Mountain View County council has reviewed a draft inter-municipal collaboration framework agreement (ICF) and a draft inter-municipal development plan (IDP) between the MD of Bighorn and the county.
The move came during the recent regularly scheduled council meeting. The new updated Municipal Government Act mandates the agreement and plan.
Last month two councillors and administration from each municipality met to review the draft documents and make recommendations on next steps.
“It was agreed by both Bighorn and the Council should review and approve a draft ICF and IDP prior to sending the draft IDP out for public input,” administration said in a briefing note to council.
The ICF is mandated to “provide for the integrated and strategic planning, delivery and funding of inter-municipal services; steward scarce resources efficiently in providing local services; and ensure municipalities contribute funding to services that benefit their residents,” the agreement states.
Under the agreement an inter-municipal collaboration committee will be formed to “meet as required to develop recommendations to the respective councils on all matters of strategic direction and cooperation affecting both the MD and County residents, except matters where other current operating structures and mechanisms are operating successfully.”
Topics the committee could discuss included long-term strategic growth plan, inter-municipal and regional transportation issues, and the prompt circulation of major land use, subdivision and development proposals in either municipality which may impact the other municipality.
“In the event either municipality initiates the development of a new project and/or service that would benefit from a cost-sharing agreement, the initiating municipality’s chief administrative officer (CAO) will notify the other municipality’s CAO, providing the rationale as to why that project/service has a benefit to both municipalities.
“The committee will be the forum used to address and develop future mutual aid agreements and/or cost sharing agreements. In the event the committee is unable to reach an agreement, the dispute shall be dealt with through the procedure outlined (in the agreement).”
Meanwhile, the inter-municipal development plan formalizes and defines the relationship between the two municipalities.
“The IDP sets the policy framework for planning matters that include future land use, environmental, transportation and items of mutual interest as it applies to land in proximity to the shared boundary and defined in the plan area,” the plan states.
“The IDP policies define how communication, cooperation, decision making and dispute resolution shall occur for lands within the IDP area.”
The plan sets out five specific goals:
• Maintain local autonomy with each municipality responsible for decision making within their municipal jurisdiction.
• Ensure long-term compatibility of future land use within both municipalities.
• Recognize that agriculture continues to be the primary use of land in the IDP area and support the preservation of agricultural land except where statutory plans support non-agricultural use.
• Recognize that land owned and developed by the Crown is not subject to the municipal planning and development requirements.
• Establish plan administration, amendments and dispute resolution procedures.
“The review committee has recommended that public input be gathered until March, at which time the review committee will analyze the feedback and determine if additional public consultation should be considered prior to scheduling a bylaw for first reading and a public hearing,” administration said in the briefing note.
