← Steinbach City Council Reporting

Part 1 · The council record

Testing for decisions made in advance

A unanimous vote on its own proves nothing. Most municipal business is routine, and 96.5% of all 1,270 motions in this period passed unanimously. So this report uses four tests, each looking for a specific trace that private agreement would leave in the public record. The vote tests cover the 527 substantive decisions (excluding agendas, minutes and ceremonial items) coded for the council deliberation report.

The vote record therefore gives no sign that developer decisions are settled privately before the vote. The fourth test points somewhere else: to the sessions where council discusses items before they reach a public meeting.

Where the discussion happens instead

Five kinds of session come up on the record. None of their agendas, minutes or recordings appears on the city's website or in the agenda packages reviewed, and the city's meeting calendar does not list them.

Cases on the record

These are the clearest cases where an item moved from a private session to a public vote, in date order. Each is described in the words of those present.

1Street naming policy: “After much debate at that meeting” (Apr 2022)

“this recommended policy has been previously submitted to council at Strategic Priorities Committee meeting for initial consideration. After much debate at that meeting, administration took the the comments and advice provided back and have recrafted the proposed policy…”

Troy Warkentin, City Manager · Apr 19, 2022 · 0:06:47

In public, two councillors spoke briefly in favour and the policy passed unanimously in under three minutes. The “much debate” was not heard in public. It is a low-stakes policy, but it shows the pattern.

2Development fees: options argued at SPC, decided in public (Sept–Nov 2023)

This is the clearest developer-related case. Fees charged on new development were debated at an SPC meeting on September 12, 2023. Staff then brought By-law 2233 with a 7.5% annual increase.

“When this was brought to SPC, administration gave us 4 options…”

Councillor Damian Penner · Nov 7, 2023 · 0:06:44

“As discussed by by council on September 12th, we discussed at length what we were going to do with the development fees, and the recommendation at that time from council to administration was 7.5%.”

Councillor Jake Hiebert (speaker identification: medium confidence) · Oct 17, 2023 · 0:16:20

At the public meeting, Councillor Zwaagstra moved to lower the increase to 5%. That change was debated openly and passed on a recorded vote, 5–2:

“I realize that initially at the SPC meeting, 7.5% was discussed, but that's not a final decision at that point. It comes to council and we've all had time to reflect on it.”

Councillor Michael Zwaagstra · Oct 17, 2023 · 0:17:50

3Design standards: “generally agreed to by council” (Feb 2024)

“Council was presented with a summary of the changes and some detailed description by the city engineer, uh, at committee meeting in early January. Uh, The details that were presented at that meeting have not been included again… The updates that were discussed and generally agreed to by council are now presented here for your information.”

Troy Warkentin, City Manager, on the city's design and construction standards for new development · Feb 6, 2024 · 0:06:08

Agreement was reached at a committee meeting, and the supporting detail was left out of the public package. The public vote ratified a decision that had already been agreed in substance. A similar process produced the sponsorship and naming-rights policy (“requests and recommendations from council were forwarded to administration” at a February 2024 committee meeting, May 21, 2024).

4The budget and grants: built at study sessions (every year)

“I know we've all worked on it. We've discussed this very to the point. Very long meetings we've had discussing this. and we spent weekends on it. And I too thank our administration for putting this all together with us and by our direction.”

Mayor Earl Funk, on the 2023 budget · Mar 21, 2023 · 0:25:28

“I want to go back to the November meeting of council, the study session where we talked about flood mitigation. We spent many hours over those 2 days talking about flood mitigation and what it would look like.”

Councillor Jac Siemens, on the 2026 budget · Mar 17, 2026 · 0:46:30

Funding requests from community groups are routinely sent there rather than decided in public:

“we'll take it to our study session and there'll be an answer soon after that.”

Mayor Earl Funk, to STARS air ambulance · Sept 20, 2022 · 0:17:31

5Late documents on major agreements (2024–2026)

This is not a private meeting, but it limits public scrutiny in a similar way: the decision is made on documents the public has not seen, and that council itself has had for only a few hours.

6The event centre loan: the case was made “in committee” (June 2026)

“This is a file that has been discussed previously at committee. It is a work in progress…”

Troy Warkentin, City Manager, on By-law 2272, a loan to Southeast Events Group Inc. · June 2, 2026 · 1:22:38

“As the event center had presented to us in committee, there, there were some growing pains opening up…”

Councillor Damian Penner · June 2, 2026 · 1:23:32

The loan amount was not said aloud at first reading. At second and third readings two weeks later, Councillor Zwaagstra set out the terms in public: $400,000, repaid at $100,000 a year over four years (June 16, 2026). The terms became public in the end, but the event centre's own explanation of its finances was given only to the committee.

7A $200,000 grant decision sent to SPC (July 2026)

“while administration would typically refer a discussion like this to SPC, we don't have a meeting for SPC until September.”

Adam Thiessen, Senior Manager, Corporate Services, on a $200,000 provincial public safety grant · July 21, 2026 · 1:22:18

“Yeah, my preference would be if we could have a discussion on this at an SPC or something like that.”

Councillor Susan Penner · July 21, 2026 · 1:29:21

The City Manager pointed out that the item could simply come back to one of two regular meetings in August. Council instead chose August 11, with the mayor describing it as “a special meeting of council” and Councillor Zwaagstra as “an SPC meeting” (1:32:44). The minutes record: “Consensus of council was to defer the decision until a Strategic Priority Committee meeting could be held on August 11, 2026.”

8Closed meetings after council (2026)

“There's a closed meeting to, uh, to follow council…”

Mayor Earl Funk · Mar 17, 2026 · 2:01:10

“is it still necessary to have a closed meeting?”

Mayor Earl Funk, to the City Manager, after adjournment · July 7, 2026 · 0:57:40

Closed meetings are lawful for certain subjects, such as personnel, legal advice and land negotiations. The issue is the record. In both cases the regular meeting had already been adjourned, and no resolution stating the reason for closing appears in the minutes.

9Good practice: disclosing a meeting with a developer (Oct 2025)

“Yeah, council, I have— I've met with the developer. It's a bit of a unique development that they're looking at, and I would really like to hear from the public to see what their thoughts are in the neighborhood.”

Mayor Earl Funk, on a 36-unit rezoning at 635–641 Main Street · Oct 21, 2025 · 0:50:30

This is the kind of disclosure that builds trust. When the related parking variance came back, staff recommended denial. Council approved it 5–2 after about 44 minutes of public debate, with seven councillors speaking (Nov 18, 2025).

Council's reasons for working this way

1Committee discussion is not a decision

“that's not a final decision at that point. It comes to council and we've all had time to reflect on it.”

Councillor Michael Zwaagstra · Oct 17, 2023 · 0:17:50

2Money questions need the whole budget in front of council

“because it has to do with— it's a financial ask. If you're okay with it, I would like to recommend we give this to our administration, put it on our study session so that it can be discussed better, like at length with our budget in front of us.”

Mayor Earl Funk, on a minor hockey funding request · Oct 3, 2023 · 0:26:11

3Details were already covered at committee

“The details that were presented at that meeting have not been included again, as council had an opportunity to review and ask questions and better understand the proposed changes being made.”

Troy Warkentin, City Manager · Feb 6, 2024 · 0:06:08

4Some matters are confidential

Steinbach's Municipal Council Conflict of Interest Policy recognizes that councillors receive information that “may be confidential or controversial, such as, but not limited to, ‘In Camera’ meetings”, including “matters respecting city personnel, legal advice or property acquisition”.

5Matters are only at a “preliminary stage”

This is the reason written into the city's own rules. Steinbach's Procedures By-law 1809 (2006, reviewed and accepted by council on Nov 7, 2023) says:

“Special study sessions, or other Council meetings, may be designated as Strategic Priorities sessions where no official action is contemplated… A study session will be closed to the public as all matters are in preliminary stages and will eventually be decided upon at a public meeting.”

City of Steinbach Procedures By-law 1809, s. 12.1

6“We do not make decisions before the public hearing”

At the July 21, 2026 hearing on Bridgepark Manor's six-storey seniors building, a resident, M.R., told council that Steinbach “does have a culture of helping out the guy you know and passing things”. This is an unproven allegation, and the resident added: “I'm not commenting on this project.” The mayor replied at once:

“to, to insinuate those kind of things is actual speculation and It's, it's not what goes on.”

Mayor Earl Funk · July 21, 2026 · 0:35:46

“public hearings do matter. We do listen. We do factor things in. Just because a decision— one disagrees with a decision doesn't mean you weren't listened to.”

Councillor Michael Zwaagstra · July 21, 2026 · 0:57:45

A week later, SteinbachOnline quoted the mayor: “We do not make decisions before the public hearing.” It quoted Zwaagstra: “I absolutely categorically reject this notion that there are back room deals that are happening.”

Part 2 · How Steinbach compares

What the rules require

Manitoba's Municipal Act

• Committee meetings are public too. “Every meeting of a council or council committee must be conducted in public” (s. 152(1)), and “Everyone has a right to be present” (s. 152(2)).
• Closing a meeting has two conditions. The decision to close and “the general nature of the matter” must be recorded in the minutes, and the subject must fit a short list: an employee, legal proceedings, an investigation or enforcement, security, an Ombudsman report, or “a matter that is in its preliminary stages and respecting which discussion in public could prejudice a municipality's ability to carry out its activities or negotiations” (s. 152(3)).
• No decisions in private. “No resolution or by-law may be passed at a meeting that is closed to the public” (s. 152(4)). “A council may act only by resolution or by-law” (s. 140(1)), and a resolution “is not valid unless it is passed at a council meeting” (s. 141). A council committee's resolution is not binding unless council passes it (s. 108).
• Committee minutes are public records, except for parts of a meeting properly closed under s. 152(3) (s. 263(1)(f)).

The Manitoba Ombudsman has applied these rules strictly. In a 2022 report on the Village of Dunnottar, it said the closure grounds “are requirements and are not guidelines” and that “council cannot make decisions in private.” It also advised: “If in doubt, municipalities should keep their meeting open or request legal advice from the municipality's lawyer.” In a 2025 report on the Municipality of Harrison Park, it said: “Every meeting of a council committee must be conducted in public. The public has a right to be present at council committee meetings.” Harrison Park agreed to post agendas for committee meetings 48 hours ahead.

Manitoba has no closed-meeting investigator like Ontario's. A resident's main route is a complaint to the Manitoba Ombudsman, who can investigate and recommend but cannot overturn a decision.

Steinbach's own rules

• The SPC is a committee of council. Organization By-law 2025 sets it up as “the entire Council sitting as a committee” that “shall not take any official action while in Committee”. The by-law allows the public to be excluded only when the issues fall under the Act's closure grounds (s. 5.4). Under the Act, that makes the SPC a council committee whose meetings must be public unless properly closed.
• Study sessions are closed as a rule. Procedures By-law 1809, s. 12.1, closes every study session because “all matters are in preliminary stages” (Reason 5). It provides for study-session agendas to go to council and staff, not the public. Regular meetings, by contrast, need an agenda posted 96 hours ahead.
• Council's own transparency pledge. The Municipal Council Conflict of Interest Policy, reviewed each year at the organizational meeting, says councillors “will endeavour to conduct and convey council business in an open and public manner… so that stakeholders can determine the process, logic and rationale used to reach conclusions or decisions.”

What the public record shows

• The city's meeting calendar (events.steinbach.ca) lists regular council meetings and the Mayor's Open Door Days. A search for special, strategic, committee, budget, study or closed meetings returns nothing.
• None of the 113 sets of minutes from January 2022 to September 2026 records a resolution to close a meeting under s. 152(3), or the general nature of a closed discussion.
• No SPC or study-session agenda or minutes were found on the city website or in the agenda packages reviewed.

Scorecard

How Steinbach's practice measures up against Manitoba's rules and what other councils do.

Strong ahead of or matching good practice   On par typical practice   Partial started, with gaps   Gap common elsewhere or required, not done here

Key findings

1No evidence that developer votes are arranged in advance

All three vote tests point the same way. Development is where this council disagrees most, contested files get public reasons, and every departure from staff advice was argued out in the meeting (Tests 1–3, Reason 6). Unanimous votes on routine items are normal and are not evidence of private agreement.

2The SPC is a committee the public can't attend or read

By Steinbach's own Organization By-law, the SPC is the whole council sitting as a committee. Under the Act, its meetings must be public unless closed for a listed reason, and its minutes are public records. In practice, no notice, agenda or minutes appear anywhere public. The Ombudsman's Harrison Park report shows what compliance looks like: notice and an agenda posted ahead of each committee meeting. Councillors' view that SPC is “not a final decision” (Reason 1) is true under s. 108, but the Act's openness rule applies to committee meetings whether or not they decide anything.

3The study-session rule appears inconsistent with the Act

By-law 1809 closes every study session on the ground that matters are “in preliminary stages” (Reason 5). The Act allows that ground only where public discussion “could prejudice” the city's activities or negotiations, and only by a decision recorded in the minutes. The Ombudsman has called these “requirements and… not guidelines.” Most topics on the record, such as grants, policies, fee options and flood projects, would be hard to fit within that test. Steinbach's own Organization By-law (s. 5.4) also makes closure conditional rather than automatic. This is a plain reading of the texts. No court or Ombudsman has ruled on Steinbach's by-law.

4Agreement and direction outside council meetings is borderline

Formal votes happen in public, as the law requires. But the record includes design changes “generally agreed to by council” at committee (Case 3), a fee level described as a “recommendation… from council to administration” (Case 2), and a $200,000 spending decision deferred to an SPC meeting, with no public resolution found afterwards (Case 7). Under s. 140–141, council can direct its staff only by resolution at a council meeting. Ontario's law is different, but its Ombudsman's test is a useful benchmark: a council materially advances business when it “reaches an agreement” or “provides direction or input to staff”.

5Closed meetings leave no trace in the minutes

Closing a meeting for a personnel, legal or negotiating matter is lawful and sometimes necessary (Reason 4). The gap is procedural. The Act requires the decision to close and the general nature of the matter to be recorded in the minutes. None of 113 sets of minutes does this, and the two closed meetings on the record were held after the public meeting had adjourned (Case 8). Neighbouring RM of Ste. Anne shows the standard practice: a minuted resolution naming the s. 152(3) ground.

6Same-day documents limit scrutiny

Five significant items in two years were decided on documents council received that day (Case 5). This is lawful, but neither residents nor, in practice, councillors could study them in advance, as the withdrawn one-year-trial motion on the ice agreement shows.

What other councils do

Winkler and Morden were checked, but whether their planning or budget sessions are public could not be confirmed.

What full openness would add

Each step below is already done by another Manitoba municipality or is set out in the Act:

• Post notice and an agenda for every SPC meeting, as the Ombudsman recommended in Harrison Park, and post its minutes.
• Hold SPC and budget study sessions in public by default, as Selkirk does for its committee of the whole and Brandon and Portage la Prairie do for budget deliberations. Close only the parts that fit s. 152(3).
• Amend By-law 1809, s. 12.1 so that study sessions follow the Act's closure test and Organization By-law 2025, rather than closing automatically.
• Minute every closed session: the resolution, the ground under s. 152(3) and the general nature of the matter, as the RM of Ste. Anne does.
• Give direction to staff only by resolution in a council meeting, and report in public any consensus reached at committee.
• Post supplementary packages online as soon as they go to council.
• Make disclosure of meetings with applicants a habit, following the mayor's example in October 2025.

Sources

Council meetings (official YouTube recordings): Apr 19, 2022 · Sept 20, 2022 · Mar 21, 2023 · Oct 3, 2023 · Oct 17, 2023 · Nov 7, 2023 · Feb 6, 2024 · Mar 19, 2024 · May 21, 2024 · Jan 7, 2025 · Mar 4, 2025 · Sept 16, 2025 · Oct 21, 2025 · Nov 4, 2025 · Jan 6, 2026 · Mar 17, 2026 · June 2, 2026 · June 16, 2026 · July 7, 2026 · July 21, 2026

• The Municipal Act, C.C.S.M. c. M225 (ss. 108, 140–141, 152, 263)
• City of Steinbach Procedures By-law 1809 and Organization By-law 2025, via the city's Accountability & Transparency page
• City of Steinbach Organizational Meeting package, Nov 5, 2024 (Municipal Council Conflict of Interest Policy)
• City of Steinbach council meetings, agendas and minutes
• Manitoba Ombudsman: Village of Dunnottar, Case 2019-0574 (2022); Municipality of Harrison Park, MO-03035 (2025)
• Council Member's Guide (AMM and Manitoba Municipal Relations, 2022)
• SteinbachOnline – Steinbach leaders reject ‘backroom deals’ allegations after public hearing (July 28, 2026)
• SteinbachOnline – council to finalize 2019 budget at weekend study session (2018)
• City of Selkirk – Council and Committee minutes
• RM of Ste. Anne – Committee of the Whole minutes, July 14, 2026
• City of Brandon – council prepares to deliberate 2025 budget
• Portage la Prairie budget deliberations (syndicated news, Jan 2026)
• City of Winnipeg Charter (ss. 75–76)
• Ontario Municipal Act, 2001 (ss. 238–239.2); Ontario Ombudsman: Hawkesbury (2026), Cobalt (2026)