April

Partnerships

Crowsnest AND

FEASIBILITY

Final

McElhanney

2013

Report

SERVICE

Pass

Initiative

STUDY

I

SHARING

Pincher

OF

Creek

MANAGEMENT

Douglas

REGIONAL

OPPORTUNITIES

I

Cowley

Plamping

CONSULTING

Regional

PARTNERSHIP

& Associates I Feasibility Study of Regional Partnership and Service Sharing Opportunities

This feasibility study was conducted by McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. in collaboration with Douglas Plamping & Associates for the member municipalities of the Regional Partnership:

Municipality of Crowsnest Pass Town of Pincher Creek Municipal District of Pincher Creek Village of Cowley

Douglas Plamping & Associates A MANAGEMENT CONSULTING McElhanney I Feasibility Study of Regional Partnership and Service Sharing Opportunities

) Tableof Contents

I INTRODUCTION

2 MUNICIPAL PARTNERS 2

3 DEMOGRAPHICS 3

4 PARTNERSHIP’S DESIRED OUTCOMES 5

5 FEASIBILITY STUDY PROCESS 6

6 SERVICE PARTNERSHIP PACT AND BUSINESS PLAN 7

6.1 REGIONAL COLLABORATION ON GOVERNANCE 7 6.1.1 Corporation (Example: Aquatera Utilities Inc.) 7 6.1.2 Structured Conunittee (Example: Municipal Area Partnership) 7

6.1.3 Informal (Example: “G5” Partnership) 8

6.1.4 Subsidiary Board (Example: South Central Rural Alliance) 8 6.1.5 Recommendations: Governance Process 9

7 PRIORITY AREAS - SERVICE SHARING OPPORTUNITIES 10

7.1 AMMAL CONTROL SERVICES 11 7.1.1 Municipality of Crowsnest Pass 11 7.1.2 Town of Pmcher Creek 11 7.1.3 Municipal District of Pincher Creek 12 7.1.4 Village of Cowley 12 7.1.5 Animal Control Services Analysis 12 7.1.6 Recommendations: Animal Control Services 13

7.2 SOLID WASTE PICKUP AND RECYCLING 14 7.2.1 Solid Waste Services 14 7.2.2 Recycling Programs 14 7.2.3 Garbage Pickup Services 15 7.2.4 Recommendations: Solid Waste Pickup & Recycling 16

7.3 RECREATION FACILITIES ANT) PROGRAMMING 17 7.3.1 Regional Recreation and Culture Program Guide 18 7.3.2 Future Use of the Albert Stella Memorial Arena 19 7.3.3 Policy on Support of Adult Recreation Programs 20 7.3.4 Regional Integration of a Multi-Purpose Cultural Centre 21 7.3.5 Construction of a Shared Multi-Facility Complex 21 7.3.6 Recommendations: Recreation Facilities and Programming 22

) McElhanney I

Feasibility

7.4

7.5

APPENDIX 8 APPENDIX 9 8.1 8.2

McEUianney

PUBLIC

7.4. 7.4.2 PROTECTIVE 7.4.5 7.4.3 7,4.6 7.4.4

7.5.2 7.5.1 ECONOMIC 7.5.4 ADDITIONAL ECONOMIC 7.5.5 7.5.3

SHARING 8.2.1 9.1.1 8.2.2 8.2.3

Study

1

A

B

TRANSPORTATION — -

of

COMMUNITY

LIST

Development Full A Dial-A-Bus Utilizing Fire Recommendations:

Emergency Recommendations: Enforcement

Recommendations: Safety Recommendations: JEDI Leduc-Nisku

Regional

OPPORTUNITIES

DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

Demand

SERVICES

Service

and

SERVICE

OF

Code

Rescue

a

Partnership

INTERVIEWS

“REC”

Responsive

Management

Systems

Dial-A-Bus

Services

Services

of

AND

INFORMATION

a

Services

SHARING

Regional

Bus

Public

Protective

Economic

Sharing

MODELS

ENFORCEMENT

Service

Service

and

WORKSHOP

(Small

Transportation

Transit

Opportunities

Service

Services Development

OPPORTUNITIES

(DART)

Bus)

Service

Sharing

and

utilizing

Workshop

Enforcement

Opportunities

Taxis

26 27 23 29 27 28

31 32 32 32 33 35 33

37 36

37 38 37 39

36

39 I Feasibility Study of Regional Partnership and Service Sharing Opportunities

I INTRODUCTION ) The Municipality of Crowsnest Pass, the Municipal District of Pincher Creek, the Town of Pincher Creek and the Village of Cowley obtained funding through the Government of Alberta Regional Collaboration Program to conduct a Feasibility Study in order to identify opportunities to collaborate and share specific services.

Each member municipality expressed interest in working cooperatively and seeking out opportunities for regional municipal service collaboration in the areas of environment, infrastructure and the unification of energy and resources.

The purpose of this Feasibility Study is to identif’ potential sharing opportunities, and then analyze each potential sharing opportunity against the partnership’s desired I., ‘ I.• I’i,7i/;j H I n , outcomes (see Section 4).

The Feasibility Study, supported by the Regional Collaboration Program and grant funding, will set the framework and building blocks for a more comprehensive and long-term partnership that will explore and facilitate regional municipal partnership alliances.

A Steering Committee, consisting of municipal officials, was initiated at the outset of the project and identified five (5) key opportunities for regional services:

1. Animal Control Services 2. Solid Waste Pickup and Recycling 3. Recreation Facilities and Programming 4. Public Transportation 5. Protective Services and Enforcement

) These five (5) key opportunities were thoroughly examined within each of the four (4) participating municipalities during this study. Following a detailed examination of each of the five opportunities, recommendations for potential sharing opportunities were developed. These recommendations are identified at the end of each of the five sections. Recommendations for sharing opportunities have been ranked into three (3) categories (high, medium and low) based on an evaluation of how the study’s desired outcomes are met by each sharing opportunity. A high rank means most of the study’s desired outcomes are met, a medium rank means some of the 3 outcomes are met, and a low rank means few or none of the desired outcomes are met.

A I • Feasibility

2 McElhanney

MUNICIPAL Study District the formed Crowsnest The Mines, of Municipal Alberta, Village the in the Waterton The immediately The located 1906. The Regional Town 1944, community Town Municipality Municipal Towii Village Lowland No. as of

PARTNERS Canada. west when Lakes a Pass of of Cowley, District 5 result Partnership of Pincher east (which Blairmore, of of was Pincher of Heights, the National It District Lethbridgc coivley of the of of is and of officially name the Pincher located the Creek. included Rocky the Growsnest Canadian Lundbreck, and Park. Creek amalgamation is Town of Hamlets was a The in in Creek incorporated Service Pincher Mountains village In the Census Southern changed is MD of 1898, Rockies Hamlet a of No. Pass Pincher town Coleman, Sharing in Beaver of Division Creek 39, the Pincher Pincher of from Alberta. in as is in in then of Municipal five Station southwest a the the a Opportunities town Hillcrest) No. Municipal 3. Creek renumbered specialized the municipalities Creek southwest centre It Cowley and 9 and was Village is District was includes Twin Alberta, named of a established — municipal District incorporated on ranching was of in Butte. municipality of of January Pincher Alberta, 1945. incorporated the — Pincher Canada. Frank the of in Town country, The district Crowsnest the Village Creek. 1, Canada. as and Creek, municipal 1979. The current a of village. located in as 50 Pincher Improvement municipality of southwestern Alberta. a km It boundaries No. Village Bellevue, is 2 seat In north located in Creek, 39 1906, is It the of in in to is I Feasibility Study of Regional Partnership and Service Sharing Opportunities

3 DEMOGRAPHICS ) The following table shows the municipal populations by age group from the 2011 federal census. These figures are especially important when addressing age-specific services such as specialized public transportation services ) (e.g. handi-bus services.) and trends in recreational activities and programming.

Table 1: Population Demographics by Municipality Age (Years)

- 5-17 65 &over Total Median Age 0-4 18-64

Municipality of Crowsnesl Pass 230 625 3525 1195 5565 50.8

M.D. o[Pincher &eekNo. 9 150 515 1915 585 3158 46.9

Townof Pincher Creek 220 575 2165 715 3685 43.4

• -.-— — i/lagL of Cowlev 15 35 150 45 236 424

Region Totals 615 1750 7755 2540 12644

Source: Statistics Canada 2011 Census. Note: due1to rounding of age groups to nearest 5, age group numbers do not necessarily add up to the total population

McElhanney 31 I Feasibility Crowsnest The amongst 2001, Nation, neighbours the Community Although service 10 year potential figure McElhanr,ey fluctuating delivery, as the period the below each Pass. Study should four of benefit Source Village terms Town Crowsnest Waterton, M.D.of Municipality sharing which trends partner between Region tracks The of SIatiscs be Creek Creek of of of Regional of considered. Pincher Pincher Cowley population this Canada Totals the and is reference opportunity Pass municipalities. minor of M.D. coincident Regional Census census circumstances

Municipal -: 0

1236 Partnership 2001, population of 219 225 for totals 2000, data Once Ranchiand is Parthership. 2011 I this with considered, between of The a governance feasibility occurring 7. the growth and the

Population regional iI?H 3i1 No. 3197 other rate 2001 Service JO i’il it and 66, 5,000 I’r/)i(fif,r) in is -2011 of 3 population study structure suggested decline municipal these the decline Sharing 55g 6 to Regional did by other Population 6262 illustrate

by over I for not being has Opportunities that partners

Year 7(11 neighbouring this 5 include shown District (-2111 year extending population experienced study I intervals. 2001 have 10,000 a Waterton consistent of is in the East stayed municipalities

-2011 change place, sharing within Kootenay, Lakes relatively level it on 2O11 •2006 is the 1261 opportunity a 2001 of National 2902 recommended regional be decline 3,3(70 Municipality and constant monitored 15,000 the Park, basis 4 over to Piikan since thesc

1 thai this and th foi ol I Feasibility Study of Regional Partnership and Service Sharing Opportunities

4 PARTNERSHIP’SDESIREDOUTCOMES

The following desired outcomes of the partnership were identified by the municipalities as follows:

• Reduced negative effect on the environment

• Increased service level to the respective communities

• Reduced operating costs

• Extended life expectancy for infrastructure

• Overall efficiencies

• Cost sharing opportunities

Each recommendation provided in this Feasibility Study has been measured against the partnerships desired outcomes. Given that the recommendations may only meet a part of a desired outcome, the use of a score or checklist is not appropriate for this type of study. A rating of high, medium, or low has been stated against each recommendation. The ratings of high, medium and low have been defined according to a number of criteria as identified in the following table.

Recommended Priority Alignment to Desired Outcomes

High high organizational/ communityreadiness, ease of most or all of the desired outcomes implementation,and resultsin the short term. are met

Medium medium organizational/ communityreadiness, about half of the desired outcomes significanteffort or time to implement,and results in the are met medium term.

Low minimal organizational/ communityreadiness, current only a few to none of the desired situation limits implementation,and delayed results or outcomesare met feasibility.

This Feasibility Study will be the “building block” that will enable a more comprehensive analysis and long-term partnership initiative that will continue to explore and facilitate regional municipal partnership alliances.

I4 McElhariney I Feasibility Study of Regional Partnership and Service Sharing Opportunities

5 FEASIBILITYSTUDYPROCESS

The development of this Feasibility Study was undertaken during the period between July 2012 to January 2013 under the following schedule:

Date Description

July 2012 Kick-off Meeting for Feasibility Study

JuIy/AugustJSeptembcr 2012 Obtaining and reviewing background materials with resulting initial research

September/October 2012 Interviews with stakeholders - Mayors, Reeve, Councillors, Steering Committee Members, CAOs, Department Heads, staff, public groups, organizations, and agencies

A significant number of the departments and organizations delivering services to the communities were interviewed, but due to time limitations not every request for interviews could be accommodated

October/November 2012 Collation of interviews and follow-up research on potential sharing opportunities

October/November 2012 Preparation of the Feasibility Study - Draft Report

December 2012 Presentation of Feasibility Study - Draft Report to Steering Committee

January 2013 Incorporating comments from Steering Committee in the Feasibility Study - Final Report

February2013 Presentationof the Feasibility Study -Final Report with Recommendations

McElhanney 6 I Feasibility Study of Regional Partnership and Service Sharing Opportunities

6 SERVICEPARTNERSHIPPACTANDBUSINESSPLAN

The Municipality of Crowsnest Pass, the Municipal District of Pincher Creek, the Town of Pincher Creek and the Village of Cowley received funding through the Government of Alberta Regional Collaboration Program for this Feasibility Study.

This study provides a background review of existing municipal services and delivery mechanisms with recommendations on opportunities to collaborate and share specific services between the municipal partners. At the outset of this process, the municipal partners expressed interest in working cooperatively and seeking out opportunities for regional municipal service applications into the future. As a result, an exploration of opportunities for the development of agreements and business plans will be required and a governance structure will need to be established in order to develop and monitor these initiatives.

6.1 REGIONALCOLLABORATIONONGOVERNANCE

The governance process is a key factor in the success of any partnership. An additional success factor is the choice of a name for the partnership as the name can be chosen to represent either the region, the partners, or the services delivered.

There are a number of examples of governance processes for regional cooperation in Alberta that could be considered for this regional partnership. These governance processes include the following models:

• Corporation • Structured Committee • Informal • Subsidiary Board

6.1.1 CORPORATION(EXAMPLE:AQUATERAUTILITIESINC.)

A for-profit corporation owned by the City of Grande Prairie, the County of Grande Prairie No. 1, and the Town of Sexsmith, which was the first regional utility corporation in Alberta formed in 2003.

The company provides the municipalities with the following services: water treatment, wastewater treatment, garbage collection, recycling services, and waste management.

The company also provides specialized programs within these areas including: backyard composting, Christmas tree mulching, Eco-Centre, Fall yard waste, grass recycling, plastics recycling, and waste-to-energy.

Each of the municipalities are shareholders of the company and participate in the appointment of the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors provides corporate guidance to the company and the municipalities may agree to delegate additional municipal services to be provided through the company.

6.1.2 STRUCTUREDCOMMITTEE(EXAMPLE:MUNICIPALAREAPARTNERSHIP)

This partnership was initially developed through funding under the Regional Collaboration Program, involving Mountain View County, the Towns of Carstairs, Didsbury, Olds, and Sundre, and the Village of Cremona.

McEIh.nney 14 7

I

bylaw

behalf

This

through

from videoconferencing

This Fund.

This

$2.5

made

6.1.4 one

The

CAOs Water

The

assessment Five

initiatives.

Spirit

technical

Reeve,

6.1.3

This

recycling,

provided

Awards

access A

to

Feasibility

Memorandum

direct

regional

McElhanney type

partnership

G5

project

million

board

all

South

partnership,

by

or

of

River,

to for

to

with

videoconferencing

participants

SUBSIDIARY

partnership

INFORMAL

for

agreement.

the

consensus.

a

of different

advisory for

cemetery,

Life

and

includes

dinner

The

Central

services,

group, provided

Municipal

Study

partners.

in

the

agency

and

funding

funding.

start-up FCSS

municipal

meets

CAO’s

the

of

entitled

meeting

types

allowing

group

like

of

Peace

a

has

Agreement

delivering fire,

is

(EXAMPLE:

Town

and

services.

thirteen

partnership

for

Regional

BOARD

Board

on

invited

Excellence.

funding

the

completed

attending

of

library,

recreation

are

to

an

“MAP”,

Region

partners

hosted

and

development

Crowsnest/Pinchcr

of

central

the

as

investigating

members

(13)

Spirit

to

The

programs.

other

needed

for

Committee.

Partnership

(MOA)

(EXAMPLE:

recreation,

make

of

municipalities “G5”

by

in

has

Community

include

a

their

MOA

Alberta

and

River.

eight

a

number

each

broadband

support

regular

a

are

basis,

PARTNERSHIP)

was

library

project

to

presentation

also

central

municipality

cooperation

appointed

Birch

the

community

parks

developed

Decisions

of

and

SOUTH

3

monthly

role.

included

Creek

most

Engagement

or

services.

projects

“Finishing

learning

formed

Hills

Alberta

Service

4

and

The

times

appropriate

by

Landfill

at

CENTRAL

culture,

County,

on

are

meetings

in

that

members

cooperation

each

CAOs

including

the

a

The

applications.

(municipal

per

bylaw

turn.

partnership

Sharing

made

The

provided

partners

Sites

meeting. Municipal

year,

Association,

water

also

Village

The

Dream”

venue

enforcement

by

of

RURAL

to

and

regional

inviting

Opportunities

meet

a

CAOs

access

a

on

and

and

and

for

committee

majority

to

a

Meetings

(rural

The

of

agricultural

program

Area

from

work

are

detailed

wastewater,

educational)

on

ALLIANCE)

Rycroft,

cooperate

programs,

is

waste

governing

all

a

normally

or

formed

Partnership

the

services

monthly

together

members vote.

urban

are

composed

delivery

management,

Rural

subdivision

Saddle

pest

informal

on

to

waste

services

municipality),

organizations

board

delegated

and

basis

on

Alberta

undertake

and

agenda

of

won

hub

Hills

regional

an

each of

management,

weed

and

included

with

guidelines,

application

the

for

and

the

recycling,

Development

County,

preparation

authority

Council

act

Mayors

two

control,

2009

a

decisions

courseware

cooperation

service

that

as

universal

members

way

the

Minister’s

M.D.

received

8

and

measures

for

by

and and

and

on

and

being

the of Feasibility Study of Regional Partnership and Service Sharing Opportunities

6.1.5 RECOMMENDATIONS:GOVERNANCEPROCESS

In assessing which of the above four models would be most appropriate for continued governance of this regional partnership, the ‘Structured Committee’ or (MAP) referenced under Section 6.1.2 would likely be the most effective given the similar types of services, activities and facilities that arc governed under its Memorandum of ‘ Agreement (MOA). Its formal meeting schedule is also highly similar to the existing structure already in place between the Councils and CAOs of Crowsnet Pass, MD Pincher Creek, Town of Pincher Creek and Village of Cowley.

As a general observation, the ‘Structured Committee’ is also more likely to have long term, sustained success for any municipal partnership given its fonial structure and the fact that the development of an MOA requires ongoing collaboration and monitoring between municipal partners.

Recommended Alignment to I)esircd Sharing Opportunity Priority Outcomes

Choose a name and form a ‘Structured Committee’ High High

LEGEND

Recommended Priority Alignment to Desired Outcomes

High high organizational / community readiness, ease of implementation, most or all of the desired outcomes are met and results in the short term.

Medium medium organizational / community readiness, significant effort or about half of the desired outcomes arc met time to implement, and results in the medium term.

Low minimal organizational/ community readiness, current situation only a few to none of the desired outcomes are limits implementation,and delayed results or feasibility, met

McElhanney 91

I

(in Following

sharing The

Feasibility

7

Section

McElhanney

Stcering

7.5

7.4

opportunities:

7.3

7.2

7.1

PRIORITY

an

8)

Study

examination

as

Committee

PROTECTIVE PUBLIC

RECREATION

ANIMAL

SOLID

well

of

as

Regional

mechanisms

WASTE

AREAS

TRANSPORTATION

of

identified

CONTROL

the

Partnership

SERVICES

FACILITIES

above PICKUP

— to

five

SERVICES

five

explore

SERVICE

(5)

AND

priority

AND

and

priority

AND

increased

RECYCLING

Service

ENFORCEMENT

areas,

PROGRAMMING

areas

SHARING

sharing

Sharing

additional

of

municipal

opportunities

Opportunities

service

OPPORTUNITIES

operations

sharing

and

efficiencies

opportunities

to

be

examined

(Section

are

discussed

10

for

9). scr’Q • Feasibility Study of Regional Partnership and Service Sharing Opportunities

7.1 ANIMALCONTROLSERVICES

The municipal partners provided the following background infonriation for consideration in the development of recommendations.

7.1.1 MUNICIPALITYOFCR0WSNESTPASS

The Animal Control facility is located in Hillcrest next to the Operations facility. This facility is approximately 3300 ,2ft half of which was constructed as an addition in 2009. The original portion of the building is approximately 15 years old.

The facility is owned by the Municipality and operated by a resident in the capacity of Pound Keeper. The Municipality pays for building maintenance, insurance and utilities as part of the annual $47,000 (2012) in Municipal budget funding. Revenues derived from the operation are approximately $4,500. The operation is also subsidized by donations including the $150,000 addition undertaken in 2009. The facility includes 6 indoor dog kennels that have access to 6 individual outside enclosures. The facility has 3 larger rooms where cats are accommodated. There are cages for the cats however these are primarily used to transport the animals. It is largely a no-kill facility except in the case of feral cats.

In addition, the Municipality has an Animal Control Officer under contract, which is included in the $47,000 annual operating expense. The Officer is provided with a vehicle and works closely with the Pound Keeper. This area of operation reports to the Director of Protective and Community Services. The Municipality does not currently have a lease agreement for the facility, however it is expected that this will be achieved in the near future.

7.1.2 TOWNOFPINCHERCREEK

The Pincher Creek Humane Society is a no-kill facility currently operating in the Town of Pincher Creek with the support of the Alberta SPCA and the Lethbridge Humane Society. This Society continues to oversee services and accommodations for stray and abandoned cats and dogs in the Town of Pincher Creek, including the MD of Pincher Creek. The current facility is located at 1086 Kettles Street, Pincher Creek. The building is 720 square feet and is not adequately serving the needs of the town and surrounding area. All animals that come to the facility are immediately examined and treated by a local veterinarian, with whom the facility has a verbal agreement for ‘ such services. The veterinarian evaluates each animal’s fitness for adoption and those deemed not suitable for adoption are euthanized. Puppies and kittens are usually placed in foster homes while some adult cats and dogs are placed in foster homes or kept at the facility. When the facility has no capacity, some animals are spayed or neutered and then sent to Humane Society facilities in the City of Lethbridge and other neighboring centers.

The facility contains six kennels and space for six cats, including an isolation area used in the first two weeks of housing an animal. Personnel have kept detailed statistics on the number of animals processed, adopted and housed in the facility. Accommodation for cats is only a storage room with no “comforts” such as the ones provided in newer facilities (play and rest areas).

) The facility’s finances are in excellent condition. The annual budget of $75,000 is currently managed with no reserve funds while the SPCA provides insurance for the Humane Society’s operations. An agreement with 3 Petsmart® in the City of Lethbridge provides the facility with needed pet foods and other supplies while the Town ) of Pincher Creek also supplies the building and pays for utilities. The annual budget covers the cost of personnel and veterinary services. One paid full-time employee and two casual employees work at the facility and McElhanney 14. 11

additional

service

full-time

The

sufficient

create

Crowsnest

Currently,

participation

by

the

The

for

would

of

During

7.1.5

Creek.

animals

Similar

7.1.4

MD

provides

has I

McElhannoy

MD

volunteers,

Pincher formation

Currently,

sharing

7.1.3

Preliminary

sharing

grooming

other

eight

The

communities

current number

discussion

volunteers

the

Feasibility

capacity

agreed

throughout

be

and

and

Animal the

Pincher

to

occasional

ANIMAL

partnership

dog

to

found Animal

Pass

relatively

VILLAGE

Creek

require

services.

opportunities MUNICIPAL

Town

part-time funding

planning

decision the

to

of

of

to

kennels

law

and

the

to

to

the

available

with

MD

(mainly

estimates

two

house

in

Control

Creek

Study undertake

to provide

CONTROL and

movement is

enforcement Control

bathing

the

the

detriment a

OF

to

busy

the

not

straightforward,

Community

All

of

the separate

by

endeavors. process

Community

it

and

year.

Village the

animals

COWLEY

Pincher

Humane

DiSTRICT

Pincher

of

to

is

the from

four

Town

Officer

volunteers.

available

day

indicate

animal

Town runs

Officers

area worth

Regional

share

the

Town

SERVICES

partners

or

of

contract

by

the

for

of

of

from with

or with

existing

Creek,

cessation

a

Creek

Society

positions

the

the of

Peace noting

Cowley

Town animal

control

OF Pincher

facility

animal

Peace

of

that

to

are

Pincher

top

facility, access municipal

the The Partnership

PINCHER

perhaps

Pincher

the

needed

when

Humane law

contracted the

ANALYSIS

Officer

of

that

level

mounted

MD

has Officer

control

municipal

services.

Board

control out

of

to

Creek

are

new Pincher

enforcement

to

Creek

the

sufficient

the the

begun however

if

of

of

Creek giving improved

not the

CREEK

partners,

positions

capacity

facility

Pincher

Society Board

a

of

services animal

positions

about

officers,

personnel

hoses

outside,

community

required.

with

based and

Directors

Creek)

Although

campaigning

partners.

to

the

until

Community

support

alternative is

Service

the

would

control

and

animal

in steering

or

exists

Creek

Animal

on

provided.

by

currently

the

in

cat

comprise

Town the

animal

a

take

the

drainage,

the

the

includes

decision

normal In

animal

and can

cost

Town

the and

Human

control

duties Sharing

number

Municipality

addition,

any

Town

Control

committee

for

of

be

facilities dog

control construction

more

developing

the

Peace

Pincher

the

a

stray

complaints

expected of volume

individuals

heated

within

is

new

isolation

Society

of

Society

services

Pincher

rest of

made

Opportunities

than

was

as

Officers

Pincher

personnel or

animals

facility.

outside

and

the

of

Creek

abandoned

the

of cement

of identified

$350,000.

on

to

pays a

the

facility

of

and

areas,

calls organizations

Creek.

Crowsnest

communities

may policy

region.

significantly

a

from

Creek

a

are

personnel.

and

received

of

new

The

new

believed

to

take

per

floor,

“cluster”

town,

available.

a

house

in

the

Pincher

The

document

as

furnished

ideal facility,

animals

provide

animal

day

For

any

the

the

Municipality

and

Pass,

agreement

but

at

these reported the

Town these

facility

stray

There

a

arc

first

reduce

the

at

a

Creek

good

this

shelter

the

undertaking found

sufficient

and

drop-off

times

supported

for

cat

facility

priority

reasons,

animals.

or

of

Humane

has

might

launch would

the

the

volunteer

room,

abandoned

is

and

Pincher

12

between

in

which

reduces

been

not of

existing

facility.

the

from

room.

surroundinl

reduce

in

The

office, contain

solely

pad

Society

MD

terms some

can

the

the

MD

the of

I

The

to

Feasibility

7.1.6

Officers

with

Consolidate

humane

Formalize

Sharing achieve

McEjhenney

municipal

the

have

unavailable.

• by

• Officers

Community

• the

•

Supporting

Encouraging

the

Supporting

RECOMMENDATIONS:

support

societies

duties

Opportunity

a

the

arrangements

Humane

Study

role

animal

from

following:

partners

of

in

of

Peace

The

Community

of

encouraging

other

local

the

animal

control

Societies

the

Regional

access

provision

need

Officers.

Veterinarians

municipal

Humane

with

control

services

to

agreement

both

would

ANIMAL

Peace

Partnership

fomrnlize

that

of

Similarly,

Society’s

enforcement

partners

humane

support.

include

in

CONTROL

would

subsidizing

arrangements

access

support

would

sheltering

and

arrangements

Recommended

include

through

Service

SERVICES

on

be

of

this

notification

available

community

High for

High

agreed

through

the

service

Sharing

animals

for

provision

Priority

fees

access

when written

•

to

from

spay/neuter

by Opportunities

•

for

be

their

to

these

of

successful,

this

RCMP

agreements

the

pound

facilities

type

volunteer

pound

Alignment

programs.

Officers

services.

of

and

service. by

Outcomes

with

are

High

based

local

the

either

and

to

These

both

These

municipal

Desired

RCMP

organizations.

Community

Humane

at

services

programs

capacity

Officers

partners

Societies

13

provided

Peace

or

require and I Feasibility Study of Regional Partnership and Service Sharing Opportunities

7.2 SOLIDWASTEPICKUPANDRECYCLING

The second priority identified by the municipal partners for sharing opportunities was Solid Waste Pickup and Recycling. The region already shares these services to some degree with the regional solid waste disposal site and some shared recycling programs.

The members have stated their interest in investigating opportunities for enhanced recycling, yard waste pick up and composting, a public education program and other events and programs in the area to promote recycling, reduction and reuse.

The member municipalities have collaborated in the development a regional landfill tinder the administration of a jointly controlled society - the Crowsnest/Pincher Creek Landfill Association. The municipal members currently transport solid waste to the Association’s landfill site in the MD of Pincher Creek.

7.2.1 SOLIDWASTESERVICES

Municipality of Crowsnest Pass: Crowsnest Pass is a member of the Crowsnest Pass/Pincher Creek Landfill Association. Solid waste is presently collected from residences through a contracted service which consists of manual pickup from curbs and laneways on a weekly basis. However, difficulties in access to some country residential areas have required the placement of common large bins in some locations. Following pick-up, the solid waste is then transported by the contractor to the regional landfill. Commercial and industrial waste pick-up services are the responsibility of the individual business owner. Crowsncst Pass’s recycling program consists of a single community depot drop-off site situated in the Frank Industrial area. This is a contracted service that operates in conjunction with a bottle drop-off and associated functions.

Town of Pincher Creek: There is weekly garbage collection as well as recycling facilities for paper, plastic, cans and bottles. A sanitary landfill is located in the MD of Pincher Creek and a composting site is available for the collection of yard waste.

M.D. of Pincher Creek: Solid waste collection and disposal within the MD is varied. The Hamlets of Lundbreck and Beaver Mines have curbside collection weekly while all other residential requirements are met with strategically placed bins in Pincher Creek, Pincher Station and at the landfill site. The solid waste collection system is contracted out to a local provider. Capacity is not an issue.

Village of Cowley: The Village of Cowley provides manual pickup from curbs and laneways on a weekly basis, and has a recycling program. Recycling materials are collected and then bundled before being shipped to the regional landfill site. The MD of Pincher Creek also uses this recycling program and some of those interviewed in this study suggested this program could be adapted and expanded to meet the needs of the other two municipal partners as well.

7.2.2 RECYCLINGPROGRAMS

Recycling programs in the region are available at the landfill and at contractor’s facilities in the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass and the Town of Pincher Creek. The Village of Cowley collects recyclables and delivers them to the facility in the Town of Pincher Creek.

McElhanney 14

•

two

day

In

second

7.23

make

regional

Recycling

sale plastics

The The

and

The

automobiles, The

located electronics,

Feasibility

environmental

Support

landfill

Diversion recycling

Initiate

Increased reuse,

Communication

order

average

garbage glass.

McElhanney

Town

of

lack

Municipality

landfill

it

garbage

recycling

recycled

GARBAGE

region-wide

to

in

easier

and

of

communication

of

pickup

Feature

access

of

ensure

the

wider

of

for

trucks a Study

used

paper.

yard

operated

refrigerators,

Pincher

single

objectives

Frank

to

maintenance;

truck.

and

on

materials

to

community

achieve

waste

public

motor

of

PICKUP

recycling

in

of

reduction,

curbside

recovery

regional

Industrial

Crowsncst

fleet,

This

Regional

by

Creek

from

oil,

waste

the

and

the

and

purchase

SERVICES

the

tires,

used

Crowsnest

also

following

recycling

education

and

has

collection

current

Park.

Partnership

Pass

and

antifreeze,

has

seven

not

Short-term

was

environmental

Increasing

composting

region

Encourage recycling

Extend

revenues

recycled

regional

existing Recyclables

Increase

Larger effectiveness,

batteries

has

contracted

obtained

usage

program

short-term

program

unit

Pass/Pincher

essential

contracted

service

holding

curbside

metal,

work

recycling

basis

is

participation,

materials

and

materials

awareness

“back-yard”

two

Opportunities

the

has

recycling

promoting

as

collected

and

Service

issues

as

days

and

facility

levels

appliances,

unit

scheduled,

pickup

limited

recycling

garbage

Creek

facilities

usage

increasing

to

long-term

unutilized.

work

of

entire

cost

of

for

services Sharing

of

include

of

recycling.

the

Landfill

recycling

trucks

days

on

services

the

sheet

benefits

a

sharing

Town

per

and

paper,

Opportunities

suffer

Association

metals,

that

Long-term

week

and

A

environmental

initiatives

Recycling

composting

collection

Initiate

lists

recycling

Increase

stations

Increased

region’s Reduction

of

of

opportunities:

single

newspaper,

a

can

economies

the

Pincher

recyclables

high

pipes,

on

regional

be

Pass

extent

environmental

waste

regional

materials

to

system number

as

recycles

mechanical

in

Opportunities

obtained

facility

reduce

culverts,

part

waste

Beverages

Creek

footprint

and

cardboard,

collection;

of

yard

of

and

as

of

recycling

scale

collected

type

the

landfilled

sustained

the

cardboard,

has

recycling

waste

through

central

farm

regions

failure

footprint

following

of

purchased

in

Bottle

the

plastics,

one

equipment,

program

and

a

rate.

storage

single

unit

metal,

Depot

items:

15

a

With

work

tin

can

is

and cans, I Feasibility Study of Regional Partnership and Service Sharing Opportunities

While the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass has had a 47 year relationship with its contractor CNP Waste, it should assess the sharing opportunity for utilizing the available unit work days for the garbage trucks owned by the Town of Pincher Creek. This will require an agreement with the Town of Pincher Creek however it is expected to result in financial benefits to both municipalities.

The Town of Pincher Creek has a municipal garbage pickup system that operates on three days per week with a single garbage truck. The system utilizes roll-out bins purchased by the town. Pincher Creek has installed wireless water meter reader in its garbage trucks providing for a very efficient model for reading water meters, and in the future, the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass may be able to utilize this technology. The Town also provides a composting site for yard waste.

72.4 RECOMMENDATIONS:SOLIDWASTEPICKUP&RECYCLING

Recommended Alignment to Sharing Opportunity Priority Desired Outcomes

Assessthe utilizationby the Municipalityof CrowsnestPass of the available unit work days for the garbage trucks owned by the High High Town of Pincher Creek

That the CrowsnestPassPincher Creek LandfillAssociation governancestructure1be changed from that of a societyto that of Medium High a for-profitcorporation

Single collection recycling system High High

Move towards a single regional Recycling Program High High

LEGEND Recommended Priority Alignment to Desired Outcomes

High high organizational / community readiness, ease of implementation, most or all of the desired outcomes are met and resultsin the short term.

Medium medium organizational / community readiness, significanteffort or about half of the desired outcomes arc met time to implement, and results in the medium term.

Low minimal organizational I communityreadiness,currentsituation only a few to none of the desired outcomes are met limits implementation,and delayed results or feasibility.

McElhanney 16 I Feasibility Study of Regional Partnership and Service Sharing Opportunities

73 RECREATIONFACILITIESANDPROGRAMMING

In reviewing the priority arca of Recreation Facilities and Programming, it was found that a number of issues addressed programs or facilities within a single municipality. The preferred approach is that recreation programming will be viewed in this Feasibility Study on a regional basis. This approach is supported by the fact that recreational and cultural organizations interviewed reported drawing membership and users from all the municipal partners and beyond.

Two swimming pools arc operated within the region. The Pincher Creek Aquatic Centre (indoor) operates year- round and the Crowsnest Pass Community Swimming Pool (outdoor) operates during the summer months. Both facilities have strong swim club participation.

In the past, ice hockey has been the major commitment in facility development and support for Alberta’s rural communities, including this region. The Municipality of Crowsnest Pass and the Town of Pincher Creek both operate ice arenas.

Minor Hockey in Alberta has the following age categories: Initiation (6 and Under), Novice (ages 7-8), Atom (ages 9-10), Pee Wee (ages 11—12),Bantam (ages 13—14),Midget (ages 15—17),and Juvenile (ages 18—20). Where there is sufficient registration, local associations split the Initiation or Pre-Novice level into Mite, Mini Mite and Squirt levels. Associations may also split levels to recognize different levels of playing skills.

Adults have the option to play in competitive or non-competitive hockey when both programs are available. Non competitive hockey includes local house league games with limited practice requirements or other recreational hockey opportunities. The nature of competitive adult hockey is dependent on local support and facilities which requires practice and “home” and “away” game play commitment from the team members. These teams may be different classifications which reflect both player skill levels and the availability of regional competition at that level: “C” House Level (not nationally recognized), “B” teams may compete against “A” teams (not nationally recognized), “A”, “AA” and “AAA” is the highest competitive level within minor hockey. Higher rates are charged for adult hockey.

Power skating, CanSkate, and figure skating programs are offered at the ice arenas by the Crowsnest Pass Skating Club and the Pincher Creek Figure Skating Club. These clubs represent the second largest group booking ice time at both facilities.

An extensive summer ice program is operated at the Crowsnest Pass Sports Complex by the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass. The summer ice schedule accommodates fundraising through hosting a number of WHL games and a summer hockey school.

Outdoor sports are well served by a number of playing fields in the Town of Pincher Creek and the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass. Most of these sports fields are on school property which is typical for communities of this size. The Municipality of Crowsnest Pass has started the development of an outdoor playing field site with a ) fieldhouse. This should increase the effectiveness of programs delivered at the single site and increase the efficiency of staff as it would operate a reduced number of locations. The facility was designed with four ball fields and two soccer fields and its completion means the municipality will no longer maintain school playing fields.

The Municipality of Crowsncst Pass has recognized the changing demands in the community for recreation and ) cultural programming and facilities. In its Community Strategic Plan of 2012-2014 the Municipality of McElhanney 14 17 •

Feasbility

Crowsncst the ownership and Sports

provided crowded information the cultural Use While municipal declining meet

All Aquatic individual full challenges sharing of example, of Interviews While recreation the number The no Study these 41l for (more 7.3.1 schedule scheduling

Adult

awareness

process

later

changing

of the usage the

list

of

municipal

new

McElhenney

actions

the process.

programming and

on

recreation it

2013 number

of

opportunities facilities

REGIONAL

than

of

Centre

is

facilities, Recreation

that

for

increased youth

this

recreation of demands.

facilities partners

of

Pass

and facilities Reci-eation

user with Study for difficult

and

of

on

existing

Fall/Winter

developing

demographic

early properties

staffing need of

in

indoor

the

culture

partners facility One

draft

of are identified

population) groups

council programs

Section

currently

facilities

of

two

participants

etc.)

to September

have

addressed

RECREATION is

to usage

(this

of

Programs.

and can

terms Regional

facilities

and

be

that is provided

Committee

change

programs

the

Curling

availability

across

there

in should

available.

members,

expressed

coordinated

the be 7.4

cultural in

programs.

outdoor

the

and

are

being consistent the

in being draw

of

itself

adaptive,

is

Guide -

the

is

need

reference available

Public in

infrastructure,

Municipality

the for revenues

pushing

and

within

Partnership

Clubs

consider

in

a

provided users

across Section

region

experienced

would facilities

direct

AND

Fall!Winter

four

and pools, Appendix

While

municipal

to

is awareness

to

will

with

Transportation), themes

hard

fill

in

redefine it

its

from the

municipalities,

CULTURE

change

the and

is

impact economic have for

is the be

developing

7.4 recreational

ice

existing

the

much Culture

user by

to

generally

operated

highly

region

the

region all worth of

and

arenas,

as

C.

it (apart

obtain, users

been

the

staff,

in programs, of

the

Crowsncst

in groups is the

Powderkeg

part the

Rather more

all

these

Service

other

much PROGRAM

requirements

programs.

and costly pursuing impact Culture

if

prepared. municipal

may

are registration

and

from

Alberta

of by

and

a

not

as they

facilities.

Regional there

difficult

it in Heritage

changes,

the

addressed

municipal

the

noted

user

easier than

see

limited is

other

and

the and

advance.

were

Sharing

on

Pass

discussion

and

municipal

suggested

Ski

this

are

in

municipalities

groups While

providing

almost

GUIDE

each

early

cumbersome),

partners It

through

to

community

terms

to Recreation

can

aware Resort dates

for

many

is

Recreation

Committee. as

and

and

promote

in

respond

partners

noted

of

a

March OpportLillities

recreation

be

transportation Due

formed

a

unanimous

there

benefit booking

of

the

for

that

partners

following on

individuals

of some

expected

and

in

a

utilization

to

that

them.

user

municipal a

detailed

Crowsnest

the existing/new

arc

to for

facilities and “Rec” Board

the from

(involving

and

the

interviews. (e.g.

this

A

the changing

requests

first organizations

Spring/Summer examples and

were

need

their

facilitator

initial

Culture

to

‘we

Section outside

increase

study

more

Bus

into

assessment who

between

culture

issue

and

continue

partners.

to

to

reviewed

user

love

Pass

sharing two

phase

an

can

an

coordinate

would

facility cost focused

convenient

programs

of Program of

the

7.3.3

In

groups.

aging

living in was earlier

and programs

separate be

the

adapting

communities

addition

efficiencies.

and

region to

non-resident

of

Recreation

of

participate accommodated

the brought in

opportunity. -

programs.

Guide

reduce needs.

the

on

population

Policy

here’)

move

all

this

date.

Guide,

and

Pincher

with

the

schedules, Feasibility

however

of committees:

and

facilities

to

study

be

All

the

to

As the

overall

the

was in

on

this

a

facilities.

scheduled

increase

and

published large is

in

For

to

The

the

a bookings

Support

Creek

18

and

and

the a issue,

result,

Current lead

barrier

to

less

lack

a

S

‘

)

)

I

or

heating.

should

In

all

compared.

The

information

envelope Memorial

municipality

projects

further

One across

Memorial

The

groups

December their

access Interviews

non-ice

below

Municipality

structure

Concern

Feasibility

7.3.2

lower

addition

municipal

McElhanney

Municipality

indoor

of

sports

also

the

the

to

reduced.

the

and

This

levels. related

show

FUTURE

functional

was

over

the

Arena

Arena

municipal

This

heating

to

first

15

consider of

activities any

operating

on

Study

would

is

partners

building,

a

of

expressed

participants

to

a

an

a

cold

not

data

items

indoor

proposed

range

The

March Crowsnest

consistent

facility

include

USE

of

icc

elements.

of

likely

increase

will

weather

seeking Crowsnest

was

facility

partnership

skating

(Soccer,

to

in

Regional

and

of

OF

activities.

including

15)

address

on

prioritizing

keep

does

costs

not

facilities

in

shutdown

THE

a

in

basis,

the

Pass

to

willingness

a

condition

grants

the

shutdown

The

available,

the

surface.

position

the have

Box

ALBERT

reduce

from

cost

Pass

Partnership

number

in

facilities

council

possible

and

ice

facility

(i.e.

not

Lacrosse,

assessing

value

to

of

Quesnel,

schedule

the

needs

surface

outside

Later,

operating

insulate

per

normally

to

operating

is

but

for

STELLA

region’s to

of

and

described

consider

operational and

programs

closure

user

the work

we

to

days

infrared

has

a

the municipal

Skateboarding,

and

would

BC

develop if

Albert

the

believe

facility

hour)

operating

costs.

MEMORIAL

found

with

that

the

subsequently

region.

recreation

at

of

building

Service

replacement

as

showed

$1.4m

need Albert

the

heating

the so

for

Stella the

marginal

The

comparative

the

outside

is

that

staff.

building

facility

a

its

Municipality

to

costs

development

number Sharing

exact

per

and

Stella

and

ARENA

Memorial

replacement

the

that

be

was

Climbing

The

of

been

indoor

at

replace

discussed

but

can

cultural true

can

closure

user

larger

during

installed,

this

Memorial

building

of

costs

some

be

Opportunities

removed

costs

be

groups

years

time.

soccer

Arena,

reduced,

of

Wall,

the

used

cities,

of

needs.

the

dates

cost.

for

minor

with

Crowsnest

of

this

existing

was

designed

into

coldest

However,

all Arena

providing

while

had

field

etc.)

and

the

Current

attracting

were

type

each

its

originally

the

repairs

the

a

Municipality

the

provided

to

facilities,

maintaining

strong

by

infrared

of

cost

not

future. parts

user

to

Pass

Calgary,

arena

measuring members

indoor

the

recreation

heat

to

addressed

program

per

group.

of

commitment

keep to

built

existing

is

in

participant

heaters the spectators

and

ensure

sports

now

AB

the

of

the as

costs

winter

of

provide

participants

tool

Crowsnest

facilities

an

Albert

at with

used

the

building

Albert

continued

with

facility

$2.5m.

unheated

at

would

directly

(i.e.

to

the

can

reduced

for

19

space this

Stefla

keep

Stella

user

can

from

various

be

assist The

Pass

from be • Feasibility Study of Regional Partnership and Service Sharing Opportunities

The Municipal Facility Audit Albert Stella Memorial Arena:

Date: January 25, 2012 Auditors: Friesen Tokar Architects Location: l3lairrnore (Municipality of Crowsnest Pass) Built: 1959 Facility Conditions: Overall: Marginal, Structural poor to marginal,

Envelope — marginal Interior Marginal to acceptable,

Mechanical — poor to marginal Electrical - marginal

7.3.3 POLICYONSUPPORTOFADULTRECREATIONPROGRAMS

As the most significant issue related to adult recreation programming is the potential closure of the Pincher Creek Curling Club facility, this will be the example used to illustrate the need to support adult recreation programs.

The Pincher Creek Curling Club facility was closed for a curling season due to structural safety concerns and the result has been that some members have not returned to the facility when it was reopened, resulting in reduced membership. The Pincher Creek Curling Club attempted to have curling programs moved to the Crowsnest Curling Club facility with busing provided, however that option was not supported by the members.

McElhanney 20 3 I Feasibility Study of Regional Partnership and Service Sharing Opportunities 3 3 As significant repairs are required to the Pincher Creek Curling Club facility, both the Pincher Creek Curling Club and the Town oPincher Creek are in agreement that a new facility is required. Discussions between the 3 Town of Pincher Creek and the Pincher Creek Curling Club are ongoing.

3 The Crowsnest Curling Club has seen a recent increase in registration as some Pincher Creek curlers continue to travel to the Crowsnest Pass. The Crowsnest Curling Club facility was built in 1980 as part of the Sports Complex J in Coleman with an addition built in 1996. This facility has significant economic life remaining.

Both the Pincher Creek Curling Club and the Crowsnest Curling Club are volunteer based organizations. As an example of the volunteer commitment that is required, the Crowsnest Curling Club (Mens, Ladies and Mixed Curlers) are expected to provide at least five hours of volunteer time each season.

It was found that the municipal partners had no written policies on their support of adult recreation programs, or 3 on the relationship that schools, juniors, seniors and family programs operating in the same facilities would affect support from the municipal partners. This is important given the changing demographics of the communities, 3 whereby.the past demand for child and youth programs is being replaced by increasing demand for adult and seniors programs, but not necessarily in traditional sports.

Given the desire for an increased level of cooperation and sharing between the municipal partners it is suggested that these policies be coordinated between all the municipal partners.

7.3.4 REGIONALINTEGRATIONOFAMULTI-PURPOSECULTURALCENTRE

In the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass, it is recognized that the Crowsnest Cultural and Recreation Society has approached the municipality regarding the construction of a multi-purpose cultural centre and the Society has started fundraising for this project.

No facility of this type currently exists in the region, and the facility and programming concepts now being developed by the Society should be reviewed by the municipal partners. This is not to be seen as the municipal 3 partners committing to financially supporting the multi-purpose cultural centre, but as a way of ensuring that the 3 proposed centre is recognized in the planning for the future cultural programming needs of the region. 3 7.3.5 CONSTRUCTIONOFASHAREDMULTI-FACILITYCOMPLEX One of the opportunities to share services, as observed in other regions and as already exists in the development of local facilities, is the construction of a shared multi-facility complex.

This type of complex was reviewed however it was determined that the remaining life of existing facilities and the 3 value those buildings currently have would preclude this option from further consideration at this time. Such a ‘ complex would reduce overall operating expenditures however this would not be enough to offset the capital costs of a project of this nature.

When the existing facilities are closer to the end of their effective lives, demographics in the communities will have changed even further (i.e. aging population increase). The slow but continued decline in ice surface programs can be expected to continue and at some point in the future (e.g. 2030), a regional facility may be more practical and make greater economic sense if it is supported by a public transportation system to ensure convenience, access and participation.

McEWanney 21 I Feasibility Study of Regional Partnership and Service Sharing Opportunities

7.3.6 RECOMMENDATIONS:RECREATIONFACILITIESANDPROGRAMMING

Recommended Alignment to Sharing Opportunity Priority Desired Outcomes

Regional Recreation and Culture Program Guide High High

Future Use of the Albert Stella Memorial High Medium Arena

Policy on Support of Adult Recreation Programs High Medium

Regional Integration of a Multi-Purpose Cultural Centre High Medium

Construction of a Shared Multi-Facility Complex Low Low

LEGEND Alignment to Recommended Priority. Desired Outcomes

High high organizational / community readiness, ease of implementation, most or all of the desired and results in the short term. outcomes are met

Medium medium organizational / community readiness, significant effort or about half of the desired time to implement, and results in the medium term, outcomes arc met

Low minimal organizational / community readiness, current situation only a few to none of the desired limits implementation, and delayed results or feasibility. outcomes are met

McElhanney I4 22

I

Even

Public

(from Issue The

(available

Municipalities

7.4

Feasibility

McElhanney Organizational

Funding

Ridership •

Issue

•

Environment.

Opportunity.

Economy.

as

Paper

Public

transit

where

solutions

community

supportive. inexpensive,

—

who

they

supporting

handi-busses

the

Creek,

service

Handi-bus

Calgary.

minimum

service

Inter-community

Alberta.

PUBLIC

Paper,

from

seniors,

use

includes

Study

may

pursue

Transit

makes

smaller

constraints.

outside

www.cutaactu.ca

of

providing

development.

on

They

is

in

Public

have

In

their

TRANSPORTATION

often

dynamic

route

of

needs

services

children,

They request

Alberta.

transit’s They

several

August

the

and

and

capacity.

and

systems Regional

support

very

of

own

Transit

following

limited

Small

frequency

offer

reduce

for

there

Alberta’s

this

passenger

scheduled

Municipal

to

limited

are

downtown

contributions

very

residents

2012

students,

Also,

funds.

can

seniors

is

local

independence

Building

Communities directly

and

Partnership

The

is

because

local

partially

real

)

exchange

valuable

Greyhound

no

provides

mobility

in

cities

Small

on

Tight

businesses

ability

bus

benefits,

or

air service

and

workers,

traffic

October

funding

cores,

supported

1

clients,

of

8

pollution,

ridership

have

to

due

service

Communities

budgets

the

routes

very

material:

a

information

the

options,

of

and

Page])

and

and

good

congestion.

to

to

handicapped.

very

smaller

applied

sources

low-income

by

smaller

2012,

quality

but

lean

the

handicapped Service

meeting

mobility

by

in

(primarily

also

helping

overview

can

and

few

these

fact

are

management

the

BC,

Greyhound

communities

to

of

mean

contribute

are

public

published

systems

be

primary

and

Municipality

that

handi-busses

Sharing

life

the

including

In

the

to

commuters

difficult

limited,

families,

learn

Statistics

of

provided

fewer addition,

a

people

needs

in

BC

transportation

industry

number

the

smaller

beneficiaries.

generally

about

structures.

to by

Passenger

Opportunities

ceased

options

staff

face

of

the

and

local

when

who

the

and

of

provided

festivals

are

get

by

land

of

best

communities:

route

workers

significant

Crowsnest

training

Canadian

transit

even

are

climate

seniors

not

services

Greyhound)

to

available

to

trip

practices.

use

options

Transportation

non-drivers work,

research registered

that

tourists.

and

showed

must

distances

patterns

opportunities

and

change

facilities

Urban

forms

challenges:

other

Pass

to

bringing

to

available

compete

students

small

13

Persons

and

has

a

for

and

events.

strategies.

Transit

part

by

are

low

are

communities

have

public

been

develop

Board

the

communities.

choice

shoppers

often

to

of

short,

utilization

like

with

respectively,

with

handi-busses Town

their

Association

the

reduced

use.

conferences,

to

not or

other

disabilities,

innovative

parking

Highway

residents:

23

reduce

of

to

necessity

south

transit-

Pincher

of

stores,

basic

The

across

both

and

for

the

is

of 3 I

Feasibility persistence, Despite Canadian

insight Flexible peak and (excerpt

feeder including trips communities Flexible service Municipal An handyDART recommending smaller this completed

Towii The

Village

overview

standard

service

Municipality can hours,

McElhanney

services

of into

(known

conmiunities

these

from

of

delivery

delivery

be

transit

dial-a-ride

Pincher

in

Study

key

(‘owley

or is flexibility

served

District

12-metre

clients to

of and 2011

Public

very

to

in

major

as success

explore

the

industry,

serve

other

outlying — — of

Taxibus)

using

and under-utilized

Creek current

of

has the

are Regional

Transit

conventional

specialized of operate

changes

and

buses

low-density

Crowsnest

provides

issues,

factors.

taxis

freedom Pincher

no used

taxis

their

creativity.

areas

also

public

public

is

and

are

accessible

as

by

delivered

when

to

transit Partnership

performance,

has

a

neither

valuable (e.g.

some

services.

Small to

this

means

and

Creek

transportation. transportation

services.

Pass

or

a

call

it

Handi-bus This

program.

Welland

systems

that

rural

is

systems

Communities

their handyDART

effective

using

of more

utilizes

has

insight

Rising

issue

changes

areas. serving

In

and

some

no own

in taxis

efficient Transit, smaller

(like

A

paper

public service.

smaller

Service

system

a

and

operating nor

Other

taxi,

report

service best

need

customers

operating

Medicine

Page

efficient. information

services

highlights

communities,

ON.).

with

transportation.

practices, or

communities

to among

conmmnitics

and

Sharing

effective.

called

be 3,)

costs

a

survey

on

50%

In made.

in with

Hat

More

the

both Rimouski,

partnership the

the for

and

on

Opportunities

Transit,

fare

disabilities.

municipal

Another

on

position

specialized

“Town

lower

the

flexible,

Administration

partner

fixed

several

across

Transit

subsidy.

existing

AB.)

demands

and

Quebec,

Rounder.”

with

BC

Canada

of

with

system

demand-responsive

partners

services

In

variable

smaller

transit

to

Transit

program.

BC

British

taxi

provide

the may

has

profiles

are

Transit,

companies

is

It services

in

systems

entire

routes.

program

succeeding

been

as

has

mean

Columbia,

Crowsnest

service

follows:

been

that

specialized

charged

public

that

have

within

gives provide

approaches

to

determined

during

fixed

where through provide

led

transit

Pass

with

the

eligible

many

24

routes

transit

some

off-

was

many

that

SI 5 person The service the statistics: decline The Town including DRT, The Figure I,:i,n’ Paratransit Feasibility Mass Regular Irregular Municipality Senior Town report McElhanney i: Rounder often trips r1t 3 if from • • • • shows that bus, Rounder and /n.?; Riders per Study stated Donna’s Mountainview Adult the Senior includes option shared (ii’’i.’ survey was day. the 2010 of data as ol Fitness, different Classes Crowsnest 2011 reviewed. Riders, was DART, Regional taxi, Day the total on reflects -cab - - shared public available. L transit data -. handi-bus Iii)i;ili,i Care, and of Mon/Wed, Tue/Thur/Fri, Industries public means transport 4,028. We Public shows line taxi Pass private those urban Partnership rural services Monthly, 1)1 transport L._i will Based and and type “demand riders that

Use J cab. clients, - utilize 9 . non-public the months within of there of on 12 10 65 Town services parat1t the and months 50 months the responsive employees Weekdays, and - were ---.— the weeks, Town total data Service - of older, non-public transportation Municipality . Non-publk a currently Pincher transport total total — from total Rounder 3 191 organized traveling plus transit” days Sharing 11 — — of that person 1133 154 months line Creek. under 3,507 utilized. per report service person of and person services ‘ week, Opportunities trips, Crowsnest 65 person total includes as disabled, in trips, . ci. øQj U) trips, 6% the the — available 2011 . trips 2029 ridership basis 4% rXAMF’tc c-!) 1(’le DRT cr1 a 32% Pass had number per who liiis (in dr r-rcrb for person I(i,.. to ‘nniUy) and the year iripo would reviewing from communities: following the p of which trips, (iniix. forms this utilization transfer irx 58% was group hitfl}’) options of recorded delivery a to was 13% of a 25 for transit the 7.5 both I

Feasibility

A for

In bus service, continue

In municipalities costs

The and 7.4.1 impaired, There there demonstrate Even

covered If

report

considering

considering implementing

a

type

therefore

community

expense

for

were

in

McEIh.nney

is

will

was

DEVELOPMENT

vehicles.

a

by service very full

•

•

•

• and well-utilized Study

96,215,000

2. 1.

3.

the

have

submitted

passenger size

of

passengers disadvantage avoid residents

life little on a of revenue initial a

those a

would full

Adding

budgeted) capital: A

enhanced Contracting fares Reducing

a

regional transit

ballpark

is

during

service a

of

the

buses

frequency a

of Any

ballpark

to transit

size

data

vehicle

Regional

duplication without

the

road

capital collected.

consider be

to $80,000;

service

service, person

buses

will costs. transit $36,000; breakdowns

combined a

on

bus

both considered.

transit

thc

estimate cost service

taxi

OFA “school the providing

(plus

smaller

failure

of

estimate

often

of

is

drivers’

for the

Municipality

uneconomical as

operating

Partnership

service. this

approximately a trips, If

system proposal 25

30

it

REGIONAL

a

transit system, a and

of

we

storage/maintenance

annual

within

use

is

spare) years choose

potential

minutes with

rate

is bus”

of

community

the

important

an look

or a annual

the

licenses,

of

like costs of 2

that

system emergency average their

handi-bus

hours

and

must

type hour

the initial

commuting cost. costs in

to at

other

Calgary’s,

or of

takes order

option and

the expense use it community:

for

and

TRANSIT

difficulty

provide less of Crowsncst frequency

$420,000

in can to

transit

Low

then

for revenue:

transit

City

of

their

regional Service

handi-busses

physically vehicle

option

recognize

a

to

for

board

system

for 87

bus

situations. regional

the floor

provide

of

$2,500,000.

between

personal remains

a

47% person

for

service systems,

facility in

SERVICE

off

transit

Calgary

following

1 each.

$25,200; service

seventy

Pass Sharing

as

buses, accessing

backup

transit

to

through

the

of

that

impractical

a

reduce

transit a

trips

the

an sharing, Council transit

service Coleman road

vehicle.

1

$3,000,000;

The available

so

transit

transit

between

hour easily

essential

would (70)

cost vehicle(s)

annual

factors Opportunities

annually

we

the

every

many costs.

advantages

would

bus

frequency

plus

will

is

of

buses, it in accessed

system, For

use

for

and difficult be:

was

operating

expense: 2011

8:00 need

within

residential 8,000

(no

community

use

passengers

low

the

of for be:

annual

or

initial Pincher

determined

even

backup

the am

‘kneeling’

have

to

municipal regarding

each

for

income

initial

of

km. by

of

to

-

be the

City and

$275,950. a a

though this

service,

able justifr

capital

capital

a member

considered:

2011

transit

streets

This

Creek,

contingency

community

at

service. 4:00 bus

capital:

of transit

users,

and

one

that a

partners. or

Calgary

population

rate

designed

in

or number

for

$160,000,

pm the bus

within

disabled;

will

‘low-floor’

time.

of

smaller

the

the

storage system

is

5

minimum

on

the

is

$234,000;

higher

require buses overall

physically

as

that

weekdays plan

or

the

of

population.

for

an

communities,

of

was

alternatives

facility

utilizing

annual

the

continuous in

for

$2,100,000; example

1,096,833

buses.

higher

four

frequency

not place

26 expected

handi

annual

only.

initial buses

was

The

to an

to

•

buses

These

The

being

system

The

7.4.3

Amant

As

route

Dial-A-Bus

Feasibility

7.4.2

an

above

bus

McElhanney

Mon—Fri:

Saturday:

Sunday:

can

approximately

smaller

transit

example, is

—

FULL

operator

DIAL-A-BUS

Plaza

.

•

provide • •

based

•

•

•

photo

Study

is

in

paratransit

buses,

can

during

can

departure may

may

employing

lower

buses

SERVICE

7:00

a

Drive

the

on

the

6:00am—

shows

form

uses

be

provide

two

7:30pm—

pick

be

preset

of

following

am—

City

costs

also

operated

or non-peak

two

scheduled

area

Regional

wheelchair of

a

SYSTEMS

tip

and

for

one

celiphone

DIAL-A-BUS alone

provide

of

flexible DART,

city 12:30

pick

where

a

of

passengers

1:00

Winnipeg

the

more

of

aiTival

12:30am

Winnipeg

areas:

blocks.

as

up hours;

using

smaller

am

general

Partnership

pm

there

in

a

access

a

routes

responsive

points

spaces

full

to

“demand

points

combination

and

lower

take

utilizes

arc

by

(SMALL

service

low

and

public

and

via

7:30

within

and

address

expected

calls may

floor

cost

a

operates

a

responsive

service,

pm—

ramp and

12

DART

celiphone,

(general

or

for

using

BUS)

the

buses

passenger

with

buses

may or

Service

service

neighborhood,

(rather

lower

12:30

at

during

reducing

services

fixed

lower

with

not

bus

proposed

public

transit”

may

am

levels

be

from

than

Sharing

stops,

seats.

lifts.

route

the

cost

fixed

divert

in and

wait

the

residents

following

service.

of

to

four

depending

transit

transit

paratransit)

the

ridership;

be

depending

traditional

times,

Opportunities

during

neighborhoods.

purchased

maximum

systems,

buses

DART

on

by

off-peak

travel

on

a

not

lift on

first-come,

when

with width

can

by

distance

the

using

in

with

to

hours:

the

handi-bus

using be

pick

steps

design

and

DART

DART

fixed

more

City

up

to

first-served

suitability

‘kneeling’

($300,000

of

any

of

additional

schedules;

effective

101

normally

design).

the

St.

pick

serves

system;

Albert

of

up

or

basis.

each),

than

streets;

passengers;

These

being

‘low

27

point

the

Transit.

fixed

The

St.

or

deck’

used for • Feasibility Study of’Regional Partnership and Service Sharing Opportunities

A Full Service Dial-A-Bus Transit (Small Bus) system can have greater flexibility on service; the ability to access residential areas; and the smaller size of the vehicle allows the choice of door to door service for all passengers, including those who are disabled.

A ballpark estimate of costs for a Full Service Dial-A-Bus (Small Bus) transit system which would replace existing handi-bus services would be as follows:

for the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass, due to the longer travel distances and times within the community, having two buses in service: initial capital for 3 buses $600,000; initial capital for storage/maintenance facility $900,000; annual capital $50,000; annual initial revenue $30,000; and annual expense $1,300,000.

for the Town of Pincher Creek, due to the compact nature of the community having one bus in service: initial capital for 2 buses $400,000; initial capital for storage/maintenance facility $600,000; annual capital $30,000; annual initial revenue $30,000; and annual expense $700,000.

If both communities were to operate similar Full Service Dial-A-Bus (Small Bus) systems, a single spare bus could be provided for both communities. This would reduce initial capital by $200,000, reduce initial capital for storage/maintenance facility by $300,000, reduce annual capital by $15,000, and reduce annual expenses by $40,000.

7.4.4 A DEMANDRESPONSIVESERVICE(DART)UTILIZINGTAXIS

Utilizing the taxi industry to provide a DART service is found in a number of Canadian communities; e.g. Vancouver, Prince George, Prince Rupert/Port Edward, Turner Valley/Black Diamond, Vegreville, Montreal, Saint John, Charlotte County. These are cost-effective replacements of the handi-bus style of systems.

This system can be known as “share taxis”, in which the operator may pick up or drop off other passengers along the route, or by the name “taxibus” which more often relates to the use of a fixed route. The “share taxi” aspect provides for a more efficient and cost effective service at lower passenger volumes. Taxi systems providing this service typically utilize full size vans or mini-vans adapted with wheelchair ramps. The provision of appropriate vehicles can be provided for through contracts with taxi companies and/or regulated by bylaw. Taxi systems can require pre-booking with set requirements, or be operated on an ad-hoc basis, depending on the needs of the community.

Operation of the taxi system can have a number of fare options for both the passenger and the taxi company. The passenger may have to purchase coupons to pay the full fare or a portion of the fare; have to utilize a pre purchased transit pass; or pay a pre-set fare to the taxi operator. The taxi operator may be paid a contract amount to provide the service with all fares going to the transit system; collect fares; or a combination of fares and coupons.

In Montreal a number of different DART systems have been utilized. The following are some examples:

Public Taxi Service - Semieville

The Senneville services a taxibus route with 13 stops along Senneville Road, as well as the option to transfer to fixed route transit buses. The taxibus service works by requiring that the passenger reserve a seat at least 40 minutes ahead of time by calling a specific cellphone number. The passengers must specify at which stop they will be boarding. More information at www.sjm.iiilb/engijsh/jn [‘o/:i-iaxi-scnniitm

McElhanney 28

•

) ) I

Centre Pass

However, use.

small it’s

Town There

handi-bus 7.4.5

A

I

wheelchair

In

of

In

passing

starting

As inforrriation

also The

seniors available

adapted will

This

Shared

similar

Feasibility

addition

unlikely

McElhanney

the

and

1,133

this

growth

of

was

and

passenger

be

take

is

case

UTILIZING

the

Pincher type

there point 65

of

an and

•

service senior’s

•

the services.

no transit

Taxi

the

to oniy capable

Town

there a or

of

on-call in

per significant

estimated those If

Pass

is bylaw

at of

the coupon

these

If

Study

is passenger

the older,

for

the

the significantly

vvw.stin.inio/english/inio!i—taxiOR—H)S.hiin a

to

must Service

system Creek.

an service,

year. would

cost

disabled)

of

trips

subsidized

consideration

“Town

Powderkeg

region’s

A Montreal

with

vehicles, costs

service,

opportunity full

(or

Pincher

of

and “REC” breakdown

register

system,

Again,

and

As

Regional

average amendment)

is

be cost

data a

for may

to reservations

willing

Rounder”,

significant dependent

both

significant

with

2,029

employment

a

operating

Island

BUS

Creek as

of below

available

Seniors

number

taxi

this for

be

based

Ski

records

the

communities

for

taxi

by the

to necessary

the

would

Partnership disabled

SERVICE service

cost Resort

residents,

to

the pay a

current

taxi

passenger

on regulating

fare

operated on service

and

limited

of

can support

transit from

&

on

is

municipal

show

the

2011 contracts

be service

destinations

opportunities

significantly

Handicapped

chronic

in

of

the

with

be

trips

expected negotiated handi-bus

fare

8:30

Crowsnest

$6.00,

at

public demand refused

that provides

transit

have

data,

two

by

paying

and

a

least

taxi

during

of

was

am.

coupon

the

handicap

up partnership. and

under-utilized

$3

similar

would

then Service

transit

services,

needs

three for

paid

to where Municipality if

between to

regular

operating agreements

the

below

incentives are

door-to-door

that

pickups

Pass.

three

4:

the

the

system

balance by

days

expected

be

health

between

30

system

year and

he/she

replacement

Sharing

annual

current

wheelchairs

the estimates

approximately

fare,

p.m.,

municipalities.

prior

major

are

costs.

with

was recreation

to

systems transit

with

connecting of

of

or

can

not Monday

the

and

taxi

transport

cost

handi-bus

to

the Opportunities

a Crowsnest

$2

utilized

mobility

connect

net

booked

private

Municipality

their

cannot

this

companies

authority, reduced

regulated of

of

need

and

operating

the facilities:

would the

first to

$12,000

for the

similar

Similarly

(e.g.

be

taxi

the to limitations.

Friday.

operating

current

to

coupon

Pass,

fare

reservation. the

be Municipality precise fixed

day

based

taxi

provide

companies,

$3.00

to

transported

cost

of

price

basic

per

for

provide

the data

Town A

before.

fare,

Crowsnest

route

with

system the

costs.

but

on taxi

year. of

for

Pincher

of from

recreation only

$81,000.

the

2011

employment,

disabled.

the

a

of

transit

seniors The

or

sufficient

The

regular

and

of This

Pincher would

minimal annual

shared at 2011

following

Crowsnest

passenger

Creek

trip

Pass

the

service,

subject

systems.

estimated

and

systems,

shows

same

transit

data

29

More be

cost

taxi

and

Creek

Aquatic

transit

$4.00

$19,000

only

to

gives

and

the service

for time.

must

a As

fare the

total

cost

a

the

for

an

an

a to I

Feasibility

The centre,

walk-in field

seniors. The fountain, Other snow table rails, skiing, Wednesdays, and

Both region It provides service

with the would ballpark any

is

recreation Pincher

on

subsidy suggested

Pass and

tops, any

and

of

conditions,

features

the

have to discount

Sunday

would

access

these

It

other

estimate children’s

transit adequate

• determine boxes •

• •

Powderkeg

Library,

offers step

Study

Creek

its

for

assuming assuming Thursday, 3:15 advance arrival if assuming without

facilities

facilities

be iiclude

outdoor

to

that

terminai

from up

for

this group

all

service

a

challenging

the

increased

of

of

jumps

Aquatic

comfort

6-lane

pm,

meeting

this

skiers

slide,

seats

the

transit

Regional

costs

at main

10

Ski

a

phone-in

snow packages,

recreational would

9:45

the type operation

the should loss. number

am with there

at

and

and

Resort

were competition hot

and

are

the swimming

use Centre

for service

annual

to revenues

space

making,

of pm.

Friday

spines, terrain

At a tub,

would

attract

as

4

snowboarders

Pincher

Partnership

the

be

of service

filled

45

request.

pm. of

50% follows:

in

lodge This

for

a encouraged and and

45

is

potential cost

will

minute

Crowsnest

facilities.

56

from

be

and

users part

and

ski and

4

minute pool

and of

tarzan contracted swimming

schedule

Creek

passenger

be

weekdays rentals,

of

a be

seats

school

warm,

a period

5

usage of

providing for

sold offset

from

which

good

pm

trip

and a users

to

rope.

ride Aquatic

This

the

23,000

sold to

Pass

to

cafeteria

ride.

at at

helpful would time

for

the

of

mix

use

Service

by

general

coach; pool fitness

9 per

easily

and

of

both

barrier

$2.50

(28 time

pm, adults

is

other

increased

the Regular

the

a

of

to

week, square

Centre

described adequate

potential

with

per

allow

facilities.

staff.

metal

Open

needed

accommodates service

Blairmore service. and

facility

public

each Sharing

communities.

free

and

trip),

additional

a

foot

lounge.

hours

for and

Pass

total

to on

recreation

kids, aquatic

way

storage

to

is “Rec”

utilizing

the as (Fusion

grind,

Passengers

pick-up

Saturday multi-use

the

$230,000.

build Opportunities Powderkeg

a of

and

ski

arc ($5.00

service

The friendly

Pass

8

centre

features

bus

with

patrol,

for

trips Monday,

children,

A

ridership,

continuous

Fitness).

facility

a

and terrain

Powderkeg

survey

from

service. contracted

skis

round facility

would

minis,

should

per

offers

“family”

drop-off

features rental

including:

and

10 park user

day

the Tuesday,

needs

The

trip), and

cost

flats,

The offering

am

a

pay

other

service

starting

shop,

physically

family revenue.

includes

“coach”

Ski

facility

users

ski in

to

1200

$115,000

added

to

a

the

rainbows,

the

equipment.

5

fee

kids

Resort

area

be

terrain

currently

pm

the

other change

service

until ft.

from

Village

for

conducted

also

benefit

pool

type an

with

and

of

indoor

challenged Assumptions

this

in per

assortment

park,

vertical

than

a

Pincher

has

kinks,

vehicle

5 with

Blairmore.

consistent room

Pincher

would

closed

year. service,

of The pm-9

of

a

aquatic

those

night

Cowley

soccer

in the

splash

wide

service

and

30

terrain.

Creek

the

pm, and

that

on

operate

using

Creek of

but

and

a

As

by

at

a

.I4

I

Low

Medium

High

LEGEND

Utilizing

Service A

Full

Development

7.4.6

Feasibility

Sharing

Demand

McElhanney

Service

(DART)

RECOMMENDATIONS:

a

Opportunity

“REC”

Responsive

Study

Dial-A-Bus

limits minimal

time

medium

and

high

Recommended

of

results

utilizing

a

to

organizational

implementation,

l3us

Regional

implement,

of

organizational

organizational

in

Regional

Service

Handicapped/Seniors

the

System

Taxis

Priority

short

and

/

Transit

community

and

term.

/

results I

community

community

Partnership

(Small

delayed

PUBLIC

in

Service

the readiness,

results

readiness,

Bus)

medium readiness,

TRANSPORTATION

or

and

ease

feasibility.

temi.

current

significant

of

Service

implementation,

situation

effort

Recommended

Sharing

or Medium

Priority

High

High

Low

are

only

about

most

Alignment

Opportunities

met

a

or

half

few

all

of

to

of

to

none

the

the

Desired

desired

desired

Desired

of

the

Alignment

Outcomes

outcomes

desired

Medium

outcomes

High

High

Low

Outcomes

outcomes

are

are

•

met

to

met 31

provide

emergencies being

region.

within

While

Community

The I

The

Emergency

Emergency The

access

7.5.2

cooperation communities,

are

All

approximately

has

Chief

fire

The

The

Chief, Regional

fire/rescue

City

Lundbreck recently

For Fire

areas

The 7.5.1

7.5

Feasibility

Municipality

Village

no

McElhanney

fire

Town

approximately

and

that

Municipality

Village

the

it

the

of

and

feasibility

Current

and

for

to

major

(fire

three

is

EMERGENCY

departments

Lethbridge

rescue

Town

training

training

region,

FIRE

rationalized

not

PROTECTIVE

rescue

this

Fire

of

is

Management.

Management

Services.

would

of

responses

and

once

with

supported

of

Captains,

Pincher

sharing

Study

unusual

however

Cowley

form

Emergency

Chief

AND

of

150

services

Cowley

rescue,

study

of

there services

the

needs

the

and

Pincher

of

also

55

calls

Crowsnest

of

Fire

of

RESCUE

have

main

opportunities

Crowsnest

This

and

culTent

Creek

responses

under

for

per

members

cooperation.

investigated

are has

MANAGEMENT

be

three

Regional

it

by

would

emergency

operates

Master

per Department.

Agency

is

manages

Fire

within

year

mutual

designed

Creek

service

advantages

Operations

a

a

facility

SERVICES

expected

and

Deputy

a

designated

year.

Lieutenants,

consolidation

single

Chiefs

SERVICES

be

Pass

and

Plan

the

to operating

Pass

the

and

a

Partnership

(PCCEMA)

aid

reduced

operates

being

volunteer

incidents all

that

pproximatc1y

the

management,

with

M.D.

provides

Fire

region

Fire

has

the

that

to

agreements

has

Pincher

three

in

Centers

sharing

were

Director

undertake

having

the

all M.D.

been

Chief

AND

completed

Chief.

the

plus

of

with

out

processes

out

are

fire

of

Fire

Pincher

by

identified

Fire

fire

for

which

Creek

of

accepted

can around

the

and

of

of

of

undergoing

and

a

ENFORCEMENT

the

stations.

a

of

emergency

three The

Hall

single

departments

and Pincher

three

Department enforcement,

protective

single

resources

work

800

the

Service

closest six

Emergency

the

Emergency

Creek

serves

are

system

commonly

in

30

emergency

stations.

arnbulan.cçcmergencies.

Captains.

fire in

agency

and

consolidation

in

Emergency

Pincher

complete.

fire

The

this

Creek

tandem available

halls

No. significant

both

Sharing

implemented.

of

operations

and

has

department

Fire

study

with

within

the

Management. The

and

safety

9

No.

in

municipalities

enforcement

Services

Creek.

cooperate three

operate

Fire

management

Chief

region

under

the

its

Cooperation

a

primarily

department

Management

fire

9,

Opportunities

the

single

code)

own

and

of

change

stations:

municipality.

Pincher

through

“911”

equipment,

position

region

fire

a volunteers.

the

initially

responds

The

Rescue

single

Fire

on

Director.

is

Pincher and

services.

due

at

active

reviewed

Dispatch

Municipal

role

Creek

under

Chief.

the

will is

The

Pincher

on

this

rescue

is

Director,

managed

Agency

considered

to

Service

to

Director

equipment

supported

and

are

continue

Fire

the

time.

fire

Creek

a

Emergency

approximately

Response

single

Each

this

anticipated.

service

services.

and

distance

Creek,

and

Chief

Fire

responds

and

a

by

Community

situation

of

detailed

key

rescue

of to

-

by

Director

and

standardization,

Director

a

legislation

Protective

has

Beaver

is

the

increase

to

full

advantage

between

a

In

Services

provided

Rescue

peacetime

Deputy

a

specific

to

addition,

scenes.

time

below.

role

150

has

of

Mines,

32

for

arrived

of

Fire

and

does

Services

Fire

was

the

by

There

service

the

the and ) )

) • Vessels, qualified In disciplines: to enforcement Alberta 7.5.4 while activities operating officers working provide Peace Checkstop should municipality respond Backup capture levels any differing past, Peace In The purchasing Each budget two The The The Feasibility 7.5.3 Alberta, educate an significant peace Village Municipality M.D. Town McElhanney and community earlier at Officer of Officer be limitations. SAFETY Traffic a are for Elevators, the ENFORCEMENT to in in — service can nature the vicious in sourced the of officers the a of quite a Building, each required backup hours Study Programs same the of in section situation different could Village Pincher be Pincher public is duties permitting the Cowley benefits, Safety region of rotated at discipline through simply, CODE animal, has time of of from of Court, region. the employed Amusement normally in Some of to service Crowsnest regarding was expressed Fire, Creek Regional set these alone, Crcck municipality. Plan communities. minimizing provides this quickly does — by another SERVICES there there different the discussed. etc. and effective informal on SER Electrical, they community Additionally, Feasibility with circumstances currently within culTently such use not be leave, within inspection are While are VICES ATV and Partnership Rides, the inspect. expected, Pass municipality. a enforcement have of as a sufficient a priorities the checkstop arrangements their need efficiently or number a number two entering While use backup recently formal Gas utilizes a off utilizes Study and interruption and Community limited process to functional and many sick. (Natural there and Passenger based access the of for resource of Mutual by and the random private activities programs one implemented These one deal sharing provide situations A creation Alberta its are the budget consolidation on with fonrial on Service enhanced enforcement enforcement full-time and of with many areas. other buildings Peace Aid situations need, property for camping Ropeways. travel. the opportunities for jurisdictions Propane), coordinated provide abilities. of traffic. these Agreement. agreement where Community situations Town Sharing the a increasing Officer a and policing single In Community and to appropriate types regulations. of include order services The staff, a for one of enforce Safety Animal Plumbing, single equipment or enforcement Pincher Opportunities the to between where number of where part-time have position and to Bylaw the Peace the instances programs. education achieve Community Code on provisions visibility this Control Peace added Provincial legal this cooperation Creek a of Private Officer Enforcement the more is staffed is Officers Community backup Community undertaken and understandable agency these Officer municipal the when of Most have Officer formal and of May enforcement the Sewage, employed Peace Enforcement by objectives, a will the are effectiveness jurisdictions been would did driving program the bylaw, long duties basis Officer other required Peace partners not Officer through not Peace RCMP. undertaken Boilers weekend enhance by be apparently attempting public in based Community into authority and Officer. a that available position Officers the Calendar. number should to is a utilize of Community and number currently required future, be on on current checkstop in the Pressure issues not provide due when the to now the of and The of to to . has

I

accreditation.

be

services

Accredited

However,

In

operating Accredited

development

through

secure The

the

the the

The

The

requirements

Accredited

Office.

through

The

Management

Authorized For

Feasibility

reviewing

extended

Alberta

four

four

McElhanney

Municipality

a

Village

Municipal

Town

municipality

Gas

to

its

Authorized

Developers

Authorized

Superior

costs,

as

be

of

Agency

own

Agency

(Natural

Agency’s

Safety

Accredited

Study

in

of

a

the

or

of

provided

Plan.

Pincher

number

order

Cowley

District

overall

demand

Safety

the

relevant

Safety

of

Codes,

of

to

there

The

approved

Alberta

Accredited

Accredited

and

and

that

Crowsnest

Regional

approved provide

Creek

of

Codes

by

efficiencies, does

of

Agency.

Municipality

Propane),

at

others

Codes,

they

is

municipalities

desired

the

Pincher

a

the

an

single

Safety

not

issues

by

all

municipality

Officer

Safety

opportunity

current

must

Pass by

Agency’s Partnership

Agency’s

an

issue

the

expire

outcomes

Creek

Authorized

Plumbing,

the

Codes,

Authorized

Fire

and

Alberta

provides

secure

Code

may

position.

permits

time

Alberta

at

Permits

do

cost

No.

approved

approved

the

then

to

it

requires

inspection

rely

to

of

all

Safety requires

and

reduce

sharing

9

Private

support

same

for

increased

other

Accredited

Safety

other

The

Accredited

does

provide

fully

and

the

Service

Codes.

Town

time,

a

by

by

than

not provides

costs

necessary

or

opportunities

issuing

a

Sewage

developer

Codes.

any services,

the

the

developer

the

partially

service

issue

Fire

and

Agency.

to also

regional

Sharing

Alberta

Agency.

Alberta

service

the

and

permits.

those

permits

for

permits

issues

permits

it

level

to

public

on

inspection

the

must

to

secure

Safety

there

Safety

The

sharing

through

Opportunities

municipalities

contracted

secure

These

issuing

Fire

to

through

other

In

be

through

by

current

the

does

order

other

accredited

Codes.

permits,

Codes.

tendering

opportunity applications

other

respective its

than

on

and

not

Park

own

services

to

Building

contracts

necessary

any

Fire

inspection

necessary

comply

appear

not

but

qualified

Enterprises,

of

as

and

permits.

accredited

communities,

the

requires

a

through

from

are

and

region to

in

have

with

permits

four

permits

be

accepted

place

of

Electrical

an

staff

To

an

sufficient Building

the

Authorized

a

local

Authorized

for

an

developer

should

approved

would

comply

through

and/or

requirements

Authorized

through

Safety

reduced

at

staffing.

permits

the

34

permits

need

seek

an

with

any

Code

Town

Quality

to

any

that

to

of

the

of of )

)

c

Feasibility

7.5.5

Create

for permitting for

Mutual and Reduce Support Accredited Code

Low Medium LEGEND I4 High

Sharing

the

the

enhancement

Village

McElhanney

services

a

region

access

RECOMMENDATIONS: Aid

Costs

regional

single

Opportunity

purchase

Sitidy

Agency.

Agreement.

of

to

enforcement

to results high Recommended minimal medium implementation, to

Cowicy

Emergency

the

implement,

be cooperation

of of

organizational

in

public

provided

of

services

Regional

organizational organizational

the

hours

and

short

and

by and

Priority

Management

services

the

results

term.

/

of through

between

by

delayed tendering

community

Partnership

Town

/

/

service.

PROTECTIVE

a

community

community

in

single

the

by

results

of the

medium

enforcement

readiness,

the

as

Pincher

Agency

Authori,ed

or

use

readiness, readiness,

Village

a

feasibility.

and

term.

region

of

ease

SERVICES

a

Creek

Service

and significant

current

formal

of

of

for

services

implementation,

Cowley,

Director

situation

Safety

provide

effort Sharing

AND

limits

or

time

and

ENFORCEMENT

Opportunities

Recommended

Medium Priority

Alignment only about most

Medà

High

High

a

or

half

few

all

of

to

of

to

the

none

the

Desired

desired

desired

of

the

Outcomes

Desired

outcomes

outcomes

desired

Alignment

Medium

Medium Medium

outcomes

High

are

are

Outcomes

met

met

are

to

met -

A

I I Municipal of Economic sustain Municipality The 64) program. Economic None The With as Village Economic

efficiencies; 8.1 arc government opportunities As level

Feasibility 8 Council the and part in Municipality • • • current McElhanney a to of Cities line the population moving members.” Regional creating Province of works Education Federal advice the Economic

of

ECONOMIC ADDITIONAL these development development to economic with Development the Cowley District respective municipal Study of services and the outside programs process of in on Lethbridge towards the — the Chamber cost partnership of (‘rowsnest — of e.g. key of of Diversification. and partnership’s e.g. Crowsnest Alberta right of and less were Regional sharing of Minister situation communities; of economic

Tourism, DEVELOPMENT Pincher is Alberta is deal hiring five is social developing than environment the the of reviewed and supported — priority with Economic

with SERVICE responsibility opportunities. Pass responsibility e.g. 13,000 an Calgary Pass of well-being Partnership varies SouthWest Parks issues. desired Creek Economic the State the Ministries is and reduced this areas by people, “last provincial by advertising in and unless for Development, programs the outcomes: Feasibility community: which of identified mile”, Recreation, Small Regional of of following

Development SHARING and operating of our this the it the Agriculture balanced is government area Service Business i.e. region Chief for Chief at able Study, reduced by Alliance many attracting Economic by a areas and costs; to the Administrative Administrative 12 lacks supporting, growth pool Sharing Officer. and levels: the the member municipal and represent

negative OPPORTUNITIES to extended which the Alberta consultants its Tourism, development provide Rural Development can resources. resources Opportunities Board, is promoting occur, effect the partners. Development, a Economic life Officer, recommendations Officer, “collaborative and potential attempted expectancy which increasing on to to Minister Committee compete the a Many and and with specific Development has environment; for building Council Enterprise to no areas the of sharing prosperity for initiative identify with supporting State municipality following members and infrastructure; of appoints larger trade long-term municipal for opportunities Authority and sharing focused increased for Western and centres committee (Newsletter purpose: Advanced all a or member 36 strategic overall on region. which service such that “to or )

I

Feasibility

commerce”

attributes The Officer

be A such Council 8.2 positioned these The of 8.2.1 Trns’,, Directors inception, development between site

volunteers municipalities The competitiveness. The 8.2.2 development economic comprised

number

Wetaskiwin,

investigated

Town selectors

Joint

Leduc-Nisku municipal

as McElhanney

successful

of

and

“identify

JEDI ECONOMIC

LEDUC-N1SKU

also

the

of

Pin

consisting Economic

wealth

JEDI of

has

to

directing of StUdy

and Economic

our

City

appoints

examples

the with resources assist

clier

volunteer

an

to

partners

to

Town

“to

has area.”

regional

JEDI

land

become

of Economic within

determine ol Economic

a

Creek

industry

foster

been

wealth Leduc

sector of

Development

Regional

a

use

of

Development

office

DEVELOPMENT

exist the

into

member can Board

the

Millet,

economic

a

Alberta’s

and and

Chief

and specific

“one-stop”

of

achieve

a

region. with Development

in which

Development

exists

single

build

urban information

of

Partnership

Alberta

Leduc

and

of

Elected

Directors,

all

Initiative

Council

would

teams

to International development

a

Since

greater

regional

design aspects

County Officer.

positive

make County

industrial

of

Official

and successful

be

1999,

Committee

on

Authority

policy MODELS to economic

an

locating and (JEDI) of

of

The

the organization

the

to over cnvironmcnt

the

Executive

development

Wetaskiwin.

the

formulate development best

Service

Region

initiatives

region,

recent

and

Chamber

that

2,800

is

partnership

regional

or

(EDA)

cooperation

one

growth a

and

will

expanding

dynamic

draft -

its

Director, Sharing

ambassadors

councillor

and the

a

and

of ensure

are

of

strategic position

A

and

represents

economic of within

Gateway

economic

agency,

Economic generating

not-for-profit

lead (in

has

the

operations.

and

model

Opportunities

and in

their

a

grown

Municipal

strategies

professional

the

that from

advantages, the award-winning

providing

worldwide. promote

to a

own

development

region

diversity

for

region

partnership, combines

Development.

common

Opportunity!

each

to

the

words): society

From

include

for

Development

by

municipal

growth

efficient

municipal

local

demographics, office

the

while

pooling

economic

site

the

governed

partnership

the

sustainable

initiatives

established

industry

duties

selections

for

The

support

preserving

and

surrounding

member,

partners.

their

the

Leduc-Nisku

Plan easy.

development

of

by community.”

and

team,

economic and

Development

and

between

development

in

a

to

includes

Board

the

Since

international JEDI

Examples

1984,

these labour

cost-

300

natural

37

is

its

the

EDA

of

should

goals.

goals

City

of

of

is I

Feasibility

8.2.3

Pooling

the organization development

LEGEND

Ii Medium

Sharing

L,ow

igh

municipal

•

McElhanney RECOMMENDA

the

Opportu

Study

economic

and

goals

partners

Recommended

results high medium

to minimal

implementation,

implement,

generating

of

organizational

rnty

in

Regional

organizational

organizational

the

development

into

TIONS:

short

and

Priority

a

and

common

results term.

single

/

community

Partnership

delayed

/ ECONOMIC

/

community

community

in

regional

resources the

results

economic

medium

readiness,

or readiness,

readiness,

feasibility. and

term.

DEVELOPMENT

of

ease

Service

significant

current

of

implementation,

Recommended

situation

Sharing

effort

or limits

Medium

time

and

Opportunities

Priority

Alignment

most

about

only

.

a or

half

.

few

all

of

of

to

to

the

the none

Desired

desired

desired

of

Alignment

the

Outcomes

outcomes

outcomes

desired

Outcomes

outcomes

High

are

are

to

met

met

Desired

are

met

38 Feasibility Study of Regional Partnership and Service Sharing Opportunities

9 SHARINGOPPORTUNITIESWORKSHOP

Through this process, many instances were observed whereby staff fi-omeach of the municipal partners communicated on the sharing of services and equipment however as there is no formal structure in place for this collaboration, these individual initiatives did not generate the desired results. ) Opportunities were identified to share equipment including; street sweepers, graders, street line painting equipment, and playing field line marking equipment. Most of this equipment can be used at different times by ) the municipal partners and is therefore easier to share. A suitable truck and a trailer to transport equipment would be a required investment but would likely be offset by overall cost efficiencies in equipment sharing.

The list of equipment and services could be increased and this can be facilitated by formalizing contact between the municipal departments. Holding or creating an annual Sharing Opportunities Workshop with staff from each municipal partner would allow for discussion on the sharing of current and future equipment, skills and services.

9.1.1 RECOMMENDATIONS:SHARINGOPPORTUNITIESWORKSHOP

Sharing Opportunity Alignment to Desired Recommended Priority Outcomes

Creating an annual Sharing Opportunities Workshop with staff from each municipal partner attending and participating in High High discussion on the sharing of current and future equipment, skills, and services

LEGEND

Recommended Priority Alignment to Desired Outcomes

High high organizational / community readiness, ease of implementation, and most or all of the desired outcomesare met results in the short term.

Medium medium organizational / community readiness, significant effort or time about half of the desired outcomes are met to implement, and results in the medium term.

Low minimal organizational / community readiness, current situation limits only a few to none of the desired outcomes are met implementation,and delayed results or feasibility.

McElhanney I I Feasibility Study of Regional Partnership and Service Sharing Opportunities

APPENDIXA - COMMUNITYINFORMATION

A McElh.nney

development

between

Over

LAND

(38.634/sq.

population

In

POPULATION

I major

snowmobiling, of Site,

display Within

TOURISM

continues

British

mines

years

diversity

existence

Council” No. the

Village

“Municipality

encompassing The

THE

appendix. valuable

The

APPENDIX

the

Feasibility

the

McElhanney

the

Province

and

6

2011

ski

following

Municipality

coal

DEVELOPMENT

was

on

municipality

at Columbia the

the

last

of

the

hills

MUNICIPALITY comes

Leitch

of to

mi) resource

to the iddntifying

Census,

included and

Bellevue,

mining

Municipality

amount

11

provide

Crowsnest

5,749.

coal

Study

at

of

in Alberta

a

years,

44

of

information

both

downhill a

2011. Alberta

from

Collieries

side

mining,

Crowsnest percent

A:

during

the geographical

With

suffered

of

of

of

into

significant

are

Fernie

Village

the

the

of the

side

Regional

Municipality

COMMUNITY

Crowsnest

Museum

residential

the the recognized

a

also

of

municipality

ski

the amalgamated

the

many were

land

Provincial

closed

Alpine

was

Crowsnest from

pass.

amalgamated

hill, of

preparation

Pass”

area’s

available.

employment

for

area

Frank,

provided

Partnership European

in

area

and

There

fluctuating

Pass throughout

and

country Resort downtown

of in

primary

of

the

OF

a

Historic

has

Crowsnest

of

and 373.07

1979

groomed

Pass

country

community

is

uniqueness

is

The

of

as

and conununity

approximately

an had

and

an

residential

Improvement

CR0

the

for part

INFORMATION

when

industry

one

operating

and

coal

Castle the

area

km2

Coleman

amalgamated

Site,

an

other

Feasibility

the

residential

of

cross-country

Pass can

average

Service

20th

prices,

amalgamation

WSNEST

Municipality

the

(144.04

offers underground

of

as

Mountain immigrants

since

use.

creating

find

had

the

Request

a

coal

century

where

District

“Specialized bitter

383

The Sharing

of

Study

Municipality

hiking

a

the

the

sq.

lots

mine

population

Municipality 32

the pamphlets

majority

ski

Resort. mi),

first

Frank

krn2.

for

as

strikes,

lots of

created.

attracted it

tours

No.

just

of

Municipality

and

area,

has cheaper,

Proposal

PASS

Opportunities Crowsnest

mine

it

the

created

5

across

had

The

Slide Municipality”.

been

of

fishing took

of

and

of

of

and Town

for the

opened Nearly

to a

construction

with

5,565,

Crowsncst

Community

population

is

included

safer

process.

Interpretive

place.

per the

the

underground

self-guided

Bellevue

Pass.

about

of

in

as

B.C. a

year.

area

a

in 46

open-pit

Coleman,

it

population

the

In

-3.2%

70 1900. now

As

for

percent

border

by

The

1996

There Pass

Mine

summer,

density activity

kilometres

this

the

Centre,

became

historical

the

exists.

change

accidents, Its

municipality

mines

through Improvement

reader

was in

Town was

Provincial mines.

were ethnic

of

of

has Sparwood,

In

found

and

an

an

from 5,565

opened 14.9168/km2

known

(43 driving

as January

occurred

of

residential

an

Through

interpretive

even

and

and

an

in

Blairmore,

mi)

its

to

“Order Historic

residents

owes

cultural

winter

District

be all

on

split 2006

which

as

from

tours

2008,

in

a

the

the

the

the

its in I Feasibility Study of Regional Partnership and Service Sharing Opportunities

the community of Coleman, followed by Blairmore. Likewise, since 1989, the majority of both subdivision

applications and the amount of new lots created have also occurred in the Coleman area. Presently, over I,632 acres (660 ha) of land in the Crowsnest Pass can be classified as country residential land use.

WATER SERVICES

The Municipality provides water services through a variety of facilities. Water is produced from nine high quality ground wells treated at four treatment plants located in Coleman, Blairmore, Bellevue and 1-lilicrest.it is then stored in one of four concrete reservoirs and distributed by a complex piping system consisting of pressure boosting stations and pressure reducing stations required because of the varying elevations throughout the community. Water is also produced and stored in the Sentinel area west of Coleman for fire protection purposes. All systems are monitored 24/7 hours a day by either an alarm system or through a satellite monitoring system called SCADA. Qualified municipal employees also check and take samples from each facility for testing on a daily basis to ensure we are providing a safe quality service. The Chinook Health Region also tests our water weekly as well as an independent laboratory at regular intervals.

WASTE WATER SERVICES

Wastewater is fed to two treatment facilities through a gravity fed collection system. An Extended Aeration Treatment Plant is located in the Frank Industrial Park. This is a mechanical plant that will treat wastewater from Coleman, Blairmore and Frank. Wastewater from Bellevue and Hillcrest is fed to a series of Extended Aeration Lagoons located between these communities.

ENERGY The Municipality owns and operates an Electrical Distribution System (the wires that deliver electricity to homes and businesses) in the Crowsnest Pass area. The Municipality charges electricity retailers for the delivery of power. Retailers pass these charges on to their customers. Distribution charges are for funding the costs associated with operating and maintaining the distribution system.

RECREATION FACILITIES

Recreation facilities in the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass include: • Ski Hill Lodge • Swimning Pool • Sports Complex • Alberta Stella Arena

• MDM • Bike Skills Park • Climbing Wall (included in Albert Stella Arena comments) • Indoor Skateboard Park (included in Albert Stella Arena comments)

McElhanney

I

available

field.

is

Sportsfields

lounge.

and

with

Pass

available

arena gymnasiums

are MDM

that

weekend

document.

several

Swimming school

Curling

impact. Professional

All

because

Canada

demonstrated

RECREATION

Skating

included

activities

Feasibility

Six

being

both

kids,

McEhanney age

sees

family-friendly

Powder

(6)

Next portion

-

curling

adult

constructed

There

groups ice

-

This

for

facilities

located

we

through

ski

Arena

sporadic

to

in

Interest

and

phase

Similar Pool

-

sports

use

Study

have

a

in

September

Keg

patrol,

Indoor

and

The

facility

of

programs.

formal

are

in

programs.

the

utilize

through

within

includes the —

-

senior

booking.

the

Ski

traditionally

Community

have

in

approximately

remain

use

three

of

The

DEMOGRAPHICS

Crowsnest

in to

rental

yet

Rodeo

curling

building

reducing

is

Hill

review

Regional

Hillcrest

other

the

from

been

the

Community

programs,

challenging

joint

largely

long

local

The

The

2 very

-

arena,

shop,

These

more

and

Albert

This

remains

community

the

included

but

audit

use

weekend)

majority

and

schools.

has

put

enrollment

popular.

and

Pass

annual

utilized

Partnership

terrain

is

ball

will

standpoint

250

especially

facilities

agreements

are

3

There

in

Stella

is

a

currently

terrain.

slow-pitch

Pool

steady,

summer

municipally

a

has

diamonds

-300

have

available

in

Indoor

graduation.

of

separate

park,

for

Our

Jiiformation

is

pools,

Memorial

a

curlers

is

one

are

in

curlers

information

considerable

recent

community

hockey

Some

an

of

however

ice

has

and

with

our

ice

night

Skateboard

exclusively

of

recreation.

ball

outdoor

document

and

that

to

surface

are

phase

to

operated Service

community’s

other

(2011)

the who

the

the

Arena.

skiing, groups

2 fields,

accommodate

mid

facility

pertaining

soccer

changes

Livingstone

youth

participate

1

oldest

provided.

and

great

facility

(Sports

public

to

completed

Park-

facility

utilized

available Sharing

The

1 ski

The

discount

of

senior

social

pitches.

baseball

is

twice

features

all

area. in

demographics

interest

largely

The

schools.

structures that

Municipality

Complex)

to

shifts

ages.

audit

All

by

age

Range

annually,

the

programs

Opportunities

the

from

a

Pass

which

indoor

operates

group

Additional

the

field,

week

of

include

summer

group.

The

for

at

utilized

use

review.

these

youth.

Similar

The

Powderkeg

School

the

have

sees

an

includes

packages,

skateboard

and

facility

for

has

not

however

Tech Municipality

approximately

indoor

also

snow

of are

hockey

a

been

2

The

by

1

including

fields

been

Division.

to

fair

soccer

hours.

communities

utilized

has

Coal

the

also

a

most

making,

remaining

swimming

features

set

amount

softball

lodge

provided

(ball

it

park

school

a

youth,

supports

pitch. mines

up

does

joint

These

communities

family

for

of

and

and

rentals,

in

ski

15

field

of

Crowsnest

1,200

that

have sport

the

use

although

A

has

three

pooi

facilities

soccer)

the

previously

weeks

“out

school

in

curling

major

the

runs

former

and

agreement

had

climbing

a

ft. and

the

cafeteria

facility.

of

annual

(3)

gymnasium

of

a

(May

in

for in

a

are

ball town”

recreation

there

baseball

Province,

Pass

and

are

negative

were

vertical

August.

curling

western

adults

made

in

park

KRA

wall

also

long

high

and

the

are

for

use not Feasibility

Bike very amount except under-utilized PUBLIC The changes 2011. PROTECTIVE Transitional Officers. of lb

the

Municipality

popular

Skills McElhanney

way

for

of

to

Vehicle,

BMX

TRANSPORTATION

mountain

Study

this

Park through

Solutions

with

and

program

and -

utilizes of

equipment

AND

A

cyclists

that

the

mountain Regional

bike

biking

completed

changes

process.

ENFORCEMENT

this

as

skills

of

trails

service

and

summer.

all

Partnership

bikes.

park

need

A

ages. required

a

through

Peace Bylaw

called

was

to

A It

be

utilized

report

Officer

constructed resources

Services

the the

and

made.

SERVICES

“Town

forested

Service

and

program as

Administration

Audit

have

a

survey

near

Rounder.”

“warm

areas.

Sharing

also

in

will

the

2011. on

been up”

This

base

be

Transit

It Opportunities

facility

Currently operational

put

has

has

facility

of

in

the

been

been services

place.

for

ski

is

the

charged

determined

riders

very

in

hill

Municipality

in

July

in

Crowsnest

similar

prior

2011

with

with

that

to

recommending

and

the

to

accessing

this

is

a

was

hiring

has

about

skateboard

service

completed

proven

of

two-thirds

the

2

is

major

Peace

to

large

very park

he

in

I

Tourism

TOURISM

Creek.

trapper

The

years

and as

the

In

discovered

region.

sonic For

1

location.

TOWN

Feasibility

898,

1876,

Schofield •

I

•

•

•

•

town.

McElhanney

named

centuries

Kootenai

ago.

Pincher

value

variety

surfacing Hank

concession

Juan

Joe’s

Community

offers

riders

Bike

personal

Fusion

Pincher

Memorial

who

Pincher

1-metre

The

in

the

These

James

the

the

Pincher

Study

Teran

Park

was town

OF

NWMP

Gym.

Planger

to

two

intermediate

&

before

of

Creek

Town

Health

Brown

rusting

Creek

diving

Creek

the

pincers

training

Hyde

for

Schofield

playground

the

and

new

Community

received

and

PINCHER

Park

of

Recreation

wheelchair

group.

Creek.

founder

was

outdoor

of

established

this

Regional

Skateboard

and

Swimming

Municipal

tools

washroorns,

board,

courts Heritage

General

is

Pincher

would

and

area

incorporated

located

Fitness

beginner

opened

its

In

Many

in

athletic

equipment,

park

of

tarzan

Center was

the

name

Centre

1874,

have

Partnership

accessibility

Store.

Creek

Waterton

Museum

a

Library

Park Pool

on

(located

creek,

and

horse

residents

Pincher

settled,

ideal

and

CREEK

rope,

therapy

Macleod

been

in

the

Arena

houses

fitness includes:

Harry

is

(includes as

1868

advanced

for

an

farm

and

located

a

North-West

basketball

is

Park.

used

in

the

Creek’s

village.

outdoor

family

(winter

and

are

a

and

the

they

when

Hyde

9

area

Road

in

Blackfoot,

popular

hole

as

The

multi-purpose descendants

6

activity

the

next

Service

named

areas,

is

lane

a

gatherings,

In

first a

succeeded

fitness

and

sports,

golf-course,

area.

mechanism

hoops

located

sign

group

to

1906, Mounted

25-metre

tourist

features

tennis

the

store

panels

the

at Sharing

Peigan

It

park,

and

ice

creek

of

closed

the

at

the

area

of

in

picnics

skating,

courts

864

stop.

prospectors

Schofield

facility)

a

for

creek

community

the

a

3 Police

for

restaurant, pool,

1884.

slide

and

Pincher

(behind

special

diamonds,

Opportunities

children

Christie

in

trimming

pioneer

It

(located

Kootenai

1881,

tells

etc.

for

kiddies

By

hockey,

was

offers

came

as

needs

Creek.

young

multi-purpose

1885

the

lost

Avenue

bowling

with

but

named

was

Pincher

families

beach

yoga,

behind

wading

to

the

story

Nations

figure

a

many

Pincher

children’s

children,

officially

sensory

southern

pincer

feet

volleyball

for

nutritional

and

alley

of

Creek’s

multi-purpose

who

pool,

skating)

of

of

the

John

encompasses

lived

Creek

in

facility)

the

needs.

the

and

monthly

play

incorporated

settled

Alberta.

the

1995

20-

troops

Kootenai

horses

in

first

squash

area,

counseling,

had

small

area

person

or

flood

and

there

pool

postmaster.

frequented

a

playground,

stayed

facility)

with

One

and

store

offers

creek

courts

a

hot

in

great

Brown,

as

parties

over

thus

rubber

of

Pincher

tub, to

a

known

at

and

and town

them

help

100

had

this

the

In a I

Feasibility

POPULATION period Over showed the in number Town higher

LAND somewhat bisected The residential Creek), recreational Creek development

Housing There

2008,

• •

•

population

Town

the

McElhanney

reached

the treed Veteran’s Heritage 25th, meanders than Kootenai

are winning Information vintage

replacement Curling

Cultural Hospital. 11:00am mansion. mansion

of while DEVELOPMENT a

which

types by census

Study

Town’s no-growth

older

four

persons

development.

the

of

location

uses. annual

Highway

is

the

its car Pincher

resulted of within

Club: provincial residential

gardens.

Acres Venue:

population

to you

Brown

of the

Memorial period The The through

highest

Pincher Hamlet

population buffs.

2:00pm.

aged Center.

Regional

show

10

will at dominant

building The

gardens

scenario

the located

years.

940

6, in Creek

Lebel Pioneer

2001-2006

Thousands

70 A

find

the August

The Town facility

population

average a of

land which Creek

Features

Farmer’s Campground

structure

Canon

population

and

Lowland

heart

Partnership

grew a are

Mansion 9

is

Hamlet encompasses

use, losing

public

use

km

Village

include

over a

3-5,

maintained is

is

separates

registered

of Street.

of

by

NE districts

in

of census

but steadily

16

when

Market

10.7 to

has downtown, 2012

41

art fair

60

Heights artifacts

of

of heritage was

of

located

single date

a

offers

gallery, persons

persons

increased

Pincher 3,712

Pincher

percent

condition

fair compared an(l

and

period,

built

in the

historic is

approximately increasing

by

with

family, the held portion

lies

Service from

18 Fall

buildings on

the persons.

majority

in

which

studios

to

from camping in Creek

3,806 Station land

the

east the

1910 at

local

Fair from

and 3,685.

pioneer

site

to 2006.

the

duplex, creek

of

Town the

Sharing use

and

of

2001.

greatly

current

and September

persons on and Both

Oldman and

dating museum

12.3

of

land

the is

province Overall,

However

sites

bylaw

Secondary 2,492

approaching

in

past

now

in

located

gift

commercial

of

Town. multi-unit, the

percent

According

downtown

is

contributes 1924

usage

along from

Opportunities

Pincher

fill in

shop.

Rose home

municipal

also

that

acres, every

the

15th.

as 1986.

the

the

it

north

(In

1878

is the

in

accommodate a Road

was

Art committed Society.

Town

to

buildings,

Town whole. less Friday

the

the (Located

is

manufactured Creek,

1996

Pincher banks

to

the

Over

and

classes

to

to

of sold

located

and

785, MD than

the

population

of

Allied

1939 the

the

conducted

to

industrial

during

the

to of

Pincher

federal

according

most

of capacity. beside

appeal

Creek 14.6

are along in Town

to house

the

across

last

Pincher south

Arts

the

these

commercial,

also

Pincher

the

percent recent

home

three census

also Oldrnan

with MD of Creek

of

the

(in

Council.

their

development

six

summer

offered

of

varying Anticipated

to the

the

Creek.)

St

houses

the of

acres

gasoline and

Highway census 2006-20

Statistics

Creek

own

in

appears Vincent figures

town.

1980s Pincher

River

MD

2006,

senior

at Inside

months

industrial

housing of

census

the

The the

at

periods

Residential award

of

where alley 11

show

Dam

to

a from de

Visitor which

3 Creek.)

Canada,

housing.

the Pincher Pincher quiet,

census

have

and

Paul from

count

types

for

that

and the the

the

is

is

a I

Feasibility

as Lands first homes use row zoned value land. The southern census unique Lands Currently breakdown and and residential by The largely is zoning manner. blocks commercial may in targeted community. Highway downtown downtown.

either

the

concentrated

accommodating

bylaw.

2007 ease

examine

number

Downtown

houses,

be

The McElhanney

of

land land

zoned

designated are

periods

housing

consisting

intended

feasible

be

permitted

Alberta

of

The

a

towards

over

majority

Pincher Commercial

also

uses

Study

use

Approximately

within area attributed

dwelling

of access, By

development

of

the

multi-unit

for

land

existing

180

present

bylaw and

definition,

senior needs

in

and/or area

have to in

present

municipalities.

residential

of

for of

Creek the

conjunction

the

conventional or

identify

which

of use

accounts

the

commercial

Regional

a

is

continues

commercial

discretionary

encompasses such to

the

homes Town.

citizens

variety

within commercial

desirable

development motoring located

bylaw

retail

dwellings

state

expansion

has

must

in opportunity

highway

as 82

residential

the development for

very

Existing

in

the low of

sector. percent of

Partnership

aged

also

with

be

south

to

Pincher

residential residential approximately

Town

to

uses

retail,

Town

uses

public,

maintenance

considered

few

be

develop development and

commercial

uses. the

includes

a

65

of

is

of

commercial

The contributing

of one

areas residential to

account vacant

downtown since

and

commercial office

typically and

the

seniors

Creek

homes In

live

while

account

existing

of

lots land

over in

Pincher

and

analyzing are

within

the

provisions

in

and in the the residential

for

are

were

14.6 areas limited

future

residences

and

are Service

within

within

last

or

not

encouraged

development

future.

use.

lowest

area service

46.5 to

the for

single-detached

rent land

Creek

development owner

percent development

created

existing

require

the

compromising

future

The

development.

community

approximately and

to

the

ha Pincher

for

Sharing

out

lots use

Town’s

areas average

outlets.

in

(115

Downtown

occupied

is

Town

scattered

of a

to

the

needs

sites

the

remaining

intended

land table

in

live-work

the accounts accommodate

designated

acres)

Creek

upper linear

centre

Opportunities within shows

The

with commercial along

values

where use

Town’s

for

homes

shows

while

existing throughout

Downtown/Retail

148

of

to

area has

survey

residential high

floors

strips

of

in

for

the Highway

the

scenario

commercial

strengthen all

for

the

manufactured/mobile

gradually ha mature (82.7

a population.

18

also

visibility,

approximately majority

Town

zoned

marked

further

along residences

community was and/or

percent (366

core

and

utilizes

percent)

the

development,

where

neighborhoods.

of

conducted 6

land

in

acres)

future

the

a

residential

increased

in

of

the

Pincher

expansion

increase community.

ready

major

are

a

Senior

retail

a commercial within

the

functional

Commercial

in rear

business

transitional

with

and

rented

or

126 developments

access, comparison

north

traffic

Creek. function

in

of 16.9

extends

citizens

the

over

duplex

in

ha

growth.

it

of

home

2000,

the

and

the is

portion

Between

community.

(312

Manufactured the owners

percent

and

and

the

artery development

important

building

the

commercial

designation

amount in for

often

of

downtown

dwellings,

which

last

attractive large

acres)

to

the

the

average

several

in

of

and

in

of

other

three 2005

have

land

area

lots can

the the for the

all

of

to

of

A

is I

Feasibility

to drive-in

There SOLID

landfill WATER Pincher

secondary (20,000,000 WASTE

The

Electrical ENERGY 12,707

12.034 RECREATION services The opportunities. Fossil variety several country offers Slide, The rink, Town indoor more and

provide

Town’s

operates

town

natural

a McElhanney

is

than

Head-Smashed-In

year Museum,

and

cubic is cubic

9-hole restaurants, soccer

Creek’s of

tourist

WASTE

weekly skiing,

available

located

WATER

power

source.

for SERVICES

exceptional Study also

the

8

round

sewer gallons)

metres

metres

beauty

km a

parking.

Known

field,

golf

well-maintained surrounding

has

and

snowmobiling,

primary

garbage

Lebel

in

is

of of

The to

recreational

DISPOSAL

system

FACILITIES

course a

convenience

the

provided

recreational

Regional

per

trails SERVICES

conference residents (2,600,000

variety of

locate

Town

as

tourism

Mansion Highway

MD

day

source

southwestern

collection

the

Buffalo

with

is

and

region. of

with

in

located

of has

“Centre

by

include

Partnership

Pincher

the hunting

opportunities destination

the

well-maintained

of

recreational

municipal

gallons)

and

Historic

stores areas

Epcor one

commercial

an

Jump

drinking

Pincher

west

as

These

average north

meeting

main

for

Shaw

well

including Creek

Alberta and

and

and

and

per portion

Adventure”

site

of

campground include

spots

water

Creek

motels

water and ice-fishing.

as

Cable,

the facilities,

line

numerous day.

Highway such

rooms

and

and

areas

recycling

encourages

Service

gas

shale

such

pressure of

storage Waterton

a

The is

multi-purpose Heritage

as

or

ball

SuperNet

composting

often

captured

the

and

distribution

hotels. windsurfing,

the

as

which pumping

surfaces

3

parks,

campgrounds

for

community.

Sharing

in

the other

reservoir facilities

location

include

of

Acres the

visitors

Lakes

a

Kootenai

80

provide

and

from

soccer

outdoor

Municipal wide

that

site PSI.

capacity

facility

system

Telus.

Opportunities

(MD

such of

National for

with

the biking,

and

is

wind

Pincher

variety The

fields,

services

and

paper, available

Brown Castle

recreational

of

commercial

local a

that

is

of

holding

District

through water

Pincher

hiking

hiking,

maintained

the

Park,

houses residents

plastic,

Creek of

tennis River

Pioneer

and

for

system

system

outdoor

capacity

areas.

of

Castle

the Creek).

fishing,

facilities

the

along

facilities. places

courts, activities

Pincher

the

cans

town

Village,

to

collection

is

by

has

library, The

enjoy.

Mountain

recreational with

167

and

Pincher

of

Alta

it downhill

bowling

to

including

a

Creek.

in

Town

75,735

The

as

litres

the design bottles.

Pincher

3

close

Pincher Gas.

an

service

Rivers

of

town

residents

Creek

aquatic

itself per

yard Resort,

skiing,

alley,

cubic

Other proximity

capacity

a

A and

Creek

second

also

Creek variety

Rock

stations,

waste.

sanitary

and

boasts

metres

curling

centre,

scenic

utility

cross- Frank

of

owns

as

area

and

has

the

or

of

to

of

a

a I Feasibility parks significant TOURISM MUNICIPAL • • • • • a • a • • • a • • • McEItiannoy and The variety The the for Soccer recreational Town play, Pincher Cormnunity Bowling, Spirit School Heritage Castle for Community Community Huckleberry Camping Camping Ski Some Snowmobiling, open portion Study everyone Canada meetings, Races Pincher Memorial bonspiels School Hall accommodation Mountain Field of Facilities Creek space Acres — facilities Squash of tournaments, of Facilities Winter provincial activities, Hall Hall Creek Recreation Regional and all Fest the Division receptions

DISTRICT Community Curling nearing — are ATV’s, under OCfl Resort other - Board - Historical Courts, (August) A A — Multi-Purpose Games. held no Joint - modern, space A meetings, one sites Partnership provides availability outdoor Rink 290 games, Centre services is cross-country during — etc. small Volleyball Downhill available Use roof, The Center Museum acres - in in This spacious gymiasium Agreement the drop-in recreational the - the winter community including

OF This reunions Facility to Arena on community winter off-season. four-lane for and Skiing, and serve — the complex skiing.

PINCHER Arena events opportunities and dances, Service a - mountain. and season an - Weight was with and its air-conditioned facilities. This Cat groups facility Aquatic season held other residents. available includes opened meeting receptions, the Skiing 23 Sharing for Training throughout and Livingstone gatherings. 000 is runs all and Center, complete in organizations the ages rooms

CREEK for square The special from 1963 Opportunities special hail Golf and fair and Library, golf the are October and foot managed Fitness Range weather with Clubhouse, events. the year. events, available course renovated multi-use upstairs a access Conference School meeting Club, 1 recreation by to dinners, and March at the Restaurant, to lounge all in facility Division the ball the and Pincher 1974 under Town and auctions school activities. 3 diamonds lounge area 1 offers to and Meeting one and Creek Chinook host Hall is facilities. offers roof. area. also and the something events for represent Rooms, Holy funerals. available League a Lanes wide for a I

Feasibility

POPULATION

LAND

•

•

•

• • •

• •

McElhanney

1-lunting

Fishing

2011—3158

2006—3309

2001—3197 Beaver

Area:

980

215 158 DEVELOPMENT 396

Study

kmpavedroads unpaved

o o o Lots Subdivision o o o

o o

3366

Mines

6 8

61 123 3

182 5Misc 8

of

created

Industrial Commercial

Institutional Recreational

Agricultural

sq

Regional

Residential

Country

roads

—60,

km

Applications

(Lot

832,000

Lundbreck

Residential

Partnership

breakdown).

acres

since

234,

and

2000. Pincher

Service

Station

Sharing

—34,

Opportunities

Twin

Butte —

16,

Lowland

Heights -

63 a

I

Feasibility

SOLLD curbside

Solid Creek, Capacity WATER

Within Lundbreck

of

WASTE

Within

Beaver Natural ENERGY systems

Liquid

who utilities. the Electricity-Transmission devices,

There currently approximately directly RECREATION The exception

providing

billing/service

MD

don’t

waste

McElhanney

Pincher

are

Propane Mines

the the

Gas,

WAST1

or

collection

into

is

such

has

WATER

installed SERVICES

of

Study

want

eleven

and not

pump

MD

MD

collection

water

three

Castle

a the

and

as

an Stalion

couple 200

South

access.

the

Gas

the

solar

Grid

of

out

issue.

(11)

Pincher

providers. to

DISPOSAL

FACILITIES weekly.

additional

provider.

with

Mountain

only

Regional

SERVICES

only

is

the

Pincher

holding

and

of

and

and and

commercial

provided

Hamlets

recreational

Lines

hamlet a

hamlet

disposal

Station

at

provides

small

generating

All

Atco, the

An

Creek)

turbines,

tanks.

Partnership

Resort. —

other

Landfill.

with

AltaLink via

wind.

of

with

increasing

but

AltaGas

within

wind

Beaver

all The

tanker parks

that

residential has

wastewater

capacity for

water

These

Albertans

MD

provide

energy

yet

The

the

an

Management

within

and

Mines Utilities,

truck

number

to

additional

services

has

are MD

solid

Service

study

of

requirements

projects

water

to

their used

services studied

with

and

is

292

waste

residents

and

varied.

the

of

Pincher

is

boundaries

primarily

a

to

500

Ltd. Sharing

MW.

rural

Chief

Lundbreck. effluent renewable

the of

rural

collection

is

MW.

Fortis

The various

Lundbreck.

requirements

who

The

are

residents

Station.

Mountain

customers.

Opportunities

to

Hamlets

requirements.

(i.e.

met

Alberta

either

MD

offset

energy

system

sizes

There

ball

with

has

have

Gas

All

have

the

of

within

The

owns

field),

of

source.

is

are strategically

conditionally

Lundbreck

other

Co-op.

costs providing

contracted installed

no

MD

two

the

but

the

access

residents

272

of has

distribution

rural

no

MD.

existing

studied

small

commercial water main

and

placed

to

out

water

approved

This

a

Beaver

are

to

structures, natural

renewable

to

gas

the

a

power lines. bins

on

the Coop’s

local

and requirements

either

mines

turbines

permits Hamlets

in

gas

EPCOR

provider.

is

electrical

Pincher

with

(South

energy

line

placed

septic

have

are

the

for

of

or

is Feasibility

No

PUBLIC The ENFORCEMENT service officer,

when enhanced

The

public

MD MD

McElhariney

needed.

into

although

has

has

policing

TRANSPORTATION

Study

transportation.

Pincher

an

an

Any

agreement

agreement

he

of

Officer.

is Creek

Regional enforcement

SERViCES

still

or

an Residcnts

with

with

Crowsncst

RCMP

Partnership

a

the

person

dealing

RCMP

member.

may

Pass

to

with

find

handle

and

for

for

The

a

development

an Service

shopping,

benefit

dog

local

enhanced

issues.

Pincher

Sharing

to

medical

a

policing

is

public

Creek

handled

Opportunities

appointments,

transportation

position.

detachment

by

our

The

recreation

Development

provides

MD

system

pays

backup

facilities,

that

the

Officer

would

salary

to

etc.

our

and

provide

for

officer

this

our I Feasibility Study of Regional Partnership and Service Sharing Opportunities

VILLAGE OF COWLEY

TOURISM

Cowicy was featured in the 2005 motion picture Brokeback Mountain as the fictional town of Signal, Wyoming. Townspeople have wclcomed fans of the movie fi-omall over the world.

POPULATION

In the 2011 Census, the Village of Cowlcy had a population of 236 living in 104 of its 113 total dwellings, a 7.8% change from its 2006 population of 219. With a land area of 1.4 km2 (0.54 sq mi), it had a population density of

169/krn2 (437/sq mi) in 2011. The population of the Village of Cowley according to its 2010 municipal census is 235. In 2006, Cowley had a population of 219 living in 103 dwellings, a 2.7% decrease from 2001. The Village has a land area of 1.40 km2 (0.54 sq mi) and a population density of 156.7 /km2 (406 /sq mi).

LAND DEVELOPMENT

In 2010 the last village-owned lot was sold. The development of other lots has been private sales.

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

The Public Works Foreman collects waste weekly and disposes it at the Crowsnest Pincher Creek Landfill.

Cowley Recycling Program - Residents drop off their recyclables: paper, cardboard, cans, computers, tv, etc. It then gets sorted and delivered to Pincher Creek bi-weekly to the recycling depot. The space our facility is in would not accommodate the entire region.

WATER SERVICES

Cowley owns its own water treatment plant. We are currently partnering with the MD of Pincher Creek to create a regional water system.

WASTE WATER SERVICES

Cowley has a lagoon system for wastewater.

RECREATION FACILITIES

Cowley is surrounded by all the regions recreation facilities and the residents of Cowley enjoy them all. - skiing, camping, boating, fishing, hiking, swimming, curling, bowling, baseball, soccer, dancing, etc. are just a few. Community Hall: good condition- well used

McElhanney I

Feasibility

Cowley PUBLIC

access

ENFORCEIVIENT

We officer

•

•

•

have

McElhanriey

to

may

Railway area Baseball

Playground:

currently

medical

no

TRANSPORTATION

Study

be —

enforcement

summer

useful

Park:

Diamond:

of

appointments,

has

Regional brand

to

SERVICES

new

time

no

the

services

public

new-

gazebo/picnic

could

use

village

Partnership

adding

etc.

usc transportation.

in

to

Cowley.

some

enforce

gazebo,

area,

upgrading;

and

An the

park

fence;

Service

A

bylaws.

RCMP

benefit

tinder

very well

Sharing

Officer

construction

would used underused

patrols

Opportunities

be

to -

through adding

the

many

more

the

seniors

village

benches,

who

periodically.

tables,

live

here;

cenotaph

A

bylaw

easier 4 —

I Feasibility StLIdy of Regional Partnership and Service Sharing Opportunities

APPENDIXB — LISTOFINTERVIEWS

McElhanny I Feasibility Study of Regional Partnership and Service Sharing Opportunities

APPENDIXB:LISTOFINTERVIEWS

Name Title I Organization Municipality

Al Roth Director of Operations Town of Pincher Creek

Albert Headrick Director of Protective and Community Municipality of Crowsnest Pass Services

Carrie Bahar Department Clerk l?r Protective Service Municipality of Crowsncst Pass

Clay Pagnucco Adult Slow Pitch, Municipality of Crowsnest Pass

Dave Morrison Ski lull Manager Municipality of Crowsuest Pass

Diane Stuckey Director of Community Services Town of Pincher Creek

Don Anderberg Councillor Town of Pincher Creek

Ed D’antoni Operations Manager Municipality of Crowsnest Pass l’decri Wolfe Whispering Winds Senior Home Town of Pincher Creek

Frank Besinger Director of Planning, Engineering and Municipality of Crowsnest Pass Operations

Gary Hackler Councillor Village of Cowley

Cindy Cornish Chief Administrative Officer Village of Cowley

Gord Pitt CPO Town of Pincher Creek

Grace MacMillian Secretary, Pincher Creek Curling Club, Town of Pincher Creek

Joanne Johnson Pincher Creek Ilandi-Bus Board Member Town of Pincher Creek

Joey Ambrosi Crowsnest Lacrosse Municipality of Crowsnest Pass

Kim Miskulin & 2 Board Pass Community Pool Municipalit of Crowsnest Pass Members

Linda Dorge President, Figure Skating Municipality of Crowsnest Pass

Lisa Sygutek Board Member, Pass Swim Club Municipality of Crowsuest Pass

Lorne Jackson Councillor Town of Pincher Creek

Lyle Douglas President of Minor Hockey Municipality of Crowsnest Pass

Marion Vanoni Director of Finance and Corporate Services Municipality of Crowsnest Pass

Mike Mertz Minor Soccer Municipality of Crowsnest Pass

Murray Lauder Councillor Town of Pincher Creek

McElhannay I * I • Feasibility Study of Regional Partnership and Service Sharing Opportunities

Myron Thompson CAO Municipalityof CrowsnestPass

Rob Amatto Ball Soccer Complex Municipality of Crowsnest Pass

Rodney Cyr Councillor MD of Pincher Creek

Rory Snider Minor Hockey Municipality of Crowsnest Pass

Roy Smith Councillor Toi of Pincher Creek

Sam Marra Recreational Lead Hand Municipality of Crowsnest Pass

Sgt. Stephen Zcrr Community Peace Officer Municipality ofCrowsncst Pass

McElhanney