Whitecourt and Woodlands: Two sides to every story

By Ashley Clementovich

Emotions ran high during the Regular Meeting of Council on June 24 as councillors discussed a letter sent from Woodlands County Mayor Govenlock the week prior. According to the letter, the Tax Revenue Sharing Agreement signed in April of 2010 is to be terminated citing financial constraints over several years as the reason for such a termination.

CAO Smyl provided some background information on the agreement, outlining its historical significance and mutual municipal benefits. He described the agreement as, “a tool that both communities used for businesses to come to our community.” The host municipality would receive 70 per cent of the taxes from the assessment while the other municipality would receive 30 per cent with the idea that the host municipality would have extra expenses such as road servicing. Such an agreement was done with the ANC generating station and Millar Western.

Smyl also recalled the political recognition the agreement received, with the Minister of finance, energy, culture and community spirit, housing, environment, and MLA all bearing witness to the historical signing, as it was the first agreement of its kind. Councillor Schlosser recalled, “We want large business to come to our region, and in order to do that we know that the county’s got land and we have service.”

After several councillors vented their frustrations with the letter, Councillor Hilts put a motion in place to serve two years notice of the wastewater agreement in place between the town and Woodlands County. “It seems to be very specific people on that council who want to continue to sever the relationship with the Town of Whitecourt, so at what point do we wake up as a community to start acting in the best interests of our constituents?” said Hilts. “I think it’s time to push back and I think the wastewater agreement is the place to do that,” he added. Councillor Chauvet also pointed out how Woodlands has moved onto its fourth CAO in less than a year. “There’s not a lot of money here, I think, as council says, it’s the intent of what Govenlock is doing,” said Smyl.

Some councillors voiced that they would like time to consider the motion rather than make an immediate decision. The motion was tabled until the next meeting scheduled for July 15.

“It’s incredibly frustrating to try to represent your constituents and move, what we thought, was a good faith negotiation to get to a place that would be satisfactory to Woodlands County and the Town of Whitecourt. And I get a sense that we’re a hell of a long way from that,” said Hilts.

Later in the week, both Mayor Maryann Chichak and Govenlock provided separate insights on the terminated Tax Agreement, the current state of the Whitecourt Woodlands relationship, where they see it going, and what plans are circulating amongst their councils. Chichak answered a set of questions via a phone interview while Govenlock chose to supply written answers.

Chichak began by speaking on the relationship with Woodlands over the past few months. “County leadership has drawn a line in the sand when it comes to negotiations, so they aren’t going anywhere,” she said. Despite the decline in a once-sound mutual fiscal relationship, Chichak said council’s current animosity towards Woodlands County goes beyond broken agreements. “Council feels we would be here today regardless of the financial position we’re in,” said Chichak. The mayor argued that any county revenue generated stays within the county.

When looking at the Tax Revenue Sharing Agreement, the mayor described it as being about building a team and region, economic development, and about two communities with one future. Chichak noted that council feels the whole partnership is broken with termination of the Tax Sharing Agreement and “feels Woodlands has discounted the bigger picture.” She pressed on the historical significance of five ministers, an MLA, and two municipal leaders signing a historic agreement. Chichak also noted that the Whitecourt Woodlands relationship has been the envy of province since 2008 and has won awards for team building. Furthermore, she added that businesses small and large, and residents have moved to Whitecourt because of the partnership and “team building positive perspective we have on economic development.”

“We had a grant that was given by the provinces to both municipalities to do research into an industrial business park… we didn’t care where it was, the county, half in the town, half in the county, we just wanted, with other people’s money, to see what was the best place and what were the best types of industry to start looking at promoting within Whitecourt/Woodlands to diversify our economy.” Chichak went on to note that Whitecourt Council sees “the bigger picture” that will benefit both municipalities, making time and energy spent working together worth it in the long run.

When speaking specifically on the broken Tax Sharing Agreement, Chichak stated: “This is the one that breaks the entire relationship that we’ve built on for the past decade. This is one of the building blocks that built our path for the future.”

Woodlands County’s written response on why Woodlands was prompted to write the letter stated, “As Woodlands County has previously stated, there has been a significant impact on revenues with challenging times faced within the oil and gas industry and other taxation decisions. Though this notice was effective immediately, the county stated in written letters to the town that the agreement needed to be visited.

Based on the existing agreement, either party can terminate without penalty for a handful of items including financial hardship which, as noted, Woodlands County is currently facing.”

When asked how the agreement termination would affect Whitecourt residents, Chichak responded that it affects the region rather than one municipality as it “impacts the way the county wants us to collectively grow from an economic diversification perspective.”

She noted council’s plans to move forward and discuss the Wastewater Agreement on July 15. “That’s what happens when you start breaking agreements, and not wanting to negotiate,” said Chichak.

For the effects on Woodlands residents, Govenlock responded: “The county plans to direct these tax revenues towards our own existing programs and services and does not anticipate there will be any negative impacts upon our residents.”

Chichak addressed council’s plans moving forward given Woodland’s decision to break the tax agreement. “Council echoed its frustrations with the fact that each of these agreements, and we have many, have been building blocks of one leading to the other.” While the mayor described the motion on the Wastewater Agreement made by Hilts as “unfortunate,” she referenced council’s frustrations from the Monday meeting stating that “breaking historic agreements like this are monumental,” further describing council’s emotions as “representing not only the residents of Whitecourt, but this region, and wanting to see us prosper collectively.”

Govenlock and Woodlands County addressed their plans to move forward with the following written statement: “Woodlands County continues to be committed in our partnership with the Town of Whitecourt, working through the current challenges towards a fair, equitable, and sustainablecost sharing agreement that will benefit all parties involved.”

When asked about the issues related to the dissolution of the Whitecourt Woodlands partnership, and possible changes that could have been made, Chichak said, “Agreements are only as good as the people that sit at the table. And, unfortunately, we have an individual sitting at the table who does not want to see the relationship continue, basically in any form, and that was evident in the letter that was sent to us on June 20.”

In contrast, Govenlock and Woodlands County responded, “In our opinion, there is no dissolution of the partnership. While there is certainly a challenging task on the table, we continue to have the belief that cost sharing agreements are not only beneficial, but valuable and Woodlands County will remain at the negotiation table.”

Chichak discussed the future of Whitecourt Woodlands dealings with the hope of realigning goals and viewpoints. “We need to be able to sit at the table and cost and revenue share for the economic and social prosperity and viability of both regions,” she said. She added that she encourages neighbours to look at it through the same lens while also refraining from drawing lines in the sand.

Similarly, Govenlock and Woodlands, too, wrote of an equal and fair partnership by stating: “Woodlands County is seeking a fair, equitable, and sustainable cost sharing agreement that provides regional services on an affordable and respectful basis.”

Given the wide span of municipalities across Alberta, both mayors discussed their knowledge and awareness of other joint communities going through similar situations like Whitecourt Woodlands. “Municipalities such as Greenview, Yellowhead, and Big Lakes all have fantastic relationships with neighbours. It is unfortunate that ours is deteriorating,” Chichak said.

Woodlands written response stated, “Balancing the expectations and capacity of rural municipalities to work with and support urban partnerships is an increasing challenge many rural communities are facing. This disparity has been further strained by the economic hardships that Alberta as a province is experiencing.”

When speaking on the topic of regionalization, a subject Councillor McAree had broached in the council meeting, Chichak said, “I think that is an option and opportunity that should be brought forward to the people of Woodlands County and Whitecourt… to look at becoming, collectively, a specialized municipality.” She cited both Strathcona County and Sherwood Park reaping the benefits of cost efficiencies from such an arrangement which allows the people of both communities to make decisions.

Woodlands County responded by writing, “Rural municipalities have different needs and expectations than urban communities; however, co-operation and sharing can achieve similar results to regionalization by ensuring local autonomy is maintained. True partnership is about ongoing communication and understanding each other’s needs and limitations. Partnerships that are one sided or coerced tend not to endure. There needs to be a level of consideration and willingness to achieve common goals for services, program, facilities, and continued success.”