On Monday, St. Albert city council postponed their decision on a borrowing bylaw for the Badger Lands solar-farm project, voting instead to continue exploring the project through another route.
The current estimated cost for the project is $26.1 million, but the bylaw would have allowed St. Albert to borrow up to $33.75 million over 20 years, due to a 25-per-cent contingency.
The vote to postpone the decision on the borrowing bylaw passed 6-1 with Coun. Sheena Hughes opposed. Instead, council voted unanimously on a new motion to take $135,000 from the city’s stabilization reserve to fund the pre-construction work for the project, which will result in a concrete cost assessment.
The city estimates this pre-construction work — referred to as Phase Three in the five-part solar-project process — will be completed in June of 2022.
“There is a lot of information about the project that still needs to be determined,” Coun. Ken MacKay, who brought forward the new motion, said. “This gives us an opportunity to answer every one of the questions that were presented to us not only in these chambers, but by the community as a whole.”
At the beginning of the meeting, residents voiced their concerns about unclear aspects of the farm in presentations to council. Many highlighted uncertainties with the solar farm’s revenue strategy, and inconsistencies in the numbers brought forward by the company that did the farm's feasibility study, ATCO.
St. Albert resident and council candidate Mike Killick argued the city was putting “the cart before the horse.”
“What’s the rush?” Killick asked. “Why not finalize the numbers, and then pass the borrowing bylaw?”
Similarly, resident Matt Bachewich said questions such as what other options exist for the Badger Lands besides a solar farm “deserve public answers first.”
Later in the meeting, Coun. Natalie Joly spoke in support of MacKay’s motion, arguing one of the “best questions” council had received surrounded why a borrowing bylaw needed approval at this stage.
“I probably would have voted against Coun. MacKay’s motion had administration not confirmed there was no operational impact to going this route,” Joly said. “We are taking a different road toward the same thing, so I have no objections.”
Background on the borrowing bylaw was presented by Kevin Scoble, the city’s chief administrative officer. Scoble’s presentation focused on the shortfall the city is facing in repair, maintenance, and replacement (RMR) funding, and anticipated loss of provincial funding supports.
“The financial wall that has been discussed regularly in public meetings over the past few years is now here,” Scoble said. “The community needs to pick a lane soon; increase taxes, reduce services, find new revenue sources, or some combination of the three.”
Coun. Ray Watkins referenced Scoble’s presentation in his remarks, arguing that exploring a new revenue stream is a key action item in trying to abate drastic tax increases.
“People have said [the solar farm] is going to lose us money, but we haven’t heard one iota of an alternative of what we should do instead,” Watkins said. “People have to realize that on council, we’re not trying to raise our own taxes.”
Before council voted, Mayor Cathy Heron said she was "excited" about the conversation council and residents had had, and looking forward to the process ahead.
"We had speakers today asking us to delay this vote ... and that's what this motion achieves," Heron said.
Council votes to fund Badger Lands remediation study
After voting to fund the pre-construction work for the solar farm, council voted to take $35,000 from the capital reserve for a study to determine the cost of remediating the Badger Lands.
From 2006 to 2020, the Badger Lands was used as a temporary snow dump, contaminating a portion of the site’s soil with road salt from the melted snow.
The city had previously estimated the cost to remediate the land — meaning remove the contaminants — would be in the range of $15.5 million to $25 million. The study proposed in the motion would pin down a precise cost.
When asked by Watkins where the original estimate came from, city environmental co-ordinator Meghan Myers said the ballpark cost was completed using an assessment from 2017 that looked at the potential volume of contaminated soil and estimated it at about 270,000 tonnes.
“To look at a local comparison, in Riel Park we removed just over 1,500 tonnes and it was approximately $240,000 to remediate the site,” Myers said.
“Why do we have a motion to do a remediation study now?” Hughes asked.
Myers said the snow dump was previously operational, and in 2017 it was assumed the site would be used for the next five to10 years. Further, when the site was examined in 2017, it was still being used as a snow dump.
“You have to keep in mind that, to date, we haven't been able to access the site because it's been underwater,” Myers said.
The vote to fund the report passed unanimously.
Councillor remains dubious about solar farm
While the mayor and a majority of councillors spoke to the importance of seeing more precise numbers for the solar farm, Hughes said the revamped procedure didn’t ease her original concern about the solar farm’s ability to generate revenue.
“My concern is that when you do the math, it does not come to the projected $1.5 million in estimated revenue, simple,” Hughes said. "The number for solar hours has changed, and it's still not being disclosed to the public ... If people have concerns, I feel like we should just be fully open and let them see what's going on."
Scoble said council will be able to dig into numbers once Phase Three of planning is complete, adding if a member of the public was interested in the information, they could file a Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIP) request asking the city to release them.
"Any of those people are welcome to file a FOIP request with the city of St. Albert," Scoble said. "If somebody has a challenge with what we feel is appropriate to release, make sure to file a FOIP request instead of making allegations."
Hughes was the only councillor to vote against the postponement of the borrowing bylaw.
"I still think a borrowing bylaw was defeated," Hughes said. "There is ample time to put forward a new bylaw with revised numbers that would be able to withstand scrutiny."
Before council passed a motion to postpone the vote on the borrowing bylaw, Hughes tried to add a provision to ensure a petition would be advertised in advance of the second and third readings if the bylaw comes forward to council again in the future.
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. The city formerly advertised the petition in advance of the Aug. 30 council meeting, from Aug. 11 to Aug. 26.
Speaking in support of postponing the borrowing bylaw, Coun. Jacquie Hansen said a petition could still be a possibility in the future for the next council reviewing the decision.
“I think the next council would allow for that democracy to take place,” Hansen said. “If there’s a will, there’s a way.”
Coun. Wes Brodhead added that the public is always welcome in the council chambers, and that they can “voice their opinion on any matter at any time.”
When commenting on Hughes’ petition motion, Heron said St. Albert was “lucky to have such engaged residents.”
“I would like to keep the conversation going, but for us to scrutinize the right things,” Heron said in response to Hughes's comments. “We’re not scrutinizing numbers right now because we’re not there yet. We’re going to do our due diligence, and this is all part of the process.”
