title
Borrowing Bylaw 24/2017
Presented by: Chris Belke, Chief Legislative Officer
label
RECOMMENDATION(S)
recommendation
1. That Bylaw 24/2017, being a Borrowing Bylaw to finance the Construction of the Branch Library, as amended, be read a second time.
2. That Bylaw 24/2017, be read a third and final time.
body
PURPOSE OF REPORT
This report presents Bylaw 24/2017 for second and third readings.
COUNCIL DIRECTION
On April 18, 2017, Council passed the following motion:
That Bylaw 24/2017 be amended to change the amount of the borrowing from 25 million dollars to 21.9 million dollars.
On April 3, 2017, Council passed the following motion:
That Bylaw 24/2017, Being a Borrowing Bylaw to finance the Construction of the Branch Library, be read a first time.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Bylaw 24/2017 received first reading on April 3, 2017, and was amended on April 18, 2017 to reduce the maximum amount of the borrowing that would be authorized by the Bylaw.
On May 23, 2017 a petition from electors of the City was submitted requesting "the Council of the City St. Albert to hold a public vote on Borrowing Bylaw 24/2017 being a Borrowing Bylaw authorizing the borrowing of not more than Twenty One Million Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($21,900,000.00) to finance the Construction of the Branch Library". Until it was determined whether the petition was sufficient, Council could not proceed with consideration of second and third readings of the Borrowing Bylaw.
On June 12, 2017, the Chief Legislative Officer reported to Council that the petition received on May 23, 2017 was not sufficient. As per section 226(3) of the Municipal Government Act (MGA), "If a petition is not sufficient, the council or the Minister is not required to take any notice of it." Therefore, Council may now consider second and third readings of Bylaw 24/2017.
STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATIONS OR ENGAGEMENT
Following first reading of Bylaw 24/2017 on April 3, 2017 and amendment of the Bylaw on April 18, 2017, notices of the bylaw were published in the St. Albert Gazette as per section 606 of the MGA.
On May 23, 2017, a petition of electors regarding Bylaw 24/2017 was submitted to the City.
IMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATION(S)
Financial:
N/A
Legal / Risk:
N/A
Program or Service:
N/A
Organizational:
N/A
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
1. Pass second reading of Bylaw 24/2017 and postpone third reading to a later date.
Implications:
Third reading of Bylaw 24/2017 would be considered by the post-2017 Election version of Council. Also, delaying a decision on the Borrowing Bylaw would mean that work could not commence on the branch library project.
2. Postpone consideration of second and third readings of Bylaw 24/2017 to a later date.
Implications:
Second and third readings of Bylaw 24/2017 would be considered by the post-2017 Election version of Council. Also, delaying a decision on the Borrowing Bylaw would mean that work could not commence on the branch library project.
4. Defeat either second or third reading of Bylaw 24/2017.
Implications:
The borrowing of funds would not be authorized for construction of a branch library. The branch library project, as proposed, could not proceed unless a different funding source is identified. A new, different borrowing bylaw could be considered to provide funding for this project, or a new borrowing could be considered for construction of a branch library with a different project scope, or for construction of a branch library with the same project scope and reduced amount of authorized funding through borrowing along with approval of additional fund from a different funding source. However, if any new borrowing bylaw is to be considered, it will need to be advertised as per s. 606 of the MGA, and there would be an opportunity for electors to petition on the new bylaw.
5. Postpone consideration of third reading (or second and third readings) of Bylaw 24/2017 and have a question about a borrowing bylaw to fund construction of a branch library added to the ballot for the 2017 General Election.
Implications:
As such a question would be voluntarily placed on the ballot by Council, as opposed to being placed on the ballot in response to a sufficient petition, the results of the question would only be information provided to Council which they could then decide to either ignore or interpret in any way they choose. Note that this interpretation would be made by the post-2017 election Council, not the version of Council that would have chosen to put the question on the ballot.
Report Date: July 10, 2017
Author(s): Chris Belke
Committee/Department: Legislative Services
General Manager: Kevin Scoble
City Manager: Kevin Scoble