Are we a go?
» Mr. Mayor, we have >> Thank you. Uh, public hearing goes
first, am I correct?
» [clears throat] >> Okay.
Welcome everyone. Welcome to the regular council meeting of August the 11th.
Today we have a public hearing of bylaw 211
Sorry, go ahead. >> Uh, sorry, Mr. Mayor, we need to do the
adoption of the agenda and approval of first.
» Okay. Yes, I didn't know whether to do that,
so okay. Thank you very much for that, Sue.
Can I have adoption of the agenda or any changes to or addition?
Sue? >> Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Uh if it's possible, if we could um
change the numbering for um bylaws to present bylaw or item 7.2
and then present 7.1. Would be appreciated.
» Okay, hold on a minute. 7.1 first? >> Uh 7.2 first, Mr. Mayor.
» Okay, thank you. >> Thank you.
» Okay. Okay.
Councilor Neilson. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to
[clears throat] add under new business um
business cases. >> Okay.
» Thank you.
» Councilor Elder.
» I'd like to add something to close session, just one item as well, please.
» Thank you.
Councilor Billingsley. >> Thank you. Um I'd like to add uh two
items. One under close session under section 20
and then under new business uh per diems.
» Thank you. And I will also like to add under new
business uh just some information or update on the
Starbucks uh bins, garbage bins.
Okay. All of those in favor of the agenda as
presented.
All those in favor?
Need a motion. Yes, all of those in favor?
» You got to make make the motion, Joe. >> Mayor Brecko, I move that we accept the
agenda as amended. >> Thank you.
All those in favor? Harry, thank you.
Now, we will move into public hearing. Am I correct, Sue?
» No, approval of minutes. >> Approval of the minutes and then the
public hearing. >> Thank you. Sorry again. I got
Can I have approval of the minutes for July the 28th?
Councillor Neilson.
» Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move the council adopts the regular council meeting
minutes of July 28th, 2026 as presented. >> Thank you.
Can I have 3.2 for the whole No, maybe we should vote.
Oh, that's all it is. >> please.
» Committee of the whole, can I have a motion to accept the committee of the
whole? >> No, I have a motion on the floor for
adopting the regular council meeting minutes.
» Okay. Thank you. All those in favor?
Harry, [clears throat] thank you. >> Mr. Mayor, I would now like to move the
council adopts the committee of the whole minutes for for July 28th, 2026 as
presented. >> Thank you, sir. Any questions or any
not? All those in favor? Harry, thank you.
So, we will move on to 4.1, a public hearing
for bylaw 2112-26 to amend
the municipal development plan 2113-26
to adopt the Evergreen aerial structure plan.
I declare the public hearing for bylaw 21
12-26 and 2113-26
at 4:05.
Purpose of the bylaw? I will ask planning and development to
explain the purpose of the hearing. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The purpose of
this hearing is to receive public input on bylaws 2112-26
to amend the Municipal Development Plan and 2113-26
to adopt the Evergreen Area Structure Plan.
» Thank you. Has the notice of the hearing been provided in accordance with the
applicable legislation bylaws of the city of
Wetaskiwin? >> Yes, the public hearing was advertised
on whatifwetaskiwin.ca as of July 30th, 2026 as per the requirement from the
Municipal Government Act section 606 and the city's advertising bylaw 1976-20.
In addition, it was advertised in the Pipestone Flyer on July 30th and August
6th, 2026. >> Thank you.
I will now request that planning and development provide their report
regarding this matter. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Administration is recommending the council approve bylaw 2112-26
amending the Municipal Development Plan and bylaw 2113-26
to adopt the Evergreen Area Structure Plan.
These bylaws are being considered jointly in a public hearing as they have
corresponding content and are jointly required to bring the Evergreen Area
Structure Plan into effect. >> Thank you. Have we received any written
submissions? >> Administration received one written
submission. This is included in the agenda package provided to council and
the public uh in which the Battle River Watershed Watershed Alliance expresses
considerations regarding the protection of wetlands in the Evergreen ASP area.
» Thank you. I will now call upon anyone who wishes
to speak directly to council on this matter.
Not? First, we will call upon those who
registered prior to the meeting and then anyone who else wishes to speak
may have an opportunity.
Please note that all speakers will be given no more than 5 minutes to speak.
Is there anybody willing to speak?
There are no formal registration to speak. Is there anyone present wishing
to speak to this matter?
Is there anyone present wishing to speak to this matter?
» One second, Joe. >> [clears throat]
» Okay.
Apologies, Mr. Mayor. It appears the submission from Battle River Watershed
Alliance was not provided in writing to council, and so I will read it into the
record. >> Thank you.
» Uh entitled Watershed Considerations for the Evergreen Special Study Area
Statutory Plan. Battle River Watershed Alliance, as the
provincially designated watershed planning and advisory council for the
Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds in Alberta,
appreciates the opportunity to engage with the City of Wetaskiwin and provide
input on the Evergreen Area Structure Plan, the plan.
We provided initial feedback through the Special Study Area Survey in February
2026 and would like to follow up on a few key recommendations as they pertain
to the final draft of the plan. As outlined under the environmental
stewardship and open space integration section on page 10 of the plan,
environmental preservation was identified as a paramount priority
across all stakeholder groups. Participants explicitly called for the
protection of existing wetlands, mature tree stands, and natural drainage
patterns. Related to the protection of existing
wetlands, BRWA would like to reiterate our recommendation to protect the
wetland in the southeast corner of the study area.
As identified in the image on in the submission and described in
greater detail as part of the Marsh 2 wetland complex on page 24 of the city
of Wetaskiwin special study area biophysical impact assessment.
Currently, the plan proposes a new collector road at 47th Avenue that would
curve to connect with West Street running north-south.
As identified in figure six of the plan and figure 3.2 of the Wetaskiwin special
study area structure plan transportation impact assessment,
this road would pass directly through the wetland area.
As identified in the biophysical impact assessment, historical imagery has shown
this to be a persistent wetland complex. In order to more fully protect this
wetland, the collector road could curve around the northeast side of the wetland
or be located further north from 48th Avenue to West Street.
In addition, park space two could be expanded to more meaningfully recognize
and protect the extent of this wetland. See figure eight on page 29 of the plan.
Note open space area one and two descriptions on page 17 of the plan are
not aligned with the park space numbers in figure eight.
Another wetland area and park space that would benefit from further evaluation is
Fen 1 and park space six. As described on page 24 of the
biophysical Impact Assessment. Historical imagery repeatedly shows
modeled wet areas and ponding within this portion of the site, supporting the
interpretation that wet conditions have persisted in this area over time.
The mapped connection between Fen 1 and Marsh 2 suggests hydrologic interaction
between these wetland units, particularly during wetter periods or
spring runoff. Given the above, protecting the fen area
identified in the yellow box in the below image in the submission, could
support hydrologic and ecological connectivity in the study area.
Currently, Park Space 6 is located south of 49th Avenue and does not coincide
with this wetland area. The park space could be expanded or
moved to the north to provide meaningful protection of this wetland, as well as
enhanced connectivity between park spaces 6, 7, and 2, and Fen 1 and Marsh
2. Thank you for the opportunity to provide
feedback on the draft plan. We would welcome any follow-up questions or
further discussion about these concerns and potential solutions.
» I would like to thank everyone for their presentation of this hearing.
» [clears throat] >> Council will discuss and debate this
matter later in this meeting. I declare the public hearing for bylaw 211
3 -26 and 2113-26
closed at 4:12.
Thank you all. We will move on to
business arising Oh, public hearing. We're sorry we got that.
Business arising of the minutes.
Staff report for decision.
Six 6.1, please.
» Is it on? Okay.
The budget accountability policy CO-012. The purpose of this report is to obtain
council's approval on the budget accountability policy, which was
initially presented at the Committee of the Whole meeting on July 14, 2026.
At the meeting, council requested a few changes in which include the following:
a change to the policy statement, a removal of the definition of
management, a requirement for operating budget
approval to include council's up- operating budget amendment to include
council's approval, as well as that of budget reallocations. These changes have
now been incorporated into the policy that is hereby presented to council for
approval today. Thank you.
» Councillor Hoy, Councillor White.
» I move that council approve the budget accountability policy C0-
or CO-012 as presented.
And I'd like to start by through the chair to
administration, I appreciate the
time and effort that's been taken to get council's feedback and input in
these finance policies. I recognize we have a a number of them today that have
uh taken work and you have
uh diligently implemented or tried to accom-
incorporate the feedback that was received from council.
I appreciate that and I will be supporting the motion I just made.
» Okay, any further questions?
If not, can I have a vote on the motion, please? All of those in
favor?
Carried. Thank you.
Item 6.2.
» The next policy is the procurement or purchasing policy CO-016.
This policy was also presented to council for feedback at the July 28th
Committee of the Whole meeting. Um council provided its input into the
policy and that has since been updated in the final document that's hereby
presented for approval.
» Have a motion, please. >> Councillor Neilson.
I move the council gives approval. Sorry, I move the council approve the
procurement purchasing policy CO-016 as presented and I do not have any
questions but will be supporting this motion.
» Thank you. Any further questions from my
colleagues? If not, I'll have a motion to accept
this. All those in favor? Barry, thank you.
We will move on to 7.2.
» 6.3. >> Oh, I'm sorry.
6.3, I missed one. >> Item 6.3.
» It's on the back. Go ahead. It's on the back page, I'm
sorry.
Go ahead. >> The long-term debt policy CO-064.
The long the long-term debt policy was presented um to council for the its
input at the July 28th, 2026 meeting. This is a brand new policy that
discusses our debt limit and um how debt is to be handled in the municipality. Um
the total outstanding debt as of June 30th, 2026 was 8.8 million and details
of repayment has been included in council's agenda and was also discussed
at the previous meeting.
Thank you. >> Councilor [clears throat] White.
Councilor White, can I have a motion?
» Sorry, I my mic wasn't on. I apologize, Mayor Brinkle. I move that council
approve the long-term debt policy CO-064 as presented.
» Thank you. All of those in favor?
Carried, thank you. We'll move on to 6.4
Chambers upgrade.
Sorry.
» Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. For the record, my name is Chris Bond,
Manager of Fleet and Facilities. Today, I am seeking council's
consideration and direction on the preferred layout for council chamber
upgrade project and furniture options. At the July
pardon me, at the June 23rd regular council meeting, council
directed administration to develop additional layout options that keep all
council members seated together on the same level
while maintaining the historic character of council chambers.
At that time, council also requested an option that utilizes the existing
furniture. In response, administration has
developed two additional layouts, option F and G, that
are located within your agenda package. Both options seat all council on the
same level together within a gallery configuration.
These provide the direct sight lines between council, administration, and the
public all while retaining the historic judges bench in order to preserve the
historical character of the room. The two layouts differ primarily in the
orientation of council within the room. Layout F relocates council to the south
side of the chambers while layout G positions council along
the east and south wall providing improved separation between council,
administration, and public to best support the recommendations identified
within council chamber security review. Upon evaluation of both options,
administration is recommending layout G as it provides the best balance of
functionality, heritage preservation, security, and
sightlines for council, administration, and the general public.
Today's decision will provide administration with the direction we
require on the preferred layout and furniture options.
This will then allow administration to complete a finalized design budget or
detailed design, capture the full project costing, submit the final design
for provincial heritage approval, and then return to council if additional
funding is required. This concludes my presentation and then
I'm happy to answer any questions council may have.
» Can I have a motion, please? Councillor Billingsley.
» Microphone on, please. Sorry. I move that council directs administration to
proceed with council chambers layout
G and retrofit council desks option.
And I will speak to that. >> Go ahead.
» I'm a little torn between F and G. Um I personally like the look of F
better, but I understand the security concerns that these when the security
audit was done of why administration is recommending
G. Um,
it's my understanding that um, a new desk would be required for council to
sit at. Um, but it's also my understanding that
um, it can be done in-house.
Um, to be able to not have a large expense to be able to
do this. So, for that reason, I will support G.
But, if somebody wants to convince uh, convince me that F is better, that's
fine, too.
» Councillor White. >> I'm not sure I can convince my fellow
councillor, but I do have a question for administration. So, thank you, Mayor
Branco, through the chair to our administration.
In the layout variation F, would the same it the drawing looks like
the same table for council as in drawing G. So, is there any
reason that variation G is
of lower less expense? >> Uh, through the chair to the question
uh, to the council's question. Um,
what we've proposed is the the layout options with either
um, layout F or G. And then, a supplemental question uh, for council to
uh, provide direction on whether we were to retrofit existing furniture as best
we can or purchase new. So, that would be with either option uh, for the
retrofit.
» Can you say that last bit one more time? I need just need to absorb it. I
apologize for not catching it all. >> Not a problem.
Within either option F and G, what we proposed is a gullwing design for the
counselor desks. What we're seeking is a decision from
counselor within either option to whether to try and retrofit the
existing furniture that we have which would pertain to both layout options
or to procure new furnishings for the chambers.
» So that I understand then
the layout is a choice and then the furniture either new or retrofit is a
choice. Two separate choices to make. >> That would be correct.
» Thank you. If we're just laying on design, I I
don't think I can support my fellow counselors
um motion for G because I really like F
better.
» Counselor Hoy. >> Um
Thank you, Chris. To uh through the chair to administration. So you speak of
a security audit. And I believe that was probably before
this council's time. And so what
what was said in that audit that suggests
G would be better for security. >> Uh through the chair to the question. Um
I would rather take that uh in camera or take it as a formal information request
and to uh discuss what was in the the the security review for for the chambers
in open forum. >> Thank you.
» Counselor Neilson. >> Do you want to go in?
» I move that we go into closed session.
» All of those in favor?
» Mhm.
» Okay, we on?
» We are live, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you. Can I have a motion to come
out of camera, please? Councilor White.
» I move we come out of camera. >> All those in favor?
Very thank you. Continue on, please. Any further questions
to Chris?
Chris, I have a question. Uh
cost for just upgrading
electronics, I call electronics all the upgrades to the new
cameras or IT equipment.
Do you know the cost of that?
Microphone, please.
» Sorry. Through the chair to the chair, the current budget that we have that has
been previously approved is 99,000 for information technology
replacement. Uh to bear in mind, that does not include
uh the infrastructure upgrades. That's part of the facilities budget that
that we take on through the 96,000 that is earmarked for facilities.
» So, 90 let's say 99,000. Roughly 100.
Rough estimate on moving any kind of furniture around there. So, what is the
total budget we allowed for this upgrade, including
I know you can't answer that cuz we don't know what we're doing, but but
what is our budget that we allowed for this upgrade?
» Uh through the chair to the chair, uh the overarching budget uh for both
portions that has been previously approved is $195,000.
» Thank you very much. Any further questions from my
colleagues?
Councillor White. >> Thank you, Mayor Branco. Through the
chair to administration, please confirm that I understand correctly.
Um variation E
is no changes to furniture and would be only
the technology upgrades that have been proposed.
» Uh through the chair to the question, um that would be correct. There would be uh
infrastructure upgrades that we would have to undertake as well.
Um but it it remains pretty much status quo with the addition of the original
bar uh that was in the courthouse at the at
the time. >> Thank you. With that, I think is what
I'm most likely to favor, so I probably will
I anticipate not supporting um
Councilor Billingsley's uh move.
» I have a question. Uh Chris, when we say IT, does that mean we we're
getting new um
computers in front of us? Larger one? Is there any lights or
something that we push a button we want to speak or
or we just keep the same apparatus what we have on top of our desk?
» Uh through the chair to the chair, I am going to defer to my uh colleague in IT
who will be able to answer to that question for you a little bit better
than I will. >> Thank you.
» Yes, Mayor. Uh the equipment that's planned to be replaced is the
microphones, the um screens in front of you,
and the TVs up on the wall, and the speakers sound system.
Plus as Chris alluded to, also to support all that is the infrastructure
wiring cabling to make it uh full or long-term cabling instead of over the
floor.
» Thank you. Councilor Billingsley.
» Thank you. Through the chair to council, I guess. Um if G is not
approved or any others and we go with status quo,
um the 90 9,000, 96,000, whatever the dollar
amount was for the IT portion, um there still will be capital costs as far
as um we will be dipping into the other
$100,000 for some work that has to be done within council chambers, no matter
what. Is that correct? >> Through the chair to the the question,
that would be a correct statement. What administration is looking for is
direction from council from two areas on the layout and whether we are going to
re-man and reuse the furniture that we have.
At that time, once we once we have determined the the layout, then we will
be able to put together a more accurate picture of what those costs are going to
be. >> So, I'll follow up with that. So,
to council, if if it because you don't want to go with variation
F or G is because it costs more for the renovation.
There still will be costs involved whether we keep the look of it being the
same. And I think that that has to be understood, right? That we still
will have other expenses other than the IT portion of that.
Make that very clear.
» Question. So, status quo, my my understanding would be everything stays
the same the way it is. Other than if we have a few bugs on our
TV or our microphones, but
it's hard to approve something we don't know what actually the cost is.
Are we upgrading one, two, three TVs? Are we spending 40,000, 50,000?
My my understanding, maybe correct me if I'm wrong,
the status quo would be leave it the way it is.
Is that correct or
Yes, sir. >> Thank you. Um
through the chair to council, status quo would be for the furniture,
the technology upgrade still needs to happen. So, that is within approved
budget. There's a There's a lot of clunkiness
and and I know uh we've run into this before. We've had
to stop council because we've lost live feed or we've lost the ability to
connect the different systems. We've got way too many systems that are running to
try and make this work efficiently. Um and we're at risk almost every
meeting of uh of not being able to connect
properly. >> So,
if I may, status quo plus $99,000 for IT
is what we have budget.
Councilor Billingsley. >> Through to the mayor, no. And that was
the point I was trying to make. No matter what, if we decide to upgrade IT,
there will be other expenses even if we leave this setup the same as it is
today.
Does that make sense to you?
» No. No, that That's confusing. If we're
upgrading IT, we have a budget of $99,000.
$999 or $900. I'm sorry. $100,000. Let's forget $100,000. So,
that would covers all IT and everything else to bring in IT. What
is the other cost for furniture?
» Through the chair to the chair, those additional costs would be borne under
the 96,000 that has been uh previously approved uh for those infrastructure
upgrades to support the new IT hardware uh that that would be required to
sustain council meetings moving forward. >> Thank you.
Erin Abernethy. >> Thank you, Joe Branco. And I'm I'm just
having fun with you today. Thank you, Mayor Branco. Through the chair to
council. Um
I would really like to divide this question into two questions.
So, we're not getting confused into where
the numbers are aren't. Um
is I am not in favor of any changes to
the room. Uh
other than maybe some cosmetic, but I am totally in favor of being more
accessible to the community by having an upgraded um
Sorry. I these stuff
sound system and and do all of that. And so,
my position right now is to just vote no
for everything.
Like both of these questions. And I I wonder if
that is also a challenge.
» Councillor White. >> Thank you, Mayor Branco.
If the motion that's on the table for variation G is defeated,
I am prepared to make a motion for variation E, which is no change in
furniture. The upgrades to technology have already
been approved, so that's um not the question on the table, I
believe.
That's where I'll be. >> Councillor Billingsley.
» Thank you. I'll put in one last
for a variation G. If the we are going to have capital expense
whether we go with EF or G. And I think, in my opinion, that G is a
more efficient way for us to communicate with each other and be able to have
um conversation much better than than what we have currently.
So, either way, whether it's EF or G, we are going to have expenses
um outside of IT.
» Councilor Neilson. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Chris,
I'm wondering if you could
help me understand when you say other
structural changes to accommodate IT. We at one point talked about
floor channels for for wiring, we talked about a new carpet.
From from off the top of your head, what is that
$100,000 going to buy us outside of the
$100,000 we set aside for technology?
» Uh through the chair to the question. Um so, uh two points with that. Uh within
that those infrastructure upgrades to run those new data lines, uh get those
buried within floor, uh for the electrical that would be
required so that we don't have extension cords
uh running over uh council chambers, providing a tripping hazard. Both of
those two items uh we're targeting at $58,000 to to complete that work, to be
able to pull the floor up, uh run those conduits, channels, uh new
circuits uh for the electrical portion, and a lot of data lines coming back to
each individual workstation. So, just that portion of the infrastructure
alone, we've budgeted $58,000 for just that portion. Now, to keep in
mind those incremental costs from a design perspective, they will increase
the however we we do the layout, but we are still going to get hit with a good
portion of that $58,000 regardless of whether we stay status
quo, we go with whatever option that council desires moving forward.
So, that is just one thing to to keep in mind is that we will still get hit with
a base charge for those. The incremental cost for moving 10 ft,
we'd have to start capturing those costs once we have a defined definitive
layout, uh but we still will get hit with a portion of those costs.
» Thank you. And the status of the floor covering, where does that fit into all
of these numbers? >> Uh the floor covering uh pardon me, uh
through the chair to the question. Uh the floor covering uh that is a
completely uh separate capital charter that is funded to I believe
top of mind 14,000 that we do have uh funding for. So, that that isn't
included within this project scope per se. Um it is another line item that was
previously approved by council. >> Thank you. In relation to the
uh variation or scale number E, you indicated the
reinstallation of the fence. So, I'm assuming the fence is intact. It's a
matter of just nailing it to the floor. Not really, but
» Uh through the chair to the question. Um
in a roundabout way, yes, that would be correct. It It is not the
fabrication of a new um uh bar per se. We We do have the original bar uh from
when it was a courthouse. Uh the the idea would be to just reinstall it in in
the space if that is the way that we are going
» Thank you. And if we go to variation G, where we have two lines on on my picture
here um delineating between the public and
council and administration, there appears to be another fence type
structure there. Um
I'm assuming that would then need to be fabricated from scratch.
» Through the chair to the question. Uh that's one of the things that we'd have
to take as a takeaway for the final design.
Uh the intent would be to uh utilize a portion of the existing bar that we
have, but I would anticipate with that design that we would have to custom
fabricate cate pardon me custom fabricate a few bits
and pieces um to augment uh what we don't have.
» And my last question, and Chris, thank you for indulging me, is uh
I I I sort of asked this question before we were redirected out here. Um
If we maintain the structure we currently have right
now, we tear up the floor, put the new
runways in, blah blah blah blah, all of that,
then down the road, if there is an intent
to add furniture when we become really rich
as a community, um we could build new,
but would have to maintain the same design
as we're sitting at now because of the underfloor
cabling channels. >> Uh through the chair to the question,
um that would mean remain true with any
option that that council would consider and and direct administration. Uh
whether it be option G, there's there's always, let's say, a
little little bit of room for wiggle room, uh but I think that's that's where
council needs to make that decision on on long-term of what they
what they envision and see for the layout of of council chambers. I think
» what I was leading up to is that >> [clears throat]
» while this particular seating arrangement and
structure is what it is today,
it could be 3 years from now new,
newly fabricated, but it still take this form. So, we don't have to necessarily
buy new furniture today, we could buy new furniture
next week, next year, next whenever. Okay.
» Uh through the chair to the question, yes, that would be a uh a correct
statement and then that would hold true for any of the layout options as well.
Thank you.
» Uh question, Chris. Hypothetical question.
IT, let's say we wanted new computers and
laptops, can we not run electrical cords or wire
or whatever above the carpet as we have right now?
It just I know we you say we got electrical
wire, but where it's operating now, so if you have new wiring and still have
the same status without ripping
the floor up? >> Through the chair to uh
to the chair, um i- if that's council's desire to stay
status quo with the uh with the
uh current technology and current layout um then that that is uh council's
desire. What administration has it is proposing is updating that
uh sorely needed IT hardware that we do see ongoing issues with
and provide those infrastructure upgrades to
to prepare us for um
better today and and and and better in the future.
Thank you. >> Councilor Elder.
» Mr. Uh one whoops. I'm not sure that's on.
Sorry, but [clears throat] just one quick question with F or G, do we lose
one bench in here like for seating? We've got 1 2 3 4 5 6 benches and
currently I only see four in the diagram.
» Uh through the chair to the uh question that that is correct. Uh we'd have to
take any design uh that uh council would like us to move forward
with and we would need to finalize uh exactly
what we have.
» So I guess Council Billings, you have a motion on the table for
» I do. >> Okay.
Could you please read it so we can vote on it?
» I move that uh I move that city council directs
administration to proceed uh with council chamber layout
uh G
and retrofit council desk option. >> Thank you.
All of those in favor?
Opposed?
Defeated.
Councillor White.
» I move the council directs administration to proceed with council
chamber layout option E.
» Thank you.
Can I have a vote on >> Excuse me, Mr. Mayor.
» Yes, sir. >> You're talking about just You're talking
about just the layout at this point? >> Councillor White?
» Yep. >> So So nothing to do with furniture per
se? >> Option E does not include any retrofit
or need to change. It's Keep it as is.
» Councillor Billingsley. >> Thank you. Um
through the chair to Councillor White. So are you talking
about leaving everything the same and just adding new tech and not channeling,
or are you looking to spend the I think uh Chris said about 60 50 60
thousand dollars for upgrading channeling.
» Through the chair to Councillor Billingsley, my understanding is that
the IT
uh upgrade has already been approved and there's already been money set for that
for both >> [clears throat]
» the IT and for whatever it needs to be done in in the facility to accommodate
that. And my motion is for
variation E as it's drawn and presented before us.
» Thank you.
» I think Councillor Aberly had her hand up and then Councillor Nealson.
» Yes, thank you, sir. I believe that the last question was the same as my
question, so I think it was answered. >> Thank you. Councillor Nealson.
» Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm wondering if my colleague would
accept a friendly amendment to as part of the proposal for them to
come back with a costing
Hmm.
I'm going to back up.
I'm assuming you're making an um
I'm assuming that you're assuming
» Well, at no danger there. >> Yeah, yeah, right.
That the only cost that would be incurred
with this is the money that's already been committed.
Would you accept a friendly amendment as part of
that motion to also at the same time
get a quote on
new furniture, new desks, whatever. >> Nope, that's not friendly to me.
» Thank you. >> I want to leave it as is.
» Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make amendment to the motion that's on the floor.
» Go ahead. >> I would like to
get a cost estimate of what it would include
on variation E for new
refabricated, whatever the terminology would be,
um working stations for council.
» So, if correct me if if wrong, but so we're going to vote on your
amendment. Correct? >> That is correct. All I'm asking for is a
I I believe I can support >> [clears throat]
» I thought you were correcting me.
My other colleagues could not have been so cautious about doing that. Um
I would just like to get a cost estimate as to what is what would it cost if we
replace this existing working stations for
council.
» Councilor Billingsley and then Councilor White.
» Through the chair to Councilor Councilor Neilson.
Why? And and and the reason I say that is
part of the reason was to keep the ambiance of the original courthouse and
now you're looking for something new.
Why? >> Well, if you want me to get really
serious, then I would say not something new from this perspective of new. I
would say something new that would incorporate paneling that would look
similar to what's already in the building. Not new
IKEA white glossy something that adds to
to the historical
ambiance.
» Councilor White. >> I believe this amendment is
uh better suited as a request for information and not an amendment to my
motion.
» Councilor Aberley. >> Thank you, sir. Through the chair to
council, um I will agree with Councilor White. And
here's where we sit, and I don't think I need to say it, but I'm going to say it
for anybody that hasn't met me. I love the idea of the paneling. There
are two desks, maybe three desks here that have the paneling and Councillor
Billingsley and I sit at the kids table. Kids tables that have are the reason for
this curtaining. So, I would be open to Councillor Nielsen's request,
but separate from this vote. In that, I want to figure the plan and
then we'll talk about money for furniture second.
» My concern is that the the motion on the floor
is saying leave everything as is with the
exception of the technology.
And if that motion passes, a second motion to consider furniture
is counter to the motion that would have just been approved.
» Uh Mayor Bronco, may I just because it's
directly to that? >> Go ahead.
» I see the first motion as a what does the
layout look like? And so, we agree on a layout and then
and I'm not saying we talked about this 13 weeks from now. I'm saying following
that we then discuss do we want new furniture to fit within the agreed upon
layout?
» So, my question to Councillor White would be, is that your intention to the
motion? You're not talking about furniture, you're talking about design
layout. >> Correct. Layout as presented in the
drawing.
» Okay.
I'd be happy to withdraw my amendment at this time.
» Thank you, Councillor Neilson. We'll be voting on
motion by Councillor White. Can you repeat that, Councillor White, please,
so we can vote on it?
» I move the I move that council directs administration to proceed with council
chambers layout option E.
» Thank you. Any further questions? If not,
I'll ask for any further questions.
Can I have a vote, please, on motion E.
All those in favor?
Opposed?
Carried. Thank you.
Councillor Neilson.
» As part of this conversation, I would like to make a motion, Mr. Mayor.
» Please.
» I would move council directs administration to provide a quote
for replacing existing council
workstations
with
with new
but not to lose the ambience of the original
courthouse
design.
» Any questions?
Councillor Aberley. >> Uh thank you, sir,
through the chair to Councillor Neilson, Um do you have a date that you would
like this information back? >> Yesterday.
» Great. And then a realistic date? >> That wasn't realistic.
Um
I would defer to you, Chris. >> Um through the chair to the Councillor's
question. And if I may, we we did and this may solve and answer a few
questions for you. Um not entirely the intent of of what your
motion and your ask is. But we did price out a few options along
the way. One of them was um an increase of
to the the current Councillor's desks in the
current configuration. It didn't include um
uh raised paneling or to meet the the the character that that we currently see
in the room. That cost for the two desks was 18,000. I would anticipate that we
we would probably be in about the $35,000 range
um to do the raised panels for for the two desks.
If we were to go that route of raised panels and and wood desk to meet the the
character of the room. >> And
please don't mis- mis- understand my my comment.
Um
I would like to get
I'd like to get a a proper quote. So that I'm dealing with
accurate numbers. If it is at
$35,000 that's quite different than 18,000
whatever. Um
but if it's 18 then it's it's a different part of the ballgame.
Um, my only concern No, I have two concerns. One obviously
is cost, but the other one is not losing the character of the
building. That that I think anytime anybody's come into this
building, they are jaw-dropped
um by the facility, and I would not want to
lose that by modernizing, so to speak. So, I would
appreciate accurate accurate numbers.
Thank you. >> So, we need a motion for that.
Sue?
Councilor White.
» Um, we do have a motion on the floor from
Councilor Neilson. And I I appreciate the
desire for accurate uh
financial information to make a decision, and I intend to support his
motion. >> Thank you. Any further questions?
If not, Councilor Neilson, can you please repeat your motion so we can vote
on it?
» Maybe. I don't need to capture it, or am I
winging it?
Want to add a date. That will do it for me. Do you want to add a date?
Chris, let's add a date.
» Through the chair to the council. I I think um
once we get a a design, um go back to uh
a millwork company, we we'd probably be able to turn that
around in in 4 to 6 weeks. >> Thank you. 4 to 6 weeks.
Not 46, but just I would I would um
within I would I I would ask for it to be done in 4 weeks.
And if you have to have an extension, you can have an extension. But right now
I want 4 weeks. >> Okay.
» So you're looking for September the 23rd, I believe.
» If your calendar is correct and I trust you, the answer would be yes.
» [laughter]
» Thank you. Counselor Aberley, you had a question.
» No, sir, it was answered. Thank you. >> Thank you.
So when Counselor Neill, can you make the motion so we can vote, please? You
got the date. >> You had the date. Um the council directs
administration provide a quote in 4 weeks for replacing existing council
workstations while maintaining the existing character of council chambers.
» Thank you. All of those in favor?
Opposed?
Carried. Thank you.
Finally, we got a decision over 2 years.
Are you happy now, Karen? >> Yes, sir. Thank you.
» We will move on to item 7.2. Emily, please.
» Good evening, Council. My name is Emily Sangster, Manager of Planning and
Development, and with me is Michael Reyes from Arcades, our consultant on
the Evergreen Area Structure Plan. The purpose of the presentation for this
current agenda item is to present for second and third reading bylaw 2112-26,
which would amend the Municipal Development Plan or MDP to incorporate
the policies and designations proposed in bylaw 2113-26,
Evergreen Area Structure Plan, which will subsequently be presented for
second and third readings. The MGA requires that our Municipal
Government Act requires that any Area Structure Plan be consistent with the
applicable MDP, and the MDP prevails in the event that
there's any inconsistency between the two plans.
Therefore, we are proposing amendments to the city's 2024 MDP to incorporate
the changes proposed in the ASP, and then ensure the ASP can be adopted in a
manner consistent with the approved MDP. The changes are detailed in the bylaw in
attachment one, includes some minor text changes to
update policy direction um in section 3.1.1, established
neighborhood, to clarify where light industrial uses may be permitted, and to
refer to area structure plans alongside area redevelopment plans as statutory
plans that may provide direction on the compatibility of new development.
Removing the existing policy section and implementation item providing direction
for future study in the special study area now that that's been completed. And
replacing maps two and maps four with amended maps that represent the proper
Evergreen ASP boundary and the land use designations that are proposed.
As I noted at first reading, the land use designations in map four do not
correspond exactly to the land use designations in the ASP land use
concept. And this is because the MDP's land use designations are broader than
those in the ASP. Additionally, the policies for the
relevant land use designations in the MDP indicate that statutory plans such
as this may provide further policy direction in specific areas.
So, with that summary, I'd be happy to take any questions regarding this
proposed bylaw. >> Councilor Neilson.
» Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move the council give second reading to bylaw
2112-26 amending the Municipal Development Plan
to incorporate amendments proposed in the Evergreen Area Structure Plan.
» Thank you. Any questions? Councilor Buildingsley.
» Thank you. Um
through the chair to the mayor.
Um when we had first reading, um you voted against this
and I'm trying to understand why that would be and you don't have to
necessarily Well, you don't have to answer that question, but I'm trying to
understand why. Is there some Is there amendment
that we possibly could make for you to support this? Is there something about
this that isn't sitting right? >> I'm ask I have a couple questions I
going to ask that so you can answer that.
» Perfect. Thank you. >> Malik.
So, one of my questions we had a this week or last week we had
an email sent to us. Do land owners have to give a percentage
of their lands for parks, playgrounds
as a developer?
» Uh through the through to the chair. Um I I I believe what you're referring to
is the requirement under the MGA that um at subdivision um owners of parcels
larger than a particular size are required to dedicate up to 10% of the
land for parks and open space. Uh that applies at subdivision.
So, not necessarily as part of this plan.
» What is the size they after? Is it after 10 acres? Cuz I'm wondering if you have
a landowner has 2 acres and he has to give 10 or 30% of that land for a park,
doesn't make it feasible for him to develop the land?
Is there a size of a of a before he gives it or
» Through the Through to the chair, that size is defined in the Municipal
Government Act. I believe it is 0.8 hectares.
And that requirement is not unique to this area structure plan. It's uh at any
at any subdivision the municipality may require it. And so, in the area
structure plan that we will get to, those dedication requirements have been
accounted for and mapped for general information.
» Okay. Thank you. My other quick I got a couple
more questions. 30% of tree canopy, what do you mean by
that? >> Uh Through to the chair, the city has um
I believe it's the I cannot recall if it's the urban tree
policy or the urban forest management policy, but those policies are also
reflected in the Municipal Development Plan
um indicating that the city is looking to develop its urban tree canopy to
cover 30% of the city in the long term. >> So,
is that go back again that the owner would have to give 30%
of his land to the city plus
the um
percentage of his land for parks and recreation or what do you mean tree
covering or tree that
tree canopy? Explain that more. >> Uh Through to the chair, um
30% tree canopy uh largely indicates that 30% of the area of the city is uh
covered under a shade tree or a tree cover of some
kind. That could be public land or could be private land, and it's not
um expressly related to that municipal reserve parkland dedication that I was
referring to. Um
trees can contribute to a tree canopy cover whether they're on public land or
private land. >> Okay, but what I what I'm trying to ask
and again and answer is if you have a development and he goes in
there, he or clears the whole area for a new
subdivision sidewalks, does he have to leave trees in there or does he come
back and replant it? >> Uh through to the chair, um
generally when when this administration is looking at development applications,
if there are significant tree stands, we may have a discussion with the developer
on whether they can be retained. If they cannot be retained, then we do have
landscaping requirements in our land use bylaw that um set out how um how the
area is to be replanted.
» Uh my other question and last question
we know in that area of Evergreen development there
there is a couple contaminated land. If
a developer's building and is beside there is a couple city owned um
contaminated land and uh the seepage goes into the private land, who's
responsible for that cleanup?
If it's on city owned property, which we have a a dedication here or in in the uh
photos.
» Uh through to the chair, my understanding from um discussions on
this with the province is that the generally the original polluter is
responsible for um the costs of the cleanup.
And so, depending on how um the original polluter is established and
what is shown through studies of how that contamination has migrated then
there may be mechanisms to recover some of those costs from the original
polluter, whoever that may be. >> But
the the the my old and this is a key point for me.
If if you can't find
the original polluter is the owner
whose been land has been contaminated by that partial land that the city owns
have to pay for that cleanup.
Cuz we could we could look at millions of some of the landfills that's there.
» Through to the chair uh my understanding is that there may be
mechanisms for cost recovery as well and the city may as part of actions arising
from this ASP explore options for remediation of some of the contaminated
sites.
» It's not a definite answer. It may may means we could
pay for it or the developer may have to pay or cost sharing for something he
didn't do. Okay. Uh you answered my question. Counselor
Neilson. >> Thank you. I'd like to follow up a
little bit on some questions posed because
now I piqued my curiosity.
So if I'm a landowner in
Evergreen and I've got a big parcel of land
and there's nothing on it and I want to develop it
I have to sign a portion of that property
to green space or park space.
If I'm a landowner with a big parcel of land
and I'm not planning on developing it, but I just have a big parcel of land,
do I still have to then designate a portion of my land
to park space? >> Uh through to uh through the chair to
Councillor Nielsen, the requirement for what's called municipal reserve
dedication comes into effect at subdivision.
So, if the parcel is developed as a large parcel, but not subdivided, then
that dedication requirement is not there.
» So, if I live out on Airport Road and I
have a large parcel, my house is on it, my garage is on it, I'm not doing any
further subdivision, then I do not have a requirement
to give over a portion of my land to green space?
» Through the chair to Councillor Nielsen, I see what you're saying now. Um if
uh so, in the example that you're giving um
for a a large residential property that property that has already been
developed, at that previous subdivision, um if municipal reserve was dedicated at
that time, and in most cases it was, then you're not you don't have it's not
required that the landowner provide it again.
» And if that large portion of property is actually a commercial
venture,
does that hold true as well if they're not subdividing subdividing it any
further? >> That's correct. The requirement is
regardless of the the use of the land.
» Okay, thank you.
» Councillor Billingsley. >> Thank you. Through the chair to Emily.
These regulations you speak of are are MJ and not specific
to this MDP, is that correct? >> Through the chair uh, counselor,
Billingsley, that's correct. >> Thank you.
They're not applicable to this? >> No, they're not specific to this.
» Help me understand the difference. In other words,
the the rules that you speak about are, um, part of the MGA, not
were constructed because of this specific property.
properties >> No.
» Correct. Yeah. Thank you.
» I I do have one more question.
We have where Evergreen space We have a gem in our community which is
By the Lake Park. Is it not a conflict
to compete to bring people to By the Lake Park to
enjoy our pathways and because we know what, uh,
Battle River Watershed in that area is very subject to flooding. So, we're
going to have a lot of night nature.
Is that not too close to have too many parks, high maintenance, and
» Uh, through to the chair, um,
one of the rationales for laying out the parks in the land use concept the way
that it was done was kind of recognizing that there are sort of different levels
and different types of park space, if you wish. So, By the Lake Park is a a
large regional park, um, draws people from all across the city, but, um,
it's I think we can all think of smaller neighborhood parks in our area that we
may be more likely to pop out to to walk a dog or bring a child to the
playground. And so, having both of those types of parks, um, easily accessible to
residents in this area was part of the reason why there's a number of smaller
parks proposed actually in the plan area that are not
seen to be conflicting with the larger By the Lake Park.
» As our records show, where where they can smaller playgrounds and cuz we can't
afford to main- maintain it. Um
my question is to administration.
If I vote no to the third reading or the second, what
happens? >> Uh through to the chair, um
I think that it would depend on the overall outcome of the vote. Um if the
if the proposal as a whole does not pass third reading, then the area structure
plan is defeated.
» Okay, thank you.
Any further questions?
Councilor Billingsley, then Councilor Neilson.
» Thank you. Um
I think I'm reading between the lines and maybe I'm not. Um
do you have concerns about this, Mayor Branco, that possibly an amendment to
this would alleviate your concerns?
» I I have a concerns that
I know it's all to the owners to develop when develop, but
if we're doing an industrial park and somebody wants to build an industrial
park, why would he give land away that he's already have a high
cost to develop and lose some of that land for green space when we have
green space across the street. So it's more it's more of
I know it's not up to us, it's up to the MGA or the provincial government rules,
but to have somebody that has
five, six acres and he has to give two acres away,
that's income that he's losing that he has to pay for, that he ain't getting
nothing back.
Now if the city was to say, "We're going to purchase your land for green space."
That's a different situation.
Councilor Neilson.
» No, I'm good. Thank you, sir.
» Councilor Hoyle. >> Emily, what size did you say that we
were looking at where the 10% was applicable to?
Is it 0.9 hectares? Was that correct?
» Uh through the chair to Councilor Hoyle, I would need to verify, but it is stated
in the MGA and I believe it is 0.8 hectares.
» 0.8 then that's 20 acres. I believe roundabout. So, we're talking
about a large >> No. No. No. 0.8 is not 0.8 of a hectare
is not 20 acres. >> Did she say 1/8 or 0.8?
» 0.8.
» And so, that would also >> Councilor
» That would also mean that that's applicable to any other division
subdivision going forward whether it's industrial any development in the city
this would be applicable to, correct? >> Uh through the chair to Councilor Hoyle,
any subdivision that meets the criteria set out in the MGA, yes. Thank you.
» Thank you, Mayor Bronco.
We put the cart before a whole lot of horses here because is this not just us
saying we are willing to change an MDP to
look at like I think this debate
we're just trying to see are we going to change our MDP?
Am I saying that word right? Am I understanding what the point of
this is? >> Through the chair to Councillor Aberle.
Through the chair to Councillor Aberle, the current bylaw that is um the subject
of the motion is the motion to amend the MDP right to then prepare for the ASP
bylaw to be discussed next. >> Yes. So, I will be voting in favor of
this motion both readings
um because I am in favor of
continuing this discussion about the area structure plan.
But if we were to say no in any of this now, we're not we wouldn't be having the
conversations that we've just had.
So, I would like to have you call the question, please.
» I If I may,
wouldn't it be beneficiary for us to debate that before
if one of us says no to then come back
and settle this?
» If you're asking me specifically, Mayor Bronconnier, I don't believe it would.
» Okay, thank you.
May I ask for the question?
Can somebody make a motion for the second and third reading, please?
» I did. >> We did?
» Yes, for second reading. >> Okay, all of those in favor?
Opposed?
Thank you. >> Mr. Mayor, I now move that council gives
third reading to bylaw 2112-26 amending the municipal development plan
to incorporate amendments proposed in the Evergreen area structure plan.
» All of those in favor?
Opposed?
Passed, I believe.
We'll move on to 7.1.
» Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um to follow on the public hearing that
took place earlier and the presentation uh that was made a moment ago and also
first reading of this item at the July 28th Council meeting, I wanted to
provide a brief overview of the proposed plan
being presented in Bylaw 2113-26 uh as well as a minor recommended
amendment and additional considerations. As you know, the plan area covers
approximately two quarter sections northeast of the Wetaskiwin Airport and
has various development considerations and constraints.
These include an existing mix of low-density residential, industrial
development, and vacant land owned by numerous different owners,
limited municipal servicing, and environmental considerations such as
contaminated sites, drainage challenges, and existing wetland areas.
The project team completed a broad engagement process in the first half of
2026, which included two public open houses, two public surveys, and the
maintenance of a project website to provide information to the public and
receive inquiries. It also involved direct engagement with
potentially interested parties, including owners of vacant land in the
area, representatives of Wetaskiwin's Indigenous communities, and public and
non-governmental agencies such as the city's own departments,
uh Alberta Health Services, and the Battle River Watershed Alliance.
Key themes that emerged from this engagement are reflected in the plan's
vision, which is to foster a community that offers diverse housing choices and
business opportunities with convenient road and trail connectivity and readily
accessible green spaces, while thoughtfully integrating and
complementing the existing character of surrounding neighborhoods.
The key themes also informed four main guiding principles, which are to foster
vibrant mixed-use and walkable neighborhoods, provide diverse and
inclusive housing choices, enhance, protect, and sustain natural and green
spaces, and ensure responsible infrastructure and phased growth.
The final plan includes a land use concept that is figure five on page 26
of the plan. Perhaps that can be shown on the screen for our reference during
discussion. That generally provides for the
retention of an existing residential industrial mixed-use area in the south
and west of the plan area, an area of low-density residential
development in the center of the plan area,
and an area of mixed commercial and higher density development at the east
side of the area. I'll just give them a moment for that.
It's right It's right towards the end.
So, all the maps are in the rear at the very end of the document, so it should
be page 26, figure five.
There we go. Almost there. There it is.
Perfect. Many thanks.
So, that is the the land use concept. Uh supporting policies were developed in
the areas of residential, commercial, and industrial development,
transportation, parks and open space, environmental considerations, and
servicing. Given the drainage and wetland
considerations in the area, low-impact development strategies were identified
as part of implementation.
These principles, supporting policy directions, and specific policies will
guide decision-making related to future development in the plan area.
Notably, the plan will be considered by city administration in making
recommendations to council regarding future rezoning, direct control
development applications, and relevant infrastructure projects, and also in
making decisions regarding future development permit applications that
fall under administration's authority. It will be a bylaw and therefore a
public resource to support landowners and potential future developers in their
planning and decision-making as well. Through the public hearing process,
considerations were raised that are prompting administration to recommend
that council make a minor amendment to the plan as presented, and invite
council to consider another amendment. The recommended amendment is a minor
correction. That the descriptions of open space area
one and two on page 17 of the plan be transposed as they were simply numbered
incorrectly. Administration also noted concerns um
through the the public hearing regarding a road and other infrastructure being
shown through a wet area at 47th Ave and West Street, and comments regarding the
potential to relocate a conceptual park space near Evergreen close. Both of
those to promote wetland preservation. Administration has reviewed the policies
as presented and feels that they provide the tools to preserve wetlands during
future development. However, we are happy to provide further information on
potential mapping amendments council may choose to make that may provide greater
clarity. With the recommended amendment noted, um
administration is recommending the Evergreen ASP for council's approval,
and would be happy to respond to any questions you might have.
» Councillor White. >> I move that council give second reading
to bylaw 1223-26.
» Perfect. Councillor Aberley.
» Thank you, sir. I know it's hard to um see me as I sit here in my own
spotlight. I am very specific ly to the last point you made about the
wetlands. Can you please repeat that um so I understand what you just said. Will
there be directing of roads and adding different park space or you're open to
it? Or
» We're open to it cuz it's our plan. Excuse me.
» Uh through the chair to you, Counselor Aberley. Um as part of a public hearing
submission that I believe has now been distributed to council. Um
there were concerns raised regarding a road um
connection that was represented at approximately 47 Ave and West Street in
sort of the southeast portion of the plan area.
And also um a proposal to shift the park space that is shown near Evergreen Close
a little bit to the north. Um
Both of those were for wet wetland protection considerations.
The road is shown as is because generally in
developing the proposed road network, uh we followed existing road right-of-ways
where they provided a needed connection. So, there is an existing road
right-of-way that runs through that area right now.
The park is shown as is uh because as noted earlier, we aim to distribute the
smaller park spaces within approximately a 400-m walking distance of each
residence. We did have the opportunity to discuss
those concerns with the Watershed Alliance um and with our consultant as
well and look at the currently proposed policies.
The policy suite that is in the plan right now as presented
include specific policies that prioritize wetland protection
that require studies to formally delineate wetlands before further
subdivision and development can take place.
Um they provide us with flexibility to relocate the sort of conceptual
high-level open spaces and road connections as shown at later
development stages. And they also provide us with um the
opportunity to use other environmental protection tools that are available to
us under the Municipal Government Act to reserve additional space for
conservation purposes. So, therefore, if we administration's
view is that if these areas are formally identified as wetlands before
development, the ASP provides the tools to avoid them and protect them.
However, should council wish to um
adjust the road as shown um to show a more conceptual road
connection in that location, then council may propose and approve that
amendment.
» Thank you. And I guess as we chat, I'm looking for three friends. If we're um
and we have put into our strategic plan that where possible
we will look at environmental impacts and considerations into our um
planning and into our development that a road going through the middle of a
marshland is one, not necessarily
good for said marsh, but also two, as we have
seen this summer as many
flooding is and will always be an issue in
the area in which we live. And so, I would like the very end of what you
said is make that direction so we are looking at roadways to go around what is
the Battle River Watershed Alliance has pulled that out as a specific
» concern with their studies um for that to go around. I'm less understanding of
the one on this back page. So, I'm just going to stick with the first page.
Um
and your words are so much clearer than I would make an amendment to say
Help me.
To divert this road around watershed or around that
um waste wasteland wetland.
» Councilor Wright. >> Councilor Aberley, does
the
picture in figure six that shows transportation network, does that
satisfy what you're looking looking for?
» No, because I still see that jog. If If I'm understanding what that map is
saying and what this map is saying to me, we do have a road going through
a portion of that wetland. If you If I look at it as a satellite photo.
» Through the chair to council, um anticipating this discussion,
administration um prepared a very brief mock-up of what a proposed amendment
could look like. Uh that is being shown on the screen at the moment. You'll see
that um it replaces a right-angled >> I apologize. There's a map
» with a dashed line showing a conceptual connection. Essentially, that indicates
that that connection would be needed to accommodate traffic flow in that area,
but the specific location of it is is more flexible than it appears in the
currently presented version. That's not to say that, you know, if in
a future situation there was a wetland study done, it found that in fact that
area is not a wetland, that the road could
not follow the course that's currently shown, but
it just indicates that there there is more flexibility there.
» So how do I nicely say Well, not nicely,
but how do I say How do I What words do I use to get this?
I I would like to amend the amendment to look like the second figure six.
» There's uh through the chair to counselor, I believe there's some draft
text being >> Perfect.
» proposed on the screen at the moment um essentially proposing an amendment to
figure sec- figure six and there's a minor amendment to figure 10 to um
show the road connection that had in that area as a conceptual collector
road.
» And I'm just going to keep talking until I'm not going to um
filibuster this, but
if there if the study shows that there is no need
to do these diverted roadways, then we would just go with status quo.
Cuz that's why it was dotted. That's sort of what you said.
» Through the chair to counselor, I believe that's that's right. Thank you.
» Councillor White.
» Uh thank you through the chair to administration. I appreciate seeing the
uh proposed altered figure six. Can I
Could we see figure 10 as well before I vote on it?
Although I do anticipate supporting it.
» Uh through the chair to counselor, figure 10 is just being brought up. Um
the change that would be made would be where there is a um
a future sanitary main shown along that street. That line would be shortened.
It may not need to extend the length of it.
» Are you okay with that? >> I will 100% I'll make the motion when I
see it again cuz I I didn't >> uh figure six again, please?
» Thank you. >> And so my question is I got to figure
out what this is. >> Proposed six.
» So
Got her?
So then the um the purple road
that disappears and doesn't join to the other purple road. Does that help you?
You know what I'm speaking of then? >> That totally made sense to me.
Through the chair to Counselor Neilson, you're referring to 47th Avenue East and
West that don't have a segment in the middle.
» 47th Avenue. Um does that mean that collector road
disappears then? >> Through the chair to Counselor Neilson,
um in the plan as originally proposed, um the segment of 47th Avenue was not
being proposed to be developed as a road. Um it was to be replaced by that
curved gray line that shows that connection.
» Yeah. >> Go around.
I'm okay now. >> Uh
I would like to move that figure six and seven of the plan be amended to reflect
an approximate collector road connection between 48 Ave
dash West Street and the East segment of 47 Avenue.
» Counselor Billingkley. >> Thank you. Uh through the chair to uh
Counselor Iverly, do you mean figure 10 not seven?
» I apologize. Am I incapable of reading this afternoon?
I Sorry, Nicole, can I please see that again? Six and 10. Did I What did I say
seven? >> Yes.
» I apologize. Um numbers are hard. That figures six and 10 of the plan be
amended to reflect an approximate collector road connection between 48 Ave
West Street and the East segment of 47 Ave.
» Motion's on the table. All of those in favor to the amendment.
Opposed.
Carried. Now the motion.
You have the motion on the table. For the second first or second reading.
Councillor White. >> I move that council give third reading
to bylaw 2113-26. >> So, we still have to vote on second
reading. >> Second. Oh, sorry.
» Uh Mayor Branco, we just uh voted on the amendment that
that Karen had put forward. So, my original motion was the council give
second reading to bylaw 2113-26. >> Thank you.
All of those in favor. >> [snorts]
» Opposed. Carried.
Councillor White. >> Thank you, Mayor Branco. Now I would
like to move that council give third reading to bylaw 2113-26.
» All of those in favor.
Opposed. Carried. Thank you.
Item number eight, can I have a motion to go into closed session?
» If I If Joe, can I just take a really quick
point of order? I just I want to thank you, and I want to thank you for your
coming into our community, and I know it's your
um job, but I really think that this is one of the things that maybe
only the six or seven of us get really excited about because it means that
we're looking to the future of this community and and what we're going to do
and further work in helping me figure out my numbers and doing all that. Just
thank you for being top notch and coming in for us.
» Here, here.
» Do we have motion? >> We did not have a motion yet.
» No. A motion to move into camera.
» So moved, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. All those in favor?
Carried. >> Are we taking a break?
I'll see you in 10.
Cuz I got to pee again, so That's definitely 10 minutes. [laughter]
» And let's done the same time.
Oh, no. >> I don't see any of this stuff. I just
saw it. Yeah.
» Mhm.
» Okay, good. >> Thank you. Can I have a motion to come
out of camera, please?
Councillor White. All of those
All those in favor?
Thank you. We will move on to an item number nine,
new business. Uh business case, Councillor Neilsen.
» Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh won't be long. This is sort of a follow-up to my
conversation on inspiring governance. And uh
I made mention of all the business cases that we submitted and then
uh some folks failed to actually vote on business cases.
So, I'd like to make a motion. I think it's already been captured. I'd like to
move the council directs administration to only consider business cases
submitted by council members who took the time and voted on the business
cases. So, if you submit
And my comment, Mr. Mayor, would be if any one of us submitted a business case,
but didn't take the time to actually vote on them, your business cases
couldn't have been that important to you. So, I'm suggesting administration
drop those business cases.
» Councillor Alder. >> Okay, so on those business cases, I had
probably upwards of 50, and I knew I was going to nail them down.
But, what I recall is you told me they might all be good.
So, just leave them. And I know I wanted to go
narrow them down, but I took your other advice.
Just left them in there. So, my mistake again.
Um So, do with them what you will.
Um that's fine.
But
No. >> Maybe I misunderstood what you said.
» No, I said just as you as you as you've mentioned Mark and that is Mark said
well maybe I'll take them back and whittle them down some and I said why
whittle them down? There might be some really good ones in there.
So leave them in place. But I would have
» preferred I whittled them down. >> No, not at all. I would have preferred
that on Friday
13th or whatever it was that we actually
had everybody submit their votes as to which ones they
were supporting.
And I'll be honest, I supported some of yours.
I supported some of yours even you didn't support.
So that's where I sit.
» Councillor White.
» Thank you Mayor Branco. To council.
I cannot support this motion because I
I did take the time and entered and submitted to administration
items that I think should be considered and whether regardless of who they came
from.
I I made my vote or it wasn't a vote but I
made my consideration known of what I valued and
want to know more information on and I don't want to undo my
efforts to let administration know the things that I value based on who
submitted them. So I can't support that motion.
» Any further questions?
Councillor Alder. >> I would just have one and this would be
to admin. Um
I haven't seen what was whittled down. Is it overwhelming for what was there?
Head shake means yes.
» Yeah, so there were four counselors that submitted votes.
Um we originally went through and I said tell me how many had at least two votes
because there was only four counselors that submitted.
Um and it would have been 11 capital, 30 operating, although four were actually
capital, so 15 capital and 26 operating. Then I said, "Can you please go through
and because we if you think about all of council, we
would need four. So, what does it look like with four?" So, um only items
that got the the three or four votes, um six operating,
eight capital, and four were
actually operating, so 10 Sorry, 10 capital.
Yeah. Six operating, 10 capital. >> Based on Based on how many votes?
» Was that four? Four people voted, yeah. Oh, sorry, we
went three and three or four votes. So, it had to have a minimum of three
votes of the four that were submitted.
» And what were the numbers, Sue, please? >> Original
was 15 capital, 26 operating. If I looked at two votes of the four.
When we looked at three and four votes, it came out to
um 10 capital
and six operating. Four. So, four operating and and 10
capital. Yeah.
» So, >> and those
» are on top of those are just the council ones cuz it of course administration has
a bunch submitted. >> So
with three votes
you don't have consensus of council.
» With four votes >> If we were to take a vote, yeah.
And
» So are we are we are we considering
So are we considering three votes
of a council of seven sufficient?
So less than a majority of council saying this is important. We're putting
them on that on the business case consideration.
» Yes, because it was it was a straw poll. Um and my assumption was that of the
ones that made it, council could have that discussion because if we go for
four votes, there's only three operating and two capital.
» And if you go with three or four again, please.
» go with four there's only three operating
and and two capital.
» And if you go to three or four? >> Three was
four operating, 10 capital. >> Okay, that's good.
So you've gone from five to 14.
Three and two and four and 10. On top of those that administrations
already been put in. >> Correct.
And and I think this is important because we still need to run it through.
We need to develop them out. We need to get the cost estimates. We need to get
them back to council. And those capital ones, there's a binder on my desk
already because we're hoping to print those soon for
deliberations in early September.
Um we've got
open houses planned, that sort of stuff. So, we need to get on some of these like
very quickly.
» Councilor Billingsley. >> Thank you. Um
through the chair to Councilor Nielsen, I understand your frustration. I too am
frustrated that we talked about that to have this in by noon on Friday and
for whatever reason
some of us did not um
submit. But, I
like um
Councilor what what Councilor Waite had said that um
just because
you didn't um submit doesn't necess- the work that I put in
to actually evaluate these should not be discounted. So, point made
in the sense of um
please take this stuff seriously, Council.
Um I can't support necessarily
pulling them off because you didn't submit your
» And I bite and I bite both of your arguments and to your point
it was my point.
If you can't take the time
to add to the conversation about budget then don't be complaining about budget
when it doesn't turn out your way. >> Correct.
» We're all in this or we're either not all in it. So, I will withdraw my
motion, but I will ask a question of this group.
Sue, with two two more votes, What are your numbers, please?
» There are 15 capital and 26 operating. >> And are we asking administration then
based on the votes, based on two or more votes,
to pick up 41 more business cases to calculate? And
if not, please pick a number.
» Councillor Aberley.
» You know, um thank you, Mayor Bronco. It's getting late and I forgot my name,
too. Um
I and I have said this, I have was not one of those people, so maybe I have no
say, but I would like to um just point into if the four of you
who did it were to show up during budget
deliberations when we take those straw polls, the majority would have been
three. Therefore, I would go with the number three or more votes.
» That'd be 14. >> Yeah, and even that seems like
a lot, but two, hm.
» Councillor Elder, just have a quick question.
» [clears throat] >> So, out of all the ones that I
submitted,
I think I broke down details, prices, quotes, everything, but is it different
than the way you do it? Cuz I thought I did all pretty much all
the work for you. >> It is different. Um I know that you
weren't there that day that we discussed um capital prioritization and operating.
So, there's a a set criteria that we have to run through. Um
and it answers a bunch of different questions around like how prepared we
are. Um does it meet council's strategic goals? There's a bunch of different
things that we have to run it through. And then a lot of the cost estimates
were really vast. And so, um in the past council has really pushed
us to get really tight budgets with only 10% contingency. And
so, we would still need to go out and scope all of those.
I think part of the problem is is that there were things put in as operating,
but they were actually capital. And
um um
there's a lot more work that needs to go into
some of those pieces um that we might not have the time right now.
Which just means it would be a separate document. Or maybe I just get my team
not to bind them cuz we were going to we were looking at coil-bound
documents this year. So, maybe we just continue with a a binder so that we can
add to it as you go. Um
but there was a lot of work that needed to be done. And then we have to go
through and prioritize them against all the criteria that's existing.
» Okay. So, quick question for you then because time [clears throat] is of the
essence. And we didn't all complete. Which one of
these works best for you? Two, three, or four?
Like honestly, like it's it's
» Uh Yeah, to to be honest, the four is >> Okay.
» Less is more for us right now. Yeah. >> And four was operating.
And how much was capital there? >> There was four operating No, that was
three operating and two capital. >> So, two capital
and three operating.
Okay, so not knowing which ones they are,
» [clears throat] >> as far as I'm concerned, I'm I'm good
with you, but
that's up to everybody else here. Need to
see everybody else's opinion.
» Councillor Billingsley. >> Thank you.
I um will support four. I think that
um that is the majority of council. Um we're given the opportunity to
straw poll it, whatever that means,
and
if the answer is four, send it in. If the if those four people
agreed on those, my vote would be to carry forward with
the ones that were agreed by all four that voted.
» Any other questions? Sorry, Joe. >> No, it's okay.
» [laughter]
» So, we don't have a motion on the table anymore cuz you've withdrawn
» I withdrawn the motion and I challenge the room to identify and and provide
direction as to whether administration works on
41 or 14 or five. >> Councillor Billingsley.
» Thank you. Uh I move that city council directs administration
to move forward on business case identified
by unanimous straw vote.
That's awful, but point is made.
» Councillor White.
» Thank you, Mayor Branco. My colleague, Councillor Billingsley,
beat me to it cuz I think I would have preferred three just cuz I'm a I'm
afraid there's there was so many good business cases or interesting, I don't
know if good we wasn't in a place to evaluate that, but
there's some there are some interesting ideas on the table that I
regret that we're going to lose sight of if we only go with the four, and I
would >> Well, you can
» I'd support I'd support the the
14 cases as indicated by three votes
in the those of us who submitted our
interest in the business cases. >> Thank you. Sue.
» Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um just to um speak to Councillor White's concerns,
anything that doesn't make it above the line goes to unfunded. And
then um Council always has an opportunity to pull it forward whenever
you want. It just it gets um more complicated the closer we get to
approval that we can't get you more accurate information the longer we wait.
So, we won't lose sight of it, and maybe it's something that we plan
to flush out a little bit more over the next year, and then it could come back
to the next budget.
» Councillor Aberley. >> Thank you, Mayor Branco. And that's what
I was going to say um through the chair to
Councillor White is
I don't think putting always putting something off is a good thing, but
rushing into things also, so Council goes by really quickly. Our four
years will go by stupid quick. But I don't think we need to race into
a million ideas now while we're still trying to look at the corporate get the
corporate business plan do all of this. And as I continue to sit
here where I first said three I'm now going
to four because I think that those numbers are really good for a budget
discussion at this point and that we make sure it's
a robust discussion and not us just going through the motions of reading all
of the stuff that has to get read.
» Thank you. >> Councilor White.
» No further comment for now. >> Okay, so
the motion is Councilor Billingsley, can you repeat
the motion since Councilor Neilsen withdrew his?
» Sure.
I move that city council directs administration
to move forward on the Oh, look at that. Thank you.
Directs administration move forward on business cases that received unanimous
drop hole.
» Okay, all of those in favor?
» [clears throat]
» Any questions? >> Well, any questions?
Councilor Neilsen.
» At the risk of being booed out of this room
because I I happen to agree with Councilor White and and
and and hence
when Mark and I were talking and and he said I'll whittle mine down and I said
no, don't leave them in because there's some good ideas there.
I don't mean know why I'm saying this. Um
But there's 41 Sorry, there's
If we consider three or more, there's four and 10. Is that correct?
» Correct. >> I would love to give all of my
colleagues an opportunity to feed into this
um conversation.
I threw out some pretty broad remarks earlier this morning.
And
in spite of that, I value everyone's opinion in this room.
And I don't know how soon we would take those four business cases and 10
business cases and circulate them amongst us one more kick at the cat and
get a true
straw poll from seven counselors.
I don't know if they're able to.
» Counselor Aberle. >> Thank you, sir. Through the chair to
Counselor Neilsen, I respectfully vehemently disagree.
Um and the reason for that is administration
wanted us to have it done um I can't do What was that? July 28th?
Was they wanted it to do us They wanted
us to do it on the 28th. We asked for the 31st.
I
did not make that a responsibility of my week
that week and I believe I do not have the right to the
input anymore. I want to give my input on number of votes because I like to
always have something to say, but enough is enough. Administration is
always waiting for us to make up our mind.
» That's fair. >> Thank you. So, the motion on the floor
is
Could somebody Counselor Billingsley >> Thank you.
» Can you read that again, please? >> that. I move that council directs
administration to move forward on business cases that received unanimous
straw poll. >> Thank you.
All of those in favor?
Carried. Thank you.
Per diems.
» Thank you. >> Counselor Billingsley
» Thank you. Um through the chair to council back in
October, November of last year, um during budget, we talked about
changing the way that council um calculates its per diems. We created
buckets
out of
concern, I guess, of how much council was spending, but not necessarily
purposely looking at reasonable amount other than
pulling numbers um
based on
gut feelings, I guess. And now what's happened is um
some councilors, and I'll speak to this shortly, um certainly has taken on more
responsibilities and have a lot more committee work than
some others. And
I would hate to penalize um
councilors from doing good work just because the fact
um they are
um busier than
what we anticipated [clears throat] would be a reasonable amount to have uh
for per diems. Um the second motion that I'm going to
bring forward actually speaks to myself as well uh taking it on MCMC and
um part of that will be extra expenses
um
that will incur. So, having said all of that, I'm going
to make my first motion and that is
I move to add $2,000 to Councillor Hoyles' budget being funded from the
contingency reserve.
And I will briefly speak to that in the sense of
um she has
stepped up and is on many committees
and boards. And I would hate for her to say, "Yeah,
I'm not going to do it because I'm not going to be compensated for it." It's
good work and I truly believe that she should be
compensated for the time that she spends doing this work.
» Councillor Hoyles. >> I'd like to speak to that, too. Um
and I never want to use the word I was new then, however, I was. Didn't really
I understood what the per diems were. I did not understand the bucket system.
Um and so when we look at our buckets, my per diem and per diem training adds
up to um $3,300. My meetings alone add up to 30 meetings
a year, which are an average of $3,000. So,
right there, and that's an average meaning if those meetings go long, those
amounts go up. Um that doesn't include S tab training, um any other training I do
through those committees, a strat planning, anything else. Um and we're
going into budget, which of course those are extras as well. So, um
because they've been divided out versus I think what I understand it used to be
just a pot, and you would just take what you needed as far as per diems, travel,
training out of it. But because those have been divided out,
those pots are not going to last to the end of the year, and I may not be the
only one. I'm not quite sure.
» Councillor Aberley.
» Thank you, just sir through the chair to Councillor Billinsley.
Why out of contingency?
Is that when and the reason I asked the question, I will be a little more
specific, is I am 100% guaranteed to be nowhere near
um cuz I sit on one committee. Well, I S D
A D B training, but I didn't I did that last term. Um
so, I'm guaranteed to be nowhere near spending all my money, which is a good
thing at the end of the year because there's going to be an excess. So, does
our excess go into contingency, or are we taking it in and out of the same pot?
» And and I thought about that as well is you we certainly I mean, council can
direct where the money comes from. We could pull it from yours, could pull it
from whoever's. Um but in the end, if it's not spent,
guess where it goes. >> Okay. So, thank you. That helps me make
» Right. >> my decision.
» then we then at the end of the year when budget, we could say, "Okay, wait a
second. Um let's take a look at exactly how much
we actually need to put into these buckets, or potentially um
combining the buckets and not having four or five different buckets
come budget time.
» Councilor Elder. >> I need some help and some clarity.
So I didn't understand this when we first got elected. You had I believe you
had and I still don't even know to this day
what my limit is. Um
Did we Did you reduce it from 3,000 to 1,500
when we first started? >> Sorry, could you repeat that?
» Sure.
Per diems was the mic It's on. I have to talk louder.
Um I'm trying to understand the per diems
because I I don't really understand it. I got to be honest with you. I sit on a
few boards. Um
So the last council
were you allotted up to $3,000 for per diems per year?
» To be honest with you, I have no idea what that
» I don't know why that number sticks there.
But whatever that number was for, I think
we voted on reducing it to 1,500. Is that correct?
» I think it's 1,800. >> Okay, I I and again, I don't know the
number. I I truly don't. Um So I'm going to the meetings and I
haven't been claiming the per diems, so you'll have extras there as well.
I I just would like clarity on how it all works if you don't mind cuz I I just
I really don't understand. >> in the policy as to
» Yeah, and I haven't looked at that, so >> but it also Council has the ability at
any time to request money.
» I have 100 grand? >> You You're just kidding. At any point,
right? >> 15
» I mean, that is something that we can do. And that was
even brought up when we talked about this at budget.
» Yeah, just enlighten me here cuz I'm forgetting, right? New Lots going on, so
just I'm just looking for clarity. I can go look it up.
» Can I ask you a quick question through you?
» Sure. >> So, before we had
one big pot and every counselor dipped into it
into the one big pot to get professional development and for their committee
work. And
it didn't There was no limits. If six other counselors didn't use the
money, I could use mine and all theirs. And we said at the budget, we need to be
able to put some limits on how much. And we tried working with administration
and sorted out how much money should we set aside for
professional development and how much we should set aside for our committee work
and responsibilities in that way. And so, as Dean said earlier, we sort of
licked the finger and put it in the wind and said, "Let's put this much money in
the professional development fund and this much money into our per diems and
committee work." And so, it was our best guess, but we
also were assuming that committee work would be distributed pretty evenly
and in some cases that has not been the case.
So, some counselors by virtue of the number of committees they're on are
burning through their per diem money
at at a rate that halfway through the year they're out of it.
So, then the question becomes, do they stop going to the meetings or did we
make a mistake when we licked our finger and put it in the wind and to put money
into those two pots? And I think where we're at now is
Wendy is in a position where because you're on three committees
um and you and I, Mark, are on committees
and one of the committees we get paid not through our per diem system, we
actually get paid by uh >> Bethany Group.
» Um and so we're not drawing down our
per diem money as quickly as say Wendy is. So
I think what Dean is saying is that we're going to have to re-examine this
at budget time, but until we get to budget time
how do we address the fact that some some
of us are going to have our per diems spent
where other people who don't have as many committees
simply aren't spending their dollars.
» Councillor Wyatt. >> This is also why I asked to have the
process for organizational meeting addressed as well as per diem so that
this can be taken care of before we have our organizational meeting and before
budget so that this doesn't happen again.
» Councillor Wyatt.
» Thank you Mayor Branco.
Through the chair to council, I don't know if I can support this because I'm
not confident that I understand that we don't have this money already budgeted
and allocated. It just we've made
through our by our
I believe it's a policy for our council remuneration,
we've set some limits, but as far as what was budgeted we maybe are still
within the
amount allocated to the budget and so instead of
approving money to come from reserves for this
I would be more ready to support
contra some way to contravene our uh policy to allow
counselors to claim
beyond the amounts set set out that we amended back in
October, November. Sorry, that isn't real clear.
» Councillor Billingsley. >> Thank you. Um through the chair to
Councillor White, I
I'm okay with that, and I'm wondering then if
an amendment needs to happen to have administration
um
No amendment to my motion because my motion states to come up from um
contingency reserve.
Potentially could I mean
Yes, could but then who decide No, I know you have money left over,
right?
» She wants to give you her money. >> She's got She's got some suggestions.
» But where I'm going with this is I do know that administration has the ability
to be able to move money around within
Right. Yes. So
But where would the money come from? >> My money.
» Right. And who decides that? >> I but
I would like Why?
» Councillor Aberley. >> Thank you, sir.
Through the chair to council I know this isn't my money in the sense
that I that is my money, but it is my money
to spend if that's what's been allotted to me. So, if I say to council
I would like to
I would like to do a friendly amendment to
Councillor Billingsley's amendment that says not to come out of
contingency, but to have it transferred from Councillor Aberley's
line to Councillor Hoyles' line. The money has
not changed within a year. And and I know I have the money. There
could be other years where we have to ask administration, is there money left?
But only because my group doesn't meet as often and it's one group and I didn't
need to use my training money. I haven't taken anything out of my
account. So, I have no problem my line being $2,000
no, being the same, but that Councillor Hoyles' part of Councillor
Hoyles' payment comes out of my line. >> If I may
» No. Administration hates that.
» So, if I may that's totally contradictory to what
we're supposed to be doing. We get paid for showing up and doing
that. You don't show up, you you don't get paid. That was I'm sorry, that is
for training for you. Then it comes to the point that if some of us don't go
into courses, we can just give our money to one of our buddies. I'd rather have
it coming out of someplace else. >> Sir, I'm not talking about training. I'm
talking about committees and s-
committee work or we are doing work of council.
And I knew that this situation was going to
happen with me when I brought this up at the organizational meeting.
I I was going to be nowhere near my use limit.
» Councilor Sue, go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um two things
just for proper accounting, we would do um a transfer, a GL transfer internally
um rather than just letting her charge to
your GL. Um but the second part of that is
um this year we should be better because
you're going to have your organizational meeting before you approve your budget.
And so we'll know who sits on what committees and we'll be able to tailor
your budget to your committee work, whereas in the election year we had no
idea who was going to be on what. And so the budget was just the same across the
board. Where if we know ahead of time um we can quickly make those adjustments in
your budgets and it'll reflect the committee work that you're plan to sit
on for the following year. So if you only have one, your budget is going to
be less than someone who has three or four.
But we didn't have that luxury at the election year.
» That makes sense. >> Councilor Bear Easley.
» Thank you. Through the chair to administration then uh need a little
help from the funding model then what would be the best way to describe
that you reallocate?
» I you could keep the motion the same and then just instead of funding it from
contingency, it would be a GL transfer from Councilor Aberley to Councilor
Hoyle.
» I wonder if we don't specifically don't say counts because of the fact that may
maybe there isn't enough in her
» Um >> bucket. And I'm not saying that there is
» Yeah, I understand. >> Right? Just reallocate.
And then you can decide of where it needs to be.
» Yeah, you can >> maybe two or three transactions.
» Councillor Hoyle, Councillor Aberley, then Councillor White.
» Um I do want to say that just
for numbers, so that the public knows, our per diems for the year $1,800.
So, as I said, for 30 meetings, the 1,800 is depleted fairly quickly, and
that doesn't include strat planning, budget, whatever.
There may be other counselors that are going to be in the same position as me
is it or they may very well be now if they haven't seen the same paperwork as
I have.
» Councillor Aberley. >> Uh thank you, sir.
Through the chair to the mayor, Mayor Branco, do you understand and it's
may that may have came out come out wrong. I agreed completely with your
last comment that if I am in training and I have money for my training, that
is the money for my training and if I don't use it, it goes back into
contingency. So, I agreed with that, but that how
this is different, I just want to make sure that
you and I are both talking about the same thing, that this is for um
committee work that or yes, committee work that has already been done because
some counselors have are on committees that have a larger
time commitment. So, it's not really me giving away money
I didn't use, it's me giving away money, not giving away, it's not even me. It is
there is a big pool from which we all attend committees and our work.
And that needs to reflect, as Sue said, what our actual appointments are in a
given year, rather than cuz I was given too much money that I was never going to
be able to use. >> And and I and I agree with you 100% and
I rather see that we have let's say we have $20,000 for a pool for a council
training education all committees and we draw from that.
Those who go get it from that that department. And then if we all if we all
got to come out and if we run out then we got to come back and do this why not
just put money into an account and everybody draws out of that account.
Like a piggy bank. We put $20,000 in a piggy bank.
If we make it we make it we don't then we can have a motion to come and borrow
more money. That's what we're doing.
But to shift it around it seems like to me I'm going to give you my I haven't
gone anywhere so am I going to give mine to to Mark or to Elder or to
Wendy? Just put it in that pot and take it out of the pot.
Councilor White.
» Thank you Mayor Branco. Thank you to administration who just
sent the summary so that I could see even where I'm at and what my um
allocation is.
I see object codes and I think I heard somebody I think I heard someone say
each counselor has separate GL accounts is did I hear that correctly?
» That is correct.
» Yeah, no but the object code is different than GL
account? Question mark?
» Yes. There's
there's a whole pile of numbers that aren't shown on there.
» Yeah.
» So object code is just the last part of what the actual GL is. Each one of you
has um >> So that can I ask the object
» ahead. >> The object code that is
51550 per diems, is that whatever all the numbers are in front of
it, is that only related to council per
diems? >> Uh
yes, because you're the only ones that get per diems, but something like
training or travel, that that's the same code through the entire organization.
» Well, train Okay, but training has a different code.
» Right. >> Travel has a different code.
» But those aren't just specific to council, those are for the whole
organization. So my code >> diem the per diem code is not specific
to council? >> It is only specific to council. Nobody
else gets per diems. >> So whatever is that was there a budgeted
amount that's related to that 51550 object code?
» Yes, for each councilor.
And the budget is on that first line in line or column D?
» Column, yeah.
» While we're asking >> Okay, I still don't think I can support
this based on how it's what I've seen written in what I've seen allocated,
although I support the concept that councilors should be able to claim for
the work that they do.
» So Is there a motion on the on the floor?
» Yes. >> I'll still might have questions.
» Okay, go ahead, counselor Elder. [clears throat]
» So I'm just looking at mine.
So I did mine late in 25. Right?
Didn't claim them. Got paid in January of
20 of this year.
That shows me that I owe money.
Where I look at it and say, well, maybe I'm
Well, it's my mistake for not claiming on time first of all, not understanding
it. So, that's that's my fault. This looks like more of an admin problem
putting last year's work when we started into this year's, but that falls on me
cuz I filed it late. And you were nice enough to pay it. So,
fair enough. Thank you. Um
So, how does that work? >> To this motion?
» No, that's what we're dealing with. >> Okay. Let's deal with that motion and
we'll deal with mine again. >> So, can we change that?
Can we change that? Oh. Can you bring Please bring that back.
Thank you. Um funded
» No, just I would say through reallocation.
» Through re- be funded through reallocation.
» Okay.
» Councillor Neilson. >> Sue, uh sorry, through the chair to Sue.
And I know we're talking about your motion in relation to Wendy. Correct?
And I knew it was going to be close. And I passed close.
Are you as well? Right. And so,
Sue, I'm wondering, are we better off rather than piecemealing it now
to simply allow Wendy or Wayne or Laura to can you continue our committee work,
run a deficit in our in our bucket
and then do a year-end transfers necessary.
You're saying no. >> Because in the policy, it states and
this is where then I'll go back to Councillor Elder
where we said you are responsible. So, it's critical
that we allocate dollars to this so that
um gets paid.
Well, but that we could do, too.
What was the other one? But that But that I think is a greater
» Any further questions? >> Yes.
» Oh, yeah. >> There's lots going on. Yes.
» Cuz I think the deeper we're going in there, the more confusing we're getting.
I like the first one, the GIL or whatever.
So, what is the What is the motion? Dean, can you please read your motion?
» Certainly. My motion is I move to add $2,000 to Councillor Hoyle's budget
being funded through reallocation. >> Thank you.
» And I >> Any debate to that?
Councillor Nielsen and Councillor White.
» Well, given what we're looking at,
my friendly amendment
would be to add $3,000 to Councillor White's
and $3,000 to Councillor Nielsen's. Because we're all over in our committee
work. So, we're now talking $9,000.
» You believe you're going to be spending more than $3,000 between now and
December 31st?
» I believe I'm going to spend the same rate that
Councillor Hoyle is spending.
» Councillor White.
» Through the chair to council, uh thank you to the the information that
I received by email that each of us now has visibility of our per diem report.
I'm already 1450 over. I didn't know I've like
I've reached the bottom of my bucket and beyond. So, 3,000
is not I unreasonable for if I were to continue on the same trajectory as
as I'm on now. for
spending time on council committees and special meetings.
» Is there a friendly amendment to 2,000 to 3,000?
No, I don't think he's accepting my friendly amendment, Mr. Mayor.
He's only worried about He's only worried about Councillor Hoyle right
now. So, let's just give $2,000 to you, to
Councillor White, and Councillor Hoyle. Otherwise, we'll be here all night.
» Well, we haven't included Councillor Elder.
Maybe we should get it from him. >> Sure. Let me get my checkbook.
I hope not. >> Councillor Aberley.
» I want $3,000 now, too, please. And I apologize and I
we're all getting punchy, but this is good. This is where we're getting along.
[clears throat] I think
to sort of support
Councillor Neilson's sort of support Councillor Neilson is
that instead of
at this point naming individual counselors because we're
going to have to do this vote three times.
Are we being more efficient to say we raise this number to da da da for
this year to be taken out of contingency?
» That I can support.
» Councilor White >> I'd like to build on the
friendly amendment that Councilor Aberly has started to suggest.
I'd like to Would Would you consider Councilor Billingsley amending this to
add 5,000? No.
I withdraw. I think it needs to be a policy change and I would be willing to
to make that motion at a future date. This is This is too messy for me to
support. >> Mhm.
» Councilor Aberly >> Thank you, sir. Uh through the chair to
Councilor White I appreciate exactly. I I agree. It
There needs to be a policy change.
And I appreciate your hesitation. Now to
administration
if we wait to put money into any of these people's
accounts um
because we're changing our policy which is going to be changed in 6 weeks
or not six not 6 weeks but which we're going to revisit in 6 weeks.
Any not anyway? Hmm. We will be looking at this policy during
the organizational meeting that happens in 6-8 weeks cuz
8 weeks?
My concern right now is will my fellow councilors
be going to meetings and having it show that they now owe money because we've
overpaid them for their
duties. So, I appreciate that we need a policy.
I also appreciate that the I think the money needs to be
there now.
» Councilor Hawaii. >> Councilor Aberly, or through the chair
to Councilor Aberly, you are correct because by our policy, which we brought
up, if we go over, we have to pay it back. That's why I was trying to be
proactive in saying that I don't want to go there because of
that. It's a whole 'nother ballgame. We can ask for it back. We could come
and ask for it back, and council may give us grace, but I would just like to
get ahead of this. I know I have asked to have it put on, I think
I'm not quite sure which meeting Is it September 8th going forward to have a
further discussion, but as Councilor White said, she is already over, and I
believe I probably am by this point either once we've got our newest amounts
posted. And Councilor Neilson, have you checked yours?
» I'm $50 over right now. >> He's over right now as well.
» I'll leave a $50 bill at the door for >> to our own policy, we must pay this back
already now. >> Or you don't get paid
» Or we don't get paid going Well, and paying it back because we already are
over.
So, >> See, so what's what's involved in
changing policy? Is it fairly quick and easy to do and just change the numbers
so it it meets cuz you you know, you you've
you kind of know what you're doing monthly.
» You asking to What does it change to
to change the policy? >> Correct.
» Well, I would highly recommend studying it and actually doing some research. I
don't want to just change it this afternoon.
» No, I I I Again, I'm not asking that.
» He's He's looking at process. >> I'm looking at what's involved. Laura
has has suggested it it should be policy. I'm just asking what's involved.
I don't know. Some of you guys have been here three
terms. I've been here 6 months. I don't know.
» Through administration, how can we pay these people
» what they've earned? >> What they've earned or what they're
going to pay? I just we just I know you we can do it.
We're just finding the proper wording. Just pretend we're
uh we're a business case that we overran and we
got 15% over budget.
» Uh through the chair to council, I I had suggested a few different things,
some of the stuff that's been brought up today when this was being reviewed.
Um and council did not support that, so council
um can go against any policy that they have and give me direction to do
anything. It's not great governance. Um
but there are a number of different things that we could do with council's
approval. Um but even just a couple weeks or
months ago when we had this discussion, um council told me stick to the policy,
send invoices, and that sort of stuff. So,
uh we will do whatever council wants us to do.
Uh the next opportunity obviously to look at this policy would be September
8th. Um and I could send it out by email and
get everybody to start gathering thoughts in the meantime so that we
could have a fruitful discussion on September 8th.
Um so that's probably the quickest you can
get a policy change. In the meantime from my bylaw
although because if we remember the order, the
hierarchy, um my bylaw does allow me to um
transfer money. Um within I just have to report to
council that I've done that. Um and so there are ways that we could
make this work in the meantime or until council makes a change. The
risk is going to be that we make a change that you don't support in
policy and then we've now uh gone outside of everything you were
thinking of. Um I can do whatever you want me to do.
Um but as far as policy goes your yeah,
September 8th is your next opportunity.
» So is there is there any way we can pass a policy
here as Councillor Billings has said not our
$3,000. You you said $2,000 to to Councillor Hoyle. Is there any way
for the other counselors to get some money
out of a different or we wait then if we if we go to
September the 8th then we have to change policy and that's to be all written down
so it'll be longer.
As we have to look at it then vote on it. Councillor Neilson.
» Thank you Mayor Bronco.
I'm going to be facetious here a little bit Sue but um
but with intention.
I'm over $50. When do I pay you? No, I I like I said I'm going be
facetious here. Do I need to pay by the end of this
month? >> With our invoicing says payable upon
receipt. So, once an invoice goes to you, you
need to pay it. >> So,
and then what happens if I submit
a committee expense report
when you know I'm already over on my committee work?
Are you going to pay me and then add it to my bill
or are you going to tell me "I'm sorry, Wayne.
We're not paying you. You're over." >> Because this is new, we haven't s-
obviously gotten ahead of this properly. I think moving forward to make sure we
don't run into these problems, it would be we're not paying this until you get a
motion of council. >> Okay.
And if there's anybody in the world still listening to this conversation,
» [laughter] [clears throat]
» I want to point out again that we went into this kind of blind in
terms of simply taking the dollars that we were
spending, allocated sort of equally across the
board, not knowing how many committees people were going to be sitting on. So,
we find ourselves here because of that disparity.
It's not that we are necessarily spending more money than we spent
previously. It's just that we put them in buckets
and tried to keep them there. And we found out
that the bucket system as
we put into place isn't working.
It doesn't mean that it won't once we clean some of this up.
» Yeah. >> So, it's not like we're spending more of
the city's taxpayers' dollars here. Um
so, I guess
for Councillor White and Councillor Neilson
and Councillor Hoyle,
we're going to our next meetings knowing we will not be
compensated.
And Councillor Nielsen and Councillor White will both be receiving
bills from the city.
And yourself as well. Councillor Hoyle owes money, too. You
just want to go on record making sure everybody knows how much money we owe.
Um and again, I'm being facetious, but it
it seems
I don't expect anybody to do committee work
and not be compensated for their committee work as per policy.
I may or may may not say as per policy, but
um
Joining city council, we were given responsibilities to look after
and compensation for that. And I don't think they should be going
off to meetings and not being compensated for it.
So, it's just a matter of how do we manage this?
Again, >> Go ahead, Sue.
» Thank you. Can I just throw this out there for council to consider?
Because of the fact that we didn't budget properly,
are you okay in this instance until you get the policy back in front of you for
me just to do a transfer from the people who do not have as many
committees as the people who are
sitting on all the committees? Like, can I just make this transfer
internally to get us caught up and then start to
have that policy discussion to sort it out?
» Councillor Hoyle and Councillor Billingsley.
» Through the chair to council and that is
I agree we need to fix the problem. It's an interim fix.
And I don't want to rush through this per diem and remuneration
talk which I'm worried we will do if we do it
next meeting. I would like to have some discussion and
make sure we fix it or fix is a bad word that we make sure we get it right so
that we're not revisiting this next year. Um
so however we deal with today, I think that conversation about the actual per
diems and the expense policy and remuneration needs to come at a time
when we've all had a chance to look over it, think what we need we want in it and
make sure it's what we actually want and not something that we are doing as a
quick fix next meeting.
» Councilor Billingsley.
» Thank you. Through the chair to Sue. Yes, as far as I'm concerned, but having
said that, I don't think you need our permission to do that. It's part of your
um CIO's
You're allowed to do that anyway whether we
say today yes or nay, yay or nay. Is that correct?
» That is correct. However, um after the discussion we had that I should be
following policy, I would like some support from council to do that.
Although I have the authority, I recognize that might not be everyone's
desire. >> You have my support to to do that and it
may lead to my second motion that we have in the budget.
» And and counselor Averly. >> Thank you, sir.
I want two clarifications because I think I'm
still following along.
Councilor Elder, was your question answered?
» No, I'm going to let you guys finish this and then I will deal with mine.
» Thank you. >> Welcome.
» Cuz I Cuz I think it's a genuine question. If
I want to look at a policy, how do how do we do that? And we start talking
about other things. Uh second
are you withdrawing your motion because we do
have a motion on the table? And now we're talking about maybe just
letting Sue do what sh she not letting Sue do what she does.
Um Sue has a in her policy says that she
can do something and she is asking for a general
consensus of council that in this instance
it happens. But we do have a motion on the floor.
So, whether or not we're voting, removing the motion, doing the motion
» My concern of withdrawing it as long as there's support for
having letting allowing, letting
um having the CAO reallocate.
Because if there's not will of council to let her do that, then my motion would
stand.
» Tough legislative one. >> Right? So, I will with I have faith in
this group. I will withdraw my motion. >> Well, I'm going to vote against this.
Technically you don't. >> I know.
» So, who's going to make the >> And and and the reason
because there was a second motion and then it has to do with
um myself. Um
going to the MCC MCM C conference and the AB Munis conference in regards to um
doing MCMC work.
So, if that's the case and [clears throat] we give
authority to our CIO to reallocate, I'm okay with that and I don't need to make
that second motion. But, do we need to
um do we need to
authorize give direction?
» Councillor Averley. >> Thank you, sir.
Uh I would like to make a motion that we direct
administration cuz or would I direct you directly? Oh my gosh.
Administration um to
allocate money to council's per diems
as noted in her city manager bylaw.
» City city manager bylaw. >> Go ahead.
» Councillor >> Sorry.
» Not specifically to per diems because my second one isn't per diems. I've got
enough in per diems. But, to travel to MCMC
is >> remunerations?
» No, it's not remuneration. It is travel expense.
Which >> Uh I
» I'd say different bucket. >> I would like to see that as a separate
discussion though. >> Fair enough.
» Yeah.
» Then I stay with per diems. >> Yeah.
» Any debate? All of those in favor?
» No, I'm not in favor.
» Carried. >> Yes.
» No. >> Next.
» No, I think the same. >> Hey, hold hold on a second, Joe. Just 1
second.
» Sorry, could that motion please be repeated so I could see it? I was not
prepared to vote on that. I was trying to raise my hand to ask.
What exactly are we voting on? >> I don't know.
» I apologize. I don't know why you didn't understand that.
» Councillor White. >> Because I was very clear and succinct.
I move to direct administration to reallocate money to council per diems as
noted in the city manager's bylaw.
» Any debate?
All in favor? Carried.
» Okay, so now, sorry, Joe. >> Go ahead, Councillor Elder.
» Okay. >> So, I'm going to go back to mine. Now,
this is where I messed up, so I take full accountability here. I don't know
how to fix it, so I'm going to ask. I did not claim October, November, and
December
in 2025 until January 26th. So, that's on me.
Administration was nice enough
to pay it. But, it ends up in 2026. Now, that puts
me over owing $2,000. So, how do we deal with this one now?
I'd like to I guess make a motion
to somehow correct this. I don't [laughter] know how to make a motion.
Um
I I look at it like it's an administ- well,
administration error in in the years, but it's a Mark Elder error in
paperwork.
So, do do do do how would this motion go
here? Uh-oh, got hands. >> Councillor Berglund, speak.
» So, I move that council directs administration
to
to pay
I'm sorry?
No, because this actually would actually have to come out of
um contingency because this is out of 2025, not 2026. So, in other words, I
move that council directs administration to take from contingency
to pay Councillor Elders'
overage from 2025.
Because and I I'd like to speak to that. And I think it's important um
» [clears throat] >> we've had this discussion before um
that you were new and didn't know exactly how it worked
um because you did do the work. Right? I mean, it's not like we're we're
saying um you you uh didn't do the work, so you don't deserve to get paid. That's
not it at all. It was it was late filing, I guess.
Right? And nobody here is saying that you didn't do the work. So, I think it's
important that that bill
is wiped clean from 2025.
Because that money's that were allocated in 2025
would have gone into contingency anyway because the money wasn't spent in 2025.
» Councillor Neisner. >> Thank you. So, to that point, I I I
totally agree. The work's been done. The paperwork was missing at the time.
It got entered into the the next available year. Sue, how do you make
that kind of a correction?
» Exactly.
There it is. Thank you. Um because the books were closed, we
couldn't actually pull it from 2025, so using the contingency is exactly the
the right way to do that. So, what we'll do is just pull the 2050
from contingency and cancel out the invoice.
» And that was your motion then? >> Yes, because
» Okay. I'm I'm good with
» The the dollars that weren't spent in 2025 under council would have gone into
contingency anyway. >> Yes.
» Hey, so the motion's on the floor. All of those in favor?
Carried. Thank you. Councillor Billings, you have another motion.
» Yeah, so this isn't per diems because I do have I
believe I have enough per diems. >> Thank you.
» Um but I do have potential of travel expenses and conference expenses that I
believe is important that I attend as being the MCMC representative. Um
my quick calculation um
is about $3,500. I might be on the high side on that
because I do have dollars available still in my own personal buckets.
So, I am asking um for reallocation up to $3,500, which I don't believe will
be necessary. And it's not per diems.
» [clears throat] >> It's travel expenses and or training,
you might say.
» Councillor Elder, so now I have another question for you.
If I don't use a nickel of my travel expenses, does that go back into
contingency? >> Yes.
» So that should be no problem covering whatever.
Cuz I won't I won't spend a nickel of this.
» So and yes, and so then that what would happen then is that
however the CAO decides would reallocate dollars.
» Okay. >> Councillor Neilsen.
» And I think I I'm I'm on the same page, I think. But through the chair to Sue,
we've allocated money somewhere in our council budget for MCMC
travel.
Yes? No?
» Uh >> It's on the mayor's
It's on the mayor's per diem, I believe. >> Well, when the policy changed, there was
nothing specific. So when we go into Questica, in my budget you'll see X
number for this, X number for that. When council changed their policy, we just
put in blank amounts. We didn't actually say
FCM, AB Munis, any of that. So is there money that to be reallocated for this?
Sure, like the mayor probably would have gone to that. Um
» So in your in your allocation or reallocation then,
as Joe just said, that was in his budget line.
Because he's not attending, it would make sense that
that's that's a a committee that he's
not going to attend, so the money that would have gone to him to do that would
be the transferred place. >> Not necessarily, because the way that
you changed the policy, you said counselors do not need to come back to
council to get permission to attend things. You can attend whatever you
want. If the mayor decides he wants to spend his $1,000 on something else,
that's up to him. What I was planning to do with this particular
um reallocation was to look at that object code across the organization and
say, I have extra money in these ones, I'm going to transfer it into here
because it doesn't matter whether it comes from a council budget or admin
budget. At the end of the year, whatever is not spent goes into contingency.
And and I do know for a fact your budgets are very tight.
Um and the mayor may turn around and say, "No, I I don't want to go
anywhere." Well, great. That $1,000 goes back into contingency. Um but yours are
so tight that in this instance, I would likely scan
the whole organization and say, "Some of these departments are behind and they're
likely not going to spend this and I'm going to reallocate it from there."
I just don't want you to go over again and then have this problem because
you've allowed each of you individually to decide what you spend your money on.
» So, Dean, can you read your motion?
The $3,500?
» No. There is no motion as per se other than
directing
I move that council direct administration to
reallocate funds
for training and travel as needed as per needed.
» As needed. >> As needed.
» Any questions? All of those in favor?
» I apologize, Joe. I I didn't do that properly.
Um >> Erin.
» Thank you. I would like because we're not reading it either,
sir. I would like >> [clears throat]
» Councilor Billingsley to repeat because I missed the last part of that sentence.
» I move that Council really can administration
to re- allocate funds
as needed for training and travel
as needed.
» Is that for all council budgets or just All of them. Okay.
Yep.
» Does that satisfy
» It does, but it kind of falls along with the Well, the other one was per diems.
Yep. Nope, this is good. Yep. >> Okay.
Any questions? All those in favor?
Thank you.
We done with the new business? My last one.
Um
I would like to know some information how
if we heard anything on the garbage bins at Starbucks or for if administration
can update us on on that issue.
If there's any up >> Yeah, through the chair to council.
Uh we have received the plans for the enclosure.
Uh they have been approved by planning and development and we are just waiting
on a timeline for the installation of that enclosure.
» So, the enclosure will be done before winter?
» That is correct. >> Thank you.
That is my question. Any further questions?
» Yeah, I'm good. >> If
If not, I will adjourn the meeting.
And I'll see you at the next council meeting
in September. Thank you.
» Joe, or will you see us at the next council
meeting in September? >> No, I get back on the 24th of September.
» So, if I don't see you beforehand, have a
wonderful trip. >> the
I leave on the 4th, so you can on the 3rd, actually.
So, I'll be seeing you and I'll be emailing you some issues regarding uh
the CEO's uh evaluation. I'll be doing that today, so
I can have that all done before I go. >> Awesome. Thank you.
» Thank you. I will adjourn
this meeting at 7:36. Thank you very much and have a
good week. And I guess we'll see you at Maria's uh
Mexican Grill grand opening night at the mall.
Thank you.
» Mhm.