Photo: The County of Stettler council denied a ratepayer’s tax forgiveness request after some deliberation in private. The resolution was passed at the Dec. 10 regular meeting of council. Rural Alberta Report/Screenshot

The County of Stettler council denied a ratepayer’s tax penalty forgiveness request after some deliberation in private. The resolution was passed at the Dec. 10 regular meeting of council.

Councillors read a request from Glen Kleinsasser of Lone Pine Farming Inc. asking council to waive $10,319.11 in late penalties related to the Nov. 1 property tax deadline.

In an email to county staff dated Nov. 22 Kleinsasser stated, “I was concerned that I was sending money (online) to the incorrect account, which is why the payment was delayed. In an attempt to demonstrate that the money was prepared for transfer to the County of Stettler, I did email Theresa the remittance advice, I think on Oct. 26.” Kleinsasser stated he was unsure of account numbers and didn’t realize even a one-day late payment would result in such high penalties. Hence, he was asking for the late penalties to be forgiven.

Tax Clerk Sharon Larsen stated in her report to council that Kleinsasser’s payment missed the Nov. 1 deadline. “This is not the first time that ratepayer has received the Nov. penalty due to missing the tax deadline,” stated the staff memo.

Larsen stated the ratepayer’s tax notice had the deadline printed on it along with payment instructions, deadlines are promoted through social media and the county website and Kleinsasser emailed the county Oct. 29 that a payment was included but no payment was received.

Larsen also related in her report online property tax payment instructions have to be followed exactly as customer numbers and tax roll numbers aren’t the same thing. She observed that county staff have assisted the ratepayer in question in person on tax payment methods, including online options. Lastly, she pointed out the tax notices were issued in May, so all ratepayers have several months to arrange payment.

It seemed county staff also had an issue of some kind with this ratepayer. “Also, I guess it was in how he’s dealt with some of our team members that I guess...was not totally appropriate,” said Larsen.

Coun. James Nibourg responded that he felt the discussion should be held privately. “Sorry but I would like to make a motion that we go in-camera right now,” said Nibourg. “I’m having a little bit of a concern here. So just... I’d like a five minute conversation,” added Nibourg.

Councillors unanimously elected to move “in-camera” to privately discuss this request at about the 55 minute point of the meeting. Readers should note “in-camera” is an older term for “closed session,” which the provincial government apparently uses now.

Councillors returned to the public meeting at the 1 hour and 22 minute point of the meeting at which time they unanimously passed a resolution to inform the ratepayer council was upholding the penalties.