October 11, 2026

Community Information

Planet Fitness is planned for a portion of the FreshCo property in Downtown Red Deer.

A portion of the building at 4407 50 Avenue has been advertised for sublease, and the City has now issued a building permit for Planet Fitness at that address.

Permit BP060566, dated September 14, 2026, lists:

• $1,751,559 in tenant improvements.
• Construction of a Planet Fitness gym with an occupancy limit of 150.
• Kor-Alta Construction Ltd. as the contractor.
• An “in progress” status.

The site plan shows FreshCo remaining in the main portion of the building. Only the separate blue section, approximately 16,800 square feet, is advertised for sublease.

An opening date has not been confirmed in the documents or permit.

Sources:

City of Red Deer building permit records — select “Filter,” search “4407,” and look for permit BP060566:
https://data.reddeer.ca/buildingpermits

Avison Young leasing brochure

October 11, 2026

Bring back the rocket!!!... but who pays for it?

The Rocket Rebirth Project certainly got people talking. Here’s what I took from your comments.

It isn’t a surprise that so many want to see it return. There were childhood stories, memories of visiting Red Deer, and people wanting their kids and grandkids to have a turn.

But there were practical questions, too:

• Where should it go, and how would it be kept clean and looked after?
• Should taxpayers fund another playground when budgets are already under pressure?
• Could the Kinsmen, another service club, local businesses or a community fundraiser help pay for it?
• Can a modern version still be fun? Several of you wanted the slide higher up.

Those questions deserve to be part of the conversation.

What would it mean for the capital budget?

The City’s proposed 2027 capital budget is approximately $80.2 million, with Council deliberations scheduled for October 13*

A new rocket playground would need a budget covering more than the equipment: design, site preparation, installation and playground surfacing would also need to be included.

The effect on City finances would depend on the full cost and where the money comes from. Donations and grants could reduce the City’s contribution. Using reserves would draw on money available for other priorities. Redirecting an existing budget would mean identifying what gets reduced or delayed.

After it opens, inspections, cleaning, maintenance, repairs and eventual replacement would still need a funding plan.

I’d want to see the full cost and funding proposal before drawing conclusions about the impact on taxes.

Could we raise money for it?

I think that’s worth exploring, and there’s a local example.

For the first phase of West Park Gardens, the community association reported $24,000 in local fundraising, $11,000 from association funds and a $35,000 provincial grant: $70,000 altogether.

That doesn’t tell us what a rocket would cost, but it shows how community contributions and grant funding can work together.

A rocket campaign would need a clear plan, a realistic fundraising target, an organization to lead it, and agreement with the City. Several of you suggested service-club involvement. That seems like a conversation worth having.

My two cents.

I love this idea, and I want to see it happen. I think we can approach it responsibly, with local groups, sponsors and the community rallying to get it done.

The conversation needs to start somewhere. I’d like to see the City put the idea out there and say, in effect: we want to make this happen, but we can’t put another project on taxpayers right now. How can we work together as a community to figure it out?

Give people something concrete to get behind: a plan, a price and a way to help.

If there’s a project that could rekindle some community spirit, I think this is one.

So yes, let’s ask the questions. Let’s understand the costs. And let’s see what we can actually do together to bring it back.

Let’s build up Red Deer together.

Would you be more supportive if donations and sponsorships covered most (or all) of the construction cost?

And if there were an approved plan and a transparent fundraiser, would you consider contributing or helping organize it?

October 11, 2026

Red Deer’s latest permit numbers were released by the City this last week.

September saw 98 permits worth $9.15 million, compared with 85 permits worth $9.65 million in September 2025. More permits issued, with a slightly lower total value.

Through September, total permit values reached $73 million in 2026, compared with $1.047 billion last year.

Last year’s public service total included a $940 million permit for the hospital’s new patient tower. That single permit accounted for nearly 90% of the entire 2025 year-to-date value. Removing that permit brings last year’s total to approximately $106.6 million—still above this year’s $73 million.

A few figures worth watching:

• 937 permits issued through September, up 13.7% from 824 last year.
• 735 residential permits, up 16.7% from 630.
• September residential permit value reached $6.23 million, up 53.2% from last September.
• Year-to-date residential value is $35.48 million, down 7.4% from $38.34 million.

September’s notable projects included permits for 36 townhouse units on Caribou Crescent, plus a $1.75 million gym renovation on 50 Avenue.

The picture is mixed: permit counts are growing, while total permitted construction value is lower. The hospital explains much of the dramatic dollar difference, and September brought a stronger month for residential permit value.

Here is the City’s news release:
https://reddeer.ca/.../september-building-permit-values...

October 10, 2026

DEEP DIVE, PART 2: What Red Deerians told Council about the 2027 Capital Budget

October 13 Council meeting, Item 6.2

Part 1 covered the roughly $80.24 million Council is being asked to approve. This part looks at what residents wrote during the public-comment period.

Unlike the Utilities Budget debate, these comments are available in the agenda before Council votes. Thank you to Administration for including them. This is what Red Deerians expect and deserve: the opportunity to see what their neighbours told Council while there is still time for councillors to consider it.

There were 41 submissions in the published capital-budget comments, compared with 35 in the Utilities Budget comments. It should also be noted that not every Query was published, I am not sure why but the query numbers jump from #28 to #35. Emails sent only to councillors, rather than to the official budget address, may not appear in this appendix.

The City says it is preparing answers to the questions submitted. Those answers are to be sent to the people who asked and copied to Council before debate, then posted publicly after the debate. For now, we can read the comments but not all of Administration’s written responses. (Agenda page 102)

So what did residents say?

1. What were the main themes?

Four themes appeared throughout the submissions:

• Questions and concerns about the proposed roundabout at 67 Street and Taylor Drive.
• Affordability and the combined pressure of City costs on households.
• Different views about which projects should be funded first.
• Requests for more information about project costs, alternatives and how decisions were made.

These are comments from people who chose to write in. They are not a survey of every Red Deer resident. The rest of this post looks at what those submissions actually said.

2. What did residents say about 67 Street and Taylor Drive?

The proposed roundabout was the most frequently discussed project in the published comments.

Many writers opposed replacing the existing signalized intersection. Some said traffic moves acceptably now and questioned whether a major reconstruction is needed. Others raised concerns about large trucks, winter driving, pedestrians, driver confusion, construction disruption and the total cost. Several suggested adjusting the traffic signals instead. (Agenda pages 102–109, 119–120)

3. What information did residents ask for about the intersection?

The comments were not all simply for or against roundabouts. One resident said they generally have no problem with them but questioned this location. Another said roundabouts can work well in the right place, then asked for current traffic counts, left-turn volumes, future-growth projections and a comparison with other designs. (Agenda pages 106, 110–112)

That detailed submission also asked whether preliminary design work exists and when the City will release the traffic information and alternatives behind the proposal.

The question was not just whether residents like traffic circles. It was what information supports using one at this particular intersection.

4. How did affordability come up?

Residents wrote about the pressure of everyday costs alongside property taxes and utility charges. Some described living on fixed incomes or supporting families on tight budgets. One single mother asked Council to prioritize essentials and look for savings, much as she has to do with her household budget. (Agenda pages 107, 109–110, 116–120)

Several submissions framed their concerns as a question of needs versus wants. They asked Council to distinguish work required to maintain infrastructure and services from projects they considered less urgent.

5. What other projects and priorities did residents raise?

One resident asked the City to finish the road connection east of Vanier and Laredo, describing increased traffic through existing neighbourhood streets. Another questioned the quality and prioritization of road and sidewalk repairs. (Agenda pages 102, 107)

A transit submission requested more frequent and reliable buses, better Sunday service, a route serving Evergreen and improved connections between routes. The writer also asked for costs and measurable results, acknowledging that the improvements may not all be affordable immediately. Another resident asked whether leasing some fleet vehicles could reduce replacement costs. (Agenda pages 102, 118)

A few submissions opposed or questioned spending on the proposed Indigenous Cultures Centre. Others raised concerns about Michener lands, past infrastructure decisions and whether particular projects would benefit enough residents. Those are the writers’ positions; the submissions do not provide a full assessment of those projects. (Agenda pages 106, 117–119)

6. What did residents say about the information in the budget?

Some asked for more detail before large amounts are approved. One submission requested clearer project scopes, costs by location or component, complete multi-year costs, lower-cost alternatives and an explanation of what would happen if work were delayed. It also asked for more evidence that the City’s procurement processes are producing good value. That longer submission is mine (#35), and it appears in the agenda. (Agenda pages 112–116)

Another writer asked for more itemized project information and a longer review period for major spending proposals. Others wanted greater transparency about how public feedback is weighed. (Agenda pages 116–117)

7. What happens with these questions now?

Administration says it will respond to people who submitted questions and provide Council with copies before the October 13 debate. The questions and responses are expected to be posted publicly after the debate. (Agenda page 102)

What I’ll be watching on October 13 is whether Council addresses the concerns residents raised and whether any part of the proposed budget changes as a result. I’ll admit it was discouraging to see the Utilities Budget approved unanimously. I understand councillors faced difficult decisions, but I did not feel residents had a voice at the table and that their concerns had much weight in the final decision. We’ll see whether the Capital Budget debate goes differently.

The published comments give Council a record of what these residents wanted it to consider. Council will decide what to do with that input when it votes.

Sources: City of Red Deer, October 13, 2026 Council agenda, Item 6.2, “Public Comments Received,” pages 101–120.

October 10, 2026

DEEP DIVE, PART 1: What Council is being asked to approve in the 2027 Capital Budget

October 13 Council meeting, Item 6.2

Over the past few weeks, I posted a 10-part series walking through the proposed Capital Budget by topic. If you want an almost line-by-line look at what the City is requesting, including individual projects and funding sources, you can go back through those posts.

This post is the overview: what does the budget add up to, what is inside it, and what will Council actually decide on October 13?

Part 2 will look closely at the public comments submitted to Council.

1. What is a capital budget?

It pays for long-lasting things the City builds, buys, repairs or replaces: roads, bridges, buildings, parks, buses, vehicles, equipment and technology.

This is separate from the Utilities Budget Council approved in September. Stormwater projects appear in this Capital Budget, but capital projects for utilities such as water, wastewater and electricity were presented separately. (Agenda page 52)

2. How much is Council being asked to approve for 2027?

Approximately $80.24 million, divided into three requests:

• $58.41 million for tax-supported capital projects.
• $19.75 million for fleet vehicles and equipment.
• $2.08 million for a Land Bank project. (Agenda page 42)

Those labels need a little explanation. “Tax-supported” does not mean the entire $58.41 million would come from property taxes this year. Grants, reserves, borrowing and other sources would help pay for those projects.

Most of the fleet request is for replacing vehicles and equipment that have reached the end of their useful lives. It also includes approximately $2.76 million for conventional and Action Bus replacements. The budget book says about 80% of the City’s fleet assets are tax-supported. (Agenda pages 52, 75)

The Land Bank request is for cleaning up contamination at the former P10 parking site at 4609 52 Avenue and preparing it for potential commercial or residential development. There is an interesting funding detail here: although the budget book describes the Land Bank business generally as not subsidized by taxes, this particular project lists $1.25 million from the tax-supported Capital Projects Reserve and $830,000 from a grant. Administration says the project originated with the Land section but will move to Engineering Services because the site’s future development is housing-related. (Agenda pages 52, 77–78)

3. Where would most of the money go?

The City classifies about 76% of proposed 2027 spending as infrastructure preservation. In plain language, that means maintaining, repairing or replacing things the City already has.

Examples include approximately $7.5 million for stormwater infrastructure, $7.2 million for roadway management and $1.9 million for recreation-facility preservation. (Agenda pages 58–59)

About 14% is classified as service improvements, which includes projects such as corporate computer systems and emergency communications equipment. The remaining 10% is classified as current growth. That category includes projects such as Cronquist Square in Capstone, a new sanitary lift station and, perhaps less obviously, the proposed $910,000 City website replacement. (Agenda pages 58–59)

These categories help show how Administration has organized its priorities. They do not, by themselves, tell us whether the scope or cost of each project is reasonable. That is why I went through the individual requests in the 10-part series.

4. How were the projects chosen? Were any left out?

City departments submit projects for consideration. The Executive Leadership Team reviews the draft budget and plan, and the City Manager brings a recommended version to Council. Administration says it considers factors such as infrastructure condition, safety, service needs, available funding and the consequences of delaying work. (Agenda pages 58, 60–61)

The $80.24 million is therefore not every project someone at the City wanted. The budget book also lists projects that were reduced, delayed or removed during its preparation. Among them are an $850,000 parks major-amenity project deferred from 2027 and a $1 million sidewalk-plow request that was removed. (Agenda pages 97–99)

That gives Council a starting point, but Council still has to decide whether the projects that remain are the right ones to approve.

5. How would the City pay for it?

Across the three parts of the proposed budget, the largest funding sources are reserves and grants. The City’s chart shows approximately $36.9 million from reserves and $33.2 million from grants, with smaller amounts from borrowing, developer or customer contributions, and operating funds. Grants account for approximately 54% of the tax-supported portion. (Agenda pages 53–56)

A grant is money from another level of government, but it generally comes with rules about which projects qualify. A reserve is money set aside for future costs. The Capital Projects Reserve, which helps fund tax-supported projects and repay related borrowing, receives contributions through the City’s tax-supported budget. Fleet replacement has its own reserve. (Agenda pages 53–55)

So the $80.24 million would not be added directly to one year’s property-tax bills. But these decisions are still connected to affordability. Reserves are limited, borrowing must be repaid, and new or renewed assets can bring future maintenance costs.

6. Does the longer-term plan fit within the money available?

Not entirely, according to the City’s own projections.

The budget book says future capital needs exceed the funding expected to be available. In one model, even with assumptions that include new borrowing and annual MCAF contributions, only 58% of the existing Capital Projects Reserve-supported plan would be funded. More projects would have to be prioritized or deferred. (Agenda pages 63–65)

That 58% figure is a forecast under a particular set of assumptions. It is not a shortfall Council is being asked to approve on October 13. It does, however, show why a long list of future projects should not be mistaken for a fully funded promise.

7. What does the October 13 vote actually decide?

Council is being asked to debate and approve the three 2027 capital requests totalling approximately $80.24 million. It is also being asked to receive the longer-term tax-supported and fleet plans “in principle.” Receiving those plans in principle does not authorize spending on every future project; those years will require future budget decisions. (Agenda pages 42, 80)

Council is not setting the 2027 property-tax rate or utility rates through this vote.

The question now is whether the proposed 2027 projects, their scope and their costs are the right priorities. In Part 2, I’ll look at what residents told Council during the public-comment period, including where they asked for changes or more information.

Source: City of Red Deer, October 13, 2026 Council agenda, Item 6.2, pages 42–100.&#x20

October 10, 2026

DEEP DIVE: Omnibus Zoning Bylaw Amendment: October 13 Council meeting, Item 8.1

On September 15, Council gave first reading to Bylaw 3357/GG-2026. It was on the consent agenda and is separate from the parking bylaw we have discussed extensively.

This one is called an “omnibus” amendment. Instead of changing one rule or rezoning one property, it bundles changes to several parts of the zoning bylaw. That bylaw helps determine what uses are allowed in different areas of Red Deer and when a development permit is required.

The omnibus amendment returns to Council on October 13 for a public hearing and possible final approval. Here is what is in it.

1. What is Administration asking Council to approve?

Administration describes the proposal largely as cleanup and clarification. It includes corrections to wording and diagrams, but also changes to permit requirements and the rules for some uses.

There are 36 numbered edits in the proposed bylaw. Several deal with the same topic, so the clearest way to understand it is through the 12 areas of change below.

2. Exactly what would change?

This is a longer list than I would normally put in one post, but I think it is important to show everything Council is being asked to approve:

• Liquor and Beer Sales: Remove a duplicate entry from the discretionary-use list in the C-2 commercial zone. The use would remain on the permitted-use list.

• Temporary Uses: Allow certain temporary uses lasting seven days or less without a development permit under the zoning bylaw. The proposed wording lists exceptions, so this would not apply to every temporary activity.

• Professional Offices: In the DC28 zoning district, replace separate office entries for different floors with one permitted-use entry for Professional Office.

• Replacement signs: Remove the need for a new development permit when a lawful sign is replaced with a copy in the same location, provided its dimensions, structure, materials, sign area and illumination remain the same.

• Setback diagrams: Correct references printed inside 11 diagrams carried over from an earlier version of the zoning bylaw.

• Home Occupation Major: Clarify the parking rule so one commercial vehicle and one trailer used by the business are not treated as two commercial vehicles.

• Daycares: Add existing Day Care Facilities to the sites covered by the 150-metre separation rule for drinking establishments where adult entertainment is permitted.

• Capstone Temporary Uses: Remove duplicate Temporary Use entries from several Capstone zoning tables. The City says Temporary Use is already discretionary in all zones under another section of the bylaw.

• Definitions: Move six definitions from the sign section to the general definitions section: Accessory Tenant, Architectural Feature, Developing Community, Façade, Multi-Tenant and Mural. Some wording would also be tidied up.

• Motor-vehicle businesses: Standardize the wording of “Motor Vehicle Sales, Service, or Repair” in several sections where the use name is inconsistent.

• Commercial Schools: In the I-1 and I-2 industrial zones, remove the wording that limits Commercial Schools to instruction, training or certification in industrial trades.

• Typos: Correct “Commercial Schools” to the defined use “Commercial School” in one location, and change “meters” to “metres” in a landscaping requirement.

One wording detail is worth noting: the agenda summary describes the temporary-use change as applying to uses “under 7 days.” The proposed bylaw itself says “7 days or less,” which includes the seventh day.

3. Is this all just housekeeping?

Some of it clearly is. Correcting diagram references, duplicate entries and typos makes the bylaw easier to use.

Other edits could make a practical difference to someone applying for a permit or planning a business. Calling the package “cleanup” does not mean every change is only a spelling correction.

4. Was the public consulted before first reading?

The report says no public participation was undertaken beforehand because that is not the City’s usual practice for omnibus amendments. The October 13 public hearing gives residents an opportunity to comment before Council makes its final decision.

5. What happens next?

Council can consider second and third reading after the public hearing. If the bylaw receives final approval, its changes would take effect. If Council does not approve it, the existing zoning rules would remain in place for now.

The question for October 13 is whether Council is comfortable approving these changes together, including both the technical fixes and the changes that affect how the rules work in practice.

Sources: City of Red Deer, September 15, 2026 Council agenda, Item 5.1, pages 70–95; October 13, 2026 Council agenda, Item 8.1, pages 214–242. Proposed bylaw: 3357/GG-2026.

October 10, 2026

DEEP DIVE: October 13 Council meeting, Item 4.1

Up to $25.3 million in borrowing for water and wastewater projects

Council approved the 2027 Utilities Budget on September 29. Now, a separate decision is coming forward: should the City be allowed to borrow up to $25.3 million to help pay for four water and wastewater projects in that budget?

The October 13 vote would be the first step, not the final approval to borrow. Here is how it works.

1. Why is Council voting on this if it already approved the budget?

The budget approved the projects and identified borrowing as part of their funding. The City must also pass borrowing bylaws before it can finance that work through debt.

On October 13, Council is being asked to give four of those bylaws first reading. That starts the required advertising and petition process before Council considers final readings. (Agenda pages 21–23)

2. What would the money pay for?

The four projects have a combined 2027 budget of $37.935 million. The funding plan uses $12.635 million from utility reserves and up to $25.3 million in borrowing. (Agenda page 24)

Here is the breakdown:

• Water infrastructure annual program: $9.529 million in total, including up to $5.106 million borrowed. This program renews and rehabilitates parts of the water network.

• Water Treatment Plant rehabilitation and replacement: $7.394 million, all proposed to be borrowed.

• Wastewater infrastructure annual program: $9.859 million in total, including up to $1.647 million borrowed. This program renews and rehabilitates parts of the wastewater network.

• Wastewater Treatment Plant rehabilitation and replacement: $11.153 million, all proposed to be borrowed. (Agenda pages 24–25)

3. What is a debenture?

It is a form of long-term borrowing. Rather than paying the entire cost of these projects from money already held in reserves, the City would borrow a portion and repay it, with interest, over time.

4. Would a vote on October 13 add $25.3 million to the debt immediately?

No. Council is being asked for first reading only. The bylaws would still need to be advertised and return to Council for second and third readings.

Even if they ultimately pass, they would authorize borrowing of *up to* $25.3 million. The report says the City would borrow only as project spending requires it, potentially over multiple years. (Agenda pages 21 and 25)

5. What would the borrowing cost?

Each proposed bylaw allows a repayment period of no more than 30 years and sets a maximum interest rate of 7.70% per year. That is a ceiling in the bylaws, not a statement that the City has already borrowed at that rate. The actual rate and repayment schedule would be set when borrowing takes place. (Agenda pages 24 and 27–34)

6. Who would repay it?

The bylaws say principal and interest would be paid from municipal utility revenue. Those costs would be reflected in future utility operating budgets.

The City would be the borrower, and the bylaws also say the debt would be issued on the credit and security of the municipality as a whole. (Agenda pages 24 and 27–34)

7. Does the agenda say what this would add to utility bills?

No. It says debt payments would be included in future utility budgets and rate requirements, but it does not calculate a household bill increase attributable to these four borrowing bylaws. (Agenda pages 24–26)

8. Can residents weigh in?

The report says no separate public participation was held specifically for this borrowing proposal. If Council gives first reading, the City plans to advertise the bylaws on October 17 and 24. The agenda says a petition must be filed with the City Clerk within 15 days after the last advertisement. Watch those notices for the details of that process. (Agenda pages 23–24)

The bottom line: October 13 is not a vote to create four new projects or to borrow $25.3 million on the spot. It is a vote on whether to begin authorizing long-term debt for projects Council has already included in the 2027 Utilities Budget. The amount actually borrowed, the interest rate and the effect on future utility rates are not settled by first reading.

Source: City of Red Deer, October 13, 2026 Council agenda, Item 4.1, pages 21–34. The agenda is available at reddeer.ca/CouncilMeetings

October 9, 2026

Whaaat… could the Kin Kanyon Rocket be coming back?!

I’ve posted numerous pictures and videos of the rocket, and every time, there’s a flood of memories in the comments. The happy memories, the smells , the chipping paint, I’m convinced just about everyone who grew up in Red Deer in the ’80s has a memory of that rocket.

Now, Chad Krahn - Red Deer City Councillor has announced he plans to propose an amendment to the capital budget to bring it back. The original was built in 1967. His Rocketship Rebirth idea would bring back a modern version designed with safety in mind.

As Chad put it in his announcement: “Good for my kids, good for your kids.”

It’s still a proposal. Council would have to debate it, consider the budget, and vote on whether to move forward. Chad says he’s excited to see where the conversation goes.

What’s your memory of the old rocket?

And would you support a modern version coming back to Kin Kanyon?

October 10, 2026

DEEP DIVE: Item 6.1, Incorporation of Electric Utility Municipally Controlled Corporation

Red Deer’s electric utility appears likely to move from a City department into a municipally controlled corporation.

At the October 13 Council meeting, Council will be asked to approve the framework for two City-owned corporations. The proposed articles identify them as “Holdco (City of Red Deer)” and “DTFO Subsidiary (City of Red Deer).”

One corporation would sit above the other. The subsidiary would eventually take on the electric utility’s assets and operations, if the required regulatory approval is granted.

Here is the breakdown, including a provision in the public documents that I find concerning.

1. What caught my attention?

The articles of incorporation for BOTH proposed corporations ask whether they are restricted from carrying on a certain type of business, or restricted to carrying on a certain type of business.

For both corporations, the answer is “None.” (pages 40–41)

The public articles themselves do not restrict either corporation to electric utility business. That stands out when the reason for creating them is to operate Red Deer’s electric utility.

This does not mean the corporations could simply do whatever they want. Other legal requirements and the shareholders agreement may place limits on them. But the agreement is confidential, so residents cannot see from this agenda what additional boundaries it might contain.

I would like Council to explain why neither set of articles specifies a business restriction, what limits exist elsewhere, and what would have to happen before either corporation took on a different type of business.

2. Has Council already decided to create a corporation?

Yes. After several years of analysis and a public hearing process, Council voted in June 2025 to authorize the City to establish and control an electric utility corporation.

The October 13 decision is a major step in carrying out that direction. Council is now being asked to approve documents that would govern the proposed structure.

3. Is the City selling its electric utility?

No sale is proposed. The October 13 motion says the City would remain the direct or indirect 100% owner and controller of both corporations.

But City ownership does not mean the utility would continue to operate exactly as it does today. It would eventually operate through a corporation with its own board, rather than as a City department. That is why the details of Council’s oversight matter.

4. What exactly would Council approve on October 13?

Council is being asked to approve the articles of incorporation for the holding corporation and its electric utility subsidiary, along with a Unanimous Shareholders Agreement that would apply to both.

The motion would also appoint Mayor Cindy Jefferies and the City’s General Manager of Operations, Sarah Tittemore, as interim directors.

The report does not say whether either person would receive additional compensation for serving as an interim director. It may be an unpaid role, but the agenda does not answer that question. Given the importance of these appointments, Council should clarify whether compensation is attached to the interim positions and how compensation for the future permanent board would be determined.

5. Why does the shareholders agreement matter?

According to the report, this agreement defines the relationship between the City, as shareholder, and the corporations. It identifies matters reserved for the shareholder and matters handled by the board.

Council is being asked to adopt it while keeping it confidential. The public can read the proposed articles of incorporation, but not the agreement that would explain much more about how decisions are divided between elected Council and the corporations.

Some legal or commercial details may need protection. Still, residents should be able to understand, in plain language, which major decisions would remain with Council, what authority a future board would have and how that board would be accountable to the public.

6. Why does Administration want this change?

Administration says the corporation model would give the electric utility more flexibility, stronger financial options, specialized oversight and more opportunities to plan for growth.

Those are the benefits Administration expects. They are not results that have already been achieved in Red Deer.

7. Would the electric utility move into the corporation right away?

No. The City still needs to develop an operating model, organizational design and financial transaction strategy. It would then need Alberta Utilities Commission approval to transfer the utility’s assets and operations.

Administration estimates that review would take 6 to 18 months after the application is submitted. Until a transfer is approved, the electric utility would continue operating as a City department.

8. Does this vote change electricity rates?

No rate increase is being approved through Item 6.1. This vote is about corporate structure and governance. The report also does not provide a forecast showing how the change might affect future rates, City finances or dividends.

9. Did the current Council vote to move forward with the MCC?

I could not find a vote by the Council elected in October 2025 that expressly approved moving ahead with the MCC. The decision to make that transition was made by the previous Council in June 2025.

The current Council did take a recorded vote on February 24, 2026. By a 5–4 margin, it asked Administration for a detailed analysis of selling the utility and a side-by-side comparison of the available options. That was a vote to get more information, not a vote to approve the MCC.

Administration brought that information back in March. Council did not change the earlier direction, so work on the MCC continued. It would be unfair to treat the 5–4 vote as a count of who supports or opposes the MCC itself.

My two cents

I am saddened that we are here. I believe Council has abdicated its fiduciary responsibility in its stewardship of this important public asset. I know that is a strong statement, and I do not make it lightly.

The City has spent years on this issue and has only somewhat examined other models. My concern is that the alternatives were not tested with the rigour a decision of this magnitude deserves. When Council asked for a side-by-side comparison and more specific measures for the other options, the resulting document was, in my view, one of the worst I have seen the City produce.

The October 13 agenda says that if Council does not approve or defers this recommendation, Administration would return for further direction. I am asking Council to take that off-ramp. Do not approve this governance framework yet. Pause the incorporation, take a serious second look at the alternatives and give Red Deerians a much clearer account of why this is the best way to protect an asset we all own.

Sources: City of Red Deer, October 13, 2026 Council agenda, Item 6.1, pages 35–41

October 9, 2026

DEEP DIVE: Item 3.2, October 13 Council Meeting - Federal Transit Grant

What could a federal transit grant mean for Red Deer?

Nearly $10 million in federal funding to help replace Red Deer’s buses is good news. For people who depend on transit to get to school, work or an appointment, having buses that reliably show up matters.

With that being said, I don’t want the headline number to leave the wrong impression. This is a proposed contribution toward replacing buses over 10 years. It is not a promise of new routes, and the federal government would not be paying the entire cost.

So what is Council actually being asked to approve?

1. What is the proposed vote?

Administration is asking Council to add $9,890,380 in federal grant funding to the City’s budget, allocated at $989,038 per year for 10 years.

The plan is to use it to help replace three buses each year. If that continues for the full decade, it would mean approximately 30 bus replacements.

This vote concerns federal grant revenue. It is not a request to approve $9.89 million in new City-funded spending.

2. Has Red Deer secured the money?

Not completely. The federal government approved Red Deer’s transit capital plan in principle in July, but the funding agreement has not been signed.

The federal letter says the City must sign that agreement and have the individual parts of its capital plan accepted before it can receive reimbursement. The City’s report says the draft agreement is also awaiting review and approval by the Government of Alberta.

In plain terms, Council can put the expected grant into the budget on October 13, but there are still steps to complete before the federal money is paid.

3. Are there conditions attached?

Yes. The federal government would cover no more than 40% of eligible capital costs. Red Deer must use fair and competitive purchasing processes and meet any applicable environmental-assessment or Indigenous-consultation requirements.

The letter also refers to housing, climate-resilience and greenhouse-gas commitments the City made in its application. I would like to know what those commitments are, because the agenda does not spell them out.

The City would remain responsible for costs the grant does not cover, including ineligible expenses, overruns and the ongoing cost of operating and maintaining the buses.

4. How will the remaining costs be paid?

The report describes the grant as a 40% contribution, but it does not provide a complete 10-year cost breakdown or clearly identify how the remaining share would be funded.

That does not mean Council is approving that entire share through this motion. It means we need more information to see the full financial picture behind the grant.

5. Will this mean more routes or shorter waits?

Not by itself. This plan is about replacing buses in the fleet. The agenda does not propose new routes, more frequent service or longer hours.

That distinction matters. A newer, dependable bus can help maintain the service we have, but it does not answer the questions residents have raised about where and how often buses run.

6. What kind of buses would the City buy?

The agenda does not identify specific buses. It says Red Deer advocated for federal transit funding to include compressed natural gas and diesel buses. The attached federal letter does not say which types the City will ultimately purchase.

7. How many people use Red Deer Transit?

The report gives us trips rather than a count of individual riders. Red Deer Transit provided 2,745,000 passenger trips in 2025. That included approximately 1,425,000 trips for middle- and high-school students and 448,000 trips using the Transit Fare Assistance Pass.

Those numbers help explain why replacing buses is more than a behind-the-scenes purchase. Many daily journeys depend on the fleet working.

8. What happens on October 13?

Item 3.2 is on the consent agenda. Council may approve it along with other items or choose to discuss it separately.

I think the grant is worth paying attention to. It could provide substantial help with replacing buses, but the figure on the front page is only one part of the story. I’ll be looking for answers on the full cost of the 10-year plan, how the remaining costs will be covered and what Red Deer has committed to in order to receive the funding.

Source: Red Deer City Council agenda for October 13, 2026, item 3.2, pages 12–19, including the federal approval-in-principle letter on pages 15–19.

October 8, 2026

PARKING WARS: Council asked for a housing-focused parking review. The proposed bylaw reaches much further.

First, yes, the image is satire. And no, this proposal would not automatically cut required parking by 70% tomorrow.

What is real is the reach of the proposed bylaw. It would add new criteria for deciding requests to build with fewer on-site parking spaces. Those criteria would generally apply across Red Deer, not just to housing and care facilities. Each request would still be decided separately, but this could matter in any neighbourhood where a reduction is approved.

Here is how we got here.

In January, Council asked Administration for options to reduce parking requirements by up to 70% for subsidized housing developments and Temporary Care Facilities.

The bylaw Council is now considering does not limit its proposed parking-variance rules to those developments. Administration’s report says the option Council selected “generally applies across uses and Zones,” subject to certain zoning restrictions.

That difference in scope is what Council needs to address at the October 13 public hearing.

1. Why did Council start this review?

Council was concerned that standard parking requirements could make subsidized housing and Temporary Care Facilities harder to build. Its January motion asked Administration to explore giving the Development Authority discretion to reduce those requirements by up to 70% for those developments.

It was a specific request aimed at a specific housing problem.

2. What did Administration bring back?

Four options. One proposed a separate parking standard for certain qualifying non-market apartments, townhouses and Temporary Care Facilities. It was narrower than the option now before Council, although it did not cover every development named in the original motion.

Administration recommended Option 2 instead. It keeps parking reductions as case-by-case variances, but places guidance for those decisions in the Zoning Bylaw. Unlike the January motion, those proposed rules are not limited to subsidized housing or Temporary Care Facilities.

Council debated the narrower option at length on September 15. After it failed, Council gave Option 2 first reading. First reading did not make the bylaw law; it advanced it to a public hearing which is where we are on October 13th.

3. What does the proposed bylaw actually say?

Its new criteria would apply when the Development Authority considers “a variance to a Parking regulation.” They refer to the parking demand of a “proposed Development.” They do not say the development must be subsidized housing or a Temporary Care Facility.

The criteria include nearby transit and services, available on-street parking, expected parking demand, and any parking or traffic study. The agenda says the approach generally applies across uses and zones, although specific Direct Control, overlay or site-specific provisions may still restrict it.

4. Would this give every development 70% fewer parking spaces?

No. Red Deer already has a process for considering parking variances. The proposed bylaw would not give developers an automatic reduction or guarantee approval of any particular request.

A developer would have to apply, and the Development Authority would have to assess that development’s circumstances and evidence. The proposal adds criteria for making that decision.

It would also require a Development Officer to refer a request for a reduction of MORE than 70% to the Municipal Planning Commission or Council, as applicable. Seventy per cent is therefore a mandatory referral threshold, not an absolute maximum. An officer could also refer a smaller request.

5. Would neighbours have an opportunity to respond?

The agenda says a permit requiring a variance would still be published and subject to a 21-day appeal period before it could be issued.

That distinction mattered in Council’s September discussion. Several councillors were concerned that the narrower option’s fixed parking standard could, in qualifying permitted-use cases, remove the ordinary variance-based notice and appeal process. Option 2 keeps the case-by-case variance process.

I’ll add that the public-notice process can be hard to follow. Unless you regularly check the Advocate, click through the City’s “Advertising” page or happen to see my advertising Facebook posts, a chance to respond can easily come and go without you knowing about it. I do my best to share these notices, but keeping up shouldn’t require becoming a City Hall research junkie like me, haha.

6. Did Council know Option 2 could apply more broadly?

I cannot know what each councillor understood. Administration did state during its September presentation that Option 2’s criteria would apply across uses and zones. It would not be fair to say Council was never told.

At the same time, the original motion, report title and much of the debate centred on housing. Council spent considerable time discussing the narrower option, then gave the broader Option 2 first reading with little further discussion. That leaves a fair question: did Council fully weigh what Option 2 could mean for other kinds of development across Red Deer?

7. The Provincial announcement.

On October 8, Alberta announced that Edmonton would have to restore earlier minimum on-site parking requirements as part of changes to its high-density infill rules. The province also directed a different zoning measure in Calgary.

Those directions do not apply to Red Deer and are not the same as this proposal. They are context showing that parking requirements and neighbourhood impacts are being debated elsewhere in Alberta. Red Deer still needs to decide this bylaw on its own merits.

8. What happens next, and my opinion.

The public hearing is scheduled for 5 p.m. on Tuesday, October 13, at City Hall. Council can then pass, amend, defer or reject the proposed bylaw.

My two cents: The original idea was understandable. Reducing required parking for certain housing and care facilities could leave more room for the building itself. I thought a reduction of up to 70% was too large, but the idea had merit and deserved to be debated.

I do not believe Council set out to create a parking-variance framework that generally applies across Red Deer when it asked about two particular kinds of development. That is my assessment, not something I can prove about every councillor’s intention. Administration did disclose Option 2’s broader reach, however I do find it odd that such a broad option was recommended in response to a focused request.

Parking can sound like a small issue if you have a reliable space in your driveway. For people who regularly have to park away from home, it can be a frustration when they leave in the morning and when they return at night. It can affect daily life and create tension between neighbours.

Council now has another chance to decide what it wants this bylaw to do. My view is that it should reject this bylaw and ask Administration to return with options expressly focused on the developments named in the original motion. That would keep a worthwhile housing discussion alive without adopting a much broader approach before its effects have been fully examined.

Sources: Red Deer City Council agenda, October 13, 2026, item 8.2, pages 243–259; September 15 Council discussion; Government of Alberta, “Growing neighbourhoods responsibly,” October 8, 2026.

October 5, 2026

DEEP DIVE, PART 2: The rules behind Red Deer’s citizen appointments

Alongside reviewing applications on October 7, Red Deer’s Nomination Committee will consider an update to the Council policy governing how citizen representatives are recruited, assessed and recommended for appointment.

This matters beyond this year’s 35 vacancies. The policy sets the framework for future appointments to Council committees, boards and other bodies.

The current policy was adopted in 2012 and last revised in 2021. The Nomination Committee is being asked to recommend a new version to Council. It cannot approve the policy on its own.

So what would the proposed update actually do?

1. What does this policy cover?

Think of it as the rulebook for the nomination process. It describes how the City recruits applicants, how the Nomination Committee reviews them, and how recommendations are sent to Council.

The basic arrangement would stay the same: the committee recommends people, and Council makes the final appointments. Applications would still be reviewed against a scoring matrix for the relevant committee.

The proposed update adds a fuller explanation of the process and the principles intended to guide it. The important details are in how some of those rules are worded.

2. What happens to applicant scoring?

This change deserves close attention.

Under the current policy, Nomination Committee members individually score each application before meeting together. Their scores are then combined to help identify candidates.

Under the proposed policy, members may score applications before the meeting, and their scores may be combined. It also says scores are a decision-support tool and do not, by themselves, determine the recommendation.

That does not eliminate scoring. The draft still calls for a scoring matrix for each committee and says applications will be reviewed against it. But it removes the current requirement for every member to score every application individually before the meeting.

That provides more flexibility, while making the process less precisely prescribed.

3. Who would control the supporting procedures?

The proposed policy says administrative procedures supporting it will be established and maintained by the City Manager or a designate.

The Council-approved policy would remain public. But the draft does not say whether those supporting procedures would be published, how changes to them would be reported, or which details would remain in the Council policy.

That distinction matters. Documenting decisions internally does not necessarily mean residents can see how the process works.

4. Are there other steps that become less specific?

Yes.

The current policy says individualized application forms are developed for each committee. The proposed policy says they will be developed “where appropriate.”

The current policy also refers to an annual review of committees when discussing feedback from departing members. The new wording keeps exit questionnaires but no longer expressly mentions that annual review in this policy. You can compare the current wording on page 29 with the proposed wording on page 26.

Neither change proves those practices will stop. It does mean they would no longer be stated in the same way in this Council policy.

There is also a change involving the Library Board, River Bend Golf and Recreation Society, and Red Deer Regional Airport Authority. Their chairs currently provide comments and recommendations on applicants. Under the draft, they would provide comments, which the Nomination Committee would consider alongside its scoring matrix and the needs of the board.

5. What safeguards would be added?

The proposed policy says Nomination Committee members must disclose an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest involving an applicant. Where appropriate, they would step aside from reviewing, discussing, scoring or recommending that person.

It also says the assessment and recommendation process must be documented sufficiently to show how recommendations were developed.

Those are clearer requirements than the current policy contains. The draft also lists actions Council can take, including declining a recommendation, sending it back or requesting more information.

Council’s final authority is not new, though. The question is whether councillors receive enough information to make an informed, independent decision.

6. What does the agenda say about demographic outreach?

The recruitment report says the City reached out to community organizations, professional associations and demographic groups aligned with committee mandates and recruitment needs. That describes how the City promoted the available positions.

The proposed policy also speaks about a range of skills, experience, knowledge, perspectives and community representation. 

A separate feedback appendix raises the possibility of reviewing how diversity and demographic information is collected in the future. That future consideration should not be confused with a requirement being adopted at this meeting.

7. What will the public be able to see?

The report says no public participation was undertaken in developing the policy update.

Of course, some information should remain private, including applicants’ résumés and personal assessments. But protecting that information does not settle every transparency question.

For example, publishing the names of proposed appointees before Council votes, with their consent, would give residents an opportunity to identify potential conflicts before appointments are final. The proposed policy does not guarantee that step.

The answer on transparency is mixed. Conflict disclosures and better documentation could improve accountability. At the same time, required individual pre-meeting scoring becomes optional, individualized forms become conditional, and the draft does not say whether the supporting procedures set by the City Manager will be public.

Council’s authority is not the concern. The concern is whether Council receives the criteria, assessments and explanation needed to examine recommendations rather than simply approve them, and whether residents can see enough of that process to have confidence in it.

Before this policy moves forward, I would like to know which supporting procedures will be public, whether every application will still receive an individual score, and what information Council will receive to understand how each recommendation was reached.

The Nomination Committee will consider the proposed policy on October 7. Any recommendation it makes must still go to Council for a final decision.

Sources: Red Deer Nomination Committee agenda, October 7, 2026; Municipal Government Act; City of Red Deer Committees Bylaw.

October 5, 2026

COUNCIL REVIEW, PART 2: The background behind the Westerner meeting

I’m never quite sure which agenda items will spark discussion on this page. When one does, I like to dig a little deeper and give everyone more context.

This is part two of my look at the Westerner item coming to Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, October 6. Some of this may repeat what I shared earlier, but I want to make the history and the decisions ahead as clear as I can. I’ve also included my own thoughts near the end.

Before looking at the decisions ahead, here’s how we got here:

• The City owns the land at Westerner Park. WEA is a separate organization that operates on that land under a long-term lease. WEA’s audited financial statements say the land rent is $1 per year and has been paid for the full lease term.

• Westerner approached the City for help after experiencing financial difficulties in 2019. The City says the Exhibition Hall expansion, event contracts, economic conditions and, later, the pandemic contributed to those difficulties.

• In 2021, the City borrowed $19 million and lent it to WEA so WEA could pay off its existing bank debt related to the Exhibition Hall. WEA owes the City under that loan; the City remains responsible for repaying its own borrowing.

• The City and WEA also signed a Relationship Framework Agreement in 2021. It sets out expectations for financial reporting, oversight, communication and long-term planning. WEA remains a separate organization.

• In 2023, Council approved a $1-million contingency line of credit for WEA and changed aspects of the Exhibition Hall loan’s repayment terms.

• In January 2025, Council paused principal and interest payments on the Exhibition Hall loan until April 1, 2027. The City said the debt was not forgiven. WEA’s audited statements show approximately $18.6 million owing to the City as of March 31, 2026, including the Exhibition Hall loans, accrued interest and the separate line of credit.

So why is Council discussing Westerner now?

Three decisions are approaching:

1. The Relationship Framework Agreement expires March 31, 2027, and will need to be reviewed for renewal.

2. The October 6 agenda says two existing loan agreements need to be renegotiated by March 31, 2027.

3. WEA is developing “Vision 2041” and a 15-year Master Plan. Under the current agreement, Council identifies key elements the plan must address, and both Council and WEA must approve the Master Plan for it to take effect. Administration says Council’s guidance needs to reach WEA in November.

At the October 6 meeting, Administration plans to review the history with councillors, and consultants will help gather Council’s input for later decisions. Part of the meeting is scheduled to be closed. The public motion is only to receive the report for information.

Council is not being asked to approve a new loan agreement or Master Plan on October 6. But the discussion may shape the choices brought to a future public Council meeting.

My two cents on the Westerner:

I don’t see Westerner Park going anywhere. In my opinion, changes to its agreements with the City do not remotely mean the Rebels will leave or that events will stop being hosted.

The question is what the relationship between the City and WEA should look like going forward. Should the City take on a larger role or explore an ownership stake in some facilities? Should Westerner take on more responsibility for repaying the loan? Or should the current arrangement largely continue?

There is much to discuss, and there should be. When taxpayer money is involved, accountability needs to be there.

I’m looking forward to seeing how this broader discussion plays out.

Sources: October 6 Special Committee of the Whole agenda; City of Red Deer’s Westerner background and loan updates; Westerner Exposition Association audited financial statements for the year ended March 31, 2026

October 5, 2026

DEEP DIVE, PART 1: 60 applications for 35 citizen positions

Red Deer’s Nomination Committee meets Wednesday, October 7, at 5 p.m. to review applications for positions on Council-appointed committees, boards and societies.

The City received 60 applications for 35 vacancies.

1. What does the Nomination Committee do?

It reviews applications and recommends people for appointment. The committee does not make the final appointments. Its recommendations go to City Council for consideration.

2. Where are the vacancies?

The 35 openings are spread across 11 bodies, including the Greater Downtown Governance committee, the Housing and Homelessness Integration Committee, the Red Deer Library Board, the Policing Committee and the Red Deer & District FCSS Board.

Interest varies. Greater Downtown Governance received 15 applications for eight vacancies. The FCSS Board received eight applications for two vacancies. The Audit Committee received one application for two vacancies.

These are application counts, not necessarily a count of individual people. The agenda does not say whether anyone applied to more than one body.

3. Does receiving 60 applications mean every position will be filled?

No. The report flags five positions that would remain vacant after this appointment round:

• One on the Audit Committee
• Two on the Housing and Homelessness Integration Committee: an Indigenous community representative and a business community representative
• Two on the Intermunicipal Subdivision and Development Appeal Board

Some positions require particular qualifications or representation. The public agenda does not explain the assessment of individual applicants, so the application totals alone cannot tell us why each position may remain open.

Administration says it may continue recruiting for unfilled positions.

4. How are applicants assessed?

The City updated its application materials this year after receiving feedback from the Mayor, councillors, committee chairs and City staff who work with the committees.

Some applications now ask more specific questions about the skills a particular committee needs. For example, FCSS applicants were asked about experience with government funding and budgets, while the Audit Committee added a résumé requirement.

The Nomination Committee may consider an applicant’s experience, knowledge, community involvement and understanding of the role. It can also consider what skills are already represented on a board and, for someone seeking reappointment, their attendance and contribution.

5. Why is part of the meeting closed?

The committee will discuss individual applications in a closed meeting. Applications and assessments contain personal information and are not included in the public agenda.

The committee’s recommendations will then be brought to Council. Council, not the Nomination Committee, makes the final appointment decisions.

There is a second major item at this meeting: proposed changes to the rules used to recruit and recommend citizen representatives. Some changes add accountability, while others make existing steps less specific. I’ll break those down separately in Part 2.

Source: Red Deer Nomination Committee agenda, October 7, 2026.

October 5, 2026

DEEP DIVE: What is the FCSS Board discussing on October 6?

The Red Deer & District Family and Community Support Services (FCSS) Board meets Tuesday, October 6, at 5 p.m.

The main public item on the agenda is titled “Alberta Municipalities Emergent Resolution.” It follows up on Red Deer’s request for better provincial funding for early intervention and practical community supports.

So how did that request get here, and what is the Board doing with it?

1. What is FCSS?

FCSS stands for Family and Community Support Services. The local Board oversees funded community projects and considers issues related to prevention and early intervention services.

2. Why is this Board discussing a provincial resolution?

Red Deer City Council brought a proposed resolution to Alberta Municipalities, an organization through which municipalities advocate on shared issues. Before its September convention, the Red Deer & District FCSS Board reviewed the proposal and a suggested amendment.

The October 6 report tells the Board what happened to that proposal at the convention.

3. What did Red Deer originally ask for?

Red Deer wanted Alberta Municipalities to ask the provincial government for long-term, sustainable, needs-based funding for “complementary prevention services.” The proposal said that funding should expand access to early intervention and practical community supports.

It also asked for continued collaboration between FCSS and the broader social-service and prevention systems.

4. What changed?

The Board considered an amended version provided by the FCSSAA. It kept the request for long-term, sustainable, needs-based funding but added several important details:

• The funding should be “net-new,” meaning additional funding rather than money taken from existing programs.

• It should support community-based early intervention and practical supports that address gaps between preventative services and crisis or acute services.

• Existing funding for preventative programs and services should not be reallocated or reduced to pay for it.

• Rather than asking generally for continued collaboration, the resolution now calls for a coordinated approach across provincial ministries, based on local needs.

In simpler terms, the amended resolution asks for additional funding to address a specific service gap while protecting the prevention funding already in place. It does not name particular programs or provincial ministries.

5. Did the amended resolution pass?

Yes. The local FCSS Board voted to support the amended version on September 10. The meeting minutes record 13 votes in favour, with one member absent.

Alberta Municipalities members then approved it at their September 23–25 convention as Resolution 2026.E1, titled “Investing in Prevention: Strengthening FCSS and Community Well-Being.”

6. Does that mean the province has approved new funding?

No. The resolution calls on Alberta Municipalities to advocate to the Government of Alberta. The agenda does not report a provincial funding decision, a dollar amount or a date when new services would begin.

That distinction matters: municipalities have agreed on what to ask for. The agenda does not say Alberta has agreed to provide it.

7. What will the FCSS Board decide on October 6?

The proposed motion is to receive the convention result for information. The report says no further Board action is required on the resolution at this meeting.

8. What else is on the agenda?

Two items are scheduled for closed discussion: a monitoring summary for FCSS-funded projects and a letter from Red Deer Catholic Regional Schools. The public agenda provides their titles but not their contents. It also includes a place for business arising from the closed meeting, so I will watch for any public action afterward.

An administration update says the City is working to fill an FCSS Program Specialist vacancy. FCSS has also been invited to present to City Council at Community Investment Day on October 15, with representatives from funded agencies invited to attend.

The October 6 meeting is mainly a follow-up on an advocacy request that has already passed at Alberta Municipalities. The wording of that request is much more specific than the original: new funding, no reduction to existing prevention funding, and coordination across provincial ministries. What response it receives from the province is not yet answered in this agenda.

Source: Red Deer & District FCSS Board agenda, October 6, 2026.

October 4, 2026

DEEP DIVE: Why Westerner Park is back before Council

Red Deer’s Special Committee of the Whole meets Tuesday, October 6, at 2 p.m. The agenda has one major topic: the City’s relationship with the organization that operates Westerner Park.

Why is this coming up now?

Three decisions are approaching:

1. The City’s agreement with the Westerner expires March 31, 2027, and will need to be renewed.
2. Two existing loan agreements must be renegotiated by that same date.
3. The Westerner is developing a long-term plan called Vision 2041, and Council needs to identify what it wants included in the site’s future master plan.

The City says it intends to provide Council’s key priorities to the Westerner’s board in November 2026. (Agenda pages 2–4)

How did the City become so involved?

The City owns the land and leases it to the Westerner. In 2021, after a significant financial investment, the two parties signed a Relationship Framework Agreement. It sets out expectations for financial reporting, planning, oversight and how they work together. (Page 3)

The agenda also reminds Council of an important 2021 decision: the City agreed to pay out the Westerner’s CIBC loans. The repayment arrangement called for $10 million to be repaid over 30 years, with another $9 million to be repaid as the organization was able, based on its annual operating results. Those are the terms of the earlier decision, **not** a statement of what remains owing today. The October 6 package does not give current loan balances. (Page 4)

What is Council being asked to decide on October 6?

The proposed public motion is simply to receive the report for information. Administration will review the history, and consultants will help Council discuss what should guide its future decisions. The agenda does not propose approving a new master plan, changing the loans or renewing the agreement at this meeting. (Page 2)

Will the discussion be public?

Part of it is scheduled as a closed meeting. The City cites provisions concerning advice from officials, potential harm to its economic interests and privileged information. The agenda also includes a public report. Administration says its discussion with Council is intended to inform decisions at a future Council meeting. (Pages 1–2)

Was the public consulted for this report?

No. The report says no public participation was undertaken at this stage because Administration relied on internal expertise. It also says final decisions rest with Council. (Page 5)

The important thing to watch is what comes back to Council publicly: the priorities for Westerner Park’s future, updated terms for the two loans, and a renewed agreement that protects the City’s interests while supporting a major community and event space.

I’ll do my best follow the decisions as they come forward. For now, this meeting is about preparing for them, not making them.

Source: City of Red Deer, Special Committee of the Whole agenda, October 6, 2026, Item 3.1, pages 1–5.

October 4, 2026

COUNCIL PREVIEW: A major October 13 meeting is taking shape

On Tuesday, October 6, Red Deer’s Council Agenda Review Committee will look at draft agendas for several upcoming meetings.

This is an early look at what may be coming before Council. The nine-page package lists the topics, but it does not include the detailed reports needed to fully evaluate each proposal. The agendas may still change.

The draft October 13 Council meeting is particularly significant.

1. The 2027 Capital Budget

Council is scheduled to make a decision on the proposed Capital Budget. This is the approximately $80.24-million budget we worked through in the 10-part series.

I will be watching whether Council receives clearer project details, seriously considers lower-cost options and responds to the affordability concerns residents have raised.

2. A possible corporation for the electric utility

The draft agenda includes a closed discussion about incorporating the electric utility as a municipally controlled corporation, followed by a report in the public meeting.

That could be a significant change in how the utility is organized. At this stage, the agenda gives us a title, not the proposal or its implications. I will examine the report when it becomes available.

3. Borrowing for water and wastewater projects

Four borrowing bylaws are listed for first reading. They relate to annual water and wastewater infrastructure work and rehabilitation at the water and wastewater treatment plants.

The draft agenda does not give the proposed borrowing amounts. First reading would begin the bylaw process; it would not, by itself, tell us the final outcome.

4. Changes to Council’s committees

A new Committees Bylaw is listed for second and third reading. We will need the full report and bylaw text to understand what would change.

5. Two public hearings at 5 p.m.

Council is scheduled to hear from the public on the zoning omnibus amendment and the proposed parking-variance amendment.

I will be paying particularly close attention to the parking proposal. The City describes it as concerning subsidized housing and temporary care facilities, but questions have already been raised about how broadly the proposed wording could apply. The actual bylaw text matters here.

If you want written comments on either public-hearing item included in the Council agenda, the City lists a deadline of **4:30 p.m. Monday, October 5**. Send them to:

publichearings@reddeer.ca

The draft agendas also preview a Community Investment Day on October 15, a water-modernization discussion on October 19 and a Committee of the Whole meeting on October 22.

I will go through the detailed agendas and reports as they become available and bring you a closer look at the items that need it.

Source: City of Red Deer, Council Agenda Review Committee package, October 6, 2026, pages 1–8; City of Red Deer, Upcoming Public Hearings

October 2, 2026

LAST DAY TO HAVE YOUR SAY ON THE 2027 CAPITAL BUDGET

Today, October 2, is the final day to submit feedback regarding Red Deer’s proposed 2027 Capital Budget.

You have until midnight tonight to email your comments to:

budget@reddeer.ca

I wanted to share the email I sent to Council below.

Your submission does not need to be as long or detailed as mine. Even a short message asking Council to consider affordability, prioritize essential needs and carefully examine opportunities for savings is worthwhile.

You could simply write:

“I am concerned about the cumulative effect of utility charges, property taxes and other rising costs. Please prioritize essential needs, look carefully for savings and be thoughtful about what Red Deer families can realistically afford.”

What matters is that Council hears directly from the people it represents.

MY EMAIL TO COUNCIL:

Mayor and Council,

I am writing to ask Council to continue evaluating every reasonable opportunity to reduce the proposed 2027 Capital Budget before approving it.

The public comments submitted regarding the Utilities Budget provided a clear picture of the affordability pressures facing Red Deer residents.

Seniors living on fixed incomes, single-income households, parents and small-business owners described the cumulative effects of higher grocery, housing, insurance, property-tax, utility and other everyday costs. One resident wrote that they were trying to survive from payday to payday. Another explained that additional costs could affect whether they could afford medication or gas.

These comments should not be considered only when Council discusses utility rates. They should inform every major financial decision made by the City, including the Capital Budget.

I recognize that Red Deer must maintain its roads, bridges, buildings, emergency equipment and other essential infrastructure. Deferring necessary maintenance can create greater costs and risks in the future.

However, for my own household, I estimate that the combined utility increase and MCAF will add costs roughly equivalent to 10% of my current property-tax bill.

It was a shock to see the Utilities Budget approved unanimously. I expected Council to push back harder, ask more difficult questions and demand credible options for reducing the increase.

I want you to understand that if Council later approves a 3% property-tax increase, which is considered “low” compared with the fiscal outlook, the combined additional cost to my household would be roughly equivalent to 13% of my current property-tax bill.

Affordability cannot be considered one budget at a time. Council must examine the cumulative effect of every increase being placed on the same families.

The proposed Capital Budget should focus first on essential needs, public safety and preventing more expensive infrastructure failures.

Projects that are desirable but not immediately necessary should face a higher test. In some cases, the City may need to take additional time and pursue grants, sponsorships, fundraising, nonprofit involvement or other community partnerships before asking taxpayers to carry the entire cost.

Residents are already revisiting their household budgets repeatedly to make them work. The City must demonstrate that it is applying the same level of scrutiny to its own spending.

I also want to be clear that the Capital Budget, as publicly presented, creates a significant credibility problem.

Council is being asked to approve millions of dollars while residents are given little more than broad project names, short descriptions and total amounts.

That does not necessarily mean these projects are unjustified. It means the information provided is insufficient for residents to determine whether the proposed scope and cost are reasonable.

For example:

• “Paved Network Roadway Management” requests $7.19 million. The description refers broadly to preventative maintenance, repaving and reconstruction, but does not identify which roads will receive work or how the money is divided among them.

• “Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement” requests $4.67 million and refers to 69 City bridge structures. It does not identify which bridges are scheduled for work in 2027, what work will be performed or how much is allocated to each project.

• “Community Development Facilities Service Improvements” requests $4.11 million and says the 2027 funding is for the Indigenous Cultures Centre. However, the summary does not explain exactly what will be built, what outcomes the expenditure will produce or whether additional funding will be required in future years.

• “Corporate Systems” requests $2.70 million for the second phase of a human-capital-management project. The description lists several functions but does not provide the project’s complete cost, the amount previously spent, the procurement approach or the measurable savings and improvements expected from the investment.

• “Parks Facilities and Amenities Service Improvements” requests $2.57 million for Centennial Plaza, the municipal parks yard, River Bend Golf and Recreation Area and other park amenities. It does not provide a clear allocation for each location or describe the specific work residents would receive for the money.

• “City Website Replacement and Modernization” requests $910,000 and lists several desired features. However, the summary does not provide a cost breakdown, a comparison of available options, anticipated ongoing operating costs or evidence explaining why this amount represents the best value.

These projects may have valid explanations behind them. The problem is that those explanations are not included in sufficient detail in the information provided to the public.

How can residents determine whether $4.67 million for bridge work or $2.57 million for park improvements is reasonable when they are not told precisely what will be completed?

How can Council meaningfully compare a full proposal with a lower-cost alternative when the scope, procurement plan and expected outcomes are not clearly presented?

A broad project title and a short paragraph are not enough when Council is being asked to approve millions of dollars.

Before approving these requests, Council should receive and make public:

• The specific work included in each major budget line
• A breakdown of costs by location, asset or project component
• The amount previously spent and the complete anticipated project cost
• The proposed procurement and delivery method
• Reasonable lower-cost, reduced-scope or phased alternatives
• The consequences of delaying the project for one year
• The measurable results residents should expect from the expenditure

We live in an age when detailed project information, cost comparisons and supporting documents can be made publicly available with relative ease. Providing only the bare minimum for multimillion-dollar decisions is no longer acceptable.

Red Deerians deserve enough information to understand what they are purchasing and enough detail to judge whether the proposed cost is reasonable.

We are better than this.

I believe you, as the elected representatives of Red Deerians, understand that approving a budget is not simply about accepting the requests placed before you. It is about pushing back, asking difficult questions and ensuring the public receives complete and credible answers.

This may be one of the most difficult responsibilities you face during the Capital Budget and the upcoming Operating Budget, but it is also one of the most important.

As I have said, we are better than this, and demonstrating that starts with you.

Procurement deserves greater scrutiny

The City already has a Corporate Procurement Policy. It states that procurement must be open, fair and transparent, provide equal access to qualified suppliers and achieve “Best Value” through commercially reasonable business practices.

The policy defines Best Value as the optimal combination of price, technical merit, quality and sustainability. It also states that purchases over $10,000 must go through a fair, open, transparent and competitive process.

Those are appropriate principles. The problem is that the Capital Budget provides residents with very little evidence showing how successfully they are being applied.

The question is not simply whether the City has a procurement policy. The question is whether that policy is consistently producing the best possible result for taxpayers.

The same policy gives the City Manager and General Managers unlimited purchasing authority, Department Managers purchasing authority of up to $1 million and authorized department employees purchasing authority of up to $200,000.

I recognize that Administration requires reasonable authority to conduct the City’s business efficiently. However, significant delegated authority makes strong Council oversight and meaningful public reporting even more important.

The City’s Contracts Policy states that contracting must be transparent, promote sound financial stewardship and provide a sound system of internal controls. It also requires signed contracts to be maintained in a centralized inventory and requires contract managers to monitor performance, maintain records and oversee amendments and change orders.

That means the information should exist for Council to examine whether the City’s procurement system is delivering the promised results.

Before approving the Capital Budget, I encourage Council to ask for a report showing:

• How many bidders responded to each major procurement
• How frequently the City received only one or two compliant bids
• How often a contract was awarded above its original estimate
• How often Best Value did not mean selecting the lowest-priced compliant bid, and why
• The original and final values of major contracts
• The number and value of contract amendments and change orders
• The procurement method used for each major capital project
• The measurable savings or cost avoidance attributed to the procurement process
• Whether completed projects achieved their promised outcomes

I also note that the Corporate Procurement Policy says it will be evaluated every three years, while the publicly posted document was last revised in August 2022.

The Contracts Policy also requires review every three years, but its publicly posted document was last revised in July 2020.

A review may have occurred without requiring amendments. However, Council should ask when these policies were last formally evaluated, what was learned from those reviews and whether any changes are needed to respond to current financial pressures.

I am not suggesting that the existence of delegated authority or an older revision date proves anything improper. I am saying that Council should not assume the procurement system is achieving the best possible results without receiving the evidence necessary to verify it.

The City already promises transparency, competition, accountability and Best Value. Council should require measurable reporting that demonstrates those promises are being fulfilled.

A project does not necessarily need to be cancelled to produce savings. It may be possible to reduce its scope, phase the work over additional years, change the delivery method or secure outside funding.

I am asking Council to distinguish clearly between what Red Deer needs in 2027 and what the City would like to undertake if sufficient funding becomes available.

Essential infrastructure and public-safety requirements should come first. For desirable improvements that are not urgent, the City should take the time to build community partnerships and secure other funding before placing the full cost on residents.

Where the budget does not provide enough information to establish that a request is necessary, appropriately scoped and competitively priced, Council should defer approval until that information is available.

Residents should be able to see that the City has challenged its assumptions, considered credible lower-cost alternatives and exhausted reasonable opportunities to save money before approving the final Capital Budget.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Sincerely,

Calvin Goulet-Jones 

October 2, 2026

TODAY IS THE DEADLINE: Have your say on Red Deer’s proposed 2027 Capital Budget

Over the past several days, I have worked through Red Deer’s proposed Capital Budget line by line.

The proposal includes approximately $80.24 million for roads, bridges, parks, City buildings, emergency equipment, technology, underground infrastructure, vehicles, public transit and other projects.

It also relies on approximately:

• $36.88 million from City reserves
• $33.20 million from grants
• $5.41 million in new debt
• $3.84 million from developer or customer contributions
• $910,000 from operating funds

The budget documents also identify $21.38 million in projects reduced, deferred or removed from the 2027 column.

There are projects in this budget that residents may strongly support. There may also be spending you believe should be reduced, delayed or explained more clearly.

Either position is worth sharing.

Today, October 2, is the deadline to submit your feedback to the City.

Email your comments to:

[budget@reddeer.ca](mailto\:budget@reddeer.ca)

You do not need to write a long or technical submission. Tell Council what you support, what concerns you and what you believe should be prioritized.

Remember: Comments on Facebook help create public discussion, but emailing the City is how you can place your views directly in front of Council.

Final deadline: Midnight tonight, October 2

Council is scheduled to debate and consider approving the Capital Budget on October 13.

Review the proposed budget:

[https://www.reddeer.ca/budget](https://www.reddeer.ca/budget)

Submit your feedback:

budget@reddeer.ca

October 1, 2026

DON’T LOSE HOPE: Your voice still matters

It may feel pointless to write to Council after the Utilities Budget was unanimously approved, despite not one of the 35 published public submissions supporting the proposed increase.

However, please do not lose hope.

Continue writing. Share your thoughts about the proposed Capital Budget, even if only so you can look back and say, “I did what I could.”

You may not always receive the result you wanted, but it is still worth telling Council what you support, what concerns you and how proposed changes may affect your household or community.

I was genuinely pleased that so many people wrote about the Utilities Budget.

Thirty five submissions may not sound like many in a city of more than 100,000 people, but the City Manager acknowledged that it was encouraging to see that level of public engagement.

Now imagine if 35 submissions became 100, 200 or 500.

Council cannot fully understand what residents are thinking if residents remain silent. Every submission adds another voice to the public record and demonstrates that people are paying attention.

It only takes a few minutes to share your opinion.

The deadline to comment on the proposed 2027 Capital Budget is midnight on October 2 so make sure you write in right now so you don't miss that deadline.

Email your thoughts to:

budget@reddeer.ca

Even if you do not get the result you want, make sure your voice is heard.

October 1, 2026

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER: Here is what residents said about the Utility Budget

Better late than never.

Although the Appendix B addendum was not posted publicly until earlier today, I am pleased that it finally was.

These are the comments residents submitted before the September 18 deadline regarding the proposed 2027 Utilities Budget. They should have been publicly available before Council debated and approved the budget on September 29.

They were not.

Council approved the budget unanimously, and the public comments became available two days later.

So, what did you have to say?

The addendum contains 35 numbered submissions across 18 pages.

Not one expressed support for the proposed increase..

1. Affordability was the dominant concern

Residents repeatedly said they are already struggling with higher costs for groceries, housing, insurance, fuel, property taxes and other necessities.

The submissions included seniors living on fixed incomes, single-income households, parents and small-business operators.

One resident wrote:

“I’m just trying to survive payday by payday.”

Another explained that the additional cost could affect whether they could afford medication or gas.

2. Residents asked Council to find savings first

Many submissions did not simply say “no.”

Residents asked Council to examine operating expenses, administrative costs, staffing, project timing, reserve contributions, utility transfers and spending that could be reduced or delayed without compromising essential services.

One detailed submission proposed a priority-based review of City services, asking:

• Should the City be doing this?
• Is the City the right organization to do it?
• Is the result worth the investment?

3. Several residents questioned paying more while receiving less

Garbage collection, snow removal, grass maintenance, back-alley maintenance and general service levels were all raised.

The common concern was that household costs continue rising while some residents believe the level of service is declining.

4. The MCAF increase was a significant concern

Several residents raised the Municipal Consent and Access Fee, or MCAF, which Council previously increased from 15% to 20%.

Some described it as another tax collected through utility bills. Others questioned how much of the proposed increase was connected to money being transferred from the utilities to the City.

5. Residents proposed alternatives

The suggestions included:

• Reducing or gradually phasing in the increase
• Considering an increase closer to 3%
• Reviewing the unusually large Waste Management reserve
• Restoring weekly Black Cart collection if it could be done affordably
• Reviewing whether some City services could be delivered more efficiently
• Considering assistance for low-income senior homeowners
• Providing Council with credible lower-cost alternatives before approval

Some residents acknowledged that Red Deer has aging infrastructure and that certain cost increases may be unavoidable. Their request was not that the City stop maintaining essential systems.

They asked Council to clearly justify the increase, demonstrate that other options had been seriously considered and recognize what households can realistically afford.

That is what stands out most from these submissions.

Residents came from different circumstances and offered different solutions, but the message was remarkably consistent: affordability matters, find savings where possible and do not treat another increase as inevitable.

I am pleased that these comments are finally public.

However, publishing them after Council’s unanimous vote does not correct the transparency problem. Residents were told their submissions would be included in the September 29 agenda package, and the public should have been able to read them before Council made its decision.

The Responses can be read by going to the "Council Meetings, Agendas and Minutes" webpage, clicking on September 29, and then "Addendum Full Package" Here is that agenda page: https://www.reddeer.ca/.../council-meetings-agendas-and.../

Source: City of Red Deer, September 29 Council Addendum, Item 2.1.a, Appendix B, pages 2–19.

COUNCIL REVIEW: Council approves clearer rules for Red Deer’s zoning maps - Deep Dive

This was a complicated agenda item, but the basic issue is fairly simple.

The City has zoning maps showing where different rules apply. Sometimes the lines on those maps do not perfectly match a road, property line, riverbank or another physical feature.

Until now, Red Deer’s Zoning Bylaw did not clearly explain how most of those uncertain lines should be interpreted.

Council has now approved new rules intended to provide that clarity.

The simple version

• No properties were rezoned.

• The amendment explains how to determine where an existing zoning boundary is located.

• City staff can correct technical mapping errors without bringing every correction to Council.

• Staff cannot use this authority to move a zoning boundary, change the zoning of a property or alter anyone’s development rights.

What is a zoning boundary?

A zoning boundary is a line showing where one land-use zone ends and another begins.

The zone determines what can be built or operated on the land and which development rules apply.

A zoning boundary is not necessarily the same as a property line. In some cases, one property can contain land covered by more than one zone.

What was the problem?

The previous bylaw only provided clear instructions when a zoning boundary followed an escarpment.

It did not clearly explain how to interpret boundaries that approximately followed:

• A road or lane\

• A property line\

• The City boundary\

• A railway, pipeline or utility right-of-way\

• A river, creek or lake\

• The crest or top of a riverbank

When the exact location of a line was unclear, it could create confusion for property owners, developers and City staff.

In some cases, Council could be asked to consider a zoning amendment simply to clarify where an existing boundary was supposed to be.

How will the new rules work?

The amendment creates default rules.

For example, if a zoning boundary approximately follows a road, it will be interpreted as following the centre of the road’s right-of-way.

If it follows a property boundary, it will follow that property line.

If it follows a railway, pipeline, utility corridor, shoreline or top of a riverbank, the boundary will follow that feature.

If a riverbank or shoreline naturally moves, the zoning boundary will not automatically move with it. A change would need to be established through a legal survey or a report accepted by the City. (agenda pages 158–159)

What can City staff now change without Council?

The City Manager can make administrative corrections to the zoning maps when those corrections do not change the location or legal effect of a zoning boundary.

This could include:

• Correcting spelling, labelling or mapping errors\

• Improving the accuracy or scale of a map\

• Updating symbols and background information\

• Adding new property lines after a registered subdivision\

• Showing more accurately where an existing zoning boundary is already legally located

Does this allow Administration to rezone property?

No.

This is the most important distinction.

Administration can correct or clarify the map, but it cannot use this amendment to move a legal zoning boundary or change the zoning assigned to someone’s land.

An actual rezoning would still require a Zoning Bylaw amendment and Council approval.

What was said at Council?

There was very little debate.

Councillor Cassandra Curtis asked whether individual property lines would remain visible on the zoning maps. Administration confirmed that they would.

Administration also explained that new property lines created through a subdivision could be added to the map without returning to Council, provided the zoning itself did not change.

No public comments were received before the hearing, and no one spoke at the public hearing.

How did Council vote?

Council approved the amendment unanimously among the eight members present.

Councillor Adam Goodwin was absent.

What changes now?

The City should be able to correct technical map issues more quickly without bringing minor administrative matters back to Council.

For residents and developers, the goal is to make it easier to determine which zoning rules apply to a piece of land.

The safeguard is that technical map corrections cannot be used to change the legal zoning of a property.

Sources:

• City of Red Deer, September 29, 2026 Council agenda, Item 7.1, pages 153–160\

• September 29 Council public hearing and debate on Item 7.1\

• City of Red Deer, “City Council Recap – September 29, 2026”