Developers for the Netook Crossing project east of Olds attempted last week to dispel misinformation they say is skewing Mountain View County council's view of their proposed commercial-residential development.Fighting the clock during a presentation scheduled to last only 15 minutes, Neuroese Properties' Herb Styles, backed by Prodev's Terry Johnston and Neuroese planner Greg Brown, presented a report outlining 14 perceptions that Styles described as ìtotally wrong.îThat Mountain View County's oil and gas taxation revenue is sustainable. With 63 per cent of the county's tax revenue coming from oil and gas compared to 43 per cent for Red Deer County and eight per cent for Rocky View, ìyou can see that MVC has more reliance on oil and gas revenue than probably any county in southern Alberta,î Styles said. If the predicted decline in oil and gas revenue is not offset by increased revenue from other forms of development, municipal property taxes could jump 2.4 times higher than current levels, he said. The Energy Resource Conservation Board's 2010 forecast projects a lifespan of eight to nine years for conventional reserves, and while potential additional reserves are acknowledged, ERCB projects a continued decline in production after a 2013 peak resulting from new fracturing technology.ERCB forecasts on oil and gas reserves are not reliable. The basis for ERCB forecasts is information provided by the oil and gas industry, supplemented with further technical analysis, Styles said. ìWithout question, ERCB forecasts should be considered reliable.îNetook Crossing will compete with the Town of Olds. ìThe vision, land use, and density for Netook stem directly from a partnership and support from the Town of Olds,î Styles said, listing five major agreements and plans approved in consultation with the town. The documents, he said, are based on ìthe premise of a partnership, regional co-operation, joint planning, shared service delivery and tax revenue sharing.î Old, he said, ìremains an active partner and supporter of Netook.îNetook Crossing is not ìrural.î While ìnot typical or status quo,î Netook ìrepresents a new vision for rural development,î with smaller residential lot sizes aimed at using land more efficiently and providing density levels capable of supporting services. ìFolks,î Styles told council, ìI submit quarter-acre lots don't use up as much land as four-acre lots. So it is rural, but it is a new vision.îNetook Crossing is urban/town development. The permitted density in Olds ìis 3 times greater than Netook,î Styles said. ìThe gross density is 1.5 units per gross acre. In Olds the density is five units per acre. So there's a very clear-cut difference between Netook and Olds and other towns. It should never be called a town.îNetook Crossing landowners are speculators. The county invited development at Highway 2/27 and investors answered the call, Styles said, with Neuroese and Prodev investing about $20 million in land, planning, engineering and infrastructure to date.Netook Crossing is a financial risk to MVC taxpayers. ìThis is critical,î Styles said, adding that the developers ìfully acknowledgeî they will bear any financial risk from the project. ìWhile accepting this responsibility, it is important to emphasize that the developer must maintain land uses and density levels capable of supporting the costs and cash flow requirements necessary to cover capital costs to bring the development on stream.î The county's support and co-operation on servicing and planning is paramount, he said.Operating/lifecycle costs will burden the MVC taxpayer. Whether they are provided through a utility corporation or the Town of Olds, the operating and replacement costs of piped services would be charged solely to the utility user, Styles said.The existing Netook Business Park is a burden to county taxpayers. Prodev has invested about $5.2 million into the first phase of the business park, the company's Terry Johnston told council. ìSo we've got a huge investment in Netook Crossing,î Johnston said. With only two lots developed, the tax revenue from the land has climbed from $425 per year to $350,000 per year, with projected tax revenue of the initial phase at full build-out estimated at $3.4 million. While current taxes could cover the county's entire economic development budget, Johnston said he was surprised to see that Netook Crossing was not included as part of the county's economic development mandate.Taxpayers are responsible for technical issues in the existing Netook Business Park. Admitting there are still infrastructure problems at the site, Johnston pointed out the county is holding $1.7 million in a letter of credit from the company, which accepts full responsibility and is working toward a resolution of the issues. (This point drew a scathing comment from Div. 6 Coun. Paddy Munro, who accused the developer of being lax in fixing major drainage problems which Munro said were costing the county in unremitting staff time.)People who reside in Netook will conflict with the right to farm and right to produce energy. Styles quoted from a September report by the county's economic development officer which raised concerns that Netook's ìtarget market will engage in intellectual and recreational activitiesî that will conflict with the county's established economy. ìThere is no basis to the statements,î Styles said. ìIf there was, you have acreages all over the county ñ you would have flashpoints all over. It's a very unfair statement. It shouldn't be out there.îThe county cannot afford the $45M cost of servicing Netook. While studies have pegged the full off-site capital costs of development under the 2/27 Area Structure Plan at $55 million, a phased approach would reduce costs, Styles said. The initial phase will likely be in the $5 million to $10 million range, he said, adding that the developers will pay for all infrastructure capital costs.County participation in a fiscal impact analysis might be misconstrued and bind council. This issue was effectively laid to rest following the presentation when council adopted CAO Tony Martens' recommendation to participate in the assessment on a limited basis. Neuroese planner Greg Brown said the group hoped that with county involvement in defining the scope of the study, there would be no need felt to hire a third-party consultant to review the results.A fiscal impact analysis may not be relevant to the MDP review. The group's report stressed that any changes in the Municipal Development Plan regarding residential density and servicing could directly impede the future of the project.Reeve Bruce Beattie ended the presentation by steering council's attention toward the CAO's recommendation on the fiscal impact analysis ñ but not before Munro called for future discussion on each of the points, as well as for public discussion on the Memorandum of Agreement with Olds, which he described as ìan outrageous document Ö where we've sold our soul for development.î
