St. Albert city council has rejected a motion that would have halted all work on a joint servicing study with neighbouring Sturgeon County.
Coun. Bob Russell brought forward the motion, arguing continuing work on possible joint servicing in areas near the shared borders shouldn’t take place until there’s a clear mid- and long-term plan for growth in the two communities.
“I say it is time to put the brakes on this process while St. Albert reviews its position with respect to future boundary adjustments so we can give some direction and control over future development, especially in the proposed growth areas in Sturgeon County adjoining St. Albert,” he said.
The motion was defeated 4-3. Councillors Cam MacKay and Sheena Hughes joined Russell in the minority.
Several councillors expressed confusion about the motion before debate even began, as an administrative backgrounder indicating no work has been done on the study since it was completed and presented to the inter-municipal affairs committee in October 2015.
“What work do you see the staff working on you would like to halt?” Coun. Cathy Heron asked. “What are we looking at changing?”
Russell explained he saw a recommendation that both county and city staff would be involved in a committee and continue to plan for the next stage.
“The next steps are going to be costly,” he said. “We ought to know where we’re going before we take that next step about discussing a huge infrastructure program that quotes a plan for 80 years and cost millions.”
Chief community development officer Gilles Prefontaine said the cost of the joint servicing study was initially about $120,000. A consultant was hired to look at both municipalities’ plans with respect to servicing, and looking at ideal connection points, which will depend ultimately on where growth occurs.
The study is related to, but not the same as a joint growth boundary study the two municipalities are working on. The city works with the county on several initiatives of mutual interest, including joint servicing and boundary growth, through the inter-municipal affairs committee.
Councillors in favour of the motion argued that despite all the consultation and joint work with Sturgeon County, little had actually been accomplished with respect to an agreement on boundary growth.
“I’ve kept a little book of all those meetings, but I didn’t see much accomplished,” Russell said. “There’s been no discussion about adding even one square foot to St. Albert.”
MacKay said the reason nothing had been accomplished was because “we’ve built the relationship and surrounded ourselves with flowery language,” rather than getting things done.
Mayor Nolan Crouse took exception to that description, arguing the motion amounted to “good old-fashioned fighting words” that would do much harm and little, if any, good.
“I’m absolutely going to be voting no on this one. Halting further work is provocative. Comments about what we’ve done is all flowery is unacceptable,” he said.
Coun. Wes Brodhead noted he feels the relationship between the two municipalities has improved dramatically since he was first elected six years ago, and doesn’t want to jeopardize that in any way.
“The last thing I want to have happen is a deterioration of any working relationship between Sturgeon County and St. Albert,” he said.
Coun. Tim Osborne said he felt some of the concerns Russell raised were valid, but didn’t think calling a sudden halt to discussions was the way to make progress.
After his motion was defeated, Russell gave notice he would bring two further motions to council: one would have council meet with senior staff to discuss growth prior to any further meetings with the county, and the second would have the city engage in preliminary discussions with the county about a partnership to deal with joint planning and servicing initiatives and future boundary adjustments.
Those motions will be debated this fall.
