HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021.09.28 Adopted Council PackageCOUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
1600-2nd Street NE
Three Hills, AB
T0M 2A0
September 28, 2021
8:30 a.m.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
1.0 Agenda
1.1 Additions to the Agenda
1.2 Adoption of the Agenda
2.0 Approval of Minutes
2.1 Regular Council Meeting Minutes of September 14, 2021
3.0 Appointments
3.1 Ledger, Eddie Sheppard @ 10:00 a.m. (Virtual Attendance)
4.0 Transportation
No Report
5.0 Community Services
5.1 Planning
No Report
5.2 Water/Wastewater/Environment
5.2.1 Increased Water Volume Request - Churchill
5.2.2 Increased Water Volume Request - Selkirk
5.3 Agricultural Service Board & Parks
5.3.1 Horseshoe Canyon Pay Parking Summary
5.4 Protective Services
No Report
6.0 Corporate Services
No Report
7.0 Business Arising from Previous Minutes
No Report
8.0 New Business
8.1 2021 Kneehill County Scholarship
8.2 Trochu Seniors’ Facility Agreement
8.3 Wetland Replacement Program MOU
1 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
September 28, 2021 Council Meeting Agenda
Page 2 of 2
9.0 Disposition of Delegation & Public Hearing Business
9.1 Citizen Satisfaction Survey Report
10.0 Council and Committee Reports
10.1 Community Futures Wildrose
10.2 Kneehill Regional Family and Community Support Services
10.3 Red Deer River Municipal Users Group
11.0 Council Follow-up Action List
12.0 Closed Session
12.1 Legal Matter (Section 24- FOIP Act)
13.0 Motions from Closed Session
2 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
1
________
Initials
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 14, 2021 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 (Video Conf)
Division No. 6 Wade Christie, Councillor
Division No. 7 Kenneth King, Councillor
ALSO PRESENT:
Chief Administrative Officer Mike Haugen
Director Community Services Laurie Watt
Protective Services Manager Debra Grosfield
Manager of Planning and Development Barb Hazelton
Town of Three Hills Intern Jarret Clooney
Tax Clerk Caroline Siverson
Economic Development Officer Jacqueline Buchanan
Recording Secretary Carolyn Van der Kuil
CALL TO ORDER Reeve Wittstock in the Chair
Reeve Wittstock called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
AGENDA 1.0 Agenda
1.1 Additions to the Agenda
Additions under Community Services
5.1.2 Withdrawal of Redesignation for Portion of NE 21-33-26 W4,
Plan 141 2515, Block 2, Lot 1
Additions under Council and Committee Reports
10.1 Canadian Badlands Ltd.
10.2 Three Hills Discovery Night
ADOPTION OF
AGENDA
1.2 Adoption of Agenda
332/21 Councillor Christie moved approval of the agenda as amended.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
3 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
COUNCIL MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2021
2
_________
Initials
MINUTES 2.0 Minutes
2.1 Regular Council Meeting Minutes of August 17, 2021
333/21 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved approval of the August 17, 2021,
Council Meeting minutes as presented.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
NEW BUSINESS 8.0 New Business
8.3 Increasing Knowledge-Sharing Among Regulators of Cannabis
Production Facilities
334/21 Councillor King moved that Council forward the attached resolution to
the Central District of RMA, supporting the following two Operative
Clauses:
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The Rural Municipalities of
Alberta collaborate with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to
advocate to Health Canada that municipalities be given open and
continuous access to information on sites of cannabis production;
and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT The Rural Municipalities of
Alberta advocate to Health Canada that municipalities be given open
and continuous information to verify compliance or prevent non-
compliance among registered cannabis producers.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
COMMUNITY
SERVICES
5.0 Community Services
PLANNING 5.1Planning
5.1.1 Cancellation of the September Municipal Planning
Commission Meeting
335/21 Councillor Christie moved that Council cancel the Municipal Planning
Commission Meeting, scheduled for September 23, 2021.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
336/21 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council move the October
Municipal Planning Commission Meeting, scheduled for October 28th,
2021 to October 14th, 2021.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
337/21 Councillor Penner moved that Council cancel the Public Hearing for
Bylaw 1844 scheduled for September 14, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. as per the
request of the applicant.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
4 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
COUNCIL MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2021
3
_________
Initials
PROTECTIVE SERV 5.4 Protective Services
5.4.1 Proposed Traffic Control Bylaw 1800
338/21 Councillor Penner moved that Council approve third and final reading
of Bylaw 1800 Traffic Control as presented.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
CORPORATE SERV 6.0 Corporate Services
6.1 Pine Cliff Energy Ltd. Tax Deferral Agreement Request
339/21 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council agree to enter into a Tax
Deferral Payment Agreement with Pine Cliff Energy Ltd. for the
payment of 2021 taxes over a 6 month payment plan, from October 31,
2021 to March 31, 2022, and no penalties to be assessed.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
NEW BUSINESS 8.0 New Business Cont’d
8.1 Community Business Investment Partnership Grant Policy
340/21 Councillor King moved that Council approves Policy #6-1, Community
Business Investment Partnership Grant Policy as presented.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
8.2 Bylaw 1846- Procedural Bylaw
341/21 Councillor Christie moved that Council provide second reading to
Bylaw 1846, that being a bylaw for the purpose of regulating meeting
proceedings for Council and Council Committee meetings.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
342/21 Councillor King moved that Council provide third and final reading to
Bylaw 1846.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The Chair called for a recess at 9:20 a.m. and called the meeting back
to order at 9:50 a.m. with all previously mentioned Council members
present.
8.4 RCMP Meeting at RMA
343/21 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council accept the invitation to
meet at the RMA Convention from the RCMP for information, as
presented.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
5 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
COUNCIL MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2021
4
_________
Initials
8.5 Bylaw 1847- Texas Gate
344/21 Councillor King moved that Council approve temporary Texas Gates
and direct administration to work with the applicant for the 2021
grazing period located at:
• North of Township Road 31-0 on Range Road 23-3
approximately 20 metres from intersection and;
• North of Township Road 31-0 on Range Road 23-3
approximately one mile
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
345/21 Councillor King moved that Council direct administration to review the
Texas Gate Policy and bring back to a future Council meeting for
consideration.
CARRIED UNANMIOUSLY
COUNCIL REPORTS 10.0 Council and Committee Reports
10.1 Canadian Badlands Ltd.- Deputy Reeve McGhee provided a
verbal report on the meeting she attended on September 13, 2021 on the
dissolution of this committee.
10.2 Three Hills Discovery Night- Councillor King provided a verbal
report on the Discovery Night he attended on September 8th, 2021.
346/21 Councillor Penner moved that Council receive the Council and
Committee reports as presented.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
COUNCIL ACT LIST 11.0 Council Follow-Up Action List
347/21 Councillor Penner moved that Council receive for information the
Council Follow-Up Action List as presented.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
CLOSED SESSION 12.0 Closed Session
348/21 Councillor Christie moved that Council convene in Closed Session to
discuss personnel pursuant to section 17 of the Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy Act, at 10:43 a.m.
CARRIED
349/21 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council return to open meeting at
10:54 a.m.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
10:59 a.m. – meeting recessed to allow return of public.
10:59 a.m. - meeting resumed.
6 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
COUNCIL MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2021
5
_________
Initials
ADJOURNMENT Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
________________________
Jerry Wittstock
Reeve
_______________________
Mike Haugen
CAO
7 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Delegation Request Form
Please submit completed form to
carolyn.vanderkuil@kneehillcounty.com
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:
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)
Company or Group Represented:
Contact Number:
Email:
Mailing Address:
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.
8 2021.09.28 Adopted 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 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.):
PURPOSE OF PRESENTATION
☐ Information Only ☐ Request Action/Support ☐ Request Funds ☐ Other
Desired Resolution (What is the decision you are asking to make?)
• 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?
9 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
August 16, 2021
2021 Citizen
Satisfaction Report
Prepared by
EDDIE SHEPPARD, VICE PRESIDENT
(587) 393-7974
kesheppard@leger360.com
10 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Table of Contents
Content Page
Methodology 3
Key Insights 6
Quality of Life 11
Satisfaction with County Services 18
Taxation 22
Contact and Communication 25
Website Visitation and Use 33
Public Engagement 36
Respondent Profile 43
Appendix A: Program and Service Ratings 44
11 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
METHODOLOGY
12 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
METHODOLOGY
The 2021 Kneehill County resident Satisfaction Survey was conducted via a online survey accessed through a direct mail notification between
June 28 and August 1, 2021. Kneehill County staff sent residential property owners a direct mail invitation to participate in a survey hosted by
Leger. Residents were provided with a URL as well as a unique 8-item PIN to access an online survey platform. Residents were also provided
access to a paper version of the survey that was sent to them upon request and manually entered by Kneehill County staff.
Direct mail notification was sent to every Kneehill County residence with a URL to access a web survey using computer-assisted Web interviewing (CAWI) technology. All residents were provided a unique 8-item PIN to access their online survey.
From June 28th, 2021 and August 1st, 2021
220 residents of Kneehill County 18 years of age or older
No margin of error can be associated with a non-probability sample (direct mail in this case). However, for comparative purposes, a probability sample of 220 respondents would have a margin of error of ±6.5%, 19 times out of 20.
Throughout the report, some numbers may not add up to 100%. These differences are due to rounding.
13 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Analytic Approach
TOP BOX SCORES
Throughout the report, 5-point scales were used. The use of 5-point
scales is preferred as the increased variability in responses (compared
to a 4-point scale) can better identify areas of strength and weakness.
Throughout the report, we have combined points 4 and 5 on all scales
to create “top box” results. By only using the top 2 scores on a 5-point
scale, the results only showcase those who have a truly positive
opinion on the scale.
KEY DRIVER ANALYSIS
Kneehill County residents are exceptionally satisfied with their quality
of life. In order to shed some light on what areas are more likely to be
influencing quality of life, a key drivers analysis was conducted. This
analysis uses a statistical technique called regression which looks to
establish the strength of the relationship between an overall variable
(i.e. quality of life) and numerous independent variables (i.e.
satisfaction safety and security, sense of belonging, place to raise a
family, etc.).
This analysis identifies the features that have the most influence on
quality of life; information that can help provide insight into features
that may help guide future planning and community initiatives.
A KDA determines areas of opportunity and of strength across each of
the dimensions. Specific actions are identified with a focus on
improving quality of life and overall community satisfaction. The
method uses regression to understand these key attributes and the
analysis can be used to identify specific drivers of quality of life and
community satisfaction. This information will provide important
information pertaining to how to better prioritize specific community
features to help enhance the value of the resident experience.
Essentially, a key driver analysis is a predictive statistic that attempts to
determine which programs and/or services best predict the overall
quality of life of residents within Kneehill County. This will allow you to
determine which areas to focus on with respect to the ones that will
have the largest impact on quality of life.
5142021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
KEY INSIGHTS
15 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
KEY INSIGHTS: QUALITY OF LIFE
QUALITY OF LIFE IN KNEEHILL COUNTY
Results revealed that 79% (Top 2 Box Score) of respondents feel that they
have a positive quality of life in Kneehill County, with 30% noting that they
have a “very good” quality of life.
Although it appears that Kneehill County residents have stayed fairly positive
despite the toll of the COVID-19 pandemic (73% stated that their quality of
life has reminded the same) results do show that almost one quarter of
respondents have experienced a decrease in quality of life over the last 3
years. Of those who have experienced a ‘worsened quality of life’ over the
last 3 years, 26% note that a lack of accountability from council was the main
cause of their worsened quality of life.
LIFE IN KNEEHILL COUNTY
The majority of respondents indicated that Kneehill County is a great place to
raise a family (62% Top 2 Box score), that they are proud to live there (61%
Top 2 Box score) and would recommend it to others (61% Top 2 Box Score).
This suggests that residents do view the County as an excellent place to live.
However, there is an opportunity to increase the community feel within
Kneehill County as less than half of respondents indicated that they feel a
sense of belonging within the community, feel connected to the community,
and that they are satisfied with the opportunities to connect with others. It is
important to note, however, that the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted
residents sense of belonging and connections across the province due to
various distancing restrictions placed on residents which have resulted in the
inability to connect with others.
Further, only 34% of respondents believe that Kneehill County is planning for
the future, with 44% noting that the County has a health economy. Thus,
despite the positive perception of the County as a place to live, many
respondents are concerned with the long-term future of the community from
a planning and financial stability standpoint.
DRIVERS OF QUALITY OF LIFE
Analysis revealed that the three most important factors driving quality of life
for residents of Kneehill County are:
•Safety and security
•Being a great place to raise a family
•Having a healthy economy.
The majority of respondents identified Kneehill County as being safe and
secure and a great place to raise a family, however, only 44% indicated that
the economy is healthy within the county. As such, improving the economy
would likely have a positive impact on the quality of life of residents.
7162021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
KEY INSIGHTS: COUNTY SERVICES AND TAXATION
SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES
Results revealed that 57% (Top 2 Box Score) of residents are satisfied
with the level and quality of services provided by Kneehill County,
while only 13% of residents (Bottom 2 Box Score) indicated that they
are dissatisfied with the services provided. Overall, these results
suggest that the majority of Kneehill County residents a satisfied with
the County’s offerings with respect to level and quality of services
offered.
When assessing specific programs and services, results revealed that
residents were most satisfied with:
•Fire services and emergency preparedness (84% satisfied)
•Cemeteries (78% satisfied)
•Waste collection, recycling, and transfer stations (75% satisfied)
•Snow and ice removal (73%)
Conversely, residents reported the highest levels of dissatisfaction for
(i.e., Bottom 2 Box Score):
•Public engagement (46% satisfied)
•Supports for businesses (45% satisfied)
•Land use, planning & development services (44% satisfied)
•Municipal enforcement including bylaw and animal control (48%)
These areas present an opportunity for Kneehill County help improve
resident satisfaction with programs and services to focus efforts on
enhancing resident satisfaction.
IMPROVEMENTS TO KNEEHILL COUNTY
When asked what one thing would make Kneehill County an even
better place to live, results were aligned with why some residents felt
like their quality of life has worsened over the past 3 years.
Specifically, residents indicated that having a better council (19%) and
better road maintenance (13%) would make Kneehill a better place to
live. These were also identified as being the most important local
issues facing the county today.
VALUE FOR TAX DOLLAR
While 44% of respondents indicated they receive good value for their
tax dollars (Top 2 Box Score), 36% of respondents noted that they
receive neither good nor poor value for their tax dollars. This
suggests that residents may not be fully aware of the use of their tax
dollars within the county and could potentially benefit from
information educating them on the use of their tax dollars to help
form an opinion.
8172021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
KEY INSIGHTS: CONTACT AND COMMUNICATION
CUSTOMER SERVICE DELIVERY IS POSITIVELY PERCEIVED:
Among the 72% of respondents who have had contact with the
County, 64% (Top 2 Box Score) indicated that they were satisfied with
their most recent contact in the last 12-months. The primary reasons
behind respondents satisfaction were that the staff were
knowledgeable and answered their questions (17%) and that the
response was quick, prompt, and efficient (16%).
Conversely, respondents who were dissatisfied with their interaction
with Kneehill County staff (17% Bottom 2 Score), noted that it was
due to the county not listening (29%) or having a lack of response or
no follow-up (29%).
PERSONAL DEALINGS WITH KNEEHILL COUNTY STAFF
Overall, respondents view staff in a very positive light. Specifically,
respondents noted that County staff are courteous and helpful (75%),
are easy to get a hold of (70%), and are knowledgeable (69%).
However, results did reveal that there are opportunities to improve
responses provided to residents. Specifically, fewer residents agreed
that County staff:
•Provide quality service that is consistently high (61% agree)
•Can meet the diverse needs of residents (61% agree)
•Respond quickly to requests and concerns (57% agree)
INFORMATION RECEIVED
Although 65% of Kneehill County respondents receive just the right
amount of information, 35% indicated that they receive too little. In
order to improve this, more information could be provided in The
Capital, Kneehill County’s quarterly Ratepayer Newsletter, and direct
mail or billing inserts as these are the most preferred methods of
getting information from the County.
COUNTY WEBSITE
7 in 10 respondents have visited the county website in the last 12
months. Overall, only ¼ of respondents who have visited the website
find the information and services available to be useful, while 45% find
it easy to use/find information on the site. These results suggest that
there may be an opportunity to explore why residents are accessing
the website and what type of information they are looking for in order
to ensure that this information is available and easily accessible.
9182021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
KEY INSIGHTS: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Residents of Kneehill county appear to be very engaged within the
community, with half indicating that they have taken part in public
engagement opportunities in the last 12 months, with 37% providing
input directly to a member of the council.
Although 66% agree that they provide their opinions to the County
when there are issues of importance to them, only 40% agree that
Kneehill County recognizes the needs and interests of its residents and
only 26% agree that public feedback is taken into account when
decisions are made.
However, this may be due to a lack off communication with residents
about how their input affects County decisions as there is only 26%
agreement that this is communicated to residents.
10192021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
QUALITY OF LIFE
20 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
12
Perceptions about Quality of Life in Kneehill County
2%
4%
15%
49%
30%
1 - Very poor
2
3
4
5 - Very good
0001 How would you rate your overall quality of life in Kneehill County today?
Base: All (n=220)
Results revealed that 79% of respondents noted
that they have a positive quality life in Kneehill
County, while only 6% noted that their quality of life
is poor. Given the physical, emotional and financial
impact that COVID-19 has had on Canadians in the
last year, these results suggest that Kneehill County
residents have remained positive despite facing a
significant amount of adversity caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Quality of Life in Kneehill County
21 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
13
Perceived Change in the Quality of Life in the Past Three Years
6%
73%
21%
Improved Stayed the same Worsened
0002 Do you feel that your quality of life in Kneehill County in the past three years has: Base: All (n=220)
Quality of Life in the Past Three Years Has…
n=13
Good services/programs offered 38%
Improved roads / Infrastructure 31%
Other 31%
Prefer not to answer 31%
n=46
Poor county council / Lack of accountability 26%
Poor roads, gravel roads / Poor infrastructure 17%
Poor county spending 15%
Too much heavy traffic / Semi-trucks passing by 15%
High taxes 13%
COVID-19 related 11%
Dust control issues 11%
Agricultural issues 7%
Prefer not to answer 13%
0003 Why do you think your quality of life has improved?
Base: Those who indicated that their quality of life has improved in the last three years (n=13)
0004 Why do you think your quality of life has worsened?
Base: Those who indicated that their quality of life has worsened in the last three years (n=46)
Mentions less than 7% not shown
Reasons for Improved Quality of Life Reasons for Worsened Quality of Life
22 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
14
Agreement with Statements about Life in Kneehill County
5%
7%
8%
7%
10%
10%
10%
14%
19%
15%
10%
15%
29%
26%
29%
28%
33%
28%
35%
39%
43%
42%
41%
35%
40%
36%
32%
38%
36%
25%
20%
20%
24%
18%
13%
16%
10%
8%
10%
62%
61%
59%
58%
49%
49%
48%
44%
34%
Kneehill County is a great place to raise my family
I would recommend Kneehill County as a place to live
I am proud to live in Kneehill County
Kneehill County is a place where I feel safe and secure
I feel a sense of belonging in Kneehill County
I feel connected to the people in my community
I am satisfied with the opportunities to connect with other people in the
County
Kneehill County has a healthy local economy
Kneehill County is planning for the future
1 - Strongly disagree 2 3 4 5 - Strongly agree
0005 Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements
Base: All (n=220)
Top 2 Agreement
Values less than 5% not labelled
Over half of respondents agree that Kneehill County
is a great place to raise their family (62%), would
recommend Kneehill County as a place to live (61%),
are proud to live in Kneehill County (59%), and
believe it is a place they feel safe and secure (58%).
Perceptions are weaker when considering
community belonging and connections, as 49% of
residents feel connected to the people their
community and 49% feel a sense of belonging in
Kneehill County. Further, only 48% are satisfied with
the opportunities to connect with others in their
community. Based on respondents’ perceptions,
there could be an opportunity to increase
opportunities to connect with other people in the
county, improve the economy, and plan more for
the future, as perceived performance in these areas
is slightly lower.
23 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
15
Drivers of Quality of Life
8%
9%
10%
11%
18%
20%
24%
I feel connected to the people in my community
I am satisfied with the opportunities to connect
with other people in the county
I feel a sense of belonging in Kneehill County
Kneehill County is planning for the future
Kneehill County has a healthy local economy
Kneehill County is a great place to raise my family
Kneehill County is a place where I feel safe and
secureResults of a key driver analysis revealed that
there are three key drivers of overall quality of
life in Kneehill County:
•Safety and security
•Being a great place to raise a family
•A healthy local economy
The results suggest that any changes to these
three factors will have the largest influence on
residents quality of life.
DRIVERS OF QUALITY OF LIFE
(% indicates strength of importance with respect to overall quality of life)
24 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
16
What Attracted You to Kneehill County
0006 What attracted you to Kneehill County?
Base: All (n=220)
n=220
I was born here / Raised here / Lived here my whole life 35%
Connection to family, friends 11%
Own a farm / Purchased farm acreage 10%
Own land / Purchased land, property, real estate 10%
Job / Business opportunities 7%
Rural lifestyle / Away from the city 7%
Own a house / Purchased a house / Affordable housing 5%
Quiet / Peaceful 3%
Educational opportunities 3%
Good community 1%
Cost of living 1%
Other 5%
Prefer not to answer 21%
When assessing what attracted respondents to
Kneehill County, over one-third (35%) stated it is
because they were born/raised here / have lived
here their whole lives.
About one-in-ten say it is because of connection to
family, friends (11%), own a farm/purchased farm
acreage (10%), or own land/purchased land,
property, or real estate (10%).
25 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
17
One Word Used to Describe Kneehill County
0007 What ONE word or phrase do you think best describes Kneehill County?
Base: Excludes don’t know/prefer not to answer (n=159)
peaceful
farming
greatagriculture
rural
friendly
communitydiverse
home
good
lacking
beautiful
pretty
living
family-oriented
fine
dysfunctional
oil
decent
comfortable
progressive
industrious
richscenicpoor
country
responsible
proud
growingoverspending
congested
alluring
excessive
diversity
inability
average
focused
religious city
mismanaged
prairies
inclusive
lost
simple
nice
vibrant
genuine
resilient
ratepayers
arrogant
leadership
Caring
conservative
productive
access
opportunity
oriented
lax
disconnected
spectacular
county
administration
organized
means
conflicted
important
quality
clean
healthy
rigourouscommutable
like
change
improved
economy
province
26 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
SATISFACTION WITH COUNTY SERVICES
27 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
3%
10%
30%
53%
4%
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Satisfied
Very satisfied
19
Satisfaction with Level and Quality of Services Provided by
Kneehill County
00010 How satisfied you are with the OVERALL level and quality of services and programs provided by Kneehill County?
Base: All (n=220)
57% of respondents are satisfied with the level of quality of services provided by Kneehill County
13% of respondents are dissatisfied with the level of quality of services provided by Kneehill County
28 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
20
Satisfaction with Kneehill County Programs and Services
49%
57%
51%
51%
51%
52%
41%
46%
52%
44%
47%
40%
37%
39%
38%
35%
20%
24%
22%
16%
13%
22%
15%
9%
16%
8%
8%
9%
6%
6%
84%
78%
75%
73%
67%
65%
62%
61%
61%
60%
55%
48%
46%
45%
44%
Fire Services and Emergency Preparedness
Cemeteries
Waste collection, recycling, and transfer stations
Snow and ice removal/control on roads
Parks and Playgrounds
Campgrounds
Utilities and Water Services (Kneehill County Water System)
Information provided by the County through the website and social media
Agriculture Services, including weed control, roadside mowing, clubroot prevention etc.
Road maintenance and Grading
Safety Codes Permitting
Municipal enforcement, including bylaw and animal control
Public Engagement
Supports for Business
Land Use, Planning & Development Services
Satisfied
Very satisfied
0008 Please rate your satisfaction with the following programs and services provided to you by Kneehill County.
Base: Excludes those who “don’t know” or whom the service does not apply to (n=38-216). Detailed breakout programs and services by groupings in Appendix A.
Top 2 Satisfaction
Results revealed that respondents were
most satisfied with:
•Fire services and emergency
preparedness (84% satisfied)
•Cemeteries (78% satisfied)
•Waste collection, recycling, and transfer
stations (75% satisfied)
Conversely, satisfaction levels are lower for:
•Public engagement (46% satisfied)
•Supports for businesses (45% satisfied)
•Land use, planning & development
services (44% satisfied)
Overall, there are several programs and
services that present opportunities for
improvement when considering resident
satisfaction.
29 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
21
Improvements to Make Kneehill County a Better Place to Live
0011 All things considered, is there one thing that comes to mind that would make Kneehill County an even better place to live?
Base: Excludes those who did not provide a response / did not know (n=132)
n=132
Better county council 19%
Road maintenance / Gravel road grading 13%
Improve local economy / Support local business 8%
Better tax spending 8%
Water systems maintenance / Water services / Clean water 8%
Agriculture / Farm supports 6%
More safety / Less crime in rural areas 6%
Employment opportunities (e.g. jobs, wages, etc.)5%
Environmental stewardship 4%
Snow removal / Cleaner yards / Property upkeep 4%
Improve waste collection services 3%
Lower taxes 3%
Other 11%
None / NA 6%
Mentions less than 3% not shown
30 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
LEVELS OF SERVICES AND TAXATION
31 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
23
Perceptions about Value for Tax Dollars
6%
14%
36%
37%
6%
Very good value
Good value
Neither poor nor good value
Poor value
Very poor value
0012 Please rate the value you feel you receive from your municipal property tax dollars
Base: All (n=220)
Overall, 44% of respondents indicated that they receive
good value from their municipal property tax dollars,
while only 20% indicated that they receive poor value.
Interestingly, 36% of respondents noted that they
receive neither good nor poor value for their tax dollars.
This suggests that one-third of respondents may be
unsure as to where their tax dollars are allocated and
could benefit from information educating them on the
use of their tax dollars to help form an opinion.
32 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
24
Important Local Issues Facing the County Today
0013 As a citizen of Kneehill County, what do you feel is the most important LOCAL issues facing the county today, and that you feel should receive the greatest attention from your local leaders?
Base: Excludes those who did not provide a response / did not know (most important issue -n=206; second most important issue –n=164)
n=206
Improvements in county council / More transparency 14%
Roads / Bridge infrastructure / Gravel road grading 13%
Local economy / Business growth 10%
Fiscal responsibility / Control tax spending / Balance the budget 10%
Reducing taxes 8%
Environmental stewardship 5%
Horseshoe Canyon issues 3%
Oil & Gas sector 3%
Planning / Development / Support of hamlets 3%
First responders (e.g. Police, fire department, ambulance)3%
Water systems / Water services / Clean water 3%
Mentions less than 3% not shown
n=164
Roads / Bridge infrastructure / Gravel road grading 10%
Improvements in county council / More transparency 9%
Fiscal responsibility / Control tax spending / Balance the budget 8%
Local economy / Business growth 4%
First responders (e.g. Police, fire department, ambulance)3%
Planning / Development / Support of hamlets 3%
Water systems / Water services / Clean water 3%
Horseshoe Canyon issues 3%
Reducing taxes 3%
Weed control 3%
Mentions less than 3% not shown
Most Important Local Issue Second Most Important Local Issue
33 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
CONTACT AND COMMUNICATION
34 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
26
Past 12-month Contact with Kneehill County / Employees
63%
27%
28%
Yes –with employees
Yes –with council
No
0014 Have you contacted or interacted with Kneehill County or one of its employees in the last 12 months?
Base: All (n=882)
72% of respondents have had contact with Kneehill County staff and/or councilor in the last 12 months.
35 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
27
Satisfaction with Interactions in the Last 12 Months
016A Overall, how satisfied are you with your interactions with the county in the last 12 months?
Base: Those who indicated that they have interacted with Kneehill County staff and/or council (n=159).
4%13%18%39%25%
Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither satisfied or dissatisfied Satisfied Very satisfied
n=102
Knowledgeable staff / Questions answered 17%
Quick response / Prompt / Efficient 16%
Friendly / Courteous / Polite staff 15%
Helpful staff / Willing to help 14%
Good customer service 8%
Resolved my issue/concern 8%
Informative staff / Provides needed information 4%
Other 9%
Mentions less than 4% not shown
n=28
Does not listen / Need to listen to taxpayers 29%
Lack of response / No follow-up 29%
Did not resolve my issue 11%
Staff not knowledgeable / Questions not answered 11%
Did not provide information 7%
Lack of accountability from staff 7%
Roads / Gravel roads mismanagement / Dust issues 7%
Other 4%
Mentions less than 4% not shown
Reasons for Satisfaction with Interactions Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Interactions
016B Please explain the reason behind your level of satisfaction
Base: Those who indicated that they have interacted with Kneehill County staff and/or council (POSITIVE n=102; NEGTAIVE n=171)
Top 2
Satisfaction
64%
Satisfaction with Interactions with Kneehill County
36 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
28
Type of Resident Contact Initiated
67%
39%
27%
9%
8%
7%
1%
By phoning the County directly
In person, for example visiting County office (Prior to COVID-19)
Via email
Via a contact form on the County website
Via social media
In writing, for example, writing a personal letter or fax
Another way
0015 How did you contact or interact with an employee or member of council?
Base: Those who indicated that they have interacted with Kneehill County or one of its employees (n=159)
37 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
29
Satisfaction with Personal Dealings with Kneehill County Staff
5%
6%
7%
10%
9%
10%
13%
14%
18%
14%
19%
23%
23%
23%
50%
51%
52%
46%
48%
39%
25%
19%
17%
15%
13%
18%
75%
70%
69%
61%
61%
57%
County staff are courteous and helpful
County staff are easy to get a hold of when I need them
County staff are knowledgeable
The quality of service from the County is consistently high
County staff are able to meet the diverse needs of residents
The County responds quickly to requests and concerns
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
0017 Thinking about your personal dealings with Kneehill County staff, please rate your level of agreement with the following.
Base: Excludes those who indicated don’t know/not applicable (n=86-198)
Top 2 Agreement
Values less than 5% not labelled
Respondents view County staff in a very
favourable light. Specifically, respondents
noted that County staff are courteous and
helpful (75%), easy to get a hold of (70%),
and are knowledgeable (69%).
However, results did reveal that there are
opportunities to improve responses
provided to residents. Specifically, fewer
residents agree that County staff:
•Provide quality service that is
consistently high (61% agree)
•Can meet the diverse needs of
residents (61% agree)
•Responds quickly to requests and
concerns (57% agree)
38 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
30
Satisfaction with Personal Dealings with Kneehill County Council
8%
7%
9%
11%
16%
14%
12%
15%
15%
21%
30%
34%
32%
33%
29%
37%
36%
30%
35%
29%
11%
10%
14%
7%
5%
48%
47%
44%
42%
34%
The quality of service from the County is consistently high
County Council members are easy to get a hold of when I need them
The County responds quickly to requests and concerns
County Councillors are available and responsive to my concerns or questions
Kneehill County practices open and accessible government
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
0018 Thinking about your personal dealings with Kneehill County Council, please rate your level of agreement with the following.
Base: Excludes those who indicated don’t know/not applicable (n=72-180)
Top 2 Agreement
Respondents view County Council
somewhat less favourably compared to
County staff, with less than half of
residents agreeing to various positive
perceptions of County Council.
Results did reveal that there are
opportunities to improve responses
provided to residents. Specifically, fewer
residents agree that County Council:
•Responds quickly to requests and
concerns (44% agree)
•Is available and responsive to
concerns/questions (42%)
•Practices open and accessible
government (34%)
39 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
31
Extent of Information Received from Kneehill County
1%
65%
35%
Too much
Just the right amount
Too little
0019 In your opinion, do you currently receive too much, too little, or just the right amount of information from Kneehill County?
Base: All (n=220)
Results revealed that over two-thirds of
respondents believe they receive too little
information (35%), which could suggest there
is an opportunity to increase the amount of
information provided to residents.
40 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
32
Source of Receiving Information from Kneehill County
80%
62%
48%
44%
31%
26%
5%
3%
2%
1%
2%
The Capital
Kneehill County’s quarterly Ratepayer
Newsletter
County website
Direct mail/billing inserts
Newspaper advertisements
Kneehill County Facebook page
Kneehill County Twitter account
East Central Alberta Review (ECA)
Direct contact with Council
Kneehill County Instagram account
None / Did not receive
0020 Which methods do you use to receive information from Kneehill County?
Base: All (n=220)
54%
44%
32%
28%
14%
10%
3%
3%
1%
1%
The Capital
Kneehill County’s quarterly Ratepayer
Newsletter
Direct mail/billing inserts
County website
Kneehill County Facebook page
Newspaper advertisements
Email (Unspecified)
Kneehill County Twitter account
Direct contact with Council
Other
0020A What is your preferred method of receiving information from Kneehill County?
Base: Have received information from Kneehill County (n=216)
Current Method of Receiving Information Preferred Method to Receive Information
41 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
WEBSITE VISITATION AND USE
42 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
34
Kneehill County Website Visitation and Usefulness
0021 Have you been to Kneehill County’s website in the last 12 months?
Base: All (n=220)
Yes
70%
No
30%
70%
Have visited
Kneehill County’s
website
0022 How would you rate usefulness of the information and services available on the website?
Base: Those who indicated that they have used the website (n=154)
21%55%20%
Not at all useful Somewhat useful Useful Very useful Extremely useful
8%47%42%
Very difficult Difficult Neither easy nor difficult Easy Very easy
0023 How easy was it to find what you were looking for on the website?
Base: Those who indicated that they have used the website (n=154)
Usefulness of Information Available on the Website
Ease of Finding Information on the Website
Top 2 Useful
23%
Top 2 Easy
45%
Values less than 3% not labelled
43 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
35
Quality of Internet Access
6%
24%
23%
36%
11%
Very poor
Poor
Neutral
Good
Very good
0024 How would you rate your Internet access in your home?
Base: Those who indicated that they have used the website (n=154)
Just under a third (31%) of residents state
they have poor internet access, therefore
making communications both online and
offline (e.g. print, inserts, etc.) may help
improve the accessibility of information
for all residents.
44 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
45 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
37
Involvement in Public Engagement
25%
12%
37%
50%
Attended a public engagement event
Provided input to Kneehill County online
Provided input directly to a member of council
None of the above
0025 In the past 3 years have you:
Base: All (n=220)
Half of residents have had some
involvement in a public engagement in
the past three years.
46 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
38
Engagement with Residents of Kneehill County
8%
8%
11%
8%
16%
12%
6%
16%
12%
17%
23%
27%
32%
27%
25%
36%
32%
33%
30%
30%
54%
48%
39%
36%
31%
22%
22%
12%
5%
5%
66%
51%
44%
40%
35%
26%
26%
I provide my opinions to Kneehill County when there are issues of importance to me
I have the opportunity to voice my opinions in decisions that affect me
Kneehill County’s public engagement opportunities are accessible and inclusive
Kneehill County recognizes the needs and interests of its residents
Kneehill County makes it easy for those affected by or interested in a decision to
provide their opinions
Kneehill County takes into account public feedback to make decisions
Kneehill County communicates to residents how their input affected the decision
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
0026 Thinking about how Kneehill County engages its residents, please rate your level of agreement with the
following Base: Excludes those who “don’t know” or whom the service does not apply to (n=69-193)Values less than 5% not labelled
Top 2 Agreement
Two thirds of residents provide their
opinions when there are issues of
importance to them (66%), and
about half of residents noted that
they believe they have opportunity
to voice their opinions in decisions
that affect them (51%).
However, agreement was lower on
factors related to implementing
resident feedback. Overall, 26% of
residents noted Kneehill County
takes into account public feedback
to make decisions, while 26% noted
that Kneehill County communicates
to residents how their input
affected the decision.
47 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
RESPONDENT PROFILE
48 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
RESPONDENT PROFILE
n=220
Taxes
I live in and pay taxes to Kneehill County 80%
I live in but do not pay taxes to Kneehill
County 1%
I do not live in but do pay taxes to Kneehill
County 19%
Place of Work
Kneehill County 35%
Retired 21%
Farm (Unspecified)6%
Town of Three Hills 5%
Calgary 4%
Rural / Out of town (Unspecified)4%
Other 6%
Retired 21%
Unemployed 3%
n=220
Age
18 –34 5%
35 –54 23%
55+67%
Prefer not to answer 5%
People in the Household
1 8%
2 28%
3 – 4 43%
5+8%
Children under 18 at home
Yes 32%
No 68%
Gender
Male 59%
Female 39%
n=220
Years Lived in Kneehill County
Less than 1 year 7%
1-10 14%
11-20 16%
21-30 12%
31-40 10%
41-50 15%
Over 50 26%
Metions less than 3% not shown.
49 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
EMPLOYEES CONSULTANTS
600 185
8
OUR SERVICES
•LegerMarketing research and polling
•Leger MetriCXStrategic and operational customer experienceconsulting services
•Leger Analytics (LEA)Data modelling and analysis
•Leger Opinion (LEO)Panel management
•Leger CommunitiesOnline community management
•Leger DigitalDigital strategy and user experience
•International ResearchWorldwide Independent Network (WIN)
MONTREAL | QUEBEC CITY | TORONTO | WINNIPEG
EDMONTON | CALGARY | VANCOUVER | PHILADELPHIA
OFFICES
41502021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
OUR CREDENTIALS
Leger is a member of ESOMAR (European Society for Opinion and Market
Research),the global association of opinion polls and marketing research
professionals. As such,Leger is committed to applying the international
ICC/ESOMAR code of Market,Opinion and Social Research and Data
Analytics.
Leger is also a member of the Insights Association, the American
Association of Marketing Research Analytics.
Leger is a member of the Canadian Research Insights Council (CRIC), the
industry association for the market/survey/insights research industry.
42512021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
APPENDIX A
Programs and Services Ratings
43522021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
44
Satisfaction with Programs and Services
5%
8%
6%
8%
11%
6%
8%
14%
11%
12%
15%
15%
11%
24%
27%
16%
25%
49%
57%
51%
51%
51%
52%
41%
46%
35%
20%
24%
22%
16%
13%
22%
15%
Fire Services and Emergency Preparedness
Cemeteries
Waste collection, recycling, and transfer stations
Snow and ice removal/control on roads
Parks and Playgrounds
Campgrounds
Utilities and Water Services (Kneehill County Water System)
Information provided by the County through the website and social media
Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Satisfied Very satisfied
0008 Please rate your satisfaction with the following programs and services provided to you by Kneehill County.
Base: Excludes those who “don’t know” or whom the service does not apply to (n=38-216)Values less than 5% not labelled
53 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
45
Satisfaction with Programs and Services Continued
5%
10%
7%
11%
10%
14%
18%
9%
12%
19%
10%
14%
11%
20%
12%
33%
33%
24%
41%
32%
25%
52%
44%
47%
40%
37%
39%
38%
46%
9%
16%
8%
8%
9%
6%
6%
15%
Agriculture Services, including weed control, roadside mowing, clubroot prevention
etc.
Road maintenance and Grading
Safety Codes Permitting
Municipal enforcement, including bylaw and animal control
Public Engagement
Supports for Business
Land Use, Planning & Development Services
Information provided by the County through the website and social media
Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Satisfied Very satisfied
Values less than 5% not labelled0008 Please rate your satisfaction with the following programs and services provided to you by Kneehill County.
Base: Excludes those who “don’t know” or whom the service does not apply to (n=38-216)
54 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
5.2.1
Page 1 of 1
Version: 2020-02
Subject: Increased Water Volume Request - Churchill
Meeting Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2021
Prepared By: John McKiernan, Manager of Environmental Services
Presented By: John McKiernan, Manager of Environmental Services
Link to Strat Plan: Level of Service
Recommended
Motion:
Council approve the Loenhardt request for increased flow on the Churchill Water
System
Background/
Proposal
As per policy 14-15 a request for increased flow on a Kneehill County waterline has
been received.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
A resident has requested an increase to water volume by engaging in a water
model to see if the increase in volume is feasible.
WSP was used as the engineering firm to run the water model and concluded that
the current service is able to be increased to 8 igpm with minimal effect on the
system.
Financial
Implications:
The ratepayer would be required as per policy 14-15 to pay the required fee in full
prior to the volume increase
Council Options:
1.) Council accepts the request for increased flow on the Churchill Water System.
2.) Council does not accept the request for increased flow on the Churchill Water
System.
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:
Increased Flow Application
Engineer Response
Policy 14-15
Follow-up
Actions:
Resident will be notified by letter of Council decision.
Director Approval:
Laurie Watt, Director of Community Services
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
55 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
56 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
57 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
August 31st 2021
Kneehill County.
205 1 Ave W
Three Hills, AB T0M 2A0
Attn: John McKiernan
Manager, Environmental Services
RE: Churchill WSA
Service Connection – NW 15-28-20-4
- Application
As per your submitted request we completed a water model for the service connection at
NW 15-28-20-W4M, for . Based on a maximum flow of 1700 l/day, the
model indicates the ability to meet a Flow of 8.0 Igpm at 81 psi. The Service can be
installed with minimal effect on the system.
Our model is set up that all service connections installed whether tied in or not will pull
maximum daily demand during the assessment of a proposed additional service.
Should you require any further information or clarification, please contact myself at the
Red Deer WSP office.
Sincerely,
Tarek Saman, WSP
cc Mike Minshall, WSP
58 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Model Result –Application (8 igpm)
59 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
60 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
5.2.2
Page 1 of 1
Version: 2020-02
Subject: Increased Water Volume Request - Selkirk
Meeting Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2021
Prepared By: John McKiernan, Manager of Environmental Services
Presented By: John McKiernan, Manager of Environmental Services
Link to Strat Plan: Level of Service
Recommended
Motion:
Council approve the Sunterra Farms Greenhouse request for increased flow on the
Selkirk Water System
Background/
Proposal
As per policy 14-15 a request for increased flow on a Kneehill County waterline has
been received.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
A ratepayer has requested an increase to water volume by engaging in a water
model to see if the increase in volume is feasible.
WSP was used as the engineering firm to run the water model and concluded that
the current service is able to be increased to 8 igpm with minimal effect on the
system
Financial
Implications:
The ratepayer would be required as per policy 14-15 to pay the required fee in full
prior to the volume increase
Council Options:
1.) Council accepts the request for increased flow on the Selkirk Water System.
2.) Council does not accept the request for increased flow on the Selkirk Water
System.
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:
Increased Flow Application
Engineer Response
Policy 14-15
Follow-up
Actions:
Resident will be notified by letter of Council decision.
Director Approval:
Laurie Watt, Director of Community Services
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
61 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
62 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
63 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
September 15, 2021
Kneehill County
205 1 Ave W
Three Hills, AB T0M 2A0
Attn: John McKiernan
Manager, Environmental Services
RE: Selkirk WSA
Increase Flow Volume – SW 30-29-25-4
Sunterra Farms Greenhouse Ltd.
As per your submitted request we completed a water model for the service connection at
SW 30-29-25-W4M, for Sunterra Farms Greenhouse Ltd. Based on a maximum flow of
1700 l/day, the model indicates the ability to meet a Flow of 8.0 Imp gpm at 114 psi. The
Service can be installed with minimal effect on the system.
Our model is set up that all service connec tions installed whether tied in or not will pull
maximum daily demand during the assessment of a proposed additional service.
Should you require any further information or clarification, please contact myself at the
Red Deer WSP office.
Sincerely,
Tarek Saman, WSP
cc Mike Minshall, WSP
64 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Model Result – Sunterra Farms Greenhouse Ltd Application
(8 Imp gpm)
65 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
66 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
5.3.1
Page 1 of 3
Version: 2020-02
Subject: Horseshoe Canyon Pay Parking Summary
Meeting Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2021
Prepared By: Shelby Sherwick, Manager of Parks & Agricultural Services
Presented By: Shelby Sherwick, Manager of Parks & Agricultural Services
Link to Strat Plan: Level of Service
Recommended
Motion:
Council provides direction on the future of the Horseshoe Canyon Pay Parking
initiative and onsite ambassadors at Horseshoe Canyon.
Background/
Proposal
At the June 23, 2020 Council Meeting, Council moved to direct Administration to
move forward with infrastructure changes as approved in the 2020 budget to
accommodate charge parking implementation for the 2021 season. Additionally,
Council moved to direct Administration to develop a Terms of Reference for
Council’s consideration to form a focused task form for development at Horseshoe
Canyon, utilizing a third party to act as a facilitator.
At the September 8, 2020 Council Meeting, Council moved to suspend the pay
parking and the day use washroom facility projects at Horseshoe Canyon, and
directed Administration to work with the focus group to identify gaps that private
industry may not be able to fill.
At the February 9, 2021 Council Meeting, Council moved to approve a Pay Parking
pilot project at Horseshoe Canyon for 2021 running from May through September
Long Weekend at a rate of $2 / vehicle, and as part of the pilot project,
Administration would report back on the findings at the end of the 2021 season.
Among the Recommended Strategies from the Horseshoe Canyon Focus Group to
include First and Next, staffing the site with onsite ambassadors and implementing
pay parking were noted, as well as collaborating with nearby, regional tourism
locations. The pay parking pilot project incorporated these recommended strategies
from the Focus Group, and data on the pilot project has been collected for Council’s
consideration.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
Estimated expenses and revenues were estimated at $40,000 each for this project,
based on projected costs for staffing, supplies, and historical visitation numbers.
Below are the actuals (as of September 8th):
Project Expenses:
• $20,392.42
Project Revenue:
• $ 17,492.26
A detailed breakdown and a summary of the 2021 pilot project are included in the
accompanying presentation.
67 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
5.3.1
Page 2 of 3
Version: 2020-01
Key Summary Points:
There is a major benefit to having staff onsite during weekend / outside regular work
hours to field questions from visitors and tend to the facilities, as well as speak to
the other tourism sites in Kneehill County. Additionally, these staff were able to
address visitor concerns, encourage responsible visitation at the site, and tend to
the outhouse and washroom facilities during weekends, which would have
previously been completed less frequently and by Parks staff working outside of
regular hours.
The presence of a Travel Drumheller Ambassador onsite was a great benefit, as
Drumheller-specific questions could be directed to the Ambassador. Kneehill
County staff were trained to share information with visitors on other tourism sites in
the County. Explore Kneehill Tourism signage with QR codes was also included
onsite.
Lower traffic numbers were observed this year over parts of July / Canada Day
Long Weekend - likely due to the prolonged heat / 30C + temperatures, wildfire
smoke, and maintained border closures during times when we would typically see a
higher number of international visitors.
From the Horseshoe Canyon Focus Group Recommended Strategies, having
onsite ambassadors, developing a brand for the Canyon, and introducing onsite
paid parking were recommended in either the “What to Consider First” or “What to
Consider Next” categories.
Should the project continue into 2022, Administration recommends the following
points:
- The parking fee be kept in line with other sites in the area (ie. Town of
Drumheller Hoodoos site) to maintain consistency for visitors to the area
- Continue partnership with Travel Drumheller should their Ambassador
program continue
- Change hours to start earlier, and consider operating 7 days / week in July
& August
- Inclusion of parking booth that can be set up to provide both workspace and
shelter for parking attendants, and also sell a small selection of branded
items for increased potential revenue (ie. t-shirts, bottled water) - $25,000
for a booth and infrastructure was approved by Council in 2020 and then
postponed pending HC Focus Group recommendations.
Financial
Implications:
Adjustments to 2022 Parks Budget to include $30,000 in Expenses and $30,000 in
Revenue
Inclusion of $25,000 for parking attendant booth / small retail space that was
postponed pending Horseshoe Canyon Focus Group recommendations
Council Options:
1. Council receives Horseshoe Canyon Parking Summary as information and
moves to continue pay parking initiative in 2022.
68 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
5.3.1
Page 3 of 3
Version: 2020-01
2. 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:
N/A
Follow-up
Actions:
Continue with Horseshoe Canyon Parking for 2022 season
Director Approval:
Laurie Watt, Director Community Services
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
69 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Horseshoe Canyon Pay Parking Pilot Project Summary
September 28th Council Meeting
Addition to Agenda702021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Horseshoe Canyon Pay Parking Pilot Project Summary
•Data Summary
•Successes, Challenges, Opportunities
•Looking Forward and Next Steps
Addition to Agenda712021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Data Summary
•Cost Breakdown
•Vehicle Counts + Visitor Origin
•Visitor Comments
Addition to Agenda722021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Data Summary
Project Expense Estimates $40,000
Project Revenue Estimates $40,000
Project Expenses –Actual Staffing: $16,876.75
Signage, Supplies, Debit Terminal, Additional
Safety Materials for Project: $1,742.07
Fuel: $1,773.60
Total Project Expenses: $20,392.42
Revenue –Actual $17,492.26
Cost Breakdown
Addition to Agenda732021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Data Summary
Project Breakdown
Staff Onsite 2 Kneehill County Horseshoe Canyon Parking
Attendants, 1 Travel Drumheller Ambassador
(Fridays / Saturdays in May, Saturdays once
RTMP reopened)
Total # Days with Parking Fee Collected
(Thursday through Monday, 11AM to 5PM)
76
Total # Vehicles Paid 7696
Total # Vehicles Turned Around 1069 (12% of total vehicle count)
$ Donated $2,100.26 (12% of total revenue) Addition to Agenda742021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Data Summary
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Onsite
upon
arrival
11AM 12PM 1PM 2PM 3PM 4PMNu
m
b
e
r
o
f
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
Time of Day
Average # Vehicles by Hour
Addition to Agenda752021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Data Summary
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday
Average Vehicle Counts by Day
Addition to Agenda762021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Data Summary
88%
6%
Visitor Origin by License Plate
Alberta
British Columbia
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Quebec
Ontario
New Brunswick
NWT
US
6%
Addition to Agenda772021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
44%
26%
30%
Visitor Comments Summary
Informational
Questions /
Suggestions for
Improvements
In Favour of Pay
Parking
Not In Favour of Pay
Parking
Data Summary
Addition to Agenda782021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Comments from Visitors –Informational Questions / Suggestions for Improvements
•More trail signage –questions about where the trail begins and how long it is
•Questions about when the pay parking began and where the money goes
•What kind of wildlife / are there snakes?
•Are the bathrooms open?
•How was the canyon formed?
•Suggestions about shaded rest areas along the trail, more benches for seniors Addition to Agenda792021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Comments from Visitors –Not in Favour of Pay Parking
•Suggestions that ratepayers shouldn’t have to pay for parking and that they were unhappy to see that there was a fee in place
•Some visitors expressed that they felt enough was paid in taxes already and that parking should be free
•Some visitors expressed that they didn’t want to pay for parking / felt that it wasn’t worth the $2 charge
•Unhappy about the change as it used to be free
•Not happy to see pay parking at Horseshoe Canyon and other sites across the province
•Some visitors drove past staff / stop sign and parked without paying Addition to Agenda802021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Comments from Visitors –In Favour of Pay Parking
•Comments from ratepayers that they were happy the fee was going back to their county
•Happy to see that there was a fee for taking care of the Canyon
•Positive comments about the improvements that have been done over the years at the lookout point and on the trails, safe access to bottom of Canyon
•Comments that the $2 was well worth it, a few suggested that the fee should be more
•Visitors happy that the facilities were open, positive comments on customer service at the site Addition to Agenda812021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Successes
•Having KC staff onsite during weekends helped to better maintain the site and address concerns (previously we would only have staff stop once to check Horseshoe Canyon during the long weekend)
•Partnership with Travel Drumheller –having an Ambassador onsite from Travel Drumheller was very helpful
•Identified potential revenue stream with pay parking, as well as additional revenue streams
•Staff acted as ambassadors for the County and other tourism sites, shared information with visitors
Addition to Agenda822021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Successes
•Staff were able to provide information about the Canyon and Kneehill County’s care of Horseshoe Canyon and the improvements made since taking ownership of the lookout area
•Having staff onsite during weekends improved the Parks response time to visitor concerns, as we were able to address any questions or concerns directly and visitors did not have to wait until after the weekend to hear back
•Increased visitor engagement –guests provided feedback on what they would like to see at the site, identified new areas of improvement that aligned with Focus Group Recommendations
Addition to Agenda832021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Challenges
•Extreme temperatures and inclement weather, particularly during the extended heat wave in June / July
•Border closures led to lower numbers of international visitors than in previous years
•Lower than expected revenue, though contributing factors were identified
•Changing COVID restrictions and communicating these to visitors who inquired about rules onsite
•Staff scheduling on certain days due to holidays, illness
•New program onsite for visitors which led to some challenging conversations, though this provided a new opportunity for engagement as well
Addition to Agenda842021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Opportunities & Lessons Learned
•Having staff onsite during weekends was a great benefit
in maintaining the Canyon during peak visitation times,
as well as having a County presence and tourism / site
stewardship onsite
•The partnership with Travel Drumheller was a great
opportunity for regional tourism collaboration
•Opportunity for in-person engagement regarding other
Kneehill County tourism sites and sharing information
about the site and the area
•Comments from visitors led to ideas for onsite
improvements Addition to Agenda852021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Branded Materials
•Opportunity to incorporate the branding used on the
interpretive signage onsite, which ties in the new
Kneehill County brand colours with a distinguishing
Horseshoe Canyon look
•Items sold could include branded clothing, water
bottles, sunscreen, potential for locally sourced
products
•New revenue stream in addition to pay parking
Addition to Agenda862021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Branded Materials
From the
Horseshoe Canyon
Focus Group
PresentationAddition to Agenda872021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Branded Materials
Addition to Agenda882021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Addition to Agenda892021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Addition to Agenda902021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Looking Forward
•Continue partnership with Travel Drumheller should the
Ambassador program continue
•Inclusion of parking booth for workspace, shelter from
inclement weather, and space for selling branded items
as well as providing information and collecting parking
fee
•Opportunity for regional parking pass with other paid
sites in area
•Change hours and schedule, consider operating 7 days
/ week in July & August while remaining flexible Addition to Agenda912021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Questions?
Addition to Agenda922021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
8.1
Page 1 of 1
Version: 2020-02
Subject: 2021 Kneehill County Scholarship
Meeting Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2021
Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil
Presented By: Mike Haugen, CAO
Link to Strat Plan: Level of Service
Recommended
Motion:
That Jenna Cullum and Graham Fretz be awarded the 2021 Kneehill County
Scholarship in the amount of $2,000.00 each.
Background/
Proposal
Each year, Kneehill County offers two scholarships in the amount of $2,000 each to
Kneehill County residents enrolled in post-secondary institutions.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
The Committee of the Whole Board reviewed 8 eligible Kneehill County Scholarship
applications at their September 21st, 2021meeting. At this meeting the Committee
of the Whole Board made a recommendation to Council to award Jenna Cullum and
Graham Fretz the 2021 Kneehill County Scholarship. The Committee made this
recommendation based on scores attributed to each of the eight submissions prior
to the identity of the individuals being known.
Financial
Implications:
2021 Operating Budget
Council Options:
1. That Council award the two scholarship recipients recommended by the
Committee of the Whole Committee.
2. That Council receive for information.
Recommended
Engagement:
☒ Directive Decision (Information Sharing-One way communication)
Goal: To educate and inform citizens
Tools: ☐ Individual Notification or ☒ Public Notification ☐ Consultative Decision (Consulting the Public – Two way communication)
Goal: To seek feedback, test ideas, develop concepts and collaborative solutions
Tools: ☐ Public Hearing ☐ Open House ☐ Focus Group ☐ Other- ☐ Collaborative Decision (Active Participation- Share or delegate decision making)
Goal: To share or delegate decision making
Tools: ☐ Participatory Decision Making ☐ Inter-Municipal Agreement ☐ Other-
Attachments:
N/A
Follow-up
Actions:
Administration will contact recipients and organize with the school’s time and dates
for award ceremonies.
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
93 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
94 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
95 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
8.2
Page 1 of 2
Version: 2020-02
Subject: Trochu Seniors’ Facility Agreement
Meeting Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2021
Prepared By: Mike Haugen, CAO
Presented By: Mike Haugen, CAO
Link to Strat Plan: Level of Service
Recommended
Motion:
That Council authorize the Reeve and CAO to sign the Trochu Seniors’
Supportive Living Facility Agreement with the Town of Trochu.
Background/
Proposal
The Town of Trochu is proposing a Senior’s Living Complex be constructed
within the Town of Trochu. The proposed project represents a
$32,000,000.00 project with a variety of housing options contained within.
The project would be undertaken by the Trochu Housing Corporation (THC)
which is a municipally owned corporation of which the Town of Trochu is
the sole owner.
The THC and Town of Trochu will be seeking to finance the project through
the combination of grant funding, life-lease sales, and financing. They are
anticipating a round of provincial grant funding to be released soon and
plan on making application for approximately $19 Million.
The Town does not have the capacity to finance this borrowing themselves
without ministerial approval, and have asked the County to provide financial
backing to allow financing to occur and provide cash flow during project
construction, should such be needed. It has been indicated that without
County support, there may not be the ability to submit a grant application.
The Town of Trochu has put forward that funding from the County would
only be required as a last resort.
Council previously passed Bylaw 1833 in accordance with Municipal Government
Act regulations pertaining to borrowing. The proposed agreement represents the
legal relationship between Kneehill County and the Town of Trochu reflecting the
requirements established in Bylaw 1833.
The proposed agreement is valid for a period of four (4) years. If the development
does not take place within that timeframe, new approval from the County would
need to be sought by the Town and the THC.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
The proposed agreement has been developed by the County’s legal counsel and
reviewed by the Town of Trochu and the THC. Adoption of an agreement is
required to establish the guaranteeing relationship between the County and the
Town and satisfy a requirement of Bylaw 1833.
Financial
Implications:
None unless the Trochu Housing Corporation and Town of Trochu default on
borrowings related to the Trochu Senior’s Supportive Living Facility. Should that
happen the County faces exposure of up to $20 Million (before interest).
96 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
8.2
Page 2 of 2
Version: 2020-02
Council Options:
1. Council may opt to authorize execution of the agreement.
2. Council may opt to seek alterations to the agreement.
3. Council may opt to not sign the agreement.
Recommended
Engagement:
☒ Directive Decision (Information Sharing-One way communication)
Goal: To educate and inform citizens
Tools: ☐ Individual Notification or ☒ Public Notification ☐ Consultative Decision (Consulting the Public – Two way communication)
Goal: To seek feedback, test ideas, develop concepts and collaborative solutions
Tools: ☐ Public Hearing ☐ Open House ☐ Focus Group ☐ Other- ☐ Collaborative Decision (Active Participation- Share or delegate decision making)
Goal: To share or delegate decision making
Tools: ☐ Participatory Decision Making ☐ Inter-Municipal Agreement ☐ Other-
Attachments:
1. Proposed Trochu Seniors’ Supportive Living Facility Agreement
2. Bylaw 1833
Follow-up
Actions:
The Reeve and CAO will execute the proposed agreement and inform the Town of
Trochu accordingly.
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
97 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
1
THIS AGREEMENT made this ______ day of _____________, 2021.
BETWEEN:
KNEEHILL COUNTY
a municipal corporation incorporated pursuant to the Municipal Government Act
of the Province of Alberta
(hereinafter called the "County")
OF THE FIRST PART
- AND -
TOWN OF TROCHU
a municipal corporation incorporated pursuant to the Municipal Government Act
of the Province of Alberta
(hereinafter called the "Town")
OF THE SECOND PART
WHEREAS the Town has committed to supporting the development of the Trochu Seniors
Supportive Living Facility Project in the Town of Trochu as further described in Schedule “A”
(the “Project”), and proposes to borrow funds in an amount not to exceed $20,000,000.00 to
support the Project (the “Loan”);
AND WHEREAS the Town has requested that the County support the Project by guaranteeing
repayment of the Loan;
AND WHEREAS the County has passed Bylaw No. 1833, authorizing a guarantee of the Loan,
and is prepared to offer such guarantee subject to the terms and conditions set out herein;
NOW THEREFORE this Agreement witnesses that, in consideration of the premises, covenants
and agreements herein contained, the County and the Town agree as follows:
1. The County hereby agrees to guarantee the Loan in support of the Project on the following
basis:
a) The amount of the Loan shall not exceed $20,000,000.00, inclusive of an interest
rate not to exceed 4% over a term not to exceed 5 years; and
b) The total amount guaranteed by the County in respect of the Loan shall in no
circumstances exceed $20,000,000.00, and shall remain in effect for no longer than
four (4) years.
2. The County’s commitment to enter into a guarantee shall be conditional upon:
a) Capital grant funding from other levels of government equal to at least $19,000,000
having first been approved for the Project;
98 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
2
b) The receipt by the County of evidence that a minimum of 90% of the 24 Life Lease
Units associated with the Project shall have been sold prior to the commencement
of construction;
c) The Town first engaging in open house or information forums open to its residents
and ratepayers, which receives positive feedback from the community, as
reasonably determined by the Town and confirmed in writing to the County. As
part of that public engagement process, the Town must advise its residents and
ratepayers that should the Town of Trochu no longer be viable, the County’s
intention is that all debts incurred by the Town will remain the responsibility of
ratepayers and properties within the existing Town of Trochu boundaries; and
d) The Town will arrange to allow the County to appoint a board member to the
Trochu Housing Corporation Board for a period at least equal to the longer of the
duration of construction of the Project or the period in which the guarantee will
remain in effect.
3. Subject to the requirements set out herein, the County will agree to enter into a guarantee
agreement with the Town’s lender on the Project in relation to the Loan, in a form
reasonably agreeable to the County and consistent with this Agreement. The Town agrees
to comply with the loan agreement and all other applicable laws in relation to its borrowing
and other involvement in the Project.
4. The Town acknowledges that it is not the intention of this Agreement for the County to
directly contribute to the Project or the Town. To the extent the County is required to pay
any amounts to the Town’s lender in respect of the guarantee, the Town will be fully
responsible for repaying the County in full. Further, the Town shall indemnify and hold
harmless the County for any and all costs of any kind incurred by the County in relation to
the guarantee provided under this Agreement, including without limitation for any legal
costs on a solicitor and own client basis. Any amounts paid to the Town’s lender in respect
of this guarantee or otherwise incurred by the County in relation to the guarantee shall
become a debt due and owing by the Town to the County.
5. Subject to any remaining obligations under the guarantee agreement between the County
and the Town’s lender, if any, the County may terminate this Agreement and any further
commitment to guarantee the Loan:
a) In the event of any breach of this Agreement by the Town;
b) In the event that any assets relating to the Project are assigned or transferred without
the County’s consent, or are seized, liquidated or otherwise become the subject of
any insolvency event including a circumstance where the Town or the Trochu
Housing Corporation becomes insolvent, commits an act of bankruptcy, makes a
general assignment for the benefit of its creditors or is subject to an appointment of
a receiver; or
c) Upon the expiry of the four year term of this Agreement.
99 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
3
Such termination shall not in any way limit the Town’s obligation to repay any amounts
owing to the County in respect of the guarantee or any other obligations of the Town
hereunder.
6. Nothing herein shall make the County responsible for or liable for any costs, damages or
liabilities associated with the Project, except as specifically required by the terms of the
guarantee entered into by the County. The Town agrees to indemnify and hold harmless
the County in respect of any and all damages, costs liabilities, actions, claims or costs
(including legal costs on a solicitor and his own client basis) claimed against or suffered
by the County in relation to or arising from the Project.
7. In consideration for the guarantee offered by the County as set out herein, the Town
covenants and agrees that it shall not make any further or other requests to the County for
financial or material commitments in relation to the Project, and that there will be no future
requests by the Town for the County to provide financial support or requisitions in relation
to the operation of the Project.
8. The Town shall ensure that all necessary insurance coverage is in place for the Project prior
to commencing construction and maintained throughout the duration of construction and
commissioning of the building associated with the Project. The Town shall provide
evidence of such insurance coverage to the County upon request.
9. The Town shall not assign or transfer this Agreement or the rights or privileges herein
without first obtaining the written consent of the County.
10. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Province of Alberta.
11. Each of the Parties shall, upon the reasonable request of the other Parties, make, do, execute
or cause to be made, done or executed all such further and other lawful acts, deeds, things,
documents and assurances of whatsoever nature and kind for the better or more perfect or
absolute performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
12. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties hereto and supersedes
any prior agreement, either oral or in writing, and may only be amended by a subsequent
written instrument signed by the Parties.
13. This Agreement may be executed in counterpart and delivered electronically.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have affixed their corporate seals under the hands of
their proper signing officers as of the day and year first above written.
KNEEHILL COUNTY
PER:
______________________________
100 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
4
PER:
______________________________
TOWN OF TROCHU
PER:
______________________________
PER:
______________________________
101 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
5
SCHEDULE “A”
PROJECT SUMMARY
Attached
102 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Trochu Housing Corporation*
*Incorporated as a Canada Not For Profit by the Town of Trochu
An Update and Presentation for Kneehill County Council
By Barry Kletke, Mayor of Trochu, Sam Smalldon, President of Trochu Housing
Corporation and Sheli Murphy, Senior Operating Officer with Covenant Health
October 13, 2020
Trochu Seniors
Supportive
Living Facility
Project
103 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Agenda
1.Seniors Housing Project Proposal
2.Project Stakeholder Model
3.Capital Development Process
4.Capital Project Work Plan
5.Project Partnership Models
6.Trochu/County Partnership
7.Next Steps
104 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Seniors Housing Project Proposal
•Residents want to stay in their Communities
•THC has completed a Survey of Seniors
•THC has completed a Demand Study
•THC has undertaken a Community-Driven Project
Concept Consultation and Development Process
•Seniors Housing demand exists for new independent
market, replacement low-income and lodge, and for
new supportive living
•THC Project Concept and Business Case is now
completed
1
105 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Project History
•2009 it was identified that there was need for additional supportive seniors housing in our area
•2011 Covenant Health proposed a new facility near the existing St. Mary’s. Letters of support were given by the surrounding communities but the ASLI grant for this project was turned down
•During the interim period Covenant Health continued to propose various plans from re-modernization to new builds but had no success
•In November of 2018 the Trochu Housing Corporation was formed; and the current process was started
1.1
106 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Project –Site, Design & Budget
•12 acres of serviced land in Trochu
•80 units to meet the needs of Trochu Area
•40 units LTC, Supportive Living 4/4D (24x7 Care)
•16 units Lodge Living (Accommodation)
•24 units Independent Living (Life Lease)
•$32 Million Estimate for Capital Project
•$8 Million Estimate for Take-Out Financing
•$5 Million Estimate from Life Lease
•$19 Million Estimate for Capital Grants
•$20 Million Estimate for Project Financing Limit
1.2
107 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Project –Demand Validation
•In 2018, AHS identified demand for DSL Spaces in
Trochu and surrounding communities were named as
a priority community
•An independent demand survey was completed by
the local Town of Trochu to determine if there was a
demand
•The premises was if there was no demand; no project
•But there was significant demand also confirmed by
an independent demand study completed by
Covenant Health
1.3
108 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
AHS Demand is Proven
•AHS has identified Trochu
and surrounding
communities as Priority
Communities in April 2018
(18 of top 23 in Alberta)
•AHS identifies Trochu care
need for 15 SL4D and 30 SL4
spaces
•Current 28 LTC spaces in
Trochu need replacement
1.4
109 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Project Stakeholder Model
•Town of Trochu and Surrounding Communities
•Trochu Community Seniors Advisory Committee
•Trochu Seniors Housing Society
•Kneehill County
•Covenant Health
•Kneehill Housing Management Body
•Federal Government (CMHC, MPs)
•Provincial Government (Seniors Housing, AHS,
MLAs)
2
110 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Government Relations
•The Town and THC has held briefing meetings to
present the project proposal with the MLA and MP
and highly both support the project
•The Minister of Health Tyler Shandro recently
toured the existing St. Mary’s facility and met with
members of Town Council, THC and Covenant
Heatlh for a briefing and presentation of the
project proposal.
•The Minister seemed very impressed and looking
forward to the THC application when the ASLI capital grant call is announced, expected this fall
2020.
2.1
111 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Capital Development Process
•Project Planning
•Project Construction
•Project Commissioning
•Project Opening
3
112 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Build on Sundre Project Success 3.1
113 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Capital Project Work Plan
•Project Concept and Planning Work
•Government Relations
•Partnerships
•Sources of Capital Funding
•Business Planning
•Project Approval
•Project Design, Tender and Contracts
•Project Construction
•Project Commissioning
•Project Opening
4
114 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
THC Project Concept Complete 4.1
115 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Project Work Plan and Timeline 4.2
116 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Project –Planning and Site Work
•An architectural firm was hired and open houses were
held so the public could have a say in what was
needed and wanted
•The proposal was modeled after a successful facility in
Sundre but was adjusted to meet the local needs
•The Town agreed to provide a parcel of land of
sufficient size to accommodate this facility
•A engineering firm and a planning group were hired to
research and draft an ASP plan. The plan has been
completed and is in the Bylaw and public hearing
phase
4.3
117 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Project Planning Updates
•THC met with Kneehill County on November 26, 2019
to ask for partnership for financial backing for the
project borrowing; there is no request for the County
to borrow any funding
•At that time, the County requested the Town look at
getting a debt limit extension
•Town of Trochu has formally requested approval from
the ADM Municipal Affairs for a debt limit extension
from 4.5 million to 23 million (this includes the whole
project)
4.4
118 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
•The ADM office clarified this would be the largest
percentage of debt limit extension ever given out and
Municipal Affairs want to ensure our business plan will
be successful
•Our last discussion with the ADM’s office was we may
have reached out to them for a debt limit extension
earlier than required
•The ADM has confirmed the information provided will
be beneficial for them to make a decision, the
outstanding confirmation which still needs to be
addressed is written confirmation from AHS of capital
grants and operational support for the project
4.5Project Planning Updates
119 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
•AHS will be able confirm both of these requirements in
formal terms at the end of ASLI capital grant call
expected this fall
•When making an application for the ASLI grant a
business case with a funding plan will have to be
provided
•Prior to the ASLI application another open house of the
local taxpayers in Trochu (not just seniors) will be held
as consultation for the possible extra taxpayer burden
which may occur in the worst case scenario.
4.6Project Planning Updates
120 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Project Planning Updates
•The Town continues work on the ASP–
1st reading has been passed and the public
hearing has been scheduled
•Covenant Health has agreed to be care partner
and partner as operator of the Lodge facility
•Council and the THC feel that the business
plan is sound but Trochu does not currently
have the borrowing debt limit to proceed.
4.7
121 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Project Partnership Models
•Town of Trochu incorporated THC
•Town of Trochu requests Kneehill County support for borrowing (Nov. 2019 and Oct. 2020)
•Town of Trochu requests partnership with Covenant Health and AHS (MOU with Covenant, ASLI)
•Town of Trochu requests partnership with Kneehill Housing Management Body (Offer extended)
•THC applies for Capital Grants from Province and CMHC (In Progress)
•THC will plan, build and Covenant Health will operate the Project (Project can be “Shovel Ready” for 2021)
5
122 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Trochu/County Partnership
•Project will serve Town of Trochu and Surrounding
Communities (County Residents)
•Project will add Seniors Housing Capacity for Kneehill
County
•Borrowing for the Project will exceed Debt Ratios of the
Town
•A letter of support backing with by Town and County
together will permit borrowing within Debt Ratios
•The County would be provided with a seat on the
Trochu Housing Corporation Board as oversight
6
123 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Next Steps
•THC will continue relationship development under the
Project Partnership and Stakeholder Models
•THC will apply for Provincial ASLI and Affordable
Housing Grants as well as Federal CMHC Capital Grants
•THC will complete the Project and Business Case
Planning for Grants and Partnerships
•THC will ensure Project Budget Approval before
Construction starts
7
124 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
125 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
8.3
Page 1 of 2
Version: 2020-02
Subject: Wetland Replacement Program MOU
Meeting Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2021
Prepared By: Mike Haugen, CAO
Presented By: Mike Haugen, CAO
Link to Strat Plan: Preserving Rural Way of Life
Recommended
Motion:
That Council authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to sign the
Memorandum of Understanding in support of identifying potential wetland
replacement projects for purposes of the Wetland Replacement Program.
Background/
Proposal
In an effort to encourage the restoration and development of Wetlands, the
Province is approaching municipalities with the Wetlands Replacement Program.
When wetlands are altered or removed, the party responsible pays a fee to the
Province. The Province uses this funding to encourage alternate wetland
development. The current fee in the Kneehill County area is approximately $18,500
per hectare.
Municipalities and others looking to develop wetlands can make application to
access that funding. In 2020, the first year of this specific program, seven projects
were approved by the Province and over $3 Million was provided.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
The proposed MOU outlines the process for making applications. It does not
commit the County to actually making applications or moving forward. The idea is to
express and interest and establish a process by which applications would be made.
The County may have the ability to encourage wetland development through
programs with private landowners, or through the County’s own operations, such as
the end pit lake and adjacent area at the Torrington gravel site. It’s possible that
funding could be received through this program to facilitate such activities. This
would require further discussion from Council.
At the time of writing, 10 municipalities have signed on and the Province was
engaged with 14 more.
Financial
Implications:
None. Though future projects may require funding should the County opt to submit
a project.
Council Options:
1. Council may opt to authorize the CAO to execute the document.
2. Council may opt not to authorize participation in the program.
3. Council may seek alterations to the proposed MOU.
126 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION AGENDA ITEM #
8.3
Page 2 of 2
Version: 2020-02
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:
Wetland Replacement Program proposed MOU
Follow-up
Actions:
Administration will execute and return the proposed agreement to the Province.
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
127 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
1
Classification: Protected A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
IN SUPPORT OF IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL WETLAND REPLACEMENT PROJECTS
FOR PURPOSES OF WETLAND REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
This Memorandum of Understanding is made effective the ____ of _________________, _______.
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
in right of Alberta
as represented by the Minister of Environment and Parks
(the ''Province”)
-and-
KNEEHILL COUNTY
(the "Municipality”)
(collectively referred to as "Participants")
WHEREAS the Province recognizes that wetlands are a vital part of Alberta’s ecological landscape and
necessary for a sustainable economy and healthy communities, and has accordingly established the WRP to
meet the outcomes of the Alberta Wetland Policy.
WHEREAS through the WRP the Province utilizes Fees paid by persons under the Wetland Restoration and
Replacement Fee Ministerial Order (35/2018) to fund Wetland Replacement Projects across the province.
WHEREAS a priority of the Alberta Wetland Policy and the WRP is to replace wetland area and function in
watersheds where permanent wetland disturbances have been approved under the Water Act, and Fees
have been paid to the Province.
WHEREAS the Municipality wishes to undertake Wetland Replacement Projects in order to achieve specific
environmental outcomes, including but not limited to flood attenuation, drought resiliency, groundwater
recharge, water quality improvement, habitat for wildlife and biodiversity, and for social, recreational and
educational value to the public.
WHEREAS the Municipality is able to ensure that each Wetland Replacement Project component, including
wetland assessment, design, construction, inspection and adaptive management, is supervised and
authenticated by an Authenticating Professional.
THEREFORE this MOU establishes a cooperative process to identify appropriate Wetland Replacement
Projects for the purpose of the Participants entering into related Service Contracts to undertake those
Wetland Replacement Projects.
1. DEFINITIONS, PRINCIPLES, NATURE AND PURPOSE OF MOU
1.1 Definitions – In this MOU including the recitals:
(a) “Authenticating Professional” means a professional member who meets the requirements set
forth in Professional Responsibilities in Completion and Assurance of Wetland Science, Design
and Engineering Works in Alberta, as amended or replaced from time to time.
128 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
2
Classification: Protected A
(b) “Effective Date” means the date first written above.
(c) “Fees” means fees that have been paid by persons under the Wetland Restoration and
Replacement Fee Ministerial Order (35/2018) to fulfill their wetland replacement obligations.
(d) “MOU” means this Memorandum of Understanding.
(e) “Proposal” means a proposal document prepared by the Municipality containing the specific
details of a Wetland Replacement Project.
(f) “Proposal Submission Requirements” means the Province’s submission requirements for a
Proposal, attached as Schedule “A” to this MOU.
(g) “Service Contract” means a contract entered into between the Province and the Municipality
in respect of one or more approved Proposals, as further described in section 6.1.
(h) “Wetland Replacement Project” means a project to restore or construct wetlands within
Alberta.
(i) “WRP” means the Province’s Wetland Replacement Program.
1.2 Principles of MOU – This MOU is based on the following principles shared by the Participants:
(a) wetlands are a vital part of Alberta’s ecological landscape and necessary for a sustainable
economy and healthy communities; and
(b) through working together, the Participants will help to achieve shared outcomes for wetland
replacement.
1.3 Purpose and Nature of MOU –
(a) The purpose of this MOU is to establish a process for the Participants to identify appropriate
Wetland Replacement Projects to restore and construct wetlands within the Municipality’s
boundaries. Service Contracts entered into between the Participants, as outlined in section
6.1, will provide details of the services and deliverables for specific Wetland Replacement
Projects.
(b) This MOU represents a statement of general intention on the part of the Participants and is
not intended to create any legally binding obligations between the Participants, or impose
specific financial responsibilities on the Participants. However, each Participant will be
responsible for any costs it incurs through its participation in this MOU.
2. TERM
2.1 Term of MOU – This MOU will take effect on the Effective Date and will be in effect for 3 years
unless terminated earlier in accordance with the provisions of this MOU. The Participants may
extend the term of this MOU by agreement of the Participants in writing.
3. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PROVINCE
129 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
3
Classification: Protected A
3.1 Proposal Submission Requirements – The Province may update the Proposal Submission
Requirements from time to time, in which case the Province shall provide a written copy of the
updated Proposal Submission Requirements to the Municipality, and the updated Proposal
Submission Requirements shall supersede and replace the previous version.
3.2 Pre-Proposal Review Process –
(a) After the Province has reviewed a summary document submitted by the Municipality under
section 4.1 (“Summary Document”), the Province will set up a meeting with the Municipality to
discuss the potential Wetland Replacement Projects identified in the Summary Document.
(b) The Province may request a joint site visit with the Municipality of the sites identified in the
Summary Document.
(c) In consultation with the Municipality, the Province will advise which proposed Wetland
Replacement Projects can be submitted to the Province in accordance with section 4.2. The
Municipality acknowledges that such advice is not to be considered a formal approval of the
Proposal as all submitted Proposals will need to still be formally approved by the Province
under section 3.3.
(d) The Municipality can bring forth any potential Wetland Replacement Project to the Province
for pre-proposal review under this section at any time during the term of this MOU, regardless
if it was or was not included in the Summary Document.
3.3 Approval of Proposals –
(a) The Province will review and either approve or refuse Proposals submitted by the Municipality.
(b) The Province may request additional information, clarification of, or amendments to Proposals
submitted by the Municipality.
(c) The Province will strive to review each Proposal within 30 days of its submission by the
Municipality. The Province will advise the Municipality if a Proposal has been approved to
proceed to a Service Contract.
(d) In considering Proposals for approval, the Province will give priority to Wetland Replacement
Projects that can be undertaken pursuant to the Water Act Code of Practice for Wetland
Replacement Works.
4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MUNICIPALITY
4.1 Communication of Potential Wetland Replacement Projects – the Municipality will provide a brief
written summary document to the Province by February 1 of each year that includes the following
information for the Municipality’s potential Wetland Replacement Projects for the upcoming fiscal
year (April 1 to March 31) :
(a) the legal land location of each potential Wetland Replacement Project if available at time of
summary submission;
(b) estimate of combined costs for anticipated Wetland Replacement Projects (eg. under
$100,000; $100k – 500k; $500k - $1M; $1-2M; or $2-3 M), if known;
130 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
4
Classification: Protected A
(c) the type of each Wetland Replacement Project (whether Restoration or Construction as
defined in the Proposal Submission Requirements);
(d) the anticipated authorizations that will be required for each Wetland Replacement Project (eg.
Water Act Code of Practice versus Water Act approval; Public Lands Act approval) if known at
the time of summary submission;
(e) the anticipated total gain in wetland area that will be delivered by the potential Wetland
Replacement Projects; and
(f) a brief description of why the potential locations for Wetland Replacement Projects are being
considered and value added considerations, examples of which are set out in section 6 of the
Proposal Submission Requirements.
(g) It is understood and acknowledged that the Municipality may not have a finalized list of specific
Wetland Replacement Projects confirmed for the upcoming fiscal year at the time the
summary document is submitted.
4.2 Submission of Proposals – the Municipality will:
(a) submit a Proposal to the Province for each Wetland Replacement Project that the Municipality
wishes to propose for the Province’s approval;
(b) ensure that each Proposal meets the Proposal Submission Requirements;
(c) aim to submit at least one Proposal per year; and
(d) only submit a Proposal to the Province if the Province has provided advice to proceed with
submitting the Proposal under section 3.2.
4.3 Wetland Replacement Project Components – the Municipality will be responsible for completing
all components of an approved Wetland Replacement Project, in accordance with the related
Service Contract.
4.4 Legislative Requirements and Conservation Easements – The Municipality is responsible for
ensuring:
(a) that protection mechanisms such as conservation easements that add value to the long-term
protection of the Wetland Replacement Project will be registered on titles as necessary to
protect the wetland;
(b) that all Wetland Replacement Projects approved by the Province meet or will meet applicable
legislative requirements prior to project commencement, including but not limited to:
(i) the requirements of the Code of Practice for Wetland Replacement Works;
(ii) obtaining any required regulatory authorizations under the Water Act, as applicable; and
(iii) obtaining any required regulatory authorizations under the Public Lands Act or other
legislation as applicable; and
(c) that all Wetland Replacement Projects are in compliance with all applicable federal, provincial
and municipal legislation.
131 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
5
Classification: Protected A
5. AGREEMENTS WITH AFFECTED LANDOWNERS AND THIRD PARTIES
5.1 Process for Agreements With Affected Landowners and Third Parties
(a) Information to be Included in Proposal – To ensure that the Wetland Replacement Project as
outlined in a Proposal has the agreement of affected landowners (“Landowners”) and third
parties (“Third Parties”) to proceed in the location identified in the Proposal:
(i) for Landowners (if any), the Municipality will obtain their preliminary written consent to
complete the Wetland Replacement Project, and include in the Proposal
a. a copy of such consent(s);
b. the proposed compensation to be paid to the Landowner under a formal written
agreement; and
c. the specific location of the Landowner’s land in relation to the Wetland
Replacement Project as a whole; and
(ii) for Third Parties (if any), the Municipality will identify in the Proposal the nature of that
Third Party’s interest in relation to the proposed Wetland Replacement Project and
whether or not a formal written agreement will be required with the Third Party.
(b) After Proposal Approved by Province – After a Proposal for a Wetland Replacement Project
has been approved by the Province under section 3.3, but prior to entering into a Service
Contract with the Province, the Municipality will enter into formal written Landowner and
Third Party agreements it has identified as being required under (a), and will provide copies of
such agreements to the Province once executed. The Municipality acknowledges that the
Province will require such copies be provided prior to entering into a Service Agreement for a
Wetland Replacement Project.
5.2 Landowner Agreements –
(a) Content of Agreements – The Municipality will ensure that agreements with Landowners:
(i) provide unrestricted access to the Municipality and the Province (notwithstanding the
Province not being party to the agreement) to the lands required for the purposes of the
Wetland Replacement Project, for a minimum of 10 years commencing on the effective
date of the Landowner agreement (which should align as closely as possible to the
projected start date of the Wetland Replacement Project);
(ii) address compensation to the Landowner (including amount and payment structure) for
access to the Landowner’s lands;
(iii) address permissible activities within and immediately surrounding the wetland and timing
of those activities;
(iv) permit early termination by the Municipality if the related Service Contract is terminated
prior to its expiry date;
(v) have a minimum 10 year term, commencing on or about the commencement date of the
Wetland Replacement Project; and
(vi) contain an acknowledgement by the Landowner that:
a. any wetlands restored or constructed on the Landowner’s lands as part of the
Wetland Replacement Project are protected by the restrictions in the Alberta
132 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
6
Classification: Protected A
Water Act and are subject to the Water Act and any other applicable acts, and
b. that any future activity that may impact the Wetland Replacement Project will
require a wetland assessment and will be subject to the Alberta Wetland Policy.
(b) Payments Under Agreements –
(i) The Municipality will ensure any payments payable under a Landowner agreement are for
a reasonable amount that does not comprise a disproportionate amount of overall
projects costs considering:
a. the nature of the activities to be undertaken on the lands;
b. the amount of access required for the Wetland Replacement Project; and
c. any continued or shared use of the lands by the Landowner for any purpose
during each of the construction and maintenance phases of the Wetland
Replacement Project (eg. lesser payments will likely be required where the
landowner is continuing or sharing use of the lands, particularly in the
maintenance phase).
(ii) The Municipality acknowledges that the Province will not compensate the Municipality for
any payments payable under an agreement with a Landowner if a Service Contract is not
entered into for the related Wetland Replacement Project. The Municipality will
accordingly ensure that
a. the agreement is made subject to the condition precedent of the Municipality and
the Province entering into a Service Contract for the Wetland Replacement Project
to which the agreement relates, or
b. that payments are not payable under the agreement until a Service Contract for
the Wetland Replacement Project has been entered into between the Municipality
and the Province, and permits early termination by the Municipality without
penalty if the related Service Contract is not entered into.
(iii) The Municipality acknowledges that the Province will only approve Landowner
payments for the first 10 years of a Landowner agreement, notwithstanding that the
Municipality may have negotiated or intends to negotiate a longer term for the
Landowner agreement, and that any payments under a Landowner agreement
extending past 10 years shall be the sole responsibility of the Municipality.
(c) Compliance With and Registration of Agreements – The Municipality will take steps to address
any Landowner non-compliance with a Landowner agreement, and ensure such agreements
are registered by the Municipality against the certificate of title to the Landowner’s land for
the duration of the Landowner agreement.
6. SERVICE CONTRACTS
6.1 Service Contracts – It is the intention of the Participants to enter into Service Contracts in respect
of Proposals that are approved by the Province, subject to agreement of the Participants on the
specific contractual terms of the Service Contracts. Service Contracts will provide details of the
services, deliverables and funding for the specific approved Wetland Replacement Project to
which the Service Contract relates.
7. AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION
133 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
7
Classification: Protected A
7.1 Amendment of MOU – This MOU may be amended at any time by agreement of the Participants
in writing.
7.2 Termination – Either Participant may terminate this MOU with 90 days written notice to the other
Participant.
8. COMMUNICATION AND REVIEW OF MOU
8.1 Ongoing Communication – The Province and the Municipality will communicate regularly by
email, video conference or phone with regard to matters relevant to this MOU.
8.2 Annual Review – To help ensure the effective implementation of this MOU, the Participants will
have a meeting in person, by video conference or by phone to review this MOU once per year to
examine the extent to which the objectives of this MOU are being met and make adjustments as
required.
9. NOTICES
9.1 Notices – Notices pertaining to this MOU will be provided in writing and delivered by emailed PDF.
Each Participant respectively designates for the time being the individuals identified below as
having authority to communicate to the other Participant any notice under this MOU. Either
Participant may change the individual it has designated and other information below by giving
notice to the other in the manner described in this clause.
the Province: Angela Burkinshaw
Director Rangeland Policy
Email: AEP.WetlandContracts@gov.ab.ca
(with a copy to aep.wetlandreplacement@gov.ab.ca
the Municipality: [NAME]
[TITLE]
[EMAIL]
10. GENERAL
10.1 General – The Participants agree:
(a) that any reference to legislation shall mean that legislation as amended from time to time;
(b) that this MOU may be signed in counterpart, in which case the counterparts together
constitute one agreement, and communication of execution by e-mailed PDF shall constitute
good delivery;
134 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
8
Classification: Protected A
(c) in this MOU words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the
singular;
(d) that this MOU does not affect any other responsibility, right or obligation of any Participant
and addresses only their roles with respect to the implementation of this MOU; and
(e) that nothing in this MOU fetters either of the Participant’s discretion or regulatory authority
in any way.
THE PARTICIPANTS HAVE SIGNED THIS MOU ON THE DATES SET OUT BELOW:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of Alberta, as
represented bythe Minister of Environment and Parks
Per:
__________________________________
Kim Lalonde
Acting Executive Director
Lands Policy and Programs
Date: __________________________________
THE MUNICIPALITY
Per:
__________________________________
Signature
__________________________________
Print Name
__________________________________
Position
Date: __________________________________
TO
135 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
9
Classification: Protected A
P ROPOSAL S UBMISSION R EQUIREMENTS
This schedule sets out the Proposal Submission Requirements for Proposals submitted by the Municipality
(also referred to in this schedule as “Project Proponent”) under the MOU for the purpose of the Province
identifying and selecting appropriate Wetland Replacement Projects, which includes projects for Restoration
and Construction in priority watersheds in Alberta. The Municipality is encouraged to select Wetland
Rreplacement Projects that can be undertaken pursuant to the Code of Practice for Wetland Replacement
Works as the Province will give priority to these types of projects.
Capitalized terms in this schedule shall have the same definition as in the MOU. The following additional
definitions apply in these Proposal Submission Requirements.
General Background
The Province requires the Project Proponent to identify Wetland Replacement Projects it is proposing to
carry out as a contractor for the Province for the purposes of the WRP, as set out in the MOU. For all
Wetland Replacement Projects the Project Proponent wishes to be considered for approval, the Project
Proponent must prepare and submit a Proposal that includes the information set out in these Proposal
Submission Requirements.
If approved by the Province, the Proposal, and these Proposal Submission Requirements, will form part of a
Service Contract to be entered into between the Province and the Project Proponent, subject to agreement
DEFINITIONS
Restoration is the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or
historical area and functions to a former or degraded wetland. Restoration projects may involve one or both of the following:
- Re-establishment of the natural or historical hydrology and resulting wetland area of a drained or partially drained wetland by
blocking drainage ditches, rendering tile drainage systems ineffective, or removing berms or infill; or
- Rehabilitation of a degraded or impaired wetland by re-contouring the topography and repairing soils and vegetation to restore
wetland hydrology and historical hydrologic processes. Rehabilitation results in a gain in wetland function but not area, and
rehabilitation when not combined with re-establishment will only be eligible in urban areas.
Construction is the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site for the purpose of creating a wetland
at a location that was historically upland or a non-wetland area. The following activities are examples of Construction:
- Construction of a new wetland area on an upland site;
- Retro-fitting portions of an existing storm water facility to create new functioning wetland area;
- Re-contouring a dugout or other excavated, non-wetland feature to create new functioning wetlands area; or
- Re-contouring upland areas adjoining wetlands to expand existing wetland areas.
Structure includes but is not limited to:
- A ditch plug;
- An earthen embankment;
- A grade control structure;
- A natural vegetated spillway;
- A reinforced grass spillway;
- A rock chute spillway, or
- An impermeable barrier.
136 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
10
Classification: Protected A
on the terms of the Service Contract. The Project Proponent will be responsible under the Service Contract
for performing the services required to complete all components of the approved Wetland Replacement
Project. Without limiting the scope of work to be performed, the Services under the Service Contract will
include:
• site selection and determining the location of the Wetland Replacement Project;
• Wetland Replacement Project design and planning;
• responsibility for obtaining required access to the lands for the purposes of completing
the Wetland Replacement Project through negotiated landowner agreements, and
obtaining written consent of third parties as necessary;
• responsibility for obtaining all required regulatory authorizations;
• addressing existing utilities at the location of the Wetland Replacement Project as
applicable;
• all services related to completion of wetland replacement works for the Wetland
Replacement Project;
• monitoring during construction of the Wetland Replacement Project to confirm that it is
executed according to the design plan;
• vegetation planting as required;
• any related activities required outside of the wetland boundary to complete the Wetland
Replacement Project;
• annual monitoring and maintenance of the Wetland Replacement Project for the
duration of the Service Contract; and
• assessing the wetland at the conclusion of the monitoring and maintenance period to
confirm wetland delineated area, class, and any other necessary information.
Priority Area Designation
The WRP has assigned priority levels (high, medium and low) to watersheds based on the amount of recent
and historical wetland loss that has occurred within its boundaries. The WRP uses the Hydrologic Unit Code
(HUC) watersheds at two scales: HUC 4 and HUC 6, where HUC 4 watersheds are mostly larger than 500
square kilometers and HUC 6 watersheds are entirely nested within HUC 4 watersheds and mostly larger
than 200 square kilometers. The WRP’s designated priority areas will be posted on the Alberta Wetland
Policy Implementation website.
Project Proponents should regularly review the most current priority areas as a guide to prioritize potential
Wetland Replacement Projects that are within priority areas. Wetland Replacement Projects proposed in
undesignated areas may not be approved due to limited available funds.
Each Proposal must include a map showing the location of the Wetland Replacement Project within the
applicable priority area.
137 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
11
Classification: Protected A
Regulatory Authorizations
If a regulatory authorization is required in order to undertake the proposed Wetland Replacement Project,
the Project Proponent will be responsible to apply for and obtain all regulatory authorizations necessary for
the Wetland Replacement Project, including but not limited to obtaining any authorizations and providing
any notifications as required under the Water Act and the Public Lands Act. Project Proponents will need to
independently determine and familiarize themselves with the regulatory requirements that will be applicable
to the Wetland Replacement Project.
Project Proponents must be aware that the acceptance of a Proposal or the entering into a Service Contract
with the Province does not guarantee the Project Proponent will receive any or all of the required regulatory
authorizations. All applications made by the Project Proponent for the regulatory authorizations necessary
to perform the Services will be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory authority on their merits in the same
manner as any other application received by that regulator. Special treatment or consideration will not be
provided to the Project Proponent.
Obtaining Regulatory Authorizations
The Project Proponent will have six months from the date a Service Contract is entered into with the
Province to apply for all necessary regulatory authorizations. If the Project Proponent does not apply for all
necessary regulatory authorizations within that 6 month period, the Province may terminate the Service
Contract in accordance with its terms.
1. Project Design and Location
Each Proposal must include information on the project design and location of the Wetland Replacement
Project, including:
• Project location information;
• Wetland Replacement Project design(s); and
• Ownership of the land, and any third party interests (eg. existing utilities) affected.
Project Location Information
Include the following project location information in the Proposal:
• a map with location of the Wetland Replacement Project;
• legal land location(s) of the Wetland Replacement Project;
• municipality that the Wetland Replacement Project is located within;
• Relative Wetland Value Assessment Unit of the Wetland Replacement Project;
138 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
12
Classification: Protected A
• HUC 6 watershed 1 number and name; and
• HUC 4 watershed1 number and name.
Wetland Replacement Project Design
Include the following project design information in the Proposal:
• a general description of the Wetland Replacement Project, including type of project
(whether it is Restoration or Construction);
• the Restoration or Construction conceptual design plan;
• all regulatory authorizations that will need to be obtained by the Project Proponent to
complete the Wetland Replacement Project;
• a current, high resolution aerial or satellite image clearly showing land conditions
overlain with polygons of each proposed replacement wetland;
• a figure and table clearly showing the total increase in wetland area, in hectares, that will
result from the Wetland Replacement Project. For partially drained wetlands, calculate
only the gain in wetland area, and exclude the current wetland area that still persists on
the site;
• for Restoration projects that will not result in a gain in wetland area, describe the current
degraded condition and impaired functions of the wetland, how the project will restore
those functions, and how the team will monitor and evaluate those functional
improvements; and
• a general description of required construction activities to be undertaken to carry out
the design of the Wetland Replacement Project.
Ownership and Land Uses
Include the following ownership and land use information for any lands that may be impacted by the
Wetland Replacement Project in the Proposal:
• land ownership, including identification of any public lands;
• identification and ownership of permanent and naturally occurring bodies of water;
• claims, interests or leases held by third parties, including existing utilities, public lands
dispositions, encumbrances registered against title, conservation easements, or other;
1 Government of Alberta. 2017. Hydrologic Unit Code Watersheds of Alberta. Alberta Environment and Parks. June 1,
2017 https://maps.alberta.ca/genesis/rest/services/Hydrologic_Unit_Code_Watersheds_of_Alberta/
139 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
13
Classification: Protected A
• preliminary written consent of landowners for the Wetland Replacement Project, if
applicable in accordance with section 5.1 of the MOU;
• list of anticipated landowner and affected third party agreements required for the
Wetland Replacement Project, and other information required in accordance with
section 5.1 of the MOU;
• proposed land transfers of donated land, or registrations against land titles (e.g.,
landowner agreement at a minimum, or conservation easements, environmental reserve
designations), that will protect the wetland during and after completion of the Wetland
Replacement Project; and
• the current and post-replacement land use category(ies) within each of the following
areas, according to the categories listed in Table 1:
o Upland zone of influence (for both Restoration or Construction projects) – 100
meters (m) from the boundary of the proposed replacement wetland. If multiple
basins are being restored on the property, list all land uses on the property
within 100 m of each proposed replacement wetland;
o Wetland edge (if Restoration) – within the historical edge of the wetland
boundary, if applicable; and
o Within the wetland (if Restoration) – within the historical wetland boundary.
Table 1. Land Use Categories
Pavement / impermeable surface Moderate grazing by livestock
Commercial Right of Way Mowed or hayed, but uncultivated
Private Right of Way or unpaved driveway Light grazing by livestock
Heavy grazing by livestock Conservation easement
Annual crop production Fallow, no cultivation or livestock for less than 10
years
Generalized soil disturbance Undisturbed for 10 to 20 years
Residential or commercial lawn Undisturbed for 20 years or more
Dry year crop production Other – Requires description
140 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
14
Classification: Protected A
2. Determining Ecological Suitability
The following categories address the ecological suitability of a Wetland Replacement Project. Include
information pertaining to each of these areas in the Proposal in accordance with the requirements set out
below.
• Hydrology;
• Soil Information;
• Wetland Connectivity;
• Wetland Diversity;
• Project Constraints; and
• Site Visit Observations.
Hydrology
Hydrology is the primary driver of successful wetland Restoration or Construction. In Restoration, hydrology
needs to be re-established, whereas in Construction a reliable water source is required to establish
hydrology. Include the following information on hydrology in the Proposal:
• map(s) or figure(s) depicting the catchment area and drainage pathways of the
replacement wetland;
• the water source and discharge point for the replacement wetland, including any
proposed shallow groundwater and/or surface water connections to existing
waterbodies; and
• classifications of the water regimes in the normative state (prior to anthropogenic
disturbance), current state, and post-replacement state. The water regime refers to the
surface water permanence in the deepest part of the wetland in most years, and can be
classified as follows (adapted from Cowardin, et al 2):
o not flooded (less than 1 week flooded);
o temporarily flooded (1 – 4 weeks flooded);
o seasonally flooded (5 – 17 weeks flooded);
o semi-permanently flooded (18 – 40 weeks flooded);
2 Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United States. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, Jamestown, ND: Northern
Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Available at: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/classwet/
141 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
15
Classification: Protected A
o intermittently exposed (41 – 51 weeks flooded); or
o permanently flooded (52 weeks flooded).
Soil Information
The existing topography and soil conditions will influence the potential to establish hydrology, as well as
landscape factors such as the connectivity to other wetlands and adjacent upland habitat. Include, at a
minimum, the following information on soils in the Proposal:
• AGRASID soil polygon identification and parent material information;
• Soil Landscapes of Canada polygon identification; and
• any relevant information from previous soil assessments in the Wetland Replacement
Project area, if available.
Wetland Connectivity
Include the following information on surface connectivity of wetlands in the Proposal:
• land uses and ownership classification (e.g. private, public, park, etc.) of the adjacent
parcels of land surrounding the Wetland Replacement Project,
• a description of habitat quality and natural corridors connecting the Wetland
Replacement Project to adjacent habitat and wetlands;
• a map depicting the approximate boundaries of any existing wetlands within 800 m of
the proposed Wetland Replacement Project;
• the total area of wetlands within an 800 m radius; and
• any existing buffers with native perennial vegetation adjoining the Wetland Replacement
Project, including both the percentage around each wetland and the average buffer
width.
Wetland Diversity
Variability in conditions within and between wetlands increases the available habitat and biodiversity.
Include the following information related to wetland diversity in the Proposal:
• classification of each wetland as per the Alberta Wetland Classification System Guide
(see Table 3 of Guide for reference). Include a description of the dominant normative,
current and post-replacement wetland zones, including any historical wetland areas prior
to anthropogenic disturbance (normative conditions); and
• identify the number of wetland zones that will exist within 100 m of the Wetland
Replacement Project.
142 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
16
Classification: Protected A
Project Constraints
Include in the Proposal a description of any potential project constraints that may impact the ability to carry
out the Wetland Replacement Project, and mitigation strategies to address those constraints. Constraints
may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• poor suitability of soils or limiting soil conditions;
• water quality issues;
• presence of historical resources;
• presence of Noxious or Prohibited Noxious weeds (as defined by the Alberta Weed
Control Act);
• presence of sensitive species;
• third party interests, such as pipelines, transmission lines, dispositions, public interest,
etc.;
• presence of wells, dugouts, existing Water Act authorizations or other water bodies that
may impact downstream landowners;
• floodplains, floodways or other flooding considerations;
• federal lands, Native Reserve lands or Settlements;
• any additional authorizations or approvals required;
• structures requiring operation or regular maintenance (e.g. control gates); or
• any other constraint not listed above
Site Visit Observations
Include relevant information gathered from a site visit in the Proposal, such as the following:
• map(s) with spatially referenced locations of key information, including:
o ditches,
o locations of headcuts,
o soil and vegetation sampling locations,
o proposed location of replacement works, and
o elevation data, if collected.
• a brief description of available soils for the replacement works, including salvageable
topsoil material and proposed location and estimated quantity of suitable material for
construction of restoration structures, (e.g., ditch plugs);
143 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
17
Classification: Protected A
• a brief description of the existing vegetation, including the identification of Noxious and
Prohibited Noxious weeds (as defined by the Alberta Weed Control Act);
• confirmation of water sources and drainage pathways;
• several photographs of the site, including the overall wetland footprint, ditches, and
headcut locations;
• a description of any opportunities or additional constraints observed during the site visit
that may be important considerations for the Wetland Replacement Project design; and
• any other relevant observations.
3. Monitoring and Maintenance Plan
The Project Proponent must include a Monitoring and Maintenance Plan within the Proposal to detail how
they will undertake the monitoring and maintenance phase of the Wetland Replacement Project
(“Monitoring and Maintence Phase”) to meet the objectives outlined below. Within the Monitoring and
Maintenance Plan, the Project Proponent must include, in plan view, a Wetland Monitoring Map of the
proposed transects and sampling plot locations (hydrology and vegetation) as required in Section 3.2.
There are five required elements that must be addressed in the proposed Monitoing and Maintenance Plan
and carried out during the Monitoring and Maintenance Phase of the Wetland Replacement Project:
• Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Structures;
• Annual Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards;
• Post-Construction Maintenance Requirements;
• Annual Monitoring Report; and
• Final Verification Letter.
Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Structures
If a Structure is proposed as part of the Wetland Replacement Project, the Project Proponent shall conduct
an annual visual inspection by July 31 for each year of the Monitoring and Maintenance Phase, and
undertake maintenance of the Structure(s) as required for their continuing functionality as per the Code of
Practice for Wetland Replacement Works or the Water Act Approval, including:
• the Structure;
• contouring;
• erosion and sediment control;
• soil amendments;
• vegetation amendments;
144 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
18
Classification: Protected A
• weed control; and
• decommissioning of subsurface drainage works.
The Project Proponent shall note the general condition of the Structure(s) and record any areas of concern or
maintenance required or undertaken to maintain the Structure(s) as designed, including, but not limited to,
sediment and erosion control, additional vegetation planting, or additional soil compaction and grading.
Annual Monitoring Requirements and Performance
Standards
The Project Proponent shall monitor the replacement wetland annually for four consecutive years after the
construction phase of the Wetland Replacement Project has been completed. The Project Proponent must
perform each of the monitoring requirements described in 3.2.1 through 3.2.3 and target the performance
standards described in 3.2.4 of this section (“Performance Standards”). All annual monitoring and
Performance Requirements shall be completed by July 31 for each year of the Monitoring and Maintenance
Phase, and annual monitoring data collected must be compiled and summarized in the Annual Monitoring
Report as described in section 3.4.
3.2.1 Hydrology Monitoring
The Project Proponent must measure inundation and saturation at a minimum of one stationary point
annually, during the growing season to confirm hydrology Performance Standards are met. Depending on the
wetland design, additional hydrology monitoring locations may be warranted. The hydrology monitoring
point(s) must be shown on the Wetland Monitoring Map and any change in location during the Monitoring
and Maintenance Phase must be communicated with AEP.
If inundation cannot be determined during the annual monitoring inspection then an additional inspection
earlier in the growing season and/or remote monitoring options may be required to demonstrate the
hydrology Performance Standards have been achieved. A local resource, such as the landowner, may be used
to perform hydrology measurements provided the Authenticating Professional receives adequate
information to complete the sign off of the Annual Monitoring Report referred to in section 3.4. The Project
Proponent must include on the Wetland Monitoring Map the location of the proposed hydrology sampling
location(s).
3.2.2 Vegetation Monitoring
The Project Proponent must sample vegetation in plots located along transects once between July 1 and
August 31 of each year of the Monitoring and Maintenance Phase. If multiple basins are restored within one
Wetland Replacement Project, transects can be completed within a subset of representative wetlands. The
Project Proponent must include on the Wetland Monitoring Map the proposed vegetation transect locations.
The Project Proponent must:
145 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
19
Classification: Protected A
• establish an appropriate number of transects evenly space apart to adequately represent
the wetland. Transects must radiate from the wettest zones to driest, if feasible and
must have the same fixed location (start and end point) throughout the entire
Monitoring and Maintenance Phase;
• determine an appropriate number of sample plots along each transect to adequately
represent the wetland and its vegetative zones (e.g. shallow marsh, wet meadow,
upland). Sample plots must be place at a fixed distance along each transect, or placed
within definitive wetland zones to ensure representation of that particular zone. Once
sample plot locations have been selected, the plot location will be fixed for the duration
of the Monitoring and Maintenance Phase;
• identify the location of transects and plot locations in the monitoring report on the
Wetland Monitoring Map showing the location of wetland classes and zones;
• mark each transect and sample plot location by GPS and resample in the same sample
plot location each year of the monitoring program. If the sample plot location is not
representative in that year of monitoring, note the change and add an additional sample
plot (marked by GPS) that is representative;
• ensure a qualified individual, able to identify plants to genus and species, conducts the
wetland vegetation monitoring;
• sample the:
o herbaceous layer (all non-woody plants and woody plants less than 1 m in
height) using a one square meter sample plot;
o the shrub layer using a 5 -metre radius sample plot; and
o the tree layer using a 10-metre radius sample plot;
• record the data for each herbaceous layer within each sample plot, including a list of all
living plant species, and an estimate of percent cover in five (5) percent intervals for each
species. The percent cover of wetland vegetation species in each sample plot shall be
averaged for all plots to obtain a mean percent cover value for each species within the
wetland;
• determine the total percent cover of vegetation (regardless of species and stratum), bare
soil, and open water for each sample plot, when viewed from above. Total percent cover
cannot exceed 100 percent. The percent cover of each cover type in each sample plot
shall be averaged for all plots to obtain a mean percent cover value for each cover type
for the wetland;
• when woody plantings have been completed as part of the Wetland Replacement
Project, record the number and species of surviving and established trees and surviving
and established shrubs for each 5 and 10-metre radius plot;
• data for each plant species observed must include the common name, scientific name,
wetland indicator status, and whether the species is considered native according to the
Alberta Conservation Information Management System (ACIMS) (Alberta Environment
and Parks 2017). Nomenclature shall follow in ACIMS found at
146 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
20
Classification: Protected A
https://www.albertaparks.ca/albertaparksca/management-land-use/alberta-
conservation-information-management-system-acims/download-data/; and
• use the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s “National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur
in Wetlands” that is most applicable for the region the Wetland Replacement Project is
located within to identify wetland species listed as facultative and wetter. This can
include the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, the Great Plains, and/or the
Northcentral and Northeast Regional Supplements.
3.2.3 General Wetland Monitoring Requirements
The Project Proponent must:
• remove or destroy invasive plant species that are listed as prohibited noxious weeds in
Alberta according to Alberta’s Weed Control Regulations under the Weed Control Act;
• collect photos of the wetland from the same locations (photo stations) during each
annual monitoring inspection. At a minimum, photo stations shall be located at both
ends of each transect and one general overview photo showing the entire
wetland. Photos must be labeled with the location, date photographed, and direction;
• delineate any bare soil areas, erosion or sedimentation, areas dominated by invasive
species, and areas without a predominance of wetland vegetation which are considered
problematic in achieving the wetland replacement outcomes and provide their location
on the Wetland Monitoring Map;
• document any incidental sightings or evidence of wading birds, songbirds, waterfowl,
amphibians, reptiles, other wildlife use (lodges, nests, tracks, scat, etc.), and human use
within the wetland;
• conduct a visual inspection of the Wetland Replacement Project and record any
observations of impacts which may be detrimental to the wetland. This could include oil,
grease, man-made debris, and any other visible contaminations or concerns;
• provide a written summary of all the problem areas that have been identified within the
replacement wetland and potential corrective measures to address them, or any
measures that were undertaken to address them;
• in Years 2, 3 and 4 of the Monitoring and Mainenance Phase, provide in the Annual
Monitoring Report referred to in section 3.4 a written summary of data from the
previous monitoring year(s) and a discussion of changes or trends based on all
monitoring results. Include an updated Wetland Monitoring Map showing the
approximate locations of wetland zones and identify if the wetland is on a trajectory to
achieving the amount of wetland area required. The Annual Monitoring report must also
state whether the Performance Standards have been met, are on a trajectory to being
met, or if there are issues which require adaptive management in order to be achieved
by the end of the Monitoring and Maintenance Phase; and
• only in Year 4 of the Monitoring and Mainenance Phase, complete a wetland delineation
in accordance with the Wetland Identification and Delineation Directive and include a
calculation of the hectares of the Wetland Replacement Project established, a plan view
147 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
21
Classification: Protected A
drawing (the Wetland Monitoring Map) depicting each wetland class to type level and
plant community zones.
3.2.4 Performance Standards
The Project Proponent must evaluate the Wetland Replacement Project based on the goals and objectives of
the project, including the intended function as designed.
The Project Proponent must report on all of the following Performance Standards annually within the Annual
Monitoring Report referred to in section 3.4:
• the Project Proponent must choose one of the following hydrologic performance
standards to ensure the replacement wetland is characterized by the presence of water
at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a predominance of wetland vegetation
and the wetland class specified at the end of the monitoring period. Visual confirmation
during annual inspections, air photo review, remote monitoring and/or other methods as
approved by the Province may be used to demonstrate success:
o soil saturation within 30 cm of the soil surface for 14 consecutive days during the
growing season or inundation for 14 consecutive days during the growing
season; or
o for projects that have specific target hydroperiod, evidence the hydroperiod was
achieved (e.g. # of weeks of inundation).
• the Project Proponent must target the following vegetation Performance Standards
during the Monitoring and Maintenance Phase and complete adaptive management to
address each by the end of the monitoring period. The Project Proponent must ensure
the replacement wetland at the end of the Monitoring and Maintenance Phase meets
the following:
o has a mean percent cover of at least 60% native wetland species in the
herbaceous layer (an alternative percent cover standard may be proposed for
review and approval by the Province);
o does not have extensive areas of problematic bare soil that exceed five percent
of the replacement wetland area;
o does not have greater than 25% coverage of open water without emergent
vegetation and/or rooted floating vegetation relative to the total wetland area,
unless the wetland class being restored or constructed is a shallow open water
wetland;
o supports a diversity of wetland plant species where no single native species or
two native species combined represent more than 75% of the total plant cover
within the wetland;
o does not have more than fifteen (15) percent total cover of invasive species
including, but not limited to, Phalaris arundinacea (reed canary grass). Invasive
species shall not dominate the vegetation in any extensive area of the
replacement wetland. Note that the Project Proponent can request to change
148 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
22
Classification: Protected A
this percentage target depending on existing site baseline conditions. If it is
unfeasible to meet the mean percent cover of invasive species of fifteen (15)
percent or less within the replacement wetland or if there are extensive areas of
the replacement wetland in which an invasive species is one of the dominant
plant species, the Project Proponent must provide:
an assessment of the problem,
a control plan, and
an alternative percent cover standard that can be achieved for review
and approval by the Province.
• For swamp classes where woody vegetation planting has occurred, the Project
Proponent must ensure the replacement wetland at the end of the monitoring period
targets the following vegetation Performance Standard(s) based on extrapolated
survivorship observed during monitoring:
o for wooded swamps, seven hundred fifty (750) individual surviving, established,
and free-to-grow trees per hectare that are classified as native wetland species
and consisting of at least three different species; or
o for shrubby swamps, seven hundred fifty (750) individual surviving, established,
and free-to-grow shrubs per hectare that are classified as native wetland species
and consisting of at least three different species.
If the replacement wetland does not satisfactorily meet the above Performance Standards by the end of Year
4, or is not satisfactorily progressing during Years 2 and 3, the Project Proponent will be required to take
corrective actions. Other performance standards may be considered with approval from the Province. If
there are climate / hydrology considerations that have impacted vegetation growth (i.e drought or flood
conditions), the Project Proponent must notify the Province as soon as possible to discuss any additional
corrective measures that may be required.
Post-Construction Maintenance Requirements for Wetland
Replacement Project
The Project Proponent must additionally include in the Annual Monitoring Report referred to in section 3.4 a
list of post-construction maintenance measures the Project Proponent may carry out for the Wetland
Replacement Project to correct any impairments that will or may prevent the wetland from meeting the
class, area or functions of the wetland as designed. Such measures may include, but are not limited to:
• additional vegetation planting;
• weed management;
• soil amendments; and
• re-contouring basin topography as required.
149 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
23
Classification: Protected A
Annual Monitoring Report
A key deliverable of the Monitoring and Maintenance Phase is the submission of an Annual Monitoring
Report to the Province every year which compiles and summarize all annual data collected during each year
of the Monitoring and Maintenance Phase.
The Project Proponent shall submit an Annual Monitoring Report to the Province annually on or before
November 30 of each year of the Monitoring and Maintenance Phase.
Each Annual Monitoring Report must be signed and stamped by the Authenticating Professional and must
include a summary of the following activities:
• results of annual inspection and maintenance performed on structures (section 3.1
above, if applicable);
• results of the annual wetland monitoring and Performance Standards (section 3.2
above), including:
o hydrology monitoring;
o vegetation monitoring;
o general monitoring; and
o Performance Standards
• any post-construction maintenance measures undertaken to address issues with
structures, wetland establishment or function as designed (section 3.3).
All Annual Monitoring Reports should be concise and provide clear information for the Province to evaluate
the performance of the Wetland Replacement Project and to ensure the replacement wetland is on a
trajectory to meet its design specifications. A brief summary of the original Wetland Replacement Project is
all that is necessary in the Annual Monitoring Reports. Submission of lengthy Annual Monitoring Reports that
contain mostly generalized information and extensive background information on the Wetland Replacement
Project is not required and should be avoided.
Final Verification Letter
The Project Proponent shall provide to the Province a Final Verification Letter stamped and signed by an
Authenticating Professional to confirm that the Wetland Replacement Project has established according to
the wetland area, class and function anticipated in the approved design plans.
The Final Verification Letter must be included with the final Annual Monitoring Report provided in Year 4 of
the Monitoring and Maintenance phase, and must delineate the boundary of the established replacement
wetland according to the wetland field identification and delineation process within the Alberta Wetland
Delineation Directive.
The Project Proponent must provide the delineated boundary as a shapefile and include the boundary and
total area, in hectares on a plan view within the Annual Monitoring Report.
150 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
24
Classification: Protected A
4. Project Schedule
The Proposal must include a detailed work plan outlining the following:
• the intended processes and workflows for the proposed Wetland Replacement Project;
• time estimates for completion of each project component within each phase; and
• a detailed schedule for the overall project.
In addition, include in the Proposal a copy of the Pricing Form attached as Appendix “1” to this schedule
setting out the services, deliverables and costs; pricing; number of ha restored through the Wetland
Replacement Project; and anticipated start and completion dates of each phase of the Wetland Replacement
Project. Provide the actual date of start and/or completion if a phase has already been started or completed
prior to the date the Proposal is submitted..
5. Project Costs
Costs in respect of a proposed Wetland Replacement Project will only be paid through a Service Contract
entered into between the Province and the Project Proponent for an approved Wetland Replacement
Project. Wetland Replacement Project costs that the Project Proponent wishes to propose for inclusion in a
related Service Contract must be included in the Proposal. All costs proposed by the Project Proponent in its
Proposal for inclusion in a Service Contract are subject to the Province’s review and approval.
The Project Proponent must include a summary of the work to be completed and specify costs in the Pricing
Form (Appendix 1), which includes a detailed breakdown of the services, deliverables, and costs for each of
the following four phases of the proposed Wetland Replacement Project:
• Phase 1: Wetland Replacement Project Selection;
• Phase 2: Design and Regulatory Authorization;
• Phase 3: Construction; and
• Phase 4: Monitoring and Maintenance.
A description of eligible costs under each of these phases is provided below.
Phase 1: Wetland Replacement Project Selection
The Wetland Replacement Project Selection Phase costs include reasonable costs directly related to initial
identification of a suitable Wetland Replacement Project, as set out below.
5.1.1 Site Selection Costs
Site selection costs shall not exceed $20,000 per Wetland Replacement Project, unless otherwise pre-
approved in writing by the Province. Site selection costs includes activities such as:
151 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
25
Classification: Protected A
5.1.1.1 Staff time and consulting fees associated with initial targeting of potential Wetland
replacement Projects, such as:
• pre-proposal requirements (meetings, joint site visits);
• office level mapping and identification of drained wetlands;
• landowner engagement;
• marketing and communication materials (specify materials produced and costs);
5.1.1.2 Costs for materials and equipment associated with office level targeting and initial landowner
engagement (specify materials and equipment), such as:
• trucks,
• ATVs,
• Survey equipment, etc.
5.1.1.3 Staff costs and consultant fees associated with site selection and securement of Wetland
Replacement Project, such as:
• communication and negotiation processes with the relevant landowners and third
parties;
• materials and equipment required for landowner engagement and preliminary site visits
(specify materials and equipment and charge out rates, e.g. trucks, survey equipment
etc.); and
• preparation and writing of the Proposal.
5.1.2 Projects That Did Not Proceed
Reasonable costs previously incurred by the Project Proponent for potential Wetland Replacement Projects
that did not proceed (for reasons such as landowner withdrawal, third party permissions not attained,
contaminated site issues, non-compliance issues, or not approved by the Province) may be eligible for
reimbursement by the Province. For such costs to be considered by the Province for inclusion for
reimbursement in a Service Contract for an approved Proposal:
• the potential Wetland Replacement Project(s) that did not proceed should be located within the
same priority area or watershed as the Wetland Replacement Project proposed in the Proposal,
• the costs must have been incurred in the 24 months preceding the submission date of the Proposal,
and
152 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
26
Classification: Protected A
• The Project Proponent must:
o set out the costs in detail,
o include a brief description of the Wetland Replacement Project(s) pursued to which the
costs relate (including the specific geographical location), and
o provide the reasons for not proceeding with such project(s).
o confirm that the failed project costs have not been included in any other Proposal or
previously reimbursed by the Province.
Phase 2: Design and Regulatory Authorization
The Design and Regulatory Authorization Phase costs include the Project Proponent’s costs for all tasks,
services and deliverables associated with the design and regulatory authorization phase of the Wetland
Replacement Project, including but not limited to the following:
• development of detailed Construction or Restoration design plans and drawings for the Wetland
Replacement Project, including professional fees and other costs for:
o site evaluation of existing conditions, including field assessments and elevation surveys of the
adjacent land and existing and proposed wetland boundaries with a survey-grade laser level, at a
minimum;
o plan and cross-sectional view drawings of the Wetland Replacement Project with georeferenced
locations of ditch plugs, weirs, vertical grade control structures, spillways, and any other
structures or significant features;
o engineering drawings of structures, if required; and
• obtaining applicable regulatory authorizations, including but not limited to providing Water Act Code
of Practice notification, and obtaining regulatory authorizations under the Water Act or Public Lands
Act.
• cost of Registering landowner agreement against Title.
Phase 3: C onstruction
Construction Phase costs include a detailed breakdown of the Project Proponent’s costs for all tasks, services
and deliverables associated with the construction phase of the Wetland Replacement Project, including but
not limited to the following:
• equipment required (e.g., backhoe, excavator, dozer, skid steer);
• equipment mobilization costs;
153 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
27
Classification: Protected A
• equipment operator costs for installing replacement works, vertical grade control structures, rock
spillways, berms, or any other structure, or for constructing a wetland via excavation and
recontouring;
• costs for erosion and sediment control structures;
• costs for seeding, planting, amending soils, placing woody debris or other activity;
• weed removal and management costs;
• construction supervision (number of hours and hourly rate);
• payment to landowners (landowner payments shall not be paid in advance of the Province and the
Project Proponent entering into a Service Contract);
• activities or infrastructure located outside of the wetland Restoration or Construction area but that
will directly increase overall functions of the Wetland Replacement Project (e.g., vertical grade
control structures downstream of outlet, or Restoration of upland area adjoining the wetland, up to
a distance of 10 m from the wetland boundary). If costs for Restoration activities or infrastructure
located within upland areas are included, describe how these assets will be protected with an
easement or other mechanism. The Province will not pay for any costs associated with land
protection, such as a conservation easements; and
• professional fees to confirm that works have been inspected and are completed in accordance with
the design plans prepared under the Service Contract within 30 days after the completion of the
construction phase, including provision of a letter signed by an Authenticating Professional, and
supporting documentation such as videos, photos, measurements and submission of as-built plans, if
applicable.
All field fit changes to the Wetland Replacement Project construction phase and associated costs must be
communicated to the Province within 24 hours. Corrective actions and associated costs must be proposed by
the Project Proponent in advance and approved by the Province in writing.
Phase 4: Monitoring and Maintenance
Monitoring and Maintenance Phase costs include all the tasks, services and deliverables associated with
monitoring the wetland replacement project to ensure the replacement wetland is meeting the goals and
objectives of the approved project design and completing an annual monitoring report.
The Monitoring and Maintenance Phase begins when the construction phase ends. Monitoring and
maintenance shall be completed annually and in accordance with the Monitoring and Maintenance Plan after
the construction phase is completed, for four consecutive years following completeion of construction.
Monitoring and maintenance costs include reasonable costs associated with completing:
• annual inspections and maintenance on the wetland structures;
• annual wetland monitoring program including:
154 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
28
Classification: Protected A
o hydrology monitoring;
o vegetation monitoring; and
o general monitoring; and
• undertaking post-construction maintenance undertaken to address issues with wetland
structures, wetland establishment or function as designed, including, but not limited to:
o weed management;
o additional vegetation planting;
o soil amendments; and
o recontouring basin topography as required.
• all observed and measured issues and impairments with a replacement wetland must be
communicated to the Province within 20 working days. Corrective actions and associated
costs must be proposed by the Project Proponent in advance and approved by the
Province in writing.
6 . Value Added Considerations
The Proposal must identify any additional considerations that add value to the Wetland Replacement Project.
This may include the following examples:
• Wetland Replacement Projects that include additional funding, in-kind resources or
additional cost savings (e.g., land donations). If the added value is not a direct cash
payment, determine the approximate cash value of all contributions. For example,
provide the approximate value of the donated land or materials, or operator costs if time
or equipment is being donated;
• protection mechanisms such as being located on municipal land, conservation
easements (either pre-existing or to be added by the Project Proponent) that add value
to the long-term protection of the Wetland Replacement Project;
• the Wetland Replacement Project is being conducted in coordination, or in considering
future educational opportunities. For example, being located close to a school, or
vegetation planting being completed by students, or easily publicly accessable for
educational signs that will installed by the Project Proponent.
155 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
29
Classification: Protected A
7 . Project Team
Wetland Replacement Projects are to be completed by a multi-disciplinary team of professionals, as set out
below.
The key project team members must be identified in the Proposal and include at least one Authenticating
Professional. Submit a summary of the individuals on the project team, including their qualifications and
relevant experience. Team members with relevant and demonstrable experience in completing Wetland
Replacement Projects are preferred.
In addition to Authenticating Professionals, Wetland Replacement Project teams may include:
• project manager;
• regulatory authorizations and permits expert;
• professional engineer;
• hydrologist and/or hydrogeologist;
• wetland restoration ecologist; and
• staff of the Project Proponent.
8 . Sub-Contractors
Indicate in the Proposal what services, if any, will be provided through the use of sub-contractors. If known
at the time of Proposal submission, include in the Proposal a list of any selected sub-contractors, or a short
list of anticipated sub-contractors, and a brief description of their qualifications and relevant experience.
9 . Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
(Alberta) (“FOIP”)
The purpose of collecting Personal Information (as that term is defined in FOIP) for these Proposal
Submission Requirements is to enable the Province to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information,
to assess the Proposal, and for other related program purposes of the Province. Authority for this collection
is the Government Organization Act (Alberta), as amended from time to time and section 33 (c) of FOIP. The
Project Proponent may contact the Province’s contact person identified in the MOU regarding any questions
about collection of Personal Information pursuant to these Proposal Submission Requirements.
By submitting a Proposal the Project Proponent acknowledges that:
(a) FOIP applies to all information and records relating to, or obtained, generated, created, collected
or provided under, these Proposal Submission Requirements or which are in the custody or
156 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
30
Classification: Protected A
under the control of the Province. FOIP allows any person a right of access to records in the
Province’s custody or control, subject to limited and specific exceptions as set out in FOIP; and
(b) If it considers portions of its Proposal to be confidential, the Project Proponent should identify
those parts of its Proposal to the Province considered to be confidential and what harm could
reasonably be expected from disclosure. The Province does not warrant that this identification
will preclude disclosure under FOIP.
The Project Proponent consents, and obtained the written consent from any individuals identified in the
Proposal as applicable, to the use of Personal Information in the Proposal by the Province to enable the
Province to evaluate the Proposal and for other program purposes of the Province, and will provide those
written consents to the Province upon request.
10. Conflict of Interest
Project Proponents must fully disclose to the Province, in writing, the circumstances of any actual, possible or
perceived conflict of interest in relation to the Project Proponent, any of its team members, employees, sub-
contractors or agents, if the Proposal were to be approved with the intention that the Project Proponent
become the Province’s contractor pursuant to a related Service Contract.
The Province may reject any Proposal where, in the opinion of the Province, the Project Proponent, any
Project Proponent team member, employee, sub-contractor or agent is, could be, or could be perceived to
be in a conflict of interest if the Project Proponent were to become a contractor in respect of the proposed
Wetland Replacement Project.
11 . Submission of Proposals
Completed Proposals must be sent to aep.wetlandreplacement@gov.ab.ca for review and evaluation. The
Province may request more information or clarification before approving or refusing the Proposal.
157 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
31
Classification: Protected A
Appendix 1
to Proposal Submission Requirements
Pricing Form
Project Proponents must complete and include the below form in the Proposal.
• Insert the prices (inclusive of all expenses) for each of the services, deliverables and other costs as
indicated for each phase; the total price for all phases; and the price per hectare breakdown.
• Insert the anticipated start and completion dates for each phase of the Wetland Replacement
Project.
The Project Proponent may remove or add additional key services or deliverables under each phase as
necessary depending on the specifics of the Wetland Replacement Project.
Project Name: Total Number of ha restored
5.1. PHASE 1: WETLAND REPLACEMENT PROJECT SELECTION
Dates for Completion of Phase:
________________, 20__ to __________________, 20__
Services, Deliverables and Costs Total Price
5.1.1 Site Selection Costs
5.1.1.1: Staff time and consulting fees associated with initial targeting of potential
Wetland replacement Projects, such as:
$
(i) Pre-proposal requirements (meetings, joint site visits)
(ii) Office level mapping and identification of drained wetlands; (iii) Landowner engagement;
(iv) Marketing and communication
Rate/Hour or
Flat fee
(Consultant)
Hours (if
applicable)
a.Staff Position
b. Staff Position
c. Staff Position
d. Consulting Fees
e. Consulting Fees
158 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
32
Classification: Protected A
Services, Deliverables and Costs Total Price
5.1.1 Site Selection Costs (cont’d)
5.1.1.2. Costs for materials and equipment associated with office level targeting
and initial landowner engagement (specify materials and equipment, e.g.,
trucks, atv’s, survey equipment, etc.)
Total Materials costs: $______________________
Equipment costs:
$
Rate/Day Total Days
i. ATV
ii. Trucks
iii. Survey
Equipment
iv. Other
v. Other
5.1.1.3 Staff costs and consultant fees associated with site selection and
securement of Wetland Replacement Project, such as:
$
(i) landowner engagement and agreements negotiated by the Project
Proponent with the relevant landowners;
(ii) communication and negotiation processes with relevant landowners
and third parties; and
(iii) preparation and writing of the Proposal.
Rate/Hour
or Flat fee
(Consultant)
Hours (if applicable)
a. Staff
b. Staff
c. Staff
d. Staff
e. Consulting Fees
f. Consulting Fees
5.1.2 Costs for Projects that Did Not Proceed
Reasonable costs previously incurred by the Project Proponent for potential Wetland
Replacement Projects that did not proceed (for reasons such as landowner withdrawal,
third party permissions not attained, contaminated site issues, non-compliance issues, or
not approved by the Province). Refer to requirements as per section 5.1.2 of Proposal
Submission Requirements.
$
PHASE 1 TOTAL PRICE
$
159 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
33
Classification: Protected A
5.2. PHASE 2: DESIGN AND REGULATORY AUTHORIZATION PHASE
Dates for Completion of Phase:
________________, 20__ to __________________, 20__
Services, Deliverables and Costs Total Price
Development of detailed construction of restoration design plans and drawings for
Wetland Replacement Project, including professional fees and other costs for the
following
(a) site evaluation of existing conditions, including field assessments and
elevation surveys of the adjacent land and existing and proposed wetland
location with a survey-grade laser level, at a minimum;
$
(b) plan and cross-sectional view drawings of Wetland Replacement Project with
georeferenced locations of ditch plugs, weirs, vertical grade control structures,
spillways, and other significant features;
$
(c) engineering drawings of structures, if required $
Obtaining applicable regulatory authorizations, including but not limited to providing
Code of Practice notification, and obtaining regulatory authorisations under the Water
Act or Public Lands Act
• specify each service, deliverable or cost and its price
$
Cost of Registering landowner agreement against Title. $
PHASE 2 TOTAL PRICE $
5.3. PHASE 3: CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Dates for Completion of Phase:
________________, 20__ to __________________, 20__
Services, Deliverables and Costs Total Price
Costs for equipment required (e.g., backhoe, excavator, dozer, skid steer, specify
equipment)
$
Rate/Hour Hours
i. Excavator
ii. Truck
iii. Bulldozer
iv. Other
160 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
34
Classification: Protected A
Equipment mobilization costs $
Costs to purchase plant materials, including plugs and seed, as well as other materials
(specify materials, e.g., woody debris, rock, liners)
$
Cost
Wetland Plugs
Native Seed Willow Staking
Wheat and Straw Bales Stone
Other
Costs for seeding, planting, amending soils, placing woody debris or other activity. $
Weed removal and management costs. $
Equipment operator costs for installing replacement works, vertical grade control
structures, rock spillways, berms, or any other structure, or for constructing a wetland
via excavation and recontouring.
$
Rate/Hour Hours
i. Staff ii. Staff
iii. Staff
iv. Staff
Costs, for erosion and sediment control structures $
Construction Supervision . $
Rate/Hour Hours
i. staff
ii. staff
iii. staff
iv. staff
All costs related to payments to landowners to secure lands, if required for the purposes
of the Wetland Replacement Project
$
Costs for activities or infrastructure located outside of the wetland replacement area but
that will directly increase overall functions of the Wetland Replacement Project (specify
activities and infrastructure.)
$
Professional fees to confirm that works have been inspected and are completed in
accordance with the design plans prepared under the Service Contract, including
provisions of a letter signed by Authenticating Professional, and supporting
documentation such as videos, photos, measurement and submission of as-built plans if
applicable.
$
PHASE 3 TOTAL PRICE $
161 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
35
Classification: Protected A
5.4. PHASE 4: MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE PHASE
Dates for Completion of Phase:
________________, 20__ to __________________, 20__
Services, Deliverables and Costs Total Price
Completion of the following requirements during each year of the four year Monitoring
and Maintenance Phase, in accordance with the requirements set out in section 3 of the
Proposal Submission Requirements:
(a) Completion of
-Annual Inspection; and
-Maintenance of Structures (to be completed as required)
as set out in section 3.1 of the Proposal Submission Requirements.
$_______________ For year 1
$_______________ For year 2
$_______________ For year 3
$_______________ For year 4
$
(b) Completion of Annual Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards
as set out in section 3.2 of the Proposal Submission Requirements.
$_______________ For year 1
$_______________ For year 2
$_______________ For year 3
$_______________ For year 4
$
(c) Completion of Post-Construction Maintenance as set out in section 3.3 of the
Proposal Submission Requirements.
• To be completed as necessary
• Amount shown should be total estimated budget for this category for
the entirety of the Monitoring and Maintenance Phase and does not
need to be used evenly for each year of the Monitoring and
Maintenance Phase
• Project Proponent will only invoice the Province for its actual costs
incurred, up to the total price stated, and will reduce its costs where
possible by identifying opportunities for efficiencies.
$_______________ For year 1
$_______________ For year 2
$_______________ For year 3
$_______________ For year 4
$
162 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
36
Classification: Protected A
(d) Preparation and submission of Annual Monitoring Report as set out in section
3.4 of the Proposal Submission Requirements.
$_______________ For year 1
$_______________ For year 2
$_______________ For year 3
$_______________ For year 4
$
(e) Preparation and submission of a Final Verification Letter (to be submitted only
with final Annual Monitoring Report provided in year 4 of of the monitoring
and maintenance phase)
$
PHASE 4 TOTAL PRICE $
TOTAL PROJECT PRICE
Total Price for all Phases $
Dollars per hectare breakdown $ / hectare
163 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
9.1
Page 1 of 1
Version: 2020-02
Subject: Citizen Satisfaction Survey Report
Meeting Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2021
Prepared By: Christine Anderson, Communications Officer
Presented By: Mike Haugen, CAO
Link to Strat Plan: Ensuring Communications & Engagement
Recommended
Motion:
That Council receive the Citizen Satisfaction Survey Report for information as
presented.
Background/
Proposal
Leger 360 was scheduled as a delegation at 10 am today to present the Citizen
Satisfaction Survey Report.
Discussion/
Options/
Benefits/
Disadvantages:
The report was presented for Council’s information only. Moving forward, the
information from the report is proposed to be utilized in future Strategic Planning
discussions.
Staff is assessing details from the report and will likely recommend further
information gathering also.
Financial
Implications:
None
Council Options:
1. Receive the report for information
2. Request administration to provide further information.
Recommended
Engagement: ☒ Directive Decision (Information Sharing-One way communication)
Goal: To educate and inform citizens
Tools: ☐ Individual Notification or ☒ Public Notification ☐ Consultative Decision (Consulting the Public – Two way communication)
Goal: To seek feedback, test ideas, develop concepts and collaborative solutions
Tools: ☐ Public Hearing ☐ Open House ☐ Focus Group ☐ Other- ☐ Collaborative Decision (Active Participation- Share or delegate decision making)
Goal: To share or delegate decision making
Tools: ☐ Participatory Decision Making ☐ Inter-Municipal Agreement ☐ Other-
Attachments:
2021 Citizen Satisfaction Report
Follow-up
Actions:
Administration will make the Citizen Satisfaction Report available for residents’
information.
CAO Approval:
Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer
164 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
165 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
166 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
167 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
168 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Kneehill Regional Family and Community Support Services
July 13, 2021 Meeting Minutes
1
A Regular Meeting of the Kneehill Regional Family and Community Support
Services (FCSS) board was held at the Kneehill Regional FCSS Office in Three
Hills, Alberta on July 13, 2021 commencing at 6:59 p.m.
PRESENT:
Kenneth King Kneehill County Councilor Representative and
Chairperson
Cheryl Lumley Town of Trochu Councilor Representative and
Vice Chairperson
Jason Bates Village of Acme Councilor Representative
Dan Clow Village of Carbon Councilor Representative
Harold Leo Town of Three Hills Councilor Representative
Sonia Ens Village of Linden Councilor Representative
Shelley Jackson Berry Kneehill Regional FCSS Director
Angie Stewart Recording Secretary
Board Package (attached and forming part of the minutes)
BOARD PACKAGE The following documentation has been distributed to the Board:
Agenda
May 11, 2021 regular meeting minutes
Director’s Report
Volunteer Appreciation Week Final Report
Kneehill Youth Survey Data
KRFCSS YTD financials
FWW YTD financials
Director Performance Review
CALL TO ORDER Mr. King called the meeting to order at 6:59 p.m.
AGENDA 1.0 Adoption of Agenda
27/21 Mrs. Lumley moved approval of the agenda as presented.
CARRIED
MINUTES 2.0 Approval of Minutes
28/21 Mr. Bates moved approval of the May 11, 2021 regular meeting
minutes.
CARRIED
BUSINESS 3.0 Business Pending from the Minutes
ARISING No new business
DIRECTOR’S 4.1 Director’s Report
REPORT FCSS
Written report attached.
FAMILY WELLNESS WORKER (FWW)
Written report attached
SENIORS OUTREACH
Written report attached
UNAPPROVED
169 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Kneehill Regional Family and Community Support Services
July 13, 2021 Meeting Minutes
2
29/21 Mrs. Ens moved to receive the Director’s report.
CARRIED
FIN REPORTS 5.0 Financial Reports
30/21 Mr. Leo moved acceptance of the Year to Date and final financial
reports.
CARRIED
NEW 6.0 New Business
BUSINESS 6.1 Director Performance Review
Ms. Stewart left the meeting at 7:40 pm.
CLOSED SESSION
31/21 Mrs. Lumley moved the meeting closed at 7:40p.m.
CARRIED
Mrs. Jackson-Berry left the meeting at 7:55 pm.
32/21 Mr. Leo moved the meeting open at 8:13 p.m.
CARRIED
NEXT MEETING 7.0 Next Meeting
The next regular meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, September 14,
2021 at the Kneehill Regional FCSS office in Three Hills, Alberta,
commencing at 7:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT 8.0 Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:13 p.m.
Kenneth King, Chairperson
Angie Stewart, Recording Secretary
UNAPPROVED
170 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
REQUEST FOR DECISION
AGENDA ITEM #
11.0
Page 1 of 1
Version: 2020-01
Subject: Council Follow-up Action List
Meeting Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2021
Presented By: Mike Haugen, CAO
Link to Strat Plan: Level of Service
Recommended
Motion:
That Council receive for information the Council Follow-up Action List 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:
September 28, 2021 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
171 2021.09.28 Adopted 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.Complete Laurie Watt
Project completion by the
end of Summer 2021.
09-Feb-21 53/21
Councillor King moved that Kneehill County commit to
proceed with the appropriate legislative steps prescribed in
the MGA of Alberta that will allow for the implementation of
the bylaw(s) required to be able to provide financial backing,
in the form of Security, to the Town of Trochu for the
borrowing of up to $20 Million, for a period of time not to
exceed four (4) years.
The understanding is that the provided Security, if
appropriate bylaws are passed, will support the Town of
Trochu in obtaining interim (bridge) project financing during
the construction of the Trochu Senior’s Supportive Living
Facility. Mike Haugen
Agreement with Town of
Trochu has been approved
by the Town and is
currently being finalized
23-Feb-21 109/21
Councillor Penner moved that Council continue the Capital
Newspaper Delivery Program for 2021, and that staff be
directed to develop a pay for service program to begin in 2022
offered to ratepayers who do not get the Three Hills Capital in
the mail. Christine Anderson In Progress
09-Mar-21 123/21
Deputy Reeve McGhee 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
2022.
23-Mar-21 139/21
Councillor Penner moved that Council direct administration to
cancel the current agreement with R&D Pilot Truck Ltd for the
hauling of gravel to the Hiller Stockpile and enter into an
agreement to sell the remainder of gravel located at the Delia
pit at a cost recovery.Mike Haugen
Draft agreement is being
prepared. We are waiting
on the contractor’s legal
counsel.
13-Apr-21 166/21
Councillor King moved that Council direct Administration to
initiate a conversation with RMA and FCM to lobby for more
access to information relevant to cannabis production within
municipalities.
COMPLETED SEE
MOTION 334/21 Mike Haugen
Slated for September 14th
Regular Council Meeting
27-Apr-21 185/21
Councillor King moved that Council direct administration to
continue the exploration of assuming ownership and
operation of the Orkney Water Co-op under the supported
guidance of Council to restrict flow at all connections.John McKiernan
An email was forwarded
to the Orkney Coop in
regards to Environmental
Services position on flow
restriction. Still waiting on
a response.
11-May-21 230/21
Councillor Christie moved that Council direct administration to
come back to a future Council meeting and present options
for agricultural exemptions for Road Bans.Director of Infrastructure In Progress
20-Jul-21 288/21
Councillor King moved that Council direct administration that
once the County has the financial background regarding the
Three Hills East Water Delivery Options, that the County then
complete a public engagement with the residents. Christine Anderson
17-Aug-21 310/21
Councillor King moved that Council schedule the Public
Hearing, as per Section 230 & 692 of the Municipal
Government Act, to be held on September 14, 2021 at 10:00
a.m.CANCELLED/COMPLETE Barb Hazelton
On the September 14th
Agenda
17-Aug-21 311/21
Councillor King moved that Council direct administration to
pursue the Three Hills East Water Feasibility Study as per the
proposal from the consultant, with funding from 2021
operating budget as a special project.John McKiernan In Progress
Council Action Items
172 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
Meeting Date Motion #Description/Motion
Action Required Assigned To Due Date Status
Council Action Items
17-Aug-21 323/21
Councillor Penner moved that Kneehill County transfer the
title for Plan 5591FI, Block 6, Lot 4 to Kneehill County pursuant
to the Municipal Government Act, Section 424(1).Bill McKennan
17-Aug-21 324/21
Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council declares the parcel
located at Plan 5591FI, Block 6, Lot 4 as surplus and directs
administration to sell the property as per the Disposition of
Surplus Lands Policy #16-16.Bill McKennan
17-Aug-21 325/21
Councillor Penner moved that Council provide first reading to
Bylaw 1846, that being a bylaw for the purpose of regulating
meeting proceedings for Council and Council Committee
meetings.COMPLETE
Second reading coming to
Council on September 14,
2021
17-Aug-21 329/21
Councillor Christie moved that Council directs administration
to proceed in partnering with Community Futures Wild Rose
to implement the Community Business Investment Program
and directs administration to bring the associated policy to
Council for decision. COMPLETE Jacqueline Buchanan
In Progress, Policy being
created.
14-Sep-21 334/21
Councillor King moved that Council forward the attached
resolution to the Central District of RMA, supporting the
following two Operative Clauses:
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The Rural Municipalities of
Alberta collaborate with the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities to advocate to Health Canada that
municipalities be given open and continuous access to
information on sites of cannabis production; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT The Rural Municipalities of
Alberta advocate to Health Canada that municipalities be
given open and continuous information to verify compliance
or prevent non-compliance among registered cannabis
producers.COMPLETE Mike Haugen
14-Sep-21 335/21
Councillor Christie moved that Council cancel the Municipal
Planning Commission Meeting, scheduled for September 23,
2021.COMPLETED
14-Sep-21 336/21
Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council move the October
Municipal Planning Commission Meeting, scheduled for
October 28th, 2021 to October 14th, 2021.COMPLETE
14-Sep-21 337/21
Councillor Penner moved that Council cancel the Public
Hearing for Bylaw 1844 scheduled for September 14, 2021 at
10:00 a.m. as per the request of the applicant.COMPLETE
14-Sep-21 338/21 Councillor Penner moved that Council approve third and final
reading of Bylaw 1800 Traffic Control as presented.COMPLETE
14-Sep-21 339/21
Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council agree to enter
into a Tax Deferral Payment Agreement with Pine Cliff Energy
Ltd. for the payment of 2021 taxes over a 6 month payment
plan, from October 31, 2021 to March 31, 2022, and no
penalties to be assessed.COMPLETE
14-Sep-21 340/21
Councillor King moved that Council approves Policy #6-1,
Community Business Investment Partnership Grant Policy as
presented.COMPLETE
14-Sep-21 341/342/21
Council provided second and third reading to Bylaw 1846, that
being a bylaw for the purpose of regulating meeting
proceedings for Council and Council Committee meetings.COMPLETE
14-Sep-21 343/21
Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council accept the
invitation to meet at the RMA Convention from the RCMP for
information, as presented. COMPLETE
173 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package
AMENDMENT SUMMARY
Council Meeting Date: September 28, 2021
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:
10.3- Red Deer River Municipal Users Group
Package:
5.3.1 Horseshoe Canyon PowerPoint
174 2021.09.28 Adopted Council Meeting Package