THE CITY OF CAMROSE
AGENDA REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING #4 MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2010
Opening Prayer. 5:00 P.M., Council Chambers.
A. ADOPTION OF AGENDA/MINUTES:
1) Adoption of Agenda. 2) Committee of the Whole Meeting held February 8, 2010. 3) Regular Council Meeting #3 held February 8, 2010.
B. NEW BUSINESS: (reports/recommendations)
1) Public Hearing — By-Law #2639/10 Amend requirements in issuing Certificates of Conformance, Non- conformance/No Act Certificate Amend corner lot flankage side yard abutting a roadway Amend home occupations in a R1-R1L district.
By-Law #2639/10.
2) Rate Increase for Collection and Disposal of Residential Refuse.
By-Law #2641/10.
3) 2010 Provincial Budget.
4) Recycling Initiatives — Camrose County.
5) Residential Waste Collection and Diversion Program.
6) Request for Canada Day funding from Canadian Heritage.
7) Approval of Annexation of Lands to the City of Camrose.
C. COMMITTEE/DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS:
1) Police Commission — Minutes of January 19, 2010. 2) Social Planning Advisory Committee — Minutes of December 14, 2009.
D. CORRESPONDENCE:
1) Letter dated February 9, 2010 from Bill Meade, Assistant Deputy Minister, Director of Law Enforcement re: Prisoner Holding Agreement. 2) Letter dated February 22, 2010 from Minister of Municipal Affairs re: 2010 Municipal Sustainability Initiative. 3) Letter dated February 16, 2010 from the Luke Ouellette, Minister of Transportation re: Federal Gas Tax Fund.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM A-2 FEBRUARY 8, 2010
The Committee of the Whole Council Meeting of the City of Camrose was held in Council Chambers, City Hall on Monday, February 8, 2010 with the following persons in attendance:
Council: Mayor C. Mastel; Councillors G. Galenza; I. Nielsen; K. Pratt; W. Throndson; D. Shillington; M. Lindstrand and J. Howard. Absent: Councillor R. Mclsaac. Administration: Manager — B. Hamblin; Manager of Corporate and Protective Services — D. Herle; Manager of Financial Services — D. Urkow; Economic Development Co-ordinator — D. Twomey; City Engineer - T. Gillespie; Municipal Engineer — J. Enarson; Director, Engineering Services - M. Barrett; Police Chief D. Kambeitz; and Community Services Manager - P. Nielsen.
Mayor Mastel called the meeting to order at 1:30 pm
MOTION #44/10 Moved by Lindstrand - seconded by Nielsen that the agenda of the Committee of the Whole Council Meeting dated February 8, 2010 be approved, as amended, with Agenda Item #3 removed from the in- camera portion of the meeting. MOTION CARRIED.
1. City/County Negotiations Recreation Agreement IDP
2. Land Matters.
3. Presentation and Policy Review of Solid Waste Collection.
4. Personnel/Contract Matters.
5. Springwood Developments Presentation.
Councillor Pratt arrived at the meeting at 1:35 pm.
MOTION #45/09 Moved by Throndson - seconded by Lindstrand to go in-camera for Agenda Items 1, 2, 4 and 5.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilor Throndson left the Council Chambers at 2:35 pm and returned to the Council Chambers at 3:05 pm.
MOTION #46/09 Moved by Galenza - seconded by Throndson to leave in-camera at 3:45 pm. MOTION CARRIED.
-13- Committee of the Whole Council February 8, 2010
MOTION #47/10 Moved by Howard — seconded by Lindstrand to adopt Agenda Item #3 Presentation and Policy Review of Solid Waste Collection. MOTION CARRIED.
3. Presentation and Policy Review of Solid Waste Collection.
M. Barrett, Director, Engineering Services, advised that the contract for solid waste collection will soon be expiring and a review conducted by KC Environmental Group Ltd. was previously approved by Council. Kirstin Castro-Wunsch and Stacey Aidun presented the results of the review. Areas of strength of current City of Camrose processes include the contracting out of the recycling depot operations, strong education programs and the concrete recycling program. The programs of some other communities were reviewed and alternatives and potential action plans and long term strategies were discussed.
MOTION #48/10 Moved by Shillington — seconded by Lindstrand that Committee accept this report as information. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Mastel adjourned the meeting at 4:45 pm and reconvened the meeting at 6:25 pm, following conclusion of Regular Council Meeting #3.
4. Personnel/Contract Matters.
MOTION #49/10 Moved by Howard — seconded by Lindstrand motion to go in-camera MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION #50/10 Moved by Pratt — seconded by Nielsen to leave in-camera. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Mastel adjourned the meeting at 6:35 pm
MAYOR.
MANAGER OF CORPORATE AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES.
- 14 -
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING #3 I AGENDA ITEM A-3 I FEBRUARY 8, 2010
The Regular Meeting of Council of the City of Camrose was held in Council Chambers, City Hall on Monday, February 8, 2010 with the following persons in attendance:
Council: Mayor C. Mastel; Councillors G. Galenza; I. Nielsen; K. Pratt; W. Throndson; D. Shillington; M. Lindstrand and J. Howard. Absent: Councillor R. Mclsaac. Administration: Manager — B. Hamblin; Manager of Corporate and Protective Services — D. Herle; City Engineer — T. Gillespie; Director of Planning and Development — B. Hisey
Mayor Mastel called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm and Pastor Morris offered a prayer.
A-1 and A-2 ADOPTION OF AGENDA/MINUTES:
Adoption of Agenda MOTION #51/10 Moved by Lindstrand - seconded by Howard that the agenda of Regular Council Meeting #3, dated February 8, 2010, be approved, as circulated. MOTION CARRIED. Adoption of Minutes MOTION #52/10 Moved by Pratt - seconded by Throndson that the minutes of Committee of the Whole Council Meeting held January 25, 2010 be approved, as circulated. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION #53/10 Moved by Nielsen - seconded by Pratt that the minutes of Regular Council Meeting #2 held January 25, 2010 be approved, as circulated. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION #54/10 Moved by Galenza - seconded by Howard that the minutes of Committee of the Whole Council Meeting held February 1, 2010 be approved, as circulated. MOTION CARRIED.
B-1 CITY OF CAMROSE AND CAMROSE COUNTY INTERMUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
City Manager B. Hamblin advised that when the City of Camrose and Camrose County entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with respect to the proposed annexation, that one part of the MOU specified that the City and County would work together on an Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP). The respective Council's appointed Councillors to the 1DP Committee and Stantec was retained as a consultant for the process. Negotiations took place with eventual agreement on the contents of the IDP. The City Manager provided an overview of the IDP and reported that this is the framework of a planning document that will help guide the City and County into the future.
Councillor Throndson, a member of the Committee, advised that the agreement drafted is a win/win situation for both municipalities and that the IDP will require further discussion on each issue that comes up in the future. Councillor Throndson advised that the IDP will assist the City of Camrose in an orderly and logical growth for the future.
-15- Regular Council Meeting #3 February 8, 2010
B-1 CITY OF CAMROSE AND CAMROSE COUNTY INTERMUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: .. continued ..
Councillor Galenza, also an IDP Committee member, reported that this document is a framework to allow further discussions and detailed discussions between the City and County on development matters. He advised that both Council's were determined to work together on the IDP.
Mayor Mastel thanked both the County Council IDP Committee members, as well as the City Council IDP members for their work and commitment on this important initiative.
MOTION #55/10 Moved by Shillington - seconded by Nielsen that City Council approve, in principle, the terms of the draft Intermunicipal Development Plan attached to this report and presented by the City's IDP Committee and that the draft Plan be presented for public consultation. MOTION CARRIED.
B-2 CITY ENGEER - RESIGNATION:
City Manager B. Hamblin advised that City Engineer Ted Gillespie has recently announced his resignation to accept the position of City Manager in Wetaskiwin. Mr. Gillespie was thanked for his dedicated service over the past 29 + years.
MOTION #56/10 Moved by Galenza - seconded by Howard that Council thank City Engineer Ted Gillespie for his 29 years of dedicated service to the City of Camrose. MOTION CARRIED.
B-3 OHATON WATER SYSTEM AND BRAIM WATER AND SEWER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS:
City Engineer T. Gillespie advised that Camrose County has requested that the City maintain the recently constructed water and sanitary utilities in Braim and Ohaton with the Agreement stipulating this be done on the basis of full cost recovery for the provision of the services.
MOTION #57110 Moved by Throndson - seconded by Pratt that Administration be authorized to enter into agreements with Camrose County to supply water and sewer utility maintenance services to the Subdivision of Brain and water utility maintenance services to the Rural Residential of Hamlet of Ohaton. MOTION CARRIED.
B-4 ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD BILL 23 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2009:
Manager of Corporate and Protective Services D. Herle reviewed the changes in structure of the assessment complaint and board composition as a result of the passage of Bill 23.
MOTION #58/10 Moved by Throndson - seconded by Galenza that the Administration prepare bylaw(s) for the composition of a Local Assessment Review Board and a Composite Assessment Review Board and that Option #3 as outlined in this report is supported in principle. MOTION CARRIED. -16- Regular Council Meeting #3 February 8, 2010
B-6 CITY CENTER CAMROSE — BOARD APPOINTMENTS:
Manager of Corporate and Protective Services D. Herle advised that at the January 20/10 board meting of City Center Camrose, four additional members were elected to the CCC Board. Council approval will ratify their appointments.
MOTION #59/10 Moved by Shillington- seconded by Lindstrand that pursuant to Section 6 (Board Membership) of By-Law #2368/03 of the City of Camrose, the following persons be appointed as members to the Board of Directors of City Center Camrose for the terms expiring as indicated: Expiry Date of Term Name of Director December 31, 2012 Kim Clennett December 31, 2012 Linda Conron December 31, 2012 Mark Doberstein December 31, 2012 Michael Wetsch MOTION CARRIED.
B-6 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO LAND USE BY-LAW — PARKING: By-Law #2637/10 B-7 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO LAND USE BY-LAW — FINES AND PENALTIES: By-Law #2638/10 B-8 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO LAND USE BY-LAW — FEES AND CHARGES * Addition of Cash-in-Lieu Parking Fee * Addition of Fines/Penalties (Contravention of any Provision of the Land Use By-Law) * Rescind Policy — Par 2 — Off-Street Parking Requirements in Commercial Districts By-Law #2640/10
Mayor Mastel asked if Council wished to table Agenda Items B-6, B-7 and B-8 as these matters appear to be similar to some of the issues raised with the downtown action plan, wherein legal advice was obtained that members of Council who had business interests in the downtown core had a pecuniary interest. The Administration was requested to obtain legal advice on this matter on behalf of Council.
MOTION #60/10 Moved by Throndson - seconded by Pratt that Agenda Items B-6, B-7 and B-8 be tabled to the March 8th, 2010 Council Meeting.
MOTION CARRIED.
C. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
1) Camrose Fire Department — 2009 Annual Report.
Manager of Corporate and Protective Services D. Herle commented on the 2009 Annual Report. Fire Chief Krich reviewed the report and thanked Council for their support of the Fire Department advising that the Department is busier every year with slightly more calls in 2009 than previous year.
-17- Regular Council Meeting #3 February 8, 2010
On behalf of Council, Mayor Mastel thanked the Fire Department members and the volunteers for their expertise and dedication.
MOTION #61/10 Moved by Shillington - seconded by Throndson that this report be received as information. MOTION CARRIED.
2) Camrose Fire Department — Monthly Report for January, 2010.
MOTION #62/10 Moved by Galenza - seconded by Nielsen that Council accept this report for information purposes. MOTION CARRIED.
3) Building Permit Report for January, 2010.
MOTION #63/10 Moved by Shillington - seconded by Throndson that the Building Permit Report issued during the period January 1, 2010 to January 31, 2010 be received as information. MOTION CARRIED.
4) Camrose and District Support Services — Minutes of December 7109 Meeting.
MOTION #64/10 Moved by Howard - seconded by Galena that the minutes of the Camrose and District Support Services meeting held December 7, 2009 be received as information. MOTION CARRIED.
D. CORRESPONDENCE I INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
1) Letter received January 27, 2010 from Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team — Joint Task Force Afghanistan.
Mayor Mastel adjourned the meeting at 6:20 pm.
MAYOR.
MANAGER OF CORPORATE AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES.
-18- DATE: February 22, 2010 AMFNIDA ITEM # B I TO: Mayor and Councillors
FROM: Brenda Hisey, Director of Planning and Development Services
SUBJECT: By-law #2639/10 - Second and Third reading Proposed Amendments to Land Use By-law #2567/07 1. Amend requirements in issuing Certificates of Conformance, Non- conformance/No Action Certificate. 2. Amend corner lot flankage side yard abutting a roadway. 3. Amend home occupations in a R1 R1L district.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council receives this report for information purposes.
DISCUSSION:
On January 25, 2010, City of Camrose Council gave first reading to By-Law #2639/10. The By- Law amendments represent updates and clarification to the Land Use By-law #2567/07, as identified by the City of Camrose Development Officers:
1. Amending requirements in issuing certificates of conformance/non-conformance/no action certificates. • ■ Deleting Section 3.03 — Non-Conforming Buildings and Uses as this is being addressed in Proposed By-Law #2639/10 Section 3.20 (3). Deleting Section 3.20 — Certifications and Land Use District Requirement Allowances and replacing with 3.20 Compliance with the Land Use By-Law and Variances. - Adding Compliance Request Requirements. (1) Certificate of Conformance. Replaced with Compliance Certificate an update in terminology - (2) Non-Conforming Development. Replaced with Non-Conforming Uses and Buildings which will be dealt with in accordance with the Non- Conforming Use and Non-Conforming Buildings provisions (Section 643) of the Municipal Government Act. No action certificates for developments constructed prior to January 01, 1994 is being deleted as this simply was advising that no remedial action was required at this time however Section 643 of the Municipal Government Act still applied. (3) Measurements. No changes. (4) Special Development Allowance. Replaced with Variances. An update in terminology. (5) Appeals. Deleted as this procedure will be followed as in Part Four — Appeals — Land Use By-Law #2567/07 (attached).
This update is consistent with common practice in Alberta Municipalities and provides compliance to the Municipal Government Act. (Attached -Sections 3.03 and 3.20 of the City of Camrose Land Use By-law #2567/07).
2. Amend corner lot flankage side yard abutting a roadway from 3.5 m to 3 m in residential districts R1, R2, MH1, MH2, SD/H and SDR1 districts. This amendment will provide consistency with other residential land use districts which include R2N, R2NL, R2A, R2B, R3, R3A and R4. 3. An amendment to home occupations will allow a development officer to use his/her discretion in approving a home occupation in a R1 - IR1 L district. There have been no problems with home occupations in the I:21 districts to date; yet this amendment will provide consistency with existing land use districts and process.
Subject to any new information presented at the public hearing, Administration is prepared to recommend second and third reading for this proposed by-law.
SUBMITTED BY:
Brenda Hisey Director of Planning and Development Services
/mfl
Attachments: Bylaw #2639/10 BY-LAW #2639110 OF THE CITY OF CAMROSE
A BY-LAW TO AMEND THE CITY OF CAMROSE LAND USE BY-LAW #2567/07
Pursuant to the Municipal Government Act being Chapter M-26 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta, 2000, as amended, the Municipal Council of the City of Camrose, duly assembled, enacts as follows:
1. That Part Three — Development Permits, Rules and Procedures, Section 3.03 — Non-Conforming Buildings and Uses of the City of Camrose Land Use By-Law #2567/07 be deleted.
2. That Part Three — Development Permits, Rules and Procedures, Section 3.20 — Certifications and Land Use District Requirement Allowances of the City of Camrose Land Use By-Law #2567/07 be deleted and replaced with:
3.20 Compliance with the Land Use By-Law and Variances
(1) Compliance Request - Requirements (a) a written request (b) an Alberta Land Surveyor's Real Property Report (C) the prescribed fee in the City of Camrose Fees and Charges — Planning and Development By-Law, Schedule "A", as may be amended from time to time.
(2) Compliance Certificate The Development officer shall issue a Compliance Certificate in respect of existing residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional development when the subject development complies with the following conditions: (a) Part 6 — Land Use District Requirements and Part 7 — General Conditions, and (b) the development was constructed in compliance with a valid development permit issued by the City, or was constructed prior to a development permit being required by the City, and (c) the Development Appeal Board has not rendered a decision in respect of the subject property that would affect the issuance of a Compliance Certificate.
(3) Non-Conforminq Uses and Buildings (a) Non-conforming uses and buildings shall be dealt with in accordance with the Non- Conforming Use and Non-Conforming Buildings provisions (Section 643) of the Municipal Government Act, as amended from time to time. (b) Notwithstanding Section (3) (a), at the discretion of the Development Officer, minor variances may be approved to non-conforming buildings.
(4) Measurements (a) At the discretion of the Development officer, Real Property Report measurements may be interpreted to one (1) decimal place.
(5) Variances Upon application for a variance on existing or proposed development the Development Officer may, but shall not be obligated to, issue a development permit in respect to Part 6 and/or Part 7 of Land Use By-Law #2567/07, and (a) the proposed development conforms with the general purpose and intent prescribed for that land or building in Land Use By-Law #2567/07, and (b) the maximum variance requested is limited to 25% of regulated values, and (C) the prescribed fee in the City of Camrose Fees and Charges — Planning and Development By-Law, Schedule "A" as may be amended from time to time has been paid. 3. That Part Six — Land Use District Requirements — R1 — R1L (Laneless) Single Family Residential District of the City of Camrose Land Use By-Law #2567/07 be and is hereby amended by: (a) striking out the following: Minimum Yard Requirements — General Corner Lot - 3.5 m flankage on side yard abutting a roadway (except laneways). (b) and replacing with: Minimum Yard Requirements — General Corner Lot - 3 m flankage on side yard abutting a roadway (except laneways).
4. That Part Six — Land Use District Requirements — R2 — R2L (Laneless) Single Family Residential District of the City of Camrose Land Use By-Law #2567/07 be and is hereby amended by: (a) striking out the following: Minimum Yard Requirements — General Corner Lot — 3.5 m flankage on side yard abutting a roadway (except laneways). (c) and replacing with: Minimum Yard Requirements - General Corner Lot — 3 m flankage on side yard abutting a roadway (except laneways).
5. That Part Six — Land Use District Requirements — MH1 — MH1L (Laneless) Mobile Home Subdivision District of the City of Camrose Land Use By-Law #2567107 be and is hereby amended by: (a) striking out the following: Minimum Yard Requirements Corner Lot — 3.5 minimum flankage side yard (b) and replacing with: Minimum Yard Requirements Corner Lot 3 m flankage on side yard abutting a roadway (except laneways).
6. That Part Six — Land Use District Requirements — MH2 — Mobile Home Park District of the City of Camrose Land Use By-Law #2567/07 be and is hereby amended by: (a) striking out the following: Minimum Yard Requirements Corner Lot — 3.5 m minimum flankage side yard (b) and replacing with: Minimum Yard Requirements Corner Lot — 3 m flankage on side yard abutting a roadway (except laneways).
7. That Part Six — Land Use District Requirements — SD/H — Special District/Historical of the City of Camrose Land Use By-Law #2567/07 be and is hereby amended by: (a) striking out the following: Minimum Yard Requirements Corner Lot — 3.5 m minimum flankage width (b) and replacing with: Minimum Yard Requirements Corner Lot — 3 m flankage on side yard abutting a roadway (except laneways).
8. That Part Six — Land Use District Requirements — SDR1 — Special District Residential of the City of Camrose Land Use By-law #2567/07 be and is hereby amended by: (a) striking out the following: Minimum Yard Requirements Corner Lot — 3.5 m minimum flankage width (b) and replacing with: Minimum Yard Requirements Corner Lot — 3 m flankage on side yard abutting a roadway (except laneways). 9. That Part Seven — General Conditions, Section 7.23 Home Occupations of the City of Camrose Land Use By-law #2567/07 be and is hereby amended by: (a) striking out the following: (g) each application to operate home occupations in an R1, R1L district require the approval of City Council; (b) and replacing with: (g) each application to operate home occupations in an R1, R1L district require the approval of City Council at the discretion of the Development Officer.
10. This By-law shall come into force and effect on the date of the final passing thereof.
READ a FIRST time in COUNCIL this 25th day of January, A.D., 2010.
MAYOR
MANAGER OF CORPORATE AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES
READ a SECOND time in COUNCIL this 22nd day of February, A.D. 2010
MAYOR
MANAGER OF CORPORATE AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES
READ a THIRD time and FINALLY PASSED in COUNCIL this 22nd day of February, A.D. 2010.
MAYOR
MANAGER OF CORPORATE AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES Land Use By-Law #2567/07 Page 26
PART FOUR - APPEALS
4.01 Appeal Procedure
(a) An appeal may be made to the Development Appeal Board where the Development Officer:
(1) refuses or fails to issue a development permit within forty (40) days of receipt of the application
(2) issued a development permit with or without conditions
(3) issued an order under Part Five, Section 5.01 of this By-Law. (b) The Development Appeal Board may approve an application for a development permit notwithstanding that the proposed development does not comply with this By-Law, if in the opinion of the Development Appeal Board:
(1) the proposed development would not
(1) unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, or (ii) materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring properties, and
(2) the proposed development does conform with the use prescribed for the land or building in this By-Law.
(c) Any decisions made by the City Council as to use in a Direct Control District, are not subject to Appeal to the Development Appeal Board.
4.02 Public Hearing
(a) Within 30 days of receipt of a notice of appeal accompanied by the fee for appeal referred to in Section 3.12, the Development Appeal Board shall hold a public hearing respecting the appeal.
(b) The Development Appeal Board shall give at least 5 days notice in writing of the public hearing to:
(1) the appellant,
(2) the Development Officer from whose order, decision or development permit the appeal is made,
(3) those registered owners of land in the City who were notified under Part 3, Section 3.10 and any other person who in the opinion of the Development Appeal Board, is affected by the order, decision or permit, and
(c) The Development Appeal Board shall make available for public inspection before commencement of the public hearing all relevant documents and materials respecting the appeal, including: Land Use By-Law #2567/07 Page 17
PART THREE - DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, RULES AND PROCEDURES
3.01 Control of Development
(a) No development other than that designated in Section 3.02 shall be undertaken within the City unless an application for it has been approved and a development permit has been issued.
3.02 Development Not Requiring a Development Permit
The following development shall not require a development permit
(a) The carrying out of works of maintenance or repair to any building, provided that such works do not include structural alterations or major works of renovation.
(b) The completion of a building which was lawfully under construction at the date of the first publication of the official notice required by Section 606(2)(a) of the Act, provided that the building is completed in accordance with the terms of any permit granted in respect of it and subject to the conditions to which such permit was granted and provided, also that the building, whether or not a permit was granted in respect of it, is completed within a period of twelve months from the said date of the first publication of the official notice.
(e) The use of any such buildings as is referred to in Subsection (b) for the purpose for which construction was commenced.
(d) A temporary building, the sole purpose of which is incidentai to the erection or alteration.ota building, for which a permit has been issued under this By-Law.
(e) The maintenance of public works, services and utilities carried out by or on behalf of federal, provincial and municipal public authorities on [and which is publicly owned or controlled.
3.03 Non-Conforming Buildings and Uses
(a) A non-conforming use of land or a non-conforming use of a building may be continued but if that use is discontinued for a period of six (6) consecutive months or more, any future use of the land or building shall conform with the provisions of this By-Law.
(b) A non-conforming use of part of a building may be extended throughout the building but the building, whether or not it is a non-conforming building, shall not be enlarged or added to and no structural alterations shall be made thereto or therein.
(0) A non-conforming use of part of a lot shall not be extended or transferred in whole or in part to any part of the lot and no additional buildings shall be erected upon the lot while the non- conforming use continues.
(d) Where:
(i) on or before the day on which this By-Law or any By-Law for the amendment thereof comes into force, a development permit has been issued, and
(ii) the enactment of the By-Law would render the development in respect of which the permit was issued a non-conforming use of non-conforming building, the development permit continues in effect, notwithstanding the enactment of the By- Law referred to in clause (i) immediately preceding. Land Use By-Law 02567/07 Page 23
3,18 Deemed Refusals
In accordance with Section 684 of the Act, an application fora development permit shall, at the option of the applicant, be deemed to be refused when the decision of the Development Officer or the City Council, as the case may be, is not made within forty (40) days of receipt of the completed application by the Development Officer unless the applicant has entered into an agreement with the development authority to extend the 40-day period.
3.19 Suspension or Cancellation of Development Permit
(a) If, after a development permit has been issued, the Development Officer becomes aware that:
(1) the application for the development permit contains a misrepresentation
(2) facts concerning the applicant or the development were not disclosed which should have been disclosed at the time the application was considered, or
(3) the development permit was issued in error, the Development Officer may suspend or cancel the Notice of Decision or the development permit by notice, in writing, to the holder of it.
(b) if a person fails to comply with a notice under Section 645 of the Act, the Development Officer or City Council may suspend or cancel any existing development permit by notice, in writing, to the holder of it.
(c) a person whose development permit is suspended or cancelled under this section may appeal to the Development Appeal Board.
3.20 Certifications and Land Use District Requirement Allowances:
(1) Certificate of Conformance Upon receipt of written application and a real property report, the Development Officer shall issue a Certificate of Conformance in respect of existing residential, commercial or industrial development when the subject development complies with the following conditions:
(a) Part 6 - Land Use District Requirements and Part 7 - General Conditions, and
(b) the development was constructed in compliance with a valid development permit issued by the City, or was constructed prior to a development permit being required by the City, and
(c) the Development Appeal Board has not rendered a decision in respect of the subject property that would affect the issuance of a Conformance Certificate, and
(d) the application fee prescribed in Bylaw 2446/05, as amended, has been paid. DATE: February 22, 2010 AGENDA ITEM # II TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Engineering Department
SUBJECT: Rate Increase for Collection and Disposal of Residential Refuse
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council give three readings to Bylaw 2641/10, amending the monthly fee for collection and disposal of solid waste and refuse from residential properties effective April 1$t, 2010, in conjunction with local advertising of the increase.
DISCUSSION:
Residential waste collection is a contracted service managed by the Engineering Services Department. Under the Waste Collection and Disposal Bylaw this service is only offered to single family dwelling units up to and including four-plexes. Higher density dwelling units and all commercial, industrial, and institutional properties must contract their waste collection services directly with waste haulers.
The current residential contract with Waste Services Inc. was due to expire at the end of March of 2010. At the January 25th meeting of Council, approval was given to a 6 month extension in order to provide time for proposed improvements to the program and tendering of the new contract. Under this extension a collection rate increase of 2% ($0.10/month per dwelling unit) was approved.
The waste disposal facility is under the direction of the Camrose Regional Solid Waste Authority, administered through the City of Camrose Engineering Services Department.
The landfill operations are also a contracted service, currently with Maplethorpe Contractors Ltd. The Solid Waste Authority increased the tipping fee by one dollar to $32.50 per tonne. The 2010 rate increase will be 3% ($0.09/month per dwelling unit).
The Engineering Department recommends that Council give three readings to Bylaw 2641/10, amending the monthly fee for collection and disposal of solid waste and refuse from residential properties effective April 1st, 2010, in conjunction with local advertising of the increase.
PREPARED BY:
Mark Barrett, C.E.T., Director, Engineering Services
MB/ BY-LAW #2641/10 OF THE CITY OF CAMROSE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA
A BY-LAW TO PROVIDE FOR A SCHEDULE OF RATES FOR THE COLLECTION, REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE AND REFUSE FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
WHEREAS pursuant to the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26 and amendments thereto, authorizes a Council to pass By-Laws for the purpose of regulating, controlling and maintaining a system and a schedule of the rates for collection, removal and disposal of solid waste and refuse within the City of Camrose;
AND WHEREAS it is deemed necessary and expedient by Council of the City to pass a By-Law to establish rates for the collection and disposal of solid waste and refuse from all residential properties within the City, as defined in The Waste Collection and Disposal By-Law #2197/00.
NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of the City of Camrose, duly assembled, enacts as follows:
1. That the following rates for the collection of residential solid waste and refuse be established.
RESIDENTIAL REFUSE RATES
Collection Fee $5.51 per month
Disposal Fee $ 3.03 per month
Total Fees $ 8.54 per month
PENALTY FEES - PAST DUE ACCOUNTS
A penalty charge of one and one half percent (1 %%) per month on the total amount remaining unpaid after the due date, shall be added to all utility bill accounts at the close of the business on the due date.
2. This By-Law shall take effect on the 1s` day of April 2010 and that By-Law #2608/08 be rescinded on March 31, 2010.
READ a FIRST time in COUNCIL this 22nd day of February, A.D., 2010.
READ a SECOND time in COUNCIL this 22nd day of February, A.D., 2010.
READ a THIRD time in COUNCIL and FINALLY PASSED this 22nd day of February, A.D., 2010.
MAYOR
MANAGER of CORPORATE and PROTECTIVE SERVICES AGENDA ITEM # B 3
To: Mayor and Council February 22, 2010.
From: Brian Hamblin, City Manager.
Subject: 2010 Provincial Budget.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Administration prepare a report to City Council recommending the necessary reductions to the City of Camrose 2010 Operating Budget arising from the 2010 Provincial Budget to implement Council's direction of no increase in the total municipal tax requisition other than the increase resulting from assessment growth; and
That the 2010-14 Capital Budget be revised to incorporate the capital budget allocations included in the 2010 Provincial Budget.
BACKGROUND:
The Government of Alberta delivered its 2010 Budget on February 9, 2010 themed on `Striking the Right Balance'. Attached to this report are News Releases from the Government of Alberta entitled "Budget 2010 strikes the right balance by focusing on Albertans' priorities while limiting spending" , "$7.2 billion for Alberta capital projects this year" and "Building strong and vibrant communities". Further detailed information is available on the Government of Alberta web site.
The Alberta Urban Municipalities Association prepared the attached 2010 Provincial Budget Preliminary Analysis and also issued media releases entitled 'Increased Education Taxes Erodes Municipalities' Capacity to Meet Community Needs" and "AUMA concerned about streamlined municipal grants, amalgamation of key funding programs".
The purpose of this report is to provide some information on the effects of the 2010 Provincial Bdget on the City of Camrose.
DISCUSSION:
The Government of Alberta is commended for delivering an early provincial budget which assists the City of Camrose in project planning and accurately finalizing the five year capital budget. The Government had a challenging budget to deliver as recognized by the theme of Striking the Right Balance. The 2010 Provincial Budget impacts Camrose's operating and capital budgets. Another significant effect is the increase in education property tax requisitions.
Education taxes
Property taxes in the City of Camrose include a component for both the City and also education. Through the budget process, City Council has some control over the municipal portion of property taxes. City Council approved a 2010 operating budget which will not require an increase in taxation over the amount provided for through increased growth in assessment. The education property tax requisition is set by the Government of Alberta. In fiscal 2010-11 the revenue requirement for education property taxes increases by $69 million (or 4%) to $1.7901 billion. As a result, the City of Camrose will see an additional $330,000 in education property taxes due to this requirement. In other words, even with no increase in the municipal requisition total (municipal and education) property taxes will increase in Camrose.
Operating budget
Another impact of the 2010 Budget is on the City's operating budget. Some examples are:
-elimination of the unconditional municipal operating grant is a loss of $143,000 in revenue
-Municipal Sustainability Initiative operating funding remains stable on a provincial basis at $50 million. The City of Camrose's allocation has decreased by $8706 to $237,846.
-Senior Lodge assistance funding has increased provincially by 10.3% which should reduce pressure on municipal requisitions to fund lodge authorities
- In 2010-11 the Camrose Police Service has been approved for funding of $100,000 for a new police officer subject to compliance with certain conditions. The Province has advised the City of Camrose the Prisoner Holding Agreement has expired and will not be renewed beyond the past calendar year with the final payment on December 31, 2009. This non renewal of the Prisoner Holding Agreement is a loss of $61,700 in revenue. Municipal Policing Assistance Grants remain unchanged.
Capital impacts
The City of Camrose receives significant support from the Province of Alberta for capital projects. Some comments concerning the Alberta Budget 2010 implications for capital:
-the ongoing provincial commitment to MSI is welcome news. The City of Camrose will be eligible for $2,964,808 from MS1 capital in 2010. Based on the total MSI capital projected in the 2009 provincial budget the City's allocation was estimated to be $4,146,542. The Manager of Financial Services has prepared a comparison of MSI capital allocations based on the recent 2010 Alberta budget and last year's 2009 Alberta budget.
-the AMIP grant program ends this year. Amounts from AMIP have been moved over to the MSI capital grant. AMIP was distributed on a population basis. Allocation of MSI capital is based upon a formula of 48% population, 48% assessment and 4% kilometers of roads. A per capita formula is more beneficial to the City of Camrose.
-the budget line for the Basic Capital Grant has been reduced by 41.1%. Clarification has been received from Alberta Transportation that the formulas for calculating the amounts payable to urban municipalities under the programs in 2010-11 remain the same with no change from 2009-10. The apparent reduction in 2010-11 is due to an overlap between municipal fiscal years and the province's fiscal year.
-the Municipal Water Wastewater Program/ Water for Life grant has been reduced by 57.2 %. This grant will be required for the planned Wastewater Treatment facility.
-affordable housing program capital funding has been reduced by 53.6% though the effects on Camrose are not yet known. -the Municipal Sponsorship Program grant has been eliminated and the City received about $125,000 from this grant in 2009.
Budgetary Implications
The 2010 Provincial budget affects the City of Camrose's operating and capital budgets. Respecting operating, the direction from Council was to utilize assessment growth to offset pressure on the tax rate to deliver a 'zero' budget. Administration will provide a report on options to offset the reductions in revenue resulting from the 2010 Provincial budget. City Council approved the 2010 capital budget and Administration is finalizing the 2011-14 capital budget for Council's review. Changes resulting from the 2010 Alberta budget will be incorporated into the 2010-14 Capital Budget and presented to City Council.
City Council had also tabled a decision on a new City Hall until after delivery of the Alberta 2010 budget. That matter could be considered during presentation of the 2010- 14 Capital budget.
Summary:
This report provides information on impacts of the 2010 Alberta budget on the City of Camrose. Education property taxes in Camrose will increase by approximately $330,000 as a result of the 2010 Provincial budget. Administration will adjust the City operating budget and present a report for Council's approval on adjustments to accommodate the reduced municipal operating funding from the Province of Alberta. The 2010-14 Capital budget will be finalized based on the capital funding known as a result of the 2010 Provincial budget. When the 2010 City operating budget was prepared, Council had directed the budget to be prepared on the basis of not increasing the total amount of municipal taxes other than the increase arising from growth in assessment. Council may affirm that adjustments be made on this basis or provide alternate direction on the preparation of the operating or capital budget.
SUBMITTED BY:
Brian Hamblin, City Manager.
RIC.2010ProvBudget.Feb22,2010.doc 2010 PROVINCIAL BUDGET
2010 PROVINCIAL BUDGET
• 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total MSI Capital 250,000,000 452,022,388 350,000,000 826,000,000 886,000,000 928,000,000
City of Camrose 792,792 1,629,852 1,232,541 2,964,808 3,180,169 3,330,922
0.317% 0.361% 0.352% 0.359% 0.359% 0.359% Actual Actual Actual Actual Est. at same % Est. at same %
2009 PROVINCIAL BUDGET
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total MSI Capital 250,000,000 452,022,388 350,000,000 1,150,000,000 1,237,000,000
City of Camrose 792,792 1,629,852 1,261,991 4,146,542 4,460,237
0.317% 0.361% 0.361% 0.361% 0.361% Actual Actual Est. at same % Est. at same % Est. at same % Government of Alberta ■ 2010 Municipal Sustainability Initiative Allocations
Municipality 2010 Capital 2010 Operating Total 2010 MSI Funding Funding Funding Total • 826,000,000 50,000,000 . 876,000,000 4;72 _ Cities •.7 ,....1!(..keSp1:44-04WFW F,1.,,4141.311'-4'eV,I 1417i "rietlYbr4 • BROOKS 2,336,762 189,743 2,526,505 1,4:31• -..;•YAA••••• •• 4-.frqr..Leivki,`? •.t.ra CAMROSE ,'! 2,964,808 237,846 3,202,654 ■• . ‘4•• !..„! • EL EDMONTON - .. 161,481,601 0 161,481,601 tA3 -6M; "Irel•V4Mt„'",' --Tsse--41 GRANDE PRAIRIE 9,642,081 749,269 10,391,350 4 '.2••••• 0 :rk.% LETHBRIDGE 14,556,659 1,125,685 15,682,344 1 - .,7g , f:4...refi14 azr aid 21 • @ _ •S; • MEDICINE HAT 10,774,846 836,030 11,610,876 •". •!qL 1 7 f- - 4 •11V.I's1C4:0f51;''•-• . ;.r.•••• %0 1 SPRUCE GROVE 4,121,428 326,433 4,447,861 40,41,1P° 01. WETASKIWIN 2,075,965 169,769
, , I'lk &s..-Mg••,e004;ttP1. •;.. • ATHABASCA 550,254 , 52,912 603,166 •• •"4-- , ; 'VW.. •-••: r •-"ifie rlir:r!ipc ea? r" 4.t • " J•tV r- BARRHEAD 765,965 192,876 958,841 ; ) nt, jt. ik X. '''"1••;;;`-' BASSANO 307,277 423,110 „a4 •e'r.als.• 2 , , .P.S.0 4 •Pot.11.' P7a^ii,:••= •rti• ."5.1 ' BEAVERLODGE -v- 466,423 112,889 579,312 4 - , -••••, .. 60••• •,c AN:4! • - t14. - „lir'.:74rM-44445 ;ire Ar ...,1d••. l• iBLACK DIAMOND 480,155 47,542 527,697 4 fps - , 4=1 11744 rte. F iRM*3 BON ACCORD 332,480 . 413,701 ; 40•WMP kW, • ...•• •••'.7 ya G L . 7-0 .4.11•-44r, 6,1a.•■ ••••.• •- v., ir sZ.4( ■;‘, BOW ISLAND 372,508 258,437 630,945 4 iliikAT ,,411,t'f..-kff.t013.0; 1 Wyre,, rti: 1 4 BRUDERHEIM 286,443 32,705 319,148 4 ..","'-■;•••, 4k1A-71"*"4.- Aoif •>•. V•4 1.14, CANMORE 4,525,675 357,395 4,883,070 N ti , CARSTAI RS 552,588 53,090 605,678 11r4-••' k- tffit5Y.:;er re *•.~141(.3441F`, CHESTERMERE 2,187,786 2,366,118 •111-,„ MIR ;St •.■.•`f '115 1COALDALE 1,134,226 301,263 1,435,489 i1,0*.t11104-"„10..V.- )04- COCHRANE 3,164,870 253,169 3,418,039
1.7q-r i 4g•i" °"411A-• ---hl'" CROSSFIELD 591,450 56,066 647,516 't -,, - - A 1k r C: tilf0hn,t(c2 DAYSLAND 218,744 75,501 294,245 c...7`.• • , 4 ° 044fr. F=11E141BM:ar,
February 9, 2010 Page 1 Budget 2010 strikes the right balance by focusing on Albertans' priorities while limiting s... Page 1 of 4
Government of Alberta ■ News release The Way • BUDGET 2010 Forward srfikmg the Pight SWarice
February 9, 2010
Budget 2010 strikes the right balance by focusing on Albertans' priorities while limiting spending
Health, education and vulnerable Albertans remain budget priorities
Budget highlights:
• $1.3 billion in savings found through cross-ministry spending review • Cost savings re-invested in and new money added to priority areas: o $1.7-billion increase for ongoing health programs; AHS deficit paid off o $250-million increase for school boards o Benefit levels maintained for recipients of Alberta Seniors Benefit and Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped o Funding remains at $597 million for Persons with Developmental Disabilities program • Alberta's competitive advantage supported and enhanced: o $20.1-billion investment in infrastructure over three years o No tax increases; taxes remain lowest overall in Canada • $38.7 billion forecast total expense in 2010-11; $34.0 billion forecast revenue in 2010-11 • $4.7-billion deficit forecast for 2010-11; $505-million surplus forecast in 2012-13 • Savings in Sustainability Fund used to offset deficits
Edmonton... Budget 2010 sets the stage for putting Alberta back in the black in three years while protecting health care and other priorities and holding the line on taxes.
Despite current fiscal challenges, the Alberta government will increase funding for health, basic education and supports for seniors and vulnerable Albertans, while maintaining the lowest tax regime in Canada. This is thanks in large part to cost savings found across government that are being reinvested in these priority areas.
"This government understands the value Albertans place on health care, education, and protecting our most vulnerable," said Premier Ed Stelmach. "Our improved fiscal and economic outlook means we can continue to support these priorities while tightening our spending elsewhere."
http://alberta.ca/acn/201002/27800B4A406EB-A356-7E61-4302D1F5162E55A2.html 16-Feb-10 Budget 2010 strikes the right balance by focusing on Albertans' priorities while limiting s... Page 2 of 4
As part of plans to balance the budget by 2012-13, a detailed review of ministry spending was undertaken and $1.3 billion in savings were identified. In light of an improved revenue picture, government was able to re-invest these savings into priority areas, without jeopardizing its goal to return to balanced budgets within three years.
"Some will say we're spending too much; others will say we're not spending enough," said Ted Morton, Minister of Finance and Enterprise. "Budget 2010 strikes the right balance between fiscal discipline and protecting core programs. It enhances our competitiveness by keeping taxes low and investing in infrastructure for the future, and positions us to be back in the black within three years."
Economy Spurred by strengthening investment, particularly in the oil sands, Alberta's economy is expected to grow by 2.6 per cent in 2010, followed by growth of 2.9 per cent in 2011, 3.0 per cent in 2012, and 3.1 per cent in 2013. The labour outlook is also expected to improve, with an increase in average employment of 15,000 jobs this year over last year and an unemployment rate forecast to average 6.6 per cent in 2010, falling to 6 per cent in 2011, 5.3 per cent in 2012, and 4.9 per cent in 2013.
Operating Expense Operating expense is forecast to increase by 5.6 per cent, or $1.7 billion, to $33.2 billion in 2010-11. This includes a one-time payment of $759 million to pay off the remainder of the Alberta Health Services deficit. When that payment is factored out, operating expense increases by 4.3 per cent, somewhat more than population growth and inflation which total 3.5 per cent.
The operating expense increase includes $1.3 billion to Alberta Health Services base funding. This includes an $812-million adjustment to the AHS base to reflect current costs, plus a 6-per- cent increase to the adjusted base - part of a five-year commitment between the government and Alberta Health Services that includes 6-per-cent increases in 2011-12 and 2012-13, and 4.5-per-cent increases in the two years after that.
Increases to basic education and supports for seniors and the vulnerable are offset by savings and efficiencies found in other areas of government.
Capital Spending The 2010-13 Capital Plan supports $20.1 billion in capital projects, including $7.2 billion in 2010-11. The government's commitment to previously announced projects remains firm, although total spending over the next three years is reduced due to lower construction costs and re-profiling. This investment in infrastructure, which is nearly double the per capita average of other provinces, will support about 70,000 jobs this year.
Revenue Total revenue in 2010-11 is forecast to increase by $423 million from the previous year to $34.0 billion, an increase of 1.3 per cent. Revenue is forecast to continue to rise as economic recovery takes hold, increasing to $37.3 billion in 2011-12, and $40.2 billion in 2012-13.
Resource revenue is forecast to increase by $1.3 billion, or 21.7 per cent, to $7.3 billion in 2010-11, and grow to $9.3 billion by 2011-12 and $10.4 billion by 2012-13. The global economic recovery is expected to increase prices and demand for oil, and natural gas prices http://alberta.ca/acn/201002/27800B4A406EB-A356-7E61-4302D1F5162E55A2.httn1 16-Feb-10 Budget 2010 strikes the right balance by focusing on Albertans' priorities while limiting s... Page 3 of 4 are expected to be boosted by an improved North American economy, although higher supplies from U.S. shale gas development and liquefied natural gas imports are likely to limit any increases.
Deficit Budget 2010 forecasts a deficit of $4.7 billion for 2010-11. The deficit for 2011-12 is forecast to be $1.1 billion, with a return to a balanced budget and a modest surplus of $505 million for 2012-13. The deficits will be offset by transfers from the Sustainability Fund, as will the forecast deficit of $3.6 billon for 2009-10.
The Sustainability Fund is savings set aside to manage revenue volatility and protect priority programs during economic downturns. Government will resume deposits to the fund when it returns to surpluses.
Fiscal Summary (millions of dollars)
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Actual Forecast Budget Target Target Revenue 35,811 33,541 33,964 37,302 40,239 Expense 36,663 37,165 38,712 38,437 39,734 Surplus / (852) (3,624) (4,748) (1,135) 505 (deficit)
Forecast Energy Prices
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2011-12 Forecast Estimate Target Target Oil (WTI US$/bbl) 69.95 _ 78.75 83.50 89.50 Natural Gas (Cdn$/GJ) 3.40 4.25 5.25 5.50
-30-
Attachments:
• New 5-year funding plan a first for health • Creating opportunity for Albertans • Building strong and vibrant communities • $7.2 billion for Alberta capital projects this year • Supporting responsible resource development • Budget summary by ministry
Media inquiries may be directed to: Bart Johnson Director of Communications Alberta Finance and Enterprise 780-427-5364
To call toll free within Alberta dial 310-0000. http://alberta.ca/acn/201002/27800B4A406EB-A356-7E61-4302D1F5162E55A2.html 16-Feb-10 Budget 2010 strikes the right balance by focusing on Albertans' priorities while limiting s... Page 4 of 4
Alberta Government I Newsroom I Ministries Listing I Finance and Enterprise Home Page I News Releases I Top of Page I
Send us your comments or questions
Copyright(0) 2010 Government of Alberta
lip SHARE •
http://alberta.ca/acn/201002/27800B4A406EB-A356-7E61-4302D1F5162E55A2.html 16-Feb-10
Government of Alberta ■ News release The Way T_ 201 0 Forward ■ Striking the Right Balance
February 9, 2010 $7.2 billion for Alberta capital projects this year Continued investment in communities, roads, health facilities and schools supports core public services and economic growth
2010-13 Capital Plan Highlights • $20.1 billion total over three years, average of $6.7 billion annually • $5.7 billion for provincial highways • $5.2 billion to support municipal infrastructure • $2.5 billion for health facilities and equipment • $2 billion for schools and post-secondary facilities • $799 million for affordable housing and homelessness initiatives • $3.9 billion for water infrastructure, community and government facilities and climate change initiatives
Edmonton...The Government of Alberta plans to invest $20.1 billion in infrastructure to support core public services and help propel the economy back to a position of strength with its three-year Capital Plan.
In 2010, the government will invest $7.2 billion in roads, schools, hospitals and other public infrastructure, the second-highest budgeted level ever. Alberta's per capita infrastructure investment remains about 75 per cent higher than the per capita average of other provinces.
"This continuing level of investment in infrastructure will help keep Albertans working and provide the core public services that are important to maintaining a high quality of life," said Treasury Board President Lloyd Snelgrove. "As the economy recovers and the province grows, Albertans can be assured that the facilities and services will be in place to meet their needs."
While the 2010-13 Capital Plan is $3.1 billion lower than the 2009-12 Capital Plan, the government is keeping its commitment to all approved programs. Lower construction costs, some reprofiling and a continued disciplined spending approach will allow approved projects to move forward.
Available online at www.treasurvboard.alberta.ca/CapitalPlanning.cfm, the Capital Plan compares spending levels with past capital plans, highlights major accomplishments from 2009-10, and notes capital financing arrangements. Key areas of investment include:
Climate change initiatives The Capital Plan includes nearly $1.3 billion toward fulfilling Alberta's commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and their intensity and to promote efficient energy production. This includes a total of $500 million for Carbon Capture and Storage and $470 million for the Green Transit Incentives Program (GreenTR1P) over the next three years. Provincial highway network A major investment of $5.7 billion in Alberta's roadways will contribute to economic growth, connect communities and enable the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. This investment and ongoing paving and rehabilitation work on highways throughout the province will increase Alberta's competitiveness in domestic and international markets.
Government will continue to develop its important strategic economic corridors, such as ring-road links in Edmonton and Calgary, connections between major urban centres and high-growth industrial areas, and resource roads throughout the province.
The northwest segment of the Edmonton Anthony Henday ring road will be completed in fall 2011 and significant progress is planned for the southeast Calgary Stoney Trail ring road, projected to be completed in 2013. Residents of the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo can look forward to the completion of the Thickwood Boulevard and Confederation Way interchanges on Highway 63, the new five-lane bridge structure over the Athabasca River and continued twinning of portions of Highway 63.
Municipal infrastructure support Municipalities will receive $5.2 billion for the development of public infrastructure to maintain a high quality of life for Albertans.
The Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI) will provide capital grants worth $2.5 billion for core municipal infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and public transit, with some funding reprofiled to future years of the program.
Health facilities and equipment Heath capital will receive $2.5 billion, including funding for maintenance and renewal of existing facilities, information systems, vaccines and diagnostic and medical equipment.
Alberta Health Services (AHS) recently completed a comprehensive review of capital spending plans for the next three years. The Alberta government is reviewing the proposed plans in consultation with AHS to ensure the right services are provided in the right facilities.
Schools An investment of $985 million for school infrastructure will ensure educational facilities are ready for continued growth and changing demographics. This includes building new facilities, providing modular classrooms and expanding and maintaining existing facilities as required, to ensure students are educated in safe, well-maintained schools.
The 2010-13 Capital Plan for school infrastructure will see the completion of 48 new and replacement schools throughout the province to accommodate over 30,000 students. This includes completion of schools under phases one and two of the Alberta Schools Alternative Procurement (ASAP) project.
Post-secondary facilities Colleges, universities and other post-secondary learning facilities play a key role in strengthening the workforce and providing the skills that will be required to compete in the 21st century. They also help ensure the success of the province's program to expand its research and technology sector, which will be a key driver of the economy for years to come.
An allocation of $974 million will create space at post-secondary facilities for an addition of more than 15,000 learners in high-demand programs. Housing Housing programs will receive $799 million over three years to increase the supply of affordable and barrier-free housing to address demand, provide housing to help reduce homelessness, and provide accommodation options to low- and moderate-income seniors and persons with disabilities.
Capital funding for housing will help deliver on government's Budget 2007 goal of developing more than 11,000 affordable housing units by 2012 through various grant programs.
Community facilities Support totaling $331 million will go to community facilities to maintain a culturally vibrant province, strengthen communities and promote tourism. These facilities include buildings used by non-profit groups and foundations for various purposes, as well as museums, historic sites, provincial parks and indoor and outdoor recreation centres.
Water and wastewater The effective management of water resources is vital to providing reliable, good quality supplies for communities, ecosystems and the economy. An investment of $709 million for water infrastructure will maintain funding for initiatives that ensure Albertans continue to have access to a safe and secure water supply year after year.
Regional water and wastewater treatment projects throughout the province will continue to support the Water for Life strategy. Municipalities will also continue to receive grants under the Alberta Municipal Water/Wastewater Program.
Government facilities, equipment and other capital The three-year support for government facilities, equipment and other capital totals $2.8 billion. This covers a broad range of activities, from building government-owned facilities to purchasing information technology for government departments and agencies and investments in environmental initiatives.
Major government facility projects include construction of the new Edmonton Remand Centre and the completion of the Federal Building refurbishment, Centennial Plaza and parkade on the Legislature Grounds by 2012.
-30- Media inquiries may be directed to: Gerald Kastendieck, Treasury Board 780-427-6699 Kim Capstick, Advanced Education and Technology 780-422-1562 Parker Hogan, Culture and Community Spirit 780-427-2395 Kathy Telfer, Education 780-427-5423 Mark Cooper, Environment 780-427-2848 Andy Weiler, Health and Wellness 780-427-5344 Barbra Korol, Housing and Urban Affairs 780-644-6838 Jody Korchinski, Infrastructure 780 644-8596 Donna Babchishin, Municipal Affairs 780-415-4758 Michael Shields, Seniors and Community Supports 780-644-1108 Anne Douglas, Tourism, Parks and Recreation 780-427-8761 Tammy Forbes, Transportation 780-415-1841
To call toll-free within Alberta dial 310-0000.
Government of Alberta ■ News release The Way BUDGET_ 201 0 Forward ■ Striking the Right Balance
February 9, 2010 Building strong and vibrant communities Priorities include vulnerable Albertans, safe communities and support for municipalities
Budget highlights: • Almost $2 billion to support seniors and persons with disabilities ■ Includes $50 million for 500 new affordable supportive living spaces • $1.1 billion to support children, youth and families • $148 million for Safe Communities initiative ■ Includes $10 million to add 100 front-line police officers • $300 million over three years to help create 2,700 housing units for the homeless • $285 million over three years to fulfill the province's commitment to create 11,000 affordable housing units by 2012 • $580 million for Albertans who require financial assistance • $1.77 billion for municipal infrastructure; $6.26 billion over three years • $290 million in direct operating support to municipalities for services that promote strong communities • $118 million for First Nations Development Fund
Edmonton... Budget 2010 represents a continued focus on promoting strong and vibrant communities and reducing crime. Budget priorities include support for vulnerable Albertans, safe communities, municipalities and ending homelessness.
Assisting seniors and Albertans with disabilities Budget 2010 provides almost $2 billion for programs to assist seniors and persons with disabilities, including a $43-million overall increase to maintain benefit levels and help address projected caseload growth.
"This budget reflects our ongoing commitment to assisting vulnerable Albertans, and they remain a priority for this government," said Mary Anne Jablonski, Minister of Seniors and Community Supports. "We will continue to focus on supporting the independence and well-being of seniors and persons with disabilities who are most in need."
Funding highlights include: • an $18-million increase to $733 million for the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (AISH) program, which will maintain the maximum monthly benefit of $1,188 and the $350 average monthly health benefit for approximately 40,000 clients; • funding remains at $597 million for the Persons with Developmental Disabilities program, which supports about 9,200 Albertans, most of whom also receive AISH benefits; and • a $14-million increase for the Alberta Seniors Benefit program to more than $326 million, which will maintain the maximum monthly benefits at $280 for singles and $420 for couples, and address expected increased caseloads. The budget also includes $50 million to help develop 500 new affordable supportive living spaces in support of the government's Continuing Care Strategy.
Supporting at-risk children, youth and families More than $1.1 billion will be invested in services and programs to support children, youth and families. This includes: • $545 million for child protection, family enhancement and foster care support; • $120 million to support families with children with disabilities; and • $198 million for child care, including $15 million in capital grants to support the continued creation of new child care spaces.
"As Minister, I want to assure Albertans that my ministry will continue to deliver the core supports and services that matter most," said Yvonne Fritz, Minister of Children and Youth Services. "We are committed to do all we can to make a meaningful difference in the lives of the children, youth and families we serve."
Funding levels will be maintained or slightly increased for foster care support, women's emergency shelters, sexual assault centres, youth shelters, protection of sexually exploited children, supports for those living with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, and Family and Community Support Services. Support for families with children with disabilities will increase by $5 million to nearly $120 million.
The Alberta government will continue to improve access to quality and affordable child care, following through on a commitment to add 14,000 new child care spaces by 2011. It will also continue to provide wage top-ups to assist in recruitment and retention of child care staff, and maintain rates and eligibility for child care subsidies to support about 17,000 low- and middle-income families.
Safe communities Alberta's Safe Communities initiative will receive $148 million for 2010-11, bolstering work to address the areas of prevention, enforcement and treatment. Major steps forward in 2010 will be the completion of the Alberta gang strategy and the long-term crime reduction strategy.
"Our two main strategies will not only provide us with a blueprint that will combat gangs and organized crime, but also assist us in developing real solutions to the root causes of crime," said Alison Redford, Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
Safe Communities funding includes $10 million for the hiring of 100 additional front-line police officers this year, which fulfills a commitment to add 300 new officers over three years.
"Albertans will continue to see initiatives that help reduce and prevent crime, such as boosting the ranks of front-line policing," said Frank Oberle, Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security. "This infusion of new police resources sends a clear message to criminals and gang members that we will continue to make it difficult for them to conduct their activities in our province."
Additional Safe Communities measures include more comprehensive bail hearings and sentencing information for prolific offenders, providing services for families at risk and housing for homeless individuals with mental illness and addictions. Mental health services will be enhanced in provincial correctional facilities and another $33 million is included in the 2010-13 Capital Plan to build additional addiction treatment facilities.
Homelessness and affordable housing Progress on Alberta's 10-year plan to end homelessness continues with $100 million invested in 2010-11 and $300 million over three years to help create 2,700 housing units for the homeless. Another $83 million in operating support in 2010-11 will fund about 3,600 emergency or transitional shelter spaces and will also provide 1,300 homeless Albertans with outreach support services. The Alberta government will also fulfill its commitment to help create 11,000 new affordable housing units by 2011-12, with $88 million in capital funding this fiscal year and $285 million over three years. As well, $46 million will be provided in 2010-11 for capital maintenance and renewal. Operating support is budgeted at $128 million in 2010-11. Approximately 80,000 low-income Albertans will receive rental assistance.
Helping unemployed Albertans Budget 2010 includes more than $580 million in 2010-11 for Albertans who require financial assistance. This is a $108-million increase from last year's budget, and a $47-million decrease from the 2009-10 forecast. As the provincial economy improves, it is expected fewer Albertans will require assistance as more jobs become available.
"During the recession, some Albertans require assistance while looking for another job," said Thomas Lukaszuk, Minister of Employment and Immigration. "We will continue to provide financial support and health benefits to Albertans and will work to connect them with employment and training so they can get back on their feet."
Financial supports cover basic living and housing costs, as well as child care. Health benefits cover items like prescription drugs, dental care and eye exams.
Building stronger municipalities Municipalities will receive capital infrastructure grants and support totaling $1.77 billion in 2010-11 and $5.25 billion over three years. This includes $826 million in capital funding from the Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI), a $476-million increase over last year, and $2.54 billion in MSI capital funding over three years.
This funding allows local governments to make decisions that meet the needs of their communities and it supports projects such as roads, recreation facilities, water treatment plants, and libraries. Two programs that have some overlap with the Municipal Sustainability Initiative are being discontinued this year: the Municipal Sponsorship Program and the Unconditional Municipal Grant Program.
"As the Premier has said, Alberta plans to emerge from the global recession in the strongest financial position of any province," said Hector Goudreau, Minister of Municipal Affairs. "Strong municipalities are vital to that outcome, and our government has worked across ministries to ensure that overall support for municipalities is maintained."
Supporting Aboriginal communities More than $2.25 million in 2010-11 will be allocated to Aboriginal economic development to promote strong and vibrant communities. In addition, revenue from government-owned slot machines in First Nations casinos that flows through to the First Nations Development Fund is expected to be $118 million in 2010-11, an $8-million increase from 2009-10. This funding supports economic, social and community development projects in First Nation communities, such as construction of community halls and housing, and business start-up and expansion initiatives.
-30-
Media inquiries may be directed to: Michael Shields, Seniors and Community Supports 780-415-9950 Trevor Coulombe, Children and Youth Services 780-451-6490 Jay O'Neill, Justice and Attorney General 780-427-6154 Sharon Lopatka, Solicitor General and Public Security 780-427-6153 Barbra Karol, Housing and Urban Affairs 780-644-6838 Janice Schroeder, Employment and Immigration 780-427-5649 Donna Babchishin, Municipal Affairs 780-415-4758 Marie Iwanow, Aboriginal Relations 780-644-6829
To call toll-free within Alberta dial 310-0000. 2010 Provincial Budget Preliminary Analysis
Prepared by: AUMA Prepared on: February 10, 2010
The Government of Alberta announced its 2010 Provincial Budget on Tuesday, February 9, 2010. What follows is a preliminary analysis of the 2010 Alberta Budget, and potential implications for municipalities.
With regard to Budget 2010 as a whole, the following items are notable: 1. The Province is now showing a $4.7B deficit, and the Provincial Sustainability Fund has now decreased substantially. If the economy fails to turn around, municipalities could face larger challenges in the long- term. 2. The Government of Alberta is cutting the number of civil servants by 1500 employees. The key Ministries that are affected are: Advanced Education, Children's Services, Health and Wellness, Service Alberta, Sustainable Resources Development. 3. The Capital Plan shows a total of $7.2B being spent as follows:
2010-11 estimate Category (millions of dollars) Municipal Infrastructure Support $1776 Provincial highway network $1866 Health facilities and equipment $802 Schools $516 Post-secondary facilities $578 Community facilities $118 Water and wastewater management $167 Housing $352 Government facilities/other capital $1033 Total $7208
Positive notes for Alberta municipal governments: 1. Commitments made regarding the Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI) have been fulfilled. The total amount allocated to the MSI in 2010 is $876M, ($826M in capital grants and $50M in operating grants). The full transition from the Alberta Municipal Infrastructure Program (AMIP) into the Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI) did not result in a reduction of the total amount of these large transfers to municipal governments. While the MSI is still not at the amount that was announced in 2007, the following statement appears in the 2010 provincial Budget documents:
"The Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI) will also remain fully funded, although some funding is deferred to the latter years of the program" (p. 95, Budget 2010: Striking the Right Balance: Fiscal Plan).
2. The total of all focussed municipal grants (the majority of which reside in Municipal Affairs and Transportation) remains similar. 3. The Green Transitive Incentive Program (Green Trip) has been funded to $70M in 2010, with $200M in each of 2011 and 2012. 4. The Province's commitment to fund the hiring of additional police officers in Alberta has been followed through on, to a total of $148M. 5. The Seniors Lodge Assistance Program increased from approximately $32M to over $35M - an increase of 10.3 per cent.
AUMA's concerns and/or questions regarding Budget 2010 and municipalities are: 1. The education portion of the properly tax was increased by $69M this year, despite a commitment some time ago to a freeze. The education portion of the property tax continues to increase year after year, and provincial revenues (personal and corporate income tax) that are exclusive to the provincial government have increased even more. AUMA will ask the question as to why the Government of Alberta requires a portion of the property tax, when their exclusive revenue sources are so lucrative, and increase year after year.
2. The transition of AMIP funds to MSI means that the majority of transfers to municipalities will occur through the MSI allocation formula, which was not endorsed by AUMA. Further analysis of the numbers and the impacts of using the MSI formula has commenced, and AUMA will provide full details soon.
3. The grants to urban municipal governments that are administered by Alberta Transportation have decreased (City Transportation Fund, Basic Capital Grant, Streets Improvement Program, Municipal Water Wastewater Program/Water for Life), while grants specific to rural municipalities have remained the same (Rural Transportation Partnership) or increased (Resource Road Program). The federal- provincial-municipal grants (Building Canada Funds and Infrastructure Stimulus) have increased. This indicates a shift from allocation-based grants to application-based grants.
4. The City Transportation Fund has decreased by 58 per cent. The formula for this grant was based on fuel sales. A decrease of 58 per cent in sales of fuel is unlikely therefore AUMA will ask Alberta Transportation if the formula has been changed, or if the total amount formally allocated to the City Transportation Fund has been transferred to a different program.
5. The Municipal Water Wastewater Program has decreased by 57.2 per cent. Funds to this Program were also decreased last year. Alberta has among the highest of standards for water and wastewater in Canada, and this Program has been essential in maintaining and/or raising the standards. 6. Alberta Municipal Affairs' Business Plan shows several initiatives that AUMA will be following closely: a. Municipal Grants Re-engineering Initiative. To date there has been no engagement with municipal governments and/or municipal associations on this initiative. AUMA will be advocating strongly that municipalities be involved in this initiative, to ensure that appropriate transition measures are put in place, and that the final result works for municipalities. b. Alberta Municipal Affairs has established a Municipal Sustainability Strategy Working Group, and AUMA is participating on a temporary basis until there is a clear understanding of the end result. c. Strategy 4.2 of the Municipal Affairs Business Plan states: "Work with municipalities to support accountable municipal operations through reviews, inspections and other supports". This appears to be a strategy that will address the concerns raised in the unsuccessful Private Members' Bill on a Municipal Auditor General. Municipal governments and associations must be working with the Province in this area to ensure that municipal autonomy is not eroded, and that the system that is established works for municipalities. d. A comprehensive, phased legislative review of the MGA is planned. AUMA is ready to be engaged in this through its MGA Review Document which includes all proposed amendments from AUMA over the past 5 years.
7. The Municipal Sponsorship Program (MSP) has been eliminated in Budget 2010. The Municipal Restructuring Grant was not re-instated. These are two tools that municipal governments used in the past to cooperate regionally. Given the Minister's mandate to promote regional cooperation, it will be essential that different tools be put in place.
8. The Community Initiatives Program (CIP) was cut by 6.4 per cent. This is significant given the elimination of the Wild Rose Foundation, and the re-direction of community groups to the ClP for funds.
9. The formula and total amount for the Municipal Police Assistance Grant remains the same, despite AUMA's vigorous efforts to make change in this area.
10. The Affordable Housing Program has been cut by 53.6 per cent.
Attachment: AUMA Questions Regarding Budget 2010 and Government Responses AUMA Questions Regarding Budget 2010
1. Does Budget 2010 move towards a new system of annual transfers from the Government of Alberta to Alberta municipalities that is based on municipal sustainability planning and achieving local, provincial and joint outcomes?
On February 18, 2009, in Premier Stelmach's letter to AUMA, he advised that the province has responded to the need for sustainable and predicable funding for municipalities through the Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI). The government believes that MSI meets the goals of long-term sustainable planning and provides local governments with the flexibility to target funding towards high-priority projects in their communities.
Through Municipal Affairs' lead role in developing an accountability framework and the related grants re-engineering initiative, the municipal grant funding system will be streamlined.
2. What is the budgeted break down of the education property tax requisition for 2010-11?
Fiscal Year 2009-10 2010-11 % change Residential 1,074 1,117 4.0 Non-residential 648 01 4.0 Total 1,722 1,791 4.0
Calendar Year 2009 2010 % change, Residential 1,058 1,106 4.5 Non-residential 668 3.9 Total 1,701 1,774 4.3
In fiscal year 2010-11, the revenue requirement for education property taxes is $1.791 billion, an increase of $69 million, or approximately 4.0 per cent, from 2009- 10. The 2010-11 revenue requirement includes $199 million that will be collected directly by municipalities for opted-out separate school boards. In 2010, the provincial education property tax rates will fall by about 13.5 per cent. The residential/farm property rate will fall from $3.39 to $2.93 per $1,000 of equalized assessment. The non-residential rate will fall from $4.98 to $4.31 per $1,000 of equalized assessment. This marks the 17th consecutive year in which the provincial government has either reduced or frozen its education property tax rates, for total reductions of about 57 per cent. The property tax revenue requirement ensures continued stability and sufficient funding for Alberta's kindergarten to grade 12 education system. The increased revenue will also help to ensure that Alberta's basic education system continues to be among the best in the world. 3. What amount is allocated in Budget 2010 to increase the provincial contribution to communities for the Government of Alberta's share of policing costs? How is the funding distributed by types of municipalities?
2009-10 cas 2010-11, % change Municipal Policing Assistance 48,007 49,295 2.7 Assistance for New Hires 20.000 ;0.000 50.0 Total 68,007 79,295 16.6 Figures exclude program administration costs
Municipal Policing Assistance Grants are provided to urban municipalities with populations over 5,000 responsible for their own policing and are calculated according to the following formula: • Towns and cities with populations between 5,001 and 20,000 receive $200,000 base payment plus an additional $8.00 per capita. • Cities with populations between 20,001 and 50,000 receive $100,000 base payment plus $14.00 per capita. • Cities with populations over 50,000 receive grants of $16.00 per capita.
The Alberta Official Population List published by Alberta Municipal Affairs is the basis for population numbers used in the calculation.
Funding of $100,000 per officer is provided for new hires. Another 100 front-line police officers will be added in 2010-11, fulfilling the commitment made in 2008-09 to add 300 new officers over three years.
In addition to the grant funding, Budget 2010 provides the following: • $184.3 million for the Provincial Policing Agreement — RCMP, • $27 million to address Organized and Serious Crime, and • $9.7 million for First Nations Policing.
Based on the current forecast, $120 million in provincial fine revenue will be returned to municipalities in 2009-10. $105 million was returned to municipalities in 2008-09. 4. What has been budgeted in 2010-11 to meet the Government of Alberta's commitment to seniors' housing, affordable housing and homelessness?
The Government of Alberta has allocated more than $530 million in 2010-11 to support seniors' housing, affordable housing and homelessness. This is a decrease of 16 per cent from the 2009-10 forecast.
2009-10 ($000) Forecast 2010-11 % change Operating Support Seniors Lodge Assistance 32,120 35,420 10.3 Family and Special Purpose Housing: Community Housing Providers 39,450 39,450 - Other Housing Providers 296 298 - Special Needs Housing 5,100 5,100 - Other Grants 410 410 - Rent Supplements/Homeless and Eviction Prevention Fund* 87,812 75,100 (14.5) Emergency/Transitional Shelter Support 40,500 40,500 - Outreach Support Services 32,000 42,100 31.6 Support to Providers of Seniors Housing 8,087 8,087 -
Capital Grants: Affordable Housing Program 190,310 88,310 (53.6) Homeless Prevention Initiative 100,000 100,000 - Housing Providers - Alberta Social Housing Corporation — 45,380 45,380 - Maintenance Affordable Supportive Living Initiative 50,055 50.000 (0.1) Total 631,250 530,153 (16.1)
• The Homeless and Eviction Prevention Fund was eliminated in 2009-10 and the Fund's clients were transitioned to the Rent Supplement Program. For purposes of this presentation, the budgets for the two programs are combined.
5. Have funds been allocated in 2010-11 to support the "aging in place" of Alberta seniors and a continuum of care for those requiring care?
In Budget 2010, $50 million has been provided in each of 2010-11 and 2011-12 for the Affordable Supportive Living Initiative (ASLI) program. This is in addition to the $50 million that was provided in 2009-10 to help build 618 new affordable supportive living and lodge spaces across the province and upgrade another 86 spaces.
In addition, there is $41 million budgeted in 2010-11 in Alberta Health and Wellness for Continuing Care initiatives.
As well, Alberta Seniors and Community Supports provides several programs to help seniors stay in their own homes; including the School Property Tax Assistance Program, Alberta Aids to Daily Living program and the Special Needs Assistance Program. 6. Where in the 2010-13 Business Plan is there a commitment to a province-wide transportationitransit strategy and the funds to implement such a strategy?
The 2010-13 Alberta Transportation Business Plan does not include a specific province-wide transit strategy. However, the Business Plan does clearly state that the ministry is developing new approaches to ensure the long term sustainability of the province's transportation system. This includes administering federal and provincial grant programs that assist municipalities in developing their priority infrastructure, transit and transportation systems. Alberta Transportation will continue to work with municipalities to implement the Green Transit Incentives Program to improve and expand local, regional and inter-city transit systems.
7. What does Budget 2010 allocate to Family and Community Support Services (FCSS) and how has this changed from Budget 2009?
For each of the next three years, $75.7 million is budgeted for Family and Community Support Services. This is consistent with the 2009-10 forecast.
8. Is there a Budget 2010 allocation for the development of a municipal climate change resource centre that will provide municipalities with access to expertise to help design, implement and monitor high impact emissions reductions projects (such as green building and district energy projects)?
Alberta Environment provided a $2 million grant to AUMA in 2009-10 for the three year operation of a municipal climate change resource centre located in AUMA's Edmonton office. No additional funds are allocated in Budget 2010. 9. What is being budgeted in 2010-11 for municipal transportation infrastructure funding (e.g. roads and streets) as well as for non-transportation infrastructure (e.g. water and sewer)? How do these amounts compare to last year's forecast for each of these budget line items? Has the formula for calculation changed?
The comparative allocations for each of Alberta Transportation's grants are shown in the table below. The formulas for calculating the amounts payable under the various programs have not changed from 2009-10. Federal funding for cost-shared programs was reprofiled between 2009-10 and 2010-11.
The Alberta Municipal Infrastructure Program (AMIP) will be substantially complete in 2009-10.
2009-10 Grant Formula Forecast 2010-11 change Municipal Sustainability Initiative Capital Base amount, population, 353,998 826,000 133.3 Grants assessment and road length. City Transportation Fund S0.05/I itre _ 239,360 100,185 (58.1) Basic Capital Grant $60/capita and other 87,400 51,500 (41.1) related grant commitments Provincial Highway Maintenance Grant $1,959/lane KM 1,500 1,300 (13.3) Streets Improvement Program $60/capita 40,000 37,500 (6.3) Rural Transportation Partnership Road length & other 60,000 60,000 . factors Community Airport Program Project-specific 2,000 2,000 - Resource Road Program Project-specific 28,000 36,000 28.6 Municipal Water Wastewater Program / Project-specific 264,160 113,000 (57.2) Water for Life Alberta Municipal Infrastructure Program Population 498,500 30,200 (93.9) Canada Alberta Municipal Rural Project-specific 35,000 35,475 1.4 Infrastructure Fund Infrastructure Canada Alberta Program Project-specific 500 - (100.0) Building Canada - Gas Tax Fund Population 190,800 199,503 4.6 Federal Public Transit Trust Base + ridership 21,540 - (100.0) Green Transit Incentives Program Project-specific - 70.000 n/a Building Canada Fund - Communities Project-specific 10,000 52,000 420.0 Component Building Canada Fund - Communities Project-specific 20,000 84,200 321.0 Component Top-up Infrastructure Stimulus Fund Project-specific 24,800 157,200 533.9 Building Canada - Major Infrastructure Project-specific - 30,000 n/a Total 1,877,558 1,886,063 0.5 10.Where in Budget 2010 is there a commitment to increased, adequate benefit levels to Albertans, annually adjusted for inflation, in the areas of Alberta Works, AISH and the minimum wage?
The total budget for the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (A1SH) program in 2010-11 is over $733 million. There is no change to maximum monthly income benefit, which was increased by $100 (or more than nine per cent) to $1,188 on April 1, 2009.
Income Support benefit rates are reviewed annually, and were last increased in November 2008. Budget 2010 will not offer a rate increase. The government will focus on providing pro-active employment and training services to unemployed clients, to either return them to the labour force quickly or to provide them with marketable training.
The economic downturn in 2009 resulted in significantly increased Income Support caseloads and, in the upcoming fiscal year, Alberta Employment and Immigration will undertake measures to control costs related to the Income Support program by re-directing potential Expected to Work clients to employment services, training or connecting them directly to work opportunities.
Ensuring Albertans in entry-level positions keep working, and that our province's small businesses remain viable and competitive through global economic recovery, Alberta's minimum wage of $8.80 per hour will remain as is through 2010. In addition to freezing the minimum wage, an all party committee will review our current policy, ensuring that our approach is what's best for Albertans. Details of the minimum wage policy review will be determined over the coming weeks with consultation particulars to be announced at a later date.
11.What has been included in Budget 2010 for library funding and arts and cultural programs impacting communities?
2009-10 Forecast 2010-11 % change Library Grants 30,219 30,119 (0.3) Lottery-Funded Agencies 46,368 38,925 (16.0) Community Initiatives Program 27,248 25,500 (8.4) Community Facility Enhancement Program 38,000 38,000 - Community Spirit Donation Grant Program 19,810 16,000 (19.2) Major Fairs and Exhibitions 23,360 22,000 (5.8) Total 185,003 170,544 (7.8) Budget 2010 reflects the economic realities facing our Province. Government is continuing to invest in initiatives that Albertans have defined as priorities, including the Community Spirit Donation Grant Program, the Community Initiatives Program, and the Community Facility Enhancement Program.
Government is working to streamline program administration and improve coordination between community investment grant programs to better serve our clients.
Budget 2010 provides $38.9 million in lottery funding to support various programs related to arts, culture, human rights and multiculturalism, volunteerism and historical resources.
Communities benefit from the Community initiatives Program, which supports project-based initiatives in areas such as community services, libraries, arts and culture, sports, education, health and recreation. Also, funding is provided to communities through the Community Facility Enhancement Program, which provides matching grants up to $125,000 for renovation, upgrades or construction of community use facilities.
12. Does Budget 2010 commit to restoring financial support of the arts to a level equitable to the original funding of the Alberta Foundation for the Arts by adjusting the fund for inflation and population increases?
Funding for the Alberta Foundation for the Arts is $29.2 million in 2010-11, a reduction of $5.6 million or 16 per cent. This investment is an important part of government's ongoing implementation of Alberta's cultural policy — The Spirit of Alberta. Increased Education Taxes Erodes Municipalities' Capacity to Meet Community Needs Page 1 of 1
Media Releases
MEDIA RELEASE for immediate Release Increased Education Taxes Erodes Municipalities' Capacity to Meet Community Needs
(EDMONTON February 9, 2010) Alberta municipalities say today's increase in the Education Property Tax Requisition has effectively created a stealth tax. This seems to contradict a promise by the Province that there will be no tax increases this year.
Darren Aldous, President of the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association (AUMA) says this leaves fewer options for municipalities to address infrastructure issues and take advantage of current fire-sale pricing for labour and materials.
"This flies in face of common sense. At a time when you want to stimulate the economy, you don't want to leave municipalities with fewer resources to act as engines of growth."
Since 2001 when the Province promised to freeze the education property tax requisition at $1.2 billion it has continued to rise and is now approaching $2 billion.
"There seems to be an unwillingness to stand by commitments made despite AUMA's willingness to work with the province to find equitable solutions."
AUMA has proposed a model that would see funding tied directly to the health of the provincial economy.
-30-
Media contact:
Loreen Lennon Darren Aldous Senior Director Corporate Services President AUMA 780-288-4874 mobile 780-433-4431 780-989-7410 direct
http://www.auma.ca/live/MuniLinldConimunications/Media+Releases?contentld=8884 16-Feb-10 AUMA concerned about streamlined municipal grants, amalgamation of key funding prog... Page 1 of 1
Media Releases
MEDIA RELEASE for Immediate Release AUMA concerned about streamlined municipal grants, amalgamation of key funding programs
Municipalities say jury is out on bottom line for both announcements
(EDMONTON February 9, 2010) Alberta municipalities will need to see more details before assessing the outcomes of two key municipal announcements in today's Provincial Budget.
The Alberta Urban Municipalities Association (AUMA) expects at least status quo funding when the dust settles on a new "re-engineered" municipal grants structure. On the surface, the streamlined grants structure is a welcome simplification of some 77 municipal grants from several different ministries says AUMA President Darren Aldous.
Streamlining is welcome if it creates efficiencies for both the provincial and municipal governments but Aldous adds that there must be a transitional plan to ensure the remaining grants continue to address the outcomes intended. "It is important to cut red tape that hampers efficiencies, but equally important to deliver the important services these grants are meant to provide to municipalities. We need to know that streamlining isn't code for ill-timed cutbacks."
Similarly Aldous says the jury is out on expansion of the Municipal Sustaina bitty Initiative (MSI).
MSI now includes money from the final year of the Alberta Municipal Infrastructure Program (AMIP) which used a different, and AUMA says simpler, funding formula. Aldous says, again, without details it is not possible to know how this amalgamation will play out.
"AUMA never supported the MSI funding formula and changes now could make access to infrastructure grants more difficult, because the MSI formula is generally more restrictive and complicated," says Aldous. "AMIP was working well. Last year's infrastructure stimulus was crucial in keeping our communities viable during these difficult times. This is not the time to step back from the progress we're making."
So far he says conditions remain favourable for infrastructure investment, but notes an upturn in the economy may be just around the corner, bringing the return of high costs and labour shortages.
Aldous says AUMA will be examining the details of both the new streamlined municipal grant structure and the AMIP-MSI transition immediately.
-30-
Media contact:
Darren Aldous Loreen Lennon President AUMA Senior Director Corporate Services 780-433-4431 780-288-4874 mobile 780-989-7410 direct
http://www.auma.cillive/MuniLink/Communications/Media+Releases?contentid=8883 16-Feb-10 DATE: February 22, 2010. AGENDA ITEM # B 4 TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Engineering Department
SUBJECT: Recycling Initiative — Camrose County
RECOMMENDATION:
That administration be authorized to enter into a one year agreement with Camrose County for the processing of recyclable materials at the City Recycling Depot Facility based on the following principles: • That there be recognition that a significant number of County residents use the facility; • That Camrose County will contribute annually a portion of the facility costs based on percentage of County use; • That the City and Camrose County will jointly fund a depot user survey in 2010 and; • That the 2010 County contribution will be $44,000 representing approximately 10% of costs.
DISCUSSION:
At the January 25th meeting of Committee of the Whole, Council was advised of the County's intention to undertake a one year pilot project to enhance recycling opportunities for rural residents.
Paul King, Manager of Agricultural and Environmental Services with Camrose County confirmed that the proposed pilot program would involve a public awareness campaign in conjunction with the acquisition of a compartment type recycling trailer to be stationed at various locations around the County. Their preferred option for the processing of recyclable materials prior to transport to a commodity broker would be the City Recycling Facility.
The County initially proposed a system of contribution to operational costs associated with the processing of these recyclables on a per tonne basis. That rate would be in the order of $220.00 per tonne based on the City 2010 operational budget of $440,000.00.
The alternative to payment by weight could include a contribution based on percentage of users or a population based contribution which would ultimately be the most equitable.
A 10% ($44,000.00) contribution to the City recycling operational budget was suggested by Committee and has since been agreed to by the County's representative. A further commitment to determine a more representative contribution though a jointly funded user survey undertaken throughout the coming year was also accepted.
The Engineering Services Department is seeking Council approval to enter into a one year agreement with Camrose County for the processing of recyclable materials at the City Recycling Depot Facility subject to the noted conditions.
The County has expressed a desire to commence the pilot program in early March of 2010.
PREPARED BY:
Mark Barrett, C.E.T., Director, Engineering Services DATE: February 22, 2010. AGENDA ITEM # B TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Engineering Department
SUBJECT: Residential Waste Collection and Diversion Program
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council accept in principle the KC Environmental recommendations to proceed with a residential waste collection action plan which includes;
1. A goal to increase the residential waste diversion by 50% from 2009 levels by 2015
2. Implement a graduated Bag Limit set at: • 4 bags effective January 1, 2011 • 3 bags effective January 1, 2012 • 2 bags effective January 1, 2013
3. Proceed with an investigation by Administration into the option of a City operated mechanised compostable collection program that would include the purchase of Carts/Touts and associated equipment to determine if the service can be provided more efficiently by City Forces.
4. Implement by City forces or tendered contracted services, a system of a waste collection with options for either a manual and automated, seasonal compostable collection program in addition to weekly manual or automated collection of residential solid waste.
5. Proceed with the development of a business plan for the implementation of a public education and social marketing strategy to be included for consideration in the 2011 municipal budget with a targeted implementation date of March 1, 2011.
And that Administration proceed in 2011 with the development of a commercial / industrial waste reduction strategy which will include diversion/reduction goals and a public education and social marketing plan.
DISCUSSION:
Every community has customized its waste management system to meet the particular needs and attitudes of its residents. Factors involved in choosing a waste collection, reduction and disposal system include landfill life expectancy, how affluent the community may be and the economics of the various waste management programs.
With the current residential waste collection contract expiring in March of 2010, City Council took the opportunity to undertake a review of municipal solid waste collection and recycling operations in Camrose. The goal of the study was to make recommendations to the City of Camrose on a comprehensive residential waste management system that is environmentally responsible and meets the needs of our citizens in a cost effective manner. In April 2009, City Council accepted the proposal submitted by KC Environmental Group Ltd. of Edmonton to undertake this review.
This project involved the review of existing collection and diversion programs, emphasizing a future menu of models and strategies to provide our residents with the most cost effective and environmentally sustainable alternatives for dealing with solid waste and recyclables. The study will further identify financial assumptions, community goals and any possible liabilities with program options. In addition the study describes funding mechanisms, forecasted pricing, productivity assumptions and who will provide the collection services.
Current Programs
Residential Waste Collection
Contracted weekly collection of Residential Waste from 5600 dwellings in Camrose at a 2009 rate of $5.44 / month Residential waste makes up 24% of the waste stream sent to the landfill The Total Residential Waste Disposal volume in 2008 was 6482.8 tonnes 70% of which was hauled by "residential garbage truck" Few restrictions on acceptable residential waste (no liquids, under 20 kg, no longer than 1 m etc.) No volume limits on residential waste collection
Waste Diversion
- Recycle Drop Off Depot processed just over 2000 tonnes of recyclables in 2008 — primarily paper and cardboard based on weight. - Compost compound at the depot processed 295 tonnes of grass and leaves
Waste Diversion at Landfill
Landfill diverted 771.5 tonnes of primarily metals, tires and used oil. Compost compound collected 2173 tonnes of sod, topsoil, grass and leaves. Concrete & Asphalt Recycling program diverted 3364 tonnes (585 tandem truck loads)
Future Programs
In the study presented by KC Environmental Group, Council was provided with an aggressive program to greatly reduce residential waste hauled to the landfill. The "Goal" suggested in the study would see a 45% reduction in residential waste sent to the landfill and an overall reduction in Municipal Solid Waste, including commercial waste, from 1.5 tonnes per capita to 1 tonne per capita.
To achieve this goal, KC Environmental have suggested a number of recommendations, noted in the executive summary (exhibit "A" attached), that the City may incorporate into a strategic plan for managing municipal solid waste. A cost and diversion summary of options is also attached for Council consideration (exhibit "B"). Background for Recommendations
Waste Management Strategy and Goals — Respondents to the waste survey undertaken in summer of 2009 strongly favoured adopting the goal of decreasing the amount of waste sent to the landfill. A further 63% were willing to pay an additional $1-$5 per month towards this goal.
An achievable goal for residential waste diversion is a 50% reduction in 5 years. This also lends itself well to the Social Marketing program.
Public Education and Social Marketing Program — A successful waste management program requires a strong public education campaign. The City will need to expand efforts already being made by the City Educational Co-ordinator (Vicki Cole) to promote changes to the current program. The "Paint Your World Green" theme will further assist in unifying the social marketing of the waste reduction program.
Implementation of Phased Bag Limit 59% of waste survey respondents indicated that the City should move towards a bag or can limit. These programs achieve waste reduction through a change in behaviour as a result of increased awareness of waste habits. Phasing will also ease many residents into waste diversion programs as not all household are the same size.
Suggested bag limits January 2011 - 4 bag January 2012 - 3 bag January 2013 - 2 bag
The Residential Waste Collection Tender should include curb side collection of yard waste— Organics diversion will provide the biggest "bang for the buck" as this is the largest component of the residential waste stream by weight. The tender will provide for both a manual and automated, seasonal compostable collection program that may be expanded to year round in future.
PREPARED BY:
Mark Barrett, C.E.T., Director, Engineering Services MB/ Exhibit "A"
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
KC Environmental Group Ltd. conducted a Solid Waste Collection and Diversion Study for the City of Camrose. The study included a review of the current waste management system, a survey of Camrose residents to measure interest in a range of solid waste options, and an analysis of feasible collection and diversion options.
Based on results of this work, KC Environmental made recommendations for a comprehensive solid waste management system that is environmentally responsible and meets the needs of its citizens in a cost effective manner.
REVIEW OF CURRENT SYSTEM The City of Camrose's current waste management system provides a strong foundation for an integrated solid waste management system. The programs current services which include collection, recycling and composting divert 21% of the residential waste stream, and 18% of the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream which includes construction and demolition (C&D) waste, as well as industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) waste. Approximately 6000 tonnes of residential waste and 25,000 tonnes of MSW are sent to landfill each year.
Areas of strength in Camrose's current program are:
1. Recycling Depot: • The depot is a key component in achieving Camrose's current residential diversion rate of 21%. This is a high diversion rate for depots and indicates strong public support and usage of the depot. • The depot is manned and centrally located with operations contracted out. This is the most cost-effective method of operating a depot as it allows for concentrated identification of best value markets, reduces contamination and provides opportunity to educate depot users.
2. Organics: • Organic bins at the depot and the compost pad at the landfill provide opportunities to address the largest component of the waste stream and diverted 2180 tonnes in 2008. • Composting infrastructure is in place to implement more diversion programs to address this waste stream (50% of municipal solid waste).
3. Concrete Recycling Program • The Concrete Recycling Facility at the landfill diverts significant quantities of commercial waste from the landfill (3364 tonnes in 2008). • This program reduces costs both in terms of landfilling and in the City's purchasing costs for concrete.
4. Public Education Program • Camrose has a strong educational program already established that can form the foundation of an extremely effective solid waste education and social marketing program which will result in increased participation and capture rates for solid waste programs. Areas of particular strength include:
City of Camrose 4f4 Solid Waste Collection and Diversion Study Executive Summary which will result in increased participation and capture rates for solid waste programs. Areas of particular strength include: o Public Educational Coordinator, Vicki Cole and delivery of successful waste reduction education programs particularly with children and youth o Effective website with easy access to solid waste information o Brochures which inform the public of the available programs and diversion results from these programs o Development of the "Paint Your World Green" theme which reflects Camrosess interest and strength in green spaces, and incorporates sustainability and environmental responsibility o Green Action Committee
These programs have resulted in a municipal solid waste diversion rate of 18%, compared to a provincial average diversion rate of 14.6%.
Despite this strong base, Camrose residents dispose of 360 kg/capita annually compared to the provincial average of 290 kg/capital; and dispose of 1560 kg/capita/year of MSW compared to a provincial average of 1130 kg/capital and Alberta Environment's goal of 500 kg/capita.
In its goal to be environmentally responsible, it is important for the City to implement additional diversion programs to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill. In identifying effective diversion programs it is important to note that 76% of Camrose's MSW is comprised of commercial waste and 24% is residential waste.
SURVEY RESULTS In general, the survey reflects a desire among residents for more information. The survey provided direction in the following areas:
1. Residents are in favour of establishing a goal to reduce waste to landfill (only 5% of residents selected "No goal" (most wanted to reduce MSW sent to landfill to at least 1000 kg/capita/year). 2. Residents want more options for plastics. 3. There is a willingness to pay an additional amount to reduce waste to landfill. Approximately 71% selected options other than $0, 63% selected at least $1 to $5 and the remainder selected a higher amount.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY Based on the review of the current system and the survey results, and through application of solid waste management "best practices" and KC Environmental's experience and knowledge of successful programs, KC Environmental recommends the following Solid Waste Management Strategy for the City of Camrose.
1. Establish Goal (January, 2010)
Page 2 City of Camrose Solid Waste Collection and Diversion Study Executive Summary 1.1 KC Environmental recommends the following goals be established:
• Reduce residential waste generation to 195 kg/capita by 2015. This represents a 45% reduction in residential waste sent to landfill and moves the City towards the overall provincial target of 500 kg/capita of MSW of which Camrose' residential waste comprises 24%. • Reduce Municipal Solid Waste generation to 1000 kg/capita (including commercial waste) by 2015. This represents a 36% reduction in MSW sent to landfill of which Camrose's commercial waste comprises 76%.
Targets should be reviewed after 3 years, with new goals set for reductions in waste generation by 2020. These goals should reflect the achievements made over the 3 years.
1,2 KC Environmental recommends that the following annual data be collected and compared to 2008 bench line data to measure progress towards the established goal: • Waste Generation Rate: Residential and MSW • Diversion Rate: Residential and MSW • Capture Rates for Diversion Programs
2. Waste Collection
2.1 Implement Bag/Cart Limit (Phased In, Beginning May 2010)
Implement a phased in bag/cart limit on the following schedule: May 2010: 6 bag limit May 2011: 4 bag limit May 2012: 2 bag = 1 cart limit
This provides residents with an incentive to reduce waste. Bag limits can achieve approximately 30% reduction in waste through change in behaviour as a result of increased awareness of waste habits. Other than administrative costs to change the bylaw and to educate the public, there is no cost to implement.
2.2 Implement Cart System in 2 to 3 Years
KC Environmental recommends that the City implement a cart system for the following reasons:
1. This is the future trend in municipal collection. Currently 30% of municipalities across Canada have implemented the program with more and more municipalities implementing carts each year. In the Edmonton region, Devon, Beaumont, Stony Plain, Spruce Grove, and Strathcona County have moved to the cart system.
Page 3 City of Camrose Solid Waste Collection and Diversion Study Executive Summary 2. A portion of the operational benefits of the automated cart system that accrue to the hauler are passed on to the municipality in most cases. 3. Carts make waste limits easy to implement. One cart of waste per household (carts = minimum of 2 bags). 4. Carts make other future diversion programs feasible (i.e. biweekly waste collection, organic collection). 5. Carts are neat and fit in with Camrose's image of a clean city.
However, because residential collection currently includes back lane collection (fully automated collection requires front lane pick up) and Camrose residents' appear to have a strong desire for more information, KG Environmental recommends that carts not be implemented until 2012. This will provide time for a public education and social marketing campaign to prepare residents for the change.
The cost to implement a one-cart system is estimated at $80/household landed (including delivery to each house). If amortized over 5 years at 6%, the annual cost to implement a cart system is $1 .60/hh/month. If amortized over 10 years, this is reduced to $0.90/hh/month. Maintenance of the cart system can either be contracted out or completed in house. Assuming $20,000/year in maintenance costs, the total cost per household for 5 years is $1.85/hh/month.
It is recommended that the City begin with one waste cart/household in 2012 and expand to an organics cart once the landfill has the organic processing capacity (2014).
2.3 Issue Tendering Documents (February 2010)
KC Environmental recommends that the City use the tendering process required for waste collection as an opportunity to collect bids for a range of collection options.
Specifically, KC Environmental recommends that a Request for Proposals for the following services be issued:
• Curbside Collection of Household Waste (Manual Collection) o Tender should inform bidders of phased in waste limits • Curbside Collection of Household Waste (Automated Collection) o Tender should inform bidders that City may implement cart system within the contract period and that if so, the automated collection rate would apply for the years it is implemented • Curbside Collection of Yard Waste Spring through Fall o Tender should request information on collection requirements from hauler o Tender should state collection requirements for compost facility (i.e. it bags are allowed, compost facility must debag) o Tender should state yard waste collection dates (May 1 through October 1 of each year) • Curbside Collection of Household Recyclables
Page 4 City of Camrose Solid Waste Collection and Diversion Study Executive Summary o Tender should request information on collection requirements (blue bag/blue box)
One tender document can be issued with bidders providing proposals for only those services they are bidding on.
3. Enhance Recycling Options
3.1 Curbside Collection of Recyclables (Obtain Quotes February 2010, Consider Implementing in 2012)
KC Environmental recommends that the City obtain quotes for the provision of curbside collection of recyclables when it issues its tender documents for waste collection.
The estimated cost/household for this service is $3.50 to $5.00/household. Although curbside collection of recyclables increases convenience to residents, KC Environmental does not recommend this be implemented over other options at the same or less cost for the following reasons:
o The depot is already achieving high diversion rates for this waste stream o The expected increase in diversion from implementing the program is 8% o Considering current diversion rate and expected diversion rate, program is not as cost- effective as other programs
KC Environmental recommends this option be considered in 2012 once other more cost- effective programs have been implemented and the City has moved to a 2 bag/1 cart limit which requires a full suite of options for residents.
3.2 Expand Plastics Options at Recycle Depot
It is recommended that the recycling depot expand acceptable plastics to include #1 and #6 plastics both of which are widely accepted at recycling depots and have a high rate of marketability. This will address residents strong desire for more plastics options.
3.3 Provide HHW Collection Services at Depot Spring through Fall
KC Environmental recommends that services at the depot expand to include residential HHW collection spring through fall. Key to higher capture rates of HHW is convenience. The recycling depot is the most convenient location for residents and spring through fall drop off integrates well with other seasonal programs (i.e. yard waste). Spring through fall captures the peak periods for HHW collection, avoids storage of HHW over the winter and related issues with freezing, and reduces the number of processing events required over a year.
Airdrie implemented spring through fall HHW collection at the depot and is very pleased with its program.
3.4 Hours at Depot
Page 5 City of Camrose Solid Waste Collection and Diversion Study Executive Summary To reduce operational costs the recycling depot can be closed on an additional day. The best day based on survey results may be Tuesday.
3.5 Enhance Education Offered at Depot
A depot staff member should be trained to provide educational information to depot users both to reinforce the City's waste management strategy and to reduce contamination. The staff member should focus on incoming commercial OCC to reduce contamination of this stream.
4. Enhance Composting Options
4.1 Implement Spring through Fall Yard Waste Collection (May 2010)
KC Environmental estimates yard waste collection costs will be between $3.50 and $5.00/household. To reduce collection costs for yard waste it is recommended that curbside collection for this waste stream only be provided initially from spring through fall (6 months) when yard waste generation is at its peak. This will reduce collection costs to between $1.75 and $2.50/hh when spread over the year.
KC Environmental recommends this option be implemented for the following reasons:
1. It is the most cost-effective option as it provides the largest diversion at a lower cost. I.e. it can achieve double the diversion of curbside recyclables at half the cost. 2. Camrose already has the ability to process the organics at the compost pad at the landfill.
Although carts are the best method for the collection of yard and food waste, it is recommended that the City begin spring through fall yard waste collection with Kraft brown bags or in carts supplied by the homeowner with "organic" labels provided by the City.
For maximum diversion the bylaw should be changed to prohibit yard waste to landfill by the year 2012. This will also require the commercial sector to divert yard waste. The public education program should be timed to educate both the residential and commercial sector of this change.
A compost expert should be hired to advise the City on best management and operations for the composting of the yard waste.
4.2 Consider Implementing Organic Waste Carts by 2014
Once waste carts have been implemented, KC Environmental recommends expanding the cart system to include organic carts. This allows the City to divert both food and yard waste which makes bi-weekly waste collection a feasible option.
As this requires time to implement an education campaign, to build on learning from programs implemented in 2012 and earlier, and to develop the organics processing capacity, KC recommends that this be considered for implementation in 2014 or later.
Page 6 City of Cam rose Solid Waste Collection and Diversion Study Executive Summary 4.3 Engage a Composting Consultant to Expand Organics Processing Capacity
The current composting system at the landfill should be continued and expanded. To improve the capacity of the system with local resources and to update the system to include food waste, it is recommended that the Landfill Authority engage the assistance of a compost expert in two to three years time.
Once the compost facility expands to include food waste, KC Environmental recommends that the City contract out the operations and management of the organics processing to reduce the risk of odour and associated costs. 4.4 Use Finished Compost in Parks and Recreation Projects
Finished compost should be tested according to COME Criteria and then used in the City's Parks and Recreation projects. This closes the loop and incorporates Camrose's green space beauty with the solid waste management strategy.
5. Enhance Commercial Waste Diversion 51 Implement OCC Ban (May 2010)
KC Environmental recommends an OCC (old corrugated cardboard) ban be implemented at the landfill. This is relatively easy to implement as OCC collection bins are already in place in some downtown locations, there are private service providers and the landfill has the room to provide an OCC bin.
This involves the commercial sector and may start them working towards implementing changes to reduce waste.
Bylaws should be updated at the same time to include waste limits and waste bans.
5.2 Implement C&D (Construction and Demolition) Diversion Program
A C&D (construction and demolition) diversion program should be established at the landfill to meet the demand that will result from Alberta's C&D Waste Reduction Stewardship Program expected to be implemented in 2010. Items to focus on are drywall, drywall with wood ends, wood and asphalt shingles.
The Landfill Authority will need to provide areas for separation of these materials. Differential fees are used to encourage source separation (i.e. the rates for separated materials is less than comingled, and less than landfill). 5.3 Encourage ICI (Industrial, Commercial and Institutional) to Work towards Goal
Page 7 City of Camrose Solid Waste Collection and Diversion Study Executive Summary The City should work closely with the University of Alberta Augustana campus and keep apprised of waste management strategies employed by the campus. This information should be shared with both the residential and commercial sector.
As part of this project, a letter was sent to the commercial sector requesting their ideas on ways to reduce waste; however, no response was received. The City should continue to educate both the residential and commercial sector regarding its solid waste management strategy and goals.
6.0 Move Landfill towards Resource Recovery Facility (RRF)
The landfill should move away from being primarily a "dumping" location to a Resource Recovery Facility (RRF). This should be reflected both through signage, and through ease of use for diversion and separation.
61 Incorporate "Paint Your World Green" Theme in Diversion Signage at Landfill
All diversion programs should present a unified theme. This reinforces the integrated aspects of a solid waste system and encourages program users to focus on diversion first.
62 Develop C&D Diversion Compound according to Alberta's C&D Stewardship Program
A C&D compound for the diversion of drywall, drywall with wood ends, wood and asphalt shingles should be developed at the site by May 2010.
6.3 Implement OCC ban at landfill.
Loads containing OCC are either rejected or fined. An OCC bin should be provided to divert the material at the landfill.
6A Provide Area for Waste or Swap Exchange
A "swap shed" or waste exchange area should be developed at the landfill where reusable items can be dropped off or picked up free of charge. Items can include books, toys, clothing, sporting goods and furniture.
6.6 Apply Differential Tipping Fees
Differential tipping fees should be applied to waste. Source separated loads (e.g., those excluding specified recyclables) would receive preferential tipping rates to mixed waste loads.
7. Expand Public Education and Social Marketing Program
Program implementation, management and review should include public education and involvement throughout. This ongoing education program can be done in house through the City's Educational Coordinator position with a consultants' assistance as needed. As more Page 8 City of Camrose Solid Waste Collection and Diversion Study Executive Summary diversion programs are implemented the City should consider increasing the current Educational Coordinator position to full-time.
The public education program should build on the foundation already established by the City and should:
1. Reflect a unified theme (i.e. Paint Your World Green). 2. Inform the public of the City's Solid Waste Management Strategy and goals. 3. Provide information on Camrose's waste stream and waste generation rates. 4. Incorporate social marketing techniques to market the social good of participating in existing and new diversion programs.
The City may also consider the following educational recommendations:
1. Mail Executive Summary of this report to households with the utility bill.
2. Hold 1/2 day session focused on solid waste management with key stakeholders (City staff, community representatives, haulers, recycling depot staff, etc). KC Environmental would present the findings of this study and recommendations for the waste management strategy would be consulted on.
STRATEGY TIMELINE
The following table shows the recommended timeline for implementing the solid waste management strategy.
4 24- , , ,, riatCONSTIFLME:Gr==**'Wi'- i'dY5 V *- 4,Cif-* n:=W-41:1MMIN: :.. m4fr-SMei- .44 AVV: 2010 Confirm Waste Management Goals January 2010
Confirm 2010 Waste Management Strategy January 2010 Initiate public education program to inform public of goals, January 2010 and ongoing strategy and timeline Issue Tender Documents for range of collection services February 2010 Consult with depot regarding expansion of plastics February 2010 Consult with depot and HHW processor regarding spring February 2010 through fall HHW collection at depot Change Bylaws to reflect waste limit Implement May 2010 and OCC waste ban Select service providers March 2010 Implement Spring through Fall Yard Waste Collection May 1 to October 1, 2010 Hire compost expert to advise on best procedures for Summer 2010 composting yard waste and to expand compost site to handle commercial and residential organics. Implement Landfill Enhancements: Spring and Summer 2010 • OCC ban • Differential rates Page 9 City of Cam rose Solid Waste Collection and Diversion Study Executive Summary WeilteariMM.Vg:0_*11,yi .'lk?.-WV:01- 1MIOStaci-tiaa.Wfrt kiiIMI:=G aia-41- Wie‘LWX.,,V*1;'Ata,=- • C&D Diversion area • Swap Shed Estimated Additional Cost/Household for 2010 Enhancements (Yard Waste Collection, Spring through Fall HHW Collection, landfill enhancements) $3.50/hh (this does not reflect savings achieved through diversion). 2011 Compare waste and diversion data against bench line January 2011 , - - - - 910ailaStaragg •,..,..-ttje aigNRIINSW16...:Wtq MIMIN:GRagio. , ,i.- -IF:acm0, Confirm 2011 Waste Management Strategy January 2011 Continue public education campaign focusing on review of January and ongoing initial results of Strategy and informing public of next stages Implement 2nd phase of waste limit (4 bags) May 2011 Review C&D Stewardship program and expand diversion Summer 2011 compounds at landfill as required Examine opportunities to receive funding for cart system September 2011 No additional cost/household to implement 2011 strategy. . 2012 Compare waste and diversion data against bench line January 2012 Confirm 2012 Waste Management Strategy January 2012 Continue public education campaign focusing on review of January and ongoing initial results of Strategy and informing public of next stages Issue tender for cart supply, request bids for both one January 2012 stream (waste) and two stream (waste and organics) Implement automated waste collection. May 2012 Implement 3rd phase of waste limit, (1 cart) May 2012 Implement curbside collection of recyclables if price right May 2012 Estimated cost/household to implement one cart system is $1 .85/month for 5 years 2013. Compare waste and diversion data against bench line January 2013 Confirm 2013 Waste Management Strategy January 2013 Monitor diversion results and set new goals for 2020 Spring 2013 Expand composting capacity at landfill to incorporate food Spring 2013 wastes Continue public education campaign focusing on review of January and ongoing initial results of Strategy and informing public of next stages Continue to review options to reduce commercial waste — Spring 2013 i.e. increase differential rates, expand ICI bans 2014 Compare waste and diversion data against bench line January 2014 Confirm 2013 Waste Management Strategy January 2014 Implement organic cart if not implemented earlier with Summer 2014 waste cart Expand yard waste collection to organics (yard and food Summer waste), year round Implement bi-weekly waste collection Summer
Page 10 City of Cam rose Solid Waste Collection and Diversion Study Executive Summary
Exhibit "B"
Table 4. Program Cost and Diversion Summary - iSit.Var yli ,, tRA11' 'Rb3,.,,..- ,1,- -V- - -, rkail i a 6=' : 0 A) Status Quo 20% $10.92
I • 1 7 ,,, , , ' - .., ir'. ' P '=, ' _ L , -; ,=,-.'' '' w 11 '''-' rn - ip- . ,,,4 ,,, B)Blue Bag 25% $15.84 + cost for bags
C) Yard Waste Collection - Bags 45% $13.01 + cost for bags
ID) Yard Waste Collection - $13.98 to $14.73 (depending Carts 45% on offsets)
E) Grass Cycling 35% $10.71
;r4 19 1..,l F) Automated Collection with Year Round Organics (Food & Yard Waste) Collection; 1 Cart Waste Limit, Blue Bag 80% $22.67
G) 2 Bag Limit, Yard Waste Collection 55% $12.70 + cost for bags
H) 2 Bag Limit, Yard Waste Collection, Blue Bag 60% $17.54 + cost for bags _ I) Automated Collection, 1 Cart Limit, Yard Waste Collection, Blue Bag 60% $19.10
J) Blue Bag, Enhanced Public - Education, Waste Limit (4 bags) 37% $15.56
K) Yard Waste Collection, Enhanced Public Education, Waste Limit (4 bags) 50% $12.84
City of Camrose Solid Waste Collection and Diversion Study Section 4: Diversion Options Analysis Page 34 of 34 KC ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP LTD. AGENDA ITEM # B 6 To: Mayor and Council. February 22, 2010.
From: Brian Hamblin, City Manager.
Subject: Request for Canada Day funding from Canadian Heritage.
RECOMMENDATION:
That City Council authorize the City's Arts Coordinator to submit funding requests to the Department of Canadian Heritage in relation to the Celebrate Canada Program for organizing activities to celebrate Canada Day; and
That this authorization apply for 2010 and subsequent years funding applications for Canada Day.
BACKGROUND:
Planning is under way for 2010 Canada Day activities in Camrose. The Arts Coordinator, Jane Cherry-Lemire, has prepared an application for funding assistance from Canadian Heritage for Canada Day activities. The total anticipated expenses are $17,000. Funding in the amount of $3000 is being requested from Canadian Heritage. The application form includes a delegation of signing authority referencing a council motion authorizing the submission of the funding request. No change is required to Council's 2010 approved budgetary funding for Canada Day.
In 2009 a motion was adopted authorizing the Arts Coordinator to submit the request. The recommended motion contained in this report will provide authorization for 2010 and future years so it will not be necessary to re-submit a report to Council.
Council's approval is recommended for submission of the funding request to Canadian Heritage.
SUBMITTED BY:
V
Brian Hamblin, City Manager.
b/Canada Day Funding Feb22 2010.doc AGENDA ITEM # B
To: Mayor and Council February 22, 2010.
From: Brian Hamblin, City Manager.
Subject: Approval of Annexation of Lands to the City of Camrose.
RECOMMENDATION:
That this report be received for information purposes.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Camrose submitted an application to annex approximately 1147 hectares (2834 acres) of land from Camrose County. As a result of discussions between the City and County, the application was consented to by the County as reflected in a Memorandum of Agreement between the parties dated October 15, 2008. The Municipal Government Board held a public hearing on May 1, 2009 to consider the annexation application. Recommendations were made by the MGB on November 17, 2009 to consider the annexation application. A copy of Order in Council No. OC 25/2010 dated February 3, 2010 has been received which approves the application for annexation of certain lands to the City of Camrose. The Order in Council and MGB decision are attached.
There are two areas where there are changes to the assessment and taxation conditions proposed in the Memorandum of Agreement between the City and County:
1) The transition period on taxation and assessment for landowners within the annexed area is increased from 10 years to 15 years.
2) MGB found the removal of the assessment and taxation-conditions as a result of obtaining a development permit as being too broad in scope. The change is removal of the assessment and taxation conditions if the land becomes a new parcel of land created as a result of subdivision or separation of title at the request of or on behalf of the landowner.
The annexation is effective January 1, 2010.
Financial Implications
The annexation order requires the City to make direct payment to the County for 50% of of the costs of a range road annexed into the City which was recently reconstructed by the County. The 50% cost is $170,039.09. Also, the City is required to reimburse the County for a portion of municipal tax revenue lost by the County as a result of annexation totaling $60,316.90 over a three year period.
There are also other costs to the City arising from the annexation such as for road maintenance and weed control.
The 2010 approved City of Camrose budget includes provision for the budgetary implications of the annexation. Communication
The MGB has provided notice of the annexation Order to landowners. Notice of the annexation will be provided on the City's website and in local newspapers. Amendments to the City's Municipal Development Plan will be required to properly zone the newly annexed area which will also involve communication with newly annexed landowners.
Strategic Plan
One Strategic Priority of the Strategic Plan is Growth Management. A deliverable is to "Reach agreement with Camrose County on annexation". Agreement was achieved and obtaining the Annexation Order is the final step in the annexation process.
Conclusion
The Order in Council has been received approving the application for annexation of approximately 1147 hectares (2834 acres) of territory from Camrose County into the City of Camrose. Camrose County and the City of Camrose reached agreement on October 15, 2008 to the terms of the annexation. The MGB altered two conditions of assessment and taxation applicable to the newly annexed areas increasing the transition period from ten to fifteen years and changing the trigger for removal of the terms to creation of a new parcel. Financial implications of the annexation were included in the approved 2010 City of Camrose budget.
It is recommended this report be received for information. An alternative is for Council to request a follow-up report from Administration with more information.
SUBMITTED BY:
Brian Hamblin, City Manager.
Annexation — Feb22 2010.doc
File: 731-8 OP C • 25/2010
FEB 0 3 2010
Province of Alberta Order in Council ORDER IN COUNCIL
Approved and ordered:
The Lieutenant Governor in Council orders that Lieutenant Governor (a) effective January 1, 2010, the land described in Appendix A and shown on the sketch in Appendix B is separated from Camrose County and annexed to the City of Camrose,
(b) any taxes owing to Camrose County at the end of December 31, 2009 in respect of the annexed lands are transferred to and become payable to the City of Camrose together with any lawful penalties and costs levied in respect of those taxes and the City of Camrose upon collecting those taxes, penalties and costs must pay them to Camrose County, and
(c) the assessor for the City of Camrose must assess, for the purposes of taxation in 2010 and subsequent years, the annexed land and the assessable improvements to it,
and makes the Order in Appendix C. CHAIR
For Information only
Recommended by: Minister of Municipal Affairs
Authority: Municipal Government Act (sections 125 and 138) APPENDIX A
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE LANDS SEPARATED FROM CAMROSE COUNTY AND ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF CAMROSE
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION NINE (9), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SEVEN (47), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN.
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION TEN (10), TOWNSHIP FORTY- SEVEN (47), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN.
ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION TWELVE (12), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SEVEN (47), RANGE TWENTY (20), WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN LYING WEST OF THE EAST BOUNDARY OF PLAN 982- 6011 AND INCLUDING ALL THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH-SOUTH ROAD ALLOWANCE LYING WEST OF THE PRODUCTION SOUTH OF THE EAST BOUNDARY OF PLAN 982-6011.
ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION TWELVE (12), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SEVEN (47), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN LYING WEST OF THE PROJECTION SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE EAST BOUNDARY OF PLAN 3694AF AND SOUTH OF THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF PLAN 5359Y.
ALL THAT PORTION OF SECTION ONE (1), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SEVEN (47), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN NOT WITHIN THE CITY OF CAMROSE INCLUDING ALL LANDS LYING WEST OF THE EAST BOUNDARY OF THE NORTH-SOUTH ROAD ALLOWANCE ADJACENT TO THE EAST SIDE OF SAID SECTION AND INCLUDING ALL LANDS LYING WEST OF THE PRODUCTION SOUTH OF THE EAST BOUNDARY OF THE NORTH-SOUTH ROAD ALLOWANCE ADJACENT TO THE EAST SIDE OF SAID SECTION.
ALL THAT PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTION THIRTY-SIX (36), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SIX (46), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN NOT WITHIN THE CITY OF CAMROSE INCLUDING ALL LANDS ADJACENT TO THE NORTH SIDE OF SAID HALF SECTION LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF PLAN 5295PX.
ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION THIRTY- SIX (36), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SIX (46), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN LYING SOUTHWEST OF THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF PLAN 677R.
ALL THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION TWENTY-FIVE (25), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SIX (46), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN NOT WITHIN THE CITY OF CAMROSE LYING SOUTHWEST OF THE
PG FINAL — November 16, 2009 NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF PLAN 677R AND INCLUDING ALL THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH-SOUTH ROAD ALLOWANCE ADJACENT TO THE EAST SIDE OF SAID HALF SECTION LYING SOUTH OF THE PROJECTION SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF PLAN 677R.
ALL THAT PORTION OF SECTION TWENTY-SEVEN (27), TOWNSHIP FORTY- SIX (46), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN NOT WITHIN THE CITY OF CAMROSE INCLUDING THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH-SOUTH ROAD ALLOWANCE ADJACENT TO THE EAST SIDE OF SAID SECTION.
ALL THAT PORTION OF SECTION TWENTY-TWO (22), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SIX (46), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN NOT WITHIN THE CITY OF CAMROSE INCLUDING THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH-SOUTH ROAD ALLOWANCE ADJACENT TO THE EAST SIDE OF SAID SECTION.
THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION FIFTEEN (15), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SIX (46), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN INCLUDING THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH-SOUTH ROAD ALLOWANCE ADJACENT TO THE EAST SIDE OF SAID HALF SECTION.
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION TWENTY-ONE (21), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SIX (46), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN.
ALL THAT PORTION OF SECTION TWENTY-NINE (29), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SIX (46), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN NOT WITHIN THE CITY OF CAMROSE.
ALL THAT PORTION OF SECTION THIRTY-TWO (32), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SIX (46), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN NOT WITHIN THE CITY OF CAMROSE.
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION THIRTY-ONE (31), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SIX (46), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN INCLUDING ALL THAT LAND ADJACENT TO THE NORTH SIDE OF SAID QUARTER SECTION LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF PLAN 2183PX.
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION FIVE (5), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SEVEN (47), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN INCLUDING ALL OF PLAN 722-2705.
ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION FOUR (4), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SEVEN (47), RANGE TWENTY (20) NOT WITHIN THE CITY OF CAMROSE LYING SOUTH OF THE PRODUCTION WEST OF THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF RAILWAY PLAN C&E 10.
PG FIN4L — November 16, 2009 APPENDIX B
A SKETCH SHOWING THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE AREAS ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF CAMROSE
ifs- - 10 , • )1 I • II 1=,r, /11 1-;...1 tm...... 3,0001._L L % INI: lig ed:11-01 -41116..ti,X Bane , ,
Legend Existing City Boundary
Annexation Areas
PG FINAL — November 16, 2009 APPENDIX C
ORDER
1 In this Order, "annexed land" means the land described in Appendix A and shown on the sketch in Appendix B.
2 For the purposes of taxation in 2010 and in each subsequent year up to and including 2024, the annexed land and the assessable improvements to it (a) must be assessed by the City of Camrose on the same basis as if they had remained in Camrose County, and (b) must be taxed by the City of Camrose in respect of each assessment class that applies to the annexed land and the assessable improvements to it using the lower of (i) the municipal tax rate established by the City of Camrose, or (ii) the municipal tax rate established by Camrose County.
3(l ) Where in any taxation year a portion of the annexed land (a) is redesignated, at the request of or on behalf of the landowner, under the City of Camrose Land Use Bylaw, (b) becomes a new parcel of land created as a result of subdivision or separation of title by registered plan of subdivision or by instrument or any other method that occurs at the request of or on behalf of the landowner, (c) is the subject of a local improvement project described in a local improvement bylaw initiated by or on behalf of or with the support of the landowner pursuant to which the City of Camrose water and sanitary sewer services are made available to that portion of the annexed land, or (d) is connected to the water or sanitary sewer services provided by the City of Camrose section 2 ceases to apply at the end of that taxation year in respect of that portion of the annexed land and the assessable improvements to it.
(2) If, under subsection ), section 2 ceases to apply to a portion of the annexed land in a taxation year, that portion of the annexed land and the assessable improvements to it must be assessed and taxed for the purposes of property taxes in the following year in the same manner as other property of the same assessment class in the City of Camrose is assessed and taxed.
PG FINAL — November 16, 2009 4 The City of Camrose will pay to Camrose County the following in Canadian dollars: (a) $86,422.90 on or before December 31, 2010, (b) $75,117.50 on or before December 31, 2011, and (c) $67,815.59 on or before December 31, 2012.
PG FINAL — November 16, 2009 BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
Summary
The City of Camrose (City) is located approximately 100 kilometres southeast of Edmonton along Highway 13. On February 17, 2009 the Municipal Government Board (MGB) received an annexation application from the City to annex approximately 1,147 hectares (2,834 acres) territory from Camrose County (County).
The City and. County were in agreement with respect to the annexation application. However, some affected landowners indicated that they opposed the proposed annexation. Because of these objections, the MGB held a public hearing on May 1, 2009 in order to receive information, evidence and argument on the annexation application.
After reviewing the documentation provided prior to the hearing, as well as listening to the presentations by the parties affected by the proposed annexations, the MOB finds that the purpose of the annexations and amount of land being requested by the City is reasonable and that the concerns of affected landowners have been given proper consideration.
The MGB is satisfied that the compensation amount agreed to by the City and County is equitable. The agreement reached between the two municipalities requires the City to pay a portion of the costs incurred by the County. to reconstruct a range road that will be annexed to the City. The City is to pay the County 50 percent of the $340,078.18 reconstruction cost over the next three years. The City is also required to reimburse the County for a portion of the municipal tax revenue lost by the County as a result of the annexation. The City is required to pay the County-$60,316.90 over a three year period,
The MGB recommends changes to the assessment and taxation conditions proposed by Annexation Agreement between the City and the County. The Annexation Agreement proposes a ten year taxation and assessment condition transition period for landowners within the annexation' area. The MGB recommends that this transition period be extended to a period of 15 years. This change will serve to provide increased certainty to affected landowners. Additionally, the Annexation Agreement identifies, that the assessment and taxation conditions are to be removed if the portion of the annexed land receives a development permit. The MGB finds the aforementioned triggering provision to be too broad in scope. The MGB recommends this provision be changed so that the assessment and taxation conditions are removed if the land becomes a new parcel of land created as a result of subdivision or separation of title at the request of or on behalf of the landowner.
After having conducted its investigation, the MGB concluded that it was in the greater public interest to recommend approval of the proposed annexation. The collaboration between the two municipalities meets the objectives of intermunicipal cooperation outlined in the Provincial Land Use Policies, the annexation principles set out by the MGB, and the Act.
125annexordersM 118.09 Page 9 of 27 Government of Alberta ■
Municipal Government 15th floor, Commerce Place ILE eiumtiLK 9. - - 102 Street ■61 Board (MGB) Edmonton Alberta Canada 1574L4 DATE RECEIVED '7-2.6b /6//0 - —.NI 780.427.4864 Fax 780.427.0986 [email protected] OUR FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01 ;14.ARGED 'IRCIMATE TO February 09, 2010
Brian Hamblin Steven Gerlitz City of Camrose Camrose County 5204 — 50 Avenue 3755 — 43 Avenue Camrose, Alberta T4V 0S8 Camrose, Alberta T4V 3S8
Re: Annexation City of Camrose
Enclosed is one copy of Order in Council No. OC 25/2010, dated February 03, 2010 which approves the application for annexation of certain lands to the City of Camrose.
Yours truly, 16,c/
- ck Duncan Case Manager
RD/nr Enc.
cc: - Dave Scheideman, Federation of Alberta Gas Co-ops Ltd. Melanie Bayley, Manager, Engineering Planning, ATCO Gas Wendy Kirchmayer, Land Department, ATCO Pipelines, Right-of-Way Administration Thomas, Linder, Manager — Planning, ATCO Pipelines Ben Whyte, Group Leader — Billing and Load Balancing, ATCO Pipelines - Jim Chord, AltaLis Ltd. - Keith McCourt, Department of Natural Resource, Canada Centre for Mapping - Paul Drew-Brook, FortisAlberta - Walter & Eugenia Manchakowski - Shaw Pipe Protection Limited - Encana Corporation - Lila Katherine Rosland - Eileen M. Broen - Richard & Judy Riexinger - Phyllis McGee AltaLink Management Ltd. - Clifford & Carolyn Walline - Judy Duggan - T. Arthur & Johanna Reiten
Page 1 Roger C & Barbara J. Shermack - 1264505 Alberta Ltd. - Canadian National Railway Company — mail returned address unknown - Duane & Pam Reber - Leon J. Marek Esther B. Monson - Douglas E & Judy Ann Phillips - 486245 Alberta Ltd. Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company - Gustave Edward Hoyme - Weyga Farming Ltd. - Ernest D. & A. Verna Hilderman - Merril E & Sylvia M Glenn Donald C & Elizabeth M Anderson - Thomas R. & Lydia Haselwood - Sid Livingston, Telus Communications - Edith L. Gonzalez - Leonard Church - Andrew Church - Andy Charchun, Alberta Transportation - Cathy Maniego, Alberta Transportation - Gerald F. Atkinson, mail returned address unknown - Tim Palmer, Canada Post Corporation Vallerie Moldowan, Atco Gas Ebenezer Home Society — mail returned, address unknown - Ronald Duggan, mail returned address unknown Jo-Anne Van Sickle, Atco Pipelines Progress Land, Darcy Hardy, Telus Communications - Brenda Hisey, City of Camrose - Donald G. Pearson Diane Sheets Chief Darrel Kambeitz, Camrose City Police - Gladys Leone Anderson, mail returned address unknown Community Services, Paul Neilsen, City of Camrose - Development Officer, Anjah Howard, Camrose County - Dr. Larry Payne, Battle River Regional Division NO. 31 - Garry Simpson, FortisAlberta Inc. - Canadian National Resources Limited - David Helmer, Alberta Environment Elk Island Catholic Separate Reg Dist No. 41 - Hal Newans, Cable TV of Camrose Inc. - Provisioning Technician, Marilyn Lukion, Telus Network Operations - Janet Rachael Monson - Karen L. Urquhart, mail returned address unknown Director of Eng. Services, Mark Barrett, City of Camrose Pam Williams, East Central Health
Page 2 BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
IN THE MATTER OF THE Municipal Government Act being Chapter M-26 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 (Act).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by the City of Camrose, in the Province of Alberta, to annex certain territory lying immediately adjacent thereto and thereby its separation from Camrose County.
BEFORE:
Members:
R. Scotnicki, Presiding Officer J. Acker, Member J. Noonan, Member
MGB Staff:
R. Duncan, Case Manager C. Young, Assistant Case Manager
SUMMARY
After careful examination of the submissions from the City of Camrose (City), Camrose County (County), affected landowners, and other interested parties, the Municipal Government Board (MGB) makes the following recommendation for the reasons set out in the MGB report, shown as Appendix D of this Board Order.
Recommendation
That the annexation be approved in accordance with the following:
The Lieutenant Governor in Council orders that (a) effective January 1, 2010, the land described in Appendix A and shown on the sketch in Appendix B is separated from Camrose County and annexed to the City of Camrose,
(b) any taxes owing to Camrose County at the end of December 31, 2009 in respect of the annexed lands are transferred to and become payable to the City of Camrose together with any lawful penalties and costs levied in respect of those taxes and the City of Camrose upon collecting those taxes, penalties and costs must pay them to Camrose County, and
125annexardersM I I 8-09 Page 1 of 27 Alberra BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
(c) the assessor for the City of Camrose must assess, for the purposes of taxation in 2010 and subsequent years, the annexed land and the assessable improvements to it, and makes the Order in Appendix C.
Dated at the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, 17th day of November 2009.
GOVERNMENT BOARD
R. Scotnicki, Presiding Officer
125annexordersM 118-09 Page 2 of 27 BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
APPENDIX A
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE LANDS SEPARATED FROM CAMROSE COUNTY AND ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF CAMROSE
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION NINE (9), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SEVEN (47), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN.
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION TEN (10), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SEVEN (47), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN.
ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION TWELVE (12), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SEVEN (47), RANGE TWENTY (20), WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN LYING WEST OF THE EAST BOUNDARY OF PLAN 982-6011 AND INCLUDING ALL THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH-SOUTH ROAD ALLOWANCE LYING WEST OF THE PRODUCTION SOUTH OF THE EAST BOUNDARY OF PLAN 982- 6011.
ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION TWELVE (12), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SEVEN (47), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN LYING WEST OF THE PROJECTION SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE EAST BOUNDARY OF PLAN 3694AF AND SOUTH OF THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF PLAN 5359Y.
ALL THAT PORTION OF SECTION ONE (1), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SEVEN (47), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN NOT WITHIN THE CITY OF CAMROSE INCLUDING ALL LANDS LYING WEST OF THE EAST BOUNDARY OF THE NORTH-SOUTH ROAD ALLOWANCE ADJACENT TO THE EAST SIDE OF SAID SECTION AND INCLUDING ALL LANDS LYING WEST OF THE PRODUCTION. SOUTH OF THE EAST BOUNDARY OF THE NORTH-SOUTH ROAD ALLOWANCE ADJACENT TO THE EAST SIDE OF SAID SECTION.
ALL THAT PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTION THIRTY-SIX (36), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SIX (46), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN NOT WITHIN THE CITY OF CAMROSE INCLUDING ALL LANDS ADJACENT TO THE NORTH SIDE OF SAID HALF SECTION LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF PLAN. 5295PX.
ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION THIRTY-SIX (36), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SIX (46), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN LYING SOUTHWEST OF THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF PLAN 677R.
125annexordersM118-09 Page 3 of 27 Albvra BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
ALL THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION TWENTY-FIVE (25), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SIX (46), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN NOT WITHIN THE CITY OF CAMROSE LYING SOUTHWEST OF THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF PLAN 677R AND INCLUDING ALL THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH-SOUTH ROAD ALLOWANCE ADJACENT TO THE EAST SIDE OF SAID HALF SECTION LYING SOUTH OF THE PROJECTION SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF PLAN 677R.
ALL THAT PORTION OF SECTION TWENTY-SEVEN (27), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SIX (46), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN NOT WITHIN THE CITY OF CAMROSE INCLUDING THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH-SOUTH ROAD ALLOWANCE ADJACENT TO THE EAST SIDE OF SAID SECTION.
ALL THAT PORTION OF SECTION TWENTY-TWO (22), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SIX (46), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN NOT WITHIN THE CITY OF CAMROSE INCLUDING THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH-SOUTH ROAD ALLOWANCE ADJACENT TO THE EAST SIDE OF SAID SECTION.
THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION FIFTEEN (15), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SIX (46), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN INCLUDING THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH-SOUTH ROAD ALLOWANCE ADJACENT TO THE EAST SIDE OF SAID HALF SECTION.
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION TWENTY-ONE (21), TOWNSHIP FORTY- SIX (46), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN.
ALL THAT PORTION OF SECTION TWENTY-NINE (29), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SIX (46), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN NOT WITHIN THE CITY OF CAMROSE.
ALL THAT PORTION OF SECTION THIRTY-TWO (32), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SIX (46), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN NOT WITHIN THE CITY OF CAMROSE.
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION THIRTY-ONE (31), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SIX (46), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN INCLUDING ALL THAT LAND ADJACENT TO THE NORTH SIDE OF SAID QUARTER SECTION LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF PLAN 2183PX.
125annexordersM118-09 Page 4 of 27 BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09
AlbertaMUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION FIVE (5), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SEVEN (47), RANGE TWENTY (20) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN INCLUDING ALL OF PLAN 722-2705.
ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION FOUR (4), TOWNSHIP FORTY-SEVEN (47), RANGE TWENTY (20) NOT WITHIN THE CITY OF CAMROSE LYING SOUTH OF THE PRODUCTION WEST OF THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF RAILWAY PLAN C&E 10.
1 25annexordersM 1 1$-09 Page 5 of 27 A1b3ria BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
APPENDIX B
A SKETCH SHOWING THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE AREAS ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF CAMROSE
Legend Existing City Boundary
Annexation Areas
125annexordersM118-09 Page 6 of 27 BOARD ORDER NO: MGB 118/09
Alb=MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
APPENDIX C
ORDER
l In this Order, "annexed land" means the land described in Appendix A and shown on the sketch in Appendix B.
2 For the purposes of taxation in 2010 and in each subsequent year up to and including 2024, the annexed land and the assessable improvements to it
(a) must be assessed by the City of Camrose on the same basis as if they had remained in Camrose County, and (b) must be taxed by the City of Camrose in respect of each assessment class that applies to the annexed land and the assessable improvements to it using the lower of (i) the municipal tax rate established by the City of Camrose, or (ii) the municipal tax rate established by Camrose County.
3(1) Where in any taxation year a portion of the annexed land (a) is redesignated, at the request of or on behalf of the landowner, under the City of Camrose Land Use Bylaw, (b) becomes a new parcel of land .created as a result of subdivision or separation of title by registered plan of subdivision or by instrument or any other method that occurs at the request of or on behalf of the landowner, (c) is the subject of a local improvement project described in a local improvement bylaw initiated by or on behalf of or with the support of the landowner pursuant to which the City of Camrose water and sanitary sewer services are made available to that portion of the annexed land, or (d) is connected to the water or sanitary sewer services provided by the City of Camrose section 2 ceases to apply at the end of that taxation year in respect of that portion of the annexed land and the assessable improvements to it.
(2) If, under subsection (1), section 2 ceases to apply to a portion of the annexed land in a taxation year, that portion of the annexed land and the assessable improvements to it must be assessed and taxed for the purposes of property taxes in the following year in the same manner as other property of the same assessment class in the City of Camrose is assessed and taxed.
4 The City of Camrose will pay to Camrose County the following in Canadian dollars: (a) $86,422.90 on or before December 31, 2010, (b) $75,117.50 on or before December 31, 2011, and (c) $67,815.59 on•or before December 31, 2012.
125annexordersM118-09 Page 7 of 27 BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09
AlbertaMUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
APPENDIX "D"
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD REPORT TO THE MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS RESPECTING THE CITY OF CAMROSE'S PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY FROM CAMROSE COUNTY
Table of Contents
I Introduction ...... 10 II Role of the MGB, the Minister and the Lieutenant Governor in Council ...... 10 III Annexation Application ...... 10 Annexation Area ...... 11 Development Plans ...... 11 Provision of Municipal Services ...... 12 The Landowner and Public Consultation Process ...... 16 Identified Landowner and Public Issues ...... 16 Consultation with Local Authorities and Agencies ...... 16 The Annexation Agreement with the County ...... 17 Compensation ...... 17 Proposed Assessment and Taxation Conditions ...... 18 IV MGB Application Processing Methodology and Public Hearing ...... 19 MGB Application Processing ...... 19 The Public Hearing ...... 19 City's Submission ...... 19 County's Submission ...... 21 Landowner/Public Submissions ...... 22 County's Response to Landowner/Public Submissions and Summary ...... 23 City's Response to Landowner/Public Submissions and Summary ...... 23 V MGB Recommendations ...... 24 VI Reasons ...... 24
125annexordersM118-09 Page 8 of 27 BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09
AlbertaMUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
Summary
The City of Camrose (City) is located approximately 100 kilometres southeast of Edmonton along Highway 13. On February 17, 2009 the Municipal Government Board (MGB) received an annexation application from the City to annex approximately 1,147 hectares (2,834 acres) territory from Camrose County (County).
The City and. County were in agreement with respect to the annexation application. However, some affected landowners indicated that they opposed the proposed annexation. Because of these objections, the MGB held a public hearing on May 1, 2009 in order to receive information, evidence and argument on the annexation application.
After reviewing the documentation provided prior to the hearing, as well as listening to the presentations by the parties affected by the proposed annexations, the MGB finds that the purpose of the annexations and amount of land being requested by the City is reasonable and that the concerns of affected landowners have been given proper consideration.
The MGB is satisfied that the compensation amount agreed to by the City and County is equitable. The agreement reached between the two municipalities requires the City to pay a portion of the costs incurred by the County to reconstruct a range road that will be annexed to the City. The City is to pay the County 50 percent of the $340,078.18 reconstruction cost over .the next three years. The City is also required to reimburse the County for a portion of the municipal tax revenue lost by the County as a result of the annexation. The City is required to pay the County $60,316.90 over a three year period.
The MGB recommends changes to the assessment and taxation conditions proposed by Annexation Agreement between the City and the County. The Annexation Agreement proposes a ten year taxation and assessment condition transition period for landowners within the annexation area. The MGB recommends that this transition period be extended to a period of 15 years. This change will serve to provide increased certainty to affected landowners. Additionally, the Annexation Agreement identifies that the assessment and taxation conditions are to be removed if the portion of the annexed land receives a development permit. The MGB finds the aforementioned triggering provision to be too broad in scope. The MGB recommends this provision be changed so that the assessment and taxation conditions are removed if the land becomes a new parcel of land created as a result of subdivision or separation of title at the request of or on behalf of the landowner.
After having conducted its investigation, the MGB concluded that it was in the greater public interest to recommend approval of the proposed annexation. The collaboration between the two municipalities meets the objectives of intermunicipal cooperation outlined in the Provincial Land Use Policies, the annexation principles set out by the MGB, and the Act.
125annexordersM118-09 Page 9 of 27 BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09
AlbertaMUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
I Introduction
The City of Camrose (City) is located approximately 100 kilometres southeast of Edmonton along Highway 13. The City is bounded by Camrose County (County), and has a current population of 16,543.
A 2006 analysis conducted for the City projects that its population could increase to 35,230 by the year 2036. The City is seeking to acquire sufficient land to provide for additional residential, commercial, and industrial development. The City estimates that the proposed annexation territory will bolster its supply of land in order to meet its needs for approximately the next 30 years.
On February 17, 2009 the Municipal Government Board (MGB) received a formal annexation application from the City. The proposed- annexation constitutes an approximate total of 1,147 hectares (2,834 acres).
The City and County were in agreement with the annexation application, and the application indicates that that there were no matters that had not been agreed upon by the two municipalities. However, since the application contained objections, the MGB held a public hearing on May 1, 2009 to receive representations on the annexation applications in accordance with Section 120 of the Municipal Government Act (Act).
II Role of the MGB, the Minister and the Lieutenant Governor in Council
The MGB became active in the annexation process once the City filed its negotiation report with the MGB and requested the MGB to proceed with the annexation, pursuant to section 119(2) of the Act. Although the City and the County were in agreement with the proposed annexation, the MGB determined that the application submitted by the City contained objections. Moreover, additional objections were filed with the MGB! In accordance with section 120(3)(b) of the Act, the MGB conducted a hearing. The MGB is now required to prepare a written report of its findings and provide a recommendation to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Minister) and the Lieutenant Governor in Council (LGC).
The Minister and the LGC have the authority to accept in whole or in part or completely reject the findings and recommendations of the MGB report.
III Annexation Application
The MGB received the City's annexation application on February 17, 2009. The following section describes the proposed annexation area, the current state of development plans, indicates
125annexorders1V1118-09 Page 10 of 27 BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09
AlbertaMUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
how municipal services will be provided to the proposed annexation area, outlines the public consultation process used to develop the application, highlights the concerns expressed by landowners and the public during the City's consultation process, describes the Annexation Agreement between the City and the County, and states the proposed compensation provisions and assessment and taxation conditions agreed to by the municipalities.
Annexation Area
The annexation area proposed by the City is illustrated on Map 1.
Map 1: Proposed City of Camrose Annexation Area
[ANNEXATION LANDS
S
f I1 1':1° 1
fl
Annex Roads IIIII:ZIIK1 Annex Parcel's
.4------....':.!------...... 1 ,.. r Source: City of Camrose Annexation Application
125annexordersM118-09 Page 11 of 27 BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09
AlbertaMUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
Development Plans
Policies within the Municipal Development Plans (MDP) of each municipality support intermunicipal cooperation and communication and recognize the potential for annexation. An Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP) is currently being created between the City and County in conjunction with the proposed annexation. An initial open house regarding the IDP was held on March 16, 2009 and the plan is expected to be completed by Fall 2009.
Provision of Municipal Services
The annexation application provides detailed information concerning the City's ability to extend roadways, water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer servicing to various portions of the annexation area.
Northwest Sector (SE 9, SW 10)
Roadways: This sector is currently only serviced by arterial roadways through the northerly extension of 68 Street, north of Camrose. In the future, 68 Street will be upgraded to the ultimate four-lane divided urban standard. In addition, the City plans to construct a major east/west arterial roadway along the south edge of this sector.
Water: The properties in this sector will be serviced through a network of transmission and distribution lines from the south and from the east. Water services will be continued to the north and west to permit possible future growth in these areas.
Sanitary: These areas will be serviced from the east. Services will be extended through the properties to the west and north to permit drainage in these areas.
Storm: All developments will be required to retain storm runoff, releasing at pre-development flow rates to an unnamed creek which is tributary to Camrose Creek. Pending the outcome of a drainage study, there may be a need to also improve the drainage of the existing unnamed creek flowing through the properties. If required, this would possibly involve adding more depth and/or width to the creek.
West Sector (SE 5, NE 31)
Roadways: This sector is currently serviced by Highway 13, as well as Range Road 204/205 to the east. It is anticipated that Highway 13 will be developed to provide highway commercial access, while Range Roads 204/205 will be upgraded to urban, arterial standard.
125annexordersM118-09 Page 12 of 27 BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09
AlbertaMUNICIPAL. GOVERNMENT BOARD . FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
Water: The properties in this sector will be serviced through a network of transmission and distribution lines from the East. Water services will be continued to the north, south, and west to permit possible future growth in these areas. As these properties are located in a higher pressure zone, there may be need to supplement capacity at existing booster stations.
Sanitary: This sector, will be directly services with sanitary from the east. Services will be extended through the properties to the west, southwest, and south to permit drainage in these areas.
Storm: All developments will be required to retain storm runoff, releasing at pre-development flow rates to downstream storm infrastructure to the east.
West / Southwest Sector (SW 32, NW 29, SW 29, SE 29)
Roadways: This sector is currently serviced by Range Road 205, as well as Township Road 464. The City is planning to upgrade Range Road 205 as part of the westerly and northerly extension of Camrose Drive, the City's south ring road. Township Road 464 will also be upgraded as part of the ultimate arterial road network.
Water: The properties in this sector will be serviced through a network of transmission and distribution lines from the north and the east. Water services will be continued to the west to permit possible future growth in these areas. As these properties are located in a higher pressure zone, there may be need to supplement capacity at existing booster stations.
Sanitary: The majority of this sector will be directly serviced with a new trunk sewer from the southeast. The major sanitary collection pipes will be sized to accept future sanitary flows for the north.
Storm: All developments will be required to retain storm runoff, releasing at pre-development flow rates to downstream storm infrastructure to the east, southeast, and northeast. There is a possibility that the west portion of part of this sector will need to be temporarily pumped into existing storm infrastructure to the east. Ultimately, this pump station can be abandoned if and when downstream properties to the southwest are developed.
Southwest Sector (NW 21)
Roadways: This sector will be serviced predominantly through the southerly extension of 68 Street along Range Road 204.
1 25annexordersM 118-09 Page 13 of 27 BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118109
AlbertaMUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
Water: The property in this sector will be serviced through a network of distribution lines from the north. Water services will be continued to the west and to the south to permit possible future growth in these areas.
Sanitary: A new trunk sewer has been installed immediately north of this sector. Due to the significant depths of this trunk sewer, the majority of this sector can be drained by gravity to the north.
Storm: All developments will be required to retain storm runoff, releasing at pre-development flow rates to Camrose Creek to the east.
South Sector (SE 27, NE 22, SE 22, NE 15, NW 15)
Roadways: This sector is currently serviced by a number of arterial roadways, including 39 Street (Range Road 202), 50 Street (Range Road 202A), Range Road 203, Township Road 464, and Township Road 463. Each of these roadways will be developed as major or arterial roadways to service this area. In order to improve railway crossing safety, the City is considering realignment of 39 Street (Rand Road 202) and Township Road 464 to intersect an existing CN rail spur line at right angles.
Water: The property in this sector will be serviced through a network of distribution lines from the north. Water services will be extended to the east and to the south to permit possible future growth in these areas.
Sanitary: This area will be directly serviced with the new southeast trunk sewer, which will be of such depth and diameter to accept a significant amount of future sanitary flows from the north.
Storm: All developments will be required to retain storm runoff, releasing at pre-development flow rates to downstream storm infrastructure to the west.
Northeast Sector (NE 1, SE 1)
Roadways: This sector is currently serviced by Highway 26 to the south, as well as Range Road 200 to the east. Both of these roadways will be upgraded to an ultimate urban standard with development.
Water: The properties in this sector will be serviced through a network of transmission and distribution lines from the south and west. Water services will be continued to the east to permit possible future growth in these areas.
Sanitary: These areas will be serviced from the south.
1 25annexord ersM I 1 8-09 Page 14 of 27 BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09
AlbertaMUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
Storm: All developments will be required to retain storm runoff, releasing at pre-development flow rates to downstream storm infrastructure to the northwest. Due to the proximity of this sector to the Camrose Regional Airport, it will likely be necessary to design and construct the storm retention facilities to discourage the presence of larger birds and other waterfowl that can be a threat to aircraft.
East / Northeast Sector (NW 36, SW 36)
Roadways: This sector is currently serviced by Highway 26 to the north, as well as Exhibition Drive to the west. Both of these roadways will be upgraded to an ultimate urban standard with development.
Water: The properties in this sector will be serviced through a network of transmission and distribution lines from the north, south, and west. Water services will be continued to the east and southeast to permit possible future growth in these areas.
Sanitary: These areas will be directly serviced from the west. Services will be extended through the properties to the east and north to permit drainage in these areas.
Storm: All developments will be required to retain storm runoff; releasing at pre-development flow rates to downstream storm infrastructure to the southwest. Due to the proximity of this sector to the Camrose Regional Airport, it will likely be necessary to design and construct the storm retention facilities to discourage the presence of larger birds and other waterfowl that can be a threat to aircraft.
East / Southeast Sector (NW 25, NE 25)
Roadways: This sector is currently serviced by Highway 13 to the northeast, as well as Exhibition Drive to the west and Range Road 200 to the east. These roadways will be upgraded to an ultimate urban standard with development. Nor direct industrial access will be permitted to Camrose Drive (Highway 13A), as this will continue to act as a bypass road for Camrose.
Water: The property in this sector will be serviced through a network of distribution lines from the north and west. Water services will be extended to the south to permit possible future growth in these areas.
Sanitary: These areas will be directly serviced from the north. Due to elevation differences, the South portion of this sector will need to be temporarily pumped to the north. Ultimately, these pump stations can be abandoned if and when downstream properties to the south are developed.
125annexordersM118-09 Page 15 of 27 BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09
AlbertaMUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
Storm: All developments will be required to retain storm runoff, releasing at pre-development flow rates to downstream storm infrastructure to the north. Due to elevation differences, the south portion of this sector will need to be temporarily pumped to the north. Ultimately, pump stations in this sector can be abandoned if and when downstream properties to the south are developed.
The Landowner and Public Consultation Process
The public consultation process conducted by the City provided opportunities for affected landowners and the public/adjacent landowners to become informed about the proposed annexation and to express their opinions.
The City hosted open house meetings for affected landowners on April 17, 2007 and November 5, 2008. Letters were sent to landowners inviting them to attend the meetings and each open house featured a presentation by City and County officials. Interested parties were given opportunity to provide input and ask questions; Additional information was also provided by the City to landowners on a one-on-one basis. Annexation information was also made available to the public through the City's website.
Identified Landowner and Public Issues
The City received input from landowners and the public through the consultation process outlined above. Landowners expressed concerns relating to the impact of urban bylaws, the extension of servicing, potential increases in taxation, and the protection of wetlands. Some of these landowners requested not to have their lands included in the annexation. Some property owners located outside of the proposed annexation territory also expressed a desire to be included in the annexation.
ConsUltation withlocal Authorities and Agencies
The annexation application indicates that the local school boards and Health Authority were provided with copies of the City's annexation application.
In a letter to the City dated December 8, 2008 Alberta Transportation (AT) identified issues relating to the fact that the proposed annexation crosses provincial highways. AT required that the City include directly affected sections of provincial highway which are wholly within or adjacent to the annexed lands. AT clarified that the City would become fully responsible for direction, management and control of these highways, including maintenance and future capital upgrades. This would include:
125annexordersM118-09 Page 16 of 27 BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09
AlbertaMUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
▪ Highway 13 adjacent to NE 25-46-20-W4M ■ Highway 13 adjacent to NE 31-46-20-W4M ▪ Highway 13 adjacent to SE 5-47-20-W4M ■ Highway 26 adjacent to NW 36-46-20-W4M ■ Highway 26 adjacent to SE 1-47-20-W4M.
AT further explained that the additional kilometres of highway within the City would be eligible for the annual Primary Highway Maintenance grant.
The Annexation Agreement with the County
The City and the County came to full agreement regarding the annexation details. A negotiation process was conducted, leading to agreement as to the proposed annexation area, tax and compensation agreement, assessment provisions, and transfer date. The annexation application was signed by both the City and County, indicating their approval of the Negotiation Report.
Compensation
The Annexation Agreement included provisions for the sharing of the costs associated with the County's reconstruction of Range Road 203 as well as providing decreasing amounts of compensation to be provided from the City to the County annually over a three year period.
With regard to the cost sharing associated with the County's reconstruction of Range Road 203, the Annexation Agreement states that:
The City shall pay the County 50 percent of the incurred cost of reconstruction of Range Road 203 Project Number 3-41-06 completed in 2007 for a total cost of $340,078.18. The City's share, being $170,039.09 shall be payable over three consecutive years by payments of $56,112.90, $56,112.90, and 57,813.29, payable on or before December 31 in each of the three years. The parties intend the first payment to be made on or before December 31 2009 assuming the effective date of the annexation as January 1 2009 or such other date within 2009 as the Annexation Order specifies. If the effective date of the Annexation Order is in 2010 the first payment shall. occur on or before December 31, 2010.
The amount of taxes generated by the County from the proposed annexation lands in 2008 was $30,310. Using this as the base, the two municipalities agreed that the City would pay a total of $60,316.90 over a three year period to compensate the County for the loss of tax revenue. The compensation payment schedule identified in the Annexation Agreement is as follows:
t 25annexordersM 118.09 Page 17 of 27 BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09
AlbertaMUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
a. 100 percent of the Taxes ($30,310.00) on or before December 31 of the year following the effective date of the Annexation Order b. 66 percent of the Taxes ($20,004.60) on or before December 31 of the second year following the effective date of the Annexation Order, and c. 33 percent of the Taxes ($10,002.00) on or before December 31 of the third year following the effective date of the Annexation
In summary, the total amount to be paid by the City to the County over the three year period is $230,355.99. Table 1 identifies the amount to be paid each year.
Table 1: Amount to be paid by City to County
Payment Due Range Road 203 Compensation Total Reconstruction First year following the annexation $56,112.90 $30,310.00 $86,422.90 Second year following the annexation $56,112.90 $20,004.60 $76,117.50 Third year following the annexation $57,813.29 $10,002.00 $67,815.59 Total $60,316.90 $170,039.09 $230,355.99
The application indicates that the annexation is not expected to have a significant financial impact on either municipality.
Proposed Assessment and Taxation Conditions
The annexation application contains a proposed 10 year assessment and taxation transition period. During the transition period, the annexed lands and assessable improvements to them would be assessed as if they had remained within the County and taxed at the lowest of the two municipalities' rates. These provisions would cease to apply to a portion of the annexed land and the assessable improvements to it in the taxation year immediately following the taxation year in which: (a) The portion of the annexed land is redesignated under the City of Camrose Land Use Bylaw, at the request of, or On behalf of the landowner; (b) The portion of the annexed land receives a development permit; (c) The portion of the annexed land is the subject of a local improvement project described in a local improvement bylaw initiated by or on behalf of or with the support of the landowner pursuant to which the City of Camrose water and sanitary sewer services are made available to that portion of the annexed land; or (d) The portion of the annexed land is connected to the water or sanitary sewer services provided by the City of Camrose.
125annexordersM118-09 Page 18 of 27 BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09
AlbertaMUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
IV MGB Application Processing Methodology and Public Hearing
The following provides a description of the method used by the MGB to process the City's annexation application and describes the public hearing held May 1, 2009.
MGB Application Processing
In accordance with section 116 of the Act, the City submitted its notice of intent to annex to the County, the MGB and other local authorities on January 24, 2007. The City indicated that the reasons for the proposed annexation include meeting future residential, industrial, and commercial growth needs, and addressing the City's current shortage of lands suitable for development.
In accordance with section 118 of the Act, the required Negotiation Report was received by the MGB on February 17, 2009. The application submitted by the City included a copy of the Annexation Agreement between the City and the County, and a cheque for the annexation fees.
Although the City and the County were in agreement with the proposed annexation, the application contained objections from landowners. The Act requires that if the MGB receives an objection regarding an annexation application, the MGB must conduct one or more hearings in respect of the annexation.
A hearing on this matter was scheduled to commence at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, May 1, 2009 at the Edgeworth Centre located at 4512 — 53 Street in Camrose. In accordance with section 122(1) of the Act, the MGB published a notice of hearing in the Camrose Booster and the Camrose Canadian, local newspapers, during the weeks of April 6, 2009 and April 13, 2009 to notify the public. The MGB also sent letters to the City and County with copies to each of the affected landowners to notify the parties of the May 1, 2009 hearing. The letters and notices requested that any person who planned to attend the hearing, or make a submission at the hearing, notify the MGB by April 20, 2009.
The Public Hearing
Sixteen people attended the May 1, 2009 hearing. At the hearing, the MGB received oral submissions from the City, the County, adjacent landowners, and other affected landowners.
City's Submission
The City explained that the proposed annexation constitutes a comprehensive, long term, annexation and affects 1,147 hectares (2,834 acres) of land. The annexation is intended to address the future needs of the City by providing lands for a mix of residential, commercial and
125annexordersM 118-09 Page 19 of 27 Alberta BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01 industrial growth, as well as providing additional land for a public works buffer. The annexation application was approved by both the City and the County and has the support of the majority of affected landowners.
It was identified that the two municipalities have a substantial history of cooperation, as exhibited through a variety of existing joint projects and agreements. The City indicated that it had originally sought a 50 year annexation, but that negotiations with the County had led to agreement on a 30 year land supply.
A summary of the timeline under which the annexation application had progressed was outlined. In January 2007 the City provided notice of its intent to annex land from the County. An initial open house meeting was held for affected landowners on April 18, 2007. On October 14, 2008 a memorandum of understanding was agreed to by both municipalities, proposing a 30 year annexation. A second open house was held for affected landowners on November 5, 2008. The City's annexation application was then submitted to the MGB in February 2009.
The City explained that it has forecasted an anticipated 3.5% annual growth over five years (2007-2011) and 2.5% annual growth thereafter. This produces an estimate of 19,203 additional people over 30 years. The City indicated that recent growth has been relatively consistent with these projections.
A total of 3,950 acres were noted to be the City's estimated land requirements for a 30 year period: The current availability of lands within the City's boundary was submitted to be 1,761 acres in 2006, leading to a need for an additional 2,189 acres for development. In addition, 640 acres were submitted to be required for the purposes of a public works buffer. The City indicated that the proposed annexation is consistent with these requirements.
The proposed annexation lands are located to the west, north and east of the City and will not impact the Camrose Creek system. The City is currently preparing a wetlands inventory that will include the annexation area in order to identify potential wetlands. This information will prioritize and preserve sensitive wetlands within the annexation area so that these areas can be potentially incorporated into the City park system or utilized as storm retention ponds.
With respect to servicing capability and standards, the City submitted that it had recently updated the infrastructure planning studies for areas within and surrounding the current City limits. Master planning documents cover four key types of servicing infrastructure: transportation, storm sewers, sanitary sewers and water distribution. The City indicated that from the master planning documents, it is possible to identify how each property within the proposed annexation area will be serviced. Additionally, the City submitted that it has also updated its development standards to ensure accuracy with universally accepted standards.
125annexordersM118-09 Page 20 of 27 BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09
AlbertaMUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
The City explained that the two municipalities have undertaken to prepare an EDP and that the process for doing so has already begun. It was also stated that the City and County have committed to negotiating an agreement to provide for the maintenance of certain roads and to provide weed control services within the annexation area.
Growth studies were conducted by Brown and Associates in 2003 and 2006. The 2003 study included a detailed analysis of future residential, industrial and commercial land requirements, while the 2006 study provided an update. The City stated that the annexation application was consistent with the contents of both of these studies.
The City outlined that the Annexation Agreement includes a 10 year assessment and taxation transition period during which the lowest of the two municipalities' mill rates would apply to affected properties.
After inquiries by the panel, the City clarified that, although the annexation application indicates that January 1, 2009 is being requested as the effective date of annexation, the timeline under which the process has progressed would make January 1, 2010 an acceptable date. Given the change in the recommended effective date, the City undertook to work with the. County to provide an updated agreement with respect to compensation. At the request of the MGB and subsequent to the hearing, the MGB received letter dated June 11, 2009 from the City confirming that the two municipalities have agreed that the compensation amount is to remain the same as in the Annexation Agreement submitted with the annexation application.
The City submitted that the annexation would not create a significant fiscal impact for either municipality. The 2008 annual tax revenue for the annexed lands was approximately $30,000, which is less than one percent of the 2009 budgeted total tax revenue of either the City or County. Additionally, the current population of the annexation area was submitted to be only 28 persons, which will not impact the City's ability to supply services to its residents.
To summarize, the City submitted that the proposed annexation is supported by, both municipalities, and will serve to address the City's need for a long term land supply without encumbering the ability of either municipality to achieve rational growth directions. Additionally, the City submitted that key landowner issues had been identified and addressed through the public consultation program and that the application complies with the annexation principles established by the MGB.
County's Submission
The County explained that the proposed annexation territory represents roughly 0.34% of its total area. The total taxes collected from the annexation territory were estimated to be around $30,000. A letter dated May 27, 2009 from the County to the City confirms that should the effective date
125annexordersM118-09 Page 21 of 27 BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09
AlbertaMUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01 of the annexation be changed to January 1, 2010, the compensation amount is to remain the same as in the Annexation Agreement submitted with the annexation application.
The assessment and taxation provisions agreed to in the Annexation Agreement were outlined. Land in the annexation area would be assessed by the City on the same basis as if it had remained in the County, and taxed at the lower of the two municipal rates. These provisions would cease applying to a parcel if one of the proposed "triggering events" were to occur.
It was submitted that road maintenance shall be at the standard applied by the City to similarly classified roads. Dust control fees and charges would be the responsibility of landowners, as is currently the case in both municipalities. Additionally, the municipalities have signed an agreement whereby the County will supply weed control to the entire City.
With respect to the IDP, the County explained that an initial open house meeting had been held on March 16, 2009 and that the plan is expected to be completed by fall of the same year. The County indicated that it would not be opposed to changing the effective date of annexation to January 1, 2010. It agreed to work with the City to negotiate a new agreement with respect to compensation.
Landowner/Public Submissions
At the hearing, the MGB received presentations from several landowners and members of the public. A summary of each presentation is provided below.
Dr. E.D. Hilderman
Dr. Hilderman explained that his property is located in the portion of the annexation area located to the west of the City. He indicated that he had submitted a letter outlining his concerns. Dr. Hilderman argued that a 15 year assessment and taxation transition period would be preferable to a 10 year, and was unsure as to why a set timeframe was necessary at all. Dr. Hilderman indicated that some of his concerns regarding living in an urban municipality had already been addressed, but that he was still worried about whether his farm structures would be assessed and taxed under urban rules. He specifically identified concerns regarding the use of firearms, burning of waste, fuel storage, use of All-terrain vehicles (ATV), farm animals, and his ability to continue to operate his mixed farm. He also submitted that after being annexed, he would be unable to continue using his current suppliers or natural gas and power, which will lead to increased costs. Concerns were also expressed by Dr. Hilderman about whether a transfer of land would cause the assessment and taxation transition period to end. Finally, he submitted that he should remain able to subdivide another lot on his property for family members if he so desired.
125 annexordersM118-09 Page 22 of 27 Alberta BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
Jane Hilderman
Jane Hilderman expanded upon her father's comments, stating that they were concerned about timelines relating to the accommodations being made for rural lifestyle issues. She submitted that the City should make clear whether such accommodations would expire or have to be renewed. Additionally, Ms. Hilderman stated that while the Urban Reserve area referred to sounds promising, more details on which areas will be included and what resulting accommodations will be made should be provided to landowners.
Ken Hildebrant
Ken Hildebrant explained that his property is located outside of the annexation area in NE 25-46- 20-W4M. He submitted that the rest of the quarter section was included in the proposed annexation and that his land should be added as well. Mr. Hildebrant submitted that his property offers excellent access to the highway and railway and that its addition to the annexation area would make good planning sense.
County's Response to Landowner/Public Submissions and Summary
In response to Dr. Hildennan's concerns with the proposed 10 year assessment and taxation period, the County pointed out that the conditions form part of the agreement negotiated between the municipalities. The County also explained that any adjustments to the City's existing bylaws were beyond its purview. Dr. Hilderman was noted to be correct in stating that the City has exclusivity agreements with respect to the provision of natural gas and power. In response to Mr. Hildebrant, the County noted that the agreed upon boundary was also established as a result of negotiations between the municipalities. It was emphasized that the Annexation Agreement was a cooperative effort and the result of a long period of negotiation. The County therefore suggested that it be accorded a considerable amount of deference.
City's Response to Landowner/Public Submissions and Summary
In response to the comments of Dr. Hilderman, the City indicated that it is open to further discussions with landowners in the annexation area to try to reach accommodations with regards to usual farm practices. The City stated that the use of firearms is not permitted within its boundary, but a special request can be made to the Chief of Police to allow the discharge of fireaiuis for the purpose of pest control. The burning of farm waste within the City can be accommodated by obtaining a burning permit from the City. The handling and storage of farm/fuels and oils are under provincial regulation. ATVs can be operated on the Hilderman property; however, the use of ATVs on roadways is subject to Provincial regulations and City bylaws. The City does not require the licensing of cats nor does it restrict the number of cats a person may own. Dogs older than six months must be licensed and a kennel license is required
125annexordersM118-09 Page 23 of 27 BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09
AlbertaMUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01 for anyone owning more than three dogs. The City also confirmed that the mixed farming operation described by Dr. Hilderman would be a permitted use within the City.
The City was unable to comment regarding the franchise agreement issue brought forward by Dr. Hilderman; however, the MGB requested the City to provide a written response. In a letter dated June 11, 2009 to the MGB, the City identifies that it has a gas franchise agreement that specifically provides that the franchise will be applied to areas annexed to the City. The City understands that the County does not have a gas franchise agreement in the proposed annexation area. There is no gas franchise agreement within the County. The City contends that pursuant to Section 23 of the Gas Distribution Act, the City's franchise agreement will operate in the annexed area. The City states that the Rural Electrification Association which provides service to the proposed annexation area does not appear to have been granted a franchise. The City's , position is that since there is no franchise granted, section 127.1 of the Act does not appear to apply and the City's franchise agreement would be applied to the annexed area.
Responding to the submissions of Mr. Hildebrant, the City emphasized that the annexation area was agreed upon after long negotiations between the municipalities. Mr. Hildebrant's land was noted to be included in the longer term annexation plan.
The City restated that the proposed annexation is vital to meeting its growth needs, and emphasized that the agreement was reached after years of negotiations and discussions between the municipalities. The January 1, 2009 effective date was requested due to growth pressures in the City and because of the impending IDP, which is based on the boundaries set out in the proposed annexation.
V MGB Recommendations
After reviewing the documentation provided prior to the hearing, as well as listening to the presentations by the parties affected by the proposed annexation, the MGB recommends that the annexation of the lands applied for proceed with an effective date of effective January 1, 2010.
The MGB recommends that the proposed assessment and taxation provisions be extended in order to apply for a period of 15 years rather than 10 years. Additionally, the MGB recommends that the proposed triggering condition related to the granting of a development permit be removed and replaced by a provision triggering an end to the assessment and taxation transition period for a parcel upon subdivision.
VI Reasons
The high level of intermunicipal cooperation demonstrated through this annexation proposal serves to further the objectives of each municipality. Both municipalities have demonstrated that
125annexordersM 118-09 Page 24 of 27 BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
they are capable of carrying out the mandate required of them under the Act, and that the annexation will not have a negative impact upon their operations or future ability to achieve rational growth strategies and directions. The MGB also recognizes that the City and County are currently developing an EDP based around the proposed annexation, which further speaks to the continuing spirit of cooperation between the two municipalities.
The MGB is satisfied that the projections developed for the City in its 2006 Growth Study
Update are reasonable and serve to justify the proposed annexation. Taking into account the . City's longer term growth plans, the MGB finds that the annexation area represents a sensible approach to addressing growth over the next 30 years.
The MGB is satisfied that the .City has included substantial information in the annexation application with respect to the future extension of municipal services. The annexation application addresses the City's ability to extend and upgrade roadways, water, sanitary sewer, and storm water servicing into various portions of the annexation territory. The MGB therefore accepts that the proposed annexation area can be fully serviced by the City and that it represents a logical extension of existing servicing and infrastructure. The MGB is also satisfied that the. City has an adequate financial capacity to finance costs associated with the extension of servicing into the annexation territory.
The MGB accepts that the City is currently undertaking a wetlands assessment. Further, the MGB is satisfied by the City's submission that it will be taking care to ensure that creeks and other environmentally sensitive areas are protected.
The MGB finds that the consultation process conducted by the City prior to submitting the annexation application was comprehensive and appropriate. Affected landowners, the public, and other local authorities were provided notification of the annexation. Landowners and members of the public were also given opportunities to provide input regarding the annexation process through two open house meetings. Additionally, the MGB notes that the majority of landowners within the annexation area have indicated their support of the application.
The MGB accepts that the municipalities have renegotiated a compensation agreement based upon an effective date of annexation of January 1, 2010. The MGB finds that the terms of the compensation arrangement are reasonable in nature and will not place undue financial hardship on the City.
Both municipalities demonstrated that the proposed annexation is part of a rational and cooperative strategy to manage growth between the City and the County. The MGB accepts that each of the municipalities has given due consideration to the anticipated fiscal impacts of the annexation. The municipalities provided evidence that no serious concerns are expected with respect to the annexation's effects on the financial state of either municipality.
125annexordersM 118-09 Page 25 of 27 BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09
AlbertaMUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
The MGB finds that, in general, the assessment and taxation conditions included in the Annexation Agreement will serve to address concerns held by landowners. However, the MGB recommends that the assessment and taxation period proposed by the municipalities be extended from 10 years to 15 years. This will serve to provide an increased level of certainty to landowners and address the concern identified by Dr. Hilderman. Moreover, the 15 year assessment and taxation period being recommended is consistent with the five to 15 year transition period granted by the MGB in previous annexation recommendations.
The MGB recommends that the proposed events which will serve to trigger an end to the assessment and taxation transition period for a particular parcel be amended. The proposed "triggering events" contained in the annexation application includes a clause that would remove the assessment and taxation transition conditions upon the granting of a development permit. The issuing of a development permit does not necessarily change the population density of a parcel of land nor does it inevitably lead to a change in the use of the land. The MGB finds the aforementioned triggering provision to be too broad in scope, and recommends its replacement with by a provision that would bring an end to the assessment and taxation transition period if a parcel of land is subdivided. Application of the Matters Related to Assessment and Taxation Regulation for permitted development can allow the assessed value of the property to increase and will allow the City to generate the appropriate tax revenue. Moreover, the recommended clause can help to protect landowners from inadvertently loosing their assessment and taxation conditions as the result of a minor improvement to their property.
The MGB did consider Dr. Hilderman's request that the assessment and taxation conditions be retained after a subdivision during its deliberations on the assessment and taxation conditions. While the landowner in question made the request in order to accommodate his estate planning options, the MGB must consider- the broader perspective. Subdivisions usually precipitate an increase in population density by permitting additional development to occur.✓ This generally causes an increase in demand for municipal services and may result in a corresponding increase in expenses for the provision of said services. These costs would have to be absorbed by the existing City taxpayers. Therefore, the MGB recommendation does not include this request.
With respect to Dr. Hilderman's suggestion that landowners within the annexation area should not be forced to switch power and natural gas providers, the MGB finds that no special accommodations should be made in this case. The City has a franchise agreement for the supply of natural gas. Section 127(1)(3) of the Act does not allow an annexation order to affect the provision of natural gas service if the right is subject to section 23 of the Gas Distribution Act. The City has also entered into a franchise agreement with an electricity distribution company to provide electricity within the municipality. The City contends that the Rural Electrification Association (REA) providing electricity to Dr. Hilderman does not have a franchise. The REA did not provide any written submissions regarding the annexation to the MGB nor did it attend
1 25annexordersM 11&-09 Page 26 of 27 BOARD ORDER NO. MGB 118/09
AlbertaMUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FILE: AN07/CAMR/C-01
the hearing to speak on this matter. While the MGB appreciates the franchise fees may increase the electricity costs to the landowners in the annexation area, the MGB did not hear sufficient evidence to fully appreciate the extent of this concern on the REA and therefore was not swayed by the argument of the landowner.
The MGB is satisfied that the City will attempt to accommodate existing farm operations within the annexation area. The City is planning a new Urban Reserve District which would encourage conservation of agricultural land. The MGB finds that the City's response to concerns regarding firearms, burning of waste, handling of farm fuel, use of ATV's, and animal control issues were reasonable.
The MGB does not find that the lands owned by Mr. Hildebrandt should be added to the annexation. The MGB has consistently ruled that the Act no longer permits an individual landowner to make an application for annexation. There was a deliberate amendment to the Act by the legislators to ensure that the lands to be annexed were agreed to by the initiating municipality first. Moreover, the MGB strongly encourages intermunicipal cooperation and gives an agreement that has been reached by the municipalities involved in an annexation a great deal of weight. Although the lands owned by Mr. Hildebrandt were identified as part of a possible 50 year annexation, the annexation application submitted by the City was reduced to 30 years. The lands indentified in the application did not include the lands owned by Mr. Hildebrant. The MGB heard from both the City and the County that the Annexation Agreement was the result of a long and deliberate negotiation. The MGB respects the difficult decisions made by the municipalities during the negotiation process and does not recommend altering the area identified in the annexation application.
The Annexation Application requests an effective date of January 1, 2009. At the hearing, both municipalities indicated that they did not have serious objections to moving the effective date to January 1, 2010. The MGB therefore recommends an effective date of January 1, 2010, which will be more consistent with the timeline under which the application has moved forward and will serve to avoid any complications which may arise from a retroactive effective date of annexation.
Summary
The MGB finds that the Annexation Agreement meets the criteria of outlining conditions that are certain, enforceable, and time specific. The annexation application presented, along with the testimony of the City and County, indicates that the criteria for annexation are met. As such, the MGB recommends approval of the proposed annexation with the extension of the proposed assessment and taxation provisions to a period of 15 years, the recommended alterations to the events which would trigger the end of those provisions with respect to a particular parcel, and with an effective date of January 1, 2010.
125annexordersM138-09 Page 27 of 27 TO: Mayor and Councillors. FROM: Manager of Corporate and Protective Services. February 22, 2010.
re: Police Commission Minutes. AGENDA ITEM # C 1 RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the minutes of the Regular Police Commission Meeting held January 19, 2010 and be received as Information. CAMROSE MUNICIPAL POLICE COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JANUARY 19, 2010
Prior to the Public Meeting, the Commission held a Closed Meeting to consider matters relating to personnel administration and other matters considered by the Commission to be strictly confidential.
A regular meeting of the Camrose Municipal Police Commission was held on January 19, 2010, commencing at 8:00 a.m. with the following persons in attendance:
Commission Members: Lowell Knutson, James Cardiff, Kevin Hycha, Mike Howard, Councillors Ina Nielsen and Ray McIsaac Regrets: Lee Katchur Administration: A/Chief Foreman
D.A. Merle, Manager of Corporate & Protective Services (1) Agenda
MOTION #01110 HowardlMclsaac That the agenda be approved as amended.
MOTION CARRIED
As required by the Police Act, elections for Chairman and Vice-chairman were held:
Chairman: Lowell Knutson was nominated by J. Cardiff, seconded by I. Nielsen Further calls for nominations made and none were received. Lowell Knutson was acclaimed Chairman.
Vice-Chairman: Lee Katchur was nominated by M. Howard, seconded by R. McIsaac Further calls for nominations made and none were received. Lee Katchur was acclaimed Vice-Chairman.
(2) Minutes of Previous Meeting
D. Merle thanked the Commission for the thoughts behind motion #39/09 (gift for Public Complaint Director), but advised he had to decline any gift and asked the Commission to consider rescinding the motion.
MOTION #02/10 McIsaac/Howard That motion #39/09 be rescinded. Motion Carried
MOTION #03110 Cardiff/Hycha That the amended minutes of the December 15, 2009 meeting be approved. Motion Carried
(3) Business Arising Out of Minutes
(a) A.A.P.G./ CAPB — Copies of the CAPB 2009 Annual Report were distributed for information.
(b) Fines — Report provided for information purposes. 2
Camrose Police Commission Regular Meeting January 19, 2010
Business Arising Out of Minutes (continued)
(c) 2009 Budget Report — A/Chief Foreman provided a 2009 Budget Report.
(d) Victim Services Unit — An appreciation letter was sent to the Camrose & District VSU from the Chairman of the Commission, for their commendable work during and after the Big Valley Jamboree incident. The Solicitor General also sent a letter of appreciation to the VSU as their Department and the Premier had received input on the valuable services provided by the Camrose VSU.
(e) Correspondence received from the Director of Law Enforcement as information.
(f) Solicitor General request from Kristine Wolski — D. Herle advised that no further information was received and until it is, this matter can be deleted from the agenda.
(4) New Business
(a) Administrative Report — for the month of December, 2009 received as information.
(b) 2009 CDSA enforcement — A/Chief Foreman provided information on 2009 controlled drugs and substances seizures, which included cocaine, marihuana, ecstasy, hashish and methamphetamine to a street value of over $100,000 as well as a .40 calibre pistol, two vehicles and over $21,000 in cash proceeds.
(c) School Lock Down Drills — A/Chief provided information to the Commission on the process for school lock down drills.
(d) Annual Professional Standards Report — the Commission was provide with the 2009 report on complaint investigations.
(e) Elections (to start of meeting).
(4) Statistical Report — for month of December, 2009 received as information.
(5) Correspondence
(a) Thank you — Shaw Pipe (b) Thank you — T. Kruse (c) Appreciation to VSU (d) Thank you — K. Mullins (e) Thank you - D. Hannaford (f) ARMET Report
MOTION #04110 Mclsaac/Howard That the meeting be adjourned.
MOTION CARRIED 3 Camrose Police Commission Regular Meeting January 19, 2010
The regular meeting adjourned at 9:55 am. .20/e2 The next regular meeting will be held on February 16, Zgeg, commencing at 8:00 a.m. at the Camrose Police Service building conference room.
CHAIR SECRETARY AGENDA ITEM #
TO: Mayor and Councillors February 22, 2010. re: Social Planning Advisory Committee Minutes.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the minutes of the Social Planning Advisory Committee dated December 14, 2009 be received as Information.
SPAC (Social Planning Advisory Committee, City of Camrose) Room 231 Camrose Community Centre Monday, December 14, 2009
Present: Keith Elliott, Margaret Holliston, John Howard, Ina Nielsen, Audrey Morello, and Margaret Falk, Recording Secretary.
Regrets: Brian Hamblin, Denis Beesley
Meeting called to order at 9:05 a.m. by Margaret Holliston
1. Agenda — The agenda was approved as circulated.
2. Minutes — November 9, 2009
John Howard/Keith Elliott: That the minutes of the November 9, 2009 meeting be approved as circulated. Carried.
3. Social Development Strategy Follow-Up Discussion. • For 2010, SPAC is focusing on strategic initiatives that do not require new funding (from City), but may request new funding for certain initiatives during the Fall 2010 budget process (2011 budget). The Social Development Strategy will be a supporting document for council based discussions and decisions. • It is important to realize the Social Development Strategy is part of an ongoing process, and many organizations also (or will) foster and support the development of the strategies. • John Howard reported that Camrose recently hosted the Covenant Health Board. Covenant Health administration was given the May Day report, the 2002 Social Development and 2009 Social Development Strategy reports. Covenant Health is now aware of these strategies, the role of St. Mary's Hospital, and the rural and urban population that St. Mary's serves. • In partnership with OSCAR and Gardner College, there has been a lot accomplished to support out of school care and Day Care needs. Gardner has opened a Day Care. The Boys and Girls Club is being directed to become a licensed facility for out of school care. • Affordable recreational opportunities - The City of Camrose supports affordable recreational opportunities and outdoor no cost recreational opportunities. • Rotary earmarks money for youth directed projects. • The Food Bank continues to need strong support to provide immediate help for city residents. This is a strong indicator of the economic downturn. • Rental markets are softening throughout the province. • Share Fair Planning • Tentative date of March 25th & 26w', 2010 • Start with an agency workshop, facilitated by SPAC. • Public information sessions from 4:00 — 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. — 12:00 noon, the following morning, • It was recommended agencies be asked to speak on "what their agency is contributing in addressing the Social Development Strategy," at the morning facilitated workshop. • Location: Edgeworth, lunch to be provided for workshop participants. 4. Affordable Housing "Brochure" Project Update — Ina is waiting to hear back from Karsten Mundel. Ina will talk to City Administration about deferring expenditures to 2010 for this project. The Affordable Housing Task Force committee members are being interviewed on Monday, December 14, 2009.
5. Member Reports
Keith Elliott — The ReStore continues to be busy, seeing more people in hardship situations.
Rees James — A consultant with Alberta Boys and Girls Club, met with the Boys and Girls Club and informed Rees that Boys and Girls Club in Alberta are being directed to become licensed out of school care. However, there will be minimal changes to the structure and cost of the program, but Boys and Girls Club will need to employ a level 3 Child Care worker.
Margaret Holliston — OSCAR is working towards becoming an accredited agency. This has resulted in an enormous amount of work for OSCAR Director, Kandace Bonney. Kandace was invited to sit on a provincial child care steering committee, as a representative of the smallest urban area.
CDSS has approved the 2010 global budget and Margaret Holliston and/or Clarence Hastings has presented this budget to all the participating municipalities.
Rural villages in the Camrose County are looking at developing informal youth activities.
Alberta Health Services, Health Promotions, contacted Margaret Holliston regarding the need for a "Volunteer Driver" program for the Camrose community. Meetings are being planned for the new year.
John Howard — John attended the Battle River School Board public meeting, where those in attendance talked about probable ways of recommending where funding cuts to public education could be made. There is fear that class sizes will be increased.
Ina Nielsen — Margaret Holliston and Ina presented to the Rotary Club. Ina attended a "meet the Physician night," held at the Mirror Lake Centre. Bashaw Lodge received provincial funding to create a blended, assisted living and lodge project. City Council approved MSI funding for Centre Cam, which will be disbursed over 10 years.
Audrey Morello — Gardner will be offering level 2 child care night classes in the new year. With all the push for creating quality child care spaces through accredited programs, neither the Camrose Children's Centre nor Gardner College child care programs are full. The economic downturn has affected the urgency for child care space.
6. Next Meeting — January 11, 2010.
Regrets from Ina Nielsen for the January, 2010 meeting.
CADocuments and SettingsVidrnin Support'Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\Z180M72\ASPACMinutes14Dec2009 (2).doe 2/10/2010 CENDA ITEM # I Solicitor General and Public Security . Alberta Public Security Division FEB 2 2 2010 10th Floor, J.E.Brownlee Building 1 0365 - 97 Street Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T51 3W7 Telephone 780-427-3457 Fax 780-427-1194 vvww.solgps.gov.ab.ca
AR 13392 / February 9, 2010 sgc/b- /0 Mr. Brian Hamblin RECEIVED City Manager ;FIARGED TO City of Camrose 5204 — 50 Avenue "?CIIIIITE TO Car rose AB T4V 0S8
Dear Mr. Hamblin:
Further to my letter of June 30, 2009 which you signed to confirm on July 7, 2009, this letter is to advise you that the Alberta Solicitor General and Public Security Prisoner Holding Agreement with the City of Camrose will not be renewed beyond this calendar year with the final payment on December 31, 2009.
As a ministry we appreciate the assistance the municipality has provided regarding prisoner holding.
Should you have any questions or concerns about this matter, please contact Gloria Ohrt, Director, Contract Policing and Policing Oversight at 780-427-6887 or by e-mail at [email protected] .
Sincerely,
Bill Meade Assistant Deputy Minister Director of Law Enforcement
cc: Chief Darrell Kambeitz Camrose Police Service
Jim Bauer Assistant Deputy Minister Corporate Services -10 ATE RECEIVED 80t.b /6 /0 ;URGED TO ALBERTA MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS "IRini LATE TO k51-4 -,4_ Office of the Minister AR44907 February 11, 2010 MLA, Dunvegan - Central Peace
His Worship Clarence Mastel AGENDA ITEM # D Mayor, City of Camrose 5204 - 50 Avenue FEB 2 2 Mg Camrose, AB T4V 0S8
Dear Mayor Mastel:
As the newly appointed Minister of Municipal Affairs, I am pleased to announce the availability of the 2010 Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI) capital and operating allocations, program guidelines, and project application forms.
The MSI will provide $876 million in funding to municipalities in 2010. Your MSI allocation is $3,202,654, which includes capital project funding of $2,964,808, and conditional operating funding of $237,846. These allocations are based on the formula established for the long-term program. MSI funding amounts for all municipalities will be posted on the Municipal Affairs website at municipalaffairs.alberta.ca .
There are no changes to the guidelines and forms for 2010. These materials will be sent to your chief administrative officer, and are also available on the Municipal Affairs website, at municipalaffairs.alberta.ca .
In closing, the provincial government continues to recognize the importance of predictable, sustainable funding for municipal infrastructure, and is living up to the Premier's commitment to deliver that funding. I would like to thank you again for your good work and your ongoing constructive input, and wish you all the best with your projects in 2010.
Sincerely,
Hector Goudreau Minister of Municipal Affairs MLA, Dunvegan-Central Peace
cc: Verlyn Olson, MLA, Wetaskiwin-Camrose Brian Hamblin, City Manager, City of Camrose
104 Legislature Building, Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2B6 Canada Telephone 780-427-3744 Fax 780-422-9550 PO Box 1054, 035 - 1 Avenue SW, Father, Alberta TOH MO Canada Tel 780-837-3846 Fax 780-837-3849 Toll-Free From All Areas 1-866-8354988
Printed on recyder f paper !{L )ATE RECEIVED ALBERTA CHARGED TO. TRANSPORTATION ^,fRcrILATE TO Office of the Minister AR43218
February 16, 2010 AGENDA ITEM # D 3
His Worship Clarence Mastel FEB 2 2 2010 Mayor City of Camrose 5204 - 50 Avenue Camrose, AB T4V 0S8
Dear Mayor Mastel:
I am pleased to advise you and your council of the Alberta government cost-shared funding that will be provided to the City of Camrose under the Federal Gas Tax Fund (FGTF), previously identified as New Deal for Cities and Communities.
Under the FGTF, the municipality's 2010-11 grant amount is $921,942 and will be the same for each of the years 2010-11 to 2013-14. This annual allocation is based on the 2009 Official Population of 16,543, as published by Alberta Municipal Affairs.
To extend the program and adjust your municipality's annual allocation, I have enclosed two original amending agreements.
By execution of the amending agreement, it is agreed to extend the existing 2005 Agreement for the Transfer of the Federal Gasoline Tax for a four-year period. All terms and conditions of the Agreement remain the same, except for the new funding allocations and termination date. These new grant allocations are subject to receipt of federal transfers by the province.
I would also like to remind the municipality that no new funds can flow to the municipality until Alberta Transportation staff have been advised that the Multi-Year Capital Infrastructure Plan and Integrated Community Sustainability Plan requirements have been met.
Please sign both copies of the agreements and return one original copy to Mr. Stu Becker, Regional Director, Central Region, 4th Floor Provincial Building, 4920 - 51 Street, Red Deer, Alberta, T4N 6K8.
Atbeirbk• _12
320 Legislature Building, Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2E6 Canada Telephone 780-427-2080 Fax 780-422-2722
Printed on ,,rejrled paper His Worship Clarence Mastel Page Two
As per previous administration of the program, please provide the required documentation (applications, financial statements, Infrastructure Plans, etc.) to the regional office to facilitate payment of this new funding. Once the department receives your executed agreement and reviews your subsequent application and prior year's statements, the 2010 allocation can be processed (after April 1, 2010).
Sincerely,
Luke Ouellette Minister of Transportation M.L.A., Innisfail-Sylvan Lake
Attachments cc: Mr. Verlyn Olson, M.L.A., Wetaskiwin-Carnrose Mr. Stu Becker, Regional Director, Central Region