Council Update - September Council Meetings

Council has held its final meetings before the October 20^th municipal election.  The major issues included:

• Refusal of the Kineticor data centre application proposed for 7 quarter sections in east RVC

• Final approval of the new Municipal Development Plan (MDP), without most of the substantive amendments that would have improved its protection for agriculture and reduced random business development

• Allocating the $8.2 million from selling the Chestermere Rec Centre only to Langdon’s recreation needs rather than to those in all of east Rocky View

Refusal of the Kineticor data centre application

In response to the province’s strategy to attract data centres to Alberta, the County approved a fast-track process for data centre applications.  The Beacon AI data centre, adjacent to the new Prairie Gateway project in south-east Rocky View, was approved earlier this year.  On September 9^th, council soundly defeated a second data centre application from power generation company, Kineticor, after a 10-hour public hearing. 

Residents from east Rocky View’s agricultural community packed council chambers beyond capacity, taking irreplaceable time from harvesting to express strong opposition to the destruction of 1,120 acres of prime agricultural land to house Kineticor’s proposed data centres. 

With four people speaking in support and well over 50 speaking opposition, council heard loud and clear that Rocky View’s agriculture community was solidly against locating incompatible and massive industry in the middle of some of the province’s most productive agricultural operations.

Kineticor insisted their application was only for data centres, and that discussion about a power generation facility was off the table as that approval falls under provincial jurisdiction.  Given that power generation is Kineticor’s primary business, their position was questionable.  It is true that new power plants are approved by the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC), not a municipality.  However, it is also true that municipal approval for land uses that include a power plant significantly simplify an AUC application.

Between the June 17^th approval of Beacon AI and the Sept. 9^th refusal of Kineticor’s proposal, the provincial playing field for large-scale data centres shifted significantly.  In December 2024, the provincial government launched its “AI data centre strategy” to attract international data centres flogging the province’s competitive power grid, abundant resources, low tax rates, cool climate, and business-friendly regulatory environment as reasons for this emerging industry to locate in Alberta. 

The strategy worked. However, its very success raised serious problems since active proposals across the province account for more electricity demand than the existing power grid’s peak load.  As a result, the Alberta Electric Systems Operator (AESO) announced that it would only allocate about 10% of the proposals’ total electricity requirements to new data centres.  The province then made it clear that, while still encouraging data centres to locate in Alberta, data centres beyond these allocations needed to provide their own power generation.  When questioned on this, without any substantive information to back their claim, Kineticor continued to insist that their application did not necessarily require a power plant.

One of Kineticor’s primary rationales for its proposed location was its closeness to major electricity transmission lines to access power to operate the data centres.  However, with AESO’s decision on access to the existing provincial power grid, this rationale largely vapourized. 

With the dramatically changed playing field for data centres, Rocky View’s consideration of any future data centre applications will clearly also have to consider accompanying power generation operations.  Hopefully, this will protect Rocky View’s agricultural land from future data centre applications.

The new MDP moves forward without improvements to protect agriculture

The MDP is the County’s most important planning document, guiding development on lands outside of area structure plans – most of the County’s land.

As we noted in our last email, Reeve Kissel was absent for both public hearings on the new MDP.  Her absence may well have been decisive.  At their Sept. 16^th meeting, council voted on key amendments.  Most of the minor amendments passes.  However, only a few of the major amendments, which addressed strong public concerns, were approved. 

Worst of all, many important amendments failed on tied votes.  Councillors Samra, Hanson, and Wright supported these amendments, while Deputy Reeve Kochan and Councillors Boehlke and Schule opposed them. 

While one can’t know how Kissel would have voted, her vote could have tipped the balance.  She has usually been supportive of agriculture in Rocky View.  As a result, it’s quite possible that those amendments would have passed if she had been there.

The substantive amendments that were approved included:

• Reinstating “balancing agriculture” into the MDP’s vision statement

• Removing the words “large-scale, high intensity” from the description of the types of businesses that are the focus of employment areas to make it clearer that all types of businesses are expected to locate in employment areas.

• Modifying the definition of low-rise apartment buildings to be no more than 3 stories rather than 4 stories.

In contrast, the substantive amendments that failed on tie votes left questionable policies in place.  These include:

• Policies to facilitate highway business hubs.  From our perspective, failing to support the amendment to remove these policies means it will be easier for commercial development to locate along the many provincial highways in Rocky View.  This contradicts the MDP’s commitment to focus growth in approved growth areas.

• Policy to support non-agricultural tourism in agricultural areas.  These policies had been strongly opposed by residents at both public hearings as incompatible land uses that conflict with ag operations.  Signalling an openness to non-agricultural tourism in the County’s agriculture communities contradicts both the MDP’s and the Agriculture Master Plan’s commitments to protect agriculture.

• Policies that allow second farmsteads on all agricultural quarter sections.  Failing to support the removal of these policies ignored strong public opposition at the hearings.  Residents raised serious concerns that these policies would further fragment agricultural land.  Residents also repeatedly noted that the policies are not necessary to achieve the alleged objective to create more flexible housing options on agricultural parcels.

  • At the Sept. 16^th council meeting, Administration confirmed that Rocky View’s neighbouring rural municipalities have stricter rules on agricultural subdivision and that the second farmstead policies would make Rocky View far more lenient than its neighbours.  Despite this new information, the amendment still failed on a tie vote.

• Retaining broad definitions of agri-business and agri-tourism, even though Administration supported amendments to tighten the definitions at the Sept. 16^th council meeting.

From our perspective, the failure of these amendments means that the new MDP, which replaces the County Plan as of the end of September, provides weaker control over indiscriminate business development outside of approved ASPs and weaker protection for the County’s agricultural sector.  By including policies for highway business hubs, non-agricultural tourism on ag land, and second farmsteads out, the MDP is indicating that these are all acceptable land uses, rather than exceptions to be assessed as such. 

We hope that the new council will seriously consider accelerating the review of at least the MDP’s agricultural policies.  Between the MDP public hearings and the Kineticor public hearing, we had hoped council heard enough from residents regarding the importance of the County’s agriculture sector to incorporate that input in its decisions on the ag-related proposed amendments to the MDP.  Unfortunately, that didn’t happen.

Favouring Langdon recreation facilities relative to other east Rocky View projects

After lengthy negotiations, the County sold the Chestermere Recreation Centre to Chestermere.  As one of their last decisions before the October election, the council majority, Kissel, Kochan, Boehkle, and Schule, dedicated the $8.2 million from that sale to the Langdon Recreation Centre. 

The Chestermere Recreation Centre had been used by residents across east Rocky View.  Given that reality, Samra proposed putting the funds into a reserve fund that could be used for any of the three major capital recreation projects identified in east Rocky View – the Langdon recreation facility, the Indus ice rink expansion, and/or the Conrich recreation facility.

As Samra noted, a broader reserve fund would provide the next council with greater flexibility to ensure that the effectiveness of the $8.2 million is maximized in addressing the recreational needs of residents in east Rocky View.  As he pointed out, a broader reserve fund wouldn’t stop the next council from using all the proceeds for the Langdon recreation facility; but it would give flexibility if something stalled that project’s progress.

Only Hanson and Wright supported Samra’s motion.  From our perspective, we fail to understand the council majority’s choice since the loss of the Chestermere Recreation Centre affects all residents in east Rocky View, not just those who live in Langdon.  What is the logic in artificially constraining future funding decisions for recreation amenities in east Rocky View?