[10:26] We ready to proceed. Yes, Mr. Mayor, we're ready. All
[10:30] right, we'll call the meeting to order Council meeting for
[10:32] July 21st, 2026. And we'd like to acknowledge that Strathcona
[10:37] County is located on Treaty Six Territory, and the Homeland
[10:40] of the Mate Strathcona County honours the First Peoples of
[10:44] this land. We recognise that we stand upon the land
[10:47] that carries the footsteps of Cree, Mathie, and Blackfoot amongst
[10:50] many other nations who have been here for thousands of
[10:53] years. Therefore, Strathcona County has an inherent responsibility to foster
[10:57] healthier relationships with First Nations, and further the calls to
[11:01] actions outlined by the truth and reconciliation commission. Motion to
[11:07] adopt the agenda, and he changes the agenda, Councillor Lawrence.
[11:11] Madam Clerk, anything there? As presented. Okay, as presented, thank
[11:15] you. Questions of clarification, debate, and raise your hand if
[11:20] you're in favor. And that is unanimous. Over online. Oh,
[11:26] we're online. Oh, there we are. It is, no one
[11:34] change your vote. Okay. Proclamation
[11:44] highland gathering days. The Highland gathering days offers residents and
[11:49] visitors, a unique opportunity to experience and explore Celtic traditions
[11:53] in a fun, welcoming, and engaging environment. This family -
[11:58] friendly event provides activities and experiences for all ages, encouraging
[12:03] participation from the entire community. Strathcona County is proud to
[12:06] support community events that celebrate heritage, culture, and community connection.
[12:12] Therefore, I mayor Rod Frank to here by declared July
[12:16] 25th, 26 is Highland Gathering Days and Strathcona County. I
[12:21] see some of the high - end folks in here.
[12:26] Do you wish to do a photo. Or no? Yes.
[12:30] A photo? Okay, I'll just read one more proclamation, we'll
[12:33] do the photo at the end. So it's also lemonade
[12:37] standee over the past 12 years, junior lemon squeezers have
[12:40] operated lemonade stands to help raise over 3 million for
[12:44] the strawlery children's hospital foundation. With support of simply supper
[12:48] and sponsors, registered youths are given the opportunity to learn
[12:51] about entrepreneurship, marketing, and customer service at a young age.
[12:56] Strathcona County is proud to encourage our community members to
[12:59] recognise the efforts of our local youth and visit lemonade
[13:02] stand. Therefore, aye, Mayor Rod, Frank, to hereby proclaim August
[13:05] 30th, 2026 has lemonade standing Strathcona County. Now, if you
[13:09] wish to do a photo op, we can do that
[13:10] now.
[15:27] Gonna be hot. I hope so. All right, item four
[15:32] consent agenda motion to pass consent agenda, Councillor. Thank you,
[15:40] Mr. Mayor. 5. 1 that the July 7, 2026 Council
[15:47] meeting minutes be approved. 6. 1 that the road names
[15:52] Evans Boulevard, Pons Landing, Horizon Drive, Fields Landing. Headland Way.
[16:02] Hedge Grow Crescent, Furrow Link, Solstice Bend, Lome Wind, or
[16:11] Wynn, and the Park named Solstice Park for the Bremener
[16:15] Neighborhood's 1 and 2 as set out in enclosure 3
[16:19] of the July 21st, 2026 planning. And development services report
[16:24] be approved. 6. 6, that an expenditure of 3, 000
[16:30] dollars from community funding sponsorship as displayed for the purpose
[16:35] of providing funds to the Y string ensemble society for
[16:40] cost associated with the Strathcona County String Music Camp be
[16:45] approved. That's all thank you. Questions of clarification. Debate, and
[16:50] we'll vote. Carried 9
[17:00] - 0. And we'll move on to 6. 2 capital
[17:06] budget amendment.
[17:32] Alright, good morning, Council. My name is Sharon Deal. I'm
[17:35] the Director of Financial and Strategic Services, and with me,
[17:38] I have Ms. Kirstie Roller, the Manager of Financial Planning,
[17:42] and to her left, I have Mr. Graham as Bister,
[17:44] the Manager of Integrated Business Support Office. And lastly, we
[17:47] have Mr. Ryan Wilson, director of Transportation Engineering and Operations.
[17:53] So this is not part of our normal process. We
[17:57] usually have gated capital budget amendments. We have three that
[18:02] happen throughout the year. But this is considered in a
[18:06] mered capital budget amendment, and this is due to the
[18:09] rain and flooding impacts we've seen across the county. And
[18:13] so what we're going to walk through is first, we're
[18:15] going to talk about the impacted assets to the county.
[18:20] And then Ms. Roller will walk through funding that we're
[18:23] looking to seek from the government of Alberta. It is
[18:25] called the hazard assess hazard assistance and resilience program. Um,
[18:30] and we've put forward an application with the government of
[18:33] Alberta to seek funding for the damages that we've seen
[18:35] across the county. So I'll just pass it over to
[18:38] Mr. to walk us through some of the key damages
[18:42] we've seen. Good morning, Mayor and Council. Before we discuss
[18:46] the HARP application, I'd like to discuss the state of
[18:49] our infrastructure that was impacted. At the time of the
[18:51] flooding events, the infrastructure that was impacted was all in
[18:54] good working order. This means that the infrastructure would have
[18:57] received a health score of C or greater as part
[19:00] of our state of infrastructure report. As a result of
[19:03] the flooding events in June, 2026, our community received a
[19:06] record amount of rainfall, a once in a century storm.
[19:10] As a result, the natural assets were exhausted, and in
[19:13] some cases, river banks failed. Due to this natural disaster,
[19:16] we had infrastructure that washed out, resulting in roads being
[19:20] submerged for large lengths of time, road closures, laying closures,
[19:24] bridge culvert washouts, road washouts, and near failure of critical
[19:28] infrastructure that cannot be left in its current state. These
[19:31] are all core pieces of infrastructure. Administration has had to
[19:36] expedite response to the numerous impacted areas, enclosure two is
[19:40] an itemized list of capital projects that require immediate attention
[19:43] as a result of the flooding natural disaster. Although comprehensive,
[19:48] these are evolving in real time. The estimate class of
[19:51] these projects would be classified between an estimate class 4
[19:54] or 3. Now I'll hand it over to Ms. Roller
[19:57] to discuss the HAARP and financials. Thank you. So as
[20:02] Ms. Deol mentioned, administration is applying to the hazard assistance
[20:05] and resilience program, REP, uh, with the province of Alberta
[20:09] to support the recovery efforts from the June 2026 rain
[20:13] events. Um, this program provides financial assistance to municipalities impacted
[20:18] by natural disasters, uh, which does include flooding. As the
[20:22] application moves through the review process, we will continue to
[20:24] update Council accordingly. I do want to flag that under
[20:28] this program, there are various funding streams that can be
[20:30] accessed, um, which includes emergency response, private essential and restoration.
[20:36] So that's home and small business. Restoring public infrastructure and
[20:40] relief and recovery efforts. Uh, this is important because under
[20:43] the private essential and restoration stream, residents in small businesses
[20:47] that have been negatively impacted can potentially access funding, pending
[20:51] the review of our application. And finally, I just want
[20:54] to note that while we have applied for this financial
[20:57] assistance, currently these projects are being funded via our capital
[21:00] reserves. If grant funding is not successful, administration will revisit
[21:05] and reprioritize other sources of grant funding as well as
[21:08] the capital plan. So just in closing, we will come
[21:13] forward to council following Council's break in the fall to
[21:16] give an update on, um, the HARP application once we
[21:19] receive any information from the government of Alberta. And we'll
[21:23] continue to update Council as we progress through the application.
[21:29] Well, thank you for the presentation. As the report says
[21:33] this is, could be categorized as once in a century
[21:36] events, these rings. And I want to thank staff, first
[21:39] of all, for dealing with all that. We'll open up
[21:42] to Council for questions and comments. Councillor Tanita. Yeah, thank
[21:45] you, Mr. Mayor. Thanks very much for bringing the list
[21:47] forward, uh, at this point in time. Now I'm assuming
[21:50] these are anticipated cost, how close are we to the
[21:55] actual numbers? Or do you have to start digging into
[21:57] these roads? And before you really get a handle on
[21:59] what the cost is going to be. Through you, Mr.
[22:03] Mayor, the cost currently are our best estimate based on
[22:07] the engineering we have. Right now, a few of the
[22:09] sites are still underwater. So the full detailed engineering is
[22:14] ongoing. So every, every day or as opportunities exist, we
[22:17] try to tighten up our design and estimate as well.
[22:20] So I would say to we have contingency within the
[22:24] proposed budget in front of you, but we do expect
[22:27] there could be some unknowns as we see water levels
[22:30] receipt. Okay. And this is preliminary. Do we have, is
[22:34] this covering all the affected properties that have been damaged
[22:38] at this point or is it just sort of an
[22:41] early warning report. Mr. Mayor, through you, this is, this
[22:46] report's really focused on our emergent, our infrastructure that was
[22:50] damaged and a significant way that we have to react
[22:53] to. We are starting to really go through in more
[22:56] detail the rest of the roadways, other infrastructure that could
[23:00] have impacts. Um, but right now this would be our
[23:03] critical big locations to get roadways back open and safe.
[23:07] Okay, final question. Any buildings affected. I could take that
[23:12] one, Mr. Mayor. Through you do Councillor Tanita. We had
[23:16] minor issues within a number of buildings, but nothing, um,
[23:20] too far out of the ordinary and nothing that had
[23:22] major damage. Okay. Thank you very much. If I can
[23:24] just add to that, I think what's important to recognise
[23:26] is with buildings, we have insurance. So we have the
[23:29] ability to go through insurance. Whereas heart funding are items
[23:32] that are not applicable to insurance linear roads, that sort
[23:35] of infrastructure. Okay, well, thanks for the report. And thanks
[23:38] for acting so quickly. Manoah number of these flood damage
[23:42] issues generate responses from residents who are affected immediately. And
[23:47] so you're a quick response is much appreciated. Thank you.
[23:51] Thank you, Councillor Councillor Harvey. Yes. Uh, three Ms. Mayor.
[23:55] Thank you very much for the presentation. And thank you
[23:58] and your staff for all the work you've managed to
[24:00] do throughout this, uh, the weather events of this year.
[24:05] Still raining this morning. Sun's starting to shine. Anyways, I
[24:08] just got a question. Uh, I didn't see on this
[24:10] list to township road 530 between 224 and 225. And
[24:15] my understanding is that road is still closed and we'll
[24:17] be open till next month sometime. So I'm kind of
[24:19] curious around that. Mr. Mayor, for you to Councillor Harvey,
[24:23] uh, so 530 baseline road is an operational project. So
[24:28] we are, we have replaced the culvert. We are hoping
[24:32] today if the weather holds to be paving the final
[24:34] lift and have it open, really weather contingent. We'll see
[24:38] by the end of the day, but we would expect
[24:39] in the next year to that roadway's back open. So
[24:42] some of our minor culverts are smaller infrastructure as operational.
[24:48] Whereas the list in front of you would be our
[24:49] larger capital work. So you kind of explain that when
[24:52] you say operational, because I mean, the road's been shut
[24:54] down for a couple of weeks and there's damage to
[24:57] it from the weather. Yeah. Through you, Mr. Mayor, so
[24:59] the culvert on base on roads is smaller culvert as
[25:02] compared to the list for the CBA is more our
[25:05] bridge size culverts that are more significant. So the smaller
[25:09] through grades approach culverts county staff or operations team will
[25:13] typically look after that. And they're at a smaller scale.
[25:17] However, the impact of baseline road closure is because it's
[25:21] deep and has been ongoing water flowing through it for
[25:24] the duration of when we're trying to reinstall the pipe.
[25:27] So it's significantly impacted, but definitely our hope is to
[25:32] have it open right away. Okay. I still don't kind
[25:34] of understand why it won't be on this lesson. Maybe
[25:36] I'll take a shot. So, so the items that are
[25:39] on the list are capital projects. That, um, Mr. Wilson
[25:44] is saying is that is an operational budget item. That's
[25:48] because the cost is much lower? Much lower. Yeah. Oh,
[25:51] do we know the cost of that one about. You,
[25:57] Mr. Mayor? It would probably be around 200, 000. Okay.
[26:00] By the time we're done. Well, we got one on
[26:03] the list that says 172. I think what Councillor Harvey's
[26:06] asking is, um, would we not want to get heart
[26:09] funding for that. Yeah. Basically, that's why I'm asking why
[26:15] it's not in the list. If I can add to
[26:16] this, I think, um, and Graham can definitely support this.
[26:20] But when it's a capital asset, as you're aware, it
[26:23] increases the betterment of the capital asset itself and the
[26:27] life of it. I would assume, and I'm going to
[26:30] ask Mr. Evister to add to this, the work we're
[26:32] doing to it is not going to add that sort
[26:34] of life to it so that it would be a
[26:36] operational, um, expense versus a capital expense, which would then
[26:40] make it ineligible for heart funding. But I'm going to
[26:42] ask for Graham to confirm that. Okay. Through the Maria
[26:46] to Councillor Harvey and to echo at Ms. Cannon said
[26:48] that is correct. So when we met with the Province
[26:50] in terms of what is eligible and ineligible, um, regarding
[26:54] our capital repairs and capital replacements versus the operating adjustments,
[26:59] we had to be very purposeful as to where those
[27:02] projects landed. So although to your point, it looks like
[27:05] a very large issue on that road. It wouldn't constitute
[27:10] a capital project or capital repair in their definition. Your
[27:13] goal wasn't on that list. Okay. And I believe Mr.
[27:17] Wilson said hoping to have it opened by the end
[27:19] of this week. You correct if the rain holds off.
[27:24] Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Councillor Burkhofer.
[27:30] Thank you Mr. Mayor. I want to start off by
[27:32] thanking all the staff that were involved. So transportation across
[27:36] all the departments utilities, RPC, whomever in the past weeks
[27:40] that have been dealing with this. I'm one of the
[27:41] star off by thanking them for all their extra overtime
[27:44] and dedication to this. And of course the administration for
[27:47] going towards applying for this as well. So we can
[27:49] get some funding back. Um, just looking at enclosure one.
[27:54] And we see the list of the different items. I'm
[27:55] just wondering with some of the closures that are still
[27:57] in place. Are there any properties that the individuals can't
[28:01] access their properties or have they been rerouted enough that
[28:04] they can still access their properties with any of the
[28:06] closures that we see. Mr. Mayor, through to Count Sperghofer,
[28:11] all properties do have at least one way access and
[28:14] out. So at this time, the one with limited access.
[28:18] Okay. And then timeline for some of these. Like obviously
[28:21] their largest one. We have an 11 million dollar budget
[28:24] item on here, not budget item, but listed item here.
[28:27] I wonder what timelines might be for some of these.
[28:29] Are we looking that it's going to be a couple
[28:31] of years? Or how long do you think? I mean,
[28:34] obviously some are weather dependent. Is there any idea of
[28:38] what it might look like? Mr. Mayor, through you, the
[28:41] Council Berghofford. So the larger one, that one on 232
[28:44] would be about a three to four month construction window
[28:47] if everything goes. Okay. According to plan, we are on
[28:50] most of these locations have started engineering. We have started
[28:54] the procurement of the pipe materials. You got to get
[28:57] bridge on order. And some of those are already started
[29:00] that discussion and have the orders ready. So we do
[29:03] expect as soon as we can get the go ahead
[29:05] and the material. Some of them would be pretty quick
[29:08] that we would expect this fault to have lots of
[29:10] these in construction. And under there any changes like with
[29:13] mitigation with potential future failures that could go in place
[29:17] that were addressing that these same sites may not have
[29:20] a repeat. Mr. Mayor, it's a great question. So anytime
[29:24] we go to, uh, replace a bridge culvert, we reassess,
[29:29] ensure the known impacts are addressed. So the one example
[29:34] we are changing the size and the type of the
[29:36] bridge culvert to a larger different span multiplate that would
[29:40] allow, um, debris and different aspects to flow through in
[29:45] a different way. And also bring it up to the
[29:47] current standard for environmental requirements as well. Okay. Wonderful. Those
[29:50] are all my questions. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Councillor
[29:53] Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah. You know what? Thank
[29:56] you so much for all the work at you and
[29:57] your team has been doing on this. Um, this is
[29:59] a daily conversation for me. I'm thinking today I'm expecting
[30:02] two or three more calls over this issue. I just
[30:04] wanted to go away already. But, um, I get it.
[30:07] My question is most answered by Councillor Burkehoff for there.
[30:10] But, um, how do we fare against other municipalities? Like
[30:13] when it's raining here, we're feeling it's the entire province
[30:15] is being hit. We'll know it's not. Um, how, are
[30:18] we in the same boat as a number of other
[30:20] ones? Are we going to be competing against harp funding
[30:23] from other ones. Through the merit accounts are Nelson. Um,
[30:28] when we did meet the province about two and a
[30:30] half weeks ago, we are not the only community who
[30:33] is applying for this funding. The amount. I don't know.
[30:36] We didn't ask. But we conventured a guess that there
[30:39] are multiple communities who are applying for this funding, um,
[30:42] based on the flood natural disasters that are happening. That
[30:46] are impacting more than just our community. So are we
[30:49] like one of the worst impacted in my is what
[30:51] I was kind of reaching for? Or is your other
[30:53] ones that are Mr. Mayor Strewden Council Nelson? Um, we
[30:57] do see some of our neighbours with impacts. The toe
[31:01] field was one example there significant flooding event. And then
[31:05] you look at the city of Edmonton after us. They
[31:08] saw those kind of micro bursts in the thunderstorms that
[31:11] had impacts in different ways. So the prolonged exposure to
[31:16] high water levels in the rural. Some of our neighbours
[31:19] have seen similar. I'm not aware of their overall damage
[31:22] at this time. Sure. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Councillor
[31:28] Lawrence. Well, thank you Mr. Mayor. Yeah. Thanks for that
[31:31] information. Um, so the money that we're applying for to
[31:36] the province, but there still must be other costs that
[31:39] will have to absorb. Through Mayor Frank Councillor Lawrence. Yes.
[31:45] So we are using our reserves, our capital reserves to
[31:48] fund the procurements right now because we're trying to expedite
[31:53] that. So we will be using our reserves at this
[31:55] time with the intent that we hope if we don't
[31:58] get this funding, we will be looking at our LGFF
[32:01] funding to help support this. And we would be looking
[32:04] at maybe shortening some of the projects that we have
[32:07] not committed to in the upcoming years to help support
[32:10] if this work, if I can add to that, I
[32:12] also think it's important to recognise that with HARP funding,
[32:15] uh, a lot of times you can get some of
[32:17] the operational cost covered with the OT, the overtime, um,
[32:21] or any of the vehicles that we use during the
[32:23] overtime. So it's really, um, from an administrative perspective, we
[32:28] made sure that we isolated those costs as well. Yeah.
[32:32] No, that's, that's fine. I just, I was, the lists
[32:36] seemed a little short, um, there was a few, I
[32:39] was just thinking of old highway 14 between 204 and
[32:43] 203. I mean, it took that whole highway out. I
[32:45] mean, it's what 16 feet wide and 12 feet deep.
[32:52] So what we pick up the costs for that? Or
[32:56] would we apply for that. Through the merit of Councillor
[33:00] Lawrence? That would be again an op one of those
[33:02] operational cost pieces. So right now it is sitting in
[33:04] our operational budget. So we are, we are funding it
[33:07] through our operations. Um, as part of that, um, overall
[33:11] heart application. We'll see if it is eligible. But right
[33:13] now it's part of our operating funds. Okay. Yeah. No,
[33:16] I have complete confidence in what you guys are doing.
[33:19] Don't get me wrong. I just, I know that was
[33:21] probably one of the worst ones down in the southeast.
[33:24] It literally took the road out. Um, and it's, it's
[33:28] a fairly major link, but you can dogleg around it
[33:31] to get somewhere. But, uh, okay. Yeah. No, thank you.
[33:35] Thanks for all that information. I might just add, when
[33:38] we think about the HARP application, um, I think a
[33:40] lot of times we think of it being like potentially
[33:42] like an insurance fund. But it's not. It's disaster relief
[33:47] program. So it's there for very specific criteria and purposes
[33:51] to help communities in, in a disaster. But then there
[33:55] is the expectation that some of those other operational pieces,
[33:58] we will have to, um, fund those ourselves. Because this
[34:01] isn't an insurance program like you would potentially have a
[34:05] games like your vehicle or your house. Thank you, Councillor
[34:11] Councillor Derbischhirter. Commissioner. And again, just echoing with the rest
[34:15] of councils said in terms of our overall response to
[34:18] this has been amazing. And lots of good work done.
[34:22] But your last comment, uh, actually it was a great
[34:24] segue into where I wanted to go with this. From
[34:27] a once in a century perspective, things that seem to
[34:30] be happening once in a century every five years now.
[34:33] Uh, and I know Councillor Hartwick has asked for a
[34:37] comprehensive report on Strath County's mitigation and resiliency efforts long
[34:42] term. So we'll be, we'll be, will we be using
[34:45] this opportunity to kind of roll that into a broader,
[34:49] um, analysis and introspection in our infrastructure and understanding that
[34:55] these events are becoming much more frequent than they might
[34:58] otherwise have been and our infrastructure might not have been
[35:02] adequately prepared for some of these in the past. Mr.
[35:08] Mayor, three great question. And I think it ties into
[35:11] the motion that obviously has been debated later on. What
[35:15] we want to look at would be our present day
[35:18] infrastructure, how it relates to if this is one in
[35:21] the century, hopefully storm, um, or is it becoming some
[35:24] of the new norm? We see some of the impacts
[35:27] of rainfall volumes amounts like this rainfall is one of
[35:31] our largest months we've seen. And then since early 19
[35:35] routes. And so for us as we look at as
[35:38] we compare the urban versus rural, some of the rural
[35:40] area was not an engineered design infrastructure. So that is
[35:44] what'd be part of that holistic approach to what are
[35:47] our standards? Are we prepared and ready resilient for what's
[35:50] coming or the new sustained water levels we're seeing? But
[35:55] having said that, the average over the past five years
[35:57] has been varying year to year. And last year we
[36:01] were more drought like conditions. And this year significant rainfall
[36:05] and winter storm. So thank you for all your work
[36:07] on this file. Just to supplement that through Mayor Frank
[36:09] Council Dribbeshar. So, um, two things we do do a
[36:14] state, state of infrastructure report, which we're planning to do
[36:16] by 2028. We will start that work again. And it's
[36:19] usually about a four year cycle. So that'll give us
[36:21] an assessment of all of our infrastructure and grades. The
[36:25] second piece just to highlight is that we're working on
[36:27] our long - term financial sustainability framework. And so obviously
[36:31] risk mitigation is part of that process. And lastly, just
[36:35] on a reserve strategy, our reserves are used. Like think
[36:38] of it as insurance. And this is what the reserves
[36:41] are intended for is situations like this. And so that's
[36:44] why the reserve strategies imperative for us to maintain in
[36:48] this upcoming budget cycle over the next four years to
[36:51] support our capital plan. Thank you for that. Thank you,
[36:56] Councillor Councillor Lawrence. Yeah, thank you, sorry. I should have
[36:59] got this on the realm before Councillor Derbisher went kind
[37:03] of where I was going to go. Um, this will
[37:05] give us a good, a good sense to get out
[37:09] and assess where we had some weak points. And they
[37:12] might not be critical to fix today, but its projects
[37:15] we could do into the future. I'm thinking more of
[37:18] culverts. We're going to, we, we certainly saw where the
[37:23] weak links were in the flow system. And this is
[37:26] what I hear from, from the residents mostly is, you
[37:29] know, they're saying, well, these culverts, they're no good. They're
[37:31] too small. And I said, well, you know, you don't
[37:34] get ahead of yourself there. We, we've, you know, it's
[37:37] a one in a hundred or whatever it's going to
[37:40] be. But, um, yeah, we'll be assessing all that. And
[37:44] so I'll just ask for your response on that. Thank
[37:46] you. Mr. Mayor, through the Council Lawrence for sure. What
[37:50] we're seeing in the rural area and in some cases,
[37:53] many of the newer rural residents haven't seen water like
[37:56] this in their area. So we have a good level
[37:58] of detail on those areas that we're impacted. And as
[38:02] we look and look to address some of these concerns
[38:06] and we're seeing them throughout has definitely take that action.
[38:11] Yeah, we're just going to take a chance to comment
[38:14] to the, a lot of, uh, a lot of the
[38:16] problems that I've seen were decisions that were made with
[38:20] the old Edmonton regional planning long before, you know, we
[38:23] kind of get blamed. And when I say, look, this
[38:26] was all approved through a whole different board many, many
[38:28] years ago that literally didn't really look at a lot
[38:31] of these issues. Certainly water flow. They just, I don't
[38:35] even think they did physical, um, on the landscape. They
[38:40] just, uh, had a map in an office in Edmonton,
[38:43] put a grid over top of it. And stamped it.
[38:45] And it was sold. And then when we get these
[38:47] wet years, we suffer with all these mistakes. So I
[38:51] don't mind taking the hit if we've done something wrong,
[38:54] but, uh, it's pretty tough because just about everything I've
[38:57] seen is, has been somebody else's decision. Now again, not,
[39:01] not passing the buck, but I just tried to make
[39:03] the, make it clear that, uh, we're doing the best
[39:06] we can and certainly with our new planning the way
[39:09] we do planning. We look at those types of top
[39:11] of bank, floodplains, setbacks. Cause I know people get frustrated.
[39:16] They want to say, well, why can't I build there.
[39:19] Well, you can't build there because I think the last
[39:21] month has proven why he would have been underwater. And,
[39:25] um, a lot of outbuildings and things that were built
[39:28] over the years that were underwater that, you know, now
[39:32] we're being accused, well, we shouldn't, uh, you know, what
[39:35] are you going to do? Well, first off, he didn't
[39:37] have a permit. And secondly, we're not going to do
[39:39] anything. So it's a little frustrating. But again, it'll be
[39:45] a good time for us to assess what worked and
[39:48] what didn't work. So look forward to that information. Thank
[39:51] you. Thank you, Councillor Councillor Parks. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[39:57] And thanks again for all the work that you and
[39:58] your teams have done over the last month here to
[40:00] do the mitigation cleanup, repairs and all those things. Um,
[40:03] just a couple of financial questions I did have though.
[40:06] Um, so in the projects there, we've got eight of
[40:09] them that have been deemed the most urgent. There. I
[40:12] assume we're going to see more of these over the
[40:14] next couple of months is that fair to assume that
[40:16] we'll likely see you guys in front of us again
[40:19] in the fall with some more requests. Mr. Mayor, through
[40:23] your L maybe start, I'm not the financial person to
[40:26] answer, but, um, currently these are known locations with the
[40:31] major issues. We have done a quick visual inspection of
[40:34] our other bridge structures to see current condition. They are,
[40:38] uh, those that were visible are an okay condition, uh,
[40:42] so we do expect there is potential for more. Um,
[40:45] but this will be the known ones today for sure.
[40:47] Okay. And in the 16. 2 or so that we're
[40:51] requesting today, how much contingency do we have built into
[40:55] the, uh, request for construction? Do we have any contingency
[40:58] built in there? Or I'm assuming we do because these
[41:01] numbers can fluctuate pretty good. So Mr. Mayor, for you,
[41:05] you have most of them are around 20 percent contingency
[41:07] within them. And that's very, uh, connected to the lack
[41:12] of engineering detail we have at this time for them.
[41:15] Understood. And I assume we've got, we've already gone out
[41:18] and started lining up contractors and things like that to
[41:21] get work started right away. Yeah. Mr. Mehr, two parts.
[41:25] We've, we have some of the contractors in negotiations right
[41:28] now under emergency procurement. And as well, we're also procuring
[41:32] the materials needed as well to move as quick as
[41:35] we can. Excellent. Of those answers, my questions. Yeah. This
[41:39] is must reasonable. Okay. That's it for questions from council.
[41:45] Do we have a motion. Councillor Nelson. Um, I moved
[41:52] that an amendment to the 2026 Capitol budget in the
[41:55] Mount of 16, 273, 000 for the emergent rainfall infrastructure
[42:01] replacement and rehabilitation 2026 project as set out and enclosure
[42:05] one of the July 21, 2026 financial and strategic services
[42:09] report. And with the funding from the municipal capital reserve
[42:12] be approved. And that administration provide a report for Council's
[42:16] consideration by the end of 2026 on the outcome of
[42:19] the hazard assistance and resilience program, uh, application that resulting
[42:24] impacts of the on capital funding sources and any projects
[42:27] deferrals or repriotizations with a focus on core infrastructure. Questions
[42:34] of clarification. Debate. And we'll vote.
[42:46] Carried 9 - 0. Thank you for the presentation. And
[42:52] we'll move to Smith House.
[43:16] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so today was actually supposed
[43:21] to be our director of FFM director McKenzie was going
[43:26] to be doing this presentation. So you're getting the second
[43:29] string he was unable to be here today. This report
[43:33] is before you, for approval to negotiate and execute a
[43:38] market value license agreement with the Beaver Hills biosphere association
[43:43] for use of the Smith House. At a high level,
[43:46] this item's about making productive use of an existing county
[43:50] - owned building in a way that is aligned with
[43:53] site's location. The broader conservation context and public - facing
[43:57] mandate of the association. In terms of context, Smith House
[44:02] is located on the east edge of Strathcona County at
[44:06] 52 - 521 Range Road 211 and sits at the
[44:10] entrance of the Beaver Hills Biodiversity Trail. Because of that
[44:14] setting administration feels and sees a strong fit between this
[44:18] property and the association's work. The association's mandate is centred
[44:25] on stewardship, biodiversity, conservation, education, collaboration, and sustainable regional development.
[44:32] Locating the Association at the site would create a clearer
[44:36] connection between the property and the public purpose it can
[44:39] serve. The county already provides annual operating funding to the
[44:44] Beaver Hills biosphere association, as does Ladue County Beaver County
[44:50] and Lamont County, all of which fall within the biosphere.
[44:55] The request is separate from the ongoing operational support. So
[44:59] this request for an agreement there, a license agreement. However,
[45:03] it's related, it can help stabilize the association's physical presence
[45:08] and location that is supportive of the mandate while strengthening
[45:12] the alignment between the organization's activities and county - owned
[45:16] assets in the area. In accordance with the county's disposal
[45:20] of surplus municipal land, any lease of the building must
[45:24] reflect fair market value. The property currently has a residential
[45:28] tenant. And the arrangement has provided some practical benefit through
[45:34] on - site presence in an area that's fairly remote.
[45:38] And taking care of the asset. So upgrades to the
[45:43] building are required in accordance with the National Building Code.
[45:47] The required improvements are based on the change of use
[45:50] classification. And from a private residential use to Office occupancy.
[45:56] So in order to put the association in there, it
[45:58] needs to meet the new building code. So based on
[46:03] current estimates, the building and accessibility improvements to support Office
[46:08] occupancy are estimated 75, 000 dollars with the association, and
[46:15] they are very willing to enter into a license agreement
[46:18] at farm - market compensation. But do not currently feel
[46:23] that they could do the improvements that are required that
[46:28] are required for this change in use. Pending a fair
[46:32] market review of assessment. Administration would seek a budget adjustment
[46:39] later in 2026 or early next year as part of
[46:43] the 2027 budget. And for fleet and facility management, this
[46:51] would be an operating item because it is only 75,
[46:55] 000 dollars, but it would be something that needs to
[46:57] be added to the budget. The market rate license fee
[47:00] would be structured to account for the total cost of
[47:04] improvements made to the building in order to support the
[47:06] new occupancy type. What we're looking for today is council's
[47:10] authorization to enter a fair market license agreement with the
[47:14] Beaver Hills biosphere association. And I'd be happy to take
[47:18] any questions, Council may have. Thank you for the presentation.
[47:23] Councillor Parks. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so we're looking
[47:26] at investing 75, 000 into the building and then turning
[47:30] it over as a lease to the organisation. Um, quick
[47:34] question. I'm assuming then that we'd be looking at having
[47:37] the 75, 000 dollar cost built into the rent. So
[47:40] we'd have the rent commence certainly go up to have
[47:42] a repayment schedule for us on it. The fair market
[47:45] assessment that we'd be doing would take into account the
[47:48] improvements that would be done to the building. So yes,
[47:51] the answers. Are there any additional expected cost lifecycle costs
[47:55] for utility septic wealth systems, snow removal of those things
[47:58] are there included in that? Or are we looking at
[48:00] anything needing for life, you know, general life cycle with
[48:04] this building? Is it in good condition otherwise? The building
[48:09] is in good shape still. I don't have the exact
[48:13] age in front of me. FFM would, um, yeah, it's
[48:17] in good shape. We aren't anticipating any additional costs than
[48:20] what we currently see with a renter in the building.
[48:22] Okay. And do direct negotiations comply with our disposal policy
[48:26] or should other potential users be given the same opportunity
[48:29] or are we pretty comfortable with the process we've got
[48:31] here? When it comes down to the use of the
[48:35] building, this is why we think that this is a,
[48:39] an opportunity to have a tenant in that location that
[48:47] is familiar with the site and could see a beneficial
[48:49] use of that site. Um, using it as just a
[48:52] rental or a private residence. Doesn't have the same, I
[48:57] guess, appeal. Okay. No, I'm comfortable with it. Thank you.
[49:00] Thank you, Councillor Councillor Lawrence. Oh, thank you. Thank you
[49:03] for the presentation. Just a little background on that property
[49:07] was purchased in 2009. The House is 30 years old
[49:10] actually this year. And, um, just on an average, uh,
[49:17] 180, 000 dollars over it since we've owned it. So
[49:23] it's put that money into general revenue. And, um, so
[49:28] in a way it's paid for itself, but the agreement
[49:32] that the biosphere wants to enter into is that would
[49:35] be worked into the rental fee we would make sure
[49:38] that we're covering that cost of whatever it takes to
[49:43] bring it up to a commercial standard. So we're, uh,
[49:48] we're very happy that it's moving along. And, uh, I
[49:51] want to thank administration for the work they've done. And,
[49:55] uh, yeah, so the questions I could take them to.
[49:58] Motion. Yeah. I'll make the motion, yes. Do you want
[50:02] to do that now. Or are we going any questions?
[50:05] No, for the question. So yeah, we'll look at the
[50:06] motion.
[50:18] All right. That administration be authorized to negotiate and execute
[50:22] a market valued license agreement with the Beaver Hills biosphere
[50:26] association for the use of the Smith House located at
[50:30] 525 21 Range Road 211 subject to compliance and.
[50:40] There. Land use building code accessibility legal and financial requirements.
[50:47] Clickable. That's what I was trying to say. Questions are
[50:51] questions of clarification. I have one. This captures this language.
[50:56] We'll capture the fact that 75, 000 dollars has to
[50:58] be built into the lease payments also, correct? Yes. Where
[51:03] it says, uh, it says market value license agreement. Right.
[51:08] But they've said they can't afford the 75, 000 right
[51:10] now. So we're going to build it into the lease
[51:12] payments. Absolutely. We, as I said, we will be doing
[51:15] assessment of the property and license agreement will reflect that
[51:20] cost. Okay. Uh, debate. Do you close councillor. Nope. We're
[51:26] good. We'll vote. Carried
[51:35] 90. Thank you. Thank you. 6. 4 motion following notice
[51:44] of motion 2026 rainfall and flooding event review and resilience
[51:48] assessment. I know. I would like to move that administration
[51:56] preparer report for Council's consideration by the end of Q4,
[51:59] 2026 that provides an overview of the recent rainfall and
[52:03] flooding event, including the nature and extent of impacts on
[52:06] residents. County infrastructure and municipal services. It elevates the performance
[52:11] of the county stormwater management systems drainage infrastructure and related
[52:15] engineering works, including whether they function as intention as intended.
[52:20] Identifies any infrastructure operational maintenance or system related factors that
[52:24] may have contributed to flooding impacts. Reviews the adequacy of
[52:27] the county's current engineering design standard stormwater management criteria and
[52:32] infrastructure planning assumptions in the context of evolving precipitation patterns
[52:36] and climate projections. It identifies opportunities to enhance the county's
[52:40] resilience to future extreme rather events, including potential changes to
[52:44] engineering standards policies, capital planning, asset management practices, emergency response
[52:50] measures, or public communication approaches. And outlines the financial implications
[52:54] risk resource requirements and implementation considerations associated with any recommended
[53:01] actions. The end. Yeah. Yeah. So yeah, I think with,
[53:10] with, uh, with what we saw, we need to look
[53:13] into what worked where there were gaps, whether our current
[53:16] engineering standards remain appropriate. And also this outlines any financial
[53:21] implications. So Council can make informed decisions in the future.
[53:25] Thank you for the motion. Councillor, questions of clarification, Councillor
[53:28] Parks. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a couple of questions.
[53:31] Um, will this report distinguish between infrastructure that failed infrastructure
[53:36] that potentially was blocked or inadequately maintained an infrastructure that
[53:40] operated as designed but was exceeded. Mr. Mayor, through you.
[53:49] That would be part of how we were respond to
[53:52] these questions. Because as you said, there's a number of
[53:55] different reasons why infrastructure or why flooding occurred. And that
[54:00] would have to be report put together in the report
[54:02] as well. Okay. And now, well, most of our infrastructure
[54:06] that was failed, and I won't say infrastructure failed, but
[54:11] major incidents were in the rural areas there. We did
[54:13] have some neighbourhood flooding. And, um, well, neighbourhood flooding in
[54:16] prior complaints be specifically examined because we've seen some problem
[54:19] spots, especially in the urban areas where this has been
[54:22] REO occurring every time we get a major reign. Mr.
[54:27] Mayor, through you to Councillor Parks, actually that work is
[54:30] ongoing as we speak. Um, so especially in the urban
[54:34] areas, where we saw issues that we felt were out
[54:38] of the ordinary and say overflow structures weren't functioning as
[54:44] designed. We're already looking into that. Okay. Uh, will the
[54:47] final report be public apart from legitimately privileged personal information
[54:52] or are we looking at this being primarily an internal
[54:54] report? Yeah, it will be presented to Council, so it
[55:00] would be a public document. Perfect. And are we good
[55:03] with the timeframe of Q4 2026? That seems awful fast
[55:05] to do a lot of this work. It will be
[55:12] a high level review. There's probably going to be recommendations
[55:16] for further investigation. So, um, at the level that we're
[55:19] looking at, we think we can complete it by the
[55:22] end of the year. Excellent. Well, thank you. Okay. Debate
[55:26] on the motion. Do we wish to close? I'm good.
[55:30] We'll vote on a motion.
[55:40] It's carried 9 - 0. And we go to 6.
[55:49] 5 motionfall. I notice the motion review of the casino
[55:52] bylaw. Mr. Mayor, I would like to move the administration
[55:58] prepare report for Council's consideration by the end of Q4
[56:01] 2026, outlining the potential economic social and community impacts of
[56:07] permitting casinos with in Strathcona County, including an analysis of
[56:10] the advantages and disadvantages and providing information to support council's
[56:15] review of the casino bylaw. Um, Mr. Mayor, I'm bringing
[56:19] the motion forward recognise that casino is something that was
[56:23] involved over time in Alberta since 1975, um, over 30
[56:27] casinos have been established across Alberta, including 10 and Everton,
[56:32] I think 12, including the surrounding areas. Six of those
[56:35] being operated by First Nations. As of July 13th, just
[56:39] this past week, uh, the Province introduced online gaming and
[56:43] expects to generate 76 million dollars year over, um, through
[56:48] online gaming as well. And they, they say that, uh,
[56:51] close to 390 million dollars in revenue comes in across
[56:54] Alberta as a result of a casinos. Um, cause you
[56:58] know, also bring significant revenues to local municipalities. Um, many
[57:02] of our user groups in town go outside of our
[57:05] community now, uh, seeking an opportunity to raise revenues to
[57:08] support their operations through casinos. Um, by bringing one to
[57:12] Strathcona County, we're enhancing the opportunity within our community. Um,
[57:16] I do think that there is interest. I get asked
[57:20] by seniors groups in particular. Could we get a bus
[57:22] that would take us into, uh, this casino in Edmonton
[57:25] or that cause, you know, um, and I understand that
[57:28] even among young people today, it's becoming a form of
[57:31] entertainment, uh, that's drawing them out of Strathconda County, taking
[57:36] their dollars with them, um, as they leave and seek
[57:40] entertainment elsewhere. Um, so it seems to be an activity
[57:44] that supports people of all ages. But casinos are more
[57:47] than simply gaming centres. If you look at the ones
[57:50] that exist, um, in Edmonton and surrounding area, they become
[57:54] an important entertainment centres that bring shows, operate recreational spaces.
[58:00] In some cases spas, restaurants, other venues to meet the
[58:04] recreational needs of residence. And so it's, I'm not basis
[58:08] that I'm bringing this motion forward today. And I'm simply
[58:10] asking, simply asking administration to do a good review to
[58:15] help us understand the pros and cons of allowing such
[58:19] establishments to be built in the county and to analyse
[58:22] the economic, social, and community impacts of such operations. Now
[58:27] I know if we make a decision at some point
[58:31] to say, yeah, let's review the bylaw, that still doesn't
[58:34] approve of casino. It simply allows us to take a
[58:37] look at whether it's something that's worthy of consideration and
[58:40] does it benefit our community. And happy to take questions.
[58:47] Questions of clarification. Councillor Nelson. Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[58:52] Um, I'm just curious, would this, I still have some
[58:55] concerns over, but with a report, I'd be interested in
[58:58] seeing it. But would this report include how enforcement services
[59:01] resources are going to be impacted? And how often does
[59:04] the RCMP get called to casinos, um, and how, what's
[59:08] the average amount of time they're spending casinos? It kind
[59:11] of makes sense, doesn't it, if we're looking at the
[59:12] social and community impacts, if that's one of the impacts.
[59:17] I would think that it's doable to request that. I
[59:19] don't know if we need to demand the motion to
[59:21] get that information. I just, my question, a timing, is
[59:28] that going to work? For Q4 through the mayor to
[59:32] Councillor, Tanita, we can certainly put in requests through Edmonton
[59:36] in particular in terms of the Edmonton Police Service and
[59:38] the impact on their work. In terms of our ability
[59:43] to meet the timelines, it would depend on the other
[59:45] agencies having access to that information. And whether it's actually
[59:49] broken down, uh, specifically to casinos versus other types of
[59:54] bars and whatnot, but we can certainly put the request
[59:57] in. Okay. Debate. Councillor Parks. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I
[1:00:05] will not be supporting the motion. StreatConic County residents have
[1:00:09] already answered this question, not once, but twice. In 2001,
[1:00:13] the casino issue was put directly to voters through a
[1:00:15] plebiscite during the municipal election and there was a decisive
[1:00:18] result that led to the casino bylaw we have today.
[1:00:22] In 2021, many of this council were at the table
[1:00:25] when we were approached by a potential developer. And Council
[1:00:28] considered reopening the issue, but resident engagement showed little appetite
[1:00:33] to revisit it. And Council smartly voted it down. For
[1:00:37] me, this is a basic democratic principle here. When residents
[1:00:41] speak, clearly government should listen. We should not keep asking
[1:00:46] the same question every few years in the hope that
[1:00:48] eventually receive a different answer. I'm going to offer up
[1:00:52] a simple analogy. Residents have already closed this door. They've
[1:00:56] locked it twice. Council should not keep walking back down
[1:00:59] the hallway and jiggling handles just to check to see
[1:01:02] if the doors are still locked. This is also both
[1:01:05] priorities. We're facing major flood recovery costs, infrastructure pressures, emergency
[1:01:11] service decisions, and significant budget challenges. Administration's time and taxpayers'money
[1:01:16] should be focused on the issues residents are asking us
[1:01:19] to address, not reopening a debate that they have been
[1:01:22] repeatedly telling us they are not interested in having. I
[1:01:26] have not gotten one email, not gotten one call from
[1:01:30] a resident of any word asking me to revisit this
[1:01:33] issue for a second time this decade. This was not
[1:01:37] an unanswered question. It may be an answer some interested
[1:01:40] parties are not interested in hearing, but it is not
[1:01:43] one that we have not received. I trust the judgment
[1:01:46] of Strathcona County residents. I respect the decisions that have
[1:01:49] already been made on this twice, and I'll be voting
[1:01:52] no. I hope Council does the same. Thank you, Councillor
[1:01:55] Council Drew, Shire. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I will be
[1:01:59] supporting this, uh, motion. First of all, we're asking for
[1:02:02] a report. We're not presupposing whether or not a casino
[1:02:07] is going to get built. We're not presupposing any resident
[1:02:10] concerns or lack of concerns. I have heard from residents,
[1:02:14] uh, on the campaign trail. And since about the lack
[1:02:17] of a casino in Strathcona County, specifically from a fundraising
[1:02:23] and a youth engagement perspective, uh, many not - for
[1:02:26] - profits require or rely on casino revenue to support
[1:02:31] their operations, uh, forcing them to drive to cameras or
[1:02:35] other rural areas, uh, to raise those funds, I think
[1:02:40] is problematic when we have the opportunity here, but I'm
[1:02:43] getting ahead of myself. All we're asking for is a
[1:02:46] report. We're not presupposing any outcomes. We're asking administration to
[1:02:51] look into this. I'll be supporting this motion. Thank you.
[1:02:55] Councillor Council Brickhofer. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll also be
[1:02:57] supporting this motion. I am one of the volunteers that
[1:03:00] has worked for the different nonprofits going to camera was
[1:03:03] also even into Edmonton to work casinos that these nonprofits
[1:03:07] and charities rely heavily for having one's closer buys, easier
[1:03:11] on volunteers to be able to access those funds in
[1:03:14] relating back to the 2001 motion. There's generations that didn't
[1:03:17] exist here. Our population has grown. I think back then
[1:03:20] was probably 66, 000 people were now well over 100,
[1:03:23] 000. There's many individuals who didn't live here. They didn't
[1:03:27] have their say back in 2001, including myself. I didn't
[1:03:30] move here till February 2002. Um, there's different aspects in
[1:03:34] regards to the impacts of a casino in your community.
[1:03:38] I think this would help address it. It is a
[1:03:41] cultural change where I look at my 18 year old
[1:03:43] daughter and her friends. It is a social thing that
[1:03:46] they attend the different things. There's a different aspects. I've
[1:03:49] been out to, um, uh, River Cree. They have events.
[1:03:53] They have concerts there. I've also been to their hockey
[1:03:55] games. Then crossed over to go to the casino at
[1:03:57] the same time all within the same building. So there's
[1:03:59] different components that address having casino in your community. But
[1:04:04] I'd like to hear the positives, but also the negatives
[1:04:06] and how it could impact across the boards. And that's
[1:04:08] what this report is. It's only a report for an
[1:04:12] administration to give us more understanding. And that's what we
[1:04:15] didn't have in 2021. We didn't get to the point
[1:04:17] where we had information presented to us. And now we'll
[1:04:20] have that information so we can make the best decision.
[1:04:23] Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Harvey. Yes, thank you very much.
[1:04:27] Actually, I believe the motion was 2022 because I was
[1:04:30] here when we discussed it. So I remember voting on
[1:04:33] that and resident. So it might have been late 21,
[1:04:36] early 22, something like that. Anyways, uh, yeah, I haven't
[1:04:40] heard from any resident of mine requiring or asking about
[1:04:44] casino or busting people to casinos. Uh, I do understand
[1:04:48] the nonprofits would love to have a casino closer by
[1:04:54] so that they can get the revenue, uh, from it.
[1:04:57] But I don't believe that that is enough, uh, enough
[1:05:02] of, I guess, positive aspect to it, to have a
[1:05:05] casino in Strathical County. We've had this discussion before. I
[1:05:10] don't believe that we should keep bringing back. I do
[1:05:13] understand that this is just a report. But reports take
[1:05:17] time. They take resources. And I think our resources can
[1:05:19] be better spent on looking after some of the core
[1:05:23] necessities that our county residents are asking for rather than
[1:05:27] having them spend their time doing a report. So, uh,
[1:05:30] I, I just cannot support this. It's something that we've
[1:05:33] discussed in the past. And I don't believe that there
[1:05:36] is any want of a casino by residence of Strathcon
[1:05:40] County. So I would not support this. Thank you. Thank
[1:05:42] you, Councillor Councillor Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It just
[1:05:45] leads into my question. I guess it would be to
[1:05:47] administration. Is this a lot of work to do this
[1:05:51] report. We can pulse them with a basic, um, information
[1:06:00] that we brought forward when we had the non -
[1:06:03] statutory public hearing. And then there's a little bit more
[1:06:07] detail that, I mean, it's, yes, it's, it's work, but
[1:06:12] we do have a fair bit of it. Um, but
[1:06:16] not the details. Right. No, I asked that because again,
[1:06:20] we're conscious of everybody's work time and what needs to
[1:06:24] be done. But I'm also respectful of, you know, this
[1:06:27] bench. A motion has come forward. I, I appreciate Councillor
[1:06:31] Parks remarks and the debate we have. I think this
[1:06:34] is the great thing about our democracy. We can debate
[1:06:37] these things. I'm always hesitant not to support someone's motion
[1:06:42] because all we're doing is moving it down the line
[1:06:44] a bit. We're not agreeing to anything. But I also
[1:06:47] don't want it to be a huge burden on staff.
[1:06:51] Um, kind of like, geez, we're going through this again,
[1:06:53] but if we've got a lot of this put together,
[1:06:56] um. I guess again, I'm asking, is this a huge
[1:07:02] amount of work. Yeah, I know it's a huge, it's
[1:07:08] a big open question. I'm sorry. If Councillor wants us
[1:07:11] to, we just have to repiv some of our work
[1:07:14] to do it. Um, again, we do have a lot
[1:07:17] of the foundation from the last go around, um, what
[1:07:20] I worry is that we're not going to capture everything
[1:07:23] that they call the details that if we're going to
[1:07:27] be asked to provide it, I think if we can
[1:07:29] get a really good handle on what it is that
[1:07:32] you're expecting us to bring back and what kind of
[1:07:37] level of detail that's going to be. All right. Well,
[1:07:40] I guess Councillor Tanita could answer that. But, uh, all
[1:07:43] right. Thank you for that. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.
[1:07:47] Councillor Hartwick. Uh, thank you Mr. Mayor. I was here.
[1:07:51] This was done in December of 2021 or late November
[1:07:54] of 2021. And, um, and the public came out and
[1:07:58] spoke in droves to it. And I don't know what's
[1:08:01] changed. I understand that this is just a report. Um,
[1:08:05] and, and maybe things have changed. I doubt it. I'm
[1:08:08] concerned. But since this got brought up two weeks ago,
[1:08:12] I, I've actually restarted receiving calls already of people opposed
[1:08:16] to this casino. I had two yesterday that left me
[1:08:19] messages saying, um, because they didn't understand that it was
[1:08:23] just a report. So it's stirring up things within the
[1:08:26] community. And I know that the people that I hear
[1:08:28] from are certainly opposed to this. So, um, I'm not
[1:08:32] sure where I feel about having another report if we've
[1:08:35] already done it. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Councillor
[1:08:39] Nelson. Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, Councillor Parks
[1:08:42] made some really good points. Um, we went through this.
[1:08:46] It was a very difficult situation for a lot of
[1:08:48] residents to go through this one. And the reason I
[1:08:50] asked the question earlier about the RCMP is because I
[1:08:52] spent some time with them. And their response to me
[1:08:54] was, um, was quite difficult to even understand, let alone,
[1:08:58] uh, try to support opening this door up again. I
[1:09:01] don't think I can support this even though it's just
[1:09:04] a report. It's just the difficulties that it's going to
[1:09:06] open up an old wound that I, in the future,
[1:09:10] I probably wouldn't be able to support regardless anyways. Thank
[1:09:12] you. We wish to close councillor, Tanita. Um, I will,
[1:09:16] Mr. Mayor, first of all, I want to clarify a
[1:09:18] couple of things here. First of all, in 2021, we
[1:09:21] did not get a report. We requested it. And the
[1:09:26] motion was defeated. In fact, two motions, one in September
[1:09:30] and one on November 30th, 2021 were defeated. So when
[1:09:33] we didn't get the information, we listened to the public,
[1:09:37] but we didn't go out and do that detailed analysis.
[1:09:40] So the report came in 2001. Um, it doesn't hurt
[1:09:44] once in a while to check the information. Um, yep.
[1:09:47] Maybe some of you haven't had calls. Some of us
[1:09:50] have had calls. Uh, I've heard from residents. And in
[1:09:53] fact, I was meeting with residents groups in some of
[1:09:55] our seniors facilities who said, could we get a boss
[1:09:58] too and others who said, we do once a month,
[1:10:01] take a bus and we go to the casino. Um,
[1:10:03] so that, um, what that tells me there is some
[1:10:08] interest out there. And I don't know that it's inappropriate
[1:10:11] to ask for information. Um, as Councillor Lawrence pointed out
[1:10:15] once in a while asking for information, getting your report
[1:10:19] is not a bad thing. And we shouldn't be afraid
[1:10:22] to seek the information. 2021, that's a generation ago. Um,
[1:10:29] and I think it's fair to reevaluate at least once
[1:10:33] in a generation, um, whether or not something like this
[1:10:36] is appropriate. So that's why I'm bringing it forward today.
[1:10:39] Um, I also well aware that if we have people
[1:10:42] leaving the community, they're taking their dollars. Outside the community,
[1:10:47] spending outside. We're not asking to build a casino here
[1:10:51] as a county. That's not what this motion asks for.
[1:10:53] It asks to allow the conversation to take place. And
[1:10:58] if there is a proponent that wants to come forward
[1:11:00] and suggest building one, it opens the door for them
[1:11:03] to make a proposal back to us. If indeed, we
[1:11:06] make that decision. That's all I'm asking for today. Just
[1:11:09] before you close, uh, the other debates you might want
[1:11:11] to speak again, but Councillor Parks further debate. No further
[1:11:16] debate. Just a point of clarification requesting a bus is
[1:11:19] not the same as asking for one being built in
[1:11:22] their community. I think that's got to be pretty clear
[1:11:24] that the two very different things. Seeing if the bus
[1:11:27] available is very different than asking if there can have
[1:11:30] one built in their neighbourhood. Absolutely. I've never heard both.
[1:11:34] Um, some people saying we would like that opportunity. Others
[1:11:38] have requested the opportunity here as well. It's coming forward
[1:11:41] because people have asked for it. Thank you. Okay. Councillor
[1:11:48] Dribbershire only items to speak to that have risen since
[1:11:52] Councillor T had just spoke because the debate's closing. I
[1:11:55] just want to just, uh, clarify a point made by
[1:11:59] some other councillors around their belief that things haven't changed.
[1:12:03] I believe in evidence. This report is asking for evidence.
[1:12:07] It's asking for economic impact, social impact community and bad
[1:12:10] evidence. Not what people think or feel it's asking for
[1:12:14] evidence. Evidence - based decisions are what this council should
[1:12:17] be working on. And again, I continue to support this
[1:12:21] motion. Okay. The debate is now closed concerted anything arising,
[1:12:26] nothing. We will vote.
[1:12:46] We're just going to resend the vote. Try again here.
[1:12:49] Okay.
[1:13:07] Okay. That deals with that item. Now, let's do, uh,
[1:13:12] Councillor Requests. We'll get that off the agenda. We'll start
[1:13:16] with Councillor Tinita. Any motions are coming this way. Councillor
[1:13:22] Durbishire? I do, Mr. Mayor. If the clerk can put
[1:13:25] it up for me. You got a paragraph there. Yeah.
[1:13:29] Thank you. Uh, Mr. Mayor at the September 15, 2026
[1:13:33] Council meeting. I'll move the following. That administration prepare a
[1:13:37] report for Council's consideration by the end of Q1 2027
[1:13:41] regarding noise complaints and enforcement within Strathcona County, including the
[1:13:45] number of noise related complaints received annually over the previous
[1:13:49] five years. The nature and source of those complaints, including
[1:13:52] residential, commercial, construction, vehicle, event related and other categories. And
[1:13:57] any notable geographic seasonal or temporal trends. The number of
[1:14:01] warnings tickets and other enforcement actions related to noise complaints
[1:14:05] over the previous five years. A breakdown of enforcement actions
[1:14:08] resulting from citizen complaints and proactive observations by community peace
[1:14:13] officers or RCMP officers and information regarding appeals, disputes, or
[1:14:17] prosecutions arising from noise enforcement actions, including conviction rates. A
[1:14:22] review of the effectiveness and enforceability of the county's current
[1:14:26] noise regulations in the community standards bylaw, including identification of
[1:14:29] any challenges encountered by enforcement personnel when applying provisions that
[1:14:34] rely on an officer's assessment or opinion regarding whether noise
[1:14:39] is unreasonable, excessive, disturbing, or otherwise in contravention at the
[1:14:43] bylaw. And information on whether they're a practical legal operational
[1:14:46] or evidentiary challenges associated with the current bylaw language. A
[1:14:52] review of noise regulation and enforcement practices and comparable Alberta
[1:14:55] municipalities and regional municipalities, including information regarding the use of
[1:15:00] objective noise measurement standards, decibel thresholds, time of dai restrictions,
[1:15:05] complaint based enforcement models, and other recognised best practices. And
[1:15:10] finally, recommendations, if any, regarding potential changes to policy, enforcement
[1:15:14] practices, public education, data collection, or bilaw provisions, including any
[1:15:20] opportunities to improve consistency, clarity, fairness, and forceability, and public
[1:15:25] understanding of Strathcona County's noise regulations. Okay, take a breath
[1:15:30] coming this way. Going down here further, nothing. Okay, that
[1:15:35] deals with the item 9. 1. And now motion to
[1:15:38] go into closed. Councillor Hartwick, questions of clarification debate. Are
[1:15:43] we going to vote manually. Or we will try electronically,
[1:15:48] please. Electronically. This is what's still on our meetingstown. We're
[1:15:57] voting, if you want to close, then we'll take a
[1:15:58] break. Security 90 and the current time is 10. 06
[1:16:06] will come back at 10. 15.
[2:25:04] Kate motions rising out of close Councillor Parks. Sorry. That's
[2:25:10] ridiculous. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've got one motion coming
[2:25:14] out of closed here. That an amendment to the 2026
[2:25:18] operating budget to defer the recruitment of eight firefighter positions
[2:25:21] be approved, that the corresponding savings and the amount of
[2:25:25] 500, 000 dollars be reallocated to support the reserve strategy
[2:25:29] required to maintain and sustained core infrastructure assets and ensure
[2:25:33] a long - term funding approach for assets, sustainability, and
[2:25:37] that administration include the reduction of the 2027 firefighter recruitment
[2:25:41] from eight positions to four positions for Council consideration as
[2:25:45] part of the 2027 budget process, and that previous multi
[2:25:49] - year firefighter recruitment approvals be replaced by an annual
[2:25:53] review through the budget process based on service requirements, operational
[2:25:57] needs and organisational priorities through the budget process. Questions of
[2:26:02] clarification. Debate. And will vote.
[2:26:15] That's carried eight to one. And that adjourns the meeting.
[2:26:19] Thank you all.