Gibbons viability review raises concerns in Sturgeon County
The county that may absorb the financially crumbling town of Gibbons says an expedited viability review process does not fit the unprecedented situation the municipalities find themselves in.
"We're being constrained within a regulatory framework that does not meet the current situation," Sturgeon County Mayor Alanna Hnatiw said at a council meeting on March 10.
While viability reviews are relatively common in Alberta — four are underway right now, and four others were completed in 2025 — they're usually done for smaller municipalities. Kevin Miller, the manager of municipal viability at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, confirmed to Sturgeon County council that the other three municipalities currently under review are all villages with fewer than 500 people. But Gibbons, a town with a population of about 3,200, is too large to be adequately dealt with in this way, Hnatiw said.
The provincial government provides funding for counties that absorb municipalities as hamlets, but the amount is calculated based on population and caps out at 500 people. If Gibbons dissolves and becomes a hamlet within Sturgeon County, the county could receive $450,000 to integrate town governance, administration, and services. It could also receive up to $1.5 million to ensure critical infrastructure can continue operating during the transition.
Given that Gibbons is nearly seven times the size of other municipalities undergoing review, Hnatiw asked Miller "to keep that in mind when you're considering what type of financial supports need to be offered, both for the current council who's trying to dig their way out of this, and potentially for the receiving council that has no say."
Hnatiw noted Gibbons underwent a legislative compliance check in 2025, which found several gaps. For example, budgets did not include correct financial information, and some projects or purchases weren't included in budgets at all; the town's financial plan didn't include the annual surplus or deficit, nor the accumulated surplus or deficit, and its capital plan didn't include anticipated sources of revenue; the town had loaned money to 18 homeowners to replace sanitary sewer lines and to 13 homeowners to pave or remediate driveways; council members or administration cancelled meetings by email instead of holding an official council vote; and, at times, councillors failed to declare the nature of a pecuniary interest or conflict of interest.
