Why was it so important to liquidate this Lac Ste. Anne County Ratepayers ASSET without a proper Policy in place as well as no Commercial Appraisal and no fair Tender Process.
Did our CAO and Councillors ensure that the County Ratepayers best interests were taken into consideration?
A few things we know. There were upgrades to the old administration building since the last inspection report that was completed. Things such as new furnaces, plumbing, paint. How much of the old systems that contained asbestos for example were removed, coated? How much has already been re-mediated?
Some of the questions we asked and information for review we provided in that December 31, 2017 Letter in part:
1. What is the LSAC Policy for liquidation of Municipal Assets? Is it a policy that would meet today’s standards and ensure no conflicts of interest in sales/leases exist as part of the policy or decision making?
2. Roles and responsibilities – Who is responsible. Council is responsible to ensure that Administration drafts and updates policies and procedures. The planning and development manager should be responsible for implementing any policy/procedure with respect to disposition of surplus land and buildings.
3. What is the criteria for disposition process?
4. LSARA insisted that LSAC council immediately create and implement a policy for Disposal of County Assets prior to the disposal of the building. We indicated until a new policy was in place, no further action should be taken with regards to the sale or demolition of the old administration building and the three associated lots.
If the Policy that previously existed with respect to the Disposition of County Assets no longer exists, when and why was this rescinded? Which leads us to wonder, how many others potentially have disappeared? A policy is created by council resolution and can only be changed or removed by resolution of council.
These questions and recommendations made by LSARA are all based on MGA, written papers by Lawyers who work with the MGA, inspections completed by the Municipal Government of other Counties, Towns. Fair market value can ONLY be determined by way of Certified Appraisal, Not by a Realtor or a County Assessment Department.
LSARA will continue to advocate for the Ratepayers of Lac Ste Anne County. We would like to offer all of our past members and those seeking membership join us at our Annual General Meeting on February 20th, 2018 at 7 PM in the Gunn Hall.
- 11280 Sq Ft Commercial Building
- 3 Commercial Lots
- No Recent Building Condition Reports
- No Commercial Appraisal to Determine the Actual Value
- No County Motions, Resolutions or Advertising as required by the Municipal Government Act
This is an excerpt from a Farmer and Associates Municipal Review
Do you know if this property was an Asset or a Liability because we sure don't without any Proper Due Process in Place.
LSARA DID send a letter to the CAO and to all of the Councillors in December asking if a policy for the Disposition of County Assets is in place and if not there should be one prior to liquidating any of our Capital Assets this term.
Here is the link to our letter which is still not replied to and to other such Policies for the Liquidation of such Assets.
October of 2017 the County of Lac Ste Anne Ratepayers took a giant leap of faith forward and elected four new councillors. Since that time, LSARA has put forward a number of queries to the LSAC council and Administration. Some they have responded to while others they have not.
A few days ago, we told you that the OLD Administration Building had been listed and that there was potentially an offer on the building. 2500 of you viewed that post in 24 hours so that tells us that this is a HOT TOPIC. We also told you that we had asked some questions of council with respect to the listing and potential sale on December 31, 2017. Let us affirm to you, the Ratepayers that this is NOT about the building. This is about process and understanding and ensuring that our current council are being provided with recommendations and advisement in writing of their Legislative responsibilities under the Municipal Government Act.
A few days ago, we told you that the OLD Administration Building had been listed and that there was potentially an offer on the building. 2500 of you viewed that post in 24 hours so that tells us that this is a HOT TOPIC. We also told you that we had asked some questions of council with respect to the listing and potential sale on December 31, 2017. Let us affirm to you, the Ratepayers that this is NOT about the building. This is about process and understanding and ensuring that our current council are being provided with recommendations and advisement in writing of their Legislative responsibilities under the Municipal Government Act.
The KEY responsibility of the CAO is very clearly defined in the Municipal Government Act as it is in the CAO Handbook for Alberta Municipal Chief Administrative Officers. Their primary role is to provide background information, conduct research, collect any other relevant facts that will assist council in decision making.
As stated in the MGA, councillors are on council to make decisions by way of resolution or bylaw. A policy is considered a standing resolution of council. A bylaw is generally enforcement related as an example for how many animals can be on a property, noise etc. Other items such as what administration can do with something or a municipalities stance on an item can be addressed with a policy. In the matters where the MGA is not explicit, council may deal with the matter by way of resolution, which approves a policy. Confused yet? Stick with us.
“Municipalities must also follow the requirements when a bylaw, resolution, meeting, public hearing or something else is required to be advertised to the public (s.606 MGA). It is important to note that a listing does not constitute public notification. Once the property was listed, the notification was already a missed step. For example, if a municipality proposes to make a resolution to transfer or grant an estate or interest in land for less than market value, the proposal must be advertised, (s.70 MGA)” This excerpt is directly from the CAO handbook.
So, the point you ask? They ought to have known as they should have been advised that in order to sell any public asset, which the Old Administration is exactly that, an asset, there should be a Policy for Disposition. We did our research and came up with multiple County, village, summer villages that have such dispositions that instruct council on how to proceed with the disposal of an asset. We also come upon some Inspection reports from the Municipal Government and their agencies wherein they indicated that processes were inadequate for land sales as there was no policy to ensure that the municipality obtained fair market value at the time the land or land/building is sold.
LSARA did our homework and did some market comparisons for the area for a history period. In total there were only 3 sold with the Old Administration building offer accepted on Thursday making it four. One was a restaurant, one a grocery store, one a Quonset. They had varying degrees of land and varying square footage. The restaurant took 328 to days to sell for $45,000. The Grocery store took 440 days to sell for $86,000. The Quonset was a quicker sale however has different business opportunities and some land selling for $75,000.
As stated in the MGA, councillors are on council to make decisions by way of resolution or bylaw. A policy is considered a standing resolution of council. A bylaw is generally enforcement related as an example for how many animals can be on a property, noise etc. Other items such as what administration can do with something or a municipalities stance on an item can be addressed with a policy. In the matters where the MGA is not explicit, council may deal with the matter by way of resolution, which approves a policy. Confused yet? Stick with us.
“Municipalities must also follow the requirements when a bylaw, resolution, meeting, public hearing or something else is required to be advertised to the public (s.606 MGA). It is important to note that a listing does not constitute public notification. Once the property was listed, the notification was already a missed step. For example, if a municipality proposes to make a resolution to transfer or grant an estate or interest in land for less than market value, the proposal must be advertised, (s.70 MGA)” This excerpt is directly from the CAO handbook.
So, the point you ask? They ought to have known as they should have been advised that in order to sell any public asset, which the Old Administration is exactly that, an asset, there should be a Policy for Disposition. We did our research and came up with multiple County, village, summer villages that have such dispositions that instruct council on how to proceed with the disposal of an asset. We also come upon some Inspection reports from the Municipal Government and their agencies wherein they indicated that processes were inadequate for land sales as there was no policy to ensure that the municipality obtained fair market value at the time the land or land/building is sold.
LSARA did our homework and did some market comparisons for the area for a history period. In total there were only 3 sold with the Old Administration building offer accepted on Thursday making it four. One was a restaurant, one a grocery store, one a Quonset. They had varying degrees of land and varying square footage. The restaurant took 328 to days to sell for $45,000. The Grocery store took 440 days to sell for $86,000. The Quonset was a quicker sale however has different business opportunities and some land selling for $75,000.
The Old Administration building in Sangudo was LISTED ON DECEMBER 19 2017 at $99,900 AFTER an offer was presented. A OFFER WAS ACCEPTED BY LSAC ON FEBRUARY 8 2018.
This parcel is 3 lots with 16 stalls for parking and an 11,280 square foot building. It is concrete block construction. It may well be that $99,000 is all the building and the land is worth, but the point is we DON’T know!
A paper written explaining Acquisitions and Dispositions of Municipal Land by Douglas S. Christie, B.A., LL.B. is a very good read providing information indicating that every municipality is required to pass a by-law establishing procedures for the sale or other disposition of real property. He indicates that at a minimum three important conditions of sale must exist.
1) The property had to be declared surplus by by-law or resolution
2) At least one appraisal of the fair market value of the property had to be obtained
3) Notice of the proposed sale had to be given to the public
They failed on all three fronts. They initially failed in their listing to disclose any problems as there was not an inspection performed.
A paper written explaining Acquisitions and Dispositions of Municipal Land by Douglas S. Christie, B.A., LL.B. is a very good read providing information indicating that every municipality is required to pass a by-law establishing procedures for the sale or other disposition of real property. He indicates that at a minimum three important conditions of sale must exist.
1) The property had to be declared surplus by by-law or resolution
2) At least one appraisal of the fair market value of the property had to be obtained
3) Notice of the proposed sale had to be given to the public
They failed on all three fronts. They initially failed in their listing to disclose any problems as there was not an inspection performed.
They did not advertise that they were going to list the building and in fact have yet to deal with a Motion from November 10, 2016 (812-16) which directed Administration to proceed with a demolition plan and costs to demolish.
There is no report, no further reference as to how this building went from potentially being demolished to all of a sudden, a viable building to sell. It is important to understand that once a motion is made and passed, a new motion must be made to amend or to strike the first. We reviewed all the minutes from November 10th 2016 to current and there is no further reference. With four new Councillors, they should have been advised of this motion and the motion dealt with prior to anything else occurring with the building and land. How many other motions exist where appropriate action has not been undertaken at councils request that the new council is unaware of?
ASSET OR LIABILITY????????
A few things we know. There were upgrades to the old administration building since the last inspection report that was completed. Things such as new furnaces, plumbing, paint. How much of the old systems that contained asbestos for example were removed, coated? How much has already been re-mediated?
On what evidence are we to be persuaded that this parcel and the building are not worth substantially more?
Some of the questions we asked and information for review we provided in that December 31, 2017 Letter in part:
1. What is the LSAC Policy for liquidation of Municipal Assets? Is it a policy that would meet today’s standards and ensure no conflicts of interest in sales/leases exist as part of the policy or decision making?
2. Roles and responsibilities – Who is responsible. Council is responsible to ensure that Administration drafts and updates policies and procedures. The planning and development manager should be responsible for implementing any policy/procedure with respect to disposition of surplus land and buildings.
3. What is the criteria for disposition process?
4. LSARA insisted that LSAC council immediately create and implement a policy for Disposal of County Assets prior to the disposal of the building. We indicated until a new policy was in place, no further action should be taken with regards to the sale or demolition of the old administration building and the three associated lots.
If the Policy that previously existed with respect to the Disposition of County Assets no longer exists, when and why was this rescinded? Which leads us to wonder, how many others potentially have disappeared? A policy is created by council resolution and can only be changed or removed by resolution of council.
These questions and recommendations made by LSARA are all based on MGA, written papers by Lawyers who work with the MGA, inspections completed by the Municipal Government of other Counties, Towns. Fair market value can ONLY be determined by way of Certified Appraisal, Not by a Realtor or a County Assessment Department.
This is your dollars we are discussing here folks. Should an appraisal determine that fair market value is the pending sale price, so be it, BUT let’s make sure that we have a process, we follow the process, we provide full disclosure as part of our due diligence before we put up any County assets for sale.
LSARA will continue to advocate for the Ratepayers of Lac Ste Anne County. We would like to offer all of our past members and those seeking membership join us at our Annual General Meeting on February 20th, 2018 at 7 PM in the Gunn Hall.
WE are offering FREE membership!!!!
The current executive determined that we would offer free memberships to all of the Ratepayers of Lac Ste Anne County. We are a non-profit association and are able to provide receipts for donations. WE are mighty in numbers.
WE CHOOSE. DO WE LEAD? OR DO WE FOLLOW?
Wow that sold quick for Sangudo! Must of been a hell of a deal. How much did this building sell for?
ReplyDeleteSales in the area take a very long time. It is extremely rare for a commercial building of any kind to sell quickly, least of all before it is even listed for sale? this would lead one to believe that perhaps this "deal" is below market value.... an appraisal would have been a great asset and money well spent!!! We do not yet know what the offer was. The list price was $99,900.00 which does not mean that it was at fair market value. Only an Certified Appraisal could determine that. Offering it on an open tender with proper advertisement thereafter would also have been good governance in asset management.
ReplyDelete