Letter to Council

Marianne Cole, President Clearwater County Taxpayers’ Association RR #1 Rocky Mtn. House, AB T4T 2A1 mcmajic@telus.net

Mr. Daryl Lougheed, Reeve Clearwater County Box 550 Rocky Mtn. House, AB T4T 1A4 dlougheed@clearwatercounty.ca December 13, 2022

Dear Reeve Lougheed and County Councillors:

I am writing this letter on behalf of the Clearwater County Taxpayers’ Association as a supplement to my earlier letter of November 15, 2022. We feel it is very important that the points noted here be addressed at the December 20, 2022 County Council meeting as you consider First Reading of the Municipal Development Plan draft.

Facts to Consider

· 78% of the people who responded to the county’s survey were in favor of only 1 subdivision out of a quarter.

· 64% were opposed to two parcels out.

· The majority of comments expressed during meetings opposed extra subdivisions, with a focus on potential negative impacts on agricultural operations as well as community services.

· Serious concerns were expressed over the potential loss of food producing land.

· Our current MDP allows only 1 subdivision per quarter with 5 acres maximum size.

· The proposed MDP draft would allow 2 subdivisions with a total of 15 acres out. That is three times the current allowable land to be removed from a quarter.

· A “recommendation” from administration (as per the What We Heard Report) suggests a maximum of 25 subdivisions be allowed per year. Apparently Council is proposing only 20 be allowed.

· If the number and size (as per the current MDP) were to be maintained, a total of only 100 acres (5 x 20) could be removed from potentially farmable land per year.

· BUT, if the proposed numbers are used (15 acres x 20 subdivisions) 300 acres could be removed each year. Multiply that times the 4 years this plan could be in effect and 1200 acres of productive land could be lost.

Responsibility to Constituents

According to the Municipal Government Act, Section 153, “Councillors have the following duties: (a) to consider the welfare and interests of the municipality as a whole..” This would suggest that you consider the majority of opinion. It is important to note:

· During the review process Council supported various opportunities to gather public opinion, namely in-person town hall meetings, virtual on-line meetings, and a written survey.

· Throughout all of these activities the most common opinion expressed was opposition to an increase in number of subdivisions (along with the allowable size) out of a quarter.

· Rationale supporting that opposition focussed on:

Ø Negative impact on agricultural operations, the primary activity in our county

Ø The loss of valuable food producing land

Ø Concern with negative impact on community services such as road maintenance, school bus safety, and emergency services.

· All of the public engagement activities involved significant costs for hall rentals, consultant wages, staff time, advertising and miscellaneous expenses.

· As these expenses were funded by taxpayer dollars, it is crucial that their voices be heard. If you ignore the majority of public opinion expressed through the above activities, you have not only wasted money, but devalued the input of the very people who placed their confidence in you during the past election.

Questionable Responses

Throughout this whole review process we have heard comments and responses from not only the public but also administration and Council. Some of these have raised the following questions/concerns:

· There is a desire to have more acreages allowed for family members/estate planning. While this may be considered a cooperative action, it was not a majority issue. Furthermore, it is not the County’s duty to be involved with estate planning. That is a personal responsibility to be addressed throughout life.

· We have heard comments from Council that the CCTA is only a small group and does not represent the majority. First of all we generally sell 25-30 memberships per year. There are usually 15-20 people attending every meeting and there are currently 59 on our email list. As such these numbers are greater than any county committee involved in making decisions for the county. Furthermore, our members come from all areas of the county. They are involved in those areas and hear very valuable comments from their neighbors. Consequently, the comments that we make are representative of a large number of county residents.

· We have also heard comments negating the value of farmland in our county. While we may not have a large amount of profitable grain producing land we are well known for our forage production and very valuable grazing opportunities. People from all over central Alberta bring their cattle out here for summer pasture.

· While there seems to be an increasing concern elsewhere with the loss of food producing land, this does not seem to be a matter of consideration by our administration or potentially Council as well. Food is one of the necessities of life and every effort should be taken to ensure

adequate future supply. It would be great to have our county value this need as much as neighboring jurisdictions along with those promoting RAMP (the Regional Agricultural Management Plan) in the Edmonton area.

· We have also heard the financial argument used to promote the need for increased taxes gathered from acreages. While the financial outlook in this county did take a brief downturn, there has been a positive upsurge in the oil industry that will have positive impacts into the future. In addition, as of October 31, 2022 revenues for 2022 were $2,237,397 over budget. I also remind you of the very large amount of taxpayer dollars that are sitting in restricted reserves.

· Finally, we have repeatedly heard the comment from administration that “we get many inquiries for more acreages and bigger sizes.” This is a moot point as they are not going to hear opposing wishes on a daily basis. People are not going to walk into the county office to merely express an opinion about limiting acreage numbers or sizes. The only ones that would come in would be the ones that want something and they are certainly not in the majority.

Potential Action

At this December 20, 2022 County Council meeting you are provided with the opportunity for 3 possible actions:

· You may pass the current draft as presented. This would demonstrate publicly a distinct lack of value placed on the majority of opinions gathered during the process you promoted to guide you.

ü You may pass the current draft with amendments. We strongly suggest that you amend the sections dealing with subdivisions out of a quarter, reducing the number to 1 and the size to 5. Your survey results indicated 78% support for such amendments.

· You may defeat the motion to pass this current MDP draft completely but this would not be a positive move as it could result in significant delay and additional cost.

In conclusion we sincerely ask that Council pass amendments to the current Municipal Development Plan draft as noted above. These changes could be accomplished effectively, efficiently, and responsibly prior to 2nd Reading.

As you make your decision we trust that your dedication to the majority of your electorate will ultimately override personal opinions or desires, but reflect the true voice of the people.

Yours truly,

Marianne Cole

Cc: Deputy Reeve Mehlhaff, Councillors Graham, Northcott, Ratcliffe, Cermak, and Swanson, CAO Rick Emmons, and Executive Assistant Tracy Lynn Haight.

IN THE NEWS

By Marianne Cole

Reeve Returns with New Deputy Reeve 

In a two-person contest against Michelle Swanson, Daryl Lougheed was re-elected as Reeve for a second one year term at the Clearwater County Organizational meeting on Tuesday, October 25, 2022. Following his swearing in Reeve Lougheed commented that accepting the position is “less about politics and more about service.” We certainly thank him for his dedicated efforts in that regard.

Subsequently, in another two person contest Gennifer Mehlhafff defeated Bryan Cermak to become our new Deputy Reeve. Newly elected as councillor for Division 1 (south-west of Rocky) in 2020, Deputy Reeve Mehlhaff has been a tireless worker on behalf of all county residents and we congratulate her on her new position as Deputy Reeve.

2021 Audited Financial Statements

The 2021 Audited Financial Statements were finally presented at Council’s October 25, 2022 meeting. Normally presented in late April/early May they were delayed this year due to complications with the dissolution of the Rocky Municipal Waste Authority (a former joint operation with the town of Rocky and Village of Caroline). Notable financial highlights were:

· An increase of $268,792 in revenue from 2020 to 2021

· An annual surplus of $2,717,854 in 2021

· An accumulated “Restricted Surplus” of $109,198,656. These monies are dedicated to 24 specific areas/departments of operation and may be accessed when necessary for over-budget costs incurred there. The 2021 total is down $4.7million from 2020 but is still a significantly large surplus.

· Salaries, wages, and benefit expenses increased $1,358,513 or 9.8% from 2020 to 2021.

Comments made by both county staff and the auditor suggested the county is in a strong financial position. Significant money was collected in concerning unpaid taxes and the Nordegg lots have been selling very well. Maybe with such strong reserves and good financial position, we can look forward to reduced municipal taxes as the 2023 budget is prepared/passed.

MDP Review 

In recent conversation with the county’s Planning Department it was noted that a summary of “What We’ve Heard” is being prepared and discussed with Council. A meeting on the matter was held Wednesday, October 26, 2022 and there is an up-coming meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 3, 2022. Unfortunately these meetings are not being videoed.

Following these meetings a summary of information will be presented publicly. We will keep our fingers crossed that the re-draft of the MDP is reflective of the voice of the people.

Up-Coming AGM 

The Clearwater County Taxpayers’ Association Annual General Meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 7:30PM at the Arbutus Community Hall. Special guest speakers will be RCMP Staff Sgt. Carl Dinsdale and RCMP Cst. Harold Smits. We sincerely welcome them and invite everyone to come and hear information on rural crime concerns and future policing matters.

Coming Events 

Wednesday, November 9, 2022, 7:30PM, Arbutus Community Hall, Annual General Meeting with guest speakers from the RCMP

Wednesday, January 11, 2023, 7:30PM, Arbutus Community Hall, Regular Meeting

Thoughts for November: “There can be no dedication to Canada’s future without a knowledge of its past” John Diefenbaker

“A hero is someone who has given his or her life to something bigger than oneself.” John Campbell

IN THE NEWS

By Marianne Cole

Broadband Information

Broadband Survey: A survey set up to gather public opinion on the county’s Broadband Business Plan was available on-line earlier this summer and closed July 18, 2022. Unfortunately there were only 43 responses. Of those, 36 expressed a negative viewpoint on the plan, while only 7 had a positive opinion.

Basically the Plan lays out a 6 phase process to install a fibre optic backbone network throughout the county. Once installed, individual Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) could connect to this “framework” as they proceed further to install services to the homes.

The biggest concerns focussed on questionable returns on investment as it is difficult to assess what the response/usage of the system might be from ISP’s.

A Broadband Committee Meeting, involving all of Council minus Councillor Ratcliffe, was held on September 20, 2022. It featured a well-prepared presentation by the County’s Tech Department on an “Open Access” network operation. Basically, “An open Access network is open to be used by multiple service providers simultaneously and on equal terms, enabling choices for customers.” The OAN may be compared to a road system. A network owner (the county) builds and maintains the “road” and any user (ISP’s) would then pay a “toll fee”. While profits from investment may be questionable, especially in rural areas, it does help create a more attractive community for residents and businesses through the availability of improved broadband access.

Great discussion took place among councillors with some of the following comments highlighted:

· A need to get more information out to the public about the potential benefits/risks involved with the Broadband Plans and encourage public engagement in the process.

· Estimated cost of the work on the backbone project Capital budget for 2023 is $3.5M.

· Core backbone work out to Nordegg is now complete and there is interest by ISP’s to complete hook-up to the residences.

· Continuing questions about the necessity of installing fibre optic cable all the way to Olds.

Council has asked for more information on the project and another meeting is planned to discuss broadband issues and plans. It may be helpful to discuss this matter with your councillor and urge that in-person information meetings be held.

Agricultural Recreation Facility 

The development of an Ag. Rec. Facility was discussed at the September 27, 2022 Council meeting. This project had previously been discussed in 2015. At that time 2 phases were presented: Phase 1 would include the “development of a new indoor agricultural recreation facility (indoor riding arena) to meet basic community program and event need.” Phase 2 would include the “Addition of a banquet/exhibition facility in order to increase the event hosting capacity of the site and better meet community need. Existing indoor riding arena (Phase 1 development) also enhanced with additional amenities (e.g. increased spectator seating, box stalls).”

At that time various stakeholder groups (4-H clubs, Ag. Society, Stampede and Chuckwagon Associations, Gymkhana, Town of Rocky, and Chamber of Commerce) had been surveyed to gather opinions on the project. Information from the survey suggested that, “While the majority of participants were generally in favour of developing a new agricultural recreation facility, a number of important factors and considerations were shared with regards to operational models, facility components and amenities and the need for continued stakeholder engagement and involvement.”

At that time the anticipated capital costs for Phase 1 were $12,031,500 and for Phase 2 were $10,071,000. Operational costs for Phase 1 indicated a revenue versus expenses deficit of $129,800/year while Phase 2 projected a deficit of $63,150.

Certainly costs for both capital and operations have risen significantly in the last 7 years. Excellent discussion by Council on this matter took place, including a desire to gather input from all county residents and a strong need for more current information on financial aspects of the project.

MDP Review 

Planning has been working to summarize comments and input gathered at the various meetings held in August and emails sent in. On September 29, 2022 Council held a closed information meeting to hear a presentation from the Consultant and Planning on, “What we have Heard”. A summary of those comments, along with possible changes to the Municipal Development Plan will, hopefully, be available early in October. A “final” draft may be released in November and it is anticipated that a special Public Hearing on the document may be held in January.

Coming Events:

Wednesday, October 12, 2022, 7:30PM, Arbutus Community Hall, regular monthly meeting 

Wednesday, November 9, 2022, 7:30PM, Arbutus Community Hall, ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

Thanksgiving Thought: “You ought to be thankful a whole heaping lot, for the places and people you’re lucky you’re not.” Dr. Seuss.

IN THE NEWS

By Marianne Cole

MDP REVIEW 

The Municipal Development Plan review’s public input activities are wrapping up. So far 7 in-person meetings and 2 virtual (on-line) meetings have been held. People have also had the opportunity to fill in a survey that was printed in the Western Star and the Mountaineer as well as being available on the County’s website. Paper copies were also available at the meetings. Opportunity for input wrapped up on August 19, 2022.

The most contentious issue has been the proposed change to allow 2 subdivisions (3 titles) per quarter with the potential for a 3rd subdivision (4th title). The maximum size for a subdivision on a quarter is up to 20 acres (currently 5 acres). This may be from one 20 acre parcel or other small ones totally up to 20 acres. (Currently we allow one parcel out at a maximum size of 5 acres along with the possibility of a fragmented parcel being subdivided.)

Throughout the meetings (most notably the larger attended in-person ones at Leslieville and Caroline) the majority of the people were strongly opposed to the extra subdivisions per quarter. The following comments were expressed:

Significant concern over the loss of valuable farmland. This was the Number 1 concern overall.

 Increasing difficulty for young farmers to remain viable or expand

Increased problems between acreage owners and farmers

Increased weed problems on acreages and the spread to adjoining farms

Extra cost of providing infrastructure services with increased subdivisions

Concern over impact on bus routes with increased stops and more approaches with more acreages

Concern over impact on increased demands on first responders

Concern with increased crime

Concerns with water and sewer issues with increased acreages

Concerns with dropping fragmentation as a possible subdivision opportunity

Those supporting increased subdivisions wanted them basically for personal reasons (estate planning and financial gain). They also thought it might bring in more tax dollars for the county but the concerns with various increased costs as noted above put a negative spin on that.

What our neighbors are doing with subdivisions

Brazeau County: 4 titles per quarter (3 subdivisions) and they will consider a fragmented parcel if the resulting subdivision doesn’t exceed 4 titles.

Wetaskiwin County: “Subdivision of an unsubdivided quarter is discouraged.” (Quote from their MDP.) A parcel of land may be subdivided to create a farm site or two 80 acres parcels. No more than one subdivided lot per quarter and the maximum parcel size is 5 acres.

Ponoka County: Depending on the land quality rating, a single residential lot may be subdivided and fragmented/segregated parcels are allowed.

Lacombe County: “There is no automatic right to subdivide.” The subdivision of a first parcel out of an unsubdivided quarter may be considered if the habitable permanent residence has been there for 5 years or more and the parcel is not greater than 4 acres (unless there are shelterbelts and outbuildings). Fragmented parcels are allowed but must not result in more than 3 titles.

Red Deer County: A maximum of one agricultural parcel out of a subdivided quarter (2 titles) is allowed if a farmstead, severance, or valued added agricultural operation. “The approval of a bare agricultural parcel subdivision will be entirely a discretionary decision on the part of the subdivision authority.” In that case the subdivision authority would be Red Deer County. Parcel size would be according to the Land Use Bylaw.

Mountain View County: The first parcel out of a previously unsubdivided quarter may only be supported by the County for the creation of one additional parcel subject to a re-designation and subdivision application, and provisions of the LUB and MDP. It has 2 categories of assessing the number of subdivisions/titles allowed: Agricultural Preservation Area: The maximum number of titles per quarter is 2 and with a farmstead separation the allowable size is 2 – 9 acres. Multi-lot Residential Areas allow up to 4 titles per quarter with sizes varying from 2 to 5 acres.

Where do we go from here??

Step 1. All comments received/heard at the meetings will be reviewed and a report prepared by Planning Staff to present to Council.

Step 2. Council will review the report and decide to either proceed with approving the document or make changes.

Step 3. A final draft will be created as is or with changes.

Step 4. A public hearing will be held to present the final draft to the public. Potentially in November.

Step 5. Council will approve or not approve the Municipal Development Plan that has been developed.

Note: Questions were frequently asked about who makes the decisions on the MDP. Administration replied that it is up to Council to approve/not approve the document that is presented. In return, concerns were expressed if Council would actually listen to the people.

Certainly this is a very large issue and, as was mentioned at one of the meetings in Rocky, councillors need to put personal opinions aside and listen to the people. We hope and trust this will happen.

Coming Events:

Wednesday, September 14, 2022, 7:30PM, Arbutus Community Hall, Regular meeting. 

Wednesday, October 12, 2022, 7:30PM, Arbutus Community Hall, Regular meeting.

IN THE NEWS

By Marianne Cole

URGENT NOTICE

The latest Municipal Development Plan draft has been completed and up-coming meetings are planned BUT there has been very little publicity to inform people of what’s happening so we are here to do that.

Noticeable parts of the draft are:

NO CHANGE to the troublesome number of subdivisions out of a quarter. 

The new draft states:

· Section 10.2.1: The maximum number of titled parcels that is allowed to be created in a quarter section designated Agriculture District shall be three (3)…. Any new parcels or titles created shall come out of an un-subdivided quarter section or the largest agricultural parcel within a previously subdivided quarter section.

· Section 10.2.2: Notwithstanding policy 10.2.1, Clearwater County may approve the subdivision of a fourth (4th) title in a quarter section for residential or non-residential use…..

Size of parcels

· Section 10.2.5: For residential parcel in the Agriculture District…that includes all or part of an existing farmstead, the parcel size shall be no less that …2.25 acres and no greater than …7acres…

· Section 10.2.6: For a residential parcel in the Agriculture District…that does not include an existing farmstead, the parcel size shall be no less than…2.25 acres and not greater than…5.00acres.

· Section 10.2.7: For an agricultural small holding parcel within the Agriculture District…the parcel size shall be no less than… 8 acres and no greater than…20acres.

NOTICE OF MEETINGS

1. August 3, 2022: Leslieville Community Centre, Session 1: 3:00PM – 4:30PM; Session 2: 7:00PM –8:30PM

2. August 4, 2022: Virtual/zoom meeting, 7:00PM – 8:30PM

3. August 6, 2022: Nordegg Public Services Building, 2:00PM – 3:30PM

4. August 10,2022: Lou Soppit Centre, Rocky Mountain House, 3:00PM – 4:30PM; 7:00PM – 8:30PM

5. August 11, 2022: Caroline Community Hub, 3:00PM – 4:30PM; 7:00PM – 8:30PM

CONCERNS

Lack of publicity. As of today, July 26, 2022 the only information about the draft of the MDP and the up-coming meetings has been on the County website. While the notice of the meeting is easily seen on the website, finding the copy of the draft is not. One has to check out various links on the menu before actually finding the draft of the document. This is very frustrating and time consuming, especially for people that are not tech savy. Furthermore there are many county residents, especially our older ones, that do not even have computers. To ignore their opportunity to be informed is absolutely wrong. It was very strongly indicated last year that the most effective way of informing people was through large, eye-catching ads in the Western Star.

Timing of meetings. First of all it is very inconsiderate of the farming sector to have meetings now when they are very busy in the fields trying to get haying/silaging done. Also, other people may be on holidays and unable to attend. Then to have the meetings in the afternoon and evening is another indication of the lack of consideration for the farmers as that is just the time when the hay would be ready for baling, making it impossible to attend. THAT IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE.

This MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN is a very important document and it is crucial that we have the greatest opportunity for input. PLEASE PASS THIS INFORMATION ON TO YOUR FRIENDS. ENCOURAGE THEM, IF POSSIBLE, TO ATTEND THE MEETINGS AS WELL AS CALL THEIR COUNCILLOR WITH THEIR OPINIONS/CONCERNS. TOGETHER WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

Coming Events: Check above schedule for MDP Review Meetings

September 14, 2022, CCTA Regular monthly meeting, 7:30PM, Arbutus Community Hall

IN THE NEWS

By Marianne Cole

New CAO 

At their May 24, 2022 council meeting Clearwater County Council ratified the appointment of Rick Emmons as our Chief Administrative Office (CAO). Following the resignation of our previous CAO Christopher Read in February, Murray Haggan had been the Interim CAO. Rick brings back years of municipal government experience at all levels and had been our highly respected CAO from 2018 – 2021. We certainly welcome him back along with the integrity and dedication he brings to the position.

RAMP Meeting 

At our May 11, 2022 CCTA meeting we hosted John Knapp, a consultant with Parkland County. He gave a very informative presentation on RAMP, the Regional Agricultural Management Plan that had been developed by 13 rural and urban municipalities in the Edmonton area. He began his presentation by giving alarming figures on the distinct increase in food needs, while at the same time, an amazing amount of food producing land is being lost to urban sprawl. He cautioned/advised all rural municipalities to consider protecting such land as they develop their related municipal plans/documents. We hope that this might provide significant “food for thought” as our county moves forward with the Municipal Development Plan review.

MDP Review 

Through recent communication with the Planning Department, we have learned that the Municipal Development Plan is still under review and a request for a copy of the proposed new draft is unavailable. Council and the Planning Department did meet with Parkland Regional Planning consultant Craig Teal on Thursday, May 12, 2022 but that meeting was not open to the public and no information has been provided from it. As for a timeline for public engagement on the matter, it has been hinted that public meetings might take place in July/August with the final document to be approved in November.

The timing of public engagement to be held in July/August is particularly troubling as people are either on holidays or busy in the hayfield. There is absolutely no excuse for this.

Planning could’ve reviewed the comments from last year in the fall, presented a summary to Council in January and then completed a revised draft in February/March. They could have presented this to Council in April and public engagement meetings could’ve been held in May/June.

When will consideration of/value for public opinion become a top priority?? It is the taxpayers of this county that will ultimately be the most affected in every way, and all efforts should be made to provide the greatest opportunity for their input. July/August doesn’t cut it.

Broadband Issues

Following motions passed at the Council meeting on May 24, 2022, the internal problems with broadband issues continue. Up for discussion/decision at that meeting was 3rd reading of a bylaw to establish a Broadband Committee. First of all a motion was made by Councillor Mehlaff to table 3rd reading until the newly appointed CAO, Rick Emmons, could be brought up to speed on the current matter. This motion was defeated 4-3 with Reeve Lougheed and Councillors Mehlaff and Ratcliffe voting in favor while Councillors Graham, Northcott, Cermak, and Swanson opposed the delay.

Councillor Swanson then moved to grant 3rd reading of the proposed bylaw to establish a Broadband Committee. This motion passed 5-2 with Reeve Lougheed and Councillors Graham, Northcott, Cermak, and Swanson in favor; Councillors Mehlaff and Ratcliffe opposed. (Note: There had previously been a Broadband Committee of which all councillors were members, but it had not met for some time and was disbanded earlier this year.)

Following the passing of that motion to establish a Broadband Committee, Councillor Swanson then moved that the Committee members include Reeve Lougheed and Councillors Mehlhaff, Graham, Northcott, Cermak, and Swanson. Councillor Ratcliffe was excluded. This motion passed 5-2 with the same people voting for/against as the motion above. Consequently, in any future discussions/meetings of the Broadband Committee Councillor Ratcliffe will not be involved, and the opportunity for council to hear valuable information on broadband operations will be thwarted.

Furthermore, from this voting pattern, along with the comments/discussion during the meetings it seems there is a real divide on council on broadband issues, a matter that has (and will continue to) cost the county millions of questionable dollars. It seems that there is a distinct reluctance by administration to listen to, or value, input from someone with practical, first-hand knowledge on this subject. To support that reluctance for quality information, questionable rationale is sometimes being put forward to council to “justify” the need for a very pointed Broadband Policy and now an exclusive Broadband Committee. It seems that the majority of council accepts the presented rationale instead of pausing to reflect on MGA guidelines, the integrity of their teammate involved, and the real benefits of hearing proven expertise.

In our efforts to work for the common good of county taxpayers, the CCTA has requested a review of this troublesome situation by the Office of the Ombudsman.

No summer meetings 

As per normal, we will not be holding meetings in July and August but we will try to keep you informed of MDP review happenings with pages in the Western Star if necessary.

Coming Events:

Wednesday, September 14, 2022, 7:30PM, Arbutus Community Hall, regular meeting Wednesday, October 12, 2022, 7:30PM, Arbutus Community Hall, regular meeting.

FUNNY THOUGHT FOR THE SUMMER

1. What did the pig say at the beach on a hot summer’s day??? I’m bacon.

2. Why is a ball game a good place to go on a hot day??? Because there are lots of fans.

3. When do you go on red and stop on green?? When eating a watermelon.

IN THE NEWS

By Marianne Cole

FOIP Reply 

As noted in our March newsletter the CCTA had made a FOIP request to gather information on broadband expenses to date, as well as a proposed business plan. Last week we received a reply with the noted information:

· “…a search…failed to retrieve any records specific to your request for Items 1 to 3”. (1… costs of fibre optic cable installation on the Sundre, Ferrier, and Nordegg backbone projects; 2… cost to install fibre from the County border to Olds; 3… copy of the business plan including capital costs, operating costs, and projected revenues)

· “However being as the County is responsive and compliant with FOIP legislation … the County decided to produce the attached financial reports responsive to Items 1 & 2”.

· “In regard to your request for Item 3, I’m confirming no record exists at this time, as it is currently under development.”

· From the information that was provided a total of $11,636,827.90 has been spent on the broadband backbone projects in Ferrier, out to Nordegg, and towards Caroline, Sundre and Olds.

· Of the above amount, a total of $2,973,956.96 has been spent on POP (Point of Presence) facilities that will house “connection” locations/operations. POP facilities are being set up in Rocky, Ferrier, Nordegg, Caroline, Olds, and Calgary. The information gathered on the size of a facility needed in each location varies from a “small bar-sized fridge type cupboard” to an ATCO sized trailer. The cost to date for the Rocky POP is $1,653,604.01.

There continues to be confusing information regarding the “need” to go to Olds, our involvement with O-Net (a now municipally controlled internet service provider) and the need for a POP in Calgary. It is equally troubling to find out about the lack of information being given to Council on this whole matter, when they are the ones who are responsible for making fiscally reasonable decisions on our behalf.

Strategic Plan Review 

As noted in our March Beacon, the Strategic Plan is currently under review. This document guides Council and Administration in developing general communications and operational plans. In an effort to help provide an opportunity for public input, we will be hosting Doug Griffiths, the consultant from 13 Ways at our up-coming April 13th meeting. He will begin with a presentation and then open the floor to public comments/questions. We encourage you to come and bring a friend to help provide valuable input into the development of a document that has a future impact on all taxpayers.

Caroline Seniors’ Housing Project 

A very informative public meeting was held in Caroline on March 28th to present information on a potential seniors’ housing plan. While there is a possible plan for a facility that could provide 3 levels of care (independent living, lodge living, and supportive 24-7 care) it was noted that likely the most financially beneficial facility should focus on the independent and lodge type living. 

Floor plans and descriptions of the amenities in the 3 story facility were presented, with options for 2 bedroom “apartments” with balconies for independent living along with the 1 bedroom lodge living suites. Provision would be made for dining, visitor, and recreation areas. A proposed budget of $16M was presented along with a 5 year start to finish action plan/timeline. It was also noted that a cooperative, community stake-holder model would be beneficial in order to receive government grant funding. We wish all those involved the very best and congratulate them on their efforts to allow our seniors to happily “age in place” in our community.

Municipal Development Plan Review 

There is no new information on the County’s review of the Municipal Development Plan, HOWEVER, the CCTA will be hosting John Knapp, a representative from Parkland County at our May 11, 2022 meeting. Parkland County is one of 13 municipal jurisdictions (both urban and rural) that worked cooperatively in 2021 to develop RAMP a Rural Agricultural Management Plan. Their efforts came as a result of concerns related to the potentially negative impact of urban sprawl and the need to protect agricultural land. We are very excited to hear about their efforts/concerns with the hope that the information presented will be helpful as our county moves forward with our MDP review. We hope to see you at this meeting…along with all your friends.

Coming Events:

Wednesday, April 13, 2022, 7:30PM, Arbutus Community Hall, Regular monthly meeting with guest speaker, Doug Griffiths on the county’s Strategic Plan review.

Wednesday, May 11, 2022, 7:30PM, Arbutus Community Hall, Regular monthly meeting with guest speaker John Knapp speaking on the Rural Agricultural Management Plan developed in the Edmonton area.

Smiles for April: What kind of jewellery does the Easter Bunny wear? 14 carrot gold. What happened to the Easter Bunny when he misbehaved at school? He was eggspelled.