​This legislation pertains to public sector employees, but a wise private sector employer should immediately adopt the same policy. Everyone has a right to their own personal freedom of expression outside of their workplace. 

I have advocated for this for years. I think if you are using a professional online account or make significant reference to your occupation with said online account then yes, your opinions represent that employer (even indirectly). If, outside of work, you are using a personal account which doesn’t directly reference your employer, then the opinions you express on it are your own personal business and not those of your employer. Obviously if you make threatening or hateful comments which can be taken as credible threats (not just hurt feelings) on your personal account this could affect your employment indirectly.
​
For example, for a personal account, instead of saying ‘I am a teacher at ABC High School,’ you would say ‘I’m a high school teacher.’ You can, of course, demonstrate your expertise to support your opinion, but avoid directly naming your employer or otherwise associating your personal account with your professional one.

Let's see what AI knows about Dynamic Staffing of our Red Deer Firefighters here in Red Deer, Alberta.
BEFORE YOU READ THIS AI GENERATED ARTICLE, READ THIS:

1. I support training crosstrained fire-medics positions rather than separating firefighter and paramedic roles.
2. I believe we should increase staffing by 25%, raising the number of fire-medics from 194 to 242 by 2026.
3. Every fire station should operate with a minimum of four fire-medics per truck.
4. Staffing levels must be based on personnel who are fully capable of performing fire-suppression duties.
5. The city should begin planning for a sixth fire station, with the goal* of breaking ground by 2035.
6. I publicly supported the firefighters’ protest against dynamic staffing and was the first municipal candidate to speak out in their favour.
7. I spoke of support for 'dynamic staffing' however it was expressly with 4 fire-medics per truck as the minimum -as a reduction from a normal staffing during peak periods of 5-6 fire-medics per truck.
8. I did not prepare this article, it is only what ChatGPT has provided as answers. "You said" are my questions that I asked.
9. The more questions I asked the more ChatGPT AI couldn't answer. Like most things involving Government transparency and conformity are lacking between municipalities and the public.
FYI: Calvin Goulet-Jones - Community Voice: Red Deer & Area
I suspect many of these points made are controversial and could be challenged, this is just an example of what ChatGPT AI provided at this moment. If I ask these same questions again it will probably change the answers.

----------------------------------------------------------------

You said: my fire department instituted dynamic staffing. as this is the first year for it in our Alberta city is there a trial period when it can be reverted back to the old system?

CHATGPT: That’s a good question — I didn’t see anything in publicly available documents that shows a legally mandated “trial period” for Red Deer Emergency Services’s (RDES) new Dynamic Staffing Model, in the sense that the policy must automatically be reviewed or reverted after a certain timeframe. Here’s what I found — and where there appears to be flexibility.

What is known about the Dynamic Staffing Model

The city publicly describes “Dynamic Staffing” as a flexible staffing approach: it adjusts where and when personnel work “based on real-time needs,” rather than permanently reducing headcount.

According to the city, the policy does not eliminate firefighter/paramedic jobs — all 194 positions remain in place.

The city claims that under the policy, they are still able to meet required service levels and response-time targets.

Why there is room for the policy to be changed or reversed

The decision to implement the Dynamic Staffing Model was made by municipal council (for Red Deer).
Because this is a municipal policy — not mandated by the province — future councils or administrators can in principle choose to rescind or revise it. Indeed, some local advocacy (unions, citizens via petitions) is already calling for the city to reverse or adjust the policy.

An operational review of the emergency services was recently announced, which could lead to recommendations regarding staffing models.

Why you might not find a formal “trial period” written in legislation or contract

Minimum standards for municipal fire departments in Alberta (or broadly in Canada) — as described in government guidance documents — focus on establishing and operating a fire department, not on regulating internal staffing-management models such as “dynamic staffing.”

The publicly available information for the Dynamic Staffing Model does not mention a time-limited pilot or automatic reversion clause. The city frames it as a budget and scheduling tool, not as a trial.

Internal agreements/collective agreements you’d see for rank promotions or role changes sometimes include trial periods for individuals (e.g., promotions) — but that’s different from a trial period for a department-wide staffing policy.

What this means for your fire department: Reversion is possible — but not automatic

Because the policy was instituted locally (by council) rather than mandated externally, it can be reversed or revised — if a future council votes to do so, or if an operational review recommends change, or in response to public and union pressure. But there is no statutory trigger or predetermined “trial-period end” that forces automatic reversion.

In other words: this is a political/administrative decision, not a temporary legal experiment.

XXXX
You said:
what is the actual policy that was implemented?

CHATGPT: Here’s a detailed summary of what the Red Deer Emergency Services (RDES) “Dynamic Staffing” policy actually is — what it does, how it works, and what changed under it. I’m drawing on Red Deer’s publicly-available descriptions and data.

What is the Dynamic Staffing policy

The policy was approved by City Council of Red Deer as part of the 2025 operational budget, and formally implemented on January 6, 2025.

Under Dynamic Staffing, staffing and shift-assignments in Emergency Services (fire + EMS / paramedics) are managed “dynamically.” That means rather than guaranteeing full staffing levels on every shift regardless of absences or call volume, the department adjusts staffing in real time based on who shows up, who’s unavailable, how many calls are active, and other operational needs.

The aim: reduce heavy overtime burdens, avoid excessive or unsustainable overtime shifts, and thus manage costs while still maintaining “core emergency services.”

According to the city, this does not eliminate positions — the total number of firefighter/paramedic positions remains at 194.

The policy also introduced a new flexibility: the city — for the first time under this agreement — can hire up to 12 temporary EMS-only paramedics for up to 12-month terms, to help cover leaves without overloading overtime or permanent staff.

What changes under Dynamic Staffing — how operations differ

Crews responding to fire-related calls: The city states that when Dynamic Staffing is in place, “four or more firefighters are dispatched to all fire-related calls.” In some cases, that may mean more resources — but sometimes spread across two trucks instead of one.

On-shift staffing target: The target staffing level per shift was 31 employees.

Overtime reduction: Part of the rationale was skyrocketing overtime costs — in 2024, RDES paid over $3.2 million in overtime, reportedly the highest per capita in Alberta.

After Dynamic Staffing: the city reports a substantial decline in overtime shifts: from 1,920 overtime shifts in 2024 to just 160 overtime shifts in 2025 (to date), a roughly 90% drop (as per their public metrics).

What the City says Dynamic Staffing ensures
According to the city’s official materials:

Emergency response times remain within targets or standards. For example, between Jan 1–July 31, 2025, they report average response times of ~ 9min 50sec (excluding AHS ambulance calls), and ~ 6min 48sec for structure fires.

No permanent job losses: all 194 firefighter/paramedic positions remain intact.

They claim the policy balances operational needs, firefighter well-being (by reducing overtime/burnout risk), and budget responsibility — avoiding drastic tax increases that would come from unchecked overtime or hiring many more full-time staff.

(6.5%,10%,7.36%* not sure what a 'non-drastic' tax increase might look like tbh)
What critics / unions say has changed under Dynamic Staffing

It’s not all consensus — not everyone agrees that the policy’s results match the city’s claims. According to critics (including IAFF Local 1190, representing firefighters):

They argue the policy leads to undermanned crews, especially at certain stations (notably “Station 2”), increasing risks to both firefighters and the public — because there may not be enough personnel to safely and effectively fight fires or perform rescues.

There are claims that sometimes the fire truck (or ambulance) at Station 2 is shut down, or runs with fewer than the standard number of firefighters.

Critics refer to standards set by groups like National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) — e.g. NFPA 1710 — which many fire-safety experts regard as minimum safe staffing benchmarks for career fire departments; they argue Dynamic Staffing undermines those standards.

A petition has been launched calling on the city to reverse Dynamic Staffing, citing safety concerns, station closures, and insufficient staffing.

Legal / Administrative Status of the Policy

The policy is not a temporary “pilot” program — it was adopted as part of the 2025 operational budget, via a council resolution (March 2025) that explicitly declares support for the department leadership’s budget management and staffing approach (dynamic or otherwise).

The resolution supports dynamic staffing as the “appropriate staffing model” under current fiscal constraints, meaning as long as budget pressures remain, this is the framework the department will follow.

The city continues updating staffing statistics, station-level staffing reports (e.g. for Station 2), and public transparency measures about when dynamic staffing adjustments occur.

XXXXX
You said: scan recent precedents in Alberta (past 10–20 years) and show whether any other municipalities have formally used a “trial-period then review” approach when adopting dynamic- or reduced-staffing policies in fire services?

CHATGPT: Calgary explicitly ran a pilot for a risk‑based / dynamic deployment model as part of a 2015 zero‑based review.

Edmonton completed a broad Fire Rescue Services review which recommended careful planning, active monitoring and evaluation of any staffing or deployment changes — treating them as items that should be piloted, monitored, and evaluated.

At the provincial or advisory level, Alberta documents have supported limited pilot projects for integrated fire/EMS paramedic roles — meaning pilot approaches to new staffing models have been used.
In your city (Red Deer), the new Dynamic Staffing policy is a council‑approved operational model adopted in 2025 and publicly described as the current staffing approach — not as a time‑limited pilot with an automatic reversion clause.

Unions and national firefighter organizations reference other municipalities’ pilot programs and reports when pressing for formal pilots with explicit safety metrics, arguing that major staffing changes should include defined review points rather than indefinite “monitoring.”

Detailed findings (by jurisdiction / source)

Calgary
The Calgary Fire Department’s zero‑based review in 2015 recommended conducting a pilot project to transition toward a dynamic/risk‑based deployment — a clear precedent of formally piloting such changes before full adoption.

Edmonton
Edmonton’s independent review of its fire/ rescue services emphasized that any staffing changes should be carefully planned, assessed for fire‑ground impacts, and actively monitored after implementation. The report sees staffing changes as requiring evaluation and phased rollouts, with attention to collective bargaining and operational constraints.

Provincial / advisory pilots for integrated fire/EMS roles
Alberta-level advisory documents for EMS have explicitly allowed pilot projects for integrated primary care paramedic roles and other experiments in service delivery — indicating the province is comfortable with pilot testing novel staffing/deployment models under controlled settings with evaluation frameworks.

Red Deer (what was actually implemented)
The new Dynamic Staffing policy was adopted via municipal council, and public documentation presents it as a long-term staffing model with ongoing reporting — not a pilot or trial with a sunset clause. That means, unless future council action is taken, this model becomes the baseline.

Union / critic usage of precedent

Firefighter unions and related organizations point to other municipalities’ pilot/review practices when advocating that significant staffing or deployment changes should be implemented as formal pilots with explicit safety benchmarks and review timelines — not open-ended changes subject only to “monitoring.”

Practical takeaway — what this means for Red Deer

There are real precedents in Alberta where large municipalities and provincial authorities have used pilot or trial approaches before adopting new staffing or deployment models. This gives you a credible basis to request that your city adopt a similar formal structure: a time‑limited pilot or staged implementation with:
Defined performance metrics (response times, crew sizes at arrival, safety incidents, overtime levels),

Fixed review dates (e.g. 6 or 12 months after implementation), and
A clear "sunset" or reversion clause if agreed benchmarks are not met.

Because your city adopted Dynamic Staffing already — without calling it a pilot — the most realistic way to hold the policy to similar standards is to push for a retrospective evaluation that binds future council decisions, citing the practices and precedents from other municipalities.

XXXXX
You said: Based on your analysis, is Dynamic Staffing a good policy for Red Deer?

CHATGPT: Here’s a straight, balanced assessment — no sugar-coating either way.

XXXXX
You said: Is Dynamic Staffing a good policy for Red Deer?

CHATGPT: It solves a real financial and overtime problem, but it comes with operational risks — especially for fire-ground safety — and its success depends entirely on how aggressively it’s used. It is not universally “good” or “bad”; it’s a trade-off that benefits the city budget but can introduce real-world safety vulnerabilities.

Below is a clearer breakdown.

The strongest arguments for Dynamic Staffing

1. Red Deer’s overtime problem was extreme
RDES had one of the highest overtime costs in Alberta. Millions in annual overtime isn’t sustainable in a property-tax-limited city.

Dynamic staffing dramatically reduced overtime, which is what council wanted.

2. It gives the city operational flexibility

Instead of scrambling for overtime to fill every vacancy, the department can redistribute crews, move trucks, or adjust deployment.

3. It protects the city from sudden tax spikes

Without some form of staffing control, council would have needed significant tax increases or more full-time hires. Politically, that wasn’t happening.

The strongest arguments against Dynamic Staffing

1. Fire service is not the same as paramedic service

Ambulances can scale and shuffle more easily, but fire suppression requires minimum staffing, especially on the first-arriving engine.

When staffing dips, you risk:

-slower interior attack
-delayed rescues
-more dangerous fire-ground conditions
This is why IAFF and NFPA fight so hard for minimums.

2. “Dynamic flexibility” can quietly become “chronic understaffing”

On paper, the city says:

“Four or more firefighters are always dispatched.”

But that can mean two trucks each with two firefighters — not the same as a fully staffed engine arriving first.

If used too heavily, dynamic staffing becomes a budget workaround rather than an operational strategy.
3. Station 2 shutdowns / reduced crews are not nothing

Even brief closures or reduced staffing at a station affect response times in its service area. Fire response is hyper-local — seconds matter.

4. Alberta has no legislated minimums

With no provincial standard, the city can legally run things leaner than what fire-service best practices recommend.

That puts all the pressure on council oversight and political will.

So is it “good policy”?

If the priority is fiscal sustainability → Yes, it works.

It reins in runaway overtime. It avoids tax increases. It gives management flexibility.
If the priority is fire-ground safety and meeting NFPA 1710 → It’s risky.
Dynamic staffing can undermine minimum operational crew sizes depending on how often it’s activated.
The city can say “4 firefighters,” but the distribution and arrival sequence matter just as much.
If the priority is overall public safety → It depends on how strictly it’s controlled.

Dynamic staffing can be safe if:

- it’s used sparingly
- certain stations (like Station 2) are protected from closure or under-manning
- fire-ground minimums are non-negotiable
- real call-volume analysis is used, not just budget spreadsheets
But if it becomes a permanent crutch to run too lean? Then no, it’s not a good policy.

My bottom-line assessment

Dynamic Staffing is financially smart but operationally fragile.
It can work, but only with tight limits, transparent reporting, and a willingness to reverse or modify it if safety slips.

If Red Deer treats it as a cost-saving tool rather than a new normal, it has value.
If it becomes permanent austerity disguised as flexibility, it will create long-term safety problems.

--------------------------------

Alberta Municipalities / Fire Services with Possible or Known Dynamic / Flexible Staffing
Red Deer Emergency Services (RDES)

Status / Confidence: Confirmed

Key Issues / Notes:
RDES uses a formal policy called “Dynamic Staffing,” adopted January 6, 2025.
Staffing and shift assignments are adjusted in real time based on call volume and personnel availability.
Public documentation shows overtime reduction and transparency measures, including reporting on how often staffing is reduced per shift.

This is one of the few Alberta municipalities with a publicly documented, formal dynamic staffing policy.

Calgary Fire Department (CFD)
Status / Confidence: Possible / Historic

Key Issues / Notes:
Historically, CFD has referred to a “Dynamic Deployment Model” or “Risk-Based Deployment” in internal reports and reviews.
Public documentation is mostly historic; it is unclear whether current practices qualify as formal dynamic staffing similar to Red Deer’s model (i.e., staffing reductions, shift-by-shift flexibility, station closures or partial closures).
The reference comes from a 2010s “zero-based review.”

Edmonton Fire Rescue Services (EFRS)
Status / Confidence: Possible / Unconfirmed

Key Issues / Notes:
EFRS is a large department that has had reviews concerning staffing and resource deployment.
Some reporting suggests flexible or demand-based allocation of ambulances and personnel, particularly in response to EMS/medical call pressures.
No recent public statement explicitly confirms a formal “dynamic staffing” policy.
Internal flexibility may reflect operational pressures rather than a deliberate policy.

Other integrated EMS/Fire municipalities (various small-to mid-sized Alberta towns)
Status / Confidence: Unclear / No public data

Key Issues / Notes:

Many of these municipalities use integrated fire-medics or dual-role staff instead of separate firefighter and paramedic positions.

Being “integrated” does not necessarily mean a formal dynamic staffing policy is in place.
Public documentation confirming formal dynamic staffing policies is generally not available.

Absence of public documentation does not prove the policy is absent; smaller municipalities may use flexible staffing internally without labeling it as “dynamic staffing.”
---------------------------------
Chat GPT asked: If you want, I can next expand this list to all Alberta municipalities under ~100,000 population, keeping the full notes and “status / key issues” structure. That way you’d have a full provincial snapshot of where dynamic/flexible staffing is possible, confirmed, or unknown.

YES

Good question — I tried, but I could not reliably expand the list to include “all Alberta municipalities under ~100,000 population” with a credible classification of whether they use dynamic / flexible / modified staffing. Here’s why — and what I did find instead.

What I found — and where the data is too limited

There is a province‑wide guidance initiative via the Alberta Fire Chiefs Association (AFCA) that surveys fire departments in municipalities under 20,000 people to assess their service levels, training, staffing, and challenges.

Alberta Fire Chiefs Association

This survey/assessment work shows there is significant variation across small municipalities in how fire services are organized (full-time, volunteer, part-time, hybrid, on-call, etc.).

Alberta Fire Chiefs Association

Some rural/regional services (for example, in counties or municipalities with large rural area) operate with paid‑on‑call (volunteer or on-call) models rather than full-time career staffing.

EMRB

Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo

In at least one case — a regional fire service in a rural area — there is an explicit “modified service” recommendation rather than full staffing at every station: under a “strategic response” framework, some stations provide “full service,” others provide “modified” or adjusted service depending on capacity and resources.

Sedgewick

Why I cannot confidently classify “dynamic / flexible staffing” status for small municipalities

The statewide AFCA survey and reports do not use a standardized label like “dynamic staffing” or “risk‑based deployment.” Instead they discuss “level of service,” “paid-on-call,” “volunteer vs. full-time,” “strategic/modified service,” “automatic aid,” and “regional/area coverage.” Those terms are too broad and inconsistent to map to a precise definition of “dynamic staffing” (i.e., real-time adjustment of shift staffing, trucks, minimum crews per shift).

For many small towns, staffing models are under‑documented online. Their fire departments may rely heavily on volunteers, part‑time or on‑call staff — but there is no public record indicating whether they vary staffing dynamically based on call volume, or simply lack capacity for full staffing.

“Modified service” or “strategic response” frameworks (for rural/regional departments) usually refer to coverage level variation across different stations or times — which is not the same as a city-wide “dynamic staffing policy” as implemented in a fully staffed urban fire/EMS department.

There is no public registry or database — provincial or national — that tracks which municipalities use dynamic staffing vs traditional staffing vs volunteer/hybrid models in a standardized way.

What this means in practice

It is not feasible (with publicly available information) to provide a full, up-to-date list of all small Alberta municipalities and whether they use dynamic staffing — the data just isn’t there.

What is clear: there is wide variation among small/rural municipalities in Alberta in how fire services are organized; many rely on volunteer, part-time, or hybrid staffing, and some operate under “modified service” or “strategic response” models rather than fixed full-time staffing.

However — none of those small/rural models resemble a well‑documented urban “dynamic staffing policy” (shift-by-shift, demand‑based deployment with full-time fire‑medics) like the one adopted recently in your city.

XXXXX
You said: What was the fire departments and paramedics overtime for each of these cities in 2024?:
ChatGPT: What we do know (some Alberta cities, 2024)

Red Deer Emergency Services (Red Deer): Overtime in 2024 was $3.2 million — described as “the highest per capita in Alberta.”

Edmonton EMS (serving part of the population of Edmonton, Alberta): In 2024, EMS staff worked 134,573 overtime hours, with overtime costs near $10 million.

Calgary Fire Department (serving Calgary, Alberta): Their 2024 annual report shows an unfavourable variance in their “Fire and Emergency Response” operating budget — attributed in part to overtime, frontline operations, and response to large‑scale events (like a major water‑main break in June 2024).
​
However: the 2024 annual report (publicly viewed) does not provide a clear public figure for “total overtime paid” or “overtime hours” for 2024.

November 19, 2025:

​I wonder if we finally paid off the $6.5 Million+ raise the RCMP gave themselves without asking us.
$19.2 Million accounting error?! Sounds like some people need to get fired.

So is that $19.2 Million in our favour or further against us? 'Oh, we screwed up so we have to raise your taxes another 10% next year to fix it.'

----

November 25, 2025. I was being sarcastic when I made that comment, but leave it up to Red Deer's new City Council to deliver. The proposed tax increase is 7.36% next year.

Background information provided by the City of Red Deer:

Quick Facts:

Property Tax Increase: A proposed 7.36% increase, equating to approximately $54.21 annually per $100,000 of residential assessed value.

Capital Investment Focus: Prioritization of asset preservation and lifecycle management to maintain reliability and mitigate risk. Strategic use of debt remains within legislative and Council limits.
Debt position: Projected at $349.9M by year-end 2025, well within both City and MGA thresholds. The MGA limits the amount of debt municipalities can take on to 1.5 times their revenue; our current debt is 51% of that amount. Council further restricts debt to 75% of the MGA limit; The City is current at 68%.

Reserve health: Operating reserves will continue to be replenished with further planned contribution of approximately $10M toward the target minimum threshold of $25M.
​

I know the The City of Red Deer would censor my reply, so I'll post it here where they can't.

-----

You should just save time and include this right-to-censor policy in every original post since you are forced to add it after your residents start to give you honest responses to the carefully worded posts you make?

You know you can change the Settings in your Page/Group to filter out bad words, right? They'd get censored by FB and know why because it's written in your Page/Group policies. You can even teach it new words that FB might not censor yet, you know, like, 'democracy', 'freedom' and 'pro-life' (not sure on that last one though since it's hyphenated).

Maybe if the City took more time to listen and communicate with residents (like all of the new candidates who got elected said they would), instead of just pushing propaganda messages, then people might be less peeved off by things. Just a thought (that you'll probably delete now that I think about it, so I'll post it on my own timeline instead- where you could report and have it deleted as well I guess... okay, website it is!).

We often see the most negative response when the City tries to tell us that everything is fine and everyone is happy when it's clear people are not.
​
People aren't angry at the person posting these messages by the way (those staffers shouldn't take it personally), they are just told to do the job they are paid for. They are peeved at the entire system which continues to fail them year after year. Tyrel McDonald is just one example of thousands.

It’s no surprise that council meetings still begin with an hour behind closed doors—and unfortunately, that’s become a common practice. Even with a new council, nothing has changed. While these sessions are sometimes necessary, the ongoing mistrust in our City and Administration makes them stand out. Because they keep happening month after month, they continue to be talked about and don’t help build public confidence. I’ve heard from other municipal councillors that closed sessions can help ensure everyone is on the same page before sitting in front of the public. Whether that’s still the case today, we don’t know—but it adds another layer to public skepticism.
​
The “Downtown boundaries” have been a problem for years—visitors often don’t know where downtown even is. I remember talking to a taxi driver who had recently moved here from Toronto. She said she wouldn’t take her family downtown because there’s nothing there; instead, they would go to Edmonton or Calgary. Driving down Gaetz Avenue, visitors are greeted by two large empty lots—the first impression of our downtown. Shops below and apartments above are a practical design, so why haven’t we encouraged development in these lots already?

Capstone and Downtown aren’t just different areas on a map—they function differently, attract different crowds, and have completely different needs. Treating them as one under a single, centralized structure doesn’t work. Two dedicated committees, each focused on their own district and communicating simply with each other, would allow each area to plan events, support local businesses, and coordinate schedules. Instead, the City funnels everything through one process, which slows things down and dilutes efforts.

I attended one of the final Capstone events this year, and it highlighted the problem. They had a stage and music, but nobody seemed to know who was performing or when. There wasn’t a posted schedule, and even vendors had no information. Simple communication and planning could have fixed this, yet it was left disorganized.

As I said during the campaign and in the RCMP survey, downtown needs two essential things—especially during summer. First, a visible on-street police presence, even if just peace officers walking around keeping things calm. Second, volunteer ambassadors, often high school or college students, who can greet visitors, connect with business owners, and create a sense of community—something with a friendly, mall-like feel, wherever our “downtown” actually is.

Beyond Downtown and Capstone, Gasoline Alley and Timberlands are two more potential anchor activity areas outside Westerner Park, Bower Ponds, and Heritage Ranch. Each area has its own character and audience and deserves tailored planning rather than being managed under a single city-wide approach.
While I support downtown in principle, I don’t think this is the right time to take $450,000 from taxpayers to do so. The priority should be addressing more pressing issues first—reducing crime, tackling drug activity, and supporting the lack of businesses downtown. Perhaps that’s exactly what this money is intended for, but there’s no clear explanation provided to the public beforehand. This feels like yet another request coming forward without transparency or context.

The 2025 Adopted Capital Cash Flow motion is essentially housekeeping—routine financial management to close out the year. It doesn’t solve the bigger issues, but it shows some motions are procedural rather than strategic.

As for the council meeting packet, I’d much rather listen to someone highlight the key points than dig through dense documents myself. Many feel the same. Having someone explain the important issues in plain language is invaluable. If any council member truly intended to communicate clearly with the public, they’d already be doing it. For now, these summaries are filling a gap that leadership hasn’t addressed.
All of this reinforces why I believe tourism and event management should be handled by a third party. The City should focus on core services while letting the right people handle these areas—ensuring each zone thrives and is self-sufficient, not dependent on taxpayer money.

Finally, thank you, Calvin Goulet-Jones - Community Voice: Red Deer & Area, for these updates and for keeping your campaign promise to prioritize communication. I hope more of our new councillors follow your example.
​

My campaign promise was a 5.0% cap on tax increases, didn't the financial report suggest a 6.5% increase every year? So the City is already pushing that recommendation.

https://www.reddeer.ca/.../draft-2026-budget-released...

"With that, the draft budget includes a proposed property tax increase of 7.36 per cent. This is also largely driven by contractual obligations such as the RCMP policing contract, and the personnel provision, which covers wage and benefit adjustments required to retain and support City staff. For every $100,000 of assessed residential value, the proposed increase represents approximately $54.21 per year. "
Would that "personnel provision" be the $6.5M raise they gave themselves that we haven't paid off yet?
"wage and benefit adjustments required to retain and support City staff"
there's always unemployment folks.
​

So we’re pouring more money into the RCMP—who were barely seen around the city in 2025—than into Red Deer Firefighters and paramedics, even after their budget was slashed by $600,000 and their hours were cut so much that Station 2 was routinely shut down at night.

Then there’s another 8% for municipal police—probably peace officers and bylaw enforcement. Maybe it’s time we invested more in them and less in the RCMP? Something I already proposed for downtown during the summer. More visible law enforcement and city ambassadors to reduce crime (passive deterrence by presence) and encourage tourism. I guess the good thing about spending over $39 Million on the RCMP each year means that we should, in theory, have $39 Million to spend on our own police force when the RCMP leaves.

We’re spending 8% on City Administration—the same as on City Transit, which saw routes cut in 2020 and never brought back. This is another reason I proposed outsourcing things like: Economic Development and Tourism to independent NGOs.

City Planning and Growth gets 7%? Really? So what exactly is that—quiet perks for developers? If that funding actually went toward surveying, servicing, and preparing lots so they’re truly development-ready, I’d have no issue with it… but something tells me that’s not what’s happening. We know it's not the City Development Plan, that's over 13 years old now.

Recreation and Community 11% - so let's see, we have Heritage Ranch where they canceled the contract under a cloud of controversy (or do they consider that Parks, not going to bother looking it up since this is all 2025 anyway). There's the Collicutt Center which is constantly experiencing maintenance issues.
Parks takes 9% (which saw cutbacks to services this summer), and Roads and Maintenance another 9%. But hold on—didn’t a councillor claim during the forums that 21% goes to emergency services? Turns out he was talking about the RCMP portion by itself. Overall, we’re at 45% for emergency services, and honestly, aside from maybe the RCMP’s share, that still feels fairly reasonable. In the end, what price do you put on someone’s life?

I hope we see the survey again this month that we did earlier asking Red Deerians where they want their tax dollars to go. I think you might see some surprising changes over last year.
​

Variations of these memes keep getting dumber every time I see them. One of the worst is, ‘I paid off my mortgage, so I shouldn’t have to pay property taxes!’ as if the mortgage and the taxes were ever connected in the first place. Paying off a loan to the bank has nothing to do with funding the infrastructure, services, and protections that keep a community running. Yet somehow these takes keep circling back, each one a little more misguided than the last.

My reply is always similar to this:

"Perfect. And just so you know, access to city streets and sidewalks runs $3,962.43 a year. If you ever need firefighters or paramedics, they’ll require $1,800 cash up front before doing anything life-saving. And your grandkids will need to bring $10 a day to cover their schooling. We take cash or credit."
The issue isn’t the existence of residential property taxes; it’s how those taxes are managed by whichever Council or government happens to be in charge. The real frustration comes when those funds are handled carelessly or diverted into projects that don’t benefit the community.

Whether you own your home or rent it, your residential taxes contribute to the services and infrastructure you rely on every day—things like roads, emergency services, public schools, parks, waste collection, libraries, and countless other amenities that keep a community functioning. The problem isn’t the idea of paying for these essentials; it’s when the people entrusted with that money fail to use it responsibly.
​
Quit going along with the crowd and take the time to understand where your tax dollars actually go. Once you do, it becomes pretty obvious that a pay-per-use system would be a disaster. The real issue isn’t whether your city spends your money—it’s making sure they spend it responsibly. Otherwise, you’re left with the absurd alternatives: either pay for every little thing or magically print money. Problem solved!
And stop claiming that people who don’t own a home don’t pay property taxes. Renters pay them too—through our rent. Or did you really think the landlord just absorbs the bill and doesn’t pass the cost on to tenants?