Feb 24, 2025 Governance & Priorities Committee

[00:00:03]

AND I WILL CALL OUR GOVERNANCE AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE MEETING FOR MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24TH,

[1. Opening Statement]

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

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

[2. Approval of the agenda.]

NEXT, WE HAVE DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF. DOES ANY MEMBER HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST TODAY?

[4. A presentation. from AECOM Canada Ltd., regarding City of Yellowknife Potable Water Source Selection Study.]

MR. VAN DINE, IF YOU'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE ITEM.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I'D LIKE TO THANK COUNCIL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT AND HAVE PRESENTED TO THE AECOM STUDY WITH RESPECT TO POTABLE WATER. THIS PRESENTATION IS BEING SET UP IN ADVANCE OF A MEMO THAT WILL BE COMING FORWARD ON MARCH 10TH FOR COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO OUR DISASTER RELIEF FUNDING ALLOCATIONS. THE PROJECT THAT WE'VE GOT LISTED HERE WILL BE SPOKEN TO IN SOME DEPTH FROM A TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE, AND WE'LL BE ENCOURAGING COUNCIL TO ASK AS MANY QUESTIONS AS THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ON THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS.

BUT ESSENTIALLY THIS IS SETTING THE STAGE FOR A MARCH 10TH DISCUSSION.

SO, WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO GETTING COUNCIL'S VIEWS ON THAT.

I WILL INVITE MR. GREENCORN TO INTRODUCE THE PRESENTERS AND THEN WE'LL BE ON OUR WAY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IN THE ROOM WE HAVE MR. RYAN KING. HE'S THE PROJECT LEAD FROM AECOM. HE'S BEEN WITH US FROM THE BEGINNING.

ROUGHLY STARTED ENGINEERING AROUND 2021 AND ONLINE WE HAVE COURTNEY MCCRACKEN AND CHRIS TURNER, OUR TECH LEADS, AND RYAN WILL KICK TO THEM AS HE SEES FIT.

SO WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, WE CAN START THE PRESENTATION.

SO GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. HAPPY TO BE HERE TO PRESENT OUR FINDINGS ON THE SOURCE STUDY.

SO, LIKE CHRIS MENTIONED, WE GOT TWO ENGINEERS FROM OUR OFFICE ONLINE AS WELL.

COURTNEY AND CHRIS. I'M NOT GOING.

OKAY, SO THIS IS THE GENERAL OVERVIEW. THE STUDY WAS QUITE LENGTHY.

THERE'S A LOT OF TECHNICAL DATA IN THE STUDY.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO BOIL IT INTO THE IMPORTANT CONTENT HERE FOR TODAY AND A 20 OR 30 MINUTE MAX KIND OF DELIVERY.

SO, THE BACKGROUND, WHICH IS IMPORTANT WATER QUALITY, ARSENIC RISKS, SOURCE OPTIONS, DECISION MODEL AND SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

AND I'LL JUST PREPARE YOU THERE'S A LOT OF TABLES NUMBERS AND I'LL TRY TO POINT TO THE ONES THAT ARE PERTINENT.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS PLEASE, YOU KNOW, STOP ME OR ASK THEM.

AND YEAH OKAY. AT THE END. YEAH. SO THERE IS AS ENGINEERS DO, LOTS OF NUMBERS.

SO LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ADVANCE IT.

I DON'T KNOW, THIS THING ISN'T WORKING. SO THE BACKGROUND ON THE WATER SOURCE HERE IN YELLOWKNIFE, OF COURSE THE YELLOWKNIFE BAY WAS THE SOURCE FOR THE CITY UP UNTIL 1968.

UNTIL WHICH TIME? A PIPELINE AND PUMP STATIONS WERE BUILT TO BRING WATER.

RAW WATER FROM THE YELLOWKNIFE RIVER AS A SAFER SOURCE TO SUPPLY THE CITY.

THIS WAS THEN REVISITED IN ROUGHLY 2010 2011, AND WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT WAS IS THE CITY WAS CONTEMPLATING UPGRADES TO THE WATER PLANT. SO AS PART OF THE DESIGN FOR THE NEW WATER TREATMENT PLANT AT THAT TIME, THE SOURCE WAS FIRST REVISITED OR REVISITED AT THAT POINT.

AND AT THAT TIME, IT WAS KIND OF DETERMINED FROM INPUT FROM THE CITY TO STAY WITH THE YELLOWKNIFE RIVER AS A SOURCE.

AND THAT'S HOW THE WATER PLANT WAS DESIGNED AND IMPLEMENTED IN 2015.

DIVERS AND PROBLEMS ARISE ON, ON THIS SYSTEM.

AND THOSE WERE FIRST KIND OF STARTED TO ARISE IN 2016 WHEN LEAKS WERE FOUND ON THE ON THE PIPELINE.

SO OF COURSE THERE'S A 400MM OR 16 INCH DIAMETER PIPELINE ON THE BOTTOM OF YELLOWKNIFE BAY, WHICH BRINGS THE WATER FROM YELLOWKNIFE RIVER ACROSS THE BAY TO THE WATER PLANT, AND LEAKS WERE STARTING TO BE FOUND ON IN

[00:05:08]

AND, AND THE GENESIS OF WHY IT WAS UNDERTAKEN AT THAT TIME WAS THE CITY WAS GOING TO APPLY FOR FUNDING, FEDERAL FUNDING TO UPGRADE, UPGRADE THE SYSTEM COMING FROM THE RIVER TO THE CITY AT THE WATER PLANT.

CAPACITY OF THE EXISTING PIPELINE IS ALSO A CONSIDERATION HERE.

THE ORIGINAL PIPELINE AND PUMPING STATIONS WERE PUT IN IN 1968.

OF COURSE, MANY THINGS HAVE CHANGED IN THE CITY.

GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT, POPULATION INCREASE, WATER USAGE HAVE ALL CHANGED AND SO CAPACITY OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM IS ALSO A CONSIDERATION.

AND THEN OF COURSE PUMP HOST ONE, PUMP HOST TWO AND THE SUBMARINE PIPELINE ALL HAVE CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO CONDITION AND RELIABILITY FOR LONG TERM OPERATION. NEXT SLIDE.

SO, YOU KNOW WHY ARE WE DOING ANOTHER STUDY NOW HERE IN 2024-2025 WHEN WE JUST DID A SOURCE SELECTION STUDY IN 2017? WHILE SOME SIGNIFICANT THINGS HAVE COME TO LIGHT, WHICH GENERATED THE, I THINK THE NEED FOR PAUSE AND CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF WHAT WAS EVALUATED IN 2017 AND WHAT WE KNOW TODAY.

SO BETTER DEFINITION OF THE GIANT MINE REHABILITATION PROGRAM.

THAT'S PROBABLY A NUMBER ONE. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DATA, A MUCH BETTER PLAN, MUCH MORE KNOWN PLAN AND TIMELINE IS NOW KNOWN FROM THE GIANT MINE PROJECT AND THE REMEDIATION AND THE RISKS OF ARSENIC UPSET AND HOW THEY MIGHT AFFECT THE YELLOWKNIFE BAY OR ARE MORE KNOWN NOW. WE HAVE ANOTHER EIGHT YEARS, SEVEN, EIGHT YEARS OF DATA FROM THAT PROJECT AND OTHER SOURCES OF WATER QUALITY IN THE BAY AND THE RIVER AND ARSENIC CONCENTRATIONS.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN DEVELOPMENTS IN ARSENIC TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY THAT WE COULD REVISIT AGAIN.

AND THEN, OF COURSE, THROUGH THE SUBMARINE PIPELINE PROJECT, THE ENGINEERING WE WERE DOING, WE GOT TO A 50% DESIGN. SO THE DESIGN, THE COST, THE COMPONENTS, THE SCALE, THE SCOPE WERE ALL MUCH BETTER KNOWN TODAY THAN THEY WERE IN 2017. SO REALLY THE OBJECTIVE IS PROVIDE AN UPDATED STUDY SO THAT THE CITY COULD EVALUATE THEIR WATER SYSTEM AND FURTHER CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THIS SUBMARINE PIPELINE SYSTEM.

SO NEXT SLIDE. SO, WATER QUALITY OVERVIEW. BOTH SOURCES THE RIVER AND THE BAY HAVE LOW TURBIDITY.

SOME ARE GOT SOME ORGANICS AND PATHOGENS. OF COURSE, THE BIG ONE THAT THAT IS BEING CONSIDERED HERE IS ARSENIC FOR THE HISTORY THERE FROM GIANT MINE. YOU KNOW, ARSENIC AND ANTIMONY.

AND OF COURSE, THEY'RE BOTH CARCINOGENIC. THEY'RE BOTH TOXIC.

THEY'RE BOTH HIGHLY. WE NEED TO CONSIDER THEM CAREFULLY ON A POTABLE WATER SUPPLY.

NEXT SLIDE.

SO HERE'S WHERE WE KIND OF GET INTO HOW WE EVALUATE THIS AND BOIL IT DOWN FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE.

SO THERE'S KIND OF THREE CONDITIONS WE LOOK AT WHEN WE LOOK AT THE ARSENIC RISKS AND THE RISKS FROM BOTH SOURCES.

SO THERE'S NORMAL CONDITIONS. SO THOSE ARE DAYS LIKE TODAY IT'S A NORMAL DAY.

THIS IS OF COURSE THE ICE COVERED PART OF THE SEASON.

AND THEN THERE'D BE THE OPEN WATER PART OF THE SEASON WHICH WE'RE COMING UPON.

BUT NORMAL DAY THERE'S NOTHING HAPPENING FROM GIANT MINE.

THERE'S NOTHING HAPPENING IN THE WEATHER THAT'S UNUSUAL. SO IT'S A NORMAL DAY.

THEN THERE'S STORM CONDITIONS. SO STORM CONDITIONS ARE SOMETHING WE NEED TO EVALUATE.

YOU KNOW, STORMS WILL CAUSE INCREASED RUNOFF.

THEY'LL CAUSE WAVE ACTION. THEY'LL STIR UP, POTENTIALLY STIR UP SEDIMENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND THEN UPSET CONDITIONS ARE THAT WE'LL SHOW YOU TWO UPSET CONDITIONS.

AND THOSE HAVE BEEN UPDATED ON HOW THOSE UPSET CONDITIONS COME FROM THINGS THAT ARE COULD HAPPEN FROM GIANT MINE.

SO AND THE RELEASE ARSENIC FROM GIANT MINE. NEXT SLIDE.

[00:10:02]

THE WATER FROM YELLOWKNIFE RIVER DOES STILL PROVIDE THE LOWEST CONCENTRATION OF ARSENIC.

AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THE CONCENTRATIONS THERE 0.00052 AS COMPARED TO 0.00107 AT PUMP HOUSE ONE, WHICH IS THE BAY YELLOWKNIFE BAY.

THE MAC OR THE HEALTH CANADA LIMIT IS FOR ARSENIC IS .01MG/L.

SO AGAIN, WHERE ARE WE TAKING THIS? HOW DOES IT AFFECT PEOPLE AND THEIR HEALTH SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THEY ARE CARCINOGENIC? THIS ARSENIC IS CARCINOGENIC, YOU KNOW, SO WHAT IS THE CANCER RISK ULTIMATELY.

AND YOU CAN SEE FROM THE BAY AS COMPARED TO FROM THE RIVER 0.00440.0019 AGAIN, HEALTH CANADA ESTABLISHES ALL THIS. SO, THE AVERAGE CANADIAN, ACCORDING TO HEALTH CANADA, HAS A RISK OF A 40% RISK OF DEVELOPING CANCER OVER THEIR LIFETIME. SO, IF WE TIE THESE TWO TOGETHER, YOU CAN SEE 40.0044 OR 40.0.

IT'S ALMOST NEGLIGIBLE. BUT I WON'T SAY IT'S NEGLIGIBLE.

IT'S THAT THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS. SO NEXT SLIDE.

SO THIS IS THE FIRST UPSET CONDITION. SO, THIS IS AN UPSET CONDITION.

FROM WHERE GIANT MINE AS I WOULD SAY, A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT ISSUE TREATING THE MINE POOL WATER.

SO, THIS IS WHERE THE NEW GIANT MINE WATER TREATMENT PLANT IS OUT OF SERVICE FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD.

WE'RE TALKING MONTHS, AND THE MINE POOL WATER RISES, AND THEN IT SPILLS INTO THE BAY, AND THERE'S AN ARSENIC CONCENTRATION THAT ENTERS THE BAY.

AND THAT'S WHAT THIS THIS CONDITION, WE'VE TRIED TO SIMULATE WHAT IT WOULD DO TO THE WATER QUALITY IN THE YELLOWKNIFE BAY.

SO THESE ARE JUST SOME NUMBERS. WE TRIED TO SIMULATE IT BECAUSE WHERE YOU INTAKE YOUR WATER IN THE BAY IS A WAYS AWAY FROM WHERE THE ARSENIC CONTAMINATED WATER WOULD ENTER THE BAY.

SO THEN THERE'S SOME MODELING, SOME DILUTION FACTOR OF WHAT WOULD THE CONCENTRATION BE IN THE SCENARIO WHERE YOU WOULD INTAKE YOUR WATER AT PUMP HOUSE ONE.

SO NEXT SLIDE. IT'S JUST KIND OF PRESENTING THE TABLE FROM THE REPORT UPSET CONDITION NUMBER TWO. THIS IS ANOTHER. AGAIN, WE HAD TO DEVELOP THESE ARE NEW CONDITIONS THAT WE'RE DEVELOPED WITH WHAT WE KNOW TODAY, WHAT WE KNOW OF THE REMEDIATION PROGRAM AT GIANT MINE.

SO THIS IS IF THE WATER PLANT AT GIANT MINE IS STILL IN OPERATION, BUT IT'S NOT TREATING AS EFFECTIVE AS IT SHOULD BE.

IT'S NOT RUNNING QUITE AS EFFECTIVE. IT'S STILL IN OPERATION, BUT IT'S NOT QUITE AS EFFECTIVE AS IT SHOULD BE IN, IN RELEASING AND TREATING THE, THE WATER. SO THAT WAS THE SECOND CONDITION.

WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. SO THESE ARE THE FOUR KEY OPTIONS THAT WE LOOKED AT IN AND INVALIDATING ALL YOUR SOURCE AND ALL YOUR OPTIONS IN THE REPORT.

SO OPTION ONE IS THE RIVER SOURCE. SO, THIS IS REALLY THIS THE SOURCE AND THE OPTION THAT YOU WERE EMBARKING UPON THAT WE ARE EMBARKING UPON FOR YOU IN DESIGNING AND UPGRADING THE SUBMARINE PIPELINE.

UPGRADING PUMP HOUSE TWO AT THE RIVER, UPGRADING PUMP HOUSE ONE BY THE WATER PLANT.

OPTION ONE WAS REALLY THE PREFERRED AND RECOMMENDED OPTION, AND THE ONE YOU WERE, THE PATH YOU WERE GOING ON UP UNTIL THIS POINT.

SO OPTION ONE WOULD CONTINUE LONG TERM AS THE RIVER IS THE SOURCE.

OPTION TWO AGAIN WAS INCLUDED IN THE 2017 STUDY.

OPTION TWO WOULD HAVE THE BAY IS YOUR SOURCE.

THERE WOULD BE NO BACKUP FROM THE RIVER. YOU WOULD GO TO THE BAY AS YOUR SOURCE, EFFECTIVE LONG TERM, AND THE RIVER WOULD NOT BE A POSSIBILITY. NOW OPTION THREE AND OPTION FOR HYBRIDS THAT WE THOUGHT WOULD BE VERY WORTHWHILE TO INCLUDE.

NOW OPTION THREE WE CALLED STATUS QUO. SO STATUS QUO IS BASICALLY WHAT YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW.

YOU HAVE THE RIVER SUPPLYING THE CITY. YOU DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THAT'S GOING TO LAST.

IT COULD LAST FIVE YEARS. IT COULD LAST 20 YEARS.

THAT IS HARD TO DEFINE RIGHT NOW WITH THE DATA WE HAVE, BUT IT WOULD INCLUDE PUMP HOUSE NUMBER ONE.

[00:15:05]

PUMP HOUSE ONE IS YOUR MOST CRITICAL PIECE OF INFRASTRUCTURE HERE IN GETTING WATER TO THE CITY.

IF PUMP HOUSE ONE GOES DOWN THERE'LL BE SOME EXCITEMENT IN GETTING WATER TO THE CITY.

I'LL JUST PUT IT THAT WAY. SO PUMP HOUSE ONE IS KEY IN ALL THESE OPTIONS.

SO OPTION THREE IS STATUS QUO. WE WOULDN'T UPGRADE THE SUBMARINE PIPELINE.

YOU WOULDN'T YOU'D DO VERY MODEST UPGRADES AT THE RIVER, BUT YOU WOULD PUT ALL OF YOUR MONEY AND FOCUS INTO UPGRADING PUMPHOUSE ONE, WHICH, BY THE WAY, IS ARGUABLY PROBABLY IN THE WORST SHAPE OF SOME OF THESE ASSETS.

AND THEN OPTION FOUR INCLUDES KIND OF A HYBRID.

AND IT I SHOULD HAVE SAID AN OPTION TWO ON THE BAY SOURCE THAT ALSO INCLUDED A MAJOR UPGRADE IN THE WATER PLANT TO INTRODUCE ARSENIC TREATMENT.

SO OPTION TWO AND OPTION FOUR HAVE ARSENIC TREATMENT IN THE WATER PLANT, WHICH YOU DON'T HAVE RIGHT NOW.

SO WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. SORRY I WISH THIS THING WORKED AND I COULD JUST DO IT.

SO REALLY WE THIS JUST KIND OF GIVES YOU A BIT OF A RUNDOWN OF ALL THE ARSENIC TREATMENT OPTIONS WE LOOKED AT, AND IT'S QUITE EXPANSIVE IN THE REPORT. THERE'S A TABLE, THERE'S PROS AND CONS, THERE'S COSTS.

THERE'S HOW EFFECTIVE IT IS. YOU KNOW, BASICALLY THIS ABSORPTIVE MEDIA WAS DECIDED AS THE, THE KIND OF RECOMMENDED OPTION IF YOU WENT TO ARSENIC TREATMENT IN THE WATER PLANT.

I THINK THE KEY THING HERE IS IF, IF YOU WENT TO A SYSTEM WHERE YOU HAD ARSENIC TREATMENT IN THE WATER PLANT, IT'S NOT SOMETHING WHERE YOU JUST FLICK ON. OH, SOMETHING HAPPENED AT GIANT MINE.

WE BETTER START UP OUR ARSENIC TREATMENT SYSTEM.

THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS AT ALL. IF YOU GO TO ONE OF THE OPTIONS WHERE YOU HAVE ARSENIC TREATMENT IN THE WATER PLANT, IT'S RUNNING ALL THE TIME. AND THERE'S PROS AND CONS TO THAT.

IT'S I'M NOT SAYING IT'S TERRIBLE TO RUN, BUT THERE CERTAINLY IS AN O&M COST TO RUNNING THAT SYSTEM ALL THE TIME.

AND ARGUABLY YOU NEED IT MAYBE ZERO, MAYBE 0.1, WHO KNOWS.

BUT RIGHT NOW, UNLESS THERE'S AN UPSET, YOU DON'T NEED ARSENIC TREATMENT.

SO WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS IS A DIAGRAM.

JUST TO KIND OF FURTHER DEMONSTRATE, YOU KNOW, OPTION ONE, THE RIVER SOURCE.

WHAT WE WERE GOING ON, THE PATH WE WERE GOING ON WITH THE CITY IN UPGRADING YOUR SYSTEM.

SO BOTTOM LEFT IS THE YELLOWKNIFE RIVER. THERE'S THE SUBMARINE PIPELINE THAT WE ARE GOING TO REPLACE ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE BAY.

SO 8.7KM. IT WAS GOING TO BRING US TO PUMP HOUSE NUMBER ONE.

PUMP HOUSE ONE WAS GOING TO BE HAVE A MAJOR UPGRADE.

AND THEN WE WERE GOING TO FEED THE WATER PLANT.

AND AGAIN, IN THIS OPTION WE WERE DOING NOTHING IN THE WATER PLANT.

ZERO. IT WAS THE TWO PUMP HOUSES AND THE PIPELINE THAT WERE GETTING THE UPGRADES.

SO, WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. SO OPTION TWO.

THIS WOULD INCLUDE, AGAIN, NO WATER COMING FROM THE RIVER.

YOU WOULD SOLELY RELY ON YELLOWKNIFE BAY AS YOUR SOURCE, HOWEVER, SO YOU WOULD HAVE MAJOR UPGRADES TO PUMP HOUSE NUMBER ONE IN THIS OPTION.

PUMP HOUSE TWO WOULD BE DEMOLISHED AT THE RIVER, AND MOST OF THE UPGRADES IN THIS WOULD BE INCLUDING A NEW ARSENIC REMOVAL COMPONENT AND ADDITION. THERE'D BE A MAJOR BUILDING ADDITION AND AN UPGRADE TO THE WATER PLANT.

AND THAT'S KIND OF OR THAT'S KIND OF REPRESENTED BY THIS BROWN BOX IN THIS PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM.

SO IT WOULD BE A MAJOR UNDERTAKING AT THE WATER PLANT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

AND AGAIN, THE YOU DON'T HAVE A BACKUP SOURCE.

YOU WOULDN'T BE GOING BACK TO THE RIVER. WE'LL GO TO OPTION THREE.

SO OPTION THREE STATUS QUO. AGAIN THE IMPORTANT THING ABOUT OPTION THREE IS YOU WOULD CONTINUE TO USE THE RIVER.

WE'D REINFORCE PUMPHOUSE NUMBER TWO SO THAT IT WOULD BE RELIABLE FOR THE INTERIM, I WOULD SAY, OR THE MEDIUM TERM, YOU WOULD PUT MAJOR UPGRADES TO PUMPHOUSE NUMBER ONE, WHICH IS YOUR CRITICAL ASSET RIGHT NOW.

YOU'D STILL HAVE YELLOWKNIFE BAY AS A BACKUP AND YOU CONTINUE TO USE THE ASSET OR THE WATER SUPPLY YOU HAVE, WHICH IS THE RIVER. OPTION FOUR WAS A HYBRID.

SO IT INCLUDED UPGRADES IN THE WATER PLANT. THE ARSENIC REMOVAL WOULD BE INCLUDED.

[00:20:04]

THAT'S REALLY THE DIFFERENCE. SO MOVING ON INTO THE NEXT SLIDE.

YEAH, ULTIMATELY THIS I CAN BREEZE THROUGH THIS.

BUT THESE ARE SOME OF THE DRAWINGS WE GENERATED WHEN WE WERE WORKING ON THE ENGINEERING HERE UP TO THIS DATE.

THE BLACK LINE DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE BAY THAT REPRESENTS YOUR EXISTING LINE, AND THEN THE BLUE, THE PURPLE, THE OTHER ONES WERE DIFFERENT OPTIONS WE LOOKED AT IN OPTION ONE OF HOW DIFFERENT ROUTES WE WERE GOING TO, WE WERE ENGINEERING TO GET THE WATER FROM THE RIVER TO, TO THE WATER PLANT.

AND YOU CAN SEE BY THOSE ROUTES THE BLUE, THE PURPLE WE'RE, THE BLUE AND THE PURPLE ESPECIALLY.

WE'RE GOING TO AVOID THE YELLOWKNIFE RIVER IN THE MOUTH.

IT'S VERY SHALLOW IN THERE. AND THERE'D BE THERE'S A BUNCH OF A CONS OF GOING UP THE UP THE MOUTH OF THE RIVER WITH THE NEW PIPELINE.

SO, WE'RE LOOKING TO AVOID THAT. THE OTHER THING WAS THIS NEW PIPELINE, AND OPTION ONE WAS GOING TO HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED CAPACITY.

IT WAS A LARGER DIAMETER. SO IT WOULD SERVE IT WOULD SERVE THE CITY FOR THEIR NEEDS FOR 75 YEARS.

SO IT WAS GOING TO PROVIDE THAT AS WELL. YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

THIS IS A RENDERING OF THE DESIGN OF PUMP HOUSE ONE.

IT'S QUITE A SIGNIFICANT UPGRADE. YOU KNOW, IT WOULD HAVE TWO LEVELS.

IT WAS GOING TO HAVE BOOSTER PUMPING BACKUP PUMPING FROM THE BAY.

IT'S GOING TO HAVE YOUR EOS, SOME FORM OF YOUR EOC IN THERE WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND SOME OF THEIR COMMUNICATION.

IT WAS GOING TO HAVE ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE FOR CITY ENGINEERING STAFF.

WE WERE GOING TO REPLACE THE BAY INTAKE. ALL NEW ELECTRICAL MAJOR UPGRADE TO THE SUPERSTRUCTURE.

AND REALLY, THE ENTIRE SYSTEM, THE ENTIRE BUILDING, AS YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE OVERHAULED.

WE HAVE TO DO THAT CAREFULLY. SO I KIND OF USE THE ANALOGY OF, YOU KNOW, IT'S OPEN HEART SURGERY.

WE HAVE TO KEEP THE PATIENT ALIVE. WE HAVE TO KEEP THE CITY SUPPLIED WITH WATER.

BUT WE STILL HAVE TO DO THESE UPGRADES IN A SEQUENCED, MANNER.

SO IT WOULD BE A MAJOR, MAJOR UNDERTAKING. YOU'D BE LEFT WITH, YOU KNOW, YOU'LL BE LEFT WITH AN INCREDIBLE FACILITY HERE FOR 75 YEARS, YOU KNOW, WITH THIS, WITH THIS APPROACH. AND AGAIN, THAT'S THIS IS COMMON TO ALL OPTIONS.

BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE RIGHT NOW. NEXT SLIDE.

SOME OF THE OPTIONS MOSTLY OPTION ONE HAD MAJOR UPGRADES TO PUMP HOUSE TWO AT THE RIVER.

YOU KNOW, YOU CAN SEE IT WOULD BE A MAJOR NEW BUILDING, ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL PROCESS PUMPS.

SO THIS IS JUST A BIT OF A SUMMATION OF THE UPGRADES TO THE PUMP HOUSE.

NUMBER TWO AT THE RIVER, WHICH WOULD BE COMMON ONLY TO OPTION NUMBER ONE, WHICH WAS THE PATH YOU WERE GOING ON.

NEXT SLIDE. SO NOW WE START TO LOOK AT THE NUMBERS.

THE ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS FOR ALL OPTIONS. SO YOU CAN SEE OPTION ONE THE PATH YOU WERE GOING ON WERE ESTIMATED AT 107 MILLION RIGHT NOW. OPTION TWO, CAPITAL COST. SO THAT WAS THE BAY ONLY WAS 62 MILLION.

AND THAT INCLUDED, AGAIN, UPGRADES TO THE WATER PLANT FOR THE ARSENIC TREATMENT AND THEN UPGRADES TO PUMP HOUSE ONE.

OPTION THREE, WHICH IS STATUS QUO. YOU WOULD KEEP THE RIVER, YOU WOULD KEEP, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD RUN IT AS LONG AS IT'S GOING TO LAST.

BUT YOU WOULD PUT MAJOR UPGRADES INTO PUMP HOUSE ONE AND THAT'S REFLECTED IN THAT 37 MILLION NUMBER.

AND THEN OPTION FOUR IS A HYBRID WHERE YOU DO PUMP HOUSE ONE AND THE ARSENIC TREATMENT SYSTEM AND SOME OTHER SOME OTHER UPGRADES.

SO THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS WE ESTIMATE THE O&M, THE O&M WAS SOME OF THEM ARE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN OTHERS, WHICH YOU KNOW, BOILS DOWN INTO LIFE CYCLE COSTS.

SO NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS IS THIS IS EFFECTIVELY YOUR TABLE THE TABLE OUR TABLE.

BUT IT'S YOUR TABLE THAT WAS USED IN THE 2017 REPORT.

AND THE KEY COLUMN I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THE WEIGHTING COLUMN.

SO YOU CAN SEE THERE WAS FIVE KIND OF CATEGORIES THAT WERE DECIDED IN 2017.

SO ONE WAS SUSCEPTIBILITY TO RAW WATER QUALITY CHANGES.

THE NEXT ONE WAS CONSTRUCTABILITY, RELIABILITY OF WATER SUPPLY, EASE OF OPERATION 25 YEAR LIFE CYCLE COST.

[00:25:01]

AND WE KEPT THOSE INTACT BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO HOW DO YOU COMPARE.

YOU'RE COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES THEN. SO THIS IS MEANT TO BE APPLES TO APPLES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

SO YOU CAN SEE THE IMPORTANCE THAT THE CITY PUT IN 2017 WHEN WE DID, THE ORIGINAL STUDY, WAS ON THE RELIABILITY OF WATER SUPPLY THAT WAS RANKED AT 50%. SO THAT WAS KEPT INTACT. AND THEN THERE'S SUB CATEGORIES AND SUB CRITERIAS, AND THEN THE OVERALL WEIGHTING CASCADES OUT FROM THAT. BUT YOU KNOW RELIABILITY OF WATER SUPPLY WAS THE KEY THE KEY HEAVILY WEIGHTED CATEGORY AT THE TIME.

AND THAT WAS CARRIED FORWARD WITH THE SECOND ONE BEING SUSCEPTIBILITY TO RAW WATER CHANGES.

YOU CAN SEE LIFE CYCLE COST WAS THIRD YOU KNOW IN THE WEIGHTING 15%.

SO WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. AGAIN MORE NUMBERS TO OVERWHELM THE READER.

NOT INTENTIONALLY, BUT ULTIMATELY THIS IS A WAY TO COMPILE ALL THE SCORING FOR ALL THE OPTIONS IN THE CATEGORIES WITH THE WEIGHTING. SO ULTIMATELY, THIS IS WHERE EVEN TODAY, WITH OPTION ONE BEING 107 MILLION AS A CAPITAL COST AND THE HIGHEST LIFE CYCLE COST, IT'S STILL SCORED THE HIGHEST IN THIS FRAMEWORK.

SO IT'S HIGHLIGHTED THERE BY, BY THE SCORE OF 73.1.

AND YOU CAN SEE THAT, THAT THE OTHER OPTIONS ARE ARE SOMEWHAT DISTANT FROM IT.

YOU KNOW THE NEXT CLOSEST ONE IS OPTION FOUR.

IT'S NINE POINTS AWAY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO SO THOSE ARE ALL THE NUMBERS. NEXT SLIDE. SO THEN THIS WAS A TABLE THAT WAS ALSO AND THIS WAS AN EXERCISE THAT WAS DONE IN 2017.

AND WE CARRIED IT FORWARD AND UPDATED IT. AND THIS IS THIS IS MEANT TO KIND OF INFORM THE READER AND CITY COUNCIL HOW WHAT'S YOU KNOW, IF YOU CHANGE ONE OF THE SCORING. HOW SENSITIVE IS IT? SO MAYBE I'LL SHOW YOU. YOU KNOW, IF I WOULD LOOK AT MODEL NUMBER TWO.

SO HOW HIGH DO YOU HAVE TO RAISE THE WEIGHTING ON COST BEFORE IT CHANGES THINGS? YOU KNOW, SO YOU'D HAVE TO INCREASE THE WEIGHTING ON COST FROM 15% TO 35% BEFORE IT CHANGES THE RESULTS.

YOU KNOW, BEFORE IT MOVES THINGS OFF OF OPTION ONE, THE RIVER.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS WE WENT THROUGH.

ULTIMATELY, YOU CAN SEE THEM ALL. THE RIVER SCORED THE HIGHEST IN, YOU KNOW, FROM 3 TO 9.

IF YOU CHANGE THIS, WHAT HAPPENS? THE RIVER IS THE HIGHEST.

IF YOU CHANGE THIS, WHAT HAPPENS? RIVER IS THE HIGHEST.

SO, YOU KNOW, NUMBER TEN IS INTERESTING THOUGH.

WE INTRODUCED THIS AND ITS BENEFIT TO COST RATIO.

AND IT'S A DIFFERENT WAY. IT'S AN ACCEPTED WAY OF LOOKING AT IT.

AND THIS IS THE ONLY ONE OTHER THAN, I GUESS.

OPTION TWO, WHERE WE CHANGED THE COSTING TO 35%, WHERE OPTION THREE RANKED HIGHEST.

BUT THIS IS BENEFIT TO COST RIGHT NOW AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.

BUT AGAIN THAT WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL FRAMEWORK.

WE WANTED TO COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES. SO YEAH IT'S JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT WHEN MAKING DECISIONS.

SO WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. SO HERE WE ARE AT THE SUMMARY.

YELLOWKNIFE RIVER WAS THE HIGHEST SCORING OPTION.

IT SCORED AT 7,313% HIGHER THAN THE NEXT SCORE WHICH IS OPTION FOUR AND 30% HIGHER THAN OPTION TWO.

THE SCORES DO AGAIN REFLECT THE IMPORTANCE THAT WAS PLACED ON THE RELIABILITY OF THE WATER SUPPLY IN THE ORIGINAL FRAMEWORK.

OPTION ONE YELLOWKNIFE RIVER SCORED HIGHEST IN NINE OF 11 SCENARIOS WHEN WE DID THE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS.

OPTION THREE DID SCORE HIGHEST WHERE WE CHANGED THINGS COST TO BENEFIT OR INCREASED THE WEIGHTING ON COST TO 35%.

SO YELLOWKNIFE RIVER OPTION ONE HAS THE HIGHEST LIFE CYCLE COST OF 108 MILLION.

OPTION THREE, STATUS QUO HAS THE LOWEST COST OPTION OF 49 MILLION.

SO I THINK THAT'S IT. ONE MORE SLIDE. MAYBE. SO WE HAD SOME RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE END OF THE AT THE END OF THE REPORT REVIEW THE DECISION MODEL WEIGHTINGS.

SO AGAIN THE WEIGHTINGS THAT WERE ESTABLISHED IN 2017.

DO THOSE STILL ACCURATELY REFLECT THE VALUES OF THE CITY AND COUNCIL TODAY.

REVIEW THE EXISTING PIPELINE CONDITION? I DON'T THINK THESE ARE MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS.

[00:30:04]

YOU KNOW THAT'LL INFORM. IS THERE FIVE YEARS LEFT IN THE PIPELINE? IS THERE 15? IS THERE 20? BUT LET'S BE REALISTIC.

IT'S ALREADY SHOWED FAILURE IN AREAS. SO IT'S IT DOESN'T HEAL ITSELF.

IT DOESN'T GET BETTER OVER TIME WITHOUT HELP.

SO YOU KNOW, IT'S DAYS ARE NUMBERED. CERTAINLY JUST HOW MANY HASN'T FULLY BEEN QUANTIFIED AND THEN JUST CONFIRMED THE DESIGN HORIZON BASIS. YOU KNOW, ARE WE DESIGNING TO 2050.

ARE WE DESIGNING TO 2038? 2038 IS A KEY DAY FOR THE CITY TO SOME DEGREE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN YOUR WATER LICENSE IS NEXT RENEWED OR RENEGOTIATED. SO AND IT'S ALSO KIND OF ALIGNS WITH THE GIANT MINE PROJECT.

SO YEAH, THAT'S THE I TRIED TO SUMMARIZE IT THERE AS BEST AS I COULD.

SO THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. YEAH. MEATY STUFF TO CONSIDER.

WE WILL POST THE WATER SOURCE SELECTION STUDY ON OUR WEBSITE SO RESIDENTS CAN TAKE A LOOK, READ IT FURTHER. AS THE CITY MANAGER MENTIONED, TODAY IS JUST FYI OVERVIEW.

NO DECISION REQUIRED. AND IT WILL COME BACK TO COUNCIL AT OUR NEXT OR WELL, THE GOVERNANCE AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE MEETING ON MARCH 10TH FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.

SO, WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS.

I'VE COUNCILOR FEQUET. THANKS, MADAM CHAIR. YOU GUYS CAN HEAR ME.

OKAY. JUST CHECKING. PERFECT. YEAH. THANKS FOR THAT PRESENTATION.

THAT WAS GREAT. DEFINITELY LOOKING FORWARD TO DIVING INTO THE DETAILED REPORT.

JUST A FEW QUESTIONS FOR YOU GUYS WITH RESPECT TO THE UPSET CONDITION NUMBER ONE.

ARE YOU ASSUMING THAT THE ON-LAND WATER STORAGE FACILITY AT GIANT MINE HAS BEEN DECOMMISSIONED OR IT'S STILL OPERATING? WE'VE ASSUMED IN THAT SCENARIO, EXCUSE ME, THAT IT'S DECOMMISSIONED, I BELIEVE.

SO THE TIMELINE TO RECAP, AND IT'S IN THE IT'S IN THE REPORT IS THE NORTHWEST POND. BY 2031 IS NO LONGER IT'S CAPPED AND OUT OF THE OUT OF THE MIX.

SO WE'VE KIND OF ASSUMED THAT IT'S POST 2031.

OH, THANKS, CHRIS. FROM THE BAY. IT'S ALL GOOD.

SO, YEAH, I THINK IT'S BEING ASSUMED THAT IT'S NO LONGER GOING TO BE IMPACTING THE WATER QUALITY IN THE BAY, BECAUSE THAT IS THE THAT IS THE PATH THAT GIANT MINES GOING ON WITH THEIR REMEDIATION.

THE GIANT MINE WATER PLANT IS BEING COMMISSIONED IN 2026.

SO NEXT YEAR AND THEN THE PROCESS STARTS OVER THE FOLLOWING FOUR YEARS TO DECOMMISSION THAT NORTHWEST POND, WHICH IS OF KIND OF HIGHEST RISK TO THE BAY WATER.

OKAY. YEAH, I THOUGHT IT WAS I THOUGHT IT WAS 2028 WAS THE WHEN ALL THE SURFACE WATER WAS OR ALL THE MINE WATER WAS EXPECTED TO BE PUMPED UP AND THEN ALSO RUN THROUGH THE TREATMENT PLANT. UNDERSTANDING THERE'S SOME DECOMMISSIONING OF THE FACILITY AFTER THAT. SO YEAH, TIMING IS IMPORTANT IN THIS CONTEXT. THAT'S WHY I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION.

YEAH. AND WE LAY THAT OUT IN THE REPORT. OKAY.

THERE'S 2026 THEN 2028 AND THEN 2031. SO YEAH.

OKAY. COOL. FOR BOTH UPSET CONDITIONS WHAT WAS THE NUMBER OF DAYS ASSUMED? AND IF IT'S IN THE REPORT, YOU CAN JUST SAY THAT AND I'LL ENJOY THAT WHEN I GET TO READ THAT.

SINCE I DON'T KNOW IF WE DEFINED IT AS AN EXACT NUMBER OF DAYS.

WE JUST WE JUST ASSUMED AND I DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT WE JUST ASSUMED THAT FOR UPSET ONE WAS IT WAS A SIGNIFICANT EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. SO MONTHS AND WHERE THE WHERE THE WATER PLANT IS NOT OPERATING AT ALL.

THERE'S A MAJOR ISSUE THERE. AND THE MINE POOL WATER WOULD BE REACHES A LEVEL WHERE IT STARTS TO ENTER THE BAY.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE DEFINED AT LEAST I DON'T REMEMBER HOW LONG WE DEFINED THAT THE THAT THE CONTAMINATED WATER IS ENTERING THE BAY.

BUT THE OTHER POINT I WOULD JUST MAKE IS FOLKS CAN TAKE THE TIME TO, TO READ IT, COMPILE ALL YOUR TECHNICAL QUESTIONS, SEND TO THE CITY MANAGER AND THEN THE CITY MANAGER AND STAFF CAN WORK WITH AKON IF IF THEY AREN'T ADDRESSED IN THE REPORT.

[00:35:08]

SURE COUNCILOR FEQUET. THANK YOU FOR THAT. YEAH.

I HAVE, I HAVE LIKE A DOZEN. I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT WOULD BE MOST USEFUL FOR TODAY.

I GUESS WHERE I'M GOING IS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS ASKED US WAS, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU GUYS RUNNING IT BASED ON THE SAME CRITERIA AND WEIGHTINGS THAT WERE USED BEFORE. JUST SO, LIKE YOU SAID, WE CAN COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES.

I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, MAYBE CONCERNS, SUGGESTIONS ABOUT SOME OF THE CRITERIA IN THERE.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE ARE USEFUL TODAY TO SHARE OR IF YOU'D PREFER THOSE MAYBE COME ON MARCH 10TH.

MAYBE. I'D ASK MADAM MAYOR FOR SOME GUIDANCE.

I WOULD SAY MARCH 10TH. TODAY IS NOTHING. WE'RE NOT DETERMINING ANYTHING.

SO, GIVE EVERYBODY THE TIME OVER THE NEXT TWO WEEKS TO READ THE REPORT.

AND THEN AGAIN, YOU CAN SEND YOUR QUESTIONS IN AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO GRAPPLE THEM MORE THEN.

OKAY. I'M JUST SKIMMING MY LIST. MAYBE YOU CAN LET SOMEONE ELSE GO AND I'LL JUST DOUBLE CHECK IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE FOR TODAY.

SOUNDS GOOD. I'LL GO TO COUNCILLOR COCHRANE AND THEN COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION. IT CERTAINLY POSES A LOT OF THINKING OVER THE NEXT LITTLE WHILE AND ALSO CLEAR STARK REALITY OF ALL FOUR OPTIONS FISCAL REALITIES.

MY QUESTION IS PRIMARILY TO THE ADMINISTRATION, HAVE WE HAD A CHANCE TO ENGAGE WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE ON THIS SINCE LAST TIME WE ALL SPOKE ABOUT THIS, LIKE WHETHER THEY HAVE ANY EXTRA DOLLARS TO SUPPORT THE CLEAN DRINKING WATER OF HALF THE POPULATION OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.

I COULDN'T HAVE PUT IT ANY WAY BETTER. NO, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE.

AND IN THE PAST, IT'S BEEN IT'S OVER TO YOU TO JUST USE YOUR TINY FRACTION OF FUNDING THAT WE PROVIDE YOU TO COVER IT.

MR. VAN DINE, WE WILL BE SPEAKING TO THAT, TO THE MEMO.

AND ON MARCH 10TH WE ARE LOOKING AT IN ON BALANCE, THIS, AS WAS POINTED OUT IN THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION, INCLUDED THE WATER LINE, TWO PUMP HOUSES. PLUS THERE ARE SOME OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS THAT THE, THE CITY IS WELL AWARE OF IN TERMS OF LIFT STATION NUMBER ONE.

AND SO WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE DOLLARS IN THE SENSE AND THE RELATIVE PRIORITIES IN THAT MARCH 10TH DISCUSSION, THE GNWT IS VERY MUCH AWARE OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS IN THESE AREAS.

WE HAVE HAD REGULAR DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM ABOUT OUR NEEDS AND OUR LEVEL OF POTENTIAL.

SOURCES OF FUNDING FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND OTHER SOURCES.

THOSE ARE ONGOING DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVE WITH THE GNWT WITH RESPECT TO OUR CAPITAL NEEDS.

THANK YOU VERY KINDLY. I GUESS THE ONLY THING I COULD ALSO SAY IS, AS I SO SOMETIMES DO, IF ANYONE FROM MACA IS LISTENING, IF YOU DON'T MIND PASSING OVER THIS MEETING TOWARDS THE DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE FMB AT FINANCE, THAT WOULD BE REALLY, REALLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. AND I WOULD AGAIN STRESS IT'S A LOT OF INFORMATION TO TAKE IN.

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS ALL NECESSARILY WRAPPED UP BY THE END OF MARCH. IF FOLKS NEED FURTHER TIME TO CONSIDER.

IT'S NOT NECESSARILY MARCH 10TH AND THEN GOES RIGHT ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA ON MARCH 24TH.

COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION.

I WAS JUST WONDERING IF YOU HAD ANY ABILITY TO SPEAK TO SORT OF SOME MORE OF THE CONTEXT AROUND UPSET CONDITION ONE.

BASICALLY, LIKE, IS THERE A WORLD LIKE ARE WE AS THE CITY, GOING TO SPEND A TON OF MONEY TO HAVE A GUARANTEED WATER SOURCE? AND THEN IF SOMETHING LIKE UPSET CONDITION ONE HAPPENED, THERE'S RISK OF NO ONE CAN TOUCH THE BAY, THERE'S AIR CONTAMINATION, THERE'S SOME BIG CLEANUP NEEDED, AND THE WHOLE CITY NEEDS TO EVACUATE ANYWAY IS THERE ANY WAY YOU CAN TALK ABOUT SORT OF THE CONTEXT AROUND IT? AND ARE IS THERE A WORLD IN WHICH UPSET CONDITION ONE HAPPENS? WE'VE GOT A, WE'VE GOT THE RIVER SOURCE, A GOOD SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER, AND LIFE CONTINUES AS NORMAL? IT'S A LOADED QUESTION.

THE BEST WAY I CAN FRAME IT IS LIKE, WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE GIANT MINE WATER TREATMENT PLANT HAS A FAILURE? THAT WOULD LAST MONTHS WHERE IT'S TREATING NO WATER.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALL KINDS OF SCENARIOS THAT WE COULD DREAM UP, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S, YOU KNOW, A FIRE OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. YOU KNOW, WE HAD TO WE HAD TO INCLUDE IT

[00:40:05]

THAT'S REALLY FUNDAMENTALLY WHY WE WANTED TO INCLUDE SOME SORT OF, I HATE TO USE THE WORD CATASTROPHIC EVENT, BUT SIGNIFICANT EVENT WHERE HIGHLY CONCENTRATED ARSENIC WATER ENTERED THE BAY.

AND HOW WOULD THAT IMPACT YOUR YOUR WATER SOURCE? SO THAT'S I'M NOT DANCING AROUND THAT. THAT'S THE BEST WAY I CAN FRAME IT.

THE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT'S HIGHLY UNUSUAL HERE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, IS MANY MUNICIPALITIES WOULD DEARLY LOVE TO HAVE TWO SOURCES AT THEIR DISPOSAL.

SO, YOU KNOW, I WOULD PART OF I WAS PART OF THE, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE NORTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER GOT CONTAMINATED FROM THE OIL PIPELINE IN 2016. THOSE COMMUNITIES ONLY HAVE ONE SOURCE.

SO THAT THOSE ARE CONSIDERATIONS. I THINK AT A HIGHER LEVEL YOU SHOULD HAVE TWO SOURCES IS NOT A, IT'S A TOOL. IT'S A TOOL, CERTAINLY. AND THERE IS A EVEN THOUGH THE PIPELINE IS OLD AND IT'S BEEN IN SERVICE FOR A LONG TIME, THERE'S STILL A LOT OF VALUE IN IT AS A SECOND SOURCE OR A PRIMARY SOURCE.

THANK YOU. YEAH. UNDERSTOOD. AND AND IN TERMS OF AFTER 2038 WHEN GIANT MINE.

THE WHOLE PLAN IS DONE. WHAT RISK EXISTS WOULD EXIST TO THE CITY IS THAT WATER TREATMENT PLANT STILL NEED TO BE OPERATING AND INTO PERPETUITY, AND THERE'S A CHANCE IF THAT FAILS, THERE'S STILL A RISK OR SORT OF WHAT IS THE RISK AFTER 2038? MY UNDERSTANDING RIGHT NOW TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION IS LIKE THE GIANT MINE WATER PLANT WILL BE IN PLACE FOR A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT PERPETUITY, BUT LET'S SAY WELL BEYOND 2038.

SO THE RISK IS THE SAME WHETHER IT'S KIND OF 2031, 2038, 2050, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S KIND OF SAFE TO SAY WITH WHAT WE UNDERSTAND FROM GIANT MINE RIGHT NOW. GREAT. THANK YOU.

AND THEN COULD YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE NET PRESENT VALUE? I SORT OF UNDERSTAND THAT AS A COMPANY MAKING AN INVESTMENT, LOOKING TO MAKE PROFIT, AND THEY COULD PUT THE MONEY ELSEWHERE INSTEAD OF MAKING THAT INVESTMENT. BUT HOW SHOULD WE THINK ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF A CITY COUNCIL MAKING AN INVESTMENT? WE'RE NOT TRYING TO MAKE A PROFIT LIKE THE OPTION ONE.

IS THERE RESIDUAL VALUE THAT THAT WOULD HAVE THAT, THAT MAKES THAT NUMBER NOT GROW AS MUCH AS THE OTHER ONES? CHRIS, DO YOU WANT TO DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THIS ONE? CERTAINLY. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM MAYOR. TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, OPTION ONE IS VERY CAPITAL INTENSIVE.

SO, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THE PROJECT, WE ASSUME THAT 107 OR 108 MILLION WAS SPREAD OVER APPROXIMATELY THREE YEARS OF CONSTRUCTION. SO STARTED IF YOU STARTED TODAY, YOU'D HAVE THREE YEARS OF VERY CAPITAL INTENSIVE, INTENSIVE WORK. THE OTHER, THE OTHER TWO OR THE OTHER THREE OPTIONS, AND SPECIFICALLY THE STATUS QUO.

OPTION THREE IS CAPITALLY OVER THREE. THE FIRST THREE YEARS IS MUCH LESS ONEROUS.

SO, IT'S IN THE IT'S SORT OF AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE LESS THAN OPTION ONE.

SO THE NET PRESENT VALUE YOU'RE QUITE RIGHT. OFTEN, IT'S USED AS A AS AN INVESTMENT TOOL TO SORT OF SEE YOUR, YOUR RETURNS ON A, ON AN INVESTMENT. YOU EXPECT A FINANCIAL PAYBACK FROM IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WHAT WE'VE USED IT FOR IS, IS TO TRY AND ASSUME A LEVEL OF BORROWING.

ASSUME, ASSUMING THAT YOU NEED TO BORROW MONEY TO TAKE ON THAT VERY CAPITAL INTENSIVE THREE YEARS CONSTRUCTION FOR OPTION ONE.

IT ALSO TAKES INTO ACCOUNT GROWTH IN THINGS LIKE UTILITY POWER RATES OR DIESEL FUEL RATES.

ESCALATION OF SORT OF OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE LABOR ESSENTIALLY, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO YEAH, YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. IT IS COMMONLY USED FOR, SORT OF AN INVESTMENT STRATEGY, BUT WE ALSO USE IT ROUTINELY, I WOULD SAY, FOR TRYING TO PROJECT WHETHER IT'S BETTER TO SPEND $100 MILLION TODAY OR SPEND $30 MILLION TODAY, BUT THEN YOU SPEND MORE EVERY YEAR ON O&M. THANK YOU.

[00:45:02]

WE DO TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE ANALYSIS SUCH AS THESE ROUTINELY MOST MAJOR PROJECTS HAVE ONE OR MORE.

THE METHOD WE'VE USED FOR THE CITY WHERE YOU, YOU ROLL IN THE COST AS PART OF THE, AS PART OF THE OVERALL WEIGHTING AS PART OF THE OVERALL PARAMETERS, YOU MIGHT GIVE TECHNICAL PARAMETERS SORT OF A 50% WEIGHTING AND COST IS JUST A WEIGHTING OF THAT.

AND THAT'S QUITE COMMON, BUT WHAT WE ALSO SEE, SIMILAR AMOUNT, I WOULD SAY, OR EVEN MORE SOMETIMES IS ROLLING UP ALL THE SCORING AND THEN WE CALL IT THE BANG FOR YOUR BUCK IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE OTHER.

SO, WE KNOW WHAT WE END UP WITH A BENEFIT. THE TECHNICAL BENEFIT SCORE WITHOUT INCLUDING COST AT ALL.

AND THEN WE DIVIDE THE TECHNICAL BENEFIT SCORE BY THE COST TO GIVE YOU THIS BANG FOR YOUR BUCK, AS I LIKE TO REFER TO IT AS WHICH IS A DIFFERENT WAY OF EVALUATING, OBVIOUSLY, COMPARED TO JUST WEIGHTING AS A PERCENTAGE.

THE DANGER OF WEIGHTING AS A PERCENTAGE AS WE DO HERE, IS THAT A PERCENTAGE YOU ASSIGN TO IT HAS AS A TENDENCY TO IMPLY THAT COST ISN'T IMPORTANT IF YOU WEIGHT IT VERY LOW, OR COST IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IF YOU WEIGHT IT VERY HIGH.

BUT THE BANG FOR YOUR BUCK TENDS TO GIVE YOU AN ACTUAL, SOMETIMES A BETTER VISUAL OF HOW MUCH MORE MONEY YOU HAVE TO SPEND TO GET AN EXTRA COUPLE OF POINTS OF TECHNICAL GAIN, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

YEAH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THEN JUST ONE MORE.

THE RECOMMENDATION ABOUT THE TIMING. 25 YEARS TO 2050 OR TO 2038.

COULD YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THINKING AROUND THAT? JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. ARE YOU SAYING PERHAPS WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT DESIGNING SOMETHING FOR POST 2038 OR SOME INTERIM SOLUTION UNTIL 2038? I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO DEFINE THAT SOME OF THESE OPTIONS PROVIDE SERVICE TO THE CITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE TO THE CITY ON A LONGER TIME FRAME THAN THE OTHERS.

SO, LIKE, I THINK IT'S JUST IMPORTANT TO ALIGN THE INVESTMENT YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE AND HOW LONG YOU WANT IT TO SERVE THE CITY FOR. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT IT'S GENERALLY WHAT WE WANTED BECAUSE THERE'S ALL THESE DATES, THERE'S GIANT MINE REMEDIATION. THERE'S YOUR WATER LICENSE IN 2038.

BUT US ON THE ENGINEERING SIDE, YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS DESIGN FOR WHAT IS THE CITY NEED FOR WATER ULTIMATELY IN 25 YEARS, 20, 25 YEARS, 50 YEARS, YOU KNOW, BASED ON YOUR WATER USAGE AND YOUR PROJECTED GROWTH.

SO, LIKE, IT'S JUST MEANT TO ALIGN WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THIS DECISION AND THIS INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE, HOW LONG DO YOU WANT IT TO TAKE YOUR COMMUNITY INTO THE FUTURE FOR SO THAT WE DON'T OVER DESIGN, OVERCOOK IT, OR UNDERCOOK IT? WHERE IF SOME OF YOU ARE STILL ON COUNCIL IN TEN YEARS, YOU'RE LIKE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WATER SOURCE AGAIN. YOU KNOW THAT WE JUST PAID FOR THAT.

YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT WE JUST DID THAT, SO. AWESOME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST FOLLOWING UP ON THAT QUESTION THERE, WAS THAT PART OF YOUR RESULTS SENSITIVITY SLIDE CHANGING THAT SCENARIO? I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T THINK SO. IF I HAD TO CHRIS, YOU CAN JUMP IN.

I DON'T THINK THE TIMELINE WAS AFFECTING ANY OF THE SCENARIOS.

NO, THE 2038 YEAR WAS NOT USED. IT WAS ALL BASED ON A 25 YEAR DESIGN LIFE, WHICH WAS, I BELIEVE, THE ORIGINAL BASIS FROM 2017 AS WELL, WHICH IS WHY WE HAD MADE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO REVISIT THAT, TO SEE IF THAT WAS STILL A VALID APPROACH FOR 25 YEARS, OR MAYBE THE YEAR 2038 HAD HAD MORE SIGNIFICANCE.

BECAUSE THEN IT WOULD CHANGE THE SCORING IF YOU CHANGE THAT FACTOR.

YEAH. OKAY. THE OTHER THING IS, LIKE I SAID, WE CAN'T QUANTIFY TODAY HOW MUCH LIFE IS LEFT IN IN THE PIPELINE ESPECIALLY.

SO THERE'S A VARIABLE THERE THAT WE CAN'T LIKE WE CAN ESTIMATE.

BUT YEAH, JUST ROUND ONE QUESTIONS I KNOW COUNCILLOR FEQUET YOU'VE GOT YOUR HAND UP, BUT WE'LL GO ROUND TWO. COUNCILLOR HENDRICKSEN THEN COUNCILOR PAYNE.

[00:50:01]

I GUESS MY ONE TECHNICAL QUESTION, JUST WHILE YOU'RE HERE BEFORE MARCH 10TH IS, YOU KNOW, TALKING ABOUT THE ARSENIC TREATMENT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDED TO THE CURRENT LAKE TO OUR WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND OPTIONS TWO AND FOUR.

I GUESS JUST TRYING TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW EFFECTIVE THAT IS.

LIKE IN THAT UPSET CONDITION SCENARIO YOU PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, DOES IT BRING US BACK TO, YOU KNOW, A STATUS QUO WHERE THAT UPSET CONDITION DIDN'T HAPPEN? SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF EFFLUENT GOING INTO THE LAKE, INTO THE BAY WE'RE PUMPING.

BUT NOW OUR WATER TREATMENT, YOU KNOW, WATER TREATMENT PLANT WITH THE NEW ARSENIC REMEDIATION.

CAN IT HANDLE LIKE TO WHAT LEVEL DO WE HAVE AN IDEA OF WHERE DOES THAT BRING US BACK TO? HOW EFFECTIVE IS IT? GREAT QUESTION. VERY GREAT QUESTION.

THERE IS NO THERE IS LIMITS TO WHAT IT CAN TREAT.

WE'RE AWARE OF THOSE LIMITS. WE HAVE COURTNEY, OUR PROCESS ENGINEER ON THE LINE HERE, BUT IT CANNOT TREAT THERE'S A THRESHOLD AT THE CONCENTRATIONS WHERE IT'S TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS WILL, YOU KNOW, OR IT'LL EXCEED IT'S TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS EFFECTIVELY.

NOW, THE MIDDLE GROUND HERE IS THERE'S A WHOLE EXERCISE WE WENT THROUGH.

AND THERE'S A LOT OF DATA FROM THE GIANT MINE PROJECT ON MODELING DILUTION FACTORS IN THE BAY.

BECAUSE CERTAINLY THE CONCENTRATION WHERE IT ENTERS THE BAY IS AGAIN DIFFERENT THAN WHEN IT REACHES YOUR INTAKE AT THE AT THE PUMP HOUSE ONE.

SO I DON'T KNOW. COURTNEY, IF YOU WANT TO ADD ON, I DON'T REMEMBER THE THRESHOLD UPPER THRESHOLD LIMIT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT. SURE. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. I GUESS I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT THRESHOLD WAS EITHER, BUT FOR THE CONCENTRATIONS THAT WE WERE ESTIMATING FOR THIS UPDATED STUDY, WE WOULD EXPECT YOU COULD REMOVE THOSE CONCENTRATIONS AND HAVE DRINKABLE WATER WITH THE WITH THE NEW TREATMENT PROCESS, BUT AT HIGHER LEVELS, IT WOULD BECOME A COST AND OPERATION KIND OF ISSUE.

YOU'D HAVE TO REPLACE THE MEDIA POTENTIALLY QUITE FREQUENTLY IF YOU'VE GOT HIGHER CONCENTRATIONS COMING IN.

OKAY. THANKS FOR THAT. COUNCILLOR PAYNE. THANK YOU.

JUST A COUPLE THINGS. LIKE, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHEN OUR ACCEPTABLE ARSENIC LEVELS IN OUR DRINKING WATER WAS CHANGED.

I KNOW, TEN YEARS OR MORE, THEY ACTUALLY REDUCED IT.

I THINK IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, BY AROUND HALF AND WE STILL HAD WE WERE STILL WELL BEYOND OR WE WERE GOOD ON OUR DRINKING WATER FROM THE BAY.

RIGHT. LIKE RIGHT BY QUITE A BIT. SO WHAT SHOULD OUR ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF RISK BE? AS A CITY LIKE, YOU KNOW, LIKE, I KNOW THERE'S NEVER A ZERO RISK, BUT WHAT SHOULD OUR LEVEL OF RISK BE LIKE, REALISTICALLY? I DON'T THINK I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU.

I THINK THAT'S THAT'S REALLY A CITY DECISION.

WE TRY TO GIVE YOU ALL THE INFORMATION AND THE TOOLS TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

I THINK IT'S DIFFICULT, SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT TO ANSWER THAT, GIVEN KIND OF THE THE HISTORY AROUND THE BAY VERSUS THE RIVER IN YELLOWKNIFE LIKE CERTAINLY THERE'S THE SCIENCE PART, BUT THERE'S ALSO, I THINK, THE SOCIETAL PART.

SO I THINK THERE'S KIND OF TWO, TWO THINGS THAT NEED TO BE WEIGHED HERE.

SO LIKE, IT KIND OF GOES BACK TO MY INITIAL COMMENT ABOUT MOST MUNICIPALITIES DON'T HAVE THE AVAILABILITY OF TWO SOURCES, AND THEY WOULD DEARLY LIKE TO HAVE THEM DEPENDING ON WHAT COMES AT THEM.

UNFORESEEN, YOU KNOW, SO I'M NOT SAYING YOU AT ALL COSTS.

YOU MAINTAIN TWO SOURCES. I'M JUST SAYING IT'S IT'S CERTAINLY A TOOL IN YOUR TOOLBOX RIGHT NOW THAT MOST PLACES DON'T HAVE.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. I MEAN, WE'RE SITTING UP HERE, I EXCUSE ME, I'VE BEEN SITTING UP HERE SINCE 2015. RIGHT? LIKE WE GET A LOT OF NUMBERS THROWN AT US ALL THE TIME, AND WE'RE EXPECTED TO MAKE DECISIONS, BUT NONE OF US HERE. WELL, MAYBE RYAN HAS MORE EXPERIENCE ON THE WATER SIDE THAN ANYBODY ELSE HERE, BUT WE'RE EXPECTED TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS. AND SOMETIMES THE NUMBERS THAT I FEEL THAT WE'RE MISSING ARE THE LEVELS OF RISK, THAT PERCENTAGE, YOU KNOW, LIKE YOU'RE FROM AN ENGINEERING FIRM.

THIS IS WHAT YOU DO. I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY GOOD TO HAVE SOME NUMBERS THAT THE COMMON FOLK WOULD ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND A LOT OF IT. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF THAT JUST GOES RIGHT OVER MY HEAD.

SO ULTIMATELY, WE'RE LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO TELL US, LIKE, HEY, IF I WERE YOU, THIS IS WHAT I WOULD DO.

[00:55:06]

I THINK THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT, WHY WE DEVELOPED A COUPLE OTHER OPTIONS.

OPTION THREE AND OPTION FOUR TO THAT POINT. BECAUSE IF YOU JUST HAVE OPTION ONE AND OPTION TWO, IT'S LIKE THE RIVER 108 MILLION OR GOING TO THE BAY AND NEVER GOING BACK.

OPTION TWO. SO THAT'S WHY WE DEVELOPED OPTION THREE AND OPTION FOUR.

I'M NOT SAYING IT GIVES YOU ALL YOUR RISK, BUT IT GAVE YOU MORE OPTIONS TO MAYBE WALK A LINE OF WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD, WHAT YOUR RISK IS, AND WHAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMMUNITY.

THE OTHER THING TO CONSIDER, I THINK, WOULD BE THEY'RE REVIEWING THE DECISION MODEL WEIGHTINGS.

AND SO IS SUSCEPTIBILITY TO RAW WATER QUALITY CHANGES.

YOU KNOW, THIS MUCH OF A VALUE THAT WE WANT TO PLACE ON IT? OR IS COST THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS OUT THE WINDOW.

SO I THINK THAT DECISION MODEL THAT'S A BIT OF A VALUES QUESTION THAT WE CAN HAVE AS A COUNCIL.

AND THEN THE ENGINEERS GO AND DO THEIR WORK AND CRUNCH SOME NUMBERS TO GIVE US.

WELL, THEN, IF YOU VALUE THIS, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS OPTION ONE OR OPTION TWO, THREE, FOUR, ETC.. SO SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT. YEAH THANK YOU FOR THAT.

AND IN YOUR PRESENTATION YOU HAD THERE WAS A PAGE THERE THAT TALKED ABOUT ARSENIC ERODING NATURALLY.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT. WELL I'LL PROBABLY DEFER TO COURTNEY.

SHE'S OUR PROCESS ENGINEER, SO. I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH DETAIL I CAN PROVIDE, ACTUALLY. IT'S KIND OF OUR WATER QUALITY GROUP THAT THERE IS A MEMO THAT'S ATTACHED TO THE REPORT THAT'LL PROBABLY HELP ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU. SO YEAH, JUST THE COLES NOTES VERSION LIKE REALLY QUICK OVERVIEW.

WE COULD ALSO TAKE THAT QUESTION UNDER ADVISEMENT.

AND I THINK IT'S PROBABLY BETTER WITH THE PEOPLE WE HAVE HERE TODAY.

LIKE COURTNEY SAID, THE INITIAL WORK ON THE STUDY WAS A SUMMATION OF ALL THE INFORMATION WE COULD COMPILE FOR WATER QUALITY.

AND THAT'S. THAT'S AN APPENDIX IN THE WATER SOURCE STUDY.

SO THANK YOU. AND JUST ONE LAST ONE THIS FOR ADMINISTRATION.

SO HOW OFTEN AND HOW LONG LIKE YEARLY DO WE DRAW FROM THE BAY.

AND HOW FREQUENT IS OUR TESTING. AND WHERE ARE WE SITTING AT THE FOR THE LEVELS OF OUR ACCEPTABLE ARSENIC MR. VAN DINE. THANK YOU. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. GREENCORN IN A MOMENT. BUT THE ON INSTANCES WHERE WE'VE HAD FAILURES, WE HAVE BEEN DRAWING FROM THE BAY.

AND IN THOSE INSTANCES WHERE WE'VE BEEN DRAWING FROM THE BAY, WE'VE BEEN HAVING FREQUENT TESTING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES.

AND IN THOSE INSTANCES, WE HAVE SEEN VERY STRONG, HIGH QUALITY RESULTS FOR THE WATER QUALITY COMING FROM THE BAY IN THOSE INSTANCES. BUT I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. GREENCORN FOR MORE ELABORATION.

THANK YOU. THANKS. I DON'T THINK I'D ELABORATE MORE ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.

THE ARSENIC LEVELS ARE FINE. THEY'RE ABOUT LESS THAN 10% OF WHAT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IS.

AND THAT AGAIN, LIKE WHAT RYAN SAID, THAT VARIES DEPENDING ON ICE COVER OR OPEN WIND.

EXCUSE ME. AND TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ON FREQUENCY, IT REALLY DEPENDS.

LAST SUMMER, WE HAD TO DRAW FROM THE BAY FOR A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME DUE TO HIGH DEMAND ON THE ON A PARTICULAR PART OF OUR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.

WE DO HAVE ALLOWANCES IN THE WATER LICENSE FOR I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT NUMBER OF CUBIC METERS FOR ANNUAL MAINTENANCE, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO SHUT CERTAIN THINGS DOWN AT PUMPHOUSE TWO TO DO MAINTENANCE.

SO WE DO HAVE ALLOWANCES IN THE LICENSE TO ALLOW FOR DRAWS FROM THE BAY.

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

COUNCILLOR WARBURTON. WELL, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

YEAH, JUST GOING TO YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS THERE. JUST MAYBE A LITTLE ELABORATION ON CONFIRM ASSUMPTIONS RELATED TO CONDITIONING CAPACITY OF EXISTING PIPELINE AND INVESTIGATE FURTHER KIND OF SOME ELABORATION ON WHAT YOU MEAN BY CAPACITY AND CONDITION.

YEAH. SO KIND OF AS A PIPELINE LIKE THIS STARTS TO DETERIORATE, YOU KNOW, THE WALL OF THE PIPE DETERIORATES, WHETHER IT'S THINNER GETS PINHOLES OR CORROSION ATTACKS IT.

THEN WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU LOWER THE PRESSURE RATING OF THE PIPELINE AND THAT YIELDS LESS CAPACITY FOR THE CITY.

SO WHAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND HERE IS THERE'S A WAY TO INTELLIGENTLY ASSESS THE

[01:00:04]

AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S CERTAINLY BE AN INVESTMENT AND A COST INTO THAT.

IT WOULDN'T BE SMALL. IT'S COMMONLY DONE ON CRITICAL PIPELINES.

BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE MEAN BY THAT. AND THEN WHAT WE ONCE WE GET ACTUAL CONDITION RESULTS OF THE PIPELINE, THEN WE COULD RECOMMEND TO YOU OR ADVISE YOU ON THIS PIPELINE HAS, YOU KNOW, THESE SIGNIFICANT ISSUES OR DEFECTS. IT HAS THIS MUCH LIFE LEFT. IF YOU DO THIS IN THESE SIGNIFICANT DEFECTS, IT'LL HAVE THIS MUCH MORE LIFE.

THIS IS WHAT THE PRESSURE RATING SHOULD BE SAFELY AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT RIGHT NOW, WITHOUT A TRUE CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF THE PIPE YOU'RE USING BEST GUIDANCE, BEST JUDGMENT, SO. THANKS I GUESS FOR AMIN SO A RECOMMENDATION AROUND THAT WILL BE PART OF THE CONVERSATION ON MARCH 10TH.

YES. MR. VAN DINE, SO OUR INTENT ON THE ON THE MARCH 10TH DISCUSSION IS TO GIVE COUNCIL A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE TIMING OF WHEN TO INVOKE THIS, THIS PARTICULAR CAPITAL PROJECT.

IT'S NOT WHETHER OR NOT TO DO THE CAPITAL PROJECT.

IT IS JUST ABOUT TIMING. AND SO WE'VE GOT SOME, SOME ADVICE COMING FORWARD WITH RESPECT TO THAT, THAT QUESTION. AND WE'RE HOPING THAT COUNCIL WILL TURN THEIR, THEIR ATTENTION TO ALL OF THE COMPONENT PARTS THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO BE THINKING OF WITH RESPECT TO BOTH LIFT STATIONS, PUMP STATIONS AND, AND WATER SOURCE.

THE I THINK THE PRESENTATION TODAY COUNCIL WILL TAKE AWAY THAT THERE'S A HIGH LEVEL OF VIGILANCE OVER, OVER THE, THE LINE AND THE SOURCE. AND WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN A HIGH LEVEL OF VIGILANCE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR MCGURK.

HI. THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION. I'M CURIOUS JUST AROUND THE OPTIONS FOR ARSENIC SCRUBBERS IN THE O&M COST, IF THE MEDIA REPLACEMENT THAT WAS AVERAGED IN THE O&M COST THAT YOU'VE ESTABLISHED WITH THESE NUMBERS, WAS IT CONSIDERING LIKE FREQUENT UPSET OR LIKE A LOT? I DON'T WANT TO GET REALLY GRANULAR. I JUST KIND OF A GENERAL WANT A GENERAL IDEA OF WHETHER OR NOT THOSE NUMBERS WERE A LEAST WORST CASE SCENARIO.

MEDIUM CASE SCENARIO. YEAH. NO. THAT'S FAIR. WE'LL PROBABLY JUST GET CHRIS AND COURTNEY TO TAKE THEIR, THEIR MUTE OFF. BUT THE THING THERE IS MEDIA REPLACEMENT.

BUT THE OTHER THING WITH, WITH THE UPGRADES TO THE WATER PLANT THAT INTRODUCED AN ARSENIC TREATMENT SYSTEM INTO IT, IS THE INCREASED ENERGY COST. BECAUSE IT'S A HIGHER WE HAVE TO PUMP.

THE PUMPING COSTS ARE MORE EFFECTIVELY. SO YOU KNOW, WE HAVE MORE HEAD THAT WE HAVE TO OVERCOME TO GET THE WATER THROUGH, THROUGH ALL THE DIFFERENT VESSELS. SO THAT WAS CERTAINLY ONE THING.

AND THEN AND THEN THE MEDIA REPLACEMENT IS THE OTHER THING.

NOW I DON'T CHRIS AND COURTNEY WORKED ON IT MORE INTENSIVELY THAN I ON THE MEDIA REPLACEMENT FREQUENCY.

YEAH, I CAN PROBABLY SPEAK TO THAT FROM A FROM WHAT WE ALLOWED FOR COSTS.

SO OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA IN THE FUTURE WHAT TYPE OF EVENT YOU MIGHT SEE OR EXPECT TO TREAT.

BUT IN THE, IN THE NET PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS, WE DID WE DID ALLOW FOR AN ARSENIC EVENT THAT CAUSED SIGNIFICANT TREATMENT.

SO WE ACTUALLY APPLIED A FOR A YEAR, I THINK IT WAS THE YEAR 2038.

WE, WE APPLIED $5 MILLION FOR BOTH OPTIONS TWO AND FOUR TO SORT OF SIGNIFY INCREASED MEDIA COSTS FOR THAT ONE, ONE SINGLE YEAR TO SIGNIFY AN EVENT THAT YOU HAD TO TREAT.

OBVIOUSLY, WE CAN'T QUANTIFY THE EVENT, BUT WE DID MAKE ALLOWANCE FOR THE COST.

SO, WE IT'S NOT A THE COST PERSPECTIVE IS NOT A BEST CASE SCENARIO THAT YOU OPERATE THE TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR 25 YEARS AND NOTHING EVER HAPPENS.

WE ALSO CAN'T SAY IT'S A WORST CASE EVENT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE OBVIOUSLY AN IDEA OF WHAT THAT EVENT MIGHT LOOK LIKE IN REALITY, BUT WE DID ATTEMPT TO QUANTIFY A COST. OKAY. THANK YOU.

I TOTALLY APPRECIATE YOU CAN'T SEE THE FUTURE, BUT YEAH I APPRECIATE YOU GIVING YOUR BEST GO.

THAT'S WHY WE PAY THE BIG BUCKS. I JUST HAD A FEW QUESTIONS.

RECOGNIZING LAST YEAR, GREAT SLAVE LAKE WENT TO, LIKE, THE LOWEST WATER LEVELS.

DID YOU? WAS THAT PART OF ANY OF YOUR ANALYSIS TO SEE, LIKE, THE YELLOWKNIFE RIVER AND WHETHER THAT REMAINS A VIABLE OPTION IF WE CONTINUE TO

[01:05:02]

WE DIDN'T LOOK AT HISTORICAL WATER LEVELS, HIGH OR LOW.

IN THE SOURCE STUDY IN THIS CONTEXT. SO WE DID LOOK AT IT WHEN WE WERE DESIGNING THE UPGRADES, HOWEVER. SO WE LOOKED AT IT BACK AS FAR AS AS ALL THE DATA WOULD BE, THERE'S MONITORING STATIONS AT DIFFERENT PARTS UPSTREAM OF THE RIVER, AND THEY I FORGET HOW MANY DECADES OF DATA THEY HAVE.

SO WE HAD WHAT IS THE HISTORIC HIGH OF THE RIVER, THE HISTORIC LOW AND OF THE LAKE OR THE BAY AND THE LAKE.

SO WE DID LOOK AT ALL THAT IN 2021 WHEN WE STARTED THE ENGINEERING ON THE PROJECT, BECAUSE WE WERE DESIGNING A NEW INTAKE IN THE RIVER AS PART OF OPTION ONE. SO I DON'T HAVE THOSE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD AND THEY WEREN'T.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE LAST YEAR RANKS AS FAR AS HIGH OR LOW IN THE DATA SET.

SO YEAH. BUT THE OPTION ONE DOES KIND OF TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THERE MIGHT BE WATER FLUCTUATIONS, AND IT STILL REMAINS A VIABLE OPTION. THAT'S RIGHT IN THAT DATA SET.

AND UNLESS LAST YEAR WAS LOWER THAN THE HISTORIC LOW, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT TODAY.

SO OKAY, I'LL BE HONEST, I KIND OF DOUBT IT, EVEN THOUGH IT SEEMS LOW, BUT I KIND OF DOUBT IT WITH THE DATA SET.

BUT I'D HAVE TO REAFFIRM THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU.

I'LL SAVE THE REST, YOU KNOW, REVIEW THE REPORT AND APPRECIATE THE INFO.

SO ROUND TWO. COUNCILLOR FEQUET. THANKS, MADAM CHAIR.

YEAH. I'LL SAVE MY QUESTIONS FOR THE MARCH 10TH.

JUST A COUPLE, THOUGH, FOR TODAY. JUST CONFIRMING BETWEEN PUMP HOUSE TWO AND THE SUBMARINE LINE.

THE SUBMARINE LINE IS OUR KIND OF LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR.

EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T KNOW THE EXACT LIFE REMAINING IN EITHER FACILITY, NECESSARILY.

IT'S DEFINITELY THE PIPELINE THAT'S GOING TO FAIL FIRST, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

NO, I WOULD ACTUALLY I WOULD SAY RIGHT NOW, PUMP HOUSE ONE IS IN A STATE OF FAILURE.

ITS HEATING SYSTEM HAS FAILED. THERE'S OTHER COMPONENTS OF PUMP HOUSE, ONE THAT HAVE FAILED.

SO OF THE OVERALL WATER SUPPLY, WHICH IS THE TWO PUMP HOUSES AND THE AND THE PIPELINE PUMP HOUSE.

ONE IS WITH WHAT WE KNOW TODAY IN A STATE OF FAILURE.

AND YOU KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO FAIL NEXT BETWEEN PUMP HOUSE TWO OR THE PIPELINE? I CAN'T REALLY I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO THAT WITH WHAT I HAVE RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. THANKS. THANKS FOR CONFIRMING THAT. I'M JUST TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND A CONDITION ASSESSMENT FOR THE PIPELINE VERSUS THE OTHER UPGRADES.

AND OBVIOUSLY, IF THAT'S NOT THE MOST CRITICAL PIECE, THEN WE NEED TO BE PRIORITIZING APPROPRIATELY.

JUST TO. I THINK. I'M SORRY, JUST TO GIVE A BALLPARK WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF THE PIPELINE.

IT'S LET'S SAY IT'S AN EXPENDITURE OF 500,000, YOU KNOW.

SO WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT AN UPGRADE OF 40 MILLION OR 108 MILLION, THAT'S KIND OF THE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE OF THAT PARTICULAR LINE ITEM.

SO AND THE CONDITION ASSESSMENT FOR THE PIPELINE, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE DONE, FOR EXAMPLE, WITHIN THE OPEN WATER SEASON OF 2025 OR YOU'D HAVE TO SCHEDULE THAT, YOU KNOW, A YEAR OR TWO IN ADVANCE? I'D SAY IT'S POSSIBLE IN 2025.

THERE'S COMPANIES THAT DO IT, A NUMBER OF THEM.

AND WE'D HAVE TO IT'S, IT'D HAVE TO BE ORCHESTRATED.

THERE MIGHT HAVE TO BE SOME, SOME MODIFICATIONS MADE AT BOTH PUMP HOUSES SO YOU CAN GET THE INSTRUMENT IN AND THEN ALSO EXTRACT IT.

SO BUT THAT'S ALL NORMAL. IT'S POSSIBLE IN 2025 IF THAT WAS THE WILL OF THE CITY.

OKAY. THANKS. COUNCILLOR PAYNE AND MADAM MAYOR HIT ON THIS, BUT AND I ALLUDED TO IT, I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DECISION MODEL TABLE WHICH MAYBE THE REPORT WILL ANSWER FOR ME.

BUT I DO THINK TO MY COUNCIL COLLEAGUES THAT WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE SOME TIME TO TALK ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THIS IS LIKE YOU SAID, REBECCA, WHERE WE PUT OUR VALUES THE SUSCEPTIBILITY TO RAW WATER QUALITY CHANGES TO ME IS LESS IMPORTANT, KNOWING THAT MOST OF THESE OPTIONS, YOU KNOW, SHOVEL IS NOT LIKE THE PROJECT'S NOT GOING TO BE COMPLETE, LIKELY IN A COUPLE OF YEARS, MORE LIKE A FEW YEARS AT SOONEST, I ASSUME.

AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE RISKS, THAT GIANT MINE ARE GOING TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT IN ALMOST TWO YEARS.

AND WE'LL KNOW IF THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT IS WORKING IN A YEAR OR NOT.

SO THAT 20% WEIGHTING THAT WE'RE GIVING TO THE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF WHAT RAW WATER QUALITY CHANGES TO ME IS GOING TO GO DOWN A LOT IF WE'RE TALKING

[01:10:03]

MADAM CHAIR, IS MARCH 10TH. THE TIME WHEN WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DIVE INTO THIS TABLE? IS STAFF GOING TO DO AN ANALYSIS OF THIS TABLE AS PART OF THEIR MEMO AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL ON MARCH 10TH OR WHEN? WHEN IS THE BEST TIME AND BEST WAY TO HAVE THAT JUST THAT CONVERSATION BECAUSE I RECOGNIZE THE SEQUENCING OF WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION IN ORDER TO THEN ACTUALLY DECIDE IS IT A CONDITION ASSESSMENT ON THE PIPELINE? IS A PUMP HOUSE ONE UPGRADES BECAUSE THE CRITICAL IN EVERY OPTION LIKE HOW DO WE HAVE THIS VALUES BASED KIND OF DECISION MODEL MATRIX CONVERSATION. FIRST. AND WHEN IS THAT.

IS THAT MARCH 10TH MR. VAN DINE. SO, COUNCIL WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DETERMINE IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AFTER MARCH 10TH. AN ANALYSIS DEPENDING ON THAT, HOW THAT DISCUSSION GOES.

WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT WE HAVE SOME URGENCY WITH RESPECT TO BRING A MATTER AND GET COUNCIL'S DIRECTION WITH RESPECT TO SOME DOLLARS AND CENTS RELATED TO SOME FEDERAL FUNDING THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY ACCESSING IN ORDER TO PLAN OUR CAPITAL PROJECTS WITH RESPECT TO BOTH THE PUMP HOUSES AND THE LIFT STATION.

AND SO THAT'S TIME SENSITIVE. AND SO IF COUNCIL AS WE BRING THE MEMO FORWARD.

COUNCIL MAY BE OF THE MIND THAT THERE IS ADDITIONAL WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE ON THE WEIGHTING SYSTEM.

BUT I DON'T WANT TO PREJUDGE THE MEMORANDUM THAT HASN'T, HASN'T GONE FORWARD YET.

BUT I WOULD SAY THAT IN MY ESTIMATION I DON'T BELIEVE COUNCIL WILL NEED TO NEED TO MAKE A DECISION ON THE WEIGHTING MODEL ON MARCH 10TH. I THINK COUNCIL WILL HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION AT ITS AT MARCH 10TH TO MAKE SOME INTERIM DECISIONS WITH RESPECT TO FUNDING ALLOCATIONS AND PRIORITIES. AND THAT SHOULD, SHOULD COUNCIL WISH TO REVIEW THAT THAT MATRIX FOR A SUBSEQUENT FUNDING DECISION? I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE THE DIRECTION WILL GO.

THAT BEING SAID, COUNCIL WILL GET THE BENEFIT OF THE MEMORANDUM.

THEY WILL REVIEW THE THE MEMO, THEY WILL DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT IT SATISFIES THEIR REQUIREMENTS AND MATCHES WHAT COUNCIL OR ADMINISTRATION IS RECOMMENDING.

AND THEN WE CAN DECIDE TO PROCEED FROM THERE.

BUT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I DON'T BELIEVE COUNCIL WILL NEED TO BE DECIDING UPON THE MODEL BY MARCH 10TH.

THANK YOU FOR THAT RESPONSE. I WAS JUST I WAS JUST TRYING TO TAKE A QUICK LOOK AT THE TEN YEAR CAPITAL PLAN, AND I DIDN'T SEE THE PUMPHOUSES BROKEN DOWN INTO A LINE ITEM IN THERE.

I DID SEE THE SUBMARINE LINE AND WATER SUPPLY LINE AND OTHER WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS, AND WATER AND SEWER CAPITAL REPLACEMENT.

SO JUST RECOGNIZING PUMPHOUSE ONE IS OBVIOUSLY PART OF ALL OF THESE OPTIONS MOVING FORWARD, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S OUR WORST ASSET IN THAT SPACE.

CAN ADMIN JUST SPEAK TO IF IT IS ALREADY INCLUDED AND ON THE RADAR UNDER ONE OF THOSE OTHER LINE ITEMS IN THE CAPITAL PLAN SOMEWHERE? OR AM I KIND OF SPOILING THE MOVIE FOR MARCH 10TH? MR. VAN DINE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. GREENCORN IN A MOMENT.

BUT THE COUNCIL DID HAVE THE CHANCE TO LOOK AT.

OR AT LEAST WE MADE AN APPLICATION IN 2018 WITH RESPECT TO THE DISASTER MITIGATION FUND.

AND IN THAT DISASTER MITIGATION FUND, WE DID SCOPE INTO ACCOUNT BOTH THE WATER LINE AND THE TWO PUMP STATIONS AS PART OF THAT PACKAGE, AND THAT HAS BEEN PART OF OUR ONGOING PROJECT PLAN TO THE PRESENT.

SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I IT'S FACTORED. AND SO WHAT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING ON MARCH 10TH IS BASICALLY THE ASSUMPTIONS OF 2018, THE LEVEL OF RISK FACING THE MUNICIPALITY IN OUR CURRENT OUR CURRENT ENVIRONMENT, AND THEN MAKING SOME DECISIONS ABOUT ALLOCATION OF THAT FUNDING THAT WE'VE RECEIVED FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY WAY OF PRIORITY IN RISK, MANAGING OUR OVERALL PRESSURE POINTS. MR. GREENCORN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? NO THANK YOU. I THINK IT ALSO MIGHT BE LIFT STATION UPGRADES, REPLACEMENTS.

IT'S GOT 15.9 MILLION INCHES 2025 AND 23.5 MILLION IN 2026.

AND THE TEN YEAR. AND THOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN AUGUST FIGURES OF 2024 VERSUS THESE FIGURES WOULD BE DIFFERENT, BUT MR. VAN DINE. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

YES. AND SO I'LL JUST AS I MADAM CHAIR IS REFERENCING DRAWING COUNCIL BACK TO THE BUDGET 2025 DISCUSSIONS, WHERE WE WERE DISCUSSING A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CAPITAL PROJECTS AND THE DIFFERENT REALITIES THAT WE'VE BEEN FACING WITH THE ELEVATED COSTS PARTICULARLY,

[01:15:05]

YEAH. LIFT STATION ONE AND PUMP HOUSE ONE ARE TWO, YEAH, ONE'S WASTEWATER.

ONE'S WATER. YEAH. YEAH. THEY'RE BOTH. YEAH. THEY'RE BOTH ON THE DOCKET.

AND YOU DON'T WANT TO MIX THOSE TWO INTAKE LINES? YEAH. YEAH. APOLOGIES. OKAY, MAYBE MY LAST QUESTION.

JUST THERE WAS A AGAIN, IN THE PRESENTATION, YOU TALKED ABOUT HOW LOTS OF MUNICIPALITIES WOULD LOVE TO HAVE TWO SOURCES.

AND SO MAYBE THAT MEANS WE'RE SPOILED AT THE MOMENT.

BUT HOW DOES YOU KNOW, WE ALSO HAVE A LEGACY SITE THAT IS ONE OF THE BIG EIGHT IN CANADA, RIGHT ON OUR FRONT DOOR. SO OVERALL, FROM AECOM'S EXPERIENCE ACROSS CANADA, LOOKING AT MUNICIPALITIES AND KIND OF THAT RISK QUESTION THAT COUNCILLOR PAYNE AND MADAM MAYOR SPOKE TO, HOW DO WE COMPARE LIKE ARE WE WITH WE HAVE TWO SOURCES, BUT WE ALSO HAVE THIS MASSIVE RISK.

SO ARE WE BETTER OFF THAN MOST ABOUT EQUAL ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.

OR, YOU KNOW, MAYBE KEEPING TWO IS NOT REALLY AN OPTION THAT WE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT REDUCING IT.

YEAH, IT CAN COME OFFER ANY EXPERTISE OR EXPERIENCE IN THAT SPACE? IT'S A TOUGH ONE. IT'S A TOUGH ONE TO ANSWER IN THE WAY YOU WANT US TO HOW DO YOU COMPARE? I REALLY I'M NOT TRYING TO INTENTIONALLY DODGE THE QUESTION.

IT'S JUST EVERY WATER SYSTEM AND EVERY WATER SOURCE IS DIFFERENT.

AND THERE'S CASE BY CASE. AND WHERE DO YOU COMPARE, GIVEN THAT YOU HAVE A SIGNIFICANT SITE AND POTENTIAL RISK ON YOUR DOORSTEP, IT'S DIFFICULT TO WEIGHT THAT.

HONESTLY, WE'VE WEIGHTED IT IN WHAT COULD HAPPEN FROM THAT SITE.

AND I THINK THAT'S THAT'S REALLY THE BEST WAY WE CAN LOOK AT IT.

BECAUSE YOU YOU, THE WAY WE WOULD LOOK AT IT FOR A WATER SUPPLY IS NOT ON A LEGACY BASIS.

IT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST. IT'S WHAT IS THE WATER QUALITY OF TODAY, WHAT COULD THE WATER QUALITY BE TOMORROW AND WHAT COULD IMPACT THAT. AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'VE LAID OUT IN THE REPORT.

THE LEGACY SITE IS THERE AND IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE THERE.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WEIGHS INTO EVALUATING YOUR WATER SUPPLY DIFFERENTLY THAN WHAT WE'VE ALREADY DONE.

IF THAT MAKES SENSE. SO HOW DO YOU COMPARE? YOU HAVE THE LUXURY OF TWO LEGITIMATE SOURCES.

ON THAT BASIS ALONE. YOU MIGHT BE BETTER THAN MOST, BUT THE CONDITION OF YOUR ASSETS MIGHT BE AVERAGE TO WORSE THAN SOME, YOU KNOW. SO IT'S REALLY A CASE BY CASE. AND, YOU KNOW, WOULD THE CITY OF PRINCE ALBERT LOVE TO HAVE HAD TWO SOURCES WHEN THAT PIPELINE CONTAMINATED THE RIVER? ABSOLUTELY. BUT MOST DON'T HAVE THAT.

SO THAT'S THE BEST WAY I CAN BREAK IT DOWN FOR YOU TODAY.

AND JUST TO CONFIRM FOLLOWING UP FROM AN ANSWER YOU GAVE TO COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN EARLIER RELATED TO THIS QUESTION.

THE COST, THE BENEFIT COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS THAT YOU GUYS DID.

IT IS JUST TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS AND COST RIGHT THERE.

THERE ARE NO OTHER BENEFITS THAT ARE KIND OF ASSUMED SOCIOECONOMICAL DISRUPTING OTHER COMMUNITIES, DRINKING WATER SOURCES, ANYTHING LIKE THAT, NOTHING. IT'S JUST THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS AND THE COST TOGETHER IN THAT ANALYSIS.

OR IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? YEAH, I BELIEVE THAT'S ACCURATE.

RIGHT, CHRIS? OKAY. YEAH. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH.

OKAY. THANKS. LOOK FORWARD TO MARCH 10TH. THANK YOU.

ANYTHING FURTHER? SEEING NONE. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE PRESENTATION TODAY.

AND WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO THE REPORT. JUST RECOGNIZING WE'RE FIVE MINUTES AWAY FROM OUR 90 MINUTE BREAK.

AND I KNOW THE NEXT PRESENTATION IS MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES.

SO LET'S TAKE A TEN MINUTE BREAK NOW AND COME BACK AT 1:35 P.M., AND THEN NAKA WILL PRESENT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[5. A presentation from NAKA regarding Yellowknife Electricity Distribution.]

[01:20:04]

AND I SEE WE HAVE JAY AND DARRYL IN THE AUDIENCE.

VIC HAD TO LEAVE. AND SO IF YOU WANT TO COME ON UP TO THE MICROPHONE.

MR. VAN DINE, DID YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS BEFORE THE PRESENTATION? JUST A COUPLE. MADAM CHAIR, JUST TO SAY THAT WE'RE VERY HAPPY THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO COME TODAY AND PRESENT TO US.

WE DID INVITE NT POWER CORP AS WELL TO PRESENT.

THEY WERE UNABLE TO COME TODAY, BUT THEY WILL BE COMING IN SUBSEQUENT WEEKS.

JUST TO GIVE COUNCIL THE BENEFIT OF BOTH PERSPECTIVES.

THERE ARE A COUPLE OF DECISIONS THAT COUNCIL WILL NEED TO TURN THEIR ATTENTION TO LATER IN THE YEAR WITH RESPECT TO OUR CURRENT DISTRIBUTION ARRANGEMENT, AS WELL AS OUR FRANCHISE AGREEMENT. TODAY REALLY IS ABOUT HEARING FROM NAKA AND GETTING COUNCIL, AT LEAST IN THE MINDSET OF FINDING OUT WHERE WE ARE WITH RESPECT TO POWER.

AND IT WAS JUST SERENDIPITOUS THAT WE HAD A WATER PRESENTATION BEFORE THIS AND ELECTRICITY.

SO WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD THE BREAK BETWEEN THE TWO.

SO YOU DIDN'T CONFLATE THEM AND GET INTO A REAL DANGEROUS CONVERSATION.

SO SAFETY FIRST. SO, THERE WE GO. THANK YOU. DARYL, IF YOU JUST WANT TO PUSH, THERE'S LIKE A LITTLE TALKING HEAD. THERE WE GO. THERE WE GO. OKAY. SUPER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE PRESENTATION, ALONG WITH JAY MASSEY, OUR VICE PRESIDENT, AND VIC BARR, WHO'S OUR GENERAL MANAGER HERE IN YELLOWKNIFE, HAD TO LEAVE SOME, HE HAD SOME PRIOR COMMITMENTS THERE. AND AGAIN, I'LL JUST GO THROUGH REALLY QUICKLY HERE. MAKE SURE THIS WORKS. HERE WE GO.

JUST AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT TODAY AT BASICALLY THE INTRODUCTION TO NAKA.

FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW, NAKA IS THE DNA WORD FOR NORTHERN LIGHTS OR THE AURORA BOREALIS.

SO WE'LL GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A ENERGY OVERVIEW TOUCH ON THE FRANCHISE AND SOME OF THE SOLUTIONS MOVING FORWARD. NAKA HAS BEEN ACTUALLY OPERATING FOR WELL OVER 70 YEARS HERE.

AND WE'VE RECEIVED A COUPLE OF AWARDS OVER THE TIME PERIOD, AND IT'S PROBABLY ONE OF CANADA'S FIRST INDIGENOUS OWNED UTILITY. AND AS YOU SEE IN THE PRESENTATION WE'RE ONE OF THE LARGEST PRIVATE INVESTORS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES HERE AND INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND WE SERVE PROBABLY 50%, IF NOT MORE OF THE RESIDENTS OR CUSTOMERS HERE IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.

AND OF COURSE, WE'RE REGULATED BY THE NWT PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD.

WE DO GENERATE WE TRANSMIT OR HAVE TRANSMISSION LINES AND DISTRIBUTION LINES IN YELLOWKNIFE AND OTHER COMMUNITIES AND OF COURSE, SAFE, RELIABLE AND AFFORDABLE SERVICES.

WHAT, YOU KNOW, THE OBJECTIVES OF OUR BUSINESS IS.

AND WE'VE BEEN 50. WE'RE A 5050 PARTNER WITH ATCO.

AND YOU KNOW, THE VALUE FOR DENENDEH INVESTMENTS, WHICH IS OWNED BY THE 27 FIRST NATIONS, IS YOU KNOW, THE OWNERSHIP AND THE PRIDE IN HAVING TO BE ABLE TO SERVE THE PUBLIC WITH ELECTRICITY.

AND WE, WE CONTINUE TO WORK WITH, YOU KNOW HAVING ECONOMIC PARTICIPATION IN SECTORS OF THE ECONOMY THAT WILL STIMULATE THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ECONOMICALLY, SOCIALLY, ETCETERA.

ETC. AND JUST RECENTLY WE WERE RECOGNIZED IN CANADA BY ELECTRICITY CANADA FOR OUR PARTNERSHIP HERE IN THE UTILITY SECTOR AND AT OUR BOARD. AS I SHOULD GO BACK TWO STEPS.

I AM THE CHAIR OF NAKA POWER, AND WE DO HAVE A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT INVESTMENT IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF UTILITIES AND NORTHWEST

[01:25:03]

SO BUT I WON'T GO ANY FURTHER. I WILL NOW INTRODUCE JAY MASSEY, WHO IS OUR VICE PRESIDENT FOR NAKA POWER.

TO CONTINUE ON TO THE LITTLE DISCUSSION WE'RE GOING TO HAVE HERE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DARRELL. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE.

SO THIS IS A BIT OF AN ENERGY OVERVIEW AND JUST WANT TO GIVE SPECIFIC TO YELLOWKNIFE, JUST HOW THE RATES WORK.

WE JUST WENT THROUGH A RATE APPLICATION. ACTUALLY, JUST HOT OFF THE PRESS WAS THE UTILITY BOARD SENT A RULING OUT LAST THURSDAY. SO, AFTER THIS DECK. SO IT'S NOT IN HERE JUST YET.

BUT WE HAVE A RULING ON THAT RATE APPLICATION.

SO OVERVIEW OF YELLOWKNIFE RATES AS WELL AS THE GREATER ENERGY SECTOR AND THE EFFECTS THAT HAS ON YELLOWKNIFE. SO HERE FOR, FOR YELLOWKNIFE, YOU'LL SEE THE RATE COMPOSITION AT THE, AT THE BOTTOM. SO ABOVE YOU'LL SEE THE DIFFERENT ROLES BETWEEN NAKA AND NTPC.

NTPC, BEING A CROWN CORPORATION, HAS THE HYDRO GENERATION ASSETS WHICH WERE DEVOLVED FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BACK IN THE MID 80S.

THEY ALSO HAVE THERMAL POWER PLANT AT JACKFISH TRANSMISSION LINES.

WE OWN AND OPERATE THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IN YELLOWKNIFE.

YOU'LL SEE, BECAUSE THE RATE COMPOSITION, ABOUT 80% OF THAT OF YELLOWKNIFE RATES IS FOR THOSE ROLES AT NTPC PLAYS. GENERATING ELECTRICITY IS THE MOST COSTLY PART OF THE PROCESS FOR SURE.

BUT BECAUSE IT IS SO, SO MUCH OF THE RATE COMPOSITION FOR YELLOWKNIFE CUSTOMERS, WE DEFINITELY TAKE AN ACTIVE ROLE IN IN RATE APPLICATIONS FOR NTPC ON BEHALF OF OUR YELLOWKNIFE CUSTOMERS, AS DOES THE CITY IS PLAYS A ROLE IN THAT PROCESS AND RATE APPLICATIONS.

I WE WERE DOING SO GOOD RIGHT THEN. ALL RIGHT.

SO THIS IS JUST ON OUR RATE APPLICATION FOR NOW FOR YELLOWKNIFE.

IT WAS FOR THE YEARS OF 2024 AND 2025. WE HAD BEEN OPERATING UP UNTIL THAT TIME ON 2017 RATES.

SO THE POWER RATES THAT WERE SET IN 2017, THAT IS WHAT WAS IN PLACE RIGHT UP FOR NAKA UP TO 2024.

OUR LAST RATE INCREASE WAS 2013. SO IN 2013, WE CAME BEFORE THE SAME PROCESS, BEFORE THE UTILITY BOARD TALKED ABOUT OUR WHOLE BUSINESS, THE EFFECT ON RATES.

THERE WAS A RATE INCREASE IN 2013, 2017. IT WAS REDUCED BY NAKA FOR THE DISTRIBUTION RATES.

BUT SINCE THAT TIME, OF COURSE, THERE'S BEEN CUSTOMER GROWTH, CONTINUED INVESTMENT IN THE POWER SYSTEM AND NEW TECHNOLOGY AS WE'VE GONE ALONG. AND YEAH, WE HAD TO COME BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY BOARD FOR A RATE, A GENERAL RATE APPLICATION. SO THE PROCESS WE ENTERED WITH THE CITY WAS A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT.

SO WE GOT IN WITH THE CITY AND WE LOOKED AT OUR WHOLE BUSINESS AND REALLY HAD SOME GOOD CONVERSATIONS AND CHALLENGING CONVERSATIONS OF WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT. OF COURSE, IT'S SOUNDS VERY FAMILIAR TO THE DISCUSSION YOU JUST HAD ON WATER, RIGHT? THERE'S LOTS OF PUTS AND TAKES AND PRIORITIES.

SO, WE CAME TO THAT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BACK IN DECEMBER, BUT IT STILL HAS TO GO BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY BOARD TO BE APPROVED, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY JUST DID. ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20TH, THEY RELEASED A RULING SAYING EXACTLY WHAT WE NEGOTIATED.

WORKS WELL FOR THE PUBLIC. THEY HAVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

SO THAT WOULD THAT IS GOING TO RESULT IN A 5% INCREASE TO ELECTRICITY RATES AS OF MARCH 1ST FOR CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE CUSTOMERS. NEXT MARCH 1ST.

[01:30:02]

SO IT'LL COME BACK DOWN TO A LITTLE UNDER 2% NEXT MARCH 1ST.

AND THAT AGAIN, THE RATE APPLICATION IS FOR THE YEARS 24 AND 2025.

SO WHAT WE DO IS WE CALCULATE WHAT THAT RATE INCREASE AS OF MARCH TO MARCH WILL BE.

IT SETS IT LEVELS OUT ALL THE COSTS FOR THOSE TWO YEARS, AND THEN IT COMES BACK DOWN TO A LITTLE UNDER 2%, AND THAT STAYS IN PLACE GOING FORWARD. NO. NOT WORKING.

NO, THAT WAS THE WRONG WAY. FURTHER FORWARD, PLEASE.

KEEP GOING. ONE MORE. THERE WE GO. SO HERE WE JUST GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF A LOOK AT A TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL BILL IN YELLOWKNIFE.

JUST TO GIVE SOME GOOD CONTEXT IN DOLLAR VALUE AS OPPOSED TO JUST THE PERCENTAGES.

SO WE GO BACK TEN YEARS AND YOU'LL SEE IN A VERY SIMILAR TO THE OTHER SLIDE.

TOTAL COST FOR ELECTRICITY FOR THE CUSTOMER. THE GREEN PART IS NATURE'S COSTS AND THE YELLOW PART IS NTPC COSTS. SO, YOU'LL SEE FOR US IN 2017 THAT RATE DECREASE HAPPENED.

AND THAT RATE THOSE COSTS WENT TO LONG RIGHT UP UNTIL 2024.

IN 2025 IT HAS A BIT OF AN ASTERISK BESIDE IT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO THIS WAS BASED ON THE APPLIED FOR RATES.

SO WE THERE WAS NO APPROVAL. WE DIDN'T HAVE THE THURSDAY'S APPROVAL OF THEM YET AS WELL AS NPK.

SO THEY HAVE A RATE APPLICATION BEFORE THE UTILITY BOARD CURRENTLY ALSO.

SO THAT'S IN FLIGHT. AND THAT IS NOT TO BE THAT'S NOT APPROVED YET.

THESE ARE FILED FOR NUMBERS. BUT AGAIN YOU'LL SEE AS YOU SEE IN HERE, A LARGE, LARGE PART OF THE COST FOR YELLOWKNIFE CUSTOMERS, FOR OUR CUSTOMERS ARE FROM NTPC.

AGAIN, THAT GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION, WHICH IS WHY WE AGAIN, WE TAKE A FAIRLY ACTIVE ROLE IN IN REPRESENTING OUR CUSTOMERS IN NTPC'S RATE APPLICATION. HEY, WE'RE BACK UP AND RUNNING.

ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS IT IN TERMS OF NTPC'S RATE APPLICATION.

IT'LL BE GOOD THAT THEY'RE IN HERE IN A LITTLE WHILE TO SPEAK TO IT.

AGAIN OUR, OUR INTERVENTION AND THAT'S WHAT IT'S OFFICIALLY TERMED.

THAT'S NOT JUST US. FOR BEFORE UTILITY BOARD IS INTERVENERS REGISTERED JUST TO HAVE THEIR SAY IN RATE APPLICATIONS? OUR ROLE IN THAT ONE, FIRST AND FOREMOST WAS DEFENSE, OUR YELLOWKNIFE IF CUSTOMERS, BECAUSE A LOT OF THOSE COSTS ARE GETTING ALLOCATED ONTO YELLOWKNIFE CUSTOMERS. ALSO OUR CUSTOMERS ON THE SOUTH SLAVE SIDE WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT ANY FLOW THROUGH COSTS FROM NTPC ARE REASONABLE. AND FINALLY, THERE WAS A ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS THAT WE ARE PROMOTING AND TALKING ABOUT IS A RATE REFORM FOR THE NWT.

AND IT'S ABOUT PROMOTING FAIR RATES, EQUITABLE RATES FOR ALL CUSTOMERS.

AND REALLY, IT'S IT COMES DOWN TO THE GNWT DOES SUBSIDIZE QUITE A BIT OF ELECTRICITY COSTS IN THE NWT, AND WE JUST WANT TO ENSURE THAT THAT SUBSIDY TO CUSTOMERS IS THE SAME REGARDLESS OF WHICH UTILITY SERVES THEM.

SO, IF YOU LOOK OVER ON THE RIGHT ON THOSE BAR GRAPHS.

IN THE MIDDLE IS THE UTILITY COST. SO AGAIN, GREEN IS NAKA AND THE ORANGE OR YELLOW IS ARE NTPC'S COSTS.

THE DARK BLUE ON THE LEFT AND THE LIGHT BLUE ARE THE KEY ONES FOR US.

THE DARK BLUE IS THE TOTAL COST TO SERVE OR THE TOTAL COST FOR THAT ELECTRICITY.

TOTAL COST TO SERVE. AND THEN THE LIGHT BLUE IS THE TOTAL BILL.

SO LIKE ANY BUSINESS OR OPERATION, YOU HAVE YOUR TOTAL COSTS TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE.

AND THEN WHAT THE TOTAL BILL IS TO CUSTOMERS FOR THAT SERVICE.

[01:35:04]

ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THIS GRAPH IS THE TOLLESTON ZONE FOR NTPC.

AND THESE ARE THE CONCERNS THAT WE'VE REGISTERED WITH THE UTILITY BOARD.

THERE YOU SEE, THE IF WE LOOK AT THE AT THE FAR RIGHT, THERE'S A $300 COST TO SERVE.

GOVERNMENT CUSTOMERS. AND THE TOTAL BILL IS $222.

SO THERE IS THE UNDER-COLLECTION OF COST TO SERVE FOR GOVERNMENT CUSTOMERS. IT'S FOR ALL THE LEFT HAND SIDE OR THAT MIDDLE PART IS NON-GOVERNMENT.

THAT'S RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS. AND IT'S THE VERY SIMILAR.

SO LIKE ANY BUSINESS THAT DOES NOT COLLECT THE COST TO SERVE, THEY'LL HAVE THAT SHORTFALL, WHICH IS THAT RED DOTTED BOX. SO THERE'S A SHORTFALL IN THE COLLECTION OF COSTS TO SERVE.

AND I WOULD MAKE THE ANALOGY FOR, FOR THE CITY.

RIGHT. IF YOU'RE IF YOUR COST TO OPERATE ARE NOT RECOVERED BY TAXPAYERS.

YEAH. SUSTAINABILITY IS VERY DIFFICULT GOING FORWARD.

THIS SHOW IN A DIFFERENT WAY. SO THE 2.2 IN THE BOX ON THE LEFT OF THE DIAGRAM, THAT'S 2.2 MILLION.

THAT IS THAT $10 CHARGE EXTRA CHARGE FOR YELLOWKNIFE CUSTOMERS.

SO OVER A YEAR THAT AMOUNTS TO 2.2 MILLION EXTRA REVENUE.

ON THE WHOLESALE, WHICH IS THE POWER PURCHASE FROM NPCC.

SO THAT IS 2.2 MILLION EXTRA REVENUE ON FOR NPTC AND ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE IS THE CONCERN WE HAVE ON THE TOWLSTON SIDE WITH ALL THE RED THERE IS SHORTFALLS.

THAT'S UNDER COLLECTING THAT AMOUNT FROM THOSE CUSTOMERS TO SERVE.

SO OUR CONCERN IN THIS INTERVENTION OR THIS GRA REALLY IS A WE DON'T WANT YELLOWKNIFE CUSTOMERS SUBSIDIZING TULSANS OWN CUSTOMERS.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REPRESENTING AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE HAD A GOOD CONVERSATION ABOUT SO FAR.

AND THE RATE APPLICATIONS ARE STILL IN FLIGHT.

WE HAVE A RATE HEARING FIRST WEEK OF APRIL, I BELIEVE, IS WHEN WE'LL BE IN HERE FOR OUR RATE HEARING AND NPTCS RATE HEARING. AND THIS REVENUE TO COST COVERAGE BOX SO THAT THAT HIGHLIGHTS ALL THESE NUMBERS ON THE RIGHT. SO THERE IT SAYS THE TOLLESTON ZONE IS ONLY RECOVERING 4% OF COST TO SERVE.

SO $0.70 OF EVERY DOLLAR OR EVERY DOLLAR THEY SPEND, THEY'RE ONLY RECOVERING $0.70.

WHERE IN YELLOWKNIFE IT'S 105.2%. SO AGAIN, IT RESULTS IN OUR MINDS AND OUR CONCERN IS OVERCHARGING OF YELLOWKNIFE TO SUBSIDIZE THOSE COSTS FOR POWER OUTSIDE OF YELLOWKNIFE.

THAT'S ON THE THAT'S IT FOR THE ENERGY FRONT.

I'LL COME BACK TO A FEW OF THE SOLUTIONS THAT WE ARE WE ARE CONSIDERING.

BUT AS STEVEN MENTIONED, THE FRANCHISE IS DECISION FOR THE CITY LATER THIS YEAR.

SO WE HAVE OUR FRANCHISE AGREEMENT IN PLACE FOR QUITE A WHILE NOW.

IT IS IT IS UP FOR RENEWAL OR IT COMES DUE HERE THIS YEAR.

SO WE ARE INTERESTED IN KICKING UP THOSE CONVERSATIONS OR STARTING THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND JUST SHOWING SOME OF THE BENEFITS THAT NAKA BRINGS TO THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE. THE PART ON THE ACCOUNTABILITY, THE LOCAL TEAM AND THE INDIGENOUS OWNERSHIP WITH DARYL, YOU KNOW, THAT'S PRETTY IT'S A LITTLE EASIER FOR YOU TO SEE HERE IN THE CITY, YELLOWKNIFE, THOSE THINGS IN THE MIDDLE, THE ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY, EMERGENCY SUPPORT, ACCESS TO SUPPLY CHAINS, CAPITAL INVESTMENT.

THOSE ARE THOSE ARE ITEMS THAT AREN'T NOT SO EASY TO SEE.

[01:40:01]

WE DO HAVE THAT ABILITY TO REACH OUT AND GET SUPPORT IN THAT MANNER.

AND AT THE BOTTOM, JUST THE TRANSPARENT COSTS.

AGAIN, WE ARE WITH A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT AND THE BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY, ALL OUR BUSINESS COSTS GO BEFORE THEM.

VERY PUBLIC AND GOOD QUESTIONS GET ASKED. AND OUT OF IT ALL WE END UP.

WE STILL HAVE AND ENJOY A STRONG WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY, WHICH VIC CONTINUES TO TELL ME ABOUT QUITE OFTEN.

PART OF THAT SUPPORT FROM ATCO. WELL, FIRST I'D START WITH THE STRONG WORKING RELATIONSHIP IN THE WILDFIRE RESPONSE FROM 2023. OUR TEAMS WORKED VERY WELL TOGETHER, AND I KNOW WITH EVERY OTHER ESSENTIAL SERVICES, WE NEVER LEFT TOWN. VIC AND HIS TEAM NEVER LEFT TOWN.

INSTALLED FIRE PROTECTION AND WORKED ON A LOT.

DID A LOT OF GOOD WORK IN COORDINATION WITH THE CITY.

PART OF THE BENEFIT, RIGHT AT THE BOTTOM OF BEING PART OF ATCO IS WE WERE ABLE TO RELY ON THEIR INCIDENT MANAGEMENT TEAM.

SO, AS EVERYBODY KNOWS, HERE BEING PART OF AN INCIDENT MANAGEMENT TEAM FOR A LONG RUNNING EMERGENCY SITUATION IS EXHAUSTING. SO IT'S VERY FORTUNATE WE'RE ABLE TO FALL BACK AND GET HELP IN THAT MANNER AND THEN ACCESS TO THEIR CONSTRUCTION TEAMS TO COME UP AND REPLACE 350 ODD POLES AND STRUCTURES ON THE HAY RIVER AND ENTERPRISE SIDE AFTER THAT HORRIBLE EVENT THERE.

JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT ON FRANCHISE AND AGREEMENT AND CONSIDERATIONS TO DISCUSS AT SOME POINT YOU KNOW, WE'LL WE'RE WE WELCOME ANY SUGGESTIONS FROM THE CITY, OF COURSE, ON WHAT CAN BE DONE BETTER.

WHAT'S WORKING, WHAT'S NOT WORKING. BUT AGAIN, PART OF THE BENEFIT WE HAVE ON THAT SPECIFIC BULLET ON GRID MODERNIZATION, THERE'S AN ELECTRICITY TRANSITION GOING ON ACROSS CANADA, AS YOU'LL SEE, A LOT OF RENEWABLES AND ELECTRIC VEHICLES. AND IT ISN'T JUST ABOUT THAT AS MUCH AS IT IS AS USING ENERGY AS EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE. THAT IS THE ENERGY TRANSITION, AND WE HAVE A BUNCH OF TECHNOLOGY THAT HAS BEEN PILOTED AND WORKING IN ATCO THAT WE REALLY THINK WOULD BE A GOOD FIT FOR THE FOR THE CITY IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

SO SOME OF THE SOLUTIONS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT.

SO THIS ISN'T JUST SPECIFIC TO YELLOWKNIFE. THIS IS THE GREATER PICTURE OF THE ENERGY SECTOR IN THE NWT RIGHT NOW. THERE THERE'S SEVEN RATE ZONES THREE FOR NPK AND THEN WE HAVE FOUR. THERE'S HYDRO AND THERE'S DIESEL. AND IT'S A FAIRLY COMPLICATED PROCESS, AND IT DOES ALLOW FOR THINGS LIKE WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WITH YELLOWKNIFE ON RATES AND OVERCHARGING ON RATES TO SUPPORT OTHER ZONES.

WHAT WE HAVE PUT FORWARD TO THE TO THE UTILITY BOARD TO NTPC, AND WE PRESENTED TO THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS IN DECEMBER, IS ABOUT RATE REFORM AND HAVING A ONE RATE OR POSTAGE STAMP RATES FOR THE NWT. THERE ARE IN THE YUKON. THE YUKON IS A VERY SIMILAR JURISDICTION. SO THAT'S IT. IT HAS A CROWN CORPORATION, AND IT HAS US THAT ARE OPERATING THERE TOO, MOSTLY ON DISTRIBUTION. THEY HAVE ONE TERRITORY WIDE RATE.

THAT'S MAKES THINGS VERY MUCH MORE EFFICIENT.

AND AS IN COST EFFICIENT BETWEEN THE TWO UTILITIES.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE THINK IS WHOLLY POSSIBLE HERE IN THE NWT.

[01:45:06]

YEAH. I SAID MOST, MOST OF THIS IN THE END. WELL, THAT GREEN QUOTE AT THE TOP, THAT'S FROM THE ROBERTSON REPORT IN 2001. AND IT TALKED ABOUT THESE TERRITORY WIDE RATES AT THAT POINT.

SO THIS IS NOT NEW IN THE NWT. THIS IS THIS HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT FOR DECADES.

LOOKING AT THE RATE AND A TERRITORY WIDE RATE.

THERE'S A LOT OF BENEFITS TO IT. WE REALLY DO SEE IT AS AN ABILITY TO REDUCE OVERALL COSTS IN THE NWT.

THE OTHER IDEA LOOKING AT SO THERE'S THE RATE REFORM.

THERE'S SOLUTION ABOUT DOING LOOKING AT RATES.

THERE'S ALSO THE UTILITY FUNCTION SIDE, WHICH WE PRESENTED THIS TO GOVERNMENT.

AND THIS IS YOU'LL SEE THE CURRENT STATE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE.

THERE'S A LOT OF OVERLAP BETWEEN US AND NTPC DOING SIMILAR ROLES, WHERE YOU CAN LOOK AT A LOT OF JURISDICTIONS WHERE THERE'S GENERATORS AND THERE'S WIRES COMPANIES.

SO THEY SEPARATE THE TWO ROLES A LITTLE BIT AND YOU'RE ABLE TO BE A LITTLE MORE EFFICIENT IF YOU'RE FOCUSED JUST ON THAT ROLE, AS OPPOSED TO THE DUPLICATION OF THE CURRENT SET.

SO THIS IS ANOTHER SOLUTION THAT WE'VE PUT FORWARD.

AND THERE ARE LOOKING TO CONSIDER. OH, AND THIS IS STERILE.

YEAH. SO YOU KNOW, WE'RE PRETTY PROUD OF OUR PARTNERSHIP AND 70 YEARS THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING HERE. WE THINK THAT IT'S TERRIBLY IMPORTANT TO CONTINUE THAT THAT SUPPORT AND LOOK AT OUR FRANCHISES ACROSS THE NWT. AGAIN, PART OF THE OVERALL SOLUTION AND ELECTRICITY SECTOR IS, IS, IS THAT SUPPORT WOULD BE IDEAL. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JAY AND DARRYL. OPENING IT UP TO QUESTIONS, COUNCILOR WARBURTON.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. YOU TALKED ABOUT GRID MODERNIZATION AND IT NOT JUST BEING ABOUT EVS AND THINGS.

HOWEVER, THE FEEDBACK WE HEAR IS I WANT TO PUT EV AT MY HOUSE.

THE GRID WON'T SUPPORT THAT. I HAVE BUSINESSES IN KAM LAKE.

I WANT TO DO A BOTTLING PLANT. I CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH POWER IN THE SYSTEM TO SUPPORT THAT, OR I CAN'T AFFORD THE UPGRADES BEING ASKED OF ME. SO KIND OF MAYBE SPEAK MORE TO LIKE, WHAT IS YOUR KIND OF LONG TERM PLANS TO UPGRADE IN THE CITY? SO IT'S NOT SUCH A BARRIER FOR PEOPLE FOR THESE THINGS? CERTAINLY. THANK YOU. WE DO. THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IS FAIRLY ROBUST.

I THINK ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE STUMBLING BLOCKS THAT I SEE AS WE THINK ABOUT RENEWABLES AND JUST LATELY WITH THE, WITH THE LOW WATER AND THE LOW HYDRO, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DIESEL OPERATING RIGHT IN THE CITY.

AND THIS IS THERE'S OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE THE ISSUE.

THAT THAT'S A PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE. WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A SOLUTION TO FINDING MORE WATER.

BUT THAT THAT GENERATION PART, THAT, LIKE, AS SOON AS THEY START RUNNING DIESEL, THAT CAN BE FAIRLY DIFFICULT FOR THE SYSTEM TO KEEP UP TO GROWING. BUT ON, ON THE RENEWABLES SIDE, I KNOW WE'VE TALKED TO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE NET METERING PROGRAM AND TO HAVE DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES, WHICH IS GETTING MORE RENEWABLES ABOUT THE SYSTEM AS OPPOSED TO CENTRALIZED. THAT IS PART OF GRID MODERNIZATION.

AND IT IS IT IS SOMETHING FOR US TO CONSIDER DEFINITELY HERE.

WE ARE WE KNOW THERE'S A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PARTS OF GRID MODERNIZATION THAT WORK WELL THROUGHOUT CANADA.

AND IT WILL JUST BE UP TO US TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WORKS BEST FOR THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE.

[01:50:03]

YEAH, I GUESS I WAS JUST CURIOUS TO HEAR NAGDCA POWERS PERSPECTIVE.

RECOGNIZING THAT THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES AROUND FOR DECADES.

LIKE YOU MENTIONED, THE POSTAGE STAMP RATES IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS.

WHY HASN'T STREAMLINING THE UTILITY FUNCTION AND RATE REFORM HAPPENED TO DATE IN THE NWT? I DON'T HAVE A GOOD ANSWER FOR THAT. I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER FOR THAT, I WOULD SAY AGAIN, IT'S BEEN STUDIED FOR QUITE A WHILE. SO 2001 THAT ROBERTSON REPORT WAS STUDIED.

I KNOW THERE WAS THERE WAS CHANGES DONE AND THERE WAS SOME DIRECTIONS THAT CAME OUT IN 2010 FROM GNWT THAT DID CHANGE AND RESTRUCTURE A BIT OF THE OF THE RATES IN THE NWT.

I THINK THAT'S WHEN THE SEVEN ZONES FIRST WERE PUT IN PLACE.

NOW I THINK IT'S JUST A THE OPPORTUNE TIME TO, TO LOOK AT IT A BIT, A BIT MORE AS BOTH UTILITIES ARE BEFORE THE UTILITY BOARD LOOKING AT THEIR RATE APPLICATIONS AND RATE STRUCTURE, IT REALLY COMES UP TO WORKING, HAVING A BIT OF A BETTER COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO IT.

AND IF YOU HAVE THOSE RATE REFORMS IN THAT POSTAGE STAMP RATE.

THERE IS A MORE COLLABORATIVE, NATURAL, NATURALLY MORE COLLABORATIVE APPROACH FOR TWO UTILITIES.

YOU KNOW, IN THE YUKON, WE DON'T INTERVENE IN EACH OTHER'S RATE APPLICATION BECAUSE WE KNOW WE HAVE THE SAME RATES THAT, THAT THAT'S ONE BIG, BIG BENEFIT TO IT. THANK YOU.

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT FOR WITH RESPECT TO THE RATE REFORM AND APPRECIATING THAT COLLABORATION BETWEEN UTILITIES AND USING ENERGY WISELY AND GETTING THE BEST COST FOR EVERYBODY AND RECOGNIZING SOARING INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS, OF COURSE, THAT A RATE REFORM COULD EQUALLY AS LIKELY RESULT IN ALL THE OTHER COMMUNITIES OUTSIDE OF YELLOWKNIFE'S RATES GOING UP TO MATCH THAT OF YELLOWKNIFE.

AND I'LL PREFACE MY COMMENTS WITH, YOU KNOW, THIS IS GOING TO BE NEED TO BE A GROUP DECISION.

LIKE WE NEED GOVERNMENT AND NTPC AND THE PUBLIC UTILITY BOARD INVOLVED IN THIS.

BUT WE'VE PUT TOGETHER A MODEL WHERE BASICALLY ALL THE COSTS AND THE RATES THAT ARE IN PLACE NOW THE TOTAL COST REMAIN THE SAME INTO THE SYSTEM, BUT THE RATES FLATTEN OUT AND ARE LOWER.

THEY DON'T THEY DON'T INCREASE. AND AGAIN, THAT'S IT'S MORE ABOUT THAT.

SAME RATES FOR THE UTILITIES AND THEN THE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES LIKE THE TPSP AND THE OTHER INCENTIVES THAT THEY HAVE OR SUBSIDIES THEY HAVE FOR CUSTOMERS GO DIRECTLY TO CUSTOMERS THE SAME NO MATTER WHICH UTILITY SERVES THEM, SO THAT THE END, THE OVERALL COST FOR THE SYSTEM STAY THE SAME, AND THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY, THE REAL POSSIBILITY OF THEM DROPPING. WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT. YEAH. I LOOK THROUGH THE BUSINESS CASES AND EVERYTHING ON NAKA POWER'S WEBSITE THAT WAS THAT WERE SUBMITTED BACK IN NOVEMBER TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD.

AND I APPRECIATE THAT. THIS SEEMS LIKE A GOOD TIME TO TRY TO STREAMLINE OR COLLABORATE OR MAYBE FIX THE SYSTEM, AS SOME WOULD SUGGEST. RECOGNIZING THAT WE DO NEED EVERYBODY.

IT'S LIKE A, IT'S A PARTY HERE THAT EVERYBODY HAS TO COME TO WEARING THEIR HATS.

WHAT IS THE BENEFIT IN YOUR FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE FOR NTPC TO JUMP ON BOARD WITH THE STREAMLINING OF THE UTILITY FUNCTIONS AND THE RATE REFORM, RECOGNIZING THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET TO TALK TO THEM NEXT AND ASK THEM SOME TOUGH QUESTIONS.

YEAH. NO, NO, FAIR, FAIR. WELL, FROM A UTILITY PERSPECTIVE OR ANY BUSINESS, IF YOU'RE ABLE TO FOCUS ON, YOU KNOW, NARROW YOUR FOCUS ONTO SOME SPECIFIC THINGS LIKE GENERATION THAT COULD BE QUITE BENEFICIAL AS

[01:55:01]

THAT THAT'S ONE BENEFIT THAT COMES TO MY MIND.

ALSO, AGAIN, THE BIG BENEFIT THAT THAT I SEE BETWEEN OR HAVING THE RATE REFORM AND HAVING THE SAME RATES FOR BOTH UTILITIES IS THAT THEN THE UTILITIES DON'T HAVE AS MUCH NEED TO INTERVENE IN EACH OTHER'S RATE STRUCTURE AS MUCH. WE ARE STILL GOING TO HOLD EACH OTHER ACCOUNTABLE ON OUR OVERALL COSTS AND OUR BUSINESS CASES AND THINGS THAT WE DO, BUT THE ACTUAL RATE STRUCTURE WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE CONTESTED, I GUESS.

THANK YOU FOR THAT ANSWER, I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK LAST QUESTION IS THAT YOU KNOW, THAT SALES PITCH, THAT COLLABORATION, SOMETHING THAT CAN ONLY REALLY HAPPEN FORMERLY OR IS NAKA POWER AND NTCP HAVING OFFLINE CONVERSATIONS TO TRY TO IDENTIFY BENEFITS TO EACH UTILITY? WELL, CURRENTLY, SO WE HAVE ANOTHER RATE APPLICATION IN FOR OUR BUSINESS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE LAKE.

NTPC HAS THEIR RATE APPLICATION IN. SO WE'VE PUT THESE THE RATE REFORM THOUGHT AND ALL THE JUSTIFICATION BEHIND IT.

WE'VE PUT THAT OUT THERE TO THE TO THE UTILITY BOARD IN THE PUBLIC.

SO IT'S THE FIRST STEP TO HAVE A MORE PUBLIC CONVERSATION ABOUT IT.

SEE ONE IF THE UTILITY BOARD SEES BENEFIT IN IT.

IF THEY DO THEN THEN WE'RE HOPING THAT THE GNWT SEES BENEFIT IN IT AS WELL AS NTPC AT LEAST TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION.

THAT WOULD BE THE MAIN PART. GREAT. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? SEEING NONE.

THANKS AGAIN, J AND DARYL FOR COMING TODAY. APPRECIATE THE UPDATE.

LOTS OF FOOD FOR THOUGHT FOR US. ON A BIG FOOD FOR THOUGHT DAY.

SO WE WILL. YEAH. TAKE THIS FURTHER INTO CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. THANKS FOR HAVING US. AND I REALLY ENJOYED ALL THE INFORMATION I LEARNED ABOUT WATER PIPES AND PUMP HOUSES TOO.

YEAH, THAT'S A SIDE BENEFIT. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH.

NEVER A DULL MOMENT IN COUNCIL, THAT'S FOR SURE.

[6. A memorandum regarding the Minutes of the Human Resource and Compensation Committee meeting of February 12, 2025.]

MEETING ON FEBRUARY 12TH, 2025. ANY QUESTIONS?

[IN CAMERA]

IF I CAN GET A MOTION. MOVE IN CAMERA. MOVE BY COUNCILOR COCHRANE.

SECONDED BY COUNCILOR MCGURK. ANYBODY OPPOSED? SEEING NONE. WE CAN MOVE IN CAMERA.

AND BUSINESS ARISING FROM IN-CAMERA IS TO APPOINT A HERITAGE COMMITTEE MEMBER LAURA M.

SO WE WILL APPOINT HER TONIGHT AT 7 P.M.. WITH THAT, IF I CAN GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

MOVED BY COUNCILOR MCGURK, WE CAN BE ADJOURNED.

SEE EVERYBODY AT 7 P.M..

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.