TOWN OF CANMORE AGENDA Regular Meeting of Council Council Chamber at the Canmore Civic Centre, 902 – 7 Avenue Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 5:00 p.m.
Times are estimates only.
PUBLIC QUESTION PERIOD – Before meeting is called to order
A. CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5:00 1. Agenda for the September 19, 2017 Regular Meeting of Council
B. DELEGATIONS 5:00 – 5:15 1. Brian McClure, President of Bow Valley Chamber of Commerce: Innovate Canmore 5:15 – 5:30 2. Brian P. Hennings – Proposed Off-Leash Dog Park 5:30 – 5:45 3. Mark Schulz – Proposed Off-Leash Dog Park
5:45 C. MINUTES 1. Minutes of the August 15, 2017 Regular Meeting of Council 2. Minutes of the August 22, 2017 Public Hearing for MR Disposition 3. Minutes of the August 22, 2017 Special Meeting of Council
D. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES None
E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5:45 – 5:55 1. Lot 28MR Disposition at 201 Stewart Creek Rise Recommendation: That Council approve the disposition of Municipal Reserve Lot 28MR, Block 21, Plan 1611360 known as 201 Stewart Creek Rise for the purpose of directing funds to the Municipal Reserve Fund and direct Administration to submit documents to Land Titles to undertake that disposition.
F. BYLAW APPROVAL 5:55 – 6:10 1. Community Event Committee Bylaw 2017-33 Recommendation: That Council give first, second, and third reading to Community Event Committee Bylaw 2017-33.
6:10 – 6:20 2. Bylaw 2017-32 Committee Term Length and Composition – to amend Bylaws 26-95, 27-95, 40-98 Recommendation: That Council give first, second and third reading to Bylaw 2017-32.
Agenda prepared by: Cheryl Hyde, Municipal Clerk Page 1 of 3
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 1 of 242 G. NEW BUSINESS 6:20 – 6:40 1. Amend Assessment Appeal Fees Recommendations: (1) That Council amend the 2017 complaint fee for Condo Corp # 0211484 to a total filing fee of $250 for all 39 assessment complaints filed. (2) That Council approve fees for an assessment complaint as follows: (a) Residential properties of 3 units or fewer: $50.00/tax roll (b) Non-Residential & Multi Family Residential of 4 units or more, based on an assessed value of: Up to $50,000 $ 50.00/tax roll $50,001 - $250,000 $250.00/tax roll $250,001 - $5,000,000 $500.00/tax roll Greater than $5,000,000 $650.00/tax roll And that the Assessment Review Board may, at their discretion, refund all or a portion of the complaint fee. (3) That Council rescind Resolution 075-2010, Complaint Fee Schedule.
6:40 – 7:00 2. Requests for an Adjustment to 2017 Property Taxes Recommendation: That Council uphold the 2017 property taxes as assessed on tax rolls #19613, #17633, #18594, #20757, and #13526.
7:00 – 7:15 BREAK
7:15 – 7:30 3. Provincial Living Wage Network Recommendation: That Council approve the allocation of $10,000 per year for two years (2017 and 2018) out of the General Operating Reserve to join an Inter-Municipal Living Wage Network.
7:30 – 8:00 4. Municipal Benchmarking – Police Services Purpose: To provide Council with highlights from the Municipal Benchmarking Initiative – Police RCMP report.
8:00 – 8:30 5. Municipal Benchmarking – Fire Services Purpose: To provide Council with highlights from the Municipal Benchmarking Initiative – Fire Services report.
8:30 – 8:45 6. Alberta South Central Mutual Aid Agreement Recommendation: That council authorize the signing of the Alberta South Central Mutual Aid Agreement as attached.
H. CORRESPONDENCE/INFORMATION None
I. REPORTS FROM ADMINISTRATION None
J. NOTICES OF MOTION None
K. IN CAMERA None Agenda prepared by: Cheryl Hyde, Municipal Clerk Page 2 of 3
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 2 of 242
8:45 L. ADJOURNMENT
Agenda prepared by: Cheryl Hyde, Municipal Clerk Page 3 of 3
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 3 of 242 Attachment 1
INNOVATE CANMORE Background Phase 1: “Pilot Model” 2017 - Phase 2: “Build Out” 2019-2020
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 4 of 242 The Vision ● Canmore economic diversification into the knowledge/learning-based technology space; focus on IP development in AI; ● Encourage knowledge/learning-based tech entities to locate and hire in Canmore ● Attract professional middle-income families;develop a vibrant working middle-class; ● Canmore to be a “destination of choice” for these professionals; quality of life attributes of the community; ● Leverage UofA & UofC research positions; ● Tie into the significant provincial and federal govt. investment focus in the tech sector particularly emphasizing R&D in September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 5 of 242 Artificial Intelligence (AI) The Ecosystem
● Canmore possesses a small but vibrant “sub-culture” of knowledge/learning-based technology professionals; ● Additionally,many such professionals would like to live & work in Canmore (e.g., discussions with the Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute at the UofA - post doctorates and professors.); ● Canmore has access to the Alberta Super-Net Internet infrastructure; ● Canmore has a role to play in leveraging recent federal & provincial govt. funding announcements in support of tech R&D particularly in Artificial Intelligence.
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 6 of 242 The Business Model
Phase 1 “Pilot Program” : Focus on development of IP;academic collaborations. Tech Super Hub : Co-working space;startup accelerator;scientific & www.innovatecanmore.com technical mentoring,education,social networking. : Users - sole practitioners to 3+ person tech startups. estimate up to 15 users by June 2018 : Funding - User fees,Provincial grants, Private equity.
Phase 2 “Build Out” : Monetize IP;corporate & academic collaborations Research Transition : Turn-key services: “Desktop to Market” Facility : R&D Campus (phased build-out but 40-60,000 sq ft at completion) : Funding -Developer,Corporate Sponsorship,Private
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 7 of 242
The Ask - Municipal Support
Phase 1-”Pilot Program”: Support “in kind” re Super-Net Access
Phase 2- “Build Out” : Funding for Initial Feasibility Study - $25,000 Focus - Municipal Economic Development diversification Applicant - Bow Valley Chamber of Commerce Consultant RFP; project scope to be developed by the Innovate Canmore Steering Group Brian McClure; President Bow Valley Chamber of Commerce Dr Stephen Bates; Dr Douglas Hallett; Ray de Paul; Sandra Lemon Study Period 3-4 months
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 8 of 242 B-2
Lawyer: Brian P. Hennings Direct Line: (403) 228-8385 Email: [email protected]
Assistant: Chelsea Strecheniuk Direct Line: (403) 228-8386 Email: [email protected]
File No. 17-2223/BPH
September 1, 2017
VIA EMAIL [email protected] The Town of Canmore Canmore Civic Centre 902 7th Avenue Canmore AB T1W 3K1
Attention: Lisa de Soto, Chief Administrative Officer
Dear Ms. de Soto:
Re: Hubman/Three Sisters Proposed Off-Leash Dog Park Further to the Town of Canmore’s letter of August 25, 2017, we acknowledge that letter and the contents of the same with our thanks. On a further review of this matter generally, and a review of the content of the town’s letter, some additional facts have come to light which, in our view, are prudent to the considerations of Council together with the written submissions already earlier advanced.
Off-Leash Dog Park Guidelines On review of a Town of Canmore planning document entitled “Open Spaces & Trails Plan” dated June 2015 (the “Plan”), we note that contained on page 33 of that document, a copy of which is attached for ease of reference, the plan provides as follows:
OFF LEASH DOG PARKS Provision of off-leash areas is important for avoiding the wildlife conflict and stress which can result from dogs being exercised off-leash in inappropriate areas. We recommend the adoption of the following off leash dog park guidelines: (…) • Accessible for maintenance • Varied opportunities – allow dogs and their humans to be active together • Minimum distance from a residential or commercial property of 120m • Minimum of 0.5ha area (…) [Emphasis Added] While we recognize that the Plan is not a document with force of legislation pursuant to the Municipal Government Act, we expect that the Town would have nevertheless carefully considered the information available to it and the relevant and reasonable
00308443v2 September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 9 of 242 Warren Benson Amantea LLP Page 2 alternatives regarding the adoption of the above guidelines before approving the Plan. Given that now in accordance with the Council Policy Guidelines dated June 27, 2017 such guidelines are a “recommended practice that allows some discretion or leeway in its interpretation, implementation, or use. (…)” [Emphasis Added], we are left to question why the Hubman site has been proposed at all given that the proposed Hubman site, in our view, falls afoul of at least four of these guidelines contained in the Plan. In particular, we are informed that proposed site:
1. has considerable access issues as outlined in our letter to Mr. Fish dated August 22, 2017; 2. is approximately 10-20m from the nearest residential property; 3. is approximately 0.3ha in total area; and 4. presently advances no particulars regarding varied opportunities which we assert ought to include varied opportunities for both dog and human users - much akin to the water, path and green space configuration present in other Town of Canmore off-leash dog park sites.
Right to Make Oral Submissions We take considerable issue with the town’s assertion that our clients are not entitled to an opportunity to be heard at the council meeting scheduled for September 19, 2017. In particular, we draw your attention to Section 7 of Procedural Bylaw 04-2013, which provides:
7: PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS 7.1. A person other than a member may submit a request to the CAO to include written material in the agenda and/or appear as a delegation at a regular council meeting or a committee of the whole meeting provided: a) The person has submitted their request in accordance with section 5; b) The person has provided a description of the matter they wish to address; c) The person has not addressed council on the same matter within the previous six months; and d) The matter does not pertain to any undecided matter that has been the subject of a public hearing.
First, we take the position that with this and our previous letter, we have submitted our request within fifteen days as required. Second, we have clearly addressed the issues on which we intend to make submissions. Third, neither the writer nor anyone for whom the writer acts (that we are aware of at this time) has made submissions before council in the preceding six months. Finally, while we recognize “community feedback” has been sought regarding this matter, we are of the view that these online surveys and site tours do not constitute a public hearing within the meaning of this section.
We are especially troubled by the town’s assertion that “there is no opportunity for citizens or their representatives to provide submissions to Council at this meeting.” On a plain and ordinary reading of the Procedural Bylaw 04-2013, it is not within the CAO’s sole authority to render such a decision, and we assert that Bylaw prescribes that such a decision shall be prepared under the joint direction of the CAO, the mayor and deputy mayor in accordance with section 5.1 of that bylaw. That it has been suggested otherwise, in our view, creates considerable threshold issues and procedural fairness issues in the advent of council making considerations or reaching any decision.
00308443v2 September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 10 of 242 Warren Benson Amantea LLP Page 3
Significant Notice Issues To remove any doubt that procedural fairness has not been afforded to the affected parties, and specifically our clients, the following will demonstrate the discrepancies between the notice already provided, the website which purports to provide public notice and disclosure (subject to our comments in this regard in our initial correspondence to the Town) and the town’s letter of August 25, 2017.
We have since confirmed that there are residents of Caffaro Court who were not mailed formal notice of the proposed Hubman site. We believe in light of the issues raised in our earlier letter to the town, all of these residents are affected parties. For Council to proceed to consider or decide the matter without notice to these parties raises a number of threshold and procedural fairness issues.
The website posted regarding this matter1 provides as follows: Timelines Collect community feedback on candidate sites – Complete Consolidate feedback - September Present to Council for decision - September 19 Prepare and post RFQ for infrastructure installation - October Pending Council decision - infrastructure installation - October [Emphasis Added] The town’s letter of August 25, 2017 provides: “Administration is in the process of summarizing this feedback and will provide it to Council for their consideration at their September 19th meeting. It’s important to note that this is a regularly scheduled meeting of Council, not a public hearing as your letter seems to suggest, and as such, there is no opportunity for citizens or their representatives to provide submissions to Council at this meeting. You and/or your clients are welcome of course to watch the proceedings from the gallery or on our live webcast.” [Emphasis Added] The town’s letter invites an inference that because the upcoming meeting is not a public hearing, no final decision or resolution could be reached at the regular council meeting currently scheduled for September 19, 2017. Despite this, the Town’s website indicates that this project could be installed in October, and that it will be presented to Council for decision at the September 19, 2017 meeting. Reading the website and the town’s letter in sum, the town’s implicit statement that no final decision could be reached on September 19th, 2017 is entirely at odds with the public notice and disclosure given through the town’s website. To say the conflict in these statements necessitates correction with a view towards affording procedural fairness to the community as a whole and our clients in particular would be well understated.
With the greatest respect to the town’s administration and Council, it strains the edges of credulity that given the foregoing issues, together with the town’s position regarding our office being required to request the records earlier requested under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, that any decision regarding the proposed Hubman site could be properly considered, much less decided, by Council on September 19, 2017. If such considerations were undertaken or such a decision rendered,
1 “New Dog Parks - Timelines”, Canmore, Town of. Retrieved from: https://canmore.ca/residents/livable-canmore/stewardship-of-the- environment/new-dog-parks on August 30, 2017.
00308443v2 September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 11 of 242 Warren Benson Amantea LLP Page 4 in our respectful view it would be on a substantially incomplete record, it would be replete with reviewable error and any such decision would make for the subject matter of various statutory appeals or judicial review.
Accordingly, we propose that the consideration of this proposed site be deferred from the September 19, 2017 Agenda to a public hearing date on a later date to be determined by Council. This will permit us to review the records provided under the FOIP Application which we enclose and from which we look forward to receipt of the records requested in the prescribed period required by that Act.
Alternatively, if the town will not defer its consideration of this matter to properly prepare the record to be put before Council, we expressly request that a delegation to be represented by the writer be given the opportunity to be heard in accordance with Section 7 of the Procedural Bylaw 04-2013. We also request pursuant to that same section that our letter of August 22, 2017 and this letter form part of the record provided to Council regarding this matter in any event.
We continue to look forward to working with you towards an amicable resolution to this matter.
Yours truly, WARREN BENSON AMANTEA LLP
BRIAN P. HENNINGS BPH/ Encl cc. clients Alaric Fish, Manager Planning & Development, Town of Canmore via electronic mail: [email protected] Cheryl Hyde, Municipal Clerk, Town of Canmore via electronic mail: [email protected]
00308443v2 September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 12 of 242 B-3 310 – 525 11th Avenue SW CALGARY, ALBERTA CANADA T2R 0C9
TELEPHONE (403) 245-0111 FACSIMILE (403) 245-0115 WEBSITE: www.ddwestllp.com
September 1st, 2017
REFERENCE NO: The Town of Canmore VIA EMAIL: [email protected] Canmore Civic Centre 124909-0008 902 7th Avenue Canmore AB T1W 3K1 PLEASE REPLY TO:
MARK D.J. SCHULZ, ESQ. ATTN: Lisa de Soto, Chief Administrative Officer DIRECT LINE:
403-541-5283 Dear Madams,
EMAIL: Re: Hubman / Three Sisters Proposed Off-Leach Dog Park [email protected] We are currently retained as the solicitors for a homeowner and are in the process of being retained by additional homeowners, in the Three Sisters area of the Town of Canmore. These residences have raised concerns regarding a proposed (new) off-leash dog LEGAL ASSISTANT: park (“the Hubman Dog Park”) which we understand the Town of Canmore Planning & MARION PARSONS Development department and Council intend to review at the upcoming regular council DIRECT LINE: th 204-975-2534 meeting schedule for Tuesday, September 19 , 2017 at 5:00 pm.
EMAIL: [email protected] We wish to advise that we are instructed to attend this scheduled council meeting for the purpose of making submissions in opposition of the proposed site on behalf of those residents
Services provided by: who we represent. We also understand that there is a separate group of residents that have Mark D.J. Schulz Professional Law Corporation also retained legal counsel for the same purpose. That said, apart from any time allocated for other parties to address Council, pursuant to Section 7 of Procedural Bylaw ο also of the Manitoba Bar 04-2013, we anticipate utilizing the entirety of the time ordinarily allotted for individuals to speak that would otherwise be reserved for the individuals whom we represent.
We also request that you provide the following information to our office to the writer’s attention BRANCH OFFICES: ο WINNIPEG as soon as practicable: ο AIRDRIE
1) The written record accumulated to date by the Town of Canmore regarding this matter;
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 13 of 242 - 2 -
2) Records of any and all complaints relied upon by the Planning & Development department regarding this matter; 3) The minutes of any meetings held to date regarding this matter; 4) The document(s) which started these considerations and proceedings; 5) Any and all notes of considerations made to date by the Planning & Development department regarding this matter; 6) Any and all research, evidence, or studies considered to date by the Planning & Development department regarding this matter; 7) Any and all studies related to the parking, traffic and access of the nearby and affected areas(s); 8) Any and all studies related to the wildlife, vegetation and environmental impact to the affected area(s); 9) Any and all studies related to user safety and nighttime access to the affected area(s); 10) The name(s), telephone number(s), job title(s) email address(es) of the decision- maker or decision-makers responsible for rendering a decision in this matter’ 11) Any and all records of the notice(s) issue to affected parties in the nearby affected area; 12) The evidence and exhibits regarding this matter filed with the Town of Canmore to date if any; and, 13) Anything else relevant to the consideration of council that the Town of Canmore currently possesses which it intends to rely upon in considering the proposed Hubman dog park prior to reaching a decision.
We are informed by our client(s) that only a select group of homeowners in the Caffaro Court, Hubman Landing, Miskow Close and Riva Heights area were directly informed via regular mail by the Town of Canmore. However, the remaining homeowners learnt of these proceedings by word of mouth or in select instances through one of the local (“Free”) newspapers. For this reason, despite the potential immediate impact that the proposed Hubman Dog Park may have on all homeowners from the aforementioned areas, the considerations or determination of the current proposed plan, by the Planning & Development department and Council would be
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 14 of 242 - 3 -
without notice to these parties which raises a number of threshold and procedural fairness issues.
Furthermore, we are informed by our client(s) that the Planning & Development department, together or separately from council, has failed to consider the access implications with the proposed Hubman Dog Park. In particular, there is no public road or parking access adjacent or nearby the proposed site. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that users from outside the immediate community will trespass across private property on Caffaro Court or Hubman Landing to access the proposed side, much like users of the nearby “Frisbee” (disc) golf course do already and we are told have done for many years.
Additional, we are informed by our client(s) that the proposed Hubman Dog Park would be constructed on what is already recognized as a de facto wildlife corridor for elk, deer, coyotes and red foxes, among other species. Accordingly, there are concerns that whether or not the proposed site resolves issues arising from off-leash dog walking the Three Sisters area, it will increase interactions between wildlife, pets and humans in a manner that is potentially detrimental to each of the dogs, wildlife and humans who may use the proposed area.
We are further advised by our client(s) that the Town of Canmore has to date refused to acknowledge the loss of amenity and corresponding devaluation of property associated with an off-leash dog park being built in this area. We assert for the considerations which follow and which considerations we believe have not yet been adequately assessed, or assessed at all, there is an undoubted loss of amenity associated with this proposed plan. This is especially so given the access concerns outlined above. We would appreciate your office providing a copy of the market studies, current market assessments or appraisals relied upon in support of this assertion.
Finally, we are informed by our client(s) that the currently advanced proposal does not include several important considerations which in our opinion is critical for the success and viability of such a site, both for users and nearby residents alike. These items include, but are not limited to:
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 15 of 242 - 4 -
1) Access to fresh drinking water for dogs, the nearest source of which appears to be several hundred meters northwest of the proposed site; 2) Dog urine odor mitigation or elimination; 3) Flora protection and harm mitigation strategy and policy against damage to the local including grass, tree and wildflowers, 4) changes to soil alkalinity in the immediate and surrounding area caused by dog urine; 5) additional enforcement measures for non-compliance with regards to noise (barking) and disposal of dog excrement; 6) mitigation strategies for aggressive or dangerous dogs using the proposed site; 7) sub-enclosures for small or medium sized dogs within the larger proposed enclosed area; 8) insufficient length, overall area and “running lanes” for large-breed dogs; and 9) lighting and other safety and security measures for dusk and night users.
Should the foregoing considerations cause your office to reconsider the proposed Hubman site, or proceed with one of the alternative sites advanced, please advise the writer immediately so that we may withdraw or revise our submissions as necessary.
However, to permit our client(s) the opportunity to adequately address council, we propose that the consideration of the Hubman Dog Park be deferred from the September 19, 2017 Agenda to a public hearing on a later date to be determined by Council.
Alternatively, if Council will not defer its consideration of this matter to permit homeowners the opportunity to properly prepare the record to put before Council, we expressly request that a delegation to be represented by the writer and/or any other legal counsel, be given the opportunity to be heard in accordance with Section 7 of the Procedural Bylaw 04-2013. We also request pursuant to same section that this letter form part of the record provided to Council regarding this matter in any event.
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 16 of 242 - 5 -
We look forward to working with you towards an cordial resolution to this matter.
Yours truly,
DD West LLP Per:
MARK DJ SCHULZ, Esq. MDJS / wlw Encl cc. Clients Alaric Fish, Manager Planning & Development, Town of Canmore via email: [email protected] Cheryl Hyde, Municipal Clerk, Town of Canmore via email: [email protected]
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 17 of 242 Unapproved C-1
TOWN OF CANMORE MINUTES Regular Meeting of Council Council Chamber at the Canmore Civic Centre, 902 – 7 Avenue Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 5:00 p.m.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT John Borrowman Mayor Esmé Comfort Deputy Mayor Ed Russell Councillor Vi Sandford Councillor Joanna McCallum Councillor Sean Krausert Councillor Rob Seeley Councillor
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT None
ADMINISTRATION PRESENT Lisa de Soto Chief Administrative Officer Michael Fark General Manager of Municipal Infrastructure Lisa Brown Acting General Manager of Municipal Services Robyn Dinnadge Manager of Communications Katherine Van Keimpema Manager of Financial Services Andy Esarte Manager of Engineering Therese Rogers Manager of Human Resources Greg Burt Manager of Protective Services Cheryl Hyde Municipal Clerk (Recorder)
Mayor Borrowman called the August 15, 2017 regular meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
A. CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1. Agenda for the August 15, 2017 Regular Meeting of Council 226-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council approve the agenda for the August 15, 2017 regular meeting as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
B. DELEGATIONS None
C. MINUTES 1. Minutes of the June 27, 2017 Special Meeting of Council 227-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council approve the minutes of the June 27, 2017 special meeting as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Minutes approved by: ______September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 18 of 242 Town of Canmore Regular Council Meeting Unapproved August 15, 2017 Page 2 of 4
2. Minutes of the July 4, 2017 Regular Meeting of Council 228-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council approve the minutes of the July 4, 2017 regular meeting as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
D. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES None
E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None
F. BYLAW APPROVAL 1. 2018 Debenture Borrowing Bylaws Second and Third Readings 229-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council give second reading to Debenture Borrowing Bylaw 2017-04 – Cougar Creek Flood Retention Structures. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
230-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council give third reading to Debenture Borrowing Bylaw 2017-04 – Cougar Creek Flood Retention Structures. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 231-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council give second reading to Debenture Borrowing Bylaw 2017-11 CRC – Lifecycle Maintenance Construction. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
232-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council give third reading to Debenture Borrowing Bylaw 2017-11 CRC – Lifecycle Maintenance Construction. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
233-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council give second reading to Debenture Borrowing Bylaw 2017-12 Lift Station 2 Construction Upgrade. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
234-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council give third reading to Debenture Borrowing Bylaw 2017-12 –Lift Station 2 Construction Upgrade. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
235-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council give second reading to Debenture Borrowing Bylaw 2017-13 WWTP Dewatering System Capacity Upgrade Construction. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
236-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council give third reading to Debenture Borrowing Bylaw 2017-13 WWTP Dewatering System Capacity Upgrade Construction. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
2. CCHC Construction Loan Guarantee Bylaw 2017- 31 237-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council give second reading to Canmore Community Housing Corporation Construction Loan Guarantee Bylaw 2017-31. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Minutes approved by: ______
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 19 of 242 Town of Canmore Regular Council Meeting Unapproved August 15, 2017 Page 3 of 4
238-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council gives third reading to Canmore Community Housing Corporation Construction Loan Guarantee Bylaw 2017-31. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
G. NEW BUSINESS 1. Amended AUMA Resolution 239-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman That Council rescind resolution 207-2017. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
240-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council approve the following resolution for consideration at the annual AUMA conference:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association request that the Government of Alberta make the appropriate regulatory and legislative amendments to allow non-profit housing organizations, foundations, authorities, and other similar entities to borrow directly from the Alberta Capital Finance Authority. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
2. Bow Valley Trail Pedestrian Connectivity at Developments 241-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council approve a change in scope to capital project 1731 Active Transportation Projects to include a cost share for roadway improvements for pathways adjacent to developments on Bow Valley Trail in accordance with the Area Redevelopment Plan. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
K. IN CAMERA 1. IAFF 2017 Collective Agreement 242-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council take the meeting in camera at 6:02 p.m. to prevent disclosure of information related to contractual negotiations, in accordance with section 25(1)(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
243-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council return to the public meeting at 6:17 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
G. NEW BUSINESS continued 3. IAFF 2017 Collective Agreement 244-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman That Council authorize the signing of the Memorandum Agreement between the Town of Canmore and the International Association of Fire Fighters – Local 4705, dated August 1, 2017. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Minutes approved by: ______
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 20 of 242 Town of Canmore Regular Council Meeting Unapproved August 15, 2017 Page 4 of 4
4. Addressing Human/Wildlife Conflict (verbal presentation) 245-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council direct administration to work with their counterparts in the Province to convene a group of representatives from various agencies that will meet to develop a terms of reference for a larger initiative to focus on processes and options to reduce human/wildlife conflict in the Bow Valley and to report back to Council on the progress of this initiative by the first meeting in October 2017. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
H. CORRESPONDENCE/INFORMATION None
I. REPORTS FROM ADMINISTRATION None
J. NOTICES OF MOTION None
K. IN CAMERA 1. IAFF 2017 Collective Agreement Addressed prior to item G-3.
L. ADJOURNMENT 246-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council adjourn the August 15, 2107 regular meeting at 6:38 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
______John Borrowman, Mayor
______Cheryl Hyde, Municipal Clerk
Minutes approved by: ______
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 21 of 242 Unapproved C-2
TOWN OF CANMORE MINUTES Public Hearing for Disposition of Municipal Reserve Lot 28MR, Block 21, Plan 1611360 – 201 Stewart Creek Rise Council Chamber at the Canmore Civic Centre, 902 – 7 Avenue Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 5:00 p.m.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT John Borrowman Mayor Esmé Comfort Deputy Mayor Ed Russell Councillor Vi Sandford Councillor Joanna McCallum Councillor Sean Krausert Councillor Rob Seeley Councillor
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT None
ADMINISTRATION PRESENT Lisa de Soto Chief Administrative Officer Michael Fark General Manager of Municipal Infrastructure Greg Burt Acting General Manager of Municipal Services Robyn Dinnadge Manager of Communications Richard Williams Junior Planner Suzette Cardinal Executive Assistant (Recorder)
1. INTRODUCTION Mayor Borrowman opened the public hearing for the Disposition of Municipal Reserve Lot 28MR, Block 21, Plan 1611360 – 201 Stewart Creek Rise.
2. ADMINISTRATIVE BRIEFING Administration provided the context and background of the Lot MR Disposition at 201 Stewart Creek Rise.
3. QUESTIONS OF CLARIFICATION Council was provided the opportunity to ask questions of administration.
4. PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS None.
Minutes approved by: ______September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 22 of 242 Town of Canmore Public Hearing Unapproved August 22, 2017 Page 2 of 2
5. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS In favour Jessica Karpat, Quantum Place Development on behalf of Three Sisters Mountain Village Properties Ltd.
Opposed Ken Johnson
6. FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS None.
7. CLOSING Mayor Borrowman closed the public hearing at 5:06 p.m.
______John Borrowman, Mayor
______Suzette Cardinal, Recorder
Minutes approved by: ______
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 23 of 242 Unapproved C-3
TOWN OF CANMORE MINUTES Special Meeting of Council Council Chamber at the Canmore Civic Centre, 902 – 7 Avenue Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT John Borrowman Mayor Esmé Comfort Deputy Mayor Ed Russell Councillor Vi Sandford Councillor Joanna McCallum Councillor Sean Krausert Councillor Rob Seeley Councillor
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT None
ADMINISTRATION PRESENT Lisa de Soto Chief Administrative Officer Michael Fark General Manager of Municipal Infrastructure Greg Burt Acting General Manager of Municipal Services Robyn Dinnadge Manager of Communications Lee Provost Supervisor of Planning and Development Suzette Cardinal Executive Assistant (Recorder)
Mayor Borrowman called the August 22, 2017 regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
A. CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1. Agenda for the August 22, 2017 Special Meeting of Council 247-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council approve the agenda for the August 22, 2017 special meeting. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
B. DELEGATIONS None
C. MINUTES None
D. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES None
E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None
Minutes approved by: ______September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 24 of 242 Town of Canmore Regular Council Meeting Unapproved August 22, 2017 Page 2 of 4
F. BYLAW APPROVAL 1. Bylaw 2017-29 2017 Land Use Bylaw Update 248-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council give first reading to Bylaw 2017-29 2017 Land Use Bylaw Update and schedule a public hearing for September 12, 2017 at 6 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
G. NEW BUSINESS 1. Development Permit for a 49 unit Multi-Family Perpetual Affordable Housing (PAH) Development – 17th Street & 11th Avenue (Old Daycare Lands)
249-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council approve DP2017-126 subject to the following conditions of approval: Approved Variances 1) Old Daycare Lands Direct Control District a) Section 3.36.6.3: The maximum building height for Area B shall be 8.5m – allow 9.3m. Variance of 0.8m (9.4% variance). 2) General Parking Regulations: a) Section 3.36.8.1: All developments shall conform to Section 4, General Regulations i) Section 4.3.2.7 Parking Required for PAH – allow 92 parking stalls. Variance of 5 stalls (5.2% variance).
Standard Conditions Of Approval 1) The applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the Town of Canmore, prior to commencing any construction. The Development Agreement shall include provisions regarding the payment of any required levies or fees. An application must be made in writing requesting that the Development Agreement be drawn up. A Certificate of Title evidencing the ownership of the property, and the name(s) of the person(s) having signing authority must accompany this request. 2) The applicant shall comply with all Town of Canmore Engineering requirements including the following: b) No roof or other on-site drainage will be allowed to flow to the sanitary sewer system. c) The developer must ensure that no drainage is diverted to either of the adjoining private properties or onto Town road or trail right-of-way. The location of all catch basins, dry wells and down spouts must be designed and constructed to meet this specification. d) Water and sewer services are to be the satisfaction of the Director of Environmental Services and must conform to the Engineering Design Standards and Open Space Guidelines of the Town of Canmore. Specifications must be obtained from the Senior Manger of Engineering. e) Should the developer intend or wish, to subdivide the property or building at some point in the future, a water meter and scan pad (puck) shall be required for each new title created and registered at the land Titles Office, to be installed where the main water service enters the property, in accordance with the Town of Canmore Water Works Bylaw
Minutes approved by: ______
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 25 of 242 Town of Canmore Regular Council Meeting Unapproved August 22, 2017 Page 3 of 4
(8-98), as amended from time to time. f) The Consultant must submit a covering letter as per the current Town of Canmore Engineering Design Guidelines, Section 1, giving a description of the project and confirmation that all aspects of the design meet the requirements of the Town of Canmore and other authorities having jurisdiction (e.g. Alberta Environment). Note any variances required in this covering letter. 3) All development shall comply with Alberta Environment ground water table elevation. No habitable floor space shall be built below the ground water table as determined by the Town of Canmore. 4) All construction shall comply with the Alberta Building Code and the Safety Codes Act. 5) All construction, landscaping and exterior finishing materials are to be as shown on the approved plans and other supporting material submitted with the application. 6) Any trees, shrubs or other plant material installed as part of the landscaping plan which may die or is blown over, shall be replaced on an ongoing basis, prior to receipt by the developer of a Development Completion Certificate. All pathways shown on the submitted plans shall be constructed as shown, and built to the relevant standards contained in the Town of Canmore Engineering Design Standards and Open Space Guidelines where appropriate. 7) Any roof top mechanical apparatus, including chimneys and vents, shall be screened to the satisfaction of the Development Authority. 8) Access to the site for emergency vehicles shall be to the satisfaction of the Manager of Emergency Services. 9) All signs shall require separate development permits. 10) No occupancy shall be permitted until an Occupancy Certificate has been issued by the Town of Canmore.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 11) The applicant shall provide security to the Town of Canmore in the form of cash or an irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of xxxxx dollars ($XXX,xxx.xx) to ensure completion of the project. The Letter of Credit shall be supplied at the time of the signing of the Development Agreement, and shall be in a format acceptable to the Town of Canmore. 12) The applicant is required to provide 92 parking stalls as shown in the approved plans. All on-site driveway and parking stalls, and loading spaces shall be graded and paved to dispose of drainage to the satisfaction of the Development Authority. 13) The applicant shall pay off site levies according to the approved bylaw adopted by Council. This amount shall be calculated and paid prior to release of the Development Permit. The Development Agreement shall specify the manner of the payment of these moneys. 14) The applicant shall address the items listed in DP2017-126 Engineering Review 1 to the satisfaction of the Town of Canmore’s Engineering Department. 15) The applicant shall amend the number and location of the waste & recycling bins to the satisfaction of the Town of Canmore’s Solid Waste Services Department.
Minutes approved by: ______
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 26 of 242 Town of Canmore Regular Council Meeting Unapproved August 22, 2017 Page 4 of 4
16) The applicant shall ensure the application satisfies the requirements of the Town of Canmore’s Fire Rescue Department. 17) Prior to the release of the Building Permit, the Green Building requirements shall be confirmed to the satisfaction of the Town of Canmore. 18) A Construction Management Plan and an Erosion Sediment Control Plan must be provided and approved prior to site stripping, grading or utilities installation. CARRIED In favour: Krausert, McCallum, Seeley, Borrowman, Comfort, Sandford Opposed: Councillor Russell
H. CORRESPONDENCE/INFORMATION None
I. REPORTS FROM ADMINISTRATION None
J. NOTICES OF MOTION None
K. IN CAMERA None
L. ADJOURNMENT 250-2017 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council adjourn the August 22, 2107 special meeting at 7:45 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
______John Borrowman, Mayor
______Suzette Cardinal, Recorder
Minutes approved by: ______
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 27 of 242 Request for Decision
DATE OF MEETING: September 19, 2017 Agenda #: E-1
TO: Council
SUBJECT: Lot 28MR Disposition at 201 Stewart Creek Rise
SUBMITTED BY: Richard Williams, Junior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the disposition of Municipal Reserve Lot 28MR, Block 21, Plan 1611360 known as 201 Stewart Creek Rise for the purpose of directing funds to the Municipal Reserve Fund and direct Administration to submit documents to Land Titles to undertake that disposition.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In response to Council direction and input received from the public at the public hearing, Administration recommends to dispose of Lot 28MR in the recently approved Stewart Creek Phase 3 subdivision. The proceeds from this sale will partially offset the purchase of land at 990 Wilson Way.
RELEVANT COUNCIL DIRECTION, POLICY, OR BYLAWS Council Resolution 2016-167, directed Administration to pursue selling a portion of MR dedication in Stewart Creek Phase 3.
In accordance with s674 and s230 of the MGA, a Public Hearing was held on 22 August 2017. Furthermore, in accordance with s606, the intention to dispose of the MR land was advertised on 10 and 17 August 2017.
DISCUSSION The 2014 phase 3 subdivision of Stewart Creek located in Three Sisters Mountain Village includes six parcels of MR, most of which include important pedestrian connections through the area. The smallest of the six is a 532m2 parcel of land for Municipal Reserve and does not include any key pathway linkages or important neighbourhood nodes. It is located at 201 Stewart Creek Rise and a lane is proposed to the rear of the parcel (see Attachment 1, though note that the site has since been cleared and re-graded).
The parcel is currently being re-graded, will be generally flat and has been cleared of any vegetation. The parcel is located just beyond current development, and there are no services extended to this parcel at this time. The extension of services to this parcel is directly linked to the development of adjacent land, and will occur concurrently with area servicing. The site does have modest improvements planned (some landscaping, two benches, and waste and recycling containers; (see Attachment 2)). Development and new residents in this area are not expected until the middle of 2018 at the earliest. Removal of the MR designation will not have a significant impact on the future residents.
The public hearing received two written comments. One comment was in favour provided that architectural controls were registered on title, and the other was not in favour, suggesting more thought on the overall development is required. There were no verbal presentations or questions made at the public hearing.
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 28 of 242 Lot 28MR disposition at 201 Stewart Creek Rise Page 2 of 5
Administration recommends that registering architectural controls on a title creates a secondary control on the parcel that may duplicate the intent of future zoning. Administration is willing to work further on the future zoning to incorporate architectural requirements, however, should the commentator wish to register a private caveat of architecture controls, they will be required to be the successful purchaser of the property. Administration is satisfied that sufficient thought has been given to the proposal and may proceed as intended.
Zoning The site is currently zoned as Public Use (PD) District. The parcel will need to be rezoned to facilitate future development. This process will proceed following the MR disposition.
NEXT STEPS 1. A motion of Council is required directing Administration to remove the Municipal Reserve designation. 2. The parcel will be rezoned to facilitate future development. 3. The parcel will be sold. 4. Proceeds from the sale will be directed towards Municipal Reserve fund.
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACTS The sale of the land will result in funds being directed towards the Municipal Reserve fund. The current appraised value of the land is $190,000 based on the assumption of Local Commercial District zoning and with area architectural controls in place. The final sale amount will depend on the rezoning and development potential.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Preliminary discussions with Three Sisters have been undertaken.
The public hearing was held on 22 August 2017, including advertising in the Rocky Mountain Outlook and a notification board was positioned near the property for two weeks.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT The proposal aligns with the Strategic Goal of:
Goal 4: The Town of Canmore delivers effective and fiscally responsible services while valuing innovation.
ATTACHMENTS 1) Site Aerial Photo 2) Existing landscaping plan for Lot 28MR
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 29 of 242 Lot 28MR disposition at 201 Stewart Creek Rise Page 3 of 5
AUTHORIZATION
Submitted by: Richard Williams Junior Planner Date: August 31, 2017
Approved by: Katherine Van Keimpema, CPA, CGA, BADM, CLGM Manager of Financial Services Date: September 7, 2017
Approved by: Alaric Fish Manager of Planning and Development Date September 7, 2017
Approved by: Michael Fark General Manager of Infrastructure Date: September 5, 2017
Approved by: Lisa de Soto Chief Administrative Officer Date: September 14, 2017
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 30 of 242 Lot 28MR disposition at 201 Stewart Creek Rise Page 4 of 5
Attachment 1: Site Aerial Photo
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 31 of 242 Lot 28MR disposition at 201 Stewart Creek Rise Page 5 of 5
Attachment 2: Existing landscaping plan for Lot 28MR
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 32 of 242 Request for Decision
DATE OF MEETING: September 19, 2017 Agenda #: F-1
TO: Council
SUBJECT: Community Event Committee
SUBMITTED BY: Chris Bartolomie, Supervisor, Arts and Events
RECOMMENDATION: That Council give first, second, and third reading to Community Event Committee Bylaw 2017-33.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Canmore Events Review and subsequent report presented to Council in 2014 recommended the formation of a committee responsible for: 1. Event application evaluation, approval or rejection; 2. Policy, plan, practice and procedural recommendations; 3. Recommendations regarding educational and information sharing opportunities for event stakeholders; 4. Recommending changes to the event delivery system based on reliable research of event delivery and evaluation methods (e.g. procedures, innovative ideas, transportation, cost recovery), with an eye to financial and infrastructure sustainability; and 5. Collaborating with Town administration to create a strategic direction for events.
The Terms of Reference for the Canmore Event Committee was presented to Council in a Briefing Report on July 7, 2015. The committee, as defined, was formed in November of 2015. Changes in the committee criteria are necessary as Canmore Business and Tourism has dissolved, the process for event evaluation has changed, and it was determined that the inclusion of the Streets and Roads, Facility Booking and Parks departments would strengthen the committee. In addition, public members should be appointed by Council and the committee created by bylaw, as is practice with other Town committees.
The Committee will be made up of the following nine members: 1. Supervisor, Arts and Events or designate (non-voting member) 2. Supervisor, Streets and Roads or designate (non-voting member) 3. Supervisor, Parks or designate (non-voting member) 4. Facility Booking Coordinator or designate (non-voting member) 5. One member from the BRZ 6. Two community event producers (selected by Arts and Events) 7. Two members of the public (appointed by Council)
The committee will review all event applications twice a year and hold other meetings as needed.
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 33 of 242 Community Event Committee Request for Decision Page 2 of 3
RELEVANT COUNCIL DIRECTION, POLICY, OR BYLAWS Canmore Events Review Report accepted as information by Council on July 2, 2014 Canmore Events Committee Terms of Reference presented in a Briefing Report to Council on July 7, 2015 Community Events Policy 2010-306
DISCUSSION Events have grown in numbers and complexity and legislation has become more stringent. There has been a higher demand on Town resources, both human and infrastructure, making coordination of events, construction projects and regular operations key to Municipal, community and event stakeholder success. Collaboration with event groups, the business community and the public, aligns with the Town’s desire to have an engaged and informed community and assists administration in delivering successful programs and services.
Administration will continue to be responsible for the overall event management including communication with event groups regarding approvals, conditional approvals or rejection of event application, board and community development through coaching and mentoring; interdepartmental coordination and communication. Town staff will be non-voting members of the committee.
New responsibilities include: 1. Chairing the Community Event Committee 2. Report regular updates to Council via briefing reports as needed 3. Record agendas and minutes and file with Town Central documents and on website.
Council will continue to approve department budgets and act as an appeal board for event groups that oppose decisions made by administration. New responsibilities include: 1. The appointment of two public members to the Community Event Committee annually.
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACTS N/A
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Through the event review process, stakeholders from the business community, tourism sector, residents and event groups were consulted on the future of events in Canmore. One of the reviews resulting recommendations was to appoint an event strategy committee. A committee was formed and has been working since November of 2015.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT N/A
ATTACHMENTS 1. Community Event Committee Bylaw 2017-33
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 34 of 242 Community Event Committee Request for Decision Page 3 of 3
Submitted by: Chris Bartolomie Supervisor, Arts and Events Date: September 6, 2017
Approved by: Sally Caudill, Ph.D. General Manager, Municipal Services Date September 7, 2017
Approved by: Lisa de Soto Chief Administrative Officer Date: September 14, 2017
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 35 of 242 Attachment 1 BYLAW 2017-33
A BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF CANMORE, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING THE COMMUNITY EVENT COMMITTEE
The Council of the Town of Canmore, in the Province of Alberta, duly assembled, enacts as follows:
1: TITLE 1.1. This bylaw shall be known as the Community Events Committee Bylaw.
2: INTERPRETATION In this bylaw: 2.1. In this bylaw, “Committee” means the Community Event Committee.
2.2. Where a bylaw references a Town staff position, department or committee, the reference is deemed to be to the current name that the staff position, department or committee is known by.
3: ESTABLISHMENT 3.1. The Community Event Committee is hereby established.
3.2. The purpose of the Committee is to approve community events in accordance with Community Events Policy AE002.
4: AUTHORITY 4.1. The Committee is authorized to: a) Review, evaluate, and approve or deny community event applications. b) Provide input on policies, procedures, and practices that govern community events and event producers. c) Establish working committees as required to implement committee initiatives.
5: MEMBERSHIP AND TERM 5.1. The committee shall be comprised of the following members: a) The Supervisor of Arts and Events (non-voting) b) The Supervisor of Streets and Roads or designate (non-voting_ c) The Supervisor of Parks or designate (non-voting_ d) The Facility Booking Coordinator or designate (non-voting) e) One member from the Downtown Business Revitalization Zone f) Two community event producers who work closely with Arts and Events g) Two members of the public at large
5.2. Council shall appoint public members at Council’s annual organizational meeting.
5.3. The term of membership for public members shall be one year, beginning on the date following Council’s annual organizational meeting and terminating on the date of annual organizational meeting one year later.
Bylaw approved by: ______September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 36 of 242 Town of Canmore Bylaw 2017-33
5.4. The number of consecutive terms served by a public member shall not exceed five (5) years.
6: ELIGIBILITY 6.1. To be eligible for public membership on the committee, a person must:
a) be a Canadian citizen or landed immigrant;
b) be a resident of or a second homeowner in Canmore; and
c) be at least eighteen years of age.
6.2. A public member is not eligible for continuing a term on the committee and/or for reapplying for the next subsequent term on that committee if the public member:
a) fails to attend three consecutive meetings of the committee, unless that absence is caused through illness or is authorized in advance by resolution of the committee; or
b) ceases to meet the eligibility requirements set out in this bylaw.
7: RESIGNATIONS AND REMOVALS 7.1. Any public member may resign from the committee at any time by sending written notice to the committee chair.
7.2. If a vacancy occurs before Council’s annual organizational meeting, Council may appoint a replacement for the remainder of the term.
8: MEETING SCHEDULE AND PROCEDURES 8.1. Quorum shall be a simple majority
8.2. The committee will meet at least three (3) times per year.
8.3. Public notice of a meeting will be provided on the Town’s website at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
8.4. The committee will conduct its meetings in public except where authorized by the Municipal Government Act to close a meeting to the public.
8.5. The Supervisor of Arts and Events shall be the chair of the committee. All Town staff shall be non- voting members.
8.6. Matters will be decided by majority vote. A tied vote is defeated.
Bylaw approved by: ______Page 2 of 4
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 37 of 242 Town of Canmore Bylaw 2017-33
9: MEETING RECORDS 9.1. Agendas shall be made available to committee members at least three days prior to a meeting, and made available to the public at least one day prior to a meeting.
9.2. Minutes shall be prepared for every committee meeting and contain the following:
a) The date, time and location of the meeting;
b) The names of all committee members present;
c) The name of anyone other than a committee member who participated in the meeting; and
d) Any motions made at the meeting, along with the results of the vote on the motion.
9.3. Questions and debate shall not be recorded in council committee minutes.
9.4. Minutes may, at the discretion of the members, include action items agreed upon by unanimous consent, including, but not limited to, action items accepted by individual committee members.
9.5. Minutes of a meeting shall be adopted by motion at the next meeting convened.
9.6. Any member may request a correction to the minutes before they are adopted; corrections are deemed adopted when the motion to adopt the minutes has carried.
9.7. Approved minutes shall be signed by the chairperson and the recorder who were present at the meeting where the minutes were taken, wherever possible. Where not possible, the minutes shall be signed by the current presiding officer and recording secretary.
10: ENACTMENT/TRANSITION 10.1. If any clause in this bylaw is found to be invalid, it shall be severed from the remainder of the bylaw and shall not invalidate the whole bylaw.
10.2. This bylaw comes into force on the date it is passed.
FIRST READING:
SECOND READING:
THIRD READING:
Bylaw approved by: ______Page 3 of 4
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 38 of 242 Town of Canmore Bylaw 2017-33
Approved on behalf of the Town of Canmore:
John Borrowman Date Mayor
Cheryl Hyde Date Municipal Clerk
Bylaw approved by: ______Page 4 of 4
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 39 of 242 Request for Decision
DATE OF MEETING: September 19, 2017 Agenda #: F-2
TO: Council
SUBJECT: Bylaw 2017-32 - Committee Term Length and Composition – to amend Bylaws 26-95, 27-95, 40-98
SUBMITTED BY: Lori Rissling Wynn, Sustainability Coordinator/Development Planner
RECOMMENDATION: That Council give first, second and third reading to Bylaw 2017-32
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The current committee term lengths for the SDAB, CPC and EARC are each one year. Extending the term length to two years has been discussed by Administration with each of the committees. Committee members expressed the opinion that the existing one year term is too short to provide meaningful advice and where required, decision making, given the nature of the applications and complex issues they are required to review. To address this, Administration recommends extending the committee term lengths to two years, and for not more than three consecutive terms.
Additionally, Administration recommends increasing the maximum number of SDAB and CPC Committee members from five to seven to promote robust reviews of applications.
Lastly, to ensure quorum is achieved at every meeting, Administration recommends the number of members present to achieve quorum be three.
RELEVANT COUNCIL DIRECTION, POLICY, OR BYLAWS The relevant Bylaws to amend include the following:
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board Bylaw 26-95 Canmore Development Authority Bylaw 27-95 Environmental Advisory Committee Bylaw 40-98
DISCUSSION Concern has been expressed that one year is too short a time frame for board, commission and committee members to get up to speed and gain competence on the many complex issues members are regularly asked to review and consider, and in some circumstances, make decisions on.
In the case of each of the three committees, applications and agenda items are often extremely complex and require that committee members be familiar with and understand numerous pieces of legislation, policy, and statutory documents. Extending the committee terms to two years would allow committee members to develop a familiarity with these documents as well as the processes and procedures necessary to execute effective meetings and make meaningful and accurate decisions.
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 40 of 242 Bylaw 2017-32 - Committee Term Length Page 2 of 2
Also, because the meeting schedules for both the SDAB and CPC are application dependent (i.e. in a calendar year the scheduled meetings for these committees can vary from only a few applications to many), in some years, committee members may have very few opportunities to meet and consider applications, therefore never quite gaining that level of comfort which is established as a result of more numerous meetings. Extending the terms to two years would give committee members more time, and through this, more opportunity, to meet, practice, and develop these skills.
To promote robust reviews of applications to SDAB and CPC, increasing the maximum number of committee members to seven will provide a large pool available to attend each meeting. To ensure that quorum is achieved despite the potential increase in members, quorum shall be modified to be at least three committee members.
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES No alternatives were considered.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS There are no financial impacts to amending the committee term lengths.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Amending the committee term lengths has been discussed with EARC members and it was their unanimous recommendation to extend the term to two years. Both CPC and SDAB were also consulted with respect to increasing the term length; no consultation was undertaken related to increasing the maximum number of committee members or to amend the requirement to achieve quorum.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT N/A
ATTACHMENTS 1) Attachment 1 – Bylaw 2017-32
AUTHORIZATION
Submitted by: Lori Rissling Wynn Sustainability Coordinator/Development Planner Date: August 24, 2017
Approved by: Alaric Fish Manager, Planning and Development Date September 1, 2017
Approved by: Michael Fark General Manager, Municipal Infrastructure Date: August 24, 2017
Approved by: Lisa de Soto Chief Administrative Officer Date: August 25, 2017
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 41 of 242
Attachment 1 BYLAW 2017-32
A BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF CANMORE, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, TO AMEND BYLAWS 26-95, 27-95 AND 40-98
The Council of the Town of Canmore, in the Province of Alberta, duly assembled, enacts as follows:
1: TITLE 1.1. This bylaw shall be known as the “Committee Term Length and Composition Bylaw: Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, Canmore Planning Commission, Canmore Development Authority, and Environmental Advisory Review Committee.”
2: SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD 2.1. Amend the following sections of Subdivision and Development Appeal Board Bylaw 26-95 by adding the underlined words and deleting the words shown in strikeout:
a) Section 3(a): The Subdivision and Development Appeal Board shall consist of a minimum of five and a maximum of seven voting members, a minimum of four and maximum of six of which shall be citizens-at-large appointed to the Board by Resolution of Council and one of which shall be a member of Council not on the Subdivision Authority or Municipal Planning Commission and appointed by Resolution;
b) Section 3(b): Each member of the Board shall be appointed for a term specified by resolution of Council, but in no case shall the appointment be for more than two years.
c) Section 3(c): Notwithstanding clause 3(b), a person may be reappointed upon the expiration of their term; however in no case shall re-appointments be for more than three consecutive two-year terms.
d) Section 3(l): Quorum shall be three voting members.
3: CANMORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 3.1. Amend the following sections of Canmore Development Authority Bylaw 27-95 by adding the underlined words and deleting the words shown in strikeout:
a) Section 6(a): The Canmore Planning Commission shall be composed of a minimum of five and a maximum of seven voting members for a term not to exceed two years, such appointments coinciding with the Council’s annual organizational meeting.
Bylaw approved by: ______September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 42 of 242 Town of Canmore Bylaw 2017-32
b) Section 6(b): The total membership of the Commission appointed by Council shall include no more than one member of Council, and the remaining members shall be appointed from the public-at-large.
c) Section 6(c): Members may reapply annually for consideration of re-appointment; however in no case shall re-appointments be for more than three consecutive two-year terms.
3.2. Amend section of 12 of Canmore Development Authority Bylaw 27-95 as follows: Quorum shall be three voting members.
4: ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY REVIEW COMMITTEE 4.1. Amend the following section of Environmental Advisory Committee Bylaw 40-98 by adding the underlined words and deleting the words shown in strikeout:
a) Schedule A: Reporting to Council, the membership of this committee will be as follows: a. A minimum of five and a maximum of seven voting members from the community and appointed by Council to terms not to exceed two years; b. One member of Council, c. One member from Town administration.
ENACTMENT/TRANSITION
4.2. If any clause in this bylaw is found to be invalid, it shall be severed from the remainder of the bylaw and shall not invalidate the whole bylaw.
4.3. This bylaw comes into force on the date it is passed.
FIRST READING:
SECOND READING:
THIRD READING:
Bylaw approved by: ______Page 2 of 3
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 43 of 242 Town of Canmore Bylaw 2017-32
Approved on behalf of the Town of Canmore:
John Borrowman Date Mayor
Cheryl Hyde Date Municipal Clerk
Bylaw approved by: ______Page 3 of 3
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 44 of 242 Request for Decision
DATE OF MEETING: September 19, 2017 Agenda #: G-1
TO: Council
SUBJECT: Amend Assessment Appeal Fees
SUBMITTED BY: Megan Dalrymple, Assessment Review Board Clerk
RECOMMENDATION: 1. That Council amend the 2017 complaint fee for Condo Corp # 0211484 to a total filing fee of $250 for all 39 assessment complaints filed. 2. That Council approve fees for an assessment complaint as follows: Residential properties of 3 units or fewer: $50.00/tax roll Non-Residential & Multi Family Residential of 4 units or more, based on an assessed value of: Up to $50,000 $ 50.00/tax roll $50,001 - $250,000 $250.00/tax roll $250,001 - $5,000,000 $500.00/tax roll Greater than $5,000,000 $650.00/tax roll
And that the Assessment Review Board may, at their discretion, refund all or a portion of the complaint fee. 3. That Council rescind Resolution 075-2010, Complaint Fee Schedule.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The complainant for Assessment Appeals #050-2017-80191+ is requesting that Council adjust the complaint filing fee so that only one fee is charged for their 39 identical assessment appeals. The Assessment Review Board combined all appeals into one lead tax roll and agreed to apply the hearing evidence and decisions to the remaining 38 rather than hearing 39 separate appeals. All 39 parking stalls were identical in assessed value, municipal address, and are under the same ownership.
Administration supports this request given that all 39 Assessment Complaints were identical and all evidence and administrative work was combined and heard as one lead file. Additionally, administration is proposing an amendment to the Complaint Fee Schedule moving forward that will provide a reduced appeal fee for non-residential property, such as parking stalls and titled storage units, which have an assessed value of $50,000 or less.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION OR POLICY Resolution 075-2010 identifies the current Assessment Complaint Fee Schedule. (Attachment #1)
Section 481(1) of Alberta’s Municipal Government Act (MGA) states that council may set the complaint fees.
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 45 of 242 Amend Assessment Appeal Fees Page 2 of 4
Alberta Regulation (AR) 310/2009 Schedule 2 of Alberta’s MGA Matters Relating to Assessment Complaints (MRAC) Regulation lists the Complaint Fees for non-residential property can be set at “up to $650”.
DISCUSSION In May 2017, the Condo Corporation # 0211484, represented by their General Manager, filed official Assessment Complaints for all of the 39 condominium-owned titled parking stalls at the Windtower Lodge & Suites. The complaints were filed within the 60 day Customer Review Period and in accordance with MRAC Section 2(1): Documents to be filed by Complainant.
As each of the parking stalls under appeal were classified as non-residential and each were valued at less than $2,500,000, Resolution 075-2010 indicates a $250 appeal fee per tax roll. Recognizing that the total appeal fees for this Complainant would reach $9,750 for 39 parking stalls, all under the same ownership, property, and assessed value, the Tax Officer for the Town of Canmore agreed to accept payment for one tax roll complaint and hold a cheque for the outstanding balance until a review of the appeal fees could take place.
The current Complaint Fee Schedule outlined in Resolution 075-2010 was approved by Council in 2010. The individual assessment of titled parking stalls was implemented by the Town in 2017 for the first time, per direction from the provincial auditor. At that time the impact to assessment complaint filing fees for parking stalls was not considered.
The Complainant has submitted a request to amend the assessment appeal fee (Attachment #2), requesting that only one appeal fee of $250 be payable. The Complainant states that when multiplied by multiple properties the appeal fee as set becomes a significant financial burden. Further, the Assessment Review Board had only one hearing considering all 39 appeals together, as they all had the same municipal address, assessed value, and evidence submissions. Only one hearing was held and all evidence and testimony carried over from the lead file. Correspondence with the Complainant and Respondent was packaged under one lead tax roll, thus causing no additional administrative work. Therefore, Administration is recommending that Council amend the assessment appeal fees in this case to a total of $250 for all 39 complaints.
To proactively address any similar situations going forward Administration is recommending revised assessment complaint filing fees. A review of the assessment appeal fees charged by neighbouring municipalities is as follows:
Municipality Residential, Residential, Non-Residential 3 or fewer dwellings 4 or more dwellings City of Airdrie $25 per complaint $325 per complaint $325 Up to $1 million
$650 $1 million & over
$20 reduced fee if $260 reduced fee if complaint Reduced fee if complaint complaint filed during first filed during first 30 days of filed during first 30 days of 30 days of Complaint Complaint Period Complaint Period: Period $260 Up to $1 million
$520 $1 million & over
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 46 of 242 Amend Assessment Appeal Fees Page 3 of 4
Town of $50 per complaint $250 per complaint $250 per complaint Cochrane Town of $50 per complaint $325 per complaint $650 per complaint Okotoks Town of $50 per complaint $650 per complaint $650 per complaint Strathmore Town of Banff $50 per complaint $650 per complaint $650 per complaint
Town of High $50 per complaint $650 per complaint $650 per complaint River MGA Up to $50 Up to $650 Up to $650 Regulations
While most municipalities don’t set fees based on assessed values, given the wide variety of assessed values of property in Canmore and the fact that multi-family and non-residential properties’ appeals tend to increase in complexity as their assessed values increase, setting fees based upon assessed value better matches the fees charged with the costs incurred to process and hear appeals.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Council may decide to uphold the appeal fees given that the current Complaint Fee Schedule, set by Resolution 075-2010, is printed on the back of the Notice of Assessment and was also confirmed to the Complainant in an email from the Tax Officer on May 9th, prior to the appeal due date. The Complainant acknowledged this fee schedule and continued the appeal submission.
Given that in general, fees are meant to offset the costs of providing goods and/or services and the costs incurred to provide the assessment appeal hearing were not significantly more for the 39 properties than they would have been for one, administration is not recommending this alternative.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS Given the identical information for each tax roll complaint the administrative work on this file was not significantly higher than those that would have been incurred had there been only one complaint. Therefore, while the Town would not collect $9,500 in complaint fees, it did not incur significantly more costs than it otherwise would have.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Administration has been in contact with the Complainant as well as the Provincial Chairperson for the Composite Assessment Review Board (CARB) as part of the process.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT Canmore’s services and programs respond to the aspirations of its residents and visitors and are delivered in an effective, innovative, and fiscally responsible manner.
ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 075-2010 2. Request for amendment to the 2017 assessment appeal filing fees
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 47 of 242 Amend Assessment Appeal Fees Page 4 of 4
AUTHORIZATION
Submitted by: Megan Dalrymple Assessment Review Board Clerk Date: September 7, 2017
Approved by: Katherine Van Keimpema, CPA, CGA, BADM, CLGM Manager of Financial Services Date: September 7, 2017
Approved by: Lisa de Soto Chief Administrative Officer Date: September 14, 2017
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 48 of 242 Attachment #1
Resolution #075-2010 – March 23, 2010 Special Council Meeting:
That Council approve fees for an assessment complaint as follows: Residential 3 or fewer – based per dwelling unit $50.00 Non Residential and Residential 4 units or more – based on assessment value Less than $2,500,000 $250.00 $2,500,001 to $5,000,000 $500.00 Greater than $5,000,000 $650.00 and that the review board may, at their discretion refund all or a portion of the complaint fee.
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 49 of 242 Attachment #2
RE: Assessment Complaint Filing Fee Schedule.
ISSUE: Fee’s for the filing of an Assessment complaint are set by Council annually. The current schedule while reasonable for a large majority of appeals, becomes a significant burden where an owner owns multiple properties, are being appealed and each have a value under $250,000. The matter for consideration is the case of Condominium Corporation No. 0211484 which owns 39 separately titled non‐residential parking stalls at the Windtower Lodge & Suites at 160 Kananaskis Way.
The fee in the schedule requires the payment of $250.00 per roll as the Taxpayer was required to file an appeal for each roll number, the total is $9,750.00.
The assessment was for $10,000 for each stall.
The matter is under appeal and awaiting a decision of the CARB (Board), if the Board finds in favour of the complainant, the fees will be refunded.
However, if the Board does not, the Windtower is requesting that council adjust the fee so that only one fee will be required. This is justifiable as an exception as the Board did hear the appeal on only one roll number 80191 and agreed to apply the hearing evidence and decisions to the remaining 38 rather than hearing 39 separate appeals on each roll number.
REQUEST: That the applicable complaint fee for assessment review of the 39 parking stall properties with roll numbers 80191, 80192, 80193, 80194, 80195, 80196, 80197, 80208, 80209, 80210, 80211, 80212, 80213, 80216, 80235, 80236, 80237, 80238, 80292, 80293,80294, 80295, 80296, 80297, 80298, 80299, 80300, 80301, 80302, 80303, 80304, 80305, 80319, 80331, 80332, 80333, 80334, 80335 and 80336, be reduce to $250.00 in total.
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 50 of 242 Request for Decision
DATE OF MEETING: September 19, 2017 Agenda #: G-2
TO: Council
SUBJECT: Requests for an Adjustment to 2017 Property Taxes
SUBMITTED BY: Katherine Van Keimpema, Manager of Financial Services
RECOMMENDATION: That Council uphold the 2017 property taxes as assessed on tax rolls #19613, #17633, #18594, #20757, and #13526.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Tax rolls #19613, #17633, #18594, and #20757 are Tourist Homes, for which 2017 Tourist Home – Personal Use statutory declarations were not received by the January 31, 2017 deadline, as required in section 4 of “Division of Class 1 Property Bylaw 2013-01”. Therefore, the properties were assessed as Tourist Homes and taxed at the higher Tourist Home rate. These four owners are seeking an adjustment from Council to be taxed at the Tourist Home – Personal Use rate, with the explanation that they inadvertently missed the January 31 deadline and do not rent out their properties.
Tax roll #13526 is located on Spring Creek Drive and the owners are seeking a property tax refund for the period of time they have been impacted by construction, namely April through October 2017.
The 2017 property taxes were correctly assessed using all properties’ correct assessment codes and amounts. For the Tourist Home properties, the opportunity to submit an annual statutory declaration declaring that a Tourist Home will only be used for personal purposes has been in place since 2013, and reminder letters were mailed to all owners in October 2016, and new owners also received letters about the option shortly after taking over ownership. The taxpayers’ 2017 declarations were not received on time, therefore, administration is recommending that the requests be denied and the taxes be upheld as correctly assessed. For the Spring Creek Drive property, the taxes were correctly calculated based upon an assessment that was not appealed, thus, administration is recommending that they not be altered.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION OR POLICY On June 18, 2013 Council gave third reading to Division of Class 1 Property Bylaw 2013-01.
Section 347 of Alberta’s Municipal Government Act (MGA) permits municipal Councils to reduce, defer, or refund all or part of a tax.
DISCUSSION Property Tax Rolls #19613, #17633, #18594, and #20757:
Since 2013 Council has permitted owners of Tourist Home classified properties to submit an annual statutory declaration stating that they only use their property for personal purposes and do not rent it out, as provided for in the Division of Class 1 Property Bylaw 2013-01. If by January 31 of each year all owners of a particular
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 51 of 242 Requests for an Adjustment to 2017 Property Taxes Page 2 of 4
Tourist Home property complete and provide the Town with a statutory declaration, the property tax rate applied in that given year is lower than the one that would otherwise apply. If no declaration is received by the deadline, the higher tax rate applies. A letter to each owner of a Tourist Home property is mailed each fall reminding them to file their declarations by the January 31 deadline; a copy of the letter sent to the owners of roll #19613, #17633, and #20757 in October 2016, and the “new owner letter” sent in December 2016 to the owner of roll #18594 are included as Attachment #1 to this report.
The current owners of tax roll #19613 (Attachment #2), of #17633 (Attachment #3), of #18594 (Attachment #4), and of #20757 (Attachment #5) are requesting an adjustment to their 2017 property taxes downward to the amount that would have been payable had they completed the 2017 Tourist Home – Personal Use statutory declaration by the 2017 deadline.
In the case of roll #19613, the owner was out of town when the reminder letters were sent and so has stated that they did not receive the reminder until after the January deadline. They did not remember about the deadline in the absence of the reminder. The current owner acquired the property in October 2014. A Personal Use declaration was submitted by this owner in 2016 and by the previous owner in 2013 and 2014. A declaration was not submitted for the 2015 tax year.
In the case of roll #17633, the owner asserts that they were unaware that the declarations were an annual requirement. They filed a Personal Use declaration in each of 2015 and 2016.
In the case of roll #18594 the former owner was sent the reminder letter and had provided the statutory declaration for 2013 – 2016. The new owner took ownership in December 2016 and on December 20, 2016 a letter about the declaration option was sent to them (see Attachment #1). The owner states that they did not realize the letter was time sensitive and was under the impression that “all was good with (the) property assessment class”, so ignored this mail. In all three cases the owners are asking Council to accept a late declaration and to adjust the 2017 property taxes to the rate that would have applied if the declarations had been made on time.
In the case of roll #20757, they do not recall receiving the October 2016 letter and they did not initially recall if they had filed the statutory declaration or not. As they had filed the Personal Use declaration in 2013 – 2016 and inadvertently missed doing so for 2017, they are seeking a property tax reduction.
Council chose an annual declaration as from year to year the use of a property may change from non-rental to rental, and vice versa. An annual declaration allows for more accurate application of the applicable tax code than a longer period of time between declarations would permit. Throughout the year Tourist Home properties also change ownership and the new owners may not use their property in the same manner as the previous owners, but the declaration or no declaration status remains in place throughout the year. It would be administratively cumbersome to make the resulting tax rate adjustments, hence the annual January 31 deadline.
In all four cases under consideration the declarations were not received by January 31, although three of the owners had previously filed declarations on time and the other was provided written information about the option well before the deadline. The provisions of Division of Class 1 Property Bylaw 2013-01 were properly applied; therefore, it is administration’s recommendation that in all cases Council uphold the 2017 property taxes as assessed.
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 52 of 242 Requests for an Adjustment to 2017 Property Taxes Page 3 of 4
Property Tax Roll #13526:
The owners of a property on Spring Creek Drive are requesting a refund of their taxes for the period from April through October 2017; the period during which construction has been occurring on their street (Attachment #6). They make a number of points about the impact the construction has had upon them, on their access to and use and enjoyment of their property, and on their access to Town and Emergency services. They do not feel they have received the services they expect from paying property taxes and as a result, they are seeking a refund of the property taxes for this six month period of time.
The Alberta Municipal Government Act sets out the rules for calculating property taxes and these rules were correctly applied when determining the property taxes for this property. Taxes are based upon the assessed value of a property and not the value of services provided or received, therefore, administration is recommending that the property taxes be upheld as assessed.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS No alternatives have been analyzed.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS There are no financial impacts to the Town of declining the property owners’ requests. However, if Council chooses to grant the requests, the financial impacts are as follows:
Property tax levies are made up of four parts:
1. Municipal taxes 2. Education requisition 3. Seniors’ Foundation requisition 4. PAH
Only the tax rate for municipal taxes is different for a Tourist Home than it is for a Tourist Home – Personal Use property. The 2017 municipal property taxes for each property as assessed and as would have been assessed had the declarations been filed on time, are as follows:
Roll # Amount as Assessed Amount With a Declaration Difference 19613 $2,765.32 $953.56 $1,811.76 17633 $2,697.88 $930.30 $1,767.58 18594 $2,561.59 $883.31 $1,678.28 20757 $6,823.96 $2,353.09 $4,470.87
For tax roll #13526, the 2017 property taxes were as follows:
Type Annual Amount April 1 – October 1 (6 months) Amount Municipal $2,113.80 $1,056.90 Education $2,192.29 $1,096.14 PAH $57.48 $28.74 Seniors’ Requisition $142.53 $71.27 Total $4,506.10 $2,253.05
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 53 of 242 Requests for an Adjustment to 2017 Property Taxes Page 4 of 4
Therefore, the financial impact of granting the owners’ requests is a total of $11,981.54 in property taxes not being collected. While refunded Education and Seniors’ Requisition amounts can be recovered in subsequent years, uncollected municipal cannot, thus the permanent reduction to revenue would be $10,814.13.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Administration has been in contact with the property owners as part of the process.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT Canmore’s services and programs respond to the aspirations of its residents and visitors and are delivered in an effective, innovative, and fiscally responsible manner.
ATTACHMENTS 1. Tourist Home Personal Use Letter 2. Adjustment Request – Roll #19613 3. Adjustment Request – Roll #17633 4. Adjustment Request – Roll #18594 5. Adjustment Request – Roll #20757 6. Adjustment Request – Roll #13526
AUTHORIZATION
Submitted by: Katherine Van Keimpema, CGA, CPA, BADM, CLGM Manager of Financial Services Date: September 6, 2017
Approved by: Lisa de Soto Chief Administrative Officer Date: September 8, 2017
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 54 of 242 Attachment #1
Town of Canmore
902 7th Avenue Canmore, Alberta T1W 3K1
October 18, 2016
Personal Information removed per Section 17(1) of the FOIP Act RSA 2000 Ch F-25
IMPORTANT NOTICE‐ TIME SENSITIVE‐TOURIST HOME ASSESSMENT CLASS
Tourist Home Location: Tax Roll: 19613 202 ‐ 621 10TH STREET
Enclosed please see the Tourist Home Personal Use declaration for 2017 tax purposes. Please read this letter in detail.
If you are NOT completing this declaration please email [email protected] to confirm receipt of this notice.
It is important to note that changes may occur in the future based on the tax policy currently under review.
‘TOURIST HOME – PERSONAL USE’ SUBCLASS – Bylaw 2013-01 Division of Class 1 Property A tourist home property shall be placed in the tourist homee – personal use subclass for the current taxation year if all owners registered on title sign a statutory declaration, in a form approved by the chief administrative officer, declaring that the property will be used only for personal purposes and will not be advertised or operated for short-term or long-term rental.
If you choose to apply for this classification please complete the enclosed statutory declaration and submit appropriately signed by yourself and a qualified Commissioner of Oaths. A new declaration is required of all owners on title to qualify and choose to have tthe property classified as ‘Tourist Home – Personal Use’. Please be aware of the restrictions that apply to this use.
This process is time sensitive. Completed declarations must be received in our office no later than January 31, 2017 in order to qualify for the tax rate Tourist Home – Personal Use for the 2017 tax year.
If you have questions or concerns regarding this process pleaase do not hessitate to contact the tax office.
Regards, Shannon Staple [email protected] 403.678.1506
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 55 of 242 Town of Canmore
902 7th Avenue Canmore, Alberta T1W 3K1
October 18, 2016
Personal Information removed per Section 17(1) of the FOIP Act RSA 2000 Ch F-25
IMPORTANT NOTICE‐ TIME SENSITIVE‐TOURIST HOME ASSESSMENT CLASS
Tourist Home Location: Tax Roll: 17633 4060 ‐ 160 KANANASKIS WAY
Enclosed please see the Tourist Home Personal Use declaration for 2017 tax purposes. Please read this letter in detail.
If you are NOT completing this declaration please email [email protected] to confirm receipt of this notice.
It is important to note that changes may occur in the future based on the tax policy currently under review.
‘TOURIST HOME – PERSONAL USE’ SUBCLASS – Bylaw 2013-01 Division of Class 1 Property A tourist home property shall be placed in the tourist homee – personal use subclass for the current taxation year if all owners registered on title sign a statutory declaration, in a form approved by the chief administrative officer, declaring that the property will be used only for personal purposes and will not be advertised or operated for short-term or long-term rental.
If you choose to apply for this classification please complete the enclosed statutory declaration and submit appropriately signed by yourself and a qualified Commissioner of Oaths. A new declaration is required of all owners on title to qualify and choose to have tthe property classified as ‘Tourist Home – Personal Use’. Please be aware of the restrictions that apply to this use.
This process is time sensitive. Completed declarations must be received in our office no later than January 31, 2017 in order to qualify for the tax rate Tourist Home – Personal Use for the 2017 tax year.
If you have questions or concerns regarding this process pleaase do not hessitate to contact the tax office.
Regards, Shannon Staple [email protected] 403.678.1506
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 56 of 242 Town of Canmore
902 7th Avenue Canmore, Alberta T1W 3K1
December 20, 2016
Personal Information removed per Section 17(1) of the FOIP Act RSA 2000 Ch F-25
IMPORTANT NOTICE‐ TIME SENSITIVE‐TOURIST HOME ASSESSMENT CLASS
Tourist Home Location: 204 – 140 Railway Ave Tax Roll: 18594
______
Enclosed please see the Tourist Home Personal Use declaration for 2016 tax purposes. Please read this letter in detail.
If you are NOT completing this declaration please email [email protected] to confirm receipt of this notice.
It is important to note that changes may occur in the future based on the tax policy currently under review. ‘TOURIST HOME – PERSONAL USE’ SUBCLASS – Bylaw 2013-01 Divisioon of Class 1 Property
A tourist home property shall be placed in the tourist home – perrsonal use subclass for the current taxation year if all owners registered on title sign a statutory declaration, in a form approved by the chief administrative officer, declaring that the property will be used only for personal purposees and will not be advertised or operated for short- term or long-term rental.
If you choose to apply for this classification please complete the enclosed statutory declaration and submit appropriately signed by yourself and a qualified Commissioner of Oaths. A new declaration is required of all owners on title to qualify and choose to have tthe property classified as ‘Tourist Home – Personal Use’. Please be aware of the restrictions that apply to this use.
This process is time sensitive. Completed declarations must be received in our office no later than January 31, 2017 in order to qualify for the tax rate Tourist Home – Personal Use for the 2017 tax year.
If you have questions or concerns regarding this process pleaase do not hessitate to contact the tax office. Regards,
Shannon Staple [email protected] 403.678.1506
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 57 of 242 Town of Canmore
902 7th Avenue Canmore, Alberta T1W 3K1
October 18, 2016
Personal Information removed per Section 17(1) of the FOIP Act RSA 2000 Ch F-25
IMPORTANT NOTICE‐ TIME SENSITIVE‐TOURIST HOME ASSESSMENT CLASS
Tourist Home Location: Tax Roll: 20757 210 ‐ 379 SPRING CREEK DRIVE
Enclosed please see the Tourist Home Personal Use declaration for 2017 tax purposes. Please read this letter in detail.
If you are NOT completing this declaration please email [email protected] to confirm receipt of this notice.
It is important to note that changes may occur in the future based on the tax policy currently under review.
‘TOURIST HOME – PERSONAL USE’ SUBCLASS – Bylaw 2013-01 Division of Class 1 Property A tourist home property shall be placed in the tourist homee – personal use subclass for the current taxation year if all owners registered on title sign a statutory declaration, in a form approved by the chief administrative officer, declaring that the property will be used only for personal purposes and will not be advertised or operated for short-term or long-term rental.
If you choose to apply for this classification please complete the enclosed statutory declaration and submit appropriately signed by yourself and a qualified Commissioner of Oaths. A new declaration is required of all owners on title to qualify and choose to have tthe property classified as ‘Tourist Home – Personal Use’. Please be aware of the restrictions that apply to this use.
This process is time sensitive. Completed declarations must be received in our office no later than January 31, 2017 in order to qualify for the tax rate Tourist Home – Personal Use for the 2017 tax year.
If you have questions or concerns regarding this process pleaase do not hessitate to contact the tax office.
Regards, Shannon Staple [email protected] 403.678.1506
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 58 of 242 Attachment #2 Roll #19633 From: Katherine Van Keimpema To: Katherine Van Keimpema Subject: tourist home Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 10:08:15 AM
1FSTPOBM*OGPSNBUJPOSFNPWFEQFS4FDUJPO PGUIF'0*1"DU34"$I' From: Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 1:28:55 PM To: Katherine Van Keimpema Subject: re: tourist home
Hi Katherine,
I was given your contact info by the folks at the town hall and am hoping you might consider a request for a refund on this years property taxes. My property (address is 202-621 10th St) was taxed as a tourist home but I am the sole occupant there and don’t rent it out.
I was away out of the country for a few months last fall, and my mail was being forwarded, but I just got the letter for the tourist home assessment class at almost the same time that i got the property tax assessment. I don’t rent my place out, and don’t intend to this year. I realize it is my responsibility to get the declaration of “tourist home for personal use” form back to the town of canmore in time, but without the letter to remind me and with a lot going on last fall and winter it slipped my mind. I went and paid the full amount today, but it is significantly more than last year and I am hoping that a refund might be considered as I don’t rent my place out as a tourist home.
Thanks for your attention to this, and please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely, 1FSTPOBM*OGPSNBUJPOSFNPWFEQFS4FDUJPO PGUIF'0*1"DU34"$I'
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 59 of 242 Attachment 3 Roll #17633
From: Katherine Van Keimpema To: Katherine Van Keimpema Subject: FW: Attention – Manager of Financial Services – Town of Canmore Unit 406; 160 Kananaskis Way Personal Use Tourist Home Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 10:10:58 AM Importance: High
From: 1FSTPOBM*OGPSNBUJPOSFNPWFEQFS4FDUJPO PGUIF'0*1"DU34"$I' Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 9:50 AM To: Taxes
Attention – Manager of Financial Services – Town of Canmore 1FSTPOBM*OGPSNBUJPOSFNPWFEQFS4FDUJPO PGUIF'0*1"DU34"$I' My name is and I’ve owned my Unit at the ƐŝŶĐĞ. Last year Isubmitted a form to designate my home as personal use – tourist home. While I take fullresponsibility for not understanding that this declaration needed to be made annually, I would liketo request that my oversight be forgiven and that the Counsel allow for me to have it re-designatedas such for 2017 and I will be very vigilant to look for the papers in October to declare the sameeach year. After discussing the situation with Shannon, it is clear that I am having issues as well withthe mail system that I will address with the post office as some notifications have not reached me inthe last 12 months. This issue is not confined with mail from Canmore. Again that said I take fullresponsibility for not following up, but ask that my situation be addressed and corrected and I willensure this problem never occurs again.
Thank you for your consideration and assistance in this matter!
1FSTPOBM*OGPSNBUJPOSFNPWFEQFS4FDUJPO PGUIF'0*1"DU34"$I'
This email, any attachment and/or series of responses, is intended for the use of the recipient to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment immediately. Do not copy, distribute, or take action relying on it. Electronic communications over a public network are not secure and therefore does not accept any legal responsibility for thecontents of this message, including any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Cette communication par courrier électronique est une communication privée à l'usage exclusif du destinataire principal ainsi que des personnes dont les noms figurent en copie. Les renseignements contenus dans ce courriel sont confidentiels et si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, vous êtes avisé, par les présentes que toute reproduction, transfert ou autre forme de diffusion de cette communication par quelque moyen que ce soit est interdite. Si vous n'êtes pas spécifiquement autorisé à recevoir ce courriel ou si vous croyez l'avoir reçu par erreur, veuillez en aviser l'expéditeur original immédiatement. Nous respectons les demandes similaires qui touchent la confidentialité des communications par courrier électronique.
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 60 of 242 Katherine Van Keimpema
From: 1FSTPOBM*OGPSNBUJPOSFNPWFEQFS4FDUJPO PGUIF'0*1"DU34"$I' Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 2:38 PM To: Katherine Van Keimpema Cc: Shannon Staple Subject: RE: Appeal to Council for Tax Adjustment
Katherine – thank you for your transparency, but I respectfully disagree with your recommendation given that for all the years I’ve held this property I have never rented it, and given I only use it on weekends and some extended weeks I do not feel that overall I’ve used equal amount of civic amenities as someone who lives there full time or rents the property and thus I am paying a disproportionate share of city taxes. As you know I have taken full responsibility for missing the declaration deadline, but I hope that council sees I am not hiding that and that they understand mistakes happen.
I appreciate that my request will be given proper consideration at council on September 19th.
Regards,
1FSTPOBM*OGPSNBUJPOSFNPWFEQFS4FDUJPO PGUIF'0*1"DU34"$I'
From: Katherine Van Keimpema [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: August 23, 2017 2:18 PM To: Katherine Van Keimpema Cc: Shannon Staple Subject: Appeal to Council for Tax Adjustment
Good afternoon,
I have received your request to adjust your 2017 property taxes to the amount that would have been payable had the Tourist Home – Personal Use statutory declaration been filed by the January 31, 2017 deadline. Council will consider your request at their September 19 Council meeting, which begins at 5:00 pm and is held here at the Civic Centre in Council Chambers. You may attend the meeting, but you are not required to, and it is important to note that you will not have an opportunity to speak to your request. Therefore, anything that you want Council to consider other than what you have sent so far, should be sent to me on or before September 4. I will prepare a report for Council consideration that contains your request, any other related documents, and a recommendation. Please note that my recommendation will be to uphold the taxes as assessed, as they were calculated in accordance with the requirements set out by Council that statutory declarations must be received by January 31, 2017 in order for the lower tax rate to apply. This does not reflect my agreement nor disagreement with your request, just that administration is required to follow Council’s direction and cannot deviate from it. Council does have the ability to adjust property taxes, hence the requirement that your request be decided on by them.
A week before the September 19 meeting the agenda review committee looks at all upcoming Council reports and then recommends any changes. Once their review is complete and I have made the edits they require, I will send you a copy of the report that will go to Council for the September 19 meeting. In the interim, please send me any other documents or arguments in support of your request that you want considered, by September 4.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
1 September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 61 of 242 Katherine
Katherine Van Keimpema Manager of Financial Services Town of Canmore [email protected] 403.678.7144 office 403.678.1524 fax www.canmore.ca
2 September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 62 of 242 Attachment 4
From: Katherine Van Keimpema To: Katherine Van Keimpema Subject: FW: ss/204 - 1040 Railway Ave Roll 18594 Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 3:46:50 PM
From: Personal Information removed per Section 17(1) of the FOIP Act RSA Ch F-25 Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 12:47 PM To: Taxes
Manager of Finance Katherine Van Keimpena
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From Personal Information removed per Section 17(1) of the FOIP Act RSA Ch F-25 Date: August 23, 2018 at 12:16:01 PM MDT To: Personal Information removed per Section 17(1) of the FOIP Act RSA Ch F-25 Cc: Katherine Van Keimpema
From: Personal Information removed per Section 17(1) of the FOIP Act RSA Ch F-25
Tax Roll: 18594 Hi Katherine, Pertaining to my property tax situation tourist/ personal class use. I did not follow procedure and declare my home"Personal Use". I checked my home file for my new property and did find all the necessary documents to make the declaration. My excuse is ignorance of the date requirement. I received the notice Dec.20, 2016 and because I had just purchased my home 20 days prior and my realtor and my lawyer said all was good with my property assessment class, I ignored any property mail. I don't even remember getting any of it at that busy time of moving and getting settled before Christmas. I plead for your consideration in this matter. The increased taxes will put a strain on my budget and I don't want to rent out my home to help pay for them. I now know the procedure and will comply to it on time. So sorry for the extra work this makes for you, Katharine. Sincerely,
Personal Information removed per Section 17(1) of the FOIP Act RSA Ch F-25
Sent from my iPhone
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 63 of 242 Attachment 5 Katherine Van Keimpema
To: Katherine Van Keimpema Subject: Tourist home urgent action
From: Personal Information removed per Section 17(1) of the FOIP Act RSA 2000 CH F-25 Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 7:12 PM To: Katherine Van Keimpema
Hi Katherine,
I stopped in today to talk to Shannon Staple and inquire as to what was required to add our name to list of people seeking tax relief regarding “Tourist Home‐Personal Use” designation where they do not rent out the home, as I understand that it is coming before council on Sept. 19. She said to send you an email basically describing our situation and be put on list of people applying.
Earlier this year May‐June we received a letter stating as we had not responded to statutory declaration from last year and we be charged as “Tourist Home” Effective July 1. We were taken by surprise as we tried to think – did we receive original mailer, did we sign and mail, did we take it in personally to Town of Canmore offices.
We just couldn’t remember what we did or didn’t do.
The past few years we have filled out the forms, but, alas this past year it seems we didn’t.
Therefore, we would like to add our names to appeals list that you have now to receive refund on additional charges that have incurred since July 15. Personal Information removed per Section 17(1) of the FOIP Act RSA 2000 CH F-25 TAX ROLL 20757
From: Esme Comfort [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: August 27, 2017 7:21 PM To: Personal Information removed per Section 17(1) of the FOIP Act RSA 2000 CH F-25 Subject: Re: Tourist home urgent action
Thanks! Did you make the request?
On Jun 12, 2017 12:16, "Esmé Comfort"
Thank you for contacting me to see if there are options available. We have had a flurry of calls from people in the same or similar boat who have also stated they will be making appeals to Council (at least six have stated this). Unfortunately, we are unable to expedite this process for the following reasons: · Rather than bring each request to Council on a piecemeal basis, administration will bring one report with all requests at the same time. · The report cannot be prepared until I have requests in writing that detail what is being asked for and why Council should grant the request. · The decision reports for the June 27 special meeting are due today so there is not time to get this on the
1 September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 64 of 242 June 27 agenda, especially since I do not have the written requests that would prompt the preparation of a decision report. · The agenda for the July 4 Council meeting before the summer break is full.
While I understand the financial difficulty this may place on your friend if they have to pay the taxes due in order to avoid penalties and then hope for a refund, it is for the reasons stated above that we are unable to settle this matter before June 30.
Katherine Sent from my iPad
2 September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 65 of 242 Attachment 6
Katherine Van Keimpema
From: Personal Information removed per Section 17(1) of the FOIP Act RSA 2000 CH F-25 Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 9:51 PM To: Katherine Van Keimpema Subject: tax relaxation Attachments: Tax relaxation request.pdf
Personal Information removed per Section 17(1) of the FOIP Act RSA 2000 CH F-25 Katherine, Attached is a letter to the Mayor and Council requesting a relaxation on property taxes for Spring Creek Drive. As you probably know, the street has been under construction for the past several months. The twelve months previous to construction were spent by the residence of the street trying to get answers as to why the extent of the construction was to take place, the impacts it would have on our properties, the costs to both us and the rest of the taxpayers of Canmore, scheduling of construction, etc. Answers to our questions were delayed, inconclusive, variable and often inaccurate. The constant frustrations we have experienced in the past eighteen months has led us to request your assistance to at least have a relaxation to the taxes since the beginning of the construction. The attached letter should make our concerns clear.
Thanks Katherine and we look forward to hearing from you, the Mayor and Council.
Personal Information removed per Section 17(1) of the FOIP Act RSA 2000 CH F-25 Cell:
1 September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 66 of 242 Tuesday, September 5, 2017
Dear Mayor Borrowman and Council,
We are requesting a relaxation to property taxes for the period April to October 2017 (or until completion if later than October). During this time Spring Creek Drive has been, and continues to be, under constant construction resulting in decreased and interrupted service. The residents of Spring Creek Drive did not request this construction and we had all necessary services before the construction. This project is for the benefit of Spring Creek Mountain Village and the new hotels and yet we are the ones being inconvenienced and subject to paying increased expenses. The following is an elaboration:
1. Since June until September 1 we were required to use temporary water. This was supplied through a black hose from a fire hydrant resulting in warm water from the cold water tap. In addition, the water pressure was very low and inconsistent. Only one tap could be used at any one time or the pressure dropped too low for proper operation. There will be further disruption when final work is completed to the water line.
2. During this very warm and dry summer there has been one day of dust control even though we were told this would be provided. Day after day we have lived in a dust bowl, both at the front and rear of the house. This has caused much more dust than usual in the house, on the windows and on the cars. It has been impossible not to track dirt into the house from both the road and laneway. This will require additional cleaning and expense at the end of the construction. 3. Noise has been relentless since the beginning of construction from 7:00a.m. to 7:00p.m. (or later) six days a week. Backup signals, gravel trucks, loaders, graders and workers yelling above the machine noise occurs all day. This has affected sleep patterns, work schedules, phone calls and meals. Windows must remain closed to minimize the noise in the early morning and during the day. Sitting on the back deck has provided little relief as the laneway has been under construction periodically for almost three months with noise and dust also encroaching the back yard from the road. 4. Access to the house has been a moving target. The direction changes at irregular intervals without notice. Driving is over dusty, rough roads with rocks scattered everywhere with great potential of damaging the cars. Backing the car out of the garage is now very challenging with stakes, pins, valves and string narrowing the driveway. Returning in the dark is dangerous. Machinery working in the construction site is constantly a hazard. We are now required to utilize the neighbour’s driveway to access the back laneway. 5. Walking is through the same dirt, dust and rocks until reaching Main Street or the new hotel in Spring Creek Mountain Village. Once again the direction changes and must be considered before setting out or returning. Safety is compromised greatly walking through this site to negotiate machinery, rocks and uneven surfaces. 6. Our property taxes provide for the access of emergency vehicles including fire, ambulance and police. Were the response teams notified of the road alignment changes on a daily basis? Accessing the houses on this street for much of the last five months was only possible from Spring Creek Mountain Village and would have required extra time. We have been lucky so far that this has not been required.
7. Communication to the homeowners was to provide 48 hours of notice for work affecting our residences. This has been rare to occur from either the Town or contractor. Occasionally the contractor has knocked on the door to inform us that a procedure was to occur that day but it has been seldom the Town personnel have provided even this level of service. This has resulted in personal schedules having to be changed to accommodate last minute requirements to have a presence at the house for work being carried out on the property.
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 67 of 242 8. Postal service has been interrupted on a regular basis. Delivery has not been possible to the mail box on many days without our knowledge. Usually only by going to the post office do we know when this has occurred.
9. Garbage bins are located within the construction zone and have not been accessible at all times. It has necessitated hauling bags of garbage through the construction to reach the bins. 10. The visual attraction of the street and properties have been affected dramatically since April. The loss of trees and bushes have exposed buildings across Policeman Creek. The laneway in the back yard was excavated for over two months with an 8’ orange safety fence encircling the excavation. Services installed in the laneway have compromised nine mature spruce trees. Many of these will be removed due to safety and others will decline and die over the next five years. This will greatly affect the barrier we now have between our house and the new buildings on Spring Creek Drive. 11. Services including power, cable, phone and gas remain to be installed. This will cause further interruptions. It is still to be determined how much damage will be caused to the trees, landscaping and driveway and what, if any, compensation will be granted. 12. Our time is valuable. We have been required to spend hundreds of hours in the past 18 months negotiating our rights, discussing the construction with the Town and Council, writing and receiving emails to outline our requests and participating in meetings to voice our concerns. We have constantly been passed on to the next person requiring a reiteration of the same points. It appears no one has authority to make decisions on our behalf without including several levels of Administration and municipal government. This has only added to our frustration and time commitment.
We are therefore requesting a refund of property taxes for this period of time. To reiterate, we feel we have not received services to be expected from the payment of our taxes and feel strongly that compensation is in order.
Respectfully,
Personal Information removed per Section 17(1) of the FOIP Act RSA 2000 CH F-25
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 68 of 242 Request for Decision
DATE OF MEETING: September 19, 2017 Agenda #: G-3
TO: Council
SUBJECT: Provincial Living Wage Network
SUBMITTED BY: Lisa Brown, Manager of Community Social Development
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the allocation of $10,000 per year for two years (2017 and 2018) out of the General Operating Reserve to join an Inter-Municipal Living Wage Network.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2015 the Town of Canmore published a Living Wage (LW) report which calculated the amount of income an individual or a family requires to meet their basic needs and to maintain a safe, decent standard of living in our community.
The Living Wage in Canmore is as follows:
Household: Per Adult, per hour wage:
Two Working Parents/Two Children $23.40
Lone Parent, One Child $24.25
Single Adult $20.03
With this calculation in mind, the municipality was able to assess the difference between the provincial minimum wage, the town’s average hourly wage and affordability within the Town of Canmore. Additionally, the Living Wage gave the Town a tool to compare Canmore’s affordability in relation to other municipalities.
Some challenges, however, with using the Living Wage to asses and compare affordability, is that across Alberta, municipalities who completed a Living Wage calculation use slightly different equations. Furthermore, the provincial dialogue with different Alberta municipalities is not coordinated and provincial solutions aimed at addressing the disparity between the Living Wage and the provincial minimum wage has a uniquely effect on different municipalities. For instance, some municipalities have a low Living Wage (lower than the minimum wage) but high unemployment, where Canmore has a high Living Wage (higher than the minimum wage) and, at times, a significant labour shortage. There is opportunity for local municipalities to cooperatively communicate the impact that higher-level solutions have on municipalities, which may, in turn, support a more robust provincial poverty reduction discussion.
Vibrant Communities Calgary (VCC) approached the Town of Canmore with a proposal to support the creation of an Inter-Municipal Living Wage network. VCC is a non-profit organization in Calgary that
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 69 of 242 Inter-Municipal Living Wage Network Page 2 of 4
advocates for long-term strategies that address the root causes of poverty. VCC is the steward of Calgary’s poverty reduction strategy, Enough for All. In 2013, Vibrant Communities Calgary led a group of Calgary Living Wage leaders, whose purpose was to advance Living Wage pay throughout Calgary. At this time, the Living Wage was calculated based on Calgary’s Low Income Cut-Off Before-Tax (LICO BT). This equation was problematic as it only highlighted the poverty line and did not focus on income needed to escape or stay out of poverty. This original group, which was Calgary focused only, shrunk to just a handful of members and finally dissolved in 2014. At this point, VCC decided to shift their focus from a Calgary-specific calculation to Canada’s National Living Wage Framework’, Living Wage Calculation. This LW calculation included multiple variables that need to be considered for a community, to not only understand poverty, but to also work towards eliminating barriers that lead to poverty. By taking a more holistic view of the Living Wage, VCC identified a need to strategically advocate for poverty reduction measures at a Provincial level.
In 2016, VCC reevaluated their Living Wage initiative and completed a stakeholder survey and a quality assessment process. Three suggested goals surfaced: 1) Enhance advocacy efforts related to income, expenses and poverty reduction efforts; 2) Collaborate with other Living Wage Communities to accomplish more; and, 3) Create a centralized program staff position to lead the Living Wage initiative. To reach these suggested goals, VCC is proposing the creation of an Inter-municipal Living Wage network.
RELEVANT COUNCIL DIRECTION, POLICY, OR BYLAWS Tools for the Future: Canmore’s Guide to Connect People and Community – Approved June 20, 2017
DISCUSSION In June 2017, VCC approached the Town of Canmore and individuals from the Municipalities of Red Deer, Wood Buffalo and Medicine Hat with a proposal to develop an Inter-Municipal Living Wage Network in Alberta (see attached).
This Network will be established in two phases:
Phase 1 will be a Planning and Development phase. VCC will fully fund this phase. As part of this phase, VCC will hire a 6 month contract position whose sole responsibility will be to oversee the completion of Phase 1 initiatives. Through Phase 1, the network will: 1. Research other Living Wage initiatives, best practices and areas of promise 2. Develop a strategic campaign and recommend a governance structure 3. Develop content for a website, including a Living Wage calculator, based on research and consultation 4. Design and create a website
Phase 2, which is anticipated to take approximately 2 years to complete, will be cost-shared among participating municipalities. In support of Phase 2 initiatives, VCC will hire a .5 FTE Program Coordinator to coordinate a provincial conversation. Phase 2 initiatives include: 1. Coordinated launch of a provincial campaign 2. Relationship building among Living Wage communities 3. Promotion of initiatives and tools to provincial communities 4. Identification of opportunities to advance poverty reduction policies
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 70 of 242 Inter-Municipal Living Wage Network Page 3 of 4
This Inter-Municipal Living Wage Network provides Canmore with an opportunity to be part of larger provincial solution. Canmore has a uniquely high Living Wage and an economy that is tied to other provincial municipalities, sometimes in non-intuitive ways. For instance, according to the TD Economics, Provincial Economic Forecast, Alberta had the worst provincial economy in Canada in 2016. In contrast, however, Canmore’s tourist economy increased as noted by the Alberta Tourism Market Monitor. Anecdotally, there was speculation that one of the reasons for Canmore’s tourist growth was because more Albertans were choosing to vacation in Canmore in hopes of saving money. These variables are often overlooked when assessing poverty reduction measures. Solutions aimed at reducing poverty, such as an increased minimum wage, may have unintended consequences that need to be considered and voiced. An Inter-Municipal Living Wage Network can provide the province with a more holistic view of poverty reduction initiatives.
Additionally, the Living Wage equation incorporates a number of variables as part of the calculation. By being a part of this Network, the Town of Canmore may gather new ideas from participating municipalities aimed at adjusting LW variables, such as transportation or food, in order to reduce Canmore’s Living Wage. Through this Network, Canmore will also have access to a standardized LW calculator that will help us assess the impact that local poverty reduction initiatives has on different types and sizes of households.
It is important to note, that a fully functioning LW calculator may not be available until 2019. In the meantime, the Town of Canmore will continue to regularly complete a LW calculation. Lisa Brown, Manager of Community Social Development will be meeting with Michel Haener, the consultant that calculated Canmore’s 2015 Living Wage, on October 4th to update Canmore’s Living Wage calculation. It is anticipated that an updated Living Wage will be presented to Council on or before January 2018.
Administration is requesting $10,000 in funding for two years to support Vibrant Communities Calgary with developing and launching an Inter-Municipal Living Wage Network. Administration is requesting that funding be allocated from the Municipal Operational Reserve. Administration anticipates that after this two year initiative, additional funding will be required to maintain the Network. As more municipalities join the Network, however, the proportion of funding that the Town of Canmore will be asked to contribute, as part of this cost-shared model, will decrease. Any additional support for this network will be allocated through the Community Social Development Service Area’s annual budget.
Identifying the impact of community initiatives on livability was an identified goal in the Community Social Development Strategic Plan, Tools for the Future.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS The value of this Inter-Municipal Network (over two years) is $117,000. Funding for this network will be cost-shared among participating provincial municipalities. Administration is requesting that Canmore contribute $10,000 for two years (total of $20,000) to support the design and implementation of this Network.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT A stakeholder engagement and consultation process was completed through the Community Social Development Strategic Plan, Tools for the Future.
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 71 of 242 Inter-Municipal Living Wage Network Page 4 of 4
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
STRATEGIC PRIORITY: Complete a Community Social Development Strategy STRATEGIC PLAN: Tools for the Future: Canmore’s Guide to Connect People and Community o Community Outcome 3: Aligning Services . Goal C: Identify the Impact of Initiatives on Community Livability
ATTACHMENTS 1) Attachment 1- Program Proposal: An Inter-Municipal Living Wage Network in Alberta
AUTHORIZATION
Submitted by: Lisa Brown Manager of CSD Date: August 11, 2017
Approved by: Katherine Van Keimpema, CPA, CGA, BADM, CLGM Manager of Financial Services Date: September 7, 2017
Approved by: Sally Caudill, Ph.D. GM of Municipal Services Date: September 7, 2017
Approved by: Lisa de Soto Chief Administrative Officer Date: September 14, 2017
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 72 of 242 Attachment 1
2017
Attachment 1
Program Proposal: An Inter-Municipal Living Wage Network in Alberta
SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION JUNE, 2017 BY JANET EREMENKO, VIBRANT COMMUNITIES CALGARY
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 73 of 242 PURPOSE
Living Wage Canada, administered by the Tamarack Institute, convenes a voluntary monthly call on which all Living Wage communities can participate. It was during one of these calls while general status updates were being provided, that VCC wondered about the value of sharing resources between Alberta-based participants. Most of the participants shared similar experiences of limited time and resources within their organizations to meaningfully advance their Living Wage work. This document aims to outline the possibilities for collaboration between communities and the role that VCC might play in facilitating that collaboration.
The concept and principles of a Living Wage are universal. At its core, a Living Wage is meant to convey the importance of an adequate income that allows for a person to escape and stay out of poverty while living a modest lifestyle with the opportunity to plan for the future. Actions to advance this concept may vary, but they typically include awareness-building and advocacy related to income levels and/or the cost of living, and the encouragement of employers to consider paying a Living Wage. This proposal assumes that there is adequate commonality amongst Living Wage communities that a shared service could indeed be of value for all participants.
BACKGROUND OF LIVING WAGES AT VIBRANT COMMUNITIES CALGARY
Vibrant Communities Calgary (VCC) has been working on Living Wage as an issue for nearly a decade. By 2013, VCC had approximately 50 Living Wage Leaders on its online directory and was determining the Living Wage through a simple calculation based on the Low Income Cut-Off, Before Tax (LICO BT). This commonly used measure for poverty was then divided by 52 weeks a year, 35 hours per week, to determine the Living Wage for Calgary. This meant that the Living Wage was the amount a single individual required to be at the poverty line.
On a monthly basis, VCC would convene the Living Wage Action Team, a group of community members, union representatives, and non-profit agencies looking to advance a Living Wage in Calgary. The group had originally been formed to advocate for the adoption of a Living Wage ordinance by the City of Calgary several years prior. By the time the group was disbanded in 2014, it had shrunk to just a handful of members. The group was responsible for reviewing and accepting applications to the Living Wage Leader Program, advocating for living wages at all orders of government and for updating the Living Wage figure on an annual basis.
With the dissolution of the Living Wage Action Team and the growing prominence of the National Living Wage Framework1 VCC decided to adapt its calculation methodology adopting the Framework’s calculator. 2014’s Living Wage was the first to utilize the new calculation and resulted in an increase of nearly $3.00 per hour in Calgary’s Living Wage figure. Since then VCC has release the Living Wage in 2015 and again in 2017.
1 The National Living Wage Framework was created by Living Wage Canada, a collaborative effort by a national set of partners to create a consistent approach to calculating and communicating a Living Wage across participating communities and municipalities. For more information about Living Wage Canada, visit http://livingwagecanada.ca/
1 September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 74 of 242 In 2016, VCC decided to suspend its Living Wage Initiative, including the Living Wage Leader Program to undertake a stakeholder survey and quality assessment process. At the time, the program had existed in its current iteration for six years, and had never undertaken a thorough revision of strategic approach, evaluation or program delivery. The feedback from the stakeholders was invaluable as VCC asked what worked well, what required improvement, and where our stakeholders see the value of living wages in advocacy and poverty reduction.2
SUGGESTED GOALS AND OUTCOMES
Goals Outcomes Enhance advocacy efforts related to income, Coordinated advocacy efforts to provincial and expenses and poverty reduction federal governments Shared expertise and messaging in advocacy to local governments For each Living Wage community to accomplish Cost-sharing of development and hosting of more through collaboration Inter-Municipal Living Wage website Shared resourcing and creation of communication materials and/or templates for public, businesses, government Centralized program staff Hiring a dedicated, permanent program coordinator Subject matter expertise and program advocate for Government Relations and stakeholder engagement Support to create or update data points within the Living Wage calculator
Longer term goals and outcomes may include:
an Alberta-wide employer certification process and recognition program. Utilizing the Living Wage for advocacy related to broader public policy considerations (consider a calculator that can be manipulated) Adapting the Living Wage calculator for different household sizes Broadening the scope to promote concepts of decent work and progressive business and Human Resource practices
2 For a summary of the 2016 stakeholder engagement findings, visit http://enoughforall.ca/wp- content/uploads/2017/06/ReportSummary_092816.pdf
2 September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 75 of 242 PROJECT PROPOSAL
Vibrant Communities Calgary is recommending the creation of an Inter-Municipal Living Wage Network for Alberta, with shared communication and administration services. This would require a robust planning and development stage, followed by the launch and management of the shared service. VCC is offering to pay for Phase 1, while we would require a cost-sharing arrangement for Phase 2. In other words, VCC is capable of covering the costs for the planning and content creation if there is agreement to cost-share the administration of the program once launched. Details below.
PHASE 1 – PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Phase 1 will require approximately six months to complete
Scope – Awareness and Advocacy
Research other Living Wage initiatives, best practice, areas of promise Stakeholder engagement, expert consultation – what are your needs, where are you at? Develop a campaign (strategic?) plan, including recommended governance structure Develop content for literature Develop content for website, including interactive Living Wage Calculator, based on research and consultation Work with designer to create website, literature Evaluation??
Out of Scope
Employer Certification and Recognition Program Calculator maintenance/support
Project Milestones
VCC to identify and hire consultant with project management, communications strategy expertise Consultant to engage with stakeholders re. visioning session Consultant builds campaign plan and communications material with support from stakeholders and frequent communication/consultation Website launch-ready, media press release, collateral created Program Coordinator secured Secured funding from participating Living Wage communities
3 September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 76 of 242 Budget
Item Description Fiscal Funding (one- Annual Base time) Funding (recurring) Staffing time A 6-month contract for 1.0 FTE whose $30,000 n/a sole responsibility is to develop and implement a plan Design Design of communication materials $10,000 n/a includes website development and literature Total $40,000* *Vibrant Communities Calgary will pay the full amount of the plan development and implementation, plus the initial investment in communication resources (website design and literature)
PHASE 2 – PROGRAM LAUNCH AND ADMINISTRATION Phase 2 will require approximately two years to reach maturity
Scope – Launch and Activation
Coordinated launch of provincial campaign Relationship-building with LW communities, policy-makers and community leaders Carry Program through development towards maturity, building social and political capital Constant communication and coordinated service Identify opportunities to advance policy
Out of Scope
Employer Certification and Recognition Program
Project Milestones
Successful launch of website and distribution of relevant communication materials Promotion of initiative and tools to partners, allies
Budget
Item Description Fiscal Funding (one- Annual Base time) Funding (recurring) Staffing time 0.5 FTE Program Coordinator, for a $34,500 recommended two years Incidentals Event, meeting, travel expenses $2,000 Materials Printing, Design $2,000 Total $38,500* *This will be cost-shared equally between participating Living Wage communities. VCC can act as the fiscal agent.
4 September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 77 of 242 PHASE 3 – EMPLOYER CERTIFICATION AND RECOGNITION PROGRAM (TENTATIVE)
Only once the Network is well-established, with a strong governance model and value-add, might the organization decide to launch an Employer Certification and Recognition Program. Based on the experiences of VCC in administering the Living Wage Leader Program, there should be a committed set of resources and adequate market demand to provide this service to businesses.
Supporting businesses to implement a Living Wage, amongst a variety of other progressive practices, can have countless positive impacts on the lives of employees, on the business and non-profit community and for policy-makers. However, establishing trusting and accountable relationships built on mutual benefit is essential. To achieve this, a foundational network with a proven record of success should be created. We recommend engaging with business owners at the level of the governance structure to establish strong relationships before embarking on creating an Employer Certification and Recognition Program.
FINAL THOUGHTS
It would be VCC’s pleasure to collaborate with other Living Wage communities across Alberta. Launching individual websites and communication materials with dedicated staffing resources is cost- prohibitive for most Living Wage communities. When these resources are potentially very similar to those created by a neighbouring community, one must ask if collaborating on their creation and dissemination could save everyone time and money. It is this collaboration that we are proposing in this document. Ultimately, this approach could benefit participating Living Wage communities, low-income Albertans and low-wage workers, and Living Wage as a concept.
ACTION ITEMS
If you would like to participate in the creation and administration of an Inter-Municipal Living Wage Network in Alberta, VCC would like to hear from you no later than August 31, 2017. Your agreement to participate confirms your ability to contribute financially for a period of two years to the administration of the program.
Please notify Ivan Sierralta, Director Strategy & Impact with your interest. [email protected] 403-351-2652
5 September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 78 of 242
Briefing
DATE OF MEETING: September 19, 2017 Agenda #: G-4
TO: Council
SUBJECT: Municipal Benchmarking Initiative – Police Services
SUBMITTED BY: Greg Burt, Manager of Protective Services
PURPOSE: To provide Council with highlights from the Municipal Benchmarking Initiative – Police RCMP report.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY In 2013, a project was undertaken to do a comparison of a number of services that numerous Alberta municipalities provide. The initial benchmarking reports were not accepted due to inconsistencies in methodology used by each municipality. The benchmarking project reporting and data collection has been refined and a new set of reports are being finalized.
DISCUSSION Six Alberta municipalities (Airdrie, Banff, Canmore, Cochrane, Okotoks, and Wetaskiwin) participated in the Police RCMP benchmarking report. All six municipalities contract the RCMP to provide their policing services.
Unique to the Police RCMP and Fire Services benchmarking reports is the comparison of costs to population served. This was calculated by adding the following population figures: municipal, non-permanent, Harvie Heights and Deadman’s Flats and a visitor adjusted figure (estimate of the increase of visitors staying in hotel rooms per year). For 2014, the visitor adjusted population figure was 20,264 and the permanent population was 13,077.
The report examines four financial comparisons:
Total policing costs, municipal + RCMP ($/capita and population served) Total policing costs, municipal + RCMP ($/policing staff) Policing costs, municipal only ($/capita and population served) Policing costs, municipal only ($/front line officer)
The first two measures represent the total policing costs of which Canmore pays 70% of these costs per the municipal policing services agreement. The second two measures reflect the actual cost to the municipality.
Canmore’s total policing costs per capita are above the average (Wetaskiwin was excluded for this calculation), however are below the average when the population served number is factored in. This comes as no surprise as Canmore needs to pay for RCMP staffing beyond permanent residents. Of interest is that the cost per capita decreases as the population increase, even with the shift in cost share from 70/30 (less than 15,000 residents) to 90/10 (more than 15,000 residents). It is also important to note that the cost per capita is the actual cost, but does not include fine revenues, grants, transfers from the photo radar reserve or criminal records check fees.
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 79 of 242 Municipal Benchmarking Initiative – Police Services Page 2 of 2
The report examines eight operational, service, workload and crime comparisons:
Policing activity (caseload files/1,000 population served) Crime rate (criminal code crimes/1,000 population served) Crime severity index Clearance rate (%) Policing service level (total policing staff/1,000 capita and population served) Policing service level (front line officers/1,000 capita and population served) Policing workload (total caseload/front line officer) Policing workload (criminal code crimes/front line officer)
Canmore is a very safe community. For this report Canmore had the lowest crime rate and criminal code crimes investigated per officer. Canmore’s crime severity index is also below the Provincial average. In terms of the policing service levels (both total policing staff and front line officers) Canmore is comparable to Okotoks, Airdrie and Cochrane when the population served number is factored in. In terms of workload, Canmore is near the bottom end for total caseload/front line officer and the lowest for criminal code crimes/front line officer. This is consistent with the crime rate and crime severity index measures.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS This report could be used for budget and planning purposes to refine and find efficiencies in operations and spending.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Stakeholders included the Staff Sergeant from the Canmore RCMP detachment and that of all the participating municipalities. Numerous meetings and discussions were undertaking to guidelines help with consistent reporting.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT – N/A
ATTACHMENTS
1) Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative – Police RCMP - Final Report
AUTHORIZATION
Submitted by: Greg Burt Manager of Protective Services Date: August 24, 2017
Approved by: Sally Caudill. Ph.D General Manager, Municipal Services Date: September 6, 2017
Approved by: Lisa de Soto Chief Administrative Officer Date: September 14, 2017
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 80 of 242 Attachment 1
Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, Police RCMP April 2017
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 1
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 81 of 242
Table of Contents
1 Introduction and Background ...... 5 1.1 Introduction ...... 5 1.2 Background ...... 5 1.3 Participating Municipalities ...... 6 1.4 Governance Structure ...... 6 1.5 Benefits of Benchmarking ...... 8 1.6 Definitions ...... 8 2 Policing RCMP ...... 10 2.1 System Description ...... 10 2.1.1 Municipal Policing (RCMP) Services ...... 10 2.1.2 Factors Influencing Policing RCMP Services ...... 10 2.1.3 Policing (RCMP) Narrative Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 11 NOTES: 11 2.2 Total Policing Costs 1, Municipal + RCMP ($/capita and population served) - Efficiency ...... 12 2.2.1 Total Policing Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 13 2.2.2 Lessons Learned ...... 14 2.3 Total Policing Cost 2, Municipal + RCMP ($/policing staff) - Efficiency ...... 15 2.3.1 Policing RCMP Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 16 1. Indirect costs to support RCMP operations and manage the contract are rolled into the direct costs since they are a small in relation to total direct costs...... 16 Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 2
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 82 of 242 2.3.2 Lessons Learned ...... 16 2.4 Policing Costs 1, Municipal only ($/capita and $/population served) - Efficiency ...... 17 2.4.1 Policing Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 18 2.4.2 Lessons Learned ...... 18 2.5 Policing Cost 2, Municipal only ($/front line officer) - Efficiency ...... 21 2.5.1 Policing Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 22 2.5.2 Lessons Learned ...... 22 2.6 Policing Activity (caseload files/1,000 population served) - Effectiveness ...... 23 2.6.1 Caseload Activity Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 24 2.6.2 Lessons Learned ...... 24 2.7 Crime Rate, (Criminal Code crimes/1,000 population served) – Effectiveness ...... 25 2.7.1 Crime Rate Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 26 2.7.2 Lessons Learned ...... 26 2.8 Crime Severity Index, (Statistics Canada, base is 100 for 2006) – Effectiveness ...... 27 2.8.1 Crime Severity Index Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 28 2.8.2 Lessons Learned ...... 29 2.9 Clearance Rate, (%) – Effectiveness ...... 30 2.9.1 Clearance Rate Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 31 2.9.2 Lessons Learned ...... 31 2.10 Policing Service Level 1, (total policing staff/1,000 capita and population served) – Effectiveness ...... 32 2.10.1 Policing Level Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 33 2.10.2 Lessons Learned ...... 33 Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 3
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 83 of 242 2.11 Policing Service Level 2, (front line officers/1,000 capita and population served) – Effectiveness ...... 34 2.11.1 Policing Level Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 35 2.11.2 Lessons Learned ...... 35 2.12 Policing Workload 1, (total caseload/front line officer) – Effectiveness ...... 36 2.12.1 Policing Workload (caseload) 1 Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 37 2.12.2 Lessons Learned ...... 37 2.13 Policing Workload 2, (Criminal Code crimes/front line officer) - Effectiveness ...... 38 2.13.1 Policing Caseload 2 Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 39 2.13.2 Lessons Learned ...... 39 2.14 Policing RCMP Service Data ...... 40 2.15 Lessons Learned, General ...... 42 3 Database Manual, Policing RCMP ...... 44 3.1 Benchmark Performance Measures (PM) Calculations ...... 54
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 4
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 84 of 242 1 Introduction and Background 1.2 Background The Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative is a 1.1 Introduction collaboration of small and large municipalities. Their objective is to develop and implement a framework that will enable a Today’s municipalities are challenged by an ever-increasing continuous, multi-year benchmarking process for demand to deliver a greater variety and a higher level of participating municipalities. The initiative includes identifying public services while maintaining low taxes and user fees. and gathering comparable metrics and preparing To meet this challenge, municipal governments are benchmarking reports to prompt questions, start discussions, continually looking for new ways to improve performance, identify and share leading practices, and ultimately improve operationally and fiscally. the municipal services provided to Albertans. In the spring of 2012, a number of municipalities in Alberta The ten service areas to be benchmarked for efficiency and expressed an interest in benchmarking their service delivery effectiveness performance measures are: against leading practices as a way to improve service. At a 1. Drinking Water Supply (complete) workshop hosted by the Town of Banff in May 2012, 2. Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal participating municipalities discussed the benefits of (complete) benchmarking; developed a preliminary list of guiding 3. Roadway Operations and Maintenance principles; and identified considerations related to 4. Snow and Ice Management governance, scope, data collection, resources, and risks. 5. Fire Protection (complete) Subsequent to this workshop, the Town of Banff, on behalf of 6. Residential Solid Waste Management a group of 13 municipalities, successfully applied to the 7. Police Protection provincial government for a Regional Collaboration Grant to 8. Transit fund the development of a municipal service delivery 9. Parks Provision and Maintenance benchmarking framework. With the support of the provincial 10. Recreation, Facility Booking and Maintenance government, the Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative (ABMI) was launched in 2013. A method for collecting data to ensure it is comparable between communities and a database to hold the data and produce performance measure reports has been developed. Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 5
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 85 of 242 The foundation of this method is a “User Manual” for each service area, containing: Governance Committee - The governance committee was created to provide overall guidance and oversight, and to • Definitions for cost and service data, and ensure that the work conducted is in the best interest of the • Definitions for the calculations of performance group of municipalities as a whole as opposed to an individual measures for both efficiency and effectiveness. municipality. The committee is: Robert Earl (Chair), Town of To ensure an “apples to apples” comparison, participating Banff, Paul Schulz, City of Airdrie, Lisa de Soto, Town of municipalities are involved in the creation of the user manual. Canmore, Corey Wight, City of Lethbridge, Brian Mastel, City of Medicine Hat and one vacant position. 1.3 Participating Municipalities Working Committee - Each of the participating The municipalities currently participating in the Police RCMP municipalities is represented on the working committee. Its section of the Project are the cities of Airdrie and Wetaskiwin, members’ primary role is liaising between the project and the towns of Banff, Canmore, Cochrane, and Okotoks. manager and the respective municipality. They oversee the completion of activities within the municipality, support the 1.4 Governance Structure identification of SMEs needed for the development of the Database User Manual, and assist with the gathering of To guide and drive the project, a model has been developed relevant data. consisting of: Finance Group – The primary role and responsibility of the • A governance committee consisting of six municipal Finance Group is to collect and enter data for a calculation to leaders allocate overhead to each service area, collect and enter data • A working committee with representatives from each for amortization of assets in each service area, and assist of the participating municipalities service area SMEs on collection of cost data for each service • A finance group with representatives from each of the area. The Finance Group also ensures all data is accurate by participating municipalities confirming the financial data to the municipality’s non- • A subject matter expert (SME) Group for each service consolidated financial statements. area with representatives from each of the Subject Matter Expert Group (SME) – The primary role and participating municipalities responsibility of the SME groups is to provide subject matter Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 6
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 86 of 242 expertise in the development of the service definitions, performance measures, and collection of data for the benchmarking pilot project. The CAOs’ Role – In addition to the governance committee, the CAOs from each of the participating municipalities were asked to confirm their commitment to this pilot project, to be the executive sponsor for their respective municipality, to champion this pilot project within their municipality, and ensure that all participating municipalities are informed of the activities and outcomes.
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 7
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 87 of 242 1.5 Benefits of Benchmarking 1.6 Definitions
The anticipated benefits from this benchmarking project are: Efficiency – Efficiency is a measure of productivity based on dividing the quantity of output (measured in units of • Helps tell the municipal “performance story” deliverables) by the quantity of resources input (usually • A sound business practice used in the government and measured in person hours or dollars). private sectors • Sets the stage for sharing knowledge and best Effectiveness – Effectiveness is a measure of the value or practices among the municipal sector performance of a service relative to a goal, expressed as the • Understanding of trends within each municipality actual change in the service. An effectiveness measure • Identification of opportunities for change to improve compares the output of a service to its intended contribution efficiency or effectiveness of municipal services to a higher level goal. • Formation of objective evidence that shows the differentiation between municipalities and provides information for municipal CAOs to address questions from Council, staff, and the community on service efficiency and effectiveness • Encouragement of continuous improvement initiatives and a better understanding of the drivers that impact performance results • Encourages continuous improvement, and • Awareness of the value of collaboration between municipalities. • Supports results-based accountability
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 8
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 88 of 242
Policing Services, RCMP
Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 9
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 89 of 242
2 Policing RCMP 2.1.2 Factors Influencing Policing RCMP Services 2.1 System Description Size of System: Number, size and complexity of the roadways system for Policing RCMP. 2.1.1 Municipal Policing (RCMP) Services Urban Density: Policing services needed to serve the Community Policing Services aim to increase public safety population. through excellence in the prevention, intervention and suppression of crime and disorder. In Alberta, municipalities can contract with the RCMP for policing, or operate and fund a municipal police service. The RCMP operates policing on three levels; Federal, Provincial and municipal. The decision is to use the RCMP usually made based on municipal population; • For a population <5,000, the RCMP will provide policing at no charge • For populations from 5,000 to 14,999, the cost of a contract is shared; the municipality pays 70% and the RCMP provides 30% • For populations >15,000, the cost of a contract is
shared; the municipality pays 90% and the RCMP provides 10%
The decision to establish a self-run service is considered by a municipality when the population is >30,000 and there is a need for full-time specialized services.
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 10
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 90 of 242 2.1.3 Policing (RCMP) Narrative Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) The Narrative Data shows differences and similarities between municipalities for this service area. Roads Developed Commercial Tickets Vehicle 24/7 Use Municipality Year Patrolled Area Area Written Collisions Coverage Post (KM) (square KM) (square km) (#) (#) Model 2012 280 56 5 2,411 1,112 Y N Airdrie 2013 302 56 9 2,782 1,323 Y N 2014 310 56 9 2,435 1,392 Y N 2012 42 5 1 861 320 Y Y Banff 2013 42 5 1 168 23 Y Y 2014 42 5 1 470 302 Y Y 2012 188 12 1 2,439 343 Y Y Canmore 2013 188 12 1 1,482 293 Y Y 2014 188 12 1 2,662 348 Y Y 2012 147 31 1 691 498 Y Y Cochrane 2013 147 31 1 609 532 Y Y 2014 163 31 1 696 609 Y Y 2012 331 16 2 2,083 743 Y Y Okotoks 2013 334 16 2 1,543 837 Y Y 2014 340 16 2 1,175 792 Y Y 2012 133 18 2 1,303 431 Y Y Wetaskiwin 2013 133 18 2 1,145 409 Y Y 2014 133 18 2 1,051 420 Y Y
NOTES: 1. Under the Post Model a single detachment commander has municipal funded policing staff as well as a provincial contingent of staff for rural areas. There is both provincial and municipal policing staff on
each shift. They jointly patrol both the municipal and rural area of detachment responsibility, e.g. Airdrie has a municipal force only. Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 11
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 91 of 242 2.2 Total Policing Costs 1, Municipal + RCMP ($/capita and population served) - Efficiency This chart shows total cost of providing policing services per capita based on municipal population and by population served (red line). These municipalities contract with the RCMP for policing services That means total cost includes the contribution of the RCMP to the shared contract + the municipality portion of the contract + all other cost to administer and support the RCMP operation. The cost types are; direct costs (the operational costs to have the service, i.e. “boots on the street”), indirect costs (support of the RCMP operations and management of the contract), overhead (a calculated allocation of total overhead to this service based on proportion of direct costs to the municipality), and amortization (depreciation cost of all assets owned by the municipality and used to deliver the service). Municipalities are in order from lowest to highest cost based on the average of 2012, 2013, 2014 results.
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 12
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 92 of 242 2.2.1 Total Policing Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) Direct Overhead Amortization Total Costs Municipal Population Cost Per Cost Per Municipality Year Costs Costs Costs ($) Population Served Capita Population ($) ($) ($) (#) (#) ($) Served (#) 2012 $6,679,497 $120,332 $27,840 $6,827,669 45,711 45,711 $149 $149 Airdrie 2013 $6,764,571 $131,401 $204,581 $7,100,553 49,560 49,560 $143 $143 2014 $7,013,921 $138,118 $205,846 $7,357,885 54,891 54,891 $134 $134 2012 $2,381,233 $25,378 $0 $2,406,611 8,244 24,118 $292 $100 Banff 2013 $3,002,116 $28,838 $0 $3,030,954 8,244 23,968 $368 $126 2014 $2,819,110 $22,086 $0 $2,841,196 9,386 26,698 $303 $106 2012 $2,971,049 $33,378 $0 $3,004,427 12,317 21,395 $244 $140 Canmore 2013 $3,311,705 $65,984 $0 $3,377,689 12,317 21,395 $274 $158 2014 $3,413,040 $59,435 $0 $3,472,475 13,077 20,264 $266 $171 2012 $2,765,896 $62,714 $0 $2,828,610 17,580 17,580 $161 $161 Cochrane 2013 $3,170,085 $87,033 $0 $3,257,118 18,750 18,750 $174 $174 2014 $3,009,791 $89,707 $0 $3,099,498 20,708 20,708 $150 $150 2012 $3,143,920 $34,942 $26,612 $3,205,474 24,962 24,962 $128 $128 Okotoks 2013 $3,511,532 $51,220 $26,612 $3,589,364 26,319 26,319 $136 $136 2014 $3,810,857 $70,471 $262,807 $4,144,135 27,331 27,331 $152 $152 2012 $4,723,720 $137,756 $65,893 $4,927,369 12,525 12,525 $393 $393 Wetaskiwin 2013 $5,101,921 $97,661 $64,801 $5,264,383 12,525 12,525 $420 $420 2014 $4,871,380 $94,057 $64,616 $5,030,053 12,525 12,525 $402 $402
NOTES: 3. Airdrie added a new policing building 2014. Okotoks 1. Indirect costs are rolled up into direct costs because added a new policing building 2013. Amortization they are small in relation to total costs (only involves costs increased in both cases. administration of the RCMP contract). 4. Population served is the resident municipal 2. Amortization is small because policing assets are population plus non-resident visitors (second home owned by RCMP. owners, temporary workers) plus average visitor population. The policing service must have the capacity to deal with the population served.
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 13
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 93 of 242
For example; Municipal Population Population (#) Served (#) Banff, 2014 9,386 26,698
13,077 20,264 Canmore, 2014
2.2.2 Lessons Learned 1. The average total policing cost/population served is $186. The range is $100 (Banff 2012) to $420 (Wetaskiwin 2013).
2. Excluding Wetaskiwin, the average cost/population served is $142, range $100 (Banff 2012) to $174 (Cochrane 2013).
3. Because policing is staffed to deal with the population served, the range of total cost/population served is relatively narrow if Wetaskiwin data is excluded. Wetaskiwin must staff higher due to local issues for their population. The variation in total cost/population served is due to; • Policing resources (services offered) • Council decisions on staffing and service levels
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 14
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 94 of 242 2.3 Total Policing Cost 2, Municipal + RCMP ($/policing staff) - Efficiency This chart shows total cost of providing policing services per number of policing staff (RCMP sworn officers + other RCMP staff + municipal staff supporting the RCMP operation). The cost types are; direct costs, indirect costs, overhead, and amortization. Municipalities are in order from lowest to highest cost based on the average of 2012, 2013, 2014 results.
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 15
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 95 of 242 2.3.1 Policing RCMP Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) Direct Costs Overhead Costs Amortization Costs Total Costs Total Policing Cost per Policing Municipality Year ($) ($) ($) ($) Staff (#) Staff ($) 2012 $6,679,497 $120,332 $27,840 $6,827,669 51 $133,876 Airdrie 2013 $6,764,571 $131,401 $204,581 $7,100,553 51 $139,227 2014 $7,013,921 $138,118 $205,846 $7,357,885 53 $138,828 2012 $2,381,233 $25,378 $0 $2,406,611 17 $141,565 Banff 2013 $3,002,116 $28,838 $0 $3,030,954 17 $178,291 2014 $2,819,110 $22,086 $0 $2,841,196 17 $167,129 2012 $2,971,049 $33,378 $0 $3,004,427 21 $143,068 Canmore 2013 $3,311,705 $65,984 $0 $3,377,689 21 $160,842 2014 $3,413,040 $59,435 $0 $3,472,475 21 $165,356 2012 $2,765,896 $62,714 $0 $2,828,610 21 $134,696 Cochrane 2013 $3,170,085 $87,033 $0 $3,257,118 23 $141,614 2014 $3,009,791 $89,707 $0 $3,099,498 24 $129,146 2012 $3,143,920 $34,942 $26,612 $3,205,474 25 $128,219 Okotoks 2013 $3,511,532 $51,220 $26,612 $3,589,364 25 $143,575 2014 $3,810,857 $70,471 $262,807 $4,144,135 26 $159,390 2012 $4,723,720 $137,756 $65,893 $4,927,369 34 $144,923 Wetaskiwin 2013 $5,101,921 $97,661 $64,801 $5,264,383 34 $154,835 2014 $4,871,380 $94,057 $64,616 $5,030,053 34 $147,943
NOTES: 2.3.2 Lessons Learned 1. Indirect costs to support RCMP operations and 1. The average total cost/total policing staff is $147,362. manage the contract are rolled into the direct costs The range is $128,219 (Okotoks 2012) to $178,291 since they are a small in relation to total direct costs. (Banff 2013). 2. Municipalities with no amortization costs do not own 2. Variation in cost/total policing staff is due to; any policing assets. • Policing resources (services offered) • Council decisions on staffing and service levels
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 16
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 96 of 242 2.4 Policing Costs 1, Municipal only ($/capita and $/population served) - Efficiency This chart shows the actual cost to the municipality per capita based on municipal population and per population served. The cost includes only the municipal portion of the RCMP contract + all other costs to administer and support the RCMP operation. Municipalities are in order from lowest to highest cost based on the average of 2012, 2013, 2014 results.
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 17
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 97 of 242 2.4.1 Policing Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) Direct Costs Overhead Amortization Total Costs Municipal Cost Per Population Cost per Municipality Year ($) Costs Costs ($) Population Capita Served Population ($) ($) (#) ($) (#) Served ($) 2012 $6,192,786 $120,332 $27,840 $6,340,958 45,711 $139 45,711 $139 Airdrie 2013 $6,236,406 $131,401 $204,581 $6,572,388 49,560 $133 49,560 $133 2014 $6,427,042 $138,118 $205,846 $6,771,006 54,891 $123 54,891 $123 2012 $1,829,939 $25,378 $0 $1,855,317 8,244 $225 24,118 $77 Banff 2013 $2,263,781 $28,838 $0 $2,292,619 8,244 $278 23,968 $96 2014 $2,141,564 $22,086 $0 $2,163,650 9,386 $231 26,698 $81 2012 $2,165,777 $33,378 $0 $2,199,155 12,317 $179 21,395 $103 Canmore 2013 $2,485,646 $65,984 $0 $2,551,630 12,317 $207 21,395 $119 2014 $2,532,855 $59,435 $0 $2,592,290 13,077 $198 20,264 $128 2012 $2,428,687 $62,714 $0 $2,491,401 17,580 $142 17,580 $142 Cochrane 2013 $2,931,083 $87,033 $0 $3,018,116 18,750 $161 18,750 $161 2014 $2,744,403 $89,707 $0 $2,834,110 20,708 $137 20,708 $137 2012 $2,913,941 $34,942 $26,612 $2,975,495 24,962 $119 24,962 $119 Okotoks 2013 $3,258,095 $51,220 $26,612 $3,335,927 26,319 $127 26,319 $127 2014 $3,533,848 $70,471 $262,807 $3,867,126 27,331 $141 27,331 $141 2012 $3,807,138 $137,756 $65,893 $4,010,787 12,525 $320 12,525 $320 Wetaskiwin 2013 $4,086,705 $97,661 $64,801 $4,249,167 12,525 $339 12,525 $339 2014 $3,931,642 $94,057 $64,616 $4,090,315 12,525 $327 12,525 $327
NOTES: by the RCMP. This means these costs are the cash 1. Direct costs include only the municipal portion of the outlay by the municipality for policing. RCMP contract (70% or 90%) plus the cost of support 2.4.2 Lessons Learned staff employed by the municipality dedicated to 1. Policing cost per capita (blue trend line) decreases as policing services and the indirect cost of managing the municipal population increases. See chart below. contract, e.g. a portion of a protective services NOTE: Cost/capita is the actual cost. Some manager time devoted to policing services. Direct municipalities offset the actual cost with, for example, costs exclude the portion of the contract “contributed” revenues from fines, which lowers the cost to the taxpayer. Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 18
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 98 of 242
2. Cost per capita decreases moving from the 70%/30% 3. All municipalities in this study have 24/7 policing, contract split with the RCMP to the 90%/10% split. See which increases the cost/capita by requiring a chart. This trend is in part due to the municipality’s minimum number of sworn officers to fill all shifts. capacity to pay for RCMP policing services, i.e. the larger the municipal population the higher the 4. Local policing issues increases the cost per capita, e.g. municipal portion of the contract (>15,000 population increased domestic violence may require more officers pays 90%). If the split percentage was to stay at 70% to handle the workload. Wetaskiwin has an average of for all municipalities the curve would have a much 207 Criminal Code crimes per 10,000 municipal steeper slope. population vs. an average of 63 for the other municipalities. Wetaskiwin has 3.1 policing staff per 10,000 municipal population vs. an average 1.1 for all other municipalities.
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 19
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 99 of 242 5. Using population served makes the comparison between municipalities more accurate. The average
cost/population served is $156. The range is $77 (Banff 2012) to $339 (Wetaskiwin 2013).
6. Excluding Wetaskiwin, due to local issues, the average is $122, range $77 (Banff 2012) to $161 (Cochrane 2013).
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 20
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 100 of 242 2.5 Policing Cost 2, Municipal only ($/front line officer) - Efficiency This chart shows the actual cost to the municipality per front line officer. Front line officers are those in the RCMP operation that are “boots on the street”; visible to the community delivering the policing service. Municipalities are in order from lowest to highest cost based on the average of 2012, 2013, 2014 results.
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 21
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 101 of 242 2.5.1 Policing Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) Direct Costs Overhead Amortization Total Costs Front Line Cost per Front Municipality Year ($) Costs Costs ($) Officers (#) Line Officer ($) ($) ($) 2012 $6,192,786 $120,332 $27,840 $6,340,958 36.0 $176,138 Airdrie 2013 $6,236,406 $131,401 $204,581 $6,572,388 36.0 $182,566 2014 $6,427,042 $138,118 $205,846 $6,771,006 38.0 $178,184 2012 $1,829,939 $25,378 $0 $1,855,317 11.0 $168,665 Banff 2013 $2,263,781 $28,838 $0 $2,292,619 11.0 $208,420 2014 $2,141,564 $22,086 $0 $2,163,650 11.0 $196,695 2012 $2,165,777 $33,378 $0 $2,199,155 16.0 $137,447 Canmore 2013 $2,485,646 $65,984 $0 $2,551,630 16.0 $159,477 2014 $2,532,855 $59,435 $0 $2,592,290 16.0 $162,018 2012 $2,428,687 $62,714 $0 $2,491,401 15.0 $166,093 Cochrane 2013 $2,931,083 $87,033 $0 $3,018,116 17.0 $177,536 2014 $2,744,403 $89,707 $0 $2,834,110 17.0 $166,712 2012 $2,913,941 $34,942 $26,612 $2,975,495 18.0 $165,305 Okotoks 2013 $3,258,095 $51,220 $26,612 $3,335,927 17.0 $196,231 2014 $3,533,848 $70,471 $262,807 $3,867,126 17.0 $227,478 2012 $3,807,138 $137,756 $65,893 $4,010,787 20.0 $200,539 Wetaskiwin 2013 $4,086,705 $97,661 $64,801 $4,249,167 20.0 $212,458 2014 $3,931,642 $94,057 $64,616 $4,090,315 19.0 $215,280
NOTES: 2.5.2 Lessons Learned 1. The number of front line officers is the average actual 1. The average cost/front line officer is $183,180. The number in each of the 4 quarters, recognizing numbers range is $137,447 (Canmore 2012) to $227,478 go up and down in each quarter. It is not the (Okotoks 2014). budgeted/authorized strength. 2. The variation in cost/ total policing staff is due to; • Policing resources (services offered) • Council decisions on staffing and service levels
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 22
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 102 of 242 2.6 Policing Activity (caseload files/1,000 population served) - Effectiveness This chart shows the number of files opened for any reason, per 1,000 of population served. Files are opened from any source, including Criminal Code crimes that fall under the federal Criminal Code. These files will go on to be investigated by a sworn officer. Upon investigation, for the Criminal Code files opened, some are downgraded to non-criminal files and some non-criminal files are upgraded to Criminal Code crimes. Municipalities are in order from lowest to highest crime rate based on the average of 2012, 2013, 2014 results.
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 23
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 103 of 242 2.6.1 Caseload Activity Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) Total Caseload Population Served Total Caseload per 1,000 Municipality Year (#) (#) Population Served (#) 2012 11,148 45,711 244 Airdrie 2013 12,548 49,560 253 2014 13,217 54,891 241 2012 6,422 24,118 266 Banff 2013 5,769 23,968 241 2014 5,279 26,698 198 2012 7,978 21,395 373 Canmore 2013 4,967 21,395 232 2014 5,972 20,264 295 2012 10,097 17,580 574 Cochrane 2013 7,593 18,750 405 2014 6,942 20,708 335 2012 7,272 24,962 291 Okotoks 2013 7,579 26,319 288 2014 6,904 27,331 253 2012 9,411 12,525 751 Wetaskiwin 2013 8,353 12,525 667 2014 8,519 12,525 680
2.6.2 Lessons Learned in total caseload/ population served while all others 1. For Airdrie, Okotoks, Canmore and Wetaskiwin the average 299. trend for total caseload/population served is about constant for 2012 to 2014, while for Banff and Cochrane the trend is decreasing. For Banff, the decrease is attributed to an increase in pro-active policing.
2. Local issues cause increases in total caseload/
population served. Wetaskiwin has an average of 699 Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 24
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 104 of 242
2.7 Crime Rate, (Criminal Code crimes/1,000 population served) – Effectiveness This chart shows Criminal Code crimes per 1,000 of population served. After initial investigation, files opened as Criminal Code can be downgraded to non-criminal files (unfounded) while others are upgraded to Criminal Code crimes. Municipalities are in order from lowest to highest crime rate based on the average of 2012, 2013, 2014 results.
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 25
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 105 of 242 2.7.1 Crime Rate Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) Criminal Code Crimes Population Served Criminal Code Crimes Per 1,000 Municipality Year (#) (#) Population (#) 2012 3,426 45,711 75 Airdrie 2013 3,422 49,560 69 2014 3,741 54,891 68 2012 1,835 24,118 76 Banff 2013 1,858 23,968 78 2014 1,492 26,698 56 2012 1,013 21,395 47 Canmore 2013 965 21,395 45 2014 1,033 20,264 51 2012 1,394 17,580 79 Cochrane 2013 1,343 18,750 72 2014 1,366 20,708 66 2012 1,436 24,962 58 Okotoks 2013 1,522 26,319 58 2014 1,652 27,331 60 2012 3,159 12,525 252 Wetaskiwin 2013 3,279 12,525 262 2014 3,555 12,525 284
2.7.2 Lessons Learned 1. Local issues influence the number Criminal Code and the range is from 45 to 79. Wetaskiwin averages crimes/1,000 population served. The number of 266. criminal code crimes per 1,000 population served is
very similar for Airdrie, Banff, Canmore, Cochrane and
Okotoks. The average for this group of municipalities is 63 Criminal Code crimes per 1,000 population served
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 26
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 106 of 242 2.8 Crime Severity Index, (Statistics Canada, base is 100 for 2006) – Effectiveness This chart shows the Crime Severity Index (CSI). The CSI is prepared annually by Statistics Canada and tracks changes in the severity of police-reported crime from year to year. Municipalities are compared to the Alberta CSI (red line). Municipalities are in order from lowest to highest CSI based on the average of 2012, 2013, 2014 results.
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 27
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 107 of 242 2.8.1 Crime Severity Index Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) Municipal Crime Municipality Year Severity Index (#) 2012 83 Airdrie 2013 67 2014 63 2012 142 Banff 2013 124 2014 98 2012 57 Canmore 2013 58 2014 52 2012 58 Cochrane 2013 46 2014 47 2012 35 Okotoks 2013 31 2014 35 2012 97 Wetaskiwin 2013 142 2014 177
NOTES: • The CSI varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction 1. The CSI is standardized to "100" for Canada depending on how crime is handled by the using 2006 as a base year. courts in each jurisdiction. 2. The CSI shown comes with these caveats; 3. The CSI is recognized as a standard measure of • The “relative seriousness” component of the policing across Canada. CSI is very sensitive to and distorted by the http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-004- inclusion of even one homicide. x/2009001/part-partie1-eng.htm
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 28
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 108 of 242 2.8.2 Lessons Learned 1. When a community’s CSI is above the Provincial average, it is due to local issues.
• Banff has a CSI above the provincial average and it is declining 2012 to 2014. Banff has a large contingent of temporary workers and
tourist visitors. The early morning hours after clubs close are busy for policing and result in a large number of files being opened. Banff has
instituted a proactive policing program for these late hours that has resulted in a declining CSI.
• Wetaskiwin has an increasing CSI due to a rise in domestic violence incidents that are exacerbated by declining economic conditions.
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 29
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 109 of 242 2.9 Clearance Rate, (%) – Effectiveness The Clearance Rate is the percentage of Criminal Code crimes that are cleared in a calendar year. The RCMP can clear a Criminal Code crime by making a charge or by other means. Municipalities are in order from lowest to highest Clearance Rate based on the average of 2012, 2013, 2014 results.
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 30
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 110 of 242 2.9.1 Clearance Rate Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) Clearance Rate Municipality Year (%) 2012 43% Airdrie 2013 38% 2014 49% 2012 62% Banff 2013 68% 2014 66% 2012 59% Canmore 2013 60% 2014 59% 2012 53% Cochrane 2013 49% 2014 54% 2012 42% Okotoks 2013 42% 2014 39% 2012 68% Wetaskiwin 2013 69% 2014 62%
2.9.2 Lessons Learned 1. Clearance rate is affected by the type of crime. rate. This is because the perpetrators are • Property crimes are more frequent and less usually found at the scene of the crime and can severe. These crimes are often committed with be apprehended. little evidence of who committed the crime. This means they are difficult to investigate and 2. Workload affects clearance rate. Higher workloads clear. lead to a lower clearance rate because some files may • Personal crimes that are downgraded from have to be set aside for action later due to new, higher criminal code crimes have a higher clearance priority files.
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 31
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 111 of 242 2.10 Policing Service Level 1, (total policing staff/1,000 capita and population served) – Effectiveness This chart shows the total number of policing staff (sworn officers and municipal support staff) providing policing services per 1,000 of municipal population and population served. Municipalities are in order from lowest to highest based on the average of 2012, 2013, 2014 results per 1,000 population served.
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 32
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 112 of 242 2.10.1 Policing Level Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) Policing Staff Municipal Policing Staff Per 1,000 Population Policing Staff Per 1000 Municipality Year (#) Population (#) Municipal Population (#) Served (#) Population Served (#) 2012 51.0 45,711 1.1 45,711 1.1 Airdrie 2013 51.0 49,560 1.0 49,560 1.0 2014 53.0 54,891 1.0 54,891 1.0 2012 17.0 8,244 2.1 24,118 0.7 Banff 2013 17.0 8,244 2.1 23,968 0.7 2014 17.0 9,386 1.8 26,698 0.6 2012 21.0 12,317 1.7 21,395 1.0 Canmore 2013 21.0 12,317 1.7 21,395 1.0 2014 21.0 13,077 1.6 20,264 1.0 2012 21.0 17,580 1.2 17,580 1.2 Cochrane 2013 23.0 18,750 1.2 18,750 1.2 2014 24.0 20,708 1.2 20,708 1.2 2012 25.0 24,962 1.0 24,962 1.0 Okotoks 2013 25.0 26,319 0.9 26,319 0.9 2014 26.0 27,331 1.0 27,331 1.0 2012 34.0 12,525 2.7 12,525 2.7 Wetaskiwin 2013 34.0 12,525 2.7 12,525 2.7 2014 34.0 12,525 2.7 12,525 2.7
2.10.2 Lessons Learned 1. Population served affects policing staff per 1,000 population. Banff and Canmore have services staffed to police large visitor populations. When population served is taken into account, the number of officers
per 1,000 population for Banff and Canmore falls into
the same range as municipalities with no or low visitor populations.
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 33
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 113 of 242 2.11 Policing Service Level 2, (front line officers/1,000 capita and population served) – Effectiveness This chart shows the number of front line officers (on-the-street) providing policing services per 1,000 of municipal population and population served. Municipalities are in order from lowest to highest based on the average of 2012, 2013, 2014 results per 1,000 population served.
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 34
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 114 of 242 2.11.1 Policing Level Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) Frontline Municipal Front Line Officers Per 1,000 Population Front Line Officers Per Municipality Year Officers (#) Population (#) Municipal Population (#) Served (#) 1,000 Population Served (#) 2012 36.0 45,711 0.8 45,711 0.8 Airdrie 2013 36.0 49,560 0.7 49,560 0.7 2014 38.0 54,891 0.7 54,891 0.7 2012 11.0 8,244 1.3 24,118 0.5 Banff 2013 11.0 8,244 1.3 23,968 0.5 2014 11.0 9,386 1.2 26,698 0.4 2012 16.0 12,317 1.3 21,395 0.7 Canmore 2013 16.0 12,317 1.3 21,395 0.7 2014 16.0 13,077 1.2 20,264 0.8 2012 15.0 17,580 0.9 17,580 0.9 Cochrane 2013 17.0 18,750 0.9 18,750 0.9 2014 17.0 20,708 0.8 20,708 0.8 2012 18.0 24,962 0.7 24,962 0.7 Okotoks 2013 17.0 26,319 0.6 26,319 0.6 2014 17.0 27,331 0.6 27,331 0.6 2012 20.0 12,525 1.6 12,525 1.6 Wetaskiwin 2013 20.0 12,525 1.6 12,525 1.6 2014 19.0 12,525 1.5 12,525 1.5
2.11.2 Lessons Learned 1. As in 2.11.
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 35
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 115 of 242 2.12 Policing Workload 1, (total caseload/front line officer) – Effectiveness This chart shows the total number files opened for investigation for any reason per front line officer. The actual number of files may vary officer to officer. Municipalities are in order from lowest to highest workload based on the average of 2012, 2013, 2014 results.
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 36
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 116 of 242 2.12.1 Policing Workload (caseload) 1 Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) Caseload Front Line Caseload Per Front Line Municipality Year (#) Officers (#) Officer (#) 2012 11,148 36 310 Airdrie 2013 12,548 36 349 2014 13,217 38 348 2012 6,422 11 584 Banff 2013 5,769 11 524 2014 5,279 11 480 2012 7,978 16 499 Canmore 2013 4,967 16 310 2014 5,972 16 373 2012 10,097 15 673 Cochrane 2013 7,593 17 447 2014 6,942 17 408 2012 7,272 18 404 Okotoks 2013 7,579 17 446 2014 6,904 17 406 2012 9,411 20 471 Wetaskiwin 2013 8,353 20 418 2014 8,519 19 448
2.12.2 Lessons Learned 1. The average caseload per officer is 439 files. The range
is 310 (Airdrie, Canmore) to 631 (Cochrane). The caseload/officer for Banff and Cochrane is declining. For 2014 only, the average is 411 caseload/officer, with
a range of 348 (Airdrie) to 448 (Wetaskiwin).
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 37
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 117 of 242 2.13 Policing Workload 2, (Criminal Code crimes/front line officer) - Effectiveness This view of caseload is the number Criminal Code crimes under investigation per front line officer. The actual number of crimes may vary officer to officer. Municipalities are in order from lowest to highest workload based on the average of 2012, 2013, 2014 results.
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 38
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 118 of 242 2.13.1 Policing Caseload 2 Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) Total Criminal Code Front Line CC Crimes Per Front Line Municipality Year Crimes (#) Officers (#) Officer (#) 2012 3,426 36.0 95 Airdrie 2013 3,422 36.0 95 2014 3,741 38.0 98 2012 1,835 11.0 167 Banff 2013 1,858 11.0 169 2014 1,492 11.0 136 2012 1,013 16.0 63 Canmore 2013 965 16.0 60 2014 1,033 16.0 65 2012 1,394 15.0 93 Cochrane 2013 1,343 17.0 79 2014 1,366 17.0 80 2012 1,436 18.0 80 Okotoks 2013 1,522 17.0 90 2014 1,652 17.0 97 2012 3,159 20.0 158 Wetaskiwin 2013 3,279 20.0 164 2014 3,555 19.0 187
2.13.2 Lessons Learned 1. When the municipalities are grouped differences
appear due to local issues. Banff and Wetaskiwin have specific local issues and average 163 Criminal Code crimes per front line officer while all others average 83.
Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 39
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 119 of 242 2.14 Policing RCMP Service Data This data consolidates the information about policing services for each municipality. (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) Part 1 Sworn Other Policing Total Policing Ratio Other Front Line Total Municipal Provincial Municipality Year Officers Staff Staff to Total Officers Caseload CSI CSI (#FTE) (#FTE) (FTE) (%) (#FTE) (#) (#) (#) 2012 39.0 12.0 51.0 24% 36.0 11,148 83 86 Airdrie 2013 39.0 12.0 51.0 24% 36.0 12,548 67 85 2014 41.0 12.0 53.0 23% 38.0 13,217 63 86 2012 13.0 4.0 17.0 24% 11.0 6,422 142 86 Banff 2013 13.0 4.0 17.0 24% 11.0 5,769 124 85 2014 13.0 4.0 17.0 24% 11.0 5,279 98 86 2012 18.0 3.0 21.0 14% 16.0 7,978 57 86 Canmore 2013 18.0 3.0 21.0 14% 16.0 4,967 58 85 2014 18.0 3.0 21.0 14% 16.0 5,972 52 86 2012 16.0 5.0 21.0 24% 15.0 10,097 58 86 Cochrane 2013 18.0 5.0 23.0 22% 17.0 7,593 46 85 2014 18.0 6.0 24.0 25% 17.0 6,942 47 86 2012 19.0 6.0 25.0 24% 18.0 7,272 35 86 Okotoks 2013 19.0 6.0 25.0 24% 17.0 7,579 31 85 2014 20.0 6.0 26.0 23% 17.0 6,904 35 86 2012 22.0 12.0 34.0 35% 20.0 9,411 97 86 Wetaskiwin 2013 22.0 12.0 34.0 35% 20.0 8,353 142 85 2014 22.0 12.0 34.0 35% 19.0 8,519 177 86
NOTES: 1. Wetaskiwin has a higher ratio of other staff to sworn officers than other municipalities due to four full time
detention centre guards included in other staff.
DRAFT Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 40
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 120 of 242 Part 2 Municipal Population RCMP 2011 Stats Criminal Code Criminal Code Criminal Code Total Criminal Criminal Code Population Served Can Population Persons Property All Other Code Clearance Municipality Year (#) (#) used for Criminal Crimes Crimes Crimes Crimes Rate Code Crimes (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (%) 2012 45,711 45,711 42,564 745 1,839 843 3,426 43 Airdrie 2013 49,560 49,560 42,564 783 1,996 643 3,422 38 2014 54,891 54,891 42,564 634 2,269 839 3,741 49 2012 8,244 24,118 7,584 282 888 664 1,835 62 Banff 2013 8,244 23,968 7,584 299 796 763 1,858 68 2014 9,386 26,698 7,584 248 592 652 1,492 66 2012 12,317 21,395 12,288 154 469 390 1,013 59 Canmore 2013 12,317 21,395 12,288 140 417 408 965 60 2014 13,077 20,264 12,288 149 430 455 1,033 59 2012 17,580 17,580 17,580 237 652 505 1,394 53 Cochrane 2013 18,750 18,750 17,580 193 710 440 1,343 49 2014 20,708 20,708 17,580 206 668 492 1,366 54 2012 24,962 24,962 24,511 277 887 272 1,436 42 Okotoks 2013 26,319 26,319 24,511 238 990 294 1,522 42 2014 27,331 27,331 24,511 304 1,054 294 1,652 39 2012 12,525 12,525 12,525 565 1,067 1,527 3,159 68 Wetaskiwin 2013 12,525 12,525 12,525 559 1,002 1,718 3,279 69 2014 12,525 12,525 12,525 549 1,227 1,779 3,555 62
NOTE: group wanted to report actual numbers for total 1. The RCMP provides municipalities Criminal Code data Criminal Code crimes to improve comparability and in the form of Criminal Code crimes/10,000 capita not trends. To do this the Group requested a calculation to the actual number for each year. In addition, they take the RCMP Criminal Code crimes/10,000 capita do not update municipal population annually. They data back to actual number of crimes. use the 2011 Statistics Canada population numbers for 2011, 2012 and 2013 for the calculation. The SME
DRAFT Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 41
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 121 of 242
2.15 Lessons Learned, General 1. In the future add a measure of, “investigations effectiveness”, to reflect the wide variation in time required to complete investigations, e.g. traffic vs. homicide, average length of investigations (hours/investigation) and range of length of investigations (+/-).
2. Capture police activity when no file is created, e.g. preventative activity such as afterhours patrolling, and visitor traffic incidents.
3. There appears to be a lack of consistency for the same data found in various RCMP reports, e.g. Criminal Code crimes initially reported and counted in caseload only appears in the annual Crime Statistics and Profile report. This will be reviewed with the K-Division to determine the best data source for all municipalities to use for benchmarking in the future.
DRAFT Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 42
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 122 of 242
Database Manual, Policing RCMP
Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative
DRAFT Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 43
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 123 of 242 3 Database Manual, Policing Data Definitions – Narrative The Narrative includes general information that describes RCMP characteristics unique to each municipality.
Community Policing Services aim to increase public safety 1. Roads Patrolled Length (KM) through excellence in the prevention, intervention and Total centreline length, in KM, of all roadway types patrolled; suppression of crime and disorder. In Alberta, municipalities • Arterial can contract with the RCMP for policing, or operate and fund • Collector a municipal police service. The RCMP operates policing on • Local three levels; Federal, Provincial and municipal. The decision is • Private to use the RCMP usually made based on municipal • Parking lanes population; • Back lanes • Emergency Lanes • For a population <5,000, the RCMP will provide
policing at no charge 2 • For populations from 5,000 to 14,999, the cost of a 2. Developed Area (KM ), to municipal boundaries contract is shared; the municipality pays 70% and the Area developed within municipal boundaries, in square KM. RCMP provides 30% 2 • For populations >15,000, the cost of a contract is 3. Commercial Area (KM ) shared; the municipality pays 90% and the RCMP Area, in square KM, developed for commercial use within provides 10% municipal boundaries.
2 The decision to establish a self-run service is considered by a 4. Population Density (#/KM ) municipality when the population is >30,000 and there is a Density is the number of people per square KM of developed need for full-time specialized services. area.
DRAFT Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 44
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 124 of 242 5. Tickets Written 1 (#/1000 of municipal population) The number of tickets written per 1000 of municipal population
6. Tickets Written 2 (#/sworn officer) The number of tickets written per sworn officer
7. Vehicle collisions, within the municipal boundaries (#/1,000 population) The number of motor vehicle collisions (MVC) per 1,000 of municipal population
8. Policing Coverage 1. Full time, 24/7 OR Part time
9. Crime Types, Criminal Code (%) 1. Personal 2. Property 3. Other
10. Use “Post” Model (Y/N) Provincial and Municipal officers assist each other with policing in the region.
DRAFT Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 45
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 125 of 242 Data Definitions – Cost NOTE 2: The group decided to include municipal Indirect Costs in Direct Costs because they are a small amount in All costs for Benchmarking are OPERATING COSTS ONLY. Capital costs are not to be included. relation to the total contract and costs to manage the service within the RCMP contract would be difficult to separate out. 1. Total Policing Services Costs ($/year) All operating costs involved in the activities to provide Includes policing. 1. Municipal portion of RCMP Contract costs, e.g. 70% NOTE 1: Direct costs are those for the activities without OR 90% based on population which there would be no service provided 2. Municipal RCMP Other Costs NOTE 2: The municipal portion of RCMP contract costs is 1. Municipal cost to accommodate the RCMP dependent on population. force For population; • Fee charged by RCMP for accommodation in a RCMP owned 1. <5,000 there is no charge building
2. 5,000 to 14,999 the municipality pays 70% OR 3. >15,000 the municipality pays 90% • Cost to operate municipal owned buildings occupied by a RCMP Includes detachment, e.g. maintenance, power, 1. Provincial portion of RCMP contract costs, e.g. 30% natural gas, inspections/repairs of the OR 10% based on population buildings 2. Municipal Policing Direct Costs includes municipal 2. PROS cost (reporting, financial) 3. Overtime Cost portion costs (see Definition 2) • Regular • For enhanced policing, e.g. seasonal 2. Municipal Policing Direct Costs ($/year) (summer extra policing officers) and All operating direct costs involved in the activities to provide events (such as New Year’s Eve) policing. 4. Premier’s Initiative, e.g. the cost component NOTE 1: Direct costs are those for the activities without over and above the Police Officer Grant which there would be no service provided 5. Core Commissionaires Cost DRAFT Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 46
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 126 of 242 3. Municipal Indirect Cost, e.g. municipal administrative support staff and for contract Includes management, e.g. Protective Services Manager; % Departmental costs, e.g. human resources, IT, security, of Protective Services department cost dedicated to engineering, planning, financial services, Council, policing Administration, tax funded debt interest. NOTE: NOTE: Indirect costs are all costs for the activities 1. Total Overhead Costs are allocated to each Service to support the Policing Services department. The Area using a calculation in the database. The group decided to include them in Direct Costs calculation includes these factors; because they are small in relation to the RCMP • Facilities – area in sq. ft. contract costs • All Other Overhead – Service Area Total Cost Excludes 1. RCMP portion of the contract costs 2. By-law enforcement services 4. Amortization Costs – Policing Assets ($/year) FINANCE 3. Photo-radar (process differs widely among Amortization costs for policing capital assets, if owned by the municipalities => not comparable) municipality.
4. Commissions (oversight tracking, complaints) 5. Victim services programs Includes 6. Offsetting revenues (grants, fines, other) 7. Summer students 1. Buildings, only if owned by municipality
Excludes 3. Overhead Costs ($/year) FINANCE 1. Vehicles, equipment, buildings owned by the RCMP Overhead costs are all operating costs of activities necessary for the continued functioning of the municipality but not directly associated with the services being offered. 5. Out of Scope Costs ($/year) FINANCE
DRAFT Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 47
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 127 of 242 Out of Scope Costs are all operating costs for activities not captured in the Direct Costs.
Includes 1. By-law enforcement services 2. Photo-radar (process differs widely among municipalities => not comparable) 3. Commissions (oversight tracking, complaints) 4. Victim services programs 5. Offsetting revenues (grants, fines, other) 6. Summer students
The total of these costs will be used by Finance to ensure all operating costs for the Policing service area accounted for as recorded in the municipality’s annual Non-Consolidated Financial Statements.
DRAFT Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 48
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 128 of 242 Data Definitions – Service 14. Commissionaires, e.g. staffing for cell block, front counter. Excludes photo radar, impound The Service Data describes characteristics of the service documentation service common to each municipality. 15. Premier’s Initiative, e.g. Police Officer Grant (Provincial). 1. Community Policing Services Community Policing Services aim to increase public safety through excellence in the prevention, intervention and 2. Policing Staff (#) suppression of crime and disorder. The total is the number of sworn officers plus all other staff employed by the municipality involved in delivering policing Includes, provided by the provincial RCMP within the contract services. 1. Patrol Operations 2. Crime Prevention, e.g. Community Resources Unit, Includes school services 1. # of FTEs (Full Time Equivalent) of Sworn Officers; 3. Criminal Investigation, e.g. crime analysis, domestic, • A Sworn Officer is an officer that has been sworn, economic, organized crime, violent crime badged and can carry firearms and, within the laws 4. Combined Forces, e.g. intelligence, internet child of their jurisdiction, have the authority to make exploitation, I-TRAC (Integrated Threat & Risk arrests or refer such arrest for a Assessment), municipal enforcement, regional criminal prosecution enforcement • The number of Sworn Officers is based on actual 5. Plain Clothes Investigation, major crime strength, not budgeted/authorized strength. 6. Forensic Identification (IDENT) • Total number of Sworn Officers = 7. Victim Services, administration, crisis support 1. Front line officers delivering policing to the 8. Occupational Health & Safety streets 9. Canine Service + 10. Tactical Service 2. Sergeant, staff sergeant and Chief officers who 11. Negotiation, e.g. critical incidents manage/supervise the service 12. Explosives Disposal (EDU) 13. Armourer Services +
DRAFT Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 49
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 129 of 242 3. Other officers doing specialty work, e.g. crime 1. Sworn Officers funded under the municipal RCMP investigations, preventative activities, e.g. Contract for municipal policing school liaison, administrative activities, e.g. 2. Sworn Officers funded provincially for policing of rural recruiting areas outside the municipal boundaries.
2. Number of FTEs of other staff employed by the municipality; 3. Front Line Officers (#) Includes Front Line Officers are the number of Sworn Officers, using • All or a portion of a Protective Services Manager’s actual strength (not budgeted/authorized strength), actively time dedicated to the managing the RCMP providing policing services in the municipality. contract and other aspects of the policing service
• Number of FTEs of municipal staff employed and Includes dedicated to the policing service, e.g. receptionist, statistics/analysis specialists 1. Front line, Sworn Officers on the street answering • Number of FTEs of Commissionaires; based on calls for service, up to and including, Corporals working 2080 hours/year 2. General Investigation Service (GIS) 3. Crime Reduction Unit Excludes 4. Municipal Traffic Unit 5. Domestic Violence Unit 1. Officers/other staff in the contingent employed by the 6. Preventative, policing liaison Federal RCMP organization 7. Premier’s Initiative (provincial grant) Officer 2. Under the Post Model, the number of Sworn Officers
in the contingent funded by the provincial RCMP to police rural areas outside the municipal boundaries. Excludes 1. Sergeants, Staff Sergeants and Chiefs NOTE: Under the Post Model, a single detachment 2. Administrative, specialty activities (not on the street) 3. Provincially funded rural contingent officers commander may manage two types of Sworn Officers on 4. Leave of absence each work shift who may assist one another to patrol both the 5. Parental leave municipal and rural areas of detachment responsibility; 6. Long-term disability
DRAFT Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 50
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 130 of 242 Proposed: The number of active files per year is the total 4. File number of files, e.g. 100 carried from 2014 + 1000 new files A file is an active file generated for investigation by a sworn generated in 2015 = 1,100 active and concluded (includes officer. See Table 1: File Types solved)
Includes 1. Files generated from calls for service from the general public
2. Files generated from proactively by the police
Table 1: File Types Personal Property Other Criminal Code 1. Offences Related to Death 1. Break & Enter 1. Offensive Weapons 2. Robbery 2. Theft of Motor Vehicle 2. Disturbing the peace 3. Sexual Assaults 3. Theft Over $5,000 3. Other 4. Other Sexual Offences 4. Theft Under $5,000 5. Assault 5. Possession Stolen Goods 6. Kidnapping/Hostage/Abduction 6. Fraud 7. Extortion 7. Arson 8. Criminal Harassment 8. Mischief To Property 9. Uttering Threats 10. Other Persons
• Some are downgraded to non-criminal files 5. Caseload (#) • Some non-criminal files opened are upgraded to Caseload is the total number of files opened from any source Criminal Code. including Criminal Code crimes that will be investigated by a sworn officer. Of all Criminal Code crimes reported (file opened), upon investigation DRAFT Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 51
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 131 of 242 6. Criminal Code Crimes (#) CRIMINAL CODE offences that Criminal Code occurred in a This is a count of all Criminal Code crimes reported to and by particular calendar year. police. Police can clear a Criminal Code offence by making a charge Includes or by other means. For crimes to be cleared by charge, at Criminal Code Offences least one accused must have been identified and either a charge has been laid, or recommended to be laid, against this Excludes individual in connection with the incident. 1. "Crime Rate” that is a measure of the volume of crime coming to the attention of the police divided For crimes to be cleared otherwise, an accused must be by the population of interest identified and there must be sufficient evidence to lay a charge in connection with the incident, but the accused is
processed by other means for one of many reasons. 7. Clearance Rate (%) (#Criminal
Code Clearances/# Actual Criminal Code offences) Includes The Clearance Rate is the percentage of Actual Criminal Code 1. Number of crimes cleared by charging accused offences Cleared in a calendar year. The number of Actual persons Criminal Code offences comes from the number of Criminal 2. Number of crimes cleared “otherwise” Code Offences Reported. After initial investigation, not all Criminal Code offences Reported are found to be Actual. In NOTE: Personal crimes have the highest clearance rate. addition, after initial investigation, some non-Criminal Code Property crimes are difficult to solve because they rarely have files are found to be Criminal Code offences and are added to witnesses and are often committed by transients who cannot the number of Actual. be tracked down.
The number of Cleared Criminal Code offences in a calendar year is irrespective of when the crimes occurred. Clearance Rates are therefore not in direct correlation to Actual
DRAFT Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 52
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 132 of 242 8. Crime Severity Index Severity Index (2014) = http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables- (CSI), http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-004- tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/legal51a-eng.htm x/2009001/part-partie1-eng.htm The Crime Severity Index, prepared annually by Statistics Canada, tracks changes in the severity of police-reported 9. Municipal Population (#) crime from year to year. It takes into account not only the Includes change in volume of a particular crime, but also the relative 1. Municipal population is the number of permanent seriousness of that crime in comparison to other crimes. The residents as measured by the most recent municipal Crime Severity Index helps answer such questions as: is the census. crime coming to the attention of police more or less serious than before; and, is police-reported crime in a given city or Excludes province more or less serious than in Canada overall? 1. Non-resident population, e.g. second home owners, temporary workers The Index is standardized to "100" for Canada using 2006 as a 2. Average visitor population (Banff, Canmore) base year. NOTE 1: The CSI varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction depending on how crime is handled in the courts in each 10. Population Served (#) jurisdiction Population served is the number of people having protection NOTE 2: The SME Group agreed to include the CSI, by the municipality police service. recognizing it is a standard measure of policing across Canada. Includes NOTE 3: The Group requested that in the Benchmarking Final 1. Municipal population Report, the CSI be shown with the caveat that the “relative 2. Non-resident population (second home owners, seriousness” component is distorted by homicides. temporary workers) NOTE 4: The CSI numbers for municipalities will be shown in 3. Average visitor population (Banff, Canmore) the Benchmarking Report in relation to the Alberta Crime
DRAFT Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 53
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 133 of 242 3.1 Benchmark Performance Measures (PM) Calculations All calculations are made in the database system based on finalized data input from municipalities.
Efficiency 1. Total Policing Services Cost 1 ($/population)
( )
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 + 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 + 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 + 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑟𝑟 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 2. Total Policing Services Cost 2 ($/total # policing staff)
( )
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 + 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 # 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 + 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 + 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 3. Municipal Policing Cost 1 ($/capita and population served)
( )
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 + 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 + 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 4. Municipal Policing Cost 2 ($/front line officer)
( )
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 + 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 + 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂
DRAFT Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 54
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 134 of 242 Effectiveness 5. Policing Activity (total caseload/1,000 population served)
÷ 1,000 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 6. Crime Rate (total # Criminal Code crimes/1,000 population served)
÷ 1,000 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 7. Crime Severity Index (Statistics Canada, base is 100 for 2006), referenced to the CSI for Alberta
Crime Severity Index
8. Clearance Rate (%)
100
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌 𝑋𝑋 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 9. Policing Level 1 (total # policing staff/1,000 population)
÷ 1,000 ÷ 1,000 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
DRAFT Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 55
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 135 of 242 10. Policing Level 2 (# front line officers/1,000 population)
÷ 1,000 ÷ 1,000 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 11. Policing Workload 1 (total caseload/front line officer)
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 12. Policing Workload 2 (total # Criminal Code crimes/front line officer)
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂
DRAFT Police RCMP Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 56
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 136 of 242 Briefing
DATE OF MEETING: September 19, 2017 Agenda #: G-5
TO: Council
SUBJECT: Municipal Benchmarking Initiative – Fire Services
SUBMITTED BY: Greg Burt, Manager of Protective Services
PURPOSE: To provide Council with highlights from the Municipal Benchmarking Initiative – Fire Services report.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY In 2013, a project was undertaken to do a comparison of a number of services that numerous Alberta municipalities provide. The initial benchmarking reports were not accepted due to inconsistencies in methodology used by each municipality. The benchmarking project reporting and data collection has been refined and a new set of reports are being finalized.
DISCUSSION Nine Alberta municipalities (Airdrie, Banff, Canmore, Cochrane, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Okotoks, Red Deer and Wetaskiwin) participated in the Fire Services benchmarking report.
Unique to the Fire and Police Services benchmarking reports is the comparison of costs to population served. This was calculated by adding the following population figures: municipal, non-permanent, Harvie Heights and Deadman’s Flats and a visitor adjusted figure (estimate of the increase of visitors staying in hotel rooms per year). For 2014, the visitor adjusted population figure was 20,264 and the permanent population was 13,077.
Canmore only provided information for 2013 and 2014 due to being an integrated Fire/EMS department for a portion of 2012.
The report examines seven financial comparisons.
Total cost to operate a Fire Services Department – per capita Total cost to operate a Fire Services Department – population served Fire Services total costs per square kilometer Labour costs vs. total direct costs (%) Cost per capita to dispatch Fire Services Costs for off shift training per staff member Amortization costs $/capita
Canmore is at the median for total costs per capita, however is ranked much lower when the total costs per population served is measured. The total cost per square kilometer is not relevant given the large geographical area vs. developed area in town. Labour vs. total fire direct costs are slightly below the median. Dispatch costs range from $1 to $7 per capita with Canmore slight above the median at $4 per capita. Fire amortization costs are slightly above the median.
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 137 of 242 Municipal Benchmarking Initiative – Fire Services Page 2 of 2
The report examines four operational and service comparisons:
Geographic area covered by fire stations Emergency responses Chute (turnout) and travel response time (min:sec) Fire prevention and education events
Of the nine municipalities that participated, Canmore was one of three departments that rely on paid response firefighters for additional manpower for the majority of calls. This response model increases response times for composite and volunteer departments, whereas the full time departments can respond much quicker. Canmore is near the median for the number of emergency response incident responses (#/1,000 population served) and public education events (#/1,000 per capita). The ratio of medical emergency incidents vs. other emergency incidents (fires, alarms, motor vehicle collisions, etc.) varies significantly based on the medical response model as set by each municipality.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS This report could be used for budget and planning purposes to refine and find efficiencies in operations and spending.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Stakeholders included the Canmore Fire-Rescue department and all of the participating municipalities. Numerous meetings and discussions were undertaking to guidelines help with consistent reporting.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT – N/A
ATTACHMENTS
1) Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative – Fire-Services - Final Report
AUTHORIZATION
Submitted by: Greg Burt Manager of Protective Services Date: August 24, 2017
Approved by: Sally Caudill. Ph.D General Manager, Municipal Services Date: September 6, 2017
Approved by: Lisa de Soto Chief Administrative Officer Date: September 14, 2017
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 138 of 242 Attachment 1
Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative - Fire Services (December 2016)
Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 1
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 139 of 242 Table of Contents
1 Introduction and Background ...... 6 1.1 Introduction ...... 6 1.2 Background ...... 6 1.3 Participating Municipalities ...... 7 1.4 Governance Structure ...... 7 1.5 Benefits of Benchmarking ...... 9 1.6 Definitions ...... 9 2 Fire Services ...... 11 2.1 System Description ...... 11 2.1.1 Municipal Fire Services ...... 11 2.1.2 Factors Influencing Fire Services ...... 11 2.1.3 Fire Services Narrative Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 12 Part 2: Firefighters and Training Status ...... 13 2.2 Fire Services Total Cost 1 ($/capita) - Efficiency ...... 14 2.2.1 Total Fire Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading\ ...... 15 2.2.2 Lessons Learned ...... 16 2.3 Fire Services Total Cost 2 ($/population served) – Efficiency ...... 17 2.3.1 Fire Services Cost Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 18 2.3.2 Lessons learned ...... 19 2.4 Fire Services Total Cost 3 ($/square KM) – Efficiency ...... 20
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 2
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 140 of 242 2.4.1 Fire Services Cost Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 21 2.4.2 Lessons Learned ...... 22 2.5 Labour vs. Total Fire Direct Costs (%) - Efficiency ...... 23 2.5.1 Labour Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 24 2.5.2 Lessons Learned ...... 25 2.6 Dispatch Costs ($/capita) - Efficiency ...... 26 2.6.1 Dispatch Direct Cost Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 27 2.6.2 Lessons Learned ...... 28 2.7 Off-Shift Training Costs ($/total fire staff) - Efficiency ...... 29 2.7.1 Off-Shift Training Cost Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 30 2.7.2 Lessons Learned ...... 31 2.8 Fire Amortization ($/capita) ...... 32 2.8.1 Amortization Cost Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 33 2.8.2 Lessons Learned ...... 34 2.9 Fire Stations (area KM2/fire station) – Effectiveness ...... 35 2.9.1 Fire Stations Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 36 2.9.2 Lessons Learned ...... 37 2.10 Emergency Incident Responses (#/1,000 population served) – Effectiveness ...... 38 2.10.1 Emergency Incident Responses (#/1,000 capita) (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 39 2.10.2 Lessons Learned ...... 40 2.11 Chute (Turnout) and Travel Response Time (min:sec) – Effectiveness ...... 41 2.11.1 Response Time Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 42 Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 3
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 141 of 242 2.11.2 Lessons Learned ...... 43 2.12 Fire Prevention – Public Education Events (#/1,000 capita) – Effectiveness ...... 44 2.12.1 Fire Public Education Events Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 45 2.12.2 Lessons Learned ...... 46 2.13 Fire Services Service Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) ...... 47 2.14 Lessons Learned, General ...... 50 3 Database Manual - Fire ...... 51 3.1 Municipal Fire Systems ...... 51 3.2 Narrative Data Definitions ...... 51 3.2.1 Municipality Geographic Features ...... 51 3.2.2 Service Area Characteristics ...... 51 3.2.3 Labour Training Level ...... 51 3.2.4 Staff Composition (Composite = Full-time + Paid-on-call) ...... 51 3.3 Data Definitions - Costs ...... 52 3.3.1 Total Fire Direct Costs ($/year) ...... 52 3.3.2 Labour Direct Costs ($/year), already included above in Total Direct Cost ...... 53 3.3.3 Off-Shift Training Costs for Certified Staff ($/year), already included above in total Direct Cost ...... 53 3.3.4 Mutual Aid Costs ($/year), already included above in Total Direct Cost) ...... 53 3.3.5 Dispatch Costs ($/year), already included above in Total Direct Cost...... 53 3.3.6 Indirect Costs ($/year) ...... 53 3.3.7 Amortization Costs – Fire Services Assets ($/year) ...... 54 3.3.8 Overhead Costs ($/year) ...... 54 Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 4
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 142 of 242 3.3.9 Out of Scope Costs ($/year) ...... 54 3.4 Data Definitions – Service ...... 55 3.4.1 Municipal Fire Service ...... 55 3.4.2 Emergency Incident Responses (#/year) ...... 55 3.4.3 Residential Fire Losses (#/year) ...... 55 3.4.4 Fire Stations (#) ...... 55 3.4.5 Station Notification Response Time, (min:sec) ...... 56 3.4.6 Municipal Population (#) ...... 56 3.4.7 Population Served (#) ...... 56 3.4.8 Developed Area (KM2) ...... 56 3.4.9 Geographic Area (KM2) ...... 57 3.4.10 Dwelling Units (#) ...... 57 3.4.11 Fire Prevention – Inspections (#) ...... 57 3.4.12 Fire Prevention – Inspectable Properties (#) ...... 57 3.4.13 Fire Prevention – Public Education Events (#) ...... 57 3.4.14 Services provided (specialized services) ...... 57 3.5 Performance Measure (PM) Calculations ...... 58
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 5
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 143 of 242 1 Introduction and Background 1.2 Background The Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative is a 1.1 Introduction collaboration of small and large-municipalities. Their objective is to develop and implement a framework that will Today’s municipalities are challenged by an ever-increasing enable a continuous, multi-year benchmarking process for demand to deliver a greater variety and a higher level of participating municipalities. The initiative includes identifying public services while maintaining low taxes and user fees. and gathering comparable metrics and preparing To meet this challenge, municipal governments are benchmarking reports to prompt questions, start discussions, continually looking for new ways to improve performance, identify and share leading practices, and ultimately improve operationally and fiscally. the municipal services provided to Albertans. In the spring of 2012, a number of municipalities in Alberta Ten service areas identified to be benchmarked for efficiency expressed an interest in benchmarking their service delivery and effectiveness are: against leading practices as a way to improve service. At a 1. Drinking Water Supply workshop hosted by the Town of Banff in May 2012, 2. Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal participating municipalities discussed the benefits of 3. Fire Protection benchmarking; developed a preliminary list of guiding 4. Residential Solid Waste Management principles; and identified considerations related to 5. Police Protection governance, scope, data collection, resources, and risks. 6. Roadway Operations and Maintenance Subsequent to this workshop, the Town of Banff, on behalf of 7. Snow and Ice Management a group of 13 municipalities, successfully applied to the 8. Transit provincial government for a Regional Collaboration Grant to 9. Parks Provision and Maintenance fund the development of a municipal service delivery 10. Recreation, Facility Booking and Maintenance benchmarking framework. With the support of the provincial A method for collecting data to ensure it is comparable government, the Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative between communities and a database to hold the data and (ABMI) was launched in 2013. produce performance measure has been developed. The
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 6
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 144 of 242 foundation of this method is a “User Manual” for each service A subject matter expert (SME) group for each service area, containing: area with representatives from each of the participating municipalities Definitions for cost and service data, and Definitions for the calculations of performance Governance Committee - The governance committee was measures, both efficiency and effectiveness. created to provide overall guidance and oversight, and to ensure that the work conducted is in the best interest of the To ensure an “apples to apples” comparison, all participating group of municipalities as a whole as opposed to an individual municipalities work to agree on the content of the user municipality. The committee is: Robert Earl (Chair), Town of manual. Banff, Paul Schulz, City of Airdrie, Lisa de Soto, Town of Canmore and three vacant positions. 1.3 Participating Municipalities Working Committee - Each of the participating The municipalities currently participating in the Fire Services municipalities is represented on the working committee. Its section of the Project are the cities of Airdrie, Lethbridge, members’ primary role is liaising between the project Medicine Hat, Red Deer, Wetaskiwin and the towns of Banff, manager and the respective municipality. They oversee the Canmore, Cochrane, and Okotoks. completion of activities within the municipality, support the identification of SMEs needed for the development of the 1.4 Governance Structure Database User Manual, and assist with the gathering of relevant data. To guide and drive the project, a model has been developed consisting of: Finance Group – The primary role and responsibility of the Finance Group is to collect and enter data for a calculation to A governance committee consisting of six municipal allocate overhead to each service area, collect and enter data leaders for amortization of assets in each service area, and assist A working committee with representatives from each service area SMEs on collection of cost data for each service of the participating municipalities area. The Finance Group also ensures all data is accurate by A finance group with representatives from each of the confirming the financial data to the municipality’s non- participating municipalities consolidated financial statements.
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 7
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 145 of 242 Subject Matter Expert Group (SME) – The primary role and responsibility of the SME groups is to provide subject matter expertise in the development of the service definitions, performance measures, and collection of data for the benchmarking pilot project. The CAOs’ Role – In addition to the governance committee, the CAOs from each of the participating municipalities were asked to confirm their commitment to this project, to be the executive sponsor for their respective municipality, to champion this pilot project within their municipality, and ensure that all participating municipalities are informed of the activities and outcomes.
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 8
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 146 of 242 1.5 Benefits of Benchmarking 1.6 Definitions
The anticipated benefits from this benchmarking project are: Efficiency – Efficiency is a measure of productivity based on dividing the quantity of output (measured in units of Helps tell the municipal “performance story” deliverables) by the quantity of resources input (usually A sound business practice used in the government and measured in person hours or dollars). private sectors Sets the stage for sharing knowledge and best Effectiveness – Effectiveness is a measure of the value or practices among the municipal sector performance of a service relative to a goal, expressed as the Understanding of trends within each municipality actual change in the service. An effectiveness measure Identification of opportunities for change to improve compares the output of a service to its intended contribution efficiency or effectiveness of municipal services to a higher level goal. Formation of objective evidence that shows the differentiation between municipalities and provides information for Municipal CAOs to address questions from Council, staff, and the community on service efficiency and effectiveness Encouragement of continuous improvement initiatives and a better understanding of the drivers that impact performance results Encourages continuous improvement, and Awareness of the value of collaboration between municipalities. Supports results-based accountability
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 9
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 147 of 242
Fire Services
Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 10
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 148 of 242 2 Fire Services 2.1.2 Factors Influencing Fire Services 2.1 System Description Nature of the Community Roads System: Number, size and complexity of the roadways system and the presence of 2.1.1 Municipal Fire Services natural barriers such as rivers, railways, and mountains in the The aim of a Municipal Fire Service is to reduce the impact of municipality can affect delivery of the fire service. events to people, property and the environment by rapidly responding to fires, rescues, and hazardous materials and Urban Density: Densely populated communities have the other incidents with well-equipped and well trained potential to receive fire response more quickly than responders. municipalities with a lower density, spread out population.
Of particular importance to a Fire Service is to deliver a Urban Growth: High growth municipalities have to address vibrant, energetic and effective community program for the need for additional spending on fire services to maintain prevention and education that focuses on being a safe adequate responses to emergencies. community.
Fire Services includes rescue response to emergency incidents 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and can include community preparedness for emergency situations.
To achieve its goals, a Fire Service maintains a multi-million
dollar inventory of equipment, and administers training programs for its members.
For many municipalities, Fire Services response goes beyond
municipal boundaries, e.g. mutual aid service agreements with neighboring municipalities. Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 11
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 149 of 242
2.1.3 Fire Services Narrative Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) The Narrative Data shows differences and similarities between municipalities for this service area.
Part 1: Municipal Characteristics Highways Rail Lines Rivers Hills Urban Rural Isolated Wild Land Dominant Character Municipality Interface Airdrie Y Y Y Y Residential Banff Y Y Y Y Y Y Commercial/Industrial Canmore Y Y Y Y Y Y Residential Cochrane Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Residential Lethbridge Y Y Y Y Y Y Residential Medicine Hat Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Residential Okotoks Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Residential Red Deer Y Y Y Y Y Y Residential Wetaskiwin Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Residential
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 12
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 150 of 242 Part 2: Firefighters and Training Status Full-Time Career -FTE - NFPA1001 Paid on call - NFPA 1001 Full-time career on shift /24 hours, Municipality Year (Part 1 & 2)/100(#) (Part 1) (#) average (#)
2012 60 0 15 Airdrie 2013 60 0 15 2014 60 0 15 2012 3 26 1 Banff 2013 3 30 1 2014 4 29 1 2013 9 33 2 Canmore 2014 9 32 2 2012 18 40 4 Cochrane 2013 18 36 4 2014 18 31 4 2012 83 0 15 Lethbridge 2013 83 0 15 2014 83 0 15 2012 72 0 14 Medicine Hat 2013 72 0 14 2014 72 0 14 2012 17 28 3.5 Okotoks 2013 17 28 3.5 2014 17 28 3.5 2012 110 0 17 Red Deer 2013 110 0 17 2014 120 0 19 2012 3 21 0 Wetaskiwin 2013 3 21 0 2014 3 21 0
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 13
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 151 of 242 2.2 Fire Services Total Cost 1 ($/capita) - Efficiency This chart shows total cost of providing fire services per capita based on municipal population by cost type; direct costs are those for day-to-day operation of the service, indirect are for management of the service, overhead is a calculated allocation of total overhead to this service, amortization is the depreciation cost of all assets used to deliver the service. Municipalities are in order from lowest to highest cost based on the average of 2012, 2013, 2014 results.
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 14
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 152 of 242 2.2.1 Total Fire Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) Direct Indirect Overhead Amortization Total Costs Municipal Population Cost per Capita Municipality Year Costs ($) Costs ($) Costs ($) Costs ($) ($) (#) ($) 2012 $8,817,444 $716,681 $2,928,046 $267,702 $12,729,873 45,711 $278 Airdrie 2013 $8,332,100 $819,882 $3,138,784 $687,413 $12,978,179 49,560 $262 2014 $8,976,704 $866,767 $3,476,387 $675,445 $13,995,303 54,891 $255 2012 $715,003 $73,050 $350,150 $100,330 $1,238,533 8,244 $150 Banff 2013 $775,005 $76,161 $436,710 $136,107 $1,423,983 8,244 $173 2014 $793,627 $77,096 $450,293 $117,479 $1,438,495 9,386 $153 2013 $1,511,160 $176,534 $591,244 $139,586 $2,418,524 12,317 $196 Canmore 2014 $1,485,207 $176,534 $615,337 $136,462 $2,413,540 13,077 $185 2012 $3,946,184 $87,107 $804,275 $406,642 $5,244,208 18,377 $285 Cochrane 2013 $4,242,452 $207,932 $1,317,575 $402,642 $6,170,601 18,750 $329 2014 $4,586,649 $83,606 $1,317,870 $395,629 $6,383,754 20,708 $308 2012 $12,483,473 $1,564,959 $1,587,641 $745,005 $16,381,078 89,074 $184 Lethbridge 2013 $12,739,777 $1,770,772 $1,570,764 $740,708 $16,822,021 90,417 $186 2014 $13,402,668 $1,744,725 $1,639,576 $740,919 $17,527,888 93,004 $188 2012 $10,222,618 $903,950 $1,556,471 $443,068 $13,126,107 61,180 $215 Medicine Hat 2013 $9,983,526 $995,204 $1,531,425 $465,744 $12,975,899 61,180 $212 2014 $11,221,342 $980,647 $1,610,027 $474,855 $14,286,871 61,180 $234 2012 $2,623,672 $89,303 $675,155 $216,079 $3,604,209 24,962 $144 Okotoks 2013 $2,944,825 $88,166 $850,703 $216,079 $4,099,773 26,319 $156 2014 $2,984,260 $127,218 $998,234 $216,079 $4,325,791 27,331 $158 2012 $14,031,871 $439,669 $2,743,185 $629,378 $17,844,103 91,877 $194 Red Deer 2013 $14,511,937 $466,622 $2,641,029 $665,608 $18,285,196 97,109 $188 2014 $18,359,662 $491,020 $2,868,201 $670,156 $22,389,039 98,585 $227 2012 $478,638 $23,268 $392,034 $62,321 $956,261 12,525 $76 Wetaskiwin 2013 $465,606 $20,687 $441,315 $67,945 $995,553 12,598 $79 2014 $537,139 $21,100 $280,244 $68,635 $907,118 12,621 $72
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 15
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 153 of 242 NOTES: 1. Lethbridge and Red Deer manage EMS (Emergency The larger the Fire Department the higher the Medical Services) on behalf of Alberta Health Services operating costs (per capita). The three for a fee. For benchmarking the fire service, by departments with less than 50 firefighters agreement, the costs of EMS are excluded from this average $140/capita (Banff 33, Canmore 42, Report. In Lethbridge, the EMS personnel, while Okotoks 45, Wetaskiwin 24). For the six with 50 dedicated to EMS services, may assist in firefighting or more firefighters the average is $236/capita occasionally, if available. For Lethbridge, any use of (Airdrie 60, Cochrane 58,Medicine Hat 72, EMS personnel for firefighting and related costs are Lethbridge 83 and Red Deer 120) not included in this Report. The age buildings affects amortization costs, e.g. newer stations have higher amortization 2. Data for 2012 for Canmore is not included; the Fire and costs vs. older, e.g. Airdrie added a new fire EMS services were “integrated”. This means the cost station in the 2012 – 2014 periods. of the Fire and EMS services were combined. The average age of major fire apparatus affects amortization . Replacement occurs on a 10 to 2.2.2 Lessons Learned 25 year cycle (most report about 15 years) based on a combination of level of use and age. Municipalities with more than one Fire Hall have With recent replacements, a larger component higher costs per/capita. of cost /capita is amortization. Scale. Excluding Cochrane, due to $650,000/year Topography, e.g. a municipality divided by a direct cost to lease a fire station, the two with one river, can increase operating costs because of station average cost is $171/capita (Banff and the need to implement redundancy of Canmore). For the six with 2 or more stations the buildings/equipment to achieve adequate average cost is $184/capita (Airdrie 3, Lethbridge 4, response times. Medicine Hat 3, Okotoks 2, Red Deer 5, Wetaskiwin 2)
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 16
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 154 of 242 2.3 Fire Services Total Cost 2 ($/population served) – Efficiency This chart shows total cost of providing fire services per population served by cost type; direct costs, indirect, overhead, amortization. Population served is the number of people having access to the municipality fire service; those within the municipal boundaries (residents, non-residents and visitors) and others outside the boundaries under contract with the municipality for fire services. Municipalities are in order from lowest to highest cost based on the average of 2012, 2013, 2014 results.
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 17
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 155 of 242 2.3.1 Fire Services Cost Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) Direct Indirect Overhead Amortization Total Costs Population Cost per Population Municipality Year Costs ($) Costs ($) Costs ($) Costs ($) ($) Served (#) Served ($) 2012 $8,817,444 $716,681 $2,928,046 $267,702 $12,729,873 45,711 $278 Airdrie 2013 $8,332,100 $819,882 $3,138,784 $687,413 $12,978,179 49,560 $262 2014 $8,976,704 $866,767 $3,476,387 $675,445 $13,995,303 54,891 $255 2012 $715,003 $73,050 $350,150 $100,330 $1,238,533 24,118 $51 Banff 2013 $775,005 $76,161 $436,710 $136,107 $1,423,983 23,968 $59 2014 $793,627 $77,096 $450,293 $117,479 $1,438,495 26,698 $54 2013 $1,511,160 $176,534 $557,717 $139,586 $2,384,997 21,395 $111 Canmore 2014 $1,530,833 $176,534 $585,335 $136,462 $2,429,164 20,264 $120 2012 $3,946,184 $87,107 $804,275 $406,642 $5,244,208 18,377 $285 Cochrane 2013 $4,242,452 $207,932 $1,317,575 $402,642 $6,170,601 18,750 $329 2014 $4,586,649 $83,606 $1,317,870 $395,629 $6,383,754 20,708 $308 2012 $12,679,905 $1,445,584 $1,590,323 $745,005 $16,460,817 89,074 $185 Lethbridge 2013 $12,984,232 $1,655,541 $1,575,317 $740,708 $16,955,798 90,417 $188 2014 $13,669,466 $1,596,553 $1,643,433 $740,919 $17,650,371 93,004 $190 2012 $10,222,618 $903,950 $1,556,471 $443,068 $13,126,107 64,497 $204 Medicine Hat 2013 $9,983,526 $995,204 $1,531,425 $465,744 $12,975,899 64,497 $201 2014 $11,221,342 $980,647 $1,610,027 $474,855 $14,286,871 64,497 $222 2012 $2,623,672 $89,303 $675,155 $216,079 $3,604,209 28,654 $126 Okotoks 2013 $2,944,825 $88,166 $850,703 $216,079 $4,099,773 30,387 $135 2014 $2,984,260 $127,218 $998,234 $216,079 $4,325,791 32,557 $133 2012 $14,031,871 $439,669 $2,743,185 $629,378 $17,844,103 94,862 $188 Red Deer 2013 $14,511,937 $466,622 $2,641,029 $665,608 $18,285,196 97,049 $188 2014 $18,359,662 $491,020 $2,868,201 $670,156 $22,389,039 98,858 $226 2012 $478,638 $23,268 $392,034 $62,321 $956,261 15,611 $61 Wetaskiwin 2013 $465,606 $20,687 $441,315 $67,945 $995,553 15,598 $64 2014 $537,139 $21,100 $280,244 $68,635 $907,118 15,621 $58
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 18
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 156 of 242 NOTES: 1. Population Served (#)
Population served is the number of people having access to the municipality fire service. Includes
Municipal population Non-resident population (second home owners, temporary workers) Average visitor population (Banff, Canmore)
Population beyond the municipal boundaries served under contract by the fire service.
2.3.2 Lessons learned Canmore and Banff use Visitor Adjusted Population, as Fire Services are designed to serve both resident and visitor population. This moves Banff to lowest cost/capita from 3rd lowest cost and Canmore to 3rd th lowest cost/capita from 5 .
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 19
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 157 of 242 2.4 Fire Services Total Cost 3 ($/square KM) – Efficiency This chart shows total cost of providing fire services per square km of geographic area within the municipal boundaries by cost type; direct costs, indirect, overhead, amortization. Municipalities are in order from lowest to highest cost based on the average of 2012, 2013, 2014 results.
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 20
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 158 of 242 2.4.1 Fire Services Cost Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) Direct Costs Indirect Overhead Amortization Total Costs ($) Geographic Cost per KM²) Municipality Year ($) Costs ($) Costs ($) Costs ($) Area (KM²) 2012 $8,817,444 $716,681 $2,928,046 $267,702 $12,729,873 86 $148,022 Airdrie 2013 $8,332,100 $819,882 $3,138,784 $687,413 $12,978,179 86 $150,909 2014 $8,976,704 $866,767 $3,476,387 $675,445 $13,995,303 86 $162,736 2012 $715,003 $73,050 $350,150 $100,330 $1,238,533 5 $258,028 Banff 2013 $775,005 $76,161 $436,710 $136,107 $1,423,983 5 $296,663 2014 $793,627 $77,096 $450,293 $117,479 $1,438,495 5 $299,686 2013 $1,511,160 $176,534 $591,244 $139,586 $2,418,524 70 $34,649 Canmore 2014 $1,485,207 $176,534 $615,337 $136,462 $2,413,540 70 $34,578 2012 $3,946,184 $87,107 $804,275 $406,642 $5,244,208 31 $169,168 Cochrane 2013 $4,242,452 $207,932 $1,317,575 $402,642 $6,170,601 31 $199,052 2014 $4,586,649 $83,606 $1,317,870 $395,629 $6,383,754 31 $205,928 2012 $12,483,473 $1,564,959 $1,587,641 $745,005 $16,381,078 123 $133,396 Lethbridge 2013 $12,739,777 $1,770,772 $1,570,764 $740,708 $16,822,021 123 $136,987 2014 $13,402,668 $1,744,725 $1,639,576 $740,919 $17,527,888 123 $142,735 2012 $10,222,618 $903,950 $1,556,471 $443,068 $13,126,107 120 $109,384 Medicine Hat 2013 $9,983,526 $995,204 $1,531,425 $465,744 $12,975,899 120 $108,132 2014 $11,221,342 $980,647 $1,610,027 $474,855 $14,286,871 120 $119,057 2012 $2,623,672 $89,303 $675,155 $216,079 $3,604,209 19 $187,719 Okotoks 2013 $2,944,825 $88,166 $850,703 $216,079 $4,099,773 19 $213,530 2014 $2,984,260 $127,218 $998,234 $216,079 $4,325,791 19 $225,302 2012 $14,031,871 $439,669 $2,743,185 $629,378 $17,844,103 107 $166,580 Red Deer 2013 $14,511,937 $466,622 $2,641,029 $665,608 $18,285,196 107 $170,698 2014 $18,359,662 $491,020 $2,868,201 $670,156 $22,389,039 107 $209,009 2012 $478,638 $23,268 $392,034 $62,321 $956,261 18 $52,542 Wetaskiwin 2013 $465,606 $20,687 $441,315 $67,945 $995,553 18 $54,701 2014 $537,139 $21,100 $280,244 $68,635 $907,118 18 $49,842
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 21
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 159 of 242 NOTES: 1. Geographical area is the total area within the municipal boundaries and includes developed area.
2. Canmore results are an “outlier” for this performance measure because their geographic area is 69.8 KM2 while the developed area is only 12.4 KM2. For Canmore the majority of the fire services are provided for the developed area. Using Developed Area increases the Canmore cost/square KM to about $195,000.
2.4.2 Lessons Learned Cost per square KM is one predictor for the cost of future growth. Other factors to consider include what level of service Council’s set for education, prevention and response.
As the geographic area or a municipality increases, the operating cost/KM2 decreases. For the five municipalities with less than 50 KM2 (Banff 5, Wetaskiwin 18, Okotoks 19 and Cochrane 31) the average cost is $184,347/ KM2. For the four with area greater than 50 KM2 (Canmore 70, Airdrie 86, Red Deer 107, Medicine Hat 120, Lethbridge 205) the average cost is $130,473/ KM2.
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 22
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 160 of 242 2.5 Labour vs. Total Fire Direct Costs (%) - Efficiency This chart shows what percentage labour costs are of total direct costs. Municipalities are in order from lowest to highest cost based on the average of 2012, 2013, 2014 results.
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 23
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 161 of 242 2.5.1 Labour Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) Labour Costs Total Direct Costs Labour vs Direct Costs Municipality Year ($) ($) (%) 2012 $7,935,125 $8,817,444 90% Airdrie 2013 $7,464,228 $8,332,100 90% 2014 $8,112,203 $8,976,704 90% 2012 $536,388 $715,003 75% Banff 2013 $596,323 $775,005 77% 2014 $620,682 $793,627 78% 2013 $1,302,747 $1,511,160 86% Canmore 2014 $1,302,747 $1,530,833 85% 2012 $2,920,944 $3,946,184 74% Cochrane 2013 $3,122,027 $4,242,452 74% 2014 $3,384,241 $4,586,649 74% 2012 $11,276,605 $12,679,905 89% Lethbridge 2013 $11,800,618 $12,984,232 91% 2014 $12,441,981 $13,669,466 91% 2012 $9,371,129 $10,222,618 92% Medicine Hat 2013 $9,179,979 $9,983,526 92% 2014 $10,455,370 $11,221,342 93% 2012 $2,323,412 $2,623,672 89% Okotoks 2013 $2,627,710 $2,944,825 89% 2014 $2,667,877 $2,984,260 89% 2012 $12,572,622 $14,031,871 90% Red Deer 2013 $12,676,420 $14,511,937 87% 2014 $17,218,799 $18,359,662 94% 2012 $265,993 $478,638 56% Wetaskiwin 2013 $217,954 $465,606 47% 2014 $299,627 $537,139 56%
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 24
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 162 of 242 NOTES:
1. Direct Costs for unionized municipalities don’t reflect outstanding contracts if settlements are not finalized. Therefore Direct Costs, including labour costs, can be a moving target, e.g. when a settlement is 2 – 3 years behind.
2. Cochrane leases their fire station, which accounts for about 10% of Direct Costs. This means Labour is reduced as a percentage of Direct Costs.
2.5.2 Lessons Learned Fire Protection is a protective service that is very labour intensive .Municipalities with large paid on call labour (Banff, Canmore and Wetaskiwin) are consequently at the lower cost end of the chart.
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 25
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 163 of 242 2.6 Dispatch Costs ($/capita) - Efficiency This chart shows the cost of services to dispatch the fire service per capita based on municipal population, when an emergency call is received. Municipalities are in order from lowest to highest cost based on the average of 2012, 2013, 2014 results.
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 26
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 164 of 242 2.6.1 Dispatch Direct Cost Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) Dispatch Costs Municipal Dispatch Municipality Year ($) Population (#) ($/capita) 2012 $138,096 45,711 $3 Airdrie 2013 $150,848 49,560 $3 2014 $144,292 54,891 $3 2012 $18,837 8,244 $2 Banff 2013 $17,216 8,244 $2 2014 $18,050 9,386 $2 2013 $49,584 12,317 $4 Canmore 2014 $49,584 13,077 $4 2012 $75,732 18,377 $4 Cochrane 2013 $78,708 18,750 $4 2014 $83,867 20,708 $4 2012 $105,213 89,074 $1 Lethbridge 2013 $112,409 90,417 $1 2014 $112,950 93,004 $1 2012 $186,322 61,180 $3 Medicine Hat 2013 $183,202 61,180 $3 2014 $218,675 61,180 $4 2012 $174,165 24,962 $7 Okotoks 2013 $190,585 26,319 $7 2014 $200,288 27,331 $7 2012 $315,472 91,877 $3 Red Deer 2013 $320,460 97,109 $3 2014 $320,331 98,585 $3 2012 $34,398 12,525 $3 Wetaskiwin 2013 $48,614 12,598 $4 2014 $38,827 12,621 $3
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 27
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 165 of 242 NOTES: 1. For dispatch, some municipalities use a regional service with a contract cost set as $/capita. Others use a self-run service (Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Red Deer) that may be combined with EMS/ police dispatch.
2.6.2 Lessons Learned Potentially lower costs may result from sharing dispatch costs with other services, e.g. Police, EMS.
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 28
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 166 of 242 2.7 Off-Shift Training Costs ($/total fire staff) - Efficiency This chart shows the cost for training and industry conferences for all staff when the staff is “off-shift” per staff member. Excluded from this is training done “on-shift, e.g. while fire fighters are available to respond to an emergency call. Municipalities are in order from lowest to highest cost based on the average of 2012, 2013, 2014 results.
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 29
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 167 of 242 2.7.1 Off-Shift Training Cost Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) Off-Shift Training Costs Total Fire Staff (#) Off-Shift Training ($ / Municipality Year ($) staff) 2012 $34,696 68 $510 Airdrie 2013 $35,770 68 $526 2014 $47,083 73 $645 2012 $10,000 8 $1,182 Banff 2013 $10,000 9 $1,114 2014 $10,000 10 $1,047 2013 $25,953 9 $2,806 Canmore 2014 $45,626 9 $4,933 2012 $30,643 19 $1,613 Cochrane 2013 $19,448 19 $1,024 2014 $21,404 19 $1,127 2012 $206,274 93 $2,207 Lethbridge 2013 $487,286 94 $5,158 2014 $568,588 94 $6,026 2012 $382,193 82 $4,661 Medicine Hat 2013 $382,906 82 $4,670 2014 $509,920 83 $6,144 2012 $116,095 18 $6,379 Okotoks 2013 $116,530 18 $6,403 2014 $106,095 18 $5,829 2012 $574,589 125 $4,597 Red Deer 2013 $739,648 125 $5,917 2014 $721,115 135 $5,342 2012 $2,000 4 $500 Wetaskiwin 2013 $2,000 4 $500 2014 $2,000 4 $500
NOTE: Total Fire Staff is the sum of Firefighters + Indirect Staff to manage/support the service
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 30
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 168 of 242 NOTES: 1. Off-Shift Training cost includes;
Off-site training program fees Conference fees Staff wages and benefits delivering off-shift training Wages and benefits for staff involved with training/conference programs Travel expenses involved with off-shift training programs and conferences
2.7.2 Lessons Learned Some specialized training cannot be provided by the municipality, see section 2.13 Service Data, Part 3 - Services Provided. As municipalities grow, more off-shift training/conferences are required As municipalities grow and move to a 24/7 operation, there is more spending for off-shirt training/conference, as a percentage of total costs.
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 31
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 169 of 242 2.8 Fire Amortization ($/capita) This chart shows the amortization (depreciation) cost of the assets used to deliver the service per capita. Municipalities are in order from lowest to highest cost based on the average of 2012, 2013, 2014 results.
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 32
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 170 of 242 2.8.1 Amortization Cost Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) Amortization Costs Municipal Population Amortization per Capita Municipality Year ($) (#) ($) 2012 $267,702 45,711 $6 Airdrie 2013 $687,413 49,560 $14 2014 $675,445 54,891 $12 2012 $100,330 8,244 $12 Banff 2013 $136,107 8,244 $17 2014 $117,479 9,386 $13 2013 $139,586 12,317 $11 Canmore 2014 $136,462 13,077 $10 2012 $406,642 18,377 $22 Cochrane 2013 $402,642 18,750 $21 2014 $395,629 20,708 $19 2012 $745,005 89,074 $8 Lethbridge 2013 $740,708 90,417 $8 2014 $740,919 93,004 $8 2012 $443,068 61,180 $7 Medicine Hat 2013 $465,744 61,180 $8 2014 $474,855 61,180 $8 2012 $216,079 24,962 $9 Okotoks 2013 $216,079 26,319 $8 2014 $216,079 27,331 $8 2012 $629,378 91,877 $7 Red Deer 2013 $665,608 97,109 $7 2014 $670,156 98,585 $7 2012 $62,321 12,525 $5 Wetaskiwin 2013 $67,945 12,598 $5 2014 $68,635 12,621 $5
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 33
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 171 of 242 2.8.2 Lessons Learned New fire stations and the replacement schedule for heavy equipment (about 15 year cycle) have the largest influence on amortization cost/year. The median amortization cost/capita is $8.25, with a range of $5 to $22. Future Fire Services Benchmarks should consider average age of infrastructure.
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 34
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 172 of 242 2.9 Fire Stations (area KM2/fire station) – Effectiveness This chart shows the geographic area covered by each fire station to the municipal boundaries. Overlaid on the area data is the emergency response time (red line on graph, right hand scale); time from notification at a station of an emergency to arrival at the scene. Municipalities are in order from lowest to highest based on the average of 2012, 2013, 2014 results.
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 35
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 173 of 242 2.9.1 Fire Stations Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) Fire Stations Response Time Geographic Area KM² per Station Municipality Year (#) (mins) (KM²) 2012 3 5 86.0 29 Airdrie 2013 3 6 86.0 29 2014 3 6 86.0 29 2012 1 13 4.8 5 Banff 2013 1 12 4.8 5 2014 1 13 4.8 5 2013 1 10 69.8 70 Canmore 2014 1 13 69.8 70 2012 1 6 31.0 31 Cochrane 2013 1 8 31.0 31 2014 1 9 31.0 31 2012 4 8 122.8 31 Lethbridge 2013 4 7 122.8 31 2014 4 9 122.8 31 2012 3 9 120.0 40 Medicine Hat 2013 3 8 120.0 40 2014 3 8 120.0 40 2012 2 9 19.2 10 Okotoks 2013 2 8 19.2 10 2014 2 7 19.2 10 2012 5 5 107.1 21 Red Deer 2013 5 6 107.1 21 2014 5 6 107.1 21 2012 2 14 18.2 9 Wetaskiwin 2013 2 16 18.2 9 2014 2 12 18.2 9
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 36
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 174 of 242 NOTES: 1. Canmore has a large Geographic Area of 69.8 KM2 and a small Developed Area of 12.4 KM2. Developed area is the area developed for use by residential, commercial and industrial purposes. As a result Canmore requires only one fire station. Using Developed Area reduces the Canmore area covered/fire station to about 12.
2.9.2 Lessons Learned How is the decision made to add fire stations? o In addition to area/station, adding fire stations depends on such factors as setting service levels which corresponds to response times, specialized services needed in different locations, providing redundancy of services due to geographic barriers, e.g. rivers, rail lines, highways.
Municipalities that use paid on call firefighters have longer emergency response times, as their turnout time is longer.
When primarily paid on call departments are factored out, response time increases with increasing developed area per station. Optimal response time in this study appears to be correlated with approximately 20 km2/station. This information could help to guide fire station spatial separation.
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 37
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 175 of 242 2.10 Emergency Incident Responses (#/1,000 population served) – Effectiveness This chart shows the number of emergency incidents responded to per 1,000 of population served by type of incident. Municipalities are in order from lowest to highest based on the average of 2012, 2013, 2014 results.
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 38
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 176 of 242 2.10.1 Emergency Incident Responses (#/1,000 capita) (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) Medical Incidents Other Incidents Total Incidents Population Served Emergency Incidents Municipality Year (#) (#) (#) (#) (# per 1000 population served) 2012 558 692 1,250 45,711 27 Airdrie 2013 555 778 1,333 49,560 27 2014 642 860 1,502 54,891 27 2012 156 213 369 24,118 15 Banff 2013 164 236 400 23,968 17 2014 194 305 499 26,698 19 2013 200 320 520 21,395 24 Canmore 2014 237 276 513 20,264 25 2012 341 426 767 17,580 44 Cochrane 2013 347 463 810 18,750 43 2014 315 462 777 20,708 38 2012 3,267 1,843 5,110 89,074 57 Lethbridge 2013 3,354 1,789 5,143 90,417 57 2014 3,856 1,718 5,574 93,004 60 2012 0 1,205 1,205 64,497 19 Medicine Hat 2013 0 1,185 1,185 64,497 18 2014 0 1,362 1,362 64,497 21 2012 345 481 826 28,654 29 Okotoks 2013 358 605 963 30,387 32 2014 431 580 1,011 32,557 31 2012 4,072 1,467 5,539 94,862 58 Red Deer 2013 4,059 1,548 5,607 97,049 58 2014 4,095 1,657 5,752 98,858 58 2012 11 230 241 15,611 15 Wetaskiwin 2013 19 283 302 15,598 19 2014 33 343 376 15,621 24
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 39
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 177 of 242 2.10.2 Lessons Learned Each municipality decides what type of incident Fire Services will respond to. Incident types in order of
increasing severity are called; 1 Alpha, 2 Bravo, 3 Charlie, 4 Delta and 5 Echo (life threatening). For example, Medicine Hat leaves all medical first responses to EMS for the five levels, while other
municipalities provide medical c0-response to specific incident types.
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 40
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 178 of 242 2.11 Chute (Turnout) and Travel Response Time (min:sec) – Effectiveness This chart shows the time to respond to a residential fire emergency incident; the time from when a dispatch call is received to arrival of fire suppression personnel/equipment at the site of the incident. Municipalities are in order from lowest to highest time based on the average of 2012, 2013, 2014 results.
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 41
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 179 of 242 2.11.1 Response Time Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) Response Time Fire Suppression Firefighters for Municipality Year (min:sec) Trucks (#) First Response (#) 2012 5:08 1 4 Airdrie 2013 5:38 1 4 2014 5:43 1 4 2012 12:44 1 7 Banff 2013 12:26 1 7 2014 12:51 1 7 2013 10:07 1 4 Canmore 2014 12:36 1 4 2012 6:21 1 4 Cochrane 2013 7:56 1 4 2014 8:41 1 4 2012 7:56 1 3 Lethbridge 2013 7:22 1 3 2014 8:39 1 3 2012 8:44 1 4 Medicine Hat 2013 8:09 1 4 2014 7:30 1 4 2012 8:30 1 4 Okotoks 2013 7:48 1 4 2014 7:12 1 4 2012 5:25 1 4 Red Deer 2013 5:51 1 4 2014 5:34 1 4 2012 13:37 1 4 Wetaskiwin 2013 16:26 1 4 2014 12:28 1 4
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 42
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 180 of 242 NOTES: 1. Response time is for residential fire emergencies only.
2.11.2 Lessons Learned Municipalities with paid on call services have longer
response times. Banff, Wetaskiwin and Canmore average response time is 13:17 (min:sec) vs. all others at 7:07 (min:sec).
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 43
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 181 of 242 2.12 Fire Prevention – Public Education Events (#/1,000 capita) – Effectiveness This chart shows the number of fire prevention events undertaken by a municipal fire service per 1,000 capita based on municipal population. Municipalities are in order from lowest to highest cost based on the average of 2012, 2013, 2014 results.
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 44
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 182 of 242 2.12.1 Fire Public Education Events Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) Education Events (#) Municipal Population Events per 1000 Population Municipality Year (#) (#) 2012 197 45,711 4 Airdrie 2013 166 49,560 3 2014 395 54,891 7 2012 100 8,244 12 Banff 2013 100 8,244 12 2014 100 9,386 11 2013 73 12,317 6 Canmore 2014 73 13,077 6 2012 195 18,377 11 Cochrane 2013 112 18,750 6 2014 305 20,708 15 2012 550 89,074 6 Lethbridge 2013 542 90,417 6 2014 427 93,004 5 2012 84 61,180 1 Medicine Hat 2013 85 61,180 1 2014 72 61,180 1 2012 102 24,962 4 Okotoks 2013 102 26,319 4 2014 84 27,331 3 2012 3,468 91,877 38 Red Deer 2013 3,568 97,109 37 2014 2,985 98,585 30 2012 0 12,525 0 Wetaskiwin 2013 6 12,598 0 2014 11 12,621 1
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 45
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 183 of 242 NOTES: 1. Public Education Events are to encourage fire
prevention, e.g. hall tours, seminars, home inspections, extinguisher use training and drills, school visits, group hall tours, open houses/pancake
breakfasts.
2.12.2 Lessons Learned
How the decision is made on the number and type of public education events? o For Red Deer, the bulk of these events are home
inspections, e.g. day-to-day hazards, smoke alarms, flammables near furnace, trip hazards. Red Deer has a plan to inspect every home on a 10 year
cycle. o Okotoks has started a home inspection program. o Future fire benchmarks should consider public
education versus fire loss.
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 46
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 184 of 242 2.13 Fire Services Service Data (See Section 3 for definitions of each column heading) This data consolidates the information about Fire services for each municipality. Part 1 Fire Medical Rescue Response Fire Firefighters Municipal Population Fire Incidents Incidents Incidents Time Suppression for First Population Served Service Municipality Year (#) (#) (#) (min:sec) Vehicles Response (#) (#) Staff (#) (#) (#) 2012 692 558 0 5:08 1 4 45,711 45,711 60 Airdrie 2013 778 555 0 5:38 1 4 49,560 49,560 60 2014 860 642 0 5:43 1 4 54,891 54,891 64 2012 129 156 84 12:44 1 7 8,244 24,118 29 Banff 2013 195 164 41 12:26 1 7 8,244 23,968 30 2014 239 194 66 12:51 1 7 9,386 26,698 30 2013 309 200 11 10:07 1 4 12,317 21,395 60 Canmore 2014 267 237 9 12:36 1 4 13,077 20,264 60 2012 310 341 116 6:21 1 4 18,377 18,377 60 Cochrane 2013 322 347 141 7:56 1 4 18,750 18,750 56 2014 356 315 106 8:41 1 4 20,708 20,708 50 2012 1,464 3,267 379 7:56 1 3 89,074 89,074 83 Lethbridge 2013 1,440 3,354 349 7:22 1 3 90,417 90,417 83 2014 1,351 3,856 367 8:39 1 3 93,004 93,004 83 2012 969 0 236 8:44 1 4 61,180 64,497 84 Medicine Hat 2013 924 0 261 8:09 1 4 61,180 64,497 84 2014 1,080 0 282 7:30 1 4 61,180 64,497 84 2012 304 345 177 8:30 1 4 24,962 28,654 45 Okotoks 2013 334 358 271 7:48 1 4 26,319 30,387 45 2014 355 431 225 7:12 1 4 27,331 32,557 45 2012 1,053 4,072 414 5:25 1 4 91,877 94,862 110 Red Deer 2013 1,082 4,059 466 5:51 1 4 97,109 97,049 110 2014 1,222 4,095 435 5:34 1 4 98,585 98,858 120 2012 183 11 47 13:37 1 4 12,525 15,611 28 Wetaskiwin 2013 212 19 71 16:26 1 4 12,598 15,598 24 2014 265 33 78 12:28 1 4 12,621 15,621 24 Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 47
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 185 of 242 Part 2 Inspectable Inspections FTE Duty Crew Fire Fire Prevention Geographic Developed Dwelling Municipality Year Properties (#) Inspectors Inspectors Stations Events Area Area Units (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (KM²) (KM²) (#) 2012 400 400 1 60 3 197 86.00 56.00 17,174 Airdrie 2013 442 442 1 60 3 166 86.00 56.00 18,230 2014 682 682 2 64 3 395 86.00 56.00 20,003 2012 700 244 0 0 1 20 4.80 4.80 3,129 Banff 2013 700 248 0 0 1 20 4.80 4.80 3,129 2014 740 420 1 0 1 20 4.80 4.80 3,129 2013 44 44 0 6 1 73 69.80 12.41 8,303 Canmore 2014 44 44 0 6 1 73 69.80 12.41 8,303 2012 468 264 2 0 1 195 31.00 30.95 8,739 Cochrane 2013 493 146 2 0 1 112 31.00 30.95 8,739 2014 519 200 2 0 1 305 31.00 30.95 8,739 2012 1,321 810 7 0 4 550 122.80 62.00 37,738 Lethbridge 2013 1,779 1,075 7 0 4 542 122.80 63.00 38,279 2014 1,862 1,392 7 0 4 427 122.80 63.00 38,803 2012 1,723 1,648 4 72 3 84 120.00 61.30 28,321 Medicine Hat 2013 1,416 1,340 4 72 3 85 120.00 61.30 30,028 2014 2,200 2,015 4 72 3 72 120.00 61.30 30,275 2012 590 590 0 14 2 102 19.20 19.24 9,059 Okotoks 2013 631 631 0 14 2 102 19.20 19.24 9,288 2014 603 603 0 14 2 84 19.20 19.24 9,873 2012 3,074 3,074 8 0 5 3,468 107.12 75.23 39,227 Red Deer 2013 3,108 3,108 8 0 5 3,568 107.12 75.23 40,893 2014 3,140 3,140 8 0 5 2,985 107.12 75.23 41,308 2012 1 0 0 0 2 0 18.20 18.20 6,047 Wetaskiwin 2013 12 12 0 0 2 6 18.20 18.20 6,047 2014 21 21 0 0 2 11 18.20 18.20 6,047
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 48
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 186 of 242 Part 3 – Services Provided Motor Search Heavy Medical Medical Hazmat Swift Underwater High Low Confined Ice Trench Services Municipality Year Vehicle & USAR Basic Advanced Water Rescue & Angle Angle Space Rescue Rescue (#) Accidents Rescue Rescue Recovery Rescue Rescue
2012 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8 Airdrie 2013 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7 2014 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8 2012 Y Y Y Y 4 Banff 2013 Y Y Y Y 4 2014 Y Y Y Y 4 2013 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11 Canmore 2014 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11 2012 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7 Cochrane 2013 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7 2014 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7 2012 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11 Lethbridge 2013 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11 2014 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11 2012 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10 Medicine 2013 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10 Hat 2014 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10 2012 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7 Okotoks 2013 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7 2014 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7 2012 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 9 Red Deer 2013 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 9 2014 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 9 2012 Y Y Y Y Y Y 6 Wetaskiwin 2013 Y Y Y Y Y Y 6 2014 Y Y Y Y Y Y 6
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 49
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 187 of 242 2.14 Lessons Learned, General New Performance Measures to Consider 1. Response Times This report shows response times for residential fire emergencies. In the future, add other response times for other emergencies, e.g. commercial fire emergencies, false alarms, medical first response i.e. less than 4 responders, and other.
2. Training Cost Compare off-shift training cost with on-shift training cost.
3. Inspections Add fire inspections for commercial properties.
The performance measure could be; number of first inspections /total # of inspectable properties.
This measure was attempted for this report; however, the definitions for first inspections and what is an “inspectable property” need further refinement.
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 50
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 188 of 242
3 Database Manual - Fire 3.2.2 Service Area Characteristics 3.1 Municipal Fire Systems • Urban (dense) • Rural (dispersed) The Fire Service is defined as the prevention and/or • Isolated (mutual aid) mitigation of a life and/or property emergency incident. Fire • Wild land interface Services provides efficient, effective emergency response • Residential vs. Commercial/Industrial and, fire prevention and education services to those who live, work, and visit in a municipality. The scope of the Fire Service includes activities related to suppression of fire, medical 3.2.3 Labour Training Level response incidents, rescue and prevention of fire and other • FTE - NFPA1001 (Part 1&2)/100 hazards. The goal is to; • Casuals - NFPA 1001 (Part 1) • Protect life, property and the environment • Enhance community safety and raise awareness about hazards 3.2.4 Staff Composition (Composite = Full-time + Paid-on- • Acquire and use of the most effective technology, call) equipment and other resources to ensure delivery of a • Full-time career, # competent and professional fire service. • Paid-on-call, # • Full-time career, # on shift /24 hours, average 3.2 Narrative Data Definitions
The Narrative includes general information that describes characteristics unique to each municipality.
3.2.1 Municipality Geographic Features • Obstacles; e.g. highways, railways, rivers • Topography; e.g. hills/mountains Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 51
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 189 of 242 3.3 Data Definitions - Costs Examples of direct operating costs 1. Labour, e.g. wages and benefits All costs for Benchmarking are OPERATING COSTS ONLY. 2. Professional registrations, e.g. AB College of Capital costs are not to be included. Paramedics 3. Personal protective equipment
4. Off-Shift training for certified staff 5. Operation of a dispatch call centre or contracting 3.3.1 Total Fire Direct Costs ($/year) dispatch for emergency response Direct costs are all operating costs to provide the activities of 6. Consumables, e.g. materials and small equipment the fire service department. (not capitalized for amortization) NOTE: Direct costs are those for the activities without which 7. Fuel cost for fire vehicles there would be no service provided. 8. Repairs and maintenance cost for fire vehicles, e.g. contractor cost, if not handled the Fleet Includes Department’s budget, 1. Fire Incidents, e.g. response to fire detection alarms, 9. Repair, maintenance and utilities cost for fire including false alarms, providing fire suppression services buildings, e.g. contractor cost, if not within when found, hazardous materials, explosions the Facilities Department’s budget 2. Medical Response, e.g. fire vehicle personnel 10. Insurance, e.g. for property, 3rd party liability, fire providing first medical treatment at incidents vehicle insurance, if not within the Fleet 3. Rescue, e.g. auto extractions, incidents including Department’s budget. hiking, mountain climbing, involving water in rivers 11. Mutual aid contract costs (see main Definition 4 and lakes below) 4. Fire Prevention, e.g. investigations, education, fire code administration, inspections for fire safety, re- Excludes costs for inspections for fire safety compliance 1. Repair and maintenance of hydrants 5. Cost of that portion of the Chief’s and officers’ time 2. Water consumed for fire suppression dedicated to fire service Activities 1, 2, 3, and 4, 3. Emergency Medical Services (EMS), e.g. ambulance where applicable 4. Disaster response planning and coordination
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 52
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 190 of 242 3.3.2 Labour Direct Costs ($/year), already included above Includes in Total Direct Cost 1. Standing contracts Labour costs are all costs for the internal labour wages 2. Fee for service and benefits used for the fire service.
3.3.5 Dispatch Costs ($/year), already included above in 3.3.3 Off-Shift Training Costs for Certified Staff ($/year), Total Direct Cost already included above in total Direct Cost Cost of dispatch services, contracted or internal. For internal dispatch services (LBG, MHT, RDR), estimate what portion of Includes the total dispatch department cost applies to dispatch for 1. Off-site training program fees 2. Conference fees Fire. 3. Staff wages and benefits delivering Off-Shift Training 4. Wages and benefits for staff involved with 3.3.6 Indirect Costs ($/year) training/conference programs Indirect are all costs for the activities to support the activities 5. Travel expenses involved with Off-Shift of the Fire Services department. Training/conference programs NOTE: Indirect costs are for those activities that support Excludes direct delivery of the service without which the service would 1. Cost to “back-fill” the positions of those involved in be disrupted in a short time. Off-Shift Training 1. On-shift training Includes costs to 1. Manage the operations for fire services, e.g. salaries/office costs for managers (may be a portion of the person’s cost, e.g. a protective services 3.3.4 Mutual Aid Costs ($/year), already included above in manager who is also responsible for other services Total Direct Cost) such as policing) Cost of services for mutual aid from fire services outside the 2. Training; soft-skills (if not covered by HR budget) municipality. 3. Conferences 4. Planning Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 53
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 191 of 242 5. External engineering not provided by an internal vehicles, for Facilities – area, sq. ft., and for All Other engineering department. Overhead – Service Area Total Cost and number of FTEs. 6. Insurance
3.3.9 Out of Scope Costs ($/year) 3.3.7 Amortization Costs – Fire Services Assets ($/year) Out of Scope Costs are all operating costs for activities not Amortization costs for fire service capital assets, owned by captured in the Direct Costs for Fire Services. the municipality. Includes Includes 1. Repair and maintenance of hydrants 1. Vehicles 2. Water consumed for fire suppression 2. Equipment 3. Emergency medical services (EMS), e.g. ambulance 3. Buildings 4. Planning and coordinating for disaster response
The total of these costs will be used by Finance to ensure all operating costs for the Fire Control Service Area are 3.3.8 Overhead Costs ($/year) Overhead costs are all operating costs of activities necessary accounted for as recorded in the municipality’s annual Non- for the continued functioning of the municipality but not Consolidated Financial Statements. directly within with the services being offered.
Includes Costs for overhead services, e.g. human resources, IT, security, engineering, planning, financial services, Council, Administration, tax funded debt interest. NOTE: Total Overhead Costs will be allocated to each Service Area using a calculation in the database. The calculation includes these factors; for Fleet – number and value of
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 54
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 192 of 242 3.4 Data Definitions – Service 3.4.2 Emergency Incident Responses (#/year) Emergency incident responses are defined as the number of The Service Data describes characteristics of the service individual emergency incidents, annually, in the municipality. common to each municipality.
Includes for Fire;
1. Fire Incidents 3.4.1 Municipal Fire Service 2. Medical Response The aim of Fire Services is the prevention/mitigation of a 3. Rescues life/property emergency incident.
Excludes Includes 1. EMS responses 1. Fire Incidents, e.g. response to fire detection alarms,
including false alarms, providing fire suppression when found, hazardous materials, explosions 2. Medical Response, e.g. fire vehicle personnel 3.4.3 Residential Fire Losses (#/year) providing first medical treatment at incidents A residential fire loss is any fire incident that results in a 3. Rescue, e.g. auto extractions, incidents including property loss cost to the resident. hiking, mountain climbing, involving water in rivers and lakes Includes 4. Fire Prevention, e.g. investigations, public education, The number of residential structural fires with property fire code administration, inspections for fire safety, re- inspections for fire safety compliance damage losses.
Excludes Excludes 1. Repair and maintenance of hydrants The dollar amount of residential structural fires. 2. Water consumed for fire suppression 3. EMS (Emergency Medical Services), e.g. ambulance 4. Planning and coordinating for disaster response 3.4.4 Fire Stations (#) The number of fire stations in a municipality. . Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 55
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 193 of 242 3.4.5 Station Notification Response Time, (min:sec) 3.4.6 Municipal Population (#) Response Time is the amount of time, in minutes and Municipal population is the number of permanent residents in seconds, to actual 90th percentile; from the time the station the municipality as measured by the most recent census. is notified to arrival at a scene of the emergency.
Includes 3.4.7 Population Served (#) 1. A four member EFR (Effective Response Force) Population served is the number of people having access to 2. A fire truck apparatus arriving at the incident with the municipality fire service. lights and sirens capable of fire suppression. Includes
1. Municipal population Excludes: 2. Non-resident population (second home owners, 1. Cold Responses 2. 911 time (where applicable) temporary workers) 3. Dispatch time (no control over it) 3. Average visitor population (Banff, Canmore) 4. Population beyond the municipal boundaries served under contract by the municipal fire service. NOTE: The Banff fire service receives a significant # of calls outside the municipal boundaries, e.g. Trans-Canada Highway
3.4.8 Developed Area (KM2) Developed area is the area developed for use by residential, commercial and industrial purposes.
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 56
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 194 of 242 3.4.9 Geographic Area (KM2) The geographical area is within the municipal boundaries and 3.4.13 Fire Prevention – Public Education Events (#) This is includes the developed area. the number of events held per year, e.g. hall tours,
seminars, home inspections, extinguisher training and
drills, school visits, group hall tours, open houses/ 3.4.10 Dwelling Units (#) pancake breakfasts. A dwelling unit is a single family residential household serviced by the municipality. For Benchmarking, the number of dwelling units is as reported in the most recent census 3.4.14 Services provided (specialized services) report. 1. Motor Vehicle Incidents (heavy extrication => large trucks, farm equip) Includes 2. Search & Rescue
1. Detached homes 3. Heavy USAR 2. Duplexes 4. Medical Response (Basic Life Support) 3. Triplexes 5. Medical Response (Advanced Life Support) 4. Other multiplexes 6. HazMat Technician Services 7. Swift water Rescue 8. Underwater Rescue and Recovery 3.4.11 Fire Prevention – Inspections (#) Number of comprehensive first commercial inspections and 9. High Angle Rescue re-inspections completed by Level 1 or 2 inspectors (FTEs 10. High Low Angle Rescue and/or Duty Crew) completed per year, excludes re- 11. Confined Space inspections. 12. Ice Rescue 13. Trench Rescue
3.4.12 Fire Prevention – Inspectable Properties (#) This is the number of properties that require fire safety inspections and re-inspections by Level 1 or 2 inspectors (FTEs and Duty Crew). Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 57
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 195 of 242 3.5 Performance Measure (PM) Calculations All calculations are made in the database system based on finalized data input from municipalities.
Efficiency 1. Fire Services Total Cost 1 ($/capita)
푇표푡푎푙 퐹𝑖푟푒 퐷𝑖푟푒푐푡 퐶표푠푡푠 + 퐹𝑖푟푒 퐼푛푑𝑖푟푒푐푡 퐶표푠푡푠 + 푃푟표푟푎푡푒푑 푂푣푒푟ℎ푒푎푑 퐶표푠푡푠 + 퐴푚표푟푡𝑖푧푎푡𝑖표푛 표푓 퐹𝑖푟푒 퐴푠푠푒푡푠
푀푢푛𝑖푐𝑖푝푎푙 푃표푝푢푙푎푡𝑖표푛
2. Fire Services Total Cost 2 ($/population served)
푇표푡푎푙 퐹𝑖푟푒 퐷𝑖푟푒푐푡 퐶표푠푡푠 + 퐹𝑖푟푒 퐼푛푑𝑖푟푒푐푡 퐶표푠푡푠 + 푃푟표푟푎푡푒푑 푂푣푒푟ℎ푒푎푑 퐶표푠푡푠 + 퐴푚표푟푡𝑖푧푎푡𝑖표푛 표푓 퐹𝑖푟푒 퐴푠푠푒푡푠
푃표푝푢푙푎푡𝑖표푛 푆푒푟푣푒푑
3. Fire Services Total Cost 3 ($/KM2)
푇표푡푎푙 퐹𝑖푟푒 퐷𝑖푟푒푐푡 퐶표푠푡푠 + 퐹𝑖푟푒 퐼푛푑𝑖푟푒푐푡 퐶표푠푡푠 + 푃푟표푟푎푡푒푑 푂푣푒푟ℎ푒푎푑 퐶표푠푡푠 + 퐴푚표푟푡𝑖푧푎푡𝑖표푛 표푓 퐹𝑖푟푒 퐴푠푠푒푡푠
퐺푒표푔푟푎푝ℎ𝑖푐 퐴푟푒푎
4. Labour Costs vs. Total Fire Direct Costs (%)
퐿푎푏표푢푟 퐷𝑖푟푒푐푡 퐶표푠푡푠 X 100 푇표푡푎푙 퐹𝑖푟푒 푆푒푟푣𝑖푐푒 퐷𝑖푟푒푐푡 퐶표푠푡
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 58
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 196 of 242 5. Amortization Costs ($/capita)
퐴푚표푟푡𝑖푧푎푡𝑖표푛 퐶표푠푡 표푓 퐹𝑖푟푒 푆푒푟푣𝑖푐푒 퐴푠푠푒푡푠
푀푢푛𝑖푐𝑖푝푎푙 푃표푝푢푙푎푡𝑖표푛
Effectiveness 6. Fire Station Coverage (area KM2/fire station)
퐺푒표푔푟푎푝ℎ𝑖푐 퐴푟푒푎
푁푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 퐹𝑖푟푒 푆푡푎푡𝑖표푛푠
7. Emergency Incident Responses (#/1000 population served)
푁푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 퐸푚푒푟푔푒푛푐푦 퐼푛푐𝑖푑푒푛푡 푅푒푠푝표푛푠푒푠 (퐹𝑖푟푒, 푀푒푑𝑖푐푎푙 푎푛푑 푅푒푠푐푢푒푠)
푃표푝푢푙푎푡𝑖표푛 푆푒푟푣푒푑 ÷ 1,000
8. Chute (Turnout) and Travel Response Time (min:sec)
Response Time (Station Notification to Arrival) to 90th Percentile for residential fire emergencies
9. Fire Prevention – Public Education Events (#/1,000 municipal population)
푁푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 퐸푣푒푛푡푠 푝푒푟 푦푒푎푟
푀푢푛𝑖푐𝑖푝푎푙 푃표푝푢푙푎푡𝑖표푛 ÷ 1000
Fire Services Report - Alberta Municipal Benchmarking Initiative, page 59
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 197 of 242 Request for Decision
DATE OF MEETING: September 19, 2017 Agenda #: G-6
TO: Council
SUBJECT: Alberta South Central Mutual Aid Agreement
SUBMITTED BY: Greg Burt, Manager of Protective Services
RECOMMENDATION: That council authorize the signing of the Alberta South Central Mutual Aid Agreement as attached.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Mutual aid agreements enhance emergency response capabilities when local resources become inadequate to cope with an emergency or disaster. The current agreement was approved in 1990 and amended in 1999. The new agreement will replace this outdated agreement.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION OR POLICY Council approved resolution #64-89 “that Council approved the draft Mutual Aid Agreement from the Calgary-Bow Corridor Management Committee, pending the inclusion of concerns expressed by H. Ross, City of Calgary Law Department, on 18 January 1989.”
The Designated Officer Bylaw (Consolidated 2016-10-24), Section 6.1 (Intergovernmental Agreements) states: “6.1-Agreements between the Town and other municipal jurisdiction, the provincial government, or the federal government shall be signed by a designated officer, the chief administrative officer and the mayor.”
DISCUSSION A great deal of work has gone in to updating this important agreement. The Alberta South Central Mutual Aid Agreement will replace the current Bow Corridor Emergency/Disaster Mutual Assistance agreement approved in 1990. The agreement includes 26 municipalities, municipal districts, summer villages, and first nations. The essence of the updated agreement is the same (see below), however now includes references to current legislation and addresses limitation of liability, indemnification and insurance.
1. Additional resources are required to respond to an emergency/disaster 2. Municipalities emergency plan is activated (or State of Local Emergency is declared) 3. Request for assistance to a mutual aid partner is sent 4. Responding party determines if they can send resources to requesting party 5. Upon conclusion of the emergency, expenditures are recovered for resources supplied
A legal review of the agreement was conduct by the City of Calgary.
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 198 of 242 Alberta South Central Mutual Aid Agreement Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS If Council were to not authorize the signing of this agreement, mutual aid services would only be available for a period of time until other municipalities withdrew from it/authorized this agreement. This is not practical given the risks associated without being able to request/supply additional resources when required.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS Mutual aid calls are not budgeted for. They are billed at the rates set by each municipality per their master fee schedules. The majority of these costs are generally covered by insurance.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Several meeting were held with members of the South Central Emergency Management Committee (Airdrie, Banff, Canmore, Cochrane, Chestermere, MD of Foothills, High River, Okotoks, MD of Rockyview, Strathmore, Tsuut’ina First Nation) to reach this agreement.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT N/A
ATTACHMENTS 1. Bow Corridor Emergency Disaster-Mutual Assistance Agreement 1990 2. 2017 Alberta South Central Mutual Aid Agreement
AUTHORIZATION
Submitted by: Greg Burt Manager of Protective Services Date: August 29, 2017
Approved by: Sally Caudill. Ph.D General Manager, Municipal Services Date: September 6, 2017
Approved by: Lisa de Soto Chief Administrative Officer Date: September 14, 2017
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 199 of 242 Attachment 1
I BOW CORRIDOR EMERGENCY/DISASTER I MUTUAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT
A
I I
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 200 of 242 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT made as of the day of SETTEMBER- , A. O. 1990.
BETWEEN:
THE CITY OF CALGARY, a Municipal Corporation of the Province of Alberta, - and - KAKANASKIS COUNTRY I.11.15, a Local Improvement District of the Province of Alberta, - and - BANFF NATIONAL PARK, a national park in the Province of Alberta, - and - THE TOWN OF BANFF, a Municipal Corporation of the Province of Alberta, - and - THE TOWN OF UOVIAME, a Municipal Corporation of the Province of Alberta, - and- THE MUNICIPAL DISTRICT f44 ROCKYVIEW, a Municipal Corporation of the Province of Alberta, - and- THE MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF BIGHORN f8, a Municipal Corporation of the Province of Alberta, - and - THE TOWN OF CANMORE, a Municipal Corporation of the Province of Alberta, • - and - THE TOWNSITE OF REDWOOD MEADOWS, a Society in the Province of Alberta,
WHEREAS the Municipal Corporations, Banff National Park, Societies and the Local Improvement Districts (hereinafter referred to as "the Parties")
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 201 of 242 - 2 -
are located in and to the west of the City of Calgary and within the geographical area known as the Bow Corridor shown outlined on the current plan attached hereto and made a part hereof and marked as Schedule "A" (hereinafter called the "Protected Lands");
AND WHEREAS an emergency or a disaster could affect the Parties to such a degree that local resources may be inadequate to cope with the emergency or. disaster; AND WHEREAS the Parties hereto have appointed Directors of Disaster Services pursuant to the provisions set out in the Public Safety Services Act, R.S.A. 1980, c P-35; AND WHEREAS subject to the provisions set out in the Disaster Services Act, R.S.A. 1980 c D-36 the Parties have agreed to pay emergency or disaster services to be provided pursuant to the terms, covenants and conditions set out in municipal, provincial and federal legislation and as hereinafter contained; AND WHEREAS Section 113(1) of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 1980, C. M-26, authorizes a council of a municipality to pass a bylaw authorizing the making of an agreement with the council of any other municipality for the performance of any matter or thing considered by all the councils concerned to be a benefit to their respective municipalities and may enter into an agreement as to the joint control and management of anything that concerns their respective municipalities; AND WHEREAS the Local Improvement Districts, Societies, and National Park have complied with all legislative requirements to obtain proper authorization to enter into this Agreement, to wit: the provisions, respectively, of The Indian Act, R.S.C. Chap I-S, Vital Improvement Districts Act, R.S.A. c.I, the National Parks Act, R.S.C. Chap N-14, and The Societies Act, and regulations pertaining thereto. Current authorities are set out in Wedule "Cm hereto; NOW,. THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the hereinbefore recited premises and the mutual covenants of the parties hereto THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH THAT THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. For the purposes of this Agreement: a) "assistance' '-cludes but shall not be limited to provision of fire services, communications and public relations services, ambulances, medical supplies and resources, transportation, police personnel, coordination and operation of reception centres for evacuees, food, shelter, clothing, construction and other equipment_ or materials, and • personnel associated therewith;
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 202 of 242
- 3 -
b) "disaster' means a calamity caused by an accident or by the forces of nature that has resulted, or may result in serious harm to the safety or welfare of people or in damage to property; c) "emergency" means a present or imminent event that requires prompt coordination of action or special regulation of persons or property to protect the health, safety or welfare of people or to limit damage to property.
d) 'Per Incident Charges" means the amounts determined by the Calgary Bow Corridor Emergency Management Committee as a whole, (Ill to be a fair market value for services rendered. 2. Prionto implementation of this Agreement the party affected or threatened by the disaster and‘ calling for mutual aid will invoke its Peacetime Disaster Plan and, for the duration of disaster operations, will assume direction and control over equipment and manpower contributed by other parties to this Agreement. 3. The Parties may, whenever possible and in the discretion of the Director of Disaster Services or a Designated Elected Representative of the respective party or his designate (herein called the "Responding Party"), provide assistance to the other party (herein called the. "Requesting.Party") in a situation in which an emergency or disaster occurs within the boundaries of the Requesting Party in accordance with the Terms of Reference which are attached hereto as Schedule "B" and made a part hereof. 4. All requests for assistance shall be made according to the following procedure: a) all requests for assistance must be authorized by the Director of Disaster Services or a Designated Elected Representative of the Requesting Par'.. or his designate before the Responding Party will be ret.' a respond; b) in the event that the Responding Party receives a request for assistance from someone other than the Director of Disaster Services, or the Designated Elected Representative of the Requesting Party, or his designate, the Responding Party shall confirm its response with the Requesting Party prior to making such response; c) If the Responding Party receives an emergency or disaster assistance call from any location within the Protected Lands shown in Schedule 'A', the Responding Party may respond to the call but the Requesting Party shall be liable to pay the Responding Party any additional costs and charges arising out of the service rendered pursuant to this Agreement and it shall I be the responsibility of the Requesting Party to recover any portion of the amount paid by the Requesting Party to the
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 203 of 242 - 4 -
Responding Party from the party to whom the service was rendered. 5. The Responding Party shall keep records and accounts of the costs of the assistance being provided to the Requesting Party and shall provide an itemized invoice to the Requesting Party of the costs incurred. The Per Incident Charges shall be paid in accordance with each individual parties invoicing policy and procedure. The Requesting Party shall pay all invoices within 30 days of receipt of thereof. In any disputes as to the monies owing they shall be referred to the 'Calgary Bow Corridor Emergency Management Committee' for adjudication. The committee shall, in making its decision, adhere to local annually approved fee structures of the responding parties hereto. Late payments shall bear interest in accordance with each individual parties Unpaid General Accounts By-Law, as amended from Zime to time. 6. The emergency or disaster assistance contemplated herein is solely and absolutely at the discretion of the Director of Disaster Services or a Designated Elected Representative of the Responding Party or his designate. and the said Directdr of Disaster Services or his designate may, without rendering the Responding Party liable for any claims, penalty, damages or losses whatsoever incurred by the Requesting Party or any third party, direct any of the following: a) that the Responding Party shall have the exclusive option of accepting or rejecting the request of the Requesting Party to supply assistance to the Requesting Party; or b) that there be no response whatsoever to the call for emergency or disaster assistance by the Requesting Party regardless of the type of disaster to be responded to; or c) that there be dispatched in response to the call all of the assistance requested by the Requesting Party; or d) that there be dispatched in response to the call such lesser assistance as in the judgment of the Responding Party may prudently be made available. 7. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing in paragraph 6 Responding Party is not required to guarantee and is not required pursuant to this Agreement to respond to emergency or disaster calls immediately unless, in the opinion of the Director of Disaster Services or a Designated Elected Representative or his designate, inter alia, its personnel and equipment can reasonably be spared at Thereof the call without impairing the Responding Party's capacity to protect life or property within the parties own boundaries. Furthermore, the Responding Party shall not be liable for any damage or injury for failing to respond to any call or for a delay in responding to any call or for failure of the equipment in going to the scene of the emergency or disaster.
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 204 of 242
-5-
8. The Requesting Party shall indemnify and save harmless the Responding Party and every one of its personnel engaged in the performance of this Agreement from and against all claims and demands, loss, costs, damages, actions, suits or other proceedings by whomsoever made, brought or prosecuted, in any manner based upon, occasioned by or attributable to the execution of this Agreement, or any action taken or things done or maintained by virtue hereof, or the exercise in any manner or rights arising hereunder. 9. The Requesting Party'shall indemnify the Responding Party against-any loss or expense occasioned to the Responding Party by reason of any damage to its equipment caused by the performance by the Responding Party under this Agreement. The Requesting Party shall also indemnify the Responding Party for any or all of its personnel engaged in the Performance of this Agreement against any cost or expense occasioned to the Responding Party and to any of its personnel by reason or personal injury, including death, resulting from the performance of this Agreement. 10.This Agreement is made subject to all relevant provisions of every Municipal by-law and of every Statute and Regulation of the Province of Alberta relating to the provision of emergency or disaster assistance outside of the corporate limits of each party. Current authorizations to enter this Agreement are listed in Schedule "C" which is attached hereto and forms part of this Agreement.
11.This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect between the parties 5 : 1 hereto for the period of one year from SepromeeR a , Me, and thereafter from year to year, subject to termination at any time by a party or parties hereto by thirty (30) days notice, in writing, delivered by personal delivery addressed to the other parties at the addresses set out in paragraph 15 hereafter. 12.Each of the parties hereto covenants and agrees from time to time and at all times hereafter to do and perform such acts and things and to execute all such agreements, documents and writings and give all such further assurances as shall be reasonably required to fully perform and carry out the terms of this Agreement 13.This Agreement embodies the entire Agreement between the Parties. The parties shall not be. bound by or liable for any statement, representation, promise, inducement or understanding of any kind or nature not set forth herein and this Agreement shall supersede any and all previous disaster mutual aid agreements between the parties. 14.This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, executors, successors and assigns. 15.Any notice, payment or other communication required or permitted to be given or served pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered personally or may be mailed by registered mail, postage prepaid, to the offices of the respective Parties.
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 205 of 242 6
Every notice mailed at any post office in Canada by prepaid, registered post, in any envelope addressed to the party to whom the same is directed shall be deemed to have been given to and received by the addressee on the fifth business day following the mailing, except where there exists a labour strike or other postal interruption which interferes with normal mail deliveries, in which case every notice provided for in this Agreement or arising in connection therewith shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the party or parties at the above addresses and such notice shall be effective only if and when actually delivered. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have hereunto affixed their corporate seals under the hand of their proper signing officers in that behalf to give effect to these presents effective the day and year first above written notwithstanding the actual date or dates of execution.
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED
APPROVED
As To Content
eaa t As To Fan Satan Per: se fr/ed/..084—
BANFF NATIO Pe Per:
I THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE TOWN OF BANFF I I I
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 206 of 242 7
THE MUNI AL THE TOWN OF COCHRANE Per: Per:
THE MUNICIPAL DISTRICT 444 ROCKYVIEW Per: Per:
THE MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF BIG HORN 98
Per: 44/.4.1 Per: e THE MUNICIPA THE TOWN OF CANMORE Per: **tor Per:
THE MEADOWS
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 207 of 242
1 r : arelao rivoi4ilila BESKRIVISm a 131 gntii ratttelik lit ilin vim mom c AI t FP Warillfirirt ORgra■ WEI SOS tiE &Malta:MIME 011Pdviti illinieral IV %illi 12800t31 Wil2110 PPM WASS figiinil rig MU MOM ESL NM EMUS EVITAIM kw tram MERE b BM it IN
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 208 of 242 .7; . • d 15 10 9 27 7 \ 25 lima I •e
IMIOAM•1111
• .4% M••■••sas
MU.
NSA
;sroa min": ..lie1:34.. mesat4168011.fl
• , 11.. Me
Ir, Illowld; • r .1.14 Air -• • CV:MIRY .14 OAS, flowl• ;•• ► ai • 27. 1-7c- •tam yr . •• Pa. .4 •••••••1
KANANASK1S Cill2ITRY ID 5 oet. • oast ; SN
i C • BOUNDA1tY as:a:oak` :KI I
HATA 1(31 I KIMBER 'M
glow reams* .10 vois FERMI • IIE REEK oPil 01/4.4.;•••• 41 Ls Mu. sc. • / 4." • ( • mug..
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 209 of 242 to Jasper
m Kilometres MF 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 •
ti3 BANFF
No
YOHO NATIONAL NATIONAL PARK
ELOCASE TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY'IN PARK
KOOTENAY to Calgary NATIONAL PARK
r-I
SACRUM • is Provincsal s Pick •N:
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 210 of 242 wassanthe. fierleshoneenur o Imams*. o R C M o SS it'll o LquerflOM liftmasenorm• o Watalrte•e• P•vito o VeteleMesown. Pub■CMIlef 009101196 ISM" Muselon NeesemeweLiatis lvdOn wus ir Pam Stemban
® Cascaotwx•Gram lan•SPols KAM
••
4
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 211 of 242
-I 11. • 44w IMIliblvimmeopub "IME EN iggaibulA6ealahlwamati Watt= atit'Aetes-a U174:1 tkaNtIM taaitT4581 gyaghiNERMEN :0,ggsf,m3=g agralll 4 II? ARPUMUMS.:1 EMBOMM2=WEVARAnS iteikitsiginumvot.., it mmourno C. movraellgalENFAN fnmexmor,O.-; wacr amwg, ionisanoitiorwautah 2cPuttt-au :CtsT•Ilepertfigmll arirAiurittmtaMinvdriftgru 411M) monotony ,;il=-7,;•.140/4138;troMithita- id MUMMPARVSVMPAWKRAWMPMZU 4;0' Vit% MI,IWOMDa." r Earittieg-111 44.112R- 97,Sr4tRkrali$1Y1414. Ni'41Pt intlpiFET 1% a °a MailtiglirigRit itIMI Millkstutrunr.trarn, VNIP:okatiMr4:12-MARtinfiNKH 136 Talimpwwfiti•ww wr,...lowwwwmuuu rprEZNI Aligfigintril•MtalgennntalirM intudlIMgrEtTPG,9W4M igiegMBEVRIaing %. 51 .titihirMIREL:27- 111ffitINVatifagreittaIRIMIEWIRelliE 9"."':;74TRITAPtiovW4vai,s0405adismallaSivsMigi glii3OA":13:0prFitaglicit5112511 1WMARTMEMZ • -0.4s7-CiM /Inn • wgFif.v anuomamoVivationwsteRm% MinatiiEttliMaM503-.l 50t urgTmuitammO§VnomvamnaImmor .16a1r,i=vognommunrexacommoo, Th3ilArk_EtTENWPW.TOMMW4EME 'WoMitrAtEFAUM:gagatMUMKINFtM51 7 t =UM! I IF MI -7.0 IttIrraratial/Inti rair.41{1,-,.._1-acm22 je1 1--11Rii%11,1% "
31.3.gthitC2ANill . SWAM la a
• "iSIE ril -4 l 3M gg ',:d ::
'La; 3tN yz in • tristiot,,„ )4 ■ F' lc EE K t tit-a7=-:tazarn Mr t5t 19-'2 .,3% le
3pmE ii; Iti‘NNmmmgm rt
s g ...A Jill Min si loamiNcrt,:antrafaznsursfit, Ara a on otoll estrliNi gh Hi% KM:big:0%MS p
iiistrunip,?.070trel5 Tioe-Nif MrliitNERh BSI ismagralkniati=laiNgibltirreNI • MT rig cu aimgrIEVALMMIArEatrEtEMt4M eiMOVEIBNIM"114514°M1Vilne a ammgMMEA0.11rn*aitaVciMUNAWINHEURIUUng I" AmuligmedNEOWAWSWWKNV.00.51WWW0f1U 4041WWWWW4Wi mgrogxligipMpW4g=a%=MagMIMITP0060r /10WIMW N "Ur mega• ptagiutimmtimaticterex-ftiwam tal:= 21 jfiga+gfrapi lat-Q101h.MM ICMAgSE End.n.1 -: 1;41`,SAPatillagiggraivam s digatrtiem rwip anfillErr atirA MMIPIAIE Vt. atNPIEMIPIP 144 U aignatipx_. Daginild54_l :aaakfM taintatilnt rAthig MiNfillel rgIMEAN A0 m P AMMOiMpt=numWMIIMEMAWgn -MUM ignanigreat0 2 5radarn-wqravilftiMilev iiiiiiCM5VIRM 6-ennil ag€VgatetIVREt e i I WiegAweglimmialMg4MUU mium myy mnamwomran omm 1- ononsid3WinggmEnomm ... . 00VMAS 3 KMaganWEVAWW&INIUge MaglariNIONW=MAAWM IAMU UMRVWVYMMgagnianngIMM W M ! W OW II 1 wpdMMTIRMUMMIRIMU 11:( ll I II I I gagrin186358BIaciMtlatul ImEMUMNMEATFUR I 1 h 1 mmERWVMEERAVIMMI iln0889111111114' Immmamumunnumm
I C) 0 I S September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 212 of 242 i t
4 C
mmc t--
-.-- V I
. r
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 213 of 242 ‘141 • , • ; . 4 .401• 11. . 1 r
• -"" n. . rI: I •
• .4., '4 • • / I
• it 'I I Ii. I
• 4( I V • 44
s
a f rg k Dy Fran HAP A
RE It
A II a
SE 0
Ut
PON II t .4
RES C
• C E:
MENT W E .0 N
44 0 ZON 14 3.g PART
NI .0 SE al 0
' i ON • 0 r VI re .0 FIRE DE RESP
44 ..-. toc...... f. ..,..' • . ORE H 8 ?MART CAN
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 214 of 242 1
►
I I
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 215 of 242 FINAL ORAL MAY 25, 1990 SCHEDULE 'B' CALGARY BOW CORRIDOR PEACETIMEINERGENCY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE TERMS QF REFERENCE
I. NAME: Calgary Bow Corridor Peacetime Emergency Management Committee 2. DEFINITION: 3. PURPOSE: A - PRIME FUNCTION B - ADVISORY C - EDUCATION D - FINANCIAL
4. MEMBERSHIP S. MEETINGS 6. QUORUM 7. VOTING 8. RECORD KEEPING 9. DUTIES OF CHAIRPERSON 10.SUBCOMMITTEES 11.MODIFICATION OF TERMS OF REFERE
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 216 of 242 CALGARY BOW CORRIDCM PEACETIME EMERGENCY MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT SCHEDULE •C• LIST OF AUTHORITIES THE CITY OF CALGARY By-Law 1491489
KANANASKIS COUNTRY I.D.#5 I
BANFF NATIONAL PARK
THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE TOWN OF BANFF By-Law #50
THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE TOWN OF COCHRANE By-Law 117-87
THE MUNICIPAL DISTRICT 144 ROCKYVIEW By-Liw OC 10-52-74
THE MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF BIG HORN #8 Resolution #269.89 Further By-Law 11-89
I THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE TOWN OF CANMORE Resolution #64-89
THE TOWNSITE OF REDWOOD MEADOWS Resolution #8.5.1 of Meeting 1990-8
(
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 217 of 242
Attachment 2 ALBERTA SOUTH CENTRAL MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made effective as of the ____ day of ______, 20__
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF CALGARY, a municipal corporation within the meaning of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26
- and -
THE CITY OF AIRDRIE, a municipal corporation within the meaning of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26
- and -
THE TOWN OF BANFF, a municipal corporation within the meaning of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26
- and -
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 9 (BANFF), including the HAMLET OF LAKE LOUISE, a municipal corporation within the meaning of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26
- and -
VILLAGE OF BEISEKER, a municipal corporation within the meaning of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26
- and -
1
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 218 of 242
TOWN OF BLACK DIAMOND, a municipal corporation within the meaning of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26
- and –
TOWN OF CANMORE, a municipal corporation within the meaning of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26
- and -
CITY OF CHESTERMERE, a municipal corporation within the meaning of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26
- and -
TOWN OF COCHRANE, a municipal corporation within the meaning of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26
- and -
TOWN OF CROSSFIELD, a municipal corporation within the meaning of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26
- and -
MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF FOOTHILLS NO. 31, including the HAMLET OF CAYLEY, a municipal corporation within the meaning of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26
- and -
SUMMER VILLAGE OF GHOST LAKE, a municipal corporation within the meaning of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26
2
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 219 of 242
- and -
TOWN OF HIGH RIVER, a municipal corporation within the meaning of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26
- and -
MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF ROCKY VIEW COUNTY including the HAMLET OF CONRICH, the HAMLET OF INDUS, the HAMLET OF LANGDON, a municipal corporation within the meaning of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26
- and -
TOWN OF IRRICANA, a municipal corporation within the meaning of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26
- and -
KANANASKIS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, a municipal corporation within the meaning of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26
- and -
VILLAGE OF LONGVIEW, a municipal corporation within the meaning of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26
- and -
TOWN OF NANTON, a municipal corporation within the meaning of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26
- and -
3
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 220 of 242
TOWN OF OKOTOKS, a municipal corporation within the meaning of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26
- and -
TOWN OF STRATHMORE, a municipal corporation within the meaning of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26
- and -
TOWN OF TURNER VALLEY, a municipal corporation within the meaning of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26
- and -
MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF BIGHORN NO. 8, a municipal corporation within the meaning of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26
- and -
STONEY-NAKODA FIRST NATION, as represented by the Chief and Council
- and -
TSUUT’INA FIRST NATION, as represented by the Chief and Council
- and -
SUMMER VILLAGE OF WAIPAROUS, a municipal corporation within the meaning of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26
- and -
4
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 221 of 242
MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF WHEATLAND COUNTY, a municipal corporation within the meaning of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26
WHEREAS Section 6 of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c M-26, provides municipalities and improvement districts with natural person powers, which includes the authority to enter into agreements with any other municipality or improvement district for the performance of any matter or thing considered by all the councils concerned to be a benefit to their respective municipalities or improvement districts and may enter into an agreement as to the joint control and management of anything that concerns their respective municipalities or improvement districts;
AND WHEREAS Section 54(a) of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c M-26, authorizes a municipality to provide any service or thing that it provides in all or part of the municipality in another municipal authority with the agreement of the other municipal authority;
AND WHEREAS Section 11 of the Emergency Management Act, R.S.A. 2000, c E-6.8, authorizes a local authority, including municipalities and improvement districts, to enter into agreements with and make payments to persons or organizations for the provision of services in the development or implementation of emergency plans or programs;
AND WHEREAS the Municipal Corporations and First Nations party to this Agreement are located within the geographical area known as the Alberta South Central Mutual Aid Agreement Area, as shown outlined on the plans attached to this Agreement as Schedule “A”;
AND WHEREAS the Parties have appointed Directors of their respective Emergency Management Agencies pursuant to Section 11.2(2) of the Emergency Management Act, R.S.A. 2000, c E 6.8;
AND WHEREAS an emergency or a disaster could affect the Parties to such a degree that local resources could be inadequate to cope with the emergency or disaster;
AND WHEREAS the Parties either operate emergency services within their jurisdictions or have agreements with recognized first response services;
AND WHEREAS the Parties have agreed to provide emergency or disaster assistance as a secondary response if required, pursuant to the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement;
5
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 222 of 242
AND WHEREAS the Parties have agreed to pay for the emergency or disaster assistance to be provided pursuant to the terms, covenant and conditions of this Agreement;
AND WHEREAS the Parties wish to provide suitable terms and conditions for the provision of emergency or disaster assistance to each other;
AND WHEREAS this Agreement is intended to replace three previous mutual aid agreements signed by some of the Parties, which include the “Bow Corridor Emergency/Disaster Mutual Assistance Agreement,” the “Calgary South Emergency/Disaster Mutual Assistance Agreement” and the “Calgary Wildrose Emergency/Disaster Mutual Assistance Agreement.” For greater clarity, this Agreement is not intended to replace any other emergency services agreements the Parties may have with each other for the provision of services in situations not covered under this Agreement;
AND WHEREAS all Parties have complied with any and all other legislative requirements to obtain proper authorization to enter this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants contained in this Agreement, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1.0 INTERPRETATION
1.1 In this Agreement unless the context otherwise requires the words and phrases set out below will be interpreted as having the meaning that follows each word or phrase.
(a) “Agreement” means this Alberta South Central Mutual Aid Agreement;
(b) “Assistance” means any Emergency or Disaster aid services with corresponding equipment, materials and trained personnel as required to operate such equipment, that a Responding Party can provide to a Requesting Party;
(c) “Declaration of a State of Emergency” means the meaning given in section 18 of the Emergency Management Act;
(d) “Declaration of a State of Local Emergency” means the meaning given in section 21 the Emergency Management Act;
(e) “Director of Emergency Management” means the meaning given in Section 11.2(2) of the Emergency Management Act or the designate of the Director of Emergency Management;
6
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 223 of 242
(f) “Disaster” means an event that results in serious harm to the safety, health or welfare of people or in widespread damage to property that exceeds or may exceed local resources and/or capabilities;
(g) “Emergency” means an event that requires prompt co-ordination of action or special regulation of persons or property to protect the safety, health or welfare of people or to limit damage to property;
(h) “Emergency Management Act” means the Alberta Emergency Management Act, R.S.A., 2000, c E-6.8, as amended;
(i) “Municipal Emergency Plan” means a Party’s emergency plans and programs created under section 11 of the Emergency Management Act;
(j) “Party” or “Parties” means the signatories to this Agreement;
(k) “Responding Party” means a Party to this Agreement that is asked to respond and provide Assistance by another Party to this Agreement;
(l) “Requesting Party” means a Party to this Agreement that is requesting Assistance due to an Emergency or Disaster in their respective jurisdiction;
(m) “Per Incident Charges” means the amounts determined by the Responding Party to be the fair and accurate fee for cost recovery of rendering the Assistance including any travel expenses.
2.0 EMERGENCY DECLARATION OR ACTIVATION OF MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY PLAN
2.1 Prior to making a request for Assistance as outlined in Article 3.0 of this Agreement, the Party affected or threatened by a Disaster or Emergency, shall ensure at least one of the following has occurred:
(a) the Party’s Municipal Emergency Plan has been activated; or
(b) a Declaration of a State of Local Emergency has been made by them for their jurisdiction; or
(c) a Declaration of a State of Emergency has been made for their jurisdiction.
3.0 REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE
3.1 After an Emergency Declaration has been made or a Municipal Emergency Plan has been activated as outlined in Article 2.1 of this Agreement, a Party may
7
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 224 of 242
request Assistance. All requests for Assistance shall be made in accordance with the following procedure:
(a) It is preferred that the Alberta Emergency Management Agency, Government of Alberta be notified or be involved in the consultation of the decision before a Party makes a request for Assistance;
(b) All requests for Assistance shall be made or authorized in writing by the Requesting Party’s Director of Emergency Management to the Responding Party’s Director of Emergency Management;
(c) Requests for Assistance may be made verbally but must be confirmed in writing by the Requesting Party’s Director of Emergency Management within 24 hours of the verbal request;
(d) If the Responding Party receives a request for Assistance from someone other than the Director of Emergency Management of the Requesting Party, the Responding Party shall confirm, through reasonable means, the request with the Director of Emergency Management of the Requesting Party, prior to responding to the request for Assistance;
(e) A request for Assistance from or authorized by a Party’s Director of Emergency Management shall confirm that an Emergency Declaration has been made or a Municipal Emergency Plan has been activated, as outlined in Article 2.1.
4.0 DELIVERY OF ASSISTANCE
4.1 The Responding Party, in its sole discretion, may take any of the following actions when it receives a request for Assistance from the Director of Emergency Management of the Requesting Party:
(a) Provide no Assistance regardless of the type of Disaster or Emergency to be responded to;
(b) Provide all of the requested Assistance; or
(c) Provide a portion of the requested Assistance.
4.2 Without limiting the wording in Article 4.1, the Responding Party’s Director of Emergency Management must acknowledge that they have received the request for Assistance from a Requesting Party either verbally or in writing as soon as possible, but shall not be required to provide Assistance immediately. If the Responding Party chooses to render Assistance, it has the sole discretion to determine the timeframe that Assistance will be provided in.
8
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 225 of 242
4.3 The decision to provide, to not provide, or to provide a portion of the requested Assistance is made solely and absolutely at the discretion of the Responding Party’s Director of Emergency Management, which can be made arbitrarily. Assistance will only be provided which can reasonably be given without impairing the capacity of the Responding Party to protect life, property or the environment within its own jurisdiction and without compromising the safety of its personnel.
4.4 The Responding Party will at all times remain in control and have the ability to direct any of the Assistance it provides to the Requesting Party.
4.5 The decision not to provide or to provide a portion of the requested Assistance shall not prejudice any Parties rights or effect any other obligations the Parties have under this Agreement.
4.6 The Responding Party may choose at its discretion to provide additional Assistance, above and beyond what is requested or may choose to withdraw all or a portion of the Assistance rendered even if a Disaster or an Emergency is ongoing.
5.0 RECOVERY OF EXPENDITURES
5.1 The Responding Party shall keep records and accounts of the Per Incident Charges of the Assistance being provided to the Requesting Party and shall provide an itemized invoice to the Requesting Party of the Per Incident Charges incurred within 90 days after the situation that caused the Emergency Declaration or activation of the Municipal Emergency Plan as outlined in Article 2.1 has ended, unless otherwise agreed to between the Requesting and Responding Parties.
5.2 The Per Incident Charges shall be paid in accordance with the invoicing policy and procedure of the Responding Party. The Requesting Party shall pay all invoices within 60 days of receiving them.
5.3 In the case of a dispute as to the amount of monies owing, the Parties will follow the dispute resolution process outlined in Article 9.0.
5.4 Late payments shall bear interest at a rate of prime plus two percent (2%) per annum.
6.0 TERM AND TERMINATION
6.1 This Agreement will be in effect for the period commencing as of the effective date shown at the beginning of this Agreement and continuing in perpetuity, subject to termination at any time by a Party under this Agreement by providing thirty (30) days written notice to the other Parties in accordance with the notice provision as outlined in Article 11.0. For greater clarity, the termination of one Party of this Agreement does not affect the obligations the other Parties have to
9
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 226 of 242
each other under this Agreement, unless and until each Party individually terminates the Agreement. This Agreement will be reviewed by the Parties after five (5) years from the effective date shown at the beginning of this Agreement, and thereafter every five (5) years following the previous review, in perpetuity.
7.0 RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES
7.1 Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute a partnership or joint venture between the Parties or constitute any Party or their employees to be the agent of any other Party for any purpose.
8.0 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY, INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE
8.1 The Responding Party will not be liable for any damage for failing to respond to a request for Assistance, for a delay in responding to a request for Assistance, for a mechanical or operational failure of any Assistance given, including failure of the equipment provided, or resulting from any Assistance given in an Emergency or Disaster. Without limiting the provisions set out elsewhere in this Article 8.0, the Responding Party, including its officials, officers, agents, employees, personnel and volunteers, is hereby released and saved harmless by the Requesting Party from all claims for damages or loss resulting from the failure to provide Assistance, delay in providing Assistance, mechanical or operational failure of any Assistance given, including failure of the equipment provided or from any Assistance given, whether resulting from any negligence or, other action on the part of the Responding Party, its officers, agents, employees, personnel or volunteers.
8.2 The Requesting Party agrees to defend, indemnify and save harmless the Responding Party as well as its officials, officers, employees, agents, volunteers and each of its personnel engaged in the performance of this Agreement from and against any and all claims, demands, loss, costs, damages, actions, suits or other proceedings, including personal injury or death, by whomsoever made, brought or prosecuted, in any manner based upon, occasioned by or attributable to the matters agreed to by the parties in this Agreement, or any action taken or not taken or things done or maintained by virtue of this Agreement, or the performance or non-performance of Assistance under this Agreement, even in the case of negligence by the Responding Party.
(a) Without limiting the foregoing, the Requesting Party shall indemnify the Responding Party against any loss or expense occasioned to the Responding Party by reason of any damage to its equipment caused by the performance of Assistance by the Responding Party under this Agreement, excluding damage resulting from wilful misconduct on the part of the Responding Party or its representatives in the use of the equipment. The Requesting Party shall also defend and indemnify the Responding Party and all of its personnel engaged in the performance of this
10
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 227 of 242
Agreement against any cost or expense to the Responding Party and to any of its personnel by reason of personal injury (including death) resulting from the performance of this Agreement which may be caused or contributed to by the Requesting Party. Any and all costs of carrying out the obligations under this Article 8.0 will be in addition to and not included in the payments pursuant to Article 5.0.
(b) Without limiting the wording in Section 8.2 and subsection 8.2(a) but for greater clarity, the obligations to defend and indemnify will apply from the time that the Assistance is rendered until the time the Assistance ceases. In the case of motor vehicle assistance, the obligations to defend and indemnify apply to any motor vehicle collision that occurs while enroute from the time of dispatch until the return to the dispatch location of the motor vehicle (or active service at some other location back in the Responding Party’s jurisdiction), even in the case of negligence by the Responding Party. However, the obligation to defend and indemnify pursuant to this subsection 8.2(b), and this subsection only shall be up to and including the first TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00) of any loss that occurs.
8.3 All Parties shall maintain at their own expense the following types of insurance with insurers allowed by the laws of the Province of Alberta to issue insurance policies in Alberta:
(a) Commercial General Liability insurance policy for bodily injury (including death) and property damage in an amount of not less than FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($5,000,000.00) inclusive limit for each and every occurrence, such insurance to include:
(i) All Parties as an Additional Insured; (ii) a Non-owned Automobile Liability Extension; (iii) a Cross Liability Clause; (iv) a Broad Form Contractual Liability Clause; and
(b) an Automobile Third Party Liability insurance policy (Owner's Form) for bodily injury (including death) and property damage in an amount of not less than TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000.00) inclusive limit per occurrence covering all automobiles relevant to this Agreement; and
(c) an All Risk Property insurance policy with a limit of not less than FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) per occurrence to cover the full replacement value of all property supplied by a Responding Party and which is in the care, custody or control of a Requesting Party.
11
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 228 of 242
(d) All parties will maintain coverage for each and all of its personnel engaged in the performance of this Agreement, with the Workers Compensation Board of Alberta, or an equivalent federal board or body, excluding those personnel engaged in exempt industries.
8.4 In view of the possibility of medical response being needed as part of the Assistance, the Parties are also responsible for placing and maintaining a Paramedic Malpractice Liability insurance policy in an amount of not less than TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000.00) per occurrence.
8.5 With respect to the insurance to be maintained by the Parties:
(a) The insurance policies mentioned above must include provision for the Parties to be given at least thirty (30) days written notice prior to cancellation as well as at least thirty (30) days prior notice of any material change (restricting coverage) of said policies of insurance requested by a policy holder.
(b) The Parties must provide documentary evidence satisfactory to all Parties of the existence of the above mentioned insurances at inception of this Agreement and at each renewal date of such insurances.
(c) The individual Party who holds the insurance policy, and not any other Party to this Agreement is responsible for any deductible(s) which may apply in relation to such insurances.
(d) The Parties covenants and agrees that the insurance requirements mentioned above are not to be construed to, and in no manner will, limit or restrict any Parties liability in terms of this Agreement.
8.6 It is understood and agreed that if a Responding Party incurs damage or loss of any kind covered under Sections 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4, the Responding Party will be paid immediately without offset or counter claim.
9.0 DISPUTES
9.1 Any dispute between the parties as to the interpretation of, subject matter of, or in any way related to, this Agreement, including the recovery of expenditures outlined in Article 5.0, is to be resolved by the parties attempting to reach a fair and equitable resolution by using, in good faith, the following means, until a resolution is arrived at. The means may be used in any order. The means to be used are:
(a) negotiation; (b) mediation; or
12
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 229 of 242
(c) legal proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction.
During negotiation and mediation, no party will be deemed to have waived any rights or remedies at law or in equity, and all parties agree to maintain the business relationship of the parties to the extent reasonably practicable during such negotiations.
With respect to mediation, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by both parties, mediation will be in accordance with the procedures of the ADR Institute of Canada, Inc. (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “Institute”), using as mediator a third party neutral person either as mutually agreed to by the parties, or if the parties are unable to agree as selected by the Institute.
10.0 APPLICABLE LAW
10.1 All Assistance and responsibilities are to be performed in accordance with the applicable laws in force in the Province of Alberta. This Agreement is subject to the courts of competent jurisdiction of the Province of Alberta as regards all matters as to interpretation or enforcement.
11.0 NOTICE
11.1 If any Party desires to give notice, payment or other communication (collectively referred to as “Notice”) to another Party under or in connection with this Agreement, such Notice should be given in accordance with Schedule “B.” Any Notice required or permitted to be given or served pursuant to this Agreement, unless otherwise stated, shall be in writing and shall be sufficiently given if messenger delivered, mailed by registered mail, faxed, or emailed, to the contact provided in Schedule “B”. Any Party may change its address for receiving any Notices by giving notice as provided herein, in which event this section shall be deemed to have been amended accordingly. Any such Notice shall be deemed to have been given, made or received by the addressee on the date of delivery, fax or email. In the case of registered mail, notice is deemed given, made or received on the date the mailing is signed for.
12.0 SURVIVAL
12.1 Articles 8.0, 9.0, 10.0 survive the termination of this Agreement.
13.0 SEVERABILITY
13.1 If any part of this Agreement is declared unenforceable or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the provisions shall continue to be valid and enforceable.
13
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 230 of 242
14.0 ASSIGNMENT
14.1 No Party shall have the right to assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of all other Parties to this Agreement, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
15.0 FUTURE PARTIES
15.1 It is anticipated by the Parties that other entities, including municipal corporations and improvement districts, may become a party to this Agreement after execution. Additional parties will be added by an amendment, executed in writing by all Parties, to add the new party.
16.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS
16.1 Unless the context requires otherwise, words importing the singular will include the plural and words importing the plural will include the singular.
16.2 A waiver by any Party to this Agreement of the strict performance by another Party of any covenant or provision of this Agreement will not of itself constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach of such covenant or provision or of any other covenant, provision, or term of this Agreement.
16.3 Each of the Parties agrees that it will from time to time and at all times do all such further acts and execute and deliver all such further documents and assurances as may be reasonably required in order to fully perform and carry out the terms of this Agreement.
16.4 This Agreement, including the Schedules attached or incorporated by reference, is the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral.
16.5 The Parties agree that this Agreement may be amended from time to time upon mutual agreement confirmed in writing to give effect to the intention of the Parties as the circumstances at the time may require.
16.6 The recitals set out at the beginning of this document are incorporated into, and form part of, this Agreement.
16.7 All documents submitted to the parties will be subject to the protection and disclosure provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Alberta), as amended, revised or substituted from time to time. While this Act allows persons a right of access to records in the Parties custody or control, it also prohibits the Parties from disclosing personal or business information where disclosure would be harmful to business interests or would be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy as defined in Sections 15 and 16 of the Act. 14
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 231 of 242
16.8 This Agreement shall ensure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties, their heirs, executors, successors and assigns.
17.0 COUNTERPARTS
17.1 This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts with the same effect, as if all signatories to the counterparts had signed one document, all such counterparts shall together constitute, and be construed as, one and the same instrument and each of such counterpart shall, notwithstanding the date of its execution, be deemed to bear the date first above written.
15
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 232 of 242
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first written above.
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED
THE CITY OF CALGARY APPROVED
AS TO CONTENT Per: Name: Title: AS TO FORM SOLICITORS
Per: Name: Title:
THE CITY OF AIRDRIE
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
THE TOWN OF BANFF,
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
16
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 233 of 242
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 9 (BANFF), including the HAMLET OF LAKE LOUISE
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
VILLAGE OF BEISEKER
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
TOWN OF BLACK DIAMOND
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
TOWN OF CANMORE
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
17
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 234 of 242
CITY OF CHESTERMERE
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
TOWN OF COCHRANE
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
TOWN OF CROSSFIELD
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF FOOTHILLS NO. 31, including the HAMLET OF CAYLEY
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
18
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 235 of 242
SUMMER VILLAGE OF GHOST LAKE
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
TOWN OF HIGH RIVER
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF ROCKY VIEW COUNTY including the HAMLET OF CONRICH, the HAMLET OF INDUS, the HAMLET OF LANGDON
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
TOWN OF IRRICANA
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
19
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 236 of 242
KANANASKIS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
VILLAGE OF LONGVIEW
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
TOWN OF NANTON
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
TOWN OF OKOTOKS
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
20
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 237 of 242
TOWN OF STRATHMORE
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
TOWN OF TURNER VALLEY
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF BIGHORN NO. 8
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
STONEY-NAKODA FIRST NATION
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
21
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 238 of 242
TSUUT’INA FIRST NATION
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
SUMMER VILLAGE OF WAIPAROUS
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF WHEATLAND COUNTY
Per: Name: Title:
Per: Name: Title:
22
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 239 of 242
SCHEDULE “A”
23
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 240 of 242
SCHEDULE “B”
Community Name EM Title Email Phone
Airdrie Lorri Laface DDEM [email protected] 403-948-8880
Banff Silvio Adamo DEM, Fire [email protected] 403-762-1250 Chief Banff National Brian Webster Visitor Safety [email protected] 403-762-1401 Park Beiseker Gail Peckham DDEM [email protected] 403-947-3774 Jo Lambert CAO [email protected]
Black Diamond Jamie DEM, Fire [email protected] 403-933-4348 Campbell Chief
Canmore Greg Burt DEM [email protected] 403-678-1576
Cayley Clayton DEM [email protected] 403-603-6308 Terletski
Chestermere: Blake Termeer DEM [email protected] 403-371-1610
Cochrane David DEM, Fire [email protected] 403-851-2545 Humphrey Chief
Conrich Randy Smith DEM, Fire [email protected] 403-478-8164 Chief Crossfield Lori Madsen [email protected] Joe Holstein DEM [email protected] 403-312-2339 Foothills (MD) Clayton DEM [email protected] 403-603-6308 Terletski Ghost Lake Kathy Oblak DEM [email protected] 403-554-5515 High River Carly Benson DEM [email protected] 403-336-0023
Indus Randy Smith DEM, Fire [email protected] 403-478-8164 Chief
24
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 241 of 242
Community Name EM Title Email Phone
Irricana Kelly Saunders DDEM, Fire [email protected] 403-869-3900 Chief Kananaskis Craig Halifax Fire Chief [email protected] 403-609-1264
Langdon Randy Smith DEM, Fire [email protected] 403-478-8164 Chief Longview Carole Macleod Deputy Mayor [email protected] 403-601-1462
Nanton Kevin Miller DEM [email protected] 403-646-2029 ext 204
Okotoks Scott Roberts DEM [email protected] 403-938-8924
Strathmore Muir Furzer DEM, Fire [email protected] 403-934-3022 Chief
Turner Valley Gerry Rooke DEM [email protected] 403-371-9696
Big Horn Rick Lyster DEM [email protected] 403-673-3611 ext 233
Rocky View Randy Smith DEM, Fire [email protected] 403-478-8164 Chief Stoney-Nakoda Dwayne DEM [email protected] 403-612-8206 First Nation Clayden
Tsuu T'ina Crystal Whitney DEM, Fire [email protected] 403-804-0697 Nation Chief Waiparous Sharon Plett [email protected] 403-652-4636 Wheatland Judy Unsworth District Chief [email protected] 403-478-8054 County
Lake Louise Kerri Martens Fire Chief [email protected] 403-522-2866
25
September 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 242 of 242