Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-06-25 Council Minutes3 k a 3 H I CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 The continuation of the 1992 annual meeting of the M D of Kneehill #48 reconvened at the Three Hills Community Center Thursday, June 25th, 1992 commencing at 7 30 P M The following were present for the meeting: REEVE COUNCILLORS STAFF John C Jeffery, Jean Wilkinson, Alex Cunningham, Oris Rodger, Edward Dunay, OTHERS Stan Price, James Ablett, Al Fenton, Richard A Marz J Finlay Code Otto Hoff Robert E. Boake Harold Mueller Richard M Vickery Lawrence Hogg Municipal Administrator Assistant Administrator Development Officer Public Works Superintendent Assessor Trustee, Three Hills School Division Auditor for the M.D. of Kneehill #48 Director of Assessment Inspectors from Alberta Municipal Affairs Ratespayers as per list filed with these minutes Chairman Ralph W Brown called the meeting to order and noted this was a continuation of the annual meeting which was held April 6th, 1992 He noted there was some information which the ratepayers wanted to have and Council has tried to obtain Mr Brown read to the meeting a section of the Municipal Government Act which stated a council MAY PROVIDE FOR holding of an annual meeting of the electors to discuss municipal affairs He also reviewed what requirements have to be complied with when holding such a meeting and that all requirements, other than reading of the report from the Municipal Inspector, had been complied with. He noted Alberta Municipal Affairs has just recently completed a corporate review and their report is available People may ask questions about the business of the municipality He advised the people the meeting is being taped and requested Mrs Wilkinson to read the last motion from the April 6th meeting The motion read as follows. "Motion made by Stan Boles - this meeting not be adjourned today and another meeting be held another day so more ratepayers could be here, and Council could obtain more prices about contracting, more information about assessment mill rates and taxes from other areas Seconded by George Kopulas " 1 X i, d a a s L J v L14- CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 Questions were asked as follows Harold King. My suggestion as I remember it was perhaps graders would be a good place to start as far as contracting, because there was so much complaint about graders Perhaps look at contracting grader work Reeve Marz. Before I get started - we have our auditor here tonight - James Ablett - and we have another guest from Alberta Municipal Affairs - Director of Assessment Inspectors - Mr Al Fenton As requested on April 6th we did a costing report on the grader operation in consultation with our auditor Mr James Ablett He prepared a five senerio report for us and after review and debate it was decided to use Option 3 from that report as a basis for our costing for graders as Option 3 represents the worst case senerio The hourly rat Option 1 - $41 Option 2 - $55 Option 3 - $65 Option 4 - $43 Option 5 - $53 Rs 31 75 58 72 55 from per per per per per the Options were as follows hour hour hour hour hour That is on our grader fleet Same size and age of machines Alberta Transportation rates for those machines is $69 54 per hour We also contacted neighboring Municipal Districts and Counties for costing on their grader operations Although they did provide some information they did not advise on their method of costing so we are not sure how relevant their figures are to ours I will attempt to explain our costing method and what it includes I will then go over figures provided by other areas for purpose of comparison Firstly you may be interested to know the costing exercise has cost the M D $3500.00 to date up to and not including tonight The cost of operation in Option 3 was for our fleet $65 58 per hour That compares to a rate of $3 96 less than government rate He reviewed the costing figures provided to the M D by various areas - copy of which is attached to and forms part of these minutes if To put that into perspective to what we have for our price of $65 58 using government rate on our machines we are $3 96 below government rate I went through the government rate handbook and rates ranges from $30 00 an hour to $89 00 an hour and that takes into account the age of the machine the type of machine, the size of the machine but does not take into account special equipment such as snow plow, V Plow or ripper That extra equipment is costed out at a higher rate than the basis government rate If there are any questions we will try to answer them 2 Al,eA,4 j a r1 LJ U CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M.D. OF KNEEHILL 148 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 Stan Boles. Under costing of the M D of Kneehill why do you only include 90% of the operators' wages and benefits? Reeve Marz- The graderman is not operating the grader 100% of the time He operates it approximately 60 some percent of the time. We did not feel it was fair to allot 100% of his time to the grader because he does other work such as putting up and taking down snow fence, steaming culverts, some drive trucks, and Mr Rodger could fill you in on a number of other things he has the operators do The other day he had a crew tearing down some property that was a safety hazard in the hamlet of Swalwell. Some of the jobs he has them doing I am sure they would rather be sitting in their grader Some Councillors felt 90% rate was too high, it should have been lower than that They are being paid the full rate whatever they are doing, whether they are on the grader or not, but I don't think it would be 10% less, it would be - to hire someone else to do those other jobs at roughly 2 /3rds of what the grader man is making to get someone to do that - in the contract situation those other jobs are handled by other staff and when the grader cannot go out and grade because of weather or whatever he is getting paid his minimum and he is going nothing else. Mr Boles, If it is a contractor you do not pay him anything do you if he is not grading? Mr Marz Alot of contracts are a guarantee Mr. Boles. They are only guaranteed so many hours a year Mr Marz, 45 hours a week which is 9 a day Mr Boles Yes, but if it is a contract grader if it rains he can grade for - 10 hours a day 6 days a week if he wants to can he not? Mr Marz I suppose he can If it rains for a week I suppose he can go out and work -- Mr Boles: That is what I am saying - he can work around it better Mr Marz He could work 18 hours if he wanted to. Mr Boles: I am not saying that - but he could work in the rainy spell and be off - it is the same sort of thing but it is just you are not paying his wages when he is not there Mr Marz. They would be paying him a guarantee of 45 hours Mr Boles They would be paying him a guaranteed hourly rate -- Mr Marz Right whether he works or not he is guaranteed that Mr Boles. He would be guaranteed so many hours a year that would probably be the contract 3 EW j 1 y d� d J i CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M.D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 Mr Marz In Starland's case with the information they gave us there is no indication Mr Boles. I understand - the other question - 10% depreciation and 10% interest on investment That is assuming the machines - even if you traded it in 5 years it still - the depreciation would work out right? Mr Marz- After 5 years that machine is depreciated out to absolutely zero - so there is still a value to that machine Mr Boles I realize that Mr Marz: But for the purposes of costing it out we have taken - which actually makes our costing senerio look worse John Hamm. Explain that a little more - you say 10% depreciation on the machine and after 5 years the machine is zero? Mr Marz. Ten years - sorry Mr Hamm Okay What is the 10% interest on investment. Mr Marz- Capital cost of the grader Mr Hamm. Explain that to me Mr Marz When you buy the grader we are charging it out at 10 %. If we did not buy the grader - it is a cost of 10% to us per year because we feel on average we could have received 10% on our money if we did not spend it so we are costing - using it as a cost - 10% of interest on investment - that is raising our hourly rate - it is not lowering it - it is making it higher by using Mr Hamm What about shop overhead - you don't have it costed in there - what does it cost to keep these graders in shops - the equipment in the parks - and the mechanics around for all this? Mr. Marz. Shop overhead - we have a cost in there $8720 46. Mr Hamm Where - it is not on this sheet - Mr Marz: No it is on the audited costing that Mr Hamm. $8720 46 is that per month Mr Marz. No per year Mr Hamm $8700 Mr Marz Yes - for 7 graders Mr Hamm. Is that per grader or for all of them? Mr Marz It says total so I presume it is for all of them. Mr Hamm How many graders does the M D have? Mr Marz: We have 7 patrol graders 4 1 I 11 J �J ti �i r �31 C7 C7 CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 Mr Hamm. That is less than $1000 00 per year per grader Mr Jeffery- That is just for 7 graders - the rest of the costs goes to the rest of the crews Mr Marz, Yes we have other equipment using those shops Those shops are written off totally because they are allocated to more than just the graders Mr. Hamm. Not the other shops Mr Marz Not the shops in the outlying areas no Those total shops are grouped in together - total shop costs. Mr Hamm* I believe this includes depreciation of the shops in other areas as well? Mr Marz: Total shop costs whether it is in Carbon or Wi.mborne or Three Hills is lumped into one price, is that not right - and then each crew is allotted a specific share of the costs of the shop until the shop costs are totally allocated out with the exception of the gravel trucks and for some reason or other they are not costed out any shop costs at all because 100% is already used up so somewhere in the system one or two crews is being costed out too high proportionately because the trucks should take a share and that is something we are looking into for next year s costing so we can get more equitable costs Somebody's crew is being costed higher than it should be and I am sure they would object to that because it would inflate that foreman's price of doing business as compared to the trucks Dale Moran: How long does it take the grader to go through their zone if they grade every road? Mr Marz Depending on weather and everything it is an average of 10 days or two weeks - 10 working days Mr Moran* And that would put him right through his zone? Mr Marz Pretty well- yes Mr Moran- It rained two weeks ago and I have not seen a grader yet Mr. Marz. He should be there pretty soon Mr Moran- When a grader man comes out how come they do not grade their way out to the work and grade their way home from their work instead of lifting their blade up and going home? They should be grading their way back to Three Hills They are travelling empty when they should be travelling loaded all the time Mr Marz, If their division was roughly a pie shaped area from their point they probably could do that but if they go to a far area they cannot get back in time Mr Moran- There is more than one road to that point different roads coming in and out all the way - or perhaps put a hitch on their half ton - their vehicle and leave their grader in a farmer s yard and drive the truck out 61 �A .i i i i I CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 there instead of wasting our time coming out empty an hour drive one way doing nothing - and getting back home - it does not make sense. Mr Marz Some have shops in the outlying area and the shop may be central to their division and it works better To some it does not. They have to high blade out to get to the far area, work all day out there to do that and get back We have two graders working out of the Three Hills shop, two out of Carbon, one at Acme and one Trochu and one in Wimborne Mr Loosmore: I question the County of Mountain View own grader and having it costed at $43 91 The method of costing I think there are alot of things not .included in this I wonder if John Grimstead or anybody is here from Mountain View - and there is probably alot of things tied up with graders that are just not here - blades and alot of other things perhaps - that is away down below the rest they have alot of tough roads in that County and those graders don t - can't travel near as fast as alot of ours Mr Marz. That is all the information they gave us - we asked for complete costing and that is all they gave us Bruce Hastie. Going through these comparisons I see there is quite a variation but I do see the M D of Kneehill leaves somethings to their advantage in their costing. I seem to realize there are quite a few half ton trucks running around following the graders too and the M.D Clearwater they claim $43,000 for supervision I don't think our foremen in our M D work any cheaper I don't see anything in there for supervision in your costing at all Also if I remember right - I don't believe the policy has changed - most of these graders were traded off after 6 years - and I don't remember any of them bringing any higher than $25,000 to $27,000 when they were traded off. I doubt that 10% depreciation is the proper figure Mr Marz- The last one I think was 9 or 10 years - the last one traded off - we don't have a specific supervisor for the graders - we have a Superintendent for all public works - County of Clearwater has a foreman specifically for the graders Mr Jeffery- Perhaps James would have a comment on that I believe he did a cradle to grave costing for our last two graders Mr Marz Did you want to comment on the 10% James? And how you came up with that for depreciation Mr. Ablett. Essentially 10% seemed to be a very figure We looked at the last two trades that took place in 1990 - graders - and taking them back to date of purchase at the cost and depreciating it for the number of years they were held - it was remarkably close - the trade in value to what they got for them So $150,000 00 for a grader was being depreciated over 15 years at the end of say six years - I 6 �v� C CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 am sorry that would be $150,000 00 for 10 years would be $15,000 00 per year - which leaves $60,000 00 undepreciated and that was very close for example to what the trade was so we felt that 10% was very appropriate for the two trades which occured in 1990 and these are the only two I looked at - those were the most recent trades Vern Sept: My question is about the effectiveness of your operations There are some areas I travel in the municipality with farm trucks and some of the roads are so bad coming up to the corner and you have to slow down to 20 miles an hour or else your teeth just chatter Any comments about that? Mr Marz• I don't know exactly how to answer that Vern but at the last time we met here a specific example given of a road someone said was so rough that at 15 miles an hour it shook the headlights out of his grain truck I was here at the meeting with my one ton dual wheel crew cab - it is not a grain truck but it rides kind of rough Directly from the meeting I went out and drove that specific road at 60 miles per hour and I turned around and drove back at 70 miles per hour and then I drove each road on each side of it at the same speed I thought I was lost so I came back and checked with the Superintendent to see if I did in fact drive the right road and he said I did Two days later he sent a grader out to grade the road and a neighboring resident that was not at this meeting phoned him up and expressed her displeasurer for that grader being out there causing fines to come to the top of the road which causes dust I can take you to some intersections that are rough and get rough quite fast The reason they get rough from stops and starts The one right out here by the seed plant - Fisher Davidson road - is a prime example - it chucks out quite fast because of the heavy traffic coming to a stop and taking off again The rest of the road stays relatively good for a longer period of time so I guess you just put up with a little bit of washboard at the intersection until it is that road's turn to get re- graded again Alot of roads the grader gets called back sooner than his rotation because of phone calls and concerns that interrupt the system and probably as far as Mr Moran is concerned that may well be some of the reasons why he does not get around in that 10 days because he is called away to do other things Mr Brown. In the 25 years I was here I was always looking for a graderman that could kept a smooth road under dry conditions - and there was chuckholes, washboards, no matter what happens Things are not changing that much Victor Leischner You were saying you were looking for a road Come down my road They can come down and within 3 days all they do is move the gravel around on the top a little bit, fill the holes, and in 3 days they are back to square one This is a comment Stan Boles. I don't know if everyone is satisfied that we answered all the questions on the graders or not - it is not an easy job It is not an easy job for the councillors and we all understand that - but their costs are higher than the average cost of all these costs and we know that some of the figures are unknown Still our costs are the highest 7 IX14161� �Nlk r 40 CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL 148 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 costs on the sheet I don't know if anyone here agrees with contracting - I don t know, personally my opinion I don't agree with contracting for the grader part of the operation because I think it is served better by people in the area working within the area - and if somebody else feels otherwise that is fine I would like to move on to something else The other question I have is on mill rates. You have some information on mill rates in the surrounding areas? Mr Marz• Yes I do, I have mill rates for 1991 To try to put it in perspective I will give you the assessment of the jurisdication, their mill rate and how much that mill rate generates in cash Mr Marz then reviewed the mill rates from the County of Red Deer, M D Rockyview, County of Mt View, County of Wheatland, M.D. Starland, County of Stettler, the Town of Three Hills and the Town of Trochu as well as the M D of Kneehill mill rates A sheet of the comparative mill rates is attached to these minutes Mr Stan Boles. The effective mill rate is - you can play the mill rates against the assessment I know what you mean You cannot compare apples to oranges. I have compared Starland's mill rates and I don't know if I have done it right Their mill on my land over there is 12 mills municipal and over here it is over 16. Now if you take it and multiply it by 100,000 assessment - it may take 5 quarters in Starland to equal 100,000 assessment where it only takes 4 here, so maybe it is advantageous to be in Kneehill, to generate the same revenue, that is all I am saying Anyways if you take that and multiply it by the mill rates - by their own applicable mill rates the effective taxes on 100,000 of assessment is about $450 00 higher in Kneehill That is what I have a grievance about Perhaps we have a higher percentage of paved roads, maybe we have better roads, maybe we have a bigger infrastructure, I don't know how you would figure that out. We have to figure that in on the mill rates - but I would like a roundhouse answer why it would be $450 00 more for $100,000 assessment Mr Marz• We do have more miles of paved roads according to Alberta Transportation in Hanna We are the highest in that zone as far as developed secondary roads, we have progressed the farthest. It could be all relevant to the facilities we have in place - the demands that people whan to have - it all adds up I don't think I am giving you the answer you want to your question - I don't know if I have the answer I would like to comment - you have all seen the chart in the paper on the breakdown of the revenue last year - our commercial and industrial tax made up 38 5% of our total revenue, our residential tax made up 2 3 %, our farm land tax made up 30 7 %, other revenue made up 8 5% and unconditional grants made up 20 0% We did a rough estimate the other day and this is just a rough projection and it is too early to fine tune this - but as of now it appears if everything goes as we think it is going to go, E:3 . ,�Gt CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M.D. OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 our commercial and industrial tax will increase from 38 5% to 50 9% That is a real concern of council because we are talking about power and pipeline, oil industry and that, and there is a concern that we don't want to tax any segment of society too high because if it makes it unfeasable for them to operate in this area we may lose them all together We cannot have that - we are looking at that very closely Residental tax we project to go from 2 3% to 4 4% under the new assessment so residential tax will also be going up Farmland tax we project will decrease in 1992 from 30.7% to 27 2% Other revenues we project to decrease from 8 5% to 2 1% and unconditional grants we also project to decrease from 20% to 14 4% That is another major concern we have on the make up of those revenues and we certainly cannot shift it to commercial or industrial and we don't want to shift anymore to residential and as we have been hearing the last years, farm land taxes or a land base tax is an unfair tax base This assessment is a shift away from a land base tax to other sources When you do this other sources are going to pick it up The residential tax is rather a misnomer because it is intensive agriculture on smaller acreages We are getting them through the residences Farmland tax is getting hit the same way but they can earn their exemption through the land they own John Hamm When Council makes up their budget how do you project what you are going to require for the year and how do you decide what kind of mill rate you are going to hit us with? Mr Marz. How do you mean - how do we make up Mr Hamm, You have to project what your costs are going to be for the next year right? How do you project this - Does every department come in and tell you what they need and then you say we are going to need this much and then you look at your tax base and assess it accordingly? Mr Marz- We have departments come in with their costs, we review their costs to see if they are justified for that year, whether a program is still relevant or could it be cut out, what are the ramifications of cutting that program out, and if it is deemed to be a program that the public will not allow us to cut out, it stays in Those costs are based on last year's budget, plus whatever increases we project, such as fuel and other costs that affect us Mr Hamm For the last five years how much has the M.D budget gone up and how much have the taxes gone up accordingly? Mr Marz In the last five years? Mr. Hamm: Yes, the last five years Mr Marz I believe the mill rate - the municipal mill rate has not moved for 3 years for sure There has been some assessment changes in here In 1992 the mill rate is set at 16 mills, in 1991 it was 16 380 mills and in 1990 16.380 and 1989 15 6, 1988 15 0 mills, 1987 14 52 mills, same with 1986 and 1985 was 13.52 From 1985 to 86 it increased 1 mill, and stayed that way and increased roughly half a mill in 1988, and another half E /X-�/ a3 i i v E. L910 El CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 mill in 1989, and less than - about 3/4 of a mill in 1990 and stayed that way until this year Mr Hamm. The second part of that question was how much in the last five years has the M D budget gone up? What was your operating budget five years ago as compared to what it is now? Mr Marz- Total dollars? Mr Hamm Yes Mr Marz We do not have this information here, but will get it to you Stan Boles- What would be the total budget for this year Mr Marz. I believe roughly $10 Million Mr Boles- Does that include capital costs or - does that include the school - Mr Marz. No, just municipal Mr Boles. That is administration, utilities, so on and so forth - Mr Marz That is right Mr. Boles. Is that quite a jump from last year? Mr Marz No It was $11 Million last year We have it here - Budget is $11 5 million Mr Jeffery, Last year's budget was $11,564 Million and the actual was $11,684 Million Mr. Marz. It is lower this year Mr Jeffery- Actual last year was $11,684, and this year it is $11,587 Mr. Loosmore. When the mill rate goes up the assessment has come down - when I was in to pay my taxes it was $1100 00 less than they were last year - now some of that is because we are getting old but not very much The main part of that tax was $800 00 less for 7 quarters and now it is $1100 00 Harold King Is it not true - I am somewhat mixed up - the municipal mill rate was 16 380 mills last year - this coming year it is 16 000 mills Mr Marz That is correct Mr King: Is it not going to generate an extra 3/4 of a million dollars this year because of the higher assessment? Mr Marz It will generate a surplus Mr King. What figure? Mr Marz- I don't think anyone is positive about those figures at this point I think 3/4 of a million is -- 10 )4z"� CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 Mr. Jeffery. There is roughly $300,000 from the Ample Grant, a last time grant, and this was put into reserves - so it will be $900,000 plus that Mr Marz- $1.254 million Mr King That is what it is going to generate extra this �i year even though the mill rate is down Mr. Marz. That is what is going into the contingency reserve this year. Mr King The mill rate is very deceiving - everyone thinks the mill rate is going down - but it is going to generate more money - we all know where that is coming from Mr Marz That is true - I don't think anybody has tried to hide that fact that even though the mill rate has gone down it is going to generate more money Through the higher assessment - in years past whenever we had an assessment change - going to a different assessment - it was council's policy to not make any changes that first year in the mill rates so you can see how that assessment change changed your taxes and that it was not the mill rates It was less confusing In those times we ended up absorbing an increase in expenses because the mill rate had a negative effect on the budget - not the mill rate but the assessment had a negative effect on the budget at that time and we ended up using some of our reserves to cushion that for that year and we made the necessary ajustments the following year Council felt they would like to continue that practice and there was alot of discussion as to this surplus - and it was probably a good idea to do that - but we could probably still have moved a little bit further in a mill rate reduction There was debate about that and utilimately Council's final decision was 16 mills, down 0.38 of a mill They felt from the advice coming from Mr. Langman's corporate review that took place between these two meetings, which recommends that we do not use accounts receivable or stock piles, and other assets as part of our contingency reserves, and you will remember the discussion last time about the discrepancy between liquid cash and the reserve figure Municipal Affairs practice now is recommending that our reserve account be more of a liquid figure - and they have laid guidelines down how they want us to come up with that So to stay within our policy of $1 5 to $2 Millions dollars - which is a local -our own policy for a reserve account - more funds would be needed to be generated to do that and possibly we could look at a further reduction next year after the bird is in the hand There is alot of unknowns out there - there is a lot of people who have land in surrounding municipalities that did not let us know about that and they did not initially get their exemption. Our budget is based on the increased revenue from the residential assessment - I don't know how much this is going to affect us - it could affect us minimumal, but when they come in and pay their taxes Edward Dunay has the authority to cancel their taxes if the ratepayer says he has a house here on a quarter section, but has three quarters of land over in Starland and is not getting his exemption so he can grant that exemption - that affects negatively on our budget and that is an unknown at this time until everybody pays their taxes 11 P i r �i :J I H LM CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 Mr King- You said we spent $3500 00 on this study so far Perhaps you could have spent $3510 00 and had a print out of all those assessment figures from the different areas so we could have all seen them It is alot easier to understand when you have it in front of you, than trying to listen to someone repeat them It is hard to compare Mr Marz- We can give you any information you want - I guess the bottom line we could have photo copied everything you see in front of me - and we would -- Mr King Those were interesting figures and it is hard to decipher when you don't have them in front of you Another question - how many hours a year do you average on graders? Mr Marz Between 1500 and 1700 hours Mr King- You talk about contract - you guarantee the contractor 45 hours per week Mr. Marz. We didn't - Starland did. Mr King You say that is common in practice - right? Mr Marz: In some contracts - Mr King. So when you contract graders do they contract them for the whole year so they snow plow to or not? Mr Marz Yes Mr King- So you are getting 2340 hours a year out of that So we would actually get more work done with those graders that what we do right now, I guess Mr. Marz. Not necessarily - that is the guarantee Mr King It may not work that way? But it may Mr Marz- They did not provide us with figures as to how many actual hours they are running those graders Mr. King. If they make a 45 hour per week guarantee and it rains for a week - are they expected to work more than 9 hours in the next week to catch up and that sort of thing or what? Mr Marz: I don't know - it depends on conditions Mr King Who decides whether they do or not? Mr Jeffery- That could be in their contract - we don't know Mr Marz. In the case of Starland - - no in the case of Clearwater - one of them said they had a superintendent who can authorize more work Starland - 45 hours per week and more if approved Mr Mueller In Clearwater - bottom two lines there 12 N H n CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL 148 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 Mr Marz The quality and quantity determined by the Public Works supintendent Mr King- I asked a question and did not get an answer In $65 58 for our own graders is there any supervision included in that figure or not Mr Marz* No, basically the gradermen supervise themselves Mr King. That is not quite right - I have seen trucks go out in the winter time to see if a road needs to be plowed or not and that is not the grader man doing that I am not saying that is not a good idea - I am not disagreeing with that Mr. Marz: Some times it is the graderman doing that - quite often He will go with a pick up first because it is cheaper to go with the pick up than to run his grader all over Mr Vic Moran - I have spent a little time with the grader departments - I find it should be supervised a little more. On some of the roads when they do what I want done and have done for me - and the roads since the last rain were in very good shape - the four or five miles that I asked them to do There are other roads that are done exactly against my thinking and those roads are terrible shape It is quite a subject and I have spent alot of time on it I will just say where it is done my way it proves out to be way more efficient and a good road and that is all we need Mr Elmer Currie- The one thing concerns me - for years I have waited for a road to drive down to Drumheller - we finally got the Orkney Hill fixed - at the time it looked like the slope was far too steep for that soil They lined the ditches with a bunch of old straw bales and made a bunch of dams and now the water is going over the dams and digging a hole and now the hill is slumping Whose responsibility is it? Mr Marz, Shared between us and Alberta Transportation because they were involved in it Mr Currie. You have a job on your hands Mr. Stan Boles: When we pay $328,000 00 a year for engineering should there not be a guarantee on engineering from them that they will design roads that will not do the things that Elmer said? Are they not liable? Mr Marz* It was government engineers on that project - so they will be taking that up with them Mr. Boles: So that was not engineering by the engineer hired by the M.D. Mr Marz* That we hire? No. Mr Boles Engineering costs themselves seem to be pretty high - I thought that was included in that but it wasn't All the rest of the work was it included in that - the road work that you did last year 13 ��Cr4 i CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 Mr Marz• On Orkney? Mr Boles No - the rest of the roads in the M D. that were built - the engineering costs are included in that? Mr Jeffery That $358,000 is made up of $5000 00 a mile flat rate and about $1000 00 per mile for base course and the rest of the engineering is for the contract jobs where they charge 15% -- The engineering projects on a flat mile basis - I think it is $5000 00 per mile Mrs Wilkinson $2800 00 per kilometer Mr. Jeffery- $2800 per kilometer and the base course crew is $1000 per kilometer and the rest of the engineering is based on the two contract projects on SR 582 and SR 587 and that was - I think they were both 5 mile projects - or 5 and 4 and that was either 10 or 15% of the total contract Mr Boles The other question - the engineering costs over about 6 years went from about $50,000 to $350,000 Why are they increasing? More liability or something? Mr Jeffery- No we didn t have engineers - we had free engineering from Alberta Transportation back about 6 years ago - Mr. Boles: Now you hire your own? Mr Jeffery Any of our own projects - that is on the flat rate basis - the only time they charge the expensive ones is on the contracts where they have to stay and babysit every day They do not babysit us every day - they come and give us stakes - and go We do get an engineering offset grant of about $13,000 00 but we do get grants offsetting those engineering fees for the contract jobs as well Mr Boles. These grants - all these grants that come through - the regular road grant - if you contracted your road building out is not your grant proportionately higher for that portion of road from the government? Mr. Jeffery- Our regular road grant is $450,000 - the contract projects we mostly get 100% Now they pay 100% of the contract - for SR 582 and SR 587 the government actually paid 100% of the contract - now that still costs us money for the right of way, borrow pits, fencing, that sort of thing Mr Boles I am saying - for secondary grants - for secondary roads you have secondary grants for secondary road building - but if that was contracted out would your grant be proportionately higher? Mr Jeffery. They were contracted out - SR 587 and SR 582 were both contract jobs Mr Boles It that not a matter of who is doing them - li 14 s CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D. OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING — THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 It is contracted because it is a provincial road - how does that work? Mr Jeffery- This year we are the contractor Last year in 1991 - we had contractors do the jobs on SR 587 and SR 582 In 1992 we are the contractors to the government on SR 836 They are paying us $40,000 per kilometer for the first two kilometers and $50,000 per kilometer for the next 7 kilometers, plus materials and some other things Mr Marz. Are you referring to SR 582 where our crew is doing base coursing this year? Mr Boles. No, I am just - the grant - if you have a contractor come in and build a road for you the government must pay a proportionately higher grant than if you were to build it with your own equipment Mr. Marz. Not necessarily - it depends on what we negotiate - we have negotiated contracts previous to this year on a completed contract that the contractor does the base work and the M D for our share - -- No the contractor does the grading (dirt work) and for our share we do the base course and the surface The initial light coat surface - that is our share In 1992 we negotiated with the Government for them to allow us to be the contractor and Mr Boles* When you do that don't you take on a little bit of liability - you have to carry extra liability insurance? Mr Marz No more than we already have because we are in the business of building roads and we have to have it anyways Mr Boles Yes, but if you are in the business - you are competing with a contractor are you not? Will you not have to pay back this 30% that you get a break on the equipment Mr Marz- Not on the deal we negotiated - we negotiated I believe 15% lower than whatever contract price they could get Mr Boles* You are contracting to another division - not another division - still in Kneehill - but you are contracting the M D equipment on a government road Mr Marz- Secondaries are our roads Mr Boles They are your roads - but how does this work? j It doesn't effect - how does that work - they could not sue you and say pay the 30% on the equipment because you are competing with a contractor? Because it is your own road j right? j Mr Marz. Anybody can sue you for any reason. The difference is that the cash - almost $1 Million - will be coming to the M D of Kneehill - we will be running our equipment anyways for road construction - so we shifted them from our 1992 program to this project and those dollars will stay - will come into our budget and stay in ii 15 CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 this area. We should be able to have alot more positive cash situation by the end of this year Mr Boles, I don't know if I got a full answer to the other question If you contract the road building out do you not get a proprotionately higher grant on the regular Qroad grant itself? If you don't contract any out you don't get that grant - is that correct? Mr Marz No, we get a regular road grant if we contract nothing out Mr Boles- Yes, but do you get as high a proportion Mr Marz It is the same Mr Boles- How does it work? Is it per kilometer - Why would Starland get the same figure as the M D of Kneehill - they only built 6 miles of road last year and their regular road grant was the same grant - is it based on kilometers or miles or something? Mr Jeffery There is a formula - to do with population - miles of road - not sure what the formula is - but there is alot of variables Mr Boles. It is not per mile? Mr Jeffery- It is equalized out between the municipalites You are saying Starland's grant was $400,000 - the same as ours? Mr Boles Yes they are virtually the same, but they only built six miles of road and we built 20. Why would they get $400,000 Because of less population? Mr Jeffery It could be Mr Marz. It is - how it works out in the formula I guess Mr Bruce Hastie What was the cost per mile last year I to move a meter of dirt? It was stated at the last meeting just the straight cost, forget about per mile Mr Marz, I have it in yards 4 ( Mr Hastie You have it in yards - the industry works in meters Mr Marz* Will yards be suitable? Mr Hastie I guess it will have to be Mr Marz I can get it in meters I guess I don't have it in meters It was $1 72 per cubic yard That was average of the Buffalo Jump, the Schmidt Project, the Crossroads project The contract was $2 27 on SR 582 and $1 76 on SR 587 Our contract jobs averaged $1 983 cents Mr Hastie I have to congratulate Mr Jeffery for really confusing the issue If that is the case if it cost us 40 $1 72 on our crew and Highway #1 east of Medicine Hat 16 E [A CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 was contracted out between 88 and 90 cents a meter - and on Highway #2 north of Fort Macleod the contract went out at 90 cents and if you are going to operate 15% less than contractors that means this year you will be operating for give or take 70 cents a yard That is a dollar a yard cheaper than last year Somebody fudged the books somewhere because these figures came right from a contractor this afternoon and right from Department of Transportation and that is what the costs are going out at this year Mr Marz You are comparing a contract on a specific road in Medicine Hat to a specific road in Kneehill - Mr Hastie Well I realize in Kneehill we build side roads better than Number 1 and 2 Highways - but just the same I think I have a better comparison Mr Jeffery Just a comment Bruce - these are probably dirt figures I would guess? Mr Hastie- I asked you for a figure of moving a yard of dirt Mr Jeffery Our figures are based on total fob costs Total contract prices include gravel, everything - Mr Hastie Then you did not answer my question - I asked what does it cost to move a yard of dirt? That is what we have that a construction crew out there for - is to move a yard of dirt from here to there - and in industry it is a meter of dirt - they quit talking about yards years ago That is quite a bit bigger than a yard Mr Jeffery I think I have those figures Mr Hastie That is a figure I would like to have and I will just in the meantime - while John is looking up the figures - I will ask the indulgence of our group of ratepayers here tonight to ask our Chairman for the evening to enlighten us back when he was on Council why they got rid of the incentive to pay taxes early I think Mr Brown can answer that and how many years it took to get rid of what our M D is trying to put back in Mr Brown* As Chairman I am not supposed to take part in the debate, but I can relay information We had a discount of taxes prior to about 1962 or 1963 At that time the discount was done away with because the discount did not serve an old adage of municipal government - what is the bestest for the mostest - a discount is paid by a government body and they have to budget somewhere to pay that discount - so the people who pay early and get the discount -.they get their money back _ those 'people who have difficulty and don't pay their taxes until fall or later on in the season whenever it may be - they have to pick up that difference - that is the difference between a discount and a penalty A penalty is only paid on taxes which are not paid for by a due date Therefore those are the people who pay. But on a discount ev.erybody.pi:cks up those receiving the.discount. The ppop1e who get'the discount they pay their taxes - they get' it but the other people - those that don't pay on time - they have to- pay 1.7 r� N L-01 E. H CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 the money that is paid out by the Municipality for the discount It took years to get away from - to get it off the books - it was brought to several annual meetings and it was finally decided when we got into the oil business we had a lot of large companies coming in here - they paid on time - they never missed a discount I assure you and the rest of people paid It is as simple as that I cannot take part in discussion farther that that Mr Marz If I can just comment on some of the discussion which came up in Council during this debate - one of the reasons was those that pay early put the municipality in a position of cash flow where they don't have to borrow as early, thereby saving the M D Interest charges That was deemed to be an offsetting factor of early payment You are taking the money that you could be putting in the bank and getting interest on and paying your taxes and therefore instead of gaining interest at the bank, which we would be paying if we had to borrow till the taxes came in, you would be getting it back in the form of a discount and those who didn't would not be participating and the discount should be - maybe not totally, but partially, offset by the interest generated Interest works both ways - if we get early payment we can put that money in the bank and collect interest and if it keeps us from getting into a borrowing position one month longer we save that money by not having to pay interest Mr Hastie. I accept that, but I still say you are putting the penalty on to the young farmer and we are penalizing the young person who has a hard time paying his taxes and not necessarily at penalty date, even before the penalty date - you are still penalizing him at the expense of - giving to the rich and taking from the ones less fortunate who are just getting started in this M D We have to take a long hard look at how we hurt these young farmers in this district - if you look around the age of people in this room here - you will see we probably average about 56 to 60 years of age - and we are still farming - there is not too many young people any more - those are the ones who are going to take the brunt in the years to come. Mr. Marz* I can assure you that those concerns were brought up in the debate and Council is well aware of that concern Mr Glen Stankevich - Back to graders - if you contracted the graders for 45 hours a week and it rained during that week - would he not have to make up those hours plus the additional 45 hours In the following week? Mr Marz I don't know - you are talking about Starland's contract - I don't know - they did not supply us with that information and that is something each contract is negotiated with the municipality each time You would get the best you can get when you negotiate with the contractor We telphoned a contractor early this spring and asked for a price to bring a grader and we were quoted $80 00 per hour Mr. Stankevich• I would think if you hired me for some many hours I would have to do that regardless Moving on Council must have a projection of how many roads are going to be built in the next three years? )i4,1V-t1 E [A CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 Mr Marz- Yes we do - Mr Stankevich- Can you give an approximate number - how many - for the main crew Mr Marz How many miles? Mr. Stankevich. Yes Mr Marz Approximately 10 to 12 miles per year depending on the terrain that we are in Mr Stankevich Is it not true the Government would have built it regardless? Mr Marz, With our involvement - share costing Mr Stankevich Would it still cost our M D. money to build it? Mr. Marz: Yes Mr Stankevich- How much would it have cost? Mr Marz. About the same The difference is we are doing the grade work on this particular one as well, but we are being paid cash for it We have to do the base course anyways as our share of the contract The base course and surfacing - that is what we have been doing the last two to three years - initially we were doing the grade work originally and the government was doing the chipping - such as they did down at SR 575 between Acme and Highway 21 We felt our own basing and surfacing was a superior product to what we were getting from a contractor, so we switched that with them and we felt we ended up with a slightly lower cost for our share doing it that way than the other way This year we are replacing the contractor on this fob - and they are paying us directly as a contractor It has put our normal road program on hold for a year to do that, but it is putting us in a very positive cash situation Mr Marz We have to pay for the land purchasing, borrow pits, power line and fence moves, pipeline moves as well Mr Stankivech• I understand that - but the government is paying a share of building that road - so why don't they build that road and why does not the M D get back to building our other roads that need building - Mr Marz Because we can put almost a million dollars in our pocket - that means a less cost to you directly Mr Brown* As an observation - I was around here for 25 years - if that crew was working on a government project they are not spending our money and that suits me fine Mr Ron Smith I would like to get back to the new assessment - It was always my understanding that this new assessment would be a benefit to a bona fide farmer I have a son - he is farming a section of land - little more he owns an acreage and his acreage taxes have gone up about 3 times this year on this new assessment - it is going to really hurt guys like that 19 r f CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING- THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 Mr Marz I can appreciate your comment, Ron In any set of rules it is difficult for the Provincial Government to come up with a senerio that is going to be totally fair to every situation and we realize their situation - when they are starting out it is a little rough - all we are doing is applying this assessment as came down by the Alberta Government - it is provincial law - it is not M D of Kneehill law { Mr Smith Then there is nothing you can do about it? •� Mr. Marz* We can lobby along with every other municipal district and county in the province for changes - but when we get to the table there is 450 some delegates there s from Grande Prairie to Lethbridge and what we think is • fair in Kneehill is not necessarily acceptable in situation down there or up in Grande Prairie - so you get all the arguments and resolutions laid on the lap of the Provincial Government department and they are trying to make the best possible senerio out of everything and there are going to faults What we do when we identify your fault I guess we can work on these one at a time I guess you can have a doctor or lawyer on a quarter section of land or an auditor that makes more money than all of us, and he would pay next !( to no taxes - so that - the residence is being hit - assuming I guess - that if you are starting out you are doing other work as well Mr Smith It is not just people that are living off the land Mr Marz- We can certainly try to address individual situations but I hope you can appreciate it is a very difficult process and very lengthy debate - things like this have been debated for years and before recommendations are even made to Government - because what we think is applicable here - the next - our neighbor next door to us argues against us The Provincial Government has to try to make some sense out of it They put their own ideas into it too, because they also have people lobbying them. Mr Smith: Why don't they consult a few farmers once Mr Marz- Well they are - we are all farmers - j Mr Smith. It looks like you didn't do your homework very good i Mr Marz You do the best you can do - I imagine you have been involved in boards and various functions - you don t always get your own way Mr Bruce Boles I don't know if this not, but I notice you have cut back on spend more time grading the roads, but say you spend less time grading and if cut down more perhaps the gradermen co time is a question or building roads to out our way I would you are going to uld put in twice the Mr Brown That is another view point ii Mr Hastie: Does Mr Jeffery has the answer to my question yet? 20 1-01 CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING- THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 Mr Jeffery- I think your question was the machine costs only compared to the dirt? Mr Hastie I want to know the cost for moving a meter of dirt Mr Jeffery Okay - our job cost for the machines and labour costs only for the 11 miles last year worked out to $1 34 per yard doing the same thing on the contract basis that was $1 38 a yard That is, you recognize Bruce, is at government rates Mr. Hastie, I understand you are telling me it cost the M D of Kneehill $1 38 a yard to move a yard of dirt - Mr Jeffery $1 34 and that is at government rates Mr Hastie. Hang the government on them yet - what did it cost - you have gravel trucks working i them work under government rates away under government rates - so rate part at me I want to know rates - you never worked based on government rates a this M.D. and you make - Under government rates - don t throw the government what it costs us Mr Jeffery. In the last 5 years according to our figures we have averaged 37% under government rates Mr Hastie. Then give me 37% under government rates Mr Jeffery- We do the costing, as you are aware, at government rates Mr Hastie- So you are saying $1 00 a yard Sorry you forgot your calculator or your computer John Mr Brown. Can we take another question while John is working with the figures Mr Stan Boles One question - in the paper - Three Hills Capital - it was printed that it cost so much for us to build a mile of road and so much for a contractor to build a mile of road - the contractor's price is about $12,000 under our price - now if this is not a true figure why is it printed in there that way? We have to decide on whether we are spending our money wisely - why isn't the true figure in there - that was discussed at the last meeting Why is there a discrepancy in the price printed in the paper and the price that the Reeve quoted us that it actually cost us to build our roads Mr Hoff I think you are saying that a contract price is cheaper but we also have to buy the land and do all the agreements and telephone and pole moves - Mr Boles: Why would you include that in your costs and not in the contractors costs - we have to decide whether it is to our advantage to own our own equipment or whether it is to our advantage to contract - we are trying to decide that and everybody here is here for a reason and the reason is - there are alot of different reasons- but one of the reasons is taxes are going up, and for some people they are going down because there is more farm land and an older house, their taxes are going down 21 1111111114-4 If EV E 0 CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 - but for some younger fellows - like the gentleman was speaking on - the prices are going - the taxes if you build a new house and so on, your prices go up That is why we are trying to decide if we are doing this efficiently and we can't decide if you don't give us the exact costing Mr. Hoff- We have had some people come in and say this fellow is living on an acreage and he is paying no taxes Mr Boles. I realize that Mr Hoff That is where the government came from - they have been pressuring the government to have taxes paid on those 3 acres. Mr Boles I understand - if there is a place at Linden doing $20 Million dollars worth of business off a chicken farm which is only 20 acres - he should not be paying $40 tax I agree with that Or any other intensified operation That has been a comment about 4 years You are going to be taxed on all farm buildings - it is just down the road aways All I am saying if we have to decide whether we are doing a good job and it is not only the councillors - it is everybody - we have to decide whether or not they want to keep going the way we are going - that is all I am saying - and we have to decide by cost I don't think you can cost it out per mile because you can say you can build a mile of road on the Orkney Hill for the same price as you can build a mile of road at Huxley It has to be by per cubic yard, the degree of difficulty, engineering inside or outside the contract, whatever it is Give us a cost on this - that is what I am saying give us a realistic cost on this and we should decide - alot of the people here want the mill rate to go down and lessen their taxes - maybe I am wrong Mr Hoff. Okay John will give you that figure. Mr Boles- We want the councillors to spend a little less some do - want them to spend a little less money - but I realize you cannot give more service and not spend the money Mr Jeffery- Stan, I agree with you 100% there As far as the cost - we put in the paper we built 11 miles at an average cost of $91,000 a mile Compared to a contractor I of 9 miles for $79,000 a mile. We went over - using that same job - our jobs cost $1,001,923 00 and we built 11 miles and moved 582,000 yards which is $1 72 per cubic yard j or $91,000 per mile The contractor cost us $719,000 for 9 miles and they moved 362,972 cubic yards for $1 98 a cubic yard or $79,000 per mile The unfortunate part is to get this in the paper and get the costing all done after the auditor goes home It is timing. Mr Hastie in answer to your question I think I got 88 cents - that is an unaudited figure Mr. Hastie - that is per yard? Mr Jeffery Yes Mr Hastie. I will get back to you on that E s i L11- C7 CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL 148 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 Mr Boles- The contractor costs - but in the paper here in your financial report - the contractor is $224,00 under budget - he did that contract for $497,000 instead of $719,000 What does that - how come the figure difference? Mr. Jeffery- Where are you looking Stan? Mr Boles On this budget here - on the revenue look under Transportation Services - contractor construction 47% under budget or whatever - it was budgeted at $694,000 and he did it for $469,000 Mr Jeffery. The figure I have given you is complete cost with gravel, right of way, fencing, the power poles, pipelines, etc Mr Boles This is total cost? Mr. Jeffery- Yes, we are comparing total costs of two projects - the contractor project and our project Mr Boles. The dirt moving cost were that cost - were the first cost? Mr Jeffery - that is correct Mr Boles- And that does not include gravel or anything It is strictly the dirt moving? Mr Jeffery- No, that is the figures I gave Bruce before I believe Mr. Boles- So he actually built it for $56,000 per mile or thereabouts Mr Jeffery. Yes - divide that by 9 - whatever Mr Boles- And then you have to figure out cubic yards and all that Mr Jeffery. Exactly - he moved 363,000 cubic yards - same engineers Mrs Maureen Malaka. Good to see that you only have to grade roads and only do contract work I would like to know what percentage of the tax dollars goes out for requisitions - probably the M D has very little to work with - you probably send alot more out than you get in Mr Marz The requisitions in 1991 amounted to $3.6 million paid out in requisitions. We are taking in $11 Million dollars Mrs Malaka So it is about one -third or little less than one - third? Mr Marz. Yes, about 25% - 30% more or less Mr Hoff reviewed the requisitions paid out by the M D in 1991 for a total of $3,600,000 more or less. Mr Stan Boles* Our gravel consumption is rising - I realize it is rising but we are building more secondary roads - but from 1987 to 1989 there was 12 miles of base 23 V,q�v H E t II CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 coursing done - now in 1987 there was 4200 yards to the mile gravel - and in 1989 there was 12,500 yards to the mile - why the big increase in the consumption of gravel for this secondary base course - I assume it is for base course because it is 1 1/2 inch gravel. Is it still increasing at that rate or - it was the same number of miles that was base coursed - so maybe this gravel was used for something else I don't know. All I am getting at is - we are running out of gravel and the consumption of the gravel is 4 times what it is in Starland - now they are not building as many secondary roads and I realize that when you build secondary roads you use more gravel and if you put in a big culvert rather than a bridge you would use more gravel because of packing around the culvert, but our consumption has risen 4 times - it is 4 times of that which Starland's is and their total number of roads is only 2 /3rds of ours I realize it is smaller - only 2 /3rds but it seems to me we are using alot of gravel and this M D is short on gravel There was some discussion in the minutes some time ago that some guy had 10,000 yards of crushed gravel at Sundre - well if we are going to haul it from Sundre I think we better take another serious look - maybe it would be cheaper to build a bridge that to pack all this gravel around these big culverts if we have to haul it from Sundre Anyways can you enlighten us as to why the gravel consumption is 4 times what it would be in Starland - I realize they don't have as many secondary roads, but in the percentage of roads, yes we have more roads, more miles of secondary roads, but they have 6% secondary roads and we have 7 Theirs is 1918 kilometers total kilometers maintained and ours is 2791 something. Mr. Hoff* This new road - SR 582 - we put on 5000 yards a mile and then we put so many yards of 3/4 inch on top - about 2500 yards per mile Now the Government tells us we can, if we prepare this road right, we can do it with half the gravel - that is the experiment on SR 582 right now We hope that it works There is another new product - Consolid where you dig up 10 inches of clay, you mix the first five inches with so many gallons of product and the last five inches is mixed with the same product but mixed twice as strong and that product has been tried at Airdrie right now and that costs around $35,000 00 per mile It costs about 80% of re- construction You do not use gravel - only thing you have to do is seal it and put a chip coat on and then it is just as good as our secondary roads - we are looking at it - the road we looked at - it is two years old is just as good as the other road is Mr. Boles- You are going to cut down on the gravel use if at all possible? Mr Hoff. We are going to try to Mr Boles I am not too interested in that In 1989 it went from 4200 yards to 12,000 Maybe there was some big culverts and maybe some of that was put on another road - I don't know I just think our gravel costs are getting a little out of hand. The other thing is in 1989 they could stock pile it for $3 12 and they can sell it to the farmer for $4 00 at Garson Pit. How could this be if you can put it in a stock pile for $3 12 Is that trucking only. 24 I i �01 CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 Mr Jeffery. Yes Mr. Boles - Trucking only Mr Jeffery. Plus the cost of the gravel trucks' loader Mr Boles Trucking only - then it is $3 12 at the stock pile - if you stock pile this gravel - and this is something that gets me is stockpiling because we are stockpiling a third of our gravel - we load it up and for instance, on Highway 27 we haul to the Huxley pile from the Garson Pit, unload it, push it up with a cat, re -load it, we have to have two complete lines of trailers and then we park the end dumps and load it up in the belly dumps and haul it and turn my corner and spread it Say they spread it on my road, it has happened, I don't know what the advantage is to this It would be advantageous if you were going to do a big chip project or something where you needed alot of gravel in a certain area - I agree with that - but this stockpiling of 3/4 inch crush gravel for the gravel roads - as soon as that truck turns the corner it turns from $3 12 to about $7 90 The cost of the gravel - that is all I am saying. Mr Marz If we hauled everything from the gravel pit in the summer time to get the same amount of gravel out we would probably have to have at least 3 more trucks Mr. Boles- Can you not contract those trucks and then you would not have them with trailers Mr Marz. We could - we could contract every truck we have - but the point is what would 3 times more trucks do to the roads they are hauling on and what would the dust factor be to the people who are living on that road - these are all considerations - Mr Boles, I agree Mr Marz. We have had alot of roads that are totally demolished Mr Boles Because of hauling Mr. Marz Yes Mr Boles. Yes but Highway 27 would not be one of those roads because there are 20 trucks go by my grandfather's place within an hour - big trucks - tandum B trains hauling Some of these stock piles should be done away with Maybe that is not one of them. Mr Marz- We review all our stock pile sites on a regular basis, as to the feasability of maintaining them and on a per fob basis as well Mr Boles Okay That is my question - I don't know if any of the other people disagree or agree, but it seems to me if you can stockpile - Starland stockpiles about 10% of theirs and they contract all their trucking They contract 13 trucks when they need them and they use guys within the area - they don't hire outside contractors but they pay 10% less than government rates - and usually the same guys come back 25 R i N v E* CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D. OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 Mr Marz. We pay 10% less than government rates to private truckers as well Mr Boles In this area? Mr. Marz• In this area and we had some quit on us Mr Boles Well I guess it just depends how it goes Over there that is what they found - they don t own any gravel trucks and when they need alot they have a lot They have 13 if they need them or 15 if they have to hire outside - they probably have to pay full government rate I assume. Mr Wayne Stankievech. Just a comment towards the grading end - alot of what Stan just said - if our grader men knew how to grade roads we probably would still have lots of gravel in this M D If anybody hays in this country and hayed the ditches they have quit haying the ditches because half the gravel is in the ditches and that is because of the way the graders grade the road They do, as far as I am concerned, a terrible job and a prime example of the way some of these roads are being built around here if the Fisher Davidson road that we just did out here with this calcium thing - I don't know who the road crew manager was but it was probably the worst job I have every seen - anybody who thinks they can cut off sod and pack it into the ground and not have potholes 10 days later should maybe be looking for another line of work Oris Rodger: By bringing that sod and stuff in there was told to me by the guys that supplied the material The Fisher Davidson road has so much gravel on it with the dust blowing out of it we could not pack it What do you do - you bring in something to try and mix it That happened to be sod and silt Mr Hoff. Then it rained right after Mr. Stankievech- Then if that is what you were told I would sure look into getting on their backs because as far as I am concerned you were misled and I think anybody with a little bit of road building realizes you can t take straw, pack it in the hole, cover it up with dirt and not think it is going to come out It don't take much common sense Mr. Rodger- The guy we buy the product from is going to be out tomorrow or Monday morning Mr Stankievech. Well I sure hope the M D does not have to pay for this mistake - if you can put the blame on them that is fine As far as I am concerned the M D is liable for that road and it is a joke Mr Rodger. Not only that, if you remember Wayne the night we put it on, it rained Mr. Stankievech* Well you guys should listen to the forecast too Mr Rodger. We have a road do' think the farmers listened to to pull alot of them out of i it 26 r t� a a C7 io 7 CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M.D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 Mr Ken Hoppins• Thank you Mr Chairman. I guess I would like to express some concern in the method of tax payment I feel that I have the right to complain - I phoned my councillor and I expressed my displeasure with what council is doing - above and beyond what Mr. Brown has said - I think Council has erred - I will create another senerio - it has forced me to go to the bank and borrow $800 00 to cover roughly one - quarter section of land. Now I not going to get out my calculator and figure that out because there is an expression that figures lie and li.ers figure What it boils down to is who can borrow money cheaper - can the Council borrow it or can I borrow it. Because this money has to be borrowed - at least 50% half do and half don't Why can't you fellows get together and I know you should be able to borrow at least • quarter under prime, where I have to borrow at prime plus • half and maybe some have to borrow at prime plus 1 or 1 1/2 depending on your situation So I really think you have erred and you should go back to council chambers and discuss that I would like some of your thoughts on why you think the farmer can borrow money cheaper than you can You even have a millon and a half in your reserver fund and I am not arguing about that one - but that is security that any bank will take and you will come under prime. Mr Marz Your particular concern Ken is we can borrow money cheaper - that too was brought up in the discussions on this debate The only thing I can say after the concerns expressed here it will probably be brought up again for discussion - I can't say what will the result be of those discussions - but we certainly will discuss any concerns brought to the floor here - and thank you for bringing it Mr Brown: This discount amounts of 8% - 4% on the 31st of March and you have to pay your taxes anyways by the end of September - six months so that is doubled so 8% on your investment and you can't get 8% anywhere else I will be in to see you on the 30th of March Mr Jim Stewart. Mr Chairman - I must be fortunate to have an excellent graderman, at least I have a good road - I have had him four times this year - he makes three passes on it. That year he is very careful around my place - but four miles north of me there is big lumps on the side of the road - I can drive along, put my hand out and touch the lumps - which is a hazard - but by and large our grader man is okay. Probably my biggest concern is this assessment - I appreciate as a farmer it is not going up this year - it will be less taxes - but I am concerned about the small holder, household man going up approximately double - and I didn't catch all those figures - and the commercial. Probably more concerned about the commercial than anyone at this point Commercial includes oil companies and what have you They are in a bind also, if we drive them out where does this revenue come from - who is going to be left - basically us farmers I think most of our concern is we would like to see a restraint in spending in our M D Looking ahead we don t know how long we are going to have oil companies and the minute they are gone we can't pick up double what we are paying Thank you 27 J� .o r i .e : M CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 Mr Marz- I think I can safely say that Council is unanimously endorses that Vic Moran Mr Chairman - driving down on the Gorr Road that good road by Jack Christie's - you look to the right or left and you can see the fence posts at a certain height Then you drive one other road and the fence posts look like toothpicks - this is in gumbo land where there is less base than some of this higher good base land Like Winther's corner west why is that road raised so high From Hepburn s hill west why is that road built way up - you lose your line of sight On the Crossroads Project from the bridge why is that road go so high up and south of Hoppins that goes up 8 feet above a field You see on a government highway, the field the posts you can look at them you don t look down at them Why is all this extra earth moved Environment should get after you for some of this destruction here, you are destroying the environment if you move more dirt that you have to It costs to move yards of dirt when you don't have to Highways don't do it Why is that? Mr Marz The reason is we build roads according to engineering standards and the engineers we hire are hired also on a regular basis by Alberta Transportation and by most of the municipal districts and counties throughout the province Mr Moran That does not make sense to destroy a country just to build a road the wrong way The Government is not that dumb Mr Marz The government alot of time uses the same engineers we do Mr Moran. You have the power to override them Mr Marz- We will not get our grant if we do that Mr Moran That is where you are wrong Mr Bruce Hastie• I think you have erred a little bit there, Richard, because of these side roads that are being built the government does not tell you how to build them The engineers do not tell you how to build them - you tell ® the engineers what you want If you want it 3 feet over the field level - thats what you direct your engineers to do - he only does what you tell him Don't give me the guff that he tells you what to do You paying him to go out there and survey the road and tell how many yards of dirt you have to move, but on the side roads on your 28 foot top roads you tell him what you want - it is discussed whenever you discuss your standards for your own area That is not engineered by the Government at all Right Mr Marz: Do you wish me to respond First of all I was not attempting to give you any guff, Mr Hastie It is right that we will not get our government grant on secondary roads, which is what I thought Mr. Moran was referring to It is true we have our own standards for our local roads and we have two standards, besides our secondary standard, which we apply to our local road program, depending on how we feel that road should be : M :7 s H CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 built. Some of our local roads we build to secondary standards such as the road that goes past your place Bruce even though it is not a secondary. We do build all our roads and they are engineered according to the standards that are set by Council You were part of that process on the standards Mr Hastie. That is what I was leading up to Thank you Mr Marz About four or five years ago, at the request of Mr Hogg, when Richard Vickery was road superintendent, we went up and took a look at a road that goes by there, and everybody should go and take a look at it right now The council - the six men that are sitting there and I sat in the same place, in the hot seat were you fellows are sitting tonight, we went to that road three years in a row - and two times it was taken off the agenda and then it was left further down the priority list Now this council has seen fit to build that road but Mr Smith can attest to the fact that he rolled a tractor on that road and he contacted me and I went and looked at it The height of the road is satisfactory, it never drifts in, but it is narrow. At that time the road was 3 feet over top of the field, but it was the last road that was built in the M D with the elevating grader. It was built to a high standard, it had a good gravel base, and there are six of you sitting there that said we do not want to tear the center of this road up We want to add something to the edges, that is all we have to do At the present time by measurement that road is 7 or 8 feet higher than the surrounding field on the flat land, straight flat - south of Mr Veres - the best half mile I think the M D ever built with an elevating grader, because they had learned by that time how to build a road and did a good job. Now this year it has been torn up, we were talking about two miles of road, now there is four miles of road built, that actually goes nowhere, because there is dirt trail on the south side, to the north you have about half a mile of gravel and then a mile and a half of more dirt trail, so you have four miles of road basically leading nowhere I believe when the costs come in on that project you will see that you spent between $100,000 and $125,000 per mile The six of you councillors that sat with me have to bear the responsibility for that, perhaps Mr Vickery talked you into it, but just the same you turned it down twice before and said what should be done, why this sudden reversal of policy? Mr Marz That road was on the program four years ago Mr Hastie. That is right, but it was removed twice Mr. Marz, Not prior to being on four years ago Mr Vickery Not the first two miles it wasn't, it was put on by Mr Hastie, the first two miles at the north end and I can show any person in this crowd the council minutes that states that. I can go into the M D office and get the minutes where Mr Hastie put the first two miles on the program before I came on Council. Mr. Hastie, This I did not deny that - the six councillors that are sitting there put it on with me, I didn t put it 29 �I CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 on, the six councillors put it on, but they just decided it was going to be built a little wider Mr Marz For everybody's benefit the process of getting a road on a road program - the local councillor brings his concerns to council, the whole council goes out and looks at and gives it the yes or no But the council does not go out and look at individual roads, it is up to the councillor to bring it forth, the roads that are of concern to his ratepayers in that division, bring it to council and then council says yes or no Mr Vickery- You remember the exercise Bruce, the councillor, the superintendent and the grader man of the 7 divisions all put in their worst six miles in the M D of Kneehill Mr Hastie- That is true Mr Vickery. And the Crossroads Hall was number 1 and the Vickery Project was number 2 Mr Hastie I am not arguing about that - I am just saying it is overbuilt That is what I am arguing about ® Mr Vickery I kind of built over some roads too, but I am not going to mention whose Mr Hastie- Well I agree Mr Vickery Mr Vickery. As a matter of fact the one I am not going to mention was built to a secondary standard and there is not a secondary reading on it right now Mr Hastie That is true, I know what you are talking about But I am just saying that particular road, right now, is overbuilt again, and after we built the road on the Schmidt project three or four years ago, which is your father in law's road, we said we were not going to build roads to that standard anymore that were side roads And now we have done it again. Mr Vickery Are you just trying to pick on me, pick on my whole family? What are you trying to do? ® I Mr Hastie- I am not picking on anybody, I am directing this to the other six councillors - not to you - you have taken this personally Mr Vickery You have mentioned some of my other family. Mr Brown This is developing into a personal thing here Mr Hastie- No it is not, Rick and I have been good friends for years so it is not a personal thing Mr Brown You have brought to our attention the road is overbuilt in your opinion so we will accept that and carry on to the next question. James Main I would like to commend Bruce Hastie and the councillors for giving us a demonstration of how we are wasting our money - if this is what goes on in our council meetings and stuff - maybe we should grow up a bit and 30 N L Iq CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 share the responsibility of what we do decide instead of pointing fingers Mr. Brown. That is a good comment Keep that in mind on the 3rd Monday of September Allen Becker. I have a little trouble with this catch up deal. Us guys in the south need some roads and I don't know whether I want to pick on any one councillor up there - to say that we are getting the short end of the stick or not When I drive to the north I see those fence posts down below the road grade When I drive on my road the fence posts hardly stick up above the grass We have to quit being like kids and get down to business I just would like to know what the road cost - the last one you just finished - per mile - if I can have that figure. I would like to know what it cost per mile to go past Bruce Hastie's place and then I would like one road, other than SR 575, and perhaps you can even use that one, per mile in our division down there compare the figures and give them to us Mr Brown SR 575 is a few years old Mr Becker- If we can get the figures Mr Brown. That would be about 6 or 7 years back for SR 575 Mr Marz* It is getting confusing Allen - one person asks for the cost per yard, or per cubic meter, and the next one asks for it per mile I have a specific total fob cost, 11 miles costs 1,100.000 About $90,000 a mile or maybe a little more Mr. Becker. On what road? Mr Marz* On all of them that we did last year Mr Becker That is not what I am asking Mr. Marz: Okay which one do you want - we did Crossroads the total cost is $330,230 86 and it was 4 3 miles. So the cost per yard was $1 87 on that particular project Per Yard If you want the cost per mile you can divided $330,000 by 4 3 and that will give you the cost per mile It would be about $80,000 per mile. Mr Becker I do not need a cost figure per mile - all I am saying are the standards of roads the same, I am trying to bring this to your attention, Richard, SR 575 runs through where we live down there - it is a regular turnpike, we don't need it that big, but now why is the M D starting to build turnpikes to keep up with that one, or better it That is my problem - you are spending too much money on them Build more of them at a little less standard so we can all save Mr Marz Okay The road you are talking about is a secondary road and those roads we will not get a grant for or any funding if we do not build them to provincial government standards That is the one you are talking about We don't have control over that standard on a secondary road because the government is involved in the reconstruction - we are responsible for the road but the government is involved in the re- construction and they will 31 �r� CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 help us out with the bulk of the cost but in order to do that it has to be engineered according to their specificiations. Mr Becker Don t fall for that line, Richard, when they tell you they have to have this specificiati.ons You are hiring those engineers, you pay their salary right Can't you tell them we want a road built and build it for this or we will find somebody else you can, the rest of us out there in the farming industry work this way Mr Marz. On a secondary the engineering - the government pays for that Mr Becker If I have a quarter in this pocket it is the same if I have it in this pocket - the grant - we pay for them in the long run Mr Marz. I can say we would refuse to do it - and we will not get the grant - it is as simple as that We can lobby - lobbying is a long process - through the government and you can help us by talking to our M L A and saying why don't you the grants unconditional to the local authorities and they will get a better bang for the buck than with all the conditions built on - it is similar to your GRIP program - if they put the price they are spending on that program at the elevator everybody would be better off Mr Becker. In other words you are saying if you built Bruce Hastie's road three feet lower you would not have got a grant for it? Mr Marz- That is not a secondary road - we would not have got a grant for it That was all M D money and we would have free engineering on that from Alberta Transportation Mr Becker* If it was three feet lower would you got a grant for it dust the same - the same amount of money Mr Marz* We did not get a grant for that one. Mr Becker So it would have cost the taxpayers less? Mr Marz To build it three feet lower yes - it could have been done on that particular road Mr Becker. We probably could have built three miles more Mr Marz* I cannot comment correctly on that - I would have to figure it out We can get the figures Mr Becker* I am thinking along the right lines am I not? Mr Marz- I will concede if you built three feet lower you could have built more roads - I cannot comment on how much I don't know Mr Brown It seems some of our ratepayers feel we are overbuilding - we could get more miles for the same dollars by building to a lower standard. That is a decision Council has to make and they do make it from year to year 32 r/ � CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 Tom Jacobsen Mr Chairman - Listening to all these comments one thing - there are a few points I would like to make - one is that in the earlier comments regarding graders you folks said it cost $65 58 an hour to run a grader If you contract out it looks to me like it is the same price - $2 00 or $3 00 more - I think what you are missing is co contractors in the first place - he has to depreciate his equipment probably at 20 to 30% per year, involves with the profit, and he does not have alot of shops and administration, at least no cost to the taxpayers Your numbers that you gave for comparison do not have any bearing - you are not comparing apples to apples - I believe the cost of running a grader far exceeds what you have expressed here With regard to equipment - and road building - the point I would like to make is, if in fact the numbers that John or whoever prepared them and put out in the paper are correct, it in fact costs the municipality more per kilometer to build roads - you then turn around and you tell us that you are going to go out and contract and compete with contractors, which I don't think you should be doing anyways, and you are going to do it for 15% less than a contractor - it seems to me if my math is right, that the taxpayers are going to bear the brunt of a loss on that contract The other thing you continue to do is to refer any problems with your construction or with your graders, you refer all the responsibility away from council I am not sure who is responsible - either the engineeers are responsible, the government is responsible or the grants are I think, in my opinion, I don't see any responsibility being borne by the council or by administration I would like to put a motion on the floor and MOVE that the equipment of the municipality be sold and the entire construction projects be contracted out Is that motion in order Mr Chairman? Mr Brown. The motion is in order as a recommendation to Council. This is an annual meeting - we can only make recommendations to council Mr Jacobsen. Is a motion passed on the floor here binding on Council? Mr Brown No Mr Jacobsen. Then the meeting was adjourned just for information purposes with no authority on the ratepayers behalf? Mr Brown. No, this has been the way annual meetings have been since I suppose annual meetings started It is a meeting of the ratepayers to hear the various reports and make recommendations to council They are not binding. Mr Jacobsen. Is there anyway the taxpayers, in fact other than going through election, which does not seem to be that effective, is there any way the ratepayers could in fact propose something to council that they would carry out and reduce the tax burden of this municipality? Everybody is dealing with the symptons here rather than the cause The cause of the problem is overspending and mis management of the ratepayers money If there is no effective way that this meeting can do anything to bind the council it is a rather redundant meeting 33 H �11 CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D. OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING- THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 Mr. Brown- I would not call it redundant - they hear the discussions and they have heard your suggestion They will take it under advisement, but they still have the power to go ahead and act Mr Jacobsen- Well I guess if we can't make it binding we can at least have the motion on the floor for this meeting and I would hope you would open it up for discussion Mr Brown Yes, you can if you would like to make that motion Mr Jacobsen I have made the motion Mr Brown. Do you have a seconder? It will be a recommendation to council Mr Jacobsen Thank you Mr Brown* Is there a seconder? Mr Bruce Boles. Yes I will second the motion Bill Kilgour Not as an amendment to the motion, but I would ask the motion be by ballot, rather than by show of hands Would that be permissable? Mr Brown. Yes, if that is what you wish Mr Kilgour• I will make that a motion, and would ask for a seconder That is an amendment to the motion that the vote be by ballot Mr Brown- Do I have a seconder? Mr Hastie. Yes Mr Brown, Bruce Hastie seconds the motion Okay now we have a motion - it is amended TO ADD that the vote be taken l by ballot Now we are open for discussion. We should have someone against the motion to get it rolling Mr. Hoppins• Should you take a vote to decide if it is by ballot or was that dust a general concensus that it was agreed Mr Brown* Okay, we should have voted on the amendment Thank you for the correction It is agreed that we vote by ballot All those in favour Contrary minded if any? Amendment was carried unanimously that the vote be taken by ballot Mr Hoppins I rise in opposition to this motion - I spend 200 days on my farm trying to make a decision and you are going to ask me to make a decision on whether the M D should sell all their equipment and put some of the people in this room out of work - you know that is too mind boggling for me - I cannot support that without a stack of papers that high 34 ��ti rrrrrni��w J ff a :�3 CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 Mr Kubenic. I would like to speak to this motion - I think we got a damm good thing going here in this municipality with our - it is probably one of the best municipalities in the area What are we trying to do here bring in a county or something - it seems to me if there is contractors and you are stuck out on the farm and they are in Drumheller when there is a blizzard - who is going to look after us? I would think twice about this before you even made that motion Mr. Earl McRae: - I think this would require alot of thinking on everyone's part before they make a decision such as this Are there ulterior motives to people wanting to contract this work out - are they thinking of buying graders and putting them on and getting this work and then once the contract is out, and the M D does not have any equipment anymore, then we can keep the prices up and they are not likely to go back and buy all that stuff and start over again Stan Boles I am for some of it - not for all of it That was a pretty strong motion to sell all the equipment at once and chase everybody out But I think we better have a serious look at some of it - I don't agree with selling all the graders because that is, just what he said about snowplowing thing - and I think it is pretty hard for anyone to make a decision without a costing thing involved There is one thing I disagree with along different lines - ag services in Starland cost 50 cents an acre - and here it costs $1 15 per acre for the ag service equipment, supplies and wages and everything else Mr Brown We are discussing selling the equipment - on to a direct motion - will have to hold you to that Mr Boles- Okay - this is discussion on it Mr Brown We are on a motion now - it is not a wide open general question period Mr Boles- On a motion Mr Brown We are just dealing with the motion right now Mr Boles- I thought we had discussion on the motion Mr Brown- We are having discussion on the motion - but it is regarding selling the equipment - one definite thing - I am going to try and hold you to that Mr Boles- That is what equipment - not all of it Mr. Brown: Oh, all right I am talking about - some Mr Boles Now with ag services we have a brand new 4 wheel drive pickup for the guys to run around in and we have a front wheel mechanical drive tractor with self levelling loaders - and mowers and some of this stuff seems to be a little extravagent - some of this stuff could be contracted out - we are not talking about contracting graders - we are talking about contracting Kei.vers Lake mowing out to some students for the summer It is the little things that add up to the big dollars 35 L :�3 0 9 1 CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 Some of these vehicles - I don t see many M D pickups out my way very often but if you want to talk about the vehicles part of it some should be taken and sold - that is my opinion - this is equipment - this goes along with it. Offer the employee a per kilometer flat based rate for that many kilometers - we know he goes to that place and he comes back and if it is more than two trips he better have a good explanation - and you can't do it with all the equipment - you can't do it with the mechanics truck or with the supervisor's truck, but you do it with some of the other trucks and maybe we do have to sell the gravel trucks to pay for some of the shortfalls of the other stuff Maybe the gravel trucks are making us money I personally don't believe that Mr Brown Just to keep this on track - I am going to Jean to read the motion as she has it Mrs Wilkinson- The motion I believe the name of the party was a Mr Jacobsen - is that correct - Mr Jacobsen- Yes Mrs Wilkinson. Okay - The motion was the equipment in the M D be sold and the entire construction projects be contracted out The motion was seconded by Bruce Boles There was an amendment made to the motion and the amendment to the motion was to have the vote on that motion by ballot, not by show of hands That was seconded by Bruce Hast.ie and made by Bill Kilgour Mr Brown. The amendment was carried so the motion is as she read it and the vote will be by ballot Mr Dale Moran* Ken Hoppins made a very good point - I don't think one person here has done their homework to make this decision - or what they think they are going to make - they don't know the numbers - Mr Jeffery should crunch them - I don t know - you have to do them yourself, tonight this decision is not possible It is a pretty radical idea basically I think what they should do is streamline the M D and get more efficient - maybe run our machinery a few longer hours - maybe have to have an extra crew to do it - maybe we have too much money tied up with machinery and we should start using it more efficiently - maybe work that way - and get our money out of it Mr Brown. Any more discussion on this motion? Mrs Judy Schlichenmeyer• I just want to say the motion is not binding - but what we are doing is sending a message to the Council that they need to pay attention to the costs and start getting some value for our dollars Vern Sept My question is to Mr Jeffery or council whoever can answer it for me In trying to come to a decision on this motion - can Council give us a dollar number for the equipment so we can rightly decide - example a pick up - a cat - is this stuff being used efficiently - if there is a $200,000 piece of machinery out there that is only doing 200 hours a year work that effects the efficiency of the whole operation, and that would affect the vote as to whether the public would want these machines 36 /Ny( V :7 h � *1J E. CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 sold or whether they would be kept and run by the municipality Mr Brown Anybody else. Does the mover wish to close the debate Mr Oris Rodger On those graders in the M D of Clearwater what you don't understand - there is 11 graders running out there - 100 miles a piece We have 7 doing about the same mileage Mr Boles. In Kneehill you are doing about 400 miles per grader is that not right Mr. Rodger- 185 miles Mr Boles It must be more than that Mr Rodger, We count the straight mile, we don't count both sides Mr Boles. It must be more than that even so - you said the total number of kilometers maintained is 2791 isn t it Take the pavement off of that. Mr. Rodger- The total amount of gravel we maintain is 1200 Mr Boles. It is not 2791? Mr Rodger 1200 miles and we don't even count dirt roads Clearwater has a beat of 100 miles per grader Mr Boles In the statement there it said there was 2791 miles of roads maintained - in the auditor's report. Mr. Rodger* I go by gravel miles Mr Brown Most of the secondary roads are paved - alot of them are now and some which are not secondary are paved. Mr Boles I realize that - the report says 2791 miles of road maintained There is not that many miles of pavement. Mr Rodger Clearwater maintains one grader to maintain 100 miles average They have 11 graders - they contract 10 and their contractors are grading 100 miles a piece for a total of 1100 miles The M.D. is grading over 1200 with 7 graders Mr Boles I must have the graders all wrong - I did some figuring - Mr Rodger They average 1400 hours a year Mr Boles But in Starland I just figured out the total number of kilometers maintained - that is in the auditor's report - was 2791 for 7 graders - divided out works out to about 398 miles. I took the total number of paved miles off that I don't know where all these other miles came from Anyways you are doing a very good job at 400 miles per grader Starland if you took it and figured it out the same way for Starland proportion they are working on 430 miles per grader 37 CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL i MEETING — THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH 1992 d S • Mr Rodger. That contract grader in Starland is running on 160 miles Our buggies are running roughly 1500 hours per year 'i Mr. Boles- Yes but what are their main graders running? Mr Rodger. What do you mean? = Mr Boles- Their own graders - their contract grader gets 160 miles He gets less than the other 4 do. He only picks up the slack i Mr Rodger No he has his own beat Mr Boles. It is smaller than the other four Mr Rodger Well it says that - Will told me 160 miles Mr. Boles- For the contract grader yes, but not for their own graders i Mr Rodger. It would be pretty close - because Clearwater says ideal road conditions is 100 miles per grader .9 �f Mr Boles- I don t want to argue about this grader thing .� because I don't agree with contracting graders anyways Mr Rodger- On the buggy they are running roughly 1500 hours per year { Question. Idling or wide open? Mr Rodger Idling? Ask my foreman about that Mr. Brown- There is a little bit of unnecessary discussion here Mr Boles. Can you amend the motion to specific equipment? a Mr Brown- We would have to have the mover agree to that Mr Jacobsen. There seems to be some confusion about the motion The motion was - perhaps she could read the motion back again. The motion is made to dispose of the construction equipment - that is not the graders, the minority equipment It is the construction equipment that you build roads with If I said all the equipment I am sorry - I said it wrong - I am referring to the construction equipment - my particular objection that I raise is with regard to the municipality becoming a contractor in the building of roads Could you read the motion back? Mrs Wilkinson- The motion I have written down is - which is subject to listening to the tape and making suring I have not missed anything - was Moved that the equipment in the M D be sold and the entire construction projects be contracted out That is as I wrote it in shorthand. Mr Jacobsen I believe that is what I did say - and I would correct it - I was referring to the construction ® equipment - when I referred to all of the equipment - 38 r �I ti L -1 1 i E v CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 I did not refer to graders, tractors and ag equipment Mr. Brown- You are referring to construction equipment only? Mr Jacobsen- The construction equipment - that equipment which is used in construction which would include the cats, scrapers, the gravel trucks, all those things that would compete with a road contractor Mr Brown- Is that agreeable with the seconder? Mr. Bruce Boles- Yes Mr Steve Cullum Who is eligible to vote? Mr. Brown- This is sort of a money thing - I guess the people who pay the taxes, the ratepayers I think we can only use the honour system here to hope that only ratepayers vote. Mr Bruce Boles. Should not all the ratepayers of the M D be allowed to vote over a period of a week or a month? Mr Brown. We have a motion right here - this motion is only a direction to council - that is all it can be - that is as far as we have authority to go Mr. Richard A. Marz: As a ratepayer I wish to point out this equipment - as the council has negotiated it this year - will bring over $900,000 into the account of the M D of Kneehill If you sell it that will not happen The expenses will be no different that any other year this is $900,000 coming to us instead of a contractor taking it out to where ever Mr Brown That is a comment - does the mover wish to close debte? Mr Jacobsen I would like to make a comment in response to you - if you bring in $900,000 worth of revenue there is expenses connected with that - and I would suggest if I was going to go by the numbers you are talking here, there would probably be $1,100,000 expenses connected with that You can't have revenue without expenses I think that is the problem with you fellows trying to run a contracting business - you have to not only calculate revenue you have to calculate your expenses Mr Brown. The debate on the motion is closed We are ready to vote - vote by ballot. Mr Al Fenton and Mr James Ablett were appointed as scrutineers. Mr Brown You will vote for or against the motion by ballot we have the scrutineers to collect the ballots and count them Question- Do you vote yes or no - or how should the people respond - 39 i ti i I i C7 �11 CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL *48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 Mr Brown: If You are in favour of the motion - you vote yes. If you are opposed to the motion you vote no Is that simple enough Mr Brown advised the meeting all the councillors are entitled to vote as ratepayers as well Mr Brown asked if everyone who had the right had voted, and seeing no objections declared the vote closed Mr Marz reviewed a couple of items with the meeting while the votes were being counted He noted he has received requests, as well as other councillors, and he outlined some of these requests "I have had requests for more trucks, more hours and more gravel hauled, more miles of road to be built, to grade more roads more often and to grade roads less often I have had requests to donate to a re- cycling group here in Three Hills - what they are asking for probably equates to about $5000 00 donation a year to assist them - they are short of volunteers - and they have asked us for that - we have not responded as yet I bring the question to you - we brought the question about a donation to the STARS organization to the divisional meetings - and you people voted in favour of the M D donating to Stars We did donate to STARS but a lessor amount that what you directed us to do I am seeking your advice on this donation to the re- cycling group They need a driver once a day every week of the year and the last request I have had is to lower taxes - I don t know how this relates to the first five requests There are a couple of other items I would like to announce - through the rumor mill I have heard council has been critized for not getting involved or not actively seeking economic development on a specific project which recently was awarded to the Town of Martinville, Saskatchewan I can tell you we were actively involved in seeking that but we cannot on your behalf put any funds towards that type of endeavour What this developer wants to do is build a $47 Million plant possibly in this area It would probably be the mayor tax payer in this area They are talking about 600 more or less employees The only condition is they want $250,000 in seed money which buys you 1% of the company This is a high risk venture and they state that The only way it can be funded is through a consortium of investors such as yourselves If you felt there was merit in having something here and wanted to attract it, you could as a group get together and see how many people are interested and divide the number in $250,000 and that would tell you how much dollars you would have to come up with There are other jur.isdications interested in attracting this particular thing This company was brought to our attention through a body we call Kneehill Economic Development Authority which is made up of 2 members from the M D council, and a member from Trochu, Torrington and Three Hills and Linden. Acme and Carbon were invited but decided not to participate If you want to know more about this - it is not an innitative of the M D , we are just simply introducing you to this, we are not endorsing it if you want to know more about it and feel you may want to 40 30 3 4 i H Elp 19 CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 be involved with something like this we will be setting up a meeting sometime in July - around the 21st - tenative date - if you are interested - watch for an advertisement in the paper There are a number of aspects which are confidential so there is a limited amount we can tell you We are simply bringing this to your attention, we are not endorsing it - they themselves say it is a high risk venture - it could be big - as any investments are. The other think - we recently completed the largest development appeal board hearing in this council's history it took four and one half months and it cost $15,000 00 This involved the Britestone Colony and their development permit in the Carbon area which was appealed The M D 's stand on intensive operations is we are encouraging developers of intensive operations to develop their operations in such a way as to minimize annoyances, we are not - certainly not against them - we think it is a great thing to have in our area - we are the ones that have to hear the appeals if an operation is not running smoothly and causing an annoyance to a neighbor - on the other hand we are trying to educate the public as to the advantage of these developments in our area - they provide markets for our grain farmers - and they also provide jobs in the area Mr Brown Thank you Richard We will leave that to the advertisement in the paper - and leave it outside of this meeting You were asking questions about the boxes and a few things You wonder what people felt about re- cycling? Should this municipality be getting involved in this? Cost about $5000 00 a year Mr Stan Boles- The re- cycling project would cost about $5000 00 for what? Mr Marz It is picking up material There are volunteers located in Three Hills and Esso has donated the use of the old fertilizer building near the tracks and some volunteers in town and in our municipality are packing these materials - cardboard boxes and paper and that type of thing It is reducing garbage in the landfill sites That is a post.ive I have no figures to show if there is a corresponding offset cost to this I don't think there would be - if there is it would be nelegible at this time Mr Boles Is that municipal garbage or town garbage? Mr Marz. It is a combination of both Mr Boles. Is it a deal made with the Town? Mr Marz: I think the town is involved in it to the tune of $1200 00 - Bob - you make a donation? They have been helping out Mr Boles. It should be per person - per population - people make garbage If the town contributes their share the M D contributes their share Mr Marz. We just have this here for your information 41 E C� C? E. t CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M.D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 we do not have a bias either way Mr Boles- They want $5000 from the M D and that is about $1 00 per head. Mr. Marz• Approximately - there should be an offsetting reduction in the amount of garbage in our garbage system but whether that would be enough to reflect in the costs I have no idea At this point it would be small because it is trying to keep existing Mr Boles I agree with that - I agree with spending money for that alot better than spending money for a weigh scale that weighs our garbage being hauled to Drumheller That was in our budget this year was it not? $122,000 00 for a weigh scale to weigh garbage that is being hauled to Drumheller Mr Boake The scale was supposed to we first started the garbage site and needed to weight it either, but there contractors and other people who want and we don't have a way to weigh it a it - so we have to put a scale in have been built when we did not feel we is alot of to haul garbage in ad to charge them for Mr Boles. Yes, but is it being hauled to Drumheller? Mr Boake This garbage - we are weighing it - our garbage does not have to be weighed - Mr Boles I am saying driving by the weigh scale on Highway 56 or Highway 9 going to Drumheller rather than going the Orkney way what would be the differnce - Mr Boake Some of these people are contractors from other places and they don't come from that direction to go over the scale - and we Mr Boles You are putting this right at the disposal site in Drumheller and you charge them - Who is paying for all the costs - is that not divided up among Mr Boake. The Province is paying for the initial costs and we hope what we get out of the extra garbage that comes in will pay for the man It should not cost us any more per capita Mr Marz. We are only a partner in this Mr. Boake- There are others involved in this, another M D , as well as the government and others It is a big area - this was supposed to be put in when it first started. Mrs Karen Hogg. My understanding with regard to the re- cycling - you are asking of this gathering whether they are in favour of a donation towards Three Hills re- cycling project? Is that correct? My concern is - it is fine to say it is great for Three Hills - I live near Huxley and they are also asking for a donation - where does it stop we are talking about having to lower taxes - we have to do this and we have to do that - just another viewpoint where does the giving stop? 42 i d U E Er I--] CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M D OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 Mr Marz My understanding is they want to truck all the material from the other areas into this one and ship it out To co- ordinate the efforts of the entire area That would - from my view point, if we are to be involved, I would like us to be involved for the whole area or not at all I am not promoting this and I am not saying anything negative or positive - I am totally neutral on this - it was a request brought to us - we are having this meeting - I will get the feeling of the crowd and we will make our judgement accordingly What do you want - you are paying the bill Mr Robert Robertson Just want to let everyone know the Town is not running the re- cycling - it is an organization by itself We are contributing to the project but the town is not running the project Mr Ken Hoppins• I am certainly not against environmental clean up and it is our own responsibility to do that You gentlemen sit on the council and you make the decisions. You have told us our vote here tonight will not mean anything anyways - so you are there, you make the decision and the 3rd week of September we will decide whether you made the right decision Mr. Marz• With all due respect I don't think any member of council would make the statement that a vote here tonight would mean nothing to them Mr Hoppins No, the Chairman did Mr Brown. Yes and the Chairman had to make that decision The gist is you have heard the discussion not taking a vote on it - they want to go into some re- cycling and help the other groups with a subsidy and so on - it is up to them It is up to them - is that your decision All in favour - give me a show of hands - Up Contrary minded if any? It appears you are generally in favour That is taken care Here is the results of the vote on the motion 49 voted Yes, 51 voted no, 4 spoiled ballots. I declare the motion lost I need a motion to destroy the ballots Mr. Howard Boles I make that motion Mrs Mari Vetter. I second that motion All in favour- Agreed Thank you to the scrutineers Mr Howard Boles, I move this meeting adjourn Mr Brian Sowerby. Second the motion All in favour. Motion carred 43 133s. iy n E • CONTINUATION OF THE 1992 M.D. OF KNEEHILL #48 ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1992 Meeting was adjourned. 10.30 Chair n Mr. 44 P M S cretary 9 r i' Ar rql ILIA - - - - -- -- - - -�--L� �'- �----- c2 •� � tom_ ����-�'��i� - 1 / L-� ��a C uI GO- 1 4 E T X40 4 c 0 'AGL 1 MILLCOMP Y,LS 4/23/92 11.34 AM NAME NNNN NILNNNNfUNNNfU NfU County of Red Deer M D of Rocky View County of Mt View County of Wheatland M D of Starland County of Stettler M D of Kneehill ININ NIUfv IV (VAIN NNIV fvlvlVlvlV County of Red Deer M D of Rocky View County of Mt View County of Wheatland M. D of Starland County of Stettler M. D of Kneehill N Nfu N fVN fufu lV IV NOV IVIVNN RI County of Red Deer M. D of Rocky View County of Mt View County of Wheatland M. D of Starland County of Stettler M. D of Kneehill Town of Three Hills Town of Trochu 1991 MILL RATES /V NfUfU NfUIVfUfvfUfUfVIVfU N ASSESSMENT nIIVlIInicum mmonim 578,811,560 1 044,557,750 473,119,600 434,062,496 152,714,122 276,487 670 262,162,430 ft) N At Oki lv fV At IV Iu NN 578 811,560 1, 044, 557, 750 473,119,600 434,062,496 152,714,122 276,487,610 262,1G2,430 N NIL RINNNNNNIt! 578,811,560 1, 044, 557, 750 473,119,600 434,062,496 152,714,122 276,487,670 262,162,430 MUNICIPAL 13 505 19 510 014n11 c/ 'a.IIe L RESIDENTAL 25 007 29.180 GENERATED $ NN LOWEST fv At MILLRATE NN NIVIUmfUIVRIfu 2 9 6780 1 7 0025 3 9 5800 4 10 8500 7 12 2500 5 12 3600 6 16 3800 RESIDENTAL 25 007 29.180 GENERATED $ NN RESIDENTIAL fv At lVf wwrUIVAim 2 18 4230 1 19 1890 3 20 1100 4 20 2000 7 22 2600 5 24.5100 6 26 7700 RESIDENTAL 25 007 29.180 GENERATED $ NN COMMERCIAL lurk) NNNNNNNN 2 20 G930 1 30.7940 6 3 28 9000 4 25 4900 7 27 6300 5 28 8300 6 34 9200 RESIDENTAL 25 007 29.180 GENERATED $ NN NN NILI NfVNNNN AIN 5 $5,601,738 2 7 $7,314,516 1 6 $4,532,486 4 4 $4 709,578 3 3 $1,870,748 7 2 $3,417,388 6 1 $4,294,221 5 /vfl1 NNNNNNNNNN fV IV 7 $10,663,445 2 6 $20,044,019 1 5 $9,514,435 3 4 $8,768,062 4 3 $3 399,416 7 2 $6,776,713 6 1 $7,018,088 5 N N NNNNNNNNNN NN 7 $11,977,348 3 ? $32 166,111 1 3 $13,673,156 2 6 $11,064,253 4 5 $4,219,491 7 4 $7,971,140 6 1 $9,154,712 5 COMMERCIAL 30.969 34 210 �� v f 0 �o c: JURISDICATION Own Graders M. D Kneehill $65 58 Price Quoted includes all direct machine costs gc9,Operators Wages and Benefits 10% depreciation, 10% interest on investment and shops overhead Average is $3.96 per hour below Alberta Transportation Rates Alberta Transportation Rate is $69 54 County of Red Deer $50 00 to Method of Costing unknown $55 00 No copy of contracts M D of Starland $49 94 Average Price own graders Costing methods unknown Contract 45 hours per week or more if approved. M D supplies and maintains radio, Increased or decreased by same percentage as Alberta Transportation rates Contract Graders Not Applicable 1 at $61 00 3 at $66 00 1 at $67.25 1 at $69 25 1 at $71 00 1 at $66 00 County of Mountain view $43.91 Own Grader - average cost Not Applicable Method of costing unknown County of Stettler $59 19 Average Price $65.00 Includes 6% Administration and 12% Interest on Investment County of Wheatland Not Applicable Not Applicable Costing Not Available County of Ponoka $56 35 Method of Costing Unknown Not Applicable M D. Clearwater Not Applicable $59 95 is average tender cost $59 95 Plus $43,620 Will take any grader 150 H.P + 50 Supervision (A /T Rate $62 95) (A /T Rate $63 95) $662 2 50 One Contract 1990 Champion 730 and 1978 Cat 140 G Blades are supplied by M D Radios installed and maintained by M D Rates increase or decrease by same percentage as Alberta Transportation rate Quanity and Quality determined by Grader Foreman or Public Works Superintendent t =1