The future of Highway 2/27 development east of Olds was thrown in doubt after Mountain View County council ìtook off the glovesî at its July 20 regular meeting.Following a debate in which a majority of councillors said they did not support running piped services to the area, council voted to hire a consultant to draft an offsite levy bylaw that will set fees for developers at 2/27 to cover the estimated $45 million needed to bring in those services.ìThe end result is you need to spend X dollars and it's huge,î Reeve Paddy Munro said during the meeting.ìI firmly believe that if you put offsite levy fees of $50,000 to $60,000 per acre you effectively bankrupt those developers. But that's not so bad,î Munro said.The new land price, Munro said, ìwill reflect the cost plus the offsite levy. That's what the market will bear. If it requires a bankruptcy, so be it.îThe unanimous decision came after some councillors expressed reservations about the $75,000 consultants contract based on a range of concerns including cost and absence of a tendering process.Presenting the contract proposal, manager of infrastructure projects Ryan Morrison said the firm, BSEI, was selected because of its prior involvement in a joint servicing study for Olds and the county. As a result, he said, ìthey were the most learned.îDiv. 4 Coun. Bruce Beattie questioned ìwhy we would spend another $75,000 to do this one when this council didn't even look at the last one,î which cost $100,000 but was abandoned after last fall's election.The old offsite levy bylaw was intended to apply countywide (with numerous exemptions), while the new one will apply only to the Highway 2/27 development to pay for the cost of running full services to the area, Morrison said.ìIt's an entirely different premise,î he said. ìThe work we did on the other offsite levy bylaw would not be applicable Ö The goal would be to collect $45 million we need to service the 2/27 area.îUnder the contract, the consultant will prepare the bylaw and ìwalk us through the open houses,î Morrison said. ìMost of the engineering has been done. It's a very long process. There's a lot of public consultation.îThe figure of $275,000 collected so far in offsite levy fees from 2/27 development ìis just a ridiculous number,î compared to the cost of running in piped services, Munro said.ìThis is a perfect day to take off the gloves,î Munro added. ìI'd like to hear everyone's position on high-density development at 2/27.îWith aging water and sewer infrastructure the biggest issue facing urban municipalities, Div. 1 Coun. Good asked, why would the county want to assume the same responsibility?ìIt's a big liability 30, 40 years down the road. That's what I'm worried about. My recommendation is that we do not enter into high-density residential development. It pays for developers and is a liability for municipalities,î Good said.Div. 3 Coun. Duncan Milne said the majority of people in his division have issues with the development of prime farmland at 2/27 and ìdon't want townsî in the county.ìWe don't know the cost. It could be a hundredfold,î Milne said.ìAs reeve,î said Munro, ìthis issue is the single most stressful situation. It's unbelievable we're in this situation and we have no idea what it's going to cost ñ $45 million? $60 million? ñ but because we're into the first phase we have to continue.ìIt is total absolute insanity.îWhile Munro said he ìwould sacrifice prime farmlandî if it meant lower taxes and improved services for all county landowners, the proposed 2/27 development is ìa municipal time bomb.îìThere is absolutely no way that anybody has proved to me that we will make money off high-density development. I don't support it,î he said.ìWe really don't need the extra burden of future costs of piped service out there,î Div. 5 Coun. Bob Orr said. ìThe high density belongs in the town.îìWe need to ensure we honour our agreements we have in place,î Beattie said. ìBut beyond that Ö I think our position is clear regarding high density. We are not in the town business.îìI understand the concerns about replacing assets 40 years from now,î said Div. 7 Coun. Al Kemmere, the only member from the previous council. ìThat's what utility fees are all about. That's why we're putting depreciated assets in the budget.ìIf we're going to bring in commercial development I believe there is room for some residential development. To what density? That's a huge item for discussion. When you talk about high density, what are you referring to, Paddy?îìWith density bonusing, up to 240 lots per quarter,î Munro answered.ìThat's not my conceptî of acceptable high density, Kemmere said, pegging the number at ìbetween 100 and 110 lots per quarterî and saying it's ìmaybe not that far offî from the densities proposed for the area under conservation by design principles.ìWhat I'm thinking is anything over six lotsî per quarter, Good said.ìYou're saying six lots, Paddy is saying 240,î Kemmere observed.ìThat was one of the problems with the survey.î Munro responded. ìThe most important question was never asked.îThe April survey on the Municipal Development Plan became a source of controversy after Munro complained that council had not been able to review the questions before it was sent out.ìIt's easy to say you're against high density, but you have to define what you mean by high density,î Kemmere said.ìI would debate 80î lots per quarter, Munro said.ìMy definition of high density would be anything that requires piped services,î Orr said.ìWhen you talk about high density, anything that resembles what happened around the Airdrie area bothers me,î Milne said. ìI have no desire to see 240 Ö I'm not in favour of anything really, like Bob says, when you need piped service.îBeattie said while 240 lots per quarter is out of the question, ìsix to me is just about as bad.îAn offsite levy, he added, wasn't going to answer the question.CAO Tony Martens said Div. 2 Coun. Trish McKean had e-mailed in her comments, as she was attending the annual Dogpound Stampede.ìShe doesn't support high-density bonusing but is not 100 per cent sure how many lots she does support,î Martens said.Martens also confirmed that council may require payment of an offsite levy as a condition for a development permit, and said the $275,000 paid to date in offsite levies on the former Opus quarter was ìmore for highway developmentî rather than water and sewer.Before the vote was taken, Kemmere for the second time said he felt ìa little uncomfortable we haven't followed the usually prescribed processî of tendering out the contract, and Martens said a request for proposals could be put out if council was reluctant to proceed.That concern was set aside, however, after corporate services director Greg Wiens said council could prequalify a firm based on its specialized experience, since ìunder the rules Ö there are provisions for prequalification.îWhen pressed by Kemmere on whether they were also opposed to piped services for commercial development, councillors were less definitive.ìI don't know if I can answer that for you,î Milne said.Good, however, was adamant: ìI do not support aging infrastructure that we don't need to supply. The towns need to supply it, at their detriment. We don't.îIn March of last year, the previous council rezoned 138 acres on the northwest corner of the intersection for the creation of 38 commercial-industrial lots. Council also adopted the concept plan for Netook Crossing North, which includes 431 residential lots on 287 acres south and east of the Olds Central Highlands Golf Course.Under the plan, revised following two public open houses and referrals from government agencies, no residential development will proceed until regional water and sewer lines are installed. Full build-out within an estimated 10- to 15-year period would accommodate about 1,200 residents, the plan predicts.Future high-density residential development has also been proposed for the quarter situated directly west of the 31-lot Netook Crossing Business Park on the south side of Highway 27, where Federated Co-op's cardlock station and Olds RV are located. Proventure Income Fund owns the west quarter and last year acquired the 25 remaining commercial lots previously held by Opus Building Corp.Last year county administration estimated that four quarter sections at Highway 2/27 would generate $1.34 million in annual property-tax revenue at full build-out, with combined assessment projected at $269 million.
