[3:53] Good afternoon, everyone. We will now call
[3:56] the May 26th regular meeting of council to order at 2:00
[4:00] PM.
[4:02] And we have an agenda for our meeting this afternoon.
[4:05] Could I please get someone to move the agenda? Councillor Standish, thank you.
[4:08] Any changes to the agenda?
[4:12] Seeing none, all in favor?
[4:15] And opposed. That's carried unanimously.
[4:18] Next, we have the 2026 council work plan.
[4:22] Any questions on the work plan for administration?
[4:29] Seeing none, any objections to receiving the work plan for
[4:33] the corporate records? Thanks, everyone.
[4:36] That takes us to confirmation of minutes.
[4:38] We have the minutes from the May 12th regular meeting of council.
[4:41] Could I please get someone to move those minutes?
[4:44] Councillor Standish, thank you. Any changes
[4:48] or corrections to those minutes?
[4:51] Seeing none, all in favor?
[4:54] And opposed.
[4:56] It's carried unanimously.
[4:58] Next, we'll move to invited presentations.
[5:02] 4.1, Banff Public Library Board update to council,
[5:06] and we have
[5:07] some members from the Banff Public Library here today. Welcome.
[5:12] Oh,
[5:13] we love swag.
[5:16] So please come on up, Ms. McCormick, and we will be ready
[5:20] whenever you're all ears.
[5:22] Or we're all ears whenever you're ready. That's what I meant to say.
[5:40] Good afternoon, mayor and council.
[5:44] Originally, I had planned to come today with a fun and celebratory
[5:47] presentation about our Library of Things, the sewing machines, radon
[5:51] detectors, community partnerships that are help making the Banff Public Library a
[5:55] hub for sustainability, accessibility, learning, and community connection.
[5:59] And while that work is still incredibly important, the recent passing of Bill
[6:03] 28 has significantly changed the conversation for public libraries across
[6:06] AlbertaToday, I wanted to briefly speak about what Bill 28
[6:10] means for libraries, for municipalities, and for communities like Banff.
[6:15] Bill 28 introduces major changes to Alberta's Libraries Act.
[6:19] According to the Coalition of Alberta Public Libraries, the legislation gives the
[6:23] provincial government expanded authority over library operations,
[6:27] including the ability to create age-based restrictions on materials,
[6:31] conduct inspections of libraries and records, and issue directives regarding
[6:35] compliance. The minister is granted the authority to dictate
[6:39] library operations, restrict programming, and enforce rules
[6:42] regarding access to specific materials, overriding municipally appointed
[6:46] boards and professional staff.
[6:49] Libraries across Alberta, including rural systems, urban systems, and
[6:53] regional library organizations, have expressed serious concerns about these
[6:56] changes. CAP Libraries, which represents 324
[7:00] library service points serving 99% of Albertans, has raised concerns around
[7:04] privacy, local governance, operational feasibility, and cost.
[7:09] At the Banff Public Library and in libraries across Alberta, we already have
[7:12] policies, professional standards, and local governance standards in place
[7:16] to support families and ensure age-appropriate access to materials.
[7:20] Libraries are locally governed by appointed boards that reflect community needs and
[7:24] values. Bill 28 entirely changes that model.
[7:28] Instead of local decision-making, authority shifts towards provincial oversight and
[7:32] future regulations that have not yet been clearly defined.
[7:36] As of today, libraries still do not know what materials and material types may be
[7:40] restricted, how age verification would work, how
[7:43] digital collections would be handled, what infrastructure and physical changes may
[7:47] be required, or what financial impact will be on
[7:50] municipalities. That uncertainty is deeply
[7:54] concerning for libraries of all sizes.
[7:57] Public libraries operate with limited staff and tight budgets.
[8:01] Potential compliance requirements, including restricted spaces, additional
[8:05] staffing, verification processes, collection changes,
[8:08] technology modifications, and inspection preparedness could place significant
[8:12] operational and financial burdens on municipalities.
[8:16] CAP Libraries has noted, and provincial officials have confirmed, that no
[8:19] provincial funding has been included for implementation.
[8:23] For communities like Banff, libraries are far more than book repositories.
[8:27] We are community hubs. We support literacy, early childhood
[8:31] development, digital access, newcomers, seniors, students, visitors,
[8:35] remote workers, job seekers, and vulnerable residents.
[8:38] We provide safe public spaces, free internet, educational programming,
[8:42] access to information, and increasingly, access to practical resources through
[8:46] initiatives like our Library of Things and Little Free Pantry.
[8:49] Libraries work because communities trust them.
[8:53] Recent polling commissioned by CAP Libraries found that 82% of Albertans trust
[8:57] their local library to make appropriate decisions about materials and services,
[9:01] and nearly 70% prefer decisions to be made locally by
[9:05] trained staff and boards rather than through provincial-wide rules.
[9:09] This conversation is not just about books.
[9:12] This is about privacy, local governance, intellectual freedom,
[9:16] municipal impact, and maintaining accessible public spaces where people
[9:20] can learn, explore, and connect without unnecessary
[9:23] burdens. As regulations develop, Alberta libraries are
[9:27] continuing to ask for meaningful consultation and practical solutions that
[9:30] respect both parental responsibility and the foundation principles of
[9:34] public library service.
[9:36] I wanted council to be aware of this legislation because it has the potential to
[9:40] significantly impact library operations across the province, including here in
[9:44] Banff.
[9:46] Despite these challenges, our library remains committed to serving this community
[9:49] with openness, professionalism, compassion, and care.
[9:54] I would also like to respectfully ask council to continue paying attention to this
[9:57] issue as regulations develop over the coming weeks and months.
[10:01] Municipalities fund and support public libraries because libraries are essential
[10:04] public infrastructure. Decisions that affect how libraries operate, what
[10:08] barriers patrons and community may face, and what additional costs
[10:12] municipalities may absorb should not happen without meaningful
[10:15] consultation with the communities and library systems directly
[10:18] affected. Municipal governments are key partners in public
[10:22] library service, and these changes may have operational, financial, and governance
[10:26] implications for communities across Alberta.
[10:29] There are a few meaningful ways that municipalities can support libraries through
[10:33] this process.
[10:35] Advocating for meaningful consultation of public libraries and municipalities
[10:38] before regulations are finalized, supporting local library boards and
[10:42] professional staff in maintaining community-based decision-making,
[10:46] recognizing the potential financial and staffing impacts these changes may create,
[10:51] and continuing to publicly support the roles libraries play as trusted, accessible
[10:54] community spaces.
[10:57] Public libraries are one of the most widely used and trusted public services in
[11:00] Alberta. The decisions made now will shape not only the future of libraries
[11:04] in Alberta, but the future of equitable public access to
[11:08] information and community space.
[11:10] Ensuring they remain locally responsive, accessible, and sustainable
[11:14] benefits the entire community. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
[11:19] Thank you very much, Ms. McCormack.
[11:21] Before I open it up, I would just say that high level, the
[11:25] library is one of the most beloved
[11:28] buildings and organizations that we have here in the community.
[11:31] It's a program that all ages and stages can plug
[11:35] into, and they have their own safe space there
[11:39] at the library to learn and to use the computers and
[11:43] read books, as you mentioned, as well as all kinds of community programming.
[11:47] So the library is very beloved, so thank you for everything you do.
[11:51] Thanks for highlighting the impacts of this
[11:54] potential bill, and that was all very well
[11:58] said. We appreciate being educated on the library's
[12:02] perspective. Thanks also for the heavy lift on advocacy.
[12:06] We do a bit of advocacy on a number of files, so it's really helpful
[12:10] to have that coming straight from the library and putting us in a
[12:13] position to where we can help support where it makes sense.
[12:17] Really interesting to hear how it could impact municipal
[12:21] budgets as well. Thanks for highlighting that.
[12:23] We will certainly keep abreast of...
[12:27] the latest developments with this bill.
[12:30] And in the meantime, again, thanks for being vocal and
[12:34] ensuring that the Banff Public Library's voice is heard.
[12:38] So on that note, I'll just ask, are there any questions?
[12:43] Any other comments?
[12:46] Councillor Pelham?
[12:48] Sure.
[12:50] Very much appreciate you coming to share these updates with
[12:54] us, and
[12:57] have been thinking a lot about the library, my short time on the board,
[13:01] and
[13:03] what these changes mean for our
[13:06] organization. So,
[13:08] we're with you.
[13:12] Councillor Pelham. Or, sorry, Councillor Backhouse.
[13:16] I'm going to echo a lot of the sentiment here.
[13:18] I love the advocacy, and thank you for showing up and speaking.
[13:23] It's essential,
[13:25] and having our voice and the library's voice at the table.
[13:29] I get a little shaky because
[13:32] I just want to talk about a quick snippet we heard from
[13:36] Jasper in recovery
[13:39] and how community sentiment is still
[13:43] really strong when there are these community places that are still
[13:46] holding space for gatherings. And so thank you for doing it
[13:50] now,
[13:52] because we're learning that in the redevelopment, and
[13:56] looking at
[13:58] resilient communities, and you play a huge part in that.
[14:01] So thank you for providing that space, and I think you are doing a
[14:05] fantastic job advocating for your voice in the future, too.
[14:08] So, I hear you and definitely support that.
[14:14] Thank you. Anything else from council?
[14:18] Thank you very much for being here, Ms. McCormick and board members.
[14:23] And we're going to continue on with our agenda, but we know that you folks are
[14:26] busy, so we're not offended if you need to leave.
[14:30] Thank you again.
[14:34] Next, we have public input. We received no
[14:38] written submissions or any pre-registrations
[14:42] for verbal submissions, so I'll just do a call to the gallery to see if there's
[14:45] anyone who wishes to speak on any of the agenda items this
[14:49] afternoon.
[14:51] Seeing none, we'll move to unfinished business.
[14:54] We do not have any. That takes us to
[14:58] administrative reports.
[15:00] 7.1 is a request for decision, proposed
[15:04] by-law 496, Squirrel Street Staff Housing
[15:08] Partnership with Parks Canada Capital Project, second and third
[15:12] reading. Good afternoon, Ms. Abegg.
[15:16] Good afternoon, council. Just a very short presentation this
[15:20] afternoon. This by-law for the Squirrel Street
[15:24] Staff Housing Partnership with Parks Canada was originally presented on April
[15:28] 28th and received first reading. Following that, it was advertised
[15:32] in the Rocky Mountain Outlook on the
[15:35] weeks of April 30th and May 7th, which was followed by a 15-day
[15:39] petition period. That deadline has passed as of
[15:43] May 22nd, so this item is now back in front of council today for
[15:47] second and/or third reading. So that concludes my presentation, and I
[15:51] welcome any questions.
[15:53] Thank you very much, Ms. Abegg. Any questions on
[15:57] second and third reading of by-law 496?
[16:02] Seeing none, could I please get someone to move that by-law
[16:06] 496 be read a second time? Councillor Pelham, thank you.
[16:10] Any discussion or debate on second reading?
[16:15] Seeing none, all in favor?
[16:18] And opposed, that's carried unanimously.
[16:20] And then could I please have someone move third reading?
[16:23] Councillor Ludwich, thank you. Any discussion or debate on
[16:27] third reading?
[16:29] Seeing none, all in favor?
[16:32] And opposed, that's carried unanimously.
[16:36] Thanks, Ms. Abegg.
[16:38] Moving forward, we have 7.2, request for
[16:42] decision, proposed by-law 497, Heritage
[16:46] Resource Action Plan, land use by-law amendments,
[16:50] the HRAP. Good afternoon, Mr. Michaels.
[16:53] The HRAP. That's how I will present.
[16:57] For the benefit of the gallery, my name's Dave Michaels.
[16:59] I'm the manager of planning services.
[17:01] It's my pleasure to present by-law 497, which is a land use
[17:06] amending by-law. We also have Marcella Figuero from Green
[17:09] Space Alliance, who you may recall from our presentation to
[17:13] the Governance and Finance Committee on this proposed by-law, who have been
[17:18] drafting and helping us through this process.
[17:22] So this is something that council have seen through the Governance and Finance
[17:25] Committee, and so I'll just talk through
[17:29] the proposed by-law here. So just as a reminder, the Heritage
[17:33] Resource Action Plan was adopted by council in March of 2024.
[17:38] It includes a total of 32 total tactics aimed at
[17:42] heritage conservation, and nine of those tactics specifically
[17:45] related to land use by-law amendments.
[17:48] The by-law in front of you today has eight of those tactics, and as you may
[17:52] recall, we discussed one of those, not being
[17:55] applicable anymore because of the changes to housing.
[17:59] The Governance and Finance Committee did provide that direction on January the
[18:03] 27th, and so that direction has been incorporated into the
[18:06] by-law for first reading that you see before you today.
[18:11] So just a reminder, the guiding principles for these by-law amendments is really to
[18:15] provide heritage properties with a relative advantage over other
[18:18] properties. It's to prioritize tools that produce an
[18:22] indirect benefit to supplement the existing direct benefits.
[18:26] So at the moment, grants is predominantly the key
[18:30] benefit that we give to designating heritage properties.
[18:33] But really, there have been very few tools and tactics to
[18:37] really incentivize heritage retention within our community, and so this
[18:41] by-law looks to introduce thoseSo really, these by-law
[18:45] amendments would all be voluntary in nature, and that's why we hope they would give
[18:49] a perceived benefit to heritage property owners above and beyond
[18:53] demolishing or the heritage grant.
[18:58] And really, it's to create a policy environment that introduces opportunities for
[19:02] both heritage conservation and new housing development.
[19:07] So, this is probably a little out of date.
[19:10] I believe we now actually have less than 183 because we have lost
[19:14] heritage structures and, in fact, we received an application for
[19:18] demolition of another heritage structure last week.
[19:22] So we're continuing to see residential applications, unfortunately,
[19:27] with heritage being lost in the process, because the
[19:30] majority of those heritage properties on the inventory are in residential land use
[19:34] districts.
[19:37] So these proposed tactics, of which there are eight, not sequentially
[19:41] numbered, but numbered as per the Heritage Resource Action Plan,
[19:45] really provide a whole load of opportunities that hopefully
[19:49] will incentivize some form of retention of heritage.
[19:53] And I'll talk through them all briefly and just how they're implemented through
[19:57] the land use by-law changes. So tactic one, pretty straightforward.
[20:01] A time extension for permit application. Why is this helpful?
[20:05] Mainly because heritage properties are complicated when it comes to
[20:09] development.
[20:10] So we're just proposing longer timeframes.
[20:13] So that means that a permit's just going to not expire quite as quickly
[20:17] because it takes that extra time. So typically, at the moment, development
[20:20] must be commenced within one year, although we can grant an extension to
[20:24] that. So just extending those timeframes up to meet conditions
[20:28] within 18 months, and then development must commence within two years.
[20:32] So relatively straightforward,
[20:35] and just providing that extra time so that developers don't need to worry
[20:38] about a permit lapsing when they're working on a heritage property.
[20:43] As you will have seen in the report, we also outlined the applicability of each of
[20:47] these tactics. So what would you need to
[20:51] prove or to be able to do in order to get this perceived benefit from the
[20:55] land use by-law? So with some of these, and we've tried to scale
[20:59] those appropriate to
[21:01] what we're giving away,
[21:03] and what we're asking for in return as a municipality.
[21:06] So really, this would be any heritage-related development, which is development of
[21:10] any property that's on the municipal heritage inventory.
[21:14] So not designated, just the heritage corporation have recognized that
[21:17] it has some importance for a heritage structure in our community,
[21:22] and where that application provides conservation, restoration,
[21:26] rehabilitation, or adaptive reuse of the historic resource.
[21:30] So really, you have a property that's listed on the inventory.
[21:33] If you're investing anything through a development permit, then we will give
[21:37] you that extended timeframe for compliance.
[21:41] Adjusting the approving authority for development.
[21:44] So again, heritage preservation
[21:47] really needs to reduce as much risk as possible.
[21:50] As we discussed at the Governance and Finance Committee, where the approving
[21:54] authority is the Municipal Planning Commission, you're not getting that decision
[21:58] until you go to the Municipal Planning Commission for discretionary
[22:01] uses. And so really, for heritage-related development, the
[22:05] proposal is to keep a consistent point of contact being the
[22:09] development officer. So as a development officer, we can approve internally
[22:13] a large number of applications, some quite substantial in
[22:16] nature. So keeping this point of contact, even for
[22:20] discretionary uses, just allows consistency with what we're
[22:24] saying as administration, what we think the application needs to do to
[22:27] comply with the land use by-law, versus us trying to
[22:31] provide guidance and ultimately Municipal Planning Commission making the decision.
[22:36] And again, that would be to any heritage property on the inventory that's
[22:40] providing a development that doesn't reinvest into the heritage
[22:44] structure.
[22:46] Sorry,
[22:47] with the exception of the non-commercial heritage use, which I'll talk about a
[22:51] little bit later on.
[22:54] Improve and add certainty to the land use variance process.
[22:57] And again, these tactics all came out of the Heritage Resource Action Plan, so
[23:01] there was a lot of engagement with heritage property owners in the
[23:05] community on those tactics. So these are just implementing those tactics that
[23:09] have already been through that process.
[23:11] And so again, providing heritage properties that require variance,
[23:15] often to accommodate something that already exists on site due to their
[23:19] unique circumstances, providing a simpler variance
[23:23] test for that specific heritage property.
[23:28] And again, that would apply when a variance is being requested for any
[23:32] property on the heritage inventory, again, where they're reinvesting in that
[23:36] heritage structure.
[23:38] So just to run through the variance test.
[23:40] I know some of you have sat on MPC before, some of you haven't.
[23:44] So just a reminder, an applicant can choose to
[23:48] apply for a variance to the land use by-laws.
[23:51] When an application doesn't comply with the land use by-law, they can request that
[23:55] a variance is applied, and there's certain criteria that that has
[23:59] to tick, a whole load of boxes that that has to tick in order to be granted
[24:03] that variance. So under the land use by-law, the deviation has to be minor in
[24:07] nature.
[24:08] It has to not unduly interfere with the amenities of the area or
[24:12] interfere or affect the use, enjoyment, safety, aesthetics, or value of neighboring
[24:16] properties.
[24:17] And it must conform to the use prescribed for the land.
[24:21] So you can't vary use.
[24:23] And also, there has to be an unusual site configuration, soil conditions, or
[24:27] other factors which are peculiar to the site and not common in the district.
[24:32] Or the variance will, in the opinion of the development approving authority,
[24:36] either improve the design relative to the design guidelines or contribute to the
[24:40] preservation of heritage value of recognized historic building.
[24:44] So there is, within the variance test currently, already a
[24:48] clause that allows a variance specifically for heritage,
[24:52] but you do have to tick all these other boxes.So as per your
[24:55] direction, we've proposed a second variance test.
[24:59] So rather than have this last section in section E
[25:03] where
[25:04] a development has to also contribute to the preservation of heritage,
[25:09] when it does that, there would be a separate variance test.
[25:12] And really, it strips away these conditions
[25:16] that are in that variance test. And so the only variance
[25:20] test for a structure on the heritage inventory when they're requesting a
[25:24] variance would be that the proposed development will not unduly interfere with the
[25:28] amenities of the area,
[25:30] and that they can't change use. So they would be the only things.
[25:33] And out of interest, these are the minimum variance requirements
[25:37] under the Municipal Government Act.
[25:39] So these are verbatim when you have a variance to a land use
[25:43] bylaw, you have to at least do these, all the other ones that are included in our
[25:47] land use bylaws are addition
[25:50] over the MGA. And so the proposal is for that heritage specific
[25:54] variance test. We just have the Municipal Government Act minimum of not
[25:58] unduly interfering with the amenities of the area, safety, aesthetics, et cetera,
[26:02] and not being able to vary use.
[26:07] So tactic 12, a wider range of uses permitted.
[26:10] So again, heritage properties would benefit from a wider range of allowable uses,
[26:14] which may also create a revenue stream for preservation.
[26:17] This is something council have already done through allowing
[26:20] additional consideration for BnBs or accessory guest
[26:24] accommodations within heritage structure. There's some allowances for that.
[26:29] But this is expanding that beyond new low
[26:32] risk non-commercial uses to residential heritage properties.
[26:37] This is something that we highlighted.
[26:39] Obviously, introducing commercial uses, in residential
[26:42] districts is a big no-no from the National Parks Act and commercial growth
[26:46] management. So this is really introducing some non-commercial low
[26:50] risk uses that we don't typically see in residential
[26:54] districts, but they may provide a benefit within
[26:58] a heritage structure. So those are daycare, public education service,
[27:02] private education services, public library and cultural exhibits,
[27:06] studios, religious assemblies, government services, natural
[27:10] science exhibit uses, or professional financial health and office
[27:14] services. Some of these uses do have a bit of a gray area
[27:18] around commercial use. But the intent in this
[27:22] instance would be that they would be non-commercial in nature.
[27:25] And lots of these uses could, depending on who the operator
[27:29] is, for example, be deemed commercial versus non-commercial.
[27:32] So whether it was a not-for-profit organization or the government,
[27:37] so us as a municipality or Parks Canada, for example, operating
[27:40] these, then they would not be commercial versus a commercial operator.
[27:45] Daycares is a prime example. If I had the Dave Michaels Montessori
[27:49] School of, Hard Knocks for eight thousand dollars
[27:53] a month,
[27:54] that would likely be commercial, whereas the Daycare
[27:57] Society, for example, a not-for-profit organization,
[28:01] would likely not be deemed commercial.
[28:03] So it allows that flexibility for us to discuss with Parks Canada
[28:07] individual uses and whether they would be commercial in nature and
[28:10] allowable.
[28:13] There would also be some additional requirements for these uses.
[28:17] Again, they would be in residential districts, so we've proposed to kind of put
[28:21] some criteria to set expectations,
[28:24] making sure that they would maintain the heritage, character, and appearance of the
[28:28] building. Any alterations required to accommodate that use would be
[28:32] minimal and compatible with the heritage character of the building.
[28:37] A development approving authority would be able to establish limits, for example,
[28:41] on the number of employees, visitor attendance, hour of operation, or the
[28:45] floor area devoted to the use. So if you think about some of those
[28:48] uses like a museum, for example, if we had a heritage home that was
[28:52] opened up as a museum, perhaps you might want to limit the hours so that it doesn't
[28:56] impact the residential district and surrounding properties.
[28:59] So allowing that authority within the land use bylaw.
[29:03] And again, managing vehicle traffic and deliveries and parking to make
[29:07] sure that it's characteristic of the neighborhood that it would be in.
[29:11] Also limiting the sale of goods and services to the public,
[29:15] which would not be permitted except where it was clearly ancillary to the primary
[29:19] use. A good example would be, say it was a museum that opened
[29:23] up in a heritage structure, and they sold maybe some postcards or some
[29:27] books related to the heritage aspect, provided it was operated
[29:31] obviously by that non-commercial entity.
[29:34] The proposal is to include language to allow that.
[29:38] And again, any signage would have to be consistent with the land use bylaw.
[29:43] These wider range of uses we're proposing would only be
[29:47] possible on a property that has been designated through
[29:51] bylaw. So really the highest bar to jump over to
[29:55] allow these other uses. So that's really the highest bar that we have, is
[29:59] to require designation through bylaw, through council bylaw, to
[30:03] protect that structure. So for a use that would change, that would not be
[30:07] residential for these properties, you would have to designate the property and
[30:10] legally protect it through a binding bylaw, and that bylaw gets registered
[30:14] on title, and it happens in perpetuity unless council decide to rescind the
[30:17] bylaw.
[30:21] This is also one of the things that we would recommend that would still fall to
[30:24] Municipal Planning Commission. So the development officer would not be able to
[30:28] approve these, and that's just to allow more public
[30:31] opportunity for input on these non-residential uses.
[30:37] Accessory dwellings.
[30:39] So heritage properties could benefit from additional housing opportunities
[30:43] to really help support the heritage structure.
[30:46] At the moment, there's a limit to one for one, so there can't be more
[30:50] accessory dwellings than there are primary units on the site.
[30:52] So this proposed bylaw removes that limitation.
[30:56] And again, that would be opened up to any property that was on
[31:00] the heritage
[31:01] inventoryAn
[31:05] extended timeframe from compliance or bonusing for required housing.
[31:09] So this one was tricky, as we highlighted in that January meeting, because
[31:13] the tactic that came out of the Heritage Resource Action Plan was almost
[31:17] pitting housing against heritage in this instance.
[31:21] And so we've tried to work as much as we can to make sure that doesn't happen.
[31:25] And so the proposals that's included in the land use bylaw allows
[31:29] for required housing obligations to take more time.
[31:32] So if there was a commercial or an intensification of use that had a housing
[31:36] requirement, rather than the current requirement that that housing has to
[31:40] have occupancy basically before the intensification
[31:44] happens at the commercial property, just to allow a slightly extended
[31:48] timeframe. There's likely not many instances where this
[31:52] would apply, because it would predominantly be for heritage
[31:55] commercial buildings that were intensifying use.
[31:58] Dave White Block, Harmony Lane, for example.
[32:01] If they were changing and they had housing requirements, just allowing them a
[32:05] slightly extended timeframe to comply with the housing requirements, although
[32:09] still requiring that they meet those housing requirements.
[32:14] And again, this would be available to any property that is on the inventory
[32:19] that includes preservation of the heritage.
[32:23] Transfer tools, so we talked about this at great length in the January meeting.
[32:28] So heritage homes are often located in high-density residential districts,
[32:32] and so really, that means that it incentivizes the
[32:36] demolition to maximize the maximum floor area that you can build.
[32:39] Because if you have a small heritage structure on site, it's quite hard to fit all
[32:43] that extra floor area in and around the heritage building.
[32:47] And so this really would allow a property owner to transfer the
[32:51] air rights or really the floor area rights
[32:54] from the building to another
[32:58] property for residential use. So rather than
[33:01] demolish the heritage building that's on site to maximize the floor area,
[33:06] that we're saying you could maximize that floor area, it just wouldn't be built on
[33:09] the same site necessarily, and you could transfer that to another property.
[33:14] So we've got some little graphics to show that.
[33:16] It's always hard to, again, fill in around existing heritage.
[33:21] And so you would donate from the heritage parcel to any other
[33:25] residential property and allow that residential property to have
[33:29] more floor area than could typically be built on that property,
[33:33] provided that you don't exceed height and setbacks.
[33:36] So really, you could just fill in the rest of the box that the land use bylaw
[33:40] currently limits through floor area, as
[33:44] long as you don't upset the maximum height or setbacks.
[33:50] You did provide some additional guidance at the January meeting, and you
[33:54] wanted to ensure that this residential floor area can be transferred to any
[33:58] of our lower density districts, and so the bylaw
[34:01] proposes that, and here's just a quick map guide of where those
[34:05] lower density districts are. So this proposal for
[34:09] transfer of the floor area for residential uses, it couldn't be
[34:12] transferred to any of these areas in red.
[34:15] So it could be transferred from, but it couldn't be transferred to any of
[34:19] those districts.
[34:22] Sorry, Mr. Michaels, can you say that last part just one more time?
[34:24] About
[34:26] where is it going to and from?
[34:27] Yes. So these would be limits to the receiving sites.
[34:31] So the sites getting more floor area and building above the maximum
[34:35] density couldn't go to any of these areas in red.
[34:38] However, if there was a heritage structure in one of these, it could do the
[34:41] reverse. They could give their floor area to a
[34:45] different property, although having said that, there aren't many
[34:48] heritage structures within these districts at this point in time.
[34:52] Wait another 50 years and there might be.
[34:59] So again, with those transfer tools, making sure that building height and
[35:03] setbacks on the receiving
[35:05] site are complied with. So that property
[35:09] that's receiving that additional floor area, yes, they could build more than the
[35:13] bylaw says today, but provided they don't exceed the
[35:16] height and the setback, which is really the overall building form
[35:21] in the district that's receiving it.
[35:25] And again, because this is quite a valuable tool, and this would really
[35:28] sterilize the property with the heritage on
[35:33] forever. If you said, "Okay, you could build a maximum floor
[35:36] area here," but now you're transferring that to another site, we
[35:40] want to ensure that that doesn't ever come back because you've given it
[35:44] away. And so really this would also only be allowed for a
[35:48] designated property, so through protection bylaw.
[35:51] But we're also suggesting another legal instrument that also
[35:55] protects. So not necessarily a designating bylaw, but something
[35:59] similar that protects that building and makes sure there's no
[36:03] demolition to that heritage structure.
[36:08] Land use bylaw amendments town wide.
[36:10] So again, another tactic from HRAP.
[36:14] So heritage properties often don't comply with the land use bylaw
[36:18] for a number of reasons. Setback is usually the one that doesn't
[36:21] comply with.
[36:23] And so rather than requiring that a variance is considered every
[36:27] time, what we've proposed in this is really taking
[36:31] away the need for a variance for heritage properties, more
[36:34] specifically to height and setbacks.
[36:38] There aren't many heritage properties that don't comply with height requirements,
[36:41] with the exception in our CD district.
[36:45] So really it's just taking away the need to vary those and just
[36:49] saying, "If you've got a heritage building that currently doesn't comply with
[36:52] setback or heights, that's fine." That's really what we're doing with this bylaw.
[36:56] We had talked about what we called a heritage modifier in January, but as
[37:00] we worked through the language, we felt that it'd just be simpler to say
[37:03] that for setbacksThat any
[37:08] heritage structure could project into the setbacks to
[37:11] facilitate site-specific conditions.
[37:15] And for building height,
[37:19] in the land use bylaw, we have different height requirements, especially in our
[37:22] commercial district, where we talk about height to the midpoint of the
[37:26] roof, top of a flat roof, number of stories,
[37:31] or the eave line, cornice line of a building.
[37:34] In the land use bylaw, we say the most restrictive of any of those when
[37:38] there's multiple.
[37:39] So our proposed language is, for heritage is the most permissive would
[37:43] apply.
[37:46] And again, this would really apply to any heritage-related development that's
[37:50] on the inventory, provided that they're doing some form of conservation to that
[37:54] heritage structure.
[37:56] That's really all the tactics that are included
[38:00] within the land use bylaw, the proposed land use bylaw.
[38:02] One thing we also highlighted within the report is, should council pass first
[38:06] reading today, the next step to public hearing, we have minimum
[38:10] advertising requirements that we go through for any land use bylaw amendment
[38:14] for the public hearing. We have provided some options for
[38:18] additional budgetary implications for additional advertising,
[38:22] should council want to do any of those.
[38:25] Probably would have to come from budget stabilization, should you want to
[38:30] suggest any of those additional. One thing we would highlight is the
[38:34] longer it takes us to get to third reading and a
[38:38] bylaw approved by Parks Canada, the more heritage structures we're
[38:42] going to lose. Unfortunately, that's the position that we're in at the moment.
[38:45] We are seeing a lot of residential development, which is obviously great.
[38:49] But on some sites, it is at the expense of heritage.
[38:52] And so all these tactics were developed through that heritage
[38:56] resource action plan because it was felt that they really would provide additional
[38:59] incentives to not demolish heritage, to provide more
[39:03] opportunity where demolishing and building lots of residential isn't the
[39:07] only option. And so the sooner we can get these bylaw amendments
[39:11] through, the less chance there is we're going to lose more heritage.
[39:15] However, obviously, if we do more public notification, then it provides a
[39:18] greater opportunity for members of the public to become informed on the
[39:22] changes, the implications, and provide input to you through the public
[39:26] hearing process.
[39:29] I'll stop rambling and take any questions.
[39:35] Thank you very much, Mr. Michaels.
[39:37] Any questions before we get into first
[39:41] reading? Councilor Ledwidge.
[39:44] Thank you, Mr. Michaels. What's the property that's
[39:49] slated for demolition?
[39:53] The application we received last week was for 345 Beaver
[39:57] Street,
[39:59] just behind the Astor there, the heritage name.
[40:02] I can't remember off the top of my head.
[40:04] Unfortunately, there were some issues, and it's structurally actually not a
[40:08] sound building. So it has to come down because it's
[40:12] structurally not safe at present.
[40:14] But it is on the inventory. And yep, the
[40:18] new property owner is looking to demolish that.
[40:21] Thank you.
[40:24] Any other questions? Councilor Fullerton.
[40:27] Thank you, Mr. Michaels. I'm just curious why the
[40:31] table of public notification was given to us.
[40:34] Is that a standard course of action in terms of...
[40:36] I mean, I'm relatively new to this, but do we usually
[40:40] provide additional public notification-
[40:43] Yes
[40:44] ... beyond what's necessary?
[40:45] I wouldn't say there's a usual. Historically, we haven't been
[40:49] through many land use bylaw amendments,
[40:53] as much as we have done in the past three years.
[40:57] Bed and Breakfast, we did an awful lot of additional public
[41:01] engagement.
[41:02] The last bylaw that I believe you saw that was around introducing
[41:06] day cares within additional districts.
[41:09] We did no additional public notification above the requirement.
[41:13] So, it really varies depending on council's interest and desire
[41:17] to do additional notification on each topic.
[41:20] So we've always provided those. When we think that there's a topic that
[41:24] the community are specifically interested in and have discussed a lot,
[41:28] heritage being one of them. This has the opportunity
[41:32] to really impact a lot of heritage property owners.
[41:35] And that's why we went through a lot of engagement through the actual Heritage
[41:38] Resource Action Plan. So there has been lots of engagement
[41:42] building up to these tactics. So hopefully, the tactics aren't a surprise to
[41:45] anyone.
[41:47] But yes, we typically give you those options should you wish to
[41:51] do additional notification. For the housing amendments, you
[41:54] directed us to do a lot of additional things, some of which had additional
[41:58] budget implications, some of which didn't.
[42:03] That was very diplomatic. Thank you, Mr. Michaels.
[42:06] I think just to add a little bit of context from the council perspective,
[42:10] I would say
[42:12] depending on the complexity of the
[42:16] proposed changes, we've had public say, "We just
[42:20] need more time to understand this.
[42:22] Who can we give our feedback to?" So what we
[42:26] really try to do is to create these opportunities for people to better understand
[42:30] what's being proposed to better inform what they would like to
[42:34] say at the public hearing. So we kind of, at times, have
[42:38] added this extra layer to help people
[42:41] get educated and informed to make their presentation at the public hearing.
[42:45] But certainly, sometimes it's just a public hearing
[42:48] where folks are equipped to come and talk.
[42:51] But in the past, we've deviated depending on the nature of the changes.
[42:56] Any other questions?
[42:58] I have one around legal and
[43:02] Parks Canada. So
[43:04] can you remind me, have these gone through a legal scan?
[43:08] No, typically we don't do-Um, legal or
[43:12] Parks Canada until we get past first reading, because of course, if council didn't
[43:15] want to proceed, then we
[43:19] don't do that. However, knowing that
[43:22] we had some ideas that we would know might set off
[43:26] some
[43:27] Spidey senses
[43:29] with Parks Canada. We did have a really good conversation with Parks Canada to try
[43:32] and understand really what the goalposts were.
[43:35] I think it's no surprise that commercial development in
[43:38] residential districts was a no-go, and so we have
[43:42] had preliminary conversations with Parks Canada.
[43:45] So,
[43:46] when they see this bylaw come to them,
[43:50] I don't think there will be any surprises.
[43:52] And as soon as or should council pass first reading, then we
[43:56] will circulate both to Parks Canada for comment, as we did with the
[44:00] B&Bs. And you may recall, we got some comments back
[44:04] ahead of second reading, and some amendments were made at second reading based on
[44:08] Parks Canada's comments. We would do the same thing in this process.
[44:11] Should you pass first reading,
[44:13] we would circulate to both Parks Canada and to legal just to have a review
[44:17] of those. And anything that came up from those, we would recommend changes
[44:21] at second or third reading.
[44:24] Perfect. Thank you. Any other questions?
[44:28] Okay. Oh, Councilor Backhouse.
[44:32] I'm just trying to get a little bit more clarity on...
[44:34] And I know it's all kind of hypothetical, but, it's noted that the
[44:38] Banff Heritage Corporation is potentially planning a heritage
[44:42] symposium for September. I'm wondering
[44:45] timeline. Does that fit in with any of
[44:49] this?
[44:52] It could do. It would be up to council's direction.
[44:56] The intent of the symposium is really,
[45:01] we're the Heritage Corporation, and this is what we do.
[45:03] Some more of that kind of public
[45:06] promotion of heritage.
[45:10] The
[45:11] benefit, you could wait to have public hearing till after
[45:15] September and kind of piggyback off that symposium and provide some
[45:19] information. The challenge is that it might get confusing,
[45:22] because there are already some tools and tactics that are in place today
[45:27] that the Heritage Corporation want to promote, and this isn't yet in
[45:31] place. So,
[45:33] it could be beneficial to wait and provide all that information, but it could also
[45:37] be beneficial to try and get these bylaw amendments ahead of that, so
[45:40] that when they have their symposium, they can say, "Here's the heritage
[45:44] grant. Here's all the things we're doing, and the land use bylaw has also changed,
[45:48] and these are the other things you can do," rather than that be kind
[45:52] of still in the works and not yet implemented.
[45:55] So, it plays into it in that it's an opportunity
[45:58] to provide information, and whether that's ahead of a bylaw or post a
[46:02] bylaw, that's really what we're seeking direction from on
[46:06] terms of timing.
[46:10] Thank you. Any other questions?
[46:13] Okay. Then could I please have someone move
[46:17] bylaw 497 be introduced and read a first
[46:20] time? Councilor Backhouse. Thank you.
[46:25] Just as a reminder, no amendments can be made at first reading.
[46:30] Move that bylaw 497, land use bylaw
[46:33] amendment,
[46:37] heritage conservation
[46:41] tools be introduced and read for the first time.
[46:46] Thank you. Any discussion or debate on the motion?
[46:50] All in favor?
[46:53] And opposed? That's carried unanimously.
[46:57] Could I please have someone now direct administration to schedule a
[47:01] public hearing for proposed bylaw 497? Councilor Standish.
[47:05] Thank you.
[47:07] We don't need a date for that at this stage.
[47:11] Okay.
[47:15] I move that council direct administration to schedule a public hearing for proposed
[47:18] bylaw 497 in accordance with the Municipal Government Act.
[47:24] Thank you. Any discussion or debate on that motion?
[47:29] Councilor Standish?
[47:30] If I could just give my personal opinion, I'd like to see the public
[47:34] hearing sooner rather than later.
[47:39] Thank you. Does it
[47:41] help then to put a date
[47:44] in here?
[47:51] You-
[47:54] Yes. So you can put a date in,
[47:58] or we can work with staff and
[48:01] find a convenient date with that direction of as soon as
[48:04] possible. The difficulty is if you name a specific
[48:08] date right now, then that is the date, but it has been
[48:12] done before if you wish to
[48:14] do that.
[48:14] Oh, I see. Well, we better let you sort it because there's the
[48:18] advertising requirements and the-
[48:20] Yeah
[48:20] ... newspaper deadlines, and we need to work backwards.
[48:23] So,
[48:24] understood that we want to try and do this as soon as possible, but we won't set
[48:28] that date today.
[48:29] Okay. Yeah. We will look at that, try and set a
[48:33] date, and
[48:35] let council know. And if there's any issues,
[48:38] we can amend that.
[48:40] Thank you. Any other discussion about it? Councilor Ramm?
[48:45] Yeah. Sorry, just for clarity as well.
[48:47] So we're passing that we go to a public hearing.
[48:51] So then in regards to public notification, is that then coming next if that's what
[48:55] we wanted to see?
[48:56] That's a great question in terms of sequencing. Yes.
[48:59] So that would be an upcoming motion to
[49:03] potentially reopen the budget to potentially
[49:07] set some kind of publicOne should learn
[49:11] or what have you. So that would be the following conversation. So yeah, good point.
[49:15] If there needs to be space for that, we better not set a date.
[49:18] Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking as well.
[49:20] I think, when we've talked about communications and really ensuring,
[49:23] especially when it comes to Heritage Resource Action Plan,
[49:29] it's extremely important for a lot of residents.
[49:32] So, as we've heard before,
[49:34] summer is a sprint and so really ensuring that
[49:38] people can be as active and engaged as they can.
[49:42] I would just be hesitant to put a date.
[49:44] I absolutely hear Councilor Standish in regards to making sure that we're getting
[49:47] it done, especially when we received an application as of last week.
[49:50] I just want to ensure that the public are well aware, they
[49:54] have time to give their feedback, and they also can put it in their calendar
[49:58] while not sprinting during the summer, is my only concern.
[50:02] But regardless, I will support going forward.
[50:07] Thank you. Anything else on the motion to set a public
[50:10] hearing?
[50:12] Seeing none, all in favor?
[50:15] And opposed? That's carried unanimously.
[50:19] So then to Councilor Ram's point, the next part of this conversation could be
[50:23] about
[50:26] putting some budget into additional public
[50:29] engagement. So is there anybody who would like to make the motion to
[50:33] look at reopening the budget? And then the next motion would
[50:37] be to have that expenditure, and we can
[50:40] pick which one at that stage. But step one would be to reopen the budget and
[50:44] have the conversation. But if no one wants to reopen the budget, then we're done.
[50:51] Looks like we're done. Everybody get yourselves educated, and please come on
[50:54] down to the public hearing, and we'll be ready to take your feedback
[50:58] then.
[51:00] Okay. Thank you, Mr. Michaels.
[51:09] Next on our agenda is
[51:12] 7.3, Request for Direction,
[51:15] Destination Stewardship Council.
[51:18] Good afternoon, Mr. Entz.
[51:24] Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.
[51:26] So I'm going to speak to the report that's in your agenda package, if you just give
[51:29] me a moment here to get organized.
[51:33] And so on page 54 of 68 is a report for your
[51:37] consideration on establishment or moving forward with a Destination
[51:40] Stewardship Council initiative.
[51:43] I've highlighted a few key elements for your consideration.
[51:46] The legislative basis for this is a motion made back
[51:50] in December of 2024,
[51:53] that
[51:54] asked administration to return with a process to move forward with the
[51:57] establishment of a Destination Stewardship Council.
[52:00] I would add to this that since then, this direction was
[52:03] also reinforced through the draft Banff Community Plan,
[52:06] which references this initiative as well.
[52:09] So that's something that doesn't appear in this report, but is just for your
[52:11] interest is that the community plan also references this initiative.
[52:17] So what is a Destination Stewardship Council?
[52:19] I tried to provide you with a bit of a
[52:22] glimpse into that. They're primarily interagency groups that are intended to help
[52:26] their members, and I'll just read from the report.
[52:28] "Take a multi-stakeholder approach to maintain the cultural,
[52:32] environmental, economic, and aesthetic integrity of their country, region, or
[52:35] town." And so we've tried to provide you with a few
[52:40] snapshots of different Destination Stewardship Councils that
[52:43] exist. They're often established in the United States, for
[52:46] example, often around protected areas.
[52:50] Some of these councils are quite
[52:53] a large tent,
[52:55] and others are maybe more like a backpacking tent, moving a bit more lean.
[52:58] And so there's lots of different models that you can adopt, and we wanted to put a
[53:02] few forward so you can get a sense of what it might look like for Banff.
[53:06] And that's really the point of this initial exercise, is trying to figure out what
[53:10] our potential Bow Valley Destination Stewardship Council would look like.
[53:14] That's really the
[53:15] first step in moving this forward.
[53:20] At a minimum, our anticipation as administration would be that it would
[53:23] have to include key municipal actors and the federal government as an
[53:27] absolute.
[53:29] The reason that tourism exists in the Bow Valley is because we are in a national
[53:32] park. And so having a national park
[53:35] presence in this initiative seems like a
[53:40] have to have from our perspective in terms of being of value to the
[53:43] discussion.
[53:48] I didn't highlight it, but with most of these Destination Stewardship Councils,
[53:51] they're not intended to create a new level of government or
[53:55] reduce or remove any autonomy.
[53:58] It's more important to have
[54:01] key actors in a room that are establishing dialogue.
[54:04] And interestingly, that doesn't always occur in the Bow Valley.
[54:07] We have different, for example, tourism agencies between Canmore and
[54:10] Banff. We have different jurisdictions from federal to provincial, that
[54:14] are at the east gate. And there aren't
[54:17] that many forums where we all get together and sit in the same room and
[54:21] have a discussion about key tourism issues.
[54:24] And one of the interesting phenomena that we've seen over the last half century is
[54:28] the effect of tourism moving down valley.
[54:31] Banff is no longer the only service center for the National Park.
[54:34] It's literally, as I like to say, Banff's newest hotels are being built on Bow
[54:38] Valley Trail in Canmore. That's what tourism looks like today
[54:42] and will only continue.
[54:44] So,
[54:45] from administration's perspective, there is value in creating a forum where
[54:49] we can sit together,
[54:52] and this is a chance to help council get a sense of
[54:56] what that might look like, what the purpose and intent are,
[55:00] discuss potential membership,
[55:03] and have somebody facilitate the initial steps to this process.
[55:06] This needs to be a collaborative effort as opposed to one being led by any
[55:09] single municipality or jurisdiction.
[55:12] And often that creates a bit of a chicken and egg scenario where you're trying to
[55:17] get something going. And so the request today is for some initial seed
[55:21] funding to procure some services to
[55:24] helpFacilitate this foundational work.
[55:28] Administration's suggestion is that we move deliberatively
[55:32] and incrementally. And so our initial thought was to try to help
[55:36] establish the terms of reference for such a group, bring it back to council for
[55:39] their consideration,
[55:41] and determine whether or not it's something that you'd like to move forward to once
[55:44] it has a bit more shape to it. So right now it's
[55:48] fairly, I would suggest, in its infancy, and
[55:52] the deal would be to try to
[55:54] help put a bit more meat on the bone to determine whether or not you would
[55:59] like to keep moving forward with this initiative.
[56:01] So, the seed money would be used for procuring consulting
[56:05] services to help facilitate this discussion.
[56:07] In other situations like this, we've often moved in a collaborative
[56:11] format with partners. I'm trying to think about some emergency services
[56:15] positions and other initiatives that we've taken, and we've had joint procurement
[56:18] panels and things like that. That seems like a logical way to advance this
[56:22] process as well.
[56:24] So with that, happy to take any questions from council.
[56:28] Thank you very much, Mr. Enns. Any questions?
[56:32] Councilor Pelm and then Councilor Standish.
[56:36] Thanks.
[56:37] Just at the end of your presentation,
[56:41] you mentioned the idea of a joint procurement panel, and I think that
[56:45] was one of my key questions about this is the way
[56:49] this document is written, it kind of seemed like
[56:53] it was an individual procurement
[56:57] process that the town of Banff would be taking on.
[57:00] So I was kind of curious about that because Canmore has
[57:03] already
[57:05] leaned in and is very keen to participate.
[57:07] So could you explain how a joint
[57:11] procurement panel would
[57:15] function and...
[57:18] Yeah.
[57:18] Sure. I'll maybe start, and I can think of examples,
[57:22] like on the Bow Valley
[57:25] shared emergency evacuation study.
[57:28] I'm mixing up the words here. It was grant funded,
[57:32] but a chance for us to work together with colleagues in the Bow Valley.
[57:37] It's a bit challenging in the sense that each municipality has their own
[57:39] procurement policy and standards.
[57:41] As you know, you as council have your own procurement
[57:44] policy,
[57:45] and so there needs to be a bit of a discussion to determine how to move that
[57:49] forward with partners.
[57:52] And the thought was that it makes more sense for us to do this
[57:57] in a collaborative fashion than as individuals, each sort of doing our
[58:01] own thing. And so the more that we can do that, the better, and we'd have to have
[58:04] that conversation with our colleagues
[58:07] amongst those key partners.
[58:10] On that, would that collaboration be with town of
[58:14] Canmore administration or with elected officials?
[58:18] What does that framework look like?
[58:22] Well, this is a little bit of a different
[58:27] situation. The collaboration on procurement would definitely be
[58:30] administrative though. That is not often that council
[58:35] procures things directly.
[58:39] And really, this direction, and I believe when we approved it in
[58:44] budget, the emergency services position, you approved half a position.
[58:48] Canmore approved the other half position because you can't approve things for the
[58:52] town of Canmore.
[58:54] So the collaboration is something that will be a part of this,
[58:59] and we'll have discussions on how to proceed administratively
[59:03] with them as well. This is a unique
[59:07] project in the sense that
[59:10] we are asking for a council rep to be a part of this as well.
[59:14] So there will be discussions with elected officials as
[59:18] well and how this could be looked at. As Mr.
[59:21] Enns said, it's
[59:24] very important for us, for Parks, the federal government to be here
[59:28] as a part of it, so there would likely be some discussions.
[59:31] But first and foremost, the discussions would be with Canmore, and we could
[59:35] figure it out from there.
[59:38] Councilor Standish.
[59:41] Thank you. Mr. Enns, just some clarity.
[59:44] Can you tell me the correlation between
[59:48] this Bow Valley Destination Stewardship Group and what we're going to be doing
[59:52] with human use management?
[59:55] The overlap, perhaps.
[59:56] Yeah, it's a great question, and the human use management
[1:00:00] initiative that council approved was focused on what
[1:00:04] can the town of Banff do within our own authorities to manage human use in the
[1:00:08] future. And so as we're moving forward with
[1:00:13] implementation of that, that's one of the first critical questions, and it really
[1:00:16] involves drawing the box around what we can control as a municipality.
[1:00:21] And that's actually relatively narrow in terms
[1:00:25] of what we can do, and there's a lot of authorities that we don't have.
[1:00:28] For example, managing the number of visitors that come to our town is not within
[1:00:31] our authority.
[1:00:33] But it is within others' authority, and that's
[1:00:37] important because the Destination Stewardship Council affords the
[1:00:41] chance for all those partners to tell their own story about what they're doing and
[1:00:45] share their own initiatives. And so
[1:00:47] I would say the human use management framework that you approved is highly
[1:00:51] focused on what the town of Banff can do within our own
[1:00:55] authorities, whereas the Destination Stewardship Council is about
[1:00:58] creating a dialogue for others to share what they might be doing so that we can all
[1:01:03] be enriched by that information and not be surprised by initiatives that others are
[1:01:07] taking.
[1:01:11] Thanks. Any questions? Councilor Backhouse.
[1:01:15] Thank you for asking that because I had that question on my mind.
[1:01:20] These are great examples of who has participated.
[1:01:23] I like the
[1:01:25] scale of
[1:01:26] Big and small,
[1:01:28] who has shown interest, and how far are we going
[1:01:32] for destination stewardship? I really love some First
[1:01:36] Nations mentioned on here, but who's shown interest so far of a
[1:01:40] partnership or...
[1:01:42] So there hasn't really been a formal discussion of that yet.
[1:01:46] So there's not a body out there. I'm not sure.
[1:01:50] Canmore may have had some conversations after their
[1:01:54] initial, when it went to their council.
[1:01:59] I'm sure there would be lots interested in it.
[1:02:01] I think it's important to have some of those grounding
[1:02:05] discussions first. How do we start off, how do we set this up?
[1:02:10] If it's decided that yes, it should go large and then small, or
[1:02:14] large and figure it out or keep it small, figure it out,
[1:02:18] we would come back to council with that,
[1:02:21] or the council representative would bring that
[1:02:25] back.
[1:02:29] Thanks. And I guess on that note, so we'll have some motions
[1:02:32] here. Let's say this does move forward.
[1:02:35] What is the next step?
[1:02:39] What does the next step look like for us?
[1:02:42] If this is approved, we'll definitely, the
[1:02:46] first contact would be
[1:02:49] Town of Canmore, to let them know that we have funding for this as well.
[1:02:54] And then set up a meeting with the elected
[1:02:57] official and administration to have a
[1:03:01] conversation about best ways to proceed from
[1:03:04] here.
[1:03:06] And as I mentioned, for Town of Banff, at some
[1:03:10] point we would want Parks to get involved.
[1:03:13] Whether that, in what level, we'd have to look at that.
[1:03:17] But those are discussions that we would have to have, and this is meant to be
[1:03:21] kind of that initial seed money.
[1:03:24] And we would go forward from there.
[1:03:28] Just so council knows, we have been in
[1:03:31] conversation with Town of Canmore, letting them know...
[1:03:35] I spoke to the CAO
[1:03:37] at the beginning of the month, letting them know that it would be coming to this
[1:03:40] meeting after theirs was approved. And I know Mr.
[1:03:43] Enns has shared the reports once it became
[1:03:47] public,
[1:03:48] with the administration in Canmore as well.
[1:03:51] So,
[1:03:52] we would have a follow-up call to arrange a meeting.
[1:03:58] Thank you. And then Parks Canada's been mentioned a couple of times.
[1:04:02] Can you speak to their awareness of this?
[1:04:04] And it sounds like we'd also look to schedule a meeting with
[1:04:08] them
[1:04:10] after this one with the Town of Canmore.
[1:04:13] Yeah. So it has come up at IGL,
[1:04:18] just as a broad conversation.
[1:04:21] We'd want to probably have at least an initial conversation with
[1:04:25] Canmore first to understand where they are at with this process.
[1:04:30] I think Parks wants to be part of the conversation,
[1:04:34] but they've got to understand what it is exactly.
[1:04:38] So there
[1:04:41] are a lot of inter-agency groups out there, so they would need a
[1:04:44] formal proposal, but it wouldn't be appropriate to
[1:04:47] tell Parks what it would be without
[1:04:51] talking at least with Canmore first.
[1:04:53] So we'd want to make sure that we have that conversation, and then,
[1:04:57] we would bring or have a discussion with Parks,
[1:05:01] and possibly others, depending on how that
[1:05:04] initial conversation goes.
[1:05:08] Thank you. Any other questions?
[1:05:11] Councilor Standish and then Councilor Pelham.
[1:05:14] Thank you, Mayor Damiano. Question with regarding the funding that we're
[1:05:18] proposing. Canmore's putting in 40,000.
[1:05:21] We're proposing putting in 25,000.
[1:05:25] Can you give me some insight on...
[1:05:30] First of all, why? Why wouldn't we match what Canmore's doing?
[1:05:34] And is there some concern,
[1:05:36] you might not be able to answer this, but is there concern from Canmore that we're
[1:05:39] not contributing an equal amount?
[1:05:44] Sure. So with respect to the initial funding,
[1:05:48] and it's a fair question, I
[1:05:51] thought I would be asked. I kind of compare it to going to a restaurant and
[1:05:55] ordering the whole meal from appetizer to entrée, dessert all at once versus
[1:05:59] just maybe pacing yourself. And so we thought we should
[1:06:03] maybe pace ourselves and just figure out how we want to move forward here,
[1:06:07] in an incremental fashion. I think Canmore's very excited about this
[1:06:11] initiative, and their funding reflects that.
[1:06:14] Our thought was that if we're moving incrementally, we should figure out what it is
[1:06:17] we're doing and who we're sitting at the table with as a first step.
[1:06:20] That's kind of the
[1:06:22] way to get this started.
[1:06:24] And this is one of the challenges with these initiatives where you have a lot of
[1:06:28] different expectations at the table, is that some might want to move at a
[1:06:32] faster pace than others, which is fair.
[1:06:35] And administration's recommendation is to move
[1:06:37] incrementally.
[1:06:41] Councilor Pelham.
[1:06:43] Thanks.
[1:06:44] Mr. Enns, you referenced the Down Valley
[1:06:48] development and the kind of growth that
[1:06:54] would ultimately impact Banff.
[1:06:58] I was just wondering if you could touch on just some basics that we
[1:07:02] know,
[1:07:03] what's going on in Canmore and Kananaskis
[1:07:07] specifically, and just how do we expect
[1:07:11] that to impact us?
[1:07:18] Sure. So when it comes to, obviously the provincial government has set
[1:07:22] a strong focus on growing the tourism economy in Alberta.
[1:07:25] That's fairly well-known. I can't recite the target off by the
[1:07:29] top of my heart, but it's about growing tourism in Alberta, and they're looking
[1:07:33] at growing tourism beyond the traditional national park bases of
[1:07:37] tourism, and that includes things like the All-Seasons Resorts Act, which helps
[1:07:40] with development down into the Kananaskis Valley, and we've seen some
[1:07:44] applications or some discussion about projects that might come
[1:07:48] forward. And that, if those were to come to fruition, would
[1:07:52] stretch the tourism footprint in an eastward direction.
[1:07:55] I think that's actually the intent of these initiatives.
[1:07:59] And in doing so, the visitor never sees jurisdiction.
[1:08:02] They just see what they want to do. And
[1:08:05] if you go on some hotel websites, they'll tell you that the Kananaskis
[1:08:09] hotels are in Banff. It's just this perception of this area of
[1:08:13] Banff as anything with a mountain behind it.
[1:08:17] And so, because the visitor doesn't see that, but there are all these
[1:08:20] jurisdictional divides, you end up with a really sometimes disaggregated experience
[1:08:24] as you're trying to explain to them, "Well, oh, actually you need one pass to go
[1:08:27] into that place, another pass to go here, and then another pass here." And
[1:08:31] that's not a great experience for a visitor. It's not a great management tool.
[1:08:35] And some of these things these councils can do is work on trying new share
[1:08:39] initiatives and try to come up with shared approaches to managing
[1:08:41] visitation.
[1:08:44] One of the challenges, of course, is where do you stop when you talk about then
[1:08:47] down valley impacts, and there's articles in
[1:08:51] local media this week about people commuting from Cochrane, and that's a real
[1:08:55] fact. But you
[1:08:57] need to
[1:09:00] start somewhere. And I often think starting somewhere means starting
[1:09:04] with a smaller group and a very focused group as opposed to
[1:09:07] casting the net wide to
[1:09:11] hundreds of kilometers down valley, which doesn't
[1:09:14] maybe not make the sense at the start.
[1:09:24] Anybody else?
[1:09:26] Okay. Then we will get into some motions here.
[1:09:30] So I'll go ahead and move that pursuant to Section
[1:09:33] 9.22 of Procedures By-law 44-8,
[1:09:37] revisit Motion COU
[1:09:40] 26-128 to approve the amended
[1:09:43] 2026-2028 operating budget, which was adopted as
[1:09:47] part of the April 28th regular meeting of council, so as to
[1:09:51] consider further amendments to the amended 2026-2028 operating
[1:09:54] budget. So this is to open up the budget, and then we'll
[1:09:58] have the discussion about this expenditure.
[1:10:03] Any discussion or debate on this motion? Councillor Standish.
[1:10:07] Thank you, Mayor DeMano. I'm not going to support the motion.
[1:10:11] I
[1:10:13] believe that we should be focusing
[1:10:17] on our own human use management state.
[1:10:20] This is the first step, obviously, opening the budget, but I'm going to save time,
[1:10:24] hopefully, and try and convince you that
[1:10:27] I'm not interested in moving this forward at this time.
[1:10:30] Great initiative, but I think we need to focus on our own backyard first.
[1:10:34] Mm-hmm.
[1:10:35] Thanks, Councillor Standish. I appreciate the, "Let's just nip it in the bud right
[1:10:39] here, this motion," and I definitely see your
[1:10:43] perspective as well. I get the concept of trying to
[1:10:47] focus on what we can control, and we are about to
[1:10:51] set out on this big process, which will take a lot
[1:10:55] of time and energy and focus. So I can appreciate trying to do one thing at a
[1:10:58] time.
[1:11:00] Councillor Ludvig.
[1:11:02] Yeah. I'm going to be a fly in the ointment as well.
[1:11:04] There's a lot here that doesn't sit right with me, and
[1:11:07] the first thing, I'm not sure we have a problem that needs a solution.
[1:11:12] Second, this was a two-year-old motion made by a past councilor,
[1:11:16] and that motion was related to post-secondary studies.
[1:11:21] I find that a bit messy.
[1:11:24] Third, I think we already have multi-jurisdictional initiatives dealing with
[1:11:27] destination management, such as a human use management strategy,
[1:11:31] which we're about to start, the LLT, other committees such as wildlife.
[1:11:36] And fourth, and maybe most important, it's come up already, if
[1:11:40] this was to happen, and we need to have strong support, particularly
[1:11:43] financial from Parks Canada, prior to us
[1:11:47] considering this, and that is definitely not the case right now, and my
[1:11:50] understanding is that it won't be ponying up.
[1:11:55] So 25K to start for me out of taxpayers' money is not
[1:11:59] trivial, and there's definitely going to be more expenditures down the road.
[1:12:04] I think we have more pressing and practical things to spend money on.
[1:12:07] So I also think we need to postpone this or
[1:12:10] nip it in the bud, to use Councillor Standish's
[1:12:14] words. Thank you.
[1:12:17] Thank you. Any other discussion or debate? Councillor Backhouse.
[1:12:23] Can I ask a clarifying question? I just note that
[1:12:27] with Canmore's $40,000 commitment, they do have a 12-month
[1:12:30] scope.
[1:12:32] Would our funds also be within that same timeframe?
[1:12:38] I think as Mr. Hands said,
[1:12:41] we were looking at a smaller section of this.
[1:12:44] So no, we were looking at
[1:12:47] kind of that initial phase, get a sense of what this
[1:12:50] was, and then come back to council
[1:12:54] for additional funds. We would require additional funds if this
[1:12:58] were to go forward likely,
[1:13:01] but it was more of a check-in point,
[1:13:04] and more of a controlled check-in point because we couldn't go to the next stage
[1:13:08] without coming back and identifying, making sure that
[1:13:13] council understood what it was and wanted to move forward.
[1:13:15] So it would be a shorter term, for sure.
[1:13:20] Councillor Ram.
[1:13:22] Thank you. I'm going to support this.
[1:13:26] One, similar to what admin said, this is
[1:13:29] written into our community plan. I hear you when it was first brought up
[1:13:33] from a previous council member, and previous term council as
[1:13:37] well. However, the length of
[1:13:41] public engagement feedback was just so massive, and
[1:13:45] it's written into our community plan.
[1:13:47] So for that reason alone, I think it's worth giving a shot.
[1:13:51] So at least for the
[1:13:53] first initial phase, just to see what it's like, I think that we owe it to the
[1:13:57] community
[1:13:58] after that process, specifically, when you look at the foundations as to what we
[1:14:02] have with council, I think we owe it to the community to look at that.
[1:14:05] And I think of whenever we see reports and,
[1:14:09] as I was looking back and when this was also first talked about as well,
[1:14:13] I personally, whenever I ask a question in regards to
[1:14:17] transport or what other people are doing, it's always, "Have you heard from
[1:14:20] Canmore? What are they doing? What are other municipalities doing?
[1:14:23] What are other stakeholders doing?" And I just see this
[1:14:27] as collaborative, and I think we pride ourselves
[1:14:31] on really trying to communicate to others,
[1:14:35] relying on our positive relationships.
[1:14:37] So I see this as just another step. Again, it's not
[1:14:42] long commitment. It's not 10 years, it's not 15.
[1:14:45] It's just trialing it. It's written into our community plan,
[1:14:49] so I'm fully supportive of funding this.
[1:14:54] Thank you. Any other discussion or debate on opening the budget? Councillor Pelham.
[1:15:01] I, too, will support the motion.
[1:15:04] I believe strongly that the
[1:15:08] level of communication that we have with our neighbors down valley
[1:15:12] is essential,
[1:15:15] especially in the next
[1:15:18] few years, five years, 10 years even.
[1:15:21] And I think that it's very important that we are dialoguing and
[1:15:25] collaborating and working together.
[1:15:28] We are in this valley together, and we need
[1:15:31] to be present and contribute,
[1:15:35] and be part of the collective.
[1:15:38] So I definitely will support this motion to open the budget.
[1:15:44] Thank you. Any other discussion or debate? Councillor Fullerton.
[1:15:48] Well, since we're getting into the whole debate on this thing right off the get-go
[1:15:52] here, I might as well jump in. I'm a little hesitant,
[1:15:56] and I appreciate the concerns that have been raised here.
[1:15:58] I'm going to support it just because it's really in its infancy, and what I'm
[1:16:02] hearing from administration, I agree, we're taking a very incremental approach.
[1:16:07] I don't dismiss the $25,000 as a trivial amount of money.
[1:16:10] But I do see there is, from what I'm hearing, some potential benefit in terms
[1:16:14] of this being collaborative and complementary to
[1:16:17] our HUMP initiative we have going forward.
[1:16:21] So, I would like to see some better communication
[1:16:24] amongst all the players at the table.
[1:16:27] To me, it's very contingent upon Parks being there, and so that's what
[1:16:31] I want to see. If we can get some sort of organization here and I could
[1:16:35] see that going forward, I'll be way keener to support it long-term.
[1:16:39] For now, I'm going to support it, allowing them to
[1:16:42] get some of that framework together and we'll see where it
[1:16:46] goes.
[1:16:51] Thank you.
[1:16:54] Since we're getting into it, I
[1:16:56] definitely appreciate that there's still a lot of questions about what this will
[1:17:00] look like, how it'll function, what is the scope,
[1:17:04] and I think
[1:17:07] it's just
[1:17:09] a part of the awkwardness of getting this going with multiple
[1:17:14] players involved. And so I think
[1:17:17] I'm in a position where I feel comfortable taking that leap of faith that
[1:17:21] we can work together to figure out what this could look
[1:17:25] like. And I, too, appreciate the measured approach
[1:17:29] in going into this conversation with those partners.
[1:17:33] And I think that
[1:17:35] starting off with an incremental amount of money to bring to
[1:17:39] the conversation will be really helpful to giving
[1:17:43] this some legs.
[1:17:44] Again, this was in the Banff Community Plan to explore the feasibility,
[1:17:48] and I think it's important to at least do just
[1:17:52] that. And that's all we would be committing to at this point, is
[1:17:56] seeing if it's feasible,
[1:17:58] seeing if Parks Canada sees themself at this
[1:18:02] table as well, and then we can reevaluate after that.
[1:18:08] Okay. Any other discussion or debate?
[1:18:12] Then I'll call the questioning on opening the budget.
[1:18:16] All in favor of opening the budget.
[1:18:19] So myself, Councillor Backhouse, Councillor Ram, Councillor Pelham, and Councillor
[1:18:22] Fullerton. And opposed,
[1:18:24] Councillor Standish and Councillor Ledwidge.
[1:18:26] So that motion passes at this time.
[1:18:30] And then I'm going to go to Councillor Pelham, who's got the next
[1:18:33] motion.
[1:18:36] So I had
[1:18:39] a motion regarding the appointment of,
[1:18:43] council-
[1:18:44] Sorry, the-
[1:18:45] Well, yeah.
[1:18:47] Well, we've got-
[1:18:47] Okay.
[1:18:47] I can make the motion.
[1:18:48] No. Okay. Sorry. I'll
[1:18:51] stay the course.
[1:18:53] Sorry.
[1:18:55] Do you want to take a recess?
[1:18:57] No.
[1:18:57] Okay.
[1:18:58] Sorry, I'm getting my notes mixed up.
[1:19:00] So I would like to make a motion to
[1:19:04] further amend the amended
[1:19:06] 2026-2028 operating budget by directing
[1:19:10] administration to work with the Town of Canmore to procure contracted
[1:19:13] services to facilitate foundational work on
[1:19:17] establishing a Destination Stewardship Council by
[1:19:20] allocating up to $40,000 to be
[1:19:24] funded through the Budget Stabilization ReserveI completely
[1:19:28] recognize that a couple of councilors are concerned about the
[1:19:31] value of the investment here. I
[1:19:34] also really hear the discussion about it
[1:19:38] being an incremental
[1:19:43] process, and I believe in the value of an
[1:19:47] incremental process.
[1:19:49] So, that is why the phrasing is to allocate
[1:19:53] up to $40,000. And the reason for the
[1:19:57] $40,000 as opposed to what administration had proposed as
[1:20:00] $25,000,
[1:20:04] is
[1:20:06] to
[1:20:08] be fully present and collaborative
[1:20:12] with our closest neighbor.
[1:20:15] I do think it's really important that we stand shoulder to
[1:20:19] shoulder in creating
[1:20:22] essentially what is going to be a blueprint for how we move forward into
[1:20:26] the next five, 10, 15, 20 years. We
[1:20:30] know that the town of Canmore
[1:20:33] is going to double in size.
[1:20:37] We know that the town of Canmore is adding
[1:20:41] 1,500, 1,700 hotel
[1:20:45] rooms in the next couple of years. If we don't think
[1:20:49] that that's not going to impact
[1:20:53] residents in Banff,
[1:20:55] businesses in Banff, our community in Banff, we're
[1:20:58] grossly underestimating what that impact is going to be.
[1:21:03] And then there's the dialogue about what's happening in Kananaskis.
[1:21:06] The All-Seasons Resort Act,
[1:21:10] I think essentially there isn't a limit on what they're going to be doing
[1:21:14] there. So, whether we're talking about mega hotels,
[1:21:19] mega attractions, the people who are going to come and stay there,
[1:21:23] they're not going to
[1:21:27] likely just stay there. They are going to stay there and explore
[1:21:31] here. So again, if we don't think that that is going to
[1:21:35] have a direct impact on our residents and on our community,
[1:21:39] I think we're underestimating the force of the
[1:21:43] future. So I just think that
[1:21:48] we need to really look at the horizon,
[1:21:52] and
[1:21:54] I'm not
[1:21:56] suggesting that
[1:21:58] we would absolutely spend all the $40,000, but I think that we need to
[1:22:02] be nimble enough to be able to if it's required.
[1:22:05] And it is what our neighbors are doing, and they've shown that support,
[1:22:09] and I think it's incumbent on us to stand with.
[1:22:15] Thank you very much, Councilor Pelham.
[1:22:18] Appreciate that. Before we get into discussion debate, I had this question
[1:22:22] and I forgot to ask it. Does anybody
[1:22:25] have a current snapshot of what the budget stabilization
[1:22:28] reserve
[1:22:30] is sitting at?
[1:22:33] Yes, there's currently approximately $550,000
[1:22:37] available in the budget stabilization reserve.
[1:22:40] Thank you very much.
[1:22:42] Okay, any discussion or debate on the motion? Councilor Fullerton.
[1:22:46] Thank you, Madam Mayor.
[1:22:48] I agree with you that we do need to be supportive and collaborative with
[1:22:52] our closest neighbor, Canmore, but I will not be supporting your motion simply on
[1:22:56] the dollar amount.
[1:22:58] I trust our administration's recommendation of $25,000 being enough,
[1:23:02] and taking that very cautious, incremental approach.
[1:23:06] I have no idea how Canmore arrived at the figure of
[1:23:09] $40,000.
[1:23:11] I'm going based upon the information we have in front of us.
[1:23:14] So,
[1:23:15] I'm good with $25,000 being our maximum, but I
[1:23:18] will still not be supporting $40,000.
[1:23:22] So, Councilor Fullerton, would you like to make an amendment?
[1:23:27] Do I do that now?
[1:23:28] Yes.
[1:23:28] Okay, well then I guess I will propose an amendment to the amendment.
[1:23:33] Or no, that's just a motion. Yeah.
[1:23:35] Oh, a motion.
[1:23:36] Yeah.
[1:23:36] Okay.
[1:23:36] You're good.
[1:23:38] Got it.
[1:23:40] But that would be my amendment?
[1:23:42] Yes.
[1:23:43] Would be to change it to $25,000.
[1:23:46] Thank you.
[1:23:48] So I'll just give Ms. McDougall a moment to get that.
[1:23:52] So we've got an amendment for $25,000
[1:23:56] instead of the $40,000. Any discussion or debate on the
[1:24:00] amendment to 25?
[1:24:03] I'll speak up here to say,
[1:24:06] I think it's really important that we come to the table with
[1:24:12] an amount of money, and at first I also thought matching Canmore
[1:24:16] felt like
[1:24:17] more than I wanted to do, but I think
[1:24:21] it does show that we're in this like they are, and we're ready to
[1:24:25] be collaborative. The up to language
[1:24:28] really assures me that it doesn't mean it'll be the whole amount.
[1:24:33] I think it also helps us keep it small, because Canmore's motion
[1:24:37] was that they would put in $40,000 contingent on
[1:24:40] $75,000, and I think that was an amount that they just
[1:24:44] wanted to have as a baseline to be able to procure some
[1:24:48] contracted services. So if the $40,000 were to stand, then
[1:24:52] we've met that sort of threshold they were looking for to be able to
[1:24:55] contribute as well, and then we can keep the group
[1:24:59] small to start, which is my preference, before we
[1:25:03] go large. Earlier there was a question about who wants to be at the table, the
[1:25:05] answer is everyone
[1:25:07] . And so I think we need to be really
[1:25:11] thoughtful and
[1:25:13] careful in our approach to this to ensure that the right
[1:25:17] folks are there to set this up for success.
[1:25:19] So, I agree with you, the 40 feels
[1:25:23] big, but when I think about it, it
[1:25:27] helps us match Canmore, it helps us keep this group small
[1:25:31] to start andAnd the "up to" also reassures
[1:25:35] me that we might not need all of it. So, my preference would
[1:25:39] be to
[1:25:41] keep the 40, so I would not be supporting this
[1:25:44] amendment at this time.
[1:25:47] Any other discussion or debate? Councillor Ludwich.
[1:25:54] I'm kind of losing track on the motions, but just a couple more
[1:25:57] questions. To be clear, Parks has
[1:26:01] indicated they're not going to contribute financially, so there's that, and
[1:26:05] also they haven't approved the community plan.
[1:26:07] So there's references in the community plan, but that document is not signed
[1:26:11] off yet.
[1:26:13] Thank you. So, sorry, the first point you're saying is
[1:26:17] they have said they would not contribute?
[1:26:19] That's my understanding.
[1:26:20] Okay, so we haven't had a formal-
[1:26:23] I understand
[1:26:23] ... discussion about any of that, so I guess that wouldn't be knowledge that is
[1:26:26] shared with the rest of the table, or
[1:26:29] publicly.
[1:26:31] Well, through some communication, that was my understanding.
[1:26:34] Okay.
[1:26:35] So we haven't got an answer from Parks
[1:26:38] Canada whether they would fund this or not.
[1:26:42] They wanted to find out more information, so I'm not sure.
[1:26:46] That's my understanding, anyway.
[1:26:48] Mm-hmm.
[1:26:50] Fair enough.
[1:26:52] Okay, thank you. I just wanted to clarify.
[1:26:54] Did you have anything else you wanted to say? Okay.
[1:26:58] Any other discussion about it? Councillor Backhouse.
[1:27:02] So the 40,000 did make me a little nervous and palms sweaty.
[1:27:06] I appreciate the wording of "up to,"
[1:27:09] but I also
[1:27:11] really trust what administration is saying, is coming at this very
[1:27:14] incrementally.
[1:27:17] And not having key players at the
[1:27:20] table, such as Parks Canada, I kind of feel like it's a sibling conversation
[1:27:24] before our parents are in the room.
[1:27:27] Forgive me for the analogy, but I just want to make that a fuller
[1:27:31] conversation before funds are committed.
[1:27:34] And I also want to echo that the community plan is in draft
[1:27:38] form, and I really do
[1:27:42] want to investigate the destination stewardship,
[1:27:45] specifically
[1:27:47] because it would lend more information for human use management
[1:27:51] here.
[1:27:52] So,
[1:27:54] I'm going to support the 25 because I'm comfortable with that amount
[1:27:58] and just investigating the feasibility of this.
[1:28:01] And for me, that is having Parks Canada at the table.
[1:28:05] And within that budget,
[1:28:08] knowing they're at the table, I would be more comfortable
[1:28:11] exploring what that collaboration and partnership looks like
[1:28:14] further. But just at a feasibility, I'm
[1:28:18] comfortable with the amended motion on the table, and I
[1:28:22] will be supporting that.
[1:28:27] Thank you. Any other discussion or debate?
[1:28:32] There's just one clarity point I wanted to get in, which is that we did have a
[1:28:35] Parks Canada representative at the Banff Community Plan Advisory Committee,
[1:28:39] so there was a Parks Canada presence through everything.
[1:28:42] They've seen everything in that document, and
[1:28:45] there was intense debate, but there was definitely no
[1:28:50] alarm bells being raised by anything in that plan, certainly.
[1:28:55] Okay, so just for clarity, we've got the amendment that changes it to
[1:28:58] 25,000.
[1:29:01] Any other discussion or debate on the amendment?
[1:29:08] Councillor Pelham.
[1:29:10] I'm just kind of curious.
[1:29:15] If this does not pass, then it goes back to my
[1:29:19] original motion of 40.
[1:29:21] Correct.
[1:29:22] And if it passes, then it's 25.
[1:29:27] Right.
[1:29:29] Okay.
[1:29:31] Is everybody clear?
[1:29:34] Procedurally then, if 25 doesn't pass and 40 doesn't pass,
[1:29:38] nothing's there.
[1:29:39] Correct. So I think where maybe people are maybe
[1:29:43] getting tripped up, so administration had recommended 25,000 in the
[1:29:46] report, but Councillor Pelham made the motion, and she moved it as
[1:29:50] 40,000. We now have an amendment to bring that back to
[1:29:54] 25, which was in the administrative report. So we'll vote on that.
[1:29:58] If that passes, the amendment passes, then the new motion will read
[1:30:02] as 25. If that fails, if 25,000 fails, then we'll go
[1:30:06] back to the original motion at 40,000.
[1:30:09] And then we'll discuss and debate the actual
[1:30:11] motion of whether or not the budget for this program
[1:30:15] moves forward.
[1:30:17] Councillor Ram.
[1:30:19] Thank you. I'm
[1:30:22] comfortable with the wording of up to, but from
[1:30:26] hearing discussion across the table, I just really want to get this to
[1:30:30] the finish line. So I'm going to support the amendment for
[1:30:33] $25,000 to get this across the line so that we have
[1:30:36] funding. But again, I'm comfortable with the up to $40,000,
[1:30:41] that admin would have that direction, just to maybe
[1:30:44] expedite it a little bit along. But again, just hearing from some of the opinions
[1:30:49] from those at the table today, I will support the amendment
[1:30:53] for the 25,000.
[1:30:59] Does anybody need some clarity or...
[1:31:03] Right, Mr. Gibson?
[1:31:04] Sure, maybe if I could help. So you're voting on an amount. This is an amendment.
[1:31:08] If it goes back to 25... So if it's approved,
[1:31:12] then there's a motion on the table that would read that 25,000
[1:31:16] would then be in the motion. If it fails,
[1:31:20] it goes back to 40. Someone can propose a different amendment
[1:31:24] after that. And I'm not suggesting it, but you could
[1:31:27] say a different amount.
[1:31:31] But yeah, so this will just set a number in the
[1:31:34] motion.
[1:31:36] And this is a great example, just for anyone else that's listening that
[1:31:39] cares,Of how administration
[1:31:43] simply puts a recommendation in a report. That is not a motion.
[1:31:47] So the motion was made at 40,000. That is the number now and then
[1:31:51] that has been amended to 25.
[1:31:54] So,
[1:31:55] at 25, if that passes, that's what the motion comes
[1:31:59] back. Then council will vote on the motion
[1:32:03] once you vote on the amendment. So you still have another chance
[1:32:07] if there's something else you want to change other than the amount,
[1:32:11] that could still be amended after this.
[1:32:13] So right now we're just looking at an amendment that would change
[1:32:17] the original motion down to
[1:32:18] 25,000.
[1:32:21] Thank you. For anybody at home, it's like 25 degrees in here.
[1:32:25] I can feel my brain being cooked.
[1:32:28] So we'll need a break after this.
[1:32:30] Yeah.
[1:32:30] Okay. So we've got an amendment for 25,000.
[1:32:34] Any other discussion or debate from taking it from 40,000 to
[1:32:38] 25,000? And that's the only real decision point right
[1:32:41] now. Councillor Pelham.
[1:32:43] Okay.
[1:32:45] I am going to support this
[1:32:49] motion to save the investment and to secure
[1:32:53] that we move forward with
[1:32:56] this amendment so that the motion can pass at
[1:32:59] 25. My fingers are crossed.
[1:33:04] Thank you.
[1:33:06] Okay. Anybody else?
[1:33:09] Okay, then I'll call the question.
[1:33:10] All in favor of 25,000 amendment?
[1:33:17] And opposed? That's myself and Councillor Ledwidge.
[1:33:20] So that amendment passes. So we are back to
[1:33:24] the motion as amended now.
[1:33:28] So if we could just see that, and then I'll do one last
[1:33:32] call.
[1:33:59] Okay, so we've got Councillor Pelham's motion that has been
[1:34:02] amended to be $25,000 from the budget
[1:34:06] stabilization reserve. Any last discussion or debate
[1:34:10] on the motion?
[1:34:14] Seeing none, I'll call the question. All in favor?
[1:34:18] So that's myself, Councillor Backhouse, Councillor Fullarton, and Councillor
[1:34:21] Pelham. And opposed, Councillor Ledwidge and Councillor Standish.
[1:34:24] That motion passes. And then now,
[1:34:31] I believe we need a motion to close the budget, Ms.
[1:34:35] McDougall. So can I do that one?
[1:34:38] So I move to close up that budget.
[1:34:41] Any discussion or debate on that?
[1:34:44] All in favor?
[1:34:47] And opposed? That's carried unanimously.
[1:34:49] And then I'll go over to Councillor Pelham for the next one.
[1:34:57] All righty. I have a
[1:35:00] motion to appoint
[1:35:05] the mayor to assist with the foundation work
[1:35:08] associated with establishing a destination stewardship
[1:35:11] council.
[1:35:14] I think that this takes leadership
[1:35:18] at our highest levels, and
[1:35:22] I think the mayor is best situated to represent the town of Banff
[1:35:26] on this council.
[1:35:29] Thanks, Councillor Pelham.
[1:35:31] We've got the motion there. Any discussion or debate?
[1:35:35] Councillor Backhouse.
[1:35:36] I'm definitely going to support this.
[1:35:39] I think Mayor Demenos sits on a lot of these
[1:35:43] already kind of,
[1:35:45] stewardship, I wouldn't call them councils necessarily, but I think this is just
[1:35:49] creating continuity with a lot of those already existing relationships
[1:35:53] and keeping the box really clear on what this one could look like.
[1:35:57] So I am definitely in support of this appointment.
[1:36:02] Thank you. Any other discussion or debate?
[1:36:06] Seeing none, I'll call the question. All in favor?
[1:36:11] And opposed? That's carried unanimously. Thanks, Council.
[1:36:15] And then I believe we just have one more motion.
[1:36:20] Could I please get someone to move that council direct administration to come
[1:36:24] back with a report outlining the next steps that are going to be
[1:36:27] required here? Councillor Backhouse.
[1:36:32] I move that council direct administration to return to a future meeting of
[1:36:36] council with a report outlining the
[1:36:38] required next steps in establishing a
[1:36:42] destination stewardship council.
[1:36:47] Thank you. Any discussion or debate on that motion?
[1:36:53] Seeing none, all in favor?
[1:36:56] And opposed? It's carried unanimously.
[1:36:59] Thank you. Mr. Enns.
[1:37:04] So we'll move forward. We have no notices of
[1:37:08] motion. We'll go to committee reports.
[1:37:10] We've got 9.1 through 9.4 there. Any
[1:37:14] questions arising from those
[1:37:17] minutes?
[1:37:19] Any objections to receiving those for the corporate record?
[1:37:22] No, sir.
[1:37:24] Thanks, everybody. We have no new urgent business, so that takes
[1:37:28] us to confidential items 11.1, confidential request for
[1:37:32] direction, draft 2027, 2030 council strategic
[1:37:36] plan.
[1:37:37] So I will move
[1:37:40] that council pursuant to sections 23, local public body
[1:37:44] confidences, and 24, advice from officials of the Freedom of Information and
[1:37:47] Protection of Privacy Act, recess to the call of the chairTo
[1:37:51] reconvene in a closed meeting to be conducted, let's just
[1:37:55] stay in here, please,
[1:37:57] in council chambers and a confidential Zoom meeting environment to consider
[1:38:01] confidential matters with respect to item 11.1, confidential request for
[1:38:05] direction draft 2027, 2030 council strategic
[1:38:09] plan, and bringing into closed meeting with us Ms.
[1:38:13] McDougall, Mr. Gibson, and Mr. Dara, please.
[1:38:18] And Ms. McDonald.
[1:38:20] Any discussion or debate on that motion?
[1:38:23] All in favor?
[1:38:26] And opposed? That's carried, and we'll move in
[1:38:29] camera.Thank
[2:28:20] you, everyone. We are now going to
[2:28:24] rise and report and come out of camera.
[2:28:30] Any discussion or debate on that motion?
[2:28:32] All in favor?
[2:28:35] And opposed? That's carried unanimously.
[2:28:44] Thank you. I will now move that council direct that the proposed
[2:28:47] 2027-2030 strategic plan and associated report be
[2:28:51] released as a public document to be included as part of the final
[2:28:55] revised agenda for the May 26th, 2026, meeting once
[2:28:59] administration has made the requested updates so that it may be
[2:29:02] discussed as part of the June 8th, 2026, council open house.
[2:29:07] Any discussion or debate on that motion?
[2:29:11] Seeing none. All in favor?
[2:29:15] And opposed? That's carried unanimously.
[2:29:19] And I believe we have one more.
[2:29:41] Thank you. I will move that council direct that the closed meeting
[2:29:45] discussions remain confidential pursuant to Section 23, local
[2:29:49] public body confidences, and 24, advice from officials
[2:29:53] of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act until such
[2:29:57] time as the matter has been resolved.
[2:29:59] Any discussion or debate on that motion?
[2:30:03] All in favor?
[2:30:06] And opposed? That's carried unanimously.
[2:30:09] Thank you very much for that, administration.
[2:30:12] We have no correspondence, so we're just looking for a motion to adjourn at
[2:30:16] 4:27 PM. Councilor Sandish, thank you. All in favor?
[2:30:21] And opposed? We are adjourned. Thanks, everybody.