County of St. Paul – The County of St. Paul is maintaining a seat at the table as discussions continue around a proposed multimodal trade corridor that could eventually bring rail, pipelines, fibre-optic infrastructure, and power transmission through the region.

Council agreed Tuesday to provide a letter of support to PITM Power following a presentation made to municipalities during a joint council meeting in July.

But the letter shouldn’t be confused with the County signing onto the project.

Administration made it clear that the letter supports continued discussion and recognizes the concept’s potential merit. It does not commit the County financially, enter the municipality into an agreement or provide land-use approval for anything that could be proposed down the road.

That distinction was important around the council table.

What about the Iron Horse Trail?

One of the biggest questions was how the existing Iron Horse Trail corridor could fit into the concept.

Council discussed the challenges of potentially bringing rail back through portions of the former railway corridor, including existing infrastructure and areas where the geography has changed considerably since the railway was removed.

“I can’t see it ever working,” one councillor said while discussing the possibility of putting rail back directly along portions of the former route.

Others weren’t ready to rule out the larger idea.

Council discussed the possibility that a future corridor wouldn’t necessarily have to sit directly on the existing Iron Horse Trail. Instead, the existing corridor could play a role in a much larger transportation and infrastructure network.

“Anything’s possible,” council heard.

The potential value of rail for agriculture and other industries also came up in the discussion.

One councillor said they wouldn’t necessarily support putting rail directly over the Iron Horse Trail, but saw value in finding out what PITM Power actually has in mind.

“If they can use that and make something that’s usable or expand that corridor, or present something to us in the future that is going to work for everybody involved, I think that we should support it to get more information.”

Ultimately, council wasn’t being asked to approve a railway, pipeline or infrastructure project.

It was being asked whether the County should remain part of the conversation.

“I think there’s value in being at the table for the conversation,” council heard.

Council agreed and the motion to send the letter carried.

Any future proposal involving County land, municipal approvals or financial participation would still have to go through the appropriate approval process.