WESTLOCK - Westlock County council has given second reading to a long-in-the-works intermunicipal development plan (IDP) with the Summer Village of Larkspur and following a handful of revisions, have now passed the document back to that council for review.
In addition, county councillors voted unanimously to take a look at the previously-signed intermunicipal collaboration framework (ICF) between the two entities from 2020 with the deputy reeve musing that the county should consider annexing the summer village, which was formed in 1985.
At their May 24 regular meeting, councillors passed four motions, first voting 5-2 (deputy reeve Ray Marquette and Coun. Stuart Fox-Robinson were opposed) to amend IDP Bylaw 03-2022 and accept four changes to the document identified in Part A to clarify wording about the IDP boundary. The second motion, passed with only Marquette in opposition, saw the document amended with 11 additional wording changes contained in Part B of the request for decision from administration.
Second reading of the bylaw then passed 5-2, with Marquette and Fox-Robinson opposed, while the final motion to direct administration and Municipal Planning Services to refer the amended document to Larkspur for further review before considering third and final reading passed 5-2 with Marquette and Coun. Isaac Skuban in opposition. The votes were recorded as per a motion from Marquette.
County councillors gave first reading to the bylaw Jan. 25, while Larkspur councillors followed suit at their Jan. 31 meeting. The summer village then hosted a public hearing on the document for its residents March 1, while the county held its own April 26, a two-hour affair that saw chambers packed and included a walkthrough of the document, followed by questions and concerns from county and summer village residents.
At that meeting, the county received 14 written submissions, while eight people provided verbal statements — a summary of those submissions was included with the 126-page document on the bylaw at the May 24 meeting. Interim CAO Pat Vincent said previously he wasn’t surprised by the public interest, adding there’s “probably a lot of history I wasn’t aware of.”
An IDP is a provincially-mandated, land-use plan prepared by two (or more) municipalities that share a common border and ensures future development and land-use policy are coordinated — the county signed IDPs with the Town of Westlock and Village of Clyde back in 2019, the same year work began on the agreement with Larkspur. According to the province, IDPs help to reduce the possibility of any future land-use conflicts between municipalities.
“I think there is a comfort now for most residents who own property in the county who will be in that area so that it won’t adversely affect them. What they’re doing now on their land, they’ll continue to be able to do,” said Vincent.
“It could have been a lack of information as a number of public open houses were held during COVID, so it’s hard to have a good conversation with people and sit down and explain things to them when you’re doing it over a computer. So, in the absence of good information you get rumours, speculation and people drawing conclusions. Personally, I was tremendously pleased with the dialogue and exchange at the public hearing. People’s land rights are sacred and there’s always a concern that government is trying to erode or undermine those rights.”
Marquette says they should annex the SV
Before voting on the changes to the document, Marquette said point blank that the county should consider annexing the summer village, which would end the IDP process.
“If we were to take the (Summer) Village of Larkspur into Westlock County we wouldn’t have to do this and then the taxes would come to us from those residents, would it not?” Marquette asked. “Some of the problem is we’re grading the roads for them to get there anyhow and we’re giving them fire protection.”
Vincent told Marquette the county gets paid for any services it provides to the summer village and they can’t annex a neighbouring municipality as Larkspur would need to be a “willing participant” and embark on a dissolution process as per Municipal Affairs. Skuban noted that any shared services between the two will be covered in the ICF, which councillors will review at an upcoming GPC meeting. An ICF, which is also mandated under the Municipal Government Act, is a tool to facilitate cooperation between neighbouring municipalities to ensure municipal services are provided to residents efficiently and cost effectively.
“We are getting paid for our services. For fire protection we may not be getting 100 per cent of what it costs, but they aren’t getting it for free,” said Vincent.
“(For grading) They don’t get it for free. What’s interesting is that in talking with the general manager (of Larkspur) is that we grade one small part through the summer village to get to our park. We have not been asked and have not provided any other grading services to the rest of the summer village.”
Fox-Robinson said Marquette raised some “interesting points” but they should be left “outside the discussion on the IDP.”
“The perfect place to talk about it is GPC (governance and priorities committee meeting). Bring the ICF back and it can be discussed,” he noted.
Skuban, who ultimately voted against the final motion to send the amended document to the summer village, said the county didn’t think a comprehensive IDP was necessary, but it was Larkspur “that was adamant that we do it and it’s important that the public knows that.”
“Especially with the boundary, the county in the first place didn’t really think all this work was necessary but the IDP for the village was pushed very heavily,” said Skuban.
