is in the process of transitioning
Page 2 of 3
its collaborative enterprise into a capital
commission.
Mandates vary widely among capital
commissions. However, capital
commissions in Ottawa, Victoria and
Quebec share common planning and
development functions including:
 Stewardship, interpretation, and
enhancement of historic properties
and monuments.
 Co-ordination, support to major
events, programs and ceremonies.
 Enhanced profile through destination
marketing and outreach initiatives.
 Property management including
revenue generation through leasing
and user fees.
Collaborative enterprises discussed in
the report (Winnipeg, Charlottetown and
Regina) tended to share common
objectives with respect to optimizing or
revitalizing centrally-located,
publicly-owned properties. In all cases,
long-term visions are realized through a
partnered approach and leveraging of
investment.
Despite key differences in approach and
mandate among existing commissions
and collaborative enterprises, all are
intended to more efficiently harness the
energy and resources of multiple
stakeholders for the benefit of their
capital cities or region.
Opportunities to Partner with
Government of Alberta and Other
Stakeholders:
Edmonton is home to numerous
museums, historic sites, attractions,
government facilities, institutions and
festivals that befit a capital city, tell
Edmonton’s story, and which are
Edmonton’s Profile as Alberta’s Capital City
enjoyed by Albertans from every corner
of the province.
As the seat of government and site of
key provincial institutions, Edmonton’s
history is entwined with the creation of
Alberta as a province. Consequently,
the City of Edmonton has a unique
relationship with the Government of
Alberta.
Given this unique historic relationship
and the part that the capital plays in
provincial success today, it would be
appropriate for the Government of
Alberta to support unique infrastructure
and projects that reflect and enhance
Edmonton’s capital city status.
A partnership with the Province, and
other stakeholders, organized within the
context of a formalized capital
commission or collaborative enterprise,
may be a means of ensuring ongoing
provincial support for capital city
initiatives.
City Council, therefore, may wish to
discuss the potential benefits and
limitations of developing a mechanism
such as a capital commission or
collaborative enterprise for Edmonton
and/or the Edmonton Region to carry
out an overall capital city strategy or a
specific, targeted capital city project
such as the redevelopment of
Government Centre and the Legislature
grounds.
City Council may also wish to discuss
other infrastructure priorities (downtown
renewal projects or the Royal Alberta
Museum redevelopment, for example),
festivals, ceremonies or Council
initiatives that could be appropriately
linked to a capital city strategy.
Page 3 of 3
Focus Area




Regional Growth and Development.
Organizational Capacity.
Vibrant Communities.
Promotion and Partnerships.
Attachments
1. “The Costs and Benefits of Being a
Canadian Capital City: Final Report
to the Canadian Capital Cities
Organization” – Executive Summary
Attachment 1
“The Costs and Benefits of Being a Canadian Capital City: Final Report to the
Canadian Capital Cities Organization” – Executive Summary
Capital cities in Canada play a unique role because they are the seat of government
and also because they serve a symbolic function in their respective province or territory.
Capital cities are places of gathering and decision-making; protocol, ceremony, and
honours; and shared history and common identity. They have different infrastructure
and service requirements than other municipalities, are home to more cultural
institutions and events, and generally have a high proportion of public sector
employment. This unique position has an impact on the costs and revenues of capital
cities.
This study has identified the unique characteristics of capital cities and set out the
benefits and costs associated with being a capital city. Evidence has been gathered
from the literature on capital cities around the world, data on the socio-economic
characteristics and the revenues and expenditures of capital cities, and interviews with
municipal and capital commission officials. The study has also provided a
comprehensive nation-wide inventory of specific symbolic-cultural stakeholders and
features. These agencies and assets contribute to the distinctiveness of Canada’s 14
capitals when compared to other Canadian cities.
Much of the information needed to understand the costs and benefits of being a capital
city, however, is not available. In particular, it is impossible to determine quantitatively
the extent to which differences between capital cities and other cities can be attributed
to its being a capital. Where the capital city is located in a province that has a much
larger city, for example, the larger city often has higher incomes and spends more on
public services. Where the capital city is the largest city in the province, the capital city
tends to have higher incomes and make greater expenditures. Although It is difficult to
isolate the costs and benefits associated with being a capital city from other factors
such as population size, there are costs and benefits of being a capital city and this
study attempts to identify them.
Benefits of Being a Capital City
Capital cities enjoy a number of benefits. These include, for example, more economic
activity, a better educated labour force, generally higher average incomes, a more
stable employment base, more cultural amenities (museums, libraries, art galleries,
science centres), and more public parks and open spaces. Moreover, they share a
common history and a common identity as centres of power and influence. There is a
rich history of how each of these cities was founded and settled. The existence of
numerous Government Houses and military compounds pre-Confederation reaffirm that
today’s capitals were established places of gathering, of representation, and
decision-making before nationhood. Provinces and territories that were established
post-Confederation also served as important settlements for trade, commerce, and
Page 1 of 4
Report: 2008DCM011 Attachment 1
Attachment 1
transport. They were strategically situated on waterfronts and warranted the installation
of military compounds nearby. In this way, each capital holds a piece of the puzzle that
tells the story of Canada.
Costs of Being a Capital City
Many of the benefits that capital cities enjoy do not translate into revenues for the
municipal government, however. For example, if capital cities attract more economic
activity, there will be benefits to the local economy but because municipal governments
rely largely on property taxes, the city gains no revenue advantage from the increased
activity. Because municipalities in Canada do not have access to income and sales
taxes that grow with the economy, many of the advantages of being a capital city are
not enjoyed by the municipal government. Those cities that have access to hotel and
motel occupancy taxes, however, do enjoy some advantage.
There are additional costs of being a capital city. In terms of policing and emergency,
there are extra costs associated with security and traffic management around visits of
foreign dignitaries and public demonstrations. Although capital cities are usually
reimbursed for these costs, at least one city believes that the reimbursement does not
compensate them for the excess capacity they are required to maintain. There are also
additional staffing costs associated with protocol visits. Additional costs are also
incurred for culture, parks, and recreation in capital cities when compared to other cities.
At the same time, capital cities are not able to tax government properties and have to
rely on payments in lieu of property taxes. As noted in this report, not all provincial
governments make payments in lieu of property taxes on all of their properties in the
capital city. For those that do make payments in lieu, the amount is often less than the
property taxes would be. When payments in lieu fall short of what the property taxes
would be, other municipal taxpayers are subsidizing government properties.
To the extent that there are extra costs for capital cities, there is a funding role for the
federal and provincial/territorial governments in capital cities. There are at least two
justifications for senior government funding. On the cost side, capital cities should be
compensated for the extra costs associated with provincial/territorial and federal
activities such as hosting dignitaries, running special events, and accommodating
demonstrations against the provincial/territorial (or federal) government. These activities
are for the entire provincial/territorial or national population and should not be borne
solely by local taxpayers. On the benefit side, the existence of green space, cultural
facilities and other amenities that are present in a capital city creates benefits for people
throughout the province/territory and beyond. To the extent these benefits spill over the
municipal boundary, an argument can be made for provincial/territorial and even federal
assistance to the capital cities.
Page 2 of 4
Report: 2008DCM011 Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Governance Models
A review of capital commissions, collaborative enterprises, and collaborative networks
suggests that different models have worked in different cities and no one structure fits
all cities. A major advantage of capital commissions (as in Ottawa, Québec City, and
Victoria) is their sole focus on the capital city – to enhance or make distinct the
character of the capital as befitting the seat of government and to increase the capital’s
visibility and appeal as a destination. They are successful, in part, because they operate
at arm’s length from the municipal (and provincial) government and each commission is
able to provide specialized expertise to long-term planning. They provide a link between
the municipal and provincial or federal government. On the other hand, public
perception of capital commissions is mixed. In particular, there tends to be an overlap of
jurisdiction with local governments especially in the area of planning. The city loses
some of its autonomy and there are concerns about accountability because the board of
directors of the capital commission is not elected.
Collaborative enterprises (such as the Wascana Centre Authority in Regina, the Forks
District in Winnipeg, and the Charlottetown Area Development Corporation) share
similar characteristics with capital commission models. Although they are not
specifically mandated to engage a provincial or national constituency, they provide
direct and indirect benefits to the city:
 Creating opportunities for leveraged capital investment from other levels of
government.
 Distinct place-making, creating attractive destinations for citizens and visitors.
 Balancing capital and city needs within a mixed use approach.
 Acknowledging municipalities as bonafide shareholders.
Collaborative networks (such as the National Capital Region’s Federal Partners in
Programming and Marketing) enhance the development and delivery of capital-based
products and services. By doing so, they not only optimize existing resources through
capacity building but they also increase public awareness, visitor attendance, and
improve the quality of the visitor experience.
Regardless of the model chosen, the following guiding principles would maximize the
advantages and mitigate the challenges:
 Recognize municipal governments and citizens as important stakeholders within
capital cities.
 Address the dual planning challenges by cultivating a “culture of consensus”.
 Create opportunities for greater efficiencies and capacity building through
collaboration.
 Adopt an entrepreneurial approach where public-private stakeholders are able to
participate.
 Acknowledge/optimize federal government presence and support within provincial/
territorial capitals.
Page 3 of 4
Report: 2008DCM011 Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Going Forward: More Information is Needed
Much of the information needed to understand the costs and benefits of being a capital
city is not currently compiled. The data collected by municipalities does not separate the
costs attributable to being a capital city from other costs. For example, municipalities do
not quantify the extra costs for services such as policing, transportation, and parks and
recreation that they incur because they are a capital city. Although this report has
identified the services that are different in capital cities, the data did not permit a
detailed analysis of the higher costs associated with being a capital city.
The Canadian Capital Cities Organization should collect this information on a consistent
basis across the country. This process will require that each capital city look at its
expenditures and revenues through a “capital city lens”. In other words, expenditure and
revenue items need to be separated into the portion that can be attributed to it being a
capital city as opposed to any other city. The capital cities should establish a working
group (including municipal staff) to design and implement a uniform financial template
for data collection.
Information is needed on:
 Payments in lieu of taxes - what capital cities would receive if these were private
properties compared to what they do receive in payments in lieu. This estimate
would indicate the revenue shortfall and the cost of having government properties in
the capital city.
 Policing and emergency costs - the costs that municipalities incur to host foreign
dignitaries and demonstrations and the amount by which the capital city is
reimbursed by the federal or provincial government. This information would give an
indication of some of the additional costs of being a capital city.
 Expenditures on parks, cultural facilities, and transportation - how much higher these
expenditures are in capital cities and the extent to which some of these expenditures
are funded by the federal or provincial government.
Capital-specific information gaps were also identified in the analysis of resident/visitor
perceptions of the capital experience and/or the capital as a destination. Moreover, it
was difficult to determine conclusively what is generally regarded as distinctly capital or
signature activities within each of the cities profiled. In this instance, public perception
may differ greatly according to demographics or personal bias. One option may be to
take advantage of existing survey exercises such as municipal-based citizen
satisfaction surveys and travel exit surveys by including capital specific questions.
Page 4 of 4
Report: 2008DCM011 Attachment 1