Brazeau County fosters RURAL VALUES, INNOVATION, … · 2020. 9. 11. · GOALS 1) Brazeau County...

BRAZEAU COUNTY

COUNCIL MEETING

September 15, 2020

VISION: Brazeau County fosters RURAL VALUES, INNOVATION,

CREATIVITY, LEADERSHIP and is a place where a DIVERSE ECONOMY offers

QUALITY OF LIFE for our citizens.

MISSION: A spirit of community created through INNOVATION and OPPORTUNITIES

GOALS

1) Brazeau County collaboration with Canadians has created economic opportunity and prosperity for our community. That we intentionally, proactively network with Canadians to bring ideas and initiative back to our citizens.

2) Brazeau County has promoted and invested in innovation offering incentives

diversifying our local economy, rural values and through opportunities reducing our environmental impact. Invest in green energy programs, water and waste water upgrades, encourage, support, innovation and economic growth through complied LUB, promoting sustaining small farms, hamlet investment/redevelopment.

3) Brazeau County is strategically assigning financial and physical resources to meet

ongoing service delivery to ensure the success of our greater community. Rigorous budget and restrictive surplus process, petition for government funding, balance budget with department goals and objectives.

4) Brazeau County has a land use bylaw and framework that consistently guides

development and promotes growth. Promotes development of business that is consistent for all “open for business.” Attract and retain businesses because we have flexibility within our planning documents.

5) Come to Brazeau County to work, rest and play. This encompasses all families. We

have the diversity to attract people for the work opportunities. We have recreation which promotes rest and play possibilities that are endless.

6) Brazeau County is responsive to its citizenship needs and our citizens are

engaged in initiatives. Engage in various levels - website, Facebook, newspapers, open houses.

VALUES

We recognize the benefit of diversity among our communities, resources and work to respect their uniqueness. We ensure responsible stewardship and we understand the decisions we make today will echo for generations. We believe in acting with integrity. We are open and transparent in all activities and decisions. We respect our citizens through active listening to deliver services fairly and respond appropriately.

MOTION ACTION STATUS

0864/19‐12‐17 Letter to AT regarding responsibilities on Hwys in emergent situations

Completed

0879/19‐12‐17 MDP update with Conceptual Scheme Completed

0892/19‐12‐17 Moose Crossing Signs on Hwy 39 Completed

0818/19‐12‐03 Research the history of the mandate of Rural Physician Action Plan

Completed

0862/19‐12‐17 Memorial for Maureen Schwab Completed

030/20‐01‐21 Report on how to educate the public on policing costs

Completed

060/20‐01‐21 Letter to Minister of Transportation regarding line painting on highways

Completed

0876/19‐12‐17 Track the Plow feasibility Update Completed

027/20‐01‐21 FIN‐7 Amendments Completed

126/20‐02‐18 Clarification of fee model for the funding of community dinners

Completed

138/20‐02‐18 Resolution for RMA regarding economic crisis Completed

164/20‐03‐03 Letter to Regional Director of Transportation regarding flagging on highways

Completed

165/20‐03‐03 Respond to ratepayer questions from March 3 public input

Completed

189/20‐03‐03 Research alternative options for MDP consultation plans

Completed

100/20‐02‐04 Administration to research RCMP responsibilities Completed

244/20‐04‐07 Emergency Management Committee Structure Completed

281/20‐04‐21 Letter to Minister of Agriculture regarding opening of slaughter houses

Completed

344/20‐05‐05 Letter to Alberta Transportation regarding intersections and resurfacing

Completed

086/20‐02‐04 Strategy Session: Solar Farm Potentials, Social Strategy Plan, Provincial Downloading

Completed

169/20‐03‐03 Letter to the Town regarding recreation funding Completed

209/20‐04‐07 Education and break down on information with cost sharing with the Village of Breton and the Town of Drayton Valley

Completed

386/20‐05‐19 Examples of citizen appreciation awards for mowing the ditch and garbage clean up

Completed

389/20‐05‐19 Possible traditional round‐up in 2020 Post COVID Pandemic

Completed

089/20‐02‐04 Fire Services report on previous years accidents on provincial highways

Completed

376/20‐05‐19 Investigate “children at play” signs and installation Completed

407/20‐06‐02 Investigate community groups using RMA Insurance through the municipality

Completed

415/20‐06‐02 Approach Policy PW‐10 for Review Completed

411/20‐06‐02 Contact the Village of Breton to discuss hosting a joint Hazardous Waste Round Up this year

Completed

446/20‐06‐16 Craft a letter in response to the Drayton Valley letter to minister Madu, copied to the Premier, Town and MLA, RMA and circulate the letter to Council for feedback.

Completed

454/20‐06‐16 Develop an application form and tracking mechanism for approach maintenance requests

Completed

456/20‐06‐16 Bring back the costs of the big and little Children at Play signs, where they are required, how much the cost would be and where the funds would come from.

Completed

458/20‐06‐16 Update Council‐1 Policy to reflect attendance at virtual meetings

Completed

413/20‐06‐02 Research alternatives ways collect batteries, oil and whatever else for recycling.

Completed

409/20‐06‐02 Research a secondary option for awarding citizens for beautifying Brazeau County.

Completed

427/20‐06‐02 Budget for further research on Floating Wetland Pilot Project

Completed

459/20‐06‐16 Research motions and communication regarding acquiring land around Lodgepole since October 2017

Completed

496/20‐07‐07 Research permanent recycling depot for used oil and any other toxic liquid waste

Completed

504/20‐07‐07 Bring back cost for the engineering design work for upgrading Hwy 616 extension to pavement standards

Completed

511/20‐07‐07 Research road use agreements, and traffic counts on Twp 495 east of airport

Completed

512/20‐07‐07 List of culvert and slide projects for 2020 and 2021 Completed

513/20‐07‐07 Cost for repair of the road slide on Range Road 80 Completed

514/20‐07‐07 Schedule of Fees Bylaw with ASB recommended amendments

Completed

516/20‐07‐07 Public Meetings either side of the river Completed

539/20‐07‐07 Research the Library Act for ability to rent private space

Completed

540/20‐07‐07 Letter of concern to provincial and federal governments regarding local industry and orphan wells

Completed

515/20‐07‐07 Information regarding tender process Completed

580/20‐08‐18 Contact Alberta Transportation regarding shoulder slide on Hwy 621 and RR 83

Completed

581/20‐08‐18 Letter to Town regarding SB90 road damages along the Ring Road

Completed

599/20‐08‐18 Letter to Alberta Transportation regarding HWY 22 and TWP 494 intersection

Completed

611/20‐08‐18 Letter to Government of Canada regarding council’s concerns with changes to criminal code

Completed

612/20‐08‐18 Letter to Minister Nixon in support of Clearwater County’s concerns with the state of the Bighorn backcountry

Completed

636/20‐08‐24 Open letter to Minister Madu and copy the Premier that none of their options are acceptable, we need a better time line and we expect them to serve the people of Alberta before making decisions without proper consultation

Completed

BRAZEAU COUNTY REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING

AGENDA

DATE: 2020 09 15 TIME: 9:00 AM PLACE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNCIL CHAMBERS

________________________________________________________________________ Call to Order Present

1. Addition to and Adoption of the Agenda (Pages 6 ‐ 11)

2. Adoption of the minutes of the Council Meeting of: a) September 1, 2020 regular Council Meeting (Pages 12 ‐ 24) 3. Business Arising Follow Up Action List:

MOTION ACTION STATUS

485/20‐07‐07 Administration to work with the Town Administration to institute the County’s recommendations for ICF and IDP.

Target Date: on going

445/20‐06‐16 Research background information, including listing what the County has contributed to the Town in the past, and in regards to the impact regionalization would have to our County

Completed

449/20‐06‐16 Report on collision hot spots in the County Completed

448/20‐06‐16 Research time and money spent in different jurisdictions for Station 3 calls for cost sharing between Brazeau County and the Town of Drayton Valley regarding provincial highway allocations of Fire Services

Completed

498/20‐07‐07 Letter of support for the Drayton Valley and District Historical Society grant application

Target Date: October 6, 2020

571/20‐08‐18 Research Options and Costs, including Alberta Recycle to have a toxic recycle site on east and west side

Target Date: Budget Discussions

595/20‐08‐18 Administration look into purchasing lands from the Province around Lodgepole

Target Date: October 2021

616/20‐08‐18 Invite stakeholders from the oil and gas industry to meet with Council

Completed

6

4. Urgent Items 5. CAO Report a) Regionalization Impacts Report ‐ Update Report to Council attached (Pages 25 ‐ 71)

6. Delegations/Appointments

9:30 am Global Public Affairs ‐ Strategy Update

Brain Senio 9:45 am Drayton Valley and District Free Press 2019 ‐ 2020 Circulation Stats and Photo Opportunity Brandy Fredrickson (Pages 72 ‐ 73) 11:00 am Public Input Session 11:30 am Questions from the Media 12:00 pm ‐ 1:30 p.m. Closed Session

7. Fire Services a) Status Update June, July, August 2020 ‐ Update Report to Council attached (Pages 74 ‐ 79) b) Motor Vehicle Collision Follow Up Report ‐ Update Report to Council attached (Pages 80 ‐ 87)

642/20‐08‐24 Draft a letter for Reeve’s signature for recreation cost sharing concerns based on proposed assessment model changes and provincial downloading

Tabled to September 15, 2020

653/20‐09‐01 Letter of Support to DV Ag Society for CFEP Grant Completed

661/20‐09‐01 Cost for repairs of washout on TWP 474 between RR 53 and RR 54 and letter of response to Allan Taylor

Completed

673/20‐09‐01 Drayton Valley Library Bylaws brought to Council Completed

0674/20‐09‐01 Letter to Drayton Valley Library regarding unsolicited attempts to restructure library board membership

Completed

675/20‐09‐01 Letter to Drayton Valley Library regarding discussion at joint council session

Completed

679/20‐09‐01 New letter to Minister of Municipal Affairs Completed

7

8. Planning and Development No reports 9. Agricultural Services No reports 10. Public Works and Infrastructure a) Twp Road 474 cost estimate and letter of response to Mr. Taylor ‐ Correspondence attached (Page 88) b) 2020 Construction Projects ‐ Update Report to Council attached (Pages 89 ‐ 98) 11. Finance a) Update Policing Support Information ‐ Update Report to Council attached (Pages 99 ‐ 103) b) Assessment Services Contract Extension ‐ Request for Council Decision attached (Pages 104 ‐ 105)

12. Community Services

a) Recreation and Culture Cost‐Sharing between the Town of Drayton Valley and Brazeau County

‐ Request for Council Decision attached (Pages 106 ‐ 114) b) Drayton Valley Library Bylaws

‐ Update Report to Council attached (Pages 115 ‐ 136) 13. General Matters No reports 14. Correspondence a) Drayton Valley Libraries letter of Apology (Page 137) b) North Saskatchewan Watershed Alliance Municipal Contribution (Pages 138 ‐ 163)

15. Councillor Reports

Reeve B. Guyon reported that he attended: Meeting with Minister of Environment Meeting with MLA Public Meeting Breton Public Meeting Brazeau Budget Workshop Regular Council Meeting Business Input on Assessment Impacts and Solutions Meeting with Municipal Affairs Meeting with Museum Executive Special Council Meeting Meeting with Minister Panda and MLA

8

Signing documents and cheques Meeting with Eavor

Councillor S. Wheale reported that she attended: Town Hall Meeting at Breton Town Hall Meeting County Shop Budget Workshop Regular Council Meeting Special Council Meeting Joint Council Gathering

Councillor A. Heinrich reported that he attended: Town Hall Breton Town Hall County Birchwood AGM ‐ no charge Budget Update Regular Council Meeting ASB Meeting MPC Meeting Special Council Meeting Joint Council Session

Councillor K. Westerlund reported that she attended: Special Council Meeting ALUS Committee meeting Meeting with Minister Nixon Town Hall Meeting Breton Town Hall Meeting County Shop Budget Workshop Regular Council Meeting Business Community Advisory Meeting Agricultural Service Board Meeting with Minister Madu DV and District Historical Society Meeting Special Council Meeting Joint Council meeting with Town of Drayton Valley

Councillor H. Swan reported that she attended: Town Hall Breton Town Hall County Budget Workshop Council Meeting ASB Meeting MPC Meeting Museum Visit Special Council Meeting Joint Council Gathering

9

Councillor M. Gressler reported that he attended: Budget Meeting Council Meeting MPC FCSS Special Council Meeting Joint Council Gathering

Councillor D. Wiltse reported that she attended: Breton Town Hall Brazeau Town Hall Budget Workshop Regular Council Meeting Library Board Special Council Meeting Joint Council Gathering

15. Agricultural Service Board ‐ A. Heinrich, H. Swan, K. Westerlund

16. Municipal Planning Commission ‐ H. Swan, M. Gressler, A. Heinrich

17. Brazeau Seniors Foundation ‐ M. Gressler

18. Drayton Valley Library Municipal Board ‐ D. Wiltse 19. Breton Municipal Library Board ‐ D. Wiltse 20. West Central Airshed Society ‐ H. Swan

21. Yellowhead Regional Library Board ‐ D. Wiltse 22. Family and Community Support Services ‐ M. Gressler 23. North Saskatchewan Headwaters Alliance ‐ B. Guyon 24. North Saskatchewan Headwaters Alliance Steering Committee ‐ B. Guyon 25. Eagle Point/Blue Rapids Parks Council ‐ K. Westerlund

26. Pembina Area Synergy Group ‐ K. Westerlund

27. Pembina Sentinel Air Monitoring ‐ H. Swan

28. Physician Recruitment and Retention Committee ‐ H. Swan

29. Eleanor Pickup Arts Centre ‐ K. Westerlund 30. Northern Mayors Group ‐ B. Guyon

10

31. Breton and District FCSS ‐ M. Gressler

32. ALUS ‐ K. Westerlund

33. Alberta Hemp Alliance ‐ B. Guyon, A. Heinrich

34. Recreation Board ‐ D. Wiltse, A. Heinrich

35. Chamber of Commerce ‐ Rotational

36. Warburg Seed Cleaning Plant Board ‐ B. Guyon

38. Meeting Dates:a) Set Meeting Date with Global Public Affairs and all of Council to discuss strategy prior to

meeting with Minister of Municipal Affairs

39. Closed Session:a) Analysis of Calls at Fire Station 3 FOIP Section 17

b) Legal Expenses CAO Review FOIP Section 19

40. Round Table Wrap‐Up

41. Adjournment

11

Council Minutes 2020 09 01 Page 1 of 13

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF BRAZEAU COUNTY, HELD IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNCIL CHAMBERS IN BRAZEAU COUNTY ON TUESDAY 2020 09 01

CALL TO ORDER Reeve B. Guyon called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.

PRESENT B. Guyon, ReeveH. Swan, Councillor (by telephone)D. Wiltse, CouncillorS. Wheale, CouncillorM. Gressler, Councillor (by telephone)A. Heinrich, CouncillorK. Westerlund, CouncillorJ. Whaley, Chief Administrative OfficerT. Kwirant, Executive AssistantC. Whalen, Finance CoordinatorK. MacInnis, Corporate Communications Coordinator (by telephone)

OTHER G. Long, Drayton Valley and District Free Press

ADDITION TO AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA Addition to and Adoption of Agenda

0649/20‐09‐01 Moved by S. Wheale to approve the agenda with the following additions: 8. Planning and Development

b) Taverner Stop Order

11. Financeb) Tender Process Information

‐ Update Report to Council attached

13. General Mattersf) Further Direction on Advocacy Plang) Global Public Affairs ‐ S. Wheale

39. Closed Sessionb) Personnel FOIP Section 19 – A. Heinrich

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

12


ADOPTION OF MINUTES Adoption of Minutes

0650/20‐09‐01 Moved by K. Westerlund to approve the minutes of the August 18, 2020 regular Council meeting as amended:

Motion 601/20‐08‐24 D. Wiltse was opposed and S. Wheale was in favour Motion 631 was CARRIED not CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 0651/20‐09‐01 Moved by D. Wiltse to approve the minutes of the August 24,

2020 Special Council meeting as amended: Page 31 “as possible” Page 32 replace “to” with “do”

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BUSINESS Business Arising ARISING Follow Up Action List J. Whaley reviewed the status of the action items

0652/20‐09‐01 Moved by A. Heinrich to receive the Follow Up Action List for information.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY URGENT Urgent Items ITEMS None CAO REPORT CAO Report Letter of Support for the Agricultural Society

J. Whaley presented a request for a letter of support from the Drayton Valley and District Agricultural Society for a grant application for accessibility upgrades to their newly purchased building. 0653/20‐09‐01 Moved by D. Wiltse to approve writing a letter of support on

behalf of the Drayton Valley and District Agricultural Society for an application to the Alberta Cultural and Tourism Community Grants for a CFEP grant for accessibility upgrades to their newly purchased Farmer’s Market building.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

13


PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Planning and Development

Taverner Stop Order J. Whaley presented a request for a Stop Order of an operation in noncompliance of their development permit. 0654/20‐09‐01 Moved by A. Heinrich to add the enforcement on the Taverner’s

pit to Closed Session FOIP Section 16. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Bylaw 1064‐20: Rezone NW 29‐49‐06‐W5M from Agricultural to Agricultural Holdings

M. Martindale presented Bylaw 1064‐20 for first reading.

0655/20‐09‐01 Moved by K. Westerlund to give first reading to Bylaw 1064‐20 and set a public hearing for 10:00 a.m. October 6, 2020.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY FINANCE Finance

Designated Officers Bylaw 1063‐20 C. Swap presented the changes required by the provincial assessment audit to Bylaw 1063‐20 and requested three readings. 0656/20‐09‐01 Moved by D. Wiltse to give first reading to Bylaw 1063‐20. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 0657/20‐09‐01 Moved by S. Wheale to give second reading to Bylaw 1063‐20. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 0658/20‐09‐01 Moved by K. Westerlund to go to third reading for Bylaw 1063‐20. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 0659/20‐09‐01 Moved by A. Heinrich to give third reading to Bylaw 1063‐20. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Tender Process Information

L. Fischer and C. Swap presented the current tender process and Purchasing Policy. 0660/20‐09‐01 Moved by A. Heinrich to direct Administration for future tenders

for roads and equipment to be approved by Council.

14


IN FAVOUR A. Heinrich B. Guyon D. Wiltse S. Wheale OPPOSED M. Gressler H. Swan K. Westerlund CARRIED

GENERAL MATTERS General Matters

GEN‐1 Alternative Workspace Policy J. Whaley presented GEN‐1 Alternative Workspace Policy for Council’s review. Reeve B. Guyon called for a break at 9:57 a.m. and the meeting resumed at 10:08 a.m. DELEGATIONS/ APPOINTMENTS Delegations/Appointments West Central Airshed Society (WCAS) Gary Redmond, Executive Director presented an overview and strategic plan for WCAS. K. Westerlund left the meeting at 10:36 a.m. and returned at 10:39 a.m. Reeve B. Guyon called for a break at 11:02 a.m. and the meeting resumed at 11:10 a.m.

PUBLIC INPUT SESSION Public Input Session Reeve B. Guyon opened the Public Input Session at 11:10 a.m.

Lynn Oberle brought forward four questions on behalf of people that could not attend: Question #1: He asked each Councillor how many people they contacted with regards to the pool? Responses from Council: A. Heinrich talked to 2‐3 people, S. Wheale received numerous calls from approximately 100 people, B. Guyon received several emails and is on his phone 5 hours a day, K. Westerlund indicated that she didn’t keep track, but has received emails and been through three elections where she knocked on doors and found 60‐70% of people in support of the pool, D. Wiltse conducted a survey a year ago and when she was campaigning and out of 40 people 36 where in favour and before the last vote she called 5 individuals who did not change their mind, M. Gressler indicated he has always been in favour of the pool and campaigned on it. Since the announcement he has been around town talking with people and people have been thanking him for moving forward with the pool, up to 30‐40 people and he has received

15


endless phone calls and only two of which were negative towards the pool. H. Swan said a year ago a resident asked her to poll her residents and she talked to 80‐100 people then and every one of them said they were not in favour of the pool. Since then she has spoken to 40‐60 residents and out of those found about 30 in favour. She has received multiple emails and of those emails only 5 in were in favour of the pool. Overall she has an overwhelmingly response of people not in favour of the pool. Question #2: Mr. Oberle asked if Council sent a letter to the minister as per the motion made at the last meeting? Question #3: What happened to the letters residents signed that were to go to the minister? Question #4: What are the RMA’s plans with regards to the linear assessment changes?

Allan Taylor insisted Council start a petition immediately. He commented that Council works for the people. Other counties are doing it. He doesn’t think a new minister means things will change. He inquired about the amount of funding for the pool and what MSI money was? He asked about the letter from the July 7 meeting and if Council got a reply regarding regionalization? He asked how much would it cost to fix wash out and guard rail on TWP 474? He recommended that the Reeve should have a better microphone and the four people that charged for over 8 hours, for 11 minutes after 5:00 p.m., should pay for it. Reeve B. Guyon closed the Public Input Session at 11:25 a.m. 0661/20‐09‐01 Moved by M. Gressler to direct Administration to give a cost for

the repairs of the washout on RR 53 to 54 on Twp 474 for September 15, 2020 and that a letter of response go to Mr. Taylor.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 0662/20‐09‐01 Moved by A. Heinrich to direct Administration to draw up a

petition on this linear issue and the effects to our municipality. MOTION 0662/20‐09‐01 WITHDRAWN 0663/20‐09‐01 Moved by M. Gressler to add the Linear Petition Discussion to the

agenda and incorporate it with item 13. f). M. Gressler disconnected and was absent from vote. IN FAVOUR A. Heinrich H. Swan B. Guyon K. Westerlund D. Wiltse

16


OPPOSED S. Wheale CARRIED

GENERAL MATTERS General Matters

GEN‐1 Alternative Workspace Policy Discussion continued on the GEN‐1 Alternative Workspace Policy.

0664/20‐09‐01 Moved by A. Heinrich to amend GEN‐1 Alternative Workspace Policy clause e) to read “must be approved in advance by the CAO or designate in consultation with the employee’s direct supervisor and department Director/Manager.”

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 0665/20‐09‐01 Moved by K. Westerlund to approve the Alternative Workspace

Policy GEN‐1 and bring it back for review at the February 21, 2021 Council meeting.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 0666/20‐09‐01 Moved by A. Heinrich to direct the CAO to provide monthly

updates on the status of individuals working from home. IN FAVOUR A. Heinrich S. Wheale H. Swan B. Guyon D. Wiltse OPPOSED M. Gressler K. Westerlund CARRIED

0667/20‐09‐01 Moved by S. Wheale to switch items b) and c) for item 13. General

Matters. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

K. Westerlund left the meeting at 12:18 p.m.

H. Swan disconnected at 12:18 p.m.

M. Gressler disconnected at 12:18 p.m.

Reeve B. Guyon called for a break at 12:18 p.m. and the meeting resumed at 12:26 p.m.

17


CLOSED SESSION Closed Session

0668/20‐09‐01 Moved by A. Heinrich that the regular Council Meeting of September 1, 2020 proceed into ‘closed session’ at 12:27 p.m. for the purpose of discussing: a) Legal Expenses CAO Evaluation FOIP Section 17, 19, 24 b) Personnel FOIP Section 19 c) Taverner Pit FOIP Section 16

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

K. Westerlund, M. Gressler and H. Swan joined the closed session by telephone. K. Westerlund, M. Gressler and H. Swan disconnect from the closes session at 1:52 p.m. 0669/20‐09‐01 Moved by S. Wheale that the regular Council Meeting of

September 1, 2020 come out of ‘closed session’ at 1:52 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Reeve B. Guyon called for a break at 1:52 p.m. to allow the public ample time to return and the meeting resumed at 2:00 p.m. K. Westerlund absent. M. Gressler and H. Swan joined the meeting by telephone at 2:00 p.m. 0670/20‐09‐01 Moved by D. Wiltse to take the legal expense for the CAO

evaluation from the Economic Development Reserve. IN FAVOUR A. Heinrich H. Swan B. Guyon D. Wiltse M. Gressler OPPOSED S. Wheale CARRIED K. Westerlund returned to the meeting 2:02 p.m. 0671/20‐09‐01 Moved by A. Heinrich to accept the personnel discussion for

information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

18


0672/20‐09‐01 Moved by D. Wiltse to allow Administration to start formal enforcement action against Taverner Partners Inc.

IN FAVOUR H. Swan B. Guyon K. Westerlund D. Wiltse M. Gressler OPPOSED A. Heinrich S. Wheale CARRIED

Invitation to Attend Library Board Meeting September 10, 2020 ‐ K. Westerlund

K. Westerlund brought forward concerns with an email she received from the Library inviting her personally to attend the Library Board.

0673/20‐09‐01 Moved by S. Wheale to direct Administration to have the bylaws

and policies from the Drayton Valley Library Board brought to the next Council meeting of September 15, 2020.

M. Gressler offered a friendly amendment “just the bylaws” S. Wheale accepted the amendment. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 0674/20‐09‐01 Moved by S. Wheale to direct Administration to draft a letter for

Reeve’s signature regarding the unsolicited attempts to restructure the library board membership undermining the decisions made by Brazeau County Council cc’ing the Town of Drayton Valley as well as the Chairman of the Library Board of Drayton Valley.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Joint Letter to the Library Board 0675/20‐09‐01 Moved by A. Heinrich to direct Administration to write a letter to

the Drayton Valley Library Board, as discussed at the joint Council session, from the Reeve and Mayor of the Town of Drayton Valley.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Recreation Cost Sharing Discussion

Council discussed the recreation cost sharing agreement between the Town of Drayton Valley and Brazeau County.

19


H. Swan disconnected from the meeting at 2:43 p.m.

0676/20‐09‐01 Moved by M. Gressler that we go toward per capita funding as of 2021 dropping the rate by 10% per year until we reach 50% of what it currently is.

IN FAVOUR K. Westerlund M. Gressler

OPPOSED A. Heinrich S. Wheale D. Wiltse B. Guyon DEFEATED Reeve B. Guyon called for a break at 2:58 p.m.

K. Westerlund left the chambers at 3:00 p.m. K. Westerlund rejoined the meeting by telephone at 3:02 p.m.

The meeting resumed at 3:09 p.m.

H. Swan absent.

0677/20‐09‐01 Moved by D. Wiltse to direct Administration to include in the previous motioned letter to let Drayton Valley know that Brazeau County will be decreasing the recreation cost sharing dollars to match the police funding increase cost starting in 2021 on an ongoing basis and further to include any more downloading or loss of income to the County may result in further cost sharing decreases.

0678/20‐09‐01 Moved by S. Wheale to table Motion 0677/20‐09‐01 until

September 15, 2020. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY H. Swan joined the meeting by telephone at 3:31 p.m.

Open Letter to Minister of Municipal Affairs Council discussed proposed letters to past and present Ministers of Municipal Affairs.

0679/20‐09‐01 Moved by D. Wiltse to direct Administration to draft a new letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and circulate for Council’s approval including a timeline and other issues raised.

20


IN FAVOUR S. Wheale H. Swan B. Guyon K. Westerlund D. Wiltse M. Gressler OPPOSED A. Heinrich CARRIED

Further Direction on Advocacy Plan

Administration requested further Council direction on the advocacy plan. 0680/20‐09‐01 Moved by D. Wiltse that the Reeve deliver the letters from our

citizens to the legislature on September 24, 2020. IN FAVOUR A. Heinrich H. Swan B. Guyon K. Westerlund D. Wiltse M. Gressler OPPOSED S. Wheale CARRIED Petition regarding Linear Assessment 0681/20‐09‐01 Moved by K. Westerlund to receive the discussion for information. IN FAVOUR S. Wheale H. Swan B. Guyon K. Westerlund D. Wiltse M. Gressler OPPOSED A. Heinrich CARRIED

Global Public Affairs S. Wheale raised the issue that Council should be listening to and taking the advice seriously as given by the professionals hired to consult with Council on the provincial government relations.

21


0682/20‐09‐01 Moved by S. Wheale to accept the discussion on Global Public

Affairs for information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CORRESPONDENCE ITEMS Correspondence/Items for Information

Premier of Alberta regarding Site Rehabilitation Program 0683/20‐09‐01 Moved by D. Wiltse to receive the letter from the Premier of

Alberta for information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

County of Newell

0684/20‐09‐01 Moved by S. Wheale to receive the letter from the County of

Newell for information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Media Release: RMA Sets Record Straight on Rural Municipal Finances

0685/20‐09‐01 Moved by D. Wiltse to receive the media release from the RMA

for information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Pollen Introduction

0686/20‐09‐01 Moved by M. Gressler to receive the introduction letter from Pollen for information.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY COUNCILLOR COMMITTEE REPORTS Committee Reports

0687/20‐09‐01 Moved by S. Wheale to table items 15 ‐ 36 until the September 15, 2020 meeting.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 0688/20‐09‐01 Moved by D. Wiltse to add Meeting with Minister of Municipal

Affairs to the agenda as item 33. d) under meeting dates. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

22


MEETING DATES Meeting Dates

2021 Budget Discussion Dates

0689/20‐09‐01 Moved by D. Wiltse that Council set 2021 budget discussion

meetings on November 20, 24, 25 and 26 from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 0690/20‐09‐01 Moved by M. Gressler that Council schedule a public budget

workshop on October 5, 2020 from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. with delegations from the public from 10 a.m. to noon.

IN FAVOUR H. Swan B. Guyon K. Westerlund D. Wiltse M. Gressler OPPOSED A. Heinrich S. Wheale CARRIED 2020 Organizational Meeting 0691/20‐09‐01 Moved by S. Wheale that Council set the Organizational Meeting

for 9 a.m. October 20, 2020 with regular October 20, 2020 Council meeting to follow.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Joint Council Gathering with Town of Drayton Valley 0692/20‐09‐01 Moved by D. Wiltse to provide October 8, 9, 15 as potential

meeting dates for the next Joint Council gathering. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

September 24, 2020 Minister of Municipal Affairs 0693/20‐09‐01 Moved by D. Wiltse to approve the Reeve B. Guyon, Deputy Reeve

K. Westerlund and Councillor S. Wheale to meet with the Minister of Municipal Affairs. September 24, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. at the Legislature Building.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

23


ADJOURNMENT

0694/20‐09‐01 Moved by A. Heinrich that the regular Council Meeting of September 1, 2020 adjourn at 4:28 p.m.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY _______________________ Reeve ________________________ Chief Administrative Officer

24

Brazeau County – Report to Council – Regionalization Page 1 of 2

BRAZEAU COUNTY

UPDATE REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT: Regionalization Impacts

DATE TO COUNCIL: September 15th, 2020

PREPARED BY: J. Whaley, CAO

UPDATE INFORMATION: On June 16th, 2020 the following motion was made.

445/20‐06‐16: Moved by H. Swan to direct Administration to research background information including listing what the County has contributed to the town in the past, and in regards to the impact regionalization would have to out County.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Administration provides the following report for information.

After extensive research into the effects of regionalization on municipalities, Administration finds that forced regionalization would be severely detrimental to Brazeau County.

Provincial mandating of amalgamation or regionalization is initially thought to provide red tape reduction and cost savings. The general consensus is you could “half the staff” – this is never the case. For example when an urban center (town or village) dissolves into a rural municipality, you still would require town based services (recreation / culture / urban utilities) to be operated and from the rural you still require weed inspection and agricultural services. The other component is the expectation of continued service levels by the public. If you were to half the public works staff timelines for grading, plowing, snow removal and street sweeping would still need to happen and the service level would need to be dropped.

25

Brazeau County – Report to Council – Regionalization Page 2 of 2

In a report completed November 2011 (attached) by the Alberta Association of Regional Districts and Counties, AAMDC (Now RMA) Finding Local Solutions: Examining the Impacts of Forced Regionalization, “justifying forced regionalization would have to be able to provide a material benefit that will accrue to the participating municipalities.”

If there is no justifiable significant or material benefit to the regionalization it should not be forced. This report there by disputes the letter from the Town of Drayton Valley to the previous minister of municipal affairs calling on him to implement regionalization. There is no justifiable or accrued benefit to both parties (Drayton Valley and Brazeau County). Red tape would increase, costs would increase to the residents (tax dollars) and service levels would not be maintained at the current standards. There would also be exponential costs associated with arbitration and legal fees.

Council also requested the financial contributions that Brazeau County has made to Drayton Valley. Below is a table consisting of the last 4 years.

Transfers to Drayton Valley

2016 $1,955,249.00

2017 $2,175,851.00

2018 $$1,818,443.00

2019 $$1,792,578.00

These numbers include the Parks and Recreation Cost Sharing, Drayton

Valley Municipal Library, Family and Community Support Services,

Drayton Valley Fire Services, Policing Services, Airport and Culture.

26

T

A

aamdctrade • jubilee^

Partners in Advocacy & Business

Finding Local Solutions:

Examining the Impacts of

Forced Regionalization

November 2011

27

Finding Local Solutions: Examining the Impacts of Forced Regionalization

FOREWORD

Local governments in the Province of Alberta have an enviable record of working together toaddress service delivery needs within their region. Historically they have recognized that bycombining forces in a cooperative effort they can effectively and efficiently find and implementregional solutions without compromising the integrity of individual municipalities.

The success of these regional alliances has not been without challenges but the collective willand spirit of cooperation has been such that solutions have been secured.

There have also been times in the past when the provincial government has seen fit to impose

regional solutions. These approaches, most notably regional planning commissions, have

produced results but not without dissatisfaction and discord among the participants. Imposed or

forced regionalization invariably resulted in the fostering of long standing resentment and the

belief that they, individually, had not been treated fairly or equitably.

With this in mind, the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties (AAMDC) has

prepared this position paper on forced regionalization.

Alberta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties2SH>Spaffcwt5rwsNi'Sfcu,ABT9EBM5 PhoiM <7«or 965,3639 Fast rTBO) S56.38f6 Wab www.aarodc.com

28


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the context of local government, regionalization has traditionally meant regional service

delivery through a voluntary partnership among two or more municipalities. Typically thepartners share a common need and see an opportunity to share the cost, risk and benefits

through some joint initiative. The decision to participate in the regional venture is left to

individual municipalities to determine if it is in the best interests of their municipality toparticipate.

What is forced regionalization?

Before defining forced regionalization it is necessary to define a region. For the purposes of thispaper, the term region means the creation of a unique entity that has a defined purpose, has amembership made up of two or more local municipalities and a governance structure separateand distinct from the local governments contained within its boundaries. Regionalization,therefore, is the action, process or causation of the formation of the region.

The simplest definition of forced regionalization is any form of regionalization that is notvoluntary, that is, where the regionalization is imposed, typically by another order ofgovernment. Similarly, forced regionalization exists where the explicit or implicit threat ofimposed regionalization exists.

From AAMDC's perspective, forced regionalization is any form of regionalization that results in:

1. Non-voluntary participation - producing a situation where a municipality iscompelled to participate by legislation, coercion or punitive consequences for notparticipating.

2. An imposed definition of the region - taking the decision of who is a member outof the hands of the participating municipalities.

3. Compromised poiiticai autonomy - demanding a municipality compromise orforegoes its political autonomy.

4. Hierarchical iocai government - results in another level of government forRegional Decision making.

5. Voting inequity - gives a voting advantage to one municipality over another, suchas a veto power.

6. Non-consensus decision making - subjecting a municipality, voting in the minority,to a majority decision.

7. Non-user pay cost sharing -subjecting a municipality to a cost sharing formula thatis not based on user pay principles.

8. Regional non-transparency - promoting back-room deal making at the expense ofpublic scrutiny.

9. Non-accountabiiity of individual municipalities - relieving municipalities of theobligation to be accountable for actions of the partnership.

10. No opting out - when the partnership addresses a number of service deliveryprovisions, individual municipalities are not able to opt out of one or more of theseservices.

Alberta AssociatTon of MluniQipal Districts & Counties2510 Sparfow Owe Nt?3cu,ABT9EBW5 Phone I780r 965.3639 Pa* nsO) 665.3615 Wteb Wrtw.eamcte.com

29


When is Force Regionalization an Acceptable Solution?

It is AAMDC's position that the only situation where forced regionalization should be consideredis as a solution of last resort. In short, if the province has evidence that ̂ the followingconditions exist:

■ a basic and material regional need is not being met;■ all other legitimate options have been tried and have failed to address the need;

■ there is agreement that a stalemate exists;

■ and finally, when it can be demonstrated that the benefits (positive impacts) for the

region and for the participating municipalities out-weight the costs (negativeimpacts);

Then, and only then, should forced regionalization be considered as an option.

The existence of one or more of the following conditions does not satisfy the criteria for forcedregionalization:

■ conflict or the potential for conflict among municipalities in the region;

■ reluctance to participate in a regional solution by one or more of the municipalities in

the region;

■ the potential for sub-optimal outcomes for service or service delivery;

■ progress towards a solution is not apparent.

The Current State of Affairs

Calaarv Regional Partnership. The Calgary Regional Partnership (GRP) is a not-for-profitcompany incorporated in 2004 with the express purpose "to encourage regional thinking withinthe context of local decision making and to support local autonomy while emphasizing that localgoals can often best be facilitated through regional cooperative approaches;"^^

The principles of the GRP speak to cooperative and voluntary regionalization but the reality forthree rural, former members is not acceptable. That is, the incentive of rationalized andharmonized regional growth was over-ridden by the cost or negative impacts of both theprocess and the outcome of the Calgary Metropolitan Plan (CMP).

This leads us to ask the question; "Is the GRP and the application of the CMP a form of forcedregionalization?" We believe it is and the analysis presented in Exhibit 2, Evaluation of theCalgary Regional Partnership, indicates why.

EXHIBIT 2 - EVALUATION OF THE CALGARY REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP

Principle InvolvedCalgary

Regional Partnership

Forced jRegionalization?

Voluntary participation Membership is discretionary X

Partners define the region Have control of membership X

Political autonomy Forced compliance

Non-hierarchical governance Not legislated by province X

Voting equity City of Calgary has veto

Consensus decision making Binding decisions without consensus

User-pay cost sharing To be determined 9

3 of 44

Alberta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties26H) smfm DfWd Nksto, AB T9l SN5 Phoftfi I7»31965.3639 Fa* 665,38t6 Web www.Mmdc.com

30




Forced

Regionalization?

Regional transparency Operates openly X

Accountability of individual

municipalities

Open for debate V

Ability to opt out of service

program(s)

Can only opt out of membership not

programs

Capital Region Board. The Capital Region Board (ORB) was established by the provincialgovernment in June 2008 through the Capital Region Board Regulation under the MunicipalGovernment Act. This action presumably followed from the province's perception that the 25municipalities in the Edmonton area were not capable of cooperatively developing a regionalgrowth management plan.

The CRB was formed with 25 member municipalities (now 24 with the dissolution of the Villageof New Sarepta into the County of Leduc). The Board was charged with the development of aCapital Region Growth Management Plan (CRGMP) by March 31, 2009. The Capitai RegionGrowth Plan: Growing Forward was submitted to the Minister of Municipal Affairs on April 2,2009 and was approved by the government on March 10, 2010.

Is the Capital Regional Board and the application of the Capital Regional Growth ManagementPlan a form of forced regionalization? The analysis presented in Exhibit 3, Evaluation of theCapital Region Board, leads us to believe it is.

EXHIBIT 3 - EVALUATION OF THE CAPITAL REGION BOARD

Principle Involved Capital Region BoardForced

Regionalization?Voluntary participation Membership is mandatory v"

Partners define the region Region defined by the province V'

Political autonomy Forced compliance V

Non-hierarchical governance Another order of government

Voting equity City of Edmonton has veto


User-pay cost sharing Various models PossiblyRegional transparency Deal making

Accountability of individualmunicipalities

Region super-cedes V

Ability to opt out of service

program(s)No opting out V

Alberta Association of Mtinicipal Districts Bi Counties2510 spaffw# Orfve Ni-sV.!!,. 4B T9E. 8JV5 Plromi ITSOJ 055.3639 Fa* n80:i 555.3615 W?b wvw.sairKic.com

31


In Summary. Is forced regionalization justified? That is the question that remains to be

answered for both the Edmonton and Calgary regions.

EXHIBIT 4 - IS FORCED REGIONALIZATION JUSTIFIED?

Criteria

Calgary


Just

ified?

Capita!

Region Board

Just

ified?

Regional need not

being met

No all inclusive entity

to address regional

service delivery needs

No all inclusive entity to

address regional service

delivery needs

All options tried and

unsuccessful

The current option

was a negotiated

solution, options exist

X

Imposed solution justified by

lack of progress X

Stalemate Exists Questionable given

that on-going

discussion takes place

X

Minimal progress is not a

stalemate X

Positive Impacts

out-weight Negative

Impacts

Clearly not the view of

the dissenting

municipalities

X

On-going objection to the

approach taken indicates that

this view is not shared by all

municipalities

X

As the exhibit indicates, aN the conditions have not been met and the imposition of forced

regionalization is not justified.

Finding a Solution - Alternatives to Forced Regionalization

It is AAMDC's position that there are solutions and that these alternative approaches todelivering regional services are superior to forced regionalization.

At the very heart of this issue is the province's insistence that there must be regional growthplans for services in the metropolitan areas of Calgary and Edmonton. There is little to disputeconcerning the desirability of having rational plans in place that take into account the regionalneeds of the municipalities involved and to put into place regional solutions that address localneeds.

There are models in place In the province. The MGA provides numerous vehicles to addressservices regional service needs. In the following sections we provide a series of exampleswhere these models have been successfully applied without the need for an imposed solution.

Commissions and Authorities

One of the primary approaches to cooperative regional service delivery has been theuse of commissions. In the Province of Alberta, commissions exist to provide water,wastewater treatment, solid waste management, emergency services, assessment

services, utility services and airport services on a regional basis. All of thesecommissions, with the exception of the Capital Region Board, are voluntary cooperativeswhere the partners have established a separate organization under the MGA and wherethe partners have given over control for the delivery of a service.

5 of 44

AJbsrta socialtiOnô^ Municipal Districts & Counties261(tSparfowlJfweNl^.ii,ABT9EBN5 Phoftfi 17801 f65.3639 Fax nsO) B65..38f6 Webwww.aanwlc.com

32


Inter-Municipal Deveiopment Pians

Land-use and the planning for land-use likely represents the area of greatest potentialfor dispute among adjacent municipalities. In anticipation of the need for a regional

solution, the MGA provides a vehicle for municipalities to negotiate and plan for therational development of areas of land lying within the boundaries of the municipalities.

Contractual Agreements

An additional approach available under the MGA is the ability of municipalities to enter

into agreements with other municipalities for the purposes of addressing regional needs.

There are models in other jurisdictions. Other jurisdictions have attempted regionalization

using a variety of different approaches with varying levels of success.

British Columbia

British Columbia has had a regional model in place for service delivery since 1965. In

the mid-1990s regions were given powers to prepare regional growth plans as well as

the delivery of hard services related to water, wastewater, transportation etc.

What is significant to this discussion about the British Columbia model is the principlethat:

"A regional growth strategy cannot be imposed on a municipality. Rather, any

municipalities affected by the plan must be consulted in the planning process and must

pass a motion to formally adopt the plan." (As cited by Municipalities Newfoundland and

Labrador).

Ontario - Regional Services from a Regional Government

The regionalization model in Cntario is based on another order of government; the

Regional Council. The Regional Council can be made up of directly elected councilmembers and the mayors of local municipalities both urban and rural (example. Regionof Waterloo) or exclusively from the elected officials of the local municipalities (example.Region of Peel). The Cntario model creates a de facto order of government that isdistinct from the local municipalities.

Jurisdictions Outside of Canada

Alberta Municipal Affairs commissioned a study in 2007 called "Regional GovernanceModels - An exploration of structures and critical practices".The study looked at six city-regions in the United States and six city-regions outside of North America. It found that

for a regional model to be a cooperative partnership, it must be one based on voluntaryparticipation, not imposed or forced.

The logical conclusion reached in this study was that there has to be motivation tobecome part of a region and that the structure discussion is irrelevant until that

motivation is sufficient to induce participation. This premise is consistent with theprinciples espoused earlier concerning the need for the benefits of partnership to exceedthe negative impacts on individual municipalities.

Alberta Association o# Municipal Districts St Counties2SHJ Sparfcw t>we NteXu,AB T0E 8!N5 Phows tTSOt 965.3639 Fa* r?BO) S6&.3ai6 Web wivw.aamdc.com gp

33


Finding a Solution - Justifying Forced Regionalization

In the end, if the need for forced regionalization is justified, it implies that there is some materialbenefit that will accrue to the participating municipalities.

It is not sufficient to say that a greater good is being served. There must also be some tangible

benefit that all municipalities can point to. It is important for all municipalities to share in this

benefit and that it is not a benefit for just the majority of the population and not just a 'pay-off to

the disaffected. The benefit must also be realizable now. Talking about the long-term benefits of

a growth plan is important but they do little to address the immediate need of buildingcooperation and engendering a spirit of partnership today.

Charter Region Concept. The concept of a charter for local municipalities is not new. Currently

five cities in Canada have a charter city status that distinguishes them from other cities in theirrespective provinces—Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal and St. John. Among others,

the primary reasons for granting charter status are based on the premise:

■ "Provincial policies and programs that are designed for application province-wide do

not always fit the needs or operations of the City;

■ Likewise, the City's needs and responsibilities are often not shared by othermunicipalities;"

While the concept of a charter local municipality originated with cities, there is no reason tobelieve that the concepts are not applicable to a region. In fact the concepts, as applied to aregion, appear to be consistent with the rationale for forcing the formation of the region in thefirst place.

The potential downside of this approach is the possibility that the trade-off, loss ofindependence for financial gain, is perceived to be a reward rather than a benefit of association.There is a distinction between these two concepts, and it is important. Regionalization is notabout prizes for cooperating, it is about balancing the loss of independence in exchange forsomething of greater value. Secondly, this type of approach goes against the traditionalconcepts of equity among all municipalities. Typically the province avoids introducing programsor situations that create exclusivity similar to what the charter region concept involves. Treatingone municipality differently from another is not without precedence however, and the reality ofregional benefit may be sufficient to offset the objection.

Conclusion

The pendulum swing from forced to un-forced regionalization must stop, and it must stop at thepoint where regional solutions are not imposed and municipal councils are allowed to carry outtheir sworn duty.

Forced regionalization is an unwarranted attack on the independence of local municipalities asguaranteed in the MGA. Local councils are elected to make decisions in the best interest of themunicipality and any artificial, imposed governance model that supplants this obligation shouldbe opposed and abandoned.

It seems ironic that the MGA goes to great lengths to spell out the obligation of localgovernment and then the Province ignores these provisions and suggests that the collectivewisdom of a municipality's neighbours should prevail over the best interests of a municipality

Alberta Associatloni of Municipal Districts & Counties251€Spa»'fowBfrt^t)Ni-s3cuvAB1i9E8aW5 Phofta I7aa[ir 955.3639 Fax r780) B65.38t5 Web www.ftamdc.com7 of 44

34


that takes a minority position on a regional issue. It is also ironic that other legislation protectsminority interests and rights.

The AAMDC sees no legitimate reason for the application of forced regionalization by theprovince unless the conditions presented earlier in the paper are present.

Alberta Associatibri of Municipal Districts 8( Counties25H}SpaffowOftveNW(u..ABT9EBN5 Pltomi ITWfWS.aeas Fax r7§o:iS55.33T5 Wfeb wrtw.aamcte.com

35


TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

BACKGROUND 10

WHAT IS FORCED REGIONALIZATION? 11

The Treatment of Municipalities Taking a Minority Position 12

AAMDC POSITION ON FORCED REGIONALIZATION 14

When is Forced Regionalization an Acceptable Solution? 14

EXAMPLES OF WHERE FORCED REGIONALIZATION WAS USED IN THE PAST 16

THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS 18

Calgary Regional Partnership 18

Capital Region Board 20

In Summary 23

FINDING A SOLUTION - ALTERNATIVES TO FORCED REGIONALIZATION 25

There are models in place in the Province 25

There are models in other Jurisdictions 28

FINDING A SOLUTION - JUSTIFYING FORCED REGIONALIZATION 32

Charter Region Concept 32

CONCLUSION 34

Appendix A: Why the Calgary Regional Partnership and Calgary Metropolitan Plan are anExample of Forced Regionalization 35

Appendix B:Why the Capital Region Board and the Capital Region Growth Management Planare an Example of Forced Regionalization 37

BIBLIOGRAPHY 39

REFERENCES 42

Altoerta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties9 of 44 "^^1^ ,251tl sparrow NisJtu, AB TOE Bt45 Photw <7Wr96S-3639 Fa* rrBfr) B6&^t5 Webwww.aanrHJc.com

36


BACKGROUND

In the context of local government, regionalization has traditionally meant regional service

delivery through a voluntary partnership among two or more municipalities. Typically the

partners share a common need and see an opportunity to share the cost, risk and benefitsthrough some joint initiative. The decision to participate in the regional venture is left to

individual municipalities to determine if it is in the best interests of their municipality toparticipate.

Regionalized service delivery can take many forms and the available approaches include:

Regional Service Commissions

Joint Committees typically called Authorities or Boards

Part 9 or Not-For-Profit Companies

For Profit Companies

By Contractual Agreement

Variations exist for each of the approaches such that the participating municipalities have abroad spectrum of choice concerning how the regional solution will be put into place. There areliterally hundreds of these arrangements in force in the province today.

Regardless of the number of options for putting regional structures in place, there are acommon set of principles that underlie these cooperative initiatives. These principles include:

1. Voluntary participation - municipalities can choose to join or resign from thepartnership at their discretion.

2. Partners define the region - the participating municipalities determine whichmunicipalities will be part of the regional partnership.

3. Political autonomy - municipalities remain independent and their ability to makedecisions in the best interests of their municipality remains intact.

4. Non-hierarchical governance - the regional structure does not create another levelof government.

6. Voting equity - each municipality has one equal vote.6. Consensus decision making - major decisions that require a vote are approached

on the basis of reaching a consensus.7. User-pay cost sharing - for the most part, the cost of delivering a regional service

is borne in proportion to the use of that service.

8. Regional transparency - the operation and governance of the regional entity iseasily observable and understood.

9. Accountability of individual municipalities - when a municipality chooses tobecome a member of a regional service partnership, the individual municipality isaccountable to its community for the value of that service.

10. Opting out of programs - when a municipality is a member of a regional servicepartnership, and the partnership addresses more than one service, each partner hasthe ability to opt out of one or more of the service delivery programs.

The relevant feature of all these initiatives is that they are conceived, developed andimplemented by the municipalities involved without the need for the province, or any other thirdparty, to insert itself into the process.

Alberta AsaociMion of Municipal Districts &t Counties10 of 44 a 25raspa»Nrcwil3weNiû,ABT9E.ewS Phows <7»0t 965.3639 Fax r?M)86&.3aT5 Web www.aatTMJs.fiom

' -TM... y.. ". ,; .37


WHAT IS FORCED REGIONALIZATION?

Defining forced regionalization requires that the term "region" be defined.

The Municipal Government Act (MGA) does not define what a region is or what a region'spurpose is. This is clearly intentional in that the legislation leaves the decision of defining theboundaries (membership) and purpose of a region up to the municipalities involved. Otherlegislation however fixes the region around specific purposes or themes. For example, the LandStewardship Act.

"...enables the establishment of seven planning regions congruent with Alberta's majorwatersheds and rural municipal boundaries . .

Other examples include, the six natural regions of Alberta defined by Alberta Heritage based on

eco-systems; Alberta Children Services has created 10 regions in the province that roughly

divides the province into geographic areas; the Alberta Learning Information Service (ALIS)

divides Alberta into eight regions for the purpose of providing information consistent with

Statistics Canada's Alberta regions and so on.

For the purposes of this paper, the term region means the creation of a unique entity that has a

defined purpose, has a membership made up of two or more local municipalities and a

governance structure separate and distinct from the local governments contained within its

boundaries. Regionalization, therefore, is the action, process or causation of the formation of

the region.

The simplest definition of forced regionalization is any form of regionalization that is notvoluntary, that is, where the regionalization is imposed, typically by another order ofgovernment. Similarly, forced regionalization exists where the explicit or implicit threat ofimposed regionalization exists.

Forced regionalization can take many forms. In Nova Scotia, for example, the term forcedregionalization is used to describe imposed annexation. For the purposes of this paper, we arelimiting our discussion to the forms of forced regionalization that arise from situations other thanimposed annexation.

A more comprehensive and analytical definition of forced regionalization comes from anexamination of the principles expressed earlier. From AAMDC's perspective, a violation of anyone of these principles results in forced regionalization. Forced regionalization is any form ofregionalization that results in:

1. Non-voluntary participation - producing a situation where a municipality iscompelled to participate by legislation, coercion or punitive consequences for notparticipating.

2. An Imposed definition of the region - taking the decision of who is a member outof the hands of the participating municipalities.

3. Compromised political autonomy - demanding a municipality compromise orforegoes its political autonomy.

4. Hierarchical local government - results in another level of government forRegional Decision making.

5. Voting inequity - gives a voting advantage to one municipality over another, suchas a veto power.

Alberta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties2510 Spftwow Owe N(5k«,ABT9EeN5 Pliotw 17801965.3639 Fa* r?80:i 5658616 Web vWKVu.ftaiTKlc.com

38


6. Non-consensus decision making - subjecting a municipality, voting in the minority,to a majority decision.

7. Non-user pay cost sharing -subjecting a municipality to a cost sharing formula thatis not based on user pay principles.

8. Regional non-transparency - promoting back-room deal making at the expense ofpublic scrutiny.

9. Non-accountability of individual municipalities - relieving municipalities of theobligation to be accountable for actions of the partnership.

10. No opting out - when the partnership addresses a number of service delivery

provisions, individual municipalities are not able to opt out of one or more of these

services.

The single defining element for any form of agreement is that the agreement exists as an

expression of free will. If the mechanism for binding the parties together in a regional

partnership is not based on free will, then there is no agreement and there is no partnership.

The Treatment of Municipalities Taking a Minority Position

One of the major ironies that occurs under forced regionalization is the treatment ofmunicipalities that subscribe to a minority position. As we shall see, consensus decision makingor more importantly the absence of consensus decision making represents a pivotal concern ofdissenting municipalities. Under forced regionalization these municipalities are left with nosatisfactory recourse or legitimate avenue for appeal. There is no 'not-withstanding clause' toaccommodate opting-out of the matter being decided or the ability to appeal to a higherauthority for a suitable remedy once a decision has been made against the interests of thedissenting municipality. While there is typically some form of dispute resolution process, theprocess is usually controlled by the region, the very party with whom the municipality has thedispute. For example, the regulation governing the Capital Region Board contains a disputeresolution section:

Dispute resolution

25(1) A participating municipality may make a complaint in writing to the CapitalRegion Board if the participating municipality is of the view that there has been abreach of process, improper administration or discriminatory treatment by theCapital Region Board.

(2) On receipt of a complaint under subsection (1), the Capital Region Board shallattempt to resolve the complaint informally with the participating municipality.

(3) If a complaint cannot be resolved under subsection (2), the Capital RegionBoard may refer the matter to mediation.

(4) If the parties are not able to resolve the matter through mediation, the CapitalRegion Board may refer the matter to arbitration under the Arbitration Act.^

This treatment of minority interests is in direct conflict with the position taken by the provincewhen other categories of minority are considered. For example, we have minority shareholderrights and minority language rights and we have the Alberta Human Rights Act that protectsminorities from discrimination and so on. Yet the provincial government feels justified in forcing

Alberta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties2610 SpfflTfow Drive Nl-sJcu. AB T9E essis Plwne ITWrflSS asss Pa* rrsft) B6B.30tS Wfeb www.ftarrMlc.ooin

39


individual local councils to submit to majority decisions that negatively impact the very aspectsof community life council(s) have sworn to protect.

What immediately comes to mind is the protection of shareholders under the Canada BusinessCorporations Act and the range of remedies available to rectify what is commonly referred to asoppression. Oppression results from the corporation acting in such a way as to disadvantage,abuse or otherwise inflict some inequity on a shareholder.

"Importantly, it has been held that no bad faith is required in order to establish conductas oppressive. It is the effect of the conduct, and not the intention of the party engagingin the conduct, that is of primary importance in oppression remedy cases.

The Alberta Corporations Act, Section 242, which mirrors the federal legislation, provides thisvery protection:

Relief by Court on the ground of oppression or unfairness

242(1) A complainant may apply to the Court for an order under this section.

(2) If, on an application under subsection (1), the Court is satisfied that in respect of a

corporation or any of its affiliates

(a) any act or omission of the corporation or any of its affiliates effects a result,

(b) the business or affairs of the corporation or any of its affiliates are or have

been carried on or conducted in a manner, or

(c) the powers of the directors of the corporation or any of its affiliates are or

have been exercised in a manner

that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to or that unfairly disregards the interests of anysecurity holder, creditor, director or officer, the Court may make an order to rectify thematters complained of.''

This remedy is to protect shareholders who have voluntarily acquired an interest in thecorporation. Compare this to the position of local municipalities that are forced into being amember of a regional association. It is mystifying why shareholders are afforded this protection,but not local governments under forced regionalization.

In considering these conditions and the impacts they present, AAMDC has prepared a positionon forced regionalization and it impacts and presents this position in the following sections ofthis paper.

13 of 44

Alberita AssociatTon of Monicipal Districts & Countiesg 25H>Sp»fOW &WeNls!c«,ABT9lBMS PhoM I780t 96S.3&39 pja* t7§l}J86&jat5 Web www.MrlXic.Com

40


AAMDC POSITION ON FORCED REGIONALIZATION

AAMDC is opposed to the use of forced regionalization by the provincial government except inthe most limited of circumstances.

AAMDC is a strong proponent of regional cooperation and has supported the legitimate

application of voluntary agreements by cooperating municipalities to address common needs ona regional basis. It is AAMDC's position that there are viable options available to municipalitiesto address regional concerns that preclude the necessity of imposing a solution. These solutions

have served us \Arell in the past and there is no reason to believe that when individual

municipalities act in good faith these approaches will address any and all regional concerns.

When is Forced Regionalization an Acceptable Solution?

AAMDC recognizes that the provincial government has the constitutional power to direct local

municipalities in the province to conform to provincial legislation. As author Jack Masson puts it:

"Local governments' powers and very existence are conferred by statutory laws passedby provincial legislatures. In theory, this means provinces can create and abolish

municipalities and increase or diminish their powers at will."®

Having said this, the province has gone to great lengths in the past to create an environmentwhere local governments have the responsibility, the obligation and the authority to makedecisions concerning the delivery of services to their local communities, in effect, creating anorder of government distinct from the province. Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Municipal GovernmentAct (MGA) spell out many of these requirements and in particular address what the purposes ofa municipality are:

(a) to provide good government,(b) to provide services, facilities or other things that, in the opinion of council, are

necessary or desirable for all or a part of the municipality, and(c) To develop and maintain safe and viable communities.®

From a regional perspective, municipalities have historically defined what regions they will be apart of and have actively participated in addressing the needs of the region as part of a localsolution.

The conundrum is when one or more municipalities, accept the premise that they are part of aregion, but do not share the vision for a regional solution that other municipalities may promote.

The province has been a strong supporter of the concept of partnership while retaining localautonomy and in 1999 introduced the Regional Partnership Initiative: "...as a means of fosteringregional cooperation and strengthening Alberta by helping municipalities explore and developpartnerships that benefit their operations and residents, as well as business and industry."^

The guidelines go on to describe five key principles of the initiative that includes the following:

"4. The Regional Partnerships Initiative respects municipal autonomy for local servicedelivery decision making."®

The MGA makes provision for municipalities to address their differences through a variety offormal and informal mechanisms. Again, historically municipalities have been able to effectivelyuse these mechanisms to resolve their differences and to put a solution in place. Conflict among

Alberta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties14 of 44 ^ si 25HJSpaffowl5fiveiN»-sto,ABT9EBN5 Phoiw iTBOr 955.3639 Fa* rTBO) S65Jflt5 Web www.aarfMk;.oom

41


neighbouring municipalities is neither new nor unusual and it is naive to expect that simplesolutions are available off-the-shelf to resolve differences. The question remains—when isforced regionalization an acceptable solution?

It is AAMDC's position that the only situation where forced regionalization should be consideredis as a solution of last resort. In short, if the province has evidence that ̂ the followingconditions exist:

■ a basic and material regional need is not being met;■ all other legitimate options have been tried and have failed to address the need;

■ there is agreement that a stalemate exists;

■ and finally, when it can be demonstrated that the benefits (positive impacts) for the

region and for the participating municipalities out-weight the costs (negative

impacts);

Then, and only then, should forced regionalization be considered as an option.

The last point regarding impacts is vitally important in that it pinpoints why forced regionalization

results in dissention and discord. There must be a material incentive for each municipality to

participate. If we look at the under-pinning of cooperative regional ventures there is always an

incentive for participation and that incentive is significant to the municipalities who participate.

The existence of one or more of the following conditions does not satisfy the criteria for forcedregionalization:

■ conflict or the potential for conflict among municipalities in the region;

■ reluctance to participate in a regional solution by one or more of the municipalities inthe region;

■ the potential for sub-optimal outcomes for service or service delivery;

■ progress towards a solution is not apparent.

Forced regionalization in this province has a history of creating as many problems as it solves.The potential good that results from the application of this approach to regional service deliveryhas to be balanced against the damage that results from limiting the ability of a municipality tosatisfy the purpose of a municipality under the MGA.

This is not a trivial consideration. When a municipality is forced to participate there is justifiableconcern that elected councils no longer have the power to govern given them by the MGA. Part2 of the MGA, for example, talks about bylaws and section 9 addresses the powers of aMunicipal Council:

"9 The power to pass bylaws under this Division is stated in general terms to

(a) give broad authority to councils and to respect their right to govern municipalitiesin whatever way the councils consider appropriate, within the jurisdiction given tothem under this or any other enactment, and

(b) enhance the ability of councils to respond to present and future issues in theirmunicipalities."®

It seems clear that the provincial government is intent upon having municipalities makeindependent decisions on the matters that affect their municipalities, not withstanding what aregional perspective might be.

Alberta Association of (Vlunicipal Districts & Counties15 of 44 ^ 2510 sparrow EêNliSil(tt,ABT9E mis Phoftfi 965.3639 Fax (780)6653615 WebwrtW.aatiwJc.com

42


EXAMPLES OF WHERE FORCED REGIONALIZATION WAS USED IN

THE PAST

It is useful to have an historical perspective when talking about forced regionalization in theprovince. The genesis of most regionalization initiatives has come from individual municipalities

who have banded together to address a common service need that either requires a regional

solution (typically for economic reasons) or makes sense because of the particular

circumstances of the region such as promoting economic growth that will be shared by the

participating municipalities.

Perhaps the most visible example of forced regionalization in the past was the introduction ofregional planning commissions.

The timeline presented in Exhibit 1 - History of Forced Regional Planning provides an overviewof the introduction, application and eventual abandonment of an example of forcedregionalization.

EXHIBIT 1 - HISTORY OF FORCED REGIONAL PLANNING

'' Alberta Town Act

revsed with

prowsions for Townand Regional Planning

^ Commissions j

f y.Town and Rural

Planning Act providesfor District Planning

Commissions^ >

'' McNally Commission ^recommendatio on

mandatory

membership in^ District enacted j

/ \

District PlanningCommissions become

Regional Planning

CommissionsJ

' Planning Act êstablishes RegionalPlan as 'supreme'

document of statutory

Instruments .

New MGA and

elimination of

Regional Planning

Commissions

^1928^ ^1950^ ^1957^ ^^1977^ ^^995^^

Forced regionalization as we have defined it, first appeared in the 1950's with the introduction ofthe Edmonton District Planning Commission. Initially this was purely an advisory board whosedecisions were not binding on the City of Edmonton or any other municipality. The purpose ofthis Board was to develop an "Outline General Plan" which was adopted by the City ofEdmonton in 1953.^°

In 1954, the province formed the McNaliy Royal Commission, to:

"...examine and make recommendations for the cities of Edmonton and Calgary on the'financing of school and municipal matters.' As well 'the boundaries and the form of localgovernment which will most adequately and equitably provide for the orderlydevelopment of school and municipal services.""

In 1956 the Commission recommended that:

"...each metropolitan area would be best governed by enlarging each of the presentcities to include its whole metropolitan area."''^

This recommendation was based on the Commission's:

"...assumption that the metropolitan region was one economic, social and physicalunit.""

Alberta AssociafTon of Municipal Districts & Counties251l>Spaff(wOrjvft ABT9EBMB Ptionie 17801955 3639 Fax r78a)K5.3815 Web wrtw.aamdc.com

43

Finding Local Solutions; Examining the Impacts of Forced Regionalization

The Province ignored this recommendation and instead relied upon other recommendations inthe report to address issues of planning in the regions. Most significant was therecommendation to strengthen the district planning commissions, such that:

"...membership on the District Planning Commission should be mandatory and theCommission should prepare a District General Plan."^''

This, in effect, was the first legislative attempt of the provincial government to introduce regionalplanning through forced regionalization. The McNally Commission concluded that there could be

no orderly development in any area where dissent by one member municipality alone could

disrupt an entire district plan.''®

In 1963 district planning commissions became regional planning commissions under the new

Planning Act and in 1977 the Act was further amended to solidify regional plans as superior in

law to:

"...municipal general plans, area structure plans, and finally to local land-use bylaws."''®

Under the 1977 legislation, membership in the region was determined by cabinet, membershipwas mandatory and the municipal representatives had to be an elected official. The legislation

also mandated that a regional plan be prepared and that the municipalities in the region wereobligated to adhere to the principles and dictates of the plan. Regional planning commissionsendured until 1995 when the then Minister of Municipal Affairs cut funding for the commissions

and introduced the current IVIunicipal Government Act. This action effectively ended forcedregionalization for land-use planning.

The historical attempts at forcing a relationship produced results but as a joint 1979, AUMA -AAMDC survey of members (as cited in Climenhaga, 1997) on the issue of regional planningindicated:

"In every region, urban municipalities made a substantially greater percentage of positivecomments than the rural municipalities, while in every region, except one, ruralmunicipalities made a greater percentage of negative comments ...there is a perceivedurban domination in the eyes of the rural municipalities and a small town-rural bias in theeyes of the larger municipalities."^®

"Almost half the comments from the urban respondents viewed regional planning asdoing a good job, providing needed advice, encouraging organized regionaldevelopment ...rural respondents said such things as the regional planning commissionis too dictatorial; there is a loss of local autonomy and there is an urban membershipbias on the commission."^®

This is hardly a ringing endorsement for forced regionalization.

The pendulum swing of regionalization from cooperative to forced and back to cooperative hasbeen costly in terms of exacerbating the environment of conflict and confrontation that existsbetween Alberta's two major urban centres and their rural neighbours.

Allêrta Aasociatioin of Municipal Districts & Countiesa&lflSparfOWtJfwsiNFSJaf. ABtgEHMB PIiom <7®! fl65.3639 Fax r?p)fi65:.3SfB Web www.aatiwfc-.com

44


THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS

The pendulum has again swung from cooperative regionalization to forced regionalization withthe province's requirement in June 2007 that the Calgary and Edmonton metropolitan regionsprepare regional growth plans. Both initiatives were initially conducted as cooperative ventureswhere the participation of individual municipalities was solicited by the provincial government.

In the Calgary metropolitan area, the Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP) was charged with theresponsibility to prepare the Calgary Metropolitan Plan (CMP). In Edmonton, the initial plan wasto have the Alberta Capital Region Alliance (ACRA) responsible for the plan's preparation.However; the decision by the City of Edmonton to abandon ACRA, forced the province toappoint a project team to carry out the planning work. The Capital Region Integrated Growth

Management Plan Project Team was disbanded in December 2007 and was replaced by the

Capital Region Board (CRB). The CRB has on-going responsibility for the maintenance and

implementation of the Capital Region Growth Management Plan (CRGMP).

Concurrently the province passed the Land Stewardship Act and introduced the Provincial

Land-Use Framework. This legislation created seven regions in the province including the South

Saskatchewan Region which embraces the municipalities that make up the Calgary RegionalPartnership and the North Saskatchewan Region which takes in the municipalities of the CapitalRegion Board.

The terms of reference for the development of the regional plans under the Land-useFramework provide some useful insights into the intent of the provincial government:

"The Government of Alberta is responsible for regional planning. Regional plans will bereviewed and approved by Cabinet; they will become official government policy andhave the force of law.

Municipalities and Alberta Government departments will be required to comply withregional plans in their decision making."^"

It is clear that local planning is again now subordinate to regional plans.

Calgary Regional Partnership

The Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP) is a not-for-profit company incorporated in 2004 withthe express purpose "to encourage regional thinking within the context of local decision makingand to support local autonomy while emphasizing that local goals can often best be facilitatedthrough regional cooperative approaches;"^^

The CRP started out as a regional cooperative that included 15 municipalities located aroundthe City of Calgary. Included among the original 15 were the MD of Big Horn, the MD of RockyView (now Rocky View County), the MD of Foothills and Wheatland County. Today there are 15members but the four rural municipalities identified above are no longer participants. The MD ofBig Horn withdrew from the CRP with the understanding and support of the CRP membership.The remaining three municipalities were forced to withdraw when they refused to ratify the CMP.

The principles of the CRP speak tocooperative and voluntary regionalization Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP)but the reality, for the three rural former

members, is not acceptable. That is, the Calgary Metropolitan Plan (CMP)

Alberta Associatioril of Municipal Districts & Counties18 of 44 25H) Spflffijw Orwe AB TSE BW5 PlMjfte 965.3639 Fax r7B0,^ 665.3615 W^b wvirw.aamdc.cofn

45

Finding Local Solutions: Examining the Impacts of Forced Regionaiization

incentive of rationalized and harmonized

regional growth was over-ridden by the costor negative impacts of both the process and

the outcome of the CMP. For example, theMD of Foothills refused to ratify the CMPbecause, in their words:

Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP)

Calgary Metropolitan Plan (CMP)

"(the CMP)...contains many statements and associated mapping which erode or, byvirtue of ambiguity and contradiction, take away the rightful autonomy of Foothills, itsland use authority and consequently, the rights of its residents . .

In the same council meeting, the process related issues of the CRP where identified and

included, but were not limited to:

"... the proposed Calgary Metropolitan Plan permits land use decisions, ... to be

overridden or challenged by the Calgary Metropolitan Plan, urban councillors and others

who are neither elected nor accountable to MD residents" and "... the City of Calgary can

freely and unreasonably veto any and every Foothills counter-proposal concerning the

areas of future urban growth of Calgary into the MD (of) Foothills.

This leads us to ask the question—is the CRP and the application of the CMP a form of forcedregionaiization? We believe it, is and the analysis presented in Exhibit 2 - Evaluation of theCalgary Regional Partnership, indicates why.

EXHIBIT 2 - EVALUATION OF THE CALGARY REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP



Forced

Regionaiization?

Voluntary participation Membership is discretionary X

Partners define the region Have control of membership X


Non-hierarchical governance Not legislated by province X

Voting equity City of Calgary has veto

Consensus decision making Binding decisions without consensus y

User-pay cost sharing To be determined ?

Regional transparency Operates openly X

Accountability of individual Open for debate

municipalities

Ability to opt out of service Can only opt out of membership not

program(s) programs

As the above analysis indicates, the CRP and the application of the CMP falls within ourdefinition of forced regionaiization. For a more comprehensive explanation of the conclusionsillustrated in Exhibit 2, see Appendix A - Why the Calgary Regional Partnership and the CalgaryMetropolitan Plan Are an Example of Forced Regionaiization.

The primary concern with the CRP is the existing reality that binding decisions compromisingthe political autonomy of a municipality have been made and that these decisions were arrivedat without consensus.

19 of 44

Alberta Assoeiatiob of Municipal Districts &t CountiesSpawow t]r«e AB T9E BISB PIioim 17801 «&5.3639 Fa* t7B8iB68.3atE Webwrtw.flatTMfc.com . .|;g

46


The fact that three rural municipalities have withdrawn from the CRP and have referenced thereason cited above is demonstrable evidence that the negative impacts of membership out-weight the positives.

Capital Region Board

The make-up and history of the Edmonton region differs from that of the Calgary region. If welook at what occurred after the provincial government adopted many of the recommendations ofthe "Report of the Royal Commission of the Metropolitan Development of Calgary andEdmonton", (the McNally Report), the City of Calgary was much more successful in pursuing auni-city policy that saw the city grow dramatically in size through annexation.

"Between 1951 and 2008, Calgary grew from 104 km^to over 848 km^ "...an increase ofover 700%"

Edmonton also annexed considerable lands in the same time frame, but was less successful

than Calgary in acquiring the land they applied to take over. The City of Edmonton very quicklyran up against strong opposition from the municipalities that border it on all sides. The current

area of the city sits at 684.37 km^.

The Capital Region Board (CRB) was established by the provincial government in June 2008through the Capital Region Board Regulation under the Municipal Government Act. This action

presumably followed from the province's perception that the 25 municipalities in the Edmontonarea were not capable of cooperatively developing a regional gro\A/th management plan. We saypresumably since there has never been an official reason given for the board's establishmentother than the adoption of many of the recommendations contained in the Project Team'sReport (the Radke Report) and the Premier stating:

"Moving forward on regional planning is part of my government's plan to prepare for thelong term future of the province," said Premier Ed Stelmach. "Recognizing the scale ofchallenges the Capital Region faces it is essential that infrastructure and services beprovided in a timely and effective way."^®

The Minister of Municipal Affairs offered this explanation in the same new release:

"...this is an important milestone in meeting the development needs of the CapitalRegion. Our government is absolutely committed to making this board and this regionwork."2®

The CRB was formed with 25 member municipalities (now 24 with the dissolution of the Villageof New Sarepta into the County of Leduc). The board was charged with the development of aCapital Region Growth Management Plan (CRGMP) by March 31, 2009. The Capital RegionGrowth Plan: Growing Forward was submitted to the Minister of Municipal Affairs on April 2,2009 and was approved by the government on March 10, 2010.

When the vote was called for the adoption of the growth plan, the plan was approved with a 19to 6 majority—a reflection of the

voting mechanism that requires 17

votes in favour which represent at Capital Regional Board (CRB)least 75 per cent of the population. Capital Region Growth Management Plan (CRGMP)There is obvious dissent and

Alberta Association of Monicipal Districts & Counties25H) Spaff cwi AB T9E 8N5 PliOfte <780r 955,3639 Pax r780) S55.3eT6 Web wiAV4.aan>dc.com20 of 44

47


discord associated with the CRB and with the CRGMP. At the time of the vote, the then mayorof the County of Parkland, Rob Wiedeman, commented:

"This plan has been put together in eight months without consideration for the opinionsof rural communities and without the time and care usually taken for a statutory plan forover one million people.

He further went on to comment about how this happened;

"The regional board has pitted municipality against municipality and has led to

"backroom" meetings and deals among some members."^®

Grov\/th in the Edmonton region has been the subject of many commissions, studies and

reports. Recommendations to the province on how to foster, support and incent the

development of a regional growth plan have varied dramatically in scope and in the content ofthe recommendations. Two of the more recent and more inclusive of the studies are the

following:

■ An Agenda for Action, Alberta Capital Region Governance Review, Final Report,December 2000^®, also known as the Hyndman Report and

■ Working Together, Report of the Capital Region Integrated Growth ManagementPlan Project Team, December 2007®°, also known as the Radke Report.

These two documents, more than any other, provide an opportunity to understand whycontroversy and dissention concerning the CRB and the integrated CRGMP exist today.

The Hyndman Report took the approach that recognized the differences among the Edmontonregion municipalities and suggested that a forced regionalized approach was not the solution. Indoing their homework, the members of the governance review initiative came to the conclusionthat it was vitally important NOT to force a result because the negative consequences wouldout-weigh the benefits:

"First, new solutions can't be imposed ... that approach simply won't work. Experience inother provinces shows us the turmoil that forced solutions can cause. Instead, we needto take this step by step, sort out problems as we go and develop new approaches andsolutions cooperatively."®^

This sentiment was shared by the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, Walter Paskowski (as citedin An Agenda for Action, Alberta Capital Region Governance Review, December 2000):

"I want to emphasize the words "self determined regional partnerships."®®

The Governance Review Committee recognized that there would be problems, and in theirwords, "No quick Fixes ... There will be hits and misses"®® and also that it would take time to putinto place the partnerships necessary to plan effectively for the Edmonton region.

The governance review also recognized that it may be necessary to force membership inregional partnership to get all members to the table,®'' but nowhere did it suggest that individualmunicipalities could not opt out of individual programs or initiatives of the partnership:

"The voting mechanism should ensure that a majority of municipalities are not able toimpose services in an

unwilling municipality."®® Capital Regional Board (CRB)

Capital Region Growth Management Plan (CRGMP)

Alberta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties21 of 44 25HISpaffow OfiveNi-skw,/iiBT9EKfa5 Phohfi 17801 fl&3.3639 Fasc r78W B55.38t6 Web wwvM.MmckJ.cont

48


Capital Regional Board (CRB)

Capital Region Growth Management Plan (CRGMP)

Seven years after the governance

review, the Radke Report was

presented to the provincialgovernment. This assessment of

the Integrated Growth Management

Plan concluded that:

"...little real progress had been made during the last seven years on creating the

cooperative and collaborative regional approach to planning and development within the

capital region envisioned by Mr. Hyndman in December 2000."^®

More importantly, Mr. Radke concluded that:

"...the region is still a long ways from accomplishing on its own what Mr. Hyndmanrecommended seven years ago. There are any number of reasons for this seven year

delay, none of which really matter if what Mr. Hyndman saw to be required is ever goingto happen, it would seem that municipalities in the region need a framework, a tool to getit done, one that does not rely on "consensus.""®^

Mr. Radke's report appears to have been accepted and adopted by the province and the CRB isbased on many of the recommendations contained in the report. It is not clear why the provincechoose to take this approach when a contentious outcome was readily apparent.

Is the CRB and the application of the CRGMP a form of forced regionalization? The analysispresented in Exhibit 3 - Evaluation of the Capital Region Board, leads us to believe it is.

EXHIBIT 3 - EVALUATION OF THE CAPITAL REGION BOARD

Principle Involved Capital Region BoardForced

Regionalization?Voluntary participation Membership is mandatory

Partners define the region Region defined by the province


Non-hierarchical governance Another order of government

Voting equity City of Edmonton has veto


User-pay cost sharing Various models PossiblyRegional transparency Deal making

Accountability of individual

municipalitiesRegion super-cedes

Ability to opt out of service No opting outprogram(s)

For a more comprehensive explanation of the conclusions reached in Exhibit 3, see Appendix B- Why the Capital Region Board and the Capital Region Growth Management Plan Are anExample of Forced Regionalization.

Alberta Assobiatlow of Municipal Districts & Counties2510SpaffowOrweNrs)cu,ABTSE.B»(e PtwJiw a»or9S5.3639 Fax r7B0) 955.38t5 Web www.&amdc.com

49


It is interesting to note that Mr. Hyndman's prediction that an imposed solution would not workand that the negative consequences would create greater problems than the forced solutionsprovided appears to be coming true.

In Summary

Today we again have a situation where the province has imposed a regional model that forcesindividual municipalities into accepting service delivery or planning directions that may not be inthe best interests of the local community. As we have seen in the past, this shifting of controlaway from the individual municipalities has predictable results that are again in evidence today.

It is also apparent that the whole approach to getting growth management plans in place in boththe Calgary and Edmonton regions was flawed. In requiring the Calgary and Edmonton regionsto prepare growth plans, the province has unintentionally or intentionally forced the bundling of a

selection of municipal services into one solution. Is this necessary? The implication of thisapproach is that one approach is optimal for addressing service delivery solution for all services

included in the growth plans. Similarly any municipality that can't accept the solution must, in the

case of the Calgary Regional Partnership, abandon membership in the Calgary Regional

Partnership or in the case of the Capital Region Board, must accept the solution.

Would it not have made more sense in the first version of the growth plans to include only those

service areas where consensus was achievable and allow more time to build trust and a

cooperative spirit before addressing the more contentious areas associated with land-use?

While we recognize that it is the prerogative of the provincial government to impose regionalmodels, we, as Mr. Hyndman predicted, find the present situation untenable.

The question that remains to be answered for both the Edmonton and Calgary regions is—isforced regionalization justified?

Earlier in this paper we addressed the conditions that would need to exist, to make forcedregionalization an acceptable option:

1. a basic and material regional need is not being met;

2. all other legitimate options have been tried and have failed to address the need;3. there is agreement that a stalemate exists;

4. and finally, when it can be demonstrated that the benefits (positive impacts) for theregion and for the participating municipalities out-weight the costs (negativeimpacts).

In the following exhibit, we have summarized our evaluation of these criteria:

EXHIBIT 4 - IS FORCED REGIONALIZATION JUSTIFIED?

Criteria

Calgary


Just

ified?

CapitalRegion Board

Just

ified?

Regional need not

being met

No all inclusive entity

to address regional

service delivery needs

No all inclusive entity to

address regional servicedelivery needs

All options tried andunsuccessful

The current option

was a negotiated

solution, options exist

X

Imposed solution justified by

lack of progress X

23 of 44

Alberta Assoeiatlon of Municipal Districts & Counties2&10Sp«fDwOr«t!NrsX«,AB T9l6NS Phone 17801 S55.3e39 Fax Webwww.eanftdc.com

50


Criteria

Calgary


Just

ified?

Capital

Region Board

Just

ified?

Stalemate Exists Questionable given

that on-going

discussion takes place

X

Minimal progress is not a

stalemate X

Positive Impacts

out-weight Negative

Impacts

Clearly not the view of

the dissenting

municipalities

X

On-going objection to the

approach taken indicates that

this view is not shared by all

municipalities

X

As the exhibit indicates, a\\ the conditions have not been met and the imposition of forced

regionalization is not justified.

24 of 44

Alberta Assocratfon of Municipal Districts & Counties2510 Spaftow Nt-isJtu, AB TSE BfiS PlioiMi 17801055.3639 Fa* 1700) 055.3316 Web www.aarTHjc.com

m

51


FINDING A SOLUTION - ALTERNATIVES TO FORCED

REGIONALIZATION

It is AAMDC's position that there are solutions and that these alternative approaches todelivering regional services are superior to forced regionalization.

At the very heart of this issue is the province's insistence that there must be regional growthplans for services in the metropolitan areas of Calgary and Edmonton. There is little to disputeconcerning the desirability of having rational plans in place that take into account the regionalneeds of the municipalities involved and to put into place regional solutions that address local

needs.

There are models in place in the Province

The MGA provides numerous vehicles to address services regional service needs. In the

following sections we provide a series of examples where these models have been successfully

applied without the need for an imposed solution.

Commissions and Authorities

One of the primary approaches to cooperative regional service delivery has been the use of

commissions. In the Province of Alberta, commissions exist to provide water, wastewater

treatment, solid waste management, emergency services, assessment services, utility servicesand airport services on a regional basis. All of these commissions, with the exception of theCapital Region Board, are voluntary cooperatives where the partners have established aseparate organization under the MGA and where the partners have given over control for thedelivery of a service.

Notable among the many examples is the Alberta Capital Region Waster Water Commission(ACRWC). Since 1985 the ACRWC has provided transportation and treatment of wastewater for13 urban and rural municipalities in the Capital Region excluding the City of Edmonton.Edmonton is not part of the commission yet it is part of the solution through a strategicpartnership with ACRWC. This combination of approaches facilitates the regional need forwastewater treatment and transportation without compromising the autonomy of the partners ineither the commission or the partnership.

The positive impacts of this alliance far outstrip the negative consequences for each partner andthere is limited discord and an enviable record of achievement.

Inter-Municipal Development Plans

Land-use and the planning for land-use likely represents the area of greatest potential fordispute among adjacent municipalities. In anticipation of the need for a regional solution, theMGA provides a vehicle for municipalities to negotiate and plan for the rational development ofareas of land lying within the boundaries of the municipalities. This section of the Act goes on tosuggest that:

"(2) An intermunicipal development plan

(a) may provide for

(i) the future land use within the area.

Alberta AssocJation of Municipal Districts 8t Counties;2510SparjowtSfiveNl^.ABT9EBS5 Phone 17®! 965.3639 Fax RB6) 8653816 Web www.eatiftdc.CQm

Sgtum.::.-:'52


(ii) the manner of and the proposals for future development in the area,and

(iii) any other matter relating to the physical, social or economicdevelopment of the area that the councils consider necessary,"^®

It is clear from this section of the Act that the provincial government intended that localmunicipalities should find local solutions "for development of the area that the councils considernecessary". There are numerous examples of intermunicipal development plans (IDPs) virtuallyall of which contain statements of the cooperative nature of the agreement and the mutual

benefit that accrues to the partners. One example is the City of Lacombe and the County ofLacombe IDP:

"2.0 PLAN OBJECTIVES

2.1 The objectives of the Intermunicipal Plan are to

(1) identify future land uses in and around the Town and establish policies to

guide decisions on those uses;

(2) accommodate urban growth and rural development in a manner which is

mutually acceptable, orderly and efficient;

(2.1) provide for commercial and industrial development in identified areas withinLacombe County along Queen Elizabeth II Highway and make available publicwater and wastewater services.

(Amending Bylaw Nos. 1054/07, July 31, 2007 and 174.6, July 23, 2007)

(3) identify the transportation and municipal utility systems required to serve thearea;

(4) protect the natural environment and ensure that its resources are used in a

sensitive

manner; and

(5) establish a mutual consultative approach to the implementation of the Plan."^®

The sentiment expressed in this agreement is based on mutual benefit. The incentive is theability to move fonward "...in a manner that is mutually acceptable, orderly and efficient".

Contractual Agreements

An additional approach available under the MGA is the ability of municipalities to enter intoagreements with other municipalities for the purposes of addressing regional needs. One suchexample is the Municipal District of Foothills and the Town of Okotoks, Joint PlanningAgreement, adopted January 18, 2010. These two municipalities have had an IDP in place formany years and the Mission Statement and Opportunities Statement of the agreement speak tothe long term relationship and the "...desire to commit to a long term partnership...". As part ofthis agreement the partners have spelled out the principles that will guide the execution of theagreement:

"The following Principles shall guide subsequent processes and communicationsbetween the MD of Foothills and the Town of Okotoks:

Alberta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties251-0 Sparfow Gfive NtsJai. AB T9E SNS Pliotw 17801955.3639 Pax r?8(W 565.3ST5 Webwww.aatTMic.com

53


2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

8.

Understand each other's growth aspirations by providing full disclosure andfactual information;

Respect each other's point of view and have honest interaction and realistic

expectations;

Respect which aspects of development planning and growth are of mutualinterest and which areas are of single jurisdictional interest;Share costs relating to the delivery of agreed upon soft and hard services ona Fair and Equitable basis;

Support each other in finding mutually beneficial solutions;

Serve the constituents while respecting the social, economic andinfrastructure capacities of the municipalities;

Communicate effectively to clarify any challenges and provide a clear and

mutually supportive message to the public and media; and

Live within the Carrying Capacity of the landscape.'"'"

inter-Municipal Cooperation Protocoi

In Spring 2010, Rocky View County and the Town of Cochrane "...signed an historic and

precedent-setting agreement to work together in the spirit of commitment, respect, and trust and

to enhance the lines of communication into the future.""^ The Ranche House Accord is designedto build upon an already strong relationship between the two municipalities and formalizes theprotocol they will follow on mutually beneficial initiatives. These two municipalities have anumber of partnership agreements already in place to address community programs and theoperation of regional facilities.

The development of the Accord was facilitated by Alberta Municipal Affairs and supported by theMinister, the Honourable Mr. Hector Goudreau, who expressed the desire to have this accord

"... serve as a model for other jurisdictions in the province.'"*^

This approach, in effect, relieves the municipalities of the need to "re-invent-the-wheel" eachtime they wish to enter into an agreement to work together for some regional initiative that willbenefit both municipalities. As well, the Accord is a "commitment to actively seek and fosterpartnership opportunities."""

Do these approaches meet the test?

The following exhibit evaluates each of the examples using the principles established earlier forcooperative initiatives that are not forced:

EXHIBIT 5 - EVALUATION OF AVAILABLE APPROACHES TO REGIONALIZATION

Foothills- Ranche-

Principle Involved ACRWC Lacombe Okotoks House

IDP Agreement Accord

Voluntary participation •/ V

Partners define the region •/ V

Political autonomy ✓ •/

Non-hierarchical governance V -/

Voting equity •/ / ■/

Consensus decision making •/ ✓ / -/

27 of 44

Alberta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties,2&l{lSp^#ow £}BweNia3cw.ABT9Eeti5 Phistte i7®31 855.3639 Pa* r7M) 66536116 Web www.ftanixlc.com

54

Finding Local Solutions: Examining the impacts of Forced Regionalization

Foothills- Ranche-

Principle Involved ACRWC Lacombe Okotoks House

IDP Agreement Accord

User-pay cost sharing V V

Regional transparency V V V

Accountability of individual V V V

municipalities

Ability to opt out of service V V V

program(s)

These four examples clearly pass the test for a voluntary, cooperative approach to

regionalization. These are certainly not the only examples but they are indicative of the desire

and spirit of rural municipalities to enter into partnerships with their neighbours to effectively

address a regional community need.

There are models in other Jurisdictions

Other jurisdictions have attempted regionalization using a variety of different approaches withvarying levels of success.

British Columbia

British Columbia has had a regional model in place for service delivery since 1965. In the mid-1990s regions were given powers to prepare regional growth plans as well as the delivery ofhard services related to water, wastewater, transportation etc.

Representation on regional boards goes to great lengths to avoid the perception or reality of aforced or imposed structure:

"The regional system in British Columbia is exceptional because of its democraticprinciples. Establishing a strong democratic framework within regions was not simple;instead it developed over the years through slight modifications, which added variousprotections to communities. The structure of all regional districts is similar. There is agoverning board composed of both elected municipal councillors appointed to the boardby their municipal councils and independently elected members from electoral areasoutside of incorporated municipal boundaries. All regional district board members areclassified as directors." (As cited by Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador.)"''

What is significant to this discussion about the British Columbia model is the principle that:

"A regional growth strategy cannot be imposed on a municipality. Rather, anymunicipalities affected by the plan must be consulted in the planning process and mustpass a motion to formally adopt the plan." (As cited by Municipalities Newfoundland andLabrador.)"^

Perhaps the most relevant example from British Columbia is the Metro Vancouver Board.

Metro Vancouver Board

Metro Vancouver is the third largest metropolitan area in Canada comprising 22 municipalities,one electoral area and one Treaty First Nation that is home to 2.3 million residents or about half

28 of 44

Alberta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties2510 Spaiôw tVive AB TBE 8SV5 Plrone 17801055.3639 Pa* 1780)555.3816 Wfeb WrtW.MtTWte.COm

55


the population of British Columbia. In the words of Derek Corrigan, the mayor of the City ofBurnaby and a Director of the Metro Vancouver Board (MVB), the Regional District:

"(is)...seen as a "coordinator" and "common instrument" of separate localgovernments.""®

The MVB has three roles: service delivery, regional scale planning and regulation and politicaladvocacy/collaborative governance. The Board of Directors is made up of municipal councilappointees: one director per 100,000 residents and one vote per 20,000 residents. Theprinciples under which the MVB operates include:

• One non-hierarchical system of local government;

• Region must add value or leave at local level

• The interests of individual partners will prevail over everything except the collectiveinterest of the partners

• Resolve issues through consensus and avoid surprises and destructive conflict

• Result should be coherent regional action which:

o Respects and reinforces the diversity, character and integrity of localmunicipalities

o Protects the environment

o Maintains cost effective service delivery to tax payers.

In the same presentation, Mr. Corrigan highlighted what he saw as the strengths of regional

partnership under their model. The list included a comment on consensus decision making as

being "...(an) inclusive approach to decision making." There is recognition that "...consensus

can be hard to find and maintain" and that "...parochial concerns can inhibit the development of

regional solutions", but this does not mean that a solution has to be imposed or forced. What he

does reveal is that the MVB is a "cooperative system ... (which) necessitates constant attention

to local municipal interests.""^

One other striking feature of the MVB model is the voting threshold which is divided into two

categories for amending the regional growth strategy (major amendments and minor

amendments). For major amendments, a 50%+1 weighted vote is required, plus acceptance by

aN affected local governments.

Mr. Corrigan suggests that their model is not perfect and the process of collaboration is at timespainful. However, the model works and regional solutions are possible without the need forimposing regionalization.

Ontario - Regional Services From a Regional Government

The regionalization model in Ontario is based on another order of government—the regionalcouncil. The regional council can be made up of directly elected council members and themayors of local municipalities both urban and rural (eg. Region of Waterloo) or exclusively fromthe elected officials of the local municipalities (eg. Region of Peel).

Services vary from region to region and consist of those services typically addressed by servicecommissions in Alberta. The Region of Waterloo, for example, has a Planning and Works

Committee that advises the regional council on:

"...matters relating to the civil works operated by the Region and other functions relatedto the Region's facilities, such as the Region of Waterloo International Airport, roads and

Alberta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties2BHJSparfowOrw4!Ni>lcu,ABT9EBN5 Photw 47801965.3639 Fa* nsttJ 565.3616 Web WrtW.Mmdc.cotn29 of 44

56


traffic, transit, water supply, waste water treatment, residential waste management,industrial waste management and on Planning." issues such as the Regional OfficialPolicies Plan, transportation planning, planning and development matters andrecommends approval of municipal official plans.'"*®

Growth in the region is managed by an official plan developed by the regional council:

"The Region Official Plan (ROP) is a long-term plan used to assist the Region in managinggrowth and development. The main purpose of the Plan is to:

■ Provide Regional Council with a long-term regional strategic policy framework for

guiding growth and development in Peel while having regard for protecting the

environment, managing the renewable and non-renewable resources, and outlining a

regional structure that manages this growth within Peel in the most efficient manner.

■ Interpret and apply the intent of Provincial legislation and polices within a Regional

context using the authority delegated or assigned to the Region from the

Government of Ontario.'"*®

The Ontario model creates a de facto order of government that is distinct from the localmunicipalities.

Jurisdictions Outside of Canada

Alberta Municipal Affairs commissioned a study in 2007 called "Regional Governance Models -An exploration of structures and critical practices". The study was prepared by the City-RegionsStudy Centre in the Faculty of Extension at the University of Alberta. The final report waspresented October 26, 2007. The report is included as background information on the MunicipalAffairs web page for the Capital Region Board.

The report attempts to answer two basic questions:

"1. Are there any effective regional governance models or elements of models that canbe drawn from existing arrangements and support structures in other regions with apopulation demographic similar to that of the Capital Region?

2. What kinds of governance arrangements might serve as vehicles for inter-municipalcooperation in implementing the regional growth management plan in the CapitalRegion?"®®

The study looked at six city-regions in the United States and six city regions outside of NorthAmerica and provides some useful insights on the common elements to be found in regionalstructures. Their initial conclusion is that there is no consistent regional model to be found and"...a 'best-practice' model of regional governance does not exist."®* They did, however, identifyone common feature or principle that was present in the majority of models they reviewed:

"In the twelve cases that were examined, the most frequent pattern found for acooperative mechanism is that of a voluntary association."®^

That is, for a regional model to be a cooperative partnership, it must be one based on voluntaryparticipation, not imposed or forced. The study looked at six different governance structuresincluding several forced or imposed regionalization models and concluded the only viableapproach is:

Alberta Aasociation of Municipal Districts & Counties30 of 44 ^ 2510 Spartcw Orwe Nisku,. AS TSt BW5 Ptioftf! 17^1955.3639 Fa* 1780) 555.38T6 WebwMW.aamolc.com

57


"Voluntary Associations

Not-with-standing the history in the Capital Region with voluntary association,this cooperative mechanism can work. It requires a willingness to work together,to appreciate mutual benefits, the ability to negotiate from multiple perspectives(not just population equities and inequities), systems and regional thinking, theability to conceptualize integrated planning, leadership, the use of business

model thinking, and a sense of the public good that is not parochial. It mayrequire legislation that supports regional decision making powers.""

The logical conclusion reached in this study was that there has to be motivation to become part

of a region and that the structure discussion is irrelevant until that motivation is sufficient to

induce participation. This premise is consistent with the principles espoused earlier concerning

the need for the benefits of partnership to exceed the negative impacts on individual

municipalities.

Alberta Association of Municipal Districts &E Counties31 of 44 ^ 2510SpaffowOm«)Nisl(S4ABTSlBN5 PhoiM 17®l SEELafrlS Fa* l7B(^96&jai6 Web wrtw.aamdo.com

58


FINDING A SOLUTION - JUSTIFYING FORCED REGIONALIZATION

In the end, if the need for forced regionalization is justified, it implies that there is some materialbenefit that will accrue to the participating municipalities.

It is not sufficient to say that a greater good is being served There must also be some tangiblebenefit that all municipalities can point to. It is important for all municipalities to share in thisbenefit and that it is not a benefit for just the majority of the population and not just a 'pay-ofF tothe disaffected. The benefit must also be realizable now. Talking about the long-term benefits ofa growth plan is important but they do little to address the immediate need of buildingcooperation and engendering a spirit of partnership today.

This leads to the necessity of introducing incentives (motivation) as a surrogate benefit forforced regionalization. In the past the province has used grants (both conditional and

unconditional) to municipalities to help them transition from one form of government to another,

for example, the transition from Improvement Districts (IDs) to Municipal Districts (MDs).

The creation of regions is another order of magnitude and the incentive to be part of the region

should involve a significant gesture by the province to endow the region with the financial

security in keeping with the significance the province has placed on the importance of the

region.

One means of accomplishing this would be to incorporate the Calgary and Edmonton regions ascharter regions with a distinct and recognized status and with enhanced revenue sources that

will address the financing of growth in the regions.

Charter Region Concept

The concept of a charter for local municipalities is not new. Currently five cities in Canada havea charter city status that distinguishes them from other cities in their respective provinces—Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal and St. John. Among others, the primary reasons forgranting charter status are based on the premise:

■ "Provincial policies and programs that are designed for application province-wide donot always fit the needs or operations of the City;

■ Likewise, the City's needs and responsibilities are often not shared by othermunicipalities;"®"*

While the concept of a charter local municipality originated with cities, there is no reason tobelieve that the concepts are not applicable to a region. In fact, the concepts, as applied to aregion, appear to be consistent with the rationale for forcing the formation of the region in thefirst place.

Conceptually the regional charter would confer the follow rights:

■ Independent status with the power to act on regional matters;

■ Enhanced revenue sources compared to traditional local governments;■ The right to be consulted on any legislation in advance of the legislation being

enacted, on issues that would impact the region;

■ The power to enact legislation in the region for areas of provincial responsibilityexcepting only when they do not conflict with provincial legislation

Alberta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties25H3SpaffC«* OrfM® AB T9E. SN5 Phoi^G 955.3639 Fa* PFSO) 565.3616 W?b

59


Fundamentally, the charter is a trade-off where municipalities give up some level ofindependence in local decision making in exchange for enhanced powers in other areas. Thetrade-off must be sufficiently beneficial in the eyes of all partners if it is to be effective as anincentive for participation in the regional entity. Using the words trade-off and independence inthe same sentence is a red-flag for any local council and as a consequence there must beclarity, certainty and sufficiency concerning the return for loss of independence.

It is apparent from our review of the literature that many of the other principles that are inherentin the concept of a charter municipality are already present in the MGA such as natural personpowers. What is significant and material concerning the viability of a region is the access toenhanced revenue sources to provide the funding for major infrastructure initiatives such as

rapid transit, water treatment facilities, etc.

The potential downside of this approach is the possibility that the trade-off, loss ofindependence for financial gain, is perceived to be a reward rather than a benefit of association.

There is a distinction between these two concepts and it is important. Regionalization is not

about prizes for cooperating. It is about balancing the loss of independence in exchange forsomething of greater value. Secondly, this type of approach goes against the traditional

concepts of equity among all municipalities. Typically the province avoids introducing programs

or situations that create exclusivity similar to what the Charter Region concept involves. Treating

one municipality differently from another is not without precedence however and the reality of

regional benefit may be sufficient to offset the objection.

The concept of a charter region is novel in Canada and would again place Alberta at the

forefront of innovation for addressing local government needs.

Alberta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties33 of 44 ,2510 sparrow: Owe Nl4*u,ABT9lKNS Phone I7®1055.3639 Pa* 1780) 6655815 Wtebwww.ftamclc.com

60


CONCLUSION

The pendulum swing from forced to un-forced regionalization must stop, and it must stop at thepoint where regional solutions are not imposed and municipal councils are allowed to carry out

their sworn duty.

Forced regionalization is an unwarranted attack on the independence of local municipalities

guaranteed in the MGA. Local councils are elected to make decisions in the best interest of the

municipality and any artificial, imposed governance model that supplants this obligation should

be opposed and abandoned.

It seems ironic that the MGA goes to great lengths spell out the obligation of local government

and then the province ignores these provisions and suggests that the collective wisdom of a

municipality's neighbours should prevail over the best interests of a municipality that takes a

minority position on a regional issue. It is also ironic that other legislation protects minorityinterests and rights.

AAMDC sees no legitimate reason for the application of forced regionalization by the provinceunless the conditions presented earlier in the paper are present.

Alberta AssoclaflOiT of Municipal Districts & Counties251flS[iaffDwt>iVBNts*it,AB T9E.eM5 PlTOne 865.3639 Fa* r708) fi66.36t6 W^b www.aamdc.com

61


Appendix A:

Why the Calgary Regional Partnership and the Calgary

Metropolitan Plan Are an Example of Forced

Regionalization

Alberta Aasoeiation of Municipal Districts &£ CountiesiBIOSpW-ftswOweNl-i^tiÂBTgEeWS PIWM 170)1655.3638 Fax r?BO) 8653615 Web www.MttwIc.com

62

Appendix A: Why the Calgary Regional Partnership and the Calgary Metropolitan Plan Are an Example of ForcedReglonallzatlon

'Comment Conclusionv. ,

Voluntary participation Individual municipalities have the choice to join and or withdraw from the Partnership. Not Forced

Partners define the

regionExisting Partners decide on who may join the Partnership. Not Forced

Political autonomy If a Partner refuses to accept the application of the Calgary Metropolitan Plan for anyreason including the belief that the Plan compromises the Political Autonomy of themunicipality, the Partner is compelled to withdraw from the Partnership.

Forced

Non-hierarchical

governance

The Partnership is configured to provide services to the Partners of the region at thepleasure of the Partners.

Not Forced

Voting equity The Partnership employs (among others) a 'Super Majority' voting formula that requires:■ A majority of the region's population■ A 2/3 majority of the Partners

In effect, the City of Calgary must vote yes for a decision to pass. Equity implies equalitysuggesting that one Partner will not have the voting power to pass or veto a decision.Calgary, with a clear majority of the population, has the ability to veto any decision byvoting no.

Forced

Consensus decision

makingThe Partnership and the Plan make the statement that "...decisions can and will bemade by consensus." There is, however; no readily apparent policy or process thatspells out how a consensus could or should be reached.

Forced

User-pay cost sharing To be determined Unknown

Regional transparency The Partnership's Memorandum of Association includes an object that states:" To develop a public involvement protocol to keep citizens of the Region informed aboutRegional Matters and to support the involvement of citizens, businesses and not-for-profit organizations in regional thinking."

Not Forced

Accountability ofindividual municipalities

Accountability in this context suggests a municipality being individually responsible forthe actions of the Partnership. A municipality could potentially suggest that thePartnership is accountable in situations where the municipality is "forced" to ratify adecision of the Partnership to remain a partner in 'good-standing'.

Forced

Ability to opt out ofservice program(s)

The Calgary Metropolitan Plan contains the following statement: "It should not bepossible ...for communities to cherry pick, to opt into or out of individual components ofthe CMP."

Forced

36 of 44

63

Appendix B:

Why the Capital Region Board and the Capital Region

Growth Management Plan Are an Example of Forced

Regionalization

Alberta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties37 of 44 .2&lDStiaffowDfiV6!NtAutABT8iB;^ Ptomi ITWABS-aBSS Fa* Web wwA.ftaiTKis.com

64

Appendix B: Why the Capital Region Board and the Capital Region Growth Management Plan Are an Example ofForced Reglonallzatlon

1 PMIiijrAiiiiilyti -; " i " ■ ■

Qctiictusion

Voluntary participation Participation in the Capital Region Board is mandated through Provincial Legislation. Forced

Partners define the

regionThe province defines the region by specifying the municipalities (by schedule) in thelegislation.

Forced

Political autonomy Each member municipality is compelled by legislation to accept decisions of the Board. Forced

Non-hierarchical

governance

The Regulation specifies the process and organization that must be established toapprove statutory plans with a regional impact. The infrastructure and governance tosupport this process is indicative of another order of government, see for example,regional government in the province of Ontario.

Forced

Voting equity The CRB employs a double majority voting formula that requires:

• 75% of the population of the region (City of Edmonton must vote yes for adecision to be approved)

• A 2/3 + 1 majority of the members.Equity implies equality, suggesting that one partner will not have the voting power topass or veto a decision. The City of Edmonton, with 75% of the population has theability to veto any decision by voting no.

Forced

Consensus decision

makingThe CRB and the Plan make the statement that: "...whenever possible. Board decisionsare made by consensus." There is no readily apparent policy or process that spells outhow a consensus could or should be reached.

Forced

User-pay cost sharing The CRB has developed an Approved Cost Sharing Formula for Regional Projects anda Regional Transit Cost Sharing Formula. The formulas are primarily based on a userpay concept but also, in the case of transit, factor in the ability to pay. User pay is basedon equity, ability to pay is based in altruism, a different value, where one municipality ispotentially subsidized by others.

Forced

Regional transparency The voting formula creates the potential for 'deal-making' among the members. That is,in the absence of a consensus, the City of Edmonton is placed in the position of beingable to 'trade' the population vote for majority votes. This potential clouds transparency.

Forced

Accountability ofindividual municipalities

There is no ability for individual municipalities to be held accountable for the actions ofthe CRB where the municipality has voted against a decision. Forced

Ability to opt out ofservice program(s)

There is no 'not withstanding' clause in the CRB regulation. All elements of the GrowthManagement Plan apply to all municipalities. Abstaining or failing to vote on decisionsresults in a vote in favour of the resolution.

Forced

38 of 44

65


BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Government of Alberta, Information Bulletin (2009). Alberta Land Stewardship Act

authorizes regional planning under Land-use Framework. Edmonton: Government of

Alberta.

2. Province of Alberta (2010). Municipal Government Act, Capital Region Board Regulation,

Alberta Regulation 17/2010: Dispute resolution. Edmonton: Alberta Queen's Printer.

3. Ellyn, I. & de Champlain, K. (2007). Shareholders' Remedies in Canada. Retrieved from

http://hq.ora/article.asp?id=4818.

4. Province of Alberta (2011). Business Corporations Act, Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000,

Chapter B-9: Relief by Court on the ground of oppression or unfairness. Edmonton: Alberta

Queen's Printer.

5. Masson, J. (1994). Aiberta's Local Governments, Politics and Democracy. Edmonton: The

University of Alberta Press.

6. Province of Alberta (2010). Municipal Government Act, Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000,

Chapter M-26. Part 1, Purposes, Powers and Capacity of Municipalities. Edmonton: Alberta

Queen's Printer.

7. Alberta Municipal Affairs (2004). Communities Strengthened Through Partnership, Regional

Partnerships Initiative, Guidelines. Edmonton: Government of Alberta.

8. Bettison, DG (1975). Urban Affairs in Alberta. Edmonton: The University of Alberta Press.

9. Dragushan, G (1979). Regional Planning in Alberta: The Evolution of Alberta's System of

Regional Planning Commissions (Thesis). Vancouver: The University of British Columbia.

10. Climenhaga, DJ (1997). The Death and Life of Regional Planning in the Calgary Area

(Thesis). Qttawa: Carleton University.

11. Government of Alberta (2009). Terms of Reference For Developing The South

Saskatchewan Region. Edmonton: Alberta Queen's Printer.

12. Alberta Registrar of Companies (2004). Memorandum of Association of The Calgary

Regional Partnership Incorporated. Edmonton: Alberta Queen's Printer.

13. The Council of the Municipal District of Foothills No. 31 (2009). Minutes of the Council

Meeting of the Municipal District of Foothills No. 31 (Item: Calgary Regional Partnership).

High River: Municipal District of Foothills No. 31.

14. Askew, J (2009). Temperature's Rising, Urban intensification and the Future of CanadianCities, http://canadianbuildersquarterlv.eom/2010/09/fall-2009

15. Government of Alberta, Municipal Affairs, News Release (2008). Long-range CapitalRegional planning, cooperation gets underway. Government committed to act on long

standing regional planning issue. Edmonton: Government of Alberta.

16. CBC News Edmonton ( 2009). Capital region mayors approve growth plan.http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/storv/2009/03/19/edm-reqinal-paln.html

Alberta Association of Minilcipal Districts &e Cownties39 of 44 ^ S 2SH) Spwow Srtve N«ij, AB TBt PhoM 1780m55.3&39 Past r?8» 555 3615 Wfeb wrtw.Mmdc.com

66


17. Alberta Capital Region Governance Review (2000). An Agenda for Action, Alberta CapitalRegion Governance Review, Final Report, December 2000. Edmonton: Government ofAlberta, Municipal Affairs.

18. Capital Region Integrated Growth Management Plan Project Team (2007). WorkingTogether. Edmonton: Government of Alberta.

19. Province of Alberta (2010). Municipal Government Act, Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000,

Chapter M-26. Division 4, Statutory Plans, Intermunicipal Development Plans, 631(1).Edmonton: Alberta Queen's Printer.

20. Lacombe County (2007). Lacombe Intermunicipal Development Plan. Lacombe: LacombeCounty

21. MD Foothills and Town of Okotoks (2010). Joint Planning Agreement. Okotoks: MDFoothills and Town of Okotoks.

22. Rocky View County (2010). The Vantage Point. Calgary: Rocky View County.

23. Keenan, R. with Whalen, P. (2010). Community Cooperation, Regional Government Papers,The Umbrella of Protection: Regional Government as the protector and promotor ofmunicipal strength and autonomy in Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John's: MunicipalitiesNewfoundland and Labrador.

24. Metro Vancouver Regional Planning Committee (2011). Balancing Local Autonomy andRegional Interests: Metro Vancouver's Proposed Regional Growth Strategy (Presentation toCalgary Regional Partnership). Burnaby: City of Burnaby.

25. Region of Waterloo. Standing Committees, Planning and Works Committee.

http://www.reaionofwaterloo.ca/en/index.asp

26. Region of Peel (1996). Regional Official Plan.

http://www.peelreaion.ca/planninq/officialplan/index.htm

27. City-Region Studies Centre, Faculty of Extension, University of Alberta (2007). RegionalGovernance Models - An exploration of structures and critical practices. Edmonton:University of Alberta.

28. Corporate Services Department, Legal Division, City of Toronto (2000/2001). Powers ofCanadian Cities - The Legal Framework. Toronto: City of Toronto.

29. Masson, J. (1985). Alberta's Local Governments and Their Politics. Edmonton: Pica Pica

Press.

30. Gordon, M., Hulchanski, J. D. (1985). The Evolution of the Land Use Planning Process inAlberta 1945-1984 (Research Paper). Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies,University of Toronto.

31. Knight, D. & Harfield, T. D. (2008). Regional Governance Explored: a review of theEdmonton Capital Region. Edmonton: The City-Region Studies Centre, University ofAlberta.

32. Acton Consulting Ltd. With Brownlee LLP and EBA Engineering Ltd. (2007). Higher Ground:Municipal Land Use Planning. Nisku: AAMDC.

g Alberta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties40 of 44 ^ 2510 Sparfow Orwe Nislcu, AB T9E BN5 Photw 17801 955.3639 Fait r780:i 555.36T6 Web wvrtv.aamtJc.com

67


33. Banister, K. R. (2009). Cooperative information Systems: A Tool for Supporting Alberta's

Land-Use Framework (Thesis). Calgary: Victoria: Royal Roads University.

34. Ghitter, G. & Smart, A. (2009). Mad Cows, Regional Governance, and Urban Sprawl; Path

Dependence and Unintended Consequences in the Calgary Region. Calgary: Urban AffairsReview, Volume 44 Number 5.

35. Calgary Regional Partnership (2011). Leadership Retreat Outcomes, CRP Executive

Committee Leadership Retreat.

http://www.calqarvreqion.ca/crp/media/70610/ian%2021%2011%20crp%20ec%20retreat%2

0outcomes%20final.pdf

36. Calgary Regional Partnership ((2009). Calgary Metropolitan Plan (Governance and

Implementation), http://www.calqarvreqion.ca/crp/media/57225/crp%20cmp%20final.pdf

Association of Municipal Districts & Cownties41 of 44 , 2510 Spaffow Orwt; AB T9E SN5 Photw 17801 «65.3639 Pa* 170(1) 86&,3S15 Wsb www.Mmctc.com

68


REFERENCES

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Government of Alberta, Sustainable Resource Development, Information Bulletin. AlbertaLand Stewardship Act authorizes regional planning under Land-use Framework. Edmonton:Government of Alberta; October 1, 2009: 1.

Province of Alberta. Municipal Government Act, Capital Region Board Regulation, AlbertaRegulation 17/2010: Dispute resolution. Edmonton: Alberta Queen's Printer; September16, 2010.

Ellyn, I. & de Champlain, K. (September 12, 2007). Shareholders' Remedies in Canada.Retrieved September 6, 2011 from httD://hq.orq/article.asp?id=4818.

Province of Alberta. Business Corporations Act, Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000, ChapterB-9: Relief by Court on the ground of oppression or unfairness. Edmonton: AlbertaQueen's Printer; May 13, 2011.

Masson, J. Alberta's Local Governments, Politics and Democracy. Edmonton: TheUniversity of Alberta Press; 1994: 25.

Province of Alberta. Municipal Government Act, Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000, ChapterM-26. Part 1, Purposes, Powers and Capacity of Municipalities. Edmonton: Alberta Queen'sPrinter, November 24, 2010.

Alberta Municipal Affairs. Communities Strengthened Through Partnership, RegionalPartnerships Initiative, Guidelines. Edmonton: Government of Alberta; 2004: 1.

Ibid

Ibid. 6, Part 2, Guides to interpreting power to pass bylaws.

Bettison, DG. Urban Affairs in Alberta. Edmonton: The University of Alberta Press; 1975:257.

Ibid. 5: 159.

Ibid.

Ibid. 10: 258.

Ibid. 10.

Ibid. 10: 135.

Dragushan, G. Regional Planning in Alberta: The Evolution of Alberta's System of RegionalPlanning Commissions (Thesis). Vancouver: University of British Columbia, Qctober 1979:129.

Climenhaga, DJ. The Death and Life of Regional Planning in the Calgary Area (Thesis).Qttawa: Carleton University, May 1, 1997: 45.

Ibid.: 48.

Alberta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties42 of 44 2610 sparrow ErweNis»Eu,ABT9EeN5 Phoiw 17801055.3639 Fax 1780) 865.3616 Webwww.aafYMlc.com

69


19

20

21

22

23

Ibid.: 47.

Government of Alberta. Terms of Reference For Developing The South SaskatchewanRegion. Edmonton: Alberta Queen's Printer, Fall 2009: 4.

Alberta Registrar of Companies. Memorandum of Association of The Caigary RegionalPartnership Incorporated. Edmonton: Alberta Queen's Printer, November 16, 2004: 5.

Tfie Council of the Municipal District of Foothills No. 31. Minutes of the Council Meeting ofthe Municipal District of Foothills No. 31 (Item: Calgary Regional Partnership). High River:Municipal District of Foothills No. 31, September 8, 2009.

Ibid.

Askew, J. Temperature's Rising, Urban Intensification and the Future of Canadian Cities.Retrieved September 8, 2011 from http://canadianbuildersauarterlv.eom/2010/09/fall-2009:43.

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

Government of Alberta, Municipal Affairs, News Release. Long-range Capital Regionalplanning, cooperation gets underway. Government committed to act on long-standingregional planning issue. Edmonton: Government of Alberta; April 15, 2008.

Ibid.

CBC News Edmonton (March 19, 2009). Capital region mayors approve growth plan.Retrieved September 8, 2011 fromhttp://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/storv/2009/03/19/edm-reainal-paln.html

Ibid.

Alberta Capital Region Governance Review. An Agenda for Action, Alberta Capital RegionGovernance Review, Finai Report. Edmonton: Government of Alberta, Municipal Affairs,December 2000.

Capital Region Integrated Growth Management Plan Project Team. Working Together.Edmonton: Government of Alberta, December, 2007: Letter of Transmittal.

Ibid. 29: Executive Summary: i.

Ibid. 29: Executive Summary: ii.

Ibid. 32.

Ibid. 29: 19.

Ibid. 29: 20.

Ibid. 30.

Ibid.

^ Alberta Assodatrbn of Municipal Districts & Counties43 of 44 2510 Sparfow Orwe AB TSE Phoftfi 17iS0r 865.3639 Fasc r78(BS65Jai;5 Wsb wftw.Mt-ndc.com

70


Province of Alberta. Municipal Government Act, Revised Statutes of Aiberta 2000, ChapterM-26. Division 4, Statutory Pians, intermunicipal Development Pians, 631(1). Edmonton:Alberta Queen's Printer, November 24, 2010: 344.

39

40

41

42

43

44

Lacombe County. Lacombe Intermunicipal Development Plan. Lacombe: Lacombe County,July 2007: 4.

MD Foothills and Town of Okotoks. Joint Planning Agreement. Okotoks: MD Foothills andTown of Okotoks, January 18, 2010: 3.

Rocky View County. The Vantage Point. Calgary: Rocky View County, May/June 2010: 6.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Keenan, R. with Whalen, P. Community Cooperation, Regionai Government Papers, TheUmbreiia of Protection: Regionai Government as the protector and promotor of municipalstrength and autonomy In Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John's: MunicipalitiesNewfoundland and Labrador, April 2010: 48.

Ibid.: 46.

Metro Vancouver Regional Planning Committee. Balancing Local Autonomy and RegionalInterests: Metro Vancouver's Proposed Regional Growth Strategy (Presentation to CalgaryRegional Partnership). Burnaby: City of Burnaby, June 22, 2011: 6.

Ibid.: 15.

45

46

48

49

50

51

Region of Waterloo. Standing Committees, Pianning and Works Committee. RetrievedSeptember 8, 2011 from http://www.reqionofwaterloo.ca/en/index.asp

Region of Peel (1996). Regional Official Plan. Retrieved September 8, 2011 fromhttp://www.peelreqion.ca/plannina/officialplan/index.htm

City-Region Studies Centre, Faculty of Extension, University of Alberta. RegionalGovernance Models - An exploration of structures and criticai practices. Edmonton:University of Alberta, October 26, 2007: 4.

52

Ibid.: 15.

Ibid.: 16.

"Ibid.: 18.

" Corporate Services Department, Legal Division, City of Toronto. Powers of Canadian Cities ■The Legal Framework. Toronto: City of Toronto, June, 2000 (updated October 2001): 4.

A A Alberta Association of Municipal Districts Ss Counties44 of 44 2610 Sparrow* Cftvw AB T9E eWS PhOM 17801055.3639 Pa* nSHW K5.38T6 Wteb wrtw.aanxJc.com

71

Free Press July Circulation Stats

How have we been doing getting your message out to the community?

July as the Free press has been a month of changes. We have transitioned our website to a new hosting provider and platform to offer our advertisers, more options and our users a better experience. We now offer facebook feed advertising within our online editorial content.

Website Traffic Stats

Our website traffic soared last month to an all-time high with 14,171 page views. With global traffic from 1. Canada, 2. United States, 3. Philippines and local traffic from 1. Calgary, 2. Drayton Valley, 3. Edmonton.

Circulation Stats

In July we sent 15,863 emails . With an average 89% open rate.

We distributed 4540 , copies of the print Free Press with a 98% pick up rate in stores

Total July circulation: 20,403

72

Facebook @dvfreepress July facebook reach: 33,218 Average engagement rate: 10% Page likes: 1312 Number of posts: 19

Instagram @dvfreepress Followers: 229 Posts: 29

Thank you for, supporting local and for picking the Free Press as your regional digital and print advertisers of choice. Please share this publication with your sphere and let’s continue to grow this local news source. If you have questions do not hesitate to contact me.

73

BRAZEAU COUNTY UPDATE REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT: 2020 Fire Department June Stats

DATE TO COUNCIL: September 15, 2020

PREPARED BY: Tom Thomson - Fire Chief

UPDATE INFORMATION:

To provide Council with updated information regarding department calls for service, the Fire Service has generated a statistical break down for June 2020 response for service numbers. This information includes the number of incidents responded to, the types of incidents, the incident calls for the Town of Drayton Valley and Brazeau County.

Drayton Valley/Brazeau County Fire Services

2020 June Stats

Fire Calls - 3 Vehicle Fires - 2 Rubbish and Grass Fire - 1

Motor Vehicle Collisions - 7 ATV Collision – 2 (8km down RR 83/ Highway 616 & RR 61) Two Vehicle Collision – 1 (RR 71 & Twp 491) Single Vehicle Collision – 2 (3524 Highway 616/ Highway 620 & RR 91) Single Vehicle vs Pedestrian – 1 (54 Ave Drayton Valley) Single Vehicle vs Wildlife – 1 (Highway 39 & RR 50)

Rescue Calls - 2 Water Rescue - 2

Alarm Calls - 7 Residential Alarm Calls - 4 (No alarms were false) Commercial Alarm - 3

Assist Another Agency - 3 EMS Assists (includes cardiac arrests, lift assist calls, overdose calls, etc.) - 2 RCMP Assist - 1 (EMS & RCMP arrived on scene first for all calls)

74

Miscellaneous Calls - 4 Public Hazard Transformer Arching - 1 Public Hazard Powerline down - 1 Gas Leak - 2 Provincial Motor Vehicle Collisions -4 Provincial Total Calls - 4 Town of Drayton Valley Fire Calls - 1 Motor Vehicle Collision - 1 Rescue Calls - 0 Alarm Calls - 4 Assist Another Agency - 2 Miscellaneous Calls - 2 Town Total Calls - 10 Brazeau County Fire Calls - 2 Motor Vehicle Collisions - 2 Rescue Calls - 2 Alarm Calls - 3 Assist Another Agency - 1 Miscellaneous Calls - 2 County Total Calls - 12

75


SUBJECT: 2020 Fire Department July Stats



UPDATE INFORMATION:

To provide Council with updated information regarding department calls for service, the Fire Service has generated a statistical break down for July 2020 response for service numbers. This information includes the number of incidents responded to, the types of incidents, the incident calls for the Town of Drayton Valley and Brazeau County.


2020 July Stats

Fire Calls - 5 Vehicle Fires - 2 Structure Fires - 2 Rubbish and Grass Fire - 1

Motor Vehicle Collisions - 3 ATV Collision – 1 (Brazeau Dam) Two Vehicle Collision – 1 (50 Avenue & 62 Street Drayton Valley) Single Vehicle vs Wildlife – 1 (4430 Highway 616)

Rescue Calls - 4 Water Rescue - 1 Remote Location - 1 Elevator Rescue - 2

Alarm Calls - 9 Residential Alarm Calls - 5 (No alarms were false) Commercial Alarm - 4

Assist Another Agency - 2 EMS Assists (includes cardiac arrests, lift assist calls, overdose calls, etc.) - 2 (EMS arrived on scene first for 1 call)

76

Miscellaneous Calls - 4 Public Hazard Powerline down - 2 Gas Leak - 2 Provincial Motor Vehicle Collisions -1 Provincial Total Calls - 1 Town of Drayton Valley Fire Calls - 2 Motor Vehicle Collision - 1 Rescue Calls - 2 Alarm Calls - 6 Assist Another Agency - 0 Miscellaneous Calls - 1 Town Total Calls - 12 Brazeau County Fire Calls - 3 Motor Vehicle Collisions - 1 Rescue Calls - 2 Alarm Calls - 3 Assist Another Agency - 2 Miscellaneous Calls - 3 County Total Calls - 14

77


SUBJECT: 2020 Fire Department August Stats



UPDATE INFORMATION:

To provide Council with updated information regarding department calls for service, the Fire Service has generated a statistical break down for August 2020 response for service numbers. This information includes the number of incidents responded to, the types of incidents, the incident calls for the Town of Drayton Valley and Brazeau County.


2020 August Stats

Fire Calls - 5 Vehicle Fires - 2 Structure Fires - 2 Rubbish and Grass Fire - 1

Motor Vehicle Collisions - 4 Single Vehicle Collision - 1 (51 Avenue Drayton Valley) Two Vehicle Collision - 2 (Highway 22 & 50 Street North/ Highway 22 & RR 71) Three Vehicle Collision - 1 (Highway 22 & TWP 494)

Rescue Calls - 2 Water Rescue - 2

Alarm Calls - 16 Residential Alarm Calls - 10 (4 alarms were false) Senior Complex - 1 School- 2 Commercial Alarm - 3

Assist Another Agency - 6 EMS Assists (includes cardiac arrests, lift assist calls, overdose calls, etc.) - 5 RCMP Assist- 1 (EMS & RCMP arrived on scene first for all calls)

78

Miscellaneous Calls - 2 Public Hazard Powerline down - 1 Gas Leak - 1

Provincial Motor Vehicle Collisions - 3 Provincial Total Calls - 3

Town of Drayton Valley Fire Calls - 2 Motor Vehicle Collision - 1 Rescue Calls - 0 Alarm Calls - 13 Assist Another Agency - 3 Miscellaneous Calls - 0 Town Total Calls - 19

Brazeau County Fire Calls - 3 Motor Vehicle Collisions - 0 Rescue Calls - 2 Alarm Calls - 3 Assist Another Agency - 3 Miscellaneous Calls - 2 County Total Calls - 13

79

Brazeau County – Report to Council – Motor Vehicle Collision Follow Up Report Page 1 of 1

BRAZEAU COUNTY


SUBJECT: Motor Vehicle Collision Follow Up Report


PREPARED BY: Tom Thomson ‐ Fire Chief

UPDATE INFORMATION:

As a follow up to questions raised at the June 16th, 2020 Meeting of Council, this report provides Council with information regarding high collision areas within Brazeau County from 2009 to 2019.

Please find the attached report.

80

MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISION FOLLOW UP REPORT The Drayton Valley/Brazeau County Fire Service has prepared this report to answer questions raised at the June 16, 2020 Meeting of Council regarding motor vehicle collisions within the Brazeau County region. The information provided has been gathered from the records management system of the fire service and has not been correlated with records of other agencies. The report consists of information on the motor vehicle collision hot spots within the County from 2009 to 2019. The locations were identified based on the number of collisions in that area. Only locations that identified three or more incidents were recorded. Locations were identified based on the actual collision occurring at or near the intersection. To assist the Council, maps have been included which outline each table below. A map showing all the collisions in the tables below has also been included. Table A. Top 15 Motor Vehicle Collision Locations Within Brazeau County 2009-2019 Collision Location Number of Motor Vehicle Collisions Hwy 22/River Hill Bridge Area 23 Collisions Hwy 22/Hwy 39 20 Collisions Hwy 39/Hwy 20 15 Collisions Hwy 22/Hwy 621Hwy 12 Collisions Hwy 39/RR 52 12 Collisions Hwy 39/Hwy 759 12 Collisions Hwy 22/TWP 494 11 Collisions Hwy 620/Brazeau Dam 9 Collisions Hwy 20/Hwy 616 8 Collisions Hwy 22/TWP 503 8 Collisions Hwy 39/RR 43 8 Collisions Hwy 20/TWP 481 7 Collisions Hwy 39/RR 50 7 Collisions Hwy 39/RR 53 7 Collisions Hwy 621/RR 75 7 Collisions

DRAYTON VALLEY/BRAZEAU COUNTY FIRE SERVICES

Office of the Fire Chief P.O. Box 6685 5120-52 Street Drayton Valley, Alberta Main: (780) 514-2216 T7A-1S1 Fax: (780)514-2244 [email protected] www.draytonvalley.ca

81

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.draytonvalley.ca/

Table B. Locations Identified with 5-6 Motor Vehicle Collisions Within Brazeau County 2009-2019 Collision Location Number of Motor Vehicle Collisions Hwy 22/Hwy 616 6 Collisions Hwy 22/Hwy 620 6 Collisions Hwy 22/Hwy 624 6 Collisions Hwy 39/RR 51 6 Collisions Hwy 39/RR 64 6 Collisions Hwy 620/RR 85 6 Collisions Hwy 620/Lodgepole Entrance 6 Collisions Hwy 22/TWP 502 5 Collisions Hwy 22/TWP 504 5 Collisions Hwy 39/RR 40 5 Collisions Hwy 620/Powerhouse Rd (Between RR 101-102) 5 Collisions Hwy 621/RR 81 5 Collisions Hwy 621/RR 90 5 Collisions C. Table C. Locations Identified with 3-4 Motor Vehicle Collisions Within Brazeau County 2009-2019 Collision Location Number of Motor Vehicle Collisions Hwy 20/TWP 474 4 Collisions Hwy 22/RR 73 4 Collisions Hwy 22/TWP 490 4 Collisions Hwy 39/RR 45 4 Collisions Hwy 39/RR 55 4 Collisions Hwy 39/RR 60 4 Collisions Hwy 616/RR 51 4 Collisions Hwy 620/RR 75 4 Collisions Hwy 620/Elk River Rd 4 Collisions Hwy 621/RR 80 4 Collisions Hwy 624/RR 72 4 Collisions Hwy 753/North of Cinthia 4 Collisions Hwy 753/TWP 492 4 Collisions Hwy 759/TWP 500 4 Collisions TWP 493/RR 73 4 Collisions TWP494/RR 73 4 Collisions TWP 495/RR 73 4 Collisions Hwy 20/TWP 470 3 Collisions Hwy 22/RR 70 3 Collisions Hwy 22/RR 71 3 Collisions Hwy 22/TWP 482 3 Collisions Hwy 22/TWP 484 3 Collisions Hwy 39/RR 44 3 Collisions Hwy 39/RR 54 3 Collisions Hwy 616/RR 53 3 Collisions Hwy 616/RR 61 3 Collisions Hwy 620/RR 80 3 Collisions

82

Hwy 620/RR 81 3 Collisions Hwy 621/RR 85 3 Collisions Hwy 621/RR 92 3 Collisions Hwy 621/Hwy 753 3 Collisions Hwy 759/TWP 502 3 Collisions

Summary The largest number of collisions within the County primarily occur on Provincial Highways which garners the highest volume of traffic. Highway 22 around the bridge shows the highest volume of collisions followed by the intersections on Highways 22 and 39 and Highways 39 and 20.

83

84

85

86

87

September 10, 2020

Mr. Allan Taylor Via e-mail

Dear Mr. Taylor,

COST OF REPAIRS ON TWP 474 FROM RR 53 TO RR 54

I am writing to respond to your request for information at the Sept. 2 Council meeting on the cost of repairing the damaged culvert crossings on TWP 474 between RR 53 and RR 54.

The estimated cost is $67,385.00. The cost estimate includes work to repair the inlet and outlet side slopes of two centerline crossings. Work will be done to alleviate the issue and to insure the stability of the bank. Heavy Rip-Rap is going to be installed to armour the inlet and outlets of both crossings. Damaged soil will be removed and re-compacted and the guardrails will be fixed. As the creek crossings are fish-bearing, de-watering of the work zone and particle testing and clarity monitoring will also take place.

Please do not hesitate to call me at 780-542-0999 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Bart Guyon Reeve, Brazeau County

88

Brazeau County – Report to Council – 2020 Construction Projects Update Page 1 of 10

BRAZEAU COUNTY


SUBJECT: 2020 Construction Projects Update


PREPARED BY: Adam Saltesz, Project Manager, Public Works

Zimran Khokhar, Project Manager, Public Works

Lynden Fischer, Director, Public Works

UPDATE INFORMATION:

For Council’s information Administration has prepared this update report on the progress of 2020

construction projects thus far.

Projects are grouped categorically as follows:

Contract Roads – Carry-Over from 2019;

Contract Utilities – Carry-Over from 2019;

Contract Roads – 2020 Approved;

In-House Roads – 2020 Approved;

SB-90 – 2020 Approved; and

2020 Culvert and Slide Projects.

89


Contract Roads – Carry-over from 2019

Range Road 83 from Highway 620 to Township Road 480 (AS) – Complete

Detailed Design, Tender Package, Land Acquisition and Environmental Approvals have been

completed by the consultant. All agreements and pipeline crossing approvals are in place and the

project is ready to tender.

County Administration has reviewed and accepted the Construction Tender Document, which

will be advertised for bidding on January 30th, 2020 and will close on February 20, 2020. The project

will utilize in-house construction forces to complete brushing/mulching activities in February 2020 to

lower costs, eliminate concerns with the Migratory Bird Act, and avoid potential scheduling conflicts

with Power Line relocations. Tree clearing will commence the week of February 3rd.

The in-house construction crew completed the required tree clearing for the project. The

tender closed on Thursday February 20th, 2020 with the contract being awarded to Crow Enterprises.

Pre-Construction meeting and project schedule to be determined.

The contractor is working on securing borrow agreements with landowners, being cautious with

the current pandemic. The pre-construction meeting is being held on May 5, 2020 with the contractor

scheduling the start of construction for May 19, 2020.

Construction began with the installation of temporary fencing, borrow pit preparation, utility

locates, hydrovac work, and additional mulching to clear the road allowance. The contractor will be

building this road in 300 meter sections, reducing the need for dust control and localizing traffic

impacts.

FORTIS relocation work is complete. Construction work is running on schedule, on budget, and

within defined scope. The project is roughly 50% completed and expected to reach full completion by

mid to late August 2020 (weather dependent).

The road base is complete for the entire project. The construction crew is working on final

graveling, ditch profiling, and final cleanup activities. Expected completion the week of August 24,

2020 (weather dependent).

The final inspection was carried out on August 27, 2020 and the project was accepted as

complete.

Township Road 484 from Range Road 54 to Range Road 60 (AS) - Complete

The construction contract was awarded to Howitt Construction Ltd. on May 28th, 2019, with

construction commencing on September 4, 2019.

The contractor has incurred 35 site occupancy days in 2019 (out of 65 total days bid), and has

completed 55% of contract quantities to date.

The project is in winter shutdown until May 1st, 2020, however, the contractor has expressed

intent to mobilize to site as soon as weather/frost conditions permit.

The spring startup meeting and mobilization of construction equipment took place on April 28,

2020, with work commencing the following day.

90


The contractor is continuing to work on the subgrade prep and fine tuning the grades

throughout the project. It is estimated that this project will be complete in 20 working days, expected

to be the end of June (weather dependent).

The Contractor is applying the gravel driving surface while finalizing minor subgrade work.

Topsoiling and cleanup of the project has commenced and the project is expected to be fully complete

with the road open by mid to late July 2020 (weather dependent).

AltaLink has relocated the power poles in advance of their scheduled completion date. The final

inspection for the project was carried out on August 6, 2020 with minor deficiencies noted. The

contractor has addressed all deficiencies and demobilized from site. TWP RD 484 is open to the public

and the project is complete.

Cynthia Area 3 Road (AS) – In Progress

The construction contract has been awarded to Parkway Enterprises Ltd. who mobilized to site

on Monday, September 23, 2019 to begin work on Cynthia Area 3.

The base prep work for the various roads within Cynthia are being completed as the

underground infrastructure is removed and replaced. The road paving will be completed at the end of

the project, being towards the end of summer 2020, after all underground work is finalized.

The project is currently in winter shutdown until May 1st, 2020, however, the contractor has

expressed intent to mobilize to site as soon as weather/frost conditions permit.

The spring startup meeting took place on April 24, 2020. Construction equipment was mobilized

to site on April 27, 2020 and work commenced on April 28, 2020 with the installation of temporary

water services to impacted lots.

Some areas have seen the road base completed, with others still requiring excavation to

replace underground infrastructure. The contractor will continue to install underground utilities prior

to working on the driving surfaces, and will maintain access to all lots.

With the completion of underground utilities to the east of HWY 753, the contractor has started

finalizing the subgrade for the road. Work on the roads to the west of HWY 753 will be completed

once the underground infrastructure is replaced in this area. Paving expected to commence in August

2020 (weather dependent).

Subgrade and base work is ongoing throughout Cynthia Area 3. Weather delays pushed paving

work in Cynthia to begin the beginning of September and is expected to take two weeks to complete.

The expected completion date for the project is currently mid to late September 2020 (weather

dependent).

Roadwork is currently underway in Cynthia Area 3, preparing the road base structure for final

paving in late September 2020.

Township Road 502 Piling East of Whitby Hall (ZK) – Complete

Slide repair required in 2019 resulted in the construction of a pile wall, which was installed in

late winter, therefore the replacement of the road top was to be completed in the summer of 2020.

This work includes replacing clay and top soil on the pile walls, roadway slope and the East bound lane

91


as well as final grading and surface graveling. The in-house construction crew has mobilized to site,

and are ready to start the work as soon as the weather permits. This job will approximately take two

(2) weeks to complete and they will move to RGE RD 91A upon completion.

The in-house construction crew completed this project on July 16, 2020. The project was

completed in approx. 4½ working days and there were 10 inclement weather days.

Contract Utilities – Carry-over from 2019

Cynthia Area 3 Water and Sewer (AS) – Complete

The construction contract has been awarded to Parkway Enterprises Ltd. who mobilized to site

on Monday, September 23, 2019 to begin work on Cynthia Area 3.

The underground utility replacement work is approximately 50% completed.

The project is currently in winter shutdown until May 1st, 2020, however, the contractor has

expressed intent to mobilize to site as soon as weather/frost conditions permit.

The spring startup meeting took place on April 24, 2020. Construction equipment was mobilized

to site on April 27, 2020 and work commenced on April 28, 2020 with the installation of temporary

water services to impacted lots.

The contractor is currently working on replacing underground infrastructure within the back

alley between 49th St and 1st St.

All underground utility work to the east of HWY 753 has been completed. Underground utility

replacements on the west side of HWY 753 began on June 29th, 2020 and will be completed mid to

late July 2020 (weather dependent).

Cynthia Area 3 water and sewer main infrastructure replacement is complete, with only service

tie-ins remaining. All underground infrastructure in the hamlet of Cynthia is expected to be complete

by August 20, 2020.

The service tie-ins have been completed for Cynthia Area 3. All pressure testing and water

testing has passed, marking the full completion of all underground infrastructure replacements in

Cynthia.

Floating Treatment Wetland System (ZK) – Phase 2 Scheduled

Data analysis is underway with University of Alberta’s draft report expected to arrive the week

of February 3rd, 2020 sometime. Administration is hoping to have an update report to Council as soon

as the reports are received from both parties.

On February 14th, 2020 University of Alberta’s report was finalized and Covey Associates is

preparing the overall project report.

Administration is hoping to bring a presentation to Council on April 7th, 2020. The presentation

will be delivered via live stream by Dr. Chris Walker (Covey Associates), Dr. Terry Lucke (University of

the Sunshine Coast), and Dr. Mohamed Gamal El-Din (University of Alberta).

The overall project report has been finalized. The presentation to Council has been rescheduled

to June 2nd, 2020, delivered via web-stream by the same presenters as previously planned.

92


The confirmation of funding letter received on June 29, 2020 regarding the Alberta Municipal

Water/Wastewater Partnership (AMWWP) grant, will be utilized to fund the phase 2 expansion

portion of the pilot project. The funding is proposed to also be utilized to expand the Cynthia lagoon,

and upgrade the Cynthia Solar Aquatic Facility with a Membrane Filtration System. Administration

received email confirmation of the revised funding allocation from Mr. Will Weizenbach

(Infrastructure Engineer, Alberta Transportation).

Contract Roads – 2020 Approved

Bridge Culvert Washout BF75138 at Township Road 502 and Range Road 84 (ZK) – Completed

A consultant had been successfully engaged for the project in August of 2019. The Preliminary

Design Summary has been finalized and the draft tender is expected by Mid-February.

The revised draft tender was received and reviewed on February 12th, 2020. The Consultant is

working on finalizing the tender to have it advertised in Mid-March.

The construction tender closed on March 26th, 2020, the lowest compliant bidder, Prairie

Mountain Oilfield Construction Inc. has signed a contract that will be executed by Administration upon

receipt.

Brazeau County has entered into a construction contract with Prairie Mountain Oilfield

Construction Inc. The project is in Restricted Activity Period until June 30th, the next step is a pre-

construction meeting with the contractor and consultant, prior to the start of construction.

Preconstruction meeting was held virtually on June 26th, 2020 between the contractor,

consultant and the County. The work is scheduled to start July 7th given the Alberta Lands Officer from

Alberta Environment and Parks issues the Temporary Field Authorization for working on the Crown ¼

section NW-9-50-8-W5M. TWP RD 502 from RGE RD 84 to the Campground Access will be closed for

the duration of construction. Appropriate notifications will be published through the communications

department.

Prairie Mountain began construction on July 20, 2020. The project is approximately 45%

complete to date. The culvert fabrication inspection was conducted on July 22, 2020, the on-site

culvert assembly was fully completed as of August 2, 2020. Remaining work includes backfilling, road

reconstruction, and concrete end treatment. The contractor has utilized 16 site occupancy days out of

26, as of August 7, 2020.

Construction is complete as of September 5, 2020 and the road has been opened back up to

the public. Final inspection of construction is being scheduled and is expected to take place by

September 15th.

93


Poplar Ridge Overlay – 52, 54, 56 Avenues, 64 and 64A Street (AS) - Complete

The consultant for this project is currently working on the design for the overlay in Poplar

Ridge.

It is expected that the design will be completed and a tender issued for administrations review

by the end of February 2020, with a contractor being selected by the end of March 2020.

The construction contract has been awarded to E Construction, A Division of N.P.A. Ltd. The

contractor has tentatively scheduled this project to start June 1st, 2020 and complete by June 20th,

2020. Pre-Construction meeting date and final project schedule to be determined.

Pre-construction work is ongoing by the contractor, pre-construction meeting to be

determined.

The contractor mobilized to the project site on June 20, 2020, with work commencing on June

22, 2020. The first lift of asphalt (30mm) has been completed with the final lift (50mm) waiting on

approach paving, emergency access finalization, and repairs to the road base. Expected project

completion date of mid-July 2020 (weather dependent).

All paving work and construction of the emergency access and security gate to the poplar ridge

mobile home park is complete. A final inspection was carried out on July 10, 2020 with minor

deficiencies noted. The contractor has repaired all deficiencies and the project is complete.

Rocky Rapids Transfer Station Retaining Wall (AS) – In Progress

Preliminary and detailed design work is complete for the replacement retaining wall. The

tender was advertised on July 20, 2020 and closed on August 7, 2020 with bid results falling within

budget. The project schedule is on track with an expected completion date of October 15, 2020.

Construction has begun on the retaining wall with the removal of the roof structure and old

asphalt pad. Garbage collection at the site is still functioning well while construction works are

ongoing.

Range Road 65 from Township Road 494 to Township Road 500 (AS) – Scheduled

Engineering work for this project is underway with landowner contacts for permission to survey

and complete environmental assessments. Conceptual design work is hoped to be completed by the

end of August 2020, with detailed design expected to be finalized mid-November, 2020.

Conceptual design is still in progress, detailed design remains on target for November. Preliminary

survey, wetland and water course assessments are currently underway.

94


In-House Roads – 2020 Approved

Range Road 91 from Highway 621 to ¼ Section NW-36-49-09-W5M (ZK) – In-Progress

Administration is in consultations with the local lands officer from Alberta Public Lands in order

to satisfy all the conditions, prior to receiving approval. The roadway disposition approval has been

ongoing since the first quarter of 2019.

As of February 18th, 2020 the roadway disposition has been approval and received by

Administration. The in-house crew is planning to have tree clearing completed before the end of

March, well before the bird nesting season which begins Late-April.

Administration is working with Alberta Transportation to obtain a Roadside Development

Permit, for the construction of the new road intersection at the junction of the Highway 621. The in-

house crew has completed the necessary right-of-way clearing.

Alberta Transportation has issued the Roadside Development Permit, a Request for Quotation

(RFQ) is scheduled to close on May 26th for the construction (pavement) of the new intersection at

HWY 621 and RR91A. This project is second on the list for 2020 in-house construction.

In-House construction will be mobilizing upon completing the backfill work required on

Township Road 502 Piling East of Whitby Hall. Estimated timeline would be mid-July (weather

dependant).

Construction commenced on July 21, 2020, the project is about 75% complete as of August 11,

2020 and there have been 9½ working days with 4½ inclement weather days.

In-house portion of the scope has been completed as of August 19, 2020 with total 15

working days and 6 inclement weather days. The contractor is expected to begin the intersection

construction early October, 2020.

Township Road 495A 1 km West of Range Road 90 (ZK) – Completed

Administration is working on preliminary design review and planning to mobilize to site in order

to conduct any tree clearing that might be required. Landowner discussions are also underway to

purchase the right-of-way in order to move the road south of the embankment failure site.

The landowner has given a written email approval for selling portion of their land required for

roadway construction, administration is working with the landowner to get an agreement signed and

executed. The in-house crew has completed the necessary right-of-way clearing.

The landowner has signed the purchase agreement, the new right-of-way has been surveyed

and marked. This project is first on the list for 2020 in-house construction.

Construction on the project commenced on June 2nd, 2020 and the project is essentially

complete, open to traffic. The road requires a final lift of gravel which will be placed as soon as

weather permits.

The project has been completed as of June 23, 2020. There were a total of 10½ working days

and 5½ inclement weather days.

95


Range Road 81 from Township Road 504 to Township Road 502 (ZK) – In-Progress

Administration has had a meeting with the consultant on January 9th, 2020 to discuss the

design/construction plan of the project. Consultant and the in-house construction crew will work as a

team to carry out this project, with the consultant working in support capacity to conduct the design,

approvals, and construction guidance if needed.

Landowner discussions are forthcoming for widening the right-of-way as well as a possible dug-

out site. Crews were out the week of Jan 27-31, probing the muskeg to determine depths.

Land acquisition, environmental permitting, and detailed design underway. Tree clearing by in-

house crews to be completed after RR91 clearing.

Land acquisition, utility locates (pipelines), detailed design, and mulching for the project is

complete. The Consultant is finalizing environmental permits and utility crossing approvals, while

administration is working to secure borrow material for construction.

Environmental permitting/Wetland Compensation work ongoing.

Environmental permitting (Water Act) has been approved for the project location and scope of

work. Wetland approvals & compensation work ongoing.

The wetland compensation for the project has been submitted to the Government of Alberta as

of August 7, 2020, hence the wetland approval is imminent. Project consultant is continuing to work

on the Roadway Disposition from Alberta Environment and Parks. The fencing contractor is awaiting

on the muskeg to freeze in order to commence work.

The in-house crew mobilized to site on September 8, 2020 with construction commencing on

September 9, 2020. Borrow Pit agreement has been executed and borrow striping work has begun.

SB-90 – 2020 Approved

For the 2020 summer season, Administration is planning to continue with last year’s SB-90

application starting Mid-June (weather permitting). Administration has been speaking with Council to

confirm locations, a finalized list will be send out by May 29th.

Shoulder work currently underway on the following and maintenance is awaiting on dry

weather to begin the application process:

TWP RD 500 East of Rocky Rapids

Range Road 85 (HWY 620 to TWP RD 482)

TWP RD 500 West of RGE RD 52

Road base preparation on TWP RD 480A from RGE RD 42 to Breton is underway. The

maintenance crew has been working on the repairs of previously applied SB-90 roads, including

repairs to potholes on Range Roads 91 and 92. Residential dust control was completed on August 11,

2020 and application of SB-90 will be commencing shortly.

SB-90 application on the remaining 800 meter portion of TWP RD 500 (RR71 to RR72) is

completed as of August 18, 2020, RGE RD 85 (HWY 620 to TWP 482) is completed as of August 19,

96


TWP RD 480A (RR42 to Breton) is complete as of September 4 and TWP RD 500 (West of RR52) and

Eastview Heights II is scheduled for the week of September 8th (weather dependent).

2020 Culvert and Slide Projects

Range Road 65 Slide near Township Road 500 (DC) – Completed

Due to heavy rain in late May this year, a slide was noticed with significant damage to the

centerline culvert, 1000mm in diameter and 50m in length. The job is currently expected to go out for

quotation within the next week. Contingent on the contractor’s timeline the work could begin as early

as the end of July.

Our In-house crew was utilized to perform this slide repair as oppose to contracting the work

out. The repair commenced on July 17, 2020 and was completed on July 20, 2020.

Township Road 474 Shoulder Repair near Range Road 54 (ZK) – In-Progress

Shoulders requiring repairs are at the centerline culvert crossing near Range Road 54. This creek

crossing is currently under a restricted activity period from Alberta Environment and Parks until July

1st, 2020. Hence the contractor (Crow Enterprises) is scheduled to perform the repairs as the timeline

allows.

Crow Enterprises is expected to start this project next as they complete the work for RR83

capital project.

The repair work commenced on September 1, 2020, the site got rained out September 6-7,

hence work will commence as soon as the site dries up. The anticipated completion of September

18th (weather dependent).

Range Road 53 Culvert Replacement and Extensions (ZK) – Scheduled

The 1400mm diameter centerline culvert crossing has been damaged extensively at the outlet

and requires replacement. Furthermore, there are about five (5) culvert crossings that require work.

The project is currently under the permitting and design phase and depending on the results for

permitting, the request for quotations could be released in about a month.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans review was received on July 9, 2020. As of July 30, 2020,

land acquisition has been completed and agreements signed with all applicable landowners. The

Temporary Field Authorization from Crown is pending submission. Request for Quotation is expected

to be out by the end of August.

Invitational request for quotation closed on September 1, 2020 and is awarded, work to

commence the week of September 14th.

Range Road 52 Culvert Replacement North of Highway 39 (ZK) – Scheduled

The centerline culvert crossing consisting of an 800mm diameter and 43m long Corrugated

Steel Pipe (CSP) approximately 200m north of the junction of Highway 39 and RGE RD 52, has been

97


damaged. Administration has successfully awarded the job to In-Line Contracting for the replacement

of this culvert with a 42inch diameter, 43m long Smooth Wall Steel Pipe using a push method.

Awaiting In-Line Contracting to mobilize and commence work.

Range Road 71 Slide South of Highway 22 (ZK) – In-Progress

Administration had been monitoring and patching this slide for a few years, however this year

the settlement was so extreme that patching is no more an option due to the risk of losing the road. As

a result, a geotechnical consultant was engaged and a tender was published on June 17th and is set to

close on July 7th, 2020. The construction completion date set in the tender is August 31st, 2020 for the

installation of a steel pile wall. The south bound lane has been closed for approximately 200 meters at

the bridge culvert crossing. A temporary traffic intersection has been established on both ends for

traffic control measures. Due to a significant risk to the commuters, this lane closure established June

17th, will remain until the road is stabilized and patched.

Greenfield Construction commenced work on July 28, 2020. As of August 5, 2020 the contractor

installed 38 out of 150 piles. Administration temporarily closed the road until the end of construction

operations, as it was deemed unsafe for drivers to safely pass by the pile drilling rig.

The pilling work completed on August 18, 2020 and the pavement repair contractor is

expected to commence work on September 10, 2020.

98

Brazeau County – Report to Council – Updated Policing Support Information Page 1 of 1

BRAZEAU COUNTY


SUBJECT: Updated Policing Support Information


PREPARED BY: Colin Swap, General Manager of Finance

UPDATE INFORMATION:

At the budget workshop on August 17 Council requested a further breakdown of the funding Brazeau County provides for policing support outside our own CPOs. A request was also made to see the approved 2020 budget for CPO services and the job description for our Community Peace Officers.

Administration has compiled the information and it is attached for Council’s information.

99

POLICING COSTS 2020 AND BEYOND

Provincial Policing Costs – Brazeau County Year Payment Date $ Amount Cost per Capita

2020 Jan. 21, 2021 $105,163.00 $14.00

2021 Apr. 21, 2021 $238,029.00 $31.00

2022 Apr. 22, 2022 $370,326.00 $48.00

2023 Apr. 23, 2023 $636,059.00 $82.00

2024 Apr. 24, 2024 $636,059.00 $82.00

Due to COVID-19 the Province deferred payment of the 2020 instalment of the new police costing model until 2021. The deferral means that in the first quarter of 2021 Brazeau County will be required to send $343,192 to the provincial government for payments of the first two years of policing.

For a number of years Brazeau County has been budgeting for enhanced or supportive policing positions to improve service to the community. This is outside the County’s budget for its own CPOs and municipal enforcement.

$396,829 BUDGETED IN 2020 TO SUPPORT POLICING

Funding to RCMP – Additional Patrols and Enhanced Policing Position (GIS Officer)

$232,884

Community School Resource Officer Support for Drayton Valley (cost share with Town of DV and Wild Rose School Division) and Breton (cost share of part-time position with Wild Rose School Division)

$71,128

Administrative Position Support for Drayton Valley RCMP (50% of position cost) and Breton RCMP (100% of position cost)

$92,817

100

2019 BUDGET 2019 ACTUALS 2020 BUDGET 2021 FORECAST 2023 FORECAST

2023 FORECAST2021 FORECAST2020 BUDGET2019 ACTUALS2019 BUDGETCOMMUNITY SERVICES2100 - POLICE ($76,200) ($96,200)300 - Sales to Other Governments $0 $0 $0 $0 $0500 - Licenses, Permits, Penalties & Interest ($76,200) ($114,652) ($96,200) ($96,650) ($97,564)2100 - POLICE ($76,200) ($114,652) ($96,200) ($96,650) ($97,564)

TOTAL POLICE REVENUES ($76,200) ($114,652) ($96,200) ($96,650) ($97,564)

COMMUNITY SERVICES 2019 BUDGET 2019 ACTUALS 2020 BUDGET 2021 FORECAST 2023 FORECAST2100 - POLICE $686,793 $716,138100 - Salaries, Wages and Benefits $237,806 $233,878 $240,598 $237,811 $237,811200 - Contracted and General Services $37,586 $27,420 $56,271 $53,339 $36,188300 - Purchases from Other Governments $288,248 $209,685 $294,013 $299,158 $309,720500 - Materials, Goods, Supplies and Utilities $14,157 $4,066 $14,440 $14,702 $15,231700 - Transfers to $108,997 $93,907 $110,817 $112,616 $116,3102100 - POLICE $686,793 $568,956 $716,138 $717,627 $715,260

TOTAL POLICE EXPENSES $686,793 $568,956 $716,138 $717,627 $715,260

GRAND TOTAL POLICE $610,593 $454,303 $619,938 $620,977 $617,697

$725,550

$628,445

2020 Approved CPO Budget (including transfers to DV and Breton)

$53,930$304,393

$14,969$114,447$725,550

EXPENSES2022 FORECAST

$237,811

$0($97,105)($97,105)

($97,105)

2022 FORECASTREVENUES

2022 FORECAST

*NOTE* Details of transfers to Drayton Valley and Breton are related to administrative positions as shown on the previous sheet.

101

Community Peace Officer Department: Community Services Reports to: Director of Community Services

Position Summary

Reports to and receives assignments from the Director of Community Services. The Municipal Peace

Officer will be required to perform the duties of a Peace officer in so far as carrying out the law

enforcement functions of Brazeau County.

Responsibilities:

Provincially appointed as a Peace Officer under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act as a Dangerous Goods Inspector, under the Forest and Prairie

Protection Act as a Fire Guardian, under the E.P.E.A. and other appointments as determined necessary form time to time

Makes lawful, reasonable and moderate use of the powers afforded the position and maintains a constant awareness of the problems and risks associated with the discretionary use of such powers

Patrol rural highways/communities in order to prevent and detect offences

Enforce County Bylaws and other Statutes as appointed

Apprehending violators, issuing summons and warnings

Respond to enquiries, complaints or requests for assistance from County residents

Enforcement of load restriction orders and monitoring of log haul agreements within the County

Performs all necessary investigation, inspections and reports as required by law

Preparing court briefs and presenting evidence in court

Report to the Public Works Superintendent or his designate any need for traffic control signs on County roads

Maintaining a current status with respect to changes in statutes and regulations in line with the requirements of the position

Schedule his/her own working hours based on a 40 hour week

Arranging with the Director of Public Works deviations in hours of duty that may vary from time to time according to specific situations and for the better that may accrue to the Brazeau County

Review and approve accounts/purchases/expenditures

Advise the Director of Public Works of educational seminars, relative to the position that would enhance skills and expertise in law enforcement agencies

Conduct himself in such a manner that good public relations will be maintained between himself, residents of the County, and other law enforcement agencies

Establishing a strong liaison with all R.C.M.P. detachments and other enforcement agencies whose territories extend into Brazeau County

Assist other law enforcement agencies, as requested, with enforcement activities in the County

Assist in investigating accidents involving County workers and vehicles, or accidents which may pose a liability to the County

Provide input at regular County Safety meetings

Provide other duties as assigned

102

Community Peace Officer Department: Community Services Reports to: Director of Community Services

Qualifications:

Must have attended a Law Enforcement College and/or the Alberta Justices/Cst. Training Program and/or Police Training

Minimum of (1) one year experience

Must be eligible for Provincial S/Constable appointment under Police Act, Firearms Training, Radar Operation, Dangerous Goods Inspection, Level C First Aid, and CPR

Sound knowledge and practical understanding of skills required for the position

Courteous and tactful when dealing with others

Maintains a high standard of dress and deportment

Punctual and alert for each shift

Good character

Able to meet the physical demands and rigor of the position

Willing to receive additional and ongoing training and education

Willing to give a reasonable amount of extra time and effort as required, and is loyal to the citizens of the County

103

Date post:	14-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Brazeau County fosters RURAL VALUES, INNOVATION, … · 2020. 9. 11. · GOALS 1) Brazeau County...

Documents