HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020.08.18 Adopted Council PackageCOUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
1600-2nd Street NE
Three Hills, AB
T0M 2A0
August 18, 2020
8:30 a.m.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
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 July 21, 2020
3.0 Delegations
No Delegations scheduled for this meeting.
4.0 Public Hearings
4.1 Bylaw 1823, Horseshoe Canyon Road Closure @10:00 a.m.
5.0 Transportation
5.1 Policy #3-10, Mail Boxes
5.2 Policy #13-24-1, Sanding Material
5.3 Policy #13-27, Services to Other Municipalities
5.4 STIP Bridge Funding
6.0 Community Services
6.1 Planning
No Report
6.2 Water/Wastewater/Environment
6.2.1 Village of Linden Request for Financial Assistance with Pumphouse Roof
Repairs
6.3 Agricultural Service Board & Parks
No Report
6.4 Protective Services
No Report
7.0 Corporate Services
7.1 Bylaw 1824, Electronic Transmission of Documents Bylaw
8.0 Business Arising from Previous Minutes
8.1
1 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
August 18, 2020Council Meeting Agenda
Page 2 of 2
9.0 New Business
9.1 Three Hills Victim Services Request Letter of Support
9.2 Highway 21 Corridor Crime Watch Association Request
9.3 Assessment Model Review
10.0 Disposition of Delegation & Public Hearing Business
No Report
11.0 Council and Committee Reports
11.1 Kneehill Community Resource Program Final Report
11.2 Canadian Badlands Ltd.
12.0 Council Follow-up Action List
13.0 Closed Session
13.1 Land (Section 25, FOIPP)
13.2 Land (Section 25, FOIPP)
14.0 Motions from Closed Session
Adjournment
2 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
1
________
Initials
MINUTES OF THE JULY 21, 2020 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:
Chief Administrative Officer Mike Haugen
Director Community Services Laurie Watt
Director Corporate Services Bill McKennan
Director of Transportation Brad Buchert
Manager of ASB and Parks Bowen Clausen
Manager of Planning and Development Barb Hazelton
Recording Secretary Carolyn Van der Kuil
CALL TO ORDER Reeve Wittstock in the Chair
Reeve Wittstock called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
AGENDA 1.0 Agenda
1.1 Additions to the Agenda
Additions under Closed Session
13.2 Intergovernmental Relations (FOIP, Section 21)
Additions under New Business
9.6 County Office Green Space
ADOPTION OF
AGENDA 1.2 Adoption of Agenda
295/2020 Councillor Penner moved approval of the agenda as
presented/amended.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
3 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
COUNCIL MINUTES OF JULY 21, 2020
2
_________
Initials
MINUTES 2.0 Minutes
2.1 Regular Council Meeting Minutes of June 23rd, 2020
296/2020 Councillor King moved approval of the June 23rd, 2020 Council
Meeting minutes as presented.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
TRANSPORTATION 5.0 Transportation
5.1 Cost Sharing for the Development of Undeveloped Road
Allowance Township Road 29-3A
297/2020 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council approve 50% cost sharing
with owner/developer Dave and Ruth Stewart in the amount of
$7,248.10 for the development of the undeveloped road allowance
Township Road 29-3A to access a sub-divided parcel situated out of
NE18-29-23-W4M, with funds coming from the Operating Budget.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
5.2 Policy #13-6-7, Gravel Stock Pile Leases
298/2020 Councillor King moved that Council approve as presented, Policy #13-
6-7, Gravel Stock Pile Leases.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
5.3 Policy #13-23-4, Sale, Lease or Rental of County Road
Allowances
299/2020 Councillor Keiver moved that Council approve as presented, Policy
#13-23-4, Sale, Lease or Rental of County Road Allowances.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
5.4 Policy #13-25, Seeding Roadsides
300/2020 Councillor Christie moved that Council approve as presented, Policy
#13-25, Seeding Roadsides.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
COMMUNITY
SERVICES 6.0 Community Services
PLANNING 6.1Planning
6.1.1 Draft Land Use Bylaw 1808
301/2020 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council move to set a Public
Hearing for Land Use Bylaw 1808, to be held on September 8, 2020 at
10:00 a.m., as per Section 692(1)(e) of the Municipal Government Act.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
4 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
COUNCIL MINUTES OF JULY 21, 2020
3
_________
Initials
6.1.2 Road Closure at Horseshoe Canyon
302/2020 Councillor Christie moved that Council move first reading of Bylaw
1823 to pursue the road closure and consolidation of a portion of
Township Road 28-4, which is an undeveloped road allowance
adjacent to the south end of Horseshoe Canyon (more specifically the
SW-27-28-21-W4), and road plan 834 LK into descriptive plan 091
0342, Block 1, Lot 2.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
303/2020 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council set a public hearing for
August 18, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. as per Section 22 of the Municipal
Government Act.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
ASB & PARKS 6.3 Agricultural Service Board & Parks
6.3.1 Horseshoe Canyon Focus Group
304/2020 Councillor Penner moved that Council approve the Terms of Reference
for Horseshoe Canyon Focus Group, as presented.
CARRIED
PROTECTIVE SERV 6.4 Protective Services
6.4.1 Kneehill Regional Emergency Management Agency Update
305/2020 Councillor King moved that Council accepts the Kneehill Regional
Emergency Management Agency report for information as presented.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The Chair called for a recess at 9:12 a.m. and called the meeting back
to order at 9:32 a.m. with all previously mentioned members present.
CORPORATE SERV 7.0 Corporate Services
7.1 2020 Public Auction Tax Sale Date
306/2020 Councillor King moved that the 2020 Tax Sale Public Auction be held
on Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. in the Kneehill County
Administration Building.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
5 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
COUNCIL MINUTES OF JULY 21, 2020
4
_________
Initials
7.2 Tax Cancellation- Trident Exploration
307/2020 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that the balance of 2018 & 2019
property taxes in arrears in the amount of $219,274.66 be expensed and
cancelled on rolls 30220531300, 31250331100, 31252010100,
31253031400, 31253040900, 31253231300, 32261210700,
32261920500, 32261941500, 32262831300, 32262841600,
32263010200, 32263020400, 32272410800, 32272431300,
32272431600, 33262810200, 33272410100, 34223431400,
34223241600, 34223031300, 34221631400, 34222010800,
34222210800, 34222810200, 34230410700, 34231120600,
34232320400, 33272441600, and 32250610200.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
308/2020 Councillor King moved that administration submit an application under
the Provincial Education Requisition Credit (PERC) for the
uncollectable Education Requisition and the uncollectable Designated
Industrial Property Requisition on these Oil & Gas Properties.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
309/2020 Councillor Christie moved that administration is directed to void any
2020 penalties currently attached to these rolls.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
7.3 Tax Cancellation- Industrial Accounts
310/2020 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that the amount of $577,991.76 in
property taxes be expensed and cancelled on rolls 40001620000,
40001010000, 29251041000, 30231141500, 31231231100,
32232410800, 32232420600, 33242220400, and 40001030000.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
311/2020 Councillor Penner moved that administration submit an application
under the Provincial Education Requisition Credit (PERC)for the
uncollectable Education Requisition and the uncollectable Designated
Industrial Property Requisition on these Oil & Gas Properties.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
312/2020 Councillor King moved that administration is directed to void any 2020
penalties currently attached to these rolls.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
7.4 Quarterly Financial Reporting
313/2020 Councillor King moved that Council receive the Quarterly Financial
Reporting for the Period ending June 30, 2020 for information.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
6 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
COUNCIL MINUTES OF JULY 21, 2020
5
_________
Initials
NEW BUSINESS 9.0 New Business
9.1 Policy #3-11, Legal Costs
314/2020 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council approve Policy #3-11,
Legal Costs, as presented.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
9.2 Policy #3-2, Chief Elected Official Known as Reeve
315/2020 Councillor Penner moved that Council approve Policy #3-2, Title of
Chief Elected Officer, as presented.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
9.3 Policy #3-3, Boards and Committees
316/2020 Councillor King moved that Council rescind Policy #3-3, Boards and
Committees.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
9.4 Policy #15-2, Award Recognition and Congratulatory
Presentations
317/2020 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council approve Policy #15-2,
Special Occasion and Milestone Recognition, as presented.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
9.5 Royal Canadian Legion Military Service Recognition Book
318/2020 Councillor Penner moved that Council provide support to the Annual
Alberta/Northwest Territory Royal Canadian Legion “Military Service
Recognition Book” with the purchase of a business card size
advertisement at a cost of $285.00 with funds to come from the
Operating Budget.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
9.6 County Office Green Space
319/2020 Councillor Keiver moved that Council direct Administration to work
with local groups for the purpose of utilizing the area behind the
County Office for community benefit.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
COUNCIL REPORTS 11.0 Council and Committee Reports
11.1 Community Futures Wildrose- Minutes from the June 4, 2020
meeting were provided.
320/2020 Councillor Christie moved that Council receive the Council and
Committee reports as presented.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
7 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
COUNCIL MINUTES OF JULY 21, 2020
6
_________
Initials
COUNCIL ACT LIST 12.0 Council Follow-Up Action List
321/2020 Councillor King moved that Council receive the July 21, 2020 Council
Follow-Up Action List as presented for information.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The Chair called for a recess at 10:48 a.m. and called the meeting back
to order at 10:57 a.m. with all previously mentioned members present.
CLOSED SESSION 13.0 Closed Session
322/2020 Councillor Christie moved that Council convene in Closed Session to
discuss disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party pursuant
to Section 25 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy
Act and Intergovernmental Relations pursuant to Section 21 of the
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, at 10:57 a.m.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The following people were in attendance of the Closed Session to
provide a report and advise Council:
Mike Haugen, CAO
Laurie Watt, Director of Municipal Services
Bill McKennan, Director of Corporate Services
Barb Hazelton, Manager of Planning and Development
Carolyn Van der Kuil, Recording Secretary
323/2020 Councillor King moved that Council return to open meeting at
12:24 p.m.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
12:25p.m. – meeting recessed to allow return of public.
12:25 p.m. - meeting resumed.
ADJOURNMENT Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m.
________________________
Jerry Wittstock
Reeve
_______________________
Mike Haugen
CA
8 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Public Hearing Report AGENDA ITEM #
4.1
Page 1 of 1
Version: 2019-01
Subject: Horseshoe Canyon Road Closure
Meeting Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2020
Presented By: Brandy Morgan, Development Officer
Link to Strat Plan: Pursuing Focused Growth
Background/
Proposal
Currently Kneehill County holds a 3.56-acre title to an area directly south of
Horseshoe Canyon that has been fragmented by road plan 834 LK. This parcel
contains portions of the parking lot and a small portion of the canyon itself. The
existing outhouses are on the boundary of the road allowance. The portion of the
undeveloped township road runs through the parking lot, the turn around, a portion
of the canyon and some of the enhanced trail down to the base.
Administration is proposing that this portion of Twp. Rd 28-4 be closed and
consolidated into descriptive plan 091 0342, Block 1, Lot 2 that was created
following the realignment of the highway. We are also proposing to close road plan
834 LK which completely fragments the current title. This will also be consolidated
into descriptive plan 091 0342, Block 1, Lot 2.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
In 2007, highway 9 was realigned and Alberta Transportation gifted us this parcel.
Outhouses were added in 2008, and the parking lot was paved in 2010. Since we
do not own the roads, we do not actually own some of the infrastructure that has
been developed over time on the site. Closing these roads and consolidating them
into the existing plan would enable the land to be utilized more efficiently and the
outhouses could be moved or new ones constructed more feasibly. Currently they
are not in compliance with the setback requirements in the Land Use bylaw.
Consolidating these additional lands would bring the parcel size to approximately
7.5-acres. A Real Property Report will not be required for this property.
Director Approval:
Laurie Watt, Director of Community
Services
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
9 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
BYLAW NO 1823
ROAD CLOSURE BYLAW – HORSESHOE CANYON
BEING A BYLAW OF THE COUNCIL OF KNEEHILL COUNTY, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CLOSING TO PUBLIC TRAVEL AND CREATING TITLE TO PORTIONS OF A PUBLIC HIGHWAY
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22 OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT, CHAPTER M26.1, REVISED
STATUTUES OF ALBERTA 2000, AS AMENDED
WHEREAS the lands hereafter described are no longer required for public travel, and
WHEREAS application has been made to Council to have the highway closed, and
WHEREAS the Council of Kneehill County deems it expedient to provide for a bylaw for the purpose of
closing to public travel certain roads, or portions thereof, situated in the said municipality, and therefore
disposing of same, and
WHEREAS notice of the intention of Council to pass a bylaw has been given in accordance with Section
606 of the Municipal Government Act, and
WHEREAS Council was not petitioned for an opportunity to be heard by any person claiming to be
prejudicially affected by the bylaw
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of Kneehill County, in the Province of Alberta does
hereby close to public travel for the purpose of creating title to the following described road allowances,
subject to right of access granted by other legislation:
1. The description for the Road Closure for the portion of Government Allowance along the North
Boundary of the NW 22 Twp 28-21-4 as shown outline in red in the Horseshoe Canyon sketch is
as follows:
“All those portions of the original Government Road Allowance adjacent to the North boundary
of the North West quarter Section 22, Township 28, Range 21m West if the fourth Meridian lying
within the Easterly 366.60 metres of the Westerly 420.67 metres. Containing 0.738 hectares
(1.82 acres) more or less”
2. The description for the Road Closure for Road Plan 834 LK is as follows:
All of Road Plan 834 LK within Northwest quarter section 22, township 28, range 21, West of the
fourth meridian containing 1.57 acres more or less.
10 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Excepting Thereout all Mines and Minerals
READ a first time on this 21st day of July, 2020.
PUBLIC HEARING held on the 18th day of August, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.
READ a second time on this _____ day of ______, 2020.
READ a third time and final time of this _____ day of ______________, 2020.
Reeve
Jerry Wittstock
Date Bylaw Signed
Chief Administrative Officer
Mike Haugen
11 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
5.1
Page 1 of 1
Version: 2020-02
Subject: Policy #13-10, Mail Boxes
Meeting Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2020
Prepared By: Kylie Van der Kuil, Transportation Administrative Assistant
Presented By: Brad Buchert, Director of Transportation
Link to Strat Plan: Ensuring Communications & Engagement
Recommended
Motion:
That Council approve Policy #13-10, Mail Boxes as presented.
Background/
Proposal
As part of Council’s ongoing review of current policies and in particular policies that
have not been reviewed for a period of time exceeding four years, Policy #13-10 is
presented for Council review.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
Administration is proposing to update the formatting of Policy #13-10, Mail Boxes
with no other amendments made.
Financial
Implications:
Council Options:
1. That Council approve policy as presented.
2. That Council approve policy as amended.
3. That Council direct administration to provide further information.
4. That Council receives for information.
Recommended
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-
Attachments:
Policy #13-10, Mail Boxes
Follow-up
Actions:
Director Approval:
Brad Buchert, Director of Transportation
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
12 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
POLICY
Section Policy No. Page
TRANSPORTATION 13-10 1 of 1
Policy Title Date: Motion No.
Mail Boxes 34T34T 34T34T
Purpose:
To establish guidelines for mail box replacement responsibility.
Policy Guidelines:
The County will not accept responsibility for destruction of any mail boxes. The County will, if necessary to
complete a road construction project, remove and reinstall a mail box located along the right hand side of the
road according to the courier's line of travel in such a position that the mailbox does not extend over the
shoulder of the road.
For safety concerns, mailboxes and posts must be constructed of materials light enough to minimize damage
and hazard if struck by a vehicle.
Jerry Wittstock,
Reeve
Mike Haugen,
CAO
Approved:
Review Date: Date four years from last approval date
13 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
14 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
5.2
Page 1 of 1
Version: 2020-02
Subject: Policy #13-24-1, Sanding Material
Meeting Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2020
Prepared By: Kylie Van der Kuil, Transportation Administrative Assistant
Presented By: Brad Buchert, Director of Transportation
Link to Strat Plan: Ensuring Communications & Engagement
Recommended
Motion:
That Council rescinds Policy #13-24-1, Sanding Material.
Background/
Proposal
As part of Council’s ongoing review of current policies and in particular policies that
have not been reviewed for a period of time exceeding four years, Policy #13-24-1
is presented for Council review.
Administration recommends Deleting the Policy # 13-24-1 as the policy is reflected
within the Master Rates Bylaw and Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework related
agreements.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
Proposing to rescind Policy # 13-24-1, would allow having only two documents
Master Rates Bylaw, and Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework related
agreements outlining the guidelines and standards for Sanding Material.
Financial
Implications:
Council Options:
1. That Council approve policy as presented.
2. That Council approve policy as amended.
3. That Council direct administration to provide further information.
4. That Council receives for information
Recommended
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-
Attachments: Policy # 13-24-1, Sanding Material.
Follow-up
Actions:
Director Approval:
Brad Buchert, Director of Transportation
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
15 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
KNEEHILL
COUNTY
SECTION: Transportation – Section
13 – Sanding POLICY TITLE: Sanding Material
Not to be Sold POLICY NUMBER: 13-24-1
POLICY GUIDELINES:
1. The sand and salt mixture may be sold, on a cost recovery basis, to
neighbouring municipalities, with the transportation of such being
the responsibility of the purchaser.
2. The sand and salt mixture is not to be sold to private individuals or
anyone else
(business or otherwise) requesting same.
Approval Date Approved b y:
Amendment Date April 25/02 Regular Council Policy Review
Committee
Amendment Date Nov 29/11 Regular Council Motion #578/11
Amendment Date
16 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
5.3
Page 1 of 1
Version: 2020-02
Subject: Policy #13-27, Services to Other Municipalities
Meeting Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2020
Prepared By: Kylie Van der Kuil, Transportation Administrative Assistant
Presented By: Brad Buchert, Director of Transportation
Link to Strat Plan: Level of Service
Recommended
Motion:
That Council rescind Policy #13-27, Services to Other Jurisdictions.
Background/
Proposal
As part of Council’s ongoing review of current policies and in particular policies that
have not been reviewed for a period of time exceeding four years, Policy #13-27 is
presented for Council review.
Administration recommends rescinding the Policy # 13-27 as the policy is reflected
within the Master Rates Bylaw and Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework related
agreements.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
Proposing to rescind Policy # 13-27 would allow having only two documents -
Master Rates Bylaw, and Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework related
agreements, outlining the guidelines and standards for Services to Other
Jurisdictions.
Financial
Implications:
Council Options:
1. That Council approve policy as presented.
2. That Council approve policy as amended.
3. That Council direct administration to provide further information.
4. That Council receives for information.
Recommended
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-
Attachments:
Policy # 13-27, Services to Other Jurisdictions.
Follow-up
Actions:
Director Approval:
Brad Buchert, Director of Transportation
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
17 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
TITLE: SERVICES TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Category: Transportation Policies
No. 13-27
AUTHORITY: Council at 2002 Policy Review Committee DATE: April 25,
2002
REPLACES: DATE:
Further References:
August 12/97)
Any jurisdictions requesting services from the County shall enter into a Hold Harmless
Agreement with the municipality. This Hold Harmless Agreement shall indemnify the County
from any liabilities, damages, claims, actions and costs of any nature or kind whatsoever for
which the County may become liable or which the County may suffer or incur arising in any
way out of the work or service provided to the jurisdiction by the County.
18 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
5.4
Page 1 of 2
Version: 2020-02
Subject: STIP Bridge Funding
Meeting Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2020
Prepared By: Kylie Van der Kuil, Transportation Administrative Assistant
Presented By: Brad Buchert, Director of Transportation
Link to Strat Plan: Improving Fiscal Sustainability
Recommended
Motion:
That Council authorizes a budget amendment in the amount of $3,225,000 to
replace BF70376, BF76459, BF6948, and BF1082; to be funded through provincial
STIP grant of $2,418,750 and the County’s share of $806,250 being funded from
the Bridge Reserve.
Background/
Proposal
On June 29th, Kneehill County received notification that we had been awarded
funding up to $2,418,750, which would be a 75% cost share for Bridge Projects
under the Local Road Bridge component of Alberta Transportations Strategic
Transportation Infrastructure Program (STIP).
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
Currently Kneehill County has $2,520,695 in Bridge reserves. Administration is
proposing to allocate an additional $806,250 for two bridge culvert replacements
(BF76459, BF6948) and two bridge structure replacements (BF70376, BF1082).
The proposed replacements will increase the total life life-span of the two bridge
structures and two culvert structures, as well reduce the overall life-time cost.
The following chart outlines information regarding the proposed bridge
replacements:
Bridge Location Division Description
BF70376
SE-03-30-25-W4
Div 3 Bridge
Replacement
Located on Rge Rd 25-2, 3.5km
North of Hwy 575.
BF76459
SE-17-30-24-W4
Div 2 Culvert
Replacement
Located on Twp Rd 30-2, 245m West
from Rge Rd 24-4
BF6948
SE-01-30-25-W4
Div 2 Culvert
Replacement
Located on Twp Rd 30-0, West of
Rge Rd 25-0.
BF1082
NE-36-32-23-W4
Div 7 Bridge
Replacement
Located on Rge Rd 25-2, 3.5kms,
North of Hwy 575.
19 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
5.4
Page 2 of 2
Version: 2020-01
The available STIP funding, and associated County portion:
Bridge Available STIP
Funding
Maximum County
Funds Total Budget
BF70376 $ 975,000 $ 325,000 $ 1,300,000
BF76459 $ 206,250 $ 68,750 $ 275,000
BF6948 $ 262,500 $ 87,500 $ 350,000
BF1082 $ 975,000 $ 325,000 $ 1,300,000
Total $ 2,418,750 $ 806,250 $ 3,225,000
Financial
Implications:
Funding from the Bridge Reserves of $806,250 for two bridge culvert replacements
and two bridge structure replacements. The current balance in the reserve of
$2,520,695 would be reduce to $1,714,445.
With the cost share of $2,418,700 or 75% from the Alberta Transportations
Strategic Transportation Infrastructure Program (STIP).
Council Options:
1. That Council authorizes a budget amendment in the amount of $3,3225,000
to replace BF70376, BF76459, BF6948, and BF1082; to be funded through
provincial STIP grant of $2,418,750 and the County’s share of $806,250
being funded from the Bridge Reserve.
2. That Council Receives as information and not fund the cost share for the
two bridge culvert replacements and two bridge structure replacements.
3. That Council direct administration to provide further information.
Recommended
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-
Attachments:
• June 29th, 2020 Alberta Transportation Letter.
Follow-up
Actions:
Director Approval:
Brad Buchert, Director of Transportation
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
20 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
21 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
22 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
6.2.1
Page 1 of 2
Version: 2020-02
Subject: Village of Linden Request for Financial Assistance with Pumphouse Roof
Repairs
Meeting Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2020
Prepared By: John McKiernan, Manager of Environmental Services
Presented By: John McKiernan, Manager of Environmental Services
Link to Strat Plan: Providing Good Governance
Recommended
Motion:
Council approve a contribution of 50% up to a maximum of $7000.00 to be used
towards the roof replacement of the Village of Linden Pumphouse and Reservoir,
with the funds coming from the Operating Budget.
Background/
Proposal
The Village of Linden is requesting Kneehill County to help with the costs to repair
the roof at the Linden Pumphouse and Reservoir.
The roof began to leak quite badly in the Spring and with the constant rains it has
gotten worse. It is currently a flat roof and Linden is proposing to repair with a
trussed/peak roof over the existing flat roof and the roof will be finished with tin. The
Village of Linden is planning on construction of the roof in late August or early
September
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
Kneehill County occupies a portion of the building with our own entrance as part of
the Sunnyslope water system. The County does not pay rent for our portion of the
building.
Continued deterioration of the roof could affect the building as a whole and repairs
made at this time could prevent major damage later.
Financial
Implications:
Funds would come from 2020 operating budget which currently contains enough
room under “Major Maintenance” to fund this request.
Council Options:
1. Council approve a contribution of 50% up to a maximum of $7000.00 to be
used towards the roof replacement of the Village of Linden Pumphouse and
Reservoir, with the funds coming from the Operating Budget.
2. Council approve an alternate contribution amount.
3. Receive the request for assistance from the Village of Linden as
information.
Recommended
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-
23 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
6.2.1
Page 2 of 2
Version: 2020-01
Attachments: None
Follow-up
Actions:
Staff will advise the Village of Linden of Council’s request.
Director Approval: Laurie Watt, Director
Community Services
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
24 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
7.1
Page 1 of 3
Version: 2020-02
Subject: Electronic Transmission of Documents Bylaw
Meeting Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2020
Prepared By: Caroline Siverson, Tax & Assessment/Utilities Administrator
Presented By: Bill McKennan, Director of Corporate Services
Link to Strat Plan: Level of Service
Recommended
Motion:
1. That Council give first reading to Bylaw #1824 that being a bylaw for the
Electronic Transmission of Documents
2. That administration is directed to advertise this Bylaw as per the Advertising
guidelines in Advertising Bylaw #1772 and bring back all feedback to
Council at the September 22, 2020 meeting.
Background/
Proposal
The Municipal Government Act was amended January 1, 2019 and has now
allowed municipalities to forward their tax notices by electronic transmission. This
can be an option for customers and has the same structure and regulations as the
mailed copy. The ability of the County to send tax notices electronically is already
possible within our current programs and this request is for the necessary Bylaw to
be put in place by Council.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
Section 608 of the MGA indicates that a Bylaw must be passed that will allow a
document to be sent by electronic means if (a) the recipient has consented to
receive documents from the sender by those electronic means and has provided an
e-mail address, website or other electronic address to the sender for that purpose,
and (b) it is possible to make a copy of the document from the electronic
transmission.
The County systems are set up to send notices to our customers electronically. We
are already doing this with our utility billings and very shortly, our Accounts
Receivable billings. The notice is sent as a PDF attachment to the customers’ email
account. We have had no issues with the utility billings and it has been working for
the last couple of years. As new accounts are added or new customers come into
the County, the uptake on the request for emailed bills is increasing.
There is the requirement in the MGA that customers wishing to receive their tax
notices by email instead of mail will be required to provide authorization to us and
this authorization has been created and is attached for your review.
We have included all documents relating to taxation, utilities and accounts
receivable in this bylaw to ensure that we are in compliance now and in the future.
This would not be a mandatory expectation for our ratepayers but an option for
those wishing to receive their bills electronically.
During the current situation in the world regarding the pandemic, it has become
apparent that the ability for business to deal with customers efficiently and
25 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
7.1
Page 2 of 3
Version: 2020-01
effectively is changing and the option to receive your bills electronically is
paramount. We had several industrial clients contact us prior to this year’s notices
being mailed and requesting them via email. They were sent both ways to
accommodate the client and the requirements of the MGA as no bylaw was in place
yet. We foresee that 90% of industrial clients will request further notices to be
emailed.
One of the considerations of this proposed bylaw, is to advise our residents of this
bylaw. As the Council has a current Bylaw in place for Advertising guidelines,
administration will post a notice in the local Three Hills Capital and electronically on
our website as per these guidelines.
Administration will bring back this bylaw for final readings to the September 22,
2020 Council meeting and advise of all feedback received.
Financial
Implications:
There is a small set-up and maintenance fee related to this distribution method.
However, once the savings in postal costs are factored in there will be a reduction
in overall expenditures for the County. The net costs will be reflected in the 2021
and future years operating budgets.
Council Options:
1. Give first reading to Bylaw #1824 Electronic Transmission of Documents
2. Accept for information
Recommended
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-
Attachments:
Bylaw # 1824 Electronic Submission of Documents
Follow-up
Actions:
1. Administration will advertise this proposed bylaw as per the Advertising
Bylaw #1772 guidelines
2. Administration will bring back the Electronic Transmission of Documents
back for final readings and all resident feedback received to the September
22 meeting
Director Approval:
Bill McKennan, Director of Corporate Services
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
26 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
7.1
Page 3 of 3
Version: 2020-01
27 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
BYLAW NO 1824
ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION OF DOCUMENTS
A BYLAW OF KNEEHILL COUNTY, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, TO ESTABLISH A PROCESS TO
SEND ASSESSMENT, TAXATION AND ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD NOTICES AND OTHER
DOCUMENTS BY ELECTRONIC MEANS.
WHEREAS, Section 608.1 of the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, Chapter M-26, states
that Council may by bylaw establish a process for sending assessment notices, tax notices and
other documents and information under Part 9, 10 or 11 of the Act or the regulation under Part
9, 10 or 11 by electronic means;
WHEREAS before making a bylaw under section 608.1, Council must:
a) Be satisfied that the proposed bylaw includes appropriate measures to ensure the
security and confidentiality of the documents and information being sent; and
b) Give notice of the proposed bylaw in a manner council considers is likely to bring the
proposed bylaw to the attention of substantially all persons that would be affected by it;
WHEREAS a bylaw under section 608.1 must provide a method by which persons may opt to
receive the notice, document or information by electronic means;
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of Kneehill County, duly assembled, enacts as follows:
PART ONE INTRODUCTION
1. TITLE
This Bylaw shall be known as the “Electronic Transmission of Documents”
2. DEFINITIONS
(1) “Act” means the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c. M-26;
(2) “Assessed person” means an assessed person as defined in section
284,1(a) of the Act or a person acting on behalf of an assessed person;
(3) “Council” means the Kneehill County Council members;
(4) “County” means the municipal corporation of Kneehill County;
(5) “Customer” means any person receiving a service from the County;
(6) “Electronic means” means electronic mail or e-mail.
28 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Bylaw No. xxxx, Title of Bylaw Page 2 of 4
PART TWO SCOPE
3. The County may send the following by electronic means to an assessed person:
(1) Assessment Notices pursuant to Section 310 of the Act;
(2) Supplementary Assessments pursuant to Section 316 of the Act;
(3) Tax Notices pursuant to Section 333 & 335 of the Act;
(4) Combined Assessment & Tax Notice as described in Section 308(4) of the
Act;
(5) Tax Arrears Notices;
(6) All documentation relating to the Regional Assessment Review Board
process;
(7) Any and all documentation relating to the Recovery of Taxes Related to
Land as described in Division 8 of the Act;
(8) Any and all documentation relating to the Recovery of Taxes not Related
to Land as described in Division 9 of the Act;
(9) Any and all documentation relating to the Recovery of Taxes Related to
Designated Manufactured Homes in Division 8.1 of the Act;
(10) Any and all letters and documentation pertaining to Pre-authorized Debit
plans.
4. The County may send the following by electronic means to a customer:
(1) Utility Billing;
(2) Accounts Receivable Invoice and Statements;
(3) Cash Receipt showing payment made;
(4) Utility Arrears Notices;
(5) Accounts Receivable Arrears Notices;
(6) Any and all letters pertaining to Utility Billings and Accounts Receivable
invoicing and Pre-authorized Debit plans.
PART THREE CONSENT
29 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Bylaw No. xxxx, Title of Bylaw Page 3 of 4
5. Any notice as set out in section 3 may be sent by electronic means if the assessed
person:
(1) Has provided a personal email address for the notices to be sent to;
(2) Has opted to receive notices by electronic means by completing the
prescribed form;
(3) The prescribed from has been signed by the assessed person.
6. A person who has opted to receive notices by electronic means may revoke
consent at any time by contacting administration and providing documentation of
such revocation. This documentation may include:
(1) A signed and dated Revocation Request form;
(2) Letter signed by the assessed person, whether received by electronic
means or otherwise, detailing the request to revoke consent;
(3) Electronic mail (e-mail) received by administration from the personal
email on the consent form detailing revocation of consent.
PART FOUR PRESUMPTION OF RECEIPT
7. As indicated in Section 608.2 of the Act, a person who opts to receive notices by
electronic means is presumed to have received the documentation as indicated in
section 3, 7 days after it was sent.
PART FIVE TRANSITION
8. SEVERABILITY
If a portion of this bylaw is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
invalid, the invalid portion will be voided, and the rest of the bylaw remains valid
and effective.
9. EFFECTIVE DATE
This bylaw comes into effect upon third reading of this bylaw.
READ a first time on this _______ day of ______________________, 2020.
READ a second time on this ________ day of _______________________, 2020.
30 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Bylaw No. xxxx, Title of Bylaw Page 4 of 4
UNANIMOUS permission for third reading given in Council on the ________ day of
____________________, 2020.
READ a third time and final time of this _______ day of _______________________, 2020.
Reeve
Jerry Wittstock
Chief Administrative Officer
Mike Haugen
Date Bylaw Signed
31 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
9.1
Page 1 of 1
Version: 2020-02
Subject: Three Hills Victim Services Request
Meeting Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2020
Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil
Presented By: Mike Haugen, CAO
Link to Strat Plan: Level of Service
Recommended
Motion:
That Council direct Administration to provide a letter of support to the Three Hills
Victim Services as they apply for the Alberta Victims of Crime Fund Grant.
Background/
Proposal
Administration received a request from the Three Hills Victim Services to provide a
letter of support as they apply for the Alberta Victims of Crime Fund Grant.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
A letter needs to be completed by September 4, 2020.
Financial
Implications:
No financial implications.
Council Options:
1. Council provide a letter of support.
2. Council receive for information.
Recommended
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-
Attachments:
Letter from Three Hills Victim Services
Follow-up
Actions:
Administration will write a support letter and send to Three Hills Victim Services
before September 4, 2020.
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
32 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
August 7, 2020
To: Mike Haugen
RE: Requesting Support letter
Three Hills Victim Services role is to ease the impact of crime and tragedy on victims. We provide
support at the time of the incident, with a listening ear, comfort and reassurance. A follow up
consultation is provided, when necessary, to determine what further information, support or referrals
are required by the victim. We feel our Victim Services is an integral part of the communities.
As part of the Alberta Victims of Crime Fund Grant Application we require a letter of support for the
Three Hills Victim Services Association from Community members. We would appreciate your
willingness to send a letter of support before September 4, 2020. You are able to email your letter to
carolyn.kung@rcmp-grc.gc.ca or fax to 403-443-7140, or mail it to Box 520, Three Hills, AB T0M 2A0.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Carolyn Kung
Program Manager
Three Hills Victim Services Association
“To make a difference in someone’s life, you don’t have to be brilliant, rich, beautiful, or
perfect. You just have to care enough and be there.” ..... Anonymous
33 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
9.2
Page 1 of 2
Version: 2020-02
Subject: Hwy 21 Corridor Crime Watch Association Request
Meeting Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2020
Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil
Presented By: Mike Haugen, CAO
Link to Strat Plan: Level of Service
Recommended
Motion:
That Council provide support to the Hwy 21 Corridor Crime Watch Association in
the amount of $1,000.00, with funds to come from the 2020 operating budget.
Background/
Proposal
Administration received a request from the Hwy 21 Corridor Crime Watch
Association requesting a donation. The organization operates within the
boundaries of the Three Hills RCMP detachment area. Their mandate is to provide
public education and information to assist their members in ways to keep
themselves and their properties safe.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
Funds would be used to organize public open houses with guest speakers and
demonstrations, to improve signage along major thoroughfares throughout watch
area, to develop a Facebook page to keep members informed and up to date on
crimes in real time, and to improve their profile in the community by sending out
information to media sources to update them on their activities.
Financial
Implications:
A request amount was not mentioned in the request letter, but in follow-up with the
organization, they have confirmed that Red Deer County has provided them with
$1,000.00 support. The Village of Delburne has also assisted them with admin
support. Funds could come from the Recreation Community Arts Culture, Policy
#15-7. There is approximately $8,625.00 still available in this budget.
Source of Funding: Rec Community Arts Culture, Policy #15-7.
Council Options:
1. Council approve a donation in the amount of $1,000.00.
2. Council approve an amended amount.
3. Council receive request for information.
Recommended
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-
34 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
9.2
Page 2 of 2
Version: 2020-01
Attachments:
Request letter from Hwy 21 Corridor Crime Watch Association
Follow-up
Actions:
Communicate Council’s decision to Hwy 21 Corridor Crime Watch Association.
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
35 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
36 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
9.3
Page 1 of 5
Version: 2020-02
Subject: Assessment Model Review Presentation
Meeting Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2020
Prepared By: Mike Haugen
Presented By: Mike Haugen, CAO
Link to Strat Plan: Level of Service
Recommended
Motion:
That Council accept the presentation on proposed Assessment Model Review
changes for information, as presented.
Background/
Proposal
Administration has prepared a report for Council regarding the proposed changes to
the Assessment model for Oil and Gas Facilitates. During this presentation,
Administration will utilize and review several documents including a presentation,
the RMA Position Statement, and the RMA Assessment Model Review – Outcomes
Summary. All of these are attached.
The Province previously completed a technical review of Oil and Gas Assessment.
The current system has been in place since 2005. During that review, municipalities
were not consulted and the resulting information has not been shared by the
Province and remains under a communications embargo.
Since that time, the Province has worked primarily with industry to generate four
possible scenarios for changes to the Oil and Gas Assessment Models. This
process was largely industry driven and municipal organizations such as RMA and
AUMA were included, though both report their concerns were ignored and their
input muted. Both entities oppose all four scenarios.
For clarification, this issue is different than that natural end of life adjustments that
occur each year. This issue is a fundamental change to artificially alter the
assessment depreciation and assessment methods which would heavily impact
municipalities across the Province, both rural and urban.
Last year, the Province altered assessment for Shallow Gas Producers. This
change resulted in a $1.9 Million loss of revenue to the County. This loss is ongoing
and was not a one-time event. As a result, the County budgeted to collect
approximately $1.5 Million less in taxes in 2020 than was collected in 2019.
Existing provincial budget impacts include:
• $1.9 million reduction of tax revenues collected from shallow gas
producers, as a result of provincial policy decisions.
• 25% reduction in provincial grants over the next five years amounting to a
loss of $500,000 over a three-year period.
• Addition of Provincial policing costs, $160,000 in 2020 to $480,000 in 2023.
Kneehill County believes that supports for Oil and Gas are needed, however, the
scenarios proposed by the Province will result increased taxes for the majority of
County residents, farms, and businesses. Municipalities across the Province are
echoing this sentiment to the point where municipally elected officials from across
the Province held a demonstration at the legislature building.
37 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
9.3
Page 2 of 5
Version: 2020-01
There is widespread concern about this issue as the Province conducted the work
in secrecy, and has not made pertinent information – such as the technical review
and long-term impact modelling, available.
Of the scenarios proposed, Kneehill County stands to lose between $3.5 and $7.3
Million per year. To put that in perspective, all residential and farm taxes in the
County amount to approximately $2.8 Million per year.
Industry is pushing for Scenario D, which would impact the County by
approximately $7.3 Million in the first year and escalate each year afterwards. In
addition, industry is also pushing the Province to not allow increases on industry,
the impact of which would be to drive any tax increases to residents and farms.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
As part of the presentation, Administration will go through several related
documents. Below are some pertinent points or summaries from those documents.
While most properties are assessed based on their market values, designated
industrial properties such as wells and pipelines are assessed based on several
regulated factors linked to depreciation, size, construction costs, etc. The intent is
still to reflect an accurate value of the property.
By attempting to use the assessment system to enhance industry competitiveness,
the 2020 review and subsequent changes to how these regulated properties are
assessed has compromised the objectivity of the regulated assessment model, and
will result in serious fiscal impacts to municipalities, while actually compromising the
competitiveness of many small oil and gas companies. The proposed regulations
represent a violation of assessment principles and transparency.
The Assessment Model is contained in regulations and can be altered by the
Minister of Municipal Affairs.
The Government of Alberta has reviewed the current property assessment model
for O&G companies and has proposed four new assessment model scenarios. The
proposed scenarios would result in a reduction of assessment for Kneehill County
between 12 and 24%, which would translate to a loss of total revenues between 11
and 22%.
Kneehill County understands that all sectors, not just Oil and Gas have been hit by
an economic downturn combined with a pandemic. As a County, we believe that
restarting our economy is important and support efforts to do so. The proposed
scenarios do not represent a successful effort to bolster the economy and actually
harm small business and many small Oil and Gas Producers.
The County would run out of reserve funds within three years under all proposed
scenarios.
The County maintains that tax exemption policies should not be built into the
assessment system. Such policies should be implemented in a transparent and
targeted manner by the Province.
There is no mechanism to require the oil and gas industry re-invest any cost
savings received through changes to the assessment model in Alberta in the form
of job creation and/or capital investment. The biggest benefits of the proposals are
38 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
9.3
Page 3 of 5
Version: 2020-01
for the largest companies that have international reach and can easily use the
money to increase dividends to shareholders and move money elsewhere in the
world.
Based on the Government of Alberta’s proposed scenarios, the largest oil and gas
companies operating in the province will receive a disproportionate share of
benefits from changes to the assessment model. Small and locally-owned
companies will, on average, receive significantly less benefit, and in many cases
will face significant assessment increases.
Even under industry’s most favourable scenario, 145 companies would face
assessment increases. The only groups that win in every scenario are the largest oil
and gas companies operating in Alberta, many of which have holdings worldwide
and would be under no obligation to reinvest savings in the province.
There has been absolutely no link established between the assessment model
proposals and making Alberta’s oil and gas industry more competitive.
“Industry competitiveness” was never defined during the review process, and the
industry stakeholder representatives involved in the review (Canadian Association
of Petroleum Producers [CAPP], Canadian Energy Pipelines Association [CEPA]
and the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada [EPAC]) have provided no
evidence as to how reduced property assessments would enhance competitiveness
in comparison to other industry cost drivers.
No multi-year impact analysis has been shared for the scenarios. All data focuses
only on the first year of implementation. Steeper and artificial depreciation will make
impacts more severe as assets age.
The age lives of machinery and equipment are set between 15 – 20 years at which
time the equipment is fully depreciated; these artificially shortened age lives
contrast with the actual life of a facility at 40 – 60 or more years.
Pipelines and wells are already assessed at 67% of value throughout their working
life. The new model would fully depreciate wells and pipelines within 16-26 years
despite their working lifetimes being significantly longer.
The tax burden will simply be shifted away from the oil and gas industry and on to
all other businesses and residents. Most municipalities will simply have no other
choice.
The potential losses to Kneehill County are equivalent to eliminating almost 90% of
the County workforce.
Our residential and agricultural ratepayers are also hurting, and the proposed
changes do nothing to address their plight. In fact, even after significant cuts to
service and infrastructure, including job and contract losses, these taxpayers will
still see significant increases to their tax bills. At a time when they can least deal
with it.
The proposals allow for reductions when economies are down, but does not allow
for increases when the economy picks up. This benefits only one side.
39 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
9.3
Page 4 of 5
Version: 2020-01
If Kneehill County were to lose $7.3 Million in revenue, the County could increase
residential and farmland taxes by 40% and business taxes by 44% and would still
face a loss of over $1 Million dollars. If the County wanted to recoup the losses
completely, taxes would have to increase almost 50% for all residents, farms, and
businesses within the County. If the County were to recoup this just from residents
and farms to help business, tax increases for 2021 would be approaching 300%.
If the County was able to make service cuts of $3.5 Million, in addition to
terminating the employment of many staff and contractor/service providers,
remaining residents, farms, and businesses would still face tax increases of 35-40%
starting next year. To make this worse, given the artificial depreciation of Oil and
Gas Facilities over just 16-26 years means that additional revenue would be lost in
future years, necessitating additional cuts and tax increases.
This comes at a time in which the Province has placed additional costs on
municipalities through ICF Agreements and Policing Costs. Kneehill County has
been forced to absorb hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional costs and the
scenarios proposed drastically reduce the County’s ability to pay those costs. This
all comes following Kneehill County losing $1.9 Million in revenue as a result of the
Province’s Shallow Gas Relief Program. Even with modest tax increases this year,
the County still made cuts and collected around $1.5 Million less than in 2019.
It would also reduce our ability to share with our urban partners. The County would
likely have to withdraw from assisting with funding recreational facilities such as
pools and arenas and services such as volunteer fire departments. This would
place additional burden on our urban partners who would also be subjected to
increases in Education Tax, Policing Costs, and Seniors Housing Costs, as a result
of rebalancing equalized assessment throughout Alberta.
The AUMA estimates that under these scenarios, Towns would see educational
funding increases of 2-10% and Villages would see increases of 0-7%.
Prior to this assessment review, cuts made by the Government of Alberta have
resulted in a reduction of 7% of total County tax revenues, a loss of grant funding,
and additional costs to be paid for by the municipality.
The County recognizes that massive increases to tax rates are not a viable option
to mitigate the impact of these proposed models. It also recognizes that in order to
reduce expenses by 13 to 26% that significant reductions in service levels would
have to be made. If any of these models are put into place the County will be
required to do some combination of tax rate increases and service level reductions.
Financial
Implications:
While there are extreme financial implications associated with the proposed
changes, there are no financial implications associated with the presentation or
recommended motion.
Council Options:
1. Council may opt to accept the presentation for information.
2. Council may opt to direct Administration towards actions related to the
report.
40 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
9.3
Page 5 of 5
Version: 2020-01
Recommended
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-
Attachments:
1. Assessment Model Review PowerPoint Presentation
2. RMA Position Statement
3. RMA Assessment Model Review – Outcomes Summary
Follow-up
Actions:
NA
Director Approval:
Name, Title
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
41 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Rural Municipalities of Alberta
Assessment Model Review –
Outcomes Summary
42 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
2
Over the past several months, RMA has participated in a Government of Alberta -led review of the
assessment model for oil and gas properties such as wells and pipelines. In addition to RMA, the
following organizations participated in the review:
• Alberta Urban Municipalities Association
• Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
• Explorers and Producers Association of Canada
• Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
• Canadian Property Taxpayers Association
According to the Government of Alberta, the review was intended to “modernize” the assessment model
for oil and gas properties to enhance industry competitiveness while ensuring municipal viability.
Due to strict confidentiality requirements, RMA has been unable to provide members with an update on
the review process. At this point, the Government of Alberta has finalized recommended changes to the
model and have briefed relevant provincial ministers and decision-makers on the recommendations.
RMA (and the other organizations involved in the review) now have an opportunity to advocate to those
same ministers and decision-makers on the impacts of the recommended changes.
The review concluded with four scenarios to be presented to provincial decision -makers, each of which
represents different changes to the assessment model and different impacts on municipalities and
industry. All scenarios reduce overall assessment values of the property impacted by the review, with
province-wide reductions ranging from 7% in scenario A to 20% in scenario D. However, the impacts of
the changes vary among municipalities and companies. Some municipalities will lose significant
assessment value, while others will see their assessment increase. Similarly, some companies will benefit
greatly from each scenario in the form of reduced assessments, while others (mainly small companies)
will see massive increases in assessment. This document show s the province-wide impacts of each
scenario. RMA is not aware of whether the Government of Alberta favors a specific scenario. Industry
representatives have vocally supported scenario D, which most drastically reduces assessment.
Unfortunately, no multi-year impact analysis has been shared for the scenarios. All data focuses only on
the first year of implementation, though due to steeper deprecia tion curves and other changes,
municipal impacts will become more severe as assets age. It is important to note that even municipalities
that are minimally impacted in year one may face much more serious impacts in year five or ten.
As will be evident in this document and other information shared with members, RMA is strongly
opposed to the recommended changes to the assessment model and their impacts on both municipal
viability and industry competitiveness. The remainder of this document will summarize key points from
various RMA input during the review process that demonstrates the impacts of the recommended
changes on municipalities and industry and proposes alternative approaches to enhancing industry
competitiveness that are more transparent, targeted and effective than the proposed assessment model
changes. This information was provided to the Government of Alberta during the review process and
has been submitted formally to the Minister of Municipal Affairs in advance of the internal provincial
minister and decision-maker briefings.
43 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
3
Technical Summary of Proposed Changes
The Government of Alberta has based the review process around four scenarios for changes to various
aspects of the assessment model, with each resulting in a different level of impact to municipalities
and industry in the form of overall assessment reductions. The review process was focused primarily
on discussing the impacts of the various scenarios rather than the technical det ails. However, the
Government of Alberta revised the scenarios repeatedly throughout the review process based mainly
on ongoing data, information and suggestions received from industry. Unfortunately, RMA was not
provided this data or detailed information on why the scenarios were continually changed.
As RMA was not involved in the year-long technical reviews that preceded the current review, it is
unknown the extent to which the changes in each scenario are informed by the work of the technical
reviews. Specific technical questions about the rationale behind th e changes in each scenario should
be direct to Alberta Municipal Affairs.
The technical changes in each scenario are summarized below (based on summary information
provided to RMA by the Government of Alberta):
Current
Wells
• Base costs - Follows CCRG
• Depreciation - A set factor of 0.67 (67% asset value applied)
• Additional Depreciation - Production
• Land Assessment - 1766 to 12,792
• Statutory Level or Adjustment Factor - None
Pipelines
• Base Costs - Follows CCRG
• Depreciation - A straight factor of 0.67 (67% asset value applied for all pipe types [less than 10
inches or greater than 10 inches])
• Multi line adjustment - Not applicable
• Additional Depreciation - Production
• Land Assessment - Not applicable
• Statutory Level or Adjustment Factor - Not applicable
• Age - Not applicable
Scenario A – 7% overall assessment decrease
Wells
• Base costs - All costs designated by the CCRG are removed, and stimulation costs are removed.
44 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
4
• Depreciation - Begins at 10% and ends at 90%, dropping 5% per year until maximum depreciation
(factor of 0.10) is reached in 16 years.
• Additional Depreciation - None applied.
• Land Assessment - No changes to the current land assessment listed in the Minister’s Guidelines.
• Statutory Level or Adjustment Factor - A factor of 0.65 is applied to deep horizontal wells.
Pipelines
• Base Costs - All costs designated by the CCRG are removed, and a straight cut is used for crossings.
• Depreciation - For all pipe types less than 10 inches, depreciation begins at 10% and ends at 90%,
dropping 5% per year until maximum depreciation (factor of 0.10) is reached in 16 years. For all
pipe types greater than 10 inches, depreciation begins at 10% and ends at 90%, dropping 3% per
year until maximum depreciation (factor of 0.10) is reached in 26 years.
• Multi line adjustment - A factor of 0.80 is applied to all pipe greater than 10 inches.
• Additional Depreciation - 0.95 for CFB Suffield.
• Land Assessment - Not applicable.
• Statutory Level or Adjustment Factor - Not applied.
• Age - Updated to reflect new information.
Machinery and Equipment – Well Sites
• Base Costs - All costs designated by the CCRG are removed.
• Depreciation - Depreciation begins at 25% and ends at 90%, holding 25% for the first four years,
and dropping 5% per year until maximum depreciation (factor of 0.10) is reach ed in 16 years.
• Additional Depreciation - Loss in value from site-specific causes.
• Land Assessment - Included in the well assessment.
• Statutory Level or Adjustment Factor - Legislated 77%.
Machinery and Equipment – Facilities
• No change from the current
• Statutory Level or Adjustment Factor - Legislated 77%.
Scenario B – 9% overall assessment decrease
Wells
• Base Costs - All costs designated by the CCRG are removed, and stimulation costs are removed.
• Depreciation - Begins at 25% and ends at 90%, holding at 25% for the first four years, and
dropping 5% per year until maximum depreciation (factor of 0.10) is reached in 16 years.
• Additional Depreciation - None applied.
• Land Assessment - Maintain current land assessment listed in the Minister’s Guidelines, except
the land assessment is reduced to zero when maximum depreciation is achieve d.
• Statutory Level or Adjustment Factor: - A factor of 0.65 is applied to deep horizontal wells. A
factor of 0.80 is applied to SAGD wells.
45 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
5
Pipelines
• Base Costs - All costs designated by the CCRG are removed, and a straight cut is used for crossings.
• Depreciation - For all pipe types less than 10 inches, depreciation begins at 10% and ends at 90%,
dropping 5% per year until maximum depreciation (factor of 0.10) is reached in 16 years. For all
pipe greater than 10 inches, depreciation begins at 10 % and ends at 90%, dropping 3% per year
until maximum depreciation (factor of 0.10) is reached in 26 years.
• Multi line adjustment - A factor of 0.80 is applied to all pipe greater than 10 inches.
• Additional Depreciation - 0.95 for CFB Suffield.
• Land Assessment - Not applicable.
• Statutory Level or Adjustment Factor - Not applied.
• Age - Updated to reflect new information.
Machinery and Equipment – Well Sites
• As described in Scenario A.
Machinery and Equipment – Facilities
• No change from the current.
Scenario C – 14% overall assessment decrease
Wells
• Base Costs - All costs designated by the CCRG are removed, and stimulation costs are removed.
• Depreciation - Begins at 25% and ends at 90%, holding at 25% for the first 4 years, and dropping
5% per year until maximum depreciation (factor of 0.10) is reached in 16 years.
• Additional Depreciation - None applied.
• Land Assessment – Maintain current land assessment listed in the Minister’s Guidelines, except
the land assessment is reduced to zero when maximum depreciation is achieved.
• Statutory Level or Adjustment Factor - A factor of 0.65 is applied to SAGD wells.
Pipelines
• Base Costs - All costs designated by the CCRG are removed, and a straight cut is used for crossings.
• Depreciation - For all pipe sizes less than 10 inches, depreciation begins at 25 % for the first four
years and ends at 90%, dropping 5% per year until maximum depreciation (factor of 0.10) is
reached in 16 years. For sizes greater than 10 inches, depreciation begins at 25% for the first four
years and ends at 90%, dropping 3% per year until maximum depreciation (factor of 0.10) is
reached in 26 years.
• Multi line adjustment - Factor of 0.80 is applied to all pipe greater than 10 inches.
• Additional Depreciation - 0.95 for CFB Suffield.
• Land Assessment - Not applicable.
• Statutory Level or Adjustment Factor - Not applied.
• Age - Updated to reflect new information.
46 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
6
Machinery and Equipment – Well Sites
• As described in Scenario A.
Machinery and Equipment – Facilities
• No change from the current.
Scenario D – 20% overall assessment decrease
Wells
• Base Costs - All costs designated by the CCRG are removed, and stimulation costs are removed.
• Depreciation - Begins at 25% and ends at 90%, and dropping 8% between year zero and year one,
and by 4 % per year thereafter until maximum depreciation (factor of 0.10) is reached in 16 years.
• Additional Depreciation - 0.10 for zero production. Maximum depreciation is 0.10.
• Land Assessment - The land assessments are as follows:
Zone Land Value – Single Pad Land Value – Multi Pad
Central 3,838 512
NE 2,164 288
NW 1,589 212
SE 2,781 371
SW 2,424 323
Other 0 0
• Statutory Level or Adjustment Factor - SAGD receives a 0.65 factor
Pipelines
• Base Costs - All the costs designated by the CCRG are removed, and a straight cut is used for
crossings.
• Depreciation - For all pipe sizes less than 10 inches, depreciation begins at 25 % for the first four
years and ends at 90%, dropping 5% per year until maximum depreciation (factor of 0.10) is
reached in 16 years. For sizes greater than 10 inches, depreciation begins at 25% for the first four
years and ends at 90%, dropping 3% per year until maximum depreciation (factor of 0.10) is
reached in 26 years.
• Multi line adjustment - A factor of 0.70 is applied to all pipe greater than 10 inches.
• Additional Depreciation - 0.95 for CFB Suffield.
• Land Assessment - Not applicable.
• Statutory Level or Adjustment Factor - Not applied.
• Age - Updated to reflect new information.
47 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
7
Machinery and Equipment – Well Sites
• As described in Scenario A.
Machinery and Equipment – Facilities
• No change from the current.
RMA’s Response to Proposed Technical Changes
As noted, RMA was not involved or provided any information from the technical review processes that
informed the development of the scenarios. Notably, every iteration of each scenario focused on
increased tax relief to industry. Given the lack of available technical information, detailed data or
methodology for the calculations used it is difficult to form an opinion on the scenarios outside of the
reality that they will all negatively impact rural municipalities and will only become worse as assets
continue to age. The proposed scenarios read as a wish list of industry and will cause significant harm to
rural municipalities who have been strong partners to industry development for decades.
Further, these scenarios add even more tax policy items into the assessment model, which already
includes many existing issues and challenges, including:
• Some of the excluded costs under the CCRG would not be excluded under the cost approach to
value, and have been excluded under the CCRG to reflect historic negotiated decisions.
• The yearly setting of the assessment year modifier in Schedule B is not transparent and is not
data driven based on changes to construction costs.
• The setting of the assessment year modifier is subject to ministerial discretion as impacted by
the advocacy of industry groups.
• The age lives of machinery and equipment are set between 15 – 20 years at which time the
equipment is fully depreciated; these artificially shortened age lives contrast with the actual life
of a facility at 40 – 60 or more years.
• During the first five years equipment is assessed it receives an immediate 25% depreciation (the
purpose of this tax policy was to provide an incentive to construct new machinery and
equipment, however, there is no data to track whether this policy achieved this goal).
• The depreciation in Schedule C for machinery and equipment reaches a floor of 40% remaining;
the purpose of this policy dating from the mid 1980 s was to provide consistency and stability for
municipalities.
• The statutory factor contained in the Matters Relating to Assessment and Taxation Regulation,
further reducing the M&E assessment by a factor of 23%; the statutory factor represents a
historical policy which should be reconsidered to see if it is still relevant.
As shown, many existing tax policies within the assessment model are still in existence despite their
original intent (often investment incentive programs) hav ing long since passed. This highlights the
danger of the ‘permanence’ and lack of transparency of using the assessment model to engage in obvious
tax policy initiatives, which is the primary intent of the current review.
48 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
8
Despite the “unknowns” in the proposed scenarios and lack of detail in the review process, there are a
number of observations RMA has made about the suitability of the proposed changes:
Major Concerns
Base Costs Exclusions
The rates in the Minister’s Guidelines should reflect the typical cost to construct, or in this case drill, the
well. Construction costs include both labour and equipment. The only costs which can be excluded are
those under the Construction Cost Reporting Guide (CCRG).
Absent any additional information from the technical reviews, it is impossible to evaluate specific
changes to base costs in these scenarios. However, they appear to be a departure from the intended
value of reflecting accurate costs of construction, appear to arbitrarily exclude costs, and are potentially
an embedded tax policy for industry.
Depreciation
The scenarios include the introduction of depreciation of wells and pipelines, where the current
assessment model uses a fixed rate of 0.67 (67%) asset value at all asset ages. The new scenarios add an
age table for depreciation for pipelines and wells. The depreciation ranges from a high of 90% asset value
or 75% asset value when new (depending on the scenario), to a floor of 10% asset value once fully
depreciated. The asset life of depreciation is either 16 or 26 years depending the asset type and the
scenario.
In the absence of technical review information, and based on conversations during the review process,
it appears that this new depreciation approach is based on the economic profitability of the assets. This
represents a marked departure from the current regulated valuation approach, which focuses on typical
wear and tear (physical depreciation) and typical technological changes over time (functional
depreciation) rather than market value.
These new scenarios are contrary to the principles underlying regulated assessment, and imports market
value principles into the regulated assessment process. Depreciating wells and pipelines on the premise
of profitability solely for the purpose of reducing assessment is one-sided, as the proposed scenarios do
not include a mechanism to increase the assessment during healt hy economic times.
Land Assessment
Scenarios B and C set the land component at zero to when a well has reached maximum depreciation.
Scenario D introduces set land value rates based on the region and well characteristics, though the
proposed values are well below the current land value ranges, which are already nominal and do not
reflect market value.
Land typically does not depreciate and should reflect market values, so this can only be considered an
additional tax policy to benefit industry.
Other Adjustments, Statutory Factors and Depreciations
49 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
9
The scenarios include a range of additional adjustments, statutory factors and depreciations. Th is
includes a 0.75 factor for SAGD wells, a 0.70 factor for a multi-line adjustment, a 0.10 factor for zero
production, among others. Again, without technical review information provided, it appears that these
adjustments are actually very specific tax reduction policy initiatives to support particular asset types,
that are being embedded into the assessment model. RMA is concerned that if the additional tax policy
incentives are embedded in the assessment model then there will be no mechanism to know whether
the policies have achieved their objectives and no mechanism to remove them after the objectives have
been achieved. This phenomenon can be seen in the large amount of historical tax initiatives that are
currently embedded in the assessment model. If history repeats itself, these adjustments (which are a
clear response to current market factors) will remain in the assessment mod el for decades, with no
ability to dial them back when market conditions correct.
Areas of Support
Base Costs - Updating
As noted above, the base cost rates should reflect the typical cost to construct, or in this case drill, a
well. In this spirit, RMA supports the need to regularly review and update base costs to accurately reflect
changes in construction costs, technological advances, and other necessary changes.
RMA would support a meaningful review process, undertaken by objective experts, and using detailed
data. While RMA is hopeful this accurately describes the work conducted in the technical reviews, the
work of the technical review has not been shared, so it is impossible to know what process was followed.
Changes to the Assessment Year Modifier
It appears that the review will include a move to an open, transparent, specified formula and data
sources for the Schedule B Assessment Year Modifier being set out in the Minister’s Guidelines. In the
past, this modifier has not been transparent on how it was calculated. The inclusion of the formula, with
reference to the public data sources, would increase transparency, predictability and consistency for all
stakeholders.
50 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
10
Municipal Impacts of Proposed Changes
Each of the four scenarios proposed by the Government of Alberta would significant ly reduce the overall
rural municipal assessment base. This section will provide an overview of municipal fiscal impacts and
potential municipal response mechanisms to the changes. It is important to note that the impacts of the
scenarios vary significantly by region: a few municipalities actually benefit from the changes in some
scenarios, while many lose huge amounts of assessment value and associated tax revenue. The analysis
below shows average impacts as well as impact range to provide further support to the unpredictable
and drastically different impacts that the changes produce across the province.
Due to limitations on the data provided during the review, RMA is only able to accurately model the
impacts of the change in 2021. Due to changes to asset depreciation curves, it is likely that reductions
will become more severe in each year beyond 2021. The lack of a long-term impact analysis is an
extremely serious flaw of the review process. Due to the more aggressive depreciation curves inserted
into all models, even municipalities who are relatively unaffected by the scenarios in 2021, will see the
value of assessed value of existing property decrease much more rapidly than under the current model.
Unfortunately, due to the lack of data provided during the review process, it is impossible to know how
significant long-term impacts will be, as this is dependent on the age and type of each municipality’s
asset base.
51 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
11
What is known is that proceeding with such significant change with no knowledge of the l ong-term
impacts it will have on the assessment base is highly concerning, which is why RMA has repeatedly called
for a long-term impact analysis of the changes on both municipalities and industries prior to
implementation.
It is important to continue to note that the data below is for 2021 only.
Overall municipal assessment base change ($) – RMA members
Scenario Tax Impacts Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D
Average among all rural municipalities -126,863,993 -174,416,214 -277,155,495 -$382,073,334
Least impacted municipality +1,844,854,368 +1,510,074,086 +38,816,782 -5,088,160
Most impacted municipality -1,059,619,509 -1,258,803,514 -1,495,636,950 -2,175,007,683
While average assessment base losses worsen somewhat consistently across the four scenarios, the
actual individual municipal impacts of each scenario vary significantly. While many rural municipalities
may be able to adapt to an assessment base loss between $100 - $400 million, for the several in each
scenario that would face losses near or exceeding $1 billion in assessment, the consequences may be
much more extreme.
While the dollar amount losses paint a concerning picture, an even more impactful way to consider the
scenarios is by looking at the percentage of assessment lost.
Overall municipal assessment base change (%) – RMA members
Scenario Tax Impacts Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D
Average among all rural municipalities -14 -16 -19 -24
Least impacted municipality +16 +13 +1 -1
Most impacted municipality -52 -52 -53 -56
A major weakness of using the assessment model to support industry competitiveness is that its
complexity results in widely different regional impacts of any changes. The scenarios proposed by the
Government of Alberta are no different. The chart below looks at the percentage of municipalities that
will experience assessment base losses in excess of 10% under each scenario, divided by RMA district.
Percentage of municipalities with assessment base loss above 10% - by RMA district
District Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D
1- Foothills-Little Bow 92% 100% 100% 100%
52 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
12
District Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D
2 – Central 62% 69% 85% 85%
3 – Pembina River 46% 54% 54% 77%
4 – Northern 53% 60% 73% 93%
5 – Edmonton East 77% 85% 85% 92%
Overall 62% 68% 80% 88%
While rural municipalities across the province are severely impacted by the proposed changes, large
reductions in revenue are most widespread across all scenarios in RMA’s district one, which consists of
thirteen municipalities in the far south of the province. Many of these municipalities are already
suffering from unpaid taxes on oil and gas properties. The disproportionate regional impacts, and lack
of mitigation strategies on the part of the Government of Alberta demonstrate the inequities built into
the review process and proposed changes.
The information above speaks to the severe and inequitable impacts that the proposed scenarios have
on the assessment bases of rural municipalities. While this is important, to adequately understand the
consequences of these reductions, it is important to consider how they will impact municipal revenues
and service delivery. Because each municipality will be impacted to different extents and select
different responses, the information below provides hypothetical “average” rural municipal responses
based on the impacts of the various scenarios and publicly available municipal data.
Potential Response Options – Average Rural Municipality
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D
Residential mill rate increase 85.78% 106.63% 148.23% 199.43%
Or
Non-residential mill rate increase (excluding 5:1 limits) 15.63% 19.33% 22.76% 31.89%
Tax capacity shortfall due to 5:1 ratio (includes tax capacity
loss still required to achieve 5:1) $4,806,050 $4,952,061 $5,093,415 $5,608,241
Or
Workforce cuts to cover losses (% of total FTEs) 11.52% 14.82% 21.59% 28.82%
Total rural municipal FTEs at risk 957 1,231 1,793 2,394
Or
Average total expense reduction % (including capital
infrastructure investment) 9.28% 10.78% 12.82% 16.24%
Or
53 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
13
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D
% of rural municipalities that could not cover shortfall for
one year with unrestricted reserves 44.9% 40.6% 42.0% 50.7%
% of rural municipalities that could not cover shortfall for
two years with unrestricted reserves 60.8% 57.9% 63.7% 73.9%
In reality, most municipalities will react to the loss in revenue through a combination of tax rate
increases, service level reductions, and debt. However, the examples above show how significant the
reductions in assessment will be for rural municipalities.
More importantly, it shows the likelihood that other commercial property owners and residents will
“pay the price” in subsidizing a property tax break to the oil and gas industry in the form of increased
non-residential and residential tax rates or reduced services. The assessment approach for other
commercial and residential properties is not being reviewed to give property owners “a break” during
these challenging economic times; this manipulation of the assessment model is only being offered to
the oil and gas industry. All other properties will be assessed in the same manner, and either receive a
lower level of service or pay higher taxes to subsidize the municipal revenue lost from the oil and gas
industry. In other words, the tax burden will simply be shifted away from the oil and gas industry and
on to all other businesses and residents. Most municipalities will simply have no other choice.
54 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
14
Industry Impacts of Proposed Changes
***Please note – The Government of Alberta has indicated that the data used to determine tax impacts
of each scenario on specific companies may not be fully accurate. As RMA must rely on the Government
of Alberta to provide this level of detailed information, the conclusions below are reflective of the data
provided during the review, and any inaccuracies are the result of the information provided.
Both RMA and its members have a long history of supporting and collaborating with Alberta’s oil and
gas industry. The final section of the report will propose an array of options to support industry
competitiveness that are both fairer and more effective than manipulating the assessment model. This
section will focus on evaluating the Government of Alberta’s claim that the assessment model review is
intended to enhance industry competitiveness and consider the extent to which it meets this priority.
“Industry competitiveness” was never defined during the review process, and the industry stakeholder
representatives involved in the review (Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers [CAPP], Canadian
Energy Pipelines Association [CEPA] and the Explorers and Pr oducers Association of Canada [EPAC])
provided no evidence as to how reduced property assessments would enhance competitiveness in
comparison to other industry cost drivers. There was also no consideration or respect afforded by
industry to the important role that municipal infrastructure and services play in supporting oil and gas
industry competitiveness by providing safe and reliable access to natural resources.
In addition to a lack of evidence as to the link between assessment and competitiveness, the
recommended scenarios result in shockingly different outcomes for different oil and gas companies.
While the overall oil and gas industry would see assessment reductions under each model, those
benefits are not distributed equitably.
RMA has divided the 750 oil and gas companies that own property impacted by the review into the
following categories based on the overall value of their assessed assets:
• Tier 1 (assessed asset value over $500 million) – 27 companies
• Tier 2 (assessed asset value $100 million - $500 million) – 63 companies
• Tier 3 (assessed asset value $20 million - $100 million) – 98 companies
• Tier 4 (assessed asset value ($1 million - $20 million) – 227 companies
• Tier 5 (assessed asset value under $1 million) – 335 companies
The table below shows how companies of different sizes would be impacted by asses sment scenario D,
which is favored by industry.
55 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
15
Industry Assessment Impacts – by Company Size – Scenario D
Percent of Total firms Percent of Total
Assessment Base
Average
Savings
Percent of total
savings
Percent of firms with tax
increases
Tier 1 3.60 62.14 -$7,184,488 71.72 0
Tier 2 8.40 26.55 -$868,011 20.22 6
Tier 3 13.07 8.83 -$176,215 6.38 8
Tier 4 30.27 2.32 -$18,828 1.58 16
Tier 5 44.67 0.16 -$819 0.10 29
For comparison purposes, the impacts in the table below are for scenario B, which still has major
revenue implications for municipalities but has been dismissed by industry as not meaningful in
enhancing competitiveness.
Industry Assessment Impacts – by Company Size – Scenario B
Percent of Total firms Percent of Total
Assessment Base
Average
Savings
Percent of total
savings
Percent of firms with tax
increases
Tier 1 3.60 62.14 -$4,358,795 108.88 19
Tier 2 8.40 26.55 +$51,529 -3.00 46
Tier 3 13.07 8.83 +$49,230 -4.46 47
Tier 4 30.27 2.32 +$5,380 -1.13 40
Tier 5 44.67 0.16 +$928 -0.29 41
What is significant about both scenarios is the disproportionate benefit that the largest oil and gas
companies in the province receive. In each scenario, Tier 1 is the only group of companies who receive
benefits that exceed their share of the actual assessment base. In scenario D, which has the most
extreme negative impacts on municipal viability, all tiers benefit, though the extent of benefits
decrease as company size decreases. In scenario B, tiers 2-5, which comprise 723 of 750 companies
impacted by the review, collectively face increased costs, while the 27 tier 1 companies receive huge
assessment and tax relief. Additionally, in both scenarios, many of the smallest companies (tiers 4 and
5) would face assessment increases.
What does this mean? Industry is arguing that scenario D is the only option to truly enhance
competitiveness, and that may be true given the options developed. Scenarios A, B and C would hurt
municipalities and hurt most oil and gas companies, while scenario D would decimate municipalities
and provide at least modest relief to all company tiers (though again, even under scenario D, 145
companies would face assessment increases). The only groups that win in every scenario are the
56 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
16
largest oil and gas companies operating in Alberta, many of which have holdings worldwide and would
be under no obligation to reinvest savings in the province.
What this industry analysis shows is that the assessment model review is not meeting its mandate of
enhancing competitiveness and supporting municipal viability. It is reducing assessments for the largest
and most well-connected companies on the backs of small oil and gas producers and municipalities.
RMA supports an assessment model review, but this analysis proves that the current process is
inequitable. A review should focus on updating data and methodology to maintain an objective
assessment system, and industry competitiveness should be address using the alternatives on the
following page.
57 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
17
Alternative Approaches to Enhancing Industry Competitiveness
Although not part of the review process, RMA conducted an analysis of alternative approaches to
enhancing industry competitiveness and evaluated them based on the following five principles:
Equitable in Cost
Sharing
Equitable in
Benefits Sharing Tangibility Sustainability Transparency
All activities enacted
to support oil and gas
competitiveness
should be equitably
born through a
partnership between
the Government of
Alberta and Alberta
municipalities and
reflect the relative
powers and financial
tools available to
each level of
government to
support industry.
All activities
enacted to support
oil and gas
competitiveness
should equitably
benefit companies
in the oil and gas
sector and not be
focused on large
companies to the
detriment of
smaller entities.
Financial
contributions to
industry either
through direct
investment or tax
reduction should be
designed to elicit
direct, observable
action by industry in
the form of capital
investment or
employment
creation.
Solutions cannot be
solely focused on
short-term gains or
impacts but should put
in place mechanisms
that consider the
potential for times of
greater prosperity.
Sustainability to
municipalities means
that revenue over the
taxable life of the asset
justifies infrastructure
investments to support
industrial
development.
The goals,
contributions, benefits
and mechanisms put in
place to support
industry must be
reported in a manner
that is understandable
to provincial taxpayers
and municipal
ratepayers.
Mechanisms have
built-in means for
regular review and
potential revision to
maintain equitability
and fairness.
Based on these principles, RMA analyzed 13 options (including manipulation of the assessment model )
to support industry competitiveness and assigned each a score out of five – a high score indicates a
strong option based on RMA’s principles. Options and scoring were as follows:
Policy Alternatives
Scoring Factors
Cost
Sharing
Benefits
Sharing Tangibility Sustainability Transparency Total
Score
Tax and Royalty Forgiveness
Assessment Manipulation (Current Review) 1 2 1 1 1 1.2
Municipal Tax Rebate Policy 1 3 1 2 3 2.0
Tax Rebate Policy on New Investment 3 3 4 2 3 3.0
Education Property Tax Requisition
Adjustments 5 3 1 3 3 3.0
Oil & Gas Royalties Reduction 5 3 2 3 4 3.2
Additional Mill Rate Categories 3 4 1 3 3 2.8
Property Tax Incentives Expansion 2 2 4 1 4 2.6
58 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
18
Mill Rate Ratio Adjustment 2 3 1 2 3 2.2
Downtime and Production Tax Rebates 2 2 2 2 1 1.8
Income Tax Reduction / Tax Credits 5 4 5 3 4 4.2
Direct Incentives
Environmental Remediation 5 2 4 4 3 3.6
Incentive Based Grants / Shared
Investment 4 4 5 4 4 4.2
Direct Infrastructure Investment Program 5 3 4 4 4 4.0
What this analysis shows is that making changes to the assessment model to support industry
competitiveness during a difficult economic time is a poor option by all measures, and there are many
other approaches the province could take that would better support competitiveness. Changing the
assessment model is inequitable, as it places the entire burden for industry savings onto municipalities.
It is also inequitable in how the benefits are distributed, as the section above demonstrates that large
companies receive significant assessment reductions, while assessment will increase for many small
companies. The approach lacks tangibility in that there is no link between any cost savings provided to
industry and capital investment or job creation in Alberta. The approach is also not sustainable as the
aggressive depreciation curves proposed will have long-term impacts on municipalities that are even
more serious than the immediate impacts summarized above. Finally, the approach is not transparent
as any industry incentives are “baked” into the assessment model in a way that is not easily visible, and
very difficult to change or remove when they are no longer required.
On the other hand, many alternatives in the table above score much higher in all principle categories.
For example, incentive based grants/shared investments (in which government provides financial
support based on a company meeting specific targets or committing to particular levels of investment)
score highly in all categories, as it fairly shared the cost burden and benefits, provides a direct link
between the incentive given and measurable actions taken on the part of the company, is sustainable in
the sense that the incentive would not be provided if the company’s action did not lead to a long-term
benefit to the province, and is highly transparent as the incentive is only provided based on the co mpany
undertaking a specific action.
RMA’s full submission to the Government of Alberta includes a complete analysis of all the options
above. What is important for members to consider is that the province’s stated goal of using the
assessment system for industry competitiveness fails in meeting every principle identified by RMA as
characteristic of an effective industry competitiveness enhancement tool. RMA can provide members
with more detailed information on the tools and analysis upon request.
59 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
August 18, 2020
Assessment Model Review Presentation
60 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Item 1
93%
Item 2
7%
Item 1
91%
91
9%
Item
1
80%
Item
2
20%
Item
1
86%
14
%
Each scenario proposed reduces assessment values across rural Alberta.
GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA PROPOSED MODELS
7%14%
9%>20%
Scenerio A
Scenario B
Scenario C
Scenario D
61 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
CONCERNS OVER PROPOSED MODELS
Changes to regulated Oil & Gas property assessment will compromise:
•the objectivity of the regulated assessment model, and,
•the competitiveness of many small oil and gas companies.
•Options were developed in secrecy, utilizing a technical review that
has not been released to municipalities.
62 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Proposed changes provide one-sided benefit, with no mechanism to ensure
reinvested cost savings or enhancement to Alberta's oil and gas competitiveness.
There is no mechanism for increases when the economy improves.
CONCERNS OVER PROPOSED MODELS
?
63 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Small and locally-owned companies will, on average, receive significantly less benefit
than larger companies, and in many cases will face significant assessment increases
meaning that they will pay more in taxes than they currently do.
CONCERNS OVER PROPOSED MODELS
64 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Proposed Life Span: 15-20 years Actual Life Span: 40-60 years
Each scenario focuses only on the first year of implementation.
Steeper and artificial depreciation will make impacts more severe as assets age.
CONCERNS OVER PROPOSED MODELS
65 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
CONCERNS OVER PROPOSED MODELS
Municipal infrastructure and services
play an important role in supporting oil
and gas industry competitiveness by
providing safe and reliable access to
natural resources.
66 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
The estimated impacts of the proposed assessment model scenarios:
IMPACTS SPECIFIC TO KNEEHILL COUNTY
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D
ASSESSMENT BASE LOSS
TAX $ LOST
REVENUE % LOST
-12%-14%-17%-24%
$3.5 MILLION $4.2 MILLION $4.9 MILLION $7.3 MILLION
-11%-13%-16%-22%
67 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
IMPACTS SPECIFIC TO KNEEHILL COUNTY
INCREASE RESIDENTIAL TAX RATES
INCREASE NON-RESIDENTIAL TAX RATES
REDUCE EXPENSES
Scenario D
26%
52%
384%
Scenario C
18%
31%
268%
Scenario B
16%
25%
227%
Scenario A
13%
20%
191%
The potential impact of the proposed changes is alarming for rural municipalities.
Options to mitigate the impacts include:
68 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Impacts Specific to Kneehill County
The average rural municipality manages
1955 kilometres of gravel roads and over
120 bridges, most of which exist to
provide industry access to natural
resources and markets. Kneehill County
has over 2400 kilometers of roads to
maintain, and 213 bridge structures.
If the County were to double current
residential and farmland taxes, an
additional $2.8 Million in revenue would
be achieved.
69 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Impacts Specific to Kneehill County
If Kneehill County were to lose $7.3 Million in
revenue, the County could increase residential
and farmland taxes by 40% and business taxes
by 44% and would still face a loss of over $1
Million dollars. If the County wanted to recoup
the losses completely, taxes would have to
increase almost 50% for all residents, farms,
and businesses within the County. If the County
were to recoup this just from residents and
farms to help business, tax increases for 2021
would be approaching 300%.
70 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Impacts Specific to Kneehill County
If the County was able to make service
cuts of $3.5 Million, residents, farms, and
businesses would still face tax increases
of 35-40% starting next year. To make this
worse, given the artificial depreciation of
Oil and Gas Facilities over just 16-26 years
means that additional revenue would be
lost in future years, necessitating
additional service level decreases and tax
increases.
71 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
The proposed changes would impact our urban partners with a loss of community
funding and reduced services from Kneehill County.
IMPACT ON URBAN PARTNERS
72 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Cuts made by the Government of Alberta in 2020 have resulted in a reduction of
7% of total County tax revenues, a loss of grant funding, and additional costs to be
paid for by the municipality.
CURRENT CHALLENGES
Loss from Shallow Gas Producers
$1.9 M $500,000
Reduction in Provincial Grants
$160,000
In added Police Costs
73 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
$1.485 M
CURRENT CHALLENGES
Kneehill County has already lost significant revenue since 2016 due to industry tax
write-offs and arrears.
Anticipated uncollectable taxes
in 2020 due to bankruptcy.
-$900,0002019
$500,000
$1.8 M
$3.3 M
ARREARS
2018
2016 & 2017
2020 $ 767,469
WRITE-OFFS
2019
74 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
•The average loss in assessment for rural municipalities:14% to 24%.
•Many municipalities will struggle to balance their budget.
•These scenarios do not help Kneehill County residents or business put the
economy back on track.
•Other commercial property owners and residents will “pay the price.”
•The tax burden will be shifted on to all other businesses and residents. Most
municipalities will simply have no other choice.
IN SUMMARY
75 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Municipalities across the Province have already engaged the Provincial
Government in a number of ways. Residents are encouraged to also contact
MLAs to voice concern over the Province’s proposals.
MLA Nathan Cooper
Phone: 403.556.3132
780.427.2464
Email:OldsDidsbury.ThreeHills@assembly.ab.ca
Minister of Municipal Affairs Kacee Madu
Phone: 780.427.3744
Email:minister.municipalaffairs@gov.ab.ca
What Can Municipalities and Residents Do?
76 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Thank You
77 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
August 18, 2020
Assessment Model Review Presentation
78 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Item 1
93%
Item 2
7%
Item 1
91%
91
9%
Item
1
80%
Item
2
20%
Item
1
86%
14
%
Each scenario proposed reduces assessment values across rural Alberta.
GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA PROPOSED MODELS
7%14%
9%>20%
Scenerio A
Scenario B
Scenario C
Scenario D
79 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
CONCERNS OVER PROPOSED MODELS
Changes to regulated Oil & Gas property assessment will compromise:
•the objectivity of the regulated assessment model, and,
•the competitiveness of many small oil and gas companies.
•Options were developed in secrecy, utilizing a technical review that
has not been released to municipalities.
80 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Proposed changes provide one-sided benefit, with no mechanism to ensure
reinvested cost savings or enhancement to Alberta's oil and gas competitiveness.
There is no mechanism for increases when the economy improves.
CONCERNS OVER PROPOSED MODELS
?
81 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Small and locally-owned companies will, on average, receive significantly less benefit
than larger companies, and in many cases will face significant assessment increases
meaning that they will pay more in taxes than they currently do.
CONCERNS OVER PROPOSED MODELS
82 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Proposed Life Span: 15-20 years Actual Life Span: 40-60 years
Each scenario focuses only on the first year of implementation.
Steeper and artificial depreciation will make impacts more severe as assets age.
CONCERNS OVER PROPOSED MODELS
83 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
CONCERNS OVER PROPOSED MODELS
Municipal infrastructure and services
play an important role in supporting oil
and gas industry competitiveness by
providing safe and reliable access to
natural resources.
84 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
The estimated impacts of the proposed assessment model scenarios:
IMPACTS SPECIFIC TO KNEEHILL COUNTY
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D
ASSESSMENT BASE LOSS
TAX $ LOST
REVENUE % LOST
-12%-14%-17%-24%
$3.5 MILLION $4.2 MILLION $4.9 MILLION $7.3 MILLION
-11%-13%-16%-22%
85 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
IMPACTS SPECIFIC TO KNEEHILL COUNTY
INCREASE RESIDENTIAL TAX RATES
INCREASE NON-RESIDENTIAL TAX RATES
REDUCE EXPENSES
Scenario D
26%
52%
384%
Scenario C
18%
31%
268%
Scenario B
16%
25%
227%
Scenario A
13%
20%
191%
The potential impact of the proposed changes is alarming for rural municipalities.
Options to mitigate the impacts include:
86 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Impacts Specific to Kneehill County
The average rural municipality manages
1955 kilometres of gravel roads and over
120 bridges, most of which exist to
provide industry access to natural
resources and markets. Kneehill County
has over 2400 kilometers of roads to
maintain, and 213 bridge structures.
If the County were to double current
residential and farmland taxes, an
additional $2.8 Million in revenue would
be achieved.
87 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Impacts Specific to Kneehill County
If Kneehill County were to lose $7.3 Million in
revenue, the County could increase residential
and farmland taxes by 40% and business taxes
by 44% and would still face a loss of over $1
Million dollars. If the County wanted to recoup
the losses completely, taxes would have to
increase almost 50% for all residents, farms,
and businesses within the County. If the County
were to recoup this just from residents and
farms to help business, tax increases for 2021
would be approaching 300%.
88 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Impacts Specific to Kneehill County
If the County was able to make service
cuts of $3.5 Million, residents, farms, and
businesses would still face tax increases
of 35-40% starting next year. To make this
worse, given the artificial depreciation of
Oil and Gas Facilities over just 16-26 years
means that additional revenue would be
lost in future years, necessitating
additional service level decreases and tax
increases.
89 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
The proposed changes would impact our urban partners with a loss of community
funding and reduced services from Kneehill County.
IMPACT ON URBAN PARTNERS
90 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Cuts made by the Government of Alberta in 2020 have resulted in a reduction of
7% of total County tax revenues, a loss of grant funding, and additional costs to be
paid for by the municipality.
CURRENT CHALLENGES
Loss from Shallow Gas Producers
$1.9 M $500,000
Reduction in Provincial Grants
$160,000
In added Police Costs
91 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
$1.485 M
CURRENT CHALLENGES
Kneehill County has already lost significant revenue since 2016 due to industry tax
write-offs and arrears.
Anticipated uncollectable taxes
in 2020 due to bankruptcy.
-$900,0002019
$500,000
$1.8 M
$3.3 M
ARREARS
2018
2016 & 2017
2020 $ 767,469
WRITE-OFFS
2019
92 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
•The average loss in assessment for rural municipalities:14% to 24%.
•Many municipalities will struggle to balance their budget.
•These scenarios do not help Kneehill County residents or business put the
economy back on track.
•Other commercial property owners and residents will “pay the price.”
•The tax burden will be shifted on to all other businesses and residents. Most
municipalities will simply have no other choice.
IN SUMMARY
93 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Municipalities across the Province have already engaged the Provincial
Government in a number of ways. Residents are encouraged to also contact
MLAs to voice concern over the Province’s proposals.
MLA Nathan Cooper
Phone: 403.556.3132
780.427.2464
Email:OldsDidsbury.ThreeHills@assembly.ab.ca
Minister of Municipal Affairs Kacee Madu
Phone: 780.427.3744
Email:minister.municipalaffairs@gov.ab.ca
What Can Municipalities and Residents Do?
94 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Thank You
95 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
1
Assessment Model Review
Alberta’s assessment model is intended to provide a means for all properties in the province to be
assigned an objective annual value for the purposes of property taxation and to inform municipal grants
and requisitions. While most properties are assessed based on their market values, designated industrial
properties such as wells and pipelines are assessed based on several regulated factors linked to
depreciation, size, materials, etc. By attempting to use t he assessment system to enhance industry
competitiveness, the 2020 review and subsequent changes to how these regulated properties are
assessed has compromised the objectivity of the regulated assessment model, and will result in serious
fiscal impacts to municipalities, while actually compromising the competitiveness of many small oil and
gas companies.
What is RMA’s position on the role of Alberta’s assessment system?
• Alberta’s assessment model is intended to provide an objective and data-driven method to
valuing properties in the province.
• Any changes to the regulated assessment models should be based on new information, new
methodology, and accurately assessing new technology and equipment.
• Alberta’s assessment system should not be modified or amended to address short-term
challenges of a specific industry or property type.
• Tax exemption policies should not be built into the assessment system. Such policies should be
implemented in a transparent and targeted manner.
What are the risks and challenges associated with using the regulated
assessment system to enhance industry competitiveness?
• The regulated assessment model is highly complex and not designed to be used to provide
targeted support to specific industries or property types. As such, any attempt s at targeted
industry support through assessment manipulation will have unintended impacts on both
property owners and municipalities.
• “Ability to pay” is not a factor in the assessment process for any regulated and non -
regulated property in Alberta, and should not be built into the model for wells,
pipelines, and other oil and gas equipment. This should be addressed
through other provincial policy tools.
96 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
2
• Manipulating the assessment system to support industry competitiveness will have a wide range
of impacts on municipal assessment values, which affect municipal revenues, grant distribution,
requisition calculations, and will have both local and regional impacts across Alberta.
• A reduction in assessment will force municipalities to make a range of revenue-generation and
spending changes, including some combination of raising tax rates on residential and non -
residential property classes, reducing service levels, revising or cancelling intermunicipal
agreements, or potentially facing non-viability. The actual impacts of the proposed changes will
vary widely by municipality.
• There is no mechanism to require the oil and gas industry re -invest any cost savings received
through changes to the assessment model in Alberta in the form of job creation and/or capital
investment.
What is RMA’s position on the outcomes of the 2020 assessment model
review for regulated oil and gas properties?
• The final scenarios recommended to provincial ministers based on the review process will have
severe negative impacts on rural municipalities in the form of reduced assessment values and
taxation revenues.
• The final scenarios recommended to provincial ministers based on the review process have not
been adequately evaluated in relation to enhancing industry competitiveness and supporting
municipal viability, which the Government of Alberta identified as the two review priorities.
• The final scenarios recommended to provincial ministers based on the review process will have
widely different impacts on municipalities in different regions of the province. Municipalities that
primarily host older oil and gas infrastructure will be much more negatively impacted than
municipalities that host newer oil and gas infrastructure.
• The data used to develop the final scenarios recommended to provincial decision-makers is
incomplete, as it is based on only one year of impacts. Due to the significant changes to
depreciation curves used in each scenario, the multi-year impacts of the changes will be much
more impactful and must be considered in a final decision on changes to the assessment model.
• The final scenarios recommended to provincial ministers based on the review process will
have significantly different impacts on oil and gas companies of different sizes. The
largest oil and gas companies operating in Alberta will benefit significantly,
while the smallest oil and gas companies will, in many cases, face
significantly higher assessments.
97 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
3
How will the outcomes of the 2020 assessment model review impact
municipal sustainability?
• Municipalities rely on fair, objective and consistent property assessment system to adequately
plan and budget.
• Under the four scenarios proposed by the Government of Alberta, Alberta municipalities will lose
between $109 million and $291 million in tax revenue in 2021, with likely increases each year as
assessable property depreciates.
• Under the scenario favored by the oil and gas industry, the average rural municipality will lose
over 12% of its revenues in 2021, and 10 municipalities will lose over 20% of their revenues.
• Municipalities have limited tools to generate revenue. Significantly reducing property
assessments will force municipalities to increase non-residential and residential tax rates, reduce
service levels, eliminate staff positions, and/or consider dissolution. A rural dissolution would
have significant cost and service implications, as the average rural municipality manage s 1955
kilometres of road over 120 bridges, most of which exist to provide industry access to natural
resources and markets.
• Industry has formally requested that municipal tax rates be frozen for non -residential properties.
This, along with the changes to the assessment model favored by industry, would require
municipalities to raise their residential tax rate by an average of 199% to offset revenue losses.
• Including capital and infrastructure investment, the average municipality would be required to
reduce expenses by over 16% to offset revenue losses in the oil and gas industry’s preferred
scenario.
• When combined with increased policing costs, reduced grant funding, and COVID -19-related
property tax deferrals, many rural municipalities will lack the ab ility to adapt to the revenue
reductions that will be the result of the scenarios proposed by the Government of Alberta.
How will the outcomes of the 2020 assessment model review impact oil
and gas industry competitiveness?
• Throughout the review process, no data or information linking assessment reductions to
competitiveness enhancements was provided by industry stakeholders or the
Government of Alberta.
• Although the oil and gas industry as a whole will receive
modest cost reductions through the reduction of
98 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
4
property assessment, there is absolutely no requirement or incentive that will ensure any savings
benefit Alberta in the form of increased industry investment and job creation.
• Based on the Government of Alberta’s proposed scenarios, the largest oil an d gas companies
operating in the province will receive a disproportionate share of benefits from changes to the
assessment model. Small and locally-owned companies will, on average, receive significantly less
benefit, and in many cases will face significant assessment increases.
• Many of the companies that will benefit most from the assessment model review have holdings
worldwide and are under no obligation to reinvest savings in Alberta.
• Under the proposed changes to the assessment model favored by industry, over one-third of all
oil and gas companies would face assessment increases, while the largest oil and gas companies
would receive benefits that greatly exceed their share of the assessment base.
What alternatives would better enhance oil and gas industry
competitiveness while supporting municipal sustainability?
• There are a wide variety of tax and policy tools available to enhance oil and gas industry
competitiveness.
• Any tool to enhance industry competitiveness should be evaluated on five principles:
o Equitable in cost-sharing – are the costs of supporting industry shared equitably among
different levels of government?
o Equitable in benefits-sharing – are the benefits of an incentive or support distributed
equitably within industry and do they reach the sub-sets of industry that need it the most?
o Tangibility - Do the benefits of the tool lead to direct, observable action by industry that
provides an overall provincial benefit (capital investment, job creation, etc.)?
o Sustainability – Does the tool prioritize long-term growth and investment for industry and
is it adjustable or cancellable if it is on longer needed?
o Transparency – Is the tool understandable to taxpayers? Are the province-wide benefits
easily observable? Does the tool have a built-in means for regular review and
modification?
Contact
Gerald Rhodes
Executive Director
gerald@RMAlberta.com
99 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
5
Tasha Blumenthal
Director of External Relations and Advocacy
tasha@RMAlberta.com
Wyatt Skovron
Senior Policy Advisor
wyatt@RMAlberta.com
100 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Kneehill Community Resource Program
779 – 2nd Street, North, P.O. Box 400, Three Hills Alberta, T0M 2A0
Phone: 403.443.3800
August 11, 2020
Dear Kneehill County Council:
Re: Kneehill Community Resource Program 2019/2020 Final Report
We are pleased to send you a copy of the 2019/2020 Final Report for the Kneehill
Community Resource Program. A detailed long version of the report is available upon
request.
This report represents the 32nd year the program has been operating in the Kneehill
region. As you will discover, the Family Resource Workers continue to assist a large
number of children, youth, families and adults with social/emotional support, preventive
education and information/referral. Once again, mental health continued as the primary
issue for ongoing and single session supports for children and youth in 2019/20. For
adults, parenting strategies was the most common reason they connected with the
Family Resource Workers.
Unfortunately, due to Children’s Services withdrawing their funding from the partnership,
the Kneehill Community Resource Program was terminated June 30, 2020. Kneehill
Regional Family and Community Support Services and Golden Hills School Division are
working on a new service to support Kneehill area children, youth and families.
If you have any questions or concerns arising from this document, please contact me at
403.443.3800 or shelley@krfcss.com
Thank you for your time and involvement with the Kneehill Community Resource
Program.
Sincerely,
Shelley Jackson-Berry, Director
Kneehill Regional Family and Community Support Services
for the Kneehill Community Resource Program Management Team
101 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
2019-2020
FINAL
REPORT
WORKING TOGETHER TO BUILD A BETTER COMMUNITY
K N E E H I L L C O M M U N I T Y R E S O U R C E P R O G R A M
102 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
ABOUT US 2
STATS & NUMBERS 3
IMPACT & REACH 5
PREVENTIVE EDUCATION 6
OUR PARTNERS 8
FINANCIAL STATEMENT 9
THANK YOU 10
103 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
The Kneehill Community Resource Program (KCRP), a grassroots, locally driven
program, terminated June 30, 2020 after 32 years of successful service delivery.
Central Alberta Children's Services, a program partner, severed funding March 31,
2020. Consequently, Kneehill Regional Family and Community Support Services
(KRFCSS) increased funding contributions to ensure temporary program viability.
KRFCSS's timely and driven insight along with support from Golden Hills School
Division, made it possible for continued short-term program support, which proved to
be of immeasurable value with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on Kneehill
area lives and livelihoods.
At the time of the KCRP inception, area community members banded together to
address the rise in local suicide rates and the lack of accessible prevention, early
intervention, and support services for residents of the Kneehill area.
The KCRP was comprised of three Family Resource Worker (FRW) positions, with
office locations in all Golden Hills School Division (GHSD) schools in Kneehill County
and the KRFCSS office in Three Hills. The year-round program served all Kneehill
area residents, regardless of age, with the main focus on children/youth and their
families.
The KCRP's three core objectives were to improve well-being of all Kneehill residents
through: social and emotional support; preventive education; and information,
networking and referral.
Mental health continued as the primary issue for children and youth (28%), but showed
a decrease from 2018-2019 (40%).
Mental health concerns also presented as a main issue in single sessions with both
children (41%) and adults (35%).
Parenting strategies remained as the primary issue for adults (67%).
Peer relations/social skills was also a significant concern for children in both ongoing
(20%) and single sessions (21%).
Due to extenuating circumstances related to staff medical leave and the coronavirus
pandemic, our return rate for ongoing client surveys was low this year at 57%.
ABOUT US
2019 - 2020 TRENDS
02 | KCRP 2019 - 2020 Final Report
104 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
STATS &
NUMBERS
72
SINGLE SESSION
ONE-ON-ONE
CLIENTS
03 | KCRP 2019 - 2020 Final Report
125
ONGOING
ONE-ON-ONE
CLIENTS
79
OUTGOING
REFERRALS
207
TEACHER
CONSULTATIONS
7
FAMILY & STAFF
CONSULTATIONS
105 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
IMPACT
& REACH
04 | KCRP 2019 - 2020 Final Report
Top Child & Youth Issues Top Adult Issues
ONGOING:
Parenting Strategies
SINGLE SESSION:
Parenting Strategies
ONGOING:
Mental Health
SINGLE SESSION:
Mental Health
87%
of clients reported bein
g
better able to deal with th
e
i
r
situation after meeting
with the FRW
95%
of clients reported an inc
r
e
a
s
e
d
awareness of supports a
n
d
services after meeting wi
t
h
the FRW "FRW i
s
a
n
a
b
s
ol
ut
e
d
eli
g
ht t
o
w
or
k
with,
s
o
v
er
y
c
ari
n
g
a
n
d
s
u
p
p
orti
v
e."
-Clie
nt r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
"W
e
r
e
a
l
l
y
a
p
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
e
d
F
R
W
’
s
en
e
r
g
y
,
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
n
d
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
a
t
t
i
t
u
d
e
.
Sh
e
w
a
s
v
e
r
y
r
e
a
s
s
u
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
a
b
l
e
t
o
hel
p
u
s
i
n
o
u
r
t
i
m
e
o
f
n
e
e
d
.
"
-Cl
i
e
n
t
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
106 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
05 | KCRP 2019 - 2020 Final Report
"We were so thankful our son could
see FRW! She has helped him so much
after a year of bullying. He seems like
himself again, he has more confidence
and he’s not as scared."
-Client response
"We have seen amazing growth in [child].
Your care for him is very evident right
from the first day. He has really loved
being with you and learning from you.
Thanks for your time."
-Client response
"FRW has been meeting with my daughter to
help support her through grief of losing loved
ones. She has been exceptional at helping my
daughter work through these difficult times
and supporting me as a mom and helping me
to better help my child. I am so grateful for
FRW and the work she does. [...] Thank you so
much for this program."
-Client response
107 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
0 25 50 75
Classroom Presentations
Guest Speakers
Well-Being Displays
Groups
Early Years Presentations
PREVENTIVE
EDUCATION
06 | KCRP 2019 - 2020 Final Report
7,212
people
reached
90%
of people reported
an increase in
knowledge
22
Community Events
3,652
Community Members
Reached
"I learned lots of new things about the
subject I didn't know before."
-Student response
108 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
07 | KCRP 2019 - 2020 Final Report
100% of students
reported they were
better able to get
along with others
after participating in
small group sessions
"Extremely well done! Gave me some inspiration." -Student response
"Thank you for teaching me about the electronic smoking devices. I loved learning
about it, thanks so much." -Student response
"I loved the program and I am thankful that you came in to talk to all of us."
-Student response
"This was a fantastic class to learn more about empathy." -Student response
109 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
OUR
PARTNERS
08 | KCRP 2019 - 2020 Final Report
IN APPRECIATION OF
Kneehill Regional Family & Community Support Services
Golden Hills School Division
Central Alberta Children's Services
Accredited Supports | Alberta Health Services
Alberta Health Services - Addiction & Mental Health
Area Churches | Area Food Banks | Area Municipalities
Central Alberta Sexual Assault Support Centre
Children's Rehabilitation Services | Early Childhood Service Providers
Golden Prairie Parent Link | Healthy Families | Kneehill Community Coordinator
Kneehill & Family Marriage Counselling | Kneehill KidSport | Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Victim's Services | Wheatland Crisis Society
of our partners report that they have a positive
working relationship with the Kneehill
Community Resource Program
As FRWs, we are especially grateful for the partner support and collaboration
provided. Our work together has resulted in positive outcomes for Kneehill area
children, adults, families and community.
100%
110 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
FINANCIAL
OVERVIEW
JULY 1, 2019 - JUNE 30,2020
09 | KCRP 2019 - 2020 Final Report
REVENUE ACTUAL
Golden Hills School Division...........................................................$45,000.00
Central Alberta CS.........................................................................$66,943.00
Kneehill Regional FCSS ................................................................$108,000.00
Additional Funding............................................................................$15,717.01
Total Revenue $235,660.01
EXPENDITURES
Salaries, CPP, EI, WCB, Group Benefits........................................$218,402.64
Staff Travel, Mileage.........................................................................$3,089.25
Prof. Dev./In Service.........................................................................$3,093.99
Telephone............................................................................................$850.00
Public Education.................................................................................$1,162.50
Advertising............................................................................................$185.73
Audit/Accounting..............................................................................$7,132.24
Insurance..............................................................................................$683.21
Printing & Stationary............................................................................$839.70
Resources............................................................................................$220.75
Total Expenditures $235,660.01
TOTALS
Total Revenue..............................................................................$235,660.01
Total Expenditures.......................................................................$235,660.01
SURPLUS (DEFICIT) $0.00
111 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Thank you Kneehill area residents for making all of our positive outcomes and
achievements possible this final year.
The support provided by our funders: Kneehill Regional Family and Community
Support Services, Golden Hills School Division, and Central Alberta Children's
Services has been greatly appreciated.
Unfortunately, due to partner funding changes, the Kneehill Community Resource
Program terminated June 30, 2020. New, altered services and supports will be
delivered to Kneehill area children, youth and families in the near future.
Thank you Kneehill for the wonderful 32 years of service!
THANK
YOU!
KNEEHILL COMMUNITY
RESOURCE PROGRAM
PO Box 400
Three Hills, AB
T0M 2A0
Central Office
Contact Number:
403-443-3800
10 | KCRP 2019 - 2020 Final Report
112 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
12.0
Page 1 of 1
Version: 2020-01
Subject: Council Follow-up Action List
Meeting Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2020
Presented By: Mike Haugen, CAO
Link to Strat Plan: Level of Service
Recommended
Motion:
That Council receive the report regarding the Council Follow-up Action List for
information, as presented.
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.
Financial
Implications:
N/A
Council Options:
1. Receive the report regarding the Council Follow-up Action List for information.
2. Council provide further direction or required changes/amendments.
Recommended
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-
Attachments:
August 18, 2020 Council Follow-Up Action List
Follow-up
Actions:
Update Action List and provide updated Council Follow-Up Action List at the next
Council meeting.
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
113 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Meeting Date Motion #Description/Motion
Action Required Assigned To Due Date Status
25-Jun-19 302/19
Councillor Penner moved that Council move to direct
administration to pursue the easement regarding the Three
Hills Creek Area Structure Plan.Planning Department
Easement not Successful.
Back on August Agenda
14-Jan-20 27/20
Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council authorize the
funds realized from the sale of surplus equipment located on
the property located at SE 15-28-22 W4M be transferred to
the Building Reserve.
Tender not successful.
Will reassess and offer
equipment for sale in
different format
11-Feb-20 49/2020
Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that administration submit an
application under the Provincial Education Requisition Credit
(PERC) for Uncollectable Education Property Taxes on Oil and
Gas Properties.
In Progress; the
application intake for this
grant is not until January
2021.
10-Mar-20 139/2020
Councillor King moved to amend the commencement and
completion dates for the Badlands Motorsport Resort
Development Agreement.
Applicant will be
requesting another
extension
24-Mar-20 169/2020
Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council direct
administration to bring back the Procedural Bylaw for revision
immediately following the conclusion of the COVID-19 event.
On hold until COVID-19 is
over
14-Apr-20 189/2020
Councillor King moved to direct administration to pursue the
road closure and consolidation of a portion of Township Road
28-4, which is an undeveloped road allowance adjacent to the
south end of Horseshoe Canyon (more specifically the SW-27-
28-21-W4), and road plan 834 LK into descriptive plan 091
0342, Block 1, Lot 2.Completed
Completed – now part of
302/2020 & 303/2020
14-Apr-20 190/2020
Councillor Christie moved to direct administration to pursue
the road closure and consolidation of a portion of Range Road
26-0, which is an undeveloped road allowance adjacent to the
Keiver’s Lake Campground.
Surveyor has been
notified to proceed
09-Jun-20 265/2020
Councillor Penner moved that Council directs administration
to apply for the Municipal Asset Management Program grant
opportunity from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’
to be utilized for asset management systems development.Completed
The grant application has
been submitted.
23-Jun-20 277/2020
Councillor King moved that Council directs administration to
move forward with day use washroom facility with small
retail/café space as approved in the 2020 budget.In Progress
23-Jun-20 278/2020
Councillor Penner Council directs administration to move
forward with infrastructure changes as approved in the 2020
budget to accommodate charge parking implementation for
2021 season.In Progress
23-Jun-20 279/2020
Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council directs
Administration to develop a Terms of Reference for Council’s
consideration to form a focused task force for the
development Horseshoe Canyon, utilizing a third party to act
as a facilitator.Completed In Progress
23-Jun-20 280/2020
Councillor King moved that Council directs Administration to
actively pursue further details on a partnership opportunity
with the Province for Bleriot Ferry Campground and Tolman
West Campground.
Waiting for Province to
release details likely Fall
2020
23-Jun-20 284/2020
Councillor King moved that Council host two Discovery Fair
Ratepayer Evening events in 2020 to be scheduled based on
relaxation of the COVID-19 restrictions. In Progress
23-Jun-20 287/2020
Deputy Reeve McGhee moved to approve the cancellation of
2019 taxes in the amount of $125.65 for Roll 30211533000
and the 2020 taxes (estimated at $130.00) as per the directive
from the Province regarding the Grants in Place of Taxes
program.Completed
Council Action Items
114 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Meeting Date Motion #Description/Motion
Action Required Assigned To Due Date Status
Council Action Items
21-Jul-20 297/2020
Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council approve 50% cost
sharing with owner/developer Dave and Ruth Stewart in the
amount of $7,248.10 for the development of the
undeveloped road allowance Township Road 29-3A to access a
sub-divided parcel situated out of North East 18-29-23-W4M,
with funds coming from the operating budget.Completed
21-Jul-20 298/2020 Councillor King moved that Council approve as presented,
Policy #13-6-7, Gravel Stock Pile Leases.Completed
21-Jul-20 299/2020
Councillor Keiver moved that Council approve as presented,
Policy #13-23-4, Sale, Lease or Rental of County Road
Allowances.Completed
21-Jul-20 300/2020 Councillor Christie moved that Council approve as presented,
Policy #13-25, Seeding Roadsides.Completed
21-Jul-20 301/2020
Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council move to set a
Public Hearing for Land Use Bylaw 1808, to be held on
September 8, 2020 at 10:00 a.m., as per Section 692(1)(e) of
the Municipal Government Act.
On the September 8, 2020
Agenda
21-Jul-20 302/2020
Councillor Christie moved that Council move first reading of
Bylaw 1823 to pursue the road closure and consolidation of a
portion of Township Road 28-4, which is an undeveloped road
allowance adjacent to the south end of Horseshoe Canyon
(more specifically the SW-27-28-21-W4), and road plan 834 LK
into descriptive plan 091 0342, Block 1, Lot 2.In Progress
21-Jul-20 303/2020
Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council set a public
hearing to be set for Bylaw 1823 for August 18, 2020 at 10:00
a.m. as per Section 22 of the Municipal Government Act.
On the August 18, 2020
Agenda
21-Jul-20 304/2020
Councillor Penner moved that Council approve the Terms of
Reference for Horseshoe Canyon Focus Group, as presented.Completed
21-Jul-20 305/2020
Councillor King moved that Council accepts the Kneehill
Regional Emergency Management Agency report for
information as presented.Completed
21-Jul-20 306/2020
Councillor King moved that the 2020 Tax Sale Public Auction
be held on Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 2 pm in the Kneehill
County Administration Building.Completed
21-Jul-20 307/2020
Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that the balance of 2018 &
2019 property taxes in arrears in the amount of $219,274.66
be expensed and cancelled on rolls 30220531300,
31250331100, 31252010100, 31253031400, 31253040900,
31253231300, 32261210700, 32261920500, 32261941500,
32262831300, 32262841600, 32263010200, 32263020400,
32272410800, 32272431300, 32272431600, 33262810200,
33272410100, 34223431400, 34223241600, 34223031300,
34221631400, 34222010800, 34222210800, 34222810200,
34230410700, 34231120600, 34232320400, 33272441600,
and 32250610200.Completed
21-Jul-20 308/2020
Councillor King moved that administration submit an
application under the Provincial Education Requisition Credit
(PERC) for the uncollectable Education Requisition and the
uncollectable Designated Industrial Property Requisition on
these Oil & Gas Properties.
In Progress; the
application intake for this
grant is not until January
2021.
21-Jul-20 309/2020
Councillor Christie moved that administration is directed to
void any 2020 penalties currently attached to these rolls. (Roll
# motion 308/2020)Completed
115 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Meeting Date Motion #Description/Motion
Action Required Assigned To Due Date Status
Council Action Items
21-Jul-20 310/2020
Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that the amount of
$577,991.76 in property taxes be expensed and cancelled on
rolls 40001620000, 40001010000, 29251041000,
30231141500, 31231231100, 32232410800, 32232420600,
33242220400, and 40001030000. Completed
21-Jul-20 311/2020
Councillor Penner moved that administration submit an
application under the Provincial Education Requisition Credit
(PERC)for the uncollectable Education Requisition and the
uncollectable Designated Industrial Property Requisition on
these Oil & Gas Properties.
In Progress; the
application intake for this
grant is not until January
2021.
21-Jul-20 312/2020
Councillor King moved that administration is directed to void
any 2020 penalties currently attached to these rolls. (rolls
from motion #310/2020)Completed
21-Jul-20 313/2020
Councillor King moved that Council receive the Quarterly
Financial Reporting for the Period ending June 30, 2020 for
information.Completed
21-Jul-20 314/2020 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council approve Policy #3-
11, Legal Costs as presented.Completed
21-Jul-20 315/2020 Councillor Penner moved that Council approve Policy #3-2,
Title of Chief Elected Officer as presented.Completed
21-Jul-20 316/2020 Councillor King moved that Council rescind Policy #3-3, Boards
and Committees.Completed
21-Jul-20 317/2020
Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council approve Policy #15-
2, Special Occasion and Milestone Recognition as presented. Completed
21-Jul-20 318/2020
Councillor Penner moved that Council provide support to the
Annual Alberta/Northwest Territory Royal Canadian Legion
“Military Service Recognition Book” with the purchase of a
business card size advertisement at a cost of $285.00 with
funds to come from the Operating Budget.Completed
21-Jul-20 319/2020
Councillor Keiver moved that Council direct Administration to
work with local groups for the purpose of utilizing the area
behind the County Office for community benefit.
116 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package
AMENDMENT SUMMARY
Council Meeting Date: August 19, 2020
Purpose:
The purpose of the Amendment Summary is to explain the differences from the original package that
was presented at the Council meeting compared to the amended version.
Agenda:
Additions under Council and Committee Reports
11.2 Canadian Badlands Ltd.
Package:
No additions were made to the package
117 2020.08.18 Adopted Council Meeting Package