county taxes?

[coppertop]

Linda, the county usually does not make a huge amount of money off residential assessment. You have to consider all the services that country residential demands. Recreation, increased fire and ambulance service, paved roads etc. The real money maker for municipalities is power and pipeline linear assessment and machinery and equipment assessment plus commercial and industrial.

As far as annexation goes, the MGA allows urban centres to file to annex lands from adjacent rural municipalities if those lands are necessary for the growth of the urban centre. Annexation for people and assessment is not allowed, so the urban centre must come up with a very good reason for lands that contain people. For example if there were a number of undeveloped parcels near some that were developed, the urban centre may request the ability to annex those lands so they can have further residential or commercial development.

As far as rural Alberta putting up with it, it is written in legislation, and rural municipalities have input into every single amendment to the MGA.

[cakadu]

Copper, I agree with you that if the infrastructure costs more than what you will get from it - then the municipality has to ask if it is a solid investment - Smart Growth principles at work there. In many places in the U.S. for example, for every dollar they get in revenue from infrastructure, they spend $1.50. Not exactly cost effective.

I know out here, the county makes far more tax revenue from those 5 acre parcels than they do off quarter sections.

Given your background, how do you feel about rural municipalities becoming more urban?

Should rural municipalities try to run themselves like their urban counterparts?

[coppertop]

Linda, I feel strongly that there has got to be somewhere left in this province for agriculture to exist on the landbase necessary. I also believe that country residential multi-parcel subdivisions should not be approved unless they can hook on to municipal services. I do not agree with the drilling of numerous wells to service several acreage developments, nor to I agree with multi onsite sewage mounds scattered all over the landscape. However, with the economy the way it is, and people demanding to own their little parcel in the country and build their huge homes, what my opinions are don't really matter. In this area many farmers objected to allowing more than one parcel per quarter section in 2000. Now, the same farmers are lined up with subdivision applications for three parcels out per quarter, and yet some of the same farmers come in to planning commission meetings to register their objections because their adjacent neighbour wants to take three parcels out of his or her quarter section !!!

Having lived through a dozen amendments to the land use by-law, and several changes to the number of parcels per quarter, my opinion is that there should NOT be subdivisions allowed within the set back of existing confined feeding operations, and the maximum parcel size should be no more than 5 acres. Most of these subdivisions are for residential use, and the people have no intention of having livestock or keeping a ten acre parcel groomed and landscaped, hence, much of it goes to weeds.
Within a mile of my home there are 8 small parcels, some of which run small businesses, but have not bothered to get a development permit from the county. Some of them complain bitterly to anyone who will listen when the local feedlot owner hauls silage past their home, but they don't seem to think there is anything the matter with them running trucks in and out of their property several times a day for their own business. I find that those raised in a rural setting at least understand what goes on in the agricultural community, but most seem to come from cities and have no clue what to expect.

[cowman]

Actually those five acre parcels are a money loser and so is farmland? At the local townhall meeting the Reeve said that.
The real money is in industrial/commercial, as well as pipelines/leases etc.
Anyone who thinks Red Deer County can continue to operate, in the manner they have, without the revenue from the industrial parks and gasoline alley...isn't living in reality?
ALL residential and ALL farmland does not pay even 30% of the revenue! Farmland pays 11%!
Could the county survive without those industrial lands? Well of course....but don't expect your roads to be maintained. Expect to pay much higher taxes. Expect to pay higher gargbage fees, higher permit fees, much higher police and fire costs.
To even think it would be business as usual shows a complete lack of understanding county finances! It is a good thing that the councillors we have in there at least understand that!

[farmers_son]

Given the reaction to Stelmach's choice of Ministers I think it is very clear that there is a rural urban split in this province.

If there is a urban bias in the Municipal Government Act that does not make it right even if rural municipalities had input into changes to the MGA.

Why does it have to be mandated in the Municipal Government Act that cities grow and rural municipalities shrink?It seems to me that at least portions of most rural municipalities are indistinquishable from their city and town counterparts. Those developed acres and the associated tax base would be necessary for the operation of the rural municipality.

Rural people have aspirations just like city people. We like good roads and government services just the same as the city or town dweller. Whether the MGA allows it or not, annexation of the rural taxation base and the redirection of those tax revenues from rural to urban is wrong.

[coppertop]

farmers_son, I served as Reeve of our county during an annexation bid by the local town. Believe me, the lands that had acreages and people on them would have been the most appropriate for the county to allow annexed, but the people living on those properties did NOT want to end up in town. Those areas cost the county a small fortune to service, maintain roads, pave roads, police etc. Urban municipalities have a right to expand their boundaries, otherwise every single county in the province could stifle growth of towns and villages within their boundaries by virtue of allowing dense residential growth in the urban fringe area. This is happening in many areas, and unless there is a good Intermunicipal Development Plan in place the urban centre has no say on what is being allowed on their boundary. The provincial Cabinet appointments have nothing to do with rural/urban conflict. The Premier put the people he felt were the best suited for the positions, and ones he could trust to be loyal to him. Every single MLA made their choice on who to support in the leadership bid, and I for one, would hate to see a new Premier start his mandate with a group of cabinet ministers that hadn't supported him, it could be a recipe for disaster.

Urban/Rural conflict started when the province did away with the Municipal Assistance Grants, these grants were dollars that every municipality, both rural and urban could depend on every year for necessary expenditures that were over and above what the property tax dollars could meet. Thankfully the new Premier is re-instating a grant based on the school tax portion of assessment, and municipalities can do with it what they choose.

[cowman]

The problem with the Red Deer situation is there was a good intermunicipal plan...agreed on and signed by both parties? I believe the preamble was "The City of Red Deer and the county both recognize the right of both to exist and grow..."?
In comes a new mayor...and it all goes out the window! All the dogs who signed the agreement are now howling to annex the small portion of industrial land the county has! Complete liars and thieves!
The county had reserved one small area for its own developement, as agreed upon in the intermunicipal plan, and had given the city free rein to annex and develop anywhere else.
The city sees this as ,simply, a cash cow that will pull 35 years of inept government out of the fire!
Business continues to flee the city, as fast as possible...some to the county...some across the line into Lacombe county! No one wants to be in Red Deer where taxes and spending are completely out of control!
The city of Red Deer commissioned some phony study that they are holding up as some sort of justification but it just won't wash! The councillors and mayors have continually been caught lying and making false statements!
Mayor Flewellings latest drivel is the county residents don't "contribute" to the "recreation facilities" or the library while still taking full advantage of them? Hmmmm....the county paid $500,000 to the Collicut Center(recreation) with the understanding that county residents would have full acccess to it....well yes but you pay four times as much as city residents, which has resulted in almost no county residents going there! The same for the Red Deer library! A card is ten times the cost of a city resident...and the county contributes to the Parkland library system?
And how about the Westerner fair grounds? The county gave $1 million when it started and has made regular donations!
On a per capita basis the county contributes more than residents of the city of Red Deer!
The city of Red Deer is probably one of the worst run municipalities in the province! Their planning department is...well to put it mildly...a complete joke! As you will plainly see if you ever drive through Red Deer!
Their tax structure is very high and getting higher! Over an 11% increase this year!...And they wonder why business wants out!
And the higher taxes are for what? Well how about a $44 million dollar museum...to go along with the "Sports Hall of Fame"? Ever driven by there on highway II?...one car in the parking lot...on a good day! And how about a new $105 million new public Works yard down in the flood plain by Three Mile bend? Under about three feet of water last year!
I hope Ed Stelmach can use his experience as a rural reeve to stop this sort of abuse! I hope our rural MLA(cabinet minister) steps up to the plate and stops this drivel!

[blackjack]

...cowman...the county should put a user fee on the road south of the coal trail fire hall and mckenzie road...for every city resident that uses it pays 10 times more...lol...i agree with your assessment on red deer's planning not only from the ones you mentioned to the 67th goat trail to its downtown development ...

[coppertop]

In discussions with some of the players in the Red Deer City/County issue I understand that the county has agreed to allow the city to grow in one direction, but not to annex Gasoline Alley. This sounds fair to me, but then I am not affected by the decision. It would be impossible to tax any roadway, regardless of which jurisdiction it was in. For one thing, it would be extremely costly to monitor where vehicles were from, and for the other the Province puts funding into local infrastructure so the public would have to get free access.

Our municipality injects a million dollars a year into cost sharing services with the local town, recreation, library, etc. Plus our county pays a proportionate cost of the fire department as well. Several years ago a group DEMANDED that the county and town jointly fund an indoor soccer field, the county held a plebicite and over 70% of the residents voted NO to injecting capital dollars. A committee went running around fund raising, the town met with the county dozens of times asking them for funding, the county finally agreed to inject $750,000 even though the plebicite had directed them otherwise. Construction costs were never really known, and finally the Town cancelled the project last year after going to tender and finding out what the cost would be.

Many recreation facilities are built because residents demand them, and have no clue what the cost is. In fact, many residents feel that their tax dollars pay for all these things, when in fact, they barely pay for essential services much less recreation. Government grants, lottery funds etc. plus user fees pay for recreation facilities, and in many cases the operating costs have escalated so these facilities aren't kept in good repair due to the costs.

Our local rec centre had to be closed for several weeks due to black mould in the kitchen ! The county council asked for a line by line expenditure and income for the facility prior to forwarding their share of the operating costs last year, but the town's accounting system did not support such information so rather than having a battle over it the county forward the money anyway !!!

I always felt that our residents needed to be aware of the cost of all services, whether they were essential or recreational. I feel the same about health care, we used to receive a detailed synopsis of the costs paid by Health Care for doctors visits etc., and if that were to be in place today, perhaps people would realize what costs are incurred when they use the system.

[farmers_son]

Coppertop: I hope I did not give the impression I was critical of Stelmach's cabinet appointments. However I am hearing comments from the cities that the province is being run by the Beverly Hillbillies. There is a very real rural/urban mentality in this province and the bottom line is that the wealth belongs in the cities and the rural areas can do without.

Why should the cities grow at the expense of the rural municipalities? In our county we contribute all the time to the towns recreational facilities and in many other aspects as well. Not one time have I ever seen the town contribute one red cent to the county. Not one time have I ever seen a picture of the town Mayor and county Reeve at a sod turning ceremony in the county although this happens all the time in the town. It is one sided and it is one sided with the approval of the province.