Feb 24, 2025 Council Meetings

[00:00:05]

OKAY AND I WILL CALL OUR COUNCIL MEETING FOR MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24TH, 2025 TO ORDER AND I'LL ASK COUNCILLOR MCGURK TO PLEASE READ THE OPENING

[1. Councillor McGurk will read the 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 MÉTIS AND ALL FIRST NATIONS, METIS AND INUIT WHOSE PRESENCE CONTINUES TO ENRICH OUR VIBRANT COMMUNITY. THANK YOU.

THERE ARE NO AWARD CEREMONIES OR PRESENTATIONS FOR THE AGENDA.

WE HAVE MINUTES OF COUNCIL FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10TH, 2025. COUNCILOR MCGURK.

[Items 3 & 4]

THANK YOU. SECONDER. COUNCILOR HENDRICKSEN. ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AND THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

NEXT WE HAVE DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF.

DOES ANY MEMBER HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BEFORE ANY MATTER BEFORE COUNCIL TONIGHT? THERE WERE NO THERE WAS NO CORRESPONDENCE, NOR WERE THERE ANY PETITIONS FOR THE AGENDA.

THERE WERE NO STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE AGENDA.

THERE IS A DELEGATION PERTAINING TO AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA AND THAT MET NOTICED.

[DELEGATIONS PERTAINING TO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA]

MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THANKS FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING.

I'M ADAM DENLEY WITH COMMUNITIES IN MOTION. LATER THIS EVENING, YOU'RE GOING TO BE DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO PROCEED WITH THE ACTIVE MOBILITY INTEGRATION INTEGRATION PROJECT. THERE'S NO ONE IN OUR COMMITTEE THAT DOES NAMING.

WE NEED SOMEONE ANYWAYS, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE FUNDED LARGELY THROUGH THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FUND.

SO I JUST WANTED TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROJECTS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN COMMUNITIES OF MOTION'S APPLICATION AND WHY WE CHOSE THE PROJECTS THAT WE DID, AND A LITTLE BIT OF WHERE OUR DECISION MAKING CAME FROM.

LAST TIME THIS WAS BROUGHT BEFORE COUNCIL, THERE WAS A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP AS LIMITATIONS.

ONE OF THEM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS DISCUSSED WAS THAT THE CITY STAFF HAD DIDN'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO TAKE ON THE APPLICATION PROJECT WITHOUT HAVING TO FOREGO OTHER IMPORTANT WORK THAT WAS ALREADY ONGOING, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY FAIR.

SO, WE DECIDED AS A GROUP OF VOLUNTEERS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO GENERATE THAT CAPACITY IN OUR FREE TIME.

AND SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE BUILT AN APPLICATION THAT'S KIND OF DONE AND DUSTED AND READY TO PRINT.

AND ALL THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN NOW IS BASICALLY TO TAKE THE INFORMATION THAT WE GENERATED AND TO PUT THAT INTO THE APPLICATION PORTAL.

AND, AND WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO SIT DOWN WITH A MEMBER OF CITY STAFF AND GO THROUGH GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS WITH THEM, IF THAT WOULD BE MORE EFFICIENT. WE'RE ESTIMATING THAT THE WHOLE APPLICATION PROCESS PROBABLY TAKES A COUPLE OF HOURS JUST GETTING THROUGH THE CLICKING ALL THE BOXES AND FILLING IN ALL THE FIELDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. ANOTHER THING THAT WAS MENTIONED IS THAT WE DON'T YET HAVE A MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN.

SO WHAT I WOULD SAY TO THAT IS THAT FOR THIS APPLICATION PROCESS FOR THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FUND NONE OF THE WORK HAS TO START RIGHT AWAY.

I THINK PROJECTS HAVE TO BE COMPLETED BY SOMETIME IN 2030.

SO IF WE CAN APPROVE THIS PROJECT, WE DON'T HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, START DIGGING RIGHT AWAY.

IN FACT, NONE OF THAT WORK HAS TO HAPPEN UNTIL WE ALREADY HAVE A MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN.

AND IF IN THE END, IT TURNS OUT THAT THE PROJECTS THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED DON'T ALIGN VERY WELL WITH THE MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN.

WE CAN ADAPT TO THAT. OKAY. THE APPLICATION. SO I WON'T GO THROUGH THE WHOLE THING, AS YOU ALREADY HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION, BUT I JUST WANT TO IDENTIFY WHY SOME OF THE BIGGER TICKET ITEMS ARE THE ONES THAT WE CHOSE.

THE FIRST ONE WAS THE FRAME LAKE TRAIL EXTENSION.

WE IDENTIFIED THAT ONE BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT IN THE CITY FOR LIKE AT LEAST TWO DECADES, PROBABLY MORE.

IT'S EVEN MADE IT ONTO THE BUDGET BEFORE. IT WAS PULLED OFF OF THE BUDGET BECAUSE IT WAS QUITE EXPENSIVE.

BUT IT WOULD PROVIDE REALLY, REALLY GOOD CONNECTIVITY FOR THE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE RANGER LAKE NEIGHBORHOOD TO GET THEM INTO DOWNTOWN AND OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY.

AND IT WOULD PROVIDE REALLY, REALLY GOOD CONNECTIVITY FOR PEOPLE LIVING IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY TO ACCESS SOME OF THE BUSINESSES ON OLD AIRPORT ROAD.

AND EVEN AFTER, YOU KNOW, CRAZY INFLATION OVER THE INTERVENING FIVE YEARS OR SO SINCE THAT, THAT THING WAS ORIGINALLY PUT ON THE BUDGET WITH THE ADVANTAGE OF THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FUND.

THE COST TO THE CITY WOULD STILL BE ABOUT HALF OF WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY BUDGETED IN 2019.

[00:05:03]

THEY IDENTIFY PAINTED BIKE LANES AS SORT OF LOW COMFORT, HIGH STRESS INFRASTRUCTURE AS FAR AS BIKE INFRASTRUCTURE GOES, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET TEN YEAR OLD KIDS.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT COMFORTABLE AROUND CARS. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET PEOPLE WHO AREN'T CONFIDENT RIDERS. SO THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO FEEL COMFORTABLE USING THAT INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT NECESSARILY HIGH.

IF YOU HAVE A CYCLE WAY, WHICH WOULD BE A PROTECTED, BASICALLY A PROTECTED BIKE LANE WOULD QUALIFY AS A CYCLEWAY THAT'S CONSIDERED VERY HIGH COMFORT AND VERY LOW STRESS INFRASTRUCTURE. SO WITH THAT KIND OF INFRASTRUCTURE, YOU'LL GET ALL KINDS OF RIDERS ON THERE, REGARDLESS OF AGE OR ABILITY OR STRESS TOLERANCE.

AND ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS WE IDENTIFIED WAS BIKE STORAGE.

JUST HAVING PLACES TO PARK THE BIKES JUST BECAUSE IN OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC, IT COMES UP FREQUENTLY THAT PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO RIDE THEIR BIKE, BUT THEY DON'T FEEL THAT THERE'S ENOUGH SECURE STORAGE TO TO FEEL COMFORTABLE LEAVING THEIR BIKES AROUND TOWN.

SO THOSE ARE THE PROJECTS, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE THE THAT'S THE MAIN PART OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE IDENTIFIED, THE PRICES THAT OR THE COSTS THAT WE'VE ESTIMATED FOR THESE.

THESE COME FROM TAKING THE COSTS OF OTHER ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY, APPLYING A FACTOR FOR INFLATION, AND THEN APPLYING ANOTHER FACTOR, A NORTHERN BUILDING FACTOR, WHICH IS A STANDARD FACTOR THAT'S APPLIED IN CONSTRUCTION IN THE NORTH BECAUSE WE GET HOSED ON THE PRICE OF EVERYTHING.

SO THAT'S WHERE THOSE NUMBERS COME FROM. AND THEY'VE ACTUALLY THE NUMBERS THAT WE GENERATED HAVE BEEN REVIEWED INDEPENDENTLY BY A COUPLE OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERS, JUST AS A PERSONAL FAVOR. SO, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE WE'VE REACHED THE END OF FIVE MINUTES.

IF I CAN GET A MOTION TO EXTEND TO TWO. MOVE BY COUNCILLOR MCGURK, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR COCHRANE.

ANYBODY OPPOSED? SEEING NONE. YOU CAN CONTINUE.

OKAY, JUST TO CLOSE OUT, I JUST WANT TO HIT YOU WITH SOME DATA AS TO WHY.

LIKE WHY WE WON'T LEAVE THIS ALONE, BASICALLY.

SO WHY DO WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THIS KIND OF EXPANDED ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE? THERE WAS A STUDY RELEASED OUT OF NEW ZEALAND JUST IN JANUARY, THE CONCLUSION OF WHICH WAS WE FIND THAT ANY NEW LOW STRESS INFRASTRUCTURE, REGARDLESS OF ITS LOCATION, IS LIKELY TO INCREASE BICYCLE RIDERSHIP.

GREAT. WHY DO WE THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO INCREASE BICYCLE RIDERSHIP? IN SEATTLE, THERE WAS A SECTION OF A STREET NOT EXACTLY IN DOWNTOWN, BUT IN A BUSINESS AREA WHERE THEY REMOVED 12 PARKING SPOTS, LIKE STREET SIDE PARKING FOR CARS, AND THEY PUT IN A BIKE LANE.

I'LL READ FROM THIS REPORT AS WELL. TWO QUARTERS AFTER THE PROJECT WAS FINISHED, THE STREET EXPERIENCED A 350% INCREASE IN SALES INDEX, FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER JUMP TO 400% SALES INDEX THE FOLLOWING QUARTER COMPARED WITH THE CONTROL.

THAT'S A PRETTY EXCEPTIONAL RESULT. NOT ALL INFRASTRUCTURE WILL HAVE THAT RESULT, BUT ALL OF THE RESEARCH THAT WE'VE SEEN SHOWS THAT WHEN YOU INSTALL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, THE EFFECT ON BUSINESS IS POSITIVE OR NEUTRAL.

NOWHERE HAVE I SEEN ANY RESULT SAYING THAT IT'S BEEN NEGATIVE, EVEN WHEN A STREET SIDE PARKING HAS BEEN REMOVED.

HERE'S ANOTHER REASON TO DO IT. THE ESTIMATE FOR THE AVERAGE COST OF OWNING A CAR IN CANADA RIGHT NOW IS ALMOST $1,400 A MONTH, EVERY SINGLE MONTH. AND WE'RE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT HOW PEOPLE ARE HAVING A TOUGH TIME MAKING ENDS MEET.

AND SO SOMEONE MAYBE WOULD LIKE TO NOT HAVE TO OWN A CAR BECAUSE THERE'S A HUGE FINANCIAL BURDEN, BUT THERE ISN'T A SENSIBLE WAY FOR THEM TO GO ABOUT THEIR LIVES.

AND IF THEY HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT NOT HAVING A CAR, THAT CAN MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

THAT'S LIKE $16,000 A YEAR. IT'S A TON OF CASH BACK IN PEOPLE'S POCKETS.

OR WHAT ABOUT HEALTH? THERE IS A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OUT OF SCOTLAND RELEASED IN 2024.

COMPARED WITH NON-ACTIVE COMMUTING, CYCLISTS COMMUTING WAS ASSOCIATED WITH LOWER ALL CAUSE MORTALITY RISK, LOWER RISK OF ANY HOSPITALIZATION, LOWER RISK OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE, HOSPITALIZATIONS, AND OF HAVING A CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE PRESCRIPTION, LOWER RISK OF CANCER MORTALITY AND CANCER HOSPITALIZATION,

[00:10:02]

YEP. JUST QUESTIONS. COUNCILLOR COCHRANE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

AND THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION, ADAM. TOTAL COST OF ALL ESTIMATED PROJECTS.

TOTAL COST OF ALL ESTIMATED PROJECTS. WHERE? DO I GO TO THE TOP OR THE BOTTOM? SORRY. TOTAL COST OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT WOULD BE 1.9 MILLION, WITH THE CITY TO COVER ABOUT 480,000.

HOWEVER, THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DESIGNED IN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PHASES, SO IF NECESSARY, THESE DIFFERENT PHASES CAN BE SCALED BACK OR CERTAIN PHASES CAN BE REMOVED ENTIRELY IF NECESSARY. OKAY. THANK YOU.

QUESTION TO ADMINISTRATION. FOR THE FRAME LAKE EXTENSION, THE LAND TENURE, WHOSE LAND OR WHO OWNS THE LAND THAT HAS BEEN PUT UP HERE AS THE SPACE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE UTILIZING, OR WE WOULD BE UTILIZING? COMMISSIONERS. MR. VAN DINE I SECOND THAT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LOTS TO THINK ABOUT. JUST QUESTIONS.

YEP. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? RECOGNIZING WE DO HAVE A MOTION LATER ON. AND IF THERE'S QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIONS, IF THERE IS A SECONDER. COUNCILOR FEQUET.

THANKS, MADAM CHAIR. JUST DOUBLE CHECKING. YOU CAN HEAR ME. YEP.

OKAY, GREAT. YEAH. SO JUST A QUESTION. THE PRESENTER THANK YOU FOR THAT ADAM.

AND YOU KIND OF TOUCHED ON IT. BUT JUST TO CONFIRM.

SO I MEAN THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF POTENTIAL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION OPPORTUNITIES OVER THE YEARS THROUGH VARIOUS STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED.

WHY DID YOU GUYS THINK THESE ONES WOULD, WOULD, WOULD BE A GOOD START IN THIS APPLICATION AS OPPOSED TO EVERYTHING ELSE THAT YOU COULD HAVE, COULD HAVE INCLUDED IN HERE? SO I'D SAY THE MAIN MEAT OF THE APPLICATION IS THE FRAME LAKE TRAIL EXTENSION AND THE BOLLARDS AND PLANTERS ALONG THE, THE BIKE LANES THAT, THAT THE CITY HAS ALREADY AGREED TO DO.

THAT'S WHY WE CHOSE THAT ONE, BECAUSE THE CITY IS ALREADY PUTTING IN THE BIKE LANES.

AND SO WE FIGURED THAT WAS THAT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY ENHANCE THAT INFRASTRUCTURE AND REALLY GIVE IT A GOOD CHANCE TO TO BE EFFECTIVE IN THE CITY TO TO SEE A DECREASE IN, IN CAR RIDERSHIP. THE FRAME LAKE TRAIL EXTENSION, WE CHOSE THAT ONE BECAUSE BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT FOR YEARS.

AND IN 2018, THERE WAS A I THINK IT'S I THINK IT WAS THE TRAILS ENHANCEMENT AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY FROM DILLON CONSULTING.

I THINK IN 2018, THEY LOOKED AT ALL KINDS OF STUFF ALL OVER THE CITY.

THEY IDENTIFIED ALL KINDS OF LITTLE PROBLEM AREAS, LIKE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO WAY TO GET TO THE SKI CLUB WITHOUT DRIVING.

THERE'S NO WAY TO GET TO FRED HANEY PARK WITHOUT DRIVING. YOU KNOW, THE INTERSECTION AT OLD AIRPORT AND FRANKLIN IS KIND OF BIG AND MESSY AND UNPLEASANT.

BUT AT THE END OF THAT REPORT, THEY SAID THE SINGLE BEST THING THAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR TRAIL SYSTEM IN YELLOWKNIFE AND FOR YOUR NON CAR BASED CONNECTIVITY IS TO COMPLETE THE FRAME LAKE TRAIL EXTENSION. AND YOU KNOW, THERE WERE THE CONSULTANTS THAT GENERATED THE REPORT.

I HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE WRONG.

I WOULD PERSONALLY LOVE TO MAKE USE OF IT. I CAN SEE THE VALUE IN IT.

THANK YOU. JUST REGARDING ALL THE UNIT RATES AND DIMENSIONS AND QUANTITIES AND EVERYTHING THAT WAS USED IN THE COSTING IN THAT APPENDIX THAT WENT ALONG WITH THE TWO PAGER. YOU KNOW, WHERE DID ALL THOSE COME FROM? HOW DO YOU AND CAN YOU TALK LIKE, YOUR LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE WITH ALL THAT INFORMATION? YEAH. SO THOSE NUMBERS WERE GENERATED MOSTLY FROM A DOCUMENT THAT IS CALLED SOMETHING IN MY COSTING AND A BANNER I CAN'T GET OUT OF THE WAY COSTING OF BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROGRAMS IN CANADA.

AND IT'S BASICALLY A LAUNDRY LIST OF OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AROUND THE COUNTRY AND HOW MUCH IT COSTS THEM AND THE SCALE AND SCOPE OF WHAT THEY DID.

AND SO WE LOOKED AT A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT PROJECTS THAT WERE SIMILAR IN SCALE TO EXAMPLE, FOR THE FOR THE FRAME LAKE TRAIL.

THERE WAS ONE IN WITSET BC THAT WAS I BELIEVE IT WAS A MULTI-USE TRAIL SYSTEM OF SOME KIND.

AND WITSET IS A IS A REMOTE COMMUNITY. SO COSTS ARE GOING TO BE HIGHER.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE GOT ALL THOSE BASIC NUMBERS.

AND THEN WE USED A BC, THERE WAS A DOCUMENT FROM THE BC HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT, I THINK THAT THAT HAS A MEANS BY WHICH YOU CAN APPLY AN INFLATION FACTOR THAT SEEMED LIKE A MORE RELEVANT FACTOR THAN LIKE A GENERAL BUILDING OR CONSTRUCTION INFLATION FACTOR.

SO WE USED THEIR INFLATION NUMBERS TO SORT OF LOOK FORWARD AND BACKWARD IN TIME.

SO IF THE, YOU KNOW, IF THERE WAS A SOME KIND OF A TRAIL SYSTEM THAT WAS INSTALLED IN 2016,

[00:15:05]

AND THEN WE TOOK THAT NUMBER AND THEN APPLIED A 1.75% FACTOR, WHICH IS THE NORTHERN GETTING HOSED FACTOR.

IT'S PROBABLY GOT A REAL NAME. THANKS. ADAM, COULD YOU JUST A QUESTION ON THE INFLATION RATES THAT YOU GUYS USED IN THE COSTING? CAN YOU SPEAK TO THOSE? I CAN'T BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THEM IN FRONT OF ME UNLESS IT'S IN THE EXCEL SHEET.

LET ME TELL YOU, IT'S IN THE IT'S A 12.63%, I THINK IS WHAT THE ESTIMATED INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION ESCALATION FROM 2020.

I THINK IT'S THE ANSWER THAT YOU JUST PROVIDED ABOUT THE BC.

YEAH. THAT WAS YEAH. THAT WAS THAT WAS ALL GENERATED THROUGH THAT THAT BK HIGHWAYS.

OKAY. COST ESTIMATING TOOL THAT THEY HAD. OKAY.

THANKS, ADAM. THANK YOU. SEEING NO FURTHER. OH COUNCILOR HENDRICKSEN.

THANKS. JUST ONE OF THE ANSWERS THERE SORT OF SPURRED A QUESTION FOR ME.

IF I REMEMBER, AND THIS IS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT THE TRAIL IN HAND, BECAUSE I'VE READ THESE THINGS SO MANY TIMES.

THE TRAIL ENHANCEMENT CONNECTIVITY STRATEGY FROM 2018.

THIS IS FOR AMIN. IT'S TALKED ABOUT DIFFERENT ROUTES FOR THE FRAME LAKE TRAIL.

AND SO I AGREE THAT THERE WERE SOME THAT HIT COMMISSIONER'S LAND, BUT THERE WAS ALSO A ROUTE THAT HUGGED THE LAKE.

WHICH IS IT? BECAUSE ON THE CITY EXPLORER, IT LEAVES IT TO BE TO BE DETERMINED.

AND IN THE TRAIL ENHANCEMENT STUDY IT TALKS ABOUT COMMISSIONERS OR MUNICIPAL LAND.

SO I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT. YEAH. YEAH. THE STANTON CAMPUS AND THEN THE WATER, THE GNWT DEFINITELY DOESN'T GIVE US ANYTHING CLOSE TO THE WATER, BUT MR. VAN DINE. THAT'S CORRECT. SO ALL COMMISSIONERS.

THANK YOU. OKAY. SEEING NOTHING. COUNCILLOR MCGURK.

THANKS VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION. A QUESTION TO ADMINISTRATION.

FIRST IS, HAVE WE LOOKED INTO THE FEASIBILITY OF DOING THIS, OR CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE FEASIBILITY OF ACCESSING THIS LAND, I F IT'S COMMISSIONER'S LAND? YEAH. AND JUST TO NOTE, THIS IS JUST BEING PRESENTED SO ADMINISTRATION WON'T HAVE MANY ANSWERS, BUT MR. VAN DINE. NOT A LOT OF ANSWERS. BUT TYPICALLY IN APPLICATIONS SUCH AS THIS, LAND TENURE IS A QUESTION THAT IS A REQUIREMENT ON ALL OF OUR PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS.

SO IN THIS CASE WE KNOW THAT THE LAND TENURE IS NOT WE KNOW IT'S CLEAR WHAT THE TENURE IS.

SO IN TERMS OF THE FEASIBILITY OF TRYING TO CHANGE THE TENURE IN IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I THINK IN THIS CONTEXT, I THINK WOULD BE A CHALLENGING, I GUESS, TO, TO, TO TRY AND ACHIEVE, GIVEN THAT SOME OF THE PIECES THAT THIS CITY HALL IS SITTING ON TOOK ABOUT 11 YEARS TO GET TRANSFERRED BACK TO US.

SO WE'RE WE'RE NOT OPTIMISTIC IN THAT REGARD.

SO I'LL JUST LEAVE MY COMMENTS THERE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. SO WE CAN'T APPLY FOR THE WE CAN'T APPLY IF WE DON'T HAVE TENURE OF THE LAND.

IF THIS IS ONE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECTS YOU CAN APPLY, BUT THEY'LL DOCK YOU POINTS FOR NOT HAVING LAND TENURE.

THAT'S HAPPENED IN THE PAST WHEN WE DON'T HAVE LAND TENURE.

BUT MR. VAN DINE. THAT'S CORRECT, MADAM CHAIR.

TO THE PRESENTER, I GUESS AS YOU CONSIDERED THIS POSSIBILITY AND DO YOU THINK THAT THIS IS STILL A STRONG ENOUGH CASE TO PROCEED WITH THE APPLICATION? YEAH. WE'VE GOT A FEW YEARS TO FIGURE IT OUT.

OF COURSE. IF THIS ITEM WAS BUDGETED IN 2019, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS AT THAT TIME.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS ANYONE CURRENTLY IN THIS ROOM THAT WAS PRESENT AT THAT TIME.

SO IT MIGHT BE THAT THERE WAS ACTUALLY ALREADY A DISCUSSION OPENED ABOUT THAT. SO IT MIGHT NOT BE QUITE SUCH A LARGE HILL TO CLIMB.

ALSO, IF YOU GO ON TO CITY EXPLORER, YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE SECTIONS OF THE EXISTING, YOU KNOW, ACCESSIBLE FRAME LAKE TRAIL THAT THAT'S A LITTLE SORT OF WEDGE OF SOME SORT OF CITY IDENTIFIED PROPERTY IN A SEA OF OTHER LAND USES.

SO IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD TO GET ACCESS TO JUST THE PROPOSED DIMENSIONS OF THE TRAIL SYSTEM, AS OPPOSED TO JUST ASKING TO HAVE OWNERSHIP OF THE ENTIRE PLOT OF LAND.

IN 2017, WHEN IT ORIGINALLY CAME FORWARD, IT WAS IF COUNCIL APPROVES IT, THEN WE'LL GO TALK TO THE GNWT.

[00:20:01]

OKAY. I THINK YEAH, I THINK THAT'S ALL. I MAY ASK MORE QUESTIONS LATER.

THANK YOU. COUNCILOR FEQUET, IS THAT A LEGACY OR DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR THE PRESENTER? IF IT'S TIME. ONE MORE PLEASE, MADAM CHAIR. YEP.

ALL THE QUESTIONS, AND THEN WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.

YEAH. JUST ON THAT LAST QUESTION ABOUT LAND TENURE AND WHETHER IT'S A REQUIREMENT.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE COMMUNITIES IN MOTION COMMITTEE OF ECOLOGY NORTH WAS SUBMITTING A BUNCH OF APPLICATIONS FOR DIFFERENT PROJECTS, NOT JUST WORKING ON THIS PROPOSAL, BUT FROM THAT APPLICATION EXPERIENCE.

WAS THERE A REQUIREMENT, A NEED FOR LAND TENURE AS PART OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS? OR ARE YOU ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT? ONE OF THE SECTIONS SAYS PROJECT READINESS.

YOU HAVE TO INDICATE WHETHER THE PROPERTY OR RIGHTS OF WAY NEED TO BE SECURED AND, IF APPLICABLE, WHEN THIS IS EXPECTED TO BE SECURED. SO IT IS A QUESTION THAT WE'D HAVE TO ADDRESS IN THE APPLICATION.

BUT ADAM. IT WOULD NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BUT IT DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE APPLICATION AS FAR AS I'M AWARE.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? SEEING NONE.

THANK YOU AGAIN, ADAM, FOR FOR COMING. AND OF COURSE, ALL YOUR YOUR WORK ON THIS.

NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA. LET ME SCROLL UP IS MEMBER STATEMENTS.

THERE WERE NO MEMBER STATEMENTS FOR THE AGENDA.

ARE THERE ANY MEMBER STATEMENTS FROM THE FLOOR? WE HAVE OUR GOVERNANCE AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 17TH, 2025.

[Items 11 - 13]

AND THEN WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT BECAUSE TWO PEOPLE HAVE COME IN AND PAID THEIR TAXES, SO WE GET TO REMOVE THEM FROM THE LIST.

COUNCILLOR MCGURK CONGRATULATIONS TO THOSE TWO.

ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT ME TO READ THIS WHOLE TABLE? I MOVE THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROPERTY ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION ACT.

COUNCIL DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION TO AUCTION THE PROPERTIES LISTED BELOW AT CITY HALL AT 9 A.M.

MST ON FRIDAY, JUNE 6TH, 2025, AND TO SET THE MINIMUM PRICE FOR EACH PROPERTY AT 50% OF THE ASSESSED VALUE LISTED FOR THAT PROPERTY.

THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECONDER? DEPUTY MAYOR HENDRICKSEN COUNCILLOR MCGURK, IF YOU CAN JUST READ THE AMENDMENT.

YEAH. I MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES BE REMOVED FROM THE LIST.

5013 51ST STREET AND 544 CATALINA DRIVE. THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE A SECONDER? COUNCILOR WARBURTON TO THE AMENDMENT.

ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? DISCUSSION. AGAIN, THERE BEING REMOVED BECAUSE THEY CAME IN AND PAID.

SO, WE CAN'T REALLY AUCTION THEIR PROPERTIES OFF ANYMORE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AND THE AMENDMENT CARRIES TO THE MAIN TO THE MOTION AS AMENDED.

ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? DISCUSSION. SEEING NONE TO THE MOTION, AS AMENDED.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AND THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

COUNCILLOR MCGURK. I MOVE THAT COUNCIL APPOINT ROBERT FOOTE, A REPRESENTATIVE WHO HAS LIVED AND EXPERIENCED LIVED EXPERIENCE OF HOMELESSNESS, TO SERVE ON THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD OF HOMELESSNESS COMMENCING FEBRUARY 25TH, 2025 AND ENDING FEBRUARY 24TH, 2027. THANK YOU. SECONDED BY COUNCILOR COCHRANE.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AND THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. TO NEW BUSINESS.

[Items 14 & 15]

COUNCILLOR MCGURK. I MOVE THAT PURSUANT TO SECTION 137 OF THE CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES ACT NWT 2023 C22 BRENNAN WADE ARTHUR OSBORNE LONG NAME BE APPOINTED AS BYLAW OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE AND THE TERM OF APPOINTMENT SHALL BEGIN COMMENCEMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE AS BYLAW OFFICER AND EXPIRE UPON THE TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE AS A BYLAW OFFICER.

THANK YOU. SECOND. DEPUTY MAYOR HENDRICKSEN. ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? DISCUSSION. SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AND THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILLOR. SO NEXT WE HAVE A MEMORANDUM REGARDING WHETHER TO APPOINT A MEMBER TO SERVE ON THE HERITAGE COMMITTEE.

[Items 16 & 17]

[00:25:03]

LAURA ME INERT. SECONDER. COUNCILLOR PAYNE. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AND THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

COUNCILLOR FEQUET. SURE, MADAM CHAIR, YOU WANT ME TO READ THE WHOLE MOTION OR

[18. Councillor Fequet moves, Councillor seconds, That: 1. Council approves the following Active Mobility Integration Capital Project, with a total cost of $1,915,223, and the City's 25% contribution of $478,806: a. The McMahon Frame Lake Trail Extension ($1,007,536 total cost/$251,884 is 25%) b. Increasing Safety access to the Frame Lake Trail ($34,691/$8,673) c. On Street Improvements ($42,066/$10,516) d. Enhancements to Painted Bike Lanes ($810, 769/$202,692) Forrest Drive ($236,630/$59,158) i. ii. Range Lake Road ($268,642/$67,161) iii. 52nd Street ($218,833/$54,721) iv. 47th Street ($71,614/$17,904) e. Replacement and Addition of Bike Racks in Downtown ($20,161/$5,040). 2. Council direct administration to apply for the Government of Canada's Active Transportation Fund using the a forementioned Active Mobility Integration Project. ]

OKAY. THANK YOU. I MOVE THAT COUNCIL APPROVES THE FOLLOWING ACTIVE MOBILITY INTEGRATION CAPITAL PROJECT.

IT HAS A TOTAL COST OF 1.915223 MILLION, AND THE CITY'S 25% CONTRIBUTION OF WHICH WOULD BE 478,806.

A, THE MAC MAHON FRAME LAKE TRAIL EXTENSION. FOR THE AMOUNTS ARE IN THE MOTION INCREASING SAFETY ACCESS TO THE FRAME LINK TRAIL C ON STREET IMPROVEMENTS D ENHANCEMENTS TO THE PAINTED BIKE LANES AND E REPLACEMENT AND ADDITION OF BIKE RACKS IN DOWNTOWN.

AND TWO, THAT COUNCIL DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION TO APPLY FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA'S ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FUND USING THE AFOREMENTIONED ACTIVE MOBILITY INTEGRATION PROJECT.

THANK YOU. SECONDED TO THE MOTION. DEPUTY MAYOR HENDRICKSEN.

COUNCILLOR FEQUET, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO IT. SURE.

THANK YOU. THE PURPOSE OF BRINGING THIS MOTION FORWARD IS BECAUSE WHEN THE COUNCIL LAST DISCUSSED THIS AT A GPC MEETING A FEW WEEKS BACK, MY TAKEAWAY WAS THAT THERE WAS QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE ABILITY TO PULL AN APPLICATION TOGETHER IN TIME PRIOR TO THE FEBRUARY 26TH DEADLINE.

THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT MIGHT BE ELIGIBLE, AND THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THERE WERE ANY ALREADY COUNCIL APPROVED PROJECTS THAT WOULD FIT THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA. SINCE THE MORE RECENT PRESENTATION BY ECOLOGY NORTH COMMUNITIES IN MOTION COMMITTEE TWO WEEKS AGO, THERE WAS AN OFFER TO DO THE HEAVY LIFTING OF PREPARING THE APPLICATION AND TO TAKE A CRACK AT THINKING ABOUT WHAT PROJECTS MIGHT MAKE SENSE TO INCLUDE IN AN APPLICATION TO THIS FUND. I'M VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THE VOLUNTEERS WHO GIVE UP THEIR TIME AND SHARE THEIR EXPERTISE TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENT AND THE ACCOMPANYING APPENDIX THAT INCLUDES THE COSTING DETAILS REQUIRED BY THE APPLICATION PROCESS. I RECOGNIZE THAT ALMOST ALL COUNCILORS AND MADAM MAYOR ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS, HAVE VOICED THEIR SUPPORT FOR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, AND WHILE THERE WILL ALWAYS REMAIN SOME LEVEL OF UNCERTAINTY, I'M HOPEFUL THAT THE INFORMATION PRESENTED EARLIER TONIGHT AND INCLUDED IN THE MEETING PACKAGE IS ENOUGH TO PROVIDE COMFORT THAT THERE ARE, IN FACT, PROJECTS THAT WE CAN CHOOSE TO APPROVE RIGHT NOW, TONIGHT.

AND ALSO GIVEN THAT IF WE ARE LUCKY ENOUGH TO RECEIVE APPROVAL FOR THE $0.75 ON THE DOLLAR, FUNDING FROM THIS FUND, THAT THE FLEXIBILITY OF NOT EVEN HAVING TO DECIDE TO SPEND IT THIS YEAR, AND NOT EVEN UNTIL 2020, 2030, IF WE SO CHOOSE, ALLOWS COUNCIL THE FLEXIBILITY AND ADMIN THE FLEXIBILITY TO BEST ALIGN THESE INITIATIVES WITH THE CITY'S OTHER PRIORITIES AND WORK PLANNING IN A WAY THAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE.

THE TRUTH IS THAT WHILE THERE ARE SEVERAL COMPONENTS TO THIS PROPOSED PROJECT, THIS IS ACTUALLY ONLY A SMALL STEP TOWARDS A TRUE COMMITMENT AND TRANSFORMATION TOWARDS SUPPORTING ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION AND HOW THE CITY LOOKS AND FUNCTIONS.

THANK YOU. OPENING IT UP TO QUESTIONS. COMMENTS.

DISCUSSION. DEPUTY MAYOR HENDRICKSEN THANKS. MAYOR ALTY.

FIRST, THANKS TO THE DENLEYS AND ANYONE ELSE WHO HELPED YOU ON THIS APPLICATION.

THANKS TO COUNCILOR FEQUET FOR PICKING IT UP WHEN I HAD LOST STEAM ON THIS SUCKER.

SO REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. JUST ECHO SOME OF WHAT COUNCILOR FEQUET HAS MENTIONED ALREADY IN TERMS OF COST.

I KNOW COLLEAGUES, YOU'VE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. ONE OTHER THING I'D JUST LIKE TO ADD TO WHAT COUNCILOR FEQUET HAS TALKED ABOUT IN TERMS OF THE $0.75 ON THE DOLLAR PERSPECTIVE IS WE WILL ALSO BE IN 2020 FOR BUDGET 2026, RECEIVING AGAIN A CARBON TAX REBATE, WHETHER THAT GOES FORWARD IN THE FUTURE, WHO KNOWS. BUT FOR NOW, WE WILL HAVE THAT CARBON TAX REBATE COMING BACK TO US FOR BUDGET 2026.

CONSIDERING THE CARBON TAX HAS INCREASED IN THE LAST YEAR THAT WE CAN ASSUME WILL BE OVER $700,000, WHICH MEANS THAT THAT CARBON TAX REBATE WILL MORE THAN COVER THIS COST OF THIS APPLICATION.

IF WE DECIDED TO GO FORWARD WITH THESE PROJECTS IN THE FUTURE SO WE COULD TAKE THAT MONEY, PUT IT IN A LINE ITEM IN THE BUDGET, AND HAVE IT ATTRIBUTED TO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION AND TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PROJECT.

AS I SAID A FEW WEEKS AGO, IMPLEMENTING A NEW TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN IS GOING TO COST US SOME MONEY REGARDLESS.

AND WE'VE COMMITTED TO THAT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN.

AND, WELL, YES, WE HAVEN'T COMMITTED TO PROJECTS TO IMPLEMENT IT.

HERE ARE SOME PROJECTS THAT ARE PUT IN FRONT OF US THAT ARE LIKELY TO BE INCLUDED IN THAT.

AND IF THEY'RE NOT. AGAIN, THIS IS AN APPLICATION.

THIS IS A CHANCE TO APPLY FOR FUNDING. WE MAY NOT EVEN GET APPROVED FOR IT FOR ONE, IN WHICH CASE DECISION MADE.

[00:30:07]

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT ON THE TABLE AGAIN, IN TERMS OF, AS COUNCILLOR FEQUET TALKED ABOUT ALREADY, IN TERMS OF THE STAFF, TIME HASN'T BEEN NEEDED IN TERMS OF THE BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS WHICH WERE BROUGHT UP AS WELL LAST TIME. FACTOR IN THAT CARBON TAX REBATE, WHICH AGAIN, IS MEANT FOR PROJECTS LIKE THIS TOO.

AND THEN THE FACT THAT WE HAVE NOT GIVEN UP OUR LONG-TERM DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY AROUND THIS EITHER YET.

SO ALL OF THOSE THREE THINGS AGAIN, THIS IS ABOUT AN APPLICATION.

SO WITH THAT, THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. THAT'S ALL FOR ME.

THANK YOU. I'VE COUNCILOR WARBURTON AND COUNCILOR MCLENNAN THEN COUNCILOR PAYNE.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. YES. QUESTION FOR ADMIN.

SO, SAY WE APPROVE THIS. SAY THIS GOES THROUGH.

SAY WE GET THE MONEY. JUST A BIT OF DETAIL ON HOW WOULD THAT BE REFLECTED? WOULD IT BE IN 26 BUDGET? WOULD IT BE AN AMENDMENT RIGHT NOW TO OUR CURRENT BUDGET? KIND OF HOW WOULD THAT LOOK, I GUESS IS MY QUESTION.

MR. VAN DINE. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. SO, A COUPLE OF THINGS.

FIRST AND FOREMOST THE IMPACT OF THE DECISION ON THE BUDGET 2026 WOULD NEED TO BE ASSESSED. AND IN THAT, THAT DRAWS US INTO THE CAPITAL PLAN, LOOKING FORWARD FOR THE FUTURE CAPITAL PLAN AND THE IMPACT ON THAT HOW IT WOULD REPRESENT IN TERMS OF PRESENTATION AND NUMBERS WOULD BE DISCUSSED AND EXAMINED IF WE HAD THE APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE BUDGET 2026 DELIBERATIONS, IT WOULD BE CALCULATED THERE THROUGH AND COUNCIL WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESS THE RELATIVE WEIGHT AND IMPLICATIONS OF THESE PROJECTS BASED ON OTHER PRIORITIES WITHIN THE CITY.

I'LL INVITE MR. PANDOO TO ADD IF THERE'S ANY MORE TO ADD TO MY RESPONSE.

THANK YOU. NO, THERE'S NOTHING MORE TO ADD. THANK YOU.

OKAY. THANKS. SO. SO NO IMMEDIATE IMMINENT IMPACT ON 2025 BUDGET.

IT WOULD BE TBD AND 2026. IS THAT AN ACCURATE ASSUMPTION? YEAH. I DON'T THINK WE COULD. WELL, I GUESS WE COULD TECHNICALLY ASK ADMINISTRATION TO DRAW DOWN ON THE CAPITAL IN THE MIDST OF 2025.

HOWEVER. YEAH. THERE'S NO DIRECTION IN THIS MOTION ON TOO ADMINISTRATION ON WHEN COUNCIL WOULD WANT TO SEE THESE.

SO THAT'S ALSO THE VAGUE PART THAT COUNCIL WOULD THEN HAVE TO DETERMINE IF THEY WANT ADMINISTRATION TO BRING THESE FORWARD IN 2026 OR 2029 OR ANYTHING IN BETWEEN. OKAY. THANKS. ANSWER MY QUESTION.

YEAH, I WAS SUPPORTED LAST TIME IT CAME TO A DIFFERENT VERSION, AND I'LL BE SUPPORTIVE NOW.

WE CUT A NUMBER OF THINGS IN BUDGET LAST YEAR THAT WE HAD FULLY FUNDED, AND THEN WE GAVE THE MONEY BACK BECAUSE WE DECIDED AS A COUNCIL TO NOT SPEND THE MONEY.

SO THIS IS NOT A LEAP MENTALLY. WE'VE DONE IT BEFORE.

WE CAN DO IT AGAIN. AND IF IT'S A VERY MINIMAL WORK FOR US TO DO AND SOMEONE'S WILLING TO DO IT I DON'T THINK THIS IS A BIG RISK FOR US TO DO.

AND DON'T TAKE A FEW RISKS. WE'RE NOT GOING TO FIX ANYTHING.

SO THANKS. THANK YOU. COUNCILOR MCLENNAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANKS TO COMMUNITIES IN MOTION FOR THE WORK ON PUTTING THIS TOGETHER.

YEAH, I'M IN SUPPORT. I WON'T REHASH THE THINGS OTHER COUNCILORS HAVE SAID.

I WOULD JUST HIGHLIGHT THE FLEXIBILITY BOTH IN THE PROJECT AND IN THE APPLICATION ITSELF.

FLEXIBLE TO ADAPT TO A WHOLE NUMBER OF CIRCUMSTANCES.

AND AGAIN MY FEELING IS THAT BY COMMITTING OURSELVES TO HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF PLANNING WORK, WE'RE REALLY COMMITTING OURSELVES TO SOME MULTIPLE OF THAT IN PROJECT AND IMPLEMENTATION WORK.

I THINK THIS IS, AS I SAID, VERY FLEXIBLE AND APPROPRIATE METHOD TO BRING MONEY IN THAT CAN LET US ACHIEVE THINGS, NOT JUST PLAN THINGS, AND THAT CAN ADD REAL VALUE FOR YELLOWKNIFE IN THE FUTURE.

SO, I'LL BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE MOTION. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, COUNCILOR PAYNE. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

LIKE THE LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT THIS. I MEAN, I GUESS NOW IS IT'S TRENDY TO JUST KEEP BRINGING STUFF BACK UNTIL YOU GET THE RESULTS THAT YOU WANT. SO THAT'S DISAPPOINTING. IT'S STILL $500,000 THAT WE HAVE TO PUT OUT, AND WE'RE ASKING THE CITY OR THE TAXPAYERS OF YELLOWKNIFE TO SPEND THIS. WE HAVE WE JUST HEARD TODAY FROM THE PRESENTATION THAT WE HAVE HOW MUCH MONEY WE HAVE TO SPEND AS A,

[00:35:08]

LIFT STATION, PUMP HOUSE, AND THEN THE. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY'S HEARD OF THE WATER SUBMARINE LINE.

THAT'S THAT'S NEW TO ME, BUT, YEAH, I DON'T SUPPORT THIS.

IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T SUPPORT ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION, BUT I LOOK AT THE TRAIL ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE LAKE WHERE WE STILL HAVE A TRAIL TO COME DOWNTOWN. IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO GET DOWNTOWN IS IF WE BUILD A NEW TRAIL.

THAT'S SILLY. AND PUTTING JUST PAINTING LINES ON THE ROAD.

I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO DO ANYTHING. I THINK THAT I WOULD, I WOULD SUPPORT 100% WHEN WE DO NEW STREETS AND WHEN WE DO NEW AREAS TO INCORPORATE MULTI-USE PATHS IN THAT. BUT I THINK THAT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE SOMETHING FIT JUST FOR SO WE CAN LOOK IN THE PUBLIC EYE.

I'M NOT HERE TO MAKE TO LOOK GOOD IN THE PUBLIC EYE.

SO THAT PART I DON'T CARE ABOUT. BUT I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS.

AND I DON'T SUPPORT ANOTHER $500,000 OF CITY TAXPAYER MONEY GOING INTO THIS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR MCGURK. THANK YOU.

I GUESS A QUESTION FOR THE ADMINISTRATION. IF WE APPROVE THE ITEMS IN THIS MOTION, IS ADMINISTRATION BOUND TO THE SPECIFICITY OF THE LIST, OR IS THERE FLEXIBILITY TO WORK WITH THE PRESENTER, AS THEY SUGGESTED? THAT'S JUST ONE SORT OF SPECIFIC THING. COUNCIL WOULD BE DIRECTING ADMINISTRATION TO DO THESE PROJECTS.

SO THAT WOULD BE THE WHAT? OTHERWISE ADMINISTRATION IS NOT FOLLOWING THE WILL OF COUNCIL.

SO YEAH. MR. VAN DINE ANYTHING TO ADD? THAT'S CORRECT, MADAM CHAIR.

AND I PERHAPS I MIGHT TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REMIND COUNCIL THAT THEY'VE MADE A DECISION WITH RESPECT TO WHAT TO DO WITH THE TAX LEVIES THAT ON THE GREEN CARBON TAX MONEY'S COMING IN AT THE AT BUDGET 2025 DELIBERATIONS.

SO I JUST NOTE THAT FOR THE RECORD. THANK YOU.

OKAY. THANK YOU. AND APPRECIATED. IF WE, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE IT'S NOT A IT'S NOT A REALLY RELEVANT QUESTION. OR NOT WORTH IT? I GUESS I WOULD SAY THAT I SUPPORT THE MOTION.

I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE MOTION. SEEMS REASONABLE TO ME THAT WE WILL ALLOCATE THE SUGGESTED AMOUNT OF OUR OWN CONTRIBUTION OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT FEW YEARS TO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION.

UNLESS SOMETHING CHANGES, LIKE CURRENT TRENDS CHANGE ECONOMICALLY AND SOCIALLY THINGS ARE.

VEHICLES ARE BECOMING MORE EXPENSIVE TO MAINTAIN AS SUGGESTED.

AND THERE'S SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT SUPPORTED ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION WILL REDUCE THE BURDEN ON OUR MUNICIPALITY AND ON MUNICIPALITIES IN GENERAL. IN TERMS OF INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE PEOPLE USE LESS VEHICLES.

IT WILL IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

IT'S ONE THING THAT WE CAN DO TO REDUCE COST OF LIVING IN YELLOWKNIFE THAT IS NOT JUST EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH OUR TAXATION PROCESS. I ALSO THINK THAT THIS IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THAT WE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, I THINK THE PROJECT PROPOSED PROJECT IS 1.9 MILLION, APPROXIMATELY.

YEAH. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN OVER $1 MILLION BOOST TO OUR SERVICES THAT WE PROVIDE AS A MUNICIPALITY, INCLUDING THE CONTRIBUTION THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE.

SO I, I THINK THAT THAT IS A PRETTY GREAT TRADE.

CONSIDERING THAT A LOT OF LEGWORK HAS BEEN DONE BY COMMUNITIES MOTION.

SO I AND I THINK THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ENGAGED POPULACE AND THIS IS THE EXACT EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD HOPE TO SEE FROM OUR COMMUNITY IS TAKING SOME INITIATIVE TO CREATE A BETTER COMMUNITY.

SO FOR THOSE REASONS AND PROBABLY MAYBE EVEN MORE, I JUST BECAUSE I LOVE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION, AND I THINK MANY PEOPLE HERE SEATED HERE HAVE SAID SO THEMSELVES AS WELL.

I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COUNCILLOR COCHRANE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

I DO APPRECIATE THE ENGAGEMENT. IT'S HOW WE GET THINGS DONE.

IT'S HOW WE HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS. BUT I ALSO AM A HUGE BELIEVER IN PROPER PLANNING BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION AND WHAT WAS INDICATED HERE TODAY WITH ESPECIALLY WITH THE MAJOR PROJECT, THE FRAME LAKE TRAIL EXTENSION IS THERE'S SO MUCH MORE PLANNING TO BE HAD.

[00:40:03]

I FULLY UNDERSTAND AND SUPPORT WHERE EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE ABLE TO GO ON THIS.

I STILL BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE MTP FIRST AND THE MONEY THAT WE PUT WITHIN IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT, INCLUDING HIRING A NEW ENGINEER THAT CAN SPECIFICALLY GO THROUGH AND MAKE THESE KINDS OF ASSESSMENTS AND MAKE THESE KINDS OF ESTIMATIONS BEFORE WE DECIDE TO MAKE THIS KIND OF BLANK APPROVAL GOING FORWARD. SO, NO, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTIVE AT THIS TIME.

I DO HOPE ONCE THE MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN IS GOING FORWARD, WE WILL HAVE THE FULL ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT SUCH THINGS AS THE FOREST DRIVE OR THE ENHANCEMENT OF BIKE LANES, THE REPLACEMENT OF ADDITIONAL BIKE RACKS AS WELL.

BUT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO ESPECIALLY TO THE FRAME LAKE TRAIL EXTENSION, I DON'T THINK THAT'S POSSIBLE AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. YES. SO FOR MYSELF AS COUNCILOR FEQUET, YOU BROUGHT THIS MOTION FORWARD, AND NOW COUNCIL OWNS THIS MOTION.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ASKING ALL THE QUESTIONS AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT'S BEING BROUGHT FORWARD. SO FIRST OFF, I PREFACE MY QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.

I DON'T ASK ALL THESE QUESTIONS TO BE A PARTY POOPER OR PAIN IN THE BUTT, OR BECAUSE I HATE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION.

I RAISE THESE QUESTIONS BECAUSE THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS THAT TYPE THAT TAKE TIME TO SCOPE OUT AND CONSIDER, AND WHY. I SAID THAT IT WOULD BE A CHALLENGE FOR ADMIN TO SCOPE OUT A PROJECT, BRING IT TO COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL, AND SUBMIT AN APPLICATION IN TIME. SO TODAY I ASKED THEM TO FIND OUT THE LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT WE HAVE AND THE CONFIDENCE LEVEL WE CAN HAVE.

IF WE SUBMIT THE APPLICATION TOMORROW BECAUSE IT'S DUE ON WEDNESDAY.

AND I MEAN GENERALLY LIKES TO SUBMIT THE APPLICATION A DAY AHEAD IN CASE THERE'S ANY TECH CHALLENGE OR ANYTHING CRASHES. SO AND THESE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS THAT I RAISED AREN'T JUST HYPOTHETICALS. THESE ARE ALL ISSUES THAT HAVE ARISEN IN YELLOWKNIFE WITH OUR CAPITAL PROJECTS OR FUNDING APPLICATIONS IN THE LAST FEW YEARS.

SO WE'LL START OFF WITH THE CAPITAL COSTS. I NOTE IN THE DESIGN AND PLANNING THE FRAME LAKE TRAIL EXTENSION.

THE LINE ITEM IS ONLY 5%, AND GENERALLY THE BEST PRACTICE IS THE 10 TO 15%.

SO MY CHALLENGE IS THAT'S THE FIRST LINE ITEM THAT I READ IN THE BUDGET.

AND IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY UNDER BUDGET. SO I STRUGGLE TO HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE REST OF THE BUDGET, WHICH WILL INCREASE THE CITY'S PROPORTION OF WHAT'S REQUIRED TO PAY, BECAUSE WE ONLY GET 70%, 75% OF WHAT WE ASK FOR. SO THE FACT THAT THE FIRST BUDGET ITEM IS, IS LOW IS A CONCERN.

AND THIS HAS BEEN AN ISSUE IN THE PAST WHERE DESIGN AND PLANNING WITH WHEN THE COST OF THE PROJECT GOES UP, EVERYTHING ELSE GOES UP. AND SO AGAIN, EVEN IF THESE ARE GOOD CLASS D ESTIMATES, THE NUMBERS ARE STILL PLUS OR -30%, WHICH MEANS THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION RANGES FROM 479 479,000 TO 1 MILLION.

IF THE CLASS A ESTIMATES GO UP 30% BECAUSE THE CITY HAS TO PAY THE 25% AND EVERYTHING BEYOND THE CLASS D ESTIMATE.

SO I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION IS FOR COUNCILLOR FEQUET IS THE EMPLOYEE AND OPERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS.

SO THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO PURCHASE THE 1650 BOLLARDS.

JUST WONDERING IF YOUR INTENTION IS THAT THE CITY REMOVES THEM EVERY YEAR OR ARE THEY PERMANENT ALL YEAR ROUND? THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD QUESTION FOR OUR PRESENTER. MY UNDERSTANDING WITH THE SOFT INFRASTRUCTURE LANGUAGE IS THAT THESE CAN BE TEMPORARY.

SO, IF THERE. SO IF THE ROAD THAT'S CHOSEN ISN'T THE BEST PLACE THEY CAN BE MOVED.

I THINK THEY MENTIONED FLOWER PLANTERS TOO, WHICH ALSO CAN BE MORE OF A TEMPORARY NATURE.

THEY CAN BE MORE CONCRETE. SO WE CAN HAVE THE WOOD ONES OR WE CAN HAVE THE CONCRETE ONES. AND SO THEY'VE TAKEN THEIR BEST SHOT AT CASTING THESE OUT.

AND I THINK WHEN THEY SIT WITH ADMIN, IF ADMIN WISHES THEM TO DO THAT YOU KNOW, THEY CAN THEY CAN ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS AS, AS NEEDED. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE TEMPORARY.

AND THEN DID YOU DO ANY CALCULATIONS ON EMPLOYEES NECESSARY.

LIKE ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO ADD ANOTHER EMPLOYEE FOR TO PUT THESE OUT, TO MAINTAIN THEM, TO REMOVE THEM? AND THEN ANY CALCULATIONS ON THE IMPACT OF ADDING THE 600M OF TRAIL FOR, FOR WINTER MAINTENANCE, ANY, ANY, I GUESS, OPERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS.

HAVE YOU DONE ANY FORECASTING? I HAVE NOT. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

ON WINTER O&M BUT WE'RE TALKING 600M. SO IF THIS WAS A DO OR DIE, I'D, I'D SHOVEL IT MYSELF.

BUT I KNOW THAT THEY HAVE NOT INCLUDED EMPLOYEE SALARY OR TIME IN THESE COSTS.

THAT'S NOT A TYPICAL CITY PRACTICE, BUT THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF HAVING THE FLEXIBILITY FOR ADMIN TO ALSO WEIGH IN.

[00:45:08]

THIS MAKES MOST SENSE, BECAUSE THERE MAY BE OTHER SIMILAR PROJECTS OR ACTIVITIES OR INITIATIVES THAT ADMIN IS CARRYING OUT FOR US ESPECIALLY ONCE THE MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN IS RECEIVED. SO IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO CONSIDER IT HOLISTICALLY WHEN THEY DECIDE HOW TO BEST MOVE FORWARD AND FIND SOME ECONOMIES OF SCALE WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTUAL STAFF IMPLEMENTATION. YEAH, YEAH. NO, IT'S NOT AN ELIGIBLE COST AS A CAPITAL.

HOWEVER, FOR EACH CAPITAL BUDGET, WE DO HAVE TO CONSIDER THE O&M IMPACTS.

AND SO IT IS A COUNCIL DECISION THAT, YOU KNOW, ARE THESE 1650 BOLLARDS PERMANENT AND WHAT DOES THAT IMPACT? THEN THERE'S THE FRAME LAKE TRAIL 600M MORE FOR WINTER MAINTENANCE.

WHAT PY IMPACT DOES THAT HAVE? AND THEN I GUESS WHEN I LOOK AT OUR TEN YEAR CAPITAL PLAN, 2026 IS A BIG CAPITAL SPEND YEAR FORECASTED 49.4 MILLION. DO YOU I GUESS YOU DIDN'T REALLY CALCULATE IF WE NEED MORE STAFF TO PROJECT MANAGE.

IF WE ADD ANOTHER 2 MILLION IN CAPITAL FOR 2026.

AGAIN, I DIDN'T DO ANY CALCULATIONS. COMMITTEE MOTIONS DID ON.

THANK YOU TO THOSE GUYS. MY UNDERSTANDING OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT IS THAT THAT'S AN AREA THAT THE CITY IS ACTUALLY EXPLORING ON HOW TO DO THAT MORE HOLISTICALLY ACROSS ALL ITS PROJECTS. SO I WOULD ASSUME IF COUNCIL APPROVED THIS AND IF WE RECEIVE THE FUNDING THAT WHETHER THIS TYPE OF PROJECT AND THE ELEMENTS OF THIS PROJECT WILL REQUIRE IN-HOUSE OR EXTERNAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CITY ADMIN IS QUITE CAPABLE OF MAKING THAT CALL.

YEAH, BUT IT WASN'T INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET. SO IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK.

BUT SO FOR ME, IN REGARDS TO THE EMPLOYEE AND OPERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS.

I DO FIND WE FREQUENTLY DON'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ONGOING OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE IMPACTS, OR WE MINIMIZE THEM AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE WORK, OR I'M A COUNCILLOR AND I'LL JUMP OUT AND SHOVEL THAT MYSELF.

AND WE DO NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT TO SEE IF THIS ONE MORE LITTLE PROJECT IS GOING TO TIP THE SCALE AND REQUIRE ANOTHER EMPLOYEE.

SO YOU KNOW, OUR CURRENT PROJECTION FOR TAXES IN 2026 IS 9.27%.

SO ADDING MORE EMPLOYEES, ADDING THE CAPITAL COSTS AND THAT'S NOT EVEN TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ANY POSSIBLE INFLATION OR TARIFFS.

SO, YOU KNOW, IF THE CLASS D ESTIMATE IS RIGHT, TAXES GO UP TO 10.52%.

IF THE CLASS A GROWS BY 30%, TAXES WOULD BE 12.03%.

AND THEN IF WE NEED TO ADD EMPLOYEES AND OTHER OPERATING COSTS ON TOP OF THIS, THE TAX INCREASE GOES UP AS WELL TO TAKE THESE PROJECTS INTO ACCOUNT.

IN REGARDS TO THE WORK PLAN YOU DID ASK COMMUNITIES IN MOTION, BUT HOW DID YOU DETERMINE THAT YOU FELT THESE PROJECTS WERE THE BEST TO BRING FORWARD FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION? I THINK OF THE FACT WE STILL HAVEN'T COMPLETED THE TRAILS AND PARKS THAT WE COMMITTED TO IN THE NIVEN LAKE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN, OR THE GRACE LAKE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN, HAD RESIDENTS FROM GRACE LAKE IN MY OFFICE IN DECEMBER ASKING FOR AN UPDATE ON THAT.

SO, YOU KNOW, IN YOUR VIEW, WHY DOES THE FRAME LAKE TRAIL EXTENSION MERIT GOING IN FRONT OF THESE OTHER PARKS AND REC PROGRAMS? WELL, THE EASY ANSWER IS I LISTENED TO THE COMMUNITY.

I ASKED THE COMMUNITY IN MOTION IS A GROUP OF CITIZENS WHO NOT ONLY HAVE EXPERTISE AND PASSION IN THIS AREA, BUT THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND THE FRAME LAKE TRAIL EXTENSION IS NOT SOMETHING NEW TO THE CITY.

LIKE YOU SAID, IT WAS ACTUALLY INCLUDED IN IT WAS CONSIDERED IN 2017.

IT WAS IN THE BUDGET IN 2019, BUT THERE WAS NO FUNDS, SO IT WAS TAKEN OUT.

THESE, IN MY OPINION, I FULLY HAVE FAITH AND CONFIDENCE IN COMMUNITIES IN MOTION.

IT'S A, YOU KNOW, CONNECTION TO THE COMMUNITY.

AND WHEN THEY IDENTIFY BROKEN BENCHES AND SLUMPING IN THE PATHWAYS, THESE ARE THINGS THAT OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE GETTING FEEDBACK ON AND PEOPLE CARE ABOUT.

SO I TRUST THEM THAT THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE MEANINGFUL TO THE WALKING AND CYCLING COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU. YEAH. SO FROM THE WORK PLAN CONSIDERATIONS, I, I APPRECIATE PEOPLE GET FRUSTRATED BECAUSE WE CREATE PLANS AND THEN DON'T IMPLEMENT THEM. AND I THINK THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHY WE CREATE A PLAN.

SOME FEDERAL DOLLARS COME ALONG. WE JUMP AND PIVOT TO TRY TO ACCESS 75 CENT DOLLARS.

AND WE STOP WORKING ON OTHER PROJECTS AND THE CYCLE REPEATS ITSELF.

NEW DOLLARS, PIVOT STAFF GO AND WORK ON THAT NEW SHINY THING, AND WE KICK THOSE OLDER IDEAS TO THE BACK BURNER.

COUNCIL MEMBERS AND RESIDENTS HAVE EXPRESSED FRUSTRATION WITH THIS, AND THEN WE'RE ABOUT TO VOTE TO PERPETUATE IT TONIGHT.

SO THERE'S HUNDREDS OF DIFFERENT FEDERAL FUNDING PROGRAMS. WE COULD CHASE ALL DAY AND ARRIVE NOWHERE BECAUSE WE'D ALWAYS BE PIVOTING AND JUMPING TO NEW PROJECTS.

PLUS, WE'D SERIOUSLY BE BROKE, MORE BROKE THAN WE ARE NOW WITH ALL THE 25% CONTRIBUTIONS.

SO I DO REMIND FOLKS, EVERY TIME WE SAY YES TO SOMETHING, WE'RE SAYING NO TO SOMETHING ELSE.

[00:50:05]

NOT ONLY IS THE FRAME LAKE TRAIL EXTENSION NOT OUR LAND, BUT THERE WAS ALSO ANOTHER PART THAT'S GNWT LAND NEAR THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY TOWARD CHATEAU NOVA. YES, WE CAN APPLY. BUT WE'LL STILL, YOU KNOW, IF WE GET FUNDING, WE'LL HAVE TO APPROACH THE INUIT REGARDING WHETHER WE CAN MOVE THE TRAIL AND WHETHER THEY'LL AGREE WITH THE NEW ALIGNMENT.

BACK IN 2017, WHEN WE WERE HAVING THESE DISCUSSIONS, THE ARCTIC INDIGENOUS WELLNESS FOUNDATION WAS LOOKING TO BUILD ON THE STANTON CAMPUS, AND THEY DIDN'T WANT ANY BLASTING NEAR THEIR AREA WHERE THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD.

SO IN REGARDS TO THE CONSULTATION, THE ARCTIC INDIGENOUS WELLNESS FOUNDATION DID APPROACH STANTON BEFORE WE APPROACHED THEM TO MOVE OUR TRAIL.

SO I DO THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT OUR PLANS AND THEIR PLANS ALIGN IF WE DO PROCEED, AND IF THE NWT DOES AGREE TO ALLOW US TO MOVE THE TRAIL.

AND I FLAGGED THIS LAND TENURE ISSUE BECAUSE WE HAVE LOST APPLICATION POINTS BEFORE, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN FUNDING IN THE PAST BECAUSE OF THIS.

WE'VE EXPERIENCED, YOU KNOW, THE FEDS WANT TO SUPPORT PROJECTS THAT HAVE THE MAXIMUM ABILITY TO SUCCEED.

THEY WANT THE SHOVEL READY, EVEN THOUGH THEY SAY THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE SHOVEL READY.

THEY DON'T WANT PROJECTS GETTING CAUGHT UP IN LAND TENURE ISSUES BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOWER LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS.

AND MONEY JUST SITS THERE IN THE BANK. SO FOR ME, GENERAL COMMENTS WHEN PEOPLE ASK ME WHAT KEEPS ME UP AT NIGHT, THE FIRST THING I SAY IS OUR INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGES AND THE LACK OF MONEY TO ADDRESS THEM.

TODAY AT LUNCH, WE HAD ANOTHER EYE WATERING UPDATE REGARDING THE MONEY NEEDED TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE CLEAN DRINKING WATER TO RESIDENTS RANGING FROM 37 MILLION.

IF WE GO WITH THE CHEAPEST OPTION TO 107.7 MILLION IF WE GO WITH THE RECOMMENDED OPTION.

IN REGARDS TO THAT 107.7 MILLION, THAT WAS AN INCREASE FROM 2019 OF 34.4 MILLION.

I ASKED MYSELF, WERE WE POSSIBLY GOING TO GET AN EXTRA 73.7 MILLION? 73.3 MILLION. SORRY. ON TOP OF OUR 8.6 MILLION ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION REQUIREMENT.

BORROWING WILL BE A CHALLENGE BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY BORROWED BEYOND OUR LEGAL DEBT SERVICE LIMITS THIS YEAR.

NEXT YEAR, 2027 AND BEYOND. SO BORING WILL BE A CHALLENGE.

AND EVEN WITHOUT THE PRESENTATION AT LUNCH, IF YOU REMEMBER FROM OUR BUDGET 2025 DISCUSSION IN DECEMBER, 2026 IS A BIG CAPITAL YEAR, WITH THE PROJECTED SPEND OF 49.4 MILLION.

WE'RE PROJECTED TO DRAIN ALL OF OUR MONEY AND MORE FROM OUR CAPITAL RESERVE AND FINISH THE YEAR WITH A $5.6 MILLION DEFICIT.

I TOOK A LOOK AT THE BUDGETS BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER EVER HAVING A DEFICIT IN THE CAPITAL DURING MY TIME AND BUDGETS GO BACK TO 2006.

ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE, AND WE'VE NEVER FORECASTED BEING IN A DEFICIT WITH OUR CAPITAL FUND.

OUR COUNCIL'S FIRST BUDGET HAD A CAPITAL FUND WITH AN OPENING BALANCE OF 37.5 MILLION, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAND THE NEXT COUNCIL THEIR FIRST BUDGET WITH A CAPITAL FUND, OPENING BALANCE IN A DEFICIT OF 5.6 MILLION. AND AGAIN, THAT'S WITHOUT THE NUMBERS THAT WE SAW AT LUNCH TODAY, OR TRUMP'S POSSIBLE TARIFFS THAT WERE ANNOUNCED AGAIN THIS AFTERNOON OR THE AND THOSE WILL DEFINITELY HAVE IMPACTS IF THEY GO THROUGH.

SO I CAN'T SUPPORT INCREASING THAT DEFICIT TODAY.

AND TO BE CLEAR, GOING FROM 37.5 MILLION TO A $5.6 MILLION DEFICIT DURING OUR TERM ISN'T A REFLECTION OF OUR COUNCIL'S POOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT.

WE'RE NOT SPENDING LIKE DRUNKEN SAILORS. WE'RE ADDRESSING CORE INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE CLEAN DRINKING WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT, AND THE AQUATIC CENTER THAT WAS APPROVED BY RESIDENTS VIA REFERENDUM.

AND THOSE PROJECTS COST A HECK OF A LOT OF MONEY.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE NOT OUT OF THE WOODS YET. WE'RE JUST ENTERING THEM. AND WE HAVE A LONG AND EXPENSIVE LIST OF CORE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE'LL NEED TO LOOK AT HOW WE CAN ADDRESS HOLISTICALLY. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT I WON'T SUPPORT ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS IN FUTURE BUDGETS.

I JUST CAN'T SUPPORT IT TODAY BECAUSE WE'RE FLYING BLIND.

I NEED BETTER COST ESTIMATES. I NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE IMPACTS WILL BE.

I NEED TO KNOW THE TRADE OFFS. I SPEND A LOT OF TIME BETWEEN GETTING MY BUDGET AND DELIBERATIONS, SEEING WHAT PROJECTS I FEEL MUST GO AHEAD THE NEXT YEAR, WHICH ONES CAN BE CUT, WHICH CAN BE DEFERRED? WHERE CAN WE RAISE MORE REVENUE? HOW CAN WE ACCOMPLISH ALL THIS WORK IN ONE YEAR AND MORE? EVERY TIME YOU SAY YES TO ONE THING, YOU'RE SAYING NO TO SOMETHING ELSE. AND WITH THIS OFF CYCLE BUDGET REQUEST AT THE START OF THE YEAR AND JUST 2.5 MONTHS AFTER FINISHING OUR LAST DELIBERATIONS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING. NO TO CLEAN DRINKING WATER, PROPER SEWAGE, PROPER WASTE MANAGEMENT.

WHO KNOWS? SO FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION AS PRESENTED.

ROUND TWO COMMENTS. COUNCILOR MCGURK. THANK YOU.

I HAVE SOME FURTHER QUESTIONS AND SOME FURTHER COMMENTS.

I GUESS. FIRST OFF, IF WE RECEIVE FUNDING BUT CAN'T ACCESS COMMISSIONERS LAND, WOULD WE BE PENALIZED FOR COMPLETING THIS PROJECT? WOULD BE UNABLE TO COVER COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT UP UNTIL THE POINT I IMAGINE IT'D BE MOSTLY STAFF TIME.

[00:55:10]

MR. VAN DINE. THAT'S CORRECT, MADAM CHAIR. WE WOULD TRY TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT. BUT THE FUNDS WOULD LIKELY NEED TO BE RETURNED IN THAT SITUATION.

I THINK IF THE INTEREST IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE RELATIVE RISK OF TRYING TO AT LEAST GET A NOTIONAL ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS SO THAT WE CAN DO SOME FORWARD PLANNING AND JUST SORT OF HAVE THAT IN OUR BACK POCKET AND DO A LITTLE BIT OF PLANNING BASED ON THAT.

I THINK THAT IS A HIGH RISK KIND OF APPROACH IN LIGHT OF SOME OF THE FACTOIDS THAT THE MADAM CHAIR HAS OUTLINED IN TERMS OF OUR RELATIVE BORROWING LIMIT AND SOME OF THE OTHER TRADE OFF COSTS. SO I, I WOULD OFFER, I THINK IT'S BEEN SAID IN PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS AND PREVIOUS MOTIONS ON THIS A THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH. B THERE IS ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT HAS IS MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE. AND I THINK THAT WE'RE, I THINK PRUDENCE AND CAUTION IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE RECOMMENDING FROM AN ADMINISTRATION POINT OF VIEW.

ON ON TAKING ADVANTAGE OF WHAT SEEMS TO BE FREE MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

SO TO MY QUESTION, IN THE FIRST ROUND AROUND THE SPECIFICITY AND WHETHER OR NOT ADMINISTRATION WOULD BE BOUND TO THOSE SPECIFIC POINTS IS THERE WOULD IT MAKE SENSE FOR US TO.

AND IS IT IS THERE ANY REASON TO AMEND THE INCLUDE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS MOTION WHICH WOULD PROVIDE MORE FLEXIBILITY TO ADMINISTRATION TO MAXIMIZE THE SUCCESS OF THE PROJECT? THE CHALLENGES ADMINISTRATION SEEKS DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL.

AND SO IF COUNCIL'S ON THE FENCE ABOUT SOMETHING, WE GOT TO TELL THEM IF WE WANT TO GO IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION, WE'D HAVE TO TELL THEM. SO IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO STRIKE SOMETHING OR ADD SOMETHING, THAT'S SOMETHING.

BUT ADMINISTRATION CAN'T KIND OF CREATE PROJECTS ON THEIR OWN ACCORD.

OKAY. YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. OKAY.

I GUESS I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT I THINK THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN SOME, YOU KNOW, COMPELLING ARGUMENTS AGAINST THIS, AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A LEVEL OF RISK.

I THINK IT'S A IT'S STILL SOMETHING WORTH PURSUING.

I DON'T THINK THIS IS A HUGE PIVOT FROM WHAT WE'VE ALREADY COMMITTED TO AS A COUNCIL.

I THINK THAT WE CAN'T CONTINUE BUSINESS AS USUAL WITH ROAD MAINTENANCE AND KEEPING CARS ON THE ROAD.

WE'RE CONTINUING TO DIG OURSELVES A HOLE ECONOMICALLY THERE.

IT'S IT MAKES FISCAL SENSE, PLANNING WISE. ALSO, OUR COMMITMENTS TO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION AND ALSO TO THE TO CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION ADAPTATION TO WORK ON THIS SOONER RATHER THAN LATER AND PUT EFFORT INTO THIS SOONER RATHER THAN LATER. THESE PROJECTS ARE ALREADY SUPPORTED BY THE COMMUNITY AND BY EXPERTS THAT WE HAVE HIRED.

I IT SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE RISK. AND THAT'S WHAT OUR JOB IS AS POLITICIANS, IS TO TAKE THAT RISK ON BEHALF OF ADMINISTRATION. SO I'M WILLING TO TAKE THAT RISK.

THANKS. THANK YOU. ROUND TWO. DEPUTY MAYOR HENDRICKSEN.

IT'S A TONGUE TWISTER. LOTS MORE. SO MANY MORE SYLLABLES THAN COCHRANE.

COCHRANE. ONE EXTRA ONE. BUT IT THROWS YOU OFF, I KNOW.

JUST FOLLOWING UP ON A FEW COMMENTS FROM OTHER COUNCILORS AND ADMIN ONE, JUST TO HIGHLIGHT THE CARBON TAX REFERENCE I WAS MAKING WAS TO THE 2026 CARBON TAX, NOT THE 2025. SO WE HAVEN'T ALLOCATED THAT YET.

TWO IS FOR THOSE WHO ARE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE FISCAL FACTOR.

I HEAR YOU. MADAM MAYOR, YOU HIGHLIGHTED IT VERY CLEARLY IN TERMS OF THE AS I SAID THIS AFTERNOON, THE SOBERING REALITY OF A LOT OF THINGS. BUT WE'VE ALSO COMMITTED TO A $400,000 MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN.

THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY IS LESS. IT'S LESS THAN $100,000 MORE THAN JUST PLANNING.

[01:00:04]

I'M GOING TO HAVE TO CONSIDER IT, BUT I MIGHT FOLLOW UP ON WHAT COUNCILOR MCLENNAN HAD PROPOSED A BUDGET AND PROPOSE CUTTING THAT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN. BECAUSE IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, AS COUNCILLOR MCGURK JUST TALKED ABOUT, HOW DO WE JUSTIFY SPENDING $400,000 FOR A PLAN WHEN WE'RE NOT WILLING TO PUT FORWARD JUST UNDER $500,000 OF OUR MONEY TO ACTUALLY DO THINGS? SO THAT'S GOING TO BE THAT'S GOING TO BE A TOUGH ONE FOR ME IF THIS DOESN'T GO FORWARD TONIGHT. FOR THOSE WHO TALKED ABOUT NOT HAVING THE INFORMATION THEY NEEDED, I AGAIN, I MEAN, IT'S HARD FOR ME, BUT THIS WAS FLAGGED IN DECEMBER.

I BROUGHT A MOTION AGAIN IN THE END OF JANUARY, SO WE LOST A MONTH AND A HALF AT THE START.

THEN WE LOST ANOTHER MONTH SINCE WE'VE GOT A COMMUNITY GROUP WHO'S ACTUALLY DONE THE WORK FOR US.

SO IF WE SAY WE DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION, WE DON'T WHERE WE NEED, THAT'S ON US.

LIKE WE'RE THE ONES WHO HAVE BROUGHT IT DOWN TO THE WIRE.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, JUST FOLLOWING UP AGAIN IS AROUND THE IDEA OF PRUDENCE AND CAUTION.

I AGREE WITH THAT. I GUESS IT'S JUST A MATTER OF HOW WE DEFINE PRUDENCE AND CAUTION.

FOR ME, AGAIN, PRUDENCE AND CAUTION MEANS WE'VE COMMITTED TO DOING SOMETHING IN TERMS OF A TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN.

IT'S AGAIN, WE'VE PUT $400,000 OF TAXPAYER MONEY ON THE LINE ALREADY FOR THAT.

IF WE'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO APPLY FOR MONEY TO ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING, THEN, LIKE I SAID, I'M REALLY GOING TO HAVE TO CONTEMPLATE FOLLOWING UP ON COUNCILOR MCLENNAN'S ORIGINAL MOTION FROM BUDGET, WHICH I WAS AGAINST AT THE TIME.

BUT AGAIN, AS I SAID THEN, I'M STARTING TO REALLY QUESTION THE SUPPORT.

AND I KNOW I DON'T SAY THAT FOR EVERYBODY BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT IS, BUT IT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE SUPPORTING ONE THING ON ONE HAND, BUT THEN NOT SUPPORTING THE OPPORTUNITY A FEW TIMES NOW TO EVEN TRY IS REALLY THAT TO ME IS NOT PRUDENT OR FACTORING IN CAUTION. SO I'LL STOP THERE. THANKS.

IT'S IRONIC. I WOULD FLIP IT. AND IF WE'RE GOING TO PRE COMMIT $1 MILLION IN ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING, WHY DO WE EVEN DO THE MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN? BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY MONEY TO IMPLEMENT THE MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN. BECAUSE WE'VE PRE COMMITTED.

BUT ANYTHING FURTHER, COUNCILOR FEQUET, DID YOU WANT TO CLOSE OR WE'LL JUST VOTE? SURE. I'LL CLOSE. MADAM MAYOR, THANK YOU. I THINK OUR JOB AS COUNSELORS IS TO FIND THE BEST VALUE PROPOSITION FOR RESIDENTS, I.E., THE BEST BANG FOR THE BUCK IN PROVIDING CORE SERVICES AND CONSIDERING IMPROVEMENTS TO WHAT THE CITY OFFERS.

YOU ONLY HAVE TO LOOK BACK TO THE PRESENTATIONS COUNCIL RECEIVED LEADING UP TO THIS PAST BUDGET DELIBERATION, TO UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS TO THE COMMUNITY.

THIS ISN'T AN OFF CYCLE REQUEST AS THE CITY WOULDN'T HEAR BACK FOR SEVERAL MONTHS.

SO TO CLARIFY THE INTENT AND THE MOTION IS FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN 2026 BUDGET AT THE EARLIEST, IT CAN BE LATER. THE PROPOSED APPLICATION PREPARED BY SIM, IF APPROVED, WOULD FIND A WAY TO TAKE SOME MEANINGFUL STEPS TOWARDS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FORWARD WHILE ONLY EXPENDING 25% OF THE ASSOCIATED COSTS.

FOR ME, THIS IS A STRATEGIC RISK I'M WILLING TO TAKE, AND WHILE I DON'T KNOW THE IMPLICATIONS, I ABSOLUTELY CONSIDER THAT THOSE WOULD EXIST.

BUT THEY WILL EXIST FOR WHATEVER PROJECTS WE CHOOSE MOVING FORWARD, AND THEY'RE BY NO MEANS IRRELEVANT OR NEGLIGIBLE.

BUT I BELIEVE THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE VALUE THAT RESIDENTS OF YELLOWKNIFE ARE LOOKING FOR.

I SEE. THANK YOU TO THE MOTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OPPOSED. AND THAT CARRIES WITH COUNCILLOR COCHRANE MYSELF, PAYNE AND ARDEN-SMITH OPPOSED ADMINISTRATION.

DROP EVERYTHING YOU'RE DOING TOMORROW AND YOU WILL FILL OUT THAT APPLICATION FORM.

ANY NEW BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR? SEEING NONE, WE HAVE ENACTMENT OF BYLAW.

[Items 20 & 21]

COUNCILLOR MCGURK. I MOVE FIRST READING OF BYLAW NUMBER 50510275. FIRST READING OF BYLAW NUMBER 501251025102. THE ORIGINAL WAS 5007. AND SINCE THEN WE'VE ALMOST HAD 100 DIFFERENT BYLAWS COME FORWARD. SECONDER. DEPUTY MAYOR HENDRICKSEN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OPPOSED. AND THAT CARRIES WITH COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN OPPOSED DEFERRED BUSINESS AND TABLED ITEMS. THERE WAS NO DEFERRED BUSINESS, AND THERE WERE NO TABLED ITEMS FOR THE AGENDA. IS THERE ANY DEFERRED BUSINESS? ARE THERE ANY TABLED ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR? THERE WAS NO OLD BUSINESS FOR THE AGENDA. IS THERE ANY OLD BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR? THERE WAS NO NOTICES OF MOTION FOR THE AGENDA.

[01:05:02]

THERE WERE NO ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRIES FOR THE AGENDA. ARE THERE ANY ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRIES FROM THE FLOOR? WITH THAT MOTION TO ADJOURN, MOVED BY COUNCILOR COCHRANE, WE CAN BE ADJOURNED.

WE'LL SEE EVERYBODY AT GPC NEXT MONDAY AT 12:05 P.M..

HAVE A GOOD WEEK, EVERYONE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.