Should be a
Yeah.
» Mhm.
» Good morning everyone. Welcome to our
special meeting of council for Tuesday,
May the 5th. Uh starting with our land
acknowledgement today on uh on a special
day.
Uh that in the spirit of respect,
reciprocity, and truth, we honor and
acknowledge Mokintsis and the
traditional Treaty 7 territory and oral
practices of the Blackfoot Confederacy,
Siksika, Kainai, Piikani, Nakoda Nakota
Nations, Chiniki, Bearspaw, Goodstoney,
and Tsuut'ina Nation. We acknowledge
this territory as home to the Métis
government of the Métis Nation with
Alberta District 4. And finally, we
acknowledge all nations, indigenous and
non, who live, work, and play on this
land and who honor and celebrate this
territory. This sacred gathering place
provides us with an opportunity to
engage in and demonstrate leadership on
reconciliation, and we are honored to
have you join us on Treaty 7 territory.
Going to uh approval of the agenda. Uh
do I have a counselor that can make the
motion for uh the approval of the
agenda? With the special meeting, if we
wanted to add things, it would have to
be signed by all of council, so I don't
think we're going to be looking for any
additions
uh to the agenda today.
Uh so, with that, uh can I have a
counselor uh make the following motion,
please? Counselor Randhawa.
Thank you, Your Worship. Good morning,
everyone. I move that the council
approve the May 5th, 2026 special
meeting of council agenda as presented.
Uh thank you.
Uh comments, questions from council?
Call for the vote.
Uh Deputy Mayor Narayan, do you vote in
favor?
In favor. Thank you.
And that's carried unanimously. My
screen is locked, it won't let me vote.
I have three lock signs. So, I vote in
favor. If we can maybe have our IT have
someone from
IT come and have a look at that.
I just have lock symbols on there. Just
so everyone is aware, Deputy Mayor
Narayan is attending a conference for
the yesterday and the next two days and
so he's just joining us virtually
while he's in attendance at a justice
conference here
this week. So,
with that, yeah, as mentioned at the top
of the meeting, today is a very special
day. It is Red Dress Day which is
observed annually on May 5th and honors
missing and murdered Indigenous women,
girls, and two-spirit people and raises
awareness about the ongoing crisis of
violence against Indigenous communities.
One of the things that this council has
been committed to with council
recognitions and announcements is
ensuring that we're honoring special
days throughout the year. You will have
seen and may have noticed that last week
we had approved a new policy for
recognition and this falls in line with
that. So, with that we have invited Ms.
Patty Sproul to join us here today and
I'm going to do a quick presentation
of tobacco for Ms. Sproul and she's
going to be
doing some education here for our
council with regards to Red Dress Day as
well as
leading us through a smudging ceremony.
So,
good morning.
Thank you.
In the over 10 years I've known you, I
think it's first time I've ever shook
your hand.
First time for everything. Right? Mhm.
Good morning.
Thank you for inviting me here.
And thank you for the gift of tobacco. I
will cherish it.
Today,
as I prepare to offer this smudge,
I want to acknowledge the significance
of Red Dress Day.
In my work within this community
alongside youth, families, and
organizations,
I have seen how deeply people care
about creating a place where everyone
feels safe and valued.
Red Dress Day reminds us that Indigenous
women, girls, and two-spirit people
experience a homicide rate that is six
times higher
six times higher
than the non-Indigenous population.
So, their sense of safety has never
really existed.
As members of council
and as community leaders, we are part of
the systems that shape the people's
experiences.
That comes with both responsibility and
opportunity.
A responsibility to acknowledge the
truth and the opportunity to lead in
ways that create greater safety,
inclusion, and understanding.
As I offer this smudge, I do so with
respect
for those who are missing,
for those who whose lives have take been
taken,
and for the families who continue to
carry that loss.
I also offer it with intention
that our decisions,
our leadership,
and our actions reflect a genuine
commitment to reconciliation,
not just in words,
but in how we serve
community every day.
Today, we remember.
And we recommit to doing better
together.
Okay.
I'm just going to start the smudge here
and um
thank you to Rebecca McGilvery for the
gift of
uh white sage, um which is one of the
uh four sacred medicines of the
indigenous people.
The other one is tobacco.
It's also a gift here and um
another one is sweetgrass, which you
often see in a braid.
Um the only one I don't have here is
cedar.
I'm going to start this
and I will smudge first.
Anyone who would like to
is welcome to come up and
and smudge as well, but there's no
pressure to do so.
» Just also want to make sure uh
the invitation is extended to any
members of administration or anybody
that's in the gallery as well.
Okay. With that,
uh thank you for joining us this
morning. And uh for that uh for the
education
uh with regards to this, I do think that
it is important um what's one of the
things that certainly stood out to me as
you were speaking is
uh when sitting on this side of the
desk, the responsibility and the
opportunity.
Uh and I think when this job is done
right, you find the balance that is
within within those two things. And I
think that this is a good reminder to
find the balance within that. I think
that's something that stood out to me
because when one goes too far the other
way, I think that sometimes that's where
it's just important to find the balance
in this. Uh cuz when you bear the
responsibility too much, it can be
overbearing. And when it's too much of
an opportunity, are you aware of your
responsibility? And so I just see a
strong tension point in that. That's
what stood out to me when you spoke
today is the responsibility and the
opportunity that we carry uh to utilize
our voice when it comes to
reconciliation as well as to ensure that
we are um
honoring
traditions
and opportunities that we have to
participate
in ceremonies such as this. So,
thank you again. We appreciate it.
Thank you.
Perhaps we'll just take a quick 5-minute
break and just allow for us to
transition and we'll do the weird thing
when you go back to uh
having a regular meeting of council. So,
we'll come back at 9:35. Thanks,
everyone.
» Mhm.
» Yeah, totally useless.
Good morning, everyone. Uh just coming
back from our break here and now moving
forward with the rest of our agenda that
we have here today.
Moving on to number 4.1, it's a bit of a
mislabel here that we have right now.
What we wanted to do was we've had a bit
of an urgent item that has come.
One of the things that this council was
acutely aware of
is the need for us to see upgrades
happen at Chestermere Boulevard, 17th
Avenue, 284, the intersection that is
284 and Chestermere Boulevard, then as
well as
certainly at least the twinning of
Chestermere Boulevard and 17th Avenue.
We had an intermunicipal committee
meeting
last Friday and at that meeting
both Councillor Chabot and Councillor
Clark talked about the idea of and
encouraged for the city of Chestermere
to write a letter to the city of Calgary
outlining
again
the importance of this. This has been a
ongoing conversation since this council
was elected last term as well as this
term as well as previous councils have
been having it as well.
But we have certainly been
quite
diligent in this conversation. So with
that
wanted to bring forward the idea that
this is regarding Range Road 284 and
17th Avenue intersection improvements
and the twinning of Chestermere
Boulevard 17th Avenue. Whereas the
intersection of Range Road 284 and 17th
Avenue has reached a critical threshold
requiring safety enhancements and
long-term improvements to support
existing residential traffic and planned
regional growth.
And whereas this intersection serves
residents of both the city of
Chestermere and the city of Calgary
necessitating a collaborative
intermunicipal approach to regional
infrastructure safety and connectivity.
And whereas Chestermere Boulevard 17th
Avenue serves as an economic corridor
and that many residents who work in
Calgary and conversely residents who
work in Chestermere and live in Calgary
utilize this roadway on a daily basis to
get to and from work. And whereas the
twinning of Chestermere Boulevard 17th
Avenue and the future plans for transit
will have a positive impact on
businesses in both Chestermere and
Calgary.
And so we are preparing a motion here
that I would like to bring up on the
screen.
And the motion that I'm seeking from
council is that council direct the mayor
to write a letter on behalf of the city
of Chestermere to Calgary City Council
outlining the urgent need
for the intersection at 284 and
Chestermere Boulevard/17th Avenue to be
upgraded and that Chestermere
Boulevard/17th Avenue be twinned. The
city of Chestermere is requesting
partnership with the city of Calgary on
the work that is being done along this
corridor. The letter will also outline
both interim and long-term measures as
well as the below. A summary of steps
taken to date, work currently underway,
the specific outcomes being requested of
the city of Calgary including agreements
to a joint staff level work plan
timeline, and identified points of
contact from both municipalities, and
the rationale for urgency related to the
safety of residents in both
municipalities, and to support planned
growth and activity, and that the city
of Calgary be invited to identify a
project lead and share a proposed
timeline for interim measures and a
long-term solution. So, again, this is
continuing on that work, but really
taking the conversations that we have
been having
through our intermunicipal committee
meetings,
as well as on whenever we see elected
officials from Calgary at any of the
conferences that we're at, this
conversation comes up from every member
of this council,
and and it has come up often, and so
what we're doing here is
really formalizing that process
with this motion. And so, if I may, if I
could have a counselor make the
following motion, please. Counselor
Schindler.
Absolutely.
Um
I move that council direct the mayor to
write a letter on behalf of the city of
Chestermere to Calgary City Council
outlining the urgent need for the
intersection at 284 and Chestermere
Boulevard 17 and 17th Avenue to be
upgraded.
And that Chestermere Boulevard 17th
Avenue be twinned. The city of
Chestermere is requesting partnership
with the city of Calgary on the work to
be done along this corridor.
The letter will outline both interim and
long-term measures, as well as the
below. A, a summary of steps
taken to date. B, work currently
underway. C, the specific outcomes being
requested of the city of Calgary
including agreement to a joint staff
level work plan timeline.
And identified points of contact from
both municipalities and D, the rationale
for urgency related to the safety of
residents in both municipalities and to
support planned growth and connectivity.
Uh and that the city of Calgary be
invited to identify a project lead and
share the proposed timelines for interim
measures and long-term solution.
Thank you.
Uh comments, questions from council?
Call for the vote.
Councillor uh sorry, Deputy Mayor Ryan,
do you vote in favor?
Yes, in favor. Thank you.
And that's carried unanimously. Thank
you.
Okay, we're now going to move on to our
budget and uh final operating and uh
budget and capital budget conversations.
And I believe that this is uh being
presented by Mr. Mark Shonkin or CAO Mr.
Edney. So, CAO, who am I turning it over
to? Mr. Edney.
Yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean. Good
morning, council. Uh so, I'll take the
presentation part of I guess this budget
update. Uh so, this is uh intended to be
a continuation of the discussion that we
had
um not last week, but the week prior uh
when council called this special
meeting. Uh at that time, there were
some requests from council coming out of
that meeting. Um the takeaways that
administration had was a reconciliation
of salaries and wages to date so far in
2026.
The events budget comparison between
2025 to 2026.
Uh the department by department rolled
up budgets. Um those were included
originally in the interim budget package
and council now has a
um
a consolidation of just the information
that was related to to the um individual
departments in front of you. We don't
plan to discuss that in detail unless
there's any questions from council. And
then there was a discussion around what
should we be
saving or tax impacts towards individual
um capital project items coming up. So,
this presentation, it's a short one. Um
it's relatively quick. I'll walk through
it with some of that information and
then open up the floor to discussion,
questions. Um we're still assuming that
um either in front of you or you have
access to the interim budget
presentations as well as the full final
um operating capital budget presentation
that we had discussed in the previous
meeting. So, with that, um if you can
just jump to the next slide there, Led
Services for me. So, one of the things
that wasn't a direct takeaway, but there
was a lot of questions um about was what
drives our surplus and and where does
our surplus potentially come from in
2025? So, this is a statement of the
2025 operations that comes from the
audited financial statements that
council approved at the last meeting.
Um
there's really four key areas um where
the variance occurred.
Um in the revenue side, it's under
licenses and permits. And then in
investment income. And I'll talk a
little bit about those details on the
next the next slide. So, really led us
to $3.6 million of extra revenue that
wasn't budgeted for. On the expense
side, um
most of the driver was in our purchases
from other governments. So, that's our
RCMP contract was our biggest driver of
that one, as well as some uh small
savings in we budget for mutual aid um
in the fire department um with other
communities. If we don't need their
mutual aid, then we don't uh we don't
use it. So, fortunately last year, we
didn't need uh didn't need aid from our
counterparts as much. And then um
the second driver on the expense side is
the contracted and general services. So,
if we can flip to the next side
next slide, sorry.
Um again, we've talked about this a
couple of times. One of our big revenue
items on
on the operating budget side is the
revenue we receive from development
permits, building permits, safety code
inspections,
um all those things that come with
development. Uh so, we've seen obviously
significant growth.
Um
looking for the right word to accurately
describe it. Significant growth in the
past 4 or 5 years and
um you know, relatively it's it's
roughly 20% 20 to 25% of our property
tax. What we charge in property tax is
also comes in in building permits and
fees. So, one of the things when we're
budgeting this is we don't want to over
budget what we expect from this because
that will create a deficit, but we're
also cognizant not to
um try to under budget too much. What
happened last year is right around
um budget time, uh the Trump
administration imposed their tariffs.
We weren't sure what was going to
happen. We discussed it at at budget
time that it was better to anticipate a
slowdown. We didn't quite see the
slowdown the way we thought. So, the
main driver of that $2.3 million is
actually increased
um building permits fees relative to
what we budgeted. Um if you remember
back in the final budget presentation,
Mr. Schonkan showed that well, it was
above budget, it actually did slow down
from the year before, and we did have
less permits than the year before. We
just had more than we expected in that
case. So, that's the main driver in the
in the license and and fees.
Um the second one is the increased
investment income.
Uh, Mr. Schaupmann can talk to this
better, but one of our assumptions and
one of our challenges we've had um,
in the organization over the last few
years is really effectively actually
spending our capital budget money. Um,
you know, we saw that last year with
some projects kicking off in the fall
when we thought they'd be kicking off
earlier. So, when that money is sitting
in our account, it's now earning us
investment income rather than when it's
been used to pay bills. So, this is a
function um, and then he can elaborate
more if you have more questions of just
having cash in our
bank account longer than we thought we
would. Just the timing of paying bills.
So, we did see about $1.3 million extra
uh, than we had originally budgeted for.
Um, I talked on the last slide in a
little bit of detail about the purchases
from other governments. Um,
the big reduction is the
uh, number of personnel we had in place
with the RCMP. Uh, we've talked about
this again at the budgeting, but for
reference, we have to make a estimate of
what we expect the staffing complement
to be in the RCMP through the year. And
while we budget for that, they only bill
us on actual
um, full-time equivalent members, and
they do it to two decimal places. So,
they they track in great detail the
number of days that a a member is
working.
And so, when we have situations where
people are off on leave or um, that kind
of thing and the position isn't able to
be backfilled, we then see a savings
there. So, again, we're generally
budgeting for
not a full complement. Again, I think
we've talked about this publicly that
um, you know, we're shooting for 25, but
um, we're budgeting for 21 officers. And
then so, if we only see 19 as an
equivalent, we get that uh, refund back
for the two in between. So, that's the
driver of that reduction. We didn't
quite see the staffing levels we'd hoped
for in the RCMP last year.
And then really on the contracted
services um
with the transition
of the organization, I think is the best
way to put it, you know, we're we're
trying to catch up from the significant
uh turnover that the organization
experienced before this council and
before I came on. Uh so, we had a lot of
projects that we were planning to do, a
lot of projects catching up on things
that the community needed. So, we had a
pretty significant
contracted services budget last year. Um
this difference is again really just
from us being able to fill some key
positions in the organization, then not
needing to use a consultant, or it was
some projects that got deferred into
into this year that we didn't actually
execute on last year. So, um
you know, again
um with maybe the exception of the RCMP,
generally the four items leading to that
surplus were something that I don't want
to use the term one-time things, but
they're not
they're a little bit more of an art than
a science um when it comes to budgeting
than say personnel is or our sand budget
or our gravel budget or our
budget to mow the parks. We can be a lot
closer on that because we've got
a consistent repetitive history of
those. So,
um those are the four items that really
led to the surplus last year.
Um I don't know if you want to jump in
and ask questions as we go or let me get
through to the end and come back. I'm
easy either way.
Uh one of the other questions was um and
we'd had some comments in the past about
personnel being a huge variance item.
And I believe in the years sort of from
2021
through to 2024,
uh personnel was a big variance. We've
talked extensively of 70% turnover. Um
turnover is different when somebody is
um
terminated without cause, there usually
some sort of severance payment that goes
to them that then essentially takes up
the time in between it takes to get a
new body in. But in this case, it was
often people leaving. So when people
leave of their own accord, that 2 months
or 3 months in between where it takes to
hire somebody new does become a
personnel saving. So when you look back
at the
um
variances in those years, it's typically
driven by
um the issues in the personnel budget.
Um last year's actually, if you look at
the personnel budget directly, we were
actually about $8,000 over when it came
uh at the end of the day through the
audited financial statements. Again,
council had a
robust discussion about um the effort
that went into the financial statements
and the accounting since Mr. Schonken
has been here at this point. So um we
didn't see the same extent in salaries
and wages that we expected to
last year. When you look at this year so
far,
um doing the quick reconciliation, it's
always tougher
early on in the year. A lot of our um
items that are shown on here like
pension, Canada Pension Plan, Employment
Insurance,
um pension contributions are related to
a person's salary,
but they also max out where you only put
in a limited amount. So at the start of
the year,
um you're generally for Canada Pension
Plan, Employment Insurance going to
overspend and then catch up as the year
goes on as most employees at some point
throughout the year stop contributing to
those. Um and again, pension is a direct
relation to salaries and wages. It's a
percentage of your salary. So when we're
underspent on salaries and wages, we're
going to be under spent on pension as
well as uh
um
yeah, contributions for benefits as
well. Um
WCB, we've talked about that as a
separate line item
um as an adjustment to the budget. This
is a comparison to the budget we're
working under right now, which is the
interim operating budget as that
increase to WCB hasn't been approved. Uh
Mr. Sheedy talked about that, I think,
at the last meeting of uh the
significant increase we're seeing in WCB
due to a few
um unfortunate items over the past
couple of years that have just taken a
really long time for workers to get back
to work. So, generally, we're sitting um
I think in a relatively good position.
Um we're about $60,000 under spent.
Um a big amount of that variance is um
we're still continuing to bring people
in on the new positions that were hired.
Um you're seeing a lot of new faces come
into city hall. I do expect that
variance to tighten up as the year goes
on. One important point in here is with
the vacancies we do have, we've already
incorporated a 3% vacancy rate into
these numbers that are shown here. So,
the budget number actually assumes that
we're only running at 97%
of what we would actually spend if we
had 100% capacity at all the time. So,
it's taking into account some of those
um
cases where people leave for another
position somewhere or where it takes us
a little bit longer to fill a new
position than we originally anticipated.
So, that's the reconciliation of where
we are
at as of April 17th. That was our last
uh payday that we were able to to pull
accurate numbers from.
And coincidentally, it's exactly 1/3 uh
through the year, so it made the math on
the budget side easy.
Um
I think that's covered
most of those um operating budget
requests, I guess. The next slide I'll
talk about capital project funding,
which of course relates back to the
operating budget in considering how
council would like to um
allocate funding for future
um for future capital items.
So, real quickly
on this state on this page um if we work
kind of left to right and top from
bottom,
um one of the things that Mr. Shaun Chen
identified and talked about and has been
talked about a lot at the provincial
level of currently we do not have
a consistent policy or a consistent um
budget item where we put money away to
our asset replacement. So, this isn't
our new infrastructure. This isn't um
stuff that's being built in the new
communities. It's not new lift stations.
It's not new roads. It's
putting away savings for those items
that are starting to age, are starting
to deteriorate, are starting to look to
need replacement. Uh we've been
fortunate in the last few years and Mr.
Shaun Chen talked about this before of
we
um
use the term grossly cuz I think it was
grossly underutilized
our funding from the federal government
and from the provincial government. Uh
he talked about I think we're spending
in the neighborhood of 13 million
in grant funds on capital projects right
now and we get about 2.8 million a year.
So, it tells you how many years we're
backed up in that kind of
I think Mayor Deans calls them the
the times the trouble times. What do you
refer to them as?
>> Situation.
» Situation.
>> The situation.
» The situation.
During the situations. Uh so, we're
catching up on that. So, what this is
looking at
um that first line item of 2.279
million, that's 60% of what we're
carrying for amortization on those
tangible assets. So, amortization is
reflecting, you know, how
your assets are aging, how your assets
are
coming towards the end of their useful
life. Um a practice that Mr. Shoniker
recommends is the council's putting away
about 60% of that, and that's for those
things um
either A, that we're fortunate and can
see in advance that something needs to
be replaced before it fails. It's also
those things like Calgary had with the
Bearspaw feeder main um
that you're not expecting to happen.
This is putting money away for those
type of of asset replacements and
repairs as you go forward. So, um our
recommendation is roughly 60% of of the
amortization of all those assets. That's
fleet vehicles, that's roads, sidewalks,
um all the municipal infrastructure,
buildings, city hall, fire station,
community operations building, etc. Um
of putting something away to save for
those in the future. And Mr. Shoniker
has talked about um what we currently
have in in the reserve account um
simply is there to manage that cash flow
discrepancy throughout the year. It's
not actual um cash that can necessarily
be be used for funding at this point.
So, the recommendation is to council to
start building up
that asset replacement fund. Um
when you start working down again, um
we've already presented the five-year
capital budget. This is again just
looking for '27 through '2030. Um and on
that budget, um administration has
identified which projects could be
funded through the LGFF framework as
well as the CCBF. CCBF is used to to
referred to as the gas tax.
So, after taking all of those projects
out, um it left with this list of
projects. Again, these haven't been
approved. They're just on the budget as
a um an indicator of things that
administration has identified need to be
used in the next year,
um and what those look like.
Um from sort of a a smaller capital
project item.
So, at the bottom, um I think this is
that sort of request. This is trying to
capture that request of what do we need
to put money away for. Um we've only
looked at
the city portion of offsite land levy
projects. So, the Dawson Landing Rec
Facility right now, our share is just
short of about $25 million.
Uh the library, our share would be about
$5 million, and then the replacement of
the bridge is about in the $14 million
um
$14 million
range, I guess, as per big projects that
we see coming up over the next 4 years.
So,
what we've done administratively is
break down for council, um
what does this look like if you were to
collect
A, the asset replacement savings through
property taxes.
Um
so,
you'd be looking at
bringing in about $14.76
a month
from your average $400,000 home, which
would equate to about a 7.8%
property tax increase from where rates
are at today.
Uh of course, if you had a
million-dollar home, that $14.76 goes up
by 50% to about $21.
If you had a $350,000 home, well, it's
cut in half to about $7 a month. Um so,
as you work through down this sheet,
what we've assumed
um in all of the items below that is
that those are being funded through
debt.
Um as we discussed, we don't have the
savings right now to fund these through
that. Um an option, of course, would be
to start putting extra money aside for
these particular items. Um you know,
something we've talked about explicitly
is
uh the community's been planning
a rec facility for somewhere in the
neighborhood of 10 years, and we haven't
put any city money away in that 10 years
to pay for that rec facility.
Um so now we're at the point where
hopefully council's going to make a
decision to move forward or not at some
point here, and we don't have anything
in our savings account to pay our
portion. So, we've assumed that all of
these capital projects need to be funded
through debentures. So, this monthly tax
impact, again for the $700,000 average
home, is what needs to be paid to
service that debt over a 25-year life of
that debenture. So, for example,
uh if we just pick the aerial 116, the
fire truck replacement, we'd need a
$1.85
a month from every home to service the
debt to to purchase that piece of
equipment. If we move down
the uh the list to the bottom, um
the Dawson Landing rec facility, we'd
need about $10.81 a month from your
average home to fund that or about a 5%
0.7% tax increase just to service the
debenture uh to pay for that facility.
So, I won't walk through every single
number. Um hopefully that makes sense of
how it is. And so, one of the things
that's important to note, and I left it
in
at the very top with the asset
replacement savings,
um once you
make that change, it carries forward in
perpetuity till you make another change.
So,
for the Dawson Landing rec facility, for
example,
um you would need the $10.81
increase
in 2027, and that just carries forward
in perpetuity. So, it's not 5.8% this
year and 5.8 another 5.8 the next year
and another and another. It's just 5.8%
and you can carry that forward for the
next 25 years to service that debenture.
So, that's what it's trying to show. Um
if you look at the very top,
the total cumulative impact over the
next 4 years for all of these projects,
um if council were to proceed and move
forward, is about $40.07
per month
um over the next 4 years again for a
$700,000 home. If your home is worth 50%
more, that would be $60. If your home is
worth half, that'd be about $20.
The cumulative net impact would be about
21% over those 4 years. So,
I talked about this at the last meeting
of
um
When we talk about percentages on lower
numbers, it takes bigger percentages to
gain smaller amounts of dollars. So, I
think sometimes when when we hear or see
numbers like 15 or 20%, um it starts to
scare you, but Councillor Shener and I
were having this discussion of we're
talking about 14% on 3%. So,
it's not 14% of 100%. It's 14% of 3.2%.
Um
so, it changes your your rate from, you
know, 3.2 to
3.5. Um it's not an extra 14% on top of
there. So,
that's what the future looks like for
funding what we see in front of us
for capital replacement over the next 4
years and our big projects.
Um
if we go to the next slide,
you know, the good news I think from my
perspective is well, 20% isn't something
to downplay.
Um
it's where we'd be if we had kept pace.
Um easily be there if we'd kept pace
over the last 5 years
um with our neighboring communities. The
challenge that this brings, of course,
is that anticipates we're borrowing
almost $58 million in the next 4 years.
If you remember from the financial
statements, our debt capacity is 59.
It's about 58.
We already have 5 million for the golf
course. Um and we have another 1 and 1/2
million on some other projects. Of
course, as taxes do grow and increase,
our debt capacity will increase, but um
this will completely maximize our debt
limit, our internal debt limit of 75%.
Uh again, we've talked about why most
municipalities have that policy
um because our revenue other outside of
property taxes fluctuates.
Um it takes into account that we don't
end up in a tough position if building
permits or fines, etc. were to decrease
over time and our payments on our
debenture doesn't keep up. So, we could
fund all those projects through debt,
but it does put us at our debt limit at
that point. Um the key part of all of
these projects, as you start thinking
about um the next few years, is it does
not include any of the debt needed to
complete the off-site levy portion of
these projects. So, again, we've talked
about the rec center. I just pick it
because it's the biggest one. You could
do the same with the library um or the
fire hall. We don't have the fire hall
on there because there's no portion of
that that's actually municipally funded.
Um but the fire hall is a good example
in the off-site levy model. Um it's
budgeted for $15 million, and I think we
have about 3 million um in the fire
off-site levy. So, if we were to move
forward with the fire hall, that $12
million
uh needs a debenture to be taken out. Uh
that debenture, of course, gets paid off
by the off-site levy funds we recoup
over time, but that $12 million applies
onto our debt limit um as a city right
now.
Same thing with the recreation center. I
believe we're contemplating about $44
million is the offsite levy
portion of it, and we have just shy of
$20 million uh in that offsite levy fund
right now. So, again, there's another
$25
million or so
of debt that needs to be taken out to
complete the offsite levy portion of
that.
Um same thing with the library. It's a
smaller project, but we're again looking
at another $4 or $5 million
for the offsite levy portion of the
library. And this isn't including, you
know, anything that might also be
in the capital budget beyond the next 4
years. So,
um paints a little bit of a a grim
picture. Council doesn't have to make
those decisions right now. We'll have
more information and more options, of
course, as those projects come forward
for actual council approval. Um one of
the discussions Mark and I have had um
around the offsite levy projects, for
sure, is
seeking a minister exemption from
Minister Williams, Minister of Municipal
Affairs, to have the debt that's taken
on from the offsite levies
not counted towards the city's debt
limit. Um of course, there's a risk
there um that needs to be acknowledged
in that
um if development slows down, collection
of offsite levy slow down,
and the city is still responsible for
making those debt payments. So, if we
hit a situation over that 20-25 year
period where we've taken out a debenture
to pay the offsite levy, and uh
development grinds to a halt
for whatever reason, um
the city taxpayers would then be on the
hook for paying that portion of the debt
because it would still be a city loan.
So, um just something to be aware of. Of
course, we will continue to do what we
can. Um you know, there's a sponsorship
naming opportunity um policy
uh coming forward for that. We have um
actively
running a uh campaign feasibility study
uh to see what we can raise
um for outside support. We'll continue
to to pursue grants
um and other forms of investment for
these major projects. But again, um
we're seeing anecdotally from other
places that that may lead to
you know, 5 or 10 or maybe 15% at best.
So, we're still looking at at a way to
fund the other 85%. So,
one of the things that came up in our
original budget presentation as well was
not just start putting money away
for
um the asset replacements of our
existing assets, but a recommendation
would be for council to consider
starting to put money away to pay for
these big community-based projects um
that are contemplated on the books right
now like the Rec Center and like the
library. Um
So, really that was
my last information, I guess, that were
takeaways from
from our last meetings. Um again, the
intent would be for council to either
approve an operating budget um
today or at the very latest next Tuesday
at the 12th. We need that to then
develop the tax rate bylaw to have that
approved on May 26th. Um one of the
things I'll talk about, too,
um is we were projecting about a 1.8
million dollar
um
deficit in our current projection for
the operating budget. Um Mark and I have
talked um
I don't believe
So, I don't believe hope
is a strategy and it surely isn't a
plan.
Um but I think as we work through some
of the items um in the operating budget
such as the RCMP,
um we could have a discussion of whether
we remove some of those budget items now
to lower that deficit
or you just plan on like was already
presented, moving 1.8 from the reserves
and hope that near the end of the year
we can squeeze that deficit um with
either A, some improved revenues like
we've seen over the past couple years
or B,
some potential savings on some projects.
Again, specifically the RCMP would be
something worth talking about. Uh that
said, I didn't pull them up in front of
me
um but the last building permits and
statistics
uh email I received were you know, we're
running significantly behind where we
were last year at this time. Now, that
was end of March. Construction season
hadn't started, so uh we got surprised
last year uh with how much activity
picked up, but again,
that's a
educated guess um
at our best on what those those fees and
stuff will look like. So, leave that to
council um
to advise on how you'd like to deal with
that part of the deficit as well, but
think at this point we're open to
discussions. We've got all sorts of
information. Um can hopefully answer
your questions, help you make a
decision.
Uh thank you. Just before going to other
councilors, Deputy Mayor had a question
he wanted me to ask on his behalf is how
is this budget, capital and operational,
dealing with the volatility in gas
prices, which ultimately affects cost of
all goods and services?
Mr. Edney.
Yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean. So,
um
we talked about it at the last meeting.
I I either on the 23rd or 24th. Um we've
reviewed
the fuel budget
um and made some increases to that to
hopefully account for
the price of fuel, but um you're right.
We don't have a broader
inflation adjustment um accounted for
anywhere in our projects
to account for if this
blockage uh of the street continues for
a prolonged
time. So, again, that's that's another
risk, I guess, on the expense side on
some of these projects that uh we could
see that transferred not just directly
to the price of fuel, but the price of
of other goods.
The nice part, if that's the right word,
is the largest portion of our operating
budget is personnel. Um and that isn't
affected. Um affects people at home, of
course, like it does everybody, but
doesn't affect our cost um for those
people. So, it would be a less
significant increase, but it's something
we could take away and
you know, I don't know how we'd even
practically evaluate that other than to
just make a rough guess.
Okay. Thank you.
Uh Council questions.
Councilor Sambol.
Thank your worship and good morning
through to Mr. Edney. That uh is it It's
roughly a $5 million surplus from last
year, is that correct?
Okay. So, generally, I believe a
surplus, there would be some decision by
Council about what to do with that
surplus or what account to put that in
or how to allocate that. Has that task
been done? I did miss one meeting. Mr.
Edney. Uh yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean,
to Councilor Sambol. So, um that task
hasn't been directly done. Um what we
did, if you look back at the
final budget presentations um from the
previous meetings is on
the budget in the non-cash items. We had
the proceeds from the debenture coming
in.
Trans- um
Sorry, I'm answering a different
question.
I'm answering a different question.
That surplus is already accounted for in
um
It's already That money's already
sitting in the surplus account um and is
included in the calculations that have
been presented for all of
how to fund the capital projects
going forward. So,
um I'm answering that not in the best
way. Sorry, let me turn this off.
But that's included, I guess, when we
look at what's in the reserve account
now. That surplus is already in there.
Thank you. Um
okay, following up on that, what I'm
trying to suss out if there is still a
decision to be made with that $5
million. So, I understand it's in the
calculation, but is there still a
decision about what it, you know, what
project or whatever to put it in? When
you say surplus, are you talking about
that stabilization account?
Yes, that's where the money is. So, I
think Mr. Shaunken can probably talk
about this, but he talked about it at
the last meeting
of
we have to manage
um
So, if you remember, we went back and
looked at at the reconciliation of net
financial assets down to about $17
million.
Um so, that $17 million includes that
surplus from 2025.
And Mr. Shaunken's comment at the time
was we need to keep about $10 million in
there um
because that's what helps balance our
cash flow through the year for spending
when
um
due to the timing of taxes coming in in
the middle of the year and expending
expenditures occurring throughout the
total year. So, there's not a direct um
request of what council should do with
it, but council always has the ability
to do anything with your reserves. I
think what our recommendation is it's in
there to help fund future projects. It's
assuming that you're taking 1.8 million
out of there to fund the projected
deficit we have right now. But, as I
mentioned, our hope would be that with
some of these items we can narrow that
deficit down and then take less out of
that reserve account at the end of the
year. Does that
Does that make sense? A follow-up, Your
Worship. Yep. That does make sense. So,
what I'm hearing is that this money is
currently in a cash account. It's not in
an investment. So, it's not making any
money, but it needs to stay there
because we need that and more for cash
flow throughout the year. Is that
correct?
Mr. Reddick? Thank you too, Councillor
Sandbo. So,
where the cash sits, um we try to invest
as absolutely much as we can, but of
course we don't We just have one
investment account and one cash account.
Um so, I'd have to maybe get uh Mr.
Shankland to talk about that particular
amount, but we generally try to other
than that 10 million or even less as he
projects on a month-to-month basis of
how much money we need in the account,
we try to invest as much as we can and
then max it maximize it when our
investments are maturing to bring that
money then into the account. So, there's
no discrete account that has that
particular money in it. It's a large
account that has all the money from the
asset off-site levies, etc. And then it
becomes an accounting exercise
um
to
allocate those returns if that makes
sense.
So, it's not a the That was a long
answer to say it's not just sitting
there doing nothing.
Councilor Sambol.
Thank you your worship and through to
Mr. Edney. I'm glad to hear that. Do we
know what the the rate of return is
right now over the last little while?
Mr. Edney.
Thank you Mayor Dean. So we're running
about 4.5%
on our return. If you remember CIBC came
in
and I think their overall portfolio
return was somewhere around 4.39 at that
time. That's improved a little bit
just as we've reallocated some of our
investments. So we're making about 4.5%.
Your worship my last question on this
line
would be through to Mr. Edney. If we're
looking at pulling out a debenture, of
course we can't predict the future,
but what are we looking at for those
rates?
Mr. Edney.
Yeah, thank you Mayor Dean. I'm a little
bit embarrassed that I don't have that
number right on the top of my head cuz
I've been just doing a whole bunch of
debenture calculations. It's in the same
neighborhood. I think it's right around
5%
on the debenture,
but I can look that up if you give me 2
seconds here.
Thank you. Councilor Schindler.
Sure. Thank you.
Through the through the chair to
administration.
Um
Here's an interesting question that I
was just thinking about.
Does our low tax rate cuz considering
that we have the second lowest mill rate
in the province next to Canmore if I'm
correct? Does our low tax rate
contribute to the rise in our property
values?
Our property values have been exploding
over the last few years, so I'm curious.
Mr. Rodney.
Yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean. I can't
answer that question directly, but I can
provide anecdotally, um I guess a theory
on how it works. Of
um you know, in theory when you look at
property taxes and you look at being
competitive municipality to
municipality, if a
if someone is considering buying, all
other things aside, access to schools,
location to work, all those things are
the same, and somebody's looking at uh
purchasing, say, a $700,000 home, and
the mill rate in one community is 3.24,
and in another community it's 4.5,
in theory, they're going to choose the
one with the lower mill rate. Um but of
course, real life isn't
Correct. isn't that easy. Living in
Canmore is a lot different than living
in Chestermere, and living in
Chestermere is a lot better than living
everywhere else, so Yeah, that's a good
answer.
>> want to live here.
» want to live here.
Anyways, so yes, in theory it it plays
in, but it doesn't directly when an
assessor is assessing market values
factor in. They're just looking at what
homes are selling for. Okay.
Um
I And on a different line of
questioning, if I may,
um
the
$1.8 million deficit in our operational
budget, um
is uh
certainly struck me as as uh concerning.
Um
what is the
Is there a potential
um money value on monthly taxes that we
would need to increase to
um
uh
make that disappear
for our next year.
Um
and is there an an additional value that
will
um
give us some a little bit of future
proofing on that line item.
Mr. Edney.
Yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean. Just give
me 2 seconds here. Just want to make
sure I'm doing the math. I
came prepared to hopefully be able to
answer these questions
um online. So,
>> you'd be
» you'd be
to cover the 1.8 million dollars, uh
you'd be looking at about 11.65 cents a
month on that 700,000 dollar average
home or 6.15%
increase to the current mill rate.
Um if I can while I'm on the microphone,
I'll just go back to Councillor
Sandboe's previous question. Um right
now um through the Alberta Capital
Finance Authority, the 25-year rate for
a debenture is 4.55%.
So, right on about what we're making on
our investment returns. Um 20 years,
4.39. 15 years, 4.13.
Um but then again, of course, those
payments
go up. So, we we generally look at 25
years
as a municipality, but we can go lower
or less term, I guess. Just increases
the payments um
up front.
Thank you.
Uh any other questions from Council at
this time?
Councillor Sandboe.
Thank you, Worship, through to Mr.
Edney. Have you folks ever looked at um
an endowment fund such as the Calgary
Foundation as a vehicle for investments?
They are reporting some numbers higher
than um I've heard here today. Who knows
if that's accurate as of today, but have
you ever looked into that? Mr. Edney. Uh
thank you, Mayor Dean. I haven't
personally. I can't uh I don't think
organizationally we have.
I'm not sure.
Endowment fund means something different
than maybe savings account to me, but I
could we could definitely look into it
and see what they're doing and what they
might be doing differently.
Okay.
Any other questions from Council at this
time?
Seeing none, then I guess I would go
back to administration as to from a
practical standpoint, what is the next
step that you would like us to take
today?
Mr. Edney.
Yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean. Um
I'm going to maybe ask I should have
done this in advance and I apologize. I
don't know if ledge services do you have
the presentation that was in the 23rd
and 24th agenda package or can you bring
that up real quickly
just again for Council and public's
refresher of what the budget looked
like?
Um
We can just wait a couple minutes
versus taking a break if you want to do
that.
You want to take a
Would it Oh.
Uh yeah, I think that's right. If you
keep going down
No, I think
No, that's the interim one. So, it would
be from
Why don't we just take a
>> Yeah, let's take a quick break and we'll
» Yeah, let's take a quick break and we'll
get the right one up. Okay, we'll take a
quick recess and we will come back at
10:30. Thanks, everyone.
» Mhm.
» Good morning everyone. Just coming back
from our break here as uh we were just
uh transitioning between presentations
there. So, going to go back to uh Mr.
Redney who is just going to give us a
explanation on how administration is
suggesting we move forward.
All right. Thank you, Mayor Dean. Uh
through you to council. So,
um
this is essentially the budget that at
this point is in front of council. Uh we
talked about this early on in the
previous budget meetings.
It's slide four of that particular
presentation.
So, we walked through this originally.
We had the interim budget um in the
third column from the left with the
adjustments that have been made since
that point to the 2026 updated budget.
Um you can walk through to the bottom of
this page. We're projecting about a $1.7
million uh deficit
uh deficit from operations. Uh let's
services skip to the next slide.
So, this is uh to I think Councillor
Sambu's earlier question. So, if we walk
through this um
particular page,
um
we start at the top.
So, the two reserve fund or {slash} for
capital projects, there's a deposit of
$5 million going in there. That's from
the debenture proceeds we expect to see
in from the golf course loan. So, all of
the original math didn't necessarily
have that in. So, we'll put that $5
million is an in and an out. You can see
it on the debenture proceeds
line. Um
the transfer from reserve line of 1.695,
that is the line item that um
eliminates the operating deficit on the
previous page.
Uh so, that's coming from reserve. So,
again, you have $5 million going in,
$1.7 coming out in the reserve account
calculations you saw before. It's
already included last year's um surplus
from the operating budget. And then, of
course, we treat amortization as a draw
from equity. So, that's an in and an
out. And then this shows a balanced
budget at the bottom where the total is
zero. So, from an MGA perspective, from
a practical perspective, there's a
balanced budget a balanced budget that's
presented on the screen. Council could
approve that.
That budget includes no change to any of
the mill rates
um
in the community. So,
um not to bring these up right now, but
probably wanted to address them at some
point um because what I What I'm going
to stop here quickly before I make these
next comments is
when we look at the tax rate bylaw
at next meeting or whenever it is,
there's no debate or discussion around
those rates. Those rates are derived
from approving this budget and what we
need to bring in to meet the $29 million
of municipal taxes on the previous side.
So, before approving this budget would
be a time to have a discussion if you
were going to change any of the mill
rates. So, for example, the acreages
last year
um had their mill rate reduced. The
annexed acreages had their mill rate
reduced to I think it was halfway
between the city of Chestermere's rate
and halfway between Rockyview County's
rate. If you wanted to make an
adjustment to that, now's the time to
make that adjustment. Uh we've heard
from some residents on
the vacant lot mill rate.
Um again, if that is something Council
would want to change, now would be the
time to have those discussions so we can
incorporate those into
these budget numbers before you approve
the budget numbers. So,
um
yeah. So, that's two comments that
relate to the tax rate. Um generally, I
think we've seen
um in the neighborhood of a 2% average
decrease in assessment values.
So, this would actually practically
translate into about a 2% decrease in
municipal property taxes for the average
resident
keeping the mill rate the same and the
value of the home decreasing. I think my
home in particular was about 2.8% or so.
So, without any change to the mill rate,
we have a balanced budget. Keeps all of
the tax rates the same as last year
through all the properties, residential,
non-residential.
And gives us a balanced budget.
Administration through this process
have recommended we at least start
putting something aside
for savings.
We're still using franchise fees in the
operating budget to deal with our
operating budget. I know that was a
passion of Councillor Grants
a couple years ago when we started
looking at this. So, our recommendation
would be to in this
two reserve fund
to increase that $5 million by some
amount. Our
request you heard earlier was about $2.2
million. That's to start putting away
for the replacement of our existing
assets and infrastructure.
And then the next consideration would be
for council um
to decide whether you want to start
putting away
some money for any of the specific
capital projects such as the library or
the rec center. Um the
funding projection I showed earlier, of
course we don't start paying
down a debenture until after we've
actually taken the debenture out, which
isn't being contemplated at this point
because no decision has been made on
those capital projects. So, um
I guess there's a few options,
um and I would open it up to council
what you would like to do. Um
for that asset replacement savings of
$2.2 million, again it'd be $14 a month.
$14.76 cents on a $700,000 home and
about a 7.8%
increase to the tax rate, which
effectively would be about a 5.8%
increase because
the average home will see about 2% uh
decrease based on their assessment value
going down about 2%.
So,
I guess I'd open it up to council for
your discussion and
of what as council you would like to do.
Um once you've got some direction on
that, I think that's when we'll start
sort of taking breaks, punching some
numbers into this, and bringing
something back um to show you what the
what the impact looks like.
Councilor Sambol.
Thank you, Your Worship. Through you to
Mr. Edney. What would be the legislative
process in this process here to consider
a phasing in of a property tax rate, for
example, with the vacant residential
lots, if we wanted to phase into the
ultimate rate?
Mr. Edney.
Thanks, Mayor Dean. To Councilor Sambol.
So,
the interesting thing with phasing is um
you can never
um
I can't think of the presuppose. What's
the word? Fetter. Thank you. I got you.
You can never fetter a future council's
decisions. So,
regardless of what you decided this
year, now, assumingly next year it's the
same seven of you sitting here, so it's
a little bit easier.
Um
you could
make a statement, or you could build a
policy that says, you know, hey,
over the next 4 years, the intent will
be to
increase a certain or decrease a certain
tax rate by a set amount every year,
but legislatively the bylaw
supersedes any policy. So, at at time
you're approving the tax rate bylaw, you
can
either follow that or ignore it or do
something different at any time. So, um
practically you're in a spot where if
council decided, in your example, to do
something with a particular rate,
with
advanced notice that we intend to do
something different with it next year,
you can do that. It just doesn't
have effect. Your tax rate bylaw only
applies
in the current tax year. See.
Hope that answered it. Councillor
Sambol.
Thank you, Your Worship. Knowing that, I
would like to bring forward I'm not I'm
I'm not sure how we want to have the
discussion given that we're not talking
about the tax bylaw right now, but I
would like to have that discussion about
phasing that in. Um from what I
understand, there is some kind of policy
in place. Um I think it was 3 years or
something. Maybe Mr. Edney could remind
me about um vacant for a certain period
of time and then this rate takes effect.
Um but I think given what we heard from
residents, we should consider that
possibly phasing in over 3 or 5 years.
Um
and I it sounds like that would be to
direct administration to create a policy
to that effect.
Mr. Edney.
Yeah. Thank you, Mayor Dean. So,
we have
a policy that defines what a vacant
residential lot is and it's captured in
the tax rate bylaw in the definition.
And you're correct. It's um 3 years
without a principal dwelling being
constructed after having
sewer
um
and water connections brought to the
property line.
Uh so, most well, not most, all the
properties we've heard from are ones
that have been vacant practically for a
decade or more at this point. So,
there would have to be a I'm I'm
thinking the way we'd have want to take
it away and look at it, but I'm thinking
the way would be to um
just change that definition
to
3 years after
2026
or something like that, right? If you
wanted to
give them a break from now saying, "Hey,
right now your property meets the
definition of vacant residential.
However, we're going to give 1 3 5 years
before we start enforcing that tax rate
on you." We would just need to change
the definition then.
Um
and because each property will have a
unique
time it became vacant, if that makes
sense.
You'd want to put something in of, you
know, "If your property is deemed vacant
on 2026, this policy doesn't apply to
you until
2029 tax year or the 2030 tax year."
I think would be my suggestion, but I'd
want to confirm
with the finance and our taxation
department
if that's the right approach. Councillor
Sandbo.
Thank you, Your Worship, uh to you and
also to Mr. Edney. I think I would
prefer not changing the definition. I
think when we had this discussion last
year, uh the intent of trying to not
have too many vacant residential lots uh
still stands and that 3 years makes
sense. I wonder if we could set a lower
increase rate than originally intended
for this year and add to the policy of
phasing it in. So, like the higher
amount definition stays the same, but in
2027, the intent is to put it to this
amount. In 2028, the intent is to put it
to this amount, which may be the full
amount. Is that something that we could
do?
Mr. Edney.
Yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean. Um yeah, I
apologize, Councillor Sandbo. I maybe uh
misunderstood the question, but yes,
absolutely. So, I think the tax rate
right now is in the neighborhood of
13.5%.
If you wanted to set it at 5% for this
year
and make a public statement that every
year it's going to go up by another it's
going to go from 5 to 7 to 9 to 11 to 13
or whatever our maximum ends up being.
Um that would be best to capture that in
the policy. Again, it doesn't
confirm it. You could come back next
year and bump it all the way up to 13 or
knock it down to three. Whatever you
want it to do, but it would at least
give those um residents some
line of sight to what they could expect
to have happen.
Councillor Sambol?
Thank you, Your Worship. I'm just trying
to off- offer something that could give
us a discussion point. So, if you'd like
a motion or something, please let me
know.
Um but my starting point would be to
suggest setting that rate for this year
at double the residential rate and then
changing the policy to phase it in. And
that would at least give residents some
time to make decisions about their
property, which was um the feedback that
I I received most heavily is it's it's
not fair to not give people time to make
decisions about their assets.
Um Mr. Ernie.
Thank you, Mayor Deena. And just for
clarity, too, um because
the the phasing in would be a change to
a policy, um that's not something that
needs to be done before the budget gets
approved or the tax rate bylaw cuz all
you're looking at is what the rate is
for this year. So, you could make a
motion exactly what you said to set it
at double
the residential tax rate, we'll
incorporate that into the bylaw, and
then come back with a policy change
um for approval at a at a separate
council meeting.
Is that your recommendation?
>> would be my recommendation. Otherwise,
» would be my recommendation. Otherwise,
we're going to get really cramped to to
make that kind of policy change.
As a reminder for everyone, what is it
set at now?
I think it's 13.5.
So, not it's more than double right now.
It's five times. Yes. It's set under the
Municipal Government Act, your highest
tax rate cannot be more than five times
your lowest tax rate. So, right now it's
set at five times 3.2
4, which I think is 13.57.
I can pull up the exact number.
Okay, Councillor Grant.
Thank you, Mayor Dean. Through the chair
to administration, Mr. Edney,
um I guess my thoughts on the vacant
property tax rate is I would like to see
the R1 property excluded from that. Um
when I think about it, I'm not really
concerned about that single individual
property that's sitting vacant. My
concern is more around the large
properties, the multi-family properties,
the commercial properties that are
vacant. Um and those are the ones that I
think we should be addressing. Um
we had the gentleman in here the other
day who was had his property for quite
some time, and he to to my knowledge,
he's paid his taxes on it every year,
and he's maintained that property, and
I'm sure his neighbors actually enjoy
not having a house there. Um so, I don't
I don't really see a benefit to be
swinging the hammer at these R1
properties, um as much as the commercial
or the multi-family properties.
Mr. Edney.
Yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean. So, to
Councillor Grant's point, um
yeah, I mean, that's entirely a council
decision. That's for council to
philosophize on. I think
what I'm looking at right now is
then we would need to change We'd need
to change the definition of vacant
residential
to not include specific
types.
Um
you can create as many residential
subclasses as you want, so I think that
would apply to vacant residential as
well. I'd have to look in the MGA to
confirm that that as many subclasses as
you want also applies to vacant. I'm
99.9% sure it does because it all falls
under the residential category.
And yes, you can um
tax an R1 property different than an R3
property, different than an R4 property
if you wanted to create those
subclasses.
Um I've talked a lot about you can't
tax based on who owns the property, but
you can tax based on the different type
of property. So, as I'm thinking about
this out loud,
I think you should be able if council so
desired to split out certain types
of properties from applying to the
vacant non or vacant residential
tax, but we would need some time to
change that. Um
If if we're going to change the
definition of of vacant residential. So,
then if I may to Councillor Grant, would
you then be suggesting that the R1
vacant lot tax rate stay at the same as
the residential tax rate? Councillor
Grant.
Uh thank you, Mayor Dean. Yes, I would
be okay with that. Um I think that I
think that'd be fine in my
estimation.
Right, okay. Uh Councillor Randhawa.
Thank you.
Excuse me. Thank you, Your Worship. Uh
for the vacant R1, I think not keep at
the same, that's my suggestion. Just
little bit little bit extra tax. So,
not same as the residence. But my
another question is
uh
for the budget, uh
for the criminal record check, this is a
good time to talk about increasing the
fee for the criminal record check
because we are in the budget or
uh we should have the separate
discussion
about that. Mr. Redman.
Yeah, I think um
so, we do it a little different here. We
have a fee schedule
um where all of this is accounted for.
It's coming to council.
Um ideally, it should be part of the
budget discussions. Um
practically, it's not going to make
any sort of material impact, right?
We're We're talking thousands of dollars
on a 62 million. So, it's kind of a
rounding error. I would suggest that
it's
There's nothing wrong with talking about
it here, but I think the best place
would be when that schedule of fees
um comes for for an update, but that's
again up to up to council.
Okay?
I'll come back to fees here in a moment.
I don't want to move away from the
vacant lots here. So, um there's a
proposal that is There's some ideas that
are currently on the table that
uh kicking around the idea of moving to
a motion. So, if I may try and capture
this I believe Counselor Sambo's
suggestion was that all vacant lots
would be double the residential tax
rate.
Um Counselor
Thank you, Your Worship. Um I wasn't
aware that we could split them out by
property type. So, if that is the case,
I'm very much on board with what
Counselor Grant is saying, but I
understand that might be a little bit
harder to accomplish because we need to
change the policy as well.
Right. We also know that we do have Part
of the reason why we changed gap to
special was to advise at time in that
week. So, I know it could create a bit
of a busy week uh here with regards to
the policy.
Um
but uh yeah, so just finishing that
thought. Yeah, so you had originally
suggested uh that the um all vacant lots
would be double the residential. Uh
however, after hearing the suggestion
from Counselor Grant, the idea is could
we make vacant lots
double the residential
with the exception of R1 lots, so I
believe is what counselor Grant was I'm
seeing nodding.
Uh sorry, counselor Grant.
Thank you, Mayor Dean. I would say
exclusive of R1 would would probably be
the proper word there. Yes, thank you.
Okay. So, Mr. Eddy.
Yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean. I think
just for clarification, you're looking
at single detached family.
So, we have R1, R1 estate, um large lot
rural,
R1 plan lot, R1 PFD. I'm assuming it's
all of that. Anything that's a single
detached, but
what about R2s with duplex town homes?
Counselor Grant.
Uh
thank you, Mayor Dean. Uh no, Mr. Eddy,
I would I would just leave it as the
um R1 type of property, whether that be
uh an estate or uh plan rear lane, plan
front lane, um all of that. Um and and
my my rationale is those properties are
largely owned by private citizens, where
the larger properties are owned by
businesses, and and that's really what
we're trying to help incentivize is
these businesses to build the products
that they said they would build. So,
single detached.
As opposed to saying R1 single detached.
Thank you, Mayor Dean. Sounds good.
>> Yes. Yes. Yeah.
» Yes. Yes. Yeah.
>> Okay. Sorry, that was a question. Sorry.
» Okay. Sorry, that was a question. Sorry.
Uh okay.
Um
So, with that then, we could put a
motion on the floor that says something
along those lines,
uh and that would be uh council
to direct administration
to set the vacant
uh lot
tax rate
at
double the residential tax rate
with the exception of
single detached
properties.
So, Mr. Eddy, I'm I'm to turn to you to
see if I captured that wording
correctly in terms of like what you
would be looking for before we start
opening up and debating. Then Council,
I'll come to you with wording. I just
want to see if this is what we were
capturing from the conversation. So, uh
Mr. Hedden.
Yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean. Um so, if I
can just work with ledge services just
to adjust this.
Um if we can change it to Council
directed administration to set the
vacant residential
You can use capital for the V and the R.
And then delete lot.
At
at double the residential tax rate
and update the definition
of vacant residential
to exclude
and then delete with the exception of.
Okay. So,
Mr. Hedden, just confirming with you
that's the wording that could work for
this motion. Yeah, and then we'll bring
back when we change that definition,
bring back
R1 large lot rule, all the things that
fit into the spirit of this and then
Council can make a final debate to make
sure we got
all of those right. Should it pass?
Should it pass. Right. Okay. Uh
this kind of originally came from
Councillor Grant and Councillor Sandbo.
Uh I just want to check with you two
first if you are okay with the wording
of this, Councillor Grant. Thank you,
Mayor Dean. Um just for a quick
clarification, our current um vacant tax
rate is five times. Is that correct?
Uh
Mr. Hedden.
That is correct.
Okay. So, in in that spirit, I I am if
we exclude these
um R1 type of or sorry, single detached
type of properties then I'm fine leaving
the vacant tax rate at five times to
really help incentivize these larger
properties to move along. Cuz they they
will those larger properties are the
ones I'm going to cut you off. Sure.
Just wording for now.
Then we'll debate. This sorry, this is
this is part of why I think the wording
should change. I think we should change
from double to five times.
Or keep it the same. Like
we're set at five times, so I think we
should leave it at five times that we
should just remove the vacant
residential for single detached
properties.
Okay. So yes, that's a complete change
of wording. Sorry, I misunderstood what
you were doing there. Thank you. Okay.
So
uh
Okay.
Um, I see one lighting up but I think we
should address
Councilor Grant's desire to see the
wording change. So it would be
to leave
wouldn't it would not it'd be to leave
it as it is then.
Uh, Councilor Sandel.
Thank you, Worship. If I might suggest
just remove that whole section and
change it to Council directed
administration to update the definition
of vacant residential.
Uh,
Mr. Eddy.
Uh, yeah, through Mayor Dean. That would
be simpler and accomplishes the same
thing. It's already set at five times,
so unless you want to change that
that will be
And then if that definition changed
according to this wording of this motion
then it would be the same as the
residential tax rate. Yes, all affected
properties on this would go back to
whatever you set as the residential
rate. Okay. So Councilor Grant,
Councilor Sandel, this has kind of been
a combination here on this motion. Is
that
more the word I see a nod.
I see a nod. Okay.
Just again talking about wording,
Councilor Schindler.
Um, so the
the motion is to change the definition
um, in what?
And
is it across the board?
Um
because it's just asking to change the
definition. So I'm looking at the
wording going the definition where? Of
vacant residential.
Correct in what?
Um okay, Mr. Eddy.
Just give me one sec. I'll get you the
uh
Um in so update the definition of
residential the vacant residential in
the division of assessment class and sub
classes bylaw.
And do we want this brought back to
council for approval? It has to. So and
then so should we say and bring back to
council. It
Well, you can but it legally has to so.
Yeah.
If this passes. So let's get the word.
Division of assessment class What I'm
working on word. and sub classes bylaw.
Sub classes.
Yeah.
I would just capitalize division
assessment class sub and bylaw. Just
Yeah.
Okay. So solid services over there
looking up the bylaw. I would agree
and bring back to council. I know that
it's a legal requirement but
it's a valuable lesson I learned as baby
counselor.
For For approval. For approval.
Okay.
Uh Counselor Grant. Thank you, Mayor
Dean. I'd be happy to make the motion if
we're ready. Can we give it 2 seconds
here? Sure.
Any other
Counselor Grant, I'm going to leave your
mic on. So, any other
comments, questions with regards to the
wording?
Seeing none, Counselor Grant.
I move that council direct
administration to update the definition
of vacant residential and bylaw 025-25
being the division of assessment class
and subclass bylaw to exclude single
detached properties and bring back to
council for approval.
Thank you. Comments, questions from
council. Counselor Sandbo.
Thank you, Your Worship. I wanted to
comment in case anybody, all those
thousands of people that are watching
our council meeting today,
if there is a problem R1 property,
there's still a mechanism to report if
there issues on that property.
So, you can still contact bylaw, you can
still
initiate that process if it's, you know,
unsightly or if it's unsafe or something
like that. This is really for these
properties that are just big eyesores
and dangers in the community that are
already zoned for development.
Yeah, I would also say that I'm not sure
we want to use taxes as an enforcement
methodology, right? And so, I think that
those other when it comes to unsightly
properties, we have lots of other
enforcement methodologies. And so,
absolutely, thank you for pointing those
out, Counselor Warsen.
Thank you,
Mayor Dean and Counselor Sandbo.
Sadly, I haven't seen those enforcement
mechanisms be really that effective.
While there has been some effectiveness,
there's lots of unsightly properties and
R1s are included as part of those
unsightliness. I'll be voting against
this because I do believe that we should
be treating all owners, property owners,
equally regardless of what their zone
type or their the type is. While I
understand the spirit of Councillor
Grant's
uh
propo- of his motion, um
I also believe that there's many
properties within the city of
Chestermere. It doesn't take you long to
take a drive around to see how many
properties have been
non-developed for 10 years plus, and we
really need to incentivize them to
develop them, whether they're sightly or
unsightly. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Edney.
Uh thank you, Mayor Dean. Um two
comments. I just want to clarify that
yes, property tax is not a mechanism to
deal with unsightly properties. My
understanding when this came in was a
different. It was for what Councillor
Woznowski said, to encourage
development. We have a separate process
to deal with properties with garbage on
them. Um just for awareness, uh so
council is aware making this decision,
it will reduce um all other things being
equal, it will reduce our tax revenue by
about $100,000 by making this motion.
So, that will add about $100,000 to the
projected deficit at this point.
Assuming every Assuming every house is
impacted by this, I do believe
of the
give or take 35 homes, like 33 of them
apply. This will apply to. So, this was
mostly
residential, single detached in the
built-out areas of our community that
were impacted by this. So,
just for awareness, it is about $100,000
revenue decrease.
Thank you, Edney. I think about it, too,
though. Something that seems to be
missing in this is that um we also
talked about the idea of a phase-in
after, cuz I think one of the issues
that we heard was we kind of did a thing
uh and uh
perhaps we could have done a better job
with
uh
the conversation, with the announcement,
with the including in the conversation.
So, will there be opportunity ha- to
bring that conversation back as part of
this when this bylaw comes back to
council for approval. Mr. Edney.
Yes. Um
Are you referencing a phase in to the R1
properties?
Yes, if that was a desire. So, I think
that that's a separate motion. So, I
don't want to split that out. I'm just
saying if that was a conversation that
we wanted to have come back,
that could come back. It could come
back. It would be another change to the
definition
of vacant residential
at that time to now add these properties
back in
um assumingly for the 2027 tax year if
that's when the phase in wanted to
start.
>> Yeah. It'd be difficult by changing this
» Yeah. It'd be difficult by changing this
definition to then make anything in a
policy that phases it in because you'd
be phasing something in that doesn't
exist if that makes sense. No, I'm with
you. So, we could do it this for 2026
and then if we wanted to start that
phase in 2027, in November when we go
back into budget conversations, we could
do that. Correct.
>> Okay, thank you. Councillor Schindler.
» Okay, thank you. Councillor Schindler.
Sorry, that was I think that was my
question was does this fetter us or
yeah, hinder us with a phase in approach
for the next
uh stage in this sort of incentivization
to get people to develop.
That the answer is no.
Okay, thank you.
Okay.
Any other comments, questions from
council with regards to the motion?
Councillor Rondinelli.
Thank you, Your Worship. My question
through you to Mr. Edney, uh you just
recently said it's going to down our
revenue for $100,000. We already have
18% in a revenue and we are expenses
23%, right? Our expense is more than
revenue. So, we are kind of decreasing
if we voted this one for the future
of our revenue for the city.
Mr. Edney. Yeah, through to Councillor
Randhawa, that's correct.
Okay, thank you.
Any other comments or questions from
council with regards to the motion?
Councillor Sambol.
Thank you, Your Worship. I would comment
that's a $100,000 reduction from what
was budgeted in November-December,
but prior to that we weren't receiving
that revenue. So, the city hasn't
actually benefited from that increased
revenue as far as I'm aware. Would that
be correct, Mr. Edney? Mr. Edney.
Uh yeah, through to Councillor Sambol,
so that's correct. We did benefit from
that increased revenue last year in the
2025 year, but to your point, it's not a
historical loss of revenue. It was a
one-year increase in revenue. Um and
this would be going back to what was
essentially done before, so
it's 100,000 from what was presented 20
minutes ago on the screen, I guess.
Thank you.
>> Again, assuming nothing happens to any
» Again, assuming nothing happens to any
other tax rates.
Thank you. Any other comments or
questions from council with regards to
the motion?
Thank you. With that, we'll call for the
vote.
Deputy Mayor Narayan, do you vote in
favor?
Not in favor.
>> Not in favor, thank you.
» Not in favor, thank you.
And that motion is
carried with majority vote.
Okay.
Thank you.
Uh what is the next thing that we would
be wanting next step that we would be
looking at taking either from a council
administration perspective?
Uh Mr. Edney.
Thank you, Mayor Dean. While we're on
the topic of tax rates, um
it was mentioned last year when the
annexed residential
uh subclass was created
that the intent of council at that time
was to phase that in
um,
in
consistent increments over 5 years to
get to our rate. So, last year their
rate was 2.70
um, percent and residential was 3.24.
Um, we'd have to look at what Rocky
Views is. I could pull that up.
This, but um, I think the intention
would be to divide
the 0.5 difference by four and add it to
the annexed residential or, yeah,
annexed residential to start that 5-year
or continue that 5-year phase in of
bringing it up to
the rest of the community's residential
rate, but again, that's
up to council on a philosophy. That was
just a discussion at last last year.
Yeah, I think that there was a desire to
phase it in, so we would need a number
uh, for that
first phase in for this year. So, to get
that number, are you needing time to get
that number? Do you have that number
ready to go? Where's administration at
with that number for
uh, the acreage areas, Mr. Edney?
Thank you, Mayor Dean. So,
that number's easy. I can calculate that
right now. Um, the question becomes, and
this isn't where you've gotten yet,
if you intend to change the residential
tax rate.
Um, if you intend to change that, I
would do that first and then do this
math.
Um, if you don't intend to change that,
then I would we could just do this math
and set that.
We could find a motion to set what that
rate looks like. Okay, thank you.
Counselor Sambol.
Thank you, Your Worship, through you to
Mr. Edney. When that phasing in approach
was considered and tentatively set, were
we still assuming that TRR would be the
default uh, preference for the acreage
properties.
Mr. Edney.
Thanks, Mayor Dean. Yeah, to Councillor
Sandboe, I believe so. At that time, Mr.
Chandio wasn't in the organization yet.
We hadn't contemplated this idea of
country residential
and country residential being a
um
property that somebody could subdivide
to instead of TRR. Um I think the
comments from the acreage owners were
that
um in the time they haven't received
water and sewer. I think they're clear
that that's a developer responsibility,
not the city now. But this was intended
to provide some
buffer between going straight from the
Rocky View rate to this rate is my
belief of council based on those
discussions at that time.
Um to that effect then, Your Worship,
Mr. Edney, would it be reasonable to
have a separate tax rate for CR given
that some of tax that is collected is
for things like rec centers and
libraries and roads that everyone uses,
but some of what is collected is for
things that CR would not have access to?
Mr. Edney.
Yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean. Um
so to Councillor Sandboe, it's a
thinking of it out loud. So, when you
talk about um collecting for rec
centers, etc.,
um that will happen when they
rezone to country residential.
Um
the intent of country residential is to
collect those offsite levies. Um
if you wanted to have a different tax
rate,
um that's of course to fund all the
city-wide infrastructure, mowing the
parks, sweeping the roads, that kind
kind
Um
you could have a different rate
um just like the vacant can be done for
every different
um zoning of property, you could do the
same
do the same for it. Um
I guess my question would be the intent
of that versus
um
right now
where
I'd have to look at the definition of
annexed farmland residential. I believe
that once they go to country
residential, it moves automatically to
the residential. That's a triggering
event. Um
I'd have to get you more information on
that.
Councilor Sambol.
Thank you, Your Worship. And to clarify,
Mr. Edney, I wasn't talking about OSL, I
was talking about money collected for
operating of rec centers and things like
that that you would collect from
property taxes.
I suppose what I'm wondering is given
that the utility charges for the
services that CR would not be accessing,
as far as I'm aware, um does it make
sense to have a separate rate? Is that
something council should consider? Or
should we just continue on with the plan
to phase in that was previously debated
and discussed? And I assume many people
have similar perspectives as the last
time we discussed it.
Mr. Edney.
Yeah, so I guess
um
No, I don't think we have any
CR's own properties yet.
Um
I'd want to look at how that impacts it
moving from I'd have to look at the
definition of annexed residential
um to see if
converting to CR automatically moves you
out the same way TRR did. TRR did for
sure, it moved those properties out of
the annexation agreement into
um
into just regular residential.
Let me just see if I can
Yeah, I'd have to circle back with you.
It'll take me a minute to just find that
definition.
Yeah, I'm happy to entertain any motion
that may come from a counselor. My
comment on that before going to that
would be
my personal feeling on it is uh we went
back to try and get some time to catch
up. I think we're doing a lot of work
right now with the acreage areas. We
have a open house coming on June the
10th. Uh we are looking at some other
ideas of we actually tabled
um
TRR for now, so we don't actually know
what's going to happen with TRR cuz we
can't presuppose a vote. Uh so TRR could
stay. Uh there's nothing at the moment
to say that TRR
uh will be taken out of the bylaw other
than at the moment it is suggestion from
administration, but that decision
ultimately lies with council.
Uh and then uh when it comes to the CR
land
that is now a designation that is on the
books.
Uh so absolutely happy to entertain a
motion that counselor Sandboe may have
with this.
Uh my personal feeling on the matter is
to
do the incremental increase as we had
planned uh cuz I think we were trying to
take that holistic view of
the acreage areas just becoming a part
of the broader city and uh trying to
just
work through a timeline of what that was
going to look like and that I believe
that's one of the ways where CR came
about.
So,
I don't know if there's a motion there
at the moment that's coming.
Counselor Sandboe?
Thank you, Your Worship, just to not
leave you hanging with your question.
I'm processing through questioning. I'm
I'm not sure that that's the right way
to do it. In fact, I'm leaning towards
not having a different rate for any CR
that comes out. Um but it does sound
like we need something to
to put into effect that phasing in if
that's what council would like to do.
Well, yeah, the second part of this is
the suggestion from administration that
um the debate on whether or not there's
going to be any kind of a change to the
actual tax rate and then to come back to
the acreage areas to have that
conversation was the suggestion from
administration. So, I believe that that
would be the next phase of
conversations, if you will.
Uh counselor
Schindler.
Yeah, thank you. Um
through the chair to admin. Um the
the the increase
uh to uh TRR or or the acreages tax rate
um we've had decided to phase in.
Um I'm curious if the phase-in increase
uh had been included in the calculation
of our tax rate for this year.
Uh Mr. Edney.
>> Yep. Can you repeat the question, sir?
» Yep. Can you repeat the question, sir?
Sorry. Was the Was any kind of phase-in
rate included in the tax rate or was it
at the rate that it's currently sitting
at for acreages?
For 2025. Mr. Edney.
Yeah, through to counselor Schindler,
no. All of our revenue projections
assume the exact same tax rates for
every subclass as was in the 2025 bylaw.
Okay.
Do we have a quick slide projection
uh right now at the moment of all of our
tax rates and what they are currently
at? Like all of our subclasses and what
they are currently sitting at. Do we
have that as part of the presentation
currently?
Mr. Edney. Um
Thanks, Mayor Dean. Uh we don't have in
the presentation, but if ledge services
could go on our website and pull up
bylaw 025-25,
um that's what I'm looking at while we
do this. Okay. Um so, not Oh, sorry, not
025. Uh it would be the tax rate bylaw
023-25.
-25.
If we go to page seven in that,
right there. That's all our tax.
So, that's from last year what the
assessment values were that fell into
each category, what the corresponding
tax rate was, and the amount of tax
collected
off of those properties.
Councillor Schindler.
And uh sorry, uh through the chair uh to
admit. Uh the uh the idea behind the
annexed residential
uh was to over a certain number of
years, and I think it was four.
Uh I could be wrong. Uh to bring it up
to 3.24
or as close to the current tax rate for
the rest of the residential that we
have. So, the the increase for this
year, it should everything stay the
same, should be a a
whatever the difference is divided by
four, um and then added to the it it my
math could be wrong. And then then added
to the 2.7.
Um
uh is that is that correct?
Mr. Rodney.
Yeah, through you to Councillor
Schindler. Yes, that's correct. The rate
would be somewhere in the neighborhood
of 2.86, just doing the math off my
head. Um but I can
plug in exact numbers for you. Okay.
Just just seeing if we're still on that
track going forward. Thank you.
So, I guess the question to council
would be are there any other on what's
displayed on the screen here? Are there
any other
categories here that you would like to
tackle and or
how would council and our administration
like to proceed with the next steps?
Mr. Redney.
Um, so I think at this stage if there's
not a discussion on increasing the
annexed residential,
um,
the question would be um, does council
want to
um,
we'll have to go back and just do some
quick math based on that previous
motion,
um, but we can do that pretty quickly
um, and come back later and approve the
budget as was presented or would council
like to include
some sort of provision to collect money
to
put away for future projects and future
asset replacement.
And if you don't want to have that
discussion, then yeah, I would suggest
we just approve that budget as
presented.
Councilor Schindler. Um, uh, just a a
quick question. Is there a further table
cuz I don't have this bylaw open in
front of me for commercial properties?
Non-residential?
Vacant non-residential?
Uh, that's right. Mr. Redney.
Yeah, so commercial industrial is all in
the non-residential rate of 7.238
and vacant non-residential, the maximum
you can have is 13.5 under the MGA, so
it's at 13.5. So, those are the two
non-residential encompasses everything
that isn't residential. If that makes
sense. Is there a and this you might not
be able to answer this question. Is
there some vacant non-residential that
have been sitting for a long period of
time that we could also do an incentive
program to develop similar to what we're
doing for vacant residential?
Mr. Edney.
Cuz I see that it's increased by double.
Yeah, so I I think
I wouldn't
So, I wouldn't call it an incentive
program. It's a disincentive program, I
suppose.
>> To leave it vacant. To leave it vacant,
» To leave it vacant. To leave it vacant,
then you end up with a higher tax rate.
Um the issue is the tax rate is already
for for vacant non-residential is
already at the highest it can be. Okay.
>> So, there's no further increase you
» So, there's no further increase you
could make except in the event if you
changed residential from 3.24 to 3.4,
then you could
uh pump up 13.5 by a corresponding
amount. Um but, it wouldn't be
significant. Um yes, there is I would I
would say there's some significant
vacant non-residential sitting out
there. Uh properties on Rainbow Road,
etc. that fall into that category um
right now, but there's nothing you could
do from an increased
tax rate. Um from an incentive
perspective, I suppose you could go to
them and
yeah, try to convince them that moving
from 13.5 to 7.2 would be better for
them uh to develop, but
Okay. Thank you kindly. Yep.
Councillor Randhawa.
Thank you, Your Worship. I think uh
I need to discuss about the annexed
residential rate to little bit increase
on that, please. I'd be appreciate.
Yeah, so yeah, so just to clarify,
um
I believe that there is a desire to see
an increase on the annexed residential.
What we're trying to decide is are we
leaving the residential at 3.24 or is
council administration coming forward
with a suggested amount of any kind of a
change on the residential? So, and so I
believe what administration is saying is
if we are leaving residential at 3.24,
then they will do a calculation on the
annexed residential. But, administration
is suggesting to not do that calculation
until council has definitively decided
what we are doing with residential.
Mr. Edney.
Sorry, was just thinking on something. I
can do some calculations here. So,
thinking about if you wanted to tackle
um the annexed residential before you
discuss the overall tax impact um
because administration's recommendation
for any tax changes is
an equal change across all subclasses um
on this page. So, if you wanted to
tackle annexed residential, a motion
could look like direct administration
to increase the annexed residential tax
rate by 25% of the difference between
the residential and the annexed. That
takes whatever that difference ends up
being at the end of the day.
Your
25% would be 4 years. If you wanted 3
years, do 33. 2 years, 50. And then, you
don't have to set a specific rate. It
will just become
a percentage of the difference between
the two rates.
Because was it 4 years that we set that
at?
I know that when you change your mind,
you can't fetter, but
Yeah, there's a part of me I thought I
believe the Rocky View rate was around
2.55.
I actually think it was a five year
that you did.
>> to phase over five.
» to phase over five.
>> Phase over five years. So, four years
» Phase over five years. So, four years
left, but I could be wrong. Um I'd have
to go look back at that. Um with the
previous motion, um
what I would assume would happen would
be
hypothetically, if council were to
decide to put a 4% tax increase across
the board, that happens to both rates,
and then the 25% difference is taken
into account. So,
that's why that motion would work. Um
Yeah, I apologize. I can't remember if
it was four or five. For some reason, I
thought it was five, but I might be
wrong. I think that that may be material
in that uh then we just we could, should
we so choose, equal it out.
Right? So, the council around dollars
point, then we could address it, right?
And then if it's four years, 25% every
year,
and away we go. Uh Counselor Schindler.
Okay.
I'm going to I don't know. Uh this is
I might start debate, and I don't know
if we need a motion on the floor for
that, but I'm going to I guess start us
off with
the administration's asking for a tax
rate increase.
Um
whether we're talking about a percentage
of the mill rate or the amount of money
a person pays per month on their um on
their uh property taxes.
Um we need to have that discussion. I
think
the um
for what for what our citizens want and
the increased level of services
uh that our citizens are asking for. Um
that money's got to come from somewhere,
and currently, from what I'm looking at,
we don't have that that money. Um
further to that, we also need to start
planning for the future.
Um I believe our ministers ministers uh
in the provincial government are asking
municipalities to pay for or at least
put money away for infrastructure uh
needs
similar to something that happened in
Calgary with their water main. Um
and so
to be a responsible steward of the
taxpayer dollars as well, which is our
primary goal here, as well as to be a
responsible steward of our city
we need to look we need to seriously
look at not keeping our tax rate flat
anymore.
Um
that said, my question
to administration is
given our priorities, given our
strategic plan, given what is needed in
this community
um given what is asked for in this
community
um
what do we need to increase our tax rate
by?
to meet that
minimum
that our residents are looking for.
And is that number
on this uh capital projects funding page
because I'm also noticing that it
doesn't include the operation operating
deficit.
Um
Sir, are you directing that question to
administration?
>> and so yeah, through the through the
» and so yeah, through the through the
chair to administration.
Um
I I
I would like to I'd like to know what
that uh minimum is for us to become or
to to to be uh responsible stewards of
our community.
Mr. Redman.
Yeah, thank you Mayor Dean. So to
Counselor Schneller's question, um
that's a bit of a difficult question to
answer directly because it becomes a
philosophy question a little bit, right?
And I liken it back to your personal
finances.
If you know you want to buy a house on
the lake,
um you either sit and wait till you've
got, you know, very least you have to
save up a down payment and then you
mortgage it or you start putting money
away and after 15 years you've saved
enough
to actually pay for it. I think the
challenge that this community is facing
is
we've been planning for 10 or 15 years
um to do things but not actually saving
anything. And in fact, during that time
cutting the amount of taxes that's been
collected. Uh I understand there's been
surpluses in some of those years. We've
talked about surpluses just relative to
what you
budget and and intricacies that go into
those
um volatile numbers if that's the right
right word. So,
you know, as mentioned previously, when
you talk about the things the community
wants,
um I'm not sure
planning to replace the roof at City
Hall and fix roads and replace fleet
fleet vehicles and sidewalks and bridges
is sexy and what the community wants,
but that's definitely something the
community needs.
It's something you pointed out you're
seeing examples in other municipalities
of what happens to them when they don't
plan for that asset replacement um and
then can't meet their obligations.
Uh I think the minimum we've suggested
for that
is about a 7.8% increase or $14 a month
on a $700,000 home
to start planning for those things that
I would consider
responsible fiscal stewardship.
Um as far as what the community wants, I
think that's the philosophical question
for council of,
you you presumably
the community wants a rec center.
Uh we've heard that many, many times.
The question becomes, do you
look at a property tax increase now to
start putting some money away to pay for
that? Or do you wait until
you want to pay for that, take out 100%
of that money in debenture, and then
do the operating or do the property tax
increase at that time?
Um or again, continue to search for
alternate sources of funding through
time as it comes on. Um
I've talked a lot about
the thing that's kept us sort of okay
from an operations perspective has been
that inflation, etc.
has matched our growth.
Um so
there's been comments I've heard even in
the community, "Wow, we continue to
grow, so can't the new taxes from growth
pay for all this stuff?" And yeah, that
works in the short term, but in the long
term, somebody's got to pay for the
growth. And when growth slows down,
there's no growth to pay for the growth
anymore.
Uh so that's uh you know, a situation we
could see ourselves in
as we continue to see development slow
down from where its peaks were. Um
you've hit an important part that we
haven't addressed on here is um
none of this contemplates
if a pool is constructed an operating
loss on the pool.
Um we're seeing
information that that
in itself could be 8 or 10% of our
current property tax that we collect. So
um it really becomes a philosophy. Um if
I was
if I was making the choice, and I
understand it's it's
easy for me to sit here and say what I
would do, I'd be putting away money
to replace our existing assets. I'd also
be putting money away right now to pay
for our new assets um to reduce that
burden because as I mentioned really
quickly
the city hits its capacity to ever do
anything in the future. And
um you know, if some
other priority came about or something
catastrophic happened, you we wouldn't
have a savings account and we wouldn't
have a line of credit to go to.
So, I think at this point my
recommendation would be to start
building up a savings account. I think
the minimum
would be that 7.8% that brings the 2.2
million
to start putting money away for asset
replacement and then it just becomes a
philosophy of
how much
is the community willing to put away
towards your library, towards your rec
center,
and those kind of things.
Thank you, Deputy Mayor Nirain.
I thank you, Worship, through you to
members of council. I think
you know, we're at a point where uh
uh we're going to put a motion here and
I'm happy to put a motion on putting
money away
uh
for
uh asset replacement.
Um the other
theory uh the other motion
possible motion would be uh with respect
to uh acreages
uh that somebody wants to put, but I
think uh what I'd like to see is uh you
know, just moving this forward and I'll
be happy to put that the motion forward
to on um
putting money away.
Right. I think though to do that motion,
we need a number that's associated with
that motion, Deputy Mayor. So, do you
have a number that you're wanting to put
forward?
It's it's the number that the
administration is proposing. 7.8?
Yes. Okay. Thank you. Uh I'll come back
to you here in 2 seconds, Deputy Mayor.
Uh Counselor Shinwar.
Uh thank you, Mayor Dean.
Um
Yeah, I I I hear that
we we to put money away, which is
absolutely important, and I think that
we as a municipality, I I run by the
philosophy in my personal life to live
within my means.
Um and um
you know what
not buy extravagant things that you
can't afford because it always comes
with
um
extra costs, uh maintenance, and etc. Um
So,
um
when we look at buying a new rec center,
um yes, we can take that money out in a
debenture
and pay on interest, and it's going to
cost our residents more money than um
than uh if we had paid with say just
cash as it were. Um If we had been
saving for the last 10 years. Um
but there's also, you know, incidentals
that could happen. Perhaps, you know,
the the the the building will need to be
replaced in
you know, 20, 30, 40, 50 years.
Hopefully not
the earlier numbers.
Uh so, then we should start saving for
that as well.
Um
Has Have those through through the chair
to administration, when we talk about
new facilities, do we have budget for
those future replacements
and putting money away?
I- Is that part of the asset replacement
uh savings
uh line item?
Mr. Edney.
Yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean. Um
I'm just going to ask uh light services
quick before I answer you. Can you bring
up the previous uh presentation?
The one that was for today. Um
Not this 38-page one, the six-page one.
Uh if we can go up one. There we go. So,
that's kind of the layout of what we're
looking at for all
the future projects. So,
um there's two parts to this. One of a
lot of those where we can see them in
the next 2, 3, 4 years, they're on this
sheet, and they're either something
that's coming from reserves or
debenture, or a lot of them we're trying
to capture with the LGFF or CCBF
funding. So, Mhm. we'd have to have
again a probably another discussion
around what's on that list.
This is starting to put some of that
money away for the projects that we
can't identify on there,
or as we see the provincial government
changing how they fund municipalities,
which we observed is never going up,
it's always going down. It's putting
some money away in those
particular places. Now, when one of
these bigger projects comes up, we don't
need to have a tax increase, or we don't
need to remove from our reserves to fund
those. So, it's sort of that
contingency fund where you know when you
own a home, at some points you need a
fur- a furnace, some points you need a
roof.
And there may be grants there that you
can do that with, but it's putting some
money aside, so when it happens, it's
not a big financial impact to you.
So, that's what that first of asset
replacement savings is.
Everything else is to fund those
specific projects.
Okay.
I'm going to go back to Deputy Mayor
unless somebody else has another
suggestion. Deputy Mayor wanted to come
forward with a motion
uh to move forward on. So, uh unless
somebody else has a comment or question
before that.
Okay. Deputy Mayor, can you uh sorry,
Councillor Grant. Thank you, Mayor Dean.
I did have one question. Um and I
briefly talked about it at the last
meeting, and it was about the capital
expenditures. And I guess through the
chair to Mr. Edney, can you let us know
what the value of our capital
expenditures, not excluding the projects
on here, are for the 2026 year?
Mr. Edney.
Yeah, I'll just pull that up quick. I
want to say just about 15 million
dollars, um, but that's in that
presentation.
Um, That number's close enough for me,
Mr. It was it's I don't need an exact
number. My My point is that
we have a deficit of 1.6 and we have
approved 14 million dollars in capital
expenditures and and I know at the time,
um, when we went through it, I
I'm sure there was a million dollars out
of the capital expenditures that I would
have cut. So, um,
I know that's kind of left us here now
at the final budget deliberations, but
um,
to me that process is broken in that
we've approved a large amount of money
to be spent and now we're realizing that
we don't have sufficient revenue to
support those expenditures. So, I know I
know there's a lot in there that is
required to be bought and I can accept
that, um, but I would say that there's
probably some in there that wasn't
required to be bought and kind of nice
to haves, not needs.
Um, so, I know we can't really do
anything about that now, but I know next
year when we go into interim budget, the
capital component should be scrutinized
a lot more closely. Mr. Redman.
Oh, sorry, Mayor Dean. Yeah, I was just
going to say I believe we proposed 18.
I'll have to pull up
um,
yeah, there was 40 million including
across the utility company. The utility
company had 23 million dollars, but
that's covered separately under the
utility company budget. I'll pull up the
exact number because I do believe, um,
to your point, I believe council cut
about half of the projects that we
brought forward. So, I'll I'll get that
detailed number.
Um, we have a separate capital budget
presentation there that I'll
I'll grab for you. Give me a minute.
Councillor Warszynski.
Thank you, Mayor Dean. Yeah, I'm glad I
wanted to keep this slide up on the
screen.
Um, one of the concerns that I have
while we have a number of different
capital projects is we've been talking
about a rec center since I've been a
counselor and really have made very
little progress on it. So, just want to
confirm
the numbers here. This five Can you
explain once again to through the chair
to Mr. Edney this 5.71% on on the rec on
the new rec center impact? That's Is
that the money you need to move forward
with that project?
Without looking at other funding
sources?
Mr. Edney?
Yeah, through you to Councillor
Woznesensky. So, that 5.71%
Mhm. related to the 24.5 million, that
will be what is needed
to service the debenture assuming
council took a debenture out to pay for
that 24 million dollars.
If you wanted to save 24 million dollars
between now and when you did
you know, actually started construction
of the rec center,
um
again, you can do math quickly. Um
you'd be in the five or six million
dollars a year you'd want to start
saving, and that would be pushing the
rec center out
four or five years, and that would be,
you know, a
16 18% increase in taxes
right off the bat to start putting that
money away. So, all of those numbers
other than the asset replacement
savings,
those are numbers on the right-hand side
that need to increase to
make the payments on the debenture.
Understood. Thank you.
Councillor Woznesensky? No, we're good.
Okay.
I'm going to go back to Deputy Mayor.
Deputy Mayor, I believe you want to come
forward with a motion. I think you're
going to be doing an organic motion
here.
Uh so,
uh again, uh if you want to take a stab
at the organic motion, and then we can
go from there.
Uh thank you, Worship.
I think Josh had it with the 7.8 7.8%
increase. Yeah.
Mr. Enns, do you want to assist Legal
Services with the motion and Deputy
Mayor with the motion, Mr. Enns?
I would prefer if we could do the motion
just in a different manner, if that's
okay. If If Deputy Mayor is open to it,
Council direct administration, sorry.
I think he was going to say yes, he's
good with it.
>> Okay. Yes, yes.
» Okay. Yes, yes.
So, let's Let me just grab Make sure I
grab the right
numbers here.
And if you're okay rounding,
um
Council direct administration
to add
2.
279
million.
Sorry, let's do Let's just type it out.
Sorry, two comma
279
551
to
Sorry.
Getting the right presentation up here.
Which line item does it go to?
Um
Yeah, two
to be transferred to reserves in the
operating budget.
Put to add an additional.
Yeah.
Cuz then that changes the budget and
then the the tax rates get back
calculated out of that, but it would be
a 7.8%
change. You could round that number if
you felt like it, but that's the exact
calculation that we did. Councillor
Sample.
Uh thank you, Worship. I think I'm I'm
not sure whether this is a friendly or
if it would be more substantive. First
of all, I wanted to commend my
colleagues, Councillor Schindler and um
uh Deputy Mayor
Marian, for being brave enough to uh put
this forward because it's something that
nobody likes to do and we're all seeing
the writing on the wall. Um given that
we heard that the average assessment
went down by 2%, I wonder if um Deputy
Mayor would consider increasing that
number from roughly 8% to roughly 10%,
so that it wouldn't uh it would even out
at about the number he was considering.
Yeah, you know what? Sure, let's go
ahead. I'm okay with that.
That's significant.
It's not a friendly.
Yeah, it's that's a significant change.
>> You haven't read it.
» You haven't read it.
I know. We haven't read it. We can do
it.
So,
may I
I I'd like to keep this
on the back burner as well, depending on
how the other motion goes.
Do we not Do we need to take a recess to
do some math?
And come back with a motion?
I Yeah, but I'd rather not take an hour
to wait for on this.
You've got it? Okay. Uh so, Mr. Edney.
26
Yeah, so the number would be two {comma}
926
{comma} 404.
That's a 10% on the municipal portion.
Okay.
Uh Councillor Schindler.
I'm I'm curious. So,
we're talking about this 10% here.
Are we stopping there or
is this also an opportunity to add in
what we need to
service our current deficit
of 1.6?
Um and then also include the percentage
increases for the Dawson Landing Rec
Center debenture
servicing
as well?
And and I guess So you want to go
higher?
>> I'm I'm looking at what we need to to
» I'm I'm looking at what we need to to
run this city. So we got to tackle one
motion first. So Deputy Mayor is
bringing forward a motion right now at a
10% increase. Do you want to So his
motion will be for a 10% increase. Do
you want to go higher than 10%? I
Sorry, it's got to be that simple.
>> Yes. I I I want to be able to service
» Yes. I I I want to be able to service
the Dawson Landing Rec facility.
Okay. Mr. Edney.
Thank you, Mayor Dean. Just for clarity
for Councillor Schindler.
That debt we don't have that debt yet.
So we don't need to service it right
now. That's right. That would be
something that would come into the
operating budget. So that if you wanted
to put away a similar thing to I guess
socialize people to that will be coming.
That money could then I would do a
separate item that would put that money
into
the recreation reserve to be used to
fund the Dawson Landing. So um to Mayor
Dean's point, I would put that as a
separate motion I think would be would
be the best. This is just general
funds to the reserve
for future asset replacement. That one I
would tackle as a separate. Because we
don't have the debenture, we're not
actually financing it yet. Council
hasn't made a decision yet to do that
Rec Center, but this could be putting
money away to prepare for that decision.
And and then just to clarify the the 1.6
deficit then in operational, that would
also be a separate
uh motion.
Uh Mr. Edney.
Yes, Mayor Dean. Through that that's
correct. If you wanted to tackle that
separately, um so as it sits right now,
that 2.9 would effectively end up being
1.
Well,
1.1 because we've already changed the
vacant tax rate. Um
So but again, we're going to
Yeah, this isn't addressing the 1. 8
plan deficit. That's already coming out
of reserves.
Okay.
So I think we have a motion on that's
going to be put on the floor here
uh from uh Deputy Mayor. So uh Deputy
Mayor, do you want to go ahead with your
motion?
Yes, most certainly. I move that Council
direct administration to add an
additional uh
$2,926,404
to be transferred to reserves in the
operating budget.
Okay. Any comments, questions from
Council?
Okay. Uh I will start. I will be voting
no to this motion.
Uh I was comfortable with the other
amount and would have
uh been in favor of that.
Uh and I will be going uh I will
personally be voting no on this motion
for several reasons.
Um we already know that there's a tax
increase that's coming at the provincial
level with regards to the education tax.
Uh and my personal feeling on the matter
is that I do not believe that we should
go higher a higher rate than the
education tax. Uh so those are my own uh
personal feelings on the matter.
Uh and so for that reason, I will not be
voting
uh in favor of this particular motion at
this time.
Any other comments or questions from
council?
Uh counselor Sambu.
Thank you, Your Worship.
Uh
I will be begrudgingly voting in favor
of this and then there's um some other
um
tax codes, I suppose, that I hope we can
look at afterwards.
Um for me it boils down to I agree the
increase to the education tax has eaten
up a lot of uh the community's capacity
for increases on their property taxes. I
don't think that's fair. Um I also don't
think we can make our decisions based on
money that's being collected that we
can't do anything with. Um
I
and this is a feeling statement, I feel
that it would not uh be authentic for me
to continue complaining about the
decisions of past councils if I wasn't
prepared to make the decisions that I
feel are necessary to make uh the
Chestermere of tomorrow more
sustainable. So, I will be voting in
favor of this and I hope we can continue
talking about the other uh parts of of
the budget.
Great, thank you, counselor Woznowski.
Thank you, Mayor Deans.
I don't believe the Alberta tax and uh
city taxes they're they're mutually
exclusive, so it's unfortunate that the
provincial tax is
uh that the the education tax is being
taken out of our out of our taxes, but
we have a city to run and I also agree
with counselor Sambu. Um we have to take
make the tough decisions as counselors.
We have we're far behind. I don't want
to compare us to other municipalities.
Everybody uses Canmore as an example
with the lowest tax rate, well, they
also have the most expensive properties
in the country.
And in the country. Maybe in the
country, but certainly in Alberta. Um
I'll be voting in favor of this because
to counselor Sambu's point and to the
brave Deputy Mayors motion, we do need
to start planning to deliver what our
residents have been asking for for many
many years. That's why we ran as
counselors. That's why I'm we voting in
favor of this. Thank you. Thank you.
Um I guess my comments are that as I
still think that delivery method is
there. I think that there are other
methodologies that we have not
uh completely explored yet and there's
uh some hypothetical numbers that exist
on this. And so based on that and based
on resident affordability at the moment,
uh I I stand by my
earlier comments. Counselor Wozniewski.
Yeah, thank you Mayor Dean. I do want to
add on to your point. While I certainly
uh support the spirit of make
maintaining a low increase, I do believe
there are other methods of
funding our community including looking
at ways that we can
run the city at a lower cost and be more
efficient with the money that we do
collect. Thank you. Thank you.
Any other comments or questions from
council?
Okay, with that I'm going to be calling
for a recorded vote on this motion,
please.
Uh and so with a recorded vote, I will
be calling on each counselor one at a
time. Uh then you will state whether
you're voting in favor or against uh and
that this will be a recorded vote on
this motion. So, starting with
uh I'll call your name and then I'll
turn on your mic. Starting with
Counselor Sembol, do you vote in favor
or against?
In favor, your worship. Thank you. Uh
Counselor Schindler, do you vote in
favor or against?
In in favor. Thank you. Counselor
Randhawa, do you vote in favor or
against?
In favor, please. Thank you. Counselor
Wozniewski, do you vote in favor or
against? Yes, I vote in favor. Thank
you. Deputy Mayor Narain, do you vote in
favor or against?
In favor. Thank you. And Counselor
Grant, do you vote in favor or against?
I'm against, Mayor Dean. Thank you. Uh
and I will also be voting against uh the
motion. However, the motion is carried
with a 5-2 recorded vote.
Uh
Okay.
Thank you.
Uh with that, I think we're right up
against uh taking our lunch break here
uh taking our lunch break here. Uh
So,
uh with that, I'm going to suggest we
take our break and we will come back at
1:00 for uh the conclusion of our
meeting. Thank you.
» Mhm.
» Good afternoon, everyone. Just coming
back from our lunch break. Uh, Deputy
Mayor Duran not be uh rejoining us for
the afternoon as he is
uh off to attend sessions at the
conference that he is currently
attending. And so, uh with that, I just
want to turn to administration here
quickly and
uh just see from your perspective, Mr.
Edney, what you see as next steps uh for
us taking in the process of the meeting
here today, Mr. Edney.
Yeah, thanks, Mayor Dean.
Welcome back from lunch. Um at this
stage
from our perspective, I think I'd open
it up to council of whether there's any
other discussions
um the council wanted to have or any
other
issue or item you wanted to potentially
tackle. If not, um my suggestion would
be we could uh move on. Um in the agenda
package, we do have a couple of closed
session items.
The intent would be to take the motions
you've made so far today,
uh incorporate them into the budget, and
then come back um to next week's
um meeting, May 12th, and have the
formal budget
approved at that point. Um if there are
no other changes the council would like
to make to it at this time. And then
with the change that was done uh
before lunch, would you then
subsequently go and make the change What
is administration's plan to stay on the
same track then for all the other
subclasses of tax uh of the tax classes
based on now what has happened with the
residential tax,
Mr. Edney?
Yeah, thanks, Mayor Dean. I think uh
something in a discussion over lunch
time, I just want to clarify is uh so,
the way council made the motion of
adding the $2.9 million to be
transferred to reserves, that will be
spread across all the town subclasses.
So, that math is not just on the
residential subclass. It's also assuming
that vacant residential goes up,
non-residential goes up, like every
subclass will have a 10% increase to it.
If we were to do it only on residential,
that would become a bigger increase born
by that that part of the tax. So,
with those changes, all of the mill
rates that we had last year will go up
by 10% each. Thank you. And with that,
how do we address the acreages now?
So, my intention
Pardon me.
So, right now as it sits, the acreages
would just see the same 10%
>> percent
» percent
change to
um
to the mill rate as everybody else. If
council would like to start that
implementation,
um we could make a motion to
kind of what I worded before lunch
there.
Um because I don't have
Again, assuming no other changes
happened, we could put an actual number
and we could do some quick math to set
their rate at that, but I think I would
make the motion of council
direct administration to adjust the
annexed
residential
to be 25% or 33 or 50% of the difference
between the two rates. And then we can
do that and bring that back for the tax
rate bylaw.
Thank you. I guess my only thing with
that is I don't think council
anticipated doing a tax increase and
then a tax increase that would be
separate on unless we did. Uh I think
there was kind of uh so I I don't know
how council feels about that if we want
to see the numbers come back and how
that plays out cuz we would also have an
opportunity at next Tuesday's meeting
after we see the final numbers if we
want to do anything else with the uh
acreage tax, but
uh open up to council if there's any
other questions or comments that they
want to make specifically uh to the
acreage areas.
Okay. So, then seeing none, I would
suggest that we will leave it for now.
See that come back. And so then the
anticipation would be back here going to
come back on Tuesday, May the 12th, uh
with a final budget adjusted accordingly
uh due to the tax rates and then we
would look at final budget approval then
and then the final approval of the tax
rate bylaw. Are we still looking at the
end of May for that, Mr. Edney? Yeah,
that's correct and I think um
the intent of next week's presentation
would probably only be two or three
slides. We'd update that
one slide that we talked about to
reflect the council motion.
Um
Well, we'd have to reflect two of them
cuz we we've changed the vacant
residential, but we'd make those two
small changes, highlight them and then
have council approve as presented. We'll
go back, put all the numbers into the
tax rate bylaw and bring that back for
May 26th. Okay.
So, if there's no other topics from
council
seeing none. The only other question I
would have then going back to the agenda
is also on here was 5.1.2.
Uh but I don't think we're doing
anything with that today then since we
haven't approved the final budget. Uh
so, then should we just make a motion to
move 5.1.2 to the May 20
6th council meeting?
Cuz we should do something with the cuz
it is on the agenda. So, we should do
something with it.
Mr. Edney.
Yeah, why don't you just table it until
the May 26th?
Just table it? Yeah.
Okay.
That'll probably be easiest process-wise
and then we can lift it from the table
on the 26th.
Okay.
So, can I have a motion from council to
table item 5.1.2
the 2026 property tax bylaw, please?
Uh sorry, to the May 26th.
Thank you. Okay, Counselor Randhawa.
Thank you, Your Worship. I move that the
Council table the item 5.1.2 begin
the 2026 property tax by-law to the May
2026 2026 regular meeting of Council.
Thank you. Call for the vote.
That's carried unanimously. Thank you.
Uh, with that then I'll need a
uh motion to go into closed session. Uh,
we're only going to be doing uh two of
these items in closed session, which
would be 6.2, budget communications, and
6.3, grant adjudication committee. So,
can I have a motion, please, to go into
camera, and we'll do both at the same
time.
Counselor Sambol.
Certainly, Your Worship. I move that
Council go into closed session at 1:12
p.m. to discuss the following: grant
adjudication committee, Access to
Information Act Section 29, advice from
officials, and budget communications,
Access to Information Act Section 34,
information that is or will be available
to the public.
Thank you.
Call for the vote.
And that's carried unanimously. Thank
you.
» Mhm.