ATHABASCA – When Athabasca County asked its residents what they wanted to see from its budgetary process, administration and council were hoping to draw in more than a football team-sized response. However, despite the low participation, councillors said the data was helpful, and are hopeful more residents will engage in it next year.
During their Oct. 22 special county council meeting, county councillors were presented with the results of the 2025 budget public engagement survey, which showed respondents were happy with the current level of spending despite some complaints.
The survey, which ran from Sept. 9 to Sept. 27, cost the county around $7,000 to run, meaning each response came with a $125 price tag. Despite the unenviable cost-response ratio, councillors were happy the survey had been conducted.
“I sure appreciate the report. (It’s a) little disappointing that we didn’t see more engagement from people coming in, but glad to see that we had people coming in,” said Coun. Tracy Holland. “I appreciate the overall conclusion more than anything. What I see is it leaning a little more towards the status quo for this budget.”
Overall, respondents indicated the county should maintain its current budgetary levels. The scenario with the widest support was a net average tax decrease of $0, and respondents indicated that the budget for all services areas should be maintained.
Fire and emergency services was regarded as the most important topic, with 62 per cent ranking it at the top, followed by infrastructure and public works. Family and Community Support Services (FCSS) was viewed as the least important priority, with the planning and development department coming as the second least important.
You said it
Athabascans also had the opportunity to leave written comments for councillors to consider, sorted by department. Agriculture services and infrastructure and public works both generated six responses, ranging from the positive —“I think it’s never too much money to allocate to (infrastructure) as looking after all county roads is a priority,” said one response — to the negative.
“Farms are businesses and farm assets should be assessed as such. Keeping farm land assessments artificially low penalizes non-farm ratepayers,” wrote one individual.
Others protested agriculture services being funded by non-farm ratepayers, although the department also handles activities that benefit non-farmers as well. Noxious weeds were a common topic for feedback, as was the snow removal services offered by the county.
“County graders should only touch county property. People should be ready and prepared to live the country lifestyle,” read one response, while another said, “The new policy not offering subdivision snow removal is unacceptable.” The snow removal policy has since been amended by the county to include subdivisions.
