The following topics were discussed at the May 5th, Council Meeting.

Bylaw1050, 2020 Property Tax Penalty Bylaw Amendment

Administration brought forward a report to Council on March 31, 2020 for Tax and Utility Penalty Deferral and Council passed Motion 16-2020-03-31 to delay late fees on 2020 taxes from July 1, 2020 to September 1, 2020. To complete the motion, an amendment to the Property Tax Penalty Bylaw 995, 2018 is required to reflect the decision made on March 31, 2020 by Council. Administration brought forward a report to Council on March 31, 2020 for Tax and Utility Penalty Deferral and Council passed Motion 16-2020-03-31 to delay late fees on 2020 taxes from July 1, 2020 to September 1, 2020. To complete the motion, an amendment to the Property Tax Penalty Bylaw 995, 2018 is required to reflect the decision made on March 31, 2020 by Council. At a Webinar held by Municipal Affairs regarding options for deferring the school tax requisition for non-residential property owners, it was disclosed that an amendment is needed to either the property tax bylaw or if a Municipality has a property tax penalty bylaw to account for the delay in payment. Council then made motions passing first, second and third reading of the bylaw and all three motions were carried.

Subdivision and Development Securities Policy

When Council approved the Development and Securities Policy at the November 26, 2019 Council Meeting, they also requested that a legal review be completed on the policy. The policy was forwarded to our solicitor and Administration has now had the opportunity to review their recommendations. The recommended changes are not only to address legal concerns, but also to increase functionality, readability and clarity of the policy. With respect to the latter, the definitions section was revised to ensure consistent terminology and language between the policy and the standard form development agreements recently drafted by our solicitor. Throughout the Policy, Council may delegate decision making authority and implementation discretion to a development officer, manager, director, or CAO. The current policy often referred to the Municipality as having discretion to make certain decisions, however it is recommended that Council be more specific in its direction regarding who can make decisions under the Policy. Furthermore, throughout the policy, there were blank spaces where Council can specifically identify who has the authority and discretion to make certain decisions regarding the taking and releasing of security. The Governance and Priorities Committee recommended this be the CAO or designate. Various sections of the current policy make reference to a decision or process being carried out as per a development agreement, however the policy is to act as a guiding document where Council is able to provide clear direction as to the key requirements for security under the development agreement 68 process. Therefore, any reference that suggests that the process to be followed is dictated by the development agreement has been removed and instead expanded upon in the key terms and provisions regarding security. Added a provision on change of ownership and on drawing on and releasing of security. If Council wishes to retain authority over certain exception requests, then the factors that will determine when a request must be reviewed by Council and when it must be reviewed by the CAO should be outlined. There also should be clear parameters regarding which situations will constitute a "unique circumstance". Councillor Anctil made a motion that Council accept the Subdivision and Development Securities Policy as presented. The motion was carried.

Crowsnest Pass Regulation

The Crowsnest Pass Regulation is set to expire on August 31, 2020. From discussions with the Minister of Municipal Affairs in the fall of 2019, the Provincial Government does not have a desire to renew the Regulation. Further discussions were to have occurred at the Spring RMA convention although these did not happen due to Covid-19. Administration is recommending to request a one-year extension to allow more time to review the ramifications of the Regulation not being in place. Administration has had some initial conversation with Municipal Affairs staff, however more discussion is needed. Some initial points are that without the Regulation the way that policing is calculated will change, less grant money will be available, and the area that fire bylaws can be enacted will be unclear. The provision regarding adjusting land boundaries will not be as simple, however it is not likely that this will be easily executed anyways. Council discussed their options to ask for an extension or not and Councillor Filipuzzi made a motion that council ask for the one year extension to the Crowsnest Pass Regulation and that motion was carried.

Bellecrest Community Association Lease

Administration has been working with the Bellecrest Association to finalize the lease agreement for the Bellevue Memorial Park and Concession. Recently, during this process, the Association has asked Council to consider having the Municipality take over the garbage pick up and mowing of this area. After a discussion, Councillor Filipuzzi made a motion that council approve the Bellecrest Community Association request of providing mowing and garbage removal in the new lease. The motion was carried.

Kid’s Corner UROC Mountain Bike Trail Update

UROC presented a Kid's Bike Trail plan to Council, located behind 16th Avenue in Blairmore. After the project information packages were delivered to residences within the location of the trail plan, Council received responses from concerned residents in this area. Council directed Administration to review this project and meet with all concerned residents and provide feedback to Council for reconsideration of this project. Council directed Administration to review this project and meet with all concerned residents and provide feedback to Council for reconsideration of this project. Administration/Council received 8 letters of concern. Administration, along with a UROC member, met with each resident on site, to address their concerns. UROC also provided answers to any questions they had during this meeting.

The following is a list of residents' concerns:

1. Privacy - the trail overlooks properties and residents are concerned users can view their backyards.
1. Noise - this area is generally quiet, and residents believe this trail for kids will bring excessive noise.
2. Animals - residents were concerned that this trail could result in encounters between youth and wildlife or impede wildlife movement.
3. Human waste and more garbage - residents were concerned this property has the potential to turn into a public bathroom area or have more litter.
4. Trespassing onto private property - bikers may go off the trail and trespass onto private 79 property.
5. Kids leaving the trail and accessing the creek.
6. Do not want it at all, move it somewhere else.
7. Bike trails - residents felt there are enough bike trails.
8. Tree removal - canopy could be opened and possibly create berry growth that would attract wildlife. Council will have to wait to make a decision as Councillor Sygutek explained during the meeting she might have a pecuniary interest due to the proposed location of the bike park.

“I live in that area and as a result of evaluations of land I could have a pecuniary interest based on whether or not the bike park is there. I did contact municipal affairs and talked to a municipal advisor and they could not give me a clear definition of whether or not I have pecuniary interest. In order for me to not vote I have to establish pecuniary interest. I have to contact a lawyer if I'll be able to vote on this topic or not. If I do vote and find out afterward that I'm not legally able to vote I can be kicked off council. I have asked a lawyer to look into the grey area. I make a motion that we table the Kid's Corner UROC Mountain Bike Trail Update until I have confirmation from the lawyer on whether or not I have pecuniary interest as a Councillor.”

Councillor Sygutek then made a motion to defer discussion and voting on the bike park to the next Council meeting. The motion was carried.

Crowsnest/Pincher Creek Landfill Association EPEA Amending Approval

Administration received notice from the Environmental Appeals Board requesting that the Notice of Hearing for the Crowsnest/Pincher Creek Landfill Association EPEA Amending Approval be placed on the Municipal public bulletin boards or websites. The notice of hearing is happening with respect to the June 23, 2018 decision of the Director, South Saskatchewan Region, Operations Division, Alberta Environment and Parks, to issue Amending Approval No. 18701-02-01 to the Crowsnest/Pincher Creek Landfill Association for the construction and maintenance of a Class II Landfill with an incinerator.

Councillor Ward provided the following statement on the topic.

“Regarding the Incinerator, the Landfill board of Directors five years ago decided that the landfill needed to look at options for disposal of dead carcasses. The board at that time made the decision to direct the landfill administration to explore the Incinerator option. The landfill applied for and was given as part of their license renewal the ability to proceed with an Incinerator. The present board has made the decision that the Incinerator will not be proceeding. From the Crowsnest Pass point of view less than 5% of the carcasses originate in our area, it is much larger of an issue for our neighbors to the east. So we has a council have chosen to respect our partner’s position on this issue. We also had to keep in mind that an Incinerator would be a very significant project costing a minimum of $3-4 million, and would be dependent on grant funding and a sound business plan neither of which are in place today.”

Digital issues of the Pass Herald are now available:

Subscribe and read the FULL Pass Herald online.

or read just this issue of the Pass Herald online.