[1. Opening Statement ] [00:00:08] OKAY. I WILL CALL OUR GOVERNANCE AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE MEETING FOR MONDAY, MARCH 10TH, 2025 TO ORDER. AND I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE IS LOCATED IN CHIEF DRYGEESE TERRITORY. FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL, IT HAS BEEN THE TRADITIONAL LAND OF THE YELLOWKNIVES DENE FIRST NATION. WE RESPECT THE HISTORIES, LANGUAGES AND CULTURES OF ALL OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, INCLUDING THE NORTH SLAVE MÉTIS AND ALL FIRST NATIONS, METIS AND INUIT WHOSE PRESENCE CONTINUES TO ENRICH OUR VIBRANT COMMUNITY. MISS THISTLE, ANYTHING FURTHER TO ADD TO THE AGENDA? [2. Approval of the agenda. ] NOTHING FROM ADMINISTRATION. THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF. DOES ANY MEMBER HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST TODAY? SEEING NONE. NEXT, WE HAVE A MEMORANDUM REGARDING WHETHER TO ADJUST THE SCOPE OF THE DISASTER MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION FUND, [4. A memorandum regarding whether to adjust the scope of the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund (DMAF) contribution agreement and focus capital funds on the replacement of Pump House #1 (PH1), while retaining and maintaining the Yellowknife River as the City’s primary water source. ] DMAF AND THE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT AND FOCUS CAPITAL FUNDS ON THE REPLACEMENT OF PUMP HOUSE NUMBER ONE WHILE RETAINING AND MAINTAINING THE YELLOWKNIFE RIVER AS THE CITY'S PRIMARY WATER SOURCE. COUNCIL I'LL NOTE THAT IT'S A FOUR PART MOTION, AND WE'LL BREAK IT INTO TWO WITH POINT ONE TO BE CONSIDERED AT A FUTURE DATE. WHETHER COUNCIL DECIDES TO TO MOVE THAT, TO ADVANCE IT TO NEXT COUNCIL MARCH 24TH, OR WHETHER YOU DECIDE TO TO YOU NEED FURTHER INFORMATION. BUT POINTS TWO, THREE AND FOUR WILL RECOMMEND OR RECOMMENDING THAT WE MOVE TO NEW BUSINESS TONIGHT AT 7 P.M. AS REGARDLESS OF THE OPTION THAT'S SELECTED, WE DO NEED TO MAKE THOSE UPDATES TO PUMP HOUSE ONE. AND SO THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THAT DMAF FUNDING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT PROJECT. SO IN ORDER TO BE EFFICIENT AND, AND GET THAT OVER THE FINISH LINE. THAT'S WHY THE TWO, THREE AND FOUR ARE RECOMMENDED TO GO FORWARD TONIGHT AT 7 P.M., WITH ONE UP FOR DISCUSSION ON NEXT STEPS. BUT MISS THISTLE, IF YOU'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE ITEM. I AM ACTUALLY GOING TO PASS IT TO MR. GREENCORN TO INTRODUCE THIS ITEM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'LL BE SHORT AND SWEET. SO JUST TO BRING FOLKS UP TO SPEED THAT MAY BE WATCHING AT HOME, WE SUBMITTED OUR TECHNICAL REPORT TO COUNCIL A LITTLE OVER TWO WEEKS AGO. THAT'S AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE UNDER REPORTS AND PUBLICATIONS, CITY GOVERNMENT REPORTS AND PUBLICATIONS UNDER THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR THOSE INTERESTED. AND LAST TWO WEEKS AGO, WE HEARD FROM OUR DESIGN EXPERTS, AECOM, ON THE STATUS OF OUR STUDY UPDATE AND RELOOKING AT THE MATRIX EVALUATION JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ON THE CURRENT PATH. SO IN THAT SPAT OUT A RESULT TECHNICALLY THROUGH THE EVALUATION MATRIX, AND ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, IT RECOMMENDS RETAINING YELLOWKNIFE RIVER AS THE MAIN SOURCE. BUT ALL REALITIES CONSIDERED, WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE MONEY, ACCORDING TO THE LATEST FIGURES. SO IN AN ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS ALL THE REALITIES AT PLAY AND WHAT MAY BE TO COME, NOT COMMENTING ON THE CURRENT POLITICAL CLIMATE. THIS IS OUR BEST OPTION AT THIS TIME. WHAT IT DOES IS IT TAKES ADVANTAGE OF FEDERAL FUNDING. IT ALSO WILL EXPAND THE PROJECT HORIZON A LITTLE BIT OUT TO 2032, HOPEFULLY. AND IT'LL ALLOW US TO MAKE THOSE INVESTMENTS IN OUR ONE OF OUR MOST CRITICAL ASSETS, WHICH WOULD BE NECESSARY REGARDLESS, AS MADAM MAYOR SAID ABOUT ANY, ANY CHOICE UNDER THE PROJECT. SO THAT'S IT FOR NOW AND HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS COMMENTS DISCUSSION FROM COUNCIL. COUNCILLOR COCHRANE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. I FULLY SUPPORT PART TWO, THREE AND FOUR TO GO FORWARD. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY OTHER OPTION HERE. I THINK THIS IS THE MOST REASONABLE WAY TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS OUR CURRENT SITUATION, NOT ONLY WITH OUR CAPITAL FUNDING, BUT WITH THE FEDERAL FUNDING BEING APPLIED TO THIS. I LOOK FORWARD TO THE DISCUSSION ON TOPIC ONE IN THE FUTURE HERE, BUT AS OF NOW, THIS IS THE MOST PRAGMATIC WAY WE CAN GO ABOUT GOVERNING THIS CITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JUST TO CLARIFY, WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH ADVANCING THAT FIRST PART OF THE MOTION TO BE VOTED ON MONDAY, MARCH 24TH, OR DO YOU NEED A FURTHER INFORMATION OR TIME TO DIGEST IT? I WOULD BE FINE FOR IT GOING FORWARD ON MARCH 24TH, BUT I'M ALSO WILLING TO BE ABLE TO COMPROMISE FURTHER IF THE REST OF THE COUNCIL DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS COMMENTS? COUNCILLOR WARBURTON. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I DID HAVE SOME QUESTIONS THERE ABOUT I'D ASKED AROUND KIND OF STUDIES ON THE THE ACTUAL SUBMARINE WATER LINE. [00:05:06] I KNOW WE'VE INSPECTED IT, BUT WE HAVEN'T INSPECTED IT. WE'RE DOING THE Q&A WITH THE CONSULTANT THERE. THEY HADN'T KIND OF GONE THROUGH AND SCOPED THE INTERNAL THAT PART. SO WITH THIS FUNDING, IF WE APPROVE TWO, THREE, FOUR WITH THAT AMOUNT, BE ABLE TO CAPTURE SOME OF THAT EXTRA STUDY WORK IF YOU WANTED TO DO IT ON THE WATER LINE. MISS THISTLE. MR. GREENCORN DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THAT? THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. AT THIS TIME, I DON'T I WOULD HAVE TO TALK TO THE DMAF TEAM WITH CANADA. THE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT HAS VERY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS ON WHAT'S ELIGIBLE EXPENSES AND WHAT'S NOT. BUT GIVEN THEIR WILLINGNESS TO TALK ABOUT SCOPE CHANGE WILL I'LL DEFINITELY ASK THE QUESTION TO SEE IF THAT TYPE OF EXPLORATORY EFFORT OR INSPECTION WOULD BE COVERED UNDER THE CURRENT AGREEMENT. I GUESS MAYBE A SECOND PART TO THAT IF IT'S NOT PART OF THE DMAF. DOES THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE INTERNAL FUNDS OR WOULD IT BE A CAPITAL BUDGET FOR 2026? MISS THISTLE. MR. GREENCORN. IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, IT WOULD LIKELY BE A CAPITAL EXPENSE. I THINK OUR CURRENT POLICY IS ANYTHING OVER $50 GRAND IS ELIGIBLE FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE UNDER THE CAPITAL FUND. SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE PROBABLY THE WAY IT GOES. BUT WE WOULD DO SOME MORE BUDGETING EXERCISES AND EXPLORATORY R&D, SO TO SPEAK, BEFORE WE BROUGHT THAT FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YEAH I SUPPORT ALL FOUR OF THESE GOING TO COUNCIL ON 24TH. THOSE ARE ALL KIND OF FUTURE BUDGET QUESTIONS. SO THANKS. THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR FEQUET. THANKS, MADAM CHAIR. JUST CONFIRMING YOU CAN HEAR ME. OKAY. YEP. OKAY. I WAS JUST. YES. I'M FULLY IN SUPPORT OF ALL THESE GOING FORWARD AND THE TOPIC OF THE WATER LINE GOING FORWARD ON MARCH 24TH. JUST A QUESTION. IS IT $25 OR $32 MILLION WE HAVE ACCESS FOR. I WASN'T CLEAR. IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WAS TWO DIFFERENT NUMBERS IN THE MEMO THE $25 WAS THE ORIGINAL 75% AND IT SAID MORE RECENTLY OF $32 MILLION. MY POINT, MY QUESTION IS REALLY WHERE DOES ADMIN OR WHAT'S THE PLAN TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE? NOT THAT IT AFFECTS THE MOTION IN HAND, BUT JUST CURIOUS WHAT THE THOUGHT WOULD BE. THE $32 WAS THE TOTAL, SO THAT INCLUDES OUR 25%. AND IT WAS ALWAYS THAT THE CITY WAS LOOKING TO VARIOUS FUNDING SOURCES, WHETHER IT'S GNWT FEDS OR TAXES, TO MAKE UP THAT REMAINING 25%. BUT MISS THISTLE. YEAH, SORRY, NOTHING TO ADD TO THAT. IT'S EXACTLY, IT'S A COST SHARING. IT WAS NEVER 100% FUNDED. AND SO IT WILL BE A 75% OF THE COST OF THE PROJECT, WHATEVER THAT PROJECT IS, HOPEFULLY WITH SCOPE CHANGES. APOLOGIES. MAYBE I MAYBE I MISSPOKE. I UNDERSTAND THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT FOR 75% OF THE FUNDING. IN THE MEMO, IT TALKS ABOUT THE COST OF ONE OR APPROXIMATELY $37 MILLION. AND IT SAYS THE CITY HAS $32 MILLION UNDER THE 2019 CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT. UNDERSTANDING THAT WE MAY AND LIKELY ARE ABLE TO CHANGE THE SCOPE OF THE FUNDING, BUT WE CANNOT INCREASE THE AMOUNT, OR AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT THE MEMO SAYS. WHAT IS THE ANTICIPATED SHORTFALL FOR THE PUMPHOUSE ONE CONSTRUCTION FROM WHAT WE CAN FUND. WHAT'S THAT 25%. WHAT'S THE DOLLAR VALUE? THE 25% IS LOOKING TO GET THE TERRITORIAL OR OR OTHER FUNDING IF IF IT CAN BE STACKED. BUT, MISS THISTLE. I'LL DEFER TO MR. GREENCORN AND IT IS WITH RESPECT TO SCOPE. SO OUT OF APOLOGIES FOR THE CONFUSION. I SHOULD HAVE PUT SOME MORE PARAMETERS AROUND IT. THE $32 MILLION IS THE TOTAL CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT, SO THAT I FORGIVE MY MATH, BUT IT'S SOMEWHERE AROUND $25.2 MILLION FEDERAL AND EIGHT POINT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY IS OBLIGATED TO. WHETHER WE COME UP WITH THAT THROUGH DIFFERENT FUNDING MECHANISMS IS UP TO US. THE SO GOING FROM $32 TO THE $37 ESTIMATE, THAT'S AN EXTRA FIVE THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO GENERATE EITHER FROM DIFFERENT REVENUES OR FROM THE CAPITAL FUND, BECAUSE CANADA IS VERY, VERY ADAMANT THAT THERE IS NO ABILITY TO INCREASE BUDGETS. THEY'VE BEEN BECAUSE FEDERAL SYSTEMS AND MECHANISMS ARE WHAT THEY ARE. SO ANYTHING OVER AND ABOVE THAT, $25.2 MILLION OF FEDERAL FUNDING IS THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO BEAR. THANK YOU. THAT WAS VERY CLEAR. YEAH. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I WAS I GUESS I WAS ASKING SO THAT THAT SEVEN PLUS THE NEW FIVE, THAT'S NOW 12. TO BE DETERMINED WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GET THAT THERE ISN'T ANY PLAN OR WE DON'T HAVE ANY LINES OF SIGHT ON ANYTHING AT THIS TIME. CORRECT. OKAY. I SHOULD ALSO CLARIFY THAT WE HAVE SOME CARRYOVER AMOUNTS BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN PLANNING FOR THIS THROUGH PAST CAPITAL BUDGETS. [00:10:04] SO THERE IS I'LL TAKE THAT AS AN UNDERTAKING TO GET YOU THE EXACT NUMBER. BUT I BELIEVE IT'S IN THE REALM OF 2 TO $3 MILLION. SO THERE IS A CARRYOVER AMOUNT THAT'S SITTING IN THE CAPITAL FUND FOR THIS PROJECT. OH SORRY MR. GREENCORN IS THAT THAT'S THE MATH CARRY FORWARD. NO, THAT WOULD BE CITY CONTRIBUTION I BELIEVE. BUT I'LL CONFIRM WITH MR. PANDOO AT A LATER DATE. YEAH, YEAH, BECAUSE I'D SAY WE WANT TO BE CAUTIOUS THAT WE HAVEN'T NECESSARILY EARMARKED IT FOR THIS PROJECT. AND AS COUNCIL MEMBER, WE ARE PROJECTING TO HAVE A DEFICIT IN THE CAPITAL BUDGET NEXT YEAR. AND SO JUST TO TO BE CAUTIOUS THERE. WELL, IT'S NOTHING TO BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT JUST BEING VERY AWARE OF, WE NEED TO FIND SOME FUNDS. ANYTHING FURTHER, COUNCILLOR FEQUET? THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? MY ONLY ONE WOULD BE. YES. HAPPY TO DO TWO, THREE AND FOUR. IN REGARDS TO TO NUMBER ONE I GUESS I JUST ENCOURAGE US TO ALSO LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THIS PROJECT IS ABOUT RISK MITIGATION. AND SO MAKING SURE WE'VE GOT CLEAN DRINKING WATER. AND SO ONE WAY TO MITIGATE THIS RISK IS TO HAVE THE SUBMARINE LINE. BUT WHAT OTHER ACTIONS COULD BE TAKEN AND WHAT OTHER ACTIONS ARE BEING TAKEN ARE BEING TAKEN BY GIANTS. SO, YOU KNOW, IF I THINK OF THIS IS ONE OPTION TO RISK MITIGATE IT COSTS $108 MILLION. COULD ANOTHER ONE BE THAT THERE'S SOME SORT OF ALERT SYSTEM THAT'S AT THE MOUTH OF, OF BAKER CREEK, AND MAYBE GIANTS ARE ALREADY DOING THAT. OR MAYBE THAT'S HOW THE CITY CAN ENSURE WE'VE GOT CLEAN DRINKING WATER. SO JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE KIND OF OPEN UP OUR, OUR THINKING ON THIS ABOUT WHAT ARE SOME OTHER WAYS THAT WE CAN RISK MITIGATE WHETHER THAT'S A MOTION FROM COUNCIL DIRECTING STAFF TO LOOK AT OTHER RISK MITIGATIONS. I'LL PAUSE AND NOT DO THAT MOTION TODAY. BUT I THINK WHILE WE'RE SEEKING FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES, IT IS ABOUT WORKING WITH THE FEDERAL AND TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS, THE GIANT MINE TEAM, TO REALLY MAKE SURE THAT THAT WE CONSIDER ALL MITIGATION OPPORTUNITIES. SO SEEING AND HEARING NOTHING FURTHER, WE WILL BRING TWO TO FOUR TO COUNCIL TONIGHT. AS IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA, WE WILL NEED A SPECIAL RESOLUTION. SO THAT'S TWO THIRDS TO TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF ADDING IT TO THE AGENDA TONIGHT. AND THEN FOR POINT ONE, WE WILL BRING IT FORWARD ON MONDAY, MARCH 24TH AT 7 P.M.. WITH THAT, THAT IS THE END OF OUR AGENDA. MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COUNCILLOR COCHRANE. HAVE A GREAT AFTERNOON, AND WE'LL SEE EVERYBODY AT 7 P.M.. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.