Apr 17, 2023 Governance & Priorities Committee

[00:00:04]

AND WE WILL CALL OUR GOVERNANCE AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE MEETING FOR MONDAY, APRIL 17TH, 2023, TO ORDER.

[1. Opening Statement]

FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL, IT HAS BEEN THE TRADITIONAL LAND OF THE YELLOWKNIVES DENE FIRST NATION.

WE RESPECT THE HISTORIES, LANGUAGES AND CULTURES OF ALL OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, INCLUDING THE NORTH SLAVE METIS AND ALL FIRST NATIONS, MÉTIS AND INUIT, WHOSE PRESENCE CONTINUES TO ENRICH OUR VIBRANT COMMUNITY.

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

[2. Approval of the agenda.]

NO, NOTHING ELSE TO ADD TODAY.

THANK YOU.

DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST IN THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF.

SEEING NONE.

MOVING ON, A MEMORANDUM WHETHER TO AMEND FEES AND CHARGES.

[4. A memorandum whether to amend Fees and Charges By‐law No. 4436, as amended, by amending Parts 1, 4, and 12 of Schedule B to reflect Community Services User Fee changes approved in Budget 2023.]

COMMUNITY SERVICE USERS FEES CHARGES APPROVED IN BUDGET 2023.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

SO COUNCILMEMBERS WILL RECALL THAT WHEN YOU APPROVED BUDGET 2023 LAST DECEMBER, YOU ALSO APPROVED SOME CHANGES TO THE FEES AND CHARGES BYLAW WHICH WERE REQUIRED BECAUSE THE BUDGET WAS BUILT ON AND ASSUMED THOSE CHANGES WHICH WOULD COME INTO EFFECT JANUARY 1ST.

SO TODAY WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD PROPOSED CHANGES TO FEES AND CHARGES THAT ARE ALSO PART OF BUDGET 2023, BUT WHICH ARE PLANNED TO COME INTO EFFECT IN SEPTEMBER.

AND THESE ARE TYPICALLY THE FEES AND CHARGES THAT ARE RELATED TO OUR INDOOR RECREATION CALENDAR, WHICH RUNS FROM SEPTEMBER TO MAY.

SO THEY ARE BROUGHT FORWARD SEPARATELY TO COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION AS PART OF OUR ANNUAL PLANNING CYCLE.

FEES FOR RECREATION HAVE TRADITIONALLY BEEN INCREASED BY 3% EACH YEAR SINCE COMMUNITY SERVICES ENGAGED WITH USER GROUPS ON A CLEAR AND PREDICTABLE AND FAIR REFLECTION OF THE COSTS OF OPERATING THE FACILITIES AND THE ACCESS TO THOSE FACILITIES.

NOW, THERE'S A LOT TO UNPACK WITH FEES AND CHARGES.

THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENCES.

WHY ARE THINGS DIFFERENT FOR THE AQUATIC CENTER THAN THEY ARE FOR OTHER FACILITIES? THERE'S A LOT TO UNPACK HERE.

SO ADMINISTRATION DOES PROPOSE THAT WE WILL PROVIDE A PRESENTATION ON FEES AND CHARGES AND THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND THE CITY'S APPROACH AT AN UPCOMING GPC MEETING. TENTATIVELY, WE'RE LOOKING AT EARLY JUNE TO DO SO SO THAT WE'VE GOT THE ABILITY TO UNPACK AND PRESENT TO YOU WHAT OUR APPROACH HAS BEEN.

AND OF COURSE WE KNOW FROM PAST HISTORY THAT COUNCIL HAS MADE CHANGES.

COUNCIL HAS PUT THE POLICY STAMP ON FEES AND CHARGES AND THOSE WILL BE REALLY FRUITFUL DISCUSSIONS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE AT THAT TIME.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE ARE BRINGING FORWARD THE AMENDMENTS TO FEES AND CHARGES THAT ARE REQUIRED AS PART OF BUDGET 2023.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

THANK YOU.

OPENING UP FOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.

COUNCILLOR FEQUET.

THANKS, MADAM CHAIR.

I GUESS JUST A QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION TO ADMINISTRATION.

IF WE'RE GOING TO RECEIVE THE PRESENTATION IN JUNE ABOUT THE PHILOSOPHY AND THE APPROACH AND WHAT UNDERLIES ALL THE RATIONALE FOR THE WAY THIS IS SET UP.

I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHY WOULDN'T WE HAVE THAT FIRST BEFORE APPROVING THESE FEES FOR SEPTEMBER? BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WE THERE MIGHT BE TIME.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

WE BRING THESE FORWARD NOW BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT WE ARE WHAT IS PRESUMED IN BUDGET 2023.

WE NEED TO HAVE THESE AMOUNTS APPROVED BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE OVERALL BUDGET AMOUNT WAS ANTICIPATING.

AND AS COUNCIL MEMBERS KNOW, ALL OF OUR REVENUES ARE EITHER COMING TO US IN PROPERTY TAXES, GRANTS FROM OTHER ORDERS OF GOVERNMENT OR FEES AND CHARGES.

SO TOGETHER THE FEES AND CHARGES RIGHT NOW THAT ARE INCLUDED IN HERE ARE THE BASIS FOR OUR BUDGET FOR 2023.

SO THEY DO NEED TO BE APPROVED.

WE DO RECOGNIZE THERE'S A LOT OF REALLY GOOD QUESTIONS AND I CAN REALLY ANTICIPATE THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS LOTS OF GOOD IDEAS AND WILL WANT TO UNPACK HOW IT IS THAT WE STRUCTURE FEES AND CHARGES, HOW IT IS THAT WE SET THINGS UP, WHAT SOME OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACHES ARE TO HOW FEES AND CHARGES ARE SET OUT.

SO WE DO LOOK FORWARD TO BEING ABLE TO BRING THAT FORWARD TO YOU FOR A MUCH LONGER PRESENTATION.

BUT THIS RIGHT NOW IS REQUIRED AS PART OF BUDGET 2023.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

SO THIS MIGHT BE SORT OF PHILOSOPHICAL, BUT JUST TO ASK A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS NOW.

SO THERE ARE SOME FACILITIES THAT HAVE SEPARATE RENTAL RATES FOR COMMERCIAL GROUPS, FOR PROFIT GROUPS SUCH AS THE POOL, THE ICE RINK, WHEN THERE'S ICE IN IT, THE FIELD HOUSE.

BUT THERE ARE OTHERS WITH NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN FOR AND NON PROFIT RATES, SUCH AS THE GYMS, THE ARENA WITHOUT ICE, THE MULTIPLEX OUTDOOR FIELDS,

[00:05:08]

IS THIS BECAUSE WE ASSUME THERE AREN'T FOR PROFIT GROUPS THAT RENT THESE SPACES, OR HAS THIS DISTINCTION JUST BEEN MADE SORT OF AD HOC OVER TIME? MS. BASSI-KELLETT.

THANKS VERY MUCH. REALLY GOOD QUESTION.

REALLY GOOD POINT FOR DISCUSSION WHEN WE DO HAVE THE BROADER PHILOSOPHICAL CONVERSATION, BUT I WILL ASK MR. WHITE IF HE COULD SPEAK BRIEFLY TO THIS RIGHT NOW.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

THERE ARE SOME FACILITIES WHERE WE ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE A DEMAND FROM PROFIT GROUPS LIKE SAMBAA K'E YOU MENTIONED BEHIND US.

WITH OUR GYMS, SORRY, WITH THE SCHOOL GYMS THE CITY AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS HAVE ENTERED INTO A JOINT USE AGREEMENT.

AND THE JOINT USE AGREEMENT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR PROFIT GROUPS WITHIN THE GYMNASIUMS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WELEDEH.

THERE ARE, MAYBE THEY'RE JUST A LITTLE BIT HIDDEN.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE FIVE OF THE BYLAW OR PAGE, WHICH IS PAGE EIGHT OF THE PACKAGE, THERE ARE THE NON ICE COMMERCIAL RATES EMBEDDED IN THERE.

SAME AS THE MULTIPLEX, ALL IN ON PAGE SIX OF THE BYLAW OR PAGE NINE OF THE PACKAGE.

IT'S IN THERE AS WELL.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

YEAH. LOOKING AT IT AGAIN NOW, I STILL CAN'T SEE A DISTINCTION.

THIS IS PROBABLY SOMETHING FOR THAT PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION.

IF WE WANTED TO MAKE MORE CATEGORIES FOR SOME PLACES TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN NOT FOR PROFIT AND PROFIT, HOW WOULD MAKING THOSE CHANGES LATER AFTER THE PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION IMPACT THE BUDGET OR WOULD THOSE CHANGES BE SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE FOR 2024? MS. BASSI-KELLETT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

SO ANY CHANGES OR ANY DISCUSSION THAT COMES ABOUT AS WE UNPACK THE PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF WHY IT IS THAT WE'VE STRUCTURED FEES AND CHARGES BYLAW AND THE WAY IT HAS WOULD COME FORWARD THEN AS PART OF THE CHANGES THAT WOULD HAPPEN FOR THE 2024 FISCAL YEAR, AS COUNCILMEMBERS CAN SEE, WE TYPICALLY OPEN IT UP TWICE A YEAR.

IT'S AT BUDGET TIME, OF COURSE, IN DECEMBER.

AND THEN BECAUSE OF THE THE CHANGES BASED ON THE RECREATION CALENDAR, WHICH IS SEPTEMBER TO MAY, WE COME FORWARD TYPICALLY IN THE SPRING SEEKING THOSE CHANGES. AND WE DO SO IN THE SPRING BECAUSE THEN, OF COURSE, WE'RE ABLE TO PUT TOGETHER OUR RECREATION CALENDAR, WHICH WE HAVE TO DEVELOP NOW AND HAVE READY TO GO BY THE SUMMER SO PEOPLE CAN PLAN THEIR FALL.

THANK YOU. OKAY? YEAH. THANKS. IT MAKES SENSE.

JUST ONE MORE QUESTION.

IF A FAMILY GETS A FAMILY PASS, SAY, FOR THE FIELD HOUSE.

SO $18 OR $18.25, WHATEVER THE INCREASE WILL BE, DO THEY GET ACCESS TO OTHER FACILITIES LIKE THE POOL FOR THAT DAY, OR IS THAT FAMILY PASS JUST GOOD FOR THE ONE FACILITY THEY PURCHASED IT AT? MS. BASSI-KELLETT THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I'LL ASK MR. WHITE IF HE CAN RESPOND.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

CURRENTLY WITH OUR FACILITY BOOKING AND PROGRAM REGISTRATION SYSTEM, WE ARE LIMITED TO BASICALLY ONE FACILITY.

AND THEN THE FAMILY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO ANOTHER FACILITY AND PAY AGAIN.

WE ARE LOOKING TO OVERCOME THIS WITH OUR TRANSITION TO OUR NEW ONE, WHICH IS ANTICIPATED BY THE END OF THIS YEAR OR EARLY NEXT.

THANKS. AWESOME.

THANKS FOR THE ANSWER. YEAH, I THINK THAT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE COULD HAVE SORT OF THE FAMILY PASS BE A DAY PASS AS WELL TO ALL THE FACILITIES.

AND IT'S GREAT TO HEAR THAT'S IN THE WORKS.

YEAH. LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THESE NUMBERS ARE NEEDED AND WE APPROVE THEM IN THE BUDGET.

SO I UNDERSTAND.

YEAH. I THINK THE DELAY UNTIL ADDRESSING THE PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES ANOTHER ALMOST TWO YEARS FROM NOW IS SORT OF A LONG TIME.

BUT YEAH, LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT DISCUSSION AND I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO MAKE THESE CHANGES.

COUNCILLOR COCHRANE.

THANK YOU, MADAM DEPUTY MAYOR.

AND I DO LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING A MORE IN DEPTH DISCUSSION HERE IN THE FUTURE OF THESE OF THE USES OR THE USER FEES.

BUT WHILE THE QUESTION IS ON MY MIND, I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY THE EXCEPTION IN THE JOINT USE AGREEMENT IS PROVIDED TO WELEDEH FOR PROFIT USE IF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICE WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND. MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. WHITE. THANK YOU.

THE WELEDEH SAINT PAT'S IS ACTUALLY UNDER A CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT.

IT IS NOT UNDER THE JOINT USE AGREEMENT.

SORRY, I DON'T RECALL THE YEARS, BUT SEVERAL YEARS AGO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT APPROACHED THE CITY REQUESTING A PARTNERSHIP WHEN WORK WAS BEING DONE TO REPLACE THE ORIGINAL SAINT PAT'S. THE CITY KICKED IN.

I'M GUESSING IT WAS RIGHT AROUND A HALF $1 MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE EXPANSION OF THAT FACILITY, THE GYM.

[00:10:03]

I COULD FIND OUT IF YOU NEED TO.

I JUST I DON'T WANT TO SAY RIGHT NOW, BUT IT WAS QUITE A BIT HIGHER.

AND FOR THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS, IT WAS A CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WAS DEVELOPED BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT SET OUT DIFFERENT PARAMETERS THAT ARE BENEFICIAL TO BOTH PARTIES AND ALLOWS THE CITY TO USE THAT FACILITY FOR PURPOSES THAT REALLY GO BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE JOINT USE AGREEMENT.

THANKS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THAT'S ALL FOR ME AT THIS TIME.

ANYTHING ELSE? COUNCILLOR FEQUET. THANKS, MADAM CHAIR.

SO JUST TO FOLLOW UP TO STAFF, I HEARD THE VERY VALID REASON WHY TO GET THESE DONE SOONER OR RELATED TO THE REC GUIDE.

WHEN DOES THE REC GUIDE HAVE TO BE FINALIZED? MS. BASSI-KELLETT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I WILL SEE IF MR. WHITE CAN PROVIDE SOME INSIGHT.

THANK YOU. SORRY, I DON'T HAVE THAT THOSE SPECIFIC TIMELINES.

BUT IT WOULD ADD THAT ALLOWING US OR IF WE APPROVE THESE SOONER THAN LATER, IT ALLOWS US TO ADVISE THE USER GROUPS THAT ARE JUST WRAPPING UP THEIR SEASONS TO PREPARE FOR NEXT YEAR SO THEY'LL KNOW WHAT HOW TO SET THEIR USER FEES.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.

THANKS. THE RATIONALE FOR MY QUESTION IS JUST, YOU KNOW, IDEALLY SOONER THAN LATER IS ALWAYS BETTER.

MORE NOTICE. I JUST DON'T WANT TO BE EVEN TALKING ABOUT DOING THEM TWICE.

SO IF THE REC GUIDE WOULDN'T HAVE GOT FINALIZED UNTIL AFTER THAT PHILOSOPHICAL CONCESSION, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S NOT.

SO THANKS FOR THAT EXPLANATION.

THANKS. ANYTHING FURTHER FROM COUNCIL.

SEEING NONE.

I LOOK FORWARD TO THE PRESENTATION IN EARLY JUNE.

AS IT IS, IT GIVES US GOOD TIME TO REALLY DIVE INTO IT, ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE NEW COUNCILLORS AND WE CAN REALLY GET INTO DEPTH IN THIS ONE.

SO THIS WILL BE BROUGHT FORWARD TO COUNCIL.

SORRY, LET ME JUST SCROLL UP HERE.

SO MOVING FORWARD, DISCUSSION ON REGARDING THE ACCESS FOR ALL POLICY CRITERIA.

[5. A discussion regarding the Access for All policy criteria.]

SO THIS CAME FORWARD TO GPC AND THEN WENT TO COUNCIL.

THERE WERE SOME DISCUSSION POINTS THAT WERE RAISED BY A COUPLE OF COUNCILMEMBERS WHO WERE REALLY CURIOUS ABOUT SOME OF THE USE OF THE NORTHERN MARKET BASKET MEASURE THAT'S USED.

THERE WERE ALSO SOME QUESTIONS ON TIME FRAME AND QUESTIONS AS WELL ON THE ENGAGEMENT THAT WE'VE HAD ON THE POLICY ITSELF.

SO MAYBE I'LL START OFF AND JUST GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION ON THE TIME FRAME.

RIGHT NOW, WE ASK PEOPLE TO COME FORWARD UNDER THE ACCESS FOR ALL PROGRAM THAT'S BEEN IN OPERATION SINCE 2014.

CLIENTS ARE ASKED TO COME FORWARD ANNUALLY AND IN THE POLICY ADMINISTRATION HAD RECOMMENDED COMING FORWARD EVERY SECOND YEAR, EVERY TWO YEARS.

COUNCILMEMBERS HAD THOUGHT, COULD THAT BE EXTENDED TO THREE YEARS? ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO RECOMMEND TWO YEARS AS A WORKABLE COMPROMISE BETWEEN ENSURING THAT THERE'S VERY EASY ACCESS FOR CLIENTS AND EASE OF ADMINISTRATION FOR CITY OF COURSE, ALSO WITH ELIGIBILITY OF CLIENTS GIVEN CHANGES TO FINANCIAL STATUS.

WE HAVE SEEN THAT HAPPEN WHERE PEOPLE HAVE COME FORWARD TO SAY, HEY, I'D LIKE TO APPLY AGAIN THIS YEAR, BUT THEIR INCOME IS DIFFERENT.

IT'S WE'VE HAD CASES WHERE THEIR INCOME IS HIGHER AND THEY NO LONGER QUALIFY.

SO TWO YEARS IS SEEN AS A REALLY GOOD COMPROMISE BETWEEN MEETING THE INTERESTS OF OUR CLIENTS AND MAKING A STREAMLINED, A MORE STREAMLINED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS . IN TERMS OF ELIGIBILITY A CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE, THE POLICY ITSELF REFERENCES TWO FACTORS.

IT REFERENCES EITHER THE NWT MARKET BASED MEASURE, WHICH IS A THRESHOLD FOR INCOME THAT WAS DEVELOPED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BY STATSCAN, AND IT'S ALSO USED BY GNWT.

THE SECOND CRITERIA FOR ELIGIBILITY THAT WE ASK FOR AND THAT'S OUTLINED IN THE POLICY IS PROOF OF BEING ON INCOME ASSISTANCE THROUGH THE GNWT.

SO THE NWT MARKET BASED MEASURE IS DEFINED IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S POVERTY REDUCTION ACT.

IT'S NOW CANADA'S OFFICIAL POVERTY LINE.

AND SO THE NORTHERN MARKET BASKET MEASURE IS AN ADAPTATION OF THE MARKET BASKET MEASURE THAT'S USED IN SOUTHERN CANADA THAT IS INTENDED TO REFLECT THE CONTEXT IN THE TWO TERRITORIES, YUKON AND NWT.

IT'S NOT USED IN NUNAVUT AND I DON'T KNOW WHY, BUT AT THIS POINT WE DO KNOW IT'S USED IN THE YUKON AND NWT.

[00:15:02]

AND IT REALLY IS INTENDED TO CAPTURE WHAT IS A REASONABLE COST OF LIVING IN THE TERRITORIES.

GIVEN THAT WE DO HAVE A HIGHER COST OF LIVING TYPICALLY THAN MOST PROVINCES.

SO WE USE THAT MEASURE BECAUSE IT IS A VERY CLEAR STANDARD THAT'S LAID OUT IN THE POVERTY REDUCTION ACT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA.

WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR APPLICANTS IN THE YEAR 2022, I'LL JUST GIVE SOME STATS ON WHAT OUR APPLICANTS THE NUMBERS LOOK LIKE.

SO IN 2022, WE HAD 540 APPLICATIONS FOR ACCESS FOR ALL, AND OF THOSE 533 WERE ELIGIBLE, SEVEN OF THEM WERE NOT. SO OUT OF THAT 533, 137 APPLICANTS DID NOT NEED TO PROVIDE ANY KIND OF INCOME DOCUMENTATION.

THEIR CLIENTS WERE EITHER HOMELESS IN SHELTERS OR THEY ARE FOSTER CHILDREN.

SO THAT LEAVES US 396 CLIENTS WHO NEEDED TO PROVIDE SOME SORT OF INCOME DOCUMENTATION.

AND OF THAT, 85% OF THEM, 340 OUT OF THE 396 PROVIDED GNWT INCOME ASSISTANCE SORRY, INCOME SUPPORT FINANCIAL CASE REPORTS TO SHOW THEY'RE ON INCOME ASSISTANCE AND 15% 56 PROVIDED THEIR NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT USING THE NORTHERN MARKET BASKET MEASURE.

SO WE ARE USING AT THE PREDOMINANT NUMBER OF OUR CLIENTS THAT COME FORWARD ARE COMING FORWARD WITH DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THAT THEY'RE ON INCOME ASSISTANCE FROM THE GNWT.

WE REALLY APPRECIATE USING A STANDARDIZED APPROACH AND A RECOGNIZED TOOLS TO ASSESS ELIGIBILITY.

SO EITHER ONE OF THOSE TWO ARE VERY CLEAR, THEY'RE VERY CONSISTENT.

THE STANDARDS ARE USED BY BOTH ORDERS OF GOVERNMENT, THE GNWT AND THE FEDERAL, AND THEY ARE VERY CLEAR IN THEIR APPLICATION.

SO THE THIRD QUESTION THAT COME UP WAS AROUND FEEDBACK ON THE POLICY.

AND SO FAR TO DATE, WE HAVE SEEN FEEDBACK FROM THREE CLIENTS, THREE PEOPLE, I SHOULD SAY.

TWO CAME IN VIA EMAIL AND ONE CAME IN THROUGH FACEBOOK.

THE CITY'S FACEBOOK PAGE.

SO THE COMMENTS WERE, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT THE WALKING TRACK IS INCLUDED.

AND YES, IT IS THROUGH THE RECREATION ACCESS FOR ALL.

THERE IS A SUGGESTION THAT PERHAPS CODE NAMES, CODES OR NAMES OF CLIENTS SHOULD BE USED SO THAT IF A CLIENT LOSES THEIR PASS, THEY CAN STILL GET INTO THE REC FACILITY OR ONTO PUBLIC TRANSIT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT CLEAR ACCESS.

AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT BECAUSE WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE PRIVACY CONCERNS ARE UPHELD AND WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE SOMEBODY'S NAME ASSOCIATED WITH, OH, THEY'RE ON THIS SPECIAL PROGRAM. WE LIKE EVERYONE TO BE TREATED EQUALLY.

THE THIRD ONE WAS TO ENSURE WIDE ADVERTISEMENT OF OUR PROGRAM THAT WE SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT ALL RESIDENTS OF YELLOWKNIFE ARE AWARE OF IT AND PEOPLE KNOW THAT THEY CAN ACCESS THIS EASILY BY COMING TO CITY HALL.

SO ALL GREAT COMMENTS, ALL THINGS THAT WE'RE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT.

SO WE'RE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS IF THEY COME UP AS COUNCIL DISCUSSES SOME OF THESE OPTIONS GOING FORWARD FOR THE ACCESS FOR ALL POLICY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

OPENING THIS UP TO COUNCIL.

COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR, AND THANKS FOR THE INFO AND THE POINTS THERE FROM ADMINISTRATION.

SO BROUGHT THIS BACK TO GPC.

JUST TO QUOTE FROM OUR WEBSITE THE ACCESS FOR ALL PROGRAM.

IT SAYS THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE ENVISIONS THAT EVERY CITIZEN LIVING IN YELLOWKNIFE SHOULD HAVE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO ENJOY THE USE OF OUR MANY FACILITIES IN YELLOWKNIFE, REGARDLESS OF THEIR FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS.

SO IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL, I BELIEVE WE NEED TO CHANGE THE CRITERIA AND RAISE THE INCOME CUTOFF, PARTICULARLY THE NORTHERN MARKET BASED MEASURE. I BELIEVE THIS BECAUSE CURRENTLY THERE'S A COUPLE OF ISSUES WITH THIS MEASURE.

ONE, THAT IT LAGS REAL TIME BY TWO YEARS.

SO IT HAS NOT CAPTURED THE INFLATION WE SAW IN 2021 OR 2022.

AND THIS MEANS THAT CURRENTLY A FOUR PERSON HOUSEHOLD, THE INCOME CUT OFF IS $60,886.

AND THAT FAMILY WITH INFLATION TODAY WOULD BE PAYING 71% OF THEIR HOUSEHOLD INCOME JUST FOR FOOD AND SHELTER.

I THINK THIS IS FAR TOO HIGH.

AND IF WE'RE SEEKING, AS THE POLICY SAYS, FOR EVERYONE TO HAVE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY REGARDLESS OF THEIR FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS, I THINK WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS CUTOFF.

SO WHAT I'VE DONE IS INCLUDE A SENT TO COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATION, A SPREADSHEET WITH A FEW DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT I THINK WE COULD USE FOR AN INCOME CUTOFF. SO I'LL JUST GO THROUGH THEM REAL QUICK.

SO ONE IS THE LOW INCOME MEASURE.

THIS IS COMMONLY USED WORLDWIDE.

IT'S DEFINED AS 50% OF THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME.

THIS IS ONE THAT'S USED WORLDWIDE TO COMPARE POVERTY LEVELS BETWEEN COUNTRIES.

IT'S DEFINED BY STATISTICS CANADA, AND THERE IS SPECIFIC DATA FROM STATISTICS CANADA CREATED AT EACH CENSUS THAT GIVES A MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

[00:20:10]

AND USING THIS DATA JUST TIMES THAT TO MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY 50% AND WE COULD GET A CUT OFF VERY EASILY.

IT WOULD BE VERY LITTLE WORK FOR STAFF.

IT WOULD BE USING A DEFINED METRIC THAT IS USED TO ESTABLISH POVERTY.

AND IF WE USE THAT, THE INCOME CUTOFF FOR A FOUR PERSON HOUSEHOLD WOULD BE $86,000.

9% OF FOUR PERSON HOUSEHOLDS IN YELLOWKNIFE WOULD QUALIFY FOR ACCESS FOR ALL USING THIS CUTOFF, AND THAT HOUSEHOLD WOULD BE SPENDING 50% OF THEIR HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR FOOD AND SHELTER.

SO THIS IS A PRO FOR ME.

I THINK IT'S A HIGH INCOME CUT OFF.

THAT'S A PRO FOR ME.

I CAN SEE HOW OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT SEE THAT AS A CON, BUT FOR ME THAT'S A PRO WE WOULD JUST NEED TO UPDATE THIS EVERY FIVE YEARS WITH EACH CENSUS.

BUT IT'S A PRETTY SIMPLE CALCULATION.

A COUPLE OTHER OPTIONS I'VE INCLUDED.

YOU COULD BUILD A CUTOFF BASED OFF HOUSING AFFORDABILITY.

SO BASICALLY MAKE A CUTOFF AT HOUSEHOLDS THAT ARE SPENDING 37.5% OF THEIR HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR SHELTER.

THAT'S SORT OF AN ARBITRARY NUMBER, BUT THEY'RE CLEARLY FACING HOUSING AFFORDABILITY ISSUES.

AND IF WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE A BALANCE BETWEEN FAMILIES THAT CAN PAY AND THOSE THAT CAN'T, THERE NEEDS TO BE A CUT OFF SOMEWHERE.

SO IN THIS CASE, THE CUTOFF FOR THE FOUR PERSON HOUSEHOLD WOULD BE $77,513.

AGAIN, THIS IS A BIT ARBITRARY.

IT'S MORE WORK FOR STAFF.

IT'S NOT REALLY A STRAIGHTFORWARD CALCULATION AND IT'S NOT AN ESTABLISHED METRIC FOR POVERTY.

SO I CAN UNDERSTAND CHALLENGES USING THIS ONE WITH THIS CUT OFF FAMILY AT THE LIMIT WOULD BE PAYING 56% OF THEIR HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR FOOD AND SHELTER.

AND ANOTHER OPTION I SORT OF WORKED THROUGH WOULD BE USING THE NORTHERN BASED OR THE NORTHERN MARKET BASED MEASURE AND JUST ADDING THE INFLATION FOR THE TWO YEARS THAT IT LAGS.

IN THIS CASE, THE CUT OFF FOR THE FOUR PERSON HOUSEHOLD WOULD JUMP TO $68,000 FROM JUST UNDER 61 AND MEAN THAT 3% OF THOSE FOUR PERSON HOUSEHOLDS WOULD QUALIFY INSTEAD OF OR SORRY, 5% OF FOUR PERSON HOUSEHOLDS WOULD QUALIFY INSTEAD OF 3%.

AND THAT FOUR PERSON HOUSEHOLD WOULD THEN BE PAYING 64% OF THEIR INCOME FOR FOOD AND SHELTER.

THIS ONE IS USING THE THE SAME METRIC WE'RE USING JUST ADDING THE INFLATION THAT IT MISSES IN THE TWO YEARS IT LAGS.

SO A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA WORK FOR STAFF, BUT NOT A CRAZY AMOUNT.

SO IN MY VIEW I WOULD, I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS THAT PEOPLE CAN PROVIDE INCOME ASSISTANCE, PAPERWORK OR A NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT.

I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF SIMPLY CHANGING THE CUTOFF FROM THE NORTHERN MARKET BASED MEASURE TO THE LOW INCOME MEASURE.

I BELIEVE THIS WOULD CAPTURE MANY MORE HOUSEHOLDS THAT ARE CONSTRAINED BY THEIR PERSONAL FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS AND HELP ACHIEVE THE GOALS OF THE PROGRAM.

I UNDERSTAND IF OTHER COUNCILLORS WOULD LIKE TO HEAR SOME ANALYSIS FROM ADMIN ON THESE, ON COMING UP WITH A HIGHER THRESHOLD OR ANALYZING THE ONES I'VE PUT FORWARD.

YEAH. EXCITED TO HEAR WHAT EVERYONE ELSE THINKS.

YEAH. SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO EVERYONE ELSE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COUNCILLOR HENDRIKSEN.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND THANKS FOR COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD AND FOR DOING SO MUCH OF THE BACK WORK AND LEGWORK.

I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.

I GUESS A COUPLE ONE COMMENT AND THEN A QUESTION.

MAYBE FOR COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN AND THEN FOR ADMINISTRATION.

SO OVERALL, I'M DEFINITELY IN AGREEMENT WITH COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN THE SENSE OF IT IS AN ACCESS FOR ALL POLICY.

SO YOU LOOK AT OTHER POLICIES IN OTHER CITIES, IT IS ABOUT PROVIDING ACCESS FOR LOW INCOME RESIDENTS OR FOR PEOPLE IN POVERTY.

BUT THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS POLICY IS ACCESS FOR ALL.

IF PREVIOUS COUNCIL WHO APPROVED THE POLICY MEANT IT FOR BE JUST FOR LOW INCOME OR POVERTY, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN NAMED AS SUCH AND BEEN MORE WORDED AS SUCH.

SO I DO TAKE TO HEART THE IDEA THAT THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL MUST HAVE MEANT ACCESS FOR ALL.

SO THAT'S THE BASIS OF MY THINKING AND COMMENTS HERE.

WHICH BRINGS ME TO MY INCLINATION TOWARDS COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN IS RECOMMENDING AROUND THE LOW INCOME MEASURE, BUT ONE OF THE CRITIQUES THAT WAS BROUGHT UP LAST WEEK WAS THAT THE NORTHERN BASKET IS ONLY UPDATED EVERY TWO YEARS.

BUT IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN CORRECT IS THAT IT WOULD BE A FIVE YEAR LAG SO CAN LIKE IF I'M WRAPPING MY HEAD AROUND, OKAY, I'M ON BOARD FOR THE IDEA OF ACCESS FOR ALL, WHICH TO ME YOUR PROPOSAL GETS CLOSER TO.

BUT NOW THIS POTENTIALLY LAGS FURTHER.

[00:25:03]

BUT YOU KNOW, DO WE END UP IN A SITUATION PARDON ME, WHERE BECAUSE OF THAT LAG WE ACTUALLY MORE PEOPLE ARE EXCLUDED AND BY THE END OF THAT FIVE YEAR PERIOD.

SO THAT'S FIRST QUESTION FOR YOURSELF AND THEN FOR ADMINISTRATION, I GUESS I WOULD LOVE YOUR COMMENTS AFTERWARDS.

IN TERMS OF TO ME, THE 37% OPTION AROUND HOUSING JUST ISN'T FEASIBLE.

THAT'S ADMINISTRATIVELY WOULD JUST MY GUTS SAY THAT THAT'S JUST NOT FEASIBLE.

SO BUT FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, HAVE YOU DONE ANY THINKING AROUND THIS PROPOSAL THAT COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN HAS PUT FORWARD YET ALREADY AND AROUND IF THERE WOULD BE DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEXITIES FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE? BECAUSE ANY CHANGE, WHILE I WOULD LOVE TO SEE MORE PEOPLE BE ABLE TO ACCESS NEEDS TO NOT CAUSE ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE CHALLENGES FOR FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE AND ADDING UNNECESSARY COSTS.

SO ENOUGH RAMBLING.

THAT'S THE QUESTION FOR COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN.

AND MADAM CHAIR AFTER THAT, HOPEFULLY THE QUESTION FOR ADMINISTRATION.

THANKS. THANK YOU.

WE'LL GET COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN TO ANSWER AND THEN WE WILL GET ADMINISTRATION.

YEAH, FOR SURE. THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION AND SOMETHING I DEFINITELY THOUGHT ABOUT.

WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THAT IN 2015, THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR A FOUR PERSON HOUSEHOLD IN YELLOWKNIFE WAS $174,000, AND IN 2020, THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR THAT SAME FOUR PERSON HOUSEHOLD WAS $172,000.

AND THAT HOLDS FOR THE OTHER SIZES OF HOUSEHOLDS.

IT'S VERY STABLE IF NOT WENT DOWN.

WE'LL SEE WITH THE INFLATION WE'VE SEEN CURRENTLY WHAT IT WILL BE IN 2025.

BUT I DON'T THINK THAT LAG IS AN ISSUE, ONE, BECAUSE THAT MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME HAS BEEN STABLE, RELATIVELY STABLE BETWEEN CENSUSES AND TWO, BECAUSE THE CUTOFF IS HIGHER. EVEN IF THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME WENT UP BY SOME AMOUNT, $8,000 OR SOMETHING, THAT THERE'S ENOUGH OF A BUFFER THERE THAT WE'RE CAPTURING THOSE PEOPLE THAT NEED THE PROGRAM.

ALL RIGHT AND HAND IT OFF TO MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO CERTAINLY WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE PROGRAM BEING A COUPLE OF THINGS.

WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ACCESS FOR ALL POLICY IS IT BECOMES A POLICY IS TRANSPARENT TO USERS SO THAT THEY KNOW AND IT'S VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD WHAT IT IS THAT THEY'RE BEING ASKED TO PRODUCE.

PART OF THE IMPETUS BEHIND DEVELOPING THIS INTO A POLICY, APART FROM IT BEING A PUBLIC COMMITMENT BY COUNCIL TO SUPPORT PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY WHO MAY BE CHALLENGED TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS REC FACILITIES AND PUBLIC TRANSIT WAS THAT WE WANTED TO HAVE STANDARDIZED APPROACHES TO HOW THE INFORMATION IS THAT WE'RE ASKING CLIENTS TO PRESENT. SO VERY CLEARLY GOING WITH THE TO THE NORTHERN MARKET BASKET MEASURE AND GOING WITH THE PROOF OF INCOME SUPPORT WERE TWO VERY CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT THINGS.

SO OUR GOAL REMAINS THAT WE THINK THIS IS A REALLY INTERESTING POINT THAT'S BEING BROUGHT UP.

THIS IS REALLY TO DO WITH THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND FEES AND CHARGES AND IF THERE IS AN INTEREST TO BE ABLE TO WELCOME PEOPLE WHO ARE OF A LOWER INCOME, WHATEVER THAT STATURE MIGHT BE DEFINED AS BEING INTO CITY FACILITIES FOR FREE, THAT'S A GREAT DISCUSSION TO COME UP AT FEES AND CHARGES, DISCUSSION.

CLEARLY IT'S SOMETHING THAT, OF COURSE, PHILOSOPHICALLY, BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT FEES AND CHARGES ARE ONE OF THREE REVENUE STREAMS FOR THE CITY.

IT'S OUR FEES, PROPERTY TAXES, GRANTS FROM OTHER ORDERS OF GOVERNMENT.

SO SOMEWHERE IN THERE, AS WE WORK OUT, IF ONE OF THOSE AREAS IS LESS, THERE NEEDS TO BE A SHIFTING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE OVERALL REVENUE MEETS THE THE NEEDS OF THE CITY. SO I THINK THAT DISCUSSION IN THAT CONTEXT WOULD BE A REALLY IMPORTANT ONE TO HAVE.

SO FOR US, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THERE ARE CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT TOOLS THAT IS EASE OF ADMINISTRATION, SO THAT IF YOU'RE A CLIENT, YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS YOU NEED TO PRODUCE.

AND FOR THE CITY THAT WE'RE NOT CONSTANTLY ADJUSTING OR LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, HOW SOON WE ADJUST THINGS FOR RATE OF INFLATION THAT ISN'T NECESSARILY TRANSPARENT.

AND THAT WOULD CERTAINLY ADD A BURDEN TO ADMINISTRATION.

AND WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S THAT VOLATILE FOR OUR USERS.

SO A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS ON THAT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

COUNCILLOR PAYNE. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

JUST A QUESTION. IF WE WERE TO CHANGE THIS POLICY FROM THE CURRENT IN ITS CURRENT FORM, I'M ASSUMING THAT THIS WOULD COST THE CORPORATION MONEY. I'M ASSUMING.

AM I RIGHT? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IF THERE WAS AN INTEREST BY COUNCIL TO EXPAND ELIGIBILITY TO INCREASE WHAT THE INCOME THRESHOLD IS, THEN YES, IT WOULD.

[00:30:01]

AND I MEAN, WE HAVE BUDGETS SET IN PLACE.

WE HAVE A SET AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE HAVE TO RAISE EVERY YEAR.

SO AM I IS IT RIGHT TO ASSUME THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO INCREASE TAXES? YEAH. POTENTIAL TAX INCREASE TO COVER THIS SHORTFALL IN REVENUE.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

TYPICALLY, IF WE TAKE AWAY FROM ONE AREA, WE NEED TO BEEF IT UP IN ANOTHER OR REDUCE EXPENDITURES OVERALL.

SO THAT'S DEFINITELY PART OF THE EQUATION ON THIS.

IF I CAN JUST ADD, AND I KNOW THAT THE PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNING I THINK IS THE REALLY IMPORTANT PART OF REALLY SEEKING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS COUNCIL WANTS TO ACHIEVE.

AND IF IT IS BROADENING THE NET FOR WHERE THERE ARE PERCEIVED NEEDS, THEN THAT IS SOMETHING THAT AGAIN, I WOULD REALLY RECOMMEND AS PART OF THE DISCUSSION AROUND FEES AND CHARGES. I RECALL ANECDOTALLY SOME DISCUSSIONS THAT WENT ON BY PREVIOUS COUNCILS WITH IDEAS BEING PITCHED ABOUT, HEY, EVERY KIDS UNDER 16 SHOULD BE FREE FOR ALL REC FACILITIES.

AND THERE WAS A LONG DISCUSSION AROUND THAT, TRYING TO SEEK OF WHAT THE POINT WAS ON THAT.

AND THERE WAS A REAL CONCLUSION THAT THERE ARE MANY KIDS WHOSE FAMILIES CAN AFFORD ARE MORE AFFLUENT THAN OTHERS, LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY. AND SO THAT WASN'T NECESSARILY SEEN AS BEING AN IMPORTANT PIECE.

BEING ACCESSIBLE TO KIDS IS VERY IMPORTANT.

BUT RECOGNIZING THAT AT THE BOTTOM LINE IT IS WHO CAN AFFORD WHAT.

AND SO IF IT IS A DISCUSSION THAT THIS COUNCIL WANTS TO HAVE AROUND HOW WE DEFINE WHAT THOSE THRESHOLDS ARE FOR ENTRY, THAT'S DEFINITELY AN IMPORTANT ONE.

THAT COULD BE PART OF A BROADER DISCUSSION ON ACCESS TO ALL CITY FACILITIES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

I MEAN. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH MORE PEOPLE HAVING ACCESS TO OUR CITY FACILITIES.

I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT AT ALL.

YOU KNOW. BUT I DO THINK THAT WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE DOLLARS AND CENTS OF IT AS WELL.

WE CAN'T BE EVERYBODY, EVERYTHING TO EVERYBODY.

I WISH WE COULD, BUT WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE FUNDING TO BE ABLE TO DO EVERYTHING THAT'S REQUIRED TO LIVE IN A PERFECT WORLD UP HERE . WE'VE HAD THREE PEOPLE PUT NOT REALLY COMPLAINTS BUT CONCERNS IN ABOUT THE PROGRAM AS IT SITS.

WE'VE HAD 540 APPLICANTS AND WE HAD 533 ELIGIBLE.

WE I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SEVEN PEOPLE, SEVEN FAMILIES HERE THAT DIDN'T THAT WEREN'T ELIGIBLE IN THIS MODEL OF OUR POLICY.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE LOOKING AT.

BUT IF ADMINISTRATION IS HAPPY WITH THE WAY THAT THINGS HAVE GONE AND WE'RE LOOKING AT IMPLEMENTING THIS FOR A TWO YEAR PERIOD OVER A ONE YEAR PERIOD RIGHT NOW, I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT WHAT ADMINISTRATION IS BRINGING FORWARD.

I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE BRINGING FORWARD, TOM AND I RESPECT IT, BUT MAYBE IT'S DEFINITELY WORTH A MORE IN DEPTH CONVERSATION AT SOME POINT ANYWAY, FOR SURE.

BUT I THANK YOU FOR THE WORK THAT YOU PUT INTO IT AND IT SEEMS LIKE YOU DID PUT A LOT OF WORK INTO IT.

I WISH YOU WERE AROUND WHEN I WAS IN COLLEGE, YOU'D BE DOING SOME OF MY STUFF FOR SURE.

THANKS. THANK YOU.

WE'LL HAVE COUNCILLOR FEQUET AND THEN WE WILL DO ROUND TWO WITH COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN.

THANKS, MADAM CHAIR.

APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DOLLARS AND CENTS BECAUSE, YEAH, THAT'S ONE OF OUR ONE OF OUR BIG JOBS UP HERE.

I GUESS I JUST WANTED SOME CLARIFICATION FROM ADMINISTRATION TO COUNCILLOR PAYNE'S QUESTION.

BROADENING THE THRESHOLD, OF COURSE, MEANS THERE'S THE POTENTIAL TO ALLOW OTHER FAMILIES TO ACCESS THIS.

WE DON'T KNOW THAT THOSE FAMILIES ARE CURRENTLY PAYING RIGHT NOW.

SO HOW CAN WE SAY THAT THERE WILL BE A LOSS OF REVENUE OR AN INCREASE IN EXPENSE? I'M JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THAT POINT.

I GUESS THAT'S FOR ADMIN.

YEAH. MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I THINK ANY TIME YOU RAISE WHAT A FEE STRUCTURE IS, THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR IT.

THEREFORE, THE LOGIC GOES THAT YOU ARE GOING TO SEE MORE PEOPLE THAT FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY AND ARE ABLE TO ACCESS THE PROGRAM FOR NO COST.

SO THAT'S THE RATIONALE.

THANK YOU. THANKS FOR THAT.

YEAH. SO, I MEAN, TO ME, I GUESS IT'S GOOD THAT WE LOOK AT OUR POLICIES REGULARLY BECAUSE CERTAINLY IF THERE IS A MASSIVE INCREASE, IF WE WERE TO INCREASE THE THRESHOLD OF APPLICANTS, IF THAT 540 APPLICATIONS WENT UP, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING I THINK COUNCIL SHOULD BE CONSIDERING AT THAT POINT, UNDERSTANDING THAT ONLY SEVEN FAMILIES

[00:35:09]

SO THOSE ARE THE APPLICATIONS WE'RE GETTING.

IF THE THRESHOLD MOVES, THERE MAY BE MORE FAMILIES THAT ARE JUST ABOVE THAT, THAT ARE NOT APPLYING.

AGAIN, THIS IS LIKE A FACT OR A PIECE OF INFORMATION WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

SO BY EXPANDING THIS, I THINK IT WOULD BE IF THAT WAS A CHOICE THAT COUNCIL DECIDED TO TAKE IN THE FUTURE, WHAT WOULD BE REALLY IMPORTANT IS CHECKING BACK IN RIGHT AWAY IN A YEAR OR SO, BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T WANT THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS TO DOUBLE.

BUT THE TRUTH IS WE DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO RECEIVE MORE APPLICATIONS AND WE DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF FAMILIES JUST BEYOND THE CURRENT CUSP OF ELIGIBILITY.

SIMILARLY, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE DON'T KNOW IF THERE WILL BE NECESSARILY AN INCREASE IN EXPENSES OR A DECREASE IN REVENUE, BUT THOSE ARE THINGS THAT ABSOLUTELY WE SHOULD OR METRICS THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MAKING THE BEST DECISIONS WE CAN.

SO IN GENERAL, I AM ALSO SUPPORTIVE OF THE LOW INCOME THRESHOLD THAT COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN HAS PUT FORWARD.

THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR MCGURK.

YEAH, I THINK I'M GENERALLY IN SUPPORT OF COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN'S SUGGESTIONS AND I JUST GENERALLY SPEAKING, IF THIS IS AN INEQUITY, SERVING POLICY AS COUNCILLOR HENDRIKSEN HAD MENTIONED.

I WONDER IF THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO CONSIDER, ADDRESSING THAT GAP.

IF THE CONCERN IS THAT WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT LOSS IN REVENUE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE REALISTICALLY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE USING RECREATIONAL FACILITIES PROVIDED BY THE CITY, LIKE AN ELEMENT OF THAT IS THERE ARE RELATIVELY AFFORDABLE RATES.

AND SO IT'S IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO INVEST IN A LARGE AMOUNT OF SPORTS EQUIPMENT OR LIKE THOSE OR MAYBE YOU CAN'T BUY VIDEO GAMES FOR YOUR KIDS, LIKE IT'S A WAY TO ENTERTAIN YOUR CHILDREN, YOUR FAMILY, BUT YOU CAN'T OR IF YOU DON'T HAVE A GYM MEMBERSHIP, YOU KNOW, IT'S CHEAPER TO ATTEND THE FIELD HOUSE.

BUT I ALSO SORT OF IF THIS IS EQUITY SERVING AND THAT MEANS THAT EVERYBODY HAS A DIFFERENT SORT OF THRESHOLD OF NEED FOR ASSISTANCE.

AND SO I'M WONDERING IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD CONSIDER, ARE THERE LIKE OTHER ALTERNATIVES? FOR INSTANCE, IF WE'RE ALREADY ASKING PEOPLE TO SUBMIT, SORT OF LIKE A PROOF OF INCOME, SO TO SPEAK, CAN WE ADJUST IT AND CREATE ANOTHER SORT OF TIER, WHICH IS INSTEAD OF FREE, A REDUCED RATE OR A PERCENTAGE OFF OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S AN ABSURD IDEA THAT IT WOULD BE A HUGE ADMINISTRATIVE HEADACHE.

BUT IF WE'RE WILLING TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF TIME TO THREE YEARS THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO SAVE US TIME AS WELL AS KIND OF SERVE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT DON'T HAVE DIRECT ACCESS OR HAVE A RESTRICTED ACCESS TO THESE AREAS.

SO THAT'S THAT COMMENT ON THAT.

[LAUGHTER] AND I GUESS SECONDARILY, JUST BASED ON THE I WANTED TO WE HAVEN'T REALLY GONE OVER THIS.

WE'VE BEEN FOCUSING ON COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN'S POINT, BUT BASED ON THE NUMBERS THAT I'VE HEARD AND THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE REAPPLYING AND SUCCESSFULLY AND THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT WHOSE INCOMES HAVE BEEN CHANGING JUST DATA WISE.

FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM AN ADMINISTRATION IN THIS CHAMBER, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO KEEP IT AT THE TWO.

IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO EXPAND IT TO THE THREE.

I DON'T THINK ENOUGH PEOPLE'S INCOME LEVELS ARE CHANGING OVER THE COURSE OF TWO VERSUS THREE YEARS.

SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL BEFORE WE GO ROUND TWO? COUNCILLOR COCHRANE.

THANK YOU, MADAM DEPUTY MAYOR.

I DEFINITELY SUPPORT THE LOW INCOME MEASURE IN PRINCIPLE.

I DO HAVE SOME QUERIES ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION OVERALL, SO I WOULD SUGGEST HAVING A OPTIONS DISCUSSION PAPER FROM ADMINISTRATION.

SO I HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE IMPLEMENTATION WOULD LOOK LIKE HERE AND ALSO SEEING MAYBE A BREAKDOWN OF WHAT WE WOULD SEE AS THE TAX INCREASE THAT HAS BEEN KIND OF INFERRED HERE BY THE ADMINISTRATION.

BUT THE QUESTION I HAVE NOW IS, DO WE HAVE STATISTICS ON HOW OFTEN SUBSCRIBERS TO THE ACCESS TO ALL PROGRAM GET REMOVED FROM ELIGIBILITY DUE TO THE CHANGES TO THEIR FINANCIAL SITUATION? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I'LL ASK MS. MCKENZIE IF SHE COULD SPEAK TO THIS AS SHE OVERSEES THE PROGRAM.

THANK YOU. I WOULD SAY THERE'S ONLY ABOUT MAYBE THREE A YEAR WHERE THERE AND IT'S USUALLY PEOPLE COMING BACK FROM A MATERNITY LEAVE.

[00:40:03]

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM ME.

THANK YOU.

YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO GO ROUND TWO, SO.

COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YEAH. AND THANKS TO MY COLLEAGUES FOR ALL THE THOUGHTS.

IT'S GREAT TO HEAR EVERYONE'S OPINIONS.

SO A FEW THINGS.

SO FIRST ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE DISCUSSION, I UNDERSTAND ADMINS POINT THAT TO SOME EXTENT THE DISCUSSION IS A PHILOSOPHICAL ONE ABOUT FEES AND CHARGES.

BUT I WOULD DISAGREE THAT THE REASON I'M BRINGING THIS UP IS THE PHILOSOPHY AROUND THE ACCESS FOR ALL PROGRAM ITSELF AND WHERE THE CUT OFF IS NOW.

I DON'T BELIEVE WE ARE ACHIEVING THE GOALS LAID OUT BY THIS SPECIFIC PROGRAM.

SO I'M SEEKING TO CHANGE THE CUT OFF SO THAT WE ARE ACHIEVING THE GOALS AS SPECIFICALLY STATED BY THE ACCESS FOR ALL PROGRAM.

AND SPEAKING TO COUNCILLOR MCGURK'S POINT ABOUT EQUITABLE ACCESS AND MAYBE SOME SORT OF DIFFERENT LAYERS OF CHARGES FOR DIFFERENT INCOME LEVELS, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT DISCUSSION TO HAVE.

TO ME THAT IS A PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION ABOUT FEES AND CHARGES AND NOT NECESSARILY ONE ABOUT THE ACCESS FOR ALL PROGRAM.

YEAH. SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A DISCUSSION I'D DEFINITELY LOVE TO HAVE.

BUT MY MAIN POINT ON THIS IS THAT MY PHILOSOPHICAL BONES ABOUT THE ACCESS FOR ALL PROGRAM ARE SPECIFIC TO THAT PROGRAM AND ACHIEVING ITS GOALS.

AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, I WOULD PROPOSE SIMPLY CHANGING.

SO IN THE POLICY 4.11 A STATES THE APPLICANT'S HOUSEHOLD INCOME IS AT OR BELOW THE APPLICABLE NORTHERN TERRITORIES MARKET BASKET MEASURE THRESHOLD AND PEOPLE SUBMIT A NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT IN ORDER TO SHOW THAT, I WOULD PROPOSE SIMPLY CHANGING TO SAY THE APPLICANT'S HOUSEHOLD INCOME IS AT OR BELOW THE LOW INCOME MEASURE.

SO JUST CHANGING THAT LINE, THEY STILL APPLY USING A NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT.

NOTHING CHANGES FOR APPLICANTS.

IT'S SIMPLY THE BAR THEY NEED TO MEET IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR THE PROGRAM.

AND THAT'S A ONE LINE CHANGE IN THE POLICY.

IT WOULD MEAN ADMINISTRATION MULTIPLYING A NUMBER TIMES 0.5 ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS AND THEN POSTING THAT DATA.

SO I UNDERSTAND THAT IS MORE WORK AND THAT THE UPDATES AREN'T DONE BY THE GNWT.

THEY WOULD NEED TO BE DONE BY STAFF, BUT IT WOULD BE ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS.

AND IT LOOKS LIKE MY SPREADSHEET HAS TAKEN A LOT OF WORK, BUT IT TOOK AN HOUR OR TWO, SO NOT MUCH TIME.

THE DATA IS EASILY ACCESSIBLE ON STATISTICS CANADA AND IT'S EASILY READABLE AND IT'S VERY DETAILED AND VERY SPECIFIC TO YELLOWKNIFE.

SO IT'S YEAH, IT WAS NOT A TON OF WORK AND ALSO VERY MUCH AGREE WITH COUNCILLOR FEQUET'S POINT ABOUT, I WOULD ARGUE THAT FAMILIES PAYING BETWEEN 50 AND 70% OF THEIR INCOME JUST FOR FOOD AND SHELTER AREN'T GOING TO THE FIELD HOUSE EVERY WEEK AND PAYING 18 BUCKS TO RUN AROUND.

I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT LOSS OF REVENUE.

I THINK IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY MINIMAL AND SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ASSESS GOING FORWARD AND MAKE CHANGES AS NEEDED.

BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF VARIANCES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

THERE ARE STAFF VACANCIES RIGHT NOW THAT WE'RE NOT PAYING FOR AND WE'RE NOT RUNNING OUT AND GIVING PEOPLE CHECKS BACK ON THEIR PROPERTY TAXES BECAUSE THERE WAS A VARIANCE.

SO I DON'T SEE A NEED TO RUN OUT AND INCREASE THE TAX RATE BECAUSE A FEW FAMILIES STRUGGLING TO GET BY AREN'T GOING TO PAY 18 BUCKS TO GO TO THE FIELD HOUSE. THIS IS MY INTUITIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION.

THERE IS NO DATA.

AND SO I ALSO AGREE WITH COUNCILLOR FEQUET THAT CHECKING BACK IN UPON MAKING A CHANGE TO THIS PROGRAM WOULD BE ESSENTIAL AND SEEING THE DATA AND SEEING THE CHANGES AND MONITORING THAT AS THESE CHANGES SORT OF SET IN WOULD BE ESSENTIAL FOR SURE.

AND TO THE TWO VERSUS THREE YEAR.

I AGREE WITH THE POINTS MADE THAT I THINK THREE YEAR WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE AND THAT WE DON'T SEE HUGE CHANGES IN FAMILY INCOME OVER THIS SORT OF TIME SPAN.

AND AS MS. MCKENZIE POINTED OUT, THAT WAS VERY USEFUL TO HEAR THAT IT'S MOSTLY PEOPLE COMING BACK FROM MATERNITY LEAVE.

SO I WOULD SUPPORT THE THREE YEAR AS WELL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

[00:45:02]

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

YEAH. OKAY. AS COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN SAID, GREAT DISCUSSION.

IT'S MAKING ME STRUGGLE QUITE A BIT WITH IT.

ONE I WANT TO JUST HIGHLIGHT AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS POLICY FORWARD FROM ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR US AS COUNCIL AND FOR THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO HIGHLIGHT OUR BELIEF AN STANCE ON ACCESS FOR ALL.

AROUND THE 2 TO 3 YEARS, I WOULD BE DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT OF MOVING THAT TO THREE YEARS BASED OFF OF THE INFORMATION WE DO HAVE.

WHILE I WOULD LOVE TO SUPPORT THE LOW INCOME AND MAYBE I WILL BE CONVINCED BY THE END OF THE CONVERSATION, THE LOW INCOME MEASURE, EVEN THOUGH I AGREE WITH YOU COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN MY INTUITIVE GUT INSTINCT IS THAT IT WON'T HAVE A FINANCIAL IMPACT.

I CAN'T MAKE A DECISION ON MY INTUITIVE GUT INSTINCT.

SO FOR THAT, FOR NOW, I WOULD SUPPORT LEAVING IT WITH THE NORTHERN BASKET.

AND HAVING ADMINISTRATION WRAP THIS IN AS PART OF THE BROADER DISCUSSION ABOUT FEES AND CHARGES SO THAT IT'S WRAPPED INTO OUR LONGER TERM BUDGETING THINKING.

I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE LEFT ASIDE.

SO WE WILL BE BRINGING IT UP AT THAT POINT OF THE DISCUSSION.

IF IT DOESN'T MOVE FORWARD TODAY ANYWAY, THAT'S WHERE MY STANCE IS.

MAYBE I'LL BE CONVINCED BY THE END OF THE ROUND TABLE OF ROUND TWO AND ULTIMATELY WHATEVER GOES FORWARD TO COUNCIL AT THE NEXT MEETING, I WILL SUPPORT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO GUM UP THE WORKS HERE.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THAT'S JUST WHERE MY HEAD IS, IS I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF MOVING FROM 2 TO 3.

IN TERMS OF APPLICATION PROCESS, BUT IN TERMS OF THE BUDGET IMPACT AGAIN.

WELL, MY GUT INSTINCT IS WITH YOU, COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN.

I JUST CAN'T GO OFF OF MY GUT.

SO THAT'S ME. THANKS, MADAM CHAIR.

COUNCILLOR FEQUET. YEAH.

THANK YOU. I ECHO COUNCILLOR HENDRIKSEN'S POINTS.

SO I'M REALLY GRATEFUL TO BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION BECAUSE THIS REALLY GETS TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF OUR CITIZENS HERE.

IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION.

TOM GAVE SO MUCH INFORMATION, I COULDN'T TAKE NOTES FAST ENOUGH.

WHAT WAS THE PERCENTAGE OF FAMILY INCOME CURRENTLY FOR A FOUR PERSON HOUSEHOLD VERSUS USING THE LOW INCOME, WHICH I THINK I CAPTURED THAT NUMBER. BUT YEAH.

COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN. SO USING THE CURRENT MEASURE AND WITH THE INFLATION IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, FOUR PERSON HOUSEHOLDS CURRENTLY PAYING ROUGHLY 71% OF THEIR INCOME FOR FOOD AND SHELTER, AND USING THE LOW INCOME MEASURE, IT WOULD BE 50% OF THEIR INCOME FOR FOOD AND SHELTER.

THANK YOU. THAT WAS THE NUMBER THAT I WANTED TO COUNTER MY INTUITION.

SO I APPRECIATE IT.

ANYTHING FURTHER FROM COUNCIL? COUNCILLOR MCGURK. I GUESS I JUST WANTED TO ECHO AGREEMENT THAT THIS WOULD.

YEAH, AN ABSENCE OF DATA.

I DO KIND OF. I AGREE WITH COUNCILLOR HENDRIKSEN.

HENDRICKSEN. BUT I DO THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT THING TO BRING TO THAT FEE.

SIMPLE OR FEES AND CHARGES, CONVERSATION AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF WHY WE ARE CHARGING THAT.

SO I'M HAPPY WITH THREE YEARS AND POSTPONING THAT DISCUSSION TO THE FULL.

THANK YOU.

I GUESS IN CLOSING, I'LL SAY A FEW WORDS.

OH, BY ALL MEANS.

YEAH, TOTALLY APPRECIATE THAT LINE OF THINKING AND LOOKING TO USE DATA AND EVIDENCE.

YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

MY ONE QUESTION JUST TO LEAVE OUT THERE WOULD BE THERE'S NO WAY TO GET THAT DATA.

WE CAN'T GO AROUND TO EVERY HOUSE AND ASK, HOW MUCH DO YOU MAKE? AND IF YOU MAKE $72,000 AS A FOUR PERSON HOUSEHOLD, ARE YOU USING FACILITIES, CITY FACILITIES? AND WOULD YOU IF YOU GOT THIS? SO LIKE JUST TO SORT OF PUT THE QUESTION OUT THERE, LIKE WHAT DATA OR PROOF WOULD BE NEEDED TO MAKE THIS CHANGE, I THINK JUST PHILOSOPHICALLY, I STRUGGLE WITH THE FACT THAT WE WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH SORT OF LOW INCOME SORT OF ACCESS FOR ALL SORT OF THINGS, IT'S ALWAYS THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW MUCH IS IT GOING TO COST TO PROVIDE MORE SERVICES FOR THOSE WHO NEED IT THE MOST.

IT JUST PAINS ME THAT I DON'T KNOW, TRYING TO PRODUCE SOME SORT OF HARD CORE DATA ON THAT I THINK IS GOING TO BE IMPOSSIBLE.

AND TO ME, IT IS A PHILOSOPHICAL THING.

I WOULD RATHER ERR ON SPENDING A BIT MORE MONEY TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE WHO NEED RECREATION AND TRANSIT FACILITIES THE MOST GET IT INSTEAD OF, YEAH, LOOKING FOR SOME SORT OF HARD, VERY EASY THING.

I UNDERSTAND THE WANT FOR DATA BUT YEAH JUST SORT OF JUST WANTED TO PUT MY PHILOSOPHICAL PAIN AT QUIBBLING

[00:50:05]

THANK YOU.

COUNCILLOR HENDRIKSEN.

SORRY, I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYTHING COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN JUST SAID, AND THE REASON I WANTED TO JUMP BACK QUICKLY IS FOR ME, IT'S I GUESS IT'S NOT THAT I'M AGAINST YOUR PHILOSOPHY.

I'M VERY MUCH IN SUPPORT OF THAT PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERTAKING AND FOR ME IT'S A MATTER OF MAKING SURE WE'RE BUDGETING FOR IT AS OPPOSED TO QUESTIONING IT.

BECAUSE MY GUT IS THAT I SUPPORT IT.

SO I WANT TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT IT AND HAVE THE FINANCIAL BACKING THAT WHEN WE'RE DOING THE BUDGETING, WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE BUDGETING IN FEES AND CHARGES THAT WILL PAY FOR IT. SO FOR ME, IT'S SUPPORTING THIS POLICY NOW IN MY HEAD, KNOWING THAT IT'S GOING TO BE CHANGED WITH A HIGHER THRESHOLD IN FUTURE, BUT MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE PAYING FOR IT BY THEN AS OPPOSED TO NOW WHERE I DON'T KNOW WHAT I DON'T KNOW IN TERMS OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO PAY FOR IT.

SO JUST TO GIVE IN TERMS OF YOUR QUESTION OF WHAT DATA I WANT, I ACTUALLY I KNOW WE CAN'T GET THAT DATA.

I AGREE WITH YOU. SO IT'S MORE I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CAN PAY FOR IT SO THAT'S WHERE MY HEAD'S AT.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, FOR LETTING ME JUMP BACK IN THERE BRIEFLY.

[LAUGHTER] ANYBODY ELSE BEFORE.

COUNCILLOR MCGURK. JUST ONE REALLY QUICK, WHICH IS, DO WE KNOW? I KNOW I THINK IT WAS SAID, BUT IT MIGHT BE GONE OVER MY HEAD.

THE DATE, THE TIME EXACTLY THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE REFLECTING ON THE PHILOSOPHY AROUND FEES AND CHARGES, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE TO JUST KIND OF HAVE US MENTALLY PREPARE FOR.

OBVIOUSLY, THIS COUNCIL IS INVESTED IN IT.

I DON'T THINK WE WERE GIVEN A SPECIFIC DATE, BUT IT'S EARLY JUNE, BUT I'LL GET MS. BASSI-KELLETT TO SPEAK TO THAT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

YES, THAT'S EXACTLY IT.

WE HOPE TO BRING THIS BACK AT A GPC MEETING IN EARLY JUNE AS A PRESENTATION FOR DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU. GREAT.

THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE.

GOING ONCE.

GOING TWICE.

ALL RIGHT. I REALLY APPRECIATE THIS DISCUSSION COMING FORWARD.

I WAS NOT PRESENT WHEN WE INITIALLY HAD THE DISCUSSION ON THE ACCESS FOR ALL.

SO BEING ABLE TO HEAR FROM COUNCILLORS WHAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE.

I DEFINITELY AGREE THAT UNFORTUNATELY, WE CANNOT BE EVERYTHING FOR EVERYONE.

WE DO OUR BEST TO TRY AND ENCOMPASS WHAT THIS PROGRAM IS SUPPOSED TO DO.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 15% THAT HAVE TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF LEGWORK, WHEREAS THE GNWT FOR THE 85%, ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS SUBMIT THEIR FINANCIAL AID REPORT THAT THEY ARE WITH THE GNWT.

WHAT I'M HEARING FROM MOST COUNCILLORS IS THAT WE DEFINITELY WANT TO HAVE A HEFTIER CONVERSATION ON THIS, AND I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE WELL RECEIVED WHEN WE DO THE FEES AND CHARGES, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT SPECIFIC FEES AND CHARGES, IT'S STILL DEALING WITH THE FACILITIES THAT THE CITY OPERATES.

SO I THINK THIS WOULD BE A GOOD CONVERSATION TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT IN DEPTH, ESPECIALLY HAVING MADAM MAYOR HERE AS WELL, TO ALSO SHE'S IN HERE DEEP WITH THE CITY.

SO SHE HAS A GREAT KNOWLEDGE BASE THAT I DON'T WANT US TO MISS OUT ON AS WELL.

COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN.

I REALLY LOVE THE COMMENT ABOUT WE CAN'T GO TO DOOR TO DOOR.

ALL I HEARD IN MY HEAD WAS ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER.

WHO IS YOUR DADDY AND WHAT DOES HE DO? [LAUGHTER] BUT WHAT I'M HEARING FROM MOST PEOPLE IS WE DON'T WANT TO JUMP INTO THIS, YOU KNOW, IN THE DEEP END.

WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION BACK.

SO IF COUNCIL IS OKAY WITH US HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF A DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS BROUGHT FORWARD WHEN WE DO OUR FEES AND CHARGES, WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT WE ARE INTERESTED IN? SEEING NODDING HEADS.

OKAY. SO IF ADMINISTRATION CAN BRING THAT FORWARD WHEN WE DO OUR FEES AND CHARGES IN EARLY JUNE, THAT WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED SO THAT WE CAN FURTHER WHAT OUR INTENT IS WITH THE POLICY.

OH, AND THE THREE YEAR AS WELL.

OH, WE WANT TO MAKE THAT NOW? YEAH.

SO I BELIEVE WE NEED A MOTION FOR THAT ONE.

SO WHO WANTS TO MAKE THE MOTION? COUNCILLOR FEQUET HERE.

I'LL MOVE THAT JUST EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY THE ACCESS FOR ALL POLICY BE FOR A DURATION OF THREE YEARS.

DO I HAVE A SECONDER? COUNCILLOR MCGURK.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR.

[00:55:02]

AND THAT MOTION PASSES WITH COUNCILLOR PAYNE AND MYSELF IN OPPOSITION.

ANYTHING FURTHER FROM ADMINISTRATION? SEEING NONE.

SO CAN I GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN? FIRST BY COUNCILLOR FEQUET, SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR COCHRANE.

ALL IN FAVOR? PERFECT. AND WE WILL SEE EACH OTHER NEXT WEEK, ON MONDAY.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.