A major developer for the Highway 2/27 area east of Olds said Mountain View County was setting ìa dangerous precedentî after council voted to suspend the offsite levy process, pending reviews of the Municipal Development Plan and 2/27 Area Structure Plan.ìWe've invested quite a lot of millions in this county in good faith,î said realtor Herb Styles, representing a consortium of three development companies that own five quarters in the northwest quadrant between the Olds Highland Golf Course and QEII.Now, he said, councillors have ìpredetermined they want to reduce the density ñ to what, we don't know. There's a dangerous precedent being set, when one council can move in after another one and say, ëWe don't like this, we wanna wipe this out.'ìWhat kind of confidence does it give in this county? It's going to give a very, very bad image to our county,î Styles said. ìWe paid big bucks based on values the ASP gave to the land. Who's going to pick up the cost?îThe offsite levy process began at council's direction earlier this summer, targeted strictly for the 2/27 ASP area. It was intended to determine the amount each property would have to pay to cover the cost of extending water and sewer services to the area.The amount to be levied would be based on the densities laid out in the ASP, approved in 2006, and for that reason Reeve Paddy Munro subsequently tried to reverse the decision, saying it would bind council to those densities.Last Wednesday, Munro's arguments held sway when he rejected a strategy presented by administration to continue with the offsite levy bylaw process and adjust the densities if necessary as the MDP review winds up in the new year.ìI don't agree with the strategy as it's set out,î Munro said. ìThe MDP will be done when it is done. When we have a clear idea on density is when we should start the area structure plan process. Then at that point, when we truly know, we should design the offsite levy to fit that.ìThen it will be done in its proper progression,î he said.Council had allocated $75,000 for the offsite levy bylaw, but the consultant was still in the information gathering stage, infrastructure projects manager Ryan Morrison said. The cost of cancelling the contract would be costs incurred plus five per cent, he said, estimating that between $3,000 and $4,000 had been spent to date.If the density for the area does not go high enough to warrant piped services, Div. 2 Coun. Trish McKean noted, ìwe're just wasting $75,000.îDiv. 1 Coun. Kevin Good concurred.ìIf it costs $65,000 to get this done and our MDP and ASP results tell us we don't want it, that's wasting big dollars,î Good said.ìWe made a $3,000 error but it could be worse: it could be $65,000 worse or $80,000 worse if costs go over. That would be an error in my judgment.ìLet's get the MDP done first, then the ASP Ö It's just too much of a gamble.îCommenting on administration's references to densities deemed high enough to make the development pay, Good said: ìYou can't be talking about Calgary because they're not paying there. Maybe your thinking Hong Kongish, I don't know, but there have not been any offsite levies in history that pay down the road.îìFor me,î said Munro, ìit's the public input of the people of this county ñ that process must be followed. If the public says we're building a town out there Ö then that's what it will be. But we'll have to see.îAfter the meeting, Styles told the Gazette that mixed development at 2/27 would help offset the county's declining tax base from oil and gas activity. Otherwise, he said, the tax burden will fall on the agricultural community.ìThere needs to be a lot of thought by local residents,î he said.He also pointed to a report from administration presented that day, in which corporate services ìstill says (the development) is very viable.îìWe can prove beyond a doubt that the housing doesn't lose money,î he said, adding that the residential component would give the commercial-industrial area an advantage over other highway business parks.ìThey've got a goose here that's about to lay a golden egg and if they kill it, who'll pay but the residents of the county?îIn the corporate services section of the report on 2/27, administration writes: ìThe Netook development on the positive side has the potential to be high enough density at full development to be economically viable and would benefit the county by expanding and diversifying our tax base. There are many other considerations but economically, the county would be better off with a fully developed Netook area than with no development in the Netook area.îThe report continues: ìOn the negative side Netook as currently proposed may take many years to develop and may not have the scale to be economically viable for many years into the future.îMore critical of the plan's viability, the economic development section of the report said ìit is clear that significant marketing issues have to be resolved if the concept is to be a reality.îQuestioning whether the target Baby Boomer market would be attracted to quarter-acre ìbare groundî lots, the section also concludes that ìit is too early to designate Netook North as the appropriate geographical area for the next round of cluster developmentî in the area.
