St. Albert city council continues to consider what the city’s corporate land strategy will look like.
At the Nov. 14 standing committee of the whole meeting, Build St. Albert director Monique St. Louis explained while council first accepted a corporate land strategy in 2014, and work has been ongoing since then, council feedback “strongly suggested” the need for a formal policy.
“We’re fast-tracking this and moving it forward,” she said. “We know there’s a lot of land discussions going on and a lot of critical need.”
The draft framework presented to council, developed in coordination with an internal committee and outside consultants, contains four main pillars.
First, the city would acquire lands for internal or community-service purposes through dedicated municipal reserves in new developments and through negotiated purchases.
The city would not provide land for schools except for through the municipal reserve process or existing stock, and if the city provided land for non-profit partners or affordable housing, the value of that land would be considered part of the city’s capital contribution to that project.
Coun. Tim Osborne expressed concern about school land, noting in some cases municipal reserves in development may not be big enough to accommodate, for example, a high school.
“I’d like the province to buy that land, please,” he said.
The second principle is that the city will only develop land for its own purposes, but may “act strategically” to influence development where it is able – for example, by consulting with private developers in creating area structure plans (ASPs) for new development areas.
Coun. Bob Russell said he would not like the city to be involved in area structure plans, even as a partner, saying developers should bear full responsibility if they want to move forward with a project.
Interim city manager Chris Jardine explained this provision does not necessarily mean the city would do specific work, but suggested Project 9 as an example of the kind of indirect improvement being considered.
“The fact we own a bunch of land doesn’t necessarily mean we’re going to do the ASP, subdivision, plow in roads and underground services,” he said. “We would likely not do that under this provision.”
The third principle is that the city would only repurpose its land only if a “more appropriate, higher value use is apparent.”
Several councillors expressed concern at this principle suggesting it could ultimately mean, for example, rezoning a park and building on it – something residents might be strongly opposed to.
Coun. Cam MacKay said he wouldn’t be opposed to seeing something zoned a certain way repurposed under the same zoning, but wouldn’t necessarily support rezoning city land to repurpose it.
“If you take a park and turn it into an apartment, I think that would be very difficult (to support),” he said.
Lastly, the fourth principle is that the city would finance land purchases needed when capital projects are approved, creating a land-reserve fund to help acquire the land and acquiring the right land as capital projects are approved.
This will mean that in the future, council would consider the value of the land itself as part of the capital plan, whereas currently it’s treated separately.
Coun. Sheena Hughes suggested this might ultimately tie council’s hands by tying up funds in land for projects that may not ultimately go ahead during budget time.
“I think the city should be encouraging itself to use the land it already has, or repurposing land as surplus,” she said.
Council will provide further feedback to administration by the end of the month, with the first draft of the policy coming to council in January 2017.
