File #: BL-20-047    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Bylaw Status: Passed
File created: 10/6/2020 In control: City Council
On agenda: 11/16/2020 Final action:
Title: Bylaw 37/2020 - Repeal of Sturgeon County IDP Presented by: Suzanne Bennett, Planner, Planning & Development
Attachments: 1. Bylaw 37/2020 Repeal Surgeon IDP, 2. Response - Sturgeon County - IDP Repeal - Feb12 2020

TAMRMS#:  B06

 

title

Bylaw 37/2020 - Repeal of Sturgeon County IDP 

Presented by: Suzanne Bennett, Planner, Planning & Development

 

label

RECOMMENDED MOTIONS

recommendation

 

1.  That Bylaw 37/2020, being a bylaw to repeal Bylaw 7/2001 that adopted an Intermunicipal Development Plan between the City of St. Albert and Sturgeon County, be read a first time

 

2.  That a Public Hearing on Bylaw 37/2020 be scheduled at 2:00 p.m on December 7, 2020.

 

body

PURPOSE OF REPORT

 

To recommend repeal of the Intermunicipal Development Plan between the City of St. Albert and Sturgeon County.

 

ALIGNMENT TO PRIORITIES IN COUNCIL’S STRATEGIC PLAN

 

City of St. Albert Council Strategic Plan 2018-2021

Strategic Priority #1: Growth Policy Framework: Develop a robust policy framework to guide growth.

 

Revise the Municipal Development Plan framework to provide

direction to growth needs, annexation positioning, and our role in

regional government.

 

Strategic Priority #2: Economic Development: Enhance business/commercial

growth

 

St. Albert will work towards an innovative, investment-positive environment that

will support and encourage the development of new, existing, and emerging

sectors.

 

Corporate Business Plan

                     Administrative Activity

1.1                     Complete Revision of the Municipal Development Plan (MDP).

1.2                     City of St. Albert Annexation of Sturgeon County Land.

2.2                     Develop and recommend Green Tape 2.0 initiatives to enable increased growth, investment, and commerce in St. Albert focusing on a strong collaborative model with the development industry.

 

 

ALIGNMENT TO LEVELS OF SERVICE DELIVERY

 

Not Applicable

 

 

ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL DIRECTION OR MANDATORY STATUTORY PROVISION

 

Not Applicable

 

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

 

In 2001 the City of St. Albert and Sturgeon County entered into an Intermunicipal Development Plan ("IDP").  The purpose of an IDP is to guide future growth and the associated growth needs along a shared municipal boundary.   In the hierarchy of municipally enacted statutory plans set out in the Municipal Government Act ("MGA") an IDP is at the top, ranking higher than a Municipal Development Plan ("MDP").

 

When the Capital Region Board (CRB) was created in April of 2008, both St Albert and Sturgeon County were members.  In 2010, Sturgeon County chose to repeal its bylaw adopting the IDP, as per the provisions of the MGA.  At that time the City of St. Albert did not wish to repeal, as the City utilizes the IDP as a guiding document for development even though it is no longer recognized by Sturgeon County.

 

In 2017, the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board (EMRB) replaced the CRB.  As both St. Albert and Sturgeon County are members of the EMRB, both must comply with the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan (EMRGP) that guides development across municipal borders.  The EMRGP takes precedence over any IDPs between two EMRB members.

 

With the adoption of the EMRGP all municipalities must update their MDPs to ensure they are consistent with the IDP. Since the City of St. Albert is in the process of re-writing its MDP, and the IDP is nearing 20 years in age, this is an opportune time for the City of St. Albert to repeal its acceptance of the IDP.  Repealing this IDP would not preclude the two municipalities from adopting a future IDP, which could better address current/future issues.

 

Within the IDP, section 4.3.4 states that to repeal the IDP, in addition to procedural requirements of the MGA, the following must occur:

 

a)  one Municipality will give the other Municipality notice in writing of the intention to repeal its bylaw adopting the IDP;

 

b)  within 60 days of the date of the notice in writing to the other Municipality, an Intermunicipal Committee meeting shall be held;

 

c)  following the Intermunicipal Committee meeting, the Municipality filing the notice of repeal may either withdraw its notice by providing a letter to the other Municipality or proceed to give first reading to a bylaw to repeal the IDP;

 

d)  a Bylaw to repeal will require a Public Hearing; and

 

e)   once the IDP is repealed, each Municipality must amend its own MDP to meet the requirements of the Municipal Government Act.

 

 

STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATIONS OR ENGAGEMENT

 

A letter was sent to Sturgeon County on January 6, 2020, advising the County that the City of St. Albert intends to repeal Bylaw 7/2001, which accepted the Intermunicipal Development Plan between the two parties.  This letter requested that Sturgeon County provide a written response of their concerns, or lack thereof, by March 30, 2020.  This timeline was meant to give a 60-day referral period, as stated within the section 4.3.4 of the IDP.

 

A report was also provided to the Intermunicipal Affairs Committee (IAC), as an agenda item to the IAC meeting scheduled on January 29, 2020.  This ensured that the Committee could review the notice within the 60 days required by the IDP, without an additional meeting being scheduled on short notice.

 

Sturgeon County returned a letter of No Concerns on February 12, 2020.

 

IMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATION(S)

 

Financial: None at this time.

 

Legal / Risk: None at this time.

 

Program or Service: None at this time.

 

 

ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED

 

Alternative 1: That Council defeats Bylaw 37/2020 which proposes repealing the Intermunicipal Development Plan with Sturgeon County.

 

The motion listed above shall be used if the Council of St. Albert decides that the IDP originally entered into with Sturgeon County should be kept in use by the City. However, the upcoming MDP will be required to be consistent with both the EMRGP and the IDP. If there are any contradictions between the IDP and the EMRGP or the MDP, the IDP should be amended appropriately.

 

body

Report Date: November 16, 2020

Author: Suzanne Bennett 

Department:  Planning & Development

Deputy Chief Administrative Officer: Kerry Hilts

Chief Administrative Officer:  Kevin Scoble