Kneehill County: Angry ratepayer presents concerns to council

Kneehill County council heard an angry ratepayer’s presentation and while they discussed his concerns some councillors weren’t happy with his manner. The presentation took place at the Oct. 22 regular meeting of council.

Ratepayer Kevin Niemi appeared as a delegation to council to discuss his opposition to the municipality’s plans for Horseshoe Canyon and also over the county’s budget, including some departments.

Niemi reminded councillors he spoke to them last February about the 2024 budget but was told he was too late in the process to affect it. Hence, Niemi stated he was speaking earlier this time.

He began with Horseshoe Canyon, the natural feature under Kneehill County’s care. “I find your obsession with it incredible and the investment levels forecast as enormous and yet frivolous at the same time,” said Niemi, adding councillors are obviously spending tax dollars on the canyon, but the explanation for why they’re doing that isn’t obvious.

Describing budget amounts for Horseshoe Canyon as “ludicrous,” Niemi stated a building for the canyon was budgeted at $3 million in 2024 while the upcoming budget appears to boost that number to $6 million.

Niemi stated the canyon itself is interesting for its terrain but nothing else. He observed an outdoor attraction like the canyon should have restrooms, hiking trails, signage and nothing else.

Niemi noted councillors should explain why Horseshoe Canyon is getting so much of their attention, who is the driving force behind such efforts and do it quickly as it appears the canyon is approaching “shovel ready” status.

“Horseshoe canyon I feel is a true elephant in the room,” said Niemi. The ratepayer pointed out the county’s annual budget is about $30 million, and his most recent tax bill was $10,000, including a 17 per cent increase in 2024.

Niemi stated that it appears $2,000 of his tax bill is going to Horseshoe Canyon which he feels is unjustified.

Niemi closed his comments on the canyon by saying before any construction begins at Horseshoe Canyon a county-wide vote should be held on whether or not ratepayers support such work.

Moving on, Niemi stated he wanted to discuss “other budget blunders,” pointing out a concern with over $900,000 in wage increases for staff while identifying some specific employees and their increases.

He then noted the economic development department’s $187,000 increase, questioning whether such a department needs to exist as he himself feels private business should guide itself.

Niemi stated he questioned the economic development department because it’s existence can’t be justified by tangible results, essentially being a waste of money.

The ratepayer also questioned tax dollars spent on ‘needs assessment’ which he described as a waste of money; Niemi stated he understands why tax dollars are spent on roads and fire departments but not on things like Horseshoe Canyon and economic development, “…and you’re well on your way to another unjustified tax increase this year.”

He further described Kneehill County as “overpaid or overstaffed or both,” and added, “I feel it’s time to get pragmatic and real.”

Niemi closed his presentation by asking for a response from each councillor to essentially this question: how can they justify Niemi’s tax dollars spent on Horseshoe Canyon?

Later when councillors discussed Niemi’s presentation Coun. Faye McGhee stated the last question might be one for each councillor to answer individually. McGhee stated Kneehill County has made no major financial commitments to Horseshoe Canyon but simply ideas; she added that the county could let Niemi know where the information can be located that answers his other questions.

Coun. Debbie Penner stated that while she likes to hear directly from ratepayers and Niemi raised some good points she was unhappy with Niemi’s manner during his presentation; Penner stated councillors and staff deserve to be treated with respect. “I pay taxes just as much as he does,” said Penner. “I was appalled at the language that was used.”

McGhee was also concerned with Niemi’s manner stating some of his comments included “slander and opinion,” and that “There was harm done to our staff.” She stated Kneehill County hosts delegations to collect information and doesn’t usually respond to delegates, adding that she opposed responding to Niemi.

Reeve Ken King noted he feels Kneehill County has great staff and leadership and apologized to staff for derogatory comments made about them during Niemi’s presentation.

King stated Horseshoe Canyon has been discussed many times in public and council publicly approved a master plan for the canyon; anything done for the canyon follows that plan. He noted decisions that affect the canyon are made publicly.

The reeve observed Kneehill County pays their staff according to policies and councillors make the decisions on how things like economic development proceeds.

Lastly, the reeve noted things like ‘needs assessments’ are used to try to make the county as efficient as possible.

Coun. Wade Christie stated council represents 5,000 people, and some like the county’s Horseshoe Canyon work, some don’t.

Coun. Carrie Fobes noted that while she may not necessarily agree with Niemi’s manner she respected him for speaking his mind in the council meeting, which can be an intimidating venue to some.

Councillors passed a resolution to send Niemi a letter with responses about Horseshoe Canyon, the county budget, certain departments and programs.

Stu Salkeld
Local Journalism Initiative reporter
ECA Review

About the author

Stu Salkeld

Stu Salkeld, who has upwards of 28 years of experience in the Alberta community newspaper industry, is now covering councils and other news in the Stettler region and has experience working in the area as well.

He has joined the ECA Review as a Local Journalism Initiative Journalist.

Stu earned his two-year diploma in print journalism from SAIT in Calgary from 1993 to ’95 and was raised in Oyen, Alta., one of the communities within the ECA Review’s coverage area.