Media Coverage Report

CBC Calgary
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/lethbridge-county-faces-tax-hike-to-deal-with-crumblingbridges-1.2751489
This article is older, but shows that this has been an issue
Lethbridge County has been discussing for years.
Lethbridge County faces tax hike to deal with
crumbling bridges
Reeve blames province for failing to maintain infrastructure
CBC News Posted: Aug 30, 2014 12:18 PM MT Last Updated: Aug 30, 2014 12:19 PM MT
The bridges in Lethbridge County are falling apart, and a county official has laid the blame
squarely with the provincial government.
"Basically they've just about reached their life expectancy," Reeve Lorne Hickey said of the
spans, on two-lane gravel roads that are as much as 50 years old.
"We have five [bridges] that currently have restrictions for
deficiencies on them," he said, adding heavy trucks should avoid
the spans."There are weight restrictions and two have been reduced
to single-lane traffic."
Because the province is not spending enough on bridge repair, Hickey said, the county must
consider raising local taxes to either repair the spans or knock them down.
He said earlier provincial estimate put the cost of repairing the bridges at $250,000 apiece.
If demolition is chosen, Hickey said, "people are going to have to travel quite a ways out of their
way. But one way or another we can't have people travelling across structures that are unsafe.
"So we'll have to look at one of those solutions."
2
CTV News Lethbridge/Calgary
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=781901
County consider agriculture tax
January 6, 2016
Terry Vogt
3
Global News Lethbridge
http://globalnews.ca/news/2437916/lethbridge-county-considers-agriculture-tax-for-infrastructurefunds/
4
Holes straight through the floor of a bridge on a rural road northeast of Lethbridge is just part of
the reason it was closed to traffic. It’s symptomatic of a much larger problem: aging
infrastructure.
The county’s bridge inspection foreman says it’s the increased usage and weight of trucks and
equipment that are degrading the roads and bridges.
“These tractor trailer units are getting larger and we are a fairly intense county here, with feed lot
operations and our grain and all that,” Dario Colmo said. “It’s putting an enormous amount of
pressure on these bridge that were built back in the 50s and 60s.”
County Reeve Lorne Hickey says there are 166 bridges in the county, with over 2,000 kilometers
of road that need maintenance and reconstruction.
“We have an infrastructure deficit in the county of about $250 million. We are looking at ways to
improve the infrastructure.”
Lethbridge County has the largest concentration of animals in the province and is significantly
larger in agricultural production than any other area in Alberta. Now, the heavy traffic is starting
to leave its mark.
“We have lobbied in the past, both the provincial and the federal governments, to no avail,”
Hickey said. “The only way out, unfortunately in this situation, is to look at those people who
use the infrastructure the most.”
The county is considering a per-animal levy – a tax essentially – for major feed-lot producers.
Hickey says it would be the first of its kind in the province.
“That may not be the solution we come up with. It may be a combination of things.
“It may be per-animal unit or it may be based on the actual use of the road. We are right in the
stage of producing something that will work for both worlds.”
The levy would not be limited to cattle; other sectors like sugar beets, potatoes and grains will
also be considered.
County officials are now holding round-table discussions with producers to look at options to
reverse the infrastructure deficit. They will continue the round-table discussions throughout
2016.
5
Country 95.5/B-93
http://www.country95.fm/news.asp?ID=11044
Lethbridge County Facing $250-Million Infrastructure Deficit
LETHBRIDGE - Lethbridge County is
looking for ideas that will help generate
revenue to fund infrastructure
challenges.
The County has 166 bridges and about
2,000 kilometers of road that need
maintenance and reconstruction. Their
total infrastructure deficit is
approximately $250-million.
The County has held three roundtable
sessions to gather input and will
continue with them into 2016. The
meetings have been attended by producers, agricultural businesses, agricultural associations, and
residents.
Once the roundtable discussions have wrapped up, they Countil will hold open houses to get
feedback from the public.
Posted on Wednesday, January 06, 2016 at 4/18/2016 10:20:10 AM
Source: Tristan Tuckett - Country 95 News
6
CJOC 94.1 FM
http://www.cjocfm.com/news-and-info/lethbridge-news/lethbridge-county-looks-to-address-aginginfrastructure/
Lethbridge County Looks To Address Aging
Infrastructure
Wednesday, January 6th, 2016 12:03pm
Lethbridge County is hoping a continuing series of round table talks with stakeholders can
help address a $250 million infrastructure deficit.
Lethbridge County hopes a continuing series of
round table discussions can help drum up ideas
for new revenue opportunities in an effort to
address aging infrastructure. The County says it
needs an action plan to fix a roughly $250 million
infrastructure deficit. This includes some of the
County's 166 bridges and 2,000 kilometres of
road, specifically, the bridges and roads that were
built in the 1950s and ‘60s, which are not able to
withstand today’s heavy loads. County Reeve Lorne Hickey says the round table talks include
County producers, agricultural businesses and residents. Open houses will also be held once the
round table discussions conclude later this year. - Tom Roulston
Lorne Hickey, Lethbridge County Reeve clip
7
Lethbridge Herald
http://lethbridgeherald.com/news/local-news/2016/01/07/county-dealing-with250m-infrastructuredeficit/
County dealing with $250M infrastructure
deficit
By Schnarr, J.W. on January 7, 2016.
J.W. Schnarr
LETHBRIDGE HERALD
jwschnarr@lethbridgeherald.com
A $250-million infrastructure deficit has Lethbridge County looking at options to pay for it.
Currently, the county is involved in roundtable discussions with users and user groups.
“We’re looking at ways to improve the infrastructure so that products can be delivered in timely
fashion, and have a safe network of infrastructure for all people who live and come to visit in the
county,” said reeve Lorne Hickey.
The county has 166 bridges and about 2,000 kilometres of roads requiring maintenance and
reconstruction. Years of funding issues, cuts and freezes by successive provincial and federal
governments have played a large role in the state of infrastructure throughout the province.
Hickey said lobbying the provincial and federal government in the past has proven unsuccessful,
leaving council with few alternatives.
“Unfortunately, the only way out of this situation is to look at those people who use the
infrastructure the most, and look at putting some kind of business-type tax in place,” he said.
One possibility could be a levy based on a per-animal unit. Hickey said nothing has been
finalized, however, and this is simply one of the options being looked at.
“That may not be the solution we’re going to come up with,” he said. “It may be a combination
of things. It may be something per-animal unit, or it may be more based on the use of the road.”
8
Other options include the possibility of a road use agreement, though Hickey said it would be a
more complicated arrangement.
“It would involve a lot more people, and could be quite difficult to implement at times,” he said.
“That’s not ruled out. We’re just in the stage of looking for a process that will work.”
Hickey said care must be taken when dealing with local producers, so as not to damage
businesses already dealing with high levels of volatility.
“We realize the feeding industry is very volatile ” he said “We want to make sure we don’t place
an unbearable load on people who can’t do that.
“We’re trying to figure out what is probably a best practice for using the road, and also some sort
of levy or tax for those who use it the most.”
Hickey added any levies set on user groups would likely include other producers, such as sugar
beets and potatoes.
Decades of wear and tear have brought much of the county’s roads and bridges to the point of
failure. The county is then forced to close them while awaiting the funds to have the areas
repaired.
“The majority of the roads in the county were probably built 60 to 80 years ago,” Hickey said.
“The bridges are in that 50- to 60-year range. The roads, when they were constructed, were built
for one-ton trucks. Not Super B’s.
“The bridges, also, were built with wood on a concrete deck or even wood decks. They have
expired their life expectancy, and they are in need of repair.”
Hickey said the idea of local payment for infrastructure projects is not a new one. With more
discussions on the way, Hickey also confirmed there will be an open house for local ratepayers
to have their say and to learn more about the process.
“We’re seeking the input of producers,” he said. “When we come up with something we can take
to the public, we’ll have open houses.”
“We realize that will not happen overnight,” he said, adding some discussion has been made of
the idea of raising $3.5 million annually over a 30-year plan.
“You can’t expect something to get fixed overnight,” he said. “It didn’t get built overnight.”
Hickey said to his knowledge, no other M.D.s or counties in the province have had to resort to
these kinds of levies.
9
“We’re fairly unique,” he said. “We have the largest concentration of animals in the province,
and we have the largest farmgate sales in the province with a little over $1.3 billion per year.”
In the meantime, the county will continue to monitor the situation and make adjustments as
necessary.
“We’re managing them the best way we can. If a road is unsafe, we will close it, and we have
closed some roads. We have also closed some bridges that are not safe for public transportation
anymore. We just have to manage it that way until we can accommodate our situation.”
10
Alberta Chicken Producers
https://www.google.ca/search?q=lethbridge+county+infrastructure+tax&ie=utf-8&oe=utf8&gws_rd=cr&ei=I_0UV4SnK-a0jgSb4Ja4DA#q=lethbridge+county+infrastructure+tax&start=40
February Newsletter
Lethbridge County Infrastructure
In the December issue of EggNotes, EFA reported on the Municipal Government Act and the $250
million road and bridge infrastructure deficit in Lethbridge County.
Over the past several months, the County of Lethbridge has created a roundtable of stakeholders to
come up with immediate solutions to mitigate the critical state of their road and bridge infrastructure
system. At a minimum, the County requires $3.5 million a year to keep the road/bridges viable or they
will have to limit traffic through significant road bans and close bridges (or restrict them to one-way
traffic).
A strategy is evolving that will include the designation of haul roads, the subsequent upgrading of haul
roads, improved maintenance of bridges on haul roads, and the introduction of innovative products to
improve the durability of gravel roads. They are proposing to fund the strategy with the two options the
Municipal Government Act provides them:
• Business tax
• Special tax
The proposed business tax would be assessed on farm land based on $3.10 per irrigated acre and $1.19
per dryland acre. The proposed special tax would be assessed to livestock producers based on $3.00 per
animal unit (the animal unit would be the equivalent to one beef cow). Based on a formula that one
animal unit equates to 300 broilers, a 10,000 broiler barn would pay $99.99 in special taxes, while a
10,000 head feedlot would pay $30,000 in special taxes.
The County has committed to holding open houses on their proposal to receive stakeholder feedback
and we will work to ensure egg farmers in the County of Lethbridge are notified of opportunities to
participate in the open houses.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this issue in further detail, Martin van Diemen (Alberta
Chicken and Alberta Milk) has been acting on behalf of the livestock industry on this issue and is happy
to serve as a point of contact. Please feel free to contact Martin directly at 403-382-0130 or
diemen@shockware.com.
11
Lethbridge News Now/Country 95.5/B-93
http://lethbridgenewsnow.com/article/507264/lethbridge-county-looking-input-funding-our-future
Lethbridge County Looking for Input on
"Funding Our Future"
By Patrick Burles - @PatrickBurles
March 15, 2016 - 5:23pm Updated: March 16, 2016 - 9:37am
LETHBRIDGE: Lethbridge County is hosting a series of open houses, as they look at options
for "Funding Our Future".
The county needs to collect $3.5-million starting this year to reinvest in the Market Access
Network, which includes 167 bridges and about 2000-kilometres of road. Over 20-per cent of the
bridges have reached their maximum age, and if the county doesn't invest now, there is a risk that
some will be closed.
At this point, no final decisions have been made on how the money will be collected, with first
reading of revenue raising bylaws set for April 7, 2016.
You can find details on "Funding Our Future" at www.lethcounty.ca and in the County
Connection, Special Edition: Funding Our Future, which will be in this week's Sunny South
News and at Lethbridge County offices.
Also if you can't make one of the open houses, you can call the Lethbridge County
Administration Office at 403-328-5525.
12
Open Houses:
Monday, March 21, 6pm–8pm
Nobleford Community Centre
Tuesday, March 22, 5pm–7pm
Coast Lethbridge Hotel & Conference Centre
Wednesday, March 23, 9am–11am
Picture Butte Community Complex
Wednesday, March 23, 6pm–8pm
Coaldale Community Centre
Tuesday, April 12, 6pm–8pm
Coalhurst and District Community Centre
Thursday, April 14, 6pm–8pm
McNally School
13
CJOC 94.1 FM
http://www.cjocfm.com/news-and-info/lethbridge-news/lethbridge-county-holding-open-houses-todiscuss-future-funding-options/
Lethbridge County Holding Open Houses to
Discuss Future Funding Options
Wednesday, March 16th, 2016 10:34am
Lethbridge County is looking for feedback from local producers and land owners as it
looks for ways to collect $3.5 million a year.
Lethbridge County will be hosting a series
of open houses starting this month to
gather public feedback on its "Funding
Our Future" initiative. Reeve Lorne
Hickey says the County needs to collect
$3.5 million annually to reinvest into
roads and bridges. Over 20% of the
bridges have reached their maximum age
and if the County does not invest now,
there is a risk that more closures will occur. Two potential options for funding will be presented
at the open houses, both having to do with a business tax on extensive agricultural operations and
the other is a special tax on irrigated, dryland, and pasture acres. No final decisions have been
made regarding how the necessary funds will be collected. First Reading of revenue-raising
Bylaws will be presented to Council on April 7, 2016. Details on Funding Our Future will be
available at www.lethcounty.ca. For those unable to attend an Open House, there is a mail-in
opinion section on the back page of the newsletter or please call the Lethbridge County
Administration Office at 403-328-5525. - Pat Siedlecki with files from Lethbridge County
Audio clip verbatim: “Well there’s a business tax, which will be on intensive agricultural
operations, such as dairies, and cattle feeding, and chickens, and hogs and the whole gamut. And
there’s be also a special tax, which will be on irrigated acres, and dry land acres, and pasture
acres.” – Reeve Lorne Hickey
Lethbridge County Open Houses
Monday, March 21
Nobleford Community Centre
6 pm - 8 pm
14
Tuesday, March 22
Coast Lethbridge Hotel & Conference Centre
5 pm - 7 pm
Wednesday, March 23
Picture Butte Community Complex
9 am - 11 am
Wednesday, March 23
Coaldale Community Centre
6 pm - 8 pm
Tuesday, April 12
Coalhurst and District Community Centre
6 pm - 8 pm
Thursday, April 14
McNally School
6 pm - 8 pm
15
Lethbridge Herald
http://lethbridgeherald.com/news/local-news/2016/01/07/county-dealing-with250m-infrastructuredeficit/
County proposing new tax
Mabell, Dave on March 17, 2016.
Dave Mabell
LETHBRIDGE HERALD
dmabell@lethbridgeherald.com
Faced with crumbling roads and bridges, Lethbridge County is proposing a new tax on livestock
and farming operations.
The county will need to collect an extra $3.5 million each year to maintain its “market access
network,” officials say. They’re suggesting a per-head tax on livestock across the county, plus
“special taxes” on irrigated and dry farmland.
Those taxes will start this year but a series of “open house” sessions explaining the situation will
be held, beginning Monday in Nobleford.
County personnel are responsible for maintaining about 2,000 kilometres of roadways and 167
bridges, officials point out. Most were designed for the much-lighter trucks used on rural roads
50 years ago, and more than 20 per cent have passed their expected service life and are starting
to fail.
One rural bridge near Lethbridge has already been closed, they add, and more could follow if the
county is unable to raise funds for stepped-up maintenance and repair.
School buses, cars and other non-farm vehicles depend on the bridges and roads, county officials
point out, but they can’t remain open once they’re deemed unsafe.
What’s needed is a “fair and equitable distribution of costs to the main users of the market access
network,” they add. But no final decisions on how it will be collected will be made until after
most of the public sessions have been held.
The first reading of a proposed taxation bylaw is expected at the county council meeting on April
7.
16
Monday’s session, at 6 p.m. in the community centre in Nobleford, will be followed Tuesday by
a 5 p.m. session in the Coast Lethbridge Hotel.
On Wednesday, a morning meeting will be held from 9 to 11 a.m. in the community complex in
Picture Butte, followed by a 6 p.m. meeting in the community centre in Coaldale.
The final information and feedback meetings are scheduled for April 12 at 6 p.m. in the
community centre in Coalhurst and April 14 at 6 p.m. in the former McNally School.
17
The Sunny South News
Tuesday, March 22, 2016 Online Edition
Will a new tax in the county help offset
infrastructure costs?
Posted on March 22, 2016 by Sunny South News
Yesterday in Nobleford, Lethbridge County held its first of just over a handful of open house sessions to
discuss the future of infrastructure in the county including rejuvenating dilapidated bridges and roads.
It was stated in the Lethbridge Herald last week, as the county is faced with the inevitable crumbling
roads and bridges problem (which is an issue throughout the province and across the country), the
county is proposing a new tax on livestock and farming operations to collect an extra $3.5 million a year
to keep rural farm traffic flowing through its “market access network.”
According to the news report, the county is suggesting a livestock tax per head plus special taxes on
irrigated and dry farmland. The taxes, according to the news report, are to kick in this year but the open
house sessions are being held to hopefully explain the situation being faced by the county. The report
stated back in the day, about 50 years ago, roads and bridges were designed for much-lighter trucks and
the infrastructure has lived its life and its health is failing, miserably. But, the news report added, no
final decisions on collection of a proposed tax will be made until some public consultation. The proposed
tax bylaw is expected to have first reading at county council Apr. 7. So, what would a tax of this nature
mean to local Joe and Sally Farmer? Well, if said farmer has a heck of a lot of livestock it would mean
putting out some extra green to help offset county infrastructure. And if you are a dryland farmer or rely
on irrigation to farm — you too would have to cough up some more extra dollars to help the cause. But,
is it a small price to pay to keep the wheels of agriculture-related progress and commerce turning and
moving forward?
During the last provincial and federal elections, the need for infrastructure spending across the board
was discussed to help the country rebuild and update aging infrastructure Canadians rely on everyday to
travel, to work, to play and to eat and drink. Canadians need to be able to get from point A to point B —
safely and without too many hassles, vehicle and body intact.
Ponder this. What about just a plain old tax increase for all county residents, as a whole? Pretty much all
county residents drive on county roads but so do city folk. So, perhaps a southern Alberta tax could be
18
obtained from all southern Albertans to offset the costs associated with sprucing up failing
infrastructure in all municipalities? How about toll highways on both secondary and primary highways?
Where drivers pay a toll to drive on said highway(s) and/or a licence is photographed when on the
highway and then a fee is sent to the driver each time he/she drives on said highway(s)? This happens in
other parts of Canada to help pay for aging infrastructure and keep traffic moving smoothly.
But what about municipality excess and funds misspent? Are there certain areas municipalities could cut
back on to help offset costs? Taxpayers always shutter when they think they need to pay more taxes but
excess and misspending still continues within municipal organizations everywhere.
Canadians, do need to chip in to help pay for aging infrastructure but Canadians expect the money to be
used wisely that is already paid as a tax. Maybe public money needs to be spent better with more input
from the public before it is excessively or needlessly spent on other things. But the open houses
scheduled are a good starting point indeed to begin a discussion on the topic. But shouldn’t the public
also know how its taxes are being spent now or have been spent? Paying for infrastructure is not
frivolous, it needs to be done but perhaps there are other ways to go about collecting funds.
How about a municipality holding a fundraiser such as a bake sale or bingo? Maybe municipal staff
and/or council can put on their swim trunks and Hawaiian shirts and put on a car wash? How about an
old fashioned sock hop, garage sale, yard sale or flea market? Or perhaps staff and/or council could go
door to door to sell cookies? The ideas are endless but a new tax is also in the works.
Hopefully, county residents will attend one of the open houses to see what’s up and to perhaps voice an
opinion on the topic and engage with the powers that be to come up with a fair solution, suitable for
everyone.
19
The Sunny South News
Tuesday, March 29, 2016 Online Edition
Infrastructure funding open houses
Posted on March 29, 2016 by Sunny South News
By Stan Ashbee
Sunny South News
Nobleford held the first Lethbridge County open house session last
Monday night to discuss options to help fund aging infrastructure
projects now and into the future. The county, as well as most
municipalities throughout the country, are faced with failing roads
and bridge woes, as infrastructure becomes outdated.
Mayor Don McDowell noted the turnout was approximately 30 rural
residents from both the PIcture Butte and Nobleford area, along
with county staff and councillors. “Reeve Lorne Hickey and county
reps gave a great presentation,” said McDowell, as breakout sessions
were also created with some good discussions.
General opinion, McDowell added, was the county should have done this years ago. “But better late
than never.”
Lethbridge County has proposed a new tax on livestock and farming operations but the open house
sessions were held to get some public consultation on the issue with a proposed first reading of a
taxation bylaw expected at an Apr. 7 council meeting.
Village of Nobleford Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Kirk Hofman noted there seems to be no
appetite for an increase in property taxes, as most residents feel taxes are already maxed out. “And is
not a fair and equitable way to deal with the road and bridge issue,” said Hofman.
Hofman added the general opinion of residents at the open house seem to be those that use the roads
and abuse the roads should pay the most.
A number of suggestions, Hofman said, included less bureaucracy by the county and more efficiency in
construction, maintenance and administration. “Strong support for getting more money from gas tax
20
grants from government,” Hofman said, was another suggestion from residents at the open house.
“This road issue has been discussed by past county council but never any action. I compliment this
county council on taking steps forward on this important issue,” Hofman said.
Other open house sessions were held in Lethbridge, Picture Butte, Coaldale and in April in Coalhurst and
the former McNally School.
Even though Lethbridge County is proposing a tax to fund aging infrastructure throughout the county,
consensus in Picture Butte is the county needs to look within to cut spending before asking county
residents to chip in to pay a new tax to keep the county’s market access network alive and well.
A market access network is more than just one piece of infrastructure. “It’s not just the roads, it’s not
just the bridges, it’s not just the culverts — it’s everything combined,” said facilitator Michelle Tetreault,
president of Public Works Management Corp. The facilitator was on hand at one of the recent
Lethbridge County open house sessions held in Picture Butte last Wednesday morning to discuss a
proposed tax to fund aging infrastructure, as well as other possible options.
According to Tetreault, the county is looking at a fair and equitable distribution of costs to the main
users. “They want to minimize closures and detours to the heavy haul roads.”
The Municipal Government Act (MGA), Tetreault noted, only allows municipalities to collect revenue
through certain streams and the MGA is going through review with the Alberta government and it is
believed a new MGA will be tabled this year. “But they don’t know what that will do to allow them to
collect additional revenues. What they’re looking at for this year is how do they get the $3.5 million for
2016,” she explained, adding if the MGA after it is tabled allows other options, then the options
discussed at the open house sessions may not exist in 2017.
Rick Bacon, director of municipal services for the county, said infrastructure is a collection of various
physical assets that provide service and benefits to its residents and businesses. Infrastructure inventory
in Lethbridge County, Bacon explained, includes 1,227 miles of local roads, 167 bridge files, and
thousands upon thousands of miles of ditches and drainage ways.
Bacon added county road restrictions and road bans are not always adhered to either, which isn’t good
for local infrastructure. “It’s a common occurrence.”
In 2015, Bacon explained, the county replaced two bridge files, which ranged from $400,000-$600,000
for those replacements. “The funding for these had to come from other sources, where in the past prior
to 2015, there was bridge funding available — which is no longer available to municipalities for bridge
21
replacements,” Bacon said.
A proposed tax for infrastructure funding, Reeve Lorne Hickey said, is not something that’s 100 per cent
set in stone but the county does need to look forward to developing a market access network that does
suit the needs of the residents of the county. “Agriculture is the most vital component of the county. It’s
a renewable resource and we have to ensure we have the ability to get to market and make this fair and
equitable to everyone as possible,” Hickey noted.
Consideration was given to a lot of different options, Hickey explained, but again the county is only
allowed to generate funds or revenue through the ways set out in the MGA. Hickey said the two options
the county has to move forward with are a business tax or a special tax. The business tax is a method in
which revenue generation is collected by the size of property or organization and is based on the animal
units based on licensed numbers through the NRCB number. The special tax is simply for dryland and
irrigated land.
After the county’s presentations residents were split into groups to discuss the options in regards to a
proposed tax or other ideas to bring forth, as funding possibilities. Some of the notes brought forward
by the groups included the county needs to address its expenses, “Have a closer look at what’s going
out, as opposed to what’s coming in,” one group stated.
Bridges support irrigation, one group stated, therefore irrigation should pay for the bridges. Another
group noted one-third of funding should come from the federal government, one-third from the
province and one-third from local funds. The county, according to another group, should consider how
the county can remain competitive with other municipalities in terms of agricultural operations. In terms
of other options, one group stated, the county should consider implementing a variation of the
proposals at half rate for the first three years and build in a review on how the new tax is working.
For more information and to check out a tax rate calculator visit lethcounty.ca.
22
Farms.com
http://www.farms.com/news/lethbridge-county-revenue-raising-open-house-meetings-105973.aspx
Lethbridge County Revenue Raising Open House Meetings (Apr 08, 2016)
Lethbridge County is hosting a series of public open house meetings to discuss ways in which they
might collect $3.5 million per year from rate payers. These funds would be used to address aging
infrastructure such as bridges and roads.
The County will present the first reading of this revenue raising bylaw proposal to council on April 7,
2016 and likely proceed with the second reading shortly after that. There are still two meetings to be
held on Tuesday, April 12 (Coalhurst and District Community Centre 6-8 pm) and Thursday, April 14
(McNally School 6-8 pm).
Alberta Pork is encouraging all producers in Lethbridge County to participate in the meetings and
express their opinions on this matter. Alberta Pork has been working on this issue and others with the
Intensive Agriculture Operation Working Group (IAOWG) which is made up of representation from
Alberta Municipal Affairs, Intensive Livestock Working Group (pigs, beef, dairy, and poultry), Crop
Sector Working Group, AAMD&C, and Alberta Agriculture &Forestry.
The IAOWG was formed as part of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) review with a mandate to
explore areas of concern between municipalities and agriculture producers with a focus on
assessment and taxation for farm land and agriculture buildings, plus infrastructure challenges
associated with the presence of intensive agriculture operations. This initiative is currently reviewing
the issue; therefore, Alberta Pork believes that the County should hold off on their proposed tax plan
until that process is completed in July 2016.
Alberta Pork feels that there needs to be a fair way to carry the burden of taxation, but it should also
be addressed through the current agreed to process and at the provincial level to ensure an even
playing field for all producers.
Attending one of the remaining meetings is a way to ensure that your voice is heard.
Source : Albertapork
23
CJOC 94.1 FM
http://www.cjocfm.com/news-and-info/lethbridge-news/lethbridge-county-moving-forward-with-planto-generate-funds-for-roads-and-bridges/
Lethbridge County Moving Forward With
Plan to Generate Funds For Roads & Bridges
Friday, April 8th, 2016 3:15pm
Lethbridge County Council has considered four options for its "Funding Our Future"
initiative and has now givem first reading to the business tax, special tax and community
aggregate payment levy bylaw.
It appears Lethbridge County has decided on a
plan to generate funds for maintaining its roads
and bridges. Council considered four options
for its "Funding Our Future" initiative and this
week gave first reading to the business tax,
special tax and community aggregate payment
levy bylaw. It's a phased in approach for the
$3.5 million needed to reinvest in the county's 167 bridges and over 20000 km of roads. Under
the plan, 75% of the revenue will be collected by the business tax and special tax farmland in
2016 which will garner $2.6 million of what's needed. Because of the shortfall,
County Municipal Services Director, Rick Bacon, says he will review this year's plan to
determine which capital projects will not be funded. The County held public open houses
recently in Picture Butte, Nobledford, Coaldale, and Lethbridge and two more open houses are
schedule in Coalhurst (Apr. 12) and at the McNally School (Apr. 14) - Tina Giesbrecht
24
Global News Lethbridge
http://globalnews.ca/video/2628328/evening-news-april-8-4
Global News Lethbridge covered the story for their April 8, 2016 Evening News broadcast. The
video is available at the above link and begins at 5:04.
25
Alberta Beef Producers
Newsletter: http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=c1f6a7e3d460ed7f2ff6e92fc&id=b326b9d869
Lethbridge County infrastructure tax proposal
As is the case with many rural municipalities, the County of Lethbridge is facing significant
challenges in finding funding for road and bridge infrastructure work. The County Council has
decided that it needs to invest $3.5 million annually to maintain and improve roads and bridges
in the county. They are proposing a business tax on confined feeding operations (CFO) and a
special tax on dryland and irrigated farmland to raise these funds. These taxes would be in
addition to the municipal taxes already paid by farmers and CFOs in the county. The council is
presenting two options that differ only in the proportion of the $3.5 million that would come
from CFOs and farmland.
Alberta Beef Producers (ABP) recognizes the infrastructure challenges facing rural
municipalities and we are willing to work with local governments on solutions to these
challenges, but we strongly oppose the proposed business tax in Lethbridge County. In our view,
the County has not sufficiently explored other funding options before moving to impose a
business tax that places an unfair portion of the infrastructure costs on livestock and poultry
producers. The two options have CFO owners paying either 57% or 71% of the $3.5 million and
since the business tax is calculated on the flawed basis of animal units, cattle feeders will be
charged an even more disproportionate amount (47% or 59%) of the infrastructure funding.
Considering the important economic and social contribution that cattle feeding makes to
Lethbridge County, we do not think it is fair or wise for the County to impose a tax that would
hurt the competitiveness of these operations.
Through the Intensive Livestock Working Group, ABP is part of the Intensive Agriculture
Operations Working Group (IAOWG). The IAOWG is a government and industry group formed
as a result of the Municipal Government Act review to explore issues of assessment and taxation
for farmland and agricultural operations, as well as the infrastructure challenges associated with
intensive agricultural operations. The work of the IAOWG will be completed this summer and
we believe that a provincial solution to the issues of assessment, taxation, and infrastructure
would be much better than special taxes imposed by individual counties.
The proposed business tax in Lethbridge County would have a serious negative impact on the
cattle and beef industry in Alberta. Putting a “head tax” on livestock operations sets a dangerous
precedent and we know that decisions made in one municipality are often copied by other
municipalities. Lethbridge County Council has passed first reading of the bylaw that would
implement these taxes and we understand that they intend to have the bylaw in place by the end
of the month. There are still opportunities for producers to present their views on the proposed
bylaw at two open houses next week. The open houses will be held:
26
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at Coalhurst and District Community Centre, 6-8 p.m.
Thursday, April 14, 2016 at McNally Community Centre (formerly McNally School), 6-8 p.m.
ABP strongly encourages all cattle producers in Lethbridge County and surrounding areas to attend
these meetings if possible and make sure that the County hears from our sector.
27
Lethbridge News Now/Country 95.5/B-93
http://lethbridgenewsnow.com/article/510720/county-considering-option-address-significantinfrastructure-deficit
County Considering Option To Address
Significant Infrastructure Deficit
By Tristan Tuckett (@TristanTuckett on Twitter)
April 11, 2016 - 5:55am Updated: April 11, 2016 - 9:29am
Photo credit to LethbridgeNewsNow.com
LETHBRIDGE: Lethbridge County continues to work towards a solution for their
infrastructure challenges.
The County is facing a $250-million infrastructure deficit to replace or fix existing roads and
bridges, as about 20 per cent of the 166 bridges in the County are approaching the end of their
life cycle.
After a series of Open House sessions, County Council gave first reading to a certain option that
would phase in a tax for intensive livestock operations based on animal units, as well as a special
farmland tax. Reeve Lorne Hickey says this plan would bring in about $3.5-million a year.
"It's the fairest way to approach it, it's not all at once which was one thing that came out (during
previous open house sessions). Yes, we've had lots of suggestions that it's high, but when you
28
look at it from our side of the book, we also have to service the infrastructure that they need to
get to market," Hickey explains.
The Alberta Beef Producers are one of the groups that have come out against this proposal.
There will be two more open houses this week on the matter. The first is on Tuesday night at the
Coalhurst Community Centre, with the other at the McNally School on Thursday evening. Both
sessions run from 6 to 8 p.m.
Here's a link for more information - http://www.lethcounty.ca/government/funding-ourfuture/business-tax-calc...
29
Discover Airdrie/Okotoks Online/Drumheller Online
http://www.discoverairdrie.com/ag-news/13394-abp-says-lethbridge-county-tax-plan-unfair
http://okotoksonline.com/ag-news/31989-abp-says-lethbridge-county-tax-plan-unfair
http://www.drumhelleronline.com/ag-news/15976-abp-says-lethbridge-county-tax-plan-unfair
ABP Says Lethbridge County Tax Plan Unfair
Category: Agricultural News
Published: Monday, 11 April 2016 05:00
Written by Don McCracken
The County of Lethbridge is proposing a new business tax on Confined Feeding Operations to
help pay for road and bridge infrastructure work.
The County council says it needs to invest $3.5 million each year to maintain and improve roads
and bridges.
These taxes would be in addition to the municipal taxes already paid by farmers and CFOs in the
county.
The Alberta Beef Oroducers says they recognize the infrastructure challenges facing rural
30
municipalities and is willing to work with local governments on solutions, but strongly opposes
the proposed business tax.
They feel the County has not sufficiently explored other funding options before moving to
impose a business tax that places an unfair portion of the cost on livestock and poultry producers.
The Alberta Beef Producers are part of the Intensive Agriculture Operations Working Group
which was formed to explore issues of assessment and taxation for farmland and agricultural
operations, as well as the infrastructure challenges associated with intensive agricultural
operations.
The work of the group will be completed this summer and they believe that a provincial solution
would be much better than special taxes imposed by individual counties.
The proposed business tax has received first reading but there are still opportunities for
producers to present their views at two open houses Tuesday April 12, at the Coalhurst and
District Community Centre, from 6-8 p.m. and Thursday April 14, at McNally Community
Centre from 6-8 p.m.
31
The Sunny South News
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 Print Edition
Funding the Future:
County chooses Option 4
By Stan Ashbee
Sunny South News
As Lethbridge County moves forward into 2016 and beyond it is faced with finding feasible
funding to continue the maintenance and reconstruction of the county’s Market Access Network,
which includes 2,000 kilometres of roads and 167 bridges. A report was submitted to county
council at a recent meeting held Apr. 7. The county, according to the report, needs to collect over
$3 million annually to invest in this network starting in 2016 and the county has come up with
options to find a fair and equitable distribution of the costs to the main users of the network.
These options were unveiled at a number of open houses throughout the county to discuss
options with residents and to obtain feedback about which option would suit residents and the
county best.
Council, after much deliberation, passed the motion to approve Funding the Future
Option 4, as the funding option and administration present the Amended Business Tax Bylaw
#1165, Special Tax Bylaw #1464 and Community Aggregate Levy Bylaw #1340 for first reading
based on Funding the Future Option 4.
According to the report submitted to council, Option 4 is based on a two-year phase-in
approach of Option 1 with 75 per cent of revenue from the business tax and special tax in 2016
and increased to 100 per cent in 2017. Option 1, the report
stated, reflects calculations based on the economic impact
method resulting in $925,740 or 26 per cent of revenue
Council wantgenerated from special tax and $2,474,260 or 71 per cent from
the intensive livestock industry through a business tax and the
ed to take into
balance of approximately $100,000 or three per cent from the
consideration the
sand and gravel industry. The report stated the 2016 tax rate in
input we received
Option 4 is $3 per animal unit and a 2016 revenue of
during the open
$1,855,695.
The report also stated the county’s 2016 budget includes
$1.6 million for road construction, $1.4 million for bridge
house sessions.
replacement/repair and $500,000 for hardtop surfaces, which
will be placed in a capital reserve for a future hardtop project.
– Lorne Hickey
Under the Special Tax Bylaw #1464, Option 4 2016 tax
rate would be 4.4140 and revenue of $694,286. Under the
“
”
32
Community Aggregate Payment Levy council approval of any of the options will result in a tax
rate of $.25/tonne and total revenue of $100,000.
A few of the themes emerging from the open houses from some of the public
consultations included the notion livestock should pay more, dry land pays too much, NRCB
licences don’t work, administration efficiencies, implement the option selected over two to three
years, lobby for a gas tax, irrigation districts should contribute to the costs, the implementation of
roaduse agreements, some thought the option selected shouldn’t be implemented in stages, and
keep Lethbridge County competitive. “Council wanted to take into consideration the input we
received during the open house sessions. We understand Option 1 may be a substantial impact to
livestock producers in 2016. However, we also need to consider the support we received from
various residents on Option 1. We believe administration provided us a reasonable alternative
with Option 4. It’s a good compromise.” said Reeve Lorne Hickey, in a recent media release.
Municipal Services Director Rick Bacon explained to council during questioning he will have to
review his 2016 work plan to confirm the capital projects that will not receive upgrade,
replacement and repair funding in 2016.
Two more open houses will be held to give residents a more detailed overview of Option
4 and the impacts for not generating the required $3.5 million, the release stated. An open house
session will be held today from 6-8 p.m. in Coalhurst at the Community Centre and on Thursday
at McNally School from 6-8 p.m.
33
Global News Lethbridge
http://globalnews.ca/video/2634852/evening-news-april-12-4
Global News Lethbridge covered the story for their April 12, 2016 Evening News broadcast. The
video is available at the above link and begins at 4:35.
34
Lethbridge Herald
http://lethbridgeherald.com/news/local-news/2016/04/13/livestock-tax-a-very-dangerous-precedent/
Livestock tax a ‘very dangerous precedent’
By Mabell, Dave on April 13, 2016.
Dave Mabell
Lethbridge Herald
dmabell@lethbridgeherald.com
A tax on livestock production is the
wrong way to pay for maintenance
on rural roads. That’s the view of the
Canadian Federation of Independent
Business, after hearing from
hundreds of members in Lethbridge
County.
Amber Ruddy, the Alberta director of the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business, spoke to The
Herald on Tuesday prior to attending a council meeting
in Coalhurst. Herald photo by Tijana Martin
@TMartinHerald on Twitter
They’re angry to hear Lethbridge
County council plans to levy a $5
tax on every head of livestock says
CFIB spokesperson Amber Ruddy. Other counties and MDs have found other ways to keep their
roads open, she says.
“This would be taxing one industry,” she said during an interview with The Herald Tuesday.
“That would set a very dangerous precedent.”
The county says it’s planning the tax because it’s exhausted all other options, she noted. But it
should look at contracting out more of its road work.
The livestock industry is already facing increased costs due to insurance and safety requirements
in the province’s Bill 6, she said. Now Lethbridge-area producers are faced with additional costs.
“One sector can’t be hammered so hard,” she warned. “Everybody uses the roads, not just the
farmers.”
35
If the tax is imposed despite their protests, Ruddy said, producers may decide to relocate to a
lower-cost part of the province. Lethbridge County’s spending has grown far more rapidly than
its population, she added.
The county may be getting some assistance from the provincial government she predicted. If it
follows through on its plans to increase spending on “core infrastructure,” the county should use
those funds for road and bridge repair.
“There’s nothing more core than that.”
Looking to Thursday’s budget speech, Ruddy said CFIB members are hoping for a reduction in
the province’s business tax – in light of this week’s announcement that it’s scrapping its
proposed $178-million plan for tax credits to businesses which create new jobs.
Despite predictions of a provincial deficit of more than $10 billion this year, Ruddy said Alberta
business owners are not in favour of a sales tax. That’s what other provinces use to help balance
their books.
“That’s not popular among our members,” she said.
They don’t want to lose that “Alberta advantage” even though, she said, “That advantage is now
razor thin.”
36
Global News Lethbridge
http://globalnews.ca/video/2637475/global-news-at-6-april-13
Global News Lethbridge covered the story for their April 13, 2016 Evening News broadcast. The
video is available at the above link and begins at 3:12 – 4:30.
37
Real Agriculture
https://www.realagriculture.com/2016/04/livestock-producers-bear-brunt-25-tax-increase-lethbridgecounty/
Livestock Producers Could Bear the Brunt of
a 25% Tax Increase in Lethbridge County
Written by
Shaun Haney
April 14, 2016
Have you ever been to Picture Butte? It is the feedlot capital of Canada. Picture Butte and
Lethbridge County are the largest cattle feeding area in Canada. I have lived in the Picture Butte
area my entire life. It comes with a butte that no longer exists, a shut down sugar factory that
now stores grain and certain smell that defines the area. That smell is cow manure.
Lethbridge County is a very intense agricultural county that is home to progressive operations
covering livestock and crops. The economic output would rival any county in the country.
In order to make all of this happen you need infrastructure and this is the county’s newest
controversial challenge — how to create a user-pay model to maintain the infrastructure of roads,
bridges, and so on.
The Lethbridge County is about to potentially embark on instituting an infrastructure tax on
livestock operations and farms that could redefine what Picture Butte looks and smells like in the
future.
“We need good infrastructure in the county for all agri business. We don’t believe that this tax is
a very good solution based on its simplistic inequitable approach.” — Leighton Kolk, feedyard
owner
The county is proposing charging feedlots a levy of $2 – $5 per head, depending on how many
times they turn their inventory. There will also be increases for farming operations as well.
The county says it needs an additional $3.5 million per year starting in 2016 to maintain and
repair roads, which would represent a 25 percent increase in tax dollars collected by the county.
This is a very large burden for the county’s agriculture operations to bear in such a short period
of time. For some operations the increased tax bill would be over $50,000, which is not
something to scoff at as it was not budgeted for.
38
Do livestock operations and farmers in the county use infrastructure? Of course they do. Is a
user-pay model likely a fair way to collect taxes from businesses for infrastructure? Yes, but that
must be done in a way that doesn’t harshly impact competitiveness with outside counties. The
increase in infrastructure investment must give Lethbridge County agricultural operations a
competitive advantage, or at least not put them at a disadvantage. This seems uncertain at this
point in time.
With Lethbridge County being the cattle feeding capital of Canada, naturally the Alberta Cattle
Feeders Association discussed the potential impacts of the new tax on county livestock
operations. Here are some of their points:




Council’s proposal focuses only on revenues. It unfairly targets livestock producers, especially
cattle feeders.
Council’s tax is narrow, simplistic and inequitable. It would be difficult and costly to administer.
Council needs to consider a range of alternatives rather than single-mindedly pursuing a new
tax.
Council must understand that this tax will negatively impact on the competitiveness of cattle
feeders in the County of Lethbridge.
Now in full disclosure, I own a feedyard. And in that full disclosure I am greatly concerned
about this tax. Some of you are likely saying this quick, exorbitant tax is fair based on how many
cattle trailers you see on the road. I would say that you are not evaluating this tax concept with a
full perspective. Here are further thoughts to consider in this very complex problem:







The county has established the need for increased funds for infrastructure. The unclear piece is
how they will administer and create value for the agriculture industry long term.
Most medium- to major-sized feedyards are in very close proximity to provincially controlled
highways which lessens the burden on the county to maintain road infrastructure.
The average manure haul is only around 3-4 miles due to transportation costs which lessens the
impact on infrastructure.
The oversimplified plan ignores how the funds will be administered and applied. Will the
revenues be applied to maintain roads and bridges in close proximity to the users providing the
funds first or will it be applied in a blanket across the entire county.
Taxing feedyards based on NRCB permit levels rewards producers that turn their inventory more
and always have a full feedyard. In reality, yards that turn inventory regularly are the ones that
use the infrastructure more, but based on the simplistic taxing structure, they have a lower cost
per unit than feedyards that turn 1.25 times. This tax is not tied at all to actual wear and tear on
the infrastructure.
If Lethbridge County engages a tax of this magnitude and adjacent counties do not, the
county might kill the golden goose. Governments of any level have to be conscious of the
realities of competitive business. If it’s cheaper to feed cattle in the MD of Taber or MD of
Foothills, the higher cost Lethbridge County will suffer a loss in business.
For many saying that this tax is poorly timed, there is never a great time to increase taxes.
39

Some operation types will be omitted, which is making some question the fairness principle of
this tax.
My final thought is in regards to the role that the Provincial Government plays in this
infrastructure saga. I have heard Premier Notley speak about jobs and diversifying the economy
away from oil many times. The province played a major role in the development of the Alberta
energy sector and if it plans on diversifying the economy past lip speak then a hard look needs to
be taken at their financial role in ensuring producers in all high GDP counties have the
infrastructure that is required.
Time will tell if the county and producers can come to terms. The reality is that there will be a
tax of some form, but questions remains about how it will be administered and how the
economic output of this county will be impacted long term.
40
Lethbridge Herald
Op Ed: “Funding Our Future” Open Letter from Reeve Lorne Hickey, Printed: April 16, 2016
41
Lethbridge Herald
http://lethbridgeherald.com/news/local-news/2016/04/19/county-to-vote-on-road-tax-thursday/
County to vote on road tax Thursday
By Mabell, Dave on April 19, 2016.
Dave Mabell
Lethbridge Herald
dmabell@lethbridgeherald.com
After months of consultation and meetings, it’s time for a decision on maintaining Lethbridge
County’s aging network of roads and bridges.
The county is responsible for maintaining about 2,000 kilometres of roadways and about 167
bridges. Some are more than 50 years old and after being pounded daily by heavy haulers and
“super-B” trucks, says Reeve Lorne Hickey, they’re rapidly wearing out.
One of the county’s bridges has already been deemed unsafe and closed down. More could
follow, creating delays for school buses and ambulances as well as farm vehicles.
The county needs about $3.5 million per year to bring its “market access” roads back up to
today’s standards, the reeve says. On Thursday, he expects county council to approve a bylaw –
with or without amendments – aimed at collecting part of that amount through new taxes.
Earlier this month, council gave first reading to a bylaw calling for a phased-in approach to a
new tax structure. For 2016, it would generate about $2.6 million.
If unchanged, the bylaw would raise more than $1.8 million though a $3 “per unit” fee on cattle,
hogs, chickens, goats and sheep. A further $694,285 would come from a special tax on farmland,
and $100,000 from a levy on gravel.
“We are home to the most intensive livestock operations in Alberta,” Hickey points out.
But Alberta’s farmland assessments have been frozen for more than 20 years, and the
government’s support for rural bridge maintenance disappeared several years ago.
With a rural population of a little more than 9,000 – less than one-tenth of the city’s – the county
doesn’t collect much through the federal government’s fuel tax rebate plan, either.
42
Hickey says the county’s situation was recognized by government MLAs more than a decade
ago. They recommended changes to the province’s system of farmland assessment.
“Then BSE came along,” and the government lost interest in anything that could further trouble
Alberta’s beef industry.
The county has continued to lobby for access to the funds it needs, he adds, but to little success.
With roads and bridge structures reaching the end of their service life, Hickey says county
council can’t wait any longer.
During open house sessions over the last month, the reeve says, no viable alternatives were
heard. Recognizing the impacts of the intensive livestock feeding operations – on the economy
as well as the roadways – “We think this is the fairest way to do it.”
Council remains open to new ideas, he adds, and any new approach is subject to review. But it’s
become urgent to start making repairs.
On Thursday, “We’ll do it.”
Hickey predicts other Alberta counties and MDs may follow suit. It could help “other
municipalities as well.”
43
The Western Producer
http://www.producer.com/2016/04/livestock-tax-proposal-draws-fire/
Livestock tax proposal draws fire
Posted Apr. 21st, 2016 by Barb Glen
COALHURST, Alta. — A proposed tax on livestock in Lethbridge County has raised the
collective ire of feedlot operators, the Alberta Beef Producers and the Alberta Cattle Feeders
Association.
They say the plan imposes an unfair burden on feedlots in particular and could cripple their
operations or drive them out of business. It could also set a precedent for other rural
municipalities who face funding shortfalls, thus damaging the cattle industry elsewhere in the
province.
The county plans to raise $2.6 million this year for road and bridge repair by charging $3 per
animal unit.
However, the tax would increase to $4 per animal unit in 2017 because the county says it
actually needs $3.5 million a year to maintain its 2,000 kilometres of roads and 167 bridges.
The proposal was given first reading earlier this month and is scheduled for further discussion at
a county council meeting April 21.
“This proposal here makes the County of Lethbridge a very inefficient place for any feedlot to
operate,” said cattle feeder John Vander Heyden, who has operations in the heart of southern
Alberta’s cattle feeding region, dubbed feedlot alley.
“They’ve just shut the doors for any feedlots to build or expand when it’s pretty tight anyways.
“What’s going to happen now is we are less competitive. We won’t have the same monies as a
competitor in another county.”
Feedlot owners Cor Van Raay and Rick Paskal voiced similar objections at an April 12 meeting
in Coalhurst.
44
Cattle feeders would bear the heaviest burden in the proposal. County calculations indicate they
would provide almost $1.7 million this year, while per-animal-unit levies on hog, dairy, chicken
and sheep producers would generate about $1 million.
The feedlots would pay $2.26 million next year if the proposal were to be approved for 2017.
Livestock producers would be responsible for about 70 percent of the total annual tax increase
with a special farmland tax and a levy per tonne of hauled gravel making up the rest.
County reeve Lorne Hickey found himself surrounded by concerned cattle feeders at the
Coalhurst meeting, one of several events held to explain the plan and the financial need.
He said in an interview that the county has limited options for higher infrastructure funding. The
provincial Strategic Transportation Infrastructure Program (STIP) is empty (although that may
be addressed in the April 14 budget) and federal infrastructure funds, if they come, are unlikely
to meet the need.
Lethbridge County has little oil and gas revenue compared to many other rural municipalities,
and roads built in the 1950s through to the 1980s are not up to the demands of modern hauling
equipment.
As well, the Municipal Government Act restricts the ways in which municipalities can apply
taxes. That act is up for review this year.
Feedlot operator John Schooten said the county’s proposed tax essentially targets about 15
feedlot owners who feed 400,000 of the 500,000 cattle on feed in the region. As such, it is unfair
and inequitable.
He said a tax of $10 per acre of farmland would generate the amount needed, and all producers
would pay a share because most feedlots also own farmland.
Alberta Beef Producers chair Bob Lowe, who lives in a neighbouring municipality, attended the
Coalhurst meeting to voice ABP objections.
“I think it’s a very short-sighted, narrow-minded approach to raising revenues,” said Lowe. “ABP absolutely opposes this tax. To pick on one segment of society, well, it’s just going to
drive industry out. In the end, if they keep up this approach, feedlot alley will go away. The
industry will just go away. We believe, as ABP, this infrastructure thing should never have been
pushed from government down to the municipalities, and a way to fix this problem is push it
back up to the provincial level.”
45
Lowe agreed roads and bridges must be maintained to allow commodity flow, but an
infrastructure funding proposal might be announced this summer.
“It would be nice if these guys would kind of wait and see what that is.”
Hickey said delayed funds mean delayed work.
“I guess if we delay it, we’ll have no funding for infrastructure this year, so if that’s what the
majority of people want, I suppose come the end of the day, that’s maybe what we’ll do,” said
Hickey.
“There’s a consequence to every action.”
Lowe said he doubts all funding options have been adequately considered, a view shared in a
brief put forward by the ACFA and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Amber Ruddy, Alberta director for the CFIB, said she is “flabbergasted” by the county tax
proposal.
“We have heard from a number of members that have phoned in with concerns about the
proposal. This is an unprecedented new way to bring in a tax. We work with municipalities
across the province and across the country, and we haven’t seen something quite like this,”
Ruddy said.
“A lot of different municipalities have infrastructure issues. What makes this the only solution? I
think they need to go back to the drawing board and figure out something that’s going to be more
palatable and accepted by the community because, you know, roads and bridges are used more
than just by ranchers and farmers, and I think you need to come to some kind of happy medium
here.”
The ACFA published a paper April 5 outlining what it considered to be the flaws in the county’s
tax plan and put forward several alternatives. It said a special agricultural levy should be
considered only after other options are explored.
“And if a new agriculture-based tax is to be employed, it should be a tax on cultivated land and
not livestock,” the association said.
“This former approach spreads the funding burden across the entire agricultural community,
including cattle feeding operations.”
46
CTV News Lethbridge/Calgary
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=854731
New Lethbridge County Road Tax
April 21, 2016
Taylor Oseen
47
Global News Lethbridge
http://globalnews.ca/video/2655241/global-news-at-6-april-21
Global News Lethbridge covered the story for their April 21, 2016 Evening News broadcast. The
video is available at the above link and begins at 6:25 – 7:00.
48
Lethbridge News Now/Country 95.5/B-93
http://lethbridgenewsnow.com/article/512307/county-council-approves-funding-options-addressinfrastructure-deficit
County Council Approves Funding Options
to Address Infrastructure Deficit
April 21, 2016 - 4:50pm
LETHBRIDGE - Lethbridge County has passed two bylaws and amended an existing business
tax bylaw to help maintain the County's roads and bridges.
Second and third readings of amended business tax, special tax and community aggregate
payment (CAP) levy bylaws were passed.
Council approved Option 4, which phases in a tax that will collected about $3.5-million a year.
In 2016, they will only collect 75 per cent of the tax required. This lowers the business tax on
animal units to $3.00. The special tax applied to dryland and irrigated farmland assessment will
see a tax rate of 4.4140. The revenue generated from the CAP levy will be based on rate of $0.25
per tonne.
The changes will come into effect when tax notices are mailed out in May.
49
CJOC 94.1 FM
http://www.cjocfm.com/news-and-info/news/lethbridge-news/lethbridge-county-passes-marketaccess-network-funding-option/
Lethbridge County Passes Market Access
Network Funding Option
Friday, April 22nd, 2016 6:11am
On Thursday Lethbridge County
Council passing two bylaws and
amended an existing business tax bylaw
relating to “Funding Our Future”
options to maintain the County’s
Market Access Network (167 bridges
and approximately 2,000 kilometers of
road).
On Thursday Lethbridge County Council passed two bylaws and amended an existing business
tax bylaw relating to “Funding Our Future” options to maintain the County’s Market Access
Network (167 bridges and approximately 2,000 kilometers of road). Second and third readings
of the amended business tax, special tax and community aggregate payment (CAP) levy bylaws
were passed. Council passed Option 4, which phases in the $3.5 Million over a two year
period. Instead of collecting $3.5 Million in 2016, the County will collect 75% of the tax dollars
required or $2.6 Million. This lowers the business tax on animal units to $3.00. The special tax
applied to dryland and irrigated farmland assessment will see a tax rate of 4.4140. The revenue
generated from the CAP levy will be based on rate of $0.25 per tonne. Reeve Lorne Hickey
commented after the vote “I’m pleased to see Council made this difficult decision so we can now
reinvest in our Market Access Network. This will help ensure our community has a reliable
transportation infrastructure in place to get products to market and for residents to travel
safely.” The revenues collected will go directly to the maintenance and upgrading of the Market
Access Network. During the phase in period, the County will continue to work with industry,
stakeholders and other levels of government to further address the needs of thecommunity. The
Municipal Government Act (MGA) consultations begin this spring and Council and
administration will be actively participating to lobby for changes. These changes will come into
effect when tax notices are mailed in May. Administration will continue to communicate with
residents so they understand the process should they wish to file a complaint. - Lethbridge
County Release
50
Lethbridge Herald
http://lethbridgeherald.com/news/local-news/2016/04/22/county-council-approves-tax-to-improveroads-bridges/
County council approves tax to improve
roads, bridges
By Mabell, Dave on April 22, 2016.
Dave Mabell
LETHBRIDGE HERALD
dmabell@lethbridgeherald.com
Road and bridge maintenance will be stepped up across Lethbridge County this year, funded by
newtaxes on intensive livestock operations and farmland.
County council approved three “market access network” charges Thursday, following a series of
producer consultations and public meetings. They’ll be included in notices of assessment and
taxation scheduled to be mailed to ratepayers in May.
With 167 bridges and about 2,000 kilometres of roadways to maintain, Reeve Lorne Hickey says
the county needs the money to catch up on a backlog of repairs. Grants from provincial and
federal governments have been far too small to keep them open indefinitely.
“Now it’s a matter of getting them back into good shape,” Hickey said after Thursday’s council
meeting. Councillors, he said, unanimously approved all three parts of the proposal.
It calls for a $3 per head levy on cattle, chickens, hogs, goats and sheep being raised in the
county, for a special tax on farmland and for a levy on gravel used to maintain the roads. That’s
expected to raise revenue of about $2.6 million for road work this year, officials say, and $3.5
million over the 2017 calendar year.
“We will follow a revised schedule for improvements,” the reeve said, taking into account
council’s decision to reduce the per-head tax from the earlier-proposed $5.
One of this year’s projects, he added, will be a one-lane temporary canal crossing on a route
northeast of the city. The existing bridge was closed after being deemed unsafe.
51
With irrigation water now running in the canals, Hickey said, that work will be deferred until
fall. County officials will select their top priority projects for this year, he added.
The reeve said county officials set up a second meeting room with a closed-circuit TV feed in
advance of Thursday’s meeting, expecting that ratepayers would overflow council chambers.
“But there was nobody in the gallery today.”
Follow @DMabellHerald on Twitter
52
Real Agriculture
https://www.realagriculture.com/2016/04/feedyard-owner-speaks-harshness-lethbridge-countyinfrastructure-tax/
Feedyard Owner Speaks to the Harshness of
the Lethbridge County Infrastructure Tax
Written by
Shaun Haney
April 22, 2016
Lethbridge County unanimously passed its new infrastructure tax on Thursday. It will no doubt
increase the tax load for livestock producers in the county.
Kasko Cattle Co. is a family-owned operation that runs a pair of feedyards and also farms in the
county, so I called Ryan Kasko to discuss the new tax and how it will impact livestock
producers, farmers and the economy of the county. Ryan shares how he feels about the possible
impact of this tax, whether as a feedyard owner do he feels that paying more tax for
infrastructure is justified, and whether there’s a better way for the county to increase revenue
than this tax:
53
Real Agriculture
http://www.municipalinfonet.com/detail_news.php?ID=575785&cat=;81
Lethbridge County
Market Access Network Funding Options Passed
April 22, 2016
On April 21st Lethbridge County Council passed two bylaws and amended an existing business
tax bylaw relating to "Funding Our Future" options to maintain the County's Market Access
Network (167 bridges and approximately 2,000 kilometers of road). Second and third readings of
the amended business tax, special tax and community aggregate payment (CAP) levy bylaws
were passed.
Council passed Option 4, which phases in the $3.5 Million over a two year period. Instead of
collecting $3.5 Million in 2016, the County will collect 75% of the tax dollars required or $2.6
Million. This lowers the business tax on animal units to $3.00. The special tax applied to dryland
and irrigated farmland assessment will see a tax rate of 4.4140. The revenue generated from the
CAP levy will be based on rate of $0.25 per tonne.
Reeve Lorne Hickey commented after the vote "I'm pleased to see Council made this difficult
decision so we can now reinvest in our Market Access Network. This will help ensure our
community has a reliable transportation infrastructure in place to get products to market and for
residents to travel safely."
The revenues collected will go directly to the maintenance and upgrading of the Market Access
Network. During the phase in period, the County will continue to work with industry,
stakeholders and other levels of government to further address the needs of the community. The
Municipal Government Act (MGA) consultations begin this spring and Council and
administration will be actively participating to lobby for changes.
These changes will come into effect when tax notices are mailed in May. Administration will
continue to communicate with residents so they understand the process should they wish to file a
complaint.
54
For more information :
Organization:
Lethbridge County
Address:
#100, 905-4th Avenue S
Lethbridge, Alberta
Canada, T1J 4E4
www.lethcounty.ca
55