Mar 10, 2025 Council Meetings

[00:00:04]

SO I WILL CALL OUR COUNCIL MEETING FOR MONDAY, MARCH 10TH, 2025 TO ORDER AND I'LL ASK COUNCILLOR PAYNE TO PLEASE READ THE OPENING

[1. Councillor Payne will read the Opening Statement.]

FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL IT'S BEEN THE TRADITIONAL LAND OF THE YELLOWKNIVES DENE FIRST NATION.

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

THANK YOU. THERE WERE NO AWARD CEREMONIES OR PRESENTATIONS FOR THE AGENDA.

WE HAVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS. WE HAVE MINUTES OF COUNCIL FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF MONDAY,

[Items 3 & 4]

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

NEXT, WE HAVE DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF. DOES ANY MEMBER HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN ANY MATTER BEFORE COUNCIL TODAY? SEEING NONE, THERE WAS NO CORRESPONDENCE, NOR WERE THERE ANY PETITIONS FOR THE AGENDA.

WE HAVE A STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING. THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING IS REGARDING BYLAW NUMBER 5102,

[7. Statutory Public Hearing regarding By‐law No. 5102, a by‐law to amend Community Plan By‐law No. 5007.]

TO NOTE WE RECEIVED NO WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. SO WITH THAT, I WILL CALL FOR ANY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THE BYLAW IF THEY'D LIKE TO SPEAK.

I IMAGINE YOU'RE HERE FOR ANOTHER ISSUE. OKAY.

ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE BYLAW? SEEING NONE, I WILL CALL THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.

AS WE RECEIVED NO WRITTEN OR VERBAL SUBMISSIONS IS COUNCIL OKAY WITH GOING TO SECOND READING? SEEING NODDING HEADS. WE WILL DO SECOND READING THEN TONIGHT.

NEXT ON THE AGENDA. THERE WERE NO DELEGATIONS PERTAINING TO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.

THERE WERE NO STATEMENTS FOR THE AGENDA. ARE THERE ANY MEMBER STATEMENTS FROM THE FLOOR? THERE WAS NO BUSINESS ARISING FROM OUR MEETING ON FEBRUARY 24TH, 2025.

WE DID HAVE ONE ITEM OF BUSINESS FROM MARCH 3RD, 2025.

[Items 13 & 14]

I MOVE THAT COUNCIL DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO TERMINATE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES AND AURORA COLLEGE REGARDING THE LOCATION OF THE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY, YELLOWKNIFE CAMPUS AT TIN CAN HILL.

THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECONDER? COUNCILLOR ARDEN-SMITH ANY QUESTIONS COMMENTS DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AND THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

WE DIDN'T HAVE NEW BUSINESS ON THE AGENDA. HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE NEW BUSINESS FROM AT LUNCH

[16. Is there any new business from the floor?]

THE ONE ABOUT FROM SLAVICA.

I MOVE THAT PURSUANT TO SECTION 711C OF COUNCIL PROCEDURES BYLAW NUMBER 4975, THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT TO BRING FORWARD A MOTION REGARDING WHETHER TO ADJUST THE SCOPE OF THE DISASTER MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION FUND DMAF CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT, AND FOCUS CAPITAL FUNDS ON THE REPLACEMENT OF PUMPHOUSE ONE WHILE RETAINING AND MAINTAINING THE YELLOWKNIFE RIVER AS THE CITY'S PRIMARY WATER SOURCE BE WAIVED.

SO THIS IS IF I CAN GET A SECONDER IT'S JUST TO INTRODUCE THIS AS NEW BUSINESS, SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR WARBURTON.

ANY QUESTIONS ON WHETHER TO ALLOW THIS TO BE DISCUSSED TONIGHT? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AND THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY SO COUNCILLOR PAYNE, IF YOU CAN READ THE MOTION.

I MOVE THAT COUNCIL AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO AMEND THE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA FOR A MAXIMUM FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION OF

[00:05:07]

TWO, COUNCIL AUTHORIZED THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO AMEND THE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT EXPIRY DATE OF TO 2032 FROM THE CURRENT 2028 DEADLINE. AND THREE, COUNCIL DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO CONTINUE TO SEEK FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE PROJECT FOR REQUIREMENTS.

THANK YOU. SECONDER COUNCILLOR FEQUET. TO THE MOTION.

ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AND THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

IS THERE ANY NEW BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR? SEEING NONE WE HAVE ENACTMENT OF BYLAWS.

[Items 17 & 18]

COUNCILLOR PAYNE. OKAY. YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO HOLD ON JUST FOR A SECOND.

I LOST MY INTERNET. YOU ARE RIGHT HERE. I MOVE SECOND READING OF BYLAW NUMBER 55102.

THANK YOU. SECONDER. COUNCILLOR ARDEN-SMITH. ANY QUESTIONS COMMENTS.

DISCUSSION? COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

JUST A COMMENT AND JUST MAKING CLEAR MY POSITION ON THE AMENDMENT.

WHILE I UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE WHAT MADAM MAYOR IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THIS AMENDMENT, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF IT. THIS IS FOR THREE MAIN REASONS.

FIRST, THE DATA SHOWS WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS IN ADDRESSING OUR HOUSING SUPPLY ISSUES.

SORRY. MY PHONE. WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS ADDRESSING OUR HOUSING SUPPLY ISSUES, AND WE ARE WELL AHEAD OF THE CURVE.

SECOND, I DO NOT WANT TO ADD TO STAFF'S WORKLOAD AND WOULD LIKE THEIR FOCUS TO REMAIN ON IMPROVING OUR PROCESS AND GETTING THE ESTABLISHED INFILL AREAS ACROSS THE FINISH LINE.

FINALLY, GIVEN THAT WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS ON THE SUPPLY ISSUE, I WOULD LIKE US TO SEE USE MORE HORSEPOWER TO ADDRESS THE OTHER SIGNIFICANT ISSUE IN REGARDS TO HOUSING, WHICH IS NON-MARKET HOUSING AND SOCIAL SUPPORTS.

THE CITY'S HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT STATES THAT BETWEEN 2024 AND 2035, POPULATION GROWTH OF 10% MEANS THAT 1,060 ADDITIONAL UNITS WILL BE REQUIRED. ACCORDING TO THE PLANNING AND LANDS UPDATE ON FEBRUARY 3RD IN 2024, OUR CITY BUILT A NET OF 271 HOUSING UNITS.

IN ADDITION TO THIS, 312 UNITS ARE ALREADY PERMITTED OR ANTICIPATED TO COMPLETE OR COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION IN 2025.

THIS MEANS WE ARE ALREADY 55% OF THE WAY TOWARDS MEETING OUR ANTICIPATED HOUSING NEEDS, WITH 10 OR 10 YEARS TO GO TO OUR HOUSING UNTIL 2035. WHILE THESE CONSTRUCTED OR PERMITTED UNITS DO NOT SIGNIFICANTLY ADDRESS THE NEED FOR UNITS WITH THREE OR MORE BEDROOMS. I'M HOPEFUL THAT THE IDENTIFIED INFILL PARCELS CAN ACCOMPLISH THIS.

CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE AND THE DEVELOPERS IN OUR CITY ARE RESPONDING TO AND MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF ADDRESSING OUR HOUSING SUPPLY ISSUES.

WE ARE NOT IN A PLACE WHERE WE NEED TO THROW PLANNING OUT THE WINDOW.

IN FACT, THE GOOD WORK OF OUR PLANNING STAFF AND DEVELOPERS IN THE CITY MEANS THAT WE ARE WELL AHEAD OF THE CURVE.

AT LEAST WE ARE IN THIS MOMENT IN TIME, ACCORDING TO THE DATA AND EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO US.

WHAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD DO IS TO SEND STAFF SCRAMBLING TO ADAPT TO AN OFF THE CUFF AND UNCONSIDERED AMENDMENT.

THIS AMENDMENT CARRIES RISKS THAT ARE BOTH PRACTICAL AND FINANCIAL.

STAFF WOULD NEED TO SPEND A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME FIRST UNDERSTANDING AND SEEKING TO MITIGATE THESE RISKS.

INSTEAD OF THIS, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE STAFF SPEND WHATEVER TIME THEY DO HAVE COMPLETING ALL NECESSARY PLANNING STEPS, SUCH AS AREA DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND REZONING FOR THE INFILL PARCELS THAT WE APPROVED MORE THAN TWO YEARS AGO, ALONG WITH WORKING TO IMPROVE OUR PERMITTING PROCESS.

HOUSING SUPPLY IS ONLY ONE PIECE OF THE HOUSING CRISIS PUZZLE.

LAST WEEK, MLAS HEARD ABOUT CHALLENGES OF OPERATING, THE CHALLENGES OF OPERATING RENTAL HOUSING AND THE NEED FOR MORE NON-MARKET HOUSING AND SOCIAL SUPPORTS. THIS NEED IS CRITICAL AND IT WILL BE WILL NOT BE ADDRESSED BY THIS AMENDMENT OR BY FLOODING THE MARKET WITH SUPPLY.

I'M CONCERNED THAT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT ARE DIRECTING THE VAST MAJORITY OR ENTIRETY OF THEIR EFFORT TOWARD INCREASING HOUSING SUPPLY ALONE, AND HOPING THAT THIS WILL ADDRESS THE SOCIAL HOMELESSNESS AND ADDICTION ISSUES THAT ARE PREVALENT ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

SUPPLY IS IMPORTANT, NO DOUBT, BUT THANKS TO THE WORK OF STAFF AND DEVELOPERS IN OUR COMMUNITY, THE DATA SHOWS THEIR EFFORTS ARE STARTING TO BEAR FRUIT.

WHERE WE ARE NOT TAKING SIGNIFICANT ACTION IS TO ADDRESS THE CRITICAL AND GROWING NEED FOR NON-MARKET HOUSING AND SOCIAL SUPPORTS.

THE DATA WE'VE BEEN PRESENTED AND THE TESTIMONIES ELECTED LEADERS HAVE HEARD SHOWS THIS.

THIS AMENDMENT DRAWS STAFF IN ANOTHER DIRECTION AND INTRODUCES RISK.

[00:10:01]

WHILE I APPRECIATE AND RESPECT THE DIRECT, SOLUTION ORIENTED APPROACH PRESENTED BY THE MAYOR, I'M NOT IN FAVOR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS COMMENTS, DISCUSSION? COUNCILLOR WARBURTON. COMMENTS. I'LL TRY TO BE QUICK HERE.

IF WE TRULY BELIEVE THAT HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT ARE PRIORITIES, THEN WE NEED TO BE WILLING TO SUPPORT CHANGES THAT MAKE THESE GOALS A REALITY, LIKE THIS COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT. WE CANNOT PRETEND THAT THERE'S A ONE SIZE FITS ALL SOLUTION TO THESE CHALLENGES.

WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THE BUILDING, THE HOUSING WE NEED, AND CREATING THE SPACES FOR OUR ECONOMY TO FLOURISH OFTEN INVOLVES TOUGH DECISIONS, TRADE OFFS, AND WILLINGNESS TO ADAPT MESSY STUFF. IT'S NOT EASY TO CONFRONT DIFFICULT DECISIONS AROUND LAND USE, ZONING, DEVELOPMENT. WE MUST FACE RESISTANCE.

LOTS OF IT. OFTEN LOTS OF QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS.

BUT IF WE DON'T HAVE THE COURAGE TO TACKLE THESE ISSUES HEAD ON, WE RISK FALLING BEHIND IN THE VERY AREAS THAT ARE CRUCIAL TO OUR CITY'S FUTURE, HOUSING AND ROBUST ECONOMY. THE REALITY IS, ACHIEVING OUR GOALS REQUIRES US TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE WILL BE DISAGREEMENT ON SOME APPROACHES.

BUT IF WE STAY COMMITTED TO THE VISION OF A PROSPEROUS AND INCLUSIVE YELLOWKNIFE, WE BE BETTER PREPARED TO NAVIGATE THE CHALLENGES THAT COME WITH GROWTH. SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, ONE THAT WILL BRING US CLOSER TO A CITY WE CAN ALL LIVE IN, A CITY WHERE OPPORTUNITY AND HOUSING ARE ACCESSIBLE TO EVERYONE, NOT JUST THOSE LUCKY FEW WHO ALREADY HAVE A HOUSE. I JUST WANT TO TOUCH ON COMMENTS THERE ABOUT HOUSING.

THE HOUSING SUPPLY TO SAY WE'RE MEETING IT IS JUST FACTUALLY NOT TRUE.

ALMOST ALL OUR HOUSING UNITS BUILT THIS YEAR, WHICH WERE COUNTING AS A WIN, IS ONE DEVELOPER WHO I MIGHT ADD, IS LEAVING. SO IT IS NOT A ROBUST DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY.

WE ARE NOT MEETING OUR HOUSING REQUIREMENTS. THEY ARE BY A THIN LITTLE THREAD HOLDING ON.

SO WE'RE NOT DEFINITELY NOT DOING THAT. AND ALSO PERMITS DO NOT MEET HOUSING UNITS.

IN A GREAT YEAR CITY OF CALGARY HITS 50% OF THE UNITS ARE PERMITTED, GETS BUILT.

AND THAT'S AN AMAZING YEAR. SO WE CAN'T COUNT THOSE CHICKENS YET.

SO WE ARE NOT THERE. WE CAN'T TAKE OUR FOOT OFF THE GAS.

AND I KNOW THIS IS A LITTLE UNCONVENTIONAL, BUT IF THIS IS STRESSING US OUT, IF THIS IS TOO MUCH RISK, I DON'T KNOW IF WE GOT IT IN US TO DO THE THINGS WE HAVE TO DO THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS TO ACTUALLY GET HOUSING BUILT. THANKS.

I'LL SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR HENDRIKSEN.

THANKS MAYOR ALTY. I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE AMENDMENT, BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS THAN MY COLLEAGUE COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN .

I KNOW I TALKED TO THIS MOSTLY AT THE THE PREVIOUS MEETING.

FOR ME, IT'S ABOUT THE PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH THIS.

SO WE AS A CORPORATION, A CITY CORPORATION HAVE PROPERTY OWNERS.

WE HAVE A PROCESS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO REQUEST CHANGES TO THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND ZONING BYLAWS.

BUT INSTEAD WE'RE USING THIS PROCESS REALLY FOR BENEFIT OF SOME SPECIFIC PROPERTY OWNER AND SOME OTHER YOU KNOW, OTHER CHANGES THAT MAY OR MAY NOT SUPPORT OTHER DEVELOPMENT.

I DON'T FAULT THAT PERSON EITHER FOR ADVOCATING FOR THEMSELVES.

THAT'S THE JOB OF A BUSINESS OWNER IS TO ADVOCATE IT'S UP TO US TO MAKE THAT DECISION OF WHAT WE DO.

AROUND THE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT ZONE THOSE ARE AMENDMENTS, OR THAT IS AN AMENDMENT THAT NO ONE OUTSIDE OF COUNCIL HAS COME PUBLICLY TO SPEAK ABOUT.

SO I KIND OF GO WITH, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEBODY OR IF PEOPLE AREN'T WILLING TO COME AND SPEAK ON THAT, WHAT'S THE BENEFIT THERE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO TO SUPPORT? AROUND WORK CAMPS I'M ACTUALLY IN SUPPORT OF THAT IN PRINCIPLE.

BUT AGAIN, I GO ADMIN HAS TALKED ABOUT THEY'RE WORKING ON THAT ANYWAY, AND THEY HAVE FOUND INTERIM WAYS OF DEALING WITH THAT AS A WORKABLE SOLUTION.

AS WE WORK THROUGH THE COMMUNITY PLAN REVIEW.

SO TO ME, IT'S THAT'S NOT A BURNING ONE. SO WITH THESE AMENDMENTS, THE PRIMARY BENEFIT FOR ME THAT I SEE IS ACTUALLY JUST SAVING SOME PROPERTY OWNERS TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS THAT OTHER PEOPLE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THROUGH THIS TRUNCATED PROCESS.

FOR ME, IF THE ISSUE IS AND I SAID THIS AT THE LAST TIME WE SPOKE ABOUT THIS, IF THE ISSUE IS THE PROCESS ITSELF IN TERMS OF THAT, IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE FOR A COMMUNITY PLAN OR ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENTS OR IT'S TOO ONEROUS, THEN THAT'S THE ISSUE WE SHOULD ACTUALLY BE DEALING WITH, BECAUSE OTHERWISE ALL WE'RE DOING IS SOLVING THIS FOR A ONE OFF, AND WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY SOLVING ANY PROBLEM FOR FUTURE POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS.

SO FOR ME, THAT'S THAT'S MY BIGGEST CHALLENGE IS TO ME, IT JUST IT SEEMS VERY FOCUSED ON A FEW PROPERTIES.

THERE'S NO CLARITY FOR ME WHAT THE BENEFIT IS.

I MEAN, TODAY CABIN RADIO HAD AN ARTICLE ABOUT AND THE COUNCILLOR WARBURTON JUST REFERENCED IT ABOUT THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT, YOU KNOW, OWNS THIS PROPERTY THAT WOULD BECOME PART OF WEST RESIDENTIAL, LEAVING THE PROPERTY FOR A DECADE.

YOU KNOW, I HOPE HE DOESN'T. BUT WHAT I KIND OF FEEL LIKE, IF THAT'S THE PURPOSE, IS TO REZONE THAT PROPERTY FOR HOUSING IMMEDIATELY. AND NOW WE'RE BEING, YOU KNOW, IN THE MEDIA TOLD IT'S GOING TO BE A DECADE OR MORE.

THAT'S A TOUGH ONE FOR ME TO, TO SWALLOW. BECAUSE AGAIN, OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS DON'T HAVE THIS SAME LUXURY OF GOING THROUGH THIS TRUNCATED PROCESS.

SO AGAIN, I APPRECIATE THE LOGIC AND I DO AGREE WITH EVERYTHING COUNCILLOR WARBURTON SAID IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, HAVING TO TO PUSH FOR HOUSING. I JUST FEEL LIKE ALL WE'RE DOING HERE IS ONE SLICE.

[00:15:01]

I DON'T LIKE THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S IMMEDIATELY GOING TO COME FROM ANY OF THESE CHANGES THAT WE'RE NOT ALREADY DOING AROUND WORK CAMPS OR AROUND THE OTHER PIECES.

YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S REALLY WHERE MY HEAD COMES AT.

IF I, IF I SAW SOMETHING TANGIBLE COMING OUT OF THIS, MAYBE I WOULD BE WILLING TO, AS COUNCILLOR WARBURTON SAID, YOU KNOW, BE A LITTLE BRAVER, BUT I JUST SEE NO BENEFITS HERE IMMEDIATELY.

SO I'M WILLING TO NOT BE SO BRAVE, I SUPPOSE.

THANKS. THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR FEQUET. THANKS, MADAM CHAIR.

SIMILAR NOTE OR I MUST SAY, A QUESTION FOR YOU.

I GUESS, GIVEN THE ARTICLE THAT WAS IN CABIN RADIO TODAY AND SEEING THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THIS PROPERTY ISN'T GOING TO BE DEVELOPED IN THE NEAR FUTURE GIVEN THE UPCOMING LARGER COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS.

DO YOU STILL THINK THAT THE THE BENEFITS OUTWEIGH THE ADDITIONAL PROCESS BURDEN TO STAFF FOR PUSHING FOR THIS AMENDMENT TO MOVE FORWARD? YES, BECAUSE I STILL SEE THE NEXT STEPS, AS WITH THE PROPONENT, WHICH IS THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE REZONING.

AND THEN ON THE STAFF PERSPECTIVE, WORKING WITH THE PROPONENT ON SERVICE AGREEMENTS AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS.

AND IN THE EXPERIENCE OF HALL CRESCENT IT DOES TAKE A WHILE TO GET THOSE, THOSE PROCESSES THROUGH.

SO YOU KNOW, IT IT ISN'T SHOVELS IN THE GROUND TOMORROW.

IT'S NOT SHOVELS IN THE GROUND THIS SUMMER. GETTING THROUGH THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE REZONING, THE SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT, SERVICE AGREEMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THAT IS GOING TO GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME. SO I AM IN SUPPORT AND IT ALSO I DON'T LOOK AT IT SPECIFICALLY AS A DEVELOPER, BUT DO WE WANT THIS LAND TO BE FOR HOUSING.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, THE THE THING THAT THIS COULDN'T BE NON-MARKET HOUSING IS YOU KNOW, I THINK EARLY TO SAY BECAUSE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, I KNOW, WANTS TO WORK WITH PRIVATE DEVELOPERS TO TRY TO FIND LAND.

SO IF THIS AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOES HAVE THOSE SINGLE LOTS THAT THE DEVELOPER THEN SELLS TO HABITAT, THEN THERE'S NON-MARKET HOUSING AVAILABLE IN THIS AREA.

SO AGAIN, I BRING THE LEVEL OF DISCUSSION UP AND NOT TO LOOK AT THE PROPONENT, BUT TO LOOK AT WHETHER YOU THINK THIS LAND SHOULD BE USED FOR, FOR HOUSING OR NOT. SO LEAVE IT UP TO COUNCIL IN THAT THAT REGARD.

OKAY. COUNCILLOR MCGURK. OH YEAH. I DEFINITELY GO BACK AND FORTH WITH THIS ONE A LOT.

AND FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE VERY COMPELLING I THINK ULTIMATELY I WOULD AGREE WITH COUNCILLOR HENDRIKSEN IN THAT TO BE SPECIFICALLY DOING THIS FOR ONE DEVELOPER OR ONE PERSON, ONE COMPANY, IT THAT SORT OF WAIVING OF THE PROCESS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL OR FOR ONE ORGANIZATION, IT DOES NOT SEEM FAIR TO ME. I, I ALSO THINK THAT IF I DO FEEL LIKE THAT THE ARTICLE THAT CAME OUT TODAY REALLY AFFECTED MY PERSPECTIVE ON IT. BECAUSE OF THAT, EVERYONE HAS MENTIONED THIS TEN, TEN YEAR SENTENCE, AND MAYBE THERE WILL BE SOME REGRET FROM THE DEVELOPER FOR HAVING MADE THAT COMMENT AFTER THIS. BUT YEAH, I THINK IF OUR PROCESSES ARE WHAT'S IN THE WAY AND WHAT'S TAKING CAUSING THESE THINGS TO TAKE YEARS TO, TO BE RESOLVED AND FOR SHOVELS TO HIT THE GROUND KIND OF THING.

I THINK THAT TEN, TEN YEARS HOPEFULLY MEANS WE'LL BE ABLE TO BE ABLE TO BE ABLE TO CREATE A MORE EFFECTIVE PROCESS.

WE FOCUS ON ON THAT. AND SO MAYBE I'M SPEAKING OF IGNORANCE OR OUT OF IGNORANCE THERE, BUT THAT'S MY THOUGHTS AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN I DON'T THINK I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS CURRENTLY.

I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR ADMINISTRATION IN TERMS OF HOW THIS AMENDMENT MIGHT IMPACT THE WORK PLAN AS IT'S PRESENTED.

MISS THISTLE. MISS WHITE. SO THIS WILL REQUIRE STAFF TIME, BECAUSE THE NEXT STEP WILL BE TO PUT IT UP TO REQUEST THE MINISTER FOR A REVIEW.

THAT'S THE NEXT STEP AFTER SECOND READING. IF SECOND READING DOESN'T GO AHEAD, THEN THERE'S THERE'S NO FURTHER STEPS FOR US.

AND THEN INCORPORATING IT ONCE A DECISION IS MADE, SHOULD THAT DECISION BE POSITIVE.

AND AGAIN, IF IT'S NOT, THEN THERE'S THERE'S NO WORK FOR US.

IT'S JUST REALLY ADMINISTRATIVE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

[00:20:01]

SO WORK? YES. A LOT. NOT REALLY. THANKS.

COUNCILLOR PAYNE. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I WILL SUPPORT THIS MOTION.

I THINK ALL OF US SORT OF RAN THIS LAST ELECTION ON GETTING MORE HOMES IN THE NORTH HERE IN YELLOWKNIFE HERE.

AND AND I THINK THAT THIS ONE IS A PRETTY EASY ONE TO DO.

I LOOK AT THAT ARTICLE TODAY AS MORE OF A ADD THAT THERE'S NEW APARTMENTS COMING UP AND NOTHING MORE.

AND I ALSO LOOK AT THIS LAND RIGHT NOW BEING OF NO VALUE AS IT'S ZONED.

AND IF THIS IS ZONED THAT IT CAN BE DEVELOPED, THEN MAYBE IT'S NOT THE DEVELOPER THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW THAT'S GOING TO DEVELOP IT, BUT MAYBE SOMEONE DOWN THE ROAD. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR ARDEN-SMITH. THANK YOU.

I'M GOING TO BE IN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS. HOUSING IS NUMBER ONE ON MOST CONVERSATIONAL PIECES HERE IN YELLOWKNIFE AND THE GNWT ALL ACROSS CANADA. I DON'T SEE IT AS WE ARE JUST HELPING OUT ONE DEVELOPER.

I SEE IT IN A LARGER SPECTRUM WHERE WE ARE IN NEED OF HOUSING, AND WE HAVE VERY LIMITED SPACE IN WHICH TO BUILD ON.

AND WHEN WE HAD THE MEETING WITH THE PROPONENT, THEY ALREADY INDICATED THAT IT WOULDN'T BE SHOVELS IN THE GROUND TOMORROW, THEY SAID IT WOULD TAKE YEARS. WE ALREADY KNEW THIS INFORMATION.

I BELIEVE WHEN WE ARE TAKING ON THIS INFORMATION, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE MEDIA GETS INVOLVED IT CAN REALLY SKEW THE WAY IN WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN RECEIVED, BEEN GIVEN THE INFORMATION, AND THAT'S THE MEDIA'S JOB IS TO KIND OF DERAIL.

I'M IN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS 100% AND LIKE COUNCILLOR WARBURTON SAID, SOMETIMES WE NEED TO BE A LITTLE BRAVE, AND I'M FULL ON BRAVE ON THIS ONE. THANK YOU.

COUNCILLOR COCHRANE. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

LIKE I SAID BEFORE, WHEN THIS FIRST CAME OUT, I AM ENTIRELY SUPPORT OF THIS.

THIS IS A STRATEGIC RISK THAT I AM MORE THAN WILLING TO PREPARE TO MAKE.

WE HAVE TWO DEVELOPERS IN THIS TOWN THAT COULD DO A PROJECT OF THIS SIZE.

IF THE OTHER ONE CAME AND WANTED TO MAKE SOMETHING THIS TRANSFORMATIVE, THIS IS A PRECEDENT I WOULD FOLLOW SUIT WITH.

IT'S ENOUGH. AND NOT TO MENTION WITHIN THIS PROPERTY ALONE, I WOULD BE FULLY IN SUPPORT OF IT ENDING UP AS WEST RESIDENTIAL ANYWAY BY THE END OF GOING THROUGH A REVIEW HERE. SO HONESTLY, WE'RE JUST KIND OF SKIPPING A STEP TO BE ABLE TO TURN THIS INTO PROPERTY THAT COULD BECOME HOMES.

EVEN IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS IF HE DECIDES TO SELL IT, HE WOULD BE SELLING IT TO MAKE MORE TO ANOTHER COMPANY, TO ANOTHER DEVELOPER ORGANIZATION THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE INTENDED BY THE ZONING TO ACTUALLY BUILD MORE HOMES ON THIS PROPERTY.

WE ARE IN A HOUSING CRISIS. WE HAVE STATED A TIME AND TIME AGAIN THAT THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY OF THIS COUNCIL IS HOUSING.

AND IF WE SIT BACK WHEN PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY, JUST BECAUSE PROCESS IS GETTING IN THE WAY, WHAT IS THAT SAYING TO THE COMMUNITY? THERE ARE TIMES WHERE IT IS NECESSARY FOR COUNCILS TO CREATE PRECEDENT, AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM. I REMAIN AND GOING FORWARD FULLY IN SUPPORT OF THIS AND ALSO THE SECOND AND THE THIRD.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. YEAH. I'M I'M STILL IN SUPPORT OF THE AMENDMENTS.

THERE IS STILL A LOT OF WORK TO DO AFTER THIS AREA, DEVELOPMENT PLANS, REZONING, SERVICE AGREEMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, ETC.. BUT APPROVING THIS TODAY IS JUST CONTINUING OUR PIPELINE OF LAND FOR HOUSING.

YES, WE HAVE A FEW INFILL LOTS, BUT NOT ALL OF THEM ARE ACROSS THE FINISH LINE AND SOME OF THEM MAY BE DELAYED WITH THE BIGGEST CHUNK OF LAND, THE TAYLOR ROAD ONE IS STILL A TBD, SO WE'RE REALLY ONLY LOOKING AT SOME SMALL CHUNKS OF LAND ON THOSE INFILL PROPERTIES.

AND THEN IF WE DON'T DO THOSE, THEN WE'RE GETTING TO THE PERIPHERIES, WHICH IS THE TRUCKED WATER AND SEWER VERSUS WEST RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS RIGHT BESIDE. SO DOES REQUIRE SOME INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT EASIER THAN, FOR EXAMPLE, GRAYSLAKE EXTENSIONS. AND AS I MENTIONED WHEN DISCUSSING THIS BEFORE, IF THERE'S SOMEBODY ELSE WHO HAS PRIVATE LAND THAT WANTS TO BUILD 200 TO 300 HOMES BUT CAN'T BECAUSE OF A COMMUNITY PLAN ISSUE, PLEASE REACH OUT.

I'D LOVE TO HEAR ABOUT IT AND TALK ABOUT HOW WE CAN ADVANCE THAT SO WE CAN STAY IN THE PASSENGER SEAT AND WAIT FOR PEOPLE TO TO DO ALL OUR PAPERWORK.

OR AGAIN, WE CAN JUMP IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT AND TRY TO GET SOME STUFF DONE.

AGAIN, THIS IS ABOUT THE LAND USE AND WHETHER IT'S MARKET OR NON-MARKET HOUSING, IT'S TOO EARLY TO SAY.

IT COULD BE SUBDIVIDED AND HABITAT COULD BUY IT.

WHATEVER. I KNOW DELANEY HAS BEEN LOOKING FOR PLENTY OF LAND TO TO BUILD HOMES FOR THEIR RESIDENTS,

[00:25:05]

SO I AM IN SUPPORT AS WELL AS THE OTHER TWO. COUNCILLOR WARBURTON FOR A SECOND ROUND.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. AGAIN, I, I THINK WE'RE GETTING TOO FOCUSED ON THE WEEDY BITS ONE DEVELOPER, ONE OWNER. WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE SIGNALING TO PEOPLE THAT WANT TO INVEST THEIR LIFE SAVINGS AND THEIR BUSINESS IN OUR CITY.

AND THIS SIGNALS THAT, HEY, WE HEAR YOU, WE SEE A NEED, AND WE CAN DO THIS LITTLE THING, A LITTLE THING TO BE HONEST TO, TO KIND OF MOVE THE NEEDLE FOR YOU. AGAIN, LIKE THE MAYOR SAID, ANYONE COMES WITH AN IDEA LIKE THIS.

HUNDREDS OF UNITS. I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. OUR JOB IS TO REMOVE BARRIERS AND HELP THE CITY GROW.

THAT'S OUR JOB. AND OUR TAX BASE. SO I DON'T I DON'T SEE US AS JUST ONE INDIVIDUAL THING.

WE ARE INDICATING WE ARE MORE OPEN FOR BUSINESS.

WE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO YET BECAUSE THAT TRUST IS NOT THERE.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE TALKED TO ANY OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY LATELY. THERE'S NOT A LOT OF TRUST THERE THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO THINGS IN THEIR INTEREST OR HELP THEM. RIGHT.

SO THIS IS SIGNALING TO THEM THAT WE ARE LISTENING.

AND SAME WITH THOSE OTHER TWO AMENDMENTS, THE WORK CAMP ONE AND THE SPECIAL AREA.

THOSE ARE THOSE ARE TO DO WITH ECONOMICS. THOSE ARE TO MAKE THE ECONOMY WORK BETTER.

AND THEY'RE VERY MINOR. SO AGAIN, STILL SUPPORTING IT.

BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE THINKING BIGGER HERE THAN JUST ONE LITTLE INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. ANYBODY FURTHER ON SECOND ROUND? COUNCILLOR HENDRIKSEN.

THANKS, MAYOR ALTY. YEAH. JUST IN RESPONSE TO TO THAT AND SOME OF THE OTHER COMMENTS, I DO RESPECT THE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION AROUND THE TABLE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, FOR ME, WHEN WE TALK WEEDY BITS, SOME SEE HOUSING, SOME SEE NO IMMEDIATE HOUSING AND THEREFORE A COMMUNITY PLAN REVIEW COMING UP IN THE NEXT YEAR AND A HALF THAT COULD CAPTURE ALL OF THIS AND HAVE THE ANALYSIS DONE WITH THAT.

AND SO FOR ME, IT'S NOT. AND I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THE FLIP SIDE OF MY OPINION IS BUT THAT, YOU KNOW, WASTES QUOTE UNQUOTE, A YEAR AND A HALF.

I SEE THAT AS TIME TAKEN TO DO THIS ANALYSIS APPROPRIATELY IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE WE HAVE A PROCESS HERE.

THAT'S MY THING, TOO. IT'S NOT LIKE WE DON'T HAVE A PROCESS AROUND THIS WORK.

IF WE DIDN'T HAVE A PROCESS AROUND IT, THEN I'D BE OPEN TO THIS BECAUSE WE DON'T AS A CITY, WE DON'T HAVE A STAKE IN THE GROUND AS A CITY OF HOW WE DO THESE THINGS.

BUT ON THIS WE DO. AND SO THAT'S MY CHALLENGE WITH THIS IS WE HAVE PLANTED OUR STAKE IN THE GROUND ON HOW THESE SORTS OF CHANGES SHOULD HAPPEN.

AND SO WHEN WE BREAK THAT, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TRUST WITH THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, FAIR ENOUGH THAT THEY MAY NOT SEE US PLOWING AHEAD FOR PEOPLE LIKE THEM WHO CURRENTLY HAVE EXISTING INVESTMENTS. BUT I WOULD, ON THE FLIP SIDE, SAY, WHEN WE START TO BREAK PROCESS LIKE THIS, WE CREATE AN AIR OF UNCERTAINTY IN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY FOR FOR FUTURE POTENTIAL INVESTORS, BECAUSE THEN THEY GO, WELL, WHY SHOULD I SPEND THE MONEY TO DO A COMMUNITY PLAN OR ZONING BYLAW CHANGE WHEN I CAN JUST TRY AND FIND SOMEBODY ON COUNCIL WHO WILL PITCH IT FOR ME? AND THAT'S MY CHALLENGES. SO I DO APPRECIATE THE IDEA OF, YOU KNOW, THE WEEDY BITS.

WE'RE JUST COMING AT THIS FROM DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.

SO IT'S NOT A TO ME, THIS ISN'T A, YOU KNOW, AN THIS ISN'T A MORAL OR AN ETHICAL THING.

THIS IS JUST FROM FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THERE'S A DIFFERENT PERCEIVED OUTCOME AT THE END AS A RESULT OF THE DIFFERENT CHOICES.

I RESPECT THE OTHER THE OTHER OPINION OF THIS.

IT'S JUST I DON'T HAVE THE SAME OUTLOOK ON WHAT THE OUTCOMES ARE.

SO THAT'S THAT. THANKS. THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR MCGURK.

NO, OKAY. ANY FURTHER? COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN. JUST A QUESTION ON PROCESS ABOUT SPLITTING IT. I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF, OF THE WORK CAMP ELEMENT.

BUT NOT THE FIRST TWO. IS IT, IS IT MEANINGFUL TO SPLIT THAT AT THIS POINT? I DON'T THINK WE CAN SPLIT A BYLAW BECAUSE IT'S NOT A MOTION.

SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO STRIKE IT. YOU'D HAVE TO PROPOSE THAT WE'RE STRIKING IT FROM THE BYLAW.

OKAY. DISREGARD THAT. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? TO THE MOTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? AND THAT CARRIES WITH COUNCILLOR HENDRIKSEN, MCLENNAN, FEQUET, AND MCGURK OPPOSED.

OH, YOU VOTED FOR IT. OH, SORRY. OKAY. SO WE SAW THAT.

THANK YOU. I WON'T READ THOSE OUT. BYLAW NUMBER 5103.

[Items 19 - 23]

[00:30:08]

I MOVE FIRST READING OF BYLAW NUMBER 5103. THANK YOU.

SECONDER. COUNCILLOR MCGURK, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AND THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILLOR PAYNE.

I MOVE SECOND READING OF BYLAW NUMBER 5103. THANK YOU.

SECONDER. COUNCILLOR ARDEN-SMITH. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AND THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

COUNCILLOR PAYNE. I MOVE THAT BYLAW NUMBER 5103 BE PRESENTED FOR THIRD READING.

THANK YOU. SECONDER. COUNCILLOR ARDEN-SMITH. ANY QUESTIONS COMMENTS DISCUSSION ON GOING TO THIRD READING.

SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AND THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

COUNCILLOR PAYNE. I MOVE THIRD READING OF BYLAW NUMBER 5103.

THANK YOU. SECONDER. COUNCILLOR COCHRANE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AND THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. THERE WAS NO DEFERRED BUSINESS AND THERE WERE NO TABLED ITEMS FOR THE AGENDA.

IS THERE ANY DEFERRED BUSINESS OR ARE THERE ANY TABLED ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR? THERE WAS NO OLD BUSINESS FOR THE AGENDA. IS THERE ANY OLD BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR? THERE WERE NO NOTICES OF MOTION FOR THE AGENDA.

ARE THERE ANY NOTICES OF MOTION FROM THE FLOOR? THERE WERE NO DELEGATIONS PERTAINING TO ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA.

THERE WERE NO ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRIES FOR THE AGENDA. ARE THERE ANY ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRIES FROM THE FLOOR? WITH THAT, IF I CAN GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN, MOVED BY COUNCILLOR MCGURK AND WE CAN BE ADJOURNED.

WE'LL SEE EVERYBODY. MONDAY, MARCH 17TH AT 12:05 P.M..

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.