2ND Street NE Three Hills, Alberta

KNEEHILL COUNTY REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING

AGENDA Tuesday, November 13, 2018

8:30 a.m. Kneehill County Council Chambers 1600- 2ND Street NE Three Hills, Alberta

1.0 Agenda 1.1 Additions to the Agenda 1.2 Adoption of the Agenda

2.0 Approval of Minutes 2.1 Organizational Meeting Minutes of October 23, 2018 2.2 Regular Council Meeting Minutes of October 23, 2018

3.0 Delegations 3.1 Michael Dangelmaier, Kyro/Rain 51- Identity Development & Branding @ 8:45 a.m.

4.0 Public Hearings No Public Hearings Scheduled

5.0 Municipal Services 5.1 Transportation No Report

5.2 Water/Wastewater/Environment No Report

5.3 Planning 5.3.1 Request to cancel the November 29, 2018 Municipal Planning Commission Meeting

5.4 Agricultural Service Board & Parks No Report

5.5 Protective Services No Report

6.0 Corporate Services 6.1 Aqua 7 Regional Water Commission Rate Increase 2019 6.2 2019 Interim Budget Presentation

7.0 Business Arising from Previous Minutes 7.1

1 2018.11.13

8.0 New Business 8.1 Policy #3-3, Board and Committee Appointments 8.2 Policy #3-21, Elected Official’s Expense Allowance 8.3 Rural Municipalities of Alberta Fall Conference Resolutions 8.4 Municipal Accountability Review Report (MAP) 8.5 Seniors Outreach Letter of Support 8.6 Staff Recognition of Academic Achievement 9.0 Disposition of Delegation & Public Hearing Business 9.1 Branding/Logo

10.0 Council and Committee Reports 10.1 Drumheller RCMP 10.2 Drumheller & District Solid Waste Association 10.3 Elected Officials Training Seminar 10.4 Alberta Recreation and Parks Association Convention

11.0 Council Follow-up Action List

12.0 Closed Session 12.1 Privileged Information (Section 27-FOIP) 12.2 Personnel (Section 17- FOIP)

13.0 Motions from Closed Session

Adjournment

Regular Council Meeting Agenda November 13, 2018 Page | 2

2 2018.11.13

MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 23, 2018 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF KNEEHILL COUNTY HELD AT THE KNEEHILL COUNTY OFFICE, 1800-2nd STREET NE, THREE HILLS, AB

PRESENT:

Division No. 1 Faye McGhee, Councillor Division No. 2 Debbie Penner, Councillor Division No. 3 Jerry Wittstock, Councillor Division No. 4 Glen Keiver, Councillor Division No. 5 Jim Hugo, Councillor Division No. 6 Wade Christie, Councillor Division No. 7 Kenneth King, Councillor

ALSO PRESENT: Chief Administrative Officer Al Hoggan Director Municipal Services Laurie Watt Director Corporate Services Mike Morton Manager of Planning and Development Barb Hazelton Information Management Supervisor Will Nyman Communications Officer Christine Anderson Fire Chief Dan Ross Recording Secretary Chaysleigh Tullikopf Executive Assistant to CAO Carolyn Van der Kuil

CALL TO ORDER Call to Order Al Hoggan, Chief Administrative Officer called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.

AGENDA 1.0 Adoption of the Organizational Meeting Agenda 386/18 Councillor Christie moved to adopt the Organizational Meeting Agenda as presented for October 23, 2018. CARRIED

PROCEDURES 2.0 Voting Procedures 387/18 Councillor McGhee moved that Council utilize the voting procedures of secret ballot when there is more than the required number of nominations. CARRIED

388/18 Councillor Wittstock moved that all ballots be destroyed at the end of the meeting. 1 ______Initials

3 2018.11.13 KNEEHILL COUNTY COUNCIL ORGANIZATION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 2018 CARRIED

REEVE 3.0 Election of Reeve for Ensuing Year Al Hoggan called for nominations for the Office of Reeve for 2018/2019.

Councillor King nominated Councillor Wittstock for the office of Reeve for 2018/2019.

Councillor Wittstock accepted the nomination.

Al Hoggan asked two times if there were any further nominations.

Councillor Wittstock was declared Reeve by acclamation.

Al Hoggan administered the Oath of Office to Reeve Wittstock.

Reeve Wittstock assumed the position of Chair.

DEPUTY REEVE 4.0 Election of Deputy Reeve for Ensuing Year The Reeve called for nominations for the position of Deputy Reeve for 2018/2019.

Councillor Penner nominated Councillor King for the office of Deputy Reeve.

Councillor King accepted the nomination.

Councillor Keiver nominated Councillor for the office of Deputy Reeve.

Councillor McGhee accepted the nomination.

The Reeve asked two times if there were any further nominations.

389/18 Councillor Christie moved that nominations cease. CARRIED

A vote was taken by secret ballot.

Al Hoggan declared Councillor McGhee as Deputy Reeve of Kneehill County. Deputy Reeve McGhee was administered the Oath of Office.

2 ______Initials

4 2018.11.13 KNEEHILL COUNTY COUNCIL ORGANIZATION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 2018 COUNCIL SEATING 5.0 Seating Arrangements in Council Chambers Council determined the new seating arrangements at the Council table pursuant to Bylaw 1768, Meeting Procedures Bylaw, 9 (4).

COUNCIL DATES 6.0 Regular Council Meeting Dates 2019 390/18 That Council approve the scheduling of the 2019 Organizational Meeting for Tuesday, October 22, 2019 and to hold all regular Council meeting dates on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month with the exception of:  Cancellation of January 22nd, 2019 regular Council meeting date  July- Schedule one meeting for July 16, 2019  August- Schedule one meeting for August 20, 2019  November- Cancellation of November 12th, 2018 regular Council meeting date  December- Schedule one meeting for December 10, 2019 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COW 7.0 Committee of the Whole Meeting Dates 2019 391/18 Councillor Penner moved that Council approve the third Tuesday of every month at 8:30 a.m. for a Committee of the Whole meeting, with the exception of:  February 19, 2019  March 19, 2019  July 16, 2019  August 20, 2019 and the December Committee of the Whole Meeting will be held on December 3rd, 2019, and the February Committee of the Whole meeting will be held on February 5th, 2019 and the March meeting will be held on March 5th, 2019. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

MPC 8.0 Municipal Planning Commission Meeting Dates 2019 392/18 That Council approve the scheduling of the 2019 Municipal Planning Commission meetings on the fourth Thursday of each month in 2019 with the exception of:  December meeting to be held on December 19th, 2019 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMITTEE 9.0 2018/2019 Board and Committee Appointments APPOINTMENTS Municipal Planning Commission 393/18 Councillor King moved to appoint Rick Vickery as Member at Large for a one year term. CARRIED

3 ______Initials

5 2018.11.13 KNEEHILL COUNTY COUNCIL ORGANIZATION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 2018 394/18 Councillor King moved to direct administration to advertise for a second Member at Large. CARRIED

Parks and Recreation 395/18 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved to remove the Parks and Recreation Committee. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Subdivision & Development Appeal Board 396/18 Councillor King moved to appoint the following people to the SDAB Maureen Chalack Dennis Dey Kent Knudsen Bill Zens Angus Park Steve Cullum CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

397/18 Councillor Christie moved to appoint Maureen Chalack as Chairperson and Bill Zens as Vice Chair to the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board. CARRIED

Joint Inter-Municipal Subdivision and Development Appeal Board 398/18 Councillor King moved to appoint the Subdivision and Appeal Board members to serve on the Joint Inter-Municipal Subdivision and Development Appeal Board CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

399/18 Councillor Christie moved to accept the following Committee and Board Appointments: 1. Agricultural Service Board Chairman: Councillor Christie Council Member: Councillor Keiver Council Member: Councillor Christie Council Member: Councillor Hugo Alternate Member: Councillor King

2. Agricultural Appeal Board Subdivision and Devlopment Appeal Board

3. Kneehill Regional Emergency Management Committee Reeve: Reeve Wittstock Deputy Reeve: Deputy Reeve McGhee 4 ______Initials

6 2018.11.13 KNEEHILL COUNTY COUNCIL ORGANIZATION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 2018 CAO

4. AQUA 7 Regional Water Commission Council Member: Reeve Wittstock Alternate Member: Councillor Penner

5. Canadian Badlands Ltd. Council Member: Deputy Reeve McGhee Council Member or Member at Large: Councillor King Council Member or Member at Large: Councillor Hugo

6. Central Alberta Economic Partnership (CAEP) CAO or Designate

7. Central Rural Municipalities of Alberta (District 2) Executive Reeve or Deputy Reeve: Reeve Wittstock or Deputy Reeve McGhee CAO

8. Community Action Committee Council Member: Councillor Hugo Alternate Member: Deputy Reeve McGhee

9. Community Futures Wildrose Council Member: Councillor Christie Alternate Member: Councillor Keiver

10. Doctor Recruitment and Retention Committee Council Member: Reeve Wittstock Alternate Member: Councillor King

11. Drumheller and District Solid Waste Management Association Council Member: Councillor Penner Alternate Member: Deputy Reeve McGhee

12. Kneehill Housing Corporation Council Member: Deputy Reeve McGhee Council Member: Councillor Keiver Alternate Member: Reeve Wittstock

13. Kneehill Regional Family and Community Support Services Board Council Member: Councillor King Alternate Member: Reeve Wittstock

5 ______Initials

7 2018.11.13 KNEEHILL COUNTY COUNCIL ORGANIZATION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 2018 14. Kneehill Regional Partnership Steering Committee Council Member: Deputy Reeve McGhee Alternate Member: Councillor Christie

15. Marigold Library System Council Member: Councillor Keiver Alternate Member: Councillor Hugo

16. Mayors and Reeves Liaison Committee Reeve Wittstock or Deputy Reeve McGhee CAO

17. Medical Clinic Enhanced Services Review Committee Reeve: Reeve Wittstock Council Member: Councillor King Council Member: Councillor Christie CAO or Designate in an advisory capacity

18. Municipal Planning Commission Chairman: Reeve Wittstock Vice Chairman: Councillor King All of Council

20. Joint Inter-Municipal Planning Commission Acme/Kneehill County MPC Chairman: Reeve Wittstock Councillor: Councillor Penner Alternate: Councillor Hugo

21. Joint Inter-Municipal Planning Commission Bylaw 1744 Carbon/Kneehill County Council Member: Deputy Reeve McGhee Council Member: Councillor Penner Alternate: Reeve Wittstock

22. Joint Inter-Municipal Planning Commission Linden/Kneehill County MPC Chairman: Reeve Wittstock Councillor: Councillor Keiver Alternate: Councillor Hugo

23. Joint Inter-Municipal Planning Commission Rocky View County/Kneehill County Reeve: Reeve Wittstock 6 ______Initials

8 2018.11.13 KNEEHILL COUNTY COUNCIL ORGANIZATION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 2018 Deputy Reeve as Alternate: Deputy Reeve McGhee

24. Inter-Municipal Framework Collaboration Committee Rocky View County/Kneehill County Council Member: Reeve Wittstock Alternate: Deputy Reeve McGhee

25. Joint Inter-Municipal Planning Commission Bylaw 1615 Three Hills/Kneehill County Council Member: Reeve Wittstock Council Member: Councillor Keiver Alternate Member: Councillor Christie

26. Joint Inter-Municipal Planning Committee Trochu/Kneehill County MPC Chair: Reeve Wittstock Divisional Councillor: Councillor Christie Alternate: Councillor Hugo

27. Joint Inter-Municipal Planning Committee Wheatland/Kneehill County Reeve: Reeve Wittstock MPC Chairman: Councillor King Alternate- MPC Vice-Chairman: Deputy Reeve McGhee

28. Red Deer River Municipal User Group Council Member: Councillor Keiver Alternate Member: Councillor Hugo CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:40 a.m.

______Jerry Wittstock Reeve

______Al Hoggan CAO 7 ______Initials

9 2018.11.13

MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 23, 2018 REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF KNEEHILL COUNTY HELD AT THE KNEEHILL COUNTY OFFICE, 1600- 2ND STREET NE, THREE HILLS, ALBERTA

PRESENT:

Division No. 1 Faye McGhee, Deputy Reeve Division No. 2 Debbie Penner, Councillor Division No. 3 Jerry Wittstock, Reeve Division No. 4 Glen Keiver, Councillor Division No. 5 Jim Hugo, Councillor Division No. 6 Wade Christie, Councillor Division No. 7 Kenneth King, Councillor

ALSO PRESENT: Chief Administrative Officer Al Hoggan Director Municipal Services Laurie Watt Director Corporate Services Mike Morton Fire Chief Dan Ross Information Management Supervisor Will Nyman Communications Officer Christine Anderson Recording Secretary Chaysleigh Tullikopf Executive Assistant to CAO Carolyn Van der Kuil

CALL TO ORDER Reeve Wittstock in the Chair Reeve Wittstock called the meeting to order at 10:02 a.m.

AGENDA 1.0 Agenda 1.1 Additions to the Agenda Additions under New Business 8.4 Remembrance Day

Deletions under Planning 5.3.1 Bylaw 1776

ADOPTION OF 1.2 Adoption of Agenda AGENDA 400/18 Councillor Keiver moved approval of the agenda as amended. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

MINUTES 2.0 Minutes 2.1 Regular Council Meeting Minutes of October 9, 2018 401/18 Councillor Penner moved approval of the October 9, 2018 Council Meeting minutes as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 1 ______Initials

10 2018.11.13 COUNCIL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 2018

MUNICIPAL SERV 5.0 Municipal Services ASB 5.4 Agricultural Service Board 5.4.1 Proposed Re-evaluation of Strychnine Letter 402/18 Councillor King moved to approve sending the letter as drafted by the ASB to the PMRA requesting the continued registration of 2% Liquid Strychnine. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PROTECTIVE SERV 5.5 Protective Services 5.5.1 Asset Disposal 403/18 Councillor King moved to remove the 1999 GMC Fire Engine VIN #1GDL7H189YJ511926 from the capital plan and allow staff to sell it directly to Rocky Mountain Phoenix for the sum of $9,000CAD. That the sale revenue be kept as a credit towards future purchases with Rocky Mountain Phoenix. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CORPORATE SERV 6.0 Corporate Services 6.1 Hesketh Hall Additional Named Insured Request 404/18 Councillor Penner moved to approve to allow Hesketh Hall to be added as an ANI under the County’s insurance policy with RMA Insurance. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The Chair called for a recess at 10:21 a.m. and called the meeting back to order at 10:30 a.m. with all previously mentioned Council members present.

DELEGATIONS 3.0 Delegations 3.1 Trident Exploration Inc., Alan Withey and Rob Will @ 10:30 am Alan Withey and Ross Will from Trident Exploration Inc. presented to Council information on their current operations in Kneehill County and a possible tax reduction.

The Chair called for a recess at 10:51 a.m. and called the meeting back to order at 11:01 a.m. with all previously mentioned Council members present.

3.2 Community Grant – Prairie Christian Academy Society, David Amendt @ 11:00 am David Amendt presented to Council the Prairie Christian Academy Society’s Community Grant Application, as their request was over $5,000.00.

2 ______Initials

11 2018.11.13 COUNCIL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 2018

The Chair called for a recess at 11:11 a.m. and called the meeting back to order at 11:16 a.m. with all previously mentioned Council members present.

3.3 Community Grant – The Lions Club of Trochu, Ron Kletke & Gerald Tetz @ 11:15 am Ron Kletke and Gerald Tetz presented to Council the Lions Club of Trochu’s Community Grant Application, as their request was over $5,000.00.

NEW BUSINESS 8.0 New Business 8.1 Three Hills Thrashers Junior Hockey Club Funding Request 405/18 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved to provide support to the Three Hills Thrashers Junior “B” Hockey Club, by sponsoring $350.00 and the tickets donated to Kidsport. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

8.3 One on One Fire Strategy Meetings with Three Hills, Trochu, Acme, Linden and Carbon Councils 406/18 Councillor Christie moved to write to the Councils of the towns and villages to schedule meetings one on one, so Council can outline for them our vision of rural fire and discuss any concerns that our urban partners have with fire to be completed by January 1, 2019. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

8.4 Remembrance Day Discussion on attending Remembrance Day ceremonies.

COUNCIL REPORTS 10.0 Council and Committee Reports 10.1 Canadian Badlands Ltd Minutes from the August 23, 2018 Board meeting were provided.

10.2 Approved Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes Minutes from the September 18, 2018 Committee of the Whole Meeting were provided.

407/18 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council receive the Council and Committee reports as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The Chair called for a recess at 11:44 a.m. and called the meeting back to order at 1:08 p.m. with all previously mentioned Council members present.

3 ______Initials

12 2018.11.13 COUNCIL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 2018

8.2 Round Two Community Grants – October 2018 Councillor Penner declared a conflict of interest and recused herself from the discussion and decision of the Carbon & District Agricultural Society & Curling Club.

408/18 Councillor King moved to approve the October 2018 Community Grants to Non-Profit Organizations funding to the following organizations:  Three Hills Junior B Hockey Club $4,500  Kneehill Minor Hockey Association $4,500  Kneehill Pond Hockey Association $1,000  Carbon & District Agricultural Society & Curling Club $900  Acme Church of God (Seventh Day) $1,000 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

DISPOSITION OF 9.0 Disposition of Delegation Business DELEGATION BUSINESS Trident Exploration Inc. 409/18 Councillor King moved to direct administration to respond in writing to Trident Exploration Inc. that Kneehill County will not provide tax relief. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The Lions Club of Trochu 410/18 Councillor Christie moved to provide funding to the Lions Club of Trochu in the amount of $10,000 contingent on the Town of Trochu matching the amount. DEFEATED

411/18 Councillor King moved to direct administration to respond to the Lions Club of Trochu acknowledging a willingness to consider an application that has more specific detail and a final project budget. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Prairie Christian Academy Society 412/18 Councillor King moved to fund Prairie Christian Academy Society request in the amount of $25,000, to be funded from 2018 contingency. CARRIED

4 ______Initials

13 2018.11.13 COUNCIL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 2018

COUNCIL ACT LIST 11.0 Council Follow-Up Action List 413/18 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council receive the October 23, 2018 Council Follow-Up Action List as presented for information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The Chair called for a recess at 1:58 p.m. and called the meeting back to order at 2:01 p.m. with all previously mentioned Council members present.

CLOSED SESSION 12.0 Closed Session 414/18 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved that Council convene in closed session to discuss Personal Privacy pursuant to section 17 and Privileged Information pursuant to section 27 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, at 2:01 p.m. CARRIED The following people were in attendance of the closed session to provide a report and advice to Council: Al Hoggan, CAO Laurie Watt, Director of Municipal Services Carolyn Van der Kuil, Executive Assistant to CAO Will Nyman, Information Management Supervisor Chaysleigh Tullikopf, Recording Secretary

415/18 Councillor Christie moved that Council return to open meeting at 2:54 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

MOTIONS FROM IN- 13.0 Motions from Closed Session CAMERA 416/18 Deputy Reeve McGhee moved to direct administration to proceed with placing the interim CAO advertisement as recommended. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

5 ______Initials

14 2018.11.13 COUNCIL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 2018

ADJOURNMENT Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 2:57 p.m.

______Jerry Wittstock Reeve

______Al Hoggan CAO

6 ______Initials

15 2018.11.13 REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item #

5.3.1 Request to cancel the November 29, 2018 Municipal Planning SUBJECT: Commission Meeting

MEETING DATE: 2018-11-13

PRESENTED BY: Barb Hazelton, Manager of Planning and Development

BACKGROUND/ The Planning Department has not received any files prior to the circulation cut- PROPOSAL off for the November 29, 2018 Municipal Planning Commission meeting.

DISCUSSION/ Since all meeting dates are done by a resolution of Council at the OPTIONS/ Organizational Meeting, changes must be brought back to Council for BENEFITS/ consideration. DISADVANTAGES:

COSTS/SOURCE OF Cost savings of the per diem for the meeting day. FUNDING:

ENGAGEMENT: ☒ Directive Decision (Information Sharing-One way communication) Goal: To educate and inform citizens Tools: ☐ Individual Notification or ☐ Public Notification

☐ Consultative Decision (Consulting the Public – Two way communication) Goal: To seek feedback, test ideas, develop concepts and collaborative solutions Tools: ☐ Public Hearing ☐ Open House ☐ Focus Group ☐ Other‐

LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: Fiscal Sustainability

ATTACHMENTS: N/A

RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Council move to cancel the November 29, 2018 Municipal Planning Commission meeting. COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Council move to cancel the November 29, 2018 Municipal Planning Commission meeting. 2. Council move to accept as information. MOTION: 1. Council move to cancel the November 29, 2018 Municipal Planning Commission meeting.

Prepared By: Barb Hazelton Approved By: Laurie Watt Reviewed By: Al Hoggan Senior Planning & Development Officer Director of Municipal Services Chief Administrative Officer

16 2018.11.13 REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item #

6.1

SUBJECT: Aqua 7 Regional Water Commission Rate Increase 2019

MEETING DATE: 2018-11-13

PRESENTED BY: Mike Morton, Director of Corporate Services

BACKGROUND/ From the October 9 Regular Meeting of Council, the following Motion PROPOSAL (#374/18) was made: “Councillor McGhee moved to bring back the Master Rates Bylaw if and when there is a water rate change from our suppliers.”

DISCUSSION/ OPTIONS/ In the past, Council have based the water rate charged to utility accounts on BENEFITS/ the Aqua 7 rate charged to Kneehill County. DISADVANTAGES: At the October 9 Regular Council Meeting, Kneehill County Council gave all three readings to Master Rates- Bylaw #1777. This included:

Utility Accounts $2 per cubic metre - Wimborne/Huxley (1-100 cubic metres bimonthly) $3.50 per cubic metres for all other WSA’s (1-100 cubic metres bimonthly) $9 per cubic metre for any excess above 100 cubic metres bimonthly (all) Bulk Water $5 per cubic metre – all bulk fills (1-50 cubic metres monthly) $9 per cubic metre for any excess above 50 cubic metres monthly (all)

These rates have been advertised and the public notified of these new rates effective January 1, 2019.

COSTS/SOURCE OF FUNDING: These rates and estimated volumes included in the 2019 Interim Budget, both at the estimated purchase from Aqua 7 on the expenditure side (estimated 5% from prior year) and revenue generated from utility accounts at the rates noted above . ENGAGEMENT: ☒ Directive Decision (Information Sharing-One way communication) Goal: To educate and inform citizens Tools: ☐ Individual Notification or ☒ Public Notification

LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: Fiscal Sustainability

Document Last Updated February 27, 2018 17 2018.11.13 ATTACHMENTS: Aqua 7 Regional Water Commission Letter to Kneehill County Master Rate Bylaw #1777

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council Decision.

COUNCIL OPTIONS: (1) Do not amend the Master Rates Bylaw. (2) Amend the Master Rates Bylaw. MOTION: Council receives for information.

Prepared By: Mike Morton Approved By: Al Hoggan Reviewed By: Al Hoggan Director of Corporate Services Chief Administrative Officer Chief Administrative Officer

REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 6.1 2 | Page 18 2018.11.13 19 2018.11.13 20 2018.11.13 21 2018.11.13

MASTER RATES BYLAW #1777 SCHEDULE “A”

** MOST GOODS AND SERVICES LISTED ARE SUBJECT TO GST **

ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE

Aerial Photos Description Fee Land Owners No Fee Others $0.25 each Geo-Referenced Photos Description Fee Set up fee & first 1/4 $50.00 Additional quarters $25.00 Kneehill County Maps Description Fee 24 inch - regular $10.00 each 32 inch - regular $15.00 each 32 inch - laminated $35.00 each 42 inch - regular $20.00 each 42 inch - laminated $40.00 each 60 inch - regular $30.00 each On CD $10.00 each Map Book $25.00 each Mailing Tube $10.00 each Shipping Charges $10.00 each Custom Plotter (Scanned) Description Fee 24 inch $50.00 each 32 inch $75.00 each 42 inch $100.00 each 60 inch $150.00 each Map scanned and put on CD $75.00 each Fax Charges Description Fee Alberta(Local) $0.50 per page Out of province $1 per page

22 2018.11.13 Flags Description Fee County $70 each Photocopies Description Fee Ratepayers/Non- staff $0.50 per page Staff $0.10 per page Late Penalty Charges Description Fee Account Receivable Billings 1.5% per month NSF Returned Cheque Description Fee NSF Returned Cheque $30.00 each Tax Certificates Description Fee Tax Certificate $20.00 each Tax Registration $100.00/file Well Drilling Equipment Tax Description Fee As per Municipal Government Act http://www.qp.alberta.ca Assessment Sheets Description Fee Assessment Summary or Detail Sheet (Free to Landowner) $5.00 each Additional pages $1.00 each Assessment Appeal Fees Description Fee Residential & Farm (Refundable if Successful) $50.00 each Non-Residential (Refundable if Successful): Assessment Value of $1.00 to $500,000 $100.00 each Assessment value of $500,001 to $5,000,000 $200.00 each Assessment value of $5,000,001 and above $500.00 each Reports/Details/Photocopies $5.00 each Election Description Fee Nomination Paper Filing Fee $100.00 FOIP Services Description Fee Searching for, locating and retrieving a record $7.50 per 1/4 hour Producing a copy of a record: i) Paper copies $0.50 per page ii) Electronic copies (i.e. USB) Cost iii) Large Format (i.e. maps) Cost Preparing and handling a record for disclosure $7.50 per 1/4 hour Supervising the examination of a record $7.50 per 1/4 hour Shipping a record or a copy of a record Cost

23 2018.11.13

AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARD

ASB Rental Equipment Description Fee Cattle Scale (Free to 4-H) $100.00 per day min. Brillion Grass Seeder $175.00 per day min. Hayland / Pasture Float $225.00 per day min. No Till Drill - 15' $20/acre - $400/day min Pasture Sprayer $150.00 per day min. Portable 12" Loading Chute (Free to 4-H) $100.00 per day min. Private Land Weed Control $75.00/acre plus chemicals Solar Watering System (First Time Users; Free 2 Week Trial) $150.00 per week min. Spreaders (skid mount pneumatic, mechanical) $30.00 per day min. Hand Crank Spreader Free- use agreement Livestock Tag Reader Free- use agreement AG. Plastic Recycling Roller $50.00 per day Urban Weed & Pest Inspection Fee $30.00/hr + $0.55/km Pasture Land Lease Tendered

* There will be an additional cleaning fee of $75 for any rental equipment returned unclean subject to Management discretion Gopher Poison Description Fee 2% Liquid Strychnine Current market price plus 10%

OPERATIONS

Approach/Crossing Description Fee Residential/Farm No Fee Application Fees Description Fee Commercial: staked $300.00 each Pipeline Crossing Application $300.00 each Grader Description Fee Grading Private Laneway/Snowplowing Services per half hour $75.00 per half hour Grading Private Laneway Snowplowing Services exceeding ½ hour $135.00 exceeding ½ hour

24 2018.11.13 Rig Moves Description Fee Rig Moves-Inspection Overweight & Moves $200.00 each Dust Control Description Fee Calcium Chloride $5.35/metre Spec Crude $32.50 /metre Road Permit Fixed Fee Description Fee Road Permit Fixed Fee $20.00 each Road Bonds Description Fee Road Bonds As per Agreement Services To Other Municipalities Description Fee Alberta Roadbuilders and Heavy Construction Ass’n Equipment/Services Rate Guide less 25% Road Products Kneehill County Cost

PARKS & CEMETERIES

Braconnier Campground Fees Tenting per night $15.00 RV/Trailer per night $20.00 Torrington Campground Fees Tenting per night $15.00 RV/Trailer per night $20.00 Swalwell Campground Fees Tenting per night $15.00 RV/Trailer per night $20.00

25 2018.11.13 Keiver’s Lake Campground Fees Tenting per unit per night (non-reservable stalls) $20.00 Un-serviced sites per unit per night (non-reservable stalls) $25.00 Serviced Sites per unit per night (non-reservable) $30.00 Serviced Site (reservable) $30.00 Group Site- RV/Trailer Group per night (minimum of 4 @ $25/unit per night) $25.00 Reservation Deposit for RV Group Site(minimum of 4 units @ $25/unit per night) $100.00 Group Site- Tents per night (minimum of 4 units @ $20/unit per night) $20.00 Changes to campsite reservations (no charge for address/name changes-non-refundable) $5.00 Reservation for Day Use Area (not including playground area) $50.00 * Prepayments and deposits only refunded with 72 hours’ notice. Firewood Description Fee Firewood per bundle $10.00 Mowing Description Fee Mowing (per unit per hour) Per Province of Alberta Rates Commemorative Bench Fee Description Fee Commemorative Bench $2,000.00 per bench Cemetery Plot (2 plot limit) Description Fee Resident, Property Owner, former County resident $500.00 each Non-County Resident-Outside geographic area $1500.00 each Cemetery Maintenance Description Fee Trochu Catholic $200.00 per year Roman Catholic Cemetery $200.00 per year Torrington Trinity Lutheran Cemetery $200.00 per year Trochu St. John’s Lutheran $200.00 per year

26 2018.11.13 PROTECTIVE SERVICES

Burn Permit Description Fee Burn Permit No Fee Inspections for Licensing and Insurance Description Fee Small Business $75.00 (plus travel @KC rates) Multiple Occupancy $150.00 (plus travel @KC rates) All Other Occupancies $150.00 (plus travel @KC rates) Occupant Load Calculation and Report Description Fee Small Business $75.00 (plus travel @KC rates) Multiple Occupancy $150.00 (plus travel @KC rates) All Other Occupancies $150.00 (plus travel @KC rates) Fireworks Description Fee Fireworks Discharge Permit No Fee – In Burn Permit Process

Fire Investigation Services Description Fee Each Safety Codes Officer $75.00 per hour (plus travel @KC rates) Witness Services- Each Safety Codes Officer $100.00 per hour (plus travel @KC rates) Witness - Civil Litigation $100.00 per hour Fire Services Fees Motor Vehicle Collision Rate - Equipment Current AB Infrastructure Rate Per unit Charges Per Hour Fee for Service Recovery – Per Unit Per Hour AB Infrastructure Rates Fee for Service Recovery- Materials Actual Expenses/Costs Mutual Aid Responses- Equipment, Manpower or Other Resources Description Fee Mutual Aid Responses- Equipment, Manpower or Other Resources Pursuant to Mutual Aid Agreements

Animal Control Description Fee Annual License Fee - Unaltered or Altered Dog No Fee each Replacement Tag $2.00 each Impound Fee Cost Boarding Fee Cost Veterinarian Fee Cost Kennel License Fee $100.00

27 2018.11.13 Peace Officer Bylaw Enforcement Description Fee Peace Officer Bylaw Enforcement As per Agreement Unsightly Properties – Cost of Ordered Clean-Up As per Municipal Government Act Mowing Properties (per unit per hour) Per Province of Alberta Rates

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

General Description Fee Appeal Fees- owners/adjacent $300.00 each ASP - New Specific Proposal $5000.00 each ASP/LUB Amendment /Review $2000.00 each Outline/Concept Plan $2500.00 each Outline/Concept Plan Amendment $1000.00 each Municipal Development Plan Amendment $2000.00 each Inter-municipal Development Plan Amendment $2000.00 each Caveat Discharge $100.00 each Rural Address Sign $250.00 each Request For File Search (1/2 hr. min.) $50.00 per hour Land Use By-Law $20.00 each Land Use By-Law Maps $25.00 each Municipal Development Plan $15.00 each Area Structure Plan - electronic copy $25.00 each Area Structure Plan – supportive reports electronic $25.00 each Certificate of Compliance- $100.00 each Rezoning / Re-designation $900.00 each Rezoning Direct Control $1,200.00 each Road Closure Request Application $1,000.00 each Contravention to Land Use By-Law $1600.00 Development Permits- Class 1 – Minor Development Description Fee Additions to Buildings <500 sq. ft $75.00 each Additions to Buildings >500 sq. ft $100.00 each Porches $75.00 each Fences $40.00 each Signs $75.00 each Accessory Buildings 200 – 499 sq. ft. $50.00 each Accessory Buildings >500 sq. ft. $100.00 each Temporary Buildings $75.00 > 200 sq. ft. each Minor Home Occupation $100.00 one-time Revision to Active DP (Discretionary use/already permitted) $75.00 each Alternative Energy Residential $50.00 each

28 2018.11.13 Alternative Energy Non-Residential $100.00 each Unlisted Similar Use $75.00 each Development Permits- Class 2- Residential, Minor Commercial and Change in Land Use Description Fee Major Home Occupations $200.00 Single Family Dwelling Unit $250.00 Discretionary Single Family Dwelling Unit $150.00 Permitted Duplex (2 dwelling units) $250.00 flat fee $300.00 flat fee plus $50.00/dwelling Multi-Attached Dwelling (3 or more dwelling units) Maximum $15,000.00 Bed and Breakfast $150.00 plus $50.00/unit Change in use of land or intensity of use, where a permit is required $150.00 Livestock Development Permit $100.00 Agricultural Business Use $200.00 Telecommunication towers $300.00 Single wind turbine $400.00 Kennels $300.00 Unlisted Similar Use $200.00 Filming Fee - Minor $200.00 Filming Fee - Major $500.00 Development Permits- Class 3- Institutional, Commercial and Light Industrial Description Fee Compressor Stations, Oilfield Buildings $400.00 Greenhouse (Not include cannabis production) $400.00 Private Schools and churches $400.00 Machinery repair and/or sales $400.00 Restaurants, service stations, hotels, retail and service $400.00 Unlisted similar use: Refer to following range based on construction cost (in $) <500,000 $500.00 500,000 – 2,000,000 $1,000.00 2,000,001 – 5,000,000 $2,000.00 >5,000,000 $4,000.00 Development Permits- Class 4- Major Commercial, Industrial and Recreation Description Fee Sand or gravel extraction $750.00 each Wind Farm Towers $500.00 each Golf Courses $500.00 each Campsites (Campgrounds) $500.00 each Work Camp $500.00 each Alternative Energy $500.00 each Unlisted Similar Use $500.00 each Major Industrial or Processing $1000.00 each Solar Farm $500 + $50/acre

29 2018.11.13 Unlisted similar use: Refer to following range based on construction cost (in $) <500,000 $500.00 500,000 – 2,000,000 $1,500.00 2,000,001 – 5,000,000 $2,500.00 >5,000,000 $5,000.00 Development Permits- Class 5- Food Trucks & Mobile Vendors Description Annual Fee Keiver’s Lake Campground, Orkney Viewpoint Food $500.00 No Food $350.00 Braconnier’s Dam Campground, Swalwell Dam Campground, Torrington Campground Food $400.00 No Food $200.00 Horseshoe Canyon Food $1,250.00 No Food $1,000.00 Development Permits- Class 6- Exceptions Description Fee Non-profit public or community buildings No Fee Public utility buildings No Fee Fee For Development Permit After the Fact Double Permit Fee Variance/Relaxation to Development Application $75.00 Mobile Business License - Resident $100.00 Mobile Business License – Non - Resident $150.00 Subdivision Fees Description Fee One Parcel $650.00 for 1st parcel Two Plus Parcels $250.00 Per ea. additional parcel Time Extensions $250.00 Endorsement Fees Description Fee For Each Parcel Created $300.00 For each parcel Additional Fees Description Fee Development Agreement Preparation $500.00 External Engineering Review $25/acre (max = $5000)

30 2018.11.13 SAFETY CODE FEES

General Description Fee Minimum Fee (Will be charged if not a specific fee $100.00 for permit) Penalty for no Safety Code Permit Double applicable fee Project Cancelled Prior To Inspections 75% Refund Building Permit Fees Description Fee $0.40 per sq. ft.- total of main, 2nd New Single Family Dwellings- Floor Area Sq. Ft. and additional floors does not (Does not include attached garages) include basement. Garage - detached/attached Less than 800 sq. ft. $120.00 Garage - detached/attached Greater than 800 sq. ft. $160.00 Mobile/Manufactured Homes includes Move-on and RTM's $100.00 Homes With Basement $0.25/ft2- min $100 Basement Development .20¢/ft² - min $95.00 Additions .40¢/ft² - min $100.00 Decks greater than 2 ft. above grade or 100 ft² $100 flat fee Fire places/Wood Burning Stove $100.00 Small Accessory Building 100 – 200 ft² $90.00 Non-Ag. Building <2500 ft² $250.00 Non-Ag. Building >2500 ft² $500.00 Commercial/Industrial Commercial - hotels, warehouses, stores, etc. Industrial - waste transfer buildings, water treatment plants, etc. Description Fee $1 - $1 million project value $5.00 /$1,000 - min $150.00 $4.00/$1,000 project value Portion over $1 million project Over $1 million project value value $4/$1000 Oilfield - compressor stations, dehydrator, separator $5.00/$1000 bldgs., motor control center office/bldg. min. $250.00 max SCC fee $500.00 Demolition Permit - use building permit (not needed if replacing) $95.00 SCC Levy is 4% of the permit fee with a minimum of $4.50 & maximum of $560.00

31 2018.11.13 Electrical-Plumbing-Gas-PSDS Permit Fees- Homeowner Fee Schedule Electrical Installations- New Residential Installations Only Description Fee Less than 1500 sq. ft. $190.00 1501-3000 sq. ft. $215.00 3001-5000 sq. ft. $230.00 5001+ sq. ft. $250.00 with attached garage add $50.00 Detached garage $150.00 Mobile Home Connection $105.00 Temporary Service $90.00 Electrical Installations- Small Electrical Installations- Value of Material Description Fee $0 - $250 $90.00 $251 - $500 $150.00 $501 - $1000 $175.00 $1001 - $2000 $190.00 $2001 - $3000 $210.00 $3001 - $4000 $230.00 $4001 - $5000 $240.00 $5001 - $6000 $250.00 $6001 - $7000 $260.00 $7001 - $8000 $270.00 $8001 - $9000 $280.00 Add $10 fee for every $1000 installation cost over $9000 Sewer Systems- Private Sewer Disposal System Description – Homeowner Fees Fee Open Discharge $300.00 Disposal Field $300.00 Treatment Mound $300.00 Septic Tank Only $200.00 Holding Tank or modification to system $150.00 Plumbing Installations Description Permit Fee 1-6 fixtures $100.00 7-12 fixtures $175.00 13-20 fixtures $250.00 20+ fixtures $250.00 + $10/fixture over 20

32 2018.11.13 Gas Installations Description Permit Fee 1 Outlet $110.00 2 Outlet $110.00 3 Outlet $120.00 4 Outlet $130.00 5 Outlet $140.00 $10 per additional outlet Propane Tank Sets (includes connection) $100.00 Gas Furnace Replacement- No Permit unless Replacing Meter then $90.00 Gas Fire Place- Permit needed if venting & piping has changed Contractor Fee Schedule Electrical Permit Fees Installation Costs Permit Fee $0-$1000 $80.00 $1001 - $2000 $100.00 $2001 - $3000 $120.00 $3001 - $4000 $140.00 $4001 - $5000 $160.00 Add $10 fee for every additional $1000 installation cost (Example $1000,000 cost fee= $160=950=$1110.00 Mobile Home Connection $80.00 Temporary Service $70.00 Annual Electric Permit and $10.50 SCC levy on each application $300.00 SCC Levy is 4% of the permit fee with a minimum of $4.50 & maximum of $560.00 Plumbing Installations 1-10 fixtures $100.00 11-20 fixtures $150.00 20+ fixtures $150.00 + $5.00/fixture over 20

33 2018.11.13 Gas Installations Description Permit Fee 1 Outlet $90.00 2 Outlet $90.00 3 Outlet $100.00 4 Outlet $110.00 5 Outlet $120.00 BTU Input Permit Fee 10,000 -150,000 $75.00 160,000 - 190,000 $85.00 200,000 - 300,000 $95.00 350,000 $105.00 400,000 $110.00 450,000 $115.00 500,000 $120.00 550,000 $125.00 600,000 $130.00 650,000 $135.00 700,000 $140.00 750,000 $145.00 800,000 $150.00 850,000 $155.00 900,000 $160.00 1,000,000 $165.00 Add $6 /100,000 BTU over 1,000,000 Other Gas Installations Description Permit Fee Man. Home on Basement $130.00 Man. Home w/o Basement $100.00 Propane Tank Set (includes connection) $80.00 Temporary $100.00 Gas Line (Gas Provider) $80.00 Gas line Retest $75.00

Alternative Energy Residential $3.50 per $1000 construction cost Industrial/Commercial $5.00 per $1000 construction cost

Private Sewage Disposal Fees Description Fee Open Discharge (includes tank) $250.00 Disposal Field/Treatment Mound (includes tank) $250.00 Septic Tank Only $150.00 Holding Tank or modification to system $100.00 SCC Levy is 4% of the permit fee with a minimum of $4.50 & maximum of $560.00

34 2018.11.13

UTILITIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Service Charges & Installation Description Fee Meter Installation: More than one meter Meter Cost plus $40.00 Meter Accuracy Test $40.00 per meter Additional Meter Read $20.00 Service Charge to Attend a Premise $40.00 After Hours Call $40.00/hr with 3 hr min Disconnection Service Charge - Customer Request $30.00 Reconnection Service Charge - Customer Request $30.00 Disconnection Service Charge - Breach $30.00 Reconnection Service Charge - Breach $30.00 Transfer From Utility to Tax Account $30.00 Damaged Meter Replacement Meter Cost plus $40.00 Late Payment Penalty 1.50% monthly Temporary Service Meter Cost plus $40.00 Contractor Operator Call Out Rates and Mileage As per agreement Water Charges Description Fee Flat Maintenance Rate – All Service/Future Connections $50.00 bimonthly minimum $10 fee per Bulk Water Stations monthly bill 0 – 50 cubic meters monthly $5.00 / cubic meter 50+ cubic meters monthly (amount over 50 m3) $9.00 / cubic meter Base Rate for Hydrant Service/ Maintenance $ 9.75 per month Account Administration Reactivation Fee (Bulk Water) $25.00 Riser Fee $10,000.00 / riser Approved Increase For Rural Water Volume $10,000.00 / riser Hamlet Utility Service For Un-serviced Lots $2,500.00 "Hamlet" means the communities of Huxley, Swalwell, Torrington and Wimborne Water Modeling Description Fee Adjacent to Line $750.00 Non-Adjacent to Line $1,000.00 Non-Adjacent to Line for Multiple Developments $1,000.00 per request

35 2018.11.13 Water Rates Description Fee Huxley 1-100 cubic meters bimonthly $2.00 per cubic metre Huxley 100+ cubic meters bimonthly (amount over 100 m3 only) $9.00 / cubic metre Swalwell 1-100 cubic meters bimonthly $3.50 per cubic metre Swalwell 100+ cubic meters bimonthly (amount over 100 m3 only ) $9.00 / cubic metre Torrington 1-100 cubic meters bimonthly $3.50 per cubic metre Torrington 100+ cubic meters bimonthly (amount over 100 m3 only) $9.00 / cubic metre Wimborne 1-100 cubic meters bimonthly $2.00 per cubic metre Wimborne 100+ cubic meters bimonthly (amount over 100 m3 only) $9.00 / cubic metre Sunnyslope WSA 1-100 cubic meters bimonthly $3.50 per cubic metre Sunnyslope 100+ cubic meters bimonthly (amount over 100 m3 only) $9.00 / cubic metre Churchill Water Co-op 1-100 cubic meters bimonthly $3.50 per cubic metre Churchill 100+ cubic meters bimonthly (amount over 100 m3 only) $9.00 / cubic metre Equity WSA 1-100 cubic meters bimonthly $2.00 per cubic metre Equity 100+ cubic meters bimonthly (amount over 100 m3 only) $9.00 / cubic metre Gamble WSA 1-100 cubic meters bimonthly $3.50 per cubic metre Gamble 100+ cubic meters bimonthly (amount over 100 m3 only) $9.00 / cubic metre Grainger/Hesketh 1-100 cubic meters bimonthly $3.50 per cubic metre Grainger/Hesketh 100+ cubic meters bimonthly (amount over 100 m3 only) $9.00 / cubic metre Kirkpatrick WSA 1-100 cubic meters bimonthly $3.50 per cubic metre Kirkpatrick 100+ cubic meters bimonthly (amount over 100 m3 only) $9.00 / cubic metre Mt. Vernon Co-op 1-100 cubic meters bimonthly $2.00 per cubic metre Mt. Vernon 100+ cubic meters bimonthly (amount over 100 m3 only) $9.00 / cubic metre Selkirk WSA 1-100 cubic meters bimonthly $3.50 per cubic metre Selkirk 100+ cubic meters bimonthly (amount over 100 m3 only) $9.00 / cubic metre Sewage Charges Description Fee Huxley $2.33 per house/month Swalwell $6.12 per house/month Torrington $3.45 per house/month $3.45 per occupied Mobile Home Parks lot/month Wimborne $14.54 per house/month

36 2018.11.13

Garbage Description Fee Residents – Waste Disposal Site Drop-Offs No Charge Non-Resident/Commercial Tipping Fee -1/2 Ton Truck $20.00 each Non-Resident/Commercial Tipping Fee -1 Ton Truck $40.00 each Non-Resident/Commercial Tipping Fee- Trailer 8-20 feet $50.00 each Non-Resident/Commercial Tipping Fee -Loads larger than specified $80.00 each All Users - Freon Appliance $15.00 each $50.00/bimonthly per Hamlet Residential Pick Up residence "Hamlet" means the communities of Huxley, Swalwell, Torrington, Wimborne & Sunnyslope

37 2018.11.13 REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item #

6.2

SUBJECT: 2019 Interim Budget

MEETING DATE: 2018-11-13

PRESENTED BY: Mike Morton, Director of Corporate Services Carolyn Van der Kuil, Executive Assistant to CAO Deb Grosfield, Manager of Protective Services Brad Buchert, Sr. Manager of Transportation and Facilities John McKiernan, Manager of Environmental Services Barb Hazelton, Manager of Planning and Development Bowen Clausen, Manager of Agricultural Services and Parks

BACKGROUND/ Section 242 of the Municipal Government Act allows a Municipality adopt an PROPOSAL Interim Operating Budget. In the spring of 2019, final numbers regarding assessment and education requisition will become available and at that time the tax rate by-laws can be considered and the Final Operating Budget can be approved.

Section 245 of the Municipal Government Act requires a Municipality to adopt a Capital Budget annually.

DISCUSSION/ OPTIONS/ Included in the attachment is a high level analytical budget overview as BENEFITS/ presented by the Finance Department. DISADVANTAGES: In addition, each Department Manager has a presentation that will discuss each of the key budget components.

COSTS/SOURCE OF As per the schedules in the attachments. FUNDING:

ENGAGEMENT: ☒ Directive Decision (Information Sharing-One way communication) Goal: To educate and inform citizens Tools: ☐ Individual Notification or ☒ Public Notification

☒ Consultative Decision (Consulting the Public – Two way communication) Goal: To seek feedback, test ideas, develop concepts and collaborative solutions Tools: ☐ Public Hearing ☐ Open House ☐ Focus Group ☒ Other‐

LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: Fiscal Sustainability, Safe and Viable Communities, Think and Act Regionally, Citizen Communication

Document Last Updated February 27, 2018 38 2018.11.13 ATTACHMENTS: 1) DRAFT INTERIM OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY COMPARISON 2) DRAFT INTERIM OPERATING BUDGET % ALLOCATIONS 3) DRAFT INTERIM OPERATING BUDGET BY DEPARTMENT 4) DRAFT INTERIM PROJECT AND CAPITAL BUDGET 5) 20 YEAR CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN 6) 2019 BUDGET COMMUNICATIONS PLAN

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council directs Administration to bring back the 2019 Interim Budget to the December 4, 2018 Committee of the Whole Meeting for further review.

COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Council directs Administration to bring back the 2019 Interim Budget to the December 4, 2018 Committee of the Whole Meeting. 2. Council approve the 2019 Interim (Operating and Capital) Budget as presented. 3. Council approves the 2019 Interim (Operating and Capital) Budget as amended.

MOTION: Council directs Administration to bring back the 2019 Interim Budget to the December 4, 2018 Committee of the Whole Meeting.

Prepared By: Mike Morton Approved By: Mike Morton Reviewed By: Al Hoggan Director of Corporate Services Director of Corporate Services Chief Administrative Officer

REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 6.2 2 | Page 39 2018.11.13 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY COMPARISON 2019 Fiscal Year

2018 Budget 2019 Budget 18 vs 19 $ 18 vs 19 % Revenues: LICENSES & PERMITS 50,100 92,100 42,000 83.83% OPERATING GRANTS 347,085 362,827 15,742 4.54% OTHER REVENUE 14,400 94,500 80,100 556.25% OTHER TAXES 100,000 200,000 100,000 100.00% PENALTIES & FINES 137,000 275,500 138,500 101.09% PROPERTY TAXES 22,450,764 21,522,332 (928,432) -4.14% RENTAL INCOME 95,089 166,296 71,207 74.88% REQUISITIONS 5,471,091 5,460,890 (10,201) -0.19% RETURN ON INVESTMENTS 212,000 402,000 190,000 89.62% RURAL WATER AND WSA TAXES 1,403,661 1,402,754 (908) -0.06% SALE OF GOODS AND SERVICES 951,506 1,577,901 626,395 65.83% SALES TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS 110,000 113,230 3,230 2.94% TRANSFER FROM RESERVES 159,961 95,300 (64,661) -40.42%

Total Revenues 31,502,658 31,765,630 262,971 0.83%

Expenses: CONTRACT & GENERAL SERVICES 3,392,606 3,478,811 86,205 2.54% DIP/LINEAR REQUISITION 46,568 46,539 (29) -0.06% KNEEHILL HOUSING AUTHORITY 38,944 38,889 (55) -0.14% MATERIAL, GOODS, SUPPLIES & UTILITIES 3,706,616 3,912,688 206,071 5.56% OTHER EXPENSES 116,186 99,725 (16,461) -14.17% PROVISION FOR ALLOWANCES 400,000 800,000 400,000 100.00% PURCHASES FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTS 277,546 278,301 755 0.27% SALARIES, WAGES & BENEFITS 8,454,610 8,883,291 428,680 5.07% SCHOOL FOUNDATION REQUISITION 5,333,020 5,322,937 (10,083) -0.19% SEPARATE SCHOOL REQUISITION 52,525 52,525 (0) 0.00% TRANSFER TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS 518,490 518,406 (84) -0.02% TRANSFER TO RESERVES 754,712 0 (754,712) -100.00% TRANSFERS TO INDIVIDUALS & ORGANIZATIONS 272,119 322,647 50,528 18.57% TRANSFERS TO LOCAL BOARDS and AGENCIES 95,489 99,899 4,409 4.62%

Total Expenses 23,459,432 23,854,657 395,225 1.68%

NET REVENUE OVER EXPENSES BEFORE TRANSFERS 8,043,226 7,910,973 (132,253) -1.64%

TOTAL TRANSFER TO GRAVEL INVENTORY PROJECTS 167,711 0 (167,711) -100.00% TOTAL TRANSFER TO NON TCA PROJECTS 1,380,000 1,213,000 (167,000) -12.10% TOTAL TRANSFER TO TCA PROJECTS 6,495,515 6,697,973 202,457 3.12%

NET REVENUE OVER EXPENSES AFTER TRANSFERS 0 (0) (0)

40 2018.11.13 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY COMPARISON 2019 Fiscal Year Significant Changes Noted

2018 Budget 2019 Budget 18 vs 19 $ 18 vs 19 % Revenues: LICENSES & PERMITS 50,100 92,100 42,000 83.83% Planning Safety Code Permits increase 40,000 OPERATING GRANTS 347,085 362,827 15,742 4.54% OTHER REVENUE 14,400 94,500 80,100 556.25% Transportation Misc. Revenue Increase 80,000 OTHER TAXES 100,000 200,000 100,000 100.00% Drilling Equipment Tax increase 100,000 PENALTIES & FINES 137,000 275,500 138,500 101.09% Taxes Penalties and increase 150,000 Enforcement fines decrease (10,000) PROPERTY TAXES 22,450,764 21,522,332 (928,432) -4.14% Kept the same with exception to Linear and M&E Taxes Machinery & Equipment estimated a 5% decrease (260,000) Taxes Linear, Power and Pipeline estimated a 5% decrease (670,000) RENTAL INCOME 95,089 166,296 71,207 74.88% Medical Building Rental increase 58,000 REQUISITIONS 5,471,091 5,460,890 (10,201) -0.19% Kept the same until more info becomes available RETURN ON INVESTMENTS 212,000 402,000 190,000 89.62% Interest Revenue increase 190,000 RURAL WATER AND WSA TAXES 1,403,661 1,402,754 (908) -0.06% SALE OF GOODS AND SERVICES 951,506 1,577,901 626,395 65.83% Water Charges increase - Master Rate changes 329,000 Bulk Water Sales increase - Master Rate changes 192,000 Waste Charges increase - Master Rate changes 68,000 Campground Revenue increase 10,000 SALES TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS 110,000 113,230 3,230 2.94% TRANSFER FROM RESERVES 159,961 95,300 (64,661) -40.42% IT Transfer From Reserve decrease - purchases vary (65,000)

Total Revenues 31,502,658 31,765,630 262,971 0.83%

Expenses: CONTRACT & GENERAL SERVICES 3,392,606 3,478,811 86,205 2.54% CAO Recruitment increase 40,000 Torrington Fire Hall maintenance decrease (125,000) Contract Grader increase 115,000 Legal increase - mostly planning 52,000 Transportation Equipment Rental increase 18,000 ASB Public Land Mowing decrease (40,000) DIP/LINEAR REQUISITION 46,568 46,539 (29) -0.06% KNEEHILL HOUSING AUTHORITY 38,944 38,889 (55) -0.14% MATERIAL, GOODS, SUPPLIES & UTILITIES 3,706,616 3,912,688 206,071 5.56% Computers/IT decrease - purchases vary (65,000) Transportation Supplies & Shop increase 24,000 Fuel increase 61,000 Grader Blades increase 17,000 Admin Small Tools and Equipment decrease (15,000) Dust Control Materials decrease (37,000) Culverts/Steel Products increase 20,000 Public Land Weed Control/Chemical - shoulder spray program increase 90,000 Water For Resale increase 124,000

41 2018.11.13 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY COMPARISON 2019 Fiscal Year Significant Changes Noted

2018 Budget 2019 Budget 18 vs 19 $ 18 vs 19 % OTHER EXPENSES 116,186 99,725 (16,461) -14.17% PROVISION FOR ALLOWANCES 400,000 800,000 400,000 100.00% Tax Cancellations increase - Linear collection concerns 400,000 PURCHASES FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTS 277,546 278,301 755 0.27% SALARIES, WAGES & BENEFITS 8,454,610 8,883,291 428,680 5.07%

New staff, + 2 for Trans, + 1 at 2/3 Planning, + 1 Parks Seasonal +1 Trans - 1 Parks plus other changes in hours Changes in Grid Merit, COLA 3%, Retiring Allowance, CRA, GWL, LAPP SCHOOL FOUNDATION REQUISITION 5,333,020 5,322,937 (10,083) -0.19% SEPARATE SCHOOL REQUISITION 52,525 52,525 (0) 0.00% TRANSFER TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS 518,490 518,406 (84) -0.02% TRANSFER TO RESERVES 754,712 0 (754,712) -100.00% No transfer to Hamlet Reserve (100,000) No transfer to Contingency Reserve (250,000) No transfer to Environmental Reserve (230,000) No transfer to IT - change in budget process (175,000) TRANSFERS TO INDIVIDUALS & ORGANIZATIONS 272,119 322,647 50,528 18.57% TRANSFERS TO LOCAL BOARDS and AGENCIES 95,489 99,899 4,409 4.62%

Total Expenses 23,459,432 23,854,657 395,225 1.68%

NET REVENUE OVER EXPENSES BEFORE TRANSFERS 8,043,226 7,910,973 (132,253) -1.64%

TOTAL TRANSFER TO GRAVEL INVENTORY PROJECTS 167,711 0 (167,711) -100.00% No Transfer to Gravel Reserve (168,000) TOTAL TRANSFER TO NON TCA PROJECTS 1,380,000 1,213,000 (167,000) -12.10% Decrease in overall Non TCA projects (167,000) TOTAL TRANSFER TO TCA PROJECTS 6,495,515 6,697,973 202,457 3.12% No Transfer to Hamlet Infrastructure Reserve (392,000) No Transfer to Parks Reserve (750,000) Increase in CEP contribution 46,000 Increase in funding to TCA Projects 1,298,000

NET REVENUE OVER EXPENSES AFTER TRANSFERS 0 (0) (0)

42 2018.11.13 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM OPERATING BUDGET % ALLOCATIONS 2019 Fiscal Year

2018 Budget % of Total 2019 Budget % of Total Revenues: PROPERTY TAXES 22,550,764 71.58% 21,722,332 68.38% REQUISITION TAXES 5,471,091 17.37% 5,460,890 17.19% WSA TAX & FRONTAGES 1,403,661 4.46% 1,402,754 4.42% SALES OF GOODS & SERVICES 1,061,506 3.37% 1,691,131 5.32% INTEREST, PENALTIES, LICENSES, RENTAL 508,589 1.61% 1,030,396 3.24% GRANTS 347,085 1.10% 362,827 1.14% TRANSFER FROM RESERVES 159,961 0.51% 95,300 0.30% Total Revenues 31,502,658 100.00% 31,765,629 100.00%

Expenses: SCHOOL & OTHER REQUISITIONS 5,471,057 23.32% 5,460,890 22.89% TRANSFERS TO GOVERNMENTS, BOARDS, 542,119 2.31% 595,035 2.49% INDIVIDUALS TAX ALLOWANCES 400,000 1.71% 800,000 3.35% TRANSFERS TO RESERVES 754,712 3.22% 0 0.00% LEGISLATIVE 558,393 2.38% 602,299 2.52% ADMINISTRATION & ASSESSMENT 3,286,912 14.01% 3,266,383 13.69% PROTECTIVE SERVICES 1,291,363 5.50% 1,255,300 5.26% TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 6,900,572 29.41% 7,268,595 30.47% ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 2,160,008 9.21% 2,286,916 9.59% PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 494,179 2.11% 647,972 2.72% AGRICULTURAL SERVICES 688,357 2.93% 755,962 3.17% PARKS, RECREATION, HEALTH & CULTURE 911,760 3.89% 915,307 3.84% Total Expenses 23,459,432 100.00% 23,854,657 100.00%

NET REVENUE OVER EXPENSES BEFORE TRANSFERS 8,043,226 7,910,972

TRANSFER TO GRAVEL INVENTORY PROJECTS 167,711 0 TRANSFER TO NON TCA PROJECTS 1,380,000 1,213,000 TRANSFER TO TCA PROJECTS 6,495,515 6,697,973 NET REVENUE OVER EXPENSES AFTER TRANSFERS 0 (0)

43 2018.11.13 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM OPERATING BUDGET BY DEPARTMENT 2019 Fiscal Year

Fund: - 00 General 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 18 vs 19 $ 18 vs 19 %

Revenues: OTHER TAXES 100,000 200,000 100,000 100.00% PENALTIES & FINES 100,000 250,000 150,000 150.00% PROPERTY TAXES 22,450,764 21,522,332 (928,432) -4.14% REQUISITIONS 5,471,091 5,460,890 (10,201) -0.19% RETURN ON INVESTMENTS 212,000 402,000 190,000 89.62% RURAL WATER AND WSA TAXES 1,403,661 1,402,754 (908) -0.06% Total Revenues 29,737,517 29,237,976 (499,541) -1.68%

Expenses: CONTRACT & GENERAL SERVICES 13,847 14,539 692 5.00% DIP/LINEAR REQUISITION 46,568 46,539 (29) -0.06% KNEEHILL HOUSING AUTHORITY 38,944 38,889 (55) -0.14% PROVISION FOR ALLOWANCES 400,000 800,000 400,000 100.00% SCHOOL FOUNDATION REQUISITION 5,333,020 5,322,937 (10,083) -0.19% SEPARATE SCHOOL REQUISITION 52,525 52,525 (0) 0.00% TRANSFER TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS 250,000 250,000 (0) 0.00% TRANSFER TO RESERVES 330,013 (330,013) -100.00% TRANSFERS TO INDIVIDUALS & ORGANIZATIONS 247,119 297,647 50,528 20.45% TRANSFERS TO LOCAL BOARDS and AGENCIES 45,000 47,388 2,388 5.31% Total Expenses 6,757,036 6,870,464 113,428 1.68% Net Total 22,980,481 22,367,511 (612,970) -2.67%

Fund: - 11 Legislative 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 18 vs 19 $ 18 vs 19 %

Expenses: CONTRACT & GENERAL SERVICES 210,620 241,445 30,825 14.64% MATERIAL, GOODS, SUPPLIES & UTILITIES 29,040 32,040 3,000 10.33% SALARIES, WAGES & BENEFITS 318,733 328,814 10,080 3.16% TRANSFER TO RESERVES 3,500 (3,500) -100.00% Total Expenses 561,893 602,299 40,405 7.19% Net Total (561,893) (602,299) (40,405) 7.19%

1 44 2018.11.132018-11-07 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM OPERATING BUDGET BY DEPARTMENT 2019 Fiscal Year

Fund: - 12 Administration 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 18 vs 19 $ 18 vs 19 %

Revenues: OPERATING GRANTS 124,726 144,468 19,742 15.83% OTHER REVENUE 10,300 7,500 (2,800) -27.18% PENALTIES & FINES 3,500 2,000 (1,500) -42.86% SALE OF GOODS AND SERVICES 30,770 32,775 2,005 6.52% TRANSFER FROM RESERVES 159,961 95,300 (64,661) -40.42% Total Revenues 329,257 282,043 (47,214) -14.34%

Expenses: CONTRACT & GENERAL SERVICES 683,138 690,113 6,975 1.02% MATERIAL, GOODS, SUPPLIES & UTILITIES 307,306 236,953 (70,353) -22.89% OTHER EXPENSES 8,070 9,070 1,000 12.39% PURCHASES FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTS 4,080 3,300 (780) -19.12% SALARIES, WAGES & BENEFITS 2,151,321 2,191,907 40,586 1.89% TRANSFER TO RESERVES 421,199 0 (421,199) -100.00% Total Expenses 3,575,114 3,131,343 (443,771) -12.41% Net Total (3,245,857) (2,849,300) 396,557 -12.22%

Fund: - 14 Assessment 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 18 vs 19 $ 18 vs 19 %

Revenues: SALE OF GOODS AND SERVICES 50 50 0 0.00% Total Revenues 50 50 0 0.00%

Expenses: CONTRACT & GENERAL SERVICES 119,150 120,500 1,350 1.13% Total Expenses 119,150 120,500 1,350 1.13% Net Total (119,100) (120,450) (1,350) 1.13%

2 45 2018.11.132018-11-07 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM OPERATING BUDGET BY DEPARTMENT 2019 Fiscal Year

Fund: - 23 Fire 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 18 vs 19 $ 18 vs 19 %

Revenues: LICENSES & PERMITS 100 100 0 0.00% RENTAL INCOME 7,422 6,300 (1,122) -15.12% SALE OF GOODS AND SERVICES 2,000 1,600 (400) -20.00% Total Revenues 9,522 8,000 (1,522) -15.98%

Expenses: CONTRACT & GENERAL SERVICES 314,031 210,301 (103,730) -33.03% MATERIAL, GOODS, SUPPLIES & UTILITIES 42,470 34,838 (7,632) -17.97% SALARIES, WAGES & BENEFITS 148,449 220,655 72,207 48.64% TRANSFER TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS 224,000 224,000 0 0.00% TRANSFERS TO INDIVIDUALS & ORGANIZATIONS 25,000 25,000 0 0.00% Total Expenses 753,950 714,794 (39,155) -5.19% Net Total (744,428) (706,794) 37,633 -5.06%

Fund: - 24 Disaster 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 18 vs 19 $ 18 vs 19 %

Revenues: OPERATING GRANTS 4,000 (4,000) -100.00% Total Revenues 4,000 (4,000) -100.00%

Expenses: CONTRACT & GENERAL SERVICES 9,400 14,500 5,100 54.26% MATERIAL, GOODS, SUPPLIES & UTILITIES 2,500 3,000 500 20.00% SALARIES, WAGES & BENEFITS 13,321 14,133 811 6.09% Total Expenses 25,221 31,633 6,411 25.42% Net Total (21,221) (31,633) (10,411) 49.06%

3 46 2018.11.132018-11-07 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM OPERATING BUDGET BY DEPARTMENT 2019 Fiscal Year

Fund: - 26 Enforcement 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 18 vs 19 $ 18 vs 19 %

Revenues: OTHER REVENUE 1,500 2,000 500 33.33% PENALTIES & FINES 30,000 20,000 (10,000) -33.33% SALES TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS 30,000 32,373 2,373 7.91% Total Revenues 61,500 54,373 (7,127) -11.59%

Expenses: CONTRACT & GENERAL SERVICES 100,942 52,121 (48,821) -48.37% MATERIAL, GOODS, SUPPLIES & UTILITIES 33,000 30,000 (3,000) -9.09% SALARIES, WAGES & BENEFITS 250,550 292,972 42,422 16.93% Total Expenses 384,492 375,093 (9,399) -2.44% Net Total (322,992) (320,720) 2,272 -0.70%

Fund: - 27 Health and Safety 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 18 vs 19 $ 18 vs 19 %

Expenses: CONTRACT & GENERAL SERVICES 19,950 14,972 (4,978) -24.95% MATERIAL, GOODS, SUPPLIES & UTILITIES 9,750 14,750 5,000 51.28% SALARIES, WAGES & BENEFITS 98,000 104,058 6,059 6.18% Total Expenses 127,700 133,780 6,080 4.76% Net Total (127,700) (133,780) (6,080) 4.76%

4 47 2018.11.132018-11-07 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM OPERATING BUDGET BY DEPARTMENT 2019 Fiscal Year

Fund: - 32 Transportation 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 18 vs 19 $ 18 vs 19 %

Revenues: OTHER REVENUE 600 80,000 79,400 13,233.33% RENTAL INCOME 34,000 40,000 6,000 17.65% SALE OF GOODS AND SERVICES 117,250 132,500 15,250 13.01% Total Revenues 151,850 252,500 100,650 66.28%

Expenses: CONTRACT & GENERAL SERVICES 1,029,313 1,203,235 173,922 16.90% MATERIAL, GOODS, SUPPLIES & UTILITIES 2,052,695 2,104,646 51,951 2.53% OTHER EXPENSES 250 300 50 20.00% SALARIES, WAGES & BENEFITS 3,673,315 3,824,164 150,849 4.11% Total Expenses 6,755,572 7,132,345 376,772 5.58% Net Total (6,603,722) (6,879,845) (276,122) 4.18%

Fund: - 33 Bridges 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 18 vs 19 $ 18 vs 19 %

Expenses: CONTRACT & GENERAL SERVICES 145,000 136,250 (8,750) -6.03% Total Expenses 145,000 136,250 (8,750) -6.03% Net Total (145,000) (136,250) 8,750 -6.03%

5 48 2018.11.132018-11-07 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM OPERATING BUDGET BY DEPARTMENT 2019 Fiscal Year

Fund: - 41 Water 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 18 vs 19 $ 18 vs 19 %

Revenues: OTHER REVENUE 2,000 5,000 3,000 150.00% PENALTIES & FINES 3,500 3,500 0 0.00% SALE OF GOODS AND SERVICES 666,036 1,187,256 521,220 78.26% SALES TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS 66,000 66,000 0 0.00% Total Revenues 737,536 1,261,756 524,220 71.08%

Expenses: CONTRACT & GENERAL SERVICES 79,968 76,259 (3,709) -4.64% MATERIAL, GOODS, SUPPLIES & UTILITIES 895,595 1,007,680 112,085 12.52% PURCHASES FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTS 69,199 70,000 801 1.16% SALARIES, WAGES & BENEFITS 507,864 523,936 16,072 3.16% Total Expenses 1,552,626 1,677,875 125,249 8.07% Net Total (815,090) (416,119) 398,970 -48.95%

Fund: - 42 Wastewater 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 18 vs 19 $ 18 vs 19 %

Revenues: SALE OF GOODS AND SERVICES 13,500 14,000 500 3.70% Total Revenues 13,500 14,000 500 3.70%

Expenses: MATERIAL, GOODS, SUPPLIES & UTILITIES 22,630 20,500 (2,130) -9.41% SALARIES, WAGES & BENEFITS 71,807 76,741 4,934 6.87% Total Expenses 94,437 97,241 2,804 2.97% Net Total (80,937) (83,241) (2,304) 2.85%

6 49 2018.11.132018-11-07 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM OPERATING BUDGET BY DEPARTMENT 2019 Fiscal Year

Fund: - 43 Waste Management 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 18 vs 19 $ 18 vs 19 %

Revenues: SALE OF GOODS AND SERVICES 7,000 74,500 67,500 964.29% SALES TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS 14,000 14,857 857 6.12% Total Revenues 21,000 89,357 68,357 325.51%

Expenses: CONTRACT & GENERAL SERVICES 74,176 76,847 2,671 3.60% MATERIAL, GOODS, SUPPLIES & UTILITIES 3,820 1,820 (2,000) -52.36% OTHER EXPENSES 87,866 70,355 (17,511) -19.93% PURCHASES FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTS 204,267 205,001 734 0.36% SALARIES, WAGES & BENEFITS 142,817 157,778 14,961 10.48% Total Expenses 512,945 511,800 (1,145) -0.22% Net Total (491,945) (422,443) 69,502 -14.13%

7 50 2018.11.132018-11-07 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM OPERATING BUDGET BY DEPARTMENT 2019 Fiscal Year

Fund: - 55 Health 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 18 vs 19 $ 18 vs 19 %

Revenues: RENTAL INCOME 41,667 99,996 58,329 139.99% Total Revenues 41,667 99,996 58,329 139.99%

Expenses: CONTRACT & GENERAL SERVICES 32,531 28,649 (3,882) -11.93% MATERIAL, GOODS, SUPPLIES & UTILITIES 15,825 15,825 Total Expenses 32,531 44,474 11,943 36.71% Net Total 9,136 55,522 46,386 507.73%

Fund: - 56 Cemetery 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 18 vs 19 $ 18 vs 19 %

Revenues: SALE OF GOODS AND SERVICES 5,800 5,800 0 0.00% Total Revenues 5,800 5,800 0 0.00%

Expenses: CONTRACT & GENERAL SERVICES 10,000 11,800 1,800 18.00% MATERIAL, GOODS, SUPPLIES & UTILITIES 5,000 5,000 0 0.00% SALARIES, WAGES & BENEFITS 92,579 97,856 5,277 5.70% Total Expenses 107,579 114,656 7,077 6.58% Net Total (101,779) (108,856) (7,077) 6.95%

8 51 2018.11.132018-11-07 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM OPERATING BUDGET BY DEPARTMENT 2019 Fiscal Year

Fund: - 61 Planning 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 18 vs 19 $ 18 vs 19 %

Revenues: LICENSES & PERMITS 50,000 92,000 42,000 84.00% SALE OF GOODS AND SERVICES 27,200 27,020 (180) -0.66% Total Revenues 77,200 119,020 41,820 54.17%

Expenses: CONTRACT & GENERAL SERVICES 115,076 171,420 56,344 48.96% MATERIAL, GOODS, SUPPLIES & UTILITIES 1,000 1,000 0 0.00% SALARIES, WAGES & BENEFITS 378,102 475,551 97,449 25.77% Total Expenses 494,179 647,972 153,793 31.12% Net Total (416,979) (528,952) (111,973) 26.85%

9 52 2018.11.132018-11-07 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM OPERATING BUDGET BY DEPARTMENT 2019 Fiscal Year

Fund: - 62 Agriculture 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 18 vs 19 $ 18 vs 19 %

Revenues: OPERATING GRANTS 218,359 218,359 (0) 0.00% RENTAL INCOME 12,000 20,000 8,000 66.67% SALE OF GOODS AND SERVICES 19,000 28,500 9,500 50.00% Total Revenues 249,359 266,859 17,500 7.02%

Expenses: CONTRACT & GENERAL SERVICES 287,791 248,824 (38,967) -13.54% MATERIAL, GOODS, SUPPLIES & UTILITIES 171,000 275,000 104,000 60.82% OTHER EXPENSES 20,000 20,000 0 0.00% SALARIES, WAGES & BENEFITS 209,566 212,138 2,572 1.23% Total Expenses 688,357 755,962 67,605 9.82% Net Total (438,998) (489,103) (50,105) 11.41%

10 53 2018.11.132018-11-07 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM OPERATING BUDGET BY DEPARTMENT 2019 Fiscal Year

Fund: - 72 Parks 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 18 vs 19 $ 18 vs 19 %

Revenues: SALE OF GOODS AND SERVICES 62,900 73,900 11,000 17.49% Total Revenues 62,900 73,900 11,000 17.49%

Expenses: CONTRACT & GENERAL SERVICES 147,673 167,037 19,363 13.11% MATERIAL, GOODS, SUPPLIES & UTILITIES 130,810 129,637 (1,173) -0.90% SALARIES, WAGES & BENEFITS 398,187 362,588 (35,599) -8.94% TRANSFER TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS 44,490 44,406 (84) -0.19% Total Expenses 721,160 703,667 (17,493) -2.43% Net Total (658,260) (629,767) 28,493 -4.33%

Fund: - 74 Cultural 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 18 vs 19 $ 18 vs 19 %

Expenses: TRANSFERS TO LOCAL BOARDS and AGENCIES 50,489 52,511 2,021 4.00% Total Expenses 50,489 52,511 2,021 4.00% Net Total (50,489) (52,511) (2,021) 4.00%

11 54 2018.11.132018-11-07 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM OPERATING BUDGET BY DEPARTMENT 2019 Fiscal Year

SUMMARY 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 18 vs 19 $ 18 vs 19 %

TOTAL REVENUE 31,502,658 31,765,629 262,971 0.83% TOTAL EXPENSES 23,459,432 23,854,657 395,225 1.68% NET REVENUE OVER EXPENSES BEFORE TRANSFERS 8,043,226 7,910,972 (132,254) -1.64%

TRANSFER TO GRAVEL INVENTORY PROJECTS 167,711 0 (167,711) -100.00% TRANSFER TO NON TCA PROJECTS 1,380,000 1,213,000 (167,000) -12.10% TRANSFER TO TCA PROJECTS 6,495,515 6,697,973 202,458 3.12% NET REVENUE OVER EXPENSES AFTER TRANSFERS 0 (0) 0

12 55 2018.11.132018-11-07 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM PROJECT AND CAPITAL BUDGET

Funding Funding 2019 Fiscal Year 2019 Total Budget Source Source Funding Source Grant / Reserve Operating Budget Description Amount Operating Grants Reserves Description Balance

TOTAL NET OPERATING BEFORE COMMITTED (7,910,972.73) (7,910,972.73)

CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN CONTRIBUTION 1,953,718.73 (This is the annual funding contribution - new upfront purchases to plan are in TCA projects below) TOTAL CAPITAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PLAN 1,953,718.73 1,953,718.73 (5,957,254.00)

WATER SERVICE AREA TAX & SPECIAL BENEFITING LEVY 1,402,754.00 WSA TAX & SPECIAL BENEFITING LEVY 1,402,754.00 1,402,754.00 (4,554,500.00)

TOTAL NET OPERATING AFTER COMMITTED (4,554,500.00) 3,356,472.73 - - - (4,554,500.00)

GRAVEL ACQUISITION PROJECTS CONTRACT PURCHASES - (4,554,500.00)

TRANSFER TO RESERVE - (4,554,500.00)

TOTAL GRAVEL ACQUISITION PROJECTS - - - -

1 56 2018.11.132018-11-07 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM PROJECT AND CAPITAL BUDGET

Funding Funding 2019 Fiscal Year 2019 Total Budget Source Source Funding Source Grant / Reserve Operating Budget Description Amount Operating Grants Reserves Description Balance

NON TCA PROJECTS

ADMINISTRATION 123,000.00 75th Anniversary celebration 20,000.00 20,000.00 (4,534,500.00) Branding initiative with new logo 103,000.00 103,000.00 (4,431,500.00) FIRE 40,000.00 Torrington Fire Hall - carry forward operating renovation 40,000.00 40,000.00 (4,391,500.00) TRANSPORTATION 850,000.00 Shoulder Pull - 45 miles 850,000.00 850,000.00 (3,541,500.00) PROTECTIVE SERVICES 200,000.00 Enhanced RCMP Officer or CPO 1 - Includes Operating and 200,000.00 200,000.00 (3,341,500.00) Capital

TOTAL NON TCA PROJECTS 1,213,000.00 1,213,000.00 - -

2 57 2018.11.132018-11-07 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM PROJECT AND CAPITAL BUDGET

Funding Funding 2019 Fiscal Year 2019 Total Budget Source Source Funding Source Grant / Reserve Operating Budget Description Amount Operating Grants Reserves Description Balance

TANGIBLE CAPITAL ASSET (TCA) PROJECTS

ADMINISTRATION 405,500.00 Building Replacement Plan - Transfer to Building Reserve 381,500.00 381,500.00 (2,960,000.00) Surge Protector Main Power - Admin Building 14,000.00 14,000.00 (2,946,000.00) North Perimeter Fencing - Admin Building 10,000.00 10,000.00 (2,936,000.00) FIRE 234,000.00 Radio Comms Implementation 60,000.00 60,000.00 (2,876,000.00) Radio Comms Assessment 50,000.00 50,000.00 (2,826,000.00) SCBA 124,000.00 124,000.00 (2,702,000.00) TRANSPORTATION 6,234,000.00 Micro surface application on Linden East to HW21 and 925,000.00 925,000.00 (1,777,000.00) Nursing Home Road Type 2 Cape Seal Coat on Swalwell streets 310,000.00 310,000.00 (1,467,000.00) 2018 deferred and 2019 MSI, & GTF Road Rebuild- 24-4 and 24-5. Tender late 2018 4,600,000.00 2,698,429.00 1,901,571.00 (1,467,000.00) Grant. Plus Road Reserve Engineering 31-0 to HW 836 - Project #3 on 14 year Road 150,000.00 150,000.00 (1,317,000.00) Plan Welder (TIG/mig) for shop 15,000.00 15,000.00 (1,302,000.00)

Highway Signage at Main Entrances 12 @ varying cost 234,000.00 234,000.00 (1,068,000.00) BRIDGES 1,000,000.00 Two bridge size culverts 1,000,000.00 - 1,000,000.00 Bridge Reserve (1,068,000.00) HEALTH SERVICES 28,000.00 FCSS Building - Boiler System 15,000.00 15,000.00 (1,053,000.00) FCSS Building - LED lighting and Ceiling Tiles 13,000.00 13,000.00 (1,040,000.00) WATER 100,000.00 Fencing for water reservoir and pump house. Gamble, 100,000.00 100,000.00 (940,000.00) Huxley, Wimborne, Torrington, Sunnyslope, Selkirk. WASTEWATER 350,000.00 Swalwell lagoon access as per lagoon study 350,000.00 350,000.00 (590,000.00) PARKS and RECREATION 110,000.00 Pedestrian Crosswalk at Horseshoe Canyon 20,000.00 20,000.00 (570,000.00) Keivers Lake - Options for existing Chalet - 25 to 90 k 90,000.00 90,000.00 (480,000.00)

TOTAL TCA WITHOUT CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN 8,461,500.00 2,861,500.00 2,698,429.00 2,901,571.00

3 58 2018.11.132018-11-07 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM PROJECT AND CAPITAL BUDGET

Funding Funding 2019 Fiscal Year 2019 Total Budget Source Source Funding Source Grant / Reserve Operating Budget Description Amount Operating Grants Reserves Description Balance

CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN - NEW TO PLAN

TO FUND UP FRONT PURCHASES 480,000.00 Additional brush truck for fleet 200,000.00 200,000.00 (280,000.00) Additional brush truck for fleet 200,000.00 200,000.00 (80,000.00) Trailer for Emergency Management 80,000.00 80,000.00 -

TOTAL CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN NEW TO PLAN 480,000.00 480,000.00 - -

CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN REPLACEMENT

Capital Purchases for 2019 3,452,424.00 A5110 - 2010 John Deer 1590 Box Drill 115,000.00 115,000.00 CEP E0214 - 2014 Dodge Durango 65,000.00 65,000.00 CEP F1E98 - 1999 Carbon Engine E-11 (GMC Fire Truck) 525,000.00 525,000.00 CEP F4E99 - 1999 Torrington GMC Pumper Engine E-41 525,000.00 525,000.00 CEP G2812 - 2012 Kenworth T800 - Lowboy 170,000.00 170,000.00 CEP G4112 - 2013 Midland MX3000 Triaxle Bottom Dump 70,000.00 70,000.00 CEP G4612 - 2013 Midland ST 3400 End Dump 75,000.00 75,000.00 CEP M0112 - 2012 Ford F150 XLT SS SCB (Shaine) 35,000.00 35,000.00 CEP M4107 - 2007 WZ-2-LOAD TRAILER - Beaver Tail 265 43,000.00 43,000.00 CEP M4607 - 2007 Midland XL2100 Pup Trailer (M4306) - Gravel 55,000.00 Pup 55,000.00 CEP M5712 - 2012 John Deer 870G Grader (Roamer North) 500,000.00 500,000.00 CEP M6118 - 2018 Bobcat 5600 Toolcat 60,360.00 60,360.00 CEP M6212 - 2012 Volvo EC210CL 275,000.00 275,000.00 CEP M6418 - 2018 Bobcat T870 Skid Steer 84,064.00 84,064.00 CEP M6512 - 2012 Volvo EC140CL Hoe (incl. push blade) 275,000.00 275,000.00 CEP M6812 - 2012 John Deere 870G Grader (Dirt Road Crew) 500,000.00 500,000.00 CEP P0912 - 2012 Ford F150 XLT 4x4 SCAB (mower) 40,000.00 40,000.00 CEP P7716 - 2016 John Deere 1570 Front Deck Mower 40,000.00 40,000.00 CEP

TOTAL CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN PURCHASES 3,452,424.00 - - 3,452,424.00

4 59 2018.11.132018-11-07 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM PROJECT AND CAPITAL BUDGET

Funding Funding 2019 Fiscal Year 2019 Total Budget Source Source Funding Source Grant / Reserve Operating Budget Description Amount Operating Grants Reserves Description Balance PROJECT AND CAPITAL SUMMARY

CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN CONTRIBUTION 1,953,718.73 1,953,718.73 - - WSA TAX & SPECIAL BENEFITING LEVY 1,402,754.00 1,402,754.00 - - GRAVEL - - - - NON TCA 1,213,000.00 1,213,000.00 - - TCA WITHOUT CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN 8,941,500.00 3,341,500.00 2,698,429.00 2,901,571.00 TCA CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN 3,452,424.00 - - 3,452,424.00 TOTAL OF ALL PROJECT EXPENDITURES 16,963,396.73 7,910,972.73 2,698,429.00 6,353,995.00

CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN REPLACEMENT

Capital Sales for 2019 705,564.00 A5110 - 2010 John Deer 1590 Box Drill 40,000.00 40,000.00 CEP E0214 - 2014 Dodge Durango 8,000.00 8,000.00 F1E98 - 1999 Carbon Engine E-11 (GMC Fire Truck) 1,000.00 1,000.00 CEP F4E99 - 1999 Torrington GMC Pumper Engine E-41 1,000.00 1,000.00 CEP G2812 - 2012 Kenworth T800 - Lowboy 40,000.00 40,000.00 CEP G4112 - 2013 Midland MX3000 Triaxle Bottom Dump 28,000.00 28,000.00 CEP G4612 - 2013 Midland ST 3400 End Dump 28,000.00 28,000.00 CEP M0112 - 2012 Ford F150 XLT SS SCB (Shaine) 4,000.00 4,000.00 CEP M4107 - 2007 WZ-2-LOAD TRAILER - Beaver Tail 265 8,000.00 8,000.00 CEP M4607 - 2007 Midland XL2100 Pup Trailer (M4306) - Gravel 15,000.00 Pup 15,000.00 CEP M5712 - 2012 John Deer 870G Grader (Roamer North) 130,000.00 130,000.00 CEP M6118 - 2018 Bobcat 5600 Toolcat 55,000.00 55,000.00 CEP M6212 - 2012 Volvo EC210CL 40,000.00 40,000.00 CEP M6418 - 2018 Bobcat T870 Skid Steer 80,064.00 80,064.00 CEP M6512 - 2012 Volvo EC140CL Hoe (incl. push blade) 75,000.00 75,000.00 CEP M6812 - 2012 John Deere 870G Grader (Dirt Road Crew) 130,000.00 130,000.00 CEP P0912 - 2012 Ford F150 XLT 4x4 SCAB (mower) 7,500.00 7,500.00 CEP P7716 - 2016 John Deere 1570 Front Deck Mower 15,000.00 15,000.00 CEP CEP CEP

TOTAL CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN SALES 705,564.00 - - 705,564.00

5 60 2018.11.132018-11-07 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN BUDGET

Machinery & Equipment 20-Year Capital Replacement Plan 2019

Estimated End Life Kneehill 2019 2018 Net 2019 Unit #'s Year Description Purchase 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Value Exp Cost Contribution Contribution change Purchases Price MAINTENANCE M0112 2012 Ford F150 XLT SS SCB 35,000 4,000 7 31,000 4,429 4,429 - 35,000 35,000 M0115 2015 Dodge Ram 1500 SLT 35,000 4,000 7 31,000 4,429 4,429 - 35,000 M0118 2018 Chevrolet Silverado 39,000 4,000 7 35,000 5,000 5,000 - 39,000 M0215 2015 Dodge Ram 1500 SLT 35,000 4,000 7 31,000 4,429 4,429 - 35,000 M0317 2017 Chevrolet Silverado 1500LS 4WI 35,000 4,000 7 31,000 4,429 4,429 - 35,000 M0315 2015 Dodge Ram 1500 SLT 35,000 4,000 7 31,000 4,429 4,429 - 35,000 M0415 2015 Dodge Ram 1500 SLT 35,000 4,000 7 31,000 4,429 4,429 - 35,000 M0717 2017 Chevrolet Silverado 1500LS 4WI 35,000 4,000 7 31,000 4,429 4,429 - 35,000 M1116 2016 Ford Super Duty 4WD 1 Ton W/ Dump Box 64,000 12,000 7 52,000 7,429 7,429 - 64,000 M1214 2014 Dodge Chassi w/ Hoist Dump Box 55,000 12,000 7 43,000 6,143 6,143 - 55,000 M1214 2016 Plow Blade for M1214 10,000 1,000 7 9,000 1,286 1,286 - 10,000 M1318 2018 Ford F350 Welding Truck 70,000 2,500 7 67,500 9,643 9,643 - 70,000 M2018 2018 Freightliner SD Hydrovac 450,000 60,000 7 390,000 55,714 55,714 - 450,000 M2111 2011 Freightliner Gravel Box 175,000 65,000 10 110,000 11,000 11,000 - 175,000 M2212 2012 Kenworth T800 Gravel Box 175,000 65,000 10 110,000 11,000 11,000 - 175,000 M2316 2016 Freightliner 114SD Muni-Box and Plow 230,000 15,000 10 215,000 21,500 21,500 - 230,000 M2407 2007 STERLING Sander/Plow 230,000 40,000 10 190,000 19,000 19,000 - 230,000 M2516 2016 Freightliner 114SD Muni-Box and Plow 230,000 15,000 10 215,000 21,500 21,500 - 230,000 M2908 2009 Hotsy Pressure Washer/Seacan Steamer 20,000 - 15 20,000 1,333 1,333 - 20,000 M2816 2016 Karcher Skid Mounted Pressure Washer with Reels 18,000 500 10 17,500 1,750 1,750 - 18,000 M3011 2011 Freightliner Gravel Box 175,000 65,000 10 110,000 11,000 11,000 - 175000 M3610 2010 Trail King TK110SA Trailer Low Boy 85,000 8,000 10 77,000 7,700 7,700 - 85,000 M3793 1993 Krohnert 9000 I/G Calcium Applicator Potable Water 150,000 10,000 10 140,000 14,000 14,000 - 150,000 M3818 2019 SWS Goose Neck Trailer 20,000 2,000 10 18,000 1,800 1,800 - M4082 1982 Oil Tanker Bomega Calcium Storage Tank 100,000 - 30 100,000 3,333 3,333 - 100,000 M4107 2007 WZ-2-LOAD TRAILER - Beaver Tail 265 43,000 8,000 12 35,000 2,917 2,917 - 43,000 M4215 2014 BWS 25ANR Load Trailer 43,000 8,000 12 35,000 2,917 2,917 - 43,000 M4312 2012 Loadline GRPP 14 Pup - Gravel Pup 55,000 15,000 12 40,000 3,333 3,333 - 55,000 M4416 2017 Tar Baby Trailer Renn Tandem Pup SL1400 - Gravel Pup 55,000 15,000 12 40,000 3,333 3,333 - M4607 2007 Midland XL2100 Pup Trailer (M4306) - Gravel Pup 55,000 15,000 12 40,000 3,333 3,333 - 55,000 M4812 2012 Sure Trac 82 x 14 LPRO Scissor Dump 9,000 1,000 10 8,000 800 800 - 9,000 M6718 2018 Bobcat Excavator 110,000 30,000 10 80,000 8,000 8,000 - M5215 2015 CAT 160M MOTOR GRADER 440,000 130,000 7 310,000 44,286 44,286 - 440,000 M5314 2014 John Deere 870G Grader 440,000 130,000 7 310,000 44,286 44,286 - 440,000 M5413 2013 CAT 160M Grader 440,000 130,000 7 310,000 44,286 44,286 - 440,000 M5507 2007 CAT CB-224E VIB PACKER 61,000 9,000 15 52,000 3,467 3,467 - 61,000 M5514 2014 John Deere 870G Grader c/w Lift Group, BES Wing 10" V-Plow 440,000 130,000 7 310,000 44,286 44,286 - 440,000 M5518 2017 Cat 160M Grader 445,000 130,000 7 315,000 45,000 45,000 - 445,000 M5617 2017 CAT 160M AWD #20 Motor Grader 455,000 130,000 7 325,000 46,429 46,429 - 455,000 M5816 2016 CAT 160M Grader 455,000 130,000 7 325,000 46,429 46,429 - 455,000 M5712 2012 John Deer 870G Grader 500,000 130,000 7 370,000 52,857 44,286 8,571 500,000 500,000 M6015 2015 CAT 14M MOTOR GRADER 550,000 225,000 7 325,000 46,429 46,429 - 550,000 M6118 2018 Bobcat 5600 Toolcat 60,360 55,000 1 5,360 5,360 5,360 - 60,360 60,360 60,360 60,360 60,360 60,360 60,360 60,360 M6212 2012 Volvo EC210CL 275,000 40,000 7 235,000 33,571 25,000 8,571 275,000 275,000 M6314 2014 John Deer 6115M Cab Tractor w/ Loader 123,000 30,000 12 93,000 7,750 7,750 - 123,000 M6415 2015 Bobcat Snow Blade 84" 5,200 500 10 4,700 470 470 - 5,200 M6415 2015 Bobcat Snow Blade 108" 5,200 500 10 4,700 470 470 - 5,200 M6418 2018 Bobcat T870 Skid Steer 84,064 80,064 1 4,000 4,000 4,000 - 84,064 84,064 84,064 84,064 84,064 84,064 84,064 84,064 M6512 2012 Volvo EC140CL Hoe 275,000 75,000 7 200,000 28,571 16,429 12,143 275,000 275,000 M6695 1995 555G JH Traxcavator - 18,333 (18,333) M6812 2012 John Deere 870G Grader 500,000 130,000 7 370,000 52,857 44,286 8,571 500,000 500,000 M6908 2008 Volvo SD105DX Soil Compacter 129,000 10,000 10 119,000 11,900 11,900 - M6918 2018 XCMG Soil Compactor 129,000 10,000 10 119,000 11,900 11,900 - M7192 1992 F/C POST POUNDER 20,000 2,000 20 18,000 900 900 - 20,000

61 2018.11.13 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN BUDGET

Machinery & Equipment 20-Year Capital Replacement Plan 2019

Estimated End Life Kneehill 2019 2018 Net 2019 Unit #'s Year Description Purchase 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Value Exp Cost Contribution Contribution change Purchases Price M7315 2015 Retriever Disc Front & Wing Mount Assembly 25,000 500 10 24,500 2,450 2,450 - 25,000 M7514 2014 75 BANDIT CHIPPER C/W KUBOTA 44.2 HP DIESEL ENGINE 32,000 3,000 12 29,000 2,417 2,417 - 32,000 M8115 2015 Baumalight Brush Mulcher 45,000 3,500 5 41,500 8,300 8,300 - 45,000 45,000 M8415 2014 Hyundai HL760-9A Loader 330,000 40,000 12 290,000 24,167 24,167 - 330,000 M8515 2014 Hyundai HL760-9A Loader 330,000 40,000 12 290,000 24,167 24,167 - 330,000 M9015 2015 CAT 14M MOTOR GRADER 550,000 225,000 7 325,000 46,429 46,429 - 550,000 M9215 2015 Kello-Bilt Series 225 10' Single Offset Disc 30,000 4,000 15 26,000 1,733 1,733 - M9315 2015 TOMCAT CONTOUR 90 PACKER / ROLLER 25,000 2,500 10 22,500 2,250 2,250 - 25,000 R5311 2011 627G SCRAPER 745,000 520,000 10 225,000 - - - R5709 2009 CAT D6T-XW DOZER 600,000 85,000 20 515,000 25,750 25,750 - X8515 2016 Loader Forks - 84" Carriage 9,500 500 15 9,000 600 600 - X8415 2016 Snow Blade for Loader, 5000 Series 15,000 5,000 15 10,000 667 667 - M9015 2016 14M-RP Cat Ripper 25,000 - 7 25,000 3,571 3,571 - 25,000 M7916 2016 Gravel Stacker 275,000 5,000 10 270,000 27,000 27,000 - 275,000 M7816 2016 Tyalta Rip Rap Grizzly 21,000 500 20 20,500 1,025 1,025 - N/A 2018 Shear Force SVP25 Compactor 15,000 1,000 10 14,000 1,400 1,400 - TOTAL Maintenance 1,013,192 993,668 19,524 1,827,424 944,424 1,429,424 2,189,424 848,424 1,194,424 803,824 3,340,424 - - GRAVEL CREW G0115 2015 Dodge Ram 1500 SLT 35,000 4,000 7 31,000 4,429 4,429 - 35,000 G2216 2016 Freightliner 122SD 160,000 40,000 7 120,000 17,143 17,143 - 160,000 G2315 2016 Freightliner 160,000 40,000 7 120,000 17,143 17,143 - 160,000 G2416 2016 Freightliner 122SD 160,000 40,000 7 120,000 17,143 17,143 - 160,000 G2613 2013 Freightliner Coronado 160,000 40,000 7 120,000 17,143 17,143 - 160,000 G2812 2012 Kenworth T800 170,000 40,000 7 130,000 18,571 17,143 1,429 170,000 170,000 G2915 2016 FREIGHTLINER 160,000 40,000 7 120,000 17,143 17,143 - 160,000 G3113 2013 Freightliner Coronado - Tanker 160,000 40,000 7 120,000 17,143 17,143 - 160,000 G3614 2015 Tecumseh Belly Dump Model 380BCG 60,000 28,000 7 32,000 4,571 4,571 - 60,000 G3815 2016 Techumseh 60,000 28,000 7 32,000 4,571 4,571 - 60,000 G4016 2016 Renn Triaxle Belly Dump GCD322-38 60,000 28,000 7 32,000 4,571 4,571 - 60,000 G4112 2013 Midland MX3000 Triaxle Bottom Dump 70,000 28,000 7 42,000 6,000 4,571 1,429 70,000 70,000 G4206 2006 Manac 48' Dry Van, Svc Trailer, Deutz Power 30,000 5,000 15 25,000 1,667 1,667 - 30,000 G4313 2013 Load Line Tridem Centre CUL 60,000 28,000 7 32,000 4,571 4,571 - 60,000 G4416 2016 Freightliner Fenn - Canuck End Dump 65,000 28,000 7 37,000 5,286 5,286 - 65,000 G4515 2016 Techumseh 65,000 28,000 7 37,000 5,286 5,286 - 65,000 G4612 2013 Midland ST 3400 End Dump 75,000 28,000 7 47,000 6,714 5,286 1,429 75,000 75,000 G4813 2013 Canuck End Dump Tridem R12-3500 65,000 28,000 7 37,000 5,286 5,286 - 65,000 G4914 2015 Techumseh End Dump Model 350RE 65,000 28,000 7 37,000 5,286 5,286 - 65,000 G5217 2017 CAT 966M Tier III Wheel Loader 525,000 100,000 10 425,000 42,500 42,500 - TOTAL Gravel Crew 222,167 217,881 4,286 315,000 445,000 155,000 480,000 445,000 - - 315,000 - -

62 2018.11.13 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN BUDGET

Machinery & Equipment 20-Year Capital Replacement Plan 2019

Estimated End Life Kneehill 2019 2018 Net 2019 Unit #'s Year Description Purchase 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Value Exp Cost Contribution Contribution change Purchases Price PARKS P0113 2013 Ford F150 XLT4x4SCAB 40,000 7,500 7 32,500 4,643 4,643 - 40,000 P0218 2018 Chevrolet Silverado 40,000 7,500 7 32,500 4,643 4,643 - 40,000 P0318 2018 Chevrolet SilveradO 40,000 7,500 7 32,500 4,643 4,643 - 40,000 P0317 2017 2017 Chevrolet Silverado 1500LS 4WI 40,000 7,500 7 32,500 4,643 4,643 - 40,000 P0912 2012 Ford F150 XLT 4x4 SCAB 40,000 7,500 7 32,500 4,643 4,643 - 40,000 40,000 P1315 2015 Dodge Ram 3500 Chassis 75,000 12,000 7 63,000 9,000 9,000 - 75,000 P0706 2006 F450 Truck 4x4 Spray 1 ton- kept as watering truck 75,000 12,000 15 63,000 4,200 4,200 - 75,000 P3610 2010 SWS Utility Trailer 10,000 1,000 10 9,000 900 900 - 10,000 P3817 2017 Cantra DT8316-14K 16' Utility Dump Trailer 15,000 1,000 10 14,000 1,400 1,400 - P5017 2017 Cantra ES-720-14K 20' Low-Boy Flat Deck Trailer 8,500 800 6 7,700 1,283 1,283 - 8,500 P4814 2014 Rainbow Excursion Tilt Trailer 8,000 1,000 10 7,000 700 700 - 8,000 P7217 2017 John Deere 1025R Sub-Compact Utility Tractor w/ Loader and Deck 10,000 5,000 3 5,000 1,667 1,667 - 10,000 10,000 10,000 P7517 2017 Toro Z-Master 5000 52" Deck 25Hp Kohler 15,000 7,500 3 7,500 2,500 2,500 - 15,000 15,000 15,000 P7617 2017 Toro Z-Master 5000 72" Deck 26.5Hp Kohler 15,000 7,500 3 7,500 2,500 2,500 - 15,000 15,000 15,000 P7718 2018 Toro GM 3280-D Front Mower 40,000 15,000 3 25,000 8,333 8,333 - 40,000 40,000 P8015 2015 Bobcat Tree Spade 44" 25,000 5,000 10 20,000 2,000 2,000 - 25,000 P8415 2015 Wallenstein Log Splitter WX540L 3,000 500 10 2,500 250 250 - 3,000 X6415 2016 Stump Grinder For Bobcat SGX60 18,000 5,000 5 13,000 2,600 2,600 - 18,000 18,000 P7716 2016 John Deere 1570 Front Deck Mower 40,000 15,000 3 25,000 8,333 8,333 - 40,000 40,000 40,000 P4616 2016 2016 Load Trail 22' Carhauler 15,000 1,000 10 14,000 1,400 1,400 - 15,000 M4716 2016 Load Trail 22' Car Hauler 18,000 1,000 12 17,000 1,417 1,417 - N/A 2018 Bobcat Tree Auger 5,000 1,500 10 3,500 350 350 - TOTAL Parks 72,048 72,048 - 80,000 90,000 133,000 115,000 48,500 88,000 148,000 113,000 - - BRIDGES/SIGNS B3515 2015 Dodge Ram 5500 R/C 4X4 204 150,000 10,000 10 140,000 14,000 14,000 - 150,000 TOTAL Bridges 14,000 14,000 ------150,000 - - - SHOP N/A 2012 OPW Fuel Management System 70,000 - 15 70,000 4,667 4,667 - S0512 2012 Ford F550 4x4 112,000 30,000 10 82,000 8,200 8,200 - 112,000 S5218 2018 Bobcat Telehandler 90,000 25,000 10 65,000 6,500 6,500 - TOTAL Shop 19,367 19,367 - - - - 112,000 ------FLOATER VEHICLES O0117 2017 Ford Expedition 4x4 45,000 8,000 7 37,000 5,286 5,286 - 45,000 E0510 2010 Ford F150 35,000 4,000 7 31,000 4,429 4,429 - O0318 2018 Ford Explorer 45,000 8,000 7 37,000 5,286 9,250 (3,964) O0514 2014 Chevrolet Traverse LS 34,000 8,000 7 26,000 3,714 3,714 - 34,000 TOTAL Floater Vehicles 18,714 22,679 (3,964) - - 34,000 - - 45,000 - - - -

63 2018.11.13 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN BUDGET

Machinery & Equipment 20-Year Capital Replacement Plan 2019

64 2018.11.13 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN BUDGET

Machinery & Equipment 20-Year Capital Replacement Plan 2019

Estimated End Life Kneehill 2019 2018 Net 2019 Unit #'s Year Description Purchase 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Value Exp Cost Contribution Contribution change Purchases Price ASB A0115 2015 Dodge Ram 1500 SLT 40,000 7,500 7 32,500 4,643 4,643 - 40,000 A0318 2018 Chevrolet Silverado 52,000 10,000 7 42,000 6,000 6,000 - 52,000 A0213 2013 Ford F250 XLT 4x4SCAB 52,000 10,000 7 42,000 6,000 6,000 - 52,000 A0415 2015 Dodge Ram 2500 52,000 10,000 7 42,000 6,000 6,000 - 52,000 A0518 2018 2018 Chevrolet Silverado 40,000 7,500 7 32,500 4,643 4,643 - 40,000 A0716 2016 Teejay Spray System With Install 51,000 2,500 5 48,500 9,700 9,700 - 51,000 51,000 A0716 2016 Ford 3 ton 4x4 Cab & Chassis DRW 75,000 5,000 5 70,000 14,000 14,000 - 75,000 75,000 A1602 2002 Spray Truck System 51,000 2,500 5 48,500 9,700 9,700 - 51,000 51,000 A1611 2011 Ford 550 Spray Truck and equipment 75,000 5,000 10 70,000 7,000 7,000 - 75,000 A3688 1988 Flat deck Trailer Solar Water 8,000 1,500 10 6,500 650 650 - 8,000 A3705 2005 T/A Tilt Deck Trailer 9,000 1,000 15 8,000 533 533 - 9,000 A3808 2008 Courtney Berg Utility Trailer 15,000 1,000 15 14,000 933 933 - 15,000 A3914 2014 Rainbow Express Trailer w/ Mounted Bag Roller 17,000 1,500 10 15,500 1,550 1,350 200 17,000 A5110 2010 John Deer 1590 Box Drill 115,000 40,000 8 75,000 9,375 3,500 5,875 115,000 A5214 2014 Brillion SSB-12 Pull Type Seeder 12 FT 25,000 3,000 10 22,000 2,200 1,800 400 25,000 A7314 2014 3000 Lb. Cap. Portable Scale w/ Pen and Didgital Indicator 15,000 2,500 7 12,500 1,786 1,786 - 15,000 A7396 1996 Norac Portable Animal Scale, Model 42-13 15,000 2,500 15 12,500 833 833 - 15,000 A7815 2015 Kubota RTV 900 XTWH 20,000 12,000 5 8,000 1,600 1,600 - 20,000 20,000 A7916 2016 2016 Jiffy RJL900 Hayland Leveler 20,000 2,500 5 17,500 3,500 3,200 300 20,000 20,000 A8009 2009 Portable Loading Chute on transport 8,000 1,000 15 7,000 467 333 133 8,000 A8111 2011 Intelli-Spray QSM3 T100 Skid Mount Sprayer 12,000 1,500 10 10,500 1,050 720 330 12,000 A8113 2013 Intelli-Spray QSM3 T100 Skid Mount Sprayer 12,000 1,500 10 10,500 1,050 720 330 12,000 A9014 2014 M30 230 Solar Powered Waterer with Wheels 8,000 1,500 15 6,500 433 433 - P6716 2016 John Deer Tractor 6115D with Loader H310 130,000 30,000 9 100,000 11,111 11,111 - 130,000 P8216 2016 Schulte FX1510 Flex Arm 20,000 5,000 5 15,000 3,000 3,000 - 20,000 20,000 P8316 2016 XH 1000 Schulte Series 4 Rotary Cutter 30,000 8,000 5 22,000 4,400 4,400 - 30,000 30,000 A6016 2016 Drone 7,500 1,500 5 6,000 1,200 1,200 - 5,000 5,000 Total ASB 113,358 105,789 7,568 115,000 207,000 228,000 100,000 27,000 50,000 293,000 216,000 - - - GRAND TOTAL 1,953,719 1,907,622 46,097 3,452,424 2,826,924 2,104,424 3,993,424 1,958,924 1,477,424 2,222,824 4,138,924

65 2018.11.13 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN BUDGET

Machinery & Equipment 20-Year Capital Replacement Plan 2019

Year Description 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038

MAINTENANCE 2012 Ford F150 XLT SS SCB 35,000 2015 Dodge Ram 1500 SLT 35,000 35,000 2018 Chevrolet Silverado 39,000 2015 Dodge Ram 1500 SLT 35,000 35,000 2017 Chevrolet Silverado 1500LS 4WI 35,000 35,000 2015 Dodge Ram 1500 SLT 35,000 35,000 2015 Dodge Ram 1500 SLT 35,000 35,000 2017 Chevrolet Silverado 1500LS 4WI 35,000 35,000 2016 Ford Super Duty 4WD 1 Ton W/ Dump Box 64,000 64,000 2014 Dodge Chassi w/ Hoist Dump Box 55,000 55,000 2016 Plow Blade for M1214 10,000 10,000 2018 Ford F350 Welding Truck 70,000 2018 Freightliner SD Hydrovac 450,000 450,000 2011 Freightliner Gravel Box 175,000 2012 Kenworth T800 Gravel Box 175,000 2016 Freightliner 114SD Muni-Box and Plow 230,000 2007 STERLING Sander/Plow 230,000 2016 Freightliner 114SD Muni-Box and Plow 230,000 2009 Hotsy Pressure Washer/Seacan Steamer 2016 Karcher Skid Mounted Pressure Washer with Reels 18,000 2011 Freightliner Gravel Box 175,000 2010 Trail King TK110SA Trailer Low Boy 85,000 1993 Krohnert 9000 I/G Calcium Applicator Potable Water 150,000 2019 SWS Goose Neck Trailer 20,000 20,000 1982 Oil Tanker Bomega Calcium Storage Tank 2007 WZ-2-LOAD TRAILER - Beaver Tail 265 43,000 2014 BWS 25ANR Load Trailer 43,000 2012 Loadline GRPP 14 Pup - Gravel Pup 55,000 2017 Tar Baby Trailer Renn Tandem Pup SL1400 - Gravel Pup 55,000 2007 Midland XL2100 Pup Trailer (M4306) - Gravel Pup 55,000 2012 Sure Trac 82 x 14 LPRO Scissor Dump 9,000 2018 Bobcat Excavator 110,000 110,000 2015 CAT 160M MOTOR GRADER 440,000 440,000 2014 John Deere 870G Grader 440,000 440,000 2013 CAT 160M Grader 440,000 440,000 2007 CAT CB-224E VIB PACKER 61,000 2014 John Deere 870G Grader c/w Lift Group, BES Wing 10" V-Plow 440,000 440,000 2017 Cat 160M Grader 445,000 2017 CAT 160M AWD #20 Motor Grader 455,000 455,000 2016 CAT 160M Grader 455,000 455,000 2012 John Deer 870G Grader 500,000 2015 CAT 14M MOTOR GRADER 550,000 550,000 2018 Bobcat 5600 Toolcat 60,360 60,360 60,360 60,360 60,360 60,360 60,360 60,360 60,360 60,360 60,360 60,360 2012 Volvo EC210CL 275,000 2014 John Deer 6115M Cab Tractor w/ Loader 123,000 2015 Bobcat Snow Blade 84" 5,200 2015 Bobcat Snow Blade 108" 5,200 2018 Bobcat T870 Skid Steer 84,064 84,064 84,064 84,064 84,064 84,064 84,064 84,064 84,064 84,064 84,064 84,064 2012 Volvo EC140CL Hoe 275,000 1995 555G JH Traxcavator 225,000 2012 John Deere 870G Grader 50,000 2008 Volvo SD105DX Soil Compacter 2018 XCMG Soil Compactor 129,000 129,000 1992 F/C POST POUNDER 20,000

66 2018.11.13 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN BUDGET

Machinery & Equipment 20-Year Capital Replacement Plan 2019

Year Description 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038

2015 Retriever Disc Front & Wing Mount Assembly 25,000 2014 75 BANDIT CHIPPER C/W KUBOTA 44.2 HP DIESEL ENGINE 32,000 2015 Baumalight Brush Mulcher 45,000 45,000 2014 Hyundai HL760-9A Loader 330,000 2014 Hyundai HL760-9A Loader 330,000 2015 CAT 14M MOTOR GRADER 550,000 550,000 2015 Kello-Bilt Series 225 10' Single Offset Disc 30,000 2015 TOMCAT CONTOUR 90 PACKER / ROLLER 25,000 2011 627G SCRAPER 2009 CAT D6T-XW DOZER 600,000 2016 Loader Forks - 84" Carriage 9,500 2016 Snow Blade for Loader, 5000 Series 15,000 2016 14M-RP Cat Ripper 25,000 25,000 2016 Gravel Stacker 275,000 2016 Tyalta Rip Rap Grizzly 21,000 2018 Shear Force SVP25 Compactor 15,000 15,000 TOTAL Maintenance 584,424 1,353,424 2,479,424 1,088,424 1,816,924 902,424 1,429,424 584,424 1,184,824 2,653,424 759,424 2,251,424

GRAVEL CREW 2015 Dodge Ram 1500 SLT 35,000 35,000 2016 Freightliner 122SD 160,000 160,000 2016 Freightliner 160,000 160,000 2016 Freightliner 122SD 160,000 160,000 2013 Freightliner Coronado 160,000 160,000 2012 Kenworth T800 170,000 2016 FREIGHTLINER 160,000 160,000 2013 Freightliner Coronado - Tanker 160,000 160,000 2015 Tecumseh Belly Dump Model 380BCG 60,000 60,000 2016 Techumseh 60,000 60,000 2016 Renn Triaxle Belly Dump GCD322-38 60,000 60,000 2013 Midland MX3000 Triaxle Bottom Dump 70,000 2006 Manac 48' Dry Van, Svc Trailer, Deutz Power 30,000 2013 Load Line Tridem Centre CUL 60,000 60,000 2016 Freightliner Fenn - Canuck End Dump 65,000 65,000 2016 Techumseh 65,000 65,000 2013 Midland ST 3400 End Dump 75,000 2013 Canuck End Dump Tridem R12-3500 65,000 65,000 2015 Techumseh End Dump Model 350RE 65,000 65,000 2017 CAT 966M Tier III Wheel Loader 525,000 525,000 TOTAL Gravel Crew 970,000 125,000 480,000 445,000 - - 315,000 445,000 125,000 510,000 970,000 -

67 2018.11.13 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN BUDGET

Machinery & Equipment 20-Year Capital Replacement Plan 2019

Year Description 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038

PARKS 2013 Ford F150 XLT4x4SCAB 40,000 40,000 2018 Chevrolet Silverado 40,000 2018 Chevrolet SilveradO 40,000 2017 2017 Chevrolet Silverado 1500LS 4WI 40,000 35,000 2012 Ford F150 XLT 4x4 SCAB 40,000 2015 Dodge Ram 3500 Chassis 75,000 75,000 2006 F450 Truck 4x4 Spray 1 ton- kept as watering truck 75,000 2010 SWS Utility Trailer 10,000 2017 Cantra DT8316-14K 16' Utility Dump Trailer 15,000 15,000 2017 Cantra ES-720-14K 20' Low-Boy Flat Deck Trailer 8,500 8,500 2014 Rainbow Excursion Tilt Trailer 8,000 2017 John Deere 1025R Sub-Compact Utility Tractor w/ Loader and Deck 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 2017 Toro Z-Master 5000 52" Deck 25Hp Kohler 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 2017 Toro Z-Master 5000 72" Deck 26.5Hp Kohler 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 2018 Toro GM 3280-D Front Mower 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 2015 Bobcat Tree Spade 44" 25,000 2015 Wallenstein Log Splitter WX540L 3,000 2016 Stump Grinder For Bobcat SGX60 18,000 18,000 2016 John Deere 1570 Front Deck Mower 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 2016 2016 Load Trail 22' Carhauler 15,000 2016 Load Trail 22' Car Hauler 18,000 2018 Bobcat Tree Auger 5,000 5,000 TOTAL Parks 95,000 63,000 123,500 50,000 98,000 120,000 80,000 88,000 76,500 223,000 55,000 80,000

BRIDGES/SIGNS 2015 Dodge Ram 5500 R/C 4X4 204 150,000 TOTAL Bridges ------150,000 - - -

SHOP 2012 OPW Fuel Management System 70,000 2012 Ford F550 4x4 112,000 2018 Bobcat Telehandler 90,000 90,000 TOTAL Shop 70,000 90,000 - - - 112,000 - - - - - 90,000

FLOATER VEHICLES 2017 Ford Expedition 4x4 45,000 45,000 2010 Ford F150 2018 Ford Explorer 2014 Chevrolet Traverse LS 34,000 34,000 TOTAL Floater Vehicles - 34,000 - - 45,000 - - - 34,000 - - 45,000

68 2018.11.13 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN BUDGET

Machinery & Equipment 20-Year Capital Replacement Plan 2019

Year Description 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038

UTILITIES 2018 2018 Chevrolet Silverado 35,000 35,000 35,000 2014 Dodge Ram 1500 Light 35,000 35,000 2018 2018 Chevrolet Silverado 35,000 35,000 35,000 2014 Dodge Ram 1500 Light 35,000 35,000 2017 Chevrolet Silverado 1500LS 4WI 35,000 35,000 35,000 2017 Chevrolet Silverado 1500LS 4WI 35,000 35,000 2018 Enclosed Utility Trailer 7,500 7,500 2010 SWS Utility Trailer 5,500 5,500 2007 Titan 18' Utility Trailer, Fuel tanker 20,000 2007 816F2 Landfill Compacter 400,000 0 Portable Generator Set 6,000 6,000 1995 555G JH Traxcavator 225,000 TOTAL Utilities - 83,500 35,000 70,000 55,000 405,500 35,000 70,000 70,000 - 35,000 124,000

ENFORCEMENT & PUBLIC SAFETY 2015 Dodge Durango 65,000 65,000 65,000 2014 Dodge Durango 65,000 65,000 65,000 2018 Ford F150 52,000 52,000 52,000 2015 Haenni Portable Wheel Load Scales 1 27,000 2008 Haenni Portable Wheel Load Scales 2 Total Enforcement & Public Safety 65,000 65,000 - 79,000 65,000 65,000 - 52,000 65,000 65,000 - 52,000

FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES 1999 Carbon Engine E-11 2007 Carbon Tanker T-15 475,000 2005 Acme Freightliner FL80 Tanker 2000 Acme Freightliner FL80 Pumper Engine 2007 Linden Freightliner MM1060425 Engine 525,000 2005 Linden Freightliner MM154042S Rescue 2010 Linden Tanker Pierce Velocity Series 475,000 1999 Torrington GMC Pumper Engine 2018 Dodge Ram 3500 Squad Command 100,000 2000 Torrington International 4900 Tanker 2003 Three Hills Freightliner FL70 Engine 2002 Three Hills GMC C8500 Tanker 2007 Trochu Freightliner M2-106 Engine 525,000 2012 Trochu Freightliner MM11206 475,000 2007 Extrication Rescue Tools 40,000 40,000 2006 SCBA Compressor 25,000 2014 Ford Expedition 4WD 4DR XL 45,000 45,000 Total Fire & Emergency Services 1,610,000 - - 500,000 - 475,000 100,000 45,000 - - 40,000 -

69 2018.11.13 KNEEHILL COUNTY DRAFT INTERIM CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN BUDGET

Machinery & Equipment 20-Year Capital Replacement Plan 2019

Year Description 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038

ASB 2015 Dodge Ram 1500 SLT 40,000 40,000 2018 Chevrolet Silverado 52,000 2013 Ford F250 XLT 4x4SCAB 52,000 52,000 2015 Dodge Ram 2500 52,000 52,000 2011 2018 Chevrolet Silverado 40,000 2016 Teejay Spray System With Install 51,000 51,000 2016 Ford 3 ton 4x4 Cab & Chassis DRW 75,000 75,000 2002 Spray Truck System 51,000 51,000 2011 Ford 550 Spray Truck and equipment 75,000 1988 Flat deck Trailer Solar Water 8,000 2005 T/A Tilt Deck Trailer 9,000 2008 Courtney Berg Utility Trailer 15,000 2014 Rainbow Express Trailer w/ Mounted Bag Roller 17,000 2010 John Deer 1590 Box Drill 115,000 115,000 2014 Brillion SSB-12 Pull Type Seeder 12 FT 25,000 2014 3000 Lb. Cap. Portable Scale w/ Pen and Didgital Indicator 15,000 15,000 1996 Norac Portable Animal Scale, Model 42-13 2015 Kubota RTV 900 XTWH 20,000 20,000 2016 2016 Jiffy RJL900 Hayland Leveler 20,000 20,000 2009 Portable Loading Chute on transport 2011 Intelli-Spray QSM3 T100 Skid Mount Sprayer 12,000 2013 Intelli-Spray QSM3 T100 Skid Mount Sprayer 12,000 2014 M30 230 Solar Powered Waterer with Wheels 8,000 2016 John Deer Tractor 6115D with Loader H310 130,000 2016 Schulte FX1510 Flex Arm 20,000 20,000 2016 XH 1000 Schulte Series 4 Rotary Cutter 30,000 30,000 2016 Drone 5,000 5,000 Total ASB 167,000 15,000 100,000 146,000 213,000 100,000 12,000 224,000 210,000 293,000 - 15,000

GRAND TOTAL 3,561,424 1,828,924 3,217,924 2,378,424 2,292,924 2,179,924 1,971,424 1,508,424 1,915,324 3,744,424 1,859,424 2,657,424

70 2018.11.13 COMMUNICATIONS PLAN BUDGET 2019

Date: November 13, 2018

Department: Corporate Services

Manager: Debra Grosfield

Goal:  To engage the public in the budget process, giving them Purpose of Communications: the opportunity to ask  Awareness questions about the budget.  To inform the public of the Deadlines, dates: current challenges facing  Budget presented to Council November 13 Kneehill County.

 Email and questions feedback to Council December 4  Interim Budget Approval Request December 11 Actions to achieve goal:  2020 Budget Engagement commence in April 2019  Clear and concise language in understanding municipal budgets. Background  Provide an opportunity for the Kneehill County’s budget is funded largely by property and linear public to ask their questions taxes, user fees and grants, and is comprised of these two through tactics. components:

 Operating Budget‐ the plan for day‐to‐day operations, including administration, contract services, materials, Audience: utilities and supplies.  Council  Capital Budget‐ the annual plan for the purchase and  Internal Staff financing of major assets, including infrastructure, lands,  Ratepayers building, machinery and equipment.  Community Groups  Media & Other Agencies Like any household or business, the needs and wants within Kneehill County are often greater than what can be afforded. Each year, as a part of the budget process, choices must be made that directly impact the level of services the County can provide. The annual budget takes into consideration competing priorities and challenges, while at the same time, strives to provide high‐ quality services for all citizens.

71 2018.11.13 Key Messages: Tactics/Platforms to Use:  Send in your budget questions to  Facebook‐ Ads, push to website [email protected] or contact your Councillor.  Twitter‐ Ads, push to website  All questions will be shared with Council at their  Website‐ increased presence, December 4 Committee of the Whole meeting for review. dedicated web page for budget  For 2020 budget, we will be implementing a budget information, including links to consultation in April, including a survey and working email questions, ad on front group/world café. page  Ratepayer Newsletter‐ Special Timeline: edition focused on Budget  Create draft Communications Plan  Staff Newsletter  Nov 13: Present plan to Council for approval  Create draft web page with 2018’s budget, breakdown of terms and information  Nov 14: Webpage goes live, ad on social media providing opportunity for budget questions  Dec 4‐ Share compiled questions with Council at the Committee of the Whole Meeting  Dec 11‐ Budget 2019

2 72 2018.11.13 REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item #

8.1

SUBJECT: Policy # 3-3, Board and Committee Appointments

2018-11-13 MEETING DATE:

PRESENTED BY: Al Hoggan, CAO

BACKGROUND/ Council appointed members of Council at the October 23, 2018 Organizational PROPOSAL Meeting to serve on boards and committees to which Kneehill County is a member.

DISCUSSION/ Attached is Policy#3-3, Board And Committee Appointments, with the updated OPTIONS/ Committee appointments for Council’s information. BENEFITS/ DISADVANTAGES:

COSTS/SOURCE OF N/A FUNDING:

COMMUNICATIONS: Put policy onto the website.

LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: N/A

ATTACHMENTS: Policy # 3-3

RECOMMENDED ACTION: To approve policy

 To approve Policy #3-3 COUNCIL OPTIONS:  To amend Policy #3-3

MOTION: That Policy #3-3, Board and Committee Appointments be approved as presented.

Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil Approved By: Al Hoggan Reviewed By: Al Hoggan Executive Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Chief Administrative Officer

Document Last Updated April 15, 2014 73 2018.11.13 POLICY Section Policy No. Page COUNCILLOR 3‐3 1 of 4

Policy Title Date: Resolution No. Board and Committee Appointments November 13, 2018 /18

Purpose: Kneehill County Council appoints members of Council to serve on boards and committees to which Kneehill County is a member. The role of Council is to sustain an on‐going relationship with these various organizations and groups and to provide a means for communication between the organization and Council. Councillors are encouraged to provide a written report along with the minutes and financial statements on any meetings attended on behalf of Council. Appointments of elected members are made annually at the organizational meeting of Council. For the 2018‐ 2019 term, appointments have been made as follows:

COUNCIL MEMBERS 3. AGRICULTURAL APPEAL BOARD Division One: Faye McGhee, Deputy Reeve Same as SDAB Division Two: Debbie Penner Division Three: Jerry Wittstock, Reeve 4. KNEEHILL REGIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Division Four: Glen Keiver COMMITTEE Division Five: Jim Hugo Composition: Reeve, Deputy Reeve and CAO Division Six: Wade Christie Division Seven: Kenneth King 5. AQUA 7 WATER SERVICES COMMISSION Formerly Kneehill Regional Water Services 1. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Commission Division One: Faye McGhee, Deputy Reeve Council Member: Jerry Wittstock Division Two: Debbie Penner Alternate Member: Debbie Penner Division Three: Jerry Wittstock, Reeve Division Four: Glen Keiver 6. CANADIAN BADLANDS LTD. Division Five: Jim Hugo Council Member: Faye McGhee Division Six: Wade Christie Council Member or Division Seven: Kenneth King Member at Large: Kenneth King Council Member or 2. AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARD Member at Large: Jim Hugo (Appointments effective January 1st) Chairman: Wade Christie 7. CENTRAL ALBERTA ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP Council Member: Debbie Penner (CAEP) Council Member: Jim Hugo CAO Designate Council Member: Glen Keiver Alternate Member: Kenneth King 8. CENTRAL RURAL MUNICIPALITIES OF ALBERTA Rate Payer Member: Matt Sawyer (DIVISION 2) EXECUTIVE Term Expires Dec 31, 2019 Composition: Reeve or Deputy Reeve & CAO Rate Payer Member: Bruce Jensen Term Expires Dec 31, 2020 Rate Payer Member: Vacant Term Expires Dec 31, 2021 Secretary to the Board: CAO Designation

74 2018.11.13 POLICY Section Policy No. Page COUNCILLOR 3‐3 2 of 4

Policy Title Date: Resolution No. Board and Committee Appointments November 13, 2018

9. COMMUNITY ACTION COMMITTEE 15. KNEEHILL REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP STEERING (Three Hills/Trochu/Elnora/Delburne/RCMP) COMMITTEE Council Member: Jim Hugo Council Member: Faye McGhee Alternate Member: Faye McGhee Alternate Member: Wade Christie

10. COMMUNITY FUTURES WILD ROSE 16. MARIGOLD LIBRARY SYSTEM Council Member: Wade Christie Council Member: Glen Keiver Alternate Member: Glen Keiver Alternate Member: Jim Hugo

11. DOCTOR RECRUITMENT & RETENTION 17. MAYORS/REEVES LIASON COMMITTEE COMMITTEE Composition: Reeve or Deputy Reeve and CAO Council Member: Jerry Wittstock Alternate Member: Kenneth King 18. MEDICAL CLINIC ENHANCED SERVICES REVIEW Secretary: CAO Designation COMMITTEE Reeve: Jerry Wittstock 12. DRUMHELLER AND DISTRICT SOLID WASTE Council Member: Kenneth King MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Council Member: Wade Christie Council Member: Debbie Penner CAO or Designate in an advisory capacity Alternate Member: Faye McGhee 19. MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION (BYLAW 13. KNEEHILL HOUSING CORPORATION #1340) Council Member: Faye McGhee Chairman: Jerry Wittstock Council Member: Glen Keiver Vice‐Chairman: Kenneth King Alternate Member: Jerry Wittstock Council Member: Faye McGhee Council Member: Debbie Penner 14. KNEEHILL REGIONAL FAMILY & COMMUNITY Council Member: Glen Keiver SUPPORT SERVICES BOARD Council Member: Wade Christie Council Member: Kenneth King Council Member: Jim Hugo Alternate Member: Jerry Wittstock Member at Large: Rick Vickery Member at Large: Advertising for Position Secretary to the Commission: CAO Designation

75 2018.11.13 POLICY Section Policy No. Page COUNCILLOR 3‐3 3 of 4

Policy Title Date: Resolution No. Board and Committee Appointments November 13, 2018

20. JOINT INTER‐MUNICIPAL PLANNING 21.INTER‐MUNICIPAL FRAMEWORK COMMISSION (JMPC) COLLABORATION COMMITTEE Acme/ Kneehill County Rocky View County/Kneehill County Council Member: Jerry Wittstock Council Member: Jerry Wittstock Council Member: Debbie Penner Alternate: Faye McGhee Alternate: Jim Hugo 22. RED DEER RIVER MUNICIPAL USERS GROUP/ Carbon/Kneehill County – Bylaw 1744 RED DEER RIVER WATERSHED ALLIANCE Council Member: Faye McGhee Council Member: Glen Keiver Council Member: Debbie Penner Alternate Member: Jim Hugo Alternate: Jerry Wittstock Secretary to the Commission: CAO Designation 23. SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD (BYLAW #1754) Linden/Kneehill County Members at Large: Council Member: Jerry Wittstock Maureen Chalack‐ Chairperson Council Member: Glen Keiver Bill Zens‐ Vice‐ Chairperson Alternate: Jim Hugo Dennis Dey Kent Knudsen Three Hills/Kneehill County‐ Bylaw 1615 Angus Park Council Member: Jerry Wittstock Steve Cullum Council Member: Glen Keiver Secretary to the Board: CAO Designation Alternate: Wade Christie 24. JOINT INTER‐MUNICIPAL SUBDIVISION AND Trochu/Kneehill County DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD (ISDAB) BYLAW Council Member: Jerry Wittstock 1616 Three Hills/Kneehill County Council Member: Wade Christie BYLAW 1745 Carbon/Kneehill County Alternate: Jim Hugo Same as SDAB Members Secretary: CAO Designation Rocky View County/Kneehill County Council Member: Jerry Wittstock Alternate: Faye McGhee

Wheatland County/Kneehill County Council Member: Jerry Wittstock Council Member: Kenneth King Alternate: Faye McGhee

76 2018.11.13 POLICY Section Policy No. Page COUNCILLOR 3‐3 4 of 4

Policy Title Date: Resolution No. Board and Committee Appointments November 13, 2018

Jerry Wittstock Al Hoggan Reeve CAO

Approved: November 7, 2017 506/17 Amended: December 12, 2017 550/17 Amended: December 12, 2017 554/17 Amended: January 9, 2018 12/18 Amended: February 13, 2018 42/18 Amended: November 13, 2018 X/18 Review Date: October 2019

77 2018.11.13 REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item #

8.2

SUBJECT: Policy #3-21, Elected Official’s Expense Allowance

MEETING DATE: 2018-11-13

PRESENTED BY: Al Hoggan, CAO

BACKGROUND/ The passing of the 2017 federal budget that received royal assent on June 22, PROPOSAL 2017 (Bill C 44) removed the non-accountable allowance paid to elected officials effective January 1, 2019.

Therefore, elected officials full income will be taxable. With the removal of the provision they are now eligible to claim expense deductions authorized by paragraph 8(1) of the income tax act. DISCUSSION/ OPTIONS/ With the removal of the non-accountable allowance paid to elected officials, BENEFITS/ Policy #3-21 is no longer required. DISADVANTAGES:

COSTS/SOURCE OF FUNDING: N/A

ENGAGEMENT: ☒ Directive Decision (Information Sharing-One way communication) Goal: To educate and inform citizens Tools: ☐ Individual Notification or ☐ Public Notification

LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: Financial Sustainability

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Policy #3-21 Elected Official’s Expense Allowance. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That Council delete Policy #3-21, Elected Officials Expense Allowance. COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Council delete Policy #3-21. 2. Council amend Policy #3-21. 3. Council receive for information. MOTION: That Council delete Policy #3-21, Elected Officials Expense Allowance.

Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil Approved By: Al Hoggan Reviewed By: Al Hoggan Executive Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Chief Administrative Officer

Document Last Updated February 27, 2018 78 2018.11.13 79 2018.11.13 REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item #

8.3

SUBJECT: Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) Fall Resolutions

2018-11-13 MEETING DATE:

PRESENTED BY: Al Hoggan, CAO

BACKGROUND/ The RMA represents rural municipalities in meeting with government and PROPOSAL ensures that provincial and federal decision-makers, as well as industry and other relevant stakeholders, understand and incorporate the best interests of rural Alberta in their policies.

DISCUSSION/ The resolutions that will be presented during the resolutions session at the OPTIONS/ RMA Fall 2018 Convention are attached for Council to review. BENEFITS/ DISADVANTAGES:

COSTS/SOURCE OF N/A FUNDING:

ENGAGEMENT: N/A

LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: N/A

ATTACHMENTS: 2018 RMA Spring Resolutions

RECOMMENDED ACTION: That Council receive as information.

1. Receive for information COUNCIL OPTIONS: 2. Propose amendments to resolutions to RMA MOTION: That Council receives for information the 2018 Rural Municipalities of Alberta Fall Resolutions Report.

Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil Approved By: Al Hoggan Reviewed By: Al Hoggan Executive Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Chief Administrative Officer

Document Last Updated April 15, 2014 80 2018.11.13 RMA Fall 2018 Submitted Resolutions

1) Call to Order 2) Acceptance of Order Paper 3) Resolution Session

1-18F Provincial Contribution to Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (Mackenzie County)

2-18F Annual Release Date of Assessment Year Modifiers (Mountain View County)

3-18F Federal and Provincial Funding of Municipal Broadband Projects (Clearwater County)

4-18F Enabling High-Speed Internet Access for Rural Alberta (MD of Taber)

5-18F Alberta Energy Regulator Requirements for Acquiring and Holding Energy Licences and Approval (MD of Taber)

6-18F Securing Municipal Property Taxes in the Event of Bankruptcy or Insolvency (MD of Opportunity)

7-18F Municipal and Privately-Owned Protected Areas Inventory (Mackenzie County)

8-18F Restricting the Consumption of Cannabis based on Regulations for Liquor Consumption (Thorhild County)

9-18F Impact of the Alberta Wetland Policy on the Cost of Maintaining Public Road Infrastructure (Wheatland County)

10-18F Community Peace Officer Access to the Canadian Police Information Centre (Mountain View County)

11-18F Rural Municipalities of Alberta Represents Municipalities on Water Act Approvals (Rocky View County)

12-18F Multi-Stakeholder Committee to Work at Reducing the Use of Potable Water by the Oil and Gas Industry in Alberta (Brazeau County)

13-18F TELUS Failure to Maintain Landline Operations (MD of Spirit River)

14-18F Reclamation of Non-Producing Oil and Gas Sites on Agricultural Lands Owned by Bankrupt Companies (Lac La Biche County)

15-18F Wetland Mitigation Directive – Restoration and Compensation (Red Deer County)

16-18F Demand Meters and Rate Riders (Brazeau County)

17-18F Alberta Environment and Parks Additional Resources for Water Act Approvals (Rocky View County)

18-18F Utility Conflict in Municipal Right of Ways (Red Deer County)

19-18F Separation of Industrial Hemp from Cannabis Regulations (Brazeau County)

20-18F Decommissioning Costs for Wind Energy Developments (MD of Pincher Creek)

81 2018.11.13

21-18F Scrap Metal (Copper) Theft (Woodlands County)

22-18F Amendment to the Wildlife Regulations Regarding Cougars (MD of Smoky River)

23-18F Social Well-Being of An Employee and Domestic Violence – Occupational Health and Safety Act (MD of Willow Creek)

24-18F Review of Education Funding Formula (Athabasca County)

4) Vote on Emergent Resolutions (if needed) 5) Closing of Resolution Session

82 2018.11.13 Resolution 1-18F Provincial Contribution to Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program Mackenzie County Simple Majority Required Individual Resolution

WHEREAS the Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI) has allowed municipalities to undertake critical projects of benefit to all Albertans; and WHEREAS MSI plays a major role in providing infrastructure renewal for communities throughout Alberta; and WHEREAS municipalities across Alberta have come to rely on MSI funding to pay for critical infrastructure projects annually; and WHEREAS the Government of Alberta has entered into an agreement with the Government of Canada to provide funding through the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP); and WHEREAS the Government of Alberta has recently announced that municipalities must use MSI funds as the provincial share of the ICIP when applying for funds through the program; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that RMA advocate to the Government of Alberta to provide additional funding to municipalities for the provincial contribution of Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program funding. Member Background Under the Government of Canada's Investing in Canada Infrastructure Plan (ICIP),

Alberta will receive $159.7 million for rural and northern community projects over the next 10 years.

Rural and remote communities with populations of 100,000 or fewer can apply for funding to support projects that improve food security, local road or air infrastructure, broadband connectivity, efficient and reliable energy sources, and improved education and/or health facilities.

The federal government will cost share for eligible projects up to the following:  50% for provincial projects; or for municipalities with populations more than 5,000 and not- for-profit partners  60% for municipalities with populations less than 5,000

Mackenzie County applied for funding for a $24 million project, of which ICIP funding would cover $9,200,000 or 40%. Mackenzie County is left with the remaining $6,134,100 or 27% as the municipal cost- share contribution as well as an expectation that Mackenzie County’s Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI) funding allocation cover the remaining $7,665,900 or 33% provincial contribution. Mackenzie County’s MSI allocation is needed to fund core operations such as roads, graders, etc. leaving Mackenzie County with 60% of total cost to address the potential ICIP project. This will create strain on the county’s daily necessary operations, further increasing the municipal infrastructure deficit. With additional funding, new infrastructure will be made possible in order to stimulate growth and industry in this area. As outlined on the Government of Alberta website:

The Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI) helps support local infrastructure priorities and build strong, safe and resilient communities. Municipal Affairs has allocated almost $9.6 billion to municipalities since the program launched in 2007. This has meant communities across Alberta have been able to build and rehabilitate their roadways and bridges, water and wastewater systems, public transit facilities, and recreation and sport facilities, and address other key local priorities.

RMA Background RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.

83 2018.11.13 Resolution 2-18F Annual Release Date of Assessment Year Modifiers Mountain View County Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 2 (Central)

WHEREAS Alberta Municipal Affairs sets the assessment year modifiers at no set timeline; and WHEREAS the Municipal Government Act requires municipalities to pass a balanced budget; and WHEREAS many rural municipalities receive significant revenue from linear properties; and WHEREAS there has been volatility in linear assessment values in recent years; and WHEREAS other types of funding have become more uncertain and the need for more timely assessment year modifier information has become more critical to ensure realistic budgets; and WHEREAS municipalities are often required to develop budgets based on assessment year modifier estimates when final modifier figures are not yet available; and WHEREAS if the final modifier figures vary from the estimates, the municipality’s budget can be significantly impacted; and WHEREAS many municipalities pass budgets prior to January 1st of the budget year; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta request the Government of Alberta to set the annual date of release of assessment year modifiers at September 15th or the nearest business day afterwards to allow municipalities to be properly informed when making budget decisions. Member Background Assessment year modifiers are mechanisms to adjust the base assessment value of linear and other property types up or down to reflect present costs. Alberta Municipal Affairs sets the assessment year modifiers for valuation on an annual basis. The Minister of Municipal Affairs usually proclaims them in the preceding December of the tax/municipal budget year. Many rural municipalities’ property tax base consists of a large portion of linear tax. This assessment class has experienced large swings and surprises that have made budgeting more difficult especially when the modifiers are released in December. This issue is compounded by the fact that the large swings have been negative in terms of their impacts on assessment and therefore indirectly property tax. 2017’s linear modifiers are an example of this. The Ministry released preliminary numbers indicating a double-digit growth in both pipeline and well head modifiers which are both sub-classes of linear property. However, the modifiers later approved by the Minister were zero. As well, starting with 2019 budgets, there is a new requirement for municipalities to prepare three-year operating statements. Having the information earlier would allow municipalities more time to ensure that they have their revenues in place when passing their balanced budgets.

RMA Background 1-18S: Request for Implementation of the 2018 Assessment Year Modifier for Well and Pipeline Assessments THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) lobby the Government of Alberta to immediately implement the 2018 assessment year modifier to well and pipeline assessments as identified in the draft calculation. DEVELOPMENT: RMA has not yet received a government response to this resolution.

84 2018.11.13 Resolution 3-18F Federal and Provincial Funding of Municipal Broadband Projects Clearwater County Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 2 (Central)

WHEREAS the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) deems broadband a “basic” or “essential” service for Canadians; and WHEREAS the current CRTC targets and federal funding programs do not specifically address the many rural, remote, and northern communities in Canada that continue to be unserved or underserved by internet service providers (ISP); and WHEREAS broadband service in rural, remote and northern communities is slower, with less capacity (bandwidth) and significantly more cost than services in urban centres; and WHEREAS connecting to the Government of Alberta’s fibre-optic infrastructure backbone (the SuperNet) is cost-prohibitive to ISPs and municipalities; and WHEREAS access to high-speed/capacity broadband is vital to municipal sustainability, economic development and diversification, and overall community and social development; and WHEREAS municipalities across Canada are initiating broadband projects to leverage network-based technologies in order to strategically improve services to rural, remote and northern communities and their residents and businesses, thereby enhancing social capacity, retaining knowledge workers and allowing businesses the opportunity to compete globally; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta request the governments of Alberta and Canada to provide direct funding to municipalities to support rural, remote and northern communities’ development of high speed (50 megabits per second and faster) community broadband, with federal government grants matching municipal and provincial investment in broadband network infrastructure. Member Background Rural Canada requires accessible, affordable and reliable high-speed internet.

Over the past decade, municipalities from across Canada have initiated dialogue with federal and provincial governments, as well as incumbent telecom and internet service providers (ISP), to voice the need to enhance broadband and mobility services in rural, remote and northern communities.

Access to broadband allows Canadians to fully participate in the digital economy and take advantage of quality of life services, including telehealth, e-learning and access to government and social services.

Access to broadband enhances community viability, economic competitiveness and the ability to attract and retain business and industry. In order to survive in a global economy, rural communities need access to broadband services to be able to innovate, develop and retain a knowledge workforce, and to gain ‘digital equality’ with their urban municipal counterparts.

Currently, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) targets 50 Mbps download/10 Mbps upload for fixed broadband services (by 2021, 90% of homes/businesses); an unlimited data option for fixed services; and, the latest mobile wireless technology available to all homes and businesses, and along major Canadian roads. A funding regime is being developed by an ‘arm’s length’ third-party, with $750 million over the first five years for projects that complement existing and future private investment, in underserved areas.

Despite many federal and provincial programs aimed at supporting broadband development and access, rural communities remain unserved or underserved. High capital costs due to geography and population densities means low return on investment, limiting the ability for private sector investment in rural Canada even with federal and provincial grant programs and incentives. The business case for private sector investment simply does not exist in rural Canada, and this financial challenge has resulted in ‘final mile’ areas not being serviced or not serviced well, nor likely to ever be serviced by the private sector.

85 2018.11.13 Broadband is now considered an essential service because it is a required social and community development tool. It is important for communities to plan wisely and be future ready, as with Canadian populations shifting toward urban centres, rural communities more than ever need to focus on community development and revenue diversification to remain viable. Broadband access remains the single largest barrier to digital advancement for rural communities.

Partnerships and government funding are critical to achieving broadband access for all Canadians. Federal and provincial governments’ principle focus must be on improving broadband standards in low-density rural, remote and First Nation communities, before any further funding is dedicated to upgrading already-served urban centres.

RMA Background 3-17S: National Broadband Strategy THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties (AAMDC) request that the governments of Alberta and Canada declare broadband an essential service; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the AAMDC request that the governments of Alberta and Canada provide direct funding and support to rural, remote and northern communities to ensure affordable access to, or the development of, high speed (100 Mbps and faster) community network infrastructure; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the AAMDC urge the Government of Canada to develop a national broadband strategy; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that rural municipalities, internet service providers, education and health professionals, public safety organizations, and research and economic development authorities be actively involved in preparing the National Broadband Strategy. DEVELOPMENT: The Government of Alberta response indicates broad support of the resolution’s call for increased action on the part of government and industry in enhancing rural broadband availability and quality. RMA is pleased with the direction that the Government of Alberta has taken to this point in prioritizing rural final mile connectivity in their development of a new operating agreement. The Government of Alberta is currently in the process of developing a rural broadband strategy, and has convened an inter-ministerial working group to do so. In early 2018, RMA assisted Service Alberta in promoting a survey to members to gather baseline information on rural broadband service delivery. Unfortunately, RMA has received no indication that it, or any member municipalities, will be invited to participate in the working group. At the federal level, RMA is pleased with the 2016 Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) that declared broadband as a basic telecommunications service, which is the telecommunications equivalent of an essential service, and empowers the CRTC to implement programs, policies, regulations and initiatives to improve broadband in underserved areas. One such initiative being undertaken in relation to the basic service declaration is a $750 million fund to enhance broadband in rural areas, to be funded by industry. RMA has submitted input to the CRTC on how the fund should be structured, and the CRTC is expected to release these details by mid-2018. A second aspect of the CRTC’s declaration of broadband as a basic service was to increase the threshold for underserved areas from those with service below 5mbps download / 1mbps upload to 50mbps download / 10mbps upload. In their 2018 budget, the Government of Canada also announced that $100 million over five years has been dedicated to the Strategic Innovation Fund, will mainly be used to advanced low earth orbit satellite technology to improve broadband service in rural and remote communities. Despite the positive progress made recently by the provincial and federal governments related to enhancing rural broadband, RMA is unaware of any federal initiative to develop a national broadband strategy. Therefore, this resolution is assigned a status of Accepted in Part due to the federal declaration of broadband as a basic telecommunications service, which meets the intent of part of the resolution.

86 2018.11.13 Resolution 4-18F Enabling High-Speed Internet Access for Rural Alberta MD of Taber Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 1 (Foothills-Little Bow)

WHEREAS the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) regulates all Canadian broadcasting and telecommunications activities and enforces rules it creates to carry out the policies assigned to it; and WHEREAS as per Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2016-496, the CRTC recognizes that a well- developed broadband infrastructure is essential for Canadians to participate in the digital economy and has mandated that Canadians have access to broadband Internet speeds of at least 50 Mbps for downloads and 10 Mbps for uploads, with an unlimited data allowance by 2021; and WHEREAS the CRTC recognizes that, while most Canadians today have access to CRTC mandated service levels, many rural and remote regions in Canada do not share this access due to a lack of suitable infrastructure; and WHEREAS the CRTC maintains that a combination of a CRTC funding mechanism, private investments, other government funding, and public-private partnerships will be sufficient to meet its mandated service offerings by the end of 2021; and WHEREAS Service Alberta plans to deliver a rural broadband strategy that realizes the path forward for all residents of rural Alberta to achieve the CRTC mandated service levels; and WHEREAS for many rural Albertans, accessing high-speed Internet remains either exceptionally costly, impractical or outright unattainable; and WHEREAS given the CRTC’s and Service Alberta’s acknowledgment that access to high-speed Internet access is a crucial factor in economic prosperity, as well as the persistent issues with accessing high- speed broadband service offerings from local internet service providers (ISPs) in rural areas, rural Albertans are justifiably concerned that their welfare and the future economic well-being of their communities is at risk; and WHEREAS Canada has a competitive disadvantage in deploying infrastructure in comparison to international competitors because of geographical and demographic realities, but still must find efficient means of remaining at the leading edge of infrastructure advances; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) urge the Government of Alberta to deliver a comprehensive rural broadband strategy that realizes the path forward for all residents of rural Alberta to achieve the CRTC’s universal service objective targets of 50 Mbps download and 10 Mbps upload for fixed broadband services; and

FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that RMA emphasize to the Government of Alberta that, for economic, political, and social concerns, the completed strategy should be made available to the public in the shortest possible time; and

FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that such a strategy should include the following components to best serve the interests of rural Albertans and to facilitate the effective implementation of the strategy in pursuit of its goals.

I. That the Government of Alberta should mandate (where legally permissible) and advocate for (where not within the scope of their authority) common carrier/shared access laws to allow for the more efficient deployment of infrastructure.

II. That the Government of Alberta should incent partnerships and cooperation between municipalities, the Province, and private industry to develop rural broadband infrastructure, providing matching funds for qualified infrastructure deployments.

87 2018.11.13 III. That the Government of Alberta should enable significantly more affordable access to the Supernet for Albertans, through their relationship with Bell Canada, to provide backhaul access for local network solutions.

IV. That the strategy should enhance competitive access to the broadband industry in Alberta for more businesses and should promote an increasingly competitive business environment.

Member Background Access to high-speed broadband Internet access has become a necessity for Canadians. Communities with broadband access experience a wide array of economic, educational, and social advantages. However, while most Canadians today have access to high-speed Internet, many rural and remote regions in Canada do not share this access due to a lack of suitable broadband infrastructure. This growing gap in access to high-speed broadband Internet is often referred to as the ‘Digital Divide’. At the federal level, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has officially recognized that a well-developed broadband infrastructure is essential for Canadians to participate in the digital economy. It has mandated that Canadian homes and businesses have access to broadband Internet speeds of at least 50 Mbps for downloads and 10 Mbps for uploads, as well as the option to subscribe to a service offering with an unlimited data allowance. To facilitate the creation of suitable infrastructure for Canadians not meeting its mandated service levels, the CRTC maintains that a combination of a CRTC funding mechanism, private investments, other government funding, and public-private partnerships will be sufficient to meet its mandated service offerings by the end of 2021. However, for many rural Albertans who continue to lack high-speed broadband Internet access, the prospect of receiving the CRTC mandated service levels by 2021 seems unlikely. Several factors contribute to this view. Almost all wireless Internet service offerings do not meet CRTC mandated service levels. Furthermore, local ISPs in Alberta have proven to be unwilling or unable to invest in the broadband infrastructure required for many rural Albertans to access the CRTC mandated Internet service offerings. Lastly, there is the perception among Albertans of anti-competitive behaviour among local ISPs regarding ownership of broadband infrastructure. As a result, for many rural Albertans, accessing high-speed Internet service offerings has become either exceptionally costly, impractical or outright unattainable. Ensuring high-speed broadband Internet access for rural Albertans will be a challenge. Canada’s low population density, diverse geographic terrain, and its regulatory framework have made it difficult for the private sector to offer mandated service levels at an affordable price. Investing in rural broadband infrastructure also has numerous economic payoffs. The advent of the connected farm is upon us, with boundless possibilities for productivity and efficiency growth as new technology spurs agricultural innovations. With the global demand for food set to nearly double by 2050, prioritizing rural broadband deployments to enable productivity growth in the coming years would be a wise decision. Additionally, the monopolistic-style control of broadband infrastructure that currently exists in Canada has a stifling effect on expansion and innovation within the industry. The barriers to access for small companies is very high, and when or if they enter into competition with the incumbents, they operate at a significant disadvantage that stifles industry growth and innovation. Policy decisions that facilitate shared access to existing infrastructure in order to move the industry away from facilities-based competition and towards service-based competition would help provide a more competitive environment in which businesses can thrive. In the early 1900’s, the provincial government partnered with local municipalities and industry in Southern Alberta to embark on an ambitious project of canal and irrigation building. The foresight of government and industry leaders in building this network enabled a century of economic prosperity, innovation, and created an economic environment that continues to provide a high quality of life for the people of southern Alberta. Today, the Province has a chance to embrace an even grander project. Bold policy decisions today that enable the rapid expansion of broadband infrastructure throughout rural Alberta will yield immeasurable dividends in the decades to come. Alberta’s rural municipalities stand ready to partner on this project.

88 2018.11.13 Sources: Broadcasting Act (S.C. 1991, c. 11) Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2016-496, Haight, Michael; Quan-Haase, Anabel; Corbett, Bradley A (2014). Revisiting the digital divide in Canada: the impact of demographic factors on access to the Internet, level of online activity, and social networking site usage (Report). Information, Communication & Society. Sciadas, George (2001). "The Digital Divide in Canada" Statistics Canada. RMA Background 3-17S: National Broadband Strategy THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties (AAMDC) request that the governments of Alberta and Canada declare broadband an essential service; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the AAMDC request that the governments of Alberta and Canada provide direct funding and support to rural, remote and northern communities to ensure affordable access to, or the development of, high speed (100 Mbps and faster) community network infrastructure; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the AAMDC urge the Government of Canada to develop a national broadband strategy; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that rural municipalities, internet service providers, education and health professionals, public safety organizations, and research and economic development authorities be actively involved in preparing the National Broadband Strategy. DEVELOPMENT: The Government of Alberta response indicates broad support of the resolution’s call for increased action on the part of government and industry in enhancing rural broadband availability and quality. RMA is pleased with the direction that the Government of Alberta has taken to this point in prioritizing rural final mile connectivity in their development of a new operating agreement. The Government of Alberta is currently in the process of developing a rural broadband strategy, and has convened an inter-ministerial working group to do so. In early 2018, RMA assisted Service Alberta in promoting a survey to members to gather baseline information on rural broadband service delivery. Unfortunately, RMA has received no indication that it, or any member municipalities, will be invited to participate in the working group. At the federal level, RMA is pleased with the 2016 Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) that declared broadband as a basic telecommunications service, which is the telecommunications equivalent of an essential service, and empowers the CRTC to implement programs, policies, regulations and initiatives to improve broadband in underserved areas. One such initiative being undertaken in relation to the basic service declaration is a $750 million fund to enhance broadband in rural areas, to be funded by industry. RMA has submitted input to the CRTC on how the fund should be structured, and the CRTC is expected to release these details by mid-2018. A second aspect of the CRTC’s declaration of broadband as a basic service was to increase the threshold for underserved areas from those with service below 5mbps download / 1mbps upload to 50mbps download / 10mbps upload. In their 2018 budget, the Government of Canada also announced that $100 million over five years has been dedicated to the Strategic Innovation Fund, will mainly be used to advanced low earth orbit satellite technology to improve broadband service in rural and remote communities. Despite the positive progress made recently by the provincial and federal governments related to enhancing rural broadband, RMA is unaware of any federal initiative to develop a national broadband strategy. Therefore, this resolution is assigned a status of Accepted in Part due to the federal declaration of broadband as a basic telecommunications service, which meets the intent of part of the resolution.

89 2018.11.13 Resolution 5-18F Alberta Energy Regulator Requirements for Acquiring and Holding Energy Licences and Approval MD of Taber Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 1 (Foothills-Little Bow)

WHEREAS the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) recently released Bulletin 2017-21, announcing the “New Edition of Directive 067: Eligibility Requirements for Acquiring and Holding Energy Licenses and Approvals”; and

WHEREAS the changes to Directive 067 included requiring additional information at the time of application, increased discretion regarding the rejection of applications where an applicant possesses a risk, and requirements for keeping corporate structure information up to date; and

WHEREAS the changes to Directive 067 did not include any requirements or consideration of the status of municipal property taxes towards an application/transfer of license or liability rating, and the AER continues to transfer licenses of properties that have outstanding property taxes; and

WHEREAS the collection of outstanding oil and gas property taxes continues to a large challenge for many municipalities; and

WHEREAS the Municipal Government Act has provisions to collect such debts, but the methods have been largely unsuccessful in practice, and have led to lengthy legal proceedings in an effot to collect such unpaid taxes;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta advocate that the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) be required to ensure that there are no outstanding municipal property taxes before licenses are transferred, including licensed properties declared as “Orphan Sites”; and

FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that outstanding property taxes form part of the liability rating for oil and gas companies; and

FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that oil and gas companies be required to post deposits in the amount of all outstanding municipal property taxes before they can apply for a license or transfer, and that these deposits are forwarded to the municipality from the AER upon the approval of the license or transfer.

Member Background

90 2018.11.13 Public Statement

Facing the liability challenge in Alberta: AER president and CEO Jim Ellis

For immediate release.

Calgary, Alberta (August 8, 2018)…The business of regulating oil and gas is a complex undertaking. Every day, Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) employees make countless decisions.

We do our best to make sure our rules reflect the social and economic realities of the day, that our processes are not unnecessarily burdensome, and that we have accurate and up-to-date information to make reasonable, well-informed decisions.

However, sometimes there are situations beyond our control. When this happens, it is our responsibility to identify and address any gaps in our requirements. Earlier this year, Sequoia Resources Corp. (Sequoia) informed us that it planned to cease operations without properly decommissioning more than 4,000 wells, pipelines, and facilities. As a result, we ordered the company to address its end-of-life obligations.

But how did Sequoia get to this point? What happened that caused them to be in this position?

This is where a gap in the system has been identified.

The AER has limited legislated authority to oversee corporate transactions. This is important to note because corporate transactions can result in AER licences changing hands without having to go through the scrutiny of our transfer process. Unfortunately, this can be used by some companies to avoid their responsibility, potentially leaving millions of dollars of liability for the Orphan Well Association.

This is what happened after a corporate transaction between Sequoia and Perpetual Energy (Perpetual), allowing Perpetual to pass licences, and all liability, for many unprofitable and unwanted assets to Sequoia.

Sequoia has since claimed bankruptcy, and a trustee has been working to better understand what happened to the company. The trustee has raised concerns that Sequoia took on significant liabilities that were not in the best interest of the company or its stakeholders. If these allegations are proven in court, it is most concerning – but we’ll leave that for the court to determine.

For the AER, this situation has exposed a gap in the system and raised questions with respect to how we better manage liability in the future. In some cases, our governing legislation did not provide us the

91 2018.11.13

necessary flexibility to do what is needed, while in other cases our own requirements and processes were limiting. We are working to fix both.

We now require considerably more information from companies applying for licences through our revised Directive 067 and can reject applications we believe are a risk to public safety or the environment. Companies are also required to inform us of material changes, which includes corporate transactions, within one month of the change taking place. With this information, we are better able to assess the risk associated with the change and limit the company’s eligibility to hold licences to avoid situations like this in the future. Where our authority may be limited, we work with a trustee, which may have more power, to support their investigation any way we can.

We know we must strike the right balance between being protective without controlling a company’s day- to-day business decisions. But we also know we must protect public safety and the environment while holding companies accountable.

The last few years have been incredibly hard on Alberta’s energy sector as sustained weak commodity prices have left their mark. Since the Redwater decision first allowed receivers and trustees to walk away from unproductive energy sites, we’ve been working in a different environment, one that requires a different approach.

No matter what the Supreme Court of Canada decides on the Redwater case, we know we have to do things differently. That commitment is embedded into the AER’s new strategic plan, which prioritizes liability management over the next five years.

We have already begun a plan to update liability management, reviewing our processes to better understand what is working well and what needs to change. While we don’t have all of the details yet, we have already begun work on a number of initiatives. For example, we are using more than the liability management ratings to assess risk, including using financial, behavioural, and inventory risk factors to identify which companies might be unable to meet their obligations. We are also developing a program, known as area-based closure, to encourage companies to work together to reduce inactive wells and infrastructure. This is new territory for the AER that has required us to expand our analytic capacity and skill sets to examine complex financial transactions.

Like other jurisdictions around the world, Alberta is faced with struggling companies, bankruptcies, and infrastructure left with no owner to manage it. We are working with other regulators to share information and get a better understanding of how we might apply learnings from elsewhere to what is happening in Alberta. And we are working with the Government of Alberta on their liability management review and will implement any policy changes that may occur as a result.

2 92 2018.11.13

I’m confident that we’re up to the challenge. We will continue to adapt to protect what matters to Albertans, public safety, the environment and economic benefit from the development of our energy resources.

Jim Ellis Chief Executive Officer Alberta Energy Regulator

- 30 -

For more information, please contact: Shawn Roth, AER Communications and International Relations Phone: 403-966-5983 Email: [email protected] Media line: 1-855-474-6356

PS2018-03

3 93 2018.11.13 Release date: December 6, 2017 Effective date: December 6, 2017 Replaces previous edition issued July 11, 2005

Eligibility Requirements for Acquiring and Holding Energy Licences and Approvals

The Alberta Energy Regulator has approved this directive on December 6, 2017.

Jim Ellis President and Chief Executive Officer

Contents

1 Introduction ...... 2

2 Business Associate Codes ...... 2

3 Licence Eligibility Types ...... 2

4 Process for Obtaining General Licence Eligibility ...... 2

5 Fee ...... 4

6 Insurance ...... 4

7 Residency Requirements ...... 5

8 Requirements for Existing Holders of Licence or Approval ...... 5

9 Restriction of Licence Eligibility ...... 6

10 Application for Amendment to Eligibility ...... 7

94 2018.11.13 1 Introduction Acquiring and holding a licence or approval for energy development in Alberta is a privilege, not a right. This new edition increases the scrutiny the AER applies to ensure that this privilege is only granted to responsible parties. Changes include requiring additional information at the time of application, increased discretion regarding the rejection of applications where an applicant poses a risk, and requirements for keeping corporate information up to date.

2 Business Associate Codes The Oil and Gas Conservation Act and Pipeline Act require that a person (which includes a corporation) must hold a subsisting identification code in order to apply to the AER for a licence or approval under those acts. The AER has referred to these as business associate (BA) codes. The AER no longer issues BA codes. These are issued through Petrinex.

Any party that seeks to apply for and hold AER licences or approvals must first apply for and obtain a BA code through Petrinex (www.petrinex.ca). Parties who hold a BA code are not permitted to hold AER licences or approvals unless the AER has determined they are eligible to do so.

3 Licence Eligibility Types There are three eligibility types:

1) No Eligibility

− Not eligible to acquire or hold licences to drill/construct wells, facilities, or pipelines.

2) General Eligibility

− Eligible to hold licences for all types of wells, facilities, and pipelines.

3) Limited Eligibility

− Eligible to hold only certain types of licences and approvals, or eligibility is subject to certain terms and conditions.

The AER may grant licence eligibility with or without restrictions, terms and conditions, or it may refuse to grant licence eligibility.

4 Process for Obtaining General Licence Eligibility Once a person has a BA code, they may apply to the AER for licence eligibility by submitting schedule 1 and, if applicable, schedule 2. Upon review of the information provided, the AER may request additional information. The AER may audit the information provided for accuracy and completeness at any time before or after granting eligibility.

95 2018.11.13 Requests for licence eligibility that do not contain all the information required will be summarily closed.

Basic requirements are as follows:

• Applicant is an individual or a corporation that meets the requirements of section 20 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act or section 21 of the Pipeline Act.

• Applicant is a resident of Alberta or has appointed an AER-approved agent that is a resident of Alberta.

• Applicant has provided proof of adequate insurance.

• Applicant has paid the required fee.

• Applicant has signed a declaration attesting to the truth and completeness of the application, consenting to the release and collection of compliance information regarding the applicant from other jurisdictions and regulators as applicable, and attorning to the jurisdiction of Alberta.

• In the AER’s opinion, the applicant does not pose an unreasonable risk.

In assessing whether the applicant poses an unreasonable risk, the AER may consider any of the following factors:

• the compliance history of the applicant, including its directors, officers, and shareholders, in Alberta and elsewhere, including in relation to any current or former AER licensees that are directly or indirectly associated or affiliated with the applicant or its principals;

• the compliance history of entities currently or previously associated or affiliated with the applicant or its directors, officers, and shareholders;

• experience of the applicant, including its directors, officers, and shareholders;

• corporate structure;

• the financial health of the applicant;

• outstanding debts owed by the applicant or current or former AER licensees that are directly or indirectly associated or affiliated with the applicant or its directors, officers, or shareholders;

• outstanding noncompliances of current or former AER licensees that are directly or indirectly associated or affiliated with the applicant or its directors, officers, or shareholders;

• involvement of the applicant’s directors, officers, or shareholders in entities that have initiated or are subject to bankruptcy or receivership proceedings or in current or former AER licensees that have outstanding noncompliances; and

96 2018.11.13 • naming of directors, officers, or shareholders of current or former AER licensees under section 106 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act.

The AER will assess the information provided in the application, along with any other relevant information, and will determine whether the applicant meets the eligibility requirements for acquiring and holding AER licences or approvals.

The AER may refuse to grant licence eligibility or may grant licence eligibility with or without restrictions, terms, or conditions.

Restrictions, terms, and conditions may include

• the types of licences or approvals that may be held,

• the number of licences or approvals that may be held,

• additional scrutiny required at time of application for or transfer of a licence or approval,

• requirement to provide full or partial security at time of application for or transfer of a licence or approval,

• requirements regarding the minimum or maximum working interest percentage permitted, or

• a requirement to address outstanding noncompliances of current or former AER licensees that are directly or indirectly associated with the applicant or its directors, officers, or shareholders.

5 Fee For most licence eligibility types, a fee is required. The amount of the fee is prescribed in the Oil and Gas Conservation Rules and may be waived or varied by the AER if circumstances warrant (section 17.010).

Applications that do not include the required fee will be summarily closed.

6 Insurance At the time of applying for licence eligibility, applicants must have and maintain comprehensive general liability insurance with minimum coverage of $1 000 000. Applicants must submit a certificate of proof of insurance or a statement of the insurer describing the coverage, effective date, and termination date of the insurance.

Should eligibility be granted, you must maintain reasonable and appropriate insurance coverage for the operations of the company. Such coverage must include pollution coverage sufficient to cover the cost of removal and cleanup operations required as a result of an incident. Sufficient coverage for loss or damage to property or bodily injury caused during operations must also be maintained.

97 2018.11.13 A certificate of insurance must be provided to the AER upon request. Notice of cancellation of insurance must be provided within 30 days. Unless otherwise authorized, you must have insurance issued from a company registered in Alberta to provide insurance in Alberta.

Upon request, information regarding coverage and content of the insurance must be provided. The AER may require the licensee to obtain additional insurance; at all times the licensee is solely responsible for maintaining appropriate levels of insurance given the nature and scope of operations.

7 Residency Requirements An applicant must either

• be resident in Alberta, as defined in section 1.020(2.1) of the Oil and Gas Conservation Rules and section 1(6) of the Pipeline Rules;

• appoint an agent that is resident in Alberta (schedule 2) and have that appointment approved by the AER, as required by section 91 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act (section 91) and section 19 of the Pipeline Act; or

• be exempt from the resident/agent requirement (granted under specific circumstances set out in section 1.030 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Rules and section 1.1 of the Pipeline Rules).

For these purposes, “resident” means,

• in the case of an individual, having his or her home in and being ordinarily present in Alberta or,

• in the case of a corporation, having a director, officer, or employee that has his or her home in and is ordinarily present in Alberta and is authorized to makes decisions about the licensing and operating of the well, pipeline, or facility and about implementing the directions of the AER regarding the well, pipeline, or facility.

If an applicant does not meet this definition of resident, then the applicant must appoint an agent. Schedule 2 must be completed and submitted and the appointment must be approved by the AER before it is in effect.

Both the applicant and the agent must meet all the licence eligibility requirements set out in this directive.

8 Requirements for Existing Holders of Licence or Approval All existing licence or approval holders must meet licence eligibility requirements on an ongoing basis and ensure that the information the AER has on file is kept accurate. An updated schedule 1 must be provided within 30 days of any material change and may result in the AER revoking

98 2018.11.13 eligibility or restricting eligibility by imposing terms and conditions where, in its opinion, the change has resulted in an unreasonable risk.

Material changes include

• changes to legal status and corporate structure;

• addition or removal of a related corporate entity;

• amalgamation, merger, or acquisition;

1 • changes to directors, officers, or control persons ;

• appointment of a monitor, receiver, or trustee over the licensee’s property;

• plan of arrangement or any other transaction that results in a material change to the operations of the licensee;

• the sale of all or substantially all of the licensee’s assets; or

• cancellation of insurance coverage.

Before effecting a material change, licensees may request an advance ruling on whether the AER would consider the change an unreasonable risk.

9 Restriction of Licence Eligibility There are three main circumstances in which the AER may revoke or restrict licence eligibility:

1) failure to provide complete and accurate information and ensure that information remains complete and accurate by advising the AER of material changes within 30 days;

2) after consideration of the factors in section 4, a finding by the AER that, as a result of a material change or compliance history, the licensee poses an unreasonable risk; or

3) the licensee fails to acquire or hold licences or approvals within one year following granting of licence eligibility.

If a party already holds licences or approvals, licence eligibility will be restricted. If the party had general eligibility, this will be changed to limited eligibility, and additional terms or conditions may be imposed. The party will not be permitted to acquire additional licences or approvals unless general licence eligibility is reacquired or the terms and conditions are lifted.

If a party does not hold licences or approvals, licence eligibility will be revoked and the party will have no eligibility. The party will have to reapply under this directive for licence eligibility.

1 A “control person” means any person or company, or combination of persons and companies, that hold or control more than 20% of the outstanding voting securities of the licensee or approval holder.

99 2018.11.13 10 Application for Amendment to Eligibility Application to amend licence eligibility will require reapplication under this directive, including payment of an additional fee, and may result in the imposition of restrictions, terms, or conditions.

100 2018.11.13 RMA Background 5-17F: Alberta Energy Regulator – Amendment to Transfer Approval Process

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties (AAMDC) requests the Government of Alberta amend the Municipal Government Act (MGA), and other provincial legislation, regulations and policies, including AER Directive 006: Licensee Liability Rating (LLR) Program and Licence Transfer Process to: . broaden the tax recovery power of municipalities to collect linear property taxes, Alberta housing foundation requisitions and Alberta school requisitions owing on oil and gas operations, and . provide the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) the ability to include municipal tax compliance as part of the specified list of AER requirements before license transfers will be considered; FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the AAMDC request that Alberta Energy direct the AER that prior to refunding any security deposits, check with all municipalities in which the company requesting the refund had leases in, to ensure property taxes are current. DEVELOPMENT: RMA appreciates the recognition and the multiple steps being taken by the Government of Alberta to address the challenges faced by municipalities as a result of oil and gas operators who are have not payed property taxes. At this moment, however, there has been only limited improvements for municipalities through the Provincial Education Requisition Credit (PERC) program which only applies to the education property tax portion of the unpaid linear oil and gas property taxes. Until the amendments listed in the resolution are made, or more substantial improvements to the overall liability management system are provided, this resolution is assigned a status of Intent Not Met.

4-17S: Collection of Outstanding Taxes for Education Requisitions from the Province of Alberta THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties request that the Government of Alberta develop new tools or utilize existing mechanisms to ensure that municipalities that are unable to collect education property taxes through the tax recovery process be exempted from forwarding those uncollectible tax amounts to Alberta Education, or have the uncollectible amount refunded. DEVELOPMENT: In fall 2017, the Government of Alberta announced the Provincial Education Requisition Credit (PERC) program, under which municipalities who have no choice but to remit requisitions to the Government of Alberta for unpaid education property taxes on linear oil and gas properties may apply to receive a credit equivalent to the amount of the requisition. PERC is funded through the Alberta School Foundation Fund’s net asset fund.

At this point, PERC extends to the 2019 tax year, and is capped at $10 million per year. As of March 2018, 37 applications had been processed and approximately $3 million of credits had been issued.

This resolution is assigned a status of Accepted, and the RMA will continue to work with the Government of Alberta to support the long-term viability of the PERC program and develop other mechanisms to address unpaid linear property taxes.

101 2018.11.13 FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the AAMDC requests the Government of Canada to amend the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to recognize municipal linear property taxes and other municipal non- property taxes as a secured interest in priority to other unsecured interests; FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the AAMDC request the Government of Alberta to provide a credit reimbursement to compensate for the education property taxes that become uncollectable due to linear and commercial property bankruptcy. DEVELOPMENT: In 2016, Alberta Municipal Affairs had convened an inter-ministry working group consisting of representatives from Municipal Affairs, Energy, Treasury Board and Finance, Education, and the AER. The purpose of this working group was to address the concerns identified in resolution 3-16S and resolution 5-15F. More specifically, the working group explored how the suite of tools available to municipalities to recover unpaid linear property taxes could be expanded, as well as possible legislative or regulatory solutions to relieve or exempt municipalities from paying provincial education property tax requisitions on linear properties in which the municipality has not been able to gather tax revenues from the property owner. Early in 2017, the working group completed their research and Government of Alberta staff internally developed options for the Minister of Municipal Affairs based on the working group’s findings. In fall 2017, the Government of Alberta announced the Provincial Education Requisition Credit (PERC) program, under which municipalities who have no choice but to remit requisitions to the Government of Alberta for unpaid education property taxes on linear oil and gas properties, may apply to receive a credit equivalent to the amount of the requisition. PERC is funded through the Alberta School Foundation Fund’s net asset fund.

At this point, PERC extends to the 2019 tax year, and is capped at $10 million per year. As of March 2018, 37 applications had been processed and approximately $3 million of credits had been issued. The creation of PERC meets the request in the third operative clause of this resolution.

5-15F: Recovery of Linear Property Tax Arrears

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties (AAMDC) requests the Government of Alberta to amend the Municipal Government Act (MGA), and other provincial legislation to broaden the tax recovery power of municipalities to collect linear property taxes by granting a lien in favour of the municipality as follows: a) A lien equivalent to that granted to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) by s. 103 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act (OGCA) that being: “on the debtor’s interest in any well, facilities, and pipelines, land or interests in land, including mines and minerals, equipment and petroleum substances” and the power to garnish funds owed to the debtor; b) A lien which ranks in priority (or equivalent) to the lien granted in favour of the AER by s. 103(2) of the OGCA; and

102 2018.11.13 Early in 2017, the working group completed their research and Government of Alberta staff internally developed options for the Minister of Municipal Affairs based on the working group’s findings. In fall 2017, the Government of Alberta announced the Provincial Education Requisition Credit (PERC) program, under which municipalities who have no choice but to remit requisitions to the Government of Alberta for unpaid education property taxes on linear oil and gas properties, may apply to receive a credit equivalent to the amount of the requisition. PERC is funded through the Alberta School Foundation Fund’s net asset fund.

The Government of Alberta has not amended the Municipal Government Act (MGA) to broaden the tax recovery powers of municipalities, and municipal powers to seize assets to account for unpaid linear property taxes continues to rank lower in priority than that of the AER and other organizations.

Similarly, RMA has received no indication from the Government of Canada of a willingness to amend the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to place municipal interests above other non- secured interests. RMA assigns this resolution a status of Accepted in Part and will continue to advocate on all aspects of this resolution.

103 2018.11.13 Resolution 6-18F Securing Municipal Property Taxes in the Event of Bankruptcy or Insolvency MD of Opportunity Three-fifths Majority Required Endorsed by District 4 (Northern)

WHEREAS the Municipal Government Act (MGA) requires municipalities to collect an Education Property Tax from property owners on behalf of the Government of Alberta and submit that amount regardless of whether the municipality is able to collect these taxes from property owners; and WHEREAS this requirement has resulted in financial challenges for many municipalities throughout the province; and WHEREAS across rural Alberta, a significant amount of unpaid requisitions are owed by several taxpayers that were in insolvency or receivership in respect to outstanding taxes including linear taxes; and WHEREAS in a recent case, a court considered the municipality as an unsecured creditor when a court application was made to determine how the court-appointed receiver should distribute the proceeds from the sale of the taxpayer’s assets; and WHEREAS Section 348 of the MGA stipulates that property taxes, local improvement taxes, business taxes or community revitalization levies take priority over the claims of every person except the Crown; and WHEREAS the Court’s directive it very unlikely that a municipality will receive any payment in respect to the outstanding taxes under the current order as the proceeds of the sale are less than the total amount of all the secured claims; and WHEREAS the issue of whether taxes including linear property taxes constitute a secured claim, in priority to other secured claims such as banks’ claims, has not been fully resolved; and WHEREAS even if an appeal of the Court’s earlier decision in this matter is unsuccessful, such a negative result would provide a significant basis to lobby the Government of Alberta to make necessary legislative amendments to re-assert the secured status of taxes owed to the municipality; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta partner with Alberta Urban Municipalities Association to advocate to the Government of Alberta to amend section 348 and other relevant sections of the Municipal Governnment Act to ensure that municipal property taxes are legally assured a status as a secured claim in the event that the property owner enters bankruptcy or receivership. Member Background

Over the years, the MD of Opportunity has experienced that a number of commercial and industrial taxpayers have become insolvent and the MD has been unable to recover the significant amount of taxes and other levies from them. As a result, the MD suffered financial losses. The municipality made mandatory remittances of various levies such as school and seniors' housing levies out of the MD's operating budgets, even though the MD was unable to collect all such taxes from a number of delinquent taxpayers. This has caused a financial shortfall and challenge to meet the local community service expectations. The exposure for the MD stood in millions of dollars in recent years.

In case of bankruptcy, courts have considered the municipality as an unsecured creditor in determining how the court-appointed receiver should distribute the proceeds from the sale of the taxpayer's assets. As the property taxes do not constitute a secured claim, the courts take the view that the property taxes should therefore be paid out only after all other secured claims (such as banks') have been paid in their entirety. As the proceeds of the sale are less than the total amount of all the secured claims, it is very unlikely that a municipality like the MD will receive any payment in respect to the outstanding taxes.

The MD of Opportunity is currently involved in an appeal to see whether a court's earlier decision in this matter is overturned. Even if an appeal is unsuccessful, a negative result might benefit the municipalities in that it would provide a significant basis to lobby the Province to make necessary legislative amendments to reassert the secured status of taxes owed to the municipality.

104 2018.11.13 Section 348 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) stipulates that property taxes, local improvement taxes, business taxes or community revitalization levies take priority over the claims of every person except the Crown. However, the courts have not upheld this section as intended in the MGA.

Other municipalities, including Lamont County, Vulcan County and Northern Sunrise County together with the MD of Opportunity are challenging the earlier court decision in Calgary Court of Appeal to reverse the lower court decision.

RMA Background

4-17S: Collection of Outstanding Taxes for Education Requisitions from the Province of Alberta

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties request that the Government of Alberta develop new tools or utilize existing mechanisms to ensure that municipalities that are unable to collect education property taxes through the tax recovery process be exempted from forwarding those uncollectible tax amounts to Alberta Education, or have the uncollectible amount refunded.

DEVELOPMENT: In fall 2017, the Government of Alberta announced the Provincial Education Requisition Credit (PERC) program, under which municipalities who have no choice but to remit requisitions to the Government of Alberta for unpaid education property taxes on linear oil and gas properties may apply to receive a credit equivalent to the amount of the requisition. PERC is funded through the Alberta School Foundation Fund’s net asset fund.

At this point, PERC extends to the 2019 tax year, and is capped at $10 million per year. As of March 2018, 37 applications had been processed and approximately $3 million of credits had been issued.

3-16S: Recovery of Linear Property, Commercial Property, and Education Requisition Tax Arrears THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties (AAMDC) request the Government of Alberta to amend the Municipal Government Act (MGA), and other provincial legislation to broaden the tax recovery power of municipalities to collect linear property taxes by granting a lien in favour of the municipality as follows: A lien equivalent to that granted to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) by s. 103 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act (OGCA) that being: “on the debtor’s interest in any well, facilities, and pipelines, land or interests in land, including mines and minerals, equipment and petroleum substances” and the power to garnish funds owed to the debtor; A lien which ranks in priority (or equivalent) to the lien granted in favour of the AER by s. 103(2) of the OGCA; FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the AAMDC requests the Government of Canada to amend the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to recognize municipal linear property taxes and other municipal non- property taxes as a secured interest in priority to other unsecured interests; FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the AAMDC request the Government of Alberta to provide a credit reimbursement to compensate for the education property taxes that become uncollectable due to linear and commercial property bankruptcy. DEVELOPMENT: In 2016, Alberta Municipal Affairs had convened an inter-ministry working group consisting of representatives from Municipal Affairs, Energy, Treasury Board and Finance, Education, and the AER. The purpose of this working group was to address the concerns identified in resolution 3-16S and resolution 5-15F. More specifically, the working group explored how the suite of tools available to municipalities to recover unpaid linear property taxes could be expanded, as well as possible legislative or regulatory solutions to relieve or exempt municipalities from paying provincial education property tax requisitions on linear properties in which the municipality has not been able to gather tax revenues from the property owner.

105 2018.11.13 Early in 2017, the working group completed their research and Government of Alberta staff internally developed options for the Minister of Municipal Affairs based on the working group’s findings. In fall 2017, the Government of Alberta announced the Provincial Education Requisition Credit (PERC) program, under which municipalities who have no choice but to remit requisitions to the Government of Alberta for unpaid education property taxes on linear oil and gas properties, may apply to receive a credit equivalent to the amount of the requisition. PERC is funded through the Alberta School Foundation Fund’s net asset fund.

5-15F: Recovery of Linear Property Tax Arrears

FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the AAMDC requests the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to request the Government of Canada to amend the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to recognize municipal linear property taxes and other municipal non-property taxes as a secured interest in priority to other unsecured interests; FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the AAMDC request the Province of Alberta to provide a credit reimbursement to compensate for the Education Property Taxes that becomes uncollectable due to linear property bankruptcy. DEVELOPMENT: In 2016, Alberta Municipal Affairs had convened an inter-ministry working group consisting of representatives from Municipal Affairs, Energy, Treasury Board and Finance, Education, and the AER. The purpose of this working group was to address the concerns identified in resolution 3-16S and resolution 5-15F. More specifically, the working group explored how the suite of tools available to municipalities to recover unpaid linear property taxes could be expanded, as well as possible legislative or regulatory solutions to relieve or exempt municipalities from paying provincial education property tax requisitions on linear properties in which the municipality has not been able to gather tax revenues from the property owner. Early in 2017, the working group completed their research and Government of Alberta staff internally developed options for the Minister of Municipal Affairs based on the working group’s findings. In fall 2017, the Government of Alberta announced the Provincial Education Requisition Credit (PERC) program, under which municipalities who have no choice but to remit requisitions to the Government of Alberta for unpaid education property taxes on linear oil and gas properties, may apply to receive a credit equivalent to the amount of the requisition. PERC is funded through the Alberta School Foundation Fund’s net asset fund.

106 2018.11.13

107 2018.11.13 Resolution 7-18F Municipal and Privately-Owned Protected Areas Inventory Mackenzie County Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 4 (Northern)

WHEREAS in 2010, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, which included 20 global biodiversity goals, known as the Aichi Targets; and WHEREAS in response to the Aichi Targets, Canada adopted a suite of national targets, known as the 2020 Biodiversity Goals and Targets for Canada; and WHEREAS Canada and Alberta’s co-led Pathway to Canada Target 1 project focuses on the protection of 17% of terrestrial areas and inland waters and 10% of coastal and marine areas across Canada; and WHEREAS Alberta Environment and Parks has also committed to achieving the protection of 17% of terrestrial areas and inland waters within Alberta by 2020; and WHEREAS at the end of 2016, the Government of Canada recognized that 10.5% of terrestrial areas and inland waters, and 0.96% of coastal and marine areas were protected; and WHEREAS in June 2018, Alberta Environment and Parks recognized that 12.54% of Alberta is protected, through 8.24% federally and 4.3% provincially protected areas; and WHEREAS the International Union for Conservation of Nature recommends that all privately-owned protected areas that satisfy all international standards should be recognized as protected areas by all levels of government; and WHEREAS the Municipal Government Act provides municipalities with land-use planning tools, such as environmental reserves, to permanently protect parcels of land to conserve natural features including: natural drainage courses, flood plains, waterbodies, and riparian areas from future development; and WHEREAS Alberta Environment and Parks has yet to announce that municipal and privately-owned protected areas would be recognized in their assessment to achieve their target of 17% terrestrial areas and inland waters protection; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) urge the Government of Alberta to recognize municipal and privately-owned protected areas in their reporting towards Alberta’s 17% protection of terrestrial areas and inland waters target if they satisfy international standards for protected areas or Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs); and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the RMA partner with the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association to compile an inventory of all municipal and privately-owned protected areas in Alberta, for the purpose of providing Alberta Environment and Parks with a complete inventory of candidate protected areas and OECMs, for their 2020 17% terrestrial areas and inland waters protection target. Member Background Canada’s 2020 Biodiversity Goals and Targets for Canada was released in 2015. Canada and Alberta’s co-led Pathway to Canada Target 1 project, is based upon the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Aichi Target 11.1 In 2017, the governments of Canada and Alberta established a National Advisory Panel to advise governments on achieving Canada’s international commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity.2

1 Source: http://www.conservation2020canada.ca/the-pathway/ 2 Source: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/federal-and-provincial-governments-create-national- advisory-panel-on-canadas-biodiversity-conservation-initiative-627230281.html 108 2018.11.13 Canada and Alberta’s co-led Pathway project also established a National Steering Committee, an Indigenous Circle of Experts and a Local Government Advisory Group, who make up the Pathway Team.3 However, the Local Government Advisory Group is yet to be formalized.4 In 2016, Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) committed to achieving the protection of 17% of terrestrial areas and inland waters by 2020, in the province of Alberta. AEP’s 2016-17 annual report describes the potential for privately-owned and municipal protected areas to qualify for reporting towards AEP’s 17% target. Outlining how Alberta will identify these areas if they meet international standards for protected areas or Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs), pending international OECMs guideline development.5 In January 2018, the International Union for Conservation of Nature released Guidelines for Recognizing and Reporting Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures. These guidelines recognize that municipal and privately-owned protected areas can provide OECMs benefits, which can meet international reporting standards.6 AEP’s 2017-18 annual report does not mention identifying other areas, including municipal and privately- owned protected areas or OECMs in their reporting, towards their 17% target.7 Although the intention of environmental reserves, under the Municipal Government Act, is to prevent the development of hazardous lands, avoidance of natural drainage features and pollution prevention in wetlands and other waterbodies, many municipalities create environmental reserves for other intentions, including environmental significance. The co-benefits of designating environmental reserves can include the protection of wildlife habitat and habitat connectivity, protected areas for biodiversity and safeguarding the hydrological functionality of wetlands and waterbodies.8 These benefits could be considered as OECMs under international standards. AEP is working to achieve their 17% target, through multiple initiatives including caribou range planning. AEP’s Draft Provincial Woodland Caribou Range Plan (2017) provides the scope of Canada and Alberta’s co-led Pathway, and states that conservation areas designated as part of range planning may contribute to their 17% target.9 Through caribou range planning, AEP have proposed to permanently protect approximately 1.3 million hectares of land in Mackenzie County for the Bistcho, Yates and Caribou Mountains herds; these areas would qualify and report towards AEP’s 17% target.10 1.3 million hectares equates to approximately 15.8% of Mackenzie County’s geographic land-base. AEP’s Business Plan 2018-21 describes how municipal and privately-managed areas that may meet the definition of a protected area or an OECM, are currently excluded as data is incomplete. AEP estimates that municipal and privately-owned protected areas represent less than 0.25% of the 17% provincial target.11

3 Source: http://www.conservation2020canada.ca/the-pathway/ 4 Source: http://www.conservation2020canada.ca/who-we-are/ 5 Source: https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/40c2fab1-e757-49f1-b403-e42c0239158a/resource/b77f22fa- e83e-4b6b-bd8b-e74868ef9547/download/2016-17-aep-annual-report-20170623.pdf 6 Source: https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/content/documents/guidelines_for_recognising_and_reporting_oecms _-_january_2018.pdf 7 Source: https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/40c2fab1-e757-49f1-b403-e42c0239158a/resource/d50a12fa- 15b3-4471-a6be-6b41bc6361d1/download/aep-annual-report-2017-2018.pdf 8 Source: https://www.communityconserve.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Environmental-Reserve-in- Alberta-A-Discussion-Paper.pdf 9 Source: http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-management/caribou-range- planning/documents/DRAFT-CaribouRangePlanAndAppendices-Dec2017.pdf 10 Source: http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-management/caribou-range- planning/documents/DRAFT-CaribouRangePlanAndAppendices-Dec2017.pdf 11 Source: https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/503f5c97-1fc9-4d72-b1ab-f32eafd9dd7f/resource/492414c7- cc8d-4154-abff-bb81081f0644/download/environment-and-parks.pdf 109 2018.11.13 Over the next two years, other RMA member municipalities could see proposals for an increase in provincial protected spaces to achieve AEP’s 17% target. Additional protected spaces have the ability to impact municipal service capacities and operating budgets. A complete inventory of all municipal and privately-owned protected areas will help AEP to assess and include all areas which qualify, for reporting towards their 17% target. Other References: Government of Alberta (2018) Modernized Municipal Government Act, Available: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/2016ch24_unpr.pdf Government of Canada (2018) Canada’s Protected Areas, Available: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/protected- areas.html RMA Background RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.

110 2018.11.13 Resolution 8-18F Restricting the Consumption of Cannabis based on Regulations for Liquor Consumption Thorhild County Three-fifths Majority Required Endorsed by District 3 (Pembina River)

WHEREAS Bill 26, An Act to Control and Regulate Cannabis, received Royal Assent on December 15, 2017; and

WHEREAS Bill 26 has amended the Gaming and Liquor Act to the Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Act; and

WHEREAS Bill 26, Section 90.28 states “no person may smoke or vape cannabis in any area or place where that person is prohibited from smoking under the Tobacco and Smoking Reduction Act or any other Act or the bylaws of a municipality”; and

WHEREAS secondhand cannabis smoke can harm nonusers; and

WHEREAS consumption of cannabis will have similar effects as consumption of alcohol; and

WHEREAS the consumption of cannabis should be prohibited in areas frequented by the general public and especially by children; and

WHEREAS Alberta Health Services recommends that municipalities implement regulations banning consumption in public places, as well as for public intoxication; and

WHEREAS the Government of Canada has implemented an advertisement slogan ("#don't drive high") which amplifies the issue of the consumption of cannabis while driving;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta request that the Government of Alberta amend Section 90.28 (a) of An Act to Control and Regulate Cannabis to reflect that no person may smoke or vape cannabis in any area or place where that person is prohibited from consuming liquor under the Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Act or any other Act or the bylaws of a municipality.

Member Background 1. Based on Provincial legislation, Albertans will be allowed to consume cannabis in their homes and in some public spaces where smoking tobacco is allowed, but use will be banned in cars.

In an effort to protect children and limit second-hand exposure, public smoking or vaping of cannabis in Alberta will be prohibited from any place where tobacco is restricted, and in the following places:

• on any hospital property, school property or child care facility property in or within a prescribed distance from: • a playground • a sports or playing field • a skateboard or bicycle park • a zoo • an outdoor theatre • an outdoor pool or splash pad • from any motor vehicles, with the exception of those being used as a temporary residences, such as a parked RV

There will also be no consumption of cannabis at any cannabis retail outlets.

111 2018.11.13 Legislation will establish provincial offenses for public consumption infractions and consumption of cannabis in vehicles.

Municipalities may create additional restrictions on public consumption using their existing authorities

(Source: Government of Alberta web-site)

2. "The cannabis enforcement mirrors what we do with alcohol"

"Other jurisdictions have seen an increase in impaired driving when cannabis has become legal," Mason said, adding the province will roll out a public education campaign. "The real risk here is that people don't feel cannabis is quite as bad or ... is impairing a substance as alcohol. Nothing could be further from the truth." (Source: Brian Mason, Minister of Transportation- Edmonton Journal article dated November 15, 2017)

3. "Ban consumption in areas frequented by children"

(Source: Alberta Health Services Recommendations - Municipal Cannabis Regulations - February 20, 2018)

4. Under Bill C-46 (the amendment to the Alberta Traffic Act), a driver would face a maximum of a $1,000 fine if their blood tests positive for two to five nanograms per milliliter of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

5. For drivers with more than five ng/ml of THC detected on a first impaired driving offence, a minimum $1,000 fine would be imposed, with increasingly harsher penalties such as jail time for subsequent offences. The rules also impose penalties for combined alcohol cannabis use of 2.5 ng/ml of THC with a blood alcohol level of .05.

6. THC is the main psychoactive compound in cannabis.

Crashes involving alcohol and/or drugs are a leading criminal cause of death in Canada. On average, approximately four people are killed each day in crashes involving alcohol and/or drugs. In 2013, there were a total of 2,430 crash deaths on public roads, involving at least one highway vehicle (e.g. passenger cars, vans, trucks, or motorcycles).

Based on testing of fatally-injured drivers, it may be estimated that 1,451 (59.7%) of these deaths involved drivers who had some alcohol and/or drugs in their system.

369 deaths, or 15.2%, occurred in crashes involving drivers who were positive for alcohol alone. 683 deaths, or 28.1%, occurred in crashes involving drivers who were positive for drugs alone. 399 deaths, or 16.4%, occurred in crashes involving drivers who were positive for both alcohol and drugs. The statistics reflect the growing incidence of driving after drug use, which now exceeds that for driving after alcohol use. Cannabis, the most commonly-found drug, is present in almost half of the drug positive fatal crashes.

Further information on the risks associated with public cannabis consumption can be found in AHS Recommendations on Cannabis Regulations for Alberta Municipalities, a document prepared by Alberta Health Services intended to support municipalities in making cannabis policy decisions that will promote public health. The report can be accessed at: http://rmalberta.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Webinar- recording-Cannabis-and-Public-Health-AHS-Cannabis-Information-Package-for-Municipalities.pdf. A summary of the report’s recommendations is as follows:

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Overall

Where evidence is incomplete or inconclusive, AHS is advising that a precautionary approach be taken to minimize unintended consequences. This approach is consistent with the recommendations of Federal Taskforce on the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis (Government of Canada, 2016).

112 2018.11.13

Business Regulation & Retail

 Limit the number of cannabis stores, and implement density and distance controls to prevent stores from clustering, while also keeping buffer zones around well-defined areas where children and youth frequent.

 Consider requirements for cannabis education and community engagement as part of the business licensing approval process.

 Limit hours of operation to limit availability late at night and early morning hours.  Restrict signage and advertising to minimize visibility to youth.

Consumption

 Ban consumption in areas frequented by children.

 Align the cannabis smoking regulations with the Tobacco and Smoking Reduction Act and/or with your municipal regulations, whichever is more stringent.

 Ban smoking, vaping and water pipes in public indoor consumption venues.

Home growing

 Design a process to ensure households and properties are capable of safely supporting home growing.

Multi-Unit Housing

 Health Canada (2017) has recommended a ban on smoking in multi-unit housing. AHS recognizes that there are potential health risks associated with second-hand smoke within multi- unit housing environments and therefore recommends municipalities consider bylaws that ban smoking in multi-unit housing.

Research and Evaluation

 Ensure mechanisms to share data across sectors and levels of government are established, and appropriate indicators are chosen to monitor the impacts of policy implementation on communities.

RMA Background 14-17F: Cannabis Act

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties advocate that the Government of Alberta oppose the legalization of cannabis for recreational use in the Province of Alberta until a complete understanding of the implications that the legalization of cannabis will have on the health of individuals and on community safety is publicly available.

DEVELOPMENT: While RMA appreciates that the Government of Alberta has conducted extensive public engagement, with input from health, law enforcement and other subject area experts to understand the impacts of cannabis legalization, the fact remains that there are significant gaps in academic, government and industry research efforts related to the impacts of legalized cannabis on public health and community safety. RMA acknowledges that there is a stark difference between understanding concerns from stakeholders and understanding actual implications gleaned from empirical research in communities in which cannabis is legalized. RMA recognizes that this issue is not well researched, however, staff have been actively assisting municipalities in adapting to these changes by providing workshops and information as it becomes available. This resolution is assigned a status of Intent Not Met. RMA will continue to advocate that the Government of Alberta lead social and health impact assessments once cannabis has been legalized.

113 2018.11.13 Resolution 9-18F Impact of the Alberta Wetland Policy on the Cost of Maintaining Public Road Infrastructure Wheatland County Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 2 (Central)

WHEREAS the Alberta Wetland Policy and the Water Act require costly environmental studies as a component of the application process for wetland impacts; and WHEREAS the Alberta Wetland Policy and the Water Act require wetland replacement for impacts to all wetlands greater in permanence than ephemeral; and WHEREAS rural municipalities are not currently in a position to perform permittee-based wetland replacement, and therefore must pay in-lieu compensation where road maintenance activities on existing roads impact applicable wetlands; and WHEREAS rural municipalities manage the majority of Alberta’s public road infrastructure; and WHEREAS roads require consistent maintenance and/or re-building to support a growing province, in order to ensure public safety, accommodate increased use including extra weight and more traffic, and to upgrade roads to current standards; and WHEREAS municipal roads requiring maintenance occur in existing right of ways, and were historically planned and built prior to the requirements of provincial wetland regulations; and WHEREAS the re-building and maintenance of roads are causing municipalities increasing financial burden due to the requirement for environmental studies and compensation payments associated with the Alberta Wetland Policy; and WHEREAS municipalities have limited opportunity to generate revenue to accommodate the increasing cost of re-building and maintaining roads except to transfer the costs to local ratepayers; and WHEREAS the consequences of not completing road maintenance as required could include putting public safety in jeopardy due to a lack of upgraded roads, and loss of transportation routes for industry and the public due to road bans or road closure; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta urge the Government of Alberta to modify the Alberta Wetland Mitigation Directive to allow all wetland impacts as a result of municipal road maintenance or re-building of existing roads to utilize a one to one ratio, or D to D value wetland replacement; and/or consider exempting all wetland impacts in road right of ways that are smaller than one hectare in size. Member Background The Alberta Wetland Policy was proclaimed in 2013, with implementation ongoing, beginning in the White Area in June of 2015. The Policy, in conjunction with the Water Act, requires that all activities that impact natural or restored wetlands be subject to the requirement for an approval under the Water Act, and further that all impacts to applicable wetlands that cannot be avoided or mitigated be subject to replacement requirements.

The process for obtaining Water Act approvals for wetland impacts includes an assessment of permanence for Public Lands Act Ownership, and a Wetland Assessment and Impact Report (or Form) which includes a number of environmental studies supporting the application. This work is followed by an application submission to Alberta Environment and Parks that includes evidence of use of the Policy’s Wetland Mitigation Hierarchy. Where wetland impacts are determined to be unavoidable, a wetland replacement plan is required which can currently take one of two forms. One is a permittee-based wetland restorative replacement option whereby the applicant submits design and monitoring plans and completes the work for restored wetlands to offset proposed losses. The second is a compensation payment in-lieu of wetland restoration, currently paid to Ducks Unlimited Canada. The cost associated with environmental studies required for the approval process, and cost of compensation required for wetland replacement, is a significant issue for rural municipalities.

114 2018.11.13 Municipalities are responsible for road maintenance, re-building, and the construction of new roads. When planning for the construction of a new road, municipalities have the option to not build the road, or build the road in such a way that it does not impact surrounding wetlands. The wetland mitigation hierarchy as described by the Alberta Wetland Policy is therefore possible to accommodate for new construction, although it may still result in important access routes not being built due to increased costs. It is not possible for municipalities to apply the wetland mitigation hierarchy in the case of road maintenance.

Municipal roads require consistent maintenance and occasional re-building to ensure public safety, accommodate increased use including extra weight and more traffic, and to upgrade to current standards. Such roads occur in existing right of ways and were historically built through many wetlands, prior to the requirements of any provincial wetland regulation. Since upgrades usually require some widening of the road, municipalities are unable to avoid impacts to wetlands where road maintenance is required, and end up subject to substantial costs under the Alberta Wetland Policy and Water Act as a component of compliance.

Since January 2016, Wheatland County has completed six road maintenance projects requiring Water Act approvals for wetland impacts. The environmental studies required for Water Act application submissions associated with these impacts cost a cumulative total of $172,590. As Wheatland County is not currently prepared to perform permittee-based wetland restorative replacement, in order to proceed with the road maintenance works a cumulative total of $219,902 has been paid to Ducks Unlimited Canada in in-lieu fees. This compensation value would rise to $336,545 if a sixth project receives final approval. The values given do not include other environmental components of the projects such as erosion and sediment control, borrow pit assessments, bird nest sweeps, and costs of materials such as silt fence or silt curtains to protect wetlands and waterways.

While private developers and industries may incorporate the cost of environmental studies and wetland replacement into their business models, municipalities are limited in their ability to generate funds in a similar fashion. The requirements therefore place an additional burden on the municipal ratepayer as the cost of road maintenance rises.

To relieve this burden and resolve the discrepancy between the economic abilities of municipalities as compared to other entities which impact wetlands, it is requested that the Government of Alberta recognize existing impacts to wetlands within existing right of ways by assigning a “blanket” value of D to all wetlands currently impacted by roads. This would reduce the extent of environmental studies required by eliminating the need for an Alberta Wetland Rapid Evaluation Tool (ABWRET) assessment, and significantly reduce the amount of in-lieu compensation owed, effectively reducing the costs borne by municipalities for road maintenance and re-building. Under this proposed model, Wheatland County’s compensation payment obligations to date on six road projects would have fallen by 61%; a noteworthy benefit to our road program while still recognizing the importance of Alberta’s Wetland Policy (new total for six projects: $130,594). If the Government of Alberta were to additionally consider exempting impacts less than one hectare in size, Wheatland County’s compensation payments to date would have fallen by a total of 76% (two road projects of six qualify, new total: $79,559.50). In addition, the cost of environmental studies would be reduced, as ABWRET assessments would no longer be necessary to determine wetland value.

A. Table of Wheatland County Wetland Impact Costs

Environmental Compensation Road Project Hectares of Wetlands Impacted Studies Cost Payment Cost

Rg. Rd. 245 $9,728 $71,780 0.97 (Replaced with 3.88)

Duck Lake Road – $20,667 $44,250 0.64 (Replaced with 2.5) Rg. Rd. 183 Phase 2

Rg. Rd. 201 $55,457 $48,020 0.90 (Replaced with 2.71)

115 2018.11.13 Rg. Rd. 270 $24,714 $48,822 2.03 (Replaced with 2.64)

Rg. Rd. 254 $17,460 $7,030 0.32 (Replaced with 0.38)

Duck Lake Road – $44,564 *$116,643 *2.37 (Replaced with 6.59) Rg. Rd. 183 Phase 1

$219,902 4.86 ha impacted (*7.228) Totals $172,590 12.1 ha replaced (*18.702) *$336,545

*Values have not yet been paid, approval not complete on date of report*

B. Constructed Road Example – Wetland Policy Preventing Road Building

Wheatland County wanted to construct a road on a right of way for landowner access and had two options. The first was one-half mile off of a range road going west, the second was one mile off of a township road going north. Both would impact wetlands along the existing right of way. It was determined that the one- half-mile option would cost $43,930 for environmental studies, and a minimum of $28,851 for compensation payment. The one-mile option would cost $53,315 for environmental studies and a minimum of $7,611 for compensation payment. The compensation could have cost as much as $230,808 for the first option and $60,888 for the second option if the wetlands had been “A” value. It was decided to not go ahead with the project, and as a result the landowner does not have access to their parcel.

C. Wetland Policy Prior to the Current Alberta Wetland Policy

Alberta’s Wetland Management in the Settled Area of Alberta, An Interim Policy was approved in 1993. The Policy “set out a no net loss formula/hierarchy for slough/marsh wetlands in the White Area of the province” (Kwasniak, 2015). Under this Policy, similar to the current Alberta Wetland Policy, compensation ratios were developed in 2007 to address wetlands that were authorized to be depleted or degraded. A minimum replacement of three to one was commonly used, but could change according to site-specific circumstances and the approval of Alberta Environment (Kwasniak, 2015). The Interim Policy was replaced by the Alberta Wetland Policy in 2015.

116 2018.11.13 D. Table of Environmental Costs for Wheatland County Road Projects

Wetland Erosion and Borrow Pre- Road Year Assessments Sediment Control Disturbance Bird Sweep Compensation Cost (excluding GST) Hectares of Wetland Impacted Cost Plan Cost Assessment RR 183 2016 $38,188 $0 $0 $0 Duck 2017 $6,274 $0 $0 $0 Lake Phase 1 2018 $102 $0 $0 $0 $116,643 - *Not yet paid *2.37 (replacement area 6.59 ha) RR 183 2016 $14,500 $0 $0 $0 Duck 2017 $3,152 $0 $0 $0 Lake Phase 2 2018 $3,015 $0 $0 $0 $44,250 0.64 (replacement area 2.5 ha) 2016 $12,422 $0 $0 $0 RR 270 2017 $8,027 $0 $0 $0 2018 $4,265 $8,605 $7,089 $2,741 $48,822 2.033 (replacement area 2.639 ha) 2016 $2,515 $0 $13,998 $0 RR 254 2017 $8,083 $0 $2,553 $0 2018 $6,862 $0 $410 $0 $7,030 0.32 (replacement area 0.38) 2016 $15,217 $0 $0 $0 RR 201 2017 $36,172 $0 $791 $0 2018 $4,068 $9,139 $4,900 $1,255 $48,020 0.895 (replacement area 2.713 ha) 2016 $5,154 $0 $0 $0 RR 245 2017 $2,853 $0 $0 $0 2018 $1,721 $11,115 $0 $0 $71,780 0.97 (replacement area 3.88 ha) Total Costs $172,590 $28,859 $29,741 $3,996 $219,902 4.86 (replacement area 12.11 ha) Total Compensation In‐Lieu $336,545 7.23 (replacement area 18.70 ha) with Unpaid Costs

The table above shows that wetland assessments make up the majority of costs for environmental studies associated with road construction. Erosion and Sediment Control Plans, Borrow Pit Pre-Disturbance Assessments, and Bird Sweeps, are completed to meet other regulatory requirements aside from the Alberta Wetland Policy and achieve industry best practice. A limitation of the data is that wetland assessment costs are not divided into components such as wetland delineation, ABRWET assessments to determine wetland value, and Wetland Assessment and Impact Reports to show the percentage of costs represented by each step, and thus the percentage that could be saved if ABWRET assessments were no longer required.

RR 183 Phase 1 has not received approval and therefore in-lieu fees have not been paid as of the date of this report. Wetland studies have been completed and the compensation payment has been calculated to show the additional cost impact if the project had been paid for.

E. Relevant Excerpts from the Alberta Wetland Mitigation Directive

117 2018.11.13

Excerpt 1: From page 8 of the Alberta Wetland Mitigation Directive. This resolution is asking that impacted (lost) wetlands in road right of ways always be given a value of D. Since replacement wetlands are blanket- valued at D, this would result in a constant 1:1 ratio for in-lieu compensation payments.

118 2018.11.13

Excerpt 2: The dollar value of in-lieu compensation payments is dependent on where a project falls on the Relative Wetland Value Assessments Units map (from page 9 of the Alberta Wetland Mitigation Directive). Wheatland County projects fall in either unit 13 or unit 16.

119 2018.11.13

Excerpt 3: From page 12 of the Alberta Wetland Mitigation Directive, the above information explains how values are derived per Relative Wetland Value Assessment Unit. In Wheatland County, projects that fall in Unit 16 multiply the replacement area in hectares by $18,500 to determine value of compensation paid. In Unit 13, the replacement area in hectares in multiplied by $17,700 to determine value of compensation due. The replacement area in hectares is currently subject to a multiplier in accordance with the ratios in excerpt 1. Requesting that all wetlands in road right of ways be granted a D value eliminates the multiplier, significantly reducing the value of in-lieu compensation due.

Works Cited Government of Alberta. 2017. Alberta Wetland Mitigation Directive. Water Policy Branch, Alberta Environment and Parks. Edmonton, Alberta. Government of Alberta. 2013. Alberta Wetland Policy. Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. Edmonton, Alberta. ISBN 978-1-460112-87-8. Kwasniak, Arlene J. 2016. Alberta Wetlands: A Law and Policy Guide, Second Edition. Canadian Institute of Resources Law. ISBN 978-0-919269-53-8.

120 2018.11.13 Rural Municipalities of Alberta. 2018. Resolutions Database. Retrieved from: http://rmalberta.com/advocacy/resolutions-database/. Wheatland County. 2018. Costs for wetland assessments, environmental studies, and in-lieu compensation payments. Retrieved in-house with assistance from consultants. Wheatland County, Alberta.

RMA Background 4-17F: Water Act Approvals for Municipal Projects on Municipal Land THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties urge the Government of Alberta to relax the requirement for formal approvals on all road construction on municipal right of ways less than 40 metres wide and consider alternate strategies for protecting water resources. DEVELOPMENT: Though the response from the Government of Alberta recognizes the challenges faced by municipalities who are subject to relatively short construction seasons and extensive infrastructure networks, the response does not indicate any change in process or regulation to the extent outlined in the resolution. This resolution is assigned a status of Intent Not Met.

1-16F: Alberta Environment and Parks Approvals for Construction Projects THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties requests that consideration be given to safety concerns related to delayed environmental approval processing and supports the creation of a process for municipalities to receive timely approvals from Alberta Environment with regard to construction projects. DEVELOPMENT: The Government of Alberta response acknowledges the challenges that municipalities are facing in receiving timely approvals of works related to wetlands. The RMA is encouraged that Alberta Environment and Parks has identified this as a problem and is in the process of developing an updated regulatory process for road works impacting wetlands which will balance provincial and municipal needs regarding regulatory compliance and timeliness. The Government of Alberta has indicated that an Alberta Wetland Construction Directive and Alberta Wetland Construction Guide are forthcoming but have been delayed as of April 2018. The RMA assigns this resolution a status of Accepted in Principle, and will monitor progress made.

121 2018.11.13 Resolution 10-18F Community Peace Officer Access to the Canadian Police Information Centre Mountain View County Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 2 (Central)

WHEREAS rural municipalities employ Community Peace Officers (CPO) (Level 1 and Level 2) under the Peace Officer Act; and WHEREAS rural municipalities are responsible for ensuring the safety of CPOs; and WHEREAS Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) access was made available to CPO Level 1 in 2013; and WHEREAS CPIC access is not available to CPO Level 2; and WHEREAS uptake and usage of CPIC is available to CPOs only after initial contact and approach of a subject; and WHEREAS employers are responsible for drafting policy that prohibits a CPO from attending a location alone where there is a known threat and must maintain a list of known local threats for reference by dispatchers and CPOs; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta request that Alberta Justice and Solicitor General work with the Canadian Police Information Centre, and any other Ministry necessary, to provide direct, mobile and timely Canadian Police Information Centre access to Community Peace Officers that can be used as a proactive and preventative tool within defined guidelines. Member Background The Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) is a computerized system that provides tactical information about crimes and criminals. It is an integral part of the RCMP’s National Police Services (NPS) as it is the only national information-sharing system that links criminal justice and law enforcement partners across Canada and internationally. CPIC is responsible for the storage, retrieval and communication of shared operational police information to all accredited criminal justice and other agencies involved with the detection, investigation and prevention of crime.

CPIC has been operational since 1972 and is located at the RCMP Headquarters complex in Ottawa, Ontario. It allows for law enforcement officers to connect to the central computer system within police departments, RCMP detachments, and federal and provincial agencies across the country (1).

CPIC access was made available to Community Peace Officers (CPO) in 2013. CPOs are able to receive the following information from CPIC:

 Vehicles: Stolen license plates, validation tags or vehicles; stolen vehicles, abandoned or wanted in connection to a crime.

 Persons: Persons wanted by the police or accused persons; persons on probation or parole; persons against whom prohibition orders have been placed (e.g. driving, possession of firearms); missing persons, including children;

 Criminal Record Synopsis: Condensed version of criminal records supported by fingerprints maintained by the RCMP’s Information and Identification Services.

Currently, CPIC information is obtained through the Sheriffs Online Communications Center (SOCC) which requires a CPO to provide a reason for any requested query and provides a cumbersome approach to acquiring information on outstanding warrants. The time from request to final response is typically lengthy and becomes ineffective for day to day CPO operations. This often leads to CPO’s entering potentially dangerous situations without notice and forces them to act reactively to situations, rather than proactively. In comparison, the RCMP have access to CPIC information quickly and can obtain such information prior to initial contact.

122 2018.11.13

Employers provide CPOs with tools such as Registries Online Access Delivery System portal to Moves Law Enforcement that provides motor vehicle information, ownership information, license information and a history of moving violations. As technology progresses and health and safety programs become more robust, a request for improved access to CPIC should be considered.

Granting enhanced and timely access to CPIC for CPOs would provide municipalities added flexibility to determine their internal processes and protocols for CPOs when dealing with the public. It would provide a potential for increase in safety of employees as well as operational efficiencies of the organization.

The Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) has been advocating for “the formation of a working group comprised of the Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police “K” Division, the Alberta Association of Community Peace Officers (AACPO), and potentially other organizations” (2) to pursue options for direct, timely and mobile access to CPIC for CPOs. It is the intent of this resolution to provide additional support to their efforts to have this issue resolved for the safety of all CPOs in Alberta.

References 1. Alberta Justice and Solicitor General (December 2012) Public Security Peace Officer Program CPIC Policy 2. Rural Municipalities of Alberta, (May 31, 2018) Letter Re: Community Peace Officer Access to the Canadian Police Information Centre

RMA Background RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.

123 2018.11.13 Resolution 11-18F Rural Municipalities of Alberta Represents Municipalities on Water Act Approvals Rocky View County Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 2 (Central)

WHEREAS municipalities share the Government of Alberta’s objective of serving the public good through proper implementation of the Water Act; and WHEREAS rural municipalities constitute the largest land base in Alberta, and therefore have multiple interactions with Alberta Environment and Parks as they seek Water Act approvals as part of the process to improve infrastructure in their municipalities; and WHEREAS improving the Water Act approval process will ensure that public dollars are more efficiently applied to the protection and stewardship of water systems in the province while balancing the need for critical upgrades to infrastructure; and WHEREAS Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) members have previously submitted resolutions requesting Alberta Environment and Parks to reduce the approval timelines associated with Water Act approvals; and WHEREAS at the Spring 2018 RMA convention, the Minister of Environment and Parks discussed the ongoing review of the Water Act approval process; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta work with Alberta Environment and Parks to provide the rural perspective and input related to streamlining and improving the Water Act approval process. Member Background The Minister and senior officials from Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) have recognized the need to streamline and improve the Water Act approval process. At the Spring 2018 Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) convention, Minister Phillips indicated the Ministry is undertaking a review of its approval process.

It is important that rural municipalities provide insight and perspective on the approval process and work with the Ministry to test its systems improvements. Rocky View County proposes that the RMA represents all rural municipalities in this process review. The intent is that the RMA and AEP work together to meet the purpose of the Water Act to “support and promote the conservation and management of water,” while recognizing the impact of approval delay on the financial and social interests of all Albertans.

124 2018.11.13 encouraged that Alberta Environment and Parks has identified this as a problem and is in the process of developing an updated regulatory process for road works impacting wetlands which will balance provincial and municipal needs regarding regulatory compliance and timeliness. The Government of Alberta has indicated that an Alberta Wetland Construction Directive and Alberta Wetland Construction Guide are forthcoming but have been delayed as of April 2018. The RMA assigns this resolution a status of Accepted in Principle, and will monitor progress made.

125 2018.11.13 Resolution 12-18F Multi-Stakeholder Committee to Work at Reducing the Use of Potable Water by the Oil and Gas Industry in Alberta Brazeau County Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 3 (Pembina River)

WHEREAS there is a concern about the enormous waste of fresh water by the oil and gas industry through hydro-fracking and water injection processes; and WHEREAS injection of 32 million cubic meters (the current total of licenses held by the oil and gas industry in Alberta) of fresh water is permanently removed from the aquatic cycle; and WHEREAS free and easy access to fresh water for enhanced oil recovery acts as a disincentive for oil and gas companies to pursue alternate methods such as carbon dioxide injection, light oil hydro-fracking or to drill deeper to locate and pipe non-potable water for injection purposes; and WHEREAS rural municipalities are concerned with the amount of potable water used in the fracking and water injection process; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta request the Government of Alberta to immediately strike a multi-stakeholder committee to work at reducing the use of potable water and explore alternate options for use by the oil and gas industry in Alberta. Member Background A reliable water supply for a sustainable economy is one of the key goals of Water for Life, Alberta's Strategy for Sustainability. The Advisory Committee on Water Use Practices and Policy was formulated in 2003 to examine the use of fresh water for underground injection. The Government of Alberta working, in partnership with industry, interest groups and non-government organizations, developed the Water Conservation and Allocation Policy for oilfield injection, with a goal to reduce or eliminate the allocation of non-saline water for deep well injection. Applications for the use of fresh water for injection continue to be filed with the Alberta Energy Regulator, and are approved on the basis that there is no economical alternative (saline water or carbon dioxide) that is available or because the diversion of ground water was previously approved through the licensing process.

Currently the oil industry holds licenses for up to 32 million cubic meters of ground water diversion. The suggestion that use of non-saline ground water for enhancing oil field production is the most economical means is found on the premise that ground water has no dollar value. Such is not the case for those communities in Alberta that must pipe water to support residents. With the ever-increasing drought conditions across the Prairie provinces, ground water is becoming a scarce resource that must be conserved. Fresh water flooding of oil fields results in the water being lost to the eco-system forever. It is imperative that the Government of Alberta establish policies to regulate ground water usage by the oil and gas industry for the protection and sustainability of this vital resource.

REFERENCES 1. Potable Water - Drinkable - Fit to Drink 2. Fresh Water - Non-saline 3. Non-potable/Saline Water - Brackish - Unfit to Drink 4. Surface Water - Water collected on the ground or in a stream, river, lake, wetland, or ocean, it is related to water collecting as ground water or atmospheric water. 5. Ground Water - Water located beneath the ground surface is soil pore spaces and in the fractures of rock formation. A unit of rock or an unconsolidated deposit is called an aquiver when it can yield a usable quantity of water. 6. Water Table - Underground depth at which point the ground is totally saturated by water. The level of a water table can fluctuate considerably. When underground water deposits are large enough to be considered sustainable for use, they are known as aquifers. 7. Fracking - Source Watch

126 2018.11.13  Fracking also referred to as hydraulic fracturing or hydro-fracking. A process in which a fluid is injected at high pressure into oil or methane gas deposits to fracture the rock above and release the liquid, (oil/gas) below.  Light-Oil Fracking - Alternative method using light oil for fracking  Hydro-Fracking - Process in which water is used as the fluid in fracking  C02-Fracking - Process in which carbon dioxide is used as the injection product in fracking 8. Hydraulic Fracture - Formed by pumping the fracturing liquid into the wellbore at a rate sufficient to increase the pressure downhole to a value in excess of the fracture of the formation rock. 9. Water Cycle - AKA Hydrologic Cycle or H20 Cycle - Describes the continuous movement of water on, above and below the surface of the Earth. 10. AER - Alberta Energy Regulator 11. EUB - Alberta Energy and Utilities Board

RMA Background RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.

127 2018.11.13 Resolution 13-18F TELUS Failure to Maintain Landline Operations MD of Spirit River Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 4 (Northern)

WHEREAS TELUS has owned the monopoly outright on the landline system since 1991 which has been and continues to be a vital link for communication including the 911 system across Alberta; and WHEREAS wireless connectivity has been declared a necessary utility yet many Albertan’s still do not have access to secure and stable wireless connectivity and rely on a landline system for communication and internet; and WHEREAS the lack of investment in maintenance of landline infrastructure creates the perception that wireless is TELUS’ preferred option; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalites of Alberta (RMA) request that Service Alberta direct TELUS to maintain their complete landline network until such time that there are assurances that the wireless system is as secure, economical and stable as the previous landline system has been; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that RMA request that the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Comission (CRTC) review the original agreement with TELUS to ensure they are meeting their responsibilities. Member Background The landline system that has serviced the remote areas where scarce population and greater distance has always been a challenge is in jeopardy of no longer being serviced because of economics of having to support two systems of copper lines and wireless. Many areas of rural Alberta, including the Municipal District of Spirit River, are still experiencing a reluctance on the part of TELUS to bury temporary cables that have been laid as stop gap measures for temporary landline repairs. These temporary cables get broken by mowers and farming operations causing service disruptions. Spring flooding also interrupts services as pedestals are outdated, broken and exposed to the weather. There are also discussions that the computer network of switches on the landline system is becoming outdated. As the landline system is left to degrade, it is forcing people to choose options that are wireless; however, the scarce population and greater distance is still a challenge for the wireless network and therefore the rural population is being under served for both systems with no viable opportunity for safe secure and reliable communication links. One reliable landline system is required until a wireless network can replace the efficient, secure, reliable system of the past. Rural Alberta cannot be in a transition with two poor systems.

RMA Background RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.

128 2018.11.13 Resolution 14-18F Reclamation of Non-Producing Oil and Gas Sites on Agricultural Lands Owned by Bankrupt Companies Lac La Biche County Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 5 (Edmonton East)

WHEREAS many oil and gas production companies have declared bankruptcy in the last several years; and WHEREAS many of the wells, compressor stations, battery and satellite sites and facilities owned by these bankrupt companies have been abandoned and not reclaimed; and WHEREAS many of these properties are located on agricultural land and hinder the regular field operations of livestock and crop producers; and WHEREAS the mandate of the Orphan Well Association is to manage and reclaim properties abandoned by bankrupt oil and gas companies; and WHEREAS the activities of Orphan Well Association are limited by the funds available and therefore cannot currently reclaim all of these properties in a timely fashion; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta request that the Orphan Well Association prioritize the reclamation of abandoned oil and gas sites on the following basis: 1. Health, safety and environmental needs 2. Agricultural land 3. All other lands Member Background Currently the number of sites the Orphan Well Association is tasked with cleaning up exceeds the annual budget available. Lac La Biche County is requesting that the Orphan Well Association, subject to health, safety, and environmental concerns, reclaim abandoned sites on actively farmed property prior to reclaiming abandoned sites on unfarmed property.

RMA Background RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.

129 2018.11.13 Resolution 15-18F Wetland Mitigation Directive – Restoration and Compensation Red Deer County Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 2 (Central)

WHEREAS the Alberta Wetland Policy provides the strategic direction and tools required to make informed management decisions in the long-term interest of Albertans; and WHEREAS the Alberta Wetland Policy is intended to minimize the loss and degradation of wetlands, while allowing for continued growth and economic development in the province; and WHEREAS the Alberta Wetland Mitigation Directive is the policy implementation tool that is intended to promote the avoidance of removal of wetlands and describes the minimization plan, replacement plan and permittee-responsible replacement project requirements where avoidance is not possible; and WHEREAS section five of the Wetland Mitigation Directive states that applicants can fulfill their replacement obligations through purchase of credits from a third-party wetland bank, making a payment to the in-lieu fee program, or undertaking permittee-responsible replacement; and WHEREAS the Wetland and Water Boundary Unit of Alberta Environment and Parks has stated that permittee-responsible replacement in the form of enhanced wetlands or constructed wetlands will not be allowed until an enhancement directive or a construction directive to allow for wetland construction is prepared; and WHEREAS the construction directive has been referenced since June 2017 and no timeline has been given for its adoption; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta request that Alberta Environment and Parks follow the Wetland Mitigation Directive and that permittee-responsible mitigation either through enhancement or construction of wetlands be allowed, be it either through the Alternative Land Use Services program or through wetlands constructed as a part of stormwater management ponds. Member Background In June of 2018, Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) issued an updated Wetland Mitigation Directive. In Section five (Replacement), it is stated that that applicants can fulfill their replacement obligations through a combination of the following options:

1. Purchase available credits from a third-party wetland bank. 2. Make a payment to the in-lieu fee program, instead of undertaking their own replacement action or obtaining credits from a wetland bank. 3. Undertake permittee-responsible mitigation, where the Applicant restores, enhances, or constructs a wetland, either in advance of- or soon after- permanent wetland losses have been incurred.

Of these options, Option 1, purchasing credits from a third-party wetland bank is not available as a wetland bank program has yet to be established, even though this note has been in the directive since its inception in 2015.

Option 2 refers to the in-lieu fee program. Currently, the only designated agent for wetlands throughout Alberta is Ducks Unlimited Canada.

Red Deer County’s preferred replacement option has been Option 3, permittee-responsible mitigation. This option allows for restoration, enhancement, or construction. Through their Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS) program, Red Deer County has historically proposed permittee-responsible enhancement of existing wetlands throughout the County.

Furthermore, portions of stormwater management ponds constructed as wetlands were previously accepted for compensation, which also falls under permittee-responsible replacement. However, as these guidelines for wetland compensation through stormwater management ponds have been removed from the July 2017 and June 2018 versions of the directive, this option is no longer available as well. 130 2018.11.13

As a result, municipal options to do wetland replacement at this time, are limited to either in-lieu payment or permittee-responsible wetland restoration.

RMA Background RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.

131 2018.11.13 Resolution 16-18F Demand Meters and Rate Riders Brazeau County Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 3 (Pembina River)

WHEREAS municipal government buildings and recreational facilities are to benefit the people of Alberta; and WHEREAS demand meters are the currently accepted practice of tracking peak demand and electrical usage; and WHEREAS there has been a significant recent rise in electrical rates either by distribution and/or transmission charges and/or electric rates and/or carbon surcharges; and WHEREAS demand meters are reset on an annual basis; and WHEREAS when a system requiring electricity is connected to the grid and a peak demand is established, the premises is then billed on that peak for the next consecutive twelve-month period; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta request that the Alberta Utitlities Commission create a separate rate class for municipal buildings and recreational facilities and require that all demand meters are reset and billed accordingly on a monthly basis. Member Background Demand meters are the current accepted practice of tracking peak demand and electrical usage on commercial, industrial and recreational facilities. The majority of rural municipalities own or support recreational facilities as a provision of services to their residents. There have been recent significant rises in electrical rates either by distribution and/or transmission charges and/or electric rates and/or carbon surcharges. As many recreational facilities are not utilized 24/7 like commercial or industrial facilities, this results in demand meters negatively impacting communities of all sizes as they pay a portion of their power bill on the peak utilization and not just on their consumption.

This drain on municipal resources has resulted in the rural municipalities’ request to the Government of Alberta for a change in rate structure and operations of demand meters to recognize that recreational facilities are separate from commercial and industrial users.

RMA Background RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.

132 2018.11.13 Resolution 17-18F Alberta Environment and Parks Additional Resources for Water Act Approvals Rocky View County Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 2 (Central)

WHEREAS municipalities share the Government of Alberta’s objective of serving the public good through proper implementation of the Water Act; and WHEREAS the current timeline for Water Act approvals through Alberta Environment and Parks poses significant financial, environmental, and social challenges for all municipalities; and WHEREAS improving the Water Act approval process will ensure public dollars are efficiently applied to the protection and stewardship of water systems in Alberta while balancing the need for critical upgrades to public infrastructure; and WHEREAS Alberta Environment and Parks is undertaking a process and systems review to improve its approval times with constrained financial resources; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta request the Government of Alberta to allocate sufficient financial resources to improve and streamline its Water Act approvals process and systems. Member Background Rural municipalities are experiencing significant delays when seeking approvals under the Water Act to proceed with infrastructure improvements. These delays impose significant financial, environmental, and social challenges for all municipalities. For example:

 Red Deer County has experienced both delays in timelines and additional costs incurred when working to meet Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) regulations and obtain the required approvals, including Public Lands approvals. Much of the County’s road network consists of rural roadways that require numerous watercourse crossings. The process to complete a Wetland Assessment and Impact Report is lengthy and expensive and must be completed during the growing season (May – October). In several instances, this has delayed the County from identifying a road in need of rehabilitation over the winter and tendering it for construction in the summer. It has also caused the cancellation of certain maintenance projects surrounded by wetlands.

 Rocky View County has submitted a number of drainage relief projects where the response times to the applications have been extensive (up to three years) and were followed by unilateral closure of files. Municipalities have limited time to execute a construction project during the spring and summer seasons, so any delays or refusals push a project back for up to one year. Extended response times have resulted in a loss of public trust in the County’s ability to deliver infrastructure projects, and jeopardized land purchases.

Most rural municipalities can identify unreasonably long approval times that have added additional project costs, delayed upgrades that have impacted its residents’ quality of life, and/or slowed infrastructure upgrades designed to improve environmental performance. In response to these delays Red Deer County has brought forward a resolution focused on improving the approval process for municipalities, while the County of Settler has focused on relaxing the need for formal approvals under the Water Act.

AEP has acknowledged the delays and is working to improve its process and systems. Recently, there have been drastic improvements in response times from the Water Boundaries unit to determine if a waterbody/wetland is Crown claimed. However, an overall process upgrade is necessary to develop digital application systems if performance is to be improved. As AEP seeks to improve its processes, the department is operating in a constrained financial environment. Rural municipalities recognize that approval delays have a multiplier effect and result in financial, social, and environmental impacts to the residents and the province. Therefore, Rocky View County is requesting support for AEP as it seeks to improve its response times.

RMA Background

133 2018.11.13 4-17F: Water Act Approvals for Municipal Projects on Municipal Land THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties urge the Government of Alberta to relax the requirement for formal approvals on all road construction on municipal right of ways less than 40 metres wide and consider alternate strategies for protecting water resources. DEVELOPMENT: Though the response from the Government of Alberta recognizes the challenges faced by municipalities who are subject to relatively short construction seasons and extensive infrastructure networks, the response does not indicate any change in process or regulation to the extent outlined in the resolution. This resolution is assigned a status of Intent Not Met.

134 2018.11.13 Resolution 18-18F Utility Conflict in Municipal Right of Ways Red Deer County Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 2 (Central)

WHEREAS municipalities and contractors are experiencing road construction project completion delays and incurring added expense due to utility companies such as TELUS, ATCO and Fortis not meeting schedules for relocation of their infrastructure located within municipal right of ways; and WHEREAS for many years, utility companies have utilized municipal right of ways for their infrastructure, both overhead and underground utilities; and WHEREAS over the past several years, conflicts between municipalities and utility companies in relation to road construction and road maintenance projects have increased as utility companies are not meeting their agreed upon schedules for relocation of underground utility lines and overhead power lines; and WHEREAS although the locating and marking of utilities used to occur within 48 hours, current experience has this process taking up to 10 to 12 days to complete; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta collaborate with the Government of Alberta and other stakeholders to create a better process of locating and marking utilities to alleviate the added costs and delays being incurred by municipalities conducting infrastructure maintenance or construction; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that options considered in this process include:

 negotiate with utility companies to ensure they honor their schedules or be held responsible to pay for all delays, impacts and costs associated with these delays; and

 create a universal master agreement for utility companies to enter into with all municipalities whereby utility companies pay a fee per lineal meter for their utilities to be located within municipal road right of way. Member Background For many years, utility companies have utilized municipal right of ways for their infrastructure, both overhead and underground utilities. There are several agreements with the various utility companies that have developed over time that allow them to place and maintain their infrastructure within municipal right of ways. For the past several years, the conflicts with utility companies in relation to road construction and road maintenance projects have increased. Utility companies are not meeting their schedules to relocate their underground utility lines and overhead power lines. This causes project delays to construction schedules for municipalities and adds additional costs. The utility line locating process used to be as little as 48 hours to get lines located and marked. Municipalities are experiencing delays of up to 10 to 12 days to get utilities marked. Beyond that component, municipalities are experiencing much longer delays to have the actual utility relocated. Current examples for Red Deer County include the following:

 Range Road 10 – Construction on this road was delayed due to TELUS’s line relocation. Communication with TELUS commenced January 8, 2018, construction started in May and the line was not relocated until mid-June. The additional costs for to work around the TELUS lines is approximately $50,000.

 Township Road 370 and ATCO – ATCO was notified of the road construction project in February 2017. They were updated in March 2018 that the project had been awarded to a contractor for summer 2018 construction. An onsite meeting was held on April 6, 2018. ATCO requires three months’ notice in order to commit to relocating their power poles on road construction projects. It is now 18 months past the initial notice. This grading project will be completed in early August. As of August 1, 2018, ATCO has begun the survey for relocation of entire line. The road project will be completed and the contractor will be mobilized off the project before ATCO relocates their power line. This will lead to soil disturbance and re-landscaping of the ditches and slopes.

135 2018.11.13  FORTIS in Gasoline Alley’s Laura Avenue – Construction completed in summer 2017 with final clean up and landscaping delayed to 2018 due to FORTIS delay, including their installation of the required street lights. Additionally, during the long delays, FORTIS provided three cost estimates that started at $39,000 and increased to $52,700 then to $121,700 with no additional scope or work added and no detailed back up provided on how FORTIS obtained these numbers. The street lights were finally installed in late July, a year later than scheduled.

 AltaLink in the Markerville area –AltaLink located several large structures within the road right of way that were too close to the road shoulder and intersections, posing hazardous situations. Due to the cost to AltaLink to re-locate these large structures, a guardrail was installed around the structures. RMA Background RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.

136 2018.11.13 Resolution 19-18F Separation of Industrial Hemp from Cannabis Regulations Brazeau County Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 3 (Pembina River)

WHEREAS Canada is one of the world’s largest hemp producers, growing an estimated 138,000 acres in 2017; and WHEREAS the Government of Canada is beginning to allow cannabidiol (CBD) extraction from hemp concurrently with the development of regulations for adult-use recreational cannabis; and WHEREAS on April 18, 2018, the Government of Ontario announced changes to regulate cannabis below 0.3% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (hemp plant and its derivatives) within the authority of agriculture, setting the tone for change across the county; and WHEREAS this movement would be welcome news for many Canadian hemp farmers, entrepreneurs and investors providing a strong market advantage for hemp-based CBD products in North America; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta advocate to the Government of Alberta to classify industrial hemp as an agriculture product. Member Background Brazeau County has been an advocate for economic diversification through the development of the bio- economy in Alberta, including the development of a hemp cluster in the region. It has been working in partnership with the Alberta Hemp Alliance and supporting and educating farmers, entrepreneurs and investors on the many opportunities this ancient crop has to offer.

Recently, the Government of Ontario passed Regulation 327/18: “Non-Application of Act to Certain Cannabis and Cannabis Products” specific to industrial hemp. Ontario is the first province to pass this regulation and we urge Alberta to be the next to strengthen this movement across the country in support of economic development and market leader advantage in North America.

A link to Ontario Regulation 327/18 is attached for reference: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r18327.

RMA Background RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.

137 2018.11.13 Resolution 20-18F Decommissioning Costs for Wind Energy Developments MD of Pincher Creek Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 1 (Foothills-Little Bow)

WHEREAS the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) regulates the utilities sector, natural gas and electricity markets to protect social, economic and environmental interests of Alberta where competitive market forces do not; and WHEREAS the AUC ensures that electric facilities are built, operated and decommissioned in an efficient and environmentally responsible way; and WHEREAS provincial growth and policy has increased the amount of development of wind power plants and their associated infrastructure; and WHEREAS wind power plants have a limited life-cycle and will require either decommissioning or repowering at the end of that life cycle; and WHEREAS if a wind power plant is abandoned during or after its life cycle, the components and associated infrastructure may be abandoned on the landscape, becoming an unsafe and unsightly nuisance, creating a costly cleanup for landowners, and further, the affected municipality; and WHEREAS pursuant to Section 5(1)(h) of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the AUC may make regulations as to the measures to be taken in the construction, operation or abandonment of any power plant for the protection of life, property and wildlife; and WHEREAS pursuant to Section 5(4) of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, subject to the approval of the Minister responsible for the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, the AUC may make regulations as to the measures to be taken in the abandonment of any power plant for the control of pollution and ensuring environment conservation; and WHEREAS the AUC falls within the structure of the Ministry of Energy, and the Ministry develops policy for renewable electricity; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta request Alberta Energy to direct the Alberta Utilities Commission to establish a method of ensuring that there is funding in place to ensure that an abandoned wind energy plant is decommissioned and reclaimed in an environmentally responsible way. Member Background The Government of Alberta’s Climate Leadership Plan is helping to provide for further renewable energy developments within the province. Wind power plant developments, in particular, use large amounts of land and the ever-evolving technology is calling for larger and larger equipment being used.

Wind power development has now expanded throughout the province. Municipal councils are charged with the responsibility of providing for the orderly development of land and land uses within the municipality.

A typical wind power plant can easily involve as many as twenty wind turbines, a facility substation, an interconnection transmission line, kilometers of underground cables, and the associated crane pads and access roads.

Alberta was home to the first commercial wind power plant in Canada, the Cowley Ridge Wind Farm. This plant was recently decommissioned by the facility owner. All the above ground components were removed but the underground wiring, concrete for foundations, and transformer pads remain in place. The owner states those components will be removed in 2019. The owner also reports that they recycled 90% of the Cowley Ridge turbines and that 50% of the decommissioning costs were recovered through metal sales.

The big question is, what would have happened to the site if the owner simply walked away from it? Would the landowner remove the facility? What if the landowner left? Would it cause environmental and safety hazards if left to deteriorate? This issue is being raised in Europe and North America. For example, the

138 2018.11.13 State of Montana’s Department of Environmental Quality requires bonding for wind farm developments 25MW or greater.

Since the start of this type of development, these concerns have been raised. Over the years developers have provided answers similar to the following. With regard to the costs, “the value of the salvage pays for the removal and reclamation,” and also, “the site will be repowered at the end of the current equipment’s lifespan.”

Municipalities have also been told that the agreements in place between the developer and the landowner addresses these concerns and covers off the removal and restoration, as may have been the case in the Cowley Ridge example. However, concerns continue to be raised due to the recent issues around oil and gas well abandonment. When companies that sell off the asset, and the responsibility, or the final company goes bankrupt, what is the recourse for the landowner and eventually the municipality?

With the scale of these developments, what would happen if a development was abandoned after it is no longer able to produce? The idea has been suggested that the municipality could handle the issue as an unsightly premises and go after the landowner to clean it up. After all, that landowner may have benefited greatly over the years from of that project. If it is not done, a municipality eventually would go through the courts to get permission to remove it and add those costs to the property taxes. Due to the sheer scale of these developments and the costs for removing them, does there come a point when the cost is greater than the value of the land? If so, the landowner walks away and the municipality is left with the cost.

RMA Background 6-18S: Wind Energy Regulations Required at the Provincial Level THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) request the Government of Alberta to undertake the creation of a Renewable Energy Division within the AER to approve, regulate, and enforce the responsible development, reclamation, and assessment of renewable energy projects in the Province of Alberta; FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that renewable energy projects formally proceeding into the review and approval stage of the above-noted Renewable Energy Division are to be corporately approved and construction ready projects, not speculative or conditional in any way; FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the RMA request the Government of Alberta to set up and enforce the collection of monetary funds towards the implementation of an Orphan Renewable Energy Fund to oversee potential future reclamation of abandoned renewable energy sites. DEVELOPMENT: RMA has not yet received a government response to this resolution.

139 2018.11.13 Resolution 21-18F Scrap Metal (Copper) Theft Woodlands County Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 3 (Pembina River)

WHEREAS in 2013, the Government of Alberta passed legislation called the Scrap Metal Dealers and Recyclers Identification Act; and WHEREAS scrap metal means new or used items substantially made of aluminum, brass, bronze, copper, stainless steel, steel, tin or other metal prescribed by the regulations; and WHEREAS the Scrap Metal Dealers and Recyclers Identification Act requires scrap metal dealers or recyclers purchasing or receiving scrap metal to record the information of the transaction and proof of identity of the person selling the scrap metal; and WHEREAS within 24 hours of purchasing or receiving scrap metal of a weight that is greater than a weight prescribed in the regulations, a scrap metal dealer or recycler shall provide the prescribed information collected under this section to a law enforcement agency; and WHEREAS the Government of Alberta has not proclaimed the legislation and published the regulation for the Scrap Metal Dealers and Recyclers Identification Act; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta advocate to the Government of Alberta to proclaim the Scrap Metal Dealers and Recyclers Identification Act and create the regulation to assist with the deterrence of copper theft and other scrap metal. Member Background Theft of copper has increased over the years and is extremely costly to the electricity sector as well as construction, telecommunication and industrial companies. Copper is an expensive material to replace, and costs to repair damaged infrastructure can be even more significant to these sectors. Copper theft not only puts the lives of the thieves at risk, but also the safety of emergency first responders, utility workers and local residents.

A number of other provinces have passed similar legislation which has resulted in the decrease of theft in copper and other scrap metal material.

RMA Background RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.

140 2018.11.13 Resolution 22-18F Amendment to the Wildlife Regulations Regarding Cougars MD of Smoky River Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 4 (Northern)

WHEREAS according to the Alberta Environment and Parks document titled Management Plan for Cougars in Alberta, Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8, cougar (Puma concolor) sightings and interactions among humans increased in the 20-year period up to 2012; and WHEREAS in Alberta, according to the Wildlife Regulation, a landowner or occupant can authorize any resident to assist with the killing of wolves or bears legally on his or her property at any time of year, however only the owner or occupant of land may kill a cougar; and WHEREAS multiple sources indicate that the appropriate way to deal with a cougar that has encroached and interacts fearlessly with humans is to euthanize it; and WHEREAS landowners, especially those with little or no hunting or firearms experience, or who lack appropriate firearms, are ill-equipped to protect themselves, their families, their livestock or their pets in the case where cougars encroach on their properties; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta request the Government of Alberta to amend section 7, subsection 3 of the Wildlife Regulation to provide the same hunting allowances for cougars on private land that already exist for wolves and black bears; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that section 7, subsection 8 of the Wildlife Regulation, which establishes separate hunting allowances for cougars on private land, be repealed; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that reporting a cougar kill remain as a requirement of the Wildlife Regulation. Member Background In 2018, in the MD of Smoky River, a landowner living within four miles of the Town of Falher chased a cougar away from his farmyard with his pickup. The cougar entered a small treed area approximately ½ mile from his yard. The landowner, not knowing who else to turn to, called the Director of Protective Services for the MD, as he viewed the issue as an imminent threat. The employee attempted to contact Alberta Fish and Wildlife for assistance, but as this took place on a Friday after business hours, was unable to reach any Fish and Wildlife personnel. Due to the cougar’s proximity to several yard sites where young children were present, the MD employee circled the treed area several times with his vehicle, and believing the cougar had moved on, the employee entered the bush to confirm. When the employee made some noise in the treed area, the cougar jumped onto a fallen tree approximately 75 yards away, turned and snarled at the employee. The employee shot and killed the cougar and reported the kill to Fish and Wildlife. Fish and Wildlife asked the employee to come see them at their office in Peace River, which the employee did. The officer proceeded to read the employee his rights. The employee invoked his right to having an attorney present and left the Fish and Wildlife office. Fish and Wildlife later issued a written warning to the employee.

Rural Alberta is an expansive area. The MD of Smoky River is covered by three Fish and Wildlife offices which each cover a small portion of our municipality, each office is approximately 45 minutes from the Town of Falher. Assuming an incident happened during work hours, response would be at best one hour away. During non-regular hours, response time would at best be several hours and as is typical, several days away. A local emergency issue involving an apex predator requires local immediate response, whether that be with municipal or private citizen assistance. The legislation changes this resolution seeks would enable landowners who are not equipped or able to deal with a cougar on their property to seek assistance without waiting hours or potentially days for a Fish and Wildlife Officer to respond.

The following background information supports statements made in the “whereas” clauses of the resolution.

1. “Cougar (Puma concolor) sightings and interactions among humans increased in the 20-year period up to 2012”

141 2018.11.13 A conservative harvest regime and abundant prey populations have allowed Alberta’s cougar population to expand in distribution and increase in numbers over the past 20 years. The current provincial estimate is 2,050 cougars, distributed across most of the southern two-thirds of the province. Cougars are now common throughout much of the white zone and appear very capable of exploiting habitat near human residences and other human activity. Cougar-human conflicts and safety concerns by the public have increased, and although the majority of rural Albertans appear to value cougars, most do not want cougars to be present near their residences.

2. “A landowner or occupant can authorize any resident to assist with the killing of wolves or bears legally on his or her property at any time of year, however only the owner or occupant of land may kill a Cougar” Government of Alberta leaflet “Cougars – also known as pumas or mountain lions (in the “Preventing Conflict with Wildlife” series) “Any person who is the owner or occupant of privately owned land may at any time of the year, without the use of dogs, hunt (but not trap) cougar on such lands without a license. Under this authority, registration is required within one week of the kill.”

3. “Multiple sources indicate that the appropriate way to deal with a Cougar that has encroached and interacts fearlessly with humans is to euthanize it”

“For high risk conflict events (e.g. cougar displays overly familiar behaviour towards people on multiple occasions or attacks a person) destroying the cougar is the most appropriate action (Cougar Management Guidelines 2005).”

“Response to cougar-human conflicts is currently directed by the Cougar Response Guide, which outlines the circumstances under which cougars of various age classes should be captured and relocated and/or euthanized. In general, cougars may be captured and relocated in situations where the investigating officer determines there is a potential public safety threat, or where a cougar has attacked pets or livestock. Cougars that make unprovoked contact with humans are euthanized.

For more information, view the following media articles: Encounter with Cougars on the Rise Across Alberta CALGARY HERALD – APRIL 5, 2015 Colette Derworiz CANMORE — As cougars spread out across Alberta, wildlife officials say they are noticing a steady rise in conflict between the big cats and people living in cities, towns and on private land throughout the province. Link: https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/encounters-with-cougars-on-the-rise-across-alberta OHS Confirms More Details of Cougar Attack on Pipeline Worker MY GRANDE PRAIRIE NOW – FEBRUARY 3, 2015 Erica Fisher Two pipeline workers south of Grande Prairie were injured in a cougar attack. Link: https://www.mygrandeprairienow.com/6689/ohs-confirms-more-details-of-cougar-attack-on-pipeline- worker/ More Precautions Needed by Hikers in Alberta to Avoid Cougar Attacks, Warns Experts THE CANADIAN PRESS – MAY 27, 2018 Cougars are being encountered more often, people need to be aware and take more precautions to protect themselves. Link: https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/you-may-not-see-them-but-they-see-you-cougar- attack-a-stark-reminder-for-canmore-family/wcm/bf022c76-2bdc-43f9-9cb2- 0bd04e2027ef?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter #link_time=1527518841

142 2018.11.13 RMA Background RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.

143 2018.11.13 Resolution 23-18F Social Well-Being of An Employee and Domestic Violence – Occupational Health and Safety Act MD of Willow Creek Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 1 (Foothills-Little Bow)

WHEREAS the term “domestic violence” is now included in the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), requiring employers to address domestic violence; and WHEREAS the OHSA requires employers to be responsible for the “social well-being” of employees; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta request that the Government of Alberta define what is meant by “social well-being” of an employee within the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) and the responsibilities of an employer with regard to “domestic violence or suspicion of domestic violence” within the OHSA. Member Background Recent changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) have done little to ensure the safety of the workers other than to muddy the waters. Making employers responsible for the “social well-being” of workers is not defined. What does “social well-being” mean and what role if any should an employer be legislated to do? If an employee has had an incident off the work site unrelated to the job, when does the employer go from being responsible to address the matter to being a snoop? Is it the job of an employer to embed themselves in the private lives of its employees? If an incident clearly affects the employee’s work, there is already opportunity for an employee to ask the employer for access to help such as an Employee’s Assistance Plan. An employer is already required to allow time off for employees to seek counselling for family matters, addictions or health issues. Is it the duty of employers to become involved in incidents of “domestic violence” outside of the work environment? There is a wealth of external support agencies committed and trained to address the issue of “domestic violence”. Why should this fall to the employer, who is not trained in this field? The lack of clarity of the changes to OHSA as to what, where and when an employer should embed the organization in the private lives of its employees leaves the organization at risk. RMA Background RMA has no active resolutions directly related to this issue.

144 2018.11.13 Resolution 24-18F Review of Education Funding Formula Athabasca County Simple Majority Required Endorsed by District 3 (Pembina River)

WHEREAS school boards receive education funding primarily on a per student basis; and WHEREAS rural populations are declining in some areas of Alberta; and WHEREAS school jurisdictions with declining enrolments experience funding reductions that far exceed their ability to reasonably reduce expenses; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta supports the Alberta School Boards Association position that the Government of Alberta review the K-12 funding formula for schools and school boards. Member Background In the fall of 2017, the Alberta School Boards Association (ASBA) approved the following motion:

Be it resolved that ASBA requests the Government of Alberta undertake a comprehensive review of the K-12 Funding Framework in its entirety in consultation with school boards.

To date, this review has not commenced. The majority of funding in all three “envelopes” of funding provided for education in Alberta (instruction, plant operations and maintenance, and transportation) all primarily use per-student funding as its basis.

The rural population decline throughout the province negatively impacts rural school boards, as the operational costs for rural schools is not significantly reduced despite these schools operating at far less than capacity.

The result is that rural schools and school boards are at a disadvantage in terms of receiving funding from the province, leaving the per student operational costs for rural schools to be higher than that of urban schools.

RMA Background RMA has no active resolution directly related to this issue.

145 2018.11.13 REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item #

8.4

SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEW REPORT

MEETING DATE: 2018-11-13

PRESENTED BY: Al Hoggan, CAO

BACKGROUND/ PROPOSAL On September 25th, 2018, Municipal Affairs met with Kneehill County Council and with Senior Administration. The purpose of the meeting was to begin the process as described under the Municipal Accountability Program. Some 67 items were audited to ensure compliance with provincial legislation, provincial regulations, and our own bylaws and best practices. A report by Municipal Affairs has been generated for your review and comments.

DISCUSSION/ The report highlighted 6 areas of non-compliance with either legislation or OPTIONS/ regulation. BENEFITS/ DISADVANTAGES: 1. Procedure moving out of closed session.

2. Councillor Code of Conduct Bylaw 3. Bylaw Enforcement Officer Bylaw 4. Procedural Bylaw – Cancellation of meetings/recorded vote procedures 5. SDAB/MPC bylaws – updating to reflect current legislation 6. Planning procedures – legislated time-lines

Kneehill County will respond to Municipal Affairs with the rectifications as presented in the attached Review Report.

COSTS/SOURCE OF N/A FUNDING:

☒ Directive Decision (Information Sharing-One way communication) ENGAGEMENT: Goal: To educate and inform citizens Tools: ☐ Individual Notification or ☐ Public Notification

LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: N/A

ATTACHMENTS: Kneehill County Municipal Accountability Review Report

Document Last Updated February 27, 2018 146 2018.11.13

RECOMMENDED ACTION: That Council review and receive for information.

COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Receive for information 2. Request more information

MOTION: That Council receive the Kneehill County Accountability Review Report for information.

Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil Approved By: Al Hoggan Reviewed By: Al Hoggan Executive Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Chief Administrative Officer

REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item # 8.4 2 | Page 147 2018.11.13

Kneehill County Municipal Accountability Review Report September 25, 2018

148 2018.11.13 Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction ...... 6 1.1 Our Commitment ...... 6 1.2 The Municipal Accountability Program ...... 6 Section 2: Executive Summary ...... 8 2.1 Site Visit...... 8 2.2 Strengths ...... 8 2.3 Legislative Gaps ...... 9 2.4 Next Steps ...... 9 Section 3: Municipal Accountability Review Findings ...... 10 3.1 General ...... 10 1. Municipal Office ...... 10 2. Orientation Training ...... 11 3. Chief Administrative Officer Evaluation ...... 12 4. Signing of Municipal Documents ...... 13 5. Repair of Roads, Public Places, and Public Works (For discussion only)...... 14 3.2 Meetings ...... 15 1. Public Presence at Meetings ...... 15 2. Closed Meetings ...... 16 3. Organizational Meeting ...... 17 4. Special Meetings ...... 18 5. Meetings Through Electronic Communications ...... 18 6. Regular Meeting Change Notice ...... 20 3.3 Meeting Procedures ...... 21 1. Authority to Act...... 21 2. Quorum ...... 22 3. Voting ...... 23 4. Pecuniary Interest ...... 24

149 2018.11.13 5. Provision of Information ...... 25 6. Council Meeting Minutes ...... 26 3.4 Mandatory Bylaws ...... 27 1. Code of Conduct...... 27 2. Establishment of the Chief Administrative Officer Position ...... 29 3. Borrowing Bylaw(s) ...... 30 4. Property Tax Bylaw ...... 31 5. Assessment Review Boards ...... 32 6. Bylaw Enforcement Officers ...... 33 3.5 Discretionary Bylaws ...... 34 1. Procedural Bylaw ...... 34 2. Rates and Fees Bylaw ...... 36 3.6 Bylaw Procedures ...... 37 1. Passing Bylaws ...... 37 2. Bylaw Revisions and Amendments ...... 38 3.7 Mandatory Policies ...... 39 1. Public Participation Policy ...... 39 3.8 Finance ...... 40 1. Operating Budget ...... 40 2. Capital Budget ...... 41 3. Financial Records and Receipts ...... 42 4. Municipal Accounts ...... 43 5. Fidelity Bond ...... 44 6. Auditor, Audited Financial Statements, Auditor Report ...... 45 7. Salary and Benefits ...... 46 8. Management Letter ...... 47 9. Three-Year Operating Plan and Five-Year Capital Plan (for discussion only) ...... 48

150 2018.11.13 3.9 Assessment and Taxation...... 49 1. Assessment Roll ...... 49 2. Tax Roll ...... 50 3. Prepare Tax Notices ...... 51 4. Content of Tax Notices ...... 52 5. Certify Date of Mailing ...... 53 6. Tax Arrears List ...... 54 7. Tax Sale ...... 55 3.10 Planning...... 56 1. Subdivision Authority ...... 56 2. Development Authority ...... 57 3. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB) ...... 58 4. Subdivision Applications and Decision ...... 60 5. Development Applications ...... 61 6. Alberta Land Stewardship Act (ALSA) Regional Plan or Land Use Policies ...... 62 7. Growth Management Board ...... 63 8. Land Use Bylaw ...... 64 9. Municipal Development Plan (MDP) ...... 65 10. Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP) ...... 66 11. Intermunicipal Collaborative Frameworks (ICF) ...... 67 12. Listing and Publishing Policies Related to Planning Decisions ...... 68 3.11 Local Authorities Election Act (LAEA) ...... 69 1. Joint Elections ...... 69 2. Oath/Statement ...... 70 3. Nomination Forms ...... 71 4. Proof of Elector Eligibility ...... 72 5. Vote by Special Ballot...... 73 6. Ballot Account ...... 74

151 2018.11.13 7. Disposition of Election Material ...... 75 8. Campaign Disclosure Statements ...... 76 3.12 Emergency Management ...... 77 1. Municipal Emergency Organization/Agency/Advisory Committee ...... 77 3.13 Libraries ...... 78 1. Municipal Library Board ...... 78 2. System Library Board ...... 79 Section 4: Conclusion ...... 80

152 2018.11.13 Section 1: Introduction

1.1 Our Commitment Alberta Municipal Affairs is committed to helping to ensure Albertans live in viable municipalities with well-managed, collaborative, accountable local governments. To achieve this, Municipal Affairs plays an important role in assisting and supporting municipalities in Alberta through various programs that aim to build capacity.

The Municipal Government Act (MGA), which provides the legislative framework for local government in Alberta, has numerous mandatory requirements that may at times seem overwhelming and difficult to manage for municipalities. Municipalities are also bound by other statutes and corresponding regulations that fall under the purview of Municipal Affairs. Compliance with these statutes and regulations is essential to good governance, the successful operation of a municipality and the viability, safety and well-being of a community. The Municipal Accountability Program is designed to help municipal officials successfully meet the challenges involved in responding to this wide range of legislative needs. 1.2 The Municipal Accountability Program With a focus on promoting an environment supportive of accountable, well-managed local governments, the purpose of this program is to:

 assist municipalities in strengthening their knowledge of mandatory legislative requirements with a primary focus on the MGA;  aid municipalities in achieving legislative compliance;  support municipalities in being accountable and well-managed; and  provide a collaborative partnership between Municipal Affairs and municipalities to address legislative discrepancies that may exist.

The Municipal Accountability Program consists of multi-year cycle reviews, ordered by the Minister under Section 571 of the MGA. While this program is available to all municipalities, upon the request of a council and with the approval of the Minister, municipalities with populations of 5,000 or less are automatically scheduled for a visit once every four years. Kneehill County was randomly selected for a municipal accountability review in 2018.

Working with the chief administrative officer (CAO), support is provided to mitigate any minor legislative gaps that may be identified. Ministry staff work with CAOs to validate compliance, identify gaps, provide resource information, and develop corrective solutions where needed. The outcome of this program will be strong, well-managed municipalities and a strong collaborative relationship between the CAOs and the ministry.

153 2018.11.13 The results of the Kneehill County review, contained in this report, are offered to support the municipality’s efforts in achieving its goals for ongoing legislative compliance with the MGA and its associated regulations, as well as other legislation under the responsibility of Alberta Municipal Affairs.

154 2018.11.13 Section 2: Executive Summary

2.1 Site Visit On September 25, 2018, Municipal Affairs staff met with county administration to complete the on-site portion of the Municipal Accountability Program review and to observe a council meeting for procedures that are required in the MGA.

Kneehill County is commended for their cooperation and assistance throughout the review. As well as the time commitment during the site visit, municipal staff promptly responded to questions and provided documentation as requested. Ministry staff appreciate this additional time and effort and recognizes the commitment to the well-being and success of the municipality demonstrated by county administration.

2.2 Strengths Overall the review findings are very positive. Some of the general areas in which the municipality is meeting mandatory legislative requirements include:

 council orientation and training;  repair of roads, public places, and public works;  meetings through electronic communications;  provision of information;  property tax bylaw;  rates and fees bylaw;  passing bylaws, bylaw revisions and amendments;  public participation policy;  operating and capital budgets;  auditor, audited financial statements, auditor report;  tax recovery;  subdivision and applications;  land use bylaw; and  municipal emergency management.

155 2018.11.13 2.3 Legislative Gaps Specific areas where the municipality is required to take action to achieve compliance are included below along with the page numbers which detail the legislative requirements and the gaps to be addressed:

 closed meetings (page 16);  code of conduct bylaw (page 27);  bylaw enforcement officer bylaw (page 33);  procedural bylaw (page 34);  subdivision and development appeal board (page 58); and  development applications (page 61).

2.4 Next Steps This report contains a complete summary of the Municipal Accountability Program review including legislative requirements, comments and observations, recommendations for actions, as well as links to resources to assist the municipality.

A response by the municipality is required that includes a plan detailing the actions to be taken to rectify the legislative gaps identified in this report. This response must be submitted to Municipal Affairs within eight weeks of receiving this report. For your municipality’s convenience, this report has been formatted to provide space in each section for responses to the findings on each particular area of non-compliance. However, your municipality is not required to use this report to provide its responses, and may prefer instead to develop a customized document for the responses and implementation plan.

Ministry staff are available to provide support and additional resources to guide the municipality through the development of the plan and to successfully address the legislative gaps identified. The review will formally conclude upon receipt of documentation confirming that all items have been addressed.

156 2018.11.13 Section 3: Municipal Accountability Review Findings

3.1 General

1. Municipal Office LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 204

1. Has council named a place as its municipal office?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Resolution #502/15 passed December 15, 2015 establishes the municipal office located at 1600-2nd Street NE, Three Hills, Alberta.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

157 2018.11.13 2. Orientation Training

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 201.1

1. Has orientation training been offered to the elected officials? 2. Were the following topics covered:  role of municipalities in Alberta;  municipal organization and functions;  key municipal plans, policies and projects;  roles and responsibilities of council, councillors, the CAO, and staff;  code of conduct;  budgeting and financial administration; and  public participation?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Resolution #494/17 passed October 24, 2017 authorizes all members of council to attend the Elected Officials Education Program held in Drumheller, Alberta on November 30 to December 1, 2017.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

158 2018.11.13 3. Chief Administrative Officer Evaluation

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 205.1

1. Has council provided the CAO with an annual written performance evaluation?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Council provides a written evaluation to the CAO on an annual basis.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

159 2018.11.13 4. Signing of Municipal Documents

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 213

1. Are the minutes of council meetings signed by:  the person presiding at the meeting; and  a designated officer? 2. Are the bylaws of a municipality signed by:  the chief elected official; and  a designated officer? 3. Are agreements, cheques, and other negotiable instruments signed by:  the chief elected official or another person authorized by council, and by a designated officer; or  by a designated officer acting alone if so authorized by council?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The minutes and bylaws that were reviewed were all signed in accordance with legislation. All agreements or negotiable instruments were appropriately signed by designated signing authorities in accordance with legislation and county policy.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

160 2018.11.13 5. Repair of Roads, Public Places, and Public Works (For discussion only)

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 532

Each municipality must ensure that every road or other public place that is subject to the direction, control and management of the municipality, including all public works in, on or above the roads or public place put there by the municipality or by any other person with the permission of the municipality, are kept in a reasonable state of repair by the municipality, having regard to:  the character of the road, public place or public work; and  the area of the municipality in which it is located.

1. Is the municipality aware of this section? 2. What does the municipality do to support this requirement? 3. Is the above supported through the annual budget? 4. Is the municipality aware of the level of risk and liability if the municipality fails to perform its duty outlined in section 532?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The county currently has a 20-year road maintenance plan, as well as general transportation and maintenance policies, which are supported by the annual budget. The CAO is fully aware of section 532, including provisions on risk and liability if the county were to fail to perform the legislated duties.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

161 2018.11.13 3.2 Meetings

1. Public Presence at Meetings

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 197 (1)

1. Are council and council committee meetings held in public?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: All council and council committee meetings are conducted in public.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

162 2018.11.13 2. Closed Meetings

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 197

1. Before closing all or a part of a meeting to the public:  Is a resolution passed to indicate what part of the meeting is to be closed?  Does the resolution identify what exception to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPP) applies to the part of the meeting that is to be closed?  Are members of the public notified once the closed portion of the meeting is concluded? 2. Do the council meeting minutes record the names of those who attended the closed meeting and the reason for their attendance?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The observed meeting on September 25, 2018 contained a closed session of council. The meeting agenda, as well as the resolution to enter closed session, included the exception to disclosure which applied according to FOIPP. Members of the public were notified when the closed session ended; however, the resolution to revert to the open meeting was made after the public returned to the meeting.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: No

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: The resolution to return to an open session of council should be made prior to the public returning to council chambers (section 197(3)), as otherwise the public is being invited into a still-closed session of council.

RESOURCES: Municipal Affairs has developed an online resource for municipalities regarding closed meetings: Closed Meetings of Council (Municipal Affairs)

MUNICIPAL RESPONSE: Response to the findings, or comments, status or action to be taken including key milestones and deadlines. Where resolutions of council are required please provide the date of approval and resolutions of council and/or bylaw numbers.

163 2018.11.13 3. Organizational Meeting

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 152, 192

1. Is an Organizational Meeting held annually? 2. Is a chief elected officer (CEO) appointed (not a requirement if the CEO is elected at large or it is included in the procedural bylaw)? 3. Is a Deputy CEO appointed?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The 2017 Organizational Meeting was held on October 24, 2017. The reeve and deputy reeve were both appointed at the organizational meeting. All legislative requirements were met.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

164 2018.11.13 4. Special Meetings

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 194

1. Has a special council meeting been held? 2. Was the proper notification provided to the public? 3. If less than 24 hours was provided as notification, was the appropriate documentation signed by 2/3 of council? 4. Was there a need to change the agenda for the special meeting? 5. If the agenda was modified, was all of council present at the meeting to approve the change?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: A special meeting of council was held May 3, 2018. Documentation shows that proper notification was provided to the public in advance of the meeting. The agenda for the May 3, 2018 special meeting was changed. All members of council were present and resolution #160/18 approved the changes to the agenda.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

165 2018.11.13 5. Meetings Through Electronic Communications

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 199

1. Has notice been provided to the public, including the way in which the meeting is to be conducted? 2. Do the facilities enable the public to watch or listen to the meeting? 3. Was a designated officer in attendance at the facility? 4. Do the facilities enable the meeting’s participants to watch or hear each other?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Attendance at council meetings by electronic means is included in the county’s procedural bylaw #1768, and occurs infrequently. The county’s procedures, facility and records indicate all legislative requirements were met.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

166 2018.11.13 6. Regular Meeting Change Notice

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 193

1. Has the date, time or place of a regularly scheduled meeting been changed? 2. Was at least 24 hours’ notice of the change provided to any councillors not present at the meeting at which the change was made, and to the public?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: There have been no recent changes to a regularly scheduled meeting.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

167 2018.11.13 3.3 Meeting Procedures

1. Authority to Act

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 180-181

1. Are resolutions or bylaws passed in an open public meeting?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: At the September 25, 2018 council meeting, all actions of council were through resolution or bylaw.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

168 2018.11.13 2. Quorum

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 167

1. Is a majority of council present at the meeting to exercise their authority to act under sections 180 and 181?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: County council consists of seven elected officials. The minutes that were reviewed, and the council meeting that was observed met the quorum requirements.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

169 2018.11.13 3. Voting

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 182-185

1. Does each councillor participate in voting (unless an abstention is required or permitted and is noted)? 2. Is an abstention from voting recorded in the minutes? 3. Is the request for a recorded vote done prior to the vote being taken? 4. Is the request for a recorded vote documented in the minutes accordingly?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Each councillor participated in voting during the September 25, 2018 meeting. There were no abstentions and no requests for recorded votes. The voting documented in the council meeting minutes and demonstrated in the council meeting met the legislative requirements.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

170 2018.11.13 4. Pecuniary Interest

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 172

1. When a pecuniary interest is disclosed, is the disclosure and the process recorded in the minutes?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: There were no items of pecuniary interest at the September 25, 2018 meeting of council. The minutes for May 22, 2018 record a declaration of pecuniary interest, which met legislative requirements.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

171 2018.11.13 5. Provision of Information

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 153.1

1. When information regarding the operation or administration of the municipality is requested by a councillor, does the CAO provide information to all of council as soon as practical?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The CAO is aware of the MGA requirements. The CAO provides any information requested to all members of council by email. In addition, council was provided with an agenda package in advance of the September 25, 2018 council meeting.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

172 2018.11.13 6. Council Meeting Minutes

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 172, 184, 185, 197, 208, 230

1. Are the minutes recorded in the English language without note or comment? 2. Do the minutes include the names of the councillors present at the council meeting? 3. Are the minutes given to council for adoption at a subsequent council meeting? 4. Are recorded votes documented? 5. Are abstentions from public hearings recorded? 6. Are the minutes recorded in accordance with section 230 of the MGA when a public hearing is held? 7. Are the minutes kept safe?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The minutes are recorded in English without note or comment. Regularly, the minutes reflect that an item was "Carried Unanimously" when not required. The minutes of the June 12, 2018 council meeting show that a recorded vote was requested, and documented accordingly.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

173 2018.11.13 3.4 Mandatory Bylaws

1. Code of Conduct

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 146.1, Code of Conduct for Elected Officials Regulation 200/2017

1. Is there a code of conduct bylaw? 2. Does the bylaw apply to all councillors equally? 3. Are there sanctions for breaching the code of conduct? 4. Does the bylaw include the following topics:  representing the municipality;  communicating on behalf of the municipality;  respecting the decision-making process;  adherence to policies, procedures and bylaws;  respectful interactions with councillors, staff, the public and others;  confidential information;  conflicts of interest;  improper use of influence;  use of municipal assets and services; and  orientation and other training attendance? 5. Has a complaint system been established within the bylaw? 6. Does the complaint system address:  who may make a complaint alleging a breach of the code of conduct;  the method by which a complaint may be made;  the process to be used to determine the validity of a complaint; and  the process to be used to determine how sanctions are imposed if a complaint is determined to be valid? 7. Was the bylaw established by July 2018? 8. Has the code of conduct been reviewed in the last four years? (Not applicable until 2022.)

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Bylaw #1766 was adopted by Kneehill County council on April 24, 2018. The bylaw includes monetary penalties other than the reduction or suspension of remuneration as it relates to council committees, as well as including a sanction to request the Minister to investigate the councillor’s conduct and request their removal from council. This is not included in the Code of Conduct for Elected Officials Regulation #200/2017, and conflicts with section 574 of the MGA. All other legislative requirements were met.

174 2018.11.13 MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: No

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: To be compliant, Bylaw #1766 should be amended to remove penalties that exceed those authorized by the Code of Conduct for Elected Officials Regulation 200/2017 or the MGA.

RESOURCES: The Councillor Code of Conduct: A Guide for Municipalities is a tool developed by the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association (AUMA), in partnership with the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) and Alberta Municipal Affairs, to help municipalities develop their local codes of conduct.

The resource is divided into two parts:  The first part is an explanation of codes of conduct and what the legislative amendments require.  The second part is an actual template that municipalities can use and adapt to their local context: Access the Word version of the bylaw template.

175 2018.11.13 2. Establishment of the Chief Administrative Officer Position

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 205

1. Is there a bylaw establishing the position of CAO? 2. Is there a council resolution that appoints the current CAO?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Bylaw #1765, adopted April 24, 2018 establishes the position of CAO. The current CAO was appointed by council resolution #311/13, passed June 25, 2013.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

176 2018.11.13 3. Borrowing Bylaw(s)

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 251-259, Debt Limit Regulation 255/2000

1. Is there a current borrowing bylaw? 2. Does the borrowing bylaw set out:  the amount of money to be borrowed and, in general terms, the purpose for which the money is borrowed;  the maximum rate of interest, the term and the terms of repayment of the borrowing; and  the source or sources of money to be used to pay the principal and interest owing under the borrowing? 3. Was the borrowing bylaw advertised (if required)?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Bylaw #1756 passed January 23, 2018 provides for a debenture for the municipality. As the bylaw was intended for short term operational borrowing, the bylaw was not required to be advertised. All legislative requirements were met.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

177 2018.11.13 4. Property Tax Bylaw

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 353-359, Matters Relating to Assessment Sub-classes Regulation 202/2017

1. Is a property tax bylaw passed annually? 2. Are the rates in accordance with the:  assessment class (section 297);  Matters Relating to Assessment Sub-classes Regulation; and  municipal assessment sub-class bylaw (if necessary)? 3. Does the tax rate bylaw maintain a maximum 5:1 tax ratio between residential and non-residential assessment classes? 4. Are the requisitions accounted for? 5. Are the calculations correct? 6. Is there a minimum tax applied as per section 357?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Kneehill County adopts a tax bylaw annually. The 2018 Bylaw, #1762, was adopted by council on May 8, 2018. The bylaw met all legislative requirements.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

178 2018.11.13 5. Assessment Review Boards

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 454-456, Matters Relating to Assessment Complaints Regulation 201/2017

1. Has a local assessment review board been established?  Are three members appointed to this board?  Is the term of the appointment established?  Have the appointed members received the mandatory training? 2. Is a composite assessment review board established?  Are two members appointed to this board?  Is the term of the appointment established?  Have the appointed members received the mandatory training?  Is there a current assessment review board clerk appointment? 3. Has a designated officer been appointed as the clerk and received the mandatory training?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Bylaw #1746 adopted June 13, 2017 establishes an intermunicipal local assessment review board and composite assessment review board. The bylaw addresses mandatory training requirements, and appoints a designated officer as the clerk. All current members, as well as the clerk, have received the required training. All legislative requirements were met.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

179 2018.11.13 6. Bylaw Enforcement Officers

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 555-556

1. Is there a municipal bylaw enforcement officer appointed? 2. Is there a bylaw to support this? 3. Are the powers and duties established within the bylaw for the bylaw enforcement officer? 4. Does the bylaw include:  disciplinary procedures;  penalties; and  an appeal process? 5. Has the bylaw enforcement officer taken the official oath?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Bylaw #1562, passed June 12, 2007, allows the CAO to appoint bylaw officers. The bylaw does not include provisions on disciplinary procedures, penalties, or an appeal process. All other legislative requirements were met.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: No

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: Council must by bylaw specify the powers and duties, establish disciplinary procedures for misuse of power including penalties, and establish an appeal process.

RESOURCES: Municipal Affairs Advisors are available to provide general support by calling toll-free 310-0000 and then 780-427-2225.

180 2018.11.13 3.5 Discretionary Bylaws Please note: Discretionary bylaws are not required in the MGA. The following section includes a random selection of optional bylaws to review that their contents are in compliance with the MGA. 1. Procedural Bylaw

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 145

1. Does the municipality have a procedural bylaw?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Part 3, section 7(1) of the county bylaw allows for the cancellation of a meeting by written consent of a majority of council members provided at least 24 hours in advance of the regular meeting, or by either oral or written consent within 24 hours of the regular meeting by 2/3 of council.

Part 3, section 12 refers to “closed” sessions as “in-camera” sessions.

Part 4, Section 21(8), of the bylaw pertains to recorded votes and states that, “If the vote is not unanimous the names of the members present shall be recorded in the minutes and whether each voted for or against the motion or abstained.” The names of each member present, and whether they vote for or against or abstained, must be included in the minutes in accordance with section 185(2) of the MGA regardless of whether or not the motion was passed unanimously.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: No

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: A cancellation of a regular scheduled meeting must be made by resolution of council. Any councillors who were not present at the meeting in which this resolution was passed must be notified at least 24 hours prior to the cancelled meeting. References to "in-camera" should be updated to reflect the new "closed session" terminology in the MGA. The names of each member present, and whether they vote for or against, must be included in the minutes in accordance with section 185(2) of the MGA regardless of whether or not the resolution was passed unanimously.

RESOURCES: Municipal Affairs Advisors are available to provide general support by calling toll-free 310-0000 and then 780-427-2225.

181 2018.11.13 MUNICIPAL RESPONSE: Response to the findings, or comments, status or action to be taken including key milestones and deadlines. Where resolutions of council are required please provide the date of approval and resolutions of council and/or bylaw numbers.

182 2018.11.13 2. Rates and Fees Bylaw

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 7

1. Does the municipality have a utilities bylaw?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Bylaw #1769 establishes a "Master Rates Bylaw". The county amends the bylaw by repeal and replace, as opposed to an amending bylaw. All legislative requirements were met.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

183 2018.11.13 3.6 Bylaw Procedures

1. Passing Bylaws

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 187-189

1. Are bylaws given three distinct and separate readings? 2. If all readings are conducted at one council meeting, is there a resolution passed that gives unanimous consent for this?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: At the June 12, 2018 council meeting, Bylaw #1770 was adopted by council with all three readings at one meeting. Unanimous consent was provided by resolution #240/18. All legislative requirements were met.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

184 2018.11.13 2. Bylaw Revisions and Amendments

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 63-69, and 191

1. Are revision bylaws limited to:  consolidation of two or more bylaws;  altering citation; and  changes that do not materially affect a bylaw (clerical, technical, grammatical, or typographical)? 2. Does the title of the bylaw indicate that it is a revision bylaw? 3. Has the CAO certified the revision prior to the first reading? 4. Have there been amendments to a bylaw that initially required advertising? 5. Was the amending bylaw advertised? 6. Are bylaws amended or repealed in the same way as the original bylaw was enacted?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The county does not use revision bylaws. Other than statutory bylaw amendments, the county normally repeals and replaces any bylaws which require updating. Amendments made to the land use bylaw were observed to meet all legislative requirements.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

185 2018.11.13 3.7 Mandatory Policies

1. Public Participation Policy

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 216.1, Public Participation Policy Regulation 193/2017

1. Has a public participation policy been passed? 2. Was the public participation policy passed by July 2018? 3. Does the policy identify:  types or categories of approaches the municipality will use to engage the public; and  types and categories of circumstances in which the municipality will engage with the public? 4. Is the public participation policy available for public inspection? 5. Has the public participation policy been reviewed by council in the last four years? (Not applicable until summer of 2022.)

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Policy #18-2 was adopted by council resolution #281/18 on July 17, 2018. All legislative requirements were met.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

186 2018.11.13 3.8 Finance

1. Operating Budget

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 242, 243, 244, 248.1

1. Has an operating budget been adopted for each calendar year? 2. Does the operating budget include the estimated amount of each of the following expenditures and transfers:  the amount needed to provide for the council’s policies and programs;  the amount needed to pay the debt obligations in respect of borrowings made to acquire, construct, remove or improve capital property;  the amount of expenditures and transfers needed to meet the municipality’s obligations as a member of a growth management board, or its obligations for services funded under an intermunicipal collaboration framework (not applicable until April 1, 2020);  the amount needed to meet the requisitions or other amounts that the municipality is required to pay under an enactment;  if necessary, the amount needed to provide for a depreciation or depletion allowance, or both, for its municipal public utilities as defined in section 28;  the amount to be transferred to reserves;  the amount to be transferred to the capital budget; and  the amount needed to recover any shortfall as required under section 244? 3. Does the operating budget include estimated amounts of each source of revenue (taxes, grants, service fees)? 4. Are the estimated revenues and transfers sufficient to pay the estimated expenditures? 5. Does the budget align with the property tax rate bylaw?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The final 2018 budget was adopted by council resolution #174/18 on May 8, 2018. An interim operating budget was adopted by council resolution #541/17 on December 12, 2017. The operating budget met all legislative requirements.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

187 2018.11.13 2. Capital Budget

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 245, 246, 248.1

1. Has a capital budget for each calendar year been adopted? 2. Does the capital budget include the estimated amount for the following:  the amount needed to acquire, construct, remove or improve capital property;  the anticipated sources and amounts of money to pay the costs to acquire, construct, remove or improve capital property; and  the amount to be transferred from the operating budget?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The 2018 Capital Budget was adopted by council resolution #175/18 on May 8, 2018. An interim capital budget was adopted by council resolution #542/17 on December 17, 2017. All legislative requirements were met.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

188 2018.11.13 3. Financial Records and Receipts

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 268.1

1. Are accurate records and accounts kept of the municipality’s financial affairs? 2. Are actual revenues and expenditures of the municipality, compared with the estimates, reported to council? 3. Are revenues of the municipality collected and controlled, and receipts issued?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The county uses Diamond software for maintaining financial records, as well as Questica for budgeting purposes. The CAO provides monthly cash reporting, quarterly variance reporting and semi-annual capital project reporting to council. Revenues and receipts are collected and issued from the county office. All legislative requirements were met.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

189 2018.11.13 4. Municipal Accounts

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 270

1. Is all money belonging to or held by the municipality deposited into a financial institution designated by council?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Council approved a banking service agreement with Servus Credit Union by resolution #333/18 on September 11, 2018. Reviewed statements show that municipal accounts are with Servus Credit Union. All legislative requirements were met.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

190 2018.11.13 5. Fidelity Bond

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 212.1

1. Does the municipality annually obtain a fidelity bond or equivalent insurance? 2. Does the bond or insurance cover:  the CAO of the municipality;  the designated officers of the municipality; and  other employees of the municipality?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The county holds a policy with AAMDC (RMA) Jubilee Insurance Program, which met the legislative requirements.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

191 2018.11.13 6. Auditor, Audited Financial Statements, Auditor Report

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 276, 280, 281

1. Has one or more auditors for the municipality been appointed? 2. Are annual financial statements of the municipality prepared for the immediately preceding year? 3. Do the financial statements include:  the municipality’s debt limit; and  the amount of the municipality’s debt as defined in the regulations under section 271? 4. Are the financial statements, or a summary of them, and the auditor’s report on the financial statements available to the public in the manner the council considers appropriate by May 1 of the year following the year for which the financial statements have been prepared? 5. Has council received the auditor’s report on the annual financial statements and financial information return of the municipality?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The municipality appointed their auditors from 2018-2022 by council resolution #301/18 adopted August 21, 2018. The 2017 audited financial statements were adopted by council by resolution #152/18 on April 24, 2018. All legislative requirements were met.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

192 2018.11.13 7. Salary and Benefits

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 217, Supplementary Accounting Principles and Standards Regulation 313/2000

1. Has information been provided on the salaries of councillors, the chief administrative officer and all designated officers (including the assessor, SDAB clerk and assessment review board clerk) of the municipality?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The required salary disclosure is included in the municipality's annual financial statements, which are published on the county website.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

193 2018.11.13 8. Management Letter

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 281

1. Has council received a separate auditor’s report on any improper or unauthorized transaction or non-compliance with this or another enactment or a bylaw that is noted during the course of an audit?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The county received confidential recommendations from the auditor. Legislative requirements were met.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

194 2018.11.13 9. Three-Year Operating Plan and Five-Year Capital Plan (for discussion only)

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 283.1

1. Each municipality must prepare a written plan respecting its anticipated financial operations over a period of at least the next three financial years. Also, each municipality must prepare a written plan respecting its anticipated capital property additions over a period of at least the next five financial years. The first financial plans will need to be prepared by the end of 2019 and cover the 2020 to 2022 financial, or 2020 to 2024 capital period.

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The municipality is aware of the new requirements, and already prepares a three-year operating plan. The county is working towards a full five-year capital plan, which the CAO indicated will be included as part of the 2019 budget process. A resource has been provided below for reference.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: Plans must be in place by the 2020 deadline.

RESOURCES: Municipal Affairs has created a guide to assist municipalities getting started with multi- year financial planning: New Legislative Requirements for Municipal Financial & Capital Plans.

195 2018.11.13 3.9 Assessment and Taxation

1. Assessment Roll

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 284.2(1), 307

1. Has a person who has the qualifications as set out in the Municipal Assessor Regulation 347/2009 been appointed to the position of designated officer to carry out the functions of a municipal assessor? 2. Is the assessment roll available for inspection? 3. Is there a fee for this? 4. Does the municipality have a bylaw to establish this fee?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Kneehill County has appointed an appropriately qualified assessor by Bylaw #1664 passed October 8, 2013. The assessment roll is available on the county website for inspection.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

196 2018.11.13 2. Tax Roll

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 327, 329

1. Has an annual tax roll been prepared for the municipality? 2. Does the tax roll include the following:  a description sufficient to identify the location of the property or business;  name and mailing address of the taxpayer;  the assessment;  the name, tax rate, and amount of each tax imposed in respect of the property or business;  the total amount of all taxes imposed in respect of the property or business;  the amount of tax arrears; and  if the property is subject to an agreement between the taxpayer and the municipality (section 347 or 364)?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: An annual tax roll has been completed and contains the required legislated content.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

197 2018.11.13 3. Prepare Tax Notices

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 333

1. Are tax notices prepared annually for all taxable property and businesses shown on the tax roll of the municipality? 2. Are the tax notices sent to the taxpayers?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Tax notices are prepared annually and sent to taxpayers in accordance with MGA requirements.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

198 2018.11.13 4. Content of Tax Notices

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 334, 460

1. Does the municipality provide for a combined property assessment and tax notice? 2. Does the municipal property tax notice show the following:  the same information that is required to be shown on the tax roll;  the date the tax notice is sent to the taxpayer;  the amount of the requisitions, any one or more of which may be shown separately or as part of a combined total;  except when the tax is a property tax, the date by which a complaint must be made, which date must not be less than 30 days after the tax notice is sent to the taxpayer;  the name and address of the designated officer with whom a complaint must be filed;  the dates on which penalties may be imposed if the taxes are not paid; and  information on how to request a receipt for taxes paid?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The county uses combined tax and assessment notices. All legislative requirements were met.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

199 2018.11.13 5. Certify Date of Mailing

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 335, 336

1. Has a designated officer certified the date the tax notices were sent? 2. Have the tax notices been sent before the end of the year in which the taxes were imposed?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The CAO certified the date notices were sent, which was published in the local newspaper.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

200 2018.11.13 6. Tax Arrears List

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 412, 436.03

1. Has a tax arrears list been prepared showing the parcels of land in the municipality in respect of which there are tax arrears? 2. Has the list been sent to the Registrar and to the Minister responsible for the Unclaimed Personal Property and Vested Property Act? 3. Has the list been posted in a place that is accessible to the public during regular business hours? 4. Were persons notified who are liable to pay the tax arrears that a tax arrears list has been prepared and sent to the Registrar?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The county’s tax arrears list has been prepared and submitted to the Registrar as required before the March 31 deadline. The list is posted on the municipal website and in the county office. All legislative requirements were met.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

201 2018.11.13 7. Tax Sale

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 418, 436.08

1. Have those properties appearing on the tax arrears list been offered for sale within the time frame provided?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The last tax sale followed the process outlined in legislation and the Municipal Affairs Tax Recovery manual.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

202 2018.11.13 3.10 Planning

1. Subdivision Authority

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 623, 625-626

1. Is there a bylaw establishing the subdivision authority for the municipality? 2. Does the structure of the subdivision authority comply with section 623(2) which specifies that it may include one or more of the following:  any or all members of council;  a designated officer;  a municipal planning commission;  any other person or organization?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Bylaw #1721 passed November 8, 2016 establishes the subdivision authority as the municipal planning commission. The bylaw appoints the entirety of council by annual resolution of council, as well as discretionally up to 2 members at large.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

203 2018.11.13 2. Development Authority

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 624, 625 - 626

1. Is there a bylaw establishing the development authority for the municipality? 2. Does the structure of the development authority comply with section 624(2) which specifies that it may include one or more of the following:  a designated officer;  a municipal planning commission;  any other person or organization?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Bylaw #1721 passed November 8, 2016 establishes the development authority as the municipal planning commission. The bylaw appoints the entirety of council by annual resolution of council, as well as discretionally up to 2 members at large.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

204 2018.11.13 3. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB)

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 627, 628, Subdivision and Development Regulation 43/2002, Subdivision and Development Appeal Board Regulation 195/2017

1. Is a subdivision and development appeal board bylaw or intermunicipal agreement established? 2. Do the SDAB members exclude those who are:  municipal employees;  members of the municipal planning commission; and  individuals who can carry out subdivision and development powers on behalf of the municipality? 3. Is there no more than one councillor appointed as a member to the appeal board?  If more than one, is there Ministerial approval for the additional councillors to sit on the panel? 4. Are the active members of the SDAB trained? 5. Is there a clerk appointed to the SDAB, and is that person a designated officer? 6. Has the clerk received SDAB training? 7. Has the clerk kept a record of the hearings?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Bylaw #1754, passed November 28, 2017, establishes the SDAB. Section 2.1(f) of the bylaw states that "Members of Council may not form a majority of board members", which does not comply with current legislation. All members of council are appointed to the municipal planning commission, which would preclude members of council from being appointed to the SDAB (section 627(4)(c)). All other legislative requirements were met.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: No

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: A panel of the SDAB may only have one councillor as a member, unless the Minister authorizes otherwise, in accordance with section 627(3) of the MGA. Members of a municipal planning commission cannot be appointed as members of the SDAB.

RESOURCES: Municipal Affairs has developed an SDAB training guidebook and several fact sheets to assist municipalities, which can be found at the SDAB website. In addition, Municipal Affairs Planning Advisors are available to discuss these topics further by calling toll-free 310-0000 and then 780-427-2225.

205 2018.11.13 MUNICIPAL RESPONSE: Response to the findings, or comments, status or action to be taken including key milestones and deadlines. Where resolutions of council are required please provide the date of approval and resolutions of council and/or bylaw numbers.

206 2018.11.13 4. Subdivision Applications and Decision

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 653, 653.1, 679, Subdivision and Development Regulation 43/2002, Subdivision and Development Appeal Board Regulation 195/2017

1. Are the forms set out in schedules 1 and 2 of the Subdivision and Development Regulation used for all subdivision application and deferred reserve caveat decisions? 2. If required, were written referrals sent according to legislation? 3. Have all the mandatory requirements in section 653 and 653.1 of the MGA been met? 4. If there have been appeals, did the SDAB clerk give five days’ notice of the hearing to the appropriate stakeholders?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Subdivision applications and decisions are performed by county staff and the municipal planning commission. Subdivision file #KNE180107 was reviewed, and all legislative requirements were met.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

207 2018.11.13 5. Development Applications

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 683.1, 686, 687

1. Did the development authority review the application within 20 days to determine if it was complete? 2. If deemed complete, did the applicant get a notification that the application is complete, or if deemed incomplete, did the applicant get a notification from the development authority that the application is incomplete? 3. If the development permit application is refused, was a notice issued to the applicant? 4. Are appeal hearings held within 30 days after the receipt of a notice of appeal by the SDAB? 5. Does the SDAB give at least five days notice in writing of the hearing:  to the appellant;  to the development authority; and  to the owners as required under the land use bylaw? 6. Did the board make materials related to the appeal available for public inspection?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The application and decision regarding a riding arena, dated April 10, 2018, was reviewed. There were no records indicating that the application was deemed complete or notification provided to the applicant within 20 days as required by legislation. The completed application was dated April 10, 2018 and approved May 24, 2018, which is longer than the 40-day timeline specified in section 684(1) the MGA. No agreement was included in the documents to extend the decision date.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: No

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: The development authority must determine if a development application is complete within 20 days, and notify the applicant accordingly. The development authority must make a decision on an application within 40 days, unless the time period has been extended in writing.

RESOURCES: Municipal Affairs Planning Advisors are available to provide planning and development support by calling toll-free 310-0000 and then 780-427-2225.

208 2018.11.13

6. Alberta Land Stewardship Act (ALSA) Regional Plan or Land Use Policies

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 622, 630.2 and ALSA 20

1. Is there an ALSA Regional Plan in effect in your area? 2. If yes, which plan? 3. Has a statutory declaration been filed with the Land Use Secretariat indicating compliance with the regional plan? (Note: due within five years of an ALSA regional plan coming into force.)

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: There is no ALSA regional plan in effect for Kneehill County.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

209 2018.11.13 7. Growth Management Board

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 708.23

1. Is the municipality a member of a growth management board? 2. Has the growth management board established by bylaw an appeal mechanism or dispute resolution mechanism, or both, for the purposes of resolving disputes arising from actions taken or decisions made by the growth management board?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Kneehill County is not a member of a growth management board.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

210 2018.11.13 8. Land Use Bylaw

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 230, 606, 639, 640, 642 (1), 692 (4), Subdivision and Development Regulation 43/2002

1. Is there a Land Use Bylaw? 2. Does the Land Use Bylaw:  divide the municipality into districts (zones);  establish a method of making decisions on development permit applications, including provisions for: o the types of development permits that may be issued; o processing an application for, or issuing, canceling, suspending or refusing to issue development permits; o the conditions that development permits may be subject to; o how long development permits remain in effect; o the discretion the development authority may exercise with respect to development permits;  provide for how and to whom notice of the issuance of development permits is to be given;  establish the number of dwelling units permitted on a parcel of land; and  identify permitted and discretionary uses? 3. Does the public notice of application to rezone properties include:  the municipal address/legal address of the parcel of land;  a map showing the location of the parcel of land;  written notice to the assessed owner of that parcel of land; and  written notice to the assessed owner of the adjacent parcel of land? 4. Does the notice of a public hearing on land use bylaw related issues include:  the municipal address/legal address of the parcel of land;  a map showing the location of the parcel of land;  the general purpose of the bylaw and public hearing;  the address where the proposed bylaw, and any document related to the bylaw or public hearing can be inspected; and  the date, time and place of the public hearing?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The current Land Use Bylaw #1718 was adopted September 27, 2016. All legislative requirements were met.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

211 2018.11.13 9. Municipal Development Plan (MDP)

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 230, 606, 632, 641, 692

1. Is there a Municipal Development Plan?  Does the population of the municipality exceed 3,500?  If the population of the municipality is less than 3,500, does the Land Use Bylaw for the municipality contain ‘Direct Control’ zoning as per section 641(1)? 2. Does the MDP address/include:  future land use;  future development;  coordination of land use, growth patterns and infrastructure with adjacent municipalities (if there is no intermunicipal development plan);  transportation systems; and  municipal services and facilities? 3. Has the MDP been amended? 4. Was the amendment to the MDP advertised? 5. Was a public hearing held for the amendment to the MDP?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The county passed a municipal development plan by bylaw #1735 on July 18, 2017. The MDP has not been amended. All legislative requirements were met.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

212 2018.11.13 10. Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP)

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 230, 606, 631, 636, 692, 708.28, 708.3

1. Is there an Intermunicipal Development Plan? 2. Does the IDP address/include within the IDP area:  future land use;  future development;  transportation;  coordination of intermunicipal programs (physical, social and economic development);  environmental matters;  dispute resolution processes;  plan repeal/amendment procedures; and  plan administration provisions? 3. Has the IDP been amended? 4. Was the amendment to the IDP advertised? 5. Was there a public hearing for the amendment of the IDP?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The county is aware of the upcoming legislative requirements, and has adopted IDPs with two of the five urban municipalities within its borders.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: Council is required to adopt the required IDPs by April 1, 2020.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

213 2018.11.13 11. Intermunicipal Collaborative Frameworks (ICF)

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 708.33, Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework Regulation 191/2017

1. Has an ICF been adopted with each municipality that shares a common border? (Not applicable until April 1, 2020.)

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The county is aware of the upcoming legislative requirements and has struck committees to work towards the required ICFs.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: Municipalities are required to adopt intermunicipal collaboration frameworks by April 1, 2020 that specify what and how services are funded and delivered.

RESOURCES: Information on ICF requirements, contents and dates can be located online at: Intermunicipal Collaboration Frameworks

214 2018.11.13 12. Listing and Publishing Policies Related to Planning Decisions

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: MGA 638.2

1. Are the following published on the municipal website:  an up-to-date list of council approved policies (by bylaw or resolution) used to make planning/development decisions;  a summary of these policies and their relationship to each other and to statutory plans and bylaws passed under Part 17 of the MGA; and  documents incorporated by reference in any bylaws passed under Part 17?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The county has a section on their website which includes all required information relating to planning decisions.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

215 2018.11.13 3.11 Local Authorities Election Act (LAEA)

1. Joint Elections

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Local Authorities Election Act (LAEA) 2-3

1. Is there an agreement to hold an election in conjunction with another local authority? 2. Does the agreement include:  which elected authority is responsible for the conduct of the election; and  the appointment of a returning officer for each local authority?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The county did not conduct a joint election with another local authority.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

216 2018.11.13 2. Oath/Statement

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: LAEA 16, Local Authorities Election Forms Regulation 106/2007

1. Did the Returning Officer, and all deputy returning officers take the oath/statement as per the Local Authorities Election Forms Regulation for the most recent election?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Prior to the October 2017 general election, each election officer took the appropriate oath. Copies of the official oath have been retained by the county.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

217 2018.11.13 3. Nomination Forms

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: LAEA 27, 28.1, 34, 97

1. Is there a bylaw requiring a deposit upon the submission of a nomination form? 2. Were the nomination papers signed by at least five residents of the municipality? 3. Have all nomination papers that were filed prior to the most recent election been retained? 4. Were copies of the prescribed form for the identification of an official agent, campaign workers and scrutineers for the purposes of identification under section 52 made available to the candidates? 5. Does the municipality ensure that the Deputy Minister is forwarded a signed statement showing the name of each nominated candidate, election results, and any information about the candidate that the candidate has consented to being disclosed (for general elections and by-elections)?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Bylaw #1747, passed June 13, 2017 establishes a fee for submission of nomination papers. The observed retained records indicate that all legislative requirements were met.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

218 2018.11.13 4. Proof of Elector Eligibility

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: LAEA 53, 53.1

1. Is there a bylaw to require additional pieces of identification to prove elector eligibility? 2. If so, was the bylaw advertised? 3. Did the notice of the bylaw include:  a statement of the general purpose of the bylaw and the proposed requirements for the number and types of identification that must be produced to verify elector name, current address and, if applicable, age;  the address where a copy of the proposed bylaw may be inspected; and  an outline of the procedure to be followed by anyone wishing to file a petition in respect of the proposed bylaw, as provided for in the MGA?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The county does not have a bylaw requiring additional identification for electors.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

219 2018.11.13 5. Vote by Special Ballot

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: LAEA 77.1, 77.2, 77.3

1. If the municipality provided for special ballots, was the Minister notified?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The county does not provide for special ballots.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

220 2018.11.13 6. Ballot Account

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: LAEA 88, 89, 94, 100

1. Has a copy of the ballot account been retained?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The county has retained a copy of the most recent election’s ballot account and all legislative requirements have been met.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

221 2018.11.13 7. Disposition of Election Material

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: LAEA 101

1. Were the election materials disposed of in accordance with section 101? 2. Is there a copy of the affidavits of destruction of the ballot box contents sworn or affirmed by the two witnesses?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The election materials were destroyed and affidavits of destruction completed, which met legislative requirements.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

222 2018.11.13 8. Campaign Disclosure Statements

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: LAEA 147.4

1. Did all campaign disclosure statements include:  the total amount of all campaign contributions received during the campaign period that did not exceed $100 in the aggregate from any single contributor;  the total amount contributed, together with the contributor’s name and address, for each contributor whose contributions during the campaign period exceeded $100 in the aggregate;  the total amount of money paid by the candidate out of the candidate’s own funds;  the total amount of any campaign surplus, including any surplus from previous campaigns; and  a financial statement setting out the total amount of revenue and expenses? 2. Are all documents filed under this section available to the public during regular business hours?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: No campaign contributions were collected by county candidates.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

223 2018.11.13 3.12 Emergency Management

1. Municipal Emergency Organization/Agency/Advisory Committee

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Emergency Management Act (EMA) 11, 11.1, 11.2

1. Has an emergency advisory committee been appointed consisting of a member or members of council to advise on the development of emergency plans and programs? 2. Is an emergency management agency established to act as the agent of the local authority in exercising the local authority’s powers and duties under the EMA? 3. Has a director of the emergency management agency been appointed? 4. Are there prepared and approved emergency plans and programs?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The county has established the emergency management committee and agency, and appointed members to each. The director of emergency management has also been appointed by council. The county has prepared a municipal emergency plan. All legislative requirements were met.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

224 2018.11.13 3.13 Libraries

1. Municipal Library Board

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Libraries Act 3-5

1. Is a municipal library board established? 2. Has council provided a copy of the bylaw establishing the board to the Minister? 3. Has council appointed the members of the board? 4. In the case of an intermunicipal library board, have the councils establishing the board appointed the members? 5. Does the membership appointment term exceed three years? 6. Does any member’s number of terms exceed three terms? If so, did two-thirds of council approve? 7. Are there alternate members?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: Kneehill County does not have a municipal library board.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

225 2018.11.13 2. System Library Board

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Libraries Act 16, Libraries Regulation 141/1998

1. Is a system library board established? 2. Have councils that have signed the agreement appointed the members of the board? 3. Does the membership appointment term exceed three years? 4. Does any member’s total years of service exceed nine consecutive years? If so, did two-thirds of council approve? 5. Are there alternate members?

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: The county is a member of the Marigold system library board. One member and one alternate are appointed on an annual basis at the organizational meeting. All legislative requirements were met.

MEETS LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS: Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS/ACTION ITEMS: No action required.

RESOURCES: Not applicable.

226 2018.11.13 Section 4: Conclusion

Your participation and cooperation during the 2018 Municipal Accountability Program review are appreciated. This report is intended to help Kneehill County reach full mandatory legislative compliance.

No confidential information is contained within this report; therefore, the report in its entirety should be shared with council to strengthen awareness of the diversity and magnitude of municipal responsibilities, the significant tasks and work involved, and achievements in compliance. The report can be used as a planning tool for addressing the compliance gaps identified and for future training purposes. To demonstrate transparency and accountability to citizens, it is strongly encouraged that the review results are shared during an open public meeting.

The ministry is committed to maintaining a strong collaborative working relationship. As this is the inaugural year of the Municipal Accountability Program, we welcome your feedback on our review process as we work together to ensure Albertans live in viable municipalities with well-managed local governments.

227 2018.11.13 REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item #

8.5 SUBJECT: Seniors Outreach Request for Letter of Support

MEETING DATE: 2018-11-13

PRESENTED BY: Al Hoggan, CAO

BACKGROUND/ A request was made by the Seniors Outreach Program, to have Kneehill PROPOSAL County Council create a letter of support for the Seniors Outreach Program to apply for the “Aging Well in Community Grant Program.” The grant would assist Seniors Outreach to focus on elder abuse and community awareness within Kneehill County. DISCUSSION/ OPTIONS/ BENEFITS/ DISADVANTAGES:

COSTS/SOURCE OF N/A FUNDING:

☒ Directive Decision (Information Sharing-One way communication) ENGAGEMENT: Goal: To educate and inform citizens Tools: ☒ Individual Notification or ☐ Public Notification

LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: Viable Communities and Think , Act Regionally ATTACHMENTS: Draft Letter to Seniors Outreach RECOMMENDED ACTION: That Council support Seniors Outreach in applying for the “Aging Well in Community Grant” and direct administration to forward them the draft letter. COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. That Council provides support. 2. That Council receive for information

MOTION: That Council provide support to the Seniors Outreach Program in applying for the “Aging Well in Community Grant Program” and direct administration to forward them the draft letter that was presented.

Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil Approved By: Al Hoggan Reviewed By: Al Hoggan Executive Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Chief Administrative Officer

Document Last Updated February 27, 2018 228 2018.11.13

November 13, 2018

To Whom It May Concern:

RE: Letter of Support Kneehill Elder Abuse Project Grant

I am writing this letter on behalf of Kneehill County to express support to Seniors Outreach Program as they develop a Kneehill Elder Abuse Project.

Elder abuse is a serious issue in our area without any specific services addressing prevention and reduction. We fully support Seniors Outreach’s application to the Aging Well in Community Grant Program as they develop a project to address both prevention and reduction of elder abuse in Kneehill County.

Thank you for considering their application, if you’d like to discuss my support more please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards,

Jerry Wittstock Kneehill County Reeve

JWL/cv

229 2018.11.13 REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item #

9.1

SUBJECT: Branding - logo

MEETING DATE: 2018-11-13

PRESENTED BY: Debra Grosfield, Communications

BACKGROUND/ In August, Council made a motion to invest in branding our organization, with PROPOSAL Communications to provide Council with options on designs by November 2018. The delegation presentation today by Red Pine Fine Design came with logo options. DISCUSSION/ There were three new logos presented today with benefits and options in OPTIONS/ regards to rebranding. BENEFITS/ DISADVANTAGES: COSTS/SOURCE OF 2019 Budget Item Non-TCA of $103,000 FUNDING: 2019 Budget Item TCA Highway Signs of $234,000 ☒ Directive Decision (Information Sharing-One way communication) ENGAGEMENT: Goal: To educate and inform citizens Tools: ☐ Individual Notification or ☐ Public Notification

☐ Collaborative Decision (Active Participation- Share or delegate decision making) Goal: To share or delegate decision making Tools: ☐ Participatory Decision Making ☐ Inter‐Municipal Agreement ☐ Other‐ Decision today will be Directive as it is for Council feedback on designs. Future consultation from public on design choice would be collaborative. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: Economic development ATTACHMENTS: Delegation presentation from today. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council decision. 1. Defer logo selection until after the 2019 Strategic Planning and Visioning COUNCIL OPTIONS: Session 2. That Council chooses one of the options for a new logo with public consultation. 3. That Council sends back logo designs for more options/changes. 4. That Council does not go ahead with any changes to the logo and branding at this time. MOTION: Council decision.

Prepared By: Debra Grosfield Approved By: Al Hoggan Reviewed By: Al Hoggan Manager of Protective Services and Chief Administrative Officer Chief Administrative Officer Communications Officer

Document Last Updated February 27, 2018 230 2018.11.13 Drumheller Provincial Detachment Crime Statistics (Actual) January to September: 2014 - 2018 All categories contain "Attempted" and/or "Completed" October-09-18

CATEGORY Trend 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Homicides & Offences Related to Death 0 0 0 0 0

Robbery 0 0 0 0 0

Sexual Assaults 0 3 3 2 3

Other Sexual Offences 0 1 1 0 2

Assault 6 8 10 15 12

Kidnapping/Hostage/Abduction 0 1 2 0 1

Extortion 0 0 0 0 0

Criminal Harassment 5 6 4 12 6

Uttering Threats 6 2 8 4 5

Other Persons 1 0 0 0 0

TOTAL PERSONS 18 21 28 33 29

Break & Enter 14 8 13 25 10

Theft of Motor Vehicle 7 5 13 14 16

Theft Over $5,000 7 3 4 5 1

Theft Under $5,000 14 27 33 61 62

Possn Stn Goods 4 4 2 9 16

Fraud 11 7 14 4 13

Arson 0 1 1 2 1

Mischief To Property 22 20 25 25 27

TOTAL PROPERTY 79 75 105 145 146

Offensive Weapons 3 2 3 2 0

Disturbing the peace 9 3 7 7 4

OTHER CRIMINAL CODE 19 5 10 9 5

TOTAL OTHER CRIMINAL CODE 31 10 20 18 9

TOTAL CRIMINAL CODE 128 106 153 196 184

231 2018.11.13 Crime Statistics (Actual) January to September: 2014 - 2018 All categories contain "Attempted" and/or "Completed" October-09-18

CATEGORY Trend 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Drug Enforcement - Production 3 0 0 0 2

Drug Enforcement - Possession 11 2 1 1 6

Drug Enforcement - Trafficking 4 4 3 2 0

Drug Enforcement - Other 0 0 0 0 0

Total Drugs 18 6 4 3 8

Federal - General 3 0 1 0 1

TOTAL FEDERAL 21 6 5 3 9

Liquor Act 2 1 1 4 6

Other Provincial Stats 25 22 24 37 14

Total Provincial Stats 27 23 25 41 20

Municipal By-laws Traffic 0 0 1 1 0

Municipal By-laws 5 2 2 8 4

Total Municipal 5 2 3 9 4

Fatals 3 1 0 0 0

Injury MVC 7 15 1 3 1

Property Damage MVC (Reportable) 84 88 101 120 104

Property Damage MVC (Non Reportable) 23 14 8 11 8

TOTAL MVC 117 118 110 134 113

Provincial Traffic 322 366 279 350 993

Other Traffic 2 1 1 2 0

Criminal Code Traffic 17 14 18 16 24

Common Police Activities

False Alarms 23 31 24 24 35

False/Abandoned 911 Call and 911 Act 56 43 52 57 69

Suspicious Person/Vehicle/Property 26 24 25 37 35

Persons Reported Missing 0 2 3 4 3

Spousal Abuse - Survey Code 7 17 16 10 8

232 2018.11.13 233 2018.11.13 Drumheller Provincial Detachment Crime Statistics (Actual) September: 2014 - 2018 All categories contain "Attempted" and/or "Completed" October-09-18

CATEGORY Trend 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Homicides & Offences Related to Death 0 0 0 0 0

Robbery 0 0 0 0 0

Sexual Assaults 0 0 2 0 0

Other Sexual Offences 0 0 0 0 0

Assault 0 0 3 5 1

Kidnapping/Hostage/Abduction 0 0 0 0 0

Extortion 0 0 0 0 0

Criminal Harassment 0 1 0 2 0

Uttering Threats 1 0 0 0 1

Other Persons 1 0 0 0 0

TOTAL PERSONS 2 1 5 7 2

Break & Enter 4 1 5 6 2

Theft of Motor Vehicle 1 1 2 3 0

Theft Over $5,000 0 0 2 0 0

Theft Under $5,000 1 1 8 5 6

Possn Stn Goods 0 0 0 3 0

Fraud 2 1 1 0 4

Arson 0 0 0 0 0

Mischief To Property 3 3 4 5 3

TOTAL PROPERTY 11 7 22 22 15

Offensive Weapons 0 0 0 1 0

Disturbing the peace 1 0 0 0 2

OTHER CRIMINAL CODE 1 0 1 2 0

TOTAL OTHER CRIMINAL CODE 2 0 1 3 2

TOTAL CRIMINAL CODE 15 8 28 32 19

234 2018.11.13 Crime Statistics (Actual) September: 2014 - 2018 All categories contain "Attempted" and/or "Completed" October-09-18

CATEGORY Trend 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Drug Enforcement - Production 1 0 0 0 0

Drug Enforcement - Possession 1 0 0 0 0

Drug Enforcement - Trafficking 0 1 0 2 0

Drug Enforcement - Other 0 0 0 0 0

Total Drugs 2 1 0 2 0

Federal - General 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL FEDERAL 2 1 0 2 0

Liquor Act 0 0 0 0 0

Other Provincial Stats 3 3 7 6 2

Total Provincial Stats 3 3 7 6 2

Municipal By-laws Traffic 0 0 0 0 0

Municipal By-laws 0 0 1 1 0

Total Municipal 0 0 1 1 0

Fatals 0 0 0 0 0

Injury MVC 1 1 1 0 0

Property Damage MVC (Reportable) 8 12 9 15 13

Property Damage MVC (Non Reportable) 1 0 2 0 1

TOTAL MVC 10 13 12 15 14

Provincial Traffic 16 37 50 33 122

Other Traffic 0 0 0 0 0

Criminal Code Traffic 0 0 1 2 3

Common Police Activities

False Alarms 1 7 4 2 3

False/Abandoned 911 Call and 911 Act 16 3 6 3 5

Suspicious Person/Vehicle/Property 8 4 4 10 1

Persons Reported Missing 0 0 0 0 0

Spousal Abuse - Survey Code 0 1 3 1 1

235 2018.11.13 236 2018.11.13 DRUMHELLER & DISTRICT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2018, 1:30 pm COUNCIL CHAMBERS, TOWN HALL

PRESENT: S. WANNSTROM, VICE CHAIR STARLAND COUNTY D. DROHOMERSKI, SECRETARY/TREASURER TOWN OF DRUMHELLER T. FRANK, MEMBER AT LARGE VILLAGE OF HUSSAR D. PENNER, MEMBER AT LARGE KNEEHILL COUNTY W. WISE VILLAGE OF BEISEKER B. PEEVER VILLAGE OF CARBON D. SISLEY VILLAGE OF DELIA K. DEMOTT TOWN OF DRUMHELLER D. MOON VILLAGE OF LINDEN B. GOODFELLOW VILLAGE OF ROCKYFORD B. DUFFALA VILLAGE OF STANDARD J. WILSON WHEATLAND COUNTY T. NYGAARD EDO L. VANT RECORDING SECRETARY

ABSENT: B. ARMSTRONG CHAIR, WHEATLAND COUNTY B. MCLEOD VILLAGE OF ACME H. HELTON VILLAGE OF MORRIN K. MCLELLAN VILLAGE OF MUNSON B. MUNRO TOWN OF TROCHU

1.0 CALL TO ORDER D. Penner called the meeting to order at 1:33 PM

2.0 ADOPTION OF AGENDA MOTION: T. Frank moved to accept the agenda as presented. Carried.

3.0 MINUTES 3.1 Regular Meeting Minutes of August 16, 2018 MOTION: D. Sisley moved to accept the minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 16, 2018 as presented. Carried.

3.2 Discussion Arising from the Minutes T. Nygaard advised that the follow-up inspection at the Munson Transfer station has not been completed yet.

Vice Chair S. Wannstrom arrived to the meeting at 1:34 pm and took over as meeting Chair.

4.0 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4.1 SOUTHERN ALBERTA ENERGY FROM WASTE ASSOCIATION As Chairman Armstrong was not in attendance; T. Nygaard advised that that there was no new information on SAEWA to report, Chairman Armstrong will provide an update at the next meeting.

4.2 COMMERCIAL DISPOSAL FEES D. Penner suggested the Association make a decision on the commercial disposal fees; based on past discussions, the most equitable solution would be to increase the annual requisition. Once the value of the requisition is determined it would be up to the individual member municipalities to internally decide how they would collect the funds. Discussion was held on the various options; including moving to an assessment based requisition instead of per capita, implementing a set bin size and rate based on pick up frequency not volume, and reducing the residential requisition if a commercial requisition is implemented.

T. Nygaard advised that B. Armstrong had requested further information on how other landfill jurisdictions dealt with residential and commercial tipping fees. She further advised that the DDSWMA is unique in their funding approach whereby the residential disposal fees are subsidizing Page 1 of 4 237 2018.11.13 the commercial sector. She continued to explain that waste authorities that have a combined funding source; both requisition and tipping fees; it is the opposite, the commercial tipping fees subsidize the residential sector.

B. Duffala advised that this topic originated to address the substantial amount of free commercial waste being accepted at the Drumheller & District Regional Landfill. Discussion was held on the history of the Landfill and the introduction of tipping fees and how waste categorization factored into the equation in 1992.

The members directed T. Nygaard to try to calculate the volume of Drumheller residential and commercial wastes in comparison to the rural volumes of residential and commercial wastes. The purpose of the volume calculation is to try and determine how much of the incoming wastes from the transfer stations and Drumheller are commercial versus residential in an effort to arrive at an equitable commercial requisition for all members.

5.0 NEW BUSINESS

5.1 FINANCIAL STATEMENT JAN. – AUG. 2018 T. Nygaard presented the financial statement for January to August 2018 and highlighted the following: . overall expenses are at 67.8% . overall revenues are at 69.9% . the budget is on track with a minimal surplus . an increase in revenue is expected before year end from two demolition projects: the Starland County office building and the Elks building in Drumheller.

D. Drohomerski asked for clarification on a line item under recycling expenses: building rental for $12,000.00 annually. T. Nygaard advised that the item is used specifically as an in-kind contribution for grant applications. In 1994, recycling building #2 was constructed with funding from the Waste Management Assistance grant; the Town of Drumheller was the host sponsor for the grant application. The building is insured and maintained by the DDSWMA, she noted that it is recorded as a revenue and as an expense, with a net value of zero, the financial statements identify the rental expense as in-kind support from the Town of Drumheller.

MOTION: J. Wilson moved to accept the report for information. Carried.

5.2 STONEY NAKODA FIRST NATIONS REQUEST T. Nygaard provided an email from Stoney Tribal Administrator Dean Plant; requesting that the DDSWMA accept the waste from the Stoney, Morley and Rabbit Lake reserves. The waste volume would be 700-900 mt per year, and increase by a further 600-700mt per year in 2021 when their current Compactor bin contract expires. T. Nygaard advised that the current non-regional rate is $ 116.00/mt and they are seeking a reduction in the non regional rate. This matter was discussed at an executive meeting, the consensus from the committee was that the Association offer the same rate as previously offered to Airdrie Waste Management; $ 80.00/mt. Discussion was held on this matter. It was agreed that the rate of $ 80.00/mt would be provided to the Stoney Tribal Administrator for his response, and that further negotiation could occur in 2021.

MOTION: W. Wise moved that T. Nygaard negotiate a contract with Stony Tribal Administration for the acceptance of waste from the Stoney, Morley and Rabbit Lake reserves at a contracted non- regional rate of $80.00/mt until 2021 at which time the contract will be reviewed. Carried.

5.3 WASTE SERVICES CONTRACT T. Nygaard advised that a Request for Tender for the Waste Services contract was posted on the Alberta Purchasing Connection and on the Town website on August 31 and the opportunity closed on September 27, 2018. Only one tender was received from Whissell Contracting Ltd., who is the current contractor. The total bid amount for the five year contract was $ 1,971,330.00; the annual contract pricing was on a sliding scale from $ 375,038.00 in 2019 to $ 414,000.00 in 2023.

Page 2 of 4 238 2018.11.13 D. Drohomerski advised that he and T. Nygaard met with Whissell prior to the executive meeting. He stated that the tender asked for equipment that is four years old or newer so that by the end of the contract the equipment would be no older than ten or eleven years. D. Drohomerski advised that the current landfill operating hours are fifty hours per week, and includes Saturdays. The equipment operator works a 4 hour shift on Saturdays however Whissell pays them for an eight hour shift. Whissell has advised that they were having difficulty finding an operator that was willing to work only a 4 hour shift on Saturdays. In discussions with Whissell, cost savings ideas were recognized. One area that Whissell identified; the number of operating hours in relation to the amount of waste received. Whissell suggested that the Association consider reducing their operating hours to reduce costs. D. Drohomerski suggested that the extended summer hours on Wednesday evenings be cancelled and a reduction of one hour per day could be cut from the operator’s schedule. Based on the truck traffic data supplied by T. Nygaard, the slowest time at the Landfill is between 8:00 and 10:00 am. These proposed changes to the landfill hours of operation and the reduced landfill equipment hours would represent a cost saving of $ 53,000.00.

T. Nygaard advised that the highest traffic volume at the landfill is between 10:00 am and 4:00 pm throughout the year and an average of nine vehicles attend on Wednesday evenings between 4:30 and 7:00 pm. She further advised that the Wednesday extended hours was implemented after the Landfill ceased to operate on Sundays. Discussion was held on the proposed reduction in operating hours and on the Waste Services tender.

MOTION: T. Frank moved to reduce the summer operating hours at the Landfill by 2.5 hours on Wednesday evening and reduce the Whissell contractor hours by 7.5 hours per week. Contractor to operate year round from 9:30 am to 5:00 pm weekly with one half hour off for lunch and 1:00 – 5:00 pm on Saturdays. Carried.

MOTION: D. Penner moved to accept the Whissell Contracting Ltd. tender for the Waste Services contract with cost saving measures to be negotiated with Whissell. Carried unanimously.

5.4 GLEICHEN TRANSTOR REPLACEMENT T. Nygaard advised that the Gleichen Transtor was installed however modifications are required to line up the bin wall and the Transtor container. Due to a previous fire at that site changes were made to the Transtor which resulted in the bin wall being five inches higher than the lip of the Transtor. T. Nygaard advised that she will contact the manufacturer for suggestions on remedying this issue. Provided as information.

5.5 CANNABIS WASTE MANAGEMENT T. Nygaard advised that she has received a large number of calls on the appropriate disposal of cannabis waste; she provided a fact sheet supplied by Alberta Environment on the proper disposal of the various cannabis materials; liquid and solid. Currently there are no policies/procedures or disposal fees for the acceptance of cannabis waste materials at the Drumheller Landfill. The Province has advised that cannabis waste [stems and stalks] must be mixed 50-50 with other waste; such as wood chips, kitty litter or compost prior to placing it in the landfill to comply with provincial regulations. Discussion took place on this matter. T. Nygaard requested that the members discuss the proper disposal of cannabis wastes with their respective Councils and transfer station operators to ensure that the Provincial regulations are adhered to. Provided as information.

5.5 LANDFILL OPERATOR CHARGED UNDER AEPA T. Nygaard provided information and an overview of the recent EPEA charges laid against the Whitecourt and Woodland County Landfill. Multiple offences occurred including the release of substances into the watershed, limit non-compliance and changes made to their cells without provincial consent. She further advised that the outcome will likely be hundreds of thousands of dollars in charges to the operator, and stressed to the members that DDSWMA must be extremely cautious about complying and adhering to Provincial regulations. Further discussion was held on wastewater release regulations. Provided as information.

Page 3 of 4 239 2018.11.13 6.0 LANDFILL MANAGERS REPORT

6.1 MONIES & TONNAGE REPORT AUG. & SEPT. 2018 T. Nygaard presented the Monies and Tonnage report for August and September 2018 for the Association’s information.

6.2 RECYCLING VOLUMES AUG. & SEPT. 2018 T. Nygaard presented the Recycling Volumes for August and September 2018. She advised that less product was shipped during this period due to the unavailability of transport trucks. The issue has been resolved, and the fourth load for this month has now been shipped.

6.3 CARDBOARD & NEWSPRINT VOLUMES FROM REGION 2018 T. Nygaard presented the Cardboard and Newsprint Volumes from the region and noted that a total of 482 mt of cardboard has been recycled to the end of September, with newsprint volumes being lower. D. Drohomerski inquired if the volumes report could include a previous year to date comparison column. T. Nygaard responded that she will provide the previous years’ information on the next report.

6.4 COMMODITIES PRICING FOR OCTOBER 2018 T. Nygaard presented the Commodities Pricing for October 2018 and noted that the 2018 cardboard revenue budget was set at $80.00/mt; this month’s pricing is $94.00/mt from Capital Paper and $82.00/mt from Cascell.

MOTION: B. Duffala moved to approve the Landfill Manager’s report as presented. Carried.

7.0 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 7.1 ACCRUED VACATION T. Nygaard advised that a plan for the DDSWMA Executive Director of Operation’s accrued vacation has been provided and agreed upon by both parties. Provided as information.

7.2 SOUTHERN MUNICIPAL WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE T. Nygaard provided the minutes of the February 29, 2018 Southern Municipal Waste Managers Advisory Committee meeting tor the member’s information.

8.0 OTHER ITEMS FEEDBACK ON RECYCLING FACILITY T. Nygaard advised the members of positive feedback that was received from a cross-border transport driver; he praised the staff; advising that the Drumheller Landfill & Recycling Facilities were the nicest, cleanest landfill/recycling facility he had ever been to. T. Nygaard stated the well organized and cleanliness of the site and facilities was only possible through the cooperation and dedication of the Associations staff.

BUDGET MEETING T. Nygaard noted that the December 2017 Organizational and Regular meetings were a total of four hours in length. In light of this she inquired if the members would like a separate budget meeting. Discussion was held on this matter. It was agreed that an additional meeting would take place to review the budget on Thursday, December 6 at 1:30 pm.

8.0 DATE FOR BUDGET MEETING December 6, 2018 - 1:30 pm Council Chambers, Town Hall, 224 Centre Street, Drumheller

DATE FOR NEXT REGULAR MEETING December 20, 2018 - 1:30 pm, Council Chambers,Town Hall, 224 Centre Street, Drumheller

9 .0 ADJOURNMENT MOTION W. Wise moved to adjourn the meeting at 3:23 PM. Carried.

______Chairman Executive Director of Operations

Page 4 of 4 240 2018.11.13 EOEP Training Session October 17, 2018 Executive Royal Hotel – Leduc

Council’s Role in Strategic Planning

Strategic planning helps your local government realize its long‐term vision by setting up goals and objectives in a systematic, incremental manner. It makes you look at what is going on today, where you want to be tomorrow, and which steps you will need to take to get there.

Strategic planning, is a systematic planning process intended to provided clarity for council and its administration in relation to the roles and responsibilities of council, administration, and staff. The strategic plan describes the preferred future, translating a municipality’s vision and mission into a set of priorities and actions.

Strategic planning will only succeed if it has the full support of the elected officials, administration, and staff.

This training session was of good value to me as a councillor and I would recommend this session for other councillors should an opportunity present itself.

Kenneth King Councillor Division 7

241 2018.11.13 Alberta Recreation and Parks Association Convention October 25 – 28, 2018 Jasper Park Lodge – Jasper

Public Recreation for Elected Officials This session was interesting and there was a vigorous interaction about the development of Intermunicipal Collaboration Frameworks. The perspectives of the urban and rural municipalities present were both interesting and informative. Not all is well in the negotiation process.

There was a good interactive conversation on the value of recreation and quality of life factors in the community balanced against the economic development and the revenue generation that results. The end conclusion of the discussion was that recreation needed to be than a backdrop to economic development, but that it should be considered an important component of economic development.

Recreation was clearly defined as being more than arenas, swimming pools and playgrounds, and the overall agreement was that the other types of recreation such as public spaces, trails, pathways and parks should be considered to have equal value to some of the more institutional recreational facilities. The cost to participate in a recreational activity was recognized as a driving factor in what choices people make and what activities they choose to select.

The breakout sessions I attended tended to focus on the importance of partnerships, the value of volunteers, and the vision required by municipalities to see beyond tax revenue generation.

The Bunchberry Project – a partnership between five families that owned a section of land close to Edmonton, The Nature Conservancy of Canada, Stantec Landscape Architecture, the Edmonton and Area Land Trust and Parkland County. Designed to preserve in its relatively natural state a 640 acre parcel of land, access provided by a trail network and open to the public, mostly maintained by volunteers.

Creating Gnarly Spaces – the City of Calgary project that has 16 skateparks as its objective. Currently have 8 skateparks developed for the public use for skateboarding, biking, in line skating and other wheeled sports. Hugh dollars involved but fairly high satisfaction on the part of community and accessed by a wide variety of ages and skills.

Exceptional Trails/Little New York Trail – Longview. Demonstrated the power of a person with a vision who also has the ability to mobilize her community. Much can be accomplished with a little bit of ingenuity, perseverance and drive.

Creating Parks through Partnerships – showcased Calgary’s Rottary/Mattamy Greenway path system that circumnavigates the City of Calgary and focussed on the enormous value of building partnerships between business and municipalities to accomplish great results. A $50 million project that has resulted in 138 km pathway that encircles Calgary.

Great Neighbours Initiative – City of Red Deer. A program that is designed to build community and increase the sense of connectivity, security and safety within localized communities in and around the City of Red Deer.

Overall this conference was excellent and I would value the opportunity to attend again and would encourage other councillors to consider the opportunity to attend in the future.

Kenneth King Councillor Division 7

242 2018.11.13 REQUEST FOR DECISION Agenda Item #

11.0

SUBJECT: Council Follow-Up Action List

2018-11-13 MEETING DATE:

PRESENTED BY: Al Hoggan, CAO

BACKGROUND/ To request Council’s acceptance of the Council Follow-Up Action List. PROPOSAL

DISCUSSION/ Please find attached the Council Follow-Up Action List. The Council Follow- OPTIONS/ up Action list is a list of items from Council meetings that require follow-up. BENEFITS/ This document is regularly updated after each Council meeting. DISADVANTAGES:

COSTS/SOURCE OF N/A FUNDING:

COMMUNICATIONS: N/A

LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: N/A

ATTACHMENTS: November 13, 2018 Council Follow-Up Action List

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive as information.

1. Receive as information COUNCIL OPTIONS: 2. Council provide further direction or required changes/amendments. MOTION: That Council receive for information the November 13, 2018 Council Follow- Up Action List as presented.

Prepared By: Carolyn Van der Kuil Approved By: Al Hoggan Reviewed By: Al Hoggan Executive Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Chief Administrative Officer

Document Last Updated April 15, 2014 243 2018.11.13 Council Action Items Description/Motion Meeting Date Motion # Action Required Assigned To Due Date Status Councillor Christie moved to amend the 2018 Capital Project Budget to include the environmental site reclamation of the 24-Apr-18 127/18 Wimborne Inactive Fuel Station and the former Wimborne Grader Shed at a cost of $1.2 million dollars. Municipal Services Fall 2018 In Progress Deputy Reeve King moved to amend the 2018 Capital Budget 24-Apr-18 128/18 to accommodate funding in the amount of $500,000.00 to the Torrington Arena Project as presented. Municipal Services Fall 2018 In Progress Councillor McGhee moved to direct administration to pursue the rehabilitation of the Churchill Water System by securing and acquiring land for pump house, reservoir and bulk fill, complete engineering, create tender documents and tender 24-Apr-18 129/18 for construction as presented. Funding for the project to come from the Water Service Area Reserve and have the 2018 Capital Budget amended $4,634,048.00 for the Churchill Water System Rehabilitation. Municipal Services Fall 2019 In Progress Councillor McGhee moved first reading of Bylaw #1755 for Road Closure, that being a bylaw for the purpose of closing to

08-May-18 171/18 public travel in accordance with Section 22 of the Municipal Waiting for Government Act and to set a Public Hearing date for Bylaw Signature from #1755 for June 12, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. Municipal Services Minister Deputy Reeve King moved to approve the Dunphy Road Bank Protection Project in the amount of $550,000 for 2018 with 12-Jun-18 236/18 funds to be allocated for this project from the Road Reserve and apply for grant funding under the Alberta Community Resilience Program. Municipal Services In Progress Deputy Reeve King moved to approve $8,000.00 out of On agenda for either November 21-Aug-18 313/18 contingency to invest in branding our organization, providing 13th or 27th Council with options on designs by November 2018. Communications Council Meeting Councillor Keiver moved to accept the draft IDP document as presented and plan for the legislated processes and 11-Sep-18 322/18 appointment of committee member(s) at a future Council meeting. (Wheatland County) COMPLETED Councillor McGhee moved to bring back the Master Rates 09-Oct-18 374/18 Bylaw if and when there is a water rate change from our suppliers. That Council approve the scheduling of the 2019 Organizational Meeting for Tuesday, October 22, 2019 and to hold all regular Council meeting dates on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month with the exception of: · Cancellation of January 22nd, 2019 regular Council meeting date 10/23/2018 - ORG 390/18 · July- Schedule one meeting for July 16, 2019 · August- Schedule one meeting for August 20, 2019 · November- Cancellation of November 12th, 2018 regular Council meeting date . December- Schedule one meeting for December 10, 2019 COMPLETED

244 2018.11.13 Council Action Items Description/Motion Meeting Date Motion # Action Required Assigned To Due Date Status Councillor Penner moved that Council approve the third Tuesday of every month at 8:30 a.m. for a Committee of the Whole meeting, with the exception of: · February 19, 2019 · March 19, 2019 10/23/2018 - ORG 391/18 · July 16, 2019 · August 20, 2019 and the December Committee of the Whole Meeting will be held on December 3rd, 2019, and the February Committee of the Whole meeting will be held on February 5th, 2019 and the March meeting will be held on March 5th, 2019. COMPLETED That Council approve the scheduling of the 2019 Municipal Planning Commission meetings on the fourth Thursday of each 10/23/2018 - ORG 392/18 month in 2019 with the exception of: December meeting to be held on December 19th, 2019 COMPLETED Councillor King moved to direct administration to advertise for 10/23/2018 - ORG 394/18 a second Member at Large. Councillor King moved to approve sending the letter as drafted 23-Oct-18 402/18 by the ASB to the PMRA requesting the continued registration of 2% Liquid Strychnine. COMPLETED Councillor King moved to remove the 1999 GMC Fire Engine VIN #1GDL7H189YJ511926 from the capital plan and allow 23-Oct-18 403/18 staff to sell it directly to Rocky Mountain Phoenix for the sum of $9,000CAD. That the sale revenue be kept as a credit towards future purchases with Rocky Mountain Phoenix. COMPLETED Councillor Penner moved to approve to allow Hesketh Hall to 23-Oct-18 404/18 be added as an ANI under the County’s insurance policy with RMA Insurance. COMPLETED Deputy Reeve McGhee moved to provide support to the Three 23-Oct-18 405/18 Hills Thrashers Junior “B” Hockey Club, by sponsoring $350.00 and the tickets donated to Kidsport. COMPLETED Councillor Christie moved to write to the Councils of the towns and villages to schedule meetings one on one, so Council can 23-Oct-18 406/18 outline for them our vision of rural fire and discuss any concerns that our urban partners have with fire to be completed by January 1, 2019. Councillor King moved to approve the October 2018 Community Grants to Non-Profit Organizations funding to the following organizations: · Three Hills Junior B Hockey Club $4,500 23-Oct-18 408/18 · Kneehill Minor Hockey Association $4,500 · Kneehill Pond Hockey Association $1,000 · Carbon & District Agricultural Society & Curling Club $900 Acme Church of God (Seventh Day) $1,000 COMPLETED Councillor King moved to direct administration to respond in 23-Oct-18 409/18 writing to Trident Exploration Inc. that Kneehill County will not provide tax relief. COMPLETED

245 2018.11.13 Council Action Items Description/Motion Meeting Date Motion # Action Required Assigned To Due Date Status Councillor Christie moved to provide funding to the Lions Club of Trochu in the amount of $10,000 contingent on the Town of 23-Oct-18 410/18 Trochu matching the amount. DEFEATED COMPLETED Councillor King moved to direct administration to respond to the Lions Club of Trochu acknowledging a willingness to 23-Oct-18 411/18 consider an application that has more specific detail and a final project budget. COMPLETED Councillor King moved to fund Prairie Christian Academy 23-Oct-18 412/18 Society request in the amount of $25,000, to be funded from 2018 contingency. Deputy Reeve McGhee moved to direct administration to 23-Oct-18 416/18 proceed with placing the interim CAO advertisement as recommended. COMPLETED

246 2018.11.13