October 2026

Organizational - Who Gets A Seat? Part 2 of 4

October 22, 2026

WHO WILL SERVE ON RED DEER’S COMMITTEES AND BOARDS?

Part 2 - DEEP DIVE: October 27 Organizational Meeting, Item 3.1

On October 27, Council is scheduled to appoint residents to a range of committees and boards. Some help advise Council. Others, such as appeal boards, have different decision-making responsibilities.

These appointments may not attract the attention of a major budget debate, but they determine who brings community experience and expertise to important City work.

1. How does someone get appointed?

The City advertised vacancies and accepted applications from August 17 to September 18. The Nomination Committee reviewed eligible applications and developed recommendations. Council makes the final appointment decisions.

Because applications contain personal information, Council is scheduled to consider the recommendations in a closed meeting before making the appointments publicly.

2. How many positions are involved?

The City identified 37 vacancies and received 63 applications across the committees and boards in this recruitment cycle.

Those totals do not mean every vacancy had several qualified applicants. Interest varied considerably from one body to another. For example, the Greater Downtown Governance Committee received 15 applications for eight vacancies, while the Audit Committee received two applications for two vacancies.

The Intermunicipal Subdivision and Development Appeal Board received two applications for four vacancies.

3. Will all 37 positions be filled on October 27?

No. The public appointment appendix lists 32 positions for Council to fill at this meeting.

The report says four vacancies would remain after the recommended appointments: two Indigenous Community Representative positions on the Housing and Homelessness Integration Committee, and two positions on the Intermunicipal Subdivision and Development Appeal Board.

The remaining position has a different status. A candidate for the Policing Committee must complete a required provincial enhanced security check. Administration says that appointment will return to Council for a decision if the results are favourable.

4. Why can’t we see the proposed appointees’ names in the agenda?

The names are blank in the public appointment appendix. Applicant information is being considered in the closed portion of the meeting, followed by a proposed public appointment motion.

Protecting applicants’ personal information matters. At the same time, the final decisions about who is appointed, to which body and for how long should be clear in the public record.

5. What happens to the unfilled positions?

Administration says it will continue targeted recruitment and bring additional qualified applicants to the Nomination Committee as applications come in. The agenda does not give a date by which the remaining positions will be filled.

6. What am I watching for?

I’ll be looking at the public appointment decision, any changes Council makes to the recommendations, and how the City follows up on the remaining vacancies. In particular, it will be worth watching whether the specialized positions that remain open attract applicants in a later recruitment effort.

Source: City of Red Deer, October 27, 2026 Organizational Meeting agenda, Item 3.1.

Deep Dive: Organizational - Public Meetings at 3 PM? Part 1 of 4

October 22, 2026

PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 3 P.M.?

Council is being asked to consider moving them from 5PM to 3PM.

DEEP DIVE: October 27 Organizational Meeting, Item 3.2

Public hearings are one of the opportunities residents have to speak directly to Council before certain decisions are made. Red Deer currently schedules them for 5 p.m. Administration is proposing a 3 p.m. start in 2027..

1. What exactly is being proposed?

Administration wants regular Council meetings to start at 9:30 a.m. instead of 10:30 a.m. It also wants statutory public hearings scheduled for 3 p.m. instead of 5 p.m.

Those are two separate changes. The second would move the start of public hearings into the middle of the afternoon.

2. Why does Administration want the change?

The report says Council agendas have become more complex and meetings often run into the evening. It says earlier starts would give Council more flexibility and reduce long meeting days for Council, staff, applicants and members of the public.

That is a real scheduling concern. The question is whether moving public hearings earlier is the right way to solve it.

3. What do the numbers show?

Administration reviewed 16 regular Council meetings held between January and mid-September 2026. Fourteen ended after 5 p.m. Its estimate is that, if meetings had started at 9:30 a.m. and hearings at 3 p.m., only four would have run past 5 p.m.

That estimate combines both proposed changes. It does not tell us how much of the difference comes from moving public hearings alone. The report also says five of those meetings would have ended before 5 p.m. simply by starting the regular meeting at 9:30 a.m.

4. Could residents still participate?

Yes. Administration says the proposal would not change statutory notice or advertising requirements. Residents could still attend in person, submit written comments and use any other participation methods Council authorizes.

But retaining the formal right to speak is not the same as making it practical to exercise. A resident who can attend at 5 p.m. may not be able to attend at 3 p.m. The report does not measure that potential effect.

5. Were residents asked about the change?

No public participation was undertaken for this report. Administration describes the scheduling decision as having “limited direct community impact.” It consulted internally, including the Office of the Mayor and Council, administrative liaisons and the Executive Leadership Team.

I think residents should consider whether a two-hour change to public-hearing times really has limited impact on their ability to take part.

6. How does this fit Council’s stated direction?

Council’s [2026–2029 Council Term Direction](https://www.reddeer.ca/.../2026-2029-Council-Term...) names “Community engagement and evidence-based decision making” and “Trust, transparency, responsive and accountable” as part of how Council intends to work. The agenda itself marks both as aligned with this proposal.

That makes the absence of public consultation, or an assessment of when residents can attend, especially important to discuss.

7. What happens on October 27?

Council will consider the proposed 2027 meeting schedule. One detail needs clarification: the report repeatedly proposes 3 p.m. public hearings, but the drafted motion’s schedule table lists Council meeting times without separately stating a public-hearing time. Council should make clear whether it is approving that hearing-time change.

My two cents:

I understand why Council wants to avoid unnecessarily long meeting days. But I find this proposal inward-looking. It closely examines when meetings end, while giving far less attention to whether residents can leave work, school or other commitments to speak when a hearing begins at 3 p.m.

Written submissions matter, but they are not a complete substitute for being able to address Council in person. Many people are working at 3 p.m. Moving hearings earlier could make that opportunity less accessible to them.

Calling this a decision with “limited direct community impact” is particularly difficult for me to accept. If Council is serious about community engagement, it should assess the effect on the community before changing the time. I would urge Council to keep the 5 p.m. hearing start and explore other ways to manage long agendas, including the earlier regular-meeting start or dedicated hearing days.

Sources: City of Red Deer, October 27, 2026 Organizational Meeting agenda, Item 3.2; City of Red Deer, 2026–2029 Council Term Direction.

COTW: Agenda Not Posted Yet?

October 21, 2026

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DEEP DIVE: No agenda available

This is normally the time of day when I share what Council’s committees will be discussing tomorrow. I try to post a day or two before each meeting so the information is timely and you have a chance to read about it beforehand.

Tomorrow’s Committee of the Whole meeting is scheduled for Thursday, October 22, at 1 p.m. in the Crimson Star Meeting Room at City Hall. But as of Wednesday evening, I cannot find the meeting’s full agenda package online. That means I cannot give you the usual deep dive into the reports, recommendations or decisions Council may be considering.

I do have a preview, but only because I had already prepared a post about the October 16 Council Agenda Review Committee. Its draft agenda listed a closed-session follow-up concerning the Westerner Exhibition Association, a public review of the City’s policy on recognizing committee, board and commission members, a request to postpone work on the sponsorship policy and program evaluation framework, and a request for an additional Committee of the Whole meeting on November 10.

Those are draft items. They may have changed, and the draft does not provide the supporting reports I would need to explain them properly.

A calendar entry tells us when and where a meeting is happening. Normally, that same window also provides links to the agenda outline and the full agenda package. The draft from the Council Agenda Review Committee gives us an early idea of the topics, but it does not replace a final agenda package that residents can read before the meeting.

If the package appears, I’ll take a look. For now, I wanted to share what I can verify, and be clear about what I cannot.

Sources: October 16 Council Agenda Review Committee draft agenda; City of Red Deer

Deep Dive: Audit Committee Part 2 of 2

October 20, 2026

The Audit Committee is evaluating its own work. What exactly will it be checking?

DEEP DIVE: October 21 Audit Committee meeting, Item 4.3

The Audit Committee helps Council oversee the City’s financial reporting, risks and internal controls. On Wednesday, its members will discuss whether the committee fulfilled its responsibilities during the past year and where it could improve.

This is an annual self-evaluation, scheduled before the committee’s membership changes in November. The discussion is planned for an open meeting.

1. What will members evaluate?

The form asks members to mark each responsibility “Met,” “Not Met” or “N/A,” with comments where needed. It covers whether the committee:

• Understood the external auditor’s work, reviewed audit findings and confirmed the auditor’s independence.

• Reviewed the City’s financial statements and made a recommendation to Council.

• Reviewed reports on major risks and what Administration is doing to address them.

• Addressed internal controls, including protection of assets, reliable financial information and compliance with policies.

• Reviewed information about fraud and misconduct safeguards and the whistleblowing program.

• Followed up on value-for-money audit work where applicable.

• Had a work plan and enough training and knowledge to carry out its duties.

Members must also give an overall “Yes” or “No” answer to whether they believe they carried out their responsibilities effectively.

2. Is this an audit of whether the City’s controls actually work?

No. This is the committee assessing how it performed its oversight role. A checkmark beside “Met” is not, by itself, an independent test of the City’s financial systems or proof that every control is effective.

That distinction is especially important because another item at Wednesday’s meeting presents a diagram of the City’s internal-control structure. Administration explicitly says that diagram does not assess whether individual controls are working.

3. Why does the committee do this?

The evaluation is required under its terms of reference. Administration says the results help shape the committee’s future work plan and identify where members may need more information or training.

In other words, the useful part is not simply checking boxes. It is identifying what the committee needs to do differently.

4. What did last year’s evaluation say?

The previous evaluation is included in the agenda for comparison. Its overall answer was “Yes,” and most listed responsibilities were marked “Met.” Auditor selection and the value-for-money audit item were marked “N/A.” The form does not explain those two selections.

Those marks record the committee’s own assessment. They should not be read as an outside review of its performance.

5. Will the public hear the discussion?

The plan is to complete the evaluation in an open meeting, however, it is not available online, or via streaming. If members need to discuss protected information, the agenda says the applicable legal exception would be considered before that portion moves into a closed session.

Source: City of Red Deer, October 21, 2026 Audit Committee agenda, Items 4.1 and 4.3

Deep Dive: Audit Committee Part 1 of 2

October 20, 2026

Why are some City projects still open years after their budgets were approved?

I meant to share this a couple of days ago, but apparently I skipped over it while working on another post. So here you are.

DEEP DIVE: October 21 Audit Committee meeting

On Wednesday, Red Deer’s Audit Committee will review information about the City’s open capital projects. An “open” project account does not necessarily mean work has stopped or something has gone wrong. But when a project remains open for years, Council should be able to see where it stands and why.

1. What did the committee ask for?

In July, the Audit Committee asked Administration for a report on all open capital projects. It wanted to see each project’s budget, spending, remaining budget, current status and expected completion date. It also asked which projects had moved significantly beyond their original completion dates, and why.

2. How much money is tied to open projects?

The current tables show approximately $232.5 million in remaining approved budgets for tax, fleet and land-bank projects, and approximately $117.7 million for utility projects. That is about $350.1 million combined, as of August 2026.

This is not $350.1 million in new spending being proposed on Wednesday. These projects were approved over multiple years, and some of the remaining money is expected to be spent on work in future years.

3. What did Administration provide?

The agenda includes extensive tables showing budgets, spending, remaining amounts and expected completion dates. Administration says it incorporated the first four pieces of information the committee requested into budget reports previously presented to Council.

What is harder to find is a plain-language status for each project. The tables do not have a clearly labelled field telling residents whether a project is underway, delayed, awaiting equipment or ready to close.

4. What about projects that are behind schedule?

This is the question I find most important. The committee asked to see which projects have completion dates that changed significantly from the original plan, along with a brief explanation.

Administration points to a report presented in June. That report does provide explanations for many older projects, and it is useful background. But it was prepared before the committee made its July request. Its financial snapshot covers older projects still open at the end of 2025.

I do not see a current list that puts the original and expected completion dates side by side and explains the significant changes. Without that, it is difficult to tell how far particular projects have shifted from the plans Council originally approved.

5. Does Administration recognize this problem?

Yes. Administration says the City has not previously prepared a formal mid-year analysis of open capital commitments. It also acknowledges that the current process may not give Council enough information to understand why approved budgets are not being carried out more promptly.

6. What happens next?

Administration plans to bring the Capital Budget Policy to the Audit Committee in November. That discussion could address what information Council receives and how long a project may remain open before it must return for consideration. Wednesday’s report is for information; it does not approve new capital spending.

7. What else is Council’s Audit Committee discussing?

Item 4.1 is an internal-controls diagram showing how responsibility is shared among Council, the Audit Committee, the City Manager, management and staff. It is a guide to who does what, not an assessment of whether the City’s individual controls are working. Administration says work on a formal Internal Controls Policy is planned to begin in 2027.

Item 4.3 is the committee’s annual self-evaluation. Members will discuss how well the committee fulfilled its responsibilities and where it could improve. We will cover this in a standalone post.

Sources: City of Red Deer, October 21, 2026 Audit Committee agenda, Item 4.2 and appendices; June 17, 2026 Audit Committee addendum.

Still waiting for answer after 2 weeks.

October 20, 2026

Two weeks ago, I emailed the City with what I felt were reasonable questions about the City Manager’s contract review and potential extension process.

I received an acknowledgement that my email had been received, but two weeks later, I still haven’t received answers.

My goal was simply to understand the process and share that information with you, so you have an opportunity to share your thoughts with Council before decisions are made. So many things happen without much public awareness, and I wanted to get ahead of this one.

The lack of answers after two weeks is concerning. I felt it was fair to give the City a reasonable amount of time before publicly sharing the delay.

I’ll be sending these questions again, and I hope to have a response to share with you soon.

Housing and Homelessness Integration Committee Update

October 20, 2026

COMING UP: Housing and Homelessness Integration Committee

The committee meets Tuesday, October 20, at 5 p.m. Its main decision concerns a relatively small amount of remaining federal homelessness funding, but the agenda also includes updates worth watching.

1. What funding decision is being made?

There is $94,572 in remaining 2026/27 Reaching Home funding: $56,237 in the Designated Communities stream and $38,335 in the Indigenous Communities stream. This is federal program funding, not a request for new City property-tax money. It must be spent by March 31, 2027.

2. What could the $56,237 support?

Administration has put forward two possible priorities: additional warming space for people who are unsheltered this winter, or initial rental costs that would help a scattered-site case management program accept more clients. The committee can choose one, both, or another eligible priority. Administration is not recommending a particular choice.

Neither option is a finished project. A warming centre still needs an approved location and other funding. For rental support, one program has confirmed it could take more clients, but the report says it is unclear whether the other programs have the same need and capacity.

The separate $38,335 Indigenous stream would go to the Indigenous Fund Adjudication Subcommittee for priority-setting and allocation to eligible Indigenous organizations or projects. The October 20 motions do not name final recipients for either stream.

3. Is the committee also planning for next year?

Yes, but no 2027/28 funding priorities are being approved at this meeting. Administration plans to present community feedback and system-level data now, with more information and a possible priority-setting decision in November. The agenda includes a draft schedule for proposals, contract decisions and an April start for new programs.

4. Are the results of Red Deer’s latest homeless count available?

Not yet. The October 8 count involved 36 participants from 11 agencies. Shelter data still needs to be collected, and the results will be analyzed and validated before a community report is prepared. This agenda does not provide a count total.

5. What happened to Amethyst House and Pathways to Housing?

These are permanent supportive housing programs, which combine housing with ongoing support. Provincial funding for CMHA Alberta Central Region to operate the programs ended September 30, and CMHA stopped operating them.

Beginning October 1, Native Counselling Services of Alberta started supporting the people who had been in those programs. For now, those people are staying in temporary hotel locations while work continues on a new permanent program. The agenda does not say when that program will be ready. This is an update to the committee, not a decision it is being asked to make on October 20.

Source: Housing and Homelessness Integration Committee agenda, October 20, 2026.

New Diagnostic Imaging Clinic Planned

October 18, 2026

A new diagnostic imaging clinic is planned for Red Deer!

A building permit record dated October 16 outlines plans to renovate the existing building at 187–2004 50 Avenue for the clinic.

The estimated construction value is approximately $1.78 million, and the permit description indicates the clinic will occupy the entire building.

The building highlighted below is the location identified in the permit. A closer look at one of the local projects moving forward in our community!

Quick location note: I believe the highlighted building is the right one, but the permit lists #187 and the doors show #189. The building to the east is #185, and I haven’t found a #187. I’m not sure why the numbers differ, but I’ll update you if I learn more. (Edit again - Ray has an excellent explanation in the comments)

--- comments ---

Ray: During construction of a multi bay building, numbers are assigned to each bay. If Pier One Imports main doors led to bay 189, then that is the number. If the new owners decided that their entry was going to be in the other bay, it could be 187. It all depends on which bay you enter in for the address.

Audit Committee Preview: Opinion

October 18, 2026

AUDIT COMMITTEE PREVIEW -OPINION

An information deficit

I’ll have a fuller, fact-focused post about the upcoming Audit Committee meeting later this week. This post is my opinion about how capital-project information is presented to Council and the public.

I’m putting three screenshots from the City’s open-project tables in the comments. The tables show approved budgets, spending to date, remaining amounts and expected completion dates. That information matters. But look at some of the project names:

“70313 2019 COMMUNICATIONS E”

“61671 2026 TRANSIT TECHNOLO”

“11182 2026 BRIDGE REHAB AND”

What, specifically, is being purchased or built? Where is the work happening? What does the rest of each cut-off name say?

These are summary tables. I am not suggesting councillors receive only these pages; fuller descriptions may exist elsewhere, and councillors can ask Administration questions.

I also want to be fair to Council. Councillors work through long agendas covering many subjects. I do not expect them to recognize every project code or catch every cut-off description in the moment. That is precisely why clear written material matters: it helps them spot what needs a closer look, and it helps residents follow along.

If an unclear line requires someone to hunt through another document or ask Administration to decode it, is that a good use of anyone’s time? If clearer descriptions make an agenda ten pages longer, add ten pages. Or link each line to a short explanation of the work, its location, purpose and current status.

I believe trust in Administration is low right now. Providing clearer, more complete information would be one practical way to help rebuild it. Council is responsible for oversight, and it can insist on documents that make that job easier for councillors and the people they represent.

More to come on the specifics of the Audit Committee meeting later this week. For now, I wanted to say this: Council and residents should not have to decode a project list to understand what the City is working on.

Source: City of Red Deer, October 21, 2026, Audit Committee agenda, Item 4.2, Appendix B, pp. 63–65

Another utility charge?

October 18, 2026

COUNCIL IS DISCUSSING WHETHER TO ADD ANOTHER CHARGE TO YOUR UTILITY BILL

If stormwater moves onto our utility bills, what comes off our property taxes?

DEEP DIVE: October 19 Special Committee of the Whole, Item 2.1

Red Deer already pays for stormwater services through its tax-supported budget. On Monday, Council will discuss whether to continue funding the service that way or consider a dedicated stormwater rate.

No new charge is being approved at this meeting. Administration has not recommended a rate or decided how one would be calculated. This workshop will help shape a decision expected next year.

But I think it is especially important to pay attention now. Changes this significant rarely come out of nowhere. They can build through years of studies, reports and meetings that seem like “just talking about it.” My concern is that, by the time a decision reaches Council, all that time invested can start to feel like a reason to proceed. That is the sunk-cost trap. Council must remain willing to question the proposal on its merits, and residents need the chance to weigh in before any new charge feels inevitable.

1. What are we paying for today?

Stormwater is rain and melting snow that runs off roofs, streets and other surfaces instead of soaking into the ground. The City’s system includes catch basins, pipes, ponds and outfalls that help move that water and protect property and infrastructure.

Red Deer operates an approximately 560-kilometre stormwater network. Developers built much of it over the decades and transferred it to the City. The City then became responsible for maintaining and eventually replacing those assets.

2. How did we get here?

This discussion has been years in the making.

Between 2014 and 2016, the City studied the stormwater system and the possibility of funding it through a dedicated utility. Council committee work in 2016 and 2017 considered how that might work, including rates, customer categories, exemptions and incentives to reduce runoff. The utility was never implemented, and stormwater remained tax-supported.

The agenda points to flooding after significant rainfall in 2022 and a collapsed stormwater main near City Hall in 2023 as reminders of why maintenance and replacement matter. By 2024, Administration estimated that more than 52% of the network was over 50 years old.

In March 2024, Council considered several funding options but deferred a stormwater-utility decision to the broader utility review. That is why this question is back before Council now.

3. Why is funding being reconsidered?

A 2024 report estimated that sustaining the stormwater service would require about $14 million annually for operations and capital work. The agenda lists the 2026 budget at $8.6 million: $1.7 million for operations and $6.9 million for capital.

Those figures show why Administration says funding needs further review. They do NOT mean Council is proposing a $5.4-million fee. The estimate and budget are from different years, and the City says more work is needed before it can settle costs or customer impacts.

4. Would we pay a stormwater charge on top of property taxes?

That is the question I want answered clearly.

The agenda says the $1.7-million stormwater operating budget is approximately 0.9% of tax. But that is not the full tax-supported picture. The 2026 budget book lists roughly $6.94 million for the stormwater infrastructure annual program, funded through debt. Borrowing creates repayment costs over time, so the full capital amount is not simply added to one year’s taxes.

Before Council considers a new rate, residents need a complete accounting of what stormwater currently costs the tax-supported budget, including operations, debt payments and any reserve contributions. If a cost moves to a utility charge, I believe that same cost should come off the tax-supported budget. Otherwise, how can residents tell whether they are paying twice?

A citywide tax offset would not guarantee that every household pays the same total as before. A utility rate could divide costs among properties differently from property taxes. Council needs to show both the overall tax adjustment and examples of what different households and businesses would pay.

5. Could the new rate bring in revenue for other parts of the City?

The agenda contains an important table comparing what is paid through the tax-supported budget now with what could be included in a rate-funded model.

Under the rate-funded column, operating costs would be included in rates. The table also includes depreciation and the cost of capital. Major projects and reserves would be funded through the utility rather than the tax-supported side.

But the table goes further. It says rates could also include recovery for City support services, with that money going to the tax-supported budget. It lists an MCAF “if charged” as another potential payment to the tax-supported budget, and a dividend “if available” as potential revenue there too.

Those qualifications matter. This is still a discussion, and Council has not approved an MCAF or a stormwater dividend. But if rates were designed to include an MCAF and generate dividends, residents could be charged more than the amount needed strictly to operate and renew the stormwater system. Depending on the amounts, that increase could be significant.

My personal view is that if the City adds those payments without fully removing the stormwater costs shifted from property taxes, this stops looking like a different way to pay for a service and starts looking like another cash cow for the City. If the argument is that the payments will relieve tax pressure, Council should show residents exactly how much comes off the tax-supported budget.

6. How would a rate be fair?

We cannot measure how much rain falls on each property and send it a bill. The examples in the agenda use measures such as lot size, hard-surface area and estimated runoff to decide how costs are shared. Red Deer has not selected any of those methods.

Council needs to ask how a small home, an apartment building and a large paved commercial property would compare. Would properties receive credit for reducing runoff? How would public roads, City properties and tax-exempt properties be treated? The agenda acknowledges that impacts on different property types still need to be worked out.

7. What happens on October 19?

Council members are being asked for input, not a vote to impose a charge. Part of the discussion is scheduled for a closed session. Further work is planned, with a stormwater-funding recommendation expected to come to Council in the second quarter of 2027.

My two cents: I understand why the City is looking at how to maintain aging infrastructure. But before any dedicated rate is considered, Council should insist on a fair and understandable way to divide the charge, and a public, dollar-for-dollar accounting of which stormwater costs would be removed from the tax-supported budget. It should also be clear about any proposed MCAF, dividend or other transfer back to that budget.

Residents are already facing significant utility-cost pressure following approval of the 2027 Utilities Budget, even though the final rates have not yet been set. At what point will Council recognize that people cannot keep absorbing another charge without a full accounting of what they are already paying?

Sources: October 19, 2026 Special Committee of the Whole agenda, Item 2.1; City of Red Deer 2026 Budget Book

Council Agenda Preview

October 18, 2026

COMING UP: A preview of Red Deer’s next Council and committee meetings

A little late with this preview, but there is a lot coming up, This meeting was held on October 16th and there are currently no minutes available, I still wanted to share with you what was on the agenda and what is very likely to be coming up in the next couple weeks. The committees published package lays out draft agendas for four upcoming meetings.

COUNCIL MEETINGS

October 27: Organizational Council meeting

This meeting is about how Council’s work will be organized. The draft agenda includes appointments of residents and councillors to committees and boards, Council’s proposed 2027 meeting dates, Deputy Mayor appointments and the Nomination Committee policy.

The draft shows some appointment matters being discussed in closed session, followed by reports on appointments in the public portion of the meeting.

October 27: Regular Council meeting

This is the much fuller agenda. Among the proposed items:

• Updated 2027 electric utility rates. The draft schedule allows for all three readings of the Electric Utility Bylaw amendment. Those rates have not been approved through this draft agenda.

• Consideration of a development permit for the proposed emergency shelter at 4-5239 53 Avenue.

• Proposed updates to Council’s debt-management and operating-budget policies, along with a report on multi-year budgeting.

• First readings of four 2027 capital-project borrowing bylaws, covering a trunk-line project, a lift station, community-development facility improvements and civic-facility preservation. First reading would not be final approval of those borrowing bylaws.

• First readings of an Advertising Bylaw and related zoning amendment, plus a Kentwood NE/Kingsgate land-use proposal. The draft schedule calls for public hearings to be set for those items.

The agenda also lists a wildfire-mitigation report for information and a notice of motion from Councillor Kraymer Barnstable. The notice’s subject is not given in this packet.

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

October 19: Special Committee of the Whole

The draft agenda has one report: “Water Modernization.” This packet does not include the report itself, so we do not yet know what specific changes or recommendations will be presented.

October 22: Committee of the Whole

Items include a proposed postponement of the sponsorship-policy review, a review of the policy for recognizing committee and board members, and a request to add a special Committee of the Whole meeting on November 10.

A City-led follow-up concerning the Westerner Exhibition Association is listed for closed discussion. The draft agenda gives the topic but not the substance of that discussion.

This is an early look at what is coming, particularly on electric rates, the proposed shelter and budget policy. I’ll go into the details as the full meeting reports become available.

Source: City of Red Deer, October 16, 2026 Council Agenda Review Committee package, including the four draft agendas.

Council Review: Skateboard Parks in Red Deer

October 17, 2026

COUNCIL REVIEW: Skateboard parks in Red Deer

As part of its October 13 capital-budget debate, Council unanimously directed Administration to assess Red Deer’s existing skateboard parks and explore a possible new park. Administration will bring its findings and potential costs back for consideration during the 2028 capital-budget process.

No new park or construction funding was approved.

1. What did Council ask Administration to do?

The motion has three main parts:

• Assess existing skateboard parks and plan for any necessary upgrades.

• Explore a new skateboard park in Red Deer, including the Timberlands area or a nearby neighbourhood.

• Bring the findings, planning considerations and potential capital costs back to Council as part of the 2028 capital-budget process.

Council also asked Administration to explore community sponsorship for both upgrades and a possible new park through the City’s Sponsorship Pilot.

2. Why did the downtown skate park come up?

The budget book lists an older proposal called “Downtown Skate Park & Youth Zone.” It says that proposal was removed during the 2020 budget process because of financial pressure. Councillor Dianne Wyntjes referred to it while introducing her motion.

But the motion Council ultimately passed does not direct Administration to build that downtown project. It asks for a broader look at existing parks and a possible new location.

3. Has Timberlands been chosen?

No. The motion specifically says to consider Timberlands or a nearby neighbourhood. It does not select a site.

Councillors spoke about making skateboard parks accessible to young people, including those who want somewhere they can reach from their own neighbourhood. Where a new park would work best remains part of the review.

4. Does this mean upgrades to existing parks are approved?

Not yet. Administration has been directed to assess the parks and plan for necessary upgrades. Council has not approved a particular upgrade, design or construction budget through this motion.

The same applies to sponsorship. Administration will explore whether community partners could help, but no sponsorship funding was announced.

5. What happens next?

Administration is to bring its findings and the potential capital-budget implications back for consideration in the 2028 budget process. Council can then decide whether to fund upgrades, a new park, both or neither.

For now, this is a commitment to examine the opportunities and costs, not a commitment to build.

What would you most want that review to address: improvements to existing parks, a new park closer to more neighbourhoods, or both?

Sources: October 13 City Council meeting motion and agenda. See less

Deep Dive: Council Review: 2027 Capital Budget Approved

October 17, 2026

COUNCIL REVIEW: Red Deer approves a $79.61-million capital budget

DEEP DIVE: What changed during the October 13 debate, and what questions remain

I previously went through the proposed capital budget in a 10-part series, nearly line by line. You can return to those posts for the individual projects. This review focuses on what Council asked, what changed, and what was approved.

1. What did Council approve?

Council unanimously approved approximately $79.61 million in 2027 capital spending for tax-supported projects, City vehicles and equipment, and one land project.

The published proposal totalled $80.24 million. Council removed a $629,000 allocation for the proposed roundabout at 67 Street and Taylor Drive before approving the budget.

That leaves approximately $57.78 million for tax-supported projects, $19.75 million for fleet, and $2.08 million for the land project.

This is separate from the utilities capital budget Council considered in September.

2. What happened to the roundabout?

Councillor Dianne Wyntjes proposed moving the $629,000 allocation out of the 2027 budget. Council supported that change unanimously.

The roundabout was delayed, not permanently cancelled. It could return for consideration in a future budget. Councillors discussed the 2028 budget as the next opportunity to consider it.

The $629,000 was to come from a capital grant allocation, not a grant reserved specifically for the roundabout. Administration confirmed it could be redirected to another eligible project, although it did not identify which one. Delaying the roundabout reduces the approved 2027 capital budget by $629,000, but it does not create an equivalent property-tax saving.

3. Did Council remove anything else?

No other reduction was made to the 2027 capital budget during the debate.

Councillor Adam Goodwin explored reducing spending on City technology and computer systems. Administration said that would delay work on financial systems, asset management and reporting. After discussing the consequences, he did not bring forward an amendment.

Several councillors said they were concerned about affordability. Others emphasized that delaying maintenance can make future repairs more expensive. In the end, all voted for the budget as amended.

4. Does approving $79.61 million mean a matching increase on property-tax bills?

No. The budget uses a mix of grants, reserves, developer and customer contributions, borrowing, and some money transferred from operations. It is not an $79.61-million charge added directly to one year’s property-tax bills.

That does not make it separate from affordability. Reserves need to be replenished, borrowing must be repaid, and vehicles and facilities can create future operating costs.

Councillor Cassandra Curtis asked what approving the capital budget would mean for property taxes. Later, when Council asked specifically about additional operating-budget pressure beyond the City’s already-planned 1% contribution for amenities and growth, the Chief Financial Officer estimated approximately 2.33%. Fleet funding accounts for most of that pressure.

That was an estimate discussed during the capital debate, not a property-tax increase approved on October 13. Council will debate the operating budget in November.

5. If the 2027 budget has funding sources, why was there so much concern about reserves?

There is a difference between identifying funding for next year’s projects and having a sustainable way to pay for all the projects expected in future years.

Administration described the 2027 budget as funded. But the Chief Financial Officer also warned that the Capital Projects Reserve, which helps pay for tax-supported projects and debt repayments, has been declining. The City’s longer-term projections show that its current approach cannot continue unchanged.

The presentation included models in which reserve balances fell far below zero. Administration was clear that these are not predictions that the City will actually operate with a negative reserve balance. They illustrate the gap that would arise if planned projects proceeded without changes to funding, timing or priorities.

One more constrained scenario in the budget book would fund only 58% of the projects currently contemplated in the longer-term capital plan. That is a planning scenario, not a decision to cancel the other 42%. It does show the size of the choices ahead.

6. Did Council approve the entire 10-year plan for spending?

Council received the 2028–2037 tax-supported and fleet capital plans “in principle.”

That gives Council a view of projects that may be needed over the next decade. It does not authorize all that spending. Future councils will have to review and approve annual capital budgets, and the plan can change as costs, priorities and funding change.

Administration said plainly that the longer-term plan is not fully funded.

7. What about money approved in past years that has not been spent?

Council asked this, too. The budget book lists previously approved projects that remain open, along with money not yet spent.

Councillor Goodwin asked whether those unspent amounts could simply be released and used instead of approving new funding. Administration said not automatically. Some projects are still underway, some have future spending planned, and some funds are restricted to particular purposes. When a project closes with money left over, that money generally returns to its original funding source.

Councillor Brisbois also pressed Administration on whether the City has the capacity to deliver its growing list of projects. Administration reported 288 open capital projects. It said an open project does not always mean construction is stalled; some await approvals, regulatory steps or the right construction season. Still, project delivery and the amount of old work remaining were clearly concerns in the discussion.

8. Did Council get enough detail about individual projects?

This was one of the more revealing parts of the debate.

Councillors asked for more detail about fleet purchases, technology spending, the development-permit software, the Indigenous Cultures Centre and other projects. In response to a question about the fleet information, Administration acknowledged that the published budget book may have grouped some items at too high a level. It said additional detail had been provided through the presentation and briefing notes.

That matters because approving a total is only one part of Council’s job. Councillors and residents also need to understand what is within each large line, why it is needed and what would happen if it were changed.

Administration said it plans to develop a public map showing where approved capital projects are located, starting with basic project information that could be expanded over time.

9. Were specific projects challenged?

Yes. A few examples show the kinds of questions Council asked:

• On the proposed roundabout, councillors asked about its cost, timing, alternatives and whether delaying the next phase would create a significant problem. That discussion led to the budget amendment.

• On City technology, Councillor Goodwin considered a reduction but asked about its effect before proposing one. Administration said it would delay work on systems and reporting.

• On the development and permitting software, Council asked what residents and businesses would gain. Administration said the current system dates back to 2013, is no longer meeting needs, and requires staff to spend time following up on incomplete applications.

• On the Indigenous Cultures Centre, Council asked about the full cost and contributions from other partners. Administration described the City’s proposed funding as a starting contribution, said the facility would likely cost more, and said a list of partner funding was not yet available.

Those answers provided more context than some of the short descriptions in the budget book. They also showed where plans are still being developed.

10. What happened to the public comments?

The comments were included in the October 13 agenda. Council’s discussion referred to residents’ concerns about affordability, the roundabout and the level of detail provided for projects.

Administration said it had responded directly to people who submitted questions and planned to post the questions and responses publicly after the debate.

The roundabout was the only 2027 budget line Council changed. That is the result of the vote; it does not tell us that every other concern raised by residents has been resolved.

11. Were there any other decisions after the budget vote?

Yes, but they did not add spending to the approved 2027 budget.

Council unanimously supported a motion concerning sponsorship for a restored rocket-ship playground at Kin Canyon. Council also unanimously supported bringing a downtown skate park and youth zone forward for consideration during the 2028 capital-budget process. Consideration in a future budget is not the same as approving construction funding now.

12. What happens next?

The City is expected to discuss longer-term budgeting and funding for capital and fleet. The operating-budget debate follows in November, when Council will confront the tax and operating-cost pressures that were raised during this meeting.

The October 13 decision authorizes the revised 2027 capital budget. It does not solve the longer-term reserve gap, set the final property-tax increase, or approve every project shown in the 10-year plan.

Sources: October 13 City Council agenda and meeting.

Deep Dive: Council Review: Council Approves Incorporation

October 17, 2026

COUNCIL REVIEW: Red Deer’s electric utility corporation moves another step forward

DEEP DIVE: What Council decided on October 13, and how we got here

Council voted unanimously to approve the incorporation of a City-owned holding company and its electric-utility subsidiary. This was a concrete step toward creating the corporations, but it did not transfer the utility out of City Hall that day.

1. What did Council approve?

Council adopted the articles of incorporation and a unanimous shareholder agreement for the two-company structure. It also appointed Mayor Cindy Jefferies and General Manager Sarah Tittemore as interim directors.

The City is expected to remain the sole owner of the corporate structure and the utility.

2. How did we get here?

The review began years before this vote. The City commissioned an initial study in 2021, hired another consultant in 2023, and brought updates to Council through both open and closed meetings.

Following a public hearing in June 2025, the previous Council authorized the City to establish a municipally controlled corporation, or MCC, for the electric utility.

The current Council asked for more information about other governance options in February 2026. Administration returned with a comparison in March. Council did not change the direction of the project, and work continued.

This year also included a series of Committee of the Whole workshops on how the corporation would be governed. The September 14 agenda described that meeting as the sixth workshop in the series. This was not a proposal that appeared for the first time on October 13.

3. What is the City trying to accomplish with an MCC?

Today, the electric utility operates as a City department. Under the proposed model, it would eventually be operated by a City-owned corporation with its own board. Council would remain responsible for the City’s role as owner, while the board would oversee the corporation within the authority given to it.

The City says its aim is to keep the utility publicly owned while giving it more flexibility to plan for growth and changing infrastructure needs. Administration has pointed to stronger oversight and specialized expertise, more financial options, a greater focus on service, and opportunities for innovation. The City also wants the utility to continue providing a financial benefit through dividends.

The holding company would own the electric-utility subsidiary. Administration said that structure could also accommodate other corporate activities or entities in the future. The October 13 vote did not launch any of those additional activities.

These are the City’s reasons for pursuing the model. Whether it delivers those benefits will depend on the decisions and results that follow.

4. How much of the work happened behind closed doors?

Some important discussions were public, including the 2025 hearing and the October 13 vote. Others were closed.

The City’s project history lists several closed briefings over the years. The September 14 workshop included a closed MCC discussion, and Council went into a closed MCC meeting immediately before the open discussion on October 13.

The agendas cited reasons including advice from officials, potential harm to the City’s economic interests, and privileged information. Those are the reasons given for closing those portions of the meetings. The public cannot know precisely what was said in them.

That distinction matters. Council members spoke on October 13 about the considerable time they had spent learning about the utility, including through workshops. Residents could see the public decisions, but not every discussion that informed them.

5. What is the unanimous shareholder agreement, and why can’t residents see it?

It is one of the main rulebooks for the new corporations. It sets out which decisions the corporations’ boards can make and which decisions remain with the City as shareholder.

Administration told Council that it also covers how directors are appointed, reporting expectations, accountability measures and the process for handling major corporate matters. Council, as shareholder, can amend the agreement later.

Councillor Dianne Wyntjes asked why the full agreement could not be released. A representative from the City’s legal team said it could contain information useful to competitors. They also expressed concern that disclosure could affect or slow the upcoming Alberta Utilities Commission process, and recommended keeping the agreement confidential.

Council’s approved motion says the agreement will remain confidential under provisions of Alberta’s Access to Information Act concerning advice from officials, potential harm to a public body’s economic interests, and privileged information. Those are the City’s stated grounds for withholding it.

Councillor Adam Goodwin then asked whether the City could release a public-facing excerpt containing important information without commercially sensitive details. Administration did not commit to releasing an excerpt. It said it would continue working on public reporting for the utility once it becomes an MCC.

When Goodwin asked about the timing of that reporting, Administration said the schedule and expectations were already set out in the confidential agreement. It offered to discuss those details in a closed meeting.

So the public has been told the types of matters the agreement addresses, but cannot read its precise wording or assess its reporting requirements for themselves. Administration says it intends to pursue public-facing reporting; what that reporting will look like remains to be seen.

6. Does anything change for customers today?

No immediate change to electric service was approved. The utility remains a City department for now. Administration said the new corporations would initially have no utility assets, operations or staff.

Before those can be transferred, the City must prepare an application for the Alberta Utilities Commission. The October 13 report estimates the regulatory review could take 6 to 18 months after the application is submitted.

7. Did Council change electricity rates or your retail contract?

No. The October 13 vote was about how the City-owned electric utility would eventually be governed. Council did not set new electricity rates at this meeting.

There are two different parts of your service. The City owns and operates the local electrical system that delivers power to Red Deer homes and businesses. A retailer, such as ENMAX Energy, ATCO Energy or another company you choose, sells you the electricity and sends you the bill. That bill also includes delivery charges, which the retailer passes on to you.

Councillor Dianne Wyntjes asked whether rates could rise. Administration referred to the 2025 business plan’s projection of a roughly 2% increase to the distribution portion of rates attributable to moving to the MCC model. That is not a 2% increase to the entire power bill. It is a projection, not a rate increase approved on October 13.

Councillor Cassandra Curtis asked what this would mean for someone with a locked-in electricity contract. Administration explained that the contract covers the retail price of electricity. Moving to an MCC would not change that locked-in retail rate. Delivery charges are separate and can change even while a retail contract remains in place.

Any future rate decision needs to be considered separately. This vote did not determine what residents will pay on their next bill.

8. What happens next?

Administration will continue work on the operating model, organizational structure, finances and regulatory application. If the required approvals are obtained and the transfer is later authorized, the utility would move from a City department into the corporate structure. The City currently anticipates an operational launch in 2028, but that timing depends on approvals and preparation.

My two cents:

I am saddened that Council has moved further down this road. I have been clear about my concern that Council needs to exercise stronger independent judgment over a decision involving an asset built and paid for by Red Deerians.

Several councillors understandably pointed to the years of work, workshops and expertise behind this proposal. That work deserves recognition. But time and money already spent cannot, by themselves, justify the next step. That is the sunk-cost trap: continuing because of what has already been invested, rather than asking whether the remaining costs and risks are worth the expected benefits.

Council did ask for a comparison of other options earlier this year. In my opinion, the material that came back was not strong enough for a decision of this magnitude. I would still like to see Council critically test the alternatives and take an off-ramp if this model cannot be shown to serve residents better than keeping the utility within the City.

The utility remains publicly owned, and there is more work to do before any transfer. Those are important facts. They also mean there is still time for scrutiny. Years of effort should make Council more careful about the next decision, not less.

Sources: October 13 City Council agenda and meeting; September 14 Special Committee of the Whole agenda; City of Red Deer project milestones and MCC implementation updates.

Council Review: Community Investment Day

October 16, 2026

COUNCIL REVIEW: What happened at Community Investment Day?

A bit of a different day for Council.

On October 15, councillors gathered with representatives of Red Deer & District Family and Community Support Services (FCSS), board members and funded organizations to hear what the program does, where its funding goes and what that work looks like in the community.

This was formally a regular Council meeting, but it did not follow the usual pattern of debating several bylaws or funding decisions. The meeting centred on a presentation, questions from councillors and a chance to meet some of the people behind the programs.

So what is Community Investment Day, and what did Council learn?

1. What is Community Investment Day?

It is a themed Council meeting where the City presents what a particular community investment supports. Council hears about the work, asks questions and has an opportunity to meet the people delivering it.

The previous Community Investment Day focused on economic development. This one focused on FCSS, a regional partnership supporting preventive social programs.

The purpose is partly to show what public funding makes possible and partly to give Council information it can use when considering future investments.

2. Why is it called Community Investment Day?

The City says it renamed “Agency Day” to Community Investment Day to put more emphasis on outcomes: what happens in the community because of these investments.

That does not take attention away from the organizations doing the work. The agenda says the event is also meant to recognize community partners, make their work more visible and give councillors a chance to speak with them.

3. Did Council make a new FCSS funding decision on October 15?

No new funding approval appears in the meeting transcript. The agenda presented the FCSS report for information.

Administration gave a presentation, councillors asked questions, and board members and funded organizations were invited to meet with Council afterward. The funding figures discussed during the presentation should not be mistaken for amounts Council voted to add that day.

4. What is FCSS, and who pays for it?

FCSS supports prevention: programs intended to strengthen connections, families and communities before difficulties become crises. In the Red Deer area, six municipalities work together through the Red Deer & District FCSS partnership. The City of Red Deer administers the regional program.

The overall funding arrangement is 80% provincial and 20% municipal. How the municipal share is divided can vary depending on where particular programs operate and whom they serve.

Administration said the City of Red Deer contributed just under $530,000 in 2025. The six municipalities together contributed about $811,000 toward a regional FCSS program of more than $4 million.

5. Where does the money go?

The overall FCSS budget is broader than grants to outside organizations. It also supports locally based staff who help connect residents with services, build neighbourhood groups and coordinate community efforts, as well as administration of the regional program.

Grants are a major part of it. For the current 2024–2026 cycle, the board provided almost $2.5 million a year across 22 funded programs. Administration clarified during the presentation that this means 22 programs, not 22 separate organizations.

For the upcoming 2027–2029 cycle, the board has allocated almost $2.5 million in annual grant support across 18 local organizations. Examples discussed at the meeting included youth mentoring, school-based family supports, counselling, meals and support for seniors, and Indigenous-led programming.

6. What did Council hear about the work on the ground?

The presentation included stories from funded organizations and from residents involved in smaller community projects.

One example was Bower Community Connections, a group for residents aged 60 and older. Administration said four people attended its first gathering in 2021. It now has more than 60 members who meet twice a month.

Council also heard about Spark and Reconnect grants, which help residents start projects that bring people together. Spark offers up to $1,000 in matching funding per project. Administration said this year’s funding for both programs had been used up. Spark currently has a $20,000 annual pool.

Those examples show what some programs are doing. They do not, by themselves, tell us how many future crises were prevented or how much money other public systems saved.

7. What was the biggest funding issue raised?

The next grant cycle received almost $4.62 million in eligible funding requests, while about $2.5 million was available. That is a gap of roughly $2.12 million between eligible requests and available funding.

It does not mean Council was asked to approve an additional $2.12 million at this meeting. It also may not capture every need in the region. Administration noted that some groups may not have the capacity or awareness to apply.

But it does show how much more eligible funding was requested than the board could provide.

8. What did councillors ask?

The questions went beyond praise for the organizations. Councillors asked how the board chooses its priorities, whether new organizations can seek funding, what happens if additional money becomes available during a three-year cycle, and why youth account for such a large share of participants.

They also asked whether the small community grants are oversubscribed, how volunteer contributions are tracked, and how FCSS can demonstrate its longer-term impact.

Administration said emerging-project funding is open to applicants beyond those already funded. If additional money became available during a cycle, the board would decide how to use it. That could include adding to existing grants or opening another opportunity to apply.

9. Can the City prove what FCSS saves in the long run?

Not precisely, and City staff were careful about that distinction.

The presentation showed rising participation and offered estimates based on research into the possible value of prevention. But the City’s research and evaluation specialist said the program does not currently track a participant over many years to establish whether an earlier service prevented a later crisis. She described the dollar-savings figures as extrapolations, not a measured return from Red Deer’s FCSS programs.

That does not erase the experiences shared at the meeting. It does mean we should distinguish those experiences, participation counts and estimates from proven long-term financial savings.

What happens next?

The FCSS board has set its priorities and made grant allocations for the 2027–2029 cycle. Its stated priorities are mental health and well-being; child and youth development; community connection and neighbourhood engagement; and strong family cohesion and relationships.

Administration also said it is working on changes to the grant application process to reduce barriers, along with a longer-term review of the board’s funding guide.

My main takeaway from the meeting is factual rather than a judgment on what Council should spend: Community Investment Day gave Council a closer look at what FCSS funding supports, while also putting a substantial gap between eligible requests and available grants on the public record.

Sources: City of Red Deer, October 15, 2026 Community Investment Day agenda and Council meeting presentation and discussion.

Deep Dive: Council Review: Kin Kanyon Rocket Return?

October 16, 2026

COUNCIL REVIEW: Could the Kin Kanyon rocket return?

DEEP DIVE: What Council approved on October 13

The old rocket ship at Kin Kanyon is gone, but plenty of Red Deerians still remember it. Near the end of Tuesday’s meeting, Councillor Chad Krahn brought forward an idea to bring a rocket ship playground back.

Council supported his motion unanimously. So what does that vote actually mean?

1. What was the original rocket ship?

The rocket was a playground structure at Kin Kanyon. The Red Deer Museum + Art Gallery says the Red Deer Kinsmen Club built it in 1967. It stood 26 feet tall and had a control cabin and slide.

2. Why did this come up now?

Councillor Krahn told Council he had been hearing residents’ memories of the rocket. He also said he had learned that Kin Kanyon’s playground was already slated for replacement, creating an opportunity to consider a rocket-inspired playground as part of that work.

3. What did Council approve?

Krahn proposed bringing the rocket ship idea into the City’s sponsorship program. Councillor Bruce Buruma seconded the motion and shared his own childhood memory of the playground. Council voted unanimously in favour.

The City’s sponsorship pilot is intended to explore partnerships that can support public amenities. Including the rocket idea in that program creates a way to pursue potential support for it.

4. Does this mean a new rocket has been funded and designed?

No. Council did not approve a design, construction cost, sponsor or completion date during this discussion. It also did not decide that a new structure would be an exact copy of the 1967 rocket.

This was a motion raised during the meeting, not a detailed project proposal in the published agenda. The unanimous vote shows Council wants the idea pursued. There are still practical decisions to make before anyone can say what will be built.

5. What should we watch for next?

The next meaningful details will be what the playground replacement plans look like, whether a sponsor comes forward and what a rocket-inspired structure would cost. For now, the possibility is back on the table, but a new rocket is not yet guaranteed.

Sources: October 13, 2026 Red Deer City Council meeting; [City of Red Deer sponsorship program](https://www.reddeer.ca/business/sponsorship/); [Red Deer Museum + Art Gallery rocket history](https://reddeermuseum.com/50th/).

Archival photo: Red Deer Archives, Identifier S17468.

Deep Dive: Council Review: Two Votes, Two Stages.

October 16, 2026

COUNCIL REVIEW: One zoning bylaw approved, four borrowing bylaws move forward

DEEP DIVE: Two separate decisions from October 13

I covered these proposals before the meeting, so this review focuses on what Council actually did. Although both votes were unanimous, they were at very different stages: one bylaw is now approved, while four others received only first reading.

PART 1: THE OMNIBUS ZONING BYLAW

1. What was Council voting on?

Bylaw 3357/GG-2026 combines several changes to Red Deer’s Zoning Bylaw. Some correct duplication or wording. Others change how particular rules work, including permits for short-term temporary uses, replacement signs, home occupations and certain uses in specific zones.

This was separate from the parking-variance proposal Council considered later that evening.

2. What happened at the public hearing?

No one spoke to Council in person or online.

Councillor Dianne Wyntjes asked whether the change concerning business vehicles and trailers would affect residents storing their personal holiday trailers. Administration said it would not. (Essentially, this does not affect the personal holiday trailer rules at all, those have not changed)

She also asked why the professional-office rule in the DC28 zone was being simplified. Administration explained that most buildings there have only a ground floor, so a rule limiting offices to floors above ground level did not make sense for those buildings.

Council then gave Bylaw 3357/GG-2026 second and third readings unanimously. It is approved.

PART 2: THE UTILITY BORROWING BYLAWS

3. What borrowing moved forward?

Council gave first reading to four bylaws that would permit up to $25.3 million in borrowing for water and wastewater projects already included in the approved 2027 Utilities Capital Budget:

• $5.106 million for the water infrastructure annual program

• $7.394 million for water treatment plant rehabilitation and replacement

• $1.647 million for the wastewater infrastructure annual program

• $11.153 million for wastewater treatment plant rehabilitation and replacement

The four projects have a combined budget of $37.935 million. The remaining $12.635 million is budgeted to come from reserves.

4. Has Council approved taking on that debt?

Not yet. First reading starts the borrowing-bylaw process; it is not final approval, and it does not mean the City has borrowed $25.3 million.

The agenda says the bylaws would set a maximum amount. If they eventually pass, the City would borrow only as project spending requires, potentially over multiple years. Principal and interest would be repaid from utility revenue and reflected in future utility budgets.

5. What happens next?

The City planned to advertise the borrowing bylaws on October 17 and 24. There is a statutory period for residents to petition after the final advertisement. Council was told second and third readings are expected to return on December 8.

Unlike the omnibus zoning change, these borrowing bylaws do not have a public hearing. The Mayor noted the advertising and petition process before Council voted unanimously to give all four first reading.

The short version: the omnibus zoning amendment passed. The utility borrowing bylaws have not passed yet, and no borrowing occurred because of the October 13 first-reading vote.

Source: October 13, 2026 Red Deer City Council agenda and meeting discussion

Council Review: Canada Public Transit Fund

October 16, 2026

COUNCIL REVIEW: What happened with the federal transit grant?

At its October 13 meeting, Council approved a budget change for nearly $9.9 million in potential federal transit funding over ten years. The item passed unanimously as part of the consent agenda, so there was little debate. One question did clarify an important point: this funding is intended for conventional buses, not Action Buses.

1. What did Council approve?

Council approved a budget amendment to account for $9,890,380 in federal funding, divided into annual amounts of $989,038 over ten years.

This was approval to include the grant in the City’s budget. It was not a decision to spend $9.9 million in new City money.

2. What would the money buy?

The City plans to use it toward replacing conventional transit buses. Administration’s plan is to replace three buses a year for up to ten years.

The federal funding would cover up to 40% of eligible capital costs. The remaining cost would need to come from other funding sources.

3. Is the federal money guaranteed?

Not yet. The federal government approved Red Deer’s capital plan *in principle*. Its letter says reimbursement depends on a signed contribution agreement and approval of the individual components of the plan. Without that agreement, the federal government will not reimburse costs.

When the agenda was prepared, the draft agreement was also awaiting Alberta’s review under the Provincial Priorities Act. Council’s vote did not remove those conditions.

4. What about Action Buses?

A councillor asked that question during the meeting. Administration said this funding is focused on conventional transit buses. Action Buses were part of the separate 2027 Capital Budget discussion, not this grant amendment.

That distinction is easy to miss when both decisions happen at the same meeting.

5. Why does this matter?

The agenda says Red Deer Transit provided about 2.75 million passenger trips in 2025, including roughly 1.43 million student trips and 448,000 trips using the Transit Fare Assistance Pass. Replacing aging buses helps the City keep that service running reliably.

The key takeaway is that Council has made room in the budget for a substantial federal contribution to conventional bus replacements. The funding still has conditions to clear, and the grant does not cover the full cost of those buses.

Source: City of Red Deer, October 13, 2026 Council agenda. Image - Red Deer Archives - Identifier: S23207

Deep Dive: Council Review: Council Committees Bylaw

October 16, 2026

COUNCIL REVIEW: Committees Bylaw passes unanimously

DEEP DIVE:

Before getting into the discussion, I want to be clear about how I’m approaching this review. I’m reporting what Council did and what the bylaw says, but the questions I focus on reflect two concerns I raised before the meeting. You will see some of my own judgment in the write-up, even before the “My two cents” section. I want to be upfront about that.

Those concerns do not mean I think the rest of the bylaw is bad or ill-advised. My concern is with two particular changes that I believe deserved more scrutiny before Council gave it final approval.

1. What did Council approve?

Council unanimously gave final approval to a new Committees Bylaw on October 13. It replaces the bylaw that has governed Red Deer’s council committees since 2016.

The bylaw sets common rules for how those committees operate, including meetings, public participation, agendas, minutes and annual work plans. It contains many changes, and I am not suggesting the entire document is a problem.

2. What is the concern about committee minutes?

The previous bylaw expressly said committee agendas and minutes would be routinely available to the public, except where information was protected from disclosure.

The new bylaw still requires committees to record and adopt minutes. It also says agendas must be publicly available. But it does not carry forward the same express requirement to make minutes routinely available to the public.

That does not mean the City plans to stop posting minutes. It means the written rule requiring their routine public availability is no longer in this bylaw.

3. Did Council ask about that?

A councillor asked why committee minutes sometimes take time to appear online. Administration said the process for posting them would continue and agreed to look at the turnaround time.

I am glad the question was asked. But the discussion focused on how quickly minutes are posted, not on why the requirement to make them publicly available had been removed from the bylaw. Council did not add that requirement back or set a publication deadline before approving the new rules.

4. What is the second concern?

Under the new bylaw, someone who wants to speak to a committee must submit a written request at least two weeks before the meeting.

The Clerk and committee liaison first review the request. The chair can then accept it, ask for more information, refer it elsewhere or decline it if the subject falls outside the committee’s mandate or is considered “otherwise inappropriate.”

The bylaw also says a committee may authorize someone to speak at an open meeting. What is less clear is how that authority works when the chair has already declined a request before the meeting. The bylaw does not set out an express way to ask the full committee to reconsider that pre-meeting decision.

5. Did Council discuss that concern?

Not during the October 13 debate. Councillors asked questions about other aspects of the bylaw, including support for committee members, but the two-week deadline and the chair’s role in deciding advance requests were not raised. Council made no amendments at this meeting before approving the bylaw unanimously.

6. Why does the distinction matter?

A committee chair needs some ability to manage requests. Not every proposed presentation will fit a committee’s work.

My question is whether one person should make the final advance decision on a request that has already gone through an initial review, particularly when the bylaw also refers to the committee’s authority to hear from the public. Clearer wording would help residents understand who decides, on what grounds and whether the committee can reconsider a refusal.

My two cents:

On minutes, this is a “fool me once, shame on you” situation, except I would rather not have to be fooled at all. I am not accusing anyone of planning to hide committee minutes. I would simply prefer the commitment to publish them, with a reasonable timeline, to be written into the bylaw rather than left as an assurance made during a meeting.

I also think Council should have taken a closer look at who decides whether a resident can speak to a committee. The wording leaves me with questions that could have been addressed before final approval.

Earlier in the meeting, the mayor acknowledged that working late may not produce Council’s best decisions. This bylaw came up late in a long day. I cannot say that is why these questions went unasked, but it is fair to wonder whether this item received the reflection it deserved.

Again, these are concerns about two parts of the bylaw, not a claim that every other change was wrong. Council has approved it. The question now is whether these rules work as intended and whether Council will revisit them if problems arise.

Source: October 13, 2026 Red Deer City Council agenda

Westerner: Free Parking or Paid Parking?

October 15, 2026

Would paid parking change how often you attend events at Westerner Park?

From recent discussion I have had, I understand that paid parking may be returning to Westerner Park. Note that I haven’t independently confirmed that, but I have had conversations around the matter and an confident enough to believe it is worth discussing and hearing where the community stands.

Concerts, games, trade shows and family events can already add up quickly, especially for families paying for several people to go. Adding another cost just to park could make people think twice about attending.

Personally speaking, I’d much rather see the focus on getting more people through the doors and keeping events as accessible as possible.

How would it affect you? If paid parking returned, would you attend events as often, go less often, or would it depend on the parking fee and the event?I’m interested in hearing your reasons either way. I’d also welcome Westerner’s perspective, and I’d be happy to hear that parking is staying free.

Westerner is an important part of our community. With the financial support the City has provided and City councillors serving on its board, how it operates is something the community has a stake in and I think having these conversations is healthy.

I see Westerner as part of our community’s future. I want to see it busy, successful and full of people enjoying everything it has to offer. That’s where I’m coming from with this discussion: I care about its success, and I want local families to keep being part of it.

Deep Dive: Council Review: Parking Wars

October 15, 2026

COUNCIL REVIEW: PARKING WARS

Deep dive, October 13 Council meeting, Item 8.2

Council has now voted on a proposed bylaw that would have added criteria for considering large reductions in required on-site parking across much of the city. The result may surprise people who followed the earlier discussion.

1. How did this start?

In January, Council asked Administration to look at ways to reduce required parking by up to 70% for subsidized housing developments and Temporary Care Facilities. The concern was that requiring too much on-site parking could make those projects harder to build.

2. What was Council voting on October 13?

Council was considering Bylaw 3357/LL-2026. It would have added criteria for deciding when a development could receive a reduction in its required on-site parking. Those criteria included access to transit, nearby services, available street parking and the parking demand expected from the development.

Here is the important difference: January’s motion focused on subsidized housing and Temporary Care Facilities. The bylaw before Council in October was not limited to those projects. Administration’s report said it would generally apply “across uses and Zones,” subject to specific zoning restrictions. Other types of development could also seek a parking variance under these criteria.

A “70% reduction” would mean that if a development would normally need 10 on-site spaces, it could ask to provide three instead. It would not automatically remove 70% of parking from any street or guarantee every applicant a reduction.

3. When did that difference become clear at the meeting?

Councillor Adam Goodwin asked directly whether a developer outside the non-market housing sector could use the proposed rule. Administration said yes.

Councillor Cassandra Curtis then asked why the bylaw did not specify subsidized or non-market housing, as she had understood that to be the purpose of the original motion. Administration explained that the option Council selected in September did not make the funding model a condition of eligibility.

That difference between Council’s original request and the wording it was now being asked to approve became the heart of the debate.

4. Why was the bylaw written more broadly?

Administration explained that the zoning bylaw deals mainly with land use and the parking demand of a development. It does not normally regulate a project based on who lives there or how the housing is funded. (Agenda pages 248–249)

Council had been given another option that was more specifically tied to non-market housing. But that option would have set a different parking standard for qualifying projects rather than assessing each parking reduction individually. Administration identified drawbacks with that approach too, including the lack of reliable local evidence that every qualifying project would need only 30% of the usual parking.

Each approach came with trade-offs. Council had to decide whether the broader bylaw was the right response to its original request.

5. What were the potential pitfalls?

A parking reduction can have a lasting effect. The agenda explains that if a building is constructed with fewer parking spaces and later stops operating as subsidized housing, those missing spaces do not simply reappear. The building could continue operating with less parking than would normally be required for market housing.

There were checks on individual decisions. Councillor Kraymer Barnstable asked how neighbours would find out and challenge a parking variance. Administration described notice to landowners within 100 metres and a 21-day appeal period. A proposed reduction of more than 70% would have to go to the Municipal Planning Commission or Council.

But that is different from consulting the whole city about the bylaw. When Councillor Curtis asked about broader engagement, the City Manager clarified that the October 13 public hearing was the consultation step for this amendment. No one came forward to speak at the hearing, either in person or online.

Councillor Dianne Wyntjes also asked whether Administration knew of any current housing project being held up by the existing bylaw. Administration said it was not aware of one.

6. What did councillors say before the vote?

Councillor Adam Goodwin said the option Council selected earlier did not appear to deliver the housing-focused result he had understood Council to be seeking. Councillor Curtis raised a similar concern: the proposed wording was not limited to non-market housing.

Councillor Dianne Wyntjes focused on a different issue. She was uncomfortable with parking reductions of up to 70% being decided by the development authority rather than going to the Municipal Planning Commission, where she felt there was more opportunity for residents to be heard.

Councillor Chad Krahn, who brought forward the original housing concern, said this was not the option he had hoped for, but he was still willing to support it.

Mayor Cindy Jefferies reflected on the earlier decision to select this option, noting that making such choices late in a long meeting may not have been Council’s best moment.

7. What was the result?

The bylaw was defeated at second reading. It did not receive final approval.

That means the new, broadly applicable parking-variance criteria were not added to the zoning bylaw. It does not mean all parking variances are now prohibited, and it does not resolve the original question of whether Red Deer should have a more focused approach for subsidized housing.

My two cents:

I’m grateful this version was stopped. I had shared some of these concerns before the meeting, and I was glad to hear them raised during Council’s discussion. I think rejecting this bylaw was the right move.

I suspect the idea may return within six months in a more restrained form, perhaps focused on particular developments or even a site-specific Direct Control zone.

The original idea has merit. But in my view, a possible 70% reduction is too much. Even non-market housing can create significant parking demand. Once a building is approved and constructed with substantially fewer spaces, that decision can be difficult to undo.

Sources: City of Red Deer, October 13 Council agenda, Item 8.2, pages 243–259

Capital Budget: Public Comments 1 of 4

October 12, 2026

2027 CAPITAL BUDGET: PUBLIC COMMENTS, PART 1 OF 4

Council debates the proposed Capital Budget tomorrow, Tuesday, October 13. Today I’m sharing the comments published in the Council agenda, in order, so you can read what residents actually wrote rather than only my summary or a selection of quotes.

This post contains Query 1-10 . I’m leaving the writers’ words as published.

Query CP1

Hello,

With the significant ownership costs of the large number of light duty and heavy duty

vehicles that the city has in its fleet.

Has the city explored leasing as an option for fleet management?

Life cycle studies by many corporations have determined that leasing is an extremely

cost effective fleet management model. It also provides opportunities to expand or

contract the size of the fleet without significant capital requirements to manage the size

of the fleet. Leasing could significantly reduce the ongoing capital requirements for the

vehicle fleet in the city.

Thank you for your consideration.

Query CP2

To whom it may concern,

please finish building 20th avenue or which ever street is being built east of Vanier and

Laredo. The residents of Viscount drive, 22 street and a handful of others have been

slowly bombarded with an increasing amount of traffic for years now as Laredo has

been developed. Meanwhile, no additional thorofares have been created to subsidize

this increase. The residents on these existing routes deserve a long awaited return to

acceptable vehicle traffic not only for safety, but also peace in their homes and yards

that they once knew. Laredo residents also would benefit from another, more direct

route which would help them not to travel through a neighboring residential area. 20th

ave would also aid home builders, delivery services, etc and entice other businesses to

move into the area. Please consider finishing what has already started, to make life

easier and better for so many.

Thank you

Query CP3

Please leave the traffic lights up.

In the busy traffic times circles take longer to get through than the circles.

Now add pedestrian crosswalk lights & things back up all the more.

At least with the lights, pedestrians timing works with the light control.

My vote goes to lights.

Query CP4

I am citizen of red deer for 25 years , I own my own business in construction and also

own multiple rental properties. Needless to say I m very invested in our city.

I however vote against the traffic circle that is proposed , I know it’s a busy Intersection

with lots of big trucks and commercial and passenger vehicles, but what happens when

a city grows leaps n bounds in the last 10 years is the roads get busy all over the city.

It’s not just that intersection that’s needs attention in a growing city …

I feel a cost and time to build a traffic circle is far too high and that money could be used

in other parts of the city

I say NO to proposed roundabout

Query CP5

Regarding the 67th street via Taylor drive 2027 capital budget.

I do not agree with putting a traffic circle at this location.

There has not been consultation proving there is a need.

There has not been consulting or communication with the public that traffic circles

actually improve safety, road conditions, or are less dangerous especially in winter.

There are much more pressing needs for a 9 million dollar price tag than another traffic

circle in red deer.

Thanks I look forward to any meaningful reply.

Query CP6

As a taxpayer who has just received a substantial increase in property taxes, I am

extremely concerned about the proposal to move forward with another infrastructure

project at a time when the cost of living is already putting significant pressure on

families.

This project appears to be an unnecessary use of taxpayer dollars. We already have

traffic lights and dedicated turning lanes at this intersection, and I question the need to

spend additional public funds replacing infrastructure that is currently functioning.

Under Mayor Jefferies leadership, Red Deer residents have already experienced

significant tax increcrease. Many families are being forced to make difficult choices

between essentials such as groceries, mortgage payments, utilities, and other

household expenses. Adding projects that are not essential only places further financial

pressure on taxpayers.

I strongly believe taxpayer dollars should be directed toward essential services,

maintaining existing infrastructure, and addressing priorities that directly affect residents

rather than unnecessary projects.

I urge Council to carefully reconsider this proposal and the additional financial burden it

could place on Red Deer taxpayers.

Thank you for taking the concerns of residents into consideration.

Sincerely

Query CP7

67 & Taylor traffic circle

No!

Best

Query CP8

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to voice my concerns about the proposed roundabout at Taylor and 67th. In

years past, I have almost been in numerous accidents in quieter ones as a result of a

lack of education (or care for the safety of others). I have seen people drive straight

through them, and go the wrong way. There is a reason I look both ways before

entering a roundabout now. I avoid them like the plague for my own safety.

This proposal seems reckless, foolish and frankly if it goes through, I may have to look

at moving to another city that cares about the safety of all its citizens. The money could

be better spent on other projects such as road repairs or snow removal. Let us consider

those options before we waste taxpayers money on this. Frankly, I would prefer the

money be spent on a go nowhere committee than this. At least the committee won't run

the risk of killing people.

Yours truly

Query CP9

I am writing to oppose the proposed roundabout at 67th and Taylor Drive. Looking at

millions of dollars over 3 years to build yet another roundabout at our expense is a

ridiculous waste of money. Our property tax could be lowered with that money or

something that would actually improve our quality of life in red deer. The 11a bypass

that was supposed to happen years ago would take a ton of traffic off our streets and

save everyone time and money getting around the city. We have one safe fenced off

leash park for our dogs and we could certainly use another swimming pool. Put some

funds into making our city safe. The last thing we need is to rip apart functioning

intersections to have never ending construction and another excuse to up our property

taxes again in a couple of years without having really done anything to make Red Deer

a better place to live.

Sincerely,

Query CP10

Hello,

just saw the proposal for the 67th Street Taylor roundabout. This is a horrendous idea.

People cannot navigate the roundabouts that are in Red Deer right now because there's

different types of roundabouts and they work differently and people have to read the

pictures in order to know where to go.

They simply do not work in these major major intersections. And with our aging

population in Red Deer it makes it even more difficult for them to get out and about

confidently.

I have many elderly neighbors that simply won't go to certain places because they have

to go to a roundabout. There's always many accidents, and many near collisions.

Also the cost is exorbitant and simply doesn't need to be spent on this there's many

other areas in Red Deer that need attention such as housing maintaining the roads we

already have. A project like this isn't a benefit to Red Deer for this amount of money it's

unwarranted.

Best regards,

I’ll continue with the next group of comments in Part 2

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

Capital Budget: Public Comments 2 of 4

October 12, 2026

2027 CAPITAL BUDGET: PUBLIC COMMENTS, PART 2 OF 4

Council debates the proposed Capital Budget tomorrow, Tuesday, October 13. Today I’m sharing the comments published in the Council agenda, in order, so you can read what residents actually wrote rather than only my summary or a selection of quotes.

This post contains Query 11-20 . I’m leaving the writers’ words as published.

Query CP11
Hello,
As a long time resident and tax payer, I want to register my strong displeasure with this
proposal.
Way too much of our money going into something that would be a huge problem with all
the commercial traffic coming through there. The 67 and Johnson one is enough of a
big problem in its design and execution!
Side note: Get those lights across town synchronized .please! ...we often go block by
block on red lights.. I drive 32nd often, and especially at non rush hour times, it is a
huge pain to drive east to west because of this issue.
Do not waste our tax dollars on yet another roundabout. Esp not there.
Regards,

Query CP12
To Whom It may Concern,
I am not a roundabout hater. I actually don't have a problem driving through our cities
many, many, many roundabouts. I do have a problem with the choice of location for this
one. The wait at this intersection is not, and has never been an issue. I have lived within
5 minutes of this intersection for over 32 years. Please reconsider converting this
location to a roundabout. I would have thought the Taylor - Highway 11a intersection
would have become one long before the consideration of Taylor and 67th.
Sincerely,

Query CP13
I disagree with the necessity of planning a roundabout at 67 th and Taylor Drive. We
have lights that work there. Drivers can wait a min to move in traffic. We have enough
roundabouts and taxes are high enough!
Just program lights better throughout the city and traffic will flow just fine.
Thanks for the opportunity to voice our concerns

Query CP14
Hi,
I live in the area and I like to express that I do not support the roundabout at Taylor and
67 street.
I drive that way almost everyday and I don’t see the need. Yes, there is traffic but I
don’t see the need to have another roundabout.
Not every major intersection needs to have a roundabout. (don’t see Calgary and
Edmonton doing this so why does Red Deer think this)
This is a large sum of money that is not needed to be spent.
Since I bought my house my property taxes have increased yearly and I don’t think
people need to spend more money on their taxes. This is the expense that doesn’t need
to occur.
The road was just resurfaced. Which is expense that people in Red Deer have paid for.

Query CP15
I have reviewed the capital budget that was recently released on the city website. I do
not think the city should be paying to build an Indigenous Cultural building. Item 2025
BRC 0052.

Query CP16
Greetings Council:
I would like to see a much higher degree of accountability and responsibility when it
comes to road repair and other infrastructure projects. Specifically in the past 2 years
40th ave, gaetz ave, Taylor drive perfectly good roads have been resurfaced.
Ridiculous. What's worse the microsurfacing left 3 inch POTHOLES at every manhole
cover. That makes NO sense. I see 6 people watching one person work on road repairs,
a very bad optic that has been allowed forever. 39th street and 30th ave. hasn't
changed since we moved here in 1983 yet Reddeer has doubled since. 40th ave and
Ross st. as well as many other intersections have the 4 light system for advance left
turning that are never on at peak hours. Some " repairs " are shoddy ie. around sewer
drains that sink shortly after AND new sidewalk replacement that crack within the 1st
year. Very inefficient use of tax dollars.
Thankyou

Query CP17
I am writing to express my opinion on this proposal.
Citizens are continuously met with tax increases every year.
EVERY YEAR.
The city of Red Deer needs to adopt the same philosophy as homeowners must live
with. NEEDS and WANTS.
There is no need for this roundabout at this intersection.
There is no need for a roundabout at Taylor and 32 Street which I expect you’re also
considering.
This is not the time to spend on things that are not necessary.
Personally, we cannot afford more tax increases. We are seniors living within our
means. The city needs to adopt this attitude.

Query CP18
Hi,
As someone who lives near 67th and Taylor, please do not put in a roundabout. it is not
need. just adjust the timing on these lights. Especially heading east on 67th and turing
left onto Taylor . The turning signal needs to be longer. Most people have issues using
a roundabout. Look at the only implemented on 67th near the QEII hiway. so many
accidents at this roundabout. No to roundabouts. they are a waste of money.

Query CP19
As a resident of Red Deer and a regular user of the intersection at Taylor Drive and 67
Street I don’t see any benefit to changing the intersection to a roundabout. While the
initial cost isn’t that high, the overall cost to change it is very high and I don’t think the
cost is justified by the possible minimal benefit.
Yours truly

Query CP20
Good day,
Please don't turn this intersection into a roundabout about. I cannot imagine it will be
helpful to move traffic through this intersection. I live in the neighbourhood, and traffic
moves efficiently the way it is now. I only ever wait one light to proceed which is totally
acceptable.
The traffic circle already on 67th after coming off QEII is a nightmare. I know truckers
who haul large units through that intersection/roundabout and they HATE it. It's nearly
impossible to manage. The added pedestrian crossings are also difficult to manage as a
driver and a pedestrian.
I'm not sure about this ongoing desire to add roundabouts everywhere. They really do
not function for our weather conditions in the winter and the large number of large truck
and trailer units that move through this city. I've seen many trucks struggle and even
one get caught in a roundabout since these went in throughout the city and county.
Thank you for your time,

I’ll continue with the next group of comments in Part 3

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

Capital Budget: Public Comments 3 of 4

October 12, 2026

2027 CAPITAL BUDGET: PUBLIC COMMENTS, PART [X] OF 4

This post contains Query 21-28 (Plus an unnumbered selection) . I’m leaving the writers’ words as published.

Query CP21

In my opinion the traffic circle placed there is a total waste of money. It’s working just

fine the way it is. The tax increase we will have to pay is not worth the 2 min extra you

have to wait for a light to change. Most people have no clue how to use a traffic circle

properly. More accidents in a traffic circle than in a normal intersection. My vote is NO.

Query CP22

Roundabout budget proposal

Please do not put a roundabout there.

Query CP23

no roundabout at 67 and taylor

no thanks

Query CP24

I do not live in Red Deer but do visit 2-3x a year. A recent post on FB regarding a traffic

circle at Taylor Drive and 67th, has me concerned. From the comments on the post,

many people are against this traffic circle. The cost alone could be used elsewhere. I

used to enter Red Deer on 67th, and the traffic circle there is horrid. I now enter Red

Deer on highway 11A and travel on Taylor Drive to my destination. I hate traffic circles,

too many accidents! Please reconsider not putting a horrid traffic circle at this

intersection. Council members also need to reconsider and cancel this traffic circle!

I await to hear from you.

Query CP25

I totally think that putting a roundabout at 67th and Taylor Drive would be a total waste

of money. I drive this intersection a lot and have noticed no problems. I think this City is

going roundabout crazy. Just saying.

A very disgruntled taxpayer

Query CP26

I understand that the City is proposing a roundabout for the intersection at 67th street

and Taylor Drive.

I do not support spending funds on the roundabout itself or on a study to determine the

benefit of a roundabout in that location. The City has too many other vital services to

fund with taxpayer money. Using funds for the proposed project would be financially

irresponsible.

Query CP27

Councillors,

I would like to voice my opinion about the proposed traffic circle at 67th Street and

Taylor Drive. I live on 69th Street, two blocks north of this intersection, and use the

intersection often. I see no reason to change it to a traffic circle. I have no issue with

traffic circles, but I don't believe a circle at this location warrants the expenditure.

Sincerely,

Query CP28

There is a lot of information and details involved with this and due to an incredibly short

time to digest it all, my comments and suggestions as a Red Deer resident and taxpayer

are as follows:

•Taxpayers are maxed out with increases!!! This is always the City’s inevitable go/to

solution. We are maxed out. We, the residents, have to live within our means. So should

the City.

•Cancel or delay the construction of any more traffic circles. The intersections are very

functional as they currently are.

•20% cut of city administration and management staff need to be considered before any

tax increases.

NOT from the actual workers on the ground.

I have never seen cuts to administration and/or management proposed as an option

when you’re looking for cuts. I think it’s time.

•If you’re unsure about a big ticket “feel good” project then I suggest it be postponed or

cancelled. Do we NEED it or do we WANT it??? This is the method we use in our home.

I hope you will seriously consider my suggestions.

Thank you.

Unnumberd Query

Dear Mayor, Council, and City Administration,

I am writing with a few questions regarding the proposed 67 Street/Taylor Drive

roundabout included in the 2027 proposed budget.

I want to start by saying that I am generally very supportive of roundabouts. I think

they work extremely well when they are used in the right locations. My concern here is

whether this particular intersection has the right traffic pattern for one, given how heavily

travelled both 67 Street and Taylor Drive are and the amount of turning traffic in all

directions.

I am also not completely convinced that the current traffic volume justifies the cost and

disruption of a major reconstruction yet. At the same time, I understand there may be

value in investing now rather than waiting until the intersection becomes overrun and

construction becomes even more disruptive.

1. Current traffic volumes

During the morning rush hour and the after-school through evening rush-hour

period, what are the City’s current traffic counts for:

• northbound and southbound Taylor Drive, including the number going straight

through and turning left;

• eastbound and westbound 67 Street, including the number going straight through

and turning left?

The left-turn volumes are particularly important. Vehicles turning left through a

roundabout remain in the circle longer and pass in front of other entrances before

exiting. With significant left turns potentially coming from all four directions, has the City

ooked at how that affects the ability of other traffic to enter the roundabout during the

busiest periods?

2. Future traffic

What future traffic growth is the City planning for at this intersection?

I am particularly interested in the future residential development north of Highway 11A.

As that area develops, I would expect additional traffic to travel south on Taylor Drive.

How much of that future growth is expected to reach 67 Street/Taylor Drive, and is that

being accounted for in the proposed design?

3. Proposed roundabout

What size and style of roundabout is being considered? Would it be similar to the

existing 67 Street/Johnstone Drive roundabout?

Simply, I would like to know whether the City’s modelling shows that a roundabout will

still move traffic efficiently during the busiest periods, when there is heavy left-turn traffic

in several directions at once, and whether it will still have enough capacity as Red Deer

continues to grow.

4. Other options

What other intersection designs were considered before the roundabout was selected?

I have attached an FHWA example of a Displaced Left Turn/Continuous Flow

Intersection (DLT/CFI) simply to show the type of alternative I am referring to. I am not

suggesting that this exact design can simply be placed at 67 Street/Taylor Drive.

I would also be interested in whether the City has looked at a more significant long-term

option, such as a flyover carrying the straight through east and west bound traffic on 67

Street over the intersection, while keeping turning traffic at ground level. Then also

using something similar to a DLT/CFI for Taylor Drive traffic.

We can safely assume that a project like that would cost substantially more initially. My

question is whether it could ultimately be less disruptive but better in the long term

than constructing a roundabout now and having to significantly modify or replace it

again if future traffic eventually exceeds its capacity.

If such an approach were feasible, I would also be curious whether a similar concept

could eventually be considered at 67 Street and Gaetz Avenue (built from west of 52

Ave. to east of Pamely Ave.), allowing those two major intersections to be looked at as

part of a longer-term 67 Street corridor plan.

5. Comparing the options

If these or other alternatives have already been considered and denied, could the City

provide a basic comparison showing:

• how much traffic each option was expected to handle;

• how long the queues and delays were expected to be during busy periods ( now

and decades into the future);

• Safety considerations;

• approximate construction costs; and

• how well each option was expected to handle future growth?

I understand that roundabouts generally have a strong safety record. I would just like to

know whether a roundabout was selected because the City’s analysis showed it was the

best option for this particular intersection, rather than simply because “roundabouts

are generally considered safer than traditional signalized intersections”.

6. Preliminary design information

Has a functional or preliminary design report already been completed?

If so, when will the City release the traffic information, alternatives considered, and

preliminary design so the public can better understand why a roundabout is being

proposed?

Again, I am not opposed to roundabouts. I simply want to make sure that if the City is

going to make a significant investment at this intersection, the solution chosen will

adequately serve both the traffic we have today and the traffic Red Deer is likely to have

in the future.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best Regards,

I’ll continue with the next group of comments in Part 4.

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

Capital Budget: Public Comments 4 of 4

October 12, 2026

2027 CAPITAL BUDGET: PUBLIC COMMENTS, PART 4 OF 4

Before the final group, a quick note about the numbering. It may look as though I skipped CP29–CP34, but those numbers do not appear in the published agenda. There is one submission between CP28 and CP35 without a visible query number, and I included it in Part 3. I don’t know why the numbering jumps, so I won’t speculate.

Below are the remaining published comments, CP35–CP46. For transparency, CP35 is my own submission to Council. As with the earlier parts, I’m sharing the comments as published so you can read the writers’ words for yourself.

Query CP35
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,

Query CP36
Dear City of Red Deer Council,
I strongly urge Red Deer City Council to prioritize household affordability and
government transparency by thoroughly scrutinizing the proposed 2027 Capital Budget
line by line.
Council was explicitly elected to cut back excess spending, save money, reduce taxes,
and focus strictly on critical infrastructure until our debt is better controlled and our
reserves are restored for the future.
Asking taxpayers to fund millions of dollars based only on broad project titles and vague
summaries creates a severe credibility gap. Instead of greenlighting wasteful spending
on unnecessary roundabouts, an Indigenous cultural centre that duplicates existing
services, or frivolous observation decks for multi-million dollar developments that can
afford to fund themselves, Council must fulfill its mandate to demand financial
accountability.
Furthermore, the public consultation process requires immediate reform. Whenever a
vote involves a substantial increase in fees, taxes, or spending, informed residents must
be given at least two weeks - rather than just one - to submit feedback.
Taxpayers have a right to expect that their submitted comments, with personal
information redacted, will be made fully and publicly available when the matter comes to
Council for consideration, rather than being omitted because they do not mesh with the
agenda of city administration.
Red Deerians deserve complete, itemized, and publicly accessible project details so
they can clearly understand exactly what their money is purchasing and judge whether
the proposed spending represents the true best value for the community.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter of substantial economic importance,

Query CP37
Madame Mayor and Councillors:
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.
Please reevaluate and reduce the proposed 2027 Capital Budget accordingly. A 13%
increase is unsustainable. The annual cost of living is what....3%-4%? Staff must
provide additional details for suggested line items and then be reevaluated.

Thank you for reconsidering.
Sincerely,

Query CP38
I am writing to you as a concerned citizen in view of the proposed capital budget
expenditures for the coming year. In fact I am appalled as to the lack of oversight by
every echelon of this city in wanting to spend, spend and spend.
In these times of financial demands on every citizen of this city, province and country,
you need to do the same and minimize frivolous expenditures. It is not a contest to keep
up with the Joneses. It is called financial constraints. You must spend within reason.
I was listening to one of the council member Barnstable interviewing of a city staff in
regards to the utility funding. You are being snowed by your staff and they need to
be reeled in....once and for all. You are the one running the show .... not the staff.
Regards

Query CP39
As a Red Deer taxpayer I am concerned with out of control spending on items that are
not in the best interests of most of Red Deer residents.
I feel that more people are becoming aware of spending on questionable and
unnecessary projects. An example of this type of spending is the CPR bridge that the
vast majority of people did not want. More transparency is needed overall in budgeting
and public feedback should actually be considered when decisions are made.
I realize that costs are rising and some budget increases are required but funding for
items that benefit only a small portion of the residents should not be approved.

Query CP40
To Council
I am dismayed that more has not been done to reduce the overall affects of the
proposed utility budget/MCAF and property tax increases. Affordability with these
constant increases is becoming a major concern. You need to start determining which
is a necessity and which is a want. Proposals for such things as a traffic circle at 67th
street and Taylor Drive is not a necessity (except possibly in the planning departments
eyes). Additionally the use of the recently transferred Michener lands needs to be
throughly examined. I do not see the need to be granting (giving) land away to any
group for whatever reason. Taxpayers are hard pressed and wasteful spending in the
eyes of the general public needs to end.

Query CP41
I am writing to provide feedback on the 2027 Capital Budget and to request specific
improvements to Red Deer Transit.
I believe Red Deer needs transit that is more frequent, reliable, and useful for residents.
Long waits, limited service at certain times, and gaps in route coverage can make it
difficult for people to depend on buses for school, work, appointments, and everyday
activities.
I am asking Council to consider funding the following improvements:
- Increase bus frequency on busy routes and during times when demand is highest,
including evenings.
- Improve Sunday service by providing more consistent service throughout the week
rather than relying on a significantly reduced Sunday schedule.
- Create a transit route serving Evergreen and review existing routes to identify areas
where new or redesigned routes would improve coverage.
- Improve connections between routes to reduce long waits when transferring between
buses.
- Set measurable service targets, such as shorter wait times, increased frequency,
expanded route coverage, and more weekly trips.
I also ask Council to provide the actual costs of these improvements and explain how
their success would be measured. If additional buses, drivers, infrastructure, or other
resources are required, those costs should be clearly identified so residents can
understand the value of the investment.
I understand that the City has limited funding and that not every request can be funded
immediately. However, essential transportation needs should receive serious
consideration when deciding how the City's capital budget is spent.
Thank you for considering my feedback as part of the 2027 Capital Budget process.
Sincerely,

Query CP42
City Council
We are concerned about the cumulative effect of utility charges, increased property
taxes, and other rising costs that we all experience.
Our personal budgets are under stress. We, as seniors, must be careful to be good
stewards, carefully and wisely using the limited funds that we have. True for all of us in
fact, right?
We trust that you, as our elected representatives, will make every possible attempt to dolikewise, as you strive to reduce the 2027 Capital Budget.
Stick to the essentials. Cut out the frills. Do what benefits the majority of Red Deer
citizens.
It’s on my heart so I will say it: we don’t need an Indigenous Cultural Centre (one
example).
Thankyou

Query CP43
Hi, with respect to approving the budget, please get your priorities straight. Out taxes
have gone up considerably in the past few years and now you have approved an
increase to the utility charges. It is an expensive world we are living in right now and
families are struggling to make ends meet. Please review the budget with a fine tooth
comb and try to find ways to save without these drastic increases. Try to find other
ways as in putting off some of the capital projects you are planning . Be accountable
and open to the public (the people who voted you in) and stop making decisions behind
closed doors.
Thank you.

Query CP44
I have lived in Red Deer since 1989 and at current residence for 33 years. My taxes at
current residence go up every year without fail and never less than over $200 more
each time. Add utilities at increased rate every year for no better service and I am
tapped out. When will restraints happen at city hall as there is no more money left on
my tree? Lets quit painting signs to leave the trees alone that have been newly installed
and cut down the dead trees that were planted years ago or were here originally. That
would provide less places for the homeless to hide and start fires etc. I sent an e-mail to
bye laws last year about a house in my area that hadn't mowed or shoveled all year and
had noxious weeds growing. Her response was that I should take up with the owner
myself. Obviously you don't need that hire although after telling her that wasn't my job
things happened. I don't contact often but when I do expect a respectable answer and
even fake concern was better than I got.
In closing remember that it is the taxpayer that is having to pay the tab for all that you
approve. The taxpayer can also hold rentals and the cost is absorbed by higher rent
charges and the majority aren't greedy as some political parties will say. Also the vast
majority are on fixed incomes be it families or retired people.

Query CP45
Why do we need another roundabout when there is nothing wrong with the intersection
as It is..there are already problems with the one that is already installed on 67. What
problems you may ask...people do not know how to use them properly. It is very hard
for rigs to make such a small turn and let's not forget the pedestrians that have to navigate the roundabouts with only blinking yellow lights that some drivers think is a
suggestion.
I have questions on how this roundabout is going to affect the businesses and safety
concerns. I believe that this roundabout is going to become more of a hindrance, and
the cost is high. We could be putting that money into infrastructure and social troubles,
Ie homeless, winter road clearing to name a few. Please consider the implication.

Query CP46
To City counsellors and mayor,
As a single mom supporting two kids on a single income. I'm very concerned about the
rising costs the counsel is proposing in the budget. Please do as I have had to do,
prioritize essentials and look for cost savings, balance the budget and don't over spend.
Thank you,

That completes the four-part series of public comments published with the Capital Budget agenda. Thank you to everyone who took the time to write to Council, whether or not we agree on every project.

Council debates the budget tomorrow, October 13. I’ll be watching to see which concerns councillors address, what answers they receive and whether any part of the proposed budget changes.

After reading the submissions, what do you most want Council to discuss?

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

Deep Dive: Committees Bylaw 2 Red Flags

RED FLAGS in the proposed bylaw governing Red Deer’s council committees

DEEP DIVE: October 13 Council meeting, Item 7.1

I’m doing this deep dive a little differently. A committees bylaw can sound pretty dry, but two parts of this proposal jumped out at me. I’m putting them first so you don’t have to wade through procedural changes to see why this matters. These are my concerns based on how I read the wording, and I’ll show you what caught my attention.

Council is being asked to give second and third reading to a new Committees Bylaw. If approved, it would replace the rulebook that has governed Red Deer’s council committees since 2016.

Let’s start with the two red flags, then walk through the rest of the changes.

RED FLAG #1: What happened to the promise to make minutes public?

The current bylaw explicitly says committee agendas and minutes will be routinely available to the public, except for information protected from disclosure. (Agenda page 182)

The proposed replacement says agendas will be made available to the public. It also explains how minutes must be recorded and approved. But I cannot find the same explicit requirement to routinely make those minutes public. (Agenda pages 138, 144–145)

That does not prove the City plans to stop publishing minutes. But if the intention is to keep providing them, why remove a clear public-access requirement from the bylaw? Is that requirement protected somewhere else?

Council should get an answer before the final vote.

RED FLAG #2: Who actually decides whether a resident gets to speak?

Under the proposed bylaw, a resident must submit a written request at least two weeks before the meeting. The Committee Clerk and Administrative Liaison then check whether it is complete, follows the rules and falls within that committee’s mandate. Only requests that pass those checks are sent to the chair. (Agenda page 143)

But the next section says the chair can still decline a request because it falls outside the committee’s mandate or is “otherwise inappropriate.” Why would a request be forwarded to the chair if it had already failed the mandate check? And what does “otherwise inappropriate” mean?

The wording then shifts again. It says the committee may decline an issue it considered within the past 12 months, while another section says either the chair or the committee may authorize someone to speak at a meeting. (Agenda pages 143–144)

The current bylaw already gives the chair a role in deciding whether public requests reach an agenda, in consultation with a City staff liaison. But this proposal adds a two-week deadline and describes several decisions without clearly explaining how they fit together. (Agenda page 184)

Can the full committee decide to hear someone whose written request the chair declined? Is there any way to ask it to reconsider? For a bylaw intended to make committee procedures clearer, this part needs another pass before final approval.

So, what else is in this bylaw?

1. Would committees have more authority?

The proposal makes their limits clearer. Committees can study issues and recommend action, but generally cannot direct City staff, commit City money or make a decision for Council unless that authority has been specifically delegated to them.

Council would also review committee mandates and membership at least once during each Council term. (Agenda pages 127–130, 146)

2. What would committees have to report?

Most committees would have to report to Council at least once a year. They would also prepare annual work plans showing their priorities, planned activities and expected resource needs. Approving a work plan would not, by itself, authorize new spending. (Agenda pages 130, 146–147)

3. What changes for committee appointments?

Council would still appoint public members. The proposal adds a preference for citizen and agency representatives to serve on only one committee at a time where practical, so more people have an opportunity to participate. It also clarifies how vacancies can be filled. (Agenda pages 130–131)

One smaller change is easy to miss: the existing bylaw applies a two-year waiting period to former committee members, former councillors and former City staff, subject to Council exceptions. The proposed wording keeps that rule for former councillors and staff, but no longer mentions former committee members. (Agenda pages 177 and 131)

4. Is this the same as the Nomination Committee policy changes?

No. The policy changes I recently covered deal with how applicants are recruited and assessed. This bylaw sets the broader rules for council committees.

It also clarifies that the Nomination Committee reviews applications for citizen and agency representative appointments and makes recommendations to Council. It does not, by itself, set out the detailed applicant-scoring process discussed in my separate post. (Agenda page 164)

5. Were residents consulted on this bylaw and what happens next?

The report says no public participation was undertaken for this proposal. Administration describes it primarily as a governance and procedural update. (Agenda page 123)

Council gave the bylaw first reading on September 15. On October 13, councillors can question it, amend it, pass second and third readings, or decline to proceed.

If adopted as proposed, it would take effect October 13. (Agenda pages 121 and 170)

There are useful clarifications in this bylaw, particularly around committee authority and reporting. But public access to minutes and the ability to be heard are not minor procedural details. Council should address both questions openly before approving the new rulebook.

Source: City of Red Deer, October 13, 2026 Council agenda, Item 7.1, pages 121–213. Proposed Committees Bylaw 3748/2026 begins on page 126; current Committees Bylaw 3576/2016 begins on page 175.

Planet Fitness Planned

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

Rocket Rebirth: Your Comments

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?

Red Deer Building Permits

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...

Deep Dive: 2027 Capital Budget Public Comments

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.

Deep Dive: 2027 Capital Budget

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

Deep Dive: Omnibus Zoning Bylaw Changes

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.

Deep Dive: Utility Borrowing

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

Could The Red Rocket Return?

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?

Deep Dive: Electricity Utility MCC

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

Federal Grant For Red Deer Buses

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.

Deep Dive: Parking Wars

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.

Deep Dive: Committee Nominations part 2

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.

Council Review: Westerner Park Backstory part 2

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

Deep Dive: Committee Nominations part 1

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.

Deep Dive: FCSS Board Meeting

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.

Deep Dive: Westerner Park part 1

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.

Council Review: Agendas

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

Last Day To Have Your Say: Capital Budget

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

Deadline Today: Capital Budget

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

Capital Budget: Your Voice Still Matters

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.

Utility Budget: What Did Residents Say?

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.

Deep Dive: Zoning Maps

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”

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse