Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-03-12 Council Package Final KNEEHILL COUNTY REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, March 12, 2019 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 February 26, 2019 3.0 Delegations 3.1 Accurate Assessment- Troy Birtles, Sean Barrett, Ray Fortin, Kris Meadows @ 10:00 a.m. 3.2 Acme Alumni, Matt Price @ 8:30 a.m. 4.0 Public Hearings No Public Hearings Scheduled 5.0 Municipal Services 5.1 Transportation No Report 5.2 Water/Wastewater/Environment 5.2.1 Churchill Water System Rehabilitation 5.3 Planning 5.3.1 Development of Undeveloped Road Allowance Policies 5.3.2 Appraisal of portion of Road Closure in Wimborne 5.4 Agricultural Service Board & Parks 5.4.1 Clubroot Policy # 1-29-3 5.4.2 Soil Conservation - ASB Rental Equipment Policy #1-30-1 5.5 Protective Services 5.5.1 Annual Appointment of Fire Guardians 5.5.2 Bylaw #1793, Enforcement Officer Bylaw 6.0 Corporate Services 6.1 Three Hills and District Seed Cleaning Plant Ltd Request 6.2 Policy #3-16, Organizational Chart 7.0 Business Arising from Previous Minutes 7.1 Regular Council Meeting Agenda March 12, 2019 Page | 2 8.0 New Business 8.1 Rural Municipalities of Alberta Spring Conference Resolutions 8.2 Council Meeting Date 8.3 Committee of the Whole Meeting Date 9.0 Disposition of Delegation & Public Hearing Business 9.1 10.0 Council and Committee Reports 10.1 Community Futures Wildrose 11.0 Council Follow-up Action List 12.0 Closed Session 12.1 Intergovernmental Relations (Section 21) 12.2 Personnel Matter (Section 17) 13.0 Motions from Closed Session Adjournment 1 ________ Initials MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 26, 2019 REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF KNEEHILL COUNTY HELD AT THE KNEEHILL COUNTY OFFICE, 1600- 2ND STREET NE, THREE HILLS, ALBERTA PRESENT: Division No. 1 Faye McGhee, Deputy Reeve 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 Division No. 7 Kenneth King, Councillor ALSO PRESENT: Interim Chief Administrative Officer Peter Tarnawsky 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 Emergency Management Assistant Christine Anderson Recording Secretary Carolyn Van der Kuil CALL TO ORDER Reeve Wittstock in the Chair Reeve Wittstock called the meeting to order at 8:31 a.m. AGENDA 1.0 Agenda 1.1 Additions to the Agenda Additions under New Business 8.1 Kneehill Minor Hockey-Bantam D Provincial Tournament 8.2 Committee of the Whole Meeting Cancellation ADOPTION OF AGENDA 1.2 Adoption of Agenda 65/19 Councillor King moved approval of the agenda as amended. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY MINUTES 2.0 Minutes 2.1 Regular Council Meeting Minutes of February 12, 2019 66/19 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved approval of the February 12, 2019 Council Meeting minutes as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26, 2019 2 _________ Initials MUNICIPAL SERV 5.0 Municipal Services TRANSPORTATION 5.1 Transportation 5.1.1 New Gravel Stockpile Lease Location 67/19 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved to receive as information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY PLANNING 5.3 Planning 5.3.1 Request to Redesignate a Portion of the SW-13-34-24-W4 from the Agriculture District to the Industrial District 68/19 Councillor Keiver moved first reading of proposed Bylaw #1786. CARRIED 69/19 Councillor Christie moved to schedule the Public Hearing for March 26, 2019 at 10:00 am for the purposes of amending Land Use Bylaw #1773 for the redesignation of a portion of the SW-13-34-24-W4 from the Agriculture District to the Industrial District. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY PROTECTIVE SERV 5.5 Protective Services 5.5.1 Occupational Health & Safety External Audit 70/19 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved to accept the Occupational Health and Safety External Audit 2018 and report as information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY CORPORATE SERV 6.0 Corporate Services 6.1 2018 Project and Capital Budget 71/19 Councillor Christie moved to approve the 2018 capital/project expenditure report as of February 8, 2019. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 6.2 Financial Policy #16-20 – Utility Billing - Amendment 72/19 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved to approve the amendments to Financial Policy 16-20, Utility Billing, as recommended. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 6.3 Transfer of Unsold Properties from 2018 Public Auction 73/19 Councillor King moved to direct administration to transfer the tax forfeiture property, Plan 8010154, Block 2, to Kneehill County as the owner, pursuant to the guidelines set out in the Municipal Government Act and as per Policy #16-16, Sale of Properties; and direct administration to undertake further exploration regarding the property at Plan 9710935, Block A, prior to any decision to acquire. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26, 2019 3 _________ Initials The Chair called for a recess at 9:03 a.m. and called the meeting back to order at 9:20 a.m. with all previously mentioned members present. BUSINESS ARISING 7.0 Business Arising from Previous Minutes 7.1 Kneehill County Fire Engine Replacement 74/19 Councillor Christie moved to approve Option 1, proceed with using insurance funds to purchase a replacement engine for the 2007 Freightliner Engine 61 in 2019, and the remaining funds to transfer from the Capital Equipment Reserve in the 2020 Budget. CARRIED 75/19 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved to direct administration to ensure the new fire trucks have a Kneehill County primary decal and secondary decals placed on them from the local fire station. CARRIED NEW BUSINESS 8.0 New Business 8.1 Kneehill Minor Hockey-Bantam D Provincial Tournament 76/19 Councillor King moved to approve sponsoring a full page ad worth $400 and approve the Reeve or designate attendance at the opening ceremonies on March 15, 2019 at the Trochu Arena. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 8.2 Committee of the Whole Meeting Cancellation 77/19 Councillor Penner moved to cancel the Committee of the Whole Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 5, 2019. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY COUNCIL REPORTS 10.0 Council and Committee Reports 10.1 Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes Jan 15, 2019- Approved minutes were provided from the January 15, 2019 Committee of the Whole meeting. 78/19 Councillor King moved that Council receive the Council and Committee reports as presented. CARRIED COUNCIL ACT LIST 11.0 Council Follow-Up Action List 79/19 Councillor McGhee moved that Council receive the February 26, 2019 Council Follow-Up Action List as presented for information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY The Chair called for a recess at 9:48 a.m. and called the meeting back to order at 10:00 a.m. with all previously mentioned members present. COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26, 2019 4 _________ Initials DELEGATIONS 3.0 Delegations 3.1 Kevin Niemi – Industrial Activity on Kneehill County Land SE 29-32-23 W4 @ 10:00 am Mr. Niemi presented to Council his concerns with the dugout being excavated on Kneehill County land at SE 29-32-23 W4. The Chair called for a recess at 10:23 a.m. and called the meeting back to order at 10:35 a.m. with all previously mentioned members present. DISPOSITION OF DELEGATION BUSINESS 9.0 Disposition of Delegation Business 9.1 Kevin Niemi Presentation 80/19 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved to receive Kevin Niemi’s presentation for information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED SESSION 12.0 Closed Session 81/19 Councillor Christie moved that Council convene in closed session to discuss Intergovernmental Relations pursuant to Section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, at 10:49 a.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY The following people were in attendance of the closed session to provide a report and advise Council: Peter Tarnawsky, Interim CAO Laurie Watt, Director of Municipal Services Mike Morton, Director of Corporate Services Carolyn Van der Kuil, Recording Secretary 82/19 Councillor King moved that Council return to open meeting at 11:16 a.m. CARRIED 11:17 a.m. – meeting recessed to allow return of public. 11:17 a.m. - meeting resumed with public present. ADJOURNMENT Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 11:18 a.m. ________________________ Jerry Wittstock, Reeve _______________________ Peter Tarnawsky, Interim CAO Document Last Updated April 15, 2014 REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 5.2.1 SUBJECT: Churchill Water System Rehabilitation- Existing User Connections MEETING DATE: 2019-03-12 PRESENTED BY: John McKiernan, Manager of Environmental Services BACKGROUND/ PROPOSAL The rehabilitation of the Churchill Water System will allow all current users of the system to receive a more consistent, reliable service. The original design of the Churchill water co-op had the requirement of a restricted flow and use of cisterns to maximize the efficiency of the system. This rehabilitation of the system will also require restrictions on each service although less restrictive than the original intentions. The rehabilitation has been engineered to mimic the County’s other rural systems which provide a potential maximum of 4 igpm at 40 psi. (the maximum possible, but not guaranteed, engineered flow that a residence can receive through our rural water lines) The engineer firm has proposed the following dates: March 15, 2019 - final drawings submitted to the County for review. March 28, 2019 – project tenders April 18, 2019 – project tenders closing August 31, 2019 – Waterline project completion September 30, 2019 – pumphouse/reservoir completion DISCUSSION/ OPTIONS/ BENEFITS/ DISADVANTAGES: The rehabilitation of the Churchill water system has brought forth the need to alter the service connections of the existing users. All of the existing users will be required to have their existing service connection retrofitted with flow control and pressure regulation to conform with the engineered design. These retrofits will be performed by Kneehill County to minimize potential delays to the contract, if done through contractor(s). There are some existing users that will have their service connection realigned due to the placement of pipe that will be replaced. It is expected that there will be 7 service connections to be realigned. The rehabilitation of the Churchill water system has also brought to light a water service connection that does not align with the water and wastewater Bylaw No 1699 that states that a single water service cannot service residences on separate titles. Through the rehabilitation project Kneehill County will rectify the situation and water service will be available to both residences on each separate title. Any new (ie: non-existing) users that will now have the potential of a new water connection to the system will be required to follow the existing policy REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 5.2.1 2 | Page (14-12) in place as well will be required to pay any fees for such connection as outlined in the Master Rates Bylaw. Kneehill County administration will to write individual letters to all existing users of the Churchill Water system to outline the details of the rehabilitation project and what retrofits will be required for their specific service. There will be situations that may/will require the waterlines to be isolated and depressurized to allow for connections of new pipe to old pipe to be made, these situations may require temporary boil water advisories and notice will be given to the affected users with as much notice as possible. COSTS/SOURCE OF FUNDING: Through capital project B1857 As per Council direction, there will be no cost to existing users of the system within the boundaries of Kneehill County. Any costs to the Town of Drumheller for the residents serviced by this line will be determined following discussions with the Town, and brought to Council through a subsequent Request for Decision. 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: ATTACHMENTS: Proposed overview drawing RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Council receive as information 2. Council receive as information and direct administration draft letters to be sent to all existing users on the Churchill water system. 3. Council request additional information from administration COUNCIL OPTIONS: Council receive as information and direct administration draft letters to be sent to all existing users on the Churchill water system. MOTION: That Council receive the Churchill Water System Rehabilitation Report as information. Prepared By: John McKiernan Reviewed By: Laurie Watt Approved By: Peter Tarnawsky Manager, Environmental Services Director, Municipal Services Interim Chief Administrative Officer 9 TAYLOR SIDING BEYNON DUNPHY GATINE H O R S E S H O E C A N Y O N 2930 31 32 33 34 22 252627 34 35 36 2345 8 9 10 11 12 1314151617 6123 10 11 12 7 18131415 2423222120 272829 19 30 24 25 23 2627 22 28 21 1617 20 29 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 456 18 30 19 31 12345 121110 13141516 98 1718 7 6 19 20 21 22 23 2526 36 10 838 575 9 841 9 9 841 C C C D DD C C C C D D C D D D C D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D C D D ---- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ISSUED FOR 90% REVIEW2019-02-151 ISSUED FOR 60% REVIEW2018-12-010 181-10798-00 NTS TS SC TS/MR CIVIL PROPOSED WATERLINE C103 ------ ISSUED FOR 90% REVIEW FEBRUARY 15,2019 1 TS/MR SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DISCIPLINE: TITLE: DRAWING NO: PROJECT: CLIENT: DATE OF: SHEET NO:OF CLIENT REF. #: ISSUE / REVISION: DESCRIPTIONYYYY-MM-DDISS / REV ISS/REV: PROJECT NO: ISSUE: PROJECT MANAGER: SEAL/PERMIT: An s i B , R: \ M U N I \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 8 \ P r o j e c t s \ 1 8 1 - 1 0 7 9 8 - 0 0 K n e e h i l l C o u n t y W S A P r o j e c t \ D W G S \ 0 1 P R O D \ W A T E R L I N E \ 1 8 1 - 1 0 7 9 8 - 0 0 - C 1 0 2 - C 1 0 4 - E X I S T I N G A N D P R O P O S E D W A T E R L I N E . d w g , P l o t D a t e : 20 1 9 / 0 2 / 2 7 2: 5 8 P M B y : Ca r t a g e n a , S h a r m a i n e 7710 EDGAR INDUSTRIAL COURT RED DEER, ALBERTA T4P 4E2 TEL: 1 403-342-7650 | FAX: 1 403-342-7691 | WWW.WSPGROUP.COM KNEEHILL COUNTY WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM CHURCHILL WSA TR 28-2 TR 28-3 TR 28-4 TR 28-5 TR 28-2 TR 29-0 TR 29-1 TR 29-2 N LINE 1 LINE 3 LINE 3 LINE 4 LINE 5 LINE 2 LINE 3 LEGEND RESIDENCES PROPOSED 75mm WATERLINE CHURCHILL WSA EXISTING ISOLATION VALVE EXISTING AIR RELEASE VALVE PROPOSED 50mm WATERLINE FLUSHING HYDRANT AND SAMPLING STATION TOWN OF DRUMHELLER LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION TR 28-1 TR 28-0 TR 27-5 TR 27-4 RR 2 1 - 5 RR 2 1 - 4 RR 2 0 - 0 RR 2 0 - 1 RR 2 0 - 2 RR 2 0 - 3 RR 2 0 - 4 RR 2 0 - 5 RR 2 1 - 0 RR 2 1 - 1 RR 2 1 - 2 PROPOSED RESERVOIR SITE PROPOSED RESERVOIR SITE C D RE-CONNECT EXISTING SERVICE CONNECTION EXISTING SERVICE CONNECTION NOT TO BE MODIFIED NUMBER OF SERVICE CONNECTION: C- 9 D- 25 Document Last Updated February 27, 2018 REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 5.3.1 SUBJECT: Policy 13-39 and Policy 13-40 Undeveloped Road Allowance Policies MEETING DATE: 2019-03-12 PRESENTED BY: Brad Buchert, Senior Manager, Transportation & Facilities Barb Hazelton, Manager of Planning and Development BACKGROUND/ PROPOSAL In recent years, Kneehill County has seen an increase of applicants wanting to develop on lands where access would be required on an undeveloped road allowance. In the past three years alone the Planning Department has seen eight (8) developments/subdivision applications adjacent to an undeveloped road allowance. This requires an upgrade of the road to be done and several of these applications are still in the existing process. These applications would be grandfathered should Council choose to create this policy. The recommended policies have been created to outline the requirements for developing on an undeveloped road and to replace the current policies (5-13 and 5-13A). Policy 13-39 has been created to specifically address non-energy related applications. Policy 13-40 has been created to specifically address energy related applications. DISCUSSION/ OPTIONS/ BENEFITS/ DISADVANTAGES: Historically, these policies (5-13, 5-13A) fell under the umbrella of the Planning Department, however, these policies are much broader in scope than what is triggered by subdivision and development. The Transportation Department also deals with multiple requests from industry to develop roads. Included in the previous policies was an option to cost-share with an applicant. - Policy 5-13 was drafted to allow multi-lot, industrial or commercial development the opportunity to apply for cost-sharing of 50%, to a miximum of exceed $15,000. - Policy 5-13A was drafted for the applicant of a proposed subdivision or development to apply for cost-sharing of 50%, to a maximum of $25,000. There have been challenges with this policy. 1. On occasion, the County has provided the cost sharing for applicants who have never followed through with the development. This means we have paid for a road to nowhere and have had to add it to our maintenance program. We are now requiring a development permit for a residence prior to refunding the percentage back. 2. The County has overseen or completed the construction in many cases, and the timing has the potential to interfere with day to day operations. 3. The biggest challenge has been the lack of engineering and the potential liability to the County if approvals through other organizations are required and haven’t been obtained. (eg: Alberta Environment and Parks.) Things to consider: 1. The upgraded roads are added to the maintained road network. The average additional costs per mile for gravelling and grading are REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 5.3.1 2 | Page approximately $2,200/annually. (We have not included snow plowing in this calculation.) 2. If cost sharing continues to be considered, amendments to the budget may be required. A maximum amount per year may be necessary. 3. We currently have two applications that have been approved, but have not applied for a development permit. One of these will be a $6,500 cost share and the other will be a $7,500 cost share. Several others are in the queue. 4. We have removed the cost-sharing option from the recommended policies, however, if Council wants to retain it, we can reincorporate the option similar to the previous policies. Administration, however, recommends only one option be available for everyone instead of two distinct options/policies. It should be noted that these policies will now fall under the Transportation Department. COSTS/SOURCE OF FUNDING: N/A 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: Fiscal Sustainability ATTACHMENTS: Current Policy 5-13 Current Policy 5-13A Recommended Policy 13-39 Recommended Policy 13-40 RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Council move to accept Policy 13-39 as presented and delete Policy Policy 5-13A 2. Council move to accept Policy 13-40 as presented and delete Policy Policy 5-13 COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Council move to accept Policy 13-39 as presented and delete Policy Policy 5-13A 2. Council move to accept Policy 13-40 as presented and delete Policy Policy 5-13 3. Council move to accept Policy 13-39 as amended and delete Policy 5-13A 4. Council move to accept Policy 13-40 as amended and delete Policy 5-13 Document Last Updated February 27, 2018 5. Council request that administration bring back the policies 5-13 and 5-13A with specific amendments. MOTION: 1. Council move to accept Policy 13-39 as presented and delete Policy Policy 5-13A. 2. Council move to accept Policy 13-40 as presented and delete Policy Policy 5-13. Prepared By: Barb Hazelton Reviewed By: Laurie Watt Reviewed By: Peter Tarnawsky Manager of Planning & Development Brad Buchert Municipal Services Director Interim Chief Administrative Officer Sr. Manager, Transportation & Facilities POLICY Section Policy No. Page Transportation Control 13-39 1 of 3 Policy Title Date: Resolution No. Development of Undeveloped Road Allowance Non-Energy Related Purpose: To establish a policy with respect to development on undeveloped road allowances for non-energy related development. Policy Statement: Provide Administration with guidelines relating to the upgrading of undeveloped road allowances associated with new developments. (i.e. commercial, residential and industrial) Policy Guidelines/Procedures: 1. Prior to submitting an application to subdivide or develop on a parcel of land where access is to be obtained from an undeveloped road, the Applicant/Developer must obtain an Engineering Review Assessment from the current Municipal Engineer with costs as per Master Rates Bylaw. 1.1 Following receipt of the Engineering Review Assessment and prior to subdivision or development approval, Administration will bring the request to upgrade the road to Council for approval. 1.2 Upon approval of Council for the development of the undeveloped road allowance, the Applicant/Developer will be required to enter into a Road Development Agreement and may be required to engage the services of a professional engineer to undertake the subject project. The Road Development Agreement will outline the Developer/Contractor’s responsibility and may be attached to title by Caveat. 1.3 Based on the Engineering Review Assessment, and in consultation with the CAO or designate, the County may require the applicant to provide a road engineering report. The report must contain full costs estimates for construction. The report may include, but is not limited to, the following items: a) Engineering/Geophysical/Geotechnical Reports b) Survey Reports c) Design Plans and Road Profiles d) The identification of Gas Line Crossings – High & low Pressure e) Bridge Files. Identify and assess the need for culverts and bridges etc. to maintain the proper drainage under the road (Standard Bridge Survey) f) Pole moves. The relocation of power poles etc. (including all fees and approvals) will be the responsibility of the applicant/developer. Construction and/or replacement of approaches to the subject lands as well as affected neighbouring properties g) Identify and quantify the location of borrow pits to be used in the course of the construction phase. i) Identify and calculate the materials borrowed/removed j) Identify the location of fences on affected neighbouring properties to be removed in the course of the construction phase. (Cost of replacing said fences must be factored in to the costs). POLICY Section Policy No. Page Transportation Control 13-39- 2 of 3 Policy Title Date: Resolution No. Development of Undeveloped Road Allowance Non-Energy Related k) Identify the need for Land Agreements where neighbouring lands are affected by the build. l) Identify the need for crossing agreements. (The County will be responsible for contacting all parties with regards to crossings and crossing agreements.) m) Identify the depth and location of all crossings as well as owners of said crossings. 1.3 The Applicant/Developer of a proposed subdivision or development permit is responsible for all costs associated with approved upgrades to an undeveloped County road allowance. 1.4 The Developer will be responsible for hiring a contractor for completion of the road development. 1.5 Should Kneehill County Council determine that the proposed road development should be extended further to connect with the County’s existing road system, the development of the extended portion of the road will be assumed by the County. 1.6 All approaches for neighboring property owners directly affected by the road development will be subject to Policy 13-15 and amendments thereto. Any new approaches or relocations of an existing will require approval by the County prior to construction. 1.7 Upon completion of the road development, an inspection will be required by Kneehill County and any deficiencies noted will require correction. Final inspection will be completed one (1) year following corrections of any defects or deficiencies and a Final Acceptance Certificate will be issued. 1.8 County standards will apply for seeding of the roadside upon completion of construction, in accordance with Policy #13-25, Seeding Roadsides. 1.9 Maintenance of the road will be the responsibility of the County once a Final Acceptance Certificate has been issued. 1.10 An individual or individuals shall have no claim for costs incurred if at any future date, the use of the road develops to the extent that it may be considered to be in the interests of the general public. Required Standards 1. The minimum standard requirement for a dead end road is a Single Access Road Standard A. (See General Municipal Servicing Standard) 2. The minimum standard for through roads is Standard Local Road, Standard B. (See General Municipal Servicing Standard) 3. The standard for roads servicing multi-lot, heavy use or roads containing hazards, will be determined by the Municipal Engineer during the engineering review process. POLICY Section Policy No. Page Transportation Control 13-39- 3 of 3 Policy Title Date: Resolution No. Development of Undeveloped Road Allowance Non-Energy Related Peter Tarnawsky, Interim Chief Administrative Officer Jerry Wittstock Reeve Approved: Review Date: POLICY Section Policy No. Page Transportation Control 13-40 1 of 3 Policy Title Date: Resolution No. Development of Undeveloped Road Allowance Energy Related Purpose: To establish a policy with respect to development on undeveloped road allowances for energy related development. Policy Statement: Provide Administration with guidelines relating to the upgrading of undeveloped road allowances associated with new developments. (i.e. well site, battery, solar, wind power) Policy Guidelines/Procedures: 1. The Applicant/Developer must obtain an Engineering Review Assessment from the current Municipal Engineer with costs as per Master Rates Bylaw. 1.1 Following receipt of the Engineering Review Assessment and prior to development, Administration will bring the request to upgrade the road to Council for approval. 1.2 Upon approval of Council for the development of the undeveloped road allowance, the Applicant/Developer will be required to enter into a Road Development Agreement and may be required to engage the services of a professional engineer to undertake the subject project. The Road Development Agreement will outline the Developer/Contractor’s responsibility and may be attached to title by Caveat. 1.3 Based on the Engineering Review Assessment, and in consultation with the CAO or designate, the County may require a road engineering report be submitted by the Applicant/Developer. The report must contain full costs estimates for construction. The report may include, but is not limited to, the following items: a) Engineering/Geophysical/Geotechnical Reports b) Survey Reports c) Design Plans and Road Profiles d) The identification of Gas Line Crossings – High & low Pressure e) Bridge Files. Identify and assess the need for culverts and bridges etc. to maintain the proper drainage under the road (Standard Bridge Survey) f) Pole moves. The relocation of power poles etc. (including all fees and approvals) will be the responsibility of the applicant/developer. Construction and/or replacement of approaches to the subject lands as well as affected neighbouring properties g) Identify and quantify the location of borrow pits to be used in the course of the construction phase. i) Identify and calculate the materials borrowed/removed j) Identify the location of fences on affected neighbouring properties to be removed in the course of the construction phase. (Cost of replacing said fences must be factored in to the costs). POLICY Section Policy No. Page Transportation Control 13-40- 2 of 3 Policy Title Date: Resolution No. Development of Undeveloped Road Allowance Energy Related k) Identify the need for Land Agreements where neighbouring lands are affected by the build. l) Identify the need for crossing agreements. (The County will be responsible for contacting all parties with regards to crossings and crossing agreements.) m) Identify the depth and location of all crossings as well as owners of said crossings. 1.3 The Applicant/Developer of a proposed development is responsible for all costs associated with approved upgrades to an undeveloped County road allowance. 1.4 The Developer will be responsible for hiring a contractor for completion of the road development. 1.5 Should Kneehill County Council determine that the proposed road development should be extended further to connect with the County’s existing road system, the development of the extended portion of the road will be assumed by the County. 1.6 All approaches for neighboring property owners directly affected by the road development will be subject to Policy 13-15 and amendments thereto. Any new approaches or relocations of an existing approach will require approval by the County prior to construction. 1.7 Upon completion of the road development, an inspection will be required by Kneehill County and any deficiencies noted will require correction. Final inspection will be completed one (1) year following the corrections of any defects or deficiencies and a Final Acceptance Certificate will be issued. 1.8 County standards will apply for seeding of the roadside upon completion of construction, in accordance with Policy #13-25, Seeding Roadsides. 1.9 Maintenance of the road will be the responsibility of the County once a Final Acceptance Certificate has been issued. 1.10 An individual or individuals shall have no claim for costs incurred if at any future date, the use of the road develops to the extent that it may be considered to be in the interests of the general public. Required Standards 1. The minimum standard requirement for a dead end road is a Single Access Road Standard A. (See General Municipal Servicing Standard) 2. The minimum standard for through roads is Standard Local Road, Standard B. (See General Municipal Servicing Standard) 3. The standard for roads servicing multi-lot, heavy use or roads containing hazards, will be determined by the Municipal Engineer during the engineering review process. POLICY Section Policy No. Page Transportation Control 13-40- 3 of 3 Policy Title Date: Resolution No. Development of Undeveloped Road Allowance Energy Related Peter Tarnawsky, Interim Chief Administrative Officer Jerry Wittstock Reeve Approved: Review Date: Document Last Updated April 15, 2014 REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 5.3.2 SUBJECT: Appraisal of portion of Road Closure in Wimborne MEETING DATE: 2019-03-12 PRESENTED BY: Barb Hazelton, Manager Planning & Development BACKGROUND/ PROPOSAL Robert and Nancy Ells requested a road closure for an undeveloped road allowance (Crescent Road) adjacent to their lot in Wimborne. The road closure was requested in order to better define their lot and to ensure there is no encroachment. Council determined to close the entire road and to have it consolidated into the adjacent County-owned park with the exception of the lands requested by the Ells. Bylaw 1742 was approved for this purpose. DISCUSSION/ OPTIONS/ BENEFITS/ DISADVANTAGES: Road Closures are governed by the Municipal Government Act and Section 22 states that a road must be closed by Bylaw, must be advertised and must be approved by the Minister of Transportation prior to receiving second reading. Additionally, a person who claims to be affected prejudicially by the bylaw (or that person’s agent) must be given an opportunity to be heard by Council. First Reading of Bylaw 1742 took place on April 25, 2017. The Public Hearing took place on May 23, 2017. Ministerial approval was granted July 19, 2017. Second and third reading were completed on August 15, 2017. The Ells were then required to apply for a subdivision in order to obtain the subject lands. This subdivision was approved by the Municipal Planning Commission on September 27, 2018. As per Section 70 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) with regards to the disposal of land, if a municipality disposes of land for less than market value, or a public park or recreation or exhibition grounds, the proposal must be advertised. The land is being disposed of at market value according to the current appraisal provided on the property so no advertising is required. An appraisal of the market value of the land has been provided by Accurate Assessment as $2,500 for the additional 302.346 m2. These additional lands will be consolidated into the existing lot through the subdivision process. COSTS/SOURCE OF FUNDING: Subdivision, survey and cost of land to be borne by the applicant. REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 5.3.2 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: Preserve the Rural Way of Life ATTACHMENTS: Bylaw 1742 Accurate Assessment appraisal Survey of property RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Council accept the market appraisal of $2,500 for a portion the closed road, subject of Bylaw 1742 as presented, and the funds received for the sale of lands be transferred to the Road Reserve. COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Council accept the market appraisal of $2,500 for a portion the closed road, subject of Bylaw 1742 as presented, and the funds received for the sale of lands be transferred to the Road Reserve. 2. Council direct staff to obtain a second market appraisal at their cost prior to making a decision. MOTION: 1. That Council accept the market appraisal of $2,500 for a portion the closed road, subject of Bylaw 1742 as presented, and the funds received for the sale of lands be transferred to the Road Reserve. _____________________ ____________________ ___________________ Prepared By: Barb Hazelton Approved By: Laurie Watt Reviewed By: Peter Tarnawsky Manager Planning & Development Director Municipal Services Interim Chief Administrative Officer Surveys Ltd. ©Copyright, 2018 SexSmith Box 5122, High River, Alberta, T1V 1M3 www.sexsmithsurveys.com March 5, 2019 Attention: Barb Hazelton As per your request of December 5, 2018 regarding a road closure in Wimborne, I have prepared an opinion of value on the subject property. A visual drive by inspection was conducted in the past as part of the regularly scheduled assessment re-inspection Cycle. Assuming the condition of the property reflects normal condition and assuming there are not any problems or abnormalities, structural, physical, or otherwise, the following figures represent an opinion of value as of December 5, 2018. Any timber, mineral, riparian or commodity value(s) or easement revenue(s) that may exist on the subject properties have not been factored into their specific valuation. Closed Road (3,254 sq’) Opinion = $2,500 Details regarding the valuation process and criteria/comparables used are available upon request. Sincerely, Troy Birtles, AMAA Assessment Valuation Coordinator Accurate Assessment Group Document Last Updated August 15/13 REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 5.4.1 SUBJECT: Clubroot Policy 1-29-3 MEETING DATE: 2019-03-12 PRESENTED BY: Bowen Claūsen– Manager of Parks & Agriculture Services BACKGROUND/ PROPOSAL Clubroot has been confirmed in Kneehill County as of January 2019. The Agriculture Service Board met on March 4, 2019 to review and recommend amendments to Policy 1-29-3 for Council approval. DISCUSSION/ OPTIONS/ BENEFITS/ DISADVANTAGES: At the March 4th, 2019 regular ASB meeting, the board made the motion to accept the proposed amendments with changes to Policy 1-29-3 and recommend to Council for approval. COSTS/SOURCE OF FUNDING: Currently included in 2019 operational budgeting. 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: Legislated ATTACHMENTS: Policy 1-29-3 Agricultural Policy- Clubroot Control RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council approve Policy 1-29-3 Agricultural Policy- Clubroot Control as presented and recommended by the Agricultural Service Board for approval. COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Council approve Policy 1-29-3 Agricultural Policy- Clubroot Control as presented and recommended by the Agricultural Service Board for approval. 2. Council approve Policy 1-29-3 Agricultural Policy- Clubroot Control with additional amendments. REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 5.4.1 2 | Page MOTION: Council approve Policy 1-29-3 Agricultural Policy- Clubroot Control as presented and recommended by the Agricultural Service Board. Prepared By: Bowen Clausen Reviewed By: Laurie Watt Approved By: Peter Tarnawsky Manager of Parks & Agricultural Services Director Municipal Services Interim Chief Administrative Officer POLICY Section Policy No. Page ASB 1-29-3 1 of 3 Policy Title Date: Resolution No. Agricultural Pests - Clubroot Control May 9, 2017 301/17 Purpose: The purpose of this policy is to provide enforcement of the Agricultural Pests Act (the “Act”), as amended from time to time, and to provide a procedure for fulfilling the duties of Kneehill County under the Act in relation to controlling or eradicating Clubroot (Plasmodiophora brassicae) (“Clubroot”) listed within the Pest and Nuisance Control Regulation. Policy Statement: This policy recognizes that Clubroot is a serious pest problem and supports the principle to control the spread of Clubroot which has been declared a pest under the Act. Under the Act, Section 10 (1) states, “The local authority of a municipality shall appoint a sufficient number of inspectors to carry out this Act and the regulations within the municipality.” In addition, as per Section 6 of the Act, “A local authority of a municipality shall take active measures (a) to prevent the establishment of, or (b) to control or destroy, pests in the municipality.” If Clubroot has been found within Kneehill County, all properties are at risk. Definitions in this Policy a) Act means the Agricultural Pests Act, as amended from time to time. b) Agricultural Fieldman means the person employed by Kneehill County in that role. c) Agricultural Service Board means the Kneehill County Agricultural Service Board as established pursuant to the Agricultural Service Board Act, as amended from time to time. d) Best Management Practices means those guidelines set out by Alberta Agriculture and Food in the Clubroot Management Plan (Agdex 140/638-1). e) Clubroot means Clubroot (Plasmodiophora brassicae) as listed within the Pest and Nuisance Control Regulation, as amended from time to time. f) Clubroot Inspection Guidelines means the Alberta Clubroot Management Plan and the Guideline for ASBs for Clubroot as developed by Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, as amended from time to time, and any other inspection guidelines as developed by the Agricultural Fieldman. g) Crucifer Crop means any species within the Brassicaceae family, including but not limited to canola and mustard. h) Cruciferous Weeds means any species within the Brassicaceae family, including but not limited to shepherd’s purse, stinkweed, flixweed and ball mustard. h)i) Destruction for the purpose of this policy shall mean the use of the applicable registered herbicide for the complete control of Brassicaceae Family crops or weed species which then must be plowed under. i)j) Landowner and/or Occupant means the registered name on title and/or person responsible for agricultural production on the land. j)k) Non-host Crop means those crops outside of the Brassicaceae family. Policy Guidelines/Procedures: 1. Agricultural Service Board staff inspectors will conduct random field inspections. 2. Inspectors will follow the provincial protocol procedures and those set out by the Agricultural Fieldman on proper sampling techniques and protocol for entering private land. Best POLICY Section Policy No. Page ASB 1-29-3 2 of 3 Policy Title Date: Resolution No. Agricultural Pests - Clubroot Control May 9, 2017 301/17 Management Practices will be followed to ensure inspections do not become a source of spreading the disease. The Agricultural Fieldman will maintain current Clubroot Inspection Guidelines for staff. 3. Positive identification of Clubroot shall be obtained by laboratory testing. 4. In accordance with Section 5(2) of the Act: An owner or occupant of land or property, or the owner or person in control of livestock shall take active measures to (a) prevent the establishment of pests on or in the land, property or livestock unless otherwise authorized by the Minister, (b) control or destroy all pests on or in the land, property, or livestock, unless otherwise authorized by the Minister, and (c) destroy any crop, vegetation, or other matter that contributes or may contribute to the maintenance or spread of a pest on or in the land, property or livestock. 5. When land is verified positive for Clubroot, the landowner and/or occupant will be notified in writing with a written legal notice in accordance with the Province of Alberta Agricultural Pests Act. 6. The notice will prohibit the growing of any crucifer crop on the entire parcel of land for a period of: 7.6. 3 full years if awhere after only Canadian Food Inspection Agency approved Clubroot resistant crop varietyiess may be is planted, with proof of purchase disclosed to the Agricultural Fieldman. • 4 years if a non-resistant variety is planted. 8.7. When Clubroot has been found and confirmed on a field, the current crop may be harvested. However, during harvest operations, all Crucifer Crop residue must remain on the field. 8. Subsequent Non-hostHost Crops must be treated with a registered herbicide for control of Cruciferous Weeds, which may act as an alternate host. 9. In Non-Host Crops if Crucifer Weeds are not controlled on land that is known to be infected by Clubroot where a current notice has been issued to the Landowner and/or Occupant restricting the growth of a Crucifer Crop and Crucifer Weeds, the Crucifer Weeds shall be destroyed. All expenses incurred during the destruction and removal of the prohibited Crucifer Weeds will be charged to the Landowner and/or Occupant plus a 10% administration fee, to a maximum administration fee of $2,500. 10. If a Crucifer Crop is sown on land that is known to be infected by Clubroot, where a current notice has been issued to the Landowner and/or Occupant restricting the growth of a Crucifer Crop, the Crucifer Crop shall be destroyed. All expenses incurred during the destruction and removal of the POLICY Section Policy No. Page ASB 1-29-3 3 of 3 Policy Title Date: Resolution No. Agricultural Pests - Clubroot Control May 9, 2017 301/17 prohibited Crucifer Crop will be charged to the Landowner and/or Occupant plus a 10% administration fee, to a maximum administration fee of $2,500. 11. Kneehill County will not be liable for any costs incurred for the destruction or removal of any Crucifer Crop, or Crucifer Weed which is in contravention of a current served notice. 12. The Landowner and/or Occupant of the land on which a notice has been issued who are disturbing the soil will be required to follow The Alberta Clubroot Management Plan (AGDEX 140/638-2), which is put out by the Government of Alberta, to prevent further the Best Management Practices to reduce the spread of the disease through the movement of soil and equipment. 13. A Landowner and/or Occupant may appeal to the local authority of Kneehill County within ten days of receiving written legal notice in accordance with the Act. Such appeals must be in writing and shall set out: a. the name and address of Landowner and/or Occupant; b. a copy of the notice in respect of which appeal is being taken; c. the legal description of the land affected; and d. the grounds for appeal. 14. Survey results and legal land locations of Clubroot infections may be made available to parties with a genuine commercial interest. Survey results and legal locations of land verified positive for Clubroot must be made available to persons engaged in the growing, transporting or processing of any Crucifer Crop pursuant to the Pest and Nuisance Control Regulation, as amended from time to time. The method of information release shall be at the discretion of the Agricultural Fieldman, and may be in the form of a map at the municipal office, verbal communication or other formats. 14.15. Adjacent landowners and affected parties will be notified. 15.16. Land previously verified positive for Clubroot shall be inspected annually for compliance with the notice. 16.17. The Agricultural Service Board Staff will provide information and education to Landowners and/or Occupants regarding the spread of Clubroot. Further information may be obtained by contacting the Kneehill County Agricultural Service Board. Bob LongJerry Wittstock, Reeve Al HogganPeter Tarnawsky, CAO POLICY Section Policy No. Page ASB 1-29-3 4 of 3 Policy Title Date: Resolution No. Agricultural Pests - Clubroot Control May 9, 2017 301/17 Approved: May 11, 2008 112/08 Amended: August 17, 2010 393/10 Amended: January 14, 2014 14/14 Amended: August 26, 2014 319/14 Amended: May 9, 2017 301/17 Review Date: May 9, 2020 Document Last Updated August 15/13 REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 5.4.2 SUBJECT: Policy 1-30-1 Soil Conservation - ASB Rental Equipment MEETING DATE: 2019-03-12 PRESENTED BY: Bowen Claūsen – Agricultural Fieldman BACKGROUND/ PROPOSAL Policies are reviewed on a regular basis and brought forward for discussion or amendments as required. DISCUSSION/ OPTIONS/ BENEFITS/ DISADVANTAGES: Clubroot has recently been confirmed within Kneehill County. Clubroot spreads through soil movement. Kneehill County offers several pieces of equipment that disturb soil. The Ag Service Board met on March 4, 2019 to review proposed amendments and recommend them to Council. Wording amendments have been made to Policy 1-30-1 to reflect the potential liability. The Ag Service Board has asked staff to estimate the cost and a potential fee for County to undertake all cleaning and sanitizing of rental equipment for review at a Board meeting in April. COSTS/SOURCE OF FUNDING: N/A 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: No Link ATTACHMENTS: Policy 1-30-1 Rental Equipment RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council approve Policy 1-30-1 Soil Conservation - ASB Rental Equipment as presented and recommended by the Agricultural Service Board. COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Council approve Policy 1-30-1 Soil Conservation - ASB Rental Equipment as presented and recommended for approval by the Agricultural Service Board. 2. Council approve Policy 1-30-1 Soil Conservation - ASB Rental Equipment, with further amendments. 3. Council receives as information. REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 5.4.2 2 | Page MOTION: Council approve Policy 1-30-1 Soil Conservation - ASB Rental Equipment as presented and recommended for approval by the Agricultural Service Board. Prepared By: Bowen Clausen Reviewed By: Laurie Watt Approved By: Peter Tarnawsky Manager of Parks & Agricultural Services Director Municipal Services Interim Chief Administrative Officer POLICY Section Policy No. Page ASB 1-30-1 1 of 1 Policy Title Date: Resolution No. Soil Conservation – ASB Equipment Rental May 9, 2017 303/17 Purpose: To establish a policy directed at distribution and use of ASB rental equipment by Kneehill County ratepayers. Policy Statement: Council recognizes the value of offering for rental, specialized rental equipment not normally purchased by an individual or available for rent commercially in Kneehill County. Council also recognizes the importance of offering equipment that aids in the conservation and management of our soils, lands, and water resources. Policy Guidelines/Procedures: 1. Rental equipment is for use by Kneehill County ratepayers only. 2. Rental equipment shall be utilized only in Kneehill County. 3. Rental equipment is not to be used commercially. 4. Kneehill County staff will maintain equipment for mechanical performance and operational safety. 5. Equipment rental or use agreement must be signed by renter. 6. Sales or purchases of rental equipment must be approved by ASB & Council. 7. Equipment rental rates will be approved annually by ASB & Council. 8. All rental equipment must be returned in the same condition as taken. 9. To prevent the possible spread of invasive species, pests or disease all equipment must be returned sanitized and clean, and free of any soil, manure and other debris, following the Alberta Clubroot Management Plan sanitation protocol, or a cleaning fee will be charged to the offending renter. 10. Kneehill County will not accept responsibility of nor be held liability liable for any spread of pest or disease, invasive weeds, damage or injuries resulting from the use of any rental equipment. 10.11. Kneehill County reserve the right to remove equipment from its rental listing as required. This Policy replaces Policy #1-12a Bob LongJerry Wittstock, Reeve Al HogganPeter Tarnawsky, Interim CAO Approved: February 20, 2002 Amended: May 11, 2010 230/10 Amended: January 14, 2014 14/14 Amended: May 9, 2017 303/17 Review Date: May 9, 2020 Document Last Updated February 3, 2016 REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 5.5.1 SUBJECT: Annual Appointment of Fire Guardians MEETING DATE: 2019-03-12 PRESENTED BY: Deb Grosfield, Protective Services Manager BACKGROUND/ PROPOSAL The Forest and Prairie Protection Act requires that each year the Council of a municipal district appoint, for a term not exceeding one year with effect from the beginning of April, a sufficient number of fire guardians to enforce the Act within the boundaries of the municipal district. DISCUSSION/ OPTIONS/ BENEFITS/ DISADVANTAGES: As per Bylaw 1770, Council will appoint Fire Guardians to carry out the roles and responsibilities of the Bylaw. These appointments have been recommended by each of the District Fire Departments to the CAO. Administrative staff are able to issue fire permits, should a volunteer fire department member not be available. COSTS/SOURCE OF FUNDING: N/A COMMUNICATIONS: ☒ 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- Communicate with Fire Management Committee Internal with Customer Service LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: Complying with legislation, as a reflection of good governance. ATTACHMENTS: None RECOMMENDED ACTION: That Kneehill County Council appoint Fire Guardians for the issuance of Fire Permits for the period of March 12, 2019 to March 31, 2020 as per below. COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Appoint Guardians as recommended 2. Appoint Guardians, as amended 3. Request more information REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 5.5.1 2 | Page MOTION: That Council appoint the following as Fire Guardians for the issuance of Fire Permits to March 31, 2020: • Art Creasser & Bob Leuf - Three Hills Fire Department • Brian Fradgley, Bert Jackson, John Tersteeg - Acme Fire Department • Jody Kranzler, Dan Clow, Jordan Reed - Carbon Fire Department • Jeremy Regehr, Justin Regehr, Kenton Klassen, Robin Boese, Carson Reimer, Max Penner - Linden Fire Department: • Doug Fretz, Jason Michielsen, Derek Benedict - Torrington Fire Department • Richard Hoppins, Alan Adam, Lawrence Hogg - Trochu Fire Department • Kneehill County Administrative: CAO, Director of Municipal Services, Manager of Protective Services, County Fire Chief • Kneehill County (by virtue of position): All of Council. Should any of the appointed Fire Guardians leave their respective fire department, or leave their position at Kneehill County, their appointment will be revoked immediately. Prepared By: Debra Grosfield Approved By: Laurie Watt Reviewed By: Peter Tarnawsky Protective Services Manager Municipal Services Director Chief Administrative Officer Document Last Updated February 27, 2018 REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 5.5.2 SUBJECT: Bylaw Enforcement Officer Proposed Bylaw 1793 MEETING DATE: 2019-03-12 PRESENTED BY: Debra Grosfield, Manager of Protective Services BACKGROUND/ PROPOSAL Under the Municipal Accountability Program (MAP) that Municipal Affairs completed in September 2018, it was identified that our existing Bylaw Enforcement Bylaw #1562 was not compliant with legislation under the Municipal Government Act. The bylaw did not include provisions on disciplinary procedures, penalties or an appeal process. DISCUSSION/ OPTIONS/ BENEFITS/ DISADVANTAGES: Bylaw #1793 has been written to be compliant with the legislation and needs of Kneehill County. Section 3 of this new Bylaw replaced the article below and makes Kneehill County compliant with the Municipal Government Act, including the MAP assessment: “Bylaw 1562, passed June 12, 2007, allows the CAO to appoint bylaw officers. The bylaw does not include provisions on disciplinary procedures, penalties, or an appeal process. All other legislative requirements were met.” Not the new Bylaw 1793 also no longer includes references to Peace Officers duties that are legislated through the Alberta Solicitor General. COSTS/SOURCE OF FUNDING: No additional funding required, bylaw change only. ENGAGEMENT: ☒ Directive Decision (Information Sharing-One way communication) Goal: To educate and inform citizens Tools: ☒ Individual Notification or ☐ Public Notification Notification to Municipal Affairs on compliance with MAP. ☐ 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: Changing this bylaw to be compliant with legislation is necessary, and reflects good governance. ATTACHMENTS: Bylaw #1562 and proposed Bylaw #1793 MAP Assessment, Bylaw Enforcement Officer Bylaw Section RECOMMENDED ACTION: That Council passes three readings of Bylaw #1793 as presented. COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Council passes three readings of Bylaw #1793. 2. Council passes first reading of Bylaw #1793. 3. Council directs administration to research more or make changes to proposed Bylaw #1793. REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 5.5.2 2 | Page MOTION: Council moves first reading to Bylaw #1793, that being a bylaw for the purpose of specifying duties and powers of Bylaw Enforcement Officers. Council move second reading to Bylaw #1793. Council provide unanimous consent for consideration to hold third reading of Bylaw #1793. Council move third reading to Bylaw #1793. Prepared By: Debra Grosfield Approved By: Laurie Watt Approved By: Peter Tarnawsky Manager of Protective Services Director of Municipal Services Chief Administrative Officer BYLAW NO. 1793 A BYLAW OF KNEEHILL COUNTY, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND SPECIFY THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF BYLAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHEREAS the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, as amended, provides that a Council may pass bylaws respecting the enforcement of bylaws; AND WHEREAS Section 555 of the Municipal Government Act provides that a Council may appoint Bylaw Enforcement Officers. AND WHEREAS Section 556 of the Municipal Government Act provides that if a Council appoints Bylaw Enforcement Officers, the Council shall establish a bylaw specifying the powers and duties of such Bylaw Enforcement Officers as well as disciplinary procedures for misuse of power, including penalties and an appeal process applicable to misuse of power by Bylaw Enforcement Officers. NOW THEREFORE the Council of Kneehill County, duly assembled, enacts the following: SECTION 1 DEFINITIONS 1.1 In this Bylaw: a) “Bylaw Enforcement Officer” shall mean any person appointed as a Bylaw Enforcement Officer for Kneehill County; b) “Chief Administrative Officer" shall mean the County Manager for Kneehill County or designate; c) “Council” shall mean the Council of Kneehill County as constituted from time to time; d) “County” shall mean Kneehill County; e) “Manager” shall mean Manager of Protective Services; f) “Misuse of Power” by a Bylaw Enforcement Officer shall mean any one or more of the following: i. Failure to perform or carryout his/her duties according to law; ii. Failure to carry out the duties and responsibilities given to him/her within the terms of their appointment as a Bylaw Enforcement Officer; Bylaw No. 1793, Enforcement Officer Bylaw Page 2 of 4 SECTION 2 POWERS AND DUTIES 2.1 The Chief Administrative Officer may: a. appoint Bylaw Enforcement Officer(s) for the purpose of enforcing compliance with County bylaws; b. revoke, suspend, or modify the appointment of Bylaw Enforcement Officers in accordance with this Bylaw; c. monitor and investigate complaints of misuse of power by Bylaw Enforcement Officers; d. take whatever actions of measures are necessary to eliminate an emergency in accordance with Section 551 of the Municipal Government Act; e. exercise all powers, duties and functions under the Provincial Offences Procedure Act; f. grant written authorization to issue violation tickets under the Provincial Offences Procedure Act; g. authorize or require Bylaw Enforcement Officers to carry out any powers, duties, or functions necessary to fulfill their responsibility for the preservation and maintenance of public peace; h. delegate any other the CAO’s powers, duties or functions contained in this section to any employee of the County, including the option to further delegate those powers, duties and functions. 2.2 A Bylaw Enforcement Officer shall: a. be responsible for the enforcement of all the bylaws of the County unless otherwise specified in a Bylaw or resolution of Council; b. issue municipal notices and/or violation tickets for offences under Bylaws; c. exercise all powers, duties, and functions of a designated officer to conduct any inspections, remedies, or enforcement authorized or required by a bylaw or enactment in accordance with Section 542 of the Municipal Government Act. SECTION 3 COMPLAINTS 3.1 Receipt of Complaint a. Any complaint concerning the misuse of power of a Bylaw Enforcement Officer shall be handled in accordance with the provisions set out in this Part and shall be directed to the Chief Administrative Officer. b. All complaints shall be in writing and any complaints received verbally shall be confirmed in writing by the complainant prior to being proceeded with. c. Upon receipt of complain, it shall be immediately forwarded to the Manager. d. The Manager shall provide written acknowledgement of the complaint, and to the person against whom the complaint was made. Bylaw No. 1793, Enforcement Officer Bylaw Page 3 of 4 3.2 Investigation a. The Manager shall investigate the complaint. b. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the Manager shall provide notice in writing to the Bylaw Enforcement Officer of the allegations made and the findings of the investigation. c. The Bylaw Enforcement Officer shall be given the opportunity to make a full response to the allegations and investigations. The response shall be in writing and directed to the Manager. d. Upon review of the response of the Bylaw Enforcement Officer and any other information the Manager believes appropriate in the circumstances to determine the facts, the Manager shall either dismiss the complaint as unfounded or as unsubstantiated or find that the Bylaw Enforcement Officer has misused his or her power. e. If the Manager determines that the misuse of power has occurred, corrective disciplinary procedures shall be commenced. f. The Manager may resolve complaints informally, arriving at a solution that is satisfactory to the complainant and the Bylaw Enforcement Officer against whom the complaint was directed. 3.3 Disciplinary Action a. If it has been determined that a misuse of power has been committed by the Bylaw Enforcement Officer, any one of the following measures may be taken by the Manager: i A reprimand of the Bylaw Enforcement Officer; ii A suspension of the Bylaw Enforcement Officer, with pay, for a period not to exceed seventy-two (72) hours; iii A suspension of the Bylaw Enforcement Officer, without pay, for a period not to exceed seventy-two (72) hours; iv The Bylaw Enforcement Officer is dismissed. 3.4 Disposition a. The Manager shall notify the complainant and the Bylaw Enforcement Officer, in writing, of the results of the investigation and the actions to be taken within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the complaint. 3.5 Appeal procedures a. If either the complainant or the Bylaw Enforcement Officer wishes to appeal the decision of the Manager, the appeal shall be delivered to the Chief Administrative Officer within thirty (30) days of the date of receipt of the notice of the results of the investigation. b. Within thirty (30) days from the date of the receipt of the notice of appeal, the Chief Administrative Officer shall review the complaint, investigation report, speak to the person(s) involved as deemed necessary and review any other related documents associated with the complaint. c. The Chief Administrative Officer, in considering the appeal, may dismiss the appeal or allow the appeal, and impose or vary the discipline. Bylaw No. 1793, Enforcement Officer Bylaw Page 4 of 4 d. The Chief Administrative Officer shall, within thirty (30) days, notify the complainant and the Bylaw Enforcement Officer, in writing as to the results of the appeal. The decision of the Chief Administrative Officer with regard to the appeal is final. SECTION 4 OATH OF OFFICE 4.1 Prior to commencing their duties, all Bylaw Enforcement Officers must take the official oath of office. SECTION 5 REFERENCES 5.1 All references in the bylaw will be read with such changes in number and gender as may be appropriate according to whether the reference is to any person or a corporation. SECTION 6 SEVERABILITY 6.1 If any provisions of this Bylaw are declared invalid because of any word, phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, or section of this Bylaw, or any documents which form part of this Bylaw or an application to any person or circumstance is declared invalid, the remaining provisions shall not be affected thereby, but shall remain in force. SECTION 7 EFFECTIVE DATE & REPEAL 7.1 Bylaw 1562 shall be repealed upon this Bylaw coming into effect following third reading of this Bylaw. READ a first time on this ______ of ______________, 2019. READ a second time on this______ of ______________, 2019. UNANIMOUS permission for third reading given in Council on the______ of __________, 2019. READ a third time and final time of this______ of ______________, 2019. Signed this ______ of ______________, 2019. Jerry Wittstock, Reeve Chief Administrative Officer Date Bylaw Signed Kneehill County September 25, 2018 33 | P a g e Disclaimer: The Municipal Accountability Program is intended as a program of support and collaboration for municipal Chief Administrative Officers to either confirm compliance with requirements of municipal legislation or to identify concerns and develop corrective solutions where needed. The scope of this report is limited to confirming the compliance or lack of compliance with mandatory legislative requirements. The content of the report does not constitute an opinion on the legal effectiveness of any documents or actions of the municipality, which should be determined in consultation with independent legal advice. 6.Bylaw Enforcement Officers LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 555-556 1.Is there a municipal bylaw enforcement officer appointed? 2.Is there a bylaw to support this? 3.Are the powers and duties established within the bylaw for the bylaw enforcement officer? 4.Does the bylaw include: disciplinary procedures; penalties; and an appeal process? 5.Has the bylaw enforcement officer taken the official oath? COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Bylaw #1562, passed June 12, 2007, allows the CAO to appoint bylaw officers. The bylaw does not include provisions on disciplinary procedures, penalties, or an appeal process. All other legislative requirements were met. MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: No RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: Council must by bylaw specify the powers and duties, establish disciplinary procedures for misuse of power including penalties, and establish an appeal process. RESOURCES: Municipal Affairs Advisors are available to provide general support by calling toll-free 310-0000 and then 780-427-2225. MUNICIPAL RESPONSE: Response to the findings, or comments, status or action to be taken including key milestones and deadlines. Where resolutions of council are required please provide the date of approval and resolutions of council and/or bylaw numbers. BYLAW NUMBER 1562 A BY LAW OF KNEEHILL COUNTY TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PEACE OFFICER AND BYLAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER POSITIONS, TO SPECIFY THE POWERS, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PEACE OFFICERS AND BYLAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHEREAS, the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A 2000 Chapter M 26, as amended, provides that a Municipal Council may pass a Bylaw for enforcement of Bylaws, AND WHEREAS, the Municipal Government Act R.S.A 2000, Chapter M 26, as amended, provides that a Municipal Council may appoint designated officers, AND WHEREAS, Kneehill County (the `municipality") when authorized to employ Peace Officers pursuant to the Solicitor General's authorization issued to the Municipality pursuant to the Peace Officer Act 2006 P 3.5 and associated regulations as amended, AND WHEREAS pursuant to the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A 2000, Chapter M 26 as amended from time to time, the Council of Kneehill County may by bylaw specify the powers and duties of Bylaw Enforcement Officers, and must establish disciplinary procedures for misuse of power, including penalties and an appeal process applicable to misuse of power by Bylaw Enforcement Officers, NOW THEREFORE, the Council of Kneehill County in the Province of Alberta, duly assembled, enacts as follows SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE 1 1 This bylaw may be cited as the "Peace Officer Bylaw" SECTION 2 INTERPRETATION 2 1 In this by law the following terms (unless the context specifically requires otherwise) shall have the following meanings a) "Act" means the Peace Officer Act 2006 as amended b) `Bylaw" means the Bylaws of the Municipality duly enacted pursuant to the Municipal Government Act and/or any other statutes of the Province of Alberta, c) "Bylaw Enforcement Officer" means a person appointed into the position of Bylaw Enforcement Officer by the Chief Administrative Officer; d) "CAO" means the Chief Administrative Officer of the Municipality appointed by Council in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Government Act e) `Council' means the Council of Kneehill County, f) "MGA means the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A 2000, Chapter M-26, as amended, g) "Municipality" means Kneehill County h) "Notice" means any notice authorized to be given under any Municipal Bylaw, i) `Offence Ticket' means any ticket or tag which is authorized by the Municipal Government Act and is in a form authorized under the Provincial Offences Procedures Act, issued for any offence in which a penalty may be paid out of court in lieu of appearing to answer a summons, j) "Special Constable" means a County Employee authorized by the Alberta Solicitor General to hold a position of Peace Officer pursuant to the Act and who holds a position of Peace Officer with the Municipality SECTION 3: SEVERABILITY Page 1 of 4 Initial /7h/ Bylaw 1562 If any portion of this Bylaw is declared invalid by a court of competent ,jurisdiction, then the invalid portion must be severed and the remainder of the bylaw is deemed valid SECTION 4: POWERS AND DUTIES OF PEACE OFFICER AND BYLAW, ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS GENERAL 41 The office of Bylaw Enforcement Officer is hereby created 4.2 The office of Peace Officer is hereby created 4.3 Peace Officers and Bylaw Enforcement Officers are under the direct supervision of and report directly to the Chief Administrative Officer or designate Bylaw Enforcement Officers' Duties and Powers 4.4 The powers and duties of a Bylaw Enforcement Officer include a) Enforcement of Bylaws within the boundaries of the Municipality in accordance with the Bylaws b) Following directions of the CAO or designate and reporting to the CAO or designate as required by the CAO or designate c) Responding to and investigating all complaints and alleged breaches of Bylaws d) Conducting routine patrols to ensure compliance of Bylaws, e) Responding to all complaints of ratepayers and Council and ensuring that appropriate action is taken in each circumstance, f) Issuing Offence Tickets, notices or tags in accordance with Bylaws, g) Assisting in the prosecution of by law and statutory offences including appearances in Court to provide evidence or otherwise, h) Ensuring proper filing of information and documentation of circumstances, i) Issuing and serving summons subpoenas Traffic Violations and Commercial Vehicle Monitoring Reports, j) Preparing prosecution files for Court, i.e preparation of Court Brief and all necessary documentation, k) Providing assistance and support to other Municipal Departments as directed by the CAO or designate, 1) Attendance upon and reporting to Council as directed by the CAO or designate, m) Preserve and maintain pubic peace, n) Perform all other duties as may from time to time by assigned by the CAO or designate o) To take the official oath prescribed by the Oaths of Office Act upon being appointed as a Bylaw Enforcement Officer and carry upon his person at all such times as he/she is acting as a Bylaw Enforcement Officer evidence in writing of his/her appointment as Bylaw Enforcement Officer of the Municipality, and p) Abide by all applicable Municipal Provincial and Federal laws at all times that he/she is acting as a Bylaw Officer Page 2 of 4 Bylaw 1562 Imtial 4111 Peace Officer' Powers and Duties Subject to approval by the Alberta Solicitor General Municipal Employees appointed as Peace Officers have full authority to enforce Provincial and/or Federal Statues as identified in their appointment 4.5 In addition to Paragraph 4 4 the powers and duties of a Peace Officer also include a) Enforcement of Bylaws and Provincial and/or Federal Statutes within the boundaries of the Municipality, or other such areas of jurisdiction as enumerated in the Peace Officer Appointment in accordance with the Bylaws Provincial and/or Federal Statutes, b) Following directions of the CAO or designate and reporting to the CAO or designate as required by the CAO or designate, c) Responding to and investigating all complaints and alleged breaches of bylaws, Provincial and/or Federal Statutes, d) Conducting routine patrols to ensure compliance of Bylaws Provincial and/or Federal Statutes, e) Responding to all complaints of ratepayers and the Council and ensuring that appropriate action is taken in each circumstance, f) Issuing Offence Tickets, notices, or tags in accordance with Bylaws, Provincial and/or Federal Statutes g) Assisting in the prosecution of by law and statutory offences including appearances in Court to provide evidence or otherwise h) Ensuring proper filing of information and documentation of circumstances i) Issuing and serving summons subpoenas, Traffic Violation notices and Commercial Vehicle Monitoring Reports, j) Preparing prosecution files for Court i.e., preparation of Court Brief and all necessary documentation, k) Providing assistance and support to other Municipal Departments as directed by the CAO or designate, 1) Attendance upon and reporting to Council as directed by the CAO or designate, m) Establishing standards of uniform, insignia and identification for Peace Officers and Bylaw Enforcement Officers n) Performing all other duties as may from time to time be assigned by the CAO or designate, o) Preserve and maintain public peace p) To take the official oath prescribed by the Oaths of Office Act upon being appointed as a Peace Officer and carry upon his person at all such times as he/he is acting as a Peace Officer evidence in writing of his/her appointment as Peace Officer of the Municipality, and q) Abide by all applicable Municipal Provincial and Federal laws at all times that he/she is acting as a Peace Officer Termination 4.6 The authority of a Peace Officer or Bylaw Enforcement Officer shall terminate when a) a person ceases to be an employee of the Municipality or b) the Supervisor of Peace Officers and Bylaw Enforcement Officers or Council by resolution terminates the appointment of a Peace Officer or Bylaw Enforcement Officer SECTION 5. COMMENCEMENT Page 3 of 4 Bylaw 1562 Initial /„ 5 1 This Bylaw shall come into force and effect upon third and final reading and rescinds Bylaw # 1510 COUNCILLOR HOLSWORTH moved first reading to Bylaw 1562 on May 22 2007 j CARRIED Reeve / CAO - COUNCILLOR CALHOUN moved second reading to Bylaw 1562 CARRIED Reeve CAO COUNCILLOR HOPPINS moved consideration to hold third reading be given to Bylaw 1562 NO CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Reeve" / CAO COUNCILLOR CALHOUN moved third reading of Bylaw 1562 on June 12 2007 Reeve CAO Page 4 of 4 Initial 4 Bylaw 1562 Document Last Updated February 27, 2018 REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 6.1 SUBJECT: Three Hills and District Seed Cleaning Plant Ltd Request MEETING DATE: 2019-03-12 PRESENTED BY: Mike Morton, Director Corporate services BACKGROUND/ PROPOSAL The Board of Directors of the Three Hills and District Seed Cleaning Plant have been requested by the Members through Norm Tainsh, Barrister and Solicitor, to terminate the contract with Kneehill County dating back to 1990. DISCUSSION/ OPTIONS/ BENEFITS/ DISADVANTAGES: Administration researched the matter, consulted with legal counsel and with the auditors regarding this request and the implications of granting this potential request. COSTS/SOURCE OF FUNDING: Financial Implication Comments: Back in 1990 and as per the agreement, Kneehill County Council granted The Three Hills and District Seed Cleaning Plant Ltd. $266,666 for the purposes of constructing the facility. This is an unamortized capital contribution, that is, there are no financial statement impacts to the County. It is not recorded as an asset or liability on the Statement of Financial Position of Kneehill County. Legal Implication Comments: There are two options: (1) Do Nothing - continue to have a right of repayment if they dispose of the assets or are subject to an insolvency type event. (Note: This would require an amendment and likely consent from the Provincial government who are also a funding partner under the terms of the agreement back in 1990. But if there was an insolvency the County may be able to collect in the distribution of assets.) (2) Agree to terminate/amend the agreement - such that they are no longer required to repay any funds, even if they do dispose of assets or shut down. This would comply with their request and represent the County “goodwill” to the organization they are looking for with no legal consequences to Kneehill. REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 6.1 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: Rural Way of Life ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter From Norm Tainsh, Barrister and Solicitor 2. Three Hills and District Seed Cleaning Plant Ltd. Financial Statements June 30, 2018 3. 1990 Agreement – Kneehill County and Three Hills and District Seed Cleaning Plant Ltd. 4. Email From Sean Ward, RMRF 5. Email from Ryan Wachter, BDO Canada RECOMMENDED ACTION: That Council authorize the CAO to grant the request to the Board of Directors of the Three Hills and District Seed Cleaning Plant by having the contract and agreement of 1990 between the aforementioned parties terminated. COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1) Grant the request of the Three Hills and District Seed Cleaning Plant 2) Not grant the request. MOTION: That Council authorize the CAO to grant the request to the Board of Directors of the Three Hills and District Seed Cleaning Plant by having the contract and agreement of 1990 between the aforementioned parties terminated. Prepared By: Mike Morton Approved by: Peter Tarnawsky Reviewed by: Peter Tarnawsky Director of Corporate Services Interim Chief Administrative Officer Interim Chief Administrative Officer Document Last Updated April 15, 2014 REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 6.2 SUBJECT: Organizational Chart MEETING DATE: 2019-03-12 PRESENTED BY: Mike Morton - Director Corporate Services BACKGROUND/ PROPOSAL As per Policy 3-16, the Organizational Chart requires an annual review in March. DISCUSSION/ OPTIONS/ BENEFITS/ DISADVANTAGES: Addition of the Following Positions 1. A Permanent Part time Position-Planning and Development Officer (Outlined box of yellow) 2. 1 FTE-Facility Maintenance Technician (Shaded box of yellow) 3. 1 FTE Parks Technician Lead (Shaded box of yellow) 4. 1 FTE-12 month Term Road Inspector- Oil and Gas ***not on the Organization Chart as it’s considered temporary for 2019 Changed Title 5. Municipal Assistant-Operations is now Municipal Assistant- Transportation (Outlined box of green) 6. Municipal Assistant-Communications and Protective Services- Removed the Communications portion. (Outlined box of green) 7. Communications Officer/Legislative Services-Removed the Legislative Services (Outlined box of green) 8. Fire Chief to Rural Fire Chief (Outlined box of green) COSTS/SOURCE OF FUNDING: Budget 2019-Approved at December 11, 2019 Council Meeting for new positions. COMMUNICATIONS: ☒ 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: Good Governance REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 6.2 2 | Page ATTACHMENTS: Approved Organizational Charts (4) - Full Organizational Chart - Legislative Services, - Municipal Services, - Corporate Services Policy #3-16- Organizational Chart for the Municipality RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review for information COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. That Council accept the Approved Organizational Chart as information. MOTION: Council accept the Organizational Chart as presented. Prepared By: Mike Morton Director, Corporate Services Approved By: Peter Tarnawsky Interim CAO Reviewed By: Peter Tarnawsky Interim CAO Kneehill County Organizational Chart – March 2018 Stakeholders Committees Chief Administrative Officer 1 FTE Director of Municipal Services 1 FTE Sr. Manager of Transportation and Facilities 1 FTE Road Supervisor -South 1 FTE Equipment Operators I 6 FTE Equipment Operators II 7 FTE Road Supervisor -North 1 FTE Equipment Operators I 5 FTE Equipment Operators II 6 FTE Municipal Assistant - Purchasing and Procurement 1 FTE Shop Supervisor 1 FTE Heavy Duty Mechanics 3 FTE Municipal Assistant- Operations 1 FTE Manager of Environmental Services 1 FTE Water/Wastewater Supervisor 1 FTE Utility Operators 3 FTE Solid Waste Operators 1 FTE 4 PT Manager of Parks and Agricultural Services 1 FTE Land Care Coordinator 1 FTE Public Lands Coordinator 1 FTE Manager of Protective Services 1 FTE Community Peace Officers I 2 FTE Occupational Health and Safety Officer 1 FTE Municipal Assistant -Communications and Protective Services 1 FTE Fire Chief 1 FTE Community Peace Oficer II 1 FTE Manager of Planning and Development 1 FTE Planning and Development Officer 2 FTE Municipal Assistant - Planning 1 FTE Municipal Services Executive Assistant 1 FTE Communications Officer/Legislative Services 1 FTE Executive Assistant to CAO and Customer Service Supervisor 1 FTE Office Coordinator 1 FTE Customer Service Specialist 1 FTE Director of Corporate Services 1 FTE Manager of Financial Services 1 FTE Municipal Assistant - Payroll , Benefits and Accounts Receivables 1 FTE Municipal Assistant - Acounting Technician 1 FTE Municipal Assistant - Accounts Payable 1 FTE Municipal Accountant 1 FTE Municipal Assistant - Taxes, Assesment and Utilities 1 FTE Human Resources Coordinator 1 FTE Information Management Supervisor 1 FTE Municipal Assistant -Records Management 1 FTE Geographical Infromation Systems Technician 1 Fte Council Schedule "A" Policy #3-16 Kneehill County Corporate Services - March 2018 Director of Corporate Services 1 FTE Municipal Accountant 1 FTE Municipal Assistant-Taxes, Assessment and Utilities 1 FTE Human Resources Coordinator 1 FTE Manager of Financial Services 1 FTE Municipal Assistant -Payroll, Benefits and Accounts Receivables 1 FTE Municipal Assistant -Accounts Payable 1 FTE Municipal Assistant - Accounting Technician 1 FTE Schedule "A" Policy #3-16 Kneehill County Legislative Services – March 2018 Stakeholders Council Chief Administrative Officer 1 FTE Director of Municipal Services 1 FTE Communications Officer/Legislative Services 1 FTE Executive Assistant to CAO and Customer Service Supervisor 1 FTE Office Coordinator 1 FTE Customer Service Specialist 1 FTE Director of Corporate Services 1 FTE Information Management Supervisor 1 FTE Geographical Information Services Tecnician 1 FTE Municipal Assistant - Records Management 1 FTE Committees Schedule "A" Policy #3-16 Kneehill County Municipal Services – March 2018 Director of Municipal Services 1 FTE Sr. Manager of Transportation and Facilities 1 FTE Road Supervisor South 1 FTE Equipment Operator I 6 FTE Equipment Operator II 7 FTE Road Supervisor North 1 FTE Equipment Operators I 5 FTE Equipment Operators II 6 FTE Shop Supervisor 1 FTE Heavy Duty Mechanics 3 FTE Municipal Assistant - Purchasing and Procurement 1 FTE Municipal Assistant - Operations 1 FTE Manager of Environmental Services 1 FTE Water/Wastewater Supervisor 1 FTE Utility Operators 3 FTE Solid Waste Operators 1 FTE 4 PT Manager of Parks and Agricultural Services 1 FTE Land Care Coordinator 1 FTE Public Lands Coordinator 1 FTE Manager of Protective Services 1 FTE Community Peace Officer I 2 FTE Occupational Health and Safety Officer 1 FTE Municipal Assistant - Communications and Protective Services 1 FTE Fire Chief 1 FTE Community Peace Officer II 1 FTE Manager of Planning and Development 1 FTE Planning and Development Officer 2 FTE Municipal Assistant - Planning 1 FTE Municipal Services- Executive Assistant 1 FTE Schedule "A" Policy #3-16 Kneehill County Organizational Chart – March 2019 Stakeholders Committees Chief Administrative Officer 1 FTE Director of Municipal Services 1 FTE Sr. Manager of Transportation and Facilities 1 FTE Road Supervisor -South 1 FTE Equipment Operator I 6 FTE Equipment Operator II 7 FTE Road Supervisor -North 1 FTE Equipment Operator I 5 FTE Equipment Operator II 6 FTE Municipal Assistant - Purchasing and Procurement 1 FTE Shop Supervisor 1 FTE Heavy Duty Mechanic 3 FTE Facilities Maintenance Technician 1 FTE Municipal Assistant- Transportation 1 FTE Manager of Environmental Services 1 FTE Water/Wastewater Supervisor 1 FTE Utility Operators 3 FTE Solid Waste Operators 1 FTE 4 PT Manager of Parks and Agricultural Services 1 FTE Land Care Coordinator 1 FTE Public Lands Coordinator 1 FTE Parks Technician Lead 1 FTE Manager of Protective Services 1 FTE Community Peace Officer I 2 FTE Occupational Health and Safety Officer 1 FTE Municipal Assistant -Protective Services 1 FTE Rural Fire Chief 1 FTE Community Peace Officer II 1 FTE Manager of Planning and Development 1 FTE Planning and Development Officer 2 FTE 1 PT Municipal Assistant - Planning 1 FTE Municipal Services Executive Assistant 1 FTE Communications Officer 1 FTE Executive Assistant to CAO and Customer Service Supervisor 1 FTE Office Coordinator 1 FTE Customer Service Specialist 1 FTE Director of Corporate Services 1 FTE Manager of Financial Services 1 FTE Municipal Assistant - Payroll , Benefits and Accounts Receivables 1 FTE Municipal Assistant - Acounting Technician 1 FTE Municipal Assistant - Accounts Payable 1 FTE Municipal Accountant 1 FTE Municipal Assistant - Taxes, Assesment and Utilities 1 FTE Human Resources Coordinator 1 FTE Information Management Supervisor 1 FTE Municipal Assistant -Records Management 1 FTE Geographical Information Systems Technician 1 Fte Council Kneehill County Corporate Services - March 2019 Director of Corporate Services 1 FTE Municipal Accountant 1 FTE Municipal Assistant-Taxes, Assessment and Utilities 1 FTE Human Resources Coordinator 1 FTE Manager of Financial Services 1 FTE Municipal Assistant -Payroll, Benefits and Accounts Receivables 1 FTE Municipal Assistant -Accounts Payable 1 FTE Municipal Assistant - Accounting Technician 1 FTE Kneehill County Legislative Services – March 2019 Stakeholders Council Chief Administrative Officer 1 FTE Director of Municipal Services 1 FTE Communications Officer 1 FTE Executive Assistant to CAO and Customer Service Supervisor 1 FTE Office Coordinator 1 FTE Customer Service Specialist 1 FTE Director of Corporate Services 1 FTE Information Management Supervisor 1 FTE Geographical Information Services Technician 1 FTE Municipal Assistant - Records Management 1 FTE Committees Kneehill County Municipal Services – March 2019 Director of Municipal Services 1 FTE Sr. Manager of Transportation and Facilities 1 FTE Road Supervisor South 1 FTE Equipment Operator I 6 FTE Equipment Operator II 7 FTE Road Supervisor North 1 FTE Equipment Operator I 5 FTE Equipment Operator II 6 FTE Shop Supervisor 1 FTE Heavy Duty Mechanics 3 FTE Municipal Assistant -Purchasing and Procurement 1 FTE Facilty Maintenance Technician 1 FTE Municipal Assistant - Transportation 1 FTE Manager of Environmental Services 1 FTE Water/Wastewater Supervisor 1 FTE Utility Operators 3 FTE Solid Waste Operators 1 FTE 4 PT Manager of Parks and Agricultural Services 1 FTE Land Care Coordinator 1 FTE Parks Technician Lead 1 FTE Public Lands Coordinator 1 FTE Manager of Protective Services 1 FTE Community Peace Officer I 2 FTE Occupational Health and Safety Officer 1 FTE Municipal Assistant -Protective Services 1 FTE Rural Fire Chief 1 FTE Community Peace Officer II 1 FTE Manager of Planning and Development 1 FTE Planning and Development Officer 2 FTE 1 PT Municipal Assistant -Planning 1 FTE Municipal Services-Executive Assistant 1 FTE Document Last Updated April 15, 2014 REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 8.1 SUBJECT: Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) Spring Resolutions MEETING DATE: 2019-03-12 PRESENTED BY: Peter Tarnawsky, Interim CAO BACKGROUND/ PROPOSAL The Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) advocates on behalf of rural municipalities in meeting with government and ensures that provincial decision-makers, as well as industry and other relevant stakeholders, understand and incorporate the best interests of rural Alberta in their policies. DISCUSSION/ OPTIONS/ BENEFITS/ DISADVANTAGES: The resolutions that will be presented during the resolutions session at the RMA Spring 2019 Convention are attached for Council’s review and consideration. While some are more relevant than others to Kneehill County, a cursory review by staff indicates that all appear worthy of County Council’s support, Note: 11-19S – Code of Practice of Compost facilities was deliberated by Council. Kneehill County seconded resolution at Central Zone. 7-19S Solar Power Reclamation – Administration agrees there should be a plan in place and that it should be facilitated at the development stage. 6-19S Implement Seed Royalty – this resolution was raised in parallel as an emergent resolution at the Ag Service Board Conference in January in Calgary. It passed with one minor amendment. COSTS/SOURCE OF FUNDING: None 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: N/A ATTACHMENTS: 2019 RMA Spring Resolutions REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 8.1 2 | Page RECOMMENDED ACTION: That Council receive as information. COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Receive for information 2. Consider amendments to resolutions to be presented at 2019 Spring RMA Convention. MOTION: That Council receives for information the 2019 Rural Municipalities of Alberta Spring Resolutions Report. Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil Approved By: Peter Tarnawsky Reviewed By: Peter Tarnawsky Executive Assistant Interim Chief Administrative Officer Interim Chief Administrative Officer RMA Spring 2019 Submitted Resolutions 1) Call to Order 2) Acceptance of Order Paper 3) Resolution Session 1-19S Municipal Support for the Energy Industry (Strathcona County) 2-19S Access to Agriculture-Specific Mental Health Resources (Lac Ste. Anne County) 3-19S Light Weight Concrete Bridge Girders (County of Northern Lights) 4-19S Bighorn Country Proposal Consultation (Brazeau County) 5-19S Amendments Required for Crown Land Recreation Disposition Applications and Renewals (County of Grande Prairie) 6-19S Prevent Implementation of Seed Royalty on Producers for Farm Saved Seed (County of Northern Lights) 7-19S Solar Power Reclamation (MD of Taber) 8-19S Reinstatement of the Municipal Officer’s Expense Allowance (Clearwater County) 9-19S Watershed Planning and Advisory Council Funding (Northern Sunrise County) 10-19S Strategic Direction for the RMA (RMA Executive) 11-19S Update of the Provincial Code of Practice for Compost Facilities (Wheatland County) 12-19S Making Children’s Healthcare a Priority in Alberta (MD of Opportunity) 4) Vote on Emergent Resolutions (if needed) 5) Closing of Resolution Session Resolution 1-19S Municipal Support for the Energy Industry Strathcona County Simple Majority Required Individual Resolution WHEREAS in 2017, Canada lost more than $50 billion in investments through the cancellation of two nation-building energy projects, the TransCanada Energy East Pipeline and the Pacific Northwest LNG Project, that represented significant opportunities in capital investment, jobs, tax revenue, and economic growth; WHEREAS the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers estimates the impact of the West ern Canadian Select-Brent Crude (WCS-Brent) price differential to be at least $13 billion since 2016 and as high as $50 million per day in October 2018, resulting in $7.2 billion in lost revenue to the Government of Alberta and $800 million in income taxes to the Government of Canada; WHEREAS the price differential is at least in part due to the lack of pipeline capacity to transport energy products derived from Alberta to international markets; WHEREAS any reduction in the price of Alberta oil in comparison to the price of Brent has significant impacts on provincial and federal revenue, as well as energy industry investment; WHEREAS many Albertan families and businesses are suffering in lost jobs, income, and property values due in part to the lack of market access for Alberta oil; and WHEREAS Canada’s and Alberta’s energy industries lead the world in environmental responsibility, and human rights and labour standards; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta advocate for the Government of Alberta to further develop and implement a targeted, national education and marketing campaign on behalf of Albertans in order to offset foreign protectionism and de - marketing campaigns, regulatory delays, and the combined infrastructure and economic factors that are creating a significant, negative effect on Canada’s local, provincial, and national economies. The elements of the education and marketing campaign include as outlined in “Schedule A”; FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Alberta provide resources to offset the combined negative impacts affecting the energy industry through: 1. the continuation of the Petrochemicals Diversification Program; 2. key energy industry-supporting infrastructure development; and 3. a continued strong presence and advocacy with federal, municipal and foreign governments. Member Background The importance of the energy industry to Canada and Alberta are obvious, as is the impact to the local, provincial, and federal economies when changes occur in the energy industry: • every annual average $1 increase in the Western Canadian Select – West Texas Intermediate differential above US $22.40 per barrel costs the Government of Alberta $210 million in royalties; • for every US $1 per barrel of oil discounted relative to world prices, there is an opportunity cost to the Canadian energy industry of $1.4 billion per year; • for every CAD $1 million invested and generated in the Canadian energy sector, the Canadian GDP impact is CAD $1.2 million; and • for every direct job created in the Canadian energy sector, two indirect and three induced jobs in other sectors are created in Canada on average; Given these numbers, the need for the governments of Canada and Alberta to support a strong and vibrant energy sector is clear. However, a campaign has been evolving over the last decade with the strategy to land -lock the oil sands and prevent it from reaching the international market where it could fetch a high price per barrel. The US - funded campaign has allegedly given tens of millions to anti-pipeline Canadian green and social justice groups, including Greenpeace Canada, Idle No More, and the Pembina Institute, essentially campaigning to rebrand the Alberta oil sands as “dirty oil”. Most recently, references to “dirty oil” were articulated on December 7, 2017 by Quebec’s Premier Legault who talked about “dirty energy” in reference to the oil sands and on December 23, a CBS affiliate in San Francisco reported that tankers may soon be transporting “the heaviest, dirtiest oil on the planet, tar sands crude from Alberta, Canada.” On October 12, 2018, the Northern Alberta Mayors and Reeves Caucus hosted a presentation by a Canadian researcher. The presentation summarized concerns about foreign interests funding environmental work in Canada with the intent to block development in the Canadian energy sector in order to protect foreign investments and market share. Further concerns included foreign charities providing inaccurate and misleading information on the Canadian energy sector via public relations campaigns. While cross-border market competition and public relations marketing campaigns are an unavoidable reality in the energy sector, it is Strathcona County’s perspective that the best remedy for strong market competition and inaccurate public relations messaging affecting the Canadian energy sector is strong support and investment by the federal, provincial, and local governments. Comprehensive and relevant messaging by these important entities contributes to a more balanced public conversation in the marketplace and in political decision-making circles about the current and future impacts, disadvantages, and opportunities in Canada’s energy industry. On December 2, 2018, the Government of Alberta mandated a short-term reduction in oil production to defend Alberta jobs and the value of energy resources. Starting in January 2019, production of raw crude oil and bitumen will be reduced by 325,000 barrels per day to address the storage glut, representing an 8.7 per cent reduction. The Alberta Energy Regulator will review the reduction amount every month to make sure production is in balance with transportation and storage capacity. RMA Background ER1-17F: Support for Trans Mountain Expansion Project THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties (AAMDC) urge the Government of Alberta to continue to support the Trans Mountain Expansion Project so it can meet its commitments to delivering jobs and economic benefits and meeting its regulatory re quirements during the construction and operation of the pipeline; FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the AAMDC urge the Government of Canada to ensure that all regulatory processes that have been recommended for approval by the NEB and subsequently authorized by the Federal Governor in Council are permitted to proceed; FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the AAMDC urge the Government of Canada to exercise ancillary powers in order to enact the comprehensive regulatory scheme for the Canadian public interest, including the right to timely permitting, thereby enabling the commencement of construction. DEVELOPMENTS: The Government of Alberta has been a strong supporter of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project, and has worked to ensure Alberta’s natural resources meet tidewater . Based on both the Government of Alberta’s response to this resolution and recent comments from the Premier of Alberta and other provincial ministers, RMA is satisfied that the Government of Alberta is sufficiently supportive of this project. The National Energy Board (NEB) response indicates that because the matters referenced in the resolution are currently before the NEB for decision, the NEB is unable to provide comment. Additionally, RMA has not yet received a response to this resolution from Natural Resources Canada. The National Energy Board (NEB) response indicates that because the matters referenced in the resolution are currently before the NEB for decision, the NEB is unable to provide comment. Additionally, RMA is awaiting a response from Natural Resources Canada. Given that the Government of Alberta’s support of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project meets the intent of the first operative clause of the resolution, this resolution is assigned a status of Accepted in Part, and RMA will continue to advocate on this issue at the federal level. ER2-16S: Support for the Energy East Pipeline Project THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties demonstrate their support for the Energy East pipeline and inform the National Energy Board of this support; FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties collaborate with the Government of Alberta and other municipal associations to emphasize the local, provincial, and national benefits that the Energy East pipeline would provide. DEVELOPMENTS: RMA and the Government of Alberta supported the Energy East Pipeline through various channels. For example, the RMA brought this issue to the attention of municipal counterparts in other provinces as well as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. The Government of Alberta has also been an advocate of greater market access. In October 2017, TransCanada Corporation announced it would no longer be proceeding with its proposed Energy East Pipeline. Although the Energy East Pipeline is not proceeding forward , the RMA has fulfilled the intent of this resolution and will continue to advocate for greater market access for Alberta’s resources. This resolution is assigned the status of Accepted. Resolution 2-19S Access to Agriculture-Specific Mental Health Resources Lac Ste. Anne County Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 3 (Pembina River) WHEREAS agriculture is economically essential, both provincially and federally, and the agriculture industry needs healthy farmers to function; and WHEREAS agriculture is a stressful occupation, which has become especially clear with three consecutive years of poor harvests, livestock feed shortages and other effects of climate change; and WHEREAS despite mental illness diagnoses increasing, a large stigma ex ists around mental illness and asking for help which is especially prominent in industries like agriculture where members are isolated and have a distinct workplace culture of not requesting help; and WHEREAS Alberta does not have an agriculture-specific mental health crisis line, although neighbouring provinces do (e.g. Saskatchewan); and WHEREAS 310-FARM is a well-known and commonly utilized number that can direct callers to an abundance of resources, but only offers agronomic information during office hours; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Alberta facilitates the formation of a free, year-round, all hours, mental health crisis hotline, dedicated to the agriculture industry, providing farm families with direct access to uniquely qualified professionals and resources, whom have both an understanding of mental health issues and agriculture-specific stresses; FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Alberta secure long term, sustainable funding for the operation and maintenance of this mental health crisis hotline. Member Background Agriculture is economically essential The foundation of Alberta’s economy rests on petroleum and agriculture (Mansell & Percy, 1990). Put as simply as possible, we have seen historical slumps and peaks because of the weight placed on these industries. Therefore, when world oil supply increases, our oil prices drop, and the economy slows. Provincially, this impact can be mitigated when the agriculture industry remains strong; however, poor weather conditions locally or world market trends can impact prices and exports here (Mansell & Percy, 1990). Canada is vulnerable to world market trends as we are a net-exporter of the agricultural goods we produce. Our largest market is the United States, which accounts for 38% of total agri-food exports, followed in order by China, Japan, and Mexico (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry [AAF], 2017). According to AAF (2017), Alberta’s real gross domestic product (GDP) for agri-food industries is up 2.5% at $6.5 billion, and Alberta exports of primary and processed agri-products reached a record of $11.2 billion. Food and beverage manufacturing sales reached $14.4 billion – a new high. Generally, both farm income and expenditures are increasing. Alberta continues to be the nation’s largest beef producer, accounting for 41% of all cattle in Canada. Nationally, 75.7% of beef processing occurs in western Canada; the majority of that is focused in Alberta specifically. Canada-wide, agriculture’s impact is smaller but still substantial. According to Agriculture Canada, (2017), the agriculture industry generated $111.9 billion of GDP, accounting for 6.7% of Canada’s total GDP. Agriculture’s GDP grew by 11%, compared to the Canadian economy growing by 7.8%. Approximately 2.3 million people were employed within the agriculture industry, accounting for 12.5% of Canadian employment (Agriculture Canada, 2017). Agricultural sales and farm incomes are at record highs, and Canada remains as one of the world’s largest exporters of agricultural commodities. Grocery store sales, commercial foodservices sales, and employment in those sectors has increased. Farm market receipts for primary agriculture remained at record highs and net operating expenses dropped for the first time in six years (Agriculture Canada, 2017). Agriculture is stressful According to Fraser et al., (2005), farming has one of the highest rates of suicide across all industries and is associated with a unique set of characteristics that can be hazardous to mental health. Included are things such as difficult physical environments/weather, farm-family-business structure, economic difficulties, and many more. Physical and mental health are distinct entities, but often have related effects; farming is a physically dangerous occupation which innately causes stress to workers. Many work activities have inherent risks involved, with large moving equipment, large livestock and zoonotic disease, climbing bins or buildings, or applying various chemicals (Gerrard, 1998). To quote Fraser et al., (2005): The physical stressors and hazards of the farm environment are compounded by the regulatory frameworks and economic dynamics of managing a farm business. Farming enterprises operate in a context of declining terms of trade for agricultural produce; volatile commodity markets; limited availability of off-farm employment; growing cost of machinery and production; loss of farm or livelihood due to crop or production failure; and changing government policy in relation to a range of economic and environmental issues (Elkind et al., 1998). 98% of farms in Alberta are family owned and operated (Ontario Farm Animal Council, 2010). Working with your family does provide support, but in a farm setting it can impose demands not seen in other industries (Weigel et al., 1987). Increased conflict is seen between family members as the lines between personal and business become blurred; family problems can become work problems, and vice versa. It has been shown that these family-related issues most adversely impact the young er generations (Marotz- Baden, 1988; Weigel et al., 1987). British studies completed by Thomas et al. (2003), demonstrated that most farmers who reported moderate symptoms of depression were concerned with family problems. Contrastingly, other studies show that monetary issues were the predominant factor in suicide and depression; however, it is likely the interrelated nature of family, business, and money in farming that account for those contrasting results (Fraser et al., 2005). Family support can provide a buffer and increase resilience in a farming community but needs to be acknowledged for its potential to simultaneously add stress. Women in agriculture face a high level of stress, depression, and fatigue, at reportedly higher levels than men (Fraser et al, 2005). This is primarily due to role conflict and high workloads. Farm women are traditionally in charge of household tasks, childcare, and running farm errands (Gallagher & Delworth, 2003), but are increasingly required to undertake more on- and off-farm work. Often this is referred to as the third shift – one shift on-farm, one shift off-farm, and one shift as a wife and mother. As is well known and documented, farming is reliant on weather conditions, and is therefore vulnerable to extreme weather. Two snowfalls in September of an accumulated four inches of snow, that melted away within a few days, nearly derailed the 2018 agriculture season in the northwest region of Alberta (AFSC, 2018). Droughts throughout the rest of the province, and a cold spring led to a feed shortage large enough to more than triple the regular cost of livestock feed. In no other industry would these relatively small weather events cause such a widespread impact. As climate change progresses, weather patterns shift, and extreme weather events occur more commonly, farmers will only continue to feel the financial strain caused by these poorly timed events. Farming families and those living in rural communities also have several obstacles in accessing mental health care. Some of the major barriers include but are not limited to: maldistribution of health care practitioners (many are in cities, and few are located in rural areas), poor roads, long distances, heightened visibility in small towns (gossip travels quicker through 100 people than through 10,000), and lastly the notion that farmers should be self -reliant and stoic. This only serves to increase the stigma around mental illness and asking for help. Stigma around mental health in agriculture The stigma around mental illness is fading over time as movements like Bell “Let’s Talk” and “Do More Agriculture” become more popular, but it is slower to fade within the agriculture industry. This stigma is an especially difficult obstacle for men to overcome due to the typical persona of a farming man (Phillipe et al., 2017). The culture of agriculture is that – especially male – farmers are resilient, strong, stoic, relentless workers. Anecdotally, women often feel that since agriculture is a male-dominated industry, they need to perpetuate the ‘toughness’ that is traditionally masculine. Historically, hegemonic studies concentrated on the fact that males have a lower sensitivity to signs of depression, reluctance to seek help, and violent expressions of distress, across all i ndustries. This led to an understanding of male socialization having negative impacts on mental health and well-being (Gough, 2013). The fallacy in that thinking was seen and currently, there is a shift towards a balanced approach to mental health. (Roy et al., 2017). Robertson (2007) presents an old-fashioned model of norms that stress health as a feminine concern. Therefore, to follow historical masculine norms, men should not speak of their health concerns. This would additionally mean that men should cope with their problems alone, and only seek external help as a last resort, or when pressured by others. To top that off, men are simultaneously expected to care for others as their protectors and providers. Although those pressures are being alleviated w ith the feminism movement, it can take generations before humans will adjust their way of thinking. As stress builds, there is a large array of symptoms that can appear in a farmer and are easily associated with other causes. Some symptoms that can be directly related to high stress include, but are not limited to: fatigue, loss or gain of appetite and weight, irritability, panic attacks, and depression (Roy, et al., 2017). There is a basic recognition that stress can cause these problems, so many farmers already have coping methods that they believe to be enough. Those methods include self-distraction, cognitive strategies, and maladaptive coping methods. Farming – especially with livestock – requires working seven days a week, and there is usually littl e to no geographical work/home separation giving a feeling of being on-call all the time (Roy et al., 2017). Therefore, self-distraction such as taking work breaks or vacations is crucial. Across the industry, the importance of breaks and vacations is recognized. Conversely, however, there is still a prevailing notion that farmers should be working all the time, since farming is so intensive. This causes a stigma towards taking those necessary breaks as being a ‘lazy’ farmer. Unfortunately, this social pres sure is often exerted more by fellow farmers than other parts of society (Roy et al., 2017). On top of pressure to not take vacations, the advances in technology have increased the likelihood of farmers working in isolation as less people are needed to operate the businesses. A constant frustration in agriculture is that a farmer can have great technical performance and produce a high-quality product, but this does not always lead to financial success. Therefore, many farmers combat this through cognitive strategies; basically, they use humour, positive reframing, pride, values, and long-term perspectives and strategic planning to help them survive the bad times. According to Roy et al., (2017) few farmers turned to religion as a coping mechanism. The previously mentioned mechanisms are sometimes not enough, which is why farmers need more resources to turn to, before maladaptive strategies are chosen. These include substance abuse (excessive drugs or drinking, etc.), social isolation, and suicide. Fortuna tely, many farmers recognize that those coping methods are detrimental in the long term and try to avoid them (Roy et al., 2017). Although the stigma around maintaining good mental health, and admitting to mental illness is fading over time, it is still heavily present, especially in male farmers (European Commission, 2011). Men often self - report their health as better than women with the same symptoms. This is consistent with the stereotype of farming men being traditionally masculine, and therefore may cause men to favour some of the negative coping methods. Saskatchewan’s mental health link and funding model In Saskatchewan, agriculture is also a key industry. The Farm Stress Line operates through Mobile Crisis Services, a non-profit community-based organization that is governed by a volunteer board of directors. They contribute significant time to assist in direction of programs and services (Mobile Crisis Services, 2017). In the 2014/15 fiscal year, Mobile Crisis Services responded to a total of 23,286 calls. They receive funding from seven strategic funding partners from various departments of municipal and provincial governments (from the AGM report of Mobile Crisis Services, 2017). An additional method of funding is private, tax deductible donations, either by mail, online, or in person. The Farm Stress Line provides confidential counselling, support, information, and referral services that respond to the needs of rural individuals (Mobile Crisis Services, 2017). The Farm Stress Line is toll -free, open all hours, and promises no call-display for anonymity. They help callers by clarifying problems and identifying possible solutions, identifying an organization or program best suited to a caller’s problem, and listening. The Crisis Counsellors are qualified to help in areas including, but not limited to mental health, parenting, grief, youth issues, and finances. In July 2012, the Farm Stress Line was officially moved to the Mobile Crisis Services responsibility (AGCanada, 2018). This gave the Farm Stress Line the ability to run ‘round-the-clock’ and ‘one-on-one.’ The focus of this service was to provide stressed farmers with the listening ear of their peers, who can understand what 21st century farming feels like (AGCanada, 2018). The Government of Saskatchewan wanted farmers and ranchers to know they can rely on those services if they need them. Although it is not intended for mental health issues, Alberta already offers a similar platform with the program of the Ag-Info Centre: 310-FARM. This is an agriculture information line, with specifications towards crop and livestock education. They only answer inquiries during office hours, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday to Friday (AAF, 2018). However, this phone line is commonly used and well -known. Annually, 310-FARM takes up to 30,000 calls and receives 5000-6000 emails; the level of traffic is dependent on what programs are currently being offered (AAF, 2018). Alberta does have mental health and support services available, with the most applicable option being 211. However, this is not an agriculture-specific help line, and as demonstrated previously farming has a plethora of stressors that are exclusive to agriculture; people outside of agriculture without that unique experience cannot empathize or understand a farmer or rancher’s stress. Although 211 is a free service to those calling in, municipalities must pay to provide the service, and it is not offered widely throughout the province (Alberta 211, 2018). Additionally, 211 is an information and referral phone line. Although they are trained to deal with people in crisis, the focus of this phone line is to direct people to resources. Farmers and those living in rural areas are often directed to resources that are not locally available. Often there is either a wait list for the referred resource, or it can take time to have a call returned. Since 211 is not offered province-wide, someone may call in but not be informed of closer resources if their municipality does not participate in the program (Alberta 211, 2018). Convincing a farmer that they need help is difficult enough already (Roy et al., 2017); when they are brave enough to ask, they should receive help that is appropriate for them. References AGCanada (2018) New Operators to take Sask. Farm crisis line 24/7. Accessed from https://www.agcanada.com/daily/new-operators-to-take-sask-farm-crisis-line-247 on December 11, 2018. Web. Agriculture Canada (2017) An Overview of the Canadian Agriculture and Agri-food System 2017. Departmental Publications Service. Accessed from http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/about- us/publications/economic-publications/an-overview-of-the-canadian-agriculture-and-agri-food- system-2017/?id=1510326669269 on December 11, 2018. Web. Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC) (2018). Climate and harvested crop reports. Alberta 211 (2018). Accessed from http://www.ab.211.ca/ on December 12, 2018. Web. Alberta Agriculture and Forestry (AAF) (2017) 2017 Agriculture Statistics Fact Sheet. ISSN: 1929 -4263. Accessed from https://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/sdd12807 on December 11, 2018. Web. Alberta Agriculture and Forestry (AAF) (2018) Ag-Info Centre: 310-FARM (3276). Accessed from https://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/inf4443 on December 11, 2018. Web. European Commission. (2011). The state of men’s health in Europe. Luxembourg: European Commission. Fraser, C.E., Smith, K.B., Judd, F., Humphreys, J.S., Fragar, L.J. & Henderson, A. (2005). Farming and Mental Health Problems and Mental Illness. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 51(4): 340- 349. DOI: 10.1177/0020764005060844 Gerrard, C.E. (1998) Farmers’ occupational health: cause for concern, cause for action. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(1), 155-163 Gough, B. (2013). The psychology of men’s health: Maximizing masculine capital. Health Psychology, 32, 1-4. doi:10.1037/ a0030424 Mansell, R.L. & Percy, M.B. (1990). Strength in Adversity: A study of the Alberta Economy. Western Studies in Economic Policy. Publication No. 1 in the Series. Published by the University of Alberta Press. Book. Marotz-Baden, R. (1988) Income, economic satisfaction, and stress in two-generation farm families. Family and Economic Issues, 9, 331-355. Mobile Crisis Services (2017). Farm Stress Line – Support for Rural Saskatchewan. Accessed from http://www.mobilecrisis.ca/farm-stress-line-rural-sask on December 11, 2018. Web. Ontario Farm Animal Council (2010) The Real Dirt on Farming II. The Dirt on Farming. 2(1-40). Roy, Phillipe. PhD, Tremblay, G. PhD, Robertson, S. PhD, RN, Houle, J. PhD (2017) “Do it all by myself”: A Salutogenic Approach of Masculine Health Practice Among Farming Men Coping With Stress. American Journal of Men’s Health. 11(5) 1536-1546. DOI: 10.1177/1557988315619677 Thomas, H.V., Lewis, G., Thomas, R., Salmon, R.L., Chalmers, R.M., Coleman, T.J., Kench, S.M., Morgan-Capner, P., Meadows, D., Sillius, M. & Softley, P. (2003) Mental health of British farmers. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60(3), 181–185. Weigel, R.R., Weigel, D.J. & Blundall, J. (1987) Stress, coping, and satisfaction: generational differences in farm families. Family Relations, 36(1): 45-48 RMA Background RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue. Resolution 3-19S Light Weight Concrete Bridge Girders County of Northern Lights Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 4 (Northern) WHEREAS in the early to mid-2000s, a decision was made within Alberta Transportation to change the specifications for concrete to allow for light weight aggregate in bridge girders; and WHEREAS there was a quality control issue with this concrete and it has resulted in premature deterioration of some bridge girders; and WHEREAS municipalities are required to utilize the specifications set out by Alberta Transportation when undertaking bridge work, and do not have input into the specifications or any changes to said specifications; and WHEREAS Alberta Transportation set the specifications and the change in aggregate was incorrectly accepted, or missed by Alberta Transportation, and therefore Alberta Transportation should be taking action to correct this situation; and WHEREAS the Minister of Transportation has advised that Alberta Transportation is not interested in pursuing legal action against the concrete suppliers, and the cost of repair ing and/or replacing these deteriorating bridge girders places a considerable cost on municipalities with multiple bridges affected; and WHEREAS the safety of the travelling public could be severely impacted by any failure of a bridge structure on either highways or municipal roadways; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities Association urge the Government of Alberta to establish a program for financial assistance, over and above current Strategic Transportation Infrastructure Program funding, to municipalities that manage bridges affected by the premature deterioriation of “SC” light weight bridge girders. Member Background The issue of these light weight concrete girders first came to the attention of municipalities in early 2017 at which time the RMA was involved in a steering committee tasked with resolving this issue. The steering committee was focused on providing oversight on the engineering assessment of a cross - section of the impacted bridges to determine the cause of the premature deterioration. The Association's involvement in the steering committee ended in the spring of 2017. When the engineering assessments were complete, Alberta Transportation advised the committee that they would weigh legal options internally. Since that tim e the Minister has advised that the department has no plans to pursue legal action on the matter and that Alberta Transportation "would not have been party to any such contracts for bridges managed by municipalities, and the standard girder design as speci fied by the department at that time was not the cause of the problem that has arisen. Any legal action would be required to start within two years of the issue coming to light, and as it was identified in January 2017, that time limit has passed. Minister Mason stated at the 2018 Fall convention that the department "is open to continuing discussions with municipalities to find a solution.” Since that time all requests for assistance have been met with the department's stance that they are not responsible for this issue and municipalities are able to proceed with legal action should they wish. The County of Northern Lights is not looking to undertake legal action against any contractor as it is not faulty work, but rather faulty material approved by the department. The County of Northern Lights has five of the 36 affected bridges, second only to Alberta Transportation's nine. One of these bridges is located on our busiest resource road leading from several gravel pits, and it is currently rated as a two. We believe this issue needs to be viewed similar to a product recall where the public's safety is in danger. The issue is more about preserving public confidence in a time where confidence in government is declining. There have been many news stories from ar ound the world and within Canada, of bridge collapses. This leads to the public's trust which has been shaken because they believed that the governments are protecting them from poor bridge construction practices, which can put lives at risk. This issue requires a plan and dedicated funding to replace all the girders in the province that have this problem. This would be proactive and put the province ahead of the problem. If the problem is not addressed in 2019, there will likely be bridge closures and the public will then start paying attention to the depth and breadth of this problem. If municipal and provincial governments wait until then, any plan will truly be reactionary, and too late. Attached are: • Letters sent to the Minister of Transportation, from several impacted municipalities and Alberta Transportation’s replies • Samples of current bridge ratings • A list of the affected municipalities See following page for attachments. , ,, r•·. ,,. ◄• . ;, * .. * * .. • COUNTY OF Northern Lights #600, 7th Ave NW, PO Box 10, Manning AB TOH 2M0 Phone 780-836-3348 Fax 780-836-3663 Toll Free 1-888-525-3481 November 26, 2018 Honourable Brian Mason Minister of Transportation, Government House Leader Office of the Minister - Transportation 320 Legislature Building 10800 - 97 Avenue Edmonton, AB TSK 2B6 Dear Minister Mason: SUBJECT: LIGHT WEIGHT CONCRETE GIRDERS Thank you for your recent participation in the Ministerial Forum at the RMA convention in Edmonton. During the Ministerial Forum, I once again raised the issue of the light weight concrete girders which we had discussed with you during your meeting with us in Dixonville this past spring. You indicated at the convention that your department would be willing to discuss the matter and possible solutions with affected municipalities. As you are aware, the County of Northern Lights has 5 affected bridges and is second only to Alberta Transportation who has 9. Two of our bridges received a 2 rating in 2017 due to the deteriorating girders. When our Council met with you in early 2018, we asked whether the department would be taking legal action against the supplier of the light weight concrete as the potential costs of repairing these bridges will be substantial in some cases. You indicated at that time that the department would not, for various reasons, be taking legal action. AT sets the standards for Local Road bridges in the province and compliance by municipalities is not voluntary. Setting the Standards comes with the · responsibility of being a leader when problems develop. Currently, there has been no proposed solution to this light weight aggregate problem that developed and went undetected for many years. This needs to be viewed like a product recall where the public's safety is in danger. This is not like the other bridge issues in the province where good infrastructure has served its useful life and we are trying to find the means to fund the replacements. This issue is about the preservation of the public confidence. There have been many news stories from around the world this year, where the public's trust has been shaken because they believed that the governments are protecting them from poor bridge construction practices, which can put their lives at risk. This specific issue needs a plan and dedicated funding, to replace all the girders in the province that have this problem. It would be proactive and would put the province ahead of the problem. If this problem is not addressed in 2019, there will likely be bridge closures due to the issue, and the public will then start paying attention to the depth and breadth of this problem. If municipal and provincial governments wait until then, any plan will truly be reactionary and too late. Please visit our website at: www.countyofnorthernlights.com Minister Mason November 26, 2018 Page 2 It continues to be our belief that AT set the specifications and the change in aggregate quality was incorrectly accepted or missed by the department and therefore they should be taking the required legal action, and if not, provide funding to assist with the required replacements of these concrete girders. On behalf of the County of Northern Lights, we hereby request that your department provide funding to the municipalities affected, in order that we can undertake the complete required repairs to these bridges, without affecting the other bridge maintenance requirements which all municipalities are faced with annually. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request. Yours truly, Terry Ungarian Reeve Cc: Council Affected Municipalities: • Cardston County (District 1) • Cypress County (District 1) • MD of Foothills (District 1) • Rocky View County (District 2) • Mountain View County (District 2) • MD of Lesser Slave River (District 3) • Strathcona County (District 5) • Sturgeon County (District 3) • County of Grande Prairie (District 4) • MD of Greenview (District 4) • Mackenzie County (District 4) • Saddle Hills County (District 4) 1 bridge 3 bridges 2 bridges 1 bridge 3 bridges 1 bridge 1 bridge 1 bridge 3 bridges 1 bridge 1 bridge 1 bridge Tom Burton, District 4, RMA Al Kemmere, President, RMA Debbie Jabbour, MLA- Peace River Marg McCuaig-Boyd, MLA- Dunvegan - Central Peace - Notley Transportation Deputy Minister 2nd Floor, Twin Atria Building 4999 - 98 Avenue Edmonton, Alberta T6B 2X3 Canada Telephone 780-427-6912 Fax 780-422-6515 www.transportation.alberta.ca December 3, 2018 Mr. Gerald Rhodes Executive Director Rural Municipalities of Alberta 2510 Sparrow Drive Nisku, Alberta T9E SNS Dear Mr. Rhodes: Thank you for your November 13, 2018 letter regarding the SC girder deterioration. In May 2017, Alberta Transportation issued BIM Advisory Bulletin #6, which summarized the findings of the engineering assessment and provided a recommended management plan for these deteriorated SC girder brid ges. The engineering assessment revealed the deterioration was due to the use of substandard aggregates in the concrete mixes used during fabrication of the girders. The department has explored possible reasons for why this might have occurred but has not proceeded with any legal action to determine the responsible parties. Alberta Transportation briefly discussed the possibility of cost -sharing with one of the precast suppliers, but the discussions did not result in a positive outcome. It is a challenging situation since the contractual relationship between the department (or municipality) is typically with the general contractor, and not the project sub -contractors. The department has no current plans to pursue legal action on this matter. However, Alberta Transportation's technical staff are available to provide technical support ta any municipality should they wish to pursue this further. An affected municipality may choose to pursue legal action against the general contractor with whom they entered into a contract for construction of an affected bridge. That contractor may then engage in legal action with other parties who they consider having been involved in the issue. Please note that the cause of the issue was identified in January 2017, and we have been advised that any legal action would be required to start within two years of that time. Sincerely, (IY1 Barry Day Deputy Minister ALBERTA TRANSPORTATION Office of the Minister Government House Leader MLA, Edmonton - Highland - Norwood DEC 2 7 2018 COUNTY OF NORTHERN LIGHTS December 11, 2018 Mr. Terry Ungarian, Reeve County of Northern Lights #600, 7 Avenue NW P.O. Box 10 Manning, AB TOH 2MO Dear Reeve Ungarian : Thank you for your November 26, 2018 letter regarding lightweight concrete girders. I appreciate the time you took to write. AR 74763 I recognize that this issue has unexpectedly added to the infrastructure needs for many municipalities. I agree that public trust in our infrastructure is critical, and that we as managers of that infrastructure must be diligent in ensuring public safety through actions such as inspections, repairs, replacements, and restricted use as necessary. Barry Day, Deputy Minister, recently responded to Mr. Gerald Rhodes, Executive Director of the Rural Municipalities of Alberta on this issue. In this letter, Mr. Day noted that Alberta Transportation has no c urrent plans to pursue legal action on this matter. However, he also noted that an affected municipality may choose to pursue legal action against the general contractor with whom it entered into a contract, and that Alberta Transportation's staff are available to provide technical support to any municipality that chooses to do so. We understand there are time limitations on initiating any such legal action. Please note that Alberta Transportation would not have been a party to any such contracts for bridges managed by municipalities, and the standard girder design as specified by the department at that time was not the cause of the problem that has arisen. It is also our understanding that not all affected bridges require girder replacement. cc: Gerald Rhodes, Executive Director Rural Municipalities of Alberta 320 Legislature Building, 10800 -97 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2B6 Canada Telephone 780 -427-2080 Fax 780-427-2022 County of Northern Lights PO Box 10, #600, 7th Avenue NW Manning, Alberta TOH 2MO Attention: Leonard Van Oort, Capital and Operational Projects LOW RATING ADVISORY Bridge File: (including Structure #) 74350-02 Highway: (incl. Control Section) Local Road Legal Location: NW 27-90-22-W5M Stream/Over: Rousseau Creek Town: North Star Rating: 2 Element: Bridge Rail Posts, Girders (4), Superstructure General Rating Reason for Low Rating: Concrete section loss extends through plinth to bridge rail post at SP1G1, SP2G1 and SP3G1. More than 50 mm of concrete section loss with exposed rebar, stirrups and strands at SP1G1, SP2G1, SP3G1, and SP1G9. Recommendations: (see Note) Replace all exterior girders, apply silane sealer to deck and ACP overlay. Reduce inspection cycle to annually until girders replaced. Other Comments: (if any) Consider cleaning off deck and re-inspecting top of interior girders before proceeding with exterior girder replacement. Repairs recommended as per BIM Advisory #6. Note: These recommendations are provided as part of the initial notification and may be revised once the BIM is submitted for review. Information on the submitted BIM should be consulted when available. If more information is required, please call. Sincerely, MPA Engineering Ltd . per: Megan Bartman, EIT cc: David Morrison, AT #304, 85 Cranford Way, Sherwood Park, Alberta T8H 0H9 ph: (780) 416-3030 fax: (780) 416-3037 www.mpaeng.ca ROCKY VIEW COUNTY • Cultivating Communities Rocky Office of the Reeve 262075 Rocky VJC:W Point View County, AB I T4A 0X2 www.rodyvicw.ca Friday, December 21, 2018 Honourable Minister Brian Mason Minister of Transportation 320 Legislature Building, 10800- 97 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T5K 286 RE: Light Weight Concrete Girders Dear Minister Mason, We are in support of the County of Northern Lights request for the Ministry of Transportation to undertake and finance the required repairs to bridges built with light weight concrete girders. Our support is a result of the County's experienced with these girders. The attached photo demonstrates the existing erosion of the girder's aggregate and will require costly repairs. (Attachment A). This bridge is set to be replaced in 2075; however, with the current rate of degradation of the light weight- concrete girder it will have to be replaced earlier. Roads safety is a high priority for the County and its residents. That is why we have worked in concert with Alberta Transportation over the year to ensure safe access to the County's and province's roads networks. We look forward to working alongside the Ministry, a nd other affected municipal governments to solve this issue. cc: Northern Lights County Council Cameron Westhead, MLA, Banff -Cochrane Leela Aheer, MLA, Chestermere-Rocky View Nathan Cooper, MLA, Olds-Didsbury, Three Hills Angela Pitt, MLA, Airdrie Rocky View County Council Theresa Van Oort, CAO, County of Northern Lights Al Hoggan, CAO, Rocky View County RMA RURAL MUNICIPALITIES of ALBERTA January 4, 2019 Cardston County Cypress County MD of Foothills Rocky View County Mountain View County MD of Lesser Slave River County of Northern Lights Strathcona County Sturgeon County County of Grande Prairie MD of Greenview Mackenzie County Saddle Hills County Dear CAOs and councils, Re: Alberta Transportation action on premature girder deterioration As you are aware, your municipality is responsible for managing one or more SC girder bridge that experienced premature deterioration. Based on concerns expressed by the County of Northern Lights earlier in 2018 related to liability and costs associated with the impacted bridges, RMA sent a letter to the Deputy Minister of Transportation inquiring as to progress being made by Alberta Transportation in determining possible solution to the issue. Please find attached the response from Alberta Transportation for your reference. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or to discuss the issue further. Sincerely, Al Kemmere President 2510 SpJrrow D11v0 Nisku, Alberta T9E 8N5 RESOURCEFUL. RESPONSIVE. RESILIENT. OFFICE FAX, RMAlberta.com 780 .955 3639 780 955 3615 Municipalities: • Cardston County (District 1) • Cypress County (District 1) • MD of Foothills (District 1) • Rocky View County (District 2) • Mountain View County (District 2) • MD of Lesser Slave River (District 3) • Strathcona County (District S) • Sturgeon County (District 3) • County of Grande Prairie (District 4) • MD of Greenview (District 4) • Mackenzie County (District 4) • Saddle Hills County (District 4) 1 bridge 3 bridges 2 bridges 1 bridge 3 bridges 1 bridge 1 bridge 1 bridge 3 bridges 1 bridge 1 bridge 1 bridge Mountain View COUNTY January 9, 2019 Honourable Brian Mason Minister of Transportation, Government House Leader Office of the Minister - Transportation 320 Legislature Building 10800 - 97 Avenue Edmonton, AB T5K 286 Dear Minister Mason: Re: Light Weight Concrete Girders Thank you for attending the Ministerial Forum at the RMA convention in Edmonton, we sincerely appreciate your effort to ensure the question raised from the floor received a response. As part of your response to the question regarding defective Light Weight Concrete Girders you indicated that your department would be willing to discuss the matter and possible solutions with affected municipalities. As you are now aware, Mountain View County has 3 affected bridges that were all constructed around 2004 and they are identified with the following Bridge File numbers: • BF 867 (SE 13-29-28-W4) Rosebud Creek • BF 6797 (NW 4-33-6-W5) Bearberry Creek • BF 9588 (NW 18-29-3-W5) Dogpound Creek Mountain View County has not heard of any updates from Alberta Transportation detailing what the next steps will be in addressing the many affected bridges across the province to ensure that public safety is preserved and that those responsible for the defective materials are held accountable. Mountain View County supports the position of the County of Northern Lights in that this issue needs to be viewed like a product recall where the public's safety is in danger. This is not like the other bridge issues in the province where good infrastructure has served its useful life and we are trying to find the means to fund the replacements. It is the County's understanding that Alberta Transportation set the specifications and the change in aggregate quality was incorrectly accepted or missed by the department, and therefore, AT should be taking the required legal action, and if not, provide funding to assist with the required replacements of these concrete girders. ....2 Mountain View County P.O. Box 100 • Didsbury e Alberta •TOM OWO •T 403.335.3311 • Toll Free 1.877.264.9754 • F 403.335.9207 www.mountainviewcounty.com Page 2 of 2 The correction of defective bridges resulting from the use of the faulty Light Weight Concrete Girders needs a plan and dedicated funding external to the traditional Local Road Bridge Program under STIP. Mountain View County is asking Alberta Transportation to take proactive measures to address these bridges before restrictions and closures need to be considered to preserve public safety. We look forward to having more dialogue on this subject and learning of your departments plan to correct the defective bridges. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Bruce Beattie Reeve Cc: Russ Watts, Alberta Transportation, Regional Director RMA Background RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue. Resolution 4-19S Bighorn Country Proposal Consultation Brazeau County Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 3 (Pembina River) WHEREAS the Government of Alberta is moving forward with plans to implement the Bighorn Country Proposal; and WHEREAS the Government of Alberta’s current consultation process has excluded key stakeholders such as municipalities and the cancellation of public information sessions has limited the ability of citizens to provide feedback; and WHEREAS the Government of Alberta’s current consultation format does not foster open and effective dialogue between key stakeholders and provincial officials; and WHEREAS the Bighorn Country Proposal has the potential to impact the oil and gas, agriculture and forestry industries, which are drivers of the Alberta economy and a source of revenue for the provision of government programs and services; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta urge the Government of Alberta to delay the Bighorn Country Propos al until an inclusive and comprehensive consultation process that includes and respects First Nations, municipalities, stakeholder groups and residents of Alberta can be developed. Member Background The Government of Alberta announced the Bighorn Country Proposal on November 23, 2018. Any previous consultation on provincial planning in the Bighorn Country had occurred in relation to the North Saskatchewan Regional Plan consultation which stakeholders had not listed as a priority. Brazeau County has heard the concerns of many residents and questions are being asked about the implementation of the Bighorn Country Proposal and the impacts it will have on industry and future development, which is vital to the Province of Alberta. On January 5, 2019, Alberta Environment and Parks Minister Shannon Phillips released a statement that a public information session scheduled to be held in Drayton Valley on January 7th had been cancelled. In support of the concerns expressed from Albertans regarding the consultation process the Government of Alberta has been utilizing for the Bighorn Country Proposal, and the cancellation of the public input sessions, it is of the utmost importance that the RMA consider urging the Government of Alberta to delay the proposal until such a time that a comprehensive consultation occurs. The recently announced telephone townhalls are not suitable replacements. A comprehensive consultation process for all Albertans is necessary on this and future proposals to ensure the responsible development of public lands in a balanced approach with economic and environmental sustainability. On January 5, after the cancellation of the January 7 public information session, Brazeau County issued the following statement: “The exclusion of municipalities from the formal consultation process is a disturbing precedent and Brazeau County would like to see the Province of Alberta develop a revised consultation process for this and all future proposals.” On November 26, 2018, Brazeau County Council passed the following Resolution: Bighorn Country Tourism Situational Awareness Session 1201/18-11-26 Moved by M. Gressler that Council oppose the Bighorn Country Tourism proposal as presented by the Minister. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Additionally, on January 5, 2019, Brazeau County Council issued a statement in response to the cancellation of the public input sessions, and that statement is attached as Appendix A. Appendix A Bighorn Country Proposal Consulation Statement Issued by Brazeau County on January 5, 2019 Brazeau County’s Response to the Cancellation of the Public Input Sessions for Bighorn Country. On behalf of Brazeau County Council I wish to express our extreme disappointment in Minister Phillips’s statement and her Ministry’s decision to cancel the Public Input Sessions scheduled. Brazeau County has taken great pride in the equal balance of stewardship and economic development of our lands including those proposed to fall within the Bighorn Country Public Land Use Zone proposal. While Brazeau County Council maintains our position that we wish to be removed from the proposal, we are more deeply saddened to be proven correct in so muc h as this government has not carried out significant nor effective public consultation; the amount of material released in various locations by the dual ministries of Environment and Parks and Tourism, has led to onerous and time consuming research that is discourteous to peoples times and lives. Cancellation of the public input session, specifically the one for Drayton Valley scheduled for January 7th is further entrenching our Council’s opinion that the Ministry of Parks is unwilling to listen to face to face local opposition or suggestions for the Bighorn Country Proposal. RMA Background RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue. Resolution 5-19S Amendments Required for Crown Land Recreation Disposition Applications and Renewals County of Grande Prairie Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 4 (Northern) WHEREAS changes to policy have forced not for profit (NFP) organizations to turn to local municipalities and seek unbudgeted financial support and administrative guidance to re new dispositions for which they have historically been upstanding, long-term stewards; and WHEREAS the new disposition system for Crown land has been designed for industrial applicants and is not practical or financially sustainable for NFP organizations wishing to maintain or renew their dispositions; and WHEREAS the current requirement by Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) of a one-thousand-dollar-per- acre security deposit for NFP organizations occupying Crown dispositions is not realistic; and WHEREAS the current requirement by AEP to have NFP organizations upgrade previously held survey plans to current Crown standards places a significant and unforeseen financial burden on NFP organizations which also is not realistic; and WHEREAS the process to apply and complete an AEP application for Crown land dispositions is complicated and cumbersome for NFP applicants thereby resulting in additional expenses to hire a consultant to file the application; and WHEREAS there is interest from municipalities, community organizations and volunteer service groups to provide feedback to the Government of Alberta on the current process involving dispositions and NFP applicants; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) request the Government of Alberta to amend their policies and requirements on Crown land dispositions (leases) for not for profit organizations; FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the RMA request the Government of Alberta to engage in additional public consultation with municipalities and not for profit organizations on the policies, requirements and process to lease Crown lands. Member Background Historically, not for profit organizations that hold dispositions on Crown land have demonstrated excellent stewardship of the land, while simultaneously encouraging public participation in physical activities for all levels of ability, providing outdoor education opportunities and demonstrating environmental protection. Dispositions are typically long-term with not for profits investing capital funds to develop approved infrastructure on the Crown lands. Maintenance of the disposition falls solely to the not for profit organization, a majority of which are volunteer driven. To date, the County of Grande Prairie has heard concern s about the disposition renewal process from several not for profit groups including Camp Tamarack (an outdoor activities center for persons with disabilities), Wapiti Nordic Ski Club and Beaverlodge Boys and Girls Camp. The new requirement to provide a one-thousand-dollar deposit per acre upon disposition renewal is not something that most organizations are aware of until their lease renewal comes around and therefore they have not typically budgeted for it. Not for profits typically operate on a break -even basis and do not usually have reserves for unforeseen expenses such as this. They are being forced to reallocate funds away from core programming to cover disposition deposit and renewal expenses or seeking funding from local municipalities. Alternatively, the not for profit group may seek to have the municipality apply for the disposition in their name (AEP does not require a deposit from municipalities), and then request that the municipality sublease the Crown land back to the NFP group. The requirement to upgrade survey plans to AEP current standards can only be achieved by not for profits if they engage a professional surveying company, which in itself presents an expense of approximately $10,000. This too places an unexpected and additional fina ncial burden on the not for profit organization, forcing them to seek additional funding from municipalities or increase their fundraising efforts. The process to apply and complete an AEP application for Crown land dispositions is complicated and not easily understood by the general public. Not for profits must either engage a land management company to complete the application on their behalf at an expense of $2,000 - $5,000 (in addition to First Nations consulting fees of approximately $2,000) or request help from local municipalities via their administrative staff. All of the above requirements discourage not for profit organizations from leasing lands from the Crown and could even result in these community groups ceasing operations completely. The new requirements also represent another example of provincial downloading without resources or funding. Not for profit organizations occupying Crown recreation dispositions benefit Albertans in their health, wellness and education as well as maintaining Crown lands to provincial standards which otherwise may not be maintained. Amendments to AEP’s current policies, requirements and processes are required to promote fairness and transparency to the not for profits. Municipalities are not being asked to meet the same security deposit requirements as the not for profits to maintain, expand or obtain new dispositions. RMA Background RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue. Resolution 6-19S Prevent Implementation of Seed Royalty on Producers for Farm Saved Seed County of Northern Lights Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 4 (Northern) WHEREAS Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) are considering implementing a system to collect royalties on farm saved seed; WHEREAS paying royalties on farm saved seed will increase the price of seed and decrease profit margins for farmers; WHEREAS royalties on farm saved seed could limit seed choices for farmers as seed companies move to deregister old varieties, which could mean farmers would be forced to pay royalties and to grow only newer varieties; WHEREAS AAFC and CFIA have not outlined details on how much a royalty would be, how it would be collected or how potentially $100 million in royalties would be dispersed; WHEREAS farmers currently pay check -offs on almost all grains they deliver to elevators, some of these funds are funneled through the Western Grain Research Foundation (WGRF) and used for variety breeding programs; WHEREAS the WGRF Endowment Fund has received the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific rail overages and penalties under the Maximum Revenue Entitlement Program every year since 2000 and had a balance of just under $132 million at the end of 2017. This money has been collected from farmers via excessive freight charges, and could be used to fund research; WHEREAS a royalty system has potential to decrease farmers’ abili ty to operate profitably and make sound agronomic decisions; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta request that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency abandon the proposal to implement the adoption of End Point Royalties or farm saved seed “trailing royalty contracts”. Member Background “Consultation” meetings on the issue of royalties on farm-saved seed took place recently in western Canada with the final meeting being held at the Renaissance Airport Hotel in Nisku on Dec. 6th, 2018. This concern has come to light following the regional consultations. Issues • Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is considering a proposal in which farmers could pay royalties on seeds they produce. • Royalties are being recommended by Seed Synergy, Canadian Seed Trade Association (CTSA) and Canadian Seed Growers Association (CSGA) to increase funds to support programs for wheat and other cereal breeding programs. • There is currently no information about how much a r oyalty could possibly be, how it would be collected or how funds collected from royalties would be dispersed. • There is potential for $100 million plus to be collected annually from royalties on farm saved seed. • The Government of Canada has continued to put money in to wheat breeding and hopefully that continues. However, it is possible that they eventually back out of funding seed developers and place the financial onus on the producer paying through royalty profits. • AAFC has already completed consultations with farmers across western Canada seeking feedback on two proposed royalty models, farm saved seed contracts and end-point royalties • The two models proposed are: o Model one: royalty collection enabled by contracts. When buying seed of a new variety, a producer would have to sign a contract agreeing to pay a trailing royalty on farm saved seed. Part of the contractual obligation would be reporting the annual use of the farm saved seed. o Model two: would allow for a national non-refundable levy on all the newer varieties. These royalties would then be forwarded to the breeders based on their market share. The proposal calls for the existing provincial check-off systems to be leveraged for collection. • Royalty rates under both models have yet to be deter mined but regardless of which system is implemented, farmers would be paying more for seed each time they plant a crop using farm saved seed. • The Government of Canada plan could see royalties charged on farm saved seed begin within two to three years. • At this point in time, the Plant Breeders Rights Act allows for end-point royalties, although breeders cannot have an End Point Royalty in a year when they have charged a royalty on the certified seed. • Currently, industry estimates put certified seed use at only 20% or 25% for wheat. • Producers will buy certified seed of a new variety and save their own seed for several subsequent years before trying out a new variety. As of January 10, 2019, Agriculture and Forestry Minister Oneil Carlier has indicated t hat “he is a big advocate of research but unclear why multibillion-dollar international companies need money from our farmers for their research when they are already extremely profitable companies.” Minister Carlier is not convinced collecting royalties is the right approach and is concerned the cost of research will be downloaded on to farmers. The Western Grains Research Foundation’s Mission is: WGRF will continue to build on its unique strength of being a farmer-funded, farmer-directed organization focused on funding field crop research for western Canadian farmers. According to the 2017 Annual Report - Statement of Financial Position as of December 31, 2017, the WGRF balance was just under $180 million, including the Endowment Fund which has just under $132 million. More details about the proposed royalties on farm saved seed can be found in the attached articles from the Western Producer. RMA Background RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue. Resolution 7-19S Solar Power Reclamation MD of Taber Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 1 (Foothills-Little Bow) WHEREAS the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) regulates the utilities sector, natural gas and electricity markets to protect social, economic and environmental interests of Alberta where competitive market forces do not; and WHEREAS the AUC ensures that electric facilities are built, operated and decommissioned in an efficient and environmentally responsible way; and WHEREAS provincial growth and policy decisions have contributed to increased development of solar power plants and their associated infrastructure in recent years; and WHEREAS solar power plants have a limited life-cycle and will require either decommissioning or repowering at the end of that life cycle; and WHEREAS if a solar power plant is abandoned during or after its life cycle, the components and associated infrastructure may be abandoned on the landscape, becoming an unsafe and unsightly nuisance, creating a costly cleanup for landowners, and further, the affected municipality; and WHEREAS pursuant to Section 5(1)(h) of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the AUC may make regulations as to the measures to be taken in the construction, operation or abandonment of any power plant for the protection of life, property and wildlife; and WHEREAS pursuant to Section 5(4) of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, subject to the approval of the Minister responsible for the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act , the AUC may make regulations as to the measures to be taken in the abandonment of any power plant for the control of pollution and ensuring environment conservation; and WHEREAS the AUC falls within the structure of the Ministry of Energy, and the Ministry develops policy for renewable electricity; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta request the Government of Alberta to direct the Alberta Utilities Commission to establish a method of ensuring that there is funding in place for abandoned solar energy plants to be decommissioned and reclaimed in an environmentally responsible way. Member Background As end-of-life remediation and reclamation liability has evolved to become the top priority for the Alberta Energy Regulator in the oil and gas context, Alberta Environment and Parks and the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) require details regarding the proposed decommissioning and site reclamation of wind and solar projects. In the absence of a reclamation standard for wind and solar, the AUC stated that it would review and approve reclamation plans for wind and solar power plants, if no such standard is adopted in the future. The AUC also recently indicated that it expected the Government of Alberta to issue a Ministerial Order requiring project proponents to provide reclamation security for solar projects. In the future, Alberta may consider setting up a statutory framework similar to the Alberta Orphan Well Fund and Association to address end-of-life liability for wind and solar power plants. RMA Background 20-18F: Decommissioning Costs for Wind Energy Developments THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta request Alberta Energy to direct the Alberta Utilities Commission to establish a method of ensuring that there is funding in place to ensure that an abandoned wind energy plant is decommissioned and reclaimed in an environmentally responsible way. DEVELOPMENT: RMA has not yet received a government response to this resolution. Resolution 8-19S Reinstatement of the Municipal Officer’s Expense Allowance Clearwater County Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 2 (Central) WHEREAS until the 2019 tax year, a municipal corporation or board could pay a non-accountable expense allowance to an elected officer to perform the duties of that office; and WHEREAS until the 2019 tax year, if the municipal officer ’s expense allowance was not more than one- third of the officer’s salary and allowances it was not required to be considered as “employment income” on the employee’s T4 slip; and WHEREAS federal Bill C-44, which received Royal Assent on June 22, 2017, eliminated tax exemption allowances for members of legislative assemblies and certain municipal officers ; and WHEREAS the municipal officer’s expense allowance tax exemption was a tool that assisted municipalities in keeping municipal council honorariums lower, thereby having less impact on the local taxpayers ; and WHEREAS the elimination of the municipal officer’s expense allowance has required many municipalities to increase municipal officers’ compensation to offset the difference in compensation, thereby incr easing the tax burden locally; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta requests that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities ask the Government of Canada to consider reinstating the municipal officer’s expense allowance. Member Background Government of Canada - Municipal officer's expense allowance: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/businesses/topics/payroll/benefits- allowances/municipal-officer-s-expense-allowance.html Bill C-44: http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-44/royal-assent Federation of Canadian Municipalities: Change in “One-Third” Federal Exemption for Elected Officials – A Guide for Canadian Municipalities https://auma.ca/sites/default/files/fcm_taxexemption_guide.pdf. RMA Background RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue. Resolution 9-19S Watershed Planning and Advisory Council Funding Northern Sunrise County Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 4 (Northern) WHEREAS Watershed Planning and Advisory Councils (WPACs) are independent, multi-stakeholder, non- profit organizations that are designated by Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP), under the Water f or Life Strategy, to report on the health of watersheds, lead collaborative planning, and facilitate education and stewardship activities; and WHEREAS WPACs rely on government funding to hire staff to provide new or ongoing extension and education programs to stakeholders at a grass roots level starting during the first quarter of the WPACs’ fiscal year; and WHEREAS the Government of Alberta’s fiscal year is April 1 until March 31; and WHEREAS the receipt of WPAC grants are irregular and delinquent, therefore threatening the employment of professional staff and the delivery of extension and educational programs; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta request the Government of Alberta to provide Watershed Planning and Advisory Cou ncil funding annually before May 1 to assure that professional staff can be retained to deliver extension and education programs. Member Background The proportion of the complete budget that this AEP grant fulfills is different for each of the 11 WPACs in Alberta. For many (such as the Mighty Peace Watershed Alliance [MPWA] of which Northern Sunrise County is a member) it constitutes at least 90% of operating budgets. This grant is meant to be the core funding for staffing, office and organization function. Applications are typically requested by the Government of Alberta between the end of January to early March, and most frequently in mid-February. In the application, it indicates that responses will be returned within 60 days, but this has never been the case. Funding responses and funds have been received anywhere from the last week of May to early August, most often in late June. MPWA provides the lead on a number of projects and education events and is forced to put many of these events on hold during some critical work periods because of funding uncertainty. In 2018, funding was at critical levels by mid-April and the MPWA was ready to lay off staff when the AEP grant funding finally arrived in early July. When an application is submitted for a 12-month program, but funds arrive after the first quarter and need to be used before year end, funding flow is an issue. Further, finding competent and qualified staff is difficult. Once time and effort has been spent to train staff, organizations wish to keep them employed. Inconsistent funding and the prospect of having to lay staff off creates a poor work environment and slows down projects during important periods. The work of the WPACs is important and the Government of Alberta has indicated this by the Minister’s announcement of the $3.2 million/year agreement. Unfortunately, there continues to be issues regarding timeliness and funding breakdown. The WPACs have many stakeholders and partners involved in various projects. It is difficult to move some of these projects forward in efficient and timely manner when the AEP partnership, regarding core funding, causes stumbling blocks. RMA Background RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue. Resolution 10-19S Strategic Direction for the RMA RMA Executive Resolution Simple Majority Required WHEREAS the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) is a member -driven organization; and WHEREAS setting strategic direction is an important process in establishing a clear picture of organizational expectations in serving members and clients; and WHEREAS a member-approved strategic direction will guide the RMA Board of Directors and staff in developing a strategic plan in which association activities will align with strategic priorities; and WHEREAS the RMA’s previous strategic direction expired in 2018; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) adopts the Strategic Direction as presented at the Spring 2019 Convention to guide planning and activities for the organization from 2019 through 2022; FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the RMA review the Strategic Direction in 2023. RMA Background The RMA last underwent a strategic direction-setting process in 2014 to revise the mission, vision, values, roles and strategic priorities to guide the RMA’s activities from March 2014 until December 2018. To obtain member input to refresh the RMA’s strategic direction, members were invited to provide input at the Fall 2018 Convention. Similar opportunities were provided for the RMA board. These strategic planning sessions invited valuable input from our members and board, and resulted in the development of a proposed strategic direction to guide the planning and activities of the RMA. The RMA’s draft strategic direction was distributed to the membership for feedback in February 2019. The purpose of the strategic direction is to establish an updated vision and mission for the association, as well as values, roles, and strategic priorities that will best position the RMA to continue to serve the needs of its members in the future. It is intended to reflect the RMA’s diverse member offerings and its role as a provider of advocacy and business services. The strategic direction will form the basis upon which the RMA’s strategic plan will be built, to identify goals, initiatives and measures in alignment with key direction provided by our members. The draft strategic direction is included in this resolution background. Draft Strategic Direction The following vision, mission, values, roles and strategic priorities will guide the planning and activities for the RMA. VISION Strong vibrant rural communities MISSION Strengthening rural Alberta by supporting our members through effective representation and valued services VALUES The RMA is committed to the following values: ▪ Leading in a proactive, collaborative, and accountable manner ▪ Being transparent and relationship focused ▪ Interacting with diplomacy and respect ▪ Communicating with intention and authenticity ▪ Continuously improving as a learning organization ROLES We represent and serve our members by: ▪ Championing and advocating on municipal and rural issues ▪ Cultivating strategic and collaborative partnerships ▪ Facilitating networking and educational opportunities ▪ Delivering responsive business services ▪ Providing procurement expertise and risk management solutions ▪ Being a resource of credible knowledge STRATEGIC PRIORITIES We are focused on the following strategic priorities: ▪ Engaging our members to identify emerging issues and needs ▪ Providing education and sharing best practices ▪ Conducting research to understand issues and support evidence-based decision making ▪ Elevating the rural profile by communicating and promoting rural and municipal issues ▪ Providing tailored business services that are valued by our members to meet their needs ▪ Ensuring a strong organization through insightful leadership and effective internal operations ▪ Increasing RMA’s influence by demonstrating the purpose and value of the organization and those that it represents Resolution 11-19S Update of the Provincial Code of Practice for Compost Facilities Wheatland County Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 2 (Central) WHEREAS rural municipalities recognize the benefit of well-managed compost facilities as a necessary and useful component of waste management; and WHEREAS the Government of Alberta, through the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, Waste Control Regulation, and Code of Practice for Compost Facilities, has the authority and responsibility to oversee compost facility activities; and WHEREAS the current Code of Practice for Compost Facilities was adopted in 1997 with intended review every five years beginning in 2001; and WHEREAS the Standards for Composting Facilities in Alberta were published in 2007; and WHEREAS anecdotal evidence from Alberta Environment and Parks suggests that the Standards for Composting Facilities in Alberta was intended as an update to the current Code of Practice for Compost Facilities but did not receive the priority required to bring the update into force; and WHEREAS the current Code of Practice for Compost Facilities is legally enforceable by Alberta Environment and Parks while the Standards for Composting Facilities in Alberta are not; and WHEREAS the Standards for Composting Facilities in Alberta contain many requirements that exceed those in the Code of Practice for Compost Facilities; and WHEREAS in some cases the requirements written in the Standards for Composting Facilities in Alberta would better address the concerns of rural municipalities and their residents related to off-site impacts of compost facilities; and WHEREAS as more municipalities in Alberta are implementing an organic collection program, composting facilities will likely increase in number and be sited close to communities; and WHEREAS updating the Code of Practice for Compost Facilities would be a proactive approach that would help municipalities with siting these operations and minimize their community impacts; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta request the Government of Alberta to update the Code of Practice for Compost Facilities to reflect , at a minimum, the Standards for Composting Facilities in Alberta. Member Background The jurisdiction to regulate compost facilities lies with Alberta Environment and Parks under the authority of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (Act), Waste Control Regulation (A.R. 192/1996) (Regulation), and Code of Practice for Compost Facilities (Code). The Government of Alberta also has a document titled Standards for Composting Facilities in Alberta (Standards) which is not legally enforceable as it is not tied to the Regulation or Act. In recent conversations with Alberta Environment and Parks it was determined that the Standards, published in 2007, were originally written with the intent of replacing the current Code. According to staff, the project lost priority at the time and was not pushed along the final steps necessary for the content of the Standards to become the new and enforceable Code. Through this resolution, Wheatland County wishes to highlight the importance of the work that was done to update the Code and return priority to the project so that it may be completed. Our attention to compost facility regulation is drawn from a recent case of conflict between County residents and a compost facility within our municipality. In this case, the facility began operation in 1997, when it was determined that a development permit was not required due to the agricultural nature of the activity. Since then the facility has evolved, and in recent years resident complaints about intense odours, nuisances like flies, high seagull populations, and blowing garbage, and concerns about other p otential issues like ground and surface water impacts, have become common. Because the facility has both Alberta Environment and Parks registration via the Code, and in-writing confirmation that they do not require a development permit, the municipality is very limited in its ability to act to alleviate the concerns of its residents and must rely on Alberta Environment and Parks’ ability to manage and monitor the impacts of the facility. While Alberta Environment and Parks is doing what they can according to the Code, we are disappointed that the content of the Standards cannot be enforced. Wheatland County believes that the additional requirements included in the Standards are an improvement that would increase our confidence in Alberta Environment and Park s’ ability to both resolve concerns in cases like this, and proactively prevent similar cases from occurring in the future. RMA Background RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue. Resolution 12-19S Making Children’s Healthcare a Priority in Alberta MD of Opportunity Simple Majority Required Individual Resolution WHEREAS the Government of Alberta has budgeted $22.1 billion on healthcare in 2019, representing almost 40 percent of total budget expenditures and an increase of 2.2 pe rcent compared to the previous year’s health budget; and WHEREAS Alberta’s population is experiencing a high natural growth rate and twenty-five percent of the province’s population is below the age of 18; and WHEREAS by 2041 the annual number of births in Alberta is expected to grow by 26 percent; and WHEREAS children’s health care is unique and requires a different approach than adult care given that children are particularly vulnerable to illnesses and infections, many of which can have lifelong ramifi cations if not properly treated; and WHEREAS only two out of 106 acute care hospitals in Alberta are dedicated to children’s health; and WHEREAS treating children close to home has proven health benefits and can help bend the cost -curve on the overall health expenditures for the Government of Alberta; and WHEREAS the Stollery Children’s Hospital and Alberta Children’s Hospital treat children from across the province (and beyond) and are able to leverage world-class physicians and technology to support treatment of children in health facilities across Alberta; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) request that the Government of Alberta make all aspects of children’s health care a priority by making excellent pediatric care accessible to all Alberta children, regardless of where they live; FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the RMA request that the Government of Alberta support enhancements to existing infrastructure and programming in order to provide an increased level of care to children and recognize that the Stollery Children’s Hospital and the Alberta Children’s Hospital serve as critical hubs to this network of care for children’s health across the province. Member Background In 2018, the Stollery Children’s Hospital saw over 260,000 children as patients. The vision of the Stollery Children’s Hospital and Alberta Children’s Hospital is to continue to provide services that will help sick kids and their families get better in the quickest time possible. This is accomplished by providing care close to home. This is why the Stollery Foundation would like to partner with communities across the province. The vision is to partner with communities to build a Network of Care, where children services can be offered in local hospitals across the province so kids can heal close to home. The Government of Alberta, as well as opposition parties, are supportive of expanding this concept. What is needed now is support from communities from across the province. Document Last Updated February 27, 2018 REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 8.2 SUBJECT: Set Date for Special Council Meeting MEETING DATE: 2019-03-12 PRESENTED BY: Peter Tarnawsky, Interim CAO BACKGROUND/ PROPOSAL At the Organizational Meeting on October 23, 2018, Council determined that Regular Meetings of Council would occur on the second and fourth Tuesday, with a few minor exceptions (Resolution 390/18). Kneehill County passed a resolution on November 27, 2018 formally appointing Peter Tarnawsky to carry out the powers, duties and function of Chief Administration Officer, as interim CAO effective December 15th, 2018. The recruitment of a new CAO has been actively progressing since December 2018. The recruitment firm has reached the short-list phase and will proceed to interview stage in the CAO recruitment selection process. DISCUSSION/ OPTIONS/ BENEFITS/ DISADVANTAGES: Council needs to set a Special Meeting date to interview potential candidates. As this is a “Personnel” matter, Council will be meet in Closed Session pursuant to Section 17 (Disclosure harmful to personal privacy) and Section 19 (Confidential evaluations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. 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: Good Governance ATTACHMENTS: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION: That Council set Monday, March 25, 2019 at 8:00 AM – 4:30 PM as a Council meeting date to hold interviews with potential candidates. COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. That Council set Monday, March 25, 2019 as a Council Meeting date. 2. That Council choose another date for the Special Council meeting. (eg: Saturday March 30, 2019) REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 8.2 2 | Page MOTION: That Council set Monday, March 25, 2019 at 8:00 AM as a Council Meeting date to hold interviews with potential Chief Administrative Officer candidates. Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil Approved By: Peter Tarnawsky Reviewed By: Peter Tarnawsky Executive Assistant Interim Chief Administrative Officer Interim Chief Administrative Officer Document Last Updated February 27, 2018 REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 8.3 SUBJECT: Committee of the Whole Meeting Date MEETING DATE: 2019-03-12 PRESENTED BY: Peter Tarnawsky, Interim CAO BACKGROUND/ PROPOSAL Staff have arranged to bring the draft Horseshoe Canyon Masterplan for review and have the consultants present the plan to Council. Consultants were unable to attend during a special COW on Tuesday February 12, 2019 due to weather delays. The consultants are also not available to attend the regularly scheduled April 16th, 2019 Committee of the Whole meeting. DISCUSSION/ OPTIONS/ BENEFITS/ DISADVANTAGES: A Committee of the Whole meeting could be planned on Monday, April 15th, 2019 in place of the April 16th, 2019 meeting. 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: N/A ATTACHMENTS: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION: That Council move the Committee of the Whole Meeting date from Tuesday, April 16th, 2019 to Monday, April 15th, 2019. COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Approve meeting date 2. Amend meeting date MOTION: That Council move the Committee of the Whole Meeting date from Tuesday, April 16th, 2019 to Monday, April 15th, 2019. Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil Reviewed By: Peter Tarnawsky Approved By: Peter Tarnawsky Executive Assistant Interim Chief Administrative Officer Interim Chief Administrative Officer Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Directors of CF Wild Rose, February 6, 2018 Page | 1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE DIRECTORS OF COMMUNITY FUTURES WILD ROSE HELD February 7, 2019 @ 7:00 PM Community Futures Wild Rose Office, Strathmore, AB Name Position Present Absent Vanessa Van der Meer Chair - Linden x Corey Fisher Vice-Chair - Hussar x Tari Cockx Secretary Treasurer - Strathmore x Lucy Ann Daubert Director - Acme x Lynn MacWilliam Director – Bassano x Karen Ursu Director – Beiseker x Bryan Peever Director - Carbon x Wade Christie Director – Kneehill County x Joe Pedersen Director – Standard x Cheryl Lumley Director – Trochu x Amber Link Director – Wheatland County x Frank Friesen Director – Irricana x Michelle Young Director - Chestermere x Dalia Cheshire Director - Rockyford x Tim Shearlaw Director – Three Hills x Staff David Petrovich General Manager x Pat Grabo Business Analyst x Wendy Gerbrandt CED Project Lead x Chantale Hache Business Analyst x 1. Call to Order The regular meeting of the Community Futures Wild Rose was called to order by Vanessa Van der Meer at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Agenda a) Additions/Changes: 6 (b) CFNA Update added 5 (a) 2019-20 Operations and Budget moved to In -camera 5 (c) CF Big Country Loans moved to In-camera 01-02-2019 Joe Pedersen moved approval of the agenda as amended. CARRIED 3. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes b) Regular Meeting Minutes – January 3, 2019 02-02-2019 Corey Fisher moved approval of the Regular Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2019 CARRIED 4. Reports: a) Financial Variance Reports – November 2018 03-02-2019 Frank Friesen moved approval of the November 2018 variance reports. CARRIED Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Directors of CF Wild Rose, February 6, 2018 Page | 2 5. Business: a) Operations Plan and Budget (David) (moved to in-camera) b) Strategic Planning (David) Provided an update on the strategic plan that began in 2018 with AB Culture and Tourism. David will create a draft strategic plan and distribute by email to the Board for review. His hope is to have the plan prepared for approval by the April Board meeting. c) CF Big Country Loans (David) – moved to in-camera d) Requests for Strategic Planning Services (Wendy) Wendy provided an update on the large number of Strategic Planning requests received from community organizations this fiscal. There have been 12 requests in total. The WD/CFWR target is two (2) plans annually, this year we are on track for 8 plans. Wendy had a discussion with AB’s Community Services department as they have also received many requests. They are working on a strategy where our two organizations can work together to create criteria to determine which organizations are in a greater need of planning support to ensure the communities that need it most are benefited. The concept of building capacity of the service groups by providing a strategic planning toolkit and facilitation training could be a remedy to deal with the large number of requests for strategic planning services. Wendy will reconnect with Community Services to determine if the needs assessment survey and toolkit are complete. Wendy thanked the Board for promoting CFWR’s services. e) Working Capital Loan Program (David) One month ago, a Working Capital Loan Brochure had been distributed amongst municipalities, organizations, social media, and placed on the website. As a result of this loan initiative, over $300,000 in loans have been dispersed. David thanked Chantale and Wendy for a job well done in promoting the loan program and dispersing the funds quickly to our clients. f) Monthly Loan Report with Arrears (Chantale) Chantale reported there is one non-performing loan which will likely never be paid. There was one loan in arrears in January but the client is back on track and CFWR extended the term of the loan by one month (at the owner’s request). All remaining loans are on track. This year, 18 loans have been dispersed for a total $716,000 and are at 118% of WD’s loan target. This month two loans issued were in alignment with WD’s target of women and youth. 6. Updates a) Agri-tourism Initiative CFWR Region (Wendy) Wendy provided an update on the initiative. The phase 1 draft report has been received and we are reviewing this internally. This will also be distributed to the advisory group for review and feedback before being distributed to the shareholders. The goal is to have this distributed to the shareholders by February 25th. The week of February 25th will mark the start of phase 2 of the project: the industry interviews. Key outcomes include a well-developed definition of agri-tourism as well as a better understanding of the consumer market utilizing EQ traveler classifications. More will follow as this draft report is finalized. b) CFNA Update (Lynn) Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Directors of CF Wild Rose, February 6, 2018 Page | 3 Lynn provided an update from the CFNA board meeting: • CF offices being able to communicate in French has been recognized as an important aspect of our service. Phyllis Mackie has some resources to support offices lacking this capability; • CFNA is now completely virtual office; • There is certain training being offered by CFNA that is at no cost to CF’s; • CFLIP – an investment review is seen as valuable. Cost of the review is $15,000. CFNA is beginning to rethink CFLIP as they want to diversify as opposed to everything being invested in the stock market; GIC’s or cash investments. • A meeting of Chairs will occur at all symposiums as will a manager meeting; • Loans - if CFs have little to no write-offs CFs are not taking enough risk on the loans. CFWR is 1.6% which is extremely low. 3-5% in loan write offs is considered reasonable; • BDC came in to speak to CFNA and they have 3.6% of the market share in Alberta. Their priorities are women and youth and even provide boot camps for women entrepreneurs. BDC and CF should forward loans to each other when they are incapable of writing the loans themselves. There are 13 BDC offices in AB but primarily in urban centers. CFNA is considering joint BA training with BDC and working collaboratively on a training program. Chantale added that our office has a good cross referral agreement as of recently with BDC. Partnerships with ATB and Chinook are also strong; • BC provides CF’s with legal training; • Indigenous Funding – there is only one account manager for all of Alberta with CF Treaty 7 and there needs to be increased capacity. Possibilities are being examined; and, • The EDA conference occurs this April. CF wants an increased presence at the conference. CFNA will sponsor a coffee break to promote ourselves. Phyllis and Nancy will be at EDA conference to support the promotions. 7. Other Business: none 8. In Camera: Frank Friesen moved to bring the meeting in camera at 7:40 pm Joe Pederson moved to bring the meeting out of camera into the Regular meeting at 8:22 pm Following the In-Camera meetings the following was discussed The Board decided that CFWR will not support CFBC with their loan assessments/recommendations due to the very high volume of work that CFWR staff is already engaged in. The Human Resources Policies and Procedures Manual underwent one revision prior to be recommended to the Board. Where reference was made to FOIP guiding confidentiality and privacy, the wording was changed to “in accordance with the applicable privacy and confidentiality legislation” as per legal advice. With the one revision, the Personnel/Management Committee recommended the Manual to the Board. . Following the in-camera discussions, the Board discussed the 2019-20 Operating Plan and Budget. It was discussed and recognized that expenses will increase this year to deal with the change in strategic direction the Board is supporting. These changes will result in the Board requiring a greater Investment Fund Interest Transfer than $50,000 later in the budget year. Some of the highlights of the expense increases were as follows: a. Travel Expenses – CFWR’s loan portfolio will benefit from having staff increase travel throughout our region because for three years there have been consistently fewer loans being advanced: we need to reverse this trend. To reverse the trend, we need to increase staff travel throughout the CFWR region building relationships and meeting potential clients. b. Legal/Accounting – revisions to the legal loan documents are required. c. Advertising/Promotion – More travel throughout our region should reverse the loan advance downward trend but is more effective if combined with greater advertising/promotion. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Directors of CF Wild Rose, February 6, 2018 Page | 4 d. Insurance - It was pointed out we have a gap in our insurance coverage because we don’t have Contingent Coverage. Lacking this coverage means that if there was external damage to our office that was not covered by the Condo Corporation we would not be covered. In addition to Contingent Coverage the cost of insuring our satellite office is $250/ year. Finally, it would be prudent for us to insure our cloud storage to ensure we are compensated if we need to recover lost data. e. Staff Training – with new staff and a new General Manager it is prudent that we increase training. f. Three Hills Satellite Office – The Board approved this rental expense in 2018. g. Janitorial/Carpet Cleaning – the cost of Janitorial services increased as we had not had an increase in many years. h. Wages – wages are lower than last year due to new staff being added. Budgeted wages incorporate hiring a STEP student and staff wage increases. i. CPP Expense – This will increase as there is one more contributor than last year and the rate has increased. j. Community Development Project – This is budgeted to increase as per the Board strategic planning session where it was noted that we need to increase our CED activity. k. GST Expense – We expect a small increase in this expense. l. Staff Benefit Expense – This is the health/dental/healthcare benefits. This has increased based on an increase in the number of people added to the benefit plan (which includes dependents/spouses), and a likely rate increase. m. RRSPs- More staff contributing to RRSPs. n. Computer Software -This will increase for two reasons. The first is the cost to switch to Microsoft 365 Premium (MS 365). Many, if not most, offices are switching to MS 365 because of greater information security (cloud based data storage and bulletproof firewall support), elimination of a costly networking system, ability to work from home or while a conferences/meetings, and the ability to share information and calendars between staff no matter where they are located. The second cost will come from updating our loan legal files and placing them in TEA. This is primarily a one-time cost and CFNA may subsidize the conversion (we are unsure if they will reimburse us so have to budget appropriately). CFNA wants to roll out our initiative to all CF’s because of the ease of keeping the legal files up-to-date and the time saving associated with entering data once versus multiple times. 04-02-2019 Michelle Young moved to accept the 2019/20 Operating Plan and Budget as presented. CARRIED 05-02-2019 Dalia Cheshire moved to accept the Human Resources Policies & Procedures Manual dated February 8, 2019. CARRIED (12 in favour, 1 not in favour) 9. Date of Next Meeting: April 4, 2019 7:00 p.m. Community Futures Wild Rose Office. It was agreed that due to conflicting events a March Board meeting will not occur. 10. Adjournment: Meeting adjourned by Vanessa Van der Meer at 9:03 pm. Signed Chairman Signed Vice-Chairman Document Last Updated April 15, 2014 REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 11.0 SUBJECT: Council Follow-Up Action List MEETING DATE: 2019-03-12 PRESENTED BY: Peter Tarnawsky, Interim 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: March 12, 2019 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 March 12, 2019 Council Follow-Up Action List as presented. Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil Approved By: Peter Tarnawsky Reviewed By: Peter Tarnawsky Executive Assistant Interim Chief Administrative Officer Interim Chief Administrative Officer Meeting Date Motion #Description/Motion Action Required Assigned To Due Date Status 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 10/23/2018 - ORG 394/18 Councillor King moved to direct administration to advertise for a second Member at Large. (This is for MPC)Refer to Motion #53-19 13-Nov-18 430/18 Councillor Penner moved to defer logo selection until after the 2019 Strategic Planning and Visioning Session. 12-Feb-19 30/19 Reeve Wittstock moved to refer this agenda item until the February 26, 2019 Council meeting.COMPLETED 12-Feb-19 50/19 Councillor Penner moved that Council endorse the 75th Anniversary Initiative as presented. 12-Feb-19 53/19 Councillor King moved to continue advertising for the position of Municipal Planning Commission Member at Large. 12-Feb-19 64/19 Councillor King moved to direct administration to continue to actively pursue ICF negotiations with the Town of Three Hills, Villages of Linden, Acme and Carbon and the Town of Drumheller. 26-Feb-19 68/19 Councillor Keiver moved first reading of proposed Bylaw #1786.COMPLETED 26-Feb-19 69/19 Councillor Christie moved to schedule the Public Hearing for March 26, 2019 at 10:00 am for the purposes of amending Land Use Bylaw #1773 for the redesignation of a portion of the SW-13-34-24-W4 from the Agriculture District to the Industrial District. On the March 26, 2019 Agenda 26-Feb-19 70/19 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved to accept the Occupational Health and Safety External Audit 2018 and report as information.COMPLETED 26-Feb-19 71/19 Councillor Christie moved to approve the 2018 capital/project expenditure report as of February 8, 2019.COMPLETED 26-Feb-19 72/19 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved to approve the amendments to Financial Policy 16-20, Utility Billing, as recommended.COMPLETED 26-Feb-19 73/19 Councillor King moved to direct administration to transfer the tax forfeiture property, Plan 8010154, Block 2, to Kneehill County as the owner, pursuant to the guidelines set out in the Municipal Government Act and as per Policy #16-16, Sale of Properties; and direct administration to undertake further exploration regarding the property at Plan 9710935, Block A, prior to any decision to acquire.COMPLETED 26-Feb-19 74/19 Councillor Christie moved to approve Option 1, proceed with using insurance funds to purchase a replacement engine for the 2007 Freightliner Engine 61 in 2019, and the remaining funds to transfer from the Capital Equipment Reserve in the 2020 Budget.COMPLETED 26-Feb-19 75/19 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved to direct administration to ensure the new fire trucks have a Kneehill County primary decal and secondary decals placed on them from the local fire station. COMPLETED Council Action Items Meeting Date Motion #Description/Motion Action Required Assigned To Due Date Status Council Action Items 26-Feb-19 76/19 Councillor King moved to approve sponsoring a full page ad worth $400 and approve the Reeve or designate attendance at the opening ceremonies on March 15, 2019 at the Trochu Arena.COMPLETED 26-Feb-19 77/19 Councillor Penner moved to cancel the Committee of the Whole Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 5, 2019.COMPLETED