[1:20] Are we a go?
[1:28] » Mr. Mayor, we have
>> Thank you. Uh, public hearing goes
[1:32] first, am I correct?
[1:36] » [clears throat]
>> Okay.
[1:40] Welcome everyone. Welcome to the regular
council meeting of August the 11th.
[1:46] Today we have a public hearing
of bylaw 211
[1:51] Sorry, go ahead.
>> Uh, sorry, Mr. Mayor, we need to do the
[1:54] adoption of the agenda and approval of
first.
[1:57] » Okay.
Yes, I didn't know whether to do that,
[2:00] so okay.
Thank you very much for that, Sue.
[2:04] Can I have adoption of the agenda or any
changes to or addition?
[2:09] Sue?
>> Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[2:13] Uh if it's possible, if we could
um
[2:16] change the numbering for um bylaws to
present bylaw or item 7.2
[2:25] and then present 7.1. Would be
appreciated.
[2:29] » Okay, hold on a minute. 7.1 first?
>> Uh 7.2 first, Mr. Mayor.
[2:35] » Okay, thank you.
>> Thank you.
[2:37] » Okay.
Okay.
[2:39] Councilor Neilson.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to
[2:42] [clears throat]
add under new business um
[2:46] business cases.
>> Okay.
[2:50] » Thank you.
[2:55] » Councilor
Elder.
[2:57] » I'd like to add something to close
session, just one item as well, please.
[3:03] » Thank you.
[3:12] Councilor Billingsley.
>> Thank you. Um I'd like to add uh two
[3:15] items. One under close session under
section 20
[3:19] and then under new business
uh per diems.
[3:26] » Thank you.
And I will also like to add under new
[3:30] business uh
just some information or update on the
[3:35] Starbucks uh
bins, garbage bins.
[3:43] Okay.
All of those in favor of the agenda as
[3:47] presented.
[3:51] All those in favor?
[3:56] Need a motion. Yes, all of those in
favor?
[3:59] » You got to make make the motion, Joe.
>> Mayor Brecko, I move that we accept the
[4:03] agenda as amended.
>> Thank you.
[4:06] All those in favor?
Harry, thank you.
[4:11] Now, we will move into public hearing.
Am I correct, Sue?
[4:18] » No, approval of minutes.
>> Approval of the minutes and then the
[4:21] public hearing.
>> Thank you. Sorry again. I got
[4:26] Can I have approval of the minutes for
July the 28th?
[4:30] Councillor Neilson.
[4:34] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move the council
adopts the regular council meeting
[4:36] minutes of July 28th, 2026 as presented.
>> Thank you.
[4:45] Can I have 3.2 for the whole
No, maybe we should vote.
[4:50] Oh, that's all it is.
>> please.
[4:53] » Committee of the whole, can I have a
motion to accept the committee of the
[4:55] whole?
>> No, I have a motion on the floor for
[4:58] adopting the regular council meeting
minutes.
[5:01] » Okay.
Thank you. All those in favor?
[5:06] Harry, [clears throat] thank you.
>> Mr. Mayor, I would now like to move the
[5:08] council adopts the committee of the
whole minutes for for July 28th, 2026 as
[5:12] presented.
>> Thank you, sir. Any questions or any
[5:17] not? All those in favor?
Harry, thank you.
[5:25] So, we will move on to
4.1, a public hearing
[5:30] for bylaw 2112-26
to amend
[5:35] the municipal development plan
2113-26
[5:40] to adopt the Evergreen aerial structure
plan.
[5:46] I declare the public hearing for bylaw
21
[5:49] 12-26
and 2113-26
[5:55] at 4:05.
[6:00] Purpose of the bylaw?
I will ask planning and development to
[6:05] explain the purpose of the hearing.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The purpose of
[6:09] this hearing is to receive public input
on bylaws 2112-26
[6:13] to amend the Municipal Development Plan
and 2113-26
[6:18] to adopt the Evergreen Area Structure
Plan.
[6:21] » Thank you. Has the notice of the hearing
been provided in accordance with the
[6:26] applicable
legislation bylaws of the city of
[6:29] Wetaskiwin?
>> Yes, the public hearing was advertised
[6:32] on whatifwetaskiwin.ca as of July 30th,
2026 as per the requirement from the
[6:37] Municipal Government Act section 606 and
the city's advertising bylaw 1976-20.
[6:44] In addition, it was advertised in the
Pipestone Flyer on July 30th and August
[6:48] 6th, 2026.
>> Thank you.
[6:51] I will now request that planning and
development provide their report
[6:54] regarding this matter.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[6:58] Administration is recommending the
council approve bylaw 2112-26
[7:03] amending the Municipal Development Plan
and bylaw 2113-26
[7:07] to adopt the Evergreen Area Structure
Plan.
[7:10] These bylaws are being considered
jointly in a public hearing as they have
[7:13] corresponding content and are jointly
required to bring the Evergreen Area
[7:17] Structure Plan into effect.
>> Thank you. Have we received any written
[7:22] submissions?
>> Administration received one written
[7:25] submission. This is included in the
agenda package provided to council and
[7:29] the public uh in which the Battle River
Watershed Watershed Alliance expresses
[7:33] considerations regarding the protection
of wetlands in the Evergreen ASP area.
[7:38] » Thank you.
I will now call upon anyone who wishes
[7:42] to speak directly to council on this
matter.
[7:52] Not?
First, we will call upon those who
[7:55] registered prior to the meeting and then
anyone who else wishes to speak
[7:59] may have an opportunity.
[8:06] Please note that all speakers will be
given no more than 5 minutes to speak.
[8:10] Is there anybody willing to speak?
[8:17] There are no formal registration to
speak. Is there anyone present wishing
[8:21] to speak to this matter?
[8:28] Is there anyone present wishing to speak
to this matter?
[8:35] Is there anyone present wishing to speak
to this matter?
[8:39] » One second, Joe.
>> [clears throat]
[8:46] » Okay.
[8:55] Apologies, Mr. Mayor. It appears the
submission from Battle River Watershed
[8:58] Alliance was not provided in writing to
council, and so I will read it into the
[9:01] record.
>> Thank you.
[9:11] » Uh entitled Watershed Considerations for
the Evergreen Special Study Area
[9:15] Statutory Plan.
Battle River Watershed Alliance, as the
[9:19] provincially designated watershed
planning and advisory council for the
[9:22] Battle River and Sounding Creek
watersheds in Alberta,
[9:25] appreciates the opportunity to engage
with the City of Wetaskiwin and provide
[9:29] input on the Evergreen Area Structure
Plan, the plan.
[9:32] We provided initial feedback through the
Special Study Area Survey in February
[9:36] 2026 and would like to follow up on a
few key recommendations as they pertain
[9:40] to the final draft of the plan.
As outlined under the environmental
[9:45] stewardship and open space integration
section on page 10 of the plan,
[9:50] environmental preservation was
identified as a paramount priority
[9:53] across all stakeholder groups.
Participants explicitly called for the
[9:57] protection of existing wetlands, mature
tree stands, and natural drainage
[10:01] patterns.
Related to the protection of existing
[10:05] wetlands, BRWA would like to reiterate
our recommendation to protect the
[10:09] wetland in the southeast corner of the
study area.
[10:12] As identified in the image on
in the submission and described in
[10:16] greater detail as part of the Marsh 2
wetland complex on page 24 of the city
[10:21] of Wetaskiwin special study area
biophysical impact assessment.
[10:27] Currently, the plan proposes a new
collector road at 47th Avenue that would
[10:30] curve to connect with West Street
running north-south.
[10:34] As identified in figure six of the plan
and figure 3.2 of the Wetaskiwin special
[10:39] study area structure plan transportation
impact assessment,
[10:43] this road would pass directly through
the wetland area.
[10:47] As identified in the biophysical impact
assessment, historical imagery has shown
[10:51] this to be a persistent wetland complex.
In order to more fully protect this
[10:55] wetland, the collector road could curve
around the northeast side of the wetland
[11:00] or be located further north from 48th
Avenue to West Street.
[11:04] In addition, park space two could be
expanded to more meaningfully recognize
[11:08] and protect the extent of this wetland.
See figure eight on page 29 of the plan.
[11:14] Note open space area one and two
descriptions on page 17 of the plan are
[11:18] not aligned with the park space numbers
in figure eight.
[11:22] Another wetland area and park space that
would benefit from further evaluation is
[11:26] Fen 1 and park space six.
As described on page 24 of the
[11:30] biophysical Impact Assessment.
Historical imagery repeatedly shows
[11:35] modeled wet areas and ponding within
this portion of the site, supporting the
[11:39] interpretation that wet conditions have
persisted in this area over time.
[11:44] The mapped connection between Fen 1 and
Marsh 2 suggests hydrologic interaction
[11:48] between these wetland units,
particularly during wetter periods or
[11:52] spring runoff.
Given the above, protecting the fen area
[11:57] identified in the yellow box in the
below image in the submission, could
[12:01] support hydrologic and ecological
connectivity in the study area.
[12:05] Currently, Park Space 6 is located south
of 49th Avenue and does not coincide
[12:10] with this wetland area.
The park space could be expanded or
[12:14] moved to the north to provide meaningful
protection of this wetland, as well as
[12:18] enhanced connectivity between park
spaces 6, 7, and 2, and Fen 1 and Marsh
[12:23] 2.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide
[12:25] feedback on the draft plan. We would
welcome any follow-up questions or
[12:29] further discussion about these concerns
and potential solutions.
[12:36] » I would like to thank everyone for their
presentation of this hearing.
[12:40] » [clears throat]
>> Council will discuss and debate this
[12:43] matter later in this meeting. I declare
the public hearing for bylaw 211
[12:48] 3
-26 and 2113-26
[12:53] closed
at 4:12.
[12:57] Thank you all.
We will move on to
[13:04] business arising Oh, public hearing.
We're sorry we got that.
[13:08] Business arising of the minutes.
[13:13] Staff report for decision.
[13:18] Six 6.1, please.
[13:24] » Is it on? Okay.
[13:27] The budget accountability policy CO-012.
The purpose of this report is to obtain
[13:34] council's approval on the budget
accountability policy, which was
[13:37] initially presented at the Committee of
the Whole meeting on July 14, 2026.
[13:43] At the meeting, council requested a few
changes in which include the following:
[13:48] a change to the policy statement,
a removal of the definition of
[13:53] management,
a requirement for operating budget
[13:57] approval to include council's up-
operating budget amendment to include
[14:02] council's approval, as well as that of
budget reallocations. These changes have
[14:07] now been incorporated into the policy
that is hereby presented to council for
[14:11] approval today. Thank you.
[14:17] » Councillor Hoy, Councillor White.
[14:23] » I move that council approve the budget
accountability policy C0-
[14:28] or CO-012
as presented.
[14:32] And I'd like to
start by through the chair to
[14:36] administration,
I appreciate the
[14:39] time and effort that's been taken to
get council's feedback and input in
[14:45] these finance policies. I recognize we
have a a number of them today that have
[14:50] uh taken
work and you have
[14:55] uh diligently
implemented or tried to accom-
[14:59] incorporate the feedback that was
received from council.
[15:03] I appreciate that and I will
be supporting the motion I just made.
[15:10] » Okay, any further questions?
[15:14] If not, can I have a vote
on the motion, please? All of those in
[15:18] favor?
[15:21] Carried. Thank you.
[15:25] Item 6.2.
[15:29] » The next policy is the procurement or
purchasing policy CO-016.
[15:35] This policy was also presented to
council for feedback at the July 28th
[15:40] Committee of the Whole meeting.
Um council provided its input into the
[15:44] policy and that has since been updated
in the final document that's hereby
[15:48] presented for approval.
[15:56] » Have a motion, please.
>> Councillor Neilson.
[16:00] I move the council gives approval.
Sorry, I move the council approve the
[16:04] procurement purchasing policy CO-016
as presented and I do not have any
[16:10] questions but will be supporting this
motion.
[16:14] » Thank you.
Any further questions from my
[16:17] colleagues?
If not, I'll have a motion to accept
[16:22] this. All those in favor?
Barry, thank you.
[16:33] We will move on to 7.2.
[16:37] » 6.3.
>> Oh, I'm sorry.
[16:41] 6.3, I missed one.
>> Item 6.3.
[16:44] » It's on the back.
Go ahead. It's on the back page, I'm
[16:48] sorry.
[16:51] Go ahead.
>> The long-term debt policy CO-064.
[16:56] The long the long-term debt policy was
presented um to council for the its
[17:01] input at the July 28th, 2026 meeting.
This is a brand new policy that
[17:07] discusses our debt limit and um how debt
is to be handled in the municipality. Um
[17:13] the total outstanding debt as of June
30th, 2026 was 8.8 million and details
[17:19] of repayment has been included in
council's agenda and was also discussed
[17:24] at the previous meeting.
[17:28] Thank you.
>> Councilor [clears throat] White.
[17:41] Councilor White, can I have a motion?
[17:45] » Sorry, I my mic wasn't on. I apologize,
Mayor Brinkle. I move that council
[17:49] approve the long-term debt policy CO-064
as presented.
[17:54] » Thank you.
All of those in favor?
[18:00] Carried, thank you.
We'll move on to 6.4
[18:04] Chambers upgrade.
[18:11] Sorry.
[18:24] » Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. For
the record, my name is Chris Bond,
[18:27] Manager of Fleet and Facilities.
Today, I am seeking council's
[18:31] consideration and direction on the
preferred layout for council chamber
[18:34] upgrade project and furniture options.
At the July
[18:38] pardon me, at the June 23rd
regular council meeting, council
[18:42] directed administration to develop
additional layout options that keep all
[18:46] council members seated together on the
same level
[18:49] while maintaining the historic character
of council chambers.
[18:53] At that time, council also requested an
option that utilizes the existing
[18:57] furniture.
In response, administration has
[19:00] developed two
additional layouts, option F and G, that
[19:05] are located within your agenda package.
Both options seat all council on the
[19:09] same level together within a gallery
configuration.
[19:14] These provide the direct sight lines
between council, administration, and the
[19:17] public all while retaining the historic
judges bench in order to preserve the
[19:21] historical character of the room.
The two layouts differ primarily in the
[19:28] orientation of council within the room.
Layout F relocates council to the south
[19:33] side of the chambers
while layout G positions council along
[19:37] the east and south wall providing
improved separation between council,
[19:41] administration, and public to best
support the recommendations identified
[19:45] within council chamber security review.
Upon evaluation of both options,
[19:50] administration is recommending layout G
as it provides the best balance of
[19:54] functionality,
heritage preservation, security, and
[19:58] sightlines for council, administration,
and the general public.
[20:02] Today's decision will provide
administration with the direction we
[20:05] require on the preferred layout and
furniture options.
[20:09] This will then allow administration to
complete a finalized design budget or
[20:14] detailed design, capture the full
project costing, submit the final design
[20:18] for provincial heritage approval,
and then return to council if additional
[20:23] funding is required.
This concludes my presentation and then
[20:26] I'm happy to answer any questions
council may have.
[20:32] » Can I have a motion, please? Councillor
Billingsley.
[20:40] » Microphone on, please. Sorry. I move
that council directs administration to
[20:44] proceed with council chambers layout
[20:49] G
and retrofit council desks option.
[20:56] And I will speak to that.
>> Go ahead.
[21:02] » I'm a little torn between F and G.
Um I personally like the look of F
[21:09] better, but I understand the security
concerns that these when the security
[21:13] audit was done of why administration is
recommending
[21:18] G.
Um,
[21:21] it's my understanding that um, a new
desk would be required for council to
[21:27] sit at.
Um, but it's also my understanding that
[21:31] um,
it can be done in-house.
[21:34] Um, to be able to
not have a large expense to be able to
[21:39] do this. So, for that reason, I will
support G.
[21:43] But, if somebody wants to convince uh,
convince me that F is better, that's
[21:46] fine, too.
[21:50] » Councillor White.
>> I'm not sure I can convince my fellow
[21:54] councillor, but I do have a question for
administration. So, thank you, Mayor
[21:58] Branco, through the chair to
our administration.
[22:03] In the layout variation F,
would the same it the drawing looks like
[22:10] the same table for council as in drawing
G. So, is there any
[22:16] reason that
variation G is
[22:20] of lower less expense?
>> Uh, through the chair to the question
[22:25] uh,
to the council's question. Um,
[22:29] what we've proposed is the the layout
options with either
[22:34] um, layout F or G. And then, a
supplemental question uh, for council to
[22:40] uh, provide direction on whether we were
to retrofit existing furniture as best
[22:45] we can or purchase new. So, that would
be with either option uh, for the
[22:51] retrofit.
[22:58] » Can you say that last bit one more time?
I need just need to absorb it. I
[23:02] apologize for not catching it all.
>> Not a problem.
[23:06] Within either option F and G, what we
proposed is a gullwing design for the
[23:12] counselor desks.
What we're seeking is a decision from
[23:15] counselor within either option
to whether to try and retrofit the
[23:20] existing furniture that we have which
would pertain to both layout options
[23:25] or to procure new furnishings for the
chambers.
[23:31] » So that
I understand then
[23:35] the layout is a choice and then the
furniture either new or retrofit is a
[23:41] choice. Two separate choices to make.
>> That would be correct.
[23:44] » Thank you.
If we're just laying on design, I I
[23:49] don't think I can support my fellow
counselors
[23:52] um
motion for G because I really like F
[23:56] better.
[23:59] » Counselor Hoy.
>> Um
[24:02] Thank you, Chris. To uh through the
chair to administration. So you speak of
[24:07] a security audit.
And I believe that was probably before
[24:11] this council's time. And so
what
[24:16] what was
said in that audit that suggests
[24:21] G would be better for security.
>> Uh through the chair to the question. Um
[24:27] I would rather take that uh in camera or
take it as a formal information request
[24:33] and to uh discuss what was in the the
the security review for for the chambers
[24:38] in open forum.
>> Thank you.
[24:42] » Counselor Neilson.
>> Do you want to go in?
[24:50] » I move that we go into closed session.
[24:54] » All of those in favor?
[38:24] » Mhm.
[40:19] » Mhm.
[41:27] » Okay, we on?
[41:32] » We are live, Mr. Mayor.
>> Thank you. Can I have a motion to come
[41:35] out of camera, please?
Councilor White.
[41:41] » I move we come out of camera.
>> All those in favor?
[41:47] Very thank you. Continue on, please.
Any further questions
[41:52] to Chris?
[41:56] Chris, I have a question.
Uh
[42:00] cost for just
upgrading
[42:04] electronics, I call electronics all the
upgrades to the new
[42:08] cameras or
IT equipment.
[42:12] Do you know the cost of that?
[42:19] Microphone, please.
[42:22] » Sorry. Through the chair to the chair,
the current budget that we have that has
[42:27] been previously approved is
99,000 for information technology
[42:32] replacement. Uh
to bear in mind, that does not include
[42:37] uh the infrastructure upgrades. That's
part of the facilities budget that
[42:41] that we take on through the 96,000 that
is earmarked for facilities.
[42:49] » So, 90 let's say 99,000.
Roughly 100.
[42:56] Rough estimate on moving any kind of
furniture around there. So, what is the
[43:01] total budget we allowed for this
upgrade, including
[43:06] I know you can't answer that cuz we
don't know what we're doing, but but
[43:09] what is our budget that we allowed for
this upgrade?
[43:13] » Uh through the chair to the chair, uh
the overarching budget uh for both
[43:17] portions that has been previously
approved is $195,000.
[43:23] » Thank you very much.
Any further questions from my
[43:27] colleagues?
[43:31] Councillor White.
>> Thank you, Mayor Branco. Through the
[43:34] chair to administration, please confirm
that I understand correctly.
[43:38] Um
variation E
[43:42] is no changes to furniture
and would be only
[43:49] the technology upgrades that have been
proposed.
[43:59] » Uh through the chair to the question, um
that would be correct. There would be uh
[44:04] infrastructure upgrades that we would
have to undertake as well.
[44:07] Um but it it remains pretty much status
quo with the addition of the original
[44:13] bar
uh that was in the courthouse at the at
[44:17] the time.
>> Thank you. With that, I think is what
[44:20] I'm most likely to favor, so I probably
will
[44:23] I anticipate not supporting
um
[44:27] Councilor Billingsley's
uh move.
[44:35] » I have a question. Uh Chris,
when we say IT, does that mean we we're
[44:39] getting new
um
[44:44] computers in front of us?
Larger one? Is there any lights or
[44:48] something that we push a button we want
to speak or
[44:52] or we just keep the same apparatus what
we have on top of our desk?
[44:58] » Uh through the chair to the chair, I am
going to defer to my uh colleague in IT
[45:04] who will be able to answer to that
question for you a little bit better
[45:06] than I will.
>> Thank you.
[45:08] » Yes, Mayor. Uh the equipment that's
planned to be replaced is the
[45:11] microphones, the um screens in front of
you,
[45:16] and the TVs up on the wall, and the
speakers sound system.
[45:19] Plus as Chris alluded to, also to
support all that is the infrastructure
[45:24] wiring cabling to make it uh full or
long-term cabling instead of over the
[45:29] floor.
[45:32] » Thank you.
Councilor Billingsley.
[45:36] » Thank you. Through the chair
to council, I guess. Um if G is not
[45:42] approved or any others and we go with
status quo,
[45:46] um the 90
9,000, 96,000, whatever the dollar
[45:50] amount was for the IT portion, um
there still will be capital costs as far
[45:57] as
um we will be dipping into the other
[46:02] $100,000 for some work that has to be
done within council chambers, no matter
[46:07] what. Is that correct?
>> Through the chair to the the question,
[46:11] that would be a correct statement.
What administration is looking for is
[46:16] direction from council from two areas on
the layout and whether we are going to
[46:22] re-man and reuse the furniture that we
have.
[46:26] At that time, once we once we have
determined the the layout, then we will
[46:30] be able to put together a more accurate
picture of what those costs are going to
[46:36] be.
>> So, I'll follow up with that. So,
[46:40] to council, if if it because
you don't want to go with variation
[46:47] F or G is because it costs more for the
renovation.
[46:53] There still will be costs involved
whether we keep the look of it being the
[46:58] same. And I think that that has to be
understood, right? That we still
[47:04] will have other expenses other than the
IT portion of that.
[47:08] Make that very clear.
[47:13] » Question. So, status quo, my my
understanding would be everything stays
[47:18] the same the way it is.
Other than if we have a few bugs on our
[47:24] TV or our microphones, but
[47:29] it's hard to approve something we don't
know what actually the cost is.
[47:35] Are we upgrading one, two, three TVs?
Are we spending 40,000, 50,000?
[47:43] My my understanding, maybe correct me if
I'm wrong,
[47:48] the status quo would be leave it the way
it is.
[47:53] Is that correct or
[47:58] Yes, sir.
>> Thank you. Um
[48:01] through the chair to council,
status quo would be for the furniture,
[48:04] the technology upgrade still needs to
happen. So, that is within approved
[48:08] budget.
There's a There's a lot of clunkiness
[48:11] and and I know
uh we've run into this before. We've had
[48:14] to stop council because we've lost live
feed or we've lost the ability to
[48:18] connect the different systems. We've got
way too many systems that are running to
[48:22] try and make this work efficiently.
Um and we're at risk almost every
[48:27] meeting of
uh of not being able to connect
[48:29] properly.
>> So,
[48:32] if I may,
status quo plus $99,000 for IT
[48:40] is what we have budget.
[48:44] Councilor Billingsley.
>> Through to the mayor, no. And that was
[48:50] the point I was trying to make. No
matter what, if we decide to upgrade IT,
[48:54] there will be other expenses even if we
leave this setup the same as it is
[48:59] today.
[49:06] Does that
make sense to you?
[49:08] » No.
No, that That's confusing. If we're
[49:11] upgrading IT, we have a budget of
$99,000.
[49:15] $999 or $900. I'm sorry.
$100,000. Let's forget $100,000. So,
[49:21] that would covers all IT
and everything else to bring in IT. What
[49:27] is the other cost for furniture?
[49:33] » Through the chair to the chair, those
additional costs would be borne under
[49:38] the 96,000 that has been uh previously
approved uh for those infrastructure
[49:44] upgrades to support the new IT hardware
uh that that would be required to
[49:51] sustain council meetings moving forward.
>> Thank you.
[49:56] Erin Abernethy.
>> Thank you, Joe Branco. And I'm I'm just
[50:00] having fun with you today. Thank you,
Mayor Branco. Through the chair to
[50:04] council.
Um
[50:08] I would really like to divide this
question into two questions.
[50:13] So,
we're not getting confused into where
[50:17] the numbers are aren't. Um
[50:25] is I am not in favor of any changes to
[50:32] the room.
Uh
[50:36] other than maybe some cosmetic, but I am
totally in favor of being more
[50:41] accessible to the community by having an
upgraded um
[50:47] Sorry.
I these stuff
[50:51] sound system and and do all of that. And
so,
[50:55] my
position right now is to just vote no
[50:59] for everything.
[51:03] Like both of these questions. And I I
wonder if
[51:06] that is also a challenge.
[51:13] » Councillor White.
>> Thank you, Mayor Branco.
[51:18] If the motion that's on the table for
variation G is defeated,
[51:22] I am prepared to make a motion for
variation E, which is no change in
[51:27] furniture.
The upgrades to technology have already
[51:31] been approved, so that's um
not the question on the table, I
[51:35] believe.
[51:39] That's where I'll be.
>> Councillor Billingsley.
[51:42] » Thank you.
I'll put in one last
[51:47] for a variation G. If the
we are going to have capital expense
[51:51] whether we go with EF or G.
And I think, in my opinion, that G is a
[51:59] more efficient way for us to communicate
with each other and be able to have
[52:05] um conversation much better than
than what we have currently.
[52:11] So, either way, whether it's EF or G, we
are going to have expenses
[52:17] um outside of IT.
[52:23] » Councilor Neilson.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[52:27] Chris,
[52:30] I'm wondering if you could
[52:36] help me understand
when you say other
[52:40] structural changes to accommodate IT.
We at one point talked about
[52:46] floor channels for for wiring, we talked
about a new carpet.
[52:51] From from
off the top of your head, what is that
[52:55] $100,000 going to buy us
outside of the
[52:59] $100,000 we set aside for technology?
[53:04] » Uh through the chair to the question. Um
so, uh two points with that. Uh within
[53:10] that those infrastructure upgrades to
run those new data lines, uh get those
[53:15] buried within floor,
uh for the electrical that would be
[53:19] required so that we don't have extension
cords
[53:22] uh running over uh council chambers,
providing a tripping hazard. Both of
[53:27] those two items uh we're targeting at
$58,000 to to complete that work, to be
[53:32] able to pull the floor up,
uh run those conduits, channels, uh new
[53:38] circuits uh for the electrical portion,
and a lot of data lines coming back to
[53:44] each individual workstation. So, just
that portion of the infrastructure
[53:50] alone, we've budgeted $58,000
for just that portion. Now, to keep in
[53:57] mind those incremental costs from a
design perspective, they will increase
[54:01] the however we we do the layout, but we
are still going to get hit with a good
[54:07] portion of that $58,000
regardless of whether we stay status
[54:12] quo, we go with whatever option that
council desires moving forward.
[54:18] So, that is just one thing to to keep in
mind is that we will still get hit with
[54:22] a base charge for those. The incremental
cost for moving 10 ft,
[54:27] we'd have to start capturing those costs
once we have a defined definitive
[54:31] layout, uh but we still will get hit
with a portion of those costs.
[54:36] » Thank you. And the status of the floor
covering, where does that fit into all
[54:40] of these numbers?
>> Uh the floor covering uh pardon me, uh
[54:43] through the chair to the question. Uh
the floor covering uh that is a
[54:47] completely uh separate capital charter
that is funded to I believe
[54:52] top of mind 14,000 that we do have uh
funding for. So, that that isn't
[54:58] included within this project scope per
se. Um it is another line item that was
[55:04] previously approved by council.
>> Thank you. In relation to the
[55:09] uh variation or
scale number E, you indicated the
[55:14] reinstallation of the fence. So, I'm
assuming the fence is intact. It's a
[55:19] matter of just nailing it to the floor.
Not really, but
[55:23] » Uh through the chair to the question.
Um
[55:27] in a roundabout way, yes,
that would be correct. It It is not the
[55:33] fabrication of a new um uh bar per se.
We We do have the original bar uh from
[55:39] when it was a courthouse. Uh the the
idea would be to just reinstall it in in
[55:45] the space if that is the way that we are
going
[55:48] » Thank you. And if we go to variation G,
where we have two lines on on my picture
[55:54] here
um delineating between the public and
[55:58] council and administration, there
appears to be another fence type
[56:02] structure there.
Um
[56:04] I'm assuming that would then need to be
fabricated from scratch.
[56:09] » Through the chair to the question. Uh
that's one of the things that we'd have
[56:12] to take as a takeaway for the final
design.
[56:15] Uh the intent would be to uh utilize a
portion of the existing bar that we
[56:21] have, but I would anticipate with that
design that we would have to custom
[56:25] fabricate cate
pardon me custom fabricate a few bits
[56:30] and pieces
um to augment uh what we don't have.
[56:43] » And my last question, and Chris, thank
you for indulging me, is uh
[56:51] I I I sort of asked this question before
we were redirected out here. Um
[56:58] If we maintain
the structure we currently have right
[57:02] now,
we tear up the floor, put the new
[57:04] runways in, blah blah blah blah, all of
that,
[57:08] then
down the road, if there is an intent
[57:13] to add furniture when we become
really rich
[57:17] as a community, um we could
build new,
[57:23] but would have to maintain the same
design
[57:28] as we're sitting at now because of the
underfloor
[57:33] cabling channels.
>> Uh through the chair to the question,
[57:38] um
that would mean remain true with any
[57:42] option that that council would consider
and and direct administration. Uh
[57:47] whether it be option G,
there's there's always, let's say, a
[57:52] little little bit of room for wiggle
room, uh but I think that's that's where
[57:55] council needs to make that decision on
on long-term of what they
[58:00] what they envision and see for the
layout of of council chambers. I think
[58:03] » what I was leading up to is that
>> [clears throat]
[58:06] » while this particular seating
arrangement and
[58:10] structure
is what it is today,
[58:14] it could be
3 years from now new,
[58:19] newly fabricated, but it still take this
form. So, we don't have to necessarily
[58:23] buy new furniture today, we could buy
new furniture
[58:27] next week, next year, next whenever.
Okay.
[58:31] » Uh through the chair to the question,
yes, that would be a uh a correct
[58:35] statement and then that would hold true
for any of the layout options as well.
[58:38] Thank you.
[58:43] » Uh
question, Chris. Hypothetical question.
[58:50] IT,
let's say we wanted new computers and
[58:53] laptops,
can we not run electrical cords or wire
[58:58] or whatever above the carpet as we have
right now?
[59:03] It just
I know we you say we got electrical
[59:06] wire, but where it's operating now,
so if you have new wiring and still have
[59:11] the same status without ripping
[59:16] the floor up?
>> Through the chair to uh
[59:20] to the chair, um
i- if that's council's desire to stay
[59:24] status quo with the uh
with the
[59:28] uh current technology and current layout
um then that that is uh council's
[59:35] desire. What administration has it is
proposing is updating that
[59:41] uh sorely needed IT hardware that we do
see ongoing issues with
[59:47] and provide those infrastructure
upgrades to
[59:50] to prepare us for
um
[59:54] better today and and and and better in
the future.
[1:00:00] Thank you.
>> Councilor Elder.
[1:00:03] » Mr. Uh one whoops. I'm not sure that's
on.
[1:00:06] Sorry, but [clears throat] just one
quick question with F or G, do we lose
[1:00:09] one bench in here like for seating?
We've got 1 2 3 4 5 6 benches and
[1:00:16] currently I only see four in the
diagram.
[1:00:21] » Uh through the chair to the uh question
that that is correct. Uh we'd have to
[1:00:25] take any design uh that
uh council would like us to move forward
[1:00:30] with and we would need to finalize
uh exactly
[1:00:35] what we have.
[1:00:53] » So I guess Council Billings, you have a
motion on the table for
[1:00:57] » I do.
>> Okay.
[1:01:00] Could you please read it so we can vote
on it?
[1:01:03] » I move that uh
I move that city council directs
[1:01:06] administration to proceed
uh with council chamber layout
[1:01:11] uh
G
[1:01:15] and retrofit council desk option.
>> Thank you.
[1:01:22] All of those in favor?
[1:01:26] Opposed?
[1:01:28] Defeated.
[1:01:32] Councillor White.
[1:01:38] » I move the council directs
administration to proceed with council
[1:01:41] chamber layout option E.
[1:01:48] » Thank you.
[1:01:52] Can I have a vote on
>> Excuse me, Mr. Mayor.
[1:01:55] » Yes, sir.
>> You're talking about just You're talking
[1:01:59] about just the layout at this point?
>> Councillor White?
[1:02:02] » Yep.
>> So So nothing to do with furniture per
[1:02:05] se?
>> Option E does not include any retrofit
[1:02:08] or need to change. It's Keep it as is.
[1:02:17] » Councillor Billingsley.
>> Thank you. Um
[1:02:23] through the chair to
Councillor White. So are you talking
[1:02:28] about leaving everything the same and
just adding new tech and not channeling,
[1:02:34] or are you looking to spend the
I think uh Chris said about 60 50 60
[1:02:40] thousand dollars for upgrading
channeling.
[1:02:44] » Through the chair to Councillor
Billingsley, my understanding is that
[1:02:46] the
IT
[1:02:49] uh upgrade has already been approved and
there's already been money set for that
[1:02:54] for both
>> [clears throat]
[1:02:55] » the IT and for whatever it needs to be
done in in the facility to accommodate
[1:03:01] that.
And my motion is for
[1:03:07] variation E as it's drawn and presented
before us.
[1:03:12] » Thank you.
[1:03:14] » I think Councillor Aberly had her hand
up and then Councillor Nealson.
[1:03:18] » Yes, thank you, sir. I believe that
the last question was the same as my
[1:03:23] question, so I think it was answered.
>> Thank you. Councillor Nealson.
[1:03:30] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
I'm wondering if my colleague would
[1:03:35] accept a friendly amendment
to as part of the proposal for them to
[1:03:41] come back with a costing
[1:03:46] Hmm.
[1:03:49] I'm going to back up.
[1:03:53] I'm assuming you're making an
um
[1:04:00] I'm assuming
that you're assuming
[1:04:03] » Well, at no danger there.
>> Yeah, yeah, right.
[1:04:05] That
the only cost that would be incurred
[1:04:10] with this is the money that's already
been committed.
[1:04:19] Would you
accept a friendly amendment as part of
[1:04:24] that motion
to also at the same time
[1:04:30] get a quote on
[1:04:35] new furniture, new desks, whatever.
>> Nope, that's not friendly to me.
[1:04:40] » Thank you.
>> I want to leave it as is.
[1:04:42] » Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make amendment to
the motion that's on the floor.
[1:04:46] » Go ahead.
>> I would like to
[1:04:51] get a cost estimate of what it would
include
[1:04:55] on variation E
for new
[1:05:00] refabricated, whatever the terminology
would be,
[1:05:03] um
working stations for council.
[1:05:08] » So, if correct me if if wrong, but
so we're going to vote on your
[1:05:12] amendment. Correct?
>> That is correct. All I'm asking for is a
[1:05:17] I I believe I can support
>> [clears throat]
[1:05:25] » I thought you were correcting me.
[1:05:28] My other colleagues could not have been
so cautious about doing that. Um
[1:05:36] I would just like to get a cost estimate
as to what is what would it cost if we
[1:05:39] replace
this existing working stations for
[1:05:43] council.
[1:05:48] » Councilor Billingsley and then Councilor
White.
[1:05:51] » Through the chair to Councilor Councilor
Neilson.
[1:05:56] Why?
And and and the reason I say that is
[1:06:01] part of the reason was to keep the
ambiance of the original courthouse and
[1:06:05] now you're looking for something
new.
[1:06:08] Why?
>> Well, if you want me to get really
[1:06:11] serious, then I would say not something
new from this perspective of new. I
[1:06:15] would say something new that would
incorporate paneling that would look
[1:06:19] similar to what's already in the
building. Not new
[1:06:22] IKEA white glossy
something that adds to
[1:06:27] to the
historical
[1:06:30] ambiance.
[1:06:35] » Councilor White.
>> I believe this amendment is
[1:06:39] uh better suited as a request for
information and not an amendment to my
[1:06:43] motion.
[1:06:50] » Councilor Aberley.
>> Thank you, sir. Through the chair to
[1:06:55] council, um I will agree with Councilor
White. And
[1:07:02] here's where we sit, and I don't think I
need to say it, but I'm going to say it
[1:07:05] for anybody that hasn't met me.
I love the idea of the paneling. There
[1:07:09] are two desks, maybe three desks here
that have the paneling and Councillor
[1:07:15] Billingsley and I sit at the kids table.
Kids tables that have are the reason for
[1:07:20] this curtaining. So, I would be open to
Councillor Nielsen's request,
[1:07:28] but separate from this vote.
In that, I want to figure the plan and
[1:07:34] then we'll talk about money for
furniture second.
[1:07:46] » My concern is that the the motion on the
floor
[1:07:49] is saying
leave everything as is with the
[1:07:54] exception of the technology.
[1:07:58] And if that motion passes,
a second motion to consider furniture
[1:08:05] is counter to the motion that would have
just been approved.
[1:08:10] » Uh
Mayor Bronco, may I just because it's
[1:08:13] directly to that?
>> Go ahead.
[1:08:17] » I see the first motion as a what does
the
[1:08:24] layout look like?
And so, we agree on a layout and then
[1:08:29] and I'm not saying we talked about this
13 weeks from now. I'm saying following
[1:08:33] that we then discuss do we want new
furniture to fit within the agreed upon
[1:08:41] layout?
[1:08:45] » So, my question to Councillor White
would be, is that your intention to the
[1:08:48] motion? You're not talking about
furniture, you're talking about design
[1:08:52] layout.
>> Correct. Layout as presented in the
[1:08:56] drawing.
[1:09:00] » Okay.
[1:09:04] I'd be happy to withdraw my amendment at
this time.
[1:09:08] » Thank you, Councillor Neilson.
We'll be voting on
[1:09:13] motion by Councillor White. Can you
repeat that, Councillor White, please,
[1:09:16] so we can vote on it?
[1:09:23] » I move the I move that council directs
administration to proceed with council
[1:09:27] chambers layout option E.
[1:09:33] » Thank you. Any further questions? If
not,
[1:09:36] I'll ask for
any further questions.
[1:09:42] Can I have a vote, please, on motion
E.
[1:09:46] All those in favor?
[1:09:49] Opposed?
[1:09:55] Carried.
Thank you.
[1:10:02] Councillor Neilson.
[1:10:05] » As part of this conversation, I would
like to make a motion, Mr. Mayor.
[1:10:09] » Please.
[1:10:12] » I would move council directs
administration to provide a quote
[1:10:19] for replacing existing
council
[1:10:23] workstations
[1:10:28] with
[1:10:31] with new
[1:10:35] but not to lose the ambience
of the original
[1:10:39] courthouse
[1:10:42] design.
[1:10:46] » Any questions?
[1:10:50] Councillor Aberley.
>> Uh thank you, sir,
[1:10:54] through the chair to Councillor Neilson,
Um do you have a date that you would
[1:11:01] like this information back?
>> Yesterday.
[1:11:04] » Great. And then a realistic date?
>> That wasn't realistic.
[1:11:09] Um
[1:11:12] I would defer to you, Chris.
>> Um through the chair to the Councillor's
[1:11:16] question. And if I may, we we did and
this may solve and answer a few
[1:11:21] questions for you. Um
not entirely the intent of of what your
[1:11:28] motion and your ask is.
But we did price out a few options along
[1:11:34] the way. One of them was
um an increase of
[1:11:38] to the the current Councillor's desks in
the
[1:11:41] current configuration.
It didn't include um
[1:11:46] uh raised paneling or to meet the the
the character that that we currently see
[1:11:51] in the room. That cost for the two desks
was 18,000. I would anticipate that we
[1:11:57] we would probably be in about the
$35,000 range
[1:12:01] um to do the raised panels for
for the two desks.
[1:12:07] If we were to go that route of raised
panels and and wood desk to meet the the
[1:12:12] character of the room.
>> And
[1:12:18] please don't mis- mis-
understand my my comment.
[1:12:22] Um
[1:12:26] I would like to get
[1:12:31] I'd like to get a a proper quote.
So that I'm dealing with
[1:12:36] accurate numbers.
If it is at
[1:12:39] $35,000
that's quite different than 18,000
[1:12:42] whatever.
Um
[1:12:47] but if it's 18 then it's it's a
different part of the ballgame.
[1:12:51] Um, my only concern
No, I have two concerns. One obviously
[1:12:56] is cost, but the other one is
not losing the character of the
[1:12:59] building. That that I think
anytime anybody's come into this
[1:13:03] building,
they are jaw-dropped
[1:13:06] um
by the facility, and I would not want to
[1:13:10] lose that by
modernizing, so to speak. So, I would
[1:13:15] appreciate
accurate accurate numbers.
[1:13:18] Thank you.
>> So, we need a motion for that.
[1:13:26] Sue?
[1:13:29] Councilor
White.
[1:13:31] » Um,
we do have a motion on the floor from
[1:13:35] Councilor Neilson.
And I I appreciate the
[1:13:39] desire for accurate
uh
[1:13:42] financial information to make a
decision, and I intend to support his
[1:13:45] motion.
>> Thank you. Any further questions?
[1:13:53] If not, Councilor Neilson, can you
please repeat your motion so we can vote
[1:13:57] on it?
[1:14:00] » Maybe.
I don't need to capture it, or am I
[1:14:03] winging it?
[1:14:29] Want to add a date. That will do it for
me. Do you want to add a date?
[1:14:36] Chris, let's add a date.
[1:14:44] » Through the chair to the council. I I
think um
[1:14:48] once we get a a design, um
go back to uh
[1:14:53] a millwork company, we
we'd probably be able to turn that
[1:14:57] around in in 4 to 6 weeks.
>> Thank you. 4 to 6 weeks.
[1:15:02] Not 46, but just
I would I would um
[1:15:06] within I would I I would ask for it to
be done in 4 weeks.
[1:15:12] And if you have to have an extension,
you can have an extension. But right now
[1:15:15] I want 4 weeks.
>> Okay.
[1:15:21] » So you're looking for September the
23rd, I believe.
[1:15:24] » If your calendar is correct and I trust
you, the answer would be yes.
[1:15:29] » [laughter]
[1:15:31] » Thank you. Counselor Aberley, you had a
question.
[1:15:35] » No, sir, it was answered. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[1:15:41] So when Counselor Neill, can you make
the motion so we can vote, please? You
[1:15:44] got the date.
>> You had the date. Um the council directs
[1:15:49] administration provide a quote in 4
weeks for replacing existing council
[1:15:53] workstations while maintaining the
existing character of council chambers.
[1:15:59] » Thank you.
All of those in favor?
[1:16:06] Opposed?
[1:16:08] Carried.
Thank you.
[1:16:12] Finally, we got a decision over 2 years.
[1:16:17] Are you happy now, Karen?
>> Yes, sir. Thank you.
[1:16:26] » We will move on to item 7.2.
Emily, please.
[1:16:53] » Good evening, Council. My name is Emily
Sangster, Manager of Planning and
[1:16:56] Development, and with me is Michael
Reyes from Arcades, our consultant on
[1:17:00] the Evergreen Area Structure Plan.
The purpose of the presentation for this
[1:17:04] current agenda item is to present for
second and third reading bylaw 2112-26,
[1:17:10] which would amend the Municipal
Development Plan or MDP to incorporate
[1:17:14] the policies and designations proposed
in bylaw 2113-26,
[1:17:19] Evergreen Area Structure Plan, which
will subsequently be presented for
[1:17:22] second and third readings.
The MGA requires that our Municipal
[1:17:26] Government Act requires that any Area
Structure Plan be consistent with the
[1:17:30] applicable MDP,
and the MDP prevails in the event that
[1:17:33] there's any inconsistency between the
two plans.
[1:17:37] Therefore, we are proposing amendments
to the city's 2024 MDP to incorporate
[1:17:41] the changes proposed in the ASP, and
then ensure the ASP can be adopted in a
[1:17:45] manner consistent with the approved MDP.
The changes are detailed in the bylaw in
[1:17:50] attachment one,
includes some minor text changes to
[1:17:54] update policy direction um
in section 3.1.1, established
[1:17:59] neighborhood, to clarify where light
industrial uses may be permitted, and to
[1:18:02] refer to area structure plans alongside
area redevelopment plans as statutory
[1:18:07] plans that may provide direction on the
compatibility of new development.
[1:18:11] Removing the existing policy section and
implementation item providing direction
[1:18:15] for future study in the special study
area now that that's been completed. And
[1:18:20] replacing maps two and maps four with
amended maps that represent the proper
[1:18:25] Evergreen ASP boundary and the land use
designations that are proposed.
[1:18:30] As I noted at first reading, the land
use designations in map four do not
[1:18:34] correspond exactly to the land use
designations in the ASP land use
[1:18:38] concept. And this is because the MDP's
land use designations are broader than
[1:18:42] those in the ASP.
Additionally, the policies for the
[1:18:46] relevant land use designations in the
MDP indicate that statutory plans such
[1:18:50] as this may provide further policy
direction in specific areas.
[1:18:54] So, with that summary, I'd be happy to
take any questions regarding this
[1:18:57] proposed bylaw.
>> Councilor Neilson.
[1:19:01] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move the council
give second reading to bylaw
[1:19:05] 2112-26
amending the Municipal Development Plan
[1:19:09] to incorporate amendments proposed in
the Evergreen Area Structure Plan.
[1:19:14] » Thank you. Any questions?
Councilor Buildingsley.
[1:19:19] » Thank you.
Um
[1:19:22] through the chair
to the mayor.
[1:19:24] Um when we had first reading, um you
voted against this
[1:19:29] and I'm trying to understand
why that would be and you don't have to
[1:19:34] necessarily Well, you don't have to
answer that question, but I'm trying to
[1:19:38] understand
why. Is there some Is there amendment
[1:19:42] that we possibly could make for you to
support this? Is there something about
[1:19:47] this that isn't sitting right?
>> I'm ask I have a couple questions I
[1:19:51] going to ask that so you can answer
that.
[1:19:53] » Perfect. Thank you.
>> Malik.
[1:19:55] So, one of my questions we had a
this week or last week we had
[1:20:01] an email sent to us.
Do land owners have to give a percentage
[1:20:06] of their lands for parks,
playgrounds
[1:20:10] as a developer?
[1:20:15] » Uh through the through to the chair. Um
I I I believe what you're referring to
[1:20:19] is the requirement under the MGA that um
at subdivision um owners of parcels
[1:20:26] larger than a particular size are
required to dedicate up to 10% of the
[1:20:30] land for parks and open space. Uh that
applies at subdivision.
[1:20:35] So, not necessarily as part of this
plan.
[1:20:38] » What is the size they after? Is it after
10 acres? Cuz I'm wondering if you have
[1:20:44] a landowner has 2 acres and he has to
give 10 or 30% of that land for a park,
[1:20:50] doesn't make it feasible for him to
develop the land?
[1:20:55] Is there a size of a of a before he
gives it or
[1:21:01] » Through the Through to the chair, that
size is defined in the Municipal
[1:21:03] Government Act. I believe it is 0.8
hectares.
[1:21:12] And that requirement is not unique to
this area structure plan. It's uh at any
[1:21:16] at any subdivision the municipality may
require it. And so, in the area
[1:21:21] structure plan that we will get to,
those dedication requirements have been
[1:21:24] accounted for and mapped for general
information.
[1:21:28] » Okay.
Thank you. My other quick I got a couple
[1:21:31] more questions.
30% of tree canopy, what do you mean by
[1:21:36] that?
>> Uh Through to the chair, the city has um
[1:21:41] I believe it's the
I cannot recall if it's the urban tree
[1:21:45] policy or the urban forest management
policy, but those policies are also
[1:21:48] reflected in the Municipal Development
Plan
[1:21:50] um indicating that the city is looking
to develop its urban tree canopy to
[1:21:54] cover 30% of the city in the long term.
>> So,
[1:21:59] is that go back again that the owner
would have to give 30%
[1:22:03] of his land to the city
plus
[1:22:07] the
um
[1:22:11] percentage of his land for parks and
recreation or what do you mean tree
[1:22:15] covering or tree
that
[1:22:19] tree canopy? Explain that more.
>> Uh Through to the chair, um
[1:22:24] 30% tree canopy uh largely indicates
that 30% of the area of the city is uh
[1:22:29] covered under
a shade tree or a tree cover of some
[1:22:33] kind. That could be public land or could
be private land, and it's not
[1:22:37] um expressly related to that municipal
reserve parkland dedication that I was
[1:22:42] referring to.
Um
[1:22:44] trees can contribute to a tree canopy
cover whether they're on public land or
[1:22:47] private land.
>> Okay, but what I what I'm trying to ask
[1:22:52] and again and answer is
if you have a development and he goes in
[1:22:55] there, he or
clears the whole area for a new
[1:22:59] subdivision sidewalks, does he have to
leave trees in there or does he come
[1:23:02] back and replant it?
>> Uh through to the chair, um
[1:23:07] generally when when this administration
is looking at development applications,
[1:23:10] if there are significant tree stands, we
may have a discussion with the developer
[1:23:14] on whether they can be retained. If they
cannot be retained, then we do have
[1:23:17] landscaping requirements in our land use
bylaw that um set out how um how the
[1:23:22] area is to be replanted.
[1:23:27] » Uh my other question
and last question
[1:23:31] we know in that area of Evergreen
development there
[1:23:35] there is a couple contaminated land.
If
[1:23:41] a developer's building and is beside
there is a couple city owned um
[1:23:47] contaminated land and uh the seepage
goes into the private land, who's
[1:23:52] responsible for that cleanup?
[1:23:56] If it's on city owned property, which we
have a a dedication here or in in the uh
[1:24:03] photos.
[1:24:05] » Uh through to the chair, my
understanding from um discussions on
[1:24:10] this with the province is that the
generally the original polluter is
[1:24:13] responsible for um the costs of the
cleanup.
[1:24:17] And so, depending on how um
the original polluter is established and
[1:24:24] what is shown through studies of how
that contamination has migrated then
[1:24:27] there may be mechanisms to recover some
of those costs from the original
[1:24:30] polluter, whoever that may be.
>> But
[1:24:36] the the the my old and this is a key
point for me.
[1:24:41] If
if you can't find
[1:24:44] the original polluter
is the owner
[1:24:49] whose been land has been contaminated by
that partial land that the city owns
[1:24:53] have to pay for that
cleanup.
[1:25:03] Cuz we could we could look at millions
of some of the landfills that's there.
[1:25:10] » Through to the chair
uh my understanding is that there may be
[1:25:13] mechanisms for cost recovery as well and
the city may as part of actions arising
[1:25:19] from this ASP explore options for
remediation of some of the contaminated
[1:25:22] sites.
[1:25:30] » It's not a definite answer. It may
may means we could
[1:25:35] pay for it or the developer may have to
pay or cost sharing for something he
[1:25:39] didn't do. Okay.
Uh you answered my question. Counselor
[1:25:43] Neilson.
>> Thank you. I'd like to follow up a
[1:25:46] little bit on
some questions posed because
[1:25:49] now I piqued my curiosity.
[1:25:53] So if I'm a landowner
in
[1:25:57] Evergreen
and I've got a big parcel of land
[1:26:04] and there's nothing on it
and I want to develop it
[1:26:10] I
have to sign a portion of that property
[1:26:14] to
green space or park space.
[1:26:20] If I'm a landowner with a big parcel of
land
[1:26:24] and I'm not planning on developing it,
but I just have a big parcel of land,
[1:26:29] do I still have to then
designate a portion of my land
[1:26:35] to park space?
>> Uh through to uh through the chair to
[1:26:38] Councillor Nielsen, the requirement for
what's called municipal reserve
[1:26:41] dedication comes into effect at
subdivision.
[1:26:44] So, if the parcel is developed as a
large parcel, but not subdivided, then
[1:26:49] that dedication requirement is not
there.
[1:26:55] » So, if I live out on Airport Road
and I
[1:27:00] have a large parcel, my house is on it,
my garage is on it, I'm not doing any
[1:27:04] further subdivision, then I do not have
a requirement
[1:27:08] to give over a portion of my land
to green space?
[1:27:13] » Through the chair to Councillor Nielsen,
I see what you're saying now. Um if
[1:27:17] uh
so, in the example that you're giving um
[1:27:19] for a a large residential property that
property that has already been
[1:27:23] developed, at that previous subdivision,
um if municipal reserve was dedicated at
[1:27:28] that time, and in most cases it was,
then you're not you don't have it's not
[1:27:31] required that the landowner provide it
again.
[1:27:36] » And if that large portion of property is
actually a commercial
[1:27:41] venture,
[1:27:44] does that hold true as well if they're
not subdividing subdividing it any
[1:27:47] further?
>> That's correct. The requirement is
[1:27:50] regardless of the the use of the land.
[1:27:54] » Okay, thank you.
[1:28:00] » Councillor Billingsley.
>> Thank you. Through the chair to Emily.
[1:28:05] These regulations you speak of are are
MJ and not specific
[1:28:09] to this MDP, is that correct?
>> Through the chair uh, counselor,
[1:28:12] Billingsley, that's correct.
>> Thank you.
[1:28:15] They're not applicable to this?
>> No, they're not specific to this.
[1:28:19] » Help me understand the difference.
In other words,
[1:28:23] the the rules that you speak about are,
um, part of the MGA, not
[1:28:30] were constructed because of this
specific property.
[1:28:34] properties
>> No.
[1:28:35] » Correct. Yeah.
Thank you.
[1:28:39] » I I do have one more question.
[1:28:43] We have where Evergreen space
We have a gem in our community which is
[1:28:50] By the Lake Park.
Is it not a conflict
[1:28:55] to compete
to bring people to By the Lake Park to
[1:28:59] enjoy our pathways and
because we know what, uh,
[1:29:04] Battle River Watershed in that area
is very subject to flooding. So, we're
[1:29:09] going to have a lot of night nature.
[1:29:13] Is that not too close to have too many
parks, high maintenance, and
[1:29:21] » Uh, through to the chair,
um,
[1:29:24] one of the rationales for laying out the
parks in the land use concept the way
[1:29:28] that it was done was kind of recognizing
that there are sort of different levels
[1:29:32] and different types of park space, if
you wish. So, By the Lake Park is a a
[1:29:35] large regional park, um, draws people
from all across the city, but, um,
[1:29:40] it's I think we can all think of smaller
neighborhood parks in our area that we
[1:29:44] may be more likely to pop out to to walk
a dog or bring a child to the
[1:29:48] playground. And so, having both of those
types of parks, um, easily accessible to
[1:29:52] residents in this area was part of the
reason why there's a number of smaller
[1:29:56] parks proposed actually in the plan area
that are not
[1:30:00] seen to be conflicting with the larger
By the Lake Park.
[1:30:06] » As our records show, where where they
can smaller playgrounds and cuz we can't
[1:30:11] afford to main- maintain it.
Um
[1:30:14] my question is to administration.
[1:30:19] If I vote no
to the third reading or the second, what
[1:30:23] happens?
>> Uh through to the chair, um
[1:30:28] I think that it would depend on the
overall outcome of the vote. Um if the
[1:30:31] if the proposal as a whole does not pass
third reading, then the area structure
[1:30:35] plan is defeated.
[1:30:38] » Okay, thank you.
[1:30:42] Any further questions?
[1:30:46] Councilor Billingsley, then Councilor
Neilson.
[1:30:48] » Thank you. Um
[1:30:52] I think I'm reading between the lines
and maybe I'm not. Um
[1:30:56] do you have concerns about this, Mayor
Branco, that possibly an amendment to
[1:31:01] this would alleviate your concerns?
[1:31:06] » I I have a concerns that
[1:31:10] I know it's all to the owners to develop
when develop, but
[1:31:15] if we're doing an industrial park and
somebody wants to build an industrial
[1:31:19] park, why would he give
land away that he's already have a high
[1:31:23] cost to develop and lose some of that
land for green space when we have
[1:31:30] green space across the street.
So it's more it's more of
[1:31:38] I know it's not up to us, it's up to the
MGA or the provincial government rules,
[1:31:42] but
to have somebody that has
[1:31:46] five, six acres and he has to give two
acres away,
[1:31:49] that's income that he's losing that he
has to pay for, that he ain't getting
[1:31:53] nothing back.
[1:31:59] Now if the city was to say, "We're going
to purchase your land for green space."
[1:32:04] That's a different situation.
[1:32:11] Councilor Neilson.
[1:32:15] » No, I'm good. Thank you, sir.
[1:32:19] » Councilor Hoyle.
>> Emily, what size did you say that we
[1:32:22] were looking at where the 10% was
applicable to?
[1:32:28] Is it 0.9 hectares?
Was that correct?
[1:32:32] » Uh through the chair to Councilor Hoyle,
I would need to verify, but it is stated
[1:32:37] in the MGA and I believe it is 0.8
hectares.
[1:32:39] » 0.8 then that's 20 acres.
I believe roundabout. So, we're talking
[1:32:44] about a large
>> No. No. No. 0.8 is not 0.8 of a hectare
[1:32:49] is not 20 acres.
>> Did she say 1/8 or 0.8?
[1:32:54] » 0.8.
[1:33:04] » And so, that would also
>> Councilor
[1:33:07] » That would also mean that
that's applicable to any other division
[1:33:12] subdivision going forward whether it's
industrial any development in the city
[1:33:17] this would be applicable to, correct?
>> Uh through the chair to Councilor Hoyle,
[1:33:21] any subdivision that meets the criteria
set out in the MGA, yes. Thank you.
[1:33:33] » Thank you, Mayor Bronco.
[1:33:36] We put the cart before a whole lot of
horses here because is this not just us
[1:33:40] saying
we are willing to change an MDP to
[1:33:46] look at like I think
this debate
[1:33:51] we're just trying to see are we going to
change our MDP?
[1:33:54] Am I saying that word right?
Am I understanding what the point of
[1:33:58] this is?
>> Through the chair to Councillor Aberle.
[1:34:02] Through the chair to Councillor Aberle,
the current bylaw that is um the subject
[1:34:06] of the motion is the motion to amend the
MDP right to then prepare for the ASP
[1:34:12] bylaw to be discussed next.
>> Yes. So, I will be voting in favor of
[1:34:16] this motion
both readings
[1:34:20] um
because I am in favor of
[1:34:24] continuing this discussion about the
area structure plan.
[1:34:30] But if we were to say no in any of this
now, we're not we wouldn't be having the
[1:34:35] conversations that we've just had.
[1:34:40] So, I would like to have you call the
question, please.
[1:34:44] » I
If I may,
[1:34:47] wouldn't it be beneficiary for us to
debate that before
[1:34:51] if one of us says no
to then come back
[1:34:56] and settle this?
[1:35:01] » If you're asking me specifically, Mayor
Bronconnier, I don't believe it would.
[1:35:05] » Okay, thank you.
[1:35:10] May I ask for the question?
[1:35:14] Can somebody make a motion for the
second and third reading, please?
[1:35:18] » I did.
>> We did?
[1:35:20] » Yes, for second reading.
>> Okay, all of those in favor?
[1:35:26] Opposed?
[1:35:29] Thank you.
>> Mr. Mayor, I now move that council gives
[1:35:32] third reading to bylaw 2112-26
amending the municipal development plan
[1:35:39] to incorporate amendments proposed in
the Evergreen area structure plan.
[1:35:46] » All of those in favor?
[1:35:51] Opposed?
[1:35:56] Passed, I believe.
[1:36:04] We'll move on to 7.1.
[1:36:09] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Um to follow on the public hearing that
[1:36:13] took place earlier and the presentation
uh that was made a moment ago and also
[1:36:17] first reading of this item at the July
28th Council meeting, I wanted to
[1:36:21] provide a brief overview of the proposed
plan
[1:36:25] being presented in Bylaw 2113-26
uh as well as a minor recommended
[1:36:30] amendment and additional considerations.
As you know, the plan area covers
[1:36:35] approximately two quarter sections
northeast of the Wetaskiwin Airport and
[1:36:39] has various development considerations
and constraints.
[1:36:42] These include an existing mix of
low-density residential, industrial
[1:36:45] development, and vacant land owned by
numerous different owners,
[1:36:49] limited municipal servicing, and
environmental considerations such as
[1:36:53] contaminated sites, drainage challenges,
and existing wetland areas.
[1:36:58] The project team completed a broad
engagement process in the first half of
[1:37:01] 2026, which included two public open
houses, two public surveys, and the
[1:37:06] maintenance of a project website to
provide information to the public and
[1:37:09] receive inquiries.
It also involved direct engagement with
[1:37:12] potentially interested parties,
including owners of vacant land in the
[1:37:16] area, representatives of Wetaskiwin's
Indigenous communities, and public and
[1:37:20] non-governmental agencies such as the
city's own departments,
[1:37:24] uh Alberta Health Services, and the
Battle River Watershed Alliance.
[1:37:28] Key themes that emerged from this
engagement are reflected in the plan's
[1:37:31] vision, which is to foster a community
that offers diverse housing choices and
[1:37:35] business opportunities with convenient
road and trail connectivity and readily
[1:37:39] accessible green spaces, while
thoughtfully integrating and
[1:37:42] complementing the existing character of
surrounding neighborhoods.
[1:37:46] The key themes also informed four main
guiding principles, which are to foster
[1:37:50] vibrant mixed-use and walkable
neighborhoods, provide diverse and
[1:37:54] inclusive housing choices, enhance,
protect, and sustain natural and green
[1:37:58] spaces, and ensure responsible
infrastructure and phased growth.
[1:38:03] The final plan includes a land use
concept that is figure five on page 26
[1:38:08] of the plan. Perhaps that can be shown
on the screen for our reference during
[1:38:11] discussion.
That generally provides for the
[1:38:15] retention of an existing residential
industrial mixed-use area in the south
[1:38:19] and west of the plan area,
an area of low-density residential
[1:38:23] development in the center of the plan
area,
[1:38:26] and an area of mixed commercial and
higher density development at the east
[1:38:29] side of the area.
I'll just give them a moment for that.
[1:38:32] It's right It's right towards the end.
[1:38:39] So, all the maps are in the rear at the
very end of the document, so it should
[1:38:42] be page 26, figure five.
[1:38:52] There we go. Almost there.
There it is.
[1:38:57] Perfect. Many thanks.
[1:39:01] So, that is the the land use concept. Uh
supporting policies were developed in
[1:39:04] the areas of residential, commercial,
and industrial development,
[1:39:08] transportation, parks and open space,
environmental considerations, and
[1:39:12] servicing.
Given the drainage and wetland
[1:39:15] considerations in the area, low-impact
development strategies were identified
[1:39:19] as part of implementation.
[1:39:23] These principles, supporting policy
directions, and specific policies will
[1:39:26] guide decision-making related to future
development in the plan area.
[1:39:31] Notably, the plan will be considered by
city administration in making
[1:39:34] recommendations to council regarding
future rezoning, direct control
[1:39:38] development applications, and relevant
infrastructure projects, and also in
[1:39:42] making decisions regarding future
development permit applications that
[1:39:45] fall under administration's authority.
It will be a bylaw and therefore a
[1:39:49] public resource to support landowners
and potential future developers in their
[1:39:53] planning and decision-making as well.
Through the public hearing process,
[1:39:58] considerations were raised that are
prompting administration to recommend
[1:40:01] that council make a minor amendment to
the plan as presented, and invite
[1:40:05] council to consider another amendment.
The recommended amendment is a minor
[1:40:10] correction.
That the descriptions of open space area
[1:40:13] one and two on page 17 of the plan be
transposed as they were simply numbered
[1:40:17] incorrectly.
Administration also noted concerns um
[1:40:22] through the the public hearing regarding
a road and other infrastructure being
[1:40:26] shown through a wet area at 47th Ave and
West Street, and comments regarding the
[1:40:31] potential to relocate a conceptual park
space near Evergreen close. Both of
[1:40:36] those to promote wetland preservation.
Administration has reviewed the policies
[1:40:41] as presented and feels that they provide
the tools to preserve wetlands during
[1:40:44] future development. However, we are
happy to provide further information on
[1:40:48] potential mapping amendments council may
choose to make that may provide greater
[1:40:52] clarity.
With the recommended amendment noted, um
[1:40:55] administration is recommending the
Evergreen ASP for council's approval,
[1:40:59] and would be happy to respond to any
questions you might have.
[1:41:03] » Councillor White.
>> I move that council give second reading
[1:41:07] to
bylaw 1223-26.
[1:41:14] » Perfect. Councillor
Aberley.
[1:41:18] » Thank you, sir. I know it's hard to um
see me as I sit here in my own
[1:41:23] spotlight. I am very specific
ly to the last point you made about the
[1:41:30] wetlands. Can you please repeat that um
so I understand what you just said. Will
[1:41:36] there be directing of roads and adding
different park space or you're open to
[1:41:42] it?
Or
[1:41:44] » We're open to it cuz it's our plan.
Excuse me.
[1:41:47] » Uh through the chair to you, Counselor
Aberley. Um as part of a public hearing
[1:41:51] submission that I believe has now been
distributed to council. Um
[1:41:55] there were concerns raised regarding a
road um
[1:42:00] connection that was represented at
approximately 47 Ave and West Street in
[1:42:04] sort of the southeast portion of the
plan area.
[1:42:08] And also um a proposal to shift the park
space that is shown near Evergreen Close
[1:42:14] a little bit to the north.
Um
[1:42:17] Both of those were for wet wetland
protection considerations.
[1:42:20] The road is shown as is because
generally in
[1:42:24] developing the proposed road network, uh
we followed existing road right-of-ways
[1:42:28] where they provided a needed connection.
So, there is an existing road
[1:42:32] right-of-way that runs through that area
right now.
[1:42:35] The park is shown as is uh because as
noted earlier, we aim to distribute the
[1:42:39] smaller park spaces within approximately
a 400-m walking distance of each
[1:42:44] residence.
We did have the opportunity to discuss
[1:42:47] those concerns with the Watershed
Alliance um and with our consultant as
[1:42:51] well and look at the currently proposed
policies.
[1:42:55] The policy suite that is
in the plan right now as presented
[1:42:59] include specific policies that
prioritize wetland protection
[1:43:03] that require studies to formally
delineate wetlands before further
[1:43:07] subdivision and development can take
place.
[1:43:10] Um they provide us with flexibility to
relocate the sort of conceptual
[1:43:15] high-level open spaces and road
connections as shown at later
[1:43:19] development stages.
And they also provide us with um the
[1:43:23] opportunity to use other environmental
protection tools that are available to
[1:43:27] us under the Municipal Government Act to
reserve additional space for
[1:43:31] conservation purposes.
So, therefore, if we administration's
[1:43:36] view is that if these areas are formally
identified as wetlands before
[1:43:40] development, the ASP provides the tools
to avoid them and protect them.
[1:43:45] However,
should council wish to um
[1:43:50] adjust the road as shown
um to show a more conceptual road
[1:43:54] connection in that location, then
council may propose and approve that
[1:43:58] amendment.
[1:44:03] » Thank you. And I guess as we chat, I'm
looking for three friends. If we're um
[1:44:10] and we have put into
our strategic plan that where possible
[1:44:15] we will look at environmental impacts
and considerations into our um
[1:44:22] planning and into our development that a
road going through the middle of a
[1:44:27] marshland is
one, not necessarily
[1:44:31] good for said marsh, but also two, as we
have
[1:44:35] seen this summer
as many
[1:44:39] flooding is and will always be an issue
in
[1:44:43] the area in which we live. And so,
I would like the very end of what you
[1:44:48] said is make that direction so we are
looking at roadways to go around what is
[1:44:55] the Battle River Watershed Alliance has
pulled that out as a specific
[1:45:00] » concern with their studies um for that
to go around. I'm less understanding of
[1:45:07] the one on this back page. So, I'm just
going to stick with the first page.
[1:45:12] Um
[1:45:15] and your words are so much clearer than
I would make an amendment to say
[1:45:22] Help me.
[1:45:25] To divert this road around watershed or
around that
[1:45:30] um
waste wasteland wetland.
[1:45:36] » Councilor Wright.
>> Councilor Aberley, does
[1:45:39] the
[1:45:43] picture in figure six that shows
transportation network, does that
[1:45:50] satisfy what you're looking
looking for?
[1:45:54] » No, because I still see that jog. If If
I'm understanding what that map is
[1:45:58] saying and what this map is saying to
me, we do have a road going through
[1:46:04] a portion of that wetland. If you If I
look at it as a satellite photo.
[1:46:08] » Through the chair to council, um
anticipating this discussion,
[1:46:12] administration um prepared a very brief
mock-up of what a proposed amendment
[1:46:18] could look like. Uh that is being shown
on the screen at the moment. You'll see
[1:46:21] that um it replaces a right-angled
>> I apologize. There's a map
[1:46:26] » with a dashed line showing a conceptual
connection. Essentially, that indicates
[1:46:31] that that connection would be needed to
accommodate traffic flow in that area,
[1:46:35] but the specific location of it is is
more flexible than it appears in the
[1:46:41] currently presented version.
That's not to say that, you know, if in
[1:46:45] a future situation there was a wetland
study done, it found that in fact that
[1:46:49] area
is not a wetland, that the road could
[1:46:52] not follow
the course that's currently shown, but
[1:46:56] it just indicates that there there is
more flexibility there.
[1:47:02] » So
how do I nicely say Well, not nicely,
[1:47:06] but how do I say How do I What words do
I use to get this?
[1:47:13] I I would like to amend the amendment
to look like the second figure six.
[1:47:22] » There's uh through the chair to
counselor, I believe there's some draft
[1:47:25] text being
>> Perfect.
[1:47:26] » proposed on the screen at the moment um
essentially proposing an amendment to
[1:47:30] figure sec- figure six and there's a
minor amendment to figure 10 to um
[1:47:35] show the road connection that had in
that area as a conceptual collector
[1:47:39] road.
[1:47:42] » And I'm just going to keep talking until
I'm not going to um
[1:47:46] filibuster this, but
[1:47:49] if there
if the study shows that there is no need
[1:47:53] to do these diverted roadways,
then we would just go with status quo.
[1:47:58] Cuz that's why it was dotted. That's
sort of what you said.
[1:48:01] » Through the chair to counselor, I
believe that's that's right. Thank you.
[1:48:16] » Councillor White.
[1:48:19] » Uh thank you through the chair to
administration. I appreciate seeing the
[1:48:23] uh proposed
altered figure six. Can I
[1:48:28] Could we see figure 10 as well before I
vote on it?
[1:48:32] Although I do anticipate supporting it.
[1:48:37] » Uh through the chair to counselor,
figure 10 is just being brought up. Um
[1:48:41] the change that would be made would be
where there is a um
[1:48:45] a future sanitary main shown along that
street. That line would be shortened.
[1:48:50] It may not need to extend the length of
it.
[1:49:00] » Are you okay with that?
>> I will 100% I'll make the motion when I
[1:49:03] see it again cuz I I didn't
>> uh figure six again, please?
[1:49:09] » Thank you.
>> And so my question is I got to figure
[1:49:12] out what this is.
>> Proposed six.
[1:49:21] » So
[1:49:24] Got her?
[1:49:30] So then the um
the purple road
[1:49:35] that disappears and doesn't join to the
other purple road. Does that help you?
[1:49:39] You know what I'm speaking of then?
>> That totally made sense to me.
[1:49:43] Through the chair to Counselor Neilson,
you're referring to 47th Avenue East and
[1:49:46] West that don't have a segment in the
middle.
[1:49:48] » 47th Avenue. Um
does that mean that collector road
[1:49:52] disappears then?
>> Through the chair to Counselor Neilson,
[1:49:56] um in the plan as originally proposed,
um the segment of 47th Avenue was not
[1:50:03] being proposed to be developed as a
road. Um it was to be replaced by that
[1:50:07] curved gray line that shows that
connection.
[1:50:10] » Yeah.
>> Go around.
[1:50:13] I'm okay now.
>> Uh
[1:50:17] I would like to move that figure six and
seven of the plan be amended to reflect
[1:50:22] an approximate collector road connection
between 48 Ave
[1:50:28] dash West Street and the East segment of
47 Avenue.
[1:50:37] » Counselor Billingkley.
>> Thank you. Uh through the chair to uh
[1:50:41] Counselor Iverly, do you mean figure 10
not seven?
[1:50:46] » I apologize. Am I incapable of reading
this afternoon?
[1:50:51] I Sorry, Nicole, can I please see that
again? Six and 10. Did I What did I say
[1:50:55] seven?
>> Yes.
[1:50:56] » I apologize. Um numbers are hard.
That figures six and 10 of the plan be
[1:51:01] amended to reflect an approximate
collector road connection between 48 Ave
[1:51:07] West Street and the East segment of 47
Ave.
[1:51:25] » Motion's on the table.
All of those in favor to the amendment.
[1:51:31] Opposed.
[1:51:34] Carried. Now the motion.
[1:51:39] You have the motion on the table.
For the second first or second reading.
[1:51:45] Councillor White.
>> I move that council give third reading
[1:51:48] to bylaw 2113-26.
>> So, we still have to vote on second
[1:51:52] reading.
>> Second. Oh, sorry.
[1:51:56] » Uh Mayor Branco, we just uh
voted on the amendment that
[1:52:02] that Karen had put forward. So, my
original motion was the council give
[1:52:07] second reading to bylaw 2113-26.
>> Thank you.
[1:52:13] All of those in favor.
>> [snorts]
[1:52:16] » Opposed.
Carried.
[1:52:20] Councillor White.
>> Thank you, Mayor Branco. Now I would
[1:52:24] like to move that council give third
reading to bylaw 2113-26.
[1:52:30] » All of those in favor.
[1:52:34] Opposed. Carried.
Thank you.
[1:52:39] Item number eight, can I have a motion
to go into closed session?
[1:52:44] » If I If
Joe, can I just take a really quick
[1:52:48] point of order? I just I want to thank
you, and I want to thank you for your
[1:52:51] coming into our community, and I know
it's your
[1:52:55] um job, but I really think that
this is one of the things that maybe
[1:53:00] only the six or seven of us get really
excited about because it means that
[1:53:04] we're looking to the future of this
community and and what we're going to do
[1:53:08] and further work in helping me figure
out my numbers and doing all that. Just
[1:53:12] thank you for being top notch and coming
in for us.
[1:53:15] » Here, here.
[1:53:22] » Do we have motion?
>> We did not have a motion yet.
[1:53:27] » No.
A motion to move into camera.
[1:53:30] » So moved, Mr. Chair.
>> Thank you. All those in favor?
[1:53:35] Carried.
>> Are we taking a break?
[1:53:39] I'll see you in 10.
[1:53:42] Cuz I got to pee again, so
That's definitely 10 minutes. [laughter]
[1:53:46] » And let's done the same time.
[1:53:54] Oh, no.
>> I don't see any of this stuff. I just
[1:53:58] saw it.
Yeah.
[1:56:59] » Mhm.
[2:04:39] » Mhm.
[2:08:29] » Mhm.
[2:18:02] » Okay, good.
>> Thank you. Can I have a motion to come
[2:18:07] out of camera, please?
[2:18:10] Councillor White.
All of those
[2:18:14] All those in favor?
[2:18:17] Thank you.
We will move on to an item number nine,
[2:18:21] new business.
Uh business case, Councillor Neilsen.
[2:18:27] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh won't be long.
This is sort of a follow-up to my
[2:18:33] conversation on inspiring governance.
And uh
[2:18:38] I made mention of all the business cases
that we submitted and then
[2:18:42] uh some folks failed to actually vote on
business cases.
[2:18:47] So, I'd like to make a motion. I think
it's already been captured. I'd like to
[2:18:51] move the council directs administration
to only consider business cases
[2:18:56] submitted by council members who took
the time and voted on the business
[2:18:59] cases.
So, if you submit
[2:19:03] And my comment, Mr. Mayor, would be if
any one of us submitted a business case,
[2:19:07] but didn't take the time to actually
vote on them, your business cases
[2:19:10] couldn't have been that important to
you. So, I'm suggesting administration
[2:19:14] drop those business cases.
[2:19:19] » Councillor Alder.
>> Okay, so on those business cases, I had
[2:19:24] probably upwards of 50, and I knew I was
going to nail them down.
[2:19:32] But, what I recall
is you told me they might all be good.
[2:19:36] So, just leave them. And I know I wanted
to go
[2:19:39] narrow them down, but I took your other
advice.
[2:19:42] Just left them in there.
So, my mistake again.
[2:19:47] Um
So, do with them what you will.
[2:19:51] Um
that's fine.
[2:19:53] But
[2:19:56] No.
>> Maybe I misunderstood what you said.
[2:19:58] » No, I said just as you as you as you've
mentioned Mark and that is Mark said
[2:20:02] well maybe I'll take them back and
whittle them down some and I said why
[2:20:05] whittle them down? There might be some
really good ones in there.
[2:20:08] So leave them in place.
But I would have
[2:20:11] » preferred I whittled them down.
>> No, not at all. I would have preferred
[2:20:15] that on
Friday
[2:20:20] 13th or whatever it was
that we actually
[2:20:25] had everybody submit their votes as to
which ones they
[2:20:30] were
supporting.
[2:20:34] And I'll be honest, I supported some of
yours.
[2:20:37] I supported some of yours
even you didn't support.
[2:20:41] So
that's where I sit.
[2:20:46] » Councillor White.
[2:20:49] » Thank you Mayor Branco.
To council.
[2:20:52] I
cannot support this motion because I
[2:20:59] I did take the time and entered
and submitted to administration
[2:21:06] items that I think should be considered
and whether regardless of who they came
[2:21:10] from.
[2:21:12] I
I made my vote or it wasn't a vote but I
[2:21:18] made my
consideration known of what I valued and
[2:21:23] want to know more information on and I
don't want to undo my
[2:21:31] efforts to let administration know the
things that I value based on who
[2:21:36] submitted them.
So I can't support that motion.
[2:21:42] » Any further questions?
[2:21:46] Councillor Alder.
>> I would just have one and this would be
[2:21:49] to admin.
Um
[2:21:54] I haven't seen what was whittled down.
Is it overwhelming for what was there?
[2:22:03] Head shake means yes.
[2:22:07] » Yeah, so there were four counselors that
submitted votes.
[2:22:12] Um we originally went through and I said
tell me how many had at least two votes
[2:22:17] because there was only four counselors
that submitted.
[2:22:20] Um and it would have been 11 capital, 30
operating, although four were actually
[2:22:27] capital, so 15 capital and 26 operating.
Then I said, "Can you please go through
[2:22:32] and because we
if you think about all of council, we
[2:22:36] would need four. So, what does it look
like with four?" So, um only items
[2:22:43] that got the the three or four votes, um
six operating,
[2:22:49] eight capital,
and four were
[2:22:52] actually operating, so 10 Sorry, 10
capital.
[2:22:56] Yeah. Six operating, 10 capital.
>> Based on Based on how many votes?
[2:23:02] » Was that four?
Four people voted, yeah. Oh, sorry, we
[2:23:07] went three and three or four votes.
So, it had to have a minimum of three
[2:23:11] votes of the four that were submitted.
[2:23:17] » And what were the numbers, Sue, please?
>> Original
[2:23:22] was 15 capital, 26 operating.
If I looked at two votes of the four.
[2:23:29] When we looked at three and four votes,
it came out to
[2:23:33] um
10 capital
[2:23:37] and six operating.
Four. So, four operating and and 10
[2:23:43] capital. Yeah.
[2:23:48] » So,
>> and those
[2:23:49] » are on top of those are just the council
ones cuz it of course administration has
[2:23:53] a bunch submitted.
>> So
[2:23:57] with
three votes
[2:24:00] you don't have
consensus of council.
[2:24:04] » With four votes
>> If we were to take a vote, yeah.
[2:24:07] And
[2:24:11] » So are we are we are we considering
[2:24:24] So are we considering
three votes
[2:24:29] of a council of seven
sufficient?
[2:24:33] So less than a majority of council
saying this is important. We're putting
[2:24:36] them on that on the business case
consideration.
[2:24:39] » Yes, because it was it was a straw poll.
Um and my assumption was that of the
[2:24:45] ones that made it, council could have
that discussion because if we go for
[2:24:49] four votes, there's only three operating
and two capital.
[2:24:54] » And if you go with three or four again,
please.
[2:24:56] » go with four
there's only three operating
[2:25:01] and
and two capital.
[2:25:03] » And if you go to three or four?
>> Three was
[2:25:07] four operating, 10 capital.
>> Okay, that's good.
[2:25:15] So you've gone from five to 14.
[2:25:19] Three and two and four and 10.
On top of those that administrations
[2:25:24] already been put in.
>> Correct.
[2:25:27] And and I think this is important
because we still need to run it through.
[2:25:30] We need to develop them out. We need to
get the cost estimates. We need to get
[2:25:33] them back to council. And those capital
ones, there's a binder on my desk
[2:25:37] already because we're hoping to print
those soon for
[2:25:41] deliberations
in early September.
[2:25:45] Um
we've got
[2:25:48] open houses planned, that sort of stuff.
So, we need to get on some of these like
[2:25:52] very quickly.
[2:25:59] » Councilor Billingsley.
>> Thank you. Um
[2:26:04] through the chair to Councilor Nielsen,
I understand your frustration. I too am
[2:26:08] frustrated that we talked about that
to have this in by noon on Friday and
[2:26:15] for
whatever reason
[2:26:18] some of us did not
um
[2:26:21] submit.
But, I
[2:26:24] like um
[2:26:28] Councilor what what Councilor Waite had
said that um
[2:26:32] just because
[2:26:36] you didn't um submit doesn't necess- the
work that I put in
[2:26:41] to actually evaluate these should not be
discounted. So, point made
[2:26:48] in the sense of
um
[2:26:53] please
take this stuff seriously, Council.
[2:26:57] Um
I can't support necessarily
[2:27:01] pulling them off because
you didn't submit your
[2:27:06] » And I bite and I bite both of your
arguments and to your point
[2:27:11] it was my point.
[2:27:15] If you can't
take the time
[2:27:18] to add to the conversation about budget
then don't be complaining about budget
[2:27:23] when it doesn't turn out your way.
>> Correct.
[2:27:26] » We're all in this or we're either not
all in it. So, I will withdraw my
[2:27:30] motion, but I will ask a question of
this group.
[2:27:33] Sue, with two two more votes, What are
your numbers, please?
[2:27:40] » There are 15 capital and 26 operating.
>> And are we asking administration then
[2:27:47] based on the votes, based on two or more
votes,
[2:27:51] to pick up
41 more business cases to calculate? And
[2:27:55] if not,
please pick a number.
[2:28:03] » Councillor
Aberley.
[2:28:06] » You know, um thank you, Mayor Bronco.
It's getting late and I forgot my name,
[2:28:10] too.
Um
[2:28:13] I and I have said this, I have was not
one of those people, so maybe I have no
[2:28:18] say, but I would like to um
just point into if the four of you
[2:28:28] who
did it were to show up during budget
[2:28:34] deliberations when we take those straw
polls, the majority would have been
[2:28:38] three. Therefore, I would go with the
number three or more votes.
[2:28:44] » That'd be 14.
>> Yeah, and even that seems like
[2:28:48] a lot, but two, hm.
[2:28:59] » Councillor Elder, just have a quick
question.
[2:29:02] » [clears throat]
>> So, out of all the ones that I
[2:29:03] submitted,
[2:29:07] I think I broke down details, prices,
quotes, everything, but is it different
[2:29:12] than the way you do it?
Cuz I thought I did all pretty much all
[2:29:16] the work for you.
>> It is different. Um I know that you
[2:29:21] weren't there that day that we discussed
um capital prioritization and operating.
[2:29:25] So, there's a a set criteria that we
have to run through. Um
[2:29:30] and it answers a bunch of different
questions around like how prepared we
[2:29:37] are. Um does it meet council's strategic
goals? There's a bunch of different
[2:29:41] things that we have to run it through.
And then a lot of the cost estimates
[2:29:44] were really vast. And so,
um in the past council has really pushed
[2:29:50] us to get really tight
budgets with only 10% contingency. And
[2:29:56] so, we would still need to go out and
scope all of those.
[2:29:59] I think part of the problem is is that
there were things put in as operating,
[2:30:03] but they were actually capital.
And
[2:30:06] um
um
[2:30:10] there's a lot more work that needs to go
into
[2:30:14] some of those pieces um that we might
not have the time right now.
[2:30:20] Which just means it would be a separate
document. Or maybe I just get my team
[2:30:23] not to bind them cuz we were going to we
were looking at coil-bound
[2:30:27] documents this year. So, maybe we just
continue with a a binder so that we can
[2:30:31] add to it as you go.
Um
[2:30:34] but there was a lot of work that needed
to be done. And then we have to go
[2:30:37] through and prioritize them against all
the criteria that's existing.
[2:30:41] » Okay. So, quick question for you then
because time [clears throat] is of the
[2:30:46] essence.
And we didn't all complete. Which one of
[2:30:50] these works best for you? Two, three, or
four?
[2:30:55] Like honestly, like it's it's
[2:31:02] » Uh Yeah, to to be honest, the four is
>> Okay.
[2:31:08] » Less is more for us right now. Yeah.
>> And four was operating.
[2:31:13] And how much was capital there?
>> There was four operating No, that was
[2:31:19] three operating and two capital.
>> So, two capital
[2:31:24] and three operating.
[2:31:29] Okay, so not knowing which ones they
are,
[2:31:31] » [clears throat]
>> as far as I'm concerned, I'm I'm good
[2:31:33] with
you, but
[2:31:36] that's up to everybody else here.
Need to
[2:31:39] see everybody else's opinion.
[2:31:49] » Councillor Billingsley.
>> Thank you.
[2:31:55] I um will support
four. I think that
[2:32:01] um that is the majority of council.
Um we're given the opportunity to
[2:32:08] straw poll it,
whatever that means,
[2:32:11] and
[2:32:15] if the answer is four,
send it in. If the if those four people
[2:32:20] agreed on those,
my vote would be to carry forward with
[2:32:25] the ones that were agreed by all four
that voted.
[2:32:36] » Any other questions? Sorry, Joe.
>> No, it's okay.
[2:32:40] » [laughter]
[2:32:46] » So, we don't have a motion on the table
anymore cuz you've withdrawn
[2:32:48] » I withdrawn the motion and I challenge
the room to identify and and provide
[2:32:53] direction as to
whether administration works on
[2:32:58] 41 or 14 or five.
>> Councillor Billingsley.
[2:33:05] » Thank you. Uh I move
that city council directs administration
[2:33:11] to move forward on business case
identified
[2:33:16] by unanimous straw vote.
[2:33:21] That's awful, but
point is made.
[2:33:26] » Councillor White.
[2:33:32] » Thank you, Mayor Branco.
My colleague, Councillor Billingsley,
[2:33:35] beat me to it cuz I think I would have
preferred three just cuz I'm a I'm
[2:33:40] afraid there's there was so many good
business cases or interesting, I don't
[2:33:44] know if good we
wasn't in a place to evaluate that, but
[2:33:48] there's some there are some interesting
ideas on the table that I
[2:33:52] regret that we're going to lose sight of
if we only go with the four, and I
[2:34:00] would
>> Well, you can
[2:34:01] » I'd support I'd support the
the
[2:34:05] 14 cases
as indicated by three votes
[2:34:10] in the those of us who
submitted our
[2:34:15] interest in the business cases.
>> Thank you. Sue.
[2:34:19] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um just to um
speak to Councillor White's concerns,
[2:34:25] anything that doesn't make it
above the line goes to unfunded. And
[2:34:30] then um Council always has an
opportunity to pull it forward whenever
[2:34:35] you want. It just it gets um more
complicated the closer we get to
[2:34:39] approval that we can't get you more
accurate information the longer we wait.
[2:34:44] So, we won't lose sight of it, and maybe
it's something that we plan
[2:34:48] to flush out a little bit more over the
next year, and then it could come back
[2:34:51] to the next budget.
[2:34:55] » Councillor Aberley.
>> Thank you, Mayor Branco. And that's what
[2:34:59] I was going to say um through the chair
to
[2:35:01] Councillor White is
[2:35:05] I don't think putting always putting
something off is a good thing, but
[2:35:09] rushing into things also, so
Council goes by really quickly. Our four
[2:35:15] years will go by stupid quick.
But I don't think we need to race into
[2:35:21] a million ideas now while we're still
trying to look at the corporate get the
[2:35:24] corporate business plan
do all of this. And as I continue to sit
[2:35:29] here
where I first said three I'm now going
[2:35:32] to four because I think that those
numbers are really good for a budget
[2:35:38] discussion at this point and that we
make sure it's
[2:35:42] a robust discussion and not us just
going through the motions of reading all
[2:35:47] of the stuff that has to get read.
[2:35:51] » Thank you.
>> Councilor White.
[2:35:58] » No further comment for now.
>> Okay, so
[2:36:02] the motion is
Councilor Billingsley, can you repeat
[2:36:06] the motion since Councilor Neilsen
withdrew his?
[2:36:09] » Sure.
[2:36:13] I move that city council directs
administration
[2:36:17] to move forward
on the Oh, look at that. Thank you.
[2:36:21] Directs administration move forward on
business cases that received unanimous
[2:36:24] drop hole.
[2:36:27] » Okay, all of those in favor?
[2:36:32] » [clears throat]
[2:36:34] » Any questions?
>> Well, any questions?
[2:36:38] Councilor Neilsen.
[2:36:43] » At the risk of being booed out of this
room
[2:36:52] because I I happen to agree with
Councilor White and and
[2:36:56] and and hence
[2:37:00] when Mark and I were talking and and he
said I'll whittle mine down and I said
[2:37:03] no, don't leave them in because there's
some good ideas there.
[2:37:10] I don't mean know why I'm saying this.
Um
[2:37:16] But there's 41
Sorry, there's
[2:37:21] If we consider three or more,
there's four and 10. Is that correct?
[2:37:27] » Correct.
>> I would love to give all of my
[2:37:30] colleagues an opportunity to feed into
this
[2:37:34] um
conversation.
[2:37:39] I threw out some pretty broad remarks
earlier this morning.
[2:37:44] And
[2:37:47] in spite of that, I value
everyone's opinion in this room.
[2:37:56] And I don't know how soon we would take
those four business cases and 10
[2:38:01] business cases and circulate them
amongst us one more kick at the cat and
[2:38:06] get a true
[2:38:09] straw poll
from seven counselors.
[2:38:14] I don't know if they're able to.
[2:38:20] » Counselor Aberle.
>> Thank you, sir. Through the chair to
[2:38:23] Counselor Neilsen, I respectfully
vehemently disagree.
[2:38:28] Um and
the reason for that is administration
[2:38:35] wanted us to have it done
um I can't do What was that? July 28th?
[2:38:41] Was they wanted it to do us
They wanted
[2:38:45] us to do it on the 28th.
We asked for the 31st.
[2:38:54] I
[2:38:57] did not
make that a responsibility of my week
[2:39:01] that week and I
believe I do not have the right to the
[2:39:07] input anymore. I want to give my input
on number of votes because I like to
[2:39:13] always have something to say, but
enough is enough. Administration is
[2:39:18] always waiting for us to make up our
mind.
[2:39:21] » That's fair.
>> Thank you. So, the motion on the floor
[2:39:25] is
[2:39:28] Could somebody Counselor Billingsley
>> Thank you.
[2:39:31] » Can you read that again, please?
>> that. I move that council directs
[2:39:33] administration to move forward on
business cases that received unanimous
[2:39:37] straw poll.
>> Thank you.
[2:39:41] All of those in favor?
[2:39:46] Carried.
Thank you.
[2:39:50] Per diems.
[2:39:53] » Thank you.
>> Counselor Billingsley
[2:39:55] » Thank you. Um
through the chair to council back in
[2:40:00] October, November of last year,
um during budget, we talked about
[2:40:05] changing the way that council
um calculates its per diems. We created
[2:40:11] buckets
[2:40:14] out of
[2:40:17] concern, I guess, of how much council
was spending, but not necessarily
[2:40:22] purposely
looking at reasonable amount other than
[2:40:27] pulling numbers
um
[2:40:30] based on
[2:40:35] gut feelings, I guess.
And now what's happened is um
[2:40:40] some councilors, and I'll speak to this
shortly, um certainly has taken on more
[2:40:46] responsibilities
and have a lot more committee work than
[2:40:50] some others.
And
[2:40:54] I would hate to penalize
um
[2:40:57] councilors from doing good work just
because the fact
[2:41:02] um
they are
[2:41:05] um
busier than
[2:41:08] what we anticipated [clears throat]
would be a reasonable amount to have uh
[2:41:12] for per diems.
Um the second motion that I'm going to
[2:41:17] bring forward actually speaks to myself
as well uh taking it on MCMC and
[2:41:23] um
part of that will be extra expenses
[2:41:28] um
[2:41:30] that will incur.
So, having said all of that, I'm going
[2:41:35] to make my first motion
and that is
[2:41:39] I move to add $2,000 to Councillor
Hoyles' budget being funded from the
[2:41:44] contingency reserve.
[2:41:52] And I will briefly speak to that in the
sense of
[2:41:56] um
she has
[2:41:59] stepped up and is on
many committees
[2:42:05] and boards.
And I would hate for her to say, "Yeah,
[2:42:10] I'm not going to do it because I'm not
going to be compensated for it." It's
[2:42:14] good work
and I truly believe that she should be
[2:42:19] compensated for the
time that she spends doing this work.
[2:42:25] » Councillor Hoyles.
>> I'd like to speak to that, too. Um
[2:42:29] and I never want to use the word I was
new then, however, I was. Didn't really
[2:42:35] I understood what the per diems were. I
did not understand the bucket system.
[2:42:39] Um and so when we look at our buckets,
my per diem and per diem training adds
[2:42:46] up to um $3,300.
My meetings alone add up to 30 meetings
[2:42:52] a year,
which are an average of $3,000. So,
[2:42:55] right there, and that's an average
meaning if those meetings go long, those
[2:42:59] amounts go up. Um that doesn't include S
tab training, um any other training I do
[2:43:04] through those committees, a strat
planning, anything else. Um and we're
[2:43:08] going into budget, which of course those
are extras as well. So, um
[2:43:14] because they've been divided out versus
I think what I understand it used to be
[2:43:17] just a pot, and you would just take what
you needed as far as per diems, travel,
[2:43:22] training out of it.
But because those have been divided out,
[2:43:25] those pots are not going to last to the
end of the year, and I may not be the
[2:43:29] only one. I'm not quite sure.
[2:43:34] » Councillor
Aberley.
[2:43:37] » Thank you, just sir through the chair to
Councillor Billinsley.
[2:43:44] Why out of contingency?
[2:43:51] Is that when and the reason I asked the
question, I will be a little more
[2:43:55] specific, is I am
100% guaranteed to be nowhere near
[2:44:01] um
cuz I sit on one committee. Well, I S D
[2:44:05] A D B training, but I didn't
I did that last term. Um
[2:44:10] so, I'm guaranteed to be nowhere near
spending all my money, which is a good
[2:44:14] thing at the end of the year because
there's going to be an excess. So, does
[2:44:18] our excess go into contingency, or are
we taking it in and out of the same pot?
[2:44:22] » And and I thought about that as well is
you we certainly I mean, council can
[2:44:28] direct where the money comes from. We
could pull it from yours, could pull it
[2:44:31] from whoever's.
Um but in the end, if it's not spent,
[2:44:35] guess where it goes.
>> Okay. So, thank you. That helps me make
[2:44:38] » Right.
>> my decision.
[2:44:39] » then we then at the end of the year when
budget, we could say, "Okay, wait a
[2:44:43] second.
Um let's take a look at exactly how much
[2:44:47] we actually need to put into these
buckets, or potentially um
[2:44:52] combining the buckets and not having
four or five different buckets
[2:44:57] come budget time.
[2:45:04] » Councilor Elder.
>> I need some help and some clarity.
[2:45:08] So I didn't understand this when we
first got elected. You had I believe you
[2:45:13] had
and I still don't even know to this day
[2:45:16] what my limit is.
Um
[2:45:21] Did we Did you reduce it from 3,000 to
1,500
[2:45:25] when we first started?
>> Sorry, could you repeat that?
[2:45:28] » Sure.
[2:45:31] Per diems was the mic It's on.
I have to talk louder.
[2:45:35] Um
I'm trying to understand the per diems
[2:45:38] because I I don't really understand it.
I got to be honest with you. I sit on a
[2:45:41] few boards.
Um
[2:45:45] So the last council
[2:45:50] were you allotted up to $3,000
for per diems per year?
[2:45:55] » To be honest with you, I have no idea
what that
[2:45:58] » I don't know why that number sticks
there.
[2:46:00] But whatever that number was for, I
think
[2:46:03] we voted on reducing it to 1,500.
Is that correct?
[2:46:07] » I think it's 1,800.
>> Okay, I I and again, I don't know the
[2:46:10] number. I I truly don't. Um
So I'm going to the meetings and I
[2:46:14] haven't been claiming the per diems, so
you'll have extras there as well.
[2:46:19] I I just would like clarity on how it
all works if you don't mind cuz I I just
[2:46:24] I really don't understand.
>> in the policy as to
[2:46:28] » Yeah, and I haven't looked at that, so
>> but it also Council has the ability at
[2:46:32] any time
to request money.
[2:46:36] » I have 100 grand?
>> You You're just kidding. At any point,
[2:46:39] right?
>> 15
[2:46:41] » I mean, that is
something that we can do. And that was
[2:46:46] even brought up when we talked about
this at budget.
[2:46:50] » Yeah, just enlighten me here cuz I'm
forgetting, right? New Lots going on, so
[2:46:55] just I'm just looking for clarity. I can
go look it up.
[2:46:58] » Can I ask you a quick question through
you?
[2:47:00] » Sure.
>> So, before we had
[2:47:04] one big pot
and every counselor dipped into it
[2:47:10] into the one big pot to get professional
development and for their committee
[2:47:15] work.
And
[2:47:19] it didn't There was no limits.
If six other counselors didn't use the
[2:47:23] money, I could use mine and all theirs.
And we said at the budget, we need to be
[2:47:29] able to put some limits on how much.
And we tried working with administration
[2:47:34] and sorted out
how much money should we set aside for
[2:47:38] professional development and how much we
should set aside for our committee work
[2:47:43] and responsibilities in that way.
And so, as Dean said earlier, we sort of
[2:47:49] licked the finger and put it in the wind
and said, "Let's put this much money in
[2:47:52] the professional development fund and
this much money into our per diems and
[2:47:58] committee work."
And so, it was our best guess, but we
[2:48:02] also were assuming that committee work
would be distributed pretty evenly
[2:48:06] and in some cases that has not been the
case.
[2:48:09] So, some counselors by virtue of the
number of committees they're on are
[2:48:13] burning through their per diem money
[2:48:17] at at a rate that halfway through the
year they're out of it.
[2:48:20] So, then the question becomes, do they
stop going to the meetings or did we
[2:48:24] make a mistake when we licked our finger
and put it in the wind and to put money
[2:48:28] into those two pots?
And I think where we're at now is
[2:48:32] Wendy is in a position where because
you're on three committees
[2:48:36] um
and you and I, Mark, are on committees
[2:48:40] and one of the committees we get paid
not through our per diem system, we
[2:48:44] actually get paid by uh
>> Bethany Group.
[2:48:48] » Um and
so we're not drawing down our
[2:48:52] per diem money as quickly as say Wendy
is. So
[2:48:56] I think what Dean is saying is that
we're going to have to re-examine this
[2:48:59] at budget time, but until we get to
budget time
[2:49:02] how do we address the fact that some
some
[2:49:06] of us
are going to have our per diems spent
[2:49:12] where other people who don't have as
many committees
[2:49:16] simply aren't spending their dollars.
[2:49:20] » Councillor Wyatt.
>> This is also why I asked to have the
[2:49:24] process for organizational meeting
addressed as well as per diem so that
[2:49:30] this can be taken care of before we have
our organizational meeting and before
[2:49:34] budget so that this doesn't happen
again.
[2:49:41] » Councillor Wyatt.
[2:49:46] » Thank you Mayor Branco.
[2:49:49] Through the chair to council, I don't
know if I can support this because I'm
[2:49:54] not confident that I understand that we
don't have this money already budgeted
[2:50:00] and allocated.
It just we've made
[2:50:05] through our
by our
[2:50:08] I believe it's a
policy for our council remuneration,
[2:50:13] we've set some limits, but as far as
what was budgeted we maybe are still
[2:50:18] within
the
[2:50:20] amount allocated to the budget and so
instead of
[2:50:24] approving money to come from reserves
for this
[2:50:28] I would be
more ready to support
[2:50:33] contra some way to contravene our
uh policy to allow
[2:50:39] counselors to
claim
[2:50:44] beyond the amounts set
set out that we amended back in
[2:50:49] October, November.
Sorry, that isn't real clear.
[2:50:55] » Councillor Billingsley.
>> Thank you. Um through the chair to
[2:50:59] Councillor White, I
[2:51:04] I'm okay with that, and I'm wondering
then if
[2:51:07] an amendment needs to happen to have
administration
[2:51:12] um
[2:51:15] No amendment to my motion because my
motion states to come up from um
[2:51:20] contingency reserve.
[2:51:24] Potentially could I mean
[2:51:29] Yes, could but then who decide
No, I know you have money left over,
[2:51:35] right?
[2:51:38] » She wants to give you her money.
>> She's got She's got some suggestions.
[2:51:41] » But where I'm going with this is I do
know that administration has the ability
[2:51:47] to be able to move money around within
[2:51:53] Right. Yes. So
[2:52:04] But where would the money come from?
>> My money.
[2:52:07] » Right. And who decides that?
>> I but
[2:52:10] I would like
Why?
[2:52:17] » Councillor Aberley.
>> Thank you, sir.
[2:52:21] Through the chair to council
I know this isn't my money in the sense
[2:52:26] that I that is my money, but it is my
money
[2:52:32] to spend if that's what's been allotted
to me. So, if I say to council
[2:52:38] I would like to
[2:52:44] I
would like to do a friendly amendment to
[2:52:48] Councillor Billingsley's
amendment that says not to come out of
[2:52:54] contingency, but to have it transferred
from Councillor Aberley's
[2:52:59] line to Councillor Hoyles' line. The
money has
[2:53:03] not changed within a year.
And and I know I have the money. There
[2:53:09] could be other years where we have to
ask administration, is there money left?
[2:53:14] But only because my group doesn't meet
as often and it's one group and I didn't
[2:53:20] need to use my training money.
I haven't taken anything out of my
[2:53:24] account. So,
I have no problem my line being $2,000
[2:53:29] no, being the same, but that
Councillor Hoyles' part of Councillor
[2:53:35] Hoyles' payment comes out of my line.
>> If I may
[2:53:41] » No.
Administration hates that.
[2:53:45] » So, if I may
that's totally contradictory to what
[2:53:48] we're supposed to be doing.
We get paid for showing up and doing
[2:53:52] that. You don't show up, you you don't
get paid. That was I'm sorry, that is
[2:53:57] for training for you. Then it comes to
the point that if some of us don't go
[2:54:02] into courses, we can just give our money
to one of our buddies. I'd rather have
[2:54:07] it coming out of someplace else.
>> Sir, I'm not talking about training. I'm
[2:54:11] talking about committees and
s-
[2:54:14] committee work or we are doing work of
council.
[2:54:19] And
I knew that this situation was going to
[2:54:23] happen with me when I brought this up at
the organizational meeting.
[2:54:27] I I was going to be nowhere near my
use limit.
[2:54:38] » Councilor Sue, go ahead.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um two things
[2:54:43] just for proper accounting, we would do
um a transfer, a GL transfer internally
[2:54:49] um
rather than just letting her charge to
[2:54:52] your GL.
Um but the second part of that is
[2:54:56] um
this year we should be better because
[2:55:00] you're going to have your organizational
meeting before you approve your budget.
[2:55:03] And so we'll know who sits on what
committees and we'll be able to tailor
[2:55:06] your budget to your committee work,
whereas in the election year we had no
[2:55:11] idea who was going to be on what. And so
the budget was just the same across the
[2:55:15] board. Where if we know ahead of time um
we can quickly make those adjustments in
[2:55:22] your budgets and it'll reflect the
committee work that you're plan to sit
[2:55:25] on for the following year. So if you
only have one, your budget is going to
[2:55:30] be less than someone who has three or
four.
[2:55:33] But we didn't have that luxury at the
election year.
[2:55:36] » That makes sense.
>> Councilor Bear Easley.
[2:55:39] » Thank you. Through the chair to
administration then uh need a little
[2:55:42] help from the funding model then what
would be the best way to describe
[2:55:48] that you reallocate?
[2:55:53] » I you could keep the motion the same and
then just instead of funding it from
[2:55:57] contingency, it would be a GL transfer
from Councilor Aberley to Councilor
[2:56:01] Hoyle.
[2:56:04] » I wonder if we don't specifically don't
say counts because of the fact that may
[2:56:11] maybe
there isn't enough in her
[2:56:14] » Um
>> bucket. And I'm not saying that there is
[2:56:17] » Yeah, I understand.
>> Right? Just reallocate.
[2:56:20] And then you can decide of where it
needs to be.
[2:56:24] » Yeah, you can
>> maybe two or three transactions.
[2:56:27] » Councillor Hoyle, Councillor Aberley,
then Councillor White.
[2:56:32] » Um
I do want to say that just
[2:56:36] for numbers, so that the public knows,
our per diems for the year $1,800.
[2:56:41] So, as I said, for 30 meetings, the
1,800 is depleted fairly quickly, and
[2:56:45] that doesn't include strat planning,
budget, whatever.
[2:56:48] There may be other counselors that are
going to be in the same position as me
[2:56:52] is it or they may very well be now if
they haven't seen the same paperwork as
[2:56:56] I have.
[2:57:00] » Councillor Aberley.
>> Uh thank you, sir.
[2:57:05] Through the chair to the mayor,
Mayor Branco, do you understand and it's
[2:57:10] may that may have came out come out
wrong. I agreed completely with your
[2:57:14] last comment that if I am in training
and I have money for my training, that
[2:57:19] is the money for my training and if I
don't use it, it goes back into
[2:57:24] contingency.
So, I agreed with that, but that how
[2:57:28] this is different, I just want to make
sure that
[2:57:31] you and I are both talking about the
same thing, that this is for um
[2:57:37] committee work that or yes, committee
work that has already been done because
[2:57:43] some counselors have
are on committees that have a larger
[2:57:48] time commitment.
So, it's not really me giving away money
[2:57:53] I didn't use, it's me giving away money,
not giving away, it's not even me. It is
[2:58:00] there is a big pool from which we all
attend committees and our work.
[2:58:08] And that needs to reflect, as Sue said,
what our actual appointments are in a
[2:58:14] given year, rather than cuz I was given
too much money that I was never going to
[2:58:19] be able to use.
>> And and I and I agree with you 100% and
[2:58:25] I rather see that we have let's say we
have $20,000 for a pool for a council
[2:58:31] training education all committees and we
draw from that.
[2:58:36] Those who go get it from that that
department. And then if we all if we all
[2:58:41] got to come out and if we run out then
we got to come back and do this why not
[2:58:45] just put money into an account and
everybody draws out of that account.
[2:58:53] Like a piggy bank.
We put $20,000 in a piggy bank.
[2:58:57] If we make it we make it we don't then
we can have a motion to come and borrow
[2:59:01] more money.
That's what we're doing.
[2:59:04] But to shift it around it seems like
to me I'm going to give you my I haven't
[2:59:10] gone anywhere so am I going to give mine
to to Mark or to Elder or to
[2:59:14] Wendy? Just put it in that pot and take
it out of the pot.
[2:59:21] Councilor White.
[2:59:26] » Thank you Mayor Branco.
Thank you to administration who just
[2:59:29] sent the summary so that I could see
even where I'm at and what my um
[2:59:36] allocation is.
[2:59:39] I see object codes and I think I heard
somebody I think I heard someone say
[2:59:44] each counselor has separate GL accounts
is did I hear that correctly?
[2:59:49] » That is correct.
[2:59:52] » Yeah, no but the
object code is different than GL
[2:59:56] account?
Question mark?
[2:59:59] » Yes.
There's
[3:00:02] there's a whole pile of numbers that
aren't shown on there.
[3:00:04] » Yeah.
[3:00:09] » So object code is just the last part of
what the actual GL is. Each one of you
[3:00:14] has um
>> So that can I ask the object
[3:00:18] » ahead.
>> The object code that is
[3:00:21] 51550 per diems, is that
whatever all the numbers are in front of
[3:00:26] it,
is that only related to council per
[3:00:29] diems?
>> Uh
[3:00:32] yes, because you're the only ones that
get per diems, but something like
[3:00:35] training or travel, that that's the same
code through the entire organization.
[3:00:40] » Well, train Okay, but training has a
different code.
[3:00:43] » Right.
>> Travel has a different code.
[3:00:45] » But those aren't just specific to
council, those are for the whole
[3:00:48] organization. So my code
>> diem the per diem code is not specific
[3:00:52] to council?
>> It is only specific to council. Nobody
[3:00:55] else gets per diems.
>> So whatever is that was there a budgeted
[3:00:59] amount that's related to that 51550
object code?
[3:01:05] » Yes, for each councilor.
[3:01:13] And the budget is on that first line in
line or column D?
[3:01:17] » Column, yeah.
[3:01:22] » While we're asking
>> Okay, I still don't think I can support
[3:01:24] this based on how it's what I've seen
written in what I've seen allocated,
[3:01:28] although I support the concept that
councilors should be able to claim for
[3:01:34] the work that they do.
[3:01:39] » So
Is there a motion on the on the floor?
[3:01:43] » Yes.
>> I'll still might have questions.
[3:01:47] » Okay, go ahead, counselor Elder.
[clears throat]
[3:01:50] » So I'm just looking at mine.
[3:01:55] So I did mine late in 25.
Right?
[3:02:02] Didn't claim them.
Got paid in January of
[3:02:06] 20 of this year.
[3:02:14] That shows me that I owe money.
[3:02:17] Where I look at it and say, well, maybe
I'm
[3:02:20] Well, it's my mistake for not claiming
on time first of all, not understanding
[3:02:23] it. So, that's that's my fault.
This looks like more of an admin problem
[3:02:28] putting last year's work when we started
into this year's, but that falls on me
[3:02:33] cuz I filed it late.
And you were nice enough to pay it. So,
[3:02:37] fair enough. Thank you.
Um
[3:02:41] So, how does that work?
>> To this motion?
[3:02:45] » No, that's what we're dealing with.
>> Okay. Let's deal with that motion and
[3:02:50] we'll deal with mine again.
>> So, can we change that?
[3:02:58] Can we change that? Oh.
Can you bring Please bring that back.
[3:03:02] Thank you.
Um funded
[3:03:10] » No, just I would say through
reallocation.
[3:03:12] » Through re- be funded through
reallocation.
[3:03:16] » Okay.
[3:03:21] » Councillor Neilson.
>> Sue, uh sorry, through the chair to Sue.
[3:03:28] And I know we're talking about your
motion in relation to Wendy. Correct?
[3:03:35] And I knew it was going to be close.
And I passed close.
[3:03:41] Are you as well?
Right. And so,
[3:03:44] Sue, I'm wondering, are we better off
rather than piecemealing it now
[3:03:50] to simply allow Wendy or Wayne or Laura
to can you continue our committee work,
[3:03:59] run a deficit
in our in our bucket
[3:04:04] and then do a year-end
transfers necessary.
[3:04:11] You're saying no.
>> Because in the policy, it states and
[3:04:15] this is where
then I'll go back to Councillor Elder
[3:04:18] where we said you are responsible. So,
it's critical
[3:04:24] that we allocate dollars to this so that
[3:04:31] um
gets paid.
[3:04:35] Well, but
that we could do, too.
[3:04:40] What was the other one? But that But
that I think is a greater
[3:04:48] » Any further questions?
>> Yes.
[3:04:50] » Oh, yeah.
>> There's lots going on. Yes.
[3:04:52] » Cuz I think the deeper we're going in
there, the more confusing we're getting.
[3:04:56] I like the first one, the GIL or
whatever.
[3:05:01] So, what is the What is the motion?
Dean, can you please read your motion?
[3:05:06] » Certainly. My motion is I move to add
$2,000 to Councillor Hoyle's budget
[3:05:12] being funded through reallocation.
>> Thank you.
[3:05:17] » And I
>> Any debate to that?
[3:05:20] Councillor Nielsen and Councillor White.
[3:05:24] » Well, given what we're looking at,
[3:05:29] my friendly amendment
[3:05:32] would be to add $3,000
to Councillor White's
[3:05:37] and $3,000 to Councillor Nielsen's.
Because we're all over in our committee
[3:05:44] work.
So, we're now talking $9,000.
[3:05:48] » You believe you're going to be spending
more than $3,000 between now and
[3:05:52] December 31st?
[3:05:56] » I believe I'm going to spend the same
rate that
[3:06:00] Councillor Hoyle is spending.
[3:06:04] » Councillor White.
[3:06:13] » Through the chair to council,
uh thank you to the the information that
[3:06:17] I received by email that each of us now
has visibility of our per diem report.
[3:06:23] I'm already 1450 over. I didn't know
I've like
[3:06:28] I've reached the bottom of my bucket and
beyond. So, 3,000
[3:06:33] is not I unreasonable for if I were to
continue on the same trajectory as
[3:06:40] as I'm on now.
for
[3:06:43] spending time on council committees and
special meetings.
[3:06:55] » Is there a friendly amendment to 2,000
to 3,000?
[3:07:01] No, I don't think he's accepting my
friendly amendment, Mr. Mayor.
[3:07:04] He's only worried about He's only
worried about Councillor Hoyle right
[3:07:07] now.
So, let's just give $2,000 to you, to
[3:07:12] Councillor White, and Councillor Hoyle.
Otherwise, we'll be here all night.
[3:07:17] » Well, we haven't included Councillor
Elder.
[3:07:22] Maybe we should get it from him.
>> Sure. Let me get my checkbook.
[3:07:28] I hope not.
>> Councillor Aberley.
[3:07:32] » I want $3,000 now, too, please. And I
apologize and I
[3:07:36] we're all getting punchy, but this is
good. This is where we're getting along.
[3:07:39] [clears throat]
I think
[3:07:43] to sort of
support
[3:07:47] Councillor Neilson's
sort of support Councillor Neilson is
[3:07:51] that
instead of
[3:07:55] at this point naming
individual counselors because we're
[3:08:00] going to have to do this
vote three times.
[3:08:04] Are we being more efficient to say
we raise this number to da da da for
[3:08:13] this year to be taken out of
contingency?
[3:08:16] » That I can support.
[3:08:20] » Councilor White
>> I'd like to build on the
[3:08:24] friendly amendment that
Councilor Aberly has started to suggest.
[3:08:31] I'd like to Would Would you consider
Councilor Billingsley amending this to
[3:08:37] add 5,000?
No.
[3:08:45] I withdraw. I think it needs to be a
policy change and I would be willing to
[3:08:49] to make that motion at a future date.
This is This is too messy for me to
[3:08:55] support.
>> Mhm.
[3:08:59] » Councilor Aberly
>> Thank you, sir. Uh through the chair to
[3:09:04] Councilor White
I appreciate exactly. I I agree. It
[3:09:10] There needs to be a policy change.
[3:09:20] And I appreciate your hesitation.
Now to
[3:09:26] administration
[3:09:29] if we wait to
put money into any of these people's
[3:09:35] accounts um
[3:09:39] because we're changing our policy which
is going to be changed in 6 weeks
[3:09:44] or not six not 6 weeks but which we're
going to revisit in 6 weeks.
[3:09:50] Any not anyway? Hmm.
We will be looking at this policy during
[3:09:56] the organizational meeting that happens
in 6-8 weeks cuz
[3:10:00] 8 weeks?
[3:10:02] My concern right now is will my fellow
councilors
[3:10:08] be going to meetings and having it show
that they now owe money because we've
[3:10:14] overpaid them for their
[3:10:18] duties.
So, I appreciate that we need a policy.
[3:10:24] I also appreciate
that the I think the money needs to be
[3:10:28] there now.
[3:10:32] » Councilor Hawaii.
>> Councilor Aberly, or through the chair
[3:10:35] to Councilor Aberly, you are correct
because by our policy, which we brought
[3:10:38] up, if we go over, we have to pay it
back. That's why I was trying to be
[3:10:42] proactive in saying that
I don't want to go there because of
[3:10:46] that. It's a whole 'nother ballgame.
We can ask for it back. We could come
[3:10:50] and ask for it back, and council may
give us grace, but I would just like to
[3:10:54] get ahead of this. I know I have asked
to have it put on, I think
[3:11:00] I'm not quite sure which meeting Is it
September 8th going forward to have a
[3:11:04] further discussion, but as Councilor
White said, she is already over, and I
[3:11:09] believe I probably am by this point
either once we've got our newest amounts
[3:11:14] posted. And Councilor Neilson, have you
checked yours?
[3:11:17] » I'm $50 over right now.
>> He's over right now as well.
[3:11:19] » I'll leave a $50 bill at the door for
>> to our own policy, we must pay this back
[3:11:24] already now.
>> Or you don't get paid
[3:11:26] » Or we don't get paid going Well, and
paying it back because we already are
[3:11:30] over.
[3:11:34] So,
>> See, so what's what's involved in
[3:11:36] changing policy? Is it fairly quick and
easy to do and just change the numbers
[3:11:41] so it it meets cuz you you know, you
you've
[3:11:45] you kind of know what you're doing
monthly.
[3:11:51] » You asking to
What does it change to
[3:11:54] to change the policy?
>> Correct.
[3:11:56] » Well, I would highly recommend studying
it and actually doing some research. I
[3:11:59] don't want to just
change it this afternoon.
[3:12:03] » No, I I I
Again, I'm not asking that.
[3:12:06] » He's He's looking at process.
>> I'm looking at what's involved. Laura
[3:12:09] has has suggested it it should be
policy. I'm just asking what's involved.
[3:12:14] I don't know.
Some of you guys have been here three
[3:12:16] terms. I've been here 6 months. I don't
know.
[3:12:23] » Through administration, how can we pay
these people
[3:12:27] » what they've earned?
>> What they've earned or what they're
[3:12:30] going to pay?
I just we just I know you we can do it.
[3:12:35] We're just finding the proper wording.
Just pretend we're
[3:12:39] uh we're
a business case that we overran and we
[3:12:43] got 15% over budget.
[3:12:48] » Uh through the chair to council, I
I had suggested a few different things,
[3:12:53] some of the stuff that's been brought up
today when this was being reviewed.
[3:12:57] Um and council did not support that, so
council
[3:13:04] um can go against any policy that they
have and give me direction to do
[3:13:10] anything. It's not great governance.
Um
[3:13:15] but there are a number of different
things that we could do with council's
[3:13:18] approval.
Um but even just a couple weeks or
[3:13:23] months ago when we had this discussion,
um council told me stick to the policy,
[3:13:28] send invoices, and that sort of stuff.
So,
[3:13:31] uh we will do whatever council wants us
to do.
[3:13:34] Uh the next opportunity obviously to
look at this policy would be September
[3:13:38] 8th.
Um and I could send it out by email and
[3:13:42] get everybody to start gathering
thoughts in the meantime so that we
[3:13:45] could have a fruitful discussion on
September 8th.
[3:13:48] Um
so that's probably the quickest you can
[3:13:51] get a policy change. In the meantime
from my bylaw
[3:13:56] although
because if we remember the order, the
[3:13:59] hierarchy, um my bylaw does allow me to
um
[3:14:03] transfer money.
Um within I just have to report to
[3:14:07] council that I've done that.
Um and so there are ways that we could
[3:14:12] make this work in the meantime
or until council makes a change. The
[3:14:17] risk is going to be that we
make a change that you don't support in
[3:14:21] policy and then we've now
uh gone outside of everything you were
[3:14:25] thinking of.
Um I can do whatever you want me to do.
[3:14:31] Um
but as far as policy goes your yeah,
[3:14:34] September 8th is your next opportunity.
[3:14:40] » So is there
is there any way we can pass a policy
[3:14:44] here as Councillor Billings has said
not our
[3:14:49] $3,000. You you said $2,000 to
to Councillor Hoyle. Is there any way
[3:14:56] for the other counselors to get some
money
[3:14:59] out of a different
or we wait then if we if we go to
[3:15:05] September the 8th then we have to change
policy and that's to be all written down
[3:15:09] so it'll be longer.
[3:15:12] As we have to look at it then vote on
it. Councillor Neilson.
[3:15:15] » Thank you
Mayor Bronco.
[3:15:19] I'm going to be facetious here a little
bit Sue but um
[3:15:25] but with intention.
[3:15:28] I'm over $50. When do I pay you?
No, I I like I said I'm going be
[3:15:32] facetious here.
Do I need to pay by the end of this
[3:15:35] month?
>> With our invoicing says payable upon
[3:15:40] receipt.
So, once an invoice goes to you, you
[3:15:43] need to pay it.
>> So,
[3:15:47] and then what happens if I submit
[3:15:51] a committee
expense report
[3:15:55] when you know I'm already over
on my committee work?
[3:16:00] Are you going to pay me
and then add it to my bill
[3:16:04] or are you going to tell me
"I'm sorry, Wayne.
[3:16:08] We're not paying you. You're over."
>> Because this is new, we haven't s-
[3:16:14] obviously gotten ahead of this properly.
I think moving forward to make sure we
[3:16:17] don't run into these problems, it would
be we're not paying this until you get a
[3:16:21] motion of council.
>> Okay.
[3:16:24] And if there's anybody in the world
still listening to this conversation,
[3:16:28] » [laughter]
[clears throat]
[3:16:30] » I want to point out again
that we went into this kind of blind in
[3:16:35] terms of
simply taking the dollars that we were
[3:16:38] spending,
allocated sort of equally across the
[3:16:41] board, not knowing how many committees
people were going to be sitting on. So,
[3:16:45] we find ourselves here because of that
disparity.
[3:16:48] It's not that we are necessarily
spending more money than we spent
[3:16:51] previously.
It's just that we put them in buckets
[3:16:54] and tried to keep them there.
And we found out
[3:16:57] that the bucket system as
[3:17:02] we put into place
isn't working.
[3:17:05] It doesn't mean that it won't once we
clean some of this up.
[3:17:08] » Yeah.
>> So, it's not like we're spending more of
[3:17:10] the city's taxpayers' dollars here.
Um
[3:17:15] so,
I guess
[3:17:19] for Councillor White
and Councillor Neilson
[3:17:22] and
Councillor Hoyle,
[3:17:27] we're going to our next meetings knowing
we will not be
[3:17:32] compensated.
[3:17:36] And Councillor Nielsen and Councillor
White will both be receiving
[3:17:40] bills from the city.
[3:17:45] And yourself as well.
Councillor Hoyle owes money, too. You
[3:17:49] just want to go on record making sure
everybody knows how much money we owe.
[3:17:53] Um and again, I'm being facetious, but
it
[3:17:57] it seems
[3:18:00] I don't expect anybody to do committee
work
[3:18:05] and not be compensated for their
committee work as per policy.
[3:18:08] I may or may may not say as per policy,
but
[3:18:11] um
[3:18:16] Joining city council, we were given
responsibilities to look after
[3:18:24] and compensation for that.
And I don't think they should be going
[3:18:29] off to meetings
and not being compensated for it.
[3:18:33] So, it's just a matter of how do we
manage this?
[3:18:37] Again,
>> Go ahead, Sue.
[3:18:40] » Thank you. Can I just throw this out
there for council to consider?
[3:18:43] Because of the fact that we didn't
budget properly,
[3:18:48] are you okay in this instance until you
get the policy back in front of you for
[3:18:53] me just to do a transfer
from the people who do not have as many
[3:18:58] committees
as the people who are
[3:19:01] sitting on all the committees?
Like, can I just make this transfer
[3:19:06] internally
to get us caught up and then start to
[3:19:11] have that policy discussion to sort it
out?
[3:19:19] » Councillor Hoyle and Councillor
Billingsley.
[3:19:23] » Through the chair
to council and that is
[3:19:27] I agree we need to fix the problem. It's
an interim fix.
[3:19:32] And I don't want to rush through this
per diem and remuneration
[3:19:37] talk which I'm worried we will do if we
do it
[3:19:41] next meeting.
I would like to have some discussion and
[3:19:44] make sure we fix it or fix is a bad word
that we make sure we get it right so
[3:19:48] that we're not revisiting this next
year. Um
[3:19:52] so however we deal with today, I think
that conversation about the actual per
[3:19:57] diems and the expense policy and
remuneration needs to come at a time
[3:20:01] when we've all had a chance to look over
it, think what we need we want in it and
[3:20:06] make sure it's what we actually want and
not something that we are doing as a
[3:20:09] quick fix next meeting.
[3:20:13] » Councilor Billingsley.
[3:20:16] » Thank you. Through the chair to Sue.
Yes, as far as I'm concerned, but having
[3:20:22] said that, I don't think you need our
permission to do that. It's part of your
[3:20:27] um
CIO's
[3:20:30] You're allowed to do that anyway whether
we
[3:20:33] say today yes or nay, yay or nay. Is
that correct?
[3:20:36] » That is correct. However, um after the
discussion we had that I should be
[3:20:41] following policy, I would like some
support from council to do that.
[3:20:46] Although I have the authority, I
recognize that might not be everyone's
[3:20:50] desire.
>> You have my support to to do that and it
[3:20:54] may lead to my second motion that we
have in the budget.
[3:21:01] » And and counselor Averly.
>> Thank you, sir.
[3:21:06] I want
two clarifications because I think I'm
[3:21:09] still following along.
[3:21:13] Councilor Elder, was your question
answered?
[3:21:15] » No, I'm going to let you guys finish
this and then I will deal with mine.
[3:21:19] » Thank you.
>> Welcome.
[3:21:21] » Cuz I
Cuz I think it's a genuine question. If
[3:21:25] I want to look at a policy, how do how
do we do that? And we start talking
[3:21:29] about other things. Uh
second
[3:21:34] are you
withdrawing your motion because we do
[3:21:37] have a motion on the table?
And now we're talking about maybe just
[3:21:41] letting Sue do what sh
she not letting Sue do what she does.
[3:21:47] Um
Sue has a in her policy says that she
[3:21:52] can do something
and she is asking for a general
[3:21:56] consensus of council that in this
instance
[3:22:01] it happens.
But we do have a motion on the floor.
[3:22:04] So, whether or not we're voting,
removing the motion, doing the motion
[3:22:09] » My concern of withdrawing it
as long as there's support for
[3:22:15] having letting
allowing, letting
[3:22:18] um having the CAO reallocate.
[3:22:25] Because if there's not will of council
to let her do that, then my motion would
[3:22:30] stand.
[3:22:34] » Tough legislative one.
>> Right? So, I will with I have faith in
[3:22:39] this group. I will withdraw my motion.
>> Well, I'm going to vote against this.
[3:22:46] Technically you don't.
>> I know.
[3:22:49] » So, who's going to make the
>> And and and the reason
[3:22:53] because there was a second motion and
then it has to do with
[3:22:57] um myself.
Um
[3:23:01] going to the MCC MCM C conference and
the AB Munis conference in regards to um
[3:23:10] doing
MCMC work.
[3:23:15] So, if that's the case
and [clears throat] we give
[3:23:20] authority to our CIO to reallocate, I'm
okay with that and I don't need to make
[3:23:26] that second motion.
But, do we need to
[3:23:32] um
do we need to
[3:23:37] authorize
give direction?
[3:23:44] » Councillor Averley.
>> Thank you, sir.
[3:23:47] Uh I would like to make a motion that we
direct
[3:23:54] administration cuz or would I direct you
directly? Oh my gosh.
[3:24:00] Administration
um to
[3:24:05] allocate
money to council's per diems
[3:24:11] as noted in her
city manager bylaw.
[3:24:17] » City city manager bylaw.
>> Go ahead.
[3:24:22] » Councillor
>> Sorry.
[3:24:25] » Not specifically to per diems because my
second one isn't per diems. I've got
[3:24:29] enough in per diems.
But, to travel to MCMC
[3:24:33] is
>> remunerations?
[3:24:35] » No, it's not remuneration. It is travel
expense.
[3:24:40] Which
>> Uh I
[3:24:41] » I'd say different bucket.
>> I would like to see that as a separate
[3:24:43] discussion though.
>> Fair enough.
[3:24:45] » Yeah.
[3:24:51] » Then I stay with per diems.
>> Yeah.
[3:24:58] » Any debate?
All of those in favor?
[3:25:02] » No,
I'm not in favor.
[3:25:04] » Carried.
>> Yes.
[3:25:05] » No.
>> Next.
[3:25:07] » No, I think the same.
>> Hey, hold hold on a second, Joe. Just 1
[3:25:11] second.
[3:25:14] » Sorry, could that motion please be
repeated so I could see it? I was not
[3:25:18] prepared to vote on that. I was trying
to raise my hand to ask.
[3:25:22] What exactly are we voting on?
>> I don't know.
[3:25:25] » I apologize. I don't know why you didn't
understand that.
[3:25:28] » Councillor White.
>> Because I was very clear and succinct.
[3:25:33] I move to direct administration to
reallocate money to council per diems as
[3:25:38] noted in the city manager's bylaw.
[3:25:43] » Any debate?
[3:25:51] All in favor?
Carried.
[3:25:56] » Okay, so now, sorry, Joe.
>> Go ahead, Councillor Elder.
[3:26:01] » Okay.
>> So, I'm going to go back to mine. Now,
[3:26:04] this is where I messed up, so I take
full accountability here. I don't know
[3:26:08] how to fix it, so I'm going to ask.
I did not claim October, November, and
[3:26:15] December
[3:26:20] in 2025 until January 26th.
So, that's on me.
[3:26:27] Administration was
nice enough
[3:26:31] to pay it.
But, it ends up in 2026. Now, that puts
[3:26:36] me over owing $2,000.
So, how do we deal with this one now?
[3:26:42] I'd like to I guess make a motion
[3:26:46] to somehow correct this. I don't
[laughter] know how to make a motion.
[3:26:49] Um
[3:26:52] I I look at it like it's an administ-
well,
[3:26:57] administration error in in the years,
but it's a Mark Elder error in
[3:27:01] paperwork.
[3:27:04] So,
do do do do how would this motion go
[3:27:08] here? Uh-oh, got hands.
>> Councillor Berglund, speak.
[3:27:11] » So, I move that
council directs administration
[3:27:17] to
[3:27:24] to pay
[3:27:30] I'm sorry?
[3:27:33] No, because this actually would actually
have to come out of
[3:27:37] um contingency because this is out of
2025, not 2026. So, in other words, I
[3:27:44] move that council directs administration
to take from contingency
[3:27:52] to pay
Councillor Elders'
[3:27:56] overage from 2025.
[3:28:02] Because and I I'd like to speak to that.
And I think it's important um
[3:28:07] » [clears throat]
>> we've had this discussion before um
[3:28:11] that you were new and didn't know
exactly how it worked
[3:28:15] um because you did do the work.
Right? I mean, it's not like we're we're
[3:28:20] saying um you you uh didn't do the work,
so you don't deserve to get paid. That's
[3:28:25] not it at all. It was it was
late filing, I guess.
[3:28:31] Right? And nobody here is saying that
you didn't do the work. So, I think it's
[3:28:35] important
that that bill
[3:28:38] is
wiped clean from 2025.
[3:28:42] Because that money's that were allocated
in 2025
[3:28:46] would have gone into contingency anyway
because the money wasn't spent in 2025.
[3:28:54] » Councillor Neisner.
>> Thank you. So, to that point, I I I
[3:28:57] totally agree. The work's been done.
The paperwork was missing at the time.
[3:29:02] It got entered into the the next
available year. Sue, how do you make
[3:29:06] that kind of a correction?
[3:29:11] » Exactly.
[3:29:19] There it is. Thank you.
Um because the books were closed, we
[3:29:23] couldn't actually pull it from 2025, so
using the contingency is exactly the
[3:29:29] the right way to do that.
So, what we'll do is just pull the 2050
[3:29:34] from
contingency and cancel out the invoice.
[3:29:38] » And that was your motion then?
>> Yes, because
[3:29:40] » Okay.
I'm I'm good with
[3:29:41] » The the dollars that weren't spent in
2025 under council would have gone into
[3:29:45] contingency anyway.
>> Yes.
[3:29:48] » Hey, so the motion's on the floor.
All of those in favor?
[3:29:54] Carried. Thank you. Councillor Billings,
you have another motion.
[3:29:57] » Yeah, so
this isn't per diems because I do have I
[3:30:02] believe I have enough per diems.
>> Thank you.
[3:30:05] » Um but I do have potential of travel
expenses and conference expenses that I
[3:30:12] believe is important that I attend as
being the MCMC representative. Um
[3:30:19] my quick calculation
um
[3:30:23] is about $3,500.
I might be on the high side on that
[3:30:27] because I do have dollars available
still in my own personal buckets.
[3:30:34] So, I am asking um for reallocation
up to $3,500, which I don't believe will
[3:30:41] be necessary.
And it's not per diems.
[3:30:46] » [clears throat]
>> It's travel expenses and or training,
[3:30:50] you might say.
[3:30:54] » Councillor Elder, so now I have another
question for you.
[3:31:00] If I don't use a nickel of my travel
expenses, does that go back into
[3:31:04] contingency?
>> Yes.
[3:31:07] » So that should be no problem covering
whatever.
[3:31:12] Cuz I won't I won't spend a nickel of
this.
[3:31:14] » So and yes, and so then that what would
happen then is that
[3:31:19] however the CAO decides would reallocate
dollars.
[3:31:22] » Okay.
>> Councillor Neilsen.
[3:31:26] » And I think I I'm I'm on the same page,
I think. But through the chair to Sue,
[3:31:32] we've allocated money somewhere in our
council budget for MCMC
[3:31:38] travel.
[3:31:41] Yes? No?
[3:31:44] » Uh
>> It's on the mayor's
[3:31:46] It's on the mayor's per diem, I believe.
>> Well, when the policy changed, there was
[3:31:51] nothing specific. So when we go into
Questica, in my budget you'll see X
[3:31:56] number for this, X number for that. When
council changed their policy, we just
[3:32:01] put in
blank amounts. We didn't actually say
[3:32:05] FCM, AB Munis, any of that. So is there
money that to be reallocated for this?
[3:32:11] Sure, like the mayor probably would have
gone to that. Um
[3:32:15] » So in your in your allocation or
reallocation then,
[3:32:19] as Joe just said,
that was in his budget line.
[3:32:23] Because he's not attending, it would
make sense that
[3:32:28] that's that's a a committee that he's
[3:32:33] not going to attend, so the money that
would have gone to him to do that would
[3:32:37] be the transferred place.
>> Not necessarily, because the way that
[3:32:41] you changed the policy, you said
counselors do not need to come back to
[3:32:44] council to get permission to attend
things. You can attend whatever you
[3:32:48] want. If the mayor decides he wants to
spend his $1,000 on something else,
[3:32:52] that's up to him. What I was planning to
do with this particular
[3:32:56] um reallocation was to look at that
object code across the organization and
[3:33:03] say, I have extra money in these ones,
I'm going to transfer it into here
[3:33:07] because it doesn't matter whether it
comes from a council budget or admin
[3:33:10] budget. At the end of the year, whatever
is not spent goes into contingency.
[3:33:13] And and I do know for a fact
your budgets are very tight.
[3:33:19] Um and the mayor may turn around and
say, "No, I I don't want to go
[3:33:23] anywhere." Well, great. That $1,000 goes
back into contingency. Um but yours are
[3:33:27] so tight that
in this instance, I would likely scan
[3:33:33] the whole organization and say, "Some of
these departments are behind and they're
[3:33:36] likely not going to spend this and I'm
going to reallocate it from there."
[3:33:40] I just don't want you to go over again
and then have this problem because
[3:33:44] you've allowed each of you individually
to decide what you spend your money on.
[3:33:52] » So,
Dean, can you read your motion?
[3:33:56] The $3,500?
[3:34:00] » No.
There is no motion as per se other than
[3:34:04] directing
[3:34:08] I move that council direct
administration to
[3:34:12] reallocate
funds
[3:34:16] for training and travel
as needed as per needed.
[3:34:21] » As needed.
>> As needed.
[3:34:27] » Any questions?
All of those in favor?
[3:34:33] » I apologize, Joe. I I didn't do that
properly.
[3:34:37] Um
>> Erin.
[3:34:38] » Thank you. I would like
because we're not reading it either,
[3:34:43] sir. I would like
>> [clears throat]
[3:34:46] » Councilor Billingsley to repeat because
I missed the last part of that sentence.
[3:34:52] » I move that Council really can
administration
[3:34:56] to re-
allocate funds
[3:35:06] as needed for training and travel
[3:35:12] as needed.
[3:35:16] » Is that for all council budgets or just
All of them. Okay.
[3:35:22] Yep.
[3:35:26] » Does that satisfy
[3:35:31] » It does, but it kind of falls along with
the Well, the other one was per diems.
[3:35:35] Yep. Nope, this is good. Yep.
>> Okay.
[3:35:40] Any questions?
All those in favor?
[3:35:46] Thank you.
[3:35:49] We done with the
new business? My last one.
[3:35:54] Um
[3:35:58] I would like to know some information
how
[3:36:01] if we heard anything on the garbage bins
at Starbucks or for if administration
[3:36:08] can update us on on that issue.
[3:36:14] If there's any up
>> Yeah, through the chair to council.
[3:36:19] Uh we have received the plans for the
enclosure.
[3:36:23] Uh they have been approved by planning
and development and we are just waiting
[3:36:27] on a timeline for the installation of
that enclosure.
[3:36:31] » So, the enclosure will be done before
winter?
[3:36:35] » That is correct.
>> Thank you.
[3:36:39] That is my question. Any further
questions?
[3:36:47] » Yeah, I'm good.
>> If
[3:36:49] If not,
I will adjourn the meeting.
[3:36:55] And I'll see you
at the next council meeting
[3:37:00] in September.
Thank you.
[3:37:02] » Joe, or
will you see us at the next council
[3:37:05] meeting in September?
>> No, I get back on the 24th of September.
[3:37:09] » So,
if I don't see you beforehand, have a
[3:37:13] wonderful trip.
>> the
[3:37:15] I leave on the 4th, so you can on the
3rd, actually.
[3:37:18] So, I'll be seeing you and I'll be
emailing you some issues regarding uh
[3:37:23] the CEO's uh
evaluation. I'll be doing that today, so
[3:37:27] I can have that all done before I go.
>> Awesome. Thank you.
[3:37:32] » Thank you.
I will adjourn
[3:37:36] this meeting at
7:36. Thank you very much and have a
[3:37:41] good week.
And I guess we'll see you at Maria's uh
[3:37:46] Mexican Grill grand opening night at the
mall.
[3:37:50] Thank you.
[3:38:47] » Mhm.