Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-02-02 Council Minutes40 U e KNEEHILL COUNTY COUNCIL MINUTES February 2, 1999 The January 19 °i 1999 regular meeting of Council recessed to Tuesday February 2 1999, was held in the Kneehill County office 232 Main Street Three Hills, Alberta commencing at 10 00 A. M The following were present for the meeting Reeve Otto Hoff Division Two Deputy Reeve Richard M Vickery Division Six Councillors Marylea Lowen Division One RESPONSE TO Jane Allan Division Three 4 Do not agree with the proposed Approval process and note the numbers in Table 1 are James M Hanger Division Five M Glen Wagstaff Division Seven Others FOR LIVESTOCK comments at the end of the questionnaire FEEDING Dr Terry Church, LEAD Team member, AB Agriculture need to be kept ( 0) Food and Rural Development ALBERTAS Rat Ratzlaff Member at Large, Kneehill County Strongly disagree with Registration, Sections 17 24 with notation the lack of public Municipal Planning Committee Bruce Sommerville Ag Fieldman Kneehill County Lisa Schnuelle Development Officer Kneehill County John Rusling Planner Kneehill County John C Jeffery Administrator, Kneehill County Jennifer Deak Assistant Administrator and Recording Secretary Kneehill County Reeve Otto Hoff called the meeting to order at 10 00 AM, noting the regular Council meeting had been recessed until to day to review and complete the Feedback Questionnaire on the Proposed Framework for Livestock Feeding Operations in Alberta Mr Jeffery reported the deadline for responses to this document had been extended from February 5/99 to March 1/99 Mr Hoff then invited Dr Church to address the meeting Dr Church confirmed the revised deadline for responses to the document noting the feedback to the questions would be very important as the proposals did provide more detail and thus municipalities could evaluate the impact of the proposals more accurately Dr Church then proceeded to review the document and provided information and address questions and concerns Dr Church then advised he had another appointment thanked those present for their input, noting this input was very valuable and attention would be given to comments and responses to the questionnaire Mr Hoff thanked Dr Church for his input and Dr church left the meeting time I 1 10 A.M Mr Jeffery then reviewed all the questions in the document and the following consensus was reached as the County's responses to this questionnaire I Do not agree with the proposed framework 2 Do not agree with the proposed Registration process 3 Consider not enough public nor municipal involvement and sufficient provincial RESPONSE TO involvement with the proposed Registration framework 4 Do not agree with the proposed Approval process and note the numbers in Table 1 are QUESTIONNAIRE ON PROPOSED too high 5 Consider enough public and provincial involvement but not enough municipal REGULATORY FRAMEWORK involvement in the proposed Approval Framework with a note to see additional FOR LIVESTOCK comments at the end of the questionnaire FEEDING 6 Agree with General Requirements Section 1 8 with a notation that a lot of records will OPERATIONS ON need to be kept ( 0) Disagree with the Approval Section 10 16 with notation the numbers in Table l are ALBERTAS too high Strongly disagree with Registration, Sections 17 24 with notation the lack of public JIM HN I El Ll KNEEHILL COUNTY COUNCIL MINUTES February 2, 1999 involvement is a concern Strongly disagree with Appeals Section 25 31 with the notation with provincial and municipal appeals the process will be too complex Agree with Compliance and Enforcement, Sections 32 51 with the notation enforcement should stay with the Province We assume the powers will be exercised in a responsible way Agree with Draft regulations and Standards (p 22 24) 7 Do not agree with the criteria proposed for either Registration or Approval 8 Rated the proposed regulatory system 5' out of a possible 10 as better or worse then the current system 9 Stated the following factors are important in ensuring the credibility if the new regulatory framework the department chosen to administer the legislation - consistent enforcement of regulations education and awareness program for producers review of applications for registrations and approvals by appropriate authorities Stated the establishment of a separate independent agency for administration and enforcement not important Also the following concerns noted a) The system of issuing two approvals, one from the Province and one from the municipality is awkward and confusing Also concerned that although the report says we will be consulted prior to issuing Provincial approvals and registrations we want to ensure that our role will be meaningful We at the local level are qualified to comment on environmental siting and operational issues While we understand that producers may want to bypass the local municipality, this should not be allowed to happen The local community needs a meaningful say in any approvals In Kneehill County we have had a long history of dealing with intensive livestock operations We have over 325 of these operations Our position is that the Province needs to set the regulations and they should be implemented at the municipal level Our concern is the proposed framework will result in an expanded Provincial bureaucracy that is not as familiar with the local situations as we are This was our position in 1997 during the early consultation on this issue and it remains our position to day If the province insists on pursuing this "two approval' system, we would ask that some provision be made for municipalities with experience and capable staff to `opt out" of the system This would acknowledge that some municipalities are able to address the issues in a professional and responsible way We need to remember that there is a wide range of experience amongst rural municipalities on this subject b) We do not agree with the numbers in Table 1 The threshold for approvals, where neighbours are notified, is way too high The numbers as they stand are not acceptable because very large developments can be approved by the province without notice to the adjacent community Our suggestion is that the Table be deleted and municipalities issue approvals If one is to remain we need to delete the registration process and adopt the approved numbers This would mean that there is no Provincial involvement in the process until the approval thresholds are reached Below these levels, the municipality will issue all approvals and consult with the local community as may be appropriate (I c) Enforcement is most important and if the province is to be involved, it needs to make sure it has the resources to do this d) We agree that there needs to be a level playing field throughout the province This should be done by the province setting technical standards and regulations on water and air pollution enforcement and spreading of manure At the same time, we need to respect the experience and abilities of the local agricultural community The standards JQ/AfIN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRE ON PROPOSED REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR LIVESTOCK FEEDING OPERATIONS ON ALBERTAS 2 0 0 KNEEHILL COUNTY COUNCIL MINUTES February 2, 1999 and regulations need to be circulated for our input before they come into effect e) Any new processes should make it clear that municipal approval must be obtained and cannot be overturned by the province. We have concerns that an objective of this review is to reduce the level of municipal input For those municipalities that have the capabilities and the experience, this must not be allowed to happen Note during this process the meeting recessed for lunch from 12 00 Noon until 1 15 P M It was agreed to have Mr Rusling complete the questionnaire, reflecting Kneehill s position on this document and bring the completed document back to Council for approval The meeting then adjourned time l 50 P M JDAHM s Mumci 1 Adminis -tor 3