Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPost-Meeting Agenda Package - CM_Apr09_2024COUNCIL MEETING POST-MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, April 9, 2024, 8:30 a.m. 1600 2nd Street NE Three Hills, AB T0M 2A0 https://www.youtube.com/@kneehillcounty48 Pages 1.Call Meeting to Order 1.1 Agenda 1.1.1 Additions to the Agenda 1.1.2 Adoption of the Agenda 2.Approval of Minutes 2.1 Regular Council Meeting Minutes of March 26, 2024 3 3.Appointments 3.1 Delegation- Southern Alberta Energy from Waste Association 10 Time: 10:00 a.m. Presenter: Paul Ryan 4.Infrastructure- Roads/Bridges/Water/Wastewater/Environment No Report 5.Community Services 5.1 Planning No Report 5.2 Agricultural Service Board & Parks No Report 5.3 Protective Services No Report 5.4 Economic Development 5.4.1 Economic Outlook: Agriculture 2024 36 6.Corporate Services 6.1 2024 Assessment and Tax Rate Impact 44 6.2 2024 Tax Rate Bylaw 47 7.Legislative Services 7.1 Ratepayer Evenings 57 7.2 2024 Parade Season 59 7.3 Community Grants Round One 2024 61 7.4 Municipal Affairs – ICF Engagement 94 8.Disposition of Delegation & Public Hearing Business 8.1 Southern Alberta Energy from Waste Association 112 9.Council and Committee Reports 113 9.1 Kneehill Regional Family and Community Support Services Meeting 114 9.2 Drumheller Mayor and Reeve Meeting 116 9.3 Central Alberta Economic Partnership Update 9.4 Division 5 Ratepayer Meeting Update 10.Council Follow-Up Action List 117 11.Closed Session 12.Motions from Closed Session 13.Adjourn Page 2 of 119 __________Initials 1 Kneehill County Regular Meeting of Council Minutes March 26, 2024, 8:30 a.m. 1600 2nd Street NE Three Hills, AB T0M 2A0 Council Present: Faye McGhee, Councillor Debbie Penner, Councillor Jerry Wittstock, Deputy Reeve Carrie Fobes, Councillor Laura Lee Machell-Cunningham, Councillor Wade Christie, Councillor Kenneth King, Reeve Staff Present: Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer Mike Ziehr, Director of Infrastructure Kevin Gannon, Director of Community Services Theresa Cochran, Director of Corporate Services Barb Hazelton, Manager of Planning and Development Marika Von Mirbach, Financial Planning Coordinator Carolyn Van der Kuil, Legislative Services Coordinator _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Call Meeting to Order Reeve King called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. 1.1 Agenda 1.1.1 Additions to the Agenda Additions under Council & Committee Reports 9.2 Kneehill Housing 9.3 ASHA Convention 9.4 RMA Conference Additions under Closed Session 11.1 Third Party Business (Section 16) Page 3 of 119 March 26, 2024 __________Initials 2 1.1.2 Adoption of the Agenda Resolution: 065/24 Moved by: Councillor Christie That Council approve the agenda as amended. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 2. Approval of Minutes 2.1 Regular Council Meeting Minutes of March 12, 2024 Resolution: 066/24 Moved by: Councillor McGhee That Council approves the adoption of the minutes of the March 12, 2024, Regular Meeting of Council, as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5. Community Services 5.1 Planning 5.1.1 Bylaw 1895 & 1896 Land Use Bylaw Amendment to Direct Control Resolution: 067/24 Moved by: Deputy Reeve Wittstock That Council move first reading of proposed Bylaw 1895 for the purpose of Amending Land Use Bylaw 1808 by redesignating the NE 2-29-24-W4, portions of the NW 2-29-24-W4, SE 2-29-24-W4 and SW 2-29-24-W4 from Agriculture District to Direct Control District 7. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Resolution: 068/24 Moved by: Councillor Christie That Council move first reading of proposed Bylaw 1896 for the purpose of Amending Land Use Bylaw 1808 by redesignating portions of the NW 2-29- 24-W4 and the SW 2-29-24-W4 from Agriculture District & Local Rural Commercial District to Direct Control District 8. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Page 4 of 119 March 26, 2024 __________Initials 3 Resolution: 069/24 Moved by: Councillor Penner That Council move to schedule the Public Hearing, for Bylaw 1895 and 1896 as per Sections 216.4 & 692 of the Municipal Government Act, to be held on April 23, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. at the County office. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5.3 Protective Services 5.3.1 Annual Appointment of Fire Guardians Resolution: 070/24 Moved by: Councillor Cunningham That Council appoint the following as Fire Guardians for the issuance of Fire Permits to March 31, 2025:  Three Hills Fire Department: Chris Evans, Murray Fenton, Brandon Rempel  Acme Fire Department: Brian Fradgley, Bert Jackson, Robb Scott  Carbon Fire Department: Jody Kranzler, Jordan Reed, Jeremy Kranzler, Austin Larsen, Travis Cormier, Riddel Wiebe  Linden Fire Department: Kenton Klassen, Shawn Klassen, Carson Reimer, Max Penner  Torrington Fire Department: Doug Fretz, Jason Michielsen, Derek Benedict  Trochu Fire Department: Richard Hoppins, Alan Adam, Lawrence Hogg  Kneehill County Administrative: CAO, Director of Community Services, Manager of Protective Services, Rural Fire Chief CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 6. Corporate Services 6.1 2023 Q4 Report – Preliminary Operating and Capital Budget Results The Chair called for a recess at 9:30a.m. and called the meeting back to order at 9:40 a.m. with all previously mentioned members present. The Chair called for a recess at 9:55 a.m. and called the meeting back to order at 10:01 a.m. with all previously mentioned members present. Page 5 of 119 March 26, 2024 __________Initials 4 The Chair deferred this item until later in the meeting, in order to accommodate the scheduled Delegation, which was set for 10:00 a.m. 3. Appointments 3.1 Delegation- Wind Concerns Kneehill County Kelly Tainsh and a group of concerned citizens provided a presentation expressing their concerns about the Wind Project proposed in Kneehill County. 6. Corporate Services 6.1 2023 Q4 Report – Preliminary Operating and Capital Budget Results Continued The Chair called for a recess at 10:39 a.m. and called the meeting back to order at 10:50 a.m. with all previously mentioned members present. Resolution: 071/24 Moved by: Deputy Reeve Wittstock That Council approves reserve contributions of $3,077,826, as detailed in Appendix C. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Resolution: 072/24 Moved by: Councillor Christie The Council approves a draw of up to $60,000 from the Contingency reserve to fund the Municipal Intern program. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Resolution: 073/24 Moved by: Councillor Cunningham That Council approves a draw of $25,000 from the Contingency reserve for the Kneehill Historical Society in relation to Council motion 85/23. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Resolution: 074/24 Moved by: Councillor Penner That Council approves $959,557 of operating project carryforwards, including funding sources, as detailed in Appendix D. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Page 6 of 119 March 26, 2024 __________Initials 5 Resolution: 075/24 Moved by: Councillor McGhee That Council approves $40,072 for one over budget capital project to be funded through the Capital Equipment Plan reserve, as detailed in Appendix E. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Resolution: 076/24 Moved by: Councillor Penner That Council approves $5,695,480 of capital project carryforwards, including funding sources, as detailed in Appendix E. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 6.3 2024 Requisitions and Ratepayer Impacts The Chair called for a recess at 12:03 p.m. and called the meeting back to order at 12:45 p.m. with all previously mentioned members present except Councillor Fobes. Resolution: 077/24 Moved by: Councillor McGhee That Council direct Administration to incorporate full mitigation of the Kneehill Housing requisition increase in the amount of $220,024 in the 2024 mill-rate discussion. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Resolution: 078/24 Moved by: Deputy Reeve Wittstock That Council direct Administration to incorporate full mitigation of the Alberta School Fund 2023 requisition under-levy in the amount of $640,286 in the 2024 mill-rate discussion. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Resolution: 079/24 Moved by: Councillor Cunningham That Council direct Administration to request from Alberta Municipal Affairs an explanation on the significant error in assessment in the 2023 calculation of the Alberta School Fund requisition. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Page 7 of 119 March 26, 2024 __________Initials 6 7. Legislative Services 7.1 Trochu Flower, Baking and Photography Show Sponsorship Resolution: 080/24 Moved by: Councillor Christie That Council provide the Trochu and District Arboretum Society sponsorship in the amount of $1,122 to assist in the costs associated with hosting the Trochu Flower, Baking and Photography Show. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 8. Disposition of Delegation & Public Hearing Business 8.1 Wind Concerns Kneehill County Delegation Resolution: 081/24 Moved by: Councillor Penner That Council receive for information the presentation presented by the Wind Concerns Kneehill County delegation. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 9. Council and Committee Reports Resolution: 082/24 Moved by: Councillor Christie That Council accepts for information the Council & Committee Report, as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 9.1 Community Futures Wildrose Councillor Christie provided the meeting minutes from the February 1, 2024, Community Futures Wildrose meeting. 9.2 Kneehill Housing Corporation Councillor Cunningham provided a verbal report on the Kneehill Housing Corporation. 9.3 Alberta Senior and Housing Conference Councillor Cunningham provided a verbal report on the conference that both she and Councillor Fobes attended. 9.4 Rural Municipalities of Alberta Conference Councillor Cunningham provided a verbal report on the Rural Municipalities of Alberta conference. Page 8 of 119 March 26, 2024 __________Initials 7 10. Council Follow-Up Action List Resolution: 083/24 Moved by: Deputy Reeve Wittstock That Council receive for information the Council Follow-Up Action List as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 11. Closed Session Resolution: 084/24 Moved by: Councillor Penner That this meeting goes into closed session at 1:40 pm for the following reason: Third Party Business (Section 16) CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Resolution: 085/24 Moved by: Councillor Cunningham That Council return to open meeting at 2:26 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 2:26 p.m. - meeting recessed to allow return of public. 2:27 p.m. - meeting resumed. 13. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 2:27 p.m. Ken King, Reeve Mike Haugen, CAO Page 9 of 119 APPOINTMENTS Page 1 of 1 Version: 2022-02 Subject: Delegation- Southern Alberta Energy from Waste Association Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil, Legislative Services Coordinator Presented By: Mike Haugen, CAO STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: (Check all that apply) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ High Quality Infrastructure Economic Resilience Quality of Life Effective Leadership Level of Service ATTACHMENTS: Paul Ryan from Southern Alberta Energy from Waste Association is scheduled to present to Council today at 10:00 a.m. Southern Alberta Energy from Waste Association Delegation Form. APPROVAL(S): Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer Approved- ☒ Page 10 of 119 Delegation Request Form Please submit completed form to carolyn.vanderkuil@kneehillcounty.com This personal information is being collected under the authority of Section (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and will be used in scheduling you as a delegation before Council. If you have any questions about the collection of this information, please contact the FOIP Coordinator at 403-443-5541. Regular Council Meeting Date & Time: 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. April 9, 2024 @ 10:00 a.m. Paul Ryan, Vice Chairman SAEWA Southern Alberta Energy from Waste Association Page 11 of 119 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? Administration invited the Southern Alberta Energy from Waste Association as a delegation to Council. Kneehill County annually pays a membership fee to be a part of this association. The cost of membership is calculated at 80 cents per capita. For the year 2024, the requisition amounted to $3,993.60. The Southern Alberta Energy from Waste Association (SAEWA) is a non-profit coalition of municipal entities and waste management jurisdictions in southern Alberta committed to the research and implementation of ENERGY RECOVERY from non-recyclable waste materials that will REDUCE long term reliance on landfills. Established in 2009, SAEWA is seeking to foster sustainable waste management practices that contribute to our society's overall resource efficiency and environmental responsibility. SAEWA is in the final planning stages to develop an Energy-from-Waste Facility that will handle the conversion of municipal and other sources of solid waste into energy. 4 Page 12 of 119 Kneehill County April 2024 1 Page 13 of 119 The SAEWA Project Research and implementation of energy recovery from NON- RECYCLABLE WASTE MATERIALS to reduce long term reliance on landfills. 2 Page 14 of 119 Waste Characterization 3 Total Paper, 14.8% Total Plastic, 12.9% Total Glass, 3.0% Total Metal, 5.5% Total Beverage Containers, 1.1%Total Compostable Organics, 26.2% Total Non Compostable Organics, 4.6% Total Hazardous Waste, 1.0% Total Building Material, 7.2% Total Electronic Waste, 1.4% Total Residual Waste, 22.2% Significant waste diversion opportunities still present Used as input to: •Volume of waste received at EFW •Heat content of waste Page 15 of 119 4 Page 16 of 119 Feasibility Study 5 Task 1 Waste Generation and Sizing Task 2 Combustion Technology Evaluation Task 3 Waste Collection, Transportation & Handling Task 4 Heat Recovery & Cogeneration Options Task 5 Air Emissions GHG & Control Options Task 6 Permitting Requirements Task 7 Capital and Operating Costs Page 17 of 119 Work Completed ($1.5m) • Project Development Plan • Regulatory Requirements Plan • Siting Process Plan • Communications Plan • Procurement Process Plan • Initial Business Plan • Detailed Business Plan • Waste Stream Characterization • Member Waste Stream Current Costs • Governance Model: Brownlee LLP/Municipal Affairs • Siting Analysis: U of A • LCA: HDR with 3rd Party Review with O&G Sustainability and Pembina Institute 6 Page 18 of 119 Overview Processing Capacity: Up to 300k tonnes per year. Potential Outputs: +/- 50 MW electricity +/- 1 million tonnes process steam Estimated tipping fees: $50 per tonne with higher level (non granted) government support. $90 per tonne with debt financing. Green House Gas Reductions (peer reviewed): 230k tonnes per year 7m tonnes over the life of the project Engineers of Record: HDR Inc. Funds Expended: Higher level of Governments $1.5m Municipal support estimated $2.0m 7 Page 19 of 119 LCA January 2018 Emissions Over the Study Period tCO2e tCO2e/tMSW Landfilled MSW 7,418,135 0.824 Transportation of MSW to Landfills 56,473 0.006 Total Landfill Alternative Emissions 7,474,607 0.831 Waste Combustion at EfW Facility 2,880,568 0.320 Transportation of Waste to EfW Facility 99,484 0.011 Emissions Displaced from Generated Electricity (2,435,132) (0.271) Emissions Displaced from Metals Recovery (168,480) (0.019) Total EfW Facility Alternative Emissions 376,441 0.042 Reduction in GHG Emissions from EfW Facility Relative to Landfilling 7,098,166 0.789 95.0% 95.0% 8 Page 20 of 119 How do we Pay for it? Municipal infrastructure routinely amortised 20 yrs. WTEs have a 30 to 50 year lifespan with no post closure costs like landfills. Could be considered similar to Regional water/wastewater infrastructure for funding Utility model shares cost over many Municipalities Public/Private is often used Private sector Design/Build/Operate is often used 9 Page 21 of 119 Summary of Financials – Base Case 10 Tipping fee of $91.78 (2021) required to subsidize facility operating costs Variable Units Values Debt financing ratio %100% Interest rate %3.21% Term (years)years 30 Annual debt service $M $26.10 Bond issuance year year 2020 Cost ($M)NPV 2021 2050 Principal repayment ($260.15)($10.12)($25.48) Interest payments ($178.62)($15.98)($0.62) O&M costs ($487.79)($22.48)($39.91) Total facility costs ($926.56)($48.57)($66.01) Operating Revenue ($M)NPV 2021 2050 Electricity sales $290.24 $14.70 $21.18 Recovered metal sales $75.68 $2.45 $7.83 Carbon offset credit sales $32.10 $3.47 $0.00 Bottom ash sales $6.94 $0.41 $0.41 Total operating revenue $404.96 $21.04 $29.42 Net Cost per Tonne Levelized (NPV)2021 2050 Total cost per tonne ($183.69)($161.91)($220.03) Total revenue per tonne $80.28 $70.13 $98.06 Net cost per tonne ($103.41)($91.78)($121.98) Page 22 of 119 Summary of Financials – Interest- free Loan 11 Tipping fee of $57.74 (2021) required to subsidize facility operating costs Variable Units Values Debt financing ratio %100% Interest rate %0% Term (years)years 30 Annual debt service $M $15.88 Bond issuance year year 2020 Cost ($M)NPV 2021 2050 Principal repayment ($476.53)($15.88)($15.88) Interest payments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 O&M costs ($911.82)($22.48)($39.91) Total facility costs ($1,388.35)($38.36)($55.80) Operating Revenue ($M)NPV 2021 2050 Electricity sales $533.42 $14.70 $21.18 Recovered metal sales $147.15 $2.45 $7.83 Carbon offset credit sales $45.13 $3.47 $0.00 Bottom ash sales $12.38 $0.41 $0.41 Total operating revenue $738.07 $21.04 $29.42 Net Cost per Tonne Levelized (NPV)2021 2050 Total cost per tonne ($154.26)($127.87)($186.00) Total revenue per tonne $82.01 $70.13 $98.06 Net cost per tonne ($72.25)($57.74)($87.94) Page 23 of 119 Summary of Financials – Grant / Utility Model 12 Tipping fee of $4.79 (2021) required to subsidize facility operating costs Variable Units Values Debt financing ratio %n/a Interest rate %n/a Term (years)years n/a Annual debt service $M n/a Bond issuance year year n/a Cost ($M)NPV 2021 2050 Principal repayment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Interest payments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 O&M costs ($487.79)($22.48)($39.91) Total facility costs ($487.79)($22.48)($39.91) Operating Revenue ($M)NPV 2021 2050 Electricity sales $290.24 $14.70 $21.18 Recovered metal sales $75.68 $2.45 $7.83 Carbon offset credit sales $32.10 $3.47 $0.00 Bottom ash sales $6.94 $0.41 $0.41 Total operating revenue $404.96 $21.04 $29.42 Net Cost per Tonne Levelized (NPV)2021 2050 Total cost per tonne ($96.70)($74.92)($133.05) Total revenue per tonne $80.28 $70.13 $98.06 Net cost per tonne ($16.42)($4.79)($34.99) Page 24 of 119 11 sites submitted for analysis and comparative evaluation (Long List of EFW Sites): Site Selection Request for expressions of interest o Wheatland County (1 Site) o Vulcan County (2 Sites) o County of Newell (1 Site) o Town of Coaldale (3 Sites) o Special Areas Board (3 Sites) o Town of Claresholm (1 Site) Page 25 of 119 Highest Ranking for Social and Cultural Furthest from nearest Park Furthest from Residential Areas Furthest from Historic Resources Furthest from Sensitive Receptors Highest Ranking for Land Use Compatible with existing zoning; "Public Service" already approved for waste management. Part of the Newell Regional Landfill, the site area is used for storing concrete, asphalt, and shredded tires 3rd Highest Ranking for Technical Good design flexibility, although the site is smaller than others (note adjacent property is available is required.) Proximity to major power transmission lines and major highways Preferred Site – Why County of Newell (cont’d) Page 26 of 119 Highest Ranking for Cost and Constructability Limited/No Upgrades required to existing roadway infrastructure Publicly Owned Permitting/Approvals likely easier given it is a brownfield site and already an existing waste management facility High potential for district energy users which could have a significant effect on overall business case for facility Highest Ranking for Environmental Furthest from nearest water body Fewest number of wetlands in proximity 0 at-risk species were identified within a 1 km radius Already an existing waste management facility Preferred Site – Why County of Newell Page 27 of 119 The next steps for the development process overall include: confirmation of potential energy users; development of a more detailed business case; economic analysis and review of financing options; examination of securing waste supply; consideration of rail access options; and, initiation of the facility/technology procurement process. Next Steps Site Financial Permits/ Approvals EFWWaste Energy/ Utilities Procurement Page 28 of 119 Request for Expressions of Interest Posted on MERX Canada site. Closing date extended by 1 month to September 20, 2021 at the request of Technology Vendors. Technology not restricted but must be commercially demonstrated. 29 Companies have downloaded documents. Expect submissions to be at the last minute. Strategy was to have REOI’s in hand before Municipal Elections and evaluate following. 17 Page 29 of 119 Who Responded •/ • https://www.covanta.com • https://www.hz-inova.com & https://www.acciona.com • https://www.suez-na.com/ 18 Page 30 of 119 19 Page 31 of 119 20 Page 32 of 119 21 Page 33 of 119 Next Steps HZI Presentation to Executive Executive to Evaluate MOU with HZI Executive Recommendation to Board 22 Page 34 of 119 Contacts Paul Ryan, Project Lead/Intergovernmental Liaison 403-609-7465 paulryan@shaw.ca Project and Administrative Manager Sherry Poole C. 403.563.5759 sherry@saewa.ca 23 Page 35 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 1 of 3 Version: 2022-02 Subject: Economic Outlook: Agriculture 2024 Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 Prepared By: Jenna Kester, Economic Development Officer Presented By: Jenna Kester, Economic Development Officer RECOMMENDED MOTION: That Council approve phase one of the Economic Outlook: Agriculture 2024 project as presented with a cost not to exceed $5200 to be funded through the Strategic Initiative budget. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: (Check all that apply) ☐ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ High Quality Infrastructure Economic Resilience Quality of Life Effective Leadership Level of Service RELEVANT LEGISLATION: Provincial (cite)- N/A Council Bylaw/Policy (cite)- N/A BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL: Kneehill County’s Economic Outlook series will focus on a number of initiatives with the purpose of identifying and discussing economic challenges, opportunities the region will face, how our residents can adapt to meet these changes and how Kneehill County’s Council can support the future recommendations. The first initiative of these planned projects will focus on the future of Agriculture in the region, and the necessary discussions and research needed to prepare. The first project will be split into two parts: Grain and Livestock. Other initiatives will be focused on at a later date, including Tourism and the Oil and Gas Industry. We are looking forward to engaging with working groups and industry specialists for these projects. W e will be bringing together members from the community who are forward-thinking individuals with one goal in mind: to understand the current environment and to provide Council with insight on the potential future of these sectors. With the approval of the project plan from Council, administration will recruit working group members through social media, similar to the Municipal Development Plan working group avocation. We will be surveying the community to find these future drivers of likeminded individuals. The working group will consist of:  2 members of Council  3 or 4 members at large. Members at large will be appointed by Council and must be landowners in Kneehill County. Page 36 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 2 of 3 Version: 2022-02 Time commitment of the working group – a maximum of 4 half day meetings. Compensation – appointed members at large will receive a per diem as well as mileage, as per policy 3-3 Council Appointees Reimbursement. DISCUSSION/OPTIONS/BENEFITS/DISADVANTAGES/OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: Administration has found that other communities have provided successful insight to their Council’s using this method, and therefore we would like to take a similar proactive approach. FINANCIAL & STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: The budget for Phase 1 of the Economic Outlook Agriculture project is approximately $4660.00 plus an approximately 10% contingency for a total budget of $5200, as laid out in the table below. It is recommended that this project be funded through the Strategic Initiative budget. RECOMMENDED ENGAGEMENT: Directive Decision (Information Sharing, One-Way Communication Tools: Individual Notification Other: ATTACHMENTS: Economic Outlook: Agriculture 2024 Project Plan COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Approve the project plan for Economic Outlook Agriculture 2024 Page 37 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 3 of 3 Version: 2022-02 FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS: APPROVAL(S): Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer Approved- ☒ Page 38 of 119 Page 39 of 119 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Kneehill County is a rural community that embraces its agricultural lifestyle and an economically diverse future. One of Council’s goals from the 2022 Kneehill County Strategic Plan is to build a robust and adaptable economy. This includes economic diversification, zoning, and support for agriculture. Adapting Agriculture to meet future changes is one of the most urgent challenges of our time. If we can understand the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead and adapt to them, we can ensure our successful resilience and sustainability. The purpose of these Economic Outlook series is to identify and discuss economic opportunities and challenges our region will face and to prepare for them with optimum effort. The first of these series will focus on Agriculture. The industry is adapting and modernizing, with higher rates of technology adoption, renewable energy production, use of direct marketing solutions, and sustainable farming practices. As technologies and consumer consumption changes, its imperative that we help determine what we do, how we do it sustainably and why. Page 40 of 119 PROJECT PLAN Economic Outlook Agriculture 2024 will be split into two phases and two working groups, focusing on the following topics: Phase 1 - Fall 2024  Environmental Factors  Equipment (season based)  Industry Regulations  Succession Planning Phase 2 - Spring 2025  Livestock  Equipment (season based)  KC Exports & Main Buyers A working group will be formed for each phase, with their mission to better understand issues the industry currently faces and to establish actions required to address all types of future economic opportunities and challenges. The working group will be engaged following the structure of International Association of Public Participation (IAP2). Their objectives will be designed to consider new avenues of economic development to grow the industry and enhance the region. Working and consulting with business leaders during this process will be key in considering a long-term regional prosperity plan. Industry Experts will be consulted with throughout the phased working groups, promoting conversation of the topics at hand and providing guidance on industry trends and stats. Page 41 of 119 WORKING GROUPS Working Groups  2 members of council  3 or 4 members at large – Working group members must apply to be a part of the initiative. Interested members must apply and submit their interest of why they want to be involved and which areas of expertise they can bring to the table. Phase 1 Working Group will meet after the start of seeding 2024 (May 2024) and then after on an as needed basis, wrapping up their gatherings after Harvest (October – November 2024). Phase 2 Working Group will meet initially before the start of calving (November – December 2024) and then after on an as needed basis, wrapping up their gatherings end of summer (July – August 2025). Working Group Objectives 1. Identify issues the agriculture industry and regions in Kneehill County faces. 2. Identify the circumstances that may affect these issues. 3. Identify the long-term corporate involvement of Kneehill County. 4. Identify industry expertise, techniques, and infrastructure that may prove for a valuable output for the region. Questions for initial consideration 1. What will agriculture look like in 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 2. What are the steps to be economically resilient? 3. What are the opportunities for being adaptable? 4. What are the challenges? (technological advancements, staff retention, market trends, industry regulations, weather) 5. What do we want our community to look like in the future? 6. Where should Kneehill County go? Phase 1 Industry Reps: TBD Phase 2 Industry Reps: TBD Page 42 of 119 END GOALS Both Working Groups findings will be reported in written form to Council at the end of their phases. Their report will outline:  The current state of Agriculture in Kneehill County  Industry and trend findings  Opportunities and investment strategies to enhance the industry and the local economy with the recommendations made  Key focus areas recommended to grow the sector  Identify ways Kneehill County can support the Ag Industry  Summarization of the working groups thoughts Page 43 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 1 of 3 Version: 2022-02 Subject: 2024 Assessment and Tax Rate Impact Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 Prepared By: Marika von Mirbach, Financial Planning Coordinator Presented By: Marika von Mirbach, Financial Planning Coordinator RECOMMENDED MOTION: 1. That Council amend the 2024 Operating Budget by reducing Property Tax revenues by $51,356 and increasing Transfers from Reserves by the same amount through a draw from the Revenue Stabilization reserve. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: (Check all that apply) ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ High Quality Infrastructure Economic Resilience Quality of Life Effective Leadership Level of Service RELEVANT LEGISLATION: Provincial (cite) The County is required under the Municipal Governments Act (MGA) to approve a Tax Rate Bylaw which reflects the revenues as required by the County’s current year operating & capital budget. Council Bylaw/Policy (cite)- N/A BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL: During the 2024 Budget process Council directed administration to include the following adjustments to Property Tax revenues:  Increase Residential taxation revenues by 4 percent.  Increase Farmland taxation revenues by 17.5 percent.  Increase Non-Residential taxation revenues by 3.75 percent. In addition, Council directed administration to include a reserve draw of $516,804 to balance the budget and mitigate financial impacts on ratepayers for the 2024 fiscal year. DISCUSSION/OPTIONS/BENEFITS/DISADVANTAGES/OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: Assessment When the 2024 Budget was developed the assessment values for the 2024 Tax year were not known. As such, Council directed increases in total taxation revenues by tax class, and not by adjustments to the mill rates. These increases were also made with consideration for the MGA mandated 5:1 non-residential to residential mill rate ratio requirements. Page 44 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 2 of 3 Version: 2022-02 The assessment values for the 2024 tax year have since been received. Due to significant inflationary increases within residential assessment, and less significant increases within non-residential assessment, the proposed revenue increases push the 5:1 ratio to slightly above the limit. In order to bring the ratio within 5:1, Administration is recommending that Council reduce the revenue increase for non-residential from 3.75 percent to 3.5 percent. This would bring the 5:1 ratio to 4.99:1 and would require an additional draw from the Revenue Stabilization reserve in the amount of $51,356. This would result in an increased ratio from 4.75 in 2023 to 4.99 in 2024. However, with the anticipated ending of the Oil and Gas tax holiday, the ratio is projected to be reduced in 2025 due to the addition of the currently exempt assessment being added to the non-residential assessment base. Impact Administration’s Recommendation Based on Administration’s recommendation (and MGA requirement) to ensure the 5:1 ratio is maintained; the following impacts are of note: Municipal Property Tax Mill Rate Adjustments The 2024 Budget was developed based on adjustments to the total revenue received by tax class; this approach ensures that Council is planning on the total impact to ratepayers with consideration for assessment growth. Based on this philosophy, the mill rates will be adjusted as follows: Tax Class Revenue Change Mill Rate Change Residential 4% -5.98% Farmland 17.5% 17.54% Non-Residential 3.5% -1.24% Revenue Stabilization Reserve Draws Based on previous Council direction, and the recommendation within this report, the 2024 draws from the Revenue Stabilization reserve related to municipal property taxes include: Purpose Amount To balance the 2024 operating budget $516,804 To maintain 5:1 non-residential to residential mill rate ratio $51,356 Total $568,160 Ratepayer Impacts The impact to the average ratepayer related to municipal taxes are as follows: 2023 Tax Year Assessment 2023 Municipal Property Tax 2024 Tax Year Assessment 2024 Municipal Property Tax Increase of Municipal Property Tax Acreage $350,000 $1,111 $387,013 $1,155 $44 Hamlet $150,000 $476 $165,863 $495 $19 Farm Quarter $30,000 $398 $29,991 $468 $70 Non-Residential $100,000 $1,508 $103,457 $1,539 $31 Page 45 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 3 of 3 Version: 2022-02 FINANCIAL & STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: Administration will implement the necessary reserve draws with existing internal resources. RECOMMENDED ENGAGEMENT: Directive Decision (Information Sharing, One-Way Communication Tools: Public Notification Other: ATTACHMENTS: None. COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Move the recommended motion as presented. 2. Provide administration with additional direction with which to amend the proposed Tax Rate Bylaw. 3. Request additional information. FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS: Draft communication to ratepayers regarding increases in municipal taxes in the form of the annual tax insert as well as social media communications. APPROVAL(S): Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer Approved- ☒ Page 46 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 1 of 2 Version: 2022-02 Subject: 2024 Tax Rate Bylaw Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 Prepared By: Rajeana Hamm-Nyman Presented By: Rajeana Hamm-Nyman RECOMMENDED MOTION: That Council give First Reading to Bylaw #1897 that being a bylaw for the 2024 Tax Rates. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: (Check all that apply) ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ High Quality Infrastructure Economic Resilience Quality of Life Effective Leadership Level of Service RELEVANT LEGISLATION: Provincial (cite)- The County is required under the Municipal Government Act (MGA) to approve a Tax Rate Bylaw which reflects the revenues as required by the County current year operating & capital budget. Council Bylaw/Policy (cite)- N/A BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL: The Property Tax Bylaw authorizes Council to impose a tax in respect of property in the municipality to raise revenue to be used toward the payment of the expenditures as set out in the County’s Operating Budget. In addition to the monies required to support County operations funds are required to be collected and remitted to both the Province for school purposes and to Kneehill Housing Corporation to support housing and related services provided. Administration will mail out the combined assessment/taxation after the Tax Rate Bylaw receives Third Reading. The Current Due Date & Penalty Bylaw #1890 states that taxes are due on or before October 31. DISCUSSION/OPTIONS/BENEFITS/DISADVANTAGES/OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: The details of the Tax Rate Bylaw, including any revisions or updates, will be provided shortly. Administration is currently collaborating with legal regarding Council’s previous directive related to requisitions. The Tax Rate Bylaw will be provided once available, and added to the meeting package. FINANCIAL & STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: Preparation of the Tax Rate Bylaw is a normal function included in annual resource requirements. RECOMMENDED ENGAGEMENT: Page 47 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 2 of 2 Version: 2022-02 Directive Decision (Information Sharing, One-Way Communication Tools: Individual Notification Other: ATTACHMENTS: NA COUNCIL OPTIONS: Further information is forthcoming in conjunction with the bylaw. FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS: Further information is forthcoming in conjunction with the bylaw. APPROVAL(S): Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer Approved- ☒ Page 48 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 1 of 5 Version: 2022-02 Subject: 2024 Tax Rate Bylaw Updated Report Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 Prepared By: Rajeana Hamm-Nyman, Property Tax Officer Presented By: Rajeana Hamm-Nyman, Property Tax Officer RECOMMENDED MOTION: 1. That Council approve a draw from the Revenue Stabilization Reserve in the amount of $220,024 to fund the increase in the Kneehill Housing requisition for 2024. 2. That Council approve a draw from the Revenue Stabilization Reserve in the amount of $640,286 to fund the 2023 under-levy related to the Alberta School Fund. 3. That Council give first reading to Bylaw #1897 that being a bylaw for the 2024 Tax Rates. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: (Check all that apply) ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ High Quality Infrastructure Economic Resilience Quality of Life Effective Leadership Level of Service RELEVANT LEGISLATION: Provincial (cite)- The County is required under the Municipal Government Act (MGA) to approve a Tax Rate Bylaw which reflects the revenues as required by the County’s current year operating & capital budget. Designated Industrial Property Lloydminster Charter MGA Section 359.3(2) Alberta School Foundation Fund Regulation Alberta Housing Act (Section 7) Council Bylaw/Policy (cite)- N/A BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL: Throughout the past few months various reports have been presented to Council regarding the County’s budget, municipal taxation, requisitions, and assessment shifts. One outcome of those reports has been direction to Administration on how the rates within the annual Tax Rate Bylaw should be determined. This report is intended to provide Council with a summary of previous recommendations relating to municipal taxes and requisitions, and then move forward with first reading of the 2024 Tax Rate Bylaw. The Property Tax Bylaw authorizes Council to impose a tax in respect of property in the municipality to raise revenue to be used toward the payment of the expenditures as set out in the County’s Operating Budget. In addition to the monies required to support County operations, funds are required to be Page 49 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 2 of 5 Version: 2022-02 collected and remitted for the Alberta School Fund, Designated Industrial Property, and to the Kneehill Housing Corporation. Administration will mail out the combined assessment/taxation notices on or before June 15th. The Current Due Date & Penalty Bylaw #1890 states that taxes are due on or before October 31st. DISCUSSION/OPTIONS/BENEFITS/DISADVANTAGES/OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: Previous Recommendations 2024 Requisition Impact Report on March 26, 2024 Typically, requisitions are not taken into consideration within the annual budget process, as they are amounts which Council does not have direct control over, and which the County is required to levy from ratepayers based on the requisition authority’s direction. However, for 2024 the requisitions for both Kneehill Housing and the Alberta School Fund increased substantially, and so Administration brought forward to Council the impact of those increases, and Council recommended to Administration to include draws from reserves when drafting the Tax Rate Bylaw to mitigate the impact of those increases on ratepayers. Kneehill Housing Direction The Kneehill Housing requisition increased by $220,024 from 2023 to 2024. During the March 26 th report Council recommended to Administration to draft the Tax Rate Bylaw in such a manner as to levy the same amount in 2024 as in 2023 and fund the difference of $220,024 from reserves. This direction was intended to mitigate some of the increase for ratepayers on their annual tax bills. Motion #1 seeks approval to draw $220,024 from the Revenue Stabilization reserve in alignment with this recommendation. Alberta School Fund Direction The Alberta School Fund requisition increased in 2024 by $343,003, in addition, due to a provincial error, the County under-levied for the requisition in 2023 by $640,286. This resulted in a significant impact to projected tax bills, and Council recommended to fund the 2023 under-levy of $640,286 from reserves to mitigate some of the impact to ratepayers on their annual tax bills. Motion #2 seeks approval to draw $640,286 from the Revenue Stabilization reserve in alignment with this recommendation. 2024 Assessment Report on April 9, 2024 In a separate report in today’s Council meeting Administration recommended to Council to amend the budgeted increase in non-residential tax rates to maintain the MGA legislated 5:1 non-residential to residential tax rate ratio. This recommendation has been accounted for within the attached Tax Rate Bylaw. Tax Rate Bylaw and Ratepayer Impacts The annual budget determines the total amount of taxes to be levied on residents and businesses of the community for the budget year. The 2024 Operating and Capital budget was passed at the December 12,2023, Council meeting and requires that $25,644,991 be collected from ratepayers to maintain the municipality’s operations. Page 50 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 3 of 5 Version: 2022-02 The dollars and percentages each class of ratepayer contributes related to $25,644,991 of Property Tax revenue is represented in the chart below: Requisition Changes In addition to the funds collected in relation to Kneehill County operations and services, municipalities are required by legislation to collect and remit funds for various requisitions. The Kneehill Housing Corporation requisition to be billed to rate payers will be 28% of the total cost in the amount of $84,113. Council accepted the 2024 Requisition and Ratepayer Impact report and directed Administration to draw a reserve funded portion of 72% in the amount of $220,024, to be applied to the 2024 Kneehill Housing Corporations Requisition that was a total of $304,870. Designated Industrial Property (DIP) requisition is a fee charged by the province to assess linear properties within Kneehill County (wells, pipelines, telecommunications assets, etc.) The County’s 2024 obligations are $100,946 to be collected from Linear and Designated Industrial Owners, through a separate tax rate to pay the requisition. Alberta School Foundation Fund collects a requisition through municipal taxes to provide Alberta’s education system with a sustainable source of revenue to facilitate educational programs for schools across the province. The requisition is calculated based on a set mill rate and allocated based on equalized assessment. In 2023 a provincial error resulted in an under-levy of $640,286. Council moved to alleviate the financial pressure on taxpayers so they would not bear the burden of the funding shortfall by funding the 2023 under-levy. Non-Residential $1,025,157, 4%Farmland $2,367,136, 9% Residential $1,972,120, 8% Industrial $20,280,579, 79% $220,024.00 $84,113.00 Reserve Fund Impact Ratepayer Impact Kneehill Housing Page 51 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 4 of 5 Version: 2022-02 Impact of Previous Direction and Administration’s Recommendations Based on previous recommendations by Council, and Administration’s recommendation to ensure the 5:1 ratio is maintained, the following impacts are of note: Municipal Property Tax Mill Rate Adjustments The 2024 budget was developed based on adjustments to the total revenue received by tax class; this approach ensures that Council is planning on the total impact to ratepayers with consideration for assessment growth. Due to increased assessment, the mill rates will be adjusted as follows: Tax Class Revenue Change Mill Rate Change Residential 4% -5.98% Farmland 17.5% 17.54% Non-Residential 3.5% -1.24% Revenue Stabilization Reserve Draws Based on previous Council direction, and Administration’s recommendation to maintain the 5:1 ratio, the total 2024 draws from the Revenue Stabilization reserve related to municipal taxes and requisitions includes: Purpose Amount To balance the 2024 operating budget $516,804 To fund the Kneehill Housing increase $220,024 To fund the 2023 under-levy for the Alberta School Fund $640,286 To maintain 5:1 non-residential to residential mill rate ratio $51,356 Total $1,428,470 Ratepayer Impacts The impact to ratepayers with consideration for all tax rates included within the Tax Rate Bylaw are as follows: 2023 Tax Year Assessment 2024 Tax Year Assessment Municipal Levy Alberta School Foundation Fund Kneehill Housing Corporation Total Acreage 350,000 387,013 44.02 101.93 0.72 146.67 Hamlet 150,000 165,863 18.87 43.68 0.31 62.86 Farm 30,000 29,991 69.72 1.22 (0.06) 70.88 Non-Residential 100,000 103,457 31.23 80.61 (0.07) 111.77 Note: the figures above are lower than presented during the March 26th Requisition report. Subsequent to that report, additional information was received related to the Alberta School Fund requisition, and the impact on ratepayers, specifically within residential and farmland classes, decreased due to assessment growth and the way in which the requisition is allocated. Page 52 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 5 of 5 Version: 2022-02 FINANCIAL & STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: The approval of the Tax Rate Bylaw ensures that Administration can issue the tax notices which provide the total taxation revenues as shown in the operating budget for the County. Second and third reading for the Tax Rate Bylaw will be requested at the April 26, 2024 Council meeting. RECOMMENDED ENGAGEMENT: Directive Decision (Information Sharing, One-Way Communication Tools: Individual Notification Other: ATTACHMENTS: 2024 Tax Rate Bylaw COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Give first reading of the 2024 Tax Rate Bylaw. 2. Amend the budget and resulting tax rate. 3. Accept for information. FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS: Administration will mail out combined taxation/assessment notices as per approved Bylaw. APPROVAL(S): Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer Approved- ☐ Page 53 of 119 BYLAW NO 1897 2024 PROPERTY TAX BYLAW A BYLAW OF KNEEHILL COUNTY, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, TO AUTHORIZE THE RATES OF TAXATION TO BE LEVIED AGAINST ASSESSABLE PROPERTY WITHIN KNEEHILL COUNTY FOR THE 2024 TAXATION YEAR. WHEREAS, Kneehill County has prepared and adopted detailed estimates of municipal revenue, expenses and expenditures as required, at the Council meeting held on December 12, 2023; and WHEREAS, the estimated municipal revenues from all sources other than property taxation total $4,852,422; and WHEREAS the estimated municipal expenses (excluding non-cash items) set out in the annual budget for Kneehill County in 2024 total $30,497,413 and the balance of $25,644,991 is to be raised by general municipal property taxation; and WHEREAS the estimated amount required for current and future financial plans to be raised by municipal taxation is $8,832,158. WHEREAS the County prepares an additional Bylaw for Special Tax Rates as per Division 5 of the Municipal Government Act being the 2024 Trochu Recreation Area Special Tax Bylaw #1899; THEREFORE, the total amount to be raised by general municipal taxation is $25,644,991. WHEREAS, the requisitions are: Alberta School Fund Requistion Residential and Farmland 1,919,588.00 Non-Residential 3,653,309.00 Over/(Under) Levy 640,286.00 Reserve funded portion (640,286.00) 5,572,897.00 Designated Industrial Property 100,946.11 Seniors Foundation All assessment 303,870.91 Over/(Under) Levy 266.28 Reserve funded portion (220,024.00) 84,113.19 Page 54 of 119 Bylaw No. 1897, 2024 Property Tax Bylaw Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the assessed value of all property in Kneehill County as shown on the assessment roll is: NOW THERFORE under the authority of the Municipal Government Act, Kneehill County Council enacts as follows: 1. That the Chief Administrative Officer is hereby authorized to levy the following rates of taxation on the assessed value of all property as shown on the assessment roll of Kneehill County: 2. That the minimum amount payable per parcel as property tax for general municipal purposes shall be $150. Residential 660,620,010 Farmland 151,648,850 Grants in Lieu of Taxes 244,950 Machinery & Equipment / Power Generation 418,439,370 Non-Residential 65,841,070 Non DIP Industrial Property 20,090,690 Designated Industrial Property 84,943,700 Linear Property 837,950,110 2,239,778,750 General Municipal Assessment Tax Levy Tax Rate Residential 660,620,010 1,972,119.98 0.002985256 Farmland 151,648,850 2,367,136.22 0.015609325 Estimated add'l minimum levy 43,618.00 Grants in Lieu of Taxes 244,950 731.24 0.002985256 Machinery & Equipment / Power Generation 418,439,370 6,233,321.49 0.014896594 Non-Residential 65,841,070 980,807.70 0.014896594 Non DIP Industrial Property 20,090,690 299,282.86 0.014896594 Designated Industrial Property 84,943,700 1,265,371.83 0.014896594 Linear Property 837,950,110 12,482,602.75 0.014896594 2,239,778,750 25,644,992.06 Alberta School Foundation Fund Assessment Requisition Tax Rate Residential and Farmland 812,268,860 1,919,588.00 0.002363242 Non-Residential 1,008,825,570 3,653,309.00 0.003621349 5,572,897.00 Assessment Requisition Tax Rate Designated Industrial Property 1,319,556,970 100,946.11 0.000076500 Assessment Requisition Tax Rate Kneehill Housing Corporatation 2,239,778,750 84,113.19 0.000037554 Page 55 of 119 Bylaw No. 1897, 2024 Property Tax Bylaw Page 3 of 3 3. The total Tax Rate for each Assessment Category is as follows: 4. This bylaw comes into force at the beginning of the day that it is passed unless otherwise provided for in the MGA or another enactment or in the bylaw. This bylaw i s passed when it receives third reading and it is signed in accordance with S.213 of the MGA. READ a first time on this _____ day of _______________, 2024 READ a second time on this _____ day of ________________, 2024 UNANIMOUS permission for third reading given in Council on the ____ day of ________________, 2024 READ a third time and final time of this _____ day of __________________, 202 4 Reeve Ken King Chief Administrative Officer Mike Haugen Date Bylaw Signed Municipal Levy Alberta School Foundation Fund Kneehill Housing Corporation Designated Industrial Property Total Tax Rate Residential 0.0029852562 0.0023632421 0.0000375542 0.0053860526 Farmland 0.0156093252 0.0023632421 0.0000375542 0.0180101216 Grants in Lieu of Taxes 0.0029852562 0.0029852562 Machinery & Equipment / Power Generation 0.0148965942 0.0000375542 0.0000765000 0.0150106484 Non-Residential 0.0148965942 0.0036213485 0.0000375542 0.0185554970 Non DIP Industrial Property 0.0148965942 0.0036213485 0.0000375542 0.0185554970 Designated Industrial Property 0.0148965942 0.0036213485 0.0000375542 0.0000765000 0.0186319970 Linear Property 0.0148965942 0.0036213485 0.0000375542 0.0000765000 0.0186319970 Page 56 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 1 of 2 Version: 2022-02 Subject: Ratepayer Evenings Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 Prepared By: Christine Anderson, Communications Officer Presented By: Christine Anderson, Communications Officer RECOMMENDED MOTION: That Council approves to host Ratepayer Evenings in ________ and _________ in 2024. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: (Check all that apply) ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ High Quality Infrastructure Economic Resilience Quality of Life Effective Leadership Level of Service RELEVANT LEGISLATION: Provincial (cite)- N/A Council Bylaw/Policy (cite)- Public Consultation Policy & Plan BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL: Kneehill County annually hosts public engagement with residents through Ratepayer Evenings. The events provide a family-friendly opportunity for residents and ratepayers to come and engage with Council and staff, ask questions, and provide feedback. Facilitation is like a trade fair—each department has its booth with department-specific information. A catered supper, kids’ activities, and prize draws will also be provided. New for 2024: A printed take-home document including year-in-review stats, did you knows, etc. The Ratepayer Night Feedback Survey will help gauge the event’s success and determine potential improvements for future events. DISCUSSION/OPTIONS/BENEFITS/DISADVANTAGES/OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: The events have been held in different locations throughout the County since they began in 2019. 2019- Trochu and Acme 2022- Torrington and Carbon 2023- Swalwell and Wimborne New location options for 2024 (hall with required capacity, kitchen):  Three Hills  Sunnyslope If Council wishes, we can repeat previous locations. Administration is suggesting hosting the meeting(s) in June of 2024 Page 57 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 2 of 2 Version: 2022-02 FINANCIAL & STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: $15,000 is budgeted for these events in 2024. ($7500 each.) RECOMMENDED ENGAGEMENT: Directive Decision (Information Sharing, One-Way Communication Tools: Public Notification Other: ATTACHMENTS: COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Council approves to host two Ratepayer Evenings in 2023 2. Council approves to host one Ratepayer Evening in 2023 3. Council directs administration to bring back more options for ratepayer engagement. FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS: Administration will set event dates based on availability and begin advertising/preparing for them APPROVAL(S): Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer Approved- ☒ Page 58 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 1 of 2 Version: 2022-02 Subject: 2024 Parade Season Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil, Legislative Services Coordinator Presented By: Carolyn Van der Kuil, Legislative Services Coordinator RECOMMENDED MOTION: That Council receive for information the 2024 Parade Season report. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: (Check all that apply) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ High Quality Infrastructure Economic Resilience Quality of Life Effective Leadership Level of Service RELEVANT LEGISLATION: Provincial (cite)- N/A Council Bylaw/Policy (cite)- N/A BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL: Annually Council participates in the local parades within our area. DISCUSSION/OPTIONS/BENEFITS/DISADVANTAGES/OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: Parade Dates for 2024 Include:  Linden- June 1, 2024  Carbon- June 8, 2024  Acme- Jun 15, 2024  Trochu- July 1, 2024  Drumheller- July 1, 2024  Three Hills- July 13, 2024 Administration will ensure the vehicle is clean and that there is candy available. Administration is requesting that Council determine which parades they would like to attend, so that appropriate arrangements and the correct magnetic names that go on the side of the car can b e made available. FINANCIAL & STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: Parade expenses have been approved in the 2024 Operating Budget. RECOMMENDED ENGAGEMENT: Directive Decision (Information Sharing, One-Way Communication Tools: Individual Notification Other: Page 59 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 2 of 2 Version: 2022-02 ATTACHMENTS: N/A COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Receive for information the 2024 Parade Season Report 2. That Council request further information FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS: Administration will ensure car is ready and available the Friday afternoon before the event. APPROVAL(S): Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer Approved- ☒ Page 60 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 1 of 3 Version: 2022-02 Subject: Community Grants Round One 2024 Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil, Legislative Services Coordinator Presented By: Carolyn Van der Kuil, Legislative Services Coordinator RECOMMENDED MOTION: That Council approve the following Round One Community Grants to Non-Profit Organizations funding to the following organizations: STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: (Check all that apply) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ High Quality Infrastructure Economic Resilience Quality of Life Effective Leadership Level of Service RELEVANT LEGISLATION: Provincial (cite)- N/A Council Bylaw/Policy (cite)- Policy # 15-3, Community Grants to Non-Profit Organizations BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL: Round One Community Grant application deadline was on March 6, 2024. Attached for Council’s consideration are the applications. There are a total of six eligible applications received and the total amount requested for Round One is $20,139.50. There is $30,000 approved in the 2024 Budget. Three Hills Soccer Association $2,000.00 Upgrade portable soccer goal nets Linden and District Ag Society $2,550.00 Purchase a new snow blade Huxley Legion Branch #002 $1,300.00 Purchase a Defibrillator for the Huxley Hall Three Hills Gymnastics $2,174.50 Purchase new competitive Suits and Air Mat Linden Benevolent Society $7,500.00 Window Replacement Kneehill Adult Learning $4,615.00 Minor renovations to office space TOTAL $20,139.50 Page 61 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 2 of 3 Version: 2022-02 DISCUSSION/OPTIONS/BENEFITS/DISADVANTAGES/OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: Three Hills Soccer Association The Three Hills Soccer Association is seeking funding to upgrade their portable soccer goal nets. Their total project cost is $4,000. They are requesting $2,000 in funding. The County has supported them previously. In 2013, the County provided $1,500 to assist in constructing washrooms at the soccer field. Linden and District Agricultural Society The Linden and District Agricultural Society is seeking funding to purchase a new snow blade to facilitate efficient snow removal along the Linden-Nursing Home pathway. Their total project cost is $5,100. They are requesting $2,550 in funding. The County has supported them in the past. In 2010, the County provided $10,000 to go towards the construction of the pathway, in 2014 the County provided $5,000 to purchase a Barbeque, and in 2017 the County provided $5,000 to go towards shed upgrades. Huxley Legion Branch #002 The Huxley Legion is looking for funding to purchase a defibrillator for the Huxley Hall. Their project cost is $2,600. They are requesting $1,300 in funding. The County has provided them support in the past. In 2019 the County provided $1,843.80 to install a flagpole. Three Hills Gymnastics The Three Hills Gymnastics is looking for funding to purchase new competitive suits and an air mat. Their project cost is $4,349.00. They are requesting $2,174.50 in funding. The County has provided them support in the past. In 2014 the County provided $5,000 for gymnastic equipment. Linden Benevolent Society The Linden Benevolent Society is looking for funding for window replacement. Their project cost is $15,000. They are requesting $7,500 in funding. The County has provided them support in the past. In 2013, the County provided them with 5,000 to upgrade their kitchen. In 2016 the County provid ed them with $5,000 to upgrade their dining rooms and most recently the County has provided them $7,500 in 2022 to replace floors in kitchen and paint the common area. Kneehill Adult Living The Kneehill Adult Learning is looking for funding to assist in the cost of minor renovation to office space. Their project cost is $9,230.00. They are requesting $4,615.00 in funding. The County has provided this organization with funding in the past. In 2014, the County provided them with $5,000 to renovate office for wheelchair access. Three Hills Soccer Association $2,000.00 Upgrade portable soccer goal nets Linden and District Ag Society $2,550.00 Purchase a new snow blade Huxley Legion Branch #002 $1,300.00 Purchase a Defibrillator for the Huxley Hall Three Hills Gymnastics $2,174.50 Purchase new competitive Suits and Air Mat Linden Benevolent Society $7,500.00 Window Replacement Kneehill Adult Learning $4,615.00 Minor renovations to office space TOTAL $20,139.50 Page 62 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 3 of 3 Version: 2022-02 FINANCIAL & STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: There is $30,000 in the budget for both Round One and Round Two for Community Grants. If Council approved all the applications the total cost for Round One would be $20,139.50. That would leave $9,860.50 left for Round Two. RECOMMENDED ENGAGEMENT: Directive Decision (Information Sharing, One-Way Communication Tools: Individual Notification Other: ATTACHMENTS: Grant Applications Community Grants Policy COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. That Council approve the recommended grant applications totaling $20,139.50 2. That Council approve certain applications, but not all them. 3. That Council defer this item to a future meeting in order for Administration to require further information. 4. That Council receive for information. FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS: Administration will reach out to the following organizations to inform them of Council’s decision. APPROVAL(S): Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer Approved- ☒ Page 63 of 119 Round One Funding February $0.00 Round Two Funding October $0.00 Balance for 2024 $30,000.00 No.Name of Applicant Location Project Amount Amount Request Purpose of Application Amount Approved Comments 2024-01 Three Hills Soccer Association Three Hills $4,000.00 $2,000.00 Upgrade portable soccer goal nets Past Contributions 2013- $1500.00 to construct washrooms 2024-02 Linden and District Ag Society Linden $5,100.00 $2,550.00 Purchase a new snow blade Past Contributions 2010- $10,000 Pathway Project 2014- $5,000 Purchase BBQ 2017- $5,000 Shed Upgrades 2024-03 Huxley Legion Branch #002 Huxley $2,600.00 $1,300.00 Purchase a defibrillator for the Huxley Hall Past Contributions 2019-$1,843.80 Install Flag Poles 2024-04 Three Hills Gymnastics Three Hills $4,349.00 $2,174.50 Purchase new competitive Suits and Air Mat Past Contributions 2014- $5,000 Gymnastic Equipment 2024-05 Linden Benevolent Society Linden $15,000.00 $7,500.00 Window Replacement Past Contributions 2013- $5,000 Upgrade Kitchen 2016- $5,000 Upgrade Dining Room 2022-$7,500 Kitchen Floor Replacement & Painting Common Area 2024-06 Kneehill Adult Learning Three Hills $9,230.00 $4,615.00 Minor renovations to office space Past Contributions 2014-$5,000 Renovate Space for wheel chair access. TOTALS $40,279.00 $20,139.50 0 KNEEHILL COUNTY - COMMUNITY GRANTS TO NON PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS - POLICY #15-3 Summary of Applications 2024 Total of 2024 Budget $30,000.00 Round One March Page 64 of 119 Page 65 of 119 Page 66 of 119 Hello, Here is our application for a community grant for Three Hills Soccer Association. Project description is to purchase durable aluminum frame goal nets for our lower age groups. This equipment will provide a better training environment for all the players. The portable nets will also be used for competition in some age groups. Location of project will be Centennial Fields in Three Hills. Thanks Allen McLeay President Three Hills Soccer Association. Page 67 of 119 Page 68 of 119 Page 69 of 119 Page 70 of 119 Page 71 of 119 Community Grants to Non-Profit Organizations , Application Form- Schedule “A” echill POLICY #15-3 ORGANIZATION INFORMATION Date. February 12, 2024 Organization Legal Name: Huxley Legion Branch #002 Society Registration Number: #002 Contact Person: Christina Hoppins PROJECT INFORMATION Please provide a brief (one sentence) description of the project for which grant funding is requested on the line below. (i.e. upgrade furnace in hall) Would like to purchase & mount a defibrillator in the Huxley Hall. Please attach a detailed description of the project for which Community Grant funding is requested and include: e An indication of how this project will benefit our community. e If you are including volunteer labour or any other donation “in-kind”, please include detailed information about this in your description. (i.e. how many volunteers and expected volunteer hours etc.) e location of the project [| If this project involves land and/or facilities, a Certificate of Title must be included with application. [V]ves[_]No Will this project be completed within the current year? [_]ves[¥]No Would you like to present to Council? (This is not mandatory) [ ]¥es [¥]No If you do not receive this grant, will the project take place? The personal information on this form is being collected for the purpose of determining eligibility of an applicant to receive a grant. This information is collected under the authority of Section 33 (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and may become public information once it is submitted to Council during a Council meeting. Questions regarding the collection of this information can be directed to the FOIP Coordinator at 403-443-5541. Page 72 of 119 Community Grants to Non-Profit Organizations : Application Form- Schedule “A” eehill POLICY #15-3 PROJECT FUNDING Project Funding Details — Please identify all sources of funding for this project Total Amount Kneehill County Contribution- Piease fill in the funding request (up to 50% of project cost and Min of $250) $ 1300.00 Stganiaionemtcontbuteonamentensliewerecing confirmed Pending Kneehill County’s Contribution. Amount ~ Amount > Organization’s cash contribution to the project 1300.00 | 0 S 1300.00 | Other grants applied for OC 0 | 0 50 = Volunteer Labour* 0 - 0 S 0 Donated In-Kind (including equipment and material)* 0 0 § 0 Other Funding Sources 0 0 50 7 * Rates are: $10/hr for unskilled labour, $25/hr for skilled labour and $50/hr for equipment including operator Proof for budgeted in-kind contributions and volunteer labour will be requested on the Accountability form. APPLICANT AGREEMENT | DECLARE THAT: (application must be must be signed by two members of the Society's Executive Committee.) e tama duly authorized representative having legal and/or financial signing authority for the above organization. e The information contained in this application and supporting documents is true and accurate and endorsed by the above organization. e Anaccounting of spending, showing compliance with conditions of the grant shall be provided at completion of the project, no later than one year from the date the grant was approved. e Any grant awarded shall be used solely for the purposes stated within Community Grants to Non-Profit Organizations Policy #15-3. Signature: ( Keon Signature: 2 Name Printed: Christina Hoppins Name Printed: Allan Anderson Date: February 12, 2024 Date: February 12, 2024 The personal information on this form is being collected for the purpose of determining eligibility of an applicant to receive a grant. This information is collected under the authority of Section 33 (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and may become public information once it is submitted to Council during a Council meeting. Questions regarding the collection of this information can be directed to the FOIP Coordinator at 403-443-5541. Page 73 of 119 Huxley Legion Branch #002 Grant Application February, 2024 The project that we have in mind is putting a defibrillator in the Huxley Community Hall, located at 225 main street in Huxley. We believe there is a need for one in the Huxley community, as many different events take place there throughout the year, between the community hall, curling rink, and ball diamond building. As the community population is aging, and there are sports events being held both at the ball diamond and curling rink, we feel this defibrillator is a necessary life saving tool, as the nearest other defibrillator is located at least 15 minutes away. The technology today associated with defibrillators makes them very easy for the general public to use, you do not need special training to know how to use one. The local Trochu fire chief has agreed to assist us with maintaining the defibrillator unit, to ensure it is checked frequently and is in good working order. The Huxley Legion members and the Huxley Community Association members will work together to both order and install the defibrillator in the hall. We anticipate to have roughly 4 legion members, and 4 HCA members working on this project, which will take roughly 3 volunteer hours to complete. Page 74 of 119 Home > AEDs (Defibrillators) > ZOLL > ZOLLAEDs > ZOLL AED Plus Fully Automatic ZOLL AED Plus Fully Automatic What's Included? @ ZOLL Fully Automatic AED Plus® with 5-Year Warranty (Warranty extended to 7 years if registered online after purchase) @ Adult CPR-D Padz® with 5-Year Shelf-Life @ Duracell Ultra Type 123 Lithium Battery (10/Pack) @ Soft Carrying Case with Pockets for Extra Storage and Adjustable Shoulder Strap @ Set-Up/Demonstration Video @ FREE AED Management - notifications of expiring supplies and ongoing customer support More details $2,093.00 ayoO9" sey ax cr tateies @ Help Page 75 of 119 Home > AEDs (Defibrillators) > AED Cabinets > AED Cabinet w/Alarm - Large DEFIBRILLATOR ALARMED SYSTEM AED Cabinet wiAlarm - Large e Surface-mounted defibrillator (AED) wall cabinet designed for larger AEDs e Equipped with a per-installed audible alarm system that activates when the door is opened. e Includes arecessed door handle and an installed magnetic door seal e Clear plexiglass provides protection and visibility e Highly visible bilingual AED sign e Mounting hardware kit (drywall anchors and screws) and a pair of keys (to activate or deactivate the alarm) included. e Exterior Dimensions (H x L x D): 14 5/8" x 16" x 8 3/8” e Suitable for the following AEDs: © Cardiac Science ae Physio-Control ° Zoll $259.99 a3. Ws SKU: 29808 we “ * os In Stock Ships within 2-3 business days Quantity 1 ADD TOCART (O) HelpPage 76 of 119 Community Grants to Non-Profit Organizations Application Form POLICY #15-3 Krechill ORGANIZATION INFORMATION | Date: March 4th, 2024 Organization Legal Name: Three Hills Gymnastics Society Registration Number: Contact Person: Patricia Barr Cheques made payable to: ORGANIZATION DESCRIPTION Please provide a brief explanation of your organization, it could include your mission statement, activities you preform, or any relevant information. * Attached PROJECT INFORMATION Please provide a brief (one sentence) description of the project for which grant funding is requested on the line below. (i.e. upgrade furnace in hall) New Competitive Suits and Air Mat for Three Hills Gymnastics. Please attach a detailed description of the project for which Community Grant funding is requested and include: e An indication of how this project will benefit our community. e If you are including volunteer labour or any other donation “in-kind”, please include detailed information about this in your description. (i.e. how many volunteers and expected volunteer hours etc.) e location of the project CL] If this project involves land and/or facilities, a Certificate of Title must be included with application. Yes CINo Will this project be completed within the current year? CNes EINo Would you like to present to Council? (This is not mandatory) Oyes INo If you do not receive this grant, will the project take place? The personal information on this form is being collected for the purpose of determining eligibility of an applicant to receive a grant. This information is collected under the authority of Section 33 (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and may become public information once it is submitted to Council during a Council meeting. Questions regarding the collection of this information can be directed to the FOIP Coordinator at 403-443-5541. Page 77 of 119 Community Grants to Non-Profit Organizations Application Form POLICY #15-3 PROJECT FUNDING Project Funding Details — Please identify all sources of funding for.this project | | : : Total Amount Kneehill County Contribution- Please fill in the funding request for this application (Minimum $250) g 2174.50 | Organist moncorbutesnamountequaltoorereeang confirmed Pending | Kneehill County's Contribution. — Amount Amount pecs | Organization’s cash contribution to the project = 2174.50 7 $ 2174.50 _ | Other grants applied for | oe — $ | Volunteer Labour* aa so | Donated In-Kind (including equipment and material)* : oS | Other Funding Sources | $ Co Total Project Funding (This amount must equal the Total Project Cost) ¢4349.00 * Rates are: $20/hr for unskilled labour, $35/hr for skilled labour and $70/hr for equipment including operator Proof for budgeted in-kind contributions and volunteer labour will be requested on the Accountability form. APPLICANT AGREEMENT | DECLARE THAT: (application must be must be signed by two members of the Society’s Executive Committee.) e {ama duly authorized representative having legal and/or financial signing authority for the above organization. e The information contained in this application and supporting documents is true and accurate and endorsed by the above organization. e Anaccounting of spending, showing compliance with conditions of the grant shall be provided at completion of the project, no later than one year from the date the grant was approved. e Any grant awarded shall be used solely for the purposes stated within Community Grants to Non-Profit Organizations Policy #15-3. Signature: i) : a Signature: “Jeon 7 ia i Name Printed: Stacey Hopp ins Name Printed: Patricio Race gx | Date: March 3 2024 Date: W\ \¢ cy a ) 004 The personal information on this form is being collected for the purpose of determining eligibility of an applicant to receive a grant. This information is collected under the authority of Section 33 (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and may become public information once it is submitted to Council during a Council meeting. Questions regarding the collection of this information can be directed to the FOIP Coordinator at 403-443-5541. Page 78 of 119 Three Hills Gymnastics New Competitive Suits & Air Mat Detailed Project Description Mandate: The mission of the Three Hills Gymnastics Club is to provide a safe, inclusive, and nurturing environment where individuals of all ages and abilities can develop their physical, mental, and emotional well-being through the sport of gymnastics. We aim to foster a love for movement, promote lifelong healthy habits, and empower our members to reach their full potential both inside and outside the gym. Location: Three Hills Community Centre Overview: The Three Hills Gymnastics Club is embarking on a project to acquire new competitive suits for its competitive gymnasts and an air mat to enhance training opportunities. With the current competitive suits showing signs of wear after years of use and limited access to a spring floor due to space constraints at the Three Hills Community Centre, these investments are crucial to maintaining the club's competitive edge and providing a safe and effective training environment for its athletes. Project Components: New Competitive Suits: The current competitive suits used by the gymnasts are several years old and have been shared and swapped among athletes for at least five years. These suits are now showing signs of wear and are in need of replacement to ensure the safety, comfort, and confidence of the gymnasts during competitions. Additionally, the club lacks a sufficient range of sizes to accommodate older gymnasts, further necessitating the acquisition of new suits to meet the needs of all athletes. Air Mat: Due to space limitations at the Three Hills Community Centre, the club does not always have the opportunity to utilize a spring floor for tumbling practice. An air mat would provide a safe and versatile alternative for gymnasts to practice their tumbling skills, even on days when the spring floor is unavailable. The air mat's portability and ease of setup make it an ideal solution for maximizing training opportunities within the club's limited space, ensuring that gymnasts can continue to develop their skills effectively. Benefits to the Community: Enhanced Safety and Comfort: The acquisition of new competitive suits will ensure that gymnasts have access to attire that is in optimal condition, providing enhanced safety, comfort, and performance during competitions and training sessions. Page 79 of 119 Improved Training Opportunities: The addition of an air mat will expand the club's training capabilities by providing gymnasts with a suitable surface for practicing tumbling skills, even in the absence of a spring floor. This will allow athletes to progress and refine their techniques more effectively, ultimately improving their performance in competitions. inclusivity and Accessibility: By addressing the need for a wider range of suit sizes and providing alternative training equipment, the project promotes inclusivity and accessibility within the club, ensuring that all members have the opportunity to participate and excel in gymnastics regardless of age or size. Community Engagement: The project demonstrates the club's commitment to its athletes' development and well-being, fostering a sense of belonging and pride within the Three Hills community. It also encourages support and involvement from community members, businesses, and stakeholders who recognize the value of investing in youth sports and recreation. Overall, the acquisition of new competitive suits and an air mat represents a significant investment in the Three Hills Gymnastics Club's continued success and the development of its athletes. By providing essential equipment and training opportunities, the project contributes to the club's mission of promoting physical, mental, and emotional well-being through the sport of gymnastics, benefiting both individual athletes and the broader community. Detailed Budget Revenue Source Confirmed Amount Three Hills Gymnastics Yes $2,174.50 Kneehill County No $2,174.50 Total $4,349.00 Expenses Description Amount Gymnastics Suits $200 each X 15 $3,000.00 Tumble Trax Air Floor Mat $1,349.00 Total $4,349.00 Page 80 of 119 Page 81 of 119 Page 82 of 119 Page 83 of 119 Page 84 of 119 Page 85 of 119 Page 86 of 119 Page 87 of 119 Page 88 of 119 Page 89 of 119 Page 90 of 119 Page 91 of 119 Page 92 of 119 Page 93 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 1 of 2 Version: 2022-02 Subject: Municipal Affairs – ICF Engagement Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 Prepared By: Mike Haugen Presented By: Mike Haugen RECOMMENDED MOTION: That Council direct Administration to submit the April 2024 survey regarding Intermunicipal Collaboration Frameworks to Municipal Affairs with answers as determined. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: (Check all that apply) ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ High Quality Infrastructure Economic Resilience Quality of Life Effective Leadership Level of Service RELEVANT LEGISLATION: Provincial (cite)- N/A Council Bylaw/Policy (cite)- N/A BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL: Intermunicipal Collaboration Frameworks (ICFs) are mandatory agreements that every municipality must enter into with each of their neighbouring municipalities. The intent was to force municipalities to have conversations with their neighbours regarding municipal services and how those services were provided, specifically related to costs. Most initial ICFs were adopted in 2019/2020. Between our neighbouring rural and urban municipalities, Kneehill County was required to complete 12 ICFs. Municipal Affairs is conducting engagement with municipalities related to Intermunicipal Collaboration Frameworks. The responses will be considered as Municipal Affairs considers and changes to ICF regulation. Kneehill County has the opportunity to complete the survey and provide feedback to the Province. DISCUSSION/OPTIONS/BENEFITS/DISADVANTAGES/OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: The survey is online and once Council has determined the preferred answers to the questions (assuming Council wishes to provide feedback), Administration will submit the survey on the County’s behalf. To aid in the discussion, Administration has compiled the survey questions and included them as an attachment to this report. Please note that questions 1-4 have not been included in the compilation as they are simple administrative and factual questions (name of m unicipality, did you go to arbitration, etc.) that Administration can provide answers to. The Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) have also released an engagement guide for this topic. Kneehill County is not bound to the RMA suggestions, but the guide has also been attached to this report for Council’s consideration. FINANCIAL & STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: Page 94 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 2 of 2 Version: 2022-02 There is no financial impact beyond Council and Staff time to take part in the survey. This topic is important as the items agreed to during ICF negotiations can have significant financial impact. RECOMMENDED ENGAGEMENT: Directive Decision (Information Sharing, One-Way Communication Tools: Individual Notification Other: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Compiled Survey Questions 2. RMA Engagement Guide COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Council may opt to participate in the survey and provide answers to the questions. 2. Council may opt to not participate in the survey. FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS: Administration will submit the survey with answers as determined by Council. APPROVAL(S): Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer Approved- ☒ Page 95 of 119 Municipal Affairs ICF Survey Review Questions Intermunicipal Services When the ICF provisions were originally introduced, these intermunicipal services were required to be included in an ICF: 1. A. transportation; B. water and wastewater; C. solid waste; D. emergency services; E. recreation; and F. any other services that benefit residents in more than one of the municipalities that were parties to the framework. The list was removed from the MGA in 2020 to streamline the legislation, create greater flexibility for municipalities, and reduce red tape. Currently, the legislation does not limit what can be included in an ICF, but municipalities are required to describe the services to be provided in their agreements.  5. Based on your experience, the legislation should be amended to: Reinsert the list of specific services, without the ability for municipalities to add other services (i.e., A – E on the list above). Reinsert the list of specific services, with the ability for municipalities to add other services delivered directly by the municipality (i.e., A – F on the list above). No change – the legislation should continue to allow municipalities to determine the services to be included. Other (please specify): 6. Referring to A – E above, if a list were reintroduced to the legislation, are there other services that should be added to the list as mandatory? No Unsure Yes (what other services should be added?): Page 96 of 119 7. Referring to A – E above, if a list were reintroduced to the legislation, are there services that should be removed from the list as mandatory? No Unsure Yes (what services should be removed?): ICF Agreement Duration (Term and Review) Currently, the legislative provisions require ICFs to be reviewed at least every five years after the framework is created, or within a shorter period of time as agreed to by the municipalities. Given the possibility of arbitration and other challenges, the agreements may only be operational for a relatively short period, and not allow the municipalities to learn from their collaborative efforts to improve the next iteration of the agreement. 8. Based on your experience, the legislation should: Remain the same, requiring review at least every five years. Change, requiring review at least every seven years. Change, to not specify the duration of an agreement, allowing municipalities to review their agreements as they see fit. Other (please specify): Cost Calculations Calculating costs for an ICF can be challenging for any municipality; however, it is critical to finalize the framework. One option is to legislate how costs will be shared, ensuring that there is some degree of consistency across all agreements. 9. Based on your experience, the legislation should require costs associated with shared services in an ICF to be determined based on (select all that apply): Equalized assessments Usage by each municipality Population (i.e., cost per capita) Mutual agreement by municipality, based on a specific service Independent assessment findings and recommendations None of the above, the legislation should not specify how costs are allocated Other (please specify): Mediation and Arbitration Page 97 of 119 During the development of the frameworks, some municipalities experienced disagreements. If municipalities do not reach an agreement by the legislated timeline, they have one year to finalize an agreement through mandatory arbitration. Prior to arbitration, municipalities may choose to enter into mediation. The legislation could be amended to include mediation as a mandatory step in the event of disagreements. However, this would mean that municipalities who had not reached an agreement 18 months before the deadline would be required to commence mediation, and arbitration would begin one year prior to the legislated deadline. 10. Please rate your municipality’s experience with the mediation process: Very positive Positive Neither positive nor negative Negative Very negative Unsure Not Applicable 11. In your opinion, under the legislation, if municipalities are unable to reach an agreement by a set timeline should they: Be required to enter into mediation Go directly to arbitration (status quo) Other (please specify): While the province offers grant funding for mediation services, it requires a cost-share commitment from the requesting municipality, and the funding is limited. Costs for arbitration are currently based on equalized assessment. However, the use of equalized assessment has raised concerns for some municipalities. 12. In your opinion, the division of costs associated with mediation and arbitration should be based on (select all that apply): Equalized assessment A standard metric, i.e., total revenue (please specify metric in the space below) Equal division among all parties Other (please specify): Page 98 of 119 Following the arbitrator’s decision, municipalities are currently responsible for drafting an agreement that incorporates the arbitrator’s decision and adopting it. Some stakeholders have suggested that the arbitrator should draft the agreement as part of their role as arbitrator. 13. In your opinion, for municipalities going through the arbitration process, the legislation should stipulate that: The arbitrator (not the Minister) writes the framework and the municipalities are required to adopt it. The municipalities write the framework based on the arbitrator’s decision and are required to adopt it (status quo). Another third-party writes the framework and the municipalities are required to adopt it. Other (please specify): Enforcement It is critical that municipalities complete their legislative requirements to ensure the effective and fair application of ICFs across the province. 14. In your opinion, in the event a municipality chooses to ignore an arbitrated decision, the Minister should have the authority to (select all that apply): Act as the municipality and adopt the framework on their behalf. Take any action as if the municipalities had not followed a directive issued under the Act (i.e., suspending municipal authority to pass bylaws, withholding money from the municipality, and/or dismissing council or the chief administrative officer). Allow the municipalities to pursue this in a court action (status quo). Other (please specify): Some municipalities have argued that some of the arbitrated decisions resulted in frameworks that unfairly impact a municipality, or go beyond the legislated provisions of an ICF. 15. In your opinion, in cases where arbitrated decisions are determined to have an unfair impact, or go beyond the legislated provisions of an ICF, the Minister should: Allow the arbitrator’s order to stand Have the authority to dismiss the arbitrator’s decision and have the municipalities renegotiate Have the authority to amend or remove elements of the arbitrator’s decision Other (please specify): Conclusion 16. Do you have anything else you would like to share about ICFs? Page 99 of 119 Intermunicipal Collaboration Frameworks Engagement Guide for RMA Members March 2024 Page 100 of 119 2 Introduction The Municipal Government Act (MGA) requires all municipalities that share a border (with the exception of those that are members of the same growth management board) to complete an intermunicipal collaboration framework (ICFs). ICFs are intended to support intermunicipal collaboration in service delivery through strategic allocation of funding and resources. The original deadline for the completion of ICFs was April 1, 2020. This was subsequently extended to April 1, 2021, with the deadline for the completion of ICFs requiring arbitration set for April 1, 2022. The MGA requires municipalities to review ICFs every five years. A Ministerial Order extended the review deadline to seven years. The Ministerial Order expires in 2027, at which time the five-year review period would take effect unless legislative changes occur prior to that point. As ICF agreements are currently complete (with the exception of a small number still undergoing a judicial review) and the majority of agreements are not yet subject to review and possible renegotiation, Alberta Municipal Affairs has launched an engagement process to consider municipal input on possible changes to the ICF process. RMA position and member resolutions Over the past decade, RMA has provided significant input to Municipal Affairs regarding ICFs. This includes during initial design, during the negotiation process, following the initial agreement deadline, and following the deadline for arbitration decisions. RMA’s feedback to Municipal Affairs has always been based on a general argument that while ICFs are a potentially effective tool in supporting regional collaboration on service delivery in circumstances where partnering makes sense and is beneficial to both municipalities, the process must be designed in a way that prevents manipulation of the process by either party. This could include misrepresenting service usage or financial data, using threats of changes or elimination of other agreements as leverage to receive enhanced support for a certain service, intentionally withdrawing from good faith negotiations to force an arbitration process, and others. Unfortunately, while the majority of ICFs were completed on-time and strengthened the relationship between neighbouring municipalities, those that did not go well showed that the current process includes gaps and loopholes that municipalities can take advantage of to undermine the collaborative intent of the ICF process. If ICFs are to develop into core municipal planning documents in the future, these gaps and loopholes must be addressed. In addition to RMA’s general perspective on ICFS, RMA members have passed two related resolutions: ER1-23F: Limiting Third-party Services in ICF Agreements THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) advocate to the Government of Alberta (GOA) that third-party services should not be included in intermunicipal collaboration frameworks (ICFs) and should be left to each ICF negotiation partnership to determine external to the ICF process; FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT the RMA advocate to the GOA to limit the funding demands by urban municipalities, particularly when these demands arise from their independent decisions and are based on an assumption that rural municipalities will subsidize a portion of their costs or shortages. Page 101 of 119 3 7-22F: Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework Reform THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) request the Government of Alberta amend the Municipal Government Act to define “core municipal services” for the purpose of intermunicipal collaboration frameworks and mandate that municipalities present verifiable costs to justify cost sharing for the aforementioned defined core municipal services; FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the RMA request that the Government of Alberta ensure that members of a growth management board are not required to enter into an intermunicipal collaboration framework with each other. Engagement process At this point, the engagement process consists of an online survey. The survey includes a series of close-ended questions on the following ICF themes:  Intermunicipal services to be included in an ICF  ICF agreement duration  Cost calculations  Mediation and arbitration  Enforcement There is also an opportunity for open ended responses at the conclusion of the survey. RMA is aware of targeted in-person engagement sessions scheduled with municipal administrators associations. In discussions with Municipal Affairs staff, RMA has learned that there may be additional engagement following the survey depending on the results, but this is still to be determined. How to use this guide This guide is intended to support RMA members in participating in the ICF engagement process, but is not intended to direct members to answer individual survey questions in a specific way. Instead, the guide provides an overview of existing RMA positions for each of the five survey themes, as well as questions municipalities should consider when selecting answers to questions within each theme. In some cases, the guide may identify specific question response options as posing a high risk for negative impacts on rural municipal service delivery, finances, or governance, but for the most part, the guide will be framed around themes rather than questions. Note that the survey questions are quite narrow and do not address many aspects of the ICF process that RMA considers most important. Members are encouraged to utilize the final question (“Do you have anything else you would like to share about ICFs?”) to emphasize some of the points and issues outlined in this guide, existing resolutions, and their own local priorities that may not fit within the core survey questions. Ongoing RMA Support For specific questions about this guide, the engagement process, or how RMA can support members, please contact RMA General Manager of Policy and Advocacy Wyatt Skovron at wyatt@RMAlberta.com. Page 102 of 119 4 Theme 1: Intermunicipal services to be included in an ICF Overview Currently, the MGA does not define a “service” for the purpose of ICFs or include a list of services that must, may, or may not be included within ICFs. This open-ended approach to service definition is intended to allow maximum flexibility for the municipalities participating in the ICF negotiation process to identify the services that make sense to them, rather than work through a pre-determined suite of services that may not necessarily be well-suited to a regional approach in each local context. Currently, the MGA’s reference to services is quite limited. S. 708.29(1) states that A framework must describe the services to be provided under it that benefit residents in more than one of the municipalities that are parties to the framework. While a lack of definition or scope of services has benefits in maximizing the flexibility of individual ICF negotiations, it also risks creating an overly complex or adversarial process if each participating municipality has a different view on how a service should be defined and whether a given service has intermunicipal relevance. The MGA is currently silent on the inclusion of third-party services. This was a point of confusion and conflict in many ICF negotiations. RMA Position In general, RMA has taken the position that the current lack of “service” definition and scope has significantly more risks than benefits for municipalities. RMA’s 2022 ICF member survey found that approximately one-third of respondents viewed the scope of services introduced into ICFs by urban neighbours to be unreasonable. Within the context of ICFs, “unreasonable” services are typically those lacking any clear intermunicipal purpose or attempts to label a piece of infrastructure as a service without considering how and to what extent it is used. Among those that dealt with unreasonable service expectations during ICF negotiations, most identified a lack of legislative clarity around what defines an intermunicipal service as the primary reason for unreasonable services being inserted into the negotiation process. Some specific examples of unreasonable services that RMA members encountered from municipal neighbours during negotiations include:  Capital costs associated with roads within the neighbouring municipality because they are driven on by rural municipal residents.  Capital costs associated with general infrastructure within a neighbouring municipality’s commercial district because the commercial district is visited by residents of the neighbouring municipality for shopping, etc.  Capital costs associated with upgrading railway crossings within the core of the neighbouring municipality because the train using the tracks transports natural resources extracted from the rural municipality. Based on this finding, RMA has taken the position that “service” should be defined within the MGA for the purposes of intermunicipal collaboration frameworks. In addition to defining a service (or perhaps what is not a service), there is value to amending the MGA to include a list of core services that must be addressed in an ICF. This was originally included in the MGA but was subsequently removed with the intent of simplifying the process for municipalities by allowing them to identify Page 103 of 119 5 the services worth discussing rather than requiring adherence to a default list. The original list included the following services:  Transportation  Water and wastewater  Solid waste  Emergency services  Recreation  Any other services that benefit residents in more than one of the municipalities that were parties to the framework. Unfortunately, in some cases, the removing this list has led to a more complex process as a lack of legislative guidance led to some municipalities simply forcing a discussion of every service they deliver (and in some cases non-service items) in an effort to “see what might stick.” Re-inserting a legislated list of core services to discuss should have the effect of grounding discussions, and combined with a legislated definition of “service,” should ensure that any negotiations on services not in the list are based on a reasonable level of proof and justification that they may have an intermunicipal dimension. RMA has also taken the position that third-party services (such as libraries, non-profit delivered recreation or social services, etc.) should not be allowed within ICF negotiations. While there is no reason municipalities cannot work together to support these services, an ICF is specifically intended to focus on bilateral collaboration among municipalities. Including third-party services requires including non-municipal entities into the ICF process, which will lead to confusion in terms of negotiations as well as accountability related to implementing the agreements. Questions to Consider  What is the right balance between local autonomy and provincewide standardization in defining services for the purpose of ICFs?  How can legislation or the negotiation process be changed to minimize the risks of one municipality forcing a discussion of an item that is obviously not a service or not intermunicipal in scope?  If a list of standardized services is returned to the MGA, is the previous list adequate? Are more services required? Should some services be removed?  How can the process ensure that recourse is available if there is significant disagreement about whether a service is valid within the ICF negotiation context? Page 104 of 119 6 Theme 2: ICF Agreement Duration Overview Although the current maximum ICF agreement is seven years, this is based on a Ministerial Order that expires in 2027. Section 708.32(1) states that The municipalities that are parties to a framework must review the framework at least every 5 years after the framework is created, or within a shorter period of time as provided for in the framework. While this section sets a mandatory maximum duration for when ICFs must be reviewed and renegotiated, it also states that the ICF may be reviewed at any point upon agreement by all parties. ICFs also may have shorter review periods included as an agreement within the ICF itself. RMA Position Assuming municipalities continue to have the ability to review an ICF when needed if all parties agree, RMA supports amending the MGA to require review every seven years. This will allow adequate time for collaborative approaches developed during the ICF process to be implemented, and will reduce the frequency or likelihood of sudden politically-motivated changes linked to elections and council turnover. Questions to Consider  How much time between reviews is required to determine whether implementation of agreements is successful?  Should municipal election years be a consideration in when ICFs are reviewed? Page 105 of 119 7 Theme 3: Cost Calculations Overview A key aspect of ICF negotiations are determining how the costs of delivering intermunicipal services are divided among the municipalities within an agreement. The MGA has minimal references to cost calculations, aside from s. 708.29(2), which states that In developing the content of the framework, the municipalities must identify which municipality is responsible for providing which services and outline how the services will be delivered and funded. Similar to the section on services, the MGA alludes to costs being an element of ICF development, but provides no guidance, restrictions, or methodology as to how costs should be determined. RMA Position RMA does not support a prescriptive methodology to allocate costs among municipalities within an ICF. There is simply too much diversity among municipalities, and too many locally-driven determiners of cost and service need to assume that a single metric or methodology could equitably distribute service delivery costs on a provincewide basis. RMA has taken the position that a legislated standard is required for the quality of data municipalities use as proof of their current service delivery costs and service level requirements. RMA members reported several instances of neighouring municipalities relying on anecdotes, assumptions, or poor quality data to determine service cost baselines. While this was often done due to no other alternative being available, it made meaningful negotiations extremely difficult as there was no way to verify the submitted costs, leading to a loss of trust and in some cases a sense that costs were being exaggerated or even fabricated. Requiring municipalities to track their own service costs and service levels based on a pre-determined methodology, or to a certain standard (quantifiable, verifiable, etc.) would ensure that data quality and accuracy is no longer an issue moving forward, and that municipalities can focus on negotiating the proper methodology for determining proportional responsibility for costs, rather than on debating what the actual costs are. Questions To Consider  How would a prescribed methodology for determining cost-sharing requirements impact ICF negotiations at the local level?  Are there other methods, best practices or legislative requirements that could help standardize service level and cost sharing methodology aside from those proposed in the survey?  If increased expectations are placed on municipalities to provide data-driven service level and cost information as part of the negotiation process, what capacity or funding support is required to ensure that small municipalities can develop this data? What broader benefits would this requirement have? High Priority Response Although the “cost calculations” section only includes one question, some of the options given as a possible response are quite problematic, and swerve far from the original intent of ICFs, which is to focus on collaborative service delivery. RMA is particularly concerned about the options within the question for “equalized assessment” and “population (i.e., cost per capita)” as potential determiners of the portion of service delivery costs assumed by each municipality within an ICF. Page 106 of 119 8 Were one or both of mechanisms to be implemented, the outcomes could be extremely problematic for rural municipalities. While there is no detail as to how either would function, history suggests that equalized assessment would be used as an indicator of municipal fiscal capacity, and municipalities with higher fiscal capacities would be required to fund a larger share of service costs. Population would likely be used in the opposite way; those with a higher population within a given service area (typically an urban municipality) would likely receive a larger share of funding from lower-population neighbours (because there are virtually no urban- to-urban ICFs, this would almost always result in the rural municipality contributing to the urban municipality). While considering how the two metrics would actually be translated into methodology requires speculation, both would shift the ICF process from a discussion and eventual collaboration on the service levels and costs to essentially a revenue-sharing exercise, where one municipality pays a portion based on a metric with only a partial (and typically complex) link to actual service needs. RMA has long argued that revenue-sharing is not an ideal form of collaboration (although it may work in some local circumstances) because it does not require a critical conversation around how shared revenue is used, how services are delivered, how costs are measured, etc. With this in mind, RMA strongly recommends that members do not select equalized assessment or population as responses to question #9 in the survey. As mentioned, RMA plans to provide input recommending that standards be applied to how each municipality presents data in advance of negotiations, rather than a prescriptive method of calculating actual cost proportions. However, if a member believes that requirements around cost calculations would be beneficial, RMA suggests selecting “mutual agreement by municipality, based on a specific service,” as this will allow for a continued local dimension to ICFs. Page 107 of 119 9 Theme 4: Mediation and Arbitration Overview The MGA provides significant and specific direction on the ICF arbitration process. As the MGA does not provide the same specifics around mediation, this section will focus on arbitration. The MGA (s. 708.34) outlines several circumstances in which municipalities must use arbitration to finalize an ICF. This includes when they are unable to agree to an ICF within the legislated review timeframe, when there is disagreement as to whether the ICF still serves the parties’ interests during the review process, or when the internal dispute resolution process within each ICF has not led to the resolution of a dispute within one year of beginning. The MGA outlines the powers of the arbitrator and the timeline by which an arbitration must be resolved, either through agreement by the municipalities or by a decision of the arbitrator. S. 708.38(1) outlines that matters that the arbitrator may consider, which includes the following:  the services and infrastructure provided for in other frameworks to which the municipalities are also parties,  consistency of services provided to residents in the municipalities,  equitable sharing of costs among municipalities,  environmental concerns within the municipalities,  the public interest, and  any other matters that the arbitrator considers relevant. The municipalities are required to amend their bylaws and adopt an ICF consistent with the arbitrator’s ruling. Unless the parties agree on how the costs of the arbitrator are distributed or the arbitrator makes a specific ruling on costs, s. 708.41(2) states that the proportion of arbitrator costs assumed by each municipality is based on their comparative proportion of equalized assessment. The MGA does allow arbitration appeals, but only on issues of jurisdiction (s. 708.48(5)). RMA Position While the majority of ICF negotiations did not result in arbitration, municipalities that did require an arbitrator reported significant concerns with the arbitration process. In fact, 25% of respondents to RMA’s ICF member survey indicated that they agreed to an ICF with terms they were uncomfortable with to avoid the risk of arbitration. Multiple issues contributed to rural municipal arbitration concerns. Firstly, the arbitration cost allocation formula’s reliance on equalized assessment means that in most cases, rural municipalities are responsible for most of the costs of arbitration, as well as their own legal costs. Secondly, the MGA gives the arbitrator wide latitude in reaching a final decision, as well as on considering issues or information that was not the subject of the original negotiation between the parties. In other words, once a negotiation reaches arbitration, the arbitrator can essentially consider any issues they deem relevant, and decide on any final outcomes that they deem appropriate (with a few exceptions outlined in the MGA). As rural municipalities are typically the party responsible for contributing to costs of services delivered by the urban municipality, this places them in a position of high risk during arbitration, as an arbitrator could reach a decision based on a rationale or methodology not discussed during the negotiation that could have major fiscal impacts on the rural municipality. Page 108 of 119 10 Rural municipalities that did participate in arbitration reported instances of this issue, in part because arbitrators tended to lack an understanding of municipalities, and in particular rural municipal cost drivers, service levels, and fiscal challenges, and often assumed that any service available in an urban municipality should be equally contributed to by a rural neighbour even if such a service was not historically available or fiscally feasible to offer in a rural context. Based on these member concerns, RMA has several existing positions relating to the ICF arbitration process, including the following:  Municipalities should not be permitted to introduce services into the arbitration process that were not addressed in the initial negotiation process. This will mitigate the risks of municipalities adding new services to increase the costs of the actual arbitration process or to treat arbitration as a “cash grab” opportunity.  Arbitrators should be required to demonstrate a certain level of municipal experience or complete municipal-specific training. While arbitrators are highly skilled in the actual arbitration process, municipal issues are nuanced and require technical background in municipal legislation and governance. Ensuring arbitrators have some level of municipal training will mitigate the risk of real or perceived arbitrator bias.  The portion of arbitration costs paid by any one municipality should be capped. While there is merit to linking arbitration costs to a municipality’s ability to pay, there also must be some level of accountability on the part of all municipalities for not reaching an agreement during negotiations. Capping the portion of costs assumed by either municipality at 90% will ensure that both municipalities have a stake in the arbitration process, and an incentive to have the process proceed as efficiently as possible.  The arbitration appeal process should be broadened. RMA members reported instances of arbitrators relying on anecdotal evidence or assumptions to make decisions with significant fiscal impacts. Given the stakes involved, if a municipality believes that the arbitrator misused or misinterpreted information, they should have an opportunity to seek an appeal. While an expanded appeal process would improve fairness and transparency, there are risks that appeals could be used to obstruct the completion of the process. For this reason, shifting the initial appeals process for issues related to interpretation and weighing of evidence away from the Court of Queen’s Bench toward the Minister or a third party quasi-judicial panel may allow for such appeals to initially be screened to avoid spurious or unmerited complaints, with those deemed valid forwarded on to the Court of Queen’s Bench. Questions to Consider  How can the arbitration process be modified to better distribute the risks and benefits of arbitration to all involved parties?  What is the appropriate scope for an arbitrator? Should requirements for evidence and data be the same or different in arbitration compared to the initial negotiation process?  Are there any cases in which an arbitrator should be permitted to consider issues not raised during initial negotiations? If so, why? Page 109 of 119 11 Theme 5: Enforcement Overview The MGA gives the Minister significant powers to ensure compliance with ICFs, particularly in the case of arbitrated outcomes, and conduct enforcement in cases where municipalities refuse to implement requirements in the agreement. The Minister may also establish a binding framework upon two or more municipalities. S. 708.43(3) lists the enforcement actions that a Minister may take, which include suspending the authority of a council to pass bylaws associated with any matter in the agreement, withholding grants to the municipality, and others. RMA Position RMA has not taken a position on the scope and processes of the Minister’s enforcement powers. It is important to note that the questions in the survey focus on giving the Minister more authority in relation to taking action to force a municipality to implement an arbitrated decision that they disagree with. It is crucial that municipalities are not required to comply with an arbitrator’s decision if it is still subject to an appeal, as the costs and administrative impacts of complying could be significant, and reversing them may be difficult for both municipalities if the arbitrator’s decision is overruled by the Courts. Questions to Consider  How can the legislation balance ensuring municipalities abide by arbitrated decisions with allowing appeals to play out in the Courts?  If the Minister is given the ability to overrule or dismiss a decision of an arbitrator, if and how should the Minister be required to justify this decision? High Priority Response Question #14 considers giving the Minister significant power to make decisions on behalf of municipalities. Some of the options presented would not only infringe on municipal autonomy, but may allow the Minister to force municipalities to implement arbitrator decisions while appeals have not yet been ruled upon. Some urban municipalities have advocated for this change, and RMA is concerned that if implemented, it would prevent appeals due to the challenges associated with potentially implementing and subsequently reversing ICF elements. Question #15 contemplates whether the Minister should be able to overrule an arbitrator’s decision if they view it as having an unfair impact or overreach the legislated provisions of ICFs. Enabling this may partially offset the risks inherent with arbitration outlined in theme 4, but it would likely require an especially outrageous situation for the Minister to Act on this power. While RMA recommends that members support this power, they should emphasize that it be implemented in combination with changes to the arbitration process. Page 110 of 119 12 Other Themes Given the narrow parameters of the survey, there are other priority positions that do not align with the survey questions, but that members should consider emphasizing in an open-ended response to question 16. These include the following: Define a scope or threshold for “intermunicipal” The lack of structure related to how intermunicipal benefits are defined or quantified led to the inclusion of services with questionable or unproven intermunicipal benefits into some ICF negotiations. Without a definition or threshold as to when a particular service can be considered intermunicipal in nature, ICF negotiations are at high risk for manipulation. It is important to note that in most cases, both municipal partners could easily agree on whether a particular service provided notable benefits across municipal boundaries, but in cases where agreement is not reached, the parties involved (or arbitrator) must have some sort of threshold to measure a proposed intermunicipal service against. This could potentially include verified service usage data indicating a significant level of regional usage, a documented history of both municipalities discussing or planning for the service, or other methods. Municipalities should be required to include consideration of how shared input is provided for shared services ICFs focus primarily on how and to what level services are provided across municipal boundaries, and how costs for delivering the service are divided. What is absent in both the ICF development and arbitration processes is any requirement to consider if and how decision-making related to shared services should be determined. In many cases, both municipal partners are comfortable leaving decision-making around how a particular service is delivered to the municipality that already provides it, with the other municipality simply providing a set monetary contribution to recognize the fact that its residents access the service. However, in some cases reported by RMA members, the contributing municipality was uncomfortable with how a particular service was being delivered and the associated costs in delivering it. From the perspective of rural municipalities, which in most cases are responsible for contributing to services delivered by urban municipalities but accessed to some extent by rural residents, it is quite problematic to expect contributions without any consideration of a corresponding portion of input into service level determination and service delivery mechanisms. Some examples of this issue include rural contributions to urban-delivered recreation services, after which the urban municipality increased user fees for rural residents without consulting with the rural municipality. In this case, the rural municipality viewed the urban municipality as “double-dipping” by using an intermunicipal tool to gather contributions directly from the rural municipality, and using local decision-making to further increase their revenues directly from rural residents. If the rural municipality is contributing to the service at a level proportionate to its residents’ usage levels, they should expect to have input into the service at a similar proportion, and at the very least an assurance that its residents will have equitable access. Under the current structure there is no requirement that municipalities even discuss decision-making collaboration, which places the contributing municipality at great risk in comparison to the municipality responsible for delivering the service. Page 111 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 1 of 1 Version: 2022-02 Subject: Southern Alberta Energy from Waste Association Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil, Legislative Services Coordinator Presented By: Mike Haugen, CAO RECOMMENDED MOTION: That Council receive for information the presentation provided by the Southern Alberta Energy from Waste Association. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: (Check all that apply) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ High Quality Infrastructure Economic Resilience Quality of Life Effective Leadership Level of Service RELEVANT LEGISLATION: Provincial (cite)- N/A Council Bylaw/Policy (cite)- N/A BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL: The Southern Alberta Energy from Waste Association (SAEWA) presented at today’s meeting. DISCUSSION/OPTIONS/BENEFITS/DISADVANTAGES/OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: The purpose of SAEWA’s presentation is to provide Council an overview of their project. FINANCIAL & STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: There is no financial or staffing implication by accepting the recommended motion. RECOMMENDED ENGAGEMENT: Directive Decision (Information Sharing, One-Way Communication Tools: Individual Notification Other: ATTACHMENTS: N/A COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Receive for information. 2. Direct Administration to provide further information. FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS: APPROVAL(S): Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer Approved- ☒ Page 112 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 1 of 1 Version: 2022-02 Subject: Council & Committee Report Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil, Legislative Services Coordinator Presented By: Mike Haugen, CAO RECOMMENDED MOTION: That Council accepts for information the Council & Committee Report, as presented. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: (Check all that apply) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ High Quality Infrastructure Economic Resilience Quality of Life Effective Leadership Level of Service RELEVANT LEGISLATION: Provincial (cite)- N/A Council Bylaw/Policy (cite)- N/A BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL: The purpose of the Council and Committee Reports is to provide each member with the opportunity to bring forward any matter of general interest to Council or the County. DISCUSSION/OPTIONS/BENEFITS/DISADVANTAGES/OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: Council reports will be included on the agenda when requested by Council and reports may be either in writing, verbal, or a combination of both. FINANCIAL & STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: The recommended motion does not have any financial implication. RECOMMENDED ENGAGEMENT: Directive Decision (Information Sharing, One-Way Communication Tools: Individual Notification Other: ATTACHMENTS: Council & Committee Reports COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. That Council accepts the Council and Committee report. FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS: N/A APPROVAL(S): Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer Approved- ☒ Page 113 of 119 Kneehill Regional Family and Community Support Services March 12, 2024 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 March 12, 2024, commencing at 7:04 p.m. PRESENT: Kenneth King Kneehill County Councilor Representative and Chairperson Sonia Ens Village of Linden Councilor Representative and Vice Chairperson Jaime Martel Town of Trochu Councilor Representative Trina Anderson Village of Carbon Councilor Representative Marilyn Sept Town of Three Hills Councilor Representative Shelley Jackson Berry Kneehill Regional FCSS Director and Angie Stewart Recording Secretary ABSENT: Jason Bates Village of Acme Councilor Representative Board Package (attached and forming part of the minutes) BOARD PACKAGE The following documentation has been distributed to the Board: •Agenda •January 9, 2024 regular meeting minutes •Kneehill Community Support Coach 2023 Annual Report •Kneehill Regional FCSS Director’s Report •Kneehill Family and Marriage Counselling 2023 Annual Report •KRFCSS 2023 yearend financials •FWW 2023 yearend financials •KRFCSS 2024 year to date financials •FWW 2024 year to date financials •Kneehill Community Support Coach contract information CALL TO ORDER Mr. King called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. AGENDA 1.0 Adoption of Agenda 06/24 Mrs. Anderson moved approval of the agenda as presented. CARRIED MINUTES 2.0 Approval of Minutes 07/24 Mrs. Sept moved approval of the January 10, 2024 regular meeting minutes. CARRIED DELEGATION 3.0 Delegation 3.1 Kneehill Community Support Coach FCSS Kneehill Community Support Coach Michaela Clark presented the 2023 Annual Report. The board requested that the presentation be emailed to them and that Ms. Jackson Berry write a letter to the municipalities requesting to present the report at an upcoming council meeting. 08/24 Mrs. Martel moved to receive the Kneehill Community Support Coach’s report. CARRIED UN A P P R O V E D Page 114 of 119 Kneehill Regional Family and Community Support Services March 12, 2024 Meeting Minutes 2 BUSINESS 4.0 Business Pending from the Minutes ARISING No business pending. DIRECTOR’S 5.0 Reports REPORT 5.1 Director’s Report FCSS • Written report attached. FAMILY WELLNESS PROGRAM • Written report attached. SENIORS OUTREACH • Written report attached. 09/24 Mrs. Ens moved to receive the Director’s report. CARRIED FIN REPORTS 6.0 Financial Reports 10/24 Mrs. Ens moved to put $380.60 into Deferred for the Tools for School Program. CARRIED 11/24 Mrs. Sept moved to put $5830 into Reserves from CVITP federal funding and general donations. CARRIED 12/24 Mrs. Anderson moved to take $20,228.53 out of Reserves instead of the budgeted $58,246.00. CARRIED 13/24 Mrs. Martel moved to accept the 2023 year-end financial reports and the 2024 year to date financial reports. CARRIED NEW BUSINESS 7.0 New Business 7.1 Kneehill Community Support Coach 14/24 Mrs. Ens moved to extend the Kneehill Community Support Coach contract to June 30, 2025. CARRIED NEXT MEETING 8.0 Next Meeting The next meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, May 14, 2024 at the Kneehill Regional FCSS office in Three Hills, Alberta, commencing at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT 9.0 Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Kenneth King, Chairperson Angie Stewart, Recording Secretary UN A P P R O V E D Page 115 of 119 Kenneth King Division 7 Town of Drumheller, Special Areas, Starland, Wheatland and Kneehill Counties – Mayor/Reeves/Chair, Special Areas Board Meeting April 04, 2024 Continuing discussion with the mayor of the Town of Drumheller, Heather Colberg regarding funding for the Town of Drumheller through the ICF process. The most recent meeting was a discussion about the Town of Drumheller’s parking program that has been designed to bring additional revenue to the Town to help with recreational facility maintenance. This program is to bridge the gap until ICF agreements can be developed. Parking fees will be levied on all nonresident traffic during the tourist season, May 01 – October 31, 2024, will be collected at the normal tourist parking locations throughout the Town of Drumheller, but not at the downtown business or other shopping and business areas. The Town of Drumheller would like to engage in ICF negotiations as soon as is reasonably possible, at the latest by the fall 2024. Amber Link, Reeve, Wheatland County questioned with the recent Municipal Affairs Engagement on ICFs announcement, whether we can negotiate at this time. May need to notify Municipal Affairs that we are entering into a voluntary, collaborative negotiations to work through the outstanding issues. Kenneth King Councillor, Division 7 Kneehill County Page 116 of 119 REQUEST FOR DECISION Page 1 of 1 Version: 2022-02 Subject: Council Follow-Up Action List Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil, Legislative Services Coordinator Presented By: Mike Haugen, CAO RECOMMENDED MOTION: That Council receive for information the Council Follow-up Action List as presented. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: (Check all that apply) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ High Quality Infrastructure Economic Resilience Quality of Life Effective Leadership Level of Service RELEVANT LEGISLATION: Provincial (cite)- N/A Council Bylaw/Policy (cite)- N/A BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL: To request Council’s acceptance of the Council Follow -Up Action List. DISCUSSION/OPTIONS/BENEFITS/DISADVANTAGES/OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: 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 reviewed and updated after each Council meeting. FINANCIAL & STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: The recommended motion does not have any financial implications. RECOMMENDED ENGAGEMENT: Directive Decision (Information Sharing, One-Way Communication Tools: Individual Notification Other: ATTACHMENTS: Council Follow-up Action List. COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. To receive the report regarding the Council Follow-up Action List for information. 2. Council provide further direction or required changes/amendments. FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS: N/A APPROVAL(S): Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer Approved- ☒ Page 117 of 119 Meeting Date Motion #Description/Motion Action Required Assigned To Due Date Status 30-May-23 208/23 Councillor Penner moved that Council authorize the use of $10,000 from the 2023 Operating Budget – Strategic initiatives for a regional economic development project at the Three Hills Airport in partnership with the Town of Three Hills and Prairie College.Mike Haugen 2024 Q1 Hiring in Process (via Prairie). Additional grant funding has been applied for. MOU between Prairie, Town, and County has been signed. 25-Jul-23 256/23 That Council approves a draw of $180,000 from the Capital Roads Reserve to fund the installation of a graded aggregate seal coat on Range Road 240 and Range Road 234, for which the submitted bid was higher than originally budgeted.Marika Von Mirbach Q4 of 2023 Reserve Draws will be made at end of year or project completion 26-Sep-23 308/23 That Council defer the Grader and Gravel Services Policy #13-2 discussion to a future Committee of the Whole meeting.Mike Ziehr 2024 Q2 Policy #13-2 will be reviewed concurrently with the upcoming Policy #13-36 Dirt Trails review. 24-Oct-23 383/23 That Council approve the Integrated Facility Condition and Asset Retirement Assessment Project' with an allocated budget of $325,000 to be distributed over the next three years, with an immediate commencement, to be funded from the Contingency Reserve.Marika Von Mirbach Reserved Draws will be made at end of year Council Input is Required 13-Feb-24 026/24 That Council direct Administration to request Council presentations from the NRCB, AUC, and knowledgeable expert on Alberta electrical grid regarding processes, setbacks, and other information relevant to municipalities.Mike Haugen/Carolyn Van der Kuil2024-03-01 NRCB- April 23rd Council Meeting AUC-April 16 COW Meeting 27-Feb-24 038/24 That Council move to replace the Braconnier Campground Picnic Shelter in 2025 and for administration to include a detailed project plan in the 2025 budget for approval. Fallon Sherlock Q3 2024 27-Feb-24 042/24 That Council appoint Theresa Cochran, for the term of her employment with Kneehill County, as an authorized signing authority for Kneehill County.Carolyn Van der Kuil 12-Mar Waiting for minutes to be signed to send to Bank 27-Feb-24 045/24 That Council direct Administration to take the necessary steps to modify the Town of Trochu, Guaranteeing Loan Agreement timelines and interest rates, as per Trochu Housing Corporation's request.Theresa Cochran Q2 2024 In Progress 12-Mar-24 052/24 That Council approve the funding and installation of two new streetlights in the Hamlet of Huxley as presented to be funded from the 2024 Operating Budget.Mike Ziehr Q3 2024 In Progress 12-Mar-24 055/24 That Council moves to host 3 Country Markets at Horseshoe Canyon in 2024 with a budget of $34,000 as part of the Growing Kneehill Project.Kevin Gannon 12-Mar-24 056/24 That Council direct staff to seek partnership opportunities with the Cluster Group Event organized by the Open Farm Days in place of a County led celebration of agriculture event.Kevin Gannon 12-Mar-24 057/24 That Council sets the Community Priorities for RCMP for 2024 as rural crime prevention, community safety focus, presence in rural communities, road safety and partnering with Kneehill CPOs in enforcement, education and engagement. ;COMPLETED Deb Grosfield 12-Mar-24 064/24 That Council authorize administration to pursue the Economic Development opportunity as presented.Kevin Gannon 26-Mar-24 067/24 That Council move first reading of proposed Bylaw 1895 for the purpose of Amending Land Use Bylaw 1808 by redesignating the NE 2-29-24-W4, portions of the NW 2-29-24-W4, SE 2-29-24-W4 and SW 2-29-24-W4 from Agriculture District to Direct Control District 7.COMPLETED 26-Mar-24 068/24 That Council move first reading of proposed Bylaw 1896 for the purpose of Amending Land Use Bylaw 1808 by redesignating portions of the NW 2-29-24-W4 and the SW 2-29-24-W4 from Agriculture District & Local Rural Commercial District to Direct Control District 8.COMPLETED 26-Mar-24 069/24 That Council move to schedule the Public Hearing, for Bylaw 1895 and 1896 as per Sections 216.4 & 692 of the Municipal Government Act, to be held on April 23, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. at the County office.On the Agenda for Apr 23/24 Council Action Items Page 118 of 119 Meeting Date Motion #Description/Motion Action Required Assigned To Due Date Status Council Action Items 26-Mar-24 070/24 That Council appoint the following as Fire Guardians for the issuance of Fire Permits to March 31, 2025:Three Hills Fire Department: Chris Evans, Murray Fenton, Brandon RempelAcme Fire Department: Brian Fradgley, Bert Jackson, Robb ScottCarbon Fire Department: Jody Kranzler, Jordan Reed, Jeremy Kranzler, Austin Larsen, Travis Cormier, Riddel WiebeLinden Fire Department: Kenton Klassen, Shawn Klassen, Carson Reimer, Max PennerTorrington Fire Department: Doug Fretz, Jason Michielsen, Derek BenedictTrochu Fire Department: Richard Hoppins, Alan Adam, Lawrence HoggKneehill County Administrative: CAO, Director of Community Services, Manager of Protective Services, Rural Fire Chief ;COMPLETED 26-Mar-24 071/24 That Council approves reserve contributions of $3,077,826, as detailed in Appendix C. 26-Mar-24 072/24 The Council approves a draw of up to $60,000 from the Contingency reserve to fund the Municipal Intern program. 26-Mar-24 073/24 That Council approves a draw of $25,000 from the Contingency reserve for the Kneehill Historical Society in relation to Council motion 85/23. 26-Mar-24 074/24 That Council approves $959,557 of operating project carryforwards, including funding sources, as detailed in Appendix D. 26-Mar-24 075/24 That Council approves $40,072 for one over budget capital project to be funded through the Capital Equipment Plan reserve, as detailed in Appendix E. 26-Mar-24 076/24 That Council approves $5,695,480 of capital project carryforwards, including funding sources, as detailed in Appendix E. 26-Mar-24 077/24 That Council direct administration to incorporate full mitigation of the Kneehill Housing requisition increase in the amount of $220,024 in the 2024 mill-rate discussion. 26-Mar-24 078/24 That Council direct administration to incorporate full mitigation of the Alberta School Fund ; 2023 requisition under-levy in the amount of $640,286 in the 2024 mill-rate discussion. 26-Mar-24 079/24 That Council direct Administration to request from Alberta Municipal Affairs an explanation on the significant error in assessment in the 2023 calculation of the Alberta School Fund requisition. ; ; 26-Mar-24 080/24 That Council provide the Trochu and District Arboretum Society sponsorship in the amount of $1,122 to assist in the costs associated with hosting the Trochu Flower, Baking and Photography Show.COMPLETED 26-Mar-24 081/24 That Council receive for information the presentation presented by the Wind Concerns Kneehill County delegation.COMPLETED Page 119 of 119