LSAC Council Meeting April 13 2017
Showing up is not a waste of time. It is a clear display that the people of Lac Ste Anne are very interested in the governance and the issues that face us as Ratepayers. What LSARA had put forward in our communication prior to the meeting was provided to us. We gave you what they gave us.
One of the things that LSARA has noted for some time is the vagueness of the Agenda along with the publications of the minutes of both the regular meetings and the planning and development meetings. There are Counties, districts that do a very good job of ensuring that the ratepayers know exactly what is going on. More transparency transcends into groups of people that are willing to work with you rather than struggling to understand what has taken place.
Excerpt from Alberta Municipalities Association and the Alberta Association of Municipal District and Counties Citizen Engagement Toolkit.
“Citizen engagement can be a powerful response to the public’s interest in influencing decisions and engaging with government outside of election periods. However, it must be well designed, properly supported and resourced, and born from a genuine desire to engage citizens in a way that makes sense for the issue or decision at hand. Done right, citizen engagement can support quality democracy, the legitimacy of government, successful implementation of policy and higher quality of life through the pursuit of desired social outcomes. On the other hand, poorly executed citizen engagement can lead to mistrust, poor decisions and discontent with government.”
Makes sense to me.
It is very difficult to obtain information from a council meeting when you are in attendance as there is information that is provided to Council that the members at large in attendance are not privy to. It appears that there is some sort of “coles notes” that are provided prior to the meeting indicating choices that the council have with respect to how they should vote on an issue. Option 1 , Option 2 etc. How would the Ratepayer even begin to try to comprehend what choices were provided? Why isn’t there discussion in chambers relating to these items? Is this engaging the citizens or making them want to dig further to understand the legitimacy of the supporting information provided in order to make the decisions?
Information items:
A. Draft Budget – Voted unanimously on February 23, 2017 to release a draft budget to the public for consultation. The draft budget was never released. The meeting minutes are not on the website for February 23, 2017. We, the people, have yet to be privy to the 2017 budget.
B. Township road 544 - is so bad that safety issues have been brought forward. Buses, school buses travel on this road. How is it that we have roads in such poor condition when the Public Works budget was $13,765,637 and yet there is a reported surplus as there was only $11,780,295 of the budget spent? Why ?
Following the Agenda # As posted on the LSAC Web Site:
Items we can comment on
2. Additions to the agenda – LSARA letter requesting support to Minster of Municipal Affairs for an inspection. This letter was submitted individually to each councilor. It was purposely not provided to any of the administration staff as they are not elected officials and we felt our communication needed to remain with them. Council chose to add our request to the agenda and essentially accepted for information.
4. Minutes – approval of March 23rd minutes. They are not posted nor are the minutes for the February 23rd meeting. April 5 2017 Minutes also are not posted.. NO way for us to review.
5. April 5th meeting and again April 13th meeting. Council was provided with some documentation with recommendations and “options”. Again, no way for the seated public or the Ratepayers to understand what those “options” are as we are not privy to them. They are clearly voting on recommendations from the CAO. NO transparency.
7. c) Fire protection - motion made to accept the Alberta Emergency Resource agreement. Motion to advertise so County residents can check the adequacy of their coverage. What is included in your taxes? Better to not find out the hard way is what LSARA is saying! With the erosion of all the fire agreements, are you at risk?
8. a) Bylaw 15-2017 Property Tax Rate received second and third reading on April 13th. This bylaw is also not on the website. Under County bylaws, the only reference to Tax rate is 11-2015 and when the document is opened, it is Bylaw 19-2016. It was reported that there will be a zero tax rate increase. How can we verify this if we cannot find it to read it? Upon passing this Bylaw at the April 13th meeting, Mayor Hegy joked and said ; “Now we can Tax the people”.
9. a) (1) Municipal Division Boundaries - there are very specific time lines that must be adhered to when applications are put forward to change divisional boundaries within a County. The Administration is required to consecutively advertise the change for two weeks . This did not occur so special permission was requested from the Municipal Government. The application is pending the receipt of census to understand the boundary changes that are being proposed.
9. a) (3) SuperNet- Indicated that it is outdated and requires data and innovation updates. New equipment upgrades must take place for new technology. NO updates, no monies generated. Another waste of Ratepayers resources. Less bang…. more buck seems to be our motto!
9. a) (4) Municipal Government Act - proposed changes - indicated that the document is a large document. Is on the agenda as information only, council can read it if they want to? Administration will present the changes to council? Accepted as information…. why? If an elected official does not take the time to peruse information contained in a governing document and just accept what they are being told, that is a problem.
9. a) (8) LSARA Correspondence requesting the support of all council with respect to submission to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for an inquiry. This was spoken to by the Mayor. He indicated that there would be no letters forthcoming from any councilor and that they could not respond to it directly as council on an individual basis "As per the MGA". He indicated that they cannot act independently. LSARA would like to know what section of the MGA the Mayor is quoting. Part 6 Municipal Organization and Administration “201(1) A council is responsible for (b) making sure the powers, duties and functions of the municipality are appropriately carried out; “ LSARA believes that obligation to be true. That is why we requested the council support for the inquiry. The mayor also indicated that as per the MGA a meeting must take place in chambers with an appointment. So, meeting with the people that voted for you outside of chambers is against the MGA? I think not. If you have met your duties, what do you have to fear?
9. a) (9) Administration - Indicated that the new Administration building is $756,000 under budget for completion. Without occupancy which has already been delayed months, and without substantial completion, how can administration make any such claim? In addition, the information that has finally been updated on the County website does not agree with the figures provided in the Meeting. The website indicates a total project budget of $11,729,663 with a forecast cost of completion at $11,506,976 which is $222,687 difference. Not much of a margin Even with the approved change orders of $430,019.05 they are still under budget?
The Prime contractor has been stated to have encountered difficulty in retaining sub contractors. 1st Electrical company went bankrupt, second one has walked off the job due to a disagreement. A meeting is scheduled to determine how to progress. New dates are May 12th for substantial completion and May 31st as move in.
Then the bomb….. the Floor is Heaving!!!! County Manager Mike Primeau and General Manager of Infrastructure & Planning Joe Duplessie both had the opportunity to see the damage first hand and commented "It was Shocking".
Roughly about 3 feet in from the wall are noticeable heaves. How can Council and Administration even begin to accept a product that has these types of issues? One thought that comes to mind is:
Why did the Council not request that a communication be sent to the Contractor to provide an "Engineering Report to address the damage and cause of the Heaving". Repairing the damage and who's cost is it is not the problem, was the concern brought up by Councillor Borle. A serious issue such as this in a "Brand New Building", will be an ongoing issue if not addressed properly.
First issue was the borrow pit. Did they achieve proper compaction on the new material they brought in at an additional cost that was not forecast. The General Manager of Infrastructure & Planning and the County Manager have been actively involved in this and apparently, there are additional issues.
The question is why are our Staff actively involved in the issues when in fact as part of the budget there was a Firm hired to take care of the build (MHPM the Project Managers)?
It is their assumption that weeping tile would minimize the issue. Stated by the County Manager at the meeting that “the building is 100% theirs until handed over at final completion. So, was there compaction tests completed prior to putting the building on top of new soil as the borrow pit was the first issue that was overlooked due to rushing to get the building up? Does it have anything to do with the work being done in the winter and frost? There was also a statement made that due to the amount of rebar, do not know if it will allow the floors to come back down.
WHY WOULD THERE EVEN BE A CONSIDERATION TO ACCEPT THIS BUILDING WITH THAT KIND OF ISSUE????
Council and the Councillors are always encouraging the Ratepayers to attend meetings if they want to be informed about the County management and activity. 30 people attended the last meeting and all walked away perplexed as there is so little background or basic information behind all the motions and conversations. LSARA has some recommendations for council in order to aid in ensuring that communication is open and transparent.
1. Why is the “option” system utilized for council to vote on? This is not the way this has always been done and it makes it appear that there are things to hide. If you determine that you wish to utilize this type of process, wherein you are taking the view and recommendations of the CAO and voting on them, post the options with the agenda. Provide the information to the Ratepayer and then they can ask themselves why there is no discussion taking place on these “options.”
2. Chambers is open to the public for all meetings. Provide a system that allows everyone in the room to hear what is being said. Perhaps microphones would be very advantageous.
3. Put out enough chairs for the audience. It would be a better use of time to have more than enough chairs put out for those that wish to attend so as not to scramble at the last minute to get these out of the storage area.
4. To encourage communication between the ratepayers and the Council, and encourage participation and attendance, a public discussion period of perhaps a half hour would give the ratepayers a sense of respect and a want to attend. Some other municipalities already have this implemented and when speaking to the public of those areas, they all show respect and pride in their council and the management of their municipality. Look to Stony Plain as an example.
As for the RV issue, there was a Planning and Development Meeting on April 5, 2017 where the council recognizes there are some formal processes that are required before passing or amending the Bylaws (4) to deal with Recreational Use on Country Residential properties. According to Mayor Hegy there will be a public consultation before passing a new Bylaw. The recommendation was to require permits for use (so they do not have to enforce the current Bylaws) but at this time there will be no fees.
2. Additions to the agenda – LSARA letter requesting support to Minster of Municipal Affairs for an inspection. This letter was submitted individually to each councilor. It was purposely not provided to any of the administration staff as they are not elected officials and we felt our communication needed to remain with them. Council chose to add our request to the agenda and essentially accepted for information.
4. Minutes – approval of March 23rd minutes. They are not posted nor are the minutes for the February 23rd meeting. April 5 2017 Minutes also are not posted.. NO way for us to review.
5. April 5th meeting and again April 13th meeting. Council was provided with some documentation with recommendations and “options”. Again, no way for the seated public or the Ratepayers to understand what those “options” are as we are not privy to them. They are clearly voting on recommendations from the CAO. NO transparency.
7. c) Fire protection - motion made to accept the Alberta Emergency Resource agreement. Motion to advertise so County residents can check the adequacy of their coverage. What is included in your taxes? Better to not find out the hard way is what LSARA is saying! With the erosion of all the fire agreements, are you at risk?
8. a) Bylaw 15-2017 Property Tax Rate received second and third reading on April 13th. This bylaw is also not on the website. Under County bylaws, the only reference to Tax rate is 11-2015 and when the document is opened, it is Bylaw 19-2016. It was reported that there will be a zero tax rate increase. How can we verify this if we cannot find it to read it? Upon passing this Bylaw at the April 13th meeting, Mayor Hegy joked and said ; “Now we can Tax the people”.
9. a) (1) Municipal Division Boundaries - there are very specific time lines that must be adhered to when applications are put forward to change divisional boundaries within a County. The Administration is required to consecutively advertise the change for two weeks . This did not occur so special permission was requested from the Municipal Government. The application is pending the receipt of census to understand the boundary changes that are being proposed.
9. a) (3) SuperNet- Indicated that it is outdated and requires data and innovation updates. New equipment upgrades must take place for new technology. NO updates, no monies generated. Another waste of Ratepayers resources. Less bang…. more buck seems to be our motto!
9. a) (4) Municipal Government Act - proposed changes - indicated that the document is a large document. Is on the agenda as information only, council can read it if they want to? Administration will present the changes to council? Accepted as information…. why? If an elected official does not take the time to peruse information contained in a governing document and just accept what they are being told, that is a problem.
9. a) (8) LSARA Correspondence requesting the support of all council with respect to submission to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for an inquiry. This was spoken to by the Mayor. He indicated that there would be no letters forthcoming from any councilor and that they could not respond to it directly as council on an individual basis "As per the MGA". He indicated that they cannot act independently. LSARA would like to know what section of the MGA the Mayor is quoting. Part 6 Municipal Organization and Administration “201(1) A council is responsible for (b) making sure the powers, duties and functions of the municipality are appropriately carried out; “ LSARA believes that obligation to be true. That is why we requested the council support for the inquiry. The mayor also indicated that as per the MGA a meeting must take place in chambers with an appointment. So, meeting with the people that voted for you outside of chambers is against the MGA? I think not. If you have met your duties, what do you have to fear?
9. a) (9) Administration - Indicated that the new Administration building is $756,000 under budget for completion. Without occupancy which has already been delayed months, and without substantial completion, how can administration make any such claim? In addition, the information that has finally been updated on the County website does not agree with the figures provided in the Meeting. The website indicates a total project budget of $11,729,663 with a forecast cost of completion at $11,506,976 which is $222,687 difference. Not much of a margin Even with the approved change orders of $430,019.05 they are still under budget?
The Prime contractor has been stated to have encountered difficulty in retaining sub contractors. 1st Electrical company went bankrupt, second one has walked off the job due to a disagreement. A meeting is scheduled to determine how to progress. New dates are May 12th for substantial completion and May 31st as move in.
Then the bomb….. the Floor is Heaving!!!! County Manager Mike Primeau and General Manager of Infrastructure & Planning Joe Duplessie both had the opportunity to see the damage first hand and commented "It was Shocking".
Roughly about 3 feet in from the wall are noticeable heaves. How can Council and Administration even begin to accept a product that has these types of issues? One thought that comes to mind is:
Why did the Council not request that a communication be sent to the Contractor to provide an "Engineering Report to address the damage and cause of the Heaving". Repairing the damage and who's cost is it is not the problem, was the concern brought up by Councillor Borle. A serious issue such as this in a "Brand New Building", will be an ongoing issue if not addressed properly.
First issue was the borrow pit. Did they achieve proper compaction on the new material they brought in at an additional cost that was not forecast. The General Manager of Infrastructure & Planning and the County Manager have been actively involved in this and apparently, there are additional issues.
The question is why are our Staff actively involved in the issues when in fact as part of the budget there was a Firm hired to take care of the build (MHPM the Project Managers)?
It is their assumption that weeping tile would minimize the issue. Stated by the County Manager at the meeting that “the building is 100% theirs until handed over at final completion. So, was there compaction tests completed prior to putting the building on top of new soil as the borrow pit was the first issue that was overlooked due to rushing to get the building up? Does it have anything to do with the work being done in the winter and frost? There was also a statement made that due to the amount of rebar, do not know if it will allow the floors to come back down.
WHY WOULD THERE EVEN BE A CONSIDERATION TO ACCEPT THIS BUILDING WITH THAT KIND OF ISSUE????
Council and the Councillors are always encouraging the Ratepayers to attend meetings if they want to be informed about the County management and activity. 30 people attended the last meeting and all walked away perplexed as there is so little background or basic information behind all the motions and conversations. LSARA has some recommendations for council in order to aid in ensuring that communication is open and transparent.
1. Why is the “option” system utilized for council to vote on? This is not the way this has always been done and it makes it appear that there are things to hide. If you determine that you wish to utilize this type of process, wherein you are taking the view and recommendations of the CAO and voting on them, post the options with the agenda. Provide the information to the Ratepayer and then they can ask themselves why there is no discussion taking place on these “options.”
2. Chambers is open to the public for all meetings. Provide a system that allows everyone in the room to hear what is being said. Perhaps microphones would be very advantageous.
3. Put out enough chairs for the audience. It would be a better use of time to have more than enough chairs put out for those that wish to attend so as not to scramble at the last minute to get these out of the storage area.
4. To encourage communication between the ratepayers and the Council, and encourage participation and attendance, a public discussion period of perhaps a half hour would give the ratepayers a sense of respect and a want to attend. Some other municipalities already have this implemented and when speaking to the public of those areas, they all show respect and pride in their council and the management of their municipality. Look to Stony Plain as an example.
As for the RV issue, there was a Planning and Development Meeting on April 5, 2017 where the council recognizes there are some formal processes that are required before passing or amending the Bylaws (4) to deal with Recreational Use on Country Residential properties. According to Mayor Hegy there will be a public consultation before passing a new Bylaw. The recommendation was to require permits for use (so they do not have to enforce the current Bylaws) but at this time there will be no fees.
OMG. Is that karma? Although it's going to be us rate payer's on the hook again most likely.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your post. I attended this meeting, and was completely confused as to what was going on for the most part. I think it would have been easier to understand if they would have had enough agendas to go around. I hope to come to the next meeting.
ReplyDeleteDeb G
WHY IS THE MAYOR"S POSTION NOT UP FOR RE-ELECTION?
ReplyDeleteAPPROVAL BY WHOM?
ReplyDelete