City of Beaumont Regular Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, Beaumont Administration Office File: 0124-C02-A1
Page
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
3. CONSENT AGENDA
4. OPEN FORUM
5. ADOPTION OF MINUTES a) *Regular Council Meeting - September 22, 2020 3 - 5 Min_Sept 22 2020 Council b) *Special Council Meeting - September 29, 2020 7 Min_September 29 2020 Special Council c) *Special Committee of the Whole Meeting - October 6, 2020 9 Min_ SCOTW October 6, 2020
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. REGISTERED PRESENTATIONS
8. BUSINESS ITEMS a) City of Edmonton and City of Beaumont Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework 11 - 42 RFD_CoE and CoB ICF Attachment 1_COE and COB ICF b) Election Signage Regulations 43 - 57 RFD_Election Signage Attachment 1_Review of Election Signage Legislation and Regulations c) Overland Drainage Design Review 59 - 67 RFD_RR 243 Drainage Assessment Attachment 1_Drainage Area Map Attachment 2_Existing Drainage Area Map Attachment 3_Existing Topography d) Beaumont Sport and Recreation Centre Noise Abatement Update 69 - 82 RFD_BSRC Noise Abatement Attachment 1_Noise Level Testing Report Attachment 2_BAC Closed Circuit Product Selection Report
9. BYLAWS
10. COUNCILLOR INQUIRIES/REPORTS
11. CAO UPDATE
12. CORRESPONDENCE
13. NOTICES OF MOTION
14. CLOSED SESSION
Page 1 of 82
15. ADJOURNMENT
*Denotes items that Administration proposes be considered for approval through the Consent Agenda process.
The above agenda is subject to additions and/or deletions prior to or at the meeting. The agenda can be viewed at the City of Beaumont website: https://beaumontab.civicweb.net
With spirit | Avec esprit
Page 2 of 82
CITY OF BEAUMONT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Held Tuesday, September 22, 2020, 6:00 p.m. Beaumont Administration Office
File: 0110-C02-M1
1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stewart called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. with the following Councillors present: Councillors Kathy Barnhart, Bill Daneluik, Martin Stout, Perry Hendriks, Steven vanNieuwkerk, and Sam Munckhof-Swain. Administration: Mike Schwirtz, Chief Administrative Officer; Eleanor Mohammed, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer; Mike Dowler, Chief Finical Officer; Curtis Dublanko, Director, Finance; Jennifer Boso-Hudak, Director, Operations; Kendra Raymond, Director, Planning and Development; Mike Berezowsky, Director, Communication and Marketing; Joanne Dargis, Manager, Planning; and Chelaine Winter, City
Clerk.
Mayor Stewart acknowledged the following: We are pleased to be here today on the traditional territory of Treaty 6. We acknowledge all those who share a deep connection with this land. The City of Beaumont respects the histories, languages, and cultures of all of Canada’s First
Peoples, whether they be of First Nation, Métis, or Inuit descent, and appreciates that their presence continues to enrich Canada’s vibrant communities. We are all Treaty people. The Peace Treaties bind us all.
2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
Moved by Councillor Hendriks that the September 22, 2020 Regular Council Meeting agenda 20/09/18 be adopted as presented.
Carried Unanimously
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Moved by Mayor Stewart that Council consent to approve the following agenda items 20/09/19 without debate:
5a) Regular Council Meeting – September 8, 2020
That Council accept the minutes of the September 8, 2020, Regular Council Meeting as
presented.
5b) Committee of the Whole – September 15, 2020
That Council accept the minutes of the September 15, 2020, Committee of the Whole
meeting as presented.
5c) Special Council Meeting – September 15, 2020
That Council accept the minutes of the September 15, 2020, Special Council meeting as
presented.
8d) SDA-18-05 Gallerie Beaumont Phase 3 – Subdivision Approval Extension Request
That Council approve the SDA-18-05 Gallerie Beaumont Phase 3 – Subdivision Approval
Extension Request as presented.
10a) Councillor vanNieuwkerk Report
That Council accept the Councillor vanNieuwkerk Report as information.
Page 3 of 82 Draft Minutes of the September 22, 2020 Regular Council Meeting 2
10b) Councillor Daneluik Report That Council accept the Councillor Daneluik Report as information. Carried Unanimously
4. OPEN FORUM There were no Open Forum presentations.
5. ADOPTION OF MINUTES a) Consent Agenda b) Consent Agenda c) Consent Agenda
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no Public Hearing items.
7. REGISTERED PRESENTATIONS a) Coreina Hubert: Skate Park Proposal Coreina Hubert, Beaumont resident, was in attendance to present to Council a Skate Park proposal that would revitalize the Skate Park in Beaumont.
b) Beaumont Society of the Arts – Year in Review Chantal Yardley, Beaumont Society of the Arts was in attendance to present Council with a year in review and future events in Beaumont.
8. BUSINESS ITEMS a) Implementation of Tax Recovery Process 20/09/20 Moved by Mayor Stewart that Council offer the parcels identified in Attachment 1 for sale at a public auction on December 11, 2020 pursuant to Division 8 of the Municipal Government Act. Carried Unanimously
20/09/21 Moved by Councillor Barnhart that Council set a reserve bid that is as close as reasonably possible to the market value of the respective parcels identified in Attachment 1 and that Council set the conditions on the public auction identified in Attachment 2. Carried Unanimously
Mayor Stewart called for a brief recess. The time was 7:09 p.m.
Mayor Stewart reconvened the meeting. The time was 7:18 p.m.
b) Reserve Update 20/09/22 Moved by Councillor Daneluik that Council approve the Financial Reserves Policy as presented in Attachment 1 of this report. Carried Unanimously c) Notice of Motion 20/09/23 Moved by Councillor Barnhart that Council direct Administration to bring back for Council’s consideration prior to end of Q1 2021 a report on revitalizing a Welcome Service for newcomers to Beaumont. The report would include: essential and optional components of the service; history of previous Welcome Wagon services in Beaumont; funding; partnerships
Page 4 of 82 Draft Minutes of the September 22, 2020 Regular Council Meeting 3 and benefits for residents and businesses. Carried Unanimously
d) SDA-18-05 Gallerie Beaumont Phase 3 – Subdivision Approval Extension Request Consent Agenda
9. BYLAWS There were no Bylaw items.
10. COUNCILLOR INQUIRIES/REPORTS a) Consent Agenda b) Consent Agenda
Administration received comments/provided information on the following items: Resident inquiry – height of flags at the Beaumont Sport and Recreation Centre; Acoustics in Council Chambers; Archived historic pictures; Transit Commission Update; Racism Awareness, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion
11. CAO UPDATES/ACTION LIST Chief Administrative Officer updated Council on the following items: September 29, 2020 Special Council Meeting to address Leduc & District Regional Waste Management Association – Organics Disposal and Municipal Stimulus Fund (Prospective Projects); Beaumont Sport and Recreation Centre to open fully to the public on September 28, 2020; Donated 3D Crosswalk installed; Basketball court installed.
12. CORRESPONDENCE There were no Correspondence items.
13. NOTICES OF MOTION There were no Notices of Motion.
14. CLOSED SESSION There were no Closed Session items.
15. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Stewart declared the meeting adjourned at 7:57 p.m.
______Mayor City Clerk
Page 5 of 82 Page 6 of 82
CITY OF BEAUMONT MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Held Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 5:00 p.m. Council Chambers, Beaumont Administration Office
File: 0110-C02-M1
1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stewart called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with the following Councillors present: Councillors Kathy Barnhart, Bill Daneluik, Martin Stout, Perry Hendriks, Steven vanNieuwkerk, and Sam Munckhof-Swain. Administration: Eleanor Mohammed, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer; Mike Dowler, Chief Financial Officer; Joanne Dargis, A/Director, Planning and Development; Curtis Dublanko, Director, Finance; Jennifer Boso-Hudak, Director, Operations; Joannes Wong, Manager, Long Range Planning; Mike Berezowsky, Director, Communications and Marketing; and Chelaine Winter, City Clerk.
Mayor Stewart acknowledged the following: We are pleased to be here today on the traditional territory of Treaty 6. We acknowledge all those who share a deep connection with this land. The City of Beaumont respects the histories, languages, and cultures of all of Canada’s First Peoples, whether they be of First Nation, Métis, or Inuit descent, and appreciates that their
presence continues to enrich Canada’s vibrant communities. We are all Treaty people. The Peace Treaties bind us all.
2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA Moved by Councillor Stout that the September 29, 2020 Special Council Meeting agenda be 20/09/24 adopted as presented. Carried Unanimously 3. BUSINESS ITEMS a) Municipal Stimulus Program
Moved by Mayor Stewart that Administration submit an application to Municipal 20/09/25 Affairs to obtain MSP funding approval for the Ken Nichol Regional Recreation Centre Revitalization. Carried Unanimously
b) Leduc & District Regional Waste Management Authority 20/09/26 Moved by Mayor Stewart that Council receive the report as information. Carried Unanimously
4. CLOSED SESSION There were no Closed Session items.
5. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Stewart declared the meeting adjourned at 5:29 p.m.
______Mayor City Clerk
Page 7 of 82 Page 8 of 82
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Held Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. Council Chambers, Beaumont Administration Office
File: 0110-C02
1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Martin Stout called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with the following Committee members present: John Stewart (virtual), Perry Hendriks, Steven vanNieuwkerk, Kathy Barnhart, Bill Daneluik, and Sam Munckhof-Swain. Administration: Mike Schwirtz, Chief Administrative Officer; Eleanor Mohammed, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer; Mike Dowler, Chief Financial Officer; and Curtis Dublanko, Director, Finance.
Chair Martin Stout acknowledged the following: We are pleased to be here today on the traditional territory of Treaty 6. We acknowledge all those who share a deep connection with this land. The City of Beaumont respects the histories, languages, and cultures of all of Canada’s First Peoples, whether they be of First Nation, Métis, or Inuit descent, and appreciates that their presence continues to enrich Canada’s vibrant communities. We are all Treaty people. The Peace Treaties bind us all.
2. MODIFICATION TO THE AGENDA Moved by Bill Daneluik that the October 6, 2020 Special Committee of the Whole agenda be adopted as presented. Carried Unanimously 3. CLOSED SESSION Closed Session pursuant to section 197(2) of the Municipal Government Act.
Moved by Martin Stout that the Committee of the Whole move into Closed Session, C-20/10/01 pursuant to the following Sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The time was 5:08 p.m. Carried Unanimously
a) 2019 Draft Annual Report, Council Survey Results, & Our Beaumont:
Municipal Strategic Plan 2017-2021 Section 24(1)(a)(b)(d)(g)
b) Preliminary Budget Discussion
Section 24(1)(a)(b)(d)(g)
C-20/10/02 Moved by Steven vanNieuwkerk that the Committee of the Whole come out of Closed Session, pursuant to the above Sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The time was 7:09 p.m.
Carried Unanimously
4. ADJOURNMENT Chair Martin Stout declared the meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
______Chairperson City Clerk
Page 9 of 82 Page 10 of 82
REQUEST FOR DECISION File: 0551-I02
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MEETING DATE: October 13, 2020
SUBJECT: City of Edmonton/City of Beaumont Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework RECOMMENDATION That Council approve the City of Edmonton/City of Beaumont Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework as presented.
BACKGROUND When Part 17.2 - Intermunicipal Collaboration of the Municipal Government Act came into force in 2018, the City of Beaumont was required to explore collaborative recreation services with neighbouring municipalities, i.e. City of Edmonton and Leduc County, culminating in respective Intermunicipal Collaboration Frameworks. These Intermunicipal Collaboration Frameworks needed to be adopted by bylaw and submitted to the Province by April 1, 2020. In February 2019, the City of Edmonton initiated conversations with its eight immediate municipal neighbours, including Beaumont, to develop an Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework.
However, with Bill 25 Red Tape Reduction Implementation Act coming into force and the subsequent repeal of the Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework Regulation in January 2020, the requirement of an Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework on recreation services among municipalities of a growth management board became voluntary instead of mandatory. Discussions with the City of Edmonton continued in pursuit of establishing the framework in recognition of the considerable value to promote and facilitate how to best plan and deliver recreation services strategically, efficiently, and equitably across intermunicipal boundaries.
Discussions with Leduc County concluded that there is not an immediate need for a recreation services framework as there are existing recreation cost share and capital contribution agreements in place.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL/COMMITTEE DIRECTIONS September 15, 2020 – Committee of the Whole accepted the City of Edmonton/City of Beaumont Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework and recommended that the Framework be presented to Council on October 13, 2020 for approval.
ANALYSIS/RATIONALE Attached is a copy of the City of Edmonton/City of Beaumont Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework (Attachment 1) that is supported by Administration.
It includes the following elements: Purpose, Goals and Objectives of the Framework; Governance Structure that includes an administrative working group that seeks Council’s approval when required; Commitment to Data Collection for further discussion of recreation services opportunities; and
Submitted By: Joannes Wong, Manager, Long Range Planning Approved By: Mike Schwirtz, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 11 of 82 Service Analysis Process that identifies current services and potential joint planning and delivery of recreation services opportunities.
Administration believes that the City of Edmonton/the City of Beaumont Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework outlines a clear process to the partner municipalities to explore joint recreation services planning and delivery in the future. The partner municipalities hope that this future discussion will benefit residents of both municipalities particularly those that are living close to shared boundaries. These future discussions are based on a commitment of good faith; and in an unlikely event, a means of conflict resolution process is also outlined in the Framework. The Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework does not commit the partners to cost sharing; instead it commits the partners to share information and connect with one another, while seeking partnership opportunities as they arise.
Administration recommends Council approve the City of Edmonton/City of Beaumont Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework for planning and delivery of joint recreation services along the shared municipal boundaries in the future.
Response Options/Alternatives 1. That Council approve the City of Edmonton/City of Beaumont Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework as presented. 2. That Council not approve the City of Edmonton/City of Beaumont Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework and instruct Administration on how to proceed.
Strategic Alignment The City of Edmonton/City of Beaumont Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework aligns with the following Pillars in Our Beaumont: Municipal Strategic Plan 2017–2021: ‘Livability’ – support and promote an accessible community that is safe, has diverse housing and transportation options, provide a variety of public spaces and recreation opportunities. ‘Good Governance, Fiscal Responsibility, and Efficient Use of Tax Dollars’ – ensure responsible development will utilize land and infrastructure wisely and efficiently and that Beaumont will continue its efforts to increase its non-residential assessment base. ‘Regional Collaboration and Leadership’ – pursue the principles and policies of the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan and work with neighbouring communities to achieve a shared vision of the area.
Relevant Statutes/Master Plans/Documents Our Complete Community – Municipal Development Plan https://www.beaumont.ab.ca/DocumentCenter/View/3142/Municipal-Development-Plan-Our- Complete-Community-2019?bidId
Legislative Authority Municipal Government Act, Part 17.2 Intermunicipal Collaboration, Sections 708.26 – 708.52
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT/COMMUNICATION Not applicable.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT Not applicable.
ATTACHMENTS 1. Attachment 1 - City of Edmonton/City of Beaumont Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework.
Submitted By: Joannes Wong, Manager, Long Range Planning Approved By: Mike Schwirtz, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 12 of 82
INTERMUNICIPAL COLLABORATION FRAMEWORK CITY OF BEAUMONT & CITY OF EDMONTON
Page 13 of 82
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. DEFINITIONS 4
2. TERM AND REVIEW 5
3. LIMITATION 5
4. SCHEDULES 6
5. BACKGROUND 6
6. PURPOSE 6
7. GOALS 7
8. OBJECTIVES 7
9. COMMITMENTS 7 9.1. Good Faith Commitment 7 9.2. Collaboration Commitment 7
10. METHODOLOGY 8 10.1. Scope 8 10.2. Recreation Service Identification and Inventory 8 10.3. Recreation Service Classification 8
11. GOVERNANCE 8 11.1. Working Group 8 11.2. Decision-Making 9
12. COMMUNICATION & INFORMATION SHARING 9
13. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS 10
14. PROPOSED JOINT OPPORTUNITIES 10 14.1.Criteria 10 14.2. Data Collection 10 14.3. Protocol 10 14.4. Agreements 10
15. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 11 15.1. Costs 11 15.2. Administrative Support 11 15.4. Correspondence 11
2 of 30
Page 14 of 82
16. AMENDMENTS AND TERMINATION 12
17. SERVICE ANALYSIS 12 17.1. Areas of Agreement 12 17.1.1. Joint Opportunities 12 17.1.2. Independent Opportunities 13 17.2. Areas for Future Discussion 13
18. EXECUTION 14
19. SCHEDULE A: Recreation Service Inventory 15
20. SCHEDULE B: Classification Matrix 19
21. SCHEDULE C: Dispute Resolution Process 21
22. SCHEDULE D: Agreed Upon Joint Opportunities 23
23. SCHEDULE E: Agreed Upon Independent Opportunities 24
24. SCHEDULE F: Areas for Future Discussion 29
3 of 30
Page 15 of 82
1. DEFINITIONS
In this Framework, unless the context otherwise states:
Amenity means a specific component of a Recreation Facility.
Classification Matrix means the tool outlined in Schedule B to aid in the classification of a particular Recreation Service as either a municipal, intermunicipal or regional service.
Framework means this document, the Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework (ICF) pursuant to section 708.28 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) and entered into by the Partners via council resolution.
Intermunicipal Facility means a Recreation Facility the Partners agree serves as the Primary Facility for residents in the Partner municipalities, but not the entire Region.
Joint Opportunity means an agreed upon recreation service opportunity for the Partners to collaborate on a particular Recreation Service.
MGA means the Municipal Government Act , RSA 2000, c M-26.
Municipal Facility means a typical Recreation Facility the Partners agree serves the host municipality, and any Recreation Facility the Partners do not agree is an intermunicipal facility or regional facility .
Partners means the City of Beaumont and the City of Edmonton.
Primary Facility means Recreation Facility that would likely be frequented by residents in a particular residential area on a regular basis due to proximity and/or convenience.
Recreation Facility means a publicly accessible venue for recreation activity.
Recreation Service means a service that provides physical, social, intellectual and creative individual and community well-being that:
4 of 30
Page 16 of 82
1) Takes place within a tangible space (either outdoors or indoors), such as a Recreation Facility, but is not a natural area or park; 2) Is not an event or festival unless mutually agreed to by the Working Group as per 11.1 b) of this Framework; and 3) Is provided, funded or managed by one or more municipalities, or through a partnership with a municipality.
Recreation Services Inventory means a list of Recreation Services agreed to by the Partners, compiled in Schedule A.
Regional Facility means a Recreation Facility the Partners agree is unique and significant enough to draw users from around the region and/or elsewhere.
Representative means a person selected by each of the Partners who holds a senior position with, and has the authority to negotiate for or settle a dispute on behalf of, their respective Partners.
Working Group means a group consisting of Representatives and other administrative staff from each of the Partners established, pursuant to section 11, to administer this Framework, make recommendations to their respective municipal Councils on issues arising under this Framework, and engage in dispute resolution in accordance with this Framework.
2. TERM AND REVIEW
In accordance with the Municipal Government Act , this is a permanent Framework and shall come into force on the day the last Partner’s Council passes a resolution which contains the Framework . A review of the Framework will be completed every 5 years, or sooner at the direction of the Working Group.
3. LIMITATION
This Agreement does not supersede or extinguish any rights or obligations that any of the Partners have under existing or future legislation, regulations, or
5 of 30
Page 17 of 82
agreements of any nature unless a Partner, insofar as is possible, explicitly agrees to subordinate its rights.
4. SCHEDULES
The following schedules are attached to, and form part of, this Framework:
1. Schedule A - Recreation Service Inventory 2. Schedule B - Classification Matrix 3. Schedule C - Dispute Resolution Process 4. Schedule D - Agreed Upon Joint Opportunities 5. Schedule E - Agreed Upon Independent Opportunities 6. Schedule F - Areas for Future Discussion
5. BACKGROUND
The Partners are members of the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board (EMRB), a growth management board that collaboratively and strategically guides growth, agricultural resources, and servicing to support long-term regional prosperity. As members of the EMRB, the Partners are exempt from the requirement to prepare an Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP) as part of this Framework.
With the EMRB’s members completing a Metropolitan Region Servicing Plan (MRSP) that addresses transportation, water and wastewater, solid waste and emergency services, this Framework only addresses Recreation Services between the Partners.
6. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Framework is to create an Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework between adjacent municipalities pursuant to the MGA. The Framework will outline an agreed upon process, method, and accountability structure for the Partners to explore opportunities on an ongoing basis for joint Recreation Service planning, delivery and funding.
6 of 30
Page 18 of 82
7. GOALS
The partners have committed to this Framework with the aim of optimizing regional resources, fostering regional prosperity and improving the quality of life for residents of the region while maximizing the return on ratepayer dollars.
8. OBJECTIVES
Through this Framework, the Partners intend to:
a) explore ways to deliver cost-effective services through strategic Recreation Facility planning and delivery; b) enhance the quality of Recreation Services available in the region; c) explore the equitable distribution of the costs and benefits of Recreation Service delivery in the region; d) strengthen intermunicipal collaboration through ongoing discussion and collaboration on Recreation Services; and e) support regional recreation data collection and sharing for informed decision-making and planning purposes.
9. COMMITMENTS
9.1. Good Faith Commitment
The Partners agree to act in good faith.
9.2. Collaboration Commitment
a) The Partners agree and acknowledge that each operates at a high level of autonomy. b) The Partners also agree that theFramework offers an opportunity to jointly explore innovative and efficient Recreation Service planning, funding and delivery. c) With these understandings, the Partners agree to work together in a relationship of ongoing consultation and cooperation on the commitments outlined in the Framework.
7 of 30
Page 19 of 82
10. METHODOLOGY
10.1. Scope
a) The Partners agree to limit the scope of the discussions under this Framework to Recreation Services as defined in Section 1. b) The Partners reserve the right to expand the definition of Recreation Services to include events, festivals and/or other related topics in the future, if mutually agreed to by the Partners.
10.2. Recreation Service Identification and Inventory
a) The Partners will use the agreed upon definition of Recreation Service to identify the services to be considered in this Framework. b) The Partners agree to compile and maintain an inventory of Recreation Service that will form the basis of the discussions under this Framework in Schedule A: Recreation Service Inventory. c) Amendments to the Recreation Services Inventory (Schedule A) will be made 5-years after the date of signing , or sooner if mutually agreed to by the Partners.
10.3. Recreation Service Classification
The Partners agree to use the tool in Schedule B: Classification Matrix to aid in the classification of the Recreation Service in Schedule F.
11. GOVERNANCE
11.1. Working Group
a) The Partners agree to create a Working Group within 90 days of the adoption of this Framework. b) The Working Group will establish and be governed by a terms of reference that addresses, at a minimum, the membership, roles, responsibilities, decision-making authority , record keeping and reporting expectations of the Working Group.
8 of 30
Page 20 of 82
c) Members of the Working Group will report to their respective Councils on an as-needed basis.
11.2. Decision-Making
a) The Working Group will use a consensus approach to decision-making. b) Members of the Working Group agree to bring forward to their respective Councils recommendations that require Council approval to be implemented. c) Unless otherwise delegated or prescribed in this Framework, the MGA or a regulation, the Councils of the Partner municipalities are the final decision-making authorities.
12. COMMUNICATION & INFORMATION SHARING
a) The Partners agree to notify each other and share information on potential Joint Opportunity Recreation Facilities, service delivery options, or other relevant information, as requested by the Working Group. A more detailed communication and information sharing protocol may be developed, if deemed necessary by the Working Group. b) The Partners recognize that they may be bound by confidentiality provisions with third parties respecting potential Recreation Services. As much as possible, direct liaison and full disclosure of information relevant to Recreation Services between the Partners, as required, is authorized. c) Unless determined otherwise by the Working Group, work done under the umbrella of this Framework will be kept confidential. d) Any public engagement on the work done under the umbrella of this Framework will be mutually determined and agreed upon by the Working Group. e) Messaging to the media and/or general public regarding this Framework and the associated discussions shall be reviewed and unanimously agreed to by the Partners prior to such messaging being disseminated.
9 of 30
Page 21 of 82
13. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS
To satisfy the requirements of section 708.29(3.1) of the MGA, the Partners agree to use the dispute resolution process outlined in Schedule C: Dispute Resolution Process.
14. PROPOSED JOINT OPPORTUNITIES
14.1. Criteria
The Partners agree to discuss and develop a set of criteria to evaluate and prioritize current and proposed Joint Opportunity Recreation Services and a protocol for introducing a new Joint Opportunity Recreation Service or delivery options.
14.2. Data Collection
The Partners agree to develop data collection requirements and to create a terms of reference for how this data is shared, managed and stored.
14.3. Protocol
The protocol may prescribe particular information requirements. In such a case, the Partner proposing a new Joint Opportunity Recreation Service is responsible for the cost of acquiring the required information. A portion of these costs may be shared between the Partners, at the discretion of the Working Group.
14.4. Agreements
Should the Partners agree on a Joint Opportunity Recreation Service, the Partners commit to entering into a service agreement for the Joint Opportunity Recreation Service addressing but not limited to addressing the following matters:
a) which municipality will lead the service delivery; b) how it will be funded;
10 of 30
Page 22 of 82
c) a transition plan if a service is to be discontinued in lieu of a joint service; d) timeline for when the service will be provided jointly; and e) supporting details (e.g, financial details).
Any such agreements will be included as a Schedule to this Framework during subsequent review cycles of the Framework.
15. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
15.1. Costs
a) Costs associated with administering this Framework will be shared as determined by the Working Group. b) The Partner responsible for ensuring financial accounting and accountability on behalf of the Partners will be determined by the Working Group on a case-by-case basis.
15.2. Administrative Support
Each Partner will contribute to the administrative support required to implement the Framework, as determined by the Working Group.
15.3. Correspondence
Written notice under this Framework shall be addressed as follows:
a) In the case of the City of Beaumont to:
City of Beaumont c/o Chief Administrative Officer 5600 49 Street Beaumont, AB T4X 1A1 780-929-8782
11 of 30
Page 23 of 82
b) In the case of the City of Edmonton to:
City of Edmonton c/o Chief Administrative Officer 3rd Floor, City Hall 1 Sir Winston Churchill Square Edmonton, AB T5J 2R7 16. AMENDMENTS AND TERMINATION
16.1 The Partners agree to give at least 30 days’ written notice of a proposed amendment to this Framework. The Partners may create a more detailed amendment process at the direction of the Working Group.
16.2 Notwithstanding anything contained in this Framework, the Partners agree that this Framework is voluntary pursuant to Section 708.28(2) of the MGA and either Partner has the right to terminate this Framework. The Partners agree to give at least 90 days’ written notice prior to termination.
16.3 Notwithstanding a notice of termination, the terminating Partner agrees to negotiate in good faith during the notice period, if so requested by the other Partner.
17. SERVICE ANALYSIS
17.1. Areas of Agreement
17.1.1. Joint Opportunities
The Partners agree to further explore and determine joint planning, funding and/or delivery for the Recreation Services identified in Schedule D: Agreed Upon Joint Opportunities further to the service agreement in accordance with section 14.4 of this Framework.
12 of 30
Page 24 of 82
17.1.2. Independent Opportunities
The Partners agree that the Recreation Services identified in Schedule E: Agreed Upon Independent Opportunities are best planned, funded and delivered independently.
17.2. Areas for Future Discussion
a) The Partners agree to discuss the Recreation Services identified in Schedule F: Areas for Future Discussion at a future date to further explore and determine, within the spirit and intent of this Framework, whether they should be classified as Independent Opportunities or Joint Opportunities. b) Unless and until the Partners agree to classify a Recreation Service as a Joint Opportunity, the Recreation Service will be considered an Independent Opportunity. c) To further clarify section 17.2(a), the Partners agree that the discussions pursuant to 17.2(a) will not pertain to capital or operating costs incurred or budgeted prior to the adoption of the respective resolutions creating this Framework. d) The Partners agree that adopting this Framework does not predetermine the outcomes of the future discussions provided for by this Framework. e) The Partners will adhere to any mutually agreed upon next steps identified for each area of future discussion.
13 of 30
Page 25 of 82
18. EXECUTION
The Partners agree to this Framework, including the Schedules attached hereto.
______John Stewart, Mayor date Don Iveson, Mayor date City of Beaumont City of Edmonton
______Mike Schwirtz, CAO date Adam Laughlin, Interim City Manager date City of Beaumont City of Edmonton
14 of 30
Page 26 of 82
19. SCHEDULE A: Recreation Service Inventory
Recreation Service
City of Beaumont
1. Beaumont Sport and Recreation Centre
2. Ken Nichol Regional Recreation Centre
City of Edmonton
1. A.C.T. Aquatic and Recreation Centre
2. Bill Hunter Arena
3. Bonnie Doon Leisure Centre
4. Borden Natural Swimming Pool
5. Callingwood Twin Arenas
6. Castle Downs Arenas
7. Central Lions Recreation Centre
8. City Arts Centre
9. Clareview Community Recreation Centre
10. Clarke Stadium
11. Commonwealth Community Recreation Centre
13. Confederation Arena
14. Confederation Leisure Centre
15. Coronation Arena
15 of 30
Page 27 of 82
16. Coronation Community Recreation Centre (future)
17. Crestwood Arena
18. Donnan Arena
19. Downtown Community Arena
20. Eastglen Leisure Centre
21. Edmonton Rowing Club
22. Edmonton Soccer Centre East
23. Edmonton Soccer Centre South
24. Edmonton Soccer Centre West
25. Edmonton Ski Club (Gallagher Park Ski Hill)
28. Fred Broadstock Outdoor Pool
29. George S. Hughes Southside Arena
30. Glengarry Arena
31. Grand Trunk Arena
32. Grand Trunk Fitness and Leisure Centre
33. Hardisty Fitness and Leisure Centre
34. Henry Singer Park (13 outdoor soccer fields, 4 ball diamonds)
35. Hawrelak Park (Heritage Amphitheatre)
36. Ivor Dent Park
37. Jasper Place Bowl
16 of 30
Page 28 of 82
38. Jasper Place Fitness and Leisure Centre
39. John Janzen Nature Centre
40. John Walter Museum
41. Kenilworth Arena
43. Kinsmen Twin Arenas
44. Lewis Farms Facility (future)
45. Londonderry Arena
46. Londonderry Fitness and Leisure Centre
47. Michael Cameron Arena
48. Mill Creek Outdoor Pool
49. Mill Woods Recreation Centre
50. Mill Woods Senior & Multicultural Centre
52. Northgate Lions Seniors Recreation Centre
53. O’Leary Fitness and Leisure Centre
54. Oliver Outdoor Pool
55. Oliver Arena
56. Peter Hemingway Fitness and Leisure Centre
57. Queen Elizabeth Outdoor Pool
58. RE/MAX Baseball Field
59. Riverside Golf Course
17 of 30
Page 29 of 82
60. Rogers Place
61. Rollie Miles Athletic Field District Park Renewal (future)
62. Rundle Park Golf Course
63. Russ Barnes Arena
64. Scona Indoor Pool
65. Snow Valley (Snow Valley Ski Club)
66. St. Francis Xavier Sports Centre
67. Telus World of Science
68. Terwillegar Community Recreation Centre
69. The Meadows Community Recreation Centre
70. Tipton Arena
71. Victoria Golf Course
72. Victoria Park Oval
73. Westwood Arena
74. Whitemud Equine Learning Centre
18 of 30
Page 30 of 82
20. SCHEDULE B: Classification Matrix
Figure 1 is a graphic representation of the decision-tree that will aid in the categorization of a Recreation Service. Answers to a series of ordered, binary questions will help to determine whether a particular Recreation Service has the potential - and the degree of that potential - to be planned, funded and/or delivered jointly between the Partners (Intermunicipal or Regional Facility), or not (Municipal Facility).
The following is a description of the qualities of a Recreation Service that are evaluated in the decision-tree:
1. UNIQUENESS - Is the Recreation Service the only facility or Amenity of its kind in the Region? 2. PRIMARY FACILITY - Is the Recreation Service likely the Primary Facility for users in another municipality? In other words, are users in another municipality within close proximity to the facility and/or not able to as conveniently access a similar facility within their own municipality? 3. FILLS A GAP - Does the Recreation Service fill a service gap (i.e., the demand for the Recreation Service cannot be absorbed by existing Recreation Services) 4. DRAW - Does the Recreation Service draw users from around the Region and/or elsewhere? If not, the Recreation Service is likely not significant enough to be relevant to all municipalities in the region. 5. COMPETITIVENESS - Would new or improved Recreation Services enhance our Region’s status compared to other Canadian regions? For example, does another Canadian region offer the Recreation Service, but not the Edmonton Metropolitan Region? Does another Canadian region offer a higher quality version of the Recreation Service? Is the Recreation Service the first of its kind in Canada? High quality Recreation Services contributes to the quality of life for regional residents, which helps attract and retain residents, as well as tourists. In this way, high quality
19 of 30
Page 31 of 82
Recreation Services can contribute to the Region’s economic competitiveness.
Figure 1: Recreation Service Classification Decision-Tree
20 of 30
Page 32 of 82
21. SCHEDULE C: Dispute Resolution Process
Definitions
1 In this Schedule,
(a) “initiating party” means a Partner who gives notice under section 2 of this Schedule;
(b) “mediation” means a process involving a neutral person as a mediator who assists the Partners to a matter and any other person brought in with the agreement of the Partners to reach their own mutually acceptable settlement of the matter by structuring negotiations, facilitating communication and identifying the issues and interests of the Partners;
(c) “mediator” means the person or persons appointed to facilitate by mediation the resolution of a dispute between the Partners.
Notice of dispute
2 When a Partner believes there is a dispute under this Framework and wishes to engage in dispute resolution, the Partner must give written notice of the matters under dispute to the other Partner.
Negotiation
3 Within 14 days after the notice is given under section 2 of this Schedule, each Partner must appoint a Representative to participate in one or more meetings, in person or by electronic means, to attempt to negotiate a resolution of the dispute.
Mediation
4(1) If the dispute cannot be resolved through negotiations, the Representatives must appoint a mediator to attempt to resolve the dispute by mediation.
(2) The initiating party must provide the mediator with an outline of the dispute and any agreed statement of facts.
(3) The Partners must give the mediator access to all records, documents and information that the mediator may reasonably request.
21 of 30
Page 33 of 82
(4) The Partners must meet with the mediator at such reasonable times as may be required and must, through the intervention of the mediator, negotiate in good faith to resolve their dispute.
(5) All proceedings involving a mediator are without prejudice, and, unless the Partners agree otherwise, the cost of the mediator must be shared equally between the Partners.
Report
5(1) If the dispute has not been resolved within 6 months after the notice is given under section 2 of this Schedule, the initiating party must, within 21 days, prepare and provide to the other Partner a report.
(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the report must contain a list of the matters agreed on and those on which there is no agreement between the Partners.
(3) Despite subsection (1), the initiating party may prepare a report under subsection (1) before the 6 months have elapsed if
(a) the Partners agree, or
(b) the Partners are not able to appoint a mediator under section 4 of this Schedule.
Arbitration
6(1) Within 14 days of a report being provided under section 5 of this Schedule, the Representatives must appoint an arbitrator and the initiating party must provide the arbitrator with a copy of the report.
(2) Where arbitration is used to resolve a dispute further to subsection (1), the Partners defer to Divisions 2 and 3 of Part 17.2 of the Municipal Government Act, as amended.
22 of 30
Page 34 of 82
22. SCHEDULE D: Agreed Upon Joint Opportunities
RECREATION CURRENT PROVIDER CLASSIFICATION SERVICE (municipal, intermunicipal, third party)
City of Beaumont
None as of the adoption of this Framework
City of Edmonton
None as of the adoption of this Framework
23 of 30
Page 35 of 82
23. SCHEDULE E: Agreed Upon Independent Opportunities
RECREATION SERVICE CURRENT PROVIDER (municipal, intermunicipal, third party)
City of Beaumont
Ken Nichol Regional Recreation Municipal Centre
City of Edmonton
1. A.C.T. Aquatic and Recreation Municipal Centre
2. Bill Hunter Arena Municipal
3. Bonnie Doon Leisure Centre Municipal
4. Borden Natural Swimming Pool Municipal
5. Callingwood Twin Arenas Municipal
6. Castle Downs Arenas Municipal
7. Central Lions Recreation Municipal Central Lions Seniors Association Centre operates, with some City Staff
8. City Arts Centre Municipal
9. Clareview Community Municipal Recreation Centre
10. Clarke Stadium Municipal
11. Commonwealth Community Municipal Recreation Centre
12. Confederation Arena Municipal
24 of 30
Page 36 of 82
13. Confederation Leisure Centre Municipal
14. Coronation Arena Municipal
15. Crestwood Arena Municipal
16. Donnan Arena Municipal
17. Downtown Community Arena Municipal
18. Eastglen Leisure Centre Municipal
19. Edmonton Rowing Club Municipal Club operates
20. Edmonton Ski Club (Gallagher Municipal Club operates Park Ski Hill)
21. Edmonton Soccer Centre East Municipal ESA operates, in cooperation with EMSA and EDSA
22. Edmonton Soccer Centre South Municipal ESA operates, in cooperation with EMSA and EDSA
23. Edmonton Soccer Centre West Municipal ESA operates, in cooperation with EMSA and EDSA
24. Fred Broadstock Outdoor Pool Municipal
25. George S. Hughes Southside Municipal Arena
26. Glengarry Arena Municipal
27. Grand Trunk Arena Municipal
28. Grand Trunk Fitness and Leisure Municipal Centre
29. Hardisty Fitness and Leisure Municipal Centre
25 of 30
Page 37 of 82
30. Hawrelak Park (Heritage Municipal Amphitheatre)
31. Henry Singer Park (13 outdoor Municipal Partnership with Edmonton Soccer soccer fields, 4 ball diamonds) Association (ESA), that operates.
32. Ivor Dent Park Municipal
33. Jasper Place Bowl Municipal
34. Jasper Place Fitness and Leisure Municipal Centre
35. John Janzen Nature Centre Municipal
36. John Walter Museum Municipal
37. Kenilworth Arena Municipal
38. Kinsmen Twin Arenas Municipal
39. Lewis Farms Facility (future) Municipal
40. Londonderry Arena Municipal
41. Londonderry Fitness and Municipal Leisure Centre
42. Michael Cameron Arena Municipal
43. Mill Creek Outdoor Pool Municipal
44. Mill Woods Recreation Centre Municipal
45. Mill Woods Senior & Municipal Multicultural Centre
46. Muttart Conservatory Municipal
47. Northgate Lions Seniors Municipal Recreation Centre
26 of 30
Page 38 of 82
48. O’Leary Fitness and Leisure Municipal Centre
49. Oliver Outdoor Pool Municipal
50. Oliver Arena Municipal
51. Peter Hemingway Fitness and Municipal Leisure Centre
52. Queen Elizabeth Outdoor Pool Municipal
53. RE/MAX Baseball Field Municipal
54. Riverside Golf Course Municipal
55. Rogers Place Municipal Partnership: City owns arena; Oilers Entertainment Group operates.
56. Rollie Miles Athletic Field Municipal District Park Renewal (future)
57. Rundle Park Golf Course Municipal
58. Russ Barnes Arena Municipal
59. Scona Indoor Pool Municipal
60. Snow Valley (Snow Valley Ski Municipal Club)
61. St. Francis Xavier Sports Centre Municipal
62. Terwillegar Community Municipal Recreation Centre
63. Tipton Arena Municipal
64. Victoria Golf Course Municipal
65. Victoria Park Oval Municipal
27 of 30
Page 39 of 82
66. Westwood Arena Municipal
28 of 30
Page 40 of 82
24. SCHEDULE F: Areas for Future Discussion
RECREATION SERVICE CURRENT NEXT STEPS PROVIDER (municipal, intermunicipal, third party)
City of Beaumont
Beaumont Sport and Recreation Municipal Centre
City of Edmonton
1. Commonwealth Stadium Municipal
2. Coronation Community Municipal Recreation Centre (future)
3. Edmonton Valley Zoo Municipal City owns & operates. Valley Zoo Development Society raises funds for redevelopment.
4. Fort Edmonton Park Municipal Partnership - Owned by City; operated by Fort Edmonton Foundation, includes City staff.
5. Kinsmen Sports Centre Municipal
6. Telus World of Science Municipal Site leased from City by Edmonton Space & Science Foundation that operates.
7. The Meadows Community Municipal Recreation Centre
29 of 30
Page 41 of 82
8. Whitemud Equine Learning Municipal Partnership - leased Centre from City by Whitemud Equine Learning Centre Arena that operates.
30 of 30
Page 42 of 82
REQUEST FOR DECISION File: 0110-B01
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MEETING DATE: October 13, 2020
SUBJECT: Election Signage Regulations RECOMMENDATION That Council direct Administration to make the recommended changes to regulate election signage by using an appropriate enforcement mechanism (i.e. existing Land Use Bylaw or Election Signage Bylaw, etc.); to be adopted by Council prior to January 1, 2021.
BACKGROUND The regulations used for election signage in Beaumont have been in place since 1997. Although the Land Use Bylaw received a substantial update in 2019, the election signage regulations were transferred from the previous version of the Land Use Bylaw (Bylaw 796-12) into Bylaw 944-19 without revision. These election signage regulations have been used for several federal, provincial, municipal, and school board elections over the years.
Depending on the number of candidates and the frequency of federal, provincial and municipal elections occurring, there can be several concerns raised from the public regarding election signage. Election periods mark a temporary departure from the normal types and amounts of signage that are present in the community. Municipalities can use tools such as guidelines, land use bylaws, signage bylaws, traffic bylaws, parkland bylaws, or temporary highway signage bylaws to regulate signage design and placement. The focus on regulating signage is to effectively mitigate concerns that arise within the community that mainly relate to the following:
Safety – protect pedestrian, vehicle, and other forms of traffic from negative impacts (such as impeding sight lines or blocking thoroughfares); Standardization/Clear Process – provide citizens, organizations, and other entities who place signage with a clear procedure; Limiting Aesthetic Impacts – promote orderly and consistent public realm and streetscapes through restricting visual clutter of signage within the community.
A review of federal and provincial legislation and regulations, as well as six municipalities’ signage regulations was completed in support of this report. This review is included as Attachment 1.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL/COMMITTEE DIRECTIONS At the September 15, 2020 Committee of the Whole Meeting, the Committee carried the following motion:
“That Administration bring back options to reduce the problem of signs on public property.”
Submitted By: Stephen Raitz, Municipal Planning Intern; Joanne Dargis, Acting Director, Planning & Development Approved By: Mike Schwirtz, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 43 of 82 ANALYSIS/RATIONALE The review of pertinent legislation and regulation highlights the potential to regulate election signage in new ways. Out of all the approaches identified, the following are recommended by administration:
Amend timeline for when signs must be removed to align with other jurisdictions – Alter the timeline for removal from 48 hours after the election date to 72 hours after the election date. This aligns with neighbouring municipalities and the provincial regulation. Prohibit signage in specific locations – Designate the following corridors and/or areas where election signage is not permitted. This improves safety, reduces visual clutter, and provides a clear process. o Prohibit election signage in specific areas, which could include school and playground zones. o Prohibit election signage from being placed on roadway medians. Require distances from specific locations – Require the following separation distances for placement. This improves safety, reduces visual clutter, and provides a clear process. o 15 m from any approach to a stop sign, yield sign, intersection, crosswalk and fire hydrant o 1.5 m from the edge of a curb of a roadway Separation distances between signs – Require a 15 m separation distance between two signs of one candidate. This reduces visual clutter and provides a clear process. Size of signage – Maintain the current maximum size of 0.6m2. By keeping signs to this size, it reduces the need for greater restrictions on the above noted items as the signs remain lower profile, and less intrusive.
The approach to enacting these regulations can take various forms. Currently, the Land Use Bylaw is the municipal document that most directly regulates election signage. However, the intent of the Land Use Bylaw is to regulate development within private property boundaries. Regulating election signage on road right-of-ways falls outside of this intent and therefore may be better regulated through another instrument.
Municipalities that do not regulate election signage through their Land Use Bylaw use either a separate signage bylaw or compile regulations present in separate bylaws within election signage guidelines.
Should Council provide direction to amend election signage regulations, Administration recommends that developing a set of amendments to impacted bylaws, and then creating guidelines for candidates to agree to would be the most feasible route to regulate signage for the 2021 municipal election.
Response Options/Alternatives 1. That Council direct Administration to make the recommended changes to regulate election signage by using an appropriate enforcement mechanism (i.e. existing Land Use Bylaw or Election Signage Bylaw, etc.); to be adopted by Council prior to January 1, 2021. 2. That Council not proceed with any changes to the election signage bylaw. 3. That Council direct Administration in how to proceed.
Strategic Alignment Our Beaumont: 2017-2021 Municipal Strategic Plan: Pillar 1 - Livability The regulation of signage in general contributes to a safe and aesthetically pleasing community.
Relevant Statutes/Master Plans/Documents Traffic Safety Act https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/t06.pdf
Submitted By: Stephen Raitz, Municipal Planning Intern; Joanne Dargis, Acting Director, Planning & Development Approved By: Mike Schwirtz, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 44 of 82 Highways Development and Protection Act https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/h08p5.pdf
Legislative Authority Municipal Government Act, Sections 7 & 8 Bylaw 944-19 – Our Zoning Blueprint: Beaumont Land Use Bylaw
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT/COMMUNICATION In the event that Council passes a Bylaw regarding updates to election signage regulations or a set of election signage guidelines are developed, the changes will be communicated through the Beaumont Election webpage and through Candidate Packages.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT Not applicable.
ATTACHMENTS 1. Review of Election Signage Legislation and Regulations
Submitted By: Stephen Raitz, Municipal Planning Intern; Joanne Dargis, Acting Director, Planning & Development Approved By: Mike Schwirtz, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 45 of 82 Page 46 of 82 Attachment 1
Review of Election Signage Legislation and Regulations
A legislative review of the Canada Elections Act, Provincial Elections Act and the Local Authorities Elections Act, the Municipal Government Act, and the Transportation Act was completed to provide context for this review. A review of Alberta Transportation’s election signage regulations for provincial highway corridors was also completed to support this analysis. The municipalities listed below were selected for this review because they collectively represent proximate comparisons as well as different contexts to learn from. It should be noted that the Cities of Mississauga and Vancouver are governed by different Provincial legislation and may have different abilities and/or restrictions. They are included for informational purposes. - City of Calgary - City of Spruce Grove - City of Edmonton - City of Leduc - City of Mississauga - City of Beaumont - City of Vancouver
Review of Federal and Provincial Legislation The review of federal and provincial legislation is outlined within Table 1 and showcases that there is no significant direction provided by any of the Acts that would impact a municipality’s regulation of election signage.
Review of Provincial Guidelines Alberta Transportation provides guidelines for election signs on provincial highways. The placement of a sign along these corridors does not require a permit from the provincial authority; however, the size and placement of any election sign must meet the requirements as set out in the guidelines. Alberta Transportation has the power to remove signage that poses a hazard or contravenes the guidelines.
The specific facets of the guidelines are integrated within tables 3-7 alongside the comparison of municipalities. It is important to distinguish that the Province of Alberta regulations only apply to signage placed along provincial highway right-of-ways. Municipal regulations apply to signage placed anywhere within the community. In areas along provincial highways within a municipality, the Alberta Transportation guideline will apply.
Generally, the provincial guidelines along provincial highway right-of-ways are more restrictive than the municipal regulations. This is due to the additional safety considerations that accompany corridors that carry traffic travelling throughout the province.
Page 47 of 82 Attachment 1
Review of Municipalities Through reviewing municipalities across Alberta and Canada, the following trend was identified for election signage. Municipalities in Alberta reviewed for this report have fairly permissive regulations for election signage placement. Municipalities outside of Alberta reviewed for this report have more restrictive regulations in place for election signage placement.
Municipalities in • Allow signs to be placed on Alberta • Private property, and More permissive • Public spaces (noting exceptions)
Municipalities • Require signs to only be placed in elsehwhere • Private property, or More restrictive • Specific public spaces
Currently, the City of Beaumont only regulates the following features of election signage through the Land Use Bylaw: - maximum sign area - timelines for sign placement - cannot be placed to create pedestrian/vehicle hazard - cannot be placed on utility pole/municipal structure
A comparison of regulations was completed for all municipalities reviewed. This comparison is presented in Tables 2-7 and shows that there are several other areas that are regulated in compared municipalities. There are a few key areas that the City of Beaumont does not currently regulate, but could regulate going forward. Additionally, regulations could be changed to align with other jurisdictions. The following provides a list of approaches taken from all compared municipalities, and Administration’s recommendations are contained in the Request for Direction.
Approach Regulation Primary Purpose(s) Amend timeline for when Change from 48 hours Clear process – align with signs must be removed to other municipalities in align with other region jurisdictions Define election signage Provide a distinct definition Clear process of election signage within the bylaw
Page 48 of 82 Attachment 1
Define municipal structures Restrict signage from Improve safety more clearly being placed on specific Clear process municipal features such as; Traffic control devices, Light poles, Trees, Pipeline ROWs
Indicate that signs must be Add regulation that Ensure orderly signs orderly/firmly planted in requires that signs be placement the ground planted in the ground via a Clear process certain method
Prohibit signage in specific Prohibit signage in Improve safety locations playground/school zone or Reduce visual clutter park Clear process
Prohibit signage along highways or arterial roadways
Prohibit signage within roadway and on medians
Prohibit certain forms of Prohibit electric, digital, or Reduce visual clutter election signage inflatable signage Clear process
Require distances from Require a 10-30 m Improve safety specific locations distance from a sign to an Clear process intersection
Require a 2-3 m distance from a sign to the curb
Separation distances Require a 15-20 m Reduce visual clutter between signs distance between two Clear process signs from one candidate
The approaches to regulation also differ based on the municipality. These are outlined in Table 2. Smaller municipalities, including the City of Beaumont, currently regulate election signage through their Land Use Bylaws. Some larger municipalities have a distinct bylaw for signage that includes regulations for election signage. The City of Edmonton prepares a set of election signage guidelines, which compiles and presents regulations pertaining to election signage based on regulations within the Traffic Bylaw and the Parkland Bylaw.
Page 49 of 82 Attachment 1
Sources - Canada Elections Act - Canada Transportation Act - City of Calgary Bylaw 29M97 Temporary Signs on Highways - City of Calgary Council Meeting May 29, 2017 Updating the Temporary Signs on Highways Bylaw TT2017-0309 Reports - City of Calgary Website - Bylaws related to election signs - City of Edmonton Community Standards Letter - City of Edmonton Election Sign Guidelines - City of Edmonton Terms and Conditions for the Placement of Free Standing Election Signs on City Road Right-of-way - City of Edmonton Website – Placement of Campaign Signage - City of Leduc Land Use Bylaw - City of Mississauga Policy Use of City Resources During an Election Campaign - City of Mississauga Sign By-law 0054-2002 - City of Spruce Grove Election Sign Acknowledgement Form - City of Spruce Grove Website - Signs - City of Vancouver Information Regarding Election/Political Signage - City of Vancouver Sign By-law Guide - Calgary Herald March 31, 2019 Article regarding Election Signage Complaints - Elections Act - Highways Development and Protection Act - Local Authorities Elections Act - Municipal Government Act - Traffic Safety Act
Page 50 of 82 Attachment 1
Table 1: Review of Federal and Provincial Legislation impacts on Municipal Regulations
Jurisdiction Direction Defines the election period and procedures, but does not provide specific Canada Elections Act Federal direction on election signage design or placement in public areas of the municipality Elections Act and the Defines the election period and procedures, but does not provide specific Local Authorities Provincial direction on election signage design or placement in public areas of the Elections Act municipality Municipal Government Supports Local Authorities Elections Act in defining election procedures; Provincial Act Provides power to regulate development via bylaws Provides power to regulate signage design and placement along roadways Traffic Safety Act Provincial to Alberta Transportation and to municipalities via regulations or bylaws Highways Development Provides power to regulate signage design and placement along roadways Provincial and Protection Act to Alberta Transportation and to municipalities via regulations or bylaws
Page 51 of 82 Attachment 1
Table 2: Approaches to Regulation for Election Signage City of Temporary Signs on Highways Bylaw Calgary City of Election Signage Guidelines (a collection of guidelines that are supported by regulations in the Land Use Edmonton Bylaw, Traffic Bylaw, and Parkland Bylaw) City of Signage Bylaw Mississauga City of Signage Bylaw Vancouver City of Spruce Traffic Bylaw and Land Use Bylaw Grove City of Land Use Bylaw Leduc City of Land Use Bylaw Beaumont
Page 52 of 82 Attachment 1
Table 3: Definitions Alberta Election Signs are placed by parties and municipal candidates along the highways to inform the voting Transportation public that they represent the constituency “Election Sign” means any Sign used to promote a candidate or party during a provincial or federal City of Calgary election or by-election, or any election or by-election held pursuant to the Local Authorities Election Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-21 An election sign is a temporary sign that promotes a particular candidate, campaign issue, or response City of to a vote on a question for any election, including federal, provincial, municipal, and school board Edmonton general elections and by-elections. “Election Sign” means a sign advertising or promoting the election of a political party or a Candidate for City of public office in a municipal, provincial or federal election, according to the City’s Sign By-law 54-02, as Mississauga amended. Election signs do not include Campaign Ads City of Election signs are signs related to an election or referendum conducted by any level of government Vancouver City of Spruce N/A – Election signs are only described as a sign within types of signs that do not require a permit Grove City of Leduc N/A – Election signs are only described as a sign within types of signs that do not require a permit
City of N/A – Election signs are only described as a sign within types of signs that do not require a permit Beaumont - No municipalities require a permit for the placement of an election sign, as long as it follows the regulations set for election signs. Page 53 of 82 Attachment 1
Table 4: Requirements for Where Signage Cannot be Placed - locations where election signage is expressly not permitted Road Play- On a On a Median Along On a On a tree surface ground or Traffic sound or Traffic Park Major utility owned by or School Control wall or Island Roadway pole/post City structure Zone Device fence Alberta ✖ ✖ ✖ Transportation City of Calgary ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ * ✖ ✖ City of ✖ ✖ ✖ * ✖ Edmonton City of Spruce ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ * ✖ Grove City of Leduc ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ City of ✖ ✖ Beaumont - City of Mississauga and City of Vancouver are not included in this table because signs can only be placed on private property. Therefore there are no additional requirements for limiting sign placement (however, the City of Mississauga also prevents the placement of election signage on a sound wall or fence). - Province of Alberta guidelines recommends that election signs should be placed as far from the shoulder line as is practical - All municipalities stipulate that signs cannot be placed in a location which creates a Pedestrian or Traffic Hazard. - * All define Major Roadways where signs are not permitted to be placed along via a list or map
Page 54 of 82 Attachment 1
Table 5: Requirements for where signage can be placed - separation distances for election signage Distance between two Distance from the Distance from Intersection Other signs of one candidate edge of the curb Alberta 50 m in an urban area N/A 2 m 500 m from construction Transportation 250 m in a rural area 15 m for any intersection City of Calgary 20 m 2 m 2 m from a fire hydrant 10 m for mid-block crosswalks City of 30 m for signalized 100 m from construction 20 m 3 m Edmonton 15 m for unsignalized 10 m for driveway City of Spruce 30 m for signalized 15 m 3 m N/A Grove 15 m for unsignalized City of Leduc N/A N/A N/A N/A City of N/A N/A N/A N/A Beaumont - City of Mississauga and City of Vancouver are not included in this table because signs can only be placed on private property; therefore, no distances for separation in public spaces are required. - Province of Alberta “Distances from Intersection” criteria is only for the intersection of two provincial highways. - Province of Alberta also indicates that during winter conditions, there is a high probability that signs less than six meters from the road will be either covered with snow or damaged during snow removal and sanding operations
Page 55 of 82 Attachment 1
Table 6: Requirements for When Signage Can be Placed When can signs be put up? When must signs be taken down? Provincial and Federal Municipal Alberta The date the election is called 72 hours after election day Transportation City of Calgary Day the writ is issued When nominations close 72 hours after election day City of Two weeks prior to nomination The date the election is called 72 hours after election day Edmonton day City of 29 days in advance of election Day the writ is issued 48 hours after election day Mississauga day City of 45 days in advance of election Day the writ is issued 48 hours after election day Vancouver day City of Spruce On nomination day or the day the writ is issued 96 hours after election day Grove City of Leduc Other such time as regulated by 30 days in advance of election 72 hours after election day federal or provincial legislation day City of Other such time as regulated by 30 days in advance of election 48 hours after election day Beaumont federal or provincial legislation day
Page 56 of 82 Attachment 1
Table 7: Regulations for Election Signage Design Regulating Size Digital/electric Must be firmly Other (Maximum area) signs prohibited planted Alberta 1.5m2 ✖ Transportation City of Calgary Cannot look like a traffic control device 3m2 ✖ ✖ Cannot be inflatable City of 0.6m2 (1m high ✖ ✖ Edmonton and 0.6m wide) City of 1.5m2 Mississauga City of 3m2 or 30% of the
Vancouver window surface City of Spruce 3m2 or 0.6 m2 on Cannot look like a ballot ✖ Grove private property Cannot be inflatable City of Leduc 6m2 Must include name/contact info of
candidate City of 0.6m2 Beaumont
Page 57 of 82 Page 58 of 82
REQUEST FOR DECISION File: 0593-001
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MEETING DATE: October 13, 2020
SUBJECT: Range Road 243 Drainage Assessment RECOMMENDATION That Council direct Administration to proceed with Option 1 – Debris Removal.
BACKGROUND On August 25, 2020, Council directed Administration to bring back the next steps and costs to the October 13, 2020 Regular Council Meeting to address the overland drainage issues at the northwest corner of Range Road 243 and Highway 625.
The subject area is located west of Range Road 243 and north of Highway 625 (Attachment 1) and has a mixture of agricultural, residential, and commercial land uses. The area is part of the Elan Area Structure Plan, which addresses land use, transportation, and utility servicing requirements for the development of the plan area in the west annexation lands.
Currently stormwater is managed through existing natural drainage courses, which include the LeBlanc Canal and Irvine Creek as shown in Attachments 2 and 3. These natural drainage courses are protected by Alberta Environment and generally cannot be modified without extensive studies and assessments.
While the existing drainage pattern for this area is normal and expected for low-lying areas, concerns from landowners related to seasonal flooding have been received and Administration has reviewed potential options to mitigate impacts prior to development activities taking place.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL/COMMITTEE DIRECTIONS August 25, 2020 Council Meeting - Council directed Administration to bring back the next steps and costs associated to address the overland drainage issues to the October 13, 2020 Regular Council Meeting.
May 26, 2020 Council Meeting - Council directed Administration to review the current overland drainage design located on the northwest corner of Range Road 243 and Highway 625. The purpose of the review would be to mitigate the spring flooding that currently affects the landowner to the north of this location.
ANALYSIS/RATIONALE Options for next steps: 1. Debris Removal Administration has consulted with Alberta Environment and Parks and has determined that the drainage area directly west of Premier RV Storage can be cleared of debris/vegetation, and that
Submitted By: Tyler Tymchyshyn, Manager, Municipal Projects Approved By: Mike Schwirtz, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 59 of 82 general landscaping work to cut the vegetation adjacent to the waterbody can be undertaken in accordance with the Water Act with the following constraints:
Section 2(g) of the Water (Ministerial) Regulation states the following is exempt from the requirement of an approval: “removal of debris from a water body that is not frequented by fish if the person removing the debris owns or occupies the land adjacent to the water body where the debris is located.” Section 2(d) of the Water (Ministerial) Regulation states the following is exempt from the requirement of an approval: “landscaping except where (i) it is in or adjacent to a watercourse frequented by fish or in a lake or a wetland, or (ii) it changes the flow or volume of water on an adjacent parcel of land or adversely affects an aquatic environment.”
It is Administration’s understanding that if the debris removal is completed by hand and does not disturb the bed and shore of a waterbody, then no regulatory approvals are required; however, if the vegetation clearing exposes soils beneath, then approval may be required.
This option is estimated to cost $15,000 and can be completed before the end of the year to mitigate spring flooding.
2. Comprehensive Watershed Plan/Survey A comprehensive watershed plan/survey is required to understand the scope of work required to modify the existing natural drainage corridors prior to the build out of the Elan Area Structure Plan. The comprehensive watershed plan/survey would examine any potential modifications to the Irvine Creek, LeBlanc Canal, or any other existing stream channels to increase the hydraulic capacity of these waterbodies.
This plan would cost approximately $75,000-$100,000 dollars and take 12-18 months to complete. Alberta Environment and Parks approval would be required for any potential modification to the protected drainage corridors in this area. Additionally, this study will require further collaboration with partner municipalities as per the Intermunicipal Planning Framework. Any potential modifications identified in this study may affect other landowners and stakeholder engagement would be required as part of this project as work would be required on private property for rechanneling of corridors, in-line storage, etc. The timeline to complete the design work for any improvements is largely dependent on third party responses and would require regional input and discussion.
Response Options/Alternatives 1. That Council direct Administration to proceed with Option 1 – Debris Removal. 2. That Council provide direction to administration on how to proceed.
Strategic Alignment Our Beaumont: Municipal Strategic Plan 2017–2021 Pillar 1 – ‘Livability,’ by supporting the development of safe communities Pillar 4 – ‘Regional Collaboration and Leadership,’ by working with our regional neighbours to ensure sustainable infrastructure and protect our watershed.
Relevant Statutes/Master Plans/Documents Elan Area Structure Plan https://www.beaumont.ab.ca/DocumentCenter/View/1635/Elan-Area-Structure-Plan?bidId= Blackmud/Whitemud Creek Surface Water Study https://www.nswa.ab.ca/resource/blackmud-whitemud-study/
Submitted By: Tyler Tymchyshyn, Manager Municipal Projects Approved By: Mike Schwirtz, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 60 of 82 Intermunicipal Planning Framework https://www.beaumont.ab.ca/DocumentCenter/View/4479/IntermunicipalPlanningFramework?bidI d=
Legislative Authority Alberta Water Act http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/w03.pdf Alberta Water (Ministerial) Regulation http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/1998_205.pdf Release Reporting Regulation http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/1993_117.pdf
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT/COMMUNICATION Depending on which option Council chooses, permission will be required from landowners adjacent to the drainage area to access their lands to complete the work.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT Debris Removal - $15,000. This amount can be covered through existing approved budget allocation. Comprehensive Watershed Plan/Survey - $75,000-$100,000. This amount will require additional budget approval to proceed with the work.
ATTACHMENTS 1. Drainage Area Map 2. Existing Drainage Area Map 3. Existing Topography
Submitted By: Tyler Tymchyshyn, Manager Municipal Projects Approved By: Mike Schwirtz, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 61 of 82 Page 62 of 82 TOWNSHIP ROAD 510 RANGE ROAD 243 RANGE ROAD 244
HIGHWAY 625
0 50 100 200 300 Meters
Drainage Area Map Legend
Elan ASP PLAN AREA
City of Beaumont Numerical Scale Date - mn/dd/yr Mapped By BEAUMONT BOUNDARY 5600 49 Street 1:3,573 7/22/2020 P. PORTER Subdivision Application No: Checked By Beaumont, AB N/A J. WONG T4X 1A1 Projected Coordinate System: CANADA NAD 83-3TM-114
Page 63 of 82 Page 64 of 82 TOWNSHIP ROAD 510 ± RANGE ROAD 243 RANGE ROAD 244
0 50 100 200 300 Meters
HIGHWAY 625
Existing Drainage Area Map Legend EXISTING WET AREAS CITY OF BEAUMONT Elan ASP DRAINAGE R.O.W. LANDS UTILITY R.O.W. City of Beaumont Numerical Scale Date - mn/dd/yr Mapped By 5600 49 Street 1:3,573 7/22/2020 P. PORTER EXISTING BUILDINGS Subdivision Application No: Checked By Beaumont, AB N/A J. WONG B.A.D.A.S LANDS T4X 1A1 Projected Coordinate System: ABANDONED WELL PLAN AREA CANADA NAD 83-3TM-114
Page 65 of 82 Page 66 of 82 ± TOWNSHIP ROAD 510 RANGE ROAD 243 RANGE ROAD 244
0 50 100 200 300 Meters HIGHWAY 625
Existing Topography Map Legend PLAN AREA Elan ASP FLOW DIRECTION City of Beaumont Numerical Scale Date - mn/dd/yr Mapped By HIGH POINT 5600 49 Street 1:3,573 7/22/2020 P. PORTER Subdivision Application No: Checked By Beaumont, AB N/A J. WONG T4X 1A1 Projected Coordinate System: CANADA NAD 83-3TM-114
Page 67 of 82 Page 68 of 82
File: 0124-C03
SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA
MEETING DATE: October 13, 2020
SUBJECT: Beaumont Sports and Recreation Centre Noise Abatement Update COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DIRECTION That the Committee of the Whole receive the report as information.
DISCUSSION Administration has received three complaints from residences on 63rd Street, which is directly east of the Beaumont Sport and Recreation Centre (BSRC). These complaints are regarding the level of noise that is present when the fans are running on the Arena refrigeration ice plant condensing tower. This tower is an integral part of the ice plant and is required for the refrigeration plant to function. The tower is situated on the east end of the Arena portion of the BSRC, on a platform approximately 25 feet above the ground. This condensing tower was installed as part of the scope of the BSRC construction project and is not unlike condensing towers present at all refrigeration plants at Arenas throughout North America.
The specifications for the condensing tower were approved in the scope of the project by BR2 Architecture through their sub-contracted mechanical engineering firm.
The BSRC arena refrigeration plant was installed by the general contractor, Clark Builders, and sub- contractor CIMCO Refrigeration, as per designed specifications. The plant was started in July of 2020 by CIMCO Refrigeration as part of the commissioning process to ensure the plant would function as required. As part of this process, the condensing tower would have been operating at an almost constant as that time of year was warm and was cooling the arena slab to ensure it performed as expected.
It was during this initial testing phase, July 20, 2020, that the first resident made a complaint on the noise level from the blower fans in the condensing tower. Administration had responded to the resident via telephone to discuss the concern. As part of exercising due diligence, administration sought some investigative avenues through BR2 Architecture. Clark Builders provided a reading of 75 decibels noted when the condensing tower is in operation. This reading was taken from the dog off leash area in between the BSRC and 63 Street.
Once the initial testing of the refrigeration plant was over it was turned off. The plant went through start up in September 2020 in preparation to make ice for the arena season. It was again that administration fielded the same noise complaint from the same resident and subsequently two other residents on 63 Street. The residents have been advised electronically that administration has been seeking potential solutions that may address their concerns.
Submitted By: Paul Suiter, Director, Community Services Approved By: Eleanor Mohammed, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
Page 69 of 82 Administration has received options that may address the noise level. These options consist of changing the blower fans and installing sound diffusers/ intake silencers. The cost of the recommended four options range from $20,000 to $125,000 for purchase and install. Corresponding decibel reduction is related to option selection.
The challenge is that the noise created by the operation of the cooling tower is a “new” sound to the area and sound is both a decibel reading and a perception. In the Beaumont Noise Abatement Bylaw, “Noise” is defined as any sound which annoys or disturbs humans or which endangers or injures the safety or health of a human. If so determined by a Peace Officer, it could constitute an offence under the bylaw. There is no identified decibel level threshold in the bylaw.
Administration engaged Digital Edge Media to perform third party noise level readings on September 30, 2020 (Attachment 1). Sound level readings were taken from different locations east of the BSRC, including areas close to residents on 63rd Street.
Strategic Alignment Our Beaumont: Municipal Strategic Plan 2017-2021 – Livability
Relevant Statutes/Master Plans/Documents Not applicable.
Legislative Authority Municipal Government Act, Part 1 - Municipal Purposes, Section 3(b) Town of Beaumont Bylaw Number 642-05 - Noise Abatement Bylaw
PREVIOUS COUNCIL/COMMITTEE DIRECTION Not applicable.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT/COMMUNICATION The affected residents have been provided updates on the situation electronically and will be further updated if a decision is made on the future direction.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT The potential solutions identified in the report are all unfunded in the 2020 budget. If Council directed, Administration would proceed with one of the solutions in 2020 and a specific funding source would need to be identified.
ATTACHMENTS 1. Noise Level Testing Report 2. BAC Closed Circuit Product Selection Report (Options 1-4)
Submitted By: Paul Suiter, Director, Community Services Approved By: Eleanor Mohammed, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
Page 70 of 82 Attachment 1
Project Scope Date: September 30, 2020
Account Name: City of Beaumont
Project Name: City of Beaumont – BSRC Decibel Level
Summary:
On September 30th at 3:00 PM digital EDGE media technicians took decibel level readings at three locations outside the Beaumont Sport and Recreation Centre in relation to the arena cooling tower.
Readings were taken using a calibrated Studio 6 Digital – Audio tools FFT analyzer with an Earthworks M23R microphone.
Location A - Directly beneath the cooling tower: With the cooling tower off, an initial baseline reading of 64dB was registered. Once the cooling tower was powered on, we registered a reading of 81.7dB.
Location B – The walking path directly East of the cooling tower: With the cooling tower powered on a reading of 65dB was registered
Location C – The walking path North East of the cooling tower: With the cooling tower powered on, a reading of 64dB was registered
If questions arise during review of this report, please feel free to contact me directly.
Jon Pettifer [email protected] Direct: 780-499-6728
Page 1 of 8
Page 71 of 82
Page 2 of 8
Page 72 of 82
Page 3 of 8
Page 73 of 82
Page 4 of 8
Page 74 of 82
Page 5 of 8
Page 75 of 82
Page 6 of 8
Page 76 of 82
Page 7 of 8
Page 77 of 82
Page 8 of 8
Page 78 of 82 Attachment 2
Page 79 of 82 Page 80 of 82 Page 81 of 82 Page 82 of 82