LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY A YEAR IN REVIEW #2

LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY A YEAR IN REVIEW #2

Here is the continuation of the questions LSARA asked and the responses we received. Some of the questions or the responses might not make sense to you if the context isn’t explained. We will add in some explanatory information for clarity. 

Question #3. Business rebates for the “Mom and Pop” operations. A response was to be forthcoming from the Division 1 Councillor. 

LSAC Response to our Question #3:  

The property tax program sometimes referred to as the Mom and Pop Rebate program was discontinued by Council in 2015. In 2018, as part of new authorities provided by revisions to the Municipal Government ACT (MGA) County Council passed legislation that allows Small Business Property, as defined in the MGA, a property tax rate 25% lower than Non-Residential property. This rate is the lowest permitted under provincial legislation. 

Had LSARA responded, we may have asked if the LSAC definitions under the Land Use Bylaws (LUB) were in-line with the MGA. Is this “advantage” communicated to small business to attempt to attract residents with small businesses to Lac Ste Anne County? Is this incentive communicated to all “Mom and Pop” businesses that currently operate in LSAC? 

Question #4. Road Plans. There are more than just one road we have a concern with. “Name withheld for owner privacy” Is the County putting an approach on this land? The registered road allowance runs right  through an organic farm but there is no law forcing any kind of development so why not change it back to the outside parameters of the land? Is LSAC planning to use tax dollars to what would amount to a private road to an undeveloped acreage? Have there been any permits issued for this proposed development? 

LSAC Response to our Question #4:  The county proceeded with a temporary approach for safety, and Council approves moving the road allowance to the western boundary of property and cancelling the current road plan. 

Had LSARA responded we would have asked if this “cancellation” of the road plan was addressed through the Province as Road plans are registered with the Province. With Safety stated as a deciding factor, the question is whose safety and why? 

Question #5. Road Plan with respect to what roads are in the 5 year plan to repair or build. Why have we deviated and will the debenture that we are currently undertaking of $2.5 million be taken out of the 5 year plan or will we  be just assuming another 2.5 million of debt? Interesting to note here that the interest on the monies borrowed equates to what is stated this road is costing to maintain annually so how is it a gain? 

LSAC Response to our Question #5: Road plans are live documents that provide guidance but are not set in stone. Council reserves the right to move projects up and down the list based on many factors. Two Rd 590 project began a few years ago but was never completed. 

Had LSARA responded we would have acknowledged that Council certainly does have to prioritize projects, Road builds and repairs. Why was the project not completed in better economic times? When Linear Assessments were higher and MSI funding, capital project funding was more readily available? Could it be due to all the financial resources LSAC had being funnelled to ONE project? Namely the Administration Building ? 

 Please follow this Blog and like, follow and share our Facebook Page.     

Your comments and concerns are valued. Your membership is very important to us. We look forward to greeting you all at our Annual General Meeting March 31st at the GUNN Hall from 2-4 pm.  Stay tuned for Post #3 in the series.