Okay. I will call our regular council meeting for March 25, 2024 to order at 2.03 p.m.
The town of Okatokus acknowledges the original stewards of this land that we know and call Treaty 7 Territory,
which includes the Blackfoot Confederacy First Nations, the Kainai, Sasika, and Bakani,
the Stoney-Nakota First Nations, which includes Bearspaw, Chinooki, and Good Stoney,
We vow to continue honoring and respecting the indigenous people's sacred and traditional
ways of life and will carry on this special relationship with the land so that generations
to come can enjoy, use, and live off the land as their ancestors did.
We honor and respect this space, the water, the animals, and all the beings who have
been, have a spirit and have been here long before us.
Council in front of us, we have an agenda.
Is there any changes to the agenda?
None.
Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as presented?
Councilor Hallmark, all in favor?
That carries unanimously.
We now have our closed session.
There is five items on the closed session that all qualify for exemptions
to disclosure in Division Two of Part One of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.
So if I could get a motion to move into closed session, please.
Councillor Lange, all in favor?
That carries unanimously.
We are calling our meeting back to order, and we are at public delegations. We have two delegations
that will be here tonight at 6 p.m. It's our monthly awesome kids' awards, so they'll be
here at 6. And public delegations, I have one person signed in. Mark, how are we? Is
that correct? Yep. So come on up front here, Mark, and introduce yourself, what area of
town you live in and you have five minutes and then council has the ability
to ask any questions, if so, choose after that.
They're going to be up here?
Absolutely.
So introduce yourself, area of town you're in, and then like I said, you have five
minutes. Okay. My name's Mark Howrie and I live in the Cimarron area and have a
business around the Alderside area as well.
So you should be seeing these images here.
And these are of the Okatoks skyline
that were taken just kind of spur of the moment by me
after many days of actually seeing and taking
a look at our skies above.
So these were on Thursday, March the 14th,
and then again on Sunday, March 18th.
Now, on both days,
both days began with crystal clear blue skies,
and there wasn't a single plane in the atmosphere.
So during the day, I watched for nearly two hours,
just kind of mesmerized about what was going on above us.
And it looked like there was four to six planes
that were continuously crisscrossing our skies
and constantly spraying aerosols into what was a cloudless day.
So in speaking with the Okatoks Airport manager,
it was estimated that these planes were flying low at 7,000 to 12,000 feet,
well below the altitude of larger commercial aircraft.
So that same airport manager had no idea that planes had spent the entire day
flying over his airspace. Not one of those planes had radioed into the local
air authority. So the manager stated these planes obviously didn't take off or
land from our airstrip. I can only assume that perhaps they were doing cloud
seating because the patterns that you're seeing are not typical flight
path contrails. To which I replied there was not a single cloud in the
horizon that day, nor on the day of March 18th.
And with each pass overdone by the multiple planes overhead,
the distinct aerosol trails left behind
continued to widen, and they actually formed into clouds.
So I went outside to check hourly on the residue left
behind in our troposphere above.
And it was clear, clearly visible,
that the sprays were being emitted,
that were being emitted, that were strategically
being turned off and on throughout the day.
I took pictures on the north and west sides of Okatoks that you'll see,
and also around Alderside. So over the course of six plus hours,
I did not see signs of one natural cloud formation.
But by 4 p.m. the vapors being sprayed had spread
gradually over time to create 100% cloud cover.
And I used that term very loosely, cloud cover.
Terms being used for this ever-increasing global and man-made phenomenon are cloud
seeding, chemtrails, geoengineering, solar radiation, manipulation, or mediation.
So Environment Canada in the past years released a report to then Premier of BC, Bill van der
zam, stating that they were experimenting with geoengineering sulfur aerosols to begin
mitigating the potential risks of the sun's heat during this natural period of climate
warming.
Other studies show that there may be dangerous chemical compounds including aluminum, barium
and sulfur dioxide being released by these planes.
The bottom line is these are the skies above and they really are backyard.
If our skies are being polluted, what falls from them lands in the playgrounds
where our children play and into the pastures
where our food and livestock are nourished.
If pollution is witnessed in our streams
or in our water supply or in our fields
or in our ditches or in our streets,
we as citizens have and will continue to speak up
and act against the negative impacts
of potential toxins.
The same must be said for whatever it is these planes
are artificially spraying into our skies.
In Tennessee actually just four days
after these pictures were taken, I had no idea, but the State Senate passed a bill to
ban geoengineering or solar radiation manipulation in their skies.
This follows five other states that have passed similar bills, and each of these bills
that were passed to protect their skies and their citizens and their future generation,
they began because major concerns from the grassroots folks was put into action
by asking questions of their local governments.
The questions I have, which need answering, which I will task each and every one of you
of the Okatokas Town Council today are, what is going on in the skies above us?
Number two, what is the chemical makeup of these trails that are filling our airspace?
And number three, who is responsible?
And number four, who besides the Canadian and Okatokas taxpayer is funding this?
And number five, how can we, the citizens, work with you to stop this?
I'll be following up with you to secure the answers that we deserve.
Thank you, and if you have any questions, go ahead.
But I'm not a professional or anything like that.
I'm just a concerned citizen who, with my kids, happens to look up in the sky
and see this phenomenon that we never witnessed five and 10 years ago.
Thank you very much, Mark.
Thank you Mark for the presentation. I have been sent similar pictures and videos to this
before and so your first question, what is going on? I actually don't, like for me I
can't answer you because I do receive this quite a bit from, not quite a bit, but other
folks that don't get to have sent it to me. So I do some like googling and research
and I actually, I can't find the answer so I don't know. I have no answer for
you. So I'm going to put that back into the universe because when I look at it, I usually
just can find cloud formations and things like that, but I know what you're speaking
to, kind of where you're going for it. And also I guess my second question or second answer
is who is responsible. Again, folks have told me, Councillor Sweeney, can you do something
about it? But I guess when we talk about common good like air and rivers and forests,
That's all.
So I guess my suggestion would be is if you want to talk to the ministers in Alberta environment
and ask them those questions because here as a council we actually have, we don't have an
idea of what is happening and that is not necessarily our jurisdiction. I'm not passing it off. I'm
just saying that those are the folks that legislate air quality and things like that, even more
so on a federal level. I don't know if that answers those questions. If it helps at all.
It's like, you know, you are our elected representatives here, and this is happening
over our airspace.
It was actually really shocking to think that the manager of our kind of local airport authority
has no idea that these planes are crisscrossing hour after hour after hour and said, well,
maybe they're cloud seeding.
And he knows for a fact that there wasn't any clouds in the sky, right?
And so it's like, yeah, if we continue just to pass the buck, it's like, does nobody here ever interact with an Alberta authority or anybody in the environment, or do we just, you know, kind of sit here idly and, you know, kind of say, now we got nothing to do with anything around
because it's Alberta jurisdiction.
And
I appreciate that.
Obviously we do come into contact with different folks
from the province.
So we can share your concerns with them.
But that's what we do.
We share our concerns. We can advocate to our citizens.
But again, at the end of the day,
the air is a provincial and federal jurisdiction.
They're the ones that do the air quality.
So we can share your concerns and we will.
That is part of our job. I totally agree with you, Mark.
But again, we can't legislate
what happens in the air.
that is not municipal jurisdiction that is provincial and federal but like you
said it is our job to share concerns and we can do that and then they'll have to
decide whether they want to legislate for their restrictions or whatever yep
my question is to be is have you have you asked either your MLA or your MP or
the Minister of Environment or the Minister of Transport or Transport
Canada or Alberta environment any of these questions if they give you any
answers about any of these things no
I haven't asked anybody I'm asking
right now because these are our skies here, right? The government of Canada basically who's
probably funding this, some of the original reports that went back to Bill van der Zem
in I think 2013 and 2014, they basically redacted pretty much all the information and then
at the time none of us probably ever noticed that this was happening above us. If any
of you ever look up in the sky, you must be wondering what is going on up there.
The answer that the government will give us is that they're mitigating the risk of the
terrible sun above us.
I would much rather work from – I'm going to be working with multiple municipalities
across Alberta. Because again, this is where the ground swell of people that are concerned
needs to begin at this sort of level. And there's way less bureaucracy in dealing with
people like you guys on this level. You are our citizens. You're not surrounded and there's
no barriers in place and all that sort of stuff. And you do have the contacts I
know to be able to make those questions and help us get the answers, and I will do whatever
possible in order to find out.
When you talk about the skies above, I mean the major question is what's falling down
into the ground that we walk on, and that's where we all need to demand this answer.
We're all sharing this space.
What years do you think Bill Vanderzam was the Premier of BC?
What years do I think?
No, it was just after he finished as the Premier of British Columbia.
What year do you think that was?
2013-2014 is when he received the reports that he shared.
Why is that? What's the smile about that?
What's that?
It's just curious what your information was,
but when you thought Bill van der Zandt was going to help you.
Does that help you?
Yeah, it does.
Does it?
In which way?
Okay, so we're not here to debate,
so I appreciate that you've shared the information with us, Mark.
As has been stipulated, there isn't boundaries on the air above,
so absolutely we can bring forward a concern,
but that is not municipal jurisdiction at all and if you are watching what is
going on provincially at the moment they're getting very clear about what
jurisdiction municipalities can and cannot play in with that so certainly
can share that up at other levels of government with our contacts there that
this has been raised as a concern but I would encourage you as well to reach
out to your local MLA, Mr. Zickerson, and your local MP, John Barlow, and share those
concerns there, because that is the jurisdiction of government that those answers should be
provided from.
And even if we, you know, very rarely will they play the conduit through us and give
us information so that we can share it with the public, because they don't want us to
communicate their message so that's just been my experience to date but we
certainly can raise the issue so thank you for bringing it forward and raising
that and I can state that there is no money that is being paid by the Okatoks
taxpayer as you asked them one of those questions to anything that's happening
above us so that isn't in our budget at all so and you can see our budget
online yeah no I had that you know money from Okatoks taxpayer wouldn't
be going directly to fund anything like this. But there is, you know, we pay, you know, federal
and provincial taxes and municipal as well. And we as Canadian citizens, I'm sure, or
Alberta or whatever, are totally funding whatever is happening above us. And I'm sure
that each of these planes, you know, talk about a carbon footprint. And it's probably
hundreds of thousands of dollars a day with each plane that continues to fly above,
right and you know not perhaps directly but indirectly we are funding this and
it's good to get answers on this and I will definitely work the channels and if
anyone else here you know is in contact with anybody at a provincial level I
would certainly like to work with and follow up with with anybody that might be
to act as a conduit.
Perfect. Thank you very much.
I appreciate your time today, Mark.
Okay. Thank you.
That ends our public delegations section, Council.
We have a couple motions arising from closed session.
So I'll go to Councilor Robinson for the first motion.
Yeah, I'll make the motion that the recommendation contained in closed
session report 3.1 be endorsed. Okay, Council calling that question all in favor. Is everybody
in a describe? Yeah.
And that has carried unanimously. And then I will go to Councillor
Swensied for second motion arising. I make the motion that the recommendation to explore
the municipalities role as discussed in closed session.
Okay, I will call that question
and all in favor. Sorry, Patty's waiting for me to say that.
And that carries unanimously.
Council, that moves us to the consent agenda.
We have a variety of items on the consent agenda.
Would anybody like to pull anything from the consent agenda?
I'm going to pull item 6.4.
And then, can I get a motion to accept everything else?
Councilor Spenci.
That item 6.4 be exempt from the consent agenda
and added to business items for action.
The minutes under 6.1.1 be adopted as presented
and the remaining items be received as information.
Would you like to speak to your motion?
Thank you.
Any questions from anybody?
No, Kate calling that question all in favor.
And
that carries unanimously.
Okay, that moves us to our business items for action.
And we have the 2023 financial operating results with variance.
And I have CFO Ralph Ettenauer to present.
Thank you very much mayor and council.
My name is Ralph Ettenauer.
I'm the CFO for the town.
and I'm here to present the Q4 year end results for our operating statements.
The draft 2023 financial operating results show a surplus of 1.145 million
to be allocated to reserves pending council's approval,
and the status reports for the 2023 operating capital projects
are provided for consideration and recommendation to council.
There's three motions that are part of this package
What we'll do is we'll just go to the report analysis and financial implications.
Thank you.
So basically what we have in our financial statements here is indication of where we are
at from an initial budget and before these two motions that we've asked council to consider.
So basically we'll just go through at a high level variances to budget and variances to
prior year. So thank you. So actual revenues compared to the budget revenues
are 6.652 million higher than budget because of higher sales and user fees
along with municipal taxes and higher grant revenues. Overall actual operating
expenditures compared to budget expenditures are 6.652 million higher
than budget due to operating expense reductions and offset by higher
reserve contributions. Utilities contribute to corporate administrative overhead with $1.936
million for 2023 lower than budget by $544,000. Capital expenditures were lower by $42.7 million
due to the relinquishment of $4.864 million and a carry forward request of $37.882 million.
In terms of the variance to prior year, actual revenues compared to prior year revenues were
$9.635 million as a result of higher sales and user fees, municipal taxes and higher grants.
Overall operating expenditures are higher due to $8.09 of expenses and reserve contributions
of $1.606.
Utilities contributed to corporate overhead increased by 0.096 million from the prior year.
Capital expenditures are lower by 2.186 million and operating projects are lower by 0.211 million dollars.
Attached to this package are the operating reports that have the operating projects and the relinquishment for the remaining budget.
So if we just scroll down, thank you, up, yep, went up.
The capital projects on the next sheet show the capital projects that the progress of those approved capital projects
and acknowledging the ongoing financial commitment to continue these projects with the carry forward amounts.
And on the last page is a quick summary of our operating reserves.
and we've basically this year separated them between our town reserves before our offsite
levy accounts, so you can see that basically there's a subtotal before OSL and then the
infrastructure of A to OSL shows the total reserves that we're reporting on our financials.
And the general operating includes the allocated surplus of 1.145.
If you like I can just walk through for people that are not familiar with the way
that we've set up our statements is we'll just start at the top just to walk
through for people who may not be familiar with the statements. What we do
here is we try to just give you an idea of where the money comes from and where
the money goes and what we do is we analyze all our variances for anything
over $25,000 and look for those trends in terms of how we can describe those
comments. So if we go to the next page we basically have the categorization
of the revenues and expenses in a little bit more detail here so you can see
specifically what has been approved from a budget perspective and how those
expenditures tied to those categories that we have for reporting purposes and
again the comments as to the variances.
What we do is we take that summary page that we have there and we break it out into two smaller groups,
which is the next page, which is what we call property tax funded or tax supported,
and then the next page, which is what we call utility funded.
So basically that's how we distinguish those amounts from the summary total.
And we go to that next page. Again, this is just a reflection of the operating projects
and the actuals in the budgets that were approved this year in the request for the relinquishment.
And then the next page again is just all the capital projects and we broke those out into those capital groupings
that we have presented at budget.
So you can see how all these projects sort of tie into those groupings that we have
and the status of the particular projects.
And then the last pages are operating capital reserves for comparison from last year.
So I'm happy to answer any questions that you have on this year end report.
Council, is there any questions?
Councillor Robinson.
I just wanted to ask about the contracted and general services amounts.
And first, I'll apologize for finance and audit.
When I was asking these questions, I had them twisted around.
So I thought we'd spent $1.9 million more than we budgeted,
not $1.9 million less than what we budgeted.
So that was part of where my confusion came from.
but in any event I am still curious about what the software costs were and how much they were over our
I think I did understand the part right that we did spend more on software than anticipated
but I am still curious as to how much that amount was
but I understand it won't be $1.9 million
That's correct, it was $130,000
Thank you
You're welcome
Anybody else?
I have a couple questions
I feel like I'm going to sneeze so I'll just preface that to start with
Bless you.
I was not incorrect.
Okay.
Just for people that don't kind of understand the whole budgeting process,
so if we could go to the summary of revenues and expenditures page
at the very top for the next one, not this one, the next page, please.
Yeah, this one.
I'm actually asking a question for you to confirm that what I'm interpreting is correct.
So excessive revenues over expenditures is $7.2 million, we'll just say in change it's
a little less than that, but $7.2 million.
I just want to reaffirm that that doesn't make us poor budgeters, that we don't typically
ever budget that we'll see that kind of a excess revenues over expenses typically in
a typical year.
Usually we budget to be balanced at zero.
And so the 7.1 or 2 we'll just say to round up.
That surplus is because of land sales for lands that we've had in our inventory for
over 10 years that we finally have sold.
So land sales, which I think is somewhere around 2.6 million in that ballpark.
So we don't budget at all for anticipated land sales, right?
That's just bonus in the year.
I'm seeing the nod of yes.
Okay.
And then increased income on returns on investments.
So we are very conservative as to what we give as a return.
and we over the year 2023 saw, because of increasing interest rates, saw a substantial
increase in our investment return, correct?
That is correct.
Okay.
So that was another 1.6.
And then in terms of estimating water license sales, which is related to development,
we don't tend to estimate any water license sales because we don't know what the pace
of development would be.
Is that right?
Well, we do have a small process where we go through where we identify our operating projects
that will spend money for an operating license and then over the next three years we'll sell
those licenses off and then start to gain that same cycle.
So we do have an amount in the budget but it was not enough.
What we actually did was higher than what we budgeted.
Okay. So again, we conservatively estimate that. So that was about another million. So I'm at 2.6, 1.6 or 3.2, 4.25.
And then in terms of government contributions, we always actually estimate that below what they gave us in the prior years.
Is that kind of a typical process?
Yes. Generally, we just look at what we think we're going to get for government grants.
And as you can see, we did get about $919,000 more than we expected to get.
All right. So based on my rough math and I didn't rough in my head math,
so that was about 6.1 of additional revenue that we don't budget for,
which then correlates to the about $1 million that we are.
We did see as a surplus that was truly what we budgeted and what we didn't.
Correct. And we basically present you with a zero budget
and only do the year-end analysis would give you that same zero back.
Okay, perfect. So just for anybody that's watching, you know,
a $1 million surplus in a budget is only about 1.6% of our budget.
So it's pretty accurate. It's pretty good that that's the margin of error that we've got on a budget.
So I commend our team with that.
And then the next question that I have is actually just relating to
the operating projects.
With operating projects and this might just be a
memory refresh on policy, when we relinquish money back or don't do a
project is the intent that we will not be completing that project and it's not
going to be done or on operating projects did we have policy that we've
got a one-year time frame to do that. How does that work? It's a one-year
timeframe. Okay so potentially for some that didn't do anything actually I don't
think any of them are in that oh there's a couple that are there so it's
possible that that project could come back again in another budget cycle for
an operating project. That is correct. Okay and based on the motion today
those funds are going back into whatever reserve we indicated they be
And then same kind of question on the capital side.
How do we determine the cancellation of a project?
And then how do we determine the amount that we're going to carry forward
and amount that might get relinquished on projects?
So each one of the projects is controlled by a project manager
and they give us an analysis of what they need for carry forward amounts
and what they're prepared to relinquish
and we summarize that information here.
and make that part of our discussions with council.
Okay, and then one more question on capital budgets.
So when we, I'm just going to use as an example, I think it's,
I'll use the utility projects as an example.
So we had a couple of budgets in the utilities that were over budget with,
and not of significant, but over budget.
But then there's other projects in other areas that are under budget.
Do we manage that across the whole entire budget and the move of that?
Does my question make sense, what I'm asking?
So what we do is we look at kind of 10% as kind of our variance limit that we look
at and if there's positives and negatives in a grouping and an overall total and we
just basically don't ask for council amendments for those over expenditures and then also come
back to you with those under expenditures. This is the way that we do this through this
process by asking you at your end to do the relinquishments.
Okay.
And then that just has the net number there.
Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. Anybody else have any questions? Councillor Smoonsi.
Thank you. And thank you, Mary Thorn, for your question because it was something
I wanted to ask if I didn't know how to say it or your question confirmation.
So I also want to confirm that I have this correct in my head.
So we set our budget and we set it based on what services we want to provide to Okatokians,
what grants we have, and it becomes a balanced budget.
Sometimes what happens is there are revenues that come in after that are higher than expected
and that may or may not have been listed as excellent.
So we put them into operating reserves and they're sitting there now.
But Council has an option for next year's budget if we want to use any of those operating
reserves when we talk about tax rate and things like that.
Is that correct?
That's correct and we did do that through the budget process in November, December of
last year.
Okay.
So we, okay.
Thank you.
Okay.
That was my question.
Thank you.
And I'm just going to go to C.O.
Vincent.
Oh, sorry.
No, you go ahead.
I was going to just go to C.O.
Vincent just to talk about the budget process of the one million dollars that
we've got here as a surplus of how we factored that in in budget if you don't
mind. Thank you I always when I teach this course I always like to say this
and some people get offended with the simplicity but it really is this a
budget is your best guess at a point in time and a variance is just what's
Let's change from your best guess at a point in time.
So what we look at here is our best guess is we were looking at about a $7D, $6 million
budget, and there's been pluses and minuses.
At the end of the day, we're within 1.6% variance of where we thought we would be.
That's a good news story.
When we take a look at what do we think we're going to spend?
What's our best guess?
The question as a governing board is how do you adjust then what you've learned
for your best guess for years going forward? So that's exactly what happened
at this year's budget. We came in through our P6 or six-month variance to
say we can see our revenues are way higher on interest and we can forecast
where we're right now that we're going to have a million dollars of revenue
available at your end. So council decided at the time they debated the budget to
take that million dollars and basically offset it against the tax rate. So instead
of going up by five percent, we went up by four percent because we took that
million dollars and applied it against what we needed from a revenue
perspective tax basis. So that's where we want to take what's my best guess,
what have I learned and how does that change what we're doing going
forward. So when we take a look now at what we forecasted in 2024, you're going to see our revenue
line coming from interest is now way higher than it was the previous year because we've now built
that into a base assumption. So that just shows how you do your guess, how you learn from your
guess, how you adjust from the year going forward, but how we also want to make sure
that we're not over collecting from taxpayers. Because the biggest frustration from a
they said, I paid you for this already.
How dare you collect it again?
And that's the piece where we've given that
million dollars back as a credit on the
upcoming tax rate.
So that's the piece that we try to balance
when we make a recommendation to you
to ensure we've got enough going into
reserves but we're not also over-collecting
from taxpayers.
Hope that helps.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Layne.
Thank you, Mayor Thorne.
The reason I said no to the
And letting you go because I thought you were going to go to that question and that's what my question was going to be about
So you're saying that you and I are thinking alike
Councilor Robinson and maybe just to go one other part the the sort of the reserve
transactions part to cover that off to make sure I'm understanding it right as we get to those reserve transactions essentially we
budgeted to
to contribute $4.6 million to capital reserves, but because we didn't do as much capital so
as we thought we were going to do, we actually added $8.6 million to capital reserves.
And then we thought we were going to pull $2.64 out of operating reserves, but we actually
contributed $1.08 million into capital reserves, right?
So that's that $1.08 million.
That's the number that we're extra using as part of our operating expenditures, but
but we've got that other capital reserves
for all those other capital projects that got rolled forward.
All right, thanks.
Okay, any other questions?
Anybody know what they like to make,
any one of the three motions in front of us?
Councillor Layne.
I would like to make the motion that upon approval
of the 2023 audited financial statements
that 1.145 million surplus be transferred
to operated general reserves
as recommended by the Finance and Audit Committee.
Okay, would you like to speak to your motion?
After chairing the last Finance and Audit Committee meeting,
we discussed this at length,
and CAO Vincent clarified this 1.145 million
and what it's to be used for.
That's awesome.
Anybody else?
Seeing no other discussion, anything to close?
Councilor Lange? Okay, calling that question all in favor.
And that carries unanimously.
Anybody else want to make a motion? Councilor Hallmark. I'd be happy to make the
motion that the 2023 operating projects report including the 1.006 million of
budget remaining be relinquished back as recommended by the Finance and
Audit Committee. Would you like to speak to your motion? No thank you.
Anybody else? Calling that question all in favor and
that carries unanimously.
And the last motion, anybody? Councillor Layne.
I'd like to make motion that the 2023 capital completed and continuing projects report, including
reduction of 4.864 million for the net total of 37.882 million of the budget remaining, which
is tied to these capital projects in the progress at this year and be approved and that the
amounts carried forward be added to the 2024 capital budget as recommended by the Finance
and Audit Committee.
Would you like to speak to your motion?
No, thank you.
Anybody else would like to speak to the motion?
I'm just going to speak to this and the previous motion that we did is a good example of
how we all work here at the town to manage the costs and return that back into our
reserves if they should not be needed or if the project is decided once we get
further into it that we can do it for a more economical way. So you know it's
close to five point eight million dollars that's being returned back into
reserves because of work like that and determining that we don't need to do
projects that we thought we would. So, any need to close? Okay, calling that
question all in favor and
that carries unanimously thank you very much and that
takes us to item 7.2 counselor resignation and I have legislative policy
services managers Kathy Duke-Blessie here to present.
Good afternoon mayor and
council administration is here today to report that the CAO received in
writing effective March 21, 2024, the resignation of Councillor Timbuchak. It is required under
the Municipal Government Act that the CAO must report on this resignation at the first
council meeting after receiving the resignation. And this leaves council with two choices.
The resignation was received 19 months prior to the next general election, which
which is 30 days short of the 18-month requirement not to hold a by-election.
So the two options before council are to either consider requesting the Minister of Municipal
Affairs to extend the time for filling that vacancy to the next general election and
that's permitted under Section 166b of the Municipal Government Act as we are just
30 days short of that 18-month period. The request could also note that Council consists
of six members noting the vacancy and we do not – are not based on award systems,
so it's not that any segment of the population would not be represented and that we have
approximately 40,000 anticipated to hold a by-election in training if we are required
to hold the by-election.
We understand in reaching out to representatives from municipal
affairs that the minister has received several requests.
He hasn't granted any at this point or responded to any.
But in previous terms where this has happened prior to a general
election these requests have been granted.
The other option is to direct administration to bring back a report
with proposed by-election dates within the legislated 120 days.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Council, any questions?
Councillor Lang? So for a
by-election it would be within 120 days so we're talking another three months,
right?
Through the chair it would have to be held within that 120 days. Council
could set that date much earlier. Okay, thank you.
Any other questions?
any but Councillor Robinson. Sorry maybe just walk me through a little bit what a
by-election would look like like how how long do we have to leave like what's
the time frame for like the nomination period when the nomination would close
how long you'll period from the nomination to the vote date would happen
like with those timelines I get how I see them 120 but what are their
minimums and stuff through the chair there is required minimums so from
the election dates.
So we would bring a report, council would set that
election date.
Nominations would close.
We would have to have a minimum of at least four weeks
similar to how a general election is run.
So we would have to, the election date would be
set by council and we would have to work back
from all of those required dates.
Anybody else?
Councillor Svensih to go to you.
Are you ready for motion?
I would like to make the motion that the mayor
send a letter to the minister of municipal
affairs requesting an order to extend the time to fill the vacancy to the next general
election.
Okay.
And would you like to speak to your motion?
You bet.
Thank you very much.
So I had originally, you know, when this resignation letter came out, I had originally
wanted to fill the spot, as I really thought Okitokians wanted a representative there,
but after talking to a ton of people in person, I went out on my social media.
I did, I talked to it because I was really kind of going blind into this.
I didn't know if they did or did not want someone there.
and the overwhelming response that I heard was folks do not want to buy election because of the cost.
They said we are too close to next year, they do not want that by election,
they are happy with the way that council is functioning now.
And then also I got a statement that asked, can the council properly govern in a balanced
and fair manner without the seventh person? And I think that again we've been operating
without a seventh member for a number of months now and I do feel that we're open
to the entire community's feedback. We're involved in many different community initiatives,
so we do try to find as many corners of Okitok. So based on the community feedback, I do think
that the community does not want to buy election due to the extra cost and how close it is
to the next election. So I urge my council support.
Would anybody else like to speak to that? Councillor Lange.
I'll be supporting this as I did debate this with myself back and forth, but as
well I talked to a number of people in the community and they for one didn't
want the by-election because of the expense and they also said we've you've
been operating for a year as a six-membered council and everything
seems to be working well so I'll be supporting this.
Anybody else?
I am
seeing nothing would you like to close councillors Wincey? Thank you sure I
just want to close by saying that you know thank you to councillor
time and check for her service to the community.
Being an elected official is no joke.
It's really rewarding, but it's really, really demanding.
So we do thank you for your service
to the town of Okeetoks.
And that is all.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Councilor Swansea.
And I will call that question all in favor.
And that carries unanimously.
Thank you.
Moving on.
Water Allocation Policy Process. So I am going to turn this over to our senior planner, Colin Gainer, to review.
Good afternoon, Madam Mayor and members of council. As stated before you is the Water Allocation Policy Process Update.
State.
Additional information regarding the water allocation policy and water licensing
was requested by Council back on February 12th, and so this report is coming before you.
Since 2011, Council has implemented a water allocation system for managing planning approvals
in terms of our available capacity to service new development based on the licensed capacity
the town has to withdraw water from the Sheep River.
And that policy has been in place since then.
There has been a few updates over the course of time with the most significant and comprehensive
of update in 2021, where we've deemed it just the water allocation policy.
Since the most current update, the policy now applies to all lands within town, as opposed
to just a green field, new development areas in the past.
And it covers the process for applications dealing with land use-free designation, subdivision,
and development permits.
So we just want to go to attachment three, I believe, in your package.
So this outlines sort of that process and normal flow for new development areas from
land use to subdivision to development.
And each stage of that process, we get to what's called the water verification and
an assignment process where there is effectively a verification.
So if there is capacity that needs to be assigned, typically there is usually always
of the land use.
If a developer is eligible or a land owner for an area that is being
redesignated is eligible for that assignment.
They can pay the cost for that water allocation fees and they can get that
assigned if there is available capacity within that common queue.
And so prior to that happening, application can be made, it can be brought to council for
consideration first reading as well as the public hearing and up to second reading of
the redesignation bylaw before that needs to happen and third reading can be considered.
At that point, application for subdivision can be applied for once there is land
use in place then that can be approved and then it goes to another verification process
to verify there is water for that subdivision if it varies somewhat from the expectations
under land use.
And then the same thing at a development permit application.
In case a development permit application has a higher number of units or a different
usage that is possibly a higher water user or if it's less dense than anticipated
there's an adjustment that can be made during that process.
us.
So under that policy, water can be signed if water is not available and it is eligible.
The capacity is allocated to applications based on three different criteria. So when
we get into a situation where development capacity is queuing, first priority is any
town-initiated projects. Second priority is planning applications concerning ICI
uses or institutional commercial and industrial lands as outlined in our
municipal development plan policy. And then the third priority would be
planning applications outside of those in the date on which those
applications are received. Now there's no applications currently in the
as there's sufficient capacity for all the applications in place, but once there is more
than there is capacity that are eligible to be assigned water capacity, then the queuing
is based on that approach.
So there is currently under the available capacity 37,641 cubic meters annually available,
which is how we measure capacity under our water allocation system.
There aren't any applications in the queue right now.
Chiltson phase 2 land use, which is bylaw 224,
does not currently meet the requirements to access the common capacity.
So it is not in the common queue yet.
Once it meets those requirements, then it would be into that queue system.
We do track all the policy guidelines and available common capacity as well as the mapping of all the current assignments for all the different areas and how much capacity is assigned through our website.
So it provides the overall number but also in that mapping information provides where it is all assigned and how much it is assigned so that it can be reviewed at each stage of the development.
process.
Fairly brief overview but we can certainly take any questions that
Council may have on the overall process and how it's intended to function.
Thank you very much Mr. Ganner. Anybody have any questions?
Councillor Swansea. Thank you very much for the presentation. So this policy
that we have here, this is what ensures that we do not overallocate the
Sheep River when we are developing.
Is that correct?
Yes.
So the whole intent of the policy
is to provide a fair and equitable way
to assign the available capacity that we have licensed
to withdraw from the Sheep River in a fair way
to new development areas.
Being very mindful of how much we're using,
how much is available, and how much new development is
able or is expected to utilize under the system.
So it is an ongoing process.
We do review at each stage.
The process is to determine if we expect more water to be used, less water to be used, based
on a provisions in the associated administrative guidelines on how we would assign capacity to
new development. So it's perhaps not exact perfection in terms of how much water anyone
one use will use, but it is our best estimate based on current usage within similar development
patterns.
Go ahead.
Thank you very much.
Can we go back to the slide that had the chart perfect?
Thank you.
So this is a great depiction, I guess, of how the process works.
Now, I'm not asking for this to be looked at right now, but do you think it would
be possible, Mr. Gainer, to include into here in the process a kind of, if there's
There's two developers that are in the queue for water, and one developer has presented
more, what's the word, more, not adherence, but they have checked off more of the boxes
of our MDP in terms of building design, in terms of neighborhoods.
Could they be put further ahead in the queue?
Can we give priority to developers that have the building design that we want to
see, that maybe have suggested they want to do below market housing in their neighborhoods?
Can we include that in there possibly in the future?
Through the chair.
What I would point to specifically in that case is actually under the policy itself,
so the direction under the common queue.
If you just scroll down to...
Yeah, a little bit further.
Okay, so 4C here.
Council may change the order in which common capacity is assigned to planning applications
within the common queue based on the town's strategic priorities.
And so that is a case where if there was a decision by Council that, say, a specific
development met more of the strategic priorities that Council wanted to see, that specific
application could be advanced over other applications based on that strategic alignment.
Excellent. Thank you. That's exactly what I was looking for. And I'll leave my questions there for now.
Anybody else? Councillor Robinson.
I just want to make sure I understand one thing that I think is pretty simple.
But there's no one currently in the common queue, right?
Like, there's nobody who's actually got approved that we don't have for yet, correct?
That's correct. So the application, the landage application is before council for TILS and
phase two. They are not technically into the queue because they have not been eligible to be
taking water from the common queue at this point in time. Once that threshold has been met,
then they would be into the common queue. But as it sits right now, if there are other
applications that came forward and were eligible first and there was still
water available then those applications could go forward the
whole sort of
policy walks around works around the definition of development capacity which
are pertains to potable water I'm just curious if we've considered like non
un-potable water uses and how that might, number one, affect licensing capacity, that
type of thing, because I'm not sure how our licensing capacity for non-potable water uses
actually works with our potable water licenses, which are two different sorts of uses that
are licensed to us, theoretically.
And then if anyone has thought about doing those types of things, I know we've thought
about doing some of that type of stuff with our town fields and stuff like that.
So I'm just curious how those things if like a developer approached us and said like I'm gonna, you know
Water the fields here with non-potable water or something how we would approach some type of requests like that
I'll probably turn it over to you director Hewitt to get into more of the details, but but effectively
Yes, we can consider
Situations where they can demonstrate that the water usage would be
much less than what our expected usage would be.
Thank you, Mr. Gainer, through the chair.
Absolutely. The administrative guideline does allow for
administration to perform calculations.
If a field is non-irrigated or are irrigated with a non-potable water source,
we as administration would not assign development capacity for that usage.
If we had a use that wasn't clearly envisioned in the administrative guideline which outlines
the estimated use for different cases, there is the ability through the guideline to perform
a calculation to reflect actual use versus projected use.
So there is some discretion within the administrative guideline that accompanies the policy.
So just, I'm going to pull on that vein, so if the province was ever to change the rules
around water reuse or grey water reuse, that would potentially require us to take and have
a relook at our policy, correct?
We're not there, so I don't want to spend a ton of time talking about it, but in essence
that could change what the consumption per household would be, is that correct?
Madam Mayor, it's partially correct but there have been some advancements in the last two
years on the provincial field about water use or sorry, grey water reuse and water use.
Most notably last spring a new directive came out that up to 6,000 cubic meters could
be used without a water license of storm water from each permitted pond and the year
prior – sorry, I'm just sharing information. I know you're aware of me down there – the
year prior, Alberta Health Services released a guideline to how storm water and other non-potable
water usage, like under what conditions and what requirements are required for the reuse
of other water sources. So a lot more tools are in place for water use, stormwater use
and water reuse than was previously available.
Okay, thank you. And then my other question just kind of relates to how water gets into
the queue. So we only have water in the common queue because we're out purchasing water
licenses to deal with growth. So where my question is specifically going, the amount
of water that is in our queue right now, let's say that extra water that could be used in
the common queue, we actually wouldn't have that if we weren't growing. And I maybe I'll
go to C.O. Vince and I see she's leaning in to take that.
It's a timely question because I had a media inquiry that came through and I was just
doing some research. So I actually have a set of intriguing numbers here that I
think it's really helpful to understand. And so if we go back to the year 2010 and
that's just prior to the town changing its growth strategy. So at that point in
time we were a non-growth community. In 2010 we actually had 2.2 million
million megaliters of water. I think that's how you say that. 2.2 megaliters or a million
litres. Ask me how much water we have today. We actually have 4 million megaliters.
So
from the period of 2010 to 2024, so in that period of 14 years, we actually added an
additional 1.8 in inventory to the town's water.
So part of the challenge that we have is that the town was so good back in 2010 to talk
about the carrying capacity of the Sheep River because the Sheep River didn't change.
People look at that and say, but the carrying capacity in 2010, you said you were reaching
it.
And it was 30,000 people.
And now we're here at 30,000 people.
You've met it.
And so why are you still developing?
So, no one understands that when you look at that water, we've actually almost doubled
our access to water in that 14-year time period.
So, that's the piece that we need to be able to tell the story differently on going from
2.2 to 4.
Thank you.
That was helpful.
Okay.
Any other questions on this?
I don't think there is anybody else.
So, to you, Councillor Robinson.
All right.
I wanted to ask about the development permit check.
So that was that's part of the 2021 revisions right to the policy as we
had these development permit checks in. Yes, that is correct. Yeah and so I mean I
guess what happens at that point is like we approve the initial one based on
like the zoning for whole p-parcel like a larger parcel then when it gets the
development permit change we then like check that actually our assumptions
then which we approved sort of that whole parcel are now accurate as like
those all those development permits come in you know I mean like we've
got an NC parcel that we approved on a basis, but then we actually look and see, oh, it didn't
approve it. 80 units, it actually went to 100 units, so now we need to check each one
of these as the development framework comes in, or is it just like a check to make sure
we had it when the development framework comes in?
It's effectively that. So at the zoning stage, we probably zone for an entire phase
of development. In that example, if we had a neighborhood core district site, the parent
developer might have a rough idea of the type of development that's going in, or they might
have a very good idea if they have maybe a purchaser in mind. We have ways of estimating
that development, but the flexibility under that district allows for different types of
development. For instance, if the assumption was that it was going to be a four-story
apartment building and then it comes in and it's actually a grouping of attached sort of
row house configuration so there's less then we can adjust it and there's more capacity available.
On the flip side if it comes in and it's denser than what we anticipate then there would need
to be more water assigned before we could approve that development. The other situation might be
where we have like a commercial zoning or an industrial type zoning and a specific high
water use user goes in that we flag to be a high water user under our land use by law,
then we would need verification on what we expect their water usage to be because it
would be typically higher than what the average is because largely at the rezoning we're
going off of average use for that similar type of development.
In the administrative guideline,
we charge a 2.5% interest charge
on basically how long we've had to carry
the water license charges
until they get picked up by a developer.
Have we checked that that's in today's
interest rate environment
still the appropriate interest rate
for the length of time
that we're carrying these charges for?
Thank
you, Councillor Robinson through the chair.
The short answer is no. In the last
update we actually added the concept of true cost accounting. So the intent being to start
to carry some running totals and actually ensure that water licensing is purchased at
many different price points. There's soft costs like legal. There's a variety of additional
that go with licensing and the intent was to create a running total of all costs
and do some true cost accounting to update the charge for water.
Prior to that we never, there was no consideration of changes in pricing
versus what goes out from watering and any consideration for interest charges.
So the 2.5% was realistic at the time of approving the administrative guideline
and says it is the guideline it may be due for review.
Okay, Council, we have just a motion to receive this as information
when somebody like to make that motion.
Councillor Lang, anything to add? Anybody have anything to speak to?
Councillor Robinson.
I just want to thank Administration for clarifying some of these points.
I think we are getting into the point where the processes in the water
allocation policy process are actually going to be used, like really until
February of this year we'd never really had to use them yet. So I think it's
crucial certainly for administration and for us as counselors to really
understand this process because I think it's going to be some time until we add capacity.
People want to live in Okatoks and these things are going on.
So I think this has been a good discussion.
I think there might be some things in there that we need to think about.
And there's certainly some things here that we're going to need to think about.
I think as we see more development applications and land use redesignation applications
come in that we're going to need to be aware of and be thoughtful about how we're going
to be applying those things. So I think it's a very timely way for administration to sort
of reeducate us and get our heads in this space as we deal with this at least for the
next 18 months or so of this council and the next one going forward potentially as
well. So I think we just can't quite probably talk about this enough frankly in our town
at this point in time. So it's good for us, good for reassurance to the community.
So thanks so much for the update.
Councilor Swansea.
I would just like to speak to as well.
I know we're just accepting it as information. But again, it's because of this policy that
we are not just doing development willy-nilly. Like this policy really guides what can happen
in OKA TOGS based on the capacity of these sheep rivers. So we're not willy-nilly, you
know, approving developments here and there. This policy guides that development. And
OKA TOGS, and I don't know if this is true. I think it is. It's one of the only municipalities
that has something like this right and it's it's really important that we have
it we're fine-tuning it all the time thanks for the great work of
administration and I'm grateful that we have it to help guide us so that we
so that we develop responsibly so thank you very much
excellent I will call
that question all in favor oh oh oh sorry would you like to close
Sorry, I didn't follow that. Just made an assumption.
Wow. I'd like to thank administration for this policy.
This shows that we are stewards of water.
We have to protect water.
And we're not just developing houses or the areas in town.
And the people in the town of Oak Toks need to know
we just don't develop places until there is water for that development we are
leaders in this field of protecting water kudos to administration for this
thank you
now I'll call their question all in favor excellent
and that carries
unanimously which brings us to seven point four which is item six point four
the Recreation Program residency response and just on that I actually don't have any questions
for it. All I want to just say is I've pulled it just to highlight that we go through the
process that we went through the process. So I've received various feedback indicating
indicating that we let people from Calgary register and particularly with our high registration
events like swimming, that creates consternation in our community. So I had administration go
through a process to validate the validity of the statements. So I just really wanted
to highlight the report for people to go through. And yes, there is a few in there, about
5% that we couldn't completely confirm their address, but would just want to
highlight that Foothills County residents are part of our early
registration, so they could live at Heritage Point or to Winton and it
sounds like they're not in Okotoks, but they're part of the early registration
number because we have a shared services agreement with Foothills County, so
they also get to register early just like our Okotoks residents because they
contribute to the cost so I just really pulled it to highlight it and make a
statement that it exists and people should have a good look at that so thank
you very much for admin for doing that data work and pulling that together I
appreciate it. So can I get a motion to receive that as information? Anybody?
Councillor Spenzi would you like to speak to the motion?
Thank you and
I'm going to speak to this motion because this inquiry and the
and the information that is in it is here because
of the excellent data work that our team does.
So we have invested in collecting better data
so that we can make better informed decisions
and this is a really good example
of what happens when you invest in data.
And so we have one of our data specialists here today
who has made that report for us
and now we can know exactly what is happening.
So I just wanted to speak to that, thank you.
Anybody else? Would you like to close? In that case I will call the question all in favor.
And that carries, apparently I didn't vote properly. That carries unanimously.
And with that I am going to call a 10 minute recess or 9 minutes.
We'll come back at 4.30 and continue on with bylaws.
So, Boston, you have been recognized for your kindness, your leadership, and your community-driven
spirit. I just would like you to tell me a little bit about what you've been doing in
terms of your sports roles and how you build that community spirit in the school.
I don't know. I think just a multitude of things. I would say one thing I definitely
try and do is include everybody, whether that's in Frisbee and trying to get everyone to join
or just sitting in the cafeteria at lunch trying to just make sure everyone feels included.
And which ones of you, you've been involved with a few different sports groups at the
school, so which ones were those?
Mainly football and Frisbee.
Okay.
Now, and did you also do CrossFit, some stuff with CrossFit as well?
Yes, yes, I also did CrossFit and SportsPro through the last three years.
Okay.
Okay, and then about school spirit, how do you get your fellow classmates to showcase
some schools and school spirit?
I would say a lead by example.
I try and just make everything fun whether we're an English class and be engaged in
listening or just in the sports and on the field and things like that.
I feel when you do that people usually follow instead it's like cool to be fun and have
a good time instead of just sitting in the back of the class and so I would say I mostly
do that and I would also say I would do that in teaching the grade 10s in my sports pro
TA class. I don't know, I feel like they're all kind of like me which is kind of cool
to see but yeah.
And I'm going to read just one of the, so Boston was a, sometimes I, council will
pick our awesome kids and sometimes we have submissions from the community. So Boston
and one of your teachers at your school submitted,
and I just like this story, so I'm just gonna share it.
Here's the last story I have to share about Boston
being just generally an awesome kid.
One of the major trademarks of 2023
is of course Taylor Swift's Eris Tour,
a key piece of which is bringing friendship bracelets
to share and trade with others.
Over the fall, Boston with the help of his family
made over 90 FCHS friendship bracelets.
When giving me one, he told me that he wanted to recognize staff and peers in our school
for doing an excellent job in a relatively thankless job.
I cannot describe how touchening it was to see teachers and the staff from that afternoon
showing each other their bracelets and sharing the joys they've had from teaching or simply knowing Boston.
So, thank you for being an awesome student and encouraging the rest of your community.
I will go to council if they have any questions.
Councillor Smenzi.
Thank you so much for making folks feel included.
I went to the comp as well and I remember high school is a tough time, right?
So thank you so much for creating the community in your school.
Tell me about Frisbee.
When I went to the comp, there was no Frisbee.
There's Frisbee there now.
Is it ultimate?
What is happening?
That sounds great.
So yes, it is ultimate Frisbee.
It's a new sport this year.
Mrs. Colbert is running it and she's doing a fantastic job.
I don't know, we have a really good group of kids and it's been exciting to learn a new sport for the first year.
Kind of just like make your own mark on something that's never been done before.
And yeah, it's just like Ultimate Frisbee that you would do in gym class, but we compete against other teams.
It's been really fun so far.
That is awesome. Cool.
Anybody else?
When you're finally done at foothills, what do you strive to do? Where do you want to be?
So I'm currently planning on going to state and doing EMT and learning to do all of that stuff.
I think that takes around four or five years because I'm trying to do the advanced courses.
And after doing that for a little bit, I'm thinking of becoming a firefighter
and making my way up to do that kind of thing.
Thank you.
So we'll secure you now for that plan.
Thank you.
We're just going to sign that contract of first rate of refusal on that shift because
it's become a very competitive place to be so we'll just secure you right ahead of
time.
Councillor Robinson.
What grade are you in?
I'm in grade 12.
Oh, nice.
Good.
I have a grade 12 kid at the cough right now.
So, um, and, um, what?
What we do want to get in Frisbee, like, did they just approach you? Did you get
other friends together, or how did that all come together?
I was, um, it was in gym class, and we were just having fun, me and my friends, and we
were just talking about it'd be cool if there was Frisbee sport, and that's when my gym
teacher said that there is Frisbee sport starting up, so I went and talked to Ms. Colbert,
and then, um, yeah, I went to start talking to a bunch of people, got really involved,
my brother joined it, and, um, yeah, we were just really excited to start that,
and I don't know how it just kind of coincidence I guess I was lucky what's
your favorite Taylor Swift song oh I don't know I would say there's too many
good ones to choose just one here's what I'll go with
Councillor Hallmark thank
you marathon I was wondering you came up with 90 bracelets so did you have a
list beforehand before you started making the bracelets are you started
making them and you hit 90 and you're like okay that's enough I'm just gonna
to fill these 90 positions?
Well, my mom, she was going to Disneyland
to run a marathon, and so she was making
a bunch of bracelets to start with that.
And then so she had the really good idea
of starting and doing this, so we started doing it together
and bonding and doing them together.
I don't know, we just started making them and making them
and I started hanging them out and people liked them.
So I think we just kind of ended up making a bunch
and then realizing that we had no more
red, gray, or white.
And then we were like, let's count how many we have
and it was right around 90, so we just,
We ended it there, I think.
Was it difficult to narrow it down to 90 people in your school?
Oh, yeah, yeah, for sure. A lot of people wanted them out.
I had to throw them out in the crowds and stuff.
I think someone bit me while I was doing it.
But they were very, everyone wanted one.
So, yeah, it was pretty hard.
Excellent. Well, thank you very much for being one of our awesome kids this month.
Boston and I wish you all the best when you graduate and off on whatever endeavors.
and you think I was being kidding about the firefighter position, but really if when you're ready you come back and talk to the Todd of Oak shows.
Thank you so much for the award.
Yeah, there you go.
Thank you so much for the award.
I'd also just like to say thank you to my loving parents and for coming out and supporting me.
And thank you to all of the teachers who came out and supported me.
So Miss Colbert, Miss Velsky, Mrs. Gibbs, both another Miss Colbert.
And just everyone Miss Salary and everyone who came out just thank you so much for supporting me
I couldn't have done it without you
Do
the same thing come up get your certificate. We'll take a picture and mr. Brash. Sorry
Okay, and our second one is Abigail Breen brain brain Brian Brian
Abigail burn burn
That you just you guys getting no for about be back
Welcome Abigail. So Abigail
is being recognized for her outstanding dedication
in her work experience placement as a teacher's assistant
in training for our students with complex needs,
also from the foothills.
Equal secondary foothills compensated by school.
So do you want to tell us a little bit about that work?
In grade 11, second semester, I had a spare
and I just was in my foods class
and I saw some of the kids with complex needs working in there and I just kind of
worked my way towards working with them. And now I pretty much help out with
everything I can. I help out with them in sports performance. I take them to
their classes. I just help out with anything I can. Excellent. And what do
you enjoy about that? Just like hanging out with them is really fun. They're
It's just super cool.
I don't really, it's good.
Council, Councilor Hallmark.
Thank you, Mayor Thorn.
I was wondering, so going forward when you graduate,
are you looking to enter a profession
that you might use these skills?
I have been.
I'm just, I'm thinking about taking a gap year
so I can test out all my options,
but that's one I'm leading towards.
Anybody else?
Okay, I'm going to read one of the things that was written and so Abigail was also recommended
to us from some teachers at her school, so it says, the relationships that Abigail has
fostered among these students is meaningful and impactful.
They intentionally seek her out and take joy from her presence.
Working with our learning support team, Abigail helps students with their academics
while supporting their social and emotional well-being.
I have personally witnessed Abigail go above and beyond in her placement.
So congratulations for being an awesome kid and all the work that you're doing in your school.
Same thing that we've seen.
That's it. I know you're all super excited about all the other council things we do,
so you're welcome to stay. We have a public hearing at 7.
We only have a few things to do between now and then,
so you can stay and see what goes on or we'll pause and allow you to clear chambers.
So your choice. I won't take any offense.
But they do
not know. I believe we still have some closed session items yet to do. Oh, actually,
yeah, let's do, sorry, and I don't have my notes. We probably need to wait for our CAO
to return.
Sorry, I'm just going to get logged back into what I need to look at.
I believe
If Councilor Suenzi, do we have a motion arising?
We're on, yes, Patty, right?
Yeah, okay.
So, Councilor Suenzi, do you have a motion arising?
Yes, thank you very much, Chair.
The motion arising is that reconsideration be given
regarding defeat of the unanimous consent
to move forward to third reading of bylaw 15-24.
Okay, you've got that, Ms. Heaver, okay.
So for reconsideration council we need to have two-thirds consent, which I'm going to say is four of us.
For that, so I will call that question of reconsideration of the defeat on bylaw 1524 for unanimous consent.
So all in favor?
That's none of my notes.
probably is debate on.
And that carries unanimously.
Okay. So now we have Councillor Robinson actually
just corrected me just on procedure of that last vote. Do we need to talk about why we're
bringing it forward for reconsideration? Should there be a statement there? And I just don't
I don't know if I did that.
No, I'm certainly Mayor, sorry, Mayor Thornton.
Councillor Svanese should have been provided the opportunity to say why she was bringing
this forward.
Okay.
I will.
I'll move authorization, be given to read bylaw 1524, 3rd time.
Okay.
Perfect.
So, to go to 3rd reading, this does require unanimous consent, so I'll call that question
and this is non-debatable.
So I'll call that question all in favor and
that carries unanimously.
We've never done a reconsideration motion, so that's why you've got me
hesitating on what we're doing. So that now brings us to by-law, reading by-law
15-24 for a third time and passed. Would somebody like to make that motion?
I'd like to make the motion to the bylaw 15-24 be read a third time and passed.
Anne, would you like to speak to that motion?
Yes.
Thank you very much.
So to clarify my original, I did not evaluate properly the risks of delaying this bylaw.
I'm just going to pause for a second.
Okay.
Perfect.
So I'll just start again.
So, I, you know, when I paused the third reading of this bylaw, I actually did not evaluate
the risks properly delaying this bylaw in terms of rolling out the communication plan
in time for spring.
So this is actually a very time-sensitive issue on the communication plans.
It needs to happen. Spring is right around the corner, so that's why I put the report before
the reconsideration. Thank you, council, for supporting that reconsideration, and I support
and encourage the reading of this by-law. Thank you.
But anybody else like to speak to this by-law? Okay, I will add just a couple of things
with it. So the water by-law, this is kind of a couple things in terms of our water
Water Shortage Response Plan is ensuring that we use the water that we have that is treated
water, used for drinking water, we're using it for its highest and best use.
So we've changed our outdoor watering schedule with that and looked at our grounds at parks
people in terms of making sure that they can still manage and maintain appropriate.
We have soil health and grass health, so that gives us a good balance.
This also allows us to add additional stage to our water storage response plan.
A lot of this is being done, yes, from the impetus of drought, but it is also being done
from being just good water management stewards.
One of the things I'll put out is that as a community, so we're being
being asked to sale burdens across the province to do our part in terms of managing potentially
the drought ahead of us.
So I challenge all of our community to think about how they can reduce water usage even
in a small amount.
It makes a difference.
So I encourage my colleagues to support this bylaw and I look forward to working
with the community in terms of implementing it.
So with that, would you like to close?
Councillor Smith-Seed.
Oh, thank you.
Okay, with that, I'll call the question.
All in favor.
And that carries unanimous aye.
Which brings us, we still have a little bit left to do on our
close to Jen.
Oh, yep.
We still have 8.1.1 water shortage response plan.
Right.
Thank you.
Correct.
I'd like to make a motion on that.
Yep.
So we need to go back to the Water Shortage Response Plan and I will go to Councillor Robinson.
I am just going to change the motion a little bit.
I'm going to move that.
The Water Shortage Response Plan be accepted by Council as appropriate preparation for
potential water shortages, such as drought conditions.
Would you like to speak to that?
Sure.
I just, like, we receive things as information, and I think sometimes it's just a little bit
of off hand for, you know, just, you know, sometimes just moving something along that
we don't want to action on, or it's something that, you know, really doesn't call for any
sort of comment by council in general. So I think that motion maybe could have done
the trick here, but I think it's a little bit more appropriate to actually recognize
that I think us as council are saying that we have received administration's plan
for dealing with what, potentially in the short term, but in other conditions, maybe
water shortage conditions, and that we think that it is a good plan and an
appropriate plan for those types of situations that may arise. So that's why I
revised the motion. I do think administration has done a good job on
this, and I think just so to the extent if you haven't been following
along on this, but somehow you picked up the debate at this point. If you've
been looking at the things in the water by-law that govern all the
things that we're going to be asking the community to do inside the water
shortage plan as a whole table says here's all the things that the town is going to be
able to do to respond to those types of water shortages in addition to sort of you know making
sure we run the plant appropriately and all those other sorts of things in terms of how
we use water as a as a as an entity as a water user ourselves. There's a whole table
in there that describes all the ways that we're going to adapt to that too. So it's
not just you know we're asking the community to do things but we have a plan in how
we're going to do things differently as well. So I think that's a very important leadership
step from our administration, I just think we need to make sure that we're kind of recognizing
that in a slightly more formal way.
Okay.
And I'm just going to provide, this is an administrative guideline, so I'm just going
to provide feedback to administration that under stage four where it talks about the
implementation of full outdoor waterbound, it only talks about filling of swimming
pools.
The actual water bottle bylaw has swimming pools and hot tub site just as a note.
vote. Anybody else have anything to add? Seeing nothing, I will do anything to close. Okay,
calling that question all in favor. And
that carries unanimously.
Now we are through our
agenda until we get to the public hearing. So we have 20 minutes. We have a couple closed
session items still to deal with. So if I could get a motion to go into closed session,
Councilor Lange. All in favor.
All in favor. Yep. So that carries unanimously so we'll
move into closed session and we will be back for 7 p.m. for the public hearing.
Yeah. I like how in our people are the ones coming in the door.
Excellent. Okay. It is shortly
after seven o'clock. We have a public hearing in front of us. And so I will get that started.
So citizens wishing to make submissions for tonight's public hearings, we're given the
option to provide a written submission request to appear virtually or attend the public hearing
in person in the council chambers.
Written submissions received by noon on Wednesday, March 20, 2024 regarding bylaw 12-24 were included
in the agenda package.
Any submissions received after this and up until 7 p.m. tonight will be read into
the record during the hearing and included in the agenda package retitled amended.
The amended council agenda package for March 25, 2024 will be uploaded to the town's website
within three business days if necessary.
For anyone wishing to provide feedback at tonight's public hearing, we ask that comments
be of proper decorum succinct.
If another person has already made a point, simply state that you agree with the point.
Five minutes is allotted to each presenter.
After administration has fully reported on the bylaw, a 15-minute break will be announced
to provide an opportunity to anyone wishing to respond to new information that has arisen
from administration's report.
Responses will only be received for the duration of the break via email using the submit
button on okatoks.ca or to legislative services at okatoks.ca.
Responses will be summarized and noted after the break.
So we're here for bylaw 12-24, which is a land-use bylaw amendment.
So we'll now proceed to the statutory public hearing for bylaw 12-24, land-use bylaw amendment.
The purpose of bylaw 12-24 is to amend the land-use bylaw to exempt election signage
from the requirements of a development permit and all signed standards of the land-use bylaw
provided it complies with the provisions of the town of Okatok's proposed election signage bylaw.
I'm going to turn this over to our community growth and investment planner, Matt LaLonde.
Good evening, everyone.
My name is Matt LaLonde. I'm planner with the community growth and investment team on 14.1, which is bylaw 1224.
I'd like to provide a quick summary of the proposed by-law and its relationship with
by-law 1124 on election signage to be discussed at the outcome of this public hearing.
The purpose of this amendment is to exempt election signage from the requirements of
a development permit and all sign standards of the land-use by-law provided that it complies
with the provisions of the proposed election signage by-law.
The land-use by-law currently regulates all signage within Okotoks and the proposed
proposed election signage by-law if adopted would be in conflict with those current regulations.
This proposed amendment would remove those conflicts and enable the election signage
by-law to regulate election signage separately from any other type of signage in the town.
This by-law amendment will not have any impact on currently existing signage or future signage
applications nor does it alter the development permit review or approval processes for non-election
signage. All signage will continue to be regulated under the land use bylaw, except election signage
as specifically defined in this amendment and in the election signage bylaw. Additionally,
there are no alignment concerns between this bylaw, the municipal development plan, or any
other regional plans. In advance of this council meeting, the public hearing was advertised
in the Okatoks Western Wheel for two weeks in accordance with the requirements of the
Municipal Government Act, and at the time of report preparation, no written correspondence
was received. Administration is recommending that Council give second and third readings to
this by-law. That concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have
at this time, during or after the public hearing. Thanks very much. Thank you very much, Ms.
Juarez. Okay, so we don't do questions at this moment in time, right? Okay. So would any person
person present in council chambers wish to speak in favor of proposed bylaw 12-24?
We have nobody attending remote, correct? Okay. Would anyone, any person present in the council
chamber wish to speak in objection to proposed bylaw 12-24? Seeing none. Does council have
any questions of administration at this time? Councilor Swincey.
Thank you. This is a process question. If I know that this by-law is connected to the
election signage by-law, which we're going to talk about next, if we make changes to
the election signage by-law, can we approve this? What am I trying to say here? Can we
approve this and then make changes to the election signage by-law after this?
It is possible, yes.
Any other questions?
Okay, so would administration now note how many written responses received in favor or
in objection to Bylaw 12-24 after the March 20th, 2024 noon deadline up until 7 p.m. tonight
and read those responses into the record?
There were none.
Okay, so we will now take a 15-minute break to allow those watching to respond to new
information that has arisen during administration's report. The email address
will be provided on the break screens. Emails must contain your full name and
street address. Administration will compile the responses and read each of
them out after the break. Emails will only be received during this break. The
time is now 7.09 p.m. The break will start now.
The time is now 7.25 and email submissions have stopped, so administration, please read any submissions received during the break.
There are none, Mayor Thawne.
Excellent.
So that takes us to, does anyone present in council chamber have a question of clarification regarding the information they heard during this presentation?
Seeing none, we still have nobody with remote access, correct?
Okay, so does council have any further questions of administration at this time?
Seeing none, can I get a motion to close the statutory public hearing for bylaw 12-24?
Land Use Amendment
Council Robinson any discussion anybody else? Oh
Yep, go ahead Patty
No, we can vote on these great, but think we're all there so I'll call that question all in favor
Yeah, it was a suggestion. She wanted me to vote by sorry, I didn't pick up on that party.
Okay, so the question is, as Patty's trying to bring it up,
I'm just going to vote by hand, which was what she was trying to tell me to do earlier.
Council to close the public hearing all in favor.
That carries unanimously. Sorry, Patty. I didn't pick up on that to start with.
Okay, that leads us to bylaws. So we have bylaw 12-24 land use bylaw amendment.
This by-law is ready to be read a second and a third time and passed. Does anybody have any questions on said by-law?
Seeing none. Does anybody wish? Second reading.
Second reading. So this is on 11-24.
12-24. Land use by-law then.
Yes, yep, yep, yep.
Sorry, I've got,
sorry,
12-24 land use bylaw amendment.
Okay, so that needs to get right a second time.
I've been moved by Councillor Robinson.
Sorry, I'm calling that question all in favour.
Good, okay, that's good.
Did you want to speak to this?
Okay, now bylaw 12-24 be read a third time and passed.
Somebody would like to make that motion, Councillor Lang.
Would you like to speak to your motion?
Would anybody else like to speak to that motion?
No?
Okay.
Would you like to close, Councillor Lang?
Okay, with that, then I will call the question and this will be passed.
I
carries unanimously, which moves us to the election signage by-law, 11-24.
And I have Manager Cathy Duplassie to present.
Good evening, Mayor and Council.
Now that the public hearing has been held and the land use by-law has been amended,
administration is here to request consideration for second and third reading of the election
signage.
So, we're taking previously in previous elections.
It was done through policy, but we are requesting that this now be in alignment with best practices
and lie in a bylaw.
It is much more clear, much more transparent to the public and allows for more enforcement
to.
This bylaw is also proposing additional sign crawl locations than what has historically
been provided in the past.
And further, we're also asking for, you can see throughout the body of the by-law too,
that it covers municipal, federal, and provincial elections in addition to school board trustees.
We are asking for consideration upon second reading that amendment be placed forward just to amend the candidate definition.
So, we are requesting that candidates include, it means an individual who has been nominated
to run for election in a municipal, provincial, or federal government, or as a school board
trustee to align with the rest of the body of the add-on.
Thank you.
Does anybody have any questions for administration at this time?
Councillor Robinson?
All right.
I just indulged me in a hypothetical.
What if we decided that we didn't want any election signs at all?
We just decided we were going to not permit them in Okatoks.
What do you think would be the likely consequence of a decision like that of council?
I know what I think it would be, but I am curious what administration's advice might be about that.
Through the chair, I think that that would create a be honest, unregulated mess of signages everywhere
where with really hard piece to enforce,
you would see a lot of them signages along boulevards.
I'm sure you've been in towns
where there is no signage bylaws or pieces.
And then I think if it's a safety issue too,
it's harder for enforcement to give those guidelines
and tell them where it's safe.
By having crowds, we proactively encourage all candidates
to follow the rules and give them a safe spot to put their signs in.
I think we might also be challenged with the rights for them to put signage up on public property, too.
Anybody else? Councillor Swansea. Thank you. This is for item 4.3 regarding election signage on property lines.
Did we have a maximum size for election signage on private property in previous elections? Or is this a new item here?
Through the chair, yes, I believe we did. And again, it was a safety issue in wind and picking them up and blowing them onto property or onto vehicles or into traffic.
So, yes.
Can I follow up on that?
Thank you.
Yep, thank you.
And sorry, was it .6 meters before?
Like, are we changing that or is that staying the same?
I'm just wondering if the signs are, if they're,
because there's that one resident that came in,
and I think you brought up some valid points.
So, are we making the signs smaller that can be on private property
or is that staying the same from previous elections?
I
have no idea how big .6 meters squared it is.
So,
on residential private property?
Yeah, on residential.
It was like this big.
Yeah, on residential.
Honoring members.
Yeah, we did that.
Yeah, I did that on fences, for sure.
Yeah, on fences.
So through the chair, yeah, on fences,
if it wasn't freestanding, I believe that that was allowed.
I can look it up, but just a sec if you don't mind.
I'm going to ask Janice to respond to that.
Yes, the size that we took in this new bylaw was generally taken from other municipalities
and how they regulate their signage and the size they use. Previously, when we had it
in a policy, we had basically said it was half a sheet of plywood, which wasn't really
working for us size-wise, so we felt we just shrunk it just a little bit, but it
is a little bit smaller, yes.
It's like three feet by two feet.
A big sign.
Maybe it's not as big as the ones you have, but it's still a pretty big sign.
We are saying that you can have one of that size
and then no more than three of the other size within that same corral.
So you could conceivably have four in a corral.
I believe that's how that reads.
Or that was the intention.
Yeah, this is relating to the private property.
Blinds, though.
This is on private property.
This is 4.3.
0
.6 meters squared is one meter times 0.6 of a meter that's a hundred centimeters
by 60 centimeters a hundred centimeters a meter is about three feet so it's
about three feet high by two feet or whatever wide however you're whatever you
feed by two feet and this is that what we were able to do before or we know
through the chart, it's slightly smaller, like, not much, yeah, that's what I think,
that's what I thought,
the square signs are 4 by 4.
The square signs, because half sheet of plywood would be a 4 by 4 sign, so we're going from
a 4 by 4 to a 3 by 2-ish sign.
Go ahead.
And so I guess we, like as you were saying in the previous guidelines, we weren't
very clear on it. It was a little bit more ambiguous. This provides that clarity. We're
not trying to make them smaller. We're just trying to provide some kind of direction for
folks.
So through the chair, it was done as an administrative guideline prior to this. It's a best practice
to have this in a bylaw, right? We're expecting the public to comply with it. For transparency
purposes, it should be a public-facing document, which is a bylaw. It's enforceable.
it's, you know, and would apply to all election types.
So, yeah, it's not meant to be any more over and above
than the ability of signage before.
It's just more enforceable
and providing more signage corrals
and being more transparent and accountable.
Councilor Swensi.
Thank you.
And why is there a difference
between how big the sign can be
on residential property versus commercial property?
because it says that the maximum
election sign on a commercial
property is 1.2 meters.
Through the chair historically,
commercial or industrial land are bigger
lots. They're industrial. You're not
going to have the smaller
lots with the ability
for damage, like damages
of property and those types of
pieces and site lines and stuff like that.
Commercial industrial will have those bigger
fences, they'll have those
those bigger boulevards, they'll have those bigger places
where you can put the larger signage
without any kind of sight line or safety issues.
Okay, thank you.
Councilor Swenson, keep going here.
The designated sign corrals.
This is something I do remember hearing
in the last election about, like,
I think it's really great that we have them
because it designates a place for people to put them.
I noticed there are two, there's some additional ones,
two of them being, I wanna call them like,
neighborhood-y, so that one in Woodhaven and that one in Downey, so like I've got
feedback that the Sincerels are so ugly, which I don't disagree, we need them. Do
we want to be putting them in like close, like that close into neighborhoods?
Do we need to have more Sincerels? Like has there been feedback of more
Sincerels? Like I haven't heard people want more, but maybe I'm missing
something or I just, yeah. Through the chair, we have heard that
candidates want more but of course it's up to councils prerogative if they
don't want the extra proposed sign crowds but the feedback was with that
they wanted more exposure right not just on the two feral fruits they wanted
some in the neighborhoods but again if that's not what councils hearing or
feeling as as previous candidates and current council we can go back to the
original sign crawls I'll just say personally I mean I know we're in
question but whatever I've been personally in favor of the more sign
crawls I think the the increased restriction on signs on the public space
is an incumbency advantage and so I think creating more public spaces if
people can put signs is makes it more accessible for more newer candidates
potentially have more exposure right because at the end of the day people
who are already on council have more profile or able to talk to more
more people or more likely to be more private people
and industry and all the rest of what signs up for them,
the more public spaces that anyone who's running can use,
the more access those people have.
And I get when you have 21 candidates
and it fills it all up, looks a bit messy,
but I think that the more public spaces
that the public is able to use,
that the more democratic it is.
Councilor Swansea.
Thank you.
Okay, that's a great, that's a good argument,
Councilor Robinson.
I guess then too, just my last question is,
is that we're going to put in more sign crawls. I can understand that. We are putting a little
bit more restriction-ish, not very much on private signs of private property. The challenge
I have with,
I appreciate these guidelines. The challenge I have is that we have these
guidelines. We had similar-ish ones at the prior election, but there was very low to
minimal enforcement of them. People still put them wherever they wanted, so we can
make all these sign crawls and they're going to be ugly here and ugly here but then people
are putting them in the boulevard so pardon me is like reducing the amount that we have
here like who cares what people put on private property so that enforcement only has to
deal with the stuff that's being on put in public do you know what I mean like that's
what I'm wrestling right now with because enforcement can't enforce all of these so
which one do we want them to enforce I don't care what happens on private property
but I sure as heck care when people putting them on four away stops where everyone
can see it. I don't know what that I'm just throwing that out there.
So just so I can understand where you're going, like are you thinking that you want to prohibit it on all public land then?
No, is that what you're saying?
No.
Sorry, no, not at all.
I think the sign crawls are great.
I'm saying that they're in their previous elections, candidates are putting signs on public lands and they're left there.
These policies are not enforced.
So what I'm saying, yep.
But we didn't have a bylaw.
Isn't that the whole I thought one of the entire purposes of us moving from look
We just used to have a policy that said do whatever the administrative guidelines said the administrative guidelines had some directions about it
But they weren't bylaws so no one like town people could couldn't really like go enforce it like there was no bylaw
There was just like administrative guidelines the town saying hey if you're gonna put up a sign
This is about where we probably won't go get you
We didn't really have bylaws that specifically you may put it here. You may not put it here
So that's why we're doing it this way.
Am I summarizing accurately?
Through the tier, yes.
And there's also offenses listed here, right?
So a bylaw is enforceable on the public, right?
They have to comply.
It's a bylaw.
A guideline is a guideline, right?
So that's what we had previously was a guideline, right?
We recommended we ask that you follow them as a good candidate,
but now we have a bylaw that bylaw enforcement can actually enforce.
Okay.
That is really good clarification.
So then my really, really last question is if it becomes a by-law then, that means we're
creating a by-law with a whole new set of policies, I guess.
Is this achievable for enforcement to enforce, is my next question, because there's, do
you know what I mean?
Like on the private property, the size of the signs and everything like that, is it
something within the capability of the team that we have?
Because I just remember there was a lot of infractions last year.
I don't want to put enforcement in this place that they're not able to enforce this.
So through the chair, I mean I haven't talked directly with the new OME manager regarding
this, but
I know in the last elections we did it based on complaints and also more on
the public piece where there were sight lines and along the public where it was clearly
outside of the public signage crowds. I don't and I might be speaking out of
turn for OMI but I don't believe that they're going to go on to private
property and and make you know pick pick fights to pick fights right or do
enforcement that isn't a complaint based or a safety issue or those types of
things so I would hope it's feasible and doable. Okay perfect thank you.
Councillor Lange. How do we decide on how big the sign crowds
are? Because last election there was 27 people for council, three for mayor, and so those
sign crowds just got inundated. Through the chair, that's why we have more
this time. But we work with parks. Parks, we've sat down and had a meeting with them
and OME and talked about where are some of the public higher traveled areas and where we
could get first call out and locate and make sure we can provide areas that they're not
going to be hammering into utilities.
So that's kind of where we worked as across the town business centers that would be
affected to pick those locations.
So I guess the only, and we can put this into debate, and I just was doing the math on this,
is the 1.2. I'm a little concerned about that that's going to be too small because there was
a bunch of 4 by 4 signs in the sign curls last time. So, and a 4 by 4 is a standard election
sign. If you want to get the bigger signs, that's the standard print size of them, otherwise
you start getting into custom, if you don't do the 4x4 kind of thing.
So that puts us at about 1.5 meters squared with that.
And then in terms of private property with that as well, there was quite a few private
property ones that have fences that run on thoroughfares or whatever.
And so they were sporting the four by four signs or the three by three by eight in a couple of places that were big with that.
So that exceeds that point six.
And I so I'm just a little worried about the exception piece of that because it is private property.
It's not obstruction of view.
It's not a safety risk.
But they've got the real estate to allow that along those mediums.
So I think those would be just questions of how would those, based on what the bylaw says,
those would not be allowed.
Is that correct?
Through the chair, that is correct.
But I've just pulled up the admin guidelines that are in existence right now.
And it appears that the previous sign on private was 1.2 and less than 2.5 meters
in height.
So exactly what's under 4.4.
So we could make those sizes the same.
Yeah, well the 1.2 is still doesn't cover a 4 by 4 sign.
Like a 4 by 4 is 1.48 in the scheme of things, right?
So a 1.2 meter squared does not cover a 4 by 4 sign.
That's the only piece that I'm raising.
of if I'm doing the math correctly and I won't profess the
1.2 is going to be not a standard. It's funny, I know we're in metric, but when it comes to
campaign signs, I always am working in feet. 1.2 is 3 foot 11. Yeah. So I
agree, but to the
technical piece of it, if somebody wants to go and measure a sign, a 4 by 4 sign would
not being compliance. So depending what I've seen in other elections, when people are complaining
about signage, that it doesn't meet or it's outside of it, that sets us up right off the
get-go, whether it's on commercial or private property, to have, and I'll use myself,
I had four by four signs on a variety of commercial sites
So I would be not in compliance with that and the four by four is a standard print
So I just tossed that out for my colleagues that I think we need to look at that sizing piece
Okay
1.5. Yeah, would be a four by four
Any other questions for administration?
Thank you. And then it says this can be up for six weeks. Was that six weeks before like
did we do six weeks in our last election? I feel like it was over the four weeks.
Yeah,
it was September 1st. I'm sure it was. Okay, excellent.
Sorry, through the chair, last election 2021 was the first time that they started the
campaign period on January 1st. So therefore, I mean, before that elections before that
it was only allowed under the election act for the four weeks from close of nomination
day because they had one single day until election day. With 2021, that was the first
time when it was running all year and then each municipality had to decide what they would allow
for signage. So we chose the six weeks.
2021, I'm sure. Yeah. 2021, there were signs up
like early.
We so sorry through the chair, through the chair the land use bylaw was changed in June.
They brought in a whole new land use bylaw in June 2021, which put it in out of alignment
with our signage piece that we had already started January 1st.
So there was some inconsistency.
So we provided the guidelines and asked that you comply with the corrals, but on private property people started putting up signage as soon as they filed their nomination papers.
Yeah, they filed their nomination papers. We only opened up the public signage corrals September 1st, but private property, yes, started as soon as you filed nomination papers.
I do have another question. I noticed there's no, and I don't know if this was intentional
or not. I don't have super strong feelings about it, but there's no limit on the number
of signs on private property. Was that intentional or?
Through the chair, we did not address the private property piece with the number of
signs.
Seven candidates on council.
I think, frankly, probably it's going to be unenforceable to say a number because,
well,
yeah, yeah, you're going to force people to pick one candidate.
There's seven people you could theoretically vote for, plus, like, whatever, if they put
up two, one sign, you know, it's all a bit of a pain in the neck.
So I'm okay with that.
I just was curious.
It was oversight.
If it was intentional, it sounds like it was pretty much intentional to just not say it.
Any
other questions? Okay. Does anybody want to move second reading and then we can deal
with any amendments that may need to be done?
Councilor Svanseid.
I'll move that by-law 11-dash. Are you planning to make amendments? Can you move your motion
and then make amendments to that motion? Can you do that? Yeah. Okay. Sorry.
I was
I'd like to please make the motion that bylaw 11-24 be read a second time.
Okay, would you like to speak to your motion?
No, thank you.
Anybody else like to speak to this motion?
I'd like to move an amendment.
Yeah.
I would move that the definition of candidate is revised in section 2.2 to mean an individual
who has been nominated to run for election in a municipal, provincial, or federal government
or as a school board trustee.
Okay, would you like to speak to your amendment?
Yeah, I think if you look at the ways defined in the land use by law and stuff, that definition
should probably be there.
I think it's just been overlooked a bit.
I don't think it's controversial.
Okay.
If anybody else would like to speak to that amendment, okay, I will call the question
on the amendment all in favor,
and that carries unanimously.
Okay, so, back to any other amendments on Councillor Svaneseed.
I would like to make an amendment that the maximum election sign size for both private
and for commercial property be, this might, hopefully I'm doing this correctly, 4x4, like
that standard.
1.5 meter squared.
Thank you.
1.5 meter squared.
Would you like to speak to your amendment?
Yeah, I think that the commercial and the commercial and the private should have similar
rules, and I appreciate sight lines and things like that, but there are places on private
properties like fence lines where those posters or those posters, those signs can be put,
and also to, I believe that is a standard election, standard size that the printers
make for those election signs and I think that that would just create better
continuity for future candidates. And councillors would see just so I clear and
provide direction to our legislative support. It's striking 4.3 from the
bylaw and changing 4.4 to apply to private property and commercial property
and changing the sign amount to 1.5 meters squared, is that correct?
That would work sufficiently.
I think it also has implications on 4.1 and 4.21.
So we'll have to carry that through for the maximum size.
We'll be applied to all elements of item 4.
Okay.
Yeah.
Of section 4.
Okay.
Do we need to change our motion to reflect that or does the intent of what we are trying
to do with this amendment make sense for administration to update?
Yeah, my sense is that we would indicate section 4 maximum size is changed in all clauses to
be 2.5 meters squared.
1.5, sorry, yeah.
I was looking at 2.5.
Okay.
All right.
You spoke to your motion.
Anybody else to the amendment?
Councillor Robinson.
So I'm okay with changing the maximum size and the corrals and the commercial stuff
up at 1.5 for a 4-way 4-sign, that makes sense to me.
I'm opposed to increasing the size
on the personal property lots.
I think there's lots of people who live in condos,
townhouses, other types of things
that don't have an opportunity
to put giant signs on their lots.
I think that it opens up being like people get put
4-by-4 signs right in their front yard,
right next to their neighbor's lot.
I think it opens up a whole bunch of different problems.
And I think it's actually the more conservative way
to go about it is just to like limit
those private property signs. If someone has a fence, they can put up the small sign on their fence.
It'll be just fine. Everyone will figure out what color it is for which candidate. They'll all get the
same point out of it. So I think opening up the big signs on the private properties actually causes
a lot more potential problems than it solves because I just, I think the private ones can be
the regular small signs. They don't need to be the giant ones on the 2.5 foot high signs
because I don't know about you, but if my neighbor put up a 4 foot high or a 2.5 meter
high sign that was four feet by four feet right next to me in my front yard, I'd be a little
bit cheesed about that. Regardless of who it was, initially imagine that it's, you know,
for somebody you really don't like or it says something that's, you know, less than
particularly savory like somebody in Woodhaven might be displaying right now. So, you know,
I think on the private property one, I think the small signs is fine. And if you,
you know, rather than trying to work out a bunch of exemptions, it'll offends
than all the rest. Sorry, if you have a fence, you still get the same small sign that everybody
else gets.
Okay. Anybody else wish to speak on this one?
Just a point of order? Yeah.
Yeah.
So point of order, just because the intent is for just one section of this. So let's
this, we will deal with changes to 4.1 and 4.2, and no, we can't deal with 4.4.
Okay, you want to keep 4.3, but the motion is to remove 4.3.
So we're going to deal with 4.1 and 4.2 and changing the signage size there to 1.5 m2.
So, we're going to deal with that first.
Then we will deal with the combination of 4.3 and 4.4 as a separate motion.
Does that make sense?
What's happening?
Can I reiterate what I'm going to do?
So by Councillor Swen-Seed, that subsections 4.1 and 4.2 regarding election signage size
be changed to the maximum size for both commercial and residential properties to be 1.5 meters squared?
No, so we're going to deal with this.
So the motion will be 4.1 and 4.2 to change the maximum signage to 1.5 meters squared.
That's going to be motion number one that we'll deal with.
And then we will deal with the 4.3 and 4.4,
which is the commercial and private property combining that and changing it to 1.5 and the
argument that
Councilor Robinson, so we'll deal with that one first because that argument's on there at the moment
So I'm splitting the motion into two so we're going to deal with the first one
Which is the commercial and private property I said it the other way around party
But we'll deal with commercial and private property which that motion is to
to combine 4.3 and 4.4 into one item and change the maximum size to 1.5 meters squared.
Councilor Svensson has put that motion on the table.
Councillor Robinson has spoken against that motion and we're going to debate that motion
right now.
So that's the one that we're talking about at this moment.
Does everybody at the table in clear?
So, we're talking about whether or not we want commercial and private property signs to be the same size.
Councilor Swenson's put forward a motion that is saying private property and commercial property should have the same size of 1.5 meters squared.
That's the motion in front of us.
Councilor Robinson has spoken against that, saying disagrees with that, and that's where we're at.
Okay.
Is that am I am I right?
You're absolutely right, Mayor Thorn.
You could consider passing your motion on 4.1 and 4.2 first would be my recommended course
of action.
So 4.1, 4.2, changing the 1.2 to 1.5.
Get agreement from your council that 1.5 is where you want to go and then you'll figure
out if you want it both public and private in 4.3 and 4.4.
Okay.
Does
that make sense what we're doing?
Okay, so we're back to that subsections 4.1 and 4.2.
We changed to read that the maximum size allowed
for election signage is 1.5 meters squared.
Correct.
Okay.
All right, everybody know what we're talking about now. But anybody like to speak
for or against this motion?
Seeing none, would you like to
close. Okay, so I will call that question all in favor.
I carries unanimously. Okay, that
will take us to the next motion that Councilor Spence has made in which the.
Maximum size of signage be the same for commercial and private property of 1.2 or 1.5 meters squared.
And there is a difference in the height. Do you want to deal with that one?
The height, I will leave that up to administration. I'm not, height doesn't matter to me. Yeah,
whatever. It would, if you, if you want it remain within the 2.5 meters, then I guess
the footing would be smaller. So I'm not. Item 4.1 defines the height at 2.5. My
recommendation, if that's your maximum size, the 2.5 should be consistent if
that's what you're looking for. Okay. Perfect. Okay. Councilor Robinson, you've
spoken against this motion. Would anybody else like to speak to this motion?
Okay. Does everybody know what we're voting on?
Yes. Councilor Spenci, would
Would you like to close?
Okay, I will call that question all in favor of the amendment.
No?
I didn't read close enough.
Yeah, the maximum size for your electron signage
for both commercial and residential
would be the same at 1.5 meters squared,
and height be 2.5 meters.
That's OK.
So 1.5 meters squared, and that the height
be less than 2.5 meters. I'll
just read that back that the maximum size for
election signage for both commercial and residential be the same at 1.5
meters squared and the height be less than 2.5 meters. Yes no
it doesn't
need it just says it must be less than it's fine yeah okay calling that
A quick question. All in favor.
That is defeated 2-2-3.
I'll move an amendment that just Section 4.4 be amended to set the maximum election sign size as 1.5 meter squared.
Okay. Would you like to speak to that motion?
Well, I'll just wait. Patty, have you got that?
So it's just an amendment to Section 4.4 the maximum sign size be 1.5 meter squared.
I'll
read that back. That's section 4.4 be amended so that the maximum election
signage size be 1.5 meters squared.
Okay. Just like speak to you. We'll just
just to clarify like the whole point was like we just rejected the last one so
the purpose of this amendment I think I've got it is that 4.3 for personal
property will remain in the max size is 0.6 meters squared and 2 meters in
height but on commercial properties you go up at the same maximum sizes and
and the corrals and stuff at 1.5 meters squared.
So you'll get those four by four sides
on the commercial properties,
but on the private properties
you're still limited to your 0.6 meters squared side.
Anybody else?
I'm seeing none on
there,
I know.
Okay, so this is only dealing with 4.4, correct?
Yeah, okay, so nothing to close,
nobody else had anything to close?
I will call that question all in favor and
that carries unanimously.
Any other amendments?
I would just to my colleagues that I'm the 0.6 meter square that we've got on personal property
or private property doesn't need the size requirements for a lawn sign.
Just it's too small.
So I think a lawn sign will be about 0.75, 0.6 is smaller than the standard lawn sign.
So just
to be clear, before we were saying the max size was 1.2 for a commercial,
so twice the size in private, private 0.6 twice to 1.2.
You've just declared the maximum now here is 1.5.
So is it logical then that half that size would then go on a residential, which is then
0.75?
I just tried to do the math here on a two-foot sign.
So that's basically what those are, and two feet is higher than 0.6.
So that's why I think you want to increase that two feet to be at least 0.7, 0.75
in order to get that sign to work but it's your call.
Councillor Spence. I would like to make another motion please.
Yep. That in item 4.3 the maximum election size is 0.75 m2.
Have you got that? Could you say that one more time please Councillor Spence.
that an item 4.3 that the maximum election sign size is 0.75 meters squared.
Have you got that, Mr. Chair?
Yeah.
Would you like to speak to you at Councilor Swanson?
Yes, please.
I'd like them to be bigger, but I'll take what I can get at 0.75 meters squared.
Thank you.
Would anybody else like to Councilor Lang?
What was the size of the signs in the guidelines?
lines. The chair, I just pulled it up, it's 0.6. So yeah, okay. Thank you. We were following
the guidelines to start with. Well,
and you know, anyways, I'll speak to this too. I guess
from my perspective of, and I'm raising my hand again, I will support this. There is,
So using some of us that have run before, I reuse my signs, so I'm already at the state
that there's probably 50% of my signs that don't comply with this bylaw and I will have
to reprint and throw them out.
So that is a challenge from my perspective.
So if we do not change this 2.75, that means every lawn sign that any of us are reusing
if we are planning to run again, which I haven't decided, I will have to be discarded.
So even those that have run in the past can rework a sign.
So I think that what we are traditionally printing as the standard for that, I'm not
sure that these all comply with that.
So I'm in support of moving it to 0.75 because I think that works.
I will be going home to measure signs tomorrow.
Anyways, so I encourage my colleagues to support that.
Anybody else?
Councillor Robinson.
I have to say that there are some of us that were actually able to read the administrative guideline
and some of us did print signs that were ever so slightly smaller so they fit within 0.6 meters squared
and that is a size that is perfectly available from the regular pretty shops around here
if you ask and care to comply with the rules.
So, if you did not comply last time, I'm sorry, but some of us actually did and had slightly
smaller signs that fit within that, and they were perfectly available at a slightly discounted
cost.
And I also saved mine just in case.
Okay, anybody else?
Okay.
Calling that your Councillor Swansea would you like to close?
Sure.
And I would like to say too, I even find for folks that are going to be new, that
are going to be running.
I do think that it does a, what's the word I'm looking for, with personal and private
property, at least for me when I was running new, I did not, I guess it's the circles that
you run in, I did not have, I don't think one sign on commercial property. I'm just
trying to think all of my signs were on private property because that was the circle
that I ran in and so I think it does a disservice for even new folks if we can't
make those signs bigger on private property because they might not get the exposure that
those commercial lots did with putting the giant signs are. So again, I'd like them bigger,
but I'm happy with 0.75 to help both that are incumbents, but also those new folks
that will not get any big signs on those commercial properties.
Okay, with that I'll call the question all in favor and
that carries four to one.
Alright, any other amendments to the election signed by-law?
Okay, so then we need to vote on the amendment.
No, no, it's all been amended.
Yeah, we have to vote on the election signage by-law, second reading as amended.
Yeah, I will move the bylaw 12-24 be read a third time as amended and passed
No, we still we need it. No, we need a third time as amended. Yeah, but we haven't voted on the second time yet
We haven't voted on the second piece. So we're now voting on
the second
Passing the bylaw on the second meeting as amended
correct
Okay, Councillor Swentsey, would you like to speak to that because you moved it originally
I would like to support this second reading as amended. I appreciate administration creating
a bylaw to provide that clarity for future elections. We've had a good debate on that.
We put a lot of perspectives into it, so hopefully this new bylaw will allow the next round of
candidates to be able to put up their signs in an effective manner that will suit the
residents and the candidates.
Anybody else would like to speak to this?
Would you like to close?
Okay, calling that question, all in favor.
And that it was moved by Councilor Swensi,
not Councilor Robinson.
I think we're going to go to Councilor Robinson.
No, Councilor Swensi, because remember I asked,
because I knew she was going to make amendments.
Councilor Swensi moved to the first.
That's true, yes.
So it just moved her,
it was just 40 minutes ago.
And that carries unanimously.
Councillor Robinson, would you like to make a motion?
I would like to move that Bylaw 11-24 be read a third time.
I think I can just say it's a third time in the past.
Would you like to speak to your motion?
Well, I'll just reiterate briefly that I think this is an improved approach that we had over
a bylaw signage.
I'm hopeful that it will bring a little bit more – I mean, honestly, if you drove around
Calgary during the last municipal election, let me tell you, there is – you can definitely
tell the difference between some regulation and zero regulation, and so I much prefer
our approach during the election.
I think it is definitely more civil, and I think this will just hopefully get everybody
everybody on the same page will be able to communicate to candidates the sort of appropriate
signage soon. Encourage support.
Does anybody else like to speak to this? Anything to close? Calling that question then. All in
favor.
And that carries unanimously. Which moves us to a adjournment. Councillor Lang.
That would be a motion to adjourn at 8.17 p.m. I will call that question all in favor.
I don't know where we vote on this one. Oh, it's gonna come up on the screen, and
that carries unanimously. Thank you.
Good times are ahead by all.