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.

Read More

LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY FINALLY RELEASES ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ENGINEERING REPORTS

LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY FINALLY RELEASES 

ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ENGINEERING REPORTS

LSARA has finally received three engineering reports on the Administration Building ongoing "Heaving Slab" issue.  We now have three Engineering Reports and they are available to you at the end of this post.  Unfortunately LSAC has neglected to provide us with 8 additional Reports that were  provided by LSAC to Thurber Engineering for their assessments of the "Heaving Slab" Issue.  These reports were reviewed and noted by Thurber Engineering in Section 2 of their report dated August 28, 2017.

LSARA will be reviewing these reports to try to determine what LSAC should already know but refuse to disclose to the Ratepayers, "WHAT WENT WRONG and WHO IS RESPONSIBLE"?

LSAC now wants to take the reins and use our credit and our tax dollars to fund an Arms Length Land Development Corporation to continue on with their efforts to sink us further into "DEBT"! There are other options for our Onoway Regional Medical Clinic. Is it not operating just fine without our County creating another nightmare and taking on all the risk?  We don't need to take on another white elephant!

Is a LSAC Municipal Controlled Land Development Corporation a risk that we are willing to take with our families future? 

The following LSARA Blog Posts, that we have provided during the past years to our Ratepayers Association, will bring you up to date on what we have done to inform you of the serious issues we the ratepayers are facing with Lac Ste. Anne County's Development and Construction of our
"New Multi Million Dollar Nightmare".

Please feel free to review these posts and provide your comments, if you think LSAC should take all the "Risks" and be in the Land Development Business funded by our County Tax Dollars while competing against you and the private sector.

INFORMATION and PRIVACY

5/24/2017 08:16:00 PM

On April 27th 2017, LSARA sent an email to Council and Administration. We asked the following questions as we were unable to find them on the Lac Ste Anne County Website.

1. Bylaw 15-2017 Property Tax Rate

2. Agreement between LSAC and the Project Manager for the Administration Building.
3. All Project Manager Reports as per the agreement to Date.
4. All Geotechnical Engineer Reports including the report on testing of the soil as well as the Excavation and Compaction Reports as overseen/tested by the Geotechnical Engineer.
5. The reports related directly to the heaving concrete issue.

The response to these questions were received by LSARA from our County Manager.

2. No response
3. "We will post to our website the project manager Reports under the new office information. We are awaiting a report from our consultants with respect to the new office after their meeting in May. We will post to the website once received."
4. No response
5. No response

April 27th LSARA responded once again requesting responses to questions 2 & 4. We also stated " In regards to item #5 "Heaving issue" we believe that an " issue Report" with "Recommendations" from the Project Manager should have already been provided to Administration on this matter. We would also appreciate a copy of this report as we believe this is a serious issue not to be taken lightly, and we as Ratepayers need to be kept aware of as it is a time sensitive matter."

The response we received came May 2nd, once again from the County Manager. His response was as follows:

"All New Administration Office information is being reviewed to release to our website. We will update once a further review has been completed by our consultants. Access to any information that is not publicly released will be subject to FOIP legislation."

We did a FOIP request including this information, LSAC wanted $13000.00 to release it to us! 

CLICK TO VIEW THE COMPLETE POST 

LSAC Council Meeting April 13 2017

4/17/2017 03:48:00 PM

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".

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????

CLICK TO VIEW THE COMPLETE POST 

FLOOR HEAVING ISSUE COVER UP !!!!! THIRD PARTY INSPECTION MUST BE DEMANDED!!!!

5/31/2017 08:40:00 PM

Lac Ste. Anne County has no idea what the real cause of the Floor Heaving is and wants to settle the issue with a Quick Claim Cover Up!!!!

County manager Mike Primeau said nobody was taking full ownership of the what happened and it was a necessary measure to prevent a potentially lengthy legal battle.

“The building is wonderful, it's a beautiful build. Yes, this is an issue we had to deal with and we dealt with it,” Primeau said. “The alternative was it sits empty for five years as we battle in court over $16,000.”

Did they even consider the recommendations of the Project Manager to do core samples and if no Core Samples are done does that let the Project Manager and the Construction Company off the hook????

• What will $16000.00 Fix and who came up with that Figure???
• What is the Real Problem and How is it to be Fixed???? 
• How will this building be Insured????
• Who is making these decisions and are they to be held liable!!!! 

Who did we vote for and what did the rest of our Councillors say???? 

LSARA Warned the Ratepayers and Now it is Critical that an Independent Inspection and Review is Properly Conducted!!!!

CLICK TO VIEW THE COMPLETE POST 

Here we are folks, a year later and we have Engineers still trying to figure out, "How are we going to fix this disaster"?

These are the 3 out of 8 Reports that they have released to date. The deficiencies still are not completed and more reports are underway! We know there is more to this issue than meets the eye and we are going to find out!

Machibroda Engineering Report

Thurber Engineering LSAC Slab Heaving Concerns August 28, 2017

Thurber Engineering LSAC Slab Heaving Concerns October 18, 2017

Read More

LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY A YEAR IN REVIEW #8

LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY A YEAR IN REVIEW #8

This Post #8 concludes our series of articles that has provided a snapshot of a portion of what our dedicated group from the LSARA executive have been doing for the past year.  We have continued in our efforts to effectively communicate with Council by meeting face to face and then submitting our queries, as we discussed, in writing.  The thought with this process was that we would have meaningful dialogue and then we would follow it up with questions and receive timely, informative answers.

Read More

LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY A YEAR IN REVIEW #7

LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY A YEAR IN REVIEW #7

This is the 7th segment in LSARA's Year in Review. As we go back through all the requests that we have submitted to LSAC and the responses we have received, it generates more and more questions. One of the areas where you, the Ratepayer can assist us. Searching for information, gathering information as it takes a team, an army. When we as Ratepayers are once again faced with the call to action, that is what we will need, an army.

Read More

LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY 2019 TUFF TIMES AHEAD?

LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY 2019 TUFF TIMES AHEAD?

After several years of taxpayer outcry over questionable and what many considered to be out right  irresponsible spending by the County Council elected in October 2013 and the newly appointed Administration we went into the 2017 election hoping for some REAL change. 

Read More

LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY A YEAR IN REVIEW #6

LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY A YEAR IN REVIEW #6

This is the 6th segment in LSARA's Year in Review.  As we go back through all the requests that we have submitted to LSAC and the responses we have received, it generates more and more questions.  One of the areas where you, the Ratepayer can assist us.  Searching for information, gathering information as it takes a team, an army.  When we as Ratepayers are once again faced with the call to action, that is what we will need, an army. 

Read More

LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY A YEAR IN REVIEW #5

LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY A YEAR IN REVIEW #5 

This the 5th segment in LSARA’s Year in Review. We took the day off for our Question Review and provided a Review of the proposed LUB changes. If you haven’t had a chance to review it, may we suggest it to  be a great idea to before April. The proposed changes may or may not affect you. You may or may not appreciate the changes. What we do know, is that if you haven’t taken the time to inform yourself, it will be all over with no recourse if the proposed changes do have the ability to impact you.

Read More

PUBLIC HEARING: MARCH 23, 2019 LSAC LAND USE BYLAW REVIEW

PUBLIC HEARING LSAC LAND USE BYLAW REVIEW

We are changing gears a wee bit as this next topic is time sensitive and still allows you, the ratepayer to ask questions of your Council if there are items of concern or question for the changes to the new Land Use Bylaw. You have up until beginning of April to address any issues.

Read More

LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY A YEAR IN REVIEW #4

LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY A YEAR IN REVIEW #4 

This the 4th segment in LSARA’s Year in Review. We told you with Review #3 that we had some information that was sent to us that would or most certainly SHOULD make everyone stand up and take notice.

Question # 8 – Current long-term borrowing – how much was the total amount borrowed in the last 5 years and how much is outstanding?  What was the money borrowed for?  What are the terms and interest rate?

LSAC Response is this exact table.

Had LSARA responded, we would have asked how is it possible to have any semblance of a Budget when you clearly don’t know what you borrowed, you don’t know the interest rate and use a zero for what is outstanding? Some of these terms have just begun as late as last year, 2018. Do you think maybe that on both charts we borrowed for roads as we used our MSI funding in one fell swoop for 5 years on the Administration Building? There is also no mention of bridge repairs in this “budget” which we know had to take place as they have not been maintained and one was damaged by improper use of explosives attempting to clear a Beaver Dam. What is wrong with taking the dam down by hand like the old-style Beaver control used to do?

QUESTION #9 – Short term borrowing – how much was the total amount borrowed in the last 5 years and how much is outstanding?  What was the money borrowed for?  What are the terms and the interest rate?

LSAC Response is this exact table.

Had LSARA responded, we would have once again asked several questions. How can you not know when you borrowed money? How is that you borrow money WITHOUT KNOWING what the interest rate is? How is it that a financial reconciliation is provided to the Ratepayers of Lac Ste Anne County without ANY totals outstanding? Is this the fiscal responsibility that we should all expect from our Administration and our Council? Does the cost for the New Administration Office reflect the actual cost of the building, the furniture, the utilities etc.? It most certainly does not!!!!! Does it adequately reflect what the Administration building has and will continue to cost you, the Ratepayer in legal fees as the building is subpar and has documented structural issues? Does it adequately reflect that the only protection we had as a Ratepayer was a million dollar hold back that was released? To remove a caveat? Because the contractor was going to SUE? Why haven’t we sued the CONTRACTOR along with the Management group that was supposed to take care of our interest that we paid a million dollars to in order to oversee the Project?

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 #5 in the series.

Read More

LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY A YEAR IN REVIEW #3

LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY A YEAR IN REVIEW #3

Onto the third segment of our review. We are starting to get a little more pointed in our questions as there have been many examples of where some of these items have been brought to light previously.  Some we received responses to that didn’t meet the intent of the question so we reiterated the question.

Read More

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.

Read More

LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY A YEAR IN REVIEW #1

LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY A YEAR IN REVIEW

This will be a series of articles that will provide a snapshot of what our dedicated group from the LSARA executive have been doing for the past year. We have continued in our efforts to effectively communicate with Council by meeting face to face and then submitting our queries, as we discussed, in writing. The thought with this process was that we would have meaningful dialogue and then we would follow it up with questions and receive timely, informative answers.

Read More

LSARA HAS NO BOUNDARIES

Keep Me Journal - Editorial Point of View by Jill Dewdney 

Ordinarily, we don’t waste our precious time on needless, unnecessary media or opinions that serves no purpose other than to rile up the masses but this time we felt that we had to respond. 

Read More

Lac Ste. Anne County Blows Up Bridge Clearing Beaver Dam

Beaver +1    Lac Ste. Anne County - $50,000.00

Although this may be funny if you are a beaver, this certainly is not funny if you are a ratepayer of Lac Ste. Anne County. LSAC has many Bridges which are in desperate need of repair and are on this years budget as well as future years Budgets.

An attempt to clear a beaver dam with explosives directly underneath a bridge on TWP 540 has resulted in damage done to two girders that will need to be replaced and will cost LSAC $50,000 + which is not included in this year's Budget or any future Budget.

In the September 13, 2018 Council Meeting, Councillor Lorne Olsvik asked administration for an update regarding damage done to the bridge on TWP 540.

“They had to get the water moving, followed all the safety procedures and practices, used minimal charge and it just happened,” said Aren Skogstad, Agricultural Services Manager. 

Reeve Joe Blakeman wanted to know any other options that could be done rather than spending the $50,000 to fix the bridge. 

Joe Duplessie, general manager of infrastructure and planning, added that the life expectancy for that bridge is another 25 or so years. “We’ve got other bridges as well with bigger priorities,” he said.

Maybe what the Council should of asked for was to view the Pre-Job Hazard Assessment and asked;

• Was this approach the only option?
• How was this an acceptable Risk?
• Who signed off on the Procedure?
• Is there an investigation to this unnecessary Asset Loss?

Where is the improved accountability that our Councillors campaigned on? 

Read More

Lac Ste. Anne County Rezoning for RV Use

“Mortgageability” And What It Means To You

WHY DOES THE ABILITY TO PLACE A MORTGAGE ON YOUR PROPERTY AFFECT YOUR RESALE VALUES?

You may not be aware that when you are applying for a mortgage, the property has to qualify just as much as you do. There can be many instances why a bank will not lend on a property, such as:

• It is reaching the end of its economic life and the bank wants to know that the house will last longer than your 25 year mortgage.
• The property may be a mobile home and the bank needs to know it is properly affixed to the foundation and to current building code standards, so it doesn’t “disappear” one day and they lose their security.It doesn’t have potable water or sewer/septic, or year round access.
• The property could be in a state of excessive disrepair.
• The home is smaller than the minimum square footage requirements for that lender.
• The bank may not like the way the property is zoned.

Lenders will look a variety of criteria and you must hit every single one of their boxes in order for them to lend on the home. So why does a lender care about all these things?

Banks/lenders have to look at the risk they are taking - both for their shareholders and because the government mandates them to. If you are buying with less than 20% down payment, it is a law in Canada that your mortgage must be insured to protect the banks from any potential losses. There are 3 insurers in Canada. You pay the premium on this insurance and the bank is protected if they have to sell it at a loss during foreclosure. Some lenders will require you to have this insurance even if you have more than 20% down payment in order to protect themselves. And then there is a whole other conversation about bulk insurance that we won’t discuss. Mortgage insurance qualification is extremely important because the insurer can (and will) veto a bank’s pre-approval based on many variables. The ability to have this insurance also permits buyers to look at a home with less that 20% down payment.

It is extremely easy for a property to be devalued by more than 20%. A property is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. A home in bad condition or in a bad location can quickly lose value. For example, having a gas station built next to your home could cause the values to decrease. Or being on a busy road can also impact your values. Sometimes even minor cosmetic fixes can improve the value of your home. This is why it doesn’t take much to make a bank squirm and the banks are not in the business of losing money. They are concerned about hundreds of thousands of dollars being on the line in a single mortgage and whether they can quickly sell the home if needed.

Now let’s speak specifically about the zoning piece. The County of Lac Ste. Anne is wanting to rezone 17 or so subdivisions due to excessive non-conforming use within those neighborhoods. Non-conforming use is when property in the neighborhood is being used for purposes that are not allowed by the municipality’s bylaws. In this specific case, the non-conforming use is the use of vacant land to house multiple recreational vehicles for camping purposes without a permanent dwelling/house/cottage on the same land. Some people don’t want to live in a residential subdivision that is being utilized like a campground, so they won’t buy the home to raise their family. 

One of the insurers specifically said their concern is “these lots could end up being large camping-type sites and that limits the appeal for people wanting to buy regular homes in the area”.  So the proximity of lots being utilized exclusively by RV’s, to lots being used as homes, could affect the resale appeal of the home in their opinion.

At first the County wanted to call the zoning recreational. Very few banks will lend a mortgage on a house zoned recreational, and I did provide proof of that to my counsellor via bank policy manuals and email responses from the lenders. Now they are changing the zoning name to Rustic Residential to try and mitigate that risk for the residents who own homes in these neighborhoods. As a result, I canvassed the exact same lenders and most said they would treat it the same as recreational, because it is just a different name for recreational and the use is still the same. Some said they would only do it if it was insured. Well that was promising so I asked CMHC and Genworth if they would have a problem with the new zoning since I have had declines on this type of property zoning before. Both have advised that they have declined these types of “mixed use” subdivisions and will continue to do so as they become aware of them. Once a subdivision is “black-listed,” there is no going back. Every time a property in one of those postal codes is applied for - it will be manually checked to see if it is in one of those subdivisions.

So what does this mean for the houses that are already existing in these neighborhoods? If you have a single family dwelling and you have a buyer that qualifies no problem for the mortgage, they may still be declined because it is a “mixed use” subdivision. That buyer may be told by the bank that they need to put 25% or 35% down payment. Or maybe the bank isn’t interested at all and that buyer would need to pay cash. How much is your home worth if half the people who are interested cannot get financing?

This lack of available financing then causes a marketability spiral. Some people would still want to buy the home regardless but don’t have enough down payment (or don’t qualify at the only banks that offer the 35% down payment option). As prices drop, lenders become even more cautious and it then becomes a race to the bottom. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, they don’t lend out of fear of declining property values, which in turns means less sales, which causes values to decline.

So then what? The young family who originally bought in a neighborhood that is no longer what they purchased into, and bought with 5% down payment may be in a position where they have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to sell. Why? Because property values have declined to a level where their mortgage is now higher than what they can sell their home for. Or they have to choose whether they continue to raise their family in a campground setting. 

Make no mistake- they purchased into a property zoned as a residential subdivision and that is being changed on them, through no fault of their own.

I don’t think most people realize that it is significantly harder to qualify for a mortgage these days than it was even 2, 5 or 10 years ago. Having a property that is virtually unmortgageable is certainly not going to help.

I have no alignment or agenda except that if I elect to keep my home (which is my primary residence, not my 2^nd home and yes it is in one of these neighborhoods), I have been told to expect a significant decline in values. I can’t and won’t set myself back that much financially. My agenda is that the people who live by me - need to know the ramifications of what is going to happen to their equity if they stay. I didn’t even think about this until I was trying to finance a property at Pigeon Lake and it was declined for being too “recreational” even though it wasn’t zoned recreational. 

Council needs to know what they are knowingly doing to young families who reside in this County. The “Recreational County” as they called it at the last Information Meeting. That slogan won’t raise any red flags with insurers…(sarcasm).

I can tell you, many residents in our subdivision have lodged complaints about the non-conformance issues for the last 4-5 years. Everyone has their own reason based on the specific challenges they have faced. This isn’t a new problem, it is an escalating problem. We have incurred considerable expense to appeal this type of use at SDAB hearings and nothing has changed. This is the Council’s and Administration’s agenda. Every subdivision within that list of 17, will be painted with the same brush.

Everyone has a different opinion. Some subdivisions are OK with the proposed rezoning and some are not. And at the end of the day - that is also OK. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone should be heard.

I wish you all well in whatever decisions you need to make about your homes, where you reside, and what this will mean for you personally. But as an owner of property in the County of Lac Ste. Anne - you now know more about mortgages than 80% of the population, and we haven’t even scratched the surface.

LSAC COUNCILLORS     LET THEM KNOW HOW YOU FEEL

Joe Blakeman | Reeve, Councillor, Division 5

Email jblakeman@lsac.ca Ph. 780 918-1916

Lorne Olsvik | Councillor, Div. 1

Email lolsvik@lsac.ca Ph. 780 937-5360

Nick Gelych | Councillor, Div.2

Email ngelych@lsac.ca Ph. 780 9039393

George Vaughan | Councillor, Div. 3

Email gvaughan@lsac.ca Ph. 780 967-3469

Steve Hoyda | Councillor, Div. 4

Email shoyda@lsac.ca Ph. 780 674-8080

Ross Bohnet | Councillor, Div. 6

Email rbohnet@lsac.ca Ph. 780 786-4290

Lloyd Giebelhaus | Councillor, Div. 7

Email lgiebelhaus@lsac.ca Ph. 780 785-2095

Read More

LSAC COUNCIL PASSES 2018 BUDGET

LSAC COUNCIL PASSES 2018 BUDGET WITH AN ADDITIONAL 2.25% INCREASE FROM 2017

At yesterday's Council meeting the 2018 budget was passed. In the first 2018 Budget Draft which LSAC Administration presented to Council on March 29th, Administration "Recommended" approval on the Proposed Budget with an increase of 3.5%. We believe that as a result of LSARA communications with Council and Councils subsequent review of that Draft Budget, it has resulted in the reduction of the Budget Spending to the 2.25% increase which was passed.

Read More

2018 LSAC DRAFT BUDGET LSARA'S REVIEW

Analogy of Overspending using Your Money

We look at the County as a Corporation, one that ALL RATEPAYERS have Shares in. We have a “board of directors” elected to ensure our Corporation does not run into the red and runs efficiently.

If the corporation runs into the red, guess who has to inject more money into operations? You guessed it, the Shareholders (otherwise known as Ratepayers). If the employees of your Corporation were increasing their budgets by more than 13% in each department, would this be alarming to you?

Read More

REVISED LSAC 2018 DRAFT BUDGET PART 2

Today three of LSARA’s Executive took the time out of our schedules to attend the County Council and Administration Meeting.  We let you all know yesterday that we felt that this was an important meeting.  Some of our executive members got together last week and conducted a comprehensive review of the Proposed 2018 LSAC Budget. LSARA posted it for your review and feedback and it was also posted on the County Website.

Read More

LSAC 2018 DRAFT BUDGET

DRAFT BUDGET TO BE PRESENTED IN TODAY'S 

LSAC MARCH 29 2018 COUNCIL MEETING

Today is the day LSAC Council will discuss the official release of the LSAC 2018 Draft Budget in their regular scheduled council meeting. What they choose to do with it is to be seen. LSARA has reviewed the Draft Budget Proposal as prepared by Administration and has some initial observations for the Ratepayers of LSAC to be advised of, as would be anticipated.

Read More

LSAC COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MARCH 8 2018 ADMINISTRATIONS RECOMMENDATION, ADVISE TO STRIKE THE POLICY? REPEAL THE MOTION FROM 2016? WHY NOW!!!

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

You will recall that LSARA has recently reported to you, the Ratepayers that the pending sale of the old Lac Ste Anne Administration building had not followed a due process.

We told you how we have been providing information from the Municipal Government Act as well as other bodies with respect to the process that should have been undertaken.  In our communications, we also advised both Council and Administration that there was a motion that must be addressed, 812-16 from November 10th, 2016. “Direction for old Office”.  That motion DIRECTED Administration to obtain costs to demolish.

Read More

WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO HIDE???

LSARA has made several requests to obtain the Lac Ste. Anne Policy Handbook and any Policy relating to the Disposition of County Assets. Robert Osmond, Assistant County Manager and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for Lac Ste. Anne County replied to us in a email dated February 27 2018; 

Read More

FACT OR FICTION DISPOSAL PROCESS OF LSAC ASSETS

LSARA sent a letter to Council in December with concerns on the PROCESS of the sale of the Old Administration Building.  We are definitely not opposed to a sale but our concerns are: 

• Were council advised by the CAO properly of the processes necessary to sell this building? 
• It is the responsibility of the LSAC CAO to inform the council of the background history of this building. There was a motion (812-16 November 10, 2016 “Direction for old office”) on the table put forward from a previous council to obtain costs to demolish. 
• LSAC CAO should have advised current council that before any other discussions, this motion needs to be dealt with, even if just a motion to rescind. 
• There is no evidence that there was discussion in any LSAC Council Meeting minutes regarding this motion.  Administration did not follow the direction of previous Council's motion in obtaining costs to demolish and certainly the “request for proposal process” would have been part and parcel of that motion. 
• Also of note was the fact that “A GROUP” came forward with the recommendation of selling the building. Was this group one and the same as the one that a Council member is a Director of? 

Read More

LSARA ACCUSED OF TRYING TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER

LSARA ACCUSED OF TRYING TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER 

To: LSARA
From: All Council LSAC

County Council and I appreciate the opportunity to attend your Annual General Meeting this evening but have concerns on your process. As such, Council will not be able to attend this evening. There is much skepticism regarding the purpose of the last minute restrictions imposed on Council by your e-mail of February 17th, along with apprehension that there is a strategy to divide and conquer this Council.   (Click to View LSARA Invitation to Attend)

Read More

WE WANT TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY

LETTER TO LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY COUNCIL

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.

Read More

LSARA 2ND ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

Another Successful Annual General Meeting

LSARA hosted its second Annual General Meeting last night with approximately 60 Ratepayers in attendance. Thank you to those who had an opportunity to join us!

We conducted a number of business items such as a review of the 2017 AGM along with the financial information for review and a motion to accept as read.

Read More

LSAC COUNCIL MEETING TODAY "NO AGENDA AGAIN"

WHAT DO WE PAY FOR THIS WEB SITE???

"LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY HAS A CONTRACT WITH RDECA WHO PROVIDES COMMUNICATIONS AND WEBSITE ASSISTANCE. THE VALUE OF THEIR CONTRACT IS $45000.00 ANNUALLY"

THIS IS WHAT YOU GET FOR YOUR TAX DOLLARS

NO AGENDA AGAIN? Why?

Read More

HOW DO WE CONTINUE TO SUPPORT ALL THESE INCREASES?

Not sure what to call this one? Its all about 

BUDGET, WAGES and JOB LOSS!

Most of you reading this post have been employed in some aspect in you lives. Whether you hold the all important role of the caregiver, homemaker, worked for a mom and pop company, a multi national corporation, were self employed, you’ve likely held a job. Fair to say that you have paid taxes, had wage increases and losses, have suffered job loss or a job change of your own making. Sometimes those same jobs presented you with an opportunity for you to define your working conditions, your shift and maybe even how you would be remunerated.

Read More

FREE MEMBERSHIP AND RENEWAL OFFER

Lac Ste. Anne and Communities Ratepayers Association Continues to Support the Residents of LSAC

As we told you in an article a few weeks ago, LSARA continues to be actively interacting with Council and Administration regarding items we feel have the ability to impact us all.  We go well beyond what you SEE in our posts on Facebook and on our Blog.  An interesting poll for us would be to understand from you, our readers, how much time you think it takes us to research, write and edit the articles we present to you.

Read More

Why Was This Asset Dumped

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?

• 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

Read More

ANYONE RECOGNIZE THIS

LAC STE. ANNE COUNTY ASSETS

Anyone recognize this?  This is the Old Administration building on main street in Sangudo. It is our best estimate that the building was listed on December 19th AFTER an offer was received apparently on the 16th of December 2017.  Having that information, LSARA did what we always do, put the questions forward to council and administration regarding the proposed sale of the building.

Read More