City of Grande Prairie Annexation Application
Rebuttal Will Say Statement of Mr. Michael MacIntyre
1.
Mr. MacIntyre is the Manager of Planning & Development Services for the City of
Grande Prairie.
2.
Mr. MacIntyre has prepared a will-say statement previously submitted to the Board as
part of the City’s November 2013 submissions. This will-say statement is prepared in
response to evidence submitted to the Board by the County, including the report of Mr.
Simpson.
3.
In his testimony, Mr. MacIntyre will respond to the report of Mr. Simpson, giving
evidence in relation to the points set out in the attached document: “Annexation
Application rebuttal to County Arguments dated March 14, 2014” (Tab A).
4.
In his testimony, Mr. MacIntyre will respond to concerns raised by various landowners
and other interested persons, as set out in the attached document “Response to
Landowner and Interested Persons” (Tab B).
Dated this 9th day of June, 2014.
_____________________
Michael MacIntyre
1
Annexation Application rebuttal to County Arguments
March 14, 2014
1.
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
Executive SummaryThe County agreed to a joint statutory IDP which was
page 5
unconditional in its support for the City’s annexation.
The City’s concern is that the short term annexation area may
very well represent the City’s last opportunity for sustainable
long term growth. In that regard, the document set out at
Appendix 2 of the Simpson report includes a “50 Year Regional
Growth Management Strategy”. This Appendix does not
indicate if the document has received County Council approval
by way of a resolution or incorporation into any statutory plan.
However, it provides some evidence of a County intention to
promote all forms of development in the 6 mile radius of the
current City boundary.
The Province does not define sustainability in the context of
Provincial Land Use Policies; however, it does infer that all
municipalities are created equally. And equality infers
municipal autonomy to plan for growth, set development
standards and make choices on behalf, and in the interests, of
its citizens.
2.
Executive Summary –
Introduction – page 5
The IDP was jointly adopted by City and County on June 14,
2010.
The Notice of Intent to MGB to apply for annexation is dated
November 26, 2010.
The City’s annexation application includes complete
documentation in consultation with MGB Administration and
in conformance with MGA and MGB application requirements.
3.
Executive Summary Planning in the
Grande Prairie Area
page 5-6
The County has stated its commitment to and interpretation of
“the current IDP as an important strategic element in the
County’s collaborative relationship”. The City believes that the
County’s commitment would be evidenced by its unqualified
commitment to support the principles and intent of the IDP.
Page 1 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
Clairmont is the largest of a number of planned and unplanned
urbanizing areas adjacent to the City of Grande Prairie. The
City of Grande Prairie supported the County of Grande Prairie’s
(and the Town of Sexsmith’s) urban growth aspirations and
autonomy to grow, by releasing the City’s central water supply
and sewerage systems to create “Aquatera”, a shared regional
service utility in 2003-2004. The City believed that there would
be reciprocity of growth, which includes the City’s annexation.
The County’s current position is not supportive of that.
4.
Executive Summary Annexation in the
context of the New
IDP – page 6
The underpinnings for the IDP included both the past tradition
of generating growth scenarios for population and
employment, in conjunction with the principle of sustainability,
balanced growth and residential land demand in keeping with
and encouraged by Provincial Land Use policy.
With regard to the following final paragraph on page 6 of the
Simpson Report:
It was clear as well that the IDP, as it pertains to
annexation, does not address implementation and
negotiation considerations, including appropriate
conditions. These can be critical…but are not considered
within the IDP agreement.
The County (and specifically John Simpson) was insistent on
not deviating from the format of the 2001 IDP, which likewise
did not mention terms or conditions with respect to
compensation to the County or to land owners. The County
played a prominent role in leading the process to update the
IDP in 2010. It was understood that all the County’s critical
issues were identified (including those items documented early
in the collaboration process under “Areas of Disagreement”of
Tab 3 in the County rebuttal).
Although John Simpson indicates in 2014 that the IDP is silent
on the above issues, the report at Tab 3 of the Simpson report
does not evidence a desire to include these provisions.
Page 2 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
Finally, in May 2010, John Simpson co-authored with Michael
MacIntyre an Administrative Report to City Council and County
Council recommending the second and third reading of the
IDP. See Tab 1 to this June 9, 2014 rebuttal. The assumption
to be drawn from a document recommending approval of the
IDP is that any concerns had been addressed, resolved, or
withdrawn.
5.
Executive Summary The City’s Case for
annexation – page 7
The City made clear its sustainability-based 50 year growth
strategy to achieve a level of autonomy for long term growth
comparable to the County’s autonomy, as a municipal
government equal. The City understood that the County’s
recommendation for and ultimate passing of the IDP indicated
the County’s understanding and acceptance of the principles
underlying the growth areas.
The City finds the County’s current position in relation to the
City’s Growth Study’s ultimate basis for growth (its reliance on
population and employment scenarios) inexplicable in the
context of the discussions leading up to the 2010 IDP and the
supporting documentation for that IDP.
Lovatt Planning Consultants and Applications Management will
respond to the specific critiques of the City’s Reports provided
November 29, 2013.
Given that:
 the premise for justifying the land area combines
qualitative and quantitative methods, and has not
changed;
 the IDP does not equate land sufficient for growth for
30 years to land absorbed in 30 years; and

the City has honoured all of its commitments to the
IDP, including not seeking to annex land with high tax
assessment;
the City seeks a positive recommendation of its annexation
proposal.
Page 3 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
The City believes its position on tax protection for residents is
reasonable. However, it will abide by the direction provided to
it in the Order in Council.
Section 1. 0
6.
Introduction – page
11
The City does not agree with the current characterization of
this annexation as one which is “special and unique”. The IDP
clearly indicated the area for the short term annexation. The
County agreed unconditionally to annexation pursuant to the
IDP agreement.
The County’s counter-proposal was never raised prior to its
appearance in the County’s response arguments. The proposal
lacks the detail necessary for appropriate review
The County states “the City has indicated that it is not in a
financial position to compensate the County adequately for the
loss of the annexation area.” The County is asserting that the
City’s refusal to pay the County’s demands is a lack of financial
ability to pay. The City disagrees with the principle behind the
requests. For that reason, it has not agreed to the County’s
financial demands. A refusal to pay is not the same thing as an
inability to pay.
7.
Section 2.0 County
Position
page 12
The IDP was a negotiated document. As a result of the
negotiations, each party made concessions, resulting in the
final IDP.
1. The City agreed to shift the short term annexation area
away from growth more uniformly outward around the
perimeter of the City boundary, even though more uniform
growth was more logical in terms of servicing
infrastructure, and consistent with annexation principles.
2. Although the City agreed to avoid Clairmont and its
industrial assessment in the short term annexation area,
the County rejected the City’s proposal to annex land along
Page 4 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
Highway 43 in the northeast.
3. The City agreed to avoid future annexation of developed
rural residential subdivisions in the southeast annexation
area, but the County insisted on including those
established areas (Taylor Estates, the Hamlet of
Wedgewood, etc.) in the long term annexation area of the
IDP.
4. The City supported IDP provisions for unrestrained
residential expansion in the above referenced area, in spite
of no benefit to the City.
5. The City’s 2008 Growth Study recommended
approximately 150 quarter sections of land for the 30 year
planning horizon based on the sustainability model, but
through negotiations, the City agreed to the County’s
proposal for 97 quarter sections as a short term annexation
area.
6. The City’s concession about the short term annexation area
has important repercussions in light of other policies in the
IDP. The City agreed not to annex land in the long term
annexation area, unless the City land supply fell to less
than 15 years (Policy 6.2.2) as determined through a land
consumption model (Policy 7.8). This has the effect of
empowering the County to monitor long term City growth
data for purposes of ensuring no annexation applications
for the Long Term annexation area would occur without a
land owner request and County support.
7. The City has concerns that this might be its last opportunity
to annex land based upon the following considerations:
a. The annexation of long term annexation area
requires County consent. In light of the County’s
position at this hearing (where the IDP indicates the
County consents), County consent is not assured;
b. The City attempted to preserve growth
opportunities in the long term annexation area, but
Page 5 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
in exchange for the County’s unconditional support
for the short term annexation area, the City
conceded to multiple conditions to satisfy the
County’s concerns –particularly with the perception
that the IDP would ‘freeze’ land and an owner’s
development opportunities. The policies applicable
to the long term annexation area now allow
continued County development to the extent that
they may defeat the purpose of the long term
annexation area. This is evidenced by policies
permitting subdivision and development of up to 30
acres (12.5 ha) per every quarter section in the long
term annexation area, and policies which might
permit up to 100% of a quarter section to be
subdivided and developed, depending on the
application. Subdivisions in excess of the 30 acres
have been seen recently in two subdivision
applications sent to the City.
8.
Section 3.0 History of
Intermunicipal
Planning in the
Grande prairie Area
page 13
The City does not understand why this section has been
included. The 2010 IDP is the IDP in effect, and is the relevant
document.
If the purpose of the section is to indicate the parties’
intermunicipal cooperation, the 2010 IDP is sufficient evidence
of that point.
9.
The Grande Prairie
Centered Growth
Strategy - page 14
The discussion of the “Grande Prairie Centred Area Growth
Strategy” is not relevant. There is no indication that it is a
County Policy, nor statutory plan, nor that it has any official
designation.
Page 6 of 29
10.
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
Section 4.0 Review of
the Current IDP
Page 16
The City disagrees with the Simpson Reports categorization of
the City’s actions as being an “adversarial approach to regional
planning”. The City believed that it would suffer detriment
from the area structure plans passed by the County, and filed a
section 690 dispute, as the Municipal Government Act permits
it to do. The fact that the Board did not find detriment does
not make the City’s approach adversarial. It exercised its
legitimate legal right to seek a determination from the Board
empowered to hear complaints of this nature.
These section 690 appeals show that the City had concerns
about its growth opportunities, as far back as 2005.
Subsequent to the appeals, the City and the County
negotiated, and entered, a new IDP, containing provisions
which addressed the City’s growth.
Although the Simpson report states that the County was not
comfortable with the Growth Study which formed the basis of
the IDP, it is to be noted that Mr. Simpson co-wrote a report
which recommended the adoption of the IDP – which has been
noted was based on the Growth Study. Further, County
Council, as well as City Council, passed the IDP. One questions
why, if the County was not comfortable with the Growth
Study, it passed the IDP.
The 2010 IDP remains the IDP in place between the parties,
unaltered since its passage by both municipalities. The City
gave notice of its intention to annex in 2010. If the County had
the significant concerns identified in the Simpson report (and
the Nichols report), it is unclear why the County did not seek to
amend or repeal the document.
The City believes that the terms of the IDP speak for
themselves and can be read and interpreted by the Board. The
City’s belief is that the agreed upon provisions of the IDP
indicate that the County would support the annexation of the
short term annexation area identified in the IDP, which is the
Page 7 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
area in the City’s notice of intention to annex. The City is
disappointed that the County has taken its current position in
relation to the City’s proposed annexation.
11.
Section 5.0 Statutory
Plan review
page 20
The City’s MDP can only deal with the land currently within its
borders. If the City’s MDP contained provisions dealing with
agricultural land outside its borders it could be rightly criticized
for trying to impose policies on land for which it has no
jurisdiction.
Once the decision regarding the annexation is known, the City
will be revising its MDP to address the annexed land.
However, the City has been working on various initiatives to
prepare for the proposed annexation. The City has recently
passed a Land Use Bylaw amendment to provide for a Rural
Industrial District (copy attached at Tab 2 to this June 9, 2014
rebuttal).
12.
Section 6.0
Undevelopable Land
Review and other
Planning Issues
Discussion and
Analysis – page 21 25
1. Highway 43X Highway Right of Way
The two separate areas were disclosed to the County with the
following definitions:
a. Hwy 43X and Southwest Bypass planned right-of-ways
from Alberta Transportation.
b. Land owned by the Crown for the purpose of assembling
the Hwy 43X Bypass
These areas are not double-counted. The first is the actual
right of way alignment; the second is the additional crown
owned land for the purpose of assembling the Hwy 43X
bypass.
2. Previously Developed Areas
Page 8 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
The IDP references “gross area consumed by subdivision
registration” as the measure of growth. The County was the
source of this figure, having disclosed these figures to the City
as a measure of growth in the STAA.
The City disagrees with the County’s assertion that existing
developed areas such as country residential subdivisions can
be counted as potential growth area in the form of infill.
Existing country residential subdivisions are characterized by
significant variation in the development of rural lots ranging
from placement of buildings on lots and placement of
driveways, onsite wells and septic systems, as well as site
grading and drainage. These site conditions limit the practical
ability for re-subdivision and infill. Investment in these
properties and the cost to remove dwellings and infrastructure
to accommodate comprehensive redevelopment at the
neighbourhood scale is unlikely in the next 30 years.
3. Expansion of the Grande Prairie Airport
The City disagrees that it has suggested the lands for future
airport expansion are undevelopable due to proximity to the
airport. The land is for airport expansion, as has been
previously stated.
4. Land Requirements to meet ERCB regulations
The City disagrees with the County’s assertion that the City has
exaggerated the setbacks required by ERCB.
AER (formally ERCB) determines the required setbacks at
subdivision stage. It is not within any municipality’s
jurisdiction. The setbacks are based on both the concentration
of H2S and the release rate. Release rates can change and
setbacks are based on the type of development, therefore the
City estimated a minimal setback from all wells with the
understanding that the setbacks may be greater or lesser when
determined through a formal subdivision process. The City is
committed to complying with regulatory requirements.
5.
Existing Road Allowances and Land for Future Road
Page 9 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
Allowances
Lovatt Planning Consultants has addressed the doublecounting of public lands.
6.
Trumpeter Swan Habitat
MGB annexation Principle # 7 requires annexations to
demonstrate sensitivity and respect for key environmental and
natural features.
The City acknowledges the Province’s efforts to protect unique
ecosystems in the proposed annexation area. In its original
submissions, the City included a map prepared by Alberta
Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD)
which identifies Trumpeter Swan nesting sites and references
to the Provincial Trumpeter Swan Recovery Program.
ESRD guidelines for protection of Trumpeter recommend
setbacks from Trumpeter Swan habitat up to 800 metres in
some instances. In the City’s original materials, the City
included the ESRD recommended setbacks. However, the City
has not expressed any intention to adopt those guidelines as
City Standards.
Like other municipalities, the City strives to be aware of
matters important to Provincial environmental protection by
circulating ESRD on development proposals adjacent to or
which may impact on sensitive natural features and processes
such as lakes, wetlands, watercourses. The City will evaluate
any development applications for land within these setback
areas, and make decisions based upon the individual facts of
the case.
A unique 30 metre setback applies to a specific 210 metre
segment of shoreline frontage on Crystal Lake. This special
setback is based on an ESRD recommendation for a known
Swan Nesting site.
7.
Setbacks from waterbodies
Page 10 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
The City has policies in place through the Municipal
Development Plan (MDP) to address environmental matters
comprehensively. This means ecosystems, floodplains and
stormwater and unstable slopes. The MDP prescribes a
minimum setback from watercourses and wetlands, of fifteen
(15) metres unless floodplain/stormwater analysis or
geotechnical study recommends a greater setback for
subdivisions.
The 150 metre setbacks from waterbodies (lakes and
wetlands) and 50 metres from watercourses was in fact
double counted in terms of public land and has been
addressed in the context of developable land (see Lovatt
Planning Consultants Report).
The City is not “freezing” land development adjacent to
waterbodies or watercourses; however, at the scale of the IDP
mapping it is a precautionary principle to identify
environmentally sensitive or potentially hazardous lands. The
planning process for specific development proposals involves
more detailed engineering and biophysical analysis to establish
ultimate development boundaries.
13.
Other planning Issues Agricultural Land
– pages 25-26
The City denies that it has erred in relation to the quality of
agricultural land.
The City used the Land Suitability Rating System (LSRS) not the
Canada Land Inventory - Soil Capability for Agriculture (CLI).
The CLI and LSRS are two different classifications for land,
although essentially the same.
The CLI and LSRS are essentially the same: good or
prime agricultural land (Classes 1, 2 and some 3) is still
prime land, marginal land (Class 4 and some 5) is still
marginal and poor land (Classes 5, 6 and 7) is still poor.
The two methods follow the same concepts, use the
same rating factors and have the same rating format.
The LSRS was developed using the CLI as the rating
Page 11 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
standard.
(source: Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development personal
communication, David Spiess, e-mail attachment, March 17,
2014) (See Tab 3 to this June 9, 2014 rebuttal.)
At page 32 of the City’s application the words
“Canada Land Inventory Land Capability Rating data” should
be replaced with “Land Suitability Rating System data”.
On page 34the words “Canada Land Inventory Classification System (CLI)”
should be replaced with “In the Land Suitability Rating System
(LSRS)”
14.
15.
16.
17.
Section 7.0 Growth
Study Comments
Municipal Equity –
page 28
Population and
residential Land
requirements - page
29
Commercial and
residential Land
demand – page 30
This has been addressed in comments above.
This will be addressed by Lovatt Planning Consultants and
Applications Management.
See above.
Public Community
Land demand page
31-32
Undevelopable lands
- page 32
Provincial Land use
Policies – page 32
This will be addressed by Lovatt Planning Consultants.
20.
The intangibles –
page 33
The County disagrees with the City’s approach, which does not
negate the City’s approach.
21.
County vs City
standards – page 33
The City and the County have different standards. However,
the City has begun its preparation to deal with rural industrial
land. The City has recently passed an amendment to its Land
18.
19.
This will be addressed by Lovatt Planning Consultants.
The City believes that its position is supported by the Land Use
Policies. Policies are not rigid, and must have sufficient
flexibility to be relevant to the circumstances of the day.
Page 12 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
Use Bylaw to deal with Rural Industrial development. The
issue of servicing standards is a key factor of this area. A copy
of the provision is attached at Tab 2 to this June 9, 2014
rebuttal).
The City’s Industrial Attraction Strategy was born out of
Council’s 2012-2014 strategic plan. The plan seeks to create a
competitive advantage with respect to infrastructure, service
levels and costs for commercial and industrial development.
(Tab 4 to this June 9, 2014 rebuttal)
Goal 3 of the Strategy is “Flexible Infrastructure standards”,
and includes a direction to consider alternative servicing
standards and service levels in newly annexed lands where
conventional servicing is cost prohibitive, in an attempt to
encourage development in the annexation areas.
22.
Offsite levies – page
34
While the statement of different amounts of levies is accurate,
it is not clear what point is being made.
City roads are built to a higher functional design and
construction standard and durability given the higher volumes
of traffic. The County has had limited experience in urban
residential densities of development- Wedgewood, Carriage
Lane Estates and Clairmont.
The City believes that the County’s industrial assessment and a
disproportionately large share of linear assessment serve to
subsidize the County’s growth costs.
23.
Taxes – page 34
The City does not deny its mill rate is higher.
However, as indicated above, the County has virtually
unlimited opportunity for economic development, an
abundance of linear assessment and easy access to regional
public services for health care, education, indoor and outdoor
recreational facilities and parks, cultural facilities, in addition
to provincial and federal service agencies. This annexation
seeks to level that playing field.
Page 13 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
24.
Investment in
Infrastructure - page
35
The County states it has invested in key pieces of
infrastructure, but not identified what they are. Therefore, it is
difficult to assess the validity of the statement.
The City has entered an exclusive franchise agreement with
Aquatera, which gives Aquatera the exclusive right to provide
services, and to charge for them. Further, the City has passed
a bylaw which requires developers to pay for the cost of
infrastructure. There is a similar bylaw in the County.
The City is prepared to respond, should there be oral
testimony given on this point, and reserves it right to do so.
25.
Section 8.0
Infrastructure and
Transportation
Infrastructure - page
36
The BLK report found in full at Tab B of the County’s Binder 1
(excerpts of which are found at the Simpson Report Tab 14)
sets out the assumptions upon which it based its cost
estimates, but contains no detailed work to be able to verify
the cost estimates.
Simpson states that the City “is not taking any responsibility to
provide water and sewer systems to the area”. This statement
appears not to recognize that Aquatera has the exclusive right
to construct, maintain, and operate equipment to provide
water and wastewater services and solid waste services within
the City (Excerpt from City’s Aquatera Franchise Agreement Tab 5 to this June 9, 2014 rebuttal). Further, Aquatera has the
right to charge and recover a fee for the provision of these
services. Aquatera has a similar arrangement with the County.
The City has shown that it has met Annexation Principles 6
(cost effective, efficient, coordinated services) and 8
(coordination and cost effective use of resources) through the
provision of the ISL servicing study. The City has demonstrated
by virtue of its servicing study its awareness of the technical
opportunities and constraints characterizing the landscape of
the annexation area. If required, the City has the in-house
Page 14 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
expertise to extrapolate the relative costs of growth in the
annexation area, as it does for lands within its current
boundary.
The City’s approach to infrastructure investment is supported
by the Provincial Government through its approval of
Aquatera.
In its MDP (Volume 1, Tab 15, page 755 of the City’s original
submissions), the City has expressed its intention to allow for
new and emerging trends in industrial development, including
alternative servicing approaches. These intentions are also
reflected in Council’s Industrial Attraction Strategy. (Tab55 to
this June 9, 2014 rebuttal)
The Province has recognized the autonomy of each
municipality in Alberta. The City is seeking to annex land
because it believes annexation is in the best interests of its
citizens.
The shape and size of the short term annexation area is the
result of IDP negotiations with the County of Grande Prairie.
The City had proposed
(a)
lands for immediate annexation be more uniformly
contiguous and close to the existing City Boundaries; and
(b)
lands that are more readily serviced in relation to
existing trunk lines for water and sanitary sewer; that is to the
south and west, and north/northeast.
However, during the negotiations, the City agreed to limit its
future growth to vacant undeveloped land. This was done to
satisfy the County that the City’s motivations were not a socalled “Tax-grab”.
26.
Transportation –
pages 36-37
In response to the Simpson comment that “the plans identify a
commitment to upgrading and paving key regional roads in the
IDP area in the near future”, the IDP does not make such a
commitment. The IDP states the following:
Page 15 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
Section 6.7 policies 6.7.1 through to 6.7.6
6.7.1 The City and the County support the
development of improvements to the provincial
highway system as identified on the Regional
Transportation Map 3. Moreover, both
municipalities agree to actively pursue the
development of the provincial system with the
provincial government.
6.7.2 In addition to the improvements to the
provincial highways, specific road corridors have
been identified that require special
consideration and coordination between the
two municipalities. The common road system is
identified on the Regional Transportation Map
3.
6.7.3 The City and the County will seek to incorporate
the road patterns and designations identified on
the Regional Transportation Map 3 into future
transportation master plans.
6.7.4 The City and the County will share annual
capital plans including plans for paving and
borrowing of major roads in the plan area to
ensure better coordination respecting proposed
roadway planning and upgrades and to take
advantage of joint tendering prices.
6.7.5 When subdivisions are proposed in the Plan
area, all right-of-way requirements will be
secured to ensure that long term transportation
and road plans can be implemented when
warranted.
(emphasis added).
Although the above policies indicate the parties will share
annual capital plans, the County paved RR 54 in 2013 (Carriage
Lane access north to SH 670) without advising the City, and
after having received a letter from the Mayor requesting that
the County not undertake annexation area improvements
without consulting the City. (This project is referenced in the
evidence of Mr. Pfau at Schedule “A”)
Page 16 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
27.
Section 9.0
Negotiations and
Mediation
page 38
28.
Section 10.0 Public
Consultations
page 39-42
The County has stated its views and to include a response
would only be argumentative. The City believes it accurately
captured the negotiations in its summary, but respects the fact
that the County does not agree and has stated its position.
The City has met the requirements for public consultation. The
City invited landowners to open houses, and cannot be faulted
if those invited did not attend or did not respond to the City’s
request for their input.
The City has included as part of its annexation application
materials a full package regarding its consultation with land
owners.
The Simpson report suggests there was no opportunity for
landowners to express their views or ask questions in a public
forum. The City held open houses in October 2011 and May
2013 to permit landowners to discuss the terms of the
application and to provide their input. Landowners were sent
letters in May 2013 with the City’s final position. Landowners
were given an opportunity to provide their input. Many have
taken advantage of that opportunity and provided comments
to the City and to the Board. (see Tab 6 to this June 9, 2014
rebuttal).
29.
Section 11.0 – MGB
Annexation Principles
Principle 4 – Growth – As indicated, the City’s annexation seeks land for sustainable
page 43
growth. It is supported by the Land Use Policies, and by Policy
4 (reasonable growth options). This has been discussed in the
City’s other reports and is not repeated here.
Page 17 of 29
30.
Comment in Simpson
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
Principle 6 – Cost
Effective Coordinated
Services – page 44
Response
The City has identified the costs required to provide services to
the annexation area following annexation. In addition, the
future costs (and revenues) associated with growth and
development both in the current boundaries of the City and
the proposed annexation area have been projected. The City is
in a good position to provide services to the annexation area in
a cost effective and coordinated fashion. Regionally, Aquatera
has the exclusive franchise in the City to provide water and
wastewater services as well as solid waste services and to
charge for the services. The City’s main materials indicate that
the City and the County both have bylaws (City Bylaw C-1139
and County Bylaw 2972) which require Aquatera to provide
utility services in the municipalities and to require the
developer to pay for the costs of the infrastructure.
The City did not ignore the costs. It recognizes them, but they
are not a cost borne directly by the City.
It is unclear if the County is suggesting that it pays for the costs
of municipal water and sanitary sewers in the proposed
annexation area. If so, the County appears to have ignored its
own Bylaw 2972.
31.
Principle 7 –
Environmental
Protection
page 44
MGB Principle 7 states:
Annexations that demonstrate sensitivity and respect for
key environmental and natural features will be regarded
as meeting provincial land use policies.
The City has never proposed –either verbally or in writing–
adopting a 500 to 800 metre development setback from
wetlands generally, nor Trumpeter Swan Habitat specifically.
The City did include material from the Province of Alberta
ESRD in its annexation application, to demonstrate regard for
the natural environment and commitment to work with the
Province to establish reasonable setbacks for development.
32.
Principle 9 – Full
The City has submitted a full fiscal impact assessment in its
Page 18 of 29
Comment in Simpson
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
Financial
Consideration - page
45
Response
33.
Principle 10 –
Interagency Impact
page 45
The City has sent the School District notice of the annexation.
The School District has not expressed any concern in relation
to the City’s proposal.
34.
Principle 11–
Landowner Impact
minimized
page 45
The City has extended tax protection to landowners to that
found within its Conditions of Annexation.
original submissions and a rebuttal, both prepared by
Applications Management. The City has fully reviewed the
financial impact of the proposed annexation on City
ratepayers, County ratepayers and ratepayers in the proposed
annexation area.
The City has reviewed the County of Grande Prairie’s Bylaws
and policies in effect for the annexation area.
The City will inherit County bylaws at the time of annexation.
Throughout its public consultations and negotiations with the
County, the City confirmed that it will ensure that landowners
can maintain and enjoy existing rural lifestyles permitted
through existing County bylaws, unless urbanization occurs
that may conflict with some lifestyle opportunities (i.e., use of
firearms). The City’s Bylaw Enforcement Manager also
attended public open house sessions to assist landowners with
lifestyle enquiries.
As with the City’s position on Zoning and Development
Opportunities, it is the City’s intent to maintain existing
lifestyle opportunities by amending its current comparable City
bylaws to incorporate the County bylaw provisions specifically
for the rural annexation area.
35.
Principle 12 – Public
Consultation
page 45
The City’s efforts at public consultation are set out in its Binder
1 and are described in its Application, submitted July, 2013.
The City notified landowners of open houses, provided an
opportunity for one on one consultations, and held open
houses. The City believes that it fully met its obligations for
consultation.
Page 19 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
36.
Principle 13 –
Revenue Sharing
page 46
The City has offered to pay the County compensation based on
a five year decreasing model. This was not acceptable to the
County.
Applications Management has provided a specific response on
the question of revenue sharing.
37.
Principle 14 – Not a
Tax Initiative
page 46
The City has not projected all future industrial growth within
its boundaries. The City’s annexation will allow it to grow in a
fiscally responsible and sustainable manner. The impact of the
annexation on the County is small and even though tax
compensation is not likely necessary, the City has offered to
pay the County its lost taxes from the annexation area for 5
years following annexation at a declining rate. Ratepayers in
the proposed annexation area will be protected from tax
increases until such time development triggers payment of City
taxes.
The Simpson report questions whether the City has the
financial ability to provide services to the rural area to the
same level the County currently provides, without indicating
what those services are. Aquatera provides water and waste
water. As the Simpson report provides no details, the
comments under this heading should be discounted.
38.
Principle 15 –
Conditions Certain
page 46
39.
Section 12.0 – Future
Land Use Controls
page 48-57
40.
The City’s conditions meet Principle 15. They are
unambiguous, enforceable and time specific. Although the
County does not agree with the City’s proposed conditions, its
disagreement does not mean the City’s conditions do not meet
Principle 15.
The City will update its MDP and LUB to deal with the newly
annexed lands once they are annexed. The City cannot amend
it planning documents for lands that are not under its
jurisdiction.
As a first step, the City has committed to protect uses (existing
Page 20 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
prior to annexation) by specifically identifying them in the City
Land use Bylaw.
New development will be eligible pursuant to the current City
Municipal Development Plan policies.
Following Initial amendments to reflect the new City boundary
and existing uses, City Council will undertake further
amendments to its planning policies and Land Use Bylaw in
consultation with land owners.
Council does not intend to “freeze” development as alleged by
the County. In fact, Council intends to encourage development
in a planned and orderly fashion.
In the same way that the County has amended its Land Use
Bylaw to allow for urban development in Clairmont, the City
can amend its Land Use Bylaw to ensure landowners in the
annexation are not negatively impacted.
The emphasis of the word “prior to” in the IDP does not mean
all the IDP interim development policies will be removed. The
City will consult with landowners to get input into which
policies are relevant.
The intent is to record existing uses and not limit future uses.
The County’s current AG District includes only one permitted
use which is Agricultural Operations and 48 discretionary uses.
A single detached dwelling unit is a discretionary use in the
County’s AG District. This indicates that the County
dramatically limits uses in its AG District.
The City will consult with landowners as part of the Land Use
Bylaw amendment process to determine which of the 48
discretionary uses are appropriate in an urban/rural context.
Provincial regulations apply to some of these uses. Until such
time as new districts are adopted, the existing County Land
Use Bylaw Districts will apply.
The City has clearly stated that it will develop comparable
Page 21 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
regulations to allow for the rural lifestyle that includes
quadding and snowmobiling. These activities are permitted on
private property in Strathcona County in close proximity to
Sherwood Park with a population of some 65,000. Hunting is
permitted in Strathcona County further away from populated
areas in hunting season. This is not dissimilar to the current
approach in Grande Prairie County. Hunting is provincially
regulated.
The City has clearly stated annexation will not affect the
present use of land and that after annexation it will consult
with landowners to develop Area Structure Plans at the City’s
cost to determine future and appropriate interim land uses in
advance of development. Landowners may have greater
opportunities to develop in future as have landowners in
Clairmont Urban Area.
41.
At page 53-54:
“A subdivision will
also trigger an
increase in taxes to
the balance of the
subdivision along with
the proposed new lot
(with the exception of
the first parcel out of
a quarter section)”
There are incorrect statements in the Simpson Report.
The remnant parcel from a subdivision will not lose its tax
protection, only the newly created lot does.
and at page 54:
“Construction of a
new dwelling on the
proposed new lot will
trigger an increase in
taxes.”
42.
Land Use Bylaw –
Page 51-57
Making a development permit application and obtaining
development approval will not trigger a change in taxes.
Taxes are payable based upon the assessed value (market
value) of the property, whether in the City or the County. In
either jurisdiction, if the market value rises, the taxes may go
up. This is not unique to the City, nor to the annexation area.
The City provided a detailed conceptual policy and Land Use
Bylaw framework to help land owners understand how existing
Page 22 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
development rights will be preserved and the process pursuant
to the MGA the City is obliged to follow in the event the
Province approves the annexation application.
In the context of MGB and annexation conventions for the
level of detail, the City believes the level of detail provided
meets or exceeds the Board’s expectations in addressing land
owner concerns.
43.
Section 14.0 Lifestyle
Issues
Page 59
The City has reviewed the County of Grande Prairie’s Bylaws
and policies in effect for the annexation area.
The City will inherit County bylaws at the time of annexation.
Throughout its public consultations and negotiations with the
County, the City confirmed that it will ensure that landowners
can maintain and enjoy existing rural lifestyles permitted
through existing County bylaws, unless urbanization occurs
that may conflict with some lifestyle opportunities (I.e. use of
firearms). The City’s Bylaw Enforcement Manager also
attended public open house sessions to assist landowners with
lifestyle enquiries.
As with the City’s position on zoning and development
opportunities, it is the City’s intent to maintain existing
lifestyle opportunities by amending its current comparable City
bylaws to incorporate the County bylaw provisions specifically
for the rural annexation area.
15.0 Conditions
44.
Taxation protection
Page 60
Taxation Formula for Farm and Non-Farm Property
Intermunicipal Development Plan Policy 6.0.1 provides that the
annexation area constitutes a thirty (30) year supply of land.
The City’s updated Growth Study and Population and
Employment Forecasts support the original studies used to
develop the annexation land area incorporated in the IDP.
Page 23 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
Municipal Government Board Annexation Bulletin No.1-2005
states:
Any condition relating to assessment and taxation must
have a finite end point, otherwise the Municipal
Government Board would likely have concerns on
recommending such an arrangement to the Minister and
Cabinet. In some recent annexations timelines have
ranged from five to 15 years. Justification of timelines
greater than 15 years would require significant rationale.
Through negotiations and in good faith, the City proposed an
additional five year phase in for non-farm property
landowners, over the MGB’s upper timeline.
In justification of the City’s formula for farm property
considerably exceeding the MGB’s recommended time
horizon, the City recognizes the right to farm and the support
for agriculture industry within an expanded City. The City
considers that its 25 year, plus additional five year phased
transition to City tax rates will assist farmers, whilst
maintaining a finite end point.
45.
Page 61-62
Compensation to the County for Loss in Property Tax
Revenue
Taxation Transition
Due to the predominantly undeveloped state of the
annexation area, the taxes generated are minimal to the
County’s overall assessment base. Furthermore, upon
annexation, the County will no longer incur service costs for
the annexation area which significantly exceed the tax revenue
generated.
For this reason, the City’s original position during negotiations
was for no compensation to the County for loss of tax revenue.
However in a show of good faith and to assist negotiated
discussions, the City offered compensation to the County over
a period of five (5) years, being 100% of the lost tax revenue in
Page 24 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
year one following annexation, decreasing 20% each year
after. This proposal is consistent with previous MGB Order
recommendations.
See Applications Management for further discussion on this
point.
46.
Page 62
Compensation to the County for Infrastructure Upgrades
(completed projects)
The County is seeking a one-time cash payment for the
depreciated value of completed road projects undertaken over
the past 10 years.
The City’s does not agree that it should pay for projects for
which the County received annual taxes from assessment that
should have been utilized to maintain its road infrastructure.
Projects which predate the Notice of Annexation are a County
responsibility.
See Applications Management’s report for further comment
on this condition.
47.
Page 63
Future Road Commitments
The City cannot bind future councils in respect of road paving
projects. Through negotiations and mediation, the City agreed
that roads within the annexation area would be included in
future Council capital budget deliberations, once within the
City’s jurisdiction.
The City also notes that in respect of RR70, the County had
government grant funding allocated to this road paving
project, but decided to use the funds elsewhere since the road
was within the annexation area.
48.
Page 64
Other Compensation
Solid Waste Disposal
The County is seeking compensation for annexed landowners
Page 25 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
to continue using the Clairmont facility for a period of 10 years
(County estimate to be $150,000 per year).
The City questions the County’s annual estimate since during
negotiations and mediation, the County identified an annual
cost estimate of $25,000 per year.
The City is proposing to offer all landowners within the
annexation area the opportunity to continue disposing of
garbage at the Clairmont facility free of charge for a period of
five (5) years following annexation on a pay per use basis. This
will assist the transition into the City’s jurisdiction. The City
also notes that currently there are landowners within the
annexation area that due to location convenience, pay to use
the Aquatera facility and also others who rent private bins on
their property.
49.
Page 65
Business Licenses
The City requires licenses for certain business activities within
its jurisdiction. In order to assist landowners’ transition to its
jurisdiction, the City considers that its proposal to waive
business license fees for existing businesses for a period of five
(5) years following annexation would be a reasonable
timeframe to allow this transition.
50.
Page 65
Debentures
The City has always agreed with the County’s compensation
request to assume the remaining annual debenture payments
following annexation for the RR63, RR60, RR55 road projects
and portion of the West Aqua Water Line project within the
annexation area.
51.
Page 66
Wedgewood Intersection
The City is aware of what portions of the road it has under its
control. The City is not aware of any “confusion” in relation to
this intersection, contrary to what has been set out in the
County’s Legal Argument at paragraph 137. It is clear which
Page 26 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
municipality has control over what portions of this
intersection. The future development of the road has not yet
been agreed.
The map titled “What Intersection should look like under the
Act” is incorrect because the north boundary of Section 6-71-5W6M is a blind line, not a road allowance. Therefore section
18(2) of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) does not apply.
This issue is a separate issue from the annexation and the
County may raise this issue with the City. However, this should
not be part of this annexation.
52.
Page 66-67
Zoning and Development Opportunities
Farmstead Separations
In line with the majority of previous Board recommendations,
the City is proposing the following events that would trigger
City tax rates:
1.
Subdivision by, or on behalf of the landowner;
2.
Rezoning by, or on behalf of the landowner; and
3.
Local Improvement Bylaw to allow any parcel to
connect to water or sewer where the Local Improvement
Bylaw has part or complete funding from the City.
The County’s request to allow three parcels out of a quarter
section (maximum 30 acres) was agreed in IDP Policy 6.1.4 as
an interim measure prior to annexation, to allow some
development opportunities for property owners within the
annexation area.
The City has proposed that once annexation becomes
effective, the landowner of an un-subdivided quarter section in
use for farming purposes may subdivide out one parcel (with
or without a farmstead) without triggering City tax rates for
the newly created parcel. This exemption permits continued
farming operations, where the landowner may wish to retire
and remain on the property, while allowing the farming
operations to continue through a family member.
Page 27 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
Triggering events will act to deter sporadic separation of large
areas of undeveloped land which would act to restrict future
planned urban growth for the City. For this reason, the City is
opposed to allowing three parcels out of a quarter section
before triggering City tax rates.
53.
Page 67
Water and Sewer Connections
The City’s position is that only those developments where
water and sewer is connected to any parcel by way of a Local
Improvement Bylaw which is funded in part or completely by
the City would constitute a triggering event. The City’s
rationale is that where such projects are funded upfront by
City taxes, the parcel benefitting should thereafter be subject
to City tax rates.
54.
Page 68
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Once annexation is effective, the Intermunicipal Development
Plan (IDP) will require updating to reflect the new City
boundary. Furthermore, the IDP was adopted by both
municipalities in June 2010 and will therefore be subject to a
comprehensive review in 2015. Policies within the current IDP
can be discussed between the municipalities during this
review.
55.
Page 69
Development Opportunities
The City has confirmed that the intent of annexation is to
secure predominantly undeveloped lands for the purpose of
future urban growth. The City has reservations about retaining
County land use districts indefinitely since the intent is to
encourage new urban growth rather than maintain current
land uses.
However, In order to address existing land uses and
development at the time of annexation the City’s application
(Binder 1-2, page 28) confirms that land use districts will be
established in its Land Use Bylaw to ensure that the existing
Page 28 of 29
Comment in Simpson Response
Report
(Simpson Report page
numbers)
uses on all annexed properties would be legally conforming in
the City’s Land Use Bylaw post-annexation. Therefore the
County’s statement that any current use will become legal,
non-conforming is factually incorrect.
56.
16.0 Alternate
Scenario
Page 71-75
The City fundamentally disagrees with the alternate scenario
put forward by the County.
The alternate scenario advanced by the County is not
supported by any population or employment projections nor
by any fiscal impact assessment.
In the absence of any meaningful data to evaluate this
scenario, the City can only state its firm opposition. The City
asks the Board to ignore the scenario on the basis that there is
no basis upon which it can be evaluated, and therefore must
be discounted, along with any conditions which would flow
from it.
Page 29 of 29
Section 99A Rural Industrial District - IR
99A.1 Purpose
To provide an industrial district that reflects a rural standard of industrial development by allowing for
rural road cross-sections. This district will generally be applied to new development areas that have
been comprehensively planned through the adoption of an Outline Plan.
99A.2


















99A.3





Permitted Uses
Accessory Building or Structure
Accessory Use
Animal Service Facility, Major
Auctioneering Facility
Automotive and Equipment Repair and
Sales, Major
Automotive and Equipment Repair and
Sales, Minor
Automotive and/or Recreational Vehicle
Sales, Rental and Service
Broadcasting Studio
Commercial Recreation Facility, Indoor
Commercial Recreation Facility, Outdoor
Commercial School
Commercial Storage
Contractor, General
Contractor, Limited
Equipment Rental and Repair
Essential Public Service
Extensive Agriculture
Fleet Service
















Discretionary Uses
Abattoir
Adult Entertainment Facility
Bulk Chemical and/or Fuel Storage
Facility
Carnival
Casino




Gas Bar
General Industrial
Greenhouse
Industrial Business Centre
Oilfield Support
Outdoor Storage Facility
Public Utility
Rail Yard
Recreation Vehicle Storage
Recycling Depot
Service Station
Small Wind Energy Systems
Solar Collector
Storage Yard
Taxidermy
Truck and/or Manufactured Home Sales
and/or Rental
Vehicle Wash, Major
Vehicle Wash, Minor
Warehouse Distribution and/or Storage
Warehouse Sales






Drinking Establishment, Minor
Family/Fast Food Restaurant
Restaurant
Retail Store, General
Salvage Yard
Surveillance Suite
99A.4 Site Standards
In addition to the Regulations contained in Parts Seven, Eight, and Nine; the following standards shall
apply:
a)
Site Area
4,000 m2
b)
Site Width
40.0 m
c)
Front Yard
10.0 m
City of Grande Prairie
134
Land Use Bylaw C-1260
d)
Rear Yard
8.0 m
e)
Side Yard, Interior
8.0 m
f)
Side Yard, Exterior
8.0 m
g)
Building Height (max.)
15.0 m
h)
Lot Coverage (max.)
60 percent
i)
Landscaped Area
5 percent
99A.5 Additional Requirements
a. Signs shall be in accordance with the requirement of the IH District;
b. All development permit applications affected by the High Visibility Corridor Overlay shall
comply with the requirements of Schedule C - High Visibility Corridor Overlay;
c. Only front yards and exterior side yards need to be landscaped in accordance with Section
64.8;
d. No parking, loading, storage, trash collection, outdoor service or displays area shall be
permitted within the required front yard setback;
e. All outdoor storage areas shall be fenced and may be required to be screened from view from
the street by the fence or other suitable screening;
f. Outdoor storage may only be permitted in a front yard or exterior side yard at the discretion
of the Development Authority. However, additional screening and/or berming of any such
open storage area may be required by the Development Authority;
g. Outdoor storage shall comply with the setbacks in Section 99A.4;
h. This district shall not abut a residential district;
i. In addition to the required compliance with the Alberta Safety Code and Alberta Fire Code,
and at the discretion of the Development Authority, any on-site manufacture, storage and
handling of dangerous goods in excess of the quantities identified in Schedule E - Small
Quantity Exemption for Dangerous Goods may require a Risk Assessment Report be prepared
by a qualified engineer, and such report shall be guided by the guidelines established by the
Major Industrial Accidents Council of Canada (MIACC) as published in:
i) Risk-Based Land Use Planning Guidelines;
ii) Hazardous Substances Risk Assessment, a Mini-Guide for Municipalities and Industries;
and
iii) MIACC Lists of Hazardous Substances.
(Bylaw C-1260-7 - May 20, 2014)
City of Grande Prairie
135
Land Use Bylaw C-1260
Gwendolyn Stewart - Palmer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Alison Downing <[email protected]>
Monday, June 09, 2014 12:10 PM
Gwendolyn Stewart - Palmer
FW: Soil Classifications
CLI vs LSRS.DOC
From: David Spiess [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: March‐17‐14 1:59 PM To: Alison Downing Cc: Michael MacIntyre; Wayne Pettapiece; Michael Bock; Tom Goddard; Len Kryzanowski Subject: RE: Soil Classifications Hello Alison, Further to our conversation, this morning I have consulted with some of my colleagues and the following word document should clarify the differences between CLI and LSRS. This document was created in late 2010 to address same question. I hope this helps? Should you require further independent clarification the following three companies all have a thorough background in the differences and similarities with LSRS either in its application or its development in the first instance. I hope this helps Alison. Best Regards David Spiess P Eng Environmental Stewardship Division ARD / Phone 780 427 3739 / Fax 780 422 0474 / [email protected] Gerry Tychon Principal at Spatial Data Systems Consulting Phone: 780‐468‐5493 [email protected]
Larry Nikiforuk
Soil-Info Ltd
199 Rhatigan Rd E NW, Edmonton, AB T6R 1N6
(780) 432-3668
Ron McNeil LandWise Inc. 210A ‐ 12A St. North, Suite 407 Lethbridge, AB T1H 2J1 Tel: (403) 320‐0407 Fax: (403) 320‐0462 [email protected] 1
From: Alison Downing [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 9:14 AM
To: David Spiess
Cc: Michael MacIntyre
Subject: Soil Classifications
Good morning David, Further to our conversation this morning. I have attached a pdf showing pages from the City of Grande Prairie’s annexation application (Section 6.3 Land Capability for Agriculture). I have also attached the County of Grande Prairie’s submission as well as the maps they are referencing. I am hoping you can connect me with an expert that can help sort out the validity of the arguments. Thank you in advance, Alison Alison Downing BSc.Geog Planner I City of Grande Prairie City Service Centre P.O. Bag 4000 9505‐112 Street Grande Prairie, AB T8V 6V3 Ph. 780.538.0434 F. 780.357.7512 www.cityofgp.com Follow us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter! View our photos on Flickr! ----------------------------------------------This message, and any attached documents, may include proprietary or protected information. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify me, delete this message, and do not further communicate the information contained herein without my
express written consent.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or
entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the
named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
2
A message from the Alberta Soil Information Centre (ASIC)
regarding land capability.
The ASIC is recommending that all valuations of land capability formerly based on
the Canada Land Inventory – Soil Capability for Agriculture (CLI) now use the
Land Suitability Rating System (LSRS).
The CLI and LSRS are essentially the same: good or prime agricultural land (Classes 1, 2
and some 3) is still prime land, marginal land (Class 4 and some 5) is still marginal and
poor land (Classes 5, 6 and 7) is still poor.
The two methods follow the same concepts, use the same rating factors and have the
same rating format. The LSRS was developed using the CLI as the rating standard.
What is the CLI?
The CLI (1) was developed in the 1960s as a basis for general regional planning in areas
of land use conflict - with an emphasis on fringe areas. It included general capability
assessments for agriculture, forestry, wildlife and recreation. As such, it was necessarily
kept fairly flexible so that adjustments might be made to reflect regional differences
across Canada. For example, Ontario and Nova Scotia or Saskatchewan might want a
different emphases on texture or climate or pH.
The concept of agricultural capability was sound and was quickly accepted and adopted
by land resource professionals, planners and real estate brokers. By the late 1970s, it had
become a basic element of guidelines for land use planning at many local and provincial
levels across Canada and was used for many agricultural policy decisions and programs.
Why change from the CLI?
The LSRS (2) adds rigor and specificity to the CLI and essentially removes personal
judgment.
The general nature and flexibility of the CLI, that worked well for regional level analysis,
made it difficult to apply consistently at local levels of detail. Various assessors often
arrived at different ratings. This was frustrating for both the land evaluators and the users
of the data. Also, in keeping with the general objective of regional planning, the ratings
were published at relatively small scales (1:250,000 in Alberta) where average sized units
were often many sections in size.
An additional national concern was that the ratings could have different meanings in
different parts of the country. A Class 2 in Quebec might not be equivalent to the Class 2
in Alberta. They might not even use the same crops for evaluation.
There was a need for more consistency.
1
What were the changes?
To achieve consistency, a single crop (or closely related suite of crops) was used as
reference and specific relationships were defined for all contributing climate, soil and
landscape parameters.
Spring seeded small grains (with an emphasis on barley) became the reference crop as
they are grown in every agricultural region in Canada. Factors known to affect crop
growth and management were then defined and assessed on a continuous, 0-100, scale.
These included for climate- heat and moisture; for soils- moisture supply, fertility and
structure and rooting medium; and for landscape- slope and stoniness. The combined
factors were tested against presently accepted CLI ratings and computer programs (3)
written standardizing all calculations.
What was the result of the changes?
The first result was that everyone using the same data arrived at the same rating.
For Alberta, there were some changes related mainly to the better control of climate
information. The most obvious was the loss of Class 1. When compared to ideal
conditions, Alberta has, in most years, at least a slight limitation due to lack of moisture
or lack of heat or both. Class 1 was thereby amalgamated with Class 2 which had
remained similar to the CLI and which is still considered as prime farmland. The other
changes related mainly to Class 4. With better climate data we could now define a Class
4 climate (not present in the CLI) and could more reliably place the boundary values in
the landscape (map). The result was that the Class 3, 4 and 5 “zone” boundaries were in
some instances shifted slightly from those of the CLI – some east and some west. All the
boundaries are now more defensible. It must be remembered that they are based on 1961
to 1990 climate averages and do not include any changes over the last 15 years (the CLI
used data prior to 1960).
What are the implications for by-laws and policies that presently use CLI values?
There is no need to change any of the present guidelines or policies apart from changing
the name from CLI to LSRS.
The concepts are identical and the classes are the same. The decision making processes
should not change. It should be noted that boundaries still exist and guidelines are still
guidelines that need to be accepted or modified by local decision-making bodies.
2
Where does one find LSRS ratings?
General LSRS ratings may be found on the Alberta Soil Information Centre website
(www.agric.gov.ab.ca/asic) associated with the 1:100,000 scale, standardized AGRASID
(soil survey) map units.
Maps may be produced by using this database, but given the ability to assess and rate
areas of any size, it was considered appropriate for users to define their own specific
requirements.
Programs to calculate LSRS ratings or with the AGRASID data can be obtained from the
Alberta Soil Information Centre.
References
(1) ARDA. 1965. Canada Land Inventory. Capability for Agriculture. The Canada Land
Inventory Report No. 2, Dept of Forestry and Rural Development, Ottawa. 16 p.
(2) Agronomic Interpretations Working Group. 1995. Land suitability rating system for
agricultural crops: 1. Spring seeded small grains. Edited by W.W. Pettapiece.
Tech. Bull. 1995-6E. Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research,
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa. 90 p, 2 maps.
(3) WWP definition of Prime land
(4) Tychon, G. G.and W. W. Pettapiece. 2003, 2004. Land Suitability Rating System interactive programs to accommodate Alberta (AGRASID) data bases and Area
Specific ratings. Can be obtained from Conservation and Development Branch,
Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Edmonton, Alberta. Computer
programs (LSRS 2.1, LSRS 2.2) with documentation.
Contact:
Alberta Soil Information Centre.
Conservation and Development Branch
Alberta Agriculture Food and Rural Development
206, 7000 – 113 St.
Edmonton, Alberta
T6H 5T6
<http://www.agric.gov.ab.ca/asic>
Finding Land Classifications - Frequently Asked Questions
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/faq7613
LSRS Manual
http://sis2.agr.gc.ca/cansis/publications/manuals/1995-6/intro.html
3
Industrial Attraction Strategy 1
Preamble The Industrial Attraction Strategy was born out of Council’s 2012‐2014 strategic plan. The plan states that the City and its partners will offer a competitive advantage with respect to infrastructure, service levels and costs for commercial and industrial development. The Industrial Attraction Strategy seeks to fulfill these goals. The Industrial Attraction Strategy will be reviewed annually by Council. Key Priorities 1. Infrastructure Development Desired outcomes: This focus area is to identify infrastructure deficiencies that hinder industrial and commercial development. The identification and mitigation of barriers to development will increase the attractiveness of the City for builders and developers. 1.1 Goal 1: Ensure adequate water, sanitary and transportation capacity in priority expansion areas. Actions:  Administration will identify infrastructure gaps and areas of concern for Council to consider further actions such as, project funding, advocacy, etc. o Reason: To reduce time between site selection and construction o Timeline: To be determined o Cost: Variable, approximately $4,000,000 identified for infrastructure 1.2 Goal 2: Ensure adequate supply of industrial and commercial land is available for development. Actions:  Undertake market study to determine potential absorption rates of commercial and industrial land. o Reason: To inform City actions o Timeline: 3‐6 months o Cost: $20‐50,000  Consider adjusting taxation to reflect the pace and density of development and redevelopment. o Reason: To match development revenues with expenses. o Timeline: Upon policy approval by Council o Cost: Dependent on the areas affected 2



Consider broader permitted and discretionary uses in the Land Use Bylaw. o Reason: To reduce instances of time lost during the process of rezoning. o Timeline: Concurrently with the Land Use Bylaw Review o Cost: Staff time City should consider creating area structure plans in the annexation areas. o Reason: To reduce development time and promote cohesive, orderly growth. o Timeline: 6‐12 months per plan, upon the conclusion of annexation o Cost: $60‐90,000 Maintain an inventory of commercial and industrial vacant land. o Reason: Inform investors, landowners and Administration of opportunities for development o Timeline: Completed, updated annually o Cost: Staff time 1.3 Goal 3: Flexible Infrastructure standards Actions:  Review and revise Engineering Design Standards as needed to ensure appropriateness and flexibility in priority areas. o Reason: To reduce development time and costs o Timeline: 6‐12 months, upon Council direction o Cost: $50‐80,000  Consider alternative servicing standards and service levels in newly annexed areas where conventional servicing is cost prohibitive. o
o
o
Reason: To encourage development in annexation areas Timeline: Not yet established Cost: Not yet established 2. Policy and Procedure Enhancement Desired outcomes: Ensuring that we have competitive standards and costs will aid in the on‐going attraction of new businesses to the City. The City will work to identify new competitive and comparative advantages. 2.1 Goal 1: Increasing Competitive Advantages 
Actions: Consider implementing a system to quantify the cost/benefit of proposed changes to City Bylaws, Policies and Procedures affecting land development. o Reason: Ensure Council considers all factors prior to making a decision o Timeline: Upon City Manager approval o Cost: Staff time 3




Assess what options are available to lower the electrical distribution costs in the City. o Reason: Electrical costs within the ATCO service region are dramatically higher than all other distribution areas within the province. o Timeline: On‐going o Cost: Staff time Consider lowering parking requirements for new developments. o Reason: Developers have an incentive to provide adequate parking o Timeline: Concurrently with the Land Use Bylaw Review o Cost: Staff time Consider the establishment of a Business Development Liaison position. o Reason: This position would be responsible for assisting developers through the City process and ensuring a positive and expedient outcome when possible. o Timeline: o Cost: $85,000‐120,000 (Including salary, benefits and small operating budget) Review City development and planning processes annually to improve operational efficiencies. o Ensure appropriate processes are in‐place and up‐to‐date o Timeline: Annual o Cost: Staff time 4
PUBLIC NOTICE
ANNEXATION PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE
The City of Grande Prairie will be hosting final drop-in open house sessions to update members
of the public about the City’s annexation application preparations.
The City will be holding two drop-in open house sessions. Both sessions will contain the same
material.
Annexation Public Open House Sessions
Monday May 27, 2013
Tuesday May 28, 2013
4.30pm-8.00pm
4.30pm-8.00pm
Muskoseepi Park Pavilion
Muskoseepi Park Pavilion
102 Avenue & 102 Street
102 Avenue & 102 Street
Grande Prairie, AB.
Grande Prairie, AB.
Further information on the annexation process is available on the City’s website at
www.cityofgp.com or by contacting the City’s Planning Department at 780-830-7428.
Development Services
City Service Centre
P.O. Bag 4000
9505 – 112 Street
Grande Prairie, AB T8V 6H8
PH: (780) 538-0421
FAX: (780)538-0746
December 13, 2012
Dear Sir or Madam,
RE:
City of Grande Prairie Annexation Update
The purpose of this letter is to provide landowners and affected agencies an
update on the City of Grande Prairie’s annexation application preparations.
Since August 2012, The City of Grande Prairie and County of Grande Prairie No. 1
have been engaged in negotiations regarding proposed terms of annexation. As of
December 2012, there are some matters that the parties have been unable to
reach agreement on. Consequently, the next step in the process is for the two
municipalities to attempt mediated negotiations for the outstanding issues. It is
expected that mediation will occur in January 2013.
Outstanding issues include some matters relating to proposals for the transition
of annexed landowners from the jurisdiction of the County to the City. As a result,
City Council is unable to finalise the proposed terms of annexation for landowners
until mediation has been completed.
Once City Council has decided the final terms of annexation proposed, to assist
landowners’ transition from the County to the City’s jurisdiction, the City will mail
out an information package to every landowner in the short-term annexation
area. The City will also schedule additional open house sessions and will be
available to answer phone or email enquiries and offer one-to-one meetings to
answer any questions.
It is anticipated that the landowner package may be mailed and open house
sessions held in February 2013, with the City intending to file its annexation
application to the Municipal Government Board (MGB) by March 2013. Further
Page |1
Development Services
City Service Centre
P.O. Bag 4000
9505 – 112 Street
Grande Prairie, AB T8V 6H8
PH: (780) 538-0421
FAX: (780)538-0746
information regarding the annexation process can be found at www.cityofgp.com
QUICK PAGES >Annexation.
If you have any further questions at the present time, please contact Stuart
Wraight, Planner, at (780) 830-7428 or email [email protected].
Sincerely,
THE CITY OF GRANDE PRAIRIE
Stuart Wraight RPP, MCIP
Planner II
780 830-7428 | [email protected]
Page |2
City of Grande Prairie, Alberta : Annexation
Page 1 of 6
City of Grande Prairie Annexation Information
Annexation Update
Land Use Planning
March 2014
March 14, 2014 County Submission to the Municipal Government Board
February 2014
Annexation Process Resumes In Fall
Annexation documents presented by the City to the County of Grande Prairie continue to be available for viewing by the public at two City facilities
until October as a result of the merit hearing being postponed until the fall.
The County of Grande Prairie was successful last Monday in receiving a one month extension of time to file its position on the City’s Annexation
Application, which has also resulted in the full merit hearing now being delayed until late October 2014.
The Municipal Government Board had originally scheduled the hearing had been scheduled for May.
The City filed its Annexation Application to the Municipal Government Board in July 2013 and provided additional final study document updates in
November 2013.
Locations For Viewing
Copies of the City’s Annexation Application are available for viewing by affected landowners and the public between 8.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m.,
Monday to Friday at City Hall and the City Service Centre.
Next Steps
As a result of the time extension, The County of Grande Prairie is now required to submit its response documents and legal argument to the City in
March. Thereafter, landowners and the general public are offered the opportunity to provide written submissions to the Municipal Government
Board or register their intent to make oral presentations at the merit hearing by June.
The City also has until June to register a rebuttal to the County’s submission.
The City had requested that if the annexation is supported, it becomes effective January 1, 2015.
Assisting Growth Opportunities
Annexation of 6,300 hectares of land west and northwest, northeast and several quarter sections surrounding the City would accommodate future
growth objectives. The City and County of Grande Prairie agreed on the lands to be annexed through adoption of the Intermunicipal Development
Plan (IDP) in June 2010.
“While we share and appreciate the board’s concern for ensuring that all parties are treated fairly, the City also believes that the IDP development
process, annexation negotiations, and MGB hearings have provided ample opportunity for discovery, disclosure and public participation,” says
Mayor Bill Given.
“After nearly seven years in this process we look forward to being able to finally get to the merit hearing, as each year that passes represents
detrimental lost opportunities for the City.”
http://www.cityofgp.com/index.aspx?page=968
6/6/2014
City of Grande Prairie, Alberta : Annexation
Page 2 of 6
For further information, please contact:
Stuart Wraight
Planner II
Tel: 780-830-7428
Email: [email protected]
January 2014
Fiscal Impact Analysis
2008 Growth Study Update 2012 - 2061 Land Demand
Population and Employment Forecast 2012 - 2061
November 29, 2013
In accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Government Board Notice of Decision No. DL 036/13, on November 29th, 2013, the City of
Grande Prairie submitted to the County of Grande Prairie No. 1 the documents as listed in Decision No. DL 036/13, including:
1. City of Grande Prairie 2008 Growth Study Update 2012-2061 Land Demand
2. City of Grande Prairie Fiscal Impact Analysis of Proposed Annexation 2013
3. City of Grande Prairie Population and Employment Forecasts Final Report 2012-2061
A copy of these documents are available for viewing by affected landowners and the public between the hours of 8.30am-4.30pm, Monday to Friday
at the following City locations:
City Hall
City Service Centre
Second Floor
First Floor
10205-98 Street
9505-112 Street
Grande Prairie, AB
Grande Prairie, AB
For further information, please contact:
Stuart Wraight
Planner II
Tel: 780-830-7428
Email: [email protected]
October 2013
On September 20, 2013, the Municipal Government Board held a preliminary hearing at the Pomeroy Hotel and Conference Centre. It was decided
by the MGB that the annexation merit hearing will commence at 9.00 AM on Monday, May 26, 2014 and extend, if necessary, to Friday, June 6,
2014. No hearing is currently scheduled for Saturday, May 31 to Monday, June 2, 2014.
The MGB Panel assigned to the annexation merit hearing will consider requests on Monday, May 26 to extend the hearing into the evening on
specified days to accommodate presentations by affected landowners and the public.
For further information regarding the annexation merit hearing process, including submission requirements, please contact:
Rick Duncan
Case Manager
Municipal Government Board
15th Floor, Commerce Place
http://www.cityofgp.com/index.aspx?page=968
6/6/2014
City of Grande Prairie, Alberta : Annexation
Page 3 of 6
10155-102 Street
Edmonton, Alberta,
T5J 4L4
Phone: (780) 427-4864
Fax: (780) 427-0986
Email: [email protected]
If you require information regarding the City of Grande Prairie’s annexation application, please contact:
Stuart Wraight, RPP, MCIP
Planner II
City of Grande Prairie
City Service Centre
9505-112 Street
Grande Prairie, AB T8V 6V3
Phone: (780) 830-7428
Fax: (780) 538-0746
Email: [email protected]
August 2013
Date Set for Preliminary Annexation Hearing
The Municipal Government Board (MGB) has scheduled a preliminary annexation hearing for Friday September 20, 2013. The hearing will start at
10.00 AM and will be held in the Salon Ball Room at the Pomeroy Hotel and Conference Centre, 11633-100th Street, Grande Prairie, AB.
The purpose of this preliminary hearing is to identify persons wishing to make submissions about the City’s proposed annexation, determine the
issues to be raised, establish a document timeline and set a date for the start of the merit hearing.
The merits of the City’s proposed annexation will not be argued at the preliminary hearing.
For further information regarding the preliminary hearing process, including submission requirements, please contact:
Rick Duncan
Case Manager
Municipal Government Board
15th Floor, Commerce Place
10155-102 Street
Edmonton, Alberta,
T5J 4L4
Phone: (780) 427-4864
Fax: (780) 427-0986
Email: [email protected]
If you require information regarding the City of Grande Prairie’s annexation application, please contact:
Stuart Wraight, RPP, MCIP
Planner II
City of Grande Prairie
City Service Centre
9505-112 Street
Grande Prairie, AB T8V 6V3
Phone: (780) 830-7428
http://www.cityofgp.com/index.aspx?page=968
6/6/2014
City of Grande Prairie, Alberta : Annexation
Page 4 of 6
Fax: (780) 538-0746
Email: [email protected]
Annexation Application Filed July 23, 2013
The City has been preparing an Application for annexation of lands currently within the County of Grande Prairie No. 1, in order to allow the City
sufficient lands to accommodate future growth. The lands identified for annexation are shown on the map IDP Map 4 Short Term Annexation Area.
The City completed its Application, which was filed with the Municipal Government Board on July 23, 2013. Letters have been sent to all
landowners and stakeholders in the Short Term Annexation area. Please note that we gather addressing information from the address
listed on your land title certificate. If your address has changed with the implementation of the new Canada Post addressing
system, please contact us at the City so that we may update our records.
A copy of the Application is available below for viewing or downloading. A paper copy is available for viewing between 8:30 am and 4:30 pm,
Monday to Friday, at City Hall and the City Service Centre.
If you require further information on annexation , please contact Stuart Wraight at 780 830 7428 or [email protected].
Annexation Application Final Report
Binder 1
Appendix 1 Council Resolution to Begin Annexation Process
Appendix 2 Notice of Intent to Annex Lands sent to Municipal Government Board
Appendix 3 Notice of Acknowledgement from Municipal Government Board
Appendix 4 Municipal Government Board Bulletins
Appendix 5 Report on Negotiations and Public Consultations
Appendix 6 County Acknowledgement of Report on Negotiations
Appendix 7 Detailed Land Use Planning Concept
Appendix 8 List of Agencies Notified and Responses Received
Appendix 9 Documents Relating to City’s Public Consultation Process
Appendix 10 Land Owner Responses to Public Consultation Process
Appendix 11 City Reports and Actions in Response to Land Owner Concerns
Appendix 12 Documents Relating to Negotiations
Appendix 13 Documents Relating to Mediation
Binder 2
Appendix 14 Intermunicipal Development Plan (City Bylaw C-1248; County Bylaw 2896)
Appendix 15 City of Grande Prairie Municipal Development Plan (Bylaw C-1237)
Appendix 16 County of Grande Prairie Municipal Development Plan (Bylaw 2680)
Appendix 17 Mountview Industrial ASP (Bylaw 2462)
Appendix 18 West Mountview Industrial ASP (Bylaw 2920)
http://www.cityofgp.com/index.aspx?page=968
6/6/2014
City of Grande Prairie, Alberta : Annexation
Page 5 of 6
Appendix 19 City of Grande Prairie Land Use Bylaw (C-1100) – Relevant Sections
Appendix 20 County of Grande Prairie No. 1 Land Use Bylaw (2680) – Relevant Sections
Binder 3
Appendix 21 City of Grande Prairie 2008 Growth Study
Appendix 22 City of Grande Prairie 2008 Population and Employment Forecast 2007-2057
Appendix 23 Mapping of Environmental Reserve (ER) and Science Based Setbacks for ER
Appendix 24 Annexation Area Infrastructure Planning Study
Appendix 25 City of Grande Prairie Fiscal Impact Analysis
Appendix 26 Parcels by Number
Appendix 27 Land Owner Addresses
Appendix 28 Land Owner Legal Description
Appendix 29 Land Owner Certificates of Title
May 2013
The City of Grande Prairie is finalising its annexation application for submission to the Province of Alberta Municipal Government Board to annex
lands from The County of Grande Prairie No. 1.
The annexation application will comprise a request to annex approximately 6,300 hectares from The County of Grande Prairie No. 1 in accordance
with the provisions of the City of Grande Prairie & County of Grande Prairie No. 1 Intermunicipal Development Plan.
The City and The County engaged in negotiations between August and December 2012, to negotiate the specific terms of the annexation, including
landowner provisions and compensation to the County. The parties could not agree on all issues negotiated and therefore jointly agreed to attempt
mediation, as required by the Municipal Government Act.
Mediated discussions were held in February and March 2013, with the support and assistance of provincially recommended mediators. In order to
move the process forward in a timely manner, the City has decided to file its application to the Municipal Government Board for consideration of the
City’s request including landowner transition provisions and compensation to the County.
The City mailed an update to all landowners within the annexation area on May 7, 2013, which included details of the City’s proposals to assist
annexed landowners transition to the City’s jurisdiction. Drop-in open houses were held Monday May 27 and Tuesday May 28, 2013 to allow
affected landowners and residents of both the City and the County the opportunity to meet with City Administration to discuss the specific terms of
the City’s application.
The City intends to file its application to the Municipal Government Board by no later than June 30, 2013. After filing, a copy of the application will
be available on this website and a hard copy available to view in person at City Hall and the City Service Centre.
Once the application has been accepted by the Municipal Government Board, the Board will undertake its own public consultation process and
schedule a public hearing to be held in the City of Grande Prairie.
Please check back for updates regarding the annexation process and if you have any specific questions, please contact Stuart Wraight, Planner II in
the City’s Planning Department.
Stuart Wraight, Planner II
Development Services, City Service Centre
9505 - 112 Street
Grande Prairie, AB T8V 6V3
http://www.cityofgp.com/index.aspx?page=968
6/6/2014
City of Grande Prairie, Alberta : Annexation
Page 6 of 6
TEL: (780) 830-7428
FAX:(780) 357-7512
EMAIL: [email protected]
Previous correspondence regarding the annexation process may be viewed here.
• Media releases: May 14, 2013, May 2, 2013
• Annexation FAQ's by annexation area landowners
• Annexation FAQ's by City residents
• Annexation and the Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP)
• Annexation Notifications and Correspondence 2010 - 2013
• Additional Information and Links Related to Annexation
http://www.cityofgp.com/index.aspx?page=968
6/6/2014
Development Services
P.O. Bag 4000, 9505 - 112 Street
Grande Prairie, AB T8V 6V3
Phone: (780) 538-0421 Fax: (780) 357-7512
May 7, 2013
Dear Sir or Madam,
RE: City of Grande Prairie Annexation Update
The purpose of this letter is to update landowners regarding the City of Grande Prairie’s annexation
application preparations and proposals to assist landowners transition from County to City jurisdiction.
The City and County of Grande Prairie No. 1 engaged in negotiations from August 2012 to December
2012 to attempt to negotiate specific terms of the annexation including landowner provisions and
compensation to the County. Unfortunately both parties could not agree on all matters discussed and
therefore agreed to engage in mediated discussions using provincially recommended mediators.
Mediation took place in February and March 2013.
Although negotiations and mediation resulted in some very positive discussions, the City has been
unable to meet all of the County’s requests regarding amounts of compensation to be paid to the
County associated with the annexation.
The City of Grande Prairie has therefore decided to proceed and file its annexation application to the
Municipal Government Board.
Landowner Transition Provisions
The City has focused on landowner transition provisions as its priority, whilst being mindful of previous
Municipal Government Board recommendations on such issues. The City can provide the following
updated information to landowners:
1. Taxation Phase-In Formula
a. Previous City Proposals
The City had originally proposed a 15 year taxation phase-in for all existing properties within the
short-term annexation area. The intent was to maintain County tax rates for a period of five years
following annexation and thereafter increasing 10% each year from year six to fifteen to reach the
City tax rate in year fifteen.
Page 1
As a result of the landowner feedback the City acknowledged that the issue of taxation was the
primary matter of concern for landowners, including potential loss of farmland exemptions. In 2011,
the City revised its formula to retain County tax rates for existing uses for 25 years for farm property
and 15 years for all other uses. The City also proposed to honour any provincial farm property
exemptions for a period of 25 years.
b. City’s Final Position on Landowner Taxation Transition for Non-Farm Property
As a result of the recent negotiations, the City of Grande Prairie is now proposing an additional five
year transition to its previous proposal in order to help landowners transition from County to City
tax rates:
For a period of 15 years following the effective date of annexation, lands and buildings in existence
at the date of annexation will be taxed each year using the lower of the municipal tax rate
established by either the County of Grande Prairie or the City of Grande Prairie. At the end of the 15
year period, the City is now proposing an additional five year transition from County to City tax
rates, increasing 20% each year until reaching 100% City tax rates in year 20. New subdivisions or
rezoning by or on behalf of the landowner, or properties subject to a local improvement bylaw for
new water or sewer connections would trigger City mill rates.
c. City’s Final Position on Landowner Taxation Transition for Farm Property
The City also recognises that farm property within the County benefit from certain exemptions
under the Provincial “Matters Relating to Assessment and Taxation Regulation”.
The City acknowledges that the short-term annexation area includes farming operations, including
associated residences and farm buildings. Since the City’s proposed annexation is to secure lands for
future growth over a 30 year time horizon, it is also acknowledged that annexed lands may not be
subject to urban growth for a number of years. The City is proposing that farm property would be
taxed each year using the lower of the municipal tax rate established by the County of Grande
Prairie or the City of Grande Prairie for a period of 25 years. At the end of the 25 year tax protection
period, the City is now proposing an additional five year transition period from County to City tax
rates, increasing 20% each year until reaching 100% City rates in year 30. New subdivisions or
rezoning by or on behalf of the landowner, or properties subject to a local improvement bylaw for
new water or sewer connections would trigger City mill rates.
Furthermore, it is proposed that any farmland exemptions currently received by landowners would
be permitted to continue for a period of 30 years within the City, unless the exemptions become
inapplicable through Provincial legislation.
The City is also proposing to permit the subdivision of one parcel from an unsubdivided quarter
section used as farm property without the new parcel triggering City tax rates. The primary intent of
this is to allow owners the opportunity to subdivide an existing farmstead and remain at County tax
rates should they desire to sell off their farm business. City Council further extended this
arrangement to allow a new residence to be constructed on the remainder of the quarter section
without triggering City tax rates and one vacant parcel to be subdivided out of a quarter section.
Page 2
PLEASE NOTE: Notwithstanding the proposed taxation formulas and exemptions detailed above, this
constitutes the City of Grande Prairie’s proposal to address these particular issues. The Provincial
Municipal Government Board will determine whether these proposals are reasonable and justified
and have the authority to revise these proposals, if deemed necessary.
2. Zoning/Development Opportunities, Service Levels and Lifestyle Issues
The City of Grande Prairie has undertaken a review of matters in the proposed annexation area relating
to development regulations and opportunities including services such as snow clearing, policing, fire
protection, lifestyle issues such as hunting and riding horses on public roads etc. This review has
included consultation with County of Grande Prairie administration to determine issues that may arise
for landowners transitioning from the jurisdiction of the County to the City of Grande Prairie.
Council for the City of Grande Prairie has committed to maintain, to the extent possible, comparable
standards to what landowners within the annexation area currently receive.
Page 3
With respect to development opportunities, the City will inherit the County’s applicable Land Use Bylaw
provisions for annexed properties at the time of annexation. Any future changes to land use zoning
would not affect the right for existing properties and land uses to remain until redevelopment occurs.
In particular, through negotiations The County of Grande Prairie identified some specific matters where
landowners could be impacted because of different arrangements between the municipalities:
a. Solid Waste Disposal
The City is aware that some landowners within the annexation area use the Clairmont Waste
Management Facility with no fee to dispose of garbage. Residents are required to pay to use the
Aquatera Waste Management Facility. The City is therefore proposing to compensate annexed
landowners for a period of five years if they choose to continue disposing at the Clairmont facility.
The compensation will be based on actual costs and will be available for the five years after
annexation becomes effective.
b. Business Licenses
The City regulates certain businesses through its Business License Bylaw and requires an annual fee
for certain businesses to operate within the City. The City recognises that some landowners in the
annexation area are operating businesses which would require a business license fee. In order to
assist transition of these businesses into the City’s jurisdiction, the City is proposing to waive
business license fees for existing businesses in the annexation area for a period of five years
following the effective date of the annexation.
The City will also be hosting drop-in open house sessions to allow landowners further opportunity to
meet with City administration and City Councillors who will answer any questions regarding the City’s
annexation application. Representatives from various City departments will be in attendance at the
open house sessions to assist with landowner enquiries.
Two open houses will be held, with the same information available at each open house:
Annexation Drop-In Open Houses
Monday, May 27, 2013
4.30pm-8.00pm
Muskoseepi Park Pavilion
102 Avenue & 102 Street
Grande Prairie
and
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
4.30pm-8.00pm
Muskoseepi Park Pavilion
102 Avenue & 102 Street
Grande Prairie
City administration is also available to assist with telephone or email enquiries, or to meet with
landowners in-person, if desired to discuss its annexation proposals.
Page 4
3. Filing of Annexation Application to the Municipal Government Board
The City is intending to file its application with the Provincial Municipal Government Board by no later
than June 30th, 2013. Once the application has been filed a copy will be available to view on the City of
Grande Prairie website. Copies will also be available to view in person at City Hall and the City Service
Centre. The City will notify all landowners in writing once the application has been filed to confirm that it
is available for public viewing.
Once the application has been accepted by the Municipal Government Board, the Board will undertake
its own public consultation process with landowners and schedule a date for a public hearing to take
place in the City in order that landowners may have the opportunity to speak directly to the Board, if
they so desire.
If the City’s annexation application is successful, the City would likely be requesting January 1, 2015 as
the date when the annexation becomes effective.
If you require any further information, or if you would like to provide us with your updated rural address
(Canada Post Initiated) please contact Stuart Wraight, Planner II at the City of Grande Prairie, by phone
at 780-830-7428, or by email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
THE CITY OF GRANDE PRAIRIE
Stuart Wraight, RPP, MCIP
Planner II
Page 5
City of Grande Prairie, Alberta : Latest News : Open Houses Set For Annexation
Page 1 of 1
Latest News
Open Houses Set For Annexation
Posted Date:
5/14/2013
City Council Monday approved two open houses for County of Grande Prairie residents to meet with Councillors and Administration regarding the
City’s annexation application.
These final information sessions are set for May 27 and 28 at the Muskoseepi Park Pavilion from 4:30 p.m. to 8 p.m.
“These open houses and the mediated sessions that preceded them are part of the application process to the Municipal Government Board (MGB),”
says Senior Planner Stuart Wraight.
“Landowners have been sent letters notifying them of the open houses and we will also be available in person, by phone and email to discuss details
of the annexation and how it affects them.”
The City has focused on landowner transition provisions as its priority while keeping in mind relevant previous MGB decisions. An application will
proceed by June 30.
The Board will review the submission and then schedule a public hearing in Grande Prairie to consider the City’s request and to obtain information
from residents and landowners who wish to make presentations.
If successful, the City would request that annexation become effective on Jan. 1, 2015.
The letter to residents provided a comprehensive update to landowners (see backgrounder for details):
• Taxation Phase-in Formulas – City’s Final Positions on Landowner Taxation Transition from County to City rates
• Zoning /Development Opportunities
• Service Levels
• Lifestyle Issues, including solid waste and business licenses
“The City is pleased the process allows for this final opportunity to for us to meet directly with landowners and inform them of how their input over
the previous four open houses has influenced the City’s final position,” says Mayor Bill Given. “We look forward to responding to any further
questions that arise.”
City and County administrations began discussing annexation terms in November 2011. Council to council negotiations began in August of 2012 and
had several meetings through to December prior to mediation this spring.
“Annexation is a key issue to address continued growth and viability of the City,” says Mayor Given. “In order to diversify our tax base, raw land is
needed to accommodate opportunities for new industrial and commercial development.”
Prior to negotiations with the County, landowners within the proposed annexation area received information packages from the City dealing with
items such as proposed taxation and service levels, lifestyle and leisure issues as well as planning and development opportunities.
The City’s Planning Department held open houses and provided consultation opportunities for land owners.
Annexation would give the City about 6,300 hectares in the west and northwest, northeast and several quarter sections surrounding the City.
The City and County of Grande Prairie agreed on the lands to be annexed through adoption of the Intermunicipal Development Plan in June 2010.
Compensation Chart
More News »
http://www.cityofgp.com/index.aspx?page=33&recordid=2016
6/6/2014
City of Grande Prairie, Alberta : Latest News : City Proceeds To Apply For Annexation
Page 1 of 1
Latest News
City Proceeds To Apply For Annexation
Posted Date:
5/2/2013
The City and County of Grande Prairie have completed mediated annexation discussions.
Before the City submits its application to the Municipal Government Board by the end of June, it will hold two open houses to ensure affected
landowners and City residents are aware of the process and next steps.
“We were pleased with the mediated discussions held with the County,” says Mayor Bill Given. “Although the dialogue was positive and we gained a
better understanding of each other’s points of view, we were not able to reach agreement on some final issues.
“The City is committed to ensuring citizens of both municipalities are well informed and that we move towards a point where affected landowners
can have some certainty.”
The mediation discussions and final information sessions with the public are part of the annexation application process. Open houses are planned
for May 27 and 28. Details on locations and times will be released as soon as they become available.
The City and County began negotiations last August and had several meetings through to December prior to mediation this spring.
“Annexation is a key issue to address continued growth and viability of the City,” says Mayor Given. “In order to diversify our tax base, raw land is
needed to accommodate opportunities for new industrial and commercial development.”
The Municipal Government Board will review the submission and then schedule a public hearing in Grande Prairie to consider the City’s request and
to obtain information from residents and landowners who wish to make presentations.
Prior to negotiations with the County, landowners within the proposed annexation area received information packages from the City dealing with
items such as proposed taxation and service levels, lifestyle and leisure issues as well as planning and development opportunities.
The City’s Planning Department held open houses and provided consultation opportunities for land owners.
Annexation would give the City about 6,300 hectares in the west and northwest, northeast and several quarter sections surrounding the City.
The City and County of Grande Prairie agreed on the lands to be annexed through adoption of the Intermunicipal Development Plan in June 2010.
More News »
http://www.cityofgp.com/index.aspx?page=33&recordid=1992
6/6/2014
Response to Landowner and Interested Persons
1.
Landowner Concern
City is aggressive in growth
estimates
All growth need not occur
in City boundaries
Response
Although the landowners have expressed the concern that
the City’s growth estimates are very high, the work done by
Applications Management (Population and Labour forecasts
and land demand) are in keeping with accepted practices and
methods.
The City has not asserted that all regional growth will occur
in City boundaries.
The annexation area is not based solely on growth estimates,
but on establishing a larger more equitable and sustainable
municipal boundary. The growth estimates provide a
baseline for planning and visioning and negotiating with the
County and the Province.
The County through the IDP agreement recognized that
there is no expectation that the entire area be immediately
filled up or absorbed even in thirty years, only that the City
should be entitled to a sufficiently large and strategic land
base to accommodate a range of development.
The area recently proposed by the County does not conform
to the Intermunicipal Plan agreement, and does not achieve
the Province’s intention to enable the City and County to
grown and govern autonomously.
In 2008, City commissioned the Growth Study that
incorporated a combination of approaches to sustainable
development. While the Study applied the traditional
economic and demographic models with the standard high
and low growth, based on assumptions about land
absorption, the Growth Study took a broader approach
which emphasizes the need for equity among municipal
governments and citizens.
The resulting IDP embraced by the County and City shows a
future City boundary which more closely reflects the
opportunity to plan and grow with the same freedom and
autonomy as the County.
1
2.
Landowner Concern
Annexation is a “tax grab”
Response
The City’s annexation is not a “tax grab”.
A principle of the IDP negotiations in 2008-2009 was that the
City would seek to annex vacant undeveloped and
unimproved land of relatively very low tax revenue. The
County made this a fundamental condition of support for
annexation, and identified the area to the Northeast and
Northwest for immediate short-term annexation.
The City agreed not to apply to annex any portion of
Clairmont which represents a substantial portion of the
County`s Industrial tax base (an otherwise logical progression
or rationalization of the urban settlement pattern).
3.
Concerns regarding the
annexation of farmland
The City supports farmers and the right to farm and the
agriculture industry generally within an expanded City, and
accepts that the Board and the Province may deem it
appropriate to extend tax protection for farmers, beyond the
25 years (plus the 5 year transition period) committed to by
the City, in the event of annexation.
The City has committed to respect farmers’ ability to retire
“on the farm” and subdivide homesteads parcels from unsubdivided quarter-sections, to enable sons and daughters to
build a home and take over and continue the farming
operation.
The City, like the County and the Province, recognizes the
importance of protecting the agricultural land base for future
generations, and that enabling the conversion of some
farmland for economic development through a planned
process, curbs conflict with non-agricultural uses, and
reduces fragmentation and premature loss of agricultural
land.
4.
Swan Habitat setbacks
Objects to trumpeter swan
setbacks of 500 or 800
meters
No communication about
the matter
The City has never proposed –either verbally or in writing–
adopting a 500 to 800 metre development setback from
wetlands generally nor Trumpeter Swan Habitat.
The City included material from the Province of Alberta ESRD
in its annexation application, to demonstrate regard for MGB
Principle 7. “ ..demonstrate sensitivity and respect for key
environmental and natural features will be regarded as
2
Landowner Concern
Swan Habitat setbacks
(cont’)
Response
meeting provincial land use policies.”
The City does have regard for environmentally sensitive lands
through its planning and development approval process in
the Municipal Development Plan- also included in the
application for annexation.
The City’s standard minimum ER setback from watercourses
and wetlands, steep slopes, floodplains) is 15 metres (see
Section 11 The Natural Environment).
Section 11 includes a special enhanced 30 metre setback for
a short segment of the Crystal Lake shoreline, due to a
trumpeter swan breeding site.
5.
Land on/outside boarder
of the proposed
annexation
Not affected by annexation
6.
Told Range Road 70 was
on the list to be paved.
Council of the day cannot bind a future Council to spending
commitments. The City prioritizes Capital spending through
its four year budgeting process. The City monitors traffic
levels and will update its Master Plan following annexation.
City does not pave County
Roads.
Some County roads will likely be identified and remain low
volume/low traffic and remain gravel roads, consistent with
rural lifestyles.
7.
Services
City cannot provide
existing services received
by County residents
8.
Lifestyle issues
The City has committed to maintain municipal service levels
equivalent to the County. As in the City today, services such
as Public Transit follow development. Grande Prairie Public,
Francophone and Catholic schools boards will extend school
busing within the boundaries of the City.
The City has reviewed the County of Grande Prairie’s Bylaws
and policies in effect for the annexation area.
Throughout its public consultations and negotiations with
the County, the City confirmed that it will ensure that
landowners can maintain and enjoy existing rural lifestyles
permitted through existing County bylaws, unless
urbanization occurs that may conflict with some lifestyle
3
Landowner Concern
Response
opportunities (i.e. use of firearms). The City’s Bylaw
Enforcement Manager also attended public open house
sessions to assist landowners with lifestyle enquiries.
As with the City’s position on zoning and development
opportunities, it is the City’s intent to maintain existing
lifestyle opportunities by amending its current comparable
City bylaws to incorporate the County bylaw provisions
specifically for the rural annexation area.
9.
Development Rights
The City has committed to protect uses (existing prior to
annexation) by specifically identifying them in the City Land
Use Bylaw.
The City has confirmed that the intent of annexation is to
secure predominantly undeveloped lands for the purpose of
future urban growth. The City has reservations about
retaining County land use districts indefinitely since the
intent is to encourage new urban growth rather than
maintain current land uses.
However, in order to address existing land uses and
development at the time of annexation the City’s application
(Binder 1-2, Page 28) confirms that land use districts will be
established in its Land Use Bylaw to ensure that the existing
uses on all annexed properties would be legally conforming
in the City’s Land Use Bylaw post-annexation.
4