LSAC Ratepayers Facing More Uncertainty

LSAC Ratepayers Facing More Uncertainty

It was published in the Lac Ste Anne Bulletin in the April 1 edition, that the County of Lac Ste Anne is now considering yet another Borrowing Bylaw for a million dollars, only to loan it out to another entity. Sounds all a bit confusing and even after having read some of the information posted on the newly created information website, all of this information is still very confusing. 

We all know just exactly how important having services in our communities are, and of course having an innovative Medical Centre is a definite asset. There is no question we all want state of the art servicing surrounding the Medical Centre as well, with imaging, x rays, labs, etc. The medical clinic currently in Onoway could certainly look to be enhanced, no question, 

The questions that do come up though in this newly created process of developing two new corporations, having County of Lac Ste Anne as main or only stakeholder is why are we not working within the current framework where we currently have 6 municipalities sharing in costs and funding or partnership programs with AHS. 

We had 15 municipalities in the previous structure but some have dropped out of the partnership leaving only 6 now. 

Question is why? This whole process is mind boggling but leaves very little time to research with no previous CONSULTATION given by the County to the Ratepayers, They have just put out an information website and brochure however, most of our questions come straight from what this information doesn’t say.

We did write to the Councillors via email on two occasions.  We have asked that they either rescind or postpone the borrowing Bylaw until further Public Consultation.  We also wrote and asked that the Public Hearing be held on a Saturday when all residents have an opportunity to attend.   

The following are the two letters sent to council.

LSARA Letter to Council to rescind Bylaws 11-12

LSARA Letter to Council Public Hearing

Straight from LSAC's "New Website"www.legacymunicipal.ca 

"Legacy MLC Business Plan"

Legacy Municipal Land Corporation (Legacy MLC) will use community wealth-building strategies to develop place-based assets that may otherwise experience prohibitive barriers to locating in the region. Legacy MLC will use a wide range of innovative entrepreneurial approaches to commercial and residential real estate development, property management and infrastructure advancement, to achieve outcomes beneficial to the needs and desires of residents and partners within a given community.

Although the single-minded focus of Legacy MLC will be to undertake projects to allow the County to overcome some of the roadblocks and barriers to the development of new services in its communities, the scope of potential projects will be very broad. Ultimately, projects may be identified as financially practical that include daycare facilities; seniors and low-income housing; commercial/industrial land development; recreation and community facilities; or internet and telecommunications projects. The possibilities for advancement within our communities will only be limited by the limits of entrepreneurial innovation.

As Legacy MLC moves forward with Initial project and the many projects it will undertake in the future, the County and its residents will benefit from the strengthened foothold of the Community Economic Development in our region to help families benefit from local jobs, quality services and homes to enable the continued development of the region’s thriving communities.

"Impact of Control"

As per the Legacy MLC Business Plan  "Controlling the Legacy MLC is not EXPECTED to impact Lac Ste Anne County’s financial viability."  LSARA strongly disagrees!


So now for just a few of the questions regarding this whole process and structure.

1. Why the tight timelines? Why not give the Ratepayers the opportunity to for consultation and seek out or research more information.
2. What were the costs and who paid for Legal consultation, Website and Information Brochures, Design and Drawings for the building and any other costs to date? 
3. Is the current lease period complete or is there still a contractual obligation? 
4. Have we purchased land already for this project? How? 
5. Who are the shareholders and what is the structure of BOTH Legacy MLC and ORMC MCC? Who will be managing director of both corps? 
6. Why two corporation formations? Why not just ORMC MCC? Why do we need two? The other has other partnership opportunities with the 6 other municipalities. 
7. Who appointed CAO or CFO to these corporations? Was this completed by vote and where can this be referenced? What is the positions, responsibilities, commercial tax the LSAC ratepayers will owe the Town of Onoway
8. What is our total Debt Limit? What is our total current Debt? As Per MGA: No Municipality may make a borrowing if the borrowing will cause the municipality to exceed its debt limit.

Is the timing of this with a highly anticipated Provincial election, in the midst of a contentious Land Use Bylaw on purpose as they think we the Ratepayers, would be too distracted to notice ?

Has there been consultation with AHS and approval for the doctors, therapists, nurses, dietitians, and other specialized medical resources will be paid for by the province.

Why did the other municipalities opt out of involvement in the Medical Clinic? There were 15 municipalities involved at the inception of the medical recruitment program however there are now only interest from the County and the 6 municipalities? What happened to the past partnerships?

Why does the Bylaw 11-2019 say: …the annual interest rate not to exceed the interest rate as fixed from time to time by the Alberta Capital Finance Authority, and not to exceed four and a half (4.5%) percent but Bylaw 12-2019 where we are taking the borrowed funds and loaning it to Legacy MLC “the rate of interest on the loan to Legacy MLS shall be that of Alberta Capital Finance Authority or another authorized financial institution on the date of the borrowing is completed by the County, for a twenty-Five (25) year debenture, and not to exceed four (4.00%) percent.

Question is, why would we borrow the money at 4.5% and loan it out at 4%?

On page 24 of the LSA Bulletin April 1 edition it states “The Council of Lac Ste Anne County is CONSIDERING the establishment of a Municipally Controlled Corporation” and identifies both the MLC and MCC in two separate ads however, on page 27 of same issue it states “Council has DECIDED to establish a Municipally Controlled Corporation".

So is it understood that the decision has been made despite or in spite of any ratepayer consultation?


Why are there absolutely no increases, even Cost of Living, in their 5 year projections?

Why under the MGA does it state under section 254 (1) No municipality may acquire, remove or start the construction or improvement of a capital property that is to be financed in whole or in part through a borrowing unless the borrowing bylaw that authorizes the borrowing is passed. Yet based on timeline an Architect has already been selected and Building Designs have begun. Also on this same timeline, it speaks to Unanimous Shareholder Agreements and yet in the information booklet under Corporate Structure it says 1 Shareholder LSAC? Again, begs question of structure?

So why not keep the same structure as current in the ORMC? What is the subsidy or payments from AHS currently and in the new structure? Are there doctors looking in the area? I happen to know there are some physicians seeking operations in the immediate areas.

What happens if MLC or ORMC MCC are unable to make payments? Who is liable for defaults? For this or any other projects?  LSAC wants to be 100% shareholder/risk taker of Legacy MLC MCC and 80% shareholder/risk taker of ORMC MCC. LSARA believes that this is NOT in the best interests of the ratepayers of LSAC.

Why would LSAC want to compete directly in commercial, land and residential development? Why not support local business in this since the same employment opportunities would be evident?

So in the last sentence where it says “… to provide property development and facility management services for community-focused projects that may present significant benefits to our community but where the economic benefit of these projects is not great enough to attract private investment” Does this mean that the new MLC is willing to take more risks than that of a “private industry?

There just is not enough information for any ratepayer to support this Corporation initiative nor to support yet another Borrowing Bylaw when we do not know where we stand financially with outstanding debt. More time is required for investigation/research and input.