IN THE NEWS

By Marianne Cole

COUNTY/CAROLINE AMALGAMATION 

At the May 23, 2023 Council meeting, Ian McCormack from Strategic Steps Inc. presented a “What We Have Heard Report”. Noted highlights/comments from the report are: (Note: The quotations are taken directly from the report.)

General

· “Responses from County residents differ from those of Village residents. This can be seen particularly in the understanding of benefit and detriment of any potential amalgamation.”

· “There may also be a difference in opinion between those County residents who live close to Caroline and for whom Caroline is a gathering place vs. those who have no interaction in Caroline.”

· “Most participants who identified as being from Caroline believe an amalgamation to be an important step to growth and sustainability.

· “Some County residents have concerns about being financially “strapped” by taking on Caroline.

· “Adding 500 people to 12,500 people would mean that the current Village would likely not have a dedicated County Council member. The current village population may be spread between two Divisions or it may be contained with a single Division.”

Below are Pro’s and Con’s expressed either at the public engagement meetings or in the survey.

Pro’s

· “Helping the Village survive with the use of County staff and equipment.”

· “Improved levels of service, more qualified staff, better functioning council, commercial, industrial and residential growth, more community services, programs and better taxation rates.”

· “The amalgamation could make Caroline an amazing, community focussed and quaint hamlet.”

Con’s

· “County taxes will have to rise to pay for the infrastructure to upgrade Caroline.”

· “Amalgamation is off the table for me. Get the Village to dissolve and the County take them over with provincial support.”

· “Caroline will lose all autonomy and will be solely at the mercy of the County and the government. They will no longer have any true say in what the Village needs or can do.”

· “County often does not realize the problems/concerns unique to Village.”

· “First of all, the Village is urban and the County is rural. It is important to maintain this separation…You cannot mix oil with water. Rural is rural and urban is urban.”

· “County residents taking on a larger tax bill to bail out the terrible financial burden the Village has gotten itself into.”

· “Higher taxes.” (This was mentioned several times.)

· “Taxes will increase without the benefit to County residents. We do not need urban/rural amalgamation.”

General Concerns

· “Have not seen enough info to have any truly informed or objective input.”

· “I would like to see what a proposed budget would look like and also a 5 year project/infrastructure plan prior to an amalgamation vote.”

· “This survey really does not recognize the concerns that would be of value to rural residents. Too highly focussed on urban (Caroline) residents, and business, yet County residents could be seriously affect as the County dollars are spent for other people’s benefit.”

· “I feel the consultant attempted to present a rosy picture of amalgamation rather than the nuts and bolts or a true transparent picture of realities that include actual numbers that include how much the Clearwater County already subsidizes the Village.”

Next Steps

· “The next step for both municipal Councils is to determine whether to proceed one more step down the amalgamation path. The decision point in the Municipal Government Act is that both councils would need to pass a resolution in accordance with the MGA.”

· “That being said, if one Council votes in favor of entering direct negotiations and the other one does not the process may still proceed.” (It would be likely that the province would step in at this point.)

· “If both Councils choose to enter direct negotiations, the process will proceed.”

· “If neither Council chooses to enter direct negotiations, the process would stop.”

· “The negotiation process itself, as outlined in Section 104, does not commit either Council to amalgamating.”

Ultimately, “The formal decision to negotiate is the next step of the process. If the Councils decide to move into negotiating, it will be important that on a regular basis, clear, concise communication and updates to citizens remains a priority, both for reasons of transparency and as a way to combat rumour and misinformation.”

We will try to keep you informed about when Council will be considering a decision on these negotiations as well as any further public engagement meetings.

HAVE A GREAT SUMMER EVERYONE. WE WILL SEE YOU IN SEPTEMBER

IN THE NEWS

By Marianne Cole

MDP 

The latest Municipal Development Plan draft will be brought before County Council on Tuesday, May 9, 2023 for 2nd and 3rd reading.

This follows the large public hearing held on February 29, 2023 and a motion made then time to table 2nd reading. That allowed Council an opportunity to meet with Planning and the Vicinia consultant to address public input and make potential changes.

The following are current highlights re this process:

· As of April 26, 2023 no draft of the revised document is available to the public.

· It will be become available on May 3, 2023 on the county’s website as part of the agenda package for the May 9th meeting.

· The most notable possible revisions would likely be focussed on allowable subdivisions out of a quarter.

· You may go to clearwatercounty.ca and click on the government, council, meeting and agenda links to find information on the current document.

· While opportunity for public input ended with the February’s public hearing, your presence at the May 9th meeting could be very helpful in promoting council’s attention to resident/taxpayer wishes and opinion.

At that meeting Council will review the document and will then make a decision to pass 2nd reading, defeat 2nd reading, or table 2nd reading to allow further review. If passed, they can proceed with 3rd reading and if that passes, the document becomes “law”. The other two options would again delay the process.

WE STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO ATTEND THE MEETING ON TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2023 AT 9:00AM IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT THE COUNTY OFFICE.

MONEY MATTERS 

Significant information was presented and discussed at the April 26th Council meeting on both the 2022 financial audit numbers and the up-coming tax rate for 2023. Interesting points included:

· As of December 31, 2022 there was an unrestricted surplus of $3,291, 875, up from $2, 164,056 in 2021. (This is undesignated money that can be used as needed.)

· As of December 31, 2022 there was a restricted surplus of $102, 797, 385, down from $109,198, 656 in 2021. This is money specifically allocated to funding certain projects/categories if needed (roads, bridges, capital purchases, special projects such as broadband, etc.).

· Large discussion took place on the overall tax rate, along with differing tax rates for residential, farmland, and non-residential (commercial/industrial properties).

· Finally a motion was made to have administration draft a proposed tax rate bylaw that would see a 3% increase on residential/farmland properties and 3.5% increase on non-residential. During discussion, up to 5% had be mentioned for non-residential.

· The draft will be presented at the next council meeting on May 9, 2023 at which time Council will again discuss the matter and make a decision.

SOLAR FARM PROJECT INFO 

Four guest speakers presented excellent information on solar farm projects at the Arbutus Community Hall on April 12, 2023. The presenters included MLA Jason Nixon, Stan Bell with Stewards of Ag. Land (SAL). Darcy Allen from the Farmers’ Advocate Office, and Mark Dorin from Polluters Pay.

Notable highlights presented included:

· Concerns with the loss of valuable farmland.

· Questionable efficiency of solar projects.

· Concerns with reclamation and who’s responsible if the company becomes bankrupt.

· The strong need for landowners to gather legal advice when/if signing contract agreements with solar companies.

· Impact on surrounding land values and way of life.

· Concerns with the control held by the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) as they are solely responsible for reviewing, approving, or refusing solar project applications. It was noted that they are seriously over-loaded with applications of various sorts and this may impact their ability to adequately review/assess applications.

(Note: The AUC’s recent denial of a solar project near Frank Lake east of High River was its first denial. It was denied due to potential negative impact on migratory birds in that area.)

· The lack of control the county has in assessing/approving solar projects.

Certainly losing necessary food-producing land for an operation that may only be 17% efficient raises significant concerns. It was also interesting to note that solar companies do not make their money from selling power to the grid, but rather by selling carbon credits to purchasers such as Amazon!!

4. Exciting Return of Trade Show Sponsored by the Rocky Chamber of Commerce, a Trade Show will be held on May 12 & 13, 2023 at the Regional Rec Center in Rocky. This event has been absent for a few years and it is great to see it happening again. It will be a special opportunity for local businesses and residents to come together for a mutually enjoyable, beneficial event.

Up-Coming Events: 

Tuesday, May 9, 2023, 9:00AM, County Council Meeting,

Regular CCTA meetings: 

Wednesday, May 10, 2023 and Wednesday, June 14, 2023, 7:30PM at Arbutus Community Hall

Thoughts for May 

To plant a garden is to believe in tomorrow. Audrey Hepburn

Gardening adds years to your life and life to your years. Unknown

Don’t judge each day by the harvest you reap but by the seeds that you plant. Robert Lewis Stevenson.

IN THE NEWS

By Marianne Cole

County/Caroline Amalgamation 

Public engagement on this matter has concluded with 4 in-person meetings and 1 virtual meeting held over the last month. Information on the process was presented and comments/concerns were addressed. The most serious concerns focussed on the following topics:

Finances:

Caroline’s 2023 budget shows a balanced revenue/expenditure of $1,092,660.

Their proposed 5 year Capital Plan shows a total expenditure of $3,985,000, with the largest portion ($3,360,000) proposed for 2025 and 2026. If amalgamation were to proceed those larger costs would potentially occur under the new county jurisdiction.

Currently Caroline has a long term debt of $196,295 or 10.4% of its limit.

For 2023, Clearwater County will be contributing $750,473 to enhance life in Caroline. This includes monetary donations to support the library, the Caroline Seniors with their housing, travel and operating costs, the museum, the Hub ($485,000 through the Ag. Society), the Hub medical clinic, school scholarship, volunteer recognition, the Caroline Chamber of Commerce, and Caroline fire services.

Options: Following a review of information gathered at the meetings and Councils’ discussions, these are the possible options to be considered:

Things could stay as is.

Dissolution. Caroline could dissolve and become a hamlet. It would then come under the jurisdiction of the County. Municipal Affairs becomes involved to assist with determining representation on County council, divisional boundary changes, and other matters of consideration when it becomes part of the County.

Amalgamation. This would mean that both jurisdictions would dissolve and a “transitional council” would take over. Then there would likely be a recommendation made by Municipal Affairs as to future council representation and how the county divisions would be allotted. A “transitional council” could potentially be eliminated if the dissolution/amalgamation took place very close to the next election.

Concerns:

· Governance. With amalgamation and the potential establishment of a “transitional council” there could be an unequal balance of power with the 5 representatives for 514 residents of the village joining the 7 representatives for the 11,000 county residents. The possibility exists that village councillors plus one or two county councillors could sway decisions on county matters.

· Finances. What happens to the County’s reserves if dissolution/amalgamation occurs?? What happens to Caroline’s current debt and the proposed capital/infrastructure costs??

While it sounds “neighborly” to proceed with “amalgamation”, a larger number of area residents (and their tax dollars) should not be compromised for the benefit a few… especially when Caroline isn’t as financially endangered as the rumor mill has suggested.

Note of Interest 

In 2015 the County purchased 112 acres of land on the northeast edge of Caroline for the purpose of establishing an industrial park. To date over $3M has been spent on the land purchase along with grading and paving. Unfortunately none of the 10 lots in Phase 1 have been sold. This is likely due to the fact that it is a “Dry Park”--- no water and sewer. Perhaps discussion between the village and county should focus on a water/sewage development agreement instead of amalgamation. Attracting business development to this park could be a win-win for both jurisdictions.

Municipal Development Plan 

No new news here. A councillor workshop is being planned to discuss amendments/ideas to incorporate the public’s comments into a new draft. Once completed, the revised document will be brought to Council for their consideration/approval.

Solar Farm Meeting 

Due to the increased interest from solar operations to establish solar farms in our area, the CCTA is hosting an information meeting on this subject. The meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 7:30PM at the Arbutus Community Hall. We will be hosting 3 guest speakers: Darcy Allan from the Farmers’ Advocate Office, MLA Jason Nixon, and Stan Bell from the Sustainable Ag Land (SAL) group at Benalto. There are some serious concerns related to these potential operations and we encourage you to come and hear the information to be presented.

Coming Events: 

Solar Meeting, Wednesday, April 12, 2023, 7:30PM, Arbutus Community Hall Regular monthly meeting, 

Wednesday, May 10, 2023, 7:30PM, Arbutus Community Hall

Thought for Easter: 

“Easter is the only time of year it is safe to put all your eggs in one basket.” Anonymous.

IN THE NEWS

By Marianne Cole

February 21, 2023 MDP Public Hearing

The Lou Soppit Center was packed with Clearwater County residents who braved nasty winter driving conditions to attend the Public Hearing on the County’s Municipal Development Plan draft review. As of Thursday, February 23, 2023 county staff could not release tabulated results of the exact attendance numbers and the individual support or opposition to the document. Highlights of the day included:

14 people spoke in favor of the current document

59 people spoke in opposition

32 letters of support had been received (1 read out publicly)

30 letter of opposition received (1 read out)

A distinct show of opposition was evident when a speaker asked those in opposition to stand. Almost all in attendance stood up.

Following the presentations, Council unanimously passed a motion to table 2nd Reading to allow them to consider all comments heard during the hearing as well as in letters received. It is anticipated that the 2nd Reading will be held later in March or the beginning of April. We will keep you posted.

Huge thanks 

We send out special notes of thanks to those that made the Public Hearing a great success:

Everyone who braved the weather to attend. Your dedication should send a clear message to Council.

Everyone who spoke or sent in letters. We trust your opinion will be valued.

Gene Henneigh and Joe Cech for generously sponsoring excellent information pages in recent issues of the Western Star.

The donors who have generously supported our CCTA “What’s Up” column and recent ads in the Western Star.

Council and County staff for the great job of organizing the event.

We certainly look forward to the outcome.

Clearwater County/Village of Caroline Amalgamation 

Public meetings are currently scheduled to inform county and village residents about the potential amalgamation. Certainly working cooperatively is a valuable goal, but accepting large financial deficits are a concern.

We encourage you to attend the meetings to gather information and share your opinion. Meeting dates:

· February 27, 2023, 6:30PM-8:00PM, Leslieville Community Hall

· March 1, 2023, 6:30PM – 8:00PM, Butte Hall

· March 6, 2023, 6:30PM – 8:00PM, Crammond Community Hall

· March 13, 2023, 6:30PM – 8:00PM, Caroline Community Hub

· March 23, 2023, 6:30PM – 8:00PM, Virtual Zoom Meeting

Thoughts for March

May the blessings of each day be the blessings you need most… Irish Blessing

May the dreams you hold dearest be those which come true and the kindness you spread be returning to you. … Unknown.

Coming Events 

Wednesday, March 8, 2023, 7:30PM, Arbutus Community Hall, regular meeting; 

Wednesday, April 12, 2023, 7:30PM, Arbutus Community Hall, regular meeting.

IN THE NEWS

By Marianne Cole

MDP PUBLIC HEARING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2023, 9:00AM, LOU SOPPIT CENTRE, ROCKY MTN. HOUSE. 

This is the main opportunity for people to voice their opinions on the proposed revised draft of the Municipal Development Plan. As mentioned numerous times, the most controversial parts of the document are the:

· Increase in allowable subdivisions per quarter from 1 to ultimately 3

· Increase in allowable size of the subdivision from 5 acres to 15 acres in total (This can be 1 subdivision or divided among others that would total no more than 15 acres.)

Concerns have been raised about the negative impact on farming operations and the potential loss of food producing land with these proposed changes.

Concerns are now being raised about the hearing being held at a time when many are at work and unable to attend. We encourage those who can’t come to the hearing to write, email, or call their councillor to voice their opinions. Contact information is as follows:

a. Mail: Send to your councillor at Clearwater County, Box 550, Rocky Mtn. House, AB T4T 1A4

b. Email or Phone: · Div. 1: Deputy Reeve Gennifer Mehlhaff, gmehlhaff@clearwatercounty.ca (403)846-8254 · Div. 2: Sydney Graham, sgraham@clearwatercounty.ca (403)846-3760 · Div. 3: Reeve Daryl Lougheed, dlougheed@clearwatercounty.ca (403)846-5817 · Div. 4: Jordan Northcott, jnorthcott@clearwatercounty.ca (403)895-2649 · Div. 5: Neil Ratcliffe, nratcliffe@clearwatercounty.ca (403)895-3215 · Div. 6: Bryan Cermak, bcermak@clearwatercounty.ca (403)846-5197 · Div. 7: Michelle Swanson, mswanson@clearwatercounty.ca (403)846-5824

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT??

1. Following the hearing, Council will consider 2nd and 3rd reading of a motion to accept the MDP. If that passes, the document becomes law.

2. They could make a motion to accept the document with changes (such as reducing the subdivisions to the current number (1) and the acres back down to 5.

3. If the motions don’t pass, council will have to review the document and work to hopefully address people’s concerns.

WHAT CAN PEOPLE DO??

1. Express their opinion by contacting their councillor and/or attending the hearing.

2. If council passes the motion to accept the MDP as is, residents have 3 options:

a. Accept Council’s decision.

b. Organize a petition to have council repeal their decision. That petition must be filed within 60 days after the resolution/motion was passed and must be signed by 10% of the population. 30 days after that Council must give 1st reading to a motion to deal with the matter of the petition.

c. Notify the CAO of their intent to start a petition to recall a councillor/s. Organizers would then have 60 days to gather signatures and submit the petition to the Chief Electoral Officer. The petition must be signed by 40% of the electors in that councillor’s division. This would be followed by a recall vote and if there is a majority in favor of the recall, the councillor ceases to hold office.

WE TRUST THAT COUNCIL WILL LISTEN TO THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE AND OPTIONS B or C WON’T BE NECESSARY

Tamarack Transit System Project

The Clearwater Regional Housing Foundation and Steering Committee is looking at ideas to effectively provide a rural public transit solution for seniors, low-income residents, or other compromised residents. They are currently planning Community Engagement Meetings at the Rocky Legion on Wednesday, February 15, 2023, 2:00pm-4:00pm and 6:30pm-8:30pm; Leslieville Community Center, Thursday, February 16, 2021, 6:30pm-8:30pm; Nordegg Community Centre, Tuesday, March 7, 2023, 2:00pm-4:00pm, and 6:30pm-8:30pm; and Caroling Legion, Wednesday, March 15, 2023, 6:30pm-8:30pm.

They are also conducting a survey and you may contact Janice Fraser at (587)777-8139 or via email at crhf2016@gmail.com to get a copy of the survey. They will then report back to the community at a Clearwater County Town Hall meeting at the Rocky Legion on Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 7:00-9:00pm.

Solar Farm Concerns 

Recent proposals for solar farms in the Sylvan Lake/Benalto area as well as Caroline have raised concerns about their viability, the loss of good agricultural land, and reclamation issues. The CCTA is looking into getting speakers to address these concerns and we will keep you posted on a future meeting once it’s organized.

Coming events: 

Wednesday, February 8, 2023, 7:30PM, Arbutus Community Hall, Regular meeting 

Tuesday, February 21, 2023, 9:00AM, Lou Soppit Center, Rocky Mtn. House, MDP Public Hearing

 Wednesday, March 8, 2023, 7:30PM, Arbutus Community Hall Regular meeting

IN THE NEWS

By Marianne Cole

2023 Budget 

At the December 20, 2022 Council meeting, Council passed several motions to approve the 2023 budget. In summary the following projections are highlighted:

· Operating revenue: $56.2M

· Operating expenses: $69.9M

· Funds coming from restricted reserves: $4.1M

· Balance: Minus $9.6M

· Capital revenue: $11.8M

· Capital expenses: $55.1M

· Funds coming from restricted reserves: $36.2M

· Balance: Minus $7.1M

The negative balance of about $16.7M will be overcome with a blend of amortization dollars being added back and unrestricted reserve dollars. It is noteworthy that we started the 2022 year with a restricted reserve balance of $109M and will end the year with a balance of $95M. BUT the projected balance of our restricted reserve funds at the end of 2023 will be $59.7M as these funds will be used to fund specific budgeted projects as well as the above noted deficits.

How long can these reserves last??

Municipal Development Plan Review 

Also at the December 20th meeting Council passed First Reading of the MDP draft by a vote of 4-3. Voting in favor were Reeve Lougheed, Deputy Reeve Mehlhaff, and Councillors Ratcliffe and Swanson. Opposed were Councillors Graham, Northcott, and Cermak. 14 members of the public had braved bitterly cold temperatures to attend this portion of the meeting to witness council discussion and vote.

During the discussion Councillor Cermak expressed excellent comments on the need for councillors to listen to the voice of the people. This was certainly reflected in his vote opposing the draft document. In his comments Councillor Northcott expressed agreement with Councillor Cermak’s comments while also mentioning the negative impact this plan could have on young farmers. As such he commended those in attendance for their interest in this matter. Deputy Reeve Mehlhaff mentioned that she has had lots of calls on this issue and wants to pass First Reading so the matter will go to a public hearing, offering people an official opportunity for input. Councillor Ratcliffe also expressed the same need to move forward with a public hearing. As Councillor Graham was in attendance virtually, Councillor Lougheed read a letter she had submitted stating she has heard from numerous people with a strong majority being opposed to the new draft. Councillor Swanson noted that 20 extra subdivisions won’t have a large impact and there is a need to grow our population. Reeve Lougheed mentioned that

Council needs to consider everyone, and that is a difficult balancing act. In addition he feels that we need to be a welcoming community. In summary he said he has faith in what will be presented at a public hearing and he wants to hear everyone’s opinion in order to get the right balance.

Proceeding forward the next steps will be:

Referral letters will be sent to various agencies (local energy providers, oil industry companies, neighboring jurisdictions, and First Nations). These letters would indicate that First Reading has passed and they have 30 days to respond with their input.

A Public Hearing will be held. Planning is now in progress. With the potential for a large public attendance various venues and dates are being considered.

2 week public notice must be given prior to the Public Hearing. This will be done in a variety of ways including local papers, county web-site, social media, and radio. Given the 30 day timeline for response to Referral Letters the Public Hearing will likely take place in February.

The public is invited to attend the hearing to make presentations and voice their opinion.

Council will then consider 2nd Reading. They will have the options to pass the document as is, pass with amendments, table the decision, or defeat passing.

If passed, they can proceed immediately to 3rd Reading and if that passes, the MDP draft becomes an official document. The last two options would require further time and consideration.

In the meantime, you are encouraged to call, email, or write your councillor to express your opinion. This is a significant document that has the potential to not only affect people’s lives for many years to come, but also land use forever.

RANT 

It’s been a while since I felt the need to rant, but it was prompted by a recent email as well as a phone call. Both expressed a concern with a “double standard” being potentially promoted by administration and Council. They noted that recent action (and large legal costs) resulted in one councillor being excluded from discussion and decision on broadband matters because of potential pecuniary interest. Yet, at the moment all councillors, many of them farmers/landowners, are involved in discussions on the MDP review--- and will be voting on it even though they could have a pecuniary interest with the increased opportunity to subdivide.

I feel it is absolutely crucial for councillors to both gather information and express their opinion while making decisions. As such they should ALL have equal opportunity for input. Each Councillor has recognizable knowledge on various topics and this should be equally valued/accepted by both colleagues and administration. Restricting input in one situation but permitting it in another might support the above concerns with a double standard. May open acceptance of all input be a new practise in 2023.

Up-coming Events:

Regular monthly meetings, 

Wednesday, January 11, 2023 and 

Wednesday, February 8, 2023, both at 7:30PM at Arbutus Community Hall.

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.