The St. Albert Taxpayers Association supports moderate, well planned growth that is revenue positive and does not burden current taxpayers with the cost of development. Much of the Erin Ridge North Area Structure Plan (ASP) could meet that test depending on how it is executed. It exceeds the 80/20 split for residential/commercial and raises the average density of dwellings per hectare, which moves us away from urban sprawl.
At the same time we have concerns about the approval. First, the financial analysis requested by council was limited because of its methodology and assumptions. The methodology resulted in an estimate of municipal revenue in eight-plus years at full build-out. We don't know what happens in the years in between so have no idea whether or not the city coffers gain or lose.
Second, the assumption that council’s priority of commercial or commercial/residential first would be met is also critical as more municipal revenues flow from commercial/high density residential. If only low-density residential moves forward first (the developer as much as said this), then the revenue streams in the early years are significantly lowered. In addition, council priority for an 80/20 per cent commercial/residential split is delayed, as is the shift away from urban sprawl. If high-density residential and medium-density institutional housing does not go ahead, the municipal revenue streams could be negatively affected by over $900,000 annually (based on shifting acreage to low density residential with its lower revenue stream).
Third, the fact that off-site levies’ negotiations were not concluded prior to approval lends uncertainty to the analysis. If council does not hold fast to its commitment that taxpayers won't bear the $92 million-plus burden of annexation infrastructure costs, then the estimate's positive impacts could disappear. This is even more important as uncertainty about necessary storm water infrastructure could balloon this figure even more. We congratulate administration for requiring the developer to conclude storm water negotiations before building starts, but we wonder what the additional costs will be and trust it will be the developers who bear the burden. Taxpayers will watch this with interest given the “hint” to the developer that they could ease this requirement by an amendment to the ASP bylaw.
Why does all this matter? One reason is that we could have more development that doesn't improve the commercial/residential tax split which eventually will ease the burden of taxes on the residential taxpayer. Another reason is that development brings about city obligations and expenditures, including provincial/federal grants. This makes these funds unavailable for other needed infrastructure projects, which then must be financed from the taxpayers’ pocket. Remember that St. Albert lacks dollars for hundreds of millions of dollars in needed infrastructure over the next 10 years. A third reason is that the goal of curbing urban sprawl in St. Albert is unmet.
Our association will continue to monitor this development as it moves forward. We will also support council in its view that taxpayers should not pay for the costs of development in the annexed lands. We encourage individual taxpayers to make their views known to council and to participate in the continuation of the public bylaw hearing in off-site levies to be held Jan. 25 at 5:00pm in council chambers.
Lynda Flannery, President, St. Albert Taxpayers Association
