It seems that the 2 documents posted yesterday was the trickle before the flood. Today no-less than 14 documents made their appearance. Overall these documents are various filings being made by Sage properties with regards to the utilities they share with their neighbors. Specifically, this is about:
- Resolving who will own and operate the utilities
- Establishing the operating costs of the utility since Nov 1, 2016 and an estimate of how much each owner owes,
- What Sage would do under different scenarios if it became the sole owner of the utilities and sole the utilities at a profit or loss,
- Simplifying various legal structures
In the following text “Parcel C” refers to the various property owners that are joint owners of the utilities together with Sage Properties.
292. Application – filed March 29, 2018
- Description of the “Parcel C” owners,
- Sage and “Parcel C” are jointly own and are responsible for the cost of running the utilities
- Sage hasn’t been paid since it took over the utilities as of Nov 1, 2016 and is entitled to compensation for costs
- Asking to replace the current easements with a mutual access easement arrangement
293. Affidavit (body only) – filed March 29, 2018
- The Alberta Land Titles Office suggested this application given the impracticality of obtaining all the signatures required under the Land Titles Act
- Sage has been trying to negotiate with the “Parcel C” owners without result.
- This arrangement has impaired Sage’s ability to carry out its mandate to maximize shareholder return and this is costing its shareholders
- Sage and the “Parcel C” owners jointly own the utilities and are responsible for its operating costs.
- Detailed discussion of various easements
- Sage has been operating the utilities without compensation.
- Sage estimates the past costs net out to each “Parcel C” owner being liable for ~$2500 in unpaid expenses.
- More discussion about easements
- If Sage is the sole owner of the utilities and they’re sold at a profit, the profit will be paid to the “Parcel C” owners less the expenses due
- If Sage is the sole owner they’ll continue to operate the utilities and provide services at the standard utilities rates.
- If Sage is the sole owner and it sells the utilities at a loss with no benefit to the “Parcel C” owners, they’re willing to forego the utilities expense.
294. Exhibits A and B to the Affidavit filed on March 29, 2018
- Government of Alberta Corporation / Non-Profit Search for Sage Properties.
295. Exhibits C and D to the Affidavit filed on March 29, 2018
- Land title certificates
296. Exhibit E (part 1) to the Affidavit filed on March 29, 2018
- Names of owners of units in the condominium corporation and ECHS.
297. Exhibit E (part 2) to the Affidavit filed on March 29, 2018
- Names of owners of units in the condominium corporation and ECHS.
298. Exhibits F and G to the Affidavit filed on March 29, 2018
- Land survey
299. Exhibits H and I to the Affidavit filed on March 29, 2018
- Land survey
300. Exhibits J and K to the Affidavit filed on March 29, 2018
- Land survey
301. Exhibits L and M to the Affidavit filed on March 29, 2018
- Land survey
302. Exhibit N to the Affidavit filed on March 29, 2018
- Land survey
303. Exhibit O to the Affidavit filed on March 29, 2018
- Land survey
304. Exhibits P and Q to the Affidavit filed on March 29, 2018
- Joint use and utility agreement between LCC ABC District and the Prince of Peace Congregation in its capacity as an operator of the school date Oct 1, 1998.
- Joint use and deep utility easement agreement between LCC ABC District as the Grantor and and LCC ABC District as the Grantee.
305. Exhibits R, S and T to the Affidavit filed on March 29, 2018
- Joint use and utility agreement between LCC ABC District (Grantor), LCC ABC District (Grantee), and the Prince of Peace Congregation in its capacity as an operator of the school
ANO / Lutheran Watch 
Hogwash. As soon as someone tried/tries to recoup money, it is illegal. Deloitte was upset because any action interfered with their domain and cash cow.
>
LikeLike
D&T has nothing to do with Sage’s operations beyond reporting their action on their web page. This action is completely brought by Sage in order to get paid for the work they’re doing and paying for.
If the “previous administration” let this kind of thing go, it’s no wonder they were bleeding cash and couldn’t make their loan payments – ~$1.2M / a year in unrecovered costs is a lot!
LikeLike