The questions came fast and furious on Sept. 7 at an open house on the Town and County of St. Paul’s inter-municipal development plan, as local residents questioned the extent and scope of plans to set aside an area for the town’s future growth. Chief among the complaints of several dissatisfied county residents was the feeling that the plan unfairly favoured the town, while hurting county landowners.
Reeve Robert Bouchard opened the meeting that saw a full house of more than 50 people in St. Paul’s Legion Hall come to find out more about the town’s annexation and future growth plans. “It’s great to see such a great turnout,” said Bouchard.
Both municipalities had spent a long time coming up with the inter-municipal development plan, but there were still amendments planned. “There’s nothing that’s written in stone right now,” said Bouchard, adding the night’s purpose was to get residents’ input on the plan to make those amendments.
The Town of St. Paul has already annexed County of St. Paul land east and south of 50th Avenue and Highway 29, to make way for more development, next to Sobeys and Canadian Tire. The Town is also seeking to annex 80 acres past the northwest end of town and an additional quarter section, or about 150 acres, north of the Lions Soccer Fields. The plan also sets aside an urban fringe area to outline a “future growth framework for the resolution of planning, economic development, servicing and transportation issues,” according to information handed out at the meeting.
“The County will not let us annex land unless we have a need for it,” explained Town of St. Paul CAO Ron Boisvert, adding annexation is done either to provide room for future urban expansion or to provide town services. For instance, annexation of the land northwest of town was on the table since Xtreme Oilfield had made a request for town water.
The County and Town approved the original IDP last August, said CAO for the County of St. Paul Sheila Kitz. “When we tried to implement the plan, we ran into a whole bunch of roadblocks.” People within the IDP zone came to the County of St. Paul with concerns, people who “certainly have some issues with the way the plan sits now,” she said.
County resident Leo DeMoissac was one of those people. One of his concerns was about subdividing property that falls within the IDP borders. If the property had to be rezoned, for instance, from agriculture to country residential, an area structure plan had to be done to help for future planning of the area, at a cost DeMoissac estimated could be as much as $10,000 to $30,000. Another resident present estimated the cost could be four times as much once everything was said and done.
“Nobody told us this plan would cost us money,” DeMoissac said. He said he and his neighbours had signed an informal petition suggesting that major amendments needed to be made to the plan or it needed to be scrapped altogether.
Bouchard reentered the debate, explaining the plan was all about promoting co-operation, economic growth and growth in an orderly fashion. “Both councils entered this whole process in very good faith,” he said, reiterating the point that the growth of town was also a benefit to the county and its residents, who work in or do business in St. Paul. But he acknowledged that the two municipalities approved the first IDP too quickly. “We found it was not a workable plan.” The County of St. Paul will be introducing some amendments to the plan, that the Town of St. Paul may not be happy about, but county council’s foremost concern was its residents, he said. “I know we need to work for the people we represent.”
As for the Town of St. Paul, he said, “They need to put a little water in their wine too or the whole thing is going to go sideways.”
Resident Garry McNeilly offered a few statistics about the town’s growth rate, noting that depending on whether the government’s numbers or the town’s numbers were used, the town has experienced a 0.7 to a 1.07 per cent growth rate in previous years. Yet the town is predicting a two per cent growth rate for the future, he noted.
“Two per cent, is it really realistic? No. We’re never going to see it,” he said, adding even if such a growth rate did happen, it would take years and years to necessitate the “huge” area set aside in the IDP for town’s future expansion.
Boisvert came back with the results of the last census, which pegged the town’s population for the past year at 5,632 people, a 1.17 per cent population increase from the year previous. While it wasn’t the two per cent growth town was aiming to achieve, a figure had to be chosen for planning purposes, he said.
McNeilly later noted planning was necessary, adding, “An IDP is a good thing,” as it helps attract economic development, improve services and promote economic activity. But the current IDP needs work, he said. McNeilly asked what discussions had happened about revenue sharing or about having service or infrastructure agreements between the two municipalities.
Bouchard said that the County did discuss the possibility of revenue sharing, for instance, giving up tax dollars to help the Town of St. Paul if it would service a county subdivision with town water, but the town had not looked favourably on the suggestion.
“I think there’s still a lot of discussion to happen,” he said, underscoring the point again that county and town councillors were both present and would consider the feedback received at the meeting.
Both councils will be discussing the issue, which will be followed by a joint IDP meeting and amendments will be introduced to the IDP before it is approved.
