HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurvey Results2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review Survey SurveyMonkey
1 / 20
98.14%158
1.86%3
Q1 Are you a County of Newell resident?
Answered: 161 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 161
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review Survey SurveyMonkey
2 / 20
20.13%30
20.13%30
17.45%26
18.12%27
24.16%36
Q2 What is your position on Council's recommendation to reduce the
number of electoral divisions?
Answered: 149 Skipped: 12
TOTAL 149
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review Survey SurveyMonkey
3 / 20
8.11%6
40.54%30
51.35%38
Q3 Which one of the proposed boundary versions do you most prefer?
Answered: 74 Skipped: 87
TOTAL 74
Version 1
Version 2
Version 3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Version 1
Version 2
Version 3
2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review Survey SurveyMonkey
4 / 20
53.95% 41
25.00% 19
14.47% 11
21.05% 16
34.21% 26
Q4 Select the responses that best represent your choice in Question 1.
Answered: 76 Skipped: 85
Total Respondents: 76
The population
is distribut...
The amount of
change in my...
I like the
shape of my...
The boundaries
align with t...
Growth can
occur in any...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
The population is distributed evenly across the divisions, resulting in equitable representation
The amount of change in my division is limited in scope
I like the shape of my proposed electoral division
The boundaries align with the township grid, for the most part
Growth can occur in any one of the divisions without skewing the population variance too much in one direction or
another
2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review Survey SurveyMonkey
5 / 20
42.86%36
14.29%12
42.86%36
Q5 Which one of the proposed boundary versions do you least prefer?
Answered: 84 Skipped: 77
TOTAL 84
Version 1
Version 2
Version 3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Version 1
Version 2
Version 3
2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review Survey SurveyMonkey
6 / 20
35.82% 24
17.91% 12
25.37% 17
17.91% 12
17.91% 12
5.97% 4
Q6 Select the responses that best represent your choice in Question 3.
Answered: 67 Skipped: 94
Total Respondents: 67
I would be in
a division w...
I would be in
one of the...
The boundaries
do not align...
My proposed
division is ...
My proposed
division is...
My proposed
division is...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
I would be in a division with a higher population, which would result in a change to my current representation
I would be in one of the divisions with a lower population, which could result in reduced funding for my area
The boundaries do not align with the township grid as much as they do in other options
My proposed division is a weird shape
My proposed division is geographically too large
My proposed division is geographically too small
2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review Survey SurveyMonkey
7 / 20
Q7 What specific changes would you suggest that would enhance your
preferred version, thus making it an even better alternative?
Answered: 59 Skipped: 102
2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review Survey SurveyMonkey
8 / 20
#RESPONSES DATE
1 This survey is not laid out well; you can not expand the maps and parts of the survey do not
make sense. This entire proposal has clearly not been thought out well and with the pandemic
taking place, it is very poor timing. I have not chosen a preferred version since I do not agree
with any of them or the way they have been presented.
12/2/2020 11:40 AM
2 The largely urban Lake Newell Resort should not be aligned with a rural agricultural division. It
is better suited to be in a division around Brooks.
12/1/2020 11:05 PM
3 I would suggest that Lake Newell resort be put with more acreage owners not with Rainier 12/1/2020 10:46 PM
4 Divide the top township of division 5 using the number one highway placing that in division 6.
Use highway 36 as the division until Cassils Road putting Cassils into division 5. This would
lower div 4 population which is on the higher end and keep all Rosemary residents together.
12/1/2020 9:48 PM
5 Include 23-15, 24-15 in Div 7 Include 20-16 in Div 6 Include West of Hwy 36 18-15, and 19-15
in Div5 Include 18-14 and East of 36 in 18-15 in Div 4 Div 3 may need to take an area off the
East side of Div 6
12/1/2020 9:35 PM
6 I feel it makes more sense to keep communities intact. Gem is split and feel that township 22-
16 should be moved in with the Gem Bassano district.
12/1/2020 8:50 PM
7 My main concern is a balance between acreages and farm residents. If there is an imbalance
in those populations the best interests of each group may not be met, or even have the
opportunity to change it by a new representative, much like Ontario and Quebec decide who
the prime minister will be before our polls even close. By looking at the map I am only
guessing what that split is now.
12/1/2020 7:40 PM
8 I would suggest having Bow City, Rainier, and Scandia together in one division as it would
make more sense to send kids from Bow City to school in Rainier. I would also suggest that
Brooks, Cassils, and Lake Newell Resort be placed in the same division as the interests of
those three communities would be very similar to each other, but would be unlikely to align with
the interests of the more rural communities.
12/1/2020 6:23 PM
9 Why would you take a part of the community of Gem and lump
us with Rosemary; move the entire community together and don't force a few of us to be a part
of Rosemary. That's an insult!!
12/1/2020 3:32 PM
10 I don't mind reducing the number of councilors but none of the maps are acceptable. Keeping
existing communities together is MUCH more important than evening population or following
township lines!
12/1/2020 2:24 PM
11 Don't change any boundaries or the number of councilors.11/29/2020 8:25 PM
12 I would prefer to keep Bow City, Rainier and Scandia together.11/29/2020 5:16 PM
13 None 11/29/2020 2:43 PM
14 NONE 11/29/2020 2:38 PM
15 I don’t have a preferred version. This needs to go back to the drawing board. Please consider
grouping Scandia, Rainer and Bow City together. This will respect the long-standing community
alliance.
11/29/2020 6:44 AM
16 Keep 10 divisions but redraw boundaries if population differences seem to high.11/28/2020 1:48 PM
17 Maintain rural representation 11/28/2020 1:18 PM
18 Divisions should not be based solely on population but keep common community interests in
mind.
11/28/2020 12:57 PM
19 Home area schools for the areas most affected by the boundary changes should be
considered. Why couldn't Bow City be part of the new Div 1 as it is right on the boundary edge.
11/28/2020 11:58 AM
20 keep everything as is 11/27/2020 9:20 PM
21 LEAVE Rainier and Scandia together as it has been 11/27/2020 2:54 PM
22 I believe that separating Bow City, Rainier, and Scandia, division 4 is not the way to go. So I
don't like any of your proposals. These are together working communities with the school being
11/27/2020 2:32 PM
2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review Survey SurveyMonkey
9 / 20
the heart. For you to say this will not affect anything, I think you're wrong. Only time will tell.
23 What impact is there on mill rate and recreational funding and fire fighting services?11/27/2020 1:39 PM
24 Have option 04 as advertised in the brooks bulletin Nov 25 2020. this keeps Bow City, Rainier,
Scandia together. This could have been easily demonstrated at a town hall meeting. to only
have 1,2,3 options with out a 4,or 5 option is very short sighted and tying your taxpayers
hands.
11/26/2020 2:52 PM
25 Leave it as is. This is not the time to be making huge changes and not able to have town
meetings regarding this change. With so many changes and things up in the air due to Covid
this is definitely not something that should be decided at this time while people are unable to
get together and ask questions in person. Shame on you council fir making this a priority when
so many people are sick or worried about the future.
11/26/2020 10:39 AM
26 This survey is not correctly reflecting a decision to Not change.11/25/2020 11:27 PM
27 Include Bow City and put the resort in another division as it is not agricultural based and would
have too great a voice in our affairs.
11/25/2020 10:25 AM
28 Stay the same.11/25/2020 10:19 AM
29 I don’t see one single map that covers an area properly. That’s the benefit of how it is now. 11/23/2020 6:35 PM
30 Reduce community split as much as possible, in all versions.11/23/2020 11:28 AM
31 okay the way it is--nothing's perfect when you redo boundaries and can't be expected to please
everybody
11/22/2020 6:16 PM
32 You guys got voted in to decide for us make a decision 11/19/2020 11:55 AM
33 I think you need to start with a new map - the preferred one on the site breaks up too many
communities and is only concerned with population. Our County's strength is based on
community strength - without communities what do you have? Just a random group of people
without common focus, caring or concern. Division lines need to be in line with communities as
much as possible.
11/19/2020 10:03 AM
34 I do NOT support or agree with any revision. I strongly believe that the current 10 divisions
should be kept as they are.
11/19/2020 8:01 AM
35 Start with a new map keeping communities together 11/18/2020 9:12 PM
36 I do not agree with either of the proposed changes to the divisions in the Rainier area. The
division should remain with Bow City, Rainier, and Scandia as we have similar interests as a
community largely agri-based. Our votes will be skewed if either of our communities are placed
with the community of Rolling Hills, Cassils, or the Lake Newell resort.
11/18/2020 5:59 PM
37 Non of the maps are good because they split up to many divisions.11/17/2020 9:14 PM
38 I don't like any of the suggestions just leave it how it is.11/17/2020 9:12 PM
39 Division 4 should be kept together, 7 Councillors is to little.11/17/2020 9:09 PM
40 The one I suggested makes more sense with the geographical representation and people with
"like" thinking. Our needs would be met better thank version 3
11/17/2020 1:01 PM
41 Adding any small town with the city of Brooks doesn't make sense. Farmers and rural
residents need a completely different representation than those in the city.
11/17/2020 12:14 PM
42 Lake Newell Resort should have its own representation because of priority differences with the
rest of the rural population
11/17/2020 11:33 AM
43 see comments below 11/16/2020 8:31 PM
44 IWe do not have a prefered version as Scandia has no choice We are very disapointed that
scandia and rolling hills have no options we
11/16/2020 7:53 PM
45 Scandia needs to be with rainier and bow city on the map MAKE A NEW MAP A map should
leave division 4 back toghether with additions
11/16/2020 3:12 PM
46 keeping communities together 11/14/2020 5:13 PM
2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review Survey SurveyMonkey
10 / 20
47 Version # 3 is were the numbers are equally divided which allows for growth for a long time. No
changes to map # 3 needed.
11/13/2020 6:34 PM
48 none 11/13/2020 5:08 PM
49 Version # 3 makes sense. No changes needed.11/13/2020 4:01 PM
50 None at all 11/13/2020 3:54 PM
51 number three will work 11/13/2020 3:08 PM
52 The currect Division 4 boundaries stay the same as they are now 11/11/2020 12:43 PM
53 Push this a year so you can get proper community communication and opinion on proposed
change. As well, it’s always shocking how few people are contacted based on the friends of
the councillors, not necessarily the people in their division. Leave Rainier, Bow city, and
Scandia together, though expansion can be made North or east if needed. But that is
essentially one community. Lake Newell resort should be its own riding as it’s own interests
are vastly different than the rest of the “rural” communities.
11/11/2020 11:57 AM
54 Tax revenues per division needs to be looked at also, not just population.11/10/2020 5:46 PM
55 put all of Gem together in division 7, and put the top square of division 5 into division 6 -
division 5 population would drop but has the most opportunity for growth with lake newell
resort. Divisions 6 population would net to zero change.
11/10/2020 4:36 PM
56 Consider boundaries that use major hwy as dividers 11/6/2020 7:55 AM
57 nothing 10/28/2020 6:43 PM
58 Main purpose is to even put numbers as best as you can and only have 7 councillors 10/28/2020 6:17 PM
59 Choice # 3 is right for me 10/28/2020 4:18 PM
2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review Survey SurveyMonkey
11 / 20
Q8 If you do not agree with the version preferred by Council (Version 3),
what changes do you feel would make that version more acceptable?
Answered: 54 Skipped: 107
2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review Survey SurveyMonkey
12 / 20
#RESPONSES DATE
1 The proposed divisions, as outlined, are based solely on balancing population. Consideration
should be given to common interest and community, as well as land use and geographic
boundaries and access. I do not agree with any of proposed versions.
12/2/2020 11:40 AM
2 Prefer the version in the November 25 issue of the Brooks Bulletin. The alignment of the
divisions is better suited to rural agriculture.
12/1/2020 11:10 PM
3 The version presented in the November 25th issue of the Brooks Bulletin.12/1/2020 11:05 PM
4 Put the resort with more like-minded people as they have completely different life style
compared to Rainier. The people in Rainier would never have a voice. Also they should not
break up Scandia and Rainier and Bow City as those 3 communities the kids go to the same
school.
12/1/2020 10:46 PM
5 Nothing would improve that version because it cuts the Cassils antelope creek area into three
divisions. This version geographically severs communities that are already aligned and
cohesive. This has to be the worst version and do not understand why the County would prefer
an option that divides Duchess, splits Cassils into 3 different divisions, splits Rainier and
Scandia who have had close ties since the County was formed. Numbers and population
formulas are not a good enough reason to split communities up.
12/1/2020 9:48 PM
6 Have the entire surrounding area of Brooks and East of hwy 36 in one division (high acreage
density)
12/1/2020 9:35 PM
7 As was stated in question 7.12/1/2020 8:50 PM
8 Take Lake Newell Resort out of Division 5 and lump it in with Brooks or Cassils. It's pretty
much a suburb of Brooks anyways. The interests of Lake Newell Resort (which is where the
majority of the population in Division 5 would be in this version) are very different from the
interests of the surrounding farming communities. If Lake Newell Resort were kept in Division
5, the votes representing that community would greatly outweigh the votes representing the
rural communities. The voice of the rural communities that fall within that division would not be
heard. In addition, the population of Lake Newell Resort is continuing to grow whereas the
populations of communities such as Bow City and Rainier are not growing as rapidly. This
difference in the rate of population growth would only further silence the voices of rural
communities as they try to advocate for their unique needs.
12/1/2020 6:23 PM
9 No community should be split between divisions. Realign the boundaries to keep communities
intact even if it means differences in population.
12/1/2020 2:24 PM
10 The 8 divisions shown in the Brooks Bulletin on Nov.25 are much more acceptable than any
proposed by the council.
12/1/2020 12:50 PM
11 Scandia and Rainier should be kept together. The communities are so intertwined 12/1/2020 10:38 AM
12 I don't agree with changing the boundaries but if a change is imminent, go with the proposed
map that was published by the concerned citizens of Newell County in the Brooks Bulletin last
week.
11/29/2020 8:25 PM
13 Including Scandia and excluding Lake Newell Resort.11/29/2020 5:16 PM
14 None 11/29/2020 2:43 PM
15 NONE 11/29/2020 2:38 PM
16 Increase the amount of divisions 11/28/2020 1:48 PM
17 The acceptable version I would choose would be 8 divisions as presented on the front page of
the brooks bulletin
11/28/2020 1:18 PM
18 Please protect rural representation. Version 3 does not.11/28/2020 12:57 PM
19 There are no smaller adjustments that would work for me in this choice. Splitting up the
hamlets of rainier and Scandia makes no sense in terms of historical and geographical ties,
including a shared home area school.
11/28/2020 11:58 AM
20 if it is not broken why try to fix it 11/27/2020 9:20 PM
21 I dont want to be put with residents of the lake resort because they won’t have the same 11/27/2020 7:52 PM
2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review Survey SurveyMonkey
13 / 20
perspective on rural life.
22 To leave Scandia and Rainier together!!!!!!!!11/27/2020 2:54 PM
23 Has consideration been given to “common community interests and community organizations,”
and “geographical features,” as outlined in ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION ACT?
11/27/2020 1:39 PM
24 Make option 04 as advertised in the brooks bulletin Nov 25 2020. There should have been town
hall meetings to allow other options as well as to allow your taxpayers to petition the Kenny
Government to scrap the 35 percent tax holiday for multinational profitable companies not have
to pay these taxes . It would be better to give the 35 percent tax holiday to Seniors with fixed
incomes and the laid off oil workers instead of them having to make up the short fall in tax
revenue.
11/26/2020 2:52 PM
25 Farmers need to be better represented in the area where they are. Is farmers will loose our say
to city and acreage owners. This is a terrible idea and SHOULD NOT HAPPEN NOW!!!
Postpone this and focus on the real issues in the world like everyone else instead of trying to
push through a agenda like this while so many people have to stay home. You are taking
advantage of people in a dire time, shame on you.
11/26/2020 10:39 AM
26 No changes are necessary.11/25/2020 11:27 PM
27 Splitting up Rainier, Scandia and Bow City is not acceptable.11/25/2020 10:25 AM
28 Splitting up the three communities of bow city, rainier, scandia is not acceptable. And to have
lake newell resort population included with the agricultural sector is not acceptable either.
11/25/2020 10:19 AM
29 To me version 3 is the worst option, too much community split.11/23/2020 11:28 AM
30 Grouping together more common attributes. In the current version, small hamlets are grouped
together with larger population areas such as lake Newell resort. The viewpoints of these two
groups are substantially different and the voice of the hamlet population would thus be
squandered by the larger population center. Urban areas should be grouped together and rural
areas should remain together.
11/22/2020 6:58 AM
31 I do not agree with splitting communities with Electoral Divisions. Therefore I prefer Proposed
Version 1
11/20/2020 6:49 PM
32 We do not agree to any changes at this time 11/19/2020 3:12 PM
33 Make all effort to keep communities and common issues together. Some rural will need to be
with urban, but better efforts should be made to look at commonalities. Division 5 is ripped
apart, when this division managed to raise enough money to build a hall. Does no one see
value in that? Why try to break up such a community? How will that build on strengths in the
County of Newell?
11/19/2020 10:03 AM
34 This version skews our representation and cuts out a very integral portion of our division. I do
NOT support any division changes at all.
11/19/2020 8:01 AM
35 Align in a north south version and keep historical areas Rotherham that also included schools. 11/18/2020 9:12 PM
36 ConI do not agree with either of the proposed changes to the divisions in the Rainier area. The
division should remain with Bow City, Rainier, and Scandia as we have similar interests as a
community largely agri-based. Our votes will be skewed if either of our communities are placed
with the community of Rolling Hills, Cassils, or the Lake Newell resort.
11/18/2020 5:59 PM
37 The rainier community is split in half therefore two different areas would be dictating what
happens in one community. By keeping the rainier community and neighbourhood in a division
and having Scandia and rolling hills it allows for better alignment with what the community
wants. Grouping part of rainier with the lake and bow city will result in a lack of a voice for
rainier. The community needs to be in one division, it cannot be split. Choices one and two are
better suited for the communities needs.
11/18/2020 3:11 PM
38 The map needs to be redone completely.11/17/2020 9:14 PM
39 Leave it how it is and keep 10 counsellors if you have to change it maybe 8 or 9 counsellors . 11/17/2020 9:12 PM
40 8 divisions 11/17/2020 9:09 PM
41 The boundary shapes are comical. The representation would be skewed especially where
boundaries closely border a town, city or village. The example is the weird borders near
11/17/2020 1:01 PM
2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review Survey SurveyMonkey
14 / 20
duchess and rosemary.
42 Do not include any small rural villages with the city of Brooks. They will completely lose their
voice to a city of 15,000 that don't share a similar lifestyle, needs, or income.
11/17/2020 12:14 PM
43 Don't split Cassils keep entire township in Div 4 11/17/2020 7:07 AM
44 That part of the Cassils area could merges with bow Island, Rainer, and Scandia division rather
than Scandia be merged with Rolling Hills.
11/16/2020 8:33 PM
45 see comments below 11/16/2020 8:31 PM
46 Put Scandia back with Rainier and Bow city the population size of this group was already
good. It has worked well and we share a school and have worked well in the past together.
Why put us with a community that is farther away has large recreation needs.
11/16/2020 7:53 PM
47 Leave community’s together 11/16/2020 3:12 PM
48 keeping rainier together!11/14/2020 5:13 PM
49 The currect Division 4 boundaries stay the same as they are now 11/11/2020 12:43 PM
50 making it more like version 2; less concern about population but more emphasis on community 11/10/2020 4:36 PM
51 Council version is okay 11/6/2020 7:55 AM
52 Less diversity within divisions 10/29/2020 9:11 PM
53 Why do Duchess and Rosemary need to be in separate divisions, opportunities for shared
services
10/28/2020 8:38 PM
54 none 10/28/2020 6:43 PM
2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review Survey SurveyMonkey
15 / 20
Q9 Other Comments
Answered: 67 Skipped: 94
2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review Survey SurveyMonkey
16 / 20
#RESPONSES DATE
1 As a rural residents, we do not want to lose our voice. This proposal does not consider the
different land usage. Furthermore, this proposal is being made at a bad time. To move forward
with such a decision is undemocratic, irrational and irresponsible. Thank you for considering
my comments.
12/2/2020 11:40 AM
2 keep the divsions as they presently are. this is all a waist of time . the divisions are plenty big
enough already.
12/2/2020 7:06 AM
3 County council should NOT move forward with this matter during a time of imposed restrictions
due to the pandemic. It is not only undemocratic, but irrational and irresponsible as well. The
proposed divisions as outlined are based solely on balancing population. Consideration should
be given to common interests and community, as well as land use and geographic boundaries
and access. As rural residents, we do not want to lose our voice. As Canadian citizens, we
should not lose our democratic rights!
12/1/2020 11:34 PM
4 The version presented in the Brooks Bulletin issue of November 25 is the preferred version and
makes the most sense. We do not appreciate the fact that the county is again trying to push
this through at this particular time without any open houses to discuss this. We could have
been having discussions over the past few months but we have been given only a 5 week
period to respond.
12/1/2020 11:05 PM
5 I do not think this should be pushed through during this time of covid where we cannot even
have town hall meeting. Our current councillors should be ashamed of themselves for pushing
this in this difficult time without the proper protocols.
12/1/2020 10:46 PM
6 I believe the County of Newell and it’s residents have mostly been a cohesive working group of
people striving to make the communities around us better. A good part of that interconnected
working relationship comes from the unity of the communities within the County that have been
moulded over 67 years. The third proposal basically ignores that uniqueness and community
collective aspect that is vital to those who live there.
12/1/2020 9:48 PM
7 We need to keep in mind that the Fairville, Clearview, and Springside colonies are at max
population and will split down to a population of 70-80 each in the near future. Springview would
also shrinking in 10 years or less. Div 7 should plan to start with a high population number
because it will shrink by 160 soon.
12/1/2020 9:35 PM
8 There is basically little change to my area - Division 10. Although I do agree in principal to the
reduction of elected representatives, it would have been better to attend meetings to hear the
concerns of landowners from other Divisions which I realize is not possible at this time.
12/1/2020 9:11 PM
9 It is hard enough to have a voice as a rural community in Alberta with the current provincial
government. If the rural communities lose their voice in their own County, then we are truly
screwed over. Please don't screw us over.
12/1/2020 6:23 PM
10 Scandia, Rainier and Bow City should be in the same division. They share Alcoma School and
have common needs.
12/1/2020 4:02 PM
11 DO NOT RUSH. Get this right even if it means not finishing it before the next election.12/1/2020 2:24 PM
12 This is being done way too fast. So many questions. I haven’t really read up on it, but haven’t
had time. Little information came out before the end of October. Hold your horses counsellors
and give us time.
12/1/2020 1:00 PM
13 Bow City, Rainier and Scandia should be together.12/1/2020 12:50 PM
14 I am opposed to any of the changes to the Electoral Boundary plans. The suggestion to split
the Scandia, Rainier, and Bow City areas is ridiculous. Why is it all of a sudden a big deal that
each area needs to have the same amount of people, why change something that has been
working well for years and years. These proposed changes would split communities and affect
so many facets of life for numerous areas.
12/1/2020 7:01 AM
15 All three versions would result in a major split in our community, of which Alcoma School is an
integral part. Scandia, Rainier and Bow City, in our view, is one community and should not be
split. We have always shared common interests, a distinct geography, and a long history of
community involvement.
11/30/2020 8:13 PM
16 I feel the councilors have the most information regarding the proposed changes, and we should 11/30/2020 1:10 PM
2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review Survey SurveyMonkey
17 / 20
listen to their input,, and hope their decisions are for the good of the majority
17 You did not give the option of no changes. As always you would like to push something
through that will not make a great economical benefit to any of the county residents. By
changing boundaries and having less representation, it does not make a large saving in the
budget. It does however limit representation for some area and disrupts the lives of the county
resident whom you are to represent.
11/30/2020 10:33 AM
18 I am finding that the option answers in this survey are strongly slanted to force one to agree
with the proposed changes. If I check any of the provided options, it implies that I agree with
the proposed boundary changes. I want to know why an option to record disagreement was not
included. Because that option was not included I was not comfortable to chose an option so I
did not check off any of the options. I am also strongly in favor of proper consultation with the
taxpayers of the County of Newell before this process proceeds. I dont understand the urgency
to push this through prior to the end of December 2020 without a public forum. I know that the
councilors want it in place in time for the 2021 elections. However to rush it through bases on
that is a mistake without considering other options. Redrawing the boundaries based only on
population is short sighted. One must also consider established communities and rural/urban
areas. For example, it makes no sense to lump the lot owners at Newell resort in with the
surrounding landowners because their needs are very different and the voice of the rural and
farming landowners would be lost
11/29/2020 8:25 PM
19 You could look at other options, such as reducing the number to 8 rather than 7 to keep our
three communities represented by one counsellor rather than split between two.
11/29/2020 5:16 PM
20 Leave alone 11/29/2020 2:43 PM
21 Leave well enough alone ,there are more important issues to deal with at this time in our ( City
) and world !
11/29/2020 2:38 PM
22 The divisions did not give the residents enough time to analyze the changes. It is being
pushed through too fast.
11/29/2020 11:59 AM
23 I strongly believe the proposed boundaries will negatively impact historic alliances. None of the
three proposed maps is satisfactory and the residents have every right to be involved in the
discussion and development of boundary changes. We vote for our councillors to represent us,
and I believe so far the process has worked. There is strong reason to believe that with several
retiring councillors we may be dealing with a new group with new agendas. These new agendas
may have little to do with the small but steadfast voice of the agricultural community upon
whose shoulders this county was built. Let’s step back and talk to residents. There is no rush
here.
11/29/2020 6:44 AM
24 There hasn’t been an acceptable opportunity for public consultation especially during a
pandemic
11/28/2020 1:18 PM
25 More time should be given for adequate public consultation. This council really needs to stop
forcing changes without proper consultations with ratepayers. Very undemocratic!
11/28/2020 12:57 PM
26 People must own 40 acres of land to vote on county related issues. Thus leaving people
without a vested interest in the farming regions unable to change what farmers would like!
11/27/2020 8:27 PM
27 I believe in the long run this will affect us in Scandia regardless Of them saying it won’t!!!!!! 11/27/2020 2:54 PM
28 I'am disappointed at the swiftness to put this through. The last I recall, was the talk of going
from 10 to 9 divisions. I believe you are choosing a very difficult time to get this passed, and
don't know why it can wait?
11/27/2020 2:32 PM
29 There has been no time for decent public consultation especially during a pandemic.11/27/2020 1:39 PM
30 Having town hall meetings demonstrates you are representing your taxpayers and their wishes.
Not having these meetings indicates you do not care about your taxpayers or their wishes
11/26/2020 2:52 PM
31 This cannot and should not be done in the time of a pandemic.11/26/2020 10:39 AM
32 Read front page of Brooks Bulletin- November 18 11/25/2020 11:27 PM
33 None of the 3 choices are acceptable. Remain with status quo.11/25/2020 10:25 AM
34 We are over governed! This geographical area is unique, so having a City smack in the middle
of this vast county, that has its own government makes zero sense. The savings of G&A are
11/23/2020 11:32 AM
2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review Survey SurveyMonkey
18 / 20
immense if the 2 governments were combined. We have TC Highway right through the city and
county as well as the CPR main line. We need to take advantage of these transportation
corridors. The constant fight (Or negotiations ) between the City/The County/ And the largest
land holder in the county The EID makes it years before anything can get accomplished. We
must get over this small minded way of thinking so get growth of business. IF WE DON'T
GROW WE DIE as a community.
35 Question 6 is misleading, it does not take into account the potential split within communities
which should be a priority. The questions asked in #6 to me are mostly irrelevant other than
those regarding population. What's the rush, why not wait until things settle a bit on other more
obvious fronts. Then perhaps need to revise other policy including councilor terms of service
and consider max two or maybe three terms and then out for one. Too many lifers on there, not
good. Start with this and then maybe consider electoral boundary change.
11/23/2020 11:28 AM
36 these changes are overdue--10 councillors for the population is wasteful 11/22/2020 6:16 PM
37 100% against rushing these changes through. More time needs to be taken to get the new
divisions done correctly.
11/22/2020 10:43 AM
38 division 4 is being completely blown, more so than any other div. Why can't bottom end of
Tilley be aligned with RH
11/21/2020 9:20 AM
39 I feel that this proposal is not giving appropriate time for feedback and discussion, especially
during a pandemic when focus is on health issues. I do not think that enough information is
being presented on the impacts /benefits to recreational facility funding in the "new" divisions.
The description of saving dollars paid to the counsellors is NOT detailed enough and I do not
believe that the removal of 3 councilors will result in a significant amount of savings.
11/20/2020 6:49 PM
40 With the short time frame allotted we feel things should stay the same. Also due to covid 19
restrictions we have not been given a chance to discuss with anyone concerning this topic.
Due to these reasons we feel your survey is invalid and forcing a change when it shouldn't be
changed.
11/19/2020 3:12 PM
41 I am disappointed that different maps weren't proposed looking at wider options. All three maps
are too similar and show a very narrow thinking - a lack of understanding and concern for the
rate payers of the County.
11/19/2020 10:03 AM
42 The current division boundaries as they are work well and provide great representation. Also,
the division I am currently in has a great sense of community and common interests for the
good of everyone.
11/19/2020 8:01 AM
43 Too short timelines. , poor consultations , need a new map. The farm voice will be outvoted by
too much acreage people in too many divisions. Put the acreages around brooks in one or two
divisions because their interests are different than agriculture .The county needs strong voice
for ag because the oil business is not going to pay to fund the county anymore.
11/18/2020 9:12 PM
44 No changes should be made at this time… more than just population numbers needs to be
considered…for example, 'what about a doughnut division around Brooks'?…the public
engagement is insuffient - survey monkey is inadequate…and we are in a pandemic…lack of
respect for the well-being of ratepayers who do like to be involved in decisions that affect their
future and have limited means to do so at this time. Thank you.
11/18/2020 7:30 PM
45 It does not matter which area of the county it is rural areas based on farming and livestock
should be grouped together as they have similar interests. Communities like Cassisls and the
Lake Newell resort would be better suited with the City of Brooks or Tilley. It is ridiculous to
split the area of Rainier as is proposed in three maps, Rainier covers a large area.
11/18/2020 5:59 PM
46 The maps should of had more divisions on them.I would like to have 8 or 9 councillors 11/17/2020 9:14 PM
47 You need to have more time to let county residents know of what you want to do put more stuff
in the paper.
11/17/2020 9:12 PM
48 There needs to be a different map that presents a different options. The maps are to similar.
You should have an open house and give it more time. You should let everybody know about it.
11/17/2020 9:09 PM
49 Please reconsider the boundaries for version 3 as the preffered. I understand that it is the
"preferred" according to your counsel but it wouldn't benefit anyone besides you.
11/17/2020 1:01 PM
50 Seems like this is a strange time to be proposing this with the pandemic going on. We can’t 11/17/2020 12:32 PM
2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review Survey SurveyMonkey
19 / 20
have public forums to answer questions. This should be tabled until another time.
51 Would prefer that both our properties were under the same representation. Actually would
prefer no districts at all but an electoral system like the city where a resident of the County
gets to vote on ALL Council members and they govern the entire County collectively
11/16/2020 8:31 PM
52 This is not a decision that should be rushed it needs meetings with the communities to really
understand what people think. If this cannot be done above board and with public meetings it
needs to wait regardless of deadlines. I am discusted that we are trying to rush this through
without proper proceedures. We are not a communist nation lets not act like it
11/16/2020 7:53 PM
53 Make a new map Please leave community’s together I’m 16 for my future I would like to stay
with my division
11/16/2020 3:12 PM
54 try not to separate communities 11/14/2020 5:13 PM
55 Communities don't change because of a change in divisional boundaries.11/13/2020 6:34 PM
56 it is about time 11/13/2020 5:08 PM
57 The Councillor representation has been skewed too long. This needs to be changed and so it's
a good time to go down to 7 Councillors.
11/13/2020 4:01 PM
58 Question number six does not make sense 11/13/2020 3:08 PM
59 Please don’t change anything 11/13/2020 11:34 AM
60 The County boarders should not be changed at this time due to coronavirus not allowing public
meetings to be held. Not everyone has virtual communications set up in their home. This
should be pushed for at least a year. The time line for getting this done it too short. The current
councilors want this done for the 2021 municpal election but it does not have to be done now.
The council elected in 2021 could look at this. There is no urgent rush to do this. In the public
consultation package, it says that this “would not necessarily trigger changes to Fire
Department response areas, or recreational service areas”. Recreational/ Fire funding could be
changed and redirected to bigger population areas leaving smaller ones with nothing. The Lake
Newell Resort should be a division on its own as the people there have different needs and
concerns from most other rural areas. In the proposed boundary Division, the residents of the
Scandia area lose their voice as the Rolling Hills area is more populated. Right now the
Scandia/Rainier/Bow City people share a school and community events. This means they
know or have heard of each other. The three communities are one area. They are of the same
approximate size. They have the same interests. There are a lot of people in the
Scandia/Rainier/Bow City area and the Rolling Hills area that do not know each other. This
makes getting to know a councilor harder.
11/11/2020 12:43 PM
61 Savings over states. It’s exactly amalgamation again. The cost isn’t in the councillors, it is in
the staff. Undervaluing Individuals voice. As that is worth much more than the $150,000
proposed savings.
11/11/2020 11:57 AM
62 Why is there only choice for Scandia and that is to be in with Rolling Hills? I feel this is not a
good match for Scandia and Scandia will be overlooked for funding. Rolling Hills requires much
more money for all of their facilities. I feel like we are getting forced into this and am not very
happy. I have been raising this concern for over a year now and have been assured that our
voices will be heard - I have been pushed off. Feel free to call me.
11/9/2020 10:09 AM
63 Very important to realign to balance population no matter what configuration boundaries look
like.
11/6/2020 7:55 AM
64 In this time of financial restraints and uncertainty, this makes sense. Dollars and cents!11/5/2020 2:03 PM
65 Reducing the number of councillors should reduce the cost of council. If you merely raise the
individual council remittance to the same level as what 10 councillors received I would not be
in favour of the changes. I think the overall cost of council is far too high now. It is barely
covered by the farmland tax base.
11/5/2020 12:10 PM
66 can we make it 5 councillors?10/28/2020 6:43 PM
67 Question # 6 is very ambiguous. None of the sub questions make any sense . I didn’t know
how to answer any of them. First one : yes, of course. Second one: why reduced funding
10/28/2020 4:18 PM
2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review Survey SurveyMonkey
20 / 20
if/when you can change the agreements. Fourth: weird shape ? How do you measure the
answers to this one ??
Thank you for taking this survey! County Council would like feedback from County residents
on proposed Electoral Division Boundary changes. Larger versions of the map can be
viewed by clicking the following links.
Version 1 Version 2 Version 3
* 1. Are you a County of Newell resident?
jves
No
1
2. What is your position on Council's recommendation to reduce the number of electoral divisions?
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
<~rongly disagree
2
3. Which one of the proposed boundary versions do you most prefer?
1()ao PrOPOMld70M•ion• ()-.. Propo$ed7DMlloM
Version 1
The population is distributed evenly across the divisions, resulting in equitable representation
The amount of change in my division is limited in scope
I like the shape of my proposed electoral division
The boundaries align with the township grid, for the most part
0-0 Propot,cd70M!iions
Growth can occur in any one of the divisions without skewing the population variance too much in one direction or another
ey
5. Which one of the proposed boundary versions do you least prefer?
~ PropoHd70MsiQ<1s
Version 1 Version 2 Version 3
6. Select the responses that best represent your choice in Question 3.
I would be in a division with a higher population, which would result in a change to my current representation
I would be in one of the divisions with a lower population, which could result in reduced funding for my area
The boundaries do not align with the township grid as much as they do in other options
My proposed division is a weird shape
My proposed division is geographically too large I
... My proposed div1s1on 1s geo~raph1cally too small L , / A . ~ ~ d~ PM-f!:o/ C/?,. ~ £} ~~. Jl;-J ~ c_ ti/ '
Mi ~ t;t~ , A ~ J '2:.-,,,vv ~~
{/JtU Jvf"Vt~ .,A,--fv f. '. 5 . ~I f-~
lk ~ ,ao ~' I ~fh<d lo · . 6 J L .Fl.--"-' d-h
c,fy'~ .. -/4,;;,/-J 4-/~" ~ Y-4 ~ k; .,
~#'lj' /!.,o /th;{ /f,h w/.,;tfl.-uJ,,{. ?ol~ /J~ ~
tJ/l-::1 (/7 ~ ~"? wf! </)<?1 ~~ ~~ ~-z
tvn-W p .. 1,t;£-f7 ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ..........
l-(;L,~~~~~~~k~W~&~~&ddYU--t;~--, ='--____,__,_---"'-'---"~=--=--:'¥L,/-----------_J 4
7. What specific changes would you suggest that would enhance your preferred version, thus making it an
even better alternative? . ~ ,.__;/1.,/. c. ~ ~ r:Jit1 1J ~11 ~ rfYlar pUb~ -~I
/5-r00!w i5~ tULd t?.~ 'I/J~U¾,I V)V~!J-?1-~ J//u_l ~ vM) 1/7Wt OJ1 ~ CPrYJ mLvJuJ!db ~ t'
8. If you do not agree with the version preferred by Council (Version 3), what changes do you feel would make that ~~::t?vi\, :I±-;
NEWVIV
2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review
Survey
PC)
Thank you for taking this survey! County Council would like feedback from County
residents on proposed Electoral Division Boundary changes. Larger versions of the map
can be viewed by clicking the following links.
Version 1 Version 2 Version 3
1. Are you a County of Newell resident?
Yes
No
DEC - 2 2020
County of Newell
Brooks, Albe-rta
ep
NEW EV-
2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review
Survey
2. What is your position on Council's recommendation to reduce the number of
electoral divisions?
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
C Strongly disagree
VeWF.0-
2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review
Survey
3. Which one of the proposed boundary versions do you most prefer?
4. Select the responses that best represent your choice in Question 1.
The population is distributed evenly across the divisions, resulting in equitable
representation
The amount of change in my division is limited in scope
I Like the shape of my proposed electoral division
The boundaries align with the township grid, for the most part
Growth can occur in any one of the divisions without skewing the population variance too
much in one direction oranother
COUNTY°'
Oi=
NEWEL-
2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review
Survey
5. Which one of the proposed boundary versions do you least prefer?
Pmp.aP0l dvb au Pmroi.b>Wvbbiu Piepgetl]ONbbm....
Mak LEE
r7-r ..........
Version 1 Version 2 Version 3
6. Select the responses that best represent your choice in Question 3.
would be in a division with a higher population, which would result in a change to my
current representation
would be in one of the divisions with a lower population, which could result in reduced
funding for my area
The boundaries do not align with the township grid as much as they do in other options
My proposed division is a weird shape
My proposed division is geographically too large
My proposed division is geographically too small
COUNTYv
OF ._
NEWEL-
2020 County of Newell Electoral Division Boundary Review
Survey
7. What specific changes would you suggest that would enhance your preferred
version, thus making it an even better alternative?
8. If you do not agree with the version preferred by Council (Version 3), what
changes do you feel would make that version more acceptable?
9. Other Comments
t«%J 1 .,°ice"1\ 1 JJ1;_f' ;} •vim?/fi / i/ J,..-
ILI
