Three years after a joint plan was adopted by Red Deer County and the City of Red Deer, municipal officials heard on Monday they had to do more to address county residents’ concerns.
City and county councils met to address housekeeping matters regarding the Intermunicipal Development Plan adopted in July 2007. That plan establishes a broad growth framework and policy direction for things like long range planning and annexation areas for the city.
County residents didn’t speak to the minor bylaw amendments at hand, including adding reference to the River Valley and Tributaries Park Concept Plan within the development plan.
Instead, they spoke about concerns about taxes and what kind of servicing levels they could expect once they are within city limits. They also wanted to learn more as to when they should expect to see changes occur.
“When are you going to start providing us with answers?,” asked Don Bower during the public hearing inside Red Deer County council chambers.
Red Deer Mayor Morris Flewwelling replied that the “genesis of the IDP is to provide certainty.”
For example, the IDP says that each municipality shall collaborate with the other in the planning and providing of infrastructure and services that meet at the municipal boundaries to ensure proper co-ordination.
Red Deer city manager Craig Curtis said part of the communication problem hinges on the fact that the Joint Planning Initiative hasn’t been finished.
Building upon the foundation of the IDP, the initiative will be the framework for future development in areas of the county and the city’s growth area. It looks at location of roads, future lands, and major servicing infrastructure and phasing.
“Issues of servicing and exactly which direction expansion would take place, and any direction of future annexations hasn’t been determined,” Curtis said.
Questions around servicing areas formerly in the county, as well as on the fringe areas where future annexations are slated to occur, remain. That’s because consultants working on the planning initiative are taking longer than anticipated, Curtis said.
“I think we’re hearing frustration from residents about not getting clear answers on some of those issues that are being worked on,” he said.
Last fall’s annexation of 7,410 acres has relieved some pressure on getting the JPI done. It gives both councils time to discuss future directions for growth, Curtis said.
Both councils approved the bylaw amendments, but also resolved to meet prior to the end of 2010 to address concerns of residents.
“What we didn’t hear is some of the urban concerns because some of them haven’t been articulated in the changes,” said Curtis.
Councils will also discuss several proposed amendments to the IDP brought forward by county councillor George Gehrke.
Gehrke said he’s concerned that the IDP document says that the growth area would be annexed by the city within a 10-year time frame, by 2017.
“They were supposed to being the complete annexation process by next year and I want that amended out (of the IDP),” said Gehrke. “I’d also like the growth area deleted from the 10-year plan. It can be a study area but it doesn’t need to be annexed within 10 years.”
The city should annex incrementally, Gehrke said.
ltester@www.reddeeradvocate.com