Three municipal reserve parcels in Mountain View County have been cleared for eventual sale after council voted to remove their designation following public hearings last Wednesday.The most contentious parcel was a 2.5-acre lot located directly east of the Olds Highlands Golf Course that is currently being used as cropland.Pat Burton and Don Molesky, who were involved in developing the nine-lot subdivision in 2000, both spoke in opposition to removing the MR designation and disposing of the land.ìThe lot belongs to the existing owners to (use at) their own discretion Ö not at the county's discretion,î Burton said.The parcel represented 10 per cent of the subdivision and was required by the county under the policies of the day and in accordance with the Municipal Government Act. Molesky said if the developers had been given the option of cash in lieu of land ñ as is the county's current practice, also allowed under the MGA ñ the appraised value of the lot would be about $5,000.ìIf you put it on the market you'd get $75,000 or $80,000,î Molesky said. ìHow is it fair that you'd make that kind of profit?îQuestioned by councillors, legislative services director Jeff Holmes explained that if council voted to remove the MR designation the county would make that request to the registrar of land titles. Once the designation is removed the county could dispose of the land, which would be zoned Parks and Recreation. Rezoning the parcel to Country Residential would require holding another public hearing, Holmes said. Under the MGA, the land would have to be sold at market value.If the county did sell the land, interim planning director John Rusling said, ìany proceeds from the sale of the lot have to be used for the purpose the lots were intended Ö in this case parks and recreation.îDiv. 1 Coun. Kevin Good moved to maintain the land in its current status.ìThis land was taken under a certain premise,î Good said. ìTo do an about-face now in direct contradiction to that premise is wrong.îDiv. 7 Coun. Al Kemmere supported Good's motion.ìThe land is being farmed. I'm happy with the status quo,î Kemmere said.ìI completely disagree with my fellow councillors,î Div. 6 Coun. Paddy Munro responded.ìWhether the land is worth $75,000 or $150,000, it was part of the deal and the MGA supports that. We own all these properties across the county and they're doing nothing,î Munro said.ìYou didn't have to do the development,î he told Burton and Molesky. ìYou agreed that this land would go to MR as part of the deal. This is a county asset we're entitled to deal with as best as we can for the benefit of the county.îAsked by Reeve Bruce Beattie how many pieces of land were in municipal reserve, Holmes said a 2008 study identified 254 properties ranging from quarter sections to one-fifth of an acre parcels. Eighty of those were reviewed, with 10 listed for possible disposal and six withheld pending area plans and drainage studies.ìSo we started with 80, went to 10 and we're down to four,î Beattie said. ìI look at 2.5 acres ñ what's the best use of 2.5 acres next to a golf course? If we would put it on the market and it would generate $50,000 or $150,000, that money could be used for recreational purposes for the entire county. We went through the process,î he added.Good's motion was defeated with only Kemmere supporting it. A motion by Div. 2 Coun. Trish McKean to remove the MR designation was carried with Beattie, Munro and Div. 3 Coun. Duncan Milne voting in favour, Good and Kemmere opposed.No objections were given to the redesignation of a similar property, situated north of the golf course and comprising 2.14 acres. Maintained only on a periodic basis by the county, the property has raised concerns in the past of it being a fire hazard, Holmes said.Council voted unanimously to remove the parcel from municipal reserve.More discussion preceded the vote to remove a third parcel ñ situated southwest of Olds, west of the Amerada Road gas plant ñ after resident David Duval asked if it could be partitioned so that adjacent landowners could incorporate it by adding pieces to their properties.ìThere's nothing saying the adjacent landowners could not formulate a position and come to council and make a formal request,î Kemmere said. ìIt would have to be all or none,î he added. ìThere cannot be an island without access.îBeattie said such a solution could be a ìwin-win for the county.îCouncil voted to maintain the current status of a fourth parcel, situated in West Fork Estates in the Rosebud River Valley north of Didsbury, until residents have been consulted on various options that could include expanding the area's environmental reserve and swapping land with an adjacent property owner.
