Two motions put forward by Coun. Sheena Hughes looking to hit rewind on St. Albert’s proposed solar-farm project have been struck down.
During a Dec. 2 budget committee of the whole meeting, St. Albert city council voted against a motion to unfund the $26.1 million approved for the solar-farm project budget. The motion would have reduced the budget to $135,000, the price of ongoing pre-construction work.
Council also voted down a motion to rescind the first reading of the solar-farm borrowing bylaw. Motions must be read three times before they are passed by council.
During the meeting, Hughes said the motion to unfund the $26.1 million was about ensuring the numbers approved for the project are correct before council proceeds. Hughes noted the solar-farm numbers have been revised since they were initially presented to council, and the final numbers for the project remain unknown.
“If you want to do due diligence, what you do is you go through phase three (pre-construction work), you get the numbers, and then you approve it,” Hughes said. “You do not … leave a number on the books that you know is not correct anymore.”
Because of administrative procedures, council’s initial approval of the project’s budget allows the $26.1 million to be included in St. Albert’s capital growth budget.
Coun. Mike Killick spoke in support of Hughes’s motion, arguing it could clarify budget deliberation and public understanding of the project’s current status.
“It seems to me this is one way we could very clearly say that we have not made a commitment,” Killick said.
Coun. Brodhead argued the motion perpetuates “a misunderstanding” around the city’s capital programming and borrowing process.
“To me this doesn’t really have any cause and effect,” Brodhead said. “We’re going to wait until the outcome of [the pre-construction] study is done, and then we’ll make decisions.”
Mayor Cathy Heron seconded Brodhead, saying the motion “means nothing,” outside of going against proper process.
“I think there’s a fear in the community that we’re going to spend $26 million and people will be servicing that debt, but we’re not going to spend $26 million until the report comes back to council and the due diligence is done,” Heron said.
The motion failed 4-3, with Hughes, Killick, and Coun. Shelley Biermanski in favour.
When the second motion to rescind the first reading of the solar-farm borrowing bylaw came up, Hughes argued approving the motion would demonstrate council is being vigilant.
“It would be really nice to show the public that at least there’s been some cautionary developments between what’s been decided, what we’re saying to the public, and what will ultimately happen on that land,” Hughes said while debating the second motion.
Killick spoke in favour of the motion, saying his rationale for supporting it would be “public engagement.”
Once a first reading of a borrowing bylaw passes, a 15-day petition period begins. During this time, a petition garnering signatures from at least 10 per cent of the population of St. Albert can force a plebiscite on the issue.
As it stands, the city is not legally obligated to advertise a petition period a second time for the borrowing bylaw when it comes forward again.
A borrowing bylaw does not require a public hearing; as with other council meetings, residents would be able to present to council before other council business is conducted.
Heron cited the option to present to council, arguing public engagement “happens at every meeting.”
The second motion also failed, again 4-3, with Hughes, Killick, and Biermanski in favour.
Council to look at plans for Badger Lands in early 2022
Potential plans for the city-owned Badger Lands are set to come forward early in 2022, council heard Monday.
In January of 2020, council directed administration to come forward with plans for the city-owned Badger Lands when the land was passed up for a recreation centre; instead, Range Road 260 was selected. Later, administration requested a time extension to the end of 2021 to come forward with plans for the Badger Lands.
During Monday’s council meeting, city administration requested an additional time extension into 2022, due to an incoming remediation study on the lands expected early that year, and pre-construction work on the city’s potential solar farm project set to come before council within the same time frame.
This request was approved on council’s consent agenda, meaning there was no discussion of the item.
