Sep 22, 2025 Council Meetings

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

[00:00:04]

AND I'D LIKE TO CALL OUR REGULAR MEETING OF COUNCIL FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22ND, 2025 TO ORDER.

COUNCILOR MCGURK, PLEASE READ OUR OPENING STATEMENTS. THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT WE ARE LOCATED IN CHIEF DRYGEESE TERRITORY.

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

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

SEEING THAT THERE'S SO MUCH INTEREST IN THIS ITEM, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE IT UP ON OUR AGENDA AT THE WILL OF COUNCIL IF THERE IS APPROVAL TO AMEND THE AGENDA AND BRING THAT UP. MOTION BY COUNCILOR FEQUET, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR MCLENNAN.

ALL IN FAVOR? AWESOME. SO THOSE MOVING UP ITEM 21, 22 AND 23.

[Items 21 - 23]

COUNCILOR MCGURK, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.

OKAY. RIGHT INTO HER. SORRY. AND JUST FOR CLARITY, FOLKS FOR FIRST READING, THERE'S NO DEBATE.

COUNCIL WON'T DEBATE ANYTHING, WON'T TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. THIS IS JUST A YAY OR NAY VOTE. IF IT'S MAJORITY, NAY, THEN THIS ENDS HERE. IF IT'S A YAY, THEN IT GOES TO PUBLIC HEARING.

AND THEN BASED ON THAT SECOND READING AND THIRD READING.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT. NO DISCUSSION, NO DEBATE.

THANK YOU. SORRY.

I MOVE THAT BY-LAW NUMBER 5116 BE REMOVED FROM THE TABLE.

WE CAN DISCUSS THIS. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON MOVING IT FROM THE TABLE? SEEING.

OH, SECOND, OR SORRY. MR. FEQUET, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE TABLE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IT JUST MEANS WE'RE.

WE WERE TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE, AND WE'RE BRINGING IT BACK FOR DISCUSSION BECAUSE WE PUSHED IT OFF THE DISCUSSIONS NOT TO BRING IT BACK ONTO THE TABLE TO DISCUSS THIS MEETING.

SO THAT'S ALL THAT IS. THAT IS UNANIMOUS. ALL RIGHT.

COUNCILOR MCGURK. I MOVE THE FIRST READING OF BY-LAW NUMBER 5116.

SECTION THERE. SO BY-LAW NUMBER 5116, BY-LAW TO AMEND ZONING BY-LAW NUMBER 5045, AS AMENDED BY REZONING A PORTION OF BLOCK 77A PLAN 512, A PORTION OF LOT TWO, BLOCK 201, PLAN 2396, AND A PORTION OF ROAD (SCHOOL DRAW AVENUE), PLAN 2396 AND A PORTION OF ROAD (LUNDQUIST ROAD), PLAN 2396, REFERRED TO AS EASTERN BLOCK FROM PR TO RI-1 AND NP IS PRESENTED FOR FIRST READING.

COUNCILOR MCGURK. I MOVE FIRST READING OF BY-LAW NUMBER 5116.

SO THIS IS JUST A VOTE. SECONDER, SORRY. COUNCILOR FEQUET AND JUST ALL IN FAVOR OF MOVING THIS PAST FIRST READING.

THAT IS COUNCILOR PAYNE, COUNCILOR ARDEN-SMITH, MYSELF IN FAVOR AND EVERYONE ELSE OPPOSED.

SO THE NAYS HAVE IT. SO THAT DIES ON FIRST READING.

AND WHILE I'M SURE YOU'RE ALL RIVETED BY THE REST OF OUR AGENDA, IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO EXIT AT THIS POINT AND WE'LL CONTINUE THE REST OF OUR AGENDA, WE'LL GIVE YOU A FEW MINUTES TO DO THAT IF YOU WISH.

WE ARE ALL FINISHED TALKING ABOUT THAT ITEM. SO THE REST IS.

THIS PORTION IS DONE. IT'S DEAD. IT'S FINISHED.

WE'RE.

[00:05:09]

IF NOT, WE'LL CONTINUE. OH, YEAH.

ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE TOP OF THE AGENDA. AWARDS AND CEREMONIES AND PRESENTATIONS. THERE ARE NO AWARDS, CEREMONIES OR PRESENTATIONS FOR THE AGENDA. FOLKS, CAN WE QUIET DOWN, PLEASE? IF YOU WANT TO STAY, PLEASE STAY.

IF NOT, HAVE A GOOD NIGHT. THERE ARE NO AWARDS CEREMONIES OR PRESENTATIONS FOR THE AGENDA.

[Items 3 - 6]

MINUTES OF COUNCIL FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8TH, 25% FOR ADOPTION. COUNCILOR MCGURK. I MOVE THE MINUTES OF COUNCIL FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8TH, 2025 BE PRESENTED FOR ADOPTION.

DO I HAVE A SECONDER? COUNCILOR ARDEN-SMITH. ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, CHANGES? ALL IN FAVOR OF ADOPTING THOSE. THAT´S UNANIMOUS.

MINUTES OF COUNCIL FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2025 ARE PRESENTED FOR ADOPTION.

COUNCILOR MCGURK. I MOVE THE MINUTES OF COUNCIL FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2025 BE PRESENTED FOR ADOPTION. ANY DISCUSSION, ERRORS, OMISSIONS ON THOSE? OH SORRY. SECONDER? I KEEP FORGETTING THIS PART. COUNCILOR FOOTE? COMMENTS, ERRORS, OMISSIONS. NO? ALL IN FAVOR? THAT IS UNANIMOUS. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN GENERAL NATURE THEREOF.

DOES ANYONE HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THE MATTER BEFORE COUNCIL TODAY? SEEING NONE.

CORRESPONDENCE, PETITIONS. CORRESPONDENCE FROM BOREALIS, INC.

REGARDING FIRE HYDRANT COST SHARING. WE HAVE RECEIVED CORRESPONDENCE ON NEST.

THE REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE SPEAKING LATER ON ITEMS PERTAINING TO THE AGENDA.

SO RIGHT OVER HERE. STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARINGS.

THERE IS NO STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE AGENDA. DELEGATIONS PERTAINING TO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. PRESENTATION FROM SCOTT PARKER REGARDING NEST BUILDING FIRE HYDRANT

[10. A presentation from Scott Parker regarding NEST Building Fire Hydrant Requirement.]

AND I SEE KEVIN IS HERE AS WELL TO SPEAK LATER.

AS A REMINDER DELEGATION SHALL ADDRESS THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND SHALL NOT POSE QUESTIONS TO INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OR ADMINISTRATION.

EACH PRESENTER SHALL BE AFFORDED FIVE MINUTES FOR THEIR PRESENTATION.

THE TIME ALLOTTED FOR EACH PRESENTER MAY BE EXTENDED BY FIVE MINUTES BY A RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL.

AFTER PERSON HAS SPOKEN, ANY MEMBER MAY, THROUGH THE PRESIDING OFFICER, ASK THAT PERSON OR THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR RELEVANT QUESTIONS, AND NO DEBATE SHALL BE PERMITTED OF ANY DELEGATION TO COUNCIL, EITHER BETWEEN MEMBERS OR THE INDIVIDUAL MAKING THE PRESENTATION.

SO WITH THAT, MR. PARKER, WHEN YOU ARE READY.

FLOOR IS YOURS. THANK YOU. IT'S NICE TO BE BACK HERE AGAIN.

THANKS FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO GET TO CLARIFY A FEW THINGS.

MY NAME IS SCOTT PARKER. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF BOREALIS DEVELOPMENT.

THEY'RE THE FOLKS BEHIND THE NEST. I WANT TO CLARIFY A FEW POINTS BEFORE COUNCIL MAKES THEIR DECISION ON COST SHARING FOR A NEW FIRE HYDRANT ON 50TH STREET. ONE OF THE THINGS WAS BOREALIS´ DILIGENCE IN ANALYZING THEIR CODE REQUIREMENTS.

WE DISCUSSED THAT AT THE GPC. HERE'S WHAT THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE SAYS ABOUT APPLICATION TO EXISTING BUILDINGS LIKE THE BELLANCA NEST BUILDING.

THIS IS A BROAD OVERVIEW, AND I'M NOT HOLDING MYSELF OUT AS A CODE EXPERT, BUT THIS IS WHAT IT SAYS.

IT'S NOT INTENDED THAT THE NBC BE USED TO ENFORCE THE RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF NEW REQUIREMENTS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS.

GOES ON THE INCREASED COST OF IMPLEMENTING IN AN EXISTING BUILDING, A DESIGN SOLUTION THAT WOULD NORMALLY BE INTENDED FOR A NEW BUILDING MAY BE PROHIBITIVE. LIKE, SAY, A HYDRANT VAULT.

SO, BOREALIS´ CODE REVIEWERS AND ENGINEERS DETERMINED NO HYDRANT WAS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE CODE WAS APPLIED TO AN EXISTING BUILDING.

A BUILDING THAT IS NONCOMBUSTIBLE. IT'S GOT AN UPGRADED SPRINKLER SYSTEM, UPGRADED FIRE PUMP, FIRE ALARM SYSTEM THAT ALL MEET THE LATEST CODES.

THE OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL DIDN'T INDICATE A FIRE HYDRANT WAS REQUIRED.

THE OFM HAS THE DUTY TO REVIEW PLANS FOR THE ALTERATION OF STRUCTURES TO DETERMINE IF PROPER PRECAUTIONS ARE TAKEN AGAINST FIRE.

AGAIN, NO HYDRANT INDICATED, AND THE OFM´S CHIEF CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER THAT DID THE NEST PLAN REVIEW SINCE RETIRED, WROTE THIS. I TREATED THE BELLANCA NEST BUILDING AS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, APPLYING THE BUILDING CODE ONLY TO THE ELEMENTS PROPOSED FOR ALTERATION. BOREALIS AND THEIR TEAM WERE WELL AWARE OF HOW THE CODE OPERATES WITH EXISTING BUILDINGS,

[00:10:04]

THIS EXISTING BUILDING. NOW, ULTIMATELY, THE CITY STILL WANTS THE HYDRANT VAULT, AND BOREALIS IS COMPLYING WITH THAT.

IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. AT THE GPC MEETING, THERE WAS ALSO CONCERNS ABOUT THIS SETTING A PRECEDENT, AND WE MAINTAIN THERE'S NO PRECEDENT TO BE SET IF COUNCIL APPROVES THIS COST SHARING.

THIS CASE IS DIFFERENT, AND IT'S UNIQUE BECAUSE IT'S A REVITALIZATION OF AN EXISTING HIGH RISE BUILDING INTO RESIDENTIAL UNITS. I DON'T THINK THIS HAPPENS VERY OFTEN IN YELLOWKNIFE, IF EVER.

IF ANYTHING, THIS ONEROUS REQUIREMENT SADDLED ON EXISTING BUILDINGS WILL SET A PRECEDENT THAT REVITALIZATION IN DOWNTOWN REQUIRES AN EXTRA HALF MILLION FOR A HYDRANT VAULT.

SO DEVELOPERS MAY NEED TO BEWARE. THIS MAP SHOWS THE 45 METER DISTANCES FROM HYDRANTS.

THERE'S HUGE AREAS IN DOWNTOWN YELLOWKNIFE THAT AREN'T COVERED.

THAT RED SPOT IS THE NEST. WE MADE THE ARGUMENT TO THE GPC THAT THE COST OF THE HYDRANT SHOULD BE SHARED, BECAUSE THE HYDRANT BENEFITS EVERYBODY ON THE BLOCK AND IT'S CITY OWNED INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO BOREALIS IS THE FIRST DEVELOPER TO TACKLE A REVITALIZATION OF THIS NATURE IN YELLOWKNIFE.

REMEMBER, THIS BUILDING SAT VACANT FOR THE LAST DECADE.

REQUIRING THE HYDRANT VAULT IS A FIRST MOVER DISADVANTAGE.

IT'S A DISINCENTIVE TO INVEST IN YELLOWKNIFE, AND IT INCREASES THE CHALLENGES OF FINANCING PROJECTS LIKE THE NEST.

IT'S NOT JUST US THAT FEELS THIS WAY. THE YELLOWKNIFE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RAISED A SIMILAR CONCERN IN A PUBLIC LETTER TODAY.

IN ADMINISTRATION'S REPORT TO THE GPC RECOMMENDING COUNCIL MAKE THIS ALLOCATION.

THEY SAY SINCE THE LIFT STATION NUMBER ONE REPLACEMENT PROJECT IS NOW ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL GRANT FUNDING, THIS HAS CREATED A SMALL WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY TO REALLOCATE A TINY PORTION OF FUNDS FOR A PROJECT LIKE THIS HYDRANT VAULT.

SURELY THERE'S A WAY WE CAN MAKE THIS WORK. WITH THE CURRENT HOUSING CRISIS, I'M SURPRISED WE HAVE TO FIGHT SO HARD TO SWAY YOU ALL TO THIS DECISION. TO CONCLUDE. COUNCIL HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS SMALL WINDOW AND ALLOCATE THAT TINY PORTION OF LIFT STATION MONEY AND ALLOCATE THE COST OF THIS SHARED PUBLIC RESOURCE EQUITABLY.

WHY MAKE DEVELOPMENT HARDER WHEN IT CAN BE MADE EASIER? I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT WITH THIS LONG LIST OF BENEFITS THAT YELLOWKNIFE DERIVES FROM SMART HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THE NEST.

THIS ALLOCATION SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY COUNCIL TO HELP PUT A DENT IN YELLOWKNIFE'S CHRONIC HOUSING CRISIS.

THAT'S IT FOR ME. THANK YOU ALL FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY, I APPRECIATE IT.

YOU'RE HERE. THANK YOU, MR. PARKER. OPEN THE FLOOR FOR QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES. YEAH. STARTING WITH MAYOR HENDRICKSEN.

THANK YOU, DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON. YEAH. JUST A FEW QUESTIONS, AND I APOLOGIZE, MR. PARKER. I CAN'T SEE YOU, SO BEAR WITH ME WHEN YOU'RE RESPONDING IF THERE'S A BIT OF A DELAY.

SO I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION IS, IS DO YOU BELIEVE THAT CLEAR AND CONSISTENTLY APPLIED LAWS ARE IMPORTANT FOR CREATING CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNMENT AND CREATING CONFIDENCE FOR INVESTMENT DECISIONS? OF COURSE, THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

BUT THE NBC ISN'T CLEAR AND CONSISTENT. HOW IT GETS APPLIED IS NOT CLEAR AND CONSISTENT.

IT'S NOT CLEAR AND CONSISTENT TO DEVELOPERS. I WOULD SAY THAT YOU COULD SPEAK TO A LOT OF DEVELOPERS WHO WOULD WELCOME MORE CLEAR AND CONSISTENT LAWS AND GUIDANCE FROM THIS CITY. THANK YOU FOR THAT RESPONSE. MY SECOND QUESTION WOULD BE THE DILIGENT CODE REVIEW YOU NOTED FINISHES WITH A PRETTY IMPORTANT LINE, WHICH YOU HIGHLIGHTED. SO IF WE COULD GO BACK TO THE FIRST SLIDE AFTER THE TITLE SLIDE OF YOUR PRESENTATION JUST SO WE CAN PULL THAT UP AGAIN.

SO IT'S THE ONE THAT SAYS DILIGENT CODE REVIEW.

I HAVE A LOT OF THOSE. BUT IT'S THE VERY FIRST ONE.

SO IT IS NOT INTENDED THAT THE NBC BE USED TO ENFORCE THE RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF NEW REQUIREMENTS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS OR EXISTING PORTIONS OF RELOCATED BUILDINGS,

[00:15:09]

WOULD YOU AGREE THAT OUR BY-LAW REQUIRES THIS? WOULD I AGREE THAT THE BY-LAW REQUIRES THAT THE HYDRANT VAULT BE INSTALLED? THAT THIS REQUIREMENT. SO IT SAYS THAT THE NBC NOT NECESSARILY BE USED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED BY LOCAL REGULATIONS OR BY-LAWS. WOULD YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE THAT OUR BY-LAW REQUIRES THAT? YEAH, THE BY-LAW FOR SURE REQUIRES THAT THE NBC BE APPLIED.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE HERE. IT'S HOW THE NBC IS BEING APPLIED.

THE NBC IS MORE COMPLICATED FOR SURE THAN THE BUILDING BY-LAW.

OKAY. NEXT QUESTION IS, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE FAIR FOR ANOTHER, FOR PROFIT OR NOT FOR PROFIT DEVELOPER IN YELLOWKNIFE TO RECEIVE ONE OFF FINANCING FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE THE CITY'S EXISTING BY-LAWS AND DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES? IF I THINK IT'S GOING TO PUT MORE HOUSING UNITS AVAILABLE IN YELLOWKNIFE, I WOULD SAY YES TO THAT.

AND I THINK A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE IN YELLOWKNIFE WOULD TOO.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD ENOUGH REASON TO PREVENT BUILDINGS LIKE THE NEST OR SOME OTHER BUILDINGS FROM OPENING, ESPECIALLY IN THIS CASE WHERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CITY OWNED INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S GOING TO BENEFIT MORE THAN THE INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPER.

AND ALL THE AMBIGUITIES AROUND HOW THAT HYDRANT VAULT HAS BEEN APPLIED TO THIS EXISTING BUILDING.

SO I MIGHT COME BACK TO THAT. IF THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND COST FOR HYDRANTVAULT WERE SEEN BY YOURSELF AND YOUR CLIENT AS UNFAIRLY RESTING WITH THE DEVELOPER AS EARLY AS THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IN 2023 AND THE BUILDING PERMIT IN 2024, WHICH YOU'VE NOTED TONIGHT. AND YOU SAID IN YOUR LETTER, WHY DID ADVOCACY FOR A CHANGE IN BY-LAW NOT COME TO COUNCIL EARLIER? I MEAN, I GUESS MY REAL CRUX IS WHY DID IT HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR TO HIGHLIGHT YOUR CONCERNS WHEN THE RULES AND REQUIREMENTS WERE AS YOU NOTE OR, AS YOU STATED, KNOWN THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT? BECAUSE I HAVE TO SAY, IT FEELS AT THIS POINT IN TIME, AS LAYERS OF THE ONION HAVE BEEN UNVEILED, THAT THE ULTIMATE ONUS IS NOW BEING PUT ON THE CITY FOR SOMETHING THAT OTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY HAVE TO ABIDE BY, AND THAT YOU HAVE STATED YOUR CLIENT HERE HAS KNOWN ABOUT SINCE THE START OF THEIR PROJECT.

SO LET ME JUST UNPACK THAT A LITTLE BIT. WHEN YOU SAY THAT WE KNEW ABOUT THE BY-LAW.

ARE YOU ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE WALL HYDRANT, ARE WE? NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT UNDER THE BY-LAW, WHICH WAS DISCUSSED AT THE SEPTEMBER 8TH MEETING.

THAT'S IN THE BUILDING BY-LAW WHICH THE BUILDING PERMIT WAS GRANTED FOR.

AND IN THE LETTER PRESENTED IN UNDER CORRESPONDENCE AND IN THE PRESENTATION THAT YOU PROVIDED LAST MEETING AND AS WELL AS TONIGHT STATED THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS WERE KNOWN SINCE THE START OF THE PROJECT.

AND SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS IF THIS WAS SEEN AS UNFAIR FROM THE START, WHY WAIT UNTIL NOW, AT THIS POINT IN THE PROJECT, TO BRING IT TO COUNCIL'S ATTENTION? TWO THINGS HERE. SO FIRST OF ALL, WE DIDN'T SEE THE HYDRANT VAULT AS BEING UNFAIR FROM THE START, BECAUSE THE CODE COMPLIANCE PEOPLE AND THE ENGINEERS DIDN'T FIGURE THAT THE HYDRANT VAULT WOULD BE APPLIED TO THIS NEW BUILDING, AND THE OFM INDICATED THE SAME THING. THIS IS AN EXISTING BUILDING.

THERE'S CERTAIN THINGS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO IT.

NOW, OF COURSE, WE DON'T KNOW HOW THAT GETS DEALT WITH INSIDE THE BLACK BOX THAT WE'VE OFTEN TALKED ABOUT.

NO IDEA, BUT WHAT BOREALIS IS SAYING, THEIR ENGINEERS, THE OFM INITIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE THAT SHOULDN'T BE APPLIED TO THIS EXISTING BUILDING BECAUSE EXISTING BUILDINGS ARE DEALT WITH DIFFERENTLY.

SO TO YOUR SECOND POINT, ABOUT THE 11TH HOUR, ONCE BOREALIS FOUND OUT ABOUT THE PERMIT REQUIREMENT, THEY IMMEDIATELY WENT OUT AND GOT THE QUOTE FOR THE HYDRANT VAULT.

IT WAS QUITE SUBSTANTIAL, BUT THEY ALSO STARTED WORKING.

AND THE CODE ALLOWS THIS WORKING ON AN ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION TO GET IT THROUGH THE PROCESS, TO GET THAT ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION ACCEPTED. AND THEY WORKED VERY HARD ON THAT.

AND IT WAS ONLY RECENTLY THAT WE GOT WHAT WE CONSIDER WAS A FORMAL REJECTION OF THAT THROUGH A BUILDING INSPECTION REVIEW, WHERE THE CITY SAID, WE'VE REVIEWED THIS, WE'VE REVIEWED IT WITH THE OFM, VERY IMPORTANT, AND THEY'VE REJECTED YOUR ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION, WHICH HAD TO DO WITH HOW FIRE HOSES WORK AND HOW THINGS CONNECT.

[00:20:04]

SO THEN OUR NEXT STEP IS THIS. THAT HYDRANT VAULT HAS TO GO IN.

YOU KNOW ALREADY THAT BOREALIS´ FUNDING IS MAXED.

WE MAINTAIN THAT THIS IS A SHARED PIECE OF INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S GOING TO GO MID-BLOCK DOWNTOWN.

ANY OTHER DEVELOPERS THAT GO IN THERE. ANY OTHER REVITALIZATION WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT HYDRANT, THAT BOREALIS IS GOING TO SHOULDER THE WHOLE AMOUNT FOR.

SO THAT'S WHY WE CAME UP WITH THE IDEA. MAYBE THE CITY WOULD GO FOR A COST ALLOCATION WHERE WE CAN LOOK AT HOW MUCH WE THINK WE BENEFIT FROM INSTALLING THIS HYDRANT AND HOW MUCH OTHERS MIGHT. AND ADMINISTRATION REVIEWED THAT AND RECOMMENDED A 75-25 COST SHARING.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANSWERS. I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU.

COUNCILOR MCLENNAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CAN YOU SPEAK TO AT ANY POINT, LIKE YOU HAVE A QUOTE THERE ABOUT THE OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL SAYING THEY WERE TREATING IT AS AN EXISTING BUILDING.

AT ANY POINT, DID THE CITY SAY THEY WOULD TREAT THIS AS AN EXISTING BUILDING? YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT. I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE CITY DECIDED NOT TO.

SOMEWHERE IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS AFTER THE OFM REVIEWED IT.

MY UNDERSTANDING, OTHER PEOPLE HERE KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT THAN I DO.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL HAS A STATUTORY DUTY TO REVIEW ALL THESE PLANS WITH A VIEW TOWARDS FIRE SAFETY. THEY GAVE US A LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS.

I THINK ALMOST ALL OF THEM WERE ALREADY IN THERE.

THE FEW THAT WEREN'T SHOWED UP ON THE BUILDING CODE.

THERE WAS NO HYDRANT REQUIRED OR SHOWED UP ON THE BUILDING PERMIT.

THERE'S NO HYDRANT REQUIRED. THEN IT SHOWS UP ON THE BUILDING PERMIT.

SO SOMEWHERE IN HOW THE CITY WAS REVIEWING THIS, THEY DECIDED AT THAT POINT THIS HYDRANT APPLIES TO THIS EXISTING BUILDING.

NOW, THE REASONS BEHIND THAT DECISION WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO.

IT JUST COMES BACK AND SAYS THIS IS THE CONDITION ON YOUR BUILDING PERMIT.

EVEN OUR REASONS FOR THE REJECTION OF OUR ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION WERE QUITE THIN, BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW THEY WERE MADE, WHY THEY WERE MADE. BUT THEY WERE MADE. THANKS.

AND I GUESS JUST FOLLOW UP. SO IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT BOREALIS SORT OF BASED THEIR OPINION OR THEIR DECISIONS AROUND THE HYDRANTVAULT OR WALL HYDRANT OR EVERYTHING AROUND HYDRANTS ON THIS BEING TREATED AS AN EXISTING BUILDING.

THAT'S RIGHT. ON HOW CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE CODE WOULD BE APPLIED TO AN EXISTING BUILDING.

THAT'S RIGHT. BASED ON HOW, AS I POINTED OUT, HOW THE CODE.

MY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE CODE OPERATES. AND THEN A QUESTION FOR ADMIN, UNSURE WHETHER YOU CAN SPEAK TO THE SPECIFICS IN THIS CASE ABOUT HOW EXISTING OR NOT WAS DETERMINED, BUT THAT WOULD BE GREAT IF YOU COULD.

IF NOT, IS IT POSSIBLE TO SPEAK TO HOW AND WHY A PROJECT LIKE THIS WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS AN EXISTING BUILDING OR NOT? MISS WHITE. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. SO THIS SECTION OF THE CODE DOES NOT APPLY WHEN YOU'RE DOING A CHANGE OF USE.

SO THE BUILDING WAS ORIGINALLY AN OFFICE BUILDING AND IS NOW A RESIDENTIAL.

THANK YOU. SO THAT MEANS THAT THIS TERMINOLOGY AROUND EXISTING BUILDINGS DOESN'T APPLY SIMPLY BECAUSE THE USE CHANGED.

MISS WHITE. YES, THAT IS CORRECT. AND IS THAT A CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE PRACTICE OR A BEST PRACTICE USED IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES? MISS WHITE. SO THIS IS A STANDARD PRACTICE.

IT'S NOT CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE SPECIFIC. AND SO THIS WAS IDENTIFIED WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHEN THE HYDRANT WAS IDENTIFIED AS THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED, IT WAS NOT DURING THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BECAUSE THAT IS UNDER THE ZONING BY-LAW.

IT WAS AT THE POINT OF THE BUILDING PERMIT AT THE BEGINNING, AND IT WAS INCLUDED AS A CONDITION ON THAT WHICH IS UNDER THE NEW BUILDING BY-LAW.

THANK YOU. OKAY. ONE MORE IN BOREALIS' LETTER, OPTION TWO FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION OF OTHER OPTIONS, TALKS ABOUT INSTALLING THE HYDRANT AND THEN FOREGOING PROPERTY TAX INCENTIVES IN ORDER TO REPAY OR

[00:25:06]

ONE IS A TAX ABATEMENT UNDER OUR PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES BY-LAW, WHICH WOULD LIKELY COVER MORE THAN THE TOTAL COST THAT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED HERE FOR THE VAULT HYDRANT, AND UNDER THE NEW DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES BY-LAW, WHICH THEY ALSO HAVE THE OPTION TO APPLY UNDER THEY COULD HAVE A, AGAIN, A TAX ABATEMENT, BUT IT'S A TAX ABATEMENT ON THE TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO THE BUILDING.

ALSO STILL A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT OVER THE TIME OF THE ABATEMENT, WHICH IS A FIVE YEAR DEPRECIATION WOULD AGAIN COVER THE COST.

THANK YOU. BUT WE CAN'T TIE THE TWO TOGETHER.

MISS WHITE. NO. SO THEY DO HAVE TO BE SEPARATE PROCESSES, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE FUNDS COME FROM DIFFERENT AREAS.

THANK YOU. OKAY. SORRY. ONE MORE QUESTION AS I'M THINKING.

IS IT SPELLED OUT CLEARLY SOMEWHERE IN CITY DOCUMENTATION OR THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE, OR SOMEWHERE THAT A CHANGE OF USE MEANS THE BUILDING WILL NOT BE TREATED AS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE? MISS WHITE. SO THAT WOULD BE IN THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE.

THANK YOU. OKAY. I THINK I'LL HAVE A COMMENT.

I NEED TO THINK FOR A MINUTE. SO JUST REMEMBER THIS IS A PRESENTATION.

SO WE DO QUESTIONS TO THE PARTY OR MEN. WE'RE NOT DEBATING THAT MOTION TO LATER.

YEAH. COUNCILOR MCGURK. HI. THANK YOU. I HAVE THE BUILDING CODE OPEN IN FRONT OF ME.

IN YOUR OPINION, WOULD YOU SAY THAT SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES AND ADDITIONS WERE MADE TO THE EXISTING BUILDING AND OR THE OCCUPANCY WAS CHANGED? THE USE WAS CHANGED, FOR SURE, BUT I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE MY OPINION.

I WAS RELYING ON THE CODE REQUIREMENTS AND THE CODE ANALYSIS FROM BOREALIS AND WHAT THE OFM SAID.

OKAY, WELL, THAT IS WITHIN THE SAME PARAGRAPH THAT YOU HAVE CITED HERE.

UNLESS THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION IS DETERMINED THAT THERE IS AN INHERENT THREAT TO OCCUPANT SAFETY AND HAS ISSUED AN ORDER TO ELIMINATE THE UNSAFE CONDITION, OR WHERE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES OR ADDITIONS ARE BEING MADE TO AN EXISTING BUILDING OR THE OCCUPANCY HAS CHANGED THERE, THEN THE EXISTING BUILDINGS ARE NOT CONSIDERED OR ARE SUBJECT TO CODE REQUIREMENTS. I'M SORRY, I JUST. YEAH. THERE'S ANOTHER QUESTION.

IN THAT LIGHT, IT SEEMS LIKE THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THAT THERE IS AN INHERENT THREAT TO OCCUPANT SAFETY.

AND SO I'M WONDERING. DID YOU INSTALL THE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION PRIOR TO CITY APPROVAL? NO. THE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION WAS PROVIDED TO THE CITY.

THAT HAS TO DO WITH AN ANALYSIS OF THE AMOUNT OF PRESSURE THAT'S AVAILABLE IN THE BUILDING.

THE LENGTH OF THE HOSE RUNS, THE CHANGES OF FRICTION AND FIRE HOSES.

IT GETS VERY, VERY DETAILED. AND THE CITY HAS HAD THAT AND THEY'VE REVIEWED IT.

BUT I WOULD MAKE IS WHO IS THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION? BECAUSE AS I READ THE FIRE PREVENTION ACT, THAT'S THE OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL AND THE OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL.

THE CHIEF CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER AT THE TIME TREATED THAT BUILDING AS AN EXISTING BUILDING.

SO DOES THE DID THE OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO TO MAKE THAT CALL.

I'M NOT. AGAIN, I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW THIS ALL WORKS.

IS THAT FORMALIZED? YES, IT WOULD BE IN THE DOCUMENTATION THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AT SOME POINT FROM THE OFM TO THE CITY.

SO, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE OFM IS THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION.

WHO WOULD MAKE THE DECISION ON THE FIRE SAFETY OF THE BUILDING? IN THIS CASE WITH THE NEST, THE OFM, THE. THE CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER WITH THE OFM THAT REVIEWED THE PLANS.

[00:30:05]

I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WORKS EXACTLY, BUT I. I READ IT AS STATUTORILY.

THAT'S WHAT THE OFM'S JOB IS. EVENTUALLY THE PERMIT SHOWED UP WITH THE HYDRANT VAULT REQUIRED, AND BOREALIS IS FINE WILL BUILD THE HYDRANT VAULT.

WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT A COST SHARING ALLOCATION, WHICH I UNDERSTAND IS TIED TO YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE CODE COMPLIANCE.

YEAH, I SUPPOSE A QUESTION FOR ADMIN. DO WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY? AND ARE WE AN AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE? DO WE APPLY THAT? MISS WHITE, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

SO YES, WE ARE AN AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION.

AND IN ADDITION, WE ALSO WORK CLOSELY WITH THE OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL.

BECAUSE THERE ARE MULTIPLE PERMITS THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT REQUIRE BOTH OF OUR REVIEWS HAVING DIFFERENT LEVELS OF AUTHORITY.

I KNOW THAT'S CONFUSING. BUT WE DO WORK VERY CLOSELY TOGETHER, AND WE DO SHARE INFORMATION.

SO HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, BUT YES, WE ARE AN AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION.

YEAH. THAT DOES. THANK YOU. OKAY. FINAL QUESTION IS, AT WHAT POINT DID WE FLAG THE NEED FOR A HYDRANT VAULT.

MISS WHITE. THANK YOU. THE HYDRANT VAULT WAS FLAGGED AT THE TIME OF THE BUILDING PERMIT.

THANK YOU. JUST TO ADD ON TO THE QUESTION, SO THAT IS TO SAY THAT WHEN THE BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED, THEY KNEW THAT WE HAD FLAGGED THE VAULT. MISS WHITE? YES. THANK YOU. COUNCILOR FEQUET. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SORRY, SCOTT. FOR LAST SEPTEMBER 8TH MEETING.

THAT PROBABLY FELT LIKE A PUBLIC INQUIRY.

I KNOW, I APOLOGIZE. BUT I UNEQUIVOCALLY AGREE THAT IF THERE WAS AN ERROR OR PROCEDURAL ISSUE FROM THE CITY'S END, THAT WE SHOULD BE INVESTED IN FINDING A SOLUTION, FINANCIAL OR OTHERWISE.

REALLY, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENED HERE.

TONIGHT, YOU MENTIONED THAT BOREALIS SOUGHT AN ESTIMATE AS SOON AS IT BECAME AWARE OF THE REQUIREMENT REGARDING THE HYDRANT ISSUE. CAN YOU PLEASE CONFIRM WHEN THAT WAS? IT WAS IN FEBRUARY OF 2024. ALTHOUGH THE QUOTE THAT WE RECEIVED SAYS FEBRUARY OF 2022.

THAT IS A TYPO. THERE WOULD BE NO REASON TO BE LOOKING INTO A HYDRANT VAULT TWO YEARS PRIOR.

SO AS SOON AS THEY SAW THE PERMIT REQUIREMENT, WHICH WAS A BIG SURPRISE, THEY GOT THIS QUOTE.

OKAY. SO THIS JUST KIND OF FOLLOWS UP ON COUNCILOR MCGURK´S QUESTION.

THE CHRONOLOGY THAT WE DISCUSSED IN DEPTH AT THE SEPTEMBER 8TH MEETING INDICATED THAT.

YEAH, THE CITY FLAGGED IT IN JANUARY 20TH 24, AFTER THE REVIEW.

THE MAIN CONCERN THAT WAS RAISED AT OUR SEPTEMBER 8TH MEETING, WHICH I'M STILL NOT CLEAR IF IT'S BEEN ADDRESSED IN MY MIND, WHICH WAS THE CITY ADOPTED BUILDING BY-LAW NUMBER 5058 ON MAY 30TH, 2022.

THIS WAS 16 MONTHS, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, BEFORE BOREALIS SECURED FINANCING IN SEPTEMBER 2023, AND 19 MONTHS PRIOR TO SUBMITTING FINAL AND STAMPED DRAWINGS TO THE CITY FOR OFFICIAL REVIEW IN DECEMBER 2023.

DO THESE DATES ALIGN WITH YOUR UNDERSTANDING? YEAH, THE BUILDING BY-LAW. AND I WOULD EXPECT THE BUILDING BY-LAW, THE PREVIOUS BUILDING BY-LAW WOULD HAVE REFERENCED THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE AS WELL.

OKAY. THANKS. AND THEN SO IN THAT BY-LAW DO YOU KNOW IF YOUR CODE CONSULTANTS REVIEWED THAT BY-LAW? ABSOLUTELY. THE ONLY QUESTION THAT WE HAD OVER THE BY-LAW WAS REALLY THE FACT THAT.

AND THIS DID GET US OFF ON A BIT OF A TANGENT, I THINK, WAS THE FACT THAT SECTION 663 OF THE BY-LAW PROHIBITS WALL HYDRANTS.

AND BY PROHIBITING THOSE WALL HYDRANTS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS ISSUE THAT ANY TIME SOMEBODY WANTS TO BUILD MID-BLOCK, NO MATTER THE REVITALIZATION, THEY'RE GOING TO BE FORCED WITH THIS EXTRA BURDEN OF THE FIRE HYDRANT.

[00:35:03]

SO YOUR CONSULTANT AND BOREALIS WAS AWARE OF THIS REQUIREMENT AS OF MAY 30TH, 2022.

THAT WALL HYDRANTS WERE PROHIBITED. YEAH. AND THE WALL HYDRANT DIDN'T PLAY INTO THIS ISSUE OF THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE. AND I DON'T GET TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS, SO UNFORTUNATELY, YOU DON'T KNOW. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS BEFORE ROUND TWO.

I THINK TO SAY THAT I SUPPORT HOUSING IN OUR CITY IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT.

IT WAS MY ENTIRE PLATFORM FOR RUNNING. FOR ME, THIS IS NOT MY QUESTIONS.

AND MY CONCERNS ARE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NEED FOR HOUSING. IT IS PUBLIC MONEY.

YOU'RE ASKING FOR. ALMOST TWO FULL PERCENTAGE POINTS OF A CITY BUDGET, SO IT'S NOT AN INSIGNIFICANT ASK.

SO MY QUESTIONS ARE GOING TO BE A VERY. YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THESE, BUT I FEEL WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW A BIT MORE INFO ABOUT THE PROJECT.

IF YOU WANT PUBLIC MONEY TO KICK IN FOR SOMETHING THAT IS REQUIRED.

SO CURRENTLY WE SAW A LETTER FROM YOU FOLKS SAYING YOU COULDN'T GET ANY ADDITIONAL FINANCING FROM YOUR LENDER.

ARE YOU ABLE TO SEEK FINANCING FROM A DIFFERENT LENDER, HAVE MORE DEBT ON TOP OF THAT DEBT? KIND OF. HAVE YOU EXPLORED THOSE OPTIONS? I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO THE FINANCING.

WHAT I DO KNOW ABOUT THE FINANCING IS THEY'VE GONE ALL THE WAY.

THEY CAN'T GET ANY MORE FINANCING FROM THEIR CURRENT LENDER.

NO EXTRA COST CAN BE ADDED ON. AND I DO KNOW THAT TO FINANCE THIS PROJECT, AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK DONE. A LOT OF LENDERS REFUSED IT.

SO I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THAT'S AN OPTION IN THE FUTURE THAT WE KEEP LOOKING AT.

THE BUILDING STAYS CLOSED UNTIL THEN. BUT I THINK MY COLLEAGUE SURREY WOULD HAVE TO SPEAK TO THAT IF HE HAD MORE INFORMATION TO ADD.

NO. SO THE. YEAH, THAT DOESN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION.

SO THERE'S ALL KINDS OF WAYS OF RAISING EXTRA FUNDS BESIDE YOUR CURRENT LENDER. SO I JUST WANT TO ENSURE MAYBE YOU CAN GET BACK TO US AFTER THAT YOU'VE EXHAUSTED ALL THOSE OPTIONS.

HAVE YOU LOOKED AT OUTSIDE INVESTORS? YOU LOOKED AT OTHER FINANCING OPTIONS? BEFORE PUBLIC FUNDS ARE SPENT ON A PRIVATE PROJECT, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT IT IS TRULY BEEN EXHAUSTED.

AND THERE'S NO OTHER OPTIONS OUT THERE BECAUSE THERE IS MANY.

SO MY. READING THE STUFF HERE. SO YOU ASK ME A QUESTION ON THE OFM STUFF.

THE OFM IN WRITING GIVE YOU THAT LIST OF REQUIREMENTS AT THE STAGE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT FINANCING, WHEN YOU'RE KIND OF SUSSING OUT ALL THE POTENTIAL COSTS THAT COME AT THAT STAGE? OR LIKE, WHEN DID THE OFM GIVE YOU THE FEEDBACK THAT YOU DIDN'T REQUIRE THAT HYDRANT? I GUESS IN THAT LIST YOU MENTIONED. THAT WOULD HAVE COME UP AFTER THE FINAL PLAN WAS PROVIDED.

SO AFTER FINANCING WAS SECURED. OKAY, SO I TO BE HONEST, MY CONFESSION IS THIS.

NOT HAVING FIRE LIFE SAFETY SCOPED OUT BEFORE YOU PLACE FINANCING IS ODD.

FOR A PROJECT OF THIS SCALE, THAT IS QUITE SURPRISING TO HEAR, ACTUALLY.

IT'S A MASSIVE COST SWING IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

IF YOU SCOPED THAT INCORRECTLY. SO YEAH, THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW.

I GUESS NO MORE QUESTIONS. MORE FOR ADMIN, I GUESS.

HOW LONG HAVE WE BEEN APPLYING THIS 45 METER STANDARD? WHEN THERE'S EITHER A CHANGE OF USE TO BUILDING BECAUSE THERE'S NO BUILDINGS THAT HAVE HAD CHANGED USES DOWNTOWN OF HYDRANTS PUT IN OR NEW BUILDINGS.

SO MY UNDERSTANDING IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN SINCE BEFORE I WAS EVEN WORKING HERE.

SO I'M GOING TO SAY GREATER THAN FIVE YEARS. DEFINITELY.

IT WOULD BE OUR APPLICATION WOULD FOLLOW ANY CHANGES IN THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE.

AND I KNOW EVEN IN PREVIOUS LOCATIONS IN OTHER PROVINCES, THAT 45M HAS BEEN THE STANDARD FOR YEARS.

THANK YOU. SO REGARDLESS OF KIND OF WHEN THIS IS NOT A NEW STANDARD, THIS IS AROUND FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

WHEN YOU'RE DOING DEVELOPMENT THAT THIS HYDRANT STANDARD. OKAY. I SEE NODDING HEADS. AND THEN I THINK THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR NOW FOR PRESENTER. ANY MORE QUESTIONS ON ROUND TWO FOR ANYONE? REMEMBER, JUST FOR THE PRESENTER. NO? THANK YOU, MR. PARKER. I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THAT GRILLING.

AND WE'RE GOING TO DEBATE THAT LATER IN THE AGENDA. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANKS A LOT.

ALL RIGHT. MEMBER STATEMENTS. THERE WERE NO MEMBER STATEMENTS FOR THE AGENDA.

ARE THERE ANY STATEMENTS FROM THE FLOOR? NONE.

[INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS]

[00:40:05]

BOREALIS DEVELOPMENT, INC. TO PROVIDE A FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO FUND FIRE HYDRANT INFRASTRUCTURE.

CAN I HAVE A SECONDER FOR THAT. COUNCILOR FEQUET? DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION OR COMMENTS? COUNCILMAN MCLENNAN. YEAH, JUST A COMMENT. YEAH.

IT'S A DIFFICULT CASE. AND IT'S QUITE FRUSTRATING THAT THERE ISN'T A SIMPLER SOLUTION HERE.

YEAH, THE BUILDING CODE AND BUILDING CODE SAYS THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE IS ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY AND INCORPORATED INTO THIS BY-LAW. AND THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE SAYS APPLICATION TO EXISTING BUILDINGS.

THIS CODE IS MOST OFTEN APPLIED TO EXISTING OR RELOCATED BUILDINGS WHEN AN OWNER WISHES TO REHABILITATE THE BUILDING, CHANGE ITS USE, ETC. SO I ACCEPT AND KNOW THAT IT IS FRUSTRATING TO DEAL WITH LEGISLATION THAT USES WORDS LIKE MOST OFTEN.

BUT I DO BELIEVE WE'RE STILL SETTING A PRECEDENT HERE IN THAT WE WOULD BE SAYING YOU CAN HOPEFULLY TRY TO USE WORDING LIKE THAT IN ORDER TO GET PUBLIC FUNDS DOWN THE ROAD TO SUPPORT PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS.

IT'S FRUSTRATING AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IN OUR CITY.

THIS SORT OF THING THAT CREATES FIRST MOVER DISADVANTAGES AND CHALLENGES DEVELOPERS TO REHABILITATE OUR DOWNTOWN.

BUT IN THIS INSTANCE THIS SEEMS CLEAR ENOUGH.

AND THE PRECEDENT SET BEFORE THIS WAS THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD NEED TO COVER THIS.

THEY WERE AWARE OF THAT, CHOSE TO TAKE A HOPEFUL APPROACH TO LEGISLATION WITHOUT GUARANTEES AND COULD HAVE INSTEAD ENSURED THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD MOVE FORWARD AND THEN RECOUP SOME OF THE COST OF SOME ELEMENTS LIKE THIS THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES THAT DO EXIST. SO I WILL NOT BE IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING THE USE OF PUBLIC MONEY IN THIS INSTANCE.

THANK YOU. MAYOR HENDRICKSEN. THANK YOU, DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON.

YES. SIMILAR TO COUNCILOR MCLENNAN, THIS ONE HAS BEEN REALLY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO GRAPPLE WITH OVER TIME, AS IT REALLY CUTS AT BOTH MY KNOWLEDGE. AS YOU SAID DEPUTY MAYOR, AROUND THE NEED FOR HOUSING, BUT ALSO MY CONVICTION THAT FAIRNESS OF APPLICATION OF RULES IN OUR SOCIETY GENERALLY, NOT JUST IN OUR CITY, IS A MUST. FROM THE TIME THAT THIS ISSUE CAME TO MY ATTENTION IN MAY, I WAS VERY OPEN TO LEARNING MORE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO GET US TO THIS DISCUSSION.

FRANKLY, MY INTEREST IN TRYING TO GRAPPLE WITH THAT IS WHY WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS NOW STILL.

BUT AS I'VE LEARNED MORE, PARTICULARLY IN ADVANCE OF AND AT OUR MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 8TH WHICH I WON'T REHASH, ALTHOUGH WE'VE KIND OF GOT INTO SOME OF THOSE BITS NOW, I STAND BY MY POSITION FROM THEN THAT THE RULES AS WE HAVE THEM WERE SEEM TO BE HAVE BEEN KNOWN OR IF THEY WEREN'T KNOWN WERE WELL DOCUMENTED AND OTHERS HAVE KNOWN THEREFORE, I CAN'T SUPPORT YELLOWKNIFE'S MONEY PAYING FOR A KNOWN DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENT. I WILL ALSO SAY, THOUGH, THAT I THINK THIS ISSUE DOES HIGHLIGHT A POTENTIAL SHORTCOMING.

AS COUNCILMAN MCLENNAN JUST NOTED WITH HOW THINGS LIKE HYDRO AND STREET LIGHTS AND OTHER PUBLIC GOODS ARE FUNDED FOR DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN OUR EXISTING BUILT ENVIRONMENT OF OUR CITY. OUR SYSTEMS ARE FRANKLY MODELED FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS, NOT REDEVELOPMENTS AND REVITALIZATION, WHICH WE NEED AND WHICH WE SAY WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF.

SO I WON'T BELABOR THE ISSUE HERE, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT WE MUST REVIEW THIS ISSUE FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, NOT THIS INDIVIDUAL CASE, AND WORK WITH OUR PARTNERS AT THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND IN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, AS WELL AS ULTIMATELY, ALL YELLOWKNIFERS ABOUT HOW TO BALANCE THOSE DIFFERENT COSTS IN OUR SOCIETY OF PAYING FOR PUBLIC GOODS THAT ARE NEWLY REQUIRED DUE TO CHANGES IN REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT OR CHANGES IN BUILDING USE, BUT WHICH ADD SOMETHING TO THE EXISTING BUILT ENVIRONMENT THAT WE HAVE.

SO I WILL VOTE TO DENY THE REQUEST AS STATED IN THE MOTION.

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO STARTING THOSE ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS ON BROADER PIECES IN THE COMING WEEKS AND MONTHS.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE THIS IS YOU, AS I SAY TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ALL THE TIME,

[00:45:03]

AND THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE WE LEARNED ABOUT IT FAR TOO LATE TO TAKE MEANINGFUL ACTION.

AND AT THIS POINT, KNOWING WHAT I KNOW NOW I CAN'T IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, AS I SAID AT SEPTEMBER 8TH MEETING VOTE TO CONTRIBUTE YELLOWKNIFE TAXPAYERS TO THIS PROJECT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU MAYOR. ANY MORE COMMENTS? COUNCILOR COCHRANE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR.

LIKE MY COLLEAGUES, THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY COMPLICATED SITUATION.

NOBODY WANTS TO SEE 72 UNITS JUST SIT THERE NOT USED.

BUT THE PRECEDENT THAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SPOKE ABOUT IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT.

FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, THIS WOULD BE A FINANCIAL BAILOUT.

THE ISSUE WITH THAT IS THAT BECAUSE OF CTV SECTION 124, WE HAVE LIMITED OF WHAT WE CAN DO OTHER THAN A DIRECT SUBSIDIZATION.

I WOULD HOPE THAT IN THE FUTURE, WHEN CTV IS AMENDED, WE COULD BE PROVIDED OPTIONS FOR PROJECTS LIKE THIS WHERE WE COULD HAVE A FORM OF PAYMENT BACK OR AFTER IF WE DECIDED TO GO THROUGH THIS, INTRODUCE A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT LEVY THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE SPECIFICALLY FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE ISSUE IS THE LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN THAT NOW EXISTS UPON THAT, AND IT IS FAR TOO COMPLICATED. THE ONLY THING WE WOULD HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DO IS GIVE THE IMMEDIATE SUBSIDIZATION.

THAT'S TAXPAYER DOLLARS GOING TO A PRIVATE OPTION WITH NO GUARANTEE THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT SENT BACK.

WE DIDN'T EVEN DO THAT WHEN IT CAME DOWN TO NORTHLANDS, WHEN WE HAD TO DO THE WHOLE RECONSTRUCTION OF THAT AREA.

I'M INCREDIBLY UNCOMFORTABLE CREATING THIS PRECEDENT AND THEREFORE I WILL NOT SUPPORT IT GOING FORWARD.

THAT DOES NOT SAY, THOUGH, THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE CTV SHOULD BE AMENDED SO THAT WE CAN HAVE FUTURE OPTIONS OF LENDING LIKE THIS SO PROJECTS CAN GO FORWARD.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU COUNCILOR COCHRANE.

COUNCILOR MCGURK. THANK YOU. COUNCILOR COCHRANE STOLE MY BAILOUT COMMENT.

I GUESS I DON'T APPRECIATE THE FEELING THAT COUNCIL IS BEING HELD HOSTAGE BY THE IDEA THAT WE'RE BLOCKING HOUSING BY DENYING THIS REQUEST.

THE DEVELOPER HAS EITHER WILLFULLY CHOSEN TO TRY TO PUSH SOMETHING OFF TO THE SIDE OR HAS RECEIVED BAD ADVICE, IN WHICH CASE IT IS NOT UP TO US TO REMEDY SAID BAD ADVICE.

AND THE COMMUNITY REALLY DOES HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT A PRIVATE DEVELOPER IS ASKING THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE TO BAIL OUT A PRIVATE PROJECT.

THIS IS, AS COUNCILOR WARBURTON HAD MENTIONED, DEPUTY MAYOR MENTIONED EARLIER.

THIS IS A 2% TAX INCREASE TECHNICALLY, OR IT WOULD EQUIVALENT TO BE THE EQUIVALENT OF A 2% TAX INCREASE IF WE WERE TO ADD IT ON TO THE BUDGET.

THIS DOES RAISE LARGER ISSUES OR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS, AS MEMBERS HAVE SAID.

THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL ISSUED A REPORT IN 2020 ON ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS BECAUSE OF ISSUES LIKE THIS.

BUT THE REPORT REFERENCES THE GRENFELL TOWER IN ENGLAND, WHICH CAUGHT ON FIRE IN 2017, RESULTING IN 72 DEATHS.

THIS WAS AN OLD CONCRETE STRUCTURE BUILT IN THE 70S THAT WAS RENOVATED THE YEAR PRIOR.

THE FACT THAT IT WAS AN EXISTING BUILDING MEANT THAT THEY WERE NOT BEHOLDEN TO BUILDING CODE IN THE SAME WAY.

AND THE RENOVATION IS PART OF HOW THE RENOVATION INTERACTED WITH THE PREVIOUS BUILDING STRUCTURE IS ONE OF THE REASONS, OR PROBABLY THE REASON WHY THE BUILDING BURNT AND MANY PEOPLE DIED.

AND THIS IS WHY THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT THING THAT ALL DEVELOPERS THAT ARE WORKING ON BUILDINGS OF THIS SIZE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING FROM THE GET GO, AND SHOULD BE HAVING ACTIVE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT.

AND IF THIS WAS NOT FLAGGED BY YOUR CONSULTANTS PRIOR TO YOUR FINANCING, I'M NOT SURE HOW.

SO. YEAH. THAT'S THAT. THANK YOU, COUNCILOR MCGURK.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR ROUND ONE, I GUESS.

FOR MYSELF, YEAH. THIS IS REALLY HARD. I OBVIOUSLY SUPPORT HOUSING IN OUR CITY.

BUT FROM EVERYTHING I'VE READ FROM. I WATCHED THE MEETING I WASN'T AT ON THE EIGHTH. THIS WAS A MISS.

SO SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE WITHIN THAT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MISSED THIS.

AND THAT IS HORRIBLY SAD BECAUSE IT HAS DELAYED THIS PROJECT.

IT IS A MASSIVE FINANCIAL HIT, BUT IT WAS MISSED.

A 45 METER HYDRANT FOR DEVELOPMENT IS NOT SHOCKING.

IT'S BEEN AROUND FOR A VERY LONG TIME IN DEVELOPMENT WORLD, AND IT'S BEEN APPLIED IN THIS CITY MULTIPLE TIMES.

[00:50:02]

YES, THERE IS SOME. WELL, SOME THERE'S A LOT OF GRAY WHEN IT COMES TO OFM AND BY-LAWS AND YOU KNOW, THE GNWT SUED THE FIRE MARSHALL BEFORE, SO IT SUES ITSELF.

SO IT'S NOT A GREAT SYSTEM. IT IS BY FAR AND AWAY NOT AS GOOD AS IT COULD BE.

BUT THAT BEING SAID, THIS REQUIREMENT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS OUT OF LEFT FIELD.

SO YEAH. AND IT'S PUBLIC FUNDS. IF WE HAD MADE A MISTAKE, IF WE HAD THROWN SOMETHING AT YOU THAT WAS EGREGIOUS, THEN I ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT IT, BUT I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'VE DONE THAT, SO.

YEAH, I CAN'T SUPPORT SPENDING $500,000 OF HARD EARNED TAXPAYER MONEY ON SOMETHING THAT IS, FRANKLY, A PRIVATE RESPONSIBILITY. I THINK HAVING SAID THAT, I DID PUT IN FOR BUDGET THIS YEAR FOR US TO DISCUSS INFRASTRUCTURE AROUND FIRE HYDRANTS AND HOW THEY'RE DONE DOWNTOWN, BECAUSE IT'S THE CURRENT APPROACH IS AD HOC.

IT'S INEFFICIENT. IT ESSENTIALLY NULLIFIES ANY DEVELOPER THAT DOESN'T HAVE $1 MILLION IN THEIR POCKET FOR A FIRE HYDRANT.

WE'RE HAVING DEVELOPMENTS DOWNTOWN RIGHT NOW THAT ARE RUNNING UP AGAINST THIS HYDRANT ISSUE, 30, 40% OF THEIR BUDGET. SO IT'S JUST NOT REALISTIC. BUT THAT'S, AS FOLKS HAVE SAID, THAT'S TO ADDRESS AT A BUDGETARY LEVEL AROUND INFRASTRUCTURE IN A LONG TERM PLAN.

AND THEN WE TALK ABOUT HOW WE PAY FOR IT. IS THAT ALL OF US? IS THAT THE DOWNTOWN? IS THAT PER BLOCK? BUT THAT IS NOT THIS CONVERSATION HERE.

THIS IS FLAGGED A BIG PROBLEM IN OUR CITY, BUT I DON'T THINK THE SOLUTION TO THIS ONE IS CAUSED BY US.

SO I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD PAY FOR IT. SO I'M GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF HOW IT IS WRITTEN, WHICH IS TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR BOREALIS. IS THERE ANY AROUND TO.

NO ROUND TWO? ALL RIGHT. TO THE MOTION. TO DENY THE REQUEST TO PROVIDE A FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO FUND A FIRE HYDRANT INFRASTRUCTURE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR TO DENY THE REQUEST? AND THAT IS UNANIMOUS.

SO, COUNCILOR MCGURK. WHERE IS IT? NO. WHAT HAPPENED THERE? 15, YEAH. SO. I MOVE THAT COUNCIL DIRECTS ADMINISTRATION TO DEVELOP A PLAN OF SUBDIVISION TO CREATE SEVEN MULTI UNIT LOTS ON A PORTION OF LOT 13, BLOCK 81, PLAN 4623. A PORTION OF LOT 15, BLOCK 78, PLAN 4059 AND A PORTION OF ROAD (SCHOOÑ DRAW AVENUE), PLAN 2396; AND THAT COUNCIL DIRECTS ADMINISTRATION TO DEVELOP A PLAN OF SUBDIVISION TO CREATE A MULTI UNIT BLOCK IN A NATURE PRESERVATION BLOCK ON A PORTION OF BLOCK 77A PLAN 512, A PORTION OF LOT TWO, BLOCK 201, PLAN 2396 AND A PORTION OF ROAD (SCHOOL DRAW AVENUE) PLAN 2396 AND A PORTION OF ROAD (LUNDQUIST ROAD) PLAN 2396.

THIS IS THE DIRECTION TO DO THAT WORK. BUT JUST WAIT ONE SECOND.

MAYOR HENDRICKSEN. THANK YOU, COUNCILOR WARBURTON I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR THE CITY CLERK BECAUSE I HAD DRAFTED A MOTION PRIOR TO US MOVING THE VOTE ON FIRST READING TO THE TOP OF THE MEETING.

SO I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION IS TO THE CITY CLERK, CAN WE BREAK THIS MOTION INTO SO THAT WE CAN DEAL WITH ONE TONIGHT AND TABLE THE OTHER ONE, AS I'M ABOUT TO RECOMMEND? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. YES, IT WOULD BE TOTALLY IN ORDER TO SPLIT THIS MOTION INTO PARTS AND VOTE ON THEM INDIVIDUALLY.

OKAY. SO THAT'S WHAT I'LL DO. SO I'LL FIRST PROPOSE A MOTION THAT WE SPLIT THIS MOTION INTO TWO.

AND THEN WE'LL GO FROM THERE BECAUSE NOW WE'LL HAVE MORE LITTLE MOTIONS AFTER THAT.

BUT MY FIRST MOTION WOULD BE THAT WE SPLIT THIS INTO TWO SO THAT WE CAN DEAL WITH ONE NOW RELATED TO THE POINT TWO, THE LUNDQUIST ROAD ITEM, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY VOTED DOWN AT FIRST READING.

SO THAT'S MY FIRST MOTION, IS THAT WE BREAK THIS INTO TWO.

SO IF I CAN GET A SECONDER I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO THE CHAIR.

BUT IF THERE'S A SECONDER FOR THE MOTION. I'M HERE FOR YOU.

COUNCILOR MCGURK. AND JUST FOR THE PUBLIC FOR CLARITY BECAUSE WE VOTED THAT DOWN.

I'LL EXPLAIN IT. YOU´LL EXPLAIN IT? OKAY. OKAY, GOOD. THANKS.

THIS IS ADMINISTRATIVE CLEANUP, FOLKS. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.

YEAH. BECAUSE WE VOTED IT DOWN ON FIRST READING.

[00:55:03]

SO FOR NUMBER ONE THEN I WILL PROPOSE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE THIS MOTION UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE RESPECTIVE ZONING BY-LAW RECEIVES THIRD READING.

AND FOR CLARITY THIS IS FOR THE BLOCK THAT WAS APPROVED, THE WEST BLOCK, NOT THE ONE WE JUST DENIED.

OKAY.

THIS? OH, NO. I'LL EXPLAIN. YOU´LL EXPLAIN IT? OH, OKAY. WELL, IN A WAY WHERE I CAN EXPLAIN THE LOGIC OF WHAT'S GOING ON TO THE PUBLIC.

SO BEFORE WE GET INTO VOTING ON IT, ALTHOUGH CLEARLY IT'S ABOUT TO PASS BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE AND WHY THIS MOTION IS IN FRONT OF US IS BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE MEMO TO OUR GOVERNANCE AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 8TH THAT MADE A RECOMMENDATION BOTH TO PROCEED WITH THE BY-LAW AMENDMENTS AND TO DO THE WORK TO IMPLEMENT THE BY-LAWS. SO AS I LOOK BACK ON THINGS RETROSPECTIVELY, WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE REALLY DONE AT THAT GPC MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 8TH, WHICH WAS TO PROCEED THE FIRST READING OF THE BY-LAWS BUT SHELVE THE IMPLEMENTATION PIECE.

WE DIDN'T DO THAT. AND YOU LIVE, YOU LEARN. SO PROCEDURALLY, BY NOT REFUTING THE RECOMMENDATION, WE IMPLICITLY ACCEPTED THAT IT WOULD PROCEED TO COUNCIL FOR A VOTE, WHICH IS WHERE WE ARE NOW.

SO THE REASON I'M BRINGING THIS UP TONIGHT IS TO TABLE THE IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE SCHOOL DRAW PIECE UNTIL IT RECEIVES FIRST READING.

BASICALLY, WE SHOULDN'T BE VOTING TO IMPLEMENT A BY-LAW UNTIL THE BY-LAW PASSES.

SO AS FIRST READING WAS DEFEATED. SORRY. SEVERED FROM THIS PROCESS, YOU KNOW, SORRY AS FIRST READING WAS DEFEATED FOR ONE BY-LAW TONIGHT.

IF THE OTHER PROCEEDS THROUGH THIRD READING, THEN WE WILL BRING THIS ONE OFF THE TABLE, THIS MOTION OFF THE TABLE AND VOTE FOR IT TO BE IMPLEMENTED. SO JUST FOR PEOPLE'S KNOWLEDGE SEPARATE FROM THIS PROCESS.

AND SO WE DON'T RUN INTO THIS AGAIN, MYSELF AND THE CITY MANAGER HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS.

AND WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT IN THE FUTURE, ANY IMPLEMENTATION MOTIONS RELATED TO A BY-LAW COMES AFTER THE WHOLE PROCESS IS COMPLETE AND A BY-LAW HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED.

SO I'LL FINISH WITH JUST SAYING I APOLOGIZE TO MY COLLEAGUES AND THE PUBLIC FOR CONFUSION THAT THIS PROCESS MAY HAVE CALLED YOU KNOW, BEING HUMAN REQUIRES THAT WE ALL MUST LIVE AND LEARN. AND THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE MOMENTS.

SO IF ANYBODY HAS QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

BUT OTHERWISE THAT'S THE LOGIC OF TABLING THIS ONE MOTION.

ANY QUESTIONS? NO. STILL ALL CLEAR AS MUD. GREAT.

CLEAR AS MUD. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR OF TABLING SECTION? THERE'S NO PUBLIC QUESTION. SORRY. THERE'S TABLING OF NUMBER ONE WHICH IS COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION DEVELOPED PLAN SUBDIVISION FOR THE WEST BLOCK SCHOOL DRAW, WHICH WE PREVIOUSLY HAD TALKED ABOUT. SO WE'RE TABLING THAT, PARKING IT ALL IN FAVOR OF TABLING THAT MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

OKAY. AND FOR THE SECOND ONE, MAYOR, YOU HAD A MOTION FOR THAT.

SO THIS IS THE SECOND PIECE THAT WAS BROKEN OUT.

AND SO THIS NOW REQUIRES ITS OWN MOTION TO BE PUT FORWARD.

SO THE MOTION WOULD BE THAT WE VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT, THAT WE'VE BROKEN IT OFF.

SO THIS WILL NOW BE VOTED ON. BUT IF THERE'S A SECONDER FOR THIS MOTION, THEN I'M HAPPY TO QUICKLY SPEAK TO THAT ONE.

YEAH. SECONDER. COUNCILOR FEQUET. SECOND THAT. YEAH.

THANKS. SO BASICALLY WE VOTE THIS ONE DOWN NOW BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY VOTED DOWN FIRST READING.

SO THERE'S NO NEED TO IMPLEMENT ANYTHING. SO THAT WAS A BIT QUIET JUST FOR CLARITY BECAUSE THIS WAS DEFEATED ON FIRST READING TONIGHT.

THIS POINT IS MUTE. SO WE ARE GOING TO VOTE TO DELETE THIS SECTION.

IS THERE? YEAH.

IF WE VOTE, WE'RE VOTING FOR NOT VOTING. YEAH.

WE'RE VOTING AGAINST THIS ONE. YES.

YEAH. SO THE VOTE IS AGAINST IT. YES. VOTE AGAINST THIS.

YEAH. MAKE IT UP AS WE GO. HERE, GUYS. GREAT.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES ON WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE? THIS SECTION? NO. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR TO REMOVE THIS. REMOVE IT.

REMOVE IT. IS THAT CORRECT? DEBBIE.

THANK YOU. IF I MAY, THE MOTION HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE TABLE.

SO YOU ARE DEALING WITH IT NOW? YOU'VE ALREADY DEALT WITH THE FIRST PART OF THE MOTION.

SO NOW YOU'RE VOTING EITHER IN FAVOR OF OR OPPOSED TO PROVIDING THIS DIRECTION TO PREPARE THE PLAN OF SUBDIVISION. WE'RE NOT TABLING IT. YOU'RE VOTING EITHER IN FAVOR OF IT OR OPPOSED.

[01:00:04]

IF YOU VOTE OPPOSED, IT COMES OFF. AND WE JUST AND WE JUST DENIED IT ON FIRST READING.

SO FOR REFERENCE. SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR I'M KEEPING THIS AS WRITTEN.

ALL IN FAVOR. ALL OPPOSED. YAY! THAT'S SOME ADMINISTRATIVE CLEANING RIGHT THERE.

THANK YOU EVERYBODY. THANK YOU. MAYOR. YEAH. LIKE I SAID, THAT WAS DEFEATED ON FIRST READING.

THAT WAS THIS WAS JUST CLEANING UP THE LANGUAGE BEHIND IT.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 16 GOVERNANCE PRIORITIES COMMITTEE REPORT FOR SENATE.

15 2025 COUNCILOR REMOVES THE FOLLOWING. I MOVE THE COUNCIL, AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA'S CANADA HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE FUND, WHERE CANADA AGREES TO PAY A CONTRIBUTION OF NOT MORE THAN 75% OF THE TOTAL ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES FOR THE PROJECT, BUT ONLY UP TO A MAXIMUM OF $41,025,000.

SECONDER, COUNCILOR ARDEN-SMITH. ANY QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION? FOR REFERENCE, THIS IS FOR THE LIFT STATION ONE DOWN IN OLD TOWN WE'RE WORKING ON CURRENTLY.

ALRIGHT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AS WRITTEN.

THAT'S UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

NEW BUSINESS. THERE'S NO NEW BUSINESS FOR THE AGENDA. THERE'S NO NEW BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR. OF BY-LAWS.

THERE'S NO BY-LAWS FOR THE AGENDA. DEFERRED BUSINESS AND TABLED ITEMS. COUNCIL [INAUDIBLE] MOVES THE FOLLOWING. OH, NEVER MIND.

WE'VE DONE ALL THIS ALREADY. WE JUST DID ALL THAT.

OLD BUSINESS. THERE'S NO OLD BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR.

THERE'S NO OLD BUSINESS FOR THE AGENDA. IS THERE ANY OLD BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR? SEEING NONE.

[28. A presentation from Kevin Hodgins regarding Water Rate Considerations.]

KEVIN, DO YOU REMEMBER ALL THE RULES WE TALKED ABOUT? YOU'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE. AWESOME. FLOOR IS YOURS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR HENDRICKSEN, DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON AND COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION FOR ALLOWING ME TO COME AND PRESENT TO YOU MY THOUGHTS AND SOME OF MY STUDIES ON THE WATER RATE REVIEW THAT'S BEEN UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY FOR THE LAST PERIOD OF TIME.

CLERK GILLARD, CAN YOU? HOW DO I PULL THAT PRESENTATION UP? OKAY. THANK YOU. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WILL BE A MEMO BROUGHT TO COUNCIL ON AUGUST 3RD, FRIDAY, AUGUST 3RD FOR DISCUSSION AT COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 6TH, WHICH WILL PRESENT OPTIONS THAT WERE BEING DEVELOPED AND CONSIDERED SINCE THE MEETING OF JULY 28TH.

SO IN DISCUSSION WITH COUNCIL, INCLUDING MAYOR HENDRICKSEN, I WAS INVITED.

IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT I MAKE A REQUEST TO MAKE THIS PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL IN ADVANCE OF THAT SO THAT, YOU KNOW, MY THOUGHTS ON THE ONE OPTION FOR THE RATE FAIRNESS STUDY COULD BE PRESENTED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN ADVANCE OF WHAT YOU RECEIVE FROM THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE CONSULTANT. SO I PUT TOGETHER SORT OF MY REVIEW OF THE MODERNIZATION AND FAIRNESS STUDY, AND I HAVE AN OPTION AT THE END THAT I'D LIKE YOU TO INCLUDE IN YOUR CONSIDERATION ONCE THAT COMES ON OCTOBER 6TH.

SO JUST A SUMMARY OF WHO I AM. MANY OF YOU KNOW, BUT I'M A CIVIL ENGINEER WITH MUCH EXPERIENCE IN MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN NORTHERN CANADA. THE CHALLENGE THAT IS FACING YOU IS TO REVIEW AND TO MODERNIZE AND MAKE FAIR THE WATER AND SEWER RATE PRACTICES WITHIN THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE.

THE AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION GUIDES THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RATES FOR MOST MUNICIPALITIES IN NORTH AMERICA.

CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE IS PLANNING TO FOLLOW THAT MODEL.

THE MODEL INCLUDES DEFINITIONS OF CLASSES OF USERS.

THOSE CLASSES SPEAK TO TYPES OF USERS, NOT TO DELIVERY METHODS.

SO WHAT THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE CURRENTLY HAS ARE RATES FOR CLASSES.

PLUS THEY ALSO HAVE WHAT'S DEFINED AS AN INTRA CLASS RATE OR RATE FOR A TYPE OF USER WITHIN A CERTAIN CLASS.

SO THE CITY HAS A TAP WATER RATE THAT FALLS UNDER EACH OF THE DEFINED CLASSES.

[01:05:03]

THEY INCLUDE A FIRE RESPONSE LACK OF FIRE RESPONSE OR REDUCED FIRE RESPONSE IN OLD TOWN OR IN THE IN THE PARTS OF TOWN INCLUDING CONROY CON, CAM LAKE, ETC. OLD AIRPORT ROAD, WHICH ARE SERVED BY THE TRUCK SYSTEM.

SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT SOME USERS LIVING IN NICER PARTS OF TOWN.

THIS IS ABOUT USERS LIVING IN MANY PARTS OF TOWN, AND MANY LIVING WITH DISPARITIES OR DISADVANTAGES THAN THOSE WHO ARE ADVANTAGED TO BE SERVED BY PIPE SYSTEMS. EFFICIENCY AND WATER CONSERVATION IS KEY TO RUNNING A MUNICIPALITY.

WHAT'S NOTED IN THE WATER STUDY BY INTER GROUP IS THAT 12% OF THE WATER ACCOUNTS WITHIN THE CITY ARE TRUCKED ACCOUNTS.

THOSE ACCOUNTS ONLY USE 5% OF THE WATER. SO THOSE OF US WHO LIVE ON TRUCKED WATER SYSTEM ARE VERY EFFICIENT. YOU KNOW, WE HONOR THE IMPORTANCE OF EFFICIENCY.

WE LIVE BY, YOU KNOW, CONSERVING WATER AND CONSERVING PRODUCTION OF SEWAGE AND THAT THE PROPOSED RATES THAT ARE BEING OFFERED BY INTER GROUP, IN FACT CHALLENGE THOSE OF US OR PUT EXTRA BURDEN ON THOSE OF US WHO ARE ALREADY WORKING TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE CITY SYSTEM. THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED RATES.

SO THE CURRENT RATE I'VE WORKED OUT FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY USER WHO HAS AN AVERAGE CONSUMER WHEN I FACTOR OUT THE COMMON COSTS, THE PIPED USER CURRENTLY PAYS $6.55 PER CUBIC METER FOR WATER DELIVERED TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.

A TRUCKED CONSUMER PAYS OVER DOUBLE THAT CURRENTLY.

SO THOSE OF US WHO ARE ON TRACK TO HAVE TOLERATED THAT, WE'VE RECOGNIZED THE DIFFERENCE. IT'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, AN ENCUMBRANCE, BUT IT'S BEEN TOLERATED BY THE CONSUMERS.

THE RATES THAT ARE PROPOSED IN THE INTER GROUP PLAN ADD 40%, ESSENTIALLY TRIPLE THE WATER RATE, SO THAT THOSE OF US WHO LIVE ON TRUCKED WATER IN A SINGLE FAMILY ACCOUNT WOULD BE PAYING $18.71 VERSUS $6.57 FOR A PIPED SYSTEM. SO MY SUGGESTION IS THAT IT'S.

FOR A SECOND THERE. IS IT FIVE MINUTES? A MOTION TO EXTEND, COUNCILOR ARDEN-SMITH SECONDED BY COUNCILOR FEQUET.

SORRY. CONTINUE, KEVIN. THANK YOU. I'LL DO MY BEST TO WRAP IT UP HERE QUICKLY.

SO COMPARISON OF OTHER UTILITIES, OTHER UTILITIES THAT SERVE OUR CITY POWER COMMUNICATIONS, ETC., DO NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN LOCATION OR DELIVERY TYPE.

YOU KNOW, WE PAY THE SAME POWER, WE PAY THE SAME FOR INTERNET, ETC.

COSTARRING WITH OTHER FACILITIES, YOU KNOW, THE LIBRARY, THE RECREATION FACILITIES, THE SCHOOLS, ETC. WE ALL CONTRIBUTE TO THOSE, WHETHER WE USE THEM OR NOT.

I SUGGEST THAT THE RATE CHANGES BEING CONSIDERED ARE UNFAIR.

WHAT WHAT THE PROPOSAL SAYS IS THAT $700,000 WILL BE MOVED FROM MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTS TO TRUST ACCOUNTS.

THAT'S WHAT THE WHAT REALLY FALLS OUT OF THIS PLAN.

SO RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL, MULTIFAMILY, RESIDENTIAL, ETC.

OR SORRY, MULTIFAMILY WILL HAVE THEIR, THEIR RATES REDUCED, BUT SINGLE FAMILY USERS IN THE OTHER PARTS OF TOWN WILL NOT HAVE THE RATES CHANGE.

SO THERE'S A BURDEN THAT'S BEING SHIFTED WITHIN THE CITY.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT GENERATING MORE REVENUE. IT'S ABOUT SHIFTING UTILITY RATES WITHIN EXISTING CONSUMERS.

SO I WORKED OUT AN OPTION THAT I THINK SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ALONG WITH WITH WHAT YOU STUDY.

AND I SENT OUT LATE THIS AFTERNOON. I SENT OUT THE CALCULATIONS BEHIND THIS.

BUT WHAT I'VE PROPOSED, AS I'VE TAKEN THE NUMBERS OUT OF THE INTERGROUP STUDY THAT SHOW THE COST OF OF THE SERVICE FOR EACH OF THE CLASSIFICATIONS.

I'VE TAKEN THE CONSUMPTION FOR EACH OF THE CLASSES AND WORKED OUT WHAT THE FAIR COST RECOVERY WOULD BE UNDER EACH CLASS.

I HAD TO DO SOME RATIO STUDIES ON MY OWN BECAUSE THE TRUCK ACCOUNTS ARE IS A BULK ACCOUNT. IT'S NOT BROKEN OUT BY CLASS OF USERS RESIDENTIAL, MULTIFAMILY, COMMERCIAL, ETC.

SO I TOOK THE RATIO OF CONSUMPTION IN THE PIPE USERS AND APPLIED THAT TO THE TRUCK IN ORDER TO COME UP WITH THESE STUDIES.

[01:10:05]

SO THAT'S MY SUGGESTION, AND I HOPE THAT YOU'LL INCLUDE THIS WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE OPTIONS THAT ARE BROUGHT TO YOU ON OCTOBER 6TH.

THANK YOU, KEVIN. AND I REALLY DO APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND THE LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT YOU TAKE INTO THIS.

IT REALLY HELPS US DO OUR JOB MUCH, MUCH BETTER WHEN WE HAVE FOLKS LIKE YOU AS ENGAGED AS YOU ARE.

IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR KEVIN ON THIS? KNOWING THAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT AT DEPTH AT A FUTURE COMMITTEE MEETING.

ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILOR ARDEN-SMITH THEN. THANK YOU.

I HAVE A COMMENT. I'M JUST REALLY APPRECIATIVE THAT YOU BROUGHT THIS FORWARD.

I, LIKE YOURSELF, LIVED ON TRUCKED IN WATER, LIVED OUT IN CON MY ENTIRE LIFE.

SO NOTING WE ARE VERY CONSCIOUS ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT WE DO CONSUME, BECAUSE WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE COST THAT COMES WITH HAVING TO GET A REFILL IN BETWEEN GETTING YOUR NORMAL SCHEDULED FILLS ON MONDAY AND THURSDAY IS A HIGH COST.

SO I'M VERY APPRECIATIVE THAT YOU BROUGHT THIS FORWARD, AND THE SUGGESTION. [INAUDIBLE]. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COUNCILOR FEQUET.

THANKS, MR. CHAIR. YEAH. JUST THANKS, KEVIN, FOR ALL THE WORK.

I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO REVIEW EVERYTHING YOU SENT TODAY, SO I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT, BUT I'M DEFINITELY WILL FOLLOW UP VIA EMAIL IF I DO. JUST TO RECOGNIZE EVERYTHING, AND THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS AGAIN BEFORE.

SO THIS OPTION COULD BE CONSIDERED. I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE A MOTION FOR MY COLLEAGUES, JUST THAT ADMINISTRATION CONSIDER THIS OPTION WHEN THEY'RE DETERMINING THE OPTIONS AND PREPARING THAT MEMO THAT'S FORTHCOMING FOR US.

SO I'LL MOVE THAT MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECONDER FOR THAT MOTION? COUNCILOR FOOTE. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? YOU SPEAK TO IF YOU WANT. OR IS THAT YOU? SORRY. NO, COUNCILOR FEQUET SPEAK TO YOU FIRST.

HE'S THE ONE WHO MOVED IT. YEAH. I JUST WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT.

I JUST WANT TO ASK. USUALLY WE HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION IF WE'RE ASKING ADMINISTRATION TO DO WORK.

SO THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF ME MOVING THIS MOTION.

I RECOGNIZE THAT ADMIN IS LOOKING AT ALL SORTS OF CRITERIA AND OPTIONS, AND IF THEY DETERMINE THIS ONE WORTHY, I EXPECT THAT WE'LL SEE IT AGAIN. AND IF NOT, THERE'LL BE RATIONALE AS TO WHY.

SO THIS IS JUST A MOTION FOR THEM TO JUST CONSIDER WHEN THEY'RE DOING THAT WORK.

AND THAT ANALYSIS, THIS OPTION THAT YOU'VE TAKEN THE TIME TO PRESENT TO US.

THANK YOU. MAYOR HENDRICKSEN. THANKS. I REALLY.

COUNCILOR FEQUET, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE INTENT BEHIND THE MOTION.

I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY, THOUGH. AND THE ONLY REASON I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE.

ONE AND YOU KNOW, KEVIN, AGAIN, I'LL REITERATE AS EVERYBODY ELSE HAS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK.

AND YOU KNOW, KEVIN AND I HAVE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS NOW ON THIS ISSUE.

AND I KNOW KEVIN HAS ALSO HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS WITH ADMIN AS WELL AS WITH THE CONSULTANTS WHO HAVE PROVIDED THE ORIGINAL RATE REVIEW.

AND SO IT'S BEEN REALLY USEFUL THROUGHOUT THAT PROCESS. SO I KNOW THAT IT'S ALREADY BEING CONSIDERED AS PART OF WHATEVER RECOMMENDATION DOES COME TO COUNCIL.

AND SO THAT'S WHY IT'S JUST THE EFFICACY OF EMOTION, SAYING TO CONSIDER SOMETHING WITHOUT CLEAR DIRECTION AFTERWARDS.

ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, ADMIN CAN SAY THAT THEY CONSIDERED IT OR DIDN'T CONSIDER IT.

BUT I KNOW THAT THEY'RE CONSIDERING IT. SO THEY'RE ALREADY MEETING THE INTENT OF THE MOTION.

AND SO I JUST. YEAH, IT'S WHETHER OR NOT IT'S REALLY NECESSARY.

BUT I SUPPOSE IF, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON IT NOW.

SO THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU. YES. MOTION IS ON THE FLOOR.

SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? NO? OKAY.

ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AS STATED TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE STAFF WORK PLAN OR IN THE WORK.

YEAH. ALL OPPOSED? MAYOR AND COUNCILOR COCHRANE.

OH I LOVE IT. ALRIGHT. THAT PASSES. ADMINISTRATIVE.

[01:15:01]

THERE ARE MANY, MANY NUMBERS IN IT. THE OPTION THAT I OFFERED IS LESS COMPLEX BECAUSE IT'S A SINGLE OPTION.

BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT MY ANALYSIS OR EXTRACTION OF DATA FROM THOSE REPORTS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO GET IN TOUCH WITH ME.

AWESOME. THANK YOU, KEVIN. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRIES. THERE ARE NO ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRIES FOR THE AGENDA. ARE THERE ANY ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRIES FROM THE FLOOR? SEEING NONE.

GOT A MOTION TO ADJOURN. COUNCILOR ARDEN-SMITH. THAT WAS FAST.

HAVE A GOOD NIGHT, EVERYBODY. AND THANK YOU, EVERYONE, FOR COMING. I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR ENGAGEMENT. THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.