We ready to proceed. Yes, Mr. Mayor, we're ready. All
right, we'll call the meeting to order Council meeting for
July 21st, 2026. And we'd like to acknowledge that Strathcona
County is located on Treaty Six Territory, and the Homeland
of the Mate Strathcona County honours the First Peoples of
this land. We recognise that we stand upon the land
that carries the footsteps of Cree, Mathie, and Blackfoot amongst
many other nations who have been here for thousands of
years. Therefore, Strathcona County has an inherent responsibility to foster
healthier relationships with First Nations, and further the calls to
actions outlined by the truth and reconciliation commission. Motion to
adopt the agenda, and he changes the agenda, Councillor Lawrence.
Madam Clerk, anything there? As presented. Okay, as presented, thank
you. Questions of clarification, debate, and raise your hand if
you're in favor. And that is unanimous. Over online. Oh,
we're online. Oh, there we are. It is, no one
change your vote. Okay. Proclamation
highland gathering days. The Highland gathering days offers residents and
visitors, a unique opportunity to experience and explore Celtic traditions
in a fun, welcoming, and engaging environment. This family -
friendly event provides activities and experiences for all ages, encouraging
participation from the entire community. Strathcona County is proud to
support community events that celebrate heritage, culture, and community connection.
Therefore, I mayor Rod Frank to here by declared July
25th, 26 is Highland Gathering Days and Strathcona County. I
see some of the high - end folks in here.
Do you wish to do a photo. Or no? Yes.
A photo? Okay, I'll just read one more proclamation, we'll
do the photo at the end. So it's also lemonade
standee over the past 12 years, junior lemon squeezers have
operated lemonade stands to help raise over 3 million for
the strawlery children's hospital foundation. With support of simply supper
and sponsors, registered youths are given the opportunity to learn
about entrepreneurship, marketing, and customer service at a young age.
Strathcona County is proud to encourage our community members to
recognise the efforts of our local youth and visit lemonade
stand. Therefore, aye, Mayor Rod, Frank, to hereby proclaim August
30th, 2026 has lemonade standing Strathcona County. Now, if you
wish to do a photo op, we can do that
now.
Gonna be hot. I hope so. All right, item four
consent agenda motion to pass consent agenda, Councillor. Thank you,
Mr. Mayor. 5. 1 that the July 7, 2026 Council
meeting minutes be approved. 6. 1 that the road names
Evans Boulevard, Pons Landing, Horizon Drive, Fields Landing. Headland Way.
Hedge Grow Crescent, Furrow Link, Solstice Bend, Lome Wind, or
Wynn, and the Park named Solstice Park for the Bremener
Neighborhood's 1 and 2 as set out in enclosure 3
of the July 21st, 2026 planning. And development services report
be approved. 6. 6, that an expenditure of 3, 000
dollars from community funding sponsorship as displayed for the purpose
of providing funds to the Y string ensemble society for
cost associated with the Strathcona County String Music Camp be
approved. That's all thank you. Questions of clarification. Debate, and
we'll vote. Carried 9
- 0. And we'll move on to 6. 2 capital
budget amendment.
Alright, good morning, Council. My name is Sharon Deal. I'm
the Director of Financial and Strategic Services, and with me,
I have Ms. Kirstie Roller, the Manager of Financial Planning,
and to her left, I have Mr. Graham as Bister,
the Manager of Integrated Business Support Office. And lastly, we
have Mr. Ryan Wilson, director of Transportation Engineering and Operations.
So this is not part of our normal process. We
usually have gated capital budget amendments. We have three that
happen throughout the year. But this is considered in a
mered capital budget amendment, and this is due to the
rain and flooding impacts we've seen across the county. And
so what we're going to walk through is first, we're
going to talk about the impacted assets to the county.
And then Ms. Roller will walk through funding that we're
looking to seek from the government of Alberta. It is
called the hazard assess hazard assistance and resilience program. Um,
and we've put forward an application with the government of
Alberta to seek funding for the damages that we've seen
across the county. So I'll just pass it over to
Mr. to walk us through some of the key damages
we've seen. Good morning, Mayor and Council. Before we discuss
the HARP application, I'd like to discuss the state of
our infrastructure that was impacted. At the time of the
flooding events, the infrastructure that was impacted was all in
good working order. This means that the infrastructure would have
received a health score of C or greater as part
of our state of infrastructure report. As a result of
the flooding events in June, 2026, our community received a
record amount of rainfall, a once in a century storm.
As a result, the natural assets were exhausted, and in
some cases, river banks failed. Due to this natural disaster,
we had infrastructure that washed out, resulting in roads being
submerged for large lengths of time, road closures, laying closures,
bridge culvert washouts, road washouts, and near failure of critical
infrastructure that cannot be left in its current state. These
are all core pieces of infrastructure. Administration has had to
expedite response to the numerous impacted areas, enclosure two is
an itemized list of capital projects that require immediate attention
as a result of the flooding natural disaster. Although comprehensive,
these are evolving in real time. The estimate class of
these projects would be classified between an estimate class 4
or 3. Now I'll hand it over to Ms. Roller
to discuss the HAARP and financials. Thank you. So as
Ms. Deol mentioned, administration is applying to the hazard assistance
and resilience program, REP, uh, with the province of Alberta
to support the recovery efforts from the June 2026 rain
events. Um, this program provides financial assistance to municipalities impacted
by natural disasters, uh, which does include flooding. As the
application moves through the review process, we will continue to
update Council accordingly. I do want to flag that under
this program, there are various funding streams that can be
accessed, um, which includes emergency response, private essential and restoration.
So that's home and small business. Restoring public infrastructure and
relief and recovery efforts. Uh, this is important because under
the private essential and restoration stream, residents in small businesses
that have been negatively impacted can potentially access funding, pending
the review of our application. And finally, I just want
to note that while we have applied for this financial
assistance, currently these projects are being funded via our capital
reserves. If grant funding is not successful, administration will revisit
and reprioritize other sources of grant funding as well as
the capital plan. So just in closing, we will come
forward to council following Council's break in the fall to
give an update on, um, the HARP application once we
receive any information from the government of Alberta. And we'll
continue to update Council as we progress through the application.
Well, thank you for the presentation. As the report says
this is, could be categorized as once in a century
events, these rings. And I want to thank staff, first
of all, for dealing with all that. We'll open up
to Council for questions and comments. Councillor Tanita. Yeah, thank
you, Mr. Mayor. Thanks very much for bringing the list
forward, uh, at this point in time. Now I'm assuming
these are anticipated cost, how close are we to the
actual numbers? Or do you have to start digging into
these roads? And before you really get a handle on
what the cost is going to be. Through you, Mr.
Mayor, the cost currently are our best estimate based on
the engineering we have. Right now, a few of the
sites are still underwater. So the full detailed engineering is
ongoing. So every, every day or as opportunities exist, we
try to tighten up our design and estimate as well.
So I would say to we have contingency within the
proposed budget in front of you, but we do expect
there could be some unknowns as we see water levels
receipt. Okay. And this is preliminary. Do we have, is
this covering all the affected properties that have been damaged
at this point or is it just sort of an
early warning report. Mr. Mayor, through you, this is, this
report's really focused on our emergent, our infrastructure that was
damaged and a significant way that we have to react
to. We are starting to really go through in more
detail the rest of the roadways, other infrastructure that could
have impacts. Um, but right now this would be our
critical big locations to get roadways back open and safe.
Okay, final question. Any buildings affected. I could take that
one, Mr. Mayor. Through you do Councillor Tanita. We had
minor issues within a number of buildings, but nothing, um,
too far out of the ordinary and nothing that had
major damage. Okay. Thank you very much. If I can
just add to that, I think what's important to recognise
is with buildings, we have insurance. So we have the
ability to go through insurance. Whereas heart funding are items
that are not applicable to insurance linear roads, that sort
of infrastructure. Okay, well, thanks for the report. And thanks
for acting so quickly. Manoah number of these flood damage
issues generate responses from residents who are affected immediately. And
so you're a quick response is much appreciated. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Councillor Harvey. Yes. Uh, three Ms. Mayor.
Thank you very much for the presentation. And thank you
and your staff for all the work you've managed to
do throughout this, uh, the weather events of this year.
Still raining this morning. Sun's starting to shine. Anyways, I
just got a question. Uh, I didn't see on this
list to township road 530 between 224 and 225. And
my understanding is that road is still closed and we'll
be open till next month sometime. So I'm kind of
curious around that. Mr. Mayor, for you to Councillor Harvey,
uh, so 530 baseline road is an operational project. So
we are, we have replaced the culvert. We are hoping
today if the weather holds to be paving the final
lift and have it open, really weather contingent. We'll see
by the end of the day, but we would expect
in the next year to that roadway's back open. So
some of our minor culverts are smaller infrastructure as operational.
Whereas the list in front of you would be our
larger capital work. So you kind of explain that when
you say operational, because I mean, the road's been shut
down for a couple of weeks and there's damage to
it from the weather. Yeah. Through you, Mr. Mayor, so
the culvert on base on roads is smaller culvert as
compared to the list for the CBA is more our
bridge size culverts that are more significant. So the smaller
through grades approach culverts county staff or operations team will
typically look after that. And they're at a smaller scale.
However, the impact of baseline road closure is because it's
deep and has been ongoing water flowing through it for
the duration of when we're trying to reinstall the pipe.
So it's significantly impacted, but definitely our hope is to
have it open right away. Okay. I still don't kind
of understand why it won't be on this lesson. Maybe
I'll take a shot. So, so the items that are
on the list are capital projects. That, um, Mr. Wilson
is saying is that is an operational budget item. That's
because the cost is much lower? Much lower. Yeah. Oh,
do we know the cost of that one about. You,
Mr. Mayor? It would probably be around 200, 000. Okay.
By the time we're done. Well, we got one on
the list that says 172. I think what Councillor Harvey's
asking is, um, would we not want to get heart
funding for that. Yeah. Basically, that's why I'm asking why
it's not in the list. If I can add to
this, I think, um, and Graham can definitely support this.
But when it's a capital asset, as you're aware, it
increases the betterment of the capital asset itself and the
life of it. I would assume, and I'm going to
ask Mr. Evister to add to this, the work we're
doing to it is not going to add that sort
of life to it so that it would be a
operational, um, expense versus a capital expense, which would then
make it ineligible for heart funding. But I'm going to
ask for Graham to confirm that. Okay. Through the Maria
to Councillor Harvey and to echo at Ms. Cannon said
that is correct. So when we met with the Province
in terms of what is eligible and ineligible, um, regarding
our capital repairs and capital replacements versus the operating adjustments,
we had to be very purposeful as to where those
projects landed. So although to your point, it looks like
a very large issue on that road. It wouldn't constitute
a capital project or capital repair in their definition. Your
goal wasn't on that list. Okay. And I believe Mr.
Wilson said hoping to have it opened by the end
of this week. You correct if the rain holds off.
Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Councillor Burkhofer.
Thank you Mr. Mayor. I want to start off by
thanking all the staff that were involved. So transportation across
all the departments utilities, RPC, whomever in the past weeks
that have been dealing with this. I'm one of the
star off by thanking them for all their extra overtime
and dedication to this. And of course the administration for
going towards applying for this as well. So we can
get some funding back. Um, just looking at enclosure one.
And we see the list of the different items. I'm
just wondering with some of the closures that are still
in place. Are there any properties that the individuals can't
access their properties or have they been rerouted enough that
they can still access their properties with any of the
closures that we see. Mr. Mayor, through to Count Sperghofer,
all properties do have at least one way access and
out. So at this time, the one with limited access.
Okay. And then timeline for some of these. Like obviously
their largest one. We have an 11 million dollar budget
item on here, not budget item, but listed item here.
I wonder what timelines might be for some of these.
Are we looking that it's going to be a couple
of years? Or how long do you think? I mean,
obviously some are weather dependent. Is there any idea of
what it might look like? Mr. Mayor, through you, the
Council Berghofford. So the larger one, that one on 232
would be about a three to four month construction window
if everything goes. Okay. According to plan, we are on
most of these locations have started engineering. We have started
the procurement of the pipe materials. You got to get
bridge on order. And some of those are already started
that discussion and have the orders ready. So we do
expect as soon as we can get the go ahead
and the material. Some of them would be pretty quick
that we would expect this fault to have lots of
these in construction. And under there any changes like with
mitigation with potential future failures that could go in place
that were addressing that these same sites may not have
a repeat. Mr. Mayor, it's a great question. So anytime
we go to, uh, replace a bridge culvert, we reassess,
ensure the known impacts are addressed. So the one example
we are changing the size and the type of the
bridge culvert to a larger different span multiplate that would
allow, um, debris and different aspects to flow through in
a different way. And also bring it up to the
current standard for environmental requirements as well. Okay. Wonderful. Those
are all my questions. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Councillor
Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah. You know what? Thank
you so much for all the work at you and
your team has been doing on this. Um, this is
a daily conversation for me. I'm thinking today I'm expecting
two or three more calls over this issue. I just
wanted to go away already. But, um, I get it.
My question is most answered by Councillor Burkehoff for there.
But, um, how do we fare against other municipalities? Like
when it's raining here, we're feeling it's the entire province
is being hit. We'll know it's not. Um, how, are
we in the same boat as a number of other
ones? Are we going to be competing against harp funding
from other ones. Through the merit accounts are Nelson. Um,
when we did meet the province about two and a
half weeks ago, we are not the only community who
is applying for this funding. The amount. I don't know.
We didn't ask. But we conventured a guess that there
are multiple communities who are applying for this funding, um,
based on the flood natural disasters that are happening. That
are impacting more than just our community. So are we
like one of the worst impacted in my is what
I was kind of reaching for? Or is your other
ones that are Mr. Mayor Strewden Council Nelson? Um, we
do see some of our neighbours with impacts. The toe
field was one example there significant flooding event. And then
you look at the city of Edmonton after us. They
saw those kind of micro bursts in the thunderstorms that
had impacts in different ways. So the prolonged exposure to
high water levels in the rural. Some of our neighbours
have seen similar. I'm not aware of their overall damage
at this time. Sure. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Councillor
Lawrence. Well, thank you Mr. Mayor. Yeah. Thanks for that
information. Um, so the money that we're applying for to
the province, but there still must be other costs that
will have to absorb. Through Mayor Frank Councillor Lawrence. Yes.
So we are using our reserves, our capital reserves to
fund the procurements right now because we're trying to expedite
that. So we will be using our reserves at this
time with the intent that we hope if we don't
get this funding, we will be looking at our LGFF
funding to help support this. And we would be looking
at maybe shortening some of the projects that we have
not committed to in the upcoming years to help support
if this work, if I can add to that, I
also think it's important to recognise that with HARP funding,
uh, a lot of times you can get some of
the operational cost covered with the OT, the overtime, um,
or any of the vehicles that we use during the
overtime. So it's really, um, from an administrative perspective, we
made sure that we isolated those costs as well. Yeah.
No, that's, that's fine. I just, I was, the lists
seemed a little short, um, there was a few, I
was just thinking of old highway 14 between 204 and
203. I mean, it took that whole highway out. I
mean, it's what 16 feet wide and 12 feet deep.
So what we pick up the costs for that? Or
would we apply for that. Through the merit of Councillor
Lawrence? That would be again an op one of those
operational cost pieces. So right now it is sitting in
our operational budget. So we are, we are funding it
through our operations. Um, as part of that, um, overall
heart application. We'll see if it is eligible. But right
now it's part of our operating funds. Okay. Yeah. No,
I have complete confidence in what you guys are doing.
Don't get me wrong. I just, I know that was
probably one of the worst ones down in the southeast.
It literally took the road out. Um, and it's, it's
a fairly major link, but you can dogleg around it
to get somewhere. But, uh, okay. Yeah. No, thank you.
Thanks for all that information. I might just add, when
we think about the HARP application, um, I think a
lot of times we think of it being like potentially
like an insurance fund. But it's not. It's disaster relief
program. So it's there for very specific criteria and purposes
to help communities in, in a disaster. But then there
is the expectation that some of those other operational pieces,
we will have to, um, fund those ourselves. Because this
isn't an insurance program like you would potentially have a
games like your vehicle or your house. Thank you, Councillor
Councillor Derbischhirter. Commissioner. And again, just echoing with the rest
of councils said in terms of our overall response to
this has been amazing. And lots of good work done.
But your last comment, uh, actually it was a great
segue into where I wanted to go with this. From
a once in a century perspective, things that seem to
be happening once in a century every five years now.
Uh, and I know Councillor Hartwick has asked for a
comprehensive report on Strath County's mitigation and resiliency efforts long
term. So we'll be, we'll be, will we be using
this opportunity to kind of roll that into a broader,
um, analysis and introspection in our infrastructure and understanding that
these events are becoming much more frequent than they might
otherwise have been and our infrastructure might not have been
adequately prepared for some of these in the past. Mr.
Mayor, three great question. And I think it ties into
the motion that obviously has been debated later on. What
we want to look at would be our present day
infrastructure, how it relates to if this is one in
the century, hopefully storm, um, or is it becoming some
of the new norm? We see some of the impacts
of rainfall volumes amounts like this rainfall is one of
our largest months we've seen. And then since early 19
routes. And so for us as we look at as
we compare the urban versus rural, some of the rural
area was not an engineered design infrastructure. So that is
what'd be part of that holistic approach to what are
our standards? Are we prepared and ready resilient for what's
coming or the new sustained water levels we're seeing? But
having said that, the average over the past five years
has been varying year to year. And last year we
were more drought like conditions. And this year significant rainfall
and winter storm. So thank you for all your work
on this file. Just to supplement that through Mayor Frank
Council Dribbeshar. So, um, two things we do do a
state, state of infrastructure report, which we're planning to do
by 2028. We will start that work again. And it's
usually about a four year cycle. So that'll give us
an assessment of all of our infrastructure and grades. The
second piece just to highlight is that we're working on
our long - term financial sustainability framework. And so obviously
risk mitigation is part of that process. And lastly, just
on a reserve strategy, our reserves are used. Like think
of it as insurance. And this is what the reserves
are intended for is situations like this. And so that's
why the reserve strategies imperative for us to maintain in
this upcoming budget cycle over the next four years to
support our capital plan. Thank you for that. Thank you,
Councillor Councillor Lawrence. Yeah, thank you, sorry. I should have
got this on the realm before Councillor Derbisher went kind
of where I was going to go. Um, this will
give us a good, a good sense to get out
and assess where we had some weak points. And they
might not be critical to fix today, but its projects
we could do into the future. I'm thinking more of
culverts. We're going to, we, we certainly saw where the
weak links were in the flow system. And this is
what I hear from, from the residents mostly is, you
know, they're saying, well, these culverts, they're no good. They're
too small. And I said, well, you know, you don't
get ahead of yourself there. We, we've, you know, it's
a one in a hundred or whatever it's going to
be. But, um, yeah, we'll be assessing all that. And
so I'll just ask for your response on that. Thank
you. Mr. Mayor, through the Council Lawrence for sure. What
we're seeing in the rural area and in some cases,
many of the newer rural residents haven't seen water like
this in their area. So we have a good level
of detail on those areas that we're impacted. And as
we look and look to address some of these concerns
and we're seeing them throughout has definitely take that action.
Yeah, we're just going to take a chance to comment
to the, a lot of, uh, a lot of the
problems that I've seen were decisions that were made with
the old Edmonton regional planning long before, you know, we
kind of get blamed. And when I say, look, this
was all approved through a whole different board many, many
years ago that literally didn't really look at a lot
of these issues. Certainly water flow. They just, I don't
even think they did physical, um, on the landscape. They
just, uh, had a map in an office in Edmonton,
put a grid over top of it. And stamped it.
And it was sold. And then when we get these
wet years, we suffer with all these mistakes. So I
don't mind taking the hit if we've done something wrong,
but, uh, it's pretty tough because just about everything I've
seen is, has been somebody else's decision. Now again, not,
not passing the buck, but I just tried to make
the, make it clear that, uh, we're doing the best
we can and certainly with our new planning the way
we do planning. We look at those types of top
of bank, floodplains, setbacks. Cause I know people get frustrated.
They want to say, well, why can't I build there.
Well, you can't build there because I think the last
month has proven why he would have been underwater. And,
um, a lot of outbuildings and things that were built
over the years that were underwater that, you know, now
we're being accused, well, we shouldn't, uh, you know, what
are you going to do? Well, first off, he didn't
have a permit. And secondly, we're not going to do
anything. So it's a little frustrating. But again, it'll be
a good time for us to assess what worked and
what didn't work. So look forward to that information. Thank
you. Thank you, Councillor Councillor Parks. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
And thanks again for all the work that you and
your teams have done over the last month here to
do the mitigation cleanup, repairs and all those things. Um,
just a couple of financial questions I did have though.
Um, so in the projects there, we've got eight of
them that have been deemed the most urgent. There. I
assume we're going to see more of these over the
next couple of months is that fair to assume that
we'll likely see you guys in front of us again
in the fall with some more requests. Mr. Mayor, through
your L maybe start, I'm not the financial person to
answer, but, um, currently these are known locations with the
major issues. We have done a quick visual inspection of
our other bridge structures to see current condition. They are,
uh, those that were visible are an okay condition, uh,
so we do expect there is potential for more. Um,
but this will be the known ones today for sure.
Okay. And in the 16. 2 or so that we're
requesting today, how much contingency do we have built into
the, uh, request for construction? Do we have any contingency
built in there? Or I'm assuming we do because these
numbers can fluctuate pretty good. So Mr. Mayor, for you,
you have most of them are around 20 percent contingency
within them. And that's very, uh, connected to the lack
of engineering detail we have at this time for them.
Understood. And I assume we've got, we've already gone out
and started lining up contractors and things like that to
get work started right away. Yeah. Mr. Mehr, two parts.
We've, we have some of the contractors in negotiations right
now under emergency procurement. And as well, we're also procuring
the materials needed as well to move as quick as
we can. Excellent. Of those answers, my questions. Yeah. This
is must reasonable. Okay. That's it for questions from council.
Do we have a motion. Councillor Nelson. Um, I moved
that an amendment to the 2026 Capitol budget in the
Mount of 16, 273, 000 for the emergent rainfall infrastructure
replacement and rehabilitation 2026 project as set out and enclosure
one of the July 21, 2026 financial and strategic services
report. And with the funding from the municipal capital reserve
be approved. And that administration provide a report for Council's
consideration by the end of 2026 on the outcome of
the hazard assistance and resilience program, uh, application that resulting
impacts of the on capital funding sources and any projects
deferrals or repriotizations with a focus on core infrastructure. Questions
of clarification. Debate. And we'll vote.
Carried 9 - 0. Thank you for the presentation. And
we'll move to Smith House.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so today was actually supposed
to be our director of FFM director McKenzie was going
to be doing this presentation. So you're getting the second
string he was unable to be here today. This report
is before you, for approval to negotiate and execute a
market value license agreement with the Beaver Hills biosphere association
for use of the Smith House. At a high level,
this item's about making productive use of an existing county
- owned building in a way that is aligned with
site's location. The broader conservation context and public - facing
mandate of the association. In terms of context, Smith House
is located on the east edge of Strathcona County at
52 - 521 Range Road 211 and sits at the
entrance of the Beaver Hills Biodiversity Trail. Because of that
setting administration feels and sees a strong fit between this
property and the association's work. The association's mandate is centred
on stewardship, biodiversity, conservation, education, collaboration, and sustainable regional development.
Locating the Association at the site would create a clearer
connection between the property and the public purpose it can
serve. The county already provides annual operating funding to the
Beaver Hills biosphere association, as does Ladue County Beaver County
and Lamont County, all of which fall within the biosphere.
The request is separate from the ongoing operational support. So
this request for an agreement there, a license agreement. However,
it's related, it can help stabilize the association's physical presence
and location that is supportive of the mandate while strengthening
the alignment between the organization's activities and county - owned
assets in the area. In accordance with the county's disposal
of surplus municipal land, any lease of the building must
reflect fair market value. The property currently has a residential
tenant. And the arrangement has provided some practical benefit through
on - site presence in an area that's fairly remote.
And taking care of the asset. So upgrades to the
building are required in accordance with the National Building Code.
The required improvements are based on the change of use
classification. And from a private residential use to Office occupancy.
So in order to put the association in there, it
needs to meet the new building code. So based on
current estimates, the building and accessibility improvements to support Office
occupancy are estimated 75, 000 dollars with the association, and
they are very willing to enter into a license agreement
at farm - market compensation. But do not currently feel
that they could do the improvements that are required that
are required for this change in use. Pending a fair
market review of assessment. Administration would seek a budget adjustment
later in 2026 or early next year as part of
the 2027 budget. And for fleet and facility management, this
would be an operating item because it is only 75,
000 dollars, but it would be something that needs to
be added to the budget. The market rate license fee
would be structured to account for the total cost of
improvements made to the building in order to support the
new occupancy type. What we're looking for today is council's
authorization to enter a fair market license agreement with the
Beaver Hills biosphere association. And I'd be happy to take
any questions, Council may have. Thank you for the presentation.
Councillor Parks. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so we're looking
at investing 75, 000 into the building and then turning
it over as a lease to the organisation. Um, quick
question. I'm assuming then that we'd be looking at having
the 75, 000 dollar cost built into the rent. So
we'd have the rent commence certainly go up to have
a repayment schedule for us on it. The fair market
assessment that we'd be doing would take into account the
improvements that would be done to the building. So yes,
the answers. Are there any additional expected cost lifecycle costs
for utility septic wealth systems, snow removal of those things
are there included in that? Or are we looking at
anything needing for life, you know, general life cycle with
this building? Is it in good condition otherwise? The building
is in good shape still. I don't have the exact
age in front of me. FFM would, um, yeah, it's
in good shape. We aren't anticipating any additional costs than
what we currently see with a renter in the building.
Okay. And do direct negotiations comply with our disposal policy
or should other potential users be given the same opportunity
or are we pretty comfortable with the process we've got
here? When it comes down to the use of the
building, this is why we think that this is a,
an opportunity to have a tenant in that location that
is familiar with the site and could see a beneficial
use of that site. Um, using it as just a
rental or a private residence. Doesn't have the same, I
guess, appeal. Okay. No, I'm comfortable with it. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Councillor Lawrence. Oh, thank you. Thank you
for the presentation. Just a little background on that property
was purchased in 2009. The House is 30 years old
actually this year. And, um, just on an average, uh,
180, 000 dollars over it since we've owned it. So
it's put that money into general revenue. And, um, so
in a way it's paid for itself, but the agreement
that the biosphere wants to enter into is that would
be worked into the rental fee we would make sure
that we're covering that cost of whatever it takes to
bring it up to a commercial standard. So we're, uh,
we're very happy that it's moving along. And, uh, I
want to thank administration for the work they've done. And,
uh, yeah, so the questions I could take them to.
Motion. Yeah. I'll make the motion, yes. Do you want
to do that now. Or are we going any questions?
No, for the question. So yeah, we'll look at the
motion.
All right. That administration be authorized to negotiate and execute
a market valued license agreement with the Beaver Hills biosphere
association for the use of the Smith House located at
525 21 Range Road 211 subject to compliance and.
There. Land use building code accessibility legal and financial requirements.
Clickable. That's what I was trying to say. Questions are
questions of clarification. I have one. This captures this language.
We'll capture the fact that 75, 000 dollars has to
be built into the lease payments also, correct? Yes. Where
it says, uh, it says market value license agreement. Right.
But they've said they can't afford the 75, 000 right
now. So we're going to build it into the lease
payments. Absolutely. We, as I said, we will be doing
assessment of the property and license agreement will reflect that
cost. Okay. Uh, debate. Do you close councillor. Nope. We're
good. We'll vote. Carried
90. Thank you. Thank you. 6. 4 motion following notice
of motion 2026 rainfall and flooding event review and resilience
assessment. I know. I would like to move that administration
preparer report for Council's consideration by the end of Q4,
2026 that provides an overview of the recent rainfall and
flooding event, including the nature and extent of impacts on
residents. County infrastructure and municipal services. It elevates the performance
of the county stormwater management systems drainage infrastructure and related
engineering works, including whether they function as intention as intended.
Identifies any infrastructure operational maintenance or system related factors that
may have contributed to flooding impacts. Reviews the adequacy of
the county's current engineering design standard stormwater management criteria and
infrastructure planning assumptions in the context of evolving precipitation patterns
and climate projections. It identifies opportunities to enhance the county's
resilience to future extreme rather events, including potential changes to
engineering standards policies, capital planning, asset management practices, emergency response
measures, or public communication approaches. And outlines the financial implications
risk resource requirements and implementation considerations associated with any recommended
actions. The end. Yeah. Yeah. So yeah, I think with,
with, uh, with what we saw, we need to look
into what worked where there were gaps, whether our current
engineering standards remain appropriate. And also this outlines any financial
implications. So Council can make informed decisions in the future.
Thank you for the motion. Councillor, questions of clarification, Councillor
Parks. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a couple of questions.
Um, will this report distinguish between infrastructure that failed infrastructure
that potentially was blocked or inadequately maintained an infrastructure that
operated as designed but was exceeded. Mr. Mayor, through you.
That would be part of how we were respond to
these questions. Because as you said, there's a number of
different reasons why infrastructure or why flooding occurred. And that
would have to be report put together in the report
as well. Okay. And now, well, most of our infrastructure
that was failed, and I won't say infrastructure failed, but
major incidents were in the rural areas there. We did
have some neighbourhood flooding. And, um, well, neighbourhood flooding in
prior complaints be specifically examined because we've seen some problem
spots, especially in the urban areas where this has been
REO occurring every time we get a major reign. Mr.
Mayor, through you to Councillor Parks, actually that work is
ongoing as we speak. Um, so especially in the urban
areas, where we saw issues that we felt were out
of the ordinary and say overflow structures weren't functioning as
designed. We're already looking into that. Okay. Uh, will the
final report be public apart from legitimately privileged personal information
or are we looking at this being primarily an internal
report? Yeah, it will be presented to Council, so it
would be a public document. Perfect. And are we good
with the timeframe of Q4 2026? That seems awful fast
to do a lot of this work. It will be
a high level review. There's probably going to be recommendations
for further investigation. So, um, at the level that we're
looking at, we think we can complete it by the
end of the year. Excellent. Well, thank you. Okay. Debate
on the motion. Do we wish to close? I'm good.
We'll vote on a motion.
It's carried 9 - 0. And we go to 6.
5 motionfall. I notice the motion review of the casino
bylaw. Mr. Mayor, I would like to move the administration
prepare report for Council's consideration by the end of Q4
2026, outlining the potential economic social and community impacts of
permitting casinos with in Strathcona County, including an analysis of
the advantages and disadvantages and providing information to support council's
review of the casino bylaw. Um, Mr. Mayor, I'm bringing
the motion forward recognise that casino is something that was
involved over time in Alberta since 1975, um, over 30
casinos have been established across Alberta, including 10 and Everton,
I think 12, including the surrounding areas. Six of those
being operated by First Nations. As of July 13th, just
this past week, uh, the Province introduced online gaming and
expects to generate 76 million dollars year over, um, through
online gaming as well. And they, they say that, uh,
close to 390 million dollars in revenue comes in across
Alberta as a result of a casinos. Um, cause you
know, also bring significant revenues to local municipalities. Um, many
of our user groups in town go outside of our
community now, uh, seeking an opportunity to raise revenues to
support their operations through casinos. Um, by bringing one to
Strathcona County, we're enhancing the opportunity within our community. Um,
I do think that there is interest. I get asked
by seniors groups in particular. Could we get a bus
that would take us into, uh, this casino in Edmonton
or that cause, you know, um, and I understand that
even among young people today, it's becoming a form of
entertainment, uh, that's drawing them out of Strathconda County, taking
their dollars with them, um, as they leave and seek
entertainment elsewhere. Um, so it seems to be an activity
that supports people of all ages. But casinos are more
than simply gaming centres. If you look at the ones
that exist, um, in Edmonton and surrounding area, they become
an important entertainment centres that bring shows, operate recreational spaces.
In some cases spas, restaurants, other venues to meet the
recreational needs of residence. And so it's, I'm not basis
that I'm bringing this motion forward today. And I'm simply
asking, simply asking administration to do a good review to
help us understand the pros and cons of allowing such
establishments to be built in the county and to analyse
the economic, social, and community impacts of such operations. Now
I know if we make a decision at some point
to say, yeah, let's review the bylaw, that still doesn't
approve of casino. It simply allows us to take a
look at whether it's something that's worthy of consideration and
does it benefit our community. And happy to take questions.
Questions of clarification. Councillor Nelson. Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Um, I'm just curious, would this, I still have some
concerns over, but with a report, I'd be interested in
seeing it. But would this report include how enforcement services
resources are going to be impacted? And how often does
the RCMP get called to casinos, um, and how, what's
the average amount of time they're spending casinos? It kind
of makes sense, doesn't it, if we're looking at the
social and community impacts, if that's one of the impacts.
I would think that it's doable to request that. I
don't know if we need to demand the motion to
get that information. I just, my question, a timing, is
that going to work? For Q4 through the mayor to
Councillor, Tanita, we can certainly put in requests through Edmonton
in particular in terms of the Edmonton Police Service and
the impact on their work. In terms of our ability
to meet the timelines, it would depend on the other
agencies having access to that information. And whether it's actually
broken down, uh, specifically to casinos versus other types of
bars and whatnot, but we can certainly put the request
in. Okay. Debate. Councillor Parks. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I
will not be supporting the motion. StreatConic County residents have
already answered this question, not once, but twice. In 2001,
the casino issue was put directly to voters through a
plebiscite during the municipal election and there was a decisive
result that led to the casino bylaw we have today.
In 2021, many of this council were at the table
when we were approached by a potential developer. And Council
considered reopening the issue, but resident engagement showed little appetite
to revisit it. And Council smartly voted it down. For
me, this is a basic democratic principle here. When residents
speak, clearly government should listen. We should not keep asking
the same question every few years in the hope that
eventually receive a different answer. I'm going to offer up
a simple analogy. Residents have already closed this door. They've
locked it twice. Council should not keep walking back down
the hallway and jiggling handles just to check to see
if the doors are still locked. This is also both
priorities. We're facing major flood recovery costs, infrastructure pressures, emergency
service decisions, and significant budget challenges. Administration's time and taxpayers'money
should be focused on the issues residents are asking us
to address, not reopening a debate that they have been
repeatedly telling us they are not interested in having. I
have not gotten one email, not gotten one call from
a resident of any word asking me to revisit this
issue for a second time this decade. This was not
an unanswered question. It may be an answer some interested
parties are not interested in hearing, but it is not
one that we have not received. I trust the judgment
of Strathcona County residents. I respect the decisions that have
already been made on this twice, and I'll be voting
no. I hope Council does the same. Thank you, Councillor
Council Drew, Shire. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I will be
supporting this, uh, motion. First of all, we're asking for
a report. We're not presupposing whether or not a casino
is going to get built. We're not presupposing any resident
concerns or lack of concerns. I have heard from residents,
uh, on the campaign trail. And since about the lack
of a casino in Strathcona County, specifically from a fundraising
and a youth engagement perspective, uh, many not - for
- profits require or rely on casino revenue to support
their operations, uh, forcing them to drive to cameras or
other rural areas, uh, to raise those funds, I think
is problematic when we have the opportunity here, but I'm
getting ahead of myself. All we're asking for is a
report. We're not presupposing any outcomes. We're asking administration to
look into this. I'll be supporting this motion. Thank you.
Councillor Council Brickhofer. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll also be
supporting this motion. I am one of the volunteers that
has worked for the different nonprofits going to camera was
also even into Edmonton to work casinos that these nonprofits
and charities rely heavily for having one's closer buys, easier
on volunteers to be able to access those funds in
relating back to the 2001 motion. There's generations that didn't
exist here. Our population has grown. I think back then
was probably 66, 000 people were now well over 100,
000. There's many individuals who didn't live here. They didn't
have their say back in 2001, including myself. I didn't
move here till February 2002. Um, there's different aspects in
regards to the impacts of a casino in your community.
I think this would help address it. It is a
cultural change where I look at my 18 year old
daughter and her friends. It is a social thing that
they attend the different things. There's a different aspects. I've
been out to, um, uh, River Cree. They have events.
They have concerts there. I've also been to their hockey
games. Then crossed over to go to the casino at
the same time all within the same building. So there's
different components that address having casino in your community. But
I'd like to hear the positives, but also the negatives
and how it could impact across the boards. And that's
what this report is. It's only a report for an
administration to give us more understanding. And that's what we
didn't have in 2021. We didn't get to the point
where we had information presented to us. And now we'll
have that information so we can make the best decision.
Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Harvey. Yes, thank you very much.
Actually, I believe the motion was 2022 because I was
here when we discussed it. So I remember voting on
that and resident. So it might have been late 21,
early 22, something like that. Anyways, uh, yeah, I haven't
heard from any resident of mine requiring or asking about
casino or busting people to casinos. Uh, I do understand
the nonprofits would love to have a casino closer by
so that they can get the revenue, uh, from it.
But I don't believe that that is enough, uh, enough
of, I guess, positive aspect to it, to have a
casino in Strathical County. We've had this discussion before. I
don't believe that we should keep bringing back. I do
understand that this is just a report. But reports take
time. They take resources. And I think our resources can
be better spent on looking after some of the core
necessities that our county residents are asking for rather than
having them spend their time doing a report. So, uh,
I, I just cannot support this. It's something that we've
discussed in the past. And I don't believe that there
is any want of a casino by residence of Strathcon
County. So I would not support this. Thank you. Thank
you, Councillor Councillor Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It just
leads into my question. I guess it would be to
administration. Is this a lot of work to do this
report. We can pulse them with a basic, um, information
that we brought forward when we had the non -
statutory public hearing. And then there's a little bit more
detail that, I mean, it's, yes, it's, it's work, but
we do have a fair bit of it. Um, but
not the details. Right. No, I asked that because again,
we're conscious of everybody's work time and what needs to
be done. But I'm also respectful of, you know, this
bench. A motion has come forward. I, I appreciate Councillor
Parks remarks and the debate we have. I think this
is the great thing about our democracy. We can debate
these things. I'm always hesitant not to support someone's motion
because all we're doing is moving it down the line
a bit. We're not agreeing to anything. But I also
don't want it to be a huge burden on staff.
Um, kind of like, geez, we're going through this again,
but if we've got a lot of this put together,
um. I guess again, I'm asking, is this a huge
amount of work. Yeah, I know it's a huge, it's
a big open question. I'm sorry. If Councillor wants us
to, we just have to repiv some of our work
to do it. Um, again, we do have a lot
of the foundation from the last go around, um, what
I worry is that we're not going to capture everything
that they call the details that if we're going to
be asked to provide it, I think if we can
get a really good handle on what it is that
you're expecting us to bring back and what kind of
level of detail that's going to be. All right. Well,
I guess Councillor Tanita could answer that. But, uh, all
right. Thank you for that. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.
Councillor Hartwick. Uh, thank you Mr. Mayor. I was here.
This was done in December of 2021 or late November
of 2021. And, um, and the public came out and
spoke in droves to it. And I don't know what's
changed. I understand that this is just a report. Um,
and, and maybe things have changed. I doubt it. I'm
concerned. But since this got brought up two weeks ago,
I, I've actually restarted receiving calls already of people opposed
to this casino. I had two yesterday that left me
messages saying, um, because they didn't understand that it was
just a report. So it's stirring up things within the
community. And I know that the people that I hear
from are certainly opposed to this. So, um, I'm not
sure where I feel about having another report if we've
already done it. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Councillor
Nelson. Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, Councillor Parks
made some really good points. Um, we went through this.
It was a very difficult situation for a lot of
residents to go through this one. And the reason I
asked the question earlier about the RCMP is because I
spent some time with them. And their response to me
was, um, was quite difficult to even understand, let alone,
uh, try to support opening this door up again. I
don't think I can support this even though it's just
a report. It's just the difficulties that it's going to
open up an old wound that I, in the future,
I probably wouldn't be able to support regardless anyways. Thank
you. We wish to close councillor, Tanita. Um, I will,
Mr. Mayor, first of all, I want to clarify a
couple of things here. First of all, in 2021, we
did not get a report. We requested it. And the
motion was defeated. In fact, two motions, one in September
and one on November 30th, 2021 were defeated. So when
we didn't get the information, we listened to the public,
but we didn't go out and do that detailed analysis.
So the report came in 2001. Um, it doesn't hurt
once in a while to check the information. Um, yep.
Maybe some of you haven't had calls. Some of us
have had calls. Uh, I've heard from residents. And in
fact, I was meeting with residents groups in some of
our seniors facilities who said, could we get a boss
too and others who said, we do once a month,
take a bus and we go to the casino. Um,
so that, um, what that tells me there is some
interest out there. And I don't know that it's inappropriate
to ask for information. Um, as Councillor Lawrence pointed out
once in a while asking for information, getting your report
is not a bad thing. And we shouldn't be afraid
to seek the information. 2021, that's a generation ago. Um,
and I think it's fair to reevaluate at least once
in a generation, um, whether or not something like this
is appropriate. So that's why I'm bringing it forward today.
Um, I also well aware that if we have people
leaving the community, they're taking their dollars. Outside the community,
spending outside. We're not asking to build a casino here
as a county. That's not what this motion asks for.
It asks to allow the conversation to take place. And
if there is a proponent that wants to come forward
and suggest building one, it opens the door for them
to make a proposal back to us. If indeed, we
make that decision. That's all I'm asking for today. Just
before you close, uh, the other debates you might want
to speak again, but Councillor Parks further debate. No further
debate. Just a point of clarification requesting a bus is
not the same as asking for one being built in
their community. I think that's got to be pretty clear
that the two very different things. Seeing if the bus
available is very different than asking if there can have
one built in their neighbourhood. Absolutely. I've never heard both.
Um, some people saying we would like that opportunity. Others
have requested the opportunity here as well. It's coming forward
because people have asked for it. Thank you. Okay. Councillor
Dribbershire only items to speak to that have risen since
Councillor T had just spoke because the debate's closing. I
just want to just, uh, clarify a point made by
some other councillors around their belief that things haven't changed.
I believe in evidence. This report is asking for evidence.
It's asking for economic impact, social impact community and bad
evidence. Not what people think or feel it's asking for
evidence. Evidence - based decisions are what this council should
be working on. And again, I continue to support this
motion. Okay. The debate is now closed concerted anything arising,
nothing. We will vote.
We're just going to resend the vote. Try again here.
Okay.
Okay. That deals with that item. Now, let's do, uh,
Councillor Requests. We'll get that off the agenda. We'll start
with Councillor Tinita. Any motions are coming this way. Councillor
Durbishire? I do, Mr. Mayor. If the clerk can put
it up for me. You got a paragraph there. Yeah.
Thank you. Uh, Mr. Mayor at the September 15, 2026
Council meeting. I'll move the following. That administration prepare a
report for Council's consideration by the end of Q1 2027
regarding noise complaints and enforcement within Strathcona County, including the
number of noise related complaints received annually over the previous
five years. The nature and source of those complaints, including
residential, commercial, construction, vehicle, event related and other categories. And
any notable geographic seasonal or temporal trends. The number of
warnings tickets and other enforcement actions related to noise complaints
over the previous five years. A breakdown of enforcement actions
resulting from citizen complaints and proactive observations by community peace
officers or RCMP officers and information regarding appeals, disputes, or
prosecutions arising from noise enforcement actions, including conviction rates. A
review of the effectiveness and enforceability of the county's current
noise regulations in the community standards bylaw, including identification of
any challenges encountered by enforcement personnel when applying provisions that
rely on an officer's assessment or opinion regarding whether noise
is unreasonable, excessive, disturbing, or otherwise in contravention at the
bylaw. And information on whether they're a practical legal operational
or evidentiary challenges associated with the current bylaw language. A
review of noise regulation and enforcement practices and comparable Alberta
municipalities and regional municipalities, including information regarding the use of
objective noise measurement standards, decibel thresholds, time of dai restrictions,
complaint based enforcement models, and other recognised best practices. And
finally, recommendations, if any, regarding potential changes to policy, enforcement
practices, public education, data collection, or bilaw provisions, including any
opportunities to improve consistency, clarity, fairness, and forceability, and public
understanding of Strathcona County's noise regulations. Okay, take a breath
coming this way. Going down here further, nothing. Okay, that
deals with the item 9. 1. And now motion to
go into closed. Councillor Hartwick, questions of clarification debate. Are
we going to vote manually. Or we will try electronically,
please. Electronically. This is what's still on our meetingstown. We're
voting, if you want to close, then we'll take a
break. Security 90 and the current time is 10. 06
will come back at 10. 15.
Kate motions rising out of close Councillor Parks. Sorry. That's
ridiculous. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've got one motion coming
out of closed here. That an amendment to the 2026
operating budget to defer the recruitment of eight firefighter positions
be approved, that the corresponding savings and the amount of
500, 000 dollars be reallocated to support the reserve strategy
required to maintain and sustained core infrastructure assets and ensure
a long - term funding approach for assets, sustainability, and
that administration include the reduction of the 2027 firefighter recruitment
from eight positions to four positions for Council consideration as
part of the 2027 budget process, and that previous multi
- year firefighter recruitment approvals be replaced by an annual
review through the budget process based on service requirements, operational
needs and organisational priorities through the budget process. Questions of
clarification. Debate. And will vote.
That's carried eight to one. And that adjourns the meeting.
Thank you all.