Well, good evening, everyone. I hope you all have a good evening.
Good evening, everyone. I humbly acknowledge that the land on which we live, learn, work, and play is treaty eight territory, the traditional lands of the Cree, Denny, an unceded territory of the May tea.
For the record, we have Councillor Vardy participating via teams.
Councillors, please have your video turned on.
If anyone is in attendance, wishes to address council on any of the agenda items, please register now with legislative services, desk located to my right.
As I will only be calling upon those who have registered to speak.
Following your submission, please remain available for questions for council.
You must register prior to the start of the agenda item to which you are speaking, registered delegations,
are permitted up to five minutes to speak and must remain on topic.
Can I have someone make the motion to adopt the agenda as presented, please?
Oh, there we go.
Councillor Allen.
Thank you through the chair. I would move that the agenda be adopted as presented.
Thank you, Councillor Allen.
I was seconded by Councillor Ancassian. I'll call for vote.
Thank you and that was passed unanimously.
Moving on to the consent agenda. Does anybody wish to remove any items from the consent agenda?
Hearing none, can I have someone make the motion?
Councillor Scott.
So moved.
Thank you, Councillor Scott.
Insected by Councillor Brent. I'll call for vote.
And that was passed unanimously.
Thank you.
Next, we have a report on Highway 686 alignment.
Support.
I'd like to call the Office of the Chief of Staff to introduce the report.
Please introduce yourself and go ahead when you're ready.
Thank you.
Thank you, Deputy Mayor Wawgel.
Good evening members of Council.
For the record, my name is Matthew Harrison and I'm the Chief of Staff.
I'm here before you to request a letter of support for the proposed route alignment for Highway 686.
In 2023, the government of Alberta entered into an agreement with United Northern Development's limited partnership
to support the planning of Highway 686.
In September 2025, the RMWB shared with the partnerships engagement consultant that we prefer the southern route alignment of Highway 686.
On the map on in the map on your screen, that's the the future line there.
The 2011 Stantex Seltalignment.
Since at least 2012, the widely held understanding was that Highway 686 would connect to Highway 6 to Highway 63 via the Parsons Creek interchange.
The interchange was completed in 2016 and various planning documents have been approved to reflect its use.
In December 2025, the engagement consultant met with administration to provide an update on their progress.
The consultant informed us that after reviewing the possible options, the Seltalignment is the preferred route to be brought forward to the province.
Administration has been advised that a letter from Council supporting the preferred southern alignment would be welcome and would be included in the recommendation to the government of Alberta.
And so I would ask that you approve our request to provide a letter of support for the Highway 686 Southern route alignment.
That concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to take any questions. Thank you.
Thank you for the presentation. Are there any questions from Council? Councillor Scott?
Just a few quick ones. Does this impact, I know that the province is discussing or certainly the
MLAs are discussing a bridge across the river? Will this impact that in any way as far as you were?
Through the chair to Councillor Scott? No, this would be something separate. This is focused on the project that the
GLA originally announced in 2023. As far as we know, the GLA is in support of the step that we would be taking, or would we be running counter to that?
I suppose southern route. Through the chair to Councillor Scott, the GLA empowered this partnership to work and engage with the different parties to find out the preferred route.
And so we learned from the partnerships engagement consultant that they do prefer the southern route, and that they would be recommending that to the GLA.
So whatever the GLA is more comfortable with what their engagement finds, so we are aligning with the partnership, which is a good news story for all partners involved.
And that's essentially administration's recommendation as well.
That is correct. Yes, that would be our preferred route through the chair to Councillor Scott, as it does work with the existing infrastructure that we have, namely the Parsons Interchange.
Thanks for that. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Scott. Councillor Cardinal.
Next up, we may make a report. Why go? Thanks for the presentation there, Matthew. I guess my question would be what will be the definitions in the support matter, because do we are going to bring it back to us to a further draft, or are you going to send it?
So through the chair to Councillor Cardinal. So in cases like this, the mayor would send a letter to this engagement consultant, saying our support, same council support for this project for the southern alignment.
And we would include within that letter, the minutes from this meeting to show that it's official and on the record that we are supportive of this southern route, as identified in the map, the 2011 stand tech southern route.
So it's pretty, it's, I would say it's a standard paperwork exercise, but it's something that's very important to just vouch for our support for this route to align with the other partners.
I guess in alignment with the physical responsibility, I guess discussions about us not having to pay for it at all, but it's just be solely on the open agreement.
Through the chair to Councillor Cardinal. Yes, this is a project that the government of Alberta has identified as a priority to have a route connecting the east west of the northern part of the province.
They see it as an important economic corridor as well. It's a great opportunity for us to have another egress route. So this is a provincial project. Yes.
Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Cardinal. Do we have any delegates for that item?
We have a registered delegates.
Councillor Allen.
Thank you, worship. I guess I'm just curious, because I mean, this the original alignment is going back 22 years now.
And I remember being excited when they first announced it in their budget in 2023.
Do we see any money or any plans for shovels in the ground by 2027 perhaps, or have they has the government given any expectations on that?
Because it's something we've been waiting for for a very long time and Highway 6 here. Well, the part of the Creek interchange was originally designed to accommodate this and it was always the beginning of 686.
We've changed the line or would we change the interchange design specifically to to accommodate this. So just wanted if there if the government is giving any hint to a plan as to when they may even start.
Through the chair to Councillor Allen, that's an excellent question and that's one that that we've asked as part of the engagements and no one has quite been able to pinpoint a time for us though they have referred to it as a very it's more of a longer term project.
There's still some engagement to go on there will be some environmental studies that will have to happen there'll be design and then of course construction so there's still a ways to go but I think the positive thing is that first the government of Alberta has committed to it publicly.
And also I think establishing this agreement on a route with with key partners is a great step forward. So no time line yet in our conversations with the Ministry of Transportation Economic Corridors back in December, they were hinting at there could be some some more public statements made in the first part of the year so whether or not that's money in the budget or information about the route alignment more publicly.
That's to be seen but there's there's no timeline at this point yet unfortunately but well we'll have to wait and see.
Yeah well I certainly support anything that is the has the few as water crossings because from past experience I know of the issues we had getting permits in place with the department of fisheries and oceans federally and that was a huge delay so hopefully we can see shovels in the ground sometime during my lifetime.
I guess that's more of just a comment. Thank you.
Awesome thank you Councillor Allen any other questions a council.
Seeing done just to repeat there is no delegates for the set.
So it's going to be good then.
Can I have someone make the motion please.
Councillor Scott.
So moved.
Thank you Councillor Scott.
And second thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Lance.
Can I call for a vote.
Thank you.
Next we have a report on council rules and relations council policy I'd like to invite the office of the chief of staff to introduce the report.
I don't think you need to re-induce yourself you're already there.
I'll re-induce myself for the record.
How about that.
Sure.
Good evening once again council again for the record.
My name is Matthew Harrison. I'm the chief of staff. I'm joined by the manager of council relations Nadia McCrone.
Whose team is a key lays on for council supporting the interim chief administrative officer in his support of your work and priorities.
We're here to speak to the council rules and relations council policy.
The bill V030 has noted in the council report the proposed policy and procedure before you provides clear definitions and distinctions between the respective rules of council and administration.
Combined these two governance documents distinguished council's governance responsibilities from administration's operational duties.
And sure as that strategic decision making remains focused at the council level well enabling administration to manage day to day operations efficiently and effectively.
These governance documents include key foundational governance elements like administration having the responsibility for public service delivery.
Administrations commitment to sharing information with members of council in the flow of direction from council to administration through the CAO.
The policy and its accompanying procedure promote a culture of respectful transparent clear consistent collaborative communication between both bodies.
And to ensure legislative compliance all components of this policy and procedure align with the municipal government act and the chief administrative officer by law.
That concludes my presentation myself and Nadia would be happy to take any questions.
Thank you for the presentation. Are there any questions?
Council.
Awesome. Seeing none. Thank you so much. Can I have somebody make the motion.
Councillor Allen.
Thank you through the chair. I would move that the council rules and relations council policy.
Gov-030 as outlined in attachment one and the council rules and relations council policy procedure.
Gov-030 as outlined in attachment to be approved.
Thank you so much and thank you for the second council grant.
Any debate points discussion for council.
Councillor Vardy.
Thank you. I have a concern. I'm just getting my page here specifically with the procedures.
On attachment three so.
So understanding that we are not able to to direct staff and to provide staff and provide direction outside of policy.
We have a lot of members of our council who are experts in their field and I feel that it's this procedure leaves very little room for collaboration.
We have a lot of members of the committee and we bring a lot of knowledge and resources that we're hearing from the lived experience or members of the.
From residents and I.
This is so prescriptive that I don't see a place of where we can support and inform without directing.
I don't know if we can answer to my question or maybe administration can kind of help me in that gray area again understanding that we are not able.
And we must not give direction to staff when we're talking about collaboration.
I don't see that piece I don't see that piece there so that's my first.
I'm going to do have a second one.
Through the chair to Councillor Vardy all start and then maybe not able to step in but.
It's certainly not intended to limit councils insight or certainly bringing for the questions or concerns or priorities of residents.
The distinction is that the conversations with the information or the feedback should be brought in to the CIO so that he can take this information he can take the work.
And then working with his team he can distribute it out to the necessary parties so certainly not intended to limit any kind of input from council that's that's certainly your role to share your thoughts and.
And feedback from residents with the CIO and then he can further direct it.
Nadia I'm not sure if you have anything to add to that.
I would just thank you Matthew if I could.
Through the chair to Councillor Vardy.
I just wanted to add as well the what you're seeing in front of you is council's policy and council's administrative procedure and recognizing that you know we certainly don't want to at all.
Restrict councillors providing input especially when this is coming from the community.
So while Matthew did talk about any feedback coming in through the CIO certainly we recognize that sometimes councillors are talking to senior leaders in the organization.
So what you would see complementary to this council policy coming forward will be administrations on procedures and that is where you would see things like senior leaders ensuring that they are providing.
Awareness to the office of the CIO but any conversations information that's been shared or feedback that has come in from.
members of council so it is not just that you only talk to the CIO I just wanted to make sure that that distinction is not there and it's not that restrictive does that help you at all council are ready.
Yes yes it does because I was reading it as exactly that very very prescriptive.
And I do have a second a second point.
Apologies it was specifically regarding.
I'm so sorry.
Resident inquiries and members of council section 12 so there is a recommendation that.
Should residents put in a request or inquiry to council it'd be recommended that we request them to send.
to to pulse and put an official complaint forward.
I do agree with this this is good practice however not every inquiry is going to be an appropriate response to to pulse.
So my my question is within this procedure if.
I choose to not recommend someone put a pulse request forward instead I forward it or or handle it myself.
How are we going to be held accountable is is there if that going to be an issue that I didn't request them put a.
A pulse ticket forward is this is just a guideline is what I'm hearing is is more these are best practices I just want to make sure that I'm clear on the intent and is this prescriptive again or is this more a guideline of best practices.
Through the chair to Councillor Vardy.
It would be fine if you took the inquiry yourself and forward it along to administration.
It is certainly a preferred route for a number of reasons to go through pulse so we can track things and sure things have been followed up on and so on and so forth but we do recognize as you do as you did state.
That not all things maybe appropriate somethings.
Maybe more sensitive and require a bit more hands on or direct dealing with through say the CCO's office so that would certainly be fine if you were to submit something through.
Through the CCO's office rather than pulse but of course we do recommend and the usage of pulse and I'm not sure if you have anything to add to that as well but.
I usually do Matthew have so through the chair to Councillor Vardy I would add as well because I remember that.
It's being a conversation amongst administration, when we were looking at it, especially at this point.
We recognize too that Councillors, because of how close you work with members of administration, you might be able to find that information that we might think is readily available, whether it's on the website or information that has already been shared publicly in council meetings.
So while this does specifically say, when residents request information that is not readily available to the public, for you to direct that through pulse,
we also recognize that you might know exactly where to find that answer. And we certainly wouldn't restrict you from directing any member or any residents that might be looking for information.
If you already know where to find it, online or referring to a council meeting by all means, do that.
Thank you.
Thank you for those of my questions.
Thanks, Councillor Varty. Councillor Loana, can you see?
Thank you, Deputy Mayor and through the chair to administration.
Further to Councillor Varty's comments, I would like to see number 12 amended.
There's times where, like she said, that won't go to pulse.
And I don't want this to be so prescriptive that it doesn't allow for me to speak directly.
We've been encouraged to speak directly with department heads and this policy has written certainly doesn't reflect that.
And that's been a very strong message from the CAO, like pick up the phone and call.
Whatever department head in this doesn't read that way.
To me, so that one and just the whole intent of essentially telling us we don't go directly to administration.
It's contrary to what we've been verbally told.
Through the chair to Councillor Loana, Boose. Sorry, is that that's number six or number 12?
Well, 12, but also number six, as well, request to meet with administration to be submitted to the CAO, that's contradictory to what we've verbally been told.
And encourage to do.
Through the chair to the Councillor, if it's, if you'd like to change it, we can certainly, we can certainly be amended.
Well, I guess that, like, some clarity, what, what you really want. Part of me.
Councillor Conda, we could actually take it back, right.
Through the chair to the Councillors.
You could, yes.
The intent, certainly, behind that number six is again, it's, it's more of.
Ensuring that if there's information that's being shared from administration that all of council is receiving the same information.
So, if we're able to coordinate it through a central body, the CAO's office, or council relations, then we're able to also follow up and ensure that if there's been a discussion on particular topic, that that information can be shared with everyone.
It's not intended to be restrictive, it's more intended so that we're able to.
To, to track and to share that information.
In terms of a change of language.
If not a suggesting perhaps a shall be coordinated through the CAO, any kind of meeting or a class, the office of the CAO, would that be more preferable in terms of language?
That is, that what you just said is contradictory to what I see aO buts.
Has told us and shared with us.
So, Jody has said, oh, I got the phone and call, Elliot.
You don't have to go through me.
That's not how this reads.
It reads opposite that if I want to talk to Lori or anybody.
I got to say to Jody, hey, I want to talk to Lori.
But Jody has said to us, you don't need to go through me.
Just come phone and call her.
And I get the piece about if it's an inquired, we put it to an audience so she can track it.
I understand all that.
But what you have in number six is directly contradictory to what I see, buts has told us in meetings.
So I don't know what you want.
I don't know what, like what's the real wish, Jody.
Yeah, through the chair to Council of the Water and to all of Council will be happy to take this back.
And we look at it and consider those comments.
For sure.
We certainly want to be on the same page on this.
Yeah.
We will be happy to take it back.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thanks.
Thank you.
The Council of the Water.
Thank you.
I guess just continuing on.
I think the issue was there have been CEOs in the past that have instructed people not to talk to Council, especially lands.
So I've had directors tell me that a certain CAO or CEOs have been instructed them not to speak to me.
And I'm not sure if I'm the only one.
But I think that's why it might be in there.
So, ICO, but has been very clear that we can communicate directly with Director Farkis in or Smith.
So, I don't know how you fix this because the next CAO may come in and change it back.
If I may through the chair to Councilor Lance Busier, I think that's the point of the intent of this policy and through good policy governance.
Those changes would be limited.
It would take a decision of Council to make those changes versus the CAO unless this is really just speaking towards the role and the interaction between through the CAO but between Council and administration.
So, we'll happy to take this back.
Dad, it was not expecting to hit the mark right off the bat.
We'll keep going at this and we'll work at it.
Thank you, ICO, what's in Councilor Busier.
Councillor Allen.
Thank you through the chair.
I just actually comment that I'm a wee bit disappointed that we actually have to come up with a policy like this and a procedure for something that is clearly written and defined in the municipal government act.
But I do understand that there's previous councils and where there were issues around this so having defined as our own policy is.
It's probably not a bad step and I support it from that perspective.
I guess from what the ICO set just indicated is your preference then that we were to refer this back to administration until future meeting to review those points or do we still want to debate for approval tonight.
Through the chair to Councilor Allen.
I would be happy to take this back directed by Council to take this back and for future meeting.
Okay, well based on the couple of points that were made.
I don't want to get into a huge debate on that now about amending the policy in this meeting because really this is something we should all be doing anyhow.
I know from past history I've always been told.
Yes, no harm in speaking with department heads and getting that information directly.
Just don't direct them you know that's not our role our role is to as a group to come up with a resolution.
Refer that give that back to the CAO and he's the one who is going to act on that resolution.
So no individual councilor has has the authority or the right to direct anybody including the CAO.
So certainly I don't know if anyone has anything else to say I don't see anyone else in the list, but I'm prepared to make a motion to refer this back to administration to come back to future date.
I would say no later than four weeks from now if that gives you enough time and and then bring it back again for Council's review.
Thank you, Councillor Allen, do we have a second for that.
We'll just put the motion up on the board.
Councillor Scott.
Yeah, that was a second.
Thank you, Councillor Scott.
Any discussion debate of council on this motion?
I think like, I mean, just council.
I did want to say a couple things about the importance of the connection with the community and not getting a slap on the hand when you want to talk to a director when it comes to request just some information sharing.
And also, you know, how much we could utilize each other and move things forward for the residents and thanks for bringing the motion forward.
Councillor Allen and I'll support it. Thanks, as it is.
Thank you, Councillor Cardinal. Just something for clarification for myself. I'll be supporting this motion.
When we're talking about the numbers and the points, the point six was that just a reiteration of the MGA stating that the CAO is there's one employee and it's the CAO.
Because it would be my understanding that the CAO would then, as we've talked about, ICO, but it's giving us lineage to actually to leading needs to talk to the directors.
It would be under their advisement how we were directed to handle or talk to staff.
Is that kind of what we're trying to prescribe here?
To the chair, yes, that's correct.
I think as Councillor Allen put it quite perfectly. It's the intent is that you can have those conversations, but it's not for directing staff.
Okay. So, in terms of just, again, trying to work through the CAO's office in coordination of the meetings or the inquiries and things like that.
We just want to ensure that when there's these conversations happening, that all of the same information is being shared with all members of council.
As we are obliged, none of the MGA to do so, and it allows us to track the inquiries.
And it also just gives the CAO's office just an additional organizational, we're able to interject with other information as well that other departments may not be aware of.
So, the intent is not to musl or stifle the conversation, the intent is to make sure that the information is being shared and that it is more collaborative.
So, we can certainly refine the language, so that's clear to address the concerns of Councillor of the council.
Awesome. Thank you. And just going away, I do support also Councillor the one is messaging number 12 and so.
Thank you. Any other questions or debate points from council?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote.
Councillor Scott, thank you. And that was passed unanimously.
Awesome.
We now have by law number 26 slash is zero zero two amendment to assessment review board by law number 18 slash is zero one seven, which is being presented for the first second and third readings tonight.
I'd like to invite legislative services to introduce the report, please introduce yourself and go ahead whenever you're ready.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, council. I'm Jade Brown chief legislative officer here to provide a brief overview of the proposed amendment to the assessment review board by law by law number 26 zero zero two as well as touch on item seven point four regarding appointments to the local assessment review board.
The by law amendment before council this evening is presented for consideration of all three readings.
If approved, the amendment would enable council to appoint assessment review board members for a specified term or a specific purpose.
As a note assessment review boards in Alberta are independent quasi judicial bodies established under the municipal government act to hear and decide property assessment complaints.
August 15, the local assessment review board conducted three hearings after these decisions were issued by the board.
The complainant sought judicial review of them.
The court subsequently.
Quashed all three decisions and directed that the matters be reheard by the board.
At the December nice council meeting, new members were appointed to the assessment review board.
These individuals are not yet certified under provincial legislation to participate in these hearings as a required training has not yet been delivered by the government of Alberta.
External legal council has reviewed the situation and recommends that the by law amendment before you this evening be approved.
The amendment would allow council to appoint qualified members from the Edmonton assessment review board to re hear these three files.
This is a common practice amongst other jurisdictions.
It's important to note that the members who participated in the original hearings are not eligible to take part in the re hearing process.
Should council approve the by law amendment tonight item 7.4 proposes the formal appointment of two members from the Edmonton assessment review board specific to hear those files as recommended by the board's external legal council.
Thank you.
Thank you, Seal of Brown. Members of Council, as his bylaw, is proposed for all three readings tonight. It's important to note that the bylaw must receive unanimous consent for consideration on the third reading in order to proceed to the third reading.
We will begin with the first reading, following the first reading and before considering the second reading, we'll hear from delegates and the council have an opportunity at that point to ask questions.
Can I have someone make the motion for the first reading, following the first reading, and before consideration of the second reading, we'll hear from any delegates and questions they may have from council.
We'll also have someone make the motion for the first reading. Councilor Scott.
Yeah, so moved for first reading.
Thank you, Councillor Scott.
Thank you for the second Councillor Lanzbusier.
After the second reading.
As is the first reading, there's no opportunity for delegates or questions at this point, so I'll call for a vote.
And that's past unanimously.
Thank you.
Someone make the motion for the second reading of bylaw number 26 slash 002, please.
Councillor Scott.
Yeah, I moved for second reading.
Thank you, Councillor Scott.
Thank you for the second Councillor Luanobusier.
Do you have any delegates for this item?
There are no registered delegates for this item. Thank you.
Thank you.
Are there any discussion debate points or comments from members of council? Council cardinal.
I have more of a question.
I guess today about the committee policy term review that we're doing.
Is there going to go align with any of that stuff for term wise?
Through the chair to Councillor Allen, the committee's reviews that we've undertaken.
Council cardinal.
Council cardinal, sorry, my apologies.
The committee's review does not cover any of the quasi judicial tribunals.
These tribunals are set up by the municipal government act, so they're dictated by legislation.
The terms of appointments.
I think that can be reviewed.
However, in this case, it's not a matter of the terms of appointment.
I think the matter is specific to the timing of when the court decision came out.
And when the reherings need to occur.
So the court decision came out early December and the hearings are happening.
Or to be happening the end of January, which gives us a very limited timeframe to find qualified members under the provincial certification.
Our provincial certification is begin in March as the earliest date.
So we have this finite time period in between because the assessment review board.
Process usually kicks off annually in April.
So there's no hearings to the same committee members.
I mean assessment board members, Dale.
They would go through the process, so they would be appointed for two year terms by council.
Yeah, that's all thanks for these specific appointments for clarity.
These members would be appointed for the specified specific terms to fill those files to re-here those files only.
So they may only be appointed for a very finite period of time.
Rather than two years.
Thank you.
Thanks, Councillor Carter.
Councillor Allen.
Thank you.
I just I get more just for the record.
I'm assuming that there'll be some cost implication or some budgetary.
And would just come out of emerging issues or would it be coming out of an existing fund for boards and committees.
Because obviously, we would have some expenses for these individuals from evidence.
Through the chair. Thank you for the question, Councillor Allen.
We have budget to cover this.
We do have some costs associated for reimbursing members.
The sit to here and decide appeals.
It's my understanding that most of the tribunals across Alberta use the same modeling, which is set out by the province.
So it should be much in line with how we pay our local members.
And with respect to the hearing itself, it is virtual.
Okay.
Well, perfect.
And no issues with the previous mistake.
He's also young and good looking.
So I accept that.
Thank you.
Thank you for the answer.
Any other comments, questions or debate points by council.
Seeing that, I'll call for a vote for the second reading.
And that was passed unanimously. Thank you.
As a reminder, consideration of third and final reading of the Bala must receive unanimous consent in order to proceed.
Can I have someone make the motion for consideration of the third reading?
Councillor Scott.
Yeah, I move the third reading be considered.
Thank you, Councillor Scott.
And thank you for a second, Councillor Brent.
Is there any debate, discussion or comments of council?
Seeing that, I'll call for a vote.
Council party, in favor.
Thank you.
And that was passed unanimously.
Thank you.
We did.
Can I have someone make the motion for the third reading?
Please.
Councillor Allen.
Thank you.
I've moved it by law number twenty-slick at twenty six slash zero zero two.
Be read at the third and final time.
Thank you, Councillor Allen.
Thanks for the second.
Councillor the want to boost you.
Is there any debate, discussion or comments from council?
Seeing none, I'll call for the vote.
Council.
Thank you.
You're in favor.
And that was passed unanimously.
Thank you.
Next we have a report on local assessment review board.
I'd like to invite legislators to introduce the report.
Please introduce yourself and go ahead when you're ready.
Thank you.
Through the chair and if council would indulge me by staying here would be helpful.
Thank you so much.
So this is in line with the report.
That was just presented to council as noted.
There are two members from the Edmonton assessment review boards who are available and willing
to sit to re-here these three specific files.
The hearings are set for the end of January so that we can conclude the matter prior
to entering into the twenty twenty six assessments.
Thank you.
Thanks, Yellow Brown.
Any questions of council for the presenter?
Any delegates for the sign?
There are no registered delegates.
Thank you.
Thanks so much.
Can I have someone make the motion please?
Councillor Scott.
I make the motion.
Thank you, Councillor Scott.
Seconded by Luana Councillor Luana Boose.
Thank you so much.
Any discussion?
Did pay points or comments from council?
Not seeing any.
I'll call for vote.
Thank you, Councillor Vardy.
And that's passing unanimously.
Thank you so much.
All right.
Moving on to Councillor's motions.
Moving on to item eight point one.
Councillor's motions.
I'll ask Councillor Kendrick Cardinal to read out your motion please.
Just one moment please.
Councillor Allen.
Thank you.
We're open through the chair at this point.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you.
Are we ready?
One, two seconds.
Thank you.
I'm just looking at it.
Thank you.
I'm just looking at that.
Good.
I can't count the cardinal.
Thank you, Mayor.
Deputy Mayor Wigel.
Okay.
Transportation and shuttle services in Fort Chip, Fort McIe.
We're as a community, a Fort Chip one.
We lack transportation services for residents to travel within the community.
And there are limited transportation options available for travel between Fort McIe and Fort
McMurray.
Therefore, be it resolved that administration be directed to explore and provide recommendations
on the establishment of community transit system in Fort Chip one.
Be it further resolved that administration be directed to explore and provide recommendations
regarding the provisions of shuttle services between Fort McIe and Fort McMurray.
And that administration present its findings and recommendations to council in later
than March 31st, 2026.
Thank you, Councillor Cardinal.
Can you get a second?
Thank you.
Councillor Marcel.
Councillor Cardinal.
Would you like to speak to your motion?
Well, certainly.
Thank you.
I just wanted to reiterate some of the important requests that came to me as a council member for my ward.
And how important it is to hear the residents out and provide some servicing for transportation.
I know that there hasn't been any services at all in the community of Fort Chip one.
And it's maybe slightly somewhat in the Fort McIe.
I think it's important that we hear it provides some transportation to the residents.
I did reach out to some residents and they're here to delegate tonight.
So I think that I'd like to hear from them.
Hopefully we can have a motion pass.
So that's all I've got to say.
Thanks.
Thank you, Councillor Cardinal.
We have a couple of delegates for this item.
Yeah.
Kind of.
Bar of harm.
Hermanson.
Sorry.
Vite.
MS teams.
Hello, Miss Hermison.
Please state your name for the record.
And just a reminder of five minutes to make your submission.
And please just stay on the line afterwards.
Remain for questions of council.
Thank you.
I'm Barbara.
Can you please.
Yes.
We.
The big demand to have this shuttle in this community.
Because there's a lot of people going out and doing their appointments and even for some of the younger people.
But for elders we are very.
We need this.
And big demand.
Thank you, Miss Hermison.
Are there any questions for the presenter?
Yeah, I do.
Yeah.
Go ahead, can't.
That's a hurdle.
Good.
Thanks.
Bar for your presentation.
I guess my first question is.
Do we have any.
Taxi services in for chip and how do you get around the community along with some of the elders that are.
Also struggling and disabled.
If we have no taxi services in for chip at all.
And I will I'll just use myself.
I haven't been out of the house since December that can't I finally went out today.
Because there's no way if you don't have a vehicle for second home.
And I think that's very hard on.
Mental for you know people.
We need to socialize.
There was a meeting yesterday.
It was a meeting at Ken and with a very important meeting at the hall.
I couldn't go.
That was drug and alcohol.
Abuse and stuff and I couldn't go.
And as being a native director.
Leadership.
I couldn't be there.
So this is really big demand.
And it's for people that, you know, we can't go to the pool.
The gym.
You know, we can't so.
It's it's very frustrating.
And we just got to try to.
We need that shuttle services and for the community for the whole community.
You know, I.
Yes.
No, that's that's my question.
I guess so.
Another thing would be, you know, I know that there's a barrier to get to the airport.
There are places like the grocery store and.
To the hospital.
So.
I just want to mention that as well.
Thanks.
Uh.
Oh, can't.
No. Thank you, Mr. Winston. No other questions? Next up is Shane Bushain. Reminder Shane to please take your name
before the record and reminder you have five minutes to make your submission. Following your
submission, please remain available for questions to council. Next, Shane. I'm Shane
Bushain. I'm a local here from Fort McReel, Bertha. Good evening, council. I'm here in
sports of Councillor Cardnell's motion to final motion to pass. Okay, where am I? Two established
transit in Fort McReel. My testimony here from Fort McReel serves as crucial warning without
the right design or new transit services, rule of treat dangerous failures that we are currently facing
through. I personally face retaliation for reporting these failures and I'm here to ensure
that no other residents receive in our region faces the same neglect. The current transit system in
on demand module is a blueprint to avoid non-dissemory nights in minus 33 Celsius with windshield.
Bus refused to open the doors and leave me stranded after a 30 minute wait. This is direct. This
is a direct life threats in safety failure. The system reports. The system response was not
in apology or effects. It was a trespassing warning effect. It was trying to silence the
citizen instead of addressing the hazard. The technology is unreliable. Schedule in as
meaningless and serves and service excludes anyone without that cannot wait and definitely outdoors
in weather conditions or navigator broken out. This model is what we must avoid when
expanding to our region on the neighbors. My experience is that here in Fort McReel are directly
applicable to the residents in Fort McReel and Fort McRoy. A non-reliable transit system
or lack of one entirely, it does three things that I say are most vulnerable. Populations, seniors,
peoples with disabilities and single parent families are those without means, turns our minus 30
weather into a life falter and third and end barriers for groceries, medications, schools,
and that of work. We cannot claim to support regional equality while maintaining a broken system
in the center of our municipality. I urge council to pass Councillor Cardinals' motion,
but I ask that you amend it with a crucial lesson from current failures.
Expand the motions to direct to include the independent safety and quality of review of
an existing non-abans services to ensure recommendations for Fort McRoy and Fort McRoy and
prior to rise reliable, scheduled and accessible services from day one, not a flawed experiment.
We have a chance to make this right for all communities around and let Fort McRoy's painful experience
be a lesson and guide us to better standards. Pass the motion that not only explores any services,
but flicks the flawed failers. That's not only explorers to new services, but flicks the fundamental
flawed harm and citizens right now. Let's build our transit that connects and protects everyone in
Woodbufflow. Thank you. Thank you, Shane. That was an overracking.
Are there any questions for the presenter?
Good afternoon, Councillor Cardinals. I guess I just want to question your experience with
current system that we have, I guess I know that you're speaking.
Well, the current system that we have, I agree with everything that it has, and I do agree that
to have an extended to other communities, not only to Fort McRoy and Fort McRoy and Fort McRoy and Fort McRoy,
but what about adds to a concle and injury and self-reg that as well, right? There's still
people out there that need to come into from town to work. So, it just needs adjustments to
re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-fix, I think, and we can probably make that happen to the outer regions and
awesome. Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions of Council?
Yes, for some sort of an amendment, can we have administration follow up with that
suggestion that you've been talking about the transit system? And what was the amendment you were
looking for? Well, it may be not an amendment at this time, but specifically to reach out to chain to
see some of his input because I know that it's valuable and there's always been some barriers with
the transit system locally as well. So, I'll reach out to them and then we can coordinate with the
administration. Sounds great. Thanks. Thanks. Thank you. Any other questions for the
presenter? I'll see you now. Thanks so much, Shane. You appreciate the presentation. Thank you.
I don't see any more delegates. Any other questions, comments or debate points by Council?
No, I got a quick question about the date. If it's specific to Fort Chippon and
Northward McCoy at this point, can I ask whether or not the other communities are actually
getting them? Like, as a John B. and Conflon? That question to administration? Yeah.
Great question. Sorry. Through the chair to Council Cardinal, a great question and absolutely
Anzac Gilly, John B. and Conflon is indeed receiving real transit, not within the community,
but from, say, John B. A to Fort McCoy. What's the whole often, is that happening?
So, what are the real transit chooses in the 30s? We hit John B. A and on the way there and on the way back,
obviously Anzac and Gilly. And as well, when's these approaches? We go as far as Conflon and again,
on the way there and the way back, we at Anzac and Gilly. So, we do have those routes. We transport
around 1900. We do around 1900 rides per year. So, we do have a real transit that's the in place,
absolutely, as it is today. Okay. Now, I think it's important to note that as phase two of the
transit master plan, we're going to do further engagement with rural. So, when we do that engagement with rural,
we'll take that feedback and we'll prove it as part of the transit master plan. So, that's in the
works to do further engagement with our rural communities. At this point, how many times does the
transit system even go to Fort McCoy? Because I'm hearing it does and then I'm hearing it doesn't.
Through a shared council cardinal, an absolute does. Every Thursday, every week of the year.
Okay. So, if there's feedback, I guess it's a good school of policy because, uh,
yeah, there's a good policy if you have any feedback right now. Through the shared council cardinal,
if there is any feedback, you definitely can go to policy policy, the main contact for the municipality.
There's also ways that you can reach out to transit. You can reach out to IRR or to Anzac.
Or any feedback that you have, you can let us know, and we can take that and again,
as a part of the master plan, we can readjust or take a look at what makes sense to
prefer to do better service in those areas, absolutely. I know what we had discussions before.
What was your guys' considerations around transportation in our own Fort Chip and the frequency of it?
Through a shared council cardinal to my experience, we've never had transit within
Fort Chip on itself. In 2017, we did do a pilot, which began, which I believe was in June.
We implemented a pilot bringing people from Fort Chip on the Fort Smith and ran for two months,
very, very low ridership. I think it was only 15 people in those three four months.
So, it was decided not to continue. It was my understanding that up until recently,
the traffic, the taxi service provided that in within the community, however, is no longer there.
So, we never ever did it in Fort Chip on itself. At one point in time, many years ago, we looked at
from Fort McMurge, Fort Chip 1. However, over the winter road, or as you can appreciate,
there's a slew of risk and insurance issues as well. So, that didn't really take off the ground either.
So, it's been looked in the past, in 2021, when we did the initial engagement with TNP.
We did contact rural outlets, and again, phase two, we'll do more engagement and get that feedback.
Thank you, Councillor Carynell. Councillor Vardy.
Thank you. I have a question for Councillor Carynell and a question for administration. First, I'd like to
thank Councillor Carynell for bringing this forward. Rural transportation is a huge issue and it's
something that we have to bring forward. So, first, Councillor Carynell, why are you looking at
transit first and not something like a shuttle service or as providing subsidy for another taxi company?
Why jumping to transit first?
Well, just being the local in the community, I see where that ticket possibly, it's a good work there.
So, the shuttle service, I believe, is more feasible for Fort Chip 1. I have never out through the community
from the airport to the medical center and then to the grocery store, right? And then, or I could be on demand
one or the other, but as long as we could find the answers and talk to the residents and see what
they would like. Hopefully, we could make it happen.
Okay, I'm happy. I'm happy to hear that because what I don't want is I don't want us to
have a solution for a problem that we don't fully understand. And so my next question actually is for
administration. So, director Smith, you know, I have had conversations about rural transit and you
talked about phase two of transit master plan will be focused on improving our rural.
Are we able to expand those conversations during our engagement to include options like subsidized
taxis, shuttle service or do we explicitly have to keep it transit or can we expand it to see what
the community actually wants in terms of improving transportation?
Through the Chair of Council of Rarity, absolutely, and I enjoyed those conversations. We've
had regarding transit. When we go to the community, we get that feedback and absolutely, when we come
back to Council of recommendations, it may not be a fixed transit route, it may not be
transit operators that's providing that service. Our recommendation, we could have two or three
recommendations, and indeed, in a smaller community such as this, it might be more advantageous
and economical feasible to provide some type of subsidy, under percent. And when we look through
to Canada coast to coast, that's typically what happens in smaller communities.
Thank you, director Smith. When are you hoping to do phase two of this engagement with our rural communities
which has a massive impact? Through the Chair of Council of Rarity, we don't have a specific date yet
that I can inform you. Our intention currently is to come back to Council in March with a six-month,
essentially, update of our phase one went. We're going to get to provide you how the successes,
how we're going to improve what it looks like in the future. It takes some feedback and the phase two,
then, would include our rural. So don't have a specific date, but it will, it will be 100 percent
when in 2026. Thank you. With this comment, I guess, is more towards Kendrick with respect to the
timeline that director Smith just gave us. And you're willing to be a little bit open about what it is.
It doesn't have to be transit. It could be a shuttle, it could be a cab, depending on what it is
that the community wants. Would you be open to, if this motion fails, bringing another motion forward
to ask administration to do a community engagement within the next couple of months, not the late of
26, like director Smith said, but something a little bit sooner, so we can get this fall this fall rolling.
Again, I'm not comfortable supporting this motion as it stands, not because I don't believe the
transportation is important. In our role, I absolutely believe that. The reason I can't support it
is I feel like we're putting a solution first before we understand the problem itself. I'd like to take
it back, talk to community, figure out what they want first, and then use that information to build
the best plan forward. No, I won't be for that. No, I, you could, I'm okay with not having
support at some point, but I mean, we'll be debatable, but I think that the importance of having
this as it stands is because I know the issue that's that's in the community, and
I, whether it's a shuttle van that goes to the community, that the residents are the ones that
ask me to do this, and I think having a motion in place and having a direction for the
administration to follow. I think that's the important part, and I sometimes, you know, we need to
have the accountability aspect of everything in the council chambers, so I just feel that
we could, we've had discussions, you and I, we both had discussions with administration,
and I'm given the direction to administration to find the answers, and hopefully they can come
every church community like they do with every other motion that's brought to the table. You have the
motion, give direction, find the answer, and if it's not, if it's not found, then they bring back
the feasibility study, and they'll, yeah.
Okay, I have one more, thank you, Councillor Carter. Cardinal, I will actually respect that. My question is for administration. So, as this motion is, I'm reading it as if this is approved that you will only be looking at the option for a transit service in courtship.
We would not be looking at a shuttle service or a subsidized taxi in courtship, and that you would only be looking at exploring a shuttle service in Fort McCoy, and you wouldn't be exploring any other recommendations. It would just be those avenues.
Am I correct in saying that or would this motion, would you provide a whole level of recommendations across the board?
Through the chair of Councillor Vardy, yeah, we would be restricted to the wording of the motion.
So, your description there is accurate. I would just remind that we currently have a shuttle system within Fort McCoy, and so I would suggest that we're already accomplishing that part of this motion.
It's, it's too political. Okay, I'll wait for our debate to go back and forth. Thank you very much for answering my questions.
Thank you, Councillor Vardy. Council, I want to be safe.
Thank you, Deputy Mayor.
I see, but you just said within McCoy, we don't have one within McCoy, we have one back and forth.
Is that not, do we have one within?
Through the chair of the Council of the Law on a Boose, no, we don't have one within.
Thank you.
It's back and forth.
Okay. So, this is to direct or smith.
It's my understanding that in 2025 for McCoy riders on the shuttle, number eight riders total.
Through the chair of the Council, yes, eight for a year.
Eight riders and 68,000 dollars.
Is that correct?
Through the chair, you are correct.
Can you help me understand how it works?
It's every Friday, the shuttle in McCoy or back and forth, not within two.
McCoy is Friday's.
Through the chair to Council of the Boose, it's Friday's.
So, absolutely, we leave Fort McCoy in the afternoon, I do believe we're in three o'clock.
If there's past years, we come, obviously we come back.
If there's past year, it comes back with us.
And then using around six on the clock, we'll do another trip out Fort McCoy and back to Fort McMurray again.
And that's every week.
That's every week, yes.
It's not to be critical, but is there a reason that there wouldn't be like a required booking.
So, it's not just like eight people in a year.
That bus goes back and forth empty on a regular basis.
Is there a reason?
It wouldn't be that they have to call by Wednesday to schedule.
And that we don't go out there the other 48 weeks that nobody gets talking.
Through the chair to Council of the C.A.
Absolutely.
What you're looking at, what you're kind of asking is more of a non-demand.
And in the future in phase two, that's why we would go more towards.
However, what we did was this route was inherited from when all of transit used to be contracted out.
And this is a part of a contract.
So we do not provide the service.
This is a service that we use the municipality contract out.
So the contract is already in place for this amount of service.
We do specialize to the world as well.
And that's where we would do more of the bookings than we do that internally.
So we're at a place now where we're at a world contract.
It's a world with three plus one plus one.
And we're in the second year of the plus one.
And this is an opportunity now to get that engagement, to get that targeting engagement,
to get the feedback and make it more efficient.
I understood.
Thank you very much.
To direct or freezer, I guess.
My one issue with this motion is it needs to be to for me.
I'm just wondering director Fraser in your experience.
And relationships with these communities.
If this is just explored for for Chippewon and not explored for other hamlets for the in town in Hamlet service.
Is that going to raise issues in your opinion.
So my question I guess to you is should we be well administration is exploring the value of a shuttle service in for Chippewon.
Should it not be engaging in all of the other hamlets as well?
Through the chair to the question.
Based on the transit master plan, there will be engagements coming up.
So we will be involved in that.
But as far as for Chippewon, there never has been a transit system there.
The war the gap has been realized more.
And I lost a while there used to be a taxi cap there.
And probably a year and a half ago that that no longer existed.
And so there was a flat fee for within the means within the Hamlet.
And then another flat fee out to the airport.
But that has since the cease to exist.
There was there's another cabin there recently.
But it lacks a driver here.
Class 4 for a driver.
And the guys son no longer wanted to live there.
So there is no driver for that for that taxi.
So the other hamlets have those resources like an elder in John Vaking.
Get around within community.
But in Fort Chippewon cannot.
Several of these communities.
They have medical drivers down south.
And I'll just.
Just recently some of the advisors reached out to Fort Chippewon in particular.
And make a sucre first nation have a bus.
That goes to Theresa Tuckerl School.
As well as accessible van for long-term care.
Center and noone hell.
Has two 15 passenger vans that are wheelchair accessible.
At the basketchippewon first nation does not provide any official.
Transportation for their members whether they depend on noone for transportation.
And there's also a drama taxi.
But that's the one that does not have a driver for a class war.
And Fort Chippewon may also have a van that they've had for some time.
But once again, a lax driver with a class 4.
And that's just some recent research done by the advisors on the situation in Fort Chippewon.
So in your opinion, your professional opinion then director Fraser.
As council card knows motion reads, if we were to approve.
Just exploring in Hamlet transportation option in Fort Chippewon.
Or not creating issues of being exclusive and not being inclusive of the needs of other hamlets.
You're asking for my opinion.
Yes, sir.
Could you reword the question?
I will certainly try.
If we just look at Fort Chippewon right now.
Do we have.
Are we leaving members of the other hamlets without their needs being met?
If they're excluded.
In my humble opinion, no.
Because there is a trend.
There is a transportation system going south to January a conclin.
As well as stops into as I can daily.
And there is a transportation method for Fort Macay.
Presently now.
I mean within the hamlets.
Like you're talking about taking.
An elder from the airport to.
The arena.
The home.
And that's lacking.
But.
Is it not lacking in the other hamlets?
Or like Azac has a taxi.
They have.
A senior an elder in.
An elder in John VA.
Yeah.
Are there needs met in that regard?
Well, I'll speak for.
I shouldn't need to speak for.
But I guess I just know that they.
The higher the taxis.
The taxis.
They got contracts with the taxis.
That's what the taxis going pick them up.
There is.
Okay.
So there needs our met in Hamlet right now.
Yeah.
So it immediately on the spot.
I just want to be exclusive.
So.
That's fine.
Okay.
Then the motion doesn't need to be split in my mind.
Then I could thank you, Kevin.
Thank you.
Director Frazer and Smith.
I guess.
One of the things they want to ask.
Maybe.
Keith again.
Director Smith is.
Uh.
Since there's.
That's a little writer experience or.
Writer ship in.
Uh.
The.
The rural communities.
I can.
Maybe ask if.
I are in yourselves.
Maybe coordinate with each other to.
Provide some sort of a correspondence to the community.
Just to remind them that the services there and now to.
Maybe.
Uh.
Advancet a little bit or revamp it some something like that in all rural.
Is that a part of.
Uh.
T.
M.
Uh.
Through chair counts card now.
Absolutely.
Any any any type of.
Engagement or consultation or any type of.
Awareness type.
We can bring to communities.
Uh.
Let's do so.
Uh.
Absolutely.
But the.
Jami and Conchland runs.
You know, like I said before, there's.
1900.
Uh, rise that we do.
Uh, per year.
So if you take away any eight.
Uh, for from my former guy, we're still doing close to.
1900 rides in the other community.
So it it is used.
It is well used.
If there is more.
Uh, marketing or more engagement that can be done.
And we can increase ridership.
Absolutely.
Thank you.
Dr Smith.
Uh.
Great answer.
Uh.
So I want to ask another thing.
What which was.
It is since contract.
It.
It's important.
Guys is contracted out.
Which is not.
Not.
No one.
All.
to Councilor Cardinal, I believe, the area. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.
Thanks, Councilor Cardinal. Councilor Lance, please.
Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Through the chair to Director Smith. Did you say 1900 rides to the
world or 1900 riders? Through the chair to Councilor Busy, a 1900 rides. So basically, it's
started to determine, you only pay one way. So it's 13, 51 way from the adult, 675 for a kid that's
5 to 12. And if you're less than 5 is free and if you're older than 65 is free, so that's
rides, one way rides. It's very hard to determine if it was riders itself. It could be someone
being picked up and forth and we're going to be in dropped off an insect, vice versa. So it would be rides.
Okay. And there's a, you said it's a contract as well?
Yes, sir. And it's not, it's not an on demand system.
Through the chair to Councilor Busy at this time, it is not, it's still part of the transit
management plan to be updated, but it follows the old fixed routing system.
The, the format mechanic. Well, the conflict in the Fort McMurray trip, does it stop
in John Vee and Zach GLE and the Fort McMurray or is it bypassed John Vee?
Through the chair to Councilor Busy, the Conclone Run does bypass John Vee and then the
Councilor Busy.
Thank you, Councillor Busy. A couple of questions. It seems like in the conversation and I know we
talked a little bit with the Master Chancellor plan and engagements, but we're, we are
currently doing engagement and all the real areas on transit. It's coming up and all of that.
Is that correct, Director Smith?
The chair to deputy mayor, why go absolutely?
And so during this time, Councillor Vary was talking about engaging with the community and asking
about what they want, during that, that would happen at all of these engagements and we would
see a lot of the gaps there and then that information would come back with recommendations.
Through the chair to the deputy mayor, why go absolutely so in 2021, 2022 when we did the initial
transport to our TNP engagement, we did include a rural, but it was more focused on the urban.
We have some input and some recommendations from the rural. However, if you can appreciate
that four or five years old, so we would definitely do more up.
Aided targeted approach to our roll transit, absolutely.
Do we have engagement dates for the rule right now?
Through the chair council, we'll go as of right now, no.
So we don't have specific dates, it will be in the very near future, but I don't have
the dates.
In March, the plan is for administration for myself and our transit folks to come back and
give council an update on phase one, and at that point in time we will be in a better situation
to say, okay, this is what phase two looks like.
This is what we've learned, this is our continued improvement, and this is what we're going
to do in the rural absolutely.
And so are you looking at the engagement before you present on phase one or after?
Through the chair council, we'll be afterwards, however, phase one will have our survey responses,
which is for the entire municipality.
Okay.
Thank you.
Councillor the want to go say.
Thank you, Deputy Mayor Wigel.
I just wanted to propose an amendment to Councillor Cardinals motion, that at the end it
be it for the resolve that administration be directed to explore a community aid you can work
in a community community community awareness about the availability of the existing
shuttle service versus administration, it's already there so we don't need to explore anything,
but it doesn't need to your point to be communicated, maybe better.
I don't know that they don't know, but let's just let them know, put out something communication
noise.
Can you do that, Jay?
Like can you?
Yeah.
You got what I'm saying?
Yeah.
Is that okay?
Okay.
With that, you're open to that, yeah.
So communication is to all rural.
Communication to form a chi about the existing.
Okay, to form a chi and all, okay, to all rural outlets.
It was the with the to shuttle services, to the future ones.
And then communications to all rural, about the existence of transit services.
Existing transit services.
Period.
Well, we're waiting for your seal of round to do that.
Dr. Smith, before minus the amendment.
Do you feel?
This is a great awareness, but you feel this is happening.
Obviously minus the date of March 31st.
Do you feel like this is being accomplished within those engagements and the master transit plan?
Sorry.
Through to cheer to Deputy Mayor Wigel.
It will be.
When we do these engagement, we'll get that feedback.
And a lot that we'll talk about timing more frequency.
And when we do come back, we will discuss.
Okay, this is what it will look like if we do it fixed.
This is what it will look like if we do it in house.
This is what it would look like if we do it subsidized.
And do those other options that council have already discussed.
So we've already kind of at a higher level looked at that.
And when we do come back after the engagement, we'll bring forward those options.
So do you believe that March 31st,
2022 is achievable for if this motion was for it?
Through to cheer to Deputy Mayor Wigel.
That's a tough call.
If I was directed by council to do this engagement,
I would have to work with Dennis to get this engagement done.
And any type of analysis, especially flesh and any other options,
it would be a tight time for him to do so.
However, if that's the direction of council, then we'll make an happen.
Would there be something important that would fall off of what you're doing now to accomplish it?
Through the cheer to Deputy Mayor Wigel.
I would have to reall allocate resources.
We only have so much capacity in house.
So we would take a little bit from the phase one implementation and redirect it this way.
We would rely heavily on director Fraser and kind of re route our resources to get this information back.
Okay. Thank you.
Jay, do we have an amendment?
So up on the screen is the amendment.
Are you good with that Councillor Loanibusie?
Yeah.
No.
I almost want to go back to the one.
I just want to go back to the next one.
Do you want to give them the next one?
Yeah, I think that if we ask,
Director, I think that's your time.
Thank you.
Would an extra month?
Director Smith, give you enough time to be able to come back with these findings with that.
I believe the pressure at all or would you need more time than that?
What's your thoughts?
Now, I'll let you speak.
Through the cheer to Deputy Mayor Wigel.
Next month, would absolutely give us more time to do than analysis and work with our work with director Fraser to do.
However, I think it's important to note that in the motion going forward,
I think it's important to note that we should bring back options as well.
So not just a narrow scope at transit.
This is absolutely, this looks at transit.
Montefix would look like in what on demand would look like in that.
What would look like if we delivered it?
However, we need to flesh out the other options of high level subsidized
what other taxiservice, what other areas we could look at.
Absolutely.
I guess it's a user rate.
I'm just beginning to get a bit long, but it's also doable and important to also have the user rates in there as well.
Yeah.
So director Smith, would you in the middle part where it says recommendations on establishment of community transit services or equivalent or services of equivalency?
Is that what we're looking at?
Through the cheer to Deputy Mayor, it's something along those lines just so that we can come back and say,
here's high level what other options there are,
and this is kind of what other communities of similar sizes are doing elsewhere within Canada.
Okay.
Councillor Varney.
Thank you.
Deputy Mayor, this is.
Just like director Smith had said, we're coming away from the original motion and I did indicate that I had.
Another motion to bring forward, and now we've actually completely circled back.
So I do have something drafted.
Would I be able to share it as Jade is making this in real time?
That's a card now.
Oh, this is your motion.
Yes, you can share it.
I mean, with more options, better.
I think.
Yes.
Yeah.
That was not.
Yes.
I'm okay with that because we're trying to find better answers and try to make it work.
Good.
I'm happy.
So my draft was that administration be directed to conduct community engagement with residents
of courtship 1 and Fort McCoy to assess transportation needs and provide recommendations for improvements,
including but not limited to adding transit on demand services and or subsidized taxi services.
We added on the communication piece to the end of that.
The amendment by.
The Councillor.
Laura.
What do you think?
Councillor.
Can you just repeat one more time.
Sure.
That administration be directed to conduct community engagement with residents of Fort
Chippelon and Fort McCoy to assess transportation needs and provide recommendations
for improvement including but not limited to adding transit on demand service and or subsidized
taxi services.
What do you think?
Councillor Lucy.
So here's my issue.
It's having watched council for years and the next thing you know we're doing a budget amendment
to hire a consultant to study something and it's 2028.
Can we not just put in a pilot.
Gather the data after that without having a community engagement.
We have experts.
We have some data.
Eight people in Fort McCoy.
So we have some data already and so can we just move ahead with putting something in place
like Councillor Cardinal has suggested.
See what happens.
Reassess.
Gather the data and let the data drive future decision making versus taking a year and eight consultants
and studies that are this big.
Let's just move or vote on it.
Whatever the case may be.
But director Smith has talked about the engagement is coming in the second phase of transit
master plan, director Smith.
So that's already planned for phase two.
So my recommendation or my vote is going to be to move ahead with something and let the data drive future
decision making and consecutively have the concurrently have the plan for engagement.
Now I know Councillor Varty you would like that sooner rather than later.
So I don't know if that's something that can be worked out with administration to move up
the date of the rural engagements.
But is it relates to Councillor Cardinal's motion.
I would prefer to just get moving implemented and let the data drive future decision making.
I think the question would be to administration is that possible.
Is there budgetary issues with that?
How would we implement the plan?
I think the plan is there.
Through the chair to the deputy mayor, Michael.
What we could do in form of a guy.
The run is already there.
I think you need engagement.
Toronto community.
Maybe there's an opportunity to make it more efficient timing wise.
Maybe even departure or arrival time.
In Fort Shipworn at current we do not have the infrastructure employees to do any type of actual pilot would
transit.
So what we need to do there is shuttle.
Sorry, shuttle.
We don't have the infrastructure or the operators in Fort Shipworn to do any type of actual real life pilot.
Until we get more information as better data driven.
If we came back in March 31st or even April 30th, we could come back and say if we're going to do a pilot in Fort Shipworn,
this is the dollar value associated with it.
We would need vehicle and we would need a couple drivers.
How are we going to maintain it?
How are we going to fuel it?
This is the dollar value.
That's what we can provide.
And then it's your decision then the move forward or not.
But that present we can initiate this.
Sorry, that's what I meant.
Like the motion is go find out by March 31st now April 30th, April 30th and go get gather information.
Then we're adding adding adding and so now we're in September before we've even got the information brought to us to implement something.
Sorry, I didn't mean go put a transit up in Fort Ship next week.
I meant just move forward.
Get the options.
Come back with just that piece and allow the other piece of the transit master plan data collection and and engagements to drive future decisions.
Yes.
Sorry.
So my understanding is just to keep them as separate pieces.
So we're not trying to amalgamate the two together.
The master plan and this motion.
Yeah, just go off and come back with the options and the costing by March 30th or April 30th.
Just that piece and give.
Kendrick and Council the information and then we'll make a decision from there.
Concurrently you're doing.
The transit master plan strategy and engagements that he already has laid out years ago.
Okay, awesome. Just so I understand. Thank you.
Councillor Vardy.
Thank you. There's a lot of terminology being floated around here within the motion.
It says to recommend and establishments of a transit system and for chip.
However, now I'm hearing a shuttle system in Fort Ship can.
Councillor Cardinal, can you please provide some clarity? Are you looking for a transit system or a shuttle system?
What's the difference?
Set stops.
Like when I think.
Dr. Smith will be better to answer it. I'm going to give you like my layman's terms.
I want to think of a shuttle service. I think of like a singular smaller bus.
Like a vehicle that goes bump bump bump bump bump bump.
Versus transit is on a loop and it only stops in these specific areas.
Like when I think transit, I think this is going to be a huge cost.
Versus shuttle would be in my opinion more reasonable for a smaller community.
So I apologize for getting so hung up on language.
But that's the reason I'm opposed to the way that it's written is because one is astronomical when it comes to cost.
Is the whole transit service versus a shuttle would be more reasonable.
So what is it that you're looking for?
Well, in Fort Ship, why would be the shuttle service?
Okay. So Fort Ship the shuttle service and the Fort McI also the shuttle service.
So respectfully, that's not what your motion says.
Your motion says transit in Fort Ship.
Okay.
I think that she, she just, draft in the previous amendment that law on us, I guess.
Okay, I'll wait for those.
I just want to make sure I'm supporting the right thing.
So through the chair procedure, really, council cardinal, if council's in agreement, you can withdraw your motion and put a new motion on the floor to correct a couple of those.
That language items within the motions, which are changing transit to shuttle services,
adjourned the date, or we can go through a process where we're going to amend your motions.
I would recommend in this case for simplicity, you could withdraw and we can do a new motion.
If council's okay with that under the procedure by the council must give consent.
Is there any objections to the rescinding of the current motion and then allowing council cardinal to redo a motion?
Seeing no objections will be for it.
Strong.
Thanks.
Just want to take a five minute break.
You don't mind?
Please.
Yep.
We'll take a recess for five minutes and we'll come back at, I'm going to go ten because we never stick to that.
So let's go back at six fifty five, please.
Thank you.
That's welcome back. We have a new motion to be put on the floor. Councillor Cardinal, can you
read your motion please.
Thanks, Deputy Mayor Wigel. I did want to say I appreciate everyone's patience and now working
together to find a result for this, I guess my new motion would read, whereas the community
of Fort Chipone currently lacks transportation services with residents to travel within
the community. Therefore, be the result that administration be directed to explore and provide
recommendations on the establishment of a community shuttle service in Fort Chipone. Be it
further resolved that administration be directed to communicate to all rural residents about the existing
transit services. And that administration present its findings and recommendations to council,
no later than April 30th, 2026.
Thank you, Councillor Cardinal. Can I get a second for that? Thank you, Councillor Marcel.
Comments, questions or debate points by council.
Councillor Cardinal, do you want to speak to the motion one more time?
I think we heard there's quite a bit there, so let's move on and hope we can get this past
reason. Thank you. Awesome, Councillor Vardy.
I just wanted to say thank you to Councillor Cardinal for being so open and
listening to the discussion. I think this motion is fantastic through collaboration. Great job,
Councillor. Thank you, Councillor Vardy. Any other questions, comments or debate points?
I did want to say that I'm happy that we all work together at this and it's important as a new
council to work on things like this together and appreciate everybody's support on this and
look forward to the votes. Awesome. Thanks, Councillor Cardinal. We'll call for a vote.
Councillor Vardy, sorry. Awesome, and it's carried you down.
Thank you.
Hey, that was a long one, hey, I like it.
I'm moving on to item number 8.2, Councillor's motion. I'll ask Councillor Scott to speak to
his motion, and then read it out.
There we are. Good evening everyone, so I've got a slightly revised motion, and I've talked to
Jay about that. Jay is going to put the slightly revised motion on the screen, and the reason
it's slightly revised is to comply with section 686 of the MGA, so there's a section of the MGA that
talks about timelines. We've got to make sure that we are consistent with timelines, but the
definitely the intent of the motion is maintained, so I'll read it out as slightly revised.
Whereas timely processing and improved efficiency and municipal planning procedures are in the
public interest. Therefore, be it resolved that council directed administration to implement within six
months, a standardized checklist system for all planning and development applications that clearly
defines itemized requirements. Applicants must meet. Thereby streamlining the submission and review
process. Now, here's the insertion. Planning and development to initiate an automation initiative
based on the principles of process improvement, and then the next paragraph is insurers that
or shorter timelines can be reasonably achieved. They shall be implemented. Be it further resolved
that this motion shall not apply where a conflicting processor timeline is acquired by
provincial legislation. Furthermore, administration shall identify steps to accelerate application
determinations and identify and remove any administrative barriers that have been paid timely
application processing. Municipal bylaws shall be amended, were permitted by provincial law to reflect this
new approach. And that's the motion. Can I get a second, please?
Councillor Allen, thank you for your second. Councillor Scott, which is like to speak to the
motion. Yeah, just briefly, everybody. So, I think during the campaign many of you heard
challenges with planning and development, at least perceived challenges. When we talk through
the planning and development folks, I think they talked to us about various efforts that are being made.
This really reinforces that. We want to have an efficient system at the municipality.
There are jurisdictions such as Edmonton, which I've discussed with planning and development, and they've
certainly reminded me of tonight, that have implemented processes that embrace a lot of the principles
that we are putting forward here tonight. So, I don't expect this to be the end of the story,
but what I do expect is that this will be the start of a further improvement going forward,
that ultimately will improve the service delivery to residents in this region and businesses.
And with that concludes my remarks. Thank you, Councillor Scott. We do have a couple of delegates
for this item. We will begin with Diana Disusa. Thanks, Diana. Please take your name again for the
record, and just remind you that five minutes to make your submission and following submission, please remain
around for any questions. Thanks so much. Thank you. Good evening and happy new year, Deputy Mayor
members of Council and Administration. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Diana Disusa,
CEO of the Fort McMurray Chamber of Commerce. We are the collective voice of business in
this region currently representing six hundred and eighty businesses of all sizes across with Buffalo.
From a business perspective, at the chamber, our guiding principle is simple. Create a
probe business environment that encourages investment growth and job creation. That means supporting
policies that help businesses move forward and pushing back on unnecessary red tape that slows them down.
When processes are unpredictable, projects stall, cost increase, and investment decisions get
delayed or redirected elsewhere. Now, why do we support this motion? We support Council's
caught motion because it addresses these challenges in a practical business-minded way. First,
predictable and transparent processes drive investment, second time matters, and delays costs
money, third accountability and fairness. And finally, it directly aligns with the recommendations
of the Wood Buffalo Pro Business Advisory Committee. Now, I want to acknowledge that planning and
development has made progress over the past two years, and that effort is recognized from my perspective
on the feedback that I get from business. We continue to hear ongoing concerns from a membership about
inconsistency. So, in some instances, their great experiences and in some instances, they're not
not trying to diagnose. That's not my job. My job here is to advocate for it to be improved.
So, I do agree with what Councilor said. It is the next step. To continue to keep our eye on something
that's super important. One of the challenges we also face is requiring permitting and having regulations
where they should not be. I think that is also a very low-hanging fruit and a low opportunity. I feel
like, in five years, if it comes again and there's another one, they'll continue to be the opportunity
to improve. The other piece that continues to plague businesses that's on ongoing issues is sometimes
a tendency to regulate beyond the requirements, as safety calls beyond what's required.
Treats something as a new build when it's not. So, really, I think it's an opportunity to bring it back
to the front and front of everybody's mind and to planning and development and to hopefully continue to
see improvements. And with that, I thank you for your consideration. And I'm here for any questions that
you may have. Awesome. Thanks so much, Diana. Thanks for everything you do. You are a huge advocate in the community.
Questions for the presenter? Councilor Letzboosee.
Yeah. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I'm not sure if this is for the presenter or our planning development.
I guess I'm just trying to understand what Councilor Scott's motion is.
It's going to change. Like, do you have an example, Diana, where there is a,
do you have an example where Councilor Scott's motion is going to improve something?
So, the reality is that there are streamlined, well, they have been working consistently on
streamlined processes, but they're having a clear clear checklist. So, for example, let's talk about
occupancy permits and safety calls. We have a situation where quite often you find situations where
more is being asked. So, if you have a clarity, for example, this is not a new build.
It doesn't need a development permit. It just needs a building permit. I know they've been working
on bringing that to clarity. I don't know for a long, but that clarity, those checklists will continue
to improve it. Brink it front and center. So, just as an example. Okay, I guess, through the chair,
to Amanda, I guess my question, Amanda, is the system that broke right now? Or is it just a few
little tweaks that we need to fix? Like, I'm just confused on what this motion is actually going to
achieve. There you go. Through the chair to the question, no, I wouldn't say, no, the system's
not broken. The challenge that we have is a planning department and probably most planning departments
have this challenge is that you're taking very structured and regulated rules and trying to
shift them into something that's easily understood by the applicants for interacting with us online.
And in the midst of all that, there's rules and ways in which permits are being processed that have
been created over many, many years. And the approach to try to break that down and create efficiency and
to the point that Diana made around sometimes we're regulating or creating regulations where maybe you're
not necessarily actually needing to do that by the building code or by the lunches by law as an
example and trying to adjust the structure on how we approach it. It's a constant, it's constant work.
I know the comment was made about five years, you're still going to have more work to do. And that's
very true. We have been putting concentrated effort into doing this alongside improving customer service
and we're tackling it from a lot of different angles. That includes even website and online
improvements that are happening right now. And the motion that's before you, I think when I look at it in
terms of how it will impact planning and development, it just reinstates that we are taking efficiencies
they're critical and that we are taking them seriously in the past few years when we brought
the process reviewed in front of Council back in 2022. You would be amazed even in the last six
months what has changed in terms of AI and automation and what's available to us. We don't fully
understand how we can implement those pieces and make our own processes easier quicker and more,
I would say, user friendly. We have been looking at what other cities are doing in the country and there's
only very, very few examples of automation or AI being implemented. But we need to understand what that means
and our team has to put our I and pay attention to it because whether we like it or not it's it's
coming in our direction. And this, in my opinion, this motion just gives us that nudge to take it seriously
and to be accountable and to come back to Council report on updates as to where we are in that process.
Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Boosey any other questions for the presenter?
I don't see any thanks to you. Next up we have Michael Ferra. Happy new year, Michael.
Just a reminder to state your name for the record and a reminder you've got five minutes to make your
submission and just remain seated for questions afterwards. Thank you.
Thank you and happy new year to you as well.
So I think Councilor Lance might have stole my thunder. They're a little bit
because I'm having a little bit of issue here too, but we're still getting settled here after the
recent election. I'm so happy to see that.
We have so much in-person attendance. Normally, I don't think that I speak for the entire public, but I think I do hear that we appreciate that.
In that election, we hear a lot of things about the RM and working in silos and how we need to move towards better collaboration and transparency and accountability.
And so I'm going to mention something from the last meeting that's going to tie into this.
So, you know, the last council meeting, there was a vote where, you know, in my eyes, we kind of ignored the CIP and handed out money.
And I can't imagine anyone working in the CIP would feel much like opening up any silos after their work was publicly ignored.
So now we get to this motion that I don't know that it doesn't anything.
But it kind of seems to me like it's something that's known as the work that planning and development does.
And so I would kind of like a little breakdown. Maybe it's a good thing that we have a checklist, I guess.
But is another public sector checklist what is going to help the RM? Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I don't know.
But do we not think that we already have checklists inside planning and development?
By how do they get anything done if they're not checking boxes all the time?
And I don't know that a governance council should be mandate in that.
But, you know, who am I.
But the second part I have a real problem with.
Well, we're talking about if an application is not formally responded to within 30 days.
It's deemed automatically approved as submitted.
What will guarantee that something in front of planning and development is not purposely or otherwise delayed.
So you essentially have an approval was zero oversight.
Now, much money of the RM.
His council collectively and personally willing to live with spending on something that could be approved with all oversight.
And make no mistake, that's what this is.
And if something's approved with no oversight and now there's a problem, what's the consequence?
We're talking about doing this and we haven't talked about the bad side.
All right, so maybe I'm a glass is half full. Maybe I'm a glass is half empty.
But I'd rather look at the glass half empty and get that stuff out of the way.
And then the last one where we're ensuring a shorter time lines can be easily achieved.
I don't even know why we're talking about that.
I mean, it's, you know, if I was at a planning development, I'd be insulted by the insinuation that my department's not trying to do that all the time.
So in light of these things, I guess I don't know how this helps the RM.
I don't know how it helps council break down work in silos.
And I don't know that we can even remotely consider this accountable to transfer.
Especially the 30 day thing.
Thank you.
Thank you, Michael. Are there any questions for the presenter?
I can't say we want to go ahead.
Oh, I lost you there.
Go ahead.
Through the chair to the presenter.
Your glass is half full or empty, but yours are closed because we've removed that.
I mean, you probably couldn't see it.
The 30 days has been removed.
Correct.
Well, I mean.
It, well, the amended thing would have been behind you.
That's been removed just so.
You know, when we vote, that's not part of it anymore.
Just, it was taken out and replaced by.
Can you share that with him?
Somebody?
What?
I don't have it in front of me.
But can you just share with the presenter?
Yeah.
I'll try to put up on the screen.
Yeah.
Can you see it, Michael?
Oh.
There we go now.
It melts up on the main screen.
Okay, that's not what was up on the main screen.
Yeah, that was the amendment that was put up, but it would have been behind you.
So you probably didn't see it.
So I just want to point it out to you.
That's the 30 day.
Yeah.
So, because we both also had a problem in the 30 days.
So, and the checklist, or I'm not supposed to ask you.
But is your understanding that the checklist is for planning and development or citizens making application?
I would assume it's for both.
Okay.
I assumed it was for citizens, but maybe I'm wrong.
Who's the checklist for?
Question for Councillor Scott?
Anybody?
I don't.
Who's the checklist for?
Yeah.
Since when they're filling out applications.
Okay.
Not for planning and development.
Yeah.
Okay.
Perfect.
Thank you.
Councillor Delana.
Any other questions?
For the presenter?
Yes.
Councillor Carter?
Well, maybe this is for administration, but I'm curious about.
What?
Who would create the checklist?
Can we say that for debate?
Or any questions?
This is just for questions for the presenter.
Not for any other questions for the presenter?
Not for any.
Thank you, Michael.
All right.
Now, is there any other questions of council followed by debate points?
Go ahead.
Councillor Carter?
Thanks, Deputy Mayor.
I just curious as to who would create the checklist and would the residents have any input on it?
Through the chair to the question.
For each permit that is applied for, there is a checklist that exists.
These checklist are in place.
Some of them though might be a little bit confusing or not clear.
So from this motion, if it does get approved tonight, we will continue to review those
checklists.
And we are in the midst of looking at providing an online functional tool whereby when people or businesses
are applying for a permit rather than scouring through the land use bylaw and the existing checklist
that are uploaded in PDF or embedded into the e-permanent system.
That there is a more user-friendly interactive pop-up that essentially tells the applicant,
this is what you are going to need for your application.
This is what is going to cost you and hear the estimated timelines based on our own approvals that we process.
So the checklist are created by administration and will be continued to be reviewed by administration.
How often do you advise them?
Through the chair to the question.
They are advised as needed.
A lot of it is foundational requirements as part of a permit application.
Over the last few years, we have been trying to become more flexible in terms of not not over requiring reports.
For example, we understand that certain studies do cost money and take time for applicants.
And we are requiring what we need only when we need it.
Not requiring it for all applications.
So if passed the night, what's in jeopardy within the land use bylaw?
Can you repeat that?
If this is passed, does it jeopardize any of the land use bylaw?
Through the chair to the question.
No.
We would ensure that anything that is in the checklist is in alignment with the land use bylaw.
Perfect.
Thank you.
Councillor Cardinal.
Councillor.
Let's go.
Thank you.
Thank you, Debbie.
And again, I'm confused by this.
Although I like to see improvements and efficiencies improved.
I guess the man is your your word.
Not kind of just like this is something you guys can do on your own.
You don't need us.
Not you.
Do you?
Like, like, for my fair said, it's like kind of under in a way and no disrespect to Councillor
Scott.
But it's kind of, is it telling you to do a better job or improve it?
Like, I just think this is something you're doing on your own in your own department.
Like, that checklist has been there for a long time.
When we build houses, there's a checklist that we have to fill out correct.
Through the chair to the question, that's correct.
That that checklist exists.
Okay.
So, what's the standard right?
What's going to be there to be resolved to counter direct administration plan within six months,
a standard standardized checklist?
So, what's going to, so I guess what's going to change?
What what what difference is that checklist going to look like in six months, then the one today?
Through the chair to the question, we, so we have as part of our process review.
We did a couple of years back and as part of our business plan.
We have the checklist cleaning up processes is always part of what we're doing.
I think what the difference would be if this was to get approved tonight.
It's just, it's just that.
Like, it's, it's a reminder that this is important and that we need to continue doing what we're doing.
Personally, I find that the accountability piece is always good to have.
I think that the public needs to know what planning and development is up to and where, where our focus is.
And we would be using tonight's motion to just further underscore the importance of increased and continued efficiency.
Okay. Thank you.
Catherine.
Thank you, Deputy Mayor, I guess for me, when I read the motion, the, the, the new motion.
We've identified that we do have checklists, but it really, I think with the key to this motion is is to identify where timelines can reasonably be improved.
And and and speed them up. There's a lot of time cases and we've saw one earlier this year several meetings go.
Where long timelines trying to get something through.
With planning and development, whether that's based on the department or whether it's to based on the applicant.
Really doesn't matter, but if we have the ability to improve our timelines as a municipality and it can be reasonably achieved, then I support implementing that.
And because, well, going back to the years and years that the business community has been identifying places where it's been frustrating to get a development permit through.
Whether it was a building permit or not, but as a municipality, I know our department, they've done great strides improving that, but we can always do better.
So really that motion is this motion is telling me that let's just look at ways that we can do better.
Thank you, Councillor Allen.
Yeah, I think the planning and development does an unbelievable job and.
They've they've done they've made great strides since four years ago from where we were then and implementing new ways and to move forward to help the business community.
I think this motion is in line with that and just continues to clean up the process and and move it forward.
And especially seeing the support of the business community and.
And planning and development, I'll be supporting this motion.
Are there any other questions or to be points of counsel.
Seeing none, Councillor Scott, would you like any close in comments.
Everyone to support the motion, even though I realize folks are kind of wondering if it's.
It's something important. You've heard from the business community that it's important.
I don't know if anybody was out in the campaign talking to the business community.
I certainly was and I heard time after time that things can be improved.
This is part of that process will it make things perfect.
No, is it part of our role in responsibility to improve this region and improve the processes that are implemented by this region.
Absolutely. That is one of our founding goals I believe in this region.
Much like people could say that still clearing should be improved.
I'm sure lots of people think that today, I certainly do.
It's not a criticism of administration. It's saying, you know, we need to do better.
And every time a motion is brought, we're saying that yes, things can be done better and I truly believe things can be done better.
And that's why I would encourage everyone to support this motion.
Thank you, Councillor Scott. I'll call for a vote.
That was passed with one opposed.
Thank you everyone for participating in today's meeting. Marcie Cho. Thank you very much.
God bless and good night.
Thank you.
Thank you for joining us.