[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.

City of Brooks Council Meeting | May 25, 2026

Transcript