BOYLE — A government of Alberta report on the Village of Boyle’s municipal and legislative compliance received mixed reviews from both councillors and administrative staff, who noted the report contained both clear, necessary changes and vague, ambiguous direction.
“When you read these reports, it’s almost like cut and paste,” said Mayor Colin Derko. “Almost every municipality has a lot of the same issues — not even issues, but the same things going on.”
Every five years, the department of Municipal Affairs conducts a review of communities under 2,500 residents to ensure local governments are following best practices and compliant with the Municipal Government Act (MGA).
“We do have a list of legislative gaps, and we do have to give them a response and a plan to address those gaps,” CAO Warren Griffin told councillors.
Councillors reviewed the 72-page report during the June 5 regular meeting and voted 5-0 twice to accept the report as information and direct administration to draft a response to the Alberta government by July 4.
The Municipal Accountability Program (MAP) report highlighted 42 areas in which the village is meeting MGA requirements, including pecuniary interest and joint use and planning agreements, and 16 areas in which Municipal Affairs found legislative gaps.
“It doesn’t seem like anything crazy,” said Coun. Shelby Kiteley.
“A lot of it, I thought, we just need some clarity on to be sure,” added Coun. Barb Smith.
Report findings
Griffin said a portion of the gaps identified in the report are procedural, but noted extra clarity around a number of areas deemed not compliant would be beneficial.
The first gap listed in the report is requirements for public hearings. Boyle’s method of recessing from regular or special meetings in order to hold a public hearing have been flagged as not meeting MGA requirements to hold public hearings during a regular or special meeting.
“Listening to the way the county does their public meetings, we do ours the exact same way,” said Griffin. “I need clarification as to what’s not correct in that.”
Other areas marked as needing attention within the year include how the village displays and passes both capital and operational budgets, the Councillor Code of Conduct, and the procedural bylaw.
While Griffin said he’s seen many municipalities pass both operating and capital budgets in one fell swoop with a single motion, the government of Alberta wants them passed with separate votes.
The report also highlighted needed changes to how the village displays their budget. Under MGA guidelines, budgets need to show current year financials, plus either three or five years.
“Ok, fair enough,” said Griffin. “That’s clear and not a problem — it’s not a big deal. It’s just adding polish to operations so it’s consistent and easy to find.”
Another small discrepancy is the terminology used: the report noted a lack of surplus and deficit totals in the budget, a flag Griffin attributes to consistency and formatting.
“We haven’t included a two-year surplus in our budgets, and the government wants that there,” said Griffin. “They say you’re not showing the debt load — we are showing the debt, we haven’t used the same verbiage that the government does.”
Changes to the procedural bylaw, the code of conduct bylaw, and the offsite levies bylaw were also noted as necessary in the report. The councillor conduct policy contains an outdated clause allowing councils to kick out unruly councillors from a meeting, a provision that contradicts the MGA.
“We are due for a review of the Code of Conduct this year, so we will amend and have an updated one that’s compliant, same with our procedural bylaw,” said Griffin.
