Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackage - Submissions Received (2020-11-17 through 2020-12-02)November 14, 2020 County of Newell Councillors P.O. Box 130 Brooks, Alberta, Canada T1R 1B2 County of Newell Council, Re: Proposed Electoral Division Boundary I am writing the council of the County of Newell to register my opposition to the proposed changes to the electoral divisions of the county. Ward 4 is a contiguous geographical unit with a central uniting school. Scandia is to go with Rolling Hills, and Rainier and Bow City to go with Lake Newell Resort. In the case of Rainier and Bow City, rural constituents will be at a disadvantage to acreage constituents because of the population differences. Also, no direct road exists between them. When other counties contemplated electoral boundary changes, they used a consulting firm and considered factors outlined in the MGA and also the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act. These factors include things like geographical features, community history, make up of population, land use- all human factors. This whole process took 15 months to complete. The County of Newell's process is not properly planned. First reading on October 22nd and final reading before December 31, 2020—in two and a half months and in a pandemic. An honest mistake in not referring to the current MGA. Why this headlong rush to have this completed before year end?What are we missing? Why can't it be decided next year with proper consultation?Thinking that"community engagement could occur concurrently with passage of the bylaw" is not proper community consultation. Doing a Survey Monkey does not constitute public consultation. Thank you to Councillors Hammegren and Unruh for not voting in favour of this bylaw. About the statement in the newspaper about council agreeing that it could be completed because it has been a decade old discussion and recent council discussions have been publicized; maybe council has been talking about this, but there has been absolutely no public engagement at Town-hall meetings. All this rush to further some agenda! As we learned in the amalgamation debacle,why do we want less representation? Reducing counsellors does not cut expenses;staffing is where the real expenses are. The government certainly not mandating this realignment. I am not necessarily opposed to electoral boundary changes but they must take into account more than only population. What is so magical about the number seven? It could be eight or nine councillors and changes should be made considering all the parameters.There is a pandemic on. When will meaningful dialogue be held? Doing a Survey Monkey does not constitute meaningful public dialogue. The council should not proceed with this. A concerned Division 4 rate ayer. Don Jacobson V '9 7 Q2 tir y,' r fi ! r a k a A1 a November 15, 2020 Dear County Councillors, am extremely disappointed in the new electoral boundaries. In all 3 cases, Division 4 has been split, with Scandia now joined with Rolling Hills. The staff who developed the maps did not make the effort to find out which communities are connected. Rolling Hills and Scandia are separated by the Hills, which is a boundary. Both Scandia and Rolling Hills are both aligned to communities north of them. Why was this not considered, or a map developed to consider this as an option? I have heard that several Councillors said it does not matter where the line is, as their job is to represent the entire county. While they may feel that is the case, then why did the County make a presentation at the last electoral boundary review, in an effort to keep our previous riding intact? The reasons given sound similar to ones that I am concerned about. I have also heard that it must be an odd number. I disagree with this point. Your Council has successfully managed with 10 for quite a number of years, while another local board, well known for continuous strife and problems, has 7. am aware that I can give feedback on the maps, but at the late date you are doing this, there is no opportunity for a new map to be considered and circulated for feedback. Therefore, the only feedback you can incorporate into the map is that which fits into the narrow scope of maps you have considered. I believe that most residents would agree that there needs to be some changes to the divisions given the population. However, this process deserves more time, more consultation and more deliberation to get it right. believe that the short timelines you are giving is circumventing the democratic process. In almost every situation, governments have extended deadlines for projects and submissions because of the challenges that Covid has caused. The problem with population differences in the divisions has existed for quite a number of years, and the savings from decreasing to 7 councillors is a small part of the budget. These costs are being reduced further with the reduction of mileage and meal costs. As well, the additional committee work by the remaining Councillors may not decrease the savings by that much. With the further restrictions that have been announced, I feel it is incumbent on County Council to halt the process to allow for the democratic process. This Council has done many good things for the County of Newell. Please don't leave the legacy of your Council be that you created division among residents by separating their communities and the feeling they were not given a say in their future representation. Sincerely, Holly Johnson RECEIVE NOV i 8 2020 County of Newell Brooks, Afiberta Nov. 19,2020. To the councillors of the county of Newel. The recent news articles about the intentions of the county I find a bit confusing. We all recognize the economic realities that are fast approaching our communities and the need to address them proactively. I also recognize the enormous sacrifice local elected officials make in order to serve their communities, so with that in mind I write this with the greatest respect I can. The idea of reducing the number of councillors from 10 to 7 has me very concerned. First of all, The division of our communities is destroying our sense of community and fellowship. We identify with our neighbours and friends and together we help one another, we school together, we work together, and we are extended non related families. The country people don't relate that well with the lake acreage folks and the acreage people don't understand the agriculture community and their unique needs and concerns. The moving of these boundaries, I'm afraid, will pit one community against another and create greater division. The comments about equal numbers, I feel, are a bit misleading because they are guidelines and according to the act there can be as much as 25 percent difference. Secondly, the workload of a county councillor is so high that not all qualified or capable people will be willing to run for office or can sacrifice the time. If we add to the workload and make the divisions so much bigger and varied it will further limit the pool of people willing to run and serve. I feel we need our local leaders to be as local as possible and that much more accessible. While I do recognize the need for cost savings, local representation is not the area. Why are we limiting the elected council member and the work they do only to be replaced by a paid employee. I fail to see the savings: and I'm afraid our communities will be served by more levels of bureaucracy. We do not need a few councillors with massive workloads, but rather the group we have now where the burden can be shared. We don't want the counselor position to be a full time position and be occupied with politicians with career ambitions. Finally, this whole process has a bad aroma about it. The council members were elected to govern. They were not elected to sell our county to the city of Brooks. They were not elected to change our communities. They were elected to serve. They were elected to provide the best services to the communities at the most reasonable cost. Why would the county, after the fiasco about amalgamation, now try to destroy our representation in the dead of the night? I agree we must save money, but the savings are so small, only to be replaced with more staff. During the greatest pandemic since polio, why would the county try to do this with no public consultation? No public meetings, no consultation, nothing. Just a few suspect numbers in the paper and the destruction of our communities and the dilution of our representation. Our communities are tired, they are scared about the virus and our futures. Our small businesses are on the verge of bankruptcy. Why with no consultation, or vote are we suddenly diluting our voice? If we are so confident of this idea, please bring it to the next election. That is democracy, this is not_ So please,for the sake of our communities, stop this process and bring it to a vote. Richard Hiebert ArianaNielsen From:LayneJohnson Sent:December 4, 202011:42AM To:Ariana Nielsen Subject:FW: Electoral Boundaries Suggestion FollowUpFlag:Followup FlagStatus:Flagged OriginalMessage----- From: MollyDouglass <douglassm@newellmail.ca> Sent: November 19, 20207:47AM To: LayneJohnson <johnsonl@newellmail.ca> Subject: ElectoralBoundaries Suggestion GoodsnowyFinneganmorning Layne! Ihadaphonecallyesterday fromDiv9resident, PaulPaetkau, whosuggested howtokeepeveryonefromGeminone newdivision ratherthantwo. AfterthecallIlookedatthemapandthinkhissuggestion wouldbesimplerto understand ifTownship22Range16withits58peoplestayedwiththenewDivision. Thecountwould be1111peoplewith589or53% ofthemlivinginthe5Coloniesinthenewdivision—myfacts, nothis. HeaskedifIwouldsubmithissuggestionsohereitis. Thankyouforyourworkonallofthisnumberstuff. M SentfrommyiPad 1 December 1, 2020 To the Newell County Councillors, As a resident of the County of Newell, I am voicing my concerns on your proposed electoral boundaries. I do not agree with your three proposed maps, as I do not feel it is in the best interest for division 4, but my main concern is the time line we have been given. In the January 1 Brooks bulletin, the county was talking dropping divisions from 10 to 9. There has been no information delivered to the communities at all. Then in November, I see that we are going from 10 to 7 with three maps to choose from by December 2. 1 think more input was needed from the communities and you are doing this too fast. Your census was put on hold because of Covid, so your whole time line should have changed accordingly. You say this won't affect us, boundaries for fire and recreation will not be changed. I do believe this will affect us, now, and in the future. RECEIVED DEC -1 2020 County of Newell Y ewe aroolkS, t,'Ub. Arta From the desk of ... Vic--- z-12o, Irma MAI a'" A_ h.vn.•a,.yi.., • Ct3•,v,..-vvw.,.•i.,,,. +G,- c2. lA J RECEIVED DEC — 2 2020 County of Newell Brooks, Alberta NotetoFile: - Dec. 2, 2020 RE: SummaryofVerbalFeedbackReceivedfromHaroldBraueronElectoralDivisionBoundaries AphonecallwasreceivedfromHaroldBrauerwhoresides nearBowCity. Thepurposeofthecallwasto expressconcerns withtheproposedboundaries whichwouldifapproved, splittheScandiaRainierand BowCityarea, andendupcombining aportionoftheRainierareaandBowCitywithanareathat extendsnortheasttowardsBrooksandencompasses LakeNewellResort. Mr. Brauerrealizedthatsomeboundary adjustment mayberequiredtoevenoutthepopulation, but feltthatcombiningatrulyruralagricultural areawithanurbantypearealikeLakeNewellResort was notappropriate becauseofthesignificant difference between thetwogroups ofresidents. Mr. Brauer requestedthathiscomments beshared withCouncil.