[00:00:03]
GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY. WELCOME TO GPC FOR MONDAY, MAY 9TH.
[1. Opening Statement:]
THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT WE ARE LOCATED IN CHIEF DRYGEESE TERRITORY.FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL, IT HAS BEEN THE TRADITIONAL LAND OF THE YELLOWKNIVES DENE FIRST NATIONS.
WE RESPECT THE HISTORIES, LANGUAGES AND CULTURES OF ALL OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, INCLUDING THE NORTH SLAVE MÉTIS AND ALL FIRST NATIONS, MÉTIS AND INUIT WHO [INAUDIBLE]-- WHOSE PRESENCE CONTINUED TO ENRICH OUR VIBRANT COMMUNITY.
TODAY WE HAVE MAYOR ALTY, COUNCILLOR SMITH AND COUNCILLOR MORSE ON THE LINE.
[2. Approval of the agenda.]
I'D LIKE TO MOVE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.MS. BASSI-KELLETT IS THERE ANYTHING TO ADD? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. NO, NOTHING ELSE TO ADD.
RIGHT. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND GENERAL NATURE THEREOF? [INAUDIBLE]. IS THERE ANYONE THAT HAS PECUNIARY INTEREST TODAY? SEEING AND HEARING NONE.
NUMBER FOUR IS A PRESENTATION REGARDING AN UPDATE ON MILL RATE RATIOS.
[4. A presentation regarding an update on Mill Rate Ratios.]
MS. BASSI-KELLETT.THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. SO COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL RECALL THAT AT THE APRIL 25TH GPC MEETING, ADMINISTRATION PRESENTED A MEMO ON THE MILL RATE RATIOS BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON RESIDENTIAL CLASSES.
AND AT THAT TIME, COUNCIL MEMBERS HAD ASKED A RANGE OF QUESTIONS.
SO BEFORE THIS ITEM IS CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL AT THIS EVENING'S COUNCIL MEETING, ADMINISTRATION WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE SOME ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS AND SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR YOUR KNOWLEDGE ON THIS ISSUE.
I'LL TURN THINGS OVER NOW TO MS. WOODWARD, WHO WILL PRESENT THE INFORMATION.
AS WELL. DURING THE DISCUSSIONS, THERE SEEMED TO BE SOME UNCERTAINTY AROUND HOW THE COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL MILL RATE RATIO IMPACTS PROPERTY TAX CHANGES. SO I'LL TRY TO PROVIDE SOME CLARITY ON THAT AND ALSO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW THE MILL RATE RATIO IMPACTS THE TAX RESPONSIBILITY. NOW, AS REQUESTED, THIS SLIDE COMPARES THE 2021 AND 2022 ASSESSMENT TOTALS BY CLASS AND SHOWS THE PERCENTAGE CHANGE FOR EACH CLASS.
OVERALL, THE CITY'S ASSESSMENT BASE INCREASED BY 0.9%, LARGELY BECAUSE OF THE ALTERATIONS OF RENOVATIONS TO THE OLD HOSPITAL, AND THOSE JUST MADE IT INTO THE SECOND REVISION OF THE ASSESSMENT ROLL.
WE SEE THAT THE RESIDENTIAL TOTAL INCREASED BY 0.78%, AS DID THE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL CLASS.
TOTAL. THE VALUE OF THE TOTAL MULTI RESIDENTIAL ASSET VALUES INCREASED BY JUST OVER 1.5%, WHILE THE MINING AND QUARRYING AND THE PARKING CLASSES REMAINED UNCHANGED.
THE APRIL 25TH DISCUSSION ALSO INCLUDED THE MULTI RESIDENTIAL MILL RATE.
AND WE FOUND THAT THERE WERE FOUR THAT HAVE BOTH A RESIDENTIAL AND A MULTI RESIDENTIAL MILL RATE.
SO WE SEE THOSE LISTED HERE ON THIS SLIDE.
IN ALL CASES, THE MULTI RESIDENTIAL RATE IS HIGHER THAN THE RESIDENTIAL RATE.
THE AMOUNT BY WHICH IT'S HIGHER VARIES.
AS WE CAN SEE IN LETHBRIDGE, THE MULTI RESIDENTIAL RATE IS ALMOST ONE AND ONE HALF TIMES THE RESIDENTIAL RATE, WHEREAS IN RED DEER WHERE THEY'VE BEEN DOING SOME CHANGES, THE RESIDENTIAL-- OR SORRY, MULTI RESIDENTIAL RATE IS ONLY ABOUT 1.03 TIMES HIGHER.
HERE IN YELLOWKNIFE, OUR MULTI RESIDENTIAL RATE IS CURRENTLY 1.14 TIMES THE RESIDENTIAL RATE.
[00:05:02]
MOVING ON TO THE MILL RATE RATIO AND PROPERTY TAX INCREASES AS COMMITTEES WELL AWARE THE COMMERCIAL-- OR THE RATIO, SORRY, IS A SIMPLE MATHEMATICAL CALCULATION, DIVIDES ONE MILL RATE BY ANOTHER MILL RATE.IN 2021, DIVIDING THE COMMERCIAL RATE BY THE RESIDENTIAL RATE YIELDED A RATIO OF 2.26, AND IN FACT, THIS RATIO HAS REMAINED UNCHANGED SINCE 2019, WHEN COUNCIL ADJUSTED THE UNDERLYING MILL RATES TO REFLECT THE OUTCOME OF THE 2018 GENERAL ASSESSMENT.
NOW ALL THIS NUMBER TELLS US IS THAT FOR EVERY DOLLAR CONTRIBUTED BY THE OWNER OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, THE OWNER OF A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CONTRIBUTED $2.26 IN PROPERTY TAXES.
THIS NUMBER DOES NOT TELL US THAT IF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNER SEES AN INCREASE, A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNER WILL SEE A PERCENTAGE INCREASE THAT'S 2.26 TIMES HIGHER.
AND A LOOK AT SOME ACTUAL ASSESSMENT AND TAX INVOICE AMOUNTS DEMONSTRATES THIS.
HERE WE SEE ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION AMOUNTS FOR FOUR RANDOMLY SELECTED COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES SHOWN IN THE DARK LINES AT THE TOP, AND FOUR RANDOMLY SELECTED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES SHOWN IN THE LIGHTER BLUE LINES.
THESE NUMBERS ARE TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE ASSOCIATED TAX INVOICES FOR THOSE PROPERTIES.
LET'S JUST GET RID OF THE 2021 NUMBERS, GIVE US A BIT OF ROOM TO EXPLAIN.
STARTING WITH 2020, THE COMMERCIAL MILL RATE WAS 12.19, THE RESIDENTIAL MILL RATE 5.39.
WHAT'S NOW. THE RIGHTMOST COLUMN SHOWS US THE CHANGE IN THE 2020 TAXES RELATIVE TO THE 2019 TAXES.
NOW BUDGET 2020 REQUIRED AN AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.63%.
SO WHAT WE SEE HERE IS THESE PERCENTAGES ARE TELLING US THAT THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES PAID A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN THE BUDGET AMOUNT-- OR EXCUSE ME, THEY SAW AN INCREASE A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN THE BUDGETED AMOUNT.
OWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES SAW PERCENTAGE INCREASE JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOVE IT.
WHEN WE LOOK AT 2021, WE SEE THAT THE COMMERCIAL MILL RATE OF 12.5, THE RESIDENTIAL MILL RATE OF 5.53 RESULTED IN TAX INCREASES OF 2.54% FOR OWNERS OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AND 2.6% FOR OWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, VERY CLOSE TO THE OVERALL BUDGET AVERAGE OF 2.5.
RETURNING TO THE FULL PICTURE FOR THESE TWO YEARS, PROPERTY OWNERS OF BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES SAW TAX INCREASES VERY CLOSE TO THE AMOUNT PREDICTED IN THE BUDGET.
EVEN THOUGH THE COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL MILL RATE WORKED OUT TO BE 2.26, AND THIS IS BECAUSE MILL RATES ARE SET SO THAT EVERY PROPERTY OWNER RECEIVES PRETTY MUCH THE SAME CHANGE IN THEIR TAX BILL, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, OF COURSE.
LET'S QUICKLY REVISIT THE IDEA OF PROPERTY TAX RESPONSIBILITY.
THIS CHART LOOKS AT THAT RESPONSIBILITY THROUGH THE OTHER LENS.
THE MILL RATE RATIO IS ONE LENS.
THIS IS THE OTHER LENS, THE ASSESSMENT TAXATION LENS.
IT SORTS ALL OF THE PROPERTY CLASSES INTO ONE OF TWO GROUPS.
THE RESIDENTIAL GROUP CONSISTS OF RESIDENTIAL, MULTI RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURE CLASSES.
WE SEE THAT LAST YEAR, JUST OVER 38 1/3 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL ASSESSMENT BASE WAS MADE UP OF NONRESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, AND THE OWNERS OF THESE PROPERTIES CONTRIBUTED JUST UNDER 58% OF THE TOTAL TAX REVENUES.
LOOKING AHEAD TO 2022, WE SEE THAT THERE'S BEEN A VERY MINUTE SHIFT IN THE ASSESSMENT BASE.
THE NONRESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT BASE IS EXPECTED TO DECLINE BY ABOUT 0.05%.
THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION, OF COURSE, WILL INCREASE BY ABOUT THAT MUCH.
[00:10:08]
CONTRIBUTIONS TO PROPERTY TAXES DECREASING BY ABOUT HALF OF 1%, AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS CONTRIBUTIONS INCREASING BY THAT MUCH. ALL TYPES OF PROPERTY OWNERS CAN EXPECT TO SEE PROPERTY INCREASES VERY CLOSE TO THE PERCENTAGE PREDICTED BY THE BUDGET.HOWEVER, IF COUNCIL DECIDES TO DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO SET MILL RATES THAT RESULT IN A DIFFERENT OR LOWER MILL RATE RATIO, THIS WILL SHIFT SOME OF THE PROPERTY TAX RESPONSIBILITY ONTO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS.
HERE WE SEE WHAT THE 2021 TAX AMOUNTS WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR THREE HYPOTHETICAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AND THREE HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. THE LAST THREE COLUMNS SHOW POTENTIAL 2022 TAX CHANGES FOR THE 2.26 SCENARIO, A MILL RATE RATIO OF 2.13, OR WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE RATIO WORKED OUT TO BE 1.83%. IF MILL RATES ARE SET TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT 2.26 RATIO, ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WILL SEE A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE OF ABOUT 5%.
NOW, THAT IS SLIGHTLY LESS THAN WHAT WAS PREDICTED IN THE BUDGET.
MILL RATES WILL HAVE TO BE SET TO MAINTAIN-- OR TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF REVENUE.
IF THOSE RATES ARE SET TO ACHIEVE A RATE RATIO OF 2.13, COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WILL SEE THEIR TAXES GO UP BY ABOUT 2.7%, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WILL SEE AN INCREASE OF ABOUT 9%.
IF MILL RATES ARE SET TO ACHIEVE A RATIO OF 1.83.
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS IN 2022 CAN EXPECT TO SEE A DECREASE OF ABOUT 3.3%, WHILE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS COULD EXPECT AN INCREASE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 19.5%.
IT GETS SHIFTED ONTO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS.
THEY'LL ACCEPT MORE OF THE RESPONSIBILITY AND HAVE HIGHER TAX BILLS.
ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, MISS WOODWARD. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANYONE? COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I WAS [INAUDIBLE] JUST TAKING SOME NOTES, AND I WAS CURIOUS IF YOU COULD JUST GO BACK TO THAT LAST SLIDE THAT WAS THERE, THE COMPARISONS? I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THE MOMENT.
I JUST WANTED TO FINISH TAKING SOME--.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WHILE COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS TAKES HIS NOTES? ANYBODY ON THE LINE.
COUNCILLOR MORSE? THANK YOU. YEAH, MY QUESTION IS JUST WHEN IT COMES TO RESIDENTIAL TAXES DO-- WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MULTI RESIDENTIAL, I JUST WANT TO GET CLEAR, WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT COMMERCIAL MULTI RESIDENTIAL, [INAUDIBLE] WHO FALLS INTO THAT TAX BRACKET? BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT RESIDENTIAL TAXES ARE APPLIED TO ANYONE WHO LIVES IN A CONDO OR A DUPLEX OR A TRIPLEX OR WHATEVER.
SO ANYONE LIVING-- KIND OF WHO OWNS THEIR PROPERTY PAYS A RESIDENTIAL TAX RATE, IS THAT CORRECT? MS. BASSI-KELLETT.
OKAY. THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] MY ONLY QUESTION.
ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU, MISS--. OH, MAYBE? NO QUESTIONS. I [INAUDIBLE] COMMENTS AFTERWARDS.
YEAH, WE CAN DO THAT. ALL RIGHT.
SO, COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS, YOU GOT SOME COMMENTS? YEAH, DEFINITELY. THERE WAS A GOOD DEBATE A COUPLE OF WEEKENDS AGO OR A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.
YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING AT THESE NUMBERS THE WAY THAT THEY KIND OF LAY OUT.
YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SEEING A BIG PUSH TO MOVE BEYOND THE 2.26.
[00:15:07]
ONE MESSAGE THAT I SORT OF HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR FROM THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, WHICH IS THAT THEY WERE SORT OF LOOKING FOR SAMENESS AND FOR SOME STABILITY, SO I THINK THAT THAT WAS SORT OF MAINTAINING AT THAT 2.26 LEVEL AS FAR AS THE COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL RATIO GOES.YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY BE INTERESTED IN HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT 2.13 IF THERE WAS ANY, YOU KNOW, INTEREST OUT THERE FROM OTHER COLLEAGUES ON COUNCIL, BUT I'M CERTAINLY COMFORTABLE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE 2.26 AS IT STANDS, BUT CERTAINLY OPEN FOR SOME DEBATE AT 2.13, IF THERE WAS SOME APPETITE OUT THERE FOR IT AS WELL.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? YES. COUNCILLOR MORSE.
YEAH, NO, I REALLY APPRECIATE-- [INAUDIBLE].
I THINK THIS IS A TOPIC WHICH HAS A TENDENCY TO BE A BIT DRY AND GETS KIND OF IGNORED IN POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS COME ELECTION TIME, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY A REALLY IMPORTANT ONE.
AND AS MAYOR ALTY NOTED AT OUR LAST MEETING, IT'S PROBABLY A PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL TO HAVE AS WE'RE COMING TOWARDS THE END OF OUR TERM HERE, AND IT WOULD BE A LOT TO TASK ADMINISTRATION WITH A BIG TASK LIKE LEAVING A DISCUSSION LIKE THIS.
BUT IT REALLY IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK SHOULD BE A FOCUS OF OUR NEXT COUNCIL TO FIGURE THIS OUT.
THERE'S A FEW THINGS, I APPRECIATE ADMINISTRATION SUGGESTING THE BUDGET ITEM, SOMETHING I JUST WANTED TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD ABOUT THAT IS THAT THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE HERE TO DISCUSS THAN JUST MULTI RESIDENTIAL VERSUS RESIDENTIAL.
I THINK THAT CURRENTLY THE MULTI RESIDENTIAL CLASS IS A LITTLE BIT MISLEADING IN THAT IT'S ONLY TALKING ABOUT COMMERCIAL MULTI RESIDENTIAL OWNERS.
SO IT'S EFFECTIVELY LIKE A SEPARATE COMMERCIAL CLASS AND IT'S SAYING THAT IF YOU'RE PROVIDING HOUSING AS A LANDLORD WITH MULTI RESIDENTIAL, YOU PAY A DIFFERENT CORPORATE TAX RATE THAN ANY OTHER KIND OF BUSINESS, WHICH I THINK IS A DISCUSSION TO HAVE UNTO ITSELF IN THE COMMUNITY.
AND THEN THERE'S ALSO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT MULTI RESIDENTIAL VERSUS RESIDENTIAL IN THE SENSE OF ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I ASKED, WHICH WAS RELATED TO THE COST OF SERVICING.
NOW, I DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF ME TO SHOW ME SPECIFICALLY IN YELLOWKNIFE THAT MULTI RESIDENTIAL COST LESS TO SERVICE THAN SINGLE DETACHED HOMES, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S LIKELY THE CASE IF WE WERE TO INVESTIGATE IT.
SO I DO THINK THAT THAT'S A VALUABLE INVESTIGATION TO MAKE.
I THINK IN ORDER TO DO THAT, PERSONALLY, I THINK WE NEED TO SPLIT UP OUR RESIDENTIAL CLASS AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SOMEBODY WHO LIVES IN A CONDO, IN A COMMUNAL BUILDING THAT ONLY REQUIRES ONE SERVICE LINE TO THE BUILDING, BUT IT SERVICES, YOU KNOW, UP TO A HUNDRED DIFFERENT HOMES, COST THE CITY MUCH, MUCH, MUCH LESS TO SERVICE THAN A SINGLE DETACHED HOME DOES.
SO I THINK THAT EFFECTIVELY THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF MULTI RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND EXCUSE MY THE TERMINOLOGY I'M USING HERE, BUT LET'S SAY YOU HAVE A CONDO THAT'S PART OF A MULTI RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, BUT YOU'RE PAYING THE RESIDENTIAL TAX, YOU'RE PAYING THE SAME TAXES AS SOMEBODY WITH A SINGLE DETACHED HOME, BUT YOU'RE COSTING LESS.
I GUESS ONE OF THE THINGS TO CONSIDER IS THAT MOST OF THOSE CONDOS ARE TAXED AT A LESSER VALUE THAN SINGLE DETACHED HOMES, BUT I'D BE CURIOUS TO SEE THE NUMBERS AND SEE THAT DISCUSSION HAPPEN AS PART OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE THAT COUNCIL HAS ABOUT HOW WE TAX HOMES, THAT WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE COST OF SERVICING THOSE HOMES.
BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S A FEW DIFFERENT THINGS, THE MORE REMOTE YOUR HOME IS FROM SERVICES.
AND THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PIPED WATER AND TANKS OR TRUCK SERVICE.
SO THERE'S QUITE A BIT GOING ON HERE AND IT'S QUITE A COMPLEX DISCUSSION.
[00:20:06]
ONE FACTOR, AND THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE DISCUSSION IS TO KIND OF DETERMINE WHAT'S FAIR.MAYBE WHAT WE'RE DOING IS ALREADY FAIR.
MAYBE COUNCIL WILL SIMPLY DETERMINE THAT THIS ISN'T WORTH HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT.
I'M NOT SURE IF OTHER COUNCILLORS AGREE THAT IT'S A VALUABLE DISCUSSION, BUT I THINK THE DIFFICULTY AND THE DIFFICULTY THAT I'VE SEEN OVER THE PAST NUMBER OF YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN A COUNCILLOR WHEN WE HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS IS WE'RE ALWAYS KIND OF LOOKING AT IT, TRYING TO DETERMINE IF WHAT WE'RE DOING IS FAIR, COMPARING TO OTHER COMMUNITIES, AND WE DON'T SEEM TO REALLY HAVE A GAUGE OR A POLICY OR A METRICS TO TELL US, WELL, WHAT IS THE FAIRNESS DETERMINANT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HERE? BECAUSE, I MEAN, IF YOU JUST LOOK AT THE NUMBERS AND SAY, WELL, COMMERCIAL IS EFFECTIVELY PAYING TWICE RESIDENTIAL, IS THAT FAIR? I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, I THINK THAT DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT TAXES YOU'RE PAYING AND WHETHER YOU'RE RUNNING A BUSINESS OR NOT.
AND SO I THINK THIS IS A WIDER DISCUSSION, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE NICE TO SEE RESIDENTS ENGAGED IN THAT DISCUSSION AND TALKING ABOUT, WITH THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, YOU KNOW, WHAT PHILOSOPHIES WOULD THEY LIKE TO SEE BEHIND HOW OUR TAX RATES ARE DETERMINED? SO I THINK WITH ALL OF THAT SAID, THAT'S KIND OF MY PREAMBLE TO I HOPE WE HAVE A WIDER DISCUSSION OR I HOPE WHATEVER COUNCIL HAS A WIDER DISCUSSION IN THE NEXT TERM ABOUT THIS, AND I'D LIKE IT TO BE INFORMED BY INFORMATION COLLECTED BY ADMINISTRATION.
SO I'D BE SUPPORTIVE OF A BUDGET ITEM GOING FORWARD, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE THE SCOPE OF THAT INVESTIGATION WIDENED A LITTLE BIT BASED ON KIND OF WHAT I'VE SAID HERE . I DO THINK THAT WE COULD MODERNIZE OUR PROPERTY CLASSES A LITTLE BIT.
IT MAY COME BACK DETERMINING THAT WHAT'S BEING DONE RIGHT NOW ACTUALLY IS KIND OF FAIR BY DEFAULT, BUT I JUST HAVE A BIT OF A FEELING THAT SIMPLY GOING BY PROPERTY VALUE ISN'T EXACTLY THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO DETERMINE THAT.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS NOT A LOT OF COMMUNITIES USE THE DEPRECIATION OF THE ASSET AS THE DETERMINANT, AND WHAT THAT ENDS UP HAPPENING IS THAT OLDER HOMES ARE TAXED QUITE A BIT LESS THAN NEWER HOMES, WHICH IS AN INTERESTING WAY OF DOING IT, BUT IT DOESN'T REFLECT THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE HOME.
AND SO THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION THAT I'D BE INTERESTED TO SEE INVESTIGATED COMPARED TO OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AND BROUGHT FORWARD TO BOTH RESIDENTS AND COUNCIL FOR DISCUSSION AS TO WHETHER THAT IS THE BEST PRACTICE FOR HOW WE DO OUR TAXES.
SO ALL OF THAT SAID, MOST OF THAT APPLIES TO WHAT I THINK SHOULD BE A FUTURE DISCUSSION.
I JUST WANTED TO PUT THOSE THOUGHTS ON THE RECORD.
SO ALL OF THAT SAID, I THINK RIGHT NOW WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO START MAKING SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO HOW WE'RE TAXING RESIDENTIAL VERSUS COMMERCIAL RIGHT NOW.
I THINK WE COULD START PLAYING AROUND WITH THE RATIOS IF WE WANT.
I THINK SOME PEOPLE MAY BE HAPPY, SOME PEOPLE MAY BE UNHAPPY WITH HOW COUNCIL PLAYS WITH IT, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER TO HAVE KIND OF A WIDER PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION BEFORE WE START MAKING THOSE CHANGES.
SO PERSONALLY, I'D BE HAPPY TO JUST STICK WITH THE RATIO WE'VE GOT FOR NOW, AND NOTE, AT LEAST FOR MYSELF, THAT I THINK THIS IS A DISCUSSION THAT WOULD BE VALUABLE FOR ANOTHER COUNCIL TO HAVE GOING FORWARD AS THEY DO THEIR STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR THEIR TERM.
SO THOSE ARE ALL MY THOUGHTS ON IT.
I'M PRO STAYING THE SAME AS WHAT WE'VE GOT NOW, BUT I DEFINITELY THINK THAT THIS IS AN ONION THAT ONCE YOU START PEELING BACK THE LAYERS, THERE'S ACTUALLY QUITE A BIT TO FIND THERE, AND I THINK IT'S A LONG TIME COMING THAT A COUNCIL HAS A GOOD, FULSOME DISCUSSION, BACKED UP BY A LOT OF EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION AS TO THE PHILOSOPHIES BEHIND HOW WE'RE TAXING AND ENSURING THAT OUR TAXATION IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE.
THANKS. THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR MORSE.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FROM ANYONE? MAYBE? MAYBE NOT? OKAY. I HAVE A COUPLE.
YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WHEN WE HAVE, YOU KNOW--.
[00:25:09]
DIGGING AND PUTTING THAT INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE GROUND AND PUMPING IS IS VERY EXPENSIVE.BUT IN TERMS OF WHAT ACTUALLY WEARS OUT, THAT INFRASTRUCTURE, I MEAN, A BUILDING, AN APARTMENT BUILDING WITH 25 UNITS IN IT, THEY PROBABLY ALL HAVE TWO BATHROOMS AND TWO PEOPLE LIVING IN IT. IF WE MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION, THAT'S 100 PEOPLE FLUSHING AND USING WATER THAT GOES INTO OUR SYSTEM, AND THE HOUSE RIGHT NEXT DOOR, IT MIGHT HAVE THREE BATHROOMS AND FIVE PEOPLE AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE THE REST OF THE BLOCK TO TO USE THE SAME VOLUME OF WATER ON ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE. AND SAME THING WITH CARS.
IF YOU HAVE A BUILDING WITH 50 HOMES IN IT, THERE'S 50 CARS, 50 CARS DRIVING UP AND DOWN THE ROAD IS GOING TO WEAR OUT THE ROAD A LOT FASTER THAN A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE WITH TWO CARS. SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S NICE TO HAVE THAT BIG INFRASTRUCTURE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, APARTMENT BUILDINGS, ALL BUILDINGS IN YELLOWKNIFE, YOU ACTUALLY PAY ON YOUR WATER BILL BASED ON HOW BIG YOUR WATER LINE IS THAT COMES INTO YOUR BUILDING.
SO IF YOU HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, IT'S USUALLY A THREE QUARTER INCH PIPE.
IF YOU HAVE A DUPLEX AND IT'S SINGLE METER, YOU MIGHT GO UP TO ONE INCH.
WE'VE DONE APARTMENT BUILDINGS WHERE YOU GOT A FIVE INCH LINE AND YOUR MONTHLY COST TO BE ALLOWED TO HOOK UP IS, YOU KNOW, ON A HOUSE, I BELIEVE IT'S 100 AND SOME DOLLARS, ON A-- YOU HAVE A FIVE INCH LINE IT'S LIKE 1200 OR 1300 DOLLARS.
SO, YOU KNOW, THOSE BIG BUILDINGS ARE PAYING FOR SOME OF THAT, BUT IN TERMS OF WEARING THE INFRASTRUCTURE OUT, I DO BELIEVE THAT THE BIGGER BUILDINGS, MORE VOLUME, MORE CARS THAT WHEREAS OUR INFRASTRUCTURE FASTER THAN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
SO COMPLETE POLAR OPPOSITE FROM COUNCILLOR MORSE.
SO LIKE EVERYBODY'S HOMES HAS A VALUE, AND EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS PROPERTIES HAVE A VALUE AND YOU HAVE 38% OF THE VALUE PAYING 60% OR JUST OVER 60% OF THE TAXES AND THAT IS REALLY WHERE I TAKE ISSUE WITH IT.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T-- I THINK THAT THAT RATIO IS TOO BIG AND I THINK I'M GOING TO PROPOSE THE 2.13 RATIO WHEN WE GET TO THIS AT COUNCIL.
AND I ASK MYSELF, YOU KNOW, LIKE, WE HAVE BOTH, WE HAVE BUSINESS PROPERTIES AND WE HAVE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, YOU KNOW, AND ON MY COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, I ACTUALLY GET LESS SERVICES THAN I DO ON MY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
THEY DON'T PICK UP MY GARBAGE.
YOU KNOW, MY COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES HAVE LESS SNOW REMOVAL.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, SOME OF THEM, MYSELF AND MY NEIGHBOR, WE DO THE SNOW REMOVAL.
I THINK WE NEED TO LESSEN THAT SPREAD.
SO WHEN THIS COMES TO COUNCIL, I'M GOING TO BE SUPPORT OF THE 2.13.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS BASED ON THINGS SAID BY MY FELLOW COUNCILLORS HERE, AND I DO APPRECIATE ADMINISTRATION DOING MORE AND MORE RESEARCH AND COMING BACK TO US EVERY YEAR.
I KNOW THE GPC MEMO FROM A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, LAID OUT EVERY YEAR FOR AT LEAST THE PAST SIX OR SEVEN YEARS SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN HAD AROUND MILL RATE RATIOS, AND SO--.
SO I ACTUALLY DISAGREE WITH COUNCILLOR MORSE THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE THE SUBJECT OF FURTHER, YOU KNOW, A FURTHER BIG SPECIFIC PROJECT AROUND PUBLIC CONSULTATION.
BECAUSE, I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN ESSENTIALLY STRUGGLING WITH THIS ISSUE AND KICKING IT DOWN THE ROAD FOR MANY YEARS, A YEAR AT A TIME, AND I THINK THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT, AS A NEW COUNCILLOR, IT TAKES A COUPLE OF YEARS TO WRAP YOUR HEAD AROUND AND THE DEFAULT TENDS TO BE TO STICK WITH THE STATUS QUO BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO WRAP YOUR HEAD AROUND WHAT ALL THE DIFFERENT FACTORS ARE.
[00:30:01]
SO I THINK THIS IS AS GOOD A TIME AS ANY TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, YOU KNOW, COME UP WITH WHAT WE THINK IS OUR POLICY RATIONALE NOW, AND PROVIDE SOME DIRECTION MOVING FORWARD.OF COURSE, IF THE NEXT COUNCIL WANTS TO CHANGE THAT, THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO, BUT--.
ON THE ISSUE OF MULTI RESIDENTIAL, IN GENERAL, I THINK THAT MULTI RESIDENTIAL SHOULD BE LESS THAN COMMERCIAL AND MORE THAN OTHER RESIDENTIAL. WHAT THAT EXACT NUMBER SHOULD BE, IT'S HARD TO COME UP WITH A POLICY THAT LEADS US TO AN EXACT NUMBER, BUT I MEAN, COUNCILLOR MORSE HAS BEEN POINTING OUT THAT IT IS A COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE.
BUT I DO THINK THAT WE HAVE TO DISTINGUISH IT AS HOUSING AND THAT, AS I SAID IN THE LAST MEETING, BECAUSE HOUSING IS THIS BASIC HUMAN RIGHT.
EVERYONE NEEDS A PLACE TO LIVE.
IT'S A DIFFERENT KIND OF COMMODITY THAN OTHER COMMODITIES THAT ARE SOLD IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR.
SO I THINK WE DO NEED TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT IN TERMS OF PROPERTY TAXES.
I DO APPRECIATE COUNCILLOR MORSE BRINGING UP THAT DIFFERENT KINDS OF PROPERTIES, PERHAPS EVEN IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, HAVE DIFFERENT, PERHAPS YOU COULD CALL IT A DIFFERENT BURDEN ON CITY INFRASTRUCTURE, CITY SERVICES.
THE RATE OF PROPERTY TAXES BASED ON HOW MUCH THAT PROPERTY COSTS THE CITY IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, HOW FAR IS IT FROM THE CITY CENTER, HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO--, YOU KNOW, HOW OFTEN DO WE HAVE TO REPLACE THE ROADS, HOW OFTEN DO THE PIPES BREAK? THERE'S JUST SO MANY DIFFERENT FACTORS THAT I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY, REALLY DIFFICULT TO COME UP WITH A FAIR LIKE CLASSES OR CATEGORIES THAT COULD TAKE ALL THOSE THINGS INTO ACCOUNT IN THE PROPERTY TAX RATE.
INCLUDING SOMETHING LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE THINGS THAT NO ONE CAN CONTROL, LIKE IS THERE--? WHAT IS THE PERMAFROST SITUATION LIKE UNDER THAT, YOU KNOW, THOSE PROPERTIES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, AND HOW MUCH WEAR AND TEAR IS THERE ON ROADS AND PIPES JUST BECAUSE OF THINGS SHIFTING? THERE'S JUST SO MANY THINGS THAT WOULD BE REALLY HARD TO MAKE BROAD CATEGORIES THAT WOULD LEAD US TO TO PROPERTY TAX CLASSES.
HOWEVER, I DO THINK THAT MOVING FORWARD, ESPECIALLY AS WE CREATE, SAY, NEW SUBDIVISIONS OR NEW LAND FOR SALE, WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IN TERMS OF LAND COSTS, LAND ACQUISITION COSTS, THE RELATIVE BURDEN THAT THOSE PARTICULAR LOTS MIGHT HAVE ON THE CITY GOING FORWARD IN TERMS OF FULL COST ACCOUNTING.
I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE IN OUR CONTEXT OF CLIMATE CHANGE DISCUSSIONS.
YOU KNOW, I GAVE A LOT OF THOUGHT TO THIS IDEA OF IN TERMS OF THE COMMERCIAL RATE, COULD WE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SMALL BUSINESSES AND, YOU KNOW, THE MORE SORT OF MULTINATIONAL TYPE BUSINESSES OR ONES THAT ARE NOT BASED HERE IN TOWN? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE INSTINCT OR THE DRIVE, I THINK, TO LESSEN THE BURDEN ON BUSINESSES, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT'S MAINLY BASED ON TRYING TO HELP OUT LOCAL, SMALLER BUSINESSES IN TOWN, SUPPORT THE LOCAL BUSINESS COMMUNITY.
WHICH I REALLY SYMPATHIZE WITH AND WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO.
AND THE STRUGGLE WHEN WE DETERMINE COMMERCIAL RATES IS ALWAYS, OKAY, BUT SOME OF THE BIGGER ENTITIES OR INSTITUTIONS, YOU KNOW, IT'S WELL WITHIN THEIR CAPACITY TO PAY AND MAY NOT EVEN NOTICE THESE SMALL INCREASES, WHEREAS THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNER WHO OWNS THEIR OWN PROPERTY MAY REALLY STRUGGLE AND MAY EVEN HAVE TO CLOSE BASED ON, YOU KNOW, INCREMENTAL INCREASES.
SO IS THERE SOME WAY TO DISTINGUISH THIS? BUT IN READING THE ANALYSIS THAT ADMINISTRATION CAME UP WITH THAT ONLY ABOUT 18.5 PERCENT OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN TOWN ARE OWNED BY SMALL BUSINESSES. I THINK THAT WAS THE--.
AND ALSO HAVING IT BEEN POINTED OUT, I THINK BY COUNCILLOR KONGE AND OTHERS, THAT IT'S REALLY TRICKY AND ANOTHER KIND OF A RABBIT HOLE TO GO DOWN IF YOU START DISTINGUISHING WHAT SHOULD SOMEONE'S PROPERTY TAX RATE BASED ON THEIR ABILITY TO PAY, DO WE START HAVING LOWER PROPERTY TAX RATE FOR LOWER INCOME OWNER-- LOWER INCOME PEOPLE? SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD TO MAKE PROPERTY TAX RATES RESPONSIVE TO PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO PAY.
[00:35:08]
SO WHAT I DO THINK WE COULD PROBABLY ALL AGREE ON IS THE NEED TO PROVIDE MORE STABILITY AND PREDICTABILITY FOR BUSINESSES.AND SO I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO DE-LINK OUR MILL RATE RATIOS FROM THIS IDEA THAT WE SHOULD KEEP THE OVERALL PROPORTION OF COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO OUR TAXES RELATIVELY STABLE, BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T END UP NECESSARILY PROVIDING STABILITY TO EACH INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS OWNER, OR RESIDENTIAL OWNER FOR THAT MATTER, BUT--.
SO I THINK IF WE FOCUS ON KEEPING THAT RATIO BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL STABLE, MEANING, YOU KNOW, THE RATIO BETWEEN WHAT AN INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS WOULD PAY VERSUS WHAT AN INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNER WOULD PAY, THAT COULD PROVIDE STABILITY.
SO I'M ALL IN SUPPORT OF THAT.
I WOULD CONSIDER LOWERING THE RATIO BACK TO 2.13.
WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THE GRAPH OF HOW IT'S SORT OF INCREASED OVER TIME.
SAY, 20 YEARS AGO, A COMMERCIAL PAID 1.76 TIMES AS MUCH AS RESIDENTIAL.
IT INCREASED--. I MEAN, I THINK IT WAS BACK IN ABOUT 2014, WE WERE AT ABOUT 2.13, AND IT'S ONLY IN THE PAST THREE YEARS OR SO THAT WE BUMPED UP TO 2.26.
SO IT HAS BEEN STEADILY CREEPING UP OVER TIME.
SO I THINK THERE IS SOME RATIONALE TO GO BACK TO THE 2.13 RATIO.
AND THEN I WAS JUST GOING TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS--.
YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN POINTED OUT THAT MANY OTHER CITIES BASED THEIR PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS ON THE MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY RATHER THAN THE DEPRECIATED REPLACEMENT COST.
AND I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, BUT COULD YOU JUST REVIEW FOR US? ARE WE PREVENTED BY [INAUDIBLE] FROM CHANGING THAT OR IS THAT POSSIBLE TO CONSIDER THE BASIS ON WHICH WE CALCULATE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS? I BELIEVE THAT IT IS THE GNWT WITH THEIR LEGISLATION, BUT IF ADMINISTRATION CAN CONFIRM, MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.
I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
I'LL SEE IF MS. WOODWARD DOES.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY.
IMPROVEMENTS ARE BASED ON DEPRECIATED REPLACEMENT COST.
AND IT WOULD BE INTERESTING, HOPEFULLY IF AND WHEN THE GNWT REVIEWS THE PATA, THE PROPERTY ASSESSMENT TAXATION ACT, CONSIDERATIONS CAN BE GIVEN INTO WHETHER IT MIGHT BE MORE FAIR TO BASE IT ON THE MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY.
BUT OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T HAVE DIRECT CONTROL OVER THAT, SO I'LL LEAVE THAT FOR NOW.
BUT THOSE ARE THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS FOR THE MOMENT.
BUT I'M HAPPY TO HEAR FROM MORE COLLEAGUES.
THANK YOU. WE'LL GO TO COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR.
I JUST WANTED TO QUICKLY CHIME IN AND JUST KIND OF SUPPORT MY FELLOW COUNCILLORS WITH THE 2.13.
SO I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THE 2.13.
THANK YOU. AND COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. YEAH, I JUST I THOUGHT I SHOULD PIPE UP A LITTLE BIT AFTER COUNCILLOR MORGAN'S COMMENTS.
JUST I HAPPEN TO BE ONE OF THOSE 18% THAT ARE SMALL BUSINESS AND LANDOWNERS.
SO I CAN SPEAK A LITTLE BIT FROM SOME EXPERIENCE HERE.
SNOW REMOVAL IS ONE OF THOSE EXTRA COSTS THAT'S NOT INCLUDED WITH THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TAX.
GOING RATE FOR COMMERCIAL SNOW REMOVAL FOR A DOWNTOWN PROPERTY IS RUNS ABOUT $400 A MONTH.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, COUNCILLOR KONGE HAD MENTIONED THE GARBAGE COLLECTION WE FOUND AT OUR LOCATION THAT WERE THE MINIMUM LOAD ONCE A WEEK, GENERALLY SPEAKING. AND THE MINIMUM LOAD AT THE SOLID WASTE FACILITY IS ABOUT $1,675.
SO, YOU KNOW, MOST COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES DOWNTOWN, WHETHER THEY'RE OWNED INDEPENDENTLY OR WHETHER THEY'RE OWNED BY A GREATER COMPANY, YOU KNOW, IS AN ADDITIONAL $500 JUST FOR, YOU KNOW, SERVICES THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED FOR OTHER PROPERTIES.
[00:40:06]
COMMUNITY, AND THESE ARE VERY KIND OF COMMUNITY MINDED FOLKS.ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? COUNCILLOR KONGE, COULD I JUMP IN? YEP. MAYOR ALTY? THANK YOU. AND A BIG THANKS TO [INAUDIBLE].
A BIG THANKS TO MY COLLEAGUES TODAY FOR THIS GREAT DISCUSSION.
I THINK WE'VE RAISED SO MANY DIFFERENT POINTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER AND TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN THE NEXT COUNCIL BECAUSE THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION MAKES COUNCIL DRAFT AN ACTUAL POLICY ON MILL RATES.
YOU KNOW TOUCHING ON COUNCILLOR MAURICE'S POINT ABOUT WHETHER MULTI-FAMILY THAT ARE CONDOS SHOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT PROPERTY CLASS, THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL WANTS TO CONSIDER TO ENCOURAGE INFIELD AND DENSITY.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S PROS AND CONS LIKE COUNCILLOR KONGE THEN MENTIONED WAS THE FACT THAT TAXES ARE ALL ABOUT PROVIDING SERVICES AND THEN DID A GREAT, WHERE DOES YOUR MONEY GO, TAX BREAK DOWN.
AND IN 2021, FOR EVERY DOLLAR THAT YOU PAID, $0.26 WENT TO COMMUNITY SERVICES.
SO THOSE ARE SERVICES, RECREATION, ETC.
THAT DOESN'T IMPACT [INAUDIBLE] A MULTIFAMILY.
SO SHOULD MULTIFAMILY HAVE A DECREASE AND NOT HAVE TO PAY AS MUCH FOR THOSE? THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO CONSIDER.
YOU KNOW, FOLKS HAVE TOUCHED A LOT ON WHETHER WE SHOULD MAKE A DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATION TO THE GNWT IN REGARDS TO PATA AND HOW PROPERTIES ARE ASSESSED. AND THERE'S PROS AND CONS ON THE WAY THAT IT'S CURRENTLY DONE VERSUS MARKET VALUE.
SO PERHAPS THE NEXT COUNCIL WOULD WANT TO RECOMMEND THAT WE CONTINUE THE WAY WE-- CONTINUE-- OR ADVOCATE TO THE GNWT TO CONTINUE THE WAY THAT PROPERTIES ARE ASSESSED. THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALSO THE POINTS BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL.
FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, OWNERS ARE ABLE TO DEDUCT PROPERTY TAXES FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES AT THE FEDERAL AND TERRITORIAL LEVEL, AND SO THEY CAN WRITE OFF THOSE EXPENSES AND ACTUALLY PAY LESS IN TAXES AT THE FEDERAL AND TERRITORIAL LEVEL.
SO FOR MYSELF, I DO APPRECIATE THAT WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION EVERY YEAR.
WOULD I RECOMMEND THAT, YOU KNOW, THE NEXT COUNCIL BY JANUARY 2023 HAVE A POLICY WRITTEN? NO, I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO NEED A BIT MORE TIME TO INVESTIGATE IT, TO WRAP THEIR HEADS AROUND THE MILL RATE, BUT I DO THINK IT'S UP TO THE NEXT COUNCIL. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE MANY DIFFERENT FACTORS THAT GO INTO MILL RATES THAT GO INTO PROPERTY ASSESSMENT, THAT GO INTO TAXES, AND THE PHILOSOPHY. BECAUSE THIS IS--.
WE'RE ALL TALKING PHILOSOPHY, YOU KNOW, AND WHETHER WE WANT TO INCENT THIS OR INCENT THAT.
SO FOR ME, I APPRECIATED [INAUDIBLE] PRESENTATION TODAY, PARTICULARLY APPRECIATED SEEING THAT--.
MY APOLOGIES AS A JUMP THROUGH 12 SCREENS.
IT'S NOT MUCH, BUT IT HAS BEEN INCREASING EVEN THOUGH THERE HASN'T BEEN A CHANGE IN THE MILL RATE.
SO RESIDENTIAL IS PAYING MORE OF THE TAX PERCENT THAN THEY HAVE IN THE PAST.
SO FOR ME, FOR 2022, I'D LIKE TO CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THE 1.1 TO THE 2.26 RATIO, AND THAT'S HOW I'LL BE-- . AGAIN, APPROACHING THE DISCUSSION TONIGHT WITH AN OPEN MIND, BUT THAT'S HOW I'M LEANING TODAY.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU, MAYOR ALTY.
AND COUNCILLOR SILVERIO? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I JUST WANT TO ECHO ALSO MY SUPPORT TO 2.13.
THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO GO FOR WITH THIS ONE.
AND THE EXPLANATIONS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED EARLIER ON, SO.
[00:45:06]
THANK YOU. ANYTHING FURTHER FROM ANYBODY? IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT. SO NEXT WE HAVE A MEMORANDUM REGARDING WHETHER TO AMEND FEES AND CHARGES BYLAW NUMBER 4436, AS[5. A memorandum regarding whether to amend Fees and Charges By‐law No. 4436, as amended, by amending Parts 1,2,4, and 18 of Schedule B to reflect Community Services User Fee changes approved in Budget 2022, adjustments to more accurately reflect the current costs associated with providing Planning Permit services, and changes to align Building Permut fees with the new Building By-law No. 5058. ]
AMENDED BY AMENDING PARTS 1, 2, 4, 12 AND 18 OF SCHEDULE B TO REFLECT COMMUNITY SERVICES USER FEE CHANGES APPROVED IN BUDGET 2022 AND ADJUSTMENTS TO MORE ACCURATELY REFLECT THE CURRENT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROVIDING PLANNING PERMIT SERVICES AND CHANGES TO ALIGN BUILDING PERMIT FEES WITH THE NEW BUILDING BYLAW NUMBER 5058.MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE WELL AWARE THAT FEES AND CHARGES COMPRISE ABOUT A THIRD OF OUR OPERATING REVENUES, OF COURSE, WITH THE REST COMING FROM PROPERTY TAXES AND GOVERNMENT GRANTS.
EACH YEAR, TYPICALLY, ADMINISTRATION PROPOSES CHANGES TO FEES FOR OUR REC FACILITIES AND OUR REC PROGRAMING THAT REFLECT OUR OPERATING COSTS, AND THESE ARE TYPICALLY A 3% INCREASE.
THIS YEAR ALONG WITH THOSE-- THAT PERCENT INCREASE, ADMINISTRATION IS ALSO PROPOSING TO UPDATE FEES FOR PLANNING PERMITS BASED ON SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OUT OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OPERATION REVIEW AS WELL AS CURRENT BEST PRACTICE AND ALSO FOR BUILDING PERMITS IN ORDER TO ALIGN WITH CHANGES PROPOSED CURRENTLY IN OUR REVISIONS THAT ARE UNDERWAY WITH THE BUILDING BYLAW.
HEADS UP, WE DO EXPECT TO BE BRINGING FORWARD SOME OTHER CHARGES TO THE FEES AND [INAUDIBLE]-- CHANGES TO THE FEES AND CHARGES BYLAW LATER THIS YEAR TO DEAL WITH SOLID WASTE FEES AND TIPPING FEES AND ALSO OUR WATER AND SEWER FEES.
ONE NOTE I WILL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS ATTENTION TO ON PAGE 18 OF 31 OF THE PACKAGE UNDER PART 9, RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS, NUMBERS 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 SHOULD REFERENCE THE GROSS FLOOR AREA AND ADDENDUM WITH THE CORRECT INFORMATION HAS BEEN POSTED ONTO THE COUNCIL PORTAL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU.
ARE THERE--? COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
WHAT'S SORT OF THE MIX BETWEEN RESIDENTS AND COMMERCIAL ENTITIES APPLYING FOR PERMITS OF THIS STYLE? IS IT-- AND I'M TALKING SPECIFICALLY OF THE PLANNING LANDS DEPARTMENT.
IS IT A 50/50 OR IS THERE A LARGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE APPLICANT WHO'S APPLYING FOR THESE STYLE OF PERMITS? THANK YOU. THAT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION BECAUSE A RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNER WILL OFTEN HIRE A CONTRACTOR WHO MAKES THE APPLICATION FOR THEM. BUT MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. MS. WHITE, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SHED SOME LIGHT.
SO I WOULD SAY, YES, THE MAJORITY OF WHETHER YOU'RE A HOMEOWNER, A MULTI RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OWNER OR A BUSINESS OWNER, IT'S USUALLY A CONSULTANT FIRM THAT HAS BEEN HIRED ON YOUR BEHALF.
THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT I, AS A HOMEOWNER, COULDN'T MAKE THE APPLICATION.
MANY PEOPLE DO, BUT I WOULD SAY PROBABLY A 75% TO 25% SPLIT.
WE DEFINITELY SEE MORE CONTRACTORS AND OR CONSULTANTS THAN WE DO INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS.
THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I HAD ASSUMED.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
AND THAT BRINGS ME UP TO MY SECOND QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, WAS THERE--? I CAN SEE THAT THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, AT FIRST READING THE PACKAGE, A BIT OF A SHOCK AND YOU KIND OF GO, WOW, THERE'S A LOT OF FEW RATES THAT ARE GOING UP QUITE A BIT.
BUT THEN WHEN YOU READ SOME OF THE RATIONALE, I REALLY APPRECIATED HOW YOU AVERAGED SORT OF STAFF TIME AND TALKED A LITTLE BIT MORE IN DETAIL ABOUT WHAT EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS WOULD TAKE FROM A STAFF LEVEL AND INTERNALLY AS FAR AS THE RESOURCE LEVEL GOES, YOU KNOW, SO I WAS JUST KIND OF CURIOUS, HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONSULTATION WITH, SAY, THIS GROUP THAT-- THE 75%? LIKE WAS THERE A A SAMPLE OF, SAY, SOME CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES THAT MAYBE OFTEN TIMES PUT IN APPLICATIONS OR CONSULTING ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE CONSISTENTLY PUTTING IN SOME APPLICATIONS? AND WAS THERE ANY SORT OF BACK AND FORTH OR JUST HEADS UP THAT THESE CHANGES WERE HAPPENING AND OR BEING PROPOSED TO HAPPEN? AND THAT'S THE ONLY ASPECT OF THE OF THE PACKAGE THAT I THOUGHT WAS SORT OF MISSING, WAS, IS THERE ANY BACK AND FORTH AND WAS THERE ANY INPUT FROM
[00:50:02]
THAT, SAY, 75% OF THE CLIENTELE THAT'S, YOU KNOW, DOING THIS ON BEHALF OF CLIENTS? AND WAS THERE ANY FLAGS RAISED IN THAT REGARD? THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. I THINK THAT COUNCIL DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION TO LOOK AT THIS A WHILE BACK, BUT MS. BASSI-KELLETT CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION AND CONFIRM.THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE CAN SPEAK TO THE BUILDING PERMIT AND PLANNING PERMIT FEES.
AND YES, TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, I BELIEVE THE FINAL REPORT WAS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL IN JULY 2017.
SO IT'S BEEN A WHILE IN THE MAKING.
THERE WAS--. SO THIS WAS ACTUALLY COMPLETED BY DYLAN, AND AS PART OF THE OVERALL OPERATIONAL REVIEW, THERE WAS A NUMBER OF INPUTS PUT INTO NOT JUST THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SIDE-- OR SORRY, THE PLANNING AND LAND SIDE, BUT ALSO THE BUILDING PERMIT SIDE.
AND WHAT I CAN CONFIRM IS MOST RECENTLY WITH REGARDS TO SOME OF THE CHANGES WE'RE PROPOSING IN THE CHARGES-- THE FEES AND CHARGES BYLAW, WE DID CONFIRM AND COMMUNICATE THAT WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND THAT BUILDING COMMUNITY WHO DID RESPOND TO THE BUILDING BYLAW THAT'S RECENTLY BEEN OUT.
YOU'LL NOTICE THERE'S A CHANGE THERE.
SO THIS IS NOT OUT OF THE BLUE.
THIS HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR A WHILE AND WE ARE BRINGING IT FORWARD.
AND IF I COULD ALSO IN THAT DEPARTMENT OPERATIONAL REVIEW, THE TERM THAT WAS USED WAS THAT DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE PAYING FOR DEVELOPMENT, AND SO WE'RE LOOKING TO PROVIDE SOME SORT OF A BALANCE BETWEEN THAT ACTUAL COST THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, WHERE WE LAID OUT WHAT THAT HOURLY RATE IS, THE NUMBER OF HOURS, AND WHAT GOES INTO EACH OF THOSE DEVELOPMENTS VERSUS MAKING A SIGNIFICANT COST INCREASE.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO FIND THAT BALANCE IN THE MIDDLE.
[INAUDIBLE], CAN CERTAINLY APPRECIATE WHERE IT'S COME.
JUST WAS SORT OF JUST HOPING THAT IT'S NOT TAKING ANYBODY BY SURPRISE, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT COMES OUT THERE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'D HATE TO COME OFF THE END OF THE PANDEMIC AND, YOU KNOW, IN ONE OF OUR LARGER TAX INCREASES THAT WE'VE HAD DURING OUR TERM AND THEN WITH SOME OF THESE EXTRA FEES.
BUT I THINK IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE PACKAGE THAT YOU'RE ANTICIPATING A 30% REDUCTION IN OVERALL APPLICATIONS JUST BASED ON OUR NEW ZONING BYLAW-- OR NEW BUILDING BYLAW AND SOME OF THE PRESCRIPTIONS AND WHATNOT THAT ARE CONTAINED IN THERE.
COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS, THE CONTRACTING COMMUNITY WAS SHOCKED THAT WE HAVE TO PAY MORE.
[LAUGHTER] ANYTHING FURTHER FROM ANYBODY ELSE? YES. COUNCILLOR MORGAN? THANK YOU. OKAY. CAN WE--.
CAN I JUST ASK THE ADMINISTRATION TO HELP SET THE STAGE FOR THIS DISCUSSION? CAN YOU REMIND US, YOU KNOW, WE MADE SOME CHANGES IN THE LATEST ZONING BYLAW AS TO WHEN DEVELOPMENT PERMITS ARE EVEN REQUIRED.
CAN YOU REMIND US UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, SAY, FOR RESIDENTIAL, EITHER SINGLE UNIT OR MULTI RESIDENTIAL WHEN IT'S ACTUALLY REQUIRED VERSUS BEFORE, I THINK WHEN A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WAS ALWAYS REQUIRED FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT.
CAN YOU REMIND US? MS. BASSI-KELLETT.
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, MISS WHITE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE FURTHER INFORMATION.
THE PREVIOUS ZONING BYLAW REQUIRED A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON THE ONSET OF ALMOST EVERY DEVELOPMENT.
WHERE WE'VE MOVED TOWARDS IS IF THE DEVELOPMENT MEETS THE REGULATIONS.
SO DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL, WHATEVER THE USE IS, IF THERE'S NO VARIANCES REQUIRED, IT'S PERMITTED USE AND IT MEETS THE REGULATIONS, THAT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS NOW WE'RE CALLING IT A CHECKLIST.
WE'RE JUST REVIEWING BASED ON YOUR PLANS BECAUSE YOU ARE THEN GOING TO MOVE TO A BUILDING PERMIT REGARDLESS, RIGHT? YOU STILL NEED A BUILDING PERMIT.
SO FAR WE'VE PROBABLY SEEN MAYBE IN THE ORDER OF 30 TO 40% NOT REQUIRING THAT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS AND BEING ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH THESE FEES WE'RE IDENTIFYING HERE.
[00:55:01]
THANKS FOR THAT. SO THAT JUST HELPS GIVE US MORE CONTEXT ON WHO WILL ACTUALLY BE AFFECTED BY THE CHANGES IN THE FEES.SO, ARE WE--? ARE WE GOING TO ASSUME, THEN, THAT MOST OF THESE APPLICATIONS WILL BE HIT WITH INCREASES IN SEVERAL FEES ON TOP OF EACH OTHER BECAUSE THEY WON'T JUST BE REQUESTING A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, BUT THEY'LL PROBABLY ALSO BE REQUESTING SOME OTHER COMPLICATING FACTOR, WHICH IS ALSO ON THE LIST AS [INAUDIBLE] ITS OWN FEE? IS THAT CORRECT? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE.
THANK YOU--. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THERE'S INSTANCES WHERE IF I, AS A HOMEOWNER, WANTED TO PUT IN A, LET'S SAY, A SECOND DWELLING UNIT IN MY DWELLING, WHICH MAY NECESSITATE AN ADDITION OF A PORTION OF MY DWELLING, I COULD JUST BE IN FOR THE ONE PERMIT.
WE DO IDENTIFY THAT IN THE CHARGES AND FEES BYLAW, THOSE WOULD BE ADDED TOGETHER.
HOWEVER, IF WE LOOK A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN, AT LEAST IN THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SIDE, WE HAVE GIVEN A BIT OF A REDUCTION FOR, SAY, IF YOU HAD TO DO A COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT AS WELL AS A ZONING AMENDMENT TO TRY TO FACILITATE THOSE RARE INSTANCES.
IT'S THERE IN CASE IT HAPPENS.
IT'S RARE THAT THOSE APPLICATIONS COME FORWARD.
SO, YES, THERE COULD BE COMBINED APPLICATIONS, BUT IT WOULD BE FOR USUALLY THOSE SMALLER AMOUNTS.
AND WHERE THERE WAS THE LARGER PORTION, WE'VE LOOKED TO COMBINE THOSE PRICES TOGETHER DIRECTLY IN THE FEES AND CHARGES SO IT'S TRANSPARENT TO AN APPLICANT. THANK YOU.
OKAY. ONE THING THAT POPPED OUT AT ME WAS SO IN THE FEE FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR MULTI UNIT AND TOWNHOUSE APPLICATIONS--. LET ME JUST--.
OR THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO DOUBLE IT.
SO I'M WONDERING IF THIS WOULD DISINCENTIVIZE LIKE LARGER MULTI-UNIT DWELLINGS.
AND SO I'M WONDERING ABOUT THE DECISION TO INCREASE THE PER UNIT COST BY SO MUCH, AS OPPOSED TO FOCUSING ON SORT OF THE BASE COST OF THE APPLICATION AND MAKING IT NOT AS MUCH OF AN INCREASE FOR THE PER UNIT COST.
HAS ADMINISTRATION CONSIDERED THAT THIS COULD BE A DISINCENTIVE TO HAVING MORE UNITS IN A NEW DWELLING? I THINK THE COST TO COME OUT OF THE GROUND IS SO HIGH IN THE NORTH THAT THE MORE UNITS YOU CAN GET ON THE SAME FOUNDATION IS PRETTY ATTRACTIVE FOR ANY CONTRACTOR OR DEVELOPER.
BUT MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU FOR THAT. MS. WHITE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND WE HAVE HAD THE DISCUSSION AND THE CONVERSATION.
WE ALSO ASKED AROUND TO SEE WHAT IMPACT THAT HAS.
A CHANGE IN PERMIT FROM, SAY, A $2000 PERMIT TO A $4,000 PERMIT ON THE GRAND SCHEME, I'M UNDERSTANDING, ON THE GRAND SCHEME OF THE COST FOR DEVELOPING HERE IS SO MINIMAL. NO, IT'S NOT A DISINCENTIVE.
THAT IS, AGAIN, MY UNDERSTANDING, AND WE'RE NOT TAKING IT TO A FULL RECOVERY.
WE'RE TRYING AGAIN TO FIND THAT BALANCE IN THE MIDDLE OF NOT HAVING A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, BECAUSE IF WE DID INCREASE IT TO COST RECOVERY, I WOULD SAY, YES, THAT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT.
BUT WHERE WE'RE AT, I THINK IT'S A GOOD MIDDLE GROUND.
IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WE ARE PLANNING TO DO THAT, OR MAYBE WE HAVEN'T DONE IT EVER IN THE PAST.
BUT IS THERE ANY EXPLANATION FOR WHY OTHER JURISDICTIONS MIGHT DO IT THAT WAY BUT WE WOULDN'T WANT TO? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS.
[01:00:01]
WHITE.SO IN EACH ZONING BYLAW, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE JURISDICTION IS, THEY MAY HAVE AN OLDER BYLAW.
IN OUR NEW MODERNIZED ZONING BYLAW.
WE'VE MOVED AWAY FROM THAT, SO WE NO LONGER REFERENCE PERCENTAGES IN THE BYLAW.
THANK YOU. AND NUMBER 14 JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT PERHAPS THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN THE MEMO.
IT'S THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.
CAN YOU JUST CONFIRM THAT MAYBE THAT WAS A MISTAKE IN THE MEMO? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I WAS ALSO FINALLY-- I WAS JUST--.
I WAS STRUGGLING WITH THE FEES FOR DISCRETIONARY USES.
SO IT IS QUITE A BIG JUMP PER APPLICATION FROM $250 TO $1,500.
AND I WAS THINKING BACK TO WE HAD LOTS OF DISCUSSIONS DURING OUR ZONING BYLAW REVISIONS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE HAD BROUGHT DOWN THE NUMBER OF DISCRETIONARY USES BY A LOT AND THEN WE ENDED UP ADDING SOME BACK IN FOR SOME ZONES.
AND I HAVE MISGIVINGS ABOUT [INAUDIBLE] MAKING APPLICANTS PAY SO MUCH MORE WHEN WE DECIDED TO BRING BACK MANY OF THOSE DISCRETIONARY USES.
AND I NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A NOTE IN THE MEMO THAT SAID THE REASON WHY SOME OTHER JURISDICTIONS DON'T CHARGE NEARLY AS MUCH FOR THOSE KIND OF REQUESTS FOR DISCRETIONARY USES IS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO BRING IT TO COUNCIL-- THEIR COUNCILS TO DECIDE, AND SO IT'S NOT AS TAXING ON ADMINISTRATION AND THE PROCESS IS SIMPLER.
AND I KNOW I THINK I BROUGHT THIS UP DURING THE ZONING BYLAW DISCUSSIONS, TOO, BUT I WISH THERE WAS A SIMPLER PROCESS FOR FOR DOING DISCRETIONARY USES AND I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT IT ALWAYS IS THAT MUCH MORE BENEFICIAL TO BRING THOSE MATTERS TO COUNCIL.
BUT I DO RECOGNIZE THAT THAT IS IN THE ZONING BYLAW THAT WOULD REQUIRE CHANGING THE ZONING BYLAW.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO FLAG THAT I AM STILL SORT OF TROUBLED BY OUR OVERALL POLICY OF DISCRETIONARY USES AND I KNOW THERE'S NOT MUCH WE CAN DO RIGHT NOW WITHOUT OPENING UP A KETTLE OF FISH AGAIN.
BUT I AM HOPING THAT IN THE FUTURE THAT PERHAPS A LESS BURDENSOME PROCESS COULD BE-- OR MAYBE A MIDDLE GROUND SORT OF PROCESS COULD BE PUT IN DISCRETIONARY USES WHERE MAYBE THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S NOT COMFORTABLE WITH HAVING IT AUTOMATICALLY GET CHECKED OFF.
YES, SURE. GO AND PUT THIS NEW BUSINESS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THAT THERE COULD BE SOME MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN THAT AND HAVING THIS LONG INTENSIVE PROCESS THAT INVOLVES LOTS OF POLITICAL WRANGLING AND HEARINGS AND BRING IT TO COUNCIL--.
ANYWAY, THERE COULD BE MORE SCRUTINY, BUT A LESS INVOLVED PROCESS.
ANYWAY, THAT'S MY TWO CENTS FOR NOW.
THANKS. THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR MORGAN.
IS THERE ANYBODY ON THE LINE WHO HAS ANY COMMENTS? OK, MAYOR ALTY.
I JUST WANTED TO THANK STAFF FOR DOING THE WORK ON THE PLANNING AND LANDS, THE FULL COST RECOVERY, AND THEN ALSO TAKING IT ANOTHER STEP FORWARD AND COMPARING IT TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND THEN PRESENTING A RECOMMENDATION.
I KNOW [INAUDIBLE] WAS TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE OTHER REQUESTS THAT COUNCIL'S MADE, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND I THINK IN PARTICULAR BE GREAT TO HAVE A REVIEW OF OUR AMBULANCE SERVICES BECAUSE THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE ARE, AN AMBULANCE WITH THE SIDE OF FIRE, AND TO SEE WHAT ARE SOME OF THE MAXIMUM COVERAGES AND INSURANCE, WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED UNDER AN NIHB? WHAT ARE--? WHAT'S THE FULL COST RECOVERY SO THAT WE CAN HAVE FEES THAT ARE--.
[01:05:02]
WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S HOUSING IN OUR COMMUNITY, BUT BEING ABLE TO HAVE SOME OF THOSE REFERENCE POINTS TO CONSIDER BETWEEN FULL COST RECOVERY, KNOWING WHAT THAT IS, AND THEN HAVING SOME OTHER OPTIONS TO PERHAPS GROW TO GET TO FULL COST RECOVERY IN SOME SITUATIONS.BUT YEAH, JUST A BIG THANK YOU.
I KNOW IT'S PROBABLY NOT EASY PULLING ALL THIS INFORMATION TOGETHER, BUT IT'S GREATLY APPRECIATED.
COUNCILLOR MORSE, DID I HEAR YOU SAY SOMETHING? NO, THANKS. I'VE GOT NOTHING TO ADD ON [INAUDIBLE] MY COLLEAGUES HAD [INAUDIBLE] IT WAS-- [INAUDIBLE].
[IN CAMERA]
WE WILL GO INTO IN-CAMERA THEN.OH. WE NEED A MOTION TO GO IN CAMERA.
THAT IS COUNCILLOR MORGAN AND SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. OK. IT SHOULD BE GOOD.
OKAY. THERE'S NO BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE IN-CAMERA SESSION.
COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA AND SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. SEE EVERYBODY TONIGHT AT 7:00.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.