TAMRMS#: B06
11.2
title
Rescind Motion AR-25-378 - Divestment of 13 Mission Avenue
Notice given by: Councillor Korotash
label
PROPOSED MOTION(S):
recommendation
Whereas new information is available regarding proceeding in accordance with resolution AR-25-378, and whereas a general election has been held subsequent to resolution AR-25-378, and whereas the City has not taken any irrevocable action with respect to resolution AR-25-378 that could result in adverse legal consequences if AR-25-378 were rescinded, be it resolved that the following resolution AR-25-378 approved by Council on September 16, 2025 be rescinded at the regular meeting of Council on January 13, 2025:
That the CAO be authorized to dispose of the lands municipally described as 13 Mission Avenue for a sale price not less than market value, and to execute any associated agreements and documents on terms and conditions satisfactory to the CAO.
body
PURPOSE OF REPORT
The purpose of this report is to present a motion for which Councillor Korotash gave notice on December 23, 2025.
ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL DIRECTION OR MANDATORY STATUTORY PROVISION
On December 16, 2025, the following motion failed:
CM-25-023
That Administration pause the disposition of 13 Mission Avenue until meaningful and transparent engagement with local Indigenous communities, including the Otipemisiwak Government and St. Albert-Métis District 11 Representatives, as well as local First Nation elders, survivors and descendants is conducted, and that Administration return to Council regarding the results of the engagement upon its conclusion.
On September 16, 2025, Council passed the following motion:
AR-25-378
That the CAO be authorized to dispose of the lands municipally described as 13 Mission Avenue for a sale price not less than market value, and to execute any associated agreements and documents on terms and conditions satisfactory to the CAO.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Council considered the matter of the divestment of 13 Mission Avenue at the September 16, 2025, Council meeting and most recently at the December 16, 2025, Council meeting. The administrative reports from the September 16, 2025, and December 16, 2025, meetings are attached to this administrative backgrounder for Council’s information.
Procedure Bylaw
The Procedure Bylaw outlines the proper process for review of prior Council decisions, which includes the ability to reconsider motions at the same Council meeting, which is no longer applicable to this matter, (ss. 104 and 105) or the ability to make a Notice of Motion (NOM) in order to rescind a motion previously passed (ss. 104, 106, and 107).
Section 104 provides that “Council cannot consider the same or substantially the same matter again unless (a) a General Election has been held; (b) six months have passed since the dated the Resolution was passed; or (c) a Motion to rescind or reconsider the Resolution or defeated Motion has been passed.” The purpose of this section of the Procedure Bylaw is to ensure proper governance, such that administration can have certainty about direction given by Council so that the business of the corporation can continue.
Most recently, the matter of the disposition of 13 Mission Ave was considered by Council on December 16, 2025, whereby the issue of whether the sale of 13 Mission Ave should be paused in order to provide a chance for public engagement to be done with Indigenous communities prior to the disposition of this land. Council debated a notice of motion to this effect, and it was defeated by a vote of 4-3. Since the motion did not pass, it cannot be rescinded.
In accordance with section 104 of the Procedure Bylaw, given that the motion debated on December 16, 2025, and the new Notice of Motion herein proposed by Councillor Korotash all relate to the matter of the disposition of 13 Mission Ave (i.e. they are the same or substantially the same matter), a new NOM ought not to proceed unless a motion to reconsider the defeated December 16 motion has been passed or a motion to rescind the September 16 motion has been passed.
A notice of motion to rescind the motion passed on September 16, 2025, authorizing the CAO to sell the lands, is possible only because there has been a general election in the intervening time period (as 6 months has not yet passed). This could be done in accordance with section 106 of the Procedure Bylaw. It could be done by any Councillor, provided the City has not taken any action on the resolution proposed for rescission that could result in adverse legal consequences if the resolution were rescinded. As long as no contracts are signed, there should not be any adverse legal consequences for rescinding that motion.
Section 107 outlines what information the NOM to rescind a resolution must include:
(a) indicate the date of the Meeting when the Member will be making the Motion to rescind;
(b) identify the Resolution that is proposed for recission, including identifying whether recission of the Resolution would require recission of any secondary Motions; and
(c) explain what special or exceptional circumstances, which may include new information, would warrant Council rescinding the Motion.
IMPACTS OF MOTION
Financial:
Rescinding the motion previously passed authorizing the CAO to dispose of the lands at 13 Mission Avenue would prevent the City from benefitting from the sale proceeds and any subsequent tax assessment generated from private ownership and potential redevelopment of the property.
The City has invested over $300,000 in the abatement and demolition of 13 Mission Avenue. If AR-25-378 is rescinded, the City would not recover these costs, and the City would likely continue to incur ongoing maintenance and operating costs associated with the property.
Compliance & Legal:
To date, no legally binding contracts have been entered into with parties that have made an offer to purchase the property and there are likely no legal ramifications of rescinding AR-25-378.
Program or Service:
If AR-25-378 is rescinded, Administration would discontinue any work related to 13 Mission Ave, except for property maintenance, until direction is provided by Council.
Organizational:
A significant amount of organizational resources have been spent preparing the 13 Mission site for divestment. Approval of the motion could result in sunk costs from an organizational perspective. If the original motion is rescinded, Administration anticipates that notification to parties interested in purchasing 13 Mission, as well as notification to the Greater St. Albert Catholic Schools would be required. Future application for a redistricting of the 13 Mission site, and any associated application fees, would not be expected to occur.
Rescinding AR-25-378 may positively impact relationships integral to other ongoing City priorities and initiatives, such as the Reconciliation Action Plan and delivery of Indigenous days of significance within St. Albert, such as September 30, National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.
Risks
• Strategic - Cancelling the divestment process may delay and conflict with organizational strategic goals regarding downtown vibrancy, supporting development of mixed hosing and financial decision-making. However, it may also positively impact goals regarding Community Well-Being, and other Corporate Initiatives, such as the City’s Indigenous Relations Framework and Reconciliation Action Plan.
• Assets and Asset Management - Cancelling the divestment of 13 Mission Avenue is expected to extend operating costs associated with this property, which includes existing drainage issues related to these lands that Administration was anticipating to resolve through the divestment and redevelopment of the site.
• Stakeholders and Indigenous Partners - Cancelling the divestment process for 13 Mission Avenue may negatively impact the City’s reputation with parties interested in purchasing the property. It may also, more broadly, deter other developers and investors considering projects in St. Albert.
However, there may be a positive impact on the City’s relationship with Indigenous Partners, inclusive of both the Otipemisiwak Métis Government and Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations.
ALIGNMENT TO PRIORITIES IN COUNCIL’S STRATEGIC PLAN
Item aligned to Strategic Plan:
#3 Community Well-Being: Reconciliation Action Plan
Rescinding the 2025 Motion could be perceived as conflicting with three of the five council strategic plan priorities:
#1 Economic Prosperity - Support an investment positive environment that encourages economic growth and the development of new and existing sectors.
#2 Downtown Vibrancy - Foster a downtown where people come to live, gather, celebrate, shop and do business.
#5 Financial Sustainability - Ensure responsible and transparent fiscal management, decision making and long-term financial sustainability that allows the City to respond to changes to revenue sources.
ALIGNMENT TO LEVELS OF SERVICE DELIVERY
B.10.1 - Truth and Reconciliation Stewardship
body
Report Date: January 13, 2026
Author: Marta Caufield; Michael Erickson; Trevor Duley
Department: Legal, Legislative and Records Services; Economic Development; Government/Indigenous Relations & Environment
Department Director: Marta Caufield; Michael Erickson; Trevor Duley
Managing Director: Adryan Slaght
Chief Administrative Officer: William Fletcher