[1:20] Are we a go?

[1:28] » Mr. Mayor, we have >> Thank you. Uh, public hearing goes

[1:32] first, am I correct?

[1:36] » [clears throat] >> Okay.

[1:40] Welcome everyone. Welcome to the regular council meeting of August the 11th.

[1:46] Today we have a public hearing of bylaw 211

[1:51] Sorry, go ahead. >> Uh, sorry, Mr. Mayor, we need to do the

[1:54] adoption of the agenda and approval of first.

[1:57] » Okay. Yes, I didn't know whether to do that,

[2:00] so okay. Thank you very much for that, Sue.

[2:04] Can I have adoption of the agenda or any changes to or addition?

[2:09] Sue? >> Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[2:13] Uh if it's possible, if we could um

[2:16] change the numbering for um bylaws to present bylaw or item 7.2

[2:25] and then present 7.1. Would be appreciated.

[2:29] » Okay, hold on a minute. 7.1 first? >> Uh 7.2 first, Mr. Mayor.

[2:35] » Okay, thank you. >> Thank you.

[2:37] » Okay. Okay.

[2:39] Councilor Neilson. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to

[2:42] [clears throat] add under new business um

[2:46] business cases. >> Okay.

[2:50] » Thank you.

[2:55] » Councilor Elder.

[2:57] » I'd like to add something to close session, just one item as well, please.

[3:03] » Thank you.

[3:12] Councilor Billingsley. >> Thank you. Um I'd like to add uh two

[3:15] items. One under close session under section 20

[3:19] and then under new business uh per diems.

[3:26] » Thank you. And I will also like to add under new

[3:30] business uh just some information or update on the

[3:35] Starbucks uh bins, garbage bins.

[3:43] Okay. All of those in favor of the agenda as

[3:47] presented.

[3:51] All those in favor?

[3:56] Need a motion. Yes, all of those in favor?

[3:59] » You got to make make the motion, Joe. >> Mayor Brecko, I move that we accept the

[4:03] agenda as amended. >> Thank you.

[4:06] All those in favor? Harry, thank you.

[4:11] Now, we will move into public hearing. Am I correct, Sue?

[4:18] » No, approval of minutes. >> Approval of the minutes and then the

[4:21] public hearing. >> Thank you. Sorry again. I got

[4:26] Can I have approval of the minutes for July the 28th?

[4:30] Councillor Neilson.

[4:34] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move the council adopts the regular council meeting

[4:36] minutes of July 28th, 2026 as presented. >> Thank you.

[4:45] Can I have 3.2 for the whole No, maybe we should vote.

[4:50] Oh, that's all it is. >> please.

[4:53] » Committee of the whole, can I have a motion to accept the committee of the

[4:55] whole? >> No, I have a motion on the floor for

[4:58] adopting the regular council meeting minutes.

[5:01] » Okay. Thank you. All those in favor?

[5:06] Harry, [clears throat] thank you. >> Mr. Mayor, I would now like to move the

[5:08] council adopts the committee of the whole minutes for for July 28th, 2026 as

[5:12] presented. >> Thank you, sir. Any questions or any

[5:17] not? All those in favor? Harry, thank you.

[5:25] So, we will move on to 4.1, a public hearing

[5:30] for bylaw 2112-26 to amend

[5:35] the municipal development plan 2113-26

[5:40] to adopt the Evergreen aerial structure plan.

[5:46] I declare the public hearing for bylaw 21

[5:49] 12-26 and 2113-26

[5:55] at 4:05.

[6:00] Purpose of the bylaw? I will ask planning and development to

[6:05] explain the purpose of the hearing. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The purpose of

[6:09] this hearing is to receive public input on bylaws 2112-26

[6:13] to amend the Municipal Development Plan and 2113-26

[6:18] to adopt the Evergreen Area Structure Plan.

[6:21] » Thank you. Has the notice of the hearing been provided in accordance with the

[6:26] applicable legislation bylaws of the city of

[6:29] Wetaskiwin? >> Yes, the public hearing was advertised

[6:32] on whatifwetaskiwin.ca as of July 30th, 2026 as per the requirement from the

[6:37] Municipal Government Act section 606 and the city's advertising bylaw 1976-20.

[6:44] In addition, it was advertised in the Pipestone Flyer on July 30th and August

[6:48] 6th, 2026. >> Thank you.

[6:51] I will now request that planning and development provide their report

[6:54] regarding this matter. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[6:58] Administration is recommending the council approve bylaw 2112-26

[7:03] amending the Municipal Development Plan and bylaw 2113-26

[7:07] to adopt the Evergreen Area Structure Plan.

[7:10] These bylaws are being considered jointly in a public hearing as they have

[7:13] corresponding content and are jointly required to bring the Evergreen Area

[7:17] Structure Plan into effect. >> Thank you. Have we received any written

[7:22] submissions? >> Administration received one written

[7:25] submission. This is included in the agenda package provided to council and

[7:29] the public uh in which the Battle River Watershed Watershed Alliance expresses

[7:33] considerations regarding the protection of wetlands in the Evergreen ASP area.

[7:38] » Thank you. I will now call upon anyone who wishes

[7:42] to speak directly to council on this matter.

[7:52] Not? First, we will call upon those who

[7:55] registered prior to the meeting and then anyone who else wishes to speak

[7:59] may have an opportunity.

[8:06] Please note that all speakers will be given no more than 5 minutes to speak.

[8:10] Is there anybody willing to speak?

[8:17] There are no formal registration to speak. Is there anyone present wishing

[8:21] to speak to this matter?

[8:28] Is there anyone present wishing to speak to this matter?

[8:35] Is there anyone present wishing to speak to this matter?

[8:39] » One second, Joe. >> [clears throat]

[8:46] » Okay.

[8:55] Apologies, Mr. Mayor. It appears the submission from Battle River Watershed

[8:58] Alliance was not provided in writing to council, and so I will read it into the

[9:01] record. >> Thank you.

[9:11] » Uh entitled Watershed Considerations for the Evergreen Special Study Area

[9:15] Statutory Plan. Battle River Watershed Alliance, as the

[9:19] provincially designated watershed planning and advisory council for the

[9:22] Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds in Alberta,

[9:25] appreciates the opportunity to engage with the City of Wetaskiwin and provide

[9:29] input on the Evergreen Area Structure Plan, the plan.

[9:32] We provided initial feedback through the Special Study Area Survey in February

[9:36] 2026 and would like to follow up on a few key recommendations as they pertain

[9:40] to the final draft of the plan. As outlined under the environmental

[9:45] stewardship and open space integration section on page 10 of the plan,

[9:50] environmental preservation was identified as a paramount priority

[9:53] across all stakeholder groups. Participants explicitly called for the

[9:57] protection of existing wetlands, mature tree stands, and natural drainage

[10:01] patterns. Related to the protection of existing

[10:05] wetlands, BRWA would like to reiterate our recommendation to protect the

[10:09] wetland in the southeast corner of the study area.

[10:12] As identified in the image on in the submission and described in

[10:16] greater detail as part of the Marsh 2 wetland complex on page 24 of the city

[10:21] of Wetaskiwin special study area biophysical impact assessment.

[10:27] Currently, the plan proposes a new collector road at 47th Avenue that would

[10:30] curve to connect with West Street running north-south.

[10:34] As identified in figure six of the plan and figure 3.2 of the Wetaskiwin special

[10:39] study area structure plan transportation impact assessment,

[10:43] this road would pass directly through the wetland area.

[10:47] As identified in the biophysical impact assessment, historical imagery has shown

[10:51] this to be a persistent wetland complex. In order to more fully protect this

[10:55] wetland, the collector road could curve around the northeast side of the wetland

[11:00] or be located further north from 48th Avenue to West Street.

[11:04] In addition, park space two could be expanded to more meaningfully recognize

[11:08] and protect the extent of this wetland. See figure eight on page 29 of the plan.

[11:14] Note open space area one and two descriptions on page 17 of the plan are

[11:18] not aligned with the park space numbers in figure eight.

[11:22] Another wetland area and park space that would benefit from further evaluation is

[11:26] Fen 1 and park space six. As described on page 24 of the

[11:30] biophysical Impact Assessment. Historical imagery repeatedly shows

[11:35] modeled wet areas and ponding within this portion of the site, supporting the

[11:39] interpretation that wet conditions have persisted in this area over time.

[11:44] The mapped connection between Fen 1 and Marsh 2 suggests hydrologic interaction

[11:48] between these wetland units, particularly during wetter periods or

[11:52] spring runoff. Given the above, protecting the fen area

[11:57] identified in the yellow box in the below image in the submission, could

[12:01] support hydrologic and ecological connectivity in the study area.

[12:05] Currently, Park Space 6 is located south of 49th Avenue and does not coincide

[12:10] with this wetland area. The park space could be expanded or

[12:14] moved to the north to provide meaningful protection of this wetland, as well as

[12:18] enhanced connectivity between park spaces 6, 7, and 2, and Fen 1 and Marsh

[12:23] 2. Thank you for the opportunity to provide

[12:25] feedback on the draft plan. We would welcome any follow-up questions or

[12:29] further discussion about these concerns and potential solutions.

[12:36] » I would like to thank everyone for their presentation of this hearing.

[12:40] » [clears throat] >> Council will discuss and debate this

[12:43] matter later in this meeting. I declare the public hearing for bylaw 211

[12:48] 3 -26 and 2113-26

[12:53] closed at 4:12.

[12:57] Thank you all. We will move on to

[13:04] business arising Oh, public hearing. We're sorry we got that.

[13:08] Business arising of the minutes.

[13:13] Staff report for decision.

[13:18] Six 6.1, please.

[13:24] » Is it on? Okay.

[13:27] The budget accountability policy CO-012. The purpose of this report is to obtain

[13:34] council's approval on the budget accountability policy, which was

[13:37] initially presented at the Committee of the Whole meeting on July 14, 2026.

[13:43] At the meeting, council requested a few changes in which include the following:

[13:48] a change to the policy statement, a removal of the definition of

[13:53] management, a requirement for operating budget

[13:57] approval to include council's up- operating budget amendment to include

[14:02] council's approval, as well as that of budget reallocations. These changes have

[14:07] now been incorporated into the policy that is hereby presented to council for

[14:11] approval today. Thank you.

[14:17] » Councillor Hoy, Councillor White.

[14:23] » I move that council approve the budget accountability policy C0-

[14:28] or CO-012 as presented.

[14:32] And I'd like to start by through the chair to

[14:36] administration, I appreciate the

[14:39] time and effort that's been taken to get council's feedback and input in

[14:45] these finance policies. I recognize we have a a number of them today that have

[14:50] uh taken work and you have

[14:55] uh diligently implemented or tried to accom-

[14:59] incorporate the feedback that was received from council.

[15:03] I appreciate that and I will be supporting the motion I just made.

[15:10] » Okay, any further questions?

[15:14] If not, can I have a vote on the motion, please? All of those in

[15:18] favor?

[15:21] Carried. Thank you.

[15:25] Item 6.2.

[15:29] » The next policy is the procurement or purchasing policy CO-016.

[15:35] This policy was also presented to council for feedback at the July 28th

[15:40] Committee of the Whole meeting. Um council provided its input into the

[15:44] policy and that has since been updated in the final document that's hereby

[15:48] presented for approval.

[15:56] » Have a motion, please. >> Councillor Neilson.

[16:00] I move the council gives approval. Sorry, I move the council approve the

[16:04] procurement purchasing policy CO-016 as presented and I do not have any

[16:10] questions but will be supporting this motion.

[16:14] » Thank you. Any further questions from my

[16:17] colleagues? If not, I'll have a motion to accept

[16:22] this. All those in favor? Barry, thank you.

[16:33] We will move on to 7.2.

[16:37] » 6.3. >> Oh, I'm sorry.

[16:41] 6.3, I missed one. >> Item 6.3.

[16:44] » It's on the back. Go ahead. It's on the back page, I'm

[16:48] sorry.

[16:51] Go ahead. >> The long-term debt policy CO-064.

[16:56] The long the long-term debt policy was presented um to council for the its

[17:01] input at the July 28th, 2026 meeting. This is a brand new policy that

[17:07] discusses our debt limit and um how debt is to be handled in the municipality. Um

[17:13] the total outstanding debt as of June 30th, 2026 was 8.8 million and details

[17:19] of repayment has been included in council's agenda and was also discussed

[17:24] at the previous meeting.

[17:28] Thank you. >> Councilor [clears throat] White.

[17:41] Councilor White, can I have a motion?

[17:45] » Sorry, I my mic wasn't on. I apologize, Mayor Brinkle. I move that council

[17:49] approve the long-term debt policy CO-064 as presented.

[17:54] » Thank you. All of those in favor?

[18:00] Carried, thank you. We'll move on to 6.4

[18:04] Chambers upgrade.

[18:11] Sorry.

[18:24] » Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. For the record, my name is Chris Bond,

[18:27] Manager of Fleet and Facilities. Today, I am seeking council's

[18:31] consideration and direction on the preferred layout for council chamber

[18:34] upgrade project and furniture options. At the July

[18:38] pardon me, at the June 23rd regular council meeting, council

[18:42] directed administration to develop additional layout options that keep all

[18:46] council members seated together on the same level

[18:49] while maintaining the historic character of council chambers.

[18:53] At that time, council also requested an option that utilizes the existing

[18:57] furniture. In response, administration has

[19:00] developed two additional layouts, option F and G, that

[19:05] are located within your agenda package. Both options seat all council on the

[19:09] same level together within a gallery configuration.

[19:14] These provide the direct sight lines between council, administration, and the

[19:17] public all while retaining the historic judges bench in order to preserve the

[19:21] historical character of the room. The two layouts differ primarily in the

[19:28] orientation of council within the room. Layout F relocates council to the south

[19:33] side of the chambers while layout G positions council along

[19:37] the east and south wall providing improved separation between council,

[19:41] administration, and public to best support the recommendations identified

[19:45] within council chamber security review. Upon evaluation of both options,

[19:50] administration is recommending layout G as it provides the best balance of

[19:54] functionality, heritage preservation, security, and

[19:58] sightlines for council, administration, and the general public.

[20:02] Today's decision will provide administration with the direction we

[20:05] require on the preferred layout and furniture options.

[20:09] This will then allow administration to complete a finalized design budget or

[20:14] detailed design, capture the full project costing, submit the final design

[20:18] for provincial heritage approval, and then return to council if additional

[20:23] funding is required. This concludes my presentation and then

[20:26] I'm happy to answer any questions council may have.

[20:32] » Can I have a motion, please? Councillor Billingsley.

[20:40] » Microphone on, please. Sorry. I move that council directs administration to

[20:44] proceed with council chambers layout

[20:49] G and retrofit council desks option.

[20:56] And I will speak to that. >> Go ahead.

[21:02] » I'm a little torn between F and G. Um I personally like the look of F

[21:09] better, but I understand the security concerns that these when the security

[21:13] audit was done of why administration is recommending

[21:18] G. Um,

[21:21] it's my understanding that um, a new desk would be required for council to

[21:27] sit at. Um, but it's also my understanding that

[21:31] um, it can be done in-house.

[21:34] Um, to be able to not have a large expense to be able to

[21:39] do this. So, for that reason, I will support G.

[21:43] But, if somebody wants to convince uh, convince me that F is better, that's

[21:46] fine, too.

[21:50] » Councillor White. >> I'm not sure I can convince my fellow

[21:54] councillor, but I do have a question for administration. So, thank you, Mayor

[21:58] Branco, through the chair to our administration.

[22:03] In the layout variation F, would the same it the drawing looks like

[22:10] the same table for council as in drawing G. So, is there any

[22:16] reason that variation G is

[22:20] of lower less expense? >> Uh, through the chair to the question

[22:25] uh, to the council's question. Um,

[22:29] what we've proposed is the the layout options with either

[22:34] um, layout F or G. And then, a supplemental question uh, for council to

[22:40] uh, provide direction on whether we were to retrofit existing furniture as best

[22:45] we can or purchase new. So, that would be with either option uh, for the

[22:51] retrofit.

[22:58] » Can you say that last bit one more time? I need just need to absorb it. I

[23:02] apologize for not catching it all. >> Not a problem.

[23:06] Within either option F and G, what we proposed is a gullwing design for the

[23:12] counselor desks. What we're seeking is a decision from

[23:15] counselor within either option to whether to try and retrofit the

[23:20] existing furniture that we have which would pertain to both layout options

[23:25] or to procure new furnishings for the chambers.

[23:31] » So that I understand then

[23:35] the layout is a choice and then the furniture either new or retrofit is a

[23:41] choice. Two separate choices to make. >> That would be correct.

[23:44] » Thank you. If we're just laying on design, I I

[23:49] don't think I can support my fellow counselors

[23:52] um motion for G because I really like F

[23:56] better.

[23:59] » Counselor Hoy. >> Um

[24:02] Thank you, Chris. To uh through the chair to administration. So you speak of

[24:07] a security audit. And I believe that was probably before

[24:11] this council's time. And so what

[24:16] what was said in that audit that suggests

[24:21] G would be better for security. >> Uh through the chair to the question. Um

[24:27] I would rather take that uh in camera or take it as a formal information request

[24:33] and to uh discuss what was in the the the security review for for the chambers

[24:38] in open forum. >> Thank you.

[24:42] » Counselor Neilson. >> Do you want to go in?

[24:50] » I move that we go into closed session.

[24:54] » All of those in favor?

[38:24] » Mhm.

[40:19] » Mhm.

[41:27] » Okay, we on?

[41:32] » We are live, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you. Can I have a motion to come

[41:35] out of camera, please? Councilor White.

[41:41] » I move we come out of camera. >> All those in favor?

[41:47] Very thank you. Continue on, please. Any further questions

[41:52] to Chris?

[41:56] Chris, I have a question. Uh

[42:00] cost for just upgrading

[42:04] electronics, I call electronics all the upgrades to the new

[42:08] cameras or IT equipment.

[42:12] Do you know the cost of that?

[42:19] Microphone, please.

[42:22] » Sorry. Through the chair to the chair, the current budget that we have that has

[42:27] been previously approved is 99,000 for information technology

[42:32] replacement. Uh to bear in mind, that does not include

[42:37] uh the infrastructure upgrades. That's part of the facilities budget that

[42:41] that we take on through the 96,000 that is earmarked for facilities.

[42:49] » So, 90 let's say 99,000. Roughly 100.

[42:56] Rough estimate on moving any kind of furniture around there. So, what is the

[43:01] total budget we allowed for this upgrade, including

[43:06] I know you can't answer that cuz we don't know what we're doing, but but

[43:09] what is our budget that we allowed for this upgrade?

[43:13] » Uh through the chair to the chair, uh the overarching budget uh for both

[43:17] portions that has been previously approved is $195,000.

[43:23] » Thank you very much. Any further questions from my

[43:27] colleagues?

[43:31] Councillor White. >> Thank you, Mayor Branco. Through the

[43:34] chair to administration, please confirm that I understand correctly.

[43:38] Um variation E

[43:42] is no changes to furniture and would be only

[43:49] the technology upgrades that have been proposed.

[43:59] » Uh through the chair to the question, um that would be correct. There would be uh

[44:04] infrastructure upgrades that we would have to undertake as well.

[44:07] Um but it it remains pretty much status quo with the addition of the original

[44:13] bar uh that was in the courthouse at the at

[44:17] the time. >> Thank you. With that, I think is what

[44:20] I'm most likely to favor, so I probably will

[44:23] I anticipate not supporting um

[44:27] Councilor Billingsley's uh move.

[44:35] » I have a question. Uh Chris, when we say IT, does that mean we we're

[44:39] getting new um

[44:44] computers in front of us? Larger one? Is there any lights or

[44:48] something that we push a button we want to speak or

[44:52] or we just keep the same apparatus what we have on top of our desk?

[44:58] » Uh through the chair to the chair, I am going to defer to my uh colleague in IT

[45:04] who will be able to answer to that question for you a little bit better

[45:06] than I will. >> Thank you.

[45:08] » Yes, Mayor. Uh the equipment that's planned to be replaced is the

[45:11] microphones, the um screens in front of you,

[45:16] and the TVs up on the wall, and the speakers sound system.

[45:19] Plus as Chris alluded to, also to support all that is the infrastructure

[45:24] wiring cabling to make it uh full or long-term cabling instead of over the

[45:29] floor.

[45:32] » Thank you. Councilor Billingsley.

[45:36] » Thank you. Through the chair to council, I guess. Um if G is not

[45:42] approved or any others and we go with status quo,

[45:46] um the 90 9,000, 96,000, whatever the dollar

[45:50] amount was for the IT portion, um there still will be capital costs as far

[45:57] as um we will be dipping into the other

[46:02] $100,000 for some work that has to be done within council chambers, no matter

[46:07] what. Is that correct? >> Through the chair to the the question,

[46:11] that would be a correct statement. What administration is looking for is

[46:16] direction from council from two areas on the layout and whether we are going to

[46:22] re-man and reuse the furniture that we have.

[46:26] At that time, once we once we have determined the the layout, then we will

[46:30] be able to put together a more accurate picture of what those costs are going to

[46:36] be. >> So, I'll follow up with that. So,

[46:40] to council, if if it because you don't want to go with variation

[46:47] F or G is because it costs more for the renovation.

[46:53] There still will be costs involved whether we keep the look of it being the

[46:58] same. And I think that that has to be understood, right? That we still

[47:04] will have other expenses other than the IT portion of that.

[47:08] Make that very clear.

[47:13] » Question. So, status quo, my my understanding would be everything stays

[47:18] the same the way it is. Other than if we have a few bugs on our

[47:24] TV or our microphones, but

[47:29] it's hard to approve something we don't know what actually the cost is.

[47:35] Are we upgrading one, two, three TVs? Are we spending 40,000, 50,000?

[47:43] My my understanding, maybe correct me if I'm wrong,

[47:48] the status quo would be leave it the way it is.

[47:53] Is that correct or

[47:58] Yes, sir. >> Thank you. Um

[48:01] through the chair to council, status quo would be for the furniture,

[48:04] the technology upgrade still needs to happen. So, that is within approved

[48:08] budget. There's a There's a lot of clunkiness

[48:11] and and I know uh we've run into this before. We've had

[48:14] to stop council because we've lost live feed or we've lost the ability to

[48:18] connect the different systems. We've got way too many systems that are running to

[48:22] try and make this work efficiently. Um and we're at risk almost every

[48:27] meeting of uh of not being able to connect

[48:29] properly. >> So,

[48:32] if I may, status quo plus $99,000 for IT

[48:40] is what we have budget.

[48:44] Councilor Billingsley. >> Through to the mayor, no. And that was

[48:50] the point I was trying to make. No matter what, if we decide to upgrade IT,

[48:54] there will be other expenses even if we leave this setup the same as it is

[48:59] today.

[49:06] Does that make sense to you?

[49:08] » No. No, that That's confusing. If we're

[49:11] upgrading IT, we have a budget of $99,000.

[49:15] $999 or $900. I'm sorry. $100,000. Let's forget $100,000. So,

[49:21] that would covers all IT and everything else to bring in IT. What

[49:27] is the other cost for furniture?

[49:33] » Through the chair to the chair, those additional costs would be borne under

[49:38] the 96,000 that has been uh previously approved uh for those infrastructure

[49:44] upgrades to support the new IT hardware uh that that would be required to

[49:51] sustain council meetings moving forward. >> Thank you.

[49:56] Erin Abernethy. >> Thank you, Joe Branco. And I'm I'm just

[50:00] having fun with you today. Thank you, Mayor Branco. Through the chair to

[50:04] council. Um

[50:08] I would really like to divide this question into two questions.

[50:13] So, we're not getting confused into where

[50:17] the numbers are aren't. Um

[50:25] is I am not in favor of any changes to

[50:32] the room. Uh

[50:36] other than maybe some cosmetic, but I am totally in favor of being more

[50:41] accessible to the community by having an upgraded um

[50:47] Sorry. I these stuff

[50:51] sound system and and do all of that. And so,

[50:55] my position right now is to just vote no

[50:59] for everything.

[51:03] Like both of these questions. And I I wonder if

[51:06] that is also a challenge.

[51:13] » Councillor White. >> Thank you, Mayor Branco.

[51:18] If the motion that's on the table for variation G is defeated,

[51:22] I am prepared to make a motion for variation E, which is no change in

[51:27] furniture. The upgrades to technology have already

[51:31] been approved, so that's um not the question on the table, I

[51:35] believe.

[51:39] That's where I'll be. >> Councillor Billingsley.

[51:42] » Thank you. I'll put in one last

[51:47] for a variation G. If the we are going to have capital expense

[51:51] whether we go with EF or G. And I think, in my opinion, that G is a

[51:59] more efficient way for us to communicate with each other and be able to have

[52:05] um conversation much better than than what we have currently.

[52:11] So, either way, whether it's EF or G, we are going to have expenses

[52:17] um outside of IT.

[52:23] » Councilor Neilson. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[52:27] Chris,

[52:30] I'm wondering if you could

[52:36] help me understand when you say other

[52:40] structural changes to accommodate IT. We at one point talked about

[52:46] floor channels for for wiring, we talked about a new carpet.

[52:51] From from off the top of your head, what is that

[52:55] $100,000 going to buy us outside of the

[52:59] $100,000 we set aside for technology?

[53:04] » Uh through the chair to the question. Um so, uh two points with that. Uh within

[53:10] that those infrastructure upgrades to run those new data lines, uh get those

[53:15] buried within floor, uh for the electrical that would be

[53:19] required so that we don't have extension cords

[53:22] uh running over uh council chambers, providing a tripping hazard. Both of

[53:27] those two items uh we're targeting at $58,000 to to complete that work, to be

[53:32] able to pull the floor up, uh run those conduits, channels, uh new

[53:38] circuits uh for the electrical portion, and a lot of data lines coming back to

[53:44] each individual workstation. So, just that portion of the infrastructure

[53:50] alone, we've budgeted $58,000 for just that portion. Now, to keep in

[53:57] mind those incremental costs from a design perspective, they will increase

[54:01] the however we we do the layout, but we are still going to get hit with a good

[54:07] portion of that $58,000 regardless of whether we stay status

[54:12] quo, we go with whatever option that council desires moving forward.

[54:18] So, that is just one thing to to keep in mind is that we will still get hit with

[54:22] a base charge for those. The incremental cost for moving 10 ft,

[54:27] we'd have to start capturing those costs once we have a defined definitive

[54:31] layout, uh but we still will get hit with a portion of those costs.

[54:36] » Thank you. And the status of the floor covering, where does that fit into all

[54:40] of these numbers? >> Uh the floor covering uh pardon me, uh

[54:43] through the chair to the question. Uh the floor covering uh that is a

[54:47] completely uh separate capital charter that is funded to I believe

[54:52] top of mind 14,000 that we do have uh funding for. So, that that isn't

[54:58] included within this project scope per se. Um it is another line item that was

[55:04] previously approved by council. >> Thank you. In relation to the

[55:09] uh variation or scale number E, you indicated the

[55:14] reinstallation of the fence. So, I'm assuming the fence is intact. It's a

[55:19] matter of just nailing it to the floor. Not really, but

[55:23] » Uh through the chair to the question. Um

[55:27] in a roundabout way, yes, that would be correct. It It is not the

[55:33] fabrication of a new um uh bar per se. We We do have the original bar uh from

[55:39] when it was a courthouse. Uh the the idea would be to just reinstall it in in

[55:45] the space if that is the way that we are going

[55:48] » Thank you. And if we go to variation G, where we have two lines on on my picture

[55:54] here um delineating between the public and

[55:58] council and administration, there appears to be another fence type

[56:02] structure there. Um

[56:04] I'm assuming that would then need to be fabricated from scratch.

[56:09] » Through the chair to the question. Uh that's one of the things that we'd have

[56:12] to take as a takeaway for the final design.

[56:15] Uh the intent would be to uh utilize a portion of the existing bar that we

[56:21] have, but I would anticipate with that design that we would have to custom

[56:25] fabricate cate pardon me custom fabricate a few bits

[56:30] and pieces um to augment uh what we don't have.

[56:43] » And my last question, and Chris, thank you for indulging me, is uh

[56:51] I I I sort of asked this question before we were redirected out here. Um

[56:58] If we maintain the structure we currently have right

[57:02] now, we tear up the floor, put the new

[57:04] runways in, blah blah blah blah, all of that,

[57:08] then down the road, if there is an intent

[57:13] to add furniture when we become really rich

[57:17] as a community, um we could build new,

[57:23] but would have to maintain the same design

[57:28] as we're sitting at now because of the underfloor

[57:33] cabling channels. >> Uh through the chair to the question,

[57:38] um that would mean remain true with any

[57:42] option that that council would consider and and direct administration. Uh

[57:47] whether it be option G, there's there's always, let's say, a

[57:52] little little bit of room for wiggle room, uh but I think that's that's where

[57:55] council needs to make that decision on on long-term of what they

[58:00] what they envision and see for the layout of of council chambers. I think

[58:03] » what I was leading up to is that >> [clears throat]

[58:06] » while this particular seating arrangement and

[58:10] structure is what it is today,

[58:14] it could be 3 years from now new,

[58:19] newly fabricated, but it still take this form. So, we don't have to necessarily

[58:23] buy new furniture today, we could buy new furniture

[58:27] next week, next year, next whenever. Okay.

[58:31] » Uh through the chair to the question, yes, that would be a uh a correct

[58:35] statement and then that would hold true for any of the layout options as well.

[58:38] Thank you.

[58:43] » Uh question, Chris. Hypothetical question.

[58:50] IT, let's say we wanted new computers and

[58:53] laptops, can we not run electrical cords or wire

[58:58] or whatever above the carpet as we have right now?

[59:03] It just I know we you say we got electrical

[59:06] wire, but where it's operating now, so if you have new wiring and still have

[59:11] the same status without ripping

[59:16] the floor up? >> Through the chair to uh

[59:20] to the chair, um i- if that's council's desire to stay

[59:24] status quo with the uh with the

[59:28] uh current technology and current layout um then that that is uh council's

[59:35] desire. What administration has it is proposing is updating that

[59:41] uh sorely needed IT hardware that we do see ongoing issues with

[59:47] and provide those infrastructure upgrades to

[59:50] to prepare us for um

[59:54] better today and and and and better in the future.

[1:00:00] Thank you. >> Councilor Elder.

[1:00:03] » Mr. Uh one whoops. I'm not sure that's on.

[1:00:06] Sorry, but [clears throat] just one quick question with F or G, do we lose

[1:00:09] one bench in here like for seating? We've got 1 2 3 4 5 6 benches and

[1:00:16] currently I only see four in the diagram.

[1:00:21] » Uh through the chair to the uh question that that is correct. Uh we'd have to

[1:00:25] take any design uh that uh council would like us to move forward

[1:00:30] with and we would need to finalize uh exactly

[1:00:35] what we have.

[1:00:53] » So I guess Council Billings, you have a motion on the table for

[1:00:57] » I do. >> Okay.

[1:01:00] Could you please read it so we can vote on it?

[1:01:03] » I move that uh I move that city council directs

[1:01:06] administration to proceed uh with council chamber layout

[1:01:11] uh G

[1:01:15] and retrofit council desk option. >> Thank you.

[1:01:22] All of those in favor?

[1:01:26] Opposed?

[1:01:28] Defeated.

[1:01:32] Councillor White.

[1:01:38] » I move the council directs administration to proceed with council

[1:01:41] chamber layout option E.

[1:01:48] » Thank you.

[1:01:52] Can I have a vote on >> Excuse me, Mr. Mayor.

[1:01:55] » Yes, sir. >> You're talking about just You're talking

[1:01:59] about just the layout at this point? >> Councillor White?

[1:02:02] » Yep. >> So So nothing to do with furniture per

[1:02:05] se? >> Option E does not include any retrofit

[1:02:08] or need to change. It's Keep it as is.

[1:02:17] » Councillor Billingsley. >> Thank you. Um

[1:02:23] through the chair to Councillor White. So are you talking

[1:02:28] about leaving everything the same and just adding new tech and not channeling,

[1:02:34] or are you looking to spend the I think uh Chris said about 60 50 60

[1:02:40] thousand dollars for upgrading channeling.

[1:02:44] » Through the chair to Councillor Billingsley, my understanding is that

[1:02:46] the IT

[1:02:49] uh upgrade has already been approved and there's already been money set for that

[1:02:54] for both >> [clears throat]

[1:02:55] » the IT and for whatever it needs to be done in in the facility to accommodate

[1:03:01] that. And my motion is for

[1:03:07] variation E as it's drawn and presented before us.

[1:03:12] » Thank you.

[1:03:14] » I think Councillor Aberly had her hand up and then Councillor Nealson.

[1:03:18] » Yes, thank you, sir. I believe that the last question was the same as my

[1:03:23] question, so I think it was answered. >> Thank you. Councillor Nealson.

[1:03:30] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm wondering if my colleague would

[1:03:35] accept a friendly amendment to as part of the proposal for them to

[1:03:41] come back with a costing

[1:03:46] Hmm.

[1:03:49] I'm going to back up.

[1:03:53] I'm assuming you're making an um

[1:04:00] I'm assuming that you're assuming

[1:04:03] » Well, at no danger there. >> Yeah, yeah, right.

[1:04:05] That the only cost that would be incurred

[1:04:10] with this is the money that's already been committed.

[1:04:19] Would you accept a friendly amendment as part of

[1:04:24] that motion to also at the same time

[1:04:30] get a quote on

[1:04:35] new furniture, new desks, whatever. >> Nope, that's not friendly to me.

[1:04:40] » Thank you. >> I want to leave it as is.

[1:04:42] » Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make amendment to the motion that's on the floor.

[1:04:46] » Go ahead. >> I would like to

[1:04:51] get a cost estimate of what it would include

[1:04:55] on variation E for new

[1:05:00] refabricated, whatever the terminology would be,

[1:05:03] um working stations for council.

[1:05:08] » So, if correct me if if wrong, but so we're going to vote on your

[1:05:12] amendment. Correct? >> That is correct. All I'm asking for is a

[1:05:17] I I believe I can support >> [clears throat]

[1:05:25] » I thought you were correcting me.

[1:05:28] My other colleagues could not have been so cautious about doing that. Um

[1:05:36] I would just like to get a cost estimate as to what is what would it cost if we

[1:05:39] replace this existing working stations for

[1:05:43] council.

[1:05:48] » Councilor Billingsley and then Councilor White.

[1:05:51] » Through the chair to Councilor Councilor Neilson.

[1:05:56] Why? And and and the reason I say that is

[1:06:01] part of the reason was to keep the ambiance of the original courthouse and

[1:06:05] now you're looking for something new.

[1:06:08] Why? >> Well, if you want me to get really

[1:06:11] serious, then I would say not something new from this perspective of new. I

[1:06:15] would say something new that would incorporate paneling that would look

[1:06:19] similar to what's already in the building. Not new

[1:06:22] IKEA white glossy something that adds to

[1:06:27] to the historical

[1:06:30] ambiance.

[1:06:35] » Councilor White. >> I believe this amendment is

[1:06:39] uh better suited as a request for information and not an amendment to my

[1:06:43] motion.

[1:06:50] » Councilor Aberley. >> Thank you, sir. Through the chair to

[1:06:55] council, um I will agree with Councilor White. And

[1:07:02] here's where we sit, and I don't think I need to say it, but I'm going to say it

[1:07:05] for anybody that hasn't met me. I love the idea of the paneling. There

[1:07:09] are two desks, maybe three desks here that have the paneling and Councillor

[1:07:15] Billingsley and I sit at the kids table. Kids tables that have are the reason for

[1:07:20] this curtaining. So, I would be open to Councillor Nielsen's request,

[1:07:28] but separate from this vote. In that, I want to figure the plan and

[1:07:34] then we'll talk about money for furniture second.

[1:07:46] » My concern is that the the motion on the floor

[1:07:49] is saying leave everything as is with the

[1:07:54] exception of the technology.

[1:07:58] And if that motion passes, a second motion to consider furniture

[1:08:05] is counter to the motion that would have just been approved.

[1:08:10] » Uh Mayor Bronco, may I just because it's

[1:08:13] directly to that? >> Go ahead.

[1:08:17] » I see the first motion as a what does the

[1:08:24] layout look like? And so, we agree on a layout and then

[1:08:29] and I'm not saying we talked about this 13 weeks from now. I'm saying following

[1:08:33] that we then discuss do we want new furniture to fit within the agreed upon

[1:08:41] layout?

[1:08:45] » So, my question to Councillor White would be, is that your intention to the

[1:08:48] motion? You're not talking about furniture, you're talking about design

[1:08:52] layout. >> Correct. Layout as presented in the

[1:08:56] drawing.

[1:09:00] » Okay.

[1:09:04] I'd be happy to withdraw my amendment at this time.

[1:09:08] » Thank you, Councillor Neilson. We'll be voting on

[1:09:13] motion by Councillor White. Can you repeat that, Councillor White, please,

[1:09:16] so we can vote on it?

[1:09:23] » I move the I move that council directs administration to proceed with council

[1:09:27] chambers layout option E.

[1:09:33] » Thank you. Any further questions? If not,

[1:09:36] I'll ask for any further questions.

[1:09:42] Can I have a vote, please, on motion E.

[1:09:46] All those in favor?

[1:09:49] Opposed?

[1:09:55] Carried. Thank you.

[1:10:02] Councillor Neilson.

[1:10:05] » As part of this conversation, I would like to make a motion, Mr. Mayor.

[1:10:09] » Please.

[1:10:12] » I would move council directs administration to provide a quote

[1:10:19] for replacing existing council

[1:10:23] workstations

[1:10:28] with

[1:10:31] with new

[1:10:35] but not to lose the ambience of the original

[1:10:39] courthouse

[1:10:42] design.

[1:10:46] » Any questions?

[1:10:50] Councillor Aberley. >> Uh thank you, sir,

[1:10:54] through the chair to Councillor Neilson, Um do you have a date that you would

[1:11:01] like this information back? >> Yesterday.

[1:11:04] » Great. And then a realistic date? >> That wasn't realistic.

[1:11:09] Um

[1:11:12] I would defer to you, Chris. >> Um through the chair to the Councillor's

[1:11:16] question. And if I may, we we did and this may solve and answer a few

[1:11:21] questions for you. Um not entirely the intent of of what your

[1:11:28] motion and your ask is. But we did price out a few options along

[1:11:34] the way. One of them was um an increase of

[1:11:38] to the the current Councillor's desks in the

[1:11:41] current configuration. It didn't include um

[1:11:46] uh raised paneling or to meet the the the character that that we currently see

[1:11:51] in the room. That cost for the two desks was 18,000. I would anticipate that we

[1:11:57] we would probably be in about the $35,000 range

[1:12:01] um to do the raised panels for for the two desks.

[1:12:07] If we were to go that route of raised panels and and wood desk to meet the the

[1:12:12] character of the room. >> And

[1:12:18] please don't mis- mis- understand my my comment.

[1:12:22] Um

[1:12:26] I would like to get

[1:12:31] I'd like to get a a proper quote. So that I'm dealing with

[1:12:36] accurate numbers. If it is at

[1:12:39] $35,000 that's quite different than 18,000

[1:12:42] whatever. Um

[1:12:47] but if it's 18 then it's it's a different part of the ballgame.

[1:12:51] Um, my only concern No, I have two concerns. One obviously

[1:12:56] is cost, but the other one is not losing the character of the

[1:12:59] building. That that I think anytime anybody's come into this

[1:13:03] building, they are jaw-dropped

[1:13:06] um by the facility, and I would not want to

[1:13:10] lose that by modernizing, so to speak. So, I would

[1:13:15] appreciate accurate accurate numbers.

[1:13:18] Thank you. >> So, we need a motion for that.

[1:13:26] Sue?

[1:13:29] Councilor White.

[1:13:31] » Um, we do have a motion on the floor from

[1:13:35] Councilor Neilson. And I I appreciate the

[1:13:39] desire for accurate uh

[1:13:42] financial information to make a decision, and I intend to support his

[1:13:45] motion. >> Thank you. Any further questions?

[1:13:53] If not, Councilor Neilson, can you please repeat your motion so we can vote

[1:13:57] on it?

[1:14:00] » Maybe. I don't need to capture it, or am I

[1:14:03] winging it?

[1:14:29] Want to add a date. That will do it for me. Do you want to add a date?

[1:14:36] Chris, let's add a date.

[1:14:44] » Through the chair to the council. I I think um

[1:14:48] once we get a a design, um go back to uh

[1:14:53] a millwork company, we we'd probably be able to turn that

[1:14:57] around in in 4 to 6 weeks. >> Thank you. 4 to 6 weeks.

[1:15:02] Not 46, but just I would I would um

[1:15:06] within I would I I would ask for it to be done in 4 weeks.

[1:15:12] And if you have to have an extension, you can have an extension. But right now

[1:15:15] I want 4 weeks. >> Okay.

[1:15:21] » So you're looking for September the 23rd, I believe.

[1:15:24] » If your calendar is correct and I trust you, the answer would be yes.

[1:15:29] » [laughter]

[1:15:31] » Thank you. Counselor Aberley, you had a question.

[1:15:35] » No, sir, it was answered. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:15:41] So when Counselor Neill, can you make the motion so we can vote, please? You

[1:15:44] got the date. >> You had the date. Um the council directs

[1:15:49] administration provide a quote in 4 weeks for replacing existing council

[1:15:53] workstations while maintaining the existing character of council chambers.

[1:15:59] » Thank you. All of those in favor?

[1:16:06] Opposed?

[1:16:08] Carried. Thank you.

[1:16:12] Finally, we got a decision over 2 years.

[1:16:17] Are you happy now, Karen? >> Yes, sir. Thank you.

[1:16:26] » We will move on to item 7.2. Emily, please.

[1:16:53] » Good evening, Council. My name is Emily Sangster, Manager of Planning and

[1:16:56] Development, and with me is Michael Reyes from Arcades, our consultant on

[1:17:00] the Evergreen Area Structure Plan. The purpose of the presentation for this

[1:17:04] current agenda item is to present for second and third reading bylaw 2112-26,

[1:17:10] which would amend the Municipal Development Plan or MDP to incorporate

[1:17:14] the policies and designations proposed in bylaw 2113-26,

[1:17:19] Evergreen Area Structure Plan, which will subsequently be presented for

[1:17:22] second and third readings. The MGA requires that our Municipal

[1:17:26] Government Act requires that any Area Structure Plan be consistent with the

[1:17:30] applicable MDP, and the MDP prevails in the event that

[1:17:33] there's any inconsistency between the two plans.

[1:17:37] Therefore, we are proposing amendments to the city's 2024 MDP to incorporate

[1:17:41] the changes proposed in the ASP, and then ensure the ASP can be adopted in a

[1:17:45] manner consistent with the approved MDP. The changes are detailed in the bylaw in

[1:17:50] attachment one, includes some minor text changes to

[1:17:54] update policy direction um in section 3.1.1, established

[1:17:59] neighborhood, to clarify where light industrial uses may be permitted, and to

[1:18:02] refer to area structure plans alongside area redevelopment plans as statutory

[1:18:07] plans that may provide direction on the compatibility of new development.

[1:18:11] Removing the existing policy section and implementation item providing direction

[1:18:15] for future study in the special study area now that that's been completed. And

[1:18:20] replacing maps two and maps four with amended maps that represent the proper

[1:18:25] Evergreen ASP boundary and the land use designations that are proposed.

[1:18:30] As I noted at first reading, the land use designations in map four do not

[1:18:34] correspond exactly to the land use designations in the ASP land use

[1:18:38] concept. And this is because the MDP's land use designations are broader than

[1:18:42] those in the ASP. Additionally, the policies for the

[1:18:46] relevant land use designations in the MDP indicate that statutory plans such

[1:18:50] as this may provide further policy direction in specific areas.

[1:18:54] So, with that summary, I'd be happy to take any questions regarding this

[1:18:57] proposed bylaw. >> Councilor Neilson.

[1:19:01] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move the council give second reading to bylaw

[1:19:05] 2112-26 amending the Municipal Development Plan

[1:19:09] to incorporate amendments proposed in the Evergreen Area Structure Plan.

[1:19:14] » Thank you. Any questions? Councilor Buildingsley.

[1:19:19] » Thank you. Um

[1:19:22] through the chair to the mayor.

[1:19:24] Um when we had first reading, um you voted against this

[1:19:29] and I'm trying to understand why that would be and you don't have to

[1:19:34] necessarily Well, you don't have to answer that question, but I'm trying to

[1:19:38] understand why. Is there some Is there amendment

[1:19:42] that we possibly could make for you to support this? Is there something about

[1:19:47] this that isn't sitting right? >> I'm ask I have a couple questions I

[1:19:51] going to ask that so you can answer that.

[1:19:53] » Perfect. Thank you. >> Malik.

[1:19:55] So, one of my questions we had a this week or last week we had

[1:20:01] an email sent to us. Do land owners have to give a percentage

[1:20:06] of their lands for parks, playgrounds

[1:20:10] as a developer?

[1:20:15] » Uh through the through to the chair. Um I I I believe what you're referring to

[1:20:19] is the requirement under the MGA that um at subdivision um owners of parcels

[1:20:26] larger than a particular size are required to dedicate up to 10% of the

[1:20:30] land for parks and open space. Uh that applies at subdivision.

[1:20:35] So, not necessarily as part of this plan.

[1:20:38] » What is the size they after? Is it after 10 acres? Cuz I'm wondering if you have

[1:20:44] a landowner has 2 acres and he has to give 10 or 30% of that land for a park,

[1:20:50] doesn't make it feasible for him to develop the land?

[1:20:55] Is there a size of a of a before he gives it or

[1:21:01] » Through the Through to the chair, that size is defined in the Municipal

[1:21:03] Government Act. I believe it is 0.8 hectares.

[1:21:12] And that requirement is not unique to this area structure plan. It's uh at any

[1:21:16] at any subdivision the municipality may require it. And so, in the area

[1:21:21] structure plan that we will get to, those dedication requirements have been

[1:21:24] accounted for and mapped for general information.

[1:21:28] » Okay. Thank you. My other quick I got a couple

[1:21:31] more questions. 30% of tree canopy, what do you mean by

[1:21:36] that? >> Uh Through to the chair, the city has um

[1:21:41] I believe it's the I cannot recall if it's the urban tree

[1:21:45] policy or the urban forest management policy, but those policies are also

[1:21:48] reflected in the Municipal Development Plan

[1:21:50] um indicating that the city is looking to develop its urban tree canopy to

[1:21:54] cover 30% of the city in the long term. >> So,

[1:21:59] is that go back again that the owner would have to give 30%

[1:22:03] of his land to the city plus

[1:22:07] the um

[1:22:11] percentage of his land for parks and recreation or what do you mean tree

[1:22:15] covering or tree that

[1:22:19] tree canopy? Explain that more. >> Uh Through to the chair, um

[1:22:24] 30% tree canopy uh largely indicates that 30% of the area of the city is uh

[1:22:29] covered under a shade tree or a tree cover of some

[1:22:33] kind. That could be public land or could be private land, and it's not

[1:22:37] um expressly related to that municipal reserve parkland dedication that I was

[1:22:42] referring to. Um

[1:22:44] trees can contribute to a tree canopy cover whether they're on public land or

[1:22:47] private land. >> Okay, but what I what I'm trying to ask

[1:22:52] and again and answer is if you have a development and he goes in

[1:22:55] there, he or clears the whole area for a new

[1:22:59] subdivision sidewalks, does he have to leave trees in there or does he come

[1:23:02] back and replant it? >> Uh through to the chair, um

[1:23:07] generally when when this administration is looking at development applications,

[1:23:10] if there are significant tree stands, we may have a discussion with the developer

[1:23:14] on whether they can be retained. If they cannot be retained, then we do have

[1:23:17] landscaping requirements in our land use bylaw that um set out how um how the

[1:23:22] area is to be replanted.

[1:23:27] » Uh my other question and last question

[1:23:31] we know in that area of Evergreen development there

[1:23:35] there is a couple contaminated land. If

[1:23:41] a developer's building and is beside there is a couple city owned um

[1:23:47] contaminated land and uh the seepage goes into the private land, who's

[1:23:52] responsible for that cleanup?

[1:23:56] If it's on city owned property, which we have a a dedication here or in in the uh

[1:24:03] photos.

[1:24:05] » Uh through to the chair, my understanding from um discussions on

[1:24:10] this with the province is that the generally the original polluter is

[1:24:13] responsible for um the costs of the cleanup.

[1:24:17] And so, depending on how um the original polluter is established and

[1:24:24] what is shown through studies of how that contamination has migrated then

[1:24:27] there may be mechanisms to recover some of those costs from the original

[1:24:30] polluter, whoever that may be. >> But

[1:24:36] the the the my old and this is a key point for me.

[1:24:41] If if you can't find

[1:24:44] the original polluter is the owner

[1:24:49] whose been land has been contaminated by that partial land that the city owns

[1:24:53] have to pay for that cleanup.

[1:25:03] Cuz we could we could look at millions of some of the landfills that's there.

[1:25:10] » Through to the chair uh my understanding is that there may be

[1:25:13] mechanisms for cost recovery as well and the city may as part of actions arising

[1:25:19] from this ASP explore options for remediation of some of the contaminated

[1:25:22] sites.

[1:25:30] » It's not a definite answer. It may may means we could

[1:25:35] pay for it or the developer may have to pay or cost sharing for something he

[1:25:39] didn't do. Okay. Uh you answered my question. Counselor

[1:25:43] Neilson. >> Thank you. I'd like to follow up a

[1:25:46] little bit on some questions posed because

[1:25:49] now I piqued my curiosity.

[1:25:53] So if I'm a landowner in

[1:25:57] Evergreen and I've got a big parcel of land

[1:26:04] and there's nothing on it and I want to develop it

[1:26:10] I have to sign a portion of that property

[1:26:14] to green space or park space.

[1:26:20] If I'm a landowner with a big parcel of land

[1:26:24] and I'm not planning on developing it, but I just have a big parcel of land,

[1:26:29] do I still have to then designate a portion of my land

[1:26:35] to park space? >> Uh through to uh through the chair to

[1:26:38] Councillor Nielsen, the requirement for what's called municipal reserve

[1:26:41] dedication comes into effect at subdivision.

[1:26:44] So, if the parcel is developed as a large parcel, but not subdivided, then

[1:26:49] that dedication requirement is not there.

[1:26:55] » So, if I live out on Airport Road and I

[1:27:00] have a large parcel, my house is on it, my garage is on it, I'm not doing any

[1:27:04] further subdivision, then I do not have a requirement

[1:27:08] to give over a portion of my land to green space?

[1:27:13] » Through the chair to Councillor Nielsen, I see what you're saying now. Um if

[1:27:17] uh so, in the example that you're giving um

[1:27:19] for a a large residential property that property that has already been

[1:27:23] developed, at that previous subdivision, um if municipal reserve was dedicated at

[1:27:28] that time, and in most cases it was, then you're not you don't have it's not

[1:27:31] required that the landowner provide it again.

[1:27:36] » And if that large portion of property is actually a commercial

[1:27:41] venture,

[1:27:44] does that hold true as well if they're not subdividing subdividing it any

[1:27:47] further? >> That's correct. The requirement is

[1:27:50] regardless of the the use of the land.

[1:27:54] » Okay, thank you.

[1:28:00] » Councillor Billingsley. >> Thank you. Through the chair to Emily.

[1:28:05] These regulations you speak of are are MJ and not specific

[1:28:09] to this MDP, is that correct? >> Through the chair uh, counselor,

[1:28:12] Billingsley, that's correct. >> Thank you.

[1:28:15] They're not applicable to this? >> No, they're not specific to this.

[1:28:19] » Help me understand the difference. In other words,

[1:28:23] the the rules that you speak about are, um, part of the MGA, not

[1:28:30] were constructed because of this specific property.

[1:28:34] properties >> No.

[1:28:35] » Correct. Yeah. Thank you.

[1:28:39] » I I do have one more question.

[1:28:43] We have where Evergreen space We have a gem in our community which is

[1:28:50] By the Lake Park. Is it not a conflict

[1:28:55] to compete to bring people to By the Lake Park to

[1:28:59] enjoy our pathways and because we know what, uh,

[1:29:04] Battle River Watershed in that area is very subject to flooding. So, we're

[1:29:09] going to have a lot of night nature.

[1:29:13] Is that not too close to have too many parks, high maintenance, and

[1:29:21] » Uh, through to the chair, um,

[1:29:24] one of the rationales for laying out the parks in the land use concept the way

[1:29:28] that it was done was kind of recognizing that there are sort of different levels

[1:29:32] and different types of park space, if you wish. So, By the Lake Park is a a

[1:29:35] large regional park, um, draws people from all across the city, but, um,

[1:29:40] it's I think we can all think of smaller neighborhood parks in our area that we

[1:29:44] may be more likely to pop out to to walk a dog or bring a child to the

[1:29:48] playground. And so, having both of those types of parks, um, easily accessible to

[1:29:52] residents in this area was part of the reason why there's a number of smaller

[1:29:56] parks proposed actually in the plan area that are not

[1:30:00] seen to be conflicting with the larger By the Lake Park.

[1:30:06] » As our records show, where where they can smaller playgrounds and cuz we can't

[1:30:11] afford to main- maintain it. Um

[1:30:14] my question is to administration.

[1:30:19] If I vote no to the third reading or the second, what

[1:30:23] happens? >> Uh through to the chair, um

[1:30:28] I think that it would depend on the overall outcome of the vote. Um if the

[1:30:31] if the proposal as a whole does not pass third reading, then the area structure

[1:30:35] plan is defeated.

[1:30:38] » Okay, thank you.

[1:30:42] Any further questions?

[1:30:46] Councilor Billingsley, then Councilor Neilson.

[1:30:48] » Thank you. Um

[1:30:52] I think I'm reading between the lines and maybe I'm not. Um

[1:30:56] do you have concerns about this, Mayor Branco, that possibly an amendment to

[1:31:01] this would alleviate your concerns?

[1:31:06] » I I have a concerns that

[1:31:10] I know it's all to the owners to develop when develop, but

[1:31:15] if we're doing an industrial park and somebody wants to build an industrial

[1:31:19] park, why would he give land away that he's already have a high

[1:31:23] cost to develop and lose some of that land for green space when we have

[1:31:30] green space across the street. So it's more it's more of

[1:31:38] I know it's not up to us, it's up to the MGA or the provincial government rules,

[1:31:42] but to have somebody that has

[1:31:46] five, six acres and he has to give two acres away,

[1:31:49] that's income that he's losing that he has to pay for, that he ain't getting

[1:31:53] nothing back.

[1:31:59] Now if the city was to say, "We're going to purchase your land for green space."

[1:32:04] That's a different situation.

[1:32:11] Councilor Neilson.

[1:32:15] » No, I'm good. Thank you, sir.

[1:32:19] » Councilor Hoyle. >> Emily, what size did you say that we

[1:32:22] were looking at where the 10% was applicable to?

[1:32:28] Is it 0.9 hectares? Was that correct?

[1:32:32] » Uh through the chair to Councilor Hoyle, I would need to verify, but it is stated

[1:32:37] in the MGA and I believe it is 0.8 hectares.

[1:32:39] » 0.8 then that's 20 acres. I believe roundabout. So, we're talking

[1:32:44] about a large >> No. No. No. 0.8 is not 0.8 of a hectare

[1:32:49] is not 20 acres. >> Did she say 1/8 or 0.8?

[1:32:54] » 0.8.

[1:33:04] » And so, that would also >> Councilor

[1:33:07] » That would also mean that that's applicable to any other division

[1:33:12] subdivision going forward whether it's industrial any development in the city

[1:33:17] this would be applicable to, correct? >> Uh through the chair to Councilor Hoyle,

[1:33:21] any subdivision that meets the criteria set out in the MGA, yes. Thank you.

[1:33:33] » Thank you, Mayor Bronco.

[1:33:36] We put the cart before a whole lot of horses here because is this not just us

[1:33:40] saying we are willing to change an MDP to

[1:33:46] look at like I think this debate

[1:33:51] we're just trying to see are we going to change our MDP?

[1:33:54] Am I saying that word right? Am I understanding what the point of

[1:33:58] this is? >> Through the chair to Councillor Aberle.

[1:34:02] Through the chair to Councillor Aberle, the current bylaw that is um the subject

[1:34:06] of the motion is the motion to amend the MDP right to then prepare for the ASP

[1:34:12] bylaw to be discussed next. >> Yes. So, I will be voting in favor of

[1:34:16] this motion both readings

[1:34:20] um because I am in favor of

[1:34:24] continuing this discussion about the area structure plan.

[1:34:30] But if we were to say no in any of this now, we're not we wouldn't be having the

[1:34:35] conversations that we've just had.

[1:34:40] So, I would like to have you call the question, please.

[1:34:44] » I If I may,

[1:34:47] wouldn't it be beneficiary for us to debate that before

[1:34:51] if one of us says no to then come back

[1:34:56] and settle this?

[1:35:01] » If you're asking me specifically, Mayor Bronconnier, I don't believe it would.

[1:35:05] » Okay, thank you.

[1:35:10] May I ask for the question?

[1:35:14] Can somebody make a motion for the second and third reading, please?

[1:35:18] » I did. >> We did?

[1:35:20] » Yes, for second reading. >> Okay, all of those in favor?

[1:35:26] Opposed?

[1:35:29] Thank you. >> Mr. Mayor, I now move that council gives

[1:35:32] third reading to bylaw 2112-26 amending the municipal development plan

[1:35:39] to incorporate amendments proposed in the Evergreen area structure plan.

[1:35:46] » All of those in favor?

[1:35:51] Opposed?

[1:35:56] Passed, I believe.

[1:36:04] We'll move on to 7.1.

[1:36:09] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um to follow on the public hearing that

[1:36:13] took place earlier and the presentation uh that was made a moment ago and also

[1:36:17] first reading of this item at the July 28th Council meeting, I wanted to

[1:36:21] provide a brief overview of the proposed plan

[1:36:25] being presented in Bylaw 2113-26 uh as well as a minor recommended

[1:36:30] amendment and additional considerations. As you know, the plan area covers

[1:36:35] approximately two quarter sections northeast of the Wetaskiwin Airport and

[1:36:39] has various development considerations and constraints.

[1:36:42] These include an existing mix of low-density residential, industrial

[1:36:45] development, and vacant land owned by numerous different owners,

[1:36:49] limited municipal servicing, and environmental considerations such as

[1:36:53] contaminated sites, drainage challenges, and existing wetland areas.

[1:36:58] The project team completed a broad engagement process in the first half of

[1:37:01] 2026, which included two public open houses, two public surveys, and the

[1:37:06] maintenance of a project website to provide information to the public and

[1:37:09] receive inquiries. It also involved direct engagement with

[1:37:12] potentially interested parties, including owners of vacant land in the

[1:37:16] area, representatives of Wetaskiwin's Indigenous communities, and public and

[1:37:20] non-governmental agencies such as the city's own departments,

[1:37:24] uh Alberta Health Services, and the Battle River Watershed Alliance.

[1:37:28] Key themes that emerged from this engagement are reflected in the plan's

[1:37:31] vision, which is to foster a community that offers diverse housing choices and

[1:37:35] business opportunities with convenient road and trail connectivity and readily

[1:37:39] accessible green spaces, while thoughtfully integrating and

[1:37:42] complementing the existing character of surrounding neighborhoods.

[1:37:46] The key themes also informed four main guiding principles, which are to foster

[1:37:50] vibrant mixed-use and walkable neighborhoods, provide diverse and

[1:37:54] inclusive housing choices, enhance, protect, and sustain natural and green

[1:37:58] spaces, and ensure responsible infrastructure and phased growth.

[1:38:03] The final plan includes a land use concept that is figure five on page 26

[1:38:08] of the plan. Perhaps that can be shown on the screen for our reference during

[1:38:11] discussion. That generally provides for the

[1:38:15] retention of an existing residential industrial mixed-use area in the south

[1:38:19] and west of the plan area, an area of low-density residential

[1:38:23] development in the center of the plan area,

[1:38:26] and an area of mixed commercial and higher density development at the east

[1:38:29] side of the area. I'll just give them a moment for that.

[1:38:32] It's right It's right towards the end.

[1:38:39] So, all the maps are in the rear at the very end of the document, so it should

[1:38:42] be page 26, figure five.

[1:38:52] There we go. Almost there. There it is.

[1:38:57] Perfect. Many thanks.

[1:39:01] So, that is the the land use concept. Uh supporting policies were developed in

[1:39:04] the areas of residential, commercial, and industrial development,

[1:39:08] transportation, parks and open space, environmental considerations, and

[1:39:12] servicing. Given the drainage and wetland

[1:39:15] considerations in the area, low-impact development strategies were identified

[1:39:19] as part of implementation.

[1:39:23] These principles, supporting policy directions, and specific policies will

[1:39:26] guide decision-making related to future development in the plan area.

[1:39:31] Notably, the plan will be considered by city administration in making

[1:39:34] recommendations to council regarding future rezoning, direct control

[1:39:38] development applications, and relevant infrastructure projects, and also in

[1:39:42] making decisions regarding future development permit applications that

[1:39:45] fall under administration's authority. It will be a bylaw and therefore a

[1:39:49] public resource to support landowners and potential future developers in their

[1:39:53] planning and decision-making as well. Through the public hearing process,

[1:39:58] considerations were raised that are prompting administration to recommend

[1:40:01] that council make a minor amendment to the plan as presented, and invite

[1:40:05] council to consider another amendment. The recommended amendment is a minor

[1:40:10] correction. That the descriptions of open space area

[1:40:13] one and two on page 17 of the plan be transposed as they were simply numbered

[1:40:17] incorrectly. Administration also noted concerns um

[1:40:22] through the the public hearing regarding a road and other infrastructure being

[1:40:26] shown through a wet area at 47th Ave and West Street, and comments regarding the

[1:40:31] potential to relocate a conceptual park space near Evergreen close. Both of

[1:40:36] those to promote wetland preservation. Administration has reviewed the policies

[1:40:41] as presented and feels that they provide the tools to preserve wetlands during

[1:40:44] future development. However, we are happy to provide further information on

[1:40:48] potential mapping amendments council may choose to make that may provide greater

[1:40:52] clarity. With the recommended amendment noted, um

[1:40:55] administration is recommending the Evergreen ASP for council's approval,

[1:40:59] and would be happy to respond to any questions you might have.

[1:41:03] » Councillor White. >> I move that council give second reading

[1:41:07] to bylaw 1223-26.

[1:41:14] » Perfect. Councillor Aberley.

[1:41:18] » Thank you, sir. I know it's hard to um see me as I sit here in my own

[1:41:23] spotlight. I am very specific ly to the last point you made about the

[1:41:30] wetlands. Can you please repeat that um so I understand what you just said. Will

[1:41:36] there be directing of roads and adding different park space or you're open to

[1:41:42] it? Or

[1:41:44] » We're open to it cuz it's our plan. Excuse me.

[1:41:47] » Uh through the chair to you, Counselor Aberley. Um as part of a public hearing

[1:41:51] submission that I believe has now been distributed to council. Um

[1:41:55] there were concerns raised regarding a road um

[1:42:00] connection that was represented at approximately 47 Ave and West Street in

[1:42:04] sort of the southeast portion of the plan area.

[1:42:08] And also um a proposal to shift the park space that is shown near Evergreen Close

[1:42:14] a little bit to the north. Um

[1:42:17] Both of those were for wet wetland protection considerations.

[1:42:20] The road is shown as is because generally in

[1:42:24] developing the proposed road network, uh we followed existing road right-of-ways

[1:42:28] where they provided a needed connection. So, there is an existing road

[1:42:32] right-of-way that runs through that area right now.

[1:42:35] The park is shown as is uh because as noted earlier, we aim to distribute the

[1:42:39] smaller park spaces within approximately a 400-m walking distance of each

[1:42:44] residence. We did have the opportunity to discuss

[1:42:47] those concerns with the Watershed Alliance um and with our consultant as

[1:42:51] well and look at the currently proposed policies.

[1:42:55] The policy suite that is in the plan right now as presented

[1:42:59] include specific policies that prioritize wetland protection

[1:43:03] that require studies to formally delineate wetlands before further

[1:43:07] subdivision and development can take place.

[1:43:10] Um they provide us with flexibility to relocate the sort of conceptual

[1:43:15] high-level open spaces and road connections as shown at later

[1:43:19] development stages. And they also provide us with um the

[1:43:23] opportunity to use other environmental protection tools that are available to

[1:43:27] us under the Municipal Government Act to reserve additional space for

[1:43:31] conservation purposes. So, therefore, if we administration's

[1:43:36] view is that if these areas are formally identified as wetlands before

[1:43:40] development, the ASP provides the tools to avoid them and protect them.

[1:43:45] However, should council wish to um

[1:43:50] adjust the road as shown um to show a more conceptual road

[1:43:54] connection in that location, then council may propose and approve that

[1:43:58] amendment.

[1:44:03] » Thank you. And I guess as we chat, I'm looking for three friends. If we're um

[1:44:10] and we have put into our strategic plan that where possible

[1:44:15] we will look at environmental impacts and considerations into our um

[1:44:22] planning and into our development that a road going through the middle of a

[1:44:27] marshland is one, not necessarily

[1:44:31] good for said marsh, but also two, as we have

[1:44:35] seen this summer as many

[1:44:39] flooding is and will always be an issue in

[1:44:43] the area in which we live. And so, I would like the very end of what you

[1:44:48] said is make that direction so we are looking at roadways to go around what is

[1:44:55] the Battle River Watershed Alliance has pulled that out as a specific

[1:45:00] » concern with their studies um for that to go around. I'm less understanding of

[1:45:07] the one on this back page. So, I'm just going to stick with the first page.

[1:45:12] Um

[1:45:15] and your words are so much clearer than I would make an amendment to say

[1:45:22] Help me.

[1:45:25] To divert this road around watershed or around that

[1:45:30] um waste wasteland wetland.

[1:45:36] » Councilor Wright. >> Councilor Aberley, does

[1:45:39] the

[1:45:43] picture in figure six that shows transportation network, does that

[1:45:50] satisfy what you're looking looking for?

[1:45:54] » No, because I still see that jog. If If I'm understanding what that map is

[1:45:58] saying and what this map is saying to me, we do have a road going through

[1:46:04] a portion of that wetland. If you If I look at it as a satellite photo.

[1:46:08] » Through the chair to council, um anticipating this discussion,

[1:46:12] administration um prepared a very brief mock-up of what a proposed amendment

[1:46:18] could look like. Uh that is being shown on the screen at the moment. You'll see

[1:46:21] that um it replaces a right-angled >> I apologize. There's a map

[1:46:26] » with a dashed line showing a conceptual connection. Essentially, that indicates

[1:46:31] that that connection would be needed to accommodate traffic flow in that area,

[1:46:35] but the specific location of it is is more flexible than it appears in the

[1:46:41] currently presented version. That's not to say that, you know, if in

[1:46:45] a future situation there was a wetland study done, it found that in fact that

[1:46:49] area is not a wetland, that the road could

[1:46:52] not follow the course that's currently shown, but

[1:46:56] it just indicates that there there is more flexibility there.

[1:47:02] » So how do I nicely say Well, not nicely,

[1:47:06] but how do I say How do I What words do I use to get this?

[1:47:13] I I would like to amend the amendment to look like the second figure six.

[1:47:22] » There's uh through the chair to counselor, I believe there's some draft

[1:47:25] text being >> Perfect.

[1:47:26] » proposed on the screen at the moment um essentially proposing an amendment to

[1:47:30] figure sec- figure six and there's a minor amendment to figure 10 to um

[1:47:35] show the road connection that had in that area as a conceptual collector

[1:47:39] road.

[1:47:42] » And I'm just going to keep talking until I'm not going to um

[1:47:46] filibuster this, but

[1:47:49] if there if the study shows that there is no need

[1:47:53] to do these diverted roadways, then we would just go with status quo.

[1:47:58] Cuz that's why it was dotted. That's sort of what you said.

[1:48:01] » Through the chair to counselor, I believe that's that's right. Thank you.

[1:48:16] » Councillor White.

[1:48:19] » Uh thank you through the chair to administration. I appreciate seeing the

[1:48:23] uh proposed altered figure six. Can I

[1:48:28] Could we see figure 10 as well before I vote on it?

[1:48:32] Although I do anticipate supporting it.

[1:48:37] » Uh through the chair to counselor, figure 10 is just being brought up. Um

[1:48:41] the change that would be made would be where there is a um

[1:48:45] a future sanitary main shown along that street. That line would be shortened.

[1:48:50] It may not need to extend the length of it.

[1:49:00] » Are you okay with that? >> I will 100% I'll make the motion when I

[1:49:03] see it again cuz I I didn't >> uh figure six again, please?

[1:49:09] » Thank you. >> And so my question is I got to figure

[1:49:12] out what this is. >> Proposed six.

[1:49:21] » So

[1:49:24] Got her?

[1:49:30] So then the um the purple road

[1:49:35] that disappears and doesn't join to the other purple road. Does that help you?

[1:49:39] You know what I'm speaking of then? >> That totally made sense to me.

[1:49:43] Through the chair to Counselor Neilson, you're referring to 47th Avenue East and

[1:49:46] West that don't have a segment in the middle.

[1:49:48] » 47th Avenue. Um does that mean that collector road

[1:49:52] disappears then? >> Through the chair to Counselor Neilson,

[1:49:56] um in the plan as originally proposed, um the segment of 47th Avenue was not

[1:50:03] being proposed to be developed as a road. Um it was to be replaced by that

[1:50:07] curved gray line that shows that connection.

[1:50:10] » Yeah. >> Go around.

[1:50:13] I'm okay now. >> Uh

[1:50:17] I would like to move that figure six and seven of the plan be amended to reflect

[1:50:22] an approximate collector road connection between 48 Ave

[1:50:28] dash West Street and the East segment of 47 Avenue.

[1:50:37] » Counselor Billingkley. >> Thank you. Uh through the chair to uh

[1:50:41] Counselor Iverly, do you mean figure 10 not seven?

[1:50:46] » I apologize. Am I incapable of reading this afternoon?

[1:50:51] I Sorry, Nicole, can I please see that again? Six and 10. Did I What did I say

[1:50:55] seven? >> Yes.

[1:50:56] » I apologize. Um numbers are hard. That figures six and 10 of the plan be

[1:51:01] amended to reflect an approximate collector road connection between 48 Ave

[1:51:07] West Street and the East segment of 47 Ave.

[1:51:25] » Motion's on the table. All of those in favor to the amendment.

[1:51:31] Opposed.

[1:51:34] Carried. Now the motion.

[1:51:39] You have the motion on the table. For the second first or second reading.

[1:51:45] Councillor White. >> I move that council give third reading

[1:51:48] to bylaw 2113-26. >> So, we still have to vote on second

[1:51:52] reading. >> Second. Oh, sorry.

[1:51:56] » Uh Mayor Branco, we just uh voted on the amendment that

[1:52:02] that Karen had put forward. So, my original motion was the council give

[1:52:07] second reading to bylaw 2113-26. >> Thank you.

[1:52:13] All of those in favor. >> [snorts]

[1:52:16] » Opposed. Carried.

[1:52:20] Councillor White. >> Thank you, Mayor Branco. Now I would

[1:52:24] like to move that council give third reading to bylaw 2113-26.

[1:52:30] » All of those in favor.

[1:52:34] Opposed. Carried. Thank you.

[1:52:39] Item number eight, can I have a motion to go into closed session?

[1:52:44] » If I If Joe, can I just take a really quick

[1:52:48] point of order? I just I want to thank you, and I want to thank you for your

[1:52:51] coming into our community, and I know it's your

[1:52:55] um job, but I really think that this is one of the things that maybe

[1:53:00] only the six or seven of us get really excited about because it means that

[1:53:04] we're looking to the future of this community and and what we're going to do

[1:53:08] and further work in helping me figure out my numbers and doing all that. Just

[1:53:12] thank you for being top notch and coming in for us.

[1:53:15] » Here, here.

[1:53:22] » Do we have motion? >> We did not have a motion yet.

[1:53:27] » No. A motion to move into camera.

[1:53:30] » So moved, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. All those in favor?

[1:53:35] Carried. >> Are we taking a break?

[1:53:39] I'll see you in 10.

[1:53:42] Cuz I got to pee again, so That's definitely 10 minutes. [laughter]

[1:53:46] » And let's done the same time.

[1:53:54] Oh, no. >> I don't see any of this stuff. I just

[1:53:58] saw it. Yeah.

[1:56:59] » Mhm.

[2:04:39] » Mhm.

[2:08:29] » Mhm.

[2:18:02] » Okay, good. >> Thank you. Can I have a motion to come

[2:18:07] out of camera, please?

[2:18:10] Councillor White. All of those

[2:18:14] All those in favor?

[2:18:17] Thank you. We will move on to an item number nine,

[2:18:21] new business. Uh business case, Councillor Neilsen.

[2:18:27] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh won't be long. This is sort of a follow-up to my

[2:18:33] conversation on inspiring governance. And uh

[2:18:38] I made mention of all the business cases that we submitted and then

[2:18:42] uh some folks failed to actually vote on business cases.

[2:18:47] So, I'd like to make a motion. I think it's already been captured. I'd like to

[2:18:51] move the council directs administration to only consider business cases

[2:18:56] submitted by council members who took the time and voted on the business

[2:18:59] cases. So, if you submit

[2:19:03] And my comment, Mr. Mayor, would be if any one of us submitted a business case,

[2:19:07] but didn't take the time to actually vote on them, your business cases

[2:19:10] couldn't have been that important to you. So, I'm suggesting administration

[2:19:14] drop those business cases.

[2:19:19] » Councillor Alder. >> Okay, so on those business cases, I had

[2:19:24] probably upwards of 50, and I knew I was going to nail them down.

[2:19:32] But, what I recall is you told me they might all be good.

[2:19:36] So, just leave them. And I know I wanted to go

[2:19:39] narrow them down, but I took your other advice.

[2:19:42] Just left them in there. So, my mistake again.

[2:19:47] Um So, do with them what you will.

[2:19:51] Um that's fine.

[2:19:53] But

[2:19:56] No. >> Maybe I misunderstood what you said.

[2:19:58] » No, I said just as you as you as you've mentioned Mark and that is Mark said

[2:20:02] well maybe I'll take them back and whittle them down some and I said why

[2:20:05] whittle them down? There might be some really good ones in there.

[2:20:08] So leave them in place. But I would have

[2:20:11] » preferred I whittled them down. >> No, not at all. I would have preferred

[2:20:15] that on Friday

[2:20:20] 13th or whatever it was that we actually

[2:20:25] had everybody submit their votes as to which ones they

[2:20:30] were supporting.

[2:20:34] And I'll be honest, I supported some of yours.

[2:20:37] I supported some of yours even you didn't support.

[2:20:41] So that's where I sit.

[2:20:46] » Councillor White.

[2:20:49] » Thank you Mayor Branco. To council.

[2:20:52] I cannot support this motion because I

[2:20:59] I did take the time and entered and submitted to administration

[2:21:06] items that I think should be considered and whether regardless of who they came

[2:21:10] from.

[2:21:12] I I made my vote or it wasn't a vote but I

[2:21:18] made my consideration known of what I valued and

[2:21:23] want to know more information on and I don't want to undo my

[2:21:31] efforts to let administration know the things that I value based on who

[2:21:36] submitted them. So I can't support that motion.

[2:21:42] » Any further questions?

[2:21:46] Councillor Alder. >> I would just have one and this would be

[2:21:49] to admin. Um

[2:21:54] I haven't seen what was whittled down. Is it overwhelming for what was there?

[2:22:03] Head shake means yes.

[2:22:07] » Yeah, so there were four counselors that submitted votes.

[2:22:12] Um we originally went through and I said tell me how many had at least two votes

[2:22:17] because there was only four counselors that submitted.

[2:22:20] Um and it would have been 11 capital, 30 operating, although four were actually

[2:22:27] capital, so 15 capital and 26 operating. Then I said, "Can you please go through

[2:22:32] and because we if you think about all of council, we

[2:22:36] would need four. So, what does it look like with four?" So, um only items

[2:22:43] that got the the three or four votes, um six operating,

[2:22:49] eight capital, and four were

[2:22:52] actually operating, so 10 Sorry, 10 capital.

[2:22:56] Yeah. Six operating, 10 capital. >> Based on Based on how many votes?

[2:23:02] » Was that four? Four people voted, yeah. Oh, sorry, we

[2:23:07] went three and three or four votes. So, it had to have a minimum of three

[2:23:11] votes of the four that were submitted.

[2:23:17] » And what were the numbers, Sue, please? >> Original

[2:23:22] was 15 capital, 26 operating. If I looked at two votes of the four.

[2:23:29] When we looked at three and four votes, it came out to

[2:23:33] um 10 capital

[2:23:37] and six operating. Four. So, four operating and and 10

[2:23:43] capital. Yeah.

[2:23:48] » So, >> and those

[2:23:49] » are on top of those are just the council ones cuz it of course administration has

[2:23:53] a bunch submitted. >> So

[2:23:57] with three votes

[2:24:00] you don't have consensus of council.

[2:24:04] » With four votes >> If we were to take a vote, yeah.

[2:24:07] And

[2:24:11] » So are we are we are we considering

[2:24:24] So are we considering three votes

[2:24:29] of a council of seven sufficient?

[2:24:33] So less than a majority of council saying this is important. We're putting

[2:24:36] them on that on the business case consideration.

[2:24:39] » Yes, because it was it was a straw poll. Um and my assumption was that of the

[2:24:45] ones that made it, council could have that discussion because if we go for

[2:24:49] four votes, there's only three operating and two capital.

[2:24:54] » And if you go with three or four again, please.

[2:24:56] » go with four there's only three operating

[2:25:01] and and two capital.

[2:25:03] » And if you go to three or four? >> Three was

[2:25:07] four operating, 10 capital. >> Okay, that's good.

[2:25:15] So you've gone from five to 14.

[2:25:19] Three and two and four and 10. On top of those that administrations

[2:25:24] already been put in. >> Correct.

[2:25:27] And and I think this is important because we still need to run it through.

[2:25:30] We need to develop them out. We need to get the cost estimates. We need to get

[2:25:33] them back to council. And those capital ones, there's a binder on my desk

[2:25:37] already because we're hoping to print those soon for

[2:25:41] deliberations in early September.

[2:25:45] Um we've got

[2:25:48] open houses planned, that sort of stuff. So, we need to get on some of these like

[2:25:52] very quickly.

[2:25:59] » Councilor Billingsley. >> Thank you. Um

[2:26:04] through the chair to Councilor Nielsen, I understand your frustration. I too am

[2:26:08] frustrated that we talked about that to have this in by noon on Friday and

[2:26:15] for whatever reason

[2:26:18] some of us did not um

[2:26:21] submit. But, I

[2:26:24] like um

[2:26:28] Councilor what what Councilor Waite had said that um

[2:26:32] just because

[2:26:36] you didn't um submit doesn't necess- the work that I put in

[2:26:41] to actually evaluate these should not be discounted. So, point made

[2:26:48] in the sense of um

[2:26:53] please take this stuff seriously, Council.

[2:26:57] Um I can't support necessarily

[2:27:01] pulling them off because you didn't submit your

[2:27:06] » And I bite and I bite both of your arguments and to your point

[2:27:11] it was my point.

[2:27:15] If you can't take the time

[2:27:18] to add to the conversation about budget then don't be complaining about budget

[2:27:23] when it doesn't turn out your way. >> Correct.

[2:27:26] » We're all in this or we're either not all in it. So, I will withdraw my

[2:27:30] motion, but I will ask a question of this group.

[2:27:33] Sue, with two two more votes, What are your numbers, please?

[2:27:40] » There are 15 capital and 26 operating. >> And are we asking administration then

[2:27:47] based on the votes, based on two or more votes,

[2:27:51] to pick up 41 more business cases to calculate? And

[2:27:55] if not, please pick a number.

[2:28:03] » Councillor Aberley.

[2:28:06] » You know, um thank you, Mayor Bronco. It's getting late and I forgot my name,

[2:28:10] too. Um

[2:28:13] I and I have said this, I have was not one of those people, so maybe I have no

[2:28:18] say, but I would like to um just point into if the four of you

[2:28:28] who did it were to show up during budget

[2:28:34] deliberations when we take those straw polls, the majority would have been

[2:28:38] three. Therefore, I would go with the number three or more votes.

[2:28:44] » That'd be 14. >> Yeah, and even that seems like

[2:28:48] a lot, but two, hm.

[2:28:59] » Councillor Elder, just have a quick question.

[2:29:02] » [clears throat] >> So, out of all the ones that I

[2:29:03] submitted,

[2:29:07] I think I broke down details, prices, quotes, everything, but is it different

[2:29:12] than the way you do it? Cuz I thought I did all pretty much all

[2:29:16] the work for you. >> It is different. Um I know that you

[2:29:21] weren't there that day that we discussed um capital prioritization and operating.

[2:29:25] So, there's a a set criteria that we have to run through. Um

[2:29:30] and it answers a bunch of different questions around like how prepared we

[2:29:37] are. Um does it meet council's strategic goals? There's a bunch of different

[2:29:41] things that we have to run it through. And then a lot of the cost estimates

[2:29:44] were really vast. And so, um in the past council has really pushed

[2:29:50] us to get really tight budgets with only 10% contingency. And

[2:29:56] so, we would still need to go out and scope all of those.

[2:29:59] I think part of the problem is is that there were things put in as operating,

[2:30:03] but they were actually capital. And

[2:30:06] um um

[2:30:10] there's a lot more work that needs to go into

[2:30:14] some of those pieces um that we might not have the time right now.

[2:30:20] Which just means it would be a separate document. Or maybe I just get my team

[2:30:23] not to bind them cuz we were going to we were looking at coil-bound

[2:30:27] documents this year. So, maybe we just continue with a a binder so that we can

[2:30:31] add to it as you go. Um

[2:30:34] but there was a lot of work that needed to be done. And then we have to go

[2:30:37] through and prioritize them against all the criteria that's existing.

[2:30:41] » Okay. So, quick question for you then because time [clears throat] is of the

[2:30:46] essence. And we didn't all complete. Which one of

[2:30:50] these works best for you? Two, three, or four?

[2:30:55] Like honestly, like it's it's

[2:31:02] » Uh Yeah, to to be honest, the four is >> Okay.

[2:31:08] » Less is more for us right now. Yeah. >> And four was operating.

[2:31:13] And how much was capital there? >> There was four operating No, that was

[2:31:19] three operating and two capital. >> So, two capital

[2:31:24] and three operating.

[2:31:29] Okay, so not knowing which ones they are,

[2:31:31] » [clears throat] >> as far as I'm concerned, I'm I'm good

[2:31:33] with you, but

[2:31:36] that's up to everybody else here. Need to

[2:31:39] see everybody else's opinion.

[2:31:49] » Councillor Billingsley. >> Thank you.

[2:31:55] I um will support four. I think that

[2:32:01] um that is the majority of council. Um we're given the opportunity to

[2:32:08] straw poll it, whatever that means,

[2:32:11] and

[2:32:15] if the answer is four, send it in. If the if those four people

[2:32:20] agreed on those, my vote would be to carry forward with

[2:32:25] the ones that were agreed by all four that voted.

[2:32:36] » Any other questions? Sorry, Joe. >> No, it's okay.

[2:32:40] » [laughter]

[2:32:46] » So, we don't have a motion on the table anymore cuz you've withdrawn

[2:32:48] » I withdrawn the motion and I challenge the room to identify and and provide

[2:32:53] direction as to whether administration works on

[2:32:58] 41 or 14 or five. >> Councillor Billingsley.

[2:33:05] » Thank you. Uh I move that city council directs administration

[2:33:11] to move forward on business case identified

[2:33:16] by unanimous straw vote.

[2:33:21] That's awful, but point is made.

[2:33:26] » Councillor White.

[2:33:32] » Thank you, Mayor Branco. My colleague, Councillor Billingsley,

[2:33:35] beat me to it cuz I think I would have preferred three just cuz I'm a I'm

[2:33:40] afraid there's there was so many good business cases or interesting, I don't

[2:33:44] know if good we wasn't in a place to evaluate that, but

[2:33:48] there's some there are some interesting ideas on the table that I

[2:33:52] regret that we're going to lose sight of if we only go with the four, and I

[2:34:00] would >> Well, you can

[2:34:01] » I'd support I'd support the the

[2:34:05] 14 cases as indicated by three votes

[2:34:10] in the those of us who submitted our

[2:34:15] interest in the business cases. >> Thank you. Sue.

[2:34:19] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um just to um speak to Councillor White's concerns,

[2:34:25] anything that doesn't make it above the line goes to unfunded. And

[2:34:30] then um Council always has an opportunity to pull it forward whenever

[2:34:35] you want. It just it gets um more complicated the closer we get to

[2:34:39] approval that we can't get you more accurate information the longer we wait.

[2:34:44] So, we won't lose sight of it, and maybe it's something that we plan

[2:34:48] to flush out a little bit more over the next year, and then it could come back

[2:34:51] to the next budget.

[2:34:55] » Councillor Aberley. >> Thank you, Mayor Branco. And that's what

[2:34:59] I was going to say um through the chair to

[2:35:01] Councillor White is

[2:35:05] I don't think putting always putting something off is a good thing, but

[2:35:09] rushing into things also, so Council goes by really quickly. Our four

[2:35:15] years will go by stupid quick. But I don't think we need to race into

[2:35:21] a million ideas now while we're still trying to look at the corporate get the

[2:35:24] corporate business plan do all of this. And as I continue to sit

[2:35:29] here where I first said three I'm now going

[2:35:32] to four because I think that those numbers are really good for a budget

[2:35:38] discussion at this point and that we make sure it's

[2:35:42] a robust discussion and not us just going through the motions of reading all

[2:35:47] of the stuff that has to get read.

[2:35:51] » Thank you. >> Councilor White.

[2:35:58] » No further comment for now. >> Okay, so

[2:36:02] the motion is Councilor Billingsley, can you repeat

[2:36:06] the motion since Councilor Neilsen withdrew his?

[2:36:09] » Sure.

[2:36:13] I move that city council directs administration

[2:36:17] to move forward on the Oh, look at that. Thank you.

[2:36:21] Directs administration move forward on business cases that received unanimous

[2:36:24] drop hole.

[2:36:27] » Okay, all of those in favor?

[2:36:32] » [clears throat]

[2:36:34] » Any questions? >> Well, any questions?

[2:36:38] Councilor Neilsen.

[2:36:43] » At the risk of being booed out of this room

[2:36:52] because I I happen to agree with Councilor White and and

[2:36:56] and and hence

[2:37:00] when Mark and I were talking and and he said I'll whittle mine down and I said

[2:37:03] no, don't leave them in because there's some good ideas there.

[2:37:10] I don't mean know why I'm saying this. Um

[2:37:16] But there's 41 Sorry, there's

[2:37:21] If we consider three or more, there's four and 10. Is that correct?

[2:37:27] » Correct. >> I would love to give all of my

[2:37:30] colleagues an opportunity to feed into this

[2:37:34] um conversation.

[2:37:39] I threw out some pretty broad remarks earlier this morning.

[2:37:44] And

[2:37:47] in spite of that, I value everyone's opinion in this room.

[2:37:56] And I don't know how soon we would take those four business cases and 10

[2:38:01] business cases and circulate them amongst us one more kick at the cat and

[2:38:06] get a true

[2:38:09] straw poll from seven counselors.

[2:38:14] I don't know if they're able to.

[2:38:20] » Counselor Aberle. >> Thank you, sir. Through the chair to

[2:38:23] Counselor Neilsen, I respectfully vehemently disagree.

[2:38:28] Um and the reason for that is administration

[2:38:35] wanted us to have it done um I can't do What was that? July 28th?

[2:38:41] Was they wanted it to do us They wanted

[2:38:45] us to do it on the 28th. We asked for the 31st.

[2:38:54] I

[2:38:57] did not make that a responsibility of my week

[2:39:01] that week and I believe I do not have the right to the

[2:39:07] input anymore. I want to give my input on number of votes because I like to

[2:39:13] always have something to say, but enough is enough. Administration is

[2:39:18] always waiting for us to make up our mind.

[2:39:21] » That's fair. >> Thank you. So, the motion on the floor

[2:39:25] is

[2:39:28] Could somebody Counselor Billingsley >> Thank you.

[2:39:31] » Can you read that again, please? >> that. I move that council directs

[2:39:33] administration to move forward on business cases that received unanimous

[2:39:37] straw poll. >> Thank you.

[2:39:41] All of those in favor?

[2:39:46] Carried. Thank you.

[2:39:50] Per diems.

[2:39:53] » Thank you. >> Counselor Billingsley

[2:39:55] » Thank you. Um through the chair to council back in

[2:40:00] October, November of last year, um during budget, we talked about

[2:40:05] changing the way that council um calculates its per diems. We created

[2:40:11] buckets

[2:40:14] out of

[2:40:17] concern, I guess, of how much council was spending, but not necessarily

[2:40:22] purposely looking at reasonable amount other than

[2:40:27] pulling numbers um

[2:40:30] based on

[2:40:35] gut feelings, I guess. And now what's happened is um

[2:40:40] some councilors, and I'll speak to this shortly, um certainly has taken on more

[2:40:46] responsibilities and have a lot more committee work than

[2:40:50] some others. And

[2:40:54] I would hate to penalize um

[2:40:57] councilors from doing good work just because the fact

[2:41:02] um they are

[2:41:05] um busier than

[2:41:08] what we anticipated [clears throat] would be a reasonable amount to have uh

[2:41:12] for per diems. Um the second motion that I'm going to

[2:41:17] bring forward actually speaks to myself as well uh taking it on MCMC and

[2:41:23] um part of that will be extra expenses

[2:41:28] um

[2:41:30] that will incur. So, having said all of that, I'm going

[2:41:35] to make my first motion and that is

[2:41:39] I move to add $2,000 to Councillor Hoyles' budget being funded from the

[2:41:44] contingency reserve.

[2:41:52] And I will briefly speak to that in the sense of

[2:41:56] um she has

[2:41:59] stepped up and is on many committees

[2:42:05] and boards. And I would hate for her to say, "Yeah,

[2:42:10] I'm not going to do it because I'm not going to be compensated for it." It's

[2:42:14] good work and I truly believe that she should be

[2:42:19] compensated for the time that she spends doing this work.

[2:42:25] » Councillor Hoyles. >> I'd like to speak to that, too. Um

[2:42:29] and I never want to use the word I was new then, however, I was. Didn't really

[2:42:35] I understood what the per diems were. I did not understand the bucket system.

[2:42:39] Um and so when we look at our buckets, my per diem and per diem training adds

[2:42:46] up to um $3,300. My meetings alone add up to 30 meetings

[2:42:52] a year, which are an average of $3,000. So,

[2:42:55] right there, and that's an average meaning if those meetings go long, those

[2:42:59] amounts go up. Um that doesn't include S tab training, um any other training I do

[2:43:04] through those committees, a strat planning, anything else. Um and we're

[2:43:08] going into budget, which of course those are extras as well. So, um

[2:43:14] because they've been divided out versus I think what I understand it used to be

[2:43:17] just a pot, and you would just take what you needed as far as per diems, travel,

[2:43:22] training out of it. But because those have been divided out,

[2:43:25] those pots are not going to last to the end of the year, and I may not be the

[2:43:29] only one. I'm not quite sure.

[2:43:34] » Councillor Aberley.

[2:43:37] » Thank you, just sir through the chair to Councillor Billinsley.

[2:43:44] Why out of contingency?

[2:43:51] Is that when and the reason I asked the question, I will be a little more

[2:43:55] specific, is I am 100% guaranteed to be nowhere near

[2:44:01] um cuz I sit on one committee. Well, I S D

[2:44:05] A D B training, but I didn't I did that last term. Um

[2:44:10] so, I'm guaranteed to be nowhere near spending all my money, which is a good

[2:44:14] thing at the end of the year because there's going to be an excess. So, does

[2:44:18] our excess go into contingency, or are we taking it in and out of the same pot?

[2:44:22] » And and I thought about that as well is you we certainly I mean, council can

[2:44:28] direct where the money comes from. We could pull it from yours, could pull it

[2:44:31] from whoever's. Um but in the end, if it's not spent,

[2:44:35] guess where it goes. >> Okay. So, thank you. That helps me make

[2:44:38] » Right. >> my decision.

[2:44:39] » then we then at the end of the year when budget, we could say, "Okay, wait a

[2:44:43] second. Um let's take a look at exactly how much

[2:44:47] we actually need to put into these buckets, or potentially um

[2:44:52] combining the buckets and not having four or five different buckets

[2:44:57] come budget time.

[2:45:04] » Councilor Elder. >> I need some help and some clarity.

[2:45:08] So I didn't understand this when we first got elected. You had I believe you

[2:45:13] had and I still don't even know to this day

[2:45:16] what my limit is. Um

[2:45:21] Did we Did you reduce it from 3,000 to 1,500

[2:45:25] when we first started? >> Sorry, could you repeat that?

[2:45:28] » Sure.

[2:45:31] Per diems was the mic It's on. I have to talk louder.

[2:45:35] Um I'm trying to understand the per diems

[2:45:38] because I I don't really understand it. I got to be honest with you. I sit on a

[2:45:41] few boards. Um

[2:45:45] So the last council

[2:45:50] were you allotted up to $3,000 for per diems per year?

[2:45:55] » To be honest with you, I have no idea what that

[2:45:58] » I don't know why that number sticks there.

[2:46:00] But whatever that number was for, I think

[2:46:03] we voted on reducing it to 1,500. Is that correct?

[2:46:07] » I think it's 1,800. >> Okay, I I and again, I don't know the

[2:46:10] number. I I truly don't. Um So I'm going to the meetings and I

[2:46:14] haven't been claiming the per diems, so you'll have extras there as well.

[2:46:19] I I just would like clarity on how it all works if you don't mind cuz I I just

[2:46:24] I really don't understand. >> in the policy as to

[2:46:28] » Yeah, and I haven't looked at that, so >> but it also Council has the ability at

[2:46:32] any time to request money.

[2:46:36] » I have 100 grand? >> You You're just kidding. At any point,

[2:46:39] right? >> 15

[2:46:41] » I mean, that is something that we can do. And that was

[2:46:46] even brought up when we talked about this at budget.

[2:46:50] » Yeah, just enlighten me here cuz I'm forgetting, right? New Lots going on, so

[2:46:55] just I'm just looking for clarity. I can go look it up.

[2:46:58] » Can I ask you a quick question through you?

[2:47:00] » Sure. >> So, before we had

[2:47:04] one big pot and every counselor dipped into it

[2:47:10] into the one big pot to get professional development and for their committee

[2:47:15] work. And

[2:47:19] it didn't There was no limits. If six other counselors didn't use the

[2:47:23] money, I could use mine and all theirs. And we said at the budget, we need to be

[2:47:29] able to put some limits on how much. And we tried working with administration

[2:47:34] and sorted out how much money should we set aside for

[2:47:38] professional development and how much we should set aside for our committee work

[2:47:43] and responsibilities in that way. And so, as Dean said earlier, we sort of

[2:47:49] licked the finger and put it in the wind and said, "Let's put this much money in

[2:47:52] the professional development fund and this much money into our per diems and

[2:47:58] committee work." And so, it was our best guess, but we

[2:48:02] also were assuming that committee work would be distributed pretty evenly

[2:48:06] and in some cases that has not been the case.

[2:48:09] So, some counselors by virtue of the number of committees they're on are

[2:48:13] burning through their per diem money

[2:48:17] at at a rate that halfway through the year they're out of it.

[2:48:20] So, then the question becomes, do they stop going to the meetings or did we

[2:48:24] make a mistake when we licked our finger and put it in the wind and to put money

[2:48:28] into those two pots? And I think where we're at now is

[2:48:32] Wendy is in a position where because you're on three committees

[2:48:36] um and you and I, Mark, are on committees

[2:48:40] and one of the committees we get paid not through our per diem system, we

[2:48:44] actually get paid by uh >> Bethany Group.

[2:48:48] » Um and so we're not drawing down our

[2:48:52] per diem money as quickly as say Wendy is. So

[2:48:56] I think what Dean is saying is that we're going to have to re-examine this

[2:48:59] at budget time, but until we get to budget time

[2:49:02] how do we address the fact that some some

[2:49:06] of us are going to have our per diems spent

[2:49:12] where other people who don't have as many committees

[2:49:16] simply aren't spending their dollars.

[2:49:20] » Councillor Wyatt. >> This is also why I asked to have the

[2:49:24] process for organizational meeting addressed as well as per diem so that

[2:49:30] this can be taken care of before we have our organizational meeting and before

[2:49:34] budget so that this doesn't happen again.

[2:49:41] » Councillor Wyatt.

[2:49:46] » Thank you Mayor Branco.

[2:49:49] Through the chair to council, I don't know if I can support this because I'm

[2:49:54] not confident that I understand that we don't have this money already budgeted

[2:50:00] and allocated. It just we've made

[2:50:05] through our by our

[2:50:08] I believe it's a policy for our council remuneration,

[2:50:13] we've set some limits, but as far as what was budgeted we maybe are still

[2:50:18] within the

[2:50:20] amount allocated to the budget and so instead of

[2:50:24] approving money to come from reserves for this

[2:50:28] I would be more ready to support

[2:50:33] contra some way to contravene our uh policy to allow

[2:50:39] counselors to claim

[2:50:44] beyond the amounts set set out that we amended back in

[2:50:49] October, November. Sorry, that isn't real clear.

[2:50:55] » Councillor Billingsley. >> Thank you. Um through the chair to

[2:50:59] Councillor White, I

[2:51:04] I'm okay with that, and I'm wondering then if

[2:51:07] an amendment needs to happen to have administration

[2:51:12] um

[2:51:15] No amendment to my motion because my motion states to come up from um

[2:51:20] contingency reserve.

[2:51:24] Potentially could I mean

[2:51:29] Yes, could but then who decide No, I know you have money left over,

[2:51:35] right?

[2:51:38] » She wants to give you her money. >> She's got She's got some suggestions.

[2:51:41] » But where I'm going with this is I do know that administration has the ability

[2:51:47] to be able to move money around within

[2:51:53] Right. Yes. So

[2:52:04] But where would the money come from? >> My money.

[2:52:07] » Right. And who decides that? >> I but

[2:52:10] I would like Why?

[2:52:17] » Councillor Aberley. >> Thank you, sir.

[2:52:21] Through the chair to council I know this isn't my money in the sense

[2:52:26] that I that is my money, but it is my money

[2:52:32] to spend if that's what's been allotted to me. So, if I say to council

[2:52:38] I would like to

[2:52:44] I would like to do a friendly amendment to

[2:52:48] Councillor Billingsley's amendment that says not to come out of

[2:52:54] contingency, but to have it transferred from Councillor Aberley's

[2:52:59] line to Councillor Hoyles' line. The money has

[2:53:03] not changed within a year. And and I know I have the money. There

[2:53:09] could be other years where we have to ask administration, is there money left?

[2:53:14] But only because my group doesn't meet as often and it's one group and I didn't

[2:53:20] need to use my training money. I haven't taken anything out of my

[2:53:24] account. So, I have no problem my line being $2,000

[2:53:29] no, being the same, but that Councillor Hoyles' part of Councillor

[2:53:35] Hoyles' payment comes out of my line. >> If I may

[2:53:41] » No. Administration hates that.

[2:53:45] » So, if I may that's totally contradictory to what

[2:53:48] we're supposed to be doing. We get paid for showing up and doing

[2:53:52] that. You don't show up, you you don't get paid. That was I'm sorry, that is

[2:53:57] for training for you. Then it comes to the point that if some of us don't go

[2:54:02] into courses, we can just give our money to one of our buddies. I'd rather have

[2:54:07] it coming out of someplace else. >> Sir, I'm not talking about training. I'm

[2:54:11] talking about committees and s-

[2:54:14] committee work or we are doing work of council.

[2:54:19] And I knew that this situation was going to

[2:54:23] happen with me when I brought this up at the organizational meeting.

[2:54:27] I I was going to be nowhere near my use limit.

[2:54:38] » Councilor Sue, go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um two things

[2:54:43] just for proper accounting, we would do um a transfer, a GL transfer internally

[2:54:49] um rather than just letting her charge to

[2:54:52] your GL. Um but the second part of that is

[2:54:56] um this year we should be better because

[2:55:00] you're going to have your organizational meeting before you approve your budget.

[2:55:03] And so we'll know who sits on what committees and we'll be able to tailor

[2:55:06] your budget to your committee work, whereas in the election year we had no

[2:55:11] idea who was going to be on what. And so the budget was just the same across the

[2:55:15] board. Where if we know ahead of time um we can quickly make those adjustments in

[2:55:22] your budgets and it'll reflect the committee work that you're plan to sit

[2:55:25] on for the following year. So if you only have one, your budget is going to

[2:55:30] be less than someone who has three or four.

[2:55:33] But we didn't have that luxury at the election year.

[2:55:36] » That makes sense. >> Councilor Bear Easley.

[2:55:39] » Thank you. Through the chair to administration then uh need a little

[2:55:42] help from the funding model then what would be the best way to describe

[2:55:48] that you reallocate?

[2:55:53] » I you could keep the motion the same and then just instead of funding it from

[2:55:57] contingency, it would be a GL transfer from Councilor Aberley to Councilor

[2:56:01] Hoyle.

[2:56:04] » I wonder if we don't specifically don't say counts because of the fact that may

[2:56:11] maybe there isn't enough in her

[2:56:14] » Um >> bucket. And I'm not saying that there is

[2:56:17] » Yeah, I understand. >> Right? Just reallocate.

[2:56:20] And then you can decide of where it needs to be.

[2:56:24] » Yeah, you can >> maybe two or three transactions.

[2:56:27] » Councillor Hoyle, Councillor Aberley, then Councillor White.

[2:56:32] » Um I do want to say that just

[2:56:36] for numbers, so that the public knows, our per diems for the year $1,800.

[2:56:41] So, as I said, for 30 meetings, the 1,800 is depleted fairly quickly, and

[2:56:45] that doesn't include strat planning, budget, whatever.

[2:56:48] There may be other counselors that are going to be in the same position as me

[2:56:52] is it or they may very well be now if they haven't seen the same paperwork as

[2:56:56] I have.

[2:57:00] » Councillor Aberley. >> Uh thank you, sir.

[2:57:05] Through the chair to the mayor, Mayor Branco, do you understand and it's

[2:57:10] may that may have came out come out wrong. I agreed completely with your

[2:57:14] last comment that if I am in training and I have money for my training, that

[2:57:19] is the money for my training and if I don't use it, it goes back into

[2:57:24] contingency. So, I agreed with that, but that how

[2:57:28] this is different, I just want to make sure that

[2:57:31] you and I are both talking about the same thing, that this is for um

[2:57:37] committee work that or yes, committee work that has already been done because

[2:57:43] some counselors have are on committees that have a larger

[2:57:48] time commitment. So, it's not really me giving away money

[2:57:53] I didn't use, it's me giving away money, not giving away, it's not even me. It is

[2:58:00] there is a big pool from which we all attend committees and our work.

[2:58:08] And that needs to reflect, as Sue said, what our actual appointments are in a

[2:58:14] given year, rather than cuz I was given too much money that I was never going to

[2:58:19] be able to use. >> And and I and I agree with you 100% and

[2:58:25] I rather see that we have let's say we have $20,000 for a pool for a council

[2:58:31] training education all committees and we draw from that.

[2:58:36] Those who go get it from that that department. And then if we all if we all

[2:58:41] got to come out and if we run out then we got to come back and do this why not

[2:58:45] just put money into an account and everybody draws out of that account.

[2:58:53] Like a piggy bank. We put $20,000 in a piggy bank.

[2:58:57] If we make it we make it we don't then we can have a motion to come and borrow

[2:59:01] more money. That's what we're doing.

[2:59:04] But to shift it around it seems like to me I'm going to give you my I haven't

[2:59:10] gone anywhere so am I going to give mine to to Mark or to Elder or to

[2:59:14] Wendy? Just put it in that pot and take it out of the pot.

[2:59:21] Councilor White.

[2:59:26] » Thank you Mayor Branco. Thank you to administration who just

[2:59:29] sent the summary so that I could see even where I'm at and what my um

[2:59:36] allocation is.

[2:59:39] I see object codes and I think I heard somebody I think I heard someone say

[2:59:44] each counselor has separate GL accounts is did I hear that correctly?

[2:59:49] » That is correct.

[2:59:52] » Yeah, no but the object code is different than GL

[2:59:56] account? Question mark?

[2:59:59] » Yes. There's

[3:00:02] there's a whole pile of numbers that aren't shown on there.

[3:00:04] » Yeah.

[3:00:09] » So object code is just the last part of what the actual GL is. Each one of you

[3:00:14] has um >> So that can I ask the object

[3:00:18] » ahead. >> The object code that is

[3:00:21] 51550 per diems, is that whatever all the numbers are in front of

[3:00:26] it, is that only related to council per

[3:00:29] diems? >> Uh

[3:00:32] yes, because you're the only ones that get per diems, but something like

[3:00:35] training or travel, that that's the same code through the entire organization.

[3:00:40] » Well, train Okay, but training has a different code.

[3:00:43] » Right. >> Travel has a different code.

[3:00:45] » But those aren't just specific to council, those are for the whole

[3:00:48] organization. So my code >> diem the per diem code is not specific

[3:00:52] to council? >> It is only specific to council. Nobody

[3:00:55] else gets per diems. >> So whatever is that was there a budgeted

[3:00:59] amount that's related to that 51550 object code?

[3:01:05] » Yes, for each councilor.

[3:01:13] And the budget is on that first line in line or column D?

[3:01:17] » Column, yeah.

[3:01:22] » While we're asking >> Okay, I still don't think I can support

[3:01:24] this based on how it's what I've seen written in what I've seen allocated,

[3:01:28] although I support the concept that councilors should be able to claim for

[3:01:34] the work that they do.

[3:01:39] » So Is there a motion on the on the floor?

[3:01:43] » Yes. >> I'll still might have questions.

[3:01:47] » Okay, go ahead, counselor Elder. [clears throat]

[3:01:50] » So I'm just looking at mine.

[3:01:55] So I did mine late in 25. Right?

[3:02:02] Didn't claim them. Got paid in January of

[3:02:06] 20 of this year.

[3:02:14] That shows me that I owe money.

[3:02:17] Where I look at it and say, well, maybe I'm

[3:02:20] Well, it's my mistake for not claiming on time first of all, not understanding

[3:02:23] it. So, that's that's my fault. This looks like more of an admin problem

[3:02:28] putting last year's work when we started into this year's, but that falls on me

[3:02:33] cuz I filed it late. And you were nice enough to pay it. So,

[3:02:37] fair enough. Thank you. Um

[3:02:41] So, how does that work? >> To this motion?

[3:02:45] » No, that's what we're dealing with. >> Okay. Let's deal with that motion and

[3:02:50] we'll deal with mine again. >> So, can we change that?

[3:02:58] Can we change that? Oh. Can you bring Please bring that back.

[3:03:02] Thank you. Um funded

[3:03:10] » No, just I would say through reallocation.

[3:03:12] » Through re- be funded through reallocation.

[3:03:16] » Okay.

[3:03:21] » Councillor Neilson. >> Sue, uh sorry, through the chair to Sue.

[3:03:28] And I know we're talking about your motion in relation to Wendy. Correct?

[3:03:35] And I knew it was going to be close. And I passed close.

[3:03:41] Are you as well? Right. And so,

[3:03:44] Sue, I'm wondering, are we better off rather than piecemealing it now

[3:03:50] to simply allow Wendy or Wayne or Laura to can you continue our committee work,

[3:03:59] run a deficit in our in our bucket

[3:04:04] and then do a year-end transfers necessary.

[3:04:11] You're saying no. >> Because in the policy, it states and

[3:04:15] this is where then I'll go back to Councillor Elder

[3:04:18] where we said you are responsible. So, it's critical

[3:04:24] that we allocate dollars to this so that

[3:04:31] um gets paid.

[3:04:35] Well, but that we could do, too.

[3:04:40] What was the other one? But that But that I think is a greater

[3:04:48] » Any further questions? >> Yes.

[3:04:50] » Oh, yeah. >> There's lots going on. Yes.

[3:04:52] » Cuz I think the deeper we're going in there, the more confusing we're getting.

[3:04:56] I like the first one, the GIL or whatever.

[3:05:01] So, what is the What is the motion? Dean, can you please read your motion?

[3:05:06] » Certainly. My motion is I move to add $2,000 to Councillor Hoyle's budget

[3:05:12] being funded through reallocation. >> Thank you.

[3:05:17] » And I >> Any debate to that?

[3:05:20] Councillor Nielsen and Councillor White.

[3:05:24] » Well, given what we're looking at,

[3:05:29] my friendly amendment

[3:05:32] would be to add $3,000 to Councillor White's

[3:05:37] and $3,000 to Councillor Nielsen's. Because we're all over in our committee

[3:05:44] work. So, we're now talking $9,000.

[3:05:48] » You believe you're going to be spending more than $3,000 between now and

[3:05:52] December 31st?

[3:05:56] » I believe I'm going to spend the same rate that

[3:06:00] Councillor Hoyle is spending.

[3:06:04] » Councillor White.

[3:06:13] » Through the chair to council, uh thank you to the the information that

[3:06:17] I received by email that each of us now has visibility of our per diem report.

[3:06:23] I'm already 1450 over. I didn't know I've like

[3:06:28] I've reached the bottom of my bucket and beyond. So, 3,000

[3:06:33] is not I unreasonable for if I were to continue on the same trajectory as

[3:06:40] as I'm on now. for

[3:06:43] spending time on council committees and special meetings.

[3:06:55] » Is there a friendly amendment to 2,000 to 3,000?

[3:07:01] No, I don't think he's accepting my friendly amendment, Mr. Mayor.

[3:07:04] He's only worried about He's only worried about Councillor Hoyle right

[3:07:07] now. So, let's just give $2,000 to you, to

[3:07:12] Councillor White, and Councillor Hoyle. Otherwise, we'll be here all night.

[3:07:17] » Well, we haven't included Councillor Elder.

[3:07:22] Maybe we should get it from him. >> Sure. Let me get my checkbook.

[3:07:28] I hope not. >> Councillor Aberley.

[3:07:32] » I want $3,000 now, too, please. And I apologize and I

[3:07:36] we're all getting punchy, but this is good. This is where we're getting along.

[3:07:39] [clears throat] I think

[3:07:43] to sort of support

[3:07:47] Councillor Neilson's sort of support Councillor Neilson is

[3:07:51] that instead of

[3:07:55] at this point naming individual counselors because we're

[3:08:00] going to have to do this vote three times.

[3:08:04] Are we being more efficient to say we raise this number to da da da for

[3:08:13] this year to be taken out of contingency?

[3:08:16] » That I can support.

[3:08:20] » Councilor White >> I'd like to build on the

[3:08:24] friendly amendment that Councilor Aberly has started to suggest.

[3:08:31] I'd like to Would Would you consider Councilor Billingsley amending this to

[3:08:37] add 5,000? No.

[3:08:45] I withdraw. I think it needs to be a policy change and I would be willing to

[3:08:49] to make that motion at a future date. This is This is too messy for me to

[3:08:55] support. >> Mhm.

[3:08:59] » Councilor Aberly >> Thank you, sir. Uh through the chair to

[3:09:04] Councilor White I appreciate exactly. I I agree. It

[3:09:10] There needs to be a policy change.

[3:09:20] And I appreciate your hesitation. Now to

[3:09:26] administration

[3:09:29] if we wait to put money into any of these people's

[3:09:35] accounts um

[3:09:39] because we're changing our policy which is going to be changed in 6 weeks

[3:09:44] or not six not 6 weeks but which we're going to revisit in 6 weeks.

[3:09:50] Any not anyway? Hmm. We will be looking at this policy during

[3:09:56] the organizational meeting that happens in 6-8 weeks cuz

[3:10:00] 8 weeks?

[3:10:02] My concern right now is will my fellow councilors

[3:10:08] be going to meetings and having it show that they now owe money because we've

[3:10:14] overpaid them for their

[3:10:18] duties. So, I appreciate that we need a policy.

[3:10:24] I also appreciate that the I think the money needs to be

[3:10:28] there now.

[3:10:32] » Councilor Hawaii. >> Councilor Aberly, or through the chair

[3:10:35] to Councilor Aberly, you are correct because by our policy, which we brought

[3:10:38] up, if we go over, we have to pay it back. That's why I was trying to be

[3:10:42] proactive in saying that I don't want to go there because of

[3:10:46] that. It's a whole 'nother ballgame. We can ask for it back. We could come

[3:10:50] and ask for it back, and council may give us grace, but I would just like to

[3:10:54] get ahead of this. I know I have asked to have it put on, I think

[3:11:00] I'm not quite sure which meeting Is it September 8th going forward to have a

[3:11:04] further discussion, but as Councilor White said, she is already over, and I

[3:11:09] believe I probably am by this point either once we've got our newest amounts

[3:11:14] posted. And Councilor Neilson, have you checked yours?

[3:11:17] » I'm $50 over right now. >> He's over right now as well.

[3:11:19] » I'll leave a $50 bill at the door for >> to our own policy, we must pay this back

[3:11:24] already now. >> Or you don't get paid

[3:11:26] » Or we don't get paid going Well, and paying it back because we already are

[3:11:30] over.

[3:11:34] So, >> See, so what's what's involved in

[3:11:36] changing policy? Is it fairly quick and easy to do and just change the numbers

[3:11:41] so it it meets cuz you you know, you you've

[3:11:45] you kind of know what you're doing monthly.

[3:11:51] » You asking to What does it change to

[3:11:54] to change the policy? >> Correct.

[3:11:56] » Well, I would highly recommend studying it and actually doing some research. I

[3:11:59] don't want to just change it this afternoon.

[3:12:03] » No, I I I Again, I'm not asking that.

[3:12:06] » He's He's looking at process. >> I'm looking at what's involved. Laura

[3:12:09] has has suggested it it should be policy. I'm just asking what's involved.

[3:12:14] I don't know. Some of you guys have been here three

[3:12:16] terms. I've been here 6 months. I don't know.

[3:12:23] » Through administration, how can we pay these people

[3:12:27] » what they've earned? >> What they've earned or what they're

[3:12:30] going to pay? I just we just I know you we can do it.

[3:12:35] We're just finding the proper wording. Just pretend we're

[3:12:39] uh we're a business case that we overran and we

[3:12:43] got 15% over budget.

[3:12:48] » Uh through the chair to council, I I had suggested a few different things,

[3:12:53] some of the stuff that's been brought up today when this was being reviewed.

[3:12:57] Um and council did not support that, so council

[3:13:04] um can go against any policy that they have and give me direction to do

[3:13:10] anything. It's not great governance. Um

[3:13:15] but there are a number of different things that we could do with council's

[3:13:18] approval. Um but even just a couple weeks or

[3:13:23] months ago when we had this discussion, um council told me stick to the policy,

[3:13:28] send invoices, and that sort of stuff. So,

[3:13:31] uh we will do whatever council wants us to do.

[3:13:34] Uh the next opportunity obviously to look at this policy would be September

[3:13:38] 8th. Um and I could send it out by email and

[3:13:42] get everybody to start gathering thoughts in the meantime so that we

[3:13:45] could have a fruitful discussion on September 8th.

[3:13:48] Um so that's probably the quickest you can

[3:13:51] get a policy change. In the meantime from my bylaw

[3:13:56] although because if we remember the order, the

[3:13:59] hierarchy, um my bylaw does allow me to um

[3:14:03] transfer money. Um within I just have to report to

[3:14:07] council that I've done that. Um and so there are ways that we could

[3:14:12] make this work in the meantime or until council makes a change. The

[3:14:17] risk is going to be that we make a change that you don't support in

[3:14:21] policy and then we've now uh gone outside of everything you were

[3:14:25] thinking of. Um I can do whatever you want me to do.

[3:14:31] Um but as far as policy goes your yeah,

[3:14:34] September 8th is your next opportunity.

[3:14:40] » So is there is there any way we can pass a policy

[3:14:44] here as Councillor Billings has said not our

[3:14:49] $3,000. You you said $2,000 to to Councillor Hoyle. Is there any way

[3:14:56] for the other counselors to get some money

[3:14:59] out of a different or we wait then if we if we go to

[3:15:05] September the 8th then we have to change policy and that's to be all written down

[3:15:09] so it'll be longer.

[3:15:12] As we have to look at it then vote on it. Councillor Neilson.

[3:15:15] » Thank you Mayor Bronco.

[3:15:19] I'm going to be facetious here a little bit Sue but um

[3:15:25] but with intention.

[3:15:28] I'm over $50. When do I pay you? No, I I like I said I'm going be

[3:15:32] facetious here. Do I need to pay by the end of this

[3:15:35] month? >> With our invoicing says payable upon

[3:15:40] receipt. So, once an invoice goes to you, you

[3:15:43] need to pay it. >> So,

[3:15:47] and then what happens if I submit

[3:15:51] a committee expense report

[3:15:55] when you know I'm already over on my committee work?

[3:16:00] Are you going to pay me and then add it to my bill

[3:16:04] or are you going to tell me "I'm sorry, Wayne.

[3:16:08] We're not paying you. You're over." >> Because this is new, we haven't s-

[3:16:14] obviously gotten ahead of this properly. I think moving forward to make sure we

[3:16:17] don't run into these problems, it would be we're not paying this until you get a

[3:16:21] motion of council. >> Okay.

[3:16:24] And if there's anybody in the world still listening to this conversation,

[3:16:28] » [laughter] [clears throat]

[3:16:30] » I want to point out again that we went into this kind of blind in

[3:16:35] terms of simply taking the dollars that we were

[3:16:38] spending, allocated sort of equally across the

[3:16:41] board, not knowing how many committees people were going to be sitting on. So,

[3:16:45] we find ourselves here because of that disparity.

[3:16:48] It's not that we are necessarily spending more money than we spent

[3:16:51] previously. It's just that we put them in buckets

[3:16:54] and tried to keep them there. And we found out

[3:16:57] that the bucket system as

[3:17:02] we put into place isn't working.

[3:17:05] It doesn't mean that it won't once we clean some of this up.

[3:17:08] » Yeah. >> So, it's not like we're spending more of

[3:17:10] the city's taxpayers' dollars here. Um

[3:17:15] so, I guess

[3:17:19] for Councillor White and Councillor Neilson

[3:17:22] and Councillor Hoyle,

[3:17:27] we're going to our next meetings knowing we will not be

[3:17:32] compensated.

[3:17:36] And Councillor Nielsen and Councillor White will both be receiving

[3:17:40] bills from the city.

[3:17:45] And yourself as well. Councillor Hoyle owes money, too. You

[3:17:49] just want to go on record making sure everybody knows how much money we owe.

[3:17:53] Um and again, I'm being facetious, but it

[3:17:57] it seems

[3:18:00] I don't expect anybody to do committee work

[3:18:05] and not be compensated for their committee work as per policy.

[3:18:08] I may or may may not say as per policy, but

[3:18:11] um

[3:18:16] Joining city council, we were given responsibilities to look after

[3:18:24] and compensation for that. And I don't think they should be going

[3:18:29] off to meetings and not being compensated for it.

[3:18:33] So, it's just a matter of how do we manage this?

[3:18:37] Again, >> Go ahead, Sue.

[3:18:40] » Thank you. Can I just throw this out there for council to consider?

[3:18:43] Because of the fact that we didn't budget properly,

[3:18:48] are you okay in this instance until you get the policy back in front of you for

[3:18:53] me just to do a transfer from the people who do not have as many

[3:18:58] committees as the people who are

[3:19:01] sitting on all the committees? Like, can I just make this transfer

[3:19:06] internally to get us caught up and then start to

[3:19:11] have that policy discussion to sort it out?

[3:19:19] » Councillor Hoyle and Councillor Billingsley.

[3:19:23] » Through the chair to council and that is

[3:19:27] I agree we need to fix the problem. It's an interim fix.

[3:19:32] And I don't want to rush through this per diem and remuneration

[3:19:37] talk which I'm worried we will do if we do it

[3:19:41] next meeting. I would like to have some discussion and

[3:19:44] make sure we fix it or fix is a bad word that we make sure we get it right so

[3:19:48] that we're not revisiting this next year. Um

[3:19:52] so however we deal with today, I think that conversation about the actual per

[3:19:57] diems and the expense policy and remuneration needs to come at a time

[3:20:01] when we've all had a chance to look over it, think what we need we want in it and

[3:20:06] make sure it's what we actually want and not something that we are doing as a

[3:20:09] quick fix next meeting.

[3:20:13] » Councilor Billingsley.

[3:20:16] » Thank you. Through the chair to Sue. Yes, as far as I'm concerned, but having

[3:20:22] said that, I don't think you need our permission to do that. It's part of your

[3:20:27] um CIO's

[3:20:30] You're allowed to do that anyway whether we

[3:20:33] say today yes or nay, yay or nay. Is that correct?

[3:20:36] » That is correct. However, um after the discussion we had that I should be

[3:20:41] following policy, I would like some support from council to do that.

[3:20:46] Although I have the authority, I recognize that might not be everyone's

[3:20:50] desire. >> You have my support to to do that and it

[3:20:54] may lead to my second motion that we have in the budget.

[3:21:01] » And and counselor Averly. >> Thank you, sir.

[3:21:06] I want two clarifications because I think I'm

[3:21:09] still following along.

[3:21:13] Councilor Elder, was your question answered?

[3:21:15] » No, I'm going to let you guys finish this and then I will deal with mine.

[3:21:19] » Thank you. >> Welcome.

[3:21:21] » Cuz I Cuz I think it's a genuine question. If

[3:21:25] I want to look at a policy, how do how do we do that? And we start talking

[3:21:29] about other things. Uh second

[3:21:34] are you withdrawing your motion because we do

[3:21:37] have a motion on the table? And now we're talking about maybe just

[3:21:41] letting Sue do what sh she not letting Sue do what she does.

[3:21:47] Um Sue has a in her policy says that she

[3:21:52] can do something and she is asking for a general

[3:21:56] consensus of council that in this instance

[3:22:01] it happens. But we do have a motion on the floor.

[3:22:04] So, whether or not we're voting, removing the motion, doing the motion

[3:22:09] » My concern of withdrawing it as long as there's support for

[3:22:15] having letting allowing, letting

[3:22:18] um having the CAO reallocate.

[3:22:25] Because if there's not will of council to let her do that, then my motion would

[3:22:30] stand.

[3:22:34] » Tough legislative one. >> Right? So, I will with I have faith in

[3:22:39] this group. I will withdraw my motion. >> Well, I'm going to vote against this.

[3:22:46] Technically you don't. >> I know.

[3:22:49] » So, who's going to make the >> And and and the reason

[3:22:53] because there was a second motion and then it has to do with

[3:22:57] um myself. Um

[3:23:01] going to the MCC MCM C conference and the AB Munis conference in regards to um

[3:23:10] doing MCMC work.

[3:23:15] So, if that's the case and [clears throat] we give

[3:23:20] authority to our CIO to reallocate, I'm okay with that and I don't need to make

[3:23:26] that second motion. But, do we need to

[3:23:32] um do we need to

[3:23:37] authorize give direction?

[3:23:44] » Councillor Averley. >> Thank you, sir.

[3:23:47] Uh I would like to make a motion that we direct

[3:23:54] administration cuz or would I direct you directly? Oh my gosh.

[3:24:00] Administration um to

[3:24:05] allocate money to council's per diems

[3:24:11] as noted in her city manager bylaw.

[3:24:17] » City city manager bylaw. >> Go ahead.

[3:24:22] » Councillor >> Sorry.

[3:24:25] » Not specifically to per diems because my second one isn't per diems. I've got

[3:24:29] enough in per diems. But, to travel to MCMC

[3:24:33] is >> remunerations?

[3:24:35] » No, it's not remuneration. It is travel expense.

[3:24:40] Which >> Uh I

[3:24:41] » I'd say different bucket. >> I would like to see that as a separate

[3:24:43] discussion though. >> Fair enough.

[3:24:45] » Yeah.

[3:24:51] » Then I stay with per diems. >> Yeah.

[3:24:58] » Any debate? All of those in favor?

[3:25:02] » No, I'm not in favor.

[3:25:04] » Carried. >> Yes.

[3:25:05] » No. >> Next.

[3:25:07] » No, I think the same. >> Hey, hold hold on a second, Joe. Just 1

[3:25:11] second.

[3:25:14] » Sorry, could that motion please be repeated so I could see it? I was not

[3:25:18] prepared to vote on that. I was trying to raise my hand to ask.

[3:25:22] What exactly are we voting on? >> I don't know.

[3:25:25] » I apologize. I don't know why you didn't understand that.

[3:25:28] » Councillor White. >> Because I was very clear and succinct.

[3:25:33] I move to direct administration to reallocate money to council per diems as

[3:25:38] noted in the city manager's bylaw.

[3:25:43] » Any debate?

[3:25:51] All in favor? Carried.

[3:25:56] » Okay, so now, sorry, Joe. >> Go ahead, Councillor Elder.

[3:26:01] » Okay. >> So, I'm going to go back to mine. Now,

[3:26:04] this is where I messed up, so I take full accountability here. I don't know

[3:26:08] how to fix it, so I'm going to ask. I did not claim October, November, and

[3:26:15] December

[3:26:20] in 2025 until January 26th. So, that's on me.

[3:26:27] Administration was nice enough

[3:26:31] to pay it. But, it ends up in 2026. Now, that puts

[3:26:36] me over owing $2,000. So, how do we deal with this one now?

[3:26:42] I'd like to I guess make a motion

[3:26:46] to somehow correct this. I don't [laughter] know how to make a motion.

[3:26:49] Um

[3:26:52] I I look at it like it's an administ- well,

[3:26:57] administration error in in the years, but it's a Mark Elder error in

[3:27:01] paperwork.

[3:27:04] So, do do do do how would this motion go

[3:27:08] here? Uh-oh, got hands. >> Councillor Berglund, speak.

[3:27:11] » So, I move that council directs administration

[3:27:17] to

[3:27:24] to pay

[3:27:30] I'm sorry?

[3:27:33] No, because this actually would actually have to come out of

[3:27:37] um contingency because this is out of 2025, not 2026. So, in other words, I

[3:27:44] move that council directs administration to take from contingency

[3:27:52] to pay Councillor Elders'

[3:27:56] overage from 2025.

[3:28:02] Because and I I'd like to speak to that. And I think it's important um

[3:28:07] » [clears throat] >> we've had this discussion before um

[3:28:11] that you were new and didn't know exactly how it worked

[3:28:15] um because you did do the work. Right? I mean, it's not like we're we're

[3:28:20] saying um you you uh didn't do the work, so you don't deserve to get paid. That's

[3:28:25] not it at all. It was it was late filing, I guess.

[3:28:31] Right? And nobody here is saying that you didn't do the work. So, I think it's

[3:28:35] important that that bill

[3:28:38] is wiped clean from 2025.

[3:28:42] Because that money's that were allocated in 2025

[3:28:46] would have gone into contingency anyway because the money wasn't spent in 2025.

[3:28:54] » Councillor Neisner. >> Thank you. So, to that point, I I I

[3:28:57] totally agree. The work's been done. The paperwork was missing at the time.

[3:29:02] It got entered into the the next available year. Sue, how do you make

[3:29:06] that kind of a correction?

[3:29:11] » Exactly.

[3:29:19] There it is. Thank you. Um because the books were closed, we

[3:29:23] couldn't actually pull it from 2025, so using the contingency is exactly the

[3:29:29] the right way to do that. So, what we'll do is just pull the 2050

[3:29:34] from contingency and cancel out the invoice.

[3:29:38] » And that was your motion then? >> Yes, because

[3:29:40] » Okay. I'm I'm good with

[3:29:41] » The the dollars that weren't spent in 2025 under council would have gone into

[3:29:45] contingency anyway. >> Yes.

[3:29:48] » Hey, so the motion's on the floor. All of those in favor?

[3:29:54] Carried. Thank you. Councillor Billings, you have another motion.

[3:29:57] » Yeah, so this isn't per diems because I do have I

[3:30:02] believe I have enough per diems. >> Thank you.

[3:30:05] » Um but I do have potential of travel expenses and conference expenses that I

[3:30:12] believe is important that I attend as being the MCMC representative. Um

[3:30:19] my quick calculation um

[3:30:23] is about $3,500. I might be on the high side on that

[3:30:27] because I do have dollars available still in my own personal buckets.

[3:30:34] So, I am asking um for reallocation up to $3,500, which I don't believe will

[3:30:41] be necessary. And it's not per diems.

[3:30:46] » [clears throat] >> It's travel expenses and or training,

[3:30:50] you might say.

[3:30:54] » Councillor Elder, so now I have another question for you.

[3:31:00] If I don't use a nickel of my travel expenses, does that go back into

[3:31:04] contingency? >> Yes.

[3:31:07] » So that should be no problem covering whatever.

[3:31:12] Cuz I won't I won't spend a nickel of this.

[3:31:14] » So and yes, and so then that what would happen then is that

[3:31:19] however the CAO decides would reallocate dollars.

[3:31:22] » Okay. >> Councillor Neilsen.

[3:31:26] » And I think I I'm I'm on the same page, I think. But through the chair to Sue,

[3:31:32] we've allocated money somewhere in our council budget for MCMC

[3:31:38] travel.

[3:31:41] Yes? No?

[3:31:44] » Uh >> It's on the mayor's

[3:31:46] It's on the mayor's per diem, I believe. >> Well, when the policy changed, there was

[3:31:51] nothing specific. So when we go into Questica, in my budget you'll see X

[3:31:56] number for this, X number for that. When council changed their policy, we just

[3:32:01] put in blank amounts. We didn't actually say

[3:32:05] FCM, AB Munis, any of that. So is there money that to be reallocated for this?

[3:32:11] Sure, like the mayor probably would have gone to that. Um

[3:32:15] » So in your in your allocation or reallocation then,

[3:32:19] as Joe just said, that was in his budget line.

[3:32:23] Because he's not attending, it would make sense that

[3:32:28] that's that's a a committee that he's

[3:32:33] not going to attend, so the money that would have gone to him to do that would

[3:32:37] be the transferred place. >> Not necessarily, because the way that

[3:32:41] you changed the policy, you said counselors do not need to come back to

[3:32:44] council to get permission to attend things. You can attend whatever you

[3:32:48] want. If the mayor decides he wants to spend his $1,000 on something else,

[3:32:52] that's up to him. What I was planning to do with this particular

[3:32:56] um reallocation was to look at that object code across the organization and

[3:33:03] say, I have extra money in these ones, I'm going to transfer it into here

[3:33:07] because it doesn't matter whether it comes from a council budget or admin

[3:33:10] budget. At the end of the year, whatever is not spent goes into contingency.

[3:33:13] And and I do know for a fact your budgets are very tight.

[3:33:19] Um and the mayor may turn around and say, "No, I I don't want to go

[3:33:23] anywhere." Well, great. That $1,000 goes back into contingency. Um but yours are

[3:33:27] so tight that in this instance, I would likely scan

[3:33:33] the whole organization and say, "Some of these departments are behind and they're

[3:33:36] likely not going to spend this and I'm going to reallocate it from there."

[3:33:40] I just don't want you to go over again and then have this problem because

[3:33:44] you've allowed each of you individually to decide what you spend your money on.

[3:33:52] » So, Dean, can you read your motion?

[3:33:56] The $3,500?

[3:34:00] » No. There is no motion as per se other than

[3:34:04] directing

[3:34:08] I move that council direct administration to

[3:34:12] reallocate funds

[3:34:16] for training and travel as needed as per needed.

[3:34:21] » As needed. >> As needed.

[3:34:27] » Any questions? All of those in favor?

[3:34:33] » I apologize, Joe. I I didn't do that properly.

[3:34:37] Um >> Erin.

[3:34:38] » Thank you. I would like because we're not reading it either,

[3:34:43] sir. I would like >> [clears throat]

[3:34:46] » Councilor Billingsley to repeat because I missed the last part of that sentence.

[3:34:52] » I move that Council really can administration

[3:34:56] to re- allocate funds

[3:35:06] as needed for training and travel

[3:35:12] as needed.

[3:35:16] » Is that for all council budgets or just All of them. Okay.

[3:35:22] Yep.

[3:35:26] » Does that satisfy

[3:35:31] » It does, but it kind of falls along with the Well, the other one was per diems.

[3:35:35] Yep. Nope, this is good. Yep. >> Okay.

[3:35:40] Any questions? All those in favor?

[3:35:46] Thank you.

[3:35:49] We done with the new business? My last one.

[3:35:54] Um

[3:35:58] I would like to know some information how

[3:36:01] if we heard anything on the garbage bins at Starbucks or for if administration

[3:36:08] can update us on on that issue.

[3:36:14] If there's any up >> Yeah, through the chair to council.

[3:36:19] Uh we have received the plans for the enclosure.

[3:36:23] Uh they have been approved by planning and development and we are just waiting

[3:36:27] on a timeline for the installation of that enclosure.

[3:36:31] » So, the enclosure will be done before winter?

[3:36:35] » That is correct. >> Thank you.

[3:36:39] That is my question. Any further questions?

[3:36:47] » Yeah, I'm good. >> If

[3:36:49] If not, I will adjourn the meeting.

[3:36:55] And I'll see you at the next council meeting

[3:37:00] in September. Thank you.

[3:37:02] » Joe, or will you see us at the next council

[3:37:05] meeting in September? >> No, I get back on the 24th of September.

[3:37:09] » So, if I don't see you beforehand, have a

[3:37:13] wonderful trip. >> the

[3:37:15] I leave on the 4th, so you can on the 3rd, actually.

[3:37:18] So, I'll be seeing you and I'll be emailing you some issues regarding uh

[3:37:23] the CEO's uh evaluation. I'll be doing that today, so

[3:37:27] I can have that all done before I go. >> Awesome. Thank you.

[3:37:32] » Thank you. I will adjourn

[3:37:36] this meeting at 7:36. Thank you very much and have a

[3:37:41] good week. And I guess we'll see you at Maria's uh

[3:37:46] Mexican Grill grand opening night at the mall.

[3:37:50] Thank you.

[3:38:47] » Mhm.

Regular Council - 11 Aug 2026

Transcript