It’s not quite like rolling a rock up hill, but it may be just as tiring, as Rocky View County (RVC) sets out to define a new Aggregate Resource Plan (ARP) that both citizens and industry members can live with.
During the March 7 meeting of RVC council’s Governance Committee, councillors voted to strike up a new shareholder-led advisory committee on the subject to hopefully pick up where the previous 2016 ARP failed.
In outlining the reasons for that failure in the preamble to the Governance Committee’s deliberations, RVC planning manager Dominic Kazmierczak said a breakdown in trust between members of the former ARP advisory committee had aggravated the already intense discussions over a perceived, real or imagined, pro-industry bias in the previous consultation process.
Kazmierczak recommended if council chose to move forward on a new ARP, there needs to be a clear terms of reference in four different ways.
First, he said council should strike up a stakeholder advisory committee to provide a fair and transparent process for all parties. Second, he noted council should include locational criteria right from the get-go, which excludes new aggregate extraction mines near “comprehensively planned” country residential subdivisions and hamlets, and includes strong protections of environmentally sensitive features, including groundwater resources and provincial parks. Third, he recommended council to create a policy framework for the ARP that either codifies and enshrines the policy in County statutes once completed, or provides strong guidance to County staff in the form of an official planning document.
And lastly, he suggested that council make provisions within the framework of the ARP for proactive monitoring of any new aggregate mines to ensure they are in compliance with conditions set out in their development permits.
Division 1 Coun. Kevin Hanson suggested on top of creating a new stakeholder advisory committee that represents both citizen and industry interests, that council should also appoint a completely neutral chair – perhaps even a non-resident who has “no skin in the game” as a starting point for “version two” of the ARP.
“Even if we only change a few things in there, we are still coming up with version two,” he stated. “As part of that journey, we are going to get everybody back on board the bus. At some point, the bus left the station and industry wasn’t on it, and our residents weren’t on it. So we had a bus going to nowhere, basically.”
Division 3 Coun. and RVC Mayor Crystal Kissel wondered aloud if some councillors shouldn’t also be on the ARP stakeholder advisory committee, but this idea was rejected by other members of Governance Committee.
Kissel said she could accept that, as long as meetings of the ARP stakeholder advisory committee were open to the public so any interested parties could sit in or listen in online.
“I am not interested in going there and meddling and directing,” she explained. “I am interested in going to listen. If this council chooses to not have councillors on there, I don’t have a problem with that.”
Division 4 Coun. Samanntha Wright said she was happy with the staff recommendation that council include locational criteria in any proposed new ARP up front. Wright recalled in the former ARP process, it was disputes about setbacks and the locating of potential future gravel mines that took the conversation off the rails.
“No one in this room at all denies we need gravel,” she stated. “I don’t think that has ever been an issue for anybody. But how its extracted and where it’s extracted – that’s what’s crucial. The last (ARP) document, while it may have had some good things in it, definitely missed the mark.”
Division 5 Coun. Greg Boehlke felt his Governance Committee colleagues may be too eager to kickstart what has previously proved to be a very divisive process. Boehlke felt council should continue on as it has been, judging each gravel mine on a case-by-case basis guided by provincial government guidelines on the subject.
“If the County puts in rules the gravel industry doesn’t like, or can’t get along with, can they ultimately go to Alberta Environment or another governing body with the province, and the province takes over jurisdiction?” Boehlke asked County staff.
Ultimately, there are two rules in that regard, responded RVC’s operations executive director Byron Riemann
“The County sets the process for the land use (and) development permit,” he told Boehlke. “A lot of that is also guided by what Alberta Environment would require from a code of practice side of things. So if we set some stuff up from a development permit process, I am pretty sure Alberta Environment would not venture in to change those permit conditions.”
After discussions wound down on the process for establishing a new ARP, Mayor Kissel moved that administration be directed to develop new guidelines for the public consultation process on a new Aggregate Resource Plan based on the terms of reference discussed.
Kissel’s motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with only Boehlke opposed.
