HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020.10.27 Adopted Council Meeting PackageCOUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
1600-2nd Street NE
Three Hills, AB
T0M 2A0
October 27, 2020
To Commence After Organizational Meeting
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 October 13, 2020
3.0 Delegations
3.1 Junior Achievement, Melanie Willerth @10:00 a.m.
3.2 Pine Cliff Energy, Phil Hodge, CEO and Terry McNeill, COO @10:30 a.m. by
Video Conferencing
4.0 Public Hearings
No Public Hearings Scheduled for this Meeting
5.0 Transportation
5.1
6.0 Community Services
6.1 Planning
6.1.1 Proposed Land Purchase in Hesketh
6.2 Water/Wastewater/Environment
No Report
6.3 Agricultural Service Board & Parks
6.3.1 Policy 1-30 Soil Conservation- Stubble Burning
6.3.2 Policy 1-30-1 Soil Conservation – ASB Equipment Rental
6.3.3 Horseshoe Canyon Focus Group Appointments
6.4 Protective Services
6.4.1 Disposal of Fire Apparatus
7.0 Corporate Services
7.1 Quarterly Financial Reporting
7.2 Tax Cancellation- Industrial Accounts
1 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
October 27, 2020 Council Meeting Agenda
Page 2 of 2
8.0 Business Arising from Previous Minutes
8.1 Policy 1-29-3 Agricultural Pests - Clubroot
9.0 New Business
9.1 Community Grants to Non Profit Organizations Policy #15-3, Round Two
9.2 Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) Fall Resolutions
9.3 2021 Kneehill Regional FCSS Budget and Allocations
9.4 Kneehill Adult Learning Request
9.5 Kneehill Regional Partnership
9.6 Policy #11-2, Letter of Support
9.7 Assessment Model Review Outcomes
9.8 Transfer of Land to Alberta Transportation
10.0 Disposition of Delegation & Public Hearing Business
10.1 Junior Achievement Delegation
10.2 Pine Cliff Energy Ltd. Tax Agreement Request
11.0 Council and Committee Reports
11.1 September 15- Kneehill County Committee of the Whole Minutes
11.2 Community Futures Wildrose
12.0 Council Follow-up Action List
13.0 Closed Session
13.1 Disclosure Harmful to Business Interests of a Third Party (Section 25, FOIP)
13.2 Personnel (Section 17, FOIP)
14.0 Motions from Closed Session
Adjournment
2 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
1
________
Initials
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 13, 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 of Transportation Brad Buchert
Protective Services Manager Debra Grosfield
Manager of ASB and Parks Bowen Clausen
Environmental Services Manager John McKiernan
Manager of Planning and Development Barb Hazelton
Financial Planning Coordinator Marika von Mirbach
Assessment Officer Caroline Siverson
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
No additions were added
ADOPTION OF
AGENDA
1.2 Adoption of Agenda
384/2020 Councillor Christie moved approval of the agenda as presented.
CARRIED
MINUTES 2.0 Minutes
2.1 Regular Council Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2020
385/2020 Councillor King moved approval of the September 22, 2020 Council
Meeting minutes as presented.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
3 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
COUNCIL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13, 2020
2
_________
Initials
TRANSPORTATION 5.0 Transportation
5.1 Policy #13-2, Transportation Grader/Gravel Services
386/2020 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council approve as presented,
Policy #13-2, Transportation Grader/Gravel Services.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
5.2 Policy #13-6-2, Gravel Specifications
387/2020 Councillor King moved that Council rescinds Policy #13-6-2,Gravel
Specifications.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
5.3 Policy #13-28, Snowplowing of County Road Allowance &
Snowplowing/Grading of Private Driveways
388/2020 Councillor Penner moved that Council rescinds Policy #13-28,
Snowplowing of County Road Allowance & Snowplowing/Grading
Private Driveways.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
5.4 Policy #13-38, Brush & Tree Control Road Allowances
389/2020 Councillor King moved that Council approve Policy #13-38, Brush &
Tree Control Road Allowances, with minor amendment.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
5.5 Development of Undeveloped Road Allowance, Rng Road 25-5
390/2020 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council approve the development
to County standards of the undeveloped road allowance located at
Range Road 25-5, within NE-06-32-25-W4, for approximately 250 m,
to access SE-07-32-25-W4, with all costs to the project incurred by the
applicant.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
COMMUNITY
SERVICES
6.0 Community Services
PLANNING 6.1Planning
6.1.1 Master Rates Adjustments
391/2020 Councillor King moved that Council move to adopt the additional fees
for Land Use Bylaw 1808 as presented.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
392/2020 Councillor Penner moved that Council direct Administration to include
these fees in the next update of the Master Rates Bylaw.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
4 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
COUNCIL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13, 2020
3
_________
Initials
6.1.2 Bylaw 1827- Redesignation from Agriculture District to
Agriculture Business District- SW 27-30-25 W4 Plan 121 0619
Block 1 Lot 2
393/2020 Councillor King moved first reading of proposed Bylaw 1827 for the
purpose of amending Land Use Bylaw 1808 by redesignating a portion
of SW 27-30-25 W4 Plan 121 0619 Block 1 Lot 2 from the Agriculture
District to the Agriculture Business District.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
394/2020 Councillor Penner moved that Council schedule the Public Hearing, as
per Section 230 & 692 of the Municipal Government Act, to be held on
November 10, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
WATER 6.2 Water/Wastewater/Environment
6.2.1 Community Engagement- Three Hills East Water
395/2020 Councillor Penner moved that Council direct Administration to engage
with the residents within the defined area east of Three Hills to gauge
the interest in a municipal water supply system.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
ASB & PARKS 6.3 Agricultural Service Board & Parks
6.3.1 Policy 1-29 Agricultural Pests and Nuisance Species
396/2020 Councillor Christie moved that Council approves Policy 1-29,
Agricultural Pests and Nuisance Species, as recommended by the
Agricultural Service Board.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
6.3.2 Policy 1-29-1 Agricultural Pests- Grasshopper
397/2020 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council deletes Policy 1-29-1,
Agricultural Pests – Grasshopper, as recommended by the Agricultural
Service Board.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
6.3.3 Policy 1-29-2 Agricultural Pests-Coyote
398/2020 Councillor King moved that Council approves Policy 1-29-2,
Agricultural Pests – Coyote, as recommended by the Agricultural
Service Board with minor amendment.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
6.3.4 Policy 1-29-3 Agricultural Pests-Clubroot
399/2020 Councillor King moved that Council direct administration to bring
back Policy 1-29-3, Agricultural Pests – Clubroot, to a future Council
meeting with further information.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
5 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
COUNCIL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13, 2020
4
_________
Initials
The Chair called for a recess at 9:25 a.m. and called the meeting back
to order at 9:43 a.m. with all previously mentioned Council members
present.
PROTECTIVE SERV 6.4 Protective Services
6.4.1 Bylaw 1826- Emergency Management Bylaw
400/2020 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved first reading to Bylaw 1826, that being
a bylaw for the purpose of establishing a regional municipal emergency
management advisory committee and agency.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
401/2020 Councillor Penner moved second reading to Bylaw 1826.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
402/2020 Councillor Christie moved that Council provide unanimous consent for
third and final reading be given to Bylaw 1826.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
403/2020 Councillor Keiver moved third reading to Bylaw 1826.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
6.4.2- Regional Emergency Management Agreement
404/2020 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council authorize the Reeve and
CAO to sign the Regional Emergency Management Agreement dated
October 30, 2020, as presented.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The Chair called for a recess at 9:54 a.m. and called the meeting back
to order at 10:00 a.m. with all previously mentioned Council members
present.
PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.0 Public Hearings
4.1 Bylaw 1825- Redesignation from Agriculture District to
Agriculture Business District- SW 30-29-25 W4
405/2020 Councillor King moved that the Public Hearing for Bylaw #1825 be
opened at 10:00 a.m.
CARRIED
Person(s) who presented: Barb Hazelton, Planning &
Development Manager
Ray Price, Sunterra
Person(s) who spoke in favour: Village of Acme
Person(s) who spoke in opposition: None
Person(s) who spoke neither in
favour or opposition:
George Frede
Person(s) who spoke in rebuttal: Ray Price, Sunterra
6 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
COUNCIL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13, 2020
5
_________
Initials
406/2020 Councillor Penner moved that the Public Hearing for Bylaw #1825 be
closed at 10:30 a.m.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
CORPORATE SERV 7.0 Corporate Services
7.1 Tax Forfeiture Properties
407/2020 Councillor Christie moved that Council accept the Tax Forfeiture
Properties report for information as presented.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
7.2 Electronic Transmission of Documents Bylaw
408/2020 Councillor Penner moved second reading to Bylaw #1824, that being a
bylaw for the Electronic Transmission of Documents.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
409/2020 Councillor Christie moved that third reading be given to Bylaw #1824.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
BUSINESS ARISING 8.0 Business Arising from Previous Minutes
8.1 Highway 21 Corridor Crime Watch Association Request
410/2020 Councillor Christie moved that Council provide support to the
Highway 21 Corridor Crime Watch Association in the amount of
$1,000.00 with funds to come from the 2020 operating budget.
CARRIED
NEW BUSINESS 9.0 New Business
9.1 2020 Discovery Fair & Ratepayer Evening
411/2020 Councillor Penner moved that Council cancel the Discovery Fair and
Ratepayer Evening until 2021, or when gathering restrictions have been
lifted.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The Chair called for a recess at 11:01 a.m. and called the meeting back
to order at 11:05 a.m. with all previously mentioned Council members
present.
DELEGATIONS 3.0 Delegations
3.1 Town of Trochu/Trochu Housing Corporation
Barry Kletke, Trochu Mayor, Sam Smalldon, President of the Trochu
Housing Corporation and Shelly Murphy, Covenant Health, provided
Council with an update of the Trochu Seniors Supportive Living
Facility Project since their last presentation to Council on November
26, 2019.
7 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
COUNCIL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13, 2020
6
_________
Initials
9.2 RCMP Meeting at RMA
412/2020 Councillor King moved that Council accept the invitation to meet at the
RMA Convention from the RCMP for information, as presented.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
9.3 Acme ICF Extension
413/2020 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council approve the Memorandum
of Understanding to extend discussion deadlines by six months
regarding water and wastewater services with the Village of Acme.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The Chair called for a recess at 11:45 a.m. and called the meeting back
to order at 11:58 a.m. with all previously mentioned Council members
present.
9.4 Provincial Policing Priorities
414/2020 Councillor Penner moved that Council direct Administration to submit
the Provincial Policing Priorities survey as amended.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The Chair called for a recess at 12:11 p.m. and called the meeting back
to order at 12:40 p.m. with all previously mentioned Council members
present.
CLOSED SESSION 13.0 Closed Session
415/2020 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, at 12:40 p.m.
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
Marika Von Mirbach, Financial Planning Coordinator
Carolyn Van der Kuil, Recording Secretary
Dan Rochette, Waste Connections
Mr. Rochette left at 1:10 p.m.
416/2020 Councillor King moved that Council return to open meeting at 1:41
p.m.
8 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
COUNCIL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13, 2020
7
_________
Initials
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
1:42 p.m. – meeting recessed to allow return of public.
1:42 p.m. - meeting resumed.
The Chair called for a recess at 1:42 p.m. and called the meeting back
to order at 1:45 p.m. with all previously mentioned members present
except Councillor Keiver.
DISPOSITION OF
DELEGATION
BUSINESS
10.0 Disposition of Delegation Business & Public Hearing Business
10.1 Bylaw 1825- Redesignation from Agriculture District to
Agriculture Business District
417/2020 Councillor Christie moved second reading to Bylaw 1825, that being a
bylaw for the purpose of amending Land Use Bylaw 1808 by
redesignating a portion of the SW-30-29-25-W4 from the Agriculture
District to the Agriculture Business District.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
418/2020 Councillor King moved third and final reading to Bylaw 1825.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
10.2 Town of Trochu/Trochu Housing Corporation Request
419/2020 Councillor King moved to direct administration to obtain a business
plan along with additional support information for the Trochu Seniors
Supportive Living Facility Project.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
COUNCIL REPORTS 11.0 Council and Committee Reports
11.1 Police Advisory Committee- Minutes were provided from the
September 17, 2020 meeting.
11.2 Kneehill Regional Family and Community Support Services-
Minutes were provided from the July 14, 2020 meeting.
11.3 Community Futures Wildrose- Minutes were provided from the
September 3, 2020 meeting.
420/2020 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council receive the Council and
Committee reports as presented.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
9 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
COUNCIL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13, 2020
8
_________
Initials
COUNCIL ACT LIST 12.0 Council Follow-Up Action List
421/2020 Councillor Penner moved that Council receive the October 13, 2020
Council Follow-Up Action List as presented for information.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
ADJOURNMENT Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
________________________
Jerry Wittstock
Reeve
_______________________
Mike Haugen
CAO
10 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Delegation Request Form
Please submit completed form to
carolyn.vanderkuil@kneehillcounty.com
This personal information is being collected under the authority of Section (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act and will be used in scheduling you as a delegation before Council. If you have any questions about the collection of
this information, please contact the FOIP Coordinator at 403-443-5541.
Regular Council Meeting Date & Time: October 27, 2020 @ 10:00 a.m.
GUIDELINES
• Presentations are not to exceed 15 minutes, including questions, unless permitted by Council.
• The Delegation Request Form and related documents will become part of the public record and
will be released/published in the agenda and minutes and will be made available to the public in
a variety of methods.
• Persons interested in requesting a presentation to Kneehill County Council must supply all
pertinent information, including handout and/or PowerPoint Presentations no later than 4:00
p.m. on the Wednesday prior to the scheduled Tuesday meeting. If your material is not
published in the agenda, bring ten (10) copies with you to the meeting. Note: distributed
documents will become part of the public record.
• The County’s Council meetings are video recorded and live-streamed on the County’s website.
Please submit completed form to carolyn.vanderkuil@kneehillcounty.com
PRESENTER DETAILS
Name:
(Person making presentation) Melanie Willerth
Company or Group Represented: Junior Achievement
Contact Number: 403-392-7888
Email: mwillerth@jasouthalberta.org
Mailing Address: 870, 105 12 ave SE Calgary AB T2G 1A1
MEETING DETAILS
11 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Delegation Request Form
Please submit completed form to
carolyn.vanderkuil@kneehillcounty.com
This personal information is being collected under the authority of Section (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act and will be used in scheduling you as a delegation before Council. If you have any questions about the collection of
this information, please contact the FOIP Coordinator at 403-443-5541.
PRESENTATION TOPIC
Will the presentation require PowerPoint facilities? Yes X No
The topic of the discussion is? (be specific, provide details, and attach additional information, if
required so that all necessary details may be considered.):
The programs that Junior Achievement runs in Kneehill County, and how the county can support us. I
will attach a copy of all programs that are currently being run in Kneehill County.
PURPOSE OF PRESENTATION
☒ Information Only ☒ Request Action/Support ☒ Request Funds ☐ Other
Desired Resolution (What is the decision you are asking to make?)
Please Note:
Regular Council Meetings are held the second and fourth Tuesday of every month unless otherwise
posted. Please see Kneehill County website or contact Administration for more information.
12 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Delegation Request Form
Please submit completed form to
carolyn.vanderkuil@kneehillcounty.com
This personal information is being collected under the authority of Section (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act and will be used in scheduling you as a delegation before Council. If you have any questions about the collection of
this information, please contact the FOIP Coordinator at 403-443-5541.
Information awareness and financial support of Junior Achievement Programs
• Have you included all attachments?
• Does your summary contain all pertinent information?
• Have you provided enough information to enable Council to make an informed decision?
• Have you reviewed your presentation to ensure that it will fit within the specified timelines?
13 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
World of Choices
Grades 10-12
Students will be exposed to
a variety of career possibi-
liies and will have the
opportunity to learn about
the education and qualifica-
tions necessary to fulfill their
chosen career path.
Students leave the forum
excited about their future
and better equipped to meet
the challenges of today’s
work world.
East Central
Programs Summary
More than Money
Grade 4
Allows students to under-
stand how money manage-
ment improves their lives
and how their financial
choices impact others.
They’ll gain the confidence
to apply this knowledge to
their lives, enabling them to
grow up making smart
financial choices.
A Business of Our Own
Grade 6
Teaches students basic
business concepts such as
management, finance,
production and marketing.
Games and multimedia
enable students to immerse
themselves in the joys and
challenges of running their
own business.
Our Business World
Grade 5
Gets students exploring how
businesses are created and
what factors help them thrive.
They learn about business
needs and functions, and
innovation with a focus on
the power of the entrepre-
neurial spirit in Canada.
Dollars with Sense
Grade 7
Encourages students to
develop the financial literacy
necessary to make informed
decisions about their financial
future. Students learn about
budgeting, money manage-
ment and investments.
Economics for Success
Grade 9
Encourages students to
reflect on the advantages of
remaining in school by
understanding the financial
constraints of independence,
the importance of career
planning, and goal setting.
Stronger Together
Grade 8
Teaches students the value
of diversity and how it
improves morale, creativity,
teamwork and productivity.
Students understand how
inclusivity can solve
real-world challenges while
welcoming perspectives
different from their own.
For more information on programs available in your region, please contact Melanie Willerth at
mwillerth@jasouthalberta.org or visit our website at www.jasab.ca
Investment Strategies
Grades 8-12
Investment Strategies is a
series of lessons that
prepare students for an
online stock simulation.
Activities help students
research stocks, build a
portfolio, learn about
investment terms, ethics and
more.
Middle School ProgramsElementary Programs High School Programs
14 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Delegation Request Form
Please submit completed form to
carolyn.vanderkuil@kneehillcounty.com
This personal information is being collected under the authority of Section (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act and will be used in scheduling you as a delegation before Council. If you have any questions about the collection of
this information, please contact the FOIP Coordinator at 403-443-5541.
Regular Council Meeting Date & Time: October 27th @ 10:30 a.m.
GUIDELINES
• Presentations are not to exceed 15 minutes, including questions, unless permitted by Council.
• The Delegation Request Form and related documents will become part of the public record and
will be released/published in the agenda and minutes and will be made available to the pubic in
a variety of methods.
• Persons interested in requesting a presentation to Kneehill County Council must supply all
pertinent information including handouts, PowerPoint Presentations no later than 4:00 p.m. on
the Wednesday prior to the scheduled Tuesday meeting. If your material is not published in the
agenda, bring ten (10) copies with you to the meeting. Note: distributed documents will
become part of the public record.
• The County’s Council meetings are video recorded and live-streamed on the County’s website.
Please submit completed form to carolyn.vanderkuil@kneehillcounty.com
PRESENTER DETAILS
Name: (Person Making
presentation) Mr. Phil Hodge, CEO, Terry McNeill, COO
Company or Group Represented: Pine Cliff Energy Ltd.
Contact Number: Lochlin McLellan’s cell (403) 831-4737
Email: lmclellan@pinecliffenergy.com
Mailing Address: Suite 850, 1015 – 4th Street SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2R 1J4
MEETING DETAILS
Please Note:
Regular Council Meetings are held the second and fourth Tuesday of every month unless otherwise
posted. Please see Kneehill County Website or contact Administration for more information.
15 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Delegation Request Form
Please submit completed form to
carolyn.vanderkuil@kneehillcounty.com
This personal information is being collected under the authority of Section (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act and will be used in scheduling you as a delegation before Council. If you have any questions about the collection of
this information, please contact the FOIP Coordinator at 403-443-5541.
PRESENTATION TOPIC
Will the presentation require PowerPoint facilities? Yes x No
The topic of the discussion is (be specific, provide details, and attach additional information, if
required so that all necessary details may be considered.):
Pine Cliff Energy Ltd. Request for scheduled payments on the current municipal tax levy.
We will send a copy of the presentation in advance of the meeting to allow Council to have it in hand
when Phil and Terry and presenting the corporate and Kneehill specific information.
Please confirm we can present the Council remotely.
Thank you,
Lochlin McLellan
PURPOSE OF PRESENTATION
Information regarding our request for scheduled payments and Pine Cliff’s current circumstances.
☐ Information Only ☒ Request Action/Support ☐ Request Funds ☐ Other
Desired Resolution (What is the decision you are asking to make?)
Desired resolution would be for Council to approve the tax payment schedule as presented to Council.
• Have you included all attachments?
• Does your summary contain all pertinent information?
• Have you provided enough information to enable Council to make an informed decision?
• Have you reviewed your presentation to ensure that it will fit within the specified timelines?
16 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
KNEEHILL COUNTY
MUNICIPAL TAX PRESENTATION
OCTOBER 27TH, 2020
A LEADER IN THE COMMUNITY
Addition to Agenda
17 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
•Pine Cliff is a Canadian owned public company based in Calgary with production in Alberta
and Saskatchewan
•With shrinking investment in the oil and gas sector in Canada, Pine Cliff lost access to its
banking syndicate in Q2 2019 and now operates within available cash
•Pine Cliff has never missed any scheduled payments including municipal taxes, surface
rentals or regulatory fees
•From August until the end of December, Pine Cliff has $13.2 million gross ($12.0 million net)
of municipal taxes and $2.2 million of regulatory obligations due to be paid on behalf of Pine
Cliff and its joint venture partners
•As of June 30th 2020, Pine Cliff had $3.8 million in cash
AN OVERVIEW OF PINE CLIFF:
-1-Addition to Agenda18 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
•2020 Production Guidance of 18,500 –19,000
Boe/d
•Weighted 91% towards natural gas
•High Working Interest and Operatorship
•Production and infrastructure is 85% operated
•80% average working interest on land
•Extensive Land and Seismic Position
•2.4 MM gross acres (1.9 MM net acres) and ownership
and access to over 2,000 kms of 2D and 3D seismic
•Significant Undrilled or Recompletion Locations
•137 gross (81.8 net) undeveloped locations including 29
gross (15.7 net)booked locations.
•Strategic Operated Infrastructure
•Includes 100% ownership of three Canadian Energy
Regulator (“CER”) regulated export pipelines to
Montana and Saskatchewan providing natural gas
market pricing diversity
WHAT WE HAVE BUILT
THREE MAJOR OPERATED CORE AREAS
-2-Addition to Agenda19 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
SUMMARY OF CORPORATE FINANCIALS*
Full Year 2019 Q1 & Q2,2020 Comments
Total Revenue $105.0 million $48.9 million 2016 & 2017 Revenues were ~$120 million/year
Crown and Freehold Royalties $5.6 million $2.8 million
Operating Expenses (OPEX)$72.0 million $36.4 million OPEX of $1.65/mcfe; lower than many of our peers
Downstream Gas Transportation Fee $11.7 million $4.7 million Downstream third party fees to transport our gas to
market
Office General and Administration $5.1 million $2.5 million G&A expense of $0.12/mcfe; one of the lowest in
the industry
Debt Financing Costs $4.8 million $2.5 million
Funds Flow from Operations $5.9 million $0.0 million
Capital Expenditures $8.4 million $4.0 million Includes large capitalized maintenance expenses
Abandonment and Reclamation $1.9 million $0.7 million Active spend to cleanup standing wells and facilities
Funds Flow after Capital ($4.4 million)($4.7 million)
Income (Loss)($56.4 million)($34.2 million)
* These financial calculations are net to Pine Cliff to match the public financial statements
•As of Q2 2019, Pine Cliff no longer has access to a banking syndicate and as such must operate
within available cash
•Pine Cliff has incurred in excess of $1.0 million in bad debt from insolvent oil and gas producer
partners
-3-Addition to Agenda20 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
ADJUSTED FUNDS FLOW
$6,823-$2,047-$3,922$5,025$1,153-$1,229$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
($5,000)
($2,000)
$1,000
$4,000
$7,000
$10,000
$13,000
$16,000
Q1-2019Q2-2019Q3-2019Q4-2019Q1-2020Q2-2020AECO 5A ($/Mcf)Adjusted Funds Flow ($000s)•From 2019 onwards, 3 of the last 5 quarters have seen negative funds flow for Pine Cliff
-4-Addition to Agenda21 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
OPERATING EXPENSE BREAKDOWN –2019 FINANCIALS*
•Almost 50% of Pine Cliff’s Operating Expenses are large fixed costs with 16.7%of the
overall costs being municipal taxes
* These financial figures are grossed up from net expenditures for the area; costs are representative of Pine Cliff and working interest partners
Municipal Taxes
$13.5 million
16.7%of OPEX
Surface Land
$19.8 million
24.4%of OPEX
AER and Orphan Well Fees
$4.0 million
4.9%of OPEX
Other OPEX
$43.7 million
54.0%of OPEX
Breakdown of 2019 Corporate OPEX
-5-Addition to Agenda22 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
OPERATING EXPENSE BREAKDOWN -2019 FINANCIALS*
SPECIFIC TO KNEEHILL COUNTY
Operating Expenses
within Kneehill County
Full Year
(2019)%Average Yearly
(2016-2019)%
Total Operating Expenses
(not including downstream transportation)$12,382,000 $10,703,000
Surface Land $2,293,000 18.5%$2,003,000 18.7%
Municipal Taxes1 $2,938,000 23.7%$2,482,000 23.2%
Labour $1,976,000 16.0%$1,711,000 16.0%
Roads and Equipment Repair and
Maintenance $183,000 1.5%$159,000 1.5%
Swabbing $99,000 0.8%$126,000 1.2%
Fluid Hauling $568,000 4.6%$532,000 5.0%
Operating Expenses
remaining within Kneehill County $8,058,000 65.1%$7,013,000 65.5%
* These financial figures are gross expenditures and are representative of Pine Cliff and working interest partners
•On average, approximately $7,013,000 of our annual expenses remain directly within Kneehill County.
-6-Addition to Agenda23 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
•Over the past four years:
•Pine Cliff has paid $6.8M to field contractors and employees in Kneehill County
on behalf of both Pine Cliff and joint venture partners
•Pine Cliff has paid $8.0M in surface lease rentals in Kneehill County on behalf of
both Pine Cliff and joint venture partners
•Pine Cliff has paid $9.9M in municipal taxes in Kneehill County on behalf of both
Pine Cliff and joint venture partners
ECONOMICS OF PINE CLIFF’S PRODUCTION IN THE COUNTY
OF KNEEHILL COUNTY
-7-* These financial figures are gross expenditures and are representative of Pine Cliff and working interest partners Addition to Agenda24 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Gross Expense
2017 $2,473,441
2018 $2,989,624
2019 $2,113,810
Totals $7,576,876
•Pine Cliff understands the ongoing obligation to abandon and reclaim non
–productive assets. Over the past three years, $7.6 million dollars have
been spent on remediation efforts, with additional spending planned for
the future
Pine Cliff’s Annual Well Abandonment and
Reclamation Expenditures
ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS
•Submissions for abandonment and reclamation of some of the standing
wells have been made to the Alberta Government as part of the Alberta
Site Rehabilitation Program
-8-* These financial figures are gross areas expenditures including Pine Cliff and our working interest partners Addition to Agenda25 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
•Pine Cliff is not asking for handouts and fully expects to meet all future obligations,but is asking all
municipalities to allow Pine Cliff to meet its 2020 municipal tax obligation by making equal monthly
payments and waive any and all penalties
•For Kneehill County,this means 12 equal monthly payments of $295,331.81 to pay the tax balance of
$3,543,981.76 as outlined in Pine Cliff’s letter dated October 1st,2020
•Kneehill County waive any and all penalties regarding 2020 taxes with the agreement that penalties
can be applied to any defaults made by Pine Cliff on the agreed payment schedule
•In 2020,all counties that Pine Cliff has reached out to for relief (to date),have agreed to a deferral
schedule and the waiving of all penalties and fees.
•Pine Cliff is committed to working with municipalities to ensure equitable payment of tax
•Pine Cliff has honored and paid-on-time,all 2019 municipal tax payment schedules
WHAT PINE CLIFF ENERGY IS REQUESTING FROM THE
KNEEHILL COUNTY
-9-Addition to Agenda26 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
CORPORATE INFORMATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
George F. Fink (Chairman)
Philip B. Hodge
Randy M. Jarock
Jacqueline R. Ricci
William S. Rice
OFFICERS
Philip B. Hodge
President and Chief Executive Officer
Terry L. McNeill
Chief Operating Officer
Alan MacDonald
Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary
Heather A. Isidoro
Vice President, Business Development
Christopher S. Lee
Vice President, Geology
HEAD OFFICE
850, 1015 –4th Street SW
Calgary, Alberta T2R 1J4
Phone: (403) 269-2289
Fax: (587) 393-1693
REGISTRAR AND TRANSFER AGENT
Odyssey Trust Company of Canada
AUDITORS
Deloitte LLP
STOCK EXCHANGE LISTING
TSX Exchange
Trading Symbol: PNE
WEBSITE
www.pinecliffenergy.com
INVESTOR CONTACT
info@pinecliffenergy.com
-10-Addition to Agenda27 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
6.1.1
Page 1 of 2
Version: 2020-01
Subject: Proposed Land Purchase in Hesketh
Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Presented By: Brandy Morgan, Development Officer
Link to Strat Plan: Preserving Rural Way of Life
Recommended
Motion:
Council move to approve the assessed land value of $1750.00 for subdivision
KNE200140 for the applicant to purchase his access and yard.
Background/
Proposal
The applicant purchased this home in Hesketh in February of 2017. It was noted
that Kneehill County owns 4 lots, which includes a portion of his access and yard.
David Kyle approached Kneehill County to see if Kneehill County would consider a
subdivision that would allow him to purchase a portion of these lots, so he can own
his access and yard. He would like to build a shed in the future, but is currently
unable to as it would not be on his property.
Council approved the applicants request to submit a subdivision application on April
14, 2020, Motion #: 202/2020.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
435sq. m, 0.044ha (0.1076 acres) will be transferred to the applicant upon
completion of the subdivision and land transfer.
Accurate Assessment (the contract assessor for the County) has provided a value
of $1750.00 for the 435sq. m. The applicant, David Kyle, has agreed to this land
value and would like to proceed with the purchase of the land.
Financial
Implications:
The applicant will bear the subdivision, survey and land purchase costs.
After discussion with the Tax Clerk, Transportation and Planning, it was decided to
turn the remainder of the lots not being purchased by the applicant into a road plan
survey; the cost to complete this will be $780+GST, and this cost will be the
responsibility of Kneehill County. Funds are included in the annual operating
budget to complete this.
Council Options:
1. Council move to approve the assessed land value of $1750.00 for
subdivision KNE200140 for the applicant to purchase his access and yard.
2. Council move to table for 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-
28 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
6.1.1
Page 2 of 2
Version: 2019-01
Attachments:
Final Survey
Satellite Image
Follow-up
Actions:
Administration will follow up with the landowner regarding Council decision.
Director Approval:
Laurie Watt, Director of Community
Services
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
29 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
302020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
312020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Site Plan
DAVID KYLE
Hesketh
NW 12-29-22 W4
Plan 4267 CS, Block 2, Lot 5-6
Lots 7-10 (Owned by Kneehill County)
32 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
6.3.1
Page 1 of 1
Version: 2020-02
Subject: ASB Structure Policy 1-30 Soil Conservation- Stubble Burning
Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Prepared By: Bowen Claūsen - Manager of Parks & Agriculture Services
Presented By: Bowen Claūsen - Manager of Parks & Agriculture Services
Link to Strat Plan: Providing Good Governance
Recommended
Motion:
Council confirms Policy 1-30 Soil Conservation- Stubble Burning as recommended
by the Agricultural Service Board.
Background/
Proposal
Brought forward as part of the regular policy review cycle. During the August 21st,
2020 regular ASB (Agricultural Service Board) meeting the board recommended
that Council Approve the attached policy.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
No changes recommended
Financial
Implications:
N/A
Council Options:
1. Council approves as recommended by the ASB
2. Council approves as recommended by the ASB with amendments
3. Council maintains current policy
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 1-30 Soil Conservation- Stubble Burning
Follow-up
Actions:
Implement policy
Director Approval:
Laurie Watt, Director Community Services
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
33 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
POLICY
Section Policy No. Page
ASB 1-30 1 of 1
Policy Title Date: Motion No.
Soil Conservation – Stubble Burning 34T34T 34T34T
Purpose:
To establish a policy in accordance with the Soil Conservation Act and Kneehill County Bylaws to control the
burning of large areas of stubble and to ensure the conservation and protection of County soils.
Policy Procedure:
1. Stubble burning will be governed by the Soil Conservation Act and Kneehill County
Bylaw 1713 and all applicable Forest and Prairie Protection Acts and all other County
Bylaws.
2. Permits for burning stubble are not to be issued without the approval of the Soil Conservation Officer.
3. Approval may only be given in extreme circumstances when the burn area may exceed ten (10) acres,
where approval is given, the burn must comply with all recommendations and procedures as outlined
by the Soil Conservation Officer and Fire Guardian.
This policy replaces Policy #1-15b
Jerry Wittstock,
Reeve
Mike Haugen,
CAO
Approved:
Review Date: Date four years from last approval date
34 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
6.3.2
Page 1 of 1
Version: 2020-02
Subject: Policy 1-30-1 Soil Conservation – ASB Equipment Rental
Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Prepared By: Bowen Claūsen - Manager of Parks & Agriculture Services
Presented By: Bowen Claūsen - Manager of Parks & Agriculture Services
Link to Strat Plan: Providing Good Governance
Recommended
Motion:
Council delete Policy 1-30-1 Soil Conservation – ASB Equipment Rental.
Background/
Proposal
Brought forward as part of the regular policy review cycle. The rental equipment
program was ended in March 2019.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
Recommend deleting Policy 1-30-1 as the program was discontinued.
Financial
Implications:
N/A
Council Options:
1. Council deletes policy as recommended
2. Council amends Policy.
3. Council maintains current policy.
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 1-30-1 Soil Conservation – ASB Equipment Rental.
Follow-up
Actions:
Remove policy
Director Approval:
Laurie Watt, Director Community Services
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
35 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
36 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
6.3.3
Page 1 of 2
Version: 2020-02
Subject: Horseshoe Canyon Focus Group Appointments
Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Prepared By: Bowen Clausen, Manager of Parks & Agriculture Services
Presented By: Bowen Clausen, Manager of Parks & Agriculture Services
Link to Strat Plan: Ensuring Communications & Engagement
Recommended
Motion:
Council appoints the following persons to the Horseshoe Canyon Focus Group:
Cathy Price; Cathy Prohl; Dennis Dey; Kim Pliva; and Robert Long.
Background/
Proposal
At the July 21st, 2020 Regular Council meeting, Council approved a Terms of
Reference for the Horseshoe Canyon Focus Group to review the Horseshoe
Canyon Masterplan and make recommendations to Council as to next steps.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
Applications were opened and advertised in the Three Hills Capital, Drumheller Mail
and our online platforms for Kneehill County residents from September 21st to
October 13th.
There was a total of 14 applications received as follows:
Cathy Price
Cathy Prohl
Deanne Bertsch
Dennis Dey
Heather Pliva
Jody Wacowich
Judy Goodine
Kim Albrecht
Kim Pliva
Laura Lee Machell-Cunningham (Did not meet eligibility)
Rinske Metzger
Robert Long
Tom Zariski (Did not meet eligibility)
Wendy J Clark –declined unless no other representation from area was identified
These applications were then reviewed for initial requirements, eligibility, and
completeness. Applications were then vetted through the third party consultant and
a shortlist compiled. Criteria to help create the shortlist included items such as:
• If the applicant had visited Horseshoe Canyon, and/ or read the Horseshoe
Canyon Masterplan, and/or read the Kneehill Recreation and Tourism
Masterplan.
• Why the applicant wanted to be part of the Focus Group and detail given
• Experience on boards, and or committees
• Background
• Volunteerism and community involvement.
• Geographic location within the County to try and achieve representation
from across the County
37 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
6.3.3
Page 2 of 2
Version: 2020-01
Applicants in the shortlist were then interviewed for workability in the group and
also to ask further questions such as:
• How would you handle differences in opinion in the group?
• Are you able to meet the time commitment for the meetings and what time
works best?
• How would you prepare and contribute to the process as a member?
• How long have you lived in Kneehill County?
Upon completion of the interviews the shortlist was reviewed again, and a final list
compiled for Council consideration and appointment. Below are listed the
individuals recommended for appointment to the Horseshoe Canyon Focus Group:
Members at Large
Cathy Price - Acme
Cathy Prohl - Linden
Dennis Dey - Torrington
Kim Pliva - Churchill
Robert Long - Three Hills
Stakeholders
Darryl Drohomerski- Town of Drumheller
Devan Dekeyser - Horseshoe Canyon Campground -
Dr. François Therrien – The Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology
Those applicants who took the time to apply but were not appointed, will receive an
email requesting comments and or considerations that may help the focus group as
it works through the Horseshoe Canyon Masterplan, and makes its
recommendations to Council.
Financial
Implications:
Funds are approved within the 2020 budget.
Council Options:
1. Council appointments members as presented.
2. Council appointments amends members list.
3. Council receives 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-
Attachments:
Horseshoe Canyon Focus Group Terms of Reference, Application form
Follow-up
Actions:
Inform individuals of official appointment and first meeting date.
Director Approval:
Laurie Watt, Director Community Services
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
38 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Horseshoe Canyon Focus Group
General Terms of Reference
Name
This Committee shall be known as: The Horseshoe Canyon Focus Group.
Purpose and Scope
The purpose of the Committee is to assist with and make recommendations to Kneehill County Council
on matters relating to Horseshoe Canyon, which will help guide future initiatives through the review of
the Horseshoe Canyon Masterplan and its key recommendations as well as supporting documents and
data.
Mandate
In order to fulfill its purpose, the Committee will play a vital role in:
1. Developing an understanding of the current situation
2. Assisting in prioritizing next steps and future initiative and/or projects, etc. to Kneehill County
Council
3. To engage stakeholder opinions regarding opportunities and concerns related to initiatives in or
around the Canyon.
Process
Committee Members will participate in three (or four as required) sessions which will be clearly defined
by the Third-Party Consultant, though may follow the below general format and ideas:
Session #1: Building Common Ground
• Walk group through background
• Highlight challenges, features and opportunities
• Overview of Horseshoe Canyon Masterplan and other supporting documents
Session #2: Next steps
• Identify what is truly needed for opportunities and/or barriers and constraints
• Prioritize next steps
• Develop a stakeholder engagement process
Session #3: Recommendations
• Identify recommendations for Council consideration for next steps to be taken at
Horseshoe Canyon.
39 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Delegated Authority
The Committee is an advisory committee to Kneehill County and does not have any delegated authority.
The Committee has no authority to direct staff. Any recommendations requiring implementation,
reports or staff action must first be considered by Kneehill County Council before any action by staff may
be taken.
Committee Composition and Rules of Procedure
The membership of the Committee will be comprised of:
- Reeve and/or Deputy Reeve (1or2)
- Members at Large (5)
- Key Stakeholders (3)
- Kneehill County Administration in an advisory capacity (1-2)
Additional members may only be appointed to the Committee from time to time by Kneehill County
Council. Only the non-administrative members of the Committee may vote on any issue or
recommendation for action. All members at large of the Committee will be appointed by Kneehill
County Council.
Term of Office
All members of the Committee will participate from a targeted date of October 1 ending tentatively
February 1, 2021.
Lead Department/Reporting Relationship
The group will be facilitated through a third-party consultant. Representatives from various
departments may attend as required to provide technical or professional information.
Committee Remuneration
Committee members will serve with remuneration in accordance with Council policy.
Quorum/Meeting Prerequisite
Quorum for the Committee shall be a simple majority of the members of the Committee but at no time
less than (4) members.
Meeting Schedule and Location
The Committee will be responsible for establishing meeting dates. Additional meetings may be
determined by the committee. The Committee may cancel any meeting. Meetings of the Committee
shall not conflict with other regular meetings of Council.
Committee members are expected to attend all regularly scheduled meetings. If a member other than
the Reeve or Deputy Reeve have been absent for two consecutive regularly scheduled meetings and has
40 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
failed to advise Kneehill Adminsitration in advance, the member shall be deemed to have abandoned his
or her appointment and the office shall be considered vacant.
Staff Resources
Recording Secretary assistance to the Committee will be provided by Kneehill County Administration
and other staff as required.
Reporting
Minutes of all Committee meetings will be provided to Council for information. Subsequently any
recommendations will be presented to Council for consideration.
These Terms of Reference for the Committee are established by Kneehill County
Council and can only be altered by Council.
41 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Kneehill County Members-at-Large Application
Horseshoe Canyon plays a critical role in greeting and introducing the Canadian Badlands
region to visitors. Known for its jaw-dropping beauty, the area is highly valued for its unique
ecosystem and geological resources. The Canyon has also been a popular recreational area for
Kneehill County residents for many years.
Kneehill County understands that it is important to balance visitor experiences with protection of
the Canyon’s ecological and historical resources. Developed through in-depth research and
community engagement, the Horseshoe Canyon Masterplan outlines a strategic and thoughtful
approach that balances Canyon development and preservation.
At this time, Kneehill County is putting together a focus group to make recommendations to
Council about next steps and future plans based on the Horseshoe Canyon Masterplan.
We are looking for five (5) individuals who are interested in Horseshoe Canyon and want to be
involved in thoughtful and constructive discussions to help guide how Kneehill County moves
ahead. As members of the focus group, these individuals have an opportunity to shape this
amazing site for future generations.
Application Requirements: ● Applicants must be residents of Kneehill County. ● Applicants must have internet access and an active email address -
communications will be done through email and meetings may be held via online (virtual)
platforms, due to Covid-19 or other logistics. ● Only fully complete applications will be considered. ● Non-appointed staff and elected officials and their family members will not be
considered for this application. ● The anticipated time commitment is 4-5 meetings, held either in-person at a
location in Kneehill County or remotely via web
videoconferencing between October 2020 to February 2021.
Number of members is limited and must be approved by and appointed by council.
Appointed members will be notified following Council appointment.
Applicant Information Section
*Required field
• Name*
• Address*
• Phone Number* Please use primary contact number.
• Email*
• Are you a resident in Kneehill County?*
• Do you have access to internet?*
42 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
• Do you have access to web-based video conferencing equipment?* Example: a computer
with web camera, microphone, and speakers.
• Do you have access to an active email account?*
• What is your experience with Horseshoe Canyon?* Check all that apply.
What is your experience with Horseshoe Canyon?I have visited the Canyon.I have
read the Horseshoe Canyon Masterplan.I have read the Kneehill County Recreation and
Tourism Masterplan.Other
• Why do you want to be part of this Focus Group?*
• What background do you have that will enable you to contribute to the work of the Focus
Group?* This could include your work-related skills or volunteer experiences.
• Is there anything else you wish to add to your application? Please describe.
43 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
6.4.1
Page 1 of 4
Version: 2020-02
Subject: Disposal of Fire Apparatus
Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Prepared By: Debra Grosfield, Protective Services Manager
Presented By: Debra Grosfield, Protective Services Manager
Link to Strat Plan: Providing Good Governance
Recommended
Motion:
That Council approve the donation of K2 and E11 to Alberta Society for Firefighters
Abroad (ASFA).
That Council approve keeping E21 for training and out of service temporary
replacement, however to no longer fund this on the Capital Replacement Plan.
Background/
Proposal
Kneehill County has purchased 4 engines that replaced two rentals (Torrington,
Trochu areas), and two in-service engines (Acme, Carbon areas) which we are
looking to dispose of, as well as spare K2.
K2 is a 1986 Mack pumper that has been in storage as a spare unit when any of the
area’s units are out of service (repairs/training), however it requires major repairs to
be useful to us.
Engine E11 (Carbon) is a 1999 GMC that has now passed its NFPA front line life
cycle.
44 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
6.4.1
Page 2 of 4
Version: 2020-01
Engine E21 (Acme) is a 2000 Freightliner that has had low maintenance issues and
may still be used as a spare for out of service (repairs/training).
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
#1. Donation: K2 and Engine E11
“The Alberta Society for Firefighters Abroad (ASFA) is on a mission to build the
capacity and safety of firefighters and emergency services abroad through
apparatus, equipment and training projects.
ASFA is a society made up of past and present emergency responders, community
members and supporters. Our association operates out of Lacombe, Alberta but we
have members and supporters in various areas throughout the Province of Alberta.
Our primary base of operations abroad is in Paraguay where we have successfully
made 7 significant donations to numerous fire departments. Most recently in
October of 2019 we donated and subsequently trained on an Aerial apparatus
donated by DOW Fort Saskatchewan.
We strive to deliver what we consider a total package donation to our partners.
When a truck is donated we also send down enough equipment, PPE and supplies
that the truck can be in-service when it arrives. Shortly after the arrival of the truck
and equipment, a small group travels down to Paraguay to train the receiving
department on the use and maintenance of the apparatus and equipment.
While we do not have exact cities determined at this time we do have numerous
pending requests for apparatus in Paraguay, which is where the Kneehill County
trucks would go. Our general practice is to wait until we have donations secured
prior to opening up for final requests for the trucks.
Our requirements to receive a donation include; a secure place to store the
apparatus and equipment (ideally a fully functional fire hall), a demonstration of
support from the Municipality the fire department is based in and a shown ability to
fundraise. The fundraising requirement helps us to ensure the donation goes to a
sustainable department and will have a long second life.
We also strive to maintain regular communications with the departments we partner
with and often troubleshoot issues and help with SOP development via chat groups
and virtual calls.”
45 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
6.4.1
Page 3 of 4
Version: 2020-01
Advantages: A feel good story to donate apparatus to others in need. Do not have
store these units, and no pump testing or maintenance costs.
Disadvantages: May have been able to sell the trucks to offset funding new trucks.
Reuse: Move off Capital Replacement Plan: Engine E21 2000 Freightliner that has
had low maintenance issues and may still be used as a spare for out of service
(repairs/training).
#2: Engine E21 maintain operational
Advantages: Would have an operational unit available for any time another
apparatus was out of service in our area for maintenance, repairs or for training
purposes.
Disadvantages: Requires maintenance and CVIP, pump testing, storage, insurance.
Age of truck won’t meet NFPA standards for front line engine for an extended time.
Storage area at shop yard may be used for other storage of assets. This unit could
bring a higher sale price due to age and condition.
#3: Disposal of one, two or all three disposal of assets procedures
Advantages: Receive some funding through the sale of these trucks to put back into
the Capital Replacement Plan Reserve.
Disadvantages: Having no back up truck for times when apparatus is out of service.
#4: Disposal of one, two or all three through donation process
Advantages: A feel good story to donate apparatus to others in need. Do not have
store these units, and no pump testing or maintenance costs.
Disadvantages: Having no back up truck for times when apparatus is out of service.
Financial
Implications:
Disposal 1: K2 1986 Mack pumper Year-end asset life is estimated at $3000 on
capital plan.
Disposal 2: Engine E11 1999 GMC Year-end asset life is estimated at $1000 on
capital plan.
E21 operational costs approximately $4000 per year (plus repairs if necessary).
Storage area identified in KC Shop building in yard. This unit could bring a higher
sale price than the others.
Council Options:
1. That Council donate K2 and E11 to Alberta Society for Firefighters Abroad
(ASFA).
46 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
6.4.1
Page 4 of 4
Version: 2020-01
2. That Council approves maintaining ownership of E21 for training and out of
service temporary replacement, however to no longer fund this on the
Capital Replacement Plan.
3. That Council disposes of one, two, or three trucks through disposal of
assets procedures.
4. That Council disposes of one, two or three trucks through the donation
process.
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:
N/A
Follow-up
Actions:
Disposition of K2, E11 and E21 as per Council’s decision.
Director Approval:
Laurie Watt, Director Community Services
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
47 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
7.1
Page 1 of 6
Version: 2020-02
Subject: QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORTING
Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Prepared By: Marika von Mirbach, Financial Planning Coordinator
Bill McKennan, Director of Corporate Services
Presented By: Marika von Mirbach, Financial Planning Coordinator
Bill McKennan, Director of Corporate Services
Link to Strat Plan: Improving Fiscal Sustainability
Recommended
Motion:
That Council receive the Quarterly Financial Reporting for the Period ending
September 30, 2020 for information.
Background/
Proposal
Council receives quarterly financial reports during the year. These reports are
intended to inform Council of financial transactions to-date and how these
expenditures, revenues and other financial indicators compare to the annual
operating budget and plan that Council has previously approved.
The purpose of this report is to:
• Report on the operating budget performance to-date.
• Report on the progress and status of the infrastructure investments being
undertaken.
• And provide other supplementary information on key financial indicators for
the municipality.
This is the report for the period ending September 30, 2020 (3rd Quarter).
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
The County is required under the Municipal Government Act (MGA) to approve both
an operating and capital budget that are balanced and fully funded. To achieve this,
the budget is prepared on a fiscal viability basis and is monitored and controlled to
achieve this desired outcome of a balanced budget. As such, all budgeted revenues
must equal budgeted expenditures.
The municipality follows the legislative financial requirements of the MGA and it’s
supporting Regulations. In addition, the municipality meets or exceeds all policy
statements of the Canada Public Sector Accounting Handbook, which is governed by
the Chartered Professional Accountants Canada (CPA).
The budgeting process allows municipalities to prioritize projects, programs and
service levels based on anticipated revenue and expenses. A municipality’s annual
budget routinely consists of two components:
The Operating Budget plans for a municipality’s day-to-day expenditures (e.g.
salaries, wages, benefits, heat, electric, and maintenance of buildings and
infrastructure, etc.). The Capital Budget plans for the purchase and financing of
assets or improvement of existing infrastructure (e.g. roads, water and wastewater
facilities, county facilities and major projects, etc.)
For accounting and budgeting purposes, the County’s activities are segregated by
department or area of responsibility. There are many reasons to budget this way: it
shows the responsible approximation of revenues and expenses related to each
48 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
7.1
Page 2 of 6
Version: 2020-01
department, it allows for the accounting of specific activities and it allows for easier
reporting to Council and our ratepayers and Provincial or Federal bodies.
This RFD includes the following Financial Reports:
• Operating Budget Summary (Appendix A)
• Projects Summary (Appendix B)
• Cash/Investment Summary (Appendix C)
• Reserve Continuity Schedule (Appendix D)
The following sections provide details and commentary on each of these schedules.
Operating Budget Summary (Appendix A)
The purpose of this schedule is to provide Council a corporate summary of the
Operating Budget Performance for the nine months ending September 30, 2020 and
to provide explanations for unfavourable or favourable corporate results forecasted
to year-end. This report has been prepared with input from all departments and
analysis performed by Corporate Services staff.
The reporting format is designed to give Council improved information on revenue
and expenditure activities to-date but also focuses on forecasting to year-end. The
annual budget has been allocated on a monthly basis with departments receiving
monthly reports against anticipated monthly activities in addition to the year-to-date
reporting. The report will still address significant issues related to year-to-date
performance but will primarily focus on expected year-end results.
There are two views of the variances presented, the first by the classification of the
revenue source or nature of expenditure. The second view is by organization unit or
department. The notes are structured by nature of revenue or expenditures indicating
the major department were this variance is reflected.
The net forecasted revenue/expenditure year-end result anticipates a deficit of
$410,078 which represents a 0.1% overall variance on the Operating Budget.
Revenue Summary - $2,136,131 Unfavourable at Year-End
Numerous variances are reflected in the report. Variances which are new, or have
significantly changed since the 2nd Quarter report are discussed first, followed by a
recap of items previously reported on.
New Changes
i. Transfer from Reserves $1,350,000 Unfavourable - this presents as an
unfavourable revenue variance, but it is, in fact, a reduction in the reserve
funding required for the Torrington Gravel Pit project; this is due to the fact
that the tender came in under budget. A corresponding favourable variance
is reflected within the expense summary.
ii. Property Taxes $50,392 Unfavourable – there have been a few appeals with
respect to industrial taxes which were successful and resulted in a decrease
from budget of tax revenues for those rolls.
Items Previously Reported
iii. Licences and Permits $12,907 Favourable ($16,032 in Q2) – Mainly
attributed to planning relates fees.
iv. Operating Grants $54,000 Unfavourable – Based on anticipated Provincial
Grant reductions for ASB.
v. Other Revenue $72,225 Unfavourable ($96,860 in Q2):
49 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
7.1
Page 3 of 6
Version: 2020-01
• $12,416 Favourable (Administration)
• Previously Reported: $86,000 Unfavourable (Transportation) These
are water “sales” related to the Transportation department activities
not reflected in the water distribution system.
vi. Sales of Goods and Services $130,964 Unfavourable ($129,737 in Q2) This
is comprised primarily of:
• Dust Control (Transportation) $32,751 favourable based on
applications applied.
• Bulk Water Sales (Water Department) $50,308 unfavourable related
mainly to industry activity.
• Water Sales $60,600 unfavourable due to expansion of system start-
ups and general wetter weather.
• Campsite Rentals (Parks) $18,000 unfavourable due to decreased
utilization. Campsite rentals had a favourable variance in Q2, but
demand waned as the summer went on.
vii. Penalties and Fines $28,109 Unfavourable ($42,112 Favourable in Q2). This
item is showing a favourable result as of September 30, 2020 however the
bulk of these penalties will not be collectible and administration has reduced
the year-end results significantly. An additional report to Council will be
presented related to the need, similar to the last three years, to make
additional financial provisions for anticipated taxes that will be uncollectible
related to industry.
viii. Other Taxes $257,597 Unfavourable is solely related to Well Drilling
anticipated revenues.
ix. Return of Investments $244,202 Unfavourable ($230,961 in Q2) - Additional
information is provided in the Cash/Investment Report (Appendix C). In
summary the first quarter investment returns were above anticipated
receipts, however with the onset of Covid 19, financial markets have seen a
significant drop in interest rate returns; for example, the Prime Rate was
3.95% in the first quarter and has declined to 2.45% currently and rates are
not expected to recover for some time.
Expense Summary $1,726,053 Favourable at Year-End
Numerous variances are reflected in the report. Variances which are new, or have
significantly changed since the 2nd Quarter report are discussed first, followed by a
recap of items previously reported on.
Note: Both the “Contract Goods and Services” and “Materials, Goods, Supplies and
Utilities” classifications are reflecting more favourable variance for the third quarter
than anticipated at year-end. This is mainly reflecting the timing difference of the
goods or services being ordered and the actual payment for those goods or services.
In most of these classifications there is a lag, for example the fuel consumption for
January is not billed until February. Administration will be improving the forecast
model on an ongoing basis to address reporting lags.
New Changes
i. Gravel (Inventory) Projects $1,341,613 Favourable ($7,589 unfavourable at
Q2) – This is a result of the Torrington Gravel Pit project tender coming in
under budget; a corresponding reduction in reserve draws is discussed under
the revenue section.
ii. Contract Goods and Services $407,328 Favourable ($267,206 in Q2). This
is comprised primarily of the following Favourable and Unfavourable
variances:
50 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
7.1
Page 4 of 6
Version: 2020-01
• Legal and Professional Services - $45,200 Favourable ($60,500 in
Q2)
• Compliance and Skills Development (All) $136,900 Favourable
($82,000 in Q2)
• Maintenance and Repairs (All) $36,600 Favourable ($78,850 in Q2)
• Advertising and Recruitment (All) $28,800 Favourable ($22,350 in Q2)
• Fleet related repairs (Transportation, Water, Parks) $25,900
Favourable ($24,000 in Q2)
• Assessment Services $40,000 Unfavourable – The provincial
government has taken over DIP Assessment and the County will not
receive anticipated recoveries. This will create 2021 budget pressures
of a similar amount.
Items Previously Reported
iii. Materials, Goods, Supplies and Utilities $431,469 Favourable ($448,608 in
Q2) is comprised primarily of:
• Fuel $133,900 Favourable ($166,840 in Q2) mainly Transportation,
Water, Parks reflecting unanticipated lower fuel prices related to oil
demand and Covid impacts.
• Operating Materials $139,500 Favourable ($160,000 in Q2). Various
smaller variance across departments Transportation, Water and
Parks. Administration will be reviewing to ensure cost savings without
negatively impacting service levels or qualities.
• Fleet related expenditures $109,000 Favourable ($45,000 in Q2)
• Health and Safety Equipment Expenditures unanticipated due to
Covid 19 $35,000
• Water Purchases for resale $1,200 Favourable ($37,500 in Q2).
iv. Wages, Salaries and Benefits $397,170 Favourable ($381,481 in Q2). The
factors are as follows:
• Full Time positions vacant $238,170 Favourable (Planning,
Transportation)
• Seasonal positions late starts $84,500 (Transportation, Water, ASB,
Parks)
• Legislative and Council remuneration reduction related to Covid
restrictions $38,000
• Temporary benefit rebates (Dental and other health needs) $36,500
v. Transfers to Individuals and Organizations $48,935 Favourable ($44,545 in
Q2). To be monitored for balance of year. Numerous grant programs have
not received normal levels of grant applications mainly due to Covid-19
factors.
Projects Summary (Appendix B)
The County is currently undertaking approximately 37 projects to maintain or enhance
the County’s infrastructure (35 in Q2; two projects were added in Q3: four bridges
were added in as one project related to Strategic Transportation Improvement
Program grants, and the Hesketh Bridge project from Municipal Stimulus Funding).
The specific details for each project are detailed in Appendix B. Other than five minor
anticipated project budget over runs (three in Q2) all remaining projects are
forecasted to be completed within or below the budget estimate.
51 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
7.1
Page 5 of 6
Version: 2020-01
• Capital projects (27 in total, 25 in Q2) are estimated to be $1,721,403 under
budget ($2,309,562 in Q2).
• Operating Projects (9 in total) are estimated to be underspent by $1,375,922
($1,699 overspent in Q2). The significant change is related to the Torrington
Gravel project.
• Capital Equipment Plan Purchases (30 in total) are estimated to realize
$123,046 in cost savings ($126,047 in Q2).
All project savings will be will be returned to the original funding source/reserve and
available to fund future infrastructure investments. Projected project surplus balances
have been reported on the Reserve Schedule (Appendix D).
Cash/Investment Summary (Appendix C)
The negative impacts of Covid-19 on the financial markets has had a very negative
impact on the County’s overall interest rate returns. As detailed in Appendix C the
average monthly interest earnings have declined significantly from the pre Covid
interest rate returns. The “Prime Interest” rate has declined from 3.95% to 2.45%, the
County benchmark return is Prime Rate minus 1.75%. The impact has meet that our
benchmark return has declined from 2.2% to 0.7%. Each 1/10th change in the rate
equates to approximately $40,000 in interest earnings annually for the County.
Without the unanticipated rate reductions, the overall interest earnings would have
exceeded the 2020 of $702,800 by approximately $250,000. Given the significant and
unanticipated rate declines a shortfall in interest earnings of approximately $244,000
is anticipated at year-end.
Administration will be reporting further to Council on additional measures being
undertaken to optimize the County’s returns, while still being in 100% compliance
with the MGA and all provincial investment regulations.
Reserve Continuity Schedule (Appendix D)
This schedule has been enhanced by tracking the movements, based on Council
approvals, with each of the County’s reserves. The financial information reported in
this schedule will only change if:
• Council approves new expenditures or amends project budgets.
• Projects are completed under budget.
• Unanticipated external funding, mainly grants, are approved post budget.
These changes will be reflected and reported on in the schedule as “Post Budget
Approvals”.
For the third quarter report administration has added a column to display projected
funds to be returned to reserves based on estimated project surpluses/deficits. These
transfers will not occur until projects are finalized, but have been included to better
align the various appendices of this report.
Overall, based on budget approvals and investments in the County’s infrastructure
the utilization of reserves is anticipated to be approximately $15.2 million ($13.8 in
Q2). The increase is related to the bridge projects approved during the third quarter.
This has not considered the return of approximately $2.9 million as forecasted in
Appendix B “Project Summary” and in the “Projected Surplus/Deficit of 2020 Projects”
column related to projects being completed under budget.
Summary
52 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
7.1
Page 6 of 6
Version: 2020-01
Administration will continue to enhance and improve the financial reporting to Council
and our ratepayers. The small deficit projected is anticipated to be handled through
a reallocation of surplus funds from projects; a separate report will address
administrations plan for the projected deficit.
Financial
Implications:
The overall financial position of the County continues to be positive with
Administration and Council exercising prudent financial management. There are
approximately 3 operating months remaining in the current fiscal year and
uncertainly related to numerous areas such as assessment shifts, negative upper
level government fiscal downloading, interest rates, etc.
The preliminary 4th quarter report (as at December 31st) will provide Council
additional information and certainty related to the annual fiscal performance,
negative and positive. Overall, at this time there are no direct financial implications
flowing from this report.
Administration will be bringing forward additional information to manage the
anticipated year-end results.
Council Options:
1. Receive report for information.
2. Provide direction to alter 2020 budget plan.
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:
• Operating Budget Summary (Appendix A)
• Projects Summary (Appendix B)
• Cash/Investment Summary (Appendix C)
• Reserve Continuity Schedule (Appendix D)
Follow-up
Actions:
Director Approval:
Bill McKennan, Director of Corporate Services
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
53 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
as at September 30, 2020
Q3 Expected Q3 Actual Variance 2020 Budget
Year-End
Projected
Projected Year-
End Variance
Revenues
Licenses and Permits (72,825) (85,732) 12,907 (87,100) (100,007) 12,907
Operating Grants (154,965) (154,965) - (515,412) (461,412) (54,000)
Other Revenue (87,842) (22,407) (65,435) (364,467) (292,242) (72,225)
Sales of Goods and Services (1,099,512) (962,648) (136,864) (1,372,848) (1,241,884) (130,964)
Sales to Other Governments (80,423) (91,271) 10,849 (107,230) (118,079) 10,849
Rental Income (109,301) (112,452) 3,151 (145,735) (148,886) 3,151
Penalties and Fines (97,500) (1,145,168) 1,047,668 (130,000) (101,891) (28,109)
Other Taxes (400,000) (142,403) (257,597) (400,000) (142,403) (257,597)
Property Taxes (21,690,407) (21,640,015) (50,392) (21,690,660) (21,640,268) (50,392)
Special Taxes and Frontage (1,374,831) (1,412,622) 37,792 (1,378,111) (1,395,902) 17,792
Return on Investments (527,100) (392,898) (134,202) (702,800) (458,598) (244,202)
Transfer from Reserves (4,425,792) (4,425,792) - (4,425,792) (3,075,792) (1,350,000)
Capital Equipment Plan Sales (155,064) (161,724) 6,660 (678,845) (685,505) 6,660
Total Revenues (30,275,561) (30,750,098) 474,536 (31,999,000) (29,862,869) (2,136,131)
Expenses
Contract Goods and Services 2,367,931 1,737,158 (630,773) 3,401,138 2,993,810 (407,328)
Materials, Goods, Supplies, and Utilities 2,842,429 2,170,206 (672,223) 3,912,642 3,481,173 (431,469)
Salaries, Wages, and Benefits 6,754,054 6,300,784 (453,270) 9,442,509 9,045,339 (397,170)
Other Expenses 78,529 56,838 (21,690) 104,705 83,015 (21,690)
Provision for Allowances 1,100,000 990,732 (109,268) 1,100,000 2,042,734 942,734
Purchases from Other Governments 397,699 410,790 13,091 592,822 605,913 13,091
Transfer to Other Governments 1,059,135 1,059,135 - 1,236,389 1,236,389 -
Transfer to Individuals and Organizations 124,708 115,772 (8,935) 292,289 243,354 (48,935)
Transfer to Local Boards and Agencies 101,763 101,763 - 101,763 101,763 -
Contributions to Reserves 4,679,620 4,000,775 (678,845) 4,679,620 4,679,620 -
Non TCA Operating Projects 98,732 113,463 14,731 1,235,123 1,201,451 (33,672)
Gravel (Inventory) Projects 690,000 697,726 7,726 5,900,000 4,558,387 (1,341,613)
Total Expenses 20,294,600 17,755,142 (2,539,458) 31,999,000 30,272,947 (1,726,053)
Net (9,980,962) (12,994,956) (2,064,921) - 410,078 410,078
Appendix A: Operating Budget Variance Report by
Function
54 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
as at September 30, 2020
Q3 Expected Q3 Actual Q3 Variance 2020 Budget Year-End
Projected
Projected Year-
End Variance
Revenues
General (24,505,123) (25,121,626) 616,503 (24,706,076) (24,136,802) (569,274)
Legislative (25,000) (26,962) 1,962 (25,000) (26,962) 1,962
Administration (200,371) (196,513) (3,858) (600,984) (605,336) 4,352
Fire (28,514) (32,658) 4,144 (97,088) (101,232) 4,144
Enforcement (39,655) (28,652) (11,003) (68,873) (57,870) (11,003)
Transportation (3,833,312) (3,785,856) (47,456) (4,228,187) (2,815,731) (1,412,456)
Water (1,116,439) (1,049,011) (67,428) (1,349,543) (1,262,114) (87,428)
Wastewater (10,500) (9,650) (850) (14,000) (13,150) (850)
Waste Management (225,937) (223,044) (2,893) (250,526) (247,633) (2,893)
Health (72,498) (67,500) (4,998) (96,664) (91,666) (4,998)
Cemetary (5,475) (6,300) 825 (7,300) (8,125) 825
Planning (91,500) (108,002) 16,502 (112,000) (128,502) 16,502
Agriculture (39,375) (27,047) (12,328) (309,859) (249,431) (60,428)
Parks (81,863) (67,277) (14,586) (132,900) (118,314) (14,586)
Total Revenues (30,275,561) (30,750,098) 474,536 (31,999,000) (29,862,869) (2,136,131)
Expenses
General 2,655,226 2,556,942 (98,284) 3,107,841 3,991,559 883,718
Legislative 523,387 332,214 (191,173) 724,894 564,599 (160,295)
Administration 2,398,788 2,162,712 (236,076) 3,359,020 3,232,944 (126,076)
Fire 1,002,294 919,808 (82,486) 1,256,701 1,186,315 (70,386)
Disaster 76,635 87,867 11,231 105,580 119,312 13,731
Enforcement 351,589 320,697 (30,892) 621,847 603,955 (17,892)
Health and Safety 116,782 94,271 (22,511) 161,104 143,593 (17,511)
Transportation 7,329,954 6,675,566 (654,389) 15,452,157 13,649,088 (1,803,069)
Bridges 50,250 36,024 (14,226) 67,000 52,774 (14,226)
Water 2,703,721 2,568,008 (135,713) 3,177,200 3,094,687 (82,513)
Wastewater 73,835 65,108 (8,727) 101,976 99,249 (2,727)
Waste Management 593,897 565,310 (28,587) 678,484 649,897 (28,587)
Health 33,762 19,390 (14,371) 70,825 62,513 (8,311)
Cemetrary 82,600 43,376 (39,223) 114,762 75,539 (39,223)
Planning 470,605 335,173 (135,432) 648,472 553,040 (95,432)
Agriculture 519,835 454,110 (65,726) 811,325 745,599 (65,726)
Parks 578,885 464,856 (114,029) 807,255 715,726 (91,529)
Cultural 53,711 53,711 - 53,711 53,711 -
Reserve Transfers 678,845 - (678,845) 678,845 678,845 -
Total Expenses 20,294,600 17,755,142 (2,539,458) 31,999,000 30,272,947 (1,726,053)
Net (9,980,962) (12,994,956) (2,064,921) - 410,078 410,078
Appendix A: Operating Budget Variance Report by
Department
55 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Appendix B: Project Reportas at September 30, 2020Project #DescriptionProject Start Date Expected End Date Total Project Budget Cumulative Spending to Date Expected Final Cost Expected Final Variance Comments on Expected Final Variance Capital Projects1 RR24 Engineering and RebuildMarch, 2018 September, 20204,750,000 1,534,627 3,775,465 974,535 Construction miles were shortened. 2 Churchill System RehabilitationOctober, 2019 July, 20204,634,048 3,467,530 4,634,048 - 3 Torrington Arena RepairsOctober, 2018 December, 2020500,000 395,089 442,565 57,435 Project on-going. 4 Radio Communications SystemJuly, 2020 March, 2021960,250 3,578 960,250 - Initial quote only $800,000; further costs could arise. 5 31-0 to Hwy 836April, 2019 December, 2020150,000 110,655 110,764 39,236 Preliminary drawings complete; working on final design.Project haulted as land owners are not willing to sell land as designed in final drawings. October council meeting planned for update 6 Highway SignageAugust, 2020 October, 2020234,000 - 234,000 - 7 Bridge ReplacementsFebruary, 2020 June, 20201,208,000 1,217,023 1,217,023 (9,023) BF 2433 SW 29-33-26 and BF 2432 SW 25-33-25. 8 Pumphouse FencingJanuary, 2020 March, 2020100,000 58,156 58,156 41,844 Changes to original scope resulted in cost savings. 9 Swalwell Lagoon AccessAugust, 2019 December, 2020350,000 4,767 104,767 245,233 Changes to original scope resulted in cost savings. 10 Keivers ChaletOctober, 2019 Complete; July 202025,000 24,204 24,204 796 Project complete. 11 BF 7505 NE 36-30-22March, 2020 March, 2020500,000 162,775 337,225 162,775 Complete; following up on AT grant for 75%. 12 BF 71693 SW 18-2-22August, 2020 November, 2020500,000 57,606 385,000 115,000 AT grant for 75% up to $375,000. 13 Carbon Fire TruckJuly, 2019 September, 2020525,000 501,904 501,904 23,096 14 Torrington Fire TruckJuly, 2019 September, 2020525,000 517,462 517,462 7,538 15 Trochu Fire TruckJuly, 2019 September, 2020525,000 484,641 484,641 40,359 16 Acme Fire TruckJuly, 2019 September, 2020525,000 541,842 541,842 (16,842) 17 Sunnyslope WaterlineJuly, 2020 July, 202075,000 42,024 45,000 30,000 County performed majority of work internally resulting in cost savings. 18 Redland Building PurchaseNovember, 2020 February, 2020150,000 150,000 150,000 - 19 Bridge 9827Awaiting Tender December, 2020675,000 - 675,000 - 20 Bridge 6813Awaiting Tender December, 20201,200,000 - 1,200,000 - 21 Bridge 1540Awaiting Tender December, 2020150,000 - 150,000 - 22 Bridge 8210April, 2020 April, 2020175,000 169,699 169,699 5,301 23 Trochu Fire Station FencingAugust, 2020 October, 202022,000 - 17,880 4,120 Changes to original scope resulted in cost savings. 24 Horseshoe Canyon Washroom and Café On holdOn hold1,350,000 - 1,350,000 - Project on hold, as per September 8, 2020 Council meeting 25 Horseshoe Canyon ParkingOn holdOn hold25,000 - 25,000 - Project on hold, as per September 8, 2020 Council meeting 36 STIP Bridge ProjectsNovember, 2020 September, 20213,225,000 - 3,225,000 - BF 70376, 76459, 6948 and 1082; 80% funded with STIP 37 Hesketh BridgeNovember, 2020 September, 20211,300,000 - 1,300,000 - BF8856; $594,464 funded through MSP grant 24,358,298 9,443,583 22,636,896 1,721,403 1/2562020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Appendix B: Project Reportas at September 30, 2020Project #DescriptionProject Start Date Expected End Date Total Project Budget Cumulative Spending to Date Expected Final Cost Expected Final Variance Comments on Expected Final Variance Operating Projects26 Wimborne Environmental Reclamation March, 2018 On-Going1,200,000 167,609 1,200,000 - Awaiting final drill results which impact private lands south of property. October scheduled for detailed plan on project. 27 Gravel PurchasesJanuary, 2020 May, 2020575,000 588,482 582,750 (7,750) 28 Torrington Gravel PitOctober, 2020 February, 20205,250,000 94,904 3,900,000 1,350,000 Tender awarded; came in under budget. 29 Contract Gravel HaulingJanuary, 2020 December, 202075,000 14,339 75,000 - 30 Hamlet Tree WorkApril, 2020 October, 202050,000 39,731 50,000 - 31 Shop Alarm UpdateJuly, 2020 August, 202018,000 - 18,268 (268) Additions to scope of work 32 FCSS Building MaintenanceAugust, 2020 September, 202026,000 - 27,060 (1,060) Additions to scope of work 33 Regional Fire TrainingMarch, 2020 March, 202150,000 - - 50,000 Delays in training due to covid. To be retained in base budget for 2021. 34 Bulk Water SoftwareJanuary, 2020 July, 202030,000 45,000 45,000 (15,000) budget. 7,274,000 950,065 5,898,078 1,375,922 Capital Equipment Plan Purchases35 Capital Equipment Plan PurchasesJanuary, 2020 December, 20202,475,424 1,979,249 2,352,378 123,046 24 purchases complete; 6 remaining. Report Total34,107,722 12,372,896 30,887,351 3,220,371 2/2572020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Appendix C: Investment Report
as at September 30, 2020
Bank Balance
As at September 30, 2020 36,741,038$
Investment Summary
No term GICs held as at September 30, 2020
Monthly Interest Earnings
Change in Interest Rates
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
January February March April May June July August September
3.95%
3.45%
2.95%
2.45%
2.20%
1.70%
1.20%
0.70%
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
4.50%
01-Jan-20 05-Mar-20 17-Mar-20 30-Mar-20
Prime Rate
County Rate
58 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Appendix D: Reserve Continuityas at September 30, 2020Opening Balance2020 Budgeted Contributions2020 Budgeted Draws2020 Budget Ending BalanceBalance as at September 30, 2020Projected Surplus/Deficit of 2020 ProjectsProjected Year-End BalanceIT 190,065 - (50,000) 140,065 140,065 140,065 Transitional Funds3,060,874 - (2,955,735) 105,139 105,139 1,359,079 1,464,217 Capital Equipment Replacement5,564,309 2,869,898 (4,322,354) 4,111,852 4,111,852 177,197 4,289,049 Buildings Capital Replacement763,000 481,500 - 1,244,500 1,244,500 1,244,500 Gravel3,656,072 - (2,800,000) 856,072 (200,000) Note 1656,072 1,350,000 2,006,072 Roads 12,262,894 - - 12,262,894 12,262,894 12,262,894 Bridges4,963,096 - (2,442,402) 2,520,695 (1,511,786) Notes 3 & 41,008,909 65,722 1,074,630 Water 3,587,107 - (75,000) 3,512,107 3,512,107 30,000 3,542,107 Water Service Area5,154,468 1,328,222 (2,409,967) 4,072,723 4,072,723 4,072,723 Environmental2,031,344 - (1,061,123) 970,221 970,221 970,221 Municipal142,680 - - 142,680 142,680 142,680 Parks762,715 - (750,000) 12,715 12,715 12,715 Contingency2,603,772 - (559,500) 2,044,272 (650,250) Note 21,394,022 4,120 1,398,142 Joint Community Summit 31,641 - - 31,641 31,641 31,641 Doctor Recruitment154,680 - - 154,680 154,680 154,680 Hamlet Infrastructure3,493,522 - - 3,493,522 3,493,522 3,493,522 Revenue Stabilization3,745,000 - (152,169) 3,592,831 3,592,831 3,592,831 Total52,167,239 4,679,620 (17,578,250) 39,268,608 (2,362,036) 36,906,572 2,986,117 39,892,690 Notes for Post Budget Approvals1) June 23, 2020 Meeting, Motion 288/2020 - $200,000 Grant for infrastructure repairs requested by the Village of Acme.2) June 23, 2020 Meeting, Motion 294/2020 - $650,250 Emergency Communications System Upgrade project.3) August 18, 2020 Meeting, Motion 329/2020 - $806,250 STIP Bridge Funding4) September 8, 2020 Meeting, Motion 346/2020 - $705,536 MSP Grant Fundings; Hesketh BridgePost Budget Approvals592020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
7.2
Page 1 of 2
Version: 2020-02
Subject: TAX CANCELLATION – INDUSTRIAL ACCOUNTS
Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Prepared By: Caroline Siverson, Tax/Assessment & Utilities
Presented By: Bill McKennan, Director of Corporate Services
Link to Strat Plan: Improving Fiscal Sustainability
Recommended
Motion:
That the amount of $1,052,001.95 in property taxes be expensed and cancelled on
rolls 33242220400, 34221610703, 34222431200, 33240810700, 33233440900,
32223620400, 32223520400, 32221220600, 31250920600, 32232410800,
40002010000, 28201820500, 28201820501, 28212010800, 40001680000.
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.
That administration be directed to void any 2020 penalties currently attached to
these rolls.
Background/
Proposal
The ability for the municipality to collect on tax arrears relating to industrial and
linear tax accounts has become extremely difficult based on decisions of the
Courts. The Virginia Hills decision regarding the validity of linear tax arrears has
made it impossible for municipalities to collect any amounts owing. The Redwater
decision has also affected the oil & gas sector due to the expectations of any
monies left from a bankruptcy be paid first to the AER for reclamation purposes.
Municipal collections are no longer a priority as legislation provided for in the past
due to these decisions.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
The accounts in this RFD are companies have gone into bankruptcy proceedings
and the wells have been handed to the Orphan Wells Association for reclamation or
will be soon. There is no ability for the County to collect.
The County will be able to apply for the Requisition Credits with the Province and
be reimbursed for approximately $146,492 of this amount. These credits will be
applied for in January when the grant period is open. Once received, they will show
as a 2021 revenue.
The amount of 2020 penalties to be reversed is approximately $268,306. By
reversing these amounts in the 2020 general ledger, we are not artificially showing
revenue that will not be collected.
Financial
Implications:
In anticipation of this situation, the County operating budget for 2020 provided for a
$1,100,000 cancellation budget. To date Council has approved $985,000 in
60 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
7.2
Page 2 of 2
Version: 2020-01
industrial cancellations and the addition of this cancellation request will put us
$940,000 over budget.
Administration has reported on the Third Quarter Operating Budget Variances and
will reporting further to Council on measures to manage the potential year-end
deficit.
The voided 2020 penalties will reduce the revenues indicated to date against the
2020 budget for tax penalties that are being over-inflated by booking revenues that
will not be received by the municipality.
Council Options:
1. Cancel the outstanding taxes and void the current year penalties as
recommended.
2. Accept 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-
Attachments:
Follow-up
Actions:
Administration to cancel these amounts owing on the tax rolls and inactivating the
accounts.
Administration will apply for the PERC funds upon opening of the grant application
period in January 2021.
Director Approval:
Bill McKennan, Director of Corporate Services
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
61 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
8.1
Page 1 of 2
Version: 2020-02
Subject: Policy 1-29-3 Agricultural Pests - Clubroot
Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Prepared By: Bowen Claūsen - Manager of Parks & Agriculture Services
Presented By: Bowen Claūsen - Manager of Parks & Agriculture Services
Link to Strat Plan: Providing Good Governance
Recommended
Motion:
Council approves Policy 1-29-3 Agricultural Pests - Clubroot as presented.
Background/
Proposal
Brought forward as part of the regular policy review cycle. During the August 21st,
2020 regular ASB (Agricultural Service Board) meeting, the board recommended
that Council Approve the attached policy.
Further this was requested to be brought back after further information was found in
regard to wording for lands which received notices, and possible measures to
ensure they continued proper cropping rotations and utilized resistant varieties
indefinitely after the notice term had been completed.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
Based on a recent Provincial appeal to a Clubroot notice in 2017/18 with respect to
another municipality who wished to impose the similar restriction as mentioned
above, the Solicitor General advised AB Ag that as the Pest Notice lasts a specified
amount of time, so too does the power of the municipality to demand specific
actions. The Municipality was further advised to instead utilize wording for use upon
the completion of the notice term such as “strongly recommend”.
It is recommended that once a piece of land has completed its notice term that it
then continue to be monitored and surveyed, where at such time if a declared pest
is found that another notice could be issued at that time requiring the lands to follow
the requirements set out in the notice.
Financial
Implications:
N/A
Council Options:
1. Council approves as presented
2. Council approves with amendments
3. Council maintains current policy
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 1-29-3 Agricultural Pests - Clubroot
62 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
8.1
Page 2 of 2
Version: 2020-01
Follow-up
Actions:
Implement policy
Director Approval: Laurie Watt, Director
Community Services
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
63 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
POLICY
Section Policy No. Page
ASB 1-29-3 1 of 4
Policy Title Date: Motion No.
Agricultural Pests – Clubroot Control [Keywords] [Category]
Purpose:
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance for enforcement of the Agricultural Pests Act (the “Act”), as
amended from time to time, and to provide a procedure for fulfilling the duties of Kneehill County under the
Act in relation to controlling or eradicating Clubroot (Plasmodiophora brassicae) (“Clubroot”) listed within the
Pest and Nuisance Control Regulation.
Policy Statement:
This policy recognizes that Clubroot is a serious pest problem and supports the principle to control the spread
of Clubroot which has been declared a pest under the Act. Under the Act, Section 10 (1) states, “The local
authority of a municipality shall appoint a sufficient number of inspectors to carry out this Act and the
regulations within the municipality.” In addition, as per Section 6 of the Act, “A local authority of a municipality
shall take active measures (a) to prevent the establishment of, or (b) to control or destroy, pests in the
municipality.”
Definitions in this Policy
a) Act means the Agricultural Pests Act, as amended from time to time.
b) Agricultural Fieldman means the person employed by Kneehill County in that role.
c) Agricultural Service Board means the Kneehill County Agricultural Service Board as established
pursuant to the Agricultural Service Board Act, as amended from time to time.
d) Best Management Practices means those guidelines set out by Alberta Agriculture and Food in the
Clubroot Management Plan (Agdex 140/638-1).
e) Clubroot means Clubroot (Plasmodiophora brassicae) as listed within the Pest and Nuisance Control
Regulation, as amended from time to time.
f) Clubroot Inspection Guidelines means the Alberta Clubroot Management Plan and the Guideline for
ASBs for Clubroot as developed by Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, as amended from time
to time, and any other inspection guidelines as developed by the Agricultural Fieldman.
g) Crucifer Crop means any species within the Brassicaceae family, including but not limited to canola
and mustard.
h) Cruciferous Weeds means any species within the Brassicaceae family, including but not limited to
shepherd’s purse, stinkweed, flixweed and ball mustard.
i) Destruction for the purpose of this policy shall mean the use of the applicable registered herbicide for
the complete control of Brassicaceae Family crops or weed species which then must be plowed under.
j) Landowner and/or Occupant means the registered name on title and/or person responsible for
agricultural production on the land.
k) Non-host Crop means those crops outside of the Brassicaceae family.
64 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
POLICY
Section Policy No. Page
ASB 1-29-3 2 of 4
Policy Title Date: Motion No.
Agricultural Pests – Clubroot Control [Keywords] [Category]
Policy Guidelines:
1. Agricultural Service Board staff inspectors will conduct random field inspections.
2. Inspectors will follow the provincial and County protocol procedures and those set out by the
Agricultural Fieldman on proper sampling techniques and protocol for entering private land. Best
Management Practices will be followed to ensure inspections do not become a source of spreading
the disease. The Agricultural Fieldman will maintain current Clubroot Inspection Guidelines for
staff.
3. Positive identification of Clubroot shall be obtained by laboratory testing.
4. In accordance with Section 5(2) of the Act:
An owner or occupant of land or property, or the owner or person in control of livestock shall
take active measures to
(a) prevent the establishment of pests on or in the land, property or livestock unless
otherwise authorized by the Minister,
(b) control or destroy all pests on or in the land, property, or livestock, unless otherwise
authorized by the Minister, and
(c) destroy any crop, vegetation, or other matter that contributes or may contribute to the
maintenance or spread of a pest on or in the land, property or livestock.
5. When land is verified positive for Clubroot, the landowner and/or occupant will be notified in
writing with a written legal notice in accordance with the Province of Alberta Agricultural Pests
Act.
6. The notice will prohibit the growing of any crucifer crop on the entire parcel of land for a period of
(3) full years where after only it is strongly recommended Canadian Food Inspection Agency
approved Clubroot resistant crop varieties may be planted, with proof of purchase disclosed to the
Agricultural Fieldman. Further it is strongly recommended upon completion of the notice term,
that a four (4) year rotation of varying non-crucifer crops be continued to mitigate reinfestation
and help in the reduction of the clubroot pathogen on the lands.
7. When Clubroot has been found and confirmed on a field, the current crop may be harvested.
However, during harvest operations, all Crucifer Crop residue must remain on the field.
8. Subsequent Non-Host Crops must be treated with a registered herbicide for control of Cruciferous
Weeds, which may act as an alternate host.
65 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
POLICY
Section Policy No. Page
ASB 1-29-3 3 of 4
Policy Title Date: Motion No.
Agricultural Pests – Clubroot Control [Keywords] [Category]
9. In Non-Host Crops if Crucifer Weeds are not controlled on land that is known to be infected by
Clubroot, where a current notice has been issued to the Landowner and/or Occupant restricting
the growth of a Crucifer Crop and Crucifer Weeds, the Crucifer Weeds shall be destroyed. All
expenses incurred during the destruction and removal of the prohibited Crucifer Weeds will be
charged to the Landowner and/or Occupant plus a 10% administration fee, to a maximum
administration fee of $2,500.
10. If a Crucifer Crop is sown on land that is known to be infected by Clubroot, where a current notice
has been issued to the Landowner and/or Occupant restricting the growth of a Crucifer Crop, the
Crucifer Crop shall be destroyed. All expenses incurred during the destruction and removal of the
prohibited Crucifer Crop will be charged to the Landowner and/or Occupant plus a 10%
administration fee, to a maximum administration fee of $2,500.
11. Kneehill County will not be liable for any costs incurred for the destruction or removal of any
Crucifer Crop, or Crucifer Weed which is in contravention of a current served notice.
12. The Landowner and/or Occupant of the land on which a notice has been issued who are disturbing
the soil will be required to follow The Alberta Clubroot Management Plan (AGDEX 140/638-2) and
amendments there too, which is put out by the Government of Alberta, to prevent further spread
of the disease through the movement of soil and equipment.
13. A Landowner and/or Occupant may appeal to the local authority of Kneehill County within ten
days of receiving written legal notice in accordance with the Act. Such appeals must be in writing
and shall set out:
a. the name and address of Landowner and/or Occupant;
b. a copy of the notice in respect of which appeal is being taken;
c. the legal description of the land affected; and
d. the grounds for appeal.
14. Survey results and legal land locations of Clubroot infections may be made available to parties with
a genuine commercial interest. The method of information release shall be in accordance with the
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. at the discretion of the Agricultural
Fieldman, and may be in the form of a map at the municipal office, verbal communication or other
formats.
15. Adjacent landowners and affected parties will be notified.
66 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
POLICY
Section Policy No. Page
ASB 1-29-3 4 of 4
Policy Title Date: Motion No.
Agricultural Pests – Clubroot Control [Keywords] [Category]
16. Land previously verified positive for Clubroot shall be inspected annually for compliance with the
notice.
17. The Agricultural Service Board Staff will provide information and education to Landowners and/or
Occupants regarding the spread of Clubroot. Further information may be obtained by contacting
the Kneehill County Agricultural Service Board.
Jerry Wittstock,
Reeve
Mike Haugen,
CAO
Approved: May 11, 2008 112/08
Amended: August 17, 2010 393/10
Amended: January 14, 2014 14/14
Amended: August 26, 2014 319/14
Amended: May 9, 2017 301/17
Amended: March 12, 2019 91/19
Review Date: March 12, 2022
67 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
9.1
Page 1 of 2
Version: 2019-02
Subject: Community Grants to Non Profit Organizations Policy #15-3, Round Two
Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil, Legislative Services Coordinator
Presented By: Mike Haugen, CAO
Link to Strat Plan: Level of Service
Recommended
Motion:
That Council approve the Round Two Community Grants to Non-Profit
Organizations funding to the following organizations:
• Three Hills Figure Skating Club- $1,169.99
• Huxley Community Association- $865.20
Background/
Proposal
At the October 20th, 2020 Committee of the Whole Meeting, Council discussed the
2020 Round Two Community Grant Applications. Committee of the Whole
recommended that Council approve the following Community Grant Applications:
Three Hills Figure
Skating Club $1,169.99 Figure Skating Equipment
Huxley Community
Association $865.20 Replacing Taps and Toilets at Huxley
Hall
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
Cost Source of
Funding:
2019 Operating Budget
• Community Grants, Policy #15-3, G/L 97-000-00-27750
Council Options:
1. Council approve the recommended Community Grant Applications
2. Council amend the recommended Community Grant Applications
3. Receive 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-
Attachments:
N/A
68 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
9.1
Page 2 of 2
Version: 2019-01
Follow-up
Actions:
Administration provide notification to applicants.
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
69 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
9.2
Page 1 of 1
Version: 2020-01
Subject: Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) Fall Resolutions
Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil, Legislative Services Coordinator
Presented By: Mike Haugen, CAO
Link to Strat Plan: Providing Good Governance
Recommended
Motion:
That Council receives for information the 2020 Rural Municipalities of Alberta Fall
Resolutions Listing.
Background/
Proposal
The Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) advocates on behalf of rural
municipalities in meeting with government and ensures that provincial decision-
makers, as well as industry and other relevant stakeholders, understand and
incorporate the best interests of rural Alberta in their policies.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
The resolutions that will be presented during the resolutions session at the RMA
Fall 2020 Convention are attached for Council’s review and consideration.
Financial
Implications:
Council’s decision will have no impact on the budget.
Council Options:
1. Receive for information
2. Request more 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:
RMA Fall 2020 Resolutions
Follow-up
Actions:
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
70 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
RMA Fall 2020 Submitted Resolutions
1) Call to Order
2) Acceptance of Order Paper
3) Resolution Session
1-20F Police Funding Model Freeze (MD of Lesser Slave River)
2-20F Blue-Ribbon Panel to Review Unpaid Taxes Owed by Oil and Gas Companies (Birch Hills
County)
3-20F Support for Alberta Farmland Trust (Wheatland County)
4-20F Provincial Policing Costs Levy – Designate as a Requisition (Lacombe County)
5-20F Legislated Notice Requirement (Big Lakes County)
6-20F Government of Alberta Embargoed Committee Work (MD of Willow Creek)
7-20F Amendments to Municipal Government Act Section 619 (MD of Willow Creek)
8-20F Enhancing Support for Farmers When a State of Agricultural Disaster is Declared (Leduc
County)
9-20F CRTC Aggregate Wholesale Pricing to Mandate Rural Investment (Big Lakes County)
10-20F Weed Issues on Oil and Gas Sites in Rural Alberta (MD of Taber)
11-20F Creation of Municipal Affairs Process to Resolve Disputes Regarding Council Sanctions
and Disqualifications (Rocky View County)
12-20F Expansion of Elk Hunting for Management in Agriculture Production Areas (Leduc County)
13-20F Provincial Government Disaster Recovery Program Payments (County of Grande Prairie)
14-20F Seniors’ Foundation Requisitions (MD of Greenview)
15-20F Security Deposits for Dispositions (Saddle Hills County)
16-20F Federal and Provincial Disaster Support (RM of Wood Buffalo)
17-20F Rural Small Business Properties Assessment Sub-Classes Amendment (RM of Wood
Buffalo)
18-20F Municipal Decision-making on Fire Bans in Hamlets Within Forest Protection Area
(Mackenzie County)
71 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
19-20F Reinstatement of the Benefit Contribution Grant for Early Childhood Educators (RM of
Wood Buffalo)
4) Vote on Emergent Resolutions
5) Closing of Resolution Session
72 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Resolution 1-20F
Police Funding Model Freeze
MD of Lesser Slave River
Simple Majority Required
Endorsed by District 3 (Pembina River)
WHEREAS the Police Funding Regulation (hereafter referred to as “the Regulation”) was enacted by the
Government of Alberta on July 22, 2020; and
WHEREAS the Regulation states that each municipality receiving policing under the Provincial Police
Services Agreement (PPSA) shall pay a cost in each fiscal year for receiving policing services provided
by the provincial police service in an amount determined by the Minister in accordance with the Regulation;
and
WHEREAS the police funding model established in the Regulation will start in 2021 at 10% of total provincial
costs under the PPSA, and increase to 15% in 2022, 20% in 2023 and 30% in 2024; and
WHEREAS for municipalities that have not borne the provincial policing service cost in the past, these
additional costs will be a significant budget line item in 2021 and beyond; and
WHEREAS the current PPSA was signed by the Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations
on August 31, 2011; and
WHEREAS a corporate review of the current PPSA and the overall organizational structure, efficiency and
effectiveness of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police policing service has not been completed; and
WHEREAS as with any other municipal contracted service, municipalities need the best information
available to ensure that their taxpayer dollars are being used in the most cost-effective manner; and
WHEREAS rural crime in Alberta is increasing and the Government of Alberta has acknowledged this as a
priority;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) advocate to the
Government of Alberta to freeze municipal contributions under the police funding model at no
greater than 10% of the total policing costs under the Provinci al Police Services Agreement (PPSA)
until a corporate review of the PPSA and the overall organizational structure, efficiency and
effectiveness of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) policing service has been completed
and the review made available to all municipalities in Alberta; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that RMA advocate to the Government of Alberta that all monies
collected from the police funding model remain in the Rural Municipalities of Alberta district from
which they were collected.
Member Background
The Municipal District of Lesser Slave River has a process and policy in place for the procurement of goods
and services. The policy is established so the procurement of goods and services are done in a manner
that is consistent, competitive, transparent and ensures citizen confidence. Research of other rural
municipalities indicate that similar policies are also in place.
In the policy, the procurement of goods and services with an estimated value greater than $10,000 must
be completed through a public process such as a request for quote, request for tender, request for proposal
or a prequalification of bidder/expression of interest invitational tender. All procurement opportunities of this
nature must be advertised externally via our website, regional newspapers and the Alberta Purchasing
Connection website (for goods and services greater than the $75,000 and construction project greater than
the $200,000 thresholds).
The police funding model applied via the Police Funding Regulation will be a direct requisition/invoice to
the Municipal District of Lesser Slave River and all other municipalities receiving Royal Canadian Mo unted
Police (RCMP) service under the Provincial Police Services Agreement (PPSA). Based on the police
funding model, the current equalized assessment and population numbers for the Municipal District, the
table below indicates our estimated requisitions for the next four years:
73 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Police Funding Model*
PFM
Percentage Year $ per Capita Invoice
10% 2021 38 $150,820
15% 2022 57 $158,844
20% 2023 76 $211,640
30% 2024 113 $317,687
* Base cost (50% weighted equalized assessment + 50% weighted population) – Modifiers (shadow
population + crime severity index + detachment proximity) = Requisition/Invoice
The procurement of the provincial police service (as a contract service provider) for the M unicipal District
far exceeds our procurement policy in dollar value. Additionally, the spirit of consistent, competitive, and
transparent procurement has been eliminated and this does not inspire citizen confidence on the service or
the costs. This is a significant cost to the Municipal District. We are unfortunately on the back end of this
procurement process.
At the front end of this is the Government of Alberta, based on the PPSA, which was signed with the RCMP
in 2011. This is the starting point wher e the Government of Alberta needs to conduct a review of the
agreement and the organizational structure of the RCMP to ensure that the consistent, competitive and
transparent procurement of police services is completed and communicated to municipalities pr ior to issuing
requisitions/invoices above the 10% municipal costing threshold in place for 2021.
The Municipal District is not opposed to contributing a portion of the costs for a provincial police service.
As with all governmental procurement, accountability, transparency and value to our citizens and ratepayers
is a crucial part of good governance. To go beyond the police funding model of 10%, the Government of
Alberta needs to demonstrate that the current provincial police service meets or exceeds thes e criteria.
RMA Background
2-19F: Government of Alberta's Police Costing Test Model
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta urge the Government of
Alberta to engage in further consultation with municipalities on the police costing test model to
examine options to meet the Government of Alberta’s goal of reducing policing costs without
negatively impacting policing service delivery or municipal financial viability.
Click here to view the status and government response to this resolution
74 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Resolution 2-20F
Blue-Ribbon Panel to Review Unpaid Taxes Owed by Oil and Gas Companies
Birch Hills County
Simple Majority Required
Endorsed by District 4 (Northern)
WHEREAS the Government of Alberta oversees the development of the province's natural resources,
grants industry the right to explore for and develop energy and mineral resources, and encourages industry
investment that creates jobs and economic prosperity; and
WHEREAS rural municipalities require provincial support in the collection of the unpaid oil and gas property
taxes; and
WHEREAS there may exist an inequity in paid taxes between similar properties depending on their location
in rural Alberta; and
WHEREAS municipalities require property taxes to provide the infrastructure and services that industry
relies on to access natural resources; and
WHEREAS Alberta’s property tax system needs amendment to prevent oil and gas companies from
refusing to pay property taxes;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta urge the Government of
Alberta to appoint an independent panel of experts to review unpaid property taxes owed by oil and
gas companies and its impact on rural municipalities; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the panel provide the Government of Alberta and rural
municipalities with implementable recommendations related to the recovery of property taxes owed
by oil and gas companies.
Member Background
Alberta’s rural municipalities face a critical financial situation due to unpaid taxes owed by oil and gas
companies. Rural municipalities require provincial support in the collection of the unpaid taxes.
It is time to explore new approaches and alternatives and focus on achieving a sustainable financial
situation for rural municipalities. Municipalities require property taxes to provide the infrastructure and
services that industry relies on to access natural resources. If Alberta’s property tax system is not amended
to prevent oil and gas companies from refusing to pay property taxes, many rural municipalities will struggle
to remain viable.
RMA Background
1-19F: Priority of Unpaid Property Taxes on Linear Property
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) advocate for the
Government of Alberta to take steps to ensure that municipalities are able to effectively recover
all property taxes, including property taxes on linear property;
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that RMA advocate for the Government of Alberta to address the
growing concern regarding unfunded abandonment and reclamation costs for oil and gas
properties and the affect that those costs have on the ability of municipalities to recover unpaid
property taxes;
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that RMA advocate for the Government of Alberta to make
immediate amendments to the Municipal Government Act (MGA) to
1. Clarify that the reference to “property tax” in section 348 includes all property taxes,
including property taxes on linear property;
2. Clarify the meaning of the phrase “…land and any improvements to the land…” in
section 348 to specify that all of the property that is subject to assessment pursuant to
Part 9 of the MGA within that municipality is subject to the special lien established in that
section;
75 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
3. Provide municipalities with improved enforcement powers, such as the specific power
to apply to the courts for the appointment of a receiver to enforce a claim for unpaid linear
property taxes against the assets that are subject to a special lien established by section
348;
4. Apply the above amendments retroactively to ensure that existing linear property tax
arrears constitute a secured claim.
Click here to view the status and government response to this resolution
6-19F: Municipal Recourse for Solvent Companies Choosing Not to Pay Taxes
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta advocate that the
Government of Alberta direct the Alberta Energy Regulator to add unpaid municipal taxes to the
grounds for which a company may be denied a licence to operate in Alberta.
Click here to view the status and government response to this resolution
6-18F: Securing Municipal Property Taxes in the Event of Bankruptcy or Insolvency
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta partner with Alberta
Urban Municipalities Association to advocate to the Government of Alberta to amend section 348
and other relevant sections of the Municipal Government Act to ensure that municipal property
taxes are legally assured a status as a secured claim in the event that the property owner enters
bankruptcy or receivership.
Click here to view the status and government response to this resolution
76 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Resolution 3-20F
Support for Alberta Farmland Trust
Wheatland County
Simple Majority Required
Endorsed by District 2 (Central)
WHEREAS the Alberta Farmland Trust is a new land trust organization pursuing charitable status and
advocating for the advancement of mechanisms to support the protection, conservation and enhancement
of agricultural lands in Alberta; and
WHEREAS the Alberta Land Stewardship Act (ALSA) establishes “the protection, conservation and
enhancement of the environment,” “the protection, conservation and enhancement of n atural scenic or
esthetic values,” and “the protection, conservation and enhancement of agricultural land or land for
agricultural purposes” as valid purposes for conservation easements; and
WHEREAS Canada’s Ecological Gifts Program (EcoGift) offers “significant tax benefits to landowners
who donate land or partial interests in land to a qualified recipient” by way of a conservation easement with
the purpose of protecting and preserving ecologically sensitive lands, but no similar program exists in
support of the protection, conservation and enhancement of agricultural lands; and
WHEREAS funding, tax benefits, and support offered to ecological conservation easements (such as
EcoGift) have proven to be an effective tool for the conservation of ecologically se nsitive lands; and
WHEREAS cultivated lands do not qualify under the EcoGift program;
WHEREAS many of Alberta’s high quality, productive soils are found in areas with high development
pressure and therefore are at risk of loss without an effective mechanism for legal protection; and
WHEREAS agricultural land owners are unable to conserve agricultural land because of risks and costs
that would be alleviated by supports currently offered only for ecologically sensitive lands; and
WHEREAS rural municipalities, due to their obligatons under regional land use plans and their role as a
voice for rural landowners, have an interest in the availability of effective tools for the preservation of
agricultural lands; and
WHEREAS financial barriers to placing conservation easements on agricultural land render them
economically unavailable for legal protection at this time;
WHEREAS the ALSA establishes that the Lieutenant Governor in Council or designated Stewardship
Minister is responsible for establishing, supporting or facilitating the development of conservation
easements and instruments, including for agricultural land or land for agricultural purposes;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) request that the
Government of Alberta support the creation of agricultural conservation easements on lands within
Alberta’s highly productive, food-producing areas through the following means:
1. The establishment of agricultural conservation as a priority under the Alberta Land Trust
Grant Program so that agricultural land trusts can access funding, and benefit from policy
support;
2. Any other policies and programs that the Government of Alberta identifies to create
functional mechanisms for the protection and conservation of farmland in A lberta; and
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that the RMA request that the Government of Canada work with Alberta
and other provinces to establish an “AgriGift” program similar to the existing “EcoGift” in support
of the protection, conservation and enhancement of Canada’s most valuable food producing
agricultural lands.
Member Background
In January of 2020 Wheatland County’s Agricultural Service Board received a presentation from Stan
Carscallen, a lawyer, rancher, and co-founder of Alberta Farmland Trust. Carscallen described challenges
faced by landowners and land trusts seeking to protect, conserve and enhance Alberta’s agricultural lands,
and efforts made by Alberta Farmland Trust to improve supports available to them. Wheatland Co unty’s
Agricultural Service Board and Council were inspired to join advocacy efforts for the development and
77 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
implementation of programs and policies that support agricultural conservation easements in Alberta, with
recognition of the importance of preserving and protecting our most valuable agricultural lands. We hope
that agricultural conservation easements will soon become a feasible option for the landowners in our
municipality, and others, through this advocacy work.
Please see Carscallen’s attached paper titled The Urgent Need for the Formation and Support of an Alberta
Farmland Trust as background support for this resolution.
Bibliography
Alberta Farmer Express: Alexis Kienlen. (2019, Nov. 20). New farmland trust aims to preserve good soil.
Accessed on April 28, 2020 at https://www.albertafarmexpress.ca/news/new-farmland-trust-aims-to-
preserve-good-soil-2/.
Alberta Land Stewardship Act, SA 2009, c A-26.8, <http://canlii.ca/t/5259q> retrieved on 2020-05-01
Carscallen, Stan. (2018, Aug. 2). The urgent need for the formation and support of an Alberta farmland
trust. Work provided by Stan Carscallen, Q.C., on January 29, 2020.
Government of Alberta. (2020). Alberta land trust grant program. Accessed on April 30, 2020 at
https://www.alberta.ca/alberta-land-trust-grant-program.aspx
Government of Alberta. (2018, May 1). South Saskatchewan regional plan 2014 – 2024: amended 2018.
Retrieved on May 1, 2020 from https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/13ccde6d-34c9-45e4-8c67-
6a251225ad33/resource/e643d015-3e53-4950-99e6-beb49c71b368/download/south-saskatchewan-
regional-plan-2014-2024-may-2018.pdf
Government of Canada. (2019, May 8). Ecological gifts program: overview. Accessed on April 30, 2020 at
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-funding/ecological-gifts-
program/overview.html
The Western Producer: Barb Glen. (2018, Nov. 1) Proposed program aims to conserve farmland. Accessed
on April 29, 2020 at https://www.producer.com/2018/11/proposed-program-aims-to-conserve-farmland/
78 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
{02394293-1}
The Urgent Need for the Formation and Support of an Alberta Farmland
Trust
Introduction
With the Alberta economy moving in 2018 toward some degree of recovery, most thinking
Albertans recognize that there is now an urgent need for an initiative, supported by government
policy, designed to protect and preserve Alberta’s highest quality and most productive food
producing lands. Such a policy would be warmly welcomed not only by the agriculture
community but also by those living in the urban centers to whom the implications of urban
sprawl, industrialization and country residential development on productive farmland is fully
apparent.
Background of Conservation Easements in Alberta
Conservation easements were first introduced in Alberta through the Environmental Protection
and Enhancement Amendment Act, 1996, SA 1996, c.17. That legislation, however, provided
only for ecological conservation easements for the protection, conservation and enhancement of
the environment and of natural scenic or aesthetic values.
In 2008 the Canadian federal Ministry of Agriculture and Agri-food Canada published a paper by
Good and Michalsky entitled “Summary of Canadian Experience with Conservation Easements
and their Potential Application to Agri-Environmental Policy” which includes strong support for
the creation of tax and other incentives to give life to the use of conservation easements for the
preservation of well managed agricultural landscapes.
In 2009, the Alberta Land Stewardship Act, SA 2009, c A-26.8 (“ALSA”), created the first
legislative foothold in Alberta for the use of conservation easements for the “protection,
conservation and enhancement of agricultural land or land for agricultural purposes”. Since
2009, however, nothing substantive appears to have been done by government to implement the
policy in ALSA that was so warmly received at the time. Consequently, some nine years later,
there is no noticeable movement in the Province toward the use in a meaningful way of
conservation easements over farmland.
To be clear, many of the ecological conservation easements put in place to date in the Province
encompass lands that have an agricultural purpose, namely livestock grazing, and indeed some
even include some hayland as well. So as to avoid any misunderstanding arising from that fact,
it is emphasized at the outset that the thrust of this paper in support of the use of agricultural
conservation easements, is to advocate for farmland conservation easements as distinct from
ecological conservation easements that have a secondary function of preserving land that also
has an agricultural function from grazing.
In March 2012, the Miistakis Institute and the Environmental Law Centre published a report
entitled “Conservation Easements for Agriculture in Alberta, A Report on a Proposed Policy
Direction” (“Miistakis”) which is a helpful and comprehensive analysis of the concept of
agricultural conservation easements for Alberta. However, there has been governmental policy
inertia since that report was issued in 2012.
79 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
- 2 -
{02394293-1}
In the meantime, ecological conservation easements under ALSA as implemented under the
Federal/Provincial EcoGift Program, have proven to be a popular and very helpful tool in the
protection and preservation of ecologically sensitive lands in Alberta, particularly in the Eastern
Slopes region. To date, approximately 165,000 acres have been conserved under the Eco-Gifts
Program.
Conservation Easement
A conservation easement as used in Alberta today is an amphibious legal creation. In one
respect it is an easement to the extent that the qualified organization (i.e., a charity such as, for
example, Nature Conservancy of Canada, Southern Alberta Land Trust or Western Sky Land
Trust) has the right to enter the lands from time to time for the purpose of monitoring the
landowner’s compliance with the provisions of the conservation easement. At the same time, the
instrument is a restrictive covenant which imposes certain restrictions and prohibitions
applicable to the land in perpetuity.
It is the restrictive covenant aspect of a conservation easement that gives rise to the greatest
challenge to its enforceability. In the first place, the restrictions must not be dated and must be
practical with a view to being in place and enforceable in perpetuity. But even more important,
is the fact that the common law prescribes that a restrictive covenant is to be strictly construed.
By that is meant that anything that is not precisely and unambiguously prohibited by the terms of
the conservation easement, will not be disallowed.
The Essence of an Agricultural Conservation Easement
Miistakis addresses what it calls the “purpose conundrum”. The report advises Government that
it needs to articulate a purpose for agricultural conservation easements before full
implementation of that tool can be put in place. To that end, Miistakis analyzes whether the
purpose should be economic, for food production, to support culture and rural communities, to
preserve open spaces, to protect the environment or to implement sustainable production. It is
respectfully submitted, however, that any such focus on requiring a new and specific purpose for
agricultural conservation easements maybe founded upon misunderstandings that are important
to recognize.
The first, is alluded to in the Miistakis Report where reference is made to the experience in the
United States over its 100 years of usage of conservation easements. In the US, the perspective
is that legal challenges are a question of “when” and not “if”. It is submitted that there is no
reason why the Alberta perspective with regard to the use of this tool should be any different
over the perpetual life of a conservation easement. It would be a mistake to think otherwise.
It is easy to imagine how future owners of conserved land will in many cases resent the
restrictions imposed on their property by an unknown predecessor in title. The resentment will
stem from the substantially lower value for the property and the inability to utilize the generally
applicable laws allowing for changes of use, subdivision, etc. The end result is that future
owners of property can reasonably be expected to scrutinize every word of the conservation
easement encumbering their land and, together with their solicitors, analyze how strictly each
provision of the conservation easement can be construed.
80 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
- 3 -
{02394293-1}
As a matter of good management, qualified organizations holding conservation easements retain
an endowment fund or a reserve fund for ongoing stewardship of conserved land. But the
budgets for those reserved funds do not allow daily, weekly, monthly or anything much more
than an annual monitoring visit. So what is a qualified organization to do if a future landowner
starts cutting timber on the land when it was prohibited, selling topsoil when it was prohibited or
any one of myriads of other things that angry or destructive landowners might resort to. Of
course, if any such destructive steps were to be taken without prior notice to the qualified
organization, then the damage would have been done even before the qualified organization has
any idea of the threat.
Of equal significance is the fact that qualified organizations are not likely to be able to fund any
frequency of hard-fought litigation with disgruntled future owners over the precise meaning of
the restrictions contained in individual conservation easements. The danger of that, is that
landowners of the future may run roughshod over the conservation easement tool unless it is
carefully and thoughtfully established at the outset, without attempts to overreach by including
restrictions and purposes that are unrealistic or simply unenforceable. There is a common
unrealistic expectation on the part of many commentators about conservation easements with
respect to the extent and precision by which legally enforceable restrictions can be imposed in
order to achieve overly ambitious and unrealistic purposes.
What is the Purpose of an Agricultural Conservation Easement in Alberta?
It is submitted that enforceability of a conservation easement can best be attained by recognizing
that the relatively simple and direct task of protecting, conserving and enhancing of land for
agricultural purposes can be achieved:
(a) by prohibiting any subdivision (ie., reducing the area of a parcel below a quarter
section of 160 acres);
(b) by prohibiting any change in use of the land; and
(c) possibly also by prescribing what, if any, and what extent of agricultural building
will be allowed on the land.
The latter item would be negotiated between the donating landowner and the qualified
organization with the expectation that if a clear limitation on agricultural building is breached,
the court will have little difficulty with enforcement.
It is the combination of items (a) and (b) above, however, that is the essence of an agricultural
conservation easement. Specifically, if a future landowner wants to subdivide he/she will have
to go to the subdivision approving authority which will have been fully informed in advance of
the existence of the conservation easement. Similarly, if he/she wants to change the use of the
land under any future land use planning legislation, he/she would also need to get approval from
the appropriate regulatory authority which will also be aware in advance of the conservation
easement.
If one recognizes that those two (and perhaps three) essential provisions of an appropriate
agricultural conservation easement in Alberta (the “Essence of an ACE”) are put in place, then
81 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
- 4 -
{02394293-1}
the protection, conservation and enhancement of agricultural land or land for agricultural
purposes can be achieved in a readily enforceable manner regardless of the opposition of any
future owners. That is because any future disgruntled landowner could not achieve subdivision
or change of use without the authorization of a third party governmental agency such that
unilateral breach of the conservation easement would not at all be likely to occur.
Some have argued that the provision of Section 29 of ALSA providing for the use of a
conservation easement for the protection, conservation and enhancement of agricultural land or
land for agricultural purposes is a land use rather than a purpose. However, that is a distinction
without a meaningful difference in this context. It is submitted that all concern about there being
an absence of a purpose for agricultural conservation easements in Alberta can be dispensed with
if one recognizes that ALSA already expresses the purpose in Section 29 of the Act - “the
protection, conservation and enhancement of agricultural land or land for agricultural purposes”.
What Lands Should be Agriculturally Conserved in Alberta Today?
It is recommended that the Alberta Government implement a policy to support the creation of
agricultural conservation easements on lands within Alberta’s most highly productive food
producing areas. To that end, we attach as Appendix A to this Memorandum a map entitled
“Organic Matter Content of Cultivated Soils of the Agricultural Area of Alberta” as produced by
Alberta Agricultural, Food and Rural Development in conjunction with Norwest Labs. On that
map the soils containing a percent of organic matter of 6 and greater (ie., the very dark brown
and the dark redish brown areas) be used to delineate Alberta’s most highly productive food
producing lands.
Some of those best soils in the Province extend all the way down the Eastern Slopes to the US
border. Many parts of those particular lands are already being conserved under the EcoGift
Program so that the agricultural conservation easement could be used to slip into place for
cultivated lands in that particular area that do not qualify under the EcoGift Program. It is
submitted that government policy ought to make clear that agricultural conservation easements
apply to parcels which are all or substantially all cultivated land, including forages and tame
pasture.
Importance of Implementing an Agricultural Conservation Easement Program in Alberta
at this Time
There are a number of farm families in the Province who themselves and their ancestors have
farmed high quality Alberta farmland for many years and in some cases, for several generations.
A number of them have expressed to both the national and the regional land trusts, a desire to be
able to conserve those agricultural lands. However, they are unable to do so because of the risks
and costs described herein and because the established land trusts are fully focussed and
occupied with gifts under the EcoGift Program.
Not only are there no tax advantages available today, nor any public funding for support of
agricultural conservation easements, but also there are substantial legal, accounting, appraisal
and land registration costs and challenges to be incurred. All of those costs and challenges need
to be incurred and met by the landowner so that he/she can devalue his/her property. The fatal
82 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
- 5 -
{02394293-1}
issue in all of this is the fact that granting an agricultural conservation easement is a disposition
of an interest in the land for capital gains tax purposes.
As can be seen from the map which is Appendix A, much of the highest quality and most
productive soils in the Province run along the Edmonton / Calgary corridor. Industrialization up
and down that corridor is happening at a rapid rate. It is submitted that the people of Alberta,
both rural and urban would welcome the implementation of policies to allow at least some of
those invaluable food producing lands to be conserved.
The essential question therefore is, what policy initiatives need to be taken to implement a
workable agricultural conservation easement program in Alberta?
What are the Financial Implications of Granting a Conservation Easement in Alberta
Today?
In face of ongoing habitat loss and degradation, the Government of Canada, with the objective of
maintaining biodiversity, has established the EcoGift Program. It provides incentives to
landowners to protect their ecologically sensitive lands. Before one addresses what might be
done to stimulate the granting of agricultural conservation easements in Alberta, it is useful to
understand the financial implications of an ecological conservation easement from the point of
view of a donating landowner.
Ownership of fee simple land in Alberta today can be described as comprising many bundles of
rights: rights such as the right to cut trees, the right to farm, the right to graze, the right to build
structures, the right to apply for subdivision, the right to apply for a change in use, the right to
grow any and every crop imaginable that might survive in this climate, etc., etc. When a
conservation easement is granted, some of those “bundles of rights” are removed and from a
legal standpoint, that is seen as a sale of part of the fee simple interest.
For that reason, the donor and the qualified organization as the donee of a conservation easement
must obtain an appraisal of the value of the lands without a conservation easement, and an
appraisal of them after the conservation easement is put in place.
As mentioned above, when a conservation easement is granted there is a deemed disposition of a
real property interest, equal to the value of the gift (ie., the value attributed by the appraiser to
those bundles of rights removed by means of the conservation easement).
Under the EcoGift Program, the capital gains tax on the value of that donation is waived. No
such advantage, however, accrues to a donor of an agricultural conservation easement and it is
that fact which currently creates the single greatest impediment to the use of conservation
easements to protect agricultural land.
The donor of an ecological conservation easement, together with the qualified organization
receiving it, enjoy two significant advantages under the EcoGift Program. One is the fact that
the Federal Department of Environment certifies that the lands in question are ecologically
sensitive. The other is that the value attributed by the appraiser to be the market value of the
ecological gift is certified by the Federal Department of Environment as having been reviewed
by qualified professionals and approved. The advantage, therefore, is that a donor of an
83 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
- 6 -
{02394293-1}
ecological conservation easement can go forward with the donation with certainty that the value
attributed to the gift will not be questioned by the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”). Similarly,
the qualified organization will be a position to issue a tax receipt for the value of the gift which
the CRA will not question.
Of course, since there is no “AgriGift Program” in place in Canada today, the donor of an
agricultural conservation easement cannot have such certainty. In theory, at least, the donor can
place faith in the appraiser, and hope that the qualified organization will as well. However, both
of them must know that the CRA may at any time over a 4 year period after the year in which the
gift is made, challenge the appraiser’s valuation of the land, the assessment of the value of the
gift or whether the lands in question meet the objective of the protection, conservation and
enhancement of agricultural lands or land for agricultural purposes. In short, the granting of an
agricultural conservation easement today is awash with uncertainty including the potential for
disputes and the threat of possible litigation with the CRA.
There is yet another significant advantage that accrues under the EcoGift Program where the
donor is an individual as opposed to a corporation. An individual receives a tax receipt which
can be utilized for the year of the gift plus ten more taxation years against tax actually payable by
the individual, as opposed to taxable income which would be the case for a corporate donor. No
such advantage accrues to an individual upon the granting of an agricultural conservation
easement.
Finally, a major incentive within the EcoGift Program is that the donating landowner can receive
part of the value of his gift, not merely as a tax receipt for the donated portion, but also in cash
for the portion of the value of the conservation easement that is purchased by the qualified
organization. Some of that funding for the qualified organizations comes from the Federal
Government and some from the Provincial.
Not many farm owners in Alberta today need a tax receipt. An ideal solution would be for tax
receipts that are issued for donations of agricultural conservation easements, to be made
transferable so that farm owners might be able to obtain cash for the receipt. Also, receipt of
cash, perhaps to the same degree made available under the EcoGift Program, would be highly
attractive and a great incentive to cause landowners to move forward to protect Alberta’s most
valuable food producing lands.
What Should be Done?
The best solution would involve the creation of an “AgriGift Program” parallel to the EcoGift
Program. Such a policy, however, would require cooperation between the federal and provincial
governments. It is recommended that efforts in that regard be initiated by the Province of
Alberta with the aim of creating a program similar to the EcoGift Program.
The federal government has, of course, heard of this issue before. Attached as Appendix B is a
letter dated December 6, 2006, from the Ontario Farmland Trust to the Honourable James
Flaherty, who was then the Minister of Finance for Canada. That letter clearly articulates many
of the strong arguments in favour of the two levels of government working together to create
functional mechanisms for the preservation of farmland in Canada before it is too late.
84 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
- 7 -
{02394293-1}
Back in 2012, Miistakis commented that (under the previous federal Government) there seemed
to be a significant appetite for the creation of such a program nationwide. One would hope that
the present federal Government, recognizing the constant and rapid decline in the most highly
productive food producing lands in the country, may also be supportive of such an initiative.
A number of potential mechanisms for creating and enhancing the tax incentives for the granting
of a conservation easement in Canada are discussed in a useful paper by Zweibel and Cooper
entitled “Charitable Gifts of Conservation Easements: Lessons From the U.S. Experience in
Enhancing the Tax Incentive” published in the Canadian Tax Journal (2010) Vol. 58, No. 1, 25-
61.
Governments today are concerned about costs. It is submitted, however, that any perceived loss
of tax revenue on capital gains from an agricultural donation is theoretical at best and would be
overcome by the perpetual future food productivity of the lands. The loss of tax revenue through
the issuance of tax receipts, and the availability of cash for at least partial purchase of
agricultural conservation easements, could at the outset be capped when a new program is
initiated and the very best lands in each Province or region are identified and qualified, so that
there would be no unbudgeted expenditures of public funds.
Finally, it is time for the establishment of an Alberta Farmland Trust to be the qualified
organization to receive agricultural conservation easements, to press governments for support of
the concept and to raise funds for administration and stewardship purposes. Such an
organization would be complementary of the land trusts engaged in the EcoGift Program but not
competitive with them.
Dated this 2nd day of August, 2018.
Stanley Carscallen, Q.C.1
1 Mr. Carscallen is a practising lawyer with Carscallen LLP in Calgary and the owner of White Moose Ranch at
Millarville, Alberta.
85 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
RMA Background
RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.
86 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Resolution 4-20F
Provincial Policing Costs Levy – Designate as a Requisition
Lacombe County
Three-fifths Majority Required
Endorsed by District 2 (Central)
WHEREAS in December 2019, the Government of Alberta approved a new police funding model which
requires urban municipalities with populations less than 5,000 and all rural municipalities to pay a portion
of provincial policing costs; and
WHEREAS under the new police funding model, affected municipalities will contribute 10% of policing costs
in 2020, 15% in 2021, 20% in 2022, 30% in 2023 and 30% in 2024; and
WHEREAS based on 2018 population and equalized assessment information the total amount of policing
costs to be borne by the affected municipalities is $15,407,888 in 2020 -21, $26,655,970 in 2021-22,
$37,855,777 in 2022-23, $60,351,940 in 2023-24 and $60,351,940 in 2024-25; and
WHEREAS provincial policing costs represent a significant portion of the affected municipalities’ annual
operating budgets; and
WHEREAS pursuant to Section 354(1) of the Municipal Government Act, a municipality’s property tax bylaw
must set and show separately all of the tax rates imposed to raise the revenue required for requisitions,
including the Alberta School Foundation Fund, school board, housing management body, and designated
industrial property requisitions; and
WHEREAS Alberta Municipal Affairs has advised that policing costs are not legislatively designated as a
requisition and therefore there is no authority for municipalities to show policing costs as a separate line
item on the municipal tax bylaw, or to levy a specific tax rate for the collection of revenue to support policing
costs; and
WHEREAS municipalites must include invoiced policing costs in municipal budgets and fund costs from
revenues collected from the general municipal tax rate; and
WHEREAS all residents of Alberta should know how much of their annual property taxes is allocated to
policing costs;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta request the Government of
Alberta to amend section 326(1)(a) of the Municipal Government Act by designating the provincial
policing costs levy as a requisition to allow municipalities to show separately on their property tax
notices the tax rate imposed to raise the revenue required for the provincial policing costs levy.
Member Background
Despite municipalities’ significant concerns with the requirement that urban municipalities with populations
less than 5,000 and all rural municipalities contribute to frontline policing costs, and the implementation of
the ensuing police funding model, the Government of Alberta proceeded with this in late 2019. As a result
of this provincial government downloading, municipalities must reallocate money from their already strained
operating budgets to policing, which reduces funding for othe r core and supplemental municipal services
or increases property tax rates. If Alberta residents and businesses are legislatively required to pay for
other third party-provided services including public education, seniors housing, designated industrial
property assessments, and now policing, through their property taxes, it is imperative that they know how
much of their property taxes are going towards each service.
The purpose of this resolution is to ensure that municipal taxpayers are aware of what they are paying for
front-line policing.
RMA Background
RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.
87 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Resolution 5-20F
Legislated Notice Requirement
Big Lakes County
Three-fifths Majority Required
Endorsed by District 4 (Northern)
WHEREAS both the Government of Alberta and Alberta’s municipalities are committed to govern in a way
that best serves the people of Alberta; and
WHEREAS both parties share a responsibility for funding and providing services utilized by Alberta
residents and businesses; and
WHEREAS to maintain essential municipal services, municipalities require financial stability and adequate
notice of potential provincial policy or legislative changes with significant impacts on municipal finances ;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta advocate that the
Government of Alberta amend the Municipal Government Act to provide a mandatory notice period
of one year before implementing any action that will have the specific and direct effect of decreasing
revenue or increasing required expenditures for municipalities.
Member Background
Provinces and municipalities in other parts of the country have, through legislation and memorandums of
understanding (MOUs), developed a process of mutual respect, accountability and a recognition of the
importance of cooperation while achieving win/win solutions.
Recent actions by the Government of Alberta will produce extreme financial shortfalls leading to the
reduction and removal of municipal services and further unintended consequences. Many municipalities
will be required to mitigate these loses by raising their tax rates to their citizens, small businesses and
industries.
The enclosed resolution simply provides an opportunity for municipalities to work with the Government of
Alberta and be partners in achieving solutions that support the needs of Albertans without creating negative
financial extremes and hardships for municipalities.
The result of this formal collaborative arrangement will enhance due process which benefits both parties
and most importantly all Albertans, whom we all serve.
RMA Background
5-18S: Provincial Government Consultation and Communication Protocol with Municipalities
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) appeal to the
Government of Alberta to establish and maintain a uniform consultation and communication
protocol with municipal elected officials which is applicable to all provincial bodies;
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that through this consultation and communication protocol, the
Government of Alberta recognizes and acknowledges the legislated significance of municipal
elected officials, and that the Government of Alberta engage municipalities openly and
transparently to provide input and feedback on the consultation and communication protocol from
inception through to implementation.
Click here to view the status and government response to this resolution
88 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Resolution 6-20F
Government of Alberta Embargoed Committee Work
MD of Willow Creek
Simple Majority Required
Endorsed by District 1 (Foothills Little Bow)
WHEREAS the Government of Alberta has recently undertaken public policy discussions and decision -
making on fundamental changes which affect local governments through “embargoed” processes which
prohibit municipal organizations participating in these processes from consulting with member
municipalities; and
WHEREAS the Government of Alberta required that organizations participating in the assessment model
review abide by strict confidentiality requirements through an embargoed process ; and
WHEREAS the Government of Alberta is requiring as a condition of participation in the Alberta Police
Advisory Board that organizations abide by strict confidentially requirements through an embargoed
process; and
WHEREAS embargoed processes do not allow for the application of fundamental democratic processes
including transparency and consultation with parties most impacted by changes to government policy or
legislation; and
WHEREAS municipal councils regularly address confidential information and are bound by t he provisions
of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Municipal Government Act and municipal
councilor code of conduct bylaws and as such confidentiality requirements may be assured when
consultations include municipal governments;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta request the Government of
Alberta to amend its policy development processes for embargoed committee work to ensure that
organizations that represent municipal governments can share information and seek input from
their member municipalities during the committee process.
Member Background
Rural municipalities across Alberta have expressed concerns regarding two recent policy matters which
have been addressed by the Government of Alberta including the police funding model and the assessment
model review.
The policy development process undertaken by the Government of Alberta for these issues included the
participation of various stakeholders including the Rural Municipalities of Alberta and t he Alberta Urban
Municipalities Association. All stakeholders invited to participate in the committee process were required to
adhere to strict conditions of confidentiality which included a prohibition on consultation with members of
the municipal organizations.
Municipal councils regularly address confidential information and are bound by the provisions of the
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Municipal Government Act and municipal
councillor code of conduct bylaws. As such, confidentiality requirements may be assured when
consultations include municipal governments.
The embargoed process as required by the province does not allow for information sharing among
stakeholder groups during the policy development process, is inadequate to provide participation and
creates immediate resistance to committee proposals which arise from committee work as a direct result
of the lack of information available to stakeholders. Additionally, it does not provide transparency and
lacks critical public oversight which ensures a fair and equitable process for all stakeholders.
RMA Background
RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.
89 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Resolution 7-20F
Amendments to Municipal Government Act Section 619
MD of Willow Creek
Three-fifths Majority Required
Endorsed by District 1 (Foothills Little Bow)
WHEREAS the Municipal Government Act (MGA) provides for the preparation and adoption of planning
documents such as intermunicipal development plans, municipal development plans, land use bylaws and
area structure plans to ensure orderly, economical and beneficial development and use of land; and
WHEREAS section 619 of the MGA allows a license, permit, approval or other authorization granted by the
Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB), the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB),
the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB) or the Alberta
Utilities Commission (AUC) to supersede municipal authority over land use planning; and
WHEREAS section 619 further states that if an application is received by a municipality for an amendment
to a statutory plan, land use bylaw, subdivision approval, development permit or other authorization under
this Part, and the requested amendment is consistent with the licence, permit, approval or other
authorization granted by the NRCB, ERCB, AER, AEUB or AUC, the municipality must approve the
application thereby restricting or removing the municipality’s decision -making authority regarding land use
matters; and
WHEREAS the NRCB, ERCB, AER, AEUB or AUC are not legislatively required to consider municipal land
use planning bylaws when these Boards approve confined feeding operations, electrical generation or
transmission projects; and
WHEREAS the NRCB, ERCB, AER, AEUB or AUC have approved projects on productive agricultural lands
resulting in fragmentation and permanent loss of production; and
WHEREAS section 8 of the South Saskatchewan Implementation Plan for Agriculture requires
municipalities to: identify areas where agricultural activities – including extensive agriculture and associated
activities should be the primary land use in the region, limit fragmentation of agricultural lands and their
premature conversion to other non-agricultural uses, employ appropriate tools to direct nonagricultural
subdivision and development to areas where development will not constrain agric ultural activities and to
minimize conflicts between intensive agricultural operations and incompatible land uses; and
WHEREAS the protection of productive agricultural land for agricultural purposes is a principle stated within
many rural municipalities’ municipal development plans and land use bylaws; and
WHEREAS the NRCB, ERCB, AER, AEUB and AUC repeatedly and consistently approve licenses, permits,
approvals and other authorizations without consideration of local land use bylaws and without consideration
of the preservation of productive agricultural land;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta urge the Government of
Alberta to amend Section 619 of the Municipal Government Act to clearly state that the Natural
Resources Conservation Board, the Energy Resources Conservation Board, the Alberta Energy
Regulator, the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board or the Alberta Utilities Commission must consider
municipal statutory land use planning related to the protection of productive agricultural lands
when making decisions on licenses, permits, approvals and other authorizations under their
jurisdiction.
Member Background
Section 619 of the Municipal Government Act allows a allows a license, permit, approval or other
authorization granted by the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB), the Energy Resources
Conservation Board (ERCB), the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board
(AEUB) or the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) to supersede municipal authority over land use
planning, including any statutory plan, land use bylaw, subdivision decision or development decision by a
subdivision authority, development authority, subdivision and development appeal bo ard or the Municipal
Government Board or any other authorization under this Part.
When these provincial agencies consider the issuance of licenses, permits, approvals and other
authorizations there are few requirements which statutorily require them to consider municipal planning
90 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
documents which outline land use priorities and plans – particularly those which include the protection of
agricultural land including fragmentation and conversion to non-agricultural uses.
This resolution is intended to initiate a discussion on the amendment of the Municipal Government Act to
require the consideration of municipal planning documents with respect to the protection of agricultural land
when considering applications for licenses, permits, approvals or other authorizations by the NRCB, ERCB,
AER, AEUB or AUC.
The relevant legislation is below:
Municipal Government Act Section 619 Chapter M-26 RSA 2000
Division 1
Other Authorizations, Compensation
NRCB, ERCB, AER, AEUB or AUC authorizations
619(1) A licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted by the NRCB, ERCB, AER, AEUB or
AUC prevails, in accordance with this section, over any statutory plan, land use bylaw, subdivision
decision or development decision by a subdivision authority, development authority, subdivision and
development appeal board, or the Municipal Government Board or any other authorization under this
Part.
(2) When an application is received by a municipality for a statutory plan amendment, land use bylaw
amendment, subdivision approval, development permit or other authorization under this Part and the
application is consistent with a licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted by the NRCB,
ERCB, AER, AEUB or AUC, the municipality must approve the application to the extent that it complies
with the licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted under subsection (1).
(3) An approval of a statutory plan amendment or land use bylaw amendment under subsection (2)
(a) must be granted within 90 days after the application or a longer time agreed on by the
applicant and the municipality, and
(b) is not subject to the requirements of section 692 unless, in the opinion of the municipality, the
statutory plan amendment or land use bylaw amendment relates to matters not included in the
licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted by the NRCB, ERCB, AER, AEUB or
AUC.
(4) If a municipality that is considering an application under subsection (2) holds a hearing, the hearing
may not address matters already decided by the NRCB, ERCB, AER, AEUB or AUC except as necessary
to determine whether an amendment to a statutory plan or land use bylaw is required.
(5) If a municipality does not approve an application under subsection (2) to amen d a statutory plan or
land use bylaw or the municipality does not comply with subsection (3), the applicant may appeal to the
Municipal Government Board by filing with the Board
(a) a notice of appeal, and
(b) a statutory declaration stating why mediation was unsuccessful or why the applicant believes
that the municipality was unwilling to attempt to use mediation.
(6) The Municipal Government Board, on receiving a notice of appeal and statutory declaration under
subsection (5),
(a) must commence a hearing within 60 days after receiving the notice of appeal and statutory
declaration and give a written decision within 30 days after concluding the hearing, and
(b) is not required to notify or hear from any person other than the applicant and the municipality
against whom the appeal is launched.
(7) The Municipal Government Board, in hearing an appeal under subsection (6), may only hear matters
relating to whether the proposed statutory plan or land use bylaw amendment is consistent with the
licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted under subsection (1).
(8) In an appeal under this section, the Municipal Government Board may
91 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
(a) order the municipality to amend the statutory plan or land use bylaw in order to comply with a
licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted by the NRCB, ERCB, AER, AEUB or
AUC, or
(b) dismiss the appeal.
(9) Section 692 does not apply when the statutory plan or land use bylaw is amended pursuant to a
decision of the Municipal Government Board under subsection (8)(a).
(10) A decision under subsection (8) is final but may be appealed by the applicant or the municipality in
accordance with section 688.
(11) In this section, “NRCB, ERCB, AER, AEUB or AUC” means the Natural Resources Conservation
Board, Energy Resources Conservation Board, Alberta Energy Regulator, Alberta Energy and Utilities
Board or Alberta Utilities Commission.
(12) Despite any other provision of this section, every decision referred to or made and every instrument
issued under this section must comply with any applicable ALSA regional plan. RSA 2000 cM-26
s619;2007 cA-37.2 s82(14); 2009 cA-26.8 s83;2012 cR-17.3 s95
RMA Background
RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.
92 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Resolution 8-20F
Enhancing Support for Farmers When a State of Agricultural Disaster is Declared
Leduc County
Simple Majority Required
Endorsed by District 3 (Pembina River)
WHEREAS much of the northwest region of Alberta has seen excessive moisture over the past three years;
and
WHEREAS harvesting, seeding, and spraying operations have been severely disrupted over the past three
years, creating stress and financial difficulty for many farmers; and
WHEREAS the declaration of a state of agricultural disaster by a municipality does n ot provide additional
supports for farmers in the affected area;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) request that the
Government of Alberta review supports for farmers when a state of agricultural disaster is formally
declared within a municipality; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that RMA request that the Government of Alberta develop additional
programs to enhance support to farmers when a state of agricultural disaster is declared; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that RMA reque st that the Government of Alberta take a regional
approach to declaring agricultural disasters such that they can be initiated within a region of Alberta
where several municipalities have declared a state of agricultural disaster to allow for the release
of reserve funds for farmers in that region.
Member Background
In the spring and summer of 2020, thirteen municipalities declared a state of agricultural disaster.
Excessive moisture for the previous two years devastated agriculture within the area, with p recipitation in
some areas being 150% of the long-term average in 2020 alone (the most precipitation seen in the past
sixty years). For some municipalities, such as Leduc County, it was the second consecutive year that a
state of agricultural disaster was declared.
A municipal declaration is a way for municipal governments to raise awareness of the severity of the
situation with the general public through the media; however, a declaration does not provide additional
support to the farmers who are dealing with unseeded acres, lost crop, or lack of feed for livestock.
The Rural Municipalities of Alberta had developed A Guide for Declaring Municipal Agricultural Disasters
in Alberta. The guide was created to assist municipalities in the difficult decision on whether to declare an
agricultural disaster. This document has been helpful in creating consistency in when and how a
municipality should declare a state of agricultural disaster.
Although municipal declarations bring awareness to an issue in a specific area of the p rovince, it does
nothing to trigger a provincial declaration, nor allow access to any funding to support the farmers that are
experiencing extreme hardship. Farmers are only provided access to disaster support funds of the
Government of Alberta declares a provincial state of agricultural disaster. This decision is made by Cabinet
and although it may use municipal declarations to inform its decision-making, the decision is made with
respect to the province as a whole.
It is appreciated that the Government of Alberta must make decisions with respect to the entire province.
It would be an extremely rare and serious situation if the entire province suffered an agricultural disaster; it
is more common that specific regions within Alberta will experience adverse conditions that would warrant
a declaration of disaster. If the Government of Alberta were able to declare a region of the province as an
area of agricultural disaster, this should allow for the release of reserve funds to aid farmers in that region.
References:
RMA Guide for Declaring Municipal Agricultural Disasters https://rmalberta.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/07/RMA-Guide-for-Declaring-Municipal-Agriculture-Disasters.pdf
93 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
RMA Background
RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.
94 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Resolution 9-20F
CRTC Aggregate Wholesale Pricing to Mandate Rural Investment
Big Lakes County
Simple Majority Required
Endorsed by District 4 (Northern)
WHEREAS the owners of broadband infastructure have invested significant sums of money in developing
their distribution networks; and
WHEREAS the owners of broadband distribution networks set their user fees to facilitate future investment
in expanded networks; and
WHEREAS the owners of broadband distribution networks allow for third party internet service prov iders to
utilize their networks for a fee; and
WHEREAS Telecom Order CRTC 2019-288 set final rates for wholesale high-speed access that owners of
broadband distribution networks can charge third party internet service providers for aggregated wholesale
high speed access services; and
WHEREAS the position taken by the CRTC related to wholesale internet pricing has the potential to
significantly reduce the level of investment in internet infrastructure in small and rural communities in
Canada; and
WHEREAS in September 2019 the Federal Court of Appeal issued a temporary stay of Telecom Order
CRTC 2019-288; and
WHEREAS the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has issued
Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2020-131 which reviews the approach to rate setting for wholesale
telecommunications services;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) urge the Government
of Canada and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to
reconsider its position on wholesale internet pricing; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that RMA request the Government of Canada and CRTC to create a
financial framework where communication and internet fee structures include funds for mandatory
investment of network expansion into currently unserved areas of Canada by all telecom and
internet service providers.
Member Background
The wholesale pricing model introduced in August 2019 has the potential of increasing competition and
lowering internet pricing for urban areas in Canada where there are multiple providers and good existing
high-speed internet infrastructure. However, in rural areas where there are often only a few telecom
providers or no service at all, the pricing model discourages investment in these rural areas. When a large
telecom provider decides to invest in a rural area, the period to recoup the investment is very long, if ever.
If the telecoms are forced to provide low cost access to these assets to their competitors, it discourage s
the investment. With the large number of additional towers needed to move from 4G to 5G networks, this
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) decision will likely result in rural
areas never receiving upgrades, and areas currently unserved will remain unserved. With the
advancements in artificial intelligence and our ever-increasing reliance on the internet to provide basic
services to our residents, the need for a robust Canada wide network coverage including the most remote
rural areas is a national problem. Having higher wholesale rates and forcing the network operators to
reinvest the additional money collected into poorly covered or unserved areas would better serve Canada’s
collective interests.
RMA Background
RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.
95 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Resolution 10-20F
Weed Issues on Oil and Gas Sites in Rural Alberta
MD of Taber
Simple Majority Required
Endorsed by District 1 (Foothills Little Bow)
WHEREAS Alberta has experienced an extended period of economic challenge in the oil and gas industry
which has resulted in many resource companies becoming insolvent, forced into receivership, or ultimately
claiming bankruptcy; and
WHEREAS there are thousands of oil and gas wells across Alberta where regular lease maintenance is not
being carried out as per the terms of private surface lease agreements , including wells transferred to the
Orphan Well Association, companies in receivership or in bankruptcy proceedings, or companies currently
still operating and producing product; and
WHEREAS there are no legislated timelines for oil and gas companies to reclaim inactive wells; and
WHEREAS there are currently approximately 90,000 inactive wells in Alberta; and
WHEREAS the Alberta Energy Regulator has been reluctant to suspend well licenses or limit access to
these sites for companies that are in non-compliance surface leases terms related to weed control,
contamination issues, fence maintenance, or non-payment of surface rentals; and
WHEREAS agricultural operators have been left to address the liabilities of many oil and gas wells that
have been abandoned by bankrupt companies or companies that are unwilling or financially unable to
maintain their sites; and
WHEREAS neglect of weed control on well sites has been a recent concern of municipalities and
landowners across Alberta;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta advocate to the
governments of Alberta and Canada to put in place appropriate legislation and standards to protect
landowners from undue hardship as a result of oil and gas company neglect of weed control on
well sites.
Member Background
Ongoing depressed oil and natural gas prices have dramatically affected the industry, the provincial
government, and the residents of Alberta. One of the unforeseen consequences to rural landowners has
been the effects of unaddressed weed issues from oil and gas lease sites.
Several struggling oil and gas companies have opted to forego weed control measures on their lease sites
on both private and Crown lands. This includes companies whose assets have been assigned to the Orphan
Well Association, companies in receivership or bankruptcy proceedings, and companies that continue to
operate and are choosing not to address their weed control obligations through their surface lease
agreements.
This unfortunate symptom of an industry in peril has resulted in economic implications to cooperating
landowners. In many cases, these neglected leases have resulted in weeds moving off the lease onto
neighboring lands causing reduced crop yields and having landowners incur the cost, inconvenience, and
liability of managing these weed issues themselves.
Efforts by landowners to contact operators of these facilities has proven to be frustrating. In some cases a
contact person cannot be found, or if they are successful in contacting the company, many times the issues
go unresolved.
The plant of primary concern is the Kochia weed (Kochia scoparia ). This now common, non-native plant
grows in wide range of soil types, is drought tolerant, and is becoming increasingly resistant to traditional
herbicide treatments. This plant is of great concern to producers of annual cereal crops as it can
substantially reduce crop yields and seed cleaning costs in affected fields. Kochia is not listed in the Alberta
Weed Control Regulation, therefore municipalities are limited in their ability to address this issue through
legislative processes.
96 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Attempts at contacting the Orphan Well Association, the Alberta Energy Regulator, and the Alberta Surface
Rights Board have not been successful in attenuating this situation.
RMA Background
RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.
97 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Resolution 11-20F
Creation of Municipal Affairs Process to Resolve Disputes Regarding Council
Sanctions and Disqualifications
Rocky View County
Three-fifths Majority Required
Individual Resolution
WHEREAS section 146.1 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) requires municipalities to establish,
by bylaw, a code of conduct that governs the conduct of councillors and how violations of municipal codes
of conduct should be resolved, including the placement of sanctions on councillors; and
WHEREAS section 174 of the MGA states the circumstances in which a councillor is disqualified from
council; and
WHEREAS section 175 of the MGA requires a disqualified councillor to resign immediately, and if they fail
to do so, the only alternative is to refer the matter to the Court of Queen’s Bench for resolution; and
WHEREAS there have been a number of cases in Alberta municipalities that have resulted in legal action
because a councillor refutes imposed sanctions or does not resign from council as the result of a
disqualification; and
WHEREAS there is no intermediate step for the resolution of conflict regarding code of conduct sanctions
or disqualifications between resolving the issue internally at the municipal level and a formal judiciary
process; and
WHEREAS legal action is costly, combative, and time-consuming to the municipality and all parties
involved; and
WHEREAS the courts do not have the same level of awareness and understanding of the responsibilities,
obligations, and internal processes of municipalities as does the Minister of Municipal Affairs; and
WHEREAS municipalities derive their authority, requirements, and responsibility from the Minister of
Municipal Affairs; and
WHEREAS the Minister of Municipal Affairs has the authority to adjudicate on municipal m atters and could
create a process that serves as an intermediate step to adjudicate on disagreements regarding council
sanctions and the removal of disqualified councillors;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta advocate to the Government
of Alberta to amend the Municipal Government Act to create a process by which the Minister of
Municipal Affairs can enforce, amend, or remove sanctions for code of conduct violations and
enforce the removal of disqualified councillors, as an alternative to referring matters directly to the
Court of Queen’s Bench.
Member Background
Conflict and dispute can arise among councillors in municipalities. The Municipal Government Act (MGA)
provides mechanisms and requirements for councils to resolve their problems internally. Section 146.1
enables councils to create a code of conduct bylaw to define how individual councillors must conduct
themselves as representatives of the municipal ity. If violations occur, the code of conduct bylaw outlines
steps to follow and actions that can occur. The MGA allows councils to place sanctions on councillors who
violate codes of conduct. If a councillor does not agree with the sanctions and the matter cannot be resolved
internally, that councillor’s only recourse is to refer the matter to the Court of Queen’s Bench.
Section 174 of the MGA describes the circumstances by which a councillor is disqualified, while section
175 states that disqualified councillors must immediately resign from council. If a councillor does not resign,
section 175(2) states that the only recourse is to refer the matter to the Court of Queen’s Bench. As a result,
to ensure that the legislative requirements of the MGA are met, a council must proceed through a costly
and time-consuming judiciary process. This also leaves municipalities in a situation where disqualified
councillors can continue to sit while the process is resolved through the courts.
There are no intermediate steps to resolve councillor sanctions and disqualifications. The only options are
to resolve it internally or to refer it to the courts. Legal action is costly, time -consuming, and combative,
which further exacerbates internal council tensions. Additionally, courts often lack the intimate
98 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
understanding of municipal affairs possessed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, which may result in
decisions that fail to understand the nuances of local government. There are certain types of quasi-judicial
items that could be resolved without a lengthy, expensive court process, specifically disputes about
councillor sanctions and removal of disqualified councillors. Section 574 of the MGA provides the Minister
with the ability to adjudicate on council conduct after an investigation. Minor amendments to Section 175
of the MGA could allow this process to be used for disqualifications as well.
Municipalities derive their authority from provincial statutes, and are thus bound by the authority of the
Minister, who can adjudicate on municipal matters. Minor amendments to the MGA would clarify the
Minister’s authority and allow for creation of a streamlined process to adjudicate on council sanctions and
the removal of disqualified councillors. The process could be used by either the affected councillor or the
council to oppose or enforce a sanction. For example, if a sanctioned councillor disagrees with the sanctions
that have been imposed, they could make a case to the Minister of Municipal Affairs to review the
circumstances. The Minister would then have the option of upholding, removing, or amending the sanctions.
This process could also be used by the Minister to remove a councillor who has clearly been disqualified
under Section 174 of the MGA.
This would provide an alternate option for resolving conflict, rather than having to resort immediately to
legal action if the matter cannot be resolved internally through the code of conduct bylaw. These changes
would significantly reduce costs for municipalities and provide a mechanism for the swift resolution of these
issues. If an adjudication from the Minister is still not agreeable to either parties, the judicial process remains
an option.
RMA Background
RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.
99 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Resolution 12-20F
Expansion of Elk Hunting for Management in Agriculture Production Areas
Leduc County
Simple Majority Required
Endorsed by District 3 (Pembina River)
WHEREAS Alberta’s elk populations are increasing rapidly due to current wildlife management policies;
and
WHEREAS increased elk populations within primarily agricultural areas has impacted agricultural
producers through damage to hay land, pasture, silage crops and other crops; and
WHEREAS the introduction of an antlerless elk season in many of Alberta’s wildlife management units was
intended to assist in elk population control;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) request that the
Government of Alberta increase the number of antlerless elk draw seasons to a minimum of two
per wildlife management unit (WMU) located within agricultural areas; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that RMA request that the Government of Alberta increase the number
of antlerless elk tags allocated within WMUs that are located within agricultural areas to
compensate for poor hunter harvest success.
Member Background
Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) 334 is comprised of portions of Leduc County, Brazeau County, and
Yellowhead County. The eastern portion of this WMU is primarily agricultural land with a high proportion of
livestock operations, who rely on hay land and silage crops (such as corn) to provide winter feed for their
cattle herds. Over the past three years, several herds of non-migrating elk have become established within
WMU 334. Sightings of at least two separate herds of eighty elk and two herds of forty are common within
the area. These elk have been damaging both standing and stockpiled forages that are intended for cattle
feed.
Elk in the area have become especially damaging to corn crops that are intended as winter grazing for the
cattle. While there are techniques for preventing and mitigating ungulate damage, such as deterrent,
intercept feed and permanent fencing, these techniques are typically not effective/economical when dealing
with large areas, such as entire fields.
The introduction of an antlerless elk season is believed to assist in the control of elk populations by removing
female elk from the population. Tags are allocated within each WMU based on population numbers. This
allocation assumes that with a 100% success rate of harvest, population numbers will be manageable.
However, based on Alberta Environment and Parks’ (AEP) Hunter Harvest Report, hunter success rate s
for elk only exceeded 50% in one WMU, and was only 11% in specifically for WMU 334 .
AEP has confirmed that there has not been a specific survey for elk conducted within WMU 334, and the
last aerial survey that was flown for other ungulate species was in January 2016. However, AEP had
allocated 20 antlerless tags for WMU 334 in 2019 and 20 in 2020. According to the 2019 Hunter Harvest
Report in 2019, five female elk and two young elk were harvested within the WMU, a success rate of 35%.
Although this is a higher success rate than is recorded on the estimated resident harvest for elk, it is not a
high enough success rate to ensure populations are managed.
By increasing the number of antlerless hunting seasons within WMUs where agriculture is a significant
operation, the season in which elk can be hunted within these WMU’s can be extended, and it is believed
that the hunter harvest success rate can be increased. By increasing the number of antlerless tags available
in these unit areas, elk populations will be more accurately managed even with a less than ideal hunter
harvest rate.
Past resolutions have been endorsed by members of the Rural Municipalities of Alberta specifically related
to elk population control, although there are no active resolutions currently.
References:
100 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
https://open.alberta.ca/publications/hunter-harvest-report-elk-estimated-resident-harvest-for-elk
https://rmalberta.com/resolutions/2-15s-elk-quota-hunt/
https://rmalberta.com/resolutions/4-15s-landowner-special-licence-for-elk/
RMA Background
RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.
101 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Resolution 13-20F
Provincial Government Disaster Recovery Program Payments
County of Grande Prairie
Simple Majority Required
Endorsed by District 4 (Northern)
WHEREAS the Government of Alberta has an effective emergency management system and an effective
Provincial Operations Centre; and
WHEREAS the Government of Alberta regularly requests emergency response deployments from
municipalities to assist with regional disaster situations; and
WHEREAS municipalities typically respond quickly to disaster situations and support one another during
times of need; and
WHEREAS municipalities are required to submit detailed accounting of expenses incurred during
deployments under the provincial Disaster Recovery Program (DRP); and
WHEREAS the Government of Alberta is required to ensure fiscal responsibility in DRP payments;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta advocate that the
Government of Alberta review its Disaster Recovery Program processes to ensure municipalities
receive payments within a defined timeline for resources deployed to assist during regional
disasters.
Member Background
In the past few years, the Government of Alberta has experienced an increased frequency of regional
emergencies where resources from unaffected municipalities were deployed under provincial direction or
at the request of an affected municipality.
Municipalities are quick to respond to regional emergencies and support one another in times of need.
During such disasters and corresponding responses, municipalities incur additional operating and
administrative costs.
In 2018, the Government of Alberta developed the Alberta Structure Protection Program Operational
Guidelines document, which is intended to “strengthen the capacity for Provincial structure protection while
providing flexibility to deploy trained and capable resources with clear rules of engagement and
reimbursement requirements.”
The processing of Disaster Relief Program (DRP) claims is lengthy, and Alberta municipal elected officials
are concerned with the timelines required for DRP payments.
A recent example is the May 2019 Chuckegg Creek Wildfire for which reimbursements are still outstanding
for the local municipality and responding regional partners.
RMA Background
RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.
102 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Resolution 14-20F
Seniors’ Foundation Requisitions
MD of Greenview
Three-fifths Majority Required
Endorsed by District 4 (Northern)
WHEREAS the Housing Act (hereafter referred to as “the Act”) provides that a management body may
annually requisition municipalities for which the management body provides lodge accommodation for the
amount of the management body’s annual deficit for the previous fiscal year, an d any amounts necessary
to establish or continue a reserve fund for the management body; and
WHEREAS the Act provides that the management body shall supply a copy of its calculation of the
requisitioned amount for the municipality; and
WHEREAS the Act provides that if a municipality agrees to contribute to the operating costs of any housing
accommodation, other than lodge accommodation, provided by a management body, it shall make the
contribution agreed to within 90 days after the mailing of the invoice by the management body; and
WHEREAS the Management Body Operation and Administration Regulation (hereafter referred to as “the
Regulation”) provides that each year, a management body must prepare and submit to the Minister a
business plan that includes the operating budget for the upcoming three-fiscal-year period, a capital plan
for the upcoming five-fiscal-year period, and any other information required by the Minister; and
WHEREAS the Regulation places limits on reserve funds, including a requirement for ministerial approval
to establish reserves and limits on the amount of reserves in relation to the management body’s estimated
capital and operational costs; and
WHEREAS the current Act and Regulation lacks clarity regarding the scope of housing management body
requisitions, specifically relating to capital project costs;
WHEREAS this lack of clarity has resulted in situations in which housing management bodies have
attempted to requisition municipalities for capital costs, expenses based on th e current year’s budget, and
to contribute to reserve funds not approved by members, all of which do not align with the intent of the Act
and Regulation;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) request the
Government of Alb erta review the oversight of the Ministry of Seniors and Housing over housing
management bodies (HMBs) to ensure that all HMBs are correctly and consistently requisitioning
municipalities under the requirements of the Housing Act; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that RMA request that the Government of Alberta provide enhanced
training and education to HMBs on the Housing Act and the Management Body Operation and
Administration Regulation to ensure they have a clear understanding of their financial powers,
limitations and responsibilities, including related to requisitioning and reserve creation; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that RMA request the Government of Alberta to amend the Housing
Act to clearly state the ability of municipalities to approve or deny request s for capital projects.
Member Background
The Housing Act provides parameters for how housing management bodies may requisition member
municipalities for operating deficits and reserve funds. It is the general understanding that housing
management bodies may requisition funds for the operating deficit of the pre vious year as well as any
reserve funds, both capital and operating, as agreed upon between the management body and the member
municipalities. There are some housing management bodies across the province that have been
requisitioning municipalities for capital funds outside of any agreement that creates an operating or capital
reserve between member municipalities and the housing management body.
The discrepancies between housing management bodies’ understanding of their requisitioning abilities may
be due to a lack of oversight and clarity in the Act and Regulation from Alberta Seniors and Housing. While
many housing management bodies appear to be following the correct process in working with their
103 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
municipal partners to raise capital funds through official agreements for reserve contributions and operating
deficits, there are other housing bodies that are not following the proper process and approaching capital
projects as a requisition, to which the municipality has no ability to deny.
Further, some housing management bodies have been requisitioning municipalities based on the current
year’s operational budget. The Act states that the operating requisition must be based on the previous
year’s operating deficit. This discrepancy should also be rectified under the oversight of Alberta Seniors
and Housing or clarified in the Act and Regulation.
RMA Background
RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.
104 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Resolution 15-20F
Security Deposits for Dispositions
Saddle Hills County
Simple Majority Required
Endorsed by District 4 (Northern)
WHEREAS changes to policy regarding maintenance and renewal of Alberta Environment and Parks
dispositions now requires a security deposit to be held for Crown land leases for municip alities; and
WHEREAS the changes have also forced non-profit organizations to turn to local municipalities and seek
unbudgeted financial support and administration guidance to renew dispositions; and
WHEREAS the new security deposit requirement for crown land dispositions is not practical or financially
sustainable for municipalities or non-profit organizations wishing to maintain or renew their dispositions;
and
WHEREAS the security deposit is taking funds from a lower level of government to a higher level;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta request that the Government
of Alberta remove the requirement for municipalities to provide a security to receive Crown land
dispositions.
Member Background
Municipalities that hold dispositions on Crown land have demonstrated excellent stewardship of the land
and Alberta Environment and Parks has alternate means of ensuring Crown lands are satisfactorily
reclaimed following the cancellation of a disposition.
RMA Background
RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.
105 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Resolution 16-20F
Federal and Provincial Disaster Support
RM of Wood Buffalo
Simple Majority Required
Endorsed by District 4 (Northern)
WHEREAS the Government of Canada maintains a disaster recovery assistance program known as the
Disaster Funding Assistance Arrangements (DFAA); and
WHEREAS the DFAA reimburses provinces, including the Government of Alberta, for recovery costs
incurred from a natural disaster; and
WHEREAS the Government of Alberta maintains the Disaster Recovery Program (DRP), to which the
DFAA contributes funding; and
WHEREAS natural disasters have recently increased in both frequency and severity, resulting in rising
recovery costs such that according to a 2016 Government of Canada report entitled Estimate of the Average
Annual Cost for DFAA Due to Weather Events, Alberta is the highest overall recipient of DFAA funding,
having received $2.3 billion between 1970 and 2014; and
WHEREAS the Government of Canada and Government of Alberta have signaled their intention to modify
disaster support such that DRP assistance may not be available in its current form to Alberta municipalities
going forward;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta advocate to the Government
of Alberta for continued Disaster Recovery Program funding to support community reslience and
enable the relocation of affected property owners where re-construction is impractical or
inadvisable.
Member Background
2020 Spring Floods
In 2020, Alberta was once again facing the resulting effects from severe spring flooding. Portions of Fort
McMurray and the adjoining community of Draper were submerged under high flood waters that reached
approximately the 1:100 flood level. According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, insurable damages in
the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB) have now exceeded $400 million as a result of this
flooding event.
In 2020, other communities throughout Alberta were also impacted by flooding. In addition to the RMWB,
the Government of Alberta has also extended Disaster Recovery Program (DRP) funding to Calgary,
Airdrie, Rocky View County and Mackenzie County.
Federal Disaster Funding Assistance Arrangements (DFAA)
The Disaster Funding Assistance Arrangements (DFAA) is a federal program that assists provinces and
territories with a portion of the costs of dealing with a disaster where those costs would otherwise place a
significant burden on the provincial economy and would exceed what they might reasonably be expected
to fully bear on their own.
The DFAA is intended to support the province in providing or reinstating the necessities of life to individuals,
including help to repair and restore damaged homes; re -establishing or maintain the viability of small
businesses and working farms; repairing, rebuilding, and restoring public works and the essential
community services to their pre-disaster capabilities; and funding limited mitigation measures to reduce the
future vulnerability of repaired or replaced infrastructure.
Provinces and territories are responsible to design, develop, and deliver disaster response and assistance
programs within their own jurisdictions. This includes establishing the financial assistance criteria they
consider appropriate for response and recovery.
As natural disasters are increasing in both frequency and severity, all levels of government are responding
by altering their policies in a manner that may result in changes to and reductions in disaster relief program
106 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
spending; thereby transferring more risk to the municipalities and people in flood hazard areas. In 2016,
the Government of Canada authored a report analyzing the DFAA entitled Estimate of the Average Annual
Cost for DFAA due to Weather Events. The report indicated that over the last 20 years, the annual cost1 for
DFAA for weather events has been steadily increasing.
Inflated to 2014 values using nominal gross domestic product (GDP), the average DFAA cost from 1970 to
1994 amounted to $54 million per year; between 1995 and 2004 this annual average cost had risen to $291
million, and between 2005 and 2014,2 it reached $410 million per year. Given the substantial increase in
DFAA event costs over the past 20 years, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) set out to determine if
these high costs would increase further, stay the same or return to their previous levels.
The report noted that the DFAA does not cover expenses where “insurance coverage for a specific hazard
for the individual, family, small business owner, or farmer was available in the area at reasonable cost.”3
At the time the report was published, individual (private property) overland flood insurance at a reasonable
cost did not exist. Based on the availability and affordability of overland flood insurance, the Government
of Canada has likely been highly relied upon for disaster funding. However, the report also noted that the
program’s design does not incentivize active flood damage mitigation in many of the affected areas.
Between 1970 and 2014, Alberta received more than $2.3 billion from the DFAA, which exceeds that of any
other province. This does not include DFAA funding that Alberta received for the 2016 Horse River Wildfire
or the 2020 flooding that occurred throughout the province.
Currently, flooding is Canada’s most costly natural hazard and accounts for roughly three quarters of DFAA
payments. However, residential losses account for only 5-15% of that total – a greater portion by far,
perhaps as much as 70%, is spent on recovery of public infrastructure.4 The PBO estimated that over the
period 2017 to 2022, the DFAA program can expect claims of $673 million per year for floods. Recognizing
this trend, the Government of Canada established an Advisory Council on Flooding in early 2018 with the
purpose of advancing the national agenda on flood risk management. This led to the creation of a public -
private sector Working Group on the Financial Management of Flood Risk, co -chaired by Public Safety
Canada and the Insurance Bureau of Canada.
Provincial Disaster Recovery Program
At the provincial level, disaster recovery is overseen by the Alberta Emergency Management Agency
(AEMA) and funded through a mechanism known as the Disaster Recovery Program (DRP). The DRP is
funded primarily through the DFAA. The DRP provides disaster recovery assistance to residents, small
businesses, agriculture operators, and provincial and municipal governments when a disaster occurs that
is considered:
1) extraordinary,
2) when the event is widespread, and
3) when insurance is not reasonably or readily available.
The Emergency Management Act defines a disaster as an event resulting in serious harm to safety, health
or welfare of people or in widespread property damage. After a disaster, the affected municipality can apply
for the DRP and if the municipal application is approved, affected residents can subsequently apply for
financial assistance. According to the Alberta Disaster Assistance Guidelines, DRPs assist with:
1) providing or reinstating the basic essentials of life to individuals, including financial assistance to
help repair and restore damaged homes;
2) re-establishing or maintaining the viability of small businesses and working farms; and
3) repairing, rebuilding and restoring public works and the essential community services specific in
the Guidelines to their pre-disaster functional capabilities.
1 Cost refers to the sum of the payments due to all weather events that occurred in a particular year. The actual payments to
provinces can occur several years after the actual event.
2 Some of the values included in the 2005 to 2014 average are estimates since all costs and their eligibility for some events have
not been determined.
3 Public Safety Canada (2015d) p. 14.
4 Insurance Bureau of Canada (2019). P.6.
107 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
According to the Guidelines, the DFAA prescribes procedures that must be followed for the cost-sharing of
DRP. The federal guidelines stipulate that only provinces and territories are eligible for disaster financial
assistance. Federal assistance is available when Alberta’s eligible expenses incurred in carrying out its own
programs are above $3.25 per capita of the provincial population.5 Once the threshold is exceeded in any
given event, the federal government will provide financial assistance in accordance with the following
formula:
Eligible cost sharing of provincial
expenses
after per capita threshold met
Government of
Canada share
First $3.25 (per capita) 0%
Next $6.51 (per capita) 50%
Next $6.51 (per capita) 75%
Remainder 90%
Both the federal and provincial levels of government are looking at the severity and frequency of disasters
and seeking to understand potential future recovery costs. Given the increasing costs highlighted above,
there are indications that the province may be changing the format of the DRP, resulting in disaster recovery
costs being redistributed to municipalities and property owners. As such, municipalities cannot assume that
DRP funding will be available in its current form to cover future disasters.
Insurance Availability
A recent report from the National Working Group on Financial Risk of Flooding published in June 2019,
Options for Managing Flood Costs of Canada’s Highest Risk Residential Properties , focused primarily on
measures to transfer residential property risk from public sector disaster financial assistance programs,
which are funded by the taxpayer, to private sector insurance solutions, which are primarily funded by the
property owner. However, the report recognized that many homeowners, particularly those with low
incomes, simply cannot afford the premiums that would be required to cover that risk.
The report advocates for a new approach to disaster-related insurance that is inclusive, efficient, and
financially sustainable while providing optimal compensation to residential property owners and reducing
reliance on ongoing taxpayer-funded subsidies. The optimal approach would be financially self -sufficient;
create the conditions necessary for expansion of private market insurance coverage; elevate risk
awareness; and incent de-risking efforts amongst Canadians.
It is unclear what approach the Government of Canada and insurance industry will adopt and the timeline
for implementation. What is clear is that the Government of Canada has given strong indications that it
does not consider the current disaster relief framework financially sustainable in the long -term. In the
interim, it is anticipated that insurance will continue to be difficu lt to obtain at reasonable rates for private
property in flood hazard areas.
All municipalities in Alberta would be affected by the changes that the federal and provincial levels of
government have signaled, in addition to concerns related to insurance av ailability and premiums.
RMA Background
RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.
5 Population figures are as estimated by Statistics Canada to exist on July 1st in the calendar year of the disaster. The per capita
threshold is adjusted annually by Public Safety Canada for inflation on January 1st of every year, starting in 2016.
108 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Resolution 17-20F
Rural Small Business Properties Assessment Sub-Classes Amendment
RM of Wood Buffalo
Simple Majority Required
Endorsed by District 4 (Northern)
WHEREAS the Matters Relating to Assessment Sub-Classes Regulation authorizes a municipality to set
tax rates for small business property at no less than 75% of the tax rate of other non-residential property;
and
WHEREAS some municipalities currently have non-residential classes for both their urban service areas
and rural service areas; and
WHEREAS there may exist an inequity in taxation between similar properties depending on their location
in either the rural service area versus the urban service area; and
WHEREAS some municipalities may be restricted in their ability to provide tax equity within the small
business property sub-class as it limits the tax rate differential for the small business sub-class in relation
to the other non-residential property sub-class;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta urge the Government of
Alberta to amend the Matters Relating to Assessment Sub-Classes Regulation to allow a tax rate
differential of up to 50% between the “small business property” and “other non -residential
property” sub-classes.
Member Background
The Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB) is a specialized municipality established in 1995 by
the Government of Alberta. Recognizing the uniqueness of the region, section 10 of the establishing Order
In Council (O.C. 817/94) provided the RMWB with the ability to create different taxation rates for the rural
service area and for the urban service area.
The oil sands industry is located within the RMWB, specifically within the Municipality’s rural service area.
This industry is assessed and taxed within the rural non-residential property sub-class. Section 2 of Matters
Relating to Assessment Sub-Classes Regulation authorizes municipalities to divide the non-residential
class further into a small business property sub-class but limits the differential between the small business
property sub-class and the other non-residential property sub-class to no less than 75% of the tax rate for
the non-residential property sub-class. The Municipality has determined that properties within the small
business property sub-class operating within the rural service area require a further tax rate differential
modification, to no less than 50% of the rural non-residential sub-class, to provide tax equity between the
rates assessed between the rural small business sub-class to the urban small business property sub-class.
This RMA resolution is critical to tax equity in the RMWB and the continued economic viability of rural small
business properties in the Municipality.
RMA Background
RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.
109 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Resolution 18-20F
Municipal Decision-making on Fire Bans in Hamlets Within Forest Protection Area
Mackenzie County
Three-fifths Majority Required
Endorsed by District 4 (Northern)
WHEREAS Alberta Agriculture and Forestry is the wildfire authority under the Forest and Prairie Protection
Act in the Forest Protection Area (FPA) in Alberta; and
WHEREAS during times of high wildfire hazard, the Government of Alberta may issue a fire restriction or
fire ban within the FPA including the hamlets that fall within this area; and
WHEREAS an urban municipality (defined as a city, town, village, summer village, or urban service area of
a specialized municipality) in the FPA has the authority to issue its own fire bans within its boundaries; and
WHEREAS hamlets are also areas where there is a concentration of people and residential dwellings; and
WHEREAS the Municipal Government Act (MGA) states that the council of a municipal district or
specialized municipality may designate an unincorprated community within its boundaries as a hamlet if the
unincorporated community meets certain density thresholds; and
WHEREAS the MGA allows for the council of a municipal district to pass a bylaw respecting fires that
applies to the part of a hamlet that is within the FPA; and
WHEREAS the Municipal Government Act does not allow for the council of a specialized munic ipality to
pass a bylaw respecting fires that applies to the parts of a hamlet that is within the FPA; and
WHEREAS the Forest and Prairie Protection Act also does not clearly define a municipal district, other than
it includes a special area, and does not provide any definition of a specialized municipality; and
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta advocate to the Government
of Alberta to amend necessary legislation (including the Municipal Government Act and/or the
Forest and Prairie Protection Act) to clarify that councils of municipal districts and specialized
municipalities may make decisions on fire bans in hamlets within the Forest Protection Area.
Member Background
Mackenzie County falls entirely within the Forest Protection Area and as such is banned from any fires,
including campfires, during a provincial fire ban.
The wildfire risk in Mackenzie County hamlets is extremely low based on the topography of the land. Each
community has a volunteer fire department and inspections are completed by the Fire Chief prior to any fire
pit approval. Mackenzie County has been accredited pursuant to Section 26 of the Safety Codes Act in the
fire discipline since 1995. Additionally, members are also involved in the Wild land Urban Interface planning,
training, and support.
Two other municipalities lie within our boundaries and are exempt based on their urban municipality status.
This causes great dissention when similar communities in the same geographical area fall unde r different
rules.
Mackenzie County’s official status, as established by Order in Council (OC), was changed from a municipal
district to a specialized municipality on June 23, 1999. No urban service area has been established or
defined in the OC.
RMA Background
RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.
110 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Resolution 19-20F
Reinstatement of the Benefit Contribution Grant for Early Childhood Educators
RM of Wood Buffalo
Simple Majority Required
Endorsed by District 4 (Northern)
WHEREAS the Government of Alberta has cancelled the Benefit Contribution Grant (BCG) for early
childhood educators effective July 1, 2020; and
WHEREAS the cost of living in northern, remote communities in Alberta continues to be higher than other
areas of the province; and
WHEREAS northern, remote communities will be disproportionately negatively impacted by the cancellation
of the BCG;
WHEREAS incentives such as the BCG are critical to delivering effective, accessible, and affordable
childcare to children and their families; and
WHEREAS early childhood educators and their employers are at risk of exiting the profession as a result
of the cancellation of the BCG; and
WHEREAS the availability of quality early childhood educators in all communities allow for a stable
workforce across all industry sectors; and
WHEREAS the cancellation of the BCG for early childhood educators has compounded the crisis being
experienced in the childcare profession as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta advocate that the
Government of Alberta reinstate the Benefit Contribution Grant for early childhood educators,
retroactive to July 1, 2020.
Member Background
Council for the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo has received numerous requests and statements
from the local early childhood educators in the community, expressing concern with the Government of
Alberta’s decision to cancel the Benefit Contribution Grant for early childhood educators in Alberta
effective July 1, 2020.
Correspondence received from Rebecca Schulz, Minister for Children’s Services, Government of Alberta,
states “the Benefit Contribution Grant for childcare workers was implemented in 2007 in response to a
bustling economy and extremely high labour demands. That has changed.” It is agreed that the days of
the “bustling economy” have passed, however, there remains a high demand for qualified early childhood
educators, especially in rural, remote communities. Moreover, cost of living in many northern communities
is high, and the Benefit Contribution Grant provided childcare service providers a financial incentive to
attract and retain qualified professionals.
Accessible and affordable childcare is an essential building block for a thriving workforce and labour
market. The loss of the Benefit Contribution Grant for early childhood educators will likely result in
workers leaving the profession which will negatively impact the number of childcare spaces available in
our communities. The resulting reduction in number of childcare spaces impacts the ability for people to
enter the labour market including sectors such as small businesses, education, healthcare, and oil and
gas.
In a survey conducted by the Association of Childcare Educators of Alberta, it was found that as the
pandemic continues, 70% of all childcare centres could face permanent closure in the next one to three
months if they are not given help with their operation costs. Early childhood educators in northern
communities are also concerned that once centres have the ability to open their doors again, there may
be an even greater shortage of early childhood educators, due to the loss of their Benefit Contribution
Grant. This will result in a labour market shortage, as families will not be able to secure affordable
childcare, recreating the “extremely high labour demands” that are supposed to have ended.
111 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
RMA Background
RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.
112 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
9.3
Page 1 of 1
Version: 2019-02
Subject: 2021 Kneehill Regional FCSS Budget and Allocations
Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil
Presented By: Mike Haugen, CAO
Link to Strat Plan: Level of Service
Recommended
Motion:
That Council approve the Kneehill Regional Family and Community Support
Services (FCSS) 2021 Budget and Allocations as presented.
Background/
Proposal
Administration received the FCSS 2021 Budget. Under the Kneehill Regional FCSS
Agreement, it states that the Board shall prepare the annual budget and provide a
copy to each participating municipality for review and approval.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
The Kneehill Regional Board approved at their September 10, 2019 meeting to
increase the municipal requisition by 1.6% which will cover the cost of living
increase in 2021. Kneehill County’s contribution in 2020 was $48,052.00 and if
approved the cost will be $48,821.00 in 2021.
Cost Source of
Funding:
2021 Operating Budget
Council Options:
1. Council accept the FCSS Budget and Allocations
2. Direct Administration to provide further information.
3. 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:
FCSS Request Letter
Follow-up
Actions:
Administration will draft a letter to the Kneehill Regional FCSS Board outlining
Council’s decision.
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
113 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Tel: (403) 443-3800 or (403) 443-0793 Email: Shelley@krfcss.com
779 – 2 Street Northeast, Box 400 Three Hills, AB T0M 2A0
October 1, 2020
To: Village of Acme
Village of Carbon
Village of Linden
Kneehill County
Town of Three Hills
Town of Trochu
RE: 2021 KNEEHILL REGIONAL FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT
SERVICES (FCSS) BUDGET AND ALLOCATIONS
Based on the information we have from the Alberta Community and Social Services Ministry
at this time, please find attached your copy of the above referenced budget as approved by
the Kneehill Regional FCSS board members at the September 15, 2020 meeting. The
Kneehill Regional FCSS Board is requesting a cost of living increase of 1.6% to the
municipal requisition for 2021. The budget was drafted with the June 2020 Statistics Canada
Cost of Living Allowance increase to the municipal requisitions.
The Kneehill Regional FCSS Agreement, signed by all participating jurisdictions in the
Kneehill Regional FCSS program, states under clause F(3), that the Board shall prepare the
annual budget and provide a copy to each participating municipality for review and approval.
As well, the Agreement states that the budget shall be approved by no less than four (4)
member municipalities. Please review the 2021 Kneehill Regional FCSS budget with your
Council and advise of your jurisdiction’s decision.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Should you require any additional
information please contact me at 403.443.3800.
Kind regards,
Shelley Jackson-Berry
Kneehill Regional FCSS Director
Enclosure
114 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Tel: (403) 443-3800 or (403) 443-0793 Email: Shelley@krfcss.com
779 – 2 Street Northeast, Box 400 Three Hills, AB T0M 2A0
ESTIMATED 2021 KNEEHILL REGIONAL FCSS GRANT
ALLOCATIONS
Provincial Funding
2021 Grant $ 350,391.00
Local Government Contribution $ 109,833.00
Municipal Reserves $ 5,181.00
2021 FCSS Funding $ 465,405.00
2019 2021
contribution Municipality population* percentage
Acme 653 5.80 $6,370.00
Carbon 500 4.44 $4,877.00
Linden 828 7.36 $8,084.00
Three Hills 3,212 28.55 $31,357.00
Trochu 1,058 9.40 $10,324.00
Kneehill 5,001 44.45 $48,821.00
TOTALS 11,252 100 $109,833.00
Province $350,391.00
TOTAL 2021 FCSS
GRANT
$460,224.00
*Official population figures as of September 1, 2019 as compiled by Municipal Services Branch,
Local Government Services, Alberta Municipal Affairs.
Contribution based on $9.76 per capita.
115 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Tel: (403) 443-3800 or (403) 443-0793 Email: Shelley@krfcss.com
779 – 2 Street Northeast, Box 400 Three Hills, AB T0M 2A0
KNEEHILL REGIONAL FCSS 2021 BUDGET
APPROVED
REVENUE
Provincial FCSS $350,391.00
Local Municipalities $109,833.00
Municipal Reserves $ 5,181.00
TOTAL REVENUE $465,405.00
EXPENDITURES
Salaries & Benefits $190,890.00
Board Expenses $ 200.00
Mileage $ 1,700.00
Conv & Training $ 3,000.00
Telephone $ 1,440.00
Internal Programming $ 5,000.00
Advertising $ 1,000.00
Membership Fees $ 1,350.00
Unit Authority Costs $ 4,300.00
Audit Fees $ 3,300.00
Insurance $ 725.00
Office Supplies $ 6,500.00
Janitorial Supplies $ 500.00
TOTAL ADMIN EXPENDITURES $219,905.00
Grants to Organizations $245,500.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $465,405.00
116 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
9.4
Page 1 of 2
Version: 2020-02
Subject: Kneehill Adult Learning Request
Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil, Legislative Services Officer
Presented By: Mike Haugen, CAO
Link to Strat Plan: Level of Service
Recommended
Motion:
That Council donate $2,600.00 under the Recreation, Community, Arts and Cultural
Events Grant to Kneehill Adult Learning to assist in the costs associated with
hosting a Suicide Prevention Safe Talk Workshop.
Background/
Proposal
Administration received a request from Kneehill Adult Learning requesting
sponsorship in the amount of $2,600.00 to assist with the costs of hosting a Suicide
Prevention Safe Talk Workshop.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
In their request they mentioned how challenging it has been for so many people and
suicide rates are expected to spike in response. They would like to create a safe
community by raising awareness and offering the opportunity for anyone to better
equip themselves to recognize the signs of risk and knowing what resources and
help are available to those struggling.
Because of the economic stress and uncertainty, they would like to be able to offer
this workshop for free. The maximum capacity for this workshop is set for 30
people. They have also approached the Town of Three Hills and they offered the
use of one of their facilities.
Financial
Implications:
2020 Operating Budget
• Recreation, Community, Arts and Cultural Events Policy #15-7 has
sufficient funds.
There is currently $7438 remaining in this budget.
Council Options:
1. Provide support in the amount of $2,600.
2. Provide support in an amended amount.
3. 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:
Policy #15-7, Recreation, Community, Arts and Cultural Events
Follow-up
Actions:
Notify Kneehill Adult Learning of Council’s decision.
117 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
9.4
Page 2 of 2
Version: 2020-01
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
118 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
119 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
9.5
Page 1 of 2
Version: 2020-02
Subject: Kneehill Regional Partnership
Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Prepared By: Name, Title
Presented By: Mike Haugen, CAO
Link to Strat Plan: Level of Service
Recommended
Motion:
1. That Council authorize the Reeve and Chief Administrative Officer to sign
the October 15th, 2020 Kneehill Regional Partnership Protocol once a final
editing has been completed.
2. That Council appoint _____________ as the primary for the Kneehill
Regional Partnership and appoint _____________ as the alternate for the
Kneehill Regional Partnership.
Background/
Proposal
For the past several months Kneehill County has been working with regional
partners (Towns of Three Hills and Trochu, Villages of Acme, Carbon, and Linden)
to revamp the Kneehill Regional Partnership (Partnership).
The broad objective of the Partnership is to find ways that the regional
municipalities can work together on new initiatives and find efficiencies in the
services provided.
Attached is the most recent version of the proposed Protocols. This is a slightly
amended version from the last one that Council has reviewed. The amendments
were made by the Partnership Steering Committee and are marked in either red or
strikethrough.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
If Council authorizes signing of the document, a final version with pictures, table of
contents, etc. would be produced and made available for signature by all parties.
Major changes to the document include the statement that all current
subcommittees of the Partnership will remain under the Partnership, at least in the
short-term.
The Steering Committee did discuss the annual financial contribution to the
Partnership and opted to keep it the same. This contribution can be reviewed in the
future.
Financial
Implications:
There will be a financial impact of $7502 per year, beginning in 2021.
Council Options:
1. Council may approve the document.
2. Council may suggest changes to the document.
3. Council may opt to not take part in the Partnership.
120 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
9.5
Page 2 of 2
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:
Kneehill Regional Partnership Protocol – October 15, 2020
Follow-up
Actions:
Administration will inform the other partners and prepare a finalized version of the
document.
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
121 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
1
Kneehill Regional Partnership
Protocol for Regional Cooperation
(October 15, 2020)
Cover Page
(insert picture)
Table of Contents
(will be finalized in final version)
Municipal Leaders, Regional Partners
Situated in the heart of central Alberta, the Villages of Acme, Carbon, and Linden, the Towns of
Three Hills and Trochu, and Kneehill County form the Regional Partners. Together, we are home
to over 11,000 residents.
As municipal leaders, we understand that we are independent and each embody our own
characteristics, circumstances, and desires. While our differences make us unique, through
partnership we choose to be defined by the things that we share in common. Understanding
our residents define community as going beyond municipal borders. We are stronger when we
work together and pursue partnerships that enhance the region as a whole. We understand
that our taxpayers demand that we be excellent stewards of the tax dollars that we collect and
that by working together we can achieve more with less, for the benefit of the taxpayer. We
understand that our taxpayers demand value for their money and that we can achieve more by
working together.
The Kneehill Regional Partnership is one way that we, as municipal leaders, strive to make life
better for our residents.
Purpose of the Kneehill Regional Partnership (the Partnership)
We believe that the Partnership has three (3) main purposes:
1. To share information between the Regional Partners that will foster trust and
strengthen positive working relationships.
2. To identify and explore areas of intermunicipal cooperation that will lead to more
efficient and enhanced services for the benefit of all regional residents.
122 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
2
3. To identify opportunities for intermunicipal cooperation that will lead to cost savings,
and/or revenue generation.
Guiding Principles
In order to fulfill the purposes of the Partnership we agree to the following principles to guide
our cooperation efforts:
1. Communication
2. Creating an Environment of Trust and Respect
3. Explore Exploring Areas of Mutual Interest
4. Independence of Each Regional Partner
Communication
Formal and informal opportunities for open communication and the sharing of information are
fundamental to the success of the Partnership. Formal channels of communication are
enshrined within this document. Opportunities for informal communication will be created by
the Partnership through regular training and meeting events.
Creating an Environment of Trust and Respect
We will create relationships based on trust. The business of the Partnership will be conducted
with a high degree of professionalism and respect. Discussion and debate will occur, and be
allowed to occur with openness. Ideas will be explored on their own merits and will be the
focus of discussion rather than individuals. As partners, we will seek to support and clarify the
input of ideas from each other. As a group, we will seek opportunities to publically celebrate
each other and the successes of the Partnership.
Explore Exploring Areas of Mutual Interest
In the interest of local community needs the Regional Partners will identify and prioritize
opportunities in which working together will provide greater value to residents than would
working independently. We will seek to view opportunities in the light of how they will achieve
maximum benefit for all.
Independence of Each Regional Partner
Our uniqueness means that we will not see all matters the same way. While we share many
things, it is understood that some abilities, desires, and perspectives will be different. It is
understood that we are each an independent entity with our own decision-making powers. No
Regional Partner can be committed to a course of action or an expense by the others. It is
acknowledged that not all Partners are necessary for a regional initiative to move forward and
that not all parties will be required to participate in a regional initiative.
123 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
3
Role of the Partnership Committee
The Partnership Committee is tasked by the Regional Partners to oversee the following
outcomes:
1. Development of an Annual Report to be presented to the Regional Partners by
September 30th of each year that outlines, at a minimum:
i) The initiatives that have been explored and the status/outcomes of those
explorations for the past year;
ii) The priority list of possible partnerships that will be explored in the future; and,
iii) The Committee’s budgetary ask for the upcoming year.
2. The sharing of formal meeting minutes with each Regional Partner following each
meeting of the Partnership Committee.
3. Conduct a general Council Orientation session following each general municipal election
and a roles and responsibilities refresher session half way through each term of Council.
4. Organize other general training sessions for elected officials through the year as
resources and interest allows.
5. Prioritize and explore potential partnership opportunities as suggested by the Councils
of the respective Regional Partners.
6. Provide a forum for the Regional Partners to share budgetary information that may lead
to cooperation and cost savings.
7. Request a list of potential projects from each Regional Partner annually.
Composition and Operation of the Partnership Committee
Composition
The Partnership Committee will be comprised of:
1. One elected official from each Regional Partner as voting members.
2. The Chief Administrative Officer, or designate, of each Regional Partner as non-voting
members.
3. Administrative support provided by Kneehill County as necessary, as non-voting
members.
The Committee may utilize other specialists as deemed necessary.
The Regional Partners agree to appoint one primary and one alternate representative to the
Committee and to notify the other members of the appointees.
124 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
4
Appointed alternates may attend meetings in addition to the primary appointee as observers,
but will not have standing to speak or vote on matters discussed by the committee unless they
are attending as the Primary at that meeting.
Chair and Vice-Chair
Following the annual municipal Organizational Meetings, or upon a vacancy of the Chair
position, the Partnership Committee will choose a Chair and Vice-Chair from among their voting
members. The term of the Chair and Vice-Chair will expire on the Third Monday of October
each year.
Quorum
Quorum of the Partnership Committee will consist of four (4) voting members.
Hosting
Responsibilities for hosting meetings will rotate among the Regional Partners. Hosts are
responsible for all meeting logistics such as location, location access, meals (if any), meeting
materials, etc.
The preparation of Meeting Agendas and Minutes will be the responsibility of the Committee’s
administrative support.
Role of Committee Members
The Regional Partners acknowledge the role of the elected officials on the Committee is to
conduct the governance and oversight of the Committee’s tasks. Administrative duties and
tasks are the role of the Chief Administrative Officers and the Committee’s administrative
support.
Voting
All voting members in attendance are required to vote on motions of the Committee. To pass, a
motion must be endorsed by a majority of those voting members in attendance.
Meeting Frequency
The Committee will meet a minimum of quarterly.
Additional meetings may be scheduled by the Committee. A meeting may also be called by any
two members providing notice to all of the remaining members. Upon informing all members of
the desire to meet, within 10 business days a meeting date will be announced.
Meetings may be cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances or lack of business as determined
by the Committee.
Electronic Attendance
125 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
5
Appointees may attend meetings electronically if the host and location have the ability to
facilitate electronic attendance. In person attendance is preferred.
Agendas
Agendas for Committee Meetings will be circulated to all Committee Members and alternates
at least two weeks before a scheduled meeting when possible.
Expectation of Members
We agree that the following expectations are placed upon appointees to the Committee:
1. That appointees are attending meetings with the ability to represent the interests of
their respective Council and to make decisions based on those interests; and,
2. That appointees will act as liaisons with their respective Council’s and keep their
respective Council informed of the activities of the Committee.
Funding
The Regional Partners agree to provide base funding to the Committee at a rate of $1.50 per
capita, commencing on January 1, 2021. Each year the Committee can make additional funding
requests to the partners based on the proposed activities that the Regional Partnership will be
undertaking.
Base funding shall be forwarded to Kneehill County by January 31st of each year.
Kneehill County will act as the managing partner for funds belonging to the Committee and will
provide financial management of those funds.
Projects
Partner Backing
Projects identified for consideration by the Committee must be accompanied by a resolution of
Council from at least one Regional Partner.
Project Type
To be considered for exploration, projects elevated to the Regional Partnership should be
projects that are regional in nature that cannot readily be addressed through existing ICF
processes or other existing agreements.
Projects should be of benefit to two or more Regional Partners.
Prioritization
126 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
6
The Regional Partners agree that project prioritization will determined by vote of the
Partnership Committee.
Project Funding
Funding specific to project development may be requested by the Committee above the annual
base funding. Project specific funding asks will only be made of those Regional Partners taking
part in the exploration of that specific project.
Exploration Development
When a potential project is being considered by the Committee, an exploration document will
be prepared outlining the following, at a minimum:
1. The parties participating in the exploration;
2. The funding formula required for exploration of the project;
3. The desired outcome;
4. The scope of the exploration;
5. The party responsible for leading the exploration;
6. The resources (staff, etc.) committed from each participating party;
7. The key project benchmarks and timelines associated with the exploration;
8. The process for a partner to enter/exit the exploration after it has begun; and,
9. The dispute resolution process.
Project Independence
It is understood that projects explored and developed by the Committee will have the aim of
becoming independent from the Committee should they be adopted by all or some of the
Parties. The governance structure of a specific project will be determined as part of the project
implementation prior to the project being enacted.
Communications
We understand that keeping our respective Councils and residents informed of our activities is
important in building support and trust. The Partnership Committee as a whole will be
responsible for developing regular communications messaging.
Dispute Resolution
We agree that we have a mutual commitment to resolve any disputes brought forward and
shall make a good faith attempt to resolving any disputes.
Any matter of concern shall first be informally discussed by the Chief Administrative Officers
with the goal of resolving the concern.
127 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
7
Should the Chief Administrative Officers fail to resolve the dispute, the Partnership Committee
will meet to attempt resolution. The decision of the Partnership Committee will be final.
Term
This document shall be adopted by resolution of Council by each Regional Partner. It shall
remain in place for each member until such time as that member ends their association with
the Partnership or is replaced with a new agreement by the Regional Partners.
We commit to reviewing the agreement annually to ensure that the principles and philosophies
contained herein continue to meet the needs of the Regional Partners.
Termination by a Partner
Should a Regional Partner wish to end their association with the Partnership, their Council may
do so by giving the Partnership Committee at least six month’s written notice. The effective
withdrawal date shall be the first December 31st after the six month notice period is concluded.
Enactment
This protocol replaces the Protocol for Regional Cooperation for the Kneehill Regional
Partnership dated March 1, 2009. All current committees or sub-committees of the Partnership
shall remain under the jurisdiction of the Kneehill Regional Partnership as established by this
protocol.
Adoption Signatures
Kneehill County Town of Three Hills
_________________________ _________________________
Reeve Mayor
________________________ _________________________
CAO CAO
Town of Trochu Village of Acme
128 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
8
_________________________ _________________________
Mayor Mayor
________________________ _________________________
CAO CAO
Village of Carbon Village of Linden
_________________________ _________________________
Mayor Mayor
________________________ _________________________
CAO CAO
129 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
9.6
Page 1 of 1
Version: 2020-02
Subject: Policy 11-2, Letter of Support Policy
Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil, Legislative Services
Presented By: Mike Haugen, CAO
Link to Strat Plan: Level of Service
Recommended
Motion:
That Council approve Policy 11-2, Letter of Support as presented.
Background/
Proposal
Administration receives numerous requests for Letters of Support annually. As a
result, Administration created Policy 11-2, Letter of Support to provide a clear,
consistent and appropriate direction when these requests are received.
Administration is proposing a policy that establishes guidelines, within which
Administration can confidently and quickly deal with most requests received.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
The policy guidelines provide direction on how an individual/organization can
request a Letter a support and the information they require and it also provides
guidelines for the Chief Administrative Officer to approve Letters of Support.
Financial
Implications:
This policy has no financial implications.
Council Options:
1. Approve policy as presented.
2. Approve policy as amended.
3. Request further information.
4. 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:
“New” Policy 11-2, Letter of Support
Follow-up
Actions:
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
130 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
POLICY
Section Policy No. Page
Office 11-2 1 of 1
Policy Title Date: Motion No.
Letter of Support 34T34T 34T34T
Purpose:
Kneehill County (The County) often receives requests for letters of support. This policy identifies the
requirements for the County to provide letters of support to organizations and individuals in the community.
Policy Guidelines:
Requests for letters of support or recognition from Kneehill County will be coordinated through the Chief
Administrative Officer/Legislative Services Department and are to be put in writing and include:
• Contact information of who the letter should be addressed to;
• Contact information of who is requesting the letter;
• Background information on the organization or individual requesting the letter; and
• Details regarding the grant being applied for; and,
• A deadline for when the letter of support needs to be submitted by.
The Chief Administrative Officer is authorized to approve requests for Letters of Support or recognition if the
following requirements are met:
• The request is from a local non-profit and/or recognized community organization
• The project is of direct general benefit of the overall community
• The request contains no commitment for funding or resources from the County
All other requests for letters of support or recognition need to be approved by Council resolution.
Once the letter is drafted and signed by the Chief Administrative Officer, a copy of the letter is to be shared
with all members of Council.
Jerry Wittstock,
Reeve
Mike Haugen,
CAO
Approved:
Review Date: Date four years from last approval date
131 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
9.7
Page 1 of 2
Version: 2020-02
Subject: Assessment Model Review Outcomes
Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Prepared By: Mike Haugen, CAO
Presented By: Mike Haugen, CAO
Link to Strat Plan: Ensuring Communications & Engagement
Recommended
Motion:
That Council accept the report on the Assessment Model Review for information, as
presented.
Background/
Proposal
The Province has undertaken an assessment model review (AMR) and had
previously released four scenarios as outcomes.
Municipalities across the Province were vocal in their opposition to both the process
and the proposed outcomes. Many municipalities, Kneehill County included,
undertake a campaign to attempt to convince the Province not to go through with
the changes. Some municipalities even held a demonstration outside of the
Legislature.
The Province has recently announced outcomes of the AMR at this time. None of
the original four scenarios were chosen, but the following outcomes were
announced by the Minister of Municipal Affairs:
• A comprehensive review will be postponed for 3 years
• New pipelines and wells will have a three (3) year tax holiday after being
built. This will apply to builds in 2021 and the holiday will be for 2022, 2023,
and 2024.
• The elimination of the Well Drilling Equipment Tax (WDET)
• Property Assessment for lower producing Oil and Gas wells will be lowered
for a period of three years
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
In 2020 Kneehill County budgeted $400,000 to be received from the WDET. The
actual amount received prior to that was $477,000. It has been even higher in
previous years. This a revenue line that will be removed in its entirety from future
budgets.
The County has just received additional information regarding the lowering of
property assessments for Oil and Gas wells for three years. From the Province’s
calculations this will result in Kneehill County collecting approximately $650,000
less in tax revenue.
This brings the starting impact of these changes to over $1 Million. There will be
additional negative losses in future years stemming from this as well.
This is a less negative impact that the original proposed changes, but does continue
to put pressure on the County’s revenue. Administration anticipates that other
changes, such as lowered assessments outside of these facilities, will increase this
pressure.
132 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
9.7
Page 2 of 2
Version: 2020-01
On the expense side, we are still being faced with increased costs downloaded from
the Province such as those for policing, which will continue to increase year by
year.
Of note, nothing in the announcement addressed the largest concern of
municipalities, which is the ability to collect taxes from the Oil and Gas industry.
There still remains no viable option for municipalities to ensure that the taxes
charged to that industry can be collected. Mechanisms for collection exist for all
other taxpayers.
Financial
Implications:
The County’s projected 2021 revenue will be decreased by over $1 Million as a
result of these changes. That amount will increase in future years.
Council Options:
1. To accept this report for information.
2. To not accept this report for information and provide alternate direction to
Administration.
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:
NA
Follow-up
Actions:
NA
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
133 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
9.8
Page 1 of 2
Version: 2020-02
Subject: Transfer of Land to Alberta Transportation
Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Prepared By: Mike Haugen, CAO
Presented By: Mike Haugen, CAO
Link to Strat Plan: Level of Service
Recommended
Motion:
That Council direct Administration to take the necessary steps to transfer Lot: 1ER
Block 2 Plan: 8210253 to the Province.
Background/
Proposal
Alberta Transportation has been doing work in the Drumheller area to repair slides.
As part of that work, Kneehill County has granted AB Transportation permission to
enter County land (in red in the attached map).
There has been some initial discussion and AB Transportation may be interested in
taking over title of this land if the County is willing to transfer it.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
Administration is recommending that Council transfer the land to AB Transportation.
The land is highly sloped and unusable by the County. It is located between two
Provincial roadways and would likely be incorporated into the road plan. This would
allow AB Transportation to access the land and do work without needed County
approval. As such, time would be saved by both the Province and the County.
Administration is proposing that this land be transferred to the Province for $1.00.
This would require advertising under the Municipal Government Act.
If Council instead wanted to obtain a higher price, Administration would engage an
assessor to determine a market value. It is not known if the Province would have
interest at a higher price or if the land would achieve a much higher price given its
lack of access and development potential.
Financial
Implications:
NA
Council Options:
1. Council may opt to facilitate a transfer of the parcel to the Province for $1 or
another amount.
2. Council may opt to retain ownership of the parcel.
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:
Mapping
134 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
9.8
Page 2 of 2
Version: 2020-01
Follow-up
Actions:
Administration will follow up with AB Transportation and advertise as necessary.
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
135 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
136 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
137 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
10.1
Page 1 of 2
Version: 2020-02
Subject: Junior Achievement
Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil, Legislative Services Coordinator
Presented By: Mike Haugen, CAO
Link to Strat Plan: Level of Service
Recommended
Motion:
Council’s Decision.
Background/
Proposal
At the February 12, 2019 Council Meeting, Council made the following motion.
Motion 59/19
Council moved to approve a sponsorship to the Alberta Junior Achievement
program, in the amount of $3,000 per year for a period of 3 years with funds
to come from account 97-000-00-27700.
This 3- year period covers sponsorship for 2019, 2020 and 2021.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
Melanie Willerth was scheduled as a delegate at today’s meeting at 10:00 a.m.
The desired resolution she wanted from Council was to provide them with
Information awareness and have them provide financial support of Junior
Achievement Programs.
Council has provided funding to this organization in the past.
• Motion 41/16 2016-2018 $3,000 per year.
• Motion 46/12 2012-2014 $2,500 per year.
Financial
Implications:
If Council were to continue funding this initiative, funds could come from the 97-
27700 account starting in 2022, as funding is already covered by motion 59/19 for
the 2021 budget year.
Council Options:
1. Continue funding the Junior Achievement Initative, in the amount of $3,000
per year for 3 years starting in 2022.
2. Continue funding in amended amount and time limit.
3. 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-
138 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
10.1
Page 2 of 2
Version: 2020-01
Attachments:
Delegation Request Form
Follow-up
Actions:
Notify Junior Achievement with Council’s decision.
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
139 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Committee of the Whole Minutes
1600- 2ND Street NE
Three Hills, AB T0M 2A0 September 15, 2020 8:30 a.m.
COUNCIL 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
ADMINISTRATION PRESENT:
Chief Administrative Officer Mike Haugen
Director of Community Services Laurie Watt
Director of Corporate Services Bill McKennan
Director of Transportation Brad Buchert
Manager of Planning & Development Barb Hazelton
Manager of ASB & Parks Bowen Clausen
Manager of Environmental Services John McKiernan
Facilities Technician Jason Fehr
Recording Secretary Carolyn Van der Kuil
CALL TO ORDER
Reeve Wittstock called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
1.0 AGENDA
CW016 Councillor Christie moved to approve of the agenda as presented.
CARRIED
2.0 APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 16, 2020 COW MEETING MINUTES
CW017 Councillor King moved approval of the June 16, 2020 Committee of the Whole minutes as
presented.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
3.0 RON GORR ARENA UPDATE
Jason Fehr, Facilities Technician, provided Council an update on the major maintenance
projects that took place at the Ron Gorr Memorial Arena.
4.0 THREE HILLS EAST WATER SERVICE AREA
John McKiernan, Manager of Environmental Services, presented to Council a very
preliminary plan to serve a portion of the county east of Three Hills with a water system.
140 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
September 15, 2020 Committee of the Whole Meeting Page | 2
CW018 Councillor Hugo moved that the Committee of the Whole recommends to Council to
engage the community, as outlined on the map presented, on a potential future water
service project.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The Chair called for a recess at 9:54 a.m. and called the meeting back to order at 10:05
a.m. with all previously mentioned Council members present.
5.0 PARKS SERVICES AND PROGRAMMING LEVEL OF SERVICE
Bowen Clausen, Manager of ASB and Parks, reviewed with Council the Parks service levels
and programming to help guide the 2021 budget development.
CW019 Councillor Christie moved to accept the Parks Service Levels and programming
presentation regarding cost saving measures for information as presented.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
6.0 TRANSPORTATION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Brad Buchert, Director of Transportation, reviewed with Council a new Transportation
Grader/Gravel Services Policy that sets service standards for grading/gravel services.
CW020 Councillor Penner moved that the Committee of the Whole recommends to Council that
the proposed Transportation Grader/Gravel Services be approved with an amendment to
be included.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
7.0 2020 SCHOLARSHIP APPLICATIONS
Carolyn Van der Kuil, Legislative Services Coordinator, presented to Council 5 Scholarship
Applications that were submitted for the 2020 Scholarship Program.
CW021 Councillor King moved that the Committee of the Whole recommends to Council that
Dale Pliva and Casssidy Sawyer be awarded the 2020 Kneehill County Scholarships.
CARRIED
The Chair called for a recess at 12:20 p.m. and called the meeting back to order at 1:18
p.m. with all previously mentioned members present.
8.0 POLICY #3-12, COUNCIL LONG SERVICE AWARDS
Mike Haugen, CAO, presented to Council Policy #3-12, Long Service Awards, with
proposed amendments.
CW022 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that the Committee of the Whole recommends to Council
that Policy #3-12, Council Long Service Awards, be repealed.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
9.0 KNEEHILL REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP PROPOSED TERMS OF REFERENCE
Mike Haugen, CAO, presented to Council the proposed Terms of Reference for the
Kneehill Regional Partnership Committee.
The Committee provided Deputy Reeve McGhee feedback to take back to the Kneehill
Regional Partnership Steering Committee.
141 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
September 15, 2020 Committee of the Whole Meeting Page | 3
CW023 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that the Committee of the Whole receive this report for
information.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The Chair called for a recess at 2:48 p.m. and called the meeting back to order at 2:57 p.m.
with all previously mentioned Council members present.
11.0 CLOSED SESSION
CW024 Councillor Christie moved that Council convene in closed session to discuss legal issue
pursuant to Section 24 & 27 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act,
at 2:57 p.m.
CARRIED
The following people were in attendance of the closed session to provide a report and
advise Council:
Mike Haugen, CAO
Laurie Watt, Director of Community Services
Barb Hazelton, Planning and Development Manager
Carolyn Van der Kuil, Recording Secretary
Carolyn Van der Kuil and Barb Hazelton left the meeting at 3:34 p.m.
CW025 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council return to open meeting at 3:43 p.m.
CARRIED
3:44 p.m.- Meeting recessed to allow return of public.
3:44 p.m. - Meeting resumed.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:44 p.m.
142 2020.10.27 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, October 27, 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:
October 27, 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
143 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Meeting Date Motion #Description/Motion
Action Required Assigned To Due Date Status
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.Laurie Watt
will be disposed of by first
quarter 2021
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.Marika Von Mirbach
In Progress; the
application intake for this
grant is not until January
2021. Complete at same
time as motion 308/2020
& 355/2020
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.Carolyn Van der Kuil
On hold until COVID-19 is
over
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.Barb Hazelton 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.Bowen Clausen
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.
COMPLETED
See motion 411/2020 Christine Anderson
Completed See motion
411/2020
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.Barb Hazelton
Waiting for Minister
Approval; In Progress
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.Marika Von Mirbach
In Progress; the
application intake for this
grant is not until January
2021. Complete at same
time as motion 49/2020.
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.Marika Von Mirbach
In Progress; the
application intake for this
grant is not until January
2021.
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.Mike Haugen In Progress
08-Sep-20 353/2020
Councillor King moved to suspend the pay parking and the day
use washroom facility projects at Horseshoe Canyon, and
directs administration to work with the focus group to identify
gaps that private industry may not be able to fill.Bowen Clausen
currently advertising for
members at large.
Members will be
appointed at October 27
Council meeting and
group will begin meeting
in November.
Council Action Items
144 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Meeting Date Motion #Description/Motion
Action Required Assigned To Due Date Status
Council Action Items
08-Sep-20 355/2020
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.Marika Von Mirbach
In Progress; the
application intake for this
grant is not until January
2021. Complete at same
time as motion 49/2020 &
308/2020
13-Oct-20 386/2020
Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council approve as
presented, Policy #13-2, Transportation Grader/Gravel
Services.COMPLETED Brad Buchert Completed
13-Oct-20 387/2020 Councillor King moved that Council rescinds Policy #13-6-
2,Gravel Specifications.COMPLETED Brad Buchert Completed
13-Oct-20 388/2020
Councillor Penner moved that Council rescinds Policy #13-28,
Snowplowing of County Road Allowance &
Snowplowing/Grading Private Driveways.COMPLETED Brad Buchert Completed
13-Oct-20 389/2020
Councillor King moved that Council approve Policy #13-38,
Brush & Tree Control Road Allowances, with minor
amendment.COMPLETED Brad Buchert Completed
13-Oct-20 390/2020
Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council approve the
development to County standards of the undeveloped road
allowance located at Range Road 25-5, within NE-06-32-25-
W4, for approximately 250 m, to access SE-07-32-25-W4, with
all costs to the project incurred by the applicant.COMPLETED Brad Buchert
13-Oct-20 391/2020 Councillor King moved that Council move to adopt the
additional fees for Land Use Bylaw 1808 as presented.COMPLETED Barb Hazelton Completed
13-Oct-20 392/2020
Councillor Penner moved that Council direct Administration to
include these fees in the next update of the Master Rates
Bylaw.Carolyn Van der Kuil
13-Oct-20 393/2020
Councillor King moved first reading of proposed Bylaw 1827
for the purpose of amending Land Use Bylaw 1808 by
redesignating a portion of SW 27-30-25 W4 Plan 121 0619
Block 1 Lot 2 from the Agriculture District to the Agriculture
Business District.COMPLETED Barb Hazelton Completed
13-Oct-20 394/2020
Councillor Penner moved that Council schedule the Public
Hearing, as per Section 230 & 692 of the Municipal
Government Act, to be held on November 10, 2020 at 10:00
a.m. Barb Hazelton
On the agenda for
November 10, 2020
13-Oct-20 395/2020
Councillor Penner moved that Council direct Administration to
engage with the residents within the defined area east of
Three Hills to gauge the interest in a municipal water supply
system.John McKiernan
Correspondence to the
ratepayers within the
specified area will be
drafted and sent with a
targeted date of the first
quarter in 2021
13-Oct-20 396/2020
Councillor Christie moved that Council approves Policy 1-29,
Agricultural Pests and Nuisance Species, as recommended by
the Agricultural Service Board.COMPLETED Bowen Clausen Completed
13-Oct-20 397/2020
Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council deletes Policy 1-29-
1, Agricultural Pests – Grasshopper, as recommended by the
Agricultural Service Board.COMPLETED Bowen Clausen Completed
13-Oct-20 398/2020
Councillor King moved that Council approves Policy 1-29-2,
Agricultural Pests – Coyote, as recommended by the
Agricultural Service Board with minor amendment.COMPLETED Bowen Clausen Completed
13-Oct-20 399/2020
Councillor King moved that Council direct administration to
bring back Policy 1-29-3, Agricultural Pests – Clubroot, to a
future Council meeting with further information.Bowen Clausen
On the agenda for the
October 27, 2020 Council
Meeting
145 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
Meeting Date Motion #Description/Motion
Action Required Assigned To Due Date Status
Council Action Items
13-Oct-20
400/401/4
02/403/20
20
Council provided all three readings to Bylaw 1826, that being a
bylaw for the purpose of establishing a regional municipal
emergency management advisory committee and agency.COMPLETED Deb Grosfield Completed
13-Oct-20 404/2020
Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council authorize the
Reeve and CAO to sign the Regional Emergency Management
Agreement dated October 30, 2020, as presented.COMPLETED Deb Grosfield Completed
13-Oct-20 407/2020
Councillor Christie moved that Council accept the Tax
Forfeiture Properties report for information as presented.COMPLETED Marika Von Mirbach Completed
13-Oct-20 408/409/2
020
Council moved second and third reading to Bylaw #1824, that
being a bylaw for the Electronic Transmission of Documents.COMPLETED Marika Von Mirbach Completed
13-Oct-20 410/2020
Councillor Christie moved that Council provide support to the
Highway 21 Corridor Crime Watch Association in the amount
of $1,000.00 with funds to come from the 2020 operating
budget. COMPLETED Carolyn Van der Kuil Completed
13-Oct-20 411/2020
Councillor Penner moved that Council cancel the Discovery
Fair and Ratepayer Evening until 2021, or when gathering
restrictions have been lifted.COMPLETED Christine Anderson Completed
13-Oct-20 412/2020
Councillor King moved that Council accept the invitation to
meet at the RMA Convention from the RCMP for information,
as presented.COMPLETED Carolyn Van der Kuil Completed
13-Oct-20 413/2020
Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council approve the
Memorandum of Understanding to extend discussion
deadlines by six months regarding water and wastewater
services with the Village of Acme.COMPLETED Mike Haugen
13-Oct-20 414/2020
Councillor Penner moved that Council direct Administration to
submit the Provincial Policing Priorities survey as amended.COMPLETED Mike Haugen
13-Oct-20 417/418/2
020
Council moved second and third reading to Bylaw 1825, that
being a bylaw for the purpose of amending Land Use Bylaw
1808 by redesignating a portion of the SW-30-29-25-W4 from
the Agriculture District to the Agriculture Business District.COMPLETED Barb Hazelton Completed
13-Oct-20 419/2020
Councillor King moved to direct administration to obtain a
business plan along with additional support information for
the Trochu Seniors Supportive Living Facility Project.Mike Haugen
In progress, awaiting
Town of Trochu
146 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package
AMENDMENT SUMMARY
Council Meeting Date: October 27, 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:
Deletions from Agenda
3.1 & 10.1- Junior Achievement Delegation (Presenter was under the weather and could not make it to
meeting)
Additions to Agenda
Closed Session
• 13.2 Personnel (Section 17 FOIP)
Council & Committee Reports
• 11.2 Community Futures Wildrose
Package:
3.2 Pine Cliff Energy Delegation
Presentation
147 2020.10.27 Council Meeting Package