Just say NO! to a Calgary VETO
MD of Foothills
CRP has its way with Rocky View County
A prominent architect of the Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP) is now an elected councilor and the Deputy Reeve for Rocky View County. You may remember Rick Butler as one of the two main representatives of the CRP and their Calgary Regional Plan (aka Calgary Metropolitan Plan, as it was renamed AFTER the public consultation was completed). Butler led most of the public consultation sessions and was a paid contractor working for the CRP throughout most of the process.
Just as a refresher, the Town of Okotoks voted to join the CRP (thereby agreeing to the metropolitan plan, which gives Calgary a veto over land use planning decisions within the town). At the same time, Okotoks Town Council voted to honour the population cap, which is totally at odds with the metropolitan plan. This apparent contradiction has been unresolved for the last several years now and is yet to be addressed.
Meanwhile, two of the largest municipalities in the Calgary region (land-wise), the County of Rocky View and the MD of Foothills said “no way” to the CRP and voted not to join, both preferring to remain autonomous in their decision-making. Or so they thought at the time. Little did they know their “single” days were in jeopardy.
Fast forward to more than a year later and CRP front man, Butler, shows up on the ballot in Rocky View County in the 2010 municipal election. Then, not only was he elected to Council but he was elected Deputy Reeve of the County by his peers on council. Gosh. I guess he just suddenly became interested in municipal politics. The County’s flirtation with the CRP had begun.
All became clear this last week when Rocky View County voted to approve a development called Watermark in the community of Bearspaw. The development is considered high density and will see 560 new homes built on the outskirts of Calgary. The development is consistent with the “blue blobs” mapped out by the CRP. Folks, this is urban sprawl in every sense of the word…except it has been cleverly kept below the radar of Calgarians fed up with the high cost of sprawl, because it is technically outside of the City’s boundaries.
The Councilor for the Division (8) is Al Sacuta, who voted against the development. He has posted his reasons on his website in a fully transparent look at the rationale for his opposition (see www.ourbearspaw.ca).
According to the Rocky View Weekly, Sacuta is quoted as saying, “Throughout its history, the proposal has had significant resistance. Neighbourhood resistance continues to be around 70 per cent. The density will be about seven to 16 times that of the adjacent acreage communities.”
In the same article, Butler was quoted as saying, “I believe it is a good plan. It is the plan I worked for for eight years in the Calgary Regional Partnership.”
Which begs the question, just who is Butler serving here? It seems clear that residents are opposed to the development. The ELECTED councilor for that Division opposed the development (Sacuta ran his election campaign on this platform) and yet six other councilors from other Divisions joined forces to decide in favour of the development (two other councilors voted with Sacuta in opposition).
According to Butler’s quote in the media, it seems that he sees this as simply a continuation of his work with the CRP. I guess I naively thought elected officials served the public? The CRP is a private corporation created by the Alberta government to manage land use planning decisions. It is not accountable to anyone but perhaps the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development.*
Of course, all of this is tied directly to the infamous Alberta Land Stewardship Act (which will soon be altered to try and quell a Wildrose-fuelled property rights uprising in the area). The Act is the overarching authority over all of this mess, including the CRP, and it gives the Minister the authority to overrule everyone on land use issues, including local governments.
Most importantly, Butler’s admission that he supported the decision because it is in line with the CRP plan (which the County has not even signed up for yet) deserves to be questioned.
_____________________
*It’s disturbing to note the CRP is under no legal obligation to disclose anything it does to the public. Its decisions don’t have to be reported nor do any of the reasons for its decisions.
Read the Rocky View Weekly article here:
Paying for “water for life”: Calgary creates utility to deliver water to neighbours for a fee
In a development that reminds me of a Godfather movie, Calgary has taken steps to create its new water utility and Airdrie will be the first to sign on. Instead of the drugs that fuelled the infamous fictional crime family, this transaction will involve water and Mayor Bronconnier is looking more like Don Vito Corleone every day. Here’s the way it will work–the elected officials of a number of smaller communities surrounding the city are poised to enter into an arrangement for “protection.” They will sign on to this agreement to pay a newly created utility (soon to be approved by Alberta Environment) for water to be delivered to their community’s doorstep from the Bow River. And those of us living in the rural municipalities outside of Calgary will be on the hook for the cost–forever. It amounts to a new water tax that none of us had a chance to vote on.
Here’s the background from a short article that appeared in Airdrie City View, a free publication from Rocky View Publishing. (read the original) and a longer version in the Calgary Herald (read it here).
City of Calgary reorganizes water distribution
BY STACIE SNOW
Airdrie is among a group of municipalities surrounding Calgary that will have the opportunity to buy water from a new utility designed to provide excess supply to surrounding neighbours in the region.
However, the offer is only valid for those that are part of the Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP). Once the utility is approved by Alberta Environment, Airdrie, Cochrane, Turner Valley, Black Diamond, Irricana and Okotoks would have access to Calgary’s water supply on a cost-recovery basis.
Key phrases here are “excess supply” and “cost recovery.” As far as excess supply, make no mistake folks, communities surrounding Calgary are “second tier” when it comes to water from the Bow River, as far as Calgary is concerned. This is not a case of “sharing” water as has been suggested previously or recommended by various task forces and advisory groups. One can only hope that the municipalities are negotiating some type of supply guarantees and efficiency standards so they are protected from Calgary’s gluttonous water use! (Average Calgarian consumes 437 litres of water per day while the average Okotokian consumes 265 liters of water per day).
And as far as “cost recovery,” the question is,”what qualifies?” If it is the actual hard infrastructure costs, then eventually, that should be paid off, theoretically. However, I think we all know that the cost recovery will include ongoing maintenance of the utility in perpetuity. Communities surrounding Calgary are signing on to be at the whim of “Broncorleone.”
Airdrie Mayor Linda Bruce said while Airdrie’s water is already supplied by the City of Calgary, a utility makes sense.
“This is the first step to start really looking at delivering water among the region,” said Bruce. “I can’t imagine it will change the way we work with the City of Calgary much but in some ways Airdrie is a prototype. We have had a strong connection with Calgary for about 30 years and this is a great demonstration of how Calgary will ensure service to the rest of the region.”
However, those communities outside the Calgary Regional Partnership, such as Rocky View County, Wheatland County and the MD of Foothills, would be left high and dry.
At this point, Mayor Bruce is sounding like one of the Broncorleone’s most loyal thugs…
“It is a CRP initiative and Calgary always maintained that water is part of the land use and that is what the CRP deals with,” said Bruce. “The members of the CRP have worked hard to be a part of this and move forward.”
Calgary mayor Dave Bronconnier said the water supply is part of the region’s larger plans to curtail sprawl and make more environmentally sustainable choices. It would not make sense to push for higher densities in the city and then provide water to communities that weren’t on the same path, he said. The new utility would be a not-for-profit corporation that would reflect a return to Calgary taxpayers for the investment they have made in their plants and equipment.
The contention that Calgary is curtailing sprawl and making environmentally sustainable choices is just not supported by the facts. The recent “watering down” (excuse the pun) of the Plan It Calgary strategic plan has been blasted by critics as a failure (read related article). Calgary’s densities are now likely LESS than the densities that the CRP is insisting for rural areas (Calgary 9 units per acre vs. CRaP plans for a minimum of 10 units per acre). Of course, the ultimate irony is that pushing urban densities into a rural setting is completely ludicrous. It’s like building a skyscraper in the middle of a farmer’s field and saying that it’s not sprawl. The Suzuki Foundation commented on this in 2009 and said, “Density is often used as an excuse for more development. Increasing density within city areas that already have development can work to minimize a city’s footprint. Developing areas where there is little or no existing development is nothing more than sprawl.”
Calgary’s water licence currently provides enough water for about three million people. Only about half of that supply is currently used.
“Calgary’s water licence is for the population in the Calgary region and that is expected to more than double over the next 50 to 75 years,” said Bruce.
“This will ensure service to the region into the future.”
I’ll just end on two notes related to the above statement. First, let’s not forget that this is, after all, only “paper water.” We don’t actually have reliable information on how much water is available and the provincial government is making no effort to find out either. If you don’t believe me, read the status of the surface and groundwater studies for the South Saskatchewan River Basin. A government-appointed advisory group made recommendations in 2004 that have yet to be acted upon, including strong support for the need for “improved studies of the environmental condition of the rivers and the use of these studies in future adjustments to water management.” Relying on water license allocations to determine actual supply is a lot like my pal, Al Sacuta (www.canadianguerilla.com) says, “looking at the number of hunting licenses you’ve issued to determine how much food is in the larder.”
And secondly, if the City is licensed for more water than it needs, why wouldn’t the licenses be revisited and the water supply more equitably distributed? The water doesn’t belong to Calgarians, it belongs to all of us. (see here for a related article)
Towns like Okotoks, in particular, would be better served by building their own infrastructure and sourcing an alternative water supply than hooking up with Calgary for the city’s leftovers. At a minimum, a cost comparison of the two alternatives should be required before any decision is made regarding taxpayer dollars. Unlike the Godfather’s tagline of “an offer you can’t refuse,” we DO have a choice and should be exploring all options and considering their consequences.
Don Corleone said it best, “I want no inquiries made. I want no acts of vengeance. I want you to arrange a meeting with the heads of the Five Families. This war stops now.”
Western Wheel: Conservation plan for southern Alberta taking shape
View original article online at: http://www.westernwheel.com/2009/news/local-news/conservation-plan-for-southern-alberta-taking-shape-1038
by Don Patterson – Staff Reporter
Increased conservation efforts for southern Alberta are a good step forward but protecting water supplies and property rights are also crucial, said area residents at an open house on the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan last week.
MD of Foothills resident Jody MacPherson said the framework and process to date have not put enough emphasis on water supply.
“I want to see some kind of recognition that you can’t develop land without having water first,” she said.
MacPherson said conservation initiatives are important and needed, however, they should be based with on solid information.
Okotoks resident Laurie Hodson said there are positive elements emerging in the plan.
However, he said he would like to see more empirical data on how much water exists in the region.
“They have not to date engaged the best scientists in terms of an objective determination of how much water we have to divert as we proceed through a very dry cycle,” he said.
MD resident Rob Lake said he is pleased to see efforts at conservation, but he doesn’t want it to be too onerous on landowners.
“We want to find out the impact it’s going to have on our ranch and our style of life,” said Lake.
The plan will cover southern Alberta south of Calgary as far east as the Saskatchewan border and will include the foothills area.
Duncan MacDonnell, Alberta Sustainable Resources Development spokesperson, said the region is expected to see its population grow by two million people by 2076 with1.6 million people predicted to settle in the Calgary area. The regional plan has not been written yet, but he said it will balance the variety of land uses in the region while ensuring a healthy economy and environment.
“Population growth and water demand versus supply are the major drivers of change in the South Saskatchewan region,” he said.
MacDonnell said protecting the watershed will remain the priority land use in the eastern slopes, along with providing appropriate recreational opportunities.
Once the plan is in place municipalities will have the same authority to make land use decisions, but they will have to be consistent with the regional plans.
“They have to honour the parameters laid out in the regional plan… look at this as setting the goalposts,” he said.
The plan will include a vision for the region as well as identifying economic, environmental and social outcomes and strategies on how to achieve them.
“The final plan is going to explore relationships between urban and rural lands, watersheds, air sheds, conservation areas and tourism and recreation in the South Saskatchewan region,” said MacDonnell.
The Province has created seven regions and has mandated a plan will be created for each area. The Province has also called for the creation of plans for the Calgary and Edmonton areas.
The goal is to complete the regional plan by late 2010 and the Province is aiming to complete all seven by the end of 2012.
MacDonnell said each regional plan can be drafted to meet the unique needs of all areas.
“Each region will be a little different in how they approach things, but as long as they serve that original mandate they’re fine,” he said.
Key elements of the framework are calls to develop strategies for conservation on public and private lands and reducing the human footprint on the landscape.
As part of the Land Use Framework, the province is developing new legislative tools to encourage conservation.
MacDonnell noted a new policy created under the Alberta Land Stewardship Act is a conservation directive, which states, for any land identified to be set aside for conservation measures, compensation will be provided to landowners for any loss of market value.
“The land would stay in place and you’ll be compensated for it. It’s not like we’re taking the land away for you,” MacDonnell said. “The compensation is paid for any loss of market value.”
A second tool is transfer of development credits, which he said would allow landowners in areas identified for conservation to be able to sell the right to develop to other landowners.
The Province is holding open houses across the region to gather input from the public.
All information gathered will be given to regional advisory councils for review and consideration.
The councils will provide advice in a number of areas including future development, how provincial policies can work together, balancing competing land uses, impacts on aboriginal communities and location of major transportation and utility corridors.
Once the draft plan is completed, the councils will go back to the public for more input.
The provincial cabinet will review the final plan before it is ultimately approved.
For more information on the Land Use Framework see www.landuse.alberta.ca
dpatterson@okotoks.greatwest.ca
Western Wheel: Councillors oppose Holmes development
By Don Patterson
Staff Reporter
Okotoks town council stood up in opposition to the Mike Holmes-led Wind Walk development on Monday evening.
Councillors spoke out against the proposal at a special meeting held to discuss concerns over the impacts it could have on the town’s water supply, its roads and parks.
“My main concern all along has been that large a growth there of approximately 1,100 people right next to the border just creates all kinds of issues,” said Mayor Bill McAlpine.
The plan for the area includes residential housing, a commercial development and park spaces. More than 400 housing units and 80,000 square feet of retail space are proposed for the area.
The MD will be holding a public hearing for the proposal Thursday at 1:30 p.m. in High River at the Highwood Memorial Centre.
The Town of Okotoks contends the development should not be permitted under the intermunicipal development plan (IDP) between the Town and the MD. The IDP calls for low-density country residential development in rural areas around Okotoks.
At the top of McAlpine’s list of concerns is water. He said if the wells on the site do not provide enough water, the Town would end up having to supply the development.
McAlpine also said it will place significant pressures on roads and other amenities in the community, such as schools and recreation facilities.
The Town is also concerned about runoff from the community ending up in the town’s sewer system.
If push comes to shove, McAlpine said the matter could end up in front of the municipal governance board, but he would rather see the Town and MD go to mediation first.
Coun. Stephen Clark said the plans don’t take into account the cumulative effects it will have on water and traffic in Okotoks.
He is also concerned about safety for pedestrians crossing Highway 7 from the development in to town.
Clark said it would be difficult to build a pedestrian overpass over the highway in the area.
“Look at the grade there. You’re looking at the roof of Walmart from that highway. To do a pedestrian crossing would have to be quite high,” he said.
Clark said he wouldn’t be opposed to the MD approving a low-density development in the area.
“There needs to be a transition from urban to rural. We can give that to the MD, but it’s low density. It’s not 1,100 people going to our library, it’s not 1,100 people going to our recreation centre,” he said.
As for the development’s celebrity backer, Clark said Holmes doesn’t fully grasp the unique challenges facing the development or the position it would put the Town in.
“Certainly Mike Holmes is using his celebrity and certainly Okotoks has an international reputation as being a sustainable community. What Mike Holmes is in essence asking us to do is throw out the very thing that made us successful,” he said.
Email Update July 9, 2009: A protest, a vote and next steps
Hello everyone,
The number of people who have signed the Just Say No to a Calgary Veto petition is now hovering around 1000. I’m hoping that we can break through the 1000 mark so spread the word to your neighbours. They can sign the petition by emailing me at nocalgaryveto@me.com. A protest was held on June 12 and we received some media coverage (see some of the coverage summarized here).
The vote on the Calgary Metropolitan Plan (CMP) was held on June 19. The only members to ask for changes to the Calgary Metropolitan Plan were the MD of Foothills, the MD of Rocky View and the County of Wheatland. These three rural municipalities represent the largest land base in the area surrounding Calgary, so their unwillingness to sign puts a wrench in the provincial government’s plans–at least for now.
All three asked for major revisions to the CMP, including the Calgary veto. Their suggested revisions are not new–the changes have been put forward repeatedly and voted down by the Calgary Regional Partnership (for a recap on the requested changes, visit the nocalgaryveto blog).
Okotoks votes for the plan as is
The Town of Okotoks appears quite comfortable with the Calgary veto and voted in favour of it. Council continues to insist that it can maintain its population cap and refuse a Calgary water pipeline, while still signing on to the CMP. Folks, this is a downright refusal to face the facts as they are written into the CMP. It may even be said that the Mayor and Town Councillors have failed to do their due diligence. They have done nothing to ensure the verbal promises they have made to their citizens are in writing for the Calgary Regional Partnership and the provincial government to honour. And yet, they are willing to take out a two-page ad in the Western Wheel claiming the population cap is assured and that “sub-regional” water solutions will be sought, implying that a water pipeline from the Bow River is not in the cards.
Let’s review the facts (with thanks to Laurie Hodson for research):
-According to the Calgary Regional Partnership’s own presentation on June 12, 2009, a number of water infrastructure scenarios are looked at and the most cost effective option for Okotoks is identified as a regional supply from Calgary (based on growth to 58,000 people). Action would need to be taken by 2017. The option of a population cap and sub-regional water solution is not even considered anywhere in the presentation. (View the presentation, slides 21-22)
-The Town of Okotoks’ resolution voted on and adopted on June 15 promises ONLY to “explore” sub-regional water solutions-that’s it. There is no commitment beyond the vague idea of “exploration.” (View the resolution)
-The CMP commits local municipalities to pursuing common strategic directions at the “metropolitan” level.” (Definition of metropolitan: of or pertaining to a large city, its surrounding suburbs, and other neighboring communities.) (Read the CMP, see page 7)
-The CMP states, “member municipalities will amend and/or otherwise align all relevant local Municipal Development Plans (MDPs) and Intermunicipal Development Plans (IDPs) with the CMP within three years of the final approval of the CMP by the CRP and the Province of Alberta.” (see CMP, p. 7)
-“The CMP would be able to require that a water or transit line be placed through a municipal jurisdiction that may not be in favour of (or not in favour of some aspect of such a regional service). This would maintain the integrity of critical regional water, wastewater or transit services and be subject to a regional decision.” (see the CMP, p. 18)
-In other words, if it is judged to be in the best interests of the REGION to have Okotoks get its water via pipeline from the Bow, the CMP most certainly gives the CRP the right to force this on the Town of Okotoks, whether the local residents want it or not! If they can force a water pipeline THROUGH a community, why could they not force a water pipeline ON a community? This is particularly true if it was deemed to be in the best interests of the City of Calgary, which stands to gain financially by building and operating the water pipeline and billing Okotoks taxpayers for this service!
Despite what is written in various places in the Calgary Metropolitan Plan, Okotoks Council continues to vehemently insist they can not be forced to do anything against their will. It is astounding how little attention they have paid to what is written. They are quite frankly either practicing the worst kind of deception or totally asleep at the wheel.
Albertans for Responsible Land Use
Meanwhile, the coalition of community groups opposed to the Calgary Metropolitan Plan have now banded together to form an umbrella group to lobby for changes in the way government (at all levels) treats its citizens when it comes to land use planning. With more changes coming to various pieces of legislation that will give the provincial government increasing authority and decreased accountability, the group is determined to elevate their efforts to a higher level. The NoCalgaryVeto petitioners are being represented at the table as part of this new group. See the group’s website at www.ab-land-use.ca.
What next?
It remains to be seen what will happen with the three rural municipalities opting out of the CMP. The MD of Rocky View continues to furiously develop at a pace that has left residents reeling. Recently, the MD approved a new housing development called “Watermark” despite the fact that residents opposed it two-to-one. Even the City of Calgary’s claim that the effluent from the development’s sewage plant was unreliable and would put the City’s raw water supply at risk, was completely ignored. (Read more.)
The MD of Foothills is no doubt engaged in negotiations with the provincial government and publicly, the MD councillors have stated they would welcome provincial government intervention.
The City of Calgary gave first reading of its municipal plan, known as Plan It Calgary and community activists lobbied loudly for the plan (kudos for their efforts). Unfortunately, they seem willing to overlook the fact that rampant urban sprawl may not be planned within the city limits but it is most certainly in the cards for just outside the city’s boundaries. They can look forward to dense suburban housing developments spreading out into the countryside. The Stelmach government says there is no money for MRI’s or hospital emergency heli-pad repairs, but promises to pay for a series of rail lines snaking out in all directions to service the urban nodes or “blue blobs.” With the province out borrowing money and begging for an increase in federal transfer payments, what are the chances of those rail lines being funded? Will that stop housing developments in the blue blobs? I think not–developers can build the houses now and worry about the rail lines later, much later. In the meantime, those new residents will become car commuters into the City and put further strain on Calgary’s infrastructure.
If what you are reading here makes you angry, please get involved. There are a number of ways to help. You can make a donation to Albertans for Responsible Land Use. You can write letters to your local newspaper and/or your local MLA or municipal elected official. You can email or phone them as well. Speak up and let the government know that we won’t stand by silently while our democratic rights are eroded.
One last note, there is a by-election coming up in Calgary-Glenmore soon. It may be an opportunity to send a message to the provincial government. You don’t have to live in the Calgary riding to help campaign against the Tories. The Wildrose party, the Liberals and the NDP will all be running candidates opposing the Conservatives. You may also be interested in a strategic voting plan called, “the Democratic Renewal Project” at www.drpcalgary.com. These are all ways to send a message to the Stelmach government about the way it conducts itself.
Thanks.
Jody
No agreement over growth plan
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/agreement+over+growth+plan/1692476/story.html
By Jason Markusoff, Calgary Herald
Calgary’s regional alliance met Friday without resolving the major problems Calgary’s biggest rural neighbours have with the region’s growth plan, an impasse that may ultimately force the Stelmach government to step in.
Fifteen of the 17 member municipalities of the Calgary Regional Partnerships voted against making no fundamental changes on water sharing and land use–but several lesser, conciliatory ones–before the vote Friday on the 70-year plan.
The holdouts are the Municipal Districts of Foothills and Rocky View, whose councillors said the disagreements are relatively minor and a resolution is still possible.
Urban leaders in the group disagree, saying the rural districts’ demands to scrap density rules, alter planned growth areas and conditions for water sharing would render meaningless the long-awaited plan to concentrate future growth without building over too much farmland.
“The very principles of sustain-ability could not be met if we make those changes,” said Airdrie Mayor Linda Bruce, the group’s chairwoman.
Foothills council must follow the wishes of residents, Deputy Reeve Terry Waddock said. Hundreds of them voiced opposition to the plan this week, particularly to a voting structure that would give Calgary an effective veto on regional decisions, as well to a growth map that proposes more urban-style growth in the rural land just south of Calgary.
Although Rocky View and Foothills occupy much of the land in the alliance, the partnership has enough supportive voters to ratify the long-range plan without them.
The blueprint, dubbed the Calgary Metropolitan Plan, is mandated under Alberta’s new land-use framework.
Municipal Affairs Minister Ray Danyluk said he’s confident Calgary’s neighbours can agree among themselves, and that he doesn’t want to run interference if he doesn’t have to.
“This government cannot afford the duplication in regional planning.”
Cochrane Mayor Truper McBride said the urban-rural split doesn’t really exist anymore, since Friday’s “yes” vote included Wheatland County, the rural district surrounding Strathmore.
But the county’s Shirley Reinhardt said Wheatland still needs time to consider whether it will ultimately sign on–whether or not it can iron out its serious concerns afterwards.
Wheatland abruptly exited the regional group last fall, but came back to the table after a meeting with Ted Morton, the Sustainable Resource Development minister.
jmarkusoff@theherald.canwest.com
Eagle radio station: Rally to Support MD
|
|
Residents of the MD of Foothills rallied outside the Foothills Centennial Centre Wednesday night.
MD council held a meeting regarding changes they would like to see in the Calgary Regional Partnership’s Metropolitan Plan. MD resident and rally spokesperson, Jody MacPherson says they are supporting the MD’s position on the plan, which is to ask for amendments to suit residents and the land. Rally goers boasted signs saying no to a Calgary veto, no to urban sprawl and concern over a lack of water. MacPherson says the June vote on the plan should be pushed back as there hasn’t been enough consultation between the CRP and residents.
Media Advisory: Community groups protest Calgary Metropolitan Plan
Okotoks, June 9, 2009: The chairs of grassroots rural community development groups surrounding the City of Calgary will be holding a TAILGATE PROTEST to draw attention to serious shortfalls in the Calgary Metropolitan Plan (CMP). The groups believe the CMP needs major revisions before ratification on June 19.
WHEN: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 @ 6:30 p.m.
WHERE: Foothills Centennial Centre, 4, 204 Community Way (located behind the Okotoks RCMP detachment office) Google Location Here
WHAT: Community leaders will speak briefly about concerns, prior to a formal meeting organized by the MD of Foothills. Speakers on behalf of the protesters to include:
• Vice-President of the Priddis-Millarville Residents Association, Suzanne Oel;
• Chair of the Bearspaw Sensible Development Group, Al Sacuta;
• Co-founder of Citizens for a Sustainable Okotoks, Dr. Nancy Ginzer; and
• Former Okotoks Town Councillor, Laurie Hodson.
See the attached backgrounder for more information.
Parking is expected to be limited. Additional parking is available at the Centennial hockey arena adjacent to the Foothills Centennial Centre.
Also available for comment is J.C. Anderson, founder of Anderson Exploration, who opposes the CMP. He says, “to place the destiny of the MD landowners and residents completely in the hands of Calgary City Council forever is “simply madness.” More at: https://nocalgaryveto.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/anderson-speaks-out/
For interviews and contact information for all of the above community leaders:
Jody MacPherson
Organizer of the NoCalgaryVeto petition
Cell: 403-560-9369
http://www.nocalgaryveto.com
MD of Foothills responds to criticism of its residents
One of the arguments often used to justify joining the Calgary Regional Partnership is the “parasitic fringe dweller” argument. It goes like this, “residents living on the outskirts of an urban community don’t pay for any of the infrastructure costs in that community and yet they use those services frequently.” These so-called “freeloaders” will be more easily controlled by the Calgary Regional Partnership.
So, I guess the people who make this argument don’t really take into consideration the amount of money flowing into these communities from the fringe dwellers as they shop and spend their cash at the local grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants, etc. They also seem to ignore the fact that the CRP will actually INCREASE the number of fringe dwellers by definition, as the whole point of the plan is to figure out where to put an additional 1.6 million people (water optional, apparently). At any rate, the argument fails to give credit where credit is due and the MD of Foothills has provided the following information about financial support given to various municipalities in 2008:
“The Municipal District of Foothills has a long history of working with its urban neighbours to jointly provide services to residents of the area. This support includes annual operating cost contributions and capital cost contributions on a case by case basis. In 2008 about $3.685 million dollars will be paid to urban municipalities or to groups providing services in an urban municipality. This total is broken down as follows:
Fire Operating $614,500
The M.D. of Foothills has agreements to provide fire suppression services with six urban municipalities – Towns of High River, Okotoks, Black Diamond, Turner Valley, the Village of Longview and the City of Calgary. The share of costs paid by the MD of Foothills reflects the percentage of use by the MD. The MD share of costs ranges from minimal with the City of Calgary to nearly 90% with the Village of Longview. The MD also pays full costs for four other fire stations in the MD.
Fire Capital $1,621,400
In 2008 the MD of Foothills contributed to the capital cost of fire equipment and buildings located in urban municipalities. This included 30% of the cost of the Okotoks fire hall expansion ($1,161,400), 50% of the cost of a pumper truck in High River and 100% of the cost of a tanker truck in Longview.
Recreation Operating $688,500
The MD has recreation cost sharing agreements with five urban municipalities – Towns of High River, Okotoks, Black Diamond, Turner Valley and the Village of Longview. These agreements provide payments for operating costs of the various recreation facilities in the urban municipalities. The costs sharing formula is based on the percentage of rural residents who use the urban facilities.
Recreation Capital $250,000
In 2008 the MD of Foothills contributed $100,000 towards the construction of an outdoor artificial ice surface in the Town of Black Diamond. The MD also committed $150,000 to the completion of the Highwood Memorial Center Expansion in the Town of High River in addition to $596,000 in contributions in 2007.
Administration Services $226,000
The MD of Foothills shares an administration building and some staff with the Town of High River. Shared staff includes Information Technology, Human Resources and Grant Writer. The sharing of staff provides increased staff resources for both municipalities at a reduced cost. The shared building allows more efficient use of public space at a lower cost for both municipalities.
Water/Waste Water $109,500
The MD of Foothills purchases water and waste water services from the Town of High River to provide service for an industrial corridor and hamlet in the MD.
FCSS $171,000
Through FCSS funding the MD provides funding either directly to urban municipalities or to groups operating out of their towns to provide services to both urban and rural residents.
Enforcement Services $4,270
The MD has partnered with its urban municipalities to provide a court liaison worker to assist municipal enforcement personnel with administrative duties related to the court system.
In addition to direct support to urban municipalities the MD participates in two regional commissions – The Foothills Regional Emergency Medical Services Commission (FREMS) and the Foothills Regional Services Commission (FRSC). The MD also partners with the urban municipalities in our area to operate the Foothills Foundation to provide seniors housing.
FREMS provides ambulance and 911 Dispatch service for the region. The MD of Foothills pays about 1/3 of the total municipal share of the cost for these services. The 2008 cost to the MD of Foothills after provincial funding is deducted was $430,458.
FRSC operates the regional landfill and the MD of Foothills provides administration services as well as contracts with the commission to provide operating staff for the landfill. The landfill operates on a user pay basis and does not require municipal subsidies.
Foothills Foundation provides housing for seniors at facilities located in High River, Black Diamond and Okotoks. The M.D. of Foothills annual requisition is $489,875 representing 57% of the $852,427 requisitioned by the Foundation in 2008.
The Foothills Country Hospice is located in the M.D. of Foothills and provides hospice care to terminally ill residents of the region. The M.D. is a strong supporter of this regional initiative and to date has contributed over $80,000 to this excellent and needed facility.”
So much for “parasitic fringe dwellers.” Okotoks Town Councillors might be wise to think about the way they are describing MD residents in the future.
Tailgate protest planned for June 10 at 6:30 p.m.
If you are unable to view the poster below, please download a PDF version here.
Just say NO! to a Calgary VETO 