[00:00:01]
>> I'LL CALL OUR GOVERNANCE AND PRIORITY COMMITTEE MEETING FOR MONDAY APRIL 15TH, 2024 TO ORDER, AND I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE IS LOCATED IN CHIEF DRYGEESE TERRITORY.
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 PEOPLE INCLUDING THE NORTH SLAVE METIS, AND ALL FIRST NATION, METIS, AND INUIT WHOSE PRESENCE CONTINUES TO ENRICH OUR VIBRANT COMMUNITY.
MR. COLLEN, WELCOME TO YOUR FIRST MEETING.
[2. Approval of the agenda]
ANYTHING FURTHER TO ADD TO THE AGENDA?>> THANK YOU. WITH THAT, NEXT WE HAVE DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF.
DOES ANY MEMBER HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST TODAY? SEEING NONE, AND THANKS TO COUNCILOR MCGURK WHO'S ONLINE.
OUR FIRST ITEM IS A MEMORANDUM REGARDING WHETHER TO APPROVE
[4. A memorandum regarding whether to approve the Development Permit application PL- 2023-0070 to allow a 24-unit Multi-Unit Dwelling on Lot 33 & 34, Block 307, Plan 4809 (110 Hagel Drive).]
THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION PL-2023-0070 TO ALLOW A 24-UNIT MULTI UNIT DWELLING ON LOT 33 AND 34, BLOCK 307, PLAN 4809 WHICH IS CIVIC ADDRESS 110 HAGEL DRIVE.MR. COLLEN, IF YOU'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE ITEM.
>> MAYOR, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, GOOD AFTERNOON.
THE ITEM BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IN THE NIVEN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONSISTING OF 24 APARTMENT UNITS.
IN ORDER FOR THIS PERMIT TO BE APPROVED, THE DEVELOPMENT MUST MEET THE EFFECTIVE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS IN BOTH THE ZONING BY LAW AND THE NIVEN DEVELOPMENT SCHEME.
WHILE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MEETS ALL THE REGULATIONS SET OUT IN THE ZONING BY LAW, THE EFFECTIVE NIVEN DEVELOPMENT SCHEME REFERENCES AN OLD ZONING BY LAW THAT IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT BUT TO WHICH THERE IS STILL LINKAGE.
ADMINISTRATION BRINGS THIS ITEM TO COUNCIL TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY IN THE DECISION MAKING INSTEAD OF SIMPLY A DEVELOPMENT OFFICER'S DECISION.
THE CURRENT ZONING BY LAW AUTHORIZES COUNCIL TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS DEVELOPMENT MATTER.
WITH THAT AS THE INTRODUCTION, I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE MR. TATSUYUKI SETTA, WHO WILL PROVIDE FURTHER COMMENTS AND WHO WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT COUNCIL MAY HAVE. MR. SETTA.
>> THANK YOU. AS TO CITY MANAGER, AS TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE COUNCIL MAY HAVE.
ALSO I SEE DEVELOPER FOR THIS PROJECT HERE.
WE'RE PREPARED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OPENING IT UP TO QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DISCUSSION FROM COUNCIL. COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM MAYOR.
JUST OFF THE TOP, I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO GO BY THERE THIS WEEKEND ON MY OWN.
JUST CURIOUS WHAT THE SPEED LIMIT IS ON LEMEYEN AND HECKLE DRIVES.
>> MR. COLLEN? OH, SORRY, MR. SETTA?
TO COUNCIL, THE SPEED LIMIT ON THIS BOTH STREET IS 35 KILOMETERS AN HOUR.
>> THANK YOU. PART OF THE MEMO WE GOT SAYS THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT GOALS SUPPORT ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION LIKE WALKING, CYCLING AND THE USE OF PUBLIC TRANSIT, AS WELL AS THE LAND USE FLEXIBILITY AND INTENSIFICATION OF EXISTING DEVELOPED AREAS.
THESE GOALS CAN BE ACHIEVED BY PRIORITIZING COMPACT URBAN GROWTH.
I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THIS, ESPECIALLY ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION, WALKING, CYCLING AND USE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT.
JUST LOOKING AT OUR OWN MAP OF CYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE, THERE'S NOTHING THAT CONNECTS THIS AREA THAT IS BECOMING MORE DENSE TO THE REST OF THE NETWORK.
HOW ARE WE GOING TO SUPPORT CYCLING IN THIS AREA?
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I MAY HAVE TO REFER THIS QUESTION TO DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OF ENGINEERING, CHRIS GREENCORN.
HE MAY HAVE MORE DEFINITIVE ANSWER.
>> THE CONNECTION OF THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH, WOULD BE NIVEN LAKE, FRAME LAKE TRAIL OR THE NIVEN LAKE PROPER TRAIL AND THEN THE NIVEN LAKE SURROUNDING TRAIL.
THOSE ARE THE ONLY CONNECTION POINTS TO TRAILHEADS AT THIS POINT.
WE'RE LIMITED IN THE AREA BY ROAD GEOGRAPHY FOR ON STREET BIKE LANES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, BUT HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION.
FURTHER TO TRAIL CONNECTIVITY, I WOULD REFER PROBABLY TO MR. WHITE IF HE HAD ANYTHING FURTHER TO ADD,
[00:05:01]
BUT THOSE ARE THE TRAILHEADS THAT ARE IN THE AREA.>> THANK YOU. IT'S JUST MY VIEW THAT WE NEED TO BE PURPOSEFUL IF WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE CYCLING, WALKING, PUBLIC TRANSPORT.
THE CHANGES TO THE BUS ROUTES FOR NIVEN MAKE A TON OF SENSE.
WE NEED TO ECHO THAT WITH CYCLING, HAVING DEDICATED LINKAGES TO THE REST OF THE NETWORK.
LIKE AT THIS POINT, SOMEONE JUST HAS TO GO DOWN THE ROAD AND THEN CONNECT IN.
IF WE CAN HAVE THINGS THAT ALLOW DENSE AREAS LIKE THIS TO CONNECT RIGHT IN, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT STEP FORWARD AND WOULD ACTUALLY FULFILL OUR DESIRE TO SUPPORT ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION.
THEN A QUESTION ABOUT THE GREEN SPACE PROPOSED FOR THE AREA JUST SOUTH OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
DO WE HAVE A TIMELINE FOR WHEN THIS GREEN SPACE WOULD BE DEVELOPED? I'M ASSUMING IT'S THE CITY THAT DEVELOPS THIS USING THE LAND FUND, AND WHAT WOULD THIS GREEN SPACE LOOK LIKE?
>> YES. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
THAT PROPERTY YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS OWNED BY THE CITY.
CURRENTLY, IT'S ZONE R1, WHICH ALLOWS THE PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS, RECREATIONAL PARKS OR SIMILAR USE.
THERE IS NO NEED TO REZONE FOR THAT PIECE OF LAND.
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO A DETAILED PLAN, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY DETAILED PLANS BEING DECIDED AT THIS TIME, BUT I MAY BE ABLE TO REFER TO DIRECTORY SERVICES, MR. WHITE FOR MORE DETAIL.
>> MR. WHITE, DO YOU HAVE MORE INFORMATION OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO GET BACK TO COUNCIL WITH FURTHER INFORMATION?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I GUESS AT THIS POINT, NOTHING SPECIFIC, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT OUR TYPICAL PROCESS WOULD BE TO, IF IT'S GOING TO BE A TOT LOT OR ANY KIND OF A PLAYGROUND, WE TYPICALLY MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE HAVE SEVERAL CATALOG CUTS AS TO WHAT COULD BE EXPECTED AND THEN THERE'S SOME BACK AND FORTH, AND FINALLY ARRIVED AT WHAT THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THAT SPOT, THEN I SPOT FORWARD FOR BUDGET CONSIDERATION. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST CURIOUS HOW, IF WE WERE ABLE TO DO ANY OF THAT THIS YEAR OR IS THIS A 2025 THING BASED ON OUR AMOUNT OF WORK?
>> IT'S MR. WHITE FOR THAT QUESTION.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S CURRENTLY NOT IN OUR 2024, SO LIKELY 2025 OR EVEN 2026. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING WITHIN THE CITY OF THE NEED FOR ONE AND TWO BEDROOM UNITS VERSUS THREE OR MORE BEDROOM UNITS?
>> WE DO HAVE OUR HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT THAT'S OUT FOR RFP IN CLOSING, SO I THINK WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE AN EVEN BETTER FULSOME.
BUT MR. SETTA, IF YOU HAVE INFORMATION ON THAT QUESTION?
WE'VE GONE THROUGH RFP PROCESS.
CONSULTANT, THAT HAS BEEN SELECTED.
WE WERE ENTERING THE CONTRACT WITH THEM, AND THE FIRST KICKOFF MEETING WILL BE STARTING SOON.
MAYBE SOMETIMES DURING THE SUMMER, WE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SOME INTERIM REPORT TO THE COUNCIL WITH REGARDING TO FINDINGS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALSO INTERESTED FOR THOSE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE BY LAW.
THEN LAST ONE, JUST TALKING ABOUT THE CITY'S LONG TERM DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES.
JUST CURIOUS, AND THIS IS A LONGER TERM BIGGER CONVERSATION.
BUT WHAT ARE TANGIBLE, MEASURABLE LONG TERM DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES? MY OWN THINKING AND QUESTIONS FROM RESIDENTS THAT I'VE GOTTEN, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION OVER THE LAST WEEK OR TWO, BUT THE FUTURE OF THE NWT AND YELLOWKNIFE'S ECONOMY, IT SEEMS WHATEVER WAY YOU SLICE IT, WE'RE IN FOR SOME DOWNTURN TO SOME DEGREE, WITH DIAMOND MINES CLOSING.
DO OUR MEDIUM OR LONG TERM DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ACCOUNT FOR THIS? WHAT THOUGHT OR PLANNING HAS HAPPENED OR IS HAPPENING TO ENSURE THAT WE DO NOT OVERREACT TO THE CURRENT HOUSING SHORTAGES IN SUCH A WAY THAT WE END UP WITH A GLUT OF HOUSING IN FIVE YEARS?
>> MAYOR, THROUGH YOU TO THE COUNSELOR.
IT'S A GREAT QUESTION. IT NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED.
WE'RE JUST NOT QUITE THERE YET.
I THINK WE HAVE TO TAKE A GOOD HARD LOOK AT SOME OF THE EXPERT'S OPINIONS, SUCH AS THE ONE THAT YOU'VE REFERENCED.
THE HOUSING NEED ASSESSMENT WILL ALSO PLAY A ROLE IN THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
WHAT WE NEED TO GUARD AGAINST AND YOU'VE SUGGESTED IT IS A KNEE JERK REACTION OR INTUITIVE DECISION MAKING.
THIS HAS TO BE REALLY BASED ON FACTS, SO THERE'LL BE A LOT OF WORK THAT NEEDS TO GO OVER THIS.
I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT IT WILL PROBABLY BECOME A KEY ELEMENT, PROBABLY AND I'M GUESSING, BUT OF THE 2025 WORK PLAN TO LAND ON A LONG TERM DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY.
[00:10:03]
>> BUT I WOULD SAY, IN THE MEANTIME, THERE IS THE COMMUNITY PLANNING BY LAW, WHICH DOES SET OUT THE VISION FOR FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF YELLOWKNIFE OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS, AND SO DEVELOPMENTS DO HAVE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMMUNITY PLAN BY LAW.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS FOR NOW.
I'LL LISTEN TO COLLEAGUES AND THEN JUST HAVE A COMMENT TO CLOSE.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR WARBURTON?
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I GOT TO ANSWER A BIT ON THE INTRO THERE.
BUT JUST TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR, THIS MEETS THE COMMUNITY PLAN, THIS MEETS OUR ZONING BY LAW.
THE ONLY THING IT DOESN'T MEET IS THE DEVELOPMENT SCHEME OR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR NIVEN, CORRECT?
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. PRECISELY SPEAKING, THE DEVELOPMENT SCHEME DOESN'T LIMIT THE DENSITY.
WHAT IT DOES IS IT REFERS TO OLD ZONING BYLAW, WHICH DOESN'T EXIST, WHICH DOESN'T SET UP THIS LIMIT THERE.
THERE'S AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE OLD BYLAW WE HAD AND THE NEW BYLAW WE HAVE TODAY.
THE CITY JUST HAVE TO JUSTIFY THE INCONSISTENCY IN TERMS OF THE REGULATION FROM THE PAST AND CURRENT WE ARE PRACTICING. THANK YOU.
IT MEETS THE COMMUNITY PLAN, MEETS OUR ZONING BYLAWS.
SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE WE HAVE SOME ADMINISTRATIVE WORK TO DO TO MAKE EVERYTHING TO LINE UP SO WE DON'T GOT TO DO THIS AGAIN. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILOR HENDRIKSEN.
>> THANKS, MAYOR ALTY. ON THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ITSELF, I SECOND EVERYTHING COUNCILOR WARBURTON JUST SAID.
BUT AS COUNCILOR MCLENNAN DID AT THE START, YOU TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO YOU WHEN YOU GET THE CHANCE.
ON ACTIVE TRANSPORT, I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO A FOLLOW UP FROM COUNCILOR MCLENNAN'S QUESTION.
THE STATEMENT THAT ROAD GEOGRAPHY IS A LIMITATION TO EXPANDING A BIKE LANE OR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK.
WE HAVE THE WIDEST STREETS OF ANY CITY I'VE EVER LIVED IN.
SO I'M WONDERING WHAT THAT ROAD GEOGRAPHY LIMITATION IS FOR ACTIVE TRANSPORT EXPANSION.
IF THAT'S NOT AN OPTION, AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING WE DELAY THIS PERMIT FOR THIS, BUT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO LOOK AT.
IF THAT'S NOT AN OPTION, WHAT DO WE DO TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION, I GUESS IS A QUESTION, MAYBE YOU JUST PUT IN YOUR HEAD MAYOR ALTY, BUT WHAT DO WE DO TO HAVE A CONVERSATION AROUND SPEED LIMITS BECAUSE CLEARLY THROUGH THE CONCERNS THAT RESIDENTS RAISE, TRAFFIC, SPEED LIMITS, ALL THOSE THINGS ARE GENUINE CONCERNS.
THERE ARE CONCERNS OF MIND THROUGHOUT THE CITY FOR NEIGHBORHOODS AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
I THINK ONE IS TO JUST SAY ROAD GEOGRAPHY, I THINK WE'RE BEING A BIT CHEEKY TO BE HONEST WITH YOU BECAUSE AGAIN, WE HAVE THE WIDEST ROADS I'VE EVER SEEN, WHICH IS NOT A BAD THING.
IT PROVIDES US A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IF THAT'S NOT AN OPTION WHAT DO WE DO TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT REDUCING THOSE SPEED LIMITS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS SO THAT WE ADDRESS THESE TYPES OF CONCERNS THAT RESIDENTS CLEARLY HAVE AND ARE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS FOR RESIDENT SAFETY. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU. PERHAPS BECAUSE IT IS SEPARATE TO THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, BUT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT ROAD WIDTHS, BIKE LANES.
REALLY, IT COMES INTO THE DESIGN STANDARDS GUIDELINES.
I KNOW COUNCIL HAS REQUESTED AN UPDATE ON THAT AND WE CAN WORK THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND THEN HAVE A DISCUSSION AT THAT TIME.
SEE THE CITY MANAGER TAKING NOTE UNDER ADVISEMENT.
NOTHING FURTHER. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? SORRY. DEPUTY MAYOR COCHRANE?
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I KNOW THIS WAS BASICALLY ANSWERED THROUGH THE QUESTIONS, BUT TO GIVE A BIT OF A PUBLIC RESPONSE TO THIS.
CAN WE ELABORATE ON WHY A SUN SHADOW IMPACT STUDY WAS NOT REQUIRED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION? THANK YOU.
>> THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. SO FOR SURE, SOME CHANGES WE ANTICIPATED BECAUSE IT IS NEW DEVELOPMENT.
I'M SURE THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS ARE CONCERNED.
HOWEVER, STAFF INTERPRETATION IS THAT BASED ON THE FACT THAT THERE ARE BUFFERS AROUND THE DEVELOPMENT SITE, BOTH THE EGO-DRIVE AND THE MAIN DRIVE.
THERE'S A BUFFER BETWEEN STRUCTURES.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS NOT REQUIRING HIGH VARIANCE, IN OTHER WORDS, IT MEETS ZONING BYLAW REGULATIONS.
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HAS MADE A DETERMINATION THAT,
[00:15:01]
SHADOW STUDY IS NOT REQUIRED.>> THANKS, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU FOR MY COLLEAGUES FOR ASKING SUCH GOOD QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE AND DURING THE MEETING.
I THINK MY ONLY QUESTION IS JUST TO ASK ADMINISTRATION IF THERE WAS ANY CONCERNS BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE PUBLIC THAT AREN'T ALREADY IN THE PACKAGE.
I RECOGNIZE THAT NOTICE WAS CIRCULATED IN FEBRUARY, BUT IS THERE ANY OTHER CONCERNS THAT THE PUBLIC HAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION REGARDING THIS DEVELOPMENT?
>> YES. NOTICE HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO RHINSON LEASE TENANTS WITHIN THE 30 METERS FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO NINE RESPONSE ALREADY RECEIVED.
CONCERN REGARDING THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION, WHICH WE ADDRESSED PROPOSING MAKING THAT NVIVKE DRIVE AND HAGEL, MAKE IT FOUR WAY STOPS, AND DEVELOPMENT SITE TWO WAYS ON LUME.
THAT WOULD BE REMAIN. BUT WITHIN THE SITE, THERE WILL BE ONE WAY OUT TO HAGEL.
SO THAT REDUCED THE OVERALL TRAFFIC VOLUME ON ME AND THEN HAGEL DRIVE WILL REMAIN BOTH WAYS.
>> THANK YOU. FOR MYSELF, I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THE RECOMMENDATION.
AS NOTED IN THE MEMO, THE HOUSING SUPPORTS OUR CURRENT PLANNING, VISION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES BY BEING IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR NEW COMMUNITY PLAN AND OUR NEW ZONING BYLAW.
TO NOTE THE DISCUSSION ISN'T ABOUT WHETHER TO ALLOW SOMETHING TO GET BUILT HERE OR NOT.
HOUSING IS ALLOWED TO BE BUILT HERE.
IT'S A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER TO ALLOW FOUR MORE UNITS, WHICH DOESN'T CHANGE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING.
STILL HAS TO ADHERE TO THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND MAXIMUM SITE OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING.
THE DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE ONE PRINCIPAL BUILDING WITH A PROPOSED SITE COVERAGE OF 33.4%, AND THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED SITE COVERAGE FOR A BUILDING IN THE ZONING BYLAW IS 55% FOR THIS AREA.
THE BUILDING IS TAKING UP 21.6% LESS OF THE SITE THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED SITE COVERAGE.
THE BUILDING REQUIRES 19 PARKING SPACES AND IS PROVIDING 24, WHICH MEANS THAT IT EXCEEDS THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
WHAT'S OUR ALTERNATIVE TO APPROVING IT? WE COULD DENY THE EXTRA FOUR UNITS.
WE CAN DENY THE EXTRA FOUR UNITS AND IT MIGHT KILL THE PROJECT FOR THE DEVELOPER AND THE LAND MIGHT COME BACK TO THE CITY TO BE SOLD TO SOMEBODY ELSE.
IN THIS ALTERNATIVE, SOMEBODY ELSE COULD BUY IT AND THEY COULD BUILD SOMETHING THAT IS 6,960 METERS SQUARE BIGGER AND BE 1.1 METERS TALLER AND ONLY PROVIDE 16 PARKING SPOTS AND THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME TO COUNSEL FOR APPROVAL.
THE BUILDING WOULD BE BIGGER, TALLER, WOULD HAVE EIGHT FEWER PARKING SPACES, AND FOUR FEWER HOMES FOR YELLOW NIPPERS THAN WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY.
JUST BECAUSE THERE'S FOUR FEWER HOMES, THE BUILDING WOULD CONFORM WITH THE 2007 NIVEN LAKE DEVELOPMENT BYLAW AND OUR 2022 ZONING BYLAW AND WOULD BE APPROVED AUTOMATICALLY.
THE NUMBER 1 ISSUE THAT I HEAR EVERY SINGLE DAY IS THE LACK OF HOUSING AND YELLOW NIPA.
I CAN APPRECIATE THAT IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO HAVE ANOTHER SUMMER OF CONSTRUCTION IN THIS AREA.
BUT AS THESE ARE THE LAST LOTS TO DEVELOP, I'M SURE FOLKS WILL ALSO APPRECIATE JUST ONE MORE SUMMER OF CONSTRUCTION, SO IT WILL FINALLY BE FULLY BUILT OUT AND ALL THE ROADS WILL BE PAVED.
AS A RESULT, I AM IN SUPPORT OF THE EXTRA FOUR UNITS ON THE LOT BECAUSE THE BUILDING HEIGHT, SITE COVERAGE, AND PARKING AREA ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING BYLAW AND ARE EITHER SMALLER IN A GOOD WAY, THE BUILDING HEIGHT AND THE SITE COVERAGE, OR EXCEED IN A GOOD WAY, THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS WHEN THIS COMES FORWARD NEXT MONDAY AT 7:00 PM.
ANYTHING FURTHER FROM COUNSEL. COUNCILOR MCLENNAN?
>> YEAH. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. I JUST WANTED TO ALSO SAY THAT I'M SUPPORTIVE FOR THE SAME REASONS MENTIONED BY MY COLLEAGUES.
VERY MUCH LOOKING FORWARD TO A LARGER DISCUSSION AROUND THE PRACTICAL WAYS WE CAN SUPPORT ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION AND LOOKING FORWARD DISCUSSION ABOUT WHEN AND HOW THIS PARK IS BUILT. THANK YOU.
SEEING NOTHING FURTHER, WE WILL BRING THIS FORWARD TO COUNSEL NEXT MONDAY AT 7:00 P.M. NEXT ON THE AGENDA, WE HAVE A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE NOISE BYLAW.
[5. A discussion regarding Noise By-law.]
COUNCIL HENDRICKSON, I'LL TURN THIS OVER TO YOU.>> THANKS, MAALTI. AS MY COLLEAGUES ARE AWARE,
[00:20:02]
I'VE ASKED TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION TODAY.I'LL PROBABLY READ A BIT JUST TO MAKE SURE I HIT MY POINTS, SO BEAR WITH ME.
I WANTED TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION TO PROPOSE TO COUNSEL THAT WE DIRECTED MIN TO RETURN TO THE GOVERNANCE AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE.
I'M PICKING A DATE THAT'S SOMEWHAT CLOSE, BUT STILL IS A BIT OF TIME AWAY BY THE END OF MAY 2024, WITH RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ABOUT HOW TO REGULATE THE USE OF MOSQUITO DEVICES, WHICH I HAVE SHARED INFORMATION WITH YOU ON AND OTHER SIMILAR NOISE DEVICES THROUGH THE NOISE BY LAW.
ALSO PROPOSING THAT GPC HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY, LOITERING, AND CARE FOR THE CITY'S POPULATION EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS AND ADDICTION TO THE SAME AGENDA WHERE WE END UP DISCUSSING OUR 2024, 2025, STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR MED AND OR THE COUNCIL ROUND TABLE ON HOMELESSNESS, WHICH IS COMING UP AT THE END OF JUNE 2024.
A BACKGROUND FOR THE PROPOSAL FOR MY COLLEAGUES, WHICH I'VE GIVEN YOU IN WRITING ALREADY, BUT ALSO JUST FOR THE RECORD.
SOME BACKGROUND TO THE PROPOSAL IS THAT IN LATE 2023, THE OWNERS OF THE CENTER SQUARE MALL PARCADE INSTALLED A MOSQUITO DEVICE, WHICH IS A HIGH PITCH SOUND TO REDUCE LOITERING AS WELL AS REAL AND PERCEIVED SAFETY CONCERNS, RESULTING FROM LOITERING IN THE ENTRANCE WAY TO THE UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE ON 51ST AVENUE ACROSS FROM THE LIQUOR STORE.
A SIMILAR DEVICE HAS ALSO BEEN INSTALLED IN THE PARKADE ENTRANCE FOR THE ABOVEGROUND PARKING GARAGE, FOR THAT SAME GARAGE ON 50TH STREET.
BUT AS SOMEBODY WHO'S BEEN CHECKING THIS OUT FOR QUITE MANY MONTHS, THAT ONE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE IN USE AS FREQUENTLY.
THE PRIMARY REASON THAT I'M BRINGING THIS ISSUE TO GPC IS BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE BENEFITS TO THE ONE PROPERTY OWNER AND PEOPLE WHO PARK UNDERGROUND SHOULD OUTWEIGH THE COST TO EVERYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO BE PRESENT IN OUR DOWNTOWN CORE.
IF NOISE FROM THE MOSQUITO DEVICE WAS MAINTAINED TO ONLY THE PROPERTY OWNER'S PROPERTY, THEN I WOULD PERSONALLY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE USE OF A MOSQUITO DEVICE OR ANY OTHER DEVICE TO SEEKING THIS OUTCOME.
I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT WHY THE PROPERTY OWNER WANTS TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE PEOPLE HANGING OUT ON THEIR PROPERTY AND IN RARE BUT NOT INSIGNIFICANT CASES DEFACING THEIR PROPERTY, LITTERING, AND OTHERWISE LEAVING THE SPACE UNPLEASANT TO TRAVEL THROUGH FOR PEOPLE.
AS A PROPERTY OWNER, I FULLY AGREE THAT IT IS NOT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE A SECLUDED SPACE FOR PEOPLE TO HANG OUT.
HOWEVER, THE TOOL BEING USED TO STOP LOITERING OR ATTEMPT TO STOP LOITERING, WHICH I QUITE FRANKLY DON'T BELIEVE IS WORKING ANYMORE, AND I'LL GET TO THAT IN A SECOND, HAS NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO THE REST OF OUR DOWNTOWN, AND THIS IS MY REASON FOR CARING ABOUT THE ISSUE.
THE CITY AND ALL GOVERNMENTS REGULATE A LOT OF ISSUES.
WE REGULATE THINGS LIKE PICKING UP YOUR DOGS POOP, SPEED LIMITS, KEEPING SIDEWALKS CLEAR OF SNOW, THINGS THAT WE ASK PEOPLE TO DO BECAUSE THEY AFFECT OTHER RESIDENTS.
TO ME, THIS IS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A NEGATIVE EXTERNALITY THAT I BELIEVE WE SHOULD BE REGULATING.
TO THE ISSUE OF EFFICACY OF THIS DEVICE.
WHEN THE DEVICE WAS FIRST INSTALLED AT THE PEAK OF WINTER, IT DEFINITELY DID SEEM TO REDUCE LOITERING IN THE PARCADE.
PEOPLE INSTEAD SEEM TO MIGRATE TOWARDS THE DOORS OF THE MALL NEAR THE VISITORS CENTER OR FURTHER INSIDE THE MALL INTO AND INCLUDING THE LIBRARY.
HAS THE WEATHER WARMED ON RANDOM DAYS THROUGHOUT THE WINTER? DEFINITELY, SINCE THE TEMPERATURES HAVE BEGUN TO WARM OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS, THE EFFICACY OF THIS DEVICE SEEMS TO HAVE LARGELY DISSIPATED.
AS SOMEBODY WHO TRAVELS AROUND AND THROUGH THIS PARCADE MANY TIMES A DAY, I WOULD ARGUE THAT I SEE THIS CHANGE HAPPEN ALMOST EVERY YEAR WHEN IT DROPS BELOW -30 AND -40.
I DO QUESTION. DO WE HAVE A DEVICE THAT ISN'T REALLY THAT EFFICACIOUS AND ALSO IS CAUSING NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON THE SURROUNDING AREA OF DOWNTOWN? I WANT TO NOTE THAT THE RECENT CHANGE TO NEW SECURITY COMPANY IN THE MALL SEEMS TO HAVE HAD THE MOST SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
AS SOMEBODY AGAIN, WHO IS IN THAT MALL REGULARLY, I'VE ONLY SEEN RESPECTFUL ACTIONS FROM THAT COMPANY.
I WANT TO GIVE KUDOS WHERE KUDOS IS DUE AS WELL.
THE CHALLENGES SURROUNDING REAL AND PERCEIVED CONCERNS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, LOITERING AND CARE FOR THE CITY'S POPULATION EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS AND ADDICTION REQUIRE MEANINGFUL RESPONSES FROM US AS THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, AND THE RCMP.
THESE CHALLENGES REQUIRE TO ME A MORE MEANINGFUL RESPONSE THAN ONE THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING USED BY A SINGLE PROPERTY OWNER TO BLAST NOISE AT PEOPLE.
FOR ME, I COME BACK TO THE FACT OF WHAT CAN WE CONTROL? WHAT CAN WE AS COUNSEL DO? IN MY MIND, WHAT'S IN OUR CONTROL IS THE USE OF BYLAWS TO REGULATE WHAT HAPPENS IN OUR CITY AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE BYLAWS THROUGH MED.
AS NOTED IN MY RECOMMENDATION, I BELIEVE WE NEED TO HAVE A LARGER CONVERSATION ABOUT THOSE PRIORITIES FOR MED, AND HOW WE USE OUR BYLAWS IN ORDER TO REGULATE WHAT WE DON'T THINK IS APPROPRIATE FOR OUR CITY.
I ARGUE THIS IS INAPPROPRIATE.
I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW IF YOU AGREE WITH ME OR DISAGREE WITH ME.
IF YOU DISAGREE, THAT'S TOTALLY FINE.
REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO MY RECOMMENDATIONS, AND I'M WRAPPING UP HERE.
[00:25:03]
IF WE TAKE NO ACTION ON THE USE OF THESE TYPES OF DEVICES, WE ARE IN MY OPINION SAYING THAT WE REALLY DON'T CARE ABOUT STANDARDS IN OUR DOWNTOWN, THAT ANYONE CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT AS LONG AS IT IS BENEFICIAL TO THEM ALONE.I KNOW THE PEOPLE THAT WILL AND HAVE DISAGREED WITH ME, AND I'VE HAD MANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS.
THEY NOTE THAT WE AS GOVERNMENTS FROM THE CITY, GNWT, AND RCMP ARE SEEMINGLY NOT TAKING ACTIONS ALREADY TO DEAL WITH LOITERING AND OTHER BEHAVIORS DOWNTOWN.
BUT I WANT TO BE FRANK AND HONEST.
THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO SPEND TIME ON OUR STREETS ARE NOT CAUSING ISSUES.
THEY ARE GETTING THROUGH THEIR DAY THE BEST THEY CAN.
IT IS A VERY SMALL MINORITY OF PEOPLE AT ANY GIVEN TIME THAT DO CREATE CHALLENGES, AND WE NEED TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT WE DO.
BUT TO ME, WE CAN'T HAVE AN ANSWER THAT AFFECTS OUR WHOLE DOWNTOWN WITHOUT ANY RESPONSE TO THAT.
ANYWAY, THAT'S THE PROPOSAL THAT I HAVE IS THAT WE ASK ADMIN TO DO THAT WORK AROUND BY LAW, REVIEW, CHANGE, REGULATION AROUND WHAT WE DO WITH A DEVICE LIKE THIS.
BUT THEN NOT JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT, BUT THAT WE DO HAVE A MEANINGFUL CONVERSATION AT THE TIME WE TALK ABOUT MED PRIORITIES, AND LIKE I SAID, AND OR THE TIME THAT WE HAVE A COMMUNITY ROUND TABLE ON HOMELESSNESS COMING UP IN JUNE.
I'LL LEAVE IT THERE. THANKS, MAYORAL FOR LETTING ME JAMMER THERE A BIT, BUT I WANTED TO GET IT ALL OUT THERE ON THE TABLE. THANKS.
>> I'VE GOT COUNCIL WBERTON THEN DEPUTY MAYOR COCHRAN, THEN COUNCIL MCCLEAN.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU, COUNCIL FOR ALL THAT.
I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE CIVICALLY.
I THINK WE'RE CHASING OUR TAIL HERE DOING ONE OFF ADDRESSING.
WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY, AND I DO AGREE WE NEED A MUCH MORE ROBUST CONVERSATION WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
YOU DID TOUCH ON A LITTLE BIT.
WE CURRENTLY GIVE NO TOOLS TO ANYONE DOWNTOWN, PROPERTY OWNERS IN PARTICULAR ON HOW TO ADDRESS ISSUES DOWNTOWN.
LITERALLY NONE. THERE'S NO BY LAWS THEY CAN USE.
RCP HAS NO LEGISLATION TERRITORY THEY CAN USE.
I THINK THIS DOES NEED TO BE A MUCH MORE ROBUST CONVERSATION, AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL DO THAT IN A FEW WEEKS. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU. TO KNOW THIS ITEM AS WELL AS THE NEXT TWO ARE ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD BY COUNSELORS.
IF YOU DO HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION AS THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT IT'S BROUGHT FORWARD, THEY MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OR THEY'LL TAKE IT UNDER ADVISEMENT AND GET BACK TO COUNCIL.
JUST A BIG REMINDER THERE. DEPUTY MAYOR COCHRAN.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. I ECHO THE FEELINGS OF COUNCIL WARBURTON ON THIS.
I THINK THERE'S A LARGER CONVERSATION WE HAD ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY AND TOOLS THAT WE COULD PROVIDE HERE.
MY FEELING ON THIS IS I AM CONCERNED ABOUT SENDING A SYMBOLIC GESTURE OUT TO OUR BUSINESS COMMUNITY WHO HAS ALREADY INDICATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT THEY WANT ACTIVE DETERRENCE AND THE MOMENT THEY'VE IMPLEMENTED THAT WE DECIDE TO STEP IN TO SAY THAT DETERRENCE PROVIDED IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S EXACTLY THE MESSAGE I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SEND OUT HERE.
NOT TO MENTION THE NUANCES OF HOW YOU WOULD CHANGE THE NOISE BY LAW TO FIT THIS.
ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A TIME SPAN? FOR HOW LONG YOU COULD PLAY THE MOSQUITO, VERSUS JUST REMOVING IT TOGETHER.
DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, ONE FOR THE COUNCIL AND THEN ONE FOR ADMIN.
FIRST QUESTION FOR THE COUNCIL IS, HAVE YOU SEEN ANY STUDIES THAT HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE MOSQUITO HAS SOME DETRIMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH EFFECT?
>> COUNCIL HENDRICKSON, IF YOU WANT TO RESPOND.
>> DIRECT RESEARCH AROUND PUBLIC HEALTH, NO.
BUT IN TERMS OF THE EFFICACY OF IT BEING USED, ONE, IT'S NOT BEING EFFECTIVE.
TWO IS, WHEN IT COMES TO RESEARCH AND EXAMPLES, THERE ARE EXAMPLES FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS OF BANNING OR REDUCING THE USE OF THESE.
SPOKANE WASHINGTON, THEY LIMITED THE USE IN TERMS OF THE FREQUENCY IT COULD BE USED.
OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE UK IRELAND ACROSS EUROPE HAVE JUST OUTRIGHT BANNED THEM BECAUSE OF THE SUSPECTED HEALTH EFFECTS ON YOUTH BECAUSE THE REASON THAT THOSE DEVICES WERE ORIGINALLY CREATED WAS TO HAVE A REALLY HIGH PITCH, WHICH ONLY YOUTH COULD HEAR.
THE REASON THAT THAT PITCH IS LOWER HERE IS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LOITERING AREN'T YOUTH.
THEY HAVE TO LOWER THE SOUND SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN HEAR IT.
THAT'S HOW THESE DEVICES ARE TOOLED IN ORDER TO DO THAT.
IS THERE HARD AND FAST HEALTH PROOF? NO. IS THERE SUSPECTED HEALTH PROOF FROM RESEARCH? YES. TO ME A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT JUST ON OUR DOWNTOWN CORE.
I DON'T FIND IT PLEASANT TO BE DOWNTOWN WHEN I HAVE A SQUEALING NOISE AT ME.
FOR ME, I CAN HEAR THIS DEVICE, MAYBE IT'S JUST GOOD HEARING, WHICH I'LL TAKE FOR GRANTED UNTIL I GET A LITTLE OLDER STILL.
BUT I CAN HEAR THIS DEVICE ON A QUIET NIGHT 2.5 BLOCKS AWAY.
THAT TO ME IS A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON OUR DOWNTOWN, THAT'S MY POSITION ON IT.
>> I COULD CONCUR A BIT WITH THE EFFICACY AS I ALSO WORK RIGHT ACROSS FROM IT AND LIVE JUST DOWN THE STREET FROM IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD SAY IT NECESSARILY, I COULD HEAR IT 2.5 BLOCKS AWAY MYSELF OR EVEN REALLY ONCE I CLOSE MY DOOR.
I DON'T REALLY KNOW IF I CAN HEAR IT VERY WELL.
[00:30:03]
FOR THE SECOND QUESTION FOR ADMIN.SINCE THAT WE HAVE DONE THE ENGAGEMENT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER ABOUT ENFORCING THE NOISE BY LAW, HAVE WE HAD ANY FURTHER ENGAGEMENT TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE FOUND THIS TO BE CONTINUOUSLY SUCCESSFUL OR THEY FINDING NEW COMPLAINTS, ET CETERA?
>> I'LL ASK DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION SPECIFICALLY, AND THEN I MAY HAVE A SLIGHTLY BROADER COMMENT TO MAKE.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. TO THE ONE NOTE ON HAVE WE HAD ANY ADDITIONAL COMPLAINTS, SINCE WE BECAME AWARE OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DEVICE BACK IN DECEMBER, WHICH WAS INITIALLY BROUGHT ON BY MEDIA INQUIRY, THERE'S ONLY EVER BEEN ONE COMPLAINT AND THE SAME COMPLAINANT HAS PUT IN THREE TOTAL COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE DEVICE.
AS TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DEVICE TO CURB BEHAVIORS IN THE AREA, WE DON'T HAVE THAT STATISTICS FROM THE PROPERTY MANAGER.
I BELIEVE THEY CONTINUE TO ENGAGE WITH THEIR TENANTS, CLIENTS OF THE FACILITY FOR FEEDBACK AND SHOULD AND IF WE RECEIVE THAT FEEDBACK, WE DOCUMENT IT, WE DON'T HAVE ANY DOCUMENTATION AT THIS POINT. THANK YOU.
>> MAYOR THROUGH YOU TO THE COUNSELOR AND ADDRESSING SOME OF THE OTHER COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE, I WOULD PERSONALLY AS YOUR CITY MANAGER, RECOMMEND AGAINST SMALL OR SPECIFIC CHANGES TO THE NOISE BY LAW AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE NOISE BY LAW BY ALL ACCOUNTS AND IS ANTIQUATED IN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT AREAS AND IF WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS OR CORRECT THE DEFICIENCIES, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE CORRECT THEM ALL AT THE SAME TIME, WHICH WILL REQUIRE MORE TIME.
THE SECOND POINT I WOULD MAKE IS ALTHOUGH CONTROLLING NOISE MAY BE PART OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY DIMENSION IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE IT CERTAINLY IS NOT THE B ALL END ALL AS I'M SURE ALL COUNSELORS RECOGNIZE.
I DO APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS ABOUT HAVING A BROADER DISCUSSION ON PUBLIC SAFETY WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN CORE AND ALL MEASURES THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED AS OPPOSED TO ONCE AGAIN A ONE VERY SPECIFIC THING IN THE CASE OF THE MOSQUITO MACHINE NOISES FOR LACK OF A BETTER WAY OF DESCRIBING THEM. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CITY MANAGER, I FULLY TAKE YOUR ADVICE AT HAND AND ALSO CONCUR THAT THIS IS A BROADER DISCUSSION WE SHOULD FIX THE NOISE BY LAW ALL AT ONCE AND THEN HAVE A LARGER DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW WE ADDRESS PUBLIC SAFETY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. COUNSEL MCLENNAN.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. FIRST, A QUESTION TO ADMIN TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE SORT OF APPROACH OF LOOKING AT THE NOISE BY LAW AS A WHOLE AND NOT SORT OF ONE OFF THINGS JUST CURIOUS IN TERMS OF THE WORK.
HOW WOULD THAT FIT INTO THIS YEAR'S WORK PLAN? I'M ASSUMING IT'S PRETTY BUSY, JUST A THOUGHT ON IS THERE ANY ROOM TO TACKLE THAT THIS YEAR?
>> MAYOR THROUGH YOU TO THE COUNSELOR SHORT ANSWER IS NO.
I WILL BE RETURNING TO THIS COUNCIL IDEALLY BEFORE THE END OF APRIL WITH MY THOUGHTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE WORK PLAN FOR 2024 ALREADY, THERE IS TOO MUCH ON IT AND WE ARE AT RISK OF FAILING IN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT AREAS.
I BELIEVE WE NEED TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER PRIORITIZATION EXERCISE WITH COUNSEL AND EXPLAIN WHAT CAN AND CANNOT REALISTICALLY BE DONE IN 2024.
IF THIS WAS TO BE ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT REMAINS ON THE 2024 WORK PLAN, THEN I EVEN HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH IT IN ABSOLUTE DETAIL YET, I CAN SAY WITH CONVICTION THAT SOMETHING ELSE IS COMING OFF.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CAPACITY TO TAKE ON ADDITIONAL ITEMS WITHIN 2024 AT THIS TIME AS THE WORK PLAN IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN.
>> THANK YOU. THEN JUST A QUESTION TO THE COUNSELOR AND THEN MY OWN COMMENTS ON THE ISSUE.
JUST A THOUGHT FROM COUNSELOR ON THAT SORT OF ADDRESSING THIS ONE OFF ISSUE VERSUS THE NOISE BY LAW AS A WHOLE.
>> THANKS FOR THAT QUESTION I 100% AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THE CITY MANAGER SAYS IN TERMS OF WORK PLAN AND I DID NO WAY WANT TO BRING AN ISSUE LIKE THIS FORWARD BUT UNFORTUNATELY, TO MY MIND, THIS IS AN ACUTE ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT INTO OUR CITY AND FOR ME, NEEDS TO BE TACKLED.
I'VE THOUGHT THROUGH THAT ASPECT OF A BROADER REVIEW OF THIS BY LAW, AND AGAIN, I AGREE WITH THE CITY MANAGER THAT IT IS AND THE MAYOR.
IT IS VERY ANTIQUATED, AS THE MAYOR SAID.
IT HASN'T BEEN I THINK IT WAS 1991, WAS WHEN IT WAS PUT IN PLACE, NOTHING'S BEEN CHANGED IN IT SINCE WHEN I WAS DOING
[00:35:01]
MY REVIEW OF THIS ISSUE, YOU LOOK AT AGAIN, OTHER NOISE BYLAWS ACROSS CANADA, ACROSS THE US AND IRELAND IN THE UK, OTHER ENGLISH SPEAKING COMMON LAW COUNTRIES AND THESE HAVE MOVED ON IN TERMS OF THE CONTENT SO AGREE THAT THIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD PROBABLY TACKLE AT SOME POINT I AGREE A BROADER REVIEW, PROBABLY NOT FOR THIS YEAR, WHICH IS WHY I FOCUS IN ON IF COUNSEL IS INTERESTED, WHICH I'M GLEANING SO FAR, IT'S NOT.BUT IF COUNSEL WERE INTERESTED, I WOULD RECOMMEND WE JUST TACKLE THIS ONE LITTLE PIECE WITHIN THE CURRENT BY LAW WITH A BROADER REVIEW TO COME THAT'S WHERE I SIT ON THE ISSUE BECAUSE I DON'T SEE IT AS A POSITIVE ASPECT TO OUR DOWNTOWN BUT AGAIN, I'LL LEAVE IT OPEN TO COLLEAGUES ON THAT ONE, BUT THAT WOULD BE MY RESPONSE TO MY COLLEAGUE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THEN JUST MY OWN COMMENTS.
FIRST OFF, I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I UNDERSTAND WHERE THIS BUSINESS AND THESE RESIDENTS ARE COMING FROM.
I UNDERSTAND THEIR ACTIONS AND IT MAKES SENSE IN ATTEMPTING TO ADDRESS THEIR IMMEDIATE CONCERNS TO MY OWN THOUGHTS ON THE USE OF THESE DEVICES, I DISAGREE WITH THEIR USE FOR THREE MAIN REASONS.
ONE, I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT WORKS IN ADDRESSING THE IMMEDIATE CONCERNS OF THE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTS.
TWO, IT HAS A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE AREA AND THE DOWNTOWN AS A WHOLE AND THREE, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT DOES NOTHING TO ADDRESS THE UNDERLYING ISSUES AT PLAY HERE.
ON THE FIRST POINT, WELL, THE DEVICE DID SEEM TO WORK INITIALLY IN DISSUADING RESIDENTS FROM CONGREGATING IN THE AREA YET, IN RELATIVELY SHORT ORDER, IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WORKING.
THIS BEING THE CASE, IT SIMPLY DEGRADES THE EXPERIENCE FOR ANYONE IN THE AREA.
ON THE SECOND POINT, AS A CITY COUNSELOR REFLECTING ON THE IMPACT OF THIS DEVICE IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA IN DOWNTOWN AS A WHOLE, IT CLEARLY IS NEGATIVE AND CONTRARY TO THE CITY'S GOALS OF REVITALIZING THE DOWNTOWN.
EVEN IF THE DEVICE DID WORK AND RESIDENTS MOVED TO CONGREGATING NEAR ANOTHER BUSINESS OR RESIDENCE, WOULDN'T THAT BUSINESS OWNER OR RESIDENCE THEN BE INCENTIVIZED TO DEPLOY A NOISE DEVICE OF THEIR OWN.
OUR DIFFICULTIES AS GOVERNMENTS AND AS A COMMUNITY TO ADDRESS THE CONDITIONS THAT CREATE THE INITIAL CONCERNS IS PUSHING INDIVIDUALS TO SEEK THEIR OWN IMMEDIATE SOLUTIONS.
THERE IS A ROAD, I DO NOT WANT TO SEE US GO DOWN.
AS A MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT AND LEADERS IN OUR COMMUNITY, I'D LIKE US TO SEEK REAL SOLUTIONS TO THE ADDICTIONS AND HOMELESSNESS ISSUES INSTEAD OF LETTING CONDITIONS DEVELOP OR CONTINUE TO DEVELOP WHERE INDIVIDUALS FEEL NECESSARY TO PROTECT THEIR OWN PERSONAL SPACE.
THIS LEADS TO MY THIRD POINT THE USE OF THESE DEVICES DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE ISSUES CREATING THESE CONCERNS, THAT BEING ADDICTIONS AND HOMELESSNESS.
I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT NEED TO DIRECT MORE RESOURCES TO THIS AREA.
IT'S MY BELIEF THAT WE NEED TO SEE CONCRETE AND TIMELY ACTIONS COME FROM THE REVIEW OF THE STREET OUTREACH PROGRAM.
WE NEED TO SEE ACTIONS COME OUT OF THE RECENT REPORT ON POLICING OF ADDIGOUS WOMEN.
WE NEED TO SEE THE G&T STEP UP AND FOLLOW THROUGH ON THEIR OWN HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY.
IF WE DO NOT PRIORITIZE MORE RESOURCES TO ADDRESSING ADDICTIONS AND HOMELESSNESS, THE SYMPTOMS OF THESE ISSUES WILL ONLY INCREASE.
REVIEWS AND STRATEGIES ARE ONLY AS GOOD AS THE OUTCOMES THEY CREATE.
I'M VERY TORN ON THIS MOTION I VERY MUCH DISLIKE THIS DEVICE AND I AND I FEEL IT'S NEGATIVE TO OUR COMMUNITY, THAT BEING SAID, I'M VERY RECEPTIVE TO THE DISCUSSION AROUND JUST GIVING ADMIN SORT OF MORE WORKS TO ADDRESS ONE THING THAT DOESN'T SORT OF ADDRESS THE BROADER DISCUSSION AND SORT OF ADDRESS THE FACT THAT WE NEED TO GET AT THE REASONS THAT ARE UNDERLYING THIS ISSUE.
I WOULD FULLY SUPPORT THE SECOND RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE COUNSELOR AROUND A BROADER DISCUSSION WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PRIORITIES FOR MUNICIPAL ENFORCEMENT.
I WILL CONTINUE TO PUSH FOR MORE RESOURCES, TO COMBAT THE UNDERLYING ISSUES.
I'M UNFORTUNATELY, INCREDIBLY TORN, BUT JUST HESITANT TO SORT OF GO AFTER THE ONE SPECIFIC BIT OF THIS GIVEN THE WORK EDMAN CURRENTLY HAS IN THEIR PLATE AND THE SORT OF BEST PRACTICE IN TERMS OF ADDRESSING THE NOISE BY LAW ISSUES.
>> THANKS, MADAM CHAIR. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S EASIER OR FRUSTRATING TALKING AFTER TOM WHEN HE TAKES ALL YOUR POINTS.
THANK YOU, TOM THAT WAS VERY THOUGHTFUL, AND THANKS EVERYONE ELSE FOR SHARING YOUR THOUGHTS.
I APPRECIATE COUNSELOR HENDERSON BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
I'M SURPRISED TO HEAR THAT IT WAS ONLY ONE COMPLAINANT SO FAR.
I'VE CERTAINLY ALSO HEARD LOTS OF ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE OR FIRSTHAND EVIDENCE OF FOLKS THAT ARE FRUSTRATED OR NOT IN FAVOR OF THESE TYPES OF NOISE DEVICES.
PERSONALLY, LIKE SOME OTHERS, I THINK IT'S NOT IDEAL FOR TOURISM FOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT REVITALIZATION OF OUR DOWNTOWN, BUT RECOGNIZE THAT BUSINESS OWNERS AND LANDLORDS ARE FINDING THEIR OWN SOLUTIONS BECAUSE THERE'S A BIGGER PROBLEM,
[00:40:01]
AND I'M EAGER THAT THE CITY MANAGER JUST REFERENCED A REJIG HERE BEFORE THE END OF APRIL OF OUR PRIORITIES, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT DISCUSSION.I AM ABSOLUTELY SUPPORTIVE OF PRIORITIZING RESOURCES, MAYBE MORE THAN WE DID INITIALLY FOR THIS CALENDAR YEAR TO ADDRESS THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION ISSUES, WHICH I THINK ARE MORE THE ROOT CAUSE AND WITHOUT UNLIMITED RESOURCES TO TACKLE EVERYTHING, I APPRECIATE COUNSELOR HENDERSON'S APPROACH TO MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING WE CAN CHEW OFF ON THE SIDE AND DEAL WITH THIS IN A SHORTER TIME FRAME THAN THE LARGER ISSUES WE'LL CERTAINLY TAKE BUT, I THINK IF WE HAVE TO CHOOSE VERY CAREFULLY HOW OUR RESOURCES ARE SPENT, I'M EXCITED FOR THAT REPRIORITIZATION, AND MAYBE PUBLIC SAFETY AND DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION CAN WE CAN FIGURE OUT SOME WAYS TO GET THEM HIGHER UP THE LIST SO THAT'S MY THOUGHTS. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU. FOR MYSELF, I ALSO WON'T BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
FOR ME, PUBLIC SAFETY'S BIGGEST FOCUS RIGHT NOW, HAS TO BE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS.
IN WALKING AROUND THIS WEEKEND, I SAW FULL LAWNS WITH SNOW GONE AND GREEN GRASS, AND I DON'T THINK THAT I'VE EVER SEEN THAT SO EARLY IN THE SEASON, WHICH MAKES ME NERVOUS FOR ANOTHER POSSIBLE EARLY START TO FOREST FIRE SEASON.
AGAIN, WHETHER IT IMPACTS OUR COMMUNITY OR WHETHER WE'RE THE HOST COMMUNITY.
SO FOR ME, THE AFTER ACTION ASSESSMENT AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ARE MY TOP PRIORITIES FOR THE DEPARTMENT.
FOR THE MED DIVISION, IF THEY HAVE TIME, I WANT THEM WORKING ON THE DELIVERY LICENSE BYLAW REVIEW OR DOING FOOT PATROLS IN THE DOWNTOWN.
SO AS COUNCILOR HENDRICKSON NOTES, I DON'T THINK THE DEVICE IS VERY EFFECTIVE, AND I BET IT'LL BE TURNED OFF BEFORE WE EVEN GET AROUND TO UPDATING THE BYLAW.
SO WE'D BE SPENDING STAFF TIME ON AN ISSUE THAT'S GOING TO GO AWAY ON ITS OWN.
I'M SURE OTHER COUNSELORS WHO HAVE BEEN HERE IN THE '90S WILL REMEMBER WHEN THE MALL PLAYED LOUD CLASSICAL MUSIC AT THE ENTRANCE AND THEN IT JUST GOT TURNED OFF.
SO IS IT EFFECTIVE? I DON'T THINK SO, BUT I DON'T WANT TO SPEND TIME GETTING STAFF TO REVIEW IT.
BYLAWS SHOULD BE REVIEWED AND THERE SHOULD BE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, WHICH DOES MEAN STAFF ARE GOING OUT, SO A TIMELINE OF A MONTH, I THINK IS PRETTY QUICK.
I ALSO WON'T BE SUPPORTING THE SECOND PART OF THE MOTION BECAUSE WE COMMISSIONED THE $100,000 REVIEW OF THE STREET OUTREACH PROGRAM.
SO I WANT TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS COME FROM THAT BEFORE WE DIRECT STAFF TO DO MORE RESEARCH.
I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WE CONTINUE TO LOBBY AND ADVOCATE FOR LONG TERM SOLUTIONS.
CONTINUE TO LOBBY THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTS TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION CALLED ACTION NUMBER 21, WHICH IS ABOUT LONG TERM SUSTAINABLE HEALING FUNDING, LOBBY THAT THE GNWT AND RCMP ESTABLISH A DEDICATED DRUG ENFORCEMENT UNIT IN THE NWT.
THAT THE GNWT AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INCREASE CAPITAL AND O&M FOR NON MARKET HOUSING AND MUCH MORE.
AS A MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT, WE DO HAVE CORE RESPONSIBILITIES, WHICH IS THE WATER, THE SEWER, AND IT IS A STRUGGLE TO ACTUALLY HAVE THE LEVERS TO MAKE THOSE SOCIAL CHANGES.
SO I DO HOPE WE'LL SEE MORE FUNDING IN TOMORROW'S FEDERAL BUDGET.
WITH THAT, COUNCILOR HENDRICKSON TO CLOSE.
>> THANK YOU. I GUESS I'M IN GENERAL SUPPORT OF THE SPIRIT OF THIS MOTION, AND I'M REALLY GRATEFUL FOR COUNCILOR HENDRICKSON FOR BRINGING FORWARD.
THANK YOU, COUNSELOR CLEON FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
I REALLY SIMILAR SORT OF FEELINGS AS COUNSELOR [INAUDIBLE] IT'S HARD WHEN TOM SAYS ALL THE THINGS.
[LAUGHTER] BUT I WANTED TO NOTE THAT I PERSONALLY HAVE SENSORY SENSITIVITIES.
I CAN BE DOWNTOWN AND SORT OF BE AROUND THAT SOUND AND IT DOESN'T TOTALLY RUIN MY DAY, BUT ON A BAD DAY, IT'S REALLY BAD.
I KNOW THAT MY CONDITION FOR THAT IS MILD, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF RESIDENTS IN OUR COMMUNITY WHO CAN'T HANDLE THAT SOUND.
SO I HAVE A HARD TIME WITH THE FACT THAT PRIVATE BUSINESS CAN MAKE A CHOICE TO IMPACT THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF RESIDENTS.
WE HAVE OTHER BUSINESSES THAT ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT SPECIFIC HOURS IN THEIR STORES SO THAT THERE'S LOWER LIGHTS, LESS SOUND BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY HAVE A LOT OF STRUGGLES WITH THAT.
I THINK, WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT THIS NEEDS A MORE FULSOME REVIEW OR WE NEED TO REALLY LOOK AT THIS BY LAW
[00:45:02]
AS A WHOLE AND GIVE IT A LOT OF ATTENTION INSTEAD OF CHANGING ONE THING, I THINK IT WOULD BE A SHAME TO KNOW THAT THERE IS AN ENTIRE GROUP OF PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO AVOID THAT SPECIFIC AREA OF DOWNTOWN OVER THE COURSE OF THE SUMMER WHEN YOU WANT TO GET OUT AND YOU WANT TO GO GET YOUR ICE CREAM AT READY MART.I THINK MAYBE TO THE POINT OF THIS NOT BEING SOMETHING THAT WE AS A MUNICIPALITY CAN ADDRESS VERY MEANINGFULLY OR FAIRLY APPROPRIATELY IN THIS NEXT YEAR, I WOULD ENCOURAGE RESIDENTS TO REACH OUT DIRECTLY TO THE BUSINESS OWNERS BECAUSE I KNOW, AS A COUNSELOR, A LOT OF RESIDENTS HAVE REACHED OUT DIRECTLY TO ME.
SO I WILL CONTINUE TO REDIRECT PEOPLE AND MAYBE OTHER FELLOW COUNSELORS CAN DO THE SAME.
THAT'S WHERE I'M SITTING WITH THAT.
>> COUNCILOR HENDRICKSON? OH, SORRY.
DID COUNSEL PAYNE? YEAH, COUNSEL, PAYNE.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. JUST A QUESTION, THE OWNERS OF THE MALL, THE MANAGEMENT OF THE MALL HAVEN'T BROKEN ANY BYLAWS, RIGHT? SO THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND THEY'VE ONLY HAVE THEM ON FROM SEVEN IN THE MORNING TILL 11 AT NIGHT?
>> CORRECT. INITIALLY, IT WAS 24 HOURS, BUT IN DISCUSSIONS WITH MED, BECAUSE THAT'S THE QUIET HOURS FROM 11:00 P.M. TO 7:00 A.M, AND SO THEY'RE NOW IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT.
I THINK ONCE WE HAVE A NICE LOOK AT THE NOISE BY-LAW AS A WHOLE, WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT WHEN WE HAVE STAFF RESOURCES TO BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, PUT TOWARDS THAT.
I UNDERSTAND THE COUPLE OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE PUT COMPLAINTS FORWARD.
IT'S NOT LIKE WE'VE BEEN GETTING INUNDATED WITH A LOT OF NOISE COMPLAINTS.
GARRETT WORKS RIGHT ACROSS THE ROAD FROM IT, AND IT'S NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL FOR HIM.
THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT I HEAR THAT ANNOY ME AS WELL.
SOMETIMES IT IS NOT ARTIFICIAL NOISE.
BUT I THINK THAT THIS IS RIGHT NOW, WE'RE PUTTING A CART BEFORE THE HORSE, AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE PUTTING A WHOLE LOT OF TIME INTO.
THEY'RE NOT BREAKING ANY RULES, NOT BREAKING ANY LAWS.
A FEW PEOPLE ARE UPSET, BUT WHATEVER WE DO IN THE CITY, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE UPSET.
>> NOW TO COUNCILOR MCGURK, YOUR SECOND ROUND AND THEN COUNCILOR HENDRICKSON TO CLOSE.
>> SORRY, I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT REALLY CLEAR.
THE LANGUAGE HAS BEEN THAT THIS IS A NUISANCE, BUT THIS IS, FOR PEOPLE WITH SENSORY ISSUES, THIS IS A DIRECT HEALTH EFFECT.
WELL, MAYBE THE USE OF THESE SPECIFIC DEVICES IS NOT RECORDED FOR MUNICIPALITIES.
THE IMPACTS OF THESE KIND OF SOUNDS ON PEOPLE SENSORY ISSUES ARE VERY WELL RECORDED.
THERE'S A GOOD AMOUNT OF DATA.
IT'S NOT SIMPLY A NUISANCE, IT'S A LOT MORE THAN THAT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT REALLY CLEAR TO FELLOW COUNSELORS AND THE PUBLIC THAT WE'RE NOT JUST HAVING A DISCUSSION OF SOMETHING THAT IS AN ANNOYING SOUND, IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS DIRECTLY IMPACTING THE LIFE OF RESIDENTS.
>> COUNSELOR HENDRIKSEN TO CLOSE.
>> THANKS, MCGURK. AS USUAL, THANK YOU TO ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES FOR A THOUGHTFUL AND RESPECTFUL CONVERSATION.
WELL, OBVIOUSLY, I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THE DIRECTION.
I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT, IN TERMS OF THE WORK PLAN, THAT IS A BIG ONE, WHICH I HAD DEFINITELY CONSIDERED IN, WHY I WAS PROPOSING JUST CHEWING OFF THIS ONE PIECE TO THE POINT ABOUT, THE PROPERTY OWNER ISN'T BREAKING ANY LAWS ABSOLUTELY, THEY'RE NOT RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S MY POINT IS THAT RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG UNDER OUR CURRENT BY LAWS BUT TO ME, THAT'S HAVING DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS ON THEIR DOWNTOWN CORE SO THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING FROM ON THAT.
BUT I'LL LET SLEEPING DOGS LIE FOR NOW I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE MAYOR FOR LETTING ME BRING THIS FORWARD TO COUNSEL BECAUSE WHILE WE MAY HAVE ONLY HAD ONE COMPLAINT FORMALLY, WE CLEARLY ALL HAVE HEARD ABOUT THIS FOR MANY RESIDENTS.
WE ALSO KNOW A LOT OF RESIDENTS WHO JUST AVOID OUR DOWNTOWN SO THERE'S A REASON THAT PEOPLE AVOID OUR DOWNTOWN FOR BOTH OF THE TYPES OF ISSUES WHICH I BROUGHT UP TODAY AND WHICH TO ME, ARE ALL PART OF A WRAP IN OF WHY WE SHOULD BE HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS REGULARLY ALTHOUGH I APPRECIATE THE MAYOR MAKES A GREAT POINT ABOUT THE STREET OUTREACH REVIEW, WHICH IS CURRENTLY FINISHING SOON, I BELIEVE SO THAT'S ALL PART OF IT.
I THINK WE NEED TO STAY ON TOP OF THESE CONCERNS FROM THE PUBLIC, CONCERNS THAT WE HEAR AND THE FACT THAT WE WILL NOT HAVE A REVITALIZED DOWNTOWN,
[00:50:04]
WHICH WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR MANY COUNCILS NOW IF WE DON'T HAVE THESE HARD CONVERSATIONS AND COME UP WITH PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS AND PRACTICAL ACTION SO THAT'S REALLY WHY I WANTED TO BRING THIS FORWARD.THANK YOU, MAYOR, FOR LETTING ME DO THAT.
THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOU FOR HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU. AS NOTED, I'M NOT HEARING GENERAL SUPPORT, SO IT'S DULY NOTED, THANK YOU.
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A DISCUSSION REGARDING MILL RATE FOR VACANT LAND,
[6. A discussion regarding mill rate for vacant land.]
AND THIS WAS ASKED TO BE PUT ON THE AGENDA BY COUNCIL WARBURTON SO COUNCIL WARBURTON.>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. GENERALLY, MORE SOME QUESTIONS AND THEN I ASK AT THE END HERE SO CURRENTLY FOR VACANT LAND, I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT WE DON'T HAVE A VACANT LAND MILL RATE.
WE JUST TAX VACANT LAND BASED ON JUST THE LAND ASSESSMENT, CORRECT?
>> FOR ALL THIS VARIETY OF QUESTIONS, I'M GOING TO REFER TO THE DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE SERVICES WHO HAPPENS TO ALSO BE OUR CFO KEVY.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION AND GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. YOU'RE CORRECT.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC MILL RATE TAX VACANT LANDS.
>> THE PROPERTY ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION ACT, IT DOES ALLOW US TO HAVE A VACANT LAND MILL RATE THOUGH, CORRECT?
>> WHEN DO WE ANTICIPATE OUR MILL RATE DISCUSSION COMING TO COUNSEL THIS YEAR?
WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR ALL THE HEARINGS WE DID HAVE THE HEARINGS FOR THE APPEALS DONE SO AS SOON AS WE GET THE FINAL ASSESSED NUMBERS, WE WOULD BE PUTTING THINGS IN MOTION TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE BILL RATES.
>> MR. COCHRANE, DID YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING?
>> MAYOR, IF I COULD AND PERHAPS THIS WILL APPLY TO THE NEXT TWO DISCUSSION ITEMS, THIS ONE AND THE NEXT ONE.
UNDERSTANDING WHEN AND HOW WE ESTABLISH THE MILL RATES HERE IN THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE.
I THINK THERE IS A BROADER QUESTION AND APPROACH THAT OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED.
I'M STILL WRAPPING MY HEAD AROUND THIS, SO I'M NOT SUGGESTING FOR A MOMENT THAT I'M COMMITTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO DOING THIS TODAY, BUT JUST TO PROVIDE CONTEXT.
YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES YOU CAN EITHER DEBATE MILL RATES IN THE MOMENT BASED ON THE SITUATION THAT'S PLACED IN FRONT OF YOU, WHICH OF COURSE YOU WILL DO REGARDLESS BUT WHAT I BELIEVE WOULD BE USEFUL IS TO HAVE SOME POLICY GUIDELINES OR IN FACT, A POLICY ON MILL RATES PRIOR TO THAT DISCUSSION AND THAT POLICY WOULD NOT BE LAYING OUT MILL RATES IT WOULD BE LAYING OUT CERTAIN FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES.
FOR EXAMPLE, DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT WANT TO TREAT ALL COMMERCIAL CLASSES THE SAME WAY.
IF YOU WANT TO GIVE A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE TO SOME, HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THE FAIRNESS INEQUITY PERCEIVED BY OTHERS AND YOU CAN IN BROAD TERMS, PUT TOGETHER A POLICY ON HOW YOU ARE GOING TO DETERMINE YOUR MILL RATE BY LAW AND THEN THE MILL RATE BY LAW ITSELF WOULD ACTUALLY SET THE RATES ON A GIVEN YEAR.
I BELIEVE HAVING THAT FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT TO HELP GUIDE THE DISCUSSION AND ALSO HELP THE DELIBERATIONS OF COUNSEL WOULD BE USEFUL SO I HAVE HAD PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS WITH OUR DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE SERVICES WE'RE TAKING A LOOK TO SEE IF THAT IS WITHIN THE REALM OF THE POSSIBLE FOR THIS YEAR.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS OR NOT, BUT CERTAINLY, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE USEFUL IN THE LONG TERM. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. IT'S VERY HELPFUL. I GUESS, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A MILL RATE FOR VACANT LAND INCLUDED IN OUR MILL RATE DISCUSSION.
IF IT'S NOT IN THE LIST OF THINGS WE CAN DISCUSS FOR MILL RATES THIS YEAR, THEN IF VACANT LAND IS AN ITEM THAT'S IN THAT MILL RATE LIST, WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT SETTING A MILL RATE FOR SOMETHING THAT'S NOT IN THE LIST SO I KNOW CURRENTLY WE DON'T INCLUDE VACANT LAND IN OUR MILL RATE SCHEDULE.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT INCLUDED THIS YEAR, SO IT'S INCLUDED IN THAT DISCUSSION, EVEN IF WE DECIDE NOT TO DO IT, BUT WE CAN'T EVEN TALK ABOUT MILL RATE UNLESS IT'S IN THAT DISCUSSION, IS MY UNDERSTANDING, CORRECT?
>> COUNSEL CAN DO JUST LIKE WE DID IN THE SPRING OF 2022 AND SPRING A CHANGE ON RESIDENTS.
BUT THAT'S WHERE THE RECOMMENDATION CAME THAT WE HAVE A MILL RATE POLICY DRAFTED SO THAT THERE ISN'T THE SHOCK AND SUDDEN ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES OF COUNSEL AT THE LAST MINUTE DROPPING SOMETHING IN WITHOUT ENGAGING THE PUBLIC ON.
ALSO TO MR. COCHRANE'S POINT, COUNSEL HAS DIRECTED STAFF TO DRAFT A MILL RATE POLICY.
I THINK TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION WHETHER TO ADD ANOTHER CLASS FOR VACANT LAND, IS IT A COMMERCIAL VACANT LAND AND IS IT A RESIDENTIAL VACANT LAND OR IS IT JUST COMMERCIAL THAT WE'RE TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE, THAT COULD BE A PART OF THE POLICY DISCUSSION AND ADMINISTRATION THROUGH ALL THE DEPARTMENTS COULD PUT THEIR LENS ON IT SO FROM THE ACT PERSPECTIVE,
[00:55:04]
FROM THE PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, TO INFLUENCE THAT POLICY COMING FORWARD.IT'S NOT A BEST PRACTICE TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES ON THE FLY DURING A MILL RATE DISCUSSION, BUT IT IS COUNSEL'S PREROGATIVE IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT.
>> NO. I HAVE MORE QUESTION, I GUESS IT WAS YOU.
WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO IMPLEMENT THAT? IF THAT IS AFTER THAT POLICY DISCUSSION, THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT ADDING A RATE FOR VACANT LAND.
I'M HAPPY TO DO IT THEN. IS THERE AN ETA ON THAT BECAUSE I KNOW IF WE DIRECTED IT PREVIOUSLY TO HAVE A POLICY.
IS THERE ANY ETA KIND OF THOUGHT OF WHEN THAT'S COME?
>> I THINK TO MR. COCHRANE'S POINT OF REVIEWING THE WHOLE WORK PLAN FOR 2024 AND SEEING WHERE THAT WOULD FIT IN.
THE OTHER OPPORTUNITY WE MIGHT HAVE IS ACTUALLY DOING A DISCUSSION PAPER TO THEN GET SOME FEEDBACK BEFORE THE FINAL POLICY SO THAT WE CAN TAKE A SENSE OF THE ROOM ON WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, AND IS IT MORE PROPERTY CLASSES, LESS PROPERTY CLASSES BECAUSE I KNOW THE NEXT ONE IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE HIGH DENSITY PARKING AND WHETHER WE REMOVE THAT AND JUST TURN IT TO COMMERCIAL BUT MR. COCHRANE, IF YOU HAVE A [OVERLAPPING]
>> IF I MAY, I FULLY RECOGNIZE THE PREVIOUS WILL OF COUNSEL TO HAVE THIS POLICY MY COMMENTS ABOUT NOT SURE RIGHT NOW IS I'M JUST NOT SURE I CAN GET IT DONE IN TIME FOR THE MILL RATE DISCUSSION OF THIS FISCAL YEAR.
SORRY, THAT POLICY WOULD BE MUCH MORE THAN JUST WHAT DO WE WANT AS THE VARIOUS CLASSES.
THAT CAN CERTAINLY BE PART OF IT.
IT'S MORE THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES AS TO HOW DO YOU MAKE YOUR DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT IS AND IS NOT APPROPRIATE MILL RATES FOR ALL THOSE VARIOUS CLASSES.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU DECIDE THE MILL RATE FOR RESIDENTIAL AND I'LL EXAGGERATE JUST SO THAT NOBODY HOLDS ME TO THIS, 452, WHAT APPROACH ARE YOU TAKING FOR BUSINESS IF THE MILL RATE FOR RESIDENTIAL ENDS UP BEING THAT.
THOSE POLICY DIRECTIONS, SO THAT YOU'RE NOT STUCK IN THE MOMENT TRYING TO MAKE THOSE DETERMINATIONS IS VERY VALUABLE AND IMPOSES A LEVEL OF DISCIPLINE IN THE ENTIRE PROCESS.
TO THE MAYOR'S POINT, A LEVEL OF TRANSPARENCY WITH THE PUBLIC, THAT THEY KNOW HOW THEIR MILL RATES ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE DETERMINED.
MY ONLY CONCERN IS IT IS NOW APRIL 15, THE MILL RATE DISCUSSION IS LITERALLY JUST AROUND THE CORNER.
WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT IT. I JUST CAN'T COMMIT AT THIS POINT, WHETHER WE CAN GET A POLICY WRITTEN AND APPROVED IN TIME FOR THAT MILL RATE DISCUSSION FOR THIS YEAR.
>> I WOULD BE EVEN MORE BLACK AND WHITE AND SAY IT WON'T BE BECAUSE WE NEED TO ENGAGE WITH THE PUBLIC ON THIS.
THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IS GOING TO WANT TO ENGAGE HEAVILY.
MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT WE DO IT RIGHT AND THIS CAN BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, THE RATE FOR VACANT LAND, SINCE IT'S BEEN A DISCUSSION IN THE COMMUNITY FOR A WHILE, AND I KNOW ACT AND PLANNING AND LANDS WOULD HAVE SOME ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE ON THAT TOO.
>> YEAH. TO BE CLEAR, I DON'T NEED IT TO BE IN THE MILL RATE.
I WAS JUST ASKING WHEN THE APPROPRIATE TIME WOULD BE.
THIS POLICY IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT IN CIRCLES TO BE FAIR FOR A DECADE AND IT SEEMS TO NEVER GET SET.
I WAS IN A CHAMBER, WE ADVOCATE A LOT FOR A POLICY AND I GOT KICKED AROUND AND KICKED AROUND.
KEEP TALKING ABOUT SETTING A POLICY AND THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO DO IT, THAT'S GREAT.
BUT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT IN A WORK PLAN AND PURPOSELY LAID OUT WHEN WE'RE DOING IT AND STOP TALKING ABOUT SETTING A POLICY AND NOT ACTUALLY DOING IT.
BECAUSE THE MILL RATE DISCUSSION JUST KEEPS COMING BACK EVERY FOUR YEARS OVER AND OVER.
I'M HAPPY TO PARK THIS FOR NOW AND WAIT FOR THAT INFO.
>> THANK YOU. WHEN I WAS TAKING A LOOK AT THE BACKGROUND ON SOME OF THIS, I WAS LIKE, OH, PRESIDENT WARBURTON AND RESIDENT MCLENNAN HAD COMMENTS ON THIS.
SO YEAH. COUNSELOR FEQUET, DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS?
>> SMALL TOWN. I MEAN, I ASSUME PART OF THE IMPETUS FOR THESE QUESTIONS, WHICH IS GREAT IS, I GUESS, JUST MAYBE FLAGGING FOR ADMIN, WHICH I'M SURE IS ON THE RADAR THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE WORK ON THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE BY LAW IS ALREADY UNDERWAY AND THERE'S GOING TO BE A MENU COMING FORWARD TO COUNSEL AT SOME POINT IN THE COMING MONTHS, AT LEAST THAT WAS THE LAST UPDATE WE GOT, NOWITHSTANDING MAYBE THE REPRIORITIZATION AND SHUFFLING, BUT JUST RECOGNIZING THAT THOSE TWO CONVERSATIONS ARE OBVIOUSLY CONNECTED IN SOME WAY, WHETHER SEQUENCED OR SIMULTANEOUS.
BUT JUST FLAGGING THAT THAT I UNDERSTAND WHY A MILL RATE FOR A VACANT LAND MAY BE A WAY TO HELP BOLSTER OUR DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE BY LAW.
LOOKING FORWARD TO HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
>> IT CAN BE THE STICK OF THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES CARRIER.
THE COUNSELOR, THOUGH, IS NOTED, GOING TO PARK THIS FOR NOW AND LOOK FORWARD TO A FURTHER MORE FULSOME DISCUSSION DURING THE MILL RATE POLICY DISCUSSION.
WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE NEXT ITEM,
[7. A discussion regarding mill rates for high density parking.]
[01:00:03]
WHICH IS A MILL RATE FOR HIGH DENSITY PARKING. COUNSELOR HENDRICKSON.>> NOW I FEEL SO MUCH OF THAT DISCUSSION IS ALREADY HAD.
BUT KNOWING THAT THAT'S BACK IN ACTION POTENTIALLY, EVEN IF IT'S FOR NEXT YEAR.
I'M INCLINED TO JUST SAY LET'S INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF IT, BUT I JUST WANT TO GO OVER MY RATIONALE BECAUSE I WOULD SAY THAT THE ONE STICKING POINT THAT I WOULD LAY OUT IS WE HAVE THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE BY LAW COMING FORWARD TOO.
TO ME, THIS MILL RATE IN PARTICULAR AND THIS PROPERTY CLASS IS A INCENTIVE.
I WOULD JUST SAY THAT AS THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE BYLAW IS BEING REVIEWED, IF WE TAKE A LOOK AT THIS MILL RATE AND DECIDE, DOES THIS CLASS MAKE SENSE AS AN INCENTIVE PERSPECTIVE? I CAN GO THROUGH IT ALL, BUT I'VE PASSED MY THOUGHTS TO ADMIN ALREADY.
BUT BASICALLY, JUST THE FACT THAT THIS PROPERTY CLASS AND MILL RATE WAS PUT IN IN 1989 TO INCENTIVIZE THE BUILDING OF A BUILDING THAT HAS BEEN THERE FOR 34 YEARS, NOTHING ELSE HAS BEEN BUILT AS A RESULT OF THAT INCENTIVE.
DO WE STILL NEED THAT INCENTIVE? I WOULD JUST SAY I'LL TAG ON TO THE FACT THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION ABOUT A POLICY.
I'LL PARK THE FACT OR THE IDEA OF LET'S MAKE A DECISION AS COUNSEL, BUT I WOULD MAYBE JUST PUT IT IN ADMIN'S THOUGHTS THAT AS THINKING THROUGH DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE BYLAW AND THEN BRINGING FORWARD RECOMMENDED MILL RATES FOR THIS YEAR.
I'M NOT GOING TO SAY I WANT TO SEE THAT AS A RECOMMENDATION, BUT IF THAT MAKES SENSE TO EITHER ELIMINATE THAT PROPERTY CLASS OR INCREASE THAT MILL RATE BECAUSE WE CAN'T REMOVE THAT PROPERTY CLASS THIS YEAR, JUST TO FACTOR IT INTO HOW ARE WE THINKING ABOUT INCENTIVES AND PROVIDING INCENTIVES FOR 34 YEARS THAT SEE NO, AGAIN, EFFICACY DOESN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE TO ME.
I'LL LEAVE IT THERE THOUGH, MADAM MAYOR ALTY. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU. I WOULD SAY IT'S A BETTER.
I DON'T THINK WE'LL HAVE ADJUSTMENTS TO THIS YEAR'S MILL RATES, BUT THE MILL RATE POLICY WHEN THAT COMES FORWARD, THAT WOULD BE THE BETTER PLACE FOR IT.
BECAUSE HIGH DENSITY PARKING DOES PAY MORE IN TAXES THAN SURFACE PARKING.
IT'S A COMPLICATED CLASS, BUT MR. COLLEN, IF YOU HAVE COMMENT.
>> YEAH, MAYOR, I'D JUST LIKE TO FIRST OF ALL, ON BEHALF OF ADMINISTRATION, ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE DID RECEIVE THE COUNSELORS COMMENTS AND THAT WILL BE PART OF OUR POLICY DELIBERATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS AS WE WORK TOWARDS DEVELOPING SOMETHING FOR THE BENEFIT OF COUNSEL.
I ALSO WANT TO STRESS THE ASPECT OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THIS POLICY WILL BE CRITICAL.
I MEAN, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU WERE TO TAKE THE MILL RATE OF THAT GARAGE WITHOUT DIVULGING SPECIFIC DETAILS, BUT MAKE IT THE SAME AS COMMERCIAL MILL RATES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A TAX INCREASE OF 72%.
THERE ARE IMPACTS HERE THAT WE WILL NEED TO THINK THROUGH VERY CAREFULLY AS WE DEVELOP THIS POLICY MOVING FORWARD. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. COUNSEL MCLENNAN.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANKS TO EVERYONE FOR THE DISCUSSION AND BRINGING THIS STUFF FORWARD.
I JUST LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS ONE.
IT SEEMS LIKE VERY MUCH LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT POLICY.
THE COUNSELORS RATIONALE ON THIS FOR REMOVING THIS ONE MAKES A TON OF SENSE TO ME, CLEANING UP OUR INCENTIVES THAT MAY NOT BE WORKING.
IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE MOVING TOWARDS A BROADER DISCUSSION AND LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT.
>> THANK YOU. DEPUTY MAYOR COCHRAN.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. JUST TO COMMENT.
I WANT TO THANK COUNSELOR HENDRICKSON FOR ALL HIS NERDY GOODNESS THAT HE PUT INTO THIS.
IT WAS QUITE AN INTERESTING READ.
GLAD YOU WENT BACK TO 1989 TO LOOK AT THE INITIAL ASPECTS OF THIS. THANK YOU AGAIN.
>> WITH THAT, SEEING NOTHING FURTHER, LOOKS LIKE WE'LL HAVE A JUICY DISCUSSION WHEN THE MILL RATE POLICY COMES FORWARD.
NO FURTHER ACTION ON THOSE THREE ITEMS THAT WERE BROUGHT FORWARD.
[IN CAMERA]
NEXT, WE HAVE ONE IN CAMERA, WHETHER TO APPOINT MEMBERS TO SERVE ON THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD ON HOMELESSNESS.IF WE CAN GET A MOTION TO MOVE IN CAMERA, MOVED BY DEPUTY MAYOR COCHRAN, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR PAYNE.
BUSINESS ARISING FROM IN CAMERA IS TO APPOINT JANELLE JOSEPH AND
[9. Business arising from In Camera Session.]
HAWADUMBIA SEISEYA TO THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD ON HOMELESSNESS.WITH THAT, WE'VE REACHED THE END OF OUR AGENDA.
IF I CAN GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN, MOVE BY COUNSELOR FEQUET, SECONDED BY COUNSELOR HENDRICKSON.
ANYBODY OPPOSED? SEEING NONE, AND OUR NEXT MEETING IS NEXT MONDAY AT 12:05 P.M. HAVE A GREAT WEEK, EVERYONE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.