Jun 24, 2025 Governance & Priorities Committee

[00:00:01]

GOVERNANCE AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE AGENDA. OPENING STATEMENT.

ALREADY DID THE OPENING STATEMENT. APPROVE OF THE AGENDA.

[2. Approval of the agenda.]

[3. Disclosure of conflict of interest and the general nature thereof.]

[4. A memorandum regarding whether to: 1. accept for information the findings and recommendations of the Final Report of the Water and Sewer Rate Structure Review by Inter Group Consultants; and 2. direct Administration to return to Council with an implementation plan and timeline based on the five year phased approach set out in the Final Report.]

SO THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE RECEIVED AND BE REMINDED OF THE PRESENTATION THEY RECEIVED LAST APRIL, APRIL 14TH. AND THEY WILL HAVE HAD THE REPORT FROM INTERGROUP FOR REVIEW.

AND TODAY WE HAVE OUR CONSULTANTS WITH US FROM INTERGROUP TO ANSWER ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS THAT MAY ARISE.

BUT I'D LIKE TO BRING TO COUNCIL'S ATTENTION THE THREE PRINCIPAL ISSUES THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT FROM THIS REPORT.

THERE IS INDEED A TECHNICAL QUESTION. THERE IS A COST RECOVERY SUSTAINABILITY QUESTION, AND THERE IS INDEED A POLICY QUESTION.

WITH RESPECT TO THE TECHNICAL ISSUE, I THINK THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE BY INTERGROUP SINCE 2023 HAS UNDERTAKEN AN EVIDENCE BASED APPROACH TO DO COMPARISON ANALYSIS OF SIMILAR APPROACHES TO COST RECOVERY AND MANAGING AND TRANSPARENCY, AND THE CALCULATION OF WATER RATES AND SEWER RATES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

AND I THINK THERE IS SOME SOUND ADVICE IN THERE FOR US TO CONSIDER.

THE STATUS QUO IS CERTAINLY NOT ONE THAT WOULD BE ADVISABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE WAY THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY TRACKING AND CALCULATING AND MEASURING AND REPORTING WITH RESPECT TO OUR WATER AND SEWER RATE ISSUE. WE NEED TO MOVE TO THE 21ST CENTURY, AND THAT 21ST CENTURY IS HERE NOW.

WITH RESPECT TO COST RECOVERY, THERE IS A SUSTAINABILITY QUESTION, AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE IMPETUS IN 2017 WHEN COUNCIL FIRST STARTED LOOKING AT THIS QUESTION, WHICH IS WHERE THIS WORK BEGAN IN EARNEST IN 2023.

AND FROM THAT WE HAVE SOME ADVICE WITH RESPECT TO SUSTAINABILITY THAT IS CONTAINED IN THE REPORT.

WITH RESPECT TO THE POLICY QUESTION THAT IS ARISEN.

I BELIEVE THE TECHNICIANS THAT HAVE WORKED ON THIS REPORT OFFER UP A RECOMMENDATION WITH RESPECT TO DRAWING MORE ATTENTION TO SPECIFIC CLASSES OF INFRASTRUCTURE, HIGHLIGHTING THAT TRUCKED WATER SERVICE DOES IS A CLASS OF ITS OWN AND REQUIRES SOME TRANSPARENCY WITH RESPECT TO TRACKING THOSE COSTS AND BRINGING THOSE COSTS TO THE ATTENTION OF RATEPAYERS.

THAT IS ALL TRUE. WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE OF CROSS-SUBSIDIZATION, CROSS-SUBSIDIZATION IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT IS A QUESTION FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER. AT WHAT PORTION OUR RATES CROSS-SUBSIDIZED? TO WHAT CLASSES ARE THEY SUBSIDIZED AGAINST? AND HOW DO YOU BALANCE COSTS OVERALL? WE ARE IN A SITUATION IN WHICH SUSTAINABILITY IS A QUESTION FACING A VARIETY OF COST STREAMS FOR THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE.

AND THIS IS JUST ABOUT ONE. SO TODAY WE'RE LOOKING FOR COUNCIL TO PROVIDE US THE DIRECTION THAT WE REQUIRE TO TAKE THE FULLNESS OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AND COME BACK WITH SOME OPTIONS ON HOW TO IMPLEMENT.

I WILL DRAW ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE'VE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF INTERESTED LETTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT HAVE HIGHLIGHTED THAT OUR IDENTIFICATION OF TRUCK SERVICE DELIVERY IS HIGH IN THE MINDS OF THOSE THAT ARE IN RECEIPT OF TRUCK DELIVERY SERVICE.

THAT IS IS CONSEQUENTIAL WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE RECEIVED IN TERMS OF VOLUME.

AND THE CONSULTANTS DID SPEAK TO THIS ISSUE IN THEIR REPORT, AND I WOULD DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN THE REPORT THAT DO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT TRUCK SERVICE DELIVERY IS A SERVICE AVAILABLE ACROSS MANY OTHER COMMUNITIES IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES AND IN NUNAVUT.

IT IS ALSO A SERVICE WITH WHICH I REQUIRE SOME CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF TRANSPARENCY OF COST CALCULATION.

AND IT IS ALSO A SERVICE THAT IN MANY OTHER COMMUNITIES CONTINUES TO BE CROSS-SUBSIDIZED.

THE PROPOSAL BEFORE COUNCIL TODAY IS TO HEAR FROM COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT, WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS MAY BE, AND THEN TO DIRECT US TO COME BACK WITH THE BASIS OF COUNCIL'S INPUT TODAY TO COME BACK DURING BUDGET 2026 DELIBERATIONS, WITH A SERIES OF OPTIONS ON HOW WE WOULD PRESENT AND IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSALS THAT ARE CONTAINED WITHIN THIS CONSULTANT REPORT. SO WITH THAT, MR.

[00:05:04]

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. VAN DINE. SO WE'LL TAKE QUESTIONS.

I IMAGINE IT'S A COUPLE. ANYONE? COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN WANT TO START? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO EMAILED IN AND FOR THE CONSULTANTS FOR ALL THEIR WORK.

SO JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO PAGE THREE OF THE MEMO.

AND JUST FOR MY UNDERSTANDING OF WATER AND SEWER NETWORK.

SO DOES THE WHOLE PIPE NETWORK FUNCTION AS A WHOLE? BASICALLY WHAT I'M GETTING AT HERE IS IF THE PIPES ARE REPLACED NEAR RANGE LAKE OR FINLAYSON.

IS THAT NECESSARY TO PROVIDE WATER ANYWHERE IN THE CITY? MR. VAN DINE. ALRIGHTY. I'M GOING TO ACTUALLY INVITE MR. GREENCORN TO RESPOND TO THIS QUESTION, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

AND I BELIEVE, JUST TO PARAPHRASE, IF THE WORK REQUIRED TO THE SCALE ON PIPES IN ONE PART OF THE CITY WAS IMPACTED, WOULD THAT AFFECT DISTRIBUTION AND DELIVERY FOR THE WHOLE.

IS THAT OKAY, MR. GREENCORN? I'LL USE A HORRIBLE ANSWER.

IT DEPENDS. IF IT'S IN A SPECIFIC LOOP, SUCH AS PUMPHOUSE 4, AND IT IMPACTS IF IT'S A FILL LINE, IF IT'S ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT SYSTEM. A LOT OF OUR TRUCK SERVICES ARE FILLED OFF PUMPHOUSE 4.

THAT'S NOT TO SAY IT CAN'T BE DONE. WE ALSO HAVE ANOTHER TRUCK FILL DOWN AT A SCHOOL DRAW.

SO THERE ARE IMPACTS, BUT I WOULDN'T SAY THAT THEY'RE COMPLETELY ISOLATED.

OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. YEAH. CLASSIC ANSWER. IT'S COMPLICATED.

AND SO JUST A QUESTION ABOUT A LOT OF, THE SORT OF FEEDBACK, WE GOT WAS ABOUT CHANGING THESE, THIS RATE STRUCTURE WHEN THE CHOICES PEOPLE HAD TO MAKE WERE SET AND DETERMINED BY THE CITY.

SO DOESN'T MIN FEEL IT'S FAIR TO CHANGE THESE FEES FOR EXISTING USERS WHO MADE DECISIONS BASED ON AN OLD RATE STRUCTURE? MR. VAN DINE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO DELVE IN A LITTLE DEEPER.

SO YOU'LL NOTE THAT WE DID NOT RECEIVE AS MANY CARDS AND LETTERS FROM PEOPLE THAT WOULD RECEIVE A DECREASE IN THEIR CURRENT COST BASED ON THE PROPOSAL THAT'S PUT FORWARD. AND I WOULD SAY THAT THAT DECREASE WE WOULD LOOK TO TRY AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IN ANY KIND OF OPTIONS THAT WE BRING FORWARD, THAT WE WOULD BALANCE OUT THOSE DECREASES BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME KNOWN PRACTICES TODAY THAT ARE BEING RECOMMENDED THAT WE ALTER IN TERMS OF HOW WE'RE MEASURING AND, AND TRYING TO TILT IT TOWARDS MORE OF A CONSUMPTION BASED APPROACH THAN, THAN THE CURRENT ONE.

ON THE ON THE QUESTION OF FAIRNESS THE OPTIONS THAT WILL BE BROUGHT BACK FORWARD TO COUNCIL WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT CROSS-SUBSIDIZATION RATE. THAT CERTAINLY DOESN'T SPEAK TO PAST LAND DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS.

WE ARE NOT GOING TO KIND OF LOOK TO RELITIGATE ANY KINDS OF DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN POSED BY PAST CITY COUNCILS OR PAST COMMUNITY PLANS. WE WILL LOOK AT THE FULLNESS OF THE CURRENT PICTURE AND TRY AND LOOK AT HOW TO BALANCE OUT THE CROSS-SUBSIDIZATION LEVELS IN THE OPTIONS THAT WE BRING FORWARD. I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. YEAH.

AND JUST A COMMENT. LIKE I THINK, LIKE EVERYONE WHO'S EMAILED US AND EVERYONE UP HERE, I THINK HAS A FEELING ABOUT HOW THIS WOULD CHANGE THE INCENTIVES BEFORE RESIDENTS IN TERMS OF BUYING A HOME AND THE INCENTIVES BEFORE THE CITY IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT.

AT LEAST GET A COMMENT FROM ADMIN ON HOW THEY FEEL, THIS SORT OF RATE STRUCTURE WOULD CHANGE THE INCENTIVES FOR BOTH RESIDENTS AND THE CITY.

MR. VAN DINE. SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, WELL, THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS, I THINK TO RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION, CERTAINLY THE CURRENT OCCUPANTS AND CURRENT USERS AND CONSUMERS OF THE SYSTEM WILL, IF WE DO OUR WORK APPROPRIATELY AND CORRECTLY, WE'LL HAVE A SIMPLER BILL. WE'LL HAVE A BILL THAT'S ARGUABLY MORE FAIR AND BALANCED, WILL BE MORE CONSUMPTION BASED, WILL GIVE THE RATEPAYER A BETTER SENSE OF WHAT BEHAVIORS AND CONSUMPTION PATTERNS WILL CONTRIBUTE TO EITHER INCREASES OR DECREASES TO THEIR BILL, FAR BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE TODAY.

FOR FUTURE POTENTIAL USERS IN TERMS OF INCENTIVES, WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO DO IS HAVE THIS IN PLACE FOR THE BENEFIT OF OTHERS.

[00:10:07]

WHAT LEVEL OF DENSITY THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO INCORPORATE.

THOSE ARE THOSE ARE FAIRLY IMPORTANT LAND AND DEVELOPMENT BASED QUESTIONS THAT THIS REPORT REALLY DOESN'T SPEAK TO IN TERMS OF INCENTING OR DEINCENTING, OTHER THAN, I THINK, ON PAR. AS I'M TOLD, BY PAST COUNCILS AND PAST COMMUNITY PLANS.

THE DIRECTION THAT SEEMS TO BE PREVAILING IS PIPED IS MORE SUSTAINABLE THAN TRUCK. AND SO WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO TRY AND DEVELOP IN A MANNER THAT SUPPORTS THAT GENERAL CONCLUSION AS WE MOVE FORWARD IN THIS REPORT.

AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE IDEAS WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT RELATIVE DIRECTION.

THANKS. YEAH, JUST SORT OF A COMMENT ON THAT.

JUST BASED ON THE COMPLEXITY AND THE INCREASING COSTS WE'VE SEEN FOR LIFT STATION, PUMPHOUSE, THE SUBMARINE WATERLINE, ALL OF THIS SORT OF STUFF. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT SORT OF SHIFTING THE MAJORITY OF THE TRUCKED WATER COSTS ONTO USERS WOULD CREATE AN INCENTIVE FOR US, AS THE CITY TO DEVELOP MORE TRUCK AREAS BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER TO DO.

WE CAN STRETCH OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT FUND OR LAND FUND DOLLARS FURTHER.

AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE STAFF AND HUGE CAPITAL PROJECTS TO MAINTAIN COMPLICATED INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO IT'S JUST A CONCERN OF MINE THAT'S SHIFTING MOST OF THE COST TO PARTICULAR USERS CREATES AN INCENTIVE FOR US TO JUST CONTINUE TO DO THAT AND DEVELOP IN A WAY THAT IS LESS SUSTAINABLE. ON PAGE FOUR AND REFLECTED IN A BUNCH OF THE COMMENTS, HAVE WE CONSIDERED SPLITTING TRUCKED RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USERS AS THEY ARE FOR PIPED USERS? MR. VAN DINE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I'LL INVITE MR. NIGHTINGALE FROM OUR CONSULTING FIRM TO LOOK AT THE PARSING OF DIFFERENT RATES.

IF YOU DON'T MIND, MR. NIGHTINGALE. SURE. THANK YOU.

YOU CAN HEAR ME. I GOT KICKED OFF THE SYSTEM THERE.

WE CAN HEAR YOU. OKAY. YES. THERE'S THERE'S ONE CLASS FOR THE FOR THE TRUCK SERVICES BECAUSE IN THE FEE STRUCTURE FOR THE PIPE SERVICES, OF COURSE, YOU'VE GOT TO MANAGE PEAK DEMAND. SO THE SYSTEM HAS TO BE BUILT TO MANAGE PEAK DEMAND.

YOU'VE GOT THOSE KINDS OF COSTS IN YOUR TRUCK, IN YOUR PIPE SERVICES SYSTEM.

AND THE TRUCK SERVICE, IT'S JUST ADDITIONAL TRUCKS.

SO THERE'S NO REAL COST BASIS TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS UNDER THE TRUCK SYSTEM.

SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE REALLY ALL, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE IN COST TO SERVE THEM.

IT'S JUST MORE TRUCKS. OKAY. UNDERSTOOD.

AND THEN ONE QUESTION. SO THERE WAS A DISCUSSION FROM KEVIN HODGINS, WHO'S SUBMITTED A LETTER AND HAD A BACK AND FORTH AND WAS DISCUSSING. SO I'LL JUST READ FROM HIS LETTER.

THE CITY IS SUGGESTING IN THE WATER AND SEWER RATE STRUCTURE REVIEW FINAL REPORT THAT DELIVERY OF WATER IS HIGHER BY TRUCKED THAN BY PIPED CONNECTION.

THE CITY COULD HAVE ALLOCATED THE PROFIT FROM THE SALE OF GRACE LAKE LOTS TO THE WATER AND SEWER FUND TO OFFSET FUTURE WATER AND SEWER TRUCKING COSTS, THEREBY REDUCING OR ELIMINATING THE SUGGESTED INTEREST RATE SUBSIDIZATION.

SO JUST SOME QUESTIONS ON THAT POINT. WAS THERE MORE, I KNOW IT'S NOT LIKE PROFIT INTO SOMEONE'S POCKET, BUT LIKE PROFIT. A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALE COST AND WHAT IT COST US TO DEVELOP GRACE LAKE LOTS THAN, SAY, A PIPED AREA LIKE SPENCER ROAD. MR. VAN DINE.

YEAH. SO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COSTS. IT COSTS A LOT.

AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF COSTS THAT WE ATTRIBUTE TO THE LOT.

WE TRY TO GET FAIR MARKET APPRAISAL FOR A LOT.

WE DO THE LOT DISPOSITION THAT LAND ADMINISTRATION BY-LAW LAYS OUT, THE PROCESSES OF IT.

I WOULD URGE COUNCIL TO AVERT THEIR EYES AWAY FROM TRYING TO DRAW THE ATTENTION BETWEEN AN ACTUAL LAND, AN OUTDATED WATER AND SEWER ADMINISTRATION PIECE AND FUTURE LAND DEVELOPMENT COSTS.

[00:15:08]

WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE ASSOCIATED WITH CALCULATING COSTS OF EXISTING SERVICES.

IF IF PEOPLE ARE LOOKING TO TRY AND ARGUE WHETHER A PIPE SERVICE CALCULATION IS DIFFERENT THAN A TRUCK SERVICE CALCULATION, AND ARE WE BEING UNFAIR IN THE CALCULATION AND THE ASSIGNMENT OF THOSE.

I'LL INVITE MR. NIGHTINGALE TO WALK US THROUGH THE ANALYTICS ASSOCIATED WITH CALCULATING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROVIDING WATER AND SEWER BETWEEN TRUCK AND, SORRY, TRUCK AND PIPE SERVICES.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF YOU LOOK AT GRACE LAKE, IF YOU LOOK AT NIVEN, IF YOU LOOK AT OTHER DEVELOPMENTS, I THINK THAT MIGHT TAKE US DOWN AN ANALYTICAL JOURNEY THAT WON'T GET US TO A VERY CONSTRUCTIVE PLACE.

BUT MAYBE, MR. NIGHTINGALE, IF YOU CAN JUST MAYBE TALK TO US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CALCULATING PIPE AND TRUCK WITH RESPECT TO GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENTS? SURE. WE DIDN'T LOOK AT THE WHOLE LAND DEVELOPMENT POLICY PIECE.

IT WASN'T IN OUR ORIGINAL TERMS OF REFERENCE. SO, HOW THE CITY, YOU KNOW, DISPOSAL, SELLS AND DEVELOPS LAND.

WE'RE NOT AWARE OF. WE PROBABLY LOOKED AT COSTS, AND THAT, OF COURSE, IS AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE THREE IN YOUR MEMO.

JUST SIMPLY LOOKING AT COSTS ALONE. FOR TRUCK SERVICES, THE CONTRACTED SERVICES ALONE, REGARDLESS OF ANY O&M, OVERHEAD OR WHATNOT. DO NOT, YOU KNOW, DO NOT BE ENCUMBERED BY THE REVENUE.

SO WE LOOKED AT THAT AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS, OUR RECOMMENDATION HAS ALWAYS BEEN BE AWARE OF THE COST, BE AWARE OF THE TRUE COST OF SERVICE. IF COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, DETERMINES PREROGATIVE TO TRY TO FURTHER MITIGATE THOSE COST INCREASES TO TRUCK CUSTOMERS. YOU KNOW, WE CAN LOOK AT OPTIONS TO DO THAT, BUT CERTAINLY BE AWARE OF THE TRUE COST.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT FUTURE DECISIONS. YOU KNOW, SO IF YOU GET A, FOR EXAMPLE, A LARGE BUSINESS THAT WANTS TO A LARGE BUSINESS THAT USES A LOT OF WATER, THAT WANTS TO BE ESTABLISHED IN A TRUCK SERVICES AREA, BECAUSE MAYBE THE LAND'S CHEAPER, KNOW THE FULL COST GOING IN AND MAKE THE DECISION BASED ON THAT, SO THAT YOU'RE NOT IMPACTING THE MARKET, YOU DON'T HAVE INDIVIDUALS MOVING IN TO GET, OKAY, WELL WATER SUBSIDIZE ANYWAY, YOU KNOW, AND IT JUST TAKES MORE TRUCK, SO WE'LL SET UP THERE.

I THINK THAT'S A CRITICAL CONSIDERATION THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING TOWARDS, SO I THINK THERE ARE OPTIONS TO MITIGATE THOSE COSTS, BUT IDENTIFY THE SUBSIDY AND GO WITH THE TRUE COSTS AS A DECIDING VARIABLE.

THANKS FOR THAT.

AND THAT MAKES A TON OF SENSE TO ME. WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH MORE IS THAT NO ONE SEEMS TO , UP UNTIL THIS POINT, FULLY COMPREHENDED AND MADE DECISIONS BASED ON THE TRUE COST OF SERVICE.

NEITHER US IN DEVELOPING MORE TRUST AREAS NOR CUSTOMERS IN CHOOSING WHERE TO BUY HOME BECAUSE IT WASN'T APPARENT TO ANYBODY OR WE JUST DIDN'T CHOOSE TO NOTICE.

SO IT'S A CONCERN OF MINE THAT OUR SOLUTION WITH REGARD TO FUTURE DECISION IS TO DUMP ALL OF THAT COST ONTO PEOPLE WHO OWN A HOME AND WHO ARE SET IN THEIR DECISION MAKING, AND WHO MADE THAT DECISION BASED ON A PREVIOUS ASSUMPTION.

YEAH. AND I THINK THE ANALYTICAL JOURNEY AND HOW THOSE INCENTIVES FALL OUT AND HOW DO WE GET TO A MORE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN YELLOWKNIFE IS WHAT I REALLY WANT TO GET AT. AND I'M UNSURE WHETHER THE SHIFTING A HUGE CHUNK OF THE COST ONTO SPECIFIC USERS WHO HAVE ALREADY MADE A DECISION AND CANNOT MAKE A DIFFERENT ONE NOW IS THE WAY TO GO.

I'VE GOT A SORT OF LONGER QUESTION, BUT I'LL PASS IT TO MY COLLEAGUES.

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

FIRSTLY, I WANT TO THANK THE COMMUNITY AND EVERYBODY FOR BEING SO ENGAGED AND SHARING THEIR THOUGHTS.

OUR CITY MANAGER SAID A NUMBER OF EMAILS. DOZENS AND DOZENS.

HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF LETTERS AND EMAILS CAME IN ON THIS.

TO SHARE, THOUGH, WITH YOU WHAT WE SAW AS COUNCIL BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT EACH OTHER WERE SAYING.

A LOT OF THE SUBMISSIONS THAT WE RECEIVED RECOGNIZED THAT THE CURRENT RATE SYSTEM WAS FROM THE 90S,

[00:20:04]

A LOT OF THE SUBMISSIONS ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE CURRENT RATE FEES ARE NOT PROVIDING FULL COST RECOVERY.

AND SO IN ORDER TO BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE AND TO LOOK OUT FOR YELLOWKNIFE FUTURE, WE AS COUNCILORS HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT.

AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE ALL HERE TODAY. AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE US WITH SUCH AN IMPORTANT DECISION BEFORE US TO TAKE AS MANY CONVERSATIONS AS WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE GET THIS RIGHT. SECONDLY, I FULLY AGREE WITH MOST OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE REPORT.

I AGREE THAT RESIDENTS BILLS SHOULD BE SIMPLIFIED AND WE DO AWAY WITH THE EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS AS PART OF THE ACCESS FEES.

WE NEED TO BETTER DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WATER AND SEWER COSTS AND CHARGES, AND ENSURE THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE IS OPERATING AT 100% COST RECOVERY.

I AGREE THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY SHOULD BE ROLLED INTO THE SEWER AND WATER RATES, AND THE RATE STRUCTURE ONLY INCLUDE DEMAND AND CONSUMPTION CHANGES AT SOME POINT IN THE NEAR FUTURE. HOWEVER, BASED ON THE INFORMATION I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME AT THIS TIME IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT WE RECOGNIZE POTABLE WATER IS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT, AND RESIDENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE DIFFERENT RATES BASED ON WHERE IN THE CITY THEY CHOOSE TO LIVE. NOR PASS DECISIONS THAT THE CITY OR DEVELOPERS MADE. THEY SHOULD, HOWEVER, PAY BASED ON CONSUMPTION, SO THOSE USING MORE WATER SHOULD PAY MORE FEES, ABSOLUTELY. SO TO BE CLEAR, FOR ANYONE WHO CONSIDERS THIS SUBSIDIZATION, THEN YES, IN THIS INSTANCE, THAT'S WHAT I SUPPORT. I SUPPORT IT JUST LIKE THE CITY CURRENTLY DOES, FOR THE USE OF ITS TRANSIT AND ITS RECREATION FACILITIES AND ALL THE OTHER SERVICES IT PROVIDES. MANY RESIDENTS WHO TOOK THE TIME TO REACH OUT ACTUALLY SAID THAT SIMILAR TO THE REPAIRS OF ROADS AND OUR SIDEWALKS AND OUR USE OF OUR FACILITIES.

THESE ARE ALL SHARED BY TAXPAYERS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY USE THEM OR NOT.

AND PEOPLE SUGGESTED THAT IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE ACCEPTABLE TO SHARE THE BURDEN AS A COMMUNITY IF WE HAVE TO BE MORE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE.

I AGREE THAT THIS IS ONE OF THOSE INSTANCES WHERE THE COLLECTIVE COMMUNITY HAS TO GRAPPLE WITH RISING COSTS, THAT'S OUR REALITY, AND THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T FUNCTION EFFECTIVELY IF YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THE SERVICES AND PEOPLE TO OFFER THEM BEING ABLE TO LIVE AND THRIVE IN THE COMMUNITY.

BEFORE MAKING A DECISION OF THIS MAGNITUDE. THE ONE.

I HAD 100 QUESTIONS WHEN I WAS READING EVERYTHING, BUT FOR ME IT ALL BOILED DOWN TO JUST ONE QUESTION OR REQUEST.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW OR SEE, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE, A TABLE THAT SHOWS ALL THE USER RATES AND HOW THEY WOULD CHANGE FROM THEIR CURRENT FEES IF WE WANTED ONE RATE FOR ALL USERS, REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY LIVED, REGARDLESS OF CLASS, THAT GAVE US FULL RECOVERY ACROSS THE SYSTEM AND RESULTED IN THE LOWEST POSSIBLE PERCENT INCREASE TO ALL USERS.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF INTERGROUP DID THAT WORK OR HAS AN IDEA OF WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE, AND I DON'T EXPECT SO.

BUT IF YOU DON'T, THAT IS A REQUEST THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TO ADMIN.

MR. VAN DINE. IS THAT CLEAR? THE QUESTION BEING ASKED THERE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO I BELIEVE SO, YES. AND SO THE REQUEST THAT WE'RE MAKING OF COUNCIL TODAY IS TO INVITE US TO COME BACK WITH INFORMATION JUST LIKE THAT. IN TERMS OF LAYING OUT THE VARIOUS OPTIONS THAT HAVE PUT FORWARD.

I'D LIKE TO JUST UNDERSCORE A COUPLE OF QUICK POINTS.

SOME OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS WILL REQUIRE SOME LEVELING OUT.

THERE ARE SOME SIGNIFICANT REDUCTIONS TO SOME CLASSES THAT ARE HERE.

AND SO SOME OF THOSE REDUCTIONS ARE AIMED AT SOME RESIDENTIAL USES, SOME HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES IN WHICH HOUSING IS DEEMED A PRIORITY FOR THE COMMUNITY.

IF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DELIVERY OF THOSE SERVICES COULD BE REDUCED IN SOME MEANINGFUL WAY, INCLUDING THESE KINDS OF CHARGES. THOSE ARE THINGS THAT COUNCIL WILL BE REMINDED OF WHEN WE BRING OUR ADVICE FORWARD.

SO ON BALANCE, WE WILL BE BE BRINGING FORWARD A SET OF OPTIONS THAT WILL GIVE COUNCIL A GAZE AS TO HOW BALANCE AND CROSS-SUBSIDIZATION WILL CONTINUE IN A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS, BUT CROSS-SUBSIDIZATION WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WILL BE DEFINITELY UNDERSCORED. GREAT. THANK YOU.

COUNCILLOR COCHRANE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MY QUESTIONS HAVE BASICALLY BEEN ANSWERED, SO THERE'S NOT REALLY MUCH TO DO ON THAT ONE.

GOOD TO HEAR ABOUT CROSS-SUBSIDIZATION, THE BALANCE GOING FORWARD.

IN THE END THIS IS JUST GOING TO PRESENT OPTIONS FOR US COME BUDGET.

I FULLY SUPPORT THIS ALL MOVING FORWARD WITH A VARIETY OF OPTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED.

BUT THE REALITY IS AS OF THIS YEAR, WE WILL BE GOING INTO A $1.9 MILLION DEFICIT IN OUR WATER AND SEWAGE FUND.

IT HAS TO BE FIXED. THERE IS GOING TO BE AN INCREASE SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE.

[00:25:04]

SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS THIS WAS A BUDGET ITEM FOR 2026.

CORRECT? NOT BEFORE THEN. CORRECT. THANK YOU.

COUNCILLOR HENDRIKSEN, OR MAYOR. SORRY. I WON'T HOLD IT AGAINST YOU.

SO A COUPLE QUESTIONS. SOME HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED, BUT I'M GOING TO PROBABLY HIT THEM AT A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

BEFORE THAT, JUST THANKS FOR THE CONSULTANTS FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS.

YOU'VE DONE EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE ASKED TO DO IN TERMS OF PROVIDING THIS BACKGROUND AND PROVIDING THE THE ANALYTICAL, TECHNICAL PIECE, AS THE CITY MANAGER SAID. YOU KNOW, AS THE CITY MANAGER ALSO MENTIONED.

IT'S OUR JOB NOW TO TACKLE THOSE POLICY QUESTIONS.

AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE ISSUES THAT GOING BACK TO WHEN THE INTERIM REPORT CAME TO COUNCIL IN 2023 TO THE FINAL REPORT COMING BACK IN APRIL.

AND I GENUINELY MEAN ALMOST EVERY DAY LOOKING AT THIS FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE, I SEE SOMETHING ELSE EVERY SINGLE TIME.

SO WITH THAT I'LL GET INTO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS, BUT I THINK JUST THAT REALITY SHOWS SORT OF THE COMPLEXITY BEHIND IT, THE CHALLENGES IN TERMS OF THE CITY'S BUDGETARY PIECES, AS COUNCILLOR COCHRANE WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF THE REALITIES THERE, IN TERMS OF THE SUBSIDIZATION, NOT BETWEEN USERS, BUT OF THE CITY PROPERTY TAX BASE SUBSIDIZING THE WATER USAGE BASE THAT WE HAVE TO TACKLE.

SO JUST OUT OF THE GATE BEFORE WE EVEN HIT THE QUESTIONS.

I AGREE WITH WHAT COUNCILLOR FEQUET SAID THERE, TOO. I AM BEHIND ALL OF THE PIECES AROUND THE BILLING SIMPLICITY PROCESS MOVING FORWARD.

AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, SEEING THE REALITIES FROM AS PART OF BUDGET 2026 AND HOW THOSE WILL WORK OUT, I WANT TO SEE IT MOVE FORWARD AS PART OF BUDGET 2026.

THE QUESTION THAT THE ISSUE THAT I STILL HAVE IS THIS TRUCKED PIPE PIECE.

AND SO NOW I'LL CUT TO THE CHASE ON SOME OF THE QUESTIONS.

SO COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN ALREADY SORT OF ASKED THIS OR HE DID ASK THIS QUESTION, BUT I MAY HIT IT FROM A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.

BUT IF WE PUT, HYPOTHETICALLY, 90% OR MORE OF THE COST OF WATER AND SEWER SERVICES FOR TRUCK PROPERTY OWNERS, TO THEM ALONE RATHER THAN SORT OF WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR NOT, YOU KNOW, OR FOR DEVELOPING CERTAIN AREAS IN THE PAST. FROM THE CITY ADMINISTRATION PERSPECTIVE, WHAT DID YOU SEE AS THE INCENTIVE FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL TO STOP PROPOSING TO COUNCILS, OR TO BUTTRESS COUNCILS WHO PROPOSED THEMSELVES, YOU KNOW, EASIER DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE ON TRUCKED WATER? AND I'M THINKING KAM LAKE 2.0 AS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE THAT WE DISCUSSED A FEW MONTHS AGO, AND ALL OF US SORT OF SAID YES, PROCEED WITH THE, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERATIONS OF DEVELOPING THAT AREA.

BUT WE'RE ALL HYPER CONSCIOUS THAT WE IDEALLY DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT ON TRUCKED WATER BECAUSE OF THIS SCENARIO.

SO FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE OF THINGS, DO YOU SEE THE POTENTIAL THAT FUTURE COUNCILS WILL WANT TO TAKE THE EASY ROAD AND JUST PUT IT ON TRACK, BECAUSE THE UPFRONT CAPITAL IS LOWER? AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO HEAR THAT.

BUT IF YOU DO AGREE WITH THAT, WHAT DO YOU SEE AS THE DISINCENTIVE FOR COUNCILS TO NOT MAKE THAT DECISION OTHER THAN JUST MAKING GOOD DECISIONS? BECAUSE IF WE LEAN ON ONLY MAKING QUALITY DECISIONS, I MEAN, IF IT'S BASED ON FACT AND REALITY, YOU MIGHT BE JUDGING US RIGHT NOW FOR SPEAKING ABOUT THIS.

BUT WE LOOK AT THE HISTORY AND WE SEE THAT TRUCK HAS BEEN THE EASY WAY OUT IN TERMS OF THAT.

SO IT'S A LOADED QUESTION, BUT I'M INTERESTED TO KNOW FROM THE CITY ADMIN, DO YOU SEE THIS AS A POTENTIAL, YOU KNOW, MORAL HAZARD? AND IF YOU DO, WHAT DO YOU THINK STOPS FUTURE ADMINISTRATIONS, FUTURE COUNCILS FROM DEVELOPING OUT MORE TRUCKED WATER AND HAVING THAT RCC RATIO THAT'S TALKED ABOUT IN THE REPORT FROM, YOU KNOW, CONTINUOUSLY INCREASING.

MR. VAN DINE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO THERE'S A LOT THERE.

AND I THINK IT RELATES TO RELATES TO COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN'S COMMENTS EARLIER.

AND I'LL COME BACK AGAIN TO SORT OF SAY JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS WITH RESPECT TO THIS SPECIFIC REPORT, AND THEN I'LL GET TO THE, THE LARGER QUESTIONS THAT YOU'VE PROPOSED IN A MOMENT.

ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT POSITIVES OF THIS REPORT THAT WE HOPE THAT GOES FORWARD WILL BE AN ARTICULATION AND TRANSPARENCY TO THE LEVEL OF A COST PERTAINING TO A

[00:30:05]

AND WITH THAT INFORMATION, WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT THAT WILL BE ONE IMPORTANT STEP FOR FUTURE COUNCILS TO BE ABLE TO WITNESS AND OBSERVE AND MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT TRADE OFFS IT'S PREPARED TO TAKE AT ANY GIVEN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL THAT COMES FORWARD.

AND FOR RESIDENTS AND FOR COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES CURRENTLY ON TRACK GOING FORWARD, I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED THAT AS WE BRING OUR OPTIONS FORWARD, THERE WILL BE A COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT THAT WILL BE RELATIVELY CLEARLY IDENTIFIED.

WHAT THAT TRANSLATES INTO AN ACTUAL FEE OR, WILL BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT BASED ON THE COMMENTS BECAUSE OF THE CROSS-SUBSIDIZATION.

BUT WE BELIEVE TRANSPARENCY AND CLEAR INFORMATION IS THE BEST ROUTE TOWARDS MAKING POSITIVE DECISIONS OR INFORMED DECISIONS AROUND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR COMMUNITY. SO THERE ARE NO, QUOTE UNQUOTE, "HARD GUARDRAILS" TO PREVENT FUTURE COUNCILS FROM BEING ADDICTED TO TRUCKS, AND THEY MAY CHOOSE TO BE, FOR WHATEVER REASON, WE WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE THAT.

I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE IN THE FULLNESS OF TIME, THE ABILITY FOR YELLOWKNIFE TO LOOK PARTICULARLY THROUGH THE CURRENT COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS THAT'S UNDERWAY THAT WE'RE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO ENGAGE IN.

WE HAVE A PRESENTATION THAT'S COMING LATER IN TODAY'S AGENDA WITH RESPECT TO OUR CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN.

WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT DECISIONS THAT WE TAKE IN THE COMING, OR OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT TAKE WITH RESPECT TO INVESTMENTS IN OUR COMMUNITY, WHETHER IT'S DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE OR OTHERS, THAT IN TOTAL, HOPEFULLY WE CAN BRING FORWARD DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS THAT SEE A MORE SUSTAINABLE PATH. I'LL JUST TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT FINANCING ARRANGEMENTS TODAY AND MODELS THAT DIDN'T EXIST PREVIOUSLY.

SO WHEN YELLOWKNIFE STARTED ON ITS JOURNEY WAY BACK WHEN, THOSE OPTIONS WERE 100% FUNDED IN A PARTICULAR MANNER AROUND CAPITAL BUDGETS.

GOING FORWARD, THERE MIGHT BE OTHER ALTERNATIVE FINANCING ARRANGEMENTS THAT THAT DON'T BEAR THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SERVICES PLUMBED OR TRUCKED OR SORRY PIPED THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO OFFSET OR BE MORE FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE.

ALL THIS TO SAY, MR. CHAIR, THE FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF YELLOWKNIFE, I BELIEVE IS A TIMELY ONE.

I BELIEVE THERE ARE SOME INTERESTING QUESTIONS FACING THE COMMUNITY.

I BELIEVE THIS REPORT AND MOVING FORWARD IN THE DIRECTION THAT IT RECOMMENDS ON HOW WE CALCULATE WILL BE AN IMPORTANT PATH AND MEANS BY WHICH THE CITY CAN TAKE BETTER DECISIONS ON ITS FUTURE.

AND THAT'S REALLY FROM MY STANDPOINT, WHAT WE'RE AIMING TO ACHIEVE HERE IS HOW TO COME ABOUT BETTER DECISION MAKING, AND I BELIEVE THIS IS A POSITIVE STEP TOWARDS THAT APPROACH.

ANY MORE QUESTIONS? YEP, THANKS FOR THAT. YEAH.

QUESTION FOR THE CONSULTANTS. SO ON PAGE TWO OF YOUR F INAL REPORT, IT SPEAKS TO COMMUNITY GARDENS, SERVICES, SURFACE LINES AND HAVING A TOTAL COST OF 320 GRAND ATTRIBUTED TO TRUCK, BUT WHICH ISN'T SORT OF CAPTURED WITHIN THE COST BECAUSE THOSE SERVICES GO UNCHARGED.

SO IF WE CHARGED, SAY, THE COMMUNITY GARDENS FOR THE PORTION OF USAGE THAT THEY USE WHICH WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT WHEN THEY WERE CREATED.

I KNOW WE DON'T CHARGE THEM, BUT THAT WASN'T THEIR ORIGINAL INTENT, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING AND, YOU KNOW, COMMUNITY GARDEN BOARD MIGHT NOT LIKE ME HERE, BUT AS A COMMUNITY GARDEN MEMBER AND ALSO AS A CITY COUNCILLOR, THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN AND JUST HASN'T. BUT WOULD IT NOT BE TRUE OVER TIME THAT IF WE STARTED CHARGING FOR, YOU KNOW, SERVICES LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE SURFACE WATER LINE DISCUSSION, WHICH IS YET COMPLETE AS A CITY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T DECIDED WHAT TO DO WITH THOSE IN THE FUTURE. KEEP THEM, YOU KNOW, HAVE A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT CHARGE.

DO WE REMOVE THEM? WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN INTO THAT DISCUSSION REALLY.

SO IF WE STARTED CHARGING FOR SERVICES LIKE THAT, WHICH ARE CURRENTLY JUST SORT OF SUCKED UP BY THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE, AS WELL AS IF WE STOPPED BUILDING OUT MORE TRUCK DEVELOPMENT.

YOU KNOW, IF WE LOOK BACK AT THAT RCC RATIO THAT'S IN YOUR REPORT, THAT SORT OF IS DRIVING ALL OF THIS DECISION MAKING.

IF WE STOP BUILDING TRUCKS AND WE STARTED CHARGING FOR SERVICES THAT ARE CURRENTLY UNCHARGED FOR AT THE USER LEVEL.

THAT RCC, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THAT RCC RATIO STARTS TO IMPROVE AND GET CLOSER TOGETHER.

IS THAT ACCURATE OR IS THAT INACCURATE? YEAH, I'LL ADDRESS THAT.

[00:35:08]

HOWEVER WHAT WE DID DO IS DID A VERY QUICK CALCULATION AND SAID, WELL, YOU KNOW, WHAT, IF ALL OF THAT 320 WAS INCLUDED AND WAS ATTRIBUTED TO TRUCK TO WHATNOT, WHAT IMPACT WOULD THAT HAVE ON THE RCC? AND IT WOULD ONLY MOVE IT FROM 64% TO 68%. AND THAT'S IF YOU HAD IT ALL.

BUT WE KNOW THAT SOME OF THAT IF WE WERE REALLY GOING TO DO THE ANALYSIS AND PARSE THAT OUT, SOME OF THAT WOULD BE ON PIPED. OKAY. THAT'S GOOD.

SO YEAH. AND I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT. SORRY.

YEAH NO, GO AHEAD. JUST FOR CLARITY. YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, FOR CLARITY PURPOSES, THAT COST ITEM THE COMMUNITY GARDEN SERVICE LANES FOR ABOUT $220,000 CURRENTLY IT'S NOT BUILT INTO THE TRUCK SERVICE COST. IT'S NOT CAPTURED ON THE TRUCK SERVICE.

YEAH. SO JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR. YEAH NO, THAT'S GOOD, THAT'S UNDERSTOOD.

BUT THANKS FOR CLARIFYING THAT FOR ANYBODY ELSE AS WELL.

SO I GUESS IT COMES BACK TO THE FACT FOR ME, THAT THIS COMES DOWN TO AND, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE CITY MANAGER'S POINT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HISTORICAL REASONS FOR DOING THINGS.

YOU KNOW, THERE MIGHT, AS WE ALL DO, AND WE'RE DOING IT NOW, AND SOMEBODY'S GOING TO COME ALONG IN THE FUTURE AND CRITICIZE OUR DECISIONS. SO I DON'T MEAN THIS AS A CRITIQUE IN TERMS OF GOOD OR BAD DECISION MAKING.

JUST, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE MAKE DECISIONS WITH THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE AT THE TIME. AND SO DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, WAS DONE AT A CERTAIN TIME WITH THE INFORMATION THAT WAS HAD. BUT IF WE AS A COUNCIL AND, YOU KNOW, GOING BACK TO THE POINT THE CITY MANAGER MADE AROUND TRANSPARENCY IS A GOOD THING GOING FORWARD IN TERMS OF DECISION MAKING, IF WE AS A COUNCIL WANT TO INCENTIVIZE CONTINUED PIPE USAGE, TO ME, THE DANGER OF MOVING UP THAT MASSIVE SUBSIDIZATION FROM, SAY, 64% TO, SAY, 90%. IT REDUCES THE HAZARD TO THE CITY, THE BUDGETARY HAZARD TO THE CITY BY PUSHING MORE COST ONTO A TRUCK USER, WHICH MEANS IT'S SAFER FOR US TO POTENTIALLY DEVELOP TRUCK.

AND I APPRECIATE THE CITY MANAGER'S POINT IN THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT THE INTENT OF ADMINISTRATION.

MY FEAR IS IT BECOMES THE INTENT OF COUNCIL WHEN IT'S LOOKING FOR EASY LAND ACCESS AT CHEAPER CAPITAL.

AND IF WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO PUSH THE CITY TOWARDS THE CHEAPER O&M OPTION OF PIPE, THEN THAT RCC RATIO OVER TIME WILL IMPROVE BECAUSE TRUCKS WILL BECOME A SMALLER AND SMALLER AND SMALLER PORTION OF THE OVERALL WATER DELIVERY SYSTEM.

AND SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'RE MAKING THESE DECISIONS BASED OFF OF THIS RCC RATIO? PARTIALLY AT LEAST. YOU KNOW, TRYING TO BRING IT FROM 64%, UP TO WHAT IS CONSIDERED FROM THE AMERICAN WATERWORKS ASSOCIATION, YOU KNOW, SORT OF THAT IDEAL LEVEL, WHICH AGAIN, AS WE DISCUSSED, THE LAST MEETING IS AN INDUSTRY STANDARD, BUT THAT SORT OF COMES FROM, YOU KNOW, INDUSTRY STANDARD.

THERE'S NO REAL BACKING BEHIND IT. SO I'M STRUGGLING WITH, YOU KNOW, FROM A POLICY BASIS.

WHAT'S OUR REASON FOR PICKING THAT INDUSTRY STANDARD? IT'S KIND OF JUST BECAUSE IT IS. WHAT'S, YOU KNOW, THE IMPACT ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS? I'M SKEPTICAL ABOUT, YOU KNOW, JUST THE, AND I WOULD SAY IT'S ABOUT MYSELF, I'M SKEPTICAL ABOUT JUST GOOD DECISION MAKING BECAUSE WE'RE HUMANS.

YOU KNOW, BASED OFF THE INFORMATION WE HAVE. SO WHAT CAN WE DO TO DISINCENTIVIZE FUTURE TRUCK? TO ME, THAT'S MAKING SURE THAT THE REST OF THE SYSTEM IS, YOU KNOW, REALLY CONSCIOUS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO EXPAND THAT.

AND THAT ALL COMES BACK TO THAT RCC RATIO AGAIN.

SO THAT'S FOR ME ANYWAY. QUESTION FOR THE CONSULTANTS OR MAYBE ADMIN.

ON PAGE THREE OF THE MEMO, IT HAS A QUOTE FROM THE AMERICAN WATERWORKS ASSOCIATION.

SO IT SAYS RECOGNIZING AND RECOVERING THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF DEMAND FROM THE APPROPRIATE CUSTOMER CLASSES, AVOID SUBSIDIES AMONG CUSTOMER CLASSES AND MINIMIZES POTENTIAL SUBSIDIES WITHIN CUSTOMER CLASSES.

THEREFORE, WHEN PRACTICAL AND APPROPRIATE, EVEN SUBSIDIES WITHIN CUSTOMER CLASSES SHOULD BE MINIMIZED.

SO I GUESS MY QUESTION COMES TO THIS COMMENT IS SPEAKING TO DEMAND.

BUT FROM THE CONSULTANTS PERSPECTIVE, MAYBE FROM IN TWO.

WHY ARE PIPED AND TRUCKS SEEN AS DEMAND ISSUES? TO ME, THEY'RE SERVICE DELIVERY ISSUES, THE DEMAND IS THE USER USING MORE WATER OR LESS WATER, NOT THE ACTUAL TYPE OF YOU KNOW, HOW DO YOU GET WATER OUT OF A TAP? IS IT A PIPE OR A TANK IN YOUR HOUSE OR YOUR BUSINESS? SO I GUESS I'M FEELING A CONFLICT HERE WHEN I READ THAT STATEMENT.

[00:40:04]

BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT A DISCUSSION ABOUT DELIVERY IN REALITY.

SO I'D BE HAPPY FOR SOMEBODY TO, YOU KNOW, SORT OF SLAP ME ACROSS THE FACE AND COME INTO REALITY HERE.

SO I'LL PASS IT OVER TO THE CONSULTANTS OR ADMIN TO TRY TO DISENTANGLE THAT WEB FOR ME.

OKAY. I'LL TAKE AN INITIAL STAB AT IT AND PASS IT OVER TO [INAUDIBLE].

BUT YOU KNOW THAT COMMENT IS IN THERE, BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED THROUGH THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS ABOUT INTRA CLASS RATES AND WHATNOT, AND, YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, WE WERE CHARGED WITH GOING AWAY AND LOOKING AT BEST PRACTICES.

SO YOU KNOW, TRUCK SERVICES IS EASILY MEASURABLE.

IT'S THE COSTS ARE READILY IDENTIFIED. SO EVEN IF YOU DID, YOU WANT TO CONSIDER IT AS AN INTRA CLASS ISSUE.

THE BEST PRACTICES WOULD STILL TIE YOUR RATES TO THE COST OF SERVICE.

AND YOU KNOW, YES, THE IMPACT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS WILL MAKE IS THAT THESE DECISIONS ARE WITH THEIR EYES WIDE OPEN, WITH A TRUE COST OF SERVICE IN PLACE. NOW, HOW THAT IS MANIFESTED THROUGH THIS PROCESS INTO GETTING SOMETHING THAT ADDRESSES THE POLITICAL NEED AND WHATNOT, WE WOULD LOOK AT.

BUT REALLY IT BOILS DOWN TO READILY IDENTIFIABLE COST, IT'S A MEASURED THING, AND REALLY PIPE AND TRUCK, IT IS A DIFFERENT, THEY'RE VERY DIFFERENT. AND SO RECOGNIZE THOSE COST DIFFERENCES.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE WERE COMING WITH WITH THAT.

IS THAT EVEN WITHIN A CLASS IF YOU HAD A VERY READILY IDENTIFIABLE, VERY EASILY MEASURABLE ITEM, YOU WOULD DO IT. OKAY. KIND OF. BUT I APPRECIATE THE STAB.

NO, NO. FROM A TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE I APPRECIATE IT.

IT'S YEAH, IT'S AS YOU SAID, IT'S GETS INTO THAT POLICY AND THE POLITICAL CHOICES.

SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, WASN'T WHAT YOU WERE ASKED TO DO, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND NEITHER WAS IT ADMINS, YOU KNOW, TASK TO DATE.

SO I APPRECIATE THAT. JUST COMING BACK TO SOMETHING COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN ASKED ABOUT, BUT AGAIN, SORT OF HITTING IT MAYBE AT THE END FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN ASKED ABOUT WHY THERE'S ONLY ONE CLASS FOR TRUCKED REGARDLESS OF RESIDENTIAL-COMMERCIAL-MULTI-RESIDENTIAL. AND I, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE ANSWER WAS ABOUT PEAK DEMAND, BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD GO TO THEN. SO IF IT'S ABOUT PEAK DEMAND, WHY ARE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THE LOWEST IN TERMS OF COST.

WHEN, IF WE THINK ABOUT IT FAMILIES GO HOME AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY CREATE PEAK DEMAND, FLUSHING TOILETS, TURNING ON DISHWASHERS, MAKING DINNER, TURNING ON THE LAUNDRY, CREATING THAT BIG PEAK DEMAND.

I WOULD ASSUME THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY PROBABLY THE TOP PEAK DEMAND IN THE DAY.

WHEREAS MOST BUSINESSES ARE OPERATING DURING THE DAY.

AND SO THEY HAVE PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, ARE OPERATING AT MOST OF THEM AT THE LOWER PEAKS OF THE DAY.

AND MAYBE AGAIN, I'M WRONG, BUT FROM, YOU KNOW, JUST WHERE I'M THINKING ABOUT IT, THAT TO ME IS THE MOST LOGICAL.

SO IF IT'S ABOUT PEAK DEMAND, SHOULDN'T. AND I'M NOT TRYING TO STIR THE POT HERE, BUT WOULD RESIDENCES NOT ACTUALLY BE AS A TOTALITY PEAK DEMAND? AND MULTI-RESIDENTIAL WHICH I KNOW THEY ALREADY AT THE TOP, BUT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IF THIS IS ALL ABOUT PEAK DEMAND, AS YOU KNOW, BETWEEN TRUCKS JUST HAVING IT DELIVERED, AND EACH HOUSE IS SORT OF ITS OWN DEMAND VERSUS THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE.

WHY ARE COMMERCIAL CHARGED SO HIGH AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES SO LOW WITHIN THAT THINKING? MAYBE. I'LL, GO AHEAD. YEAH, MAYBE I CAN. YEAH, I CAN TRY TO PROVIDE THE ANSWER TO THIS ONE.

SO ONCE YOU ALLOCATE THE COST, THEN YOU KIND OF RECOVER IT FROM YOUR CUSTOMER BASE, RIGHT? YEAH. AND IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT YOU HAVE A MUCH LARGER RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER BASE VERSUS COMMERCIAL, JUST COUNTS, RIGHT? CUSTOMER COUNTS. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE COST THEMSELVES, AND THAT'S ON I THINK ON PAGE TWO OF THE REPORT THAT THERE IS A TABLE WHICH SHOWS THE COST, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE COST RESULTS COLUMN, YOU WILL SEE THAT OF THE TOTAL $8.5 MILLION OF COST ALLOCATED TO PIPED, 4.1 OR ALMOST 50% IS RESIDENTIAL VERSUS 2.6 MILLION ALLOCATE TO COMMERCIAL, RIGHT? AND THEN ON TOP OF IT YOU HAVE MULTI-RESIDENTIAL AS WELL WHICH IS AT 1.3.

SO IF YOU COMBINE LIKE RESIDENTIAL AND MULTI-RESIDENTIAL, THEY ARE PICKING UP ABOUT $5.5 MILLION OF $8.5 .

[00:45:02]

THE RATES COULD BE LOWER. AND NOW YOU'RE INTO RATES, RIGHT? VERSUS COST. SO THE RATES COULD BE LOWER WHEN COMPARED TO COMMERCIAL BECAUSE THE BASE IS BIGGER.

THERE'S WAY MORE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS. SO WE'RE GETTING AWAY FROM THE IDEA OF PEAK DEMAND THEN, BECAUSE IT'S NOT. NO, NO. ABOUT HOW MANY CUSTOMERS THERE ARE AS OPPOSED TO WHEN THEY USE WATER AND WHAT CREATES A PEAK ON THE SYSTEM.

YEAH. SORRY NOT, NOT REALLY. SO THE FIRST STEP IS TO ALLOCATE THE COSTS, RIGHT? YEAH. SO WHEN WE'RE ALLOCATING THE COSTS THERE'S THOSE THREE MAIN DRIVERS, RIGHT? SO, WHAT IS THE PEAK THAT EACH TYPE OF CUSTOMER CLASS IMPOSE ON THE SYSTEM AND HOW MUCH THEY CONSUME? THAT'S THE SECOND THING, RIGHT? AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS, WHAT IS THE CUSTOMER BASE? SO THAT IS TO ALLOCATE THE COSTS, RIGHT? SO ONCE YOU HAVE ALLOCATED THOSE COSTS BASED ON THOSE PARAMETERS, THEN YOU LOOK AT, OKAY, SO, HOW MUCH THEY GENERATED TODAY BASED ON HOW MUCH YOU ARE CHARGING THEM.

SO THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE EQUATION BASICALLY.

OKAY. SO WHAT THIS SHOWS IS THAT TODAY RESIDENTIAL CHARGERS ARE MUCH CLOSER TO THE COST ALLOCATED TO THEM ON THE PIPE SYSTEM. RIGHT. YEAH, AND THE COSTS ARE BASED ON THOSE THREE PARAMETERS.

AND THEN RATES ARE BASED ON WHAT THEY CHARGE TODAY AND THEN WHETHER THERE'S ANY ADJUSTMENT NEEDED, RIGHT? SO BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE EQUATION THEY DO REFLECT, YOU KNOW, THE PEAK AND ALLOCATION STUFF IS REFLECTED IN THE COSTS.

SO JUST TO TEASE OUT, REFLECTED IN THE COSTS OR IN THE RATES? BECAUSE ULTIMATELY WHAT WE'RE SORT OF DISCUSSING IS WE KNOW THE COSTS, BUT NOW WE'RE SORT OF HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THE RATES SHOULD OR COULD BE.

AND SO I'M JUST TRYING TO TEASE OUT WHAT IS IN THE RATES AS OPPOSED TO THE COST ITSELF, BECAUSE I'M UNDERSTANDING THE COST PIECE.

BUT WHAT ABOUT LIKE, HOW DO THOSE ELEMENTS FACTOR INTO THE RATE PIECE? YEAH. SO ON THE RATES PIECE. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS REPORT WAS TRYING TO GET AT, RIGHT? YEAH. SO, HOW CLOSE ARE RATES NOW TO THIS COST? WHICH ARE BASED ON THOSE THREE MAIN DRIVERS. YEAH.

SO, WHEN YOU LOOK AT RESIDENTIAL AND BY LOOKING AT THAT TABLE AGAIN, YOU WILL SEE THAT ON THE RIGHT SIDE ON THE PIPE SERVICE, RESIDENTIAL IS AT 99%, YOU KNOW, SO COMPARED TO COST.

SO, THE RATES ARE VERY CLOSE TO THE COST ON DEMAND, ON CONSUMPTION LEVEL AND STUFF, OBVIOUSLY COMBINED, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE AVERAGE. AND YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU GET TO TRACK THEN YOU WILL SEE THAT ON THE TRUCK SIDE, YOUR RATES ARE QUITE FAR FROM THE COST, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT REALLY RECOVERING THOSE.

SO THOSE DEMAND ALLOCATORS, CONSUMPTION ALLOCATORS AND EVERYTHING IS USED TO COME UP WITH THE COST.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, ON THE RIGHT SIDE WE'RE COMPARING.

AND THAT'S THE KEY INFORMATION PIECE HERE TO UNDERSTAND WHERE EACH SERVICE TYPE IS RECOVERING THEIR COSTS.

SO YEAH, TRUCKS ARE AT ABOUT 64% AT THE EXISTING LEVELS.

OKAY. I COULD HAVE FUN WITH THIS ALL DAY, BUT I'M CONSCIOUS OF EVERYONE'S TIME.

SO MAYBE I'LL JUST MOVE ON AND THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANK YOU FOR THAT RESPONSE. MAYBE I'LL JUST MOVE ON.

JUST BASICALLY, WHERE I'M AT, AND YOU CAN SEE THIS WITH MY QUESTIONS, IS I'M FULLY IN SUPPORT OF MOVING FORWARD WITH ALL OF THE RATE OR THE BILLING CHANGES, THE BILLING SIMPLIFICATION PIECES RIGHT NOW.

SO I'D BE FINE WITH US AS A COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATION FOR BUDGET 2026 MOVING FORWARD WITH THOSE CHANGES.

WHAT I'M REALLY STUCK ON IS THIS BIT ABOUT TRUCKED AND PIPED, AND I'VE BEEN STUCK ON THIS, YOU KNOW, IN FAIRNESS TO THE RESIDENTS WHO ALL CAME IN EITHER TO TALK OR WHO HAVE SENT EMAILS AND OTHER, YOU KNOW, STOP ME ON THE STREET IN THE GROCERY STORE, WHICH HAS ALSO HAPPENED.

THIS IS STUFF THAT HAS BEEN IN MY BRAIN FOR A WHILE NOW.

AND THIS IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S COME BACK AT ME MORE AND MORE. AS I SAID, I'VE SEEN THIS FROM DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS IN MANY WAYS AS THESE CONVERSATIONS CONTINUE.

AND I GUESS FOR ME, IT REALLY DOES COME BACK TO THAT.

I'M NOT CONVINCED RIGHT NOW THAT WE WILL MAKE THE BEST PLANNING DECISIONS POSSIBLE AS A CITY.

AND THAT'S NO JUDGMENT ON ADMINISTRATION. THAT'S JUDGMENT ON THE POLITICAL SIDE OF IT.

GOING FORWARD, IF WE DON'T REALIZE THOSE COSTS.

NO, MAYBE MR. VAN DINE YOU'RE CORRECT IN THAT BY CREATING THE TRANSPARENCY, NOW WILL BE MORE CONSCIOUS.

I GUESS, YOU KNOW, IT ALWAYS MAKES ME NERVOUS RIGHT NOW, EVEN THOUGH I AGREE WITH YOU TO A DEGREE.

I'M NOT UNTIL I SEE IT. IT'S SORT OF HARD FOR ME TO BELIEVE JUST BECAUSE OF HISTORY.

[00:50:04]

HOME HEATING FOR NORTHERNERS WAS A BIG THING.

AND, YOU KNOW, TO ME, THIS IS IN MANY WAYS A PARALLEL DISCUSSION.

YOU KNOW, IN THAT ELECTION, THE ISSUE OF THE CARBON TAX CAME OUT AND THE REASON THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE RILED UP AND ANGRY AND, YOU KNOW, IT PUSHED AN ENTIRE FEDERAL ELECTION IN A DIFFERENT WAY THAN IT WAS THREE MONTHS BEFORE IT WAS CALLED WAS BECAUSE PEOPLE FELT LIKE THEY WERE BEING CHARGED FOR DECISIONS THAT WEREN'T IN THEIR CONTROL.

AND TO ME, THIS IS EVEN MORE SO THE REALITY FOR THIS DISCUSSION.

BECAUSE IF WE LOOK AT THE CARBON TAX DISCUSSION THAT WAS ABOUT PEOPLE FEELING LIKE THEY WERE BEING CHARGED FOR HOME HEATING COSTS OR THEY'RE PUTTING GAS IN THEIR CAR. AND IN BOTH THOSE SITUATIONS, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE LIMITED, BUT THEY ACTUALLY DID HAVE SOME OPTIONS. YOU COULD HAVE PUT IN A PELLET BOILER OR A WOOD STOVE, OR IF YOU WERE DRIVING A BIG TRUCK, YOU COULD GO TO A SMALLER VEHICLE, OR YOU COULD HAVE NO VEHICLE AT ALL. LIKE THEY MIGHT BE HARD CHOICES, BUT THERE WERE CHOICES.

WITH THIS DISCUSSION, THERE ARE NO CHOICES. IF YOU'RE IN A HOUSE WITH TRUCKED WATER OR BUSINESS WITH TRUCKED WATER, YOU CAN'T ALL OF A SUDDEN RUN PIPE TO IT AND REDUCE YOUR COST.

YOU ACTUALLY HAVE NO OPTION. AND SO THIS IS THE POLICY QUESTION OR THE POLICY ISSUE I'M REALLY STUCK ON.

AND I THINK WE HAVE MORE WORK TO DO ON THAT BASIS.

SO YOU KNOW, BASICALLY I'LL WRAP UP AND I DON'T THINK I'LL HAVE TO COME BACK TO SECOND ROUND BECAUSE OF THIS.

BUT AGAIN, I'M IN FAVOR OF MOVING FORWARD WITH THOSE BILLING CYCLE PIECES.

I THINK WE HAVE MORE WORK TO DO ON THIS THIS POLICY ISSUE AROUND TRUCKED OR NOT TRUCKED.

AND IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T THINK THERE'S POTENTIAL FOR SOME CHANGES OR IMPROVEMENTS.

I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE YET. AND I THINK FOR ME, IT ALL WRAPS INTO THE BROADER DISCUSSIONS AROUND THE FUTURE OF SURFACE WATER LINES IN OLD TOWN AND WHAT THOSE FUTURE COSTS MAY OR MAY NOT BE AROUND THAT, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, INFRASTRUCTURE PIECES THAT ARE BUILT INTO OUR WATER SYSTEM, WHETHER SUBSIDIZED FROM THE PROPERTY TAX BASE OR NOT, THAT SURFACE AROUND THAT. SO WHAT IS A FUTURE SYSTEM LOOK LIKE OR NOT LOOK LIKE? OR IS IT SUBSIDIZED FROM A WATER SURFACE LINE? DO THE WATER SURFACE LINES BECOME METERED? ALL OF THESE THINGS WHICH WE HAVEN'T REALLY GRAPPLED WITH AS A FULL OF SYSTEM PERSPECTIVE.

I'M REALLY STUCK ON. SO I THINK WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE BILLING PIECES.

AND I THINK THERE'S A DISCUSSION IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, MR. VAN DINE TALKING ABOUT ADMIN. WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO NEXT? I DO THINK WE NEED TO TAKE THIS AWAY AND HAVE SOME MORE POLICY THINKING AROUND THESE TYPES OF ISSUES.

AND I THINK THAT, OF COURSE, THEN COMES BACK TO WHAT'S THE IMPACTS ON WORK PLAN, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF AND TIMELINES.

BUT THAT'S WHERE MY HEAD'S AT, AND I WILL STOP TALKING. THANKS TO ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES.

THANKS. THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR PAYNE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I MEAN, I'VE READ EVERY LETTER THAT CAME IN THIS LAST WEEK AND A HALF.

AND IT WAS, IT WAS A LOT. AND I APPRECIATE PEOPLE'S VIEW ON THIS.

I MEAN, NOBODY WANTS TO SEE INCREASES. I'M LOOKING AT THIS MORE AS, I MEAN, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT, WE ARE A SUBSIDIZED SOCIETY. I SEE PEOPLE OVER HERE THAT DON'T HAVE SMALL KIDS, BUT WE STILL PAY TAXES BASED ON OUR FACILITIES. THERE'S PEOPLE HERE THAT PROBABLY WILL NEVER USE THE FIELD HOUSE, BUT THEIR TAXES GO TOWARDS THAT.

YOU KNOW, I'M PROBABLY NOT GOING TO USE A BIKE LANE, BUT WE JUST GOT NEW BIKE LANES, YOU KNOW? SO WE PAY FOR THINGS THAT WE'RE NOT USING ALL THE TIME.

SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE HERE AT THIS, THIS POINT.

YOU KNOW, WHEN IT COMES TO KAM LAKE AND OLD TOWN AND GRACE LAKE, I MEAN, THESE ARE THESE ARE ALL PRETTY IMPORTANT PARTS OF TOWN.

AND I FEEL LIKE THERE MAY BE A SECOND CLASS CITIZEN THING GOING ON HERE, WHICH I'M, WHICH I'M NOT REALLY COMFORTABLE WITH.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? OH, OKAY. WHICH I'M NOT REALLY COMFORTABLE WITH.

YOU KNOW, I LOOK AT THIS AS A COST OF WATER AS AS A WHOLE.

LIKE, WHAT'S THE COST OF DELIVERING WATER TO EVERY HOME, EVERY BUSINESS IN THE CITY COMPARED TO THE REVENUE THAT WE'RE BRINGING IN? DOES THAT EQUAL OR DOES IT NEED TO BE ADJUSTED? YOU KNOW, I'D BE MORE WILLING TO SEE A NEW RIDER GO ON EVERYBODY'S BILL, RATHER THAN SEE SOMEBODY THAT'S GOING TO BE PAYING AN EXTRA 40% OVER A COUPLE OF YEARS. I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THAT AT ALL, AND I DON'T THINK I'LL EVER SUPPORT THAT.

YOU KNOW, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY CITY VEHICLES DOWN IN GRACE LAKE DIGGING UP ROADS OUT FRONT BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN A FREEZE UP, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THE WATER'S CONTAINED AND PEOPLE ARE PAYING THE HEAT FROM THEIR OWN POCKETS TO KEEP THAT WATER FROM FREEZING UP.

[00:55:03]

THAT'S A HIGH COST. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING TO SNEEZE AT.

THAT'S ALMOST A MILLION BUCKS RIGHT THERE. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN DISCUSSION AFTER.

WELL, TRUCK SERVICES, THEY USE A LOT LESS WATER THAN PEOPLE THAT TURN ON THEIR TAP AND LET IT RUN WHILE THEY'RE BRUSHING THEIR TEETH.

I LIVE WITH TRUCK WATER AT ONE POINT, AND I DIDN'T WASTE ANY WATER.

AND I, YOU KNOW, WE MADE SURE THAT IF WE WERE GOING TO USE THE DISHWASHER, IT WAS PRETTY PLUGGED FULL.

DISHES PROBABLY CAME OUT DIRTIER AFTER. SO I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS AND I THINK THAT THERE'S ALWAYS A WAY MOVING FORWARD. I'M DEFINITELY NOT IN SUPPORT OF SEEING ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE IN TOWN PAY A LOT MORE THAN WHAT THEY'RE USED TO PAYING. I'M DEFINITELY NOT IN FAVOR OF THAT AT ALL.

BUT WE STILL HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, I LIKE BEN'S POINT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, INCREASING THE, THE MORE PIPE SERVICES THAT WE GET, THE LOWER IT'S GOING TO COST WHEN IT COMES TO DELIVERY FOR EVERYBODY.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYBODY FROM MACA LISTENING RIGHT NOW, BUT WE REALLY WANT TO DEVELOP MORE IN THIS TOWN.

AND WE GOT NO LAND. YOU KNOW, AND IT WAS JUST A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, I SENT AN EMAIL TO ADMIN ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IF WE GOT NO LAND, WE STILL HAVE TWO PHASES OF GRACE LAKE THAT WE HAD ON THE BOOKS AT ONE POINT, AND I GOT NO PROBLEM BRINGING THAT FORWARD. SO I THINK THERE'S MORE THAN JUST THE WATER RATES HERE THAT WE SHOULD BE DISCUSSING.

AND I KNOW THAT IT'S DIFFICULT DISCUSSION AND IT'S NOT EASY.

I KNOW IT'S NOT NOT A SIMPLE CONVERSATION, BUT TO ME, IT'S BASIC MATH.

AND LET'S SEE WHAT WE CAN DO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COUNCILLOR MCGURK. FOR ROUND ONE. SORRY. THANK YOU EVERYONE. VERY DIFFICULT CONVERSATION. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS TO WEIGH.

I'VE GOT SOME COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS. I GUESS.

I'LL TRY TO ASK THE QUESTION WITHOUT GETTING INTO THINGS, BUT IF COUNCIL WERE TO CONSIDER COVERING INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS THROUGH PROPERTY TAXES TO TRY TO LEVEL OUT THE DIFFERENCE IN COST RECOVERY THAT WE ARE SEEING HERE.

DOES ADMINISTRATION HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OR CONSIDERATIONS FOR THAT? MR. VAN DINE. SO THE WAY THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT THIS, AS THE CONSULTANTS HAVE LAID OUT, IS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO FOLLOW THE BEST PRACTICES OF ASSIGNING THE COST TO THE LEVEL OF INFRASTRUCTURE PIECE THAT'S BEING DONE.

SHIFTING SOME OF THAT FINANCIAL BURDEN, ULTIMATELY IT'S GOT TO BE PAID.

AND SO THE CITY WILL MAKE SURE IT COVERS ITS BILLS.

AND WE'VE GOT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF ABILITIES THROUGH THROUGH BUDGET TO TRY AND MOVE THINGS AROUND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COME OUT EVEN IN THE END.

HOWEVER FROM A PRACTICE PERSPECTIVE ON UTILITY COSTS, IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT THAT LEVEL OF TRANSPARENCY AND ABILITY TO RECOVER AND REPORT ON REVENUES COLLECTED AGAINST THAT PARTICULAR UTILITY SERVICE.

AND I WOULD WANT TO CAUTION TRYING TO OPEN UP THE DOOR TO ENCOURAGE, I GUESS SORT OF A WIDER APPLICATION OF MUNICIPAL TAX TO COVER OFF WHAT IS A FIXED CAPITAL COST AND WITH A, CONSUMPTION ELEMENT ATTACHED TO IT, SO I'M NOT SURE IF THAT ADDRESSES YOUR CONCERN, BUT I THINK YOUR GENERAL INTEREST IS, HOW CAN THE CITY HELP OFFSET THE COSTS MORE GENERALLY FROM A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT WAYS? AND I BELIEVE THOSE MEANS ALREADY EXIST TO A DEGREE, AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT SHARPENING UP THE FOCUS AND THE ACCOUNTABILITY WITH THESE UPDATES. OKAY. YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT.

IT'S KIND OF WHAT I IMAGINE, I JUST FELT INCLINED TO ASK BECAUSE IT DOES KIND OF GET INTO THE

[01:00:01]

I GUESS THE RESPONSE FROM THE CONSULTANT WAS THAT IS NOT REALLY POSSIBLE.

BUT CAN WE NOT USE METERING TO DETERMINE PERCENTAGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH THOSE NUMBERS? MAYBE I'M REALLY NAIVE ABOUT THIS, BUT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A CONSULTING QUESTION OR AN ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTION, SORRY. [LAUGHTER]. MR. NIGHTINGALE. SURE. I GUESS THE POINT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE IN COST. THERE'S NO COST DIFFERENTIAL UPON WHICH TO SEPARATE THOSE TWO.

YOU COULD, YOU COULD. AND IF ADMINISTRATION DECIDED THAT WELL, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE'LL CREATE THIS NEW CLASS AND WE'LL HAVE ONE CLASS KIND OF SUBSIDIZE THE OTHER CLASS. THAT'S POSSIBLE, I GUESS.

BUT FROM A COST BASIS, THERE'S NO BASIS TO ESTABLISH THESE TWO COSTS BECAUSE THE SERVICES ARE IDENTICAL.

RIGHT. YEAH. I GUESS IN MY MIND, I'M JUST CONSIDERING.

YEAH. [INAUDIBLE] HAS SPOKEN ABOUT MAYBE RESIDENTIAL USING A LOT IN PEAK TIMES, BUT I KNOW THAT ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE, CAN BE A LOT OF WATER THAT RUNS THROUGH. AND MORE TRIPS FROM TRUCKS.

BUT I THINK THAT MAYBE IT'S SORT OF SEMANTICAL.

OKAY, MAYBE WE'LL JUST TALK ABOUT WHAT I THINK HERE.

BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THE COST OF TRUCK SERVICE DELIVERY IS SUBSIDIZED BY OTHER RATEPAYERS. MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE ENGAGED WITH COUNCIL ON THIS ISSUE HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS OF TRUCK WATER SERVICES OR USE TRUCK WATER.

SO I JUST WANT TO KIND OF MAKE IT LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF A STATEMENT FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT TUNED INTO THE ISSUE, BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF EMAILS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED HAVE BEEN FROM PEOPLE WHO WOULD HAVE TO PAY MORE AND NOT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CURRENTLY PAYING MORE.

THE FACT IS, THERE IS A 35% DEFICIT IN COST RECOVERY FOR TRUCK SERVICE USERS, OR AS RESIDENTIAL USERS THEIR COST RECOVERY SITS AT A DEFICIT ABOUT 1%. MULTI RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ARE PAYING MORE OR LESS 17% RESPECTIVELY.

I THINK THE ARGUMENT OF HOMEOWNERS HAVING MADE DECISIONS BASED ON PREVIOUS INFORMATION IS SOMETHING THAT I STRUGGLE WITH BECAUSE A HOME IS AN ASSET, IT'S AN INVESTMENT. AND LIKE ALL INVESTMENTS IT COMES WITH A LEVEL OF RISK.

YOU TAKE THAT ON WHEN YOU MAKE AN INVESTMENT.

SO FOR ME, THAT'S A VALUE STATEMENT THAT DOESN'T GET TO THE HEART OF THE ETHICAL ISSUE.

AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THAT, AND YOU'RE WILLING TO ENTERTAIN THAT ARGUMENT.

I THINK YOU NEED TO ALSO CONSIDER THAT THE MAJORITY OF RENTERS IN OUR COMMUNITY LIVE IN MULTI RESIDENTIAL UNITS, WHICH MEANS THAT THOSE WITH LESS ARE ULTIMATELY SUBSIDIZING THOSE WITH MORE.

AND TO ME, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT'S MORE FAIR TO CONTINUE TO ASK SOME RESIDENTS TO CARRY THE DEFICIT TOWARDS INFRASTRUCTURE VERSUS PROVIDING FULL SERVICE OF WATER DELIVERY, REGARDLESS OF THE METHOD AND EQUAL COST.

I STILL DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT, BUT I'M LIKE, I'VE BEEN STRUGGLING A LOT WITH THIS QUESTION.

I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT IS AN ETHICAL, MORAL QUANDARY, VERY PHILOSOPHICAL AT ITS ROOT.

AND SO I GUESS MY QUESTION'S AROUND WHETHER WE CAN INCLUDE THIS IN LIKE, BROADER TAXATION IS PEOPLE WHO OWN HOMES THAT ARE, THAT ARE BIGGER, THAT ARE NICER, THEY'RE PAYING A HIGHER TAX. AND WE DO THAT FOR A REASON, YOU KNOW, AND THAT WE CONSIDER TO BE FAIR.

AND WE CAN'T REALLY REFLECT THAT IN OUR WATER SERVICE DELIVERY.

AND THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT A LOT OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON TRUCK WATER HAVE MILLION DOLLAR HOMES IN GRACE LAKE ON LATHAM ISLAND. I KNOW SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE.

THEY'RE GREAT, THEY'RE WONDERFUL PEOPLE. BUT THAT'S JUST THE TRUTH.

AND SO WHO ARE WE TRYING TO SERVE AND WHO'S AFFECTED BY THIS IS, IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION THAT I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MORE FROM THE COMMUNITY ABOUT BECAUSE, LIKE I SAID, THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM ARE NOT MULTI-RESIDENTIAL USERS WHO ARE CURRENTLY PAYING AT A HIGHER RATE. THEY'RE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE DIRECTLY AFFECTED COST WISE.

[01:05:05]

AND WE'RE PUMPING A LOT OF WATER DOWN INTO OLD TOWN.

THAT HAS A HUGE COST, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS.

SO IF YOU WANT ONE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE OTHER.

AND YEAH, I GUESS THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS ON THAT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU COUNCILLOR MCGURK. ANYONE ELSE FOR ROUND ONE? NO. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. MAYBE THE CONSULTANT.

SO THE REPORT HAS BASICALLY $700,000 DECREASE FOR MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL AND THEN A CORRESPONDING, IF I'M READING IT CORRECTLY, $700,000 INCREASE FOR TRUCKED.

IS THAT NUMBER CONSIDERED SEPARATE FROM THIS DEFICIT? THAT'S ALSO IN THE WRITE UP FROM ADMIN, OR IS THIS LIKE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES, I GUESS.

I CAN'T HEAR YOU, MR. NIGHTINGALE. SORRY. TURN TO ADMINISTRATION.

BUT I THINK THAT YES, IT'S DIFFERENT. MR. VAN DINE.

I THINK YOU WERE TALKING. SORRY. SORRY, I'LL TURN TO MR. PANDOO TO RESPOND. SO I THINK THE QUESTION MR. CHAIR, IS, IS THE $700,000 SHIFT THAT IS BEING DESCRIBED IN THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT ON THE NEW ALLOCATION, IS THAT INCLUSIVE OF WHAT THE CURRENT OPERATING DEFICIT IS IN THE WATER AND SEWER RATE? MR. PANDOO. SORRY, NO, THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT NUMBERS.

SO IF IN FUTURE CONSIDERATION WE DECIDED NOT TO SHIFT THAT OR SHIFT IT DIFFERENTLY, THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE DEFICIT.

OKAY. NO GOOD. I WAS GOING TO READ IT, SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S CORRECT. WHAT ELSE? I GUESS FOR ME, WHEN IT COMES BACK, BECAUSE I ASSUME IT'S GOING TO COME BACK.

I'M ALSO IN SUPPORT OF ALL THE SIMPLIFIED BILLING PROCESS.

I THINK THAT'S A NO BRAINER. I'M ALSO FULLY IN SUPPORT OF COST RECOVERY.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD NOT RECOVER COSTS. REALLY, WHAT WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT IS HOW, LIKE, HOW ARE WE GOING TO RECOVER THAT? AND WHO'S GOING TO SUBSIDIZE WHAT? UTILITIES BY NATURE ARE SUBSIDIZED BECAUSE SOME MORE, SOME PAY LESS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE OPTION OF NOT DECREASING THE COMMERCIAL, MULTIFAMILY IS HOUSING, COMMERCIAL IS NOT, IF THAT'S SOME WAY OF MITIGATING, I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS IF THAT IS AN OPTION WHEN IT COMES BACK FOR US.

AND YEAH, THE DEFICIT IS QUITE LARGE, IT'S GOING TO GET BIGGER.

SO IT IS ALL GOING TO GO UP. IT'S JUST TALKING ABOUT HOW MUCH AND FOR WHO.

SO YEAH, I THINK WE KIND OF, I AGREE WITH MOST COMMENTS THERE ABOUT.

I DO HAVE A HARD TIME CRANKING RATES BY 40%. AND TO BE FRANK, I HAVE SOME CONCERNS IN THE REPORT ABOUT HOW IT REFERS TO THE MARKET ADJUSTING VALUES FOR HOUSES AND LAND. I DON'T THINK THAT'S TRUE AT ALL, I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY THE OTHER WAY.

SO THE IDEA THAT THIS IS SOMEHOW BAKED ALREADY INTO LAND VALUES AND PRICING, I HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH.

IT'S KIND OF A DEFECTIVE ARGUMENT, I THINK. SO, YEAH.

I LIKE TO SEE SOME OPTIONS AROUND THAT 700 K MOVING DIFFERENTLY.

I CAN GET INTO THE WEEDY BITS WITH YOU LATER.

BUT YEAH, A SOLID PLAN TO BRING UP ALL THOSE RATES, I GUESS, TO ADDRESS A DEFICIT SOON, WHICH I'M ASSUMING IS COMING IN BUDGET.

SO THAT IS MY QUESTION AND COMMENTS. IS THERE ANY FOR ROUND TWO? MR. FEQUET AND THEN MR. MCLENNAN. THANKS, MR. CHAIR. YEAH. JUST MORE, I GUESS A CLOSING COMMENT.

ABSOLUTELY THERE ARE TECHNICAL AND POLICY QUESTIONS WITH THIS ONE, BUT FOR ME, SUBSIDIZATION COMES DOWN TO A VALUES CONVERSATION, AND I MEAN THAT IN TWO WAYS. ONE, OUR ROLE IS TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT ARE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY AND BRINGS VALUE TO RESIDENTS AS A WHOLE.

SO IF WE BELIEVE OUR PARTICULAR SUBSIDIZATION BRINGS VALUE TO RESIDENTS, THEN IT'S WORTHWHILE TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER.

THE QUESTION IS HOW? AND SECONDLY, NOT EVERYONE IN THE CITY HAS THE SAME VALUES, AND THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE A COUNCIL OF NINE INDIVIDUALS, SO THAT WHEN YOU SEE OUR VALUES AND OUR STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND HEAR OUR VALUES THROUGH OUR INTERACTIONS IN THESE VERY MEETINGS, YOU HOPEFULLY SEE YOURS REFLECTED UP HERE TO SOME DEGREE.

I RECOGNIZE THE RANGE OF 90% TO 110% OF COST.

RECOVERY IS CONSIDERED BEST PRACTICE, AND I THINK MOST PEOPLE RECOGNIZE THAT WATER AND SEWER RATES HAVEN'T BEEN UPDATED IN MORE THAN 25 YEARS AND NEED TO GO UP TO KEEP UP WITH RISING CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND ONGOING OPERATIONAL COSTS.

ONE OF MY VALUES IS RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT THAT RESPECTS THE ENVIRONMENT, AND SO THE BENEFIT OF HAVING THIS CONVERSATION IN THIS FORUM IS THAT IF THE RATE OF WATER

[01:10:06]

IT DOESN'T HELP OUR ENVIRONMENT. NOT EVERYONE LIKES THE FACT THAT A $70 MILLION POOL WAS BUILT, AND 30% OF OUR POPULATION DOESN'T DRIVE, SO PROBABLY DON'T LIKE INITIATIVES THAT FOCUS ON NICE, SMOOTH ROADS. BUT LIVING IN A CITY, WE KNOW THAT LIVING IN A SOCIETY WITH OUR NEIGHBORS MEANS WE SHARE COSTS FOR THE CITY TO OPERATE.

SO TO REITERATE AND AGREE EXPLICITLY WITH COUNCILLOR PAYNE, I AGREE THAT NO ONE USER CLASS SHOULD BE BURDENED IN THIS MONUMENTAL TASK, AND WE NEED TO TAKE THE TIME TO THOUGHTFULLY REFLECT AND BE CLEAR ON WHAT VALUES WILL GUIDE US IN DETERMINING THE BEST PATH FORWARD TO APPROPRIATELY SHARE THE IMPACT THIS DECISION WILL HAVE. AND I'M EAGER TO RECEIVE THE OPTIONS FROM ADMIN WITH THIS TASK.

GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR FEQUET. COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN AND THEN THE MAYOR TO END.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. YEAH. GOOD DISCUSSION.

THANKS TO ALL MY COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR THOUGHTS. THE QUESTION FOR ME IS HOW WE DEVELOP AND CONSUME MORE SUSTAINABLY.

UNDERSTANDING AND ACKNOWLEDGING THE TRUE COSTS, AS THE CITY MANAGER SAID, IS CRUCIAL, ESSENTIAL.

SO THANK YOU TO YOU AND THE TEAM AND THE CONSULTANTS FOR ALLOWING US TO DO THIS.

WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT CONSUMPTION, BEING THE MAIN DRIVER BEHIND OUR WATER BILLS, AS WELL AS SIMPLER AND MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD BILLING. I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES THAT WE ABSOLUTELY NEED TO PROVIDE MORE RESOURCES TO THE WATER AND SEWER FUND.

AS FOR WHO PAYS, I'LL BE LOOKING VERY CLOSELY TO SEE WHAT INCENTIVES ARE CREATED BY THE VARIOUS OPTIONS PRESENTED.

AND IN THAT VEIN, I'D LIKE TO ASK ADMIN IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO INCLUDE AS PART OF THE OPTIONS PRESENTED AT BUDGET 2026, FOR ONE OF THE OPTIONS TO BE A SUBSIDY FOR AGRICULTURAL USES THAT WILL SUPPORT COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURAL VIABILITY IN YELLOWKNIFE.

SPECIFICALLY IN AREAS OUTSIDE OF PIPED WATER SERVICE AREA.

MR. VAN DINE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND WE WILL DEFINITELY GIVE THAT SOME CONSIDERATION FOR BUDGET 2026. AND I'LL USE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PERHAPS SURFACE I GUESS A QUESTION THAT COUNCILLOR MCGURK HAD RAISED EARLIER WITH RESPECT TO DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATIONS OF CHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH TRUCK SERVICE, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, RESIDENTIAL, AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT PRINCIPLE COULD BE APPLIED IN A TRUCK SERVICE ENVIRONMENT AND TO BE COMPARABLE TO THE CURRENT SYSTEM ON PIPED THAT WE. WE DID RECEIVE SOME INFORMATION FROM THE CONSULTANTS.

OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S ASKED AND ANSWERED THAT QUESTION. FROM A TECHNICAL POINT OF VIEW, THE UNIT AND THE COST IS THE UNIT AND THE COST HOWEVER, THERE IS THE ABILITY OF COUNCIL TO WEIGH IN ON HOW IT WANTS TO APPORTION RECOVERY.

ON THOSE THINGS. SO THAT IS A QUESTION, AND IF COUNCIL IS INTERESTED IN SEEING WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE FROM ADMINISTRATION, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY INCLUDE IN OUR IN OUR OPTIONS SET.

AWESOME. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE FOR ROUND TWO BEFORE I GO TO MAYOR? MAYOR. THANKS, MR. CHAIR. YEAH, A COUPLE FINAL PIECES.

JUST AROUND SORT OF EXPECTATION SETTING. SO, YOU KNOW, FOR BUDGET 2026, AND I'D ASK THE CITY MANAGER TO CLARIFY, BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AND MY READ OF THINGS FOR BUDGET 2026, WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE ALL COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH IS ALL OF THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS AROUND BILLING SIMPLIFICATION INCLUDING COST RECOVERY CONSIDERATIONS.

SO THAT'S ONE PIECE. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, FROM ADMINS MEMO TO COUNCIL THAT CAN DRIVE FORWARD AS PART OF BUDGET 2026.

I GUESS TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR JUST FOR, I WANT TO MAKE SURE MY COLLEAGUES AND I ARE CHECKING OURSELVES IN TERMS OF EXPECTATIONS.

THAT'S ONE PIECE ALL OF THE OTHER POLICY BASED QUESTIONS THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING AND THAT WE'RE SORT OF NOW SEEKING YOUR ASSISTANCE ON TO TASK FURTHER. TO ME, THOSE WOULD PROBABLY BE THINGS THAT GO BEYOND BUDGET 2026.

WOULD THAT BE ACCURATE AND PART OF THE COMING BACK TO US, TO MY MIND AT LEAST WOULD BE ADMIN SORT OF COMING UP WITH A BIT OF A TIMELINE, US LOOKING AT OUR WORK PLAN AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS SOMETHING WE COULD DROP INSTEAD? IN ORDER FOR THIS TO BE A PRIORITY, EITHER FOR 2026 BUDGET OR IF IT'S 2027, ETC..

SO KICKING THAT ONE OVER TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION COMMENT.

EVEN IF IT'S. YEAH, I NEED TO LOOK AT THAT A LITTLE FURTHER BEFORE THE END OF THIS WEEK.

[01:15:03]

IT'S ALL GOOD. SO WHAT I THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL IS I'LL USE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUMMARIZE WHAT THE OPTIONS SET MIGHT LOOK LIKE FOR COUNCIL.

JUST BASED ON THIS DISCUSSION, JUST FOR CLARITY AND CONFIRMATION.

SO IN ALL OPTIONS WE WILL SEE ESSENTIALLY THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE SHIFT FROM DESCRIBING COST AND CALCULATING MOVED SORT OF IN THE MORE POSITIVE DIRECTION, AWAY FROM THE STATUS QUO.

I BELIEVE THAT COMMENT WAS MADE AND REITERATED SEVERAL TIMES BOTH ON EMAIL FROM INTERESTED PARTIES AS WELL AS COUNCIL'S COMMENTS TODAY.

SO THE OPTION SET BUILDING I WOULD DESCRIBE AS BEING WHAT WAS PROPOSED BY THE CONSULTANTS AS THE SHORT FORM, 38% INCREASE AS AN OPTION FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER. OPTION TWO IS AN OPTION THAT WOULD SEE SORT OF BALANCED ACROSS ALL CATEGORIES TO EVEN OUT THE RELATIVE INCREASE RECOGNIZING WE DO HAVE A DEFICIT, RECOGNIZING WE HAVE TO DO COST RECOVERY IN SOME MEANS.

BUT I WOULD CALL THAT THE MORE BALANCED ACROSS ALL OPTIONS APPROACH.

AND THEN THE THIRD I WOULD LOOSELY REFER TO AS THE NEW PLUS OPTION, WHICH TAKES INTO ACCOUNT COUNCILLOR MCCLELLAN'S IDEAS WITH RESPECT TO OTHER ASPECTS RELATED TO SUPPORTING AGRICULTURAL AND OTHER MEANS, AND POTENTIALLY COLLECTING SOME OF THE OTHER IDEAS THAT HAVE COME OUT TODAY THAT I MAY NOT HAVE CAPTURED HERE. SO ESSENTIALLY THREE OPTIONS I THINK WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT BRINGING BACK TO COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION FOR BUDGET 2026. WITH RESPECT TO MAYOR HENDRICKSEN LARGER QUESTIONS ON WHERE THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO GO WITH RESPECT TO GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND HOW WE WANT TO INCENT AND DISINCENT AND ENCOURAGE COUNCILS TO BE MORE MINDFUL POTENTIALLY.

THAT'S A SHORT FORM AROUND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS AND POTENTIALLY WHAT IS AVAILABLE TO INCENT GREENER, MORE SUSTAINABLE, MORE PIPED ORIENTED KINDS OF APPROACHES.

THOSE THOSE QUESTIONS WILL HAVE TO CONSIDER AND I'LL HAVE TO GET BACK TO WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE, BUT I WILL REMIND THAT WE DO HAVE THE CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN COMING FORWARD, WE DO HAVE THE COMMUNITY PLAN COMING FORWARD.

AND WE DO, WILL BE GIVING COUNCIL SOME THOUGHTS AROUND, AS DIFFERENT PROJECTS PRESENT THEMSELVES, QUESTIONS AROUND ALTERNATIVE FINANCING OPTIONS FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO THOSE ARE THOSE ARE SOME OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS THAT.

BUT I THINK I WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT DISINGENUOUS TO SUGGEST THAT WE WOULD GET TO THE ROOT OF ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS IN ONE CONVERSATION OR IN ONE MEMORANDUM.

I THINK IT'S AN ACTIVE CONVERSATION. I THINK IT'S A SERIES OF ACTIVE THINGS THAT WE'LL NEED TO DO ON THOSE PIECES THAT I REFERRED TO.

BUT I BELIEVE COUNCIL TAKING THIS STEP IN LOOKING AT SUSTAINABILITY, COST RECOVERY IN A MORE EVIDENCE BASED APPROACH TO INFORM DECISION MAKING IS A POSITIVE STEP FORWARD TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT HAS BEEN RAISED.

THANK YOU, MR. VAN DINE. WORK TO DO. WORK TO DO.

I APPRECIATE THAT. YEAH, I STILL, I APPRECIATE THE RECOGNITION OF WHAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH IN BUDGET 2026 AND HOW WE TACKLE THOSE VERSUS THOSE LARGER POLICY PIECES, WHICH WILL BE TBD ON HOW WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.

I GUESS MY LAST POINT IS MORE OF, YOU KNOW, FOR MYSELF, YOU KNOW, TO FORECAST OUT TO RESIDENTS AND SORT OF WHERE MY HEAD'S AT AS WE LOOK TO BUDGET 2026. YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE AND THIS IS MY, YOU KNOW, ME ALONE, IS AND SO WHETHER COLLEAGUES JUMP IN TODAY OR LEAVE IT FOR BUDGET 2026, THAT'S FINE.

BUT JUST, YOU KNOW, FOR ME, I LOOK AT THIS ISSUE AS ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE HERE.

AND WHAT KICKED THIS ALL OFF IN 2021 WHEN IT WAS SOUGHT.

AND THIS IS WHERE I THANK BOTH THE CONSULTANTS AND ADMIN FOR DOING ALL OF THE WORK TODAY, BECAUSE YOU'VE GIVEN WHAT WAS REQUESTED OF YOU IN 2021.

IT'S JUST THROWN UP A LOT MORE QUESTIONS. AND, YOU KNOW, POLICY ISSUES FOR THIS COUNCIL NOW TO GRAPPLE WITH.

BUT IT COMES DOWN TO THE OVERALL COST OF THE SYSTEM AND HOW WE FUND THAT.

[01:20:04]

AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I JUST WANT TO FORECAST OUT FROM MY WAY OF THINKING IS THAT THROUGH THIS SHIFT TO MOVING TRUE COST OF WATER AND SEWER TO WATER AND SEWER USERS, AS OPPOSED TO THE PROPERTY TAX BASE, WHERE FROM AN ACCOUNTING PERSPECTIVE, CAPTURING THE COSTS ACCURATELY GOING FORWARD OR WE WILL BE.

WHAT I DON'T WANT TO SEE HAPPEN, AND I WOULD LIKE MY COLLEAGUES TO REMEMBER DURING BUDGET 2026 AND ONWARD, IS THAT THIS DOES NOT FREE UP NEW MONEY IN OUR BUDGET TO NOW SPEND FRIVOLOUSLY, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY IT'S THE SAME RESIDENTS WHO PAY THE PROPERTY TAX AND THE WATER AND SEWER CHARGE. SO WHILE IT'S A GOOD ACCOUNTING AND IT'S GOOD MANAGEMENT FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE.

I DO THINK WE NEED TO KEEP ALL OF THAT IN MIND THAT WE'LL BE SEEING MONEY CHANGE IN OUR BOOKS, IN TERMS OF WHERE IT SITS, BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

AND SO WE DO NEED TO KEEP THAT IN MIND AS WE MOVE FORWARD AND MAKE THESE IMPROVEMENTS.

SO WITH THAT, MR. CHAIR, I AM FINALLY DONE. APPRECIATE IT EVERYBODY.

THANK YOU. AND THANK EVERYONE FOR ALL THOSE COMMENTS. IT IS ALMOST 90 MINUTES , SO LET'S DO A TEN MINUTE BREAK.

ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? MR. VAN DINE, YOU'RE GOOD? OKAY. AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT ITEM FIVE.

SO COME BACK AT 1:33.

[5. A memorandum regarding whether to approve a Discretionary Use application (PL‐2025‐0030) to allow a Similar Use to a Hotel on Lot 31, Block 512 and Plan 4740 (346 Borden Drive).]

THIS IS A PROPERTY PROPOSAL IN WHICH THE CLASSIFICATION IS A DISCRETIONARY CHANGE.

TODAY WE'RE GOING TO HEAR POTENTIALLY ONE IF NOT TWO PRESENTATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE NATURE OF THIS PROJECT.

I'LL INVITE VIVIAN TO COME FORWARD AND GIVE COUNCIL THE BENEFIT OF STAFF ADMINISTRATION'S OVERVIEW OF THE QUESTION AT HAND.

HELLO, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS VIVIAN PENG, AND I'M A PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE.

AND I'M HERE TO GIVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION ON THIS DISCRETIONARY USE APPLICATION.

PL-2025-0030 . THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS A LARGA TRAVEL LODGE AT 346 BORDEN DRIVE. THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED CS - COMMERCIAL SERVICES ZONE UNDER THE ZONING BY-LAW.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY A VARIETY OF EXISTING USES, INCLUDING COMMERCIAL, LIGHT, INDUSTRIAL, RESIDENTIAL AND SOME UNDEVELOPED LAND.

ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SLIDE, THERE'S A SATELLITE IMAGE TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT.

THE PROPOSED TRAVEL LODGE IS CONSIDERED A SIMILAR USE TO A HOTEL.

SIMILAR USE IS LISTED UNDER DISCRETIONARY USE UNDER THE CS ZONE; THEREFORE, IT IS SUBJECT TO THE DISCRETION OF COUNCIL.

THE PROPOSED TRAVEL LODGE CONTAINS 75 ROOMS, WHICH IS TO PROVIDE CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE ACCOMMODATION FOR MEDICAL TRAVELERS FROM THE KATIKMEOT REGION OF NUNAVUT. THE TRAVEL LODGE WILL PROVIDE HOTEL LIKE SERVICES AND IT WILL NOT PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE TO THE PATRONS.

THE SERVICES PROVIDED ARE CONTRACTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF NUNAVUT AND THE TRAVEL LODGE WILL NOT ADVERTISE TO THE PUBLIC.

THEREFORE, IT IS CONSIDERED LESS, QUOTE UNQUOTE "COMMERCIAL" THAN A CONVENTIONAL HOTEL.

IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN. THE SUBJECT LAND IS DESIGNATED OLD AIRPORT ROAD COMMERCIAL.

IT IS ALSO PART OF THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR ON THE OLD AIRPORT ROAD WAY.

THE PROPOSED TRAVEL LODGE CONFORMS TO ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE AREA, TO ALLOW FOR TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATIONS FOR TRAVELERS IN THE CITY FOR SHOPPING OR MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS. THE PROPOSED TRAVEL LODGE ALSO CONFORMS TO CLIMATE CHANGE, MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCING POLICIES TO BETTER UTILIZE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT.

AND LASTLY, THE COMMUNITY PLAN SUPPORTS COUNCIL'S AND THE CITY'S RECONCILIATION EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN RELATIONS WITH INDIGENOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND

[01:25:01]

THIS IS AN AREA FOR A VARIETY OF USES LIKE COMMERCIAL, LIGHT, INDUSTRIAL, INSTITUTIONAL, AND SO ON.

A HOTEL IS A PERMITTED USE AND A HOTEL LIKE LAND USE IS ALSO CONSIDERED COMPATIBLE.

LAND USE ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT THE PROPOSED TRAVEL LODGE WILL HAVE LESS POTENTIAL LAND USE IMPACTS THAN A CONVENTIONAL HOTEL, WHICH IS ALREADY PERMITTED. THE CLIFFS AND VEGETATION AROUND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL ALSO HELP FURTHER MITIGATE ANY POTENTIAL IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING AREAS.

THE PROPOSED TRAVEL LODGE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NATURE AND APPEARANCE WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR, AND IT ALIGNS WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSES OF BY-LAW AS MENTIONED EARLIER; THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED TRAVEL LODGE IS CONSIDERED MEETING THE DISCRETIONARY USE REVIEW CRITERIA AS LISTED IN SECTION 4.6.4 OF THE ZONING BY-LAW.

THE PROPOSED TRAVEL LODGE MEETS COUNCIL'S STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS OF PEOPLE FIRST AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE.

STAFF ALSO CONDUCT CONSULTATIONS AS BEST PRACTICES TO ASSIST IN THE REVIEW OF THIS DISCRETIONARY USE APPLICATION.

INTERNAL CONSULTATION PROVIDED SOME COMMENTS ON THE NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS OF THE CURRENT DESIGN AND THE WIDTH OF THE FIRE LANE.

THE DEVELOPER HAS AGREED IN PRINCIPLE TO REVISE THE SITE PLAN TO RESOLVE THOSE COMMENTS, AND THIS WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS AFTER THIS DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION. FROM PUBLIC CONSULTATION STAFF RECEIVED, I THINK, 13 COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AND THEY CONTAIN SIMILAR CONCERNS ON THE COMPATIBILITY, TRAFFIC AND PARKING AND VISUAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

COMMENTS HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AND ADDRESSED IN THE PLANNING ANALYSIS AND DETAILED CONSIDERATIONS ON EACH COMMENT ARE PROVIDED IN THE PLANNING REPORT IN YOUR IN YOUR AGENDA PACKAGE.

SO WITH ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS IN MIND, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE DISCRETIONARY USE APPLICATION PL-2025-0030 BE APPROVED BY COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR PRESENTER? MR. FEQUET.

THANKS, MR. CHAIR. THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION.

SO YEAH, THANKS FOR THE PACKAGE AND THE PRESENTATION.

JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS AND A COMMENT. SO THE FIRST QUESTION IF.

IF THE DEVELOPER CHANGED THEIR MIND AND THEY DECIDED TO INCLUDE MEDICAL AND PROFESSIONAL CARE SERVICES BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THEY'RE NOT DOING.

WOULD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC WORKS AND PUBLIC SAFETY STILL RECOMMEND GOING AHEAD WITH THE DEVELOPMENT? AND IF SO, WOULD ANY OF THOSE DEPARTMENTS WANT ANY SPECIFIC CONDITIONS INCLUDED? AS IS ALLOWED WHEN COUNCIL APPROVES SUCH A DISCRETIONARY USE.

MR. VAN DINE. I'LL INVITE DIRECTOR WHITE TO RESPOND, BUT TO MY WORKING KNOWLEDGE, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE PROPONENT THAT I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF THEIR FACILITIES CURRENTLY OFFER MEDICAL SERVICES PRESENTLY, SO I'M DETERMINING THAT THAT WOULD LIKELY BE A LOW RISK PROPOSITION IN THIS CASE, BUT PERHAPS DIRECTOR WHITE CAN ELABORATE ON THAT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION. SO THAT'S CORRECT.

THE SERVICES THAT ARE CURRENTLY PROVIDED IS WHAT WE'RE USING AS AN EXAMPLE.

AND WE'VE HAD A GOOD BACK AND FORTH CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT.

SO THE LIKELIHOOD OF THAT HAPPENING IS VERY SLIM.

PLUS IT WOULD REQUIRE A CHANGE OF USE APPLICATION AND POTENTIALLY ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS.

SO WHAT VIVIAN IS PROPOSING HERE IS JUST THE RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE DISCRETIONARY USE, AND WHEN SHE MOVES FORWARD WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ITSELF, THERE WILL BE CONDITIONS INCLUDED AS PART OF THAT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, SPECIFICALLY WITH THE ENTRANCES AND THE OTHER ITEMS THAT SHE IDENTIFIED, BOTH IN THE PLANNING REPORT AND IN HER PRESENTATION TODAY.

SO AT PRESENT, THAT'S NOT WHAT IS BEING ASKED FOR BY THE APPLICANT AND WOULD REQUIRE A CHANGE OF USE IN THE FUTURE SHOULD THEY WANT TO DO THAT.

THANK YOU. PERFECT. THANK YOU FOR THAT RESPONSE.

SO I WAS HOPING YOU'D SAY. MAYBE JUST JUMPING DOWN TO THE CONDITIONS THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS.

SO NOTING ON PAGE SEVEN, IT TALKS ABOUT HOW THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER WILL REVIEW LANDSCAPING, OPEN AREAS, ETC. THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS.

AND JUST RECOGNIZING THIS AS A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NEXT TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA.

AND ONE OF THE KIND OF CONCERNS THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, DUPLICATED IN ALL THOSE 13 COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITIES WAS ABOUT VISUAL IMPACT.

AND IT'S ALSO A QUESTION THAT I GET A LOT FROM RESIDENTS ABOUT THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS,

[01:30:03]

SO WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM FROM THE PROPONENT THEIR THEIR PLANS AND PROPOSALS WITH RESPECT TO ESTHETICS GOING FORWARD.

I DON'T BELIEVE THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE CURRENTLY HAS DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT SPEAK TO SUCH MATTERS IN ANY GREAT DETAIL.

THAT BEING SAID, WE ARE AWARE WHEN WORKING WITH PROPONENTS OF DISCUSSING HOW THINGS FIT IN WITH THE GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND IN SOME CASES, WE'RE ALWAYS ENCOURAGING TO HAVE DEVELOPERS THINK ABOUT AND BE PROUD OF THE PIECE THAT THEY'RE BUILDING AND INVESTING IN. AND SO TO DATE, I BELIEVE THE PROPONENT SEEMS TO BE TAKING ON THAT SPIRIT WITH RESPECT TO THIS DESIGN AND WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM THROUGH THE NEXT PHASES OF THE REVIEW PROCESS.

GREAT. THANK YOU. LAST QUESTION. JUST LOOKING FOR ADDITIONAL CONFIRMATION.

FOR US TO APPROVE DISCRETIONARY USES, WE JUST HAVE TO BE SATISFIED THAT ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING BY-LAW HAVE BEEN MET.

SO I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM WITH STAFF THAT ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BY-LAWS HAVE BEEN MET COMPLETELY IN THEIR OPINION? I SEE HEAD NODDING. AWESOME. YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THANK THE RESIDENTS FOR TAKING THE TIME TO SEND THOSE EMAILS IN.

AGAIN I AGREE THAT IF THIS WAS A HOTEL OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, THAT IT MIGHT NOT BE A GOOD FIT AT THIS LOCATION BECAUSE IT'S A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, PARKING, TRAFFIC NOISE AND ALL THOSE ISSUES. BUT GIVEN THAT THIS TRAVEL LODGE IS NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND RATHER FOR A SPECIFIC CLIENTELE OF RESIDENTS OF NUNAVUT, THAT TRANSPORTATION IS PROVIDED FOR SAID CLIENTS.

SO THERE WON'T BE A COMMENSURATE NUMBER OF VEHICLES IN TRAFFIC, AS THERE WILL BE CLIENTS AT THE LOCATION AND THAT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE CLOSE TO AMENITIES SINCE THERE'S MANY SERVICES LIKE MEALS AND THINGS FOR BABIES AND ELDERS THAT ARE GOING TO BE PROVIDED.

I DO THINK IT'S A GREAT USE OF THE VACANT LAND, AND THIS IS THE TYPE OF FACILITY THAT CONTRIBUTES TO YELLOWKNIFE'S ABILITY TO SERVE AS A HUB FOR OUR NEIGHBORS, AND IT WORKS TOWARDS GREATER SUSTAINABILITY, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE CLOSURE OF THE DIAMOND MINES AND AN INCREASE IN GUESTS WHO USE OUR LIBRARY, OUR POOLS, OUR MOVIE THEATERS AND OUR RESTAURANTS SHOULD BE WELCOMED FOR THE FUTURE PROSPERITY OF THE COLLECTIVE CITY.

SO WHILE I EMPATHIZE WITH THE NEIGHBORS WHOSE VIEW WILL UNDOUBTEDLY CHANGE, I DO BELIEVE ALLOWING THIS DISCRETIONARY USE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITY. THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR COCHRANE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I'LL HAVE COMMENTS AFTER THE SECOND PART OF THE PRESENTATION, AS WE STILL HAVE ANOTHER BIT TO GO HERE JUST FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION, SINCE WE HAVE THE MEDIA IN THE ROOM AND I'M ASSUMING SOME KEENERS WATCHING THE WEBCAM, WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS IN THE ESTIMATED TIMELINE FOR THIS GOING FORWARD? I'LL INVITE VIVIAN TO RESPOND TO THAT. THANK YOU.

SURE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO THE GENERAL CONCEPT IS THAT THE DISCRETIONARY USE APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO COUNCIL'S DECISION.

AND LET'S SAY IF THE APPLICATION IS APPROVED, THEN IT MOVES ON TO A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS.

IF THAT IS APPROVED, THAT WILL BE SUBJECT TO A TWO WEEK APPEAL PERIOD, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PERMIT.

AND THEN IF THERE'S NO APPEAL WITHIN THE TWO WEEK, IT WILL BE EFFECTIVE ON THE 15TH DAY.

SO THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE TIMELINE. AND THANK YOU SO MUCH, VIVIAN.

THANK YOU. MR. PAYNE. THANK YOU. I WAS HAPPY TO SEE THIS COME FORWARD, AND SEEING THE PLANS OF IN OUR EMAIL. LIKE, I THINK IT'S A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING.

IT'S A LOT NICER TO SEE SOMETHING LIKE THIS THAN THE 60 FOOT ROCK FACE WITH BLAST ROCK THAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW.

I KNOW THAT THE PUBLIC IN THAT AREA HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S TOO MANY PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE COMING DOWN FROM NUNAVUT WITH THEIR CARS. SO I DON'T SEE A WHOLE LOT OF TRAFFIC IN THAT AREA.

I LIVE IN THAT AREA. I DRIVE BY IT EVERY DAY A COUPLE TIMES, AND I'M VERY HAPPY TO SEE THIS COME FORWARD.

AND I'M VERY HAPPY TO BE ABLE TO LIVE IN AN AREA THAT'S SUPPORTING PEOPLE FROM OUR CLOSEST NEIGHBORS IN THEIR MEDICAL ADVENTURES DOWN HERE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR. MCLENNAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YEAH, JUST ECHO ALL THE COMMENTS OF MY COLLEAGUES.

ALWAYS GREAT TO SEE DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT LOTS.

AND I THINK THIS IS A GREAT LOCATION AND YEAH, I SUPPORT IT.

ANY MORE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? FOR MYSELF, I HAVE ONE.

[01:35:05]

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I BELIEVE IS SETS IT APART FROM A HOTEL SITUATION IS THAT THIS IS A MANAGED BOOKING FOR A HEALTH CARE SERVICE, AS OPPOSED TO A HOTEL THAT HAS A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON WITH RESPECT TO BOOKING EVENTS THAT COULD OCCUR THERE.

DIFFERENT USERS THAT MIGHT BE THERE FOR CONVENTIONS OR, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY FOR MEDICAL TRAVEL AS WELL.

BUT OTHER USES THAT WOULD CHANGE THE TRAFFIC FLOW, THE ACTIVITY, THE LEVEL OF SERVICES REQUIRED.

YOU HAVE MANAGED MEAL SERVICES, YOU HAVE MANAGED LAUNDRY SERVICES, YOU HAVE MANAGED OTHER SERVICES THAT YOU KNOW, THE CATERING ASPECTS WOULD WOULD NOT BE FACTORED HERE.

AND THE TRAFFIC INTO THE UNIT WOULD BE MUCH MORE CLEARLY DEFINED WITH RESPECT TO THEIR SHUTTLE SERVICE.

IN A HOTEL, YOU'VE GOT CAR RENTALS, YOU'VE GOT OTHER THINGS.

I'M SURE THAT THERE MAY BE SOME INSTANCES WHERE CAR RENTALS MAY ARRIVE HERE, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THAT WOULD BE MINIMAL.

BUT I'LL INVITE DIRECTOR WHITE TO RESPOND MORE, MORE DIRECTLY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NO, I THINK YOU HIT MOST OF IT.

AND I THINK THE OTHER PIECE WE NEED TO ALSO CONSIDER IS, AND I'LL JUST USE THIS AS AN EXAMPLE, IF I WERE PREGNANT AND COMING INTO THIS AREA SOMETIMES I'D BE HERE FOR NINE, TEN WEEKS AND OR MAYBE HAVE TO STAY AFTER.

SO IT'S ALMOST LIKE A LIVING ARRANGEMENT RATHER THAN JUST A TOURIST WHO WOULD COME MAYBE FOR 1 OR 2 WEEKS AND THEN LEAVE, AND I WOULD BE PROVIDED WITH ADDITIONAL SERVICES. SO DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF CARE THAT PEOPLE ARE RECEIVING WHEN THEY COME TO YELLOWKNIFE IT IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THAT HOTEL SITUATION WHERE IT IS MORE OF THAT CAREGIVING AS WELL.

VIVIAN, I DIDN'T KNOW IF MAYBE SHE WANTED TO ADD.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I JUST APPRECIATE A DISCRETIONARY USE PERMIT IS A TON OF WORK FOR STAFF AND FOR DEVELOPERS. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS A VERY CLEAR DIFFERENTIATION. I DON'T WANT TO EVER IMPEDE HOUSING AND SERVICE DEVELOPMENT IN OUR CITY.

SO GOOD, THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS ONE? SEEING GENERAL SUPPORTS. YEAH. I THINK THIS WILL GO TO COUNCIL FOR.

I THINKS THERE'S A. OH SORRY I APOLOGIZE ONE PRESENTER [LAUGHTER] OH, SORRY, MR. CHAIR. JUST WE CAN'T HEAR ANYTHING, SO IF THE PRESENTERS MICS NOT ON.

OOPSIE. OH, SHOOT. OKAY. I'LL REPEAT. MY NAME IS [INAUDIBLE].

I'M HERE JUST TO EXPLAIN MORE ABOUT THE PROJECT.

I'M THE ARCHITECT OF RECORD. BUT. YEAH. REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER.

NEVER MIND. SO CASEY, PRESIDENT OF LARGA, CAME TO US WITH THE LOT PRESENTED UP THERE. AND WITH THE PROGRAM OF A 75 ROOM TRAVEL LODGE, WHICH, AGAIN NEEDED TO EMPHASIZE THE LACK OF MEDICAL CARE, WHICH WOULD CHANGE THE BUILDING CLASSIFICATION AS WELL, SO IT HAS BUILDING CODE IMPLICATIONS. JUST GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE LOT THE AREA AND THE LIMITATIONS BY BY-LAW FOR THE SETBACKS, HEIGHT AND AS WELL AS CURRENT LIMITATIONS BY THE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT THE CIRCULATION AND THE PARKING WITH FOR THE BUILDING ITSELF. AS I SAID, IT'S 75 ROOMS. THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS A BEAUTIFUL 1,234 METER SQUARE. THAT WAS UNINTENTIONAL. AND THE TOTAL AREA IS 3800 METER SQUARED.

THE LOT COVERAGE IS ABOUT 30%, AND IT'S FOUR STORIES WITH THE APPROXIMATE HEIGHT OF 15M.

STEEL CONSTRUCTION. AND AS I SAID, 75 ROOMS, 16 OF WHICH ARE BARRIER FREE WITH FOUR ON EACH FLOORS.

AND THE CLIENTS HAVE ACCESS TO GUEST LAUNDRY ON EVERY FLOOR.

[01:40:01]

PART OF THE PROGRAM WAS MEETING OR EXCEEDING THE NATIONAL ENERGY CODE AND CURRENTLY THE DESIGNS AT ABOUT 35% IMPROVEMENT TO THE NATIONAL ENERGY CODE. FOR THE SITE PLAN WE CONSIDERED DIFFERENT ITERATIONS.

LIKE I SAID EARLIER, THE CIRCULATION WAS THE BIGGEST, THE BIGGEST FACTOR IN THIS ESPECIALLY WITH TRYING TO KEEP IT WITHIN THE 45 METER RADIUS TO THE FIRE HYDRANT. SO WE YOU CAN SEE THERE WERE DIFFERENT BUILDING CONFIGURATIONS AND SEPARATION OF THE PUBLIC PARKING VERSUS THE SERVICES. ULTIMATELY, WE ARRIVED AT THIS RIGHT HERE WHERE THE BUILDING SERVICES AND STAFF PARKING IS ON THE EAST SIDE FACING MARY BROWN'S WITH THE PUBLIC PARKING ON THE WEST SIDE.

YEAH, ON THE WEST SIDE. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS ISN'T IN COLOR, SO YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE THE LANDSCAPING, BUT THE LANDSCAPING IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.

THERE IS PLAYGROUND AREA. SO CURRENTLY IT WAS 20 PARKING SPOTS, THREE BARRIER FREE, HOWEVER, DUE TO COMMENTS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS IN WE'RE CURRENTLY TRYING TO RECONFIGURE AND WE HAVE THIS ONE IN AND OUT DRIVE THROUGH FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE SERVICE REMAINS ON THE EAST SIDE. WITH THIS ONE, WE HAVE TEN PARKING STALLS, WE STILL HAVE TWO ACCESSIBLE AND ONE ACCESSIBLE FOR THE STAFF. THERE IS A LITTLE CONCERN WITH THIS ONE JUST NOT HAVING A FULL DRIVE THROUGH.

IT'S JUST IN AND OUT. WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.

BUT AGAIN, DUE TO THE LIMITATIONS OF THE SITE, IT'S TURNING OUT TO BE QUITE AWKWARD, SO.

BUT WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY SUBMIT THE FINAL RESULT FOR APPROVAL.

JUST SOME EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS. THESE ARE PRELIMINARY, PRELIMINARY COLORS, BUT T HE VOLUMES OF IT ARE PRETTY MUCH SET, THE COLORS MAY CHANGE, BUT IT'S METAL CLADDING FOR LONGEVITY.

WITH THE DIFFERENT PROFILES. SOME ARE CORRUGATED AND SOME ARE KIND OF A BOARD PATTERN.

AND THESE ARE JUST SOME VIEWS OUTSIDE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? COUNCILLOR COCHRANE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. NO QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION. YOUR BUILDING LOOKS VERY PRETTY. AS A PERSON WHO GREW UP IN THE RANGE LAKE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AS MORE OF MY PREFERRED NOMENCLATURE BEHIND WALMART, I THINK THIS WILL BE A GREAT CONTRIBUTION TO IT.

I THINK FOR THE USE OF THAT SPACE AS COUNCILLOR PAYNE SO ELOQUENTLY ARTICULATED EARLIER, IT'S NOT GREAT.

IT'S JUST SITTING THERE AS A BUNCH OF ROCKS. AND I THINK THIS IS THE PERFECT AREA TO ADD TO IT, OR THE PERFECT ASSET TO ADD TO IT. AND I GUESS THE ONLY THING I COULD SAY AFTER THAT IS I JUST WISH THE MANY FUTURE ELDERS AND MEDICAL GUESTS FROM THE KITIKMEOT TO ENJOY ALL THE SHOPPING AT CANADIAN TIRE AND ALL THE CHICKEN AT MERRY BROWN'S [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? NONE.

AND AGAIN GENERAL SUPPORT. OH, YOU GOT ONE. I CAN'T SEE YOUR HAND THIS WAY.

SORRY, GO AHEAD. I DON'T KNOW. GO AHEAD. OKAY.

I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS. SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM RESIDENTS WAS THE LOSS OF GREEN SPACE. BUT THERE IS A 30 METER GREEN SPACE BETWEEN THIS LOT AND THE NEXT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, WHICH, IF YOU HAVE A HARD TIME VISUALIZING THAT, IS TWO VOLLEYBALL FIELDS LAID OUT END TO END.

AND THE LOT ITSELF IS JUST GRAVEL. IF YOU WANT TO LOOK ON THE CITY EXPLORER, YOU CAN SEE THAT PRETTY EXPLICITLY WHEN YOU GO TO THE SATELLITE VIEW. AND IN RESPECT TO THE TRAFFIC QUESTION, PEOPLE ARE ALSO VERY CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC.

MARY BROWN'S, I IMAGINE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED TRAFFIC IN THE AREA.

IT IS PROBABLY PREDOMINANTLY USED AS A DRIVE THROUGH.

AND I WONDER IF RESIDENTS WOULD PREFER ANOTHER FAST FOOD CHAIN GO IN THERE.

[01:45:05]

THANK YOU. MAYOR HENDRICKSEN. THANKS. YEAH. I DIDN'T ORIGINALLY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BUT THEN AS YOU WERE PRESENTING, JUST THE POINT AROUND THE PARKING LOT. CAN YOU JUST GO OVER THAT AGAIN? WHAT WAS THE ISSUE? WHO WAS THAT FLAGGED BY? WHY DO YOU HAVE TO REDESIGN IT? BECAUSE IT'S CLEARLY CAUSING SOME DESIGN ISSUES.

AND, YOU KNOW, JUST FROM A LAYMAN'S EYE, AS I'M LOOKING AT IT, ONE DESIGN CLEARLY LOOKS NICER THAN THE OTHER.

SO I'M KIND OF INTERESTED TO KNOW WHAT THE ISSUE IS, AND WHERE THAT WAS FLAGGED, AND BY WHOM.

AND IS THERE A WAY TO AVOID THAT? SURE. SO THAT WAS JUST A COMMENT FROM THE CITY WHERE THERE ARE LIMITATIONS TO THE NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS, BUT ALSO ABOUT, SINCE THERE ARE FOUR IT COULD LEAD TO SOME CONFUSION ABOUT WHERE TO ENTER AND WHERE TO EXIT.

AND THE DRIVING FACTOR INITIALLY FOR THAT WAS TO HAVE THE CURVE FOR FIRE TRUCK ACCESS, INSTEAD OF THEM DRIVING IN AND BACKING OUT, THEY COULD JUST DRIVE THROUGH.

BUT WITH THE 4 DRIVEWAYS, IT DOES LEAD TO CONFUSION THERE.

OKAY. CAN I SLIP THAT TO THE CITY? AND CAN I FLIP THAT TO THE CITY MANAGER? YEAH. OH SORRY. SEPARATION FROM THE CITY SIDE OF THINGS.

IT JUST SEEMS LIKE, YOU KNOW, IF PEOPLE CAN GET A DRIVER'S LICENSE FROM A LAYMAN'S EYE, SURELY THEY CAN FIGURE OUT ENTRANCES AND EXITS ON A PARKING LOT.

I KNOW THAT SOUNDS CHEEKY, BUT I, YOU KNOW, MY POINT IS THERE.

IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE'RE CAUSING DESIGN CHALLENGES FOR, I DON'T KNOW WHAT.

SO AGAIN, I'LL FLIP THAT TO ADMIN. MR. VAN DINE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. JUST TRYING TO HOLD MY TONGUE IN CHEEK AND NOT TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY SOMETHING EQUALLY CHEEKY. AND NO, NOT AT ALL. SO THOSE ARE SOME GOOD QUESTIONS, AND I'LL JUST INVITE DIRECTOR WHITE TO RESPOND TO THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF WHAT GAVE RISE TO THIS SUGGESTION. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. SO WE HAVE A STANDARD FOR THE DISTANCE BETWEEN ENTRANCES, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S ON THE SAME LOT.

THAT'S FOR SAFETY REASONS FOR EXACTLY WHAT WAS MENTIONED, WHICH IS PEOPLE COMING IN AND OUT AND PEOPLE GOING OUT THE IN.

I'M SURE WE'VE ALL DRIVEN IN SOME, LET'S SAY, CREATIVELY DESIGNED PLACES WITHIN THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE.

SO WHAT THIS DOES IS IT'S REDUCING THAT FROM FOUR DOWN TO THREE, WHICH WOULD STILL POTENTIALLY ALLOW THAT BACK AREA.

SO THE ON FAR, I GUESS THAT WOULD BE THE CLOSEST TO THE AIRPORT ROAD FOR THEIR INTERNAL SERVICE.

AND THERE STILL IS ENOUGH ROOM AVAILABLE TO EITHER HAVE A SINGLE ENTRANCE AND THE REQUIREMENT FROM FIRE.

AND MR. MCLENNAN WILL CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S A 13 METER TURNAROUND RADIUS, OR AN IN AND OUT, AS THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED, WHERE EMERGENCY SERVICES CAN COME IN ONE AND OUT THE OTHER, WHICH WOULD RESULT JUST IN THREE ENTRANCES RATHER THAN THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED FOUR.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND MORE, YOU'VE HELPED.

MUCH APPRECIATED. OKAY. DID I MISS ANYBODY? ANY MORE? OKAY. AND AGAIN, SEEING GENERAL SUPPORT, I THINK WE'LL SEND US TO COUNCIL FOR OUR VOTE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR PRESENTING, APPRECIATE IT.

[6. A presentation regarding progress Update on Climate Action Plan 2026‐2036.]

MR. VAN DINE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND WE HAVE ANOTHER STAR FROM OUR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GRACE, WHO WILL COME FORWARD AND GIVE US AN UPDATE ON OUR CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN.

THANK YOU. HELLO. MY NAME IS GRACE SCHAAN, AND I'M THE ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE COORDINATOR.

AND I'M HERE TODAY TO PRESENT A PROGRESS UPDATE ON THE WORK WE'VE BEEN DOING ON OUR CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2026 TO 2036.

SO I'LL START OFF WITH COVERING WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS, NAMELY OUR FIRST PHASE OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, A COUPLE BACKGROUND REPORTS THAT OUR CONSULTANT COMPLETED FOR US AND FINALLY THE ACTIONS THAT WE RECENTLY DRAFTED.

[01:50:06]

AND THEN, OF COURSE, REVISIONS AND REVIEW BY SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND COUNCIL.

SO FIRST OF ALL, FROM JANUARY TO MARCH, WE COMPLETED OUR PHASE ONE OF ENGAGEMENT.

THIS STARTED OFF WITH A SURVEY IN WHICH WE RECEIVED 149 RESPONSES FROM THE PUBLIC.

WE ALSO HAD A PUBLIC ROUNDTABLE EVENT IN PERSON, AND THEN WE COMPLETED A SERIES OF MEETINGS WITH THE GNWT, THE INFRASTRUCTURE DEPARTMENT, AND THE ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE DEPARTMENT, AS WELL AS UTILITIES, SEVERAL COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS. AND ON TOP OF THESE MEETINGS, WE ALSO MET WITH THE YELLOWKNIFE DENE FIRST NATION AND THE NORTH SLAVE MÉTIS ALLIANCE.

SO ALL OF THIS FIRST PHASE OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT CULMINATED IN A REPORT WE CALL THE WHAT WE HEARD REPORT.

IT'S AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE. AND BASICALLY IT SUMMARIZES WHAT THE PUBLIC HAS ASKED FOR US TO COMPLETE IN OUR CLIMATE ACTION PLAN.

SO FIRST OF ALL, THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CITY EDUCATE AND INFORM RESIDENTS ON HOW THEY CAN REDUCE EMISSIONS AND HOW THEY CAN ADAPT TO CLIMATE CHANGE.

THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE US IMPROVE FOOD SECURITY AND LOCAL FOOD PRODUCTION.

IMPROVE WASTE DIVERSION. THEY'D LIKE TO SEE THE CITY LEAD BY EXAMPLE, SPECIFICALLY IN TERMS OF WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY AT CITY FACILITIES.

THEY'D ALSO LIKE TO SEE US IMPROVE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATE WITH THE PUBLIC, PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO IMPLEMENTING THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN.

UPDATING ON OUR PROGRESS AND CELEBRATING OUR SUCCESSES ALONG THE WAY.

SO ONE THING TO NOTE FROM OUR SURVEY WAS THIS QUESTION HERE.

WE ASKED RESIDENTS, HOW PREPARED ARE YOU FOR THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE? AND OVER A QUARTER OF RESIDENTS SAID THEY ARE NOT PREPARED.

WHICH IS CONCERNING. TATSUYUKI AND MYSELF PRESENTED THESE RESULTS AT THE SPRING TRADE SHOW AND HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH THE PUBLIC MORE ABOUT WHAT THEY'D LIKE TO SEE IN THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN.

SO THE FIRST BACKGROUND REPORT THAT I'LL TOUCH ON, COMPLETED BY OUR CONSULTANT, IS THE ENERGY AND GHG EMISSIONS INVENTORY.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THE CITY IN TERMS OF CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY EMISSIONS.

SO CORPORATE EMISSIONS ARE EVERYTHING THE CITY IS DIRECTLY DOING.

SO CITY FACILITIES, FLEET, THE SOLID WASTE FACILITY.

THOSE ARE IN CORPORATE. AND THEN THE PIE CHART ON THE RIGHT IS COMMUNITY EMISSIONS.

COMMUNITY EMISSIONS ARE EVERYTHING THAT OCCURS WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY OF THE CITY, INCLUDING CORPORATE EMISSIONS, WHICH YOU CAN SEE THE GRAY SLICE OF THE PIE ON THE RIGHT.

CORPORATE MAKES UP 10% OF ALL COMMUNITY EMISSIONS.

SO THIS FULL REPORT IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE.

AND THE STUDY WAS USED. SORRY. WAS CREATED USING 2023 DATA THAT THE CITY PROVIDED.

SO OTHER THINGS TO NOTE ON HERE ARE THAT SOLID WASTE DOES MAKE UP THE LARGEST PROPORTION OF OUR CORPORATE EMISSIONS.

THERE ARE MANY ASSUMPTIONS THAT GO INTO CALCULATING THESE EMISSIONS, AND OUR METHODOLOGY IS NOT PERFECT.

IT IS COMPLICATED ALSO BY THE FACT THAT WE'RE IN A NORTHERN CLIMATE, AND IT JUST MAKES MEASURING THINGS A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLICATED.

AND THIS IS ON OUR RADAR TO IMPROVE OUR METHODOLOGY FOR MEASURING THESE.

BUT WE CAN CONFIDENTLY SAY THAT SOLID WASTE IS OUR LARGEST SOURCE OF CORPORATE EMISSIONS.

IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY EMISSIONS, YOU CAN SEE THE GREEN SLICE THE PIE IS 40% AND THAT IS OFF ROAD TRANSPORTATION, THAT IS PARTICULARLY HIGH BECAUSE IT INCLUDES AVIATION.

SO THE OTHER TWO LEADING SECTORS BEHIND OFF ROAD TRANSPORTATION ARE INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, AS WELL AS ON ROAD TRANSPORTATION. SO OF COURSE US DRIVING OUR CARS.

THE STUDY ALSO INCLUDED A PROJECTION TO 2050.

SO THIS CHART HERE SHOWS COMMUNITY BUSINESS AS USUAL EMISSIONS FORECAST FROM 2023 TO 2050.

SO BUSINESS AS USUAL. THIS IS ASSUMING THAT WE DON'T TAKE ANY ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY PLANNED.

AND SO YOU CAN SEE IN 2050 WE HAVE ABOUT 200,000 TONS OF GHG EMISSIONS.

WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE IS THE GNWT HAS ALREADY COMMITTED THAT THE WHOLE TERRITORY REACH NET ZERO BY 2050.

SO WITH YELLOWKNIFE MAKING UP MORE THAN HALF THE TERRITORY'S POPULATION WE WILL NOT REACH NET ZERO WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT FURTHER REDUCTIONS AND SIGNIFICANT FURTHER ACTION BY WITHIN OUR OWN CITY.

SO THE SECOND BACKGROUND REPORT ALSO COMPLETED BY OUR CONSULTANT IS THE CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT.

[01:55:01]

ONCE AGAIN THE FULL REPORT IS AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE.

SO HIGHLIGHTS FROM THIS REPORT SUGGEST THAT THINGS WE'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT MORE OF ARE EXTREME HEAT EVENTS WILDFIRE, DROUGHT, SNOWSTORMS, HIGH WINDS, MORE FREEZE THAW CYCLES, AND EVEN MORE PERMAFROST THAW.

ONE THING THAT WE WILL SEE LESS OF IS THE EXTREME COLD TEMPERATURES.

AND THESE THESE HAZARDS WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS SHOULD WE NOT ACT PROACTIVELY.

SO SOME OF THE IMPACTS WE COULD SEE ARE DISRUPTIONS TO OUR SERVICES LIKE UTILITIES.

IT WILL RESULT IN POOR AIR QUALITY AS WE CAN ALREADY SEE OUTSIDE, TODAY IS A VERY SMOKY DAY, IT LOOKS LIKE. AND THIS OF COURSE HAS PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS, ESPECIALLY FOR THE ELDERLY AND THOSE WITH PREEXISTING CONDITIONS.

CLIMATE CHANGE WILL RESULT IN FINANCIAL LOSSES FOR LOCAL BUSINESSES.

DUE IN PART TO THOSE SERVICE DISRUPTIONS THAT I MENTIONED AS WELL AS WE WILL SEE SHORTER ICE ROAD SEASONS, WHICH AFFECTS CULTURAL TRADITIONS AND RECREATION.

AND WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE DAMAGE IT HAS CAUSED TO OUR ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE, SUCH AS ON FRANKLIN HILL, WHICH NOW REQUIRES COSTLY REPAIRS. SO ASIDE FROM ALL THESE INFRASTRUCTURE PIECES, WHAT'S MAYBE MOST IMPORTANT IS THE IMPACT THIS IS GOING TO HAVE ON OUR COMMUNITY WELL-BEING, ON PEOPLE'S LIVELIHOODS, AND ON PEOPLE'S PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH.

SO AS PART OF THIS ASSESSMENT, WE TOOK AN INVENTORY OF ALL OF THE ASSETS THAT EXIST WITHIN THE CITY BOUNDARIES AND USING A FORMULA OF EXPOSURE TO CLIMATE RELATED HAZARDS, THEIR SENSITIVITY TO THEM AND THEIR ADAPTIVE CAPACITY TO RESPOND.

THEY WERE EACH GIVEN A GRADE OF LOW, MEDIUM AND HIGH.

AND THIS ASSESSMENT FOUND THAT ALL ASSETS WITHIN THE CITY FALL WITHIN THE MEDIUM TO HIGH VULNERABILITY TO CLIMATE IMPACTS.

THE GOOD NEWS IS THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO TO BUILD OUR COMMUNITY RESILIENCE AND REDUCE OUR EMISSIONS, AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE WORKING ON THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN.

SO AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE DRAFTED A SET OF ACTIONS, AND THEY FOLLOW THE STRUCTURE HERE ON THE LEFT.

SO WE HAVE A VISION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE ACTION PLAN AND THEN WE HAVE BROKEN EVERYTHING INTO SIX THEMES.

EACH THEME HAS GOALS TO STRIVE FOR WITHIN AS WELL AS STRATEGIES FOR ACHIEVING THOSE GOALS AND THEN SPECIFIC ACTIONS TO TAKE.

SO OF COURSE, ALL OF THE ACTIONS HAVE TO FIT SOME CRITERIA, AND PART OF THAT CRITERIA IS THAT IT REFLECTS THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, THAT IT INCORPORATES, THE RESULTS OF THE BACKGROUND REPORTS, SPECIFICALLY THE EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND THE CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT.

FOLLOW OUR INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES AND BE FEASIBLE IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS.

NEEDLESS TO SAY, ALL ACTIONS MUST ALSO FIT THE YELLOWKNIFE CONTEXT.

SO HERE YOU CAN SEE THE SIX THEMES THAT WE ARE WORKING WITH.

SO WE ARE LOOKING AT SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION, WASTE MANAGEMENT, RESILIENT BUILDINGS AND INFRASTRUCTURE, LAND USE AND PLANNING, GOVERNANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND COMMUNITY PREPAREDNESS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE.

SO LAST WEEK WE JUST RELEASED A SET OF ACTIONS.

SO THOSE SPECIFIC ACTIONS THE CITY CAN TAKE THAT FALL WITHIN EACH OF THESE SIX CATEGORIES.

SO THOSE ARE AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE AS WELL.

NOW IN TERMS OF NEXT STEPS WE ARE ABOUT TO BEGIN PHASE TWO OF ENGAGEMENT.

SO AS I MENTIONED, WE HAVE THESE DRAFT ACTIONS, WE'RE LOOKING FOR PUBLIC FEEDBACK ON THEM.

AND LAST WEEK WE LAUNCHED OUR SURVEY WHICH WILL BE OPEN UNTIL JULY 4TH.

ALSO LAST WEEK MYSELF AND TATSUYUKI PRESENTED TO THE ROTARY CLUB TRUE NORTH TO GIVE A BIT OF AN UPDATE.

AND TOMORROW WE ARE HOSTING A PUBLIC ROUNDTABLE HERE IN COUNCIL CHAMBER AT 6:30 P.M.

ALL OF THESE PIECES FROM PHASE TWO OF ENGAGEMENT WILL BE USED FOR REVISING THE DRAFT ACTIONS.

OF COURSE, NEXT COMES REVIEW BY SENIOR MANAGEMENT, WHICH WE EXPECT TO HAPPEN AROUND MID-AUGUST.

WILL THEN BE REVISING THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN IN THE EARLY FALL.

AND WE WILL BE BACK PRESENTING TO COUNCIL HOPEFULLY AROUND MID-OCTOBER.

AND THE GOAL IS THAT WE WANT TO HAVE THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN FINISHED AND IN PLACE BEFORE THE CURRENT CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY ENERGY ACTION PLAN COMES TO AN END, AND ALSO BEFORE THE BUDGET CONVERSATION PROGRESSES FURTHER IN THE FALL AND WINTER.

[02:00:01]

APPRECIATE THAT UPDATE. ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? COUNCILLOR FEQUET. THANKS, MR. CHAIR. THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION, GRACE.

THANKS FOR SHARING THE CRITERIA THAT YOU GUYS USED WHEN YOU WERE THINKING ABOUT POTENTIAL ACTIONS, THAT'S REALLY INTERESTING AND COOL.

I APPRECIATED HEARING THAT. GIVEN THE GNWT COMMITMENT TO NET ZERO GHG BY 2050 FOR THE TERRITORY HAVE THERE BEEN ANY INDICATIONS OF FUNDING TO SUPPORT THAT GOAL FOR MUNICIPALITIES? I'LL GIVE THAT TO THE ACTING CITY MANAGER.

AND I WILL PASS THAT ON TO MISS SCHAAN. THANK YOU.

SO WE'VE SPOKEN WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND THE ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE DEPARTMENT FROM THE GNWT.

THEY SEEM VERY SUPPORTIVE OF OUR CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND HAVE INDICATED A FEW AREAS WHERE THERE COULD BE POTENTIAL FUNDING COMING.

BUT OF COURSE, THERE ARE MANY OTHER AVENUES THAT WE WILL PURSUE TO FUND THESE ACTIONS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCILLOR COCHRANE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. WHAT FEDERAL GRANTS ARE WE CURRENTLY LOOKING AT FOR FUNDING THE FUTURE PROJECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS? MISS SCHAAN. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. SO, FIRST OF ALL, UNDER THE EXISTING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THERE IS THE GREEN MUNICIPAL FUND. AND THERE ARE MANY, MANY STRATEGIES THERE, PARTICULARLY FOR ADAPTATION.

SO ONE EXAMPLE I CAN THINK OF RIGHT NOW IS A TREE PLANTING INITIATIVE FOR MUNICIPALITIES TO INCREASE THEIR TREE PLANTING.

OTHERS INCLUDE IMPROVING ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION.

THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. YEAH. LOTS OF OPTIONS.

AWESOME. THANK YOU. AND I'M JUST HOPING MACA IS LISTENING AND MAYBE IT COMES UP WITH SOME FORM OF GRANTS THEMSELVES AROUND THIS AREA.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR COCHRANE. I THINK THAT'S EVERYTHING.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. RIGHT HERE. OH, THE HAND I KEEP MISSING THE HAND, IT'S SO TINY.

MAYOR HENDRICKSEN. YOU HAVE TO START LOOKING OVER THE CITY CLERK'S SHOULDER.

THANKS FOR THAT, MR. CHAIR. JUST A QUICK ONE.

AND THANK YOU FOR THE WORK, GRACE, AND TO THE TEAM WHO'S BEEN WORKING ON THIS.

AND THIS IS CAPTURED IN YOUR WORK, BUT I JUST I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT FOCUSING ON ONE OF THE TANGIBLE THINGS THE CITY CAN DO.

I APPRECIATE THAT RESIDENTS WANT US TO SORT OF BROADEN THE SCOPE, BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WITH OUR CURRENT PLAN IS WE HAD SO MANY TARGETS ON THINGS THAT THE CITY ITSELF DIDN'T HAVE CONTROL OF. AND SO IT BECAME REALLY HARD, AS YOU WERE DESCRIBING GRACE, IN TERMS OF WHAT DO WE ACTUALLY HAVE AN IMPACT ON? SO I LIKE THAT THE THINGS YOU'RE BRINGING UP AND THE THINGS YOU'RE FOCUSING ON AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE IS, WHAT CAN WE DO FIRST? AND THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE IS SPACE WITHIN A FUTURE PLAN TO TALK ABOUT SORT OF HOW THE CITY CAN ENABLE OTHERS TO TAKE ACTION, I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE. BUT IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE COMMITTING TO AND WHAT WE CAN MEASURE AND WHAT WE CAN TAKE ACTION ON, I LIKE THAT. THAT'S THE FOCUS HERE. SO JUST A GENERAL COMMENT ON THAT.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE WORK AND LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING THE NEXT STEPS. AWESOME.

THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND YEAH, JUST TO ECHO COUNCILLOR HENDRIKSEN.

YEAH. AND IF THERE'S ANY WAY WE CAN DRIVE HOME THAT THE CITY, LIKE WE CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH AND WE NEED SUPPORT TO TAKE ACTIONS.

EXAMPLE THE ENERGY RETROFIT PROGRAM THAT WE HAD A BUNCH OF WORK DONE.

AND I THINK I STILL PERSONALLY THINK WOULD HAVE BEEN AMAZING AND SAVE COST TO RESIDENTS, BUT JUST DIDN'T HAVE THE CAPACITY WITHIN THE CITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.

SO IF WE'RE PRODUCING ANOTHER REPORT WITH MORE RECOMMENDATIONS, IF WE CAN REALLY JUST DRIVE HOME THAT WE NEED RESOURCES IN ORDER TO DO ANY OF THIS.

THAT WOULD BE AMAZING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND YEAH.

JUST FOR ME. YEAH. I APPRECIATE THE FOCUS ON WHAT WE CAN DO AND NOT.

THE LAST REPORT WAS VERY AMBITIOUS AND VERY BROAD.

WE CONTROL THINGS LIKE SOLID WASTE. SO I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THINGS WE CAN ADDRESS.

AND THAT FOCUS IS NICE TO SEE. SEE YOU IN OTHER COMMENTS.

THAT IS THE END OF OUR AGENDA. I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

COUNCILLOR COCHRANE. COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN SECOND.

AND THERE'S NO COUNCIL MEETING THIS EVENING, SO WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT WEEK.

COMING TO THE MARKET.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.