[37:07] Good morning everyone. Uh welcome to our council meeting for Tuesday, June the

[37:11] 23rd. Uh beginning with our land acknowledgement. In a spirit of respect,

[37:15] reciprocity and truth, we honor and acknowledge the Mitus and the

[37:18] traditional treaty 7 territory and oral practices of the Blapoot Confederacy,

[37:23] Sika, Kaii, Picani, Leal, Nakota nations, Chinuki, Bearspaw, Good Stony,

[37:28] and Sutina nation. We acknowledge that this territory is home to the Matei

[37:32] government of the Matei Nation with Alberta District 4. And finally, we

[37:36] acknowledge all nations, indigenous and non who live, work, and play on this

[37:40] land and who honor and celebrate this territory. This sacred gathering place

[37:45] provides us with an opportunity to engage in and demonstrate leadership on

[37:48] reconciliation and we are honored to have you join us on Treaty7 territory.

[37:54] Going to the approval of the agenda first looking to administration. Are

[37:58] there any additions uh to the agenda from administration? [snorts]

[38:03] Seeing none, looking to count Oh, sorry, Mr. Edney.

[38:07] » Yeah, good morning council. Thank you, Mayor Dean. I'd like to request an

[38:10] addition to the agenda under item 10.4.3 CRCA facility improvement funding.

[38:19] » So 10.4.3. Thank you.

[38:32] » Thank you. Uh council, any other additions to the

[38:37] agenda? >> [snorts]

[38:40] » Seeing none, uh, can I have a counselor make the motion to approve the agenda as

[38:45] amended, please? Councelor Randawa. Thank you, your worship. Good morning,

[38:51] everyone. I move that the council approve the June 23rd, 2026 regular

[38:56] meeting of council agenda as amended. Add agenda item 10.4.3

[39:02] CRCA facility improvemental. >> Thank you. comments, questions from

[39:08] council. Call for the vote

[39:13] [snorts] and that's carried unanimously. Thank

[39:16] you. We have a number of uh recognitions and announcements today. First of all,

[39:21] uh you may notice that uh council's wearing a little bit more western style

[39:25] wear today. Uh we are it's our last meeting before going into stampede and

[39:30] stampede uh we have learned uh since being in this position is a very busy

[39:34] time for politicians. Uh there is a lot of networking uh and meetings that

[39:38] happen uh throughout the time. There's also a time of celebration. Uh one of

[39:42] the events that the city of Chester is currently heavily involved in the

[39:45] organization of uh is on July the 9th. Uh we will be gathering with uh members

[39:50] from across the regional round table. Uh a number of elected officials will be

[39:54] there as well as some [clears throat] other uh interested stakeholders. Uh but

[39:59] yeah, Stampede certainly gives us the opportunity to connect with uh ministers

[40:04] uh and elected officials from both the federal government and the provincial

[40:07] government as well as colleagues uh from across the province. And so uh it's a

[40:12] busy busy week. I know that all of our councils starting on July 1st with

[40:16] Canada Day uh right up until July the 9th uh have multiple events uh each day.

[40:23] uh and there are some days where we have to take a bit of a divide and conquer

[40:26] approach uh because there are so many opportunities for us to uh have the

[40:30] chance to go and network within the city of Calgary. So, it's going to be a very

[40:34] uh very busy couple of weeks here of advocacy for the city of Chester as we

[40:38] engage with our uh other elected officials. Also, today we have the

[40:43] passing of the torch. Uh, Deputy Mayor Nyan has done an incredible job over the

[40:48] last 8 months, as uh we know at our organizational meeting, we uh have made

[40:53] the decision that every 8 months or so uh we will transition our deputy mayor.

[40:58] That way, each counselor has the opportunity to be uh deputy mayor. And

[41:02] so today, uh deputy mayor Nion uh will now be counselor Nion. And uh and now we

[41:09] will have uh deputy mayor Schindler. So, Deputy Mayor Schindler will take over

[41:14] now uh for uh the next uh eight months as Deputy Mayor, and you can all start

[41:19] your little uh bidding polls now as to how many times Mayor Dean messes that up

[41:24] today. Uh as now he has to remember to call on Deputy Mayor Schindler and not

[41:28] Deputy Mayor Nion. Or also, we can place some bets on how many times if I just

[41:33] say Deputy Mayor if Councelor Nion touches his mic. Uh, but I do want to

[41:38] say a sincere thank you to uh, Deputy Mayor uh, Nion uh, for uh, his time as

[41:45] deputy mayor and now passing the torch over to uh, deputy mayor Schindler uh,

[41:49] who will be taking on the deputy mayor responsibilities. Uh, item 3.2, we have

[41:54] a public art display. Uh, and I'm looking for her, but I don't see her in

[41:59] the room right now. So, I will come back to that one. Uh, the next one that I

[42:04] have is Canada Day. Uh so Canada Day is coming up and we're uh very excited

[42:09] about Canada Day. It's a big uh tradition uh across Canada, but

[42:14] especially uh here in Chester. Uh we have a number of events that are going

[42:18] on uh including council will be out uh serving pancakes and uh interacting with

[42:23] the public on that day. Uh there is a free pancake breakfast uh for the first

[42:28] 2,000 guests. Uh it is incredible how many pancakes and sausages uh we end up

[42:34] uh serving at the pancake breakfast. So uh pancake breakfast for the first 2,000

[42:38] guests. Uh it is on July the 1st at John Peak Park uh starting at 9:00 a.m. and

[42:44] goes uh through the evening. Lots of free activities uh and things to do.

[42:49] There's going to be live music. There's stage performances. There's carnival

[42:52] games, kids activities, face painting, a petting zoo, wagon rides, artisan vendor

[42:57] market, food trucks. Uh there's going to be no shortage of things to do

[43:01] throughout the day for Canada Day. It is Canada's

[43:05] 159th birthday on July the 1st. So Canada's 159th birthday and then the day

[43:11] is going to conclude uh with a fireworks show at 10:45. Uh one of the things that

[43:17] we wanted to make mention of uh is uh there will be uh both some road closures

[43:23] and uh some parking um mitigation strategies uh that will be employed

[43:30] [snorts] uh because parking is limited in that area. So, we are going to have a

[43:33] shuttle that will be running uh throughout the afternoon and the

[43:36] evening. And we want to encourage people to walk, bike, uh carpool, and use the

[43:40] shuttle. And to talk about uh parking and shuttle and all of the organization

[43:45] of those things, uh we have Miss Christy Jensen who is uh our events coordinator

[43:51] coming up to present on this uh right now. And I do believe that this is her

[43:55] first time presenting for council. Uh and what an incredible opportunity as we

[44:00] celebrate uh one of the signature events here in the city of Chester. So good

[44:04] morning. >> Good morning council. Thank you mayor.

[44:07] Uh yes as we know the events that happen in John Peak Park do pose some parking

[44:13] limitations. And to help our residents enjoy a wonderful Canada Day, we have

[44:18] prov we are providing shuttle services from two of our uh school areas. Uh both

[44:24] the East Lake School and the Our Lady of Wisdom School will run shuttles from 300

[44:30] p.m. to about 11:30 p.m. rotating about every 30 minutes. Um so

[44:36] you can park in those areas and come on down to John Peak Park because the park

[44:41] uh the roads uh into the park will be closed. Marina Drive and Chester Station

[44:46] Way uh will be closed to allow for our vendors and for pedestrians and

[44:51] residents to enjoy the space uh more safely. So, we encourage all residents

[44:55] to use our free shuttle service. Uh and again, it'll be at the East Lake School

[45:01] area pickup and the drop off will be right on Main Street here. Um, so if you

[45:06] have any questions or need more details, please go to our website uh our chestir

[45:12] website and um on Facebook, we'll be communicating this out to residents too

[45:16] to remind them um to to come on down to the park and yeah, hopefully enjoy the

[45:22] day. >> Great. Thank you. You know, now that

[45:24] we've got her on the hot seat council council though, is there any questions

[45:27] or or clarity that you want to ask candidate? Uh councelor Rosenowski, do

[45:31] you have a question? >> No.

[45:32] » Oh, okay. I [laughter] would >> uh councelor uh sorry, deputy mayor

[45:35] Schindler. >> I wanted to catch them. Uh just like are

[45:39] we serving all the types of uh syrup um at the pancake breakfast? Um and uh and

[45:46] how many pancakes can people expect uh per person? [laughter]

[45:50] » Things that will be a mystery until you arrive.

[45:54] » Great. Thank you. Uh awesome. Thank you so much. Yeah, certainly looking forward

[45:58] to it. And uh the shuttle uh is something that I believe uh we uh first

[46:02] added uh last year, but it's exciting to hear that that's coming back and

[46:07] certainly will be an assistance uh for our events as parking can be very

[46:11] limited in that area. So awesome. Thank you so much for that. Appreciate it. Uh

[46:15] so yeah, we just want to invite everybody to come out uh for Canada Day.

[46:18] The other event uh that we want to draw people's attention to um is on July the

[46:23] 8th at John Pete Park. Uh we're having a large-scale premier pow honoring uh the

[46:29] legacy of a local Sika youth uh Christian a young man. Uh we're inviting

[46:34] everyone to come out to this lead by example pow-wow uh to experience the

[46:38] traditional dancing, drumming, cultural demonstrations and community connection.

[46:43] Uh we have strategically uh worked with the organizers of this event to have the

[46:48] pow-wow happening during stampede. Uh and the reason for that is uh there are

[46:54] a number of dancers and performers that come uh during stampede that are kind of

[47:01] only really in town uh during that time. And because uh we've now put it during

[47:06] stampede, they're actually going to be able to come out to Chesameir uh to

[47:09] participate uh in this pow-wow. So, it's going to be an incredible event that is

[47:13] on July the 8th. Uh celebrating um again Christian a young man in honor of uh

[47:19] Christian Young Man, the lead by example pow-wow. Uh the organizers for this are

[47:24] incredible couple to work with. Uh and very very much looking forward to this

[47:29] happening uh during stampede on July the 8th at uh John Peak Park. Okay, going

[47:35] back now. Uh we are looking at the public art display and uh Jen Pedlesson

[47:42] is here and has brought an entire crew with her uh which is awesome. So I'm not

[47:47] sure if I'm just calling Jen up or if I'm calling up her crew, but Miss

[47:50] Pedson, you're taking it away, I believe. [snorts]

[48:02] Thank you very much, Mayor Dean. And we're very happy to be here uh for uh a

[48:09] a bit of a mid mid-p presentation opening of the display of the plaques

[48:16] which we had printed to replace uh for safety reasons the original bronze and

[48:23] brass plaques that came from the uh summer village of Chester and the town

[48:28] of Chester. So these were the official plaques that were given to the

[48:32] municipality at that time. And because we were very worried, as you may know,

[48:37] these um have been stolen from many many uh uh places that they have been

[48:43] erected, we wanted to replace them. So we were happy to have received a grant

[48:47] for uh nearly $4,000 for from the city of Chester to print these in aluminum.

[48:54] So, we hope that that will not become some uh metal that needs to be ripped

[48:59] off historic sites. [laughter] So, we hope that will happen. Anyway, we really

[49:04] appreciated that grant and the fact that we had them. And we also appreciated I

[49:09] contacted Candace and and we worked with having a display out in the lobby and we

[49:14] hope that we might have a brief photo opportunity with you people uh outside.

[49:20] we can um hold them and maybe just take a picture to show our appreciation and

[49:26] your involvement in helping us with this word of mouth public art. And just so

[49:31] you know, the aluminum pieces that are to go on top are now out for

[49:36] manufacture. So we are we are like 80% there. [laughter]

[49:41] » Great. Thank uh how long is the display up for? Do we know how long we're having

[49:45] the display up for here at city hall? >> I think it's going to be up Where's

[49:50] Candice is here. There she is. >> Uh, Miss Dennison, I'll turn it over to

[49:53] you. >> Yeah.

[49:55] » We are keeping the display in city hall for at least a month, potentially more.

[49:59] We'll see what timing works. >> Okay. Thank you.

[50:02] » Good. >> Great. So, you wanted to do a photo with

[50:05] council here quick. >> Yes, we wanted to do a really quick

[50:07] photo op. Um, we were told that might be possible. So, let's go do it.

[50:12] » Absolutely. So, what we'll do is we'll take a quick recess and we'll come back

[50:15] at 9:25 uh to provide an opportunity for uh council to go out with the Ches

[50:20] Historical uh foundation to do this photo.

[50:23] » Thank you so much. >> Thank you.

[59:34] Great. Thank you. Okay. Uh we're just finishing up our uh council recognitions

[59:39] and announcements. Uh and I'm now going to be turning to uh Councelor Nion uh

[59:45] because councelor Nion has uh an announcement to make about another event

[59:50] that is happening uh this Saturday. Councelor and Ray.

[59:53] » Yes, good morning. Thank you

[1:00:02] and also doing various crime prevention initiatives. So, this Saturday from

[1:00:10] 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. the members of the police communications committee will

[1:00:16] be out in full force uh armed with security screws. So, we'll be putting

[1:00:23] security screws on license plate. It'll it's uh of course free for anyone that

[1:00:28] wishes to have uh those put on the vehicles. In case you're wondering what

[1:00:32] they are, these are special screws uh that we put on your license plates so

[1:00:37] that they don't get stolen and you don't want your stolen plates to be used um on

[1:00:42] another vehicle that is then used to commit a crime. So, uh we'll be out on

[1:00:46] the Safeway parking lot from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Um we'll you'll see a nice

[1:00:53] bright tent. So, please uh do stop by and um let us put on a screw um on your

[1:00:59] vehicle. I do have another matter and this I'm going to look to you your

[1:01:03] worship uh for some direction. Another thing that came out of the police

[1:01:08] communications committee uh was uh a request uh to administration

[1:01:16] to put out more education when it comes to e scooters. I do understand that this

[1:01:21] is something that council is discussion is in discussions right now. But if

[1:01:27] there's a way to put some form of education out there for um youth and

[1:01:32] families, really anyone um to uh prevent um to educate them and of course prevent

[1:01:40] any um any accidents from happening. >> Great. Thank you. I'm going to turn to

[1:01:45] uh CEO Edney uh on these two items. The first one I think uh is rather

[1:01:50] straightforward I think. Uh so Mr. Eddie, my first question is uh would it

[1:01:55] be possible uh through you to our communications team? Uh I believe that

[1:01:59] there was a motion that was made at police communications about uh a desire

[1:02:03] to see the event on Saturday promoted uh on the city uh social media channels to

[1:02:09] uh just raise some awareness. So I'm just wondering uh through you if that's

[1:02:13] a matter that administration could just pick up and do or would a further motion

[1:02:17] from council be needed. It was just a request from the committee to have that

[1:02:21] promoted on our social media channels uh going into Saturday's event and I do

[1:02:25] believe that uh councelor and Ryan has all the information that he could

[1:02:29] provide uh to administration as needed. Mr. Edney.

[1:02:33] » Yeah, through your mayor Dean. Yep. That's something we can do.

[1:02:36] » Okay. And no motion needed. You guys can just take care of that.

[1:02:38] » Yeah. >> Great. Thank you. On the second one, uh

[1:02:41] this is something that we're seeing certainly that I'm seeing uh in a number

[1:02:45] of municipalities. I have seen uh specifically I saw Strathmore uh come

[1:02:51] out with uh some messaging here uh in the past couple of weeks uh I know that

[1:02:57] uh many municipalities across Alberta are talking about and discussing uh e-

[1:03:01] scooters right now. So uh Mr. Edney I'm wondering about uh this request that's

[1:03:07] coming uh with regards to safety and e- scooters and a educational piece out on

[1:03:12] our uh coming from the city. What could that look like? Uh what are

[1:03:18] some possibilities with that? Uh how what information could even council Ryan

[1:03:23] bring back to uh police communications with regards to this? Mr. Edney.

[1:03:28] » Yeah, thanks Mayor Dean through you. Um I think I'd need to talk a bit more with

[1:03:32] the team on exactly what we would want to put out. Um I understand the concerns

[1:03:36] are of course riding on the sidewalks fast, not stopping at crosswalks, not

[1:03:41] wearing helmets, all those kind of things. So, I'd probably want to circle

[1:03:43] back with the CPOS's uh potentially and some of the other um staff just to see

[1:03:49] what are the problems we're seeing out there, what are the complaints we're

[1:03:51] getting, and then we can craft some messaging around that just to remind

[1:03:55] people of proper ecooter usage. Okay. Uh

[1:04:04] do you think that there is enough time to bring back

[1:04:10] I don't think we'd be looking for a full report uh but to bring back an answer to

[1:04:15] councelor Ryan's request with this and that it's really not his request. He's

[1:04:19] bringing it on behalf of the police communications committee. Do you think

[1:04:22] it'd be possible to bring back an answer uh on communication to the July 14th

[1:04:28] council meeting?

[1:04:33] » Uh Mr. Edney? >> Yeah, we can do that.

[1:04:36] » What do you see that looking like? Do we need a motion from council directing

[1:04:40] administration? That feels like a bit more of a motion. Uh but how do you see

[1:04:44] that playing out, Mr. Edney? >> Yeah, I think a motion would be

[1:04:48] appropriate. it's a little bit more um comprehensive than promoting just, you

[1:04:52] know, simply reposting or or posting quick information on an event. So, if

[1:04:57] you made a motion directing us to bring back some information on how we might

[1:05:00] communicate those issues, um we can do that for July 14th.

[1:05:05] » Okay. Uh Josh, I'm going to take a swing at an organic motion here. Uh council

[1:05:10] direct administration to bring back a response

[1:05:16] to the request from the Police Communications Committee

[1:05:27] on

[1:05:30] communications about ecooter safety

[1:05:37] in the city of Chester.

[1:05:42] Mr. Edy, how does that fit with you? Uh, sorry. To the July 14th regular meeting

[1:05:48] of council.

[1:05:52] » Does that work? Uh, councelor and Ryan, you good with that? Okay. Uh, council,

[1:05:58] any questions about the wording? Okay. Councelor and Ryan, would you like to

[1:06:01] bring that motion? >> Yes. concern Ryan

[1:06:04] » as move the council direct administration to bring back a response

[1:06:07] to the request from the police communications committee on

[1:06:09] communications about ease scooter safety in the city of chastir to the July 14th

[1:06:15] 2026 regular meeting of council >> thank you uh comments questions from

[1:06:19] council call for the vote

[1:06:26] » and that's carried unanimously thank you uh just looking to council to see if

[1:06:30] we've covered off all the items that uh we had for this morning for recognitions

[1:06:34] and announcements. Thank you. With that, uh I believe now

[1:06:40] we will move to uh a public input. Uh and so for public

[1:06:46] input, I do have uh Mr. Fred Deer who uh has signed up to uh come and bring a

[1:06:53] short uh commentary to council here this morning. Uh so because this is a regular

[1:06:58] meeting of council and not a gap meeting, which particular item on the

[1:07:01] agenda are you speaking to today? >> 10.53.

[1:07:05] » 10.53. Give me one second.

[1:07:11] » So this is the transitional residential TRR. Awesome. Thank you. Uh could I get

[1:07:15] you to take a half a step to your left so that you were speaking into the mic?

[1:07:18] Awesome. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.

[1:07:19] » Sure. Um, seeing how I did not uh get to speak to most the council members at the

[1:07:26] open house uh last week, um I prepared a written letter that outlines uh

[1:07:32] basically a full summary of what's gone on with TRR from the first time it was

[1:07:37] presented in 2015. Um when it was uh um the application at

[1:07:44] that time was uh denied by appeal because of uh things that were not done

[1:07:48] through the annexation agreement. And uh uh from there we subsequently

[1:07:54] um uh made another application in 219 which it took until uh 2023 to get

[1:08:02] conditional approval and then the TRR was finally uh my TRR was finally

[1:08:09] approved in 2025. So it was an 11-year process to get this

[1:08:15] through and uh it works. We've shown the city how it works, why it works, and

[1:08:22] what it was for to promote development in the acreage areas which have been

[1:08:27] frozen to development since Chester annexed us in 2009.

[1:08:33] So, I'd like to pass out this uh letter to everybody. Hopefully, you'll have

[1:08:38] time to uh do it before we come back.

[1:08:52] deal with the issues promoting and developing.

[1:09:03] » Sorry, just before making commentary, just make sure we go back on the mic so

[1:09:06] it's caught. Thank you.

[1:09:27] This report outlines the deferred and lost revenue by the city over this

[1:09:33] 11-year p uh timeline. It's substantial and council needs to look at it. Also,

[1:09:41] um this area is one of the most prime areas for development to the city right

[1:09:46] now to generate revenues by developing it. And it's time that the uh council

[1:09:53] and administration looked at forming some type of a committee to

[1:09:58] uh somehow get service extensions from Aspen Mir Road to Paradise uh to up to

[1:10:05] Windermir Road which allows for 65 acres readily developable which is uh

[1:10:14] it's 32.5 hectares which will generate under section 22 of the OSL levies

[1:10:20] almost $14.3 million to service these 65 acres and that is

[1:10:27] just a quarter of the revenues and the money that has been lost by ignoring the

[1:10:34] north acreage area. So in that submission hopefully you'll

[1:10:39] take the time to read my report and uh we'll be back for the open hearing

[1:10:45] before second and third reading. Great. Thank you. Um I'm going to turn

[1:10:51] to uh Director Chanak. I have a couple of questions. Um

[1:10:56] your hat. [snorts] >> Thank you. Uh Director Chanak, I just

[1:11:01] have a couple questions about this. Um I try not to step on uh I don't think

[1:11:07] you've been ignored. I think we've had multiple meetings. Uh so I I I do push

[1:11:12] back a little bit on the language of ignored. Uh we we continue. So, I have

[1:11:17] some encouragement on some things here, but I I really I really struggle with

[1:11:21] the language that you've been ignored. Uh just knowing how much staff time uh

[1:11:26] has been put in, how we continue to work on this, and I don't think a council any

[1:11:31] council uh in any circumstance can be held responsible for the actions and

[1:11:36] conduct of another council. So, I understand that for you for it's been 11

[1:11:39] years. I've sat in this seat for two. This council has sat in this seat for

[1:11:42] two. uh and I know the multiple times that I personally have met with you. Uh

[1:11:48] and so I don't I don't think you're being ignored to councelor Chanok. Um I

[1:11:53] wanted to open up the opportunity for uh there's an idea that uh so one of the

[1:11:58] things that I said last week was uh at the public hearing I did make mention

[1:12:03] that we may not have 100% buy in from all of the acreage owners. I think that

[1:12:09] that comment may have gotten um taken a little bit out of context and so I want

[1:12:14] to talk about let's I want to ignore not talk about the other areas right

[1:12:20] now. Okay. I want to talk specifically about the north acreage area. So we're

[1:12:25] not going to talk about east acreages right now. Although in theory this works

[1:12:28] but let's to Fred's concern um I want to talk about just the north acreage areas

[1:12:35] just for a moment. If the north acreages, sorry, one

[1:12:39] moment. If the north acreages, all of the residents in the north

[1:12:44] acreages supported development, could the city

[1:12:48] work with the work with the residents or how can you talk about the process of

[1:12:53] what it would look like if there was 100% buyin from all of them? Could we

[1:12:57] simply, and simply being maybe the wrong word,

[1:13:01] but simplistically put, could we just put in an ASP for that area, which would

[1:13:07] then essentially move everything forward if there was 100% buyin from all of the

[1:13:12] residents in the North Acreage area. Uh because I believe that one of the things

[1:13:16] that's held this up is that, but if we have different information that there's

[1:13:20] 100% support, is that a possibility that we could work on specifically for North

[1:13:25] Acrees? uh director Chandio >> through the chair. Thank you for that

[1:13:30] question. I was smiling because you you called me councelor Chandio and I was

[1:13:34] like woohoo >> did I [laughter]

[1:13:36] » sorry. >> Um so on on that note um regarding the

[1:13:42] ASP it is council's mandate to consider approve or refuse ASPs.

[1:13:50] Administration's job is to prepare ASPs and bring it to council. Uh

[1:13:56] as for owner support this is not mandatory.

[1:14:01] Uh you can have 10% of the owners supporting an ASP. You can have 100% of

[1:14:05] the owners supporting an ASP. You can have 0% of the owners supporting an ASP.

[1:14:09] Um but given the powers of givens the powers that have been accorded to

[1:14:14] council under the MGA council is the decision-making authority which means

[1:14:18] you as council get the authority to say yes or no to any policy documentation

[1:14:23] that administration bring forward uh to you. Now with that said uh would it be

[1:14:28] good to have 100% of the property owners on board when you're preparing an ASP?

[1:14:32] Of course yes. Uh but in all likelihood would you always have 100% of the owners

[1:14:38] supporting an ASP? I've never seen that happen. You'll always have someone um

[1:14:43] who's not necessarily supporting uh a policy documentation because it doesn't

[1:14:47] necessarily go in accordance with their plan of how they want to live their life

[1:14:50] and how they want to develop their land. In terms of north acreages, I've seen

[1:14:54] properties that are uh big acreages like 10 acre land, 5 acre land, and then

[1:14:59] there are parcels that are uh 2 acres uh that have a house on it. uh they're

[1:15:04] welldeveloped and I some of them have been um in decent shape which means the

[1:15:09] houses are there you don't need to bring them down or anything and in those cases

[1:15:13] I doubt any of those owners would support uh a densification ASP because

[1:15:18] you know they chose to live on that land because it offered certain level of I

[1:15:24] guess comfort uh and was in accordance with their idea of how they wanted to

[1:15:29] live. Um now if we go ahead and densify that area or prepare an ASP that

[1:15:32] densifies that area those [clears throat] owners might not support

[1:15:35] it. On the contrary if someone has a raw piece of land that uh is about 10 acres

[1:15:40] that they're sitting on uh they may want to densify uh that land. So you'll never

[1:15:44] have what I'm trying to get at is you'll never have 100% of support regardless

[1:15:48] either way. Um if you were to prepare an ASP we can do that. Council becomes the

[1:15:52] decision-m authority. Uh the residents land owners get to support it get to

[1:15:57] oppose it. uh you will never ever um have 100% um I guess support for uh a

[1:16:05] policy documentation but uh council ultimately becomes the approving

[1:16:09] authority for or uh the authority that sort of prepares and implements policies

[1:16:14] for a particular area. That's how the policy that's how the ASP process goes.

[1:16:20] » Yeah. I think one of the things that we do as council all the time is uh we make

[1:16:24] decisions knowing that I mean we can't put up or take down a stop sign without

[1:16:28] 100% support in either direction let alone an ASP. Uh however uh I think in a

[1:16:36] quick conversation that happened uh just uh previous to this uh there's been an

[1:16:42] indication that there may be more support in North Acrees than the city is

[1:16:46] aware of right now for development. So that's why I wonder uh if the next

[1:16:51] logical step is for for the city to be made aware of the level of support that

[1:16:58] is within North Acreages and perhaps specific again to North Acreages um that

[1:17:04] maybe that next step is the ASP >> through the chair to the chair I haven't

[1:17:09] necessarily seen or spoken to in my time here um

[1:17:16] with a lot of members of North Acrees. I was in the open house. Um

[1:17:21] something that I heard actually was contrary to uh NASP which was

[1:17:26] surrounding we bought this land uh considering that there will not be much

[1:17:32] development surrounding us and so we do not want that development is what I'd

[1:17:35] heard in the open house. Now um that was a verbal conversation that I had with u

[1:17:42] residents in the area. uh that does not necessarily

[1:17:46] put me in either direction of taking a uh sort of inclination on whether people

[1:17:52] want it or not want it. >> In my time here again I have only I

[1:17:57] guess spoken to one or two residents uh or one or two residents have come

[1:18:01] forward with the idea of densification. Outside of that I have not seen anyone

[1:18:06] come forward with the idea of densification. Now that is not to say

[1:18:09] that there aren't other people uh who aren't supportive of in support of this

[1:18:14] or there are uh people who aren't who aren't supportive of I just haven't seen

[1:18:18] them or met them. Uh nor have I seen any written documentation to say um in

[1:18:24] Northreges we are 200 residents and out of these 200 here is a letter uh signed

[1:18:29] by 160 residents to say that we are in support of an ASP. Even if we were to

[1:18:34] get that we would consider the long-term impact of preparing an ASP. Um and at

[1:18:40] that point uh we'll probably bring it to council at which point council can

[1:18:45] direct administration whether or not to choose to go ahead with an ASP. Uh

[1:18:49] because it is going to require resources. It is going to require time,

[1:18:52] effort, money, all of that stuff is going to go into uh that process. Uh but

[1:18:57] in my time like I said here, I haven't necessarily seen uh a lot of residents

[1:19:01] come forward with that demand or ask for an ASP for that area.

[1:19:05] » Okay. Uh Fred, I'm going to call her outside the lines a little bit uh and

[1:19:10] just provide you an opportunity for just a quick comment or question that you may

[1:19:13] have had there. >> I um I'd like to correct you with well

[1:19:17] I'd like to about being ignored. I would say we haven't been heard the city. We

[1:19:22] have met with them numerous times in the last decade even 11 12 years now.

[1:19:28] » I've met with Mr. uh Such um along with more than two uh members uh discussing

[1:19:37] the densification of this area. Mhm. >> I'd also like to point out to them that

[1:19:41] there are uh lots in the north acreage area that are not 2 acres and those

[1:19:47] people have chosen because they cannot access the TRR and they cannot access

[1:19:52] your new DCR which is restrictive in very nature and um they have voiced an

[1:20:01] opinion that they don't want development because they can't develop the rules

[1:20:05] aren't there for them. one and there's one other person who is a tenant and

[1:20:10] he's been boisterous. He's not a land owner, he's a tenant. So, I want you to

[1:20:14] get people to make sure that you know that um also the north acreage area

[1:20:20] should be quadranted because one quarter of it is ready for servicing. The rest

[1:20:26] is going to take a long time. And I believe right now from what I just heard

[1:20:31] from Mr. Chunwok um that uh we're just

[1:20:35] reinventing this wheel again. >> Uh director Chadak

[1:20:41] » through through the chair. Um two points of clarity that I'd like to provide.

[1:20:46] Number one is when we plan for areas, we don't specifically plan for one resident

[1:20:54] or two residents or five residents of the area. Planning and development uh is

[1:20:59] a bigger picture thing. uh which means the city gets to decide or chooses which

[1:21:06] pathway does it want to take for a specific area. It is not necessarily to

[1:21:13] uh support or not support one or more residents. That can be a consideration

[1:21:18] 100% but uh when we plan for areas we don't necessarily uh that's not the only

[1:21:24] factor you know that one of the residents will get to subdivide their

[1:21:27] land. Um at an ASP level, subdivision is uh one part of it. Um the bigger

[1:21:34] picture, the bigger part of it is how do we see ourselves 20 years from now? Uh

[1:21:38] and what's the vision for that area for 20 years from now?

[1:21:41] » Uh do we want to see it developed? Do we not want to see it developed or is it

[1:21:44] good in in in the state that it is in? Um is it significant? Is it going to

[1:21:49] require significant infrastructure improvements? Do we have the resources?

[1:21:52] Do we not have the resources? Does the residents have the resources to be able

[1:21:55] to do it? Um those are the considerations that we would have as the

[1:21:59] planning authority uh when we are planning for an area. We don't

[1:22:03] specifically go for Mr. uh Fred would get his subdivision approval. Uh while

[1:22:10] we would want to make that happen, it's not necessarily the only consideration

[1:22:14] that we would have when we're planning. It's a bigger much higher level

[1:22:18] conversation when we plan uh for areas. Um outside of that, uh Mr. Fred, I have

[1:22:25] met with Mr. Fred a few times. Um, I have met with him

[1:22:32] um on different occasions, but my only rec and this is not to counter your

[1:22:37] argument in any way or form. Um, my recollection of uh meeting with him is

[1:22:44] uh I've seen him and I've seen um another gentleman who's from Northreges.

[1:22:49] Outside of that, I've only seen members uh who are from East Acreages. So I

[1:22:54] haven't seen a lot of again public uh coming in with the idea of preparing an

[1:22:58] ASP. Like I said even if public wanted an ASP or residents wanted an ASP that

[1:23:03] discretion rests with council. It's not a decision. Now that is not to say that

[1:23:08] the residents cannot come forward with a proposal for an ASP. M

[1:23:13] » if the residents wanted to create an ASP of their own, they can form a union, a

[1:23:18] club, a group and come forward uh with an ASP to council and say council this

[1:23:24] is an ASP that we have prepared for this area. This is how we would like to see

[1:23:28] develop and if everybody's on board council can consider that ASP. Um ASPs

[1:23:33] are not only necessarily prepared by the cities, they're also prepared by

[1:23:38] developers or residents or or land owners. So um that opportunity 100%

[1:23:43] still exists. Um if residents wanted to come forward and prepare an ASP for

[1:23:48] their land for you know a group and if they can demonstrate that XYZ can happen

[1:23:54] um I don't think uh I don't want to speak for this council but the council

[1:23:59] will have to sort of consider that application um and say yes or no to it

[1:24:03] regardless of what the decision is but you'll have to still consider that

[1:24:06] application. Um, so that's also an avenue that the residents can exercise

[1:24:10] if they choose to have an ASP for that area.

[1:24:14] » So, I'm going to bring this back into the lines of public input and I'm going

[1:24:17] to make some suggestions. Number one, my first suggestion is uh I don't want to

[1:24:22] presuppose a vote, but I would be surprised uh if this goes differently.

[1:24:26] Um, we have uh some motions that are coming forward to us later on today as

[1:24:31] part of this meeting for us to uh book a public hearing uh for later in July. I

[1:24:37] believe the proposed date is July 28th, but I want to be careful because I don't

[1:24:40] want to presuppose a vote. Should that vote go and should a public hearing be

[1:24:44] booked for July 28th, I would highly encourage you that darn near right after

[1:24:50] if that's approved, uh, to provide that letter again via email to legislative

[1:24:55] services because then that letter becomes part of public record. I know

[1:24:59] that people may or may not like bureaucracy and the way that legislation

[1:25:02] works, but council needs to work under legislation because that's what tells us

[1:25:08] how we're supposed to work. So absolutely I cannot commit for other

[1:25:12] counselors. I will read your letter. I will absolutely take this information

[1:25:15] in. If you want this to be a part of public record. Should that motion pass

[1:25:20] today, I highly well I don't know if it will pass today, I highly encourage you

[1:25:27] to then submit this letter as part of the public hearing process because then

[1:25:31] it becomes a matter of public record. Number one. Number two, between now and

[1:25:35] then, should that motion pass, I would also further encourage you, the city has

[1:25:41] kind of like given you a lot of hints here this morning as to ways that you

[1:25:48] could proceed. And if I were a North Acreage owner interested in development,

[1:25:53] what I might do between now and the possible public hearing, I cannot

[1:25:57] presuppose a vote, and I'm willing to say all this again when it comes to the

[1:26:01] time of the voting. have a letter come back that is signed

[1:26:06] by as many North acreages as you have if there's an interest in them doing an ASP

[1:26:12] because then it gives council a different consideration. Right? So those

[1:26:15] are my two recommendations. Uh take and do with them what you will. I also

[1:26:20] cannot presuppose how a vote's going to go uh later on today. Uh but I just I

[1:26:26] would encourage you to uh think about the um ideas that have been provided by

[1:26:33] the city on some paths forward that would follow legislative process.

[1:26:39] » Sure. Final comment. >> Okay. Um

[1:26:47] we will be back to to deal with this through the public hearing and that will

[1:26:51] become public record. >> Perfect.

[1:26:52] » Uh for sure. Um, as for an ASP, um, since 2015, we've been told that we

[1:27:02] don't need a two an ASP to develop with the property. The TRR was put in place

[1:27:08] to avoid that and showed gradual densification

[1:27:13] in a hope to be able to stir up even more densification.

[1:27:19] That property needs to be developed and the city needs the revenues.

[1:27:23] » Thank you. I'm going to cut you off there. You are absolutely right. You do

[1:27:28] not You're going to like half my statement, but you're not going to like

[1:27:32] the second half. You are absolutely right.

[1:27:36] You do not need an ASP to develop. That is absolutely true.

[1:27:40] What I am saying is that if you if according to a statement that you made

[1:27:47] to me offline, if a 100% of North Acreages is looking at doing that,

[1:27:54] a possible easier path to development of the area is an ASP because it is your

[1:28:03] opinion that that area needs to be developed. And if you have support of

[1:28:09] that within there, I would highly encourage you to bring back the evidence

[1:28:14] thereof to this council for council to be able

[1:28:18] to make a further informed decision.

[1:28:25] » Sorry, I'm going to end the back and forth. Uh I have I don't think I can be

[1:28:31] more clear about um providing you a solution. I just this the mayor and

[1:28:40] administration just outlined a solution for you. I would say to you

[1:28:46] [laughter] with that as you will between now and the possible public hearing that

[1:28:50] may be coming.

[1:28:55] » Okay. Uh I have received a note from uh administration that there may be

[1:29:01] somebody else that is wanting to speak uh as part of public input and I believe

[1:29:05] Mr. Colin Gil uh is coming forward with a uh presentation. Mr. Gil,

[1:29:11] » good morning. >> Uh my name is Colin Gil. I resigned on

[1:29:16] Paradise Road 3 uh 243 059 and I also have a partnership with

[1:29:22] uh 243211 and 243229.

[1:29:27] So that combines uh total of uh 25 acres of land that I have

[1:29:36] I have access to I guess or whichever way you want to put it but you know one

[1:29:40] of the things I wanted to appreciate uh I know your comments regards to this. So

[1:29:45] we started this in 2023 the TRR there has been a lot of work you know no doubt

[1:29:51] about it. I I think the community um just to kind of you guys know but it's

[1:29:57] 300 I don't know 56 acres of north acreages. That's how big the acreage

[1:30:03] property is. 68 owners. So that's 68 owners on Paradise Roadside and Rainbow

[1:30:10] Side. And we do know that Rainbow Side is going to take another four or five

[1:30:14] years to develop. Right. So we're talking about Paradise Roadside 36

[1:30:20] residents. Okay. Out of the 36, we have 32 residents that I'm part of the North

[1:30:26] Acreage Unofficial Association group. Okay. So,

[1:30:32] that's what it is. So, um just to kind of say that, you know, there's a lot of

[1:30:37] comments around um you know, people say wanting development, people don't

[1:30:43] wanting development. Again, I I I point out to Soch's uh comment there. It's

[1:30:48] it's not everybody that needs to, but it also needs to be, you know, we have

[1:30:52] residents that just built a brand new house in the 2 acres. We know that

[1:30:56] they're not going to develop. You know, I have a conversation with that, but he

[1:31:00] has no problem, but he just, you know, I would I would be the same thing, right?

[1:31:05] So, I think that's where it becomes is that we really need to kind of look at

[1:31:10] it. ASP. Yes. You know, in 2015, if you pull up your own records, $236,000

[1:31:17] it was going to cost for ASP. So that's 2015. Now we're in 2026.

[1:31:22] » So just do the numbers. Okay? It's going to be over a half a million dollars.

[1:31:28] Okay? And out of that survey, there was only five owners that said no to

[1:31:34] development, and they were on the Paradise Acreage side right beside where

[1:31:38] I live. and they were here today this morning. So, and majority of those

[1:31:43] residents out of the five we bought three of them. Okay. So, only few are

[1:31:49] left now, right? So, but I think at the end of the day, we can argue argue who's

[1:31:55] going to develop, who's not going to develop unless we do a survey or unless

[1:31:59] we do something and say, "Hey, this is what we're doing. Are you in or not?"

[1:32:04] » Right? That's that's the one point. And the other point is looking at what do we

[1:32:09] do want what we want to what we want out of these acreages. That's the whole

[1:32:13] solution, right? Do we want to spend a ASP wait for three years?

[1:32:19] We've been waiting since 2023 or 2015 ASP half a million dollars.

[1:32:26] What does it cost to put in services from Paradise from Marina all the way

[1:32:30] down to Aston Drive? >> Okay. Where's a m what's a what's worth

[1:32:38] fastest way to do it? >> Right. And the other one is I think I

[1:32:42] don't know if all of you guys know I live there. The traffic is is really

[1:32:47] like last you know ask any of the peace officers

[1:32:52] 120 120 129 kilometers an hour on Paradise Road. He got pulled over.

[1:32:59] » Mhm. His daughter was not wearing a seat belt.

[1:33:03] 129 on Paradise Road and a 50 zone. >> That's only not even a one. There's

[1:33:08] multiple ones. And I was trying to get a data from them. Safety is a concern. Now

[1:33:14] in the summer, kids are driving their you know, scooters, bicycles on Paradise

[1:33:20] Road. Um you know, no lights, right? So aside from safety aspect of things,

[1:33:27] aside from development things, what are we going to do? Like how do we want that

[1:33:30] street to look like? Mhm. >> That street is like literally coming

[1:33:35] into Chester. >> People that come from out of town, they

[1:33:39] take that road. >> They missed the main entrance to that,

[1:33:43] right? So, you know, I I think that's where my my point is really look at the

[1:33:48] numbers, look at what we want to do. I you know it's no no doubt about it that

[1:33:53] you guys been working together uh as well as we have been and the recent um

[1:34:00] conversation I have few with few counselors was that we

[1:34:04] you know um when we look at ASP another part is that you know Mark is not here

[1:34:10] but when you guys look at your >> storm water

[1:34:13] » I am going to need you to wrap it up >> okay wrap it up just the storm water it

[1:34:17] is divided up between two sections as well right So that is what we we're

[1:34:22] trying to focus on the top section here. >> Mhm.

[1:34:24] » Because we know that uh you know there's 60 55 acres of development land there

[1:34:30] and the bottom is on a different section. So so that has to be divided

[1:34:35] away. So that's all I had for you guys. >> Thank you. Uh I guess I would just have

[1:34:40] the same comment of uh I am not saying that the ASP is the solution. And if

[1:34:46] anyone's heard that, I don't know how you heard that cuz I never said it. What

[1:34:49] I am saying is that you have said a similar comment that I want to capture

[1:34:56] and that is in 2015 it was this and now it's this and now there are less owner

[1:35:01] of those owners the city having that whether that be in writing

[1:35:08] on signed documents that is like demonstrates that is those addresses any

[1:35:13] of those particular things certainly helps in the decision-making process.

[1:35:19] Right. And so I don't know how much more clear I can be uh with regards uh to

[1:35:26] that. So I'm going to go to council warinowski and then director Chanok and

[1:35:30] then we are going to need to move on because we do have a rather packed

[1:35:33] agenda today. Uh so uh and this is coming back as a debatable item for

[1:35:38] council here later on today. Uh councelor Warzinowski.

[1:35:41] » No, thank you Mayor Dean. I was going to reinforce some of the commentary and

[1:35:44] what you suggested. What I like about through the chair to you uh Mr. Gil

[1:35:50] Colin um you've simplified that there may be an opportunity for a spec

[1:35:56] specific group of residents >> and we have one job up here as council

[1:36:01] is to represent our residents. If you have a majority of residents that want

[1:36:04] to move forward with anything, bring it forward and do it as formally as you

[1:36:09] can. I would suggest as the mayor has, do it as formally as you can and let's

[1:36:13] find out what the challenges are. um and and then it'll come to council

[1:36:17] resolution um as opposed to looking at a greater picture that may be more complex

[1:36:22] uh at for example all of the acreages northsoutheast or otherwise whether it's

[1:36:27] TRR or or any mechanism um I know as a counselor I'd gladly look at an

[1:36:34] opportunity if the majority of residents in a specific area uh would look at that

[1:36:39] regardless of what happened over the last 18 years. So I appreciate your your

[1:36:45] uh clarification today. Thank you. >> Yeah. Yeah. And yes, and it's providing

[1:36:50] that clarification in a form of writing with a signing off thereof of the people

[1:36:57] involved. Director Chanok, >> thank you. Uh through chair, um just a

[1:37:03] point of clarity, I'm not 100% sure um on the intent of the ASP. If

[1:37:12] » Sure. >> If the idea surrounding the ASP is that

[1:37:15] it'll make development happen, >> then it doesn't work like that.

[1:37:19] » Mh. >> Um ASPs provide an overarching policy

[1:37:24] direction on how that area is going to get developed. It does not mean that you

[1:37:30] still as a land owner, you still do do not have to go through the process of

[1:37:34] reszoning. It does not mean the city is going to install services. You still are

[1:37:38] the developer and you'll still as land owner will have to install services.

[1:37:41] you'll still have to do the detailed engineering design for any of those

[1:37:45] parcels. Um, so ASP, having an ASP or not having an ASP does not necessarily

[1:37:51] change the development process. Having an ASP gives you a little bit

[1:37:56] more clarity on how that area is going to get developed as a whole. Uh, but it

[1:38:01] does not necessarily in any way or form stop development. You can still reszone.

[1:38:08] You can still install services. You you'll still have to go through all the

[1:38:11] steps regardless of having an ASP or not. The purpose of ASP is only to set

[1:38:18] the high level direction of how that area is going to get developed. That is

[1:38:23] it. Outside of that, the infrastructure cost, the reasoning, uh the development

[1:38:29] cost, subdivision, all of it is still going to be borne by the land owners. Um

[1:38:35] and so if the intent of the area is actually to develop a vision for the

[1:38:39] sorry intent of the conversation is to actually develop a vision for how that

[1:38:43] area is going to get developed then the ASP conversation is a relevant one.

[1:38:47] » Um but if the idea is it is going to enable development in any way or form it

[1:38:52] is not the intent of the ASP that's not why ASPs are prepared. So I just wanted

[1:38:58] to provide that clarity um while this conversation is ongoing. No, thank you.

[1:39:02] And that's exactly what I was getting at. I know like one of the things that I

[1:39:06] appreciated about you uh the most, director Chanok, is the clarity that you

[1:39:10] bring, whether offline or online. Uh and uh the the um

[1:39:17] education that you've given me in this role because it's a lot to learn when

[1:39:20] you sit in this chair uh for whether you're the mayor or counselors. And so I

[1:39:24] appreciate that. Um yeah, I am in no and if that was heard then I apologize for

[1:39:29] misrepresenting it. I in no way was suggesting that the ASP then unlocks

[1:39:32] development. That is not what I was suggesting in any way, shape or form.

[1:39:36] What I was suggesting is it does provide the possibility of clarity for what that

[1:39:41] area could look like. And to council Warzinowski's point that if there is a

[1:39:46] possibility of separating in a way that the three areas of the acreages if you

[1:39:50] will and if that if the majority of North acreages area is looking to go and

[1:39:56] looking for clarity as to what an overall plan could look like that's

[1:40:00] exactly what I've been getting at for the last 20 minutes uh is that's what I

[1:40:05] am suggesting. Absolutely. And I apologize if I if if if there was a

[1:40:10] misunderstanding. I certainly did not mean in any way, shape or form that

[1:40:15] automatically good, we have an ASP development happens. That is certainly

[1:40:18] not what I meant. Uh and so if that was heard by the residents and I apologize

[1:40:22] because that's that's not even the process. Uh so thank you for clarifying

[1:40:26] that uh director Chand Councelor Warzowski then we do need to move on.

[1:40:29] Council Wars. >> Yeah. The only comment I make having

[1:40:32] certain properties already serviceable is a game changer for decision-m so

[1:40:38] we can't reinforce it enough. Let's get organized, bring it to council, and

[1:40:42] let's move forward, especially if there's these sweet spots of development

[1:40:45] that that may be feasible for residents who want it. Thank you,

[1:40:49] » Mr. G. I'll give you a final comment. >> Final comment. So, yes, thank you for

[1:40:53] coming back. My the only point was was looking at the cost and analysis, right?

[1:40:57] So my I still believe that this paradise area is

[1:41:04] most revenue generating for the city of Chester with less cost involved. That's

[1:41:10] all I want to leave it out with because if you look generally throughout

[1:41:14] Chesmere where can the city make the most money

[1:41:18] or revenue out of it is Paradise Road to my believing. That's all I want to leave

[1:41:22] it to you guys. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Appreciate it. Okay. I think we

[1:41:26] need a motion here to accept uh the information presented at the public

[1:41:29] hearing. Sorry, public input for information. Josh,

[1:41:35] [clears throat]

[1:41:38] uh can I have a counselor make the following motion, please? Councelor and

[1:41:40] Ryan, >> move the council accept the public input

[1:41:43] regarding transational rural residential TRR for information.

[1:41:48] » Comments, questions from council. Call for the vote.

[1:41:54] And that's carried it out. say thank you. Uh going to tackle maybe one or two

[1:41:59] here before uh taking our break. Let's uh get the um possible easy ones out of

[1:42:06] the way if you will. So uh first of all looking to council if anyone has a uh

[1:42:10] need for a declaration of conflict of interest.

[1:42:15] Seeing none, uh awards and proclamations. We do have uh one uh

[1:42:20] proclamation today uh and that is for Canadian Multiculturalism Day on June

[1:42:25] the 27th. Uh so whereas June 27th is Canadian Multiculturalism Day, a day to

[1:42:31] recognize and honor the rich cultural diversity inherent in Canada's history

[1:42:34] and society that brought us to this day. And whereas this significant day affords

[1:42:39] the people of Alberta an opportunity to celebrate the rich cultural mosaic of

[1:42:43] the province to recognize the individual contributions from individuals from all

[1:42:48] backgrounds and that help strengthen the vitality

[1:42:52] and prosperity of our communities. And whereas the city of Chesameir remains

[1:42:56] committed to fostering a culture of cooperation, equality, and respect while

[1:43:01] recognizing and valuing the contributions of diverse multicultural

[1:43:05] groups and communities. And therefore, I, Shannon Dean, mayor of the city of

[1:43:09] Chesmir, do hereby proclaim June 27th, 2026 in the city of Chesameir as

[1:43:15] Canadian Multiculturism Day. [clears throat]

[1:43:20] Okay, with that, uh, can I have council accept the Canadian altruism day

[1:43:25] proclamation for information? Councelor Randawa.

[1:43:29] » Thank you, your worship. I move that the council accept the Canadian

[1:43:32] multiculturalism day proclamation for information.

[1:43:37] » Comments, questions from councel. Call for the vote.

[1:43:44] That's carried unanimously. Thank you. Uh, we now have the minutes from our

[1:43:49] June 9th regular meeting of council. Can I have a counselor make a motion to

[1:43:53] accept the minutes from the June 9th regular meeting of council, please?

[1:43:59] Council Randall. >> Thank you, your chief. I move that the

[1:44:03] council approved the June 9, 2026 regular meeting of council minutes as

[1:44:08] presented. >> Thank you. Uh, comments, questions from

[1:44:12] councel? Call for the vote.

[1:44:19] And that's carried unanimously. Thank you. Uh

[1:44:25] and uh looking for a motion to approve the June 16th governance and priorities

[1:44:30] uh meeting minutes. Councelor >> Thank you, worship, and good morning. I

[1:44:35] actually have an amendment for these minutes.

[1:44:38] » Okay. Um, under item 12.1, it's noted councelor Sanbo declared a conflict of

[1:44:43] in interest pertaining to agenda item 11.4.

[1:44:46] Um, however, I don't see an 11.4.

[1:45:08] Yeah. So, I think the 11.4 should read 12.1.

[1:45:17] » No, that's what we went into in camera about. So, it's in relation to item 12.1

[1:45:22] because that's what we went into in camera about. Uh, councelor

[1:45:27] » Thank you, your worship. Um, there was another item that was not in closed

[1:45:31] session that was on the agenda. I'm assuming that's what 11.4 was intended

[1:45:35] to be, but it maybe just didn't make its way into the minutes. [snorts]

[1:45:40] » I'm sorry. Go to leg services. >> Uh, thank you, your worship and through

[1:45:45] you to councelor So, just a correction on the declaration on your uh

[1:45:50] first concern. So, that's 11.4 is actually pertaining to that actual

[1:45:55] agenda item. So that number matches the actual agenda, not the minutes items.

[1:46:00] That's why so the minutes are always going to be different numbering than the

[1:46:04] agenda when we add different items in. That's where maybe that confusion is

[1:46:09] coming from. >> Councelor Uh if I could your

[1:46:12] worship through you. Which item is it in the minutes

[1:46:27] because your worship I believe that was a facility or uh capital projects update

[1:46:34] I believe is where that came out of. Yeah, I think it's I think it's 12.1.

[1:46:40] The West Chester Drive roundabout. >> Yeah, it's 12.1. So, on the agenda, it

[1:46:46] may have been 11.4 and in the minutes it's 12.1.

[1:46:50] » Okay. If Ledge Services is satisfied with that, that's fine. I just want to

[1:46:53] make sure that it's uh clear in the minutes why that was declared.

[1:46:59] » Okay, we're good then. Okay. Uh Deputy Mayor Schindler.

[1:47:04] » Yeah. Uh just just a um pedantic um uh comment. I I see um on here quite a bit

[1:47:12] and maybe missed it in the other ones. Uh when we call a recess uh it uh the

[1:47:19] note says uh regular meeting of council when in fact this was a governance and

[1:47:23] priorities meeting. So I'm just curious if if that uh can be uh adjusted uh

[1:47:30] based on the meetings that we're in. Does that make sense?

[1:47:35] » Yeah, they're changing it right now. Okay.

[1:47:42] [clears throat]

[1:47:53] Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, can I have a counselor make

[1:47:58] the motion to approve the June 16, 2026 governance and priorities committee

[1:48:02] meeting minutes as amended with the noted amendment, please?

[1:48:07] » Councelor >> Certainly, your worship. I move that

[1:48:10] council approve the June 16th, 2026 governance and priorities committee

[1:48:14] meeting minutes as amended. Change the mention of regular meeting of council to

[1:48:18] governance and priorities committee. >> Uh, thank you. Comments, questions from

[1:48:22] council. call for the vote

[1:48:30] and that's carried unanimously. Thank you. Uh looking to business arising out

[1:48:35] of the minutes, I just had a quick question on the followup. Uh we had

[1:48:39] approved for me to sign the letter of support uh for uh for the from the

[1:48:45] request from Strathmore and we had just said that there was a small change that

[1:48:48] needed to be done to the letter looking to administration. I haven't received uh

[1:48:52] the letter back yet uh from Mayor Fuel. I'm wondering if administration has

[1:48:56] received one and if not if administration would like me to reach

[1:49:00] out to the mayor uh or if we'll reach out to Strathmore for the updated. So

[1:49:04] just looking to our CEO and LED services to see if we'd receive that up updated

[1:49:10] copy of the letter. I'm seeing a shaking of head. Okay. Uh so Mr. Eddie, would

[1:49:14] you like me to reach out to Mayor Fuel and ask for the updated copy? Yes. Okay.

[1:49:18] So, I will reach out to Mayor Fuel and uh just find out about that. Great.

[1:49:22] Thank you.

[1:49:31] Okay, with that, I'm going to suggest that we take a uh short 10-minute break.

[1:49:35] We'll come back at 10:25. Thanks, everyone.

[1:58:55] Good morning everyone. Uh just coming back now to our meeting and now we're

[1:58:59] moving on to our next item uh which is item uh 10.1.1 which is the uh chestir

[1:59:07] municipal heritage advisory committee recommendations. Uh I am Oh, this is

[1:59:12] being presented by Miss Emily White. Uh good morning.

[1:59:18] » Uh good morning, Mayor and Council. Um I'm Emily White with Legislative

[1:59:22] Services and today I am presenting on behalf of the Chester Municipal Heritage

[1:59:28] Advisory Committee. um as they on May 21st they made two recommendations

[1:59:36] um to council and they are just looking for these two recommendations to be

[1:59:42] considered. Um so the first one is they are just looking to add a couple display

[1:59:48] cabinets here at city hall just to display a few artifacts

[1:59:52] as to add a little bit of color of this right now is there are a number of

[1:59:56] artifacts sitting um and being stored here at city hall. However, they are not

[2:00:01] being adequately displayed. Members of the public are not able to view them.

[2:00:05] And so the heritage advisory committee is just recommending that we have a

[2:00:09] couple cabinets to to be displayed. And in conjunction, we would also work with

[2:00:14] the historical foundation. And the second recommendation that came from

[2:00:18] this May 21st meeting was uh for council to consider supporting and hosting um a

[2:00:25] 50-year anniversary event in 2027 that um the heritage advisory committee

[2:00:31] would work on. And from the administrative side, we are just looking

[2:00:35] for potentially a motion to look into the feasibility of both of these as

[2:00:38] there would be some potential cost financial implications and resource

[2:00:43] implications. I may also lead on to both of the counselors who sit on this

[2:00:47] committee if they have anything further to add um to this report.

[2:00:52] » Thank you. I'm going to go to Mr. Edney on this. So there's clearly a budget

[2:00:56] implication on the first one. Uh and uh this one to me feels very much like an

[2:01:01] administrative process uh in terms of uh well this is admin's work. So how would

[2:01:08] you how would you see us uh tackling this one at the moment? I do how would

[2:01:13] you see us tackling this one at the moment, Mr. Edney?

[2:01:16] » Thank you, Mayor Dean. Um yeah, if council's open to this idea, I'd make

[2:01:20] the motion for us to do that. Um, then if we have any budget considerations

[2:01:25] that we do need to bring back to council, like i.e. we need to buy these

[2:01:28] display cases. I don't know if we have some in the basement or something that

[2:01:32] could be repurposed or something that could get donated, but we could go

[2:01:35] figure that out and and get this task done and then if there's any budget

[2:01:40] considerations, we'll just bring that back as part of our regular process.

[2:01:45] » Yeah, I think we've had a strong focus on wanting to celebrate our history.

[2:01:49] We've we've talked a lot about the idea of uh strong comm community communities

[2:01:53] as they move into their future really build on their past and I I I see this

[2:01:58] as playing off of that and I would certainly welcome if uh if any counselor

[2:02:02] uh but especially one of the two counselors I believe it's councelor

[2:02:05] Grant and councelor who sit on this committee if councelor Grant or

[2:02:09] councelor uh want to bring forward a motion uh literally that council

[2:02:15] directed administration to consider adding display cabinets It's like just

[2:02:19] basically adapt the wording of this. Uh then I think that that uh so looking to

[2:02:26] do I have a council that would like to make the following motion. Councelor

[2:02:28] Grant. >> Thank you, Mayor Dean. As I was laughing

[2:02:31] as Josh slowly dragged the motion across the screen as you were talking. Um I

[2:02:35] move that council direct administration to add display cabinets in the lobby of

[2:02:38] city hall that will display and identify historical items of significance and

[2:02:42] collaborate with the Chester Historical Foundation on the dimensions of the

[2:02:46] display cabinet. Uh, Mr. Any, any any concerns with the

[2:02:50] wording of the motion? No. Okay. Uh, comments, questions from council,

[2:02:57] councelor Randawa. >> Thank you, your worship. I just have one

[2:03:00] comment. Um, I love this one. No problem. I will definitely support. Uh,

[2:03:05] but for the future, for in not now, but it's for the long term. Don't we the

[2:03:12] like we have to consider uh museum? So even on a smaller because I want uh this

[2:03:19] history to keep because even anytime um we go to even smaller municipality or

[2:03:26] smaller village they always have small museum so their history is there so we

[2:03:30] don't have something like that this is um I would love to if administration or

[2:03:36] how this have possible for the future I would love to bring this forward. Yes.

[2:03:42] Thank you. Uh, councelor >> thank you. Your worship through you. I

[2:03:46] can speak to that a little bit as one of the members of the committee. 100,000%.

[2:03:50] Yes. Um, so the historical foundation has been doing work related to

[2:03:56] historical artifacts and preservation of artifacts for many many years, but the

[2:04:00] city's role has been really ad hoc until this committee was put in place. So, it

[2:04:03] is a conversation that the committee has had. And some of the steps that um we've

[2:04:09] taken towards that include getting an understanding of how the uh digital

[2:04:14] management system uh digital asset management system is working to see if

[2:04:19] that can uh support some archival information and then also uh we invited

[2:04:24] a member of staff who's responsible for that uh function to uh come in come and

[2:04:29] let the committee know what is happening at the city. I think the major barrier

[2:04:34] right now just with most things is space and cost. Um but it's it's one of the

[2:04:38] items on our list of uh what to do. Um the priorities that council has approved

[2:04:44] for this committee include um a retention policy for artifacts and that

[2:04:50] plays into that. So, as part of that work, that would be um the direction

[2:04:54] that the committee was uh intending to make um intending to advise council on

[2:05:00] is in the future what that could look like.

[2:05:02] » Great. Thank you for that comment. Any other comments, questions from council

[2:05:06] with regards to the motion. Call for the vote

[2:05:13] and that's carried unanimously. Thank you. Uh there was a second uh suggestion

[2:05:17] was that was in here. council to consider supporting city and hosting

[2:05:21] 2027 50-y year anniversary event. Uh I would love to see this added as part of

[2:05:26] our uh 2027 events calendar. Uh we had we had become a 10-year city uh

[2:05:36] last year and uh would have loved to have seen us capitalize on that

[2:05:40] opportunity uh to uh celebrate the 10 years. So, uh, with that, uh, us

[2:05:46] celebrating a 50-y year anniversary, uh, for the, um, celebrating, uh, the city

[2:05:52] of Chesamer, I think would be a fantastic idea and would love to see a

[2:05:56] motion, uh, that council direct administration to add, uh, a 50-year

[2:06:01] anniversary event to the 2027 events calendar.

[2:06:06] So, Josh, if I could have that motion, please.

[2:06:16] Thank you. Uh, do I have a counselor that would like to make the following

[2:06:19] motion, please? Deputy Mayor Schindler. >> I move that council direct

[2:06:23] administration to add a 50-year anniversary event to the 2027 events

[2:06:29] calendar. >> Thank you. Uh, comments, questions from

[2:06:32] council.

[2:06:36] Call for the vote.

[2:06:43] Deputy Mayor.

[2:06:47] » Thank you. And that's carried unanimously. Thank you.

[2:06:49] » Awesome. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[2:06:52] Okay. Now moving to item 10.2.1 which is policy 862 creating access and

[2:06:57] partnering in recreation policy being presented by Miss Kathy Russell special

[2:07:02] projects and Kylie Hoskins manager of corporate facilities and recreation.

[2:07:06] Good morning. Good morning. Welcome. Um,

[2:07:12] please note that all of my comments shall be made through the CAO to your

[2:07:16] worship and all members of council. Um, my presentation will be five minutes or

[2:07:21] so. Um, basically I'd like to highlight a few items in the policy and then open

[2:07:27] it up for discussion. As background, the policy was originally reviewed by the

[2:07:32] recreation committee. We um we had pretty good discussions and then it also

[2:07:37] was internally circulated. So we had parallegal and ledge services various

[2:07:42] departments providing feedback. It it also went to the CRCA and the golf

[2:07:48] course membership group. So there has been several sets of eyes on the policy.

[2:07:54] Um the purpose of the policy is to um is to start to think about how as a city

[2:08:02] you know having a documented policy so that we can identify our priorities as a

[2:08:07] municipality in particular as far as how we work with our partners.

[2:08:13] Um hold on just get this.

[2:08:18] So the policy provides a clear framework for developing partnerships in a formal

[2:08:24] way. It also speaks to a philosophical statement about the importance of

[2:08:29] accessibility for recreation because that is a primary role of

[2:08:34] municipalities. Um even more so than provinces or the

[2:08:38] federal government or any other organization. Municipalities have a very

[2:08:43] important role to play in recreation and it provides guidance to ensure that the

[2:08:48] city safeguards its investments um and also behaves as a good steward.

[2:08:55] The only point I wanted to make about this slide is that this is the first

[2:08:59] policy we have and it's fairly broad in some areas. I had done that

[2:09:05] intentionally because um you know I suspect that will grow into it and it

[2:09:09] will definitely change and be a living document that needs to be updated.

[2:09:16] So a few things I wanted to mention about it. Um one is about the comment

[2:09:21] here. Municipally owned and partner funded recreation assets cannot be held

[2:09:25] for the exclusive use of a specific membership over an extended period of

[2:09:30] time. The intention is not to be restrictive but it's intended to convey

[2:09:36] the priority that when the public or partners are using municipal assets um

[2:09:43] the idea is to promote public participation and you know the public

[2:09:46] good um for as many people as possible. So, schedule A or schedule 4 speaks to

[2:09:53] examples and there are lots of different examples that uh would apply and at the

[2:10:00] bottom it also speaks to the fact that we need to think about the different

[2:10:04] types of recreation amenities that are out there. So, a golf course would be

[2:10:09] very different than than a recreation facility or a soccer pitch. Um so, we

[2:10:15] need to have that flexibility.

[2:10:19] The second point is around the reference to the access to recreation as it

[2:10:24] relates to the long-term athletic development model which is established

[2:10:28] by the Canadian Sport for life society. uh more and more across the country,

[2:10:33] clubs, municipalities, different groups are starting to use this as a framework

[2:10:39] and it is that it's a really strong framework that speaks to the

[2:10:43] developmental um the development of children in

[2:10:47] particular the young youth in sport. So it serves as a good model to um kind of

[2:10:53] overlay when we're looking at access policies or if we're looking at

[2:10:57] scheduling policies or investment approaches that type of thing. So in

[2:11:02] spec specifically it speaks to the fact that as a municipality we would be

[2:11:08] delivering and supporting at the grassroots stages of development.

[2:11:14] um and that at the higher levels which would be national high performance elite

[2:11:19] um participation or you know training that we would typically do that in

[2:11:24] partnership with other organizations or bodies. Um so it does provide some

[2:11:30] clarity but again pretty general about what would our role be and primarily

[2:11:35] it's grassroots but it doesn't um not it doesn't exclude any level as long as

[2:11:43] like it would really depend on the model that were would were to be involved.

[2:11:51] Sorry. Um the next point I wanted to make was about the definition of what I

[2:11:56] call social recreation organizations. Um in some case some municipalities

[2:12:02] limit their partnerships to nonprofit organizations

[2:12:06] and in this case it does not. So for-profit organizations are also

[2:12:11] included in the definition and that was done intentionally so that should we be

[2:12:16] interested in working with um you know future ICE uh for-profit organizations

[2:12:24] that would be open it it gives us the greatest degree of flexibility.

[2:12:33] Um and then with respect to leases and license of occupations, there are

[2:12:38] several pages dedicated to this topic. Um just as background, what I did in

[2:12:45] this area was I Calgary has um hundreds and hundreds of partnership

[2:12:51] uh partnerships and they have multiple different departments that interact with

[2:12:56] these partner groups. So I spent quite a bit of time talking to different

[2:13:00] departments about how do they do it? What are the issues? What lessons have

[2:13:04] they learned? So from that I pulled out what I would call the basics and put

[2:13:10] that in the document. It didn't include that the policy doesn't include of

[2:13:15] course you know the level of detail that would have been included in in um

[2:13:20] Calgary's policies.

[2:13:28] And then as you saw there are different schedules at the back that reference um

[2:13:34] you know different clauses in the policy that are uh provide more detail. So

[2:13:40] those are the points that I wanted to raise and bring to your attention and if

[2:13:44] there are any other um you know if you have questions or comments I'd pass it

[2:13:49] back to the chair. >> Councelor

[2:13:54] Thank you your worship through to Mr. Edney and Miss Russell. Thank you for

[2:13:57] the presentation for all the work. I know a lot of folks have uh provided

[2:14:00] feedback on this. Would you mind discussing a little bit more about what

[2:14:04] the feedback was from the parties who reviewed the document? Uh the recreation

[2:14:10] committee specifically um uh but also other parties what what was their

[2:14:14] feedback and changes or updates to document

[2:14:19] » broadly Kathy not itemized. [laughter] Okay, that's a

[2:14:25] so with respect to feedback from the recreation committee, um there were

[2:14:30] several clauses that were added. Um, for example, in one of the schedules, it

[2:14:36] speaks to data collection and the importance of having the opportunity to

[2:14:41] develop an agreement whereby we had access to certain data that was also um

[2:14:48] obviously recognizing PIPEA and everything that needed to be considered

[2:14:54] in terms of um privacy. Um, there were

[2:15:00] putting me on the spot here, councilor in terms of the feedback from the

[2:15:05] committee. Um, I would open that up to other committee members as well to

[2:15:11] provide feedback.

[2:15:15] » Thank you, your worship uh through you. Apologies, Miss Russell. Um, so I mean I

[2:15:21] having sat in uh most of those meetings um and councelor Grant would have even

[2:15:25] more perspective. There was some discussion around the level of detail to

[2:15:29] put into the document. Um, and I know for myself, uh, also knowing how this

[2:15:35] organization being the city of Chesmmeir and its council tend to operate, we like

[2:15:39] really actionable things. And so I appreciated having, um, schedule I want

[2:15:44] to say schedule 4 added where it lays out, for example, what agreements would

[2:15:48] actually look like with third parties. um but there was some conversation

[2:15:54] between um subject matter experts about the level of detail to put into these

[2:15:59] documents. So maybe another way of asking on that particular question is

[2:16:03] what what is the value of having you know a a more high order framework level

[2:16:10] document like this versus something really in-depth as our first document

[2:16:14] that we uh approve. >> Well I think there are a couple of

[2:16:19] points. One is having the flexibility at this stage is important to have when we

[2:16:24] move forward working with partners. The detail will always come in the form of

[2:16:29] agreements that we establish with partners or through leases. Um so this

[2:16:34] is really an overarching policy that would guide what might go in those

[2:16:38] documents. Um the other point is when we think about access to recreation

[2:16:46] um it is on a spectrum. So for example um you know as a municipality and most

[2:16:53] municipalities in Canada care a lot about grassroots participation and

[2:16:59] access for everybody. And so this policy definitely leans towards that as

[2:17:04] compared to a heavy emphasis on sport tourism or a heavy emphasis on private

[2:17:10] public partnerships which it really doesn't speak to at all. So this is

[2:17:15] really what I would call um your f the first policy that matters with respect

[2:17:20] to um having consensus amongst council

[2:17:24] members about what it means to be doing recreation at the grassroots level and

[2:17:30] really uh framing up that accessibility importance.

[2:17:36] » Great. Thank you. Uh Mr. I just wanted to confirm something quickly and I have

[2:17:40] a couple comments to our CEO with regards to this. Uh, first of all, uh,

[2:17:46] can you just confirm that the third party operator for the golf course is a

[2:17:49] not forprofit, Mr. Edney?

[2:17:53] » Uh, thank you, May. No, they aren't. >> Okay.

[2:17:56] » Not right now. >> Because the document says that it it is.

[2:18:01] So, the first page of the document says two of the newly acquired properties are

[2:18:04] operated by third party nonprofit organizations. And later in the

[2:18:09] document, it talks about the golf course being one of those. I did not think that

[2:18:11] the golf course was a nonprofit. Not right now. We're operating it in the

[2:18:15] spirit of a nonprofit, but it is not technically a nonprofit or profit

[2:18:20] entity. >> Thank you. I just want to confirm that.

[2:18:22] Um to uh to you, Mr. Edney, and uh Miss Russell, thank you for the presentation.

[2:18:28] I appreciate uh the work that has gone on and the collaboration that has been

[2:18:32] done with this. Uh there was a statement that was made that um that that it's

[2:18:38] broad on purpose uh and may need to be updated. Um my personal feeling and I'm

[2:18:44] willing to bring forward a motion as such is that this is too broad uh and

[2:18:49] isn't specific enough and I am concerned that it isn't actionable enough. Uh and

[2:18:53] I would actually like to see us uh make a motion to send back this particular

[2:18:59] item uh to administration. I'm hoping uh to not have to be overly specific in in

[2:19:06] terms of uh concerns that I have with that.

[2:19:09] the broadness of this and the uh in my opinion feeling it that it's too broad

[2:19:15] and so if we were to send it back uh I would like to just send it back to

[2:19:20] administration what possibly Mr. Edney uh could that look like Mr. Edney?

[2:19:27] » Yeah, thank you Mayor Dean. So, um, you know, as Miss Russell noted, it was

[2:19:32] intentionally kept somewhat broad because this is a first crack at

[2:19:36] creating this type of of policy document. Um, as I read through it, I

[2:19:43] agree there's probably some spaces where it could be a little more prescriptive.

[2:19:48] Um when we write a policy especially a

[2:19:53] policy um that would be a council policy that policy

[2:19:58] should be a guiding document for myself and then the rest of administration to

[2:20:02] understand exactly what council is looking for as we move forward through

[2:20:07] whatever that is budgeting bylaws etc. Um, so I'm not sure that this,

[2:20:15] as you've just pointed out, necessarily captures enough of that. Um, having said

[2:20:21] that, I don't have any ideas off the top of my my head as we're talking here

[2:20:25] right now, but we could take it back and look for that general approach of making

[2:20:30] it a little bit more prescriptive on how we operate knowing what we know right

[2:20:35] now going forward. If that makes sense. Yeah, I view this as a first swing uh

[2:20:41] but not necessarily a first swing um that I would approve uh in terms of

[2:20:47] the first swing. And so that's I I do appreciate the first swing that's been

[2:20:51] taken at this uh council.

[2:20:56] » Thank you worship uh through you um to Mr. Adne. I think one of the things was

[2:21:01] uh because I do serve on that uh on the Iraq committee and uh this particular

[2:21:07] policy didn't necessarily come out of a council resolution where we specified as

[2:21:15] to how prescriptive it needs to be. Uh so which is why I think you know uh why

[2:21:21] it is as broad as it is. So uh I do agree you know some more substance would

[2:21:27] be great. However, it's also important that uh we describe how prescriptive we

[2:21:32] want it to be. You know, what areas um and what that exercise will look like,

[2:21:39] you know, is this, you know, as members of council, we should maybe go through

[2:21:43] this policy again and send suggestions to Mr. Adne or, you know, however we do

[2:21:48] it. But I think we need to set uh yeah administration for success here by

[2:21:54] giving them a bit more substance and guidance as to what exactly it is that

[2:21:57] we're looking for. >> Yeah, thank you. I since I was the one

[2:22:00] who kind of originally waited into these waters, uh I'll respond to that. What I

[2:22:04] would say is uh I would like the policy to meet the goal as described by uh Mr.

[2:22:12] Redney that when we have a policy that he as CEO is able to go through his uh

[2:22:17] executive leadership team down through his managers down to the rest of the

[2:22:20] staff and they have a uh full understanding of how to uh action uh

[2:22:27] said policy and our CEO has already said that he doesn't necessarily feel that

[2:22:32] this is doing that at the moment. I also fully endorse and appreciate and support

[2:22:39] the comment that you made of council providing suggestions. I think it would

[2:22:42] be disingenuous disingenuous of us uh to ask this to be sent back but then not

[2:22:50] provide some feedback and uh if our CEO is okay with it I'm going to call on our

[2:22:54] CEO if it would be okay for council [snorts] to provide specific feedback

[2:22:59] and suggestion ideas via email to administration should this be sent back

[2:23:04] if he would see that as an appropriate way for us to provide that feedback at

[2:23:07] this time. Mr. Edney. >> Yeah, thanks Mardine through you to

[2:23:11] council. Yeah, I think that would be greatly helpful to us.

[2:23:14] » Okay. >> Then we can incorporate the feedback. I

[2:23:16] mean, there are some parts that we're I wouldn't change in here, but there are

[2:23:19] some parts that probably we should strengthen up a little bit.

[2:23:22] » Um, and then we can bring that back for your input and for your debate um, in

[2:23:26] the public setting, but that email would be a great starting point for us.

[2:23:30] » Okay. Thank you, Councelor Sambble. >> Thank you, your worship. And I I think

[2:23:34] that's a good plan. Consider this first reading like any other bylaw that we

[2:23:37] provide a bunch of feedback on. this one's just a policy and doesn't need a

[2:23:40] first reading. Um I I am curious how uh that process might affect some of the

[2:23:45] other work that we have ongoing. So uh through you to Mr. Edney and then Miss

[2:23:50] Russell perhaps or actually this might be a Mr. Edney question. I'm not quite

[2:23:53] sure whose portfolio that's in. Um but one of the things we're working on is

[2:23:56] trying to get a multi-year funding agreement going with one of our current

[2:23:59] thirdparty operators. Um, and in my opinion, having this in place makes it

[2:24:05] easier to uh really meaningfully begin or continue that conversation. Is it

[2:24:11] possible? Um, I'm not really asking if it's possible. Can we continue those

[2:24:15] conversations while the work on this policy also continues?

[2:24:19] » In my opinion, uh, through the grant adjudication committee, absolutely, that

[2:24:23] can happen. uh and not just through that committee, but uh we're we've already

[2:24:28] committed to uh looking at our different funding streams that we have for

[2:24:31] recreation that we have for not for-p profofit. Uh and so I don't see it as a

[2:24:35] hindrance, but Mr. Edney, >> no, thank you, Mayor Dean. I agree with

[2:24:39] you. Yeah, we can continue to move both along. I don't think we would want to,

[2:24:44] you know, to councelor Sandbo's point, um approve some sort of multi-year

[2:24:48] funding or partnership without this policy in place first. But given what we

[2:24:53] all know, I suspect I expect those to move along parallel lines with the same

[2:24:58] goals and values. That should shake out of both of those,

[2:25:02] I would expect. And I think we can likely get this

[2:25:07] policy done before we get those I don't want to use the term

[2:25:12] negotiation. That's not really the right term, but before we get those

[2:25:15] discussions with the partner completed anyway. So, I think it should still

[2:25:20] work. Well, Mr. Enu, would you agree that the multi-year funding piece would

[2:25:24] be a part of budget process, which would happen in the fall, and we could look at

[2:25:29] even having this come back possibly by end of July? That'd be tight. But if we

[2:25:33] had this coming back early September, and then our budgeting process will

[2:25:37] start shortly after that, then they they would essentially work directly in

[2:25:40] parallel with each other because I don't see a methodology where the multi-year

[2:25:44] funding would necessarily be done outside of the budgeting process. Mr.

[2:25:50] Yeah, through you to council. That's correct. Um

[2:25:54] I know we just approved budget, but we're already in the budget process for

[2:25:57] next year, >> right?

[2:25:59] » But to your point, to be advanced where it's going to come to council for some

[2:26:03] sort of approval isn't going to happen until the fall. So I do agree if we can

[2:26:07] get it in by the end of July, we'll shoot for that. But realistically, the

[2:26:11] first sort of meeting in September might be a good target for this.

[2:26:14] » Great. Thank you, Councelor Grant. >> Thank you, Mayor Dean. um through the

[2:26:18] chair to possibly administration or probably more likely council actually.

[2:26:22] So I just want to kind of begin with where this policy came from and this

[2:26:26] policy is largely being driven from um the purchases that we've made of

[2:26:32] recreational land um and that those properties have operators on them. And

[2:26:38] right now there is a void in any documentation regarding how we partner

[2:26:42] with them, what the values are, when we expect them to come and report to us. um

[2:26:47] all those things. So um I completely agree that we can provide some feedback

[2:26:53] and some fine-tuning to the policy that will help administration um use it

[2:26:57] better um or maybe use it to develop the framework that we're going to use with

[2:27:02] these partners better. But I just I wanted to point out that it is important

[2:27:05] to do this and and even with our new rec center coming along, we're we're going

[2:27:09] to have to to partner possibly if that's the recommendation with a provider and

[2:27:15] without us having a document that says what our virtues and what we value is,

[2:27:19] we're I don't know what we hold them to at the end of the day. So I just want to

[2:27:22] say that I appreciate all the feedback that will come from this and I know

[2:27:26] it'll make the document even better. So um thank you Mary Dean.

[2:27:30] » Thank you. So then I guess with that suggested organic motion here uh Josh

[2:27:36] you could help me out with this would be council direct administration

[2:27:40] uh to bring back

[2:27:46] uh sorry uh sorry no I'm going to change this council send

[2:27:53] policy number

[2:28:00] 862 uh being the creating access and

[2:28:05] partnering record. Yeah, there we go. Yep.

[2:28:13] to administration for further review

[2:28:19] based on the conversation at the June 23rd

[2:28:24] regular meeting of council and to bring back to council

[2:28:31] by the end of September 2026.

[2:28:37] hopefully shoot for July, but with us having August off, then I think it would

[2:28:42] be by end of September. So, Mr. Edney,

[2:28:48] are you good with the wording? Okay. Uh, [clears throat] council, any comments or

[2:28:53] questions with regards to the wording of the motion?

[2:28:57] Deputy Mayor Schindler. >> Uh, uh, so this is this the wording of

[2:29:01] this is to, uh, bring back with the review of the conversations. Um, are we

[2:29:07] going to should we not include the feedback um that we're going to send via

[2:29:13] email? >> No, I I don't think we have to be

[2:29:16] prescriptive in how we're doing something. Typically, we're not

[2:29:19] prescriptive in the how. >> Okay.

[2:29:21] » Right. We've we've said it's based on the conversation. So, that's why that's

[2:29:25] in there. And part of that conversation was for us to provide feedback via

[2:29:28] email. >> Okay.

[2:29:29] » Okay. Do I have a counselor uh that would like um

[2:29:38] Do I have a counselor that would like to make the following motion? Councelor

[2:29:40] Grant, >> I move that council send back policy 862

[2:29:45] being the proposed creating access and partnering and recreation policy to

[2:29:48] administration for further review based on the conversations at the June 23rd,

[2:29:53] 2026 regular meeting of council and to bring back to council by the end of

[2:29:57] September 2026. >> Thank you. comments, questions from

[2:29:59] council, call for the vote.

[2:30:05] And that's Kley. Thank you. Thank [snorts] you. Okay, with that, now we're

[2:30:10] going to uh item 10.3.1, which is the graffiti art wall installation

[2:30:16] viability, presented by Miss Candace Hennison, director of strategic

[2:30:20] services. Good morning. >> Good morning, Mayor and Council.

[2:30:26] Uh this report comes forward in response to a council motion which directed

[2:30:31] administration to bring a report on the viability of a graffiti wall

[2:30:35] installation. To action that motion, we conducted a municipal scan of similar

[2:30:40] programs. And what we found is that municipalities pursue graffiti walls for

[2:30:45] two reasons. The first is to redirect an existing graffiti problem to give

[2:30:50] unauthorized tagging a legal outlet and reduce vandalism in the broader

[2:30:54] community. The evidence on whether this works is mixed and some communities have

[2:30:59] seen a reduction in illegal activities while others have been candid that they

[2:31:03] did not. What I can tell you is that our bylaw enforcement team has not

[2:31:07] identified a graffiti problem in Chester. So that rationale doesn't apply

[2:31:11] to us and that's a good thing. [sighs and gasps] The second reason

[2:31:15] municipalities pu pursue these programs is arts and culture activation, creating

[2:31:21] a space for local artistic expression and community engagement. That's the

[2:31:26] more relevant lens for Chester and it's where the rest of this report focuses.

[2:31:32] What the scan consistently shows is that the programs with the best outcomes, the

[2:31:37] ones that lasted, the ones that the community valued, and that avoided

[2:31:42] content and governance headaches, all of them had one thing in common, and that

[2:31:47] is a committed community partner. So, a youth club, a community association, a

[2:31:52] festival organization, but someone who owns the program beyond the initial

[2:31:57] installation. We don't have that partner identified

[2:32:01] yet. and we think that that would be the first step before any further commitment

[2:32:05] is made. So rather than building the city uh building and owning a wall, our

[2:32:11] recommendation if council wishes to pursue this opportunity is that

[2:32:16] administration be directed to issue an expression of interest to identify

[2:32:20] capable and community partner or partners. From there, we'd return to

[2:32:24] council with either a program update or funding request depending on what the

[2:32:28] city and the community are able to develop together. I'm happy to answer

[2:32:31] any questions. >> Uh, councelor War Zowski.

[2:32:36] » Thank you, Mayor Dean, and through the chair to you, Miss

[2:32:40] Dennison. This has actually been top of mind for me because recently most of

[2:32:46] council went up to the FCM conference Demonton a number of weeks ago, and

[2:32:51] there's art installations everywhere >> and you are absolutely right. Um,

[2:32:56] the first point may not apply to us and I certainly didn't have any commentary

[2:33:00] with my peers up there or the city councilors in the city of Edmonton, but

[2:33:04] one thing was clear is that these art displays had meaning and had culture. A

[2:33:12] lot of them were not word graffiti. So, I appreciate you bringing this forward

[2:33:17] to council and all of them definitely had a curator of sorts to take it

[2:33:24] forward after the approvals were made through the city of Edmonton. And

[2:33:28] culturally, they seemed a lot more impactful than graffiti in my opinion.

[2:33:32] I'm not saying graffiti um is something that lacks culture by

[2:33:36] any means, but if we found that partner, it would seem and you've you've heard

[2:33:43] you've probably seen a question for you is um what I've seen and I I'd like to

[2:33:47] see hear your feedback is have you seen any feedback or looked at other

[2:33:51] municipalities who had a competition or some type of um with this expression of

[2:33:57] interest as you suggest move forward with something that's or culturally

[2:34:02] appropriate for what the residents and that winner of the expression of

[2:34:06] interest would take forward and maintaining as we move forward. My

[2:34:10] question I guess then is is it graffiti or should we extend it past that?

[2:34:17] That is a tough answer. Um I would say that what I have informally heard from

[2:34:24] the community is that there is a desire for arts and creativity expression. So I

[2:34:30] don't know if we would want to scope it down to specifically one method. Uh it

[2:34:35] is something I think that is larger. Uh obviously the the motion and the way

[2:34:40] that the report was written was more specifically to graffiti since that was

[2:34:44] the wording of the original motion. But I do believe that there there may be a

[2:34:49] desire to extend beyond that. >> Councelor

[2:34:54] » Thank you your worship. Um I would love to respond to that. Uh, for for me, this

[2:34:58] one in particular is the graffiti wall. Um, it'd be wonderful if we could have

[2:35:02] more public art in general in Chester. Um, I know we have a public art policy.

[2:35:06] It's probably out of date because that was like 2015 or something like that, I

[2:35:10] remember. Um, however, as a reminder of how this came about, we received a

[2:35:15] presentation about how unsafe and bored young people in Chester were were

[2:35:20] feeling. And out of that the you safer uh communities working group informal

[2:35:25] group got together uh is still now regularly meeting and I had asked the

[2:35:30] group what are some recommendations that we could bring to the 2026 budget that

[2:35:33] are quick wins for kids in Chester and this was one that we thought hey this

[2:35:38] might have some this this might be a good idea because it's cheap we could

[2:35:41] probably do it quick and we can ask admin what they think so that's why I

[2:35:44] brought this forward to budget um and that's why uh after we made this uh this

[2:35:50] motion specific specifically about the graffiti wall. So, if this does go ahead

[2:35:53] and we do look for a partner, in my mind, I really do hope that it is

[2:35:56] specifically for the graffiti wall because the intent of it was to give

[2:35:59] kids something to do in safe places. So, somewhere where maybe there's a camera

[2:36:03] or something like that so they can participate in art uh and recreational

[2:36:07] activities in a safe way that doesn't cost the city too much. So, that's my

[2:36:11] feedback. However, if we wanted to have a conversation about public art and

[2:36:15] finding money for public art and grants for public art, that is a separate

[2:36:18] conversation that I would also absolutely love to have.

[2:36:22] » Thank you. I guess a question that I have uh raised from the commentary from

[2:36:26] councelor is Miss Dennison in any of the research that we were doing. So,

[2:36:30] you had mentioned uh that uh one was uh dealing with a specific uh graffiti

[2:36:36] problem. While we do have graffiti that gets done throughout our community, I'm

[2:36:41] not sure. Knock on wood that we have a problem per se. We just have uh we have

[2:36:46] situations of it which are uh and we have a couple of areas where in

[2:36:50] particular it can not be great. Uh but I don't I don't know if we have a

[2:36:58] widespread graffiti everywhere happening hopefully knock on wood not encouraging

[2:37:02] that. Uh secondly though um so in your research there was you mentioned that

[2:37:08] the second thing you had mentioned was in your research was this idea of uh

[2:37:11] public art and uh working with um from a cultural standpoint.

[2:37:17] However, uh councelor is absolutely right. This came from the

[2:37:20] work of you safe community and then it kind of went through there. In your

[2:37:25] research did you see any of our any other municipalities that tackled it

[2:37:29] from a youth perspective? There are two that come to mind off the

[2:37:36] top of my head. One successful, one not. Uh so the one that was successful was

[2:37:40] actually the town of Penhold. And what they have done uh is in a youth area, I

[2:37:48] believe it's a skate park, but but a youth recreation area, they did drop uh

[2:37:55] cement blocks there specifically for graffiti. So, it was in a very remote

[2:38:00] area, highly used, highly visible, and they had a local community group that

[2:38:06] would come and just basically reset those blocks with gray

[2:38:11] paint uh a couple times a year. And um they have had great success with this.

[2:38:16] Very low incidents in terms of like hate speech or inappropriate content on it,

[2:38:21] but it it has been uh well utilized. Another one that comes to mind is the

[2:38:27] town of Okatokes. Uh they did open up a graffiti wall in their town. Um that

[2:38:35] left lasted for less than a year before they shut it down due to those

[2:38:39] governance issues, due to hate speech, due to inappropriate content and the

[2:38:43] availability of staff resources to continually monitor and reset this

[2:38:49] space. they since pivoted their program to um curated arts with local artists uh

[2:38:56] in certain areas around the town. So I have seen both kind of both sides of the

[2:39:03] spectrum I would say in the research. Uh and without implementing something here

[2:39:07] I couldn't obviously tell you what what to expect.

[2:39:10] » Okay, great. Thank you. Uh with that then uh what specific motion do we have

[2:39:15] here that we are looking at that we could possibly put on the table for

[2:39:19] debate? Is there a proposed motion that council can see?

[2:39:28] So right now it's just except for information but I think you were looking

[2:39:31] for some direction were you not? Okay. Uh so let me look here really quickly.

[2:39:37] Uh,

[2:39:40] councelor cuz sorry just before that cuz I see one on here that was to

[2:39:45] seek a community partner via expression of interest I believe was uh what you

[2:39:50] were looking for with regards uh to a motion was the other options.

[2:39:55] » So direct administration to issue an EOI for a community organization to lead a

[2:40:00] community art wall. So, it sounds to me like this is the idea that we've been

[2:40:04] kicking around and um personally would like to see this come forward as a

[2:40:08] motion for debate, but uh I have a couple of lights here, but uh councelor

[2:40:12] Councelor >> I was prepared to make exactly that

[2:40:17] motion if you're ready. Your worship. >> Uh I am. Just give me one second. Deputy

[2:40:22] Mayor Schindler. >> Yeah. Um thank you. Just before you make

[2:40:25] the motion, so I don't go outside the motion, I just uh want to express my

[2:40:29] interest for um the development of a Chesmir Arts

[2:40:35] Council um for both theater and and all basically all the other types of arts uh

[2:40:43] whether that be most likely be something outside of uh the city's operations. So,

[2:40:50] um, and I think that that that group could, uh, certainly run graffiti walls

[2:40:56] and other art installations around town, similar to what Okats has, uh, for their

[2:41:00] curated, uh, local artists. So, um, I don't know how to do that, but, um, I

[2:41:07] just wanted to put that into the into the world and see what happens. Yeah. So

[2:41:12] my encouragement on that would be either a prepare a uh notice of motion that I'm

[2:41:17] more than happy to work with you on uh to do that and or look at at the

[2:41:22] organizational meeting having that become a committee of council and that

[2:41:25] that's something that we could launch in October I think are two ways that we

[2:41:28] could handle that. Uh and I would support uh supporting you in either of

[2:41:33] those whether it be through the notice of motion uh and or creation of that

[2:41:37] committee when we get to the organizational meeting in October.

[2:41:39] Councelor with the motion please.

[2:41:44] Thank you, your worship. Here it is. I move that council direct administration

[2:41:49] to issue an expression of interest for community organization to lead a

[2:41:53] community art wall with the city's role limited to enabling support and report

[2:41:57] back only if a willing and capable partner is identified.

[2:42:01] » Uh thank you. Uh comments, questions from council.

[2:42:06] [snorts] Councelor Warzinowski.

[2:42:09] » Thank you, Mayor Dean. to councelor Sanbo. This this seems a

[2:42:14] little bit vague. Only if willing and a capable partner is identified. What does

[2:42:19] that mean? That means once we find a partner, it's brought back to council

[2:42:22] for our approval or just >> letting you know and let the

[2:42:26] administration do the rest. Is that what we're suggesting here to be clear?

[2:42:30] » Mhm. I think so. Council >> happy to respond to your worship and yes

[2:42:36] I think that's what it is. So from the report, what I'm gathering is it does

[2:42:40] not make sense operationally for the city to manage it. But an organization

[2:42:43] with volunteers, for example, might be able to take that on operationally. And

[2:42:46] I think if somebody wants to do that, then why not?

[2:42:51] » It doesn't designate. The reason why I'm asking for some clarity doesn't say

[2:42:55] where it's going to be, what it's going to look like, none of those things

[2:42:58] » because we need that partner to come forward first.

[2:43:00] » Yes. But we're not asking for approval from council. We're just saying we're

[2:43:03] just going to let council know that we found a partner.

[2:43:06] I'd like more clarity if I'm going to be voting on this. So again, it it says

[2:43:14] the way I understand it is we're going to send out an expression of interest

[2:43:18] » and only bring back a report to council if a capable partner is identified.

[2:43:22] Report doesn't mean decision. So, does it does this imply that once

[2:43:28] administration if they find a capable partner, they're just going to let us

[2:43:32] know with a report? Or does it mean council, we found a partner, we we want

[2:43:38] to talk to you about where we're going to put this. We want to talk to you

[2:43:41] about uh what this partner's intentions are. We we want an area that's

[2:43:45] designated at the skate park or on John Peak, the roof of John Peak Gazebo or

[2:43:51] wherever we're going to put this thing. Um, I'd like to see that clarification

[2:43:54] before we vote on this, unless the clarification is implied to come later.

[2:44:01] » So, so then what I would suggest is that uh we could just have it and report

[2:44:09] back. No, no, don't don't don't change anything. Sorry. Bring it back. Yeah,

[2:44:13] there we go. Uh, and report back to council

[2:44:19] with a report for decision

[2:44:27] only. So that then implies that the report that comes back is a report for

[2:44:30] decision. >> This this clarifies that question. Thank

[2:44:32] you. >> Okay. Thank you. Councelor are

[2:44:34] you okay with that wording being added? >> Sure.

[2:44:38] » Okay. Thank you. Okay. Councelor Grant. >> Thank you, Mayor Dean. I I just want to

[2:44:43] point out the fact that really the most viable spots for this graffiti wall are

[2:44:48] municipally owned. So, I want to make sure that we're not taking that out of

[2:44:53] the picture right now that this could be installed on public property because

[2:44:57] really for this to actually be viable, that's where it'll have to be in my

[2:45:00] opinion. So, I just want to make sure that we're not excluding that. We're not

[2:45:03] cuz in the report we talk about how it needs to be on private property by a

[2:45:06] willing person and and really that's in Chesmer that's not going to work. So, um

[2:45:11] if that's not here then I'm fine with this motion.

[2:45:16] » Okay. Thank you. Uh any other comments,

[2:45:20] questions from councel? Call for the vote.

[2:45:29] And that's carried unanimously. Thank you. With that, we'll take a short uh 5m

[2:45:32] minute break for it before and have our final presentation before lunch. We'll

[2:45:36] come back at 11:20. Thanks everyone.

[2:54:01] Good morning everyone. Uh just coming back from our break and we'll tackle the

[2:54:05] next few items here before we have our uh lunch break. Going to item 10.4.1

[2:54:10] which is the extension of motions deadline being presented by Mr. Kent

[2:54:13] Edney our CEO. Good morning again Mr. Edney.

[2:54:19] reminded me of an old movie with Robin Williams there. The way you said that

[2:54:22] for a second. Good Morning Vietnam. I don't know.

[2:54:25] » Do it. Do it for us. Do it. >> I'm not doing it. I'm not good at that

[2:54:28] kind of stuff, but I'm sure sure there's another counselor that would like to.

[2:54:32] » Mr. Edney. [laughter] >> All right. Thank you, Mayor Dean. Um,

[2:54:37] couple quick motions that uh administration is hoping that council

[2:54:41] will extend the deadline for. Um, both are related to transit. Um and both are

[2:54:47] related to us working with the city of Calgary right now at this point. So

[2:54:51] council had made a couple motions to bring back uh work related to the

[2:54:55] transit feasibility study as well as exploring uh proposed route 106 and

[2:55:01] potential for on demand service uh with the city of Calgary to bring that back

[2:55:06] by the end of July. Um we have been working with the city of Calgary. They

[2:55:11] have sent us a proposal. we just don't have enough time to move go back and

[2:55:15] forth with them, prepare reports and bring them to council by the end of

[2:55:19] July. So, we're uh respectfully asking for a extension to do that by the end of

[2:55:25] September. So, there are two motions proposed just

[2:55:29] for council to extend these to the end of September if you could.

[2:55:35] » Thank you. Just before that, I'm wondering Mr. though.

[2:55:38] Is there any kind of an update at this time at all? Right now, I do know that

[2:55:45] uh even as uh early as this past week, uh I have

[2:55:50] received a few different uh phone calls and messages uh with regards to where we

[2:55:54] are at with transit. So, I'm just wondering if there's any kind of an

[2:55:58] update that we can provide uh or just to help council with some of the questions

[2:56:02] uh that we are receiving because I have certainly been I I received a number of

[2:56:07] phone calls actually uh ironically this week about transit. Mr. Edney.

[2:56:12] » Yeah, thanks Mayor Dean. Um practically, no, not at this point. Um we're still

[2:56:17] working through >> those costing options and the direction

[2:56:20] um with the city of Calgary. Uh so really practically other than we're

[2:56:24] working and we're in the final stages of bringing something back to council for

[2:56:28] your consideration there's no I guess tangible tangible update for the public

[2:56:33] in that regard other than we'll bring something back to you in September. So

[2:56:36] some of the messaging from council could be should council be asked certain

[2:56:40] questions so that we have consistent messaging. Uh is that due to the

[2:56:43] complexity of implementing a transit system in the city of Chester uh

[2:56:48] administration has asked for some more time to be able to work through some of

[2:56:52] those complexities and a further report will be coming back in September.

[2:56:57] » That's a perfect answer. >> Beautiful. That's what I will

[2:56:59] » much better than what I just did. >> Uh councelor

[2:57:04] » Thank you your worship. Question through you to Mr. Edney. It sounds like uh

[2:57:08] there's one option coming back for transit and that is a partnership with

[2:57:12] city of Calgary. Is that correct, >> Mr. Edney?

[2:57:17] » No, sorry. Um for clarification to councelor Samber, we are bringing other

[2:57:20] options. Um it just took us longer to get a reply from the city of Calgary and

[2:57:27] now um evaluate that and consolidate that into our options for council. So,

[2:57:32] it won't be just the city of Calgary, but

[2:57:35] that's the last the most recent information we've received that we need

[2:57:39] to incorporate into the report. >> Thank you, Deputy Mayor Schindler.

[2:57:43] » Uh yeah, through the chair to um to uh CEO, Mr. Edney, if there's any um uh

[2:57:51] going into Stampede, we're bound to be in the room with people who can uh help

[2:57:55] help this along. If you need us to do anything uh um around um advocation, uh

[2:58:02] please let us know. >> Thank you. I think this is a purely

[2:58:06] administrative matter though at this point. I don't think that this is an

[2:58:10] elected matter at all at this time. I think that this sits purely with

[2:58:14] administration. Mr. Edney. >> Yeah, that's correct. Mayor Dino, we've

[2:58:18] received everything now at this point I think we need from the city of Calgary.

[2:58:21] They're working cooperatively, but um sometimes they just take a little bit

[2:58:24] longer in responses um given the the scope of their operations. So, I think I

[2:58:30] think we're in good shape that way. But appreciate the offer, Deputy Mayor.

[2:58:33] » Thank you. Okay. Uh with that, uh can I have the

[2:58:38] first motion, please? >> Oh, it's we're putting them together.

[2:58:43] Thank you. Can I have a counselor make the following motion, please?

[2:58:48] Councelor Nan move that council approve the revised reporting timelines to

[2:58:53] September 2026 for the following motions as outlined below. Motion number 26041

[2:59:00] um 14-09 council endorses the hybrid fixed route plus on demand uh one zone

[2:59:08] transit service as the preferred service model for chastir and direct

[2:59:13] administration to evaluate funding and cost recovery options to implement a

[2:59:18] chestir transit system and bring to council by the end of September 2026 and

[2:59:24] motion number 260414- -10 council direct administration to

[2:59:29] further explore transit partnership with the city of Calgary including the

[2:59:33] proposed route 106 at uh and a potential for on demand service

[2:59:40] and bring back to council by the end of September 2026.

[2:59:43] » Thank you. Comments, questions from council.

[2:59:46] Call for the vote.

[2:59:51] That's carried unanimously. Thank you. Citywide facilities planning report

[2:59:54] presented by again our CEO Mr. Edney. Mr. Edney.

[2:59:58] » All right. Thank you, Mayor Dean. Um I'm going to jump in this particular report

[3:00:02] uh to page three if we could. Legislative services not of that

[3:00:05] particular report of the RFD.

[3:00:13] Thank you. Uh just on this table here, so I'm going to jump ahead a little bit.

[3:00:17] Um this motion originally from council came out of a number of items that were

[3:00:21] brought forward during the 2026 um budget cycle and uh related to chain

[3:00:27] link fence over at community operations uh land preparations of some some land

[3:00:33] over at the community operations site. Um our future needs uh we had a request

[3:00:39] to create we called it a human resources office but it was really an office next

[3:00:43] to human resources. Uh there was the RCMP second and third floor concept

[3:00:48] along with additional parking over at the RCMP building and then there was the

[3:00:52] rental space for community support services. So my report today, what we've

[3:00:57] done is rather than necessarily look at each of these individual things, we've

[3:01:02] taken out the chain link fence and the community operations land prep. Uh, so

[3:01:06] if council recalls, um, there was a a land swap done back, I think in 2024

[3:01:12] with Clearwater Park whereby I think we received somewhere in the neighborhood

[3:01:16] of 3 or 4 acres, uh, of land adjacent to our south part of our community

[3:01:21] operations building in exchange for a road right away that we had in their

[3:01:25] community. Um, typically what has happened in the past is as we collect

[3:01:30] lakeweeds, not just from the harvesters, but from the lakeweed bins, we've been

[3:01:34] using um the land to the east of our community

[3:01:39] operations building in Clear Water Park for the composting uh and storage of

[3:01:44] these lake weeds. Now that Clear Water is at the stage of development it's at,

[3:01:49] we no [snorts] longer have access to that particular uh piece of land. we now

[3:01:54] need to start either a bringing those lake weeds etc onto our own property or

[3:02:00] we need to look at um transporting them somewhere else for disposal. Uh the

[3:02:06] obviously transporting them somewhere else has a cost doesn't make a lot of

[3:02:10] sense. What we've done as we've worked through this process is realize that we

[3:02:14] can actually do the preparation of that land um with our internal resources um

[3:02:21] with our roads and operations staff. So we are going to move ahead um with again

[3:02:27] just making it suitable for vehicles to drive onto um flattening it out that

[3:02:33] kind of thing. the outstanding item from the budget then related to that

[3:02:38] particular property is it would be prudent of us to fence that land off um

[3:02:43] like we do with any other land. We want to prevent uh unauthorized access onto

[3:02:48] it. We want to be able to park vehicles there securely. Uh we want to prevent

[3:02:52] illegal dumping, that type of thing. So, uh we're looking for a budget request

[3:02:57] for $60,000 to move forward with the chain link fence. Again, it was the same

[3:03:02] number in our um in our original capital budget presentation to council. Why I've

[3:03:09] jumped forward to this particular table is the other four um four items we're

[3:03:16] addressing through a larger uh facilities planning framework document

[3:03:21] that we've we've put together. Um obviously future needs is a very very

[3:03:26] broad um broad request and is really what the intent of this report is to

[3:03:33] allow us to set a framework. Um as you talked about or as we talked about

[3:03:37] earlier um we want to have policies and documents that guide what we do moving

[3:03:42] forward. So we've worked uh across all city departments to develop the um

[3:03:48] report that that uh ledge services originally had up that is attached to

[3:03:53] your the facilities planning report. The intent of this report is to give comfort

[3:03:58] to council I guess that um we're thinking about what needs to be done. Uh

[3:04:03] we've laid out um sort of the purpose, the nature and overview of our current

[3:04:08] facilities. we have uh some of the challenges we're facing at those

[3:04:12] facilities. Also prioritizing where we're short in space, where we see

[3:04:18] priorities for the community. Um if we were on page seven of that particular

[3:04:22] report um if we don't mind bringing that back up there Josh

[3:04:29] um you know just talking about the different things we see coming up and

[3:04:32] where it sits from administration's perspective um in our priority as we

[3:04:37] think about these new spaces and these new sites. Obviously the second fire

[3:04:41] hall is something that uh we've been working on is important to the

[3:04:45] community. uh you'll see a report coming to you in July about the fireh hall and

[3:04:49] a request to to move forward with that particular

[3:04:53] uh particular item in city hall. Um again, if you kind of read through the

[3:04:58] report, we talk about it, but we're still doing a bunch of work in the

[3:05:00] background. We're running out of space. I've talked about that a number of

[3:05:04] times. You see that as you work through here. There is very few offices where we

[3:05:08] only have one person left at this point and and that's really me and uh you know

[3:05:13] in some cases we have directors partnered up uh with other people in

[3:05:17] their office. So we're running out of space in city hall. Um and you can kind

[3:05:20] of see as we work work down that list of what we've prioritized really as um not

[3:05:27] necessarily priorities. I think everything in this list could be

[3:05:30] considered a priority. It's just the staging and access of that um staging

[3:05:36] not access development of that. So one of the things we've done outside of this

[3:05:42] is again try to target what what might be happening first and what that may

[3:05:47] open up before we get too far down on any particular item. If we go to the

[3:05:51] next page, Josh, um, and we look at the table on the key dependencies just at

[3:05:56] the bottom there. Uh, scroll down. Um, you know, if we know the second fireh

[3:06:00] hall is coming most likely before the library or the

[3:06:04] rec center or any work at community operations, we want to evaluate how can

[3:06:08] the fire hall potentially help us um, solve some of these challenges with

[3:06:14] space, right? Um, if we're able to move the library out to somewhere else, that

[3:06:18] unlocks space at city hall. Again, if we put the rec center and the library

[3:06:22] together, we've heard that a number of times, having them colllocated is

[3:06:26] something that makes sense. So, you might be able to move faster on a

[3:06:30] library than a rec center. So, again, if we're going to put the two together, we

[3:06:34] have to look at that timing. So, this this document is really for council's

[3:06:38] information. Um, I mean, if you have feedback, we're open to it, but it's

[3:06:41] really to guide us administratively on how we're thinking about our future

[3:06:46] needs in the city. Um, I'll I'll speak candidly. I think not I think I know at

[3:06:53] budget time we came with a lot of one oneoff ad hoc projects thought of by a

[3:06:59] particular group that needed that specific project to happen from their

[3:07:04] point of view from what made sense for their

[3:07:07] um ability to complete their work and their tasks. And this is a way to

[3:07:11] comprehensively bring all of those needs, all of those requests into one

[3:07:16] into one framework where we look at it holistically across all different

[3:07:21] departments and then um can use that uh to guide us over the next you know 1 3 5

[3:07:27] years 10 years into the future as the city continues to grow and we look at uh

[3:07:32] what staffing needs we'll need. So, um, real quickly to wrap the report up, um,

[3:07:38] we'll be looking for two motions from council. One to request that you approve

[3:07:42] to proceed with the budget item on the chain link fence at a cost of $60,000.

[3:07:47] Um, I know elsewhere in the report it references 56,000. We've received quotes

[3:07:52] on this. We did that before we went to budget. Uh, just given a little bit of

[3:07:57] room um, in case something comes up that we need another,000, we're not back to

[3:08:01] council. um rather than approving 56 and then just that you receive this this

[3:08:08] planning report uh for information as sort of our framework for coordinating

[3:08:13] future facility decisions. I guess I'm open open to any questions you have

[3:08:17] either on the RFD or the report um that's been presented. [snorts]

[3:08:21] » Great. Thank you. Any comments or questions from council with regards to

[3:08:24] the presentation? >> Councelor Grant.

[3:08:29] » Thank you, Mayor Dean. Through the chair to Mr. Edney, I'm looking at the

[3:08:33] priorities and decision readiness uh table that's been developed here.

[3:08:40] Uh you have the future recreation center as a long-term item. Is that the Dawson

[3:08:47] Recreation Center? >> Oh, sorry. Uh Mr. Edney,

[3:08:52] » yes, that is correct. So given that the cost for the rec

[3:08:59] center is included in the 2027 budget, that doesn't feel long-term to me. So

[3:09:04] maybe you could explain, >> Mr. Edney.

[3:09:10] » Yeah, thank you, Mayor Dean. Um, that's a really good question. Um,

[3:09:14] you've hit on something. Long term for us should be 15 to 20 years. uh the

[3:09:18] state the city of Chesmir is in with our growth and our lack of really progress

[3:09:23] on much prior to this council first being elected. Um long term for us is 5

[3:09:28] years. So you're right, it's in uh it's in the budget for 2027. It's really in

[3:09:34] the budget as a placeholder for that particular amount. Hoping that council

[3:09:38] will will get to a point where council can make a decision this year or next

[3:09:41] year. Um, but I wouldn't expect it to open, you know, any sooner than 2029,

[3:09:48] 2030. So, it's not going to solve our space problems um in city hall, I guess,

[3:09:54] for a few years. So, that's kind of why we picked that that longer term um

[3:10:01] longer term designation with it. >> Okay. Um I I accept that and I

[3:10:07] understand it. I just I want to push back a little bit that at least for me

[3:10:12] the rec center is at uh at least medium to high priority. So um I know that this

[3:10:19] table is going to be used to make decisions moving forward. Um and that at

[3:10:24] least for me I would like to see that moved up or at least looked at with a

[3:10:28] little more urgency. Um I I you go sorry I don't want to go on a diet trap but

[3:10:32] you go down into your prior prioritization framework and a lot of

[3:10:35] this stuff applies to the rec center. It hits many of these points.

[3:10:40] So I would like to I would like to I don't know if I need a motion to have

[3:10:45] you move that up but I would like I would like a more prioritization kind of

[3:10:49] put on that than what I feel this document is giving it.

[3:10:53] » Yeah. I don't I don't disagree with you that I I think that we've made it uh

[3:10:57] very clear that new rec center is a high priority. Uh and

[3:11:03] given the commentary, I appreciate the commentary, Mr. Edney. Given that

[3:11:06] commentary though, it almost makes it feel like an expansion of the second and

[3:11:10] third floor of the RCMP building is a higher priority than the rec center. And

[3:11:16] I'm I'm not convinced that this is how all of this council feels.

[3:11:22] I would suggest that's certainly not how you feel,

[3:11:26] [laughter] >> Mr. Edney.

[3:11:29] » Yeah, Mayor Dean, I think what might be useful for us is to split that out. I

[3:11:34] think the intent there is we all know building the rec center is is a high

[3:11:38] priority. Um, one of the challenges of course is I think everything on here

[3:11:43] could be high priority and then when everything's high priority, nothing's

[3:11:46] high priority. So, we sort of called it more long-term knowing that it's not

[3:11:50] something that solves our problem from a space usage this year. Um, but longer

[3:11:55] term, I think the intent of this probably could be broken out into two.

[3:11:59] Um, where it's phase one recreation center, high priority, short-term,

[3:12:05] long-term use of all of that land um might be a better breakout. So maybe

[3:12:10] that's what I can take away from this and update this to have the phase one

[3:12:15] facility is, you know, short-term high priority, but the longer term use of all

[3:12:19] of that land um is still a priority, but it's a longer term exercise.

[3:12:24] » Okay. Thank you. >> If that works works for Grant, does that

[3:12:28] work? >> Uh councelor Grant. Thank you, Mayor

[3:12:31] Dean. Thank you, Mr. Andy. Yes, that works for me.

[3:12:32] » Great. Thank you. Any other comments, questions with regards to presentation?

[3:12:37] Seeing none, going to the first motion then for uh the approval of proceeding

[3:12:41] with the chain link fence. Can I have a council with the following motion,

[3:12:44] please?

[3:12:47] Councelor Randawa. >> Thank you, your worship. I move that the

[3:12:51] council approve a proceeding with the chain link fence at a cost of $60,000.

[3:12:58] » Uh thank you. Does the motion need what area of the budget that $60,000 is

[3:13:02] coming out of? Mr. Edney. Oh, sorry, Mr. Edney.

[3:13:07] » Sorry, Mayor Dean. Yeah, let's just put um at a cost of from the capital budget.

[3:13:20] » Okay. Uh thank you, uh councelor Warzinowski.

[3:13:26] » Thank you, Mayor De. And just just a clarification through the chair to you,

[3:13:29] Mr. Edney, at a cost of 60,000 extra or from the already pre-approved capital

[3:13:33] budget. >> Mr.

[3:13:37] Um, so yeah, this would be extra because there's no budget approved for the chain

[3:13:41] link fence. >> So it's not actually coming from an

[3:13:43] approved budget then. >> That's correct. [snorts]

[3:13:47] » So then it's not coming from a a capital budget.

[3:13:50] » Well, okay. You could reward it to council approve.

[3:13:54] Uh, [sighs] >> we can reallocate for sure to increase

[3:13:57] the capital budget by 60,000. How about that?

[3:13:59] » Yes, let's use that word.

[3:14:05] No, not reallocating. >> No, increasing. Oh, sorry. You

[3:14:29] [snorts] okay? Uh, councelor Anda, I believe it was you that made this

[3:14:33] motion. Is that right? Can I get you to restate the motion, please?

[3:14:37] » Sure. Meen, I move that the council approved increasing the 2026 capital

[3:14:42] budget by 60,000 for the chain link fence at community appreciations.

[3:14:46] » Thank you. Any other comments, questions from council?

[3:14:52] Call for the vote.

[3:14:56] » That's carried unanimously. Thank you. Uh, can I have the second motion,

[3:15:00] please?

[3:15:15] We're accepting it for information, which means that

[3:15:21] it's a presentation that was made. It's not an approval. It's accepting

[3:15:25] information. I'm just making sure that we capture what councelor Grant's

[3:15:29] comment was. So, sorry, I'm thinking out loud.

[3:15:33] Uh, Mr. Edney, I think we would agree that this is an internal document used

[3:15:38] for internal operations as per the CEO. The CEO has received the feedback from

[3:15:44] council that he was looking for and will be looking to make updates to the

[3:15:49] document. But because it's an internal document, council essentially accepts

[3:15:53] this for information because it is how you are proceeding internally with

[3:15:57] something. Would that >> be correct, Mr. Edney?

[3:16:01] » Yeah, that's correct, Mayor Dean. Um, I know I wrote these motions, but I think

[3:16:04] I would just end that for information. Otherwise, it implies you're setting

[3:16:09] this as some sort of formal >> That's where we're going. Yeah, that's

[3:16:12] what I was working through. Thank you for that. Obviously, I didn't say it in

[3:16:16] the out loud, but in the report, anything that has to do with any of this

[3:16:20] that requires any sort of capital or council approval will have a separate

[3:16:23] report and be brought back. >> Yeah, absolutely. But this this really

[3:16:27] is an internal document. >> Yes.

[3:16:29] » Yeah. Absolutely. Okay. Uh so, uh can I have a counselor make the following

[3:16:33] motion, please? Deputy Mayor Schindler. >> I move that council receive the citywide

[3:16:38] facilities planning report attachment A for information. comments, questions

[3:16:42] from councel, call for the vote

[3:16:48] and that's carried unanimously. Thank you. Okay, now moving to item 10.4.3.

[3:16:54] This was the additional to the agenda which is the CRCA facility funding and

[3:17:00] I'm going to go back to our CEO, Mr. Edney. Mr. Edney.

[3:17:04] » Thank you, Mardine. I'll just wait for ledge services. Um, this is not a RFD

[3:17:08] that is in your agenda package. Um this is from some discussions that occurred

[3:17:13] uh I guess after preparation of the agenda occurred related to um some

[3:17:19] operations over at the current rec center operated by the CRCA. Um as I

[3:17:24] understand it um a number of counselors have had discussions with the White

[3:17:28] Cappers group um about some facility improvements that they're undertaking

[3:17:34] over at the CRCA. The question came to me from a bunch of different angles of

[3:17:39] is this something the city could help support and is there some way that the

[3:17:43] city could support this initiative with the White Cappers given they're a

[3:17:47] nonforprofit and the the money that they're proposed to be spending is

[3:17:52] related directly to facility improvements over at the CRCA. So my

[3:17:57] report here today is to address that for council. if you'd like to make any sort

[3:18:01] of motion. Um if not, then we can just move forward. But the thought process

[3:18:06] here is um in the interimm operating budget and the final operating budget,

[3:18:10] council approved $160,000 be allocated to the Chester Regional

[3:18:16] Community As Association. Um at the time it was really a placeholder um because

[3:18:21] that's typically what we provide them over the past few years. is there was a

[3:18:24] request from council made for the CRCA to come to council and present um what

[3:18:30] they would use that money for. We haven't seen that happen yet. We're

[3:18:33] still coordinating. Um and at this point it's likely sometime in the fall. Um my

[3:18:38] thought process is this is a you know about a $5,000 upgrade the White Cappers

[3:18:44] are looking to make to lights uh and improving lighting in the space that

[3:18:48] they rent at the CRCA. uh from my perspective this is you know a building

[3:18:53] improvement being made by a third party to a third

[3:18:58] parties [laughter] to a third party's building and I think

[3:19:01] it's in the spirit of what that original allocation from council um was set aside

[3:19:06] for. So my um my recommendation if council would like to do something um

[3:19:12] for this would be to allocate $5,000 from the funds allocated to the CRCA in

[3:19:18] the operating budget. Um, if that's done, it still leaves them 155,000 uh

[3:19:23] for their other needs and uh hopefully since we haven't heard yet exactly what

[3:19:28] those needs are, hopefully that's enough for them at that point. So, I'll maybe

[3:19:32] turn it over to you, Mayor Dean, at this point to talk a little bit more about

[3:19:35] kind of where this came from. >> Yeah, I want to clarify a couple things.

[3:19:38] Number one, the White Cappers did not ask for this. Uh, this was not the White

[3:19:43] Cappers in no way, shape, or form uh approach the city with regards to this.

[3:19:47] Uh this happened because of the regular work that this council does of being

[3:19:51] involved in the community and recognizing needs and hearing things. Um

[3:19:55] and this is about a facility upgrade to the current recreation center. This is

[3:20:02] not in any way, shape, or form money that is going to a not for-profit that

[3:20:08] exists within the rec center. This money would be going specifically

[3:20:13] uh to the CRCA for the purpose of doing a facility upgrade um that is needed.

[3:20:19] Anybody that has been in the uh white capper space uh will recognize that uh

[3:20:24] there is a need uh [snorts] for this work to be done in that space. Uh and so

[3:20:29] so again uh this would be specifically

[3:20:34] uh uh paying for an upgrade uh that is need. it's an identified need that's uh

[3:20:38] within the CRCA and the money would be going uh specifically uh towards uh

[3:20:44] that. Um and so yeah, I I certainly support uh being able to do this and and

[3:20:50] uh being able to move forward and would further encourage uh the presentation

[3:20:55] coming from CRCA so that uh we can continue to partner and work together on

[3:21:00] improving uh our current recreational facility. So with that, I'm going to

[3:21:05] ask, do I have a counselor that would be willing to make the following motion,

[3:21:08] please? Councelor Warsowski. >> Yeah, I can make the motion. I had a

[3:21:13] question. I can I can present it in debate.

[3:21:15] » Sure. >> Do you want to do the motion and ask?

[3:21:17] Yes. >> Which way do you want to go?

[3:21:19] » I'll do both. >> Okay.

[3:21:20] » I'll just leave my mic on, please. >> Y.

[3:21:22] » Thank you. I motion council direct administration to apply up to $5,000

[3:21:27] from the $160,000 allocation to the Chesmir Regional Community Association

[3:21:33] toward the estimated cost of lighting improvements in the lease space occupied

[3:21:37] by the Chesmir White Cappers Association within that facility.

[3:21:41] » Thank you. Comments, questions from council. Council Warzinowski. Uh, yes.

[3:21:45] My question is if there's a $160,000 allocation and there's a need to upgrade

[3:21:49] that facility, why wouldn't the CRCA already just pay for this?

[3:21:58] Um so uh one of the things that we learned within that is that uh this

[3:22:04] particular tenant uh has been paying uh for

[3:22:10] uh facility upgrades for the area that they utilize. Um don't have a direct

[3:22:17] question to that. I do know that um in in my opinion this is a way for uh us as

[3:22:25] the new uh lease to help one of our leases with uh facility improvements of

[3:22:32] that building. >> Okay. Um no I understand your answer.

[3:22:36] Thank you Mayor Dean. I don't know nor I don't know if we

[3:22:42] understand what the lease agreement looks like between the two companies.

[3:22:46] Um, I would suggest that we stay out. I'm not saying I supported I actually do

[3:22:52] support this. However, with the if I knew the lease agreement said that the

[3:22:56] lease is supposed to pay for these marginal improvements, then it's up to

[3:23:00] them. They know the lease that they've signed. If it's not council, I'm going

[3:23:04] to call for an in camera for section 29 under advice from officials.

[3:23:08] » Sure, let's do that. >> Can I uh have the motion to go in

[3:23:11] camera, please, for section 29 advice from officials?

[3:23:19] » [clears throat]

[3:23:29] » Can I have a counselor make the following motion, please? Uh, councelor

[3:23:32] Rosski, can you just make this motion? >> Sure. Yeah, my mic is still on. Thank

[3:23:35] you. >> Thank you.

[3:23:35] » I motion council move into a close session at 11:51 to discuss the

[3:23:39] following. CRCA facility improvement facility improvements access to

[3:23:43] information act section 29 advice from officials.

[3:23:46] » Uh call for the vote [snorts]

[3:23:51] » that's car I'm okay with everybody stay. Yeah.

[3:29:37] I thought you said >> thank you. Thank you everyone. Uh

[3:29:40] looking to for the motion to come out of our closed session. Uh councelor

[3:29:44] Worinowski. >> Gladly chair. I motion that council come

[3:29:47] out of close session at 11:57 a.m. >> Thank you. Uh call for the vote.

[3:29:57] Uh, councelor Nine,

[3:30:02] that's carried unanimously. Thank you. Uh, we'll take our procedural bylaw 5m

[3:30:06] minute break and we will come back at 12:02. Thanks everyone.

[3:34:12] Good

[3:34:24] morning everyone. Just coming back uh from our uh break that we need to take

[3:34:28] after every in camera session. Uh just wanted to uh make a comment about the

[3:34:33] reason for the in camera. um council. Uh the city of Chesmer does not discuss uh

[3:34:39] lease agreements andor binding agreements that exist uh between other

[3:34:44] parties that we may be associated with. Uh those uh discussions are um are

[3:34:50] protected. Uh those agreements are protected and so uh that is a purpose

[3:34:54] why uh that would happen. It may be a different situation if the agreement was

[3:34:59] between uh the city of Chester and a party. Uh but when uh we work with a

[3:35:04] party and they have an agreement party to party uh then that's a bit of a

[3:35:08] different situation. So again uh the motion is on the floor uh for city

[3:35:13] administration to direct uh to council direct administration to apply 5,000

[3:35:17] from the already allocated money that has already been allocated in the budget

[3:35:22] uh that was made public uh during um uh during our uh budget deliberations. Uh

[3:35:31] and so uh so again uh and again this money to clarify would go to the CRCA

[3:35:38] for improvements of the CRCA and would not be going uh to the white cappers. Uh

[3:35:45] comments, questions from council before calling for the vote.

[3:35:49] [snorts] Councelor Sanbo.

[3:35:54] » Thank you worship. One comment on this. Um there is a level of discomfort with

[3:35:58] this because the typical process of allocating money of course outside of

[3:36:02] the granting process is that um a receiving organization would come and

[3:36:06] present to council and make that request. So I think this is a really

[3:36:09] good use of this funding but I do want to stress that this is outside the

[3:36:13] normal process. The ideal process for this would have been for the CRCA to

[3:36:16] come and ask for this money. Um however it is my understanding that um both the

[3:36:23] uh lei and the sub lei um are aware of this idea and see no issues with it. I

[3:36:31] have a concern that this $160,000 is going to disappear into next year's

[3:36:36] budget and not get spent this year. So I'm definitely in favor of this. But I

[3:36:40] want to really encourage the CRCA to come and present and tell us what you

[3:36:44] need money for because this council and this administration is just absolutely

[3:36:48] begging to put money into this facility as evidenced with this motion.

[3:36:52] » Yeah, thank you. Uh that is absolutely correct. Uh the parties that are

[3:36:56] involved in this have been communicated with council is all aware of that and

[3:37:01] the outcome of that conversation uh and the support uh from the organizations

[3:37:06] with regards to that. So that is that is absolutely true uh that those

[3:37:10] conversations with the interested parties did happen. Um and yeah, you're

[3:37:14] you're absolutely right uh that um uh in terms of process uh things can happen

[3:37:21] also though in unique ways when we see um a need that arises within our

[3:37:26] community. There is also some time sensitivity around with this uh with

[3:37:32] regards to that space in that uh they are experiencing problems with uh not

[3:37:37] being able to get parts to replace lights and some of their lights are

[3:37:39] burnt out and because of the age of those things they they just don't are

[3:37:44] not able to get uh access to being able to do some of that work which also um

[3:37:49] influences this. Councelor Grant. >> Thank you. Mayor Dean through the

[3:37:53] charity administration uh Mr. Edney. Um, can you can confirm that this is uh an

[3:37:59] operational budget item and that it's going to a capital upgrade?

[3:38:04] » Mr. Edney. >> Thank you, Mayor Dean. Yeah, through to

[3:38:09] council grant's question. Um, yes, this is acceptable way to do this. Um, lots

[3:38:14] of municipalities will fund capital projects through their operating budget.

[3:38:18] The city of Chester mayor since my time being here before I got here hasn't ever

[3:38:23] actually funded capital projects through tax dollars. It's always been through

[3:38:27] grants, reserves, some other mechanism. So, um it's completely acceptable to

[3:38:32] fund a capital project out of the operating budget. Um so, this project is

[3:38:37] okay >> and some of those grants are taxpayer

[3:38:40] dollars. >> Correct.

[3:38:41] » Community grants are taxpayer dollars and some of those community grants have

[3:38:45] been used for operational items in the community.

[3:38:47] » Correct. Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mayor De. I had one more

[3:38:50] follow. >> Thank you. Um, so my feelings on the

[3:38:54] motion has been made, correct? Sorry. >> Correct.

[3:38:56] » Uh, my feelings on this is that, uh, you know, being a person that uses CRCA

[3:39:03] quite a bit. Um, I don't necessarily want to be the one deciding what

[3:39:08] upgrades happen in that facility. Um, I've seen the facility report and

[3:39:12] there's about $2 million worth of facility upgrades that are needed there.

[3:39:15] Um, and I hear on the weekly about showers needing to be done or um, other

[3:39:21] areas that need um, support as well. So, I'm I'm very uncomfortable with kind of

[3:39:26] deciding who's going to be the beneficiary of this money. I would

[3:39:29] prefer if the CRCA decided who was going to do it within their plans. Um, so just

[3:39:34] for me, I'm not comfortable with that. I don't really want to get advocated to

[3:39:37] when I go to the arena for from minor hockey for money for a thing. So, um, I

[3:39:42] just I'm not in favor of for that reason and I'll just leave it at that.

[3:39:46] » Thank you. I appreciate that commentary. Something I would add to that is part of

[3:39:50] the reason why too we want to have the conversations and the presentations is

[3:39:53] because there's uh things like the green building fund that we would like to work

[3:39:58] with them on to bring some of those uh larger items to uh and again this was

[3:40:04] not about advoc advocacy. Nobody necessarily approached on this and and I

[3:40:10] don't think and also president sending is not a piece this is about uh a

[3:40:15] specific need that was identified that then has been uh brought forward

[3:40:20] councelor Randawa >> thank you your worship

[3:40:24] actually I have only I'm bit uh concerned about that because we already

[3:40:30] in the past few months we made a motion to keep 160 for CRCA and the other thing

[3:40:36] is because you mentioned that the white cappers did not ask for the money and

[3:40:43] then why we have to give and the other thing

[3:40:46] is I would like any uh organization to come and present at the council to ask

[3:40:52] for money and then we can make at the council debate and follow motion. So

[3:40:57] that's why um at this moment for that uh I'm not comfortable. I want I actually

[3:41:03] want to directly listen from the white cappers. Thank you.

[3:41:07] » Thank you. That's why the money is not this is again to be very very clear. The

[3:41:12] reason I support this motion is because the money is not going to the white

[3:41:16] cappers. That's why I support this motion. This money is going to a

[3:41:21] facility upgrade of the CRCA. They operate their programming inside of

[3:41:28] that space. That's true. But this money is not going to the white cappers. This

[3:41:33] money is going to the CRCA for a facility upgrade inside the CRCA.

[3:41:40] Council Ryan. >> Thank you, Royship. Um through members

[3:41:44] of council. So I'm in support of the of giving the $160,000 to CRCA. I'm also in

[3:41:50] support for giving the $5,000 to the white cappers. It just seems a little

[3:41:54] wonky the way, you know, I think all of this is happening because

[3:42:00] um essentially we're giving money and we're stipulating that this is how you

[3:42:05] should be using it. Um yes, we're going to say that use it towards capital

[3:42:10] project yet there's no real way or reporting back to see if this money will

[3:42:17] be actually utilized for a capital project. Um,

[3:42:22] again, I'm in support for this, but I, you know, even go as far as saying that

[3:42:28] I want to give $160,000 to CCA, but then also give uh an additional $5,000,

[3:42:35] making it $165,000 um directly to to white cappers.

[3:42:40] » Yeah, I guess I I guess on that we would have to have a completely different

[3:42:44] motion and have an increase to the budget of $5,000. And uh that's in my

[3:42:50] opinion would be to utilize your word would be even more wonky uh because then

[3:42:56] without an ask from either the CRCA or the white cappers we are making an

[3:43:02] addition to the budget. This to me again the reason I am so supportive of this is

[3:43:06] that this is money that was allocated to the CRCA. Um and one of the desires that

[3:43:13] we had seen is they are one of the few organizations in the city of Chester uh

[3:43:18] where we have traditionally given them money without a reporting structure. Uh

[3:43:22] and we are the only municipality that does that with them. They have a

[3:43:27] reporting structure to Rocky View County whenever they spend money uh and have

[3:43:34] made presentations and have made applications including for this year

[3:43:39] that they have made an application for specific dollar amounts with the reason

[3:43:44] of why those dollar amounts are being used. And so I guess for me I I'm

[3:43:50] I would love to see our municipality treated within the same respect. Uh and

[3:43:55] so again, this is it falls within a budget that we had allocated and it is

[3:44:01] just utilizing that money for a very specific

[3:44:04] project for that organization. Council Warzinowski.

[3:44:08] » Thank you, Mayor Dean, and thank you for making some of those

[3:44:12] clarifications. I know I stated the motion. I really haven't said which way

[3:44:15] I'm leaning. While I was initially leaning in support, I'm now leaning in

[3:44:20] opposition for the reasons that yes, I agree with Mayor Dean. All of these

[3:44:25] things should be presented. If we're planning on giving $160,000 or any money

[3:44:29] to the CRC, they should they should tell us what they're spending their money on.

[3:44:35] I don't think we should. $5,000 is a drop in the bucket. It's not about the

[3:44:39] money. It's about understanding what this CRCA is responsible in doing with

[3:44:43] that facility with the 160,000 or any other funding that they get. If it turns

[3:44:48] out that they don't make this upgrade, I'd rather see the white cappers come to

[3:44:52] us and say, "Listen, they're making us pay for this. We're asking for the

[3:44:56] money." Add further to councelor San Councelor Sanbo's commentary while she's

[3:45:00] in support actually changed my mind because this isn't standard practice. I

[3:45:04] know we do often fund projects that are not presented before us. Uh this one,

[3:45:10] the white cappers are we have a great relationship with them. If they don't in

[3:45:14] if this is not passed and they don't get the money, if the CRCA does not do the

[3:45:18] upgrades with this 5K, then uh I'd like to see an alternative brought towards

[3:45:23] council from the community to pay for the lighting in that facility. Thank

[3:45:26] you. >> So, here's what I think is going to

[3:45:27] happen. First of all, I don't think it's appropriate for the White Cappers to

[3:45:30] come and ask for the money from the 160 for them. So, they would be coming and

[3:45:35] asking for an additional budget request, which I'm not sure we should be doing.

[3:45:39] Secondly, um the other concern that I have with that is I agree with council

[3:45:44] is that we have been asking so the earliest we're going to see a

[3:45:49] presentation is 10 months at least after the original ask for them to come and

[3:45:55] present and this meets a need that exists right now. They have a need right

[3:46:02] now that exists that has been expressed and that we're able to go and I

[3:46:07] appreciate the fact that the CRCA uh their board is run by a group of

[3:46:12] volunteers who are a very busy group of volunteers and to me here's an

[3:46:17] opportunity for us to meet a very practical need that is right in front of

[3:46:22] them uh that that we are uh that we are aware of um and is not then having to

[3:46:29] have a not for-profit who operates programming inside of that building have

[3:46:35] to come and advocate for their own for capital up for capital costs that are

[3:46:41] for the CRCA. I I think that's a far more

[3:46:46] complicated process. Councelor Sambbo, >> thank you your worship. And I would

[3:46:51] agree. I think if this was in addition to not um not from a lack of willingness

[3:46:56] to support the the nonprofit, the white cappers, um but that would have to go

[3:47:00] through the grant adjudication committee. That would just be fair. Um I

[3:47:05] did want to point out that if this motion does go ahead, this puts all the

[3:47:08] control into the CRCA's hands because they could say no to receiving this

[3:47:14] money, right? You know, we can't force them to take this money. were just

[3:47:17] saying, "Hey, here's something we heard about within this allocation that we'd

[3:47:20] like you to spend some money on," which is what funders do. That's a very normal

[3:47:24] process. Somewhere along the line, City of Chester granting got way out of

[3:47:28] whack, and this is just not how funding happens. Um, so if the CRCA took a

[3:47:33] longer look at this, because from what I understand, we've heard from at least um

[3:47:37] a representative of of the CRCA that this could be uh agreeable. um

[3:47:44] if they take a longer look at this and they decide that's not the best use of

[3:47:46] that money, they can come back, give a presentation to council and say what

[3:47:49] they would like to ask for, it's what they do for Rocky View County and any

[3:47:53] other grant that they're asking for. So I Yes, it's outside regular process, but

[3:47:58] I hope that this spurs a little bit more conversation and again, let's just spend

[3:48:01] some money on this facility this year. >> Absolutely. I it is it is shocking to me

[3:48:07] that we see a need uh and we're not wanting uh to spend a practical need

[3:48:13] that's right in front of us for a very low low amount of money and lowrisk

[3:48:17] opportunity that is absolutely shocking to me. Councelor Schindler, uh, sorry,

[3:48:22] Deputy Mayor Schindler, uh, to through you to the rest of

[3:48:27] council, I I hear your trepidations and I I I understand that, uh, you know, you

[3:48:34] can look at it two different ways. We're reducing their funding by $5,000 and

[3:48:38] we're only going to give them 155 and maybe we should have given it to them at

[3:48:43] the beginning of the year with no strings attached and and uh, you know,

[3:48:47] done what we've done years past. I want to just push back on that and say that

[3:48:53] we're stewards of the taxpayer dollar. Um, and we make everybody come to us and

[3:48:58] ask who outside of us who who uh want money. They they have to do a

[3:49:03] presentation just like they have to do a presentation with every single other

[3:49:07] organization that they work for to get money. Um it's very unique that we would

[3:49:13] just give people $160,000 of taxpayer money without um without at

[3:49:19] least a conversation. And you all know we've been asking for that conversation

[3:49:25] for a long time. And this money's just been burning a hole in our pockets um

[3:49:31] since since budget. Um, we're giving five grand to the CRCA,

[3:49:38] which is exactly what we had planned to do. They haven't given us a

[3:49:42] presentation. We're going to give it to them anyways

[3:49:46] if we pass this. Um, are they going to spend it on lighting? Yeah, they could.

[3:49:52] They might not. But at the same time, we're giving them the money and trying

[3:49:57] desperately to spur them on to come have a conversation with us. I honestly I

[3:50:02] can't figure out why they haven't come yet because I know if any other not

[3:50:05] forprofit was in this community that was sitting with $160,000

[3:50:11] in front of them like a carrot, they would certainly be u leading straight to

[3:50:16] council chambers and doing even a rudimentary presentation. This is who we

[3:50:20] are and this is what we do in the community. Um

[3:50:24] please please let's give them some money and yes it's going to go to the white

[3:50:29] cappers. It's uh space, but let's let's put some money

[3:50:34] in their pocket and give them that that incentive to come to us for the rest of

[3:50:38] it to do whatever and then we'll help them with the green municipal fund. We

[3:50:42] can goodness they're they need to leverage us because they need funding

[3:50:46] for upgrades and we are willing to help them. I I I don't know what else I can

[3:50:52] say other than please support this because we're we need to get them at the

[3:50:58] table yesterday. Thanks councelor Mandalo.

[3:51:02] » Thank you your worship. I agree with the councelor Schindler. Um yes this money

[3:51:08] is not going directly to uh to white cappers is going to CRCA.

[3:51:13] So why don't we give just the whole fund to the CRCA and we know that building is

[3:51:18] old the lights need to be changed those all we all know that's understandable.

[3:51:23] So why don't we just why we if we request them to come I have no idea why

[3:51:29] they are not coming to be honest if they are going to rocky view present

[3:51:33] everything so I think we need to dig more deeper the reason

[3:51:40] either they are upset or some other reason they don't want to come to

[3:51:44] console to present or think even though they know clearly there's 100 160,000

[3:51:50] sitting for them so rather rather than making these portions 5,000 10,000 or

[3:51:57] 25,000 so just give it to them uh towards for the facility I think that

[3:52:03] should be agreed then >> thank you I think it's a good reminder

[3:52:05] here too that motions were made of council to handle it in this way uh and

[3:52:11] if a council wants to make a different motion uh then that uh can be done but

[3:52:16] the motion from council was for the presentation to come uh and motions of

[3:52:20] council need to be supported by all members of council unless a different

[3:52:23] motion or different direction is taken. Uh so just a reminder that this was a

[3:52:27] direction very clear direction of council as to what we were doing with

[3:52:31] the 160,000 for uh the CRCA. Uh councelor Warzinowski.

[3:52:35] » Uh thank you chair. Uh one last comment just just to reinforce what you're

[3:52:39] saying as well to our deputy and councelor Randawa.

[3:52:44] This motion was not presented by me in any way to incentivize the CRCA to come

[3:52:49] here and present. It's very clear on what the ask is here and I would suggest

[3:52:53] that whatever you're voting on is based on that motion. If motions want to come

[3:52:57] out or intent of motions in the future about how we're going to spend $160,000

[3:53:02] in a rec facility, that's something that a future motion can deal with. For now,

[3:53:08] please let's focus on this motion and let's move forward.

[3:53:11] » Thank you. Uh Deputy Mayor Schindler. >> Um that's that's a good point. Um, I

[3:53:18] would like to then uh have add a friendly um to uh have administration

[3:53:25] reach out and encourage uh the CRCA to come to council um within the next 30

[3:53:35] days >> or something to that effect.

[3:53:38] » With with respect, we've we've already gone down that road. The invitation's

[3:53:42] out. We've written letters. We have done everything that we can do. And I don't

[3:53:46] think that that's a that's an entirely different motion that could be

[3:53:49] entertained after this motion. I do not think it's a friendly to this motion.

[3:53:54] » Okay. Councelor Warzinowski. >> No, I agree. I wouldn't accept that

[3:53:57] friendly. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Grant. Thank you,

[3:54:00] Mayor Dean. I I just need to confirm. I So, I've been told that CRCA has reached

[3:54:04] out to us to book a meeting. Mr. Edney, uh I'm looking to confirm if that has

[3:54:10] actually happened or not. Mr. Rodney,

[3:54:15] » I I was told it was Rebecca or sorry, Miss McGelry that uh was reached out to.

[3:54:20] » Oh, um yeah, I can't comment. Um Miss McGelry would not be the right place to

[3:54:25] book a meeting. That would be through me or the mayor. So, um or are you talking

[3:54:29] about a time to come present? >> Yeah.

[3:54:32] » Um I'm not sure at this stage. I don't know if Candace has heard. Um

[3:54:36] unfortunately, Miss McGelry is out ill today, but uh I can circle back on that

[3:54:40] with you. but they aren't on the July agenda.

[3:54:43] » Thank you, Mr. Any. >> Okay, with that, uh I'm going to

[3:54:48] exercise uh something I rarely do as chair in terms of uh just kind of that

[3:54:54] final comment piece. And here's the final comment piece that I will make.

[3:54:59] There's been a lot of comments about process and pro uh protocol and those

[3:55:03] sorts of things. I I think the reputation I've

[3:55:07] established as mayor, one of the reputations I think is that process is

[3:55:12] extremely important to me. Uh and I've even done it throughout this motion

[3:55:16] making sure that we're doing that. And so um with respect, while I was not the

[3:55:21] one who uh brought the motion forward, I'm certainly uh a bit of a driving

[3:55:25] force uh behind uh this particular item. Um, and I would strongly uh I would

[3:55:33] strongly encourage and humbly ask uh that council does support uh this

[3:55:38] motion. I do think from uh with respect to what uh councelor Warzinowski has

[3:55:44] said, while it's not an impetus so to speak for them to come, I think that

[3:55:48] there are some positive

[3:55:52] uh relational and political reasons for supporting uh this motion. Um I will say

[3:55:59] that it's unfortunate in my opinion. It is unfortunate in some ways the

[3:56:04] direction that this conversation has gone uh because uh my hope with bringing

[3:56:09] this forward is I thought uh simplistic uh conversation whereas now uh I I hope

[3:56:15] that we don't have to do any kind of further uh relational um conversations

[3:56:21] uh because again I do want to reiterate both organizations were contacted about

[3:56:27] this both organizations were aware that this was coming forward and both

[3:56:30] organizations have expressed support for this happening. I think that that is

[3:56:35] very key in this. Uh and I certainly in my position as chair would not have

[3:56:41] pushed andor allowed for this to have hit the agenda had those organizations

[3:56:46] not expressed support. Um but uh support was expressed for this particular idea

[3:56:54] from both organizations. And so again, I would strongly encourage and humbly ask,

[3:56:59] uh that uh council support this particular motion. So with that, um

[3:57:08] call for the vote.

[3:57:16] And that is that motion is defeated by majority vote.

[3:57:20] Thank you. With that, we will uh break for lunch.

[4:52:06] Good afternoon everyone. Coming back from our lunch break now and uh

[4:52:09] proceeding on with our agenda. We're going to move to item 10.5.1

[4:52:13] which is city hall parking lot expansion. Uh this is being uh presented

[4:52:17] by Mr. Dr. Janed Ahmed uh senior project manager and such Chennok a director of

[4:52:23] community growth and infrastructure. Good afternoon Mr. Chennok.

[4:52:28] » Good afternoon. Good afternoon mine members of council for the record my

[4:52:33] name is Sachuk director of community growth and infrastructure division and

[4:52:36] with me is Janeed Ahmed our senior project manager. Uh we are here to

[4:52:41] present city hall parking lot expansion options.

[4:52:44] » [clears throat] >> I'll start the presentation and then

[4:52:46] Jonath will take over for some u options that we have. Um throughout this

[4:52:51] presentation we'll be presenting the motion that council asked us to work on

[4:52:55] work on uh some background purpose statement understanding what class D

[4:53:00] estimates are uh some options that we've worked on and then an alternate strategy

[4:53:05] and then our recommendations to council this uh I'd pass it on to Janate uh who'

[4:53:11] walk you through some of the options. Thank you so much S. Good afternoon

[4:53:16] mayor and council. Um as we see that thing in December 2025 uh a motion was

[4:53:22] passed by council uh that directed the administration to go and work on uh the

[4:53:27] city hall parking lot and to assess uh the operations and to get a report back

[4:53:32] to the council in March 2026. Uh we then basically uh requested an extension on

[4:53:38] the report submission till June 2026 and here we are presenting that. Um so going

[4:53:43] into um the background of uh the city hall

[4:53:48] parking lot. So this city hall and the parking lot was constructed in 2004. It

[4:53:53] basically was designed to do uh the operations and uh fulfill the needs uh

[4:53:58] for that time zone and with all the capacity that was there uh for the staff

[4:54:03] that was working over the course of last decades. We have grown uh and we have

[4:54:08] more staff working in this facility. Um this parking lot basically have got 64

[4:54:14] parking stalls which includes four reserve for city vehicles, one for the

[4:54:18] loading dock, two for barrierfree access. Uh that reduces the available

[4:54:22] net to 57. Uh the staff that works in this facility is 93. Uh which basically

[4:54:29] creates an overflow parking on specific days as well uh on regular days uh to

[4:54:36] the adjacent uh street parkings as well as onto the properties uh adjacent to

[4:54:41] this building. um to address this parking problem. Uh

[4:54:45] again uh as we were directed in 2025 December by mayor and council to go back

[4:54:51] and assess uh administration basically uh

[4:54:57] have created and evaluated multiple options uh as a concept design and work

[4:55:01] with our cost consultant to come up with an cost estimate which is a class D

[4:55:05] estimate uh that will be presented in the upcoming slides. Um and then we will

[4:55:10] also discuss an alternative parking strategy. Uh just to walk you uh through

[4:55:15] uh a class D estimate. It's a very high level class uh estimate that has a

[4:55:20] variance of negative 30% to plus 50. This estimate has got very minimum

[4:55:25] information uh into it. Uh and it is only intended to use a high level

[4:55:30] decision-m support. Um the budget that is presented in these uh estimates can

[4:55:35] vary a lot as we dive deep into the detailed design and we go through the

[4:55:39] construction. So it gets refined at every stage if it gets approved. Um the

[4:55:44] estimate that were done was uh intended for the year 2027 construction season

[4:55:49] not 2026. So we have a an inflation that is added onto that one. Uh some of the

[4:55:55] factors that were excluded as part of the estimate were the hazardous material

[4:56:00] in encountered uh if we can if we come across those ones uh when we do the

[4:56:05] underground work or anything. Uh the off-site utility servicing that may or

[4:56:09] may not uh in uh add more cost or uh schedule uh impact onto this one.

[4:56:16] Weather conditions as well as the US tariff impacts. So those uh things were

[4:56:20] excluded as part of the estimate. Uh if you look into the screen uh we have the

[4:56:27] first option that we looked into and that is like adding more stalls onto the

[4:56:31] west side of the existing parking lot removing the green space. It adds 14

[4:56:35] stalls uh to the existing parking lot. This uh option has got the least amount

[4:56:40] of disruption uh to the facility or the parking lot. Uh it works on the site. It

[4:56:46] has the lowest risk, but the estimate u that we see is uh $392,000

[4:56:51] and549.

[4:56:55] Option number two is again uh an extension onto the west side, but it

[4:56:58] just adds more angled parking onto it. It adds 17 more stalls to the existing

[4:57:03] parking lot. Uh it has similar sort of risks uh as compared to the option one

[4:57:08] and the estimate is fairly close to that one which is $395k, $863.

[4:57:17] When you look at the option number three, that is the most expensive and

[4:57:20] the most extensive one. Uh cuz basically we are adding the combination of option

[4:57:25] one, option two on the west side and then the east side. It basically pushes

[4:57:29] the shed that we have uh onto the green field. It builds up a retaining wall uh

[4:57:34] and add more space onto it. But the maximum that we can add onto the

[4:57:38] existing one is 35 stalls. The reason you see that it goes into over a million

[4:57:42] dollar is because it adds a structural component onto it which basically is the

[4:57:47] most costly item onto it. It also impacts the storm water management

[4:57:51] because then we have to address uh the drainage issues and maintain the

[4:57:55] existing flow to this. Now the risk that we we see on

[4:57:59] proceeding with either of these options it's uh the cost and scope may vary

[4:58:04] because again like this is a very basic information that was provided to the

[4:58:07] cost consultants. Uh the more we dive deep into the structural analysis or the

[4:58:12] road analysis the cost will change. Um the impact is uh going to be uh quite

[4:58:18] significant because either of the cases if we have to proceed with the

[4:58:22] construction will have certain impacts onto the operations. We'll have closures

[4:58:26] to the entrance to the parking lot at certain time but it can vary. We don't

[4:58:30] have those schedules cuz it's not a construction that we have dived deep

[4:58:34] into. Um and the impact on the operation cost will increase as well cuz then we

[4:58:38] have to maintain more cleaning uh snow removal things like that. It'll come at

[4:58:43] a cost. The direction if you not proceed with anything the deficit on the parking

[4:58:47] lot and all these overflow on the adjacent lands will still remain the

[4:58:52] same. Uh [clears throat and snorts] all these options do provide uh capital

[4:58:59] improvement. Uh but the maximum limitations of or or we can say that the

[4:59:04] maximum parking lots that we can add is 35. It still leaves a deficit onto it.

[4:59:09] Cuz if we compare the staff that is existing right now compared to how many

[4:59:13] stalls we can add onto, we still have a deficit. And with the future growth of

[4:59:17] the city, we may have more staff then we'll have this kind of uh deficiency to

[4:59:24] continue in future as well. Uh I would like such to just sure thank you

[4:59:32] [clears throat] Janette. Um so the improvements partially only partially

[4:59:36] address uh the need that we have um and it doesn't necessarily give us stuff

[4:59:43] parking stalls that would ideally like to have um on the site. Now in terms of

[4:59:48] u council's idea of uh finding efficiencies throughout the process and

[4:59:53] everything that we undertake, we've also undertaken an alternate parking strategy

[4:59:58] uh study so to say. Um and the idea surrounding that was that we are going

[5:00:03] to grow as a city regardless of what we do. Uh we currently have about 93 people

[5:00:07] in city hall u as staff positions. Uh but we have about over 100 positions

[5:00:12] that are approved. So we're still recruiting for a number of positions and

[5:00:15] um those new staff members wouldn't necessarily need uh have any parking on

[5:00:19] site. Um it is not a long-term solution. So even if we increase the number of

[5:00:24] parking stalls, it is not going to be a long-term solution because we are

[5:00:26] outgrowing we are uh outgrowing the capacity of the city hall and a more

[5:00:32] permanent long-term solutions that are needs to be looked at when we are trying

[5:00:35] to address the parking issue. And um another option another point

[5:00:41] would be reconsidering short-term investments. So if you go ahead and

[5:00:44] spend all the money if council so wishes uh it only again addresses the

[5:00:50] problem in short term. it doesn't necessarily address the problem of where

[5:00:54] do we take city hall or where are we uh having staff move in the long term. So

[5:00:59] considering all those points, [clears throat] we looked at an

[5:01:03] alternate parking uh strategy. Uh and we reviewed areas closer to us, one of

[5:01:08] which was John Peak Memorial Park, uh Marina Drive and Marina Road. All of

[5:01:12] these areas have parking available onto them. We conducted a seven business day

[5:01:17] parking survey to understand how many of these areas have how much parking spaces

[5:01:22] filled over uh a period. The survey that we did for Marina uh

[5:01:27] John Peak Memorial Park gave us some information. First week as you can see

[5:01:32] uh the maximum uh car parking that we observed there was about 26 stalls and

[5:01:38] uh second week uh was about 38 stalls. That two was only on Friday evening.

[5:01:44] Alter to that uh the average parking was 17 or 18 for the first two weeks. Um and

[5:01:50] the morning parking was 10 or 11. So the overall parking

[5:01:57] lot at John Peak was less than 15% filled in the morning [clears throat]

[5:02:02] and about 33% filled in the evening on any given day.

[5:02:08] Um again low morning demand with 7 to 14 vehicles recorded on John Peak. uh

[5:02:13] moderate demand in the afternoon with 15 to 28 vehicles. Highest observation was

[5:02:18] 38 vehicles on a Friday. Uh marina road counts remain comparatively low uh and

[5:02:24] stable indicating residual capacity. Now this is also contingent on which day are

[5:02:28] we looking at. Uh for the most part when we have council and gap meetings, some

[5:02:32] of these areas are filled more uh than other days. Our alternate parking

[5:02:38] strategy proposes uh a reconfiguration of how parking stalls are distributed.

[5:02:44] Uh in on your screen you'd see a black line in front of the parking in front of

[5:02:50] the city hall parking lot. Uh we are proposing that we reserve six stalls for

[5:02:55] public. Right now there are some stalls for public but everybody parks there and

[5:02:59] so there is no real public parking stalls uh at any given point. So, we're

[5:03:04] proposing that six stalls at the front be reserved for public only, four stalls

[5:03:09] for city vehicles, uh two barrierfree access stalls, and one loading dock. And

[5:03:14] that will allow us to have remaining stalls of about 51 uh on site which can

[5:03:19] be used for staff parking. Now, John Peak Park has about 96 stalls

[5:03:25] and overflow parking from city hall can be accommodated there during peak hours

[5:03:29] because it's at a walking distance. It's not very far. can easily be people staff

[5:03:34] can easily sort of park there and come to city hall walking. We can monitor the

[5:03:40] usage at John Peak parking uh lot and if required we can also put up a reserved

[5:03:46] parking signs for uh 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. Monday to Friday which will leave

[5:03:52] about 56 parking stalls for public at all times even if we mark 40 stalls uh

[5:03:57] for staff parking. As this times uh all 96 stalls will be available for public.

[5:04:03] Now this [clears throat] is this strategy only comes into play if we

[5:04:06] choose to go that route. This will also allow us to have Marina Road and Marina

[5:04:12] Drive uh parking uh freed up. Marina Drive currently has about 20 stalls that

[5:04:19] will free up if we ask staff to start parking in John Peak. And Marina Road

[5:04:24] will have 16 has 16 parking stalls that will also free up. Um some of this will

[5:04:29] cater to the overflow parking that we typically get uh during council and gap

[5:04:34] meetings. Overall when we look at [clears throat]

[5:04:38] the summary uh the project cost for option one which adds 14 stalls would be

[5:04:42] about 400,000. Option two which adds 17 stalls would be about 400,000. Option

[5:04:47] three would add which adds 35 stalls would be about $1.2 million. And if we

[5:04:53] go with the alternate strategy where we just reconfigure the parking, uh we're

[5:04:58] not necessarily looking at a significant cost except the cost for signage. Uh in

[5:05:03] all, option one will give us 78 stalls, option two will give us 81 stalls,

[5:05:07] option three gives us 99 stalls, and option four will give us uh 104 stalls.

[5:05:14] With us, our recommendation to council is that council receives this report u

[5:05:19] [cough and clears throat] on parking lot expansion options for information. Um as

[5:05:24] it is, if we spend if council chooses uh and we spend money on a short-term

[5:05:28] interim solution, it'll just be temporary because long-term solutions

[5:05:33] would have to be figured out, including moving some of the staff from city hall

[5:05:37] to elsewhere to be able to sort of uh work more efficiently. We're already

[5:05:41] outgrowing the space and spending money at this point uh would not may not be as

[5:05:47] useful as that money would be elsewhere. That we're open to any questions.

[5:05:54] » Uh Mr. Ed Mr. Edby >> I think thank thank you Mayor Dean.

[5:05:59] Yeah, excellent presentation Janade and Mr. Chandio. I think I just wanted to

[5:06:04] add one more quick comment to the alternate parking strategy. Um that came

[5:06:08] out of the earlier um process this morning looking at our larger uh use of

[5:06:15] city hall space and knowing that we have some projects coming down the map. um we

[5:06:20] don't believe it's prudent to spend money at this time to expand until we

[5:06:24] have certainty on where staff ends up going um and where we end up you know

[5:06:29] whether we relocate city hall or we use city hall differently in the future. Uh

[5:06:33] so I really appreciate the team's thought and idea on um you know we kind

[5:06:38] of brought this at budget time because it had been an existing project and when

[5:06:42] we sat down and started working through this we said do we actually really have

[5:06:45] a problem the answer became no not if we use some existing facilities around us.

[5:06:49] So I want to say thanks to the team hopefully this uh report meets council

[5:06:54] standards and and you're on board with our our short-term plan here.

[5:06:57] » Councelor Ryan thank you worship through you uh to Mr. Adne and administration.

[5:07:02] Fantastic presentation indeed and thank you Mr. Edney for pointing out uh you

[5:07:07] know a few things here including uh the the future of uh of city hall and you

[5:07:13] know what that is going to be like uh whether we're going to move and whatnot.

[5:07:17] There's definitely you know a larger conversation um that council would have

[5:07:21] to have sooner than later. Um I'm also really happy to see the option you know

[5:07:27] where we don't have to put in money. That's that's always uh good. Uh I I do

[5:07:34] have a question because the range you know of 30 to to 50% that's quite

[5:07:39] significant. How far into the project you have to go into before you'd have a

[5:07:45] better idea

[5:07:49] through me to councelor Ryan. Thank you so much for that question. Um

[5:07:53] the class D estimate is basically used to see whether the project is feasible

[5:07:58] or not on budget side. Once uh the decision is made that yes it is feasible

[5:08:04] to move forward. This cost is usually reduced as we proceed through the design

[5:08:09] that's why it says -30 to plus 50. The reason at times it goes as as positive

[5:08:15] is if we have too many unknowns into it. So tomorrow if we start to look into the

[5:08:20] ground conditions and it comes up that we have too much hazardous material uh

[5:08:24] that needs to be removed then the cost goes up. If the ground condition on

[5:08:28] these kind of projects is normal, then the cost goes down because now we are

[5:08:33] refining the scope. We not we don't have open-ended. Now we are coming and

[5:08:37] closing it down. So if you're looking into an approximate $400,000 for option

[5:08:42] one and two, uh if we go through that options and go to the detail design, it

[5:08:46] should drop down easily to 20% of that one once we go into the utility locates

[5:08:52] where we have to do things. Does the water line needs to move? Is it

[5:08:55] interjecting or not? Things like that gets refined into it. So on a normal

[5:09:00] scale on any capital projects they are reduced. The only time that you see the

[5:09:04] cost going up is like we have too many unknowns.

[5:09:07] » Okay. Uh you follow up. Uh and to my understanding and please correct me

[5:09:12] here. So it would be relatively easier to scale back with opt scale back or

[5:09:20] scale up with option one and two as opposed to option three.

[5:09:25] uh through May to council again uh all these three options I just reference one

[5:09:30] and two just for an example all these three options have got the class D

[5:09:33] estimates they don't have all the details into it

[5:09:36] » okay >> options three well you see it's

[5:09:39] significantly high cuz like I said it adds a structural component onto the the

[5:09:43] parking lot we talking about a reinforced retaining wall onto the

[5:09:48] library slope site so that it supports the load of additional car parks and

[5:09:53] then it moves the shed that we have onto a new location. So that whole concrete

[5:09:57] pad needs to be either demolished or relocated. Um roughly to relocate that

[5:10:04] shed only is close to $90,000. Yeah. So uh that's an estimate right

[5:10:11] now. Again, if the option or the direction is to proceed in either of

[5:10:14] those ones in future or now, we'll have to deep dive into the the details of it

[5:10:18] and refine the cost and come back again uh to council in future for maybe a

[5:10:24] final approved budget for that point. >> Okay. Thank you. I still like the idea

[5:10:27] of spending no money. >> And

[5:10:31] thank you uh your worship. Uh [clears throat] thank you for the

[5:10:35] presentation. It's very detailed. I really appreciate for that. But

[5:10:38] definitely the marina one on the side road and drive. Uh I be thinking when

[5:10:44] during the winter there's a snow uh is on the side then we cannot park that

[5:10:50] because then the road is got smaller. So that is option uh I don't consider that

[5:10:56] but uh the other free option I would happy to consider that one and we have

[5:11:02] that parking during the day available. Majority of the time we always go here

[5:11:07] there even if we are not in a console we are uh I go through the city walk uh to

[5:11:12] the lake and stuff. Yes during the day those stalls are available to park. I

[5:11:18] think that will we consider the reason is that even we are spending money is

[5:11:23] not that much parking is going to terminate our employees or anybody from

[5:11:30] the public. So that that is the concern I'm seeing very clearly because it's

[5:11:36] only few stall is increasing and we are spending quite a bit money and still is

[5:11:40] not going to that tangible result we are looking for.

[5:11:44] » Thank you >> Dr. Samville.

[5:11:47] » Thank you your worship and my question through to Mr. Edney and on through to

[5:11:50] our two presenters. Um, thank you for this. And I'm not I'm not sure if I

[5:11:54] missed it, but it was unclear to me whether the projections and the numbers

[5:11:58] included the needs for the library downstairs and for the public attending

[5:12:03] the library >> through the chair to council. We have

[5:12:07] not included uh the numbers for the library. Um we are assuming at this

[5:12:13] point that the parking in front of library is sufficient for the most part.

[5:12:17] uh we've not and during evenings when the library sort of gets used more uh

[5:12:22] we'd have more spaces on the city lot city hall parking site uh parking in

[5:12:26] front here um and even in John Peak because by that time the employees are

[5:12:30] typically sort of they've taken off and uh there's more parking available uh at

[5:12:34] that time so uh at this point we've not necessarily considered library into this

[5:12:38] whole scenario. >> All right, thank you. um a comment then

[5:12:42] on that. Um if this no money option was chosen again also like the no money

[5:12:49] option [laughter] um but if it was chosen I would suggest uh uh just

[5:12:53] talking to library and seeing how that might impact them. I know when I've

[5:12:56] attended the library with my kids, I've had to park at JP before and um the

[5:13:00] proposed plan over there would um take up all of those stalls that are closest

[5:13:06] to the library and often uh the the folks who are visiting the library

[5:13:10] during the day during that time when they would be blocked off have strollers

[5:13:13] and kids and bags and and that kind of stuff. So, I wonder if there's maybe um

[5:13:18] just a consideration in there that they might be able to give you a heads up on

[5:13:21] to help with that planning >> through the share. can absolutely

[5:13:24] connect with them. Um, one thing that I'd like to clarify when I say no money

[5:13:27] is that there's no um there's no big money ask. Uh, the signs are would be

[5:13:36] something that I think we can manage uh from our budget. Uh, but it's not a big

[5:13:41] capital ask is where I'm going. There is still going to be a little bit of money

[5:13:45] that's required to put up signs and stuff. So,

[5:13:47] » Mr. Edney. >> Yeah. Thank [clears throat] you, Mayor

[5:13:49] Dean. Just to add on to on to the comments here. I think it's important to

[5:13:53] know we're not going to go out right away and and reserve those spots in John

[5:13:57] Peak. Um the illustration was more for example, we have talked about

[5:14:01] potentially just reserving like the west side, leaving the east side free for

[5:14:06] those exact reasons. Um making staff walk a little bit further than anybody

[5:14:10] using the library. Um, you know, I was out at lunch today and I noticed maybe

[5:14:14] this is for Director Fluker, who isn't here, but I saw a number of people pull

[5:14:18] up in the library parking and take their dog for a walk. So, I think that's where

[5:14:22] we need to start is stopping that behavior, um, and getting those people

[5:14:26] to park further down in John Peak. But, um, yeah, the intent is right now, um,

[5:14:31] we're finding a way to make it work. And of course, when John Peak gets busier in

[5:14:35] the summer, we tend to have staff on vacation and that kind of stuff. So,

[5:14:38] we're hoping the process we're using now can work for a while. If we need to,

[5:14:42] we'll put up signs, but if we don't, we'll we'll do it. But I will work with

[5:14:46] Director Fluker on addressing the library a little bit better.

[5:14:52] Uh, thank you. Certainly appreciate the work and the effort that's gone into

[5:14:55] this. Director Chanok, I'm wondering if you can speak to the fact that your

[5:15:01] alternative parking strategy seems to eliminate my parking spot. Are we

[5:15:06] [clears throat] accounting for that? cuz I just

[5:15:10] » I mean, we kind of made one up for me as it is so that I park far away, but uh

[5:15:14] I'm wondering if I'm going to be able to keep that within your alternative

[5:15:18] parking chart >> through the chair to the chair. Uh the

[5:15:22] four city vehicle parking spots that you see includes the spot for mayor

[5:15:28] city [laughter] >> the branch vehicles

[5:15:30] » the No. So there's one parking spot right next to

[5:15:35] uh the accessible stalls. that says city reserved.

[5:15:38] » Yeah, that's where the city vehicle goes.

[5:15:40] » That's where the city vehicle goes. And then you have three branch city

[5:15:44] vehicles. >> Yeah,

[5:15:44] » that's where the spot for the mayor would be.

[5:15:47] » You're putting me closer to the door. >> Well,

[5:15:49] » but I like staying far away cuz I didn't want any special treat.

[5:15:52] » We'll we'll give you that one. >> All right. [laughter] Can I stay where I

[5:15:55] am? That's all I'm >> We'll figure that out. I don't think

[5:15:58] that's a that's a problem. Um >> I just I wanted to check. I was very

[5:16:01] concerned. >> We'll reserve one spot for for the

[5:16:04] mayor. >> Thank you. I appreciate that.

[5:16:08] Okay. Any other [laughter]

[5:16:11] » I have one now. I didn't want to lose it.

[5:16:14] » Okay. Uh any other uh comments, questions from council? Uh councelor

[5:16:20] Randalla. >> Thank you. This this one is just for the

[5:16:24] future note because city is growing. um the bigger municipality I can say I

[5:16:31] don't know about the smaller yet but the bigger municipality anytime the city is

[5:16:35] growing the way we are growing for the future note there is uh we are planning

[5:16:41] uh for the paid parking for those one as well for the future that's what I just

[5:16:47] need to not now but down the road I just need to keep that consideration because

[5:16:52] from that one we have to I think going on to that

[5:16:56] route after a few years because the bigger

[5:17:00] municipalities switch into those ones for the paid parking.

[5:17:04] » So the chair at this point we haven't u sort of given consideration to paid

[5:17:09] parking given that there is enough parking at this point. Um in the future

[5:17:13] when we have if we have transit I think it sort of makes more sense for people

[5:17:17] to carpool and u provides for a way for people to get here. Um, in the absence

[5:17:22] of transit, I wouldn't necessarily recommend it, but that's a consideration

[5:17:26] for future 100%. >> Thank you. So, I see within this though

[5:17:31] that you're looking essentially though for a motion to receive for information,

[5:17:34] meaning that essentially you'll be proceeding then with the alternative

[5:17:37] parking strategy. Is that correct? >> So, the chair that would be correct.

[5:17:40] » So, unless a counselor is wanting to go with options one, two, or three, then

[5:17:45] accepting for information means that we that admin will proceed with the

[5:17:48] alternative practice strategy. >> Okay. So, let's test that. Uh, with that

[5:17:53] understanding, do I have a counselor that would like to make the motion to

[5:17:56] receive this report for information? Councelor Nyan with the council accept

[5:18:00] the city hall parking lot expansion options for information,

[5:18:04] » comments, questions from council. Call for the vote

[5:18:11] and that's carried unanimously. Thank you. Um, with that now we're going to go

[5:18:16] to the staged approach of the intersection at Range Road 284 to

[5:18:19] Chesmer Boulevard. Uh, also being presented by Mr. Jane Ahmed, uh, senior

[5:18:24] project manager and Mr. Such Chanok, director of community growth and

[5:18:28] infrastructure. Good afternoon again gentlemen.

[5:18:31] » Good afternoon uh, Mayor Dean and members of council. Once again for the

[5:18:35] record, my name is Sachant, director of community growth and infrastructure and

[5:18:38] with me is Janeed Ahmed, senior project manager in our division. Uh we are here

[5:18:42] to present Range Road 284 and Chester May Boulevard intersection upgrades. Uh

[5:18:49] our recommendation to council is that council will accept this report uh for

[5:18:52] information. Uh to give you a little bit of background in February of 2026,

[5:18:57] council had passed a motion uh directing administration to bring forward report

[5:19:00] on 28 uh range 284 and Chester Boulevard intersection by end of June 2026. And

[5:19:06] that's the reason for why we are here. Uh this the intent of this motion as we

[5:19:10] understood was to ensure that we keep proceeding with uh trying to find a

[5:19:16] solution for that intersection uh to address the operational safety concerns

[5:19:20] uh at that intersection. Since then council has uh had conversations about

[5:19:26] the specific intersection in IMC [snorts] meetings uh where councilors

[5:19:30] from city of Calgary were also present. uh council has also written a letter

[5:19:35] through mayor to city of Calgary to work collaborately asking them to work

[5:19:40] collaboratively with the uh city of Chester mayor's administration staff to

[5:19:45] be able to address the solution address [clears throat] this problem since then

[5:19:49] we have uh been in constant touch with the city of Calgary uh some of the last

[5:19:56] meetings that we had were in June uh to be specific June 11th uh where we've

[5:20:01] discussed some of the models uh surrounding that intersection with

[5:20:04] city of Calgary. We've also proposed 50/50 cost sharing mechanism with them.

[5:20:09] Uh Calgary does not seem to be on board with the cost sharing model but they are

[5:20:13] uh open to operating and maintaining that

[5:20:17] intersection improvement and signalization once it is done. uh we

[5:20:21] have also been able to [clears throat] sort of come to certain level of

[5:20:29] understanding uh surrounding the solution that can be uh constructed on

[5:20:34] that intersection in terms of signalization that is still ongoing. The

[5:20:38] conversation on that is still ongoing. Uh because we're still proceeding

[5:20:41] through the conversations, we don't necessarily have a final idea of where

[5:20:44] we are going to land. Uh all we are asking council is to give us a little

[5:20:47] bit more time so that we can continue to work through this uh and bring forward a

[5:20:51] final report to council to say this is what is happening at that intersection

[5:20:54] and this is the solution that Calgary is on board with and this is the money that

[5:20:57] we are going to be incurring when we implement the solution. Uh with that

[5:21:01] said our recommendation to council is to accept this report uh for information uh

[5:21:06] while we work through some of the solutions and allow us more time to come

[5:21:09] back with a proposed solution and cost estimates for what is going to take to

[5:21:13] improve that dissection. Great. Thank you. Uh with that, I'm

[5:21:17] going to ask uh administration uh I'm going to ask council for us to move to

[5:21:21] to a close session under section 29. Advice from officials, please. With

[5:21:27] regards to this item, can I have a counselor make a motion, please, to move

[5:21:30] into close session at 1:49 p.m. to discuss intersection at Range Road 284

[5:21:35] to Chester Boulevard. Can I have a council make the following motion,

[5:21:38] please? Councelor >> Certainly, your worship. I move that

[5:21:42] council move into close session at 1:49 p.m. to discuss the following.

[5:21:47] Intersection at Range Road 284 to Chester Boulevard. Access to information

[5:21:51] act section 29. Advice from officials. >> Thank you. Call for the vote.

[5:21:58] [snorts] >> And that's carried unanimously. Thank

[5:22:00] you.

[5:36:05] Thank you. Uh, just coming back from our closed session. Can I have a counselor

[5:36:08] uh make the motion to come out of close session, please? Uh, C Deputy Mayor

[5:36:12] Schindler. >> I move that council come out of close

[5:36:14] session at 2:03 p.m. >> Thank you. Call for the vote.

[5:36:21] » That's carried unsley. Thank you. As for our procedural bylaw, we'll take our

[5:36:24] 5minute break and come back at 210. Thanks everyone.

[5:45:25] Good afternoon everyone. Just coming back from our break and continuing on

[5:45:28] now with our discussion uh from uh with regards to the intersection at

[5:45:34] Range Road 284 to Chesmer Boulevard. Uh council, were there any questions uh

[5:45:38] with regards to uh the presentation? Okay, I have a quick one. So what's next

[5:45:45] then? what would be uh what's the next step that we're looking at uh with

[5:45:49] regards to the go forward and uh I guess is there any more commentary on that

[5:45:55] piece about uh the not funding 50/50 because I thought my understanding

[5:45:59] though is that in some ways is this not like a 50/50

[5:46:04] intersection between us and Calgary. So I'm just wondering a little bit more

[5:46:07] commentary uh with regards to that uh as well as what are our next steps uh

[5:46:11] moving forward just so that we're really clear. Uh, director Chanok,

[5:46:14] » thank you. Through the chair, to the chair. Um, uh, next steps we, our

[5:46:20] request to council is that council accepts this as information and give us

[5:46:23] some more time to be able to sort of work with Calgary and allow us to come

[5:46:26] back with a more refined solution that would address the problem. Uh, with the

[5:46:31] budget ask if there is any down the line. Um, that is our request to council

[5:46:36] in terms of next steps. Um, in terms of 50/50 cost sharing, uh, my

[5:46:40] understanding, and Janet might be able to, uh, add to it, is that they're not

[5:46:44] open to the idea of 50/50. The intersection as it stands right now is

[5:46:48] sort of 60/40, uh, 60% on our side, 40% on their side, but there'll be a part of

[5:46:52] signalization that will happen in their boundary in their territory. And so u

[5:46:57] our I guess ask of them was that let's because it's a share inter intersection

[5:47:03] let's uh spread the cost uh which they don't seem to be on board with uh

[5:47:08] because it's not a need at their end at this point. U Jed might be able to add a

[5:47:13] little bit more onto this. >> Thank you so much S and through the

[5:47:17] chair to the chair. Um what such has explained is exactly the same way the

[5:47:21] reason we propose 50/50 again because it's an interim solution. it's going to

[5:47:25] benefit both the cities. Uh whether we draw the city boundary line of 6040

[5:47:30] right now that basically would play more in the role of the utility right of way

[5:47:34] when the intersection gets developed uh to its ultimate capacity. Um since like

[5:47:39] I said it's an interim solution and it's going to benefit both the city. That's

[5:47:42] why it was proposed that we both split the cost. Um the approach that we have

[5:47:48] uh looked into through their transportation team and myself being

[5:47:51] involved with the discussion is we use uh a temporary solution of the wood span

[5:47:56] and the wired span like we have on our Chelsea intersection as well. Um that is

[5:48:01] the only viable solution that we have seen right now. We won't be going with

[5:48:04] the concrete bases or a full metal post onto this one cuz that's going to be

[5:48:08] part of the ultimate solution since it's right now temporary. That was the reason

[5:48:13] that we proposed 50/50 to that which they are not very confident on it. But

[5:48:17] what they have proposed is that they would provide their resources on to the

[5:48:21] reviews as well as take on the operational cost of this intersection.

[5:48:25] So anything that part of their operations in future as well once it's

[5:48:29] built out for the interim solution they will basically take the ownership of the

[5:48:33] operations of this one. [sighs]

[5:48:36] So timelinewise uh would it be advisable for us? So I'm

[5:48:41] just looking our next IMC meeting with Calgary is on September the 11th. Is

[5:48:46] this a particular topic that we should bring to uh IMC on September the 11th?

[5:48:51] Would would that in any way be beneficial moving forward

[5:48:54] » through the chair? I'd recommend that you uh allow us some more time. If

[5:48:59] you're able to come up with a solution, then perhaps it might not be a

[5:49:02] conversation at the IMC. If not, then uh would inform council at which point

[5:49:06] council can choose to put it on the IMC agenda.

[5:49:11] So we >> we might be able to come up with a

[5:49:12] solution prior to that. So >> yeah, [snorts] so we generally don't

[5:49:16] need to or approve agenda items for IMC at a council meeting. So I wonder Mr.

[5:49:23] Dreany, uh, if you can, uh, through, uh, through your role and through with, uh,

[5:49:30] Miss Pro as, um, Interg uh, relations adviser, maybe we just

[5:49:36] make a note of that uh, that this might be a possible topic of conversation at

[5:49:40] that IMC. Maybe we just make note of that uh, to bring that forward to that

[5:49:44] September 11th IMC. Okay. Thank you, uh, Councelor Grant.

[5:49:49] » Thank you, Mayor Dean. Uh, one thing in the report that I would like to address,

[5:49:53] um, is the taking over the operations after it's built. Um,

[5:49:58] I don't know, I think most people know me by now and I like to re retain

[5:50:02] control over such things. And the only reason, um, I'm bringing this up is is I

[5:50:08] think about our current traffic light at Chesmmer Boulevard and Rainbow Road and

[5:50:12] how that intersection used to be a really bad intersection for uh,

[5:50:16] accidents. And what actually happened was council or maybe through council and

[5:50:21] administration they were able to modify that signal to make it where you can't

[5:50:24] turn um in front of oncoming traffic. So that's my concern is that if we have a

[5:50:29] similar issue here at that at that traffic uh light are we able to address

[5:50:33] it or do we have to ask someone else to address it

[5:50:39] » through the council? Uh we will be able to address that thing but we will be

[5:50:43] using city of Calgary to address those concerns. We'll be working with them on

[5:50:47] the operations and uh the reason they propose it cuz they have the similar

[5:50:51] configuration with the Alberta transportation on the deer traffic

[5:50:54] lights and all the ones that led to the north on the Adri side as well. So

[5:50:58] basically uh all those lights come under Alberta transportation

[5:51:03] uh governance but city of Calgary operates on them. So they're proposing

[5:51:07] the same structure because it's touching the boundary and that's what they want

[5:51:10] to take in future as well for any uh boundary touching intersections with any

[5:51:15] other municipalities that they have that they would use the same structure.

[5:51:19] That's where this originated from. >> Okay. I think in that situation I'd be

[5:51:23] more comfortable if there are 50/50 partner on that kind of situation. So

[5:51:26] » we are pushing for the >> Thank you.

[5:51:29] » Uh councelor Rando. >> Thank you your worship. So normally they

[5:51:35] deny the 50 they don't want to share the cost obviously with other like

[5:51:39] everywhere in the municipality always the boundary share somewhere. So how

[5:51:44] that uh procedure work uh with other municipality and if council for example

[5:51:50] our boundary share with for with the Calgary and if they ask the same thing

[5:51:55] we deny and that it's done that's what it is or there is other procedure to

[5:52:01] follow as well that's my one question first

[5:52:04] » through the chair to councelor Randhava um a lot of this a lot of capital

[5:52:09] projects would typically be identified through um ICFs so intermunicipal

[5:52:15] collaboration framework would identify some of these projects and that would

[5:52:19] define how we are going to be working with our neighbors to be able to

[5:52:22] construct some of these capital projects. Uh the second layer that comes

[5:52:26] into partnership is your inter municipal development plans which will also sort

[5:52:30] of identify what will happen at which stage and which city is going to be

[5:52:34] responsible for what kind of I guess planning and infrastructure design so to

[5:52:39] say. Um so some of it is captured there. Outside of that it is primarily

[5:52:44] negotiations with different cities. Um if it's our need then um I guess we can

[5:52:51] advocate for them to sort of take over some of the cost. um at this point given

[5:52:55] that they don't necessarily see much value in it, given that there's no

[5:53:00] population on their side, um there might not be uh

[5:53:07] enough value for them to spend on this intersection. Now, that is not to say

[5:53:12] that we cannot uh ask for it. Uh we can't push for it. Whether or not do

[5:53:16] they accept is ultimately their um choice, but uh we'll continue to

[5:53:21] advocate for it. Thank you for the answer and the main main follow the next

[5:53:27] one is uh for the intersection obviously there is uh collision happen and those

[5:53:33] all so if that's just the concentration if administration through co can take it

[5:53:40] uh right off for that one for time being until is properly built there the

[5:53:45] intersection consider that side as well I'd be appreciate for that

[5:53:49] » so the chair will will take that into consideration

[5:53:54] Great. Thank you. Uh any other comments, questions from council before we accept

[5:53:58] for information? Seeing none, can I have the motion to

[5:54:02] accept the report for information, please? Uh council,

[5:54:06] » let's move the council accept uh range road 284 and chastise into section

[5:54:11] update for information. >> Comments, questions from council.

[5:54:15] Call for the vote.

[5:54:20] And that's K and Ashley. Thank you. >> So, chair, we're also u requesting that

[5:54:27] uh council allow us to keep working on it and bring it back at a later date for

[5:54:30] » Thank you. Can I have a council make the following motion, please?

[5:54:36] » Deputy Mayor Schindler. I move that council approve an extension to the

[5:54:41] reporting timeline of the staged approach of the intersection at Range

[5:54:45] Road 284 to Chestir Boulevard report to allow administration to return with a a

[5:54:52] comprehensive report including a proposed solution confirmed cost sharing

[5:54:56] agreement with the city of Calgary and associated budget implications.

[5:55:02] Uh thank you. Comments, questions from council. Call for the vote.

[5:55:12] And that's carried unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes that

[5:55:15] matter. Now moving to 10.5.3 which is which is the transitional rural

[5:55:20] residential TRR district land use bylaw amendment first reading. Uh this was uh

[5:55:26] tabled on April the 28th. So the first thing that we're going to need to do uh

[5:55:30] is to lift this item from the table. So, uh Josh, if we could just have the

[5:55:35] motion to lift this item from the table, please.

[5:55:39] Can I have a counselor uh make the following motion, please?

[5:55:43] Uh councelor Grant. [clears throat] Thank you, Mayor Dean. I move that

[5:55:47] council lift from the table bylaw number 018-26

[5:55:51] being the transitional rural residential district land use bylaw amendment.

[5:55:57] » Thank you. Call for the vote.

[5:56:01] That's carried unanimously. Thank you. Okay, with that, uh, this presentation

[5:56:05] is being brought to us by Mr. Colin Kelly, Planner One. Good afternoon.

[5:56:10] » Uh, good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Uh, yes, my name is Colin Kelly, planner

[5:56:14] one with the community growth and infrastructure division. Uh, so before I

[5:56:18] begin my presentation, uh, I would like to highlight that the bylaw in the

[5:56:21] agenda package, uh, so 018-26, uh, does require changes to address the

[5:56:26] amendments to schedule A of the land use bylaw. uh the bylaw attached to the

[5:56:30] agend agenda package does not correctly align with the report that you have

[5:56:33] provided. Uh and this bylaw that uh I'll be showing on the screen and have been

[5:56:37] handed out uh corrects that error and ensures that the content of the bylaw uh

[5:56:43] zero uh for 018-26 uh aligns with the report and the

[5:56:47] presentation. Uh the amended bylaw can be uh legislative services can bring

[5:56:52] that up on the screen um can be seen there as well as in the hard copies. Um

[5:56:57] just a quick note with the hard copies. Uh you will note on the screen that

[5:57:00] section three uh under section 3 3.5 has been removed uh just because as a part a

[5:57:06] part of the uh template and just isn't required. So the only difference uh

[5:57:09] between what you have printed and what is shown on the screen there um and the

[5:57:13] difference between the bylaw that was in the agenda package um and what is on the

[5:57:17] screen here is uh just the amendments to schedule A um where the report and this

[5:57:22] presentation will speak to uh the existing transitional rural residential

[5:57:26] uh parcels going to being redesated to country residential.

[5:57:32] Thank you for letting me uh

[5:57:37] before moving forward as always I would like to acknowledge that all my comments

[5:57:40] pertaining to this presentation shall be made through the CAO to the mayor and

[5:57:44] all members of council. uh administration is here to present a land

[5:57:48] use bylaw amendment bylaw 018-26 to resend the transitional rural

[5:57:52] residential district and to amend the land use district of three properties

[5:57:56] within the north acreages community

[5:58:02] sorry always forget I have this thank you

[5:58:06] uh so just what we'll be going through in today's presentation

[5:58:13] okay so uh please note that this presentation um has not been modified uh

[5:58:17] since it was first first presented to council on April 28th um and that the

[5:58:21] motion date for public hearing is now um incorrect. Uh the report provided as a

[5:58:26] part of the council package has the correct dates and motions that I will

[5:58:29] now read. Uh an administration is recommending the following motions. That

[5:58:34] council give first reading to bylaw 018-26

[5:58:38] amendments to bylaw 020-24 being the land use bylaw as amended. and

[5:58:43] that council approved the scheduling of a public hearing for bylaw 018-26

[5:58:48] for July 28th, 2026 at 100 p.m.

[5:58:58] Okay. So, uh administration is proposing

[5:59:03] amendments to the land use bylaw 020-24 as amended. Uh the proposed amendments

[5:59:08] are to remove section 10.20 20 transitional rural residential district

[5:59:13] and renumber subsequent districts and to amend schedule A of bylaw 020-24

[5:59:19] being a land use bylaw as amended land use map by redesating lots 15 16 and 17

[5:59:25] block 3 plan 2512036 from transitional rural residential to

[5:59:31] country residential district. Um and that will be as shown in schedule A of

[5:59:35] the bylaw.

[5:59:40] So, as of February 2026, the country residential district was approved, which

[5:59:45] provides an additional option for acreage subdivision. Uh, residents have

[5:59:49] shared concerns regarding the transitional rural residential district,

[5:59:52] which includes the need of for each of the off-site levy items to be paid at

[5:59:56] the time of subdivision. So, uh, water, sanitary, and storm water. Um, in

[6:00:01] addition, shadow plans and the need to demonstrate the ability to transition to

[6:00:05] increased density have been noted uh as an issue in discussion uh with acre

[6:00:09] acreage uh property owners.

[6:00:16] Uh so this slide uh shows the purpose statement from section 10.20

[6:00:20] transitional rural residential district in the land use bylaw. As noted, the

[6:00:24] intention of the district from its inception was to demonstrate not only

[6:00:28] the transition from larger properties to a minimum wet acre, but to also show how

[6:00:32] these properties could subsequently transition to a more dense urban form of

[6:00:36] development with full water, sanitary, and storm water services. Uh this does

[6:00:40] not align with the intent of acreage owners seeking to only subdivide to one

[6:00:44] acre properties and there is no guarantee that these owners will further

[6:00:47] transition to a higher density in the future.

[6:00:53] This information is also from section 10.20 transitional rural residential

[6:00:58] district in the land use bylaw and is to ill illustrate the embedded requirements

[6:01:02] for shadow planning and storm water requirements that restrict parcels to a

[6:01:05] minimum 1acre lot area. If an application does not demonstrate the

[6:01:09] noted requirements showing the potential future locations of dwellings, property

[6:01:12] lines and roads in a shadow plan uh then the requirements of the TRR district are

[6:01:17] not uh are not met.

[6:01:22] And so this is um this slide shows the city of Chesmmeir

[6:01:27] offsite uh off-site levy bylaw. Uh please note that since uh this item was

[6:01:31] first presented and tabled, this has been updated. Uh in principle uh it is

[6:01:36] all the same as far as country residential district uh being able to

[6:01:40] have water sanitary and storm uh deferred.

[6:01:44] Um but those numbers have subsequently changed. So for area 9 uh for the

[6:01:48] transitional rural residential district uh it is 493,278

[6:01:54] for area 13 438,747 area 142,483

[6:02:02] and for area 2242143

[6:02:07] um and with those deferred as they may be done for country residential the

[6:02:10] total for each of those areas would be 195,327

[6:02:15] uh so increased numbers based on the newer off-site levy bylaw. Uh but the

[6:02:19] same principle as the transitional rural residential

[6:02:23] district is a transitional district and contemplates additional future density.

[6:02:27] Each off-site levy bucket including water, sanitary, and storm water are

[6:02:30] included through conversations with acreage owners that have interest in

[6:02:34] reszoning their properties. Uh this has been noted as a concern from these

[6:02:37] owners as these services are not being constructed to their properties as part

[6:02:40] of the application they are submitting at this time. The country residential

[6:02:44] district on the hand on the other hand allows for water sanitary and storm

[6:02:47] water levies levies to be deferred as the country residential district

[6:02:53] resolves this concern for acreage donors uh that seek to subdivide prior to

[6:02:56] municipal servicing uh administration believes that TR is no longer required

[6:03:00] to remain in the land use bylaw as a district.

[6:03:06] So currently within the city of Chestmir, there are only three

[6:03:09] sidebyside lots designated as trans transitional rural residential. Uh

[6:03:14] should council choose to rescend the district, these lots will need to be

[6:03:17] resated to a different land use district. There are three other

[6:03:20] residential land use districts to amend to these lands uh that do not require

[6:03:24] full municipal services. That is the large lot rural residential district,

[6:03:29] rural residential district, and country residential district. Uh at the time of

[6:03:33] subdivision of these lots, off-site levies uh were deferred since two of the

[6:03:36] three lots already had buildings on them and the policy allowed for a deferment

[6:03:39] of off-site levies for one lot. Uh this deferment of off-site levies aligns with

[6:03:43] the country residential district. Um though the country residential district

[6:03:47] requires a lot width of 50 meters, which two of the three existing transitional

[6:03:51] rural residential parcels do not comply with. uh these properties otherwise meet

[6:03:55] the requirements of the land use bylaw uh such as the minimum uh lot size

[6:03:59] setbacks and building heights in the country residential. Uh in addition, the

[6:04:03] large lot rural residential district and rural residential district are intended

[6:04:07] to remain as they existed when they were uh annexed uh which does not meet the

[6:04:11] intent of those districts. For these three existing TR parcels,

[6:04:16] further subdivision would require properties to be resoneed from either

[6:04:19] TRR or country residential to an urban residential district. um as they are

[6:04:23] already near the minimum permitted lot size in both of these districts. Uh this

[6:04:27] means that the reasonzoning of these lands from transitional rural

[6:04:30] residential to country residential does not impact the process for subsequent

[6:04:34] development as they would need to be reszoned to one of the urban residential

[6:04:37] districts in either case.

[6:04:42] Uh for implications uh there will be one remaining land use district the country

[6:04:46] residential district which allows for acreage subdivision uh that does not

[6:04:50] require municipal water sanitary and storm water infrastructure to be

[6:04:53] provided. Um the existing transitional rural residential district parcels will

[6:04:58] need to be amended to a different existing land use district uh if the

[6:05:02] district is rescended. Um and this addresses the concerns that have been

[6:05:05] noted uh by acreage owners with the transitional rural residential district

[6:05:10] um in that they require off-site levy payments for water sanitary and storm

[6:05:14] water infrastructure uh which cannot be deferred and they need to demonstrate

[6:05:18] the ability to transition to urban density through shadow planning which

[6:05:21] has been difficult for acre donors that do not wish to subdivide further.

[6:05:28] recommendations. Uh, administration recommends proceeding with the first

[6:05:31] reading and scheduling a public hearing for the resinment of the transitional

[6:05:35] rural residential district to obtain feedback from residents.

[6:05:39] Uh, here to answer any questions if you have any.

[6:05:42] » Thank you. Because this is first reading, typically what we've been uh

[6:05:46] doing uh is uh passing proceedings so that we can allow for the debate and

[6:05:52] those sorts of things to happen. I just want to clarify

[6:05:56] process-wise, if we were to vote no on first reading

[6:06:01] of this, essentially that would just leave TRR as a district. Is that

[6:06:05] correct? >> Uh through the chair to the chair. Yes.

[6:06:08] » So the consequence of that would be >> um that the transitional rural

[6:06:14] residential district would not be resented from the land use bylaw.

[6:06:17] » Right. Um and admin would like to see it removed

[6:06:21] at this time. Yes. Um that is the proposal

[6:06:25] administration is bringing forward for uh the reasons noted in the

[6:06:28] presentation. >> So the voting on first reading right now

[6:06:31] so the voting on first reading right now simply would then allow for this

[6:06:36] conversation to then continue uh go to public hearing where public input could

[6:06:41] then happen um but does not necessarily demonstrate council's support for or

[6:06:46] against said bylaw but rather opens up the conversation for that to happen.

[6:06:52] Would that be a fair assessment of what voting on this first reading and any

[6:06:57] first reading? Uh, but just given some of the commentary that we've heard even

[6:07:00] today as part of public input, I'm just anticipating

[6:07:04] likely comments that will show up in the mayor's email in the next 20 minutes.

[6:07:09] Uh, so I just wanted to clarify uh just from a process standpoint. Mr. Chandio,

[6:07:14] » through the chair to the chair, uh, you're correct. The only uh I guess

[6:07:23] contemplation that happen if council chooses to let

[6:07:28] through this uh to approve first reading is that you as council are willing to

[6:07:34] listen to the concerns of the public uh through public hearing process. Uh

[6:07:38] you're willing to allow administration uh to present their thoughts on it and

[6:07:42] uh you're open to a conversation in terms of asking questions and gathering

[6:07:45] input. uh by virtue of you approving first reading. It does not necessarily

[6:07:49] mean that council is supporting it or not supporting it. This is only to say

[6:07:53] that you're open to this conversation and you'd like to hear more about it

[6:07:56] from public from council uh from administration and would like to seek

[6:07:59] more information. Um until you've made a decision which is uh at this third

[6:08:04] reading uh typically it's not contemplated that any of the counselors

[6:08:09] or council in general is in support of this or not. Your decision decides what

[6:08:13] council's final verdict is >> cuz voting no on first reading stops

[6:08:18] conversation >> through the chair. If you turn this down

[6:08:20] at this point, it'll this this project or this resentment

[6:08:25] would die. >> Right. Okay. Thank you. So, I just

[6:08:28] wanted to provide that clarity for council because I know that it's a

[6:08:32] internal conversation I've been having. I can also like I said already

[6:08:36] anticipate uh the emails that I will be receiving this week. Uh and so I thank

[6:08:41] you for that clarity. I just uh that was more for public's benefit if you will in

[6:08:46] that uh this does not even demonstrate a bias one way or the other from council

[6:08:51] with regards to the uh approval of this first reading should it pass but rather

[6:08:55] opens up that opportunity for further conversation uh as per even some of the

[6:08:59] conversations we were having uh this morning which already seems a long time

[6:09:02] ago uh during public input. Okay, with that uh are there any other questions

[6:09:08] with regards to the presentation? Councelor Randawa.

[6:09:11] » Thank you, your worship. >> Thank you, your worship. I have only the

[6:09:14] clarity question. The motion is requested uh to schedule the public

[6:09:19] hearing May 26, 2020 or is it July 28th? What you said?

[6:09:24] » July. >> Okay, that's good then. Thank you.

[6:09:27] » Okay. Okay. Can I have the motion then for uh to pass first reading, please?

[6:09:33] Can I have a councelor McFallin motion, please?

[6:09:37] Councelor and Ryan just move the council give

[6:09:41] first reading to bylaw number 018-26 being the transitional rural residential

[6:09:48] district land use bylaw amendment. Thank you. Uh comments, questions of council

[6:09:54] call for the vote.

[6:09:59] That's carried unanimously. Thank you. With that then we can go ahead now and

[6:10:02] book the public hearing. Can I have a counselor make the motion to book the

[6:10:05] public hearing, please? Uh, councelor [snorts] Randawa.

[6:10:09] » Thank you, your worship. I move that the council approve the schedule of a public

[6:10:13] hearing for bylaw number 018-26 for July 28th, 2026 at 100 p.m.

[6:10:22] » Thank you. Comments, questions from councel.

[6:10:25] Call for the vote.

[6:10:29] Thank you. With that now carried and given uh the comments that were made

[6:10:33] both by myself and director Shannok, I want to reiterate comments that were

[6:10:37] made this morning during the public input session that if you have feedback

[6:10:41] now that you would like to have officially go on record, including

[6:10:43] records that may have been handed to counselors as part of public input, if

[6:10:47] you would like that to be part of the official record of this conversation,

[6:10:51] then I encourage you now to follow uh the public hearing uh process and the

[6:10:56] collection of that uh information and to either attend and in person um or via

[6:11:02] phone uh on July 28th at 1 p.m. as part of the public hearing process. Great.

[6:11:07] Thank you. Okay. Now, we're going to go to 10.5.4,

[6:11:13] which is direct control DP number 26 220102102-288

[6:11:22] Kenberg Boulevard permitted use. Presented by Shaman Vino, manager of

[6:11:26] development and building services. And Obina. Oh, you threw a new name at me.

[6:11:31] This is unfair. Unfair when you throw a new name at the mayor without the

[6:11:35] preparation. >> Okay, Oena, I'm going to give this a

[6:11:38] shot and I apologize in advance. And I'm and I'm going to take a swing because I

[6:11:41] got Esso down now, right? I've I've got that one figured out. So, here we go.

[6:11:46] So, Obina uh Usuzima. >> Perfect.

[6:11:49] » Yes. >> Slow clap everyone. Slow clap.

[6:11:52] » So excited right now. Thanks buddy. Uh, planning and development technician too.

[6:11:57] Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon, mayor and council. Um,

[6:12:01] thank you for the introduction. And yes, for the record, Chairman Vento,

[6:12:05] development manager, community growth and infrastructure. With me at the

[6:12:08] gallery is Obina Usuzima, uh, file manager, development technician too for

[6:12:14] this development permit. Before I move forward, I'd like to note that all of my

[6:12:17] comments will be made through the CEO to your worship and to all members of

[6:12:22] council. Um, before council today is a

[6:12:26] development permit application DP26-22028102

[6:12:31] for unit 102 at 288 Kberg Boulevard. The application is for a tenant improvement

[6:12:38] to convert an existing vacant commercial unit into an office. The property is

[6:12:42] zoned within Kenny Commercial Plaza and is zoned direct control based on the

[6:12:47] local commercial district. Under this district offices is listed as a

[6:12:52] permitted use as the site is zoned direct control. Council is the

[6:12:56] development approving authority and therefore the decision maker on this

[6:12:59] application. The application was received as a

[6:13:03] complete application on May 22nd, 2026. No exterior changes are proposed to the

[6:13:09] building. The application is limited to the conversion of an existing vacant

[6:13:13] tenant space to an office use within the existing commercial plaza. From a land

[6:13:18] use perspective, the primary consideration for this application is

[6:13:22] parking. Under the land use bylaw, office use requires one parking stall

[6:13:27] per 37 square meters of gross floor area. The proposed office space is

[6:13:32] approximately 100 square meters, resulting in a requirement for three

[6:13:35] parking stalls. administration reviewed the parking

[6:13:39] supply for the overall commercial development. When the plaza was

[6:13:43] originally approved in 2014, 72 parking stalls were provided,

[6:13:48] although 50 stalls were only required. With the proposed office use, the site

[6:13:54] will continue to maintain a surplus of 12 parking stalls. As a result, the

[6:13:59] development complies with the parking requirements of the land use bylaw and

[6:14:02] no variance is requested. administration has reviewed the proposal

[6:14:07] and determined that one offices is a permitted use in the direct control

[6:14:11] district. No exterior alterations are proposed. Parking requirements are

[6:14:16] satisfied. No variances are required for this application and the proposal is

[6:14:20] compatible with the existing commercial plaza and surrounding area. The

[6:14:24] surrounding area consists of a mix of existing commercial development,

[6:14:28] residential use, a playground, and a school. Administration does not

[6:14:32] anticipate any adverse impacts to the adjacent properties as a result of the

[6:14:37] proposed use. Therefore, administration is recommending that council approve

[6:14:41] development permit DP26-22028102

[6:14:46] for a permitted use office at unit 10288 Kennyberg Boulevard subject to the

[6:14:52] conditions attached in attachment B. I would be happy to answer any questions

[6:14:57] from council now. >> Great. Thank you. Uh any comments or

[6:15:01] questions from council with regards to uh the proposed uh development permit?

[6:15:09] Seeing none, can I have the motion please for council to approve

[6:15:13] development permit 0262202 028102.

[6:15:18] Councelor Andawa. >> Thank you your worship. I move that the

[6:15:22] council approved the development permit 26-222028102

[6:15:31] as submitted subject to the condition of approval outline in attachment B.

[6:15:37] » Thank you. Comments, questions from councel.

[6:15:41] Call for the vote.

[6:15:48] » That's carried unanimously. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Thank you. Appreciate

[6:15:51] it. >> Okay.

[6:15:54] Uh we're now going to go to bylaw 028-26,

[6:15:57] Clearwater Park Split Zoning Land Use bylaw Amendment. First reading,

[6:16:03] presented by Mr. JP Lllair, planner one. Good afternoon.

[6:16:10] [clears throat]

[6:16:13] Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Uh for the record, my name is JP JPlair,

[6:16:17] planner one, uh community growth and infrastructure division.

[6:16:22] I will be presenting a request for decision speaking on the land use bylaw

[6:16:27] amendment for lot one block 2 plan 2412540

[6:16:33] in Clearwater Park for split zoning. Recommendations to council that council

[6:16:38] give first reading to bylaw 02 826 being amendments to bylaw 020-24

[6:16:47] being the land use bylaw as amended and that council approve the scheduling of a

[6:16:54] public hearing for bylaw 028-26 for July 14th, 2026 at 10:00 a.m.

[6:17:03] The subject [snorts] property is in Clearwater Park at the intersection of

[6:17:07] Chester Boulevard and Clearwater Passage as shown in attachment A. And maybe if

[6:17:12] we could bring up that attachment A as the map while I'm speaking that might be

[6:17:15] uh easier. Currently the lot is vacant and is

[6:17:21] splitzoned i.e. there is or sorry it has two different land use zones that

[6:17:26] regulate development. The northern portion

[6:17:30] is zoned as direct control residential multi-unit district known as DCR3 and

[6:17:36] the southern portion is zoned as residential multi-unit district

[6:17:42] uh known as R3. Given that the development authority for

[6:17:47] the portion that is zoned direct control is council and that the development

[6:17:52] authority for the land zoned R3 is administration.

[6:17:56] Rendering development decisions on a split zone lot is challenging. Another

[6:18:00] challenge is challenge is determining the exact boundary of the bordering two

[6:18:05] land use zones as the zoning is conceptual and was never based on

[6:18:09] surveyed boundaries. In consideration of this, administration

[6:18:14] is recommending that council redesate the entire subject property as one land

[6:18:19] use zone. Um being option one shown in bylaw sorry

[6:18:25] sorry the bylaw shown in attachment B. Uh that would be all resident all to to

[6:18:30] the whole zone to residential bylaw sorry to residential multi-unit district

[6:18:34] R3 and the option two as shown in attachment C the whole uh lot as direct

[6:18:41] control residential multi-unit district DCR3

[6:18:46] reszoning the entire subject property to residential

[6:18:50] uh multi-unit district R3 would allow administration to render decisions on

[6:18:55] development applications ations. This would allow development

[6:19:00] applications to proceed through the standard development and building permit

[6:19:04] approval processes, eliminating the need for individual

[6:19:08] council approvals and providing builders with a more streamlined and consistent

[6:19:12] approval process. Well, zoning zoning to direct control DCR3 would require

[6:19:17] council to consider development applications having oversight

[6:19:23] of development on these lands. This is in relation to February 20 26. An

[6:19:29] application uh was before council on behalf of the owners to change the

[6:19:35] number of stories in the R3 district and to reszone the entire subject property

[6:19:40] to residential multi-unit district R3. This was denied by council.

[6:19:46] However, given the complex complexities uh that I've noted around decision-

[6:19:50] making uh on the split zoning on this parcel, administration is bringing

[6:19:54] bringing this forward to clarify that and define the uh development authority

[6:19:58] for the whole subject property. That concludes my uh presentation and

[6:20:03] we're happy to answer any questions from council. Thank you.

[6:20:08] » Right. So again, like we just uh did with one a moment ago, this would be for

[6:20:12] first reading to for this to come forward and then we'd book a public

[6:20:16] hearing for open debate. Is that correct on what we're doing here? Thank you. Uh

[6:20:21] but the proposal would be obviously then to sorry the proposal is to go to all R3

[6:20:27] and so that it would be more consistent with even recent decisions that have

[6:20:31] been made by council should this pass. Okay. Uh director Chanok

[6:20:36] » through the chair. Our proposal or recommendation is that council consider

[6:20:39] one zoning across the entire lot, be it R3 or DC. Thank you.

[6:20:43] » That's a decision for council to make. All we're recommending is council

[6:20:46] consider reszoning the entire lot to one zone.

[6:20:49] » And that would be done then at as part of the public hearing process

[6:20:54] » as part of debate second and third >> through the chair. Yes.

[6:20:56] » Great. Thank you. Okay. So, at this time, we're just going to give first

[6:20:59] reading so it can go to public hearing so we can debate this on July the 14th.

[6:21:03] Great. Can I have a counselor make the motion to give first reading to bylaw

[6:21:06] 028-26, please? Councelor Grant. >> Thank you, Mayor Dean. I move that

[6:21:09] council give first reading to bylaw number 028-26 being the Clearwater Park

[6:21:14] split zoning land use bylaw amendment. Comments, questions from councel. Call

[6:21:18] for the vote.

[6:21:22] That's carried unanimously. Thank you. And can I have the motion for public

[6:21:26] hearing, please? Councelor Randawa.

[6:21:32] » Thank you, your worship. I move that the council approve the schedule for public

[6:21:35] hearing for bylaw number 028-26 for July 14, 2026 at 10:00 a.m.

[6:21:44] » Thank you. Comments, questions from councel. Call for the vote.

[6:21:50] And that's Charity and Ashley. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Uh ledge services,

[6:21:55] I'm going to throw you a curveball here. We're going to skip to 10.6.2, two,

[6:21:59] which is city of Chesmmer's official land acknowledgement. Uh, and this one

[6:22:04] is being presented by Miss Dennis. So, um, Director Dennison is coming to, uh,

[6:22:10] present the city of Chester's official land use acknowledgement ledge services.

[6:22:14] The reason I'm doing this is what I would like to do is depending on the

[6:22:18] timeline of this, I know that we have a guest coming uh, at uh, 3:00. I'd love

[6:22:24] to try and go into one in camera session uh because I know that there's an in

[6:22:28] camera session that's attached to yours. So, what I would love to try and do is

[6:22:31] see if we can get these two done then go [snorts] into in camera for both items

[6:22:35] and then come out of in camera with any motions thereof also then what would be

[6:22:39] related back to 10.6.1. So, that's why I'm making a quick change here to try

[6:22:43] and accomplish one in camera session instead of two. So, Miss Dennis,

[6:22:48] » good afternoon. Mayor Council, the item before you today is the proposed

[6:22:52] official land acknowledgement for the city of Chester. Administration is

[6:22:56] recommending that council adopt this land acknowledgement as the corporate

[6:23:00] standard for all staff representing the city at public events and official

[6:23:04] functions. This work is intended to provide

[6:23:07] consistency across the organization and ensure that when the city acknowledges

[6:23:11] Treaty7 territory, it is done respectfully, appropriately, and with a

[6:23:15] shared standard. There are no financial implications associated with this

[6:23:20] recommendation and if adopted, legislative services will make the

[6:23:24] official land acknowledgement available corporatewide so staff have consistent

[6:23:27] wording to use when representing the city on city business. The proposed land

[6:23:32] acknowledgement reads as follows. In the spirit of respect, reciprocity and

[6:23:37] truth, we honor and acknowledge Mojinstus and the traditional treaty 7

[6:23:41] territory and oral practices of the Blackfoot Confederacy, Sika, Gai, Beani,

[6:23:48] Ethka, Nakod nations, Chiniki, Bearspaw, Good Stony, and Sutina Nation. We

[6:23:56] acknowledge that this territory is home of the Otim

[6:24:01] I always get this one wrong. O to Pimwak uh Matei government of the Matei nation

[6:24:08] [snorts] within Alberta District 4. Finally, we acknowledge all nations

[6:24:12] indigenous and non who live, work and play on this land and who honor and

[6:24:17] celebrate this territory. This sacred gathering place provides

[6:24:22] us with an opportunity to engage in and demonstrate leadership on reconciliation

[6:24:26] and we are honored to have you join us on Treaty 7 territory. With that

[6:24:31] administration is seeking council's approval to adopt this as the city of

[6:24:34] Chestir's official land acknowledgement. >> Thank you. Uh so then

[6:24:39] in simplicity's [snorts] uh sake for simplicity sake basically

[6:24:44] the one that I read every day not every day the one I read for every council

[6:24:47] meeting would be the one that if we are doing any kind of a meeting public

[6:24:51] meeting or things like that those would be the ones that would be read by

[6:24:54] counselors who may be chairing a meeting by our chairs that are chairing meetings

[6:24:58] and also by any staff that are attending any kind of a public meeting that we

[6:25:02] have one standardized land acknowledgement that we are using. Is

[6:25:05] that correct? >> That is correct. Fantastic. Makes a lot

[6:25:08] of sense to me. Okay. Any comments or questions from council with regards to

[6:25:12] this. All right. With that, uh, can I have the

[6:25:16] motion to adopt, uh, the official land acknowledgement, uh, as a corporate

[6:25:21] standard for all staff requesting the city of Chester public events and

[6:25:24] official functions.

[6:25:27] Uh, can I I would like to see a wording on this standard for all staff and city

[6:25:31] representatives.

[6:25:38] That's public events, comma, official functions,

[6:25:45] comma, and committee meetings.

[6:25:53] Okay. Uh, council, any other questions with regards to the wording? I see

[6:25:56] lights. Where are those for wording or you just want to make the motion?

[6:25:59] Motion. You give it to the mo. Okay. Uh, councelor

[6:26:03] » Thank you. Worship. I move that council adopt the official land acknowledgement

[6:26:07] as a corporate standard for all staff and city representatives representing

[6:26:12] the city of Chester at public events, official functions, and committee

[6:26:15] meetings. >> Thank you. Comments, questions from

[6:26:17] council. Call for the vote.

[6:26:24] And that's carried uni. Thank you. Sorry, Miss Dennis. Before you run, uh

[6:26:27] just a quick question. about how this will be now communicated

[6:26:31] out to uh the listed parties, whether that be our community chair, our

[6:26:36] committee chairs, like so for all of our committees as well as staff. Uh what

[6:26:39] does communication and followup now uh look like? And even everybody receiving

[6:26:44] a copy of this, what what does this practically look like now that that

[6:26:48] motion has passed? What this practice looks like is that we will have our

[6:26:52] legislative services team ensure that it is available to everyone, including the

[6:26:56] phonetics, not just the spelling, uh, to assist people with making sure that this

[6:27:01] land acknowledgement occurs where we said it will.

[6:27:04] » Great. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Okay.

[6:27:07] And now we're going to go back to 10.6.1,

[6:27:10] which is public member committee appointments. And this is being

[6:27:14] presented by Miss Emily Emily White, legislative assistant 2. Good afternoon.

[6:27:22] Uh, good afternoon, Mayor and Council. I'm Emily White, and today we

[6:27:26] administration are just looking for three motions to appoint individuals to

[6:27:32] the seniors advisory committee, grant adjudication, and the lake and watershed

[6:27:37] advisory committee. Um so just before a quick background and before I ask for a

[6:27:41] motion to move into close session um there are a few vacancies across a

[6:27:46] couple of committees and we are bringing forward a couple applications to these

[6:27:51] three committees as we do have a couple confirmed members who are interested in

[6:27:55] being a part of these committees. Um so administration has reached out to them

[6:27:59] and do their due diligence sure that they are um still interested and wanting

[6:28:03] to participate in these committees. Um at the current moment there is one

[6:28:08] vacancy on the senior's advisory committee and we have one application

[6:28:12] which will be presented. Uh the grant adjudication currently has three

[6:28:16] vacancies and we have one interested public member and the lake and watershed

[6:28:20] advisory committee currently has three uh vacancies and we are looking to

[6:28:25] appoint two members to that um committee. Further this um if as you can

[6:28:32] see um if we have insignificant applications administration does

[6:28:36] continue to advertise um for these vacancies whether that's through social

[6:28:41] media um website posts through their news flash or just a popup. Um we do do

[6:28:47] that and we're constantly um reviewing them and receiving them and we review

[6:28:52] them as we receive them. Um, and if there isn't any further questions upon

[6:28:56] this, I will just be looking to a motion to move into close session as we don't

[6:29:02] um, evaluate committee members in a public forum.

[6:29:05] » And these particular applications that came in, sorry, [snorts] these

[6:29:09] particular applications that we have, these are people that had previously

[6:29:11] applied. We possibly didn't have like these are previous applications for

[6:29:15] these committees. Is that correct? >> Um, for the most part, yes, there is one

[6:29:20] that has is a new application that you'll be receiving.

[6:29:23] » Okay, great. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, with that, uh we'll go into close

[6:29:27] session, but I would like to call for the motion to have both um items from

[6:29:31] the close session and we'll handle both uh in close uh and then come out um

[6:29:37] after close and then we'll be able to finish up uh both items and then uh move

[6:29:42] to uh council as a chairman of the meeting. So, uh can I have uh council

[6:29:48] make the motion uh to uh move into close session, please?

[6:29:53] » [clears throat] >> Councelor Randawa.

[6:29:57] » Thank you, your worship. I move that the council move into close session at 2:57

[6:30:02] p.m. to discuss the following public member committee appointments access to

[6:30:07] information act section 22 confidential evaluation and quarterly legal update

[6:30:13] access to information act section 29 advice from officials.

[6:30:18] » Thank you. Call for the vote.

[6:30:23] That's K. Thank you.

[7:34:41] » [laughter] >> Good afternoon everyone. We are just

[7:34:43] coming back from our closed session and so can I have a uh counselor make the

[7:34:48] motion to uh come out of our closed session please?

[7:34:54] Sorry. [laughter] Good afternoon everyone. We are just

[7:34:58] coming back from our close session and so can I have a

[7:35:03] uh Deputy Mayor Schindler? >> Um I move that we come out of close

[7:35:07] session at 4:02 p.m. >> Thank you. Call for the vote.

[7:35:14] Uh that motion is carried. We'll take our uh 5m minute break and come back at

[7:35:19] 4:08. Thanks everybody.

[7:42:20] Good afternoon everyone. Uh just coming back from our break here. We just have a

[7:42:24] couple of motions uh here to end off our day. Can I have uh councelor make the

[7:42:28] following motion to accept the quarterly legal update for information, please?

[7:42:33] Uh councelor Grant. Thank you, Mayor. I move that council accept the quarterly

[7:42:37] legal update for information. Comments, questions for council. call for the

[7:42:42] vote.

[7:42:46] And that's carried unanimously. Thank you. Uh and then we just have a couple

[7:42:49] of appointments to make for committees. Can I have a counselor make the

[7:42:53] following motion, please? Uh Deputy Mayor Schindler.

[7:42:57] » I move that council appoint Cheryl Butterly to the senior's advisory

[7:43:00] committee effective June 23rd, 2026 with a term ending December 31st, 2026.

[7:43:07] » Thank you. Comments, questions from councel.

[7:43:10] Call for the vote.

[7:43:16] » That's carried unanimously. Thank you. Uh can I have a council make the

[7:43:19] following motion please? Councelor Nyan move that council appoint Vicki Minhouse

[7:43:23] to the grant adjudication committee effective June 23rd 2026 with a term

[7:43:28] ending December 31st 2026. >> Comments questions from councel.

[7:43:33] Call for the vote.

[7:43:37] I'm sorry, >> I can't vote on this.

[7:43:42] » Sorry, I can't vote on this. >> Sorry,

[7:43:46] » Deputy Mayor. >> Sorry, I can't vote on this. I have a

[7:43:50] conflict of interest on this uh on this vote. I just realized that and I'm

[7:43:55] sorry.

[7:43:58] Okay. Uh so with the declaration of conflict of interest, then we just don't

[7:44:02] accept the vote and then we can uh just keep going. So, we've already had the

[7:44:07] vote. So, uh thank you. That's carried unanimously. Uh and

[7:44:13] uh can I have uh a councilor make the following motion, please?

[7:44:18] » Uh councelor >> Certainly. [clears throat] Your worship.

[7:44:21] I move that council appoint the following public members to the lake and

[7:44:24] watershed advisory committee effective June 23rd, 2026. Holly McDonald and Ron

[7:44:29] Ride out with a term ending December 31st, 2026.

[7:44:33] » Thank you. Comments, questions from council.

[7:44:36] call for the vote

[7:44:41] and that's carried unanimously. Thank you. Uh just before we wrap up here, uh

[7:44:45] going to through our city alleged services, how will we be uh reaching out

[7:44:49] and informing uh our members that are now going to be joining our comm our

[7:44:53] committee uh ledge services. >> Uh thank you your worship and to you and

[7:44:57] the rest of council. Um so all the appointments and the individuals who are

[7:45:01] appointed today uh they will be reached out via email just as a

[7:45:05] congratulatoratory email. Um and from there we will let the administrative

[7:45:10] leaison know about these appointments and they will also be the administrative

[7:45:14] leaison will also reach out to these individuals just alerting them of when

[7:45:18] their next committee meeting is and any other um supplementary documentation

[7:45:22] they would need such as the terms of reference for their review.

[7:45:27] » Thank you. Uh okay. Uh with that uh unless uh councelor has any new

[7:45:34] business. Seeing none uh we'll get the motion to adjurnn. Can I have the motion

[7:45:38] to adjurnn, please? Councelor Randawa. >> Thank you your worship. I move that the

[7:45:43] council adjourn the meeting at 4:13 p.m. >> Thank you. Comments, questions from

[7:45:48] council. Call for the vote.

[7:45:54] And that's carried unanimously. Thank you.

Regular Meeting of Council - 23 Jun 2026

Transcript