EMAIL US WITH YOUR VIEW
At This Link LSARACARES@gmail.com
Isn’t it amazing – there are people, including councillor/s, complaining about “ all the negativity in the media” and yet there is a simple solution – all Council has to do is be honest and straight forward with the people who will have to pay the bills! Frankly, if they are referring to me, I DON’T CARE. If I ask a question I expect to get an honest answer, which is my RIGHT – it’s MY money (and yours), not silence or B.S. The M.G.A. (Municipal Govt. Act) says – “all information that can be made public – should be” – and the restrictions are minimal.
We don’t have $1.3 in debt, or even just long term debt, the person that who put that figure out – ‘in the interests of getting the truth out there’- obviously can’t even read the County’s (audited) Financial Statement – were they working for me … they wouldn’t be!. Our long-term debt is more that $3 mill. (oops, ‘that was a misstep that we won’t repeat’ according to the C.F.O.) and our TOTAL debt, as of 1st Jan 2014, was more than $14 MILLION (see the Russell Farmer report)- how much has been added since???
Mr. Hegy, in his Letter to the Editor says that Council should operate more as a Board of Directors in a public Co. because they can’t interfere in the day-to-day operations of the employees, and he’s right in some ways, but a Board of Directors is responsible for safeguarding the interests of the SHAREHOLDERS - that’s us in the County structure, which he obviously hasn’t grasped yet – because this Council has operated more to promote their own ambitions than in the interests of the shareholders. A Board of Directors controls the activities of the CEO (C.A.O. in our case) by putting policies in place, but this Council has consistently failed to do that.
I know there has been much debate over the contentious RV issue within the County. But now the very way of life that many residents enjoy could be coming to an end with the proposed land use bylaw changes.
I can appreciate that people want a place to park their RV, away from the hustle and bustle of city life. After all, that is why I moved to the County. I can also appreciate that they consider themselves respectful neighbors, especially since they are only out for the weekend. But let me tell you exactly why the proposed changes threaten to destroy certain communities forever.
The new bylaws will allow up to 4 RV’s PER vacant lot within “specific” subdivisions. 4 RV’s per lot! Look around your neighborhood and consider what your life would be like if half the neighborhood had 4 RV’s on each lot and those houses were gone. Would it resemble more of a campground or a residential subdivision? What would this do for the resale value of your homes? Let’s take it a step further, what if they allowed 1 garage and 4 RV’s on each lot- with no house. What would your street look like if the population density went up 5-fold on each lot?
Now what if the neighboring lots decided to capitalize on this and rented out RV space to 4 families right next door to you. What would the noise sound like? What would the traffic look like? What if this meant that there was literally hundreds of RV’s in your neighborhood suddenly and there was nothing you could do about it. Would you still want to live there?
But the number of RV’s per lot doesn’t stop at 4…if you move them after 7 days, every month you can have an unlimited number on your property for the week. UNLIMITED! Want to rent out your lot to 50 families for parties or community events…go right ahead! How does the County plan to enforce the 7-day rule? They haven’t been successful at enforcing the 3-day rule on the last set of bylaws.
But even more importantly, what would this mean if you were a young family raising your children in what you thought was a residential subdivision. Would you want to continue having your children or grandchildren growing up in a campground? What if your property values went down and you now faced having to sell your home and not being able to buy another as a result? What if you couldn’t even sell your home because who would build their home or want to live in a campground? Young families who bought their first home are particularly vulnerable. How would you feel if you had to pay $3000/year in taxes while your “neighbors” could rent out to 4 families and only pay $1200/year in taxes? What would your roads look like with all the increased traffic?
How does allowing RV’s and garages on vacant land in RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS promote family values, a sense of community, or encourage people to want to live in the County? Would you want to live permenently in one of these “specific” subdivisions?
I implore everyone to consider not only how this potentially affects them, but how it affects their neighbors in other subdivisions as well. Stand a weekend in my shoes and maybe you will understand that this doesn’t have anything to do with malicious intent against RV owners. But I do believe if they were in our shoes and even if they only had a dozen RV’s parked on their street in Edmonton every weekend, they may be complaining to their city officials too.
I’m just the poor sucker who was scammed thinking that when the bylaws said you must build a house of a certain size and no RV’s without a house- that it meant something. Silly me, now I live in a campground and the County wants to make it worse. Please help us by telling Council that rezoning existing subdivisions to accommodate their lack of bylaw enforcement is wrong. That legalizing an activity so they don’t have to enforce it- is wrong.
Our community is at their limit with no representation in Council and nowhere left to turn. This may not affect your neighborhood today, but I can assure you- it may tomorrow. Please tell Council you support families in this County.
At This Link LSARACARES@gmail.com
LETTER TO LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY COUNCIL
By David Chawner Feb22 2018
Reeve & Council.
Lac Ste. Anne County.
P.O. Box 219, Sangudo Alberta. T0E 2A0
22nd. Feb. 2018
re: County response to L.S.A.R.A.’s invitation to Council to attend their A.G.M. as observers.
Support them or not, this organisation represents the rate payers of this County, and as such, asks questions of Council in order to keep the ratepayers informed and elicit information in answer to members’ queries. If they feel that something is out of order, they bring that to the attention of ratepayers and Council and Administration through their Facebook page and Blog.
The comment that you have ‘concerns about their process’, that ‘there is scepticism regarding the purpose of the last minute restriction imposed’ and ‘apprehension that there is a strategy to divide and conquer Council’ is ridiculous.
First – what process?
Second – my understanding regarding that e-mail was that it was intended to assure Council that the A.G.M. would not be allowed to turn into a grilling of Council members, nor to allow any Council member to turn it into their own soap box. What anyone did after the meeting adjourned would have been entirely up to them.
Third – the ‘apprehension’ that any person or group would have the ability to ‘divide and conquer Council’ – is ridiculous paranoia.
Re the accuracy of articles posted by LSARA, or anybody else, - Council has all of the tools it needs to swiftly refute any discrepancies publicly and set the record straight – which they SHOULD have been doing from day one. They have a website (which people find difficult to navigate) and they also have almost 20% of the Bulletin where they could easily post their points without any additional cost simply by utilising the wasted space – the oversize print, the irrelevant pictures and the unused space.
As to Council’s assertion that they should be given prior notice of questions in order to have an opportunity to ‘prepare effective answers’ - any such information should be readily available from Administration – that’s their job!! To suggest that questions should be submitted for inclusion on an up-coming meeting agenda is also ridiculous given that Council requires that anyone wishing to address Council on any matter is required to give at least 8 days notice – which means that they then have to attend the council meeting in order to receive a response. Firstly - for many people that is impossible given home, work and other requirements, secondly – that could mean they have to wait several weeks before getting a reply. And further – it appears that the agenda for the last Council meeting was not released until AFTER the meeting took place. An item on that agenda was a report on the old administration building which no one could speak to because they have to give at least 8 days notice AND no-one could find the agenda anyway. When it did appear, a link from the agenda to that report appears to have been not activated.
Most of the questions being asked are regarding “has Council been following the procedures that are dictated by law or their own policies”? Council has a fail-safe in the sense that they have a highly paid Administration whose primary job is to ensure that they do so. The taxpayers have to do their own digging. If Council feels that they are not getting that support from Administration – they need to take appropriate action.
Unlike private enterprise, who can ‘adjust’ their actions to suit the situation, Municipal Govt.s are bound by the regulations, Acts and policies that are in place at any one time and cannot act outside of those – even with the best of intentions, which, once again, Administration is duty bound to ensure they do or record, in writing, that they have advised Council appropriately.
I would respectfully suggest therefore that, before Council or Administration criticise LSARA, they first get their own house in order.
The Minutes of the 25th. Jan 2018 meeting list Mr. Peter Shokier, the Freelancer reporter, as being in attendance AND the time that he left – something that he was unaware of until I spoke to him. Both Municipal Affairs and the Privacy Commissioner’s office advised me that requiring attendees to ‘sign in’ or identifying them in the minutes is illegal!
Yours Sincerely,
David T. Chawner
Second – my understanding regarding that e-mail was that it was intended to assure Council that the A.G.M. would not be allowed to turn into a grilling of Council members, nor to allow any Council member to turn it into their own soap box. What anyone did after the meeting adjourned would have been entirely up to them.
Third – the ‘apprehension’ that any person or group would have the ability to ‘divide and conquer Council’ – is ridiculous paranoia.
Re the accuracy of articles posted by LSARA, or anybody else, - Council has all of the tools it needs to swiftly refute any discrepancies publicly and set the record straight – which they SHOULD have been doing from day one. They have a website (which people find difficult to navigate) and they also have almost 20% of the Bulletin where they could easily post their points without any additional cost simply by utilising the wasted space – the oversize print, the irrelevant pictures and the unused space.
As to Council’s assertion that they should be given prior notice of questions in order to have an opportunity to ‘prepare effective answers’ - any such information should be readily available from Administration – that’s their job!! To suggest that questions should be submitted for inclusion on an up-coming meeting agenda is also ridiculous given that Council requires that anyone wishing to address Council on any matter is required to give at least 8 days notice – which means that they then have to attend the council meeting in order to receive a response. Firstly - for many people that is impossible given home, work and other requirements, secondly – that could mean they have to wait several weeks before getting a reply. And further – it appears that the agenda for the last Council meeting was not released until AFTER the meeting took place. An item on that agenda was a report on the old administration building which no one could speak to because they have to give at least 8 days notice AND no-one could find the agenda anyway. When it did appear, a link from the agenda to that report appears to have been not activated.
Most of the questions being asked are regarding “has Council been following the procedures that are dictated by law or their own policies”? Council has a fail-safe in the sense that they have a highly paid Administration whose primary job is to ensure that they do so. The taxpayers have to do their own digging. If Council feels that they are not getting that support from Administration – they need to take appropriate action.
Unlike private enterprise, who can ‘adjust’ their actions to suit the situation, Municipal Govt.s are bound by the regulations, Acts and policies that are in place at any one time and cannot act outside of those – even with the best of intentions, which, once again, Administration is duty bound to ensure they do or record, in writing, that they have advised Council appropriately.
I would respectfully suggest therefore that, before Council or Administration criticise LSARA, they first get their own house in order.
The Minutes of the 25th. Jan 2018 meeting list Mr. Peter Shokier, the Freelancer reporter, as being in attendance AND the time that he left – something that he was unaware of until I spoke to him. Both Municipal Affairs and the Privacy Commissioner’s office advised me that requiring attendees to ‘sign in’ or identifying them in the minutes is illegal!
Yours Sincerely,
David T. Chawner
Perleeese… tell me that we are not going down this road again – wasting more money!!
By David Chawner Nov 2, 2017
The new council hadn’t even been sworn in, but they’ll have to sort out the mess, because some-one in the County Office thought that it would be a great idea to conduct an “experiment” and test the use of road grindings from Hwy 37 as an alternative road topping in the sub-divisions just as the forecast was for Fall/Winter weather – snow?? rain?? cold temperatures??… sound familiar for late October??
So …. in Sturgeon Heights, where they’d finally got around to filling the pot holes, they ground up a perfectly good asphalt road; reshaped it; rolled it and then (after it had rained and turned it into a mud bath) finally topped it with grindings. It took a grinder, a grader, a roller, some-one to put up warning signs and a flag person, to prepare it; a loader, trucks, a grader, a machine to break down the big pieces, a flag person and a roller (and a two man and track skid-steer (contract) crew to tidy up the residence entrances) to lay the grindings. As the cost for a grader is close to $200 per HOUR, I dread to think what this “experiment” has cost us … the taxpayers.
Trying to find out what was happening, I spoke to three different people with the County and got three different answers – one said it’s to replace regular gravel (why they’d rip up an asphalt road and replace it with gravel is beyond me – but whatever); another told me it still had to be heated, (after it was laid?? you’ll never heat through 10” of material that’s been compacted with a roller) and traffic would ‘roll in down’; the third told me we’ll have to add oil, mix it up and re-roll it
It took me just 2 (TWO) phone calls to find out that it needs to be heated, or have solvent or tar added (BEFORE IT’S LAID !!!). So now what’s the plan? When they first laid the asphalt it was only on the main loop, so they didn’t plough the side roads because they were still gravel, and little kids were having to walk to the school bus through a foot of snow. Is that the plan for the rest of the subdivision this time around??
The County has spent time and money trying to get people to ‘beautify’ their property (and the county) in order to attract new comers, and now a large part of this ‘experiment’ is going to be dumped into the ditches (preventing people from mowing them) if the roads are cleared during the winter.
I don’t claim to know everything, but I’m an old f….t who’s been around a long time, and it seems to me that, if you can’t build sand castles from dry sand, it’s a safe bet that you can’t build solid road surfaces from material that’s as dry as dust. Just saying!
So what have we learned from the ‘experiment’ in Sturgeon Heights ? Using the material in the way that the County has done will give you the longest washboards you’ve ever seen!! So now, who authorised this experiment?
Oh yes, the ‘experiment’ wasn’t just done here, they tried it in several sub-divisions!
It’s probably politically incorrect to say that the lunatics appear to be running the asylum ….
My condolences to the new council,
David Chawner.
It took me just 2 (TWO) phone calls to find out that it needs to be heated, or have solvent or tar added (BEFORE IT’S LAID !!!). So now what’s the plan? When they first laid the asphalt it was only on the main loop, so they didn’t plough the side roads because they were still gravel, and little kids were having to walk to the school bus through a foot of snow. Is that the plan for the rest of the subdivision this time around??
The County has spent time and money trying to get people to ‘beautify’ their property (and the county) in order to attract new comers, and now a large part of this ‘experiment’ is going to be dumped into the ditches (preventing people from mowing them) if the roads are cleared during the winter.
I don’t claim to know everything, but I’m an old f….t who’s been around a long time, and it seems to me that, if you can’t build sand castles from dry sand, it’s a safe bet that you can’t build solid road surfaces from material that’s as dry as dust. Just saying!
So what have we learned from the ‘experiment’ in Sturgeon Heights ? Using the material in the way that the County has done will give you the longest washboards you’ve ever seen!! So now, who authorised this experiment?
Oh yes, the ‘experiment’ wasn’t just done here, they tried it in several sub-divisions!
It’s probably politically incorrect to say that the lunatics appear to be running the asylum ….
My condolences to the new council,
David Chawner.
Isn’t it amazing
By David Chawner
Isn’t it amazing – there are people, including councillor/s, complaining about “ all the negativity in the media” and yet there is a simple solution – all Council has to do is be honest and straight forward with the people who will have to pay the bills! Frankly, if they are referring to me, I DON’T CARE. If I ask a question I expect to get an honest answer, which is my RIGHT – it’s MY money (and yours), not silence or B.S. The M.G.A. (Municipal Govt. Act) says – “all information that can be made public – should be” – and the restrictions are minimal.
We don’t have $1.3 in debt, or even just long term debt, the person that who put that figure out – ‘in the interests of getting the truth out there’- obviously can’t even read the County’s (audited) Financial Statement – were they working for me … they wouldn’t be!. Our long-term debt is more that $3 mill. (oops, ‘that was a misstep that we won’t repeat’ according to the C.F.O.) and our TOTAL debt, as of 1st Jan 2014, was more than $14 MILLION (see the Russell Farmer report)- how much has been added since???
Mr. Hegy, in his Letter to the Editor says that Council should operate more as a Board of Directors in a public Co. because they can’t interfere in the day-to-day operations of the employees, and he’s right in some ways, but a Board of Directors is responsible for safeguarding the interests of the SHAREHOLDERS - that’s us in the County structure, which he obviously hasn’t grasped yet – because this Council has operated more to promote their own ambitions than in the interests of the shareholders. A Board of Directors controls the activities of the CEO (C.A.O. in our case) by putting policies in place, but this Council has consistently failed to do that.
He has failed to understand that this not a four-year dictatorship but a democracy where every-one has the right to express their opinion and expect to be heard and represented – messy and frustrating as it is, it’s better than any other system out there, and issuing statements that, in effect, say “we’ll do what we want, when we want and you’ll just have to pay the bill regardless” does not advance that concept nor fulfill their obligations to us. In his re-election material he claims that he has started re-building relationships with the municipalities within L.S.A. – obviously forgetting that it was under this Council’s watch that those relationships were destroyed to the point that several of those municipalities signed a letter to the Minister of Mun. Affairs requesting that he investigate the activities of L.S.A. and that there is an on-going legal battle between L.S.A. and North West (Onoway’s Fire Provider) because North West rendered aid when they came across an accident on Hwy. 37, which is outside their area of operation. That is costing both sets of taxpayers money for legal fees, in spite of the fact that Mun. Affairs INSTRUCTED them to reach a Mutual Aid Agreement. That should never have been started and should have been stopped immediately the Agreement was in place. But then, if it’s about egos and status, obviously this Council feels that it’s o.k.
The Russell Farmer report into how Council acted during the ‘Taj Mahal’ fiasco – (it’s already built, it’s done, so I don’t understand why they would need us to pay for a report to justify their actions) - also says that “it is appropriate to raise the question of why M.S.I. funding was not considered at this time” which was when Council was trying to long-term fund it originally. Well it isn’t appropriate because I contacted Mun. Affairs and they said M.S.I. funding could NOT be used because it was not guaranteed year to year, and, under the M.G.A., total funding had to be in place BEFORE work could start.
It also advocated that recorded votes not be taken, partly because individual councillors might try to obtain a political advantage by demonstrating their opposition to a motion – that would mean that if you were able to get to the Council meeting you would know how your councillor voted, but if you had to rely on the minutes, you wouldn’t --- if that’s not an attack on your democratic rights, I don’t know what is.
David Chawner.
The Russell Farmer report into how Council acted during the ‘Taj Mahal’ fiasco – (it’s already built, it’s done, so I don’t understand why they would need us to pay for a report to justify their actions) - also says that “it is appropriate to raise the question of why M.S.I. funding was not considered at this time” which was when Council was trying to long-term fund it originally. Well it isn’t appropriate because I contacted Mun. Affairs and they said M.S.I. funding could NOT be used because it was not guaranteed year to year, and, under the M.G.A., total funding had to be in place BEFORE work could start.
It also advocated that recorded votes not be taken, partly because individual councillors might try to obtain a political advantage by demonstrating their opposition to a motion – that would mean that if you were able to get to the Council meeting you would know how your councillor voted, but if you had to rely on the minutes, you wouldn’t --- if that’s not an attack on your democratic rights, I don’t know what is.
David Chawner.
Mr. Hegy’s pitch for a second term as councillor
By David Chawner
He seems to have forgotten a few of his “accomplishments” –
- “under my watch, County Council has moved forward in a very progressive,
and the list goes on … and on…and on!
I dread to think how much more damage could be done in another 4 years.
David Chawner.
David Chawner.
County seeks to counter spread of false information Aug 30th
By David Chawner
Lac
Ste. Anne County’s recent advertisement “Straight Talk About County Finances”
in which they allege that “misleading information about County finances has
been spread” shows the County’s 2016 long-term debt as being $1.370,470. Under
the Municipal Govt. Act (M.G.A.), municipalities are required to provide
Municipal Affairs Dept. with audited financial statements which the
Dept. then posts on their website (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B69V6QH-ValArZDc3SnVMYTZmSjA/view).
If you go there you will find that the AUDITED amount of L.S.A.C. long-term
debt is shown as $3,751,107 – a slight difference of almost $2.5 million!! All
of the figures quoted in their ‘comparison chart’ for other
municipalities are exactly the same as shown on that website – so maybe they
would care to explain the discrepancy.
While
they are trying to brag about the low level of long-term debt, anyone who has
lived in the County for more than a year will know that that is because WE
petitioned and stopped them borrowing long-term for the “Taj Mahal”. As a
result they have resorted to massive short-term borrowing.
If
they want “straight talk” and correct information out there they should list
ALL of the debt that we, as ratepayers, are liable for thanks to their
‘responsible stewardship’.
At the very least I figure we still owe:
$5
million for the “Taj Mahal” (approx)
$2.5
for the L.S.A. Foundation (Seniors residence)
$300,000
for construction of the water station next to Timber Mart
$1.9
million for upgrades to Twp Rd. 544
Does
that sounds to you as if we only owe $1.3 million (as per their comparison)?
I can’t
imagine what made them think the ratepayers of this County wouldn’t see through
their ‘misinformation’.
They
are right in one aspect however, there is a lot of misinformation being
circulated! If you want to know just how indebted we really are …. go to L.S.A.R.A.’s
Facebook page – they’re not trying to create a false impression!
David Chawner
(Sturgeon Heights)
An open letter to Mayor & Council, Lac Ste. Anne County
By David Chawner
Oh dear, Oh
dear, Oh dear I was told that a councillor or councillors is/are upset about
all the negative comments in the media …. (I hope they don’t mean me!)
Gentlemen the solution to that is in
YOUR hands – you were elected (and swore an oath) to REPRESENT the ratepayers
of this County – not to do whatever you wanted.
If you want the negativity to stop,
all you have to do is - your job! When you are asked a question – answer it!
don’t ‘farm’ it off to Administration, claim that the requested information
hasn’t been compiled yet or just ignore it, the question is TO YOU – that’s
your job. I’m sure that, when you start doing that, the negativity will
‘fade into the sunset’ because it will
no longer be valid.
The Municipal Govt. Act (M.G.A.)
says that all information that can be released to the public – should be, and
yet you and YOUR administration have consistently failed to do that, and
actively obstructed it by not answering ratepayers questions or demanding
F.O.I.P. requests and multi-thousand dollar fees to provide information that
belongs to the ratepayers of this County.
As you’ve failed to reply to most of
my (mailed) questions I’ll ask these through
the media as well as directly to you - re. the upgrades to Twp.Rd. 544 .
Government regulations (T.I.L.M.A.) require that contracts above a certain dollar value are openly tendered – not just awarded to the contractor of your choice:
1.
was
a request for “Expressions of Interest” (to do that job) sent out
2.
if
so, was that a general request or directed to specific companies, and if so,
which ones
3.
how
was the estimated possible savings of upto $600,000 (about 25%) arrived at – to
justify borrowing the money and doing it in one year instead of the planned
three years
4.
how
was the estimated cost of $1.9 million established
5.
was
a borrowing bylaw passed prior to the request being answered and contract
awarded, and if so, what number is it
6.
was
the loan arranged before or after the bylaw was passed
7.
has
a contract been signed, and, if so, when was it dated
8.
given
the weather at this time of year can affect contractors’ ability to complete
jobs by the proposed completion date – will that price still be maintained if
the work has to be delayed until next season?
As usual I
thank you for your time and look forward to receiving your reply.
David
Chawner
Sturgeon
Heights
Election 2017 – Last Chance to Save the County
A final appeal to Business, and Home Owners......
Has there been a more important election in the County of Lac Ste Anne, ever? I doubt it. During the most recent Information Event the County held in Darwell, Planning Manager Matthew Ferris declared the County as the new RV Recreational County. I am not aware of another declaration of this type anywhere in Alberta, and for good reason.
The County is inundated with RV's, and apparently it hasn't been a big problem because nobody spoke up. I don't know why people didn't speak up, I just know they didn't. So rather than enforce the long standing Land Use Bylaws in place that said “no RV's in Residential Subdivisions” the scale of this problem is now causing some home owners to complain about enforcement.
The County has two choices, enforce the law properly, and honor the commitment that they made to investors when home owners purchased property in the County based on the existing Bylaws, or just screw them and re-write the Bylaws. The County has chosen the the latter. Basically the County has long run on the old bate and switch tactic, get enough people in to make it look like a subdivision, and then fill the community up with RV's.
The County wants you to believe that Developers, and Real Estate agents are to blame. Don't buy that story, the County is the boss, they are to blame.
So this forces the County's new economic plan. They are caught now trying to pay for the lovely County Office they built. Hard to get blood from the stone, the people that actually live, and pay taxes in the County are already stretched. So as opposed to trying to develop real economic opportunity in the County they decided to try and pick up a few extra dollars from campers.
RV owners will claim they pay their taxes and spend money here. I agree, they do pay taxes, and to my knowledge they typically pay less than a third of what I pay. Imagine, if one third of the RV owners had to decide to convert to building a cottage because the were now forced to make that choice by the County Laws that are currently in place. The County would have the same revenue, your communities would become communities again, and people might actually choose to live in the County...
But paying taxes is one thing, spending extra money in the County is something else, and here is where the appeal to Business owners, and future development comes in. Where do you think the RV owner bought the jug of milk they have in the RV fridge? They brought it with them. How do I know that? Because I know how hard it is to find a place to buy milk in the County. If you live anywhere but in a few County towns you have a significant drive ahead of you.
RV owners buy their stuff and bring it with them. Other than gravel for their lot (the gravel guy has made out like a bandit), they bring everything, even the wood they used for their gate. It's easy, convenient, and since the County has no real economic development plan whatsoever there is no place to buy the stuff in the County.
Business owners should take long look at this election. If you found it hard to grow your business up to now, get ready for the future, because an RV Recreational County is a pretty tough place to make a living.
RV owners think they are going to get off scott free if the new Bylaw goes through. Remember, they fought the Special Event $500 fee and got that canceled. Unfortunately for them they don't know why it got canceled. You see the $500 fee was a stop gap measure to collect some money before the County hatched the new RV County fiasco. Once your subdivision is declared an RV subdivision in the Bylaw, the County will make the $500 fee look like chump change. The Bylaw allows the County to now impose significantly higher taxes on the RV owners. All the improvements, the holding tanks, the extra RV's, everything will be taxed accordingly. I want to think this is an insidious plot by the County to eventually force people to build a home, since having an RV on a property becomes too expensive. Sorry, there is nobody smart enough at the County, including the Manager, that could have come up with this as a plan.
Finally, to the Home Owners, the people that bought property, built a home and likely will rely on it's wealth to provide for their retirement. If you are lucky to sell that home in the future I can almost guarantee that it will be for less dollars than other places. Would you buy property in a campground?
Think about your situation, once the County gets this passed there is no going back. So vote, but not just for anybody. Make sure you vote for a Candidate that does not support this RV Bylaw Plan, get that person on Council and lets save the County.
Kevin Blomme
Lessard Landing
A final appeal to Business, and Home Owners......
Has there been a more important election in the County of Lac Ste Anne, ever? I doubt it. During the most recent Information Event the County held in Darwell, Planning Manager Matthew Ferris declared the County as the new RV Recreational County. I am not aware of another declaration of this type anywhere in Alberta, and for good reason.
The County is inundated with RV's, and apparently it hasn't been a big problem because nobody spoke up. I don't know why people didn't speak up, I just know they didn't. So rather than enforce the long standing Land Use Bylaws in place that said “no RV's in Residential Subdivisions” the scale of this problem is now causing some home owners to complain about enforcement.
The County has two choices, enforce the law properly, and honor the commitment that they made to investors when home owners purchased property in the County based on the existing Bylaws, or just screw them and re-write the Bylaws. The County has chosen the the latter. Basically the County has long run on the old bate and switch tactic, get enough people in to make it look like a subdivision, and then fill the community up with RV's.
The County wants you to believe that Developers, and Real Estate agents are to blame. Don't buy that story, the County is the boss, they are to blame.
So this forces the County's new economic plan. They are caught now trying to pay for the lovely County Office they built. Hard to get blood from the stone, the people that actually live, and pay taxes in the County are already stretched. So as opposed to trying to develop real economic opportunity in the County they decided to try and pick up a few extra dollars from campers.
RV owners will claim they pay their taxes and spend money here. I agree, they do pay taxes, and to my knowledge they typically pay less than a third of what I pay. Imagine, if one third of the RV owners had to decide to convert to building a cottage because the were now forced to make that choice by the County Laws that are currently in place. The County would have the same revenue, your communities would become communities again, and people might actually choose to live in the County...
But paying taxes is one thing, spending extra money in the County is something else, and here is where the appeal to Business owners, and future development comes in. Where do you think the RV owner bought the jug of milk they have in the RV fridge? They brought it with them. How do I know that? Because I know how hard it is to find a place to buy milk in the County. If you live anywhere but in a few County towns you have a significant drive ahead of you.
RV owners buy their stuff and bring it with them. Other than gravel for their lot (the gravel guy has made out like a bandit), they bring everything, even the wood they used for their gate. It's easy, convenient, and since the County has no real economic development plan whatsoever there is no place to buy the stuff in the County.
Business owners should take long look at this election. If you found it hard to grow your business up to now, get ready for the future, because an RV Recreational County is a pretty tough place to make a living.
RV owners think they are going to get off scott free if the new Bylaw goes through. Remember, they fought the Special Event $500 fee and got that canceled. Unfortunately for them they don't know why it got canceled. You see the $500 fee was a stop gap measure to collect some money before the County hatched the new RV County fiasco. Once your subdivision is declared an RV subdivision in the Bylaw, the County will make the $500 fee look like chump change. The Bylaw allows the County to now impose significantly higher taxes on the RV owners. All the improvements, the holding tanks, the extra RV's, everything will be taxed accordingly. I want to think this is an insidious plot by the County to eventually force people to build a home, since having an RV on a property becomes too expensive. Sorry, there is nobody smart enough at the County, including the Manager, that could have come up with this as a plan.
Finally, to the Home Owners, the people that bought property, built a home and likely will rely on it's wealth to provide for their retirement. If you are lucky to sell that home in the future I can almost guarantee that it will be for less dollars than other places. Would you buy property in a campground?
Think about your situation, once the County gets this passed there is no going back. So vote, but not just for anybody. Make sure you vote for a Candidate that does not support this RV Bylaw Plan, get that person on Council and lets save the County.
Kevin Blomme
Lessard Landing
Letter from Elvira Adams Whitecourt, AB
August 26, 2017
To the LSAC Councillors: Matthew Ferris and LSARA
RE: RV’s on Vacant Residential Land
We have owned a lot in the Lessard Lake Estates for over 30 years. A little history – the county was pretty happy to see the lots in this subdivision sold (the initial developer went into receivership) after several years in limbo they would finally receive some tax revenue. The lots were mostly treed and only had services to the lot.
One other fact, although I have not substantiated this, but I’m told prior to the lots going to auction, or shortly after the county had a machine in to cut all the weeds in the lake bottom, to allow for boats, and make the lake more appealing.
Lot owners completed the development of lots, and most of the lots became seasonal getaways for many families. There was no bylaw at the time restricting RV’s. Some erected homes, some made the lot their primary residence and many only parked their RV’s during seasonal visits.
Our families have made this a summer gathering and holiday destination for many years. We pay our taxes, which are much higher than we would pay for vacant land in many other locations; we do not fertilize our lawns; have a holding tank for septic, which is pumped out regularly; therefore not contributing to the contamination of the lake.
The value of the lots have not depreciated; regardless of the fact most lots have RV’s and or park model units. In fact when some residents built permanent residences our taxes increased, which we understood.
We pack out our garbage; and do not utilize the county systems.
We do park our personal RV most of the summer, especially now with one of us retired. I have used this location as my base when I am working from Edmonton, and when attending events in and around the county. We have family and friends that come from other locations in Alberta and BC to spend a weekend, week or so to visit. 95% of those people reside outside the LSAC; therefore they are spending money in your county, attending county events and contributing to the local economy. Some summers, if we took into account gas purchased for vehicles and boats, groceries bought, and other purchases made just because someone is here, this lot would spend $10,000 or more in this county. So we do contribute to the good of the county, we do try to abide by rules and in turn have many years of great memories at the lake and family connections stay connected.
When I look at my neighbor, who lives here year round, we also consider how they feel; however, we maintain our lot and although some weekends may have up to 5 campers we never leave our camper for more than a few months. Most of the time the neighbor has our empty lot buffering them from others – looks like a good deal to me.
I agree, lots should not be crammed with RV’s, but when you have lots next to a lake a reasonable person would assume the lake is used for recreational purposes and those recreating would want to be close.
Bylaws should not be created without input from those effected; and this did not happen. Interesting that notice was sent out when fines were going to be enforced; but no notice was sent out prior to the bylaw. In this digital age, and in a county that hosts many summer residents, one would expect to find this information readily on the county website.
There needs to be some order or compromise to ensure lots do not become dumping grounds for old campers, and are not used as mini campgrounds. Paying additional fees just to park an owner’s RV and enjoy their private property is ridiculous and has to be exceptionally costly to enforce.
Perhaps that time could be spent keeping ATV’s out of the lakeshore and destroying habitat.
Perhaps a limited number of RV’s per lot May 1 to Oct 31; if the issue is with noisy neighbors, talk to them; the first and usually best resort is to have honest and respectful discussion.
As long as a lot is clean, cared for, and used as one would any home, regardless of whether a house, RV, or other is there truly an issue.
Yours truly
Elvira Adams
Letter to LSARA
August 7 2017
As there are two sides to every story, the same can be said of the current RV situation. In 2005, we were looking for a property that we could use recreationally and eventually build and retire on. Prior to the purchase of our property, I called the county and spoke with a development officer. I explained our intentions and was advised that it was fine as long as we were not running a campground. We proceeded with our purchase and developed the land. If only I could turn back time and ask for that in writing.
Fast forward to 2009, when a neighbor reported to the county that we were running a campground and Lac St. Anne issued us a contravention order. Upon receipt of the letter I again spoke to a development officer at the county. Once again I was advised as long as we were not running a campground, there were no issues and the county closed the file. If no RV’s were allowed, that would have been a great time for the county to advise us of such – but that didn’t happen.
Fast forward to 2016, when the same neighbor again reported we were running a campground. This time we received a visit from bylaw. The bylaw officer advised that it was a new bylaw and regardless of what had happened in the past, we had to comply. When I asked about grandfathering, he advised that was not an option as RV’s were always discretionary use. Once again I placed a call to the county but this time, the development officer did confirm that only 1 RV was allowed. We were thoroughly shocked and immediately thrown into a mess.
I couldn’t understand how things could have gone so wrong! How could the county advise one thing, on more than one occasion and now do a complete about face? I began researching and reviewed council meetings minutes - the first mention of a recreational vehicle bylaw change that I could find was: July 9, 2015: Mr. Davidson – that County Council direct Administration to amend Bylaw #22-2015 to reflect that Recreational Vehicles will not be allowed in country residential and hamlet lots, in Lac Ste. Anne County, unless there is a primary residence constructed, and shall not be permitted for more than 72 hours without a special event permit approved by Lac Ste. Anne County Administration.
Does it even matter now what they told us? What the intent was? It is hard to watch articles posted that makes recreational users of properties look like disrespectful villains. I thought we had done our due diligence. I thought we had called and asked the right questions. I thought we did everything as we should have. Now we are in a position to abandon a property that we have loved and respected for 12 years. Could we try to sell it – of course we could however lots in our area have been for sale for literally…years. Our children have grown up here and we have created many memories, which now include with our grandchildren. We spend half our time in one county and half our time in another – am I any less of a resident in the county where I hold a permanent address?
Do RV families contribute to a “way of life”? I would ask if all permanent residents contribute to a “way of life”?
· We pay the solid waste utility fee, but have never once in 12 years used any transfer station located in Lac Ste. Anne County. My family takes out every piece of garbage we bring in.
· Do we volunteer in the community? For 9 years we have been heavily involved in animal rescue, spending countless hours fostering, interviewing families and rehoming unwanted animals. Do I turn away a family because of what county they live in? Never, in fact I support families in all counties North of Red Deer! We have helped countless families in Lac Ste. Anne.
· Increased traffic is also a hot topic. Even without a bylaw change, RV’s are allowed for 72 hours. Is there any less traffic or stress to current roads when people start hauling in several thousand pounds of 5th wheels, pull trailers and motorhomes??? How will that solution cause less damage to roads?
· Real estate value is often quoted as a reason to not allow RV’s, yet no evidence supporting this argument has been produced. It is just not logical that a well-kept yard with a well-cared for RV drives down property value any more than the neighbor who lives in a dilapidated house, where neither the house nor the property are maintained to any standard. Not a single item on our 4 acres can be viewed from the road. We could live in a box back there– would that make us better of neighbors?
· Concerns of illegal outhouses and improper sewage handling have absolute merit. However, this is not limited to people who choose to use RV’s. There are permanent residents with illegal outhouses in many subdivisions…including in our own subdivision.
· Recreational use families support the community as well. Our family supports the local farmers markets, gas stations, food stores, liquor stores and much more! We do bring money into the community and support local business.
This bylaw affects permanent residents in a way that hasn’t even been mentioned. How many permanent residents have a trailer for family camping and then a truck camper for hunting? How many permanent residents have out of town family who may come and stay with them for a few weeks in the summer? How many permanent residents are storing units for their children? The current bylaw puts an end to that as well even when you have a permanent structure.
Are 100 RV’s in a subdivision too many? Of course it is but surely there is a better way to come to a solution that is fair and equitable to everyone. Perhaps limits should be a max of 1 RV per acre, must be removed from November to April, no renting of units, no RV’s in executive subdivisions…there are other solutions to consider.
Is it really so bad that someone at least maintains these properties and they are not overrun with weeds, garbage or worse – illicit activities? Is it really so bad that someone builds and lives in a garage package? What happened to the days when neighbors supported and respected each other? We have become a community where people are pitted against each other and where trespassing, adult bullying and discrimination appears to be completely acceptable. If a neighbor is driving too fast, talk to them. If a neighbor is playing music too loud, talk to them. Is the issue really what they sleep in at night?
Letter From Lessard Landing Resident
New slogan for the County of Lac Ste. Anne-
“We only want you to come for the weekend”
I know there has been much debate over the contentious RV issue within the County. But now the very way of life that many residents enjoy could be coming to an end with the proposed land use bylaw changes.I can appreciate that people want a place to park their RV, away from the hustle and bustle of city life. After all, that is why I moved to the County. I can also appreciate that they consider themselves respectful neighbors, especially since they are only out for the weekend. But let me tell you exactly why the proposed changes threaten to destroy certain communities forever.
The new bylaws will allow up to 4 RV’s PER vacant lot within “specific” subdivisions. 4 RV’s per lot! Look around your neighborhood and consider what your life would be like if half the neighborhood had 4 RV’s on each lot and those houses were gone. Would it resemble more of a campground or a residential subdivision? What would this do for the resale value of your homes? Let’s take it a step further, what if they allowed 1 garage and 4 RV’s on each lot- with no house. What would your street look like if the population density went up 5-fold on each lot?
Now what if the neighboring lots decided to capitalize on this and rented out RV space to 4 families right next door to you. What would the noise sound like? What would the traffic look like? What if this meant that there was literally hundreds of RV’s in your neighborhood suddenly and there was nothing you could do about it. Would you still want to live there?
But the number of RV’s per lot doesn’t stop at 4…if you move them after 7 days, every month you can have an unlimited number on your property for the week. UNLIMITED! Want to rent out your lot to 50 families for parties or community events…go right ahead! How does the County plan to enforce the 7-day rule? They haven’t been successful at enforcing the 3-day rule on the last set of bylaws.
But even more importantly, what would this mean if you were a young family raising your children in what you thought was a residential subdivision. Would you want to continue having your children or grandchildren growing up in a campground? What if your property values went down and you now faced having to sell your home and not being able to buy another as a result? What if you couldn’t even sell your home because who would build their home or want to live in a campground? Young families who bought their first home are particularly vulnerable. How would you feel if you had to pay $3000/year in taxes while your “neighbors” could rent out to 4 families and only pay $1200/year in taxes? What would your roads look like with all the increased traffic?
How does allowing RV’s and garages on vacant land in RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS promote family values, a sense of community, or encourage people to want to live in the County? Would you want to live permenently in one of these “specific” subdivisions?
I implore everyone to consider not only how this potentially affects them, but how it affects their neighbors in other subdivisions as well. Stand a weekend in my shoes and maybe you will understand that this doesn’t have anything to do with malicious intent against RV owners. But I do believe if they were in our shoes and even if they only had a dozen RV’s parked on their street in Edmonton every weekend, they may be complaining to their city officials too.
I’m just the poor sucker who was scammed thinking that when the bylaws said you must build a house of a certain size and no RV’s without a house- that it meant something. Silly me, now I live in a campground and the County wants to make it worse. Please help us by telling Council that rezoning existing subdivisions to accommodate their lack of bylaw enforcement is wrong. That legalizing an activity so they don’t have to enforce it- is wrong.
Our community is at their limit with no representation in Council and nowhere left to turn. This may not affect your neighborhood today, but I can assure you- it may tomorrow. Please tell Council you support families in this County.
John Reynolds LSAC Ratepayer April 3 2017
A few weeks ago, Tuesday, March 22nd, 2017, I did something I’ve not done for a while. I attended a meeting!
Over the years I’ve endured tedious nit picking, belligerent bellyaching and a variety of egotistical promotions and promises. Now, at 76, I am more particular about how I spend my time.
The couple of hours I spent at the A.G.M. of LSARA held in the Gunn Community Hall was time well spent.
The meeting was well attended and very well run. The bulk of the evening was devoted to a very well organised and delivered presentation of the association’s well founded concerns regarding how our taxes are spent and about a serious lack of transparency. Of equal concern is what appears to be a cover up and rejection of petitions submitted to council.
Compounding the frustration was the denial of a request to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for an inquiry into the operation of county council. The rejections were based on the findings that over 500 petitioners were disallowed! That statistically is unlikely and approaches zero possibility. Dear Ratepayers, thousands of hours were obviously spent by the LSARA board researching the information which was presented Tuesday evening. The findings were very well researched, organized and clearly delivered. These few have worked very hard and very competently on our behalf. They thoroughly deserve our congratulations and thanks.
But most of all they need and deserve our support.
Membership is only $10.00, about the cost of a round of coffee at your local coffee shop.
I urge you to become informed and back these responsible citizens. You younger ratepayers and electorate have potentially much more at stake than some of us oldies. Use your youth and energy to help navigate this county. Right now I think the administration has been blown a bit off course, perhaps heading for troubled waters.
It is time to become informed and involved. We should be concerned about our taxation, rights and freedoms. When the stakes are high you learn the game. Game time is approaching.
Ask not what LSARA can do for you, but how you can look after yourself by supporting LSARA.
Sincerely,
John Reynolds
Leo Blais LSAC Ratepayer March 19 2017
During the last week of February, 2017 approximately 300 Property Owners in Lac Ste. Anne County unexpectedly received letters from the Lac Ste. Anne County (LSAC) Administration notifying they would be required to apply for an RV authorization if; (1) parking an RV on vacant residential land, (2) parking more than 1 RV on a property with a residence, (3) having multiple RVs on site for more than 72 hours. The annual fee for a permit for “the right” to park an RV is $500.00, should any of the above apply. In addition, affected property owners will be responsible to pay the yearly Solid Waste Utility fee of over $200.00. If property owners do not apply for a permit and pay the $500.00 annual fee, they will be subject to an initial fine of up to $1,000.00 with a subsequent offense being up to $4,000.00.
Also note, undeveloped residential lots are currently assessed a tax mill rate that is more than double that of developed lots, effectively setting a higher rate of property taxes on undeveloped residential lots.
With the letter, LSAC also included a rather complex form - SPECIAL EVENT APPLICATION RV Use, which is to be used for the permit application process. Also included in the package was a copy of the eight page LSAC Bylaw #23-2015, which is the Bylaw to Establish Licensing and Regulation of Concerts and Special Events. You may think this all sounds confusing, and that is because it is. LSAC appears to be shoe-horning in an existing bylaw to establish a permit process and set fees for the use of RVs on vacant properties.
Not only was it a shock to receive this from LSAC just before the start of the RV season, but the permit process and their justification is convoluted, lacks proper or complete information, is confusing and smacks of nothing more than a “money grab”.
SMACKS OF NOTHING MORE THAN A "MONEY GRAB"
During the last week of February, 2017 approximately 300 Property Owners in Lac Ste. Anne County unexpectedly received letters from the Lac Ste. Anne County (LSAC) Administration notifying they would be required to apply for an RV authorization if; (1) parking an RV on vacant residential land, (2) parking more than 1 RV on a property with a residence, (3) having multiple RVs on site for more than 72 hours. The annual fee for a permit for “the right” to park an RV is $500.00, should any of the above apply. In addition, affected property owners will be responsible to pay the yearly Solid Waste Utility fee of over $200.00. If property owners do not apply for a permit and pay the $500.00 annual fee, they will be subject to an initial fine of up to $1,000.00 with a subsequent offense being up to $4,000.00.
Also note, undeveloped residential lots are currently assessed a tax mill rate that is more than double that of developed lots, effectively setting a higher rate of property taxes on undeveloped residential lots.
With the letter, LSAC also included a rather complex form - SPECIAL EVENT APPLICATION RV Use, which is to be used for the permit application process. Also included in the package was a copy of the eight page LSAC Bylaw #23-2015, which is the Bylaw to Establish Licensing and Regulation of Concerts and Special Events. You may think this all sounds confusing, and that is because it is. LSAC appears to be shoe-horning in an existing bylaw to establish a permit process and set fees for the use of RVs on vacant properties.
Not only was it a shock to receive this from LSAC just before the start of the RV season, but the permit process and their justification is convoluted, lacks proper or complete information, is confusing and smacks of nothing more than a “money grab”.
The intentional timing of this initiative could not have been more inappropriate given that both Division 4 and Division 5 are not currently represented by a counselor, due to vacancies. Affected rate payers in these divisions have no reasonable avenue to vent their objections and concerns. As it stands, not a lot of thought or research went into this initiative.
For the County to suggest that an annual fee of $500.00 per trailer is affordable, is preposterous, especially given the economy is hurting and Albertans are paying more taxes (including the carbon tax) than they ever have.
ADDING YET ANOTHER TAX OR USER FEE IS UNDERHANDED AND UNCARING!
In discussion with the County’s Manager of Planning and Development, he indicated that as of the end of February he fielded over 200 calls and numerous emails from irate and frustrated rate payers. LSAC does not seem to care how this affects rate payers. I attended the March 01, 2017 Municipal Planning Commission Meeting with Council, where the Planning Manager reported that the majority of feedback he received was “negative”.
In discussion with the County’s Manager of Planning and Development, he indicated that as of the end of February he fielded over 200 calls and numerous emails from irate and frustrated rate payers. LSAC does not seem to care how this affects rate payers. I attended the March 01, 2017 Municipal Planning Commission Meeting with Council, where the Planning Manager reported that the majority of feedback he received was “negative”.
LSAC Mayor’s uncaring and flippant response was “of course we expected that”, end of discussion.
On behalf of other rate payers affected, my request to LSAC is shelve this contentious and divisive initiative till after the Municipal election in October this year. For the sake of diplomacy and fairness, an issue that affects such a large group of rate payers should be dealt with when there is a full slate of counselors. Also, delaying this will provide the County more time to develop an RV use program that is reasonable, understandable, affordable and acceptable to those affected.
If you have thoughts or concerns with this latest LSAC initiative, Please contact the County CAO – Mike Primeau, Manager of Planning and Development – Matthew Ferris, Mayor Hegy, or your Counselor (if you have one).
On behalf of other rate payers affected, my request to LSAC is shelve this contentious and divisive initiative till after the Municipal election in October this year. For the sake of diplomacy and fairness, an issue that affects such a large group of rate payers should be dealt with when there is a full slate of counselors. Also, delaying this will provide the County more time to develop an RV use program that is reasonable, understandable, affordable and acceptable to those affected.
If you have thoughts or concerns with this latest LSAC initiative, Please contact the County CAO – Mike Primeau, Manager of Planning and Development – Matthew Ferris, Mayor Hegy, or your Counselor (if you have one).
County Phone Number: 1-780-785-3411 or 1-866-880-5722.
Leo Blais
0 comments:
Post a Comment