[0:11] Should be a
[1:59] Yeah.
[3:54] » Mhm.
[40:26] » Good morning everyone. Welcome to our
[40:27] special meeting of council for Tuesday,
[40:29] May the 5th. Uh starting with our land
[40:31] acknowledgement today on uh on a special
[40:33] day.
[40:34] Uh that in the spirit of respect,
[40:36] reciprocity, and truth, we honor and
[40:38] acknowledge Mokintsis and the
[40:39] traditional Treaty 7 territory and oral
[40:42] practices of the Blackfoot Confederacy,
[40:44] Siksika, Kainai, Piikani, Nakoda Nakota
[40:47] Nations, Chiniki, Bearspaw, Goodstoney,
[40:50] and Tsuut'ina Nation. We acknowledge
[40:52] this territory as home to the Métis
[40:54] government of the Métis Nation with
[40:55] Alberta District 4. And finally, we
[40:58] acknowledge all nations, indigenous and
[40:59] non, who live, work, and play on this
[41:01] land and who honor and celebrate this
[41:03] territory. This sacred gathering place
[41:05] provides us with an opportunity to
[41:06] engage in and demonstrate leadership on
[41:08] reconciliation, and we are honored to
[41:10] have you join us on Treaty 7 territory.
[41:14] Going to uh approval of the agenda. Uh
[41:18] do I have a counselor that can make the
[41:19] motion for uh the approval of the
[41:21] agenda? With the special meeting, if we
[41:23] wanted to add things, it would have to
[41:24] be signed by all of council, so I don't
[41:25] think we're going to be looking for any
[41:27] additions
[41:28] uh to the agenda today.
[41:30] Uh so, with that, uh can I have a
[41:32] counselor uh make the following motion,
[41:34] please? Counselor Randhawa.
[41:36] Thank you, Your Worship. Good morning,
[41:38] everyone. I move that the council
[41:40] approve the May 5th, 2026 special
[41:43] meeting of council agenda as presented.
[41:46] Uh thank you.
[41:48] Uh comments, questions from council?
[41:51] Call for the vote.
[41:53] Uh Deputy Mayor Narayan, do you vote in
[41:55] favor?
[41:56] In favor. Thank you.
[42:05] And that's carried unanimously. My
[42:07] screen is locked, it won't let me vote.
[42:10] I have three lock signs. So, I vote in
[42:12] favor. If we can maybe have our IT have
[42:14] someone from
[42:16] IT come and have a look at that.
[42:18] I just have lock symbols on there. Just
[42:20] so everyone is aware, Deputy Mayor
[42:21] Narayan is attending a conference for
[42:24] the yesterday and the next two days and
[42:26] so he's just joining us virtually
[42:28] while he's in attendance at a justice
[42:30] conference here
[42:32] this week. So,
[42:34] with that, yeah, as mentioned at the top
[42:36] of the meeting, today is a very special
[42:38] day. It is Red Dress Day which is
[42:40] observed annually on May 5th and honors
[42:42] missing and murdered Indigenous women,
[42:44] girls, and two-spirit people and raises
[42:46] awareness about the ongoing crisis of
[42:48] violence against Indigenous communities.
[42:51] One of the things that this council has
[42:52] been committed to with council
[42:53] recognitions and announcements is
[42:56] ensuring that we're honoring special
[42:58] days throughout the year. You will have
[43:00] seen and may have noticed that last week
[43:02] we had approved a new policy for
[43:05] recognition and this falls in line with
[43:07] that. So, with that we have invited Ms.
[43:11] Patty Sproul to join us here today and
[43:13] I'm going to do a quick presentation
[43:15] of tobacco for Ms. Sproul and she's
[43:18] going to be
[43:19] doing some education here for our
[43:21] council with regards to Red Dress Day as
[43:24] well as
[43:26] leading us through a smudging ceremony.
[43:28] So,
[43:29] good morning.
[43:45] Thank you.
[43:56] In the over 10 years I've known you, I
[43:57] think it's first time I've ever shook
[43:59] your hand.
[44:01] First time for everything. Right? Mhm.
[44:04] Good morning.
[44:06] Thank you for inviting me here.
[44:09] And thank you for the gift of tobacco. I
[44:11] will cherish it.
[44:14] Today,
[44:16] as I prepare to offer this smudge,
[44:19] I want to acknowledge the significance
[44:21] of Red Dress Day.
[44:24] In my work within this community
[44:26] alongside youth, families, and
[44:29] organizations,
[44:30] I have seen how deeply people care
[44:34] about creating a place where everyone
[44:36] feels safe and valued.
[44:39] Red Dress Day reminds us that Indigenous
[44:41] women, girls, and two-spirit people
[44:45] experience a homicide rate that is six
[44:47] times higher
[44:50] six times higher
[44:53] than the non-Indigenous population.
[44:57] So, their sense of safety has never
[44:59] really existed.
[45:02] As members of council
[45:04] and as community leaders, we are part of
[45:06] the systems that shape the people's
[45:08] experiences.
[45:11] That comes with both responsibility and
[45:13] opportunity.
[45:16] A responsibility to acknowledge the
[45:18] truth and the opportunity to lead in
[45:21] ways that create greater safety,
[45:23] inclusion, and understanding.
[45:28] As I offer this smudge, I do so with
[45:30] respect
[45:32] for those who are missing,
[45:34] for those who whose lives have take been
[45:37] taken,
[45:38] and for the families who continue to
[45:40] carry that loss.
[45:43] I also offer it with intention
[45:47] that our decisions,
[45:48] our leadership,
[45:52] and our actions reflect a genuine
[45:56] commitment to reconciliation,
[45:58] not just in words,
[46:00] but in how we serve
[46:02] community every day.
[46:05] Today, we remember.
[46:07] And we recommit to doing better
[46:09] together.
[46:12] Okay.
[46:15] I'm just going to start the smudge here
[46:17] and um
[46:18] thank you to Rebecca McGilvery for the
[46:21] gift of
[46:22] uh white sage, um which is one of the
[46:26] uh four sacred medicines of the
[46:28] indigenous people.
[46:30] The other one is tobacco.
[46:32] It's also a gift here and um
[46:36] another one is sweetgrass, which you
[46:38] often see in a braid.
[46:40] Um the only one I don't have here is
[46:42] cedar.
[46:43] I'm going to start this
[46:46] and I will smudge first.
[46:48] Anyone who would like to
[46:51] is welcome to come up and
[46:53] and smudge as well, but there's no
[46:55] pressure to do so.
[52:12] » Just also want to make sure uh
[52:14] the invitation is extended to any
[52:16] members of administration or anybody
[52:18] that's in the gallery as well.
[52:51] Okay. With that,
[52:53] uh thank you for joining us this
[52:54] morning. And uh for that uh for the
[52:56] education
[52:58] uh with regards to this, I do think that
[52:59] it is important um what's one of the
[53:02] things that certainly stood out to me as
[53:03] you were speaking is
[53:05] uh when sitting on this side of the
[53:07] desk, the responsibility and the
[53:09] opportunity.
[53:10] Uh and I think when this job is done
[53:13] right, you find the balance that is
[53:14] within within those two things. And I
[53:17] think that this is a good reminder to
[53:18] find the balance within that. I think
[53:19] that's something that stood out to me
[53:20] because when one goes too far the other
[53:23] way, I think that sometimes that's where
[53:26] it's just important to find the balance
[53:27] in this. Uh cuz when you bear the
[53:29] responsibility too much, it can be
[53:31] overbearing. And when it's too much of
[53:33] an opportunity, are you aware of your
[53:35] responsibility? And so I just see a
[53:38] strong tension point in that. That's
[53:39] what stood out to me when you spoke
[53:40] today is the responsibility and the
[53:42] opportunity that we carry uh to utilize
[53:44] our voice when it comes to
[53:45] reconciliation as well as to ensure that
[53:48] we are um
[53:50] honoring
[53:51] traditions
[53:52] and opportunities that we have to
[53:55] participate
[53:57] in ceremonies such as this. So,
[53:59] thank you again. We appreciate it.
[54:01] Thank you.
[54:04] Perhaps we'll just take a quick 5-minute
[54:06] break and just allow for us to
[54:08] transition and we'll do the weird thing
[54:10] when you go back to uh
[54:12] having a regular meeting of council. So,
[54:14] we'll come back at 9:35. Thanks,
[54:16] everyone.
[57:34] » Mhm.
[1:00:23] » Yeah, totally useless.
[1:00:25] Good morning, everyone. Uh just coming
[1:00:26] back from our break here and now moving
[1:00:29] forward with the rest of our agenda that
[1:00:31] we have here today.
[1:00:32] Moving on to number 4.1, it's a bit of a
[1:00:36] mislabel here that we have right now.
[1:00:38] What we wanted to do was we've had a bit
[1:00:40] of an urgent item that has come.
[1:00:43] One of the things that this council was
[1:00:45] acutely aware of
[1:00:46] is the need for us to see upgrades
[1:00:50] happen at Chestermere Boulevard, 17th
[1:00:52] Avenue, 284, the intersection that is
[1:00:54] 284 and Chestermere Boulevard, then as
[1:00:57] well as
[1:00:58] certainly at least the twinning of
[1:01:00] Chestermere Boulevard and 17th Avenue.
[1:01:03] We had an intermunicipal committee
[1:01:05] meeting
[1:01:06] last Friday and at that meeting
[1:01:09] both Councillor Chabot and Councillor
[1:01:11] Clark talked about the idea of and
[1:01:15] encouraged for the city of Chestermere
[1:01:18] to write a letter to the city of Calgary
[1:01:20] outlining
[1:01:22] again
[1:01:23] the importance of this. This has been a
[1:01:25] ongoing conversation since this council
[1:01:28] was elected last term as well as this
[1:01:30] term as well as previous councils have
[1:01:32] been having it as well.
[1:01:33] But we have certainly been
[1:01:36] quite
[1:01:38] diligent in this conversation. So with
[1:01:41] that
[1:01:42] wanted to bring forward the idea that
[1:01:46] this is regarding Range Road 284 and
[1:01:48] 17th Avenue intersection improvements
[1:01:50] and the twinning of Chestermere
[1:01:51] Boulevard 17th Avenue. Whereas the
[1:01:53] intersection of Range Road 284 and 17th
[1:01:56] Avenue has reached a critical threshold
[1:01:58] requiring safety enhancements and
[1:02:00] long-term improvements to support
[1:02:02] existing residential traffic and planned
[1:02:04] regional growth.
[1:02:06] And whereas this intersection serves
[1:02:08] residents of both the city of
[1:02:09] Chestermere and the city of Calgary
[1:02:11] necessitating a collaborative
[1:02:13] intermunicipal approach to regional
[1:02:15] infrastructure safety and connectivity.
[1:02:17] And whereas Chestermere Boulevard 17th
[1:02:20] Avenue serves as an economic corridor
[1:02:22] and that many residents who work in
[1:02:24] Calgary and conversely residents who
[1:02:26] work in Chestermere and live in Calgary
[1:02:28] utilize this roadway on a daily basis to
[1:02:30] get to and from work. And whereas the
[1:02:32] twinning of Chestermere Boulevard 17th
[1:02:34] Avenue and the future plans for transit
[1:02:37] will have a positive impact on
[1:02:38] businesses in both Chestermere and
[1:02:40] Calgary.
[1:02:41] And so we are preparing a motion here
[1:02:43] that I would like to bring up on the
[1:02:45] screen.
[1:02:46] And the motion that I'm seeking from
[1:02:49] council is that council direct the mayor
[1:02:50] to write a letter on behalf of the city
[1:02:52] of Chestermere to Calgary City Council
[1:02:54] outlining the urgent need
[1:02:56] for the intersection at 284 and
[1:02:58] Chestermere Boulevard/17th Avenue to be
[1:03:00] upgraded and that Chestermere
[1:03:02] Boulevard/17th Avenue be twinned. The
[1:03:04] city of Chestermere is requesting
[1:03:05] partnership with the city of Calgary on
[1:03:06] the work that is being done along this
[1:03:08] corridor. The letter will also outline
[1:03:11] both interim and long-term measures as
[1:03:12] well as the below. A summary of steps
[1:03:15] taken to date, work currently underway,
[1:03:17] the specific outcomes being requested of
[1:03:19] the city of Calgary including agreements
[1:03:21] to a joint staff level work plan
[1:03:23] timeline, and identified points of
[1:03:25] contact from both municipalities, and
[1:03:28] the rationale for urgency related to the
[1:03:29] safety of residents in both
[1:03:31] municipalities, and to support planned
[1:03:33] growth and activity, and that the city
[1:03:35] of Calgary be invited to identify a
[1:03:37] project lead and share a proposed
[1:03:39] timeline for interim measures and a
[1:03:41] long-term solution. So, again, this is
[1:03:44] continuing on that work, but really
[1:03:47] taking the conversations that we have
[1:03:49] been having
[1:03:50] through our intermunicipal committee
[1:03:51] meetings,
[1:03:52] as well as on whenever we see elected
[1:03:56] officials from Calgary at any of the
[1:03:58] conferences that we're at, this
[1:03:59] conversation comes up from every member
[1:04:02] of this council,
[1:04:03] and and it has come up often, and so
[1:04:05] what we're doing here is
[1:04:07] really formalizing that process
[1:04:10] with this motion. And so, if I may, if I
[1:04:12] could have a counselor make the
[1:04:14] following motion, please. Counselor
[1:04:16] Schindler.
[1:04:18] Absolutely.
[1:04:20] Um
[1:04:21] I move that council direct the mayor to
[1:04:23] write a letter on behalf of the city of
[1:04:25] Chestermere to Calgary City Council
[1:04:27] outlining the urgent need for the
[1:04:29] intersection at 284 and Chestermere
[1:04:33] Boulevard 17 and 17th Avenue to be
[1:04:36] upgraded.
[1:04:38] And that Chestermere Boulevard 17th
[1:04:40] Avenue be twinned. The city of
[1:04:42] Chestermere is requesting partnership
[1:04:44] with the city of Calgary on the work to
[1:04:46] be done along this corridor.
[1:04:48] The letter will outline both interim and
[1:04:51] long-term measures, as well as the
[1:04:54] below. A, a summary of steps
[1:04:57] taken to date. B, work currently
[1:04:59] underway. C, the specific outcomes being
[1:05:03] requested of the city of Calgary
[1:05:05] including agreement to a joint staff
[1:05:08] level work plan timeline.
[1:05:10] And identified points of contact from
[1:05:14] both municipalities and D, the rationale
[1:05:18] for urgency related to the safety of
[1:05:20] residents in both municipalities and to
[1:05:23] support planned growth and connectivity.
[1:05:25] Uh and that the city of Calgary be
[1:05:28] invited to identify a project lead and
[1:05:31] share the proposed timelines for interim
[1:05:33] measures and long-term solution.
[1:05:37] Thank you.
[1:05:38] Uh comments, questions from council?
[1:05:41] Call for the vote.
[1:05:44] Councillor uh sorry, Deputy Mayor Ryan,
[1:05:45] do you vote in favor?
[1:05:47] Yes, in favor. Thank you.
[1:05:50] And that's carried unanimously. Thank
[1:05:51] you.
[1:05:52] Okay, we're now going to move on to our
[1:05:55] budget and uh final operating and uh
[1:05:59] budget and capital budget conversations.
[1:06:01] And I believe that this is uh being
[1:06:03] presented by Mr. Mark Shonkin or CAO Mr.
[1:06:07] Edney. So, CAO, who am I turning it over
[1:06:09] to? Mr. Edney.
[1:06:12] Yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean. Good
[1:06:13] morning, council. Uh so, I'll take the
[1:06:15] presentation part of I guess this budget
[1:06:17] update. Uh so, this is uh intended to be
[1:06:20] a continuation of the discussion that we
[1:06:22] had
[1:06:23] um not last week, but the week prior uh
[1:06:26] when council called this special
[1:06:27] meeting. Uh at that time, there were
[1:06:29] some requests from council coming out of
[1:06:31] that meeting. Um the takeaways that
[1:06:34] administration had was a reconciliation
[1:06:36] of salaries and wages to date so far in
[1:06:38] 2026.
[1:06:40] The events budget comparison between
[1:06:42] 2025 to 2026.
[1:06:45] Uh the department by department rolled
[1:06:47] up budgets. Um those were included
[1:06:49] originally in the interim budget package
[1:06:52] and council now has a
[1:06:54] um
[1:06:55] a consolidation of just the information
[1:06:57] that was related to to the um individual
[1:07:00] departments in front of you. We don't
[1:07:02] plan to discuss that in detail unless
[1:07:05] there's any questions from council. And
[1:07:07] then there was a discussion around what
[1:07:09] should we be
[1:07:10] saving or tax impacts towards individual
[1:07:14] um capital project items coming up. So,
[1:07:17] this presentation, it's a short one. Um
[1:07:20] it's relatively quick. I'll walk through
[1:07:22] it with some of that information and
[1:07:23] then open up the floor to discussion,
[1:07:26] questions. Um we're still assuming that
[1:07:29] um either in front of you or you have
[1:07:31] access to the interim budget
[1:07:33] presentations as well as the full final
[1:07:36] um operating capital budget presentation
[1:07:38] that we had discussed in the previous
[1:07:40] meeting. So, with that, um if you can
[1:07:43] just jump to the next slide there, Led
[1:07:45] Services for me. So, one of the things
[1:07:48] that wasn't a direct takeaway, but there
[1:07:50] was a lot of questions um about was what
[1:07:54] drives our surplus and and where does
[1:07:56] our surplus potentially come from in
[1:07:58] 2025? So, this is a statement of the
[1:08:01] 2025 operations that comes from the
[1:08:03] audited financial statements that
[1:08:05] council approved at the last meeting.
[1:08:07] Um
[1:08:08] there's really four key areas um where
[1:08:11] the variance occurred.
[1:08:13] Um in the revenue side, it's under
[1:08:15] licenses and permits. And then in
[1:08:17] investment income. And I'll talk a
[1:08:19] little bit about those details on the
[1:08:20] next the next slide. So, really led us
[1:08:23] to $3.6 million of extra revenue that
[1:08:27] wasn't budgeted for. On the expense
[1:08:29] side, um
[1:08:31] most of the driver was in our purchases
[1:08:34] from other governments. So, that's our
[1:08:37] RCMP contract was our biggest driver of
[1:08:39] that one, as well as some uh small
[1:08:42] savings in we budget for mutual aid um
[1:08:46] in the fire department um with other
[1:08:48] communities. If we don't need their
[1:08:50] mutual aid, then we don't uh we don't
[1:08:53] use it. So, fortunately last year, we
[1:08:55] didn't need uh didn't need aid from our
[1:08:57] counterparts as much. And then um
[1:09:00] the second driver on the expense side is
[1:09:02] the contracted and general services. So,
[1:09:05] if we can flip to the next side
[1:09:08] next slide, sorry.
[1:09:10] Um again, we've talked about this a
[1:09:12] couple of times. One of our big revenue
[1:09:15] items on
[1:09:17] on the operating budget side is the
[1:09:19] revenue we receive from development
[1:09:21] permits, building permits, safety code
[1:09:23] inspections,
[1:09:25] um all those things that come with
[1:09:28] development. Uh so, we've seen obviously
[1:09:34] significant growth.
[1:09:36] Um
[1:09:37] looking for the right word to accurately
[1:09:38] describe it. Significant growth in the
[1:09:41] past 4 or 5 years and
[1:09:43] um you know, relatively it's it's
[1:09:46] roughly 20% 20 to 25% of our property
[1:09:50] tax. What we charge in property tax is
[1:09:53] also comes in in building permits and
[1:09:55] fees. So, one of the things when we're
[1:09:57] budgeting this is we don't want to over
[1:10:00] budget what we expect from this because
[1:10:02] that will create a deficit, but we're
[1:10:04] also cognizant not to
[1:10:07] um try to under budget too much. What
[1:10:09] happened last year is right around
[1:10:12] um budget time, uh the Trump
[1:10:14] administration imposed their tariffs.
[1:10:16] We weren't sure what was going to
[1:10:18] happen. We discussed it at at budget
[1:10:20] time that it was better to anticipate a
[1:10:22] slowdown. We didn't quite see the
[1:10:24] slowdown the way we thought. So, the
[1:10:26] main driver of that $2.3 million is
[1:10:29] actually increased
[1:10:32] um building permits fees relative to
[1:10:36] what we budgeted. Um if you remember
[1:10:38] back in the final budget presentation,
[1:10:40] Mr. Schonkan showed that well, it was
[1:10:42] above budget, it actually did slow down
[1:10:45] from the year before, and we did have
[1:10:46] less permits than the year before. We
[1:10:49] just had more than we expected in that
[1:10:51] case. So, that's the main driver in the
[1:10:53] in the license and and fees.
[1:10:56] Um the second one is the increased
[1:10:58] investment income.
[1:10:59] Uh, Mr. Schaupmann can talk to this
[1:11:01] better, but one of our assumptions and
[1:11:04] one of our challenges we've had um,
[1:11:06] in the organization over the last few
[1:11:08] years is really effectively actually
[1:11:10] spending our capital budget money. Um,
[1:11:13] you know, we saw that last year with
[1:11:14] some projects kicking off in the fall
[1:11:16] when we thought they'd be kicking off
[1:11:18] earlier. So, when that money is sitting
[1:11:20] in our account, it's now earning us
[1:11:21] investment income rather than when it's
[1:11:24] been used to pay bills. So, this is a
[1:11:26] function um, and then he can elaborate
[1:11:28] more if you have more questions of just
[1:11:30] having cash in our
[1:11:32] bank account longer than we thought we
[1:11:34] would. Just the timing of paying bills.
[1:11:36] So, we did see about $1.3 million extra
[1:11:40] uh, than we had originally budgeted for.
[1:11:42] Um, I talked on the last slide in a
[1:11:44] little bit of detail about the purchases
[1:11:46] from other governments. Um,
[1:11:48] the big reduction is the
[1:11:50] uh, number of personnel we had in place
[1:11:53] with the RCMP. Uh, we've talked about
[1:11:55] this again at the budgeting, but for
[1:11:57] reference, we have to make a estimate of
[1:12:00] what we expect the staffing complement
[1:12:02] to be in the RCMP through the year. And
[1:12:05] while we budget for that, they only bill
[1:12:07] us on actual
[1:12:09] um, full-time equivalent members, and
[1:12:11] they do it to two decimal places. So,
[1:12:13] they they track in great detail the
[1:12:16] number of days that a a member is
[1:12:18] working.
[1:12:19] And so, when we have situations where
[1:12:21] people are off on leave or um, that kind
[1:12:25] of thing and the position isn't able to
[1:12:27] be backfilled, we then see a savings
[1:12:29] there. So, again, we're generally
[1:12:32] budgeting for
[1:12:35] not a full complement. Again, I think
[1:12:38] we've talked about this publicly that
[1:12:39] um, you know, we're shooting for 25, but
[1:12:42] um, we're budgeting for 21 officers. And
[1:12:45] then so, if we only see 19 as an
[1:12:47] equivalent, we get that uh, refund back
[1:12:50] for the two in between. So, that's the
[1:12:52] driver of that reduction. We didn't
[1:12:54] quite see the staffing levels we'd hoped
[1:12:55] for in the RCMP last year.
[1:12:58] And then really on the contracted
[1:13:00] services um
[1:13:04] with the transition
[1:13:06] of the organization, I think is the best
[1:13:08] way to put it, you know, we're we're
[1:13:10] trying to catch up from the significant
[1:13:13] uh turnover that the organization
[1:13:15] experienced before this council and
[1:13:17] before I came on. Uh so, we had a lot of
[1:13:19] projects that we were planning to do, a
[1:13:21] lot of projects catching up on things
[1:13:23] that the community needed. So, we had a
[1:13:24] pretty significant
[1:13:26] contracted services budget last year. Um
[1:13:29] this difference is again really just
[1:13:31] from us being able to fill some key
[1:13:34] positions in the organization, then not
[1:13:37] needing to use a consultant, or it was
[1:13:39] some projects that got deferred into
[1:13:41] into this year that we didn't actually
[1:13:43] execute on last year. So, um
[1:13:46] you know, again
[1:13:49] um with maybe the exception of the RCMP,
[1:13:52] generally the four items leading to that
[1:13:55] surplus were something that I don't want
[1:13:58] to use the term one-time things, but
[1:14:00] they're not
[1:14:02] they're a little bit more of an art than
[1:14:03] a science um when it comes to budgeting
[1:14:06] than say personnel is or our sand budget
[1:14:09] or our gravel budget or our
[1:14:11] budget to mow the parks. We can be a lot
[1:14:13] closer on that because we've got
[1:14:16] a consistent repetitive history of
[1:14:17] those. So,
[1:14:18] um those are the four items that really
[1:14:20] led to the surplus last year.
[1:14:23] Um I don't know if you want to jump in
[1:14:25] and ask questions as we go or let me get
[1:14:27] through to the end and come back. I'm
[1:14:29] easy either way.
[1:14:31] Uh one of the other questions was um and
[1:14:35] we'd had some comments in the past about
[1:14:39] personnel being a huge variance item.
[1:14:41] And I believe in the years sort of from
[1:14:44] 2021
[1:14:46] through to 2024,
[1:14:47] uh personnel was a big variance. We've
[1:14:50] talked extensively of 70% turnover. Um
[1:14:54] turnover is different when somebody is
[1:14:57] um
[1:14:59] terminated without cause, there usually
[1:15:01] some sort of severance payment that goes
[1:15:03] to them that then essentially takes up
[1:15:06] the time in between it takes to get a
[1:15:07] new body in. But in this case, it was
[1:15:10] often people leaving. So when people
[1:15:12] leave of their own accord, that 2 months
[1:15:15] or 3 months in between where it takes to
[1:15:17] hire somebody new does become a
[1:15:18] personnel saving. So when you look back
[1:15:21] at the
[1:15:22] um
[1:15:23] variances in those years, it's typically
[1:15:26] driven by
[1:15:28] um the issues in the personnel budget.
[1:15:30] Um last year's actually, if you look at
[1:15:32] the personnel budget directly, we were
[1:15:34] actually about $8,000 over when it came
[1:15:37] uh at the end of the day through the
[1:15:39] audited financial statements. Again,
[1:15:41] council had a
[1:15:42] robust discussion about um the effort
[1:15:45] that went into the financial statements
[1:15:47] and the accounting since Mr. Schonken
[1:15:48] has been here at this point. So um we
[1:15:50] didn't see the same extent in salaries
[1:15:53] and wages that we expected to
[1:15:55] last year. When you look at this year so
[1:15:57] far,
[1:15:58] um doing the quick reconciliation, it's
[1:16:00] always tougher
[1:16:02] early on in the year. A lot of our um
[1:16:06] items that are shown on here like
[1:16:08] pension, Canada Pension Plan, Employment
[1:16:10] Insurance,
[1:16:11] um pension contributions are related to
[1:16:14] a person's salary,
[1:16:16] but they also max out where you only put
[1:16:19] in a limited amount. So at the start of
[1:16:21] the year,
[1:16:23] um you're generally for Canada Pension
[1:16:25] Plan, Employment Insurance going to
[1:16:27] overspend and then catch up as the year
[1:16:29] goes on as most employees at some point
[1:16:31] throughout the year stop contributing to
[1:16:33] those. Um and again, pension is a direct
[1:16:36] relation to salaries and wages. It's a
[1:16:38] percentage of your salary. So when we're
[1:16:40] underspent on salaries and wages, we're
[1:16:42] going to be under spent on pension as
[1:16:45] well as uh
[1:16:46] um
[1:16:48] yeah, contributions for benefits as
[1:16:50] well. Um
[1:16:51] WCB, we've talked about that as a
[1:16:54] separate line item
[1:16:55] um as an adjustment to the budget. This
[1:16:57] is a comparison to the budget we're
[1:16:58] working under right now, which is the
[1:17:00] interim operating budget as that
[1:17:02] increase to WCB hasn't been approved. Uh
[1:17:05] Mr. Sheedy talked about that, I think,
[1:17:07] at the last meeting of uh the
[1:17:08] significant increase we're seeing in WCB
[1:17:11] due to a few
[1:17:13] um unfortunate items over the past
[1:17:15] couple of years that have just taken a
[1:17:17] really long time for workers to get back
[1:17:19] to work. So, generally, we're sitting um
[1:17:22] I think in a relatively good position.
[1:17:25] Um we're about $60,000 under spent.
[1:17:28] Um a big amount of that variance is um
[1:17:32] we're still continuing to bring people
[1:17:33] in on the new positions that were hired.
[1:17:36] Um you're seeing a lot of new faces come
[1:17:38] into city hall. I do expect that
[1:17:41] variance to tighten up as the year goes
[1:17:43] on. One important point in here is with
[1:17:46] the vacancies we do have, we've already
[1:17:48] incorporated a 3% vacancy rate into
[1:17:53] these numbers that are shown here. So,
[1:17:55] the budget number actually assumes that
[1:17:57] we're only running at 97%
[1:18:00] of what we would actually spend if we
[1:18:02] had 100% capacity at all the time. So,
[1:18:04] it's taking into account some of those
[1:18:08] um
[1:18:10] cases where people leave for another
[1:18:12] position somewhere or where it takes us
[1:18:14] a little bit longer to fill a new
[1:18:16] position than we originally anticipated.
[1:18:19] So, that's the reconciliation of where
[1:18:20] we are
[1:18:22] at as of April 17th. That was our last
[1:18:24] uh payday that we were able to to pull
[1:18:26] accurate numbers from.
[1:18:28] And coincidentally, it's exactly 1/3 uh
[1:18:32] through the year, so it made the math on
[1:18:33] the budget side easy.
[1:18:36] Um
[1:18:37] I think that's covered
[1:18:41] most of those um operating budget
[1:18:44] requests, I guess. The next slide I'll
[1:18:47] talk about capital project funding,
[1:18:49] which of course relates back to the
[1:18:51] operating budget in considering how
[1:18:54] council would like to um
[1:18:57] allocate funding for future
[1:18:59] um for future capital items.
[1:19:04] So, real quickly
[1:19:06] on this state on this page um if we work
[1:19:08] kind of left to right and top from
[1:19:10] bottom,
[1:19:11] um one of the things that Mr. Shaun Chen
[1:19:14] identified and talked about and has been
[1:19:16] talked about a lot at the provincial
[1:19:18] level of currently we do not have
[1:19:21] a consistent policy or a consistent um
[1:19:25] budget item where we put money away to
[1:19:27] our asset replacement. So, this isn't
[1:19:30] our new infrastructure. This isn't um
[1:19:34] stuff that's being built in the new
[1:19:35] communities. It's not new lift stations.
[1:19:37] It's not new roads. It's
[1:19:39] putting away savings for those items
[1:19:43] that are starting to age, are starting
[1:19:47] to deteriorate, are starting to look to
[1:19:48] need replacement. Uh we've been
[1:19:51] fortunate in the last few years and Mr.
[1:19:53] Shaun Chen talked about this before of
[1:19:54] we
[1:19:56] um
[1:19:58] use the term grossly cuz I think it was
[1:20:00] grossly underutilized
[1:20:02] our funding from the federal government
[1:20:05] and from the provincial government. Uh
[1:20:07] he talked about I think we're spending
[1:20:09] in the neighborhood of 13 million
[1:20:11] in grant funds on capital projects right
[1:20:13] now and we get about 2.8 million a year.
[1:20:15] So, it tells you how many years we're
[1:20:18] backed up in that kind of
[1:20:21] I think Mayor Deans calls them the
[1:20:23] the times the trouble times. What do you
[1:20:25] refer to them as?
[1:20:25] >> Situation.
[1:20:26] » Situation.
[1:20:26] >> The situation.
[1:20:27] » The situation.
[1:20:27] During the situations. Uh so, we're
[1:20:29] catching up on that. So, what this is
[1:20:31] looking at
[1:20:33] um that first line item of 2.279
[1:20:35] million, that's 60% of what we're
[1:20:38] carrying for amortization on those
[1:20:40] tangible assets. So, amortization is
[1:20:43] reflecting, you know, how
[1:20:46] your assets are aging, how your assets
[1:20:48] are
[1:20:49] coming towards the end of their useful
[1:20:51] life. Um a practice that Mr. Shoniker
[1:20:54] recommends is the council's putting away
[1:20:57] about 60% of that, and that's for those
[1:20:59] things um
[1:21:01] either A, that we're fortunate and can
[1:21:03] see in advance that something needs to
[1:21:05] be replaced before it fails. It's also
[1:21:08] those things like Calgary had with the
[1:21:09] Bearspaw feeder main um
[1:21:12] that you're not expecting to happen.
[1:21:14] This is putting money away for those
[1:21:15] type of of asset replacements and
[1:21:17] repairs as you go forward. So, um our
[1:21:20] recommendation is roughly 60% of of the
[1:21:24] amortization of all those assets. That's
[1:21:26] fleet vehicles, that's roads, sidewalks,
[1:21:28] um all the municipal infrastructure,
[1:21:31] buildings, city hall, fire station,
[1:21:33] community operations building, etc. Um
[1:21:37] of putting something away to save for
[1:21:39] those in the future. And Mr. Shoniker
[1:21:41] has talked about um what we currently
[1:21:43] have in in the reserve account um
[1:21:46] simply is there to manage that cash flow
[1:21:49] discrepancy throughout the year. It's
[1:21:51] not actual um cash that can necessarily
[1:21:55] be be used for funding at this point.
[1:21:57] So, the recommendation is to council to
[1:21:59] start building up
[1:22:01] that asset replacement fund. Um
[1:22:04] when you start working down again, um
[1:22:06] we've already presented the five-year
[1:22:09] capital budget. This is again just
[1:22:11] looking for '27 through '2030. Um and on
[1:22:15] that budget, um administration has
[1:22:17] identified which projects could be
[1:22:19] funded through the LGFF framework as
[1:22:22] well as the CCBF. CCBF is used to to
[1:22:25] referred to as the gas tax.
[1:22:27] So, after taking all of those projects
[1:22:29] out, um it left with this list of
[1:22:31] projects. Again, these haven't been
[1:22:33] approved. They're just on the budget as
[1:22:36] a um an indicator of things that
[1:22:38] administration has identified need to be
[1:22:40] used in the next year,
[1:22:42] um and what those look like.
[1:22:45] Um from sort of a a smaller capital
[1:22:47] project item.
[1:22:49] So, at the bottom, um I think this is
[1:22:52] that sort of request. This is trying to
[1:22:53] capture that request of what do we need
[1:22:55] to put money away for. Um we've only
[1:22:57] looked at
[1:22:59] the city portion of offsite land levy
[1:23:02] projects. So, the Dawson Landing Rec
[1:23:04] Facility right now, our share is just
[1:23:06] short of about $25 million.
[1:23:09] Uh the library, our share would be about
[1:23:11] $5 million, and then the replacement of
[1:23:13] the bridge is about in the $14 million
[1:23:17] um
[1:23:18] $14 million
[1:23:21] range, I guess, as per big projects that
[1:23:23] we see coming up over the next 4 years.
[1:23:25] So,
[1:23:26] what we've done administratively is
[1:23:28] break down for council, um
[1:23:31] what does this look like if you were to
[1:23:34] collect
[1:23:36] A, the asset replacement savings through
[1:23:38] property taxes.
[1:23:40] Um
[1:23:41] so,
[1:23:42] you'd be looking at
[1:23:46] bringing in about $14.76
[1:23:49] a month
[1:23:51] from your average $400,000 home, which
[1:23:54] would equate to about a 7.8%
[1:23:57] property tax increase from where rates
[1:23:59] are at today.
[1:24:01] Uh of course, if you had a
[1:24:02] million-dollar home, that $14.76 goes up
[1:24:06] by 50% to about $21.
[1:24:08] If you had a $350,000 home, well, it's
[1:24:11] cut in half to about $7 a month. Um so,
[1:24:14] as you work through down this sheet,
[1:24:17] what we've assumed
[1:24:18] um in all of the items below that is
[1:24:22] that those are being funded through
[1:24:24] debt.
[1:24:25] Um as we discussed, we don't have the
[1:24:27] savings right now to fund these through
[1:24:29] that. Um an option, of course, would be
[1:24:32] to start putting extra money aside for
[1:24:35] these particular items. Um you know,
[1:24:38] something we've talked about explicitly
[1:24:40] is
[1:24:41] uh the community's been planning
[1:24:44] a rec facility for somewhere in the
[1:24:46] neighborhood of 10 years, and we haven't
[1:24:48] put any city money away in that 10 years
[1:24:51] to pay for that rec facility.
[1:24:53] Um so now we're at the point where
[1:24:55] hopefully council's going to make a
[1:24:56] decision to move forward or not at some
[1:24:59] point here, and we don't have anything
[1:25:00] in our savings account to pay our
[1:25:02] portion. So, we've assumed that all of
[1:25:04] these capital projects need to be funded
[1:25:06] through debentures. So, this monthly tax
[1:25:08] impact, again for the $700,000 average
[1:25:11] home, is what needs to be paid to
[1:25:13] service that debt over a 25-year life of
[1:25:16] that debenture. So, for example,
[1:25:20] uh if we just pick the aerial 116, the
[1:25:22] fire truck replacement, we'd need a
[1:25:24] $1.85
[1:25:25] a month from every home to service the
[1:25:27] debt to to purchase that piece of
[1:25:29] equipment. If we move down
[1:25:32] the uh the list to the bottom, um
[1:25:36] the Dawson Landing rec facility, we'd
[1:25:38] need about $10.81 a month from your
[1:25:40] average home to fund that or about a 5%
[1:25:43] 0.7% tax increase just to service the
[1:25:47] debenture uh to pay for that facility.
[1:25:49] So, I won't walk through every single
[1:25:51] number. Um hopefully that makes sense of
[1:25:53] how it is. And so, one of the things
[1:25:55] that's important to note, and I left it
[1:25:57] in
[1:25:58] at the very top with the asset
[1:26:00] replacement savings,
[1:26:01] um once you
[1:26:04] make that change, it carries forward in
[1:26:06] perpetuity till you make another change.
[1:26:08] So,
[1:26:09] for the Dawson Landing rec facility, for
[1:26:11] example,
[1:26:12] um you would need the $10.81
[1:26:15] increase
[1:26:17] in 2027, and that just carries forward
[1:26:19] in perpetuity. So, it's not 5.8% this
[1:26:22] year and 5.8 another 5.8 the next year
[1:26:25] and another and another. It's just 5.8%
[1:26:28] and you can carry that forward for the
[1:26:30] next 25 years to service that debenture.
[1:26:32] So, that's what it's trying to show. Um
[1:26:34] if you look at the very top,
[1:26:36] the total cumulative impact over the
[1:26:38] next 4 years for all of these projects,
[1:26:41] um if council were to proceed and move
[1:26:43] forward, is about $40.07
[1:26:47] per month
[1:26:48] um over the next 4 years again for a
[1:26:50] $700,000 home. If your home is worth 50%
[1:26:53] more, that would be $60. If your home is
[1:26:56] worth half, that'd be about $20.
[1:26:59] The cumulative net impact would be about
[1:27:01] 21% over those 4 years. So,
[1:27:05] I talked about this at the last meeting
[1:27:06] of
[1:27:07] um
[1:27:10] When we talk about percentages on lower
[1:27:12] numbers, it takes bigger percentages to
[1:27:14] gain smaller amounts of dollars. So, I
[1:27:16] think sometimes when when we hear or see
[1:27:18] numbers like 15 or 20%, um it starts to
[1:27:21] scare you, but Councillor Shener and I
[1:27:24] were having this discussion of we're
[1:27:25] talking about 14% on 3%. So,
[1:27:29] it's not 14% of 100%. It's 14% of 3.2%.
[1:27:34] Um
[1:27:35] so, it changes your your rate from, you
[1:27:36] know, 3.2 to
[1:27:39] 3.5. Um it's not an extra 14% on top of
[1:27:42] there. So,
[1:27:43] that's what the future looks like for
[1:27:46] funding what we see in front of us
[1:27:48] for capital replacement over the next 4
[1:27:50] years and our big projects.
[1:27:52] Um
[1:27:53] if we go to the next slide,
[1:27:56] you know, the good news I think from my
[1:27:58] perspective is well, 20% isn't something
[1:28:00] to downplay.
[1:28:01] Um
[1:28:03] it's where we'd be if we had kept pace.
[1:28:06] Um easily be there if we'd kept pace
[1:28:08] over the last 5 years
[1:28:10] um with our neighboring communities. The
[1:28:11] challenge that this brings, of course,
[1:28:14] is that anticipates we're borrowing
[1:28:16] almost $58 million in the next 4 years.
[1:28:19] If you remember from the financial
[1:28:21] statements, our debt capacity is 59.
[1:28:26] It's about 58.
[1:28:28] We already have 5 million for the golf
[1:28:30] course. Um and we have another 1 and 1/2
[1:28:32] million on some other projects. Of
[1:28:35] course, as taxes do grow and increase,
[1:28:38] our debt capacity will increase, but um
[1:28:42] this will completely maximize our debt
[1:28:46] limit, our internal debt limit of 75%.
[1:28:49] Uh again, we've talked about why most
[1:28:51] municipalities have that policy
[1:28:53] um because our revenue other outside of
[1:28:56] property taxes fluctuates.
[1:28:58] Um it takes into account that we don't
[1:29:00] end up in a tough position if building
[1:29:02] permits or fines, etc. were to decrease
[1:29:05] over time and our payments on our
[1:29:07] debenture doesn't keep up. So, we could
[1:29:10] fund all those projects through debt,
[1:29:11] but it does put us at our debt limit at
[1:29:14] that point. Um the key part of all of
[1:29:17] these projects, as you start thinking
[1:29:19] about um the next few years, is it does
[1:29:22] not include any of the debt needed to
[1:29:25] complete the off-site levy portion of
[1:29:27] these projects. So, again, we've talked
[1:29:30] about the rec center. I just pick it
[1:29:32] because it's the biggest one. You could
[1:29:33] do the same with the library um or the
[1:29:36] fire hall. We don't have the fire hall
[1:29:38] on there because there's no portion of
[1:29:39] that that's actually municipally funded.
[1:29:42] Um but the fire hall is a good example
[1:29:44] in the off-site levy model. Um it's
[1:29:46] budgeted for $15 million, and I think we
[1:29:48] have about 3 million um in the fire
[1:29:51] off-site levy. So, if we were to move
[1:29:53] forward with the fire hall, that $12
[1:29:55] million
[1:29:56] uh needs a debenture to be taken out. Uh
[1:29:59] that debenture, of course, gets paid off
[1:30:01] by the off-site levy funds we recoup
[1:30:04] over time, but that $12 million applies
[1:30:07] onto our debt limit um as a city right
[1:30:10] now.
[1:30:11] Same thing with the recreation center. I
[1:30:13] believe we're contemplating about $44
[1:30:16] million is the offsite levy
[1:30:19] portion of it, and we have just shy of
[1:30:21] $20 million uh in that offsite levy fund
[1:30:22] right now. So, again, there's another
[1:30:23] $25
[1:30:27] million or so
[1:30:29] of debt that needs to be taken out to
[1:30:31] complete the offsite levy portion of
[1:30:33] that.
[1:30:34] Um same thing with the library. It's a
[1:30:36] smaller project, but we're again looking
[1:30:38] at another $4 or $5 million
[1:30:41] for the offsite levy portion of the
[1:30:43] library. And this isn't including, you
[1:30:46] know, anything that might also be
[1:30:49] in the capital budget beyond the next 4
[1:30:51] years. So,
[1:30:53] um paints a little bit of a a grim
[1:30:55] picture. Council doesn't have to make
[1:30:57] those decisions right now. We'll have
[1:30:59] more information and more options, of
[1:31:00] course, as those projects come forward
[1:31:03] for actual council approval. Um one of
[1:31:05] the discussions Mark and I have had um
[1:31:08] around the offsite levy projects, for
[1:31:10] sure, is
[1:31:12] seeking a minister exemption from
[1:31:14] Minister Williams, Minister of Municipal
[1:31:16] Affairs, to have the debt that's taken
[1:31:19] on from the offsite levies
[1:31:21] not counted towards the city's debt
[1:31:23] limit. Um of course, there's a risk
[1:31:25] there um that needs to be acknowledged
[1:31:28] in that
[1:31:30] um if development slows down, collection
[1:31:32] of offsite levy slow down,
[1:31:34] and the city is still responsible for
[1:31:36] making those debt payments. So, if we
[1:31:38] hit a situation over that 20-25 year
[1:31:41] period where we've taken out a debenture
[1:31:43] to pay the offsite levy, and uh
[1:31:46] development grinds to a halt
[1:31:48] for whatever reason, um
[1:31:51] the city taxpayers would then be on the
[1:31:53] hook for paying that portion of the debt
[1:31:57] because it would still be a city loan.
[1:31:58] So, um just something to be aware of. Of
[1:32:02] course, we will continue to do what we
[1:32:04] can. Um you know, there's a sponsorship
[1:32:07] naming opportunity um policy
[1:32:10] uh coming forward for that. We have um
[1:32:14] actively
[1:32:15] running a uh campaign feasibility study
[1:32:19] uh to see what we can raise
[1:32:21] um for outside support. We'll continue
[1:32:23] to to pursue grants
[1:32:25] um and other forms of investment for
[1:32:27] these major projects. But again, um
[1:32:29] we're seeing anecdotally from other
[1:32:32] places that that may lead to
[1:32:34] you know, 5 or 10 or maybe 15% at best.
[1:32:37] So, we're still looking at at a way to
[1:32:39] fund the other 85%. So,
[1:32:41] one of the things that came up in our
[1:32:43] original budget presentation as well was
[1:32:45] not just start putting money away
[1:32:48] for
[1:32:49] um the asset replacements of our
[1:32:52] existing assets, but a recommendation
[1:32:54] would be for council to consider
[1:32:56] starting to put money away to pay for
[1:32:59] these big community-based projects um
[1:33:01] that are contemplated on the books right
[1:33:03] now like the Rec Center and like the
[1:33:05] library. Um
[1:33:07] So, really that was
[1:33:10] my last information, I guess, that were
[1:33:12] takeaways from
[1:33:15] from our last meetings. Um again, the
[1:33:17] intent would be for council to either
[1:33:19] approve an operating budget um
[1:33:22] today or at the very latest next Tuesday
[1:33:25] at the 12th. We need that to then
[1:33:27] develop the tax rate bylaw to have that
[1:33:30] approved on May 26th. Um one of the
[1:33:32] things I'll talk about, too,
[1:33:34] um is we were projecting about a 1.8
[1:33:39] million dollar
[1:33:40] um
[1:33:42] deficit in our current projection for
[1:33:45] the operating budget. Um Mark and I have
[1:33:49] talked um
[1:33:53] I don't believe
[1:33:55] So, I don't believe hope
[1:33:57] is a strategy and it surely isn't a
[1:34:00] plan.
[1:34:01] Um but I think as we work through some
[1:34:04] of the items um in the operating budget
[1:34:07] such as the RCMP,
[1:34:09] um we could have a discussion of whether
[1:34:11] we remove some of those budget items now
[1:34:13] to lower that deficit
[1:34:15] or you just plan on like was already
[1:34:18] presented, moving 1.8 from the reserves
[1:34:21] and hope that near the end of the year
[1:34:24] we can squeeze that deficit um with
[1:34:27] either A, some improved revenues like
[1:34:29] we've seen over the past couple years
[1:34:32] or B,
[1:34:33] some potential savings on some projects.
[1:34:35] Again, specifically the RCMP would be
[1:34:38] something worth talking about. Uh that
[1:34:40] said, I didn't pull them up in front of
[1:34:42] me
[1:34:43] um but the last building permits and
[1:34:45] statistics
[1:34:46] uh email I received were you know, we're
[1:34:49] running significantly behind where we
[1:34:51] were last year at this time. Now, that
[1:34:53] was end of March. Construction season
[1:34:55] hadn't started, so uh we got surprised
[1:34:57] last year uh with how much activity
[1:35:00] picked up, but again,
[1:35:02] that's a
[1:35:05] educated guess um
[1:35:07] at our best on what those those fees and
[1:35:09] stuff will look like. So, leave that to
[1:35:12] council um
[1:35:13] to advise on how you'd like to deal with
[1:35:15] that part of the deficit as well, but
[1:35:17] think at this point we're open to
[1:35:19] discussions. We've got all sorts of
[1:35:20] information. Um can hopefully answer
[1:35:23] your questions, help you make a
[1:35:24] decision.
[1:35:26] Uh thank you. Just before going to other
[1:35:28] councilors, Deputy Mayor had a question
[1:35:30] he wanted me to ask on his behalf is how
[1:35:32] is this budget, capital and operational,
[1:35:34] dealing with the volatility in gas
[1:35:36] prices, which ultimately affects cost of
[1:35:39] all goods and services?
[1:35:42] Mr. Edney.
[1:35:45] Yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean. So,
[1:35:46] um
[1:35:47] we talked about it at the last meeting.
[1:35:49] I I either on the 23rd or 24th. Um we've
[1:35:54] reviewed
[1:35:55] the fuel budget
[1:35:57] um and made some increases to that to
[1:36:01] hopefully account for
[1:36:03] the price of fuel, but um you're right.
[1:36:07] We don't have a broader
[1:36:10] inflation adjustment um accounted for
[1:36:14] anywhere in our projects
[1:36:18] to account for if this
[1:36:21] blockage uh of the street continues for
[1:36:24] a prolonged
[1:36:25] time. So, again, that's that's another
[1:36:28] risk, I guess, on the expense side on
[1:36:31] some of these projects that uh we could
[1:36:33] see that transferred not just directly
[1:36:35] to the price of fuel, but the price of
[1:36:37] of other goods.
[1:36:39] The nice part, if that's the right word,
[1:36:42] is the largest portion of our operating
[1:36:45] budget is personnel. Um and that isn't
[1:36:48] affected. Um affects people at home, of
[1:36:51] course, like it does everybody, but
[1:36:53] doesn't affect our cost um for those
[1:36:55] people. So, it would be a less
[1:36:57] significant increase, but it's something
[1:36:59] we could take away and
[1:37:01] you know, I don't know how we'd even
[1:37:02] practically evaluate that other than to
[1:37:04] just make a rough guess.
[1:37:07] Okay. Thank you.
[1:37:09] Uh Council questions.
[1:37:12] Councilor Sambol.
[1:37:14] Thank your worship and good morning
[1:37:16] through to Mr. Edney. That uh is it It's
[1:37:20] roughly a $5 million surplus from last
[1:37:22] year, is that correct?
[1:37:24] Okay. So, generally, I believe a
[1:37:27] surplus, there would be some decision by
[1:37:30] Council about what to do with that
[1:37:31] surplus or what account to put that in
[1:37:33] or how to allocate that. Has that task
[1:37:35] been done? I did miss one meeting. Mr.
[1:37:37] Edney. Uh yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean,
[1:37:39] to Councilor Sambol. So, um that task
[1:37:41] hasn't been directly done. Um what we
[1:37:43] did, if you look back at the
[1:37:46] final budget presentations um from the
[1:37:49] previous meetings is on
[1:37:51] the budget in the non-cash items. We had
[1:37:54] the proceeds from the debenture coming
[1:37:57] in.
[1:37:58] Trans- um
[1:38:02] Sorry, I'm answering a different
[1:38:03] question.
[1:38:05] I'm answering a different question.
[1:38:07] That surplus is already accounted for in
[1:38:11] um
[1:38:15] It's already That money's already
[1:38:17] sitting in the surplus account um and is
[1:38:20] included in the calculations that have
[1:38:22] been presented for all of
[1:38:25] how to fund the capital projects
[1:38:27] going forward. So,
[1:38:29] um I'm answering that not in the best
[1:38:31] way. Sorry, let me turn this off.
[1:38:34] But that's included, I guess, when we
[1:38:35] look at what's in the reserve account
[1:38:37] now. That surplus is already in there.
[1:38:40] Thank you. Um
[1:38:42] okay, following up on that, what I'm
[1:38:43] trying to suss out if there is still a
[1:38:45] decision to be made with that $5
[1:38:47] million. So, I understand it's in the
[1:38:49] calculation, but is there still a
[1:38:50] decision about what it, you know, what
[1:38:52] project or whatever to put it in? When
[1:38:55] you say surplus, are you talking about
[1:38:57] that stabilization account?
[1:39:00] Yes, that's where the money is. So, I
[1:39:02] think Mr. Shaunken can probably talk
[1:39:04] about this, but he talked about it at
[1:39:05] the last meeting
[1:39:06] of
[1:39:08] we have to manage
[1:39:11] um
[1:39:14] So, if you remember, we went back and
[1:39:16] looked at at the reconciliation of net
[1:39:18] financial assets down to about $17
[1:39:20] million.
[1:39:21] Um so, that $17 million includes that
[1:39:25] surplus from 2025.
[1:39:27] And Mr. Shaunken's comment at the time
[1:39:30] was we need to keep about $10 million in
[1:39:32] there um
[1:39:34] because that's what helps balance our
[1:39:36] cash flow through the year for spending
[1:39:37] when
[1:39:38] um
[1:39:40] due to the timing of taxes coming in in
[1:39:41] the middle of the year and expending
[1:39:43] expenditures occurring throughout the
[1:39:45] total year. So, there's not a direct um
[1:39:50] request of what council should do with
[1:39:52] it, but council always has the ability
[1:39:54] to do anything with your reserves. I
[1:39:57] think what our recommendation is it's in
[1:39:59] there to help fund future projects. It's
[1:40:02] assuming that you're taking 1.8 million
[1:40:04] out of there to fund the projected
[1:40:06] deficit we have right now. But, as I
[1:40:09] mentioned, our hope would be that with
[1:40:10] some of these items we can narrow that
[1:40:12] deficit down and then take less out of
[1:40:14] that reserve account at the end of the
[1:40:16] year. Does that
[1:40:18] Does that make sense? A follow-up, Your
[1:40:20] Worship. Yep. That does make sense. So,
[1:40:22] what I'm hearing is that this money is
[1:40:24] currently in a cash account. It's not in
[1:40:27] an investment. So, it's not making any
[1:40:29] money, but it needs to stay there
[1:40:32] because we need that and more for cash
[1:40:35] flow throughout the year. Is that
[1:40:36] correct?
[1:40:38] Mr. Reddick? Thank you too, Councillor
[1:40:41] Sandbo. So,
[1:40:43] where the cash sits, um we try to invest
[1:40:47] as absolutely much as we can, but of
[1:40:48] course we don't We just have one
[1:40:50] investment account and one cash account.
[1:40:53] Um so, I'd have to maybe get uh Mr.
[1:40:56] Shankland to talk about that particular
[1:40:58] amount, but we generally try to other
[1:41:00] than that 10 million or even less as he
[1:41:03] projects on a month-to-month basis of
[1:41:06] how much money we need in the account,
[1:41:08] we try to invest as much as we can and
[1:41:10] then max it maximize it when our
[1:41:13] investments are maturing to bring that
[1:41:15] money then into the account. So, there's
[1:41:18] no discrete account that has that
[1:41:21] particular money in it. It's a large
[1:41:22] account that has all the money from the
[1:41:24] asset off-site levies, etc. And then it
[1:41:26] becomes an accounting exercise
[1:41:28] um
[1:41:30] to
[1:41:31] allocate those returns if that makes
[1:41:33] sense.
[1:41:34] So, it's not a the That was a long
[1:41:37] answer to say it's not just sitting
[1:41:38] there doing nothing.
[1:41:40] Councilor Sambol.
[1:41:41] Thank you your worship and through to
[1:41:42] Mr. Edney. I'm glad to hear that. Do we
[1:41:45] know what the the rate of return is
[1:41:47] right now over the last little while?
[1:41:50] Mr. Edney.
[1:41:56] Thank you Mayor Dean. So we're running
[1:41:59] about 4.5%
[1:42:01] on our return. If you remember CIBC came
[1:42:04] in
[1:42:05] and I think their overall portfolio
[1:42:08] return was somewhere around 4.39 at that
[1:42:10] time. That's improved a little bit
[1:42:13] just as we've reallocated some of our
[1:42:14] investments. So we're making about 4.5%.
[1:42:18] Your worship my last question on this
[1:42:20] line
[1:42:21] would be through to Mr. Edney. If we're
[1:42:23] looking at pulling out a debenture, of
[1:42:25] course we can't predict the future,
[1:42:27] but what are we looking at for those
[1:42:29] rates?
[1:42:38] Mr. Edney.
[1:42:41] Yeah, thank you Mayor Dean. I'm a little
[1:42:43] bit embarrassed that I don't have that
[1:42:44] number right on the top of my head cuz
[1:42:46] I've been just doing a whole bunch of
[1:42:47] debenture calculations. It's in the same
[1:42:49] neighborhood. I think it's right around
[1:42:51] 5%
[1:42:53] on the debenture,
[1:42:55] but I can look that up if you give me 2
[1:42:57] seconds here.
[1:43:00] Thank you. Councilor Schindler.
[1:43:05] Sure. Thank you.
[1:43:07] Through the through the chair to
[1:43:09] administration.
[1:43:11] Um
[1:43:12] Here's an interesting question that I
[1:43:14] was just thinking about.
[1:43:17] Does our low tax rate cuz considering
[1:43:21] that we have the second lowest mill rate
[1:43:24] in the province next to Canmore if I'm
[1:43:27] correct? Does our low tax rate
[1:43:30] contribute to the rise in our property
[1:43:33] values?
[1:43:35] Our property values have been exploding
[1:43:36] over the last few years, so I'm curious.
[1:43:41] Mr. Rodney.
[1:43:42] Yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean. I can't
[1:43:44] answer that question directly, but I can
[1:43:47] provide anecdotally, um I guess a theory
[1:43:50] on how it works. Of
[1:43:53] um you know, in theory when you look at
[1:43:55] property taxes and you look at being
[1:43:57] competitive municipality to
[1:43:58] municipality, if a
[1:44:01] if someone is considering buying, all
[1:44:04] other things aside, access to schools,
[1:44:06] location to work, all those things are
[1:44:08] the same, and somebody's looking at uh
[1:44:11] purchasing, say, a $700,000 home, and
[1:44:14] the mill rate in one community is 3.24,
[1:44:17] and in another community it's 4.5,
[1:44:20] in theory, they're going to choose the
[1:44:21] one with the lower mill rate. Um but of
[1:44:23] course, real life isn't
[1:44:25] Correct. isn't that easy. Living in
[1:44:26] Canmore is a lot different than living
[1:44:28] in Chestermere, and living in
[1:44:29] Chestermere is a lot better than living
[1:44:30] everywhere else, so Yeah, that's a good
[1:44:33] answer.
[1:44:33] >> want to live here.
[1:44:35] » want to live here.
[1:44:35] Anyways, so yes, in theory it it plays
[1:44:37] in, but it doesn't directly when an
[1:44:40] assessor is assessing market values
[1:44:42] factor in. They're just looking at what
[1:44:44] homes are selling for. Okay.
[1:44:47] Um
[1:44:49] I And on a different line of
[1:44:51] questioning, if I may,
[1:44:53] um
[1:44:55] the
[1:44:57] $1.8 million deficit in our operational
[1:45:00] budget, um
[1:45:03] is uh
[1:45:05] certainly struck me as as uh concerning.
[1:45:08] Um
[1:45:08] what is the
[1:45:11] Is there a potential
[1:45:13] um money value on monthly taxes that we
[1:45:17] would need to increase to
[1:45:20] um
[1:45:21] uh
[1:45:22] make that disappear
[1:45:25] for our next year.
[1:45:27] Um
[1:45:29] and is there an an additional value that
[1:45:34] will
[1:45:36] um
[1:45:37] give us some a little bit of future
[1:45:38] proofing on that line item.
[1:45:41] Mr. Edney.
[1:45:43] Yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean. Just give
[1:45:44] me 2 seconds here. Just want to make
[1:45:46] sure I'm doing the math. I
[1:45:48] came prepared to hopefully be able to
[1:45:50] answer these questions
[1:45:52] um online. So,
[1:45:55] >> you'd be
[1:45:56] » you'd be
[1:45:56] to cover the 1.8 million dollars, uh
[1:45:59] you'd be looking at about 11.65 cents a
[1:46:02] month on that 700,000 dollar average
[1:46:04] home or 6.15%
[1:46:08] increase to the current mill rate.
[1:46:11] Um if I can while I'm on the microphone,
[1:46:13] I'll just go back to Councillor
[1:46:14] Sandboe's previous question. Um right
[1:46:17] now um through the Alberta Capital
[1:46:19] Finance Authority, the 25-year rate for
[1:46:23] a debenture is 4.55%.
[1:46:25] So, right on about what we're making on
[1:46:29] our investment returns. Um 20 years,
[1:46:32] 4.39. 15 years, 4.13.
[1:46:36] Um but then again, of course, those
[1:46:37] payments
[1:46:39] go up. So, we we generally look at 25
[1:46:41] years
[1:46:42] as a municipality, but we can go lower
[1:46:45] or less term, I guess. Just increases
[1:46:47] the payments um
[1:46:49] up front.
[1:46:51] Thank you.
[1:46:52] Uh any other questions from Council at
[1:46:54] this time?
[1:46:57] Councillor Sandboe.
[1:46:58] Thank you, Worship, through to Mr.
[1:47:00] Edney. Have you folks ever looked at um
[1:47:03] an endowment fund such as the Calgary
[1:47:05] Foundation as a vehicle for investments?
[1:47:09] They are reporting some numbers higher
[1:47:11] than um I've heard here today. Who knows
[1:47:14] if that's accurate as of today, but have
[1:47:16] you ever looked into that? Mr. Edney. Uh
[1:47:19] thank you, Mayor Dean. I haven't
[1:47:20] personally. I can't uh I don't think
[1:47:23] organizationally we have.
[1:47:26] I'm not sure.
[1:47:29] Endowment fund means something different
[1:47:31] than maybe savings account to me, but I
[1:47:34] could we could definitely look into it
[1:47:36] and see what they're doing and what they
[1:47:37] might be doing differently.
[1:47:41] Okay.
[1:47:42] Any other questions from Council at this
[1:47:44] time?
[1:47:48] Seeing none, then I guess I would go
[1:47:50] back to administration as to from a
[1:47:54] practical standpoint, what is the next
[1:47:56] step that you would like us to take
[1:47:57] today?
[1:47:58] Mr. Edney.
[1:48:00] Yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean. Um
[1:48:03] I'm going to maybe ask I should have
[1:48:05] done this in advance and I apologize. I
[1:48:07] don't know if ledge services do you have
[1:48:10] the presentation that was in the 23rd
[1:48:12] and 24th agenda package or can you bring
[1:48:14] that up real quickly
[1:48:16] just again for Council and public's
[1:48:19] refresher of what the budget looked
[1:48:21] like?
[1:48:22] Um
[1:48:25] We can just wait a couple minutes
[1:48:27] versus taking a break if you want to do
[1:48:29] that.
[1:48:33] You want to take a
[1:48:34] Would it Oh.
[1:48:37] Uh yeah, I think that's right. If you
[1:48:40] keep going down
[1:48:42] No, I think
[1:48:44] No, that's the interim one. So, it would
[1:48:47] be from
[1:48:48] Why don't we just take a
[1:48:49] >> Yeah, let's take a quick break and we'll
[1:48:50] » Yeah, let's take a quick break and we'll
[1:48:50] get the right one up. Okay, we'll take a
[1:48:51] quick recess and we will come back at
[1:48:53] 10:30. Thanks, everyone.
[1:53:09] » Mhm.
[1:58:54] » Good morning everyone. Just coming back
[1:58:55] from our break here as uh we were just
[1:58:56] uh transitioning between presentations
[1:58:58] there. So, going to go back to uh Mr.
[1:59:01] Redney who is just going to give us a
[1:59:03] explanation on how administration is
[1:59:06] suggesting we move forward.
[1:59:08] All right. Thank you, Mayor Dean. Uh
[1:59:09] through you to council. So,
[1:59:11] um
[1:59:12] this is essentially the budget that at
[1:59:14] this point is in front of council. Uh we
[1:59:16] talked about this early on in the
[1:59:18] previous budget meetings.
[1:59:21] It's slide four of that particular
[1:59:23] presentation.
[1:59:25] So, we walked through this originally.
[1:59:26] We had the interim budget um in the
[1:59:28] third column from the left with the
[1:59:30] adjustments that have been made since
[1:59:31] that point to the 2026 updated budget.
[1:59:35] Um you can walk through to the bottom of
[1:59:36] this page. We're projecting about a $1.7
[1:59:40] million uh deficit
[1:59:41] uh deficit from operations. Uh let's
[1:59:44] services skip to the next slide.
[1:59:47] So, this is uh to I think Councillor
[1:59:49] Sambu's earlier question. So, if we walk
[1:59:52] through this um
[1:59:53] particular page,
[1:59:55] um
[1:59:56] we start at the top.
[1:59:58] So, the two reserve fund or {slash} for
[2:00:00] capital projects, there's a deposit of
[2:00:03] $5 million going in there. That's from
[2:00:06] the debenture proceeds we expect to see
[2:00:07] in from the golf course loan. So, all of
[2:00:10] the original math didn't necessarily
[2:00:11] have that in. So, we'll put that $5
[2:00:14] million is an in and an out. You can see
[2:00:16] it on the debenture proceeds
[2:00:18] line. Um
[2:00:19] the transfer from reserve line of 1.695,
[2:00:23] that is the line item that um
[2:00:28] eliminates the operating deficit on the
[2:00:30] previous page.
[2:00:32] Uh so, that's coming from reserve. So,
[2:00:34] again, you have $5 million going in,
[2:00:36] $1.7 coming out in the reserve account
[2:00:39] calculations you saw before. It's
[2:00:40] already included last year's um surplus
[2:00:44] from the operating budget. And then, of
[2:00:46] course, we treat amortization as a draw
[2:00:48] from equity. So, that's an in and an
[2:00:50] out. And then this shows a balanced
[2:00:52] budget at the bottom where the total is
[2:00:54] zero. So, from an MGA perspective, from
[2:00:58] a practical perspective, there's a
[2:01:00] balanced budget a balanced budget that's
[2:01:02] presented on the screen. Council could
[2:01:04] approve that.
[2:01:05] That budget includes no change to any of
[2:01:09] the mill rates
[2:01:11] um
[2:01:12] in the community. So,
[2:01:14] um not to bring these up right now, but
[2:01:17] probably wanted to address them at some
[2:01:19] point um because what I What I'm going
[2:01:22] to stop here quickly before I make these
[2:01:24] next comments is
[2:01:26] when we look at the tax rate bylaw
[2:01:29] at next meeting or whenever it is,
[2:01:32] there's no debate or discussion around
[2:01:34] those rates. Those rates are derived
[2:01:36] from approving this budget and what we
[2:01:38] need to bring in to meet the $29 million
[2:01:42] of municipal taxes on the previous side.
[2:01:44] So, before approving this budget would
[2:01:47] be a time to have a discussion if you
[2:01:49] were going to change any of the mill
[2:01:50] rates. So, for example, the acreages
[2:01:53] last year
[2:01:55] um had their mill rate reduced. The
[2:01:57] annexed acreages had their mill rate
[2:01:59] reduced to I think it was halfway
[2:02:01] between the city of Chestermere's rate
[2:02:03] and halfway between Rockyview County's
[2:02:04] rate. If you wanted to make an
[2:02:06] adjustment to that, now's the time to
[2:02:08] make that adjustment. Uh we've heard
[2:02:10] from some residents on
[2:02:12] the vacant lot mill rate.
[2:02:15] Um again, if that is something Council
[2:02:17] would want to change, now would be the
[2:02:19] time to have those discussions so we can
[2:02:21] incorporate those into
[2:02:23] these budget numbers before you approve
[2:02:25] the budget numbers. So,
[2:02:27] um
[2:02:29] yeah. So, that's two comments that
[2:02:31] relate to the tax rate. Um generally, I
[2:02:34] think we've seen
[2:02:36] um in the neighborhood of a 2% average
[2:02:40] decrease in assessment values.
[2:02:42] So, this would actually practically
[2:02:44] translate into about a 2% decrease in
[2:02:47] municipal property taxes for the average
[2:02:49] resident
[2:02:51] keeping the mill rate the same and the
[2:02:52] value of the home decreasing. I think my
[2:02:55] home in particular was about 2.8% or so.
[2:02:58] So, without any change to the mill rate,
[2:03:01] we have a balanced budget. Keeps all of
[2:03:04] the tax rates the same as last year
[2:03:07] through all the properties, residential,
[2:03:09] non-residential.
[2:03:10] And gives us a balanced budget.
[2:03:13] Administration through this process
[2:03:15] have recommended we at least start
[2:03:17] putting something aside
[2:03:19] for savings.
[2:03:21] We're still using franchise fees in the
[2:03:23] operating budget to deal with our
[2:03:26] operating budget. I know that was a
[2:03:27] passion of Councillor Grants
[2:03:29] a couple years ago when we started
[2:03:30] looking at this. So, our recommendation
[2:03:33] would be to in this
[2:03:36] two reserve fund
[2:03:38] to increase that $5 million by some
[2:03:40] amount. Our
[2:03:42] request you heard earlier was about $2.2
[2:03:44] million. That's to start putting away
[2:03:46] for the replacement of our existing
[2:03:48] assets and infrastructure.
[2:03:50] And then the next consideration would be
[2:03:52] for council um
[2:03:55] to decide whether you want to start
[2:03:56] putting away
[2:03:58] some money for any of the specific
[2:04:00] capital projects such as the library or
[2:04:03] the rec center. Um the
[2:04:06] funding projection I showed earlier, of
[2:04:08] course we don't start paying
[2:04:11] down a debenture until after we've
[2:04:13] actually taken the debenture out, which
[2:04:14] isn't being contemplated at this point
[2:04:16] because no decision has been made on
[2:04:18] those capital projects. So, um
[2:04:21] I guess there's a few options,
[2:04:23] um and I would open it up to council
[2:04:25] what you would like to do. Um
[2:04:28] for that asset replacement savings of
[2:04:30] $2.2 million, again it'd be $14 a month.
[2:04:34] $14.76 cents on a $700,000 home and
[2:04:38] about a 7.8%
[2:04:40] increase to the tax rate, which
[2:04:42] effectively would be about a 5.8%
[2:04:44] increase because
[2:04:46] the average home will see about 2% uh
[2:04:49] decrease based on their assessment value
[2:04:51] going down about 2%.
[2:04:54] So,
[2:04:55] I guess I'd open it up to council for
[2:04:57] your discussion and
[2:04:59] of what as council you would like to do.
[2:05:02] Um once you've got some direction on
[2:05:05] that, I think that's when we'll start
[2:05:06] sort of taking breaks, punching some
[2:05:08] numbers into this, and bringing
[2:05:09] something back um to show you what the
[2:05:12] what the impact looks like.
[2:05:16] Councilor Sambol.
[2:05:18] Thank you, Your Worship. Through you to
[2:05:19] Mr. Edney. What would be the legislative
[2:05:22] process in this process here to consider
[2:05:27] a phasing in of a property tax rate, for
[2:05:29] example, with the vacant residential
[2:05:30] lots, if we wanted to phase into the
[2:05:33] ultimate rate?
[2:05:35] Mr. Edney.
[2:05:37] Thanks, Mayor Dean. To Councilor Sambol.
[2:05:38] So,
[2:05:40] the interesting thing with phasing is um
[2:05:46] you can never
[2:05:48] um
[2:05:51] I can't think of the presuppose. What's
[2:05:53] the word? Fetter. Thank you. I got you.
[2:05:54] You can never fetter a future council's
[2:05:57] decisions. So,
[2:05:58] regardless of what you decided this
[2:06:00] year, now, assumingly next year it's the
[2:06:03] same seven of you sitting here, so it's
[2:06:05] a little bit easier.
[2:06:06] Um
[2:06:07] you could
[2:06:09] make a statement, or you could build a
[2:06:11] policy that says, you know, hey,
[2:06:14] over the next 4 years, the intent will
[2:06:16] be to
[2:06:18] increase a certain or decrease a certain
[2:06:21] tax rate by a set amount every year,
[2:06:24] but legislatively the bylaw
[2:06:27] supersedes any policy. So, at at time
[2:06:30] you're approving the tax rate bylaw, you
[2:06:33] can
[2:06:34] either follow that or ignore it or do
[2:06:37] something different at any time. So, um
[2:06:39] practically you're in a spot where if
[2:06:41] council decided, in your example, to do
[2:06:43] something with a particular rate,
[2:06:46] with
[2:06:47] advanced notice that we intend to do
[2:06:49] something different with it next year,
[2:06:51] you can do that. It just doesn't
[2:06:54] have effect. Your tax rate bylaw only
[2:06:57] applies
[2:06:58] in the current tax year. See.
[2:07:01] Hope that answered it. Councillor
[2:07:03] Sambol.
[2:07:04] Thank you, Your Worship. Knowing that, I
[2:07:06] would like to bring forward I'm not I'm
[2:07:08] I'm not sure how we want to have the
[2:07:09] discussion given that we're not talking
[2:07:11] about the tax bylaw right now, but I
[2:07:13] would like to have that discussion about
[2:07:14] phasing that in. Um from what I
[2:07:16] understand, there is some kind of policy
[2:07:19] in place. Um I think it was 3 years or
[2:07:21] something. Maybe Mr. Edney could remind
[2:07:23] me about um vacant for a certain period
[2:07:26] of time and then this rate takes effect.
[2:07:28] Um but I think given what we heard from
[2:07:30] residents, we should consider that
[2:07:32] possibly phasing in over 3 or 5 years.
[2:07:35] Um
[2:07:36] and I it sounds like that would be to
[2:07:39] direct administration to create a policy
[2:07:41] to that effect.
[2:07:43] Mr. Edney.
[2:07:45] Yeah. Thank you, Mayor Dean. So,
[2:07:48] we have
[2:07:50] a policy that defines what a vacant
[2:07:54] residential lot is and it's captured in
[2:07:56] the tax rate bylaw in the definition.
[2:07:59] And you're correct. It's um 3 years
[2:08:02] without a principal dwelling being
[2:08:04] constructed after having
[2:08:06] sewer
[2:08:08] um
[2:08:08] and water connections brought to the
[2:08:11] property line.
[2:08:12] Uh so, most well, not most, all the
[2:08:16] properties we've heard from are ones
[2:08:18] that have been vacant practically for a
[2:08:21] decade or more at this point. So,
[2:08:24] there would have to be a I'm I'm
[2:08:26] thinking the way we'd have want to take
[2:08:28] it away and look at it, but I'm thinking
[2:08:30] the way would be to um
[2:08:32] just change that definition
[2:08:35] to
[2:08:38] 3 years after
[2:08:41] 2026
[2:08:42] or something like that, right? If you
[2:08:44] wanted to
[2:08:45] give them a break from now saying, "Hey,
[2:08:47] right now your property meets the
[2:08:49] definition of vacant residential.
[2:08:52] However, we're going to give 1 3 5 years
[2:08:55] before we start enforcing that tax rate
[2:08:57] on you." We would just need to change
[2:08:58] the definition then.
[2:09:00] Um
[2:09:01] and because each property will have a
[2:09:03] unique
[2:09:05] time it became vacant, if that makes
[2:09:07] sense.
[2:09:08] You'd want to put something in of, you
[2:09:11] know, "If your property is deemed vacant
[2:09:13] on 2026, this policy doesn't apply to
[2:09:16] you until
[2:09:18] 2029 tax year or the 2030 tax year."
[2:09:21] I think would be my suggestion, but I'd
[2:09:23] want to confirm
[2:09:24] with the finance and our taxation
[2:09:26] department
[2:09:27] if that's the right approach. Councillor
[2:09:29] Sandbo.
[2:09:31] Thank you, Your Worship, uh to you and
[2:09:33] also to Mr. Edney. I think I would
[2:09:35] prefer not changing the definition. I
[2:09:37] think when we had this discussion last
[2:09:40] year, uh the intent of trying to not
[2:09:43] have too many vacant residential lots uh
[2:09:46] still stands and that 3 years makes
[2:09:47] sense. I wonder if we could set a lower
[2:09:52] increase rate than originally intended
[2:09:54] for this year and add to the policy of
[2:09:56] phasing it in. So, like the higher
[2:09:57] amount definition stays the same, but in
[2:10:00] 2027, the intent is to put it to this
[2:10:03] amount. In 2028, the intent is to put it
[2:10:06] to this amount, which may be the full
[2:10:08] amount. Is that something that we could
[2:10:09] do?
[2:10:11] Mr. Edney.
[2:10:13] Yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean. Um yeah, I
[2:10:15] apologize, Councillor Sandbo. I maybe uh
[2:10:18] misunderstood the question, but yes,
[2:10:20] absolutely. So, I think the tax rate
[2:10:23] right now is in the neighborhood of
[2:10:24] 13.5%.
[2:10:26] If you wanted to set it at 5% for this
[2:10:29] year
[2:10:30] and make a public statement that every
[2:10:32] year it's going to go up by another it's
[2:10:35] going to go from 5 to 7 to 9 to 11 to 13
[2:10:37] or whatever our maximum ends up being.
[2:10:40] Um that would be best to capture that in
[2:10:42] the policy. Again, it doesn't
[2:10:44] confirm it. You could come back next
[2:10:46] year and bump it all the way up to 13 or
[2:10:48] knock it down to three. Whatever you
[2:10:50] want it to do, but it would at least
[2:10:51] give those um residents some
[2:10:55] line of sight to what they could expect
[2:10:57] to have happen.
[2:11:00] Councillor Sambol?
[2:11:02] Thank you, Your Worship. I'm just trying
[2:11:04] to off- offer something that could give
[2:11:06] us a discussion point. So, if you'd like
[2:11:07] a motion or something, please let me
[2:11:08] know.
[2:11:09] Um but my starting point would be to
[2:11:11] suggest setting that rate for this year
[2:11:13] at double the residential rate and then
[2:11:15] changing the policy to phase it in. And
[2:11:17] that would at least give residents some
[2:11:18] time to make decisions about their
[2:11:20] property, which was um the feedback that
[2:11:22] I I received most heavily is it's it's
[2:11:24] not fair to not give people time to make
[2:11:26] decisions about their assets.
[2:11:29] Um Mr. Ernie.
[2:11:31] Thank you, Mayor Deena. And just for
[2:11:32] clarity, too, um because
[2:11:35] the the phasing in would be a change to
[2:11:37] a policy, um that's not something that
[2:11:40] needs to be done before the budget gets
[2:11:42] approved or the tax rate bylaw cuz all
[2:11:44] you're looking at is what the rate is
[2:11:45] for this year. So, you could make a
[2:11:47] motion exactly what you said to set it
[2:11:49] at double
[2:11:51] the residential tax rate, we'll
[2:11:53] incorporate that into the bylaw, and
[2:11:55] then come back with a policy change
[2:11:57] um for approval at a at a separate
[2:11:59] council meeting.
[2:12:01] Is that your recommendation?
[2:12:01] >> would be my recommendation. Otherwise,
[2:12:03] » would be my recommendation. Otherwise,
[2:12:03] we're going to get really cramped to to
[2:12:05] make that kind of policy change.
[2:12:07] As a reminder for everyone, what is it
[2:12:08] set at now?
[2:12:10] I think it's 13.5.
[2:12:12] So, not it's more than double right now.
[2:12:14] It's five times. Yes. It's set under the
[2:12:17] Municipal Government Act, your highest
[2:12:20] tax rate cannot be more than five times
[2:12:22] your lowest tax rate. So, right now it's
[2:12:24] set at five times 3.2
[2:12:27] 4, which I think is 13.57.
[2:12:30] I can pull up the exact number.
[2:12:32] Okay, Councillor Grant.
[2:12:34] Thank you, Mayor Dean. Through the chair
[2:12:36] to administration, Mr. Edney,
[2:12:38] um I guess my thoughts on the vacant
[2:12:40] property tax rate is I would like to see
[2:12:42] the R1 property excluded from that. Um
[2:12:44] when I think about it, I'm not really
[2:12:45] concerned about that single individual
[2:12:47] property that's sitting vacant. My
[2:12:49] concern is more around the large
[2:12:51] properties, the multi-family properties,
[2:12:53] the commercial properties that are
[2:12:54] vacant. Um and those are the ones that I
[2:12:56] think we should be addressing. Um
[2:12:58] we had the gentleman in here the other
[2:12:59] day who was had his property for quite
[2:13:01] some time, and he to to my knowledge,
[2:13:04] he's paid his taxes on it every year,
[2:13:05] and he's maintained that property, and
[2:13:07] I'm sure his neighbors actually enjoy
[2:13:08] not having a house there. Um so, I don't
[2:13:11] I don't really see a benefit to be
[2:13:14] swinging the hammer at these R1
[2:13:15] properties, um as much as the commercial
[2:13:18] or the multi-family properties.
[2:13:23] Mr. Edney.
[2:13:25] Yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean. So, to
[2:13:26] Councillor Grant's point, um
[2:13:29] yeah, I mean, that's entirely a council
[2:13:31] decision. That's for council to
[2:13:33] philosophize on. I think
[2:13:36] what I'm looking at right now is
[2:13:41] then we would need to change We'd need
[2:13:44] to change the definition of vacant
[2:13:46] residential
[2:13:48] to not include specific
[2:13:52] types.
[2:13:54] Um
[2:13:55] you can create as many residential
[2:13:58] subclasses as you want, so I think that
[2:14:00] would apply to vacant residential as
[2:14:02] well. I'd have to look in the MGA to
[2:14:04] confirm that that as many subclasses as
[2:14:07] you want also applies to vacant. I'm
[2:14:10] 99.9% sure it does because it all falls
[2:14:14] under the residential category.
[2:14:16] And yes, you can um
[2:14:19] tax an R1 property different than an R3
[2:14:22] property, different than an R4 property
[2:14:24] if you wanted to create those
[2:14:25] subclasses.
[2:14:26] Um I've talked a lot about you can't
[2:14:31] tax based on who owns the property, but
[2:14:33] you can tax based on the different type
[2:14:35] of property. So, as I'm thinking about
[2:14:37] this out loud,
[2:14:38] I think you should be able if council so
[2:14:40] desired to split out certain types
[2:14:43] of properties from applying to the
[2:14:46] vacant non or vacant residential
[2:14:49] tax, but we would need some time to
[2:14:53] change that. Um
[2:14:57] If if we're going to change the
[2:14:58] definition of of vacant residential. So,
[2:15:01] then if I may to Councillor Grant, would
[2:15:03] you then be suggesting that the R1
[2:15:06] vacant lot tax rate stay at the same as
[2:15:08] the residential tax rate? Councillor
[2:15:10] Grant.
[2:15:11] Uh thank you, Mayor Dean. Yes, I would
[2:15:13] be okay with that. Um I think that I
[2:15:16] think that'd be fine in my
[2:15:17] estimation.
[2:15:19] Right, okay. Uh Councillor Randhawa.
[2:15:23] Thank you.
[2:15:24] Excuse me. Thank you, Your Worship. Uh
[2:15:27] for the vacant R1, I think not keep at
[2:15:31] the same, that's my suggestion. Just
[2:15:33] little bit little bit extra tax. So,
[2:15:38] not same as the residence. But my
[2:15:40] another question is
[2:15:41] uh
[2:15:42] for the budget, uh
[2:15:44] for the criminal record check, this is a
[2:15:47] good time to talk about increasing the
[2:15:50] fee for the criminal record check
[2:15:52] because we are in the budget or
[2:15:54] uh we should have the separate
[2:15:56] discussion
[2:15:58] about that. Mr. Redman.
[2:16:05] Yeah, I think um
[2:16:08] so, we do it a little different here. We
[2:16:10] have a fee schedule
[2:16:12] um where all of this is accounted for.
[2:16:14] It's coming to council.
[2:16:17] Um ideally, it should be part of the
[2:16:19] budget discussions. Um
[2:16:22] practically, it's not going to make
[2:16:25] any sort of material impact, right?
[2:16:28] We're We're talking thousands of dollars
[2:16:30] on a 62 million. So, it's kind of a
[2:16:32] rounding error. I would suggest that
[2:16:34] it's
[2:16:35] There's nothing wrong with talking about
[2:16:37] it here, but I think the best place
[2:16:39] would be when that schedule of fees
[2:16:41] um comes for for an update, but that's
[2:16:44] again up to up to council.
[2:16:47] Okay?
[2:16:48] I'll come back to fees here in a moment.
[2:16:49] I don't want to move away from the
[2:16:51] vacant lots here. So, um there's a
[2:16:54] proposal that is There's some ideas that
[2:16:57] are currently on the table that
[2:16:59] uh kicking around the idea of moving to
[2:17:01] a motion. So, if I may try and capture
[2:17:04] this I believe Counselor Sambo's
[2:17:06] suggestion was that all vacant lots
[2:17:09] would be double the residential tax
[2:17:11] rate.
[2:17:12] Um Counselor
[2:17:15] Thank you, Your Worship. Um I wasn't
[2:17:18] aware that we could split them out by
[2:17:20] property type. So, if that is the case,
[2:17:22] I'm very much on board with what
[2:17:23] Counselor Grant is saying, but I
[2:17:24] understand that might be a little bit
[2:17:25] harder to accomplish because we need to
[2:17:27] change the policy as well.
[2:17:29] Right. We also know that we do have Part
[2:17:32] of the reason why we changed gap to
[2:17:34] special was to advise at time in that
[2:17:36] week. So, I know it could create a bit
[2:17:39] of a busy week uh here with regards to
[2:17:41] the policy.
[2:17:43] Um
[2:17:43] but uh yeah, so just finishing that
[2:17:45] thought. Yeah, so you had originally
[2:17:47] suggested uh that the um all vacant lots
[2:17:50] would be double the residential. Uh
[2:17:52] however, after hearing the suggestion
[2:17:54] from Counselor Grant, the idea is could
[2:17:56] we make vacant lots
[2:17:59] double the residential
[2:18:01] with the exception of R1 lots, so I
[2:18:04] believe is what counselor Grant was I'm
[2:18:05] seeing nodding.
[2:18:07] Uh sorry, counselor Grant.
[2:18:10] Thank you, Mayor Dean. I would say
[2:18:11] exclusive of R1 would would probably be
[2:18:13] the proper word there. Yes, thank you.
[2:18:15] Okay. So, Mr. Eddy.
[2:18:19] Yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean. I think
[2:18:20] just for clarification, you're looking
[2:18:22] at single detached family.
[2:18:24] So, we have R1, R1 estate, um large lot
[2:18:28] rural,
[2:18:30] R1 plan lot, R1 PFD. I'm assuming it's
[2:18:34] all of that. Anything that's a single
[2:18:36] detached, but
[2:18:39] what about R2s with duplex town homes?
[2:18:43] Counselor Grant.
[2:18:44] Uh
[2:18:45] thank you, Mayor Dean. Uh no, Mr. Eddy,
[2:18:47] I would I would just leave it as the
[2:18:49] um R1 type of property, whether that be
[2:18:52] uh an estate or uh plan rear lane, plan
[2:18:55] front lane, um all of that. Um and and
[2:18:58] my my rationale is those properties are
[2:19:00] largely owned by private citizens, where
[2:19:02] the larger properties are owned by
[2:19:04] businesses, and and that's really what
[2:19:05] we're trying to help incentivize is
[2:19:07] these businesses to build the products
[2:19:08] that they said they would build. So,
[2:19:09] single detached.
[2:19:11] As opposed to saying R1 single detached.
[2:19:14] Thank you, Mayor Dean. Sounds good.
[2:19:14] >> Yes. Yes. Yeah.
[2:19:16] » Yes. Yes. Yeah.
[2:19:16] >> Okay. Sorry, that was a question. Sorry.
[2:19:18] » Okay. Sorry, that was a question. Sorry.
[2:19:18] Uh okay.
[2:19:19] Um
[2:19:21] So, with that then, we could put a
[2:19:23] motion on the floor that says something
[2:19:26] along those lines,
[2:19:28] uh and that would be uh council
[2:19:30] to direct administration
[2:19:33] to set the vacant
[2:19:37] uh lot
[2:19:39] tax rate
[2:19:42] at
[2:19:43] double the residential tax rate
[2:19:47] with the exception of
[2:19:49] single detached
[2:19:52] properties.
[2:19:54] So, Mr. Eddy, I'm I'm to turn to you to
[2:19:55] see if I captured that wording
[2:19:58] correctly in terms of like what you
[2:19:59] would be looking for before we start
[2:20:01] opening up and debating. Then Council,
[2:20:03] I'll come to you with wording. I just
[2:20:05] want to see if this is what we were
[2:20:06] capturing from the conversation. So, uh
[2:20:08] Mr. Hedden.
[2:20:10] Yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean. Um so, if I
[2:20:12] can just work with ledge services just
[2:20:14] to adjust this.
[2:20:15] Um if we can change it to Council
[2:20:17] directed administration to set the
[2:20:20] vacant residential
[2:20:22] You can use capital for the V and the R.
[2:20:28] And then delete lot.
[2:20:33] At
[2:20:34] at double the residential tax rate
[2:20:37] and update the definition
[2:20:46] of vacant residential
[2:20:51] to exclude
[2:20:54] and then delete with the exception of.
[2:21:00] Okay. So,
[2:21:02] Mr. Hedden, just confirming with you
[2:21:03] that's the wording that could work for
[2:21:04] this motion. Yeah, and then we'll bring
[2:21:07] back when we change that definition,
[2:21:09] bring back
[2:21:10] R1 large lot rule, all the things that
[2:21:13] fit into the spirit of this and then
[2:21:14] Council can make a final debate to make
[2:21:16] sure we got
[2:21:18] all of those right. Should it pass?
[2:21:20] Should it pass. Right. Okay. Uh
[2:21:24] this kind of originally came from
[2:21:26] Councillor Grant and Councillor Sandbo.
[2:21:29] Uh I just want to check with you two
[2:21:30] first if you are okay with the wording
[2:21:32] of this, Councillor Grant. Thank you,
[2:21:34] Mayor Dean. Um just for a quick
[2:21:36] clarification, our current um vacant tax
[2:21:38] rate is five times. Is that correct?
[2:21:41] Uh
[2:21:42] Mr. Hedden.
[2:21:43] That is correct.
[2:21:45] Okay. So, in in that spirit, I I am if
[2:21:47] we exclude these
[2:21:49] um R1 type of or sorry, single detached
[2:21:53] type of properties then I'm fine leaving
[2:21:55] the vacant tax rate at five times to
[2:21:58] really help incentivize these larger
[2:21:59] properties to move along. Cuz they they
[2:22:01] will those larger properties are the
[2:22:03] ones I'm going to cut you off. Sure.
[2:22:05] Just wording for now.
[2:22:06] Then we'll debate. This sorry, this is
[2:22:08] this is part of why I think the wording
[2:22:10] should change. I think we should change
[2:22:12] from double to five times.
[2:22:15] Or keep it the same. Like
[2:22:17] we're set at five times, so I think we
[2:22:19] should leave it at five times that we
[2:22:20] should just remove the vacant
[2:22:22] residential for single detached
[2:22:24] properties.
[2:22:25] Okay. So yes, that's a complete change
[2:22:27] of wording. Sorry, I misunderstood what
[2:22:28] you were doing there. Thank you. Okay.
[2:22:30] So
[2:22:31] uh
[2:22:33] Okay.
[2:22:34] Um, I see one lighting up but I think we
[2:22:36] should address
[2:22:37] Councilor Grant's desire to see the
[2:22:39] wording change. So it would be
[2:22:43] to leave
[2:22:45] wouldn't it would not it'd be to leave
[2:22:47] it as it is then.
[2:22:49] Uh, Councilor Sandel.
[2:22:51] Thank you, Worship. If I might suggest
[2:22:53] just remove that whole section and
[2:22:55] change it to Council directed
[2:22:56] administration to update the definition
[2:22:58] of vacant residential.
[2:23:03] Uh,
[2:23:04] Mr. Eddy.
[2:23:06] Uh, yeah, through Mayor Dean. That would
[2:23:07] be simpler and accomplishes the same
[2:23:09] thing. It's already set at five times,
[2:23:11] so unless you want to change that
[2:23:13] that will be
[2:23:15] And then if that definition changed
[2:23:17] according to this wording of this motion
[2:23:20] then it would be the same as the
[2:23:21] residential tax rate. Yes, all affected
[2:23:23] properties on this would go back to
[2:23:25] whatever you set as the residential
[2:23:27] rate. Okay. So Councilor Grant,
[2:23:29] Councilor Sandel, this has kind of been
[2:23:31] a combination here on this motion. Is
[2:23:34] that
[2:23:34] more the word I see a nod.
[2:23:37] I see a nod. Okay.
[2:23:38] Just again talking about wording,
[2:23:40] Councilor Schindler.
[2:23:41] Um, so the
[2:23:44] the motion is to change the definition
[2:23:48] um, in what?
[2:23:50] And
[2:23:51] is it across the board?
[2:23:53] Um
[2:23:55] because it's just asking to change the
[2:23:56] definition. So I'm looking at the
[2:23:58] wording going the definition where? Of
[2:24:01] vacant residential.
[2:24:03] Correct in what?
[2:24:06] Um okay, Mr. Eddy.
[2:24:10] Just give me one sec. I'll get you the
[2:24:12] uh
[2:24:17] Um in so update the definition of
[2:24:20] residential the vacant residential in
[2:24:23] the division of assessment class and sub
[2:24:26] classes bylaw.
[2:24:30] And do we want this brought back to
[2:24:31] council for approval? It has to. So and
[2:24:34] then so should we say and bring back to
[2:24:37] council. It
[2:24:40] Well, you can but it legally has to so.
[2:24:42] Yeah.
[2:24:44] If this passes. So let's get the word.
[2:24:45] Division of assessment class What I'm
[2:24:47] working on word. and sub classes bylaw.
[2:24:55] Sub classes.
[2:24:56] Yeah.
[2:25:10] I would just capitalize division
[2:25:12] assessment class sub and bylaw. Just
[2:25:16] Yeah.
[2:25:22] Okay. So solid services over there
[2:25:25] looking up the bylaw. I would agree
[2:25:28] and bring back to council. I know that
[2:25:30] it's a legal requirement but
[2:25:32] it's a valuable lesson I learned as baby
[2:25:33] counselor.
[2:25:40] For For approval. For approval.
[2:25:46] Okay.
[2:25:48] Uh Counselor Grant. Thank you, Mayor
[2:25:50] Dean. I'd be happy to make the motion if
[2:25:52] we're ready. Can we give it 2 seconds
[2:25:54] here? Sure.
[2:25:55] Any other
[2:25:57] Counselor Grant, I'm going to leave your
[2:25:57] mic on. So, any other
[2:26:00] comments, questions with regards to the
[2:26:01] wording?
[2:26:04] Seeing none, Counselor Grant.
[2:26:07] I move that council direct
[2:26:08] administration to update the definition
[2:26:10] of vacant residential and bylaw 025-25
[2:26:13] being the division of assessment class
[2:26:14] and subclass bylaw to exclude single
[2:26:16] detached properties and bring back to
[2:26:18] council for approval.
[2:26:20] Thank you. Comments, questions from
[2:26:21] council. Counselor Sandbo.
[2:26:24] Thank you, Your Worship. I wanted to
[2:26:25] comment in case anybody, all those
[2:26:27] thousands of people that are watching
[2:26:28] our council meeting today,
[2:26:30] if there is a problem R1 property,
[2:26:32] there's still a mechanism to report if
[2:26:34] there issues on that property.
[2:26:36] So, you can still contact bylaw, you can
[2:26:38] still
[2:26:39] initiate that process if it's, you know,
[2:26:41] unsightly or if it's unsafe or something
[2:26:43] like that. This is really for these
[2:26:44] properties that are just big eyesores
[2:26:48] and dangers in the community that are
[2:26:50] already zoned for development.
[2:26:52] Yeah, I would also say that I'm not sure
[2:26:54] we want to use taxes as an enforcement
[2:26:56] methodology, right? And so, I think that
[2:27:00] those other when it comes to unsightly
[2:27:01] properties, we have lots of other
[2:27:04] enforcement methodologies. And so,
[2:27:06] absolutely, thank you for pointing those
[2:27:08] out, Counselor Warsen.
[2:27:11] Thank you,
[2:27:12] Mayor Dean and Counselor Sandbo.
[2:27:15] Sadly, I haven't seen those enforcement
[2:27:17] mechanisms be really that effective.
[2:27:19] While there has been some effectiveness,
[2:27:21] there's lots of unsightly properties and
[2:27:23] R1s are included as part of those
[2:27:25] unsightliness. I'll be voting against
[2:27:27] this because I do believe that we should
[2:27:29] be treating all owners, property owners,
[2:27:31] equally regardless of what their zone
[2:27:34] type or their the type is. While I
[2:27:36] understand the spirit of Councillor
[2:27:38] Grant's
[2:27:40] uh
[2:27:41] propo- of his motion, um
[2:27:44] I also believe that there's many
[2:27:46] properties within the city of
[2:27:47] Chestermere. It doesn't take you long to
[2:27:49] take a drive around to see how many
[2:27:50] properties have been
[2:27:51] non-developed for 10 years plus, and we
[2:27:54] really need to incentivize them to
[2:27:55] develop them, whether they're sightly or
[2:27:57] unsightly. Thank you. Thank you.
[2:28:00] Mr. Edney.
[2:28:01] Uh thank you, Mayor Dean. Um two
[2:28:03] comments. I just want to clarify that
[2:28:06] yes, property tax is not a mechanism to
[2:28:08] deal with unsightly properties. My
[2:28:10] understanding when this came in was a
[2:28:11] different. It was for what Councillor
[2:28:13] Woznowski said, to encourage
[2:28:14] development. We have a separate process
[2:28:16] to deal with properties with garbage on
[2:28:18] them. Um just for awareness, uh so
[2:28:21] council is aware making this decision,
[2:28:23] it will reduce um all other things being
[2:28:25] equal, it will reduce our tax revenue by
[2:28:27] about $100,000 by making this motion.
[2:28:30] So, that will add about $100,000 to the
[2:28:33] projected deficit at this point.
[2:28:35] Assuming every Assuming every house is
[2:28:38] impacted by this, I do believe
[2:28:42] of the
[2:28:44] give or take 35 homes, like 33 of them
[2:28:48] apply. This will apply to. So, this was
[2:28:50] mostly
[2:28:52] residential, single detached in the
[2:28:55] built-out areas of our community that
[2:28:57] were impacted by this. So,
[2:28:59] just for awareness, it is about $100,000
[2:29:02] revenue decrease.
[2:29:04] Thank you, Edney. I think about it, too,
[2:29:05] though. Something that seems to be
[2:29:06] missing in this is that um we also
[2:29:10] talked about the idea of a phase-in
[2:29:12] after, cuz I think one of the issues
[2:29:13] that we heard was we kind of did a thing
[2:29:16] uh and uh
[2:29:19] perhaps we could have done a better job
[2:29:21] with
[2:29:23] uh
[2:29:24] the conversation, with the announcement,
[2:29:26] with the including in the conversation.
[2:29:28] So, will there be opportunity ha- to
[2:29:31] bring that conversation back as part of
[2:29:33] this when this bylaw comes back to
[2:29:35] council for approval. Mr. Edney.
[2:29:41] Yes. Um
[2:29:45] Are you referencing a phase in to the R1
[2:29:49] properties?
[2:29:51] Yes, if that was a desire. So, I think
[2:29:52] that that's a separate motion. So, I
[2:29:54] don't want to split that out. I'm just
[2:29:55] saying if that was a conversation that
[2:29:57] we wanted to have come back,
[2:29:59] that could come back. It could come
[2:30:01] back. It would be another change to the
[2:30:03] definition
[2:30:04] of vacant residential
[2:30:06] at that time to now add these properties
[2:30:08] back in
[2:30:10] um assumingly for the 2027 tax year if
[2:30:12] that's when the phase in wanted to
[2:30:14] start.
[2:30:14] >> Yeah. It'd be difficult by changing this
[2:30:17] » Yeah. It'd be difficult by changing this
[2:30:17] definition to then make anything in a
[2:30:19] policy that phases it in because you'd
[2:30:20] be phasing something in that doesn't
[2:30:22] exist if that makes sense. No, I'm with
[2:30:24] you. So, we could do it this for 2026
[2:30:27] and then if we wanted to start that
[2:30:28] phase in 2027, in November when we go
[2:30:30] back into budget conversations, we could
[2:30:32] do that. Correct.
[2:30:33] >> Okay, thank you. Councillor Schindler.
[2:30:35] » Okay, thank you. Councillor Schindler.
[2:30:35] Sorry, that was I think that was my
[2:30:37] question was does this fetter us or
[2:30:39] yeah, hinder us with a phase in approach
[2:30:42] for the next
[2:30:43] uh stage in this sort of incentivization
[2:30:47] to get people to develop.
[2:30:49] That the answer is no.
[2:30:52] Okay, thank you.
[2:30:54] Okay.
[2:30:55] Any other comments, questions from
[2:30:57] council with regards to the motion?
[2:30:59] Councillor Rondinelli.
[2:31:02] Thank you, Your Worship. My question
[2:31:03] through you to Mr. Edney, uh you just
[2:31:07] recently said it's going to down our
[2:31:09] revenue for $100,000. We already have
[2:31:13] 18% in a revenue and we are expenses
[2:31:16] 23%, right? Our expense is more than
[2:31:19] revenue. So, we are kind of decreasing
[2:31:23] if we voted this one for the future
[2:31:26] of our revenue for the city.
[2:31:29] Mr. Edney. Yeah, through to Councillor
[2:31:31] Randhawa, that's correct.
[2:31:35] Okay, thank you.
[2:31:38] Any other comments or questions from
[2:31:39] council with regards to the motion?
[2:31:43] Councillor Sambol.
[2:31:46] Thank you, Your Worship. I would comment
[2:31:48] that's a $100,000 reduction from what
[2:31:50] was budgeted in November-December,
[2:31:53] but prior to that we weren't receiving
[2:31:55] that revenue. So, the city hasn't
[2:31:57] actually benefited from that increased
[2:31:59] revenue as far as I'm aware. Would that
[2:32:01] be correct, Mr. Edney? Mr. Edney.
[2:32:04] Uh yeah, through to Councillor Sambol,
[2:32:05] so that's correct. We did benefit from
[2:32:07] that increased revenue last year in the
[2:32:09] 2025 year, but to your point, it's not a
[2:32:12] historical loss of revenue. It was a
[2:32:14] one-year increase in revenue. Um and
[2:32:16] this would be going back to what was
[2:32:18] essentially done before, so
[2:32:20] it's 100,000 from what was presented 20
[2:32:24] minutes ago on the screen, I guess.
[2:32:27] Thank you.
[2:32:27] >> Again, assuming nothing happens to any
[2:32:29] » Again, assuming nothing happens to any
[2:32:29] other tax rates.
[2:32:32] Thank you. Any other comments or
[2:32:33] questions from council with regards to
[2:32:35] the motion?
[2:32:38] Thank you. With that, we'll call for the
[2:32:40] vote.
[2:32:43] Deputy Mayor Narayan, do you vote in
[2:32:44] favor?
[2:32:46] Not in favor.
[2:32:47] >> Not in favor, thank you.
[2:32:50] » Not in favor, thank you.
[2:32:50] And that motion is
[2:32:52] carried with majority vote.
[2:32:57] Okay.
[2:32:58] Thank you.
[2:33:00] Uh what is the next thing that we would
[2:33:02] be wanting next step that we would be
[2:33:04] looking at taking either from a council
[2:33:06] administration perspective?
[2:33:11] Uh Mr. Edney.
[2:33:13] Thank you, Mayor Dean. While we're on
[2:33:14] the topic of tax rates, um
[2:33:17] it was mentioned last year when the
[2:33:19] annexed residential
[2:33:22] uh subclass was created
[2:33:24] that the intent of council at that time
[2:33:26] was to phase that in
[2:33:29] um,
[2:33:30] in
[2:33:32] consistent increments over 5 years to
[2:33:35] get to our rate. So, last year their
[2:33:37] rate was 2.70
[2:33:40] um, percent and residential was 3.24.
[2:33:44] Um, we'd have to look at what Rocky
[2:33:46] Views is. I could pull that up.
[2:33:49] This, but um, I think the intention
[2:33:51] would be to divide
[2:33:53] the 0.5 difference by four and add it to
[2:33:55] the annexed residential or, yeah,
[2:33:58] annexed residential to start that 5-year
[2:34:00] or continue that 5-year phase in of
[2:34:02] bringing it up to
[2:34:04] the rest of the community's residential
[2:34:06] rate, but again, that's
[2:34:08] up to council on a philosophy. That was
[2:34:09] just a discussion at last last year.
[2:34:14] Yeah, I think that there was a desire to
[2:34:15] phase it in, so we would need a number
[2:34:17] uh, for that
[2:34:19] first phase in for this year. So, to get
[2:34:22] that number, are you needing time to get
[2:34:24] that number? Do you have that number
[2:34:26] ready to go? Where's administration at
[2:34:27] with that number for
[2:34:29] uh, the acreage areas, Mr. Edney?
[2:34:33] Thank you, Mayor Dean. So,
[2:34:35] that number's easy. I can calculate that
[2:34:37] right now. Um, the question becomes, and
[2:34:40] this isn't where you've gotten yet,
[2:34:43] if you intend to change the residential
[2:34:46] tax rate.
[2:34:47] Um, if you intend to change that, I
[2:34:50] would do that first and then do this
[2:34:52] math.
[2:34:53] Um, if you don't intend to change that,
[2:34:55] then I would we could just do this math
[2:34:57] and set that.
[2:34:59] We could find a motion to set what that
[2:35:02] rate looks like. Okay, thank you.
[2:35:04] Counselor Sambol.
[2:35:06] Thank you, Your Worship, through you to
[2:35:07] Mr. Edney. When that phasing in approach
[2:35:10] was considered and tentatively set, were
[2:35:14] we still assuming that TRR would be the
[2:35:17] default uh, preference for the acreage
[2:35:20] properties.
[2:35:22] Mr. Edney.
[2:35:24] Thanks, Mayor Dean. Yeah, to Councillor
[2:35:25] Sandboe, I believe so. At that time, Mr.
[2:35:28] Chandio wasn't in the organization yet.
[2:35:30] We hadn't contemplated this idea of
[2:35:32] country residential
[2:35:34] and country residential being a
[2:35:37] um
[2:35:39] property that somebody could subdivide
[2:35:41] to instead of TRR. Um I think the
[2:35:44] comments from the acreage owners were
[2:35:46] that
[2:35:47] um in the time they haven't received
[2:35:50] water and sewer. I think they're clear
[2:35:52] that that's a developer responsibility,
[2:35:54] not the city now. But this was intended
[2:35:56] to provide some
[2:35:57] buffer between going straight from the
[2:35:59] Rocky View rate to this rate is my
[2:36:01] belief of council based on those
[2:36:02] discussions at that time.
[2:36:07] Um to that effect then, Your Worship,
[2:36:10] Mr. Edney, would it be reasonable to
[2:36:12] have a separate tax rate for CR given
[2:36:15] that some of tax that is collected is
[2:36:18] for things like rec centers and
[2:36:20] libraries and roads that everyone uses,
[2:36:22] but some of what is collected is for
[2:36:24] things that CR would not have access to?
[2:36:31] Mr. Edney.
[2:36:35] Yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean. Um
[2:36:37] so to Councillor Sandboe, it's a
[2:36:42] thinking of it out loud. So, when you
[2:36:44] talk about um collecting for rec
[2:36:46] centers, etc.,
[2:36:48] um that will happen when they
[2:36:51] rezone to country residential.
[2:36:53] Um
[2:36:54] the intent of country residential is to
[2:36:56] collect those offsite levies. Um
[2:37:00] if you wanted to have a different tax
[2:37:02] rate,
[2:37:03] um that's of course to fund all the
[2:37:06] city-wide infrastructure, mowing the
[2:37:08] parks, sweeping the roads, that kind
[2:37:10] kind
[2:37:11] Um
[2:37:13] you could have a different rate
[2:37:16] um just like the vacant can be done for
[2:37:19] every different
[2:37:21] um zoning of property, you could do the
[2:37:23] same
[2:37:24] do the same for it. Um
[2:37:26] I guess my question would be the intent
[2:37:29] of that versus
[2:37:31] um
[2:37:33] right now
[2:37:35] where
[2:37:37] I'd have to look at the definition of
[2:37:38] annexed farmland residential. I believe
[2:37:42] that once they go to country
[2:37:43] residential, it moves automatically to
[2:37:45] the residential. That's a triggering
[2:37:47] event. Um
[2:37:50] I'd have to get you more information on
[2:37:52] that.
[2:37:53] Councilor Sambol.
[2:37:55] Thank you, Your Worship. And to clarify,
[2:37:56] Mr. Edney, I wasn't talking about OSL, I
[2:37:58] was talking about money collected for
[2:38:00] operating of rec centers and things like
[2:38:02] that that you would collect from
[2:38:03] property taxes.
[2:38:04] I suppose what I'm wondering is given
[2:38:06] that the utility charges for the
[2:38:09] services that CR would not be accessing,
[2:38:12] as far as I'm aware, um does it make
[2:38:15] sense to have a separate rate? Is that
[2:38:16] something council should consider? Or
[2:38:18] should we just continue on with the plan
[2:38:21] to phase in that was previously debated
[2:38:23] and discussed? And I assume many people
[2:38:25] have similar perspectives as the last
[2:38:26] time we discussed it.
[2:38:29] Mr. Edney.
[2:38:30] Yeah, so I guess
[2:38:33] um
[2:38:37] No, I don't think we have any
[2:38:40] CR's own properties yet.
[2:38:42] Um
[2:38:46] I'd want to look at how that impacts it
[2:38:48] moving from I'd have to look at the
[2:38:50] definition of annexed residential
[2:38:52] um to see if
[2:38:54] converting to CR automatically moves you
[2:38:57] out the same way TRR did. TRR did for
[2:39:00] sure, it moved those properties out of
[2:39:03] the annexation agreement into
[2:39:06] um
[2:39:07] into just regular residential.
[2:39:11] Let me just see if I can
[2:39:14] Yeah, I'd have to circle back with you.
[2:39:15] It'll take me a minute to just find that
[2:39:17] definition.
[2:39:19] Yeah, I'm happy to entertain any motion
[2:39:20] that may come from a counselor. My
[2:39:22] comment on that before going to that
[2:39:24] would be
[2:39:25] my personal feeling on it is uh we went
[2:39:28] back to try and get some time to catch
[2:39:30] up. I think we're doing a lot of work
[2:39:31] right now with the acreage areas. We
[2:39:33] have a open house coming on June the
[2:39:35] 10th. Uh we are looking at some other
[2:39:38] ideas of we actually tabled
[2:39:41] um
[2:39:42] TRR for now, so we don't actually know
[2:39:44] what's going to happen with TRR cuz we
[2:39:45] can't presuppose a vote. Uh so TRR could
[2:39:48] stay. Uh there's nothing at the moment
[2:39:51] to say that TRR
[2:39:53] uh will be taken out of the bylaw other
[2:39:55] than at the moment it is suggestion from
[2:39:57] administration, but that decision
[2:39:59] ultimately lies with council.
[2:40:01] Uh and then uh when it comes to the CR
[2:40:03] land
[2:40:04] that is now a designation that is on the
[2:40:07] books.
[2:40:08] Uh so absolutely happy to entertain a
[2:40:10] motion that counselor Sandboe may have
[2:40:12] with this.
[2:40:13] Uh my personal feeling on the matter is
[2:40:16] to
[2:40:17] do the incremental increase as we had
[2:40:19] planned uh cuz I think we were trying to
[2:40:22] take that holistic view of
[2:40:24] the acreage areas just becoming a part
[2:40:27] of the broader city and uh trying to
[2:40:31] just
[2:40:32] work through a timeline of what that was
[2:40:35] going to look like and that I believe
[2:40:37] that's one of the ways where CR came
[2:40:38] about.
[2:40:41] So,
[2:40:42] I don't know if there's a motion there
[2:40:43] at the moment that's coming.
[2:40:48] Counselor Sandboe?
[2:40:51] Thank you, Your Worship, just to not
[2:40:52] leave you hanging with your question.
[2:40:54] I'm processing through questioning. I'm
[2:40:56] I'm not sure that that's the right way
[2:40:57] to do it. In fact, I'm leaning towards
[2:40:59] not having a different rate for any CR
[2:41:01] that comes out. Um but it does sound
[2:41:03] like we need something to
[2:41:06] to put into effect that phasing in if
[2:41:08] that's what council would like to do.
[2:41:09] Well, yeah, the second part of this is
[2:41:11] the suggestion from administration that
[2:41:13] um the debate on whether or not there's
[2:41:15] going to be any kind of a change to the
[2:41:17] actual tax rate and then to come back to
[2:41:20] the acreage areas to have that
[2:41:22] conversation was the suggestion from
[2:41:24] administration. So, I believe that that
[2:41:26] would be the next phase of
[2:41:28] conversations, if you will.
[2:41:30] Uh counselor
[2:41:32] Schindler.
[2:41:33] Yeah, thank you. Um
[2:41:36] through the chair to admin. Um the
[2:41:39] the the increase
[2:41:42] uh to uh TRR or or the acreages tax rate
[2:41:47] um we've had decided to phase in.
[2:41:50] Um I'm curious if the phase-in increase
[2:41:54] uh had been included in the calculation
[2:41:57] of our tax rate for this year.
[2:42:03] Uh Mr. Edney.
[2:42:04] >> Yep. Can you repeat the question, sir?
[2:42:06] » Yep. Can you repeat the question, sir?
[2:42:06] Sorry. Was the Was any kind of phase-in
[2:42:08] rate included in the tax rate or was it
[2:42:10] at the rate that it's currently sitting
[2:42:11] at for acreages?
[2:42:13] For 2025. Mr. Edney.
[2:42:16] Yeah, through to counselor Schindler,
[2:42:17] no. All of our revenue projections
[2:42:19] assume the exact same tax rates for
[2:42:21] every subclass as was in the 2025 bylaw.
[2:42:25] Okay.
[2:42:36] Do we have a quick slide projection
[2:42:41] uh right now at the moment of all of our
[2:42:44] tax rates and what they are currently
[2:42:46] at? Like all of our subclasses and what
[2:42:48] they are currently sitting at. Do we
[2:42:49] have that as part of the presentation
[2:42:51] currently?
[2:42:52] Mr. Edney. Um
[2:42:55] Thanks, Mayor Dean. Uh we don't have in
[2:42:57] the presentation, but if ledge services
[2:42:59] could go on our website and pull up
[2:43:01] bylaw 025-25,
[2:43:04] um that's what I'm looking at while we
[2:43:06] do this. Okay. Um so, not Oh, sorry, not
[2:43:08] 025. Uh it would be the tax rate bylaw
[2:43:11] 023-25.
[2:43:13] -25.
[2:43:23] If we go to page seven in that,
[2:43:27] right there. That's all our tax.
[2:43:30] So, that's from last year what the
[2:43:32] assessment values were that fell into
[2:43:34] each category, what the corresponding
[2:43:36] tax rate was, and the amount of tax
[2:43:37] collected
[2:43:39] off of those properties.
[2:43:52] Councillor Schindler.
[2:43:55] And uh sorry, uh through the chair uh to
[2:43:57] admit. Uh the uh the idea behind the
[2:44:01] annexed residential
[2:44:02] uh was to over a certain number of
[2:44:06] years, and I think it was four.
[2:44:08] Uh I could be wrong. Uh to bring it up
[2:44:10] to 3.24
[2:44:12] or as close to the current tax rate for
[2:44:15] the rest of the residential that we
[2:44:17] have. So, the the increase for this
[2:44:21] year, it should everything stay the
[2:44:23] same, should be a a
[2:44:26] whatever the difference is divided by
[2:44:27] four, um and then added to the it it my
[2:44:32] math could be wrong. And then then added
[2:44:34] to the 2.7.
[2:44:35] Um
[2:44:37] uh is that is that correct?
[2:44:40] Mr. Rodney.
[2:44:42] Yeah, through you to Councillor
[2:44:44] Schindler. Yes, that's correct. The rate
[2:44:46] would be somewhere in the neighborhood
[2:44:47] of 2.86, just doing the math off my
[2:44:49] head. Um but I can
[2:44:52] plug in exact numbers for you. Okay.
[2:44:57] Just just seeing if we're still on that
[2:44:59] track going forward. Thank you.
[2:45:03] So, I guess the question to council
[2:45:05] would be are there any other on what's
[2:45:07] displayed on the screen here? Are there
[2:45:09] any other
[2:45:10] categories here that you would like to
[2:45:13] tackle and or
[2:45:15] how would council and our administration
[2:45:17] like to proceed with the next steps?
[2:45:29] Mr. Redney.
[2:45:31] Um, so I think at this stage if there's
[2:45:33] not a discussion on increasing the
[2:45:35] annexed residential,
[2:45:37] um,
[2:45:38] the question would be um, does council
[2:45:41] want to
[2:45:43] um,
[2:45:44] we'll have to go back and just do some
[2:45:46] quick math based on that previous
[2:45:48] motion,
[2:45:49] um, but we can do that pretty quickly
[2:45:51] um, and come back later and approve the
[2:45:53] budget as was presented or would council
[2:45:56] like to include
[2:45:58] some sort of provision to collect money
[2:46:00] to
[2:46:02] put away for future projects and future
[2:46:04] asset replacement.
[2:46:06] And if you don't want to have that
[2:46:08] discussion, then yeah, I would suggest
[2:46:10] we just approve that budget as
[2:46:11] presented.
[2:46:12] Councilor Schindler. Um, uh, just a a
[2:46:15] quick question. Is there a further table
[2:46:17] cuz I don't have this bylaw open in
[2:46:19] front of me for commercial properties?
[2:46:23] Non-residential?
[2:46:28] Vacant non-residential?
[2:46:32] Uh, that's right. Mr. Redney.
[2:46:34] Yeah, so commercial industrial is all in
[2:46:36] the non-residential rate of 7.238
[2:46:39] and vacant non-residential, the maximum
[2:46:41] you can have is 13.5 under the MGA, so
[2:46:44] it's at 13.5. So, those are the two
[2:46:47] non-residential encompasses everything
[2:46:50] that isn't residential. If that makes
[2:46:52] sense. Is there a and this you might not
[2:46:55] be able to answer this question. Is
[2:46:56] there some vacant non-residential that
[2:46:59] have been sitting for a long period of
[2:47:01] time that we could also do an incentive
[2:47:04] program to develop similar to what we're
[2:47:07] doing for vacant residential?
[2:47:10] Mr. Edney.
[2:47:12] Cuz I see that it's increased by double.
[2:47:16] Yeah, so I I think
[2:47:19] I wouldn't
[2:47:21] So, I wouldn't call it an incentive
[2:47:22] program. It's a disincentive program, I
[2:47:24] suppose.
[2:47:24] >> To leave it vacant. To leave it vacant,
[2:47:27] » To leave it vacant. To leave it vacant,
[2:47:27] then you end up with a higher tax rate.
[2:47:29] Um the issue is the tax rate is already
[2:47:32] for for vacant non-residential is
[2:47:33] already at the highest it can be. Okay.
[2:47:36] >> So, there's no further increase you
[2:47:37] » So, there's no further increase you
[2:47:37] could make except in the event if you
[2:47:39] changed residential from 3.24 to 3.4,
[2:47:43] then you could
[2:47:44] uh pump up 13.5 by a corresponding
[2:47:47] amount. Um but, it wouldn't be
[2:47:49] significant. Um yes, there is I would I
[2:47:52] would say there's some significant
[2:47:53] vacant non-residential sitting out
[2:47:55] there. Uh properties on Rainbow Road,
[2:47:58] etc. that fall into that category um
[2:48:01] right now, but there's nothing you could
[2:48:02] do from an increased
[2:48:05] tax rate. Um from an incentive
[2:48:07] perspective, I suppose you could go to
[2:48:09] them and
[2:48:11] yeah, try to convince them that moving
[2:48:13] from 13.5 to 7.2 would be better for
[2:48:16] them uh to develop, but
[2:48:18] Okay. Thank you kindly. Yep.
[2:48:23] Councillor Randhawa.
[2:48:25] Thank you, Your Worship. I think uh
[2:48:28] I need to discuss about the annexed
[2:48:31] residential rate to little bit increase
[2:48:34] on that, please. I'd be appreciate.
[2:48:37] Yeah, so yeah, so just to clarify,
[2:48:40] um
[2:48:43] I believe that there is a desire to see
[2:48:44] an increase on the annexed residential.
[2:48:47] What we're trying to decide is are we
[2:48:49] leaving the residential at 3.24 or is
[2:48:53] council administration coming forward
[2:48:55] with a suggested amount of any kind of a
[2:48:59] change on the residential? So, and so I
[2:49:02] believe what administration is saying is
[2:49:05] if we are leaving residential at 3.24,
[2:49:08] then they will do a calculation on the
[2:49:10] annexed residential. But, administration
[2:49:12] is suggesting to not do that calculation
[2:49:15] until council has definitively decided
[2:49:19] what we are doing with residential.
[2:49:21] Mr. Edney.
[2:49:26] Sorry, was just thinking on something. I
[2:49:27] can do some calculations here. So,
[2:49:29] thinking about if you wanted to tackle
[2:49:32] um the annexed residential before you
[2:49:35] discuss the overall tax impact um
[2:49:39] because administration's recommendation
[2:49:41] for any tax changes is
[2:49:44] an equal change across all subclasses um
[2:49:48] on this page. So, if you wanted to
[2:49:50] tackle annexed residential, a motion
[2:49:52] could look like direct administration
[2:49:56] to increase the annexed residential tax
[2:49:59] rate by 25% of the difference between
[2:50:02] the residential and the annexed. That
[2:50:04] takes whatever that difference ends up
[2:50:06] being at the end of the day.
[2:50:08] Your
[2:50:09] 25% would be 4 years. If you wanted 3
[2:50:13] years, do 33. 2 years, 50. And then, you
[2:50:16] don't have to set a specific rate. It
[2:50:18] will just become
[2:50:20] a percentage of the difference between
[2:50:22] the two rates.
[2:50:25] Because was it 4 years that we set that
[2:50:27] at?
[2:50:28] I know that when you change your mind,
[2:50:30] you can't fetter, but
[2:50:31] Yeah, there's a part of me I thought I
[2:50:33] believe the Rocky View rate was around
[2:50:35] 2.55.
[2:50:37] I actually think it was a five year
[2:50:39] that you did.
[2:50:40] >> to phase over five.
[2:50:40] » to phase over five.
[2:50:40] >> Phase over five years. So, four years
[2:50:42] » Phase over five years. So, four years
[2:50:42] left, but I could be wrong. Um I'd have
[2:50:45] to go look back at that. Um with the
[2:50:47] previous motion, um
[2:50:50] what I would assume would happen would
[2:50:51] be
[2:50:52] hypothetically, if council were to
[2:50:54] decide to put a 4% tax increase across
[2:50:57] the board, that happens to both rates,
[2:51:00] and then the 25% difference is taken
[2:51:02] into account. So,
[2:51:04] that's why that motion would work. Um
[2:51:07] Yeah, I apologize. I can't remember if
[2:51:09] it was four or five. For some reason, I
[2:51:10] thought it was five, but I might be
[2:51:12] wrong. I think that that may be material
[2:51:16] in that uh then we just we could, should
[2:51:20] we so choose, equal it out.
[2:51:22] Right? So, the council around dollars
[2:51:23] point, then we could address it, right?
[2:51:25] And then if it's four years, 25% every
[2:51:27] year,
[2:51:28] and away we go. Uh Counselor Schindler.
[2:51:32] Okay.
[2:51:33] I'm going to I don't know. Uh this is
[2:51:36] I might start debate, and I don't know
[2:51:38] if we need a motion on the floor for
[2:51:39] that, but I'm going to I guess start us
[2:51:42] off with
[2:51:45] the administration's asking for a tax
[2:51:47] rate increase.
[2:51:49] Um
[2:51:50] whether we're talking about a percentage
[2:51:52] of the mill rate or the amount of money
[2:51:53] a person pays per month on their um on
[2:51:57] their uh property taxes.
[2:51:59] Um we need to have that discussion. I
[2:52:01] think
[2:52:03] the um
[2:52:05] for what for what our citizens want and
[2:52:08] the increased level of services
[2:52:10] uh that our citizens are asking for. Um
[2:52:13] that money's got to come from somewhere,
[2:52:15] and currently, from what I'm looking at,
[2:52:17] we don't have that that money. Um
[2:52:21] further to that, we also need to start
[2:52:23] planning for the future.
[2:52:25] Um I believe our ministers ministers uh
[2:52:28] in the provincial government are asking
[2:52:29] municipalities to pay for or at least
[2:52:32] put money away for infrastructure uh
[2:52:34] needs
[2:52:36] similar to something that happened in
[2:52:39] Calgary with their water main. Um
[2:52:42] and so
[2:52:45] to be a responsible steward of the
[2:52:48] taxpayer dollars as well, which is our
[2:52:51] primary goal here, as well as to be a
[2:52:54] responsible steward of our city
[2:52:58] we need to look we need to seriously
[2:53:00] look at not keeping our tax rate flat
[2:53:02] anymore.
[2:53:03] Um
[2:53:06] that said, my question
[2:53:09] to administration is
[2:53:12] given our priorities, given our
[2:53:14] strategic plan, given what is needed in
[2:53:17] this community
[2:53:20] um given what is asked for in this
[2:53:22] community
[2:53:24] um
[2:53:28] what do we need to increase our tax rate
[2:53:31] by?
[2:53:35] to meet that
[2:53:37] minimum
[2:53:39] that our residents are looking for.
[2:53:42] And is that number
[2:53:45] on this uh capital projects funding page
[2:53:48] because I'm also noticing that it
[2:53:50] doesn't include the operation operating
[2:53:52] deficit.
[2:53:53] Um
[2:53:57] Sir, are you directing that question to
[2:53:58] administration?
[2:53:59] >> and so yeah, through the through the
[2:54:01] » and so yeah, through the through the
[2:54:01] chair to administration.
[2:54:03] Um
[2:54:05] I I
[2:54:07] I would like to I'd like to know what
[2:54:09] that uh minimum is for us to become or
[2:54:13] to to to be uh responsible stewards of
[2:54:15] our community.
[2:54:18] Mr. Redman.
[2:54:20] Yeah, thank you Mayor Dean. So to
[2:54:21] Counselor Schneller's question, um
[2:54:27] that's a bit of a difficult question to
[2:54:29] answer directly because it becomes a
[2:54:32] philosophy question a little bit, right?
[2:54:35] And I liken it back to your personal
[2:54:37] finances.
[2:54:38] If you know you want to buy a house on
[2:54:40] the lake,
[2:54:41] um you either sit and wait till you've
[2:54:44] got, you know, very least you have to
[2:54:45] save up a down payment and then you
[2:54:47] mortgage it or you start putting money
[2:54:48] away and after 15 years you've saved
[2:54:50] enough
[2:54:51] to actually pay for it. I think the
[2:54:53] challenge that this community is facing
[2:54:55] is
[2:54:56] we've been planning for 10 or 15 years
[2:54:59] um to do things but not actually saving
[2:55:01] anything. And in fact, during that time
[2:55:04] cutting the amount of taxes that's been
[2:55:06] collected. Uh I understand there's been
[2:55:08] surpluses in some of those years. We've
[2:55:10] talked about surpluses just relative to
[2:55:12] what you
[2:55:13] budget and and intricacies that go into
[2:55:17] those
[2:55:18] um volatile numbers if that's the right
[2:55:21] right word. So,
[2:55:23] you know, as mentioned previously, when
[2:55:25] you talk about the things the community
[2:55:27] wants,
[2:55:28] um I'm not sure
[2:55:31] planning to replace the roof at City
[2:55:32] Hall and fix roads and replace fleet
[2:55:36] fleet vehicles and sidewalks and bridges
[2:55:40] is sexy and what the community wants,
[2:55:42] but that's definitely something the
[2:55:44] community needs.
[2:55:45] It's something you pointed out you're
[2:55:47] seeing examples in other municipalities
[2:55:49] of what happens to them when they don't
[2:55:51] plan for that asset replacement um and
[2:55:54] then can't meet their obligations.
[2:55:56] Uh I think the minimum we've suggested
[2:55:58] for that
[2:55:59] is about a 7.8% increase or $14 a month
[2:56:03] on a $700,000 home
[2:56:05] to start planning for those things that
[2:56:08] I would consider
[2:56:10] responsible fiscal stewardship.
[2:56:13] Um as far as what the community wants, I
[2:56:15] think that's the philosophical question
[2:56:17] for council of,
[2:56:19] you you presumably
[2:56:22] the community wants a rec center.
[2:56:24] Uh we've heard that many, many times.
[2:56:27] The question becomes, do you
[2:56:30] look at a property tax increase now to
[2:56:32] start putting some money away to pay for
[2:56:34] that? Or do you wait until
[2:56:37] you want to pay for that, take out 100%
[2:56:40] of that money in debenture, and then
[2:56:42] do the operating or do the property tax
[2:56:44] increase at that time?
[2:56:46] Um or again, continue to search for
[2:56:49] alternate sources of funding through
[2:56:51] time as it comes on. Um
[2:56:54] I've talked a lot about
[2:56:58] the thing that's kept us sort of okay
[2:57:01] from an operations perspective has been
[2:57:03] that inflation, etc.
[2:57:05] has matched our growth.
[2:57:07] Um so
[2:57:09] there's been comments I've heard even in
[2:57:11] the community, "Wow, we continue to
[2:57:12] grow, so can't the new taxes from growth
[2:57:14] pay for all this stuff?" And yeah, that
[2:57:16] works in the short term, but in the long
[2:57:19] term, somebody's got to pay for the
[2:57:20] growth. And when growth slows down,
[2:57:21] there's no growth to pay for the growth
[2:57:23] anymore.
[2:57:24] Uh so that's uh you know, a situation we
[2:57:27] could see ourselves in
[2:57:29] as we continue to see development slow
[2:57:31] down from where its peaks were. Um
[2:57:33] you've hit an important part that we
[2:57:34] haven't addressed on here is um
[2:57:39] none of this contemplates
[2:57:42] if a pool is constructed an operating
[2:57:44] loss on the pool.
[2:57:45] Um we're seeing
[2:57:47] information that that
[2:57:49] in itself could be 8 or 10% of our
[2:57:52] current property tax that we collect. So
[2:57:55] um it really becomes a philosophy. Um if
[2:57:57] I was
[2:57:59] if I was making the choice, and I
[2:58:00] understand it's it's
[2:58:02] easy for me to sit here and say what I
[2:58:04] would do, I'd be putting away money
[2:58:06] to replace our existing assets. I'd also
[2:58:08] be putting money away right now to pay
[2:58:10] for our new assets um to reduce that
[2:58:13] burden because as I mentioned really
[2:58:14] quickly
[2:58:16] the city hits its capacity to ever do
[2:58:18] anything in the future. And
[2:58:20] um you know, if some
[2:58:23] other priority came about or something
[2:58:25] catastrophic happened, you we wouldn't
[2:58:27] have a savings account and we wouldn't
[2:58:29] have a line of credit to go to.
[2:58:31] So, I think at this point my
[2:58:33] recommendation would be to start
[2:58:35] building up a savings account. I think
[2:58:37] the minimum
[2:58:38] would be that 7.8% that brings the 2.2
[2:58:42] million
[2:58:43] to start putting money away for asset
[2:58:45] replacement and then it just becomes a
[2:58:46] philosophy of
[2:58:48] how much
[2:58:50] is the community willing to put away
[2:58:51] towards your library, towards your rec
[2:58:53] center,
[2:58:54] and those kind of things.
[2:58:56] Thank you, Deputy Mayor Nirain.
[2:59:01] I thank you, Worship, through you to
[2:59:03] members of council. I think
[2:59:05] you know, we're at a point where uh
[2:59:08] uh we're going to put a motion here and
[2:59:10] I'm happy to put a motion on putting
[2:59:12] money away
[2:59:13] uh
[2:59:14] for
[2:59:15] uh asset replacement.
[2:59:17] Um the other
[2:59:19] theory uh the other motion
[2:59:21] possible motion would be uh with respect
[2:59:23] to uh acreages
[2:59:25] uh that somebody wants to put, but I
[2:59:27] think uh what I'd like to see is uh you
[2:59:30] know, just moving this forward and I'll
[2:59:33] be happy to put that the motion forward
[2:59:34] to on um
[2:59:36] putting money away.
[2:59:39] Right. I think though to do that motion,
[2:59:41] we need a number that's associated with
[2:59:43] that motion, Deputy Mayor. So, do you
[2:59:45] have a number that you're wanting to put
[2:59:47] forward?
[2:59:49] It's it's the number that the
[2:59:50] administration is proposing. 7.8?
[2:59:53] Yes. Okay. Thank you. Uh I'll come back
[2:59:56] to you here in 2 seconds, Deputy Mayor.
[2:59:58] Uh Counselor Shinwar.
[3:00:00] Uh thank you, Mayor Dean.
[3:00:02] Um
[3:00:04] Yeah, I I I hear that
[3:00:08] we we to put money away, which is
[3:00:11] absolutely important, and I think that
[3:00:13] we as a municipality, I I run by the
[3:00:16] philosophy in my personal life to live
[3:00:17] within my means.
[3:00:19] Um and um
[3:00:21] you know what
[3:00:23] not buy extravagant things that you
[3:00:24] can't afford because it always comes
[3:00:26] with
[3:00:27] um
[3:00:29] extra costs, uh maintenance, and etc. Um
[3:00:33] So,
[3:00:35] um
[3:00:36] when we look at buying a new rec center,
[3:00:41] um yes, we can take that money out in a
[3:00:44] debenture
[3:00:45] and pay on interest, and it's going to
[3:00:47] cost our residents more money than um
[3:00:51] than uh if we had paid with say just
[3:00:54] cash as it were. Um If we had been
[3:00:56] saving for the last 10 years. Um
[3:00:59] but there's also, you know, incidentals
[3:01:02] that could happen. Perhaps, you know,
[3:01:04] the the the the building will need to be
[3:01:06] replaced in
[3:01:07] you know, 20, 30, 40, 50 years.
[3:01:10] Hopefully not
[3:01:12] the earlier numbers.
[3:01:13] Uh so, then we should start saving for
[3:01:15] that as well.
[3:01:16] Um
[3:01:18] Has Have those through through the chair
[3:01:20] to administration, when we talk about
[3:01:22] new facilities, do we have budget for
[3:01:25] those future replacements
[3:01:28] and putting money away?
[3:01:30] I- Is that part of the asset replacement
[3:01:33] uh savings
[3:01:35] uh line item?
[3:01:38] Mr. Edney.
[3:01:41] Yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean. Um
[3:01:44] I'm just going to ask uh light services
[3:01:46] quick before I answer you. Can you bring
[3:01:47] up the previous uh presentation?
[3:01:50] The one that was for today. Um
[3:01:54] Not this 38-page one, the six-page one.
[3:01:58] Uh if we can go up one. There we go. So,
[3:02:01] that's kind of the layout of what we're
[3:02:02] looking at for all
[3:02:04] the future projects. So,
[3:02:06] um there's two parts to this. One of a
[3:02:09] lot of those where we can see them in
[3:02:11] the next 2, 3, 4 years, they're on this
[3:02:14] sheet, and they're either something
[3:02:16] that's coming from reserves or
[3:02:18] debenture, or a lot of them we're trying
[3:02:20] to capture with the LGFF or CCBF
[3:02:22] funding. So, Mhm. we'd have to have
[3:02:24] again a probably another discussion
[3:02:26] around what's on that list.
[3:02:28] This is starting to put some of that
[3:02:30] money away for the projects that we
[3:02:32] can't identify on there,
[3:02:34] or as we see the provincial government
[3:02:36] changing how they fund municipalities,
[3:02:38] which we observed is never going up,
[3:02:40] it's always going down. It's putting
[3:02:42] some money away in those
[3:02:44] particular places. Now, when one of
[3:02:47] these bigger projects comes up, we don't
[3:02:48] need to have a tax increase, or we don't
[3:02:51] need to remove from our reserves to fund
[3:02:55] those. So, it's sort of that
[3:02:58] contingency fund where you know when you
[3:02:59] own a home, at some points you need a
[3:03:01] fur- a furnace, some points you need a
[3:03:03] roof.
[3:03:04] And there may be grants there that you
[3:03:05] can do that with, but it's putting some
[3:03:07] money aside, so when it happens, it's
[3:03:09] not a big financial impact to you.
[3:03:11] So, that's what that first of asset
[3:03:13] replacement savings is.
[3:03:15] Everything else is to fund those
[3:03:16] specific projects.
[3:03:21] Okay.
[3:03:22] I'm going to go back to Deputy Mayor
[3:03:23] unless somebody else has another
[3:03:25] suggestion. Deputy Mayor wanted to come
[3:03:26] forward with a motion
[3:03:28] uh to move forward on. So, uh unless
[3:03:30] somebody else has a comment or question
[3:03:32] before that.
[3:03:35] Okay. Deputy Mayor, can you uh sorry,
[3:03:38] Councillor Grant. Thank you, Mayor Dean.
[3:03:41] I did have one question. Um and I
[3:03:43] briefly talked about it at the last
[3:03:44] meeting, and it was about the capital
[3:03:46] expenditures. And I guess through the
[3:03:47] chair to Mr. Edney, can you let us know
[3:03:51] what the value of our capital
[3:03:52] expenditures, not excluding the projects
[3:03:54] on here, are for the 2026 year?
[3:03:58] Mr. Edney.
[3:04:00] Yeah, I'll just pull that up quick. I
[3:04:01] want to say just about 15 million
[3:04:04] dollars, um, but that's in that
[3:04:06] presentation.
[3:04:08] Um, That number's close enough for me,
[3:04:10] Mr. It was it's I don't need an exact
[3:04:12] number. My My point is that
[3:04:14] we have a deficit of 1.6 and we have
[3:04:17] approved 14 million dollars in capital
[3:04:18] expenditures and and I know at the time,
[3:04:21] um, when we went through it, I
[3:04:22] I'm sure there was a million dollars out
[3:04:23] of the capital expenditures that I would
[3:04:25] have cut. So, um,
[3:04:28] I know that's kind of left us here now
[3:04:31] at the final budget deliberations, but
[3:04:34] um,
[3:04:36] to me that process is broken in that
[3:04:38] we've approved a large amount of money
[3:04:40] to be spent and now we're realizing that
[3:04:42] we don't have sufficient revenue to
[3:04:44] support those expenditures. So, I know I
[3:04:47] know there's a lot in there that is
[3:04:48] required to be bought and I can accept
[3:04:51] that, um, but I would say that there's
[3:04:53] probably some in there that wasn't
[3:04:54] required to be bought and kind of nice
[3:04:55] to haves, not needs.
[3:04:57] Um, so, I know we can't really do
[3:04:59] anything about that now, but I know next
[3:05:01] year when we go into interim budget, the
[3:05:05] capital component should be scrutinized
[3:05:06] a lot more closely. Mr. Redman.
[3:05:10] Oh, sorry, Mayor Dean. Yeah, I was just
[3:05:12] going to say I believe we proposed 18.
[3:05:14] I'll have to pull up
[3:05:16] um,
[3:05:18] yeah, there was 40 million including
[3:05:20] across the utility company. The utility
[3:05:22] company had 23 million dollars, but
[3:05:25] that's covered separately under the
[3:05:26] utility company budget. I'll pull up the
[3:05:29] exact number because I do believe, um,
[3:05:34] to your point, I believe council cut
[3:05:36] about half of the projects that we
[3:05:38] brought forward. So, I'll I'll get that
[3:05:40] detailed number.
[3:05:41] Um, we have a separate capital budget
[3:05:44] presentation there that I'll
[3:05:46] I'll grab for you. Give me a minute.
[3:05:49] Councillor Warszynski.
[3:05:51] Thank you, Mayor Dean. Yeah, I'm glad I
[3:05:53] wanted to keep this slide up on the
[3:05:55] screen.
[3:05:57] Um, one of the concerns that I have
[3:06:00] while we have a number of different
[3:06:01] capital projects is we've been talking
[3:06:03] about a rec center since I've been a
[3:06:04] counselor and really have made very
[3:06:06] little progress on it. So, just want to
[3:06:08] confirm
[3:06:11] the numbers here. This five Can you
[3:06:12] explain once again to through the chair
[3:06:14] to Mr. Edney this 5.71% on on the rec on
[3:06:18] the new rec center impact? That's Is
[3:06:20] that the money you need to move forward
[3:06:21] with that project?
[3:06:24] Without looking at other funding
[3:06:26] sources?
[3:06:27] Mr. Edney?
[3:06:29] Yeah, through you to Councillor
[3:06:30] Woznesensky. So, that 5.71%
[3:06:33] Mhm. related to the 24.5 million, that
[3:06:37] will be what is needed
[3:06:39] to service the debenture assuming
[3:06:41] council took a debenture out to pay for
[3:06:43] that 24 million dollars.
[3:06:45] If you wanted to save 24 million dollars
[3:06:48] between now and when you did
[3:06:50] you know, actually started construction
[3:06:52] of the rec center,
[3:06:54] um
[3:06:55] again, you can do math quickly. Um
[3:06:58] you'd be in the five or six million
[3:06:59] dollars a year you'd want to start
[3:07:01] saving, and that would be pushing the
[3:07:02] rec center out
[3:07:03] four or five years, and that would be,
[3:07:05] you know, a
[3:07:06] 16 18% increase in taxes
[3:07:10] right off the bat to start putting that
[3:07:12] money away. So, all of those numbers
[3:07:15] other than the asset replacement
[3:07:17] savings,
[3:07:18] those are numbers on the right-hand side
[3:07:21] that need to increase to
[3:07:23] make the payments on the debenture.
[3:07:25] Understood. Thank you.
[3:07:27] Councillor Woznesensky? No, we're good.
[3:07:30] Okay.
[3:07:31] I'm going to go back to Deputy Mayor.
[3:07:33] Deputy Mayor, I believe you want to come
[3:07:35] forward with a motion. I think you're
[3:07:36] going to be doing an organic motion
[3:07:38] here.
[3:07:39] Uh so,
[3:07:40] uh again, uh if you want to take a stab
[3:07:43] at the organic motion, and then we can
[3:07:46] go from there.
[3:07:49] Uh thank you, Worship.
[3:07:50] I think Josh had it with the 7.8 7.8%
[3:07:56] increase. Yeah.
[3:08:00] Mr. Enns, do you want to assist Legal
[3:08:02] Services with the motion and Deputy
[3:08:03] Mayor with the motion, Mr. Enns?
[3:08:06] I would prefer if we could do the motion
[3:08:08] just in a different manner, if that's
[3:08:10] okay. If If Deputy Mayor is open to it,
[3:08:12] Council direct administration, sorry.
[3:08:18] I think he was going to say yes, he's
[3:08:19] good with it.
[3:08:19] >> Okay. Yes, yes.
[3:08:22] » Okay. Yes, yes.
[3:08:22] So, let's Let me just grab Make sure I
[3:08:24] grab the right
[3:08:27] numbers here.
[3:08:30] And if you're okay rounding,
[3:08:34] um
[3:08:36] Council direct administration
[3:08:39] to add
[3:08:43] 2.
[3:08:45] 279
[3:08:47] million.
[3:08:48] Sorry, let's do Let's just type it out.
[3:08:51] Sorry, two comma
[3:08:56] 279
[3:08:57] 551
[3:09:01] to
[3:09:05] Sorry.
[3:09:07] Getting the right presentation up here.
[3:09:10] Which line item does it go to?
[3:09:12] Um
[3:09:17] Yeah, two
[3:09:19] to be transferred to reserves in the
[3:09:23] operating budget.
[3:09:27] Put to add an additional.
[3:09:34] Yeah.
[3:09:38] Cuz then that changes the budget and
[3:09:39] then the the tax rates get back
[3:09:41] calculated out of that, but it would be
[3:09:43] a 7.8%
[3:09:45] change. You could round that number if
[3:09:47] you felt like it, but that's the exact
[3:09:49] calculation that we did. Councillor
[3:09:51] Sample.
[3:09:52] Uh thank you, Worship. I think I'm I'm
[3:09:54] not sure whether this is a friendly or
[3:09:56] if it would be more substantive. First
[3:09:58] of all, I wanted to commend my
[3:09:59] colleagues, Councillor Schindler and um
[3:10:01] uh Deputy Mayor
[3:10:03] Marian, for being brave enough to uh put
[3:10:06] this forward because it's something that
[3:10:07] nobody likes to do and we're all seeing
[3:10:08] the writing on the wall. Um given that
[3:10:10] we heard that the average assessment
[3:10:12] went down by 2%, I wonder if um Deputy
[3:10:15] Mayor would consider increasing that
[3:10:18] number from roughly 8% to roughly 10%,
[3:10:21] so that it wouldn't uh it would even out
[3:10:23] at about the number he was considering.
[3:10:29] Yeah, you know what? Sure, let's go
[3:10:30] ahead. I'm okay with that.
[3:10:32] That's significant.
[3:10:34] It's not a friendly.
[3:10:36] Yeah, it's that's a significant change.
[3:10:38] >> You haven't read it.
[3:10:40] » You haven't read it.
[3:10:40] I know. We haven't read it. We can do
[3:10:42] it.
[3:10:46] So,
[3:10:47] may I
[3:10:48] I I'd like to keep this
[3:10:50] on the back burner as well, depending on
[3:10:52] how the other motion goes.
[3:10:59] Do we not Do we need to take a recess to
[3:11:01] do some math?
[3:11:02] And come back with a motion?
[3:11:07] I Yeah, but I'd rather not take an hour
[3:11:08] to wait for on this.
[3:11:10] You've got it? Okay. Uh so, Mr. Edney.
[3:11:13] 26
[3:11:15] Yeah, so the number would be two {comma}
[3:11:19] 926
[3:11:22] {comma} 404.
[3:11:25] That's a 10% on the municipal portion.
[3:11:33] Okay.
[3:11:34] Uh Councillor Schindler.
[3:11:36] I'm I'm curious. So,
[3:11:40] we're talking about this 10% here.
[3:11:43] Are we stopping there or
[3:11:48] is this also an opportunity to add in
[3:11:51] what we need to
[3:11:53] service our current deficit
[3:11:55] of 1.6?
[3:11:57] Um and then also include the percentage
[3:12:02] increases for the Dawson Landing Rec
[3:12:04] Center debenture
[3:12:07] servicing
[3:12:09] as well?
[3:12:10] And and I guess So you want to go
[3:12:13] higher?
[3:12:14] >> I'm I'm looking at what we need to to
[3:12:17] » I'm I'm looking at what we need to to
[3:12:17] run this city. So we got to tackle one
[3:12:19] motion first. So Deputy Mayor is
[3:12:21] bringing forward a motion right now at a
[3:12:23] 10% increase. Do you want to So his
[3:12:26] motion will be for a 10% increase. Do
[3:12:29] you want to go higher than 10%? I
[3:12:33] Sorry, it's got to be that simple.
[3:12:35] >> Yes. I I I want to be able to service
[3:12:38] » Yes. I I I want to be able to service
[3:12:38] the Dawson Landing Rec facility.
[3:12:42] Okay. Mr. Edney.
[3:12:44] Thank you, Mayor Dean. Just for clarity
[3:12:46] for Councillor Schindler.
[3:12:48] That debt we don't have that debt yet.
[3:12:51] So we don't need to service it right
[3:12:52] now. That's right. That would be
[3:12:54] something that would come into the
[3:12:55] operating budget. So that if you wanted
[3:12:57] to put away a similar thing to I guess
[3:13:01] socialize people to that will be coming.
[3:13:03] That money could then I would do a
[3:13:05] separate item that would put that money
[3:13:08] into
[3:13:10] the recreation reserve to be used to
[3:13:12] fund the Dawson Landing. So um to Mayor
[3:13:15] Dean's point, I would put that as a
[3:13:17] separate motion I think would be would
[3:13:19] be the best. This is just general
[3:13:22] funds to the reserve
[3:13:25] for future asset replacement. That one I
[3:13:27] would tackle as a separate. Because we
[3:13:29] don't have the debenture, we're not
[3:13:31] actually financing it yet. Council
[3:13:32] hasn't made a decision yet to do that
[3:13:35] Rec Center, but this could be putting
[3:13:37] money away to prepare for that decision.
[3:13:40] And and then just to clarify the the 1.6
[3:13:43] deficit then in operational, that would
[3:13:45] also be a separate
[3:13:47] uh motion.
[3:13:49] Uh Mr. Edney.
[3:13:51] Yes, Mayor Dean. Through that that's
[3:13:53] correct. If you wanted to tackle that
[3:13:54] separately, um so as it sits right now,
[3:13:57] that 2.9 would effectively end up being
[3:14:01] 1.
[3:14:03] Well,
[3:14:04] 1.1 because we've already changed the
[3:14:06] vacant tax rate. Um
[3:14:10] So but again, we're going to
[3:14:12] Yeah, this isn't addressing the 1. 8
[3:14:16] plan deficit. That's already coming out
[3:14:19] of reserves.
[3:14:22] Okay.
[3:14:24] So I think we have a motion on that's
[3:14:27] going to be put on the floor here
[3:14:29] uh from uh Deputy Mayor. So uh Deputy
[3:14:33] Mayor, do you want to go ahead with your
[3:14:35] motion?
[3:14:36] Yes, most certainly. I move that Council
[3:14:38] direct administration to add an
[3:14:39] additional uh
[3:14:41] $2,926,404
[3:14:44] to be transferred to reserves in the
[3:14:47] operating budget.
[3:14:49] Okay. Any comments, questions from
[3:14:51] Council?
[3:14:54] Okay. Uh I will start. I will be voting
[3:14:57] no to this motion.
[3:14:59] Uh I was comfortable with the other
[3:15:00] amount and would have
[3:15:02] uh been in favor of that.
[3:15:04] Uh and I will be going uh I will
[3:15:07] personally be voting no on this motion
[3:15:09] for several reasons.
[3:15:10] Um we already know that there's a tax
[3:15:12] increase that's coming at the provincial
[3:15:13] level with regards to the education tax.
[3:15:16] Uh and my personal feeling on the matter
[3:15:18] is that I do not believe that we should
[3:15:21] go higher a higher rate than the
[3:15:23] education tax. Uh so those are my own uh
[3:15:26] personal feelings on the matter.
[3:15:28] Uh and so for that reason, I will not be
[3:15:31] voting
[3:15:32] uh in favor of this particular motion at
[3:15:35] this time.
[3:15:36] Any other comments or questions from
[3:15:38] council?
[3:15:42] Uh counselor Sambu.
[3:15:46] Thank you, Your Worship.
[3:15:48] Uh
[3:15:49] I will be begrudgingly voting in favor
[3:15:52] of this and then there's um some other
[3:15:55] um
[3:15:55] tax codes, I suppose, that I hope we can
[3:15:57] look at afterwards.
[3:15:59] Um for me it boils down to I agree the
[3:16:02] increase to the education tax has eaten
[3:16:05] up a lot of uh the community's capacity
[3:16:07] for increases on their property taxes. I
[3:16:09] don't think that's fair. Um I also don't
[3:16:11] think we can make our decisions based on
[3:16:13] money that's being collected that we
[3:16:14] can't do anything with. Um
[3:16:17] I
[3:16:18] and this is a feeling statement, I feel
[3:16:21] that it would not uh be authentic for me
[3:16:23] to continue complaining about the
[3:16:25] decisions of past councils if I wasn't
[3:16:26] prepared to make the decisions that I
[3:16:28] feel are necessary to make uh the
[3:16:30] Chestermere of tomorrow more
[3:16:31] sustainable. So, I will be voting in
[3:16:33] favor of this and I hope we can continue
[3:16:35] talking about the other uh parts of of
[3:16:38] the budget.
[3:16:39] Great, thank you, counselor Woznowski.
[3:16:42] Thank you, Mayor Deans.
[3:16:43] I don't believe the Alberta tax and uh
[3:16:46] city taxes they're they're mutually
[3:16:47] exclusive, so it's unfortunate that the
[3:16:49] provincial tax is
[3:16:51] uh that the the education tax is being
[3:16:53] taken out of our out of our taxes, but
[3:16:56] we have a city to run and I also agree
[3:16:58] with counselor Sambu. Um we have to take
[3:17:01] make the tough decisions as counselors.
[3:17:04] We have we're far behind. I don't want
[3:17:06] to compare us to other municipalities.
[3:17:09] Everybody uses Canmore as an example
[3:17:11] with the lowest tax rate, well, they
[3:17:13] also have the most expensive properties
[3:17:15] in the country.
[3:17:16] And in the country. Maybe in the
[3:17:18] country, but certainly in Alberta. Um
[3:17:22] I'll be voting in favor of this because
[3:17:24] to counselor Sambu's point and to the
[3:17:27] brave Deputy Mayors motion, we do need
[3:17:30] to start planning to deliver what our
[3:17:33] residents have been asking for for many
[3:17:35] many years. That's why we ran as
[3:17:37] counselors. That's why I'm we voting in
[3:17:39] favor of this. Thank you. Thank you.
[3:17:41] Um I guess my comments are that as I
[3:17:43] still think that delivery method is
[3:17:44] there. I think that there are other
[3:17:46] methodologies that we have not
[3:17:48] uh completely explored yet and there's
[3:17:51] uh some hypothetical numbers that exist
[3:17:52] on this. And so based on that and based
[3:17:55] on resident affordability at the moment,
[3:17:58] uh I I stand by my
[3:18:00] earlier comments. Counselor Wozniewski.
[3:18:02] Yeah, thank you Mayor Dean. I do want to
[3:18:04] add on to your point. While I certainly
[3:18:07] uh support the spirit of make
[3:18:09] maintaining a low increase, I do believe
[3:18:12] there are other methods of
[3:18:15] funding our community including looking
[3:18:18] at ways that we can
[3:18:19] run the city at a lower cost and be more
[3:18:23] efficient with the money that we do
[3:18:24] collect. Thank you. Thank you.
[3:18:27] Any other comments or questions from
[3:18:28] council?
[3:18:31] Okay, with that I'm going to be calling
[3:18:32] for a recorded vote on this motion,
[3:18:34] please.
[3:18:35] Uh and so with a recorded vote, I will
[3:18:37] be calling on each counselor one at a
[3:18:39] time. Uh then you will state whether
[3:18:41] you're voting in favor or against uh and
[3:18:44] that this will be a recorded vote on
[3:18:46] this motion. So, starting with
[3:18:48] uh I'll call your name and then I'll
[3:18:50] turn on your mic. Starting with
[3:18:50] Counselor Sembol, do you vote in favor
[3:18:52] or against?
[3:18:54] In favor, your worship. Thank you. Uh
[3:18:56] Counselor Schindler, do you vote in
[3:18:57] favor or against?
[3:19:01] In in favor. Thank you. Counselor
[3:19:03] Randhawa, do you vote in favor or
[3:19:05] against?
[3:19:06] In favor, please. Thank you. Counselor
[3:19:08] Wozniewski, do you vote in favor or
[3:19:10] against? Yes, I vote in favor. Thank
[3:19:12] you. Deputy Mayor Narain, do you vote in
[3:19:13] favor or against?
[3:19:15] In favor. Thank you. And Counselor
[3:19:17] Grant, do you vote in favor or against?
[3:19:20] I'm against, Mayor Dean. Thank you. Uh
[3:19:22] and I will also be voting against uh the
[3:19:25] motion. However, the motion is carried
[3:19:27] with a 5-2 recorded vote.
[3:19:29] Uh
[3:19:30] Okay.
[3:19:31] Thank you.
[3:19:32] Uh with that, I think we're right up
[3:19:35] against uh taking our lunch break here
[3:19:37] uh taking our lunch break here. Uh
[3:19:43] So,
[3:19:44] uh with that, I'm going to suggest we
[3:19:46] take our break and we will come back at
[3:19:48] 1:00 for uh the conclusion of our
[3:19:50] meeting. Thank you.
[3:23:14] » Mhm.
[4:30:13] » Good afternoon, everyone. Just coming
[4:30:14] back from our lunch break. Uh, Deputy
[4:30:16] Mayor Duran not be uh rejoining us for
[4:30:19] the afternoon as he is
[4:30:21] uh off to attend sessions at the
[4:30:22] conference that he is currently
[4:30:24] attending. And so, uh with that, I just
[4:30:27] want to turn to administration here
[4:30:29] quickly and
[4:30:30] uh just see from your perspective, Mr.
[4:30:32] Edney, what you see as next steps uh for
[4:30:34] us taking in the process of the meeting
[4:30:36] here today, Mr. Edney.
[4:30:39] Yeah, thanks, Mayor Dean.
[4:30:40] Welcome back from lunch. Um at this
[4:30:42] stage
[4:30:44] from our perspective, I think I'd open
[4:30:45] it up to council of whether there's any
[4:30:47] other discussions
[4:30:49] um the council wanted to have or any
[4:30:51] other
[4:30:52] issue or item you wanted to potentially
[4:30:54] tackle. If not, um my suggestion would
[4:30:57] be we could uh move on. Um in the agenda
[4:31:00] package, we do have a couple of closed
[4:31:02] session items.
[4:31:04] The intent would be to take the motions
[4:31:05] you've made so far today,
[4:31:07] uh incorporate them into the budget, and
[4:31:09] then come back um to next week's
[4:31:12] um meeting, May 12th, and have the
[4:31:15] formal budget
[4:31:17] approved at that point. Um if there are
[4:31:20] no other changes the council would like
[4:31:22] to make to it at this time. And then
[4:31:23] with the change that was done uh
[4:31:27] before lunch, would you then
[4:31:30] subsequently go and make the change What
[4:31:32] is administration's plan to stay on the
[4:31:34] same track then for all the other
[4:31:36] subclasses of tax uh of the tax classes
[4:31:40] based on now what has happened with the
[4:31:41] residential tax,
[4:31:43] Mr. Edney?
[4:31:44] Yeah, thanks, Mayor Dean. I think uh
[4:31:47] something in a discussion over lunch
[4:31:49] time, I just want to clarify is uh so,
[4:31:53] the way council made the motion of
[4:31:55] adding the $2.9 million to be
[4:31:57] transferred to reserves, that will be
[4:31:58] spread across all the town subclasses.
[4:32:01] So, that math is not just on the
[4:32:03] residential subclass. It's also assuming
[4:32:06] that vacant residential goes up,
[4:32:09] non-residential goes up, like every
[4:32:11] subclass will have a 10% increase to it.
[4:32:14] If we were to do it only on residential,
[4:32:16] that would become a bigger increase born
[4:32:18] by that that part of the tax. So,
[4:32:22] with those changes, all of the mill
[4:32:24] rates that we had last year will go up
[4:32:25] by 10% each. Thank you. And with that,
[4:32:28] how do we address the acreages now?
[4:32:31] So, my intention
[4:32:34] Pardon me.
[4:32:35] So, right now as it sits, the acreages
[4:32:38] would just see the same 10%
[4:32:40] >> percent
[4:32:41] » percent
[4:32:41] change to
[4:32:42] um
[4:32:44] to the mill rate as everybody else. If
[4:32:45] council would like to start that
[4:32:47] implementation,
[4:32:48] um we could make a motion to
[4:32:52] kind of what I worded before lunch
[4:32:54] there.
[4:32:55] Um because I don't have
[4:32:57] Again, assuming no other changes
[4:32:58] happened, we could put an actual number
[4:33:00] and we could do some quick math to set
[4:33:02] their rate at that, but I think I would
[4:33:04] make the motion of council
[4:33:07] direct administration to adjust the
[4:33:09] annexed
[4:33:10] residential
[4:33:12] to be 25% or 33 or 50% of the difference
[4:33:16] between the two rates. And then we can
[4:33:18] do that and bring that back for the tax
[4:33:20] rate bylaw.
[4:33:21] Thank you. I guess my only thing with
[4:33:23] that is I don't think council
[4:33:24] anticipated doing a tax increase and
[4:33:26] then a tax increase that would be
[4:33:28] separate on unless we did. Uh I think
[4:33:31] there was kind of uh so I I don't know
[4:33:33] how council feels about that if we want
[4:33:35] to see the numbers come back and how
[4:33:37] that plays out cuz we would also have an
[4:33:38] opportunity at next Tuesday's meeting
[4:33:40] after we see the final numbers if we
[4:33:42] want to do anything else with the uh
[4:33:44] acreage tax, but
[4:33:46] uh open up to council if there's any
[4:33:47] other questions or comments that they
[4:33:49] want to make specifically uh to the
[4:33:52] acreage areas.
[4:33:55] Okay. So, then seeing none, I would
[4:33:57] suggest that we will leave it for now.
[4:33:59] See that come back. And so then the
[4:34:00] anticipation would be back here going to
[4:34:02] come back on Tuesday, May the 12th, uh
[4:34:06] with a final budget adjusted accordingly
[4:34:09] uh due to the tax rates and then we
[4:34:12] would look at final budget approval then
[4:34:13] and then the final approval of the tax
[4:34:15] rate bylaw. Are we still looking at the
[4:34:18] end of May for that, Mr. Edney? Yeah,
[4:34:21] that's correct and I think um
[4:34:24] the intent of next week's presentation
[4:34:26] would probably only be two or three
[4:34:27] slides. We'd update that
[4:34:30] one slide that we talked about to
[4:34:31] reflect the council motion.
[4:34:33] Um
[4:34:35] Well, we'd have to reflect two of them
[4:34:36] cuz we we've changed the vacant
[4:34:37] residential, but we'd make those two
[4:34:39] small changes, highlight them and then
[4:34:41] have council approve as presented. We'll
[4:34:43] go back, put all the numbers into the
[4:34:45] tax rate bylaw and bring that back for
[4:34:46] May 26th. Okay.
[4:34:49] So, if there's no other topics from
[4:34:51] council
[4:34:54] seeing none. The only other question I
[4:34:56] would have then going back to the agenda
[4:34:59] is also on here was 5.1.2.
[4:35:05] Uh but I don't think we're doing
[4:35:06] anything with that today then since we
[4:35:08] haven't approved the final budget. Uh
[4:35:11] so, then should we just make a motion to
[4:35:14] move 5.1.2 to the May 20
[4:35:18] 6th council meeting?
[4:35:22] Cuz we should do something with the cuz
[4:35:24] it is on the agenda. So, we should do
[4:35:26] something with it.
[4:35:34] Mr. Edney.
[4:35:36] Yeah, why don't you just table it until
[4:35:38] the May 26th?
[4:35:41] Just table it? Yeah.
[4:35:43] Okay.
[4:35:44] That'll probably be easiest process-wise
[4:35:46] and then we can lift it from the table
[4:35:47] on the 26th.
[4:35:49] Okay.
[4:35:50] So, can I have a motion from council to
[4:35:52] table item 5.1.2
[4:35:55] the 2026 property tax bylaw, please?
[4:36:01] Uh sorry, to the May 26th.
[4:36:05] Thank you. Okay, Counselor Randhawa.
[4:36:09] Thank you, Your Worship. I move that the
[4:36:11] Council table the item 5.1.2 begin
[4:36:15] the 2026 property tax by-law to the May
[4:36:19] 2026 2026 regular meeting of Council.
[4:36:24] Thank you. Call for the vote.
[4:36:30] That's carried unanimously. Thank you.
[4:36:32] Uh, with that then I'll need a
[4:36:34] uh motion to go into closed session. Uh,
[4:36:36] we're only going to be doing uh two of
[4:36:38] these items in closed session, which
[4:36:39] would be 6.2, budget communications, and
[4:36:43] 6.3, grant adjudication committee. So,
[4:36:45] can I have a motion, please, to go into
[4:36:48] camera, and we'll do both at the same
[4:36:51] time.
[4:37:01] Counselor Sambol.
[4:37:08] Certainly, Your Worship. I move that
[4:37:11] Council go into closed session at 1:12
[4:37:14] p.m. to discuss the following: grant
[4:37:17] adjudication committee, Access to
[4:37:18] Information Act Section 29, advice from
[4:37:21] officials, and budget communications,
[4:37:23] Access to Information Act Section 34,
[4:37:26] information that is or will be available
[4:37:28] to the public.
[4:37:29] Thank you.
[4:37:31] Call for the vote.
[4:37:37] And that's carried unanimously. Thank
[4:37:38] you.
[4:41:49] » Mhm.