September 30, 2026

COUNCIL REVIEW: Deep Dive

Council approves downtown dynamic-sign exception despite Administration’s opposition

On September 29, Red Deer City Council approved a site-specific zoning exception for a dynamic fascia sign at 4840 51 Street.

A dynamic fascia sign is an electronic sign attached to the face of a building, with images or messages that can change. Essentially, it is pretty much an outdoor TV for advertising. 

Administration recommended that Council reject the exception. Council ultimately disagreed, approving second and third readings by a vote of 7–2.

Here is what happened.

What was the applicant requesting?

A dynamic fascia sign had already been installed on the south side of the building without a development permit.

The City issued a Stop Order on May 13, 2026, requiring the sign to be turned off. The property owner then applied for an amendment to the Zoning Bylaw that would allow a development-permit application for the sign to be considered. (pages 168–169)

Council gave the bylaw first reading on September 1. Administration explained that first reading was procedural and allowed the application to proceed to a public hearing. It did not represent approval of the sign.

Administration remained opposed to the exception and recommended that Council reject it at second reading.

Why was a special exception required?

The property is located downtown at the intersection of 49 Avenue and 51 Street and is zoned City Centre Commercial.

Dynamic signs can be considered as discretionary uses in that zone, but the Downtown Sign Overlay only permits them in certain locations, specifically along Taylor Drive. This property falls outside that area. (page 169)

The proposed sign is also 243 metres from another existing dynamic sign. The Zoning Bylaw normally requires at least 300 metres between dynamic signs. (page 173)

The building also has historical significance. Built in 1910, the Gaetz Manufacturing Building is one of Red Deer’s oldest manufacturing buildings and served as a provincial courthouse from 1916 to 1930. (page 169)

Why did Administration oppose the exception?

Administration identified several concerns:

• The sign is approximately 1.5 to 2 metres from a traffic signal visible to approaching drivers.

• It faces a controlled intersection along a major urban roadway.

• Dynamic signs are designed to attract attention, potentially distracting drivers from traffic signals, pedestrians, cyclists and changing road conditions.

• The building sits directly beside the sidewalk, leaving very little separation between the sign, pedestrians and the roadway.

• The location falls outside the area where dynamic signs are normally permitted by the Downtown Sign Overlay.

• The nearest existing dynamic sign is 243 metres away, rather than the required 300 metres.

• Administration believed the modern sign could detract from the historical appearance of the building.

The City sent referral letters to 26 landowners within 100 metres of the property and received one written response opposing the application.

That response raised concerns about light pollution, distracted driving, pedestrian safety, property values and the possibility of creating an overly commercialized appearance. No additional written comments were received through the public-hearing notification process. (pages 171–173)

What did the property owner say?

The property owner told Council that a traditional sign of approximately the same size had been on the building for many years.

He explained that he had previously covered the sign area with printed advertisements for available homes. Those advertisements had to be replaced manually.

The electronic sign displayed still images of homes that changed approximately once every minute. He said it did not display video, animation or rapidly flashing content.

The property owner acknowledged that he did not have the required permit. He told Council he had looked into applying for a dynamic sign in 2018 but did not complete the process. He apologized and said he had assumed replacing one sign with another would be relatively straightforward.

He also spoke about the difficulty of operating and advertising a business downtown and said the sign offered a practical way to market available homes.

The City confirmed that enforcement did not begin because of a public complaint. A City employee noticed the sign while working downtown.

What was the central disagreement?

The discussion came down to two competing considerations.

Administration, Mayor Cindy Jefferies and Councillor Jaelene Tweedle focused primarily on traffic safety, downtown design standards and the historical character of the building.

The majority of Council placed greater weight on supporting a downtown business and allowing the application to proceed to the development-permit stage.

Council also heard that approving the zoning exception would not guarantee approval of the sign. The Development Authority would still have to evaluate a permit application against the remaining sign regulations.

Those regulations include limits on brightness, size, how far the sign can project from the building and how frequently its message can change. Video, animation, flashing, blinking and similar visual effects remain prohibited. (page 184)

What exactly did Council approve?

Council did not issue a development permit or give the existing sign unconditional approval.

Council amended the Zoning Bylaw to make one dynamic fascia sign a discretionary use on the south side of this particular building. (page 174)

The exception removes the normal restrictions created by the Downtown Sign Overlay and the 300-metre separation requirement for this site.

All other applicable sign regulations remain in effect.

The property owner must now apply for a development permit. The Development Authority can approve the application, impose conditions or refuse it.

How did Council vote?

Council approved both second and third readings by a vote of 7–2.

In favour:

• Councillor Kraymer Barnstable
• Councillor Tristin Brisbois
• Councillor Bruce Buruma
• Councillor Cassandra Curtis
• Councillor Adam Goodwin
• Councillor Chad Krahn
• Councillor Dianne Wyntjes

Opposed:

• Mayor Cindy Jefferies
• Councillor Jaelene Tweedle

What happens next?

The property owner can now submit a development-permit application for the sign.

Until a permit is approved, the existing sign does not have permission to operate.

This was therefore not final approval of the sign itself. It was Council’s decision to create a site-specific exception and allow the application to move to the next stage despite Administration’s concerns.

Sources:

• City of Red Deer, September 29, 2026 Council agenda, Item 7.2, pages 166–185
• September 29 Council public hearing and debate on Item 7.2
• City of Red Deer, “City Council Recap – September 29, 2026”

September 30, 2026

DEEP DIVE: Questions and answers about Red Deer’s approved 2027 Utilities Budget

Red Deer City Council unanimously approved the 2027 Utilities Budget on September 29.

Here are the main questions raised during Council’s discussion and the answers provided.

1. How large is the approved budget?

The budget anticipates approximately $192.39 million in user-fee and sales revenue within approximately $193.63 million in total utility revenue.

Compared with 2026:

• User-fee and sales revenue increases by approximately $14.70 million, or 8.3%.

• Total utility revenue increases by approximately $13.18 million, or 7.3%.

These are overall budget figures covering residential, commercial, regional and other customers. They are not residential rate increases.

2. Did Council approve the final utility rates?

No. The budget establishes how much revenue the utilities require. The final rate bylaws will determine how those costs are divided among different customers.

Council is scheduled to consider those rate bylaws on October 27.

3. Did Council identify anything that could be removed to reduce the increase?

No projects, transfers or reserve contributions were removed.

Administration described the utilities as essential services with limited optional spending:

“There isn’t a ton of room.”

“There’s not a lot of fluff in utility budgets.”

No councillor proposed an amendment to reduce the budget.

4. What did residents tell Council?

Council received 35 public submissions.

Councillor Kraymer Barnstable said:

“None of them were speaking in favour of the utilities increase.”

Affordability was discussed repeatedly, including the combined pressure of utilities, housing, groceries and other household expenses.

Councillor Jaelene Tweedle summarized that concern:

“This is not happening in a silo.”

5. Why is revenue increasing when some ordinary expenses are decreasing?

Barnstable raised this question while examining the electric utility:

“We’re asking for $5 million more in revenue when our expenses are actually going down by over a million.”

Administration explained that utility revenue requirements include more than ordinary operating expenses.

They also include items such as:

• Contributions to reserves for future infrastructure

• Debt-principal payments

• Transfers and dividends

• MCAF payments to the City

6. Does the budget really contain a $63.6-million surplus?

The combined utility statement shows an operating surplus of approximately $63.6 million, but Administration said this should not be understood as unallocated cash.

The amount includes money committed to reserves, debt payments and transfers.

Administration acknowledged that the word “surplus” can be confusing:

“Surplus is a challenging word for Administration because the public has a certain perception around what a surplus means.”

Administration also acknowledged that the budget could explain future reserve spending more clearly:

“There’s a bit of a void there in terms of transparency to the public.”

7. Can the City complete all the proposed capital work?

Councillor Tristin Brisbois asked:

“Are we making sure that we’re not biting off more than we can chew?”

Administration provided these approximate capital-delivery figures:

• 2023: 118%

• 2024: 97%

• 2025: 77%

• 2026 forecast: Somewhere in the 60% range

The 2023 figure exceeded 100% because work carried forward from earlier years was also completed.

Administration said recent capital requests have been adjusted to better reflect what City staff and available contractors can realistically deliver.

8. How does the MCAF increase fit into this budget?

Administration confirmed that MCAF is included as an input in determining the utilities’ revenue requirements.

Councillor Cassandra Curtis then asked whether the proposed $4.90 monthly wastewater increase would be additional to the recent MCAF increase.

Administration answered:

“It’s in addition to that amount.”

That answer referred specifically to wastewater. The final rate bylaws will be important for showing how the complete budget and MCAF decision affect customer bills.

9. Why did each member of Council support the budget?

Every member acknowledged the difficulty of the decision, but each ultimately concluded that reducing infrastructure investment presented greater long-term risks.

• Councillor Dianne Wyntjes warned that postponing necessary investments eventually creates “a day of reckoning.”

• Councillor Adam Goodwin acknowledged that affordability concerns were being compounded by other costs but concluded that “deferred maintenance is realistically debt.”

• Councillor Kraymer Barnstable said he looked for a way to lower the burden but found “nothing in here” that could be changed without worrying about the future cost.

• Councillor Jaelene Tweedle said utility costs are not happening in isolation but added, “This is not an area I’m comfortable saying, ‘Let’s pull back on.’”

• Councillor Bruce Buruma described utilities as essential services residents rely upon every day and significant municipal assets that also generate revenue for the City.

• Councillor Cassandra Curtis said Council has “limited levers” within the utility budget and must balance affordability against the consequences of unreliable essential services.

• Councillor Tristin Brisbois supported the budget while asking Administration to prioritize the highest-risk infrastructure and ensure the City funds only what it can realistically deliver.

• Councillor Chad Krahn said the budget represented a reasonable balance, noting that residents expect their water, electricity and waste collection to work consistently.

• Mayor Cindy Jefferies acknowledged that the budget “looks huge” on paper but said treatment plants, pipes and electrical systems also require significant investment.

Their reasons were not identical, but the general conclusion was consistent: reducing maintenance and infrastructure spending today could create more expensive problems later.

10. How did Council vote, and what happens next?

Council approved the Utilities Budget unanimously, 9–0.

Final utility rates have not yet been approved. Those rates are scheduled to return to Council on October 27.

That discussion should provide the clearest picture of what the approved budget and MCAF increase will mean for individual utility bills.

My take

I am, of course, very disappointed. I shared my opinion on the Utilities Budget earlier, but with that said, I am not surprised by the outcome.

I need to take some time to consider how to move forward. While we naturally look to Council, and we should because councillors hold the ultimate authority, there are broader issues that I believe need to be discussed and that Council must address.

I need to weigh the right time to raise those issues publicly and determine how to choose my words carefully.

Source: Red Deer City Council meeting, September 29, 2026, Item 2.1. 

September 30, 2026

TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Where are the public comments on the Utilities Budget?

Red Deer residents were given until September 18 to submit questions and comments about the proposed 2027 Utilities Budget.

The City explicitly told residents that submissions received by the deadline would be included in the September 29 Council budget debate agenda package.

They were not.

At the beginning of the September 29 meeting, Administration said a summary of the public submissions, identified as “Appendix B,” was being distributed to Council that morning. Administration also said it would be added to the City’s website.

The timing was later confirmed during Council’s discussion.

Councillor Dianne Wyntjes referred to “the document we received this morning” containing public feedback. Councillor Kraymer Barnstable similarly said the submissions were among the first things councillors were handed that morning. He indicated there were 35 submissions.

Council approved the Utilities Budget later that same day.

This means the public feedback was not available to residents before the debate, and it appears councillors did not receive the compiled material until the morning they were expected to make their decision.

As of September 30, I still cannot locate Appendix B or the summary of public submissions on the City’s website.

The City’s news release following the vote says Council considered the questions and comments submitted by residents, but it does not provide those submissions or link to the promised appendix.

This is not a minor administrative detail.

Residents took the time to participate in a process established by the City. They were told their feedback would be included in the agenda package. Councillors should have received that information with enough time to review it properly, and the public should have been able to see it before Council’s debate.

Whether the submissions would have changed the final decision is beside the point. Transparency requires the information to be available before a decision is made, not added sometime afterward.

There may be personal information that needs to be removed before publication. That is understandable. However, it does not explain why the promised appendix was missing from the public package, why councillors apparently received it only that morning or why it still cannot be found online.

The City should:

• Publish Appendix B promptly, with any necessary personal information removed.

• Explain why it was not included in the September 29 public agenda package as promised.

• Confirm when the completed summary was provided to councillors.

• Establish a process ensuring future public budget submissions are released early enough for both Council and residents to review them before debate.

Public engagement must be more than collecting comments. If residents are invited to participate, their input must be handled openly and provided to their elected representatives with enough time to be meaningfully considered.

Sources:

• [City of Red Deer: Proposed 2027 Utilities Budget released for public review](https://reddeer.ca/.../proposed-2027-utilities-budget...)

• [City of Red Deer: Council approves 2027 Utilities Budget](https://reddeer.ca/.../council-approves-2027-utilities...)

September 30, 2026

Deep Dive: Community grants lead the October 1 Committee of the Whole meeting

Red Deer’s Committee of the Whole meets Thursday, October 1 at 1:00 p.m. in the Crimson Star Meeting Room on the second floor of City Hall.

Although it appears later in the agenda, the Community Development Grants Policy Review is where most of the “meat” of this meeting can be found.

Council will discuss whether every organization seeking City funding should follow the same competitive process, or whether Council should retain the ability to provide ongoing funding directly to selected organizations.

Three things to know:

• Approximately 86 community grants were allocated in 2026.

• Council has recently approved ongoing funding for specific organizations outside its own grant policy.

• No policy change or individual grant is being approved on October 1. This is a workshop intended to help Council determine what should happen next.

1. Why is Council reviewing community grants?

The Community Development Grants Policy was created in 2021 after the City identified inconsistent application, evaluation and reporting practices.

Before the policy, different departments administered grants under different standards. Some organizations received operating money outside a competitive process without clearly defined outcomes or consistent reporting.

The policy was intended to create a process that was fair, consistent, transparent and focused on the benefits delivered to the community rather than simply maintaining a particular organization. (agenda pages 26–27 and 46–47)

The current policy supports six broad themes:

• Social development
• Sport and recreation
• Arts and culture
• Economic development
• Environmental initiatives
• Indigenous priorities

It includes funding for short-term projects, multi-year strategic investments, community service delivery and emergency operating assistance. (agenda pages 31–33)

2. How much money is involved?

The agenda says approximately 86 grants were allocated in 2026 for programs, projects, equipment, events and services.

It does not provide a complete dollar total for all 86 grants.

It does say that some multi-year cultural grants represent approximately $2.2 million in community funding. That is not the total value of the entire grant program. (agenda page 28)

3. What problem is Council trying to resolve?

During the 2025 budget process, Council approved ongoing operating funding for two specific organizations outside the established grant policy.

During the 2026 budget process, Council again approved ongoing funding for a specific organization outside the policy.

The organizations and funding amounts are not identified in this agenda package. (agenda pages 27–28)

Council has also received additional requests for ongoing organizational funding through the proposed 2027 budget.

Administration warns that continuing this approach could create two different ways to obtain City funding:

• One process where organizations compete, demonstrate community outcomes and report their results.

• Another process where an organization approaches Council directly and receives ongoing funding outside the established competition.

Administration describes this as potentially creating “two pathways and effectively two sets of rules” for organizations seeking City grants. (agenda page 28)

The report also states that Council should not make decisions that contradict its own policy without first addressing the policy itself. (agenda page 26)

4. Does the policy prohibit using grant funding for operating expenses?

No.

The City says organizations can already use grant money for operating costs connected to an approved program or service. That may include salaries, rent, insurance, marketing and other expenses necessary to deliver the funded program.

What the policy generally does not provide is unrestricted operating money simply to maintain an organization’s existence without identified community outcomes. (agenda pages 55–58)

Administration is recommending clearer rules allowing certain grants to cover non-program-specific administrative costs such as executive leadership, human resources and accounting.

The recommendation uses two limits: no more than 20% of the relevant expense and no more than 20% of the total grant value.

This would apply to the tax-supported Community Development Strategic Investment grant stream. It would not apply to programs such as FCSS or Reaching Home because those grants have separate rules established by other governments. (agenda pages 58–59)

5. Is Administration recommending another operating-grant stream?

No.

Administration recommends keeping the existing grant streams and not creating an additional operating-grant program.

Its position is that another unrestricted stream could reduce accountability, create dependency on continued City funding, direct money away from identified community needs and reintroduce concerns about organizations being selected outside a competitive process.

Administration also argues that a new emergency operating stream would duplicate the existing emergency grant.

That existing stream is intended for unexpected financial crises. It is not supposed to provide ongoing funding, and an organization must present a plan to become sustainable beyond City support. (agenda pages 40–42 and 58–61)

6. What is Council being asked to decide?

The Committee is being asked to discuss three broad questions:

1. How should Council regularly establish community-grant priorities?

2. Does the policy require changes to improve fairness, consistency, transparency or stewardship of public money?

3. How should Council address ongoing organizational funding that it has already approved outside the policy? (agenda page 30)

The formal motion is only to receive the report for information.

Council is not approving individual grants or immediately rewriting the policy on October 1. However, this discussion could determine whether the policy is later changed and how future requests are handled.

What else is happening at the meeting?

Council will also review how it has used Committee of the Whole during 2026.

Through September 14, Council held:

• Nine regular Committee of the Whole meetings
• Seven special meetings
• Sixteen meetings in total

Another seven meetings are scheduled for October and November, which would bring the annual total to 23. (agenda pages 19–22)

The Committee’s major areas of work have included:

• Council’s term direction
• Municipally controlled corporation discussions and utility modernization
• Council committee governance
• 2027 budget planning
• Advocacy and intergovernmental relations

The report says most councillors value having a place to explore complicated issues before making formal decisions. However, views about the Committee’s mandate and meeting format have been mixed. (agenda pages 19–20)

Council can use this discussion to add, change or remove items from the remaining workplan.

1. Why is another special meeting being scheduled?

The consent agenda proposes an additional Special Committee of the Whole meeting on Monday, October 19 beginning at 10:00 a.m.

Administration expects it to require most of the day.

The planned topics are:

• Continued discussion of Water Utility Modernization
• A land matter to be discussed in a closed meeting (agenda pages 3 and 18)

The workplan identifies the closed land matter as involving the QE2. (agenda page 24)\

What should residents watch in this meeting?

The central question is whether every organization seeking City funding should be required to compete through the same outcome-based process.

A consistent process can improve fairness, transparency and accountability.

However, some long-standing organizations may argue that stable operating support is necessary to maintain important community services and that project-based funding does not provide enough security.

Council’s challenge will be determining how to support valuable organizations without creating different rules depending on who asks or who already has a relationship with the City.

What do you think?

Should every organization seeking City funding follow the same competitive process?

Should Council create a separate operating stream with clear rules and reporting requirements?

Or should Council retain the discretion to provide ongoing funding directly to selected organizations?

Source: City of Red Deer Committee of the Whole agenda package, October 1, 2026, particularly pages 1, 3, 18–30 and 31–62.

September 29, 2026

If we are setting aside $629,000 in 2027 to design a roundabout, I really hope it looks something like this.

Obviously, this is satire.

Thank you to everyone who has shared their thoughts about the proposed roundabout. Your comments over the last few days will certainly be valuable to Council, and I sincerely hope they listen.

Please make sure you also send your feedback directly to the City by October 2:

budget@reddeer.ca

Just don’t ask them to approve the design in this image. It is not real, although that spiral ramp that defies logic is pretty cool

September 29, 2026

UTILITY BUDGET APPROVED 9–0

Red Deer City Council has voted unanimously to approve the 2027 Municipal Utility Budget.

First, please understand that I am sharing this initial update without the full context of everything councillors said during today’s debate.

I will prepare a much more thorough post in the coming days. There is clearly a great deal of nuance to work through, and I want to be fair to every member of Council by accurately explaining the questions they asked, the concerns they raised and the reasons they gave for supporting the budget.

Administration also indicated that the public comments received about the budget will be made available online.

It is frustrating that those comments were not publicly available before Council’s debate and vote. At the time of writing, I still cannot find them.

That public feedback is an important part of the context. To provide a balanced review, we need to compare what councillors said with what the residents they would like to see.

With that being said, Council has now approved a budget that anticipates approximately $192.39 million in user-fee revenue across the four utilities in 2027.

That is approximately $14.70 million, or 8.3%, more than the amount budgeted for 2026.

To be clear, this does not mean every household’s utility bill will increase by 8.3%. The revenue increase also reflects factors such as customer growth, consumption and other budget assumptions.

For what the City describes as an average in-city residential customer, using 600 kWh of electricity and 17 cubic metres of water each month, the estimated increase is approximately:

• $12.18 per month
• $146.16 per year
• Roughly 6%

The budget determines how much revenue the utilities need to collect. The actual utility rates have not yet been approved.

Council is scheduled to consider the Utility Rate Bylaws on October 27. That is when we should finally see exactly how this approved budget will be reflected in the rates residents pay.

Today’s vote was 9–0 in favour.

I will return with a complete breakdown of what was said, how councillors explained their votes and how the public feedback compared with Council’s discussion.

September 29, 2026

Deep Dive: What is happening at the October 1 Policing Committee meeting?

Red Deer’s Policing Committee meets Thursday, October 1 at 5:00 p.m. in the Crimson Star Meeting Room on the second floor of City Hall.

This meeting is less about approving a new policing policy and more about reviewing the Committee’s first year, deciding where it has provided value and identifying what it should focus on next.

TL;DR:

• Downtown Patrol presentation
• Community Policing Plan discussion
• Review of the Committee’s first year
• Discussion of next year’s policing priorities
• Updates on traffic enforcement, a major drug investigation, police staffing and downtown concerns

1. Downtown Patrol presentation

The Committee will receive a presentation on the Downtown Patrol Unit.

However, the agenda does not include a written report explaining what will be presented, whether additional officers or funding will be requested, or whether any formal decision is expected. (agenda page 1)

The Committee previously reviewed Downtown Patrol Unit staffing and resource needs and endorsed a request for four additional RCMP positions for consideration in the 2027 budget. (agenda pages 16 and 19)

We will need to hear the presentation before knowing whether this discussion involves deployment, staffing, results, future resources or another issue.

2. Community Policing Plan discussion

The Committee will also discuss Red Deer’s Community Policing Plan.

Once again, no written report or proposed decision is included in the agenda package. (agenda page 1)

Earlier this year, the Committee established three broad policing priorities:

• Public safety, including trails, recreation facilities and traffic enforcement
• Comprehensive service delivery, including victim communication, drug enforcement and property crime
• Community collaboration, including justice partnerships, outreach and public education (agenda page 14)

The Committee later approved measures intended to track progress on those priorities. (agenda page 15)

The October 1 discussion may help determine whether those priorities remain appropriate, but the agenda does not identify any proposed changes.

3. What has the Policing Committee accomplished?

The largest written report is a year-in-review exercise examining what the Committee has done since it was established.

The Committee is being asked to consider three questions:

• Which discussions or initiatives provided the greatest value?
• Which activities provided limited value or duplicated work happening elsewhere?
• What two or three priorities should guide the Committee during the coming year? (agenda pages 9–12)

The review may lead to existing work being continued, changed, reduced or discontinued. It could also result in new priorities.

The proposed motion would direct that the discussion be used to prepare the Committee’s Annual Report and next Work Plan. It would not immediately approve those future priorities. (agenda pages 8–11)

4. What has the Committee worked on during its first year?

According to the City’s summary, the Committee has:

• Established its leadership and governance structure
• Adopted a policing policy manual
• Established public safety, comprehensive service delivery and community collaboration as its policing priorities
• Endorsed a request for four additional RCMP officers
• Reviewed Downtown Patrol Unit resource needs
• Monitored police staffing, vacancies and budget pressures
• Supported provincial advocacy for Police and Crisis Team funding
• Asked the province to modernize legislation covering e-bikes, electric scooters and other small mobility devices
• Received quarterly RCMP performance reports
• Monitored crime trends, the Crime Severity Index and progress on policing priorities (agenda pages 13–19)

The Committee’s own summary identifies several results from the 2024–2026 Annual Policing Plan:

• 457 trail patrols
• 295 traffic-enforcement initiatives
• 12 trained drone operators
• 52 proactive drug initiatives
• 1,080 referrals to the Virtual Opioid Dependency Program
• Eight Diversity Advisory Committee meetings
• Six Youth Town Halls
• 552 media releases and social-media posts (agenda page 18)

These are results reported through the policing plan. The October 1 discussion is intended to go beyond listing activities and ask whether the Committee itself helped improve oversight, accountability or outcomes.

5. What are the latest RCMP updates?

The written update from RCMP Superintendent Holly Glassford reports that:

• RCMP and Community Peace Officers issued 589 traffic tickets during August.
• Motor-vehicle collisions decreased by 23% compared with August 2025.
• A months-long drug investigation resulted in search warrants at seven Central Alberta locations.
• Police seized more than six kilograms of cocaine, quantities of methamphetamine and psilocybin, more than $280,000 in cash and multiple firearms.
• Two people were charged in connection with that investigation. (agenda page 21)

The Committee will also receive information about the Drone First Responder program, counterfeit currency circulating in Red Deer and the RAVE Mobility Safety App.

6. What is the current staffing situation?

The Municipal Policing Services update reports a total of 139 full-time, part-time and casual employees.

It also identifies:

• Five employees on maternity or parental leave
• Eleven employees on medical leave
• Seven “hard vacancies”
• Seven vacant casual positions (agenda page 22)

The report does not explain which positions are vacant or how the absences are affecting service delivery.

7. What community concerns are being reported?

The written update identifies two citizen concerns:

• Truck traffic on 55 Street
• Vagrancy around Centennial Park and the area of 55 Street near Gaetz Avenue (agenda page 22)

The Community Wellbeing update also says City representatives continue meeting with downtown businesses regarding concerns about social disorder. (agenda page 23)

8. What is happening with winter shelter capacity?

Hope Mission has applied to amend its development permit for the Cannery Row shelter to allow additional capacity during extreme winter weather.

The report says the Government of Alberta is working on a budget to support enhanced winter spaces at both Hope Mission and the Mustard Seed. (agenda page 23)

No proposed number of additional spaces or funding amount is included.

The report also says the owner of the former Amethyst House property has applied for a demolition permit. City Emergency Services has responded to several calls at the site since the building became vacant. (agenda page 23)

What should residents watch?

The most important part of this meeting may not be any single statistic.

The Committee is being asked whether its first year of work has provided meaningful public oversight or whether some of its time has been spent discussing matters that are operational, duplicated elsewhere or beyond its ability to influence.

It will also begin deciding what deserves its attention next.

Should the Committee focus more heavily on downtown safety, visible policing, property crime, drug enforcement, traffic safety, police staffing, public accountability or something else?

The October 1 discussion should provide a much clearer indication of where Red Deer’s Policing Committee intends to go during its second year.

Source: City of Red Deer Policing Committee agenda package, October 1, 2026, particularly pages 1 and 8–23.

September 29, 2026

Before City Council moves forward with a nearly $10 million roundabout proposal, I think residents deserve to ask a pretty basic question: is this something our city truly needs right now, or is it simply something we want?

It’s always shocking to me how these changes start as one little line in a capital budget and, if left unchecked, can snowball into millions and tens of millions of dollars.

Believe it or not, my opinion on traffic circles and roundabouts is somewhat boring. I’ve grown accustomed to them. I don’t love the teardrop design, but I appreciate that roundabouts can help traffic flow.

My main concern is simply the cost. They’re expensive, and durability matters. I’d want to see concrete considered over asphalt to reduce pothole issues as repairs can disrupt the whole circle, that just drives costs up though. I also don’t like crosswalks being so close to them like they are at 67th and 30th. To me, that feels like a collision waiting to happen.

On the cost though, right now, we’ve faced continued tax increases that have outpaced wage growth and inflation. Families are weighing a simple question in their own lives: need versus want. I think it is about time our city did the same.

Nearly $10 million is a lot of money for our city. Without grants, that would be roughly equivalent to a single year’s 6% property tax increase. The fact that it’s spread over three years is beside the point, the total cost remains, and residents are still being asked to pay for something that many feel is not necessary right now.

I just don’t think this change is necessary when we’re already bleeding money as a city, when our financial outlook tells us we need to be frugal, and when so many families are dealing with a cost-of-living crisis.

I will be asking City Council to reconsider this line item and, at the very least, defer it several years.

September 27, 2026

WOW! Red Deer, you sure came through in expressing your opinions on this one.

With larger posts like this, I like to share a follow-up summarizing some of what was said. This post focuses on just that.

So far, I reviewed 344 community comments about the proposed roundabout at 67 Street and Taylor Drive.

Here is the approximate breakdown:

74% against
12% in favour
14% neutral, mixed or unclear

Among those opposed, the most common concerns were:

• The projected $9.21-million cost and whether the benefit would justify the expense
• A belief that the existing intersection works reasonably well and does not need to be completely rebuilt
• Suggestions that adjusting signal timing or lengthening the turning lights could improve traffic flow at a much lower cost
• Concerns that heavy traffic on 67 Street could dominate the roundabout and make it difficult for vehicles entering from Taylor Drive
• The number of drivers who struggle to navigate existing roundabouts or fail to yield and signal properly
• The potential for more collisions, close calls and confusion, particularly during busy periods
• Whether a roundabout would safely accommodate large trucks travelling through the intersection
• Pedestrian safety, especially with schools and recreational facilities nearby
• The length and disruption of construction at one of the city’s busiest intersections
• A preference for spending the money on existing roads, potholes, snow removal, other transportation projects or broader community priorities
• Questions about why another roundabout is being considered so close to the existing one farther west on 67 Street

Those supporting the proposal commonly said:

• Roundabouts can improve traffic flow by allowing vehicles to continue moving instead of waiting at red lights
• The existing lights, particularly the short turning signals, cause unnecessary delays and long lineups
• A properly designed roundabout could reduce congestion and make the intersection more efficient during busy periods
• Roundabouts generally work well when drivers understand the signs, choose the correct lane and yield properly
• Driver behaviour and education, not the roundabouts themselves, are often the real source of frustration
• Other roundabouts in Red Deer have improved traffic movement compared with the intersections they replaced
• The proposal could provide a long-term improvement as Red Deer grows and traffic volumes increase
• Some residents simply prefer roundabouts to traffic lights and would welcome more of them

Several supportive comments were still conditional. Some residents said they would support the idea only if the roundabout is large enough, properly designed for trucks, safe for pedestrians and supported by traffic data.

Other residents wanted more information before deciding, including:

• Current and projected traffic counts
• Collision and safety data for the intersection
• The proposed design and number of lanes
• How traffic from each direction would enter and move through the roundabout
• Plans for pedestrians and nearby schools
• Accommodations for large trucks and emergency vehicles
• The expected construction timeline and traffic disruptions
• A clearer explanation of the total cost and funding sources

Of course, this is not a scientific poll. It is just a summary of the comments posted on the original discussion. Some people commented more than once, and questions, jokes, side discussions and comments without a clear position were included in the neutral/mixed category.

The discussion is still open, so these numbers may continue to change.

If you would like your opinion to be considered as part of the City’s budget process, comments can be submitted to:

budget@reddeer.ca

The deadline is midnight on October 2. Council is scheduled to debate the proposed Capital Budget on October 13.

Thank you to everyone who took the time to comment, ask questions and share their perspective, even when you disagreed with one another.