[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.