Last week + Council Meeting/Public Hearing June 8/9, 2021
Last week highlights
Election update
Last week, I continued my election information blog with a comment about the AUMA Local Democracy Pledge. I encourage residents to consider whether candidates have signed this commitment to transparency, and to ask what it means to each candidate.
EMAC meeting
The Emergency Management Advisory Committee met to hear an update from Administration about the current status of the pandemic response. No recommendations were made - this was for information only - but it was valuable to hear about summer recreation plans: Pending new Orders for the province, we hope to have Grosvenor & Fountain open for June 14. Lessons are tentatively scheduled to start mid-July, again dependent on direction from the province. Summer camps are also up in the air, but it sounds like the province is working on guiding documents now.
Regular Council agenda highlights (June 8)
This meeting includes a lot of items on consent, including:
Approval of our 10-year RMR plans recommended by the CGISC.
Time extension requests for the flyer and single-use item bylaws. (Federal legislation might make these unnecessary, and covid pressures mean that this isn’t an ideal time for this shift for struggling businesses.)
Time extension request for sorting out more permanent funding for Wild North. (We’re considering all funding, not just WildNorth, through an internal project which will be presented to Committee shortly.)
Updating the Council remuneration policy that was delayed for clarification the other week.
A housekeeping bylaw regarding advertising borrowing bylaws. (Now that the Gazette only publishes 1X/week, we’re limited to how often we can advertise.)
Capital Funding Alternatives
Over the last term, we’ve discussed the financial challenges of maintaining existing capital assets (roads, buildings, etc.) while supporting new growth (new parks, ice rinks, pools, fire halls, etc.) at length, particularly in light of declining provincial support. This report presents options for sustainably funding growth while prioritizing the maintenance of existing assets. High-level options include developing new revenue sources, increasing property taxes, reducing service levels, and slowing the pace of growth.
Removal of Designation as Reserve at 53 & 81 Salisbury Avenue
In preparation for the Sturgeon Heights Reservoir and Pump Station Replacement and Decommissioning, this is to set the hearing date to July 5 for removing the reserve designation for the site of the new reservoir. We want residents to continue to have access to reliable running water, so this is one of the top-priority projects this year. After decommissioning, the old site can be returned as park space.
Utility Relief Grant ($24,000/year)
This is a recommendation to make the Utility Relief Grant program a permanent service. This program started in 2015 to provide financial relief to low-income residents to help with utility bills, and is expected to support up to 100 residents/year. Currently, my only question to Admin is why low-income under-18 residents living on their own are ineligible.
Property Insurance Premiums (+$200,000)
As many residents and business owner have noticed, insurance rates have increased steeply over the last year; The City has not been immune to these increases and is requesting up to $200,000 to cover increase in property insurance premiums for 2021/22.
“As a result of the current changes in the insurance market and increased property values for City- owned buildings, the insurance premium for the City has increased from $146K last year to $184K this year and the coverage for property decreased from 350 million to 100 million. The cost associated with increasing the coverage back to the original $350M is presently unaffordable for the City. It is recommended that the coverage be increased to $200M which, at this time, is believed appropriate to cover the City's risk.”
North Ridge Redistricting (1st reading)
This is to set the public hearing date for redistricting a portion of North Ridge to July 5. This change would allow a residential development in the new area north of Villeneuve Rd and west of RR 255.
South Riel ASP (1st reading)
This is to set the public hearing date for “chang[ing] a site from commercial to commercial/industrial, which will allow a larger variety of uses” for July 5. Our backgrounder is a bit confusing - I suspect there will be a presentation in the July 5 package making it crystal clear what the changes are without using too much legalese - but it looks like the changes are in line with uses already existing further south in the ASP.
Cherot ASP (1st reading)
This is to set the public hearing date for some housekeeping amendments to the Cherot neighbourhood ASP for July 5.
Face Covering Bylaw
This is to repeal the face-covering bylaw, so that St. Albert stays in-line with provincial Health Orders. It is anticipated that the province will rescind masking requirements in public places as early as June 28.
Outdoor Patios in Akinsdale (2nd & 3rd readings)
If passed, this bylaw would allow LB’s pub (near 7-11) to operate an outdoor patio. The maximum patio size would be 10.5m x 6m if approved as presented. This change would also allow for a restaurant with up to 50 seats in this strip mall and a few other discretionary uses, at the discretion of the development officer. (A video store, like the old Blockbusters, would also be permitted, which gave me a bit of a chuckle… We have some housekeeping to do in our Land Use Bylaw!)
Public Hearing highlights (June 9, 9am)
The agenda for the public hearing for ASP changes to the site adjacent to Shops on Boudreau and Botanica is available on the City site, and includes links to 450 pages of written submissions to the hearing and the details of the proposed changes. We currently have 58 registered speakers (likely a minimum of 5+ hours), which is why the meeting is scheduled to start so early - The last time we considered changes at this site, the meeting lasted about 11 hours.
Although I can’t comment on or hear information about any particular hearing outside of the public hearing process, general questions about ASP amendments and the related public hearings include the following:
Why does Council allow ASP amendments? We are required to hear applications for ASP changes - It’s one of our responsibilities as a municipality.
Why don’t councillors state upfront how they’ll vote? Because we’re required to be impartial entering into public hearings, and willing to consider all submissions to the public hearing. Some of these hearings are quite straight-forward with no objections or even discussion (so having an opinion beforehand might not be a big deal), but some can be more complex.
Why can’t ASPs or the Land Use Bylaw (LUB) remain static once they’re approved? This is a tougher question, but at a high level: Because needs change. Earlier in this post, I commented that it was a bit silly that video stores are specifically named in our LUB - That was once needed, but is an obsolete use now so will likely require a hearing to clean it up at some point. Another example is when the province required that we update our bylaws when cannabis retail became a permitted use, which was a far more complex process than considering video stores. One of the amendments being scheduled for July 5 is to change the use from a sort-of “holding” use to a development use. Change is one of the aspects of municipal planning that is a constant influence, although approvals for changes are never guaranteed.
This is a brief and incomplete overview of our meetings, with my personal comments sprinkled in - In no way are my opinions representative of the official direction of council or the City of St. Albert. Please let me know of any typos or errors. Members of the public can also register to speak if they have information to present to council. Full agenda packages can be found on the stalbert.ca website.
