This article has been written in conjunction with David E. Lettner, a planning consultant.

Historical Development of the Principles
Since the mid-1980s the Municipal board of Manitoba (hereinafter the "Board") has developed a set of principles which are generally followed in annexation applications. In the 1992 Report and Recommendation re: Headingly/Winnipeg Boundary the board acknowledged the historical development of the first three principles and added two. The two were similar to the principles applied by the Ontario Municipal board as enunciated in its decision in Re: Town of Hanover Annexation (1975) 5 O.M.B.R. 22. Further annexation hearings in the early 1990s resulted in the refinement of the principles and the addition of a sixth principle.

The Six Principles

Principle No. 1: The Servicing Principle.

1. The municipality which can best provide needed Municipal infrastructure to the residence and landowners of a particular area should normally exercise Municipal jurisdiction over that area. Environmental imperatives will be considered in determining the need for Municipal infrastructure, in particular, water and sewer services. The ability to provide water and sewer service to a particular area is a strong indicator that the area should be annexed to the municipality which provides the service.

2. Residence within a particular area should be under the jurisdiction of the municipality to which they have the greatest affinity or relationship. The board will consider the social economic ties to each of the municipalities involved. Which municipality are the affected residence and landowners "a part of?"

3. In general, agricultural and other rural uses should be confined to rural municipalities; urban land uses should be located within villages, Town and cities;

4. Annexation of the land needed to maintain the viability of a municipality and to enable it to fulfill its role in the broader community should be supported. An adequate inventory of suitable residential, commercial and industrial land should be available to meet potential future demand. Planning documents such as development plans will be considered in determining the role of the municipality and its future growth in planning needs.

5. An attempt should be made to accommodate the will of the majority of the residence and landowners of an up area proposed for annexation.

6. Geographical or natural barriers which may service a logical boundary line should be considered. And an attempt will be made to define a line which is straightforward and easily recognizable.

"In previous annexation decisions the board has laid down the principle that when a municipality seeks to extend its boundaries and to bring under its jurisdiction substantial areas administered by one or more neighboring municipalities it must assume that general burden of proof."

The Application of The Principles
The Servicing Principle focuses on the need for supplying urban services to inhabitants of a proposed annexed area. Primarily although not exclusively this principle is concerned with the supply of water and sewage services and is usually concerned with environmental imperatives resulting from a residential build up on the fringe of an urban center. This type of development is a prime area to be annexed to an urban center. If the urban center is supplying the essential services, it should also receive the property taxes.

The Affinity Principle is the most difficult to apply in the current economic and political climate. Essentially it is concerned with which municipality would the inhabitants of a proposed annexed area have the greatest affinity or relationship. It encompasses both social and economic ties. The questions often asked to establish an affinity are "where do you shop?" and "where do you or your children attend recreational activities?" "Where do your children go to school?" The argument is that users of these services should pay for them and property taxes should be paid to the Municipality which supplies these services. Practically speaking this principle has limited application and should be given minor consideration in the annexation process in part because the affinity principle can be argued from both an urban or rural prospective. Furthermore, the Manitoba government through its planning legislation, The Planning Act of Manitoba has encouraged joint planning through the formation of Planning Districts since 1976. Regionalization has centralized schools and hospitals the results of which are that through a process of provincial economic development everyone in rural Manitoba will rely on a central urban center for these services. The taxes paid for these regionalized services are paid by all Manitobans equally regardless of where they are located in the province. Rural Municipalities provide grants or share costs in fire protection and recreational services. The costs of these services are already recovered by the urban center. Therefore where a person goes to school, shops or participates in recreational activities does not necessarily determine their connection to an urban center and may or may not determine where their property taxes should be paid. With the advancement of transportation many rural consumers will shop in many urban centers quite frequently not where they participate in recreational activities. Finally, the principle will often lead to the absurd inquiry of whether the urban center would survive without the Rural Municipal and its residents or whether the Rural Municipality and its residents could survive without the urban center. The likely answer is that neither could survive without the other.

The viability principle is currently at the center of attention for many urban municipalities who are arguing that they require large tracts of land on their fringe to meet to potential future opportunities. The argument is that urban municipalities must be able to act quickly and have a range of suitable commercial and industrial land to attract development. Until very recently, the requirements of an urban center were analyzed on a supply and demand basis. That is, how much land will the urban center reasonably require for residential, commercial and industrial growth within a reasonable planning period. The use of demographics such as population growth and historical development proposals can assist in determining how fast an urban center is growing. Generally a planning horizon of 10 to 20 years is considered reasonable. Growth projections and economic forecasting are not exact sciences and assumptions are required. The credibility of growth projections must be based on reasonable assumptions and analysis. Planning horizons beyond 20 years for the purpose of assessing future land requirements are unjustifiable.

The land use principle generally refers to keeping residential and commercial developments which are urban in nature and dependant upon urban services within an urban center. The Provincial Land Use Policies (PLUPS) which are regulations under the Planning Act of Manitoba recognizes there will be some residential and commercial development in a rural municipality. The extent to which these developments are allowed is detailed in the PLUPS. Urban residential development is generally distinguished from rural residential developments by the size of the lots and on site water and sewer services. Efforts are made to avoid large tracts of agricultural land from becoming part of an urban center. The PLUPS acknowledge that not all commercial development is urban and encourage legitimate rural commercial developments such as highway commercial and agro-commercial developments to locate as close to an urban center as possible so as to avoid creating a competing commercial node.

The Political Will principle really relates to situations where some land owners want to be part of an urban center because they are prepared to pay for or want the urban services. If there are a majority opposition and no other reason to annex the area, the board will consider the will of the majority.

The Logical boundary principle is used to prevent extremely complicated boundary descriptions and prevent small tracts of land being left as virtual islands in another municipal jurisdiction. Legal boundary descriptions are often complicated and if boundary lines were drawn which changed direction every 1000 ft or less it would be extremely complicated to work out the boundary. Generally this allows for the inclusion or exclusion of land on the basis that a straight line from one point to another is more practical.

Hierarchy of Principles
The Board has not expressly acknowledged which principles are more important or take priority. In the Re: Hanover case it was accepted that the most important principle was whether a municipality can serve the inhabitants of the lands proposed to be annexed. It stands to reason that ensuring a municipality can service its property owners within its Municipal jurisdiction or ensuring a municipality has a sufficient supply of land to accommodate growth are more important than the establishment of a straightforward boundary line.