HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-07-17 Council adopted Package
KNEEHILL COUNTY
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, July 17, 2018
8:30 a.m.
Kneehill County Council Chambers
1600- 2ND Street NE
Three Hills, Alberta
1.0 Agenda
1.1 Additions to the Agenda
1.2 Adoption of the Agenda
2.0 Approval of Minutes
2.1 Regular Council Meeting Minutes of June 26, 2018
3.0 Delegations
3.1 Acme Alumni Association, Ben Wooley @ 9:30 a.m.
3.2 Central Alberta Regional Assessment Review Board, Jackie Kurylo @ 10:00 a.m.
4.0 Public Hearings
No Public Hearings Scheduled
5.0 Municipal Services
5.1 Transportation
5.1.1 Wimborne Gas Plant Road Maintenance
5.2 Water/Wastewater/Environment
No Report
5.3 Planning
5.3.1 Joint IDP with Rocky View County
5.4 Agricultural Service Board & Parks
No Report
5.5 Protective Services
5.5.1 Bylaw # 1771, Cannabis Consumption Bylaw
5.5.2 Fire Engine Rental
6.0 Corporate Services
6.1 Annual Tax Cancellations
6.2 2018 Project and Capital Budget Variance Report
7.0 Business Arising from Previous Minutes
7.1 Three Hills Golf Course
8.0 New Business
8.1 Bylaw 1772- Advertising Bylaw
8.2 Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework – Rocky View County
8.3 Policy # 18-2- Public Participation Policy
1
Regular Council Meeting Agenda July 17, 2018 Page | 2
9.0 Disposition of Delegation Business
10.0 Council and Committee Reports
10.1 Drumheller RCMP May Statistics
11.0 Council Follow-up Action List
12.0 In Camera
12.1
13.0 Motions from In Camera
Adjournment
2
1
________
Initials
MINUTES OF THE JUNE 26, 2018 REGULAR MEETING
OF THE COUNCIL OF KNEEHILL COUNTY AT THE KNEEHILL COUNTY OFFICE,
1600- 2ND STREET NE, THREE HILLS, ALBERTA.
PRESENT:
Division No. 1 Faye McGhee, Councillor
Division No. 2 Debbie Penner, Councillor
Division No. 3 Jerry Wittstock, Reeve
Division No. 4 Glen Keiver, Councillor
Division No. 5 Jim Hugo, Councillor
Division No. 6 Wade Christie, Councillor (Absent)
Division No. 7 Kenneth King, Deputy Reeve
ADMINISTRATION PRESENT:
Chief Administrative Officer Al Hoggan
Director Municipal Services Laurie Watt
Director Corporate Services Mike Morton
Protective Services Manager &
Communications Officer Debra Grosfield
Sr. Manager of Transportation and Facilities Brad Buchert
Manager of Planning and Development Barb Hazelton
Information Management Supervisor Will Nyman
Recording Secretary Carolyn Van der Kuil
CALL TO ORDER Reeve Wittstock in the Chair
Reeve Wittstock called the meeting to order at 8:32 a.m.
AGENDA 1.0 Agenda
1.1 Additions to the Agenda
No Additions
ADOPTION OF
AGENDA
1.2 Adoption of Agenda
258/18 Councillor McGhee moved approval of the agenda as presented.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
3
COUNCIL MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2018
2
_________
Initials
MINUTES 2.0 Minutes
2.1 Regular Council Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2018
259/18 Deputy Reeve King moved approval of the June 12, 2018 Council
Meeting minutes as presented.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
MUNICIPAL SERV 5.0 Municipal Services
TRANSPORTATION 5.1 Transportation
5.1.1 2018 Shoulder Pull Program
260/18 Councillor McGhee moved to receive as information details on the
2018 Shoulder Pull Project.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
PLANNING 5.3 Planning
5.3.1 Draft Land Use Bylaw Proposed Amendments for Review
261/18 Deputy Reeve King moved that Council review the draft Land Use
Bylaw for future consideration.
Council move administration to proceed with a public engagement
process that will include the placement of the draft document on the
website for public review, an open house and inter-active website
opportunities to allow public participation in the proposed amendments
to the draft Land Use Bylaw.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
CORPORATE SERV 6.0 Corporate Services
6.1 2018 Project Report
262/18 Councillor McGhee moved to approve the 2018 Project and Capital
Budget Variance Report for information as of June 11, 2018.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
NEW BUSINESS 8.0 New Business
8.1 Canadian National Oldtimers Baseball Championships
263/18 Councillor McGhee moved to receive the Canadian National Oldtimers
Baseball Championship Request for information.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
8.2 Strategic Priorities Chart
264/18 Councillor Keiver moved to approve the June 26, 2018 Strategic
Priorities Chart as presented.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
8.3 Village of Delburne Charity Golf Tournament
265/18 Deputy Reeve King moved to receive the Village of Delburne Charity
Golf Tournament for information purposes.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
4
COUNCIL MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2018
3
_________
Initials
COUNCIL REPORTS 10.0 Council and Committee Reports
10.1 Community Futures Wildrose
266/18 Councillor Penner moved that Council receive the Council and
Committee reports as presented.
CARRIED
COUNCIL ACT LIST 11.0 Council Follow-Up Action List
267/18 Deputy Reeve King moved that Council receive the June 26, 2018
Council Follow-Up Action List as presented for information.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The Chair called for a recess at 9:16 a.m. and called the meeting back to
order at 9:33 a.m. with all previously mentioned members present.
Brad Buchert and Debra Grosfield were not present when the meeting
reconvened.
IN-CAMERA 12.0 In-Camera
268/18 Councillor McGhee moved that Council convene in-camera to discuss
Legal Matters pursuant to Section 27 of the Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy Act, at 9:33 a.m.
CARRIED
269/18 Councillor Penner moved that Council return to open meeting at
10:50 a.m.
CARRIED
10:50 a.m. – meeting recessed to allow return of public.
10:51 a.m. - meeting resumed.
ADJOURNMENT Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:51 a.m.
________________________
Jerry Wittstock
Reeve
_______________________
Al Hoggan
CAO
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Agenda Item #
5.1.1
SUBJECT:
Wimborne Gas Plant Road Major Maintenance
34-0/26-1
MEETING DATE:
2018-07-17
PRESENTED BY: Brad Buchert
Sr. Manager Transportation and Facilities
BACKGROUND/
PROPOSAL
Over the past several years, the Wimborne Gas Plant has been
decommissioned reducing the amount of traffic on the access road to that of
local residential. In the late 1970’s, industry paved this road to accommodate
the heavy resource traffic, and continued to maintain it up until the plan for
decommissioning was established. Two residences are located along the 26-
1 section of road way.
The poor condition of this section of road was recognized approximately six
years ago when County operations attempted to pulverize the surface. The
equipment at the time could not accommodate the depth of the pavement and
the maintenance was abandoned. The 2015 Road Study states the condition
of the road is “poor” and the study also did not identify this road as arterial or
collector allocating no funds for a rebuild or resurface.
The General Municipal Service Standard for a surfaced arterial or collector
road is intended only for traffic counts in excess of 500 vehicles per day. The
average traffic count on this section of road is 58 vehicles. (see attachment
from 2015 Road Study).
The road is very demanding on plow trucks for winter maintenance due to the
uneven wear surface, and significant rutting that will not hold patch material.
DISCUSSION/
OPTIONS/
BENEFITS/
DISADVANTAGES:
The options administration has reviewed for this road are as follows:
1. Mill out 3 to 4 inches of material, then pulverize the remainder of the
material leaving the asphaltic material in place. County forces will
then grade, shape, water and pack the roadway leaving an almost
dust free surface. This is consistent with other local road
classifications in the GMSS. Estimated cost $47,500
2. Microsurface the road with spot repairs prior to application. Estimated
cost $201,000.
3. Leave this section of road as is for 2018, and review as part of the
2019 road program.
COSTS/SOURCE OF
FUNDING:
Budget funds are allocated as part of Transportations Major Maintenance
funds for 2018 to accommodate option 1.
ENGAGEMENT:
☒ Directive Decision (Information Sharing-One way communication)
Goal: To educate and inform citizens
Tools: ☐ Individual Notification or ☐ Public Notification
☐ Consultative Decision (Consulting the Public – Two way communication)
Goal: To seek feedback, test ideas, develop concepts and collaborative solutions
Tools: ☐ Public Hearing ☒ Open House ☐ Focus Group ☐ Other‐ website feedback
☐ Collaborative Decision (Active Participation- Share or delegate decision making)
27
REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 5.1 2 | Page
Goal: To share or delegate decision making
Tools: ☐ Participatory Decision Making ☐ Inter‐Municipal Agreement ☐ Other‐
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
Fiscal Sustainability of Road Network System
ATTACHMENTS:
Photos of the section of road
Statement from 2015 Road Study
Typical Road Cross Sections from GMSS
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That Council support the recommendation to return this section of the
Wimborne Gas Plant Road to a local gravel road classification with
funds to come from transportation 2018 operating major maintenance.
COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. That Council support the recommendation to return this section of the
Wimborne Gas Plant Road to a local gravel road classification with
funds to come from transportation 2018 operating major maintenance
at an estimated cost of $47,500.
2. That Council approve the microsurfacing of the Wimborne Gas Plant
Road at an estimated cost of $201,000 with funds to come from the
Road Reserve.
3. Leave this section of road as is for 2018, and review as part of the
2019 road program.
MOTION: That Council support the recommendation to return this section of the
Wimborne Gas Plant Road to a local gravel road classification with
funds to come from transportation 2018 operating major maintenance.
Prepared By: Brad Buchert Approved By: Laurie Watt Reviewed By: Al Hoggan
Sr. Manager Transportation and
Facilities
Director Municipal Services Chief Administrative Officer
28
29
30
31
2015 Road Study
Average Daily Traffic = 58 on Twp Rd 34‐0/Rge Rd 26‐1
Appendix E Summary of Grid Road Field Assessment ‐Condition rating was done in 2014
‐Rge Rd 26‐1 rating (2) poor, requires improvement
‐Twp Rd 34‐0 rating (4) Good
Please see attached cross sections from GMSS for typical
arterial and collector paved road surfaces (G‐04 and G‐05)
32
33
34
Document Last Updated February 27, 2018
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Agenda Item #
5.3.1
SUBJECT:
Joint IDP with Rocky View County
MEETING DATE:
2018-07-17
PRESENTED BY: Laurie Watt, Director Municipal Services
BACKGROUND/
PROPOSAL
The purpose of an Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP) is to minimize land
use and development conflicts, provide opportunities for collaboration and
communication, and outline processes for the resolution of issues that may
arise within the area of mutual interest adjacent to a municipal boundary.
Following the most recent Municipal Government Act (MGA) amendments,
Kneehill County is required to complete an IDP withal adjacent municipalities.
Administration, in collaboration with representatives from Rocky View County,
has prepared a draft Joint Terms of Reference.
DISCUSSION/
OPTIONS/
BENEFITS/
DISADVANTAGES:
As of April 2018, the MGA emphases regional planning and service delivery.
The MGA now required municipalities to adopt IDPs and Intermunicipal
Collaboration Frameworks (ICFs) with all adjacent municipalities. ICFs
identify how municipal services are delivered between two adjacent
municipalities. An ICF is not complete without an adopted IDP. A separate
report and Terms of Reference for the ICF component has been provided, and
should be considered concurrently.
An IDP is a planning document that aims to minimize land use and
development conflicts, provide opportunities for collaboration and
communication, and outline processes for the resolution of issues that may
arise within the area of mutual interest adjacent to a municipal boundary.
Section 631 of the MGA establishes the enabling legislation for the
preparation and adoption of IDPs. The County has adopted and IDP with the
Town of Three Hills and the Village of Carbon. The County has prepared
drafts for the Village of Acme, Village of Linden and Town of Trochu for review
by the appointed Council Committees. A draft is underway with Wheatland
County.
The new MGA identifies a number of items an IDP must address, including:
Future land use;
Future development;
The provision of transportation systems;
Financing infrastructure;
Coordination of physical, social and economic programs;
Environmental matters; and
Provision of services.
The County is committed to working in good faith alongside adjacent
municipalities to complete the IDPs. Administration conducted an initial
meeting with representatives from Rocky View Administration, and worked
with them to draft the Terms of Reference document.
35
REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 5.3 2 | Page
A review committee of appointed Council members and the CAO (or
designate) is an integral part of developing and adopting the IDP. This
request for appointment will be brought forward at a future Council meeting.
Council members’ role on the review committee includes:
Providing broad service direction and assisting in identifying
issues/opportunities with respect to the IDP;
Reviewing the draft IDP; and
Providing periodic updates to Council on the progress of the IDP.
Administration’s role in developing the IDPs is to create a work plan,
coordinate with intermunicipal partners, draft the document, negotiate key
components, and ensure there is an equitable dedication of administration
resources/cost-sharing throughout the project.
COSTS/SOURCE OF
FUNDING:
Budget implications include staff time, mileage. These costs were anticipated
and are included in the 2018 budget.
ENGAGEMENT:
☒ Directive Decision (Information Sharing-One way communication)
Goal: To educate and inform citizens
Tools: ☐ Individual Notification or ☒ Public Notification
☒ Consultative Decision (Consulting the Public – Two way communication)
Goal: To seek feedback, test ideas, develop concepts and collaborative solutions
Tools: ☒ Public Hearing ☒ Open House ☐ Focus Group ☐ Other‐
☒ Collaborative Decision (Active Participation- Share or delegate decision making)
Goal: To share or delegate decision making
Tools: ☐ Participatory Decision Making ☒ Inter‐Municipal Agreement ☐ Other‐
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
Intermunicipal Cooperation
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft Joint Terms of Reference
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Joint Terms of Reference for the Kneehill County and Rocky View
County Intermunicipal Development Plan be approved as presented.
COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. That the Joint Terms of Reference for the Kneehill County and Rocky
View County Intermunicipal Development Plan be approved as
presented.
2. That the Joint Terms of Reference for the Kneehill County and Rocky
View County Intermunicipal Development Plan be approved as
amended.
3. That Administration be requested to provide further information.
MOTION: That the Joint Terms of Reference for the Kneehill County and Rocky View
County Intermunicipal Development Plan be approved as presented.
Prepared By: Laurie Watt Approved By: Laurie Watt Reviewed By: Al Hoggan
Director Municipal Services Director Municipal Services Chief Administrative Officer
36
TMP-TOR-001_R0 Page 1 of 7
Joint Terms of Reference
ROCKY VIEW COUNTY &
KNEEHILL COUNTY
INTERMUNICIPAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Approval Date: June 26, 2018 (Rocky View)
Revision Date: N/A
Reports to:
Council
Supporting Department:
Planning Services
Authority: Motion of Council
on June 26, 2018 (Rocky View)
The purpose of this Terms of Reference is to guide the preparation of an Intermunicipal
Development Plan (IDP) between Rocky View County and Kneehill County, in accordance with
the requirements of the Municipal Government Act.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Province of Alberta recently completed a review of the Municipal Government Act (MGA)
and made numerous amendments to the legislation, effective April 1, 2018. Included in these
amendments is a requirement that all municipalities must adopt an Intermunicipal Development
Plan (IDP) and an Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework (ICF) with each adjacent
municipality.
These amendments apply to the shared borders between Rocky View County and Kneehill
County. These policy documents must be adopted within two years of the legislation’s effective
date.
Rocky View County and Kneehill County will work collaboratively with each other to prepare and
approve an IDP that establishes a policy framework that formalizes the working relationship
between the two municipalities. The aim of the IDP is to cultivate a respectful and consistent
approach to matters of mutual interest along our shared border.
2.0 ENABLING LEGISLATION
Section 631 of the MGA provides the enabling legislation for the preparation and adoption of an
IDP. The MGA states:
"631(1) Two or more councils of municipalities that have common boundaries that are
not members of a growth region as defined in section 708.01 must, by each passing a
37
TMP-TOR-001_R0 Page 2 of 7
bylaw in accordance with this Part or in accordance with sections 12 and 692, adopt an
intermunicipal development plan to include those areas of land lying within the
boundaries of the municipalities as they consider necessary.
(1.1) Despite subsection (1), the Minister may, by order, exempt one or more councils
from the requirement to adopt an intermunicipal development plan, and the order may
contain any terms and conditions that the Minister considers necessary.
(1.2) Two or more councils of municipalities that are not otherwise required to adopt an
intermunicipal development plan under subsection (1) may, by each passing a bylaw in
accordance with this Part or in accordance with sections 12 and 692, adopt an
intermunicipal development plan to include those areas of land lying within the
boundaries of the municipalities as they consider necessary.
(2) An intermunicipal development plan
(a) must address
(i) the future land use within the area,
(ii) the manner of and the proposals for future development in the area,
(iii) the provision of transportation systems for the area, either generally or
specifically,
(iv) the co-ordination of intermunicipal programs relating to the physical, social and
economic development of the area,
(v) environmental matters within the area, either generally or specifically, and
(vi) any other matter related to the physical, social or economic development of the
area that the councils consider necessary,
and
(b) must include
(i) a procedure to be used to resolve or attempt to resolve any conflict between the
municipalities that have adopted the plan,
(ii) a procedure to be used, by one or more municipalities, to amend or repeal the
plan, and
(iii) provisions relating to the administration of the plan.”
MGA sections 636, 638 and 638.1 address plan preparation, hierarchical importance to
other statutory plans, and compliance with regional plans.
With the IDP, Rocky View County and Kneehill County shall formalize their existing spirit
of inter-municipal cooperation and establish a process that ensures future land use and
development is coordinated comprehensively. The document will allow for planning to
occur in a way that is compatible with the surrounding area, and it will allow for
collaboration concerning physical, social, and economic development within the IDP
area.
3.0 IDP STUDY AREA
The IDP Study Area shown on Map 1 may be larger than the final area within the approved IDP.
The purpose of expanding the IDP Study Area is to ensure that all relevant matters of
intermunicipal interest are addressed and reflected in the final document. The official IDP
38
TMP-TOR-001_R0 Page 3 of 7
boundaries will be determined through the development of the IDP. The IDP Study Area is 4.8
kilometers, or 3 miles, on either side of the municipal border.
MAP 1: IDP STUDY AREA
39
TMP-TOR-001_R0 Page 4 of 7
4.0 IDP PRINCIPLES
The IDP principles are intended to guide the preparation of the IDP and inform the overall
development of the philosophy, policy, and administration of the IDP.
1. Mutual Respect and Equity
This principle draws upon the notion that both municipalities are equal and make
independent decisions within their municipality. Policies and processes in the IDP will
minimize the potential for land use, subdivision, and development decisions to negatively
impact the other municipality.
2. Cooperation, Collaboration, Communication, and Trust
This principle forms the basis upon which the IDP will be prepared and the municipalities
will operate.
3. Respect for the Environment and Natural Systems
This principle is reflected in the statutory plans of each municipality and acknowledges
the importance of the land on which human activity takes place.
4. Public Involvement
Development of the IDP is to include appropriate and meaningful public involvement.
5. Economic Development
The IDP shall respect existing economic undertakings, be responsive to opportunities
that may arise, and protect future areas of economic interest in a manner that is
beneficial to residents and both municipalities.
6. Coordinated, Consistent, and Timely Response
This principle will ensure coordinated, consistent, and timely responses to land use,
subdivision, and development applications.
7. Concise and Clear Plan
The IDP is to be concise in its content and clear in its intent.
8. Efficient & Cost Effective
The effective use of time and funding will ensure the MGA requirements are met.
9. Living Document
The IDP is a living document that may be amended in the future.
5.0 IDP GOALS
The IDP’s goals represent the needs of the two municipalities while incorporating the
requirements of the MGA.
Future Land Use Planning:
1. To ensure long-term compatibility of future land use within both municipalities that
includes the identification of development constraints such as provincial highways,
pipelines, oil and gas developments, contaminated lands, utility corridors, historic
resources, and intensive agricultural operations.
2. To ensure that agriculture continues to be the dominant use of land in the IDP area, and
to encourage and support the preservation of agricultural land.
40
TMP-TOR-001_R0 Page 5 of 7
3. To develop transition policies that address the interface between land uses in proximity
of the municipal border.
Water and Watersheds
4. To determine the need for additional policy regarding significant watersheds and any
other ecologically sensitive areas within the IDP area.
Public Communication and Consultation
5. To ensure meaningful engagement of landowners located within the IDP area.
6. To educate interested residents within both municipalities on the content of the IDP.
Joint Projects
7. To identify, examine the feasibility of, prioritize, and create policies that support
intermunicipal projects of mutual interest or need:
a. Identify intermunicipal roadways and the alignment of corridors with the potential for
future upgrades;
b. Identify areas impacted by the provincial transportation network in order to develop a
common and inclusive approach when engaging with provincial regulatory agencies;
c. Identify areas or circumstances where mutual planning for utilities, regional and local
transportation infrastructure, pathways, and/or recreation may be beneficial in
conjunction with the Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework (ICF).
IDP Administration
8. To define each municipality's responsibility and commitment to circulate and take into
consideration the comments received when making land use, subdivision, and
development decisions.
9. To establish the administrative process to coordinate and communicate regarding
projects and initiatives that may influence the IDP area.
10. To address the MGA requirements with respect to intermunicipal conflict resolution,
amendment and repeal procedures, and plan administration.
11. To establish a communication process that ensures ongoing dialogue and allows for
future amendments to the IDP..
6.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION
6.1 Review Committee
The Review Committee (hereafter called the Committee) is formed with balanced
representation of Council members and Senior Administration from each municipality. Each
Council will appoint one (1) or two (2) Councillors and the CAO or designate. Committee
representatives may be engaged by their respective Administrations separately to gain
specific feedback on areas of interest. In order to allow for collaborative decision making,
the work plan for the project will also provide the opportunity for the Committee to convene
as a whole.
6.2 Responsibilities of the Committee
a. Provide broad policy direction and assist in identifying issues and opportunities with
respect to the IDP;
41
TMP-TOR-001_R0 Page 6 of 7
b. Act as a resource for both Administrations;
c. Review the draft IDP; and
d. Provide periodic updates to each respective Council on the progress of the IDP.
6.3 Responsibility of the Administrations
Administrations from both municipalities will be responsible for the establishment of a work
plan for the project, and for preparation of the IDP with input from the Committee. Both
municipalities agree to equitable dedication of Administrative resources and cost-sharing
throughout the process of IDP preparation and adoption.
6.4 Responsibility of the Councils
The respective Councils of each municipality will be responsible for approval of the IDP
Bylaw at a Public Hearing.
6.5 Coordination with Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework (ICF)
An ICF is an agreement that provides for integrated and strategic planning, delivery, and
funding of intermunicipal services. In accordance with the MGA amendments, the
municipalities are required to complete an ICF with its municipal neighbours. The ICF project
will progress independently from the IDP; however, these two projects will gain feedback
and direction from the Committee. Opportunities for collaboration between both the IDP and
ICF process will be sought wherever possible.
7.0 SCOPE OF WORK AND PROJECT STAGES
The scope of work is organized into four stages, with a completion date to be determined
through the planning process. The four stages of the work program include:
Stage 1: Research, analysis, and stakeholder input
Stage 2: Draft IDP and review of the IDP by the Committee
Stage 3: Public review of the IDP to receive suggestions and representations
Stage 4: IDP approval process
Although four stages are planned for the IDP work, aspects of these stages may be combined to
enhance project efficiency. Flexibility will be critical to the success of the IDP, so the quality of
the work will take precedence over rigid adherence to arbitrary deadlines.
An anticipated project timeline:
TOR Approval June 2018
Stage 1 July – September 2018
Stage 2 October - November 2018
Stage 3 December – February 2018/19
Stage 4 March 2019
8.0 PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
Both municipalities recognize that the future land use of the IDP area is agricultural in nature,
except where statutory plans may support non-agricultural uses. The future land use concept is
not anticipated to significantly deviate from the existing statutory plans currently in place.
8.1 Public Involvement
The purpose of public involvement is to:
42
TMP-TOR-001_R0 Page 7 of 7
a. Inform and educate the public and stakeholders on the nature and requirements of
an IDP;
b. Inform the public and stakeholders of the scope and policy aspects of an IDP; and
c. Gather public input (suggestions and representations) on the draft IDP.
8.2 Stakeholder Involvement
Key stakeholders to be involved in review of drafts of the IDP include:
a. Intermunicipal Departments;
b. Provincial Agencies;
c. Public utilities, public agencies, or public authorities;
d. Affected landowners; and
e. Affected business, commercial, or industrial interests.
8.3 Engagement
1. Websites and newspapers:
a. Kickoff with a communication piece that Rocky View County and Kneehill County
are developing the IDP: outline of the process of the IDP development, provide a
map of the Study area, and provide details on whom to contact for more
information and how to provide suggestions and representations.
2. Websites:
a. Dedicate a webpage on each municipality’s website that will provide information
and updates on the process.
3. With direction from the Committee, if feedback indicates a significant interest in the
IDP, a joint Open House may be scheduled to share and receive input (suggestions
and representations) on the draft IDP.
43
Document Last Updated February 27, 2018
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Agenda Item #
5.5.1
SUBJECT:
Cannabis Consumption Bylaw 1771
MEETING DATE:
2018-07-17
PRESENTED BY: Debra Grosfield, Communications Officer and Protective Services Mngr
BACKGROUND/
PROPOSAL
Due to changes in Federal legislation regarding the legalization of cannabis,
information is being brought forward for consideration to ensure that the
municipality has taken the opportunity to define how cannabis will be dealt
with at a municipal level.
DISCUSSION/
OPTIONS/
BENEFITS/
DISADVANTAGES:
The municipal government has been given an opportunity to implement
bylaws relating to cannabis retail locations, cannabis recreational production,
cannabis medical production and the public consumption of cannabis.
Working with other departments, Protective Services has drafted the Cannabis
Consumption Bylaw presented today:
Public place is defined as any place in which the public has access as
of right or by invitation, express or implied. For the purposes of
campgrounds, this would include individual campsites, however would
not include an individual’s RV unit or tent.
The presented Bylaw also refers to the entitlement to possess Medical
Cannabis.
Offenses/Enforcement/Penalties pertaining to consumption of
Cannabis in public places.
There is some potential ambiguity on the public place definition with respect to
campgrounds and individual campsites. The definition has been expanded to
state this includes the campground areas, including individual campsites,
however does not include the individual’s RV unit or tent, where there is a
reasonable expectation of privacy.
COSTS/SOURCE OF
FUNDING:
Internal resources, however enforcement services may see an increase in
activity.
ENGAGEMENT:
☐ Directive Decision (Information Sharing-One way communication)
Goal: To educate and inform citizens
Tools: ☐ Individual Notification or ☒ Public Notification
☒ Consultative Decision (Consulting the Public – Two way communication)
Goal: To seek feedback, test ideas, develop concepts and collaborative solutions
Tools: ☐ Public Hearing ☒ Open House ☐ Focus Group ☒ Other‐ website feedback
☐ Collaborative Decision (Active Participation- Share or delegate decision making)
Goal: To share or delegate decision making
Tools: ☐ Participatory Decision Making ☐ Inter‐Municipal Agreement ☐ Other‐
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
Viable Communities
ATTACHMENTS: Cannabis Consumption in Public Places Proposed Bylaw 1771
44
REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 5.5 2 | Page
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That Council pass 1st Reading of Bylaw 1771, and include public engagement
in Land Use Bylaw Open House and on Website.
COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. That Council pass 1st Reading of Bylaw 1771, and include public
engagement in Land Use Bylaw Open House and on Website.
2. That Council pass 3 Readings of Bylaw 1771.
3. That Council send back to Administration with further
recommendations for changes.
MOTION: Council pass 1st Reading of Bylaw 1771, and include public engagement in
Land Use Bylaw Open House and on Website.
Prepared By: Debra Grosfield Approved By: Laurie Watt Reviewed By: Al Hoggan
Manager of Protective Services Director Municipal Services Chief Administrative Officer
45
BYLAW NO 1771
CANNABIS CONSUMPTION BYLAW
A BYLAW OF KNEEHILL COUNTY, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, TO RESTRICT THE
CONSUMPTION OF CANNABIS IN PUBLIC PLACES
WHEREAS pursuant to section 7 of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26,
Council may pass bylaws respecting:
(a) The safety, health and welfare of people and the protection of people and property;
(b) People activities and things in, on or near a public place or place that is open to the
public; and
(c) The enforcement of bylaws made under the Municipal Government Act or any other
enactment;
AND WHEREAS pursuant to Section 10 of the Tobacco and Smoking Reduction Act, SA 2005,
Chapter T-3.8, municipalities are authorized to pass bylaws to regulate, restrict or prohibit
smoking;
AND WHEREAS Council deems it necessary to impose additional restrictions on the smoking,
vaping and other forms of consumption of cannabis in public places to prevent behaviors and
conduct that may have a negative impact on the enjoyment of public places;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF KNEEHILL COUNTY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
SHORT TITLE
This Bylaw may be cited as the “Cannabis Consumption Bylaw”
DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION
1. (1) In this Bylaw:
(a) “cannabis” has the meaning given to it in the Cannabis Act;
(b) “Cannabis Act” is an Act respecting cannabis and to amend the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts;
(c) “electronic smoking device” means an electronic device that can be used
to deliver a vapor, emission or aerosol to the person inhaling from the
46
Bylaw No. 1771, CANNABIS CONSUMPTION BYLAW Page 2 of 5
device, including but not limited to an electronic cigarette, cigar, cigarillo
or pipe;
(d) “officer” means a peace officer appointed pursuant to the Peace Officer
Act, Bylaw Officer, or RCMP officer;
(e) “public place” includes any place to which the public has access as of
right or by invitation, express or implied. For the purposes of
campgrounds, this would include individual campsites, however would not
include an individual’s RV unit or tent;
(f) “smoke” or “smoking” means:
(i) inhaling or exhaling the smoke produced by burning or heating
cannabis; or
(ii) holding or otherwise having control of any device or thing
containing lit or heated cannabis;
(g) “vape” or “vaping” means:
(i) inhaling or exhaling the vapor, emissions or aerosol produced by
an electronic smoking device or similar device containing
cannabis, or
(ii) holding or otherwise having control if an electronic smoking device
that is producing vapor, emissions or aerosol from cannabis.
(2) All schedules attached to this Bylaw form part of this Bylaw.
(3) Headings or sub-headings are inserted for ease of reference and guidance
purposes only and do not form part of this Bylaw.
(4) Where this Bylaw cites or refers to any act, regulation, code or other bylaw, the
citation or reference is to the act, regulation, code or other bylaw as amended,
whether amended before or after the commencement of this Bylaw, and includes
reference to any act, regulation, code or other bylaw that may substituted in its
place.
(5) Each provision of this Bylaw independent of all other provisions and if any
provision is declared invalid for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction,
all other provisions of this Bylaw remain valid and enforceable.
(6) Nothing in this Bylaw relives a person from complying with any provision of any
federal, provincial or municipal law or regulation or any requirement of any lawful
permit, order or license.
47
Bylaw No. 1771, CANNABIS CONSUMPTION BYLAW Page 3 of 5
PROHIBITION
3. A person must not smoke, vape or consume cannabis in any public place.
MEDICAL CANNABIS
4. (1) A person who is entitled to possess cannabis pursuant to a medical treatment
issued pursuant to the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations,
S. 230 is not subject to this Bylaw.
(2) A person referred to in subsection (1) must, on demand of an officer, produce a
copy of the person’s medical document.
OFFENCES
5. Any person who contravenes any provision of this Bylaw by doing any act or thing which
the person is prohibited from doing, or by failing to do any act or thing the person is
required to do, is guilty of an offence pursuant to this Bylaw.
ENFORCEMENT
6. (1) Where an officer believes that a person has contravened any provision of this
Bylaw, the officer may commence proceedings against the person by issuing a
violation ticket in accordance with the Provincial Offences Procedure Act, R.S.A
2000, c. P-34.
(2) This section shall not prevent an officer from issuing a violation ticket requiring a
court appearance of the defendant pursuant to the Provincial Offences
Procedure Act or from laying an information instead of issuing a violation ticket.
PENALTY
7. (1) Where there is a specified penalty listed for an offence in Schedule A to this
Bylaw, that amount is the specified penalty for the offence.
(2) Where there is a minimum penalty listed for an offence in Schedule A to this
Bylaw, that amount is the minimum penalty for the offence.
(3) In this section, “specified penalty” means an amount that can be paid by a person
who is issued a violation ticket and is authorized to make a voluntary payment
without a Court appearance.
COMING INTO FORCE
48
Bylaw No. 1771, CANNABIS CONSUMPTION BYLAW Page 4 of 5
8. This Bylaw comes into force on the day the Cannabis Act comes into force.
READ a first time on
READ a second time on
UNANMOUS permission for third reading given in Council on
READ a third time and final time on
Reeve
Jerry Wittstock
Chief Administrative Officer
Al Hoggan
Date Bylaw Signed
49
Bylaw No. 1771, CANNABIS CONSUMPTION BYLAW Page 5 of 5
SCHEDULE A
PENALTIES
Section Description of Offence Minimum Penalty Specified
Penalty
3 Smoke, vape, or consume cannabis in
public place
$50 $250
50
Document Last Updated February 27, 2018
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Agenda Item #
5.5.2
SUBJECT:
Rental of Fire Engine
MEETING DATE:
2018-07-17
PRESENTED BY: Deb Grosfield, Manager of Protective Services
Dan Ross, County Fire Chief
BACKGROUND/
PROPOSAL
All Kneehill County Fire Apparatus with a National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) compliant pump recently completed their annual pump test. Fire
Engine F4E99 failed the test by not being able to make enough pressure to
produce the required volume of water. The truck was re-tested by a second
company and again failed not only the test but two integral parts of the pump
system were not working correctly which lead to potentially hazardous
conditions.
As such F4E99 is no longer safe to use as a Fire Engine. It does not meet the
requirements as set out by NFPA and thus does not meet the requirements as
laid out by Fire Underwriters and Council’s service level. By not meeting the
requirements of Fire Underwriters this may lead to the insurance grade of the
area being lowered to “Unprotected” and causing significant increases in
residential insurance rates.
Fire Engine F4E99 is due for replacement in 2019 as it will be 20 years of age.
Purchasing a new Fire Engine takes approximately one year of build time and
purchasing a Fire Apparatus ahead of the acceptance of the Rural Fire
Strategy is not recommended. Therefore, the County must find an intern
solution to avoid an “Unprotected” rating.
The County has FXE86 as a spare pumper in its fleet, however it is 32 years
old and does not meet the age requirements as set out by Fire Underwriters
and may come to the attention of Insurers resulting in an “Unprotected” rating
if used as the front line pumper for an extended period of time. It is currently
put into service to temporarily replace units out of service for maintenance for
one or two days at a time. FXE86 did pass its current pump test and is a
safer option for the firefighters than the current Fire Engine, however it would
leave the County without a spare to accommodate other units out for short
maintenance periods. The County could also consider temporarily replacing
F4E99 with a tender (tanker) from one of the other fire halls with the required
NFPA pump rating.
It is recommended that the County rent a used Fire Engine for up to 18
months to allow time for the Rural Fire Strategy to be accepted by Council.
This will ensure Fire Apparatus purchases are in line with the Strategy and will
allow for the one year build time of a new Fire Engine. The Fire Engine rental
will be approximately 10 years old and will meet all NFPA and Underwriter
requirements, thus avoiding an “Unprotected” rating.
DISCUSSION/
OPTIONS/
BENEFITS/
DISADVANTAGES:
Benefits
1. Allows firefighters to operate a safe and reliable pump.
2. Maintains the “semi protected” insurance rating of the area
3. 1/3 of money spent on rent may be credited towards the purchase of a
new Fire Apparatus.
51
REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 5.5 2 | Page
Disadvantages
1. The rental cost is approx. $3000 per month for a total of $54,000 over
18 months.
COSTS/SOURCE OF
FUNDING:
Funding are available through general operating or if required through
operating contingency.
ENGAGEMENT:
☒ Directive Decision (Information Sharing-One way communication)
Goal: To educate and inform citizens
Tools: ☐ Individual Notification or ☐ Public Notification
☐ Consultative Decision (Consulting the Public – Two way communication)
Goal: To seek feedback, test ideas, develop concepts and collaborative solutions
Tools: ☐ Public Hearing ☐ Open House ☐ Focus Group ☐ Other‐
☐ Collaborative Decision (Active Participation- Share or delegate decision making)
Goal: To share or delegate decision making
Tools: ☐ Participatory Decision Making ☐ Inter‐Municipal Agreement ☐ Other‐
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
Safe and Viable Communities
ATTACHMENTS:
Fire Underwriter Requirements
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Recommend that Council approve the rental of a Fire Engine for a
period of up to 18 months to replace unit F4E99.
COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. That Council approve the rental of a Fire Engine for a period of up to
18 months to replace unit F4E99.
2. That Council direct the placement of the County’s spare Fire Engine
FXE86 to replace Engine F4E99.
3. That Council approve the temporary placement of a County owned
Tender (tanker) from another fire hall to replace unit F4E99 that has a
NFPA rated pump and has passed its pump test.
MOTION: That Council approve the rental of a Fire Engine for a period of up to 18
months to replace unit F4E99 with funds to come from fire department
operating or operating contingency.
Prepared By: Dan Ross Approved By: Deb Grosfield Reviewed By: Al Hoggan
County Fire Chief Manager Protective Services
and Communications
Chief Administrative Officer
52
53
54
55
Document Last Updated April 15, 2014
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Agenda Item #
6.1
SUBJECT:
Annual Tax Cancellations
MEETING DATE:
2018-06-26
PRESENTED BY:
Mike Morton, Director of Corporate Services
BACKGROUND/
PROPOSAL
Each year the County has taxes that require cancellation based upon agreements
and/or policy.
DISCUSSION/
OPTIONS/
BENEFITS/
DISADVANTAGES:
Pursuant to the Municipal Government Act, Section 347(1) states
If a council considers it equitable to do so, it may, generally or with respect to a
particular taxable property or business or a class of taxable property or business, do
one or more of the following, with or without conditions:
(a) Cancel or reduce tax arrears;
(b) Cancel or refund all or part of a tax;
(c) Defer the collection of a tax.
These tax cancellations require an annual motion for approval.
In June 2016, Council approved Policy #16-15 which gave direction to cancel taxes
to the Gas Co-ops operating within the County.
Roll #
Municipal
Portion
Education
Requisition
KHC
Requisition
DIP
Requisition
Total
Levy
35240620400 $223.19 $7.23 $0.29 $0.51 $231.22
34241720510 $226.48 $58.00 $0.29 $0.52 $285.29
33232920400 $259.19 $66.38 $0.33 $0.59 $326.49
32272431200 $170.86 $44.39 $0.23 $0.39 $215.87
31250241500 $187.65 $48.74 $0.24 $0.43 $237.06
31233213000 $1,480.04 $99.18 $1.91 $3.44 $1,584.57
31221141600 $103.44 $18.77 $0.09 $0.17 $122.47
31220841600 $102.11 $11.55 $0.06 $0.10 $113.82
30253510100 $176.18 $45.77 $0.23 $0.41 $222.59
30241931300 $144.54 $37.55 $0.19 $0.33 $182.61
30212040900 $129.36 $33.61 $0.17 $0.30 $163.44
29230920610 $597.40 $98.60 $0.77 $1.40 $698.17
29222241500 $547.07 $85.53 $0.71 $1.27 $634.58
$4,347.51 $655.30 $5.51 $9.86 $5,018.18
56
REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 6.1 2 | Page
Additionally, the County purchased a portion of NW 27-28-21-W4 which requires a
tax adjustment and subsequent cancellation of the County portion. The County
registered a subdivision plan on March 12, 2018. This is when the County became
the owner of this subdivision and as such the taxes for the original quarter can be
adjusted as per the amount of acreage and as of this date.
$198.14/151.04 acres = $0.76 per acre
$0.76 x 67.58 acres (KC subdivided portion) = $51.52
$51.52/365 days = $0.14/day
March 12 – December 31 = 294 days
$0.14 x 294 = $41.49
COSTS/SOURCE OF
FUNDING:
Total Tax Cancellation in the amount of $5,059.70. There is a 2018 budget of
$400,000 in the tax cancellation/doubtful account.
ENGAGEMENT:
Letters will be forwarded to affected ratepayers to advise of Council decision.
LINK TO STRATEGIC
PLAN:
ATTACHMENTS:
Tax Cancellation Policy #16-15
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
That Council cancel the taxes for the above parcels as per the MGA and policy
authority.
COUNCIL OPTIONS:
1. Cancel the taxes in the amount of $5,059.70.
2. Cancel the taxes in any amount Council wishes.
3. Accept as information.
MOTION:
Council approves the cancellation of taxes in the total amount of $5,018.18 for the
Gas Co‐Op owned properties, roll 35240620400, 34241720510, 33232920400,
32272431200, 31250241500, 31233213000, 31221141600, 31220841600,
30253510100, 30241931300, 30212040900, 29230920610 and 29222241500 and
approves to cancel the tax for the portion of land that was purchased by Kneehill
County on roll 28212732000 in the amount of $41.49.
Prepared By: Caroline Siverson Approved By: Mike Morton Reviewed By: Al Hoggan
Tax & Assessment Administrator Director of Finance Chief Administrative Officer
57
58
Document Last Updated April 15, 2014
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Agenda Item #
6.2
SUBJECT:
2018 Project and Capital Budget Variance Report
MEETING DATE:
2018-07-17
PRESENTED BY:
Mike Morton, Director of Corporate Services
BACKGROUND/
PROPOSAL
Council passed capital/project budget in December 2017. Council’s role in
governance is to ensure stewardship over its entrusted resources.
DISCUSSION/
OPTIONS/
BENEFITS/
DISADVANTAGES:
Presentation of the 2018 Project and Capital Budget Variance Report based
on data available to preparer as at July 4, 2018.
COSTS/SOURCE OF
FUNDING:
Summary- Actual costs incurred (rounding used in brackets):
Gravel acquisition projects = $559,549.63 ($167k TSF to reserve)
Non TCA Projects = $57,573.02 ($31k Budget Software, Contract Shoulder
Pulls/Wimborne Reclamation Projects – no costs yet recorded)
TCA Projects = $1,678,573.01 (Budgets TSF of reserves complete for
$1.523 million, Sharples Road = $31k, RR25-1 Rebuild = $48k))
Capital Equipment – New to Plan = $41,044.63 (last item has been ordered)
Capital Equipment – Existing Plan = $1,044,829.08 (two vehicles
outstanding, three have been ordered but are not yet in the system)
Water Service Area and Capital Equipment Plan Contributions =
$3,311,283.00 (complete)
Capital Sales = $139,493.22 (two items traded in, the remainder of items to
be sold in the fall)
COMMUNICATIONS:
Directive – For Public Information, Council Notes
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
Citizen Communication – Finances
Fiscal Sustainability
ATTACHMENTS:
2018 Budget Project Report for July 4, 2018
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive for information.
COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1) Receive report for information
2) Request more information
MOTION:
Council hereby approves the capital/project expenditure report as of July 4,
2018.
________________ ____________________ ___________________
Prepared By: Mike Morton Approved By: Mike Morton Reviewed By: Al Hoggan
Director of Corporate Services Director of Corporate Services Chief Administrative Officer
59
KNEEHILL COUNTY
FINAL PROJECT AND CAPITAL BUDGET
2018 Fiscal Year 2018 Total
Budget Description Project Status Notes as at July 4, 2018 Budget #
Budget
Amount
Year to Date July
4, 2018
Year to Date June
11, 2018
Budget to actual
variance
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN CONTRIBUTION 1,907,621.83
(This is the annual funding contribution - new upfront
purchases to plan are in TCA projects below)
TOTAL CAPITAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PLAN Transfer to reserve as per Budget.B1801 1,907,621.83 1,907,621.83 1,907,621.83 -
WATER SERVICE AREA TAX & SPECIAL BENEFITING
LEVY 1,403,661.17
WSA TAX & SPECIAL BENEFITING LEVY Transfer to reserve as per Budget.B1802 1,403,661.17 1,403,661.17 1,403,661.17 -
TOTAL NET OPERATING AFTER COMMITTED 3,311,283.00 3,311,283.00 3,311,283.00 -
GRAVEL ACQUISITION PROJECTS
CONTRACT PURCHASES 2,932,309.83
Gravel Purchases - 3 year contract for 150,000 tonne / yr. 2016
to 2018. Plus 30,000 tonne at 13.80 Peoples to start mid to late July/18 B1810 2,484,000.00 2,484,000.00
Gravel Purchases - 2017 Carry Forward Complete awaiting last invoice.B1710 448,309.83 391,838.93 391,838.93 56,470.90
TRANSFER TO RESERVE 167,710.70
Transfer to Gravel Reserve Transfer to reserve as per Budget.B1811 167,710.70 167,710.70 167,710.70 -
TOTAL GRAVEL ACQUISITION PROJECTS 3,100,020.53 559,549.63 559,549.63 2,540,470.90
1 7/17/201860
KNEEHILL COUNTY
FINAL PROJECT AND CAPITAL BUDGET
2018 Fiscal Year 2018 Total
Budget Description Project Status Notes as at July 4, 2018 Budget #
Budget
Amount
Year to Date July
4, 2018
Year to Date June
11, 2018
Budget to actual
variance
NON TCA PROJECTS
ADMINISTRATION 172,404.74
Website RFP is being prepared in June. B1820 40,000.00 40,000.00
Asset Management Plan
Policy 18-21 passed by Council. FCM Grant application has been
completed and waiting for initial prior to submission. Will await to
see if awarded before proceeding with next step.B1824
65,000.00
65,000.00
Budgeting Software - 2017 carry forward In progress. Operating module going live this summer.B1720 56,154.74 31,275.17 25,907.50 24,879.57
Capital Planning Analysis Software - 2017 carry forward Finishing up data template to carry forward history and opening
balances. Will have some training in the next couple of months. B1722
11,250.00 11,250.00 11,250.00
-
TRANSPORTATION 2,450,000.00
Contract Shoulder Pull - 60 miles August start date.B1821 1,250,000.00 1,250,000.00
Wimborne Environmental Reclamation WSP working on engineering --only 40% done from Kredo.B1826 1,200,000.00 1,200,000.00
WATER 66,858.75
Churchill Water System Engineering - Booster Station / Storage
Facility - Pressure for Horseshoe Canyon area
Not going to be completed as we have an approved larger
project to rehabilitate the Churchill System. Essentially will be
completed under a different project.B1822
30,000.00
30,000.00
Sunnyslope Engineering - System Upgrade - 2017 carry forward Still waiting for final draft.B1725 36,858.75 7,366.00 7,366.00 29,492.75
WASTEWATER 45,712.75
Engineering - Lagoon Easements (Torrington, Wimborne,
Huxley, Swalwell) - 2017 carry forward Waiting for final draft.B1726 45,712.75 5,204.00 5,204.00 40,508.75
WASTE MANAGEMENT 20,000.00
Torrington Landfill Engineering - Expected Life Study Site meeting completed, surveyors attended site, initial report in
progress.B1823 20,000.00 20,000.00
CEMETERY 11,020.07
Survey & Register Cemetery Boundaries - 2016 carry forward 95% Complete.B1607 8,672.00 8,672.00
Arthurville Cemetery Project - 2017 carry forward 95% Complete.B1727 2,348.07 665.85 665.85 1,682.22
PLANNING 8,996.00
Planning & Development System - 2016 carry forward In progress. Almost complete.B1658 8,996.00 1,812.00 1,812.00 7,184.00
RECREATION 100,000.00
Tourism Masterplan In Progress. B1825 100,000.00 100,000.00
TOTAL NON TCA PROJECTS 2,874,992.31 57,573.02 52,205.35 2,817,419.29
2 7/17/201861
KNEEHILL COUNTY
FINAL PROJECT AND CAPITAL BUDGET
2018 Fiscal Year 2018 Total
Budget Description Project Status Notes as at July 4, 2018 Budget #
Budget
Amount
Year to Date July
4, 2018
Year to Date June
11, 2018
Budget to actual
variance
TANGIBLE CAPITAL ASSET (TCA) PROJECTS
ADMINISTRATION 773,935.47
New Building Replacement Plan - Transfer to Building Reserve Transfer to reserve as per Budget.B1840 381,500.00 381,500.00 381,500.00 -
Transfer to Hamlet Infrastructure Reserve Transfer to reserve as per Budget.B1855 392,435.47 392,435.47 392,435.47 -
TRANSPORTATION 8,574,810.58
Torrington street repairs - ACP pavement West-Can Fall start Cape seal application.B1841 100,000.00 100,000.00
Huxley - Micro-Surface Roads - 2018 additional funds
115,000.00 plus 2017 carry forward 213,397.70 West-Can Fall start Cape seal application.B1742 328,397.70 328,397.70
Linden West Road 11.50 KM - Micro-Surface completed June 28, 2018-(under budget -$90,000.00)B1842 625,000.00 625,000.00
Sharples Road 13 KM - Rebuild - #7 road plan - plus 2017 carry
forward 21,921.30 Tender Fall 2018 for Construction in Spring 2019.B1744 3,921,921.30 30,764.00 30,764.00 3,891,157.30
Road Rebuild RR251 - minus 2017 carry forward used Caburn Contracting August start date.B1754 2,899,491.58 48,000.00 2,851,491.58
RR24-4&5 Road Engineering for 2019 - #3 road plan On-going (pre-lim finished).B1843 150,000.00 19,456.36 19,456.36 130,543.64
Dunphy Road Bank Protection Pre-engineering has been started. B1859 550,000.00 550,000.00
BRIDGES 300,000.00
Bridge Projects Fall 2018 pending approvals from AE and WSP.B1844 300,000.00 17,771.00 8,768.00 282,229.00
HEALTH SERVICES 76,183.56
FCSS Parking Lot Improvements West-Can Mid June start.B1845 50,000.00 50,000.00
Old Medical Clinic Renovations - 2016 carry forward Demco Construction June Comnpletion.B1619 26,183.56 2,548.47 1,869.97 23,635.09
WATER 4,700,548.00
Generator for Wimborne Water System - Stand Alone Expect delivery, set-up and commissioning to be done by the end
of July.B1846 16,500.00 2,937.00 2,937.00 13,563.00
Cost Share Waterline Extensions (as per policy 14-12) None to date.B1847 50,000.00 50,000.00
Churchill Water System Rehabilitation Initial meeting with WSP completed. Awaiting proposal letter
from WSP.B1857 4,634,048.00 4,634,048.00
WASTE MANAGEMENT 40,000.00
Carbon and Three Hills Transfer Sites - Replace Fencing and
Gates Both sites should be completed by end of July.B1848 40,000.00 40,000.00
CEMETERY 16,000.00
Gaetz Access Road Fencing 95% Complete.B1849 16,000.00 9,803.40 1,544.00 6,196.60
PARKS and RECREATION 1,377,022.12
Horseshoe Canyon Transfer to Parks Reserve Transfer to reserve as per Budget.B1850 750,000.00 750,000.00 750,000.00 -
Horseshoe Canyon trail & site Development - 2017 carry
forward On going.B1750 127,022.12 23,357.31 2,307.01 103,664.81
Torrington Arena Capital Project Meeting set for June 25 with Ag Society & Cimco June 14
meeting.B1858 500,000.00 500,000.00
TOTAL TCA WITHOUT CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN 15,858,499.73 1,678,573.01 1,591,581.81 14,179,926.72
3 7/17/201862
KNEEHILL COUNTY
FINAL PROJECT AND CAPITAL BUDGET
2018 Fiscal Year 2018 Total
Budget Description Project Status Notes as at July 4, 2018 Budget #
Budget
Amount
Year to Date July
4, 2018
Year to Date June
11, 2018
Budget to actual
variance
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN - NEW TO PLAN
TO FUND UP FRONT PURCHASES 99,500.00
Tree Auger Complete.B1851 5,000.00 4,240.00 4,240.00 760.00
Enclosed Utility Trailer Complete.B1852 7,500.00 6,056.63 6,056.63 1,443.37
210 Hoe Pac Complete.B1853 15,000.00 11,790.00 11,790.00 3,210.00
Tandem Gooseneck Trailer Complete.B1854 20,000.00 18,958.00 18,958.00 1,042.00
Peace Officer Vehicle and Equipment Vehicle has been ordered. B1856 52,000.00 52,000.00
TOTAL CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN NEW TO PLAN 99,500.00 41,044.63 41,044.63 58,455.37
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN REPLACEMENT
Capital Purchases for 2018 1,495,424.00
E0510 2010 Ford F150 (PLNG/Wrapped Truck) To be determined. B1860 35,000.00 35,000.00
O0414 2014 Ford Expedition 4WD 4DR XL (CAO auto to TSF
as office auto ) Fire Chief Unit - New Replacement cycle B1861
45,000.00 45,000.00
E4S03 2003 Chev 2500HD Squad Command (was donated)-
fund in 2 yrs Vehicle has been ordered. B1862 100,000.00 100,000.00
M5108 2008 JOHN DEERE 310 BACKHOE
Invoice received but not yet processed through accounts payable
(now B1863 Excavator) B1863 110,000.00 110,000.00
M6117 2017 Bobcat 5600 Toolcat Complete. B1864 60,360.00 59,042.11 59,042.11 1,317.89
M6417 2016 15557F BOBCAT T870 Skidsteer Complete. B1865 84,064.00 82,767.11 82,767.11 1,296.89
M6908 2008 Volvo SD105DX Soil Compacter Complete. B1866 129,000.00 134,000.00 134,000.00 (5,000.00)
R54511 2011 John Deere 872G Grader (Div. 6)Complete. B1867 445,000.00 427,879.00 427,879.00 17,121.00
S5208 2008 SELECK FORKLIFT S80
Invoice received but not yet processed through accounts payable
(now B1868 Telehandler) B1868 90,000.00 90,000.00
B0111 2011 Dodge Ram 2500 SLT CC 4x4 (Spare)Complete. B1869 39,000.00 36,932.85 36,932.85 2,067.15
R1102 2002 GMC Unibody box Sierra 1 Ton -welding truck Complete. B1870 70,000.00 46,836.06 46,836.06 23,163.94
Portable Generator Set Complete. B1871 6,000.00 4,749.00 4,749.00 1,251.00
S0110 TBS 2010 Ford F150 S/Cab (Landfill Truck will be D.
Adolf Truck)Complete. B1872 35,000.00 36,932.85 36,932.85 (1,932.85)
U0112 2012 Ford F150 XLT 4x4 SCAB(Jeff Anderson)Complete. B1873 35,000.00 36,932.85 36,932.85 (1,932.85)
A0311 2011 Ford F250 S/C XLT (Fallon) In progress. B1874 52,000.00 37,098.00 37,098.00 14,902.00
P7715 2015 John Deere 1570 Commercial Front Mower Complete. B1875 40,000.00 30,916.00 30,916.00 9,084.00
P0211 2011 Ford F150 S/C XLT (Park Attendant)Complete. B1876 40,000.00 36,932.85 36,932.85 3,067.15
P0311 2011 Ford F150 S/C XLT (Was U0311) (landscape)Complete. B1877 40,000.00 36,932.85 36,932.85 3,067.15
P0411 2011 Ford F150 S/C XLT (was S0211) (mower)Complete. B1878 40,000.00 36,877.55 36,877.55 3,122.45
TOTAL CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN PURCHASES 1,495,424.00 1,044,829.08 1,044,829.08 450,594.92
4 7/17/201863
KNEEHILL COUNTY
FINAL PROJECT AND CAPITAL BUDGET
2018 Fiscal Year 2018 Total
Budget Description Project Status Notes as at July 4, 2018 Budget #
Budget
Amount
Year to Date July
4, 2018
Year to Date June
11, 2018
Budget to actual
variance
PROJECT AND CAPITAL SUMMARY
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN CONTRIBUTION 1,907,621.83 1,907,621.83 1,907,621.83 (0.00)
WSA TAX & SPECIAL BENEFITING LEVY 1,403,661.17 1,403,661.17 1,403,661.17 -
GRAVEL 3,100,020.53 559,549.63 559,549.63 2,540,470.90
NON TCA 2,874,992.31 57,573.02 52,205.35 2,817,419.29
TCA WITHOUT CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN 15,957,999.73 1,678,573.01 1,591,581.81 14,279,426.72
TCA CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN 1,495,424.00 1,085,873.71 1,085,873.71 409,550.29
TOTAL OF ALL PROJECT EXPENDITURES 26,739,719.57 6,692,852.37 6,600,493.50 20,046,867.20
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN REPLACEMENT
Capital Sales for 2018 412,064.00
E0510 2010 Ford F150 (PLNG/Wrapped Truck) To be determined B1860S 4,000.00 4,000.00
E4S03 2003 Chev 2500HD Squad Command (was donated)-
fund in 2 yrs To be determined B1862S
1,000.00 1,000.00
M5108 2008 JOHN DEERE 310 BACKHOE To be sold in Fall. B1863S 30,000.00 30,000.00
M6117 2017 Bobcat 5600 Toolcat Complete. B1864S 55,000.00 54,026.11 54,026.11 973.89
M6417 2016 15557F BOBCAT T870 Skidsteer Complete. B1865S 80,064.00 77,817.11 77,817.11 2,246.89
M6908 2008 Volvo SD105DX Soil Compacter To be sold in Fall. B1866S 10,000.00 10,000.00
R54511 2011 John Deere 872G Grader (Div. 6) To be sold in Fall. B1867S 130,000.00 130,000.00
S5208 2008 SELECK FORKLIFT S80 To be sold in Fall. B1868S 25,000.00 25,000.00
B0111 2011 Dodge Ram 2500 SLT CC 4x4 (Spare) To be sold in Fall. B1869S 4,000.00 4,000.00
R1102 2002 GMC Unibody box Sierra 1 Ton -welding truck To be sold in Fall. B1870S
2,500.00 2,500.00
Portable Generator Set To be sold in Fall. - Was replaced with new for Utilities B1871S - -
S0110 TBS 2010 Ford F150 S/Cab (Landfill Truck will be D.
Adolf Truck) To be determined B1872S
4,000.00 4,000.00
U0112 2012 Ford F150 XLT 4x4 SCAB(Jeff Anderson) To be determined B1873S 4,000.00 4,000.00
A0311 2011 Ford F250 S/C XLT (Fallon) To be sold in Fall. B1874S 10,000.00 10,000.00
P7715 2015 John Deere 1570 Commercial Front Mower To be sold in Fall. B1875S 15,000.00 15,000.00
P0211 2011 Ford F150 S/C XLT (Park Attendant) To be sold in Fall. B1876S 7,500.00 7,500.00
P0311 2011 Ford F150 S/C XLT (Was U0311) (landscape) To be sold in Fall. B1877S
7,500.00 7,500.00
P0411 2011 Ford F150 S/C XLT (was S0211) (mower) To be sold in Fall. B1878S 7,500.00 7,500.00
2014 John Deere 1435 Series II Front Mower w/ 72" RD Deck
(P7214) - 2017 carry forward Complete. B1772S 15,000.00 7,650.00 7,650.00 7,350.00
TOTAL CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN SALES 412,064.00 139,493.22 139,493.22 272,570.78
5 7/17/201864
Document Last Updated February 27, 2018
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Agenda Item #
7.1
SUBJECT:
Three Hills Golf Course
MEETING DATE:
2018-07-17
PRESENTED BY: Al Hoggan, CAO
BACKGROUND/
PROPOSAL
At the June 12, 2018 Council meeting, the Three Hills Golf Course presented
to Council requesting funding for the Three Hills Clubhouse re-build following
the spring flooding damage. Council made the following motion at this
meeting:
Councillor Penner moved to assist the Three Hills Golf Course due to
flood recovery with resources to a maximum value of $10,000.00 at
administrations discretion being utilized in the 2018 budget year.
CARRIED
DISCUSSION/
OPTIONS/
BENEFITS/
DISADVANTAGES:
Administration received letter dated June 28, 2018 requesting that the
stipulation of utilizing this donation in the 2018 budget year be extended to the
2019 budget year. The group would like to include this donation in their
application for a CFEP grant which is due October 1, 2018 and notifications for
grant approvals don’t happen until March 2019. If they utilize Kneehill
County’s donation prior to approval from CFEP, they would forfeit their chance
in receiving matching monies through the grant.
COSTS/SOURCE OF
FUNDING:
2019 Operating Budget
ENGAGEMENT:
☒ Directive Decision (Information Sharing-One way communication)
Goal: To educate and inform citizens
Tools: ☒ Individual Notification or ☐ Public Notification
☐ Consultative Decision (Consulting the Public – Two way communication)
Goal: To seek feedback, test ideas, develop concepts and collaborative solutions
Tools: ☐ Public Hearing ☐ Open House ☐ Focus Group ☐ Other-
☐ Collaborative Decision (Active Participation- Share or delegate decision making)
Goal: To share or delegate decision making
Tools: ☐ Participatory Decision Making ☐ Inter-Municipal Agreement ☐ Other-
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: Think, Act Regionally
ATTACHMENTS: Three Hills Golf Course Letter
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council Decision
COUNCIL OPTIONS: Council Decision
MOTION: Council Decision
Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil Approved By: Al Hoggan Reviewed By: Al Hoggan
Executive Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Chief Administrative Officer
65
66
Document Last Updated February 27, 2018
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Agenda Item #
8.1
SUBJECT: Bylaw 1772- Advertising Bylaw
MEETING DATE: 2018-07-17
PRESENTED BY: Al Hoggan, CAO
BACKGROUND/
PROPOSAL
Changes to Alberta’s Municipal Government Act (MGA) now allow for
municipalities to use methods other than a newspaper, mail, or delivery to
every residence in the area, when advertising bylaws, resolutions, meetings,
public hearings or other matters. The flexibility on notification methods allow
for current and future technologies, and will allow municipalities to adapt their
advertising methods to meet local needs. As per Section 606.1(2), Council
must also be satisfied that the method the bylaw would provide for is likely to
bring proposed bylaws, resolutions, meetings, public hearings and other things
advertised by that method to the attention of substantially all residents in the
area.
DISCUSSION/
OPTIONS/
BENEFITS/
DISADVANTAGES:
Bylaw 1772, Advertising Bylaw is attached for Council’s consideration to allow
alternate methods for advertising. The alternate methods chosen to reach
substantially all residents in the area is to post the notice in the local Three
Hills Capital Newspaper and electronically by posting a notice prominently on
Kneehill County’s website.
COSTS/SOURCE OF
FUNDING:
No Cost
ENGAGEMENT:
The Advertisement Bylaw requires a public hearing as per the Municipal
Government Act 606.1(3). Notice of the public hearing will be published for at
least once a week for 2 consecutive weeks in the Three Hills Capital prior to
the public hearing.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Bylaw 1772- Advertising Bylaw
Municipal Government Act Regulations
Advertisement for Advertising Bylaw
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That Council move first reading to Bylaw 1772, Advertising Bylaw, to establish
an alternate method for advertising statutory notices.
And
That Council move to set a Public Hearing date for August 21, 2018 at 11:00
a.m.
COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. That Council move first reading to Bylaw 1772 and set a public
hearing date for August 21, 2018.
2. That Council amend the methods for advertising.
3. That Council receive for information.
MOTION: That Council move first reading to Bylaw 1772, Advertising Bylaw.
Furthermore, that Council move to set the Public Hearing date for Bylaw 1772
for August 21, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.
Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil Approved By: Al Hoggan Reviewed By: Al Hoggan
Executive Assistant Chief Administrative Officr Chief Administrative Officer
67
BYLAW NO 1772
ADVERTISING BYLAW
BEING A BYLAW OF THE COUNCIL OF KNEEHILL COUNTY, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA TO ESTABLISH
AN ALTERNATE METHOD FOR ADVERTISING STATUTORY NOTICES.
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 606 of the Municipal Government Act, a Council must give notice of
certain bylaws, resolutions, meetings, public hearings or other things by advertising in a newspaper or
other publication circulating in the area, mailing or delivering a notice to every residence in the affected
area or by another method provided for in a bylaw under section 606.1 of the Municipal Government
Act;
AND WHEREAS, pursuant to section 606.1(1) of the Municipal Government Act, a Council may, by bylaw,
provide for one or more methods, which may include electronic means, for advertising proposed
bylaws, resolutions, meetings, public hearings and other things referred to in section 606 of the
Municipal Government Act.
AND WHEREAS, Council is satisfied that the advertising method set out in this bylaw is likely to bring
matters advertised by that method to the attention of substantially all residents in the area to which the
bylaw, resolution or other thing relates or in which the meeting or hearing is to be held;
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of Kneehill County, in the Province of Alberta, duly assembled, enacts as
follows:
1. This bylaw shall be referred to as the Advertising Bylaw.
2. Any notice required to be advertised under section 606 of the Municipal Government Act of a
bylaw, resolution, meeting, public hearing or other thing may be given, in accordance with the
timelines prescribed in section 606 the following applicable methods:
By posting the notice in the local Three Hills Capital newspaper;
and
Electronically by posting a notice prominently on Kneehill County’s website:
www.kneehillcounty.com
READ a first time on this XX day of July, 2018.
PUBLIC HEARING was held on the XXth day of July, 2018.
READ a second time on this XX day of July, 2018.
UNANIMOUS permission for third reading given in Council on the XX day of July, 2018.
READ a third time and final time of this XX day of July, 2018.
Reeve
Jerry Wittstock
68
Bylaw No. 1688, Master Rates Bylaw Page 2 of 2
Date Bylaw Signed
Chief Administrative Officer
Al Hoggan
69
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT REGULATIONS
70
71
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BYLAW 1772
ADVERTISING BYLAW
Date: August 21, 2018
Time: 11:00 a.m.
Place: Council Chambers, Kneehill County Office
1600, 2nd Street NE, Three Hills AB T0M 2A0
PURPOSE
The purpose of Bylaw 1772 is to give notice of certain bylaws, resolutions, meetings,
public hearing or other things by advertising in a newspaper or other publication
circulating in the area, mailing or delivering a notice to every resident in the affected
area or by another method provided for in a bylaw under section 606.1 of the MGA.
Therefore, Take Notice that a public hearing will be held in Council Chambers at the
Kneehill County Office located at 1600 2nd Street NE, Three Hills, AB on August 21,
2018 commencing at 11:00 a.m.
Presentation: Oral and written comments and suggestions are invited and should be
addressed to the point of the proposed Bylaw. They may be made by any person or
group of persons or a person acting on his or their behalf, who claims to be affected by
the proposed bylaw, and by any other persons that Council wishes to hear at the
hearing. Written submissions may be made the persons above, and must be received in
the Kneehill County Office by 4:00 pm on Friday, August 17th, 2018. It should be noted,
written submissions will become public. Oral presentations may be made at the hearing
by the persons above. However, individuals who have submitted a letter may only
address Council at the Public Hearing on new information not contained in the letter.
The time limit of oral presentations is subject to the direction of the Chairman.
Documentation: Copies of the proposed Bylaw is available for public inspection at the
Kneehill County Office during regular office hours. This notice is
given pursuant to Section 606 of the Municipal Government Act.
First Publication August 8, 2018
Second Publication August 15, 2018
Emailed submissions can be sent to: cao@kneehillcounty.com
Written submissions can be sent to: Kneehill County
Attention: Al Hoggan
PO Box 400
Three Hills AB T0M 2A0
72
Document Last Updated February 27, 2018
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Agenda Item #
8.2
SUBJECT:
Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework – Rocky View County
MEETING DATE:
2018-07-17
PRESENTED BY:
Al Hoggan, CAO
BACKGROUND/
PROPOSAL
The Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework (ICF) identifies how municipal
services are delivered between two adjacent municipalities. The most recent
Municipal Government Act (MGA) amendments now require Kneehill County
to complete an ICF with all adjacent municipalities by April 2020.
The attached ICF Terms of Reference provides Administration and Council
with a plan for developing an ICF with Rocky View County.
DISCUSSION/
OPTIONS/
BENEFITS/
DISADVANTAGES:
As of April 2018, the updated MGA includes a focus on regional land-use
planning and service delivery. To operationalize regional collaboration on
service delivery, the MGA now requires adjacent municipalities to adopt an
ICF, and an Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP). An IDP is a planning
document that allows for respectful and consistent approach to matters of
mutual interest along shared municipal boundaries. The MGA states that an
ICF is incomplete without an adopted IDP.
The ICF development includes the following key considerations:
It is completed by April 2020;
It is adopted as a bylaw and addresses how municipal services are
delivered between two adjacent municipalities. Services that must be
considered in an ICF are: emergency services, recreation, solid
waste, transportation, water and waste water;
A binding dispute resolution clause;
Contain an IDP that is either attached or referenced in a separate
bylaw;
Provide a plan for how any new services will be implemented (finance
and service delivery);
A review period of no more than five years.
The County is committed to working in good faith with adjacent municipalities
to complete the ICF. A Review Committee of appointed Council members and
the CAO is an integral part of developing and adopting an ICF. This request
for appointment will be brought forward at a future Council meeting.
The role of Council members on the Review Committee includes: providing
broad service direction and assistance in identifying issues/opportunities with
respect to the ICF, reviewing the draft ICF, and providing periodic updates to
Council on the progress of the ICF. Administration's role in developing the ICF
is to create a work plan for the project, coordinate with intermunicipal partners,
draft the ICF, negotiate key components, and ensure there is an equitable
73
REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 8.2 2 | Page
dedication of administrative resources/cost-sharing through the ICF
preparation.
COSTS/SOURCE OF
FUNDING:
Budget implications include staff time, mileage. These costs were anticipated
and are included in the 2018 budget.
Potential implication on the County’s future budgets if a new or expanded
service is required to be financed through the implementation of an ICF.
ENGAGEMENT:
☐ Directive Decision (Information Sharing-One way communication)
Goal: To educate and inform citizens
Tools: ☐ Individual Notification or ☐ Public Notification
☐ Consultative Decision (Consulting the Public – Two way communication)
Goal: To seek feedback, test ideas, develop concepts and collaborative solutions
Tools: ☐ Public Hearing ☐ Open House ☐ Focus Group ☐ Other‐
☒ Collaborative Decision (Active Participation- Share or delegate decision making)
Goal: To share or delegate decision making
Tools: ☐ Participatory Decision Making ☒ Inter‐Municipal Agreement ☐ Other‐
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
Intermunicipal Cooperation
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft ICF Terms of Reference
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework Terms of Reference that
guides County participation in the development of the Intermunicipal
Collaboration Framework with Rocky View County be adopted as presented.
COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. That the Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework Terms of Reference
that guides County participation in the development of the
Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework with Rocky View County be
adopted as presented.
2. That the Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework Terms of Reference
that guides County participation in the development of the
Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework with Rocky View County be
adopted as amended.
3. That Administration be requested to bring back additional information.
MOTION: That the Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework Terms of Reference that
guides County participation in the development of the Intermunicipal
Collaboration Framework with Rocky View County be adopted as presented.
Prepared By: Laurie Watt Approved By: Al Hoggan Reviewed By: Al Hoggan
Director Municipal Services Chief Administrative Officer Chief Administrative Officer
74
TMP-TOR-001_R0 Page 1 of 4
Terms of Reference
ROCKY VIEW COUNTY &
KNEEHILL COUNTY
INTERMUNICIPAL
COLLABORATION
FRAMEWORK
Approval Date: June 26, 2018 (Rocky View)
Revision Date: N/A
Reports to:
Council
Supporting Department:
Intergovernmental Affairs
Authority: Motion of Council
June 26, 2018 (Rocky View)
This Terms of Reference (TOR) is intended to guide the preparation of an Intermunicipal
Collaboration Framework (ICF) between Rocky View County and Kneehill County. The TOR
will direct the development process and ICF content for the County.
1.0 BACKGROUND & CONTEXT
The updated Municipal Government Act (MGA) includes a number of new policies that mandate
regional and intermunicipal planning and service delivery coordination. The MGA now
articulates that the purpose of a municipality includes “work[ing] collaboratively with
neighbouring municipalities to plan, deliver and fund intermunicipal services.”
An Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework (ICF) is a bylaw that identifies how municipal
services are delivered between two neighbouring municipalities.
An Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP) is a statutory plan that directs how planning will take
place on the borders of two municipalities.
2.0 ENABLING LEGISLATION FOR THE ICF
Section 708 of the MGA provides the enabling legislation for the ICF and the regulation that
accompanies it.
The legislation and regulation directs municipalities to:
a. Create an ICF by April 2020 with adjacent municipalities that are not included in a
Growth Management Board;
b. Act in good faith in the development of an ICF;
75
TMP-TOR-001_R0 Page 2 of 4
c. Identify how services are delivered between two municipalities. These services include:
emergency services, recreation, solid waste, transportation and water and waste water;
d. Identify how these services are delivered: by one of the participating municipalities,
separately, through a shared service delivery model, or by using a third party;
e. Develop a binding dispute resolution and arbitration process to develop and implement
the ICF;
f. Ensure the ICF is adopted with a corresponding IDP; and
g. Bring the ICF into force through adopting matching bylaws.
3.0 ICF PRINCIPLES
The ICF principles are what Rocky View County and Kneehill County will use in negotiating the
ICF. These principles are intended to guide the preparation of the ICF and inform of the overall
philosophy, approach to agreements, and use of the ICF.
1. Mutual Respect and Equity
This principle acknowledges that both municipalities are equal and are equally capable
of making their own decisions and recognizes that municipal decisions affect other
municipalities.
2. Cooperation, Collaboration, Communication and Trust
Cooperation is key to ensuring common goals are achieved. This is achieved by clear
and timely communication, intent to collaborate in good faith, and a genuine trust in the
relationship with municipal neighbours.
3. Cost Effective and Efficient Services
Ensuring scarce resources are efficiently providing local services that benefit the local
and regional interests of the participating municipalities.
4. Coordinated, Consistent, and Timely Response
An important operational goal of the ICF is to provide coordinated, consistent, and timely
service delivery.
5. Living Document
The ICF is to be a living document that provides a process for identifying future areas of
municipal cooperation.
4.0 ICF GOALS
The goals of the ICF are to:
a. Provide integrated and efficient funding and delivery of intermunicipal services;
b. Optimize the delivery of scarce resources for providing local services;
c. Ensure municipalities contribute equitable funding to services that benefit residents;
d. Highlight, and if necessary, formalize existing collaborative work between adjacent
municipalities; and
76
TMP-TOR-001_R0 Page 3 of 4
e. Provide a forum for neighbouring municipalities to work together to discover opportunities
to provide services to residents.
As per the MGA, the final ICF document must have three main components:
a. A list of services that are currently delivered by each municipality;
b. Information on how services are delivered, funded, and implemented intermunicipally; and
c. A dispute resolution clause for resolving disputes about the ICF and any service
agreements to which the ICF refers.
Additional items, such as principles for collaboration, may be included depending on the desire of
each municipality.
5.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION
5.1 Review Committee
Rocky View County and Kneehill County propose a Review Committee (hereafter called ‘the
Committee’) with balanced representation of Council and Senior Administration from each
municipality. It is envisioned that each municipality’s Council will appoint one (1) or two (2)
Councillors and the CAO or designate to a Committee. Committee representatives may be
engaged by their respective Administrations separately to gain specific feedback on areas of
interest. In order to allow for collaborative decision making, the work plan for the project will
also provide the opportunity for the Committee to convene as a whole.
5.2 Responsibilities of the Committee
a. Provide broad policy direction and assist in identifying issues and opportunities with
respect to the ICF;
b. Act as a resource for both Administrations;
c. Review the draft IDP; and
d. Provide periodic updates to each respective Council on the progress of the ICF.
5.3 Responsibility of the Administrations
a. Administrations from both municipalities are responsible for the establishment of a
work plan for the project and the preparation of the ICF with input from the
Committee.
Both municipalities must ensure that there is an equitable dedication of Administrative
resources and cost-sharing throughout the process of ICF preparation and adoption.
5.4 Responsibility of the Councils
The respective Councils of each municipality will be responsible for approval of the ICF
Bylaw.
5.5 Coordination with Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP)
An IDP is a policy document that facilitates a respectful and consistent approach to land-use
matters along the shared borders of two municipalities. In accordance with the MGA
amendments, the municipalities are required to complete an IDP with their municipal
neighbours that are not part of a Growth Management Board. The ICF must be adopted with
a corresponding IDP, otherwise it is not considered complete.
77
TMP-TOR-001_R0 Page 4 of 4
The ICF project will progress independently from the IDP; however, these two projects will
gain feedback and direction from the Committee. Opportunities for collaboration between
both the IDP and ICF process will be sought where possible.
6.0 DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND ARBITRATION
Entering into the negotiations in “good faith” is essential to completing the ICF with our
municipal partner. Rocky View County and Kneehill County will rely on cultivating strong
working relationships to complete the ICF.
However, if an ICF is not agreed upon and adopted by bylaw within the two-year time limit, ICF
legislation requires that an arbitrator be engaged. Municipalities working on the ICF together
may choose an arbitrator or have one assigned by Municipal Affairs.
The arbitrator, once engaged, has the ability to create an ICF consistent with legislative
requirements. The arbitrator can use mediation or arbitration to facilitate the completion of the
ICF. In doing this, the arbitrator is required to consider the following:
a. Services and infrastructure provided in other ICFs in which the municipality is involved;
b. Consistency of services provided to residents in the municipalities;
c. Equitable sharing of costs among municipalities;
d. Environmental concerns within the municipalities;
e. Public interest; and
f. Any other matters prescribed by the regulation.
7.0 TIMELINE
The scope of work is organized into five stages; a completion date will be determined through
the planning process with the adjacent municipality. Administration’s goal is to bring this ICF to
Council for approval no later than June 2019. The IDP development will progress on a separate
timeline than the Intermunicipal Development Plan and will have separate stages it must
complete to fulfill its legislative requirements. The five stages of the ICF project are as follows:
Stage 1: Research and analysis: Identify and meet with administration, and review current
intermunicipal service agreements [completed].
Stage 2: Establish a Review Committee, meet with administrative leads, coordinate
meetings with internal and external service delivery experts, and draft ICF.
Stage 3: Present draft ICF to Review Committee and Administrative leads for review.
Stage 4: ICF approval process through Bylaw adoption.
Stage 5: ICF approval from Municipal Affairs.
78
Document Last Updated February 27, 2018
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Agenda Item #
8.3
SUBJECT:
Public Participation Policy
MEETING DATE:
2018-07-17
PRESENTED BY: Debra Grosfield, Communications Officer and Protective Services Mngr
BACKGROUND/
PROPOSAL
As per the discussion at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on May 22, and
as part of our regular policy reviews, the Public Participation Policy is being
brought to Council for your consideration.
The Public Consultation Policy and Plan was first accepted by Council in
2015.
The revised Municipal Government Act requires every municipality to have a
public participation policy in place, which must identify:
The types or categories of approaches the municipality will use to
engage municipal stakeholders
The types or categories of circumstances in which the municipality
will engage municipal stakeholders
Our existing policy refers to three types of engagement to be defined on each
RFD brought to Council: Directive Decisions, Consultative Decisions and
Collaborate Decisions.
Directors and Managers are responsible to carry out the engagement as
defined in the RFD to Council, following the procedures in the Public
Participation Plan.
DISCUSSION/
OPTIONS/
BENEFITS/
DISADVANTAGES:
Changes proposed to this policy include:
Title change from “consultation” to “participation”, reflecting wording in
the Act.
Addition of reference to the MGA new section of legislation
Roles and responsibilities have been simplified to the County and the
Public
Addition of circumstances when to use
Guidelines now include the levels of public participation, as defined by
the IAP2 (International Association of Public Participation), and
recommended by Alberta Municipal Affairs.
COSTS/SOURCE OF
FUNDING:
Public participation budgets may need increasing, depending on level of
consultation defined (costs such as facility rent and facilitators add up quickly).
The personnel resources and time needed to implement communications
plans are also to be taken into consideration.
79
REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 8.3 2 | Page
ENGAGEMENT:
☒ Directive Decision (Information Sharing-One way communication)
Goal: To educate and inform citizens
Tools: ☐ Individual Notification or ☒ Public Notification
☐ Consultative Decision (Consulting the Public – Two way communication)
Goal: To seek feedback, test ideas, develop concepts and collaborative solutions
Tools: ☐ Public Hearing ☐ Open House ☐ Focus Group ☐ Other‐
☐ Collaborative Decision (Active Participation- Share or delegate decision making)
Goal: To share or delegate decision making
Tools: ☐ Participatory Decision Making ☐ Inter‐Municipal Agreement ☐ Other‐
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
Viable Communities, Communications Priority
ATTACHMENTS:
Public Consultation Policy #18-2
Public Participation Policy #18-2 NEW
Public Participation Plan (2018)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That Council approve the Public Participation Policy 18-2 as presented.
COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. That Council accept Public Participation Policy 18-2 as presented.
2. That Council accept Public Participation Policy 18-2 as amended.
3. That Council send back to Administration, the Public Participation
Policy with further recommendations for changes.
MOTION: Council accepts the Public Participation Policy 18-2 as presented.
Prepared By: Debra Grosfield Approved By: Al Hoggan Reviewed By: Al Hoggan
Communications Officer Chief Administrative Officer Chief Administrative Officer
80
POLICY
Section Policy No. Page
Communications 1 of 4
Policy Title Date: Resolution
No.
Public Participation Policy July 2018
Purpose:
Kneehill County is committed to open and accountable decision making, which includes appropriate levels of
communication and consultation between Council and the public. Communicating with residents is a key
function of the County, involving officials and employees at all levels.
The Municipal Government Act (MGA) establishes a legal requirement for Council and Council committees to
conduct business in public and to ensure the public is notified of certain kinds of decisions. The MGA also
requires every municipality to have a public participation policy in place which must identify:
The types or categories of approaches the municipality will use to engage municipal stakeholders
The types or categories of circumstances in which the municipality will engage municipal stakeholders
Policy Scope:
This policy applies to all Kneehill County employees and Council when it is required to engage the public,
whether to inform, consult or engage the public regarding issues, projects, policies, initiatives and bylaws
proposed by Kneehill County.
This policy also applies to consultants working on behalf of Kneehill County, as well as any boards, committees
and other quasi‐judicial bodies as appointed by Kneehill County Council through bylaw, policy or other
legislation.
Definitions:
“Public” means anyone (including groups and individuals) who may have an interest in a specific topic or issue
under discussion. The public may, or may not, be directly impacted by a decision on the issue.
“Public Participation Plan” means a written document outlining the level of public participation that will be
used to address the issue, project, initiative or bylaw proposed by Kneehill County, and includes a
communications plan outlining strategies required to activate the plan.
“Public Notification” means a method of informing the public as required for proposed bylaws, land use
matters, and other notifications as specified in the Municipal Government Act.
“Request for Decision” (RFD) means a document that is presented to Council required to make a
decision/motion. A RFD includes an issue title, background information, how it connects to the Strategic Plan,
communication requirement, and recommendations by the CAO, Director or Manager.
Roles and Responsibilities:
Kneehill County:
Will inform, consult, and engage the public about decisions that affect them, and will provide public
participation opportunities that are open and transparent.
Will give consideration to the public’s input gathered in public participation processes.
81
POLICY
Section Policy No. Page
Communications 2 of 4
Policy Title Date: Resolution
No.
Public Participation Policy July 2018
Is committed to working together with the public to continuously improve its public participation
processes.
Supports County staff to build their skills and knowledge to engage the public in a meaningful way.
Supports the belief that involving the public and stakeholders in public participation leads to better,
more informed decisions.
The public and stakeholders of Kneehill County:
Are encouraged to meaningfully engage so their voices strengthen decisions and their involvement
helps to build a strong community.
Have the right to be heard, but also to listen and be open to different ideas and opposing views.
Are encouraged to increase their understanding and knowledge about local issues, as well as their role
in Kneehill County’s decision making process so that they can participate in a meaningful way.
Public Participation Circumstances:
Public participation is required when:
Legislation requires it
Council or Administration requests it
Public participation may be required when:
Citizens or stakeholders request it
Citizens quality of life may be affected
Geographical communities or communities on interest may be affected
There are already strong views on the issue
Many people will be affected
Public participation is not required when:
The decision has already been made
The project or issue related decision has already been made
There is a development of an administrative policy that doesn’t require public participation.
Stakeholder input will not be considered
Policy Guidelines:
1. This policy is not to circumvent any statutory requirements as outlined in the Municipal Government
Act or any other legislation to which Kneehill County must adhere to. This also applies to Planning and
Development consultation processes.
2. The CAO may adopt procedures consistent with this policy to provide a framework and consistent
approach when engaging the public for operational purposes.
82
POLICY
Section Policy No. Page
Communications 3 of 4
Policy Title Date: Resolution
No.
Public Participation Policy July 2018
3. All County staff responsible for projects or initiatives will be accountable for following this policy.
4. Not all projects/issues require the same level of stakeholder consultation. All participation initiatives
will follow the Levels of Public Participation table:
Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Empower
Public
Participation
Goal
To provide the
public with
balanced and
objective
information to
assist them in
understanding the
problems,
alternatives and/or
solutions.
To obtain public
feedback on
analysis,
alternatives and/or
decision.
To work directly
with the public
throughout the
process to ensure
that public issues
and concerns are
consistently
understood and
considered.
To partner with
the public in each
aspect of the
decision including
the development
of alternatives and
the identification
of the preferred
solution.
To place the final
decision making in
the hands of the
public.
Promise to
the Public
We will keep you
informed.
We will keep you
informed, listen to
and acknowledge
concerns and
provide feedback
on how public
input influenced
the decision.
We will work with
you to ensure that
your concerns and
issues are directly
reflected in the
alternatives
developed and
provide feedback
on how public
input influenced
the decision.
We will look to
you for direct
advice and
innovation in
formulating
solutions and
incorporate your
advice and
recommendation
into the decisions
to the maximum
extent possible.
We will implement
what you decide.
Example
Tools
- Fact sheets
- Websites
- Open houses
- Public comment
- Focus groups
- Surveys
- Public meetings
- Workshops
- Deliberate
polling
- Advisory
Committees
- Participatory
decision making
- Ballots
- Plebiscites
- Delegated
decisions
5. The CAO or Designate will include on each Request for Decision (RFD) a recommendation of public
participation.
a. Directive Decisions (information sharing) – Staff and Council have the authority to educate
and inform the public on any decision made by Council motion.
Tools may include: newsletter, annual reports, public announcements
b. Consultative Decisions (consulting the public) – Staff and Council sets this level to receive
public feedback and develop concepts using the Public Participation Plan.
Tools may include: resident meetings, public advisory committees, public hearings
Increasing municipal ownership of the decision making process and end decision
83
POLICY
Section Policy No. Page
Communications 4 of 4
Policy Title Date: Resolution
No.
Public Participation Policy July 2018
c. Collaborative Decisions (active participation by public) – Council sets this level to share in the
decision making process with the public/stakeholders, using the Public Participation Plan for
the full public participation process.
Tools may include: community visioning, community/regional agreements or initiatives
Procedures:
A Public Participation Plan has been developed to support this policy. Administration will develop procedures
over time to ensure effective implementation of this policy.
A communications plan to address the issue, project, initiative or bylaw proposed by Kneehill County may be
attached to the RFD.
Jerry Wittstock
Reeve
Al Hoggan
CAO
Approved: 2015
Amended: 2018
84
85
86
87
Public Participation Plan 1
Public Participation Pla n
Updated July 2018
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Communications Guidelines
3. Principles of Participation
4. Defining Levels of Public Participation
5. Continuum of Community Engagement
Directive Decisions
Consultative Decisions
Collaborative Decisions
6. Implementation Guidelines
6.1 Needs Identification
- County-based, Public-based,
- Including Communications in Projects
6.2 Planning
- Identify Issue
- Establish Objectives
- Establish Stakeholders
- Establish Level of Public Consultation
- Identify Tools
- Identify Resources
- Location and Timing
- Clear Communication
6.3 Choosing & Implementing the Best Approach
- Types of Meetings
- Formats for Sharing Information
- Formats for Distributing Information
7. Follow Through and Evaluation
88
Public Participation Plan 2
1. Introduction _____________________________________________________
At the June 2013 strategic planning session, Council discussion was held regarding a formal
communications plan with the focus of utilizing various mediums. A Communications Strategy was
adopted with a general focus of enhancing the current communication processes, both internally and
externally. Various communications means were identified, including social media and what our
current technical capabilities held for our organization.
In 2018, the Municipal Government Act legislated that every Alberta municipality requires a public
participation policy.
The Public Participation Plan is intended to define different levels of engagement, as well as
providing overall communications processes, standards and priorities.
2. Communications Guidelines ________________________________________
Responsibility
The primary goal of communications is to create and maintain a positive public image of Kneehill
County and to ensure that employees and residents are well-informed of our policies, programs and
services.
Public participation is essential to the municipal decision process. Kneehill County is committed to
open and accountable decision making, which includes appropriate levels of communication and
consultation between Council and the public. Communicating with residents is a key function of the
County, involving officials and employees at all levels.
3. Principles of Public Participation ____________________________________
1. Citizen consultation is recognized as an asset, is valued and encouraged.
2. Builds mutual trust and accountability with the public.
3. Proactive communications will enhance resident satisfaction.
4. We will utilize a variety of communications tools to reach various audiences.
5. We will strive to keep the public informed.
6. Everyone potentially affected by the consultation process has an opportunity to become involved.
7. The public clearly understands its role in the process.
8. The consultation process is respectful, effective and transparent.
9. Communication is clear, timely and effective.
10. Participants are informed of outcomes of community consultation.
89
Public Participation Plan 3
4. Defining Levels of Public Participation _______________________________
* Excerpt from IAP2 Federation Spectrum of Public Participation
Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Empower
Public
Participation
Goal
To provide the
public with
balanced and
objective
information to
assist them in
understanding
the problems,
alternatives
and/or
solutions.
To obtain
public
feedback on
analysis,
alternatives
and/or
decision.
To work
directly with
the public
throughout
the process to
ensure that
public issues
and concerns
are
consistently
understood
and
considered.
To partner with
the public in
each aspect of
the decision
including the
development of
alternatives and
the identification
of the preferred
solution.
To place the
final decision
making in the
hands of the
public.
Promise to
the Public
We will keep
you informed.
We will keep
you informed,
listen to and
acknowledge
concerns and
provide
feedback on
how public
input
influenced the
decision.
We will work
with you to
ensure that
your concerns
and issues are
directly
reflected in
the
alternatives
developed and
provide
feedback on
how public
input
influenced the
decision.
We will look to
you for direct
advice and
innovation in
formulating
solutions and
incorporate your
advice and
recommendation
into the
decisions to the
maximum extent
possible.
We will
implement
what you
decide.
Example
Tools
- Fact sheets
- Websites
- Open houses
- Public
comment
- Focus groups
- Surveys
- Public
meetings
- Workshops
- Deliberate
polling
- Advisory
Committees
- Participatory
decision making
- Ballots
- Plebiscites
- Delegated
decisions
Increasing municipal ownership of the decision making process and end decision
90
Public Participation Plan 4
5. Continuum of Community Engagement ______________________________
Engagement occurs along a continuum with different desired outcomes at each degree. This
continuum represents degrees of public involvement; it is not a process map. An engagement
process may include one or all of the levels of engagement in any order, depending on project
context and desired outcomes.
Information Sharing
Directive Decisions
Consultation
Consultative Decisions
Active Participation
Collaborative Decisions
Goal To educate and inform
citizens
To seek feedback, test ideas,
develop concepts and
collaborative solutions.
To share or delegate decision
making.
Relationship One Way Two way Dynamic
Tools Newsletter, Annual
Reports, Public
Announcements.
Resident Meetings, Public
Advisory Committees, Public
Hearings.
Community visioning,
Community or Regional
Agreements/Initiatives,
Facility Agreements.
When Are made by a person
authorized to do so, and
are issued to others
simply to inform them
the decision was made.
Often involve moral or
emotional elements.
When municipalities are in
partnership with
communities, organizations
or individuals to deliver
services or to respond to
long-term challenges.
Examples of
When to
Use
• There is an urgent
need to respond
immediately
• A person in authority
is acting within their
authority
• The decision is routine
and accepted as part of
the municipalities
operations (ie: snow
removal)
• The decision is
dictated by law (ie:
improvement to water
systems)
• Public notification and
input are required by law
(as per MGA
requirements or other
legislative)
• The decision is a known
concern of other parties
or is likely to have a
significant impact on
other parties (ie: a
proposed development)
• The decision affects
society’s moral or
emotional expectations
(ie: expansion of
recreation facility)
• The decision affects the
lifestyle of citizens
(ie: road closure)
• Council/administration
requests public input prior
to making the decision (ie:
public buildings or park
space)
• Development (ie:
subdivision planning,
recreation facility
development)
• Inter-Municipal
Agreements
• Industrial Zoning
When a municipality embarks
on a collaborative decision
process, Council must
recognize that parties who
share in the investment
expect to share in the
decision. There must be
assurances these partners will
be heard and their wishes
respected.
However, Council has the
final decision, in good faith,
on behalf of the municipality.
As we move left to right, the level of influence to decision making increases, as well as time for the
engagement process.
91
Public Participation Plan 5
6. Implementation Guidelines _________________________________________
The implementation process described below is a guideline to planning and implementation of an
effective public engagement processes.
6.1 Needs Identification
There are a number of considerations, both County and public-based, that should be discussed
in determining whether public engagement is required.
County-based Considerations
• Legal or regulatory requirements: there is a legal requirement for public engagement
according to the Municipal Government Act (MGA) or under federal or provincial law or
the requirements of regulatory bodies.
• Internal directives: public engagement is required on the basis of internal authorized
decisions, including County policies.
• Administration or Council requests: Public engagement is requested by County
administration or Council.
Public-based Considerations
• Collaborative situation: The public will share in the decision process
• Impact on the public: The decision or outcome will have a significant impact on the
public’s social, economic, and/or environmental situation.
• Public requests: County citizens or stakeholders request that public engagement be
conducted.
When Should Council & Staff Include Communications in A Project/Initiative
Communications
Need
Impact to
County
Operations
Public
Concern,
Support
Financial
Impacts
Potential
for Media
Coverage
Public
Safety
Risks
Impacts to
Reputation
No support needed Some service
interruptions/
service
enhancement
possible
No public
concern or
support
No financial
impacts
No coverage No public
safety
hazards
No impacts to
reputation of
municipality
Brief
Communications,
communications to
monitor
Service
interruptions
Possible
concern or
support
Possible
impacts to
budget but
not to
taxpayers
Local
coverage
Some public
safety risks
possible
Possible risk or
opportunity of
positive impact to
rep
Communications
plan required,
communications to
monitor
Inability to
provide
service for a
day or more.
New service
offering
probable
Probable
concern or
support
Probable
impacts to
property
taxes
(Including
savings/tax
reduction)
Provincial
coverage
Public safety
risks
probably
Positive or
negative impact
among key
stakeholder
groups likely
Communications
plan and active
ongoing support
Some service
interruptions.
Service
enhancement
plans
Significant
public
concern or
support
Significant
impact to
property
taxes
National
coverage
Risk of
fatality
Broad negative or
positive impact
among various
audiences
92
Public Participation Plan 6
6.2 Planning
Much of planning for effective public participation process involves anticipating issues and
responses the public will have and identifying how best to work with those in an open and
transparent manner.
The process presented here identifies the various aspects of a public consultation process and
presents them in a logical order. In moving through the planning process, there may be a need to
go back to earlier steps and make modifications.
Planning Steps Description
1. Identify and agree
upon the issue(s)
being addressed
• Establishing the scope of the public participation process by
considering what issues, topics, or aspects of the project the public
may actually influence
• Clearly identify what is and is not on the table for public input with
explanations for each, building transparency and trust while
managing expectations.
2. Establish clear
objectives and
outcomes for the
public participation:
• Is the public participation working towards building knowledge,
solving a problem, sharing ideas, evaluating and prioritizing, or
other desired outcomes?
• Consider the likely levels of conflict and whether or not the process
should seek to produce agreement as opposed to bringing the issues
into the open.
• In establishing objectives and outcomes, consider both what the
County and the public might wish to achieve through public
consultation; they may be different.
• Some public consultation outcomes may be measurable; however,
many are not.
3. Initial stakeholder
identification:
• Whose support is needed and why? (ensure the stakeholders know
what is needed from them, define expectations)
• Is opposition expected? (if so, communicate with them even though
you may never win them over)
• What are the external factors, public perceptions, commonly held
beliefs, historical influences, and related issues that may be raised as
the public consultation process is implemented?
4. Establish the
desired level of public
participation:
• Select the degree of public participation most suited to the issue and
desired outcomes.
• What degree of involvement is the County willing or able to
implement? County-based considerations may dictate what level of
consultation is appropriate.
5. Identify tools and
strategies best suited
to the situation:
• Specific tools and strategies are well suited to different levels of
engagement, others to specific demographics and populations.
6. Project costs of
public participation:
• Financial cost & staff resources. Postage, room rentals, display
boards, etc. all have a dollar amount attached. Consider the time it
takes to develop the public participation plan as well as
implementing it.
93
Public Participation Plan 7
7. Location and
Timing:
• Wherever possible, hold public participation events in the
communities that may be impacted by the outcomes.
• For processes that impact the entire County, consider hosting
several smaller events in the different communities.
• These timelines are recommended for public participation:
• General information: As soon as reasonable
• Background info: 2-4 weeks before events
• Activity/Event notification: 3-4 weeks before events
• Reminders: 1 week before events
• Follow-up communications: as soon as is reasonable
8. Clear
Communication:
• It has been recognized that there is a need to provide services in
language that is clear and understandable.
• Design the communication from the context and perspective of the
reader, rather than the knowledge and expectations of the sender.
6.3 Choosing & Implementing the Best Approach
Council and staff will strive to choose the best approach for public participation for situations
proactively. As elected representatives of citizens, councillors have a further obligation to be
aware of citizen expectations and concerns before making their decisions.
Twelve questions to ask before you notify citizens
Ideally, the planning begins with internal discussions. If a public consultation process is
expected to be implemented, a plan is needed. Here are questions that need to be
answered:
1.What potential decision is being considered?
2.What are its implications?
3.Who should we be notifying?
4.What input do we require?
5.How are we intending to gather the input?
6.How will we analyze what we hear?
7.What resources do we have available?
8.What are our timelines?
9.Is this likely to be controversial? If so, how should we manage the
controversy?
10.How will the input be used in the decision?
11.What will success look like?
12.What outcomes do we seek from our efforts to involve the public?
* Reference Pg 2-1 of the Public Input Toolkit for Municipalities
94
Public Participation Plan 8
6.3.1 Choosing a Types of Meeting:
Type of Meeting Advantages Disadvantages
Storefront or “over-the-
counter” Meeting:
allows anyone to drop in
and discuss plans over
the counter
• Citizens can choose time to drop in
• Citizen gets one-on-one time with
municipal representatives
• Great if a small number of citizens have
a high interest
• Input is often verbal and
doesn’t always get recorded
• Relatively time-consuming
• Cannot accommodate large
numbers
Open House Meetings:
an opportunity for
people to drop in,
review information, talk
to a municipal
representative, and
submit their preferences
• Allows many people to review
information and talk to representatives
• Display information to interested
citizens (visual boards, on-table
materials, take home materials)
• Convenient time for a variety of
stakeholders, spending as much time as
they wish there
• Staff should be “interviewing”
stakeholders
• Opportunity for ideas exchange,
written responses
• Non-confrontational format
• Will not result in any
definitive input unless
designed to do so
• Does not promote interaction
or consensus building
Tip: Staff can “interview” the stakeholders for information exchange
Ratepayer/Public
Meetings: larger
meetings with formal
agenda and formal
presentations
• Council will present to lots of
stakeholders at the same time
• Everyone gets to hear what everyone
else has to say
• Explain the process to stakeholders
upfront
• Notes to be taken by staff
• Avoid long presentations by municipal
representatives
• Incorporate response forms
• May become confrontational
• “Showboating” at the
microphone is a problem
Tips: Don’t set up a microphone (have roaming staff with mics), use a facilitator, use tables/chairs
instead of rows, have representatives well informed with information readily available to all.
95
Public Participation Plan 9
Workshops: participants
can “roll up their
sleeves” and work
together to assess
information and create
recommendations.
• Focused on specific topic
• Promotes group problem solving and
exchange of ideas
• Can lead to creative recommendations
• Longer meetings requiring a
greater commitment from
participants
• Extensive preparation
• Must be well facilitated
Tip: Making this an invitational event may increase the amount of attendees due to time commitment.
Online Discussions or
Scheduled Online
Chats: allows anyone to
ask about the plans and
talk to an expert (via
Skype, Google Chat,
AIM, Facebook Chat,
Message Boards, etc)
• Online spaces where people can read
information, comment on others ideas
and add their own opinion.
• Stakeholders can choose drop in time
• Stakeholders who cannot drop in during
business hours or reach the location can
still participate
• Staff members can converse with
multiple residents at once
• A chance to have experts make
comments
• Depending on how its set up, comments
can be public or not visible to everyone
• Harder to guarantee that
participants are residents of
the area in question
• Needs terms of reference if
everyone’s comments are
public in case abusive
comments need to be
removed.
Focus Groups: An
opportunity to provide
some detailed
information to a small
group to see what
options they prefer and
why.
• Invitation only
• Small cross-section of people to pull
from to get the full range of opinions of
stakeholders
• Participants are shown a series of ideas
and ask for their response.
• Used to “test” ideas, not to “sell” ideas.
• Members of the group may
not be accepted by the public
as good enough cross-section
• Takes time commitment from
participants
Round Table Meetings:
15-25 people invited to
sit around the table and
provide their
perceptions, concerns
and preferences
• Usually invitational
• Intention is to encourage sharing of
ideas among communities that have
different needs or perspectives
• Short presentations are used to provide
information then the participants are
asked to provide their views and ideas.
• Flip charts are useful to allow
participants to see what is recorded
• Limited number of
participants at the sessions
• Must be well facilitated and
recorded
• Can be perceived as a
technique to “divide and
conquer”
Advisory Committee:
Similar to round table,
except the committee
meets several times.
• Allows time for members to get to know
one another and “do their homework”
• Builds consensus about detailed
recommendations
• Agendas, Minutes, follow up actions and
reports
• A secretary is required to
take minutes, follow up
action charts, reports
Webinar: for
presentation style
meetings (via Skype,
LiveMeeting,
GoToMeeting, etc)
• People can attend from anywhere
• Easy to record and post online for
people who missed the event
• Technical difficulties often
arise, especially with video
and sound
96
Public Participation Plan 10
6.3.2 Choosing A Format for Sharing Information
Format Advantages Disadvantages
Website • Many people go online first for
information
• Provides up to date information
• Can include links to a wide range of
information
• Allows participants to choose how much
to review
• Can be linked to an electronic response
format
• Website must be kept up to
date
• Participation information can
be easily lost in the amount
of municipal information
• Not everyone can access
information on the web
Brochure • Concise and graphic description of
information
• Provides a standard reference for
participants
• Often difficult to get into the
hands of the participants
• Expensive to publish
• Requires time to write and
publish
Display Boards • Concise and graphic description of
information
• Provides a standard reference for
participants
• Can be produced on a moderate notice
• Only available to those who
attend display locations
• Can be costly, damaged easily
• Can require personal to set
up and explain
PowerPoint SlideShow • Concise and graphic
• Provides information in short amount
of time
• Good support for live presentations
• Use of graphics enhances learning
• Can be presented and shared online as
a webinar
• Rarely a stand alone format
(needs presenter)
• Format tends to be lists, not
context
• Must print and hand out in
order to be a reference piece.
Newsletter • Relatively inexpensive
• Provide information overview
• Can be distributed with other materials,
including surveys
• Can be mistaken for junk mail
• Not durable
• Will not be read if too wordy
• Email list may be a challenge
to form
Facebook/Other Social
Media
• Provides up to date information and
directs traffic to the website
• Easy for people to share with people
they know
• Easy way to ask questions or conduct a
poll
• More challenging to share
documents
• Not accessible to everyone,
need a FB account to access
• Requires “supervision” of
comments (Terms of
Reference)
YouTube or Similar-use
Page
• Share information in a fun and
engaging way
• Can get the employees involved
• Can embed into municipal website
• Can be time consuming
• Resources, development of
multimedia required
97
Public Participation Plan 11
6.3.3 Choosing A Technique for Distributing Information
Technique Advantages Disadvantages
Person to Person:
face to face, telephone,
email or text to
individual
• Most effective approach
• Allows respondent to ask questions and
get involved immediately
• Highly recommended if you need to
invite a relatively small number of
individuals
• Time consuming
• Limits number of contacts
• Lack of recording
Leadership Networks:
Contacting known
community leaders and
giving them the
information
• Can be very effective, but depends on
the skill of the leaders contacted and
time available
• May be seen as favouring
certain parties
• Tendency to attract the same
people to meetings
repeatedly
• No control over how or when
leaders will distribute
information
Direct Correspondence:
Letter, bulk email, fax,
e-newsletter, text
message to group
• Relatively effective
• Targeted to those who require
notification
• Requires up to date mailing
list
• May be expensive for large
distribution
Presentations at
regularly scheduled
meetings
• Provides on-site presentation at meeting
organized by a target group or
association
• Very convenient for group members
• Promotes early involvement and
learning
• Promotes networking
• May delay process, waiting
on group to schedule
• May be seen as favouring
organizations
• Requires significant
commitment of time
(evenings or weekends)
Bulk Mail • Covers a large area with relatively high
assurance that each household and
business are informed
• Likely to be confused with
junk mail, discarded
News Release
Press release to
traditional media or
online media
• Can create interest and attention if
picked up by the media
• Can provide background information
that may stimulate interest
• Can point stakeholders to website
• No control over when and
where media will show the
story
• The story may include
misinformation from other
sources
Displays, Signs,
Bulletins
• Stimulates interest if placed correctly
• Format requires simplicity
• Depends on location
• Relatively expensive
Public Notice in Media • May be required by MGA
• Some review public notices regularly
• Relatively small impact on
people who get involved
Social Media presence • Meets residents where they are
comfortable online
• Easy to share, timely information
• Online community requires
information to be timely
• No guarantee participants are
in your jurisdiction
98
Public Participation Plan 12
7. Follow Through and Evaluation _____________________________________
Ineffective follow through and reporting lead to public dissatisfaction with the immediate process
and decrease the willingness of participants to engage in future processes.
• Effective reporting to the public should include:
• what decisions were made
• why those decisions were made
• connect the decision with the input
• be prepared to explain why some ideas could not be supported by Council
• Inventory any notes, responses, comments and have a written report on file of these.
• Wherever possible, the follow-up reporting should be released through similar
channels used throughout the process.
• Remember to thank participants. In most instances, a verbal thank-you when the
participation occurs is sufficient, but is a must.
Once ANY LEVEL of public consultation process is complete, evaluate and document the
following:
• main issues
• objectives and desired outcomes and whether they were met
• process successes and the challenges
• techniques used
• the venue, time and location
• satisfaction levels with both the process and the outcomes
• unexpected outcomes
• costs and resources required
The evaluations should be circulated to appropriate staff members and kept for future
reference.
99
1
Carolyn Van der Kuil
From:Al Hoggan
Sent:Friday, June 22, 2018 3:58 PM
To:Carolyn Van der Kuil
Subject:Fwd: Drumheller RCMP Mayor Report - May 2018
Attachments:Drumheller Provincial May 2018.pdf; ATT00001.htm
Al Hoggan, CLGM
Chief Administrative Officer
Kneehill County
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kevin CHARLES <Kevin.Charles@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
Date: June 22, 2018 at 1:15:18 PM MDT
To: <cao@delia.ca>, Margaret McClarty <carbon.cao@gmail.com>,
<al.hoggan@kneehillcounty.com>, <morrin@netago.ca>, "munson@netago.ca"
<munson@netago.ca>, <shirley@starlandcounty.com>, Alan Parkin
<alan.parkin@wheatlandcounty.ca>
Subject: Drumheller RCMP Mayor Report - May 2018
Good morning,
Attached please find the May 2018 Mayor Reports for Drumheller Detachment.
From January to May there was a slight increase in crimes against persons, and a substantial
decrease in property crimes. I am pleased to see that the reporting of suspicious behaviours is at
a five year high. When comparing the month of May to previous years, there has been an
increase in property crime, specifically thefts under $5000.
Drumheller Detachment will have some staffing changes in the next couple of weeks. Cst Berry
Allison will be transferred to the Call Back Unit in Calgary effective July 3rd. Cst Rachel
Pergunas will take over his position as the GIS Constable. I will be seeking a replacement
member for the subsequent vacant general duty Constable position. Our vacant Corporal
position continues to be proceed via our promotional process and I hope to have someone named
very soon.
As always, I welcome your questions, comments, or concerns and am pleased to attend any
meetings you require.
Kind regards,
Kevin
S/Sgt. Kevin Charles
100
2
Detachment Commander
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
P.O. Box 1030; 75 Riverside Drive East
Drumheller, AB T0J 0Y0
Admin Tel: (403) 823-7590
Complaints: (403) 823-2630
Fax: (403) 823-7505
Email: Kevin.Charles@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
This e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related
rights and obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it
contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error,
please advise me (by return e-mail or otherwise) immediately.
Ce courrier électronique est confidentiel et protégé. L'expéditeur ne renonce pas aux droits et
obligations qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce message ou des
renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le (les) destinataire(s)
désigné(s) est interdite. Si vous recevez ce courrier électronique par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser
immédiatement, par retour de courrier électronique ou par un autre moyen.
101
This Report is generated from the PROS database and current scoring of files. All homicide files are not included in this report.
All categories contain "Attempted" and/or "Completed"
CATEGORY Trend 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Homicides & Offences Related to Death 0 0 0 0 0
Robbery 0 0 0 0 0
Sexual Assaults 0 1 1 0 1
Other Sexual Offences 0 1 1 0 0
Assault 2 5 6 3 4
Kidnapping/Hostage/Abduction 0 0 1 0 1
Extortion 0 0 0 0 0
Criminal Harassment 2 1 2 5 5
Uttering Threats 3 0 7 0 2
Other Persons 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL PERSONS 7 8 18 8 13
Break & Enter 4 5 4 14 7
Theft of Motor Vehicle 3 2 3 9 7
Theft Over $5,000 3 1 2 3 1
Theft Under $5,000 3 12 11 43 20
Possn Stn Goods 2 3 2 5 5
Fraud 6 5 11 3 3
Arson 0 0 1 1 1
Mischief To Property 6 11 12 13 16
TOTAL PROPERTY 27 39 46 91 60
Offensive Weapons 2 2 1 0 0
Disturbing the peace 4 2 3 1 1
OTHER CRIMINAL CODE 13 3 7 2 1
TOTAL OTHER CRIMINAL CODE 19 7 11 3 2
TOTAL CRIMINAL CODE 53 54 75 102 75
June-04-18
Drumheller Provincial Detachment
Crime Statistics (Actual)
January to May: 2014 - 2018
102
This Report is generated from the PROS database and current scoring of files. All homicide files are not included in this report.
All categories contain "Attempted" and/or "Completed"
CATEGORY Trend 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Drug Enforcement - Production 1 0 0 0 0
Drug Enforcement - Possession 8 2 1 0 2
Drug Enforcement - Trafficking 3 3 2 0 0
Drug Enforcement - Other 0 0 0 0 0
Total Drugs 12 5 3 0 2
Federal - General 1 0 0 0 0
TOTAL FEDERAL 13 5 3 0 2
Liquor Act 2 0 0 1 4
Other Provincial Stats 11 15 6 18 7
Total Provincial Stats 13 15 6 19 11
Municipal By-laws Traffic 0 0 1 1 0
Municipal By-laws 1 0 1 2 2
Total Municipal 1 0 2 3 2
Fatals 1 1 0 0 0
Injury MVC 2 9 0 1 1
Property Damage MVC (Reportable)46 44 54 60 48
Property Damage MVC (Non Reportable)18 12 3 8 5
TOTAL MVC 67 66 57 69 54
Provincial Traffic 168 177 124 155 466
Other Traffic 2 1 1 1 0
Criminal Code Traffic 8 9 8 11 17
Common Police Activities
False Alarms 11 8 9 17 26
False/Abandoned 911 Call and 911 Act 21 32 23 32 29
Suspicious Person/Vehicle/Property 11 7 5 9 17
Persons Reported Missing 0 0 2 3 2
Spousal Abuse - Survey Code 3 11 10 3 4
Crime Statistics (Actual)
January to May: 2014 - 2018
June-04-18
103
This Report is generated from the PROS database and current scoring of files. All homicide files are not included in this report.
All categories contain "Attempted" and/or "Completed"
CATEGORY Trend 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Homicides & Offences Related to Death 0 0 0 0 0
Robbery 0 0 0 0 0
Sexual Assaults 0 0 0 0 0
Other Sexual Offences 0 0 0 0 0
Assault 0 2 1 0 1
Kidnapping/Hostage/Abduction 0 0 1 0 0
Extortion 0 0 0 0 0
Criminal Harassment 1 0 0 1 0
Uttering Threats 0 0 1 0 0
Other Persons 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL PERSONS 1 2 3 1 1
Break & Enter 0 1 1 5 3
Theft of Motor Vehicle 3 1 3 3 2
Theft Over $5,000 0 1 0 1 1
Theft Under $5,000 2 4 3 1 10
Possn Stn Goods 1 0 0 3 3
Fraud 4 0 2 1 0
Arson 0 0 0 0 0
Mischief To Property 5 6 2 5 7
TOTAL PROPERTY 15 13 11 19 26
Offensive Weapons 2 0 0 0 0
Disturbing the peace 1 0 1 1 0
OTHER CRIMINAL CODE 4 0 0 0 0
TOTAL OTHER CRIMINAL CODE 7 0 1 1 0
TOTAL CRIMINAL CODE 23 15 15 21 27
June-04-18
Drumheller Provincial Detachment
Crime Statistics (Actual)
May: 2014 - 2018
104
This Report is generated from the PROS database and current scoring of files. All homicide files are not included in this report.
All categories contain "Attempted" and/or "Completed"
CATEGORY Trend 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Drug Enforcement - Production 0 0 0 0 0
Drug Enforcement - Possession 0 0 0 0 1
Drug Enforcement - Trafficking 0 1 1 0 0
Drug Enforcement - Other 0 0 0 0 0
Total Drugs 0 1 1 0 1
Federal - General 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL FEDERAL 0 1 1 0 1
Liquor Act 0 0 0 0 0
Other Provincial Stats 3 4 1 5 0
Total Provincial Stats 3 4 1 5 0
Municipal By-laws Traffic 0 0 1 1 0
Municipal By-laws 0 0 0 1 1
Total Municipal 0 0 1 2 1
Fatals 0 0 0 0 0
Injury MVC 1 2 0 1 0
Property Damage MVC (Reportable)7 8 13 16 7
Property Damage MVC (Non Reportable)1 2 0 2 0
TOTAL MVC 9 12 13 19 7
Provincial Traffic 31 48 33 17 145
Other Traffic 0 0 1 0 0
Criminal Code Traffic 4 4 1 6 4
Common Police Activities
False Alarms 6 2 2 5 5
False/Abandoned 911 Call and 911 Act 9 4 5 6 5
Suspicious Person/Vehicle/Property 9 5 1 2 6
Persons Reported Missing 0 0 0 1 0
Spousal Abuse - Survey Code 1 2 2 1 1
Crime Statistics (Actual)
May: 2014 - 2018
June-04-18
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
Document Last Updated April 15, 2014
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Agenda Item #
11.0
SUBJECT:
Council Follow-Up Action List
MEETING DATE:
2018-07-17
PRESENTED BY:
Al Hoggan, CAO
BACKGROUND/
PROPOSAL
To request Council’s acceptance of the Council Follow-Up Action List.
DISCUSSION/
OPTIONS/
BENEFITS/
DISADVANTAGES:
Please find attached the Council Follow-Up Action List. The Council Follow-
up Action list is a list of items from Council meetings that require follow-up.
This document is regularly updated after each Council meeting.
COSTS/SOURCE OF
FUNDING:
N/A
COMMUNICATIONS:
N/A
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
July 17, 2018 Council Follow-Up Action List
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive as information.
COUNCIL OPTIONS:
1. Receive as information
2. Council provide further direction or required changes/amendments.
MOTION:
That Council receive for information the July 17, 2018 Council Follow-Up
Action List as presented.
Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil Approved By: Al Hoggan Reviewed By: Al Hoggan
Executive Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Chief Administrative Officer
117
Meeting Date Motion #Description/Motion
Action Required Assigned To Due Date Status
24-Apr-18 127/18
Councillor Christie moved to amend the 2018 Capital Project
Budget to include the environmental site reclamation of the
Wimborne Inactive Fuel Station and the former Wimborne
Grader Shed at a cost of $1.2 million dollars.Municipal Services Fall 2018 In Progress
24-Apr-18 128/18
Deputy Reeve King moved to amend the 2018 Capital Budget
to accommodate funding in the amount of $500,000.00 to the
Torrington Arena Project as presented.Municipal Services Fall 2018 In Progress
24-Apr-18 129/18
Councillor McGhee moved to direct administration to pursue
the rehabilitation of the Churchill Water System by securing
and acquiring land for pump house, reservoir and bulk fill,
complete engineering, create tender documents and tender
for construction as presented. Funding for the project to
come from the Water Service Area Reserve and have the 2018
Capital Budget amended $4,634,048.00 for the Churchill
Water System Rehabilitation. Municipal Services Fall 2019 In Progress
24-Apr-18 151/18
Councillor McGhee moved to direct administration to
research the ability to identify Kneehill County residents at
the Drumheller Solid Waste Landfill or any other
recommendations that would deal with the concern
identified.Administration 18-Jun
24-Apr-18 158/18
Councillor Penner moved to direct administration to deal with
the Alberta Firefighter Curling Association Championship
Sponsorship request internally.Municipal Services Jun-18
08-May-18 171/18
Councillor McGhee moved first reading of Bylaw #1755 for
Road Closure, that being a bylaw for the purpose of closing to
public travel in accordance with Section 22 of the Municipal
Government Act and to set a Public Hearing date for Bylaw
#1755 for June 12, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.Municipal Services
Waiting for
Signature from
Minister
08-May-18 184/18
Councillor McGhee moved to direct administration to bring to
a future Committee of the Whole Meeting discussion
regarding Hamlet Water Service Area Tax to potentially be
implemented in the 2019 budget.
Scheduled for
Sept 18/18 COW
Meeting
08-May-18 202/18
Councillor McGhee moved to direct administration to bring
back a conceptual plan for a September Committee of the
Whole meeting to decide what public participation will look
like for the Churchill Water Service Area Project.
Scheduled for
Sept 18/18 COW
Meeting
12-Jun-18 236/18
Deputy Reeve King moved to approve the Dunphy Road Bank
Protection Project in the amount of $550,000 for 2018 with
funds to be allocated for this project from the Road Reserve
and apply for grant funding under the Alberta Community
Resilience Program.Municipal Services In Progress
12-Jun-18 248/18
Deputy Reeve King moved to table this agenda item until
August 21, 2018 Council meeting and direct administration to
bring back more information and research how reduced
funding will affect the school libraries. Legislative Services
On the August 21,
2018 Agenda
26-Jun-18 260/18 Councillor McGhee moved to receive as information details
on the 2018 Shoulder Pull Project.COMPLETED
Council Action Items
118
Meeting Date Motion #Description/Motion
Action Required Assigned To Due Date Status
Council Action Items
26-Jun-18 261/18
Deputy Reeve King moved that Council review the draft Land
Use Bylaw for future consideration. Council move
administration to proceed with a public engagement process
that will include the placement of the draft document on the
website for public review, an open house and inter-active
website opportunities to allow public participation in the
proposed amendments to the draft Land Use Bylaw.Municipal Services
26-Jun-18 262/18
Councillor McGhee moved to approve the 2018 Project and
Capital Budget Variance Report for information as of June 11,
2018.COMPLETED
26-Jun-18 263/18
Councillor McGhee moved to receive the Canadian National
Oldtimers Baseball Championship Request for information. COMPLETED
26-Jun-18 264/18 Councillor Keiver moved to approve the June 26, 2018
Strategic Priorities Chart as presented.COMPLETED
26-Jun-18 265/18
Deputy Reeve King moved to receive the Village of Delburne
Charity Golf Tournament for information purposes.COMPLETED
119
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES CHART June 26, 2018
CORPORATE PRIORITIES (Council/CAO)
NOW TIMELINE
1. INTER‐MUN. COLLABORATION FRAMEWORKS June
2. ECONOMIC DEVLOPMENT STRATEGY April
3. INTER‐MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS (IDP)
4. HAMLET STRATEGY
5. LONG TERM FINANCIAL PLAN
NEXT
MDP/LUB: Review
INDUSTRIAL AREA: Zoning
THREE HILLS EAST WATER: Options
INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING STRATEGY
HUMAN RESOURCE POLICY
ADVOCACY
Three Hills Water
GFL: Aerator Evaluation
Trochu Senior Housing
Doctor Recruitment & Retention: Support
LATER
RURAL FIRE SERVICE STRATEGY
COMMUNITY STANDARDS BYLAW: Update
YOUTH SPONSORSHIP: Policy Review
OPERATIONAL STRATEGIES (CAO/STAFF)
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
1. ICF Program: Approach – Mar.
2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY: ToR – Apr.
YOUTH SPONSORSHIP: Policy Review
Regional Partnership Forum
CORPORATE
1. LONG TERM FINANCIAL PLAN
2. ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
PROTECTIVE SERVICES
1. COMMUNITY STANDARDS BYLAW: Update
2. OH & S: Legislative Compliance ‐ May
RURAL FIRE SERVICE STRATEGY
PLANNING
1. IDP: Completion – May
2. MDP/LUB: Review ‐ June
3. INDUSTRIAL AREA: Zoning – June
HAMLET STRATEGY
TRANSPORTATION & ENVIRONMENT
1. CHURCHILL WATER LINE: Council Direction – Feb.
2. HAMLET STRATEGY – Sept.
3. SOLID WASTE STRAEGY – Sept.
THREE HILLS EAST WATER: Options
AGRICULTURE & PARKS
1. HORSESHOE CANYON ENHANCEMENTS – Aug.
CODES: BOLD CAPITALS = NOW Priorities; CAPITALS = NEXT Priorities; Italics = Advocacy; Regular Title Case = Operational
Strategies
120