[2:49] Good afternoon everyone and welcome to
the regular council meeting of May 25th,
[2:54] 2026.
The first thing that uh I would like to
[2:58] do is indicate that the last time we had
council meeting, we had to say goodbye
[3:05] to our interim CEO, Mr. Doug Lor and
this council meeting we would like to
[3:14] welcome
our new CEO Michael Derkott. So Michael,
[3:20] would you like to say a few words,
please?
[3:24] » Yes. Uh thank you, Mayor Council. It's a
privilege to be here formally uh and to
[3:31] uh begin learning more about the
community and supporting the team. Um, I
[3:35] was pretty humbled when I heard about
the parade you were throwing today, but
[3:40] then I learned that was for the bandits,
not for me. So, um, but, uh, um, excited
[3:45] to, uh, be here serving the community of
Brooks and look forward to working with
[3:49] council and staff to that end.
[3:59] And what we're looking forward to is the
bandit festivities that are going to
[4:04] happen at about 6:30, 7:00 out here in
the park. And we hope that you can
[4:09] attend as well as everybody else who is
here to uh cheer on the bandits on
[4:14] another championship round of hockey.
Winning the uh tournament again for the
[4:20] BCHL is quite an accomplishment.
The next uh item I'd like to get into is
[4:28] recognition of gold medalists for the
2026 Provincial Skills Canada
[4:33] competition. I understand that that
competition was held uh up in Edmonton
[4:39] at the beginning of May and we have
three students here who won in that
[4:45] championship. And at this point in time,
what I am going to do is I'm going to
[4:50] invite them up. And I also understand
that you're taking off uh to another
[4:55] competition in Toronto.
And when is that happening?
[5:00] » Tomorrow morning.
>> Tomorrow morning. Oh, so then I better
[5:02] get going here so you can so so you can
get out of here then. Okay.
[5:25] The first one is for Merrick.
Okay. In recognition of Eric Forier and
[5:32] Cade Hamry. So Kade is also coming up
here because I guess you were a team,
[5:36] right?
winning the gold medal in robotics
[5:40] category at the 2026 Provincial Skills
Canada competition held in Edmonton from
[5:46] May 6th and 7th of this year. So tell me
a little bit about robotics start.
[5:53] » Uh sure. So what we did over at that
competition is make a total of three
[5:59] robots to compete in this little uh
competition where we're supposed to uh
[6:05] fulfill certain objectives in a period
of time using uh just two robots that
[6:11] are controlled by us using controllers
and then one that runs on its own.
[6:15] » Okay. Well, congratulations
on your accomplishment. So, what we've
[6:20] got here,
I'll get I'll hand this one to you so
[6:24] you can open it and then I'll hand this
one to you. Okay. And then you can open
[6:30] that one. And then also at the skills
competition, Joseph over here in
[6:38] recognition of winning the gold medal in
the 3D game design category at the 2026
[6:44] Provincial Skills Canada competition. Uh
tell us a little bit about your 3D game
[6:50] design.
>> So this year we had to model a Hogwarts
[6:54] inspired scene where we had to make a
fireplace and a statue to represent one
[6:59] of the four houses. I chose Ravenclaw.
So I Ego said,
[7:03] » "Okay,
I I'll I'll believe you, but I have no
[7:07] idea what that mean. I I guess I'm going
to have to get a little bit more
[7:11] technical in all this." But, uh, we'll
give you this one. What I'll do is I ask
[7:17] council to come up here and then you
guys can just stand in front here. We'll
[7:21] allow the media to take a picture of
you.
[7:23] » Before the media comes in, can I just
before they come in? Can I just get
[7:26] three guys? Sure.
>> Not that I don't want, you know, smile.
[7:30] Perfect.
Now, can I get everybody else?
[7:35] » Thank you to the parents and
grandparents that came along to witness
[7:39] today, too.
[7:53] » Get in the middle.
[9:27] So, in recognition of the Brooks Bandits
having won the uh I think it's the
[9:33] Hobie, no, what's it called? The Rogers.
>> No, no, the BCHL, but they have a
[9:38] different name for
>> the Rogers Cup. No, that's what it is.
[9:43] They won the Rogers Cup for the second
uh time in a row here, which is quite an
[9:48] accomplishment with all the other
trophies that they have uh garnered up.
[9:53] And I can still remember going to the
first tournament that I I think it was
[9:58] probably the first tournament they won
out in Somerside PEI.
[10:02] And uh you know I I was asked by the
media to come up into their box and talk
[10:08] a little bit about the Brooks Bandits
and how they have been doing. And uh
[10:13] this is at the end of the second
intermission and I said if they keep
[10:16] playing the way that they're going to
play they're going to win this
[10:19] tournament in Somerset and sure enough
they won the tournament and thereafter I
[10:24] think they've won about four or five uh
Centennial Cups and now have won the
[10:29] Rogers Cup a couple of times. So, the
Brooks Bandits and the organization have
[10:35] a lot to be proud of of what they've
accomplished within the city of Brooks
[10:40] over the past 10 years or more. And uh
that's again why we're wearing the
[10:46] jerseys and we'll be wearing the jerseys
out there for the barbecue as well. So
[10:51] anyways, I'll call the meeting to uh
order
[10:56] at
uh 4
[11:01] 38.
You have the agenda in front of you.
[11:08] Is there anything to add or delete from
the agenda as you see it?
[11:13] If not, it has been moved by councelor
Iddris that the agenda be adopted. All
[11:18] those in favor?
carried.
[11:24] You also have the minutes from the
regular council meeting of May the 11th.
[11:30] Any questions on the minutes?
[11:35] Seeing none, it's been moved by
councelor Nesbet that the minutes from
[11:39] the re regular council meeting held May
the 11th, 2026 be approved. All those in
[11:45] favor?
Carried. Any
[11:50] business arising out of the minutes?
None.
[11:55] Okay. We also have correspondence and
information and update from council
[11:59] conferences and or workshops. And we
also have information from the uh Brooks
[12:05] uh public library statistics.
Any questions?
[12:13] » Okay. It's nice to see.
>> See, seeing none, it's been moved by
[12:16] councelor Falenberg that the following
items of correspondence
[12:22] uh be received
as information, the update on council
[12:27] conferences andor workshops and the
information on the Brooks Public Library
[12:31] statistics. All those in favor?
Carried.
[12:38] We now have policy uh-
01-00001B,
[12:46] the city policy uh manuals and policy
review, and that will be presented by a
[12:52] manager of legislative services, Amy
Fonuro.
[12:57] » Thank you. Through the chair to council,
there are two policies before you uh
[13:02] this evening. One policy outlines the
process for updating the city's policy
[13:08] and procedure manual once policies are
approved by council and the other policy
[13:13] outlines the process for reviewing
policies. Administration is proposing
[13:18] that the policies be combined into one
as they are relatively similar.
[13:23] Therefore, administration recommends
that council approve policy L001-00001B
[13:30] and resend policy L001-00008.
[13:36] » Thank you very much. Are there any
questions?
[13:41] Okay, seeing none, it's been moved by
councelor Johnson that council approve
[13:46] policy L001-00001B
[13:51] entitled city policy manuals and policy
review and further that policy
[13:56] L001-00008
[13:59] entitled policy review be rescended. All
those in favor
[14:05] carried.
The next one is policy L001-029B
[14:14] mural approval policy and again that
will be member of manager of legislative
[14:21] services Amy Fonuro.
>> Thank you again through the chair to
[14:25] council. The mural approval policy
outlines the process for approving large
[14:30] murals that are placed on buildings
within the city. Applicants are required
[14:35] to provide timelines, inventory
mock-ups, as well as a maintenance plan.
[14:40] The updated policy has all mural
submissions being approved by council
[14:44] committee rather than splitting public
and private murals to committee or
[14:49] council.
And the policy was presented at the last
[14:53] council committee meeting and a minor
change was made to the definition of
[14:57] submission to make it more clear as per
council committee's direction.
[15:01] Therefore, administration recommends
that council approve the policy.
[15:07] » Thank you very much. Are there any
questions on the mural policy?
[15:12] Okay, seeing none, it's been moved by
councelor Phillipsson that council
[15:18] approved policy L-00001-029B
[15:25] entitled mural approval. All those in
favor?
[15:30] carried.
The next item is policy F-002-028A,
[15:40] memorial policy. And again, Miss Fonura.
>> Thank you again through the chair to
[15:47] council. The memorial policy outlines
the process for addressing and
[15:51] recognizing staff, firefighters, Brooks
RCMP officers, and members of council in
[15:56] the event of a death.
The policy now applies to all city staff
[16:01] rather than only permanent full or
part-time employees that work a specific
[16:05] number of hours per week. Again, from a
recommendation at council committee,
[16:10] there was a small change made to the
policy to make the response to and
[16:15] recognition of a death more clear.
Therefore, administration is again
[16:20] recommending that council approve this
policy.
[16:24] » Thank you very much. Are there any
questions?
[16:28] Okay, seeing none, it's been moved by
councelor Ragnner that policy or council
[16:32] approved policy F002-028A
[16:37] entitled memorial policy. All those in
favor
[16:42] carried.
The next item we have is resend policies
[16:48] and the uh again it'll be Amy Fonura
again.
[16:54] Thank you very much. Through the chair
to council, there are five policies in
[16:59] front of you that administration is
recommending be rescended.
[17:03] The first policy is for the
incorporation date and a policy is not
[17:08] needed to uh declare Brooks's
incorporation date as we have a
[17:12] certificate that has this information on
it.
[17:15] The second policy relates to charitable
donation and that states that the city
[17:21] does not make charitable donations.
However, that's not our current practice
[17:25] as the city does provide funding to uh
certain charitable organizations
[17:30] currently.
The freedom of the city policy was first
[17:34] introduced by the local Aircadet
Squadron to celebrate their 75th and
[17:38] Canada's 150th anniversary. Freedom of
the city was granted to them. However,
[17:44] no other requests have been received
since 2017.
[17:49] And in 2010, the Centennial logo policy
was created. uh in conjunction with the
[17:54] city's centennial celebration. We used
that logo for some time. However, it's
[17:58] no longer used and the policy is no
longer needed. And finally, the last
[18:03] policy is a flag loan policy and this is
not required to be a council policy.
[18:09] This can be an internal staff procedure.
And at the com council committee meeting
[18:16] last week, there was discussion on the
freedom of the city policy and it was
[18:20] recommended that administration draft a
policy to recognize exceptional citizen
[18:26] contributions to replace the freedom of
the city policy. Therefore,
[18:30] administration is recommending that all
five policies are rescended.
[18:36] » Thank you very much. Are there any
questions?
[18:40] Councelor Johnson.
Thank you through the chair to uh Miss
[18:44] Fonura. I didn't have any questions. I
just wanted to say thank you very much.
[18:49] A lot of these policies were out of date
and it's about time we got, you know,
[18:54] some updated policy. So, I appreciate
the hard work.
[19:00] » Councelor,
>> um thank you again. Uh my question is
[19:05] regarding the the the historical
policies like for example the policy on
[19:10] the centennial uh logo. Um if if someone
50 years from today wanted to research
[19:16] the logos of Brooks in in in in some of
the policies or some of the things like
[19:21] would we find these archived like how
are we
[19:25] » through the charity counselor address?
Yes, we keep a copy of all of the
[19:29] rescended or outdated policies. They're
just kept in a separate folder. So, and
[19:34] not included in our policy manual. So,
if in the future uh someone wants to
[19:38] research it, they'll still be there as
long as we follow the current practices
[19:41] we are now, but they're just not in our
current policy manual.
[19:48] » Okay. Are there any other questions?
>> Okay. Seeing none, it's been moved by
[19:54] councelor Nesbet the council resend
policy L-00001-018
[20:00] entitled incorporation date policy
L-00001-019
[20:07] entitled charitable donations
policy L-00001-00004
[20:15] entitled freedom of the city policy or
city uh next one is policy L001-
[20:22] - 027 entitled city centennial logo and
policy F-002-013A
[20:31] entitled flag loan. All those in favor
carried.
[20:40] The next topic that we will have is the
community partnership plan 2026 2029 and
[20:47] this was also discussed at council
committee and this is being brought
[20:52] forward by inclusion coordinator Robin
Clawson.
[20:58] » Thank you very much through the chair to
mayor and council. The welcoming and
[21:01] inclusive communities committee was
formed in April of 2025 and it has since
[21:06] been working to develop a community
partnership plan that outlines the
[21:10] priorities for the next three years. The
plan was shaped through community
[21:14] engagement including surveys and roundt
discussions allowing us to hear directly
[21:19] from our residents about their needs and
opportunities for partnership. It aligns
[21:24] with the strategic council's strategic
plan under the community building pillar
[21:30] with a focus on inclusion, belonging,
and barrier reduction. The plan does
[21:34] provide guiding framework for the wick
committee and the inclusion coordinator
[21:38] emphasizing collaboration with community
partners and building on work that's
[21:42] already happening to avoid duplication
and strengthening the overall impact.
[21:46] This was previously reviewed in council
committee and it is now being brought
[21:50] forward for formal adoption.
administr uh there are three options
[21:54] before council. The first one is to
adopt the plan. The sec um the second
[21:59] one is to request changes to the plan
and the third one is to refer it back to
[22:03] uh back for further community
engagement. Administration is
[22:08] recommending that council formally adopt
the community partnership plan for the
[22:12] years 2026 to 2029.
>> Thank you very much. Are there any
[22:18] questions?
>> Make a comment.
[22:20] » Yep. Go right ahead. Councelor Nesmith
>> through the chair to inclusion
[22:26] coordinator Robin. So um I like it all.
Boy, what a lot of work and effort put
[22:31] into that whole proposal and and thank
you for that. And I like what it all but
[22:37] particularly like the commitment of
individuals that section and it says
[22:42] great things happen when those who are
involved share a personal comm personal
[22:45] commitment and passion for achieving a
more just and equitable society for all.
[22:50] One way that this can be fostered is by
encouraging and involving staff at all
[22:55] levels of municipal government and our
community members. And I'm really
[22:59] emphasizing our community members just
as a whole. These are not these um I
[23:04] feel and you can you can um tell me if
this is right, but these initiatives are
[23:10] not just for our new Canadians, but we
really want our whole community to get
[23:14] involved. Isn't that correct?
>> Through the chair to councelor Nesbbit.
[23:19] Yes. The hope is that all of the
community will be involved um with the
[23:23] partnership plan and the things that are
happening within the community to make
[23:26] everybody feel welcome and belonging.
>> Excellent. Thank you.
[23:33] » Are there any other questions?
[23:37] Okay, seeing none, it's been moved by
councelor Raggner that council formally
[23:43] approve the welcome and inclusivity
uh partnership plan 2026 to 2029.
[23:52] All those in favor
carried.
[24:00] The next topic is the 202627
recreation rates and fees and that will
[24:08] be presented by manager recreation
services Tabitha Williams.
[24:13] » Hello. uh through the chair to to mayor
and council. As per policy C004001,
[24:19] recreation user fees, recreation rates
and fees are prepared by administration
[24:22] with proposed changes reviewed and
recommended by the board and district,
[24:26] sorry, the Brooks and District
Recreation Parks Board annually for
[24:29] council's consideration. To inform the
review, a sector average of recreation
[24:33] rates and fees was established by
canvasing more than a dozen Alberta
[24:36] municipalities, including Cochran,
Blackfs, Erdri, High River, and
[24:41] Okatokes. The attached rates and fees
schedule provides a comparison of
[24:45] current rates and fees against the
sector average as well as proposed rates
[24:49] and fees reflecting two, three, and 5%
increases, including the resulting
[24:53] variances from the current sector
average for each option. The recreation
[24:57] and parks board remains committed to
ensuring recreation facilities are
[25:00] affordable for Brooks and regional
community members and maintaining rates
[25:03] and fees at levels that encourage high
facility usage. At its April 15th, 2026
[25:09] meeting, the Brooksen District
Recreation and Parks Board passed a
[25:12] motion recommending a 5% increase to all
recreation rates and fees, excluding
[25:15] school rates associated with the joint
use and planning agreement. This is for
[25:19] the period of August 1st, 2026 to July
31st of 2027.
[25:24] Um, the options up for discussion today
are no increase um and raise the
[25:30] recreation rates and fees by 2%, 3% or
5%.
[25:35] Uh the financial implications will
depend on what obviously what rate you
[25:39] choose. Um and so the recommendation is
that the 2026 2027 proposed recreation
[25:45] rates and fees uh with a 5% increase be
formally approved.
[25:51] » Thank you very much. Are there any
questions? Councelor Rner.
[25:58] As we discussed in committee and being
on the rec board, the the numbers we
[26:02] have here, like there's some of the
individual user prices,
[26:08] we're probably under by majority of
them. Now, as as far as when you're
[26:14] trying to do a profit and a loss, having
these numbers is great to know what the
[26:18] difference is, but I'd be interested to
know the amount of users for each one.
[26:22] Like, are we losing on big ticket items?
Are we losing a lot to many users or
[26:27] just a couple users?
Um,
[26:32] example, uh, I just had it here for bulk
passes
[26:38] of adults. Um,
2725
[26:43] we're losing. That's on page uh
71. 2725. Do we sell an abundance of
[26:50] those
[26:54] » uh through the through the chair to
councelor Ragnner? That isn't something
[26:56] that we take into consideration when we
look at the rates and fees as of yet. Um
[27:01] there's obviously room for improvement
on how we um advise council on
[27:08] increasing rates and fees, which is what
we're going to be looking at in the next
[27:11] year.
>> Okay. And yeah, next year I'd just like
[27:14] to see some numbers as far as the user
uh amount of users we have. for sure.
[27:19] » Okay. Thank you,
councelor.
[27:23] » Um,
we have had a a robust discussion at the
[27:28] the council committee and and I
appreciate your um your approach that
[27:33] you wanted to look at it overall, bring
some sort of, you know, not not a not
[27:39] not a one percentage fits all, but
looking at all of these different
[27:43] factors uh for next year and I I look
forward to that. With that, I would like
[27:48] to make a small amendment to the motion.
Um, and I would like to uh say let's do
[27:54] an increase of 3% rather than 5%.
[28:03] » So, councelor Idris has moved that uh we
accept the 3%. Any other questions?
[28:12] Um, I'm also looking forward to the
review because you mentioned that we
[28:16] can't just talk about a swimming pool in
Taber or a swimming pool in Brooks
[28:19] because each swimming pool is different.
And I got the impression that at the rec
[28:24] board this was discussed at length. So
I'm okay going with the recommendation
[28:31] of the rec board which is 5%.
>> Thank you very much councelor Johnson.
[28:38] through the chair to my fellow council
member I with the 3% I guess my question
[28:44] is is is that what the understanding
that um parks and recck is going to
[28:50] bring us totally different numbers next
year is that what your thought process
[28:55] is or
>> whatever the data is going to tell you
[28:58] like I like I like I what I will go with
what what the data is going to tell you.
[29:03] » Okay. Thank you,
>> Councelor Netz.
[29:10] » Okay. I would suggest I would also
support a 3% amendment motion. And the
[29:16] reason being that I think that we need
to remain affordable for our families,
[29:19] youth, seniors, and all of our community
uh to utilize these rec center
[29:24] facilities. And the more we raise the
rates, the harder it is for families
[29:28] particularly to get there or just about
anybody. So that's the reason that I'm
[29:32] supporting the amended amount of 3%
please
[29:36] consideration
[29:40] » councelor Johnson
>> through the chair to Miss Tabitha I
[29:43] guess my question is because you
mentioned seniors seniors my
[29:46] understanding get a 50% off discount
correct
[29:52] I thought it was 50% off
through the through the chair to
[29:57] counselor Johnson uh there is a senior
rate.
[30:00] » Yeah,
>> that's reduced. I don't think it's 50%
[30:03] though.
>> But then if they're in the LICO, they
[30:05] would be reduced further, right?
>> Yes.
[30:08] » Right. Yes.
>> So,
[30:12] so I guess my question is is
percentage-wise, and it's going to be
[30:17] hard roughly, can you tell us how many
pe people roughly are paying full price
[30:23] versus a discount of some sort? Roughly,
is it 50/50? Is it 7525?
[30:30] » That was a different conversation about
um the RFA program. After that
[30:35] conversation, it went out of my head.
So, sorry.
[30:39] » Uh through the chair, mayor and council.
So, those numbers are readily available.
[30:43] They're in our year-end report. Um we
just don't have them prepared for this
[30:46] meeting, but uh we have those numbers
from last year.
[30:53] » Okay. Thank you very much. Are there
councelor Ragner?
[30:59] » I believe to my council colleague u we
cut $119,000
[31:04] when we cut the programming uh
discounts. I think that was the number
[31:08] that you might be asking about. The the
question I have in all of this 2% 3% 4%
[31:14] 5% 50%. Those numbers what do that what
does that equate in total revenue? If we
[31:21] up it by 5%, are we talking to generate
$150,000 of the $900,000 the pool for
[31:28] instance loses? Are we talking $20,000?
Like do we have a number that that's
[31:34] going to increase the value? Like what's
that final 5% 2% 3%.
[31:41] » We don't have a final number or um an
estimate even um because of the changes
[31:46] in the programs. we're looking at a
change in revenue quite substantially um
[31:50] from last year. So that last year
numbers wouldn't be indicative of what
[31:53] we would typically see like or what we
would be expecting to see this year.
[31:57] » But if you're asking for a 5% increase,
you're asking for 5% above last year's
[32:01] numbers of revenue of 280,000. You want
5% more. You want 2% more. You should
[32:07] have these numbers when you present them
to us. What are we what dollar value are
[32:12] you putting 5% on? Because if you can't
put a dollar value on it right now, I'm
[32:16] fine to go 0% for the community.
Like I I want to know what we're
[32:20] charging the community. If you're
telling us 5% is $15,000, I would rather
[32:25] give people 0% increase for $15,000. If
you're telling me it's going to
[32:29] represent $200,000, that it's an actual
difference in our tax base, let's look
[32:35] at that. But right now, I'd make a
motion for 0%.
[32:40] That's
[32:44] » okay. Councelor Falenberger,
through the chair to my fellow
[32:49] counselors. Um,
a 5% increase is an increase and it will
[32:55] definitely cost our
citizens more money. Um, but we're not
[33:01] talking about substantially jacking up
the price of everything. um with the
[33:06] rate of inflation over the last few
years, we need to keep up uh with
[33:12] covering our costs somewhat. We can't
continue to move along with the cost of
[33:18] our wreck just increasing every year and
to a point where we can no longer fund
[33:25] maintenance. Um we need to maintain what
we have and we can only do that if we
[33:31] increase uh revenue.
Councelor Nesbet
[33:37] » through the chair to fellow council
members. I do agree with what you're
[33:42] saying like we definitely do need to
keep up with the cost of living
[33:45] increases but 5% is quite a bit more
than the cost of living even for this
[33:49] year and it's happening on everything
and I think that I feel personally that
[33:55] it would be that we really like our
former CEO um Doug did always say that
[34:02] we'll always run deficits within our
recreational programs but what we added
[34:07] or what we're what I'm saying is that
there's a lot value to the mental and
[34:11] health wellness component to our to our
community and I think that that's why I
[34:16] would like to stick with 3%.
[34:21] » We're 2.75.
>> Councelor Rner.
[34:25] » I agree we need to generate more revenue
for the pool or like the rec center in
[34:30] general. However,
you know, if you're going by users
[34:34] themselves, upping the rates by 5% 10%
making an increase. if you up it by 5%
[34:40] but we lose 5% of the people that come
into there it's a wash and those other
[34:45] people are making that up and so like if
if nobody's good for for
[34:50] 0% until we get actual numbers which my
motion would be zero um I'd go to the
[34:56] lowest one and I do agree with councelor
Falenberg that we want to make revenue
[35:01] but the last number I got was over
$900,000 a year that the Brooks pool
[35:06] itself lost you know when you're looking
at the utility facilities and everything
[35:09] else. Looking at our usage of our we
discussed that in the wreck meeting, you
[35:14] know, if we could up our usage of vacant
ice times and look at some different
[35:19] programs or some different approaches
for that. You know, look at some other
[35:22] ways that we can uh build on the
facility use versus the user is kind of
[35:29] the the goal I would have, but I'd like
I'd be in favor of anything uh anything
[35:34] on the lower scale of percentage.
[35:39] Thank you. Any other questions?
Seeing none, it has been moved by uh
[35:46] council
>> Oh yeah, the amendment is uh
[35:51] » two.
>> Yeah, there's two amendments now. One is
[35:53] to go to 3% and the other one is to go
to zero.
[36:01] Quarter.
>> Yeah.
[36:02] » You cannot deal with two amendments.
>> No, no, I know.
[36:05] » Yeah. So, so the first amendment is to
go to 3%.
[36:10] So, it's been moved by councelor Idris
that the 2026 27 proposed recreation
[36:17] rates and fees be amended to 3% increase
to be formally approved.
[36:25] Okay. All in favor?
So, that's five.
[36:33] Okay. Those opposed?
Two carried.
[36:39] Okay. What we'll do now is move on to
the uh public hearing, which we're a
[36:48] couple of minutes late. Sorry for that
people. But uh
[36:54] we will call the public hearing to order
at uh 504
[36:59] and it's bylaw 26-027
amendment to land use bylaw 1412
[37:09] and we'll call the hearing to order at
like I say at 504 and we'll have an
[37:13] explanation of the proposed bylaw
by
[37:19] Mr. Scott,
>> thank you. Through the chair, mayor and
[37:24] council, this evening, we're considering
a public hearing for bylaw 2020 or
[37:29] sorry, 2026 or 027.
This proposes to add a data center as a
[37:36] defined and regulated use to the land
use bylaw. As per the requirements of
[37:40] the municipal government act, a public
hearing must be held prior to council's
[37:44] decision on the bylaw. At the time of
writing my report, uh there were one
[37:49] submission received and then
subsequently we received three more
[37:53] submitts for council's consideration
and they are in your package. So I
[37:59] believe you've read them. Uh, Alberta's
artificial intelligence data centers
[38:04] strategy powering the future of
artificial intelligence sets the path to
[38:08] securing the province's position as the
most attractive place to build
[38:12] artificial intelligence data centers in
North America. From a pure land use
[38:17] planning perspective, the thematic focus
is on qual quantity of land power source
[38:24] and the externalities that come with the
use. In an urban setting, there are um
[38:30] business cases that are playing out
throughout North America for the
[38:34] development of smaller data centers that
do not necessarily cover quarter
[38:39] sections of land and provide their own
power source in conjunction with their
[38:43] development applications. Data center is
a secure building full of community
[38:49] computing equipment. The these store and
process and move digital information.
[38:55] They support things like streaming,
online banking, business systems, and
[38:59] artificial intelligence.
In simple terms, they are the physical
[39:04] backbone of the digital world. Data
centers do not need many workers.
[39:09] Building them can create short-term
construction jobs, but once they're up
[39:13] and running, they are mostly automated.
This is very different from factories or
[39:18] other projects that create many local
jobs. For council, it is important to
[39:22] understand that data centers act more
like infrastructure than the typical
[39:26] business. Their main value is not jobs,
but the role they play in supporting
[39:30] digital services and generating tax
revenue if they were set up set up
[39:35] properly. The proposed amendment is for
an industrial use. It is not to be
[39:41] confused with IT service that may be
provided by uh local businesses or to
[39:46] support local businesses.
In the case of any industrial use, the
[39:52] including including data centers is how
to define it, what districts are
[39:57] appropriate and what external impacts
come with the use. In the case of this
[40:03] use, the proposal is to include in our
light, general and heavy industrial
[40:08] districts
and to place development controls over
[40:12] the sound emissions and security
measures that come with these
[40:16] developments. A review of various
northern North American municipalities
[40:20] and approaches to sound control provided
a v variety of setbacks from as little
[40:25] as 150 feet to over a thousand. Neither
can quantify the components of design
[40:31] and accumulative sound generation by the
HVAC systems, power generation,
[40:36] including backup systems, cooling fans,
etc. Alberta has though through the a uh
[40:42] Alberta Utilities Commission normalized
the process of engineering sound
[40:46] modeling as a standard means of
regulating and informing the public on
[40:51] the probable effect on adjacent land
use. In the table of accepted decibb,
[40:57] the question is how much? By way of
comparison, four to five dB is quiet
[41:03] conversation.
70 dB is a vacuum or loud conversation.
[41:08] and so on. So the footnote to sound is
that the intent is this use in ex in the
[41:16] existing industrial district would
likely preclude a power source other
[41:20] than connection to fortis for electrical
where alternate power sources are
[41:26] proposed. There may be requirements
through the AU and the AER at the
[41:30] provincial level. This is not
anticipated to be likely given the
[41:35] parcel size in the industrial setting.
The city of Brooks has limited
[41:39] industrially zoned land. The second
development concern is that the security
[41:44] and safety measures that are undertaken
with data centers are set up. Um the
[41:50] proposal proposed amendment has
addressed these concerns by having the
[41:54] applicant uh submit the details for
review. An additional use is being
[41:59] introduced as well and this is business
support services. This is to help define
[42:05] IT services as being separate from the
data center
[42:12] in your strategic plan. This does meet a
number of your tasks and subtasks
[42:18] including your strategic pillars of
infrastructure and sustainability.
[42:24] Now I'm going to turn it over to Bailey
Boule. She has some additional comments
[42:28] that she wants to add for your
consideration. Thank you.
[42:34] Thank you through the chair to mayor and
council. I wanted to add a little bit of
[42:37] a development permitting perspective to
the discussion about the proposal in
[42:40] front of you today. So the amendment
being discussed does not approve a
[42:44] permit. It doesn't approve an amendment
to any one parcel of land for zoning. It
[42:49] however establishes a framework of rules
that ensure that we have some control
[42:54] over how this type of a proposal would
be evaluated. So from a development
[42:59] permitting perspective, without the
bylaw being amended, we would have very
[43:03] limited a ability to regulate a proposal
if one were to come forward today. Um an
[43:09] application could come forward today for
a data center. This amendment doesn't
[43:13] approve or deny a data center. Um it
does however make it a discretionary use
[43:18] in the industrial zoning districts as
Gavin Gavin mentioned. Um given that
[43:23] data centers are not all the same, they
vary when both range and scale and the
[43:29] potential for other per approvals to
already be in place is something that we
[43:33] have to consider specifically in the ter
in the case that a data center has
[43:37] already received provincial approvals
through the AU or the AER. So what I'm
[43:43] about to say next is not quite as simple
as I'm about to say it. So I'm saying it
[43:47] in a very broad sense and we're keeping
in mind nuance and the specific details
[43:52] of an application but typically when the
provincial level authority um gives
[43:57] approval for one of these projects the
municipality must approve the
[44:01] application to an extent. However,
municipalities exercise their control
[44:06] through having a strong a strong
framework in the land use bylaw which
[44:12] allows for the site level conditions to
be imposed. and that's things like
[44:16] setbacks requiring submissions of
non-stutory plans and studies that are
[44:21] not otherwise listed in our land use
bylaw. It includes security measures and
[44:25] all other relevant approvals which are
listed for you in the proposed amendment
[44:29] to the bylaw today. To simply state it,
our current bylaw would be under
[44:34] equipped. If we got an application
today, we wouldn't have the level of
[44:38] control or authority that we would like
to see for a development this impactful.
[44:42] uh this would ensure that use specific
plans and studies are completed and that
[44:47] I have the authority to request them at
the time of application in the first
[44:50] place. If a data center is proposed, the
application would then be reviewed
[44:55] against the land use bylaw. Public input
would be gathered at the time of a
[44:59] development permit application when we
have those specific details such as
[45:03] location and setbacks and other
contextually appropriate matters and a
[45:09] decision would be made to approve or
deny it. This amendment just makes sure
[45:13] that we have very clear rules to guide
that process and it gives us the
[45:18] authority to still exercise control at
the municipal level. Thank you.
[45:27] Thank you very much. Is there anything
else that you wanted to add on, Gavin?
[45:30] You're pointing there.
>> Yes, that's staff's recommendation this
[45:36] evening that second and third reading be
moved forward. Thank you.
[45:40] » Okay, thank you very much.
Are there any persons speaking in favor
[45:47] of the proposed bylaw?
Come on up and come to the microphone,
[45:52] Mr. Denudson.
[46:00] Thank you very much and good evening.
I am speaking in favor of the uh bylaw
[46:07] that's uh amendments that that is being
put forward. Um
[46:12] and I commend uh the work that uh
council and administration are doing in
[46:17] this regard. I have been following this
um data center development um for the
[46:23] last three or four years uh throughout
the United States, Canada and parts of
[46:27] Europe and with that has come um a great
deal of
[46:34] um
there's an element of concern but there
[46:38] is an element of uh this can be a viable
uh revenue source for a community or a
[46:46] region And
[46:50] what I I want to say from the outset is
that um what is proposed here is putting
[46:57] down some very um decent structures. But
as you go forward um with the bylaw and
[47:06] the amendment um what I'm proposing and
I submitted it to you uh in writing is
[47:12] some additional considerations that
would actually give this a little more
[47:16] teeth. um a little more stance uh when
you have a very sophisticated applicant
[47:22] coming forward and they will be
sophisticated. They will have the the
[47:26] backing of their lawyers, their
engineers, uh you name it. Um that is
[47:30] what's going to be coming to you uh in
the form of an application.
[47:39] We know that um as Bailey has mentioned,
we need to have the structure um and
[47:46] when this is in place um it allows us to
stand tall to to what is coming in this
[47:53] direction. But I do feel that there are
certain areas that could use a little
[47:57] more oomph. Uh one of it is in terms of
scale. um they run anywhere from a small
[48:04] server room to the uh hypers scale um
artificial intelligence campus. Now,
[48:10] that probably won't work in this area
because we have limited industrial area,
[48:14] but we can still have scale issues where
a developer comes along and says, "This
[48:20] is phase one of two or three phases."
And phase one typically gets the
[48:26] cursorary review, but if they come back
and they uh go forward with additional
[48:33] um applications for um add-ons, um
that's going to perhaps put them into a
[48:40] place where if they had approached it
all at the initially, they would have
[48:45] been under the the the microscope a bit
more. So I I think when you go forward
[48:50] you got to put some u scale um
categories in there just to make sure
[48:55] that um our ducks are in a row and we
are anticipating what the final uh
[49:01] result will be uh in terms of the
development that's being put forward.
[49:08] Um the second one is water
and
[49:14] we do not draw from an isolated
municipal water source. Uh we have Lake
[49:19] Newell, the new regional services
corporation which is a shared reg
[49:24] regional asset. We're serving Brooks,
Bzano, Duchess, Rosemary and all the
[49:28] hamlets within uh the county of Newell.
It's connected to the Eastern Irrigation
[49:33] District and Bzano Dam. So, as part of
this greater discussion as we move
[49:37] forward, it's not going to be that we've
got lots of water. It's going to be,
[49:42] excuse me, it's going to be how this
water is shared, utilized, and um, you
[49:47] know, for the various purposes for which
it was constructed. Um, we have a
[49:52] certain capacity of water coming from
Lake Newell to our treatment plant. We
[49:56] also have a certain capacity in our uh,
waste management system.
[50:01] um any of those things that are suddenly
beyond the realm of um what they were
[50:08] planned for ordinary anticipated uses is
something that um I think has to be
[50:14] looked at very carefully uh because we
don't want to be in a position where um
[50:21] we walk towards an approval and we have
to walk it back. Um, another thing, and
[50:29] Bailey alluded to this, is um, the
provincial government's going to be part
[50:32] of this. Um, we also have the Alberta
Water Act, which deals with, uh, how
[50:39] much water can be drawn out of the, um,
Saskatchewan River Basin. And that river
[50:45] basin, of which water flows from the
bow, is one of the most procured water
[50:51] sources in Canada. and there is only a
certain amount of allocation that um can
[50:58] come out of that water source and still
allow for viable downstream downstream
[51:03] use. So, um we we need to ensure that um
all the parties are at the table,
[51:09] whether it's the EID, the county, uh and
that we're walking in full step with
[51:14] what the province has in mind to ensure
the uh viable use of our water resources
[51:21] um throughout um the southern reason
region here.
[51:25] Um, another couple points beyond the
scale of the unit and the water. Um,
[51:31] identify I've identified these in my
written submission. Um, there's uh at
[51:37] this point uh there's no decommission uh
discussion. Yeah. As you go forward with
[51:42] a developer, I think you need to have
that discussion. the what if, when is
[51:48] the viable lifespan of this coming to an
end and what steps will they do at their
[51:54] cost, not the municipality, uh to ensure
that that decommissioning uh goes
[52:01] forward. Um, the second uh thing that I
I think you need to talk to a potential
[52:08] applicant and consider as you go forward
is that there's no emergency service uh
[52:14] capacity assessment. Uh some of these
newer data centers are using the
[52:19] high-capacity battery storage uh that
can have very flash oriented fires and
[52:26] that has to be I think part of a
discussion is whether Brooks Fire
[52:29] Services are in a position to uh have
the equipment be trained have um um you
[52:36] know called upon um support from from
other communities to to make sure that
[52:42] in the event of a catastrophic
incident. Um there's safety involved and
[52:49] there's also proper management of how
that type of thing is is dealt with. Um
[52:57] um as Bailey mentioned uh noise is going
to be a consideration here and a lot of
[53:02] it deals with modeling but I think you
have to go step forward and get the um
[53:07] potential development to actually have a
postplanning
[53:12] reading of what the the decibb are and
things of that nature. So it looks good
[53:16] in modeling but let's see the proof of
the the pudding. uh when they're
[53:20] operational, they should be in a
position to support what their model
[53:25] says and I think um the city has to be
in a position to demand that of them.
[53:32] Um also
I think we need to be in a position and
[53:37] I've I've heard comments here earlier on
other things that we need a cost
[53:43] recovery uh plan. So in other words, if
what they bring forward puts an
[53:49] additional bl uh um demand on our water
sources, on our fire services, on our
[53:56] electrical infrastructure,
they should be um paying the price. It
[54:02] should not come down on rateayers,
um residents. Um it shouldn't tax
[54:10] financially
um our existing uh structure here. So I
[54:14] think it's important that um we we have
that kind of cost recovery discussion um
[54:21] as you move into these things. Um this
type of application I think is coming.
[54:26] It's just a matter of when and
um there's a few suggestions that I made
[54:34] in my submission that the administration
obviously can utilize if they they find
[54:39] it useful.
Um and the reason I'm making this
[54:44] admission to tonight is that
if we brushstroke this as we have done
[54:51] it properly um it gets a little thin and
when a discussion is based on uh
[54:59] something that is very thinly laid out
um that's invites more negotiation than
[55:06] perhaps you would like
and the city then ends up with far more
[55:11] more or far less leverage
and a bylaw and everything else that the
[55:18] city puts forward. if it comes through
and or comes um towards a developer
[55:25] uh and and they go, "Wow, Brooks is
prepared." Um then you stand in a
[55:30] greater position to um have something
that is beneficial financially for the
[55:35] community but also protects uh us as as
rateayers uh with within the the
[55:42] province here. So the ask that I would
have is that um as the city and
[55:48] administration move forward to consider
um applications that come in that um you
[55:54] know perhaps uh some of the things that
I put forward in my written submission
[55:59] will you know have some some credence in
that discussion. Um also um in terms of
[56:07] going forward um that the scalebased
classification be worked on a bit the
[56:14] electrical loads disclosure um obviously
uh working with um uh uh the the various
[56:24] utilities will give kind of a planned
approach but you need to kind of
[56:28] consider what the back end is what the
actual numbers are.
[56:32] um the infrastructure cost recovery,
emergency services assessment, the post
[56:37] construction nose noise verification and
a decommissioning security. So in other
[56:42] words, uh if they're decommissioning,
they they should have some sort of
[56:46] security. Um that puts the money where
their mouth is, that type of thing. So
[56:51] time is on the city's side. Um there's
no pending application right now. So, um
[56:57] I would um you know respectfully submit
that um you have time to put the depth
[57:05] that you need uh in this bylaw and in
any uh subsequent discussions that um
[57:12] you you may have so that when a
sophisticated um application comes along
[57:17] uh Brooks is ready and willing to do
business but do it on our terms. Thank
[57:22] you.
>> Thank you very much.
[57:26] Are there any other persons speaking in
favor of the proposed bylaw?
[57:33] Are there any other persons speaking in
favor of the proposed bylaw? Seeing
[57:38] none, are there any persons speaking in
opposition
[57:42] of the proposed bylaw?
Again, are there any people speaking in
[57:48] opposition to the proposed bylaw?
third time. Are there any people
[57:54] speaking in opposition of the proposed
bylaw? Okay, seeing none, move on to
[58:01] final comments.
Gavin, do you have any final comments or
[58:06] Bailey?
[58:12] » Yeah, I do really appreciate the last
speaker's points. I do want to go over a
[58:16] few of them with you just to give you my
perspective.
[58:20] um phase development in the community
happens often even in residential. So
[58:24] when somebody proposes to do a
development often they will come with a
[58:29] full package and they may show you every
phase. Um I think what was being alluded
[58:33] to was that they would not show you that
they would come in with one phase. Each
[58:38] subsequent addition would have to go
through the same review process as a
[58:42] discretionary use through Bailey and as
such you would have that review to then
[58:49] say well how much more is this how much
more water how much more electrical how
[58:54] much more and analyze it as to whether
or not it should be approved.
[58:59] The question of the water act. You as a
city have allocation for water and you
[59:06] have a license for water and you have a
utilities bylaw that regulates the use
[59:10] of water. Any water use in the community
is regulated through the utilities bylaw
[59:16] and as such you are in control of that
water. No outside water can get into
[59:22] your community without your approval. So
as it becomes a larger picture say for
[59:28] the county of New who has a larger
footprint and could use more water the
[59:33] allocation for such a large uh data
center would have to be analyzed at
[59:39] their level because of the size and
scale of it. I think what we're
[59:42] suggesting here is that the size and
scale is not um something that would
[59:47] outstrip your water. Now that's not to
say that in these designs as we had
[59:55] understood in other communities when it
came to cannabis regulation and cannabis
[1:00:00] production uh water usage does creep and
sneak up on you. So we do have to as
[1:00:06] administration be very careful about how
we outline our conditions regarding
[1:00:10] water. Uh often when we review it is
quantified in the number of houses that
[1:00:15] are being used. So this is how many
household units are being used in the
[1:00:20] analysis and whether or not that's a
bridge too far for council would be
[1:00:24] something to be considered.
Decommissioning is really related to
[1:00:27] wind and solar projects. There's um I
think a lot of
[1:00:33] work being done at the provincial level
to try to understand that they don't
[1:00:37] want to have another orphaned well
situation that the wind and solar
[1:00:40] industry should be looking at
decommissioning.
[1:00:44] I'm not saying that I don't understand
the decommissioning of thousands of
[1:00:49] computers and the cabling that goes with
it. I think it does come down to where
[1:00:54] it's being recycled and I think the
province need to be, you know, they're
[1:00:59] the ones that encouraging this. The
province needs to understand that as you
[1:01:03] wear out computers, where are they
going? I don't know that that is a local
[1:01:07] problem. the decommissioning of this uh
industry has not really hit the radar as
[1:01:14] far as something that's come forward.
Um post sound analysis again I believe
[1:01:19] this is a condition of development. The
post sound analysis we will model this
[1:01:24] is what they're saying they're going to
have. Yes. If they exceed it and that's
[1:01:29] what the chart is doing in the bylaw. If
you exceed that modeling and decibb are
[1:01:35] found at this level, you're in violation
of your permit and as such you can be
[1:01:40] receiving a stopporter and be taken to
um to appeal on that issue and the whole
[1:01:47] thing could be shut down if you can't
modify your equipment or modify the
[1:01:51] sound. So I think it is important but
again I believe it is a development
[1:01:57] issue that happens after the issuance of
a permit.
[1:02:01] The scaled approach to electrical
is an interesting com concept because we
[1:02:07] always use it in planning. We separate
uses. We um do so with purpose though.
[1:02:13] And that's where I'm I'm not quite
understanding what the purpose here
[1:02:16] would be to split the scale.
Several times when we in our bylaw, we
[1:02:23] split things based on minor and major.
And we do so because we have permitted
[1:02:27] and discretionary uses. We would split
them and say, "Oh, this is a minor use.
[1:02:32] Therefore, it could be permitted because
of its scale or this is a major use."
[1:02:37] And we would put it on the discretionary
side so that we review it and look at
[1:02:41] the negative in externalities that may
come with it. So that's generally how
[1:02:48] splitting is done. Now I did not hear
from the presentation that there was any
[1:02:54] suggestion that any data setter be
considered as a permitted use at the 1
[1:02:58] megawatt or less. Uh both would be then
sitting side by side in your bylaw
[1:03:04] discretionary and discretionary
without a lot of what then and and
[1:03:10] that's where I I kind of lost the
narrative. I I guess I don't follow what
[1:03:15] the idea between splitting them would be
because I don't see it an added bunch of
[1:03:19] criteria. We're applying the criteria to
whatever scale comes in. You must do all
[1:03:26] of these things. So those are just a few
notes I had on the presentation. If you
[1:03:31] have questions, I'd be happy to answer
them or I guess I will at second
[1:03:35] reading.
[1:03:38] » Okay. Thank you very much. Anything
Bailey? No. Okay. Seeing none, then I
[1:03:45] will adjourn the meeting at uh 5:31
and we will move on to the BRZ writeoffs
[1:03:56] and that will be Haley.
Oh, okay.
[1:04:06] through the chair to council. Each year,
the city levies business revitalization
[1:04:10] zone, also known as BRZ, taxes in
accordance with the BRZ's approved
[1:04:15] annual budget. These taxes are collected
on the BRZ's behalf and remitted to
[1:04:20] them. Administration has identified a
number of BRZ businesses with
[1:04:24] outstanding arars where collection
efforts have been unsuccessful.
[1:04:29] These businesses are no longer operating
or are no longer located within the BRZ
[1:04:34] area. Therefore, the likelihood of
recovery is minimal. These arars have
[1:04:38] already been recognized as a bad debt
expense in prior years. As a result,
[1:04:42] this recommendation is simply to write
off the outstanding receivables and
[1:04:46] close the accounts. So, administration
is recommending that council approve the
[1:04:50] write off of 22 BRZ tax accounts
totaling 11,615.32.
[1:04:59] » Okay. Thank you very much, Kathy. Any
questions?
[1:05:04] Councelor Ederson.
[1:05:08] » So is this every business that has
errors in BRZ or there are some other
[1:05:14] businesses that you are still working
with to
[1:05:18] » through the chair to councelor address.
These are just the businesses that have
[1:05:22] ceased operations or have moved out of
the BRZ area. There's still active
[1:05:26] businesses um about 15 or so that have
currenters.
[1:05:31] » Okay. So, so for those businesses that
moved outside the the zone, are they
[1:05:39] outside the zone with the same business
license that they had or originally?
[1:05:45] So, the chair to councelor Idris,
there's currently uh three out of the 22
[1:05:49] that have current business licenses
operating in Brooks outside of the BRZ
[1:05:54] area.
>> So, why can't we
[1:05:58] try to collect this?
We have tried and have been
[1:06:02] unsuccessful. We don't have any recourse
with VZ taxes like we do with regular
[1:06:07] property taxes. We don't have tax
recovery processes.
[1:06:11] » How about with what we changed recently
where when you renew your business
[1:06:16] license, you have to you have to pay.
>> So, it's my understanding with the
[1:06:20] wording of that bylaw, it only applies
to businesses that are currently located
[1:06:24] in the BRZ area. and these businesses
unfortunately have since moved out. So I
[1:06:30] don't think the wording in the bylaw
would allow us to fall back on that.
[1:06:34] » Thank you.
>> Are there any other questions?
[1:06:42] Okay, seeing none, it has been moved by
councelor Johnson that council approve
[1:06:48] the write offs of 22 business
revitalization zone uh tax accounts
[1:06:53] totaling $11,615.32.
[1:06:58] All those in favor
carried.
[1:07:04] The next item we have is a permanent
versus temporary use 907
[1:07:10] 2nd Street West and that will be Bailey.
Thank you. Through the chair to mayor
[1:07:17] and council. In 2022, the city
originally issued development permit
[1:07:21] 22D96 for a cafe with a drive-thru which
operates at 907 Street West. The permit
[1:07:28] was approved as a temporary use with the
understanding that the use would be
[1:07:31] reviewed annually by council. The
temporary approval was a practical
[1:07:35] compromise as the sanitary sewer bylaw
and the potable water bylaw both require
[1:07:41] connection to municipal services within
60 days of occupancy. The intention for
[1:07:45] the temporary use was that it would
allow council to monitor it for a
[1:07:50] limited time while reviewing its
appropriateness and implications on an
[1:07:53] ongoing basis. This permit has been
reviewed and extended from 2022 to 2025.
[1:08:01] The last um extension was granted on
June 3rd, 2025 and it'll expire on June
[1:08:05] 2nd, 2026.
Uh this was discussed at the last
[1:08:10] council committee meeting. And staff's
recommendation is that council formally
[1:08:15] approve the conversion of the temporary
use to a permanent use, which authorizes
[1:08:20] staff to enter into a special agreement
to wave the provisions of the sanitary
[1:08:24] sewer bylaw and the water bylaw. I'll be
happy to answer any questions if you
[1:08:29] have them.
Thank you very much. Are there any
[1:08:32] questions? Councelor Johnson.
>> Thank you through the chair to Bailey.
[1:08:38] Uh just for clarification,
this was temporary to see if it cropped
[1:08:43] up any other potential
land uses like this or permits like this
[1:08:49] and there hasn't been in four years.
Right.
[1:08:52] » That's correct.
>> Thanks,
[1:08:56] Councelor.
[1:09:00] So the the approach we're going to take
with this one is to sign a special agree
[1:09:05] a special agreement with this business
to do it this way and then if a similar
[1:09:10] business comes tomorrow we will think
about it and maybe we will sign another
[1:09:15] agreement but still our bylaw does not
allow us to do to do it just by having a
[1:09:22] clear process to do it.
>> That's correct. If another applicant
[1:09:27] came forward and wanted to do the same
thing, we would go through the process
[1:09:30] again where they would request for staff
to be able to enter into a special
[1:09:34] agreement, uh the provision in the bylaw
doesn't have specific requirements for
[1:09:39] when an exemption would be granted.
However, it does allow for the the
[1:09:44] exemption to be granted.
>> Okay. So, so why don't
[1:09:49] do a different approach which is
changing our bylaw
[1:09:53] whether it is in the utilities bylaw or
in the land use bylaw to to to have
[1:09:58] clear
way clear businesses or clear structures
[1:10:02] that may not need that connection. So
that if a structure or a business that
[1:10:09] doesn't need that connection then they
don't need it. And then rather than a
[1:10:13] special agreement that's case by case
that could be objective, we go
[1:10:17] subjective. I mean we go through a
process where we can have a very clear
[1:10:21] process that is objective to do this.
>> Certainly it's possible. Um I want to
[1:10:27] clarify the land use bylaw doesn't have
any objections to this. The only
[1:10:31] waiverss would be granted under the
water and sewer bylaw. Um, another
[1:10:35] consideration that council could look at
is rather than entering into a one-year
[1:10:39] agreement, they could extend the permit
temporarily for consecutive years. But
[1:10:44] if council wishes, then staff can come
forward again with amendments to the
[1:10:49] water and sewer bylaw with guidelines.
Um, that would be to council.
[1:10:54] » Final comment.
>> My final comment is actually I'm okay
[1:10:58] with the business getting what they need
to do to to continue the business. I I
[1:11:03] believe the business is successful.
Everything is fine. There are no issues.
[1:11:07] My issue is that I don't want to do it
as a one case. I want to do it in a way
[1:11:11] that is more structured where we have
these are the rules. If you fit within
[1:11:16] these rules, you get the exemption. If
you don't fit within the rules, you
[1:11:20] don't get the exemption. Thank you.
through uh through the chair to council.
[1:11:26] Part of the difficulty in amending the
water and sewer bylaws as well is that
[1:11:30] it's difficult for staff to predict in
which circumstances
[1:11:33] uh a special agreement would be
necessary. Um we certainly didn't
[1:11:38] predict this one. Uh so it' be difficult
to think of whatif situations moving
[1:11:42] forward. Thus to allow for you know a a
long laundry list of criteria which
[1:11:48] would necessitate one of these special
agreements. Council
[1:11:52] » just
[1:11:56] these kind of businesses are are
like if you go to Seattle or if you go
[1:12:01] to other places, there are many places
that have similar businesses. Can we
[1:12:05] look at other communities maybe in
Canada here that have done something
[1:12:09] similar to this so that we can learn
from that experience?
[1:12:14] » We certainly can. The difficulty is that
it's it's it'll be dependent on whether
[1:12:18] or not they're being permitted through
their land use bylaw and whether or not
[1:12:22] the other communities have the water and
sewer bylaw. That's the prohibiting
[1:12:25] factor. Um it might be that in other
municipalities their water and sewer
[1:12:30] bylaws don't require the municipal
connections within 60 days or that they
[1:12:34] are utilizing special agreements to
exempt them. We certainly can do the
[1:12:37] research, but there are so many
different ways that municipalities
[1:12:40] within their bylaws regulate these types
of businesses that it's not likely that
[1:12:44] it'll be the same in in other
municipalities that we look at.
[1:12:49] » Councelor Phillipsson,
>> and we have to keep in mind that you
[1:12:53] always request um the certificate from
food and health inspector. It's not
[1:13:00] something that we just allow. You have
some regulations in place.
[1:13:05] » That's correct. Just like any other
business, they have to obtain a business
[1:13:08] license. And to obtain a business
license, there's a process um where they
[1:13:12] have to submit any provincial or federal
approvals that would be required
[1:13:16] depending on the type of business being
operated. So in this case, it's um food
[1:13:21] or it's a coffee shop, but in some cases
maybe it would be retail or maybe
[1:13:25] something else that would require a
different type of approval. They'd have
[1:13:28] to follow all those rules just like
every other business.
[1:13:32] » Okay. Are there any councelor Nesbet
[1:13:38] » as a comment and this is to my fellow
counselors as well as to our development
[1:13:44] department. Um I understand that this is
a business enjoyed by many and my family
[1:13:49] enjoys it. So I'm going to be in trouble
here. But I think that when we have
[1:13:55] bylaws that involve our sewer and our
water and people are not following our
[1:14:00] bylaws, I have an issue with that
because we're going to see other
[1:14:05] properties possibly come into play. And
at what point do we decide there's a
[1:14:10] problem with the water and the sewer on
these locations when it's kind of right
[1:14:14] there and the property owner has that
ability to maybe connect them? And I and
[1:14:21] I think that I propose that in my I
propose number three as as the option
[1:14:27] that I would consider to be followed.
That's not supporting.
[1:14:32] » Councelor Falenberg,
>> I do not drink coffee or tea. Uh so I am
[1:14:39] not a customer. Um,
but I as a community member, I um love
[1:14:47] the idea of the business. Um, just to
councelor Nesbbit's comments,
[1:14:54] a business like this couldn't exist if
they were required to spend the money to
[1:15:01] put in water and sewer. It just wouldn't
happen. So,
[1:15:05] I am in favor of giving this business a
permanent um application.
[1:15:13] » Councilor Ragnar,
>> I guess the one question I would have is
[1:15:19] is there a separation in the in the
connection to sewer and water between
[1:15:23] residential and commercial? Is there is
there a difference?
[1:15:31] The specific
provision in the water and sewer bylaw
[1:15:39] I believe pertains to businesses
>> through the chair to council regular.
[1:15:44] It's stated in the bylaw that all
properties shall so there's no
[1:15:48] difference between commercial or
residential.
[1:15:51] » Okay. I'm going to go back to a
conversation I had with our new CEO.
[1:15:54] There's a property on the west side of
Brooks. It's a land owner. He is not
[1:15:59] connected to city nor water
uh sewer or water sorry and his taxes
[1:16:06] are based on a reduction based on him
not being connected to that. So if he's
[1:16:12] not connected to those there should be
no issue with a business not being
[1:16:16] connected to those as well. Uh they are
self sufficient. Um they're good stand
[1:16:22] of the community. I too don't drink
coffee. I'm not a customer, but I see
[1:16:27] the lineup of people. Uh my wife's one
of those. So, um I again I I don't see a
[1:16:33] problem if if they're keeping to
themselves and they're they're you you
[1:16:36] know they're drinking our water that
they're paying for one way or another.
[1:16:41] So, uh and property taxes are being
collected on that behalf for that
[1:16:45] business being there. So, I'm in favor
of it.
[1:16:49] Councelor,
[1:16:52] » I guess we are declaring our coffee and
tea preferences. So, I go I go with Chai
[1:16:57] Latte. Um uh my I I have an amendment.
Uh my amendment is to
[1:17:05] uh approve uh a one-year extension for
the business and instruct administration
[1:17:13] to come back with uh revisions to the
bylaw that will allow for a clear
[1:17:18] process for a permanent use without
connection to the system.
[1:17:25] » Councelor Johnson.
>> Thank you through the chair to my fellow
[1:17:29] councilman. I don't support that
amendment. With all due respect, we are
[1:17:34] talking about one-off. That's
specifically why I asked in four years,
[1:17:38] have we ever had another application?
It's been no. This this business has
[1:17:42] been running for four years. It has
always received its health inspections.
[1:17:45] It's received its business license and
it's been there quietly for four years
[1:17:51] doing no harm to anybody. I don't want
to continue to give hurdles to small
[1:17:56] businesses in the neighborhood. I
understand your issue with water and
[1:18:00] sewer, but if and when they move to a
permanent structure, then I think we ask
[1:18:06] that with all due respect.
>> Councelor Phillipsson,
[1:18:11] » my comments were similar. We need to
approve this one so it's off the books
[1:18:16] and then if we need another bylaw, we
could work on that later.
[1:18:21] » Councelor Nesbet.
>> Okay. Well, um, what about the other
[1:18:26] properties that are already the other
trailers that have already started
[1:18:29] together in that same location? Like
we're not just a one of Yes, we were a
[1:18:33] one of, but now there's others sitting
there and I think the property owner
[1:18:37] themselves has some they need to step up
and if they're going to allow these
[1:18:43] things, which I do support small
business, so that's not the problem with
[1:18:47] me. It's the fact that these are not
connected to our sewer and water.
[1:18:53] None of them are.
>> Councelor Johnson,
[1:18:56] » with all due respect, the other ones
that are there are either vegetable
[1:19:00] trucks that don't require water or their
food trucks that are mobile vendors and
[1:19:04] they have to get a mobile vendor
license. So, they need water.
[1:19:09] » They but they're they're licensed
through their mobile vendor. It's
[1:19:13] totally different. And they've been
there for years, too, and rotating
[1:19:16] around.
>> Okay. So, uh there was a motion
[1:19:23] by Councelor Idrris
to amend the uh motion to have a
[1:19:29] one-year extension
with uh city staff to review the
[1:19:36] municipal water and sewer requirements
uh to that property. Am I
[1:19:41] » not to that property in general?
>> In general. Okay. In general. So I'll
[1:19:47] ask the question. Okay. Is it everybody
understanding this one? This is a
[1:19:51] one-year extension.
>> This is just a motion.
[1:19:54] » Just is just an amendment to the motion.
>> Okay. Is everybody understanding that?
[1:19:58] It's not the motion.
>> Okay. The amendment is for a one-year
[1:20:02] extension to review the water for all
locations. All those in favor?
[1:20:11] Okay. One. All those opposed.
Okay. The amendment was defeated. So now
[1:20:19] it has been moved by councelor Falenberg
that council formally approve the
[1:20:24] conversion of the temporary use to a
permanent use, thereby authorizing the
[1:20:30] ongoing operation of the business at
90072nd Street West without requiring
[1:20:36] connection to municipal water and sewer
systems through a special agreement
[1:20:42] pursuant to section 308 of the sanitary
sewer bylaw. law 21-25
[1:20:50] and section 310 of the potable water
bylaw 1504.
[1:20:58] Okay. All those in favor
opposed.
[1:21:02] » That' be me.
>> Okay. Carried.
[1:21:08] » Can we still instruct uh y bylaw to look
into this and come with some options?
[1:21:15] » Yep. for the future.
[1:21:19] Okay,
I'll let Bailey write that before I get
[1:21:23] her started on the next one.
[1:21:32] » Ready?
[1:21:37] » What's that?
[1:21:41] » Yeah, go ahead.
I guess the question I would have when
[1:21:45] you're looking into that, can can your
department authorize like a one-year
[1:21:50] trial before we take it further? Is that
a possibility to streamline it a little
[1:21:55] bit?
[1:21:58] » Are you sorry to clarify through the
chair, are you requesting for this
[1:22:01] specific permit?
>> Yeah. Okay. um
[1:22:06] » the future if somebody from in the
future applies for something similar to
[1:22:10] what councelor Idris is asking for.
>> So what we'll do is we will look into
[1:22:14] bringing forward some water and sewer
bylaw amendments that give parameters
[1:22:18] for when these could be approved. In the
meantime though the process would still
[1:22:22] be the same as as the permit we just
reviewed where we would receive the
[1:22:25] application and then we would bring it
forward for um determination on a case-
[1:22:30] by case basis. Hopefully, we would have
maybe brought back already for you a
[1:22:34] discussion about amendments to the water
and sewer bylaw um so that you could
[1:22:37] discuss whether or not they should be
amended with specific criteria for when
[1:22:40] the waiverss would be granted. Um yeah,
>> thank you very much. The next item is
[1:22:48] bylaws. Bylaws 26-025,
the business license bylaw. Development
[1:22:55] control officer Bailey Boule.
[1:23:07] Thank you through the chair to mayor and
council. The business license bylaw uh
[1:23:12] requires businesses that operate within
the city of Brooks to obtain a business
[1:23:16] license. Um with some exceptions. The
costs for business licenses depend on
[1:23:21] where the business is located. um
whether or not it's a city business
[1:23:25] license, it's located in the Brooks nil
region, or it's a non-resident business
[1:23:29] license, businesses that are located
within the city of Brooks pay low the
[1:23:33] lowest fees while peddlers pay the
highest fee. Some proposed changes were
[1:23:38] discussed at council committee. These
changes include uh no longer exempting
[1:23:43] landlords or wholesalers from obtaining
a business license. It includes the
[1:23:47] requirement for businesses located
within the BRZ to pay any outstanding
[1:23:52] BRZ taxes owing prior to receiving a
renewal of a business license or to
[1:23:57] receiving a new business license. It
includes removing the requirement for
[1:24:01] mobile vendors to obtain a development
permit and prohibiting mobile vendors
[1:24:05] from becoming permanent or
semi-permanent. Um, if the business
[1:24:09] would like to remain in one location,
they would be required to then obtain a
[1:24:12] development permit and go through a
separate process. It also includes
[1:24:17] amendments to lower the penalty from $75
to $25
[1:24:22] and it includes minor wording changes to
reference the Brooks New region and
[1:24:26] removal of section 605 and 607 to align
with current administrative practices.
[1:24:31] We also did a rates and fees review um
from other municipalities in Alberta and
[1:24:37] there's a table provided in the RFD to
show the comparisons for specifically
[1:24:41] peddler and non-resident business
license fees.
[1:24:45] Um, we've also included um a table that
shows what types of non-resident
[1:24:51] business licenses are operating within
the city of Brooks. After reviewing the
[1:24:55] rates and fees, um staff have determined
that our rates and fees are consistent
[1:25:00] with those of similar neighboring
municipalities and we don't recommend
[1:25:04] any amendments to the fees at this time.
And the recommendation before you today
[1:25:08] is that council provide three readings
and adopt bylaw 26025.
[1:25:13] Thank you.
Okay. So, the first thing that we will
[1:25:17] do is make the uh first time reading of
the motion and questions can be asked
[1:25:23] after the second time. So, it has been
moved by councelor Idrris that bylaw
[1:25:28] number 26-025
being a bylaw of the city of Brooks in
[1:25:33] the province of Alberta to control and
regulate and license businesses be
[1:25:38] introduced and read a first time. All
those in favor?
[1:25:44] Carried.
It has been moved by councelor Nesbet
[1:25:48] that bylaw number 26-025
be read a second time. Are there any
[1:25:54] questions?
Okay, seeing none, all those in favor?
[1:26:01] Carried.
[1:26:04] And this one, the third reading has to
be carried unanimously
[1:26:09] in order for it to go forward. and has
been moved by councelor Johnson that
[1:26:14] bylaw number 26-025
be given three readings at this meeting.
[1:26:19] All those in favor
carried.
[1:26:26] It has been moved by councelor Ragnner
that bylaw number 26-025
[1:26:31] being a bylaw of the city of the of
Brooks in the province of Alberta to
[1:26:35] control, regulate, and license
businesses be read a third time and
[1:26:40] adopted. All those in favor?
Carried.
[1:26:46] We'll move on to bylaw 2627.
Amendment to the land use bylaw 1412.
[1:26:55] Is Gavin getting up or is somebody else
speaking on that one?
[1:27:18] » Go ahead.
>> Yeah. through the chair of American
[1:27:20] council. U my presentation at the public
hearing is I guess what stands for this.
[1:27:25] I'm looking to you for your questions
and I'd be happy to answer them. Thank
[1:27:29] you.
[1:27:42] Thank you. Through the chair to either
Miss Boule or Mr. Scott. I have two
[1:27:46] questions.
Uh my first question is
[1:27:51] everybody just to make sure we're all
crystal clear at this time there is no
[1:27:56] active development permit application on
file. That's my first question.
[1:28:03] » That's correct.
>> Thank you. And my second question is um
[1:28:08] I did read every letter that we
received. I re read um Murray's report
[1:28:13] as well and a lot of this is centering
around water and power. So in my little
[1:28:20] bit of research I'm I'm looking for you
guys to um kind of either tell me no
[1:28:26] that's right or not. Um there's been a
lot of research on new data centers, the
[1:28:31] new technology data centers where there
isn't a water component per se. Um, and
[1:28:38] I just want to clarify that if and when
there was a development permit that came
[1:28:43] in that we would be considering as a as
a city or as a development those
[1:28:50] nonwater
um data center applications and also
[1:28:55] there's some that are also
self-sufficient or
[1:28:59] somewhat self-sufficient in their energy
with vertical windmills.
[1:29:04] » Most of them were vertical windmill. So,
I just want to clarify because I think
[1:29:08] that's where a lot of the issue seems to
be with in our area because we do have
[1:29:14] issues with water. We're we're not, you
know, rich in we have great water
[1:29:19] through the EID, but it's not like it's
never ending. So, can you speak to that
[1:29:23] a little?
[1:29:29] » Yeah. So through the chair to councelor
Johnson,
[1:29:34] the question of water I guess is I think
in our council committee meeting we did
[1:29:40] talk about the idea that a lot of these
data centers have the opportunity to
[1:29:45] cool their computers without a water
source.
[1:29:50] Um we hadn't truncated this to that they
couldn't use water. it was open to when
[1:29:57] they proposed water, how much water
would they use. One of the other
[1:30:02] concerns with water was also the power
generation. So if it was electrical,
[1:30:07] that would eliminate the most water
usage because the cooling of a generator
[1:30:12] or whatever system that they were going
to propose would be the thing that would
[1:30:17] be concerned about the usage of water.
And then from there, because we're using
[1:30:21] electrical,
um, we we kind of said that that wasn't
[1:30:25] an issue. The outside power source. Now,
this is the next thing. The outside
[1:30:30] power source would be
in the city's situation. You wouldn't
[1:30:36] see a solar farm or a wind farm set up
inside the city. Now, we had one
[1:30:42] proposed. It was direct control, and it
it did go away from a certain respect.
[1:30:47] it it went away from the point of view
that they were having difficulty with
[1:30:50] the getting through the ACU process. Now
council certainly would
[1:30:57] I think in my estimation be in a good
position to actually define that use and
[1:31:03] whether or not it is allowed in the
city. Um we have not gone there at the
[1:31:07] time that that power plant was proposed.
Uh we did through direct control propose
[1:31:13] a bunch of control over it but that is
not in the current bylaw. never never
[1:31:16] was adopted.
[1:31:22] » I think you're kind of getting off what
I'm asking specifically. So, when we got
[1:31:26] the letters um with the issue of water
and you know there was people that were
[1:31:32] against data centers. I I think it's
because there is this misnomer that all
[1:31:37] data centers use extreme amounts of
water and I would like clarification if
[1:31:43] that's actually accurate. That's that's
where my question lies.
[1:31:46] » That is not correct. Simple answer.
>> I I talk a lot. You got to stop me.
[1:31:55] » If you don't mind. Yes. Um like kind of
like I alluded earlier with my closing
[1:31:58] statements at the public hearing. Not
all data centers are the same. They come
[1:32:02] in many shapes, sizes, different in like
uses, intensifications of use. So what
[1:32:07] would happen is we would receive an
application for a data center and we
[1:32:11] would evaluate that application based on
its specific criteria. This bylaw
[1:32:16] actually gives me the authority to
request all of these studies at the time
[1:32:19] of application. So for a lot of
different types of development, what
[1:32:23] you'll see is we'll get an application.
We'll go off of the requirements that we
[1:32:27] say in the land use by law we need and
then we'll condition off additional
[1:32:30] studies that need to be provided prior
to the issuance of a building permit. In
[1:32:34] this case, because of the scale of the
development, we would be asking for
[1:32:38] these studies at the time of
application. So that before approving or
[1:32:41] denying this, we would be looking at
these studies. We would know how much
[1:32:44] water they're going to use. We would
know whether or not they're going to be
[1:32:48] using a lot of water or very little
water, whether they're relying on the
[1:32:51] electricity to cool it, how much that's
going to be, if they have approval from
[1:32:55] the other um uh provincial bodies, or in
our case, if they have foris' agreement.
[1:33:00] So that would all be something that we
would consider at the time of
[1:33:03] application and it would also be
something that we would be able to then
[1:33:07] communicate to the public when we do
that public consultation piece.
[1:33:10] Something that our land use bylaw does
allow us to do is it says that when we
[1:33:14] receive an application, we're going to
circulate it to everybody who's within
[1:33:18] 100 meters of the proposed development.
We can also have different kinds of
[1:33:22] public consultation when it comes to
different planning documents such as
[1:33:26] non-stutory plans. So, if we're
requesting that these studies and plans
[1:33:30] be provided, we could then turn around
and say, "Okay, well, now let's have an
[1:33:33] open house and let's discuss it with the
public. We'll answer your questions
[1:33:36] about the very specific proposal that's
in front of you." And that's when we'll
[1:33:39] talk about whether or not we think a
data center should or should not be in
[1:33:43] Brooks. Thank you.
Okay, Councelor Falenberg,
[1:33:51] » I have to admit that uh
pri prior to a couple months ago, I
[1:33:56] honestly I not sure I knew exactly what
a data center was. Um I knew the idea of
[1:34:02] what what it were to be, but I had no
idea what it would look like. Um
[1:34:09] from the little bit of research I've
done, there is massive warehouses. Um,
[1:34:13] and over the last couple months, I've
seen, you know, major concerns,
[1:34:18] obviously environmental concerns, but
also as a member of this community, my
[1:34:23] biggest concern would be
the vicinity to my house or somebody
[1:34:30] else's house that lives here. Um, now
we're talking about um the land use for
[1:34:38] um specifically industrial zoning,
correct?
[1:34:41] And I'm just looking at my my fabulous
map here with zoning. Um I don't really
[1:34:48] see any available land that's anywhere
really adjacent to any housing. Is that
[1:34:53] correct?
>> That's correct.
[1:34:55] » Okay. So really that limits my concerns
completely. Thank you.
[1:35:02] » Councelor Nesbet.
[1:35:07] » Through the chair to Gavin and and
Bailey, please. Um the one I appreciated
[1:35:13] all the time and effort that um Mr.
Denson put into his comments and his
[1:35:18] presentation. the I think he I think he
has a valid point about the connection
[1:35:26] or the approval discussion whatever you
want to call it with the Eastern
[1:35:30] Irrigation District and our new regional
uh way water sorry group services
[1:35:37] that's what it's called right new
regional services association
[1:35:41] corporation and is that something that
we can put in the bylaw right away and
[1:35:46] have that as part of the process or At
what point would they have that ability
[1:35:51] other than a public meetings which I
think they um I'd like to see them have
[1:35:57] a separate
>> line item.
[1:36:01] » So through the chair to councelor Dez
but just to clarify are you seeking
[1:36:06] circulation to the eid for comment?
>> No
[1:36:10] I'd like their approval on the pro on
the project. Is that would it be
[1:36:16] » Yeah. Sorry.
>> If
[1:36:19] » No, we don't have a project, but I'm
just saying should a project ever come
[1:36:23] forward if it was in our bylaw,
>> if I may ask.
[1:36:27] » Okay. Circulation would be fine.
>> If I may just add to some of the
[1:36:31] conversation through the chair to
councelor Nesbet and your colleagues, I
[1:36:36] think that um that level of review would
typically happen at the development
[1:36:40] permit stage. And so because we don't
know what type of data centers we might
[1:36:45] get, it's nearly impossible for us to
compile a list of considerations that
[1:36:50] make sense. This just creates the
framework under which we would evaluate
[1:36:54] those. So water use for example if a
data center was to come forward um and
[1:37:00] it is of a technology that does not
require high water use then having some
[1:37:07] kind of requirement to interact with a
water-based agency wouldn't make a lot
[1:37:11] of sense. Um and so uh at the time of
development we believe this framework
[1:37:16] would allow us to um make those
determinations and ensure that all of
[1:37:20] those pieces were in place relative to
the details of the development at that
[1:37:24] time. Councelor
Hidris.
[1:37:29] » Um,
again, this could be something that the
[1:37:35] this specific bylaw is not the right
place for. So, I don't know why I'm
[1:37:38] asking it here, but my question is
around uh cost. So if there are needs
[1:37:44] for upgrades into infrastructure or if
something happens that that that
[1:37:52] for example because of the because of
the overuse of the water or because of
[1:37:56] the overuse of the of the electricity
the the the distribution rate increases
[1:38:03] to everyone.
How how like how can we address that
[1:38:08] issue around cost recovery around
I don't know how
[1:38:13] » yeah through the chair I'll I'll jump in
there again councelor address I I again
[1:38:18] typically with any development we
consider any and all impacts they would
[1:38:22] have on general infrastructure and um
development is typically required to pay
[1:38:27] for development so that those costs are
contained um you know within or by uh
[1:38:33] the developing uh body
[1:38:38] uh excuse me rates um you know that that
that's a question we would probably
[1:38:42] likely unless governor Bailey would
would know that I don't know that there
[1:38:47] is a situation where
a high electrical user for example would
[1:38:53] trigger higher rates for all folks in
that area. Typically, it's just by usage
[1:38:59] at the local site. Uh, and so they would
pay a higher percentage of the
[1:39:05] distribution fee based on the amount of
electricity that they used is the
[1:39:09] typical framework, but I'm happy to have
support on that.
[1:39:13] » Yeah. Through the chair to council, the
consideration of electrical is something
[1:39:18] that you deal with regionally. So, the
transmission line can only carry so much
[1:39:22] into the region. So, as even the county
adds in new solar plants, as you add in
[1:39:28] solar on housing, as you add in uses
like this, I think it is incumbent on
[1:39:34] you to continue to have staff keep in
contact with Foris and where they are
[1:39:38] with their capacity of electrical uh or
electrical capacity in the community. It
[1:39:45] is one of these things where it's it's
kind of a pull and tug pull and tug from
[1:39:49] one user to another as time goes on and
is something that is to be monitored. I
[1:39:54] think a lot of people would be surprised
to know that yes, you are competing with
[1:39:59] new solar approvals as they go on and
even your local solar approvals are are
[1:40:05] part of that equation as any high-end
user would be part of that equation.
[1:40:12] » Thank you.
got another question.
[1:40:18] » A question around the decommission and I
and I know you addressed that to a
[1:40:22] degree
but but in the in the in the incidents
[1:40:28] where there is this significant
computers and in in in these many of
[1:40:35] these items in two three years they may
lose their value. So maybe they are not
[1:40:40] that important to the person who is
occupying the space.
[1:40:44] Can we do something although it's bigger
than us only? Can we do something
[1:40:49] through the bylaw to address that?
[1:40:54] » Perhaps I'll maybe take a stab at that
one. Um, first there I I I think when we
[1:40:58] when we think of decommissioning, we are
typically at the development approval.
[1:41:03] We are thinking about what the site
might look like when the operation
[1:41:07] ceases in terms of potential
contamination or uh things of that
[1:41:12] nature. We typically wouldn't get
involved with internal equipment or
[1:41:18] production of things like cardboard for
example. many businesses generate those
[1:41:22] types of things and it's their
responsibility to uh to manage that and
[1:41:26] at the development authority level we
wouldn't be getting involved. So things
[1:41:29] like computer equipment um that may have
a a liframe a lifetime of whatever it
[1:41:35] may be five years, six years, three
years, two years, don't know and some
[1:41:40] components may be even quicker than
that. That is just a course of a
[1:41:44] business and they would be responsible
for disposing of those materials under
[1:41:48] any and all regulations that exist
around recycling and waste management.
[1:41:52] That again those those typically happen
at a provincial at a provincial level.
[1:41:57] um where I do think that there is um
some consideration if any would be at
[1:42:02] the end of life for the facility as a
whole. That is I think the only area
[1:42:08] where I would recommend we give some
consideration and then again I believe
[1:42:11] that would be appropriate for that
conversation to take place at the time
[1:42:15] of development dependent on the
specifics and the nature and the
[1:42:19] environmental assessments that are
required um that would allow um guidance
[1:42:23] in those areas.
Thank you very much. Are there any other
[1:42:29] questions?
[1:42:32] » Sorry if I may through the chair. Just
one other thing to add to um with
[1:42:36] decommissioning. I believe um that uh
computers and internal components aside
[1:42:42] if that building was ever to be
redeveloped. So if they moved out and
[1:42:45] they moved all of the data center
equipment out and then a new business
[1:42:48] came in, there's an existing building
there that would continue to um be stay
[1:42:53] on the tax role as an improved parcel of
land. Then if a new business came in and
[1:42:57] wanted to use that building for a
different use, we would go through the
[1:42:59] development permitting stage all over
again. So it would be a a new use
[1:43:03] application, change of use, change of
occupancy, they would be required to
[1:43:07] provide us any plans that we request at
that time to determine whether or not
[1:43:11] the new use is compatible with the site.
And then when you get to the building
[1:43:15] permit side of it for a change of use,
then they have to follow the national
[1:43:18] building code requirements as well. So
there are certainly other steps that
[1:43:22] would would come into play as soon as a
new use were to be introduced to the
[1:43:26] building.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. Any other
[1:43:30] questions?
>> Okay. Seeing none, it has been moved by
[1:43:34] councelor Philipsson that bylaw number
26-027
[1:43:38] be read a second time. All those in
favor?
[1:43:41] Carried.
It's been moved by councelor Falenberg
[1:43:45] that bylaw number 26-027
being a bylaw of the city of Brooks in
[1:43:49] the province of Alberta to amend bylaw
number 14-12 being the land use bylaw be
[1:43:54] read a third time and adopted. All those
in favor
[1:43:59] carried. The next topic we have is bylaw
26-031
[1:44:05] new regional emergency management bylaw
and partnership agreement. That will be
[1:44:10] director Schaz.
>> Thank you. Through the chair to council.
[1:44:14] Uh before you use a request for decision
regarding the new regional emergency
[1:44:18] management updated partnership agreement
bylaws for ministerial order uh to
[1:44:24] ensure continued compliance with current
provincial legislation and operational
[1:44:28] requirements. Updates to the bylaw and
agreement include specific language
[1:44:32] changes, terminology, and numbering
changes. Following participating
[1:44:37] communities, council's approvals of
these updates and subsequent commission
[1:44:41] to the province of Alberta, formal
approval of the ministerial orders
[1:44:45] expected, which will finalize the
process and bring the updated
[1:44:49] partnership into full effect. Uh topics
for council's discussion are option one,
[1:44:54] approve the updated agreement and bylaw,
which continues our participation in the
[1:44:59] new regional emergency management
partnership under provincial ministerial
[1:45:03] order. or option two, do not approve,
which may result in us being excluded
[1:45:08] from the new regional emergency
management partnership. There's no new
[1:45:13] financial implications associated with
these updates. Therefore, recommendation
[1:45:18] from administration is the council
adopts bylaw 26/031
[1:45:23] with three readings and approved the
updated new regional emergency
[1:45:27] management partnership agreement.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. Again, I'll
[1:45:32] read the bylaw for the first time and if
there's any questions, it can be asked
[1:45:36] after the second time. So it has been
moved by councel Iddris that bylaw
[1:45:41] 26-031
being a bylaw of the city of Brooks in
[1:45:44] the province of Alberta to establish a
regional emergency advisory committee
[1:45:49] and a regional emergency management
agency that includes the county of
[1:45:53] Newell, the town of Basano, the village
of Duchess, the village of Rosemary and
[1:45:58] the city of Brooks be introduced and
read a first time. All those in favor?
[1:46:05] Carried.
It's been moved by councelor Nesbet that
[1:46:08] bylaw number 26-031
be read a second time. Are there any
[1:46:13] questions? Councelor Phillipsson?
>> Not necessarily a question. Um I think
[1:46:18] it's a a good agreement. I'm happy to
see that all the municipalities are
[1:46:23] involved. If there is an emergency, we
all have to work together. Um I think my
[1:46:28] question was more were there any changes
that the other municipalities suggested
[1:46:33] or did they all accept the way it was
presented to us
[1:46:37] » uh through the chair to councelor
Phillipsson. So the majority of the
[1:46:40] changes that are in this document came
from the uh Alberta government. So we
[1:46:45] had to match up the bylaws for all the
comm community all five involved
[1:46:48] communities and the agreement to match
what they wanted specifically before
[1:46:52] they'll grant the ministerial order. So,
it's basically just a few minor language
[1:46:57] changes to get everybody everybody on
the same page. It gets submitted to the
[1:47:01] province of Alberta. They're going to
approve. They've basically given
[1:47:05] conditional acceptance based on the new
documents.
[1:47:09] » Okay. Are there any other questions?
>> Okay. Seeing Seeing none, it has been
[1:47:17] moved by councelor Nesbet that bylaw
number 26-031
[1:47:21] be read a second time. All those in
favor?
[1:47:25] carried. It has been moved by councelor
Falenberg that bylaw number 26-031
[1:47:31] be given three readings at this meeting
and it must be carried unanimously
[1:47:36] unanimously to go forward. All those in
favor
[1:47:41] carried unanimously.
[1:47:45] It has been moved by councelor Johnson
that bylaw number 26-025
[1:47:50] being a bylaw of the city of Brooks in
the province of Alberta to establish a
[1:47:53] regional emergency advisory committee
and regional emergency management
[1:47:57] advisory that includes the county of
mule, the town of Basano, the village of
[1:48:01] Duchess, the village of Rosemary and the
city of Brooks be read a third time and
[1:48:06] adopted. All those in favor
carried.
[1:48:11] It has been moved by councelor
Phillipsson that council approve the
[1:48:14] updated new regional emergency
management partnership agreement. All
[1:48:18] those in favor
carried.
[1:48:23] It has been moved by councelor Ragner
that the meeting adjourn at 6:15.
[1:48:28] All those in favor
carried.
[1:48:40] have to be afraid.
>> Yes, you do.