Red Deer County councillors approved plans for a new fertilizer plant near Innisfail last week but were split over who should bear the cost of the road improvements associated with its construction.Councillors voted unanimously to approve the new plant subject to a number of conditions, including a requirement that the road immediately opposite the plant be upgraded to a non-ban paved surface.The new 12-bin Co-op fertilizer plant would replace an existing on-site plant located on part of the SW 26-35-28-4 as well as an existing plant within the Town of Innisfail.Coun. Penny Archibald said the plant currently has upwards of 600 visits per day and would increase once the new plant was open, which means improvements to that section of RR 282 were necessary.ìWe have an obligation here (to pave the road),î she said during the Aug. 2 Municipal Planning Commission meeting. ìOnce that plant goes in there will be a lot more.îRed Deer County mayor Jim Wood spoke in favour of the proposal, saying the existing plant was ìwell-usedî by the farming community.ìIt's nice to see progress,î he said.However, a number of councillors said they weren't convinced the county needed to pave a mile of road in an effort to control dust.Coun. David Hoar said the residences immediately opposite Hwy. 590 would need dust control. While the area is zoned agricultural, Hoar said once you get past the residences it is used primarily as industrial.ìThe dust is simply self-generated by the two people up there and to me if they want to pave it to have complete dust control, absolutely,î he said. ìIf, however, they want to consider calcium in front of their properties for dust control that wouldn't concern me at all.îCoun. Philip Massier wanted to make sure the developer knew the road was going to be paved.ìI don't want to see a banned road on that road ñ it would really impede those two businesses,î he said. ìAs Mr. Hoar said, maybe dust control is all that's necessary.îWood agreed with the idea of bringing the road up to standard - as long as it did not impede the flow of traffic in the area.ìI have in the past seen where, under the current system, we've seen lots of potholes right here and they've had to be ripped up,î he said. ìIt's here or there to me whether it's pavement or calcium but I do think if there's enough traffic generated by these businesses you may need to have some help with trying to keep that calcium in good shape. I think that's the important part.îOther councillors questioned who would be responsible for the costs associated with the improvements as well as whether the improvements would involve dust control or full pavement.Coun. Don Nesbitt said the paving requirement was simply ìthe cost of doing businessî and should be the responsibility of the developer.ìIt's only a matter of time, if they're not paying it then we're going to pay for it,î he said.Cynthia Cvik, the director of planning and development services, confirmed the road would be paved and the cost would be the responsibility of the developers.MPC Chair George Gehrke reminded councillors that the county had recently approved a similar type of development with the road improvement requirements.ìI think development has to pay for the development of road infrastructure in the areas that they move to,î he said. ìOtherwise we're going to go back to the point where the taxpayers are going to have the burden.îA visibly frustrated Wood said he was concerned to see the county apply so many conditions to a business that they would be unable to expand.ìRecognizing the importance of this business to our community I want to be very careful that we don't impose a multi-million dollar paving project that may cost a good portion as much as this plant,î he said. ìDust control is the important part. I believe that we may be going overboard to ask for a full non-ban paved road here.î
