A G E N D A
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 19, 2015 9:30 AM
Page
1 Call to Order
2 Additions and/or Deletions to the Agenda
3 Timed Items:
3.1 10:00 am - Laurel Weisgerber, Communications Consultant, Kalyna Country Primary Care Network
4 Minutes:
3 - 5 4.1 Committee of the Whole - July 8, 2015
6 - 10 4.2 Regular Council Meeting - July 22, 2015
5 New Business:
11 - 14 5.1 Request for Joint Partnership Initiative - Alternate Land Use Services
15 - 26 5.2 Proposed Subdivision of Plan 112 1459; Block 3; Lot 2
27 - 46 5.3 Request for Reimbursement of SDAB Costs
47 - 81 5.4 Medical Marijuana Backgrounder
82 - 84 5.5 Cost Sharing for Representation on FCM Committees
6 Reports:
85 - 95 6.1 Administration Activity Report
96 - 97 6.2 Action Item Report
7 Information Items:
98 7.1 Future Dates
Page 1 of 100 Page
99 7.2 Beaver County Advocacy Calendar
100 7.3 2015 Strategic Priorities Chart
8 In Camera:
Page 2 of 100 AgendaItem#4.1
REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HELD WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 2015 COUNCIL CHAMBERS
COMMITTEE members PRESENT at commencement:
Sieko Scott Ron Yarham (Vice Chairman) Arnold Hanson Dale Collison
COMMITTEE members ABSENT at commencement:
Kevin Smook (Chairman)
ADMINISTRATION PRESENT at commencement:
Bob Beck, Chief Administrative Officer Margaret Jones, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Cindy Cox, Executive Assistant Peggy Ewert, Administrative Assistant
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chairman Yarham called the meeting to order at 9:30 am.
ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA
MOVED by Committee Member Scott that the Committee approve the agenda with the following additions and deletions:
5.2 New Business - Drought 5.3 New Business - Beaver County Seed Cleaning Cooperative CARRIED
B. Beck left the meeting.
TIMED ITEMS
Camp Lake Campground
Gail Garvie, Camp Lake Campground Contractor, attended the meeting and requested that the County consider the following items:
- Amendment to their existing contract to allow for a change in the cost of site camping;
- gate installed on Range Road 112 to deter off-season vandalism;
- strong box for cameras;
- picnic tables need to be repainted.
J. Wigington and S. Lazaro attended the meeting.
Gail Garvie left the meeting.
Albertans Against Irresponsible Development
Joe Wigington and Shane Lazaro, representatives of Albertans Against Irresponsible Development, requested reimbursement of costs associated with preparation for the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board hearing regarding the proposed bio-medical waste facility.
J. Wigington and S. Lazaro left the meeting.
M. Jones left the meeting
CHAIRMAN CAO
Committee of the Whole - July 8, 2015 Page 3 of 100 AgendaItem#4.1
Minutes of Committee of the Whole Meeting- July 8, 2015
INFORMATION ITEMS
Council Activity/Committee Reports
Committee Members reported on the following activities and Committees:
FCM Annual Conference Holden Library Beaver Foundation Battle River Alliance for Economic Development Annual General Meeting Bounty in the County Beaver Ambulance Society Beaver Emergency Services Commission Beaver Hills Initiative Highway 14 Regional Water Services Commission Holden Junior Cattlemen Achievers Show Viking/Beaver Family and Community Support Services BBQ Veterans Memorial Highway Association Viking in the Streets Parade Northeast Region Agricultural Services Board Chairmen’s Meeting Beaver Municipal Solutions Northern Lights Library Board Beaver Regional Partnership
M. Jones attended the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
Medical Marijuana Position Paper
The Committee discussed changes to the County’s planning regulations for medical marijuana facilities and directed administration to bring back possible options for further discussion.
The meeting recessed at 10:30 am and reconvened at 10:35 am.
B. Beck attended the meeting.
Drought Letter
Drought conditions were discussed as well as pasture and hay conditions.
Beaver County Seed Cleaning Cooperative
The Committee discussed a request from the Beaver County Seed Cleaning Cooperative for the County’s assistance in completing an audit of the Cooperative’s financial statements and assistance to help them move forward with a short term operating plan.
P. Ewert and C. Cox left the meeting.
IN CAMERA
MOVED by Committee Member Scott that the Committee meet in camera. CARRIED
MOVED by Committee Member Scott that the Committee return to the regular meeting.
CARRIED
CHAIRMAN CAO
Committee of the Whole - July 8, 2015 Page 4 of 100 AgendaItem#4.1
Minutes of Committee of the Whole Meeting- July 8, 2015
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:50 am.
______CHAIRMAN
______CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
CHAIRMAN CAO
Committee of the Whole - July 8, 2015 Page 5 of 100 AgendaItem#4.2
REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF BEAVER COUNTY HELD WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 2015 COUNCIL CHAMBERS
COUNCIL members PRESENT at commencement:
Kevin Smook (Reeve) Division 1 Sieko Scott Division 2 Ron Yarham (Deputy Reeve) Division 3 Dale Collison Division 4 Arnold Hanson Division 5
ADMINISTRATION PRESENT at commencement:
Bob Beck, Chief Administrative Officer Margaret Jones, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Darby Dietz, Director of Public Works Mitchell Knudson, Community Peace Officer Cindy Cox, Executive Assistant
CALL TO ORDER
Reeve Smook called the meeting to order at 9:30 am.
ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA
15-141 MOVED by Cr. Hanson that Council approve the agenda with the following additions: 9.2 In Camera - Legal 9.3 In Camera - Personnel CARRIED
MINUTES
Regular Council Meeting - June 17, 2015
15-142 MOVED by Cr. Hanson that Council approve the minutes of the June 17, 2015, Regular Council meeting. CARRIED
NEW BUSINESS
2015 Backsloping
15-143 MOVED by Cr. Scott that Council approve the three top priority backsloping projects for completion in the fall of 2015 as follows:
Land Location Adjacent to SE 26-49-18-4 TWP RD 494 NE 07-47-14-4 RGE RD 145 SW 01-47-15-4 RGE RD 151
CARRIED
D. Dietz left the meeting.
Aimee Boese, Agricultural Fieldman, attended the meeting.
Regular Council Meeting - July 22, 2015 Page 6 of 100 AgendaItem#4.2
Minutes of Regular Council - July 22, 2015
Agriculture Disaster Declaration
15-144 MOVED by Cr. Hanson that Council declare an Agriculture Disaster within Beaver County in 2015 due to drought and dry conditions. CARRIED
A. Boese left the meeting.
Equity Industrial Park - Area Structure Plan Update
15-145 MOVED by Cr. Yarham that Council authorize administration to enter into a contract with Stantec Consulting Ltd. to prepare an update to the Equity Area Structure Plan, with funds from reserve (Beaver Municipal Solutions Revenue). CARRIED
Kim MacMurray, Development Officer, attended the meeting.
10:00 am - Public Hearing - Road Closure Bylaw 15-1027
Reeve Smook recessed the regular meeting and opened the Public Hearing at 10:00 am. The applicants, Robert and Enda Begney, were present to answer any questions.
Margaret Jones, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer, provided an overview of the intent of Bylaw 15-1027.
Reeve Smook asked if there were any written submissions regarding Bylaw 15-1027. M. Jones advised that there had been one written submission received, a copy of which was included in the Public Hearing package.
There was no one present who wished to speak against or in favour of the bylaw.
Reeve Smook asked if there were any other presentations.
As there were no other presentations, Reeve Smook closed the public hearing at 10:05 am and reconvened the regular meeting.
K. MacMurray and R. and E. Begney left the meeting.
GIS Data Sharing Request
15-146 MOVED by Cr. Hanson that Council enter into an agreement with iHunter at the proposed revenue sharing percentages and further that a policy be developed for Council consideration, regarding GIS data-sharing. CARRIED Viking Train Whistles
15-147 MOVED by Cr. Smook that a letter be forwarded to the Town of Viking regarding the request to cease the train whistles at Range Road 130 east of Viking, specifically with respect to the party responsible for costs to prepare a Site Safety Assessment. CARRIED
Bylaw 15-1027 - Road Closure
15-148 MOVED by Cr. Yarham that Bylaw 15-1027 be amended to describe the portion of the road to be closed as follows:
“All that portion of Government road allowance lying south and west of Road Plan 4841 TR and lying north of a line drawn from the southeast corner of the southeast quarter section twenty-seven (27), township fifty- one (51), range twenty (20), west of the fourth meridian to the southwest
REEVE CAO
Regular Council Meeting - July 22, 2015 Page 7 of 100 AgendaItem#4.2
Minutes of Regular Council - July 22, 2015
corner of the southwest quarter section twenty-six (26), township fifty-one (51), range twenty (20), west of the fourth meridian containing 1.09 hectares (2.69 acres) more or less.” CARRIED
15-149 MOVED by Cr. Yarham that Bylaw 15-1027, as amended, be referred to Alberta Transportation for approval. CARRIED
Beaver County Seed Cleaning Cooperative - Request for Assistance
Council discussed the Beaver County Seed Cleaning Cooperative's request for the County’s assistance in completing an audit of the Cooperative’s financial statements and assistance to help them move forward with a short term operating plan.
Council deferred a decision pending discussion of the matter In Camera.
10:30 am - Public Hearing - Disposition of Plan 3041 TR; Lot R2
Reeve Smook recessed the regular meeting and opened the Public Hearing at 10:30 am. One landowner adjacent to Lot R2 was present.
Margaret Jones, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer, provided background information on Plan 3041 TR; Lot R2 and the County’s intent to offer the lot for sale.
Reeve Smook asked if there were any written submissions regarding the County’s intent to dispose of Plan 3041 TR; Lot R2. M. Jones advised that there had been one written submission received, from Mr. and Mrs. P. Collins.
Reeve Smook asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak against or in favour of the Disposition of Plan 3041 TR; Lot R2.
Paulette Collins, adjacent landowner, spoke in favour of the disposition of Plan 3041 TR; Lot R2 and advised that she and Mr. P. Collins wished to purchase Plan 3041 TR; Lot R2 to expand the size of their property.
There was no one else present who wished to speak against or in favour of the bylaw.
Reeve Smook asked if there were any other presentations.
As there were no other presentations, Reeve Smook closed the public hearing at 10:38 am and reconvened the regular meeting.
Disposition of Plan 3041 TR; Lot R2
15-150 MOVED by Cr. Hanson that Council remove the Municipal Reserve designation from Plan 3041 TR; Lot R2. CARRIED
15-151 MOVED by Cr. Yarham that Council offer Plan 3041TR, Lot R2 for sale by public tender; with a reserve bid of $128,420. CARRIED
P. Collins left the meeting.
The meeting recessed at 10:40 am and reconvened at 10:55 am.
Viking RCMP Detachment - Update
Constable Bye attended the meeting and provided Council with an update on the activities of the Viking RCMP detachment. Council discussed the following items:
Highway 36 and Highway 14 Intersection
REEVE CAO
Regular Council Meeting - July 22, 2015 Page 8 of 100 AgendaItem#4.2
Minutes of Regular Council - July 22, 2015
Wide Load Corridor Staff Levels at the Detachment.
Constable Bye left the meeting.
REPORTS
Administration Activity Report
Council reviewed the Administration Activity Report.
Action Item Report
Council reviewed the Action Item List.
INFORMATION ITEMS
Future Dates
Council received the Future Dates.
Beaver County Advocacy Calendar
Council reviewed the Beaver County Advocacy Calendar.
Strategic Priorities - June 2015
Council reviewed the Strategic Priorities.
C. Cox and M. Knudson left the meeting.
IN CAMERA
15-152 MOVED by Cr. Scott that Council meet in Camera to discuss land, legal and personnel issues. CARRIED
15-153 MOVED by Cr. Scott that Council return to the regular meeting CARRIED
15-154 MOVED by Cr. Scott that Council authorize administration to provide assistance to the Beaver County Seed Plant Co-Op Ltd. to compile operating and financial information in preparation for development of a short-term operating plan. CARRIED
15-155 MOVED by Cr. Collison that Council approve the Offer to Purchase from Alberta Tank Fabrication and Coating Ltd. for Plan 122 2575, Block 3, Lot 3 in NW 3-50-17-W4. CARRIED
15-156 MOVED by Cr. Yarham that Council approve the Offer to Purchase from Emperor Agro-Paper Ltd. for 16 hectares (40 acres) in NE 3-50-17-W4. CARRIED
REEVE CAO
Regular Council Meeting - July 22, 2015 Page 9 of 100 AgendaItem#4.2
Minutes of Regular Council - July 22, 2015
ADJOURNMENT
Reeve Smook adjourned the meeting at 2:05 pm.
______REEVE
______CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
REEVE CAO
Regular Council Meeting - July 22, 2015 Page 10 of 100 AgendaItem#5.1
BEAVER COUNTY COUNCIL REQUEST FOR DECISION
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Date: August 19, 2015 Department: Agriculture Confidential?: No Presented by: Aimee Boese
Topic: REQUEST FOR SUPPORT OF A JOINT PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE – ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SERVICES (ALUS)
Recommendation: That Council provide a letter of support, in principle, for a Joint Partnership Initiative between the County of Two Hills, Minburn County, County of Vermilion River, and Beaver County to access grant funding using the Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS) model.
Discussion: The Vermilion River Watershed is a sub watershed within the larger North Saskatchewan River Watershed and includes all or part of eight rural municipalities plus twelve urban municipalities. Beaver County is the headwater for the Vermilion River starting in the Holden Drainage District. In 2005 the ‘State of the North Saskatchewan River Watershed Report’ was released which assessed the Vermilion River sub watershed a rating of “poor” and highlighted significant gaps in data for ecological conditions in the river.
This rating led to the development of the Vermilion River Watershed Management Plan which was released in 2012. After significant work and discussion regarding watershed planning, the Vermilion River Watershed Management Project (VRWM Project) was launched and is a four year (April 2014 – March 2018) stewardship initiative led by key local stakeholders. To better access grant funding for project implementation, it was determined that the Vermilion River Watershed Alliance, a not-for-profit society, be created.
In the Spring/Summer of 2015 various grant applications, such as the Wetland Resiliency and Restoration Program, were submitted in the hopes of funding project implementation. A significant amount of grant funding, approximately two million dollars, was received to carry out the VRWM Project until March 2018. Currently administrative work for the Alliance has been carried out through the North Saskatchewan Watershed Alliance office as well as support from various stakeholders. A consulting group has been hired to work on a communications plan for the project.
The next phase of the project includes requesting submissions for wetland and riparian restoration projects from other groups to be implemented within the watershed. These projects can also be linked to Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs) that producers can implement within the watershed. Funding would be distributed from the grant received by the Alliance.
Request for Joint Partnership Initiative - Alternate Land Us... Page 11 of 100 AgendaItem#5.1
Subject of the Report: Request for Support of a Joint Partnership – Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS) Council Meeting Date: August 19, 2015 Page 2
Two streams of applications, contractor or landowner, will be announced at an October 2015 Project launch. The contractor applications will focus on community-based projects that target specific areas or reaches within the watershed.
It has been proposed that the County of Two Hills, Minburn County, the County of Vermilion River, and Beaver County form a Joint Partnership to apply for project funding under the Vermilion River Watershed Alliance using the Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS) model as a mechanism for program delivery (Attachment A). The partnership could also apply for additional funding to ensure that project delivery costs are met.
ALUS is a community-developed, farmer-delivered program that provides support to farmers and ranchers to enhance and maintain nature’s benefits. The idea is to select marginal or ecologically sensitive parcels of land and manage these areas differently to produce nature’s benefits through a voluntary, accountable, and science-based program.
In the 2015 Strategic Priorities, Council identified ALUS as a possible mechanism for stewardship delivery within the County and its incorporation into a stewardship platform. Council has previously heard a presentation from the ALUS Coordinator with regard to participation as a municipal partner in the program. Supporting this Joint Partnership application does not mean that the municipality is considered an ALUS community, however further discussion through ALUS Canada is possible.
Alternatives: 1. Council may provide a letter of support, in principle, towards the Joint Partnership Initiative. 2. Council may defer the letter of support pending additional information. 3. Council may decline participation. 4. Council may take other action.
Preferred Alternative: Option 1
Staff Capacity: Minimal, at the present time
Requirements of staff may increase based on project implementation, unless staffing capacity for project delivery and implementation is addressed through the grant.
Financial Implications: Project implementation will be dependent on the ability of the Joint Partnership to receive grants from outside organizations.
Municipal in-kind contributions may need to be calculated and included in grant applications where matching funds are required.
Should the municipality choose to become an ALUS Community, in the future, there may be a need to put financial resources into the budget for program delivery and project implementation.
Request for Joint Partnership Initiative - Alternate Land Us... Page 12 of 100 AgendaItem#5.1
Subject of the Report: Request for Support of a Joint Partnership – Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS) Council Meeting Date: August 19, 2015 Page 3
Environmental Considerations: Program delivery and project implementation will follow the ALUS model and consultations will occur with ALUS Alberta and ALUS Canada.
Data regarding technical aspects of environmental implementation, such as wetland restoration, will be gathered from appropriate sources.
Individual landowner consultation regarding specific target project sites will occur once funding is secured.
Policy/Council Priorities/Relevance to Vision Statement: By providing support towards a Joint Partnership Initiative of this nature, Council continues to strive for ‘an integrated, proactive community where innovation and progressive, practical leadership will forage a legacy for future generations through balanced environmental and economic sustainability’.
Intergovernmental Involvement: Joint partnership would include the County of Two Hills, Minburn County and the County of Vermilion River.
Various Government departments may be involved during project implementation.
External and Internal Communications/Participation: Information regarding project implementation, if successful in obtaining grant funding, will be communicated through the Chronicle and the County’s social media sites.
Enclosures: Attachment A: Letter from ALUS Alberta
Prepared by: Aimee Boese Date: August 13, 2015 Reviewed by: Margaret Jones, Asst CAO Date: August 14, 2015 Approved by: Margaret Jones, Asst CAO Date: August 14, 2015 Submitted to: Council Date: August 19,2015
Request for Joint Partnership Initiative - Alternate Land Us... Page 13 of 100 AgendaItem#5.1
This letter is to request your support and participation, in principle, in a joint partnership initiative between the Counties of Beaver, Minburn, Two Hills and Vermilion River. This partnership initiative is necessary so that an application for funding through the Vermilion River Watershed Alliance’s Watershed Resiliency and Restoration Program grant and other potential sources, can be made on a watershed level.
This application will utilize the Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS) model as a tool for the implementation and delivery of identified projects within this watershed.
We hope you will consider this request as a benefit to all the parties involved and look forward to your responses by September 15, 2015.
Thank you, Joan Gabrielson ALUS Alberta Delta Waterfowl Foundation 780-871-3589
Request for Joint Partnership Initiative - Alternate Land Us... Page 14 of 100 AgendaItem#5.2
BEAVER COUNTY COUNCIL REQUEST FOR DECISION
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Date: August 19, 2015 Department: Planning & Dev’t Confidential?: No Presented by: Bob Beck, CAO
Topic: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF PLAN 112 1459, BLOCK 3; LOT 2
Recommendation: 1. That Council consider the use of Plan 112 1459, Block 3, Lot 3MR as a road; and 2. That Council confirm the minimum road width specification of 20 metres (66 feet); and 3. That Council provide input regarding the proposed subdivision of Plan 112 1459, Block 3, Lot 2.
Discussion:
Issue #1 – Access to Proposed Subdivision In 2011, Plan 782 0327, Block 3 was subdivided into 3 lots – Plan 112 1459, Block 3, Lots 1, 2, and 3MR (Attachment A). The owner of Lot 2 has submitted an application to subdivide Lot 2 into two lots (Attachment B).
Access to the two new lots would be via Casrose Avenue, which is an internal subdivision road that runs west to Rge Rd 202. The width of the common boundary between Casrose Avenue and the existing Lot 2 is only 5.26 metres (17 feet) (Attachment C). The County’s road width specification is 20 metres (66 feet).
Municipal reserve lot 3MR was created with the subdivision in 2011. The lot runs east-west along the north boundary of the property and is 10.02 metres (33 feet) wide. Its west boundary adjoins the east boundary of Casrose Avenue but is not the same width as Casrose Avenue (Attachment C). Administration is unclear of the purpose of the municipal reserve lot 3MR, however the Municipal Government Act allows the County to authorize the construction of a road over reserve land if the County deems it advisable.
If Council authorized such a use of Lot 3MR, the width of the access to the existing Lot 2 would increase to 15.28 metres (50 feet). This is still less than the County’s specification. The applicant could then either request a waiver of the road width specification from Council or purchase land from either of the landowners to the northeast or south of Casrose Avenue’s cul- de-sac.
Proposed Subdivision of Plan 112 1459; Block 3; Lot 2 Page 15 of 100 AgendaItem#5.2
Subject of the Report: Proposed Subdivision of Plan 1972TR, Block 3, Lot 2 Council Meeting Date: August 19, 2015 Page 2
Issue #2 – Input Regarding Proposed Subdivision The County has circulated the subdivision application to adjacent landowners. Several concerns have been raised, including the following:
a) Displacement of wildlife and negative impact on wildlife corridors. This property is within the Beaver Hills Moraine. b) Impact of future development on existing wetlands and natural drainage. c) Increased traffic on Casrose Avenue. Some affected residents have suggested that access be provided via the existing Lot 1. Lot 1 is currently accessed from Range Road 201 via an access agreement over the property to the east (Attachment A). d) Proximity of a future residence on the new lot to existing residences in the adjacent subdivision (Plan 1972TR). One adjacent landowner has recommended a 200 foot setback from the shared boundary. This would render at least one-half of the westerly lot undevelopable. e) Additional development increases density in the area and is out of character for the neighbourhood (quiet, low traffic, wildlife, etc.).
It should be noted that subdivision has been proposed on this land before as well as on existing lots in Plan 1972TR, all of which have been met with resistance from the landowners in the multi-lot subdivision.
The Subdivision Authority bylaw allows the Subdivision Authority to refer subdivision applications to the Municipal Planning Commission for comment. The County’s Procedural Bylaw specifies that the Committee of the Whole can consider planning matters and make recommendations to Council. As this subdivision application is somewhat complicated and could be contentious, input is sought from Council.
Alternatives: 1. Council may consider the use of Plan 112 1459, Block 3, Lot 3MR as a road. 2. Council may waive the minimum road width specification of 20 metres (66 feet). 3. Council may provide input regarding the proposed subdivision of Plan 112 1459, Block 3, Lot 2. 4. Council may defer decisions pending additional information. 5. Council may take other action.
Preferred Alternative: Administration recommends that if Council authorizes the use of Plan 112 1459, Block 3, Lot 3MR as a road, it maintain the minimum road width specification of 20 metres (66 feet). This width is ideal for installation of utilities.
Staff Capacity: N/A
Financial Implications: The addition of a residential lot and subsequent residential development will generate additional tax revenue for the County.
Proposed Subdivision of Plan 112 1459; Block 3; Lot 2 Page 16 of 100 AgendaItem#5.2
Subject of the Report: Proposed Subdivision of Plan 1972TR, Block 3, Lot 2 Council Meeting Date: August 19, 2015 Page 3
Environmental Considerations: This property is in the Beaver Hills Moraine. Adjacent landowners are concerned regarding the impact of subdivision on wildlife and wetlands. The landowner dedicated a large environmental reserve when the property was subdivided in 2011.
Policy/Council Priorities/Relevance to Vision Statement: This property is subject to the principles of the West End Growth Management Plan which restricts the development of multi-lot subdivisions. If the subdivision application is approved, no more lots may be subdivided from this quarter section (maximum of 8 lots per quarter section).
Intergovernmental Involvement: The subdivision application was referred to Alberta Transportation as it is within ½ mile of a Provincially-controlled road (SH 630). Alberta Transportation had no objections to the proposal, although it requested that any appeal be filed with the Municipal Government Board.
External and Internal Communications/Participation: Input was requested from adjacent landowners, Alberta Transportation, and other affected stakeholders.
Enclosures: Attachment A – Aerial Photo of Subject Area Attachment B – Tentative Subdivision Plan Attachment C – Aerial Photo of Casrose Avenue and Access to Lot 2 Attachment D – Letters in Response to Subdivision Referral
Prepared by: Margaret Jones, Asst CAO Date: July 30, 2015 Approved by: Bob Beck, CAO Date: August 13, 2015 Submitted to: Council Date: August 19, 2015
Proposed Subdivision of Plan 112 1459; Block 3; Lot 2 Page 17 of 100 AgendaItem#5.2
ATTACHMENT “A”
Aerial Photo of Subject Area
SH 630
Plan 1972TR, Lots A-D Plan 112 1459, Block 3, Lots 1, 2, 3MR Access to Lot 1 via easement Casrose Avenue Rge Rd 202 Rge Rd Rge Rd 201 Rge Rd
Plan 1972TR, Lots E-H
Env Reserve Easement
Proposed Subdivision of Plan 112 1459; Block 3; Lot 2 Page 18 of 100 AgendaItem#5.2
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION PLAN File 15S17 NE 26-51-20-W4 Legal Description: NE 26-51-20-W4 Title Area Shown Thus: Reference Title: 112065262002 Proposed Subdivision Area Shown Thus: File: 15S17 Lazenby, Frank and Pam Title Area: 10.11 hectares (24.98 acres) Area of Proposed Subdivision: 4 hectares (10 acres) MDP Designation: Country Residential Area Area of Remnant: 6.11 hectares (14.98 acres) LUB Designation: CR – Country Residential District IDP Designation: N/A ASP Designation: N/A
Proposed Extension to Casrose Ave and access Dugout
1220 ft
Proposed Lot 2 = (6.11 ha) 14.98 ac Proposed Lot 1 =
(4 ha) 10 ac Environmental Reserve 360 ft 360
557 ft 800 ft
Proposed Subdivision of Plan 112 1459; Block 3; Lot 2 Page 19 of 100 AgendaItem#5.2
ATTACHMENT “C”
Aerial Photo of Casrose Avenue and Access to Lot 2
10.02 m wide Casrose Avenue Lot 3MR
Lot 1 5.26 m wide
Plan 1972TR Lot 2 (to be subdivided Lot E Into 2 lots)
Proposed Subdivision of Plan 112 1459; Block 3; Lot 2 Page 20 of 100 AgendaItem#5.2
July 27, 2015
Box 5, Site 202, RR2 Tofield, AB TOB4J0
Dear Mr. Beck:
RE; File 15817 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION NE 26-51-20-W4 PLAN 1121459 BLOCK 3 LOT 2
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments and concerns with respect to the above proposed subdivision.
Existing residents inthe quarter section adjacent to the proposed subdivision had purchased large lot areas for space and in particular the unique privacy of the dead end being Casrove Ave.
Landowners receiving approval to subdivide have a monetary gain leaving the surrounding wildlife, environment and neighbours to suffer the consequences and the risk of further developments. Piece- mealing and fragmenting property leads to displacing and closing the corridors on wildlife of which this area is rich with being part of the Cooking Lake Moraine. The connectivity of the habitat should be retained and the area should be left in its existing format as the creation of smaller parcels would significantly and negatively impact the residential character of the neighbourhood. Consideration should also be given into the fact that the west portion of the county has already experienced a substantial increase in the amount of residential development. Approval of this proposed subdivision may influence future land developments by setting precedence and also encourages similardevelopment.
Our understanding of Block3 is there are significant areas that are marshy and there are large sloughs existing year-round throughout the parcel. This leaves one to speculate whether these proposed lots are sufficient in shape and dimension to provide adequate residential building sites considering the amount wetland on the property. The wetlands serve many functions in the natural landscape and perform a critical role in regional hydrology. They are the key components of a complex system hat that collect and filtersurface water, which in turn supports the surrounding water bodies. The loss of wetlands to development can have impacts on water quantity and quality to downstream habitats. The issue of water and its availability looms over all of us.
The unique privacy of the dead end was the most important aspect of the property (Lot 8) we chose to purchase. Of which we would like to address the fact that there was a posted speed limitof 30 km/hr in addition to a Dead End sign at the starting point of Casrove Ave that had significant roles in reducing the speed limitand providing a very limitedamount of traffic in the neighbourhood. Since the signs are no longer posted there has already been an effect on the neighbourhood with an increase in unfamiliar traffic and speeds travelled. if the subdivision is approved is not it possible to consider a shared cud—de—sac within Block 3 to be an access pointwithan extension to an internal road system within the applicant's property that exits onto Range Road 201. This would be our preferred method of access to these subdivided lots ifthey are approved.
We sincerely request that our comments and concerns are considered and that the proposed application for subdivision is refused.
Sincerely,
Vivian and Harvey Elsenheimer
Proposed Subdivision of Plan 112 1459; Block 3; Lot 2 Page 21 of 100 AgendaItem#5.2
‘ Kim MacMurray
From: Ron Bodnar
Dear Mr. Beck:
My name is Ron Bodnar My address is as follows: Box 9 Site 202 RR 2 Tofield, Alberta TOB4.l0 lam sending this email as a response to the subdivisionproposal submitted by Frank and Pam Lazenby- FILENO: 15517. Let it be noted that Iam OPPOSEDto this subdivision on the following grounds:
lam a resident on Casrose Avenue which the proposal is suggesting be extended to accommodate access to the subdivivision in question. As a fifteen year resident l have enjoyed the peace and serenity of a dead end road and the subsequent lack of traffic and increased safety of living in a subdivision with a this type of access and do not wish to see it extended! Doing so would increase traffic considerably, create dust issues, and cause added security issues for all the residents currently livingon Casrose Avenue. The road also is a narrow subdivision access road and l believe would not withstand added traffic strain of equipment required in development of new property. if Mr. Lazenbywishes to subdivide up his property in what Ifeel is a haphazard fashion with no apparent regard for anything other than monetary gain then he should be made to access the property from range road 201 with an access road that goes by HISresidence not ours! We have been here a long time and do not wish to be encroached upon.
Further regarding this proposal, let it be noted that many times over the years we have received many notices of subdivision proposal and as a neighbourhood have expressed concerns over and over again to no avail and I for one as a resident feel that this is falling on deaf ears and that finally, someone should start listening!
in closing , I am once again stating that i am definitely opposed to the proposed subdivision and would like to see it
denied -— or at least, ifapproved , done so respecting our concerns as long time residents.
Thank you and have a great day.
Ron and Sylvia Bodnar
Proposed Subdivision of Plan 112 1459; Block 3; Lot 2 Page 22 of 100 AgendaItem#5.2
Kim MacMurray From: Bob Beck Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 2:32 PM To: KimMacMurray Subject: Fwd: Set back
Sent from my Samsung device
------—- Original message ------From: rob summerscales
Regarding Frank Lazenby subdividing the 2 parcels of land to the east of my parcel, I don't have a problem with him doing that. The only issue that I have is the parcel that is closest to me , is that if and when it were to sell that the new owner (s), may build a dwelling quite close to me. Therefore I'm requesting something in writing that they cannot build any closer than 200 meters away from my property line. Ibought my property 5 years ago because of the charm and the privacy of the area, I don't mind having neighbour's, but a respective distance between is expected.
Robert Summerscales.
Sent from my Samsung device
Proposed Subdivision of Plan 112 1459; Block 3; Lot 2 Page 23 of 100 AgendaItem#5.2
Attn: Mr Bob Beck July 16, 2015
Subdivision Authority for Beaver County
RE:File15517
Proposed Subdivision NE26-51-20 W4
Pam and FrankLazenby
Please consider this an objection to the proposed subdivisionas laid out in the paperwork received from Beaver County.
Our objections, concerns and questions are as follows:
1. We purchased this property partially based on the fact that it was located on a dead end road. At that time there was a dead end sign. Our quality of life will be affected by the addition of increased traffic, if the proposed extension of the dead end road occurs and the addition of two further developed properties is approved. We might be OKwith the developed properties ifthe access was gained thru some other access point, perhaps thru an extension of Mr and Mrs Lazenbys access point, but not Casrose Avenue. There are already 7 driveways or access roads into that Quarter , somewhat of a piecemeal approach, which I understood the County was trying to avoid in their approach to subdividing planning within the County.
One of the major items that came up time and time again when the County revised their plan for subdivisions was to maintain previously established Quality of Life. The subdivision along Casrose Avenue has been very stable, with most properties only having 1-3 owners since 1973, when it was subdivided. We have all increased the value of our properties and are proud in live where it is quiet and wildlifeis seen regularly. Many people cannot believe we actually are in a subdivision. It is this quality of life we wish to maintain by not having further traffic on this dead end cul de sac road.
2. The proposal shows an additional cul de sacs to be createdat the end of the proposed
extension of Casrose Avenue — it does not make good traffic sense to me to have TWO cul de sacs on a road...one part way down a road with another cul de sac at the end leading to two access roads. Byextending Casrose Avenue, does it then become part of the public County Road system?
3. if, in fact the newly proposed extension of Casrose Avenue with an additional cul de sac is given approval and If it does not make sense to have two cul de sacs but only one at the
Proposed Subdivision of Plan 112 1459; Block 3; Lot 2 Page 24 of 100 AgendaItem#5.2
very end of the road, would we ( NW 26 51 20 W4 Lot D) be able to make arrangements to purchase the land that the original cul de sac took when it was created?
4. We are unsure ofthe intent ofthe 10 M Munlciple Reserve and would appreciate knowing
what the intent is — with a SINCEREhope that it is NOTthe create a complete thru road from Range Road 202 to Rge Rd201 by extending Casrose Avenue. That would be a disaster for the current residents along Casrose Avenue.
5. lam disappointed that all homeowners along Casrose Avenue did not receive a Notice of Proposed Subdivision as with this type of proposed traffic increase due to an extension of the road we live along, Ithink allsubdivisionresidents should havéreceived notice. l thank Mr Beckfor discussing that fact with me and am hopeful that all homeowners along Casrose Avenue will in the end receive a written notice.
Thank you for the opportunity to have input to our neighbourhood developments
Regards
Vivian and DaleSlugoski
adjacent landowners
Proposed Subdivision of Plan 112 1459; Block 3; Lot 2 Page 25 of 100 AgendaItem#5.2
Kim MacMurra¥ From: Ryan Steenson
This email is in response to the property in ?le 15517 asking for concerns about subdividing the property. My concern is that people like myself move out that way to get away from people. Adding new properties and building new homes means more people. Which in turn could increase any crime rates in the area. I do not wish to see this property being subdivided.
Thanks,
Ryan Steenson
Sent from SamsungMobile
Proposed Subdivision of Plan 112 1459; Block 3; Lot 2 Page 26 of 100 AgendaItem#5.3
BEAVER COUNTY COUNCIL REQUEST FOR DECISION
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Date: August 19, 2015 Department: Administration Confidential?: No Presented by: Bob Beck, CAO
Topic: REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF SDAB COSTS
Recommendation: That Council deny the request from the Albertans Against Irresponsible Development for reimbursement of costs associated with preparation for the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board hearing regarding the proposed bio-medical waste facility.
Discussion: The County’s Development Authority issued a refusal for the proposed bio-medical waste facility in the County’s Equity Industrial Park. The developer appealed the decision to the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB).
A group of local citizens (County and Village of Ryley) formed the group, Albertans Against Irresponsible Development, to present evidence and arguments to the SDAB in support of the Development Authority’s decision. The SDAB denied the appeal and upheld the refusal.
At the July 8, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting, representatives of Albertans Against Irresponsible Development presented information regarding expenses incurred to make a presentation to the SDAB. The group requested that the County provide some financial assistance.
Out-of-pocket expenses total $37,018 and include printing and communications, transportation, expert witness expenses, and legal fees. The organization has received $3800 towards these expenses from the general public.
Alternatives: 1. Council may deny the request from the Albertans Against Irresponsible Development for reimbursement of costs associated with preparation for the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board hearing regarding the proposed bio-medical waste facility. 2. Council may approve the request for an amount determined by Council. 3. Council may defer a decision on the request pending additional information. 4. Council may take other action.
Preferred Alternative: Administration recommends that Council deny the request. The opportunity to make a presentation before the SDAB is a right granted by the Municipal Government Act but the extent of the information presented to the Board is at the discretion of the affected party.
Request for Reimbursement of SDAB Costs Page 27 of 100 AgendaItem#5.3
Subject of the Report: Request for Reimbursement of SDAB Costs Council Meeting Date: August 19, 2015 Page 2
Staff Capacity: N/A
Financial Implications: N/A
Environmental Considerations: N/A
Policy/Council Priorities/Relevance to Vision Statement: The SDAB hearing provides an opportunity for affected parties to present their position to an independent Board, thereby encouraging “open, transparent citizen engagement”.
Intergovernmental Involvement: N/A
External and Internal Communications/Participation: The Albertans Against Irresponsible Development will be advised of Council’s decision.
Enclosures: Attachment A – July Presentation from AAID
Prepared by: Margaret Jones, Asst CAO Date: August 11, 2015 Approved by: Margaret Jones, Asst CAO Date: August 14, 2015 Submitted to: Council Date: August 18, 2015
Request for Reimbursement of SDAB Costs Page 28 of 100 AgendaItem#5.3
A./\.|.D
ALBERTANSAGAINSTlRRESPONS|BLEDEVELOPMENT
Good Morning, Reeve and Council Members.
Thankyou forryourtime today. I'm here on behalf of A.A.I.D(Albertans Against irresponsible Development) in regards to the past GM Pearson proposal to build a biomedicalincinerator in Equity IndustrialPark.
Many people in Ryley,the County of Beaver and surrounding counties are very relieved with the Appeal Board's decisionto deny GM Pearson's application.
it has taken considerable effort and significant expense for us, the citizens, to inform the public, Beaver County Council,Villageof RyleyCouncil,and the Appeal Board of the devastating consequences of industrial/commercialincineration and ofthis biomedicalincinerator proposal.
in order to ensure that there werequalified experts and legal counsel to counter GM Pearson's claims,the A.A.l.Dgroup has incurred total out of pocket expenses in excess of $37,000.00. Donations from the general public have thus far totaled $3,800.00 for whichwe are very grateful.
This cost does not includethe thousands of hours researching industrial/commercial incineration issues; and organizing informative public awareness campaigns with meetings and media; and lobbying to provincial and federal departments with face to face meetings and letters written citing extensively researched documentation; etc.
We are here today to ask for cost relief from the Beaver County as we citizens are the ones who took a firm stand and put forward our time and our money to support the County's decision to refuse the application.
We are the ones who retained the qualified experts and legal counsel to ensure victory. The beneficiaries of our concentrated efforts are not only AlbertaTank, BlackEarth,our new neighbors CWPand a few locals, but the people of Ryleyand Beaver County as a whole benefited from our investment of time and money. Any financial support from the County would be greatly appreciated.
Request for Reimbursement of SDAB Costs Page 29 of 100 AgendaItem#5.3
We also ask Council to consider the future of Equity IndustrialPark and pass a by-law prohibiting industrial/commercialincineration within Beaver County to ensure that this situation is never repeated.
Thankyou.
AAIDAlbertansAgainst irresponsible Development Joe and Jolene Wigington, John and Catherine Jensen, NikLee, CliffGiebelhaus
Request for Reimbursement of SDAB Costs Page 30 of 100 AgendaItem#5.3
AAlD - Out of Pocket Expenses
RE:GM Pearson
Amount Date Description
$ 982.00 February 10, 2015 Printer Ink,Paper, Stamps for Mailers
5 225.00 March 3, 2015 Posters, Stakes etc.
$550.00 March 6, 2015 Bus to Legislature/Canada Place - Protest
$456.75 March 17, 2015 Staples Copy & Print — AAMDCFlyers
S1,046.86 March 27, 2015 NWTPromotions — "Say No to GMP"Signs
$ 320.00 March 29, 2015 Staples Copy & Print - Go Fund Me Posters
5 225.00 April7, 2015 Beaver Chronicle‘/4Page Ad
$ 291.73 April 8, 2015 News AdvertiserV:Page Ad
$291.73 April9, 2015 Second Beaver Chronicle 1/1Page Ad
S242.68 April9, 2015 Camrose Booster ‘/4Page Ad
5 1,500.00 April 16, 2015 Dr. Paul Connett — Flight, NJCar Park
$5,000.00 April 20, 2015 Dr. Ian Johnson —- Expert Testimony
S445.50 April 23, 2015 Videographer
$5,169.15 April 27, 2015 AlWakelin — Expert Testimony/Report
5 594.00 April 27, 2015 Videographer — AdditionalWork
$ 15,244.95 April 27, 2015 Henning Byrne — LegalFees
$4,432.58 May 27, 2015 Henning Bryne — Legal Fees
S37,017.93 TOTAL e 327700 ,1.,WR«~,;W,u
(‘F?)3;)—\1
Request for Reimbursement of SDAB Costs Page 31 of 100 AgendaItem#5.3
May 27, 2015 Invoice#39375
May~07—15 Attend the hearing 6.50 TR 1,300.00
Traveltime to attend hearing 2.00 TR 0.00
TO OURFEE: TARLANRAZZAGHI35.20@$200.00/hr 3,860.00 TOTALFEES: 3,860.00
OTHERCHARGES: Photocopies 257.00
TOTALOTHERCHARGES 257.00
D|SBURSEMENTS:(GSTAppllcablei Wheels 4.50 Hearlng Blndersand Tabs x 10 100.00
TOTALGSTAPPLICABLEDISBURSEMENTS 104.50
TOTALFEES,OTHERCHARGES,ANDDISBURSEMENTS 4,221.50 GST 211.08 TOTALACCOUNTHEREIN 4,432.58
BALANCEOWING $4,432.58
HENNINGBYRNELLP Per:
( E. &o. E. TARLANRAZZAGHI GSTReglstratlon Il893752 7-1RT00’01
ALLACCOUNTSOUTSTANDINGOVER30 DAYSWILLBECHARGEDINTERESTATTHERATEOF 1.5% PERMONTH(18% PERANNUM)UNTILPAID WHENREMITTING,PLEASERETURNREMITTANCEADVICETO ENSUREPROPER CREDIT
Page 2 of 2
Request for Reimbursement of SDAB Costs Page 32 of 100 AgendaItem#5.3
Al Wakelin 5832 Imperial Drive,Olds, AlbertaT4H 1G5
INVOICE
Albertans Against Irresponsible Development Ryley. AB.
Attention: CliffGiebelhaus INVOICEDATE: April27, 2015 INVOICENUMBER: AAID0415
Compensation for costs from March26 to April 23, 2015 due in accordance with my quotation and your confirmation dated March 28"‘,2015.
1. Preparation and ?nalizationof Main Report (10 hours @ $175/hour) $ 1,750.00
2. Review of other documents, discussions with team members and consultants. Preparation of summary reports (6 hours @ $175/hour) $ 1,050.00
3. Attendance at hearing (10 hours @ $175/hour) $ 1,750.00
4. . Travel (7 hours @ $100/hour) $ 700.00 (600 km @ $0.45lkm) $ 270.00
Sub Total $ 5,470.00 Discount(10%) $ 547.00
Net $ 4,923.00
GST $ 246.19
Total Payable $ 5,169.15
GST Registration No. 84738 2173 RT0001
Please make payment In Favour of: A. J. Wakelin
Request for Reimbursement of SDAB Costs Page 33 of 100 AgendaItem#5.3
Q/7//wzzy».0/BjynvneLLP BARRISTERSANDSOLICITORS 1450, 10405 JASPERAVENUE EDMONTON,ALBERTA T5] 3N4 TELEPHONE:780-421-1707 FACSIMILEZ780425-9438
Date: Apr 27, 2015 John and CatherineJensen Joe and Jolene Wigington invoice ii: 39289 Box 254 LQ§..@3lb9ft§JJMs1J.L.C2H1 Fileii: 21633 Ryley,AB TOB4A0 .LQ}§iLQQQalbeitat?i1i,g{§ib_;_§9Iii j?§n_s§.Mr;@tg|usJ;l53net.itet
CliffGiebeihaus NikLee Box 778 PO Box 101 Vegreviiie, AB T9C 1R9 Ryley, AB TOB4A0 Qlj?gi§3j;@5maii.C0ii1 n1.is..les:3£6_Z£@r.«1I.ai.L2<,un
RE: RyieyBiomedicalWaster Incinerator
STATEMENTOF ACCOUNT
TO PROFESSIONALSERVICESRENDEREDon your behalf in connection withthe above noted matter, including those matters necessary and incidental to our services but not specificallyenumerated herein:
DATE DESCRIPTION HRS LWYR AMOUNT Mar-24-15 Review of appeal materials In preparation of meeting with 6.10 TR 1,220.00 client re: hearing preparation.
Mar-25-15 Further review of appeal materials in preparation of 6.20 TR 0.00 meeting with client re: hearing preparation.
Mar-26-15 Meet with clientre: strategy for hearing preparation. 3.90 TR 780.00 Travelto Ryieyto meet with clients. 2.00 TR 0.00
Mar-27-15 Correspondence with client re: potential appeal materials; 1.00 TR 200.00 review of materials to be includedin written submissions.
Mar—29-15 Further correspondence with clientre: potential appeal 1.00 TR 0.00 materials; review of materials to be includedin written submissions.
Mar-30-15 Draftwritten submission;draft extension request. 6.50 TR 1,300.00
Page 1 of 3
Request for Reimbursement of SDAB Costs Page 34 of 100 AgendaItem#5.3
Mar—31-15 Draftwritten submission;correspondence with clientre: 7.10 TR 1,420.00 legal advice.
Apr-01- 15 Callwithclient and expert re air modelling and air impacts; 1.00 TR 200.00 review of expert report draft for adviceto client.
Apr-07-15 Review of correspondence fromGM? lawyer; 0.20 TR 40.00 correspondence to clientsre hearing dates; correspondence to expert re hearing submissions.
Apr-08-15 Draft written submission;review of materialsnecessaryto 7.20 TR 0.00 include in written submission;correspondence to client.
Apr-09-15 Draft written submission;review of materials necessaryto 6.20 TR 1,240.00 includein written submission;correspondence to client.
Apr—10-15 Draft written submission;review of materialsnecessary to 7.10 TR 0.00 includein written submission;correspondence to client.
Apr-11-15 Draft written submissions;legal review of documentary 7.20 TR 1,440.00 evidence to includeinsubmissions.
Apr-12-15 Draftwritten submissions; meet with clients re written 8.40 TR 1,680.00 submissions.
Apr-13-15 Draftwritten submissionsto SDAB. 4.30 TR 860.00
Apr—15-15 Assistclientprepare 15 copies of written submissions. 7.50 TR 0.00
Apr-17-15 Review of GMP'shearing documents; correspondence 1.00 TR 200.00 withclientand expert re: the same
Apr-18-15 Review of GMP'swritten response to the SDABto advise 6.70 TR 0.00 client on next step.
Apr-19-15 Reviewof GMP's written response to the SDABto advise 6.50 TR 0.00 clienton next steps.
Apr—20-15 Preparation for hearing;callwith Ian Johnson. 5.50 TR 1,100.00
Apr-21-15 DraftFinalArgument; prepare of materialsin preparation 7.10 TR 0.00 for the hearing.
Apr-23-15 Travelto Ryleyfor hearing. 2.00 TR 0.00 Meeting withclientsto prepare for hearing; attend 10.00 TR 2,000.00 hearing.
Page 2 of 3
Request for Reimbursement of SDAB Costs Page 35 of 100 AgendaItem#5.3
TO OUR FEE: TARLANRAZZAGHI 121.70@$200.00/hr 13,680.00 TOTALFEES: 13,680.00
OTHERCHARGES: OnllneAccess Charge 5.00 Photocopies (reduced to $.10/copy) 500.00 TOTALOTHERCHARGES 505.00
D|SBURSEMENTS:(GSTApplicable LTO-Titlesearch 10.00 Wheels 24.00 Hearing Binders- 15 @ $20/blnder (including dividertabs and CD5) 300.00 TOTALGSTAPPLICABLEDISBURSEMENTS 334.00
TOTALFEES,OTHERCHARGES,ANDDISBURSEMENTS 14,519.00 GST 725.95 TOTALACCOUNTHEREIN 15,244.95
BALANCEOWING $15,244.95
HENNINGBYRNELLP Per:
TARLANRAZZAGHI* E.&O. E. GSTRegistration 3I89375‘l974T0001
ALLACCOUNTSOUTSTANDINGOVER30 DAYSWILLBECHARGEDINTERESTATTHERATEOF 1.5% PERMONTH(18% PERANNUM)UNTILPAID
WHENREMITTING,PLEASERETURNREM|TTANCE ADVICETOENSUREPROPERCREDIT
Page 3 of3
Request for Reimbursement of SDAB Costs Page 36 of 100 AgendaItem#5.3
g , x 7‘
"/1 ” ii A .1‘1 , P‘ 17 2014 V AW W1 01 . L /. [W7 I Devin W X St. Jean (L @2100 I 5630 53 St /7”’“ .0 1 V 0 «M1 Vegreville, AB 'l‘9C 1J9 ' " lg (780)603-6114 W972/“S Re: CasualWork — April 2014 ”"’ 27 hours total x $16.50 per hour 1‘ $445.50
March 18, Wednesday 4:30 pm «« 5:00 pm ~ 30 minutes (Rally Photos)
March 25, Wednesday 6:15 pm ~ 7:00 pm := 45 minutes (Download youtube videos)
April 9, Thursday 12:00pm — 5:00 pm = 5 hours (Converting youtube videos and transcript) April 11, Saturday 11:00am 3:30 pm = 4.5 hours (Youtube video - voice over)
April 15, Wednesday 2:06 pm 4 4:21 pm = 2 hours 15 minutes
(Connett live videotaping —— preparation)
April 16, Thursday 9:00 am ~ 11:00 pm == 14 hours (Connett live videotaping~ preparation and on site/iyley)
Request for Reimbursement of SDAB Costs Page 37 of 100 AgendaItem#5.3
April 25, 2014 / Hf!» \ W . x 1; I K. 2 Devin St. Jean '/ A 5630 53 St 1; (D1,
Vegreville, AB T9C 1J9 [,‘(f'11‘ /
M (780)603-6114 W7/1/2"“
1
A
Re: Casual Work —- April 2014
36 hours total x $16.50 per hour = $594.00
April 17, Friday 8:00 am~2:00pm 3 6 hours
(Connett video - Transferring video and ?xing corrupted data) April 20, Monday 11:00am~=5:00pm = 6 hours
(Connett video ~ Video and sound editing) April 21, Tuesday 11:00 am—1:00 pm = 2 hours 2:30 pm—3:00pm = 30 minutes
(Connett video »- Video and sound editing) April 22, Wednesday 8:00 am-5:00pn ’«= 9 hours
(Connett video — Revisions and additions(slides), salvaging corrupted data, replacinglost footage of April 16th(due to low batteryand battery error) with Nik’s alternate Connett footage (shot on post April 18"‘)). April 24, Friday 11:00 am~5:00pm '~“~ 6 hours
(Connett video »— Video proofing and short version video compilation) April 25, Saturday 8:30 am-1:00pm '~* 4.5 hours 2:40 pm~4:l0 pm == 1.5 hours 4:40 pm-5:10 pm = 0.5 hours
(Connett video ~ Video proo?ng and short version video compilation)
Request for Reimbursement of SDAB Costs Page 38 of 100 AgendaItem#5.3
THECAMROS @@ INVOWE
Phone (/8016723142 Fax (780)672v2518 492548 Street, Camrose‘Alberta Tav 1L7 Date : APR 14/15 Carmose Booster Ltd « < — Customel , . GSTRwmmmn#mOW&3w Number ‘ G7941
GIEBELHAUS, CLIFF BOX 778 VEGREVILLE, AB T9C 1R9
Cuslomer Order Number J ,: : Mv137*A*3 DA5l5048 2 COL 9 3/8 AD I 231.12: 11.56 <*,L.%242.68 I DR. PAUL CONNETT f I r1 \ F i I I ? ? ,
. i J- -,,_ L ,
Request for Reimbursement of SDAB Costs Page 39 of 100 AgendaItem#5.3
from New York WorldRenownedWasteManagementExpert EnvironmentalChemisiry&Toxicology
F”auiConnett,«PihD
‘ Dr; Coniiétt'traveisthe worldeducatingpeople on incineféiiion.incigdififgi?iomedicaiwasteincineration. ' Vetidorstare‘aggressively marketing incinerafors‘iouninformsdcommunities. Thisis 1i5t'1usiEA_ohe.'~_tdWn/onaéountyiséue. «Incineration affec§s4miiiiipiemunicipalitiesand oouniiés. ‘ Tox]g;air_£§Ol!utér_'ité,i'yga\_/_é,itar. H7$l9‘i%8i¢.5D,J.ih7eéi1iiZ9§Q$§d, r V
Becomei-.Ihformed.1I FormoreninfoicontaotvDaleHoih;78D:=663i-3623. ~wwiciijmixéfféaii£;e{aI!b:tudie&._6fg7'iba*ib.[2591]'
Request for Reimbursement of SDAB Costs Page 40 of 100 AgendaItem#5.3
Order Con?rmation hlips://www.stapiescopyandprini.ca/Transaclion/ Prinikcceipnaspx 9‘rif:3EE?f? D‘-3“/\«/.Q';::7f3.'i£(if’.0:_oi’3L @9291G’i€§(,(e$’
V €
(“rzwwf {/)3 Result:APPROVED/AUTHORIZED i Order Date: 17/03/2015
” Time: 13:30:16EST __y,,,_,,.,~—-«»~~v~r”“' ’*“~~~—””'
Authorization 005552 - Sequence Number: 0010010330/66143869 Reference Number: 3133015769 2 Card Name: MasterCard ‘ K Order ~ 1!: 2b880i _ W v—— _ _ , _ Type: Sale '
Receipt Line: 01/027APPROVED’ THANKYOU
Client lnforrnation: Billing Address: Store Pickup Location: Giabeihaus Clifford Clifford Giebeihaus S307 EDM—WH[rEMUD 5806 51 St 580651 St 201238 Avenue NW Vegreville, AB Vegrevliie, Alberta Edmonton,AB Canada, T9C1H8 Canada,T9C 1H8 TGI‘089, Canada 780-6324055 780632-1055 780-442-0316 AIRMiLES®coiiector: $*>i<* tit
Order Details
Qty Producilsku UnitPrice Price
750 8.5"x 11"~ iiyer 7FiNAL.pdi $0.00
750 CoiourLaser, 98 Bright,28—ib. $0.00
1500 Double Sided.Rich Black $029 $435.00 400008686716
Allprices listed here are in CDN Doilars subtotal ( DN) $435.00 GST/HSTN0- 126152586 GST/HST (5.00%): (CDN)$21.75 Toiai: ( DN) $456.75
in i~\\[/i‘/ r“\\{%{\QR The foiowhgproducts require S~l0bushess days for production: FiatPrnt Bushess Cards, PersonalCards, Hmknand Agendas, n Teacher Pbnners, Posicrs and Signaiure Posters, Postcards, al Wed(i‘ngProductsand Invtaiians. Oivcfs Labelsproducts requh: +6 bushess days for sixbmentto you or to store. Oivers Lab;-is dcivenes vb Xpressposi in’!awe ii 24 bushess days. The folov.-mgHo?dayproducts requre5<7 business days for producibn: Photo Books, Greeting Cards, DeluxeCalendars, Ciassi: Calendars, and Year~In~View\aBCalendars, Brpress Caiendars I oi‘2 3/i7/20i5 H129 AM
Request for Reimbursement of SDAB Costs Page 41 of 100 AgendaItem#5.3
HENNINGBYRNEWHITMORE8 MCKAL 1450 10405 JASPER AVENUE EDMONTON AB
CARD ""“"““5672 CARD TYPE MASTERCARD DATE 2016/04/20 TIME 6150 14:17:37 RECEIPT NUMBER M84122315-001-026-001-0
PURCHASE TOTAL
APPROVED AUTM#R03908 01-027 THANKYOU
CARDHOLDERWILL PAY CARD ISSUER ABOVEAMOUNT 4 PURSUANTTO CARDHOLDER AGREEMENT.
CARDHOLDERCOPY
IMPORTANT- RETAINTHIS COPY FOR YOUR RECORDS
Request for Reimbursement of SDAB Costs Page 42 of 100 AgendaItem#5.3
y/971,77,/Iyzyy//me LLP BARRISTERSANDSOLlClTORS 1450, 10405 JASPERAVENUE EDMONTON,ALBERTA T5} 3N4 TELEPHONE:780421-1707 FACSIMILE:780~425-9438 Date: May 27, 2015 John and Catherine Jensen Joe and Jolene Wlgington Invoice #: 39375 Box254 joeQaibertankfalxcom Fileii: 21633 Ryley,AB TOB4A0 jglenegryaibertatankfalxcoru Lite.-\_s§;[email protected]§1o_l4Le,t-mI1.e:£
CliffGlebeihaus NlkLee Box778 PO Box 101 Vegreville, AB T9C1R9 Ryley,AB TOB4A0 cliff9,ig_l;@gL.Lil.coin i_1_il<.lee062 ,mail£gy_\
RE: Ryley Biomedicalwaster Incinerator
STATEMENTOF ACCOUNT TO PROFESSIONALSERVICESRENDEREDon your behalf In connection withthe above noted matter, includingthose matters necessary and incidentalto our servicesbut not specificallyenumerated herein:
DATE DESCRIPTION HRS LWVR AMOUNT Apr—27-15 Telephone call with Boardre: hearing schedule 0.10 TR 20.00
Telephone callwith Jensen's re: next steps 1.20 TR 0.00
Apr-28-15 Drafting final argument 1.00 TR 200.00
May-02-15 Drafting final argument and review of record 4.50 TR 900.00
May-03-15 Further drafting final argument and review of record 5.50 TR 0.00
May-04-15 Conference callwith clientsre: next steps 1.00 TR 200.00
Prepare for hearing; review and adviceon evidence; 6.20 TR 1,240.00 correspondence withclientsand experts; prepare final argument
May-06-15 Further prepare for hearing;review and adviceon 7.20 TR 0.00 evidence; correspondence with clientsand experts; prepare final argument
Page 1 of 2
Request for Reimbursement of SDAB Costs Page 43 of 100 AgendaItem#5.3
TollFree 1-800-522-4127 Phi 760-l332~2861Fax:78006337981 5110 - 50 Shem.PO. Box 810. Vegrevme, Albona, T90 1R0
Name: __-é)j1j K/(1:91. ,‘.,__. 4
-0 ‘ " ‘J v Phono;m_i/§(:I;£L1.>«;l:./(L23;.v. .M.M._,W.,._._.~.M.w ......
-;:i_MWweak W- ClassifiedAd ..... “J. NNNN «week DisplayAd
Heading: 3 ‘ ’ )6 M_W__m___M__”____~ _m___MNw_ av :,\,. ' Cost: 7) _.. wj » ... 2 ,_W_?,_. , ._ WW my 5;/égf/ZE M
W_M__ 2‘ ,
.r,__~.._.w._ week Class ,,,, __waek Display Ad NEWSADVERTISER . 515050THST BOXM0 H88d|"9?_ vseaavueas ______no as ...... W... (730) 832-2831
Co3t:N,,...__M ..__. mmmmm SALE ; N): 4058286 TD: M01€29S REFV.00000015. Batch9!:042 SEC!04200KN)T0‘r5 WW5 “MM ...... -week Class xwwwveekrwwDisplayAd APPR00012 090332 MASTGRCARD -”---'r‘--‘'' '~~***"*' __w §tlons|QA¢§a0%sW ..I., '“”“'“"”“’ ““““ “"‘
CO$(1_.m.A__-R.w,w~_w.«M.w AMQUNT $29113 M’) ,....,..$«..._n..m.,,_.... 00 - APPROVEDv 001
Mai1OutFee:w_A__,_,__,,_. 5K3NATURENOT REQU§?ED _, ...... ,.,,. tweeter:uncoatrsxsmun anem:um smlm mu Other Fee:...... w_..m,~..«__...._‘_._w...... ‘_.«_...+~—m_*_~....,.~..~
Type of Payment: Dcash gfcreditCard L“)Cheque
Tota|:...__%(:,f£’?.:ZL:§._..,_.~,,WDue On Account: "mwwm
THANKYOUI”-"OF?YOURBUSINESS / \TMHf)US€»O?-‘G§0\'A).E»H€CE.4’1
Request for Reimbursement of SDAB Costs Page 44 of 100 AgendaItem#5.3
’gg'~@§§g!g?Lmmw??mm3 11328 D A NAME__A;_i:(;1gj[«VII "5 53¢ -r’\)§ ”"‘~§%i"\)§§»§==9~xj_E113%..“-
I ,A9DRE5S.?,>»Q>.-”‘ ” K9» ‘§.._§,j1.{_w/‘33~F‘:3TE) J’=§..<€%§Q_ ARTICLE MODEL-SERIALNO‘
’wqLLQQLL:;:;-. DEI.Iy§5a_ _
AMOUNT Estlmates are for labour only. MaterialadditIonaI.We will not be TAX responslble for loss or damage caused by ._._
fire,theft, testlng or any other causes beyond our ‘ TOTAL control. ’"—l;;g;;,'
TERMS- NET’CASH
I I I REC'D.7é(Y
3 PLEASEBRINGTHISCHECKWITHYOUWHENCALLINGFORARTICLES. AUTHORIZEDBY " N0GOODSHELDOVER30DAYS.
Request for Reimbursement of SDAB Costs Page 45 of 100 AgendaItem#5.3
I I\IWTPromotionsInc. suite #103,147BoulderBlvd INVOICE Stony Plain,Alberta1:: 1vs InvoiceNo.: 10105 Dale: 03/27/2015 ShipDate: Page: Re:Gide!No. sold to: 1603113 ampto: AlborlaTank Fabrlcatlon AlbertaTank Fabllcsllon 8hane Lazaro Shane Box478 49, Lazaro 50025Range Road173 Box478 49. Ryfey.ABTOB 50025RangeRoad 173 4A0 Ryley.AB T03 MO
76B4RP000I zs.
V
DIGITALPRINTON4MMWHITE G COREX-12"X28' : DIGITALPRINTONrIM.V|WHITE G COREX- 16"X40‘ 20.00 20.00 200.00 STEP STAKES G 1.85 ARTWORK 0 1.85 129.60 37.50 37.50 37.50 Suhlolak 997.00 G - GST 6% GST 49.86
I
NWTPromaI|ons GST: we shipped By: TrackingNumber:
comment: DUEUPON RECEIPT...THANKYOUFORYOURORDER 1.94535 SoldByr. Tabaknann.Kulhy I
Request for Reimbursement of SDAB Costs Page 46 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
BEAVER COUNTY COUNCIL REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
Meeting Type: Regular Council Meeting Date: August 19, 2015 Department: Planning & Development Confidential?: No Presented by: Margaret Jones
Topic: MEDICAL MARIJUANA BACKGROUNDER
Recommendation: That Council direct administration regarding changes (if any) to the County’s planning regulations for medical marijuana production facilities.
Discussion: At the July 8, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting, the Committee reviewed information regarding federally-regulated medical marijuana production facilities. The Committee requested additional information regarding security of the site and the authority of Council if Direct Control Districts were established to regulate these facilities in the County.
Since the July meeting, the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties released a report prepared by an Alberta Urban Municipalities’ Association working group on the issue. This report reviewed both illegal marijuana grow operations as well as commercial medical marijuana facilities, and recommended greater municipal input in the federal approval process.
The attached Backgrounder provides information regarding federal licensing and regulations, public concerns typically associated with this type of development, the County’s current land use planning regulations, and the reaction of other municipalities to the growing interest in commercial medical marijuana facilities.
Administration requests Council’s direction regarding changes (if any) to the Municipal Development Plan and/or Land Use Bylaw.
Alternatives: 1. Council may direct administration to make changes to planning regulations to allow medical marijuana facilities under parameters defined by Council. 2. Council may direct administration to make changes to prohibit medical marijuana facilities. 3. Council may direct administration to make no changes. 4. Council may defer direction pending additional information. 5. Council may take other action.
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 47 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
Subject of the Report: Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Committee of the Whole Meeting Date: August 19, 2015 Page 2
Preferred Alternative: Administration recommends that Council direct administration regarding changes (if any) to the County’s planning regulations for medical marijuana facilities.
Staff Capacity: Staff will prepare suggested changes for 1st reading of a bylaw.
Financial Implications: N/A
Environmental Considerations: N/A
Policy/Council Priorities/Relevance to Vision Statement: The medical marijuana position paper was one of Council’s 2015 Strategic Priorities.
Intergovernmental Involvement: Health Canada regulates the operation of medical marijuana facilities; the County regulates the siting of facilities.
External and Internal Communications/Participation: Any changes to the Municipal Development Plan and/or Land Use Bylaw must be advertised and a public hearing must be held.
Enclosures: Attachment A – Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Attachment B – AUMA Working Group Report on Marijuana Production
Prepared by: Margaret Jones, Asst CAO Date: August 6, 2015 Approved by: Margaret Jones, Asst CAO Date: August 6, 2015 Submitted to: Council Date: August 19, 2015
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 48 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
MEDICAL MARIJUANA BACKGROUNDER
Medical marijuana production facilities are regulated by the Federal Government. There has been recent interest in the development of such facilities in Alberta, and specifically Beaver County. The following backgrounder provides information regarding federal licensing and regulations, public concerns, and the response from municipalities to the issue. Direction from Council is requested regarding changes, if any, to the County’s land use planning documents.
Why is there so much interest in the production of medical marijuana lately?
Health Canada has been regulating the activities of drug manufacturers and distributors since the Narcotics Control Act came into force in 1961. The Narcotics Control Act was repealed in 1996 by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Cannabis is considered a controlled drug under this Act.
Some individuals, including licensed physicians, believe that cannabis (marijuana) can have a therapeutic impact on individuals suffering from certain illnesses and extreme pain. While dried marijuana is not an approved drug or medicine in Canada and the Federal Government does not endorse its use, the courts have required reasonable access to a legal source of marijuana when authorized by a physician.
Previous regulations allowed authorized patients to purchase medical marijuana from Health Canada or a designated person, or to produce medical marijuana themselves. It also allowed the shipment of product by secure courier, mail, or in person. The practices of producing medical marijuana in private dwellings and delivery in person raised concerns regarding risks to public safety, health, and communities, and the diversion of the product to the illegal market.
In response to these concerns, the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations came into force on April 1, 2014 to ensure the secure, sanitary, and safe production of medical marijuana. The new federal regulations provide access to quality-controlled dried marijuana for medical purposes through licensed commercial facilities only. Production is prohibited in private dwellings, and the sale of marijuana for medical purposes by anyone other than a federally-licensed producer is illegal. Anyone authorized to possess or licensed to produce medical marijuana under the previous regulations was required to destroy all marijuana in their possession on or by March 31, 2014, or become licensed under the new regulations.
A court injunction has been filed regarding the restriction against private production facilities, however the new regulations remain in force until the court reaches a decision. The pending court decision does not seem to have deterred plans for establishment of commercial facilities.
What do the new regulations require?
Licensing Only commercial facilities licensed by Health Canada may produce and distribute medical marijuana. Some facilities are licensed for production only; others are licensed to produce and distribute. To become licensed, the producer must meet all requirements of the regulations, including personal security clearances, quality control standards, record-keeping of all activities (including inventories of marijuana), and physical security requirements for the cultivation and storage areas.
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 49 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
The application process is quite stringent. To date, only one facility has been approved to operate in Alberta, while a large number of applications have been rejected. Nationwide, 1200 applications have been received, but 880 have either been rejected or withdrawn.
Health Canada does not restrict the capacity of the facility, and the regulations do not specify or limit the strains of marijuana that can be cultivated. Both psychoactive (mind or mood-altering) and non- psychoactive strains may be grown.
As part of the application process, the developer is required to advise the municipality, RCMP, and the local fire department of its intended operation.
Health Canada does not impose a limit on the number of licenses, however only adult Canadian residents, or corporations with a head office or branch office in Canada, can receive licenses. Licenses are only valid for 3 years, however must be renewed if the facility is in compliance with all requirements of the Act and Regulations.
Licences can be suspended or revoked if the producer contravenes the Act or Regulations, refuses to allow an inspection, falsifies documents, security clearances are revoked, record-keeping is inadequate, the licence is lost or stolen, or activities create a risk to public health, safety or security
Security - Personnel Background checks are conducted by the RCMP on the applicant, the officers/directors of the company, the manager, and the site supervisor(s) to ensure there are no associations with individuals or organizations that pose a risk, e.g. diversion to the illicit market. The validity period for background checks is a maximum of 5 years. Security clearances can be suspended or cancelled by Health Canada.
Security clearances are also required for spouses/common-law partners as well as any ex- spouses/common-law partners within the immediate 5 year period prior to the application date.
A producer must obtain approval from Health Canada to change or replace the named manager, site supervisor(s), officers or directors, and individuals authorized to place orders.
Security – Site All activities related to producing medical marijuana must be conducted indoors. No residences are allowed on the site and no outdoor storage of dried marijuana is allowed. No transactions may take place from the site unless the site supervisor is physically present.
No retail sales are allowed from the site, therefore traffic is limited to employees, delivery vehicles, and periodically, Health Canada officials. Many facilities do not advertise their locations to enhance security.
Health Canada regulates both personnel and building security, as follows:
Personnel security includes an employee identification system and access restrictions within the facility. Access to secure rooms within the facility must be limited to a “needs” basis only, and then only under supervision. Visual and physical records must be kept of everyone entering and exiting the facility and secure rooms, instances of unauthorized access, and steps taken in response to any breaches. Any theft or unusual waste or disappearance of medical marijuana that exceeds normal business practices must be reported to the RCMP and Health Canada.
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 50 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
Building security must meet minimum design standards which vary depending upon the proximity to a large urban centre and value of the inventory, as follows:
a) Medical marijuana facilities located within a 50 km radius of the centre of four major cities (including Edmonton) are classified as Region II facilities. Region I facilities are those located within a 100 km radius and Region III facilities are those located further than 100 km. Region II facilities require a higher security than the other regions. b) Within each region, there are three security levels for research firms and eight security levels for producers/distributors. The level of security depends on the value of the inventory. For example, a facility holding inventory to a value of $10,000 must have a level 3 security system. A facility holding an inventory over $150,000,000 must have a level 11 security system. c) The value of the inventory is calculated as a combination of the illicit market price as well as the raw material price. Cannabis (marijuana) has a value of $10,000 per kg.
Following is a comparison of requirements for Level 3, 8, and 11 security systems. In addition to building security, the perimeter of the site must be visually monitored at all times by visual recording devices, and equipped with a motion detection system.
Level 3 security includes the following: a) Alarm system – activates a local electric horn or bell when unauthorized access is attempted. b) Vault – floor-to-ceiling vault constructed of 4” cement block and rated at least Type D solid core wooden or metal doors with high-security strike plate and no windows locking device that is not on a master key system records kept of key/combination holders. c) Safe – located in a locked cupboard or room, or in a metal cage anchored to the floor no window within 3’ of the door.
Level 8 security includes the following: a) Alarm system – vault and safe alarms on zone separate from building alarm system system monitored by central station smoke detection in vault detection system to indicate when unauthorized access is attempted or when attempts made to circumvent detection system alarm system control boxes located inside vault or safe proximity detector motion detectors on vault walls, floor, and ceiling if perimeter security not provided detection equipment for metal cage. b) Vault – floor-to-ceiling vault constructed of 8” cement block reinforced with steel bars and rated to Type M or equivalent fire-resistant bank-type door with relocking device interior escape handle removed
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 51 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
changeable combination lock that is manipulation proof and possessing at least 3 tumblers and a spy-proof dial lock combination stored in a secure location and changed yearly or more often if staff change c) Safe – if used instead of vault to store product, must be burglar-resistant located in a metal cage in a locked room with motion detection system cage door to be padlocked anchored to floor
Licensed dealers who require Level 11 security must submit proposals to Health Canada, but in no case can the level of security be less than Level 10 security. In addition, the vault must include a fenced area (minimum 2’) that must remain clear of controlled substances.
Product Quality Both professionals (e.g. botanist) and labourers are employed in medical marijuana facilities.
Microbial and chemical contaminants of marijuana must be within limits prescribed by the Food and Drugs Act. A quality assurance person must be hired to approve every lot or batch that is available for sale.
Producers must also use a system of controls that permits rapid and complete recall of every lot or batch produced or sold. Health Canada must be advised of all recalls.
All records that must be kept, must be retained for a minimum of two years. Records of adverse reactions must be kept for 25 years.
Marijuana that is not fit for sale (including recalled product) must be destroyed in accordance with Health Canada regulations. Destruction must be carried out in the presence of two people who are management or site supervisors within the facility, and cannot be done in a fashion that exposes anyone to cannabis smoke. If the marijuana is transported to another location for destruction, it must be accompanied by a manager or site supervisor.
Odour Health Canada requires air filtration and building ventilation to eliminate odour and pollen from escaping to the outside.
Product Pricing Licensed producers may set their own prices for the product. Company advertising practices are regulated by Health Canada and are limited to basic information such as brand name, proper or common name of the strain of marijuana, price per gram, cannabinoid content, and company’s contact information.
Security – Product Shipments Health Canada has established regulations restricting the amount of medical marijuana that a patient can possess at any given time and the minimum standards for security of the transported product.
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 52 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
Only Canadian residents can order medical marijuana from companies licensed by Health Canada, and medical marijuana can only be shipped to the client’s address within Canada. In 2001, there were 85 licensed users in Canada. Health Canada estimates that there may be up to 450,000 licensed users by 2024.
Consumers must first obtain a valid medical document from an authorized health care practitioner. The medical document is only valid for a maximum of one year.
Once medical marijuana has been prescribed, patients must obtain an Authorization to Possess from Health Canada, after which they can register as a client with a licensed producer. Consumers can only obtain medical marijuana from one licensed producer at a time.
Consumers are limited in the amount of medical marijuana under possession and must carry proof of legal possession when carrying medical marijuana. The maximum amount allowed under possession is thirty times the daily amount stipulated by the healthcare practitioner (i.e. a month’s supply) to a maximum of 150 grams. A police officer may request information from a licensed producer to verify an individual’s right to possess medical marijuana as part of a legal investigation.
No retail sales are allowed either from the site or from store-front or retail distribution centres, therefore the product must be shipped from the facility to the patient or, with proper authorization, to the patient’s doctor. Shipping containers must be sanitized and secure, and be tamper-proof, tamper- evident, and child-resistant. Information regarding the contents of each shipment must be provided with the product but cannot be shown on the packaging label.
Secure transportation methods must be used, such as delivery van, courier, or armored vehicle. The mode of transportation will depend upon the quantity of product shipped and must be traceable (e.g. chain of signature).
Compliance Health Canada monitors compliance with the regulations, conducts audits, and carries out unannounced monthly inspections. It also works with the RCMP, border patrol, and health care professionals to ensure effective and legal handling and distribution of medical marijuana.
Inspections focus on security measures and internal controls to prevent diversion of medical marijuana to the illegal market. There are three levels of inspections: a) pre-licensing, b) full inspections, e.g. security, record-keeping (initially on a monthly basis), product storage, loss/theft reports, monthly sales reports, inventory control, etc., c) targeted inspections, e.g. specific items such as inventory, product storage, security, etc.
Concerns related to production and distribution activities at the site can be reported to Health Canada. The complaint will be reviewed and prioritized according to the risk of diversion and the potential risk to public health, safety, or security. Complaints regarding illegal production will be referred to the RCMP.
Following investigation, if enforcement is required, Health Canada may take action ranging from written warnings to product seizure, licence suspension, revocation, and prosecution. Any change to the license (amendment, suspension, or revocation) must be communicated to the municipality.
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 53 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
How many facilities have been licensed?
As of June 26, 2015, there are 25 companies in Canada licensed to either produce or produce/distribute medical marijuana. One of the companies is based in Alberta. Over half are based in Ontario, six are in British Columbia, and the balance is in Saskatchewan (2), Manitoba (1), Quebec (1), and New Brunswick (1).
A list of licensed producers, with company names and phone numbers, is posted on Health Canada’s website however physical locations are not provided. Health Canada may share the number of licenses authorized in a municipality, subject to privacy legislation.
Why are companies seeking to locate in Beaver County?
The Federal Government estimates that the annual taxable revenue of the medical marijuana industry in 2024 will be $1.3 billion.
Beaver County is an attractive location for a medical marijuana facility as it is not densely populated, yet is close to a major centre, which minimizes shipping costs. In addition, the land use regulations appear to support development at this time.
What are the current land use planning regulations in Beaver County?
The Municipal Government Act does not specifically exempt medical marijuana facilities from municipal planning authority, as it does for intensive livestock operations or developments approved by the Energy Resources Conservation Board, Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, or the Alberta Utilities Commission. Health Canada recognizes, and respects, a municipality’s right to determine the appropriate zoning for these facilities.
The County’s land use planning documents define Intensive Agriculture as “an agricultural operation which, due to the nature of the operation, can use smaller tracts of land, but not including confined feeding operations. Without restricting the generality of the foregoing, this shall include nurseries, greenhouses, sod farms, bee keeping, tree farms, stud farms, horse training facilities, fish farms, and other similar uses, provided that they are not of the scale or intensity to be considered confined feeding operations that require a registration or approval under the Agricultural Operation Practices Act.”
Medical marijuana growing operations are operated in a similar manner as greenhouses, therefore they are considered Intensive Agriculture uses.
The goal of the County’s Municipal Development Plan is to “conserve and enhance the County’s agricultural and rural character while encouraging environmentally sound, sustainable economic development. The County foresees agriculture and agricultural services as major economic forces in the community. … The County will provide leadership and direction in the following areas: (1) Conservation of agricultural land and encouragement of diversity in the agricultural and the agricultural service sectors; …”.
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 54 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
In the County’s Land Use Bylaw, intensive agriculture may be allowed either in the Agricultural District which is the predominant zoning for most of the County, in the Rural Industrial District, and in the Country Residential District on lots greater than 18 acres in size.
With the recent development application, the County required the applicant to hold an Open House to explain the proposed development and answer questions. There was good attendance and feedback was positive (i.e. residents understood the proposed development and had the opportunity to ask questions). The County also requested input from adjacent landowners prior to making a decision on the development application.
What are residents’ concerns?
The following issues are typical of residents adjacent to medical marijuana facilities. Many of these concerns were also raised by the appellants of the recent medical marijuana facility development permit. a) estimated water demand and anticipated source b) volume of traffic and traffic patterns c) not subject to property taxation d) negative impact on adjacent property land values e) odour and type of air filtration system f) physical security to prevent unauthorized access g) increased criminal activity in the area h) secure distribution i) indoor vs outdoor activities j) density of development in the area k) setbacks from adjacent residences or businesses l) proximity to “sensitive” areas (e.g. schools, community groups) m) confusion with existing wholesale/retail greenhouses n) signage o) number of personnel on site p) hours of operation q) type of waste and method of disposal (solid and liquid) r) landscaping details
What was the SDAB’s decision on the recent application in Beaver County?
The Subdivision and Development Appeal Board recently denied an appeal against a development permit issued for a medical marijuana production and distribution facility.
The Board granted a permit for Phase I of an operation that includes a 12,000 ft2 building with perimeter fencing and other security measures. Conditions attached to the permit include on-going compliance with federal regulations, satisfactory sewage disposal, fire mitigation, and odour suppression.
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 55 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
What are other municipalities doing?
Alberta Beaver County is not the only municipality that has been approached to allow development of medical marijuana facilities.
The City of Edmonton is currently reviewing an application for a 125,000 ft2 facility in its northwest industrial park.
The City of Calgary only allows medical marijuana facilities in industrial areas.
Rocky View County recently amended its Land Use Bylaw to allow medical marijuana facilities in the General Business District and the Industrial Activity District. Included in the regulations is the requirement for a 400 metre separation between the site (property line) and the closest dwelling. Any development permits issued are only valid for 3 years.
Mountainview County recently amended its Land Use Bylaw to allow medical marijuana facilities as discretionary uses in the Business Park District. Their development application process requires circulation to adjacent landowners and Health Canada. Health Canada approval is required before a permit will be issued.
The Municipal District of Willow Creek recently amended its Land Use Bylaw to allow medical marijuana facilities as discretionary uses in the Rural Commercial District.
The Alberta Urban Municipalities Association formed an administrative working group to provide input on the Government of Alberta’s Grow Op Free Alberta report. While this report primarily focused on illegal marijuana grow operations, the administrative working group included in its scope, recommendations for greater municipal input on federally-approved commercial medical marijuana facilities. The working group included two representatives from rural municipalities. A copy of the working group’s report is attached.
Elsewhere in Canada The City of Toronto permits medical marijuana operations only in industrial areas. Included in the regulations is the requirement for a 70 metre setback from residential areas.
The City of Ottawa considers medical marijuana facilities to be similar to pharmaceutical plants. It allows them on industrial property with a setback of 150 metres from residential or institutional uses.
Next Steps?
The County’s recent experience with a development application and subsequent appeal indicates that the issue is sensitive in the municipality.
Current policy (Municipal Development Plan and Land Use Bylaw) allows medical marijuana facilities as a discretionary use in three districts. There are no specific regulations to mitigate perceived negative impacts. Council’s direction on the following questions will form the basis for Land Use Bylaw amendments. These amendments will be subject to public input at a public hearing.
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 56 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
Direction is requested for the following: 1. Does Council wish to allow medical marijuana facilities in the County? 2. If so, where is the preferred location for the facilities? 3. Does Council wish to control the siting of the facilities (e.g. Direct Control District)? 4. Does Council wish to establish specific development regulations/requirements?
With respect to Direct Control Districts, all developments proposed for the District would be subject to Council approval. Council would first consider an application to redistrict the property (public hearing, but no appeal allowed). If redistricting was approved, Council could be the Development Authority for subsequent development applications or delegate that authority to the County’s Development Officer.
If Council retained Development Authority power, it would make the decision regarding the development application, subject to conditions at Council’s discretion. No appeal would be allowed.
If Council delegated decision-making authority to the Development Officer, the basis for appeal would be limited to whether the Development Officer followed the directions of Council.
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 57 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
Alberta Urban Municipalities Association Administrative Working Group on Marijuana Production
Report – June 2015
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 58 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
P a g e | 1
Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...... 2 Background ...... 3 Illegal Grow Operations ...... 3 Medical Marijuana Production Facilities ...... 4 Recommendations ...... 5 Illegal Grow Operations ...... 5 Medical Marijuana Production Facilities ...... 7 Conclusion ...... 9 Appendix ...... 10 Medical Marijuana Production Feedback Table ...... 10 Illegal Grow Operations Feedback Table ...... 15
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 59 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
P a g e | 2
Acknowledgements Working Group Panel
The working group, comprised of municipal administrators and subject matter experts, advised the creation of this report and enclosed recommendations. AUMA thanks them for their commitment and advice during meetings and in the preparation of this report. The members of the working group included: Wayne Brown, Coordinator, Coordinated Safety Response Team, City of Calgary Gary Mayorachak, Fire Marshal, City of Edmonton Julian Decoq, Chief Administrative Officer, Town of Cochrane Tom Goulden, Chief Administrative Officer, Town of Stony Plain Darrin Harsch, Senior Building Safety Codes Officer, City of Lethbridge Josie Krokis, Director, Protective Services, Fort Saskatchewan Ed Kujat, Chief Fire Marshal, Calgary Fire Department Tony Martens, Chief Administrative Officer, Mountain View County Lisa Novotny, Development Manager and City Assessor, City of Wetaskiwin Steve Phipps, Executive Officer, Alberta Urban Municipalities Association Jacqueline Ruhe, Development Officer, Sylvan Summer Villages Wyatt Skovron, Policy Analyst, Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties Peter Tarnawsky, Chief Administrative Officer, Sturgeon County Larry Wright, Officer of Strategy and Technology, Town of Olds The working group met three times between April and June 2015 to discuss a range of municipal issues. During these meetings, the group additionally met with representatives from Health Canada, The Canadian Medical Cannabis Industry Association, Deloitte and Touche, Aurora Cannabis Inc., and Sundial Growers to discuss issues specific to the commercial production of medical marijuana.
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 60 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
P a g e | 3
Background Residential and Illegal Grow Operations
Illegal marijuana grow operations (MGOs) currently exist in communities across Alberta, taking place in homes ranging from high-rise apartments in the inner city to family houses in the suburbs. There are additionally a number of individuals that continue to be allowed to grow their own marijuana under a personal production license pending the outcomes of a lawsuit challenging new regulations which forbid personal production of medical marijuana. While there is ongoing debate about the use of marijuana, these MGOs present an indisputable risk to communities. Residential properties are not adequate environments for agricultural production, and their use as such presents significant environmental hazards. In many instances, operators use and dispose of toxic chemicals in a way that pollutes surface and groundwater and the soil. In addition, alterations to properties can render homes used for grow operations structurally unsound. MGO homes often become uninhabitable within a short period of time. If the operation is shut down or abandoned, the site often remains a vacant, abandoned, and dangerous eyesore given ground contamination and a lack of structural integrity. MGOs can also attract criminal activity and violence to neighbourhoods. Operators often set “booby traps” in the form of trip wires and other devices to secure their operations. Police have also reported that electricity lines are often tampered with, causing dangerous live electrical lines to become exposed through the yard and house. In some cases, structural hazards have caused major residential fires that threaten neighbouring properties. The illegal nature of MGOs can also attract a dangerous criminal element to residential areas. In response to these concerns, the Government of Alberta undertook a three month consultation process with a broad range of stakeholders to gather information about marijuana grow operations and develop recommendations as to the actions the Government could take on these issues. The expert panel completed their Grow Op Free Alberta Final Recommendations Report in May 2014, identifying 37 key recommendations covering the following topics:
Detection, Notification and Disclosure Community and Environmental Impact Inspection and Remediation Child Protection Safety and Health Hazards Utility Usage and Theft Licensed Grow Ops – Medical Marijuana Access Program The AUMA Administrative Working Group on Marijuana Production examined these recommendations, and developed responses as to potential additional actions that should be taken, and municipal roles in addressing the MGO problem. These responses are included in the following section.
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 61 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
P a g e | 4
Medical Marijuana Production Facilities
Medical marijuana has been legal and regulated by Health Canada since 2001. Initially, a federal regulation allowed individuals who had been prescribed medical marijuana to apply for a personal production license or for other individuals to apply for a designated person production license. This system was eliminated in 2014, and federal regulations were changed to require that medical marijuana must be produced by commercial suppliers. Under the new legislation, prospective commercial medical marijuana producers must undergo a five stage process to receive a license to produce: 1. Preliminary screening including an initial review of application materials to ensure they are complete. 2. Advanced screening to analyze the location of the proposed site, ensure the facility will not have any risk to public safety, and confirm that the facility will be in compliance with all provincial and municipal restrictions. 3. Security clearance of applicants with the RCMP. 4. Review process to confirm that all requirements are met. 5. Site review to ensure that all security and construction requirements are met. This review process screens out roughly 60 per cent of applicants in the first stage. The process of receiving a license is time consuming, and the requirements set are stringent. As a result, the majority of applicants are rejected. Of 1200 applications received, 880 have been rejected or withdrawn. There is currently only one licensed producer in Alberta. After a site is operational, it is subject to unannounced monthly inspections by Health Canada. To date, 215 inspections have taken place resulting in 5 license recalls due to product non- compliance. Though the application process requires prospective facilities to be in compliance with municipal regulations (e.g. zoning bylaws), municipalities will lack control over such developments if they are not defined in their zoning bylaw at the time of application for a development permit. Unless otherwise defined, a medical marijuana facility is considered an agricultural use. As such, it may be built on any land that permits agricultural uses. In addition to land use controls, taxation issues have been raised. Under Alberta’s Municipal Government Act, medical marijuana production facilities are defined as farm buildings under non-residential use for taxation purposes. Farm buildings are taxed at a reduced value, or completely exempted in the case of rural municipalities. This is a concern since these facilities receive many municipal services such as solid waste removal, water, police, and road infrastructure. Concerns have also been raised that municipalities are not receiving adequate levels of communication from Health Canada regarding applications to develop a site or inspections of facilities, and about public safety challenges caused by facilities. The working group has developed a set of recommendations to address these concerns and ensure medical marijuana facilities are developed and operated safely and without negatively impacting communities.
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 62 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
P a g e | 5
Recommendations Residential and Illegal Grow Operations
At the request of the Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General, the working group analyzed the findings of the Grow Op Free Alberta Final Recommendations Report, and developed ten priority recommendations for action regarding residential grow operations. While the working group generally supported the recommendations in the report, there is concern that responsibilities could be downloaded on municipalities that lack the capacity and resources to handle them. Therefore, the working group developed a consensus that the recommendations should be championed by the federal and provincial governments (see appendix B for detailed group feedback and recommendations). These recommendations apply to both residential licensed medical marijuana production that is currently allowed pending the outcome of current litigation, as well as illegal grow operations. These recommendations are in support of the following specific outcomes that the working group has identified:
Prevention of the development of additional grow ops Discovery of existing grow ops Consistency of inspections Efficient, consistent, and effective remediation The ten priority actions that the working group has identified are: 1. Further develop and formalize lines of communication between agencies, municipalities, law enforcement, and the general public regarding grow-ops as well as remediation. Develop a centralized information sharing network administered by the province for the reporting and dissemination of information regarding identified grow ops. (Report Recommendations 2, 3, and 5). 2. Legislate and enable mandatory disclosure for certain groups (e.g. real estate agents, mortgage lenders, insurance companies) if they suspect a property is being or has been used as a grow op. (Report Recommendations 6, 8, and 33). 3. Establish resources and guidelines on environmental contamination testing and remediation standards, including air quality testing guidelines. (Report Recommendations 9, 11, 16, and 30). 4. Develop resources, guidelines, and well-established role clarity for municipal and provincial remediation processes, including ensuring that municipal permits and inspections are appropriately obtained prior to remediation and developing a remediation certificate program. In addition to encouraging municipal partnerships, develop a team to work in conjunction with the provincial Green Team including safety codes officers, other inspectors, and AHS officials to assist local officials in the consistent application of standards. (Report Recommendations 12-15, 22, 26, and 27). 5. Require annual or semi-annual landlord inspections and enable landlords with expedient measures for the eviction of grow ops. (Report Recommendation 17). 6. Expand bylaw and enforcement powers of municipalities to quickly and effectively respond to hazards associated with grow ops. (Report Recommendation 19). 7. Provide municipalities and the province with clearly defined powers for requiring remediation and for requiring that remediation be performed within a specific period of time. (Report Recommendations 20, 23).
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 63 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
P a g e | 6
8. Expedite the process by which municipalities may recover costs associated with remediation or demolition of contaminated and abandoned property. Establish a remediation fund to assist in efficient and speedy remediation. (Report Recommendation 21). 9. Legislatively empower provincial and municipal entities with expanded powers to conduct mandatory health and safety inspections of reported grow ops. (Report Recommendation 29). 10. In the development and implementation of changes responsive to the above recommendations, the province should develop teams including appropriate municipal stakeholders and experts to fully explore the municipal impacts of each change to policy and legislation.
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 64 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
P a g e | 7
Medical Marijuana Production Facilities
The working group identified a series of actions that could be taken at the municipal, provincial, and federal levels to improve the medical marijuana production facility process. These actions (see appendix A) have been adapted into the following recommendations for new municipal, provincial, and federal powers and responsibilities. Municipalities are recommended to:
Develop and distribute a resource through AUMA to inform municipalities about the medical marijuana production facility licensing process and actions they can take regarding the siting and regulation of production facilities. Establish a point of contact in municipalities to receive information about applications for and inspections of licensed medical marijuana facilities. Provide feedback on provincially or federally required impact assessments regarding water, sewer, energy usage, environmental impacts, transportation considerations, and public. The provincial government is recommended to:
Establish a central point of contact to disseminate information to municipalities about medical marijuana production facilities and the licensing process. Involve the Ministry of Environment and Parks in the licensing process to monitor for the environmental impacts of production facilities including water and ground contamination. Require applicants to conduct impact and risk assessments regarding water, sewer, energy usage, environmental impacts, transportation considerations, security, and public safety prior to the development of a production facility, and report on them with input or response from impacted municipalities. Redefine medical marijuana production as non-agricultural under the Municipal Government Act to allow sufficient taxation of facilities. Develop team to work with the Green Team to including safety codes officers, other inspectors, and AHS officials to assist local officials in the consistent application of standards. Enable municipal authorities such as police, fire departments, and members of an expanded provincial team to regularly inspect medical marijuana production facilities. The federal government is recommended to:
Send applications and updates to an established point of contact at municipalities, and communicate with the point of contact to ensure the proposed use meets all local zoning bylaws prior to passing the applications through stage 1 of the approval process. Communicate monthly updates on applications and inspections with affected municipalities. Provide a line of communication and online reporting mechanism for municipalities to utilize in exchanging information and concerns with Health Canada. Consult with the provincial government to ensure that proposed facilities are compliant with local and provincial rules. Allow municipal authorities, local fire, and local police to accompany Health Canada inspectors in monthly inspections.
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 65 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
P a g e | 8
Conduct public notification and consultation with Health Canada officials as a stage in the licensing process. Establish and clarify definitions, requirements, and processes in the application procedure and ongoing inspections to formalize and enhance current practices such as monthly inspections.
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 66 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
P a g e | 9
Concluding Comments The recommendations of the Working Group on Marijuana Production were arrived at after careful deliberation and significant discussion and research. These recommendations, however, should not be viewed as the final word on municipal interests on this issue. As the recommendations emphasize, these are complex issues that require continued engagement and cooperation of all three levels of government, including in the development and implementation of policy and legislative changes stemming from these recommendations. These recommendations should be considered in the light of the extremely diverse contexts, capacities, and resources of Alberta municipalities. For this reason, across-the-board downloading of additional responsibilities to municipalities should be avoided. Additional powers granted to municipalities should be accompanied by appropriate supports and guidance that allow municipalities to rely in varying degrees on the expertise of the federal and provincial government, as well as the expertise and resources of other municipalities through partnership.
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 67 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
P a g e | 10
Appendix Medical Marijuana Issues Table
This table reflects the working group’s identification of concerns related to medical marijuana production facilities. For municipal, provincial, and federal levels of government, it identifies current tools as well as a desired future state for each of these concerns. Issue Municipal Tools and Provincial Tools and Federal Tools and Authorities Authorities Authorities Improvement of Current State: Land Use Current State: None Current State: notification and Bylaw, development Notification regarding communication permit applications Future State: Establish application for license. regarding applications, central point of contact Health Canada requires inspections, and Future State: Establish to disseminate proof that the applicant changes. point of contact to information to provided notice, then receive information municipalities. they follow up with the about applications, municipality. Additional inspections etc. Involvement of Ministry requirement to provide of ESRD in issue of plant municipality with the disposal, wastewater, address. etc. Future State: Request applications and updates to be send to established municipal point of contact.
When confirming notification with CAO, check with municipality to ensure that the proposed use meets local zoning bylaws prior to passing the application through stage 1 of the approval process.”
Prior to final approval of application, all applicable permits have been granted.
Monthly updates on applications, inspections, etc.
Line of communication for complaints to
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 68 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
P a g e | 11
Issue Municipal Tools and Provincial Tools and Federal Tools and Authorities Authorities Authorities municipalities. Online reporting. Application process Current State: Municipal Current State: None. Current State: may require prospective Comprehensive applicant to contact both Future State: Required application process Police and Fire Authority impact study regarding involving criminal prior to application water, sewer, energy background check, demonstrating intent usage, environmental municipal notification, (this is what City of impact, transportation etc. No opportunity for Edmonton does). considerations, public municipal input other safety. than acknowledgment of notification. Municipality would have to report back to Licenses are only valid authority regarding the for 1-2 years, requires a impacts. Reporting reapplication process would need to be with full screening mandatory. requirements.
Future State: Municipalities are provided opportunities for input on the application including siting and relevant permits (see other recommendations). Municipalities are asked to provide input on reapplications. Siting of facilities. Current State: Land Use Current State: None. Current State: License Bylaw can restrict approval process locations. However, each Future State: Siting requires obtaining of municipality may have subject environmental development permit completely different impact study. (where applicable), zoning and bylaw giving municipality restrictions. ability to control location through Land Future State: All Use Bylaw. If land is municipalities are aware zoned for agricultural of need for Land Use use this does not apply. Bylaws regulating this use. Consistent zoning Future State: License is and bylaw restrictions contingent on proof of are used across municipal permits. jurisdictions. Health Canada needs to consult Alberta
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 69 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
P a g e | 12
Issue Municipal Tools and Provincial Tools and Federal Tools and Authorities Authorities Authorities Environment. Have to demonstrate compliance with local and provincial rules, including consulting with local law enforcement and emergency responders to ensure they are aware of facility and can plan for potential incidents.
Scope and regularity of Current State: Current State: Fire and Current State: Health site and product Development and safety code inspections Canada conducts inspections. Building permits as applicable. surprise inspections on required. every facility on a Fire Safety Codes Officer Future State: Develop a monthly basis. has the ability to conduct team to work in Municipalities are not building inspections to conjunction with Green notified of specific enforce maintenance Team including safety inspection findings and items and Fire Code codes officers, other do not accompany compliance. inspectors, and AHS federal inspectors. officials to assist local Health Canada intends Future State: officials in the to publish general Municipalities are consistent application information about informed about the of standards. inspections quarterly, inspection process and but not specific sites’ results and provided an violations. opportunity to accompany HC Future State: inspectors. Municipalities are informed about the Municipalities are inspection process and authorized to inspect results. Municipal facilities independently. authorities are allowed Currently, Building Safety to accompany Health Codes officers may Canada inspectors. inspect on building permit completions only.
Inspect for contamination/potential to be brownfield, treatment of waste, emissions (Alberta Environment), air quality on a complaint basis, annual fire inspections
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 70 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
P a g e | 13
Issue Municipal Tools and Provincial Tools and Federal Tools and Authorities Authorities Authorities (fire inspection triggers follow-ups on permits), initial inspection by first responders in order to develop an emergency response plan for facility.
Variable inspection schedule (frequent inspections at first, less frequent once there is a positive track record) Security issues Current State: None. Fire Current State: None. Current State: regarding the department has Background check of transportation of concerns with Future State: Periodic prospective operators is product, security of unapproved building Green Team extensive; previous sites, screening of staff, security measures that inspections. connections to drugs will and potential for may have negative disqualify. Additionally criminal activity. consequences with look at all personnel. responding emergency personnel. Health Canada inspections look at site Future State: Local security. police and fire are informed, consulted, and Future State: Health involved in the licensing Canada inspections and application process, involve local police or as well as inspections. other authorities.
Routine joint task (HC, Fire, Police) inspections to ensure ongoing Code and operational compliance.
Local police and first responders have an opportunity to create a proactive emergency response plan for the facility. Need for more public Current State: Land Use Current State: None Current State: Approval involvement and Bylaw require public process does not require communication involvement (i.e. if sites Future State: Province public input. regarding selection of are only allowed in a establishes means of locations, updates on direct control zone, disseminating Future State: Licensing sites, and ongoing require public information about and inspection inspections. processes include public
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 71 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
P a g e | 14
Issue Municipal Tools and Provincial Tools and Federal Tools and Authorities Authorities Authorities consultation to rezone applications and notification and an area to that use). inspections. consultation with HC officials. Future State: Opportunities are established for public input and consultation, about issues within municipal control (e.g. zoning) as well as notifications about municipally-controlled inspections. Lack of detail in Current State: None. Current State: None. Current State: Unclear regulations. definitions, Future State: None. Future State: requirements, and Development of process. Many current regulations that processes are not prescribe provincial defined in the processes and regulation. standards for medical marijuana production. Future: Exact definitions are established, process is clarified for municipalities.
Describe in the regulations various processes (e.g. monthly inspections) not currently in the regulations. Property taxation issues Current State: Marijuana production currently falls under the property taxation category of farm land or farm buildings and is taxed at a reduced rate or fully exempted.
Future State: Municipalities are empowered to tax marijuana production facilities at the non- residential rate.
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 72 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
P a g e | 15
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 73 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
P a g e | 16
Illegal Grow Operation Feedback Table
This table reflects the working group’s identification of priority recommendations from the Grow Op Free Alberta report as well as their concerns and proposed actions. Recommendation # Reason for Concern Proposed Action 1. Create a public Public awareness is very Development of a province-wide awareness campaign important and providing good awareness campaign. targeted at industry information on how to spot a and the general public MGO will help the general public to increase public awareness of the signs respond. This requires strong of a MGO, increase Provincial leadership with all knowledge about the stakeholders. safety and health risks associated with MGOs in homes and increase awareness of where to report suspected MGOs.
2. Improve police A greater knowledge base will Create a province-wide map of reporting across the better prepare local first MGO properties, including province to effectively responders to identify and common characteristics, etc., and consistently track respond to MGOs. coordinated by Alberta Justice. the MGO problem. Focusing on prevention is a more Create a centralized information- 3. Work with police effective means of combatting sharing network where law agencies to establish MGOs. enforcement officials can protocols or ways to Municipalities and law collaborate in discussing MGO ensure municipalities enforcement do not adequately situations. are notified of a communicate despite having Educate municipalities and law confirmed MGO. information that may help one enforcement on the benefits of
another (eg. municipalities may sharing information. The province have records of excessive energy could consider providing support use at a property that may to assist local municipalities in indicate a possible MGO site) developing this relationship with first responders (guide, best practices, benefits, etc.). Police information on known MGOs be made known to other law enforcement agencies and to municipalities. 5. Explore the creation Public information availability Province wide information sharing of a process to report The more you can expose an MGO Requires Provincial Legislation information about to the general public the greater (maybe a FOIP amendment). confirmed grow ops. the pressure will be to close it. Make the information Make the information on known available to the MGA’s available to the public and general public as well to municipalities. as to agencies involved in the detection, notification and
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 74 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
P a g e | 17
Recommendation # Reason for Concern Proposed Action remediation of grow ops.
6. Consider options to Concern is that an innocent buyer Develop a provincial/municipal team require real estate could purchase a former grow op and to work with the real estate industry agents, when they become sick and be saddled with an to investigate the issues and develop have knowledge, to expensive remediation. I also wonder recommendations. Once completed disclose to potential if the mortgage company would create legislation requiring the release purchasers whether the property they are decline the mortgage given their of this information. selling was previously current protocols. used as a MGO.
7. Work with mortgage Currently the remediation and indoor Develop a provincial/municipal team lenders and insurance air quality systems appear to be not to work with mortgage lenders and companies to ensure accepted by mortgage lenders and insurance companies to investigate government actions insurance companies. This prevents and make recommendations to under these these properties from being occupied address this issue. recommendations will result in these in a timely manner and attaches a agencies agreeing to stigma that is unjustified. mortgage and insure remediated former MGO properties.
8. Work with mortgage Important to ensure prompt and Mortgage and Insurance lenders and insurance uniform reporting. companies should be compelled companies to develop to report suspected MGO’s. This ways to report requires Provincial or possible suspected MGOs to the local police agency Federal legislation and municipality if they become aware a property either has been, or is currently being, used for these purposes.
9. Establish Very important that consistent Develop provincial testing environmental testing should be conducted and program under Environment and contamination testing consistent standards met Parks. guidelines. This is best carried out by Allow municipal officials to
province, as many municipalities become qualified to test if they would lack capacity to test, and it choose is unreasonable to expect each municipality to have a qualified tester, as some municipalities rarely encounter MGOs 11. Establish No real consistency within either Develop a provincial/municipal team qualifications for industry and this again calls into to work with both stakeholder groups environmental and question the quality of the in the investigation of qualifications. remediation. This applies to both the
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 75 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
P a g e | 18
Recommendation # Reason for Concern Proposed Action remediation illegal grow op and the residential Once completed create the accepted consultants. medical grow op once it has been provincial qualifications discovered, closed and remediated.
11. Establish In many situations, a lack of Create set standards and qualifications for province-wide standards equates qualifications. Consider possibility environmental and to a regulatory gap in which of multiple standards depending remediation municipalities are forced to on property type, as residential consultants. address issues that are not their property may have different
16. Explore the responsibility, and for which they issues than industrial or rural creation of a are not qualified to do so. property. classification system to This could be done by adapting indicate the level of recommendation 16, in which a remediation required level of contamination is for a MGO property, established for each site, and for example, from remediation requirements are levels 1 to 5. reflective of the severity of contamination. 13. Develop and make No consistency across the Develop a provincial/municipal publicly available province. This inconsistency team to share best practices in standardized prevents mortgage companies the creation of standardized inspection and from having any confidence in the inspection and remediation remediation permits, forms and associated remediation process. permits, forms and associated processes for the Inconclusive timely remediation processes province. process of buildings
12. Develop a Complex process Collaboration between provincial inspection Municipalities want to ensure municipalities and province in and remediation properties are safe, both to developing guidelines, process guideline for protect property owners and limit standardized forms and municipalities when dealing with grow ops. liability processes, etc. Without a clear remediation Municipal Affairs and 13. Develop and make process, may be very difficult to Environment and Parks should be publicly available sell property involved in establishing the standardized process guidelines. inspection and remediation permits, forms and associated processes for the province.
14. Outline the roles of the various agencies involved in the MGO inspection and remediation process to address ongoing confusion and debate about individual responsibilities.
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 76 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
P a g e | 19
Recommendation # Reason for Concern Proposed Action
14. Outline the roles of Complicated jurisdictional Outline agency roles. the various agencies boundaries Provincial leadership involving all involved in the MGO Outlining and defining roles and stakeholders. inspection and responsibilities of all involved is remediation process to Put a group of relevant agencies address ongoing always a good strategy. together to create a process for confusion and debate The concern is that different sharing information. about individual agencies holding information responsibilities. specific to their area of expertise and not sharing it with other 15. Explore ways to agencies who could benefit from remove barriers to improve information that knowledge results in a sharing among fractured or silo response to the agencies involved in problem. inspecting and remediating MGOs to ensure these properties are remediated.
17. Consider Currently landlords are surprised Develop a provincial/. legislation requiring that a tenant is growing Municipal team to create landlords to inspect a marihuana (illegally or medical). legislation that requires the property yearly and Some landlords who are a party to property to be inspected every six evict a tenant immediately if a grow the illegal grow will state that months, yearly is typically too op is discovered. they and no knowledge of the late, a grow could already have Create and distribute grow. happened. communication The landlord should be able to materials about the reach out for support from Court inspection process to and Police on any eviction landlords. procedure. This could be a very dangerous situation to put a homeowner in if they are the ones confronting a tenant with a MGO.
19. Consider Allowing municipalities with Any additional municipal powers legislation to ensure greater authority to address regarding structures must be municipalities have structural/hazardous issues of voluntary, not required, as some the authority to deal MGOs may allow for faster municipalities will lack the with the hazardous issues of a property. remediation of MGOs capacity to address these Municipalities can currently deal concerns. Expanded municipal with un-sightly premises under powers should not be seen as a the MGA, and hazardous issues I replacement for provincial would think would fall To Alberta responsibilities. Environment. If the Municipality is Building Safety Codes Officer can to play a role then their authority enforce Building Code needs to be defined in legislation. compliance.
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 77 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
P a g e | 20
Recommendation # Reason for Concern Proposed Action Building Structural issues not Provincial certification of rectified. inspectors that could be Smaller municipalities do not have contracted by smaller the expertise to deal with communities. structural issues, both in terms of personnel and knowledge. 20. Support After the dismantlement the Develop a provincial/municipal municipalities in property can sit in a derelict state team to create legislation that requiring people to and does create an unsafe requires the property to be make a property safe condition within the community. remediated or demolished with a for rebuilding within a legislated period of year of the dismantlement by time. Police. Time is of the essence when an MGO is shut down. A maximum time period should be given for rehabilitation or else the Municipality should have the power to finish the work and apply and force a sale of the property to recover all costs. 20. Support Municipalities often required to Create exception to three-year municipalities in shoulder financial burden for delay in seizing property when requiring people to remediation if owner is absent. property is confirmed MGO. make a property safe Abandonment for several years Perhaps a one-year window for rebuilding within a legislated period of results in property deteriorating would be more appropriate. time. further. Create a streamlined, consistent Three year wait to seize property remediation process that is 21. Explore with causes financial uncertainty for realistic for both urban and rural municipalities the municipality and likely reduces municipalities. possibility of a faster, the property value, reducing the Provide municipalities with more efficient process than the current tax revenue that the municipality will provincial support roll system to help eventually be able to recover. (grant/technical support) when municipalities recover remediating former MGOs. the costs associated Either the province needs to come with remediating or up with a funding source or demolishing an changes need to be made to the abandoned property Municipal Government Act that formerly used as a shortens recovery time when a grow op. municipality has to remediate or demolish a property. 22. Encourage The concern is inconsistency Develop a provincial committee to partnerships between across the province in regards to first study best practices and municipalities that how MGOs are currently managed through the partnership establish have more experience including illegal, med grows, and more consistent methods of MGO with MGOs and those that lack experience commercial. management (all categories). and capacity to deal Different levels of experience and Province forms a working group of with the marijuana challenges in different municipal municipalities familiar with size and type remediating different types of
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 78 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
P a g e | 21
Recommendation # Reason for Concern Proposed Action grow ops in their Currently, municipalities with MGOs. Ideally, have different communities. limited MGO experience may municipal types and capacities struggle to navigate complex (rural and urban, large and small, remediation process, which may etc.) to maximize scenarios result in inconsistencies from one covered. Form best practices jurisdiction to another. guide for different types of Sharing experiences in addressing property based on working group MGOs on different property types input. (residential, commercial, high density, agricultural, etc.) could provide guidelines that would help in almost any situation 23. Explore ways for Make property safe for rebuilding Mortgage holder responsible mortgage holders of Clearly define a maximum period abandoned grow op in which the mortgage or properties to take title insurance company can respond. and either make the property safe for rebuilding or demolish the property.
26. Consider ways to This is another tool to ensure This should be a legislative tool ensure MGOs are consistency and the safety of that accompanies the remediated only after subsequent property owners. development of consistent the proper permits and standards, qualifications, etc. inspections are obtained.
27. Develop a The concern is that the mortgage Develop a provincial/municipal certificate program for companies at this time do not team to develop a Remediation MGO remediation have faith in the quality of the Certification program that will modelled after Alberta remediation. satisfy all concerns from mortgage Environment and Sustainable Resource companies and increase the Development’s public trust in a remediated Remediation property. Certification program indicating the property has no remaining toxic hazards.
28. Develop a Child endangerment Clearly outline roles and communications plan responsibilities of Drug regarding the Drug Endangered Children Act Endangered Children Act that:
Outlines the roles and responsibilities of police in exercising
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 79 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
P a g e | 22
Recommendation # Reason for Concern Proposed Action their authority;
Provides guidance for exercising that authority; and
Increases awareness of the significant risk to children exposed to drug manufacturing, trafficking and other serious drug activity.
29. Consider allowing Ensuring code and safety Propose mandatory inspections court orders to be compliance granted for mandatory health and safety inspections of reported MGO properties.
30. Consider Although the current program Develop a provincial/municipal establishing indoor air works relatively well there are team to develop the criteria for quality testing inconsistencies that do bring into indoor air quality testing guidelines as part of question the remediation quality. guidelines that will satisfy all the remediation process. concerns from mortgage companies and increase the public trust in a remediated property. 33. Review the Assist in identifying MGO’s Enact provincial legislation barriers preventing the flow of information between utility companies and police authorities, and identify the barriers that can be addressed. In the context of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v. Gomboc, identify the information that is appropriate to be shared and give police agencies access to the information that can be used to identify
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 80 of 100 AgendaItem#5.4
P a g e | 23
Recommendation # Reason for Concern Proposed Action active marijuana grow ops.
35. Develop a The appeal in regards to the Develop a provincial communication and residential med grow program will communication campaign to raise awareness campaign be completed in early fall this awareness of the risks of not directed at year. If the program is having the property remediated. homeowners of former and current licensed discontinued there will be a large Work with Health Canada in the MGOs to encourage inventory of damaged residential acquisition of the addresses. them to voluntarily properties that may not be (Calgary) continue to inspect submit to a health and remediated properly. these properties when identified safety inspection. through Police process (tips on grow ops) 36. Explore ways to Provincial regulations to allow regulate the operation municipal enactment for of commercial grow commercial grow ops ops licensed through MMAP, including the location of these operations and all other issues under provincial authority.
37. Develop progress Accountability Mandatory compliance reports every six inspections is key for successful months for a two-year implementation period to ensure the recommendations are effectively implemented.
Medical Marijuana Backgrounder Page 81 of 100 AgendaItem#5.5
BEAVER COUNTY COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEM
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Date: August 19, 2015 Department: Administration Confidential?: No Presented by: Cindy Cox
Topic: COST-SHARING EXPENSES FOR REPRESENTATION ON FCM COMMITTEES
Discussion: At the January 9, 2015 AAMDC Zone 5 meeting, participants discussed the need for rural representation on Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ committees. It is important that rural municipal interests be represented on the various committees, however for small municipalities, the cost to send a Councillor to committee meetings can be prohibitive.
There are 11 committees, each holding two to three meetings per year. It appears that the committees meet in the same 2-3 day time period to minimize expenses and time away from the municipality. For example, Councillor Hanson was recently appointed to four committees (see Attachment A). He will travel to New Brunswick in September for orientation and a meeting on each committee. The next meetings are scheduled for November and March at other locations.
Depending on the location, the cost for representation on committees could be $13,000 - $20,000 per year.
At the January Zone 5 meeting, it was proposed that all zone member municipalities share the cost to send an appointed representative(s) to committee meetings. There are 14 members in Zone 5, therefore each member’s share of the cost could be $1000 - $1500 per year. Zones 2 and 4 previously considered the same issue and will be cost-sharing a representative from their areas.
At the September 25th Zone 5 meeting, the matter will be discussed again and it is expected that each municipality will present its position on the cost-sharing proposal.
Alternatives: 1. Council could express an interest in cost-sharing expenses associated with rural representation on FCM committees and conventions. 2. Council could indicate that it wishes to fund its Councillors to attend FCM committees and conventions itself. 3. Council could defer a decision pending additional information. 4. Council could take other action.
Cost Sharing for Representation on FCM Committees Page 82 of 100 AgendaItem#5.5
Subject of the Report: Cost-Sharing Expenses for Attendance at FCM Events Council Meeting Date: August 19, 2015 Page 2
Staff Capacity: Minimal staff time is required to arrange travel and accommodations for Councillors to attend FCM events.
Financial Implications: It is estimated that Councillor Hanson’s expenses to attend FCM committee meetings will cost approximately $10,000.
Environmental Considerations: N/A
Policy/Council Priorities/Relevance to Vision Statement: N/A
Intergovernmental Involvement: The Federation of Canadian Municipalities consists of urban and rural member municipalities throughout Canada and is the national voice of municipalities to the Federal Government on matters of policies and programs that affect municipal governments and communities.
External and Internal Communications/Participation: Council’s decision will be presented at the September 25 AAMDC Zone 5 meeting.
Enclosures: Attachment A – List of FCM Committees
Prepared by: Margaret Jones, Asst CAO Date: August 12, 2015 Approved by: Margaret Jones, Asst CAO Date: August 12, 2015 Submitted to: Council Date: August 19, 2015
Cost Sharing for Representation on FCM Committees Page 83 of 100 :2 mm:mHoN\m
.w£.boE mwowoob? moEdam o? usm?wu38> 33 you ow35 @8085 moEaom Ba 3 mnouwwuo??ooou wonbom?308 o? B38 ma?acan3.3% B: mno?maubmHE ommtomxo$55 Ea mnos?onmov outgoo Bo E aouw?ounmmn?mbn?o? .8305 mu?anoooumEo>omSo weohznommg M 983805 uotm??oo UHNOMIEOZo mamaAmnow?ou_.§wu8< -R&oE=Ecanqowmewuhc?nou?opumnh? b?s??oo wasRh?do mmmonmmo_oEon_wasw?msom m:88 2o>oQ PnaonoomEoom .5283 8 Eonom?ooRum Emom?wmmm9:3 :2: muumds??oo ¢.m£H: 8 ouch: 3 En: OHMwan...muEH&oE.=ESow mo>u?nomoEoH8 5% m_mEm.5n8o2 uamuouium?muoa?oz .moES._ESoo s35 98 3:: noozzonm?oquuqomovuoy?umowmad??oo wuw3-oB=om2monounommmS>%uaoEm2o>ouonboaooo Rh: n$a2Emo>E ohsoabmwm? m .2 .88 Z §o?>8m 5 E1892 2: Sod mo>:SnumoE2R&o.B=E8 5% mmm?muonaoi“atomic Ea?on?oz .moE::E8oo Eon?oa wasmoousomouEbdmn .€OZ o? E EoEm2o>ouownosoooa?no§mo>E ohno?um?m? mEiom Bo?om EH Eo?poz o “Aw .m:ouwoE:E8oo£8 ?mnwbE35 hmosmmmobdosbw?m? 893 wasmaziw? nmoammmbu?xo? ?&oE:E waswaz??Amazonuqca? 5:353 BuomhmHmnomwou9.8 sw?mnm??wohmWEUE"Savoy wanuhsoshm?w? 332.52 b >o:omaou?uoam?ww Ea ohzosbm?m? :w&oE:E 0 .852 53 .550 E6 Hmwn§:%_.e 98 £23 owwh?qoum?ow? “?ee. ?omw?nao?s? amuou?ou_a&o«q:E-HwEo:.:8 \§o£>oE-_.Eovom Amow?nmmmommouwas8:: wuokomEEHESE AgendaItem#5.5 mmEoEow.qmh< ?EoEEo>o&8E wasooam?m_a&oE:2 o
/? Page 84 of 100 .Eo8m2o>owbmowmnoE02 dou.mEo>owwoowdoum??hqoouw $o8o>w«. wasmvwopnoqE930 m . 63$ canweEweno? 0&8 3 mumwupwbmmoEoEm2o>uu m???o? a:oEEo>owREHESEE 5895 monowmnuoupwmHo?oawwqnpommsmmowoo>w< m_Eo?Eo>oO €301.52 E no?w?ouhmmM5803 c?maouo? 0 E?onum?m? 52% 35% o>Rw>Eswan» #02053 WEUEQGDmooq?mnsm o?xo.‘.mEo¢E5o5 533883 “B33 #395 H.»520 dou?mmwmowawnoBanana cmnnonooo530 mEoEn2o>oQ o?m??msm wasmozm? _Sao8:o:>:m 0 Qwwqowmoonouomaoo3:53 wasooaouowuoo33.835800 o?m??mdw 06 moEwmm8>O mmoo£E8oU £3853 oonuuomnoo0 .EuEowa:.mEcan$38333 zonowuo?onmaonooboo5325800 nuo?:o>oE OED nmnmouom mdowEo>o& 83.5 canBegum Zmcd??oo o 1/ am: &5..2_a2= £3 - man
.$%-Sa-mG yo mu4Eu.»[email protected]_udm oc?uuoom830300 nmmsw?o?omzzm$2 wo?noo 88$ do?anbom? E08 Hem
2.3050 @3020 E558 Ho?o wasmuunr?o?Emom58 mowom?m?oocan mootwna?oc omen? donm? Samoa wanmesonb?otm no WEOUNUQUEHEOQOH6%,» canono5 oE>oEE8 Banrou uum?uw058 ??mmo?8. m?suomwanmooum??oow?vn?mnewwonmzn?mowasmuopooh? movamomm_§Om mE:.S,m canmoetmi?cv wamzz?m w?Uw_.HO0EH8 Ow
...:Sm\uo§Eu>ow\&o8o.€.mo.u.aon
ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITY REPORT- Current to August 2015
Department Projects Completed Projects In Progress Planned Projects CAO CN Crossing issues Fox Inspection BESC Issues Highway 14 water capacity report Illegal Development in Beaver Creek Equity Land Development Bounty Beaver Program Holidays August 3-14 Land Development
Public Works Shoulder Pull- TWP 494 between RR 182 Oiling RR 203 Fencing - WETF & RR 184 Structural Repairs in Beaver Arts Center Grader Tender Terracem and chip seal TWP 492 Shoulder Pull- TWP 500 between RR 120 & 123 Plow Truck tender between HWY 855 & HWY 854 August Dust Control Water Cistern and house demolition- Bruce Legislative, 2015 aerial photos completed Compensation review 2016 municipal budget Corporate, and Tender M & E assessment contract 2015 assessment inspections M & E assessment – Year 1 of 3 Planning Services Equity Industrial Park land sales Contaminated sites - high risk review EIP Area Structure Plan Stop Order hearing held Aug 13 – Poe municipal addressing decision pending Medical marijuana LUB amendments West end truck fill Grand Opening
Community Bounty event (2015) Promotional item inventory and ordering. Attendance at Job fairs and trade Development Insurance Claim @ Camp Lake (part 1) Parades and trade shows. shows. Showers @ Black Nugget Daily website, face book & twitter posts. Website & directory updates. Signage Community Support Requests Brainstorming areas of improvement New signage & campground maintenance for Communications department. Insurance Claim @ Camp Lake part 2 (doors) Boat Launch @ Camp Lake West End Truck Fill Grand Opening Traffic Safety Event End July Road Use monitoring (Road Bans) Continued patrolling Page 85 of 100 Protective Services Bike Rodeo in Viking Animal complaints on the rise Road Use monitoring
Liquid Human Waste Haul taking place Practicum Student AgendaItem#6.1 Animal Control Bylaw
Agriculture Review of 2015 Backsloping Applications 2015 Spraying Operations Investigate long term research Project Inspection of Do Not Spray Agreements 2015 Mowing Operations - UofA 2015 Weed and Pest Inspection Program Extension Event Budget and Program Beaver Trapping Program Review 2015 Backsloping application follow up Stewardship Program development Participation in watershed group activities Administration Activity Report
Health and Safety Health and Safety Internal Audit in Developing Action Plan for 2015 Develop a Health and Safety page on progress Safe work procedure for Panic Button – Reception the County’s website. Working Alone Safe Work Procedure Update H&S forms for more clarity. Page 86 of 100 AgendaItem#6.1 AgendaItem#6.1
unnnuuunuuunuun nm.m> ww.m>m.mem.m co.mu<.«oa.eN. uH.mwo.nmm.wu: mnzE>mM q¢oa mN.hN oo.«Nn.m>e.>u ¢m.Nem.nmo.~a mczmummoznhguwo qaoamnm oo. oo.ooo.mm oo.ooo.mm. co. mmcnano - mazmmm oo. oo.ooo.~a oo.ooo.~a. co. mmm
nn.mm
DMD mean- NUZ1HM¢> nmunbm oa.m¢m»
Hmxnoxm?ou aoumwm Hmmwuwnnz “maze maom>Han mqaunm nuqo: «A» new Smmmoawv H ummmm maou 1 azmzmadam QdHOZ¢ZHh QHOZDOU nmumunoa maxoaxm
Administration Activity Report Page 87 of 100 AgendaItem#6.1
nnnnnnuuuunnuun nnnnnnnunnu w«.>¢ mm.amm.~ww.naxoo.mw«.~au.¢N a«.wam.mn«. HH WMMDHHGEEMM AEHOH mm.m« Hm.wmm.wH».H- oo.amm.omm.m mm.«ao.~vm. H MZOHHHMHDOWMooouooxooxoamtwxao
m~.n¢ nm.mww.~m<.H: oo.mau.rnn.m rw.wuH.mwa. H MMMDHHQZEDN A¢HHN¢U qccambm mm.>« mn.mm«.mmw.H. oo.mHm.>an.~ >m.mmH.mm~. H mmm4mumDm ?¢HHm¢U MNMDHHQZNN ?¢HHm¢
m«.mm mw.mwu.mH«.>- oo.aa«.wNm.ma mm.m>>.~um.» WNMDHHQZENN 0zHP¢MNO qzuoamnm
~m.»m mu.m¢w- oo.ooo.u un.oma.a WNOMAEO mozmznm mw.mm~.>~m_~. am.»H oo.awm.amm.m nm.»om‘«nm mmmmmzmmanz< mHZ¢m0 uH.mm m».>«m_wmw_a. oo.m»a\«an.m >«,mwm.mmm. A MMHBHHHBD .mmAmm=Dmzoo _mmHqmmnm «o.mm mm.«am.mmv.u: oo.Hwa.a>m.m aH.mmm.m>a. M muzmmpmzn _muH¢mmm .mmon>mmm.Am>¢¢H mm.Hm u>.wmm.mnm.n- oo.m~«\m>«.m m«.w«o.mmm. N mmmm.maHmmzm _mmHm¢q DMD mama. m0Z¢HM¢> HNGQDW oa.~2m» amxnoxmnomunoammm Hmawuwuds uumxa m.8u xasn magnum sumo: on» you Smnmoaov N Human maom. H?mzmumnm qmuuzmzmm AHUZDOU nmrmmnoa m.Qo.n\w Administration Activity Report Page 88 of 100 AgendaItem#6.1 Consolidated Statement ° ' Statement date July 31, 2015 % Fin anC'a Transit number07279-219 Customer number T Cheque images 57 Page number 1 of 22 Araon11io_a7519z.1_oo2 E o 07:79 0211 6 Your ATB Financial Branch’ BEAVERCOUNTY 07279 RyleyBranch PO BoX140 5021 so5: RYLEYABCA TOB4A0 RYLEYAB TOB4A0 lfyou have any questions, contact us at 1800 332-8383 orvisit us at www.atb.(om A summary of your accounts on Jul31, 2015 Deposits Value onJuI31,2015 can _Business Custom Account ll 320,351.88 Term/GICinvestments 7,703,608.04 Total Deposits $8,023,959.92 Loans Value onJuI31,2015 can MunicipalRevolving Loan 0.00 * Creditlimit$690,000.00 Total Loans $0.00 Allloan balances, with the exception of mortgage loans, do NOTinclude accrued interest. The above should not be relied upon for repayment purposes. PleaseContact your branch for a payout statement. Findan error? Give us a callor drop by a branch We'll take care of it. .5. 9 s 9 9 5 o :13 5 QQS9/Q/= 9 Qagmy a. .3 (-1 3’ 0 ti *1 .0 .0 .a E?ective August 4, 2015 personal cizequiugaccounts that receivefreewitlzdrawals at non.—ATBautomated bank machines (ABM) in 3 0 Alberta will be chzuyed 81.50 per withdmwal. Please see your bmrzchfordetails. 3 | ‘Tlademavks olAibe Administration Activity Report Page 89 of 100 AgendaItem#6.1 Bank Reconciliation for July 2015 General Account Term Deposit Tax Surplus 01-1-120 01-1-121 01-1-123 Balance per Bank Statement 320,351.88 7,700,000.00 3,608.04 Less OIS Cheques (9,883.35) Plus OIS Deposits 246.03 Calculated Balance 310,714.56 7,700,000.00 3,608.04 Balance per General Ledger 310,714.56 7,700,000.00 3,608.04 Variance Administration Activity Report Page 90 of 100 AgendaItem#6.1 Beaver County Accounts Payable Cheque Register - July 2015 Cheque Vendor Vendor Name Cheque Number Number Amount 47450 7 7 7 1575077 43607 A6AcuSDATAGRARHICS 10031 ARCTEC LIMITED 71,234.66 ' 47451777 ALLOYS ' 47452 CALKIN,RosALIE 7 6747417 ' 77 7760.007 "5262 757.15 77 7 7 7 477453 c7NI-I77cAPITAL”7 7 47454 ’"D'0RIN, 7 77774910 ELLENI7 7 7 60.00 47455 7777DuRHAM,E§A'RRY 7 6440 D71/VIQHT 7 7 60007 47456 4745 LOVER LTD 1.31461 7 77 INTERNATIQNAL7TRucI 7 77u7LL, 7 77774745764377 7 60.007 10455 #231 7 252.00 77 747456 7 I7 77 47459 I 77 77 7474769 RYAL7T77A77IN7DusTRIEs7 473733 3127 4774770 STAPLES 7 745634 774774716200 TOE|E7l7.DLIo7NsCLUB 7775.00 10277 HA7RD7\7/yARE 7 7 7 7 7 7754.579 77 47472 TRU7 3677 VEGREV77|LL7E77NE7WSADVERTISER 7477473777 LTD7 7 571.967 wELcH,HEN7R7Y7EDM7uND 77 474747 6436 7 77 120.00 BATTLERIVERA7LLIAN_c_EFOR EC DEV 105.00 7 474757 38472 77 77 47476 CAMROSEMP7IC7H|N7E LTD 7 45.63 7 7 7676 &7WELDlNG _4747.7., , 9_BAL ED,MCW6 ._.T~’>»3fi.1:30_ ENVIRo§gR7T7IN_c7 5,056.25 77 77 7 474767 74171 747477976266 6ENESI767RE_g7:7I3ocALINsuRAN(:7EExc_I717AN 1,07070.070_ 3969 GEODE$Y7(73R77 INC. 22,277.50 7 7 4746077 7R 4746 7I7N7T7ERNAT|ONAL 7 7747461 GLQVER TRU7C7K7SLTD ., ., , 3 AN.S0N.9LENR L... 4616 JD. C7O77N7STRf7L7}CTlONLTD 477463 7 7 5.4257357 KALTIRE 477476747170455 #23717 777 77 7 31.507 KIDSAFEPROG M 288.75 7 47465 6727179 7 7 LABRECHE‘SI=L7uI_v7I767IN76/HEATING 11,655.00 47466 5177717 77 7 OKTIRE 291.46 7 7 77 77 7 7 47467777499757 VIKING 7 7 47466 2563 RET_Ro7LEuMTANKMGTASSOC 77 7 oF7ALI3ERTA 325% 47746977710342PETTY CASII7 136.15 ROADWAY TRA[j‘If|7C 142.70 77 474907 591717 I7=Ro7DucTs 7 77 47491 PETERBILT INC 7 564677s77TAI47L 7 73906.00 4340 STRAIGHT 6,562.50 74749727 LINEFENCING 7 77 47493 5936 TlLLY'S RESTAURANT 102.17 47494 "6051 CARZ, WA7SIj777%7_’ 777 77T77oFIE7L7DTR’L'I<3I<'&’R.7V. 736275 47495 6442 y N, SHANEAND 77 7 7 ME7LANlET7 4775.00 5193 Can<;el7Ied7Cheque 7(71.000.00) 77472263 7 6408 Can°e_|1€=. Total Amount of AP Cheques 79,335.05 Total # of Cheques 46 07-15 Accounts Payable Cheque Register Page 1 Administration Activity Report Page 91 of 100 AgendaItem#6.1 Beaver County On-Line Payments - July 2015 Vendor # Vendor Name Payment Number Amount 6244 A|taGas Ltd. S 6,742.83 W 6244 A|taG7a’siLtci. 1,135.50 7’ W“ ' 6244 AlfééasLtd. 917.10 ' ' 4306 ’ATBFinanciai Mastereard 3,616.65 H Crop ProcJ_u0tio:n’Seryices(Viterra) N i5§3V(§_ Encon Group ing. 17,888.34 i k 4452” Lo_ca|Authorities Pension’ i6§,436.54 10309 ManuiiVf_eVFin§Vncia| 1,667.74 ‘ i i MCSNet 157.35 6_12s_a7 _ _ _ .125-9,0 01 MC$N§* . 4968 Neogqst 3,000.00 _ W ReceiverWGenera|- RPO001 1,159.88 ___10372 7, _ _ Receiver Genera]- 7V6,b94r0i.38 RPQ001 7 7 V 10372 Recei\/_erVC;ienera|~ RP0002 37,836.01 i i j1Q1Q0V V_‘|‘?e|usCommunicagionys 2,320.73 1939 Terlu?sMobilityInc. 485.38 5961 Telus Services Inc. 352.91 K I 10530 Workers‘Corn?ensationBoard — Total Amount of Online Payments $ 220,783.24 Total No. of Payments 17 07 -15 On Line Payments Administration Activity Report Page 92 of 100 AgendaItem#6.1 Beaver County Payroll Transfer July 2015 Includes Hourly and Salary Payroll Registers From: Payroll Stub 3! 900021282 To: Payroll Stub # 900021368 Total June Payroll $ 259,067.83 G:\Be|inda\ACCOUNTS PAYABLE\COUNClLAP REPORTS\2015\O6 - 15 Payroll Transfer Administration Activity Report Page 93 of 100 AgendaItem#6.1 Beaver County Direct Deposits - July 2015 Deposit Vendor Vendor Name Deposit Number Number Amount 900004220 10050 BEAVERMUNICIPALSOLUTIONS 302,500.00 V VV AAMDC 48,471.07 900004221VVVVi10V008 V VV Vi ,0 000004.222.. £0009. . _ 21,546.00 VV V 900004223V 4666 V VV 8 VV_V32,166.61 .,,787‘50 ., ., ,,,, ._,.,_., ,,., ,_,,, ., ._ ,,. W , W27. . 22 .2. 900004220 AXIASUPER'‘£ET_':TP .__52§3~0§, _. 900004227 BEAVER MUNICIPAL 328.00 _ V SOLUTIONSV V 9V0V0V(_)_(V)V4V22V8V_VVVVVVVVV_V_&AUTO 539.84 VDEVAVERHILLIIBVE VV V 900004229 10063 BROWNLEE LLP V _V VV V V 1000,7,__.BRUC_E ,,,., 22,6 000004290. , .900,00£4?_31.__ ~’>‘9?._.__ .,-,3.-,., , , 1.02.@ ,. . . .. 900004232 4961 CANADA 1,653.75 __ COMPUFIXONSITVEVVIVNCV V V 900004233 6344 COUNTRY LANEPET BOARDING _ 2,362.50 _V _V V V V V VV 900004234 10214,... ,QR,E@9_DI$TRIB0I _..., ,2»54‘};09_ 900004235 183 HAMMER'S GRAVEL SUPPLIES 69,458.40 _V VV LTD” V V V ...H,!_Gf,!WAY WATER SERV 900904230...... 4050..., 14..REG'0NAL 0.03-00. 900004237 3679 INT'LUNION OF OPERATINVGVENGIN 2,133.31 900004238 5613 INTERNETCENTRE 68.25 _ i_V V VV V VV %‘?‘i2.39_. II3QI§'.9I3,E§KGAS COOP LTD 00,01 .5935” . , . . . .. 00000.4?4_0_ ‘Ii5_§»,MARGAR.ET.E . _.. ;90, 900004241 3892 KORTECH CALCIUM 54,166.73 SERVICES V 900004242 6339 LAFARGECANADA |NC#C3148 V345,309.34_ __V .90°004?43,,_ -5A;—U!‘JF7:A!.» $U§A!‘.I T. . ._ 1350.0. 900004244 10292 MAYO AUTOMOTIVE 1,108.85 V_V_V VV V 0_§9§_ ,_'V!N.I? .LLE., _ _. 900004215, _ . 2.. 55125 900004246 6274 NC EQUIPMENT LTD. 1,370.81 VV VV 90.09_042A7,.,..50.3_9. _,Q.-TEIS.,TANI<,ER$,LIP_ 10-_9§9:88... . ___ 900004248 5837 SELECT 273.00 COMMUNICATIONVSVVINC. V_V_V _,,,_,__§242 ,..$M.00K» KEVIN 320-83_ ., .,.. _ ,. _ 000004250 ANKLINP . 900004251 2426 THOR AGENCIES LTD 20.00 VVVV_V_ _ __V_V V V %“?‘*25?,.. T_9E'_ELDIGA ..__..229,:97,._ . ‘E291. .,,.__,_, .. 900.0042§ £FlQFI.ELD. 900004254 6342 ULINECANADA CORPORATION 1,960.58 V___VV _V V V 699.97 900004255 239 UNION TRACTOR LTD _ _ VV VV V .,9.00094?5,0_ 1.@_,,,,,9N'TEP_EABM,EB§_9 _ 5»5.7,2-f}9_ 900004257 10700 VILLAGEOF 3,322.00 _ V_ _V_ V V RYLVEYVV V VV V 900004258 5127 WEARPRO EQUIPMENT &SUPPLY 2,844.28 _ LTDVVV V VV _9000_0_4259 6435 __yV\IEST—CANVSVEALVCVOATINGINC __ 900004260 4228 WESTERN STAR TRUCKS (NOVVRTVH)LT ,,.__,_ V _ ,90.9.99_4%5,?,_,.,-fI.§.5§.. '-'QU“3E CANADA INC , _ . ./JR. ,, 900004263 10050 BEAVERMVLI_I\VIV|V(V3IVI‘j'ALVS_(V3LVL_JT|ONS 900004264 10063 BROWNLEE LLP . _ _ V, V 900004265 BRUCE FUEL(BRUCE SHELL (1990) 26,114.20 10067 V 90000042660‘04884079!”BUMPERVTOVV8UMPER-VIK|NG 314.96 _ V 07-15 Direct Deposits Register Administration Activity Report Page 94 of 100 AgendaItem#6.1 Beaver County Direct Deposits - July 2015 Deposit Vendor Vendor Name Deposit Number Number Amount 900004267 4961 CANADACOMPUFIXONSITEINC 248.06 ‘ _ 900004268 6235 COCA-COLAREFRESHMENTS CANADA 295% L,___,__,, ,111,5,0 %0fE2.,0.9. . 0.97.3.,. . 00.x».,C,IN'?Y 900004270 2801 CRAWFORD'S WEST INC 530.35 ’ _ ’90o’o6471 183 HAMMER'S GRAvEf§Ui=PLiEAs” LTD 70,547.89 T_ _7 T 900004272 4659 HIGHWAY 14 REGIONAL WATER SERV __”1§5.919.€& ?0®‘}.2.7,.3 9_AN§EN»,EAMELA,L, 0072. _ ,_ 187-00. 900004274 6339 LAFARGE CANADA INC #03148 277,518.97 900004275 531 NAPAAUTO PARTS TOFIELD i M 359.3 _..,2_0?.§_,. .,PB_AIR.'.E.EUE.L§. 25.53,3.-59, $003,220 , .,. __, _ 300004277 5732 RICO“ CANADA INC-_____ 5022 ROBUCK TRUCKING LTD 26,131.88 ____ 300004278 __ W 900004279 5780 SIDOROFF, BERNADETTE _ i 272.60 900004280 5604 THE INSPECTIONS GROUP INC 2.43156 .__,1,0i§1. _TQFlEL,P.MER9U.RY»,TH,E 55545 _. ____ 900004282 239 UNION TRACTOR LTD _1,7,_45.9y4 ?10_04.283. _305§ E/AL‘IlA_Q_E 2999-01 __ BUILDEBSLTP.7 .. . . 900004284 10493 VIKINGHOME HARDWARE 746.00 , 900004.2§5._. _§Z4§___,,,.,%@§10D'AL§ER\/ICESINC, ,. ,. . 0 900004286 10509 WEEKLY REVIEW, THE __4_,60§.90 %W§7. 15-84432 0,4,0? WEST-QANEEALQQATINGINC. _ _ __ 900004288 6254 WURTH CANADA LTD. 256.19 Total Amount of Direct Deposits $ 1,637,712.13 Total # of Direct Deposits 69 07-15 DirectDeposits Register Administration Activity Report Page 95 of 100 Action Item Report Meeting Date Description Action Required Staff Responsible Due Date Comments Status 17 Dec 2014 Beaver County Seed Cleaning process payment and develop agreement Aimee Boese 31 Dec 2015 Cindy Cox Active Cooperative Grant 20 Feb 2015 08:33:09 PM Strategic Plan and operations agreement to be developed. 18 Feb 2015 Beaver Regional Arts Centre proceed with repairs. Darby Dietz Active 20 Mar 2015 After Hours On Call System Research possible on call systems Bob Beck Active 20 May 2015 Bathgate Geotechnical Design proceed with geotechnical testing for the Darby Dietz 29 May 2015 Active Bathgate Rural Waterline project. 20 May 2015 Lease of Beaver Arts Society Building tender for the lease of the Beaver Arts Society Bob Beck 16 Jun 2015 Active Building. 22 Jul 2015 Agriculture Disaster Declaration a letter to forwarded to Minister of Agriculture, Aimee Boese 29 Jul 2015 Complete all MLAs, MP, AAMD&C 22 Jul 2015 Equity Industrial Park - Area Structure execute contract with Stantec Consulting Ltd. for Margaret Jones 29 Jul 2015 Complete Plan Update Equity Industrial Park ASP. 22 Jul 2015 GIS Data Sharing Request enter into an agreement with iHunter at the Ed Bujnowicz iHunter agreement complete. Active proposed revenue sharing percentages and a policy be developed for Council consideration. Page 96 of 100 22 Jul 2015 Bylaw 15-1027 - Road Closure Amend bylaw with new land description Kim MacMurray 29 Jul 2015 Complete AgendaItem#6.2 22 Jul 2015 Bylaw 15-1027 - Road Closure refer Bylaw 15-1027 to Alberta Transportation Kim MacMurray 29 Jul 2015 Complete 22 Jul 2015 Disposition of Plan 3041 TR; Lot R2 Remove the Municipal Reserve designation from Margaret Jones Active Plan 3041 TR; Lot R2 Action Item Report Meeting Date Description Action Required Staff Responsible Due Date Comments Status 22 Jul 2015 Disposition of Plan 3041 TR; Lot R2 advertise the sale of Plan 3041TR, Lot R2 by Margaret Jones Active public tender; with a reserve bid of $128,420 22 Jul 2015 Division 2, Section 16 of Alberta advise the Beaver County Seed Plant Co-op that Aimee Boese 29 Jul 2015 Active Freedom of Information and Protection Council authorize administration to provide of Privacy Act – Disclosure harmful to assistance to compile operating and financial business interests of a third party (Land) information in preparation for development of a short-term operating plan. 22 Jul 2015 Division 2, Section 16 of Alberta Execute the Offer to Purchase from Alberta Tank Margaret Jones 29 Jul 2015 Complete Freedom of Information and Protection Fabrication and Coating Ltd. for Plan 122 2575, of Privacy Act – Disclosure harmful to Block 3, Lot 3 in NW 3-50-17-W4 business interests of a third party (Land) 22 Jul 2015 Division 2, Section 16 of Alberta Execute the Offer to Purchase from Emperor Margaret Jones 29 Jul 2015 Complete Freedom of Information and Protection Agro-Paper Ltd. for 16 hectares (40 acres) in NE of Privacy Act – Disclosure harmful to 3-50-17-W4. business interests of a third party (Land) Page 97 of 100 AgendaItem#6.2 AgendaItem#7.1 FUTURE DATES Date Time Event Location Who Status (confirmed /tentative) August 19 9:30 am Council Meeting Council Chambers All of Council August 20 1:00 pm – 3:00 Augustana Miquelon Augustana pm Lake Research Station Campus/Miquelon Lake Park September 2 9:30 am Committee of the Council Chambers All of Council Whole September 9 – 11 Alberta Recycling Whitecourt Conference September 15 10:00 am BRP Meeting Town of Viking Reeve Smook, Cr. Yarham and Cr. Hanson September 16 9:30 am Council Meeting Council Chambers All of Council September 21 8:30 am – 4:30 Strategic Planning Strathcona All of Council C pm Session Wilderness Centre September 25 10:30 – 3:30 AAMD&C District 5 Kinsella All of Council C pm Meeting October 2 – 4 RAIL Conference Augustana University, Camrose October 7 9:30 am Committee of the Council Chambers All of Council Whole October 21 9:30 am Organizational Council Chambers All of Council Meeting October 21 Following Org. Council Meeting Council Chambers Meeting November 4 9:30 am Committee of the Council Chambers All of Council Whole Meeting November 17 – 19 AAMD&C Fall Shaw Conference All of Council Convention Centre November 18 9:30 am Council Meeting Council Chambers All of Council November 27 7:30 pm Beaver County Bruce Hotel All of Council Christmas Party December 2 9:30 am Committee of the Council Chambers All of Council Whole Meeting December 16 9:30 am Council Meeting Council Chambers All of Council Future Dates Page 98 of 100 AgendaItem#7.2 Beaver County Advocacy Calendar Party Frequency Who Future Dates 2015 Complete Member of Once annually All Council Y Parliament Members of Once annually All Council Dates Legislative Requested Assembly of Alberta Federation of Once annually Outside of June 5 – 8, 2015 Y Canadian Alberta – at Edmonton Municipalities discretion of Council Inside of Alberta - All Council Alberta Twice Annually – All of Council Fall Convention Association Spring and Fall – November 16 - Municipal Districts Conventions 19th. and Counties (AAMDC) Zone 5 AAMDC Once annually or All of Council September 25th Y as called by Chair Urban Partners Once Annually All of Council Request sent (Councils) to Town of Viking Beaver Regional Every three Appointees September 15th Partnership months or as of Council called by the Chair Adjacent Rural One municipality All of Council Strathcona Y Municipalities per year County – May 28 Beaver County Advocacy Calendar Page 99 of 100 AgendaItem#7.3 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES CHART June 2015 CORPORATE PRIORITIES (Council/CAO) NOW TIMELINE 1. WATERLINE CAPACITY REPORT (HWY 14 WATER COMM) July 2015 2. EQUITY INDUSTRIAL PARK: Hire Consultant July 2015 3. OILING OR PAVING OF SUBDIVISIONS (Revise Policy) June 2015 4. BATHGATE WATER LINE DECISION September 2015 5. COMPENSATION REVIEW September 2015 NEXT ADVOCACY/PARTNERSHIPS STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM (ALUS OPTIONS) Wildlife Predation MARIJUANA OPERATION POSITION PAPER MSI Grants COUNTY STRATEGIC VISION T.O.R. Augustana/U of A CAMPGROUND STRATEGY T.O.R. ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE ANIMAL CONTROL BYLAW REVIEW OHS – Internal Audit COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL DISCUSSION PAPER Staff Retention/Recruitment (APPROPRIATE USES) OPERATIONAL STRATEGIES (CAO/STAFF) CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (Bob) CORPORATE AND PLANNING SERVICES (Margaret) 1. COMPENSATION REVIEW - September 1. WATERLINE CAPACITY REPORT (HWY 14 WATER COMMISSION) - July 2. COUNTY STRATEGIC VISION T.O.R. – October 2. EQUITY INDUSTRIAL PARK - HIRE CONSULTANT - July 3. BESC Management 3. OILING OR PAVING OF SUBDIVISIONS (Revise Policy) - June FireSmart BHI MARIJUANA OPERATION POSITION PAPER Arts Centre Lease RFP Contaminated Sites Inventory COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL DISCUSSION PAPER (APPROPRIATE USES) PROTECTIVE SERVICES (Rick) COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMUNITY DEVT. 1. ANIMAL CONTROL BYLAW – June 1. CAMPGROUND STRATEGY T.O.R. - October BESC Emergency Management 2. Department Capacity Review - August OHV Safety Program PUBLIC WORKS (Darby) AGRICULTURAL SERVICES (Aimee and Mike) 1. BATHGATE WATER LINE DECISION - September 1. STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM (ALUS OPTIONS) - October 2. Arts Centre Renovations – August 2. Winter Outreach Workshops (Predation, Clubroot) - November 3. Gravel Contract Renewal Options Paper - 3. Beaver Control Program Adjustments – July September CODES: BOLD CAPITALS = NOW Priorities; CAPITALS = NEXT Priorities; Italics = Advocacy ;Regular Title Case = Operational Strategies BRP = Beaver Regional Partnership Initiative 2015 Strategic Priorities Chart Page 100 of 100