[00:00:03]
          AND I WILL NOW CALL TO ORDER OUR GOVERNANCE AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE FOR TUESDAY,
OCTOBER 14TH, 
          [1. Opening Statement]
2025 TO ORDER. AND WE HAVE JUST READ THE OPENING STATEMENT AS PART OF OUR COUNCIL MEETING. 
          SO WE'LL MOVE TO APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MR. VAN DINE,
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE AGENDA? NOTHING TO ADD, 
          [2. Approval of the agenda.]
MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT, WE HAVE DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THE
GENERAL NATURE THEREOF. 
          [3. Disclosure of conflict of interest and the general nature thereof.]
IS THERE ANY MATTER OR ANY DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR ANY MATTER? SEEING NONE. NEXT, WE HAVE A MEMO REGARDING WHETHER TO IMPLEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE
WATER AND SEWER RATE STRUCTURE REVIEW FINAL REPORT. 
          [4. A memorandum regarding whether to implement recommendations from the Water and  Sewer Rate Structure Review Final Report. ]
MR. VAN DINE, OVER TO YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          SO THIS ITEM HAS BEEN BEFORE COUNCIL AND PREVIOUS COUNCILS DATING BACK TO 2017. 
          WE ONCE AGAIN ARE HAVE WITH US TODAY SOME OF THE CONSULTANTS THAT WE'VE ENGAGED THROUGH
THIS JOURNEY I WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF ENGAGEMENT AND INTEREST BY THE PUBLIC ON THIS MATTER. 
          AND WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR THAT LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT. 
          OVER THE COURSE OF THE REVIEW OF THIS PROPOSAL THAT'S BEEN TO GPC ON JUNE 12TH,
2023, AGAIN ON APRIL 14TH, 2025, AGAIN ON JUNE 24TH, 2025, AND THEN MOST RECENTLY ON JUNE 28TH,
2025. 
          WE HAVE RECEIVED LOTS OF OF GOOD INPUT AND CONSIDERATION OF THE OF THE FACTS OF MOVING
FORWARD WITH THIS REVIEW. 
          ESSENTIALLY COUNCIL WILL RECALL THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW IS ESSENTIALLY TO TRY AND
BRING MORE BALANCE AND FAIRNESS WITH RESPECT TO HOW WE DO OUR LONG TERM CAPITAL PLANNING AND OUR ASSET MANAGEMENT. THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU TODAY TRY TO
STRIKE THE THE THE TONE AND BALANCE WITH RESPECT TO MODERNIZING OUR RATE STRUCTURE, WHICH HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS BEING PROBLEMATIC AND TO THIS POINT NOT
PROBLEMATIC IN TERMS OF OR CONTROVERSIAL IN THE EYES OF THE PUBLIC WHERE WE HAVE SEEN BY SOME INTEREST IN THE PUBLIC IS WITH RESPECT TO LEVEL OF FAIRNESS
REGARDING TRUCK SERVICE. 
          ON THE TRUCK SERVICE COMPONENT, THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE PUT FORWARD TODAY ARE THE ONES
THAT ARE ONE RECOMMENDATION WITH RESPECT TO WHAT THE CONSULTANTS HAVE ADVISED AS BEING AN INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICE WHICH WOULD GIVE A RANGE
OF RATE ADJUSTMENT. 
          THE OTHER OPTION IS BASICALLY A NUDGE THAT'S NOT QUITE TOWARDS THAT,
THAT DIRECTION THAT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED BY THE CONSULTANTS HOWEVER, DOESN'T GO QUITE AS FAR. THAT IS THE RECOMMENDATION BEING PROPOSED BY BY ADMINISTRATION. 
          AND A THIRD OPTION FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION IS WHAT WOULD BE CALLED A MORE TRADITIONAL
APPROACH WHICH WOULD BE A BLENDED APPROACH ACROSS ALL SERVICES AND ALL INFRASTRUCTURE MODES WITHIN THE CITY WITH AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT WE DO NEED TO DO SOME
CATCH UP WITH A SMALL RATE INCREASE PROPOSED FOR 2028. SO, MR. CHAIR WE DO HAVE THE CONSULTANTS AVAILABLE TODAY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
THAT COUNCIL MAY HAVE WITH RESPECT TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE'VE PUT FORWARD. 
          I AM GRATEFUL FOR THE AMOUNT OF ENGAGEMENT AND PARTICIPATION THAT STAFF AND THE PUBLIC
HAVE MADE PRESENTED IN THIS CONVERSATION. 
          AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD IN A DIRECTION WITH RESPECT TO SETTLING
THIS MATTER AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. VAN DINE. TO MY COLLEAGUES. 
          ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATION? COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH. 
          THANKS FOR ALL THE INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC AND ALL THE WORK ON EVERYONE'S PART. 
          I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS THAT ARE SORT OF MORE IN THE DETAILS AND THEN ASK A COUPLE THAT ARE
MORE HIGH LEVEL. 
          SO IN THE END, ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WAS TO INCLUDE THE INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY INTO
WATER AND SEWER RATES AND NOT HAVE A SEPARATE CHARGE FOR THAT. 
          I DIDN'T SEE THAT BEING RECOMMENDED BY ADMIN,
AND I WAS JUST WONDERING WHY SPECIFICALLY NOT TO ROLL THAT IN. 
          MR. VAN DINE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I MAY RECALL I MAY REQUIRE THE ASSISTANCE OF OUR
CONSULTANTS TO HELP ELABORATE, BUT WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT WHAT WE'VE ATTEMPTED TO DO IN ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS PUT
FORWARD IS TO MAKE IT MORE SIMPLE AND CLEAR WITH RESPECT TO CONSUMPTION AND FIXED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH WITH INFRASTRUCTURE. AND WITH THAT,
WE'VE CARRIED THAT MODEL ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE FIXED COST COMPONENT. 
          AT THIS JUNCTURE IN OUR CURRENT WAY THAT WE'RE DELIVERING IT IS,
IS SPREAD IN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT COST ELEMENTS. 
          AND IN THIS STRUCTURE THAT WE'VE PROVIDED HERE WE HAVE TRIED TO SIMPLIFY IN ALL THREE
CASES JUST TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR FOR BOTH USERS, BUT ALSO TO, BE MORE IN PRACTICE WITH INDUSTRY STANDARDS. 
          I WILL INVITE MR. NIGHTINGALE TO ELABORATE. 
          [00:05:06]
YES. THANK YOU. THE INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY IS WE DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE A WHOLE BUNCH OF TOO
MUCH CHANGE AT ONCE. 
          SO THE INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY TO ROLL THAT INTO RATES IS WOULD BE IN,
IN A FUTURE YEAR. 
          SO JUST AS THE MAIN PART HERE WAS ELIMINATING THE EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONCEPT AND
BRINGING SOME SIMPLE SIMPLIFICATION, THEN ROLLING IN THE LEVY SUBSEQUENT TO THIS. UNDERSTOOD. 
          THANK YOU. AND THEN ON THE DEFICIT THAT IS BECOMING AN ISSUE WITH THE WATER AND SEWER FUND
OF THE THREE OPTIONS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL IN THE MEMO, DO THEY GET US TO THE SAME PLACE IN TERMS OF THE BALANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER FUND,
OR DO THEY END UP IN A DIFFERENT SPOT? MR. VAN DINE. THE SHORT ANSWER IS THEY DO ALL GET US TO ROUGHLY THE SAME PLACE. 
          THE STRUCTURE THAT WE'RE PUTTING FORWARD JUST FOR YOUR AND PERHAPS THE GENERAL PUBLIC'S
INTEREST IS WE STILL MAINTAIN A RELATIVE BALANCE ACROSS THREE STREAMS OF REVENUE OR FUNDING. THERE WILL CONTINUE TO BE AN INJECTION FROM OUR GENERAL FUND ACCOUNT THAT WILL GO INTO OFFSET SOME LEVEL OF SERVICES
RELATED TO THIS. 
          IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE ALSO HAVE THE CONSUMPTION COMPONENT. 
          AND ON TOP OF THAT, WE ALSO HAVE WHAT'S SORT OF RELATED TO THE FIXED RATE ELEMENT. 
          SO WE ARE TRYING TO MAINTAIN A LEVEL OF BALANCE. 
          WE BELIEVE THAT WITH THESE ADJUSTMENTS IN ALL THREE OPTIONS THAT THE DRAW ON THE TAX OR
THE GENERAL FUND COMPONENT WILL BE LESS. 
          SO WE'RE HOPING THAT THE THAT'S ONE OF THE WHOLE RAISON D'ETRE FOR US HEADING DOWN THIS
ROAD TO BEGIN WITH. 
          DESPITE AS MUCH FUN AS IT MIGHT BE FOR PEOPLE TO WANT TO GO DOWN THE ROAD OF WATER AND
SEWER RATES, WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LONG TERM RISK ON THE GENERAL FUND IS REDUCED BY
MAKING THESE CHANGES. 
          UNDERSTOOD. THANKS. YEAH, GOOD TO HEAR. AND I THINK AT LEAST FROM MY PART YEAH THAT'S THE
PRIMARY FOCUS OF THIS, IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT FUND IS NOT IN DEFICIT AND NOT TRENDING DOWNWARD. 
          AND THEN A COUPLE OF SPECIFIC QUESTIONS IN THE PACKAGE. THE RATE IMPACT TABLE FOR OPTION
ONE, THEY BROKE DOWN RATES. THAT DIFFERS BY EIU, BUT WE'RE PROPOSING TO ELIMINATE THAT. 
          WOULD THE ELIMINATION OF THE EIU YOU CHANGE THIS TABLE IN ANY WAY? MR. VAN DINE. I'M GOING TO CALL A FRIEND. MR. NIGHTINGALE, WOULD YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THIS? YEAH. THANK YOU. KNOW, THE COMPONENTS THAT ARE LISTED ON THE TABLE,
THAT'S WHAT'S IN PLACE TODAY. 
          BUT AT THE END OF THE FIRST YEAR, THEY WILL BE REDUCED DOWN TO ONE YEAR. 
          SO EVERYBODY WILL HAVE ONE EIU. WE ARE ELIMINATING THAT. 
          OKAY. AND THEN THE NUMBERS LIKE THE THREE YEAR IMPACT WOULD BE THE SAME. 
          IT'S IT WAS JUST A WAY OF DISPLAYING WHAT THE CURRENT BILLS ARE LIKE. 
          YEAH. YES. UNDERSTOOD. AND THEN WHY FOR THE TRUCKED CATEGORY IS THE AVERAGE BILL MUCH
LOWER PERCENT INCREASE THAN THE LOW CONSUMPTION BILL? MR. VAN DINE. MR. NIGHTINGALE. 
          OKAY. PERHAPS I'LL ASK [INAUDIBLE] BOYD TO ADDRESS THAT. 
          YES. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. [INAUDIBLE] SO WITH RESPECT TO LOW CONSUMPTION WHEN WE CHANGE
THE OPTION ONE, WHEN WE WENT WITH THE BLENDED RATE. SO WHERE WE'RE AVERAGING THE CONSUMPTION RATE ACROSS
ALL THE CLASSES TO TO GENERATE REVENUE WHEN YOU HAVE LOW CONSUMPTION,
YOUR FIXED COMPONENT STAYS THERE, RIGHT? SO IT'S NOT IMPACTED BY THIS APPROACH OF BLENDING THE CONSUMPTION RATE. 
          AND BECAUSE THAT VARIABLE COMPONENT IS A SMALL PORTION OF THE BILL. 
          BUT YOUR WE'RE CHANGING THE OBVIOUSLY WE'RE ALSO ADJUSTING THE FIXED COMPONENTS OF THE
RATE STRUCTURE. 
          SO IT JUST HAPPENS THAT FOR LOW CONSUMPTION,
THEY ARE FIXED COMPONENT HAS A BIGGER ROLE IN TERMS OF THEIR BILL, A BIGGER SHARE OF THEIR BILL. OKAY I THINK I UNDERSTAND. 
          AND SO. SO IT WOULD BE TRUE THAT IF YOU HAD A VERY LOW CONSUMPTION OF WATER AS TRUCKED
WATER, YOU WOULD PAY. YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A BIGGER INCREASE THAN IF YOU HAD AN AVERAGE LEVEL OF
CONSUMPTION. 
          MR. VAN DINE. YES, YES. OH, SORRY, I JUMPED. YOU'RE GOOD,
YOU'RE GOOD. 
          [00:10:01]
YOU CAN ANSWER. OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU. ESSENTIALLY,
YES. 
          BECAUSE IN THIS PROPOSED RATE REVISION, WE'RE ADJUSTING BOTH THE FIXED CHARGES RATE,
THE ACCESS FEES AND DEMAND CHARGES, AS WELL AS THE VARIABLE RATES, CONSUMPTION RATES. 
          SO WITH RESPECT TO OPTION ONE, THAT IS IN THIS PRESENTATION IS THAT WE ARE THE TWEAK THAT
WE'RE DOING IS TO THE CONSUMPTION RATE. SO WE'RE USING A BLENDED CONSUMPTION RATE. 
          BUT WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE APPROACH TO HOW WE'RE ADJUSTING THE FIXED CHARGES. 
          SO BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY ADJUSTING THE CONSUMPTION RATE,
IF YOU HAVE LOW CONSUMPTION, OBVIOUSLY THERE IS NO CHANGE BETWEEN THE OPTIONS. 
          WITH RESPECT TO THE FIXED COMPONENT. SO FIXED CHARGES. 
          AND THAT'S WHY THE THE BILL IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGE WOULD BE HIGHER. 
          BUT OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF THE ABSOLUTE AMOUNT IT'S LOWER BECAUSE YOU HAVE LOW
CONSUMPTION. 
          BUT WHEN YOU GO TO THE AVERAGE, OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW,
THEY HAVE A BIGGER CONSUMPTION. 
          SO CONSUMPTION IS A BIGGER PORTION OF THE BILL. 
          SO WHEN YOU MITIGATE THAT YOU WILL SEE THAT ON AVERAGE FOR THE AVERAGE CONSUMER THE BILL
IMPACT IS SMALLER. 
          UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. AND THEN ONE MORE QUESTION. 
          ON THE NEXT PAGE, OPTION TWO IT HAS BILL IMPACTS AS SHOWN IN THE FINAL REPORT AND THEN
UPDATED BILL IMPACTS. 
          JUST CURIOUS. IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYONE IS ABLE TO SAVE MONEY WITH THE UPDATED BILL IMPACTS. 
          AND JUST WONDERING HOW HOW THAT WAS POSSIBLE. 
          MR. VAN DINE. I'LL WORK THROUGH THE MATH WITH WITH MR. NIGHTINGALE, BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT WHAT THE MODERNIZATION ATTEMPT TO DO IS ACTUALLY TO BE
ABLE TO EQUALIZE ALL OF THE COMPONENT PARTS. 
          COUNCIL WILL RECALL THAT THE CURRENT BILL AND THE WAY THAT WE'RE APPORTIONING AND
CALCULATING BILLS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A A JUNGLE OF DIFFERENT PIECES OF THE WATER AND SEWER PIE THE PIECE THAT WE ARE. 
          SO WE'RE CLARIFYING AND SIMPLIFYING THAT. WE'RE ALSO TAKING INTO ACCOUNT A SEWER
COMPONENT, WHICH WAS NOT PART OF OUR WATER CALCULATION AND OUR AND SO WE'RE,
WE'RE BUILDING THAT IN. 
          AND SO AT THE END, WHEN THE DUST SETTLES WE ARE ABLE TO KIND OF BALANCE IT ACROSS ALL OF
THE, ALL OF THE USER GROUPS AND WE HOPE WILL RESULT IN A BETTER,
MORE FAIRER AND MORE UNDERSTANDABLE RATE STRUCTURE ACROSS ALL CLASSES. BUT, MR. NIGHTINGALE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD? SURE. JUST AS A FIRST COMMENT A BIT RELATED TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION AS WELL,
IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE EXISTING RATIONALE FOR THE RATES THAT WE HAVE TODAY WAS NON-EXISTENT. 
          SO SO WE'RE MAKING A NUMBER OF CHANGES TO A COMPLEX MODEL APPLYING,
BRINGING IN SOME CONSISTENT PRINCIPLED RATE MAKING POLICY POSITION TO DO THIS. SO I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING,
IT'S NOT ALWAYS GOING TO BE VERY CLEAN. IT'S NOT ALWAYS GOING TO BE CLEAN BECAUSE WE'RE BRINGING SOME CONSISTENCY TO TO HOW THIS IS DONE JUST IN TERMS OF THE TABLE. 
          YES. SIGNIFICANT REDUCTIONS. AND THIS IS, THIS IS FROM A RECOMMENDED OPTION. 
          AND THEN OF COURSE, SIGNIFICANT INCREASES FOR,
FOR TRUCK SERVICES. 
          SO THAT'S, THAT'S HOW THAT BALANCES OUT. I HOPE THAT HELPS. 
          THANK YOU. YEAH. AND THEN JUST A FEW QUESTIONS THAT SORT OF MORE HIGH LEVEL IN TERMS OF
TRYING TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND HOW WE SET A RATE STRUCTURE AND WHY WE'RE CHOOSING A CERTAIN PHILOSOPHY. 
          SO IN TERMS OF LIKE THE PHILOSOPHY THAT'S RECOMMENDED IN THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT SEEMS TO
HAVE BE ACCORDING TO INDUSTRY STANDARDS, BE LOOKING FOR A MORE DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WHAT THE USER PAYS AND WHAT IT COSTS TO
DELIVER THE SERVICE TO THAT SPECIFIC USER. 
          BUT WHEREAS ROADS, WE DON'T DO THAT. EVERYONE PAYS A GENERAL AMOUNT AND YOU CAN USE THE
ROADS HOWEVER MUCH YOU WANT TO RECREATION FACILITIES WE HAVE, EVERYONE PAYS A BIT. AND THEN IF YOU'RE A USER,
YOU PAY A LITTLE BIT MORE. SO IT'S SORT OF BLENDED. 
          WHY ARE WE CHOOSING TO HAVE OR PROPOSING TO HAVE A MORE DIRECT USER PAYS FOR OWN COST
PHILOSOPHY FOR WATER AND SEWER RATES. MR. VAN DINE. SO. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION. 
          SO THE MODEL THAT WE'RE AND THE PHILOSOPHY AS HAS BEEN DESCRIBED BY BY THE,
BY COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN IS, IS BASICALLY A VERY STANDARD APPROACH THAT'S BEING USED ACROSS MANY DISCIPLINES AND MANY
JURISDICTIONS IN MANY PLACES AROUND THE WORLD WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT UTILITIES. 
          AND SO WHAT I WOULD OFFER TO COUNCIL IS THAT TODAY,
OUR SOLID WASTE FACILITY, FOR EXAMPLE, IS A SERVICE THAT EVERYBODY USES. AND WE HAVE BOTH A SORT OF A FIXED COMPONENT PART TO
THAT, 
          [00:15:06]
TO WHICH TO WHICH THE CITY FUNDS AND WE HAVE A USER COMPONENT. 
          SO WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS NOT FOREIGN,
I GUESS, TO THE MUNICIPAL SPACE OF TRYING TO FIND THAT BALANCE BETWEEN A, A PUBLIC GOOD. THAT DOES REQUIRE SOME LEVEL OF,
OF FINANCING. 
          IF THE COUNCIL IS SUGGESTING WE START TOLLING ROADS WE CAN START LOOKING INTO THAT,
BUT THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO DO AT THIS JUNCTURE. BUT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED HERE IS,
IS ACTUALLY A PHILOSOPHY THAT IS ACTUALLY A BUSINESS PRACTICE THAT IS APPLIED IN MANY DIFFERENT AREAS, INCLUDING WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY DOING WITH SOLID WASTE FACILITY. 
          AND UNDERSTOOD. AND THEN THAT PHILOSOPHY DEPENDS ON THEN,
YOUR CATEGORIZING TRUCKED USERS AS A SEPARATE GROUP IN THAT WAY. WHEREAS WITH RECREATIONAL FACILITY USERS OR ANOTHER UTILITY,
YOU COULD CATEGORIZE THE INTRACLASS RATES. 
          I'M JUST LOOKING FOR A SORT OF A COMMENT ON WHAT'S THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND CHOOSING TO
SEPARATE RESIDENTIAL USERS LIKE THAT? MR. VAN DINE. SO. WE HAVE BASICALLY A SERVICE THAT RELIES ON TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          AND SO WITH EACH TYPE OF INFRASTRUCTURE THAT YOU'RE USING,
YOU'RE FIXED AND YOUR VARIABLE COSTS ARE, ARE NOW BEING TRYING TO BE GROUPED TOGETHER TO ONE ONE SYSTEM. 
          BUT WE DO HAVE TWO VERY DIFFERENT PIECES OF INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY KEEP A
LINE OF SIGHT ON WHAT THE FIXED COSTS ARE IN THE DELIVERY OF BOTH PIECES OF INFRASTRUCTURE. SO IN THAT VEIN WE HAVE PROPOSED THIS BALANCE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ABLE
TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE COSTS OF, OF BOTH LEVELS OF TYPES OF INFRASTRUCTURE WHERE IT GETS I
THINK A LITTLE MURKIER FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON TO DELVE INTO IS THAT WHEN WE GET INTO TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL TYPES OF COMMERCIAL TYPES OF
INDUSTRIAL, THAT FALLS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY DEPENDING ON WHICH LEVEL OF INFRASTRUCTURE IS BEING
USED TO APPLY THERE. 
          BUT I AGAIN, I'LL CALL ON MR. NIGHTINGALE AND THE TEAM TO ADVISE ON HOW WE'RE STRIKING
THAT THAT CLARITY, THAT BALANCE AND THAT FAIRNESS BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT CLASSES THAT ARE OUTLINED HERE. 
          THANK YOU. YES. WE APPROACH THIS AS EVERY OTHER JURISDICTION IN THE COUNTRY. 
          IT'S A UTILITY BUSINESS. YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A CITY SERVICE. 
          I MEAN, THERE ARE SOME SERVICE ASPECTS TO IT,
BUT IT IS MODELED AS A BUSINESS. 
          SO WHAT WOULD YOU BASE RATES ON? COST IS GENERALLY WHAT PEOPLE WOULD LOOK AT. 
          YOU'D HAVE SOME CONNECTION TO COST, COST OF SERVICE UPON WHICH TO BASE YOUR RATES. 
          GOING TO THE QUESTION OF TRUCK SERVICES WHY WOULD YOU DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN TRUCK AND
PIPE? THEY ARE DIFFERENT SERVICES. BUT TWO KEY ASPECTS,
READILY IDENTIFIABLE COSTS ARE DIFFERENT. 
          SO IF YOU'RE TYING RATES, IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME RELATION OF RATES TO COSTS,
WELL, THEY'RE VERY READILY IDENTIFIABLE IN TERMS OF THE TRUCK SERVICES. 
          IN FACT, IN TERMS OF OUR MODEL, THE TRUCK SERVICES,
JUST THE CONTRACT ALONE, NO ADMINISTRATION OR ANYTHING ELSE IS 85% OF THE TOTAL COST OF TRUCK SERVICES. SO, SO AND YOU'VE GOT A VERY DIFFERENT MODEL SERVICE MODEL DELIVERY. 
          SO IT'S EASY TO DO. YOU WANT TO TIE RATES TO COSTS AND MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A SUSTAINABLE
UTILITY BUSINESS GOING FORWARD. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THEN JUST A QUESTION ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOW THE COST OF
INFRASTRUCTURE IS SHARED. 
          HOW WOULD LIKE A MAJOR UPDATE TO THE PIPED INFRASTRUCTURE FAR AWAY FROM ANY TRUCKED
SERVICE AREA, IS THAT INFRASTRUCTURE COST BORNE SORT OF EQUALLY AMONGST ALL RESIDENTS,
OR IS THAT INFRASTRUCTURE COST BORNE BY THE RESIDENTS WHO ARE GOING TO USE IT? MR. VAN DINE. SO THE THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
          I THINK COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN IS BRINGING US INTO THE CAPITAL PLANNING CAPITAL PROJECTS. 
          AND I'M GOING TO ASK MR. GREENCORN JUST TO WEIGH IN AND JUST GIVE US MORE INFORMATION WITH
RESPECT TO CAPITAL PLANNING AND HOW WE ORGANIZE AROUND THAT. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION,
IT DEPENDS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS REQUIRE DIFFERENT INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          AND THE WAY WE BUDGET OUT OF THE WATER AND SEWER FUND IS MULTIPLE. 
          [00:20:02]
THERE'S A COUPLE WAYS. THERE'S A TRANSFER FROM THE WATER AND SEWER FUND INTO THE CAPITAL
FUND ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. 
          YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE I THINK IT'S THE SECOND LINE OF THE WATER AND SEWER TABLE IN THE
BUDGET DOCUMENT. 
          SO THAT TRANSFERS TO CAPITAL TO HANDLE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES WHICH IS TRANSFERRED OVER TO
REVENUE. 
          SO OUT OF USER CHARGES, THERE'S PIPE TRUCKED WATER AND OTHER USER CHARGES THAT COMES IN
THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT GRANTS, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THERE, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION,
MULTIPLE REVENUE STREAMS FUND MULTIPLE PROJECTS THROUGH MULTIPLE WAYS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. SO IF WE HAD TO BUILD ANOTHER WATER TREATMENT PLANT,
IT WOULD ALL BE FUNDED THE SAME WAY. 
          PEOPLE ALL EVERYBODY, INCLUDING TRUCKED WATER AND PIPE,
USES THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT, THE DIFFERENT CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS, THE DIFFERENT LIFT STATIONS, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO I KNOW IT'S CONVOLUTED,
BUT THAT'S HOW IT WORKS. 
          THAT'S HOW IT WORKS. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. AND THEN JUST ONE MORE QUESTION,
JUST TO MAKE SURE MY UNDERSTANDING IS CLEAR. 
          SO TRUCKED USERS WOULD SAY THEY HAVE INFERIOR INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          AND THAT WAS A CHOICE MADE BY THE CITY. I THINK THAT'S TRUE. 
          ALTHOUGH THOSE RESIDENTS CHOSE TO BUY A HOME IN KNOWING THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE LEVEL IS
WHAT IT WAS. 
          IS LIKE THE SOLUTION TO THAT. LIKE PIPING TRUCKED WATER AREAS. 
          SEEMS WOULD BE WAY TOO EXPENSIVE, WHETHER IT WAS USED AS A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT CHARGE AND
CHARGE SPECIFICALLY TO THOSE RESIDENTS OR ACROSS THE CITY. 
          THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, IS THAT THE COST OF THAT TO GIVE THEM THE EQUAL AMOUNT OF
INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD BE RIDICULOUS. 
          IS THAT UNDERSTANDING CORRECT? MR. VAN DINE? TO RESPOND,
I GUESS, SIMPLY PUT INFRASTRUCTURE AND IS EXPENSIVE. NO MATTER THE TYPE THAT YOU,
YOU REFER TO CERTAINLY IN THE CASE OF. 
          SO LET ME JUST REWIND A LITTLE BIT. NO ONE HAS DONE ANYTHING WRONG IN TERMS OF BUILDING A
CITY THAT HAS GROWN, THAT'S HAD DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS PHYSIOLOGICALLY,
GEOLOGICALLY AND ALL THE REST TO HAVE BOTH A PIPE SYSTEM AND A TRUCK SYSTEM. 
          THERE WAS NO MALICE. THERE WAS NO SOMEONE, NO,
SOMEONE DID NOT DROP ANY BALL OF CONSEQUENCE TO FIND US WHERE WE ARE. 
          SO WHAT WE DO THOUGH NEED TO DO AND THIS IS WHERE WE'RE TURNING OUR ATTENTION IS YOU KNOW, AS WE ARE UNDERTAKING OUR COMMUNITY PLAN 2050 EXERCISE AS THE CITY LOOKS TO THE FUTURE ARE
WE LOOKING TO THE FUTURE IN A WAY THAT WE SEE RELY ON EXCLUSIVELY A TRUCK KIND OF SERVICE SCENARIO? OR SHOULD WE BE LOOKING TO DO A PIPE SERVICE SCENARIO? I WOULD SAY THAT THE WE WILL ALWAYS RELY ON TRUCK OR TRUCK IS FEASIBLE AND MAKES MOST
SENSE GIVEN THE WHATEVER CIRCUMSTANCES ARE AT PLAY. 
          BUT HOWEVER, I WOULD SAY THAT BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE,
WE WOULD BE TILTING TOWARDS PIPE WHEREVER POSSIBLE, IF THERE COMES A TIME THAT WE ARE ABLE TO BRING,
LET'S SAY, PIPED WATER AND SEWER TO, LET'S SAY, THE AIRPORT. AND IF THAT ROUTE WOULD TAKE US THROUGH,
YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY PARTS OF CAM LAKE OR THROUGH OLD AIRPORT ROAD, THEN WE WOULD FIND OURSELVES IN A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION WHERE LIKE MANY OTHER CITIES AND
MANY OTHER PLACES AND MANY DIFFERENT TIMES AROUND AROUND THE COUNTRY AND AROUND THE WORLD, WE'D BE LOOKING AT A REDEVELOPMENT KIND OF SCENARIO IN SOME CASES. 
          AND THEN THOSE THOSE REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES WOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE OPPORTUNITY
TO TAP INTO ANY NEW PIPE THAT MIGHT COME ALONG. 
          SO I HOPE THAT GIVES YOU A BIT MORE CONTEXT. WE ARE IN THE WHAT IFS SCENARIOS. 
          BUT IF THE WHAT IF SCENARIO PRESENTED AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DELIVER PIPED IN WATER
SEWER SERVICE TO AN AREA THAT'S CURRENTLY SERVED BY TRUCK, THAT WAS ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE, WE WOULD DEFINITELY BE EXPLORING THAT. 
          UNDERSTOOD. YEAH. AND THANKS FOR THE NOTE AT THE BEGINNING THERE. 
          YEAH. DIDN'T MEAN TO IMPLY THAT ANYONE IN THE CITY OR RESIDENTS HAD MADE A MISTAKE BY
CHOOSING TO DEVELOP IN A CERTAIN WAY. 
          DEFINITELY IN. YEAH. THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE CITY HAS HAD BIG IMPLICATIONS. 
          YEAH. SO JUST A JUST A COMMENT. AND I THINK THE MR. NIGHTINGALE MADE A GOOD POINT MENTIONING THAT THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT SORT OF APPROACHED
IT MORE AS A UTILITY BUSINESS. 
          AND I THINK IT'S UP TO COUNCIL TO DECIDE HOW WE BALANCE A UTILITY BUSINESS IN ORDER TO
KEEP THAT FUNCTIONAL AND SUSTAINABLE VERSUS A PUBLIC GOOD. 
          THAT IS PROBABLY THE CITY'S PRIMARY JOB TO DELIVER CLEAN WATER TO RESIDENTS. 
          SO FOR ME, I DON'T THINK GOING TOWARDS THE 90% AND I DON'T KNOW,
WEIGHING ON THE 80%, BUT MAYBE NOT IN TERMS OF THAT SEEMS TO ME TO 
          [00:25:07]
BE TOO MUCH OF A WEIGHT TOWARDS BUSINESS AND NOT AS MUCH TOWARDS PUBLIC GOOD,
WHEREAS THE PROPOSAL MADE BY MR. HODGINS ABOUT JUST HAVING RESIDENTS PAY THE SAME,
NO MATTER IF IT'S TRUCKED OR PIPE, SEEMS TO ME TO BE A BIT MORE TOWARDS THE TOO MUCH TOWARDS THE PUBLIC GOOD AND DOESN'T CAPTURE THAT IT IS A VERY UNIQUE SERVICE AND DOESN'T
PUT THE ACTUAL COSTS OF THAT DIFFERENT SERVICE IN FRONT OF RESIDENTS AND IN FRONT OF THE CITY IN ORDER TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS. I THINK THAT INCENTIVIZING THE CORRECT
DECISIONS IN TERMS OF THE MOST SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE IS IMPORTANT. 
          SO I'D BE TOWARDS OPTION 1 OR 3. YEAH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN. COUNCILLOR FEQUET. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. THANKS VERY MUCH FOR THE CONSULTANT TEAM. 
          THANKS FOR BEING HERE TODAY TO TO HELP US AS PART OF THIS TRICKY CONVERSATION AND ALL THE
WORK THAT STAFF HAS DONE AND THE CONSULTANTS HAVE DONE IN THE BACKGROUND BECAUSE ALL THIS TECHNICAL INFORMATION IS OBVIOUSLY IMPORTANT TO MAKE A FULLY INFORMED DECISION. 
          AND SO FOR ME, THIS TOPIC HAS SHONE A LIGHT ON THE FACT THAT PREVIOUS COUNCILS AND THIS
COUNCIL DIDN'T TAKE THE TIME TO HAVE THAT PHILOSOPHICAL CONVERSATION FIRST ABOUT HOW OUR VALUES SHOULD INFORM THE APPROACH TO ADDRESSING OUR UNDERSTANDABLY OUTDATED WATER AND
SEWER RATES. 
          AND I THINK WE ALL CAN AGREE ON THAT. SO JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND THEN I'LL SHARE MY
PREFERENCE. 
          BUT THE WITH RESPECT TO OPTION ONE, ONE OF THE BENEFITS THAT'S MENTIONED IN THE REPORT,
IT TALKS ABOUT SOME CONSISTENT RATE MAKING PRINCIPLES. 
          I WAS HOPING THE ADMINISTRATION OR THE CONSULTANTS COULD ELABORATE JUST ON WHAT THOSE ARE. 
          SO WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. MR. VAN DINE. THANK YOU. 
          I'LL GIVEN THE BUSINESS AND THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS,
I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. NIGHTINGALE JUST TO TALK ABOUT THE INDUSTRY PRACTICES,
ABOUT RATE SETTING IN A UTILITY MODE. 
          YES. BASICALLY THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OF STANDARD UTILITY PRINCIPLES REFLECTED IN THE
REPORT, BUT JUST SOME QUICK ONES. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, UTILITY RATES SHOULD REFLECT THE COST OF
SERVICES PROVIDED SEND APPROPRIATE PRICE SIGNALS TO CONSUMERS, UTILITY RATES AND ASSOCIATED WATER AND SEWER FUND CONTRIBUTIONS. 
          YOU SHOULD RECOVER THE FULL COST OF PROVIDING UTILITY SERVICES. 
          UTILITY RATE IMPACT SHOULD BE MINIMIZED. SO YOU DON'T WANT TO IMPACT SOMEBODY'S BILL TOO
MUCH IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. 
          YOU WANT TO MINIMIZE THAT. UTILITY CUSTOMERS SHOULD CLEARLY UNDERSTAND THEIR BILLS. 
          READILY IDENTIFIABLE WATER AND SEWER COSTS SHOULD BE TRACKED AND INFORM FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
DECISIONS. 
          SO THOSE ARE JUST SOME EXAMPLES OF IT. BUT APPLYING THOSE CONSISTENT PRINCIPLES AND
GETTING IT WHEN YOU GET INTO THE DETAILED RATE SETTING, APPLYING CONSISTENT PRINCIPLES THERE AGAIN,
SO THAT WHEN SOMEBODY ASKS HOW ARE MY RATES SET? HERE IT IS. AND AT ONE POINT ACTUALLY WE DISCUSSED WHETHER AT SOME POINT THE CITY COULD
CONSIDER A UTILITY RATE POLICY THAT LAYS OUT THESE PRINCIPLES CLEARLY, CONCISELY AND INFORMING THE PUBLIC,
BUT THAT THAT WOULD BE A DISCUSSION FOR FUTURE, I THINK. IF I COULD JUST ADD THAT I BELIEVE THAT THAT APPLIES CONSISTENTLY ACROSS ALL
THREE OPTIONS. 
          YEAH. THANK YOU. JUST JUMPING DOWN TO OPTION THREE IN THE TABLE BELOW IT. 
          I UNDERSTAND THIS OPTION IS WHERE THE THE RCC REMAINS AS IT IS,
AND THERE'S AN EQUAL RATE INCREASE ACROSS THE BOARD, AND I'M JUST CAN YOU REMIND ME WHY SOME OF THE CHARGES ARE GOING DOWN FOR SOME OF THE
CUSTOMER TYPES? IF IT WAS AN EQUAL INCREASE TO ALL CUSTOMER TYPES. 
          MR. VAN DINE. SO I THINK COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN ALLUDED TO THIS IN ONE OF THE EARLIER
QUESTIONS. 
          SO WE ARE MODERNIZING AND UPDATING AND CREATING A LEVEL OF CLARITY AND COSTING THAT IS
BEING APPLIED THAT HAD NOT BEEN APPLIED BEFORE. SO THERE WAS GOING TO BE SOME MOVEMENT REGARDLESS UP AND
DOWN. 
          AND EACH OF THE OPTIONS DESCRIBES THE LEVEL OF UP AND DOWN THE THERE ARE SAVINGS TO BE HAD
AND OR AT LEAST REDUCED COSTS TO ALL TO SOME USERS IN ALL THREE OPTIONS. AND SO THE GREATEST LEVEL OF REDUCTION TO CERTAIN
USER CLASSES IS IN THE SECOND OPTION THAT IS LAID OUT BY BY THE CONSULTANTS IN TERMS OF THE BIGGEST CHANGE BETWEEN,
LET'S SAY, MULTI-UNIT USERS AND, AND THOSE NOW AND THE OTHER TWO OPTIONS JUST SORT OF REBALANCE THE
LEVEL OF 
          [00:30:07]
QUOTE UNQUOTE BENEFIT OR IMPROVEMENT ACCORDINGLY. 
          BUT ALL THREE WILL GENERATE A LEVEL OF IMPROVEMENT TO CERTAIN CLASSES. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. JUST A QUESTION THAT JUST DAWNED ON ME WITH THAT RESPONSE. 
          WE DO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KIND OF THE THE PRICE PER LITER OF USAGE FOR,
EXAMPLE, PIPED RESIDENTIAL USERS VERSUS TRUCKED. 
          DO WE KNOW THE NUMBER OF THE VALUE, THE AMOUNT THAT COMMERCIAL ARE PAYING PER LITER PER
USAGE CURRENTLY? MR. VAN DINE. I'M BELIEVE WE'RE CALCULATING THAT ON AN ONGOING BASIS. 
          BUT MR. NIGHTINGALE, DID YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN ON WHAT WE'VE DONE HISTORICALLY AND WHAT
WE'RE DOING NOW? JUST AND I'LL ASK HYATT BOYD TO CORRECT ME IF I MAKE A MISTAKE,
BUT SO IT'S ON A PER CUBIC METER BASIS, AND, AND THERE WERE DIFFERENT RATES FOR DIFFERENT CUSTOMERS IN THE SECOND OPTION,
WHAT WE DID AND THESE ARE THE CONSUMPTION RATES, NOT YOUR FIXED COST, THE CONSUMPTION RATES. SO WHAT WE DID IN THE SECOND OPTION IS WE TOOK
THOSE AND WE BLENDED ALL THOSE AND MADE THEM ALL THE SAME. 
          AND AGAIN TRY TO SIMPLIFY TRY TO MITIGATE THE IMPACTS ON TRUCKED CUSTOMERS. 
          BUT WE DO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF SPECIFIC THE SPECIFIC RATE DIFFERENCES. 
          I MEAN, I CAN ASK IF WE BUT WE COULD MAYBE PASS THAT INFORMATION ALONG SUBSEQUENT TO THIS
MEETING. 
          YEAH. THEN JUST TO ADD AND CLARIFY. SO IT'S NOT THE SECOND OPTION. 
          IT'S THE FIRST OPTION WHERE WE'RE BLENDING THE RATES. 
          AND IF YOUR QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE RATES TODAY YEAH. 
          SO AS OF IN 2025 THE RATES ON THE PIPE SYSTEM FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL IS THE SAME,
LIKE $4.50, I BELIEVE, ON THE VALUABLE COMPONENTS. 
          AND FOR TRUCKED IT'S A SOMEWHAT HIGHER. IT'S $4.56 UP TO SOME LIMIT AND THEN DIFFERENT
RATE A BIT HIGHER RATE FOR ABOVE FOR THE CONSUMPTION ABOVE THAT LIMIT ABOVE THE THRESHOLD. 
          AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IN OPTION ONE IS THAT SO EVERYONE WILL HAVE LIKE WHETHER THEY ARE
PIPED OR TRUCKED SYSTEM AND WHETHER THEY ARE RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL,
THEY WILL HAVE THE SAME BLENDED CONSUMPTION RATE. 
          SO THE VARIABLE THAT DOLLARS PER CUBIC METER WILL BE THE SAME. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. YEAH. YEAH. MORE ASKING,
KIND OF AT A HIGH LEVEL. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT RIGHT NOW, RESIDENTIAL TRUCKED USERS PAY A LITTLE MORE THAN TWICE
AS MUCH PER VOLUME OF WATER THAN THAN PIPED RESIDENTIAL USERS. 
          AND I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF WHERE COMMERCIAL FALLS IN THAT RANGE. 
          BECAUSE LOOKING AT OPTION THREE, FOR EXAMPLE,
IT'S MOSTLY THE COMMERCIAL FOLKS WHO ARE GETTING THE SAVINGS. 
          SO I'M TRYING TO JUST GET IN MY OWN MIND IF IF THAT'S THE RIGHT CUSTOMER CLASS,
THAT SHOULD SEE THE MOST SAVINGS. 
          IF, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THEY'RE PAYING THE MOST AMOUNT OF MONEY,
BUT IF THEY'RE ALREADY ON THE LOW END OF THE SCALE, THEN MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T BE GIVING THE SAVINGS TO THAT CUSTOMER CLASS. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO IF THAT HELPS GIVE CONTEXT.
MR. VAN DINE. SO IT'S THE, YOU KNOW, THE THE WINNERS AND THE LESS WINNERS. 
          RIGHT, RIGHT. SO AND SO THE AT THE END OF THE DAY,
THERE OBVIOUSLY NEEDS TO BE SOME CHOICES MADE IN TERMS OF EASE AND FAIRNESS. AND SO THE EASE AND FAIRNESS WAS GOING FROM A SYSTEM THAT WAS CERTAINLY
NOT PARTICULARLY CLEAR TO FOLLOW. 
          NOT PARTICULARLY FAIR IN TERMS OF CALCULATION AND APPORTIONMENT OF COST VERSUS
CONSUMPTION. 
          AND SO AS WE TRACK THAT THROUGH THE GAP BETWEEN THE CURRENT STATUS QUO AND WHAT IS BEING
PROPOSED SHOWS A LEVEL OF PROPORTIONATE IMPROVEMENT TO ONE GROUP OVER ANOTHER. 
          I THINK WHAT MIGHT BE IMPLIED IN THE POTENTIALLY IN THE QUESTION,
AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN THE MOUTH OF COUNCILLOR FEQUET OTHER THAN TO SAY IS, YOU KNOW, SHOULD COMMERCIAL PAY SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT RESIDENTIAL ARE PAYING AND
AND HOW WOULD YOU DERIVE THAT? AND IF THAT IS THE A VARIATION ON THE QUESTION THAT YOU'RE
PROPOSING, THEN I WOULD INVITE MR. NIGHTINGALE TO HELP ELABORATE. 
          YOU KNOW, THIS THE ABILITY TO EASILY, EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY APPORTION A VALUE CHOICE
BETWEEN POTENTIALLY TILTING THE SCALE A LITTLE HIGHER ON COST,
RECOVERY OR PRICE, I SHOULD SAY, FOR COMMERCIAL VERSUS RESIDENTIAL. 
          [00:35:09]
THANK YOU. YEAH, I WOULD JUST ADD THAT THE, YOU KNOW,
THE COMMERCIAL, WE'RE ALWAYS SEEING THE REDUCTION ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE BECAUSE OF THAT ELIMINATION OF THE EIU COMPONENT. SO YOU COULD HAVE HAD,
FOR EXAMPLE, AND YOU DO HAVE, I'D SAY, A FAIRLY LARGE BUSINESS WITH A LOT OF, A LOT OF FLOOR SPACE THAT USES ALMOST NO WATER AND
I MEAN ALMOST NO WATER GETTING VERY BIG BILLS. 
          IT'S THAT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE COST OF SERVICE PRINCIPLE. 
          NOT REALLY FAIR. SO WHEN BRINGING IN THESE CHANGES,
YOU'RE GOING TO SEE SOME OF THESE FLUCTUATIONS. 
          AS I AS I NOTED BEFORE OPTION THREE, WE KIND OF CONSIDER AS A BIT OF A STATUS QUO MODEL
BUT WITH A LITTLE BIT OF AN INFLATIONARY FACTOR BUILT IN. OKAY. ARE YOU. YEAH. ARE YOU ABLE TO JUST COMMENT GENERALLY ABOUT JUST
COMMERCIAL PAY MORE THAN TRUCKED RESIDENTIAL USERS PER LITER OF WATER? GO AHEAD. SORRY. YEAH. AT AN AVERAGE, IF YOU AVERAGE THE WHAT THEY'RE PAYING,
THEN YES. 
          IN TERMS OF THE THE BILL BREAKDOWN THAT THEY WILL HAVE,
THEY WILL SHOW BASICALLY THE SAME CUBIC DOLLARS PER CUBIC METER FOR THE CONSUMPTION PORTION. BUT AS MR. NIGHTINGALE SAID THEY ARE FIXED COMPONENT. 
          SO THE ACCESS FEE MULTIPLIED BY THEIR EIU IS MUCH,
MUCH LARGER. 
          SO WHEN YOU TAKE HOW MUCH THEY PAY IN TERMS OF THE TOTAL BILL AND THEN DIVIDE IT BY THE
CONSUMPTION, YES, COMMERCIAL IS BASICALLY OVERPAYING. THAT'S WHAT WE SEE IN OUR REVIEW. 
          SO THEY ARE AT AT TODAY'S RATES, BASICALLY THEY THEY'RE MUCH HIGHER THAN 100% COST
RECOVERY RELATES TO THE COST OF SERVICE STUDY RESULTS OR ALLOCATE COST SERVICE. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK, YOU KNOW,
COST CHALLENGES AND INCREASES ASSOCIATED WITH COST OF LIVING ARE SOMETHING THIS COUNCIL HAS HEARD ABOUT AND SPOKEN ABOUT MANY TIMES. AND SO IN THAT VEIN THE CURRENT COSTS AND
EXPENSES THAT RESIDENTS ARE PAYING PER LITER OF WATER IS MORE IMPORTANT TO ME THAN THE CURRENT REVENUE PER COST COVERAGE OR RCC,
PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THAT APPROACH ALSO INCENTIVIZES MORE CONSERVATION PRACTICES. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE. WE NEED TO, YOU KNOW,
ADDRESS THE GAP OF $1.9 MILLION THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY ANTICIPATING IN THIS. 
          AND I ALSO WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT PEOPLE CHOOSE TO BUY HOUSES OR NOT OR RENT IN CERTAIN
NEIGHBORHOODS WITH EYES WIDE OPEN. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, AS IS IN THIS CASE, THEY ARE ACCEPTING THE REALITY OF TRUCKED VERSUS PIPED, WATER AND SEWERAGE AND ALL THE RISKS AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. I THINK TO CHOOSE ONE
OF THESE THREE OPTIONS THAT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASES THOSE COSTS TO CERTAIN GROUPS WHO ESPECIALLY A GROUP WHO ARE ALREADY PAYING MORE THAN TWICE AS MUCH AS OTHER CUSTOMERS PER
LITER OF WATER. 
          THAT DOESN'T SIT OKAY WITH ME. SO THE ONLY OPTION THAT I THINK I CAN SUPPORT BASED ON MY
UNDERSTANDING RIGHT NOW IS OPTION THREE WITH SOME CHANGES IN IT. 
          BECAUSE I THINK MOVING FORWARD, WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE GAP. 
          AND JUST LIKE ALL OF OUR OTHER UTILITIES AND SERVICES THAT THE CITY PROVIDES,
IT DOESN'T SEEM UNFAIR TO JUST DIVVY THAT UP FOR A MINIMAL INCREASE ACROSS THE BOARD TO ADDRESS THAT GAP. BUT I'M EXCITED TO HEAR MORE OF WHAT MY COLLEAGUES THINK. 
          AND YEAH, I THINK WITH A COUPLE TWEAKS, WE'RE CLOSE. 
          BUT THAT'S WHERE MY WHERE MY MIND IS AT RIGHT NOW. 
          THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR FEQUET. COUNCILLOR WARBURTON. 
          THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. I JUST GOT A WRITE UP I JUST WANT TO GO THROUGH DID
A LOT OF THINKING, A LOT OF READING THIS WEEKEND AND OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS. SO OUR WATER AND SEWER
RATE REVIEW IS ONE THING. 
          IT'S ABOUT ONE THING GETTING FULL, TRANSPARENT COST RECOVERY TO BE SUSTAINABLE. 
          WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE HOW NOT THE IF THE ANALYSIS SHOWS UTILITY IS CURRENTLY COVERING
ABOUT 95%. 
          THAT GAP IS NOT SMALL. AND WE GOT TO COVER THAT. 
          THE BIGGEST IMBALANCE BETWEEN PIPED AND TRUCKED CUSTOMERS,
THAT'S NOT SHOCKING, EVERYBODY. THE PIPE USERS ESSENTIALLY ARE UNDERPAYING AND THE SORRY, THE PIPE USERS ARE OVERPAYING AND THE TRUCKED USERS ARE UNDERPAYING. 
          MY PREFERRED OPTION IS OPTION ONE MOVE TOWARDS A STRUCTURE THAT REFLECTS ACTUAL COST
SERVICE COSTS. 
          UNDER THIS OPTION, RATES ARE REBALANCED. EACH CUSTOMER CLASS MOVES TOWARDS PAYING ITS TRUE
COST OF SERVICE. TRUCKED CUSTOMERS FACE HIGHER ADJUSTMENTS BECAUSE THEIR SERVICE SIMPLY COSTS MORE. WHILE MANY PIPE MULTI-RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS SEE REDUCTIONS AS
WE HEARD, AND SINGLE FAMILY STAYS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME. TO BE FRANK,
OPTION TWO IS THE ONE THAT GETS US TO THE COST RECOVERY PATH THE QUICKEST. 
          HOWEVER, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IS TOO MUCH OF A HIT. 
          TOO MUCH OF A SHOCK FOR TRUCKED USERS. BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN WE NEED TO AVOID THAT
CONVERSATION AROUND EXTRA COSTS. 
          SO OPTION ONE IS MY PREFERRED OPTION. ONE SECOND. 
          FULL COST RECOVERY ISN'T ABOUT BALANCING THESE DAYS BOOKS. IT'S ABOUT GIVING COUNCIL AND
THE COMMUNITY CLEAR, ACCURATE SIGNALS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. WHEN EVERY SERVICE TYPE 
          [00:40:04]
REFLECTS ITS TRUE COST, WE CAN MAKE EXPANSION DECISIONS WITH EYES WIDE OPEN. 
          WHETHER FOR NEW SUBDIVISIONS, INFILL, FUTURE EXPANSIONS. 
          IF WE'RE DOING COST RECOVERY, THEN WE CAN DO THOSE THINGS ACCURATELY. THIS MEANS WE CAN
WEIGH PIPED VERSUS TRUCKED SERVICE MODELS TRANSPARENTLY ENSURING EACH DEVELOPMENT IS FINANCIALLY SUSTAINABLE FOR BOTH THE CITY AND THE FUTURE RESIDENTS. WE'VE HEARD MULTIPLE
TIMES WE CAN'T DO NON NON SERVICE LOTS BECAUSE NOT SUSTAINABLE. 
          WE CAN HAVE MORE CONVERSATIONS IF WE'RE ACTUALLY RECOVERING THE COSTS OF THE SERVICES
WE'RE DOING. 
          AND I DO ACKNOWLEDGE SOME UTILITIES DON'T USE THIS INTRACLASS STRUCTURE. 
          BUT THEIR CONDITIONS ARE NOT OUR CONDITIONS. THE COST OF TRUCKING IS MATERIALLY HIGHER
HERE AND A DIFFERENT CLASS. 
          IT'S INHERENTLY DIFFERENT. WE ALREADY DIFFERENTIATE BY SERVICE TYPE AND WE SHOULD CONTINUE
TO DO SO. 
          WE ALL SAY THE NORTH IS VERY UNIQUE AND WE AND WE USE IT ALL THE TIME ABOUT HOW WE SHOULD
BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. 
          BUT WE CAN'T IGNORE IT WHEN THAT UNIQUENESS COSTS MONEY. AND THIS IS THE CASE HERE. BOTTOM
LINE, FULL COST RECOVERY IS THE BEST PRACTICE AND NECESSARY FOR US TO DO OUR CURRENT STRUCTURE
UNDER CHARGES TRUCKED CUSTOMERS AND OVERCHARGES SOME PIPE SUBCLASSES. 
          A PHASE TRANSPARENT REBALANCING UNDER OPTION ONE PROTECTS UTILITY,
TREATS CUSTOMERS AS FAIR AS POSSIBLE WHILE BRINGING IT MORE INTO BALANCE AND REFLECTING CURRENT COSTS. THAT'S MY OPTION. ONE IS MY GO TO. 
          THANKS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON. 
          ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, I GUESS IT'S ME. OKAY. ROUND TWO COUNCILLOR FEQUET FOR MYSELF,
A COUPLE QUESTIONS. FOR ADMIN IS THE WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE FAILURE AND WATER MASTER PLAN,
WHICH IS INCLUDED IN OUR WORK PLAN FOR COMPLETION IN Q2 2026, EXPECTED TO INCLUDE THE LONG DISCUSSED REVIEW OF SURFACE WATER LINES. 
          MR. VAN DINE. NOT AT THIS TIME. OKAY. IT'S NOT. 
          SO IF IT'S NOT, DO WE NEED TO ADD THAT WORK TO OUR WORK PLAN? IT'S NOT CURRENTLY IN OUR WORK PLAN, BUT IT WOULD NEED TO BE ADDED. 
          OKAY. SOMETHING FOR US TO CONSIDER, THEN, IS WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR WORK PLAN IN A COUPLE OF
WEEKS. 
          OKAY. ON PAGE EIGHT OF THE MEMO, IT SAYS, I QUOTE. 
          IT IS ALSO PERTINENT THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN WILL ALSO INCLUDE REVIEWING THE CITY'S
BILLING AND METERING SYSTEM TO ENSURE THAT THEY CAN ACCOMMODATE THE NEW WATER AND SEWER RATE STRUCTURE. ANY UPGRADES THAT ARE REQUIRED WILL NEED ADDITIONAL FUNDING. 
          SO JUST QUESTION DOES THIS MEAN THAT ONCE WE DECIDE ON A PATH FORWARD,
WE STILL AREN'T REALLY SURE WHEN THESE CHANGES WILL ACTUALLY GET IMPLEMENTED? I THINK IT WOULD. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
          THE REALITY IS THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE TIME TO WORK THROUGH THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT COUNCIL
DECIDES UPON. 
          AND WE WILL NEED TO AND I THINK THE, THE NOTE IN THE MEMO IS TO,
TO POINT TO THAT THAT WORK WILL TAKE TIME. 
          THAT AMOUNT OF TIME WILL NEED TO BE CALIBRATED DEPENDING ON WHICH OPTION COUNCIL CHOOSES. 
          BUT I WOULD SAY WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT 12 MONTHS OF EFFORT TO TRY AND GET GET SOME
CLARITY ON THAT BEFORE WE'RE READY TO FLIP THE SWITCH ON A, ON A NEW, RATE IMPLEMENTATION. PERFECT. THANKS. 
          AND FOR CLARITY, THAT WASN'T A GOTCHA ATTEMPT. 
          THAT WAS. I APPRECIATE THE TRANSPARENCY IN THE MEMO. 
          I JUST WANTED THE CLARITY FROM IT. AND THEN JUST THE LAST ONE THOUGH I HAD VOTED AGAINST
IT AT THE TIME FROM A PROCEDURAL PERSPECTIVE, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THE MOTION RELATED TO MR. HODGINS PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL A FEW WEEKS AGO WASN'T INCLUDED IN THE MEMO. 
          CAN I JUST CONFIRM THAT THAT WAS TRACKED AS PART OF ADMINISTRATION'S DELIBERATIONS AND
PRESENTATION OF THIS MEMO? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. AND WE DO REGRET THAT THE DRAFTING OF THE MEMO DIDN'T
CLEARLY INDICATE THAT. 
          BUT IT CERTAINLY HAS. IT CERTAINLY WAS A VERY SIGNIFICANT COMPONENT OF THE THOUGHT
PROCESS. 
          AND I CAN CALL ON THE CONSULTANTS TO CONFIRM THAT. 
          BUT REST ASSURED THAT THAT WAS DEFINITELY FACTORED INTO THE ANALYSIS THAT WAS BROUGHT
FORWARD TO COUNCIL TODAY. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NO NEED, MR. NIGHTINGALE. YOU'RE GOOD. BUT I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          YEAH. FOR MYSELF, A LOT OF WHERE I SIT, I REALLY APPRECIATE,
YOU KNOW, WHAT DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON WAS TALKING ABOUT THERE IN TERMS OF TRYING TO GET THE FULL COST RECOVERY SYSTEM. AND THAT'S WHY,
YOU KNOW, WHERE I'VE SAT ON THIS SINCE DAY ONE OF SEEING THIS BACK IN 2023. 
          AND THEN AS IT'S COME BEFORE US AGAIN IN 2025,
IS ALL OF THE PIECES AROUND THE BILL ADJUSTMENTS MAKE ABSOLUTE SENSE TO ME. 
          WHERE MY MIND IS STUCK IS THE REVENUE TO COST RATIO. 
          AND IT'S, IT'S STUCK BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THERE'S STILL PIECES WE HAVEN'T TEASED OUT. 
          THINGS LIKE THE FUTURE OF SURFACE WATER LINES,
YOU KNOW, DO THEY STAY? DO THEY GO? IS THERE SOME SORT OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT CHARGE IN THE FUTURE IN ORDER TO
ADJUST THOSE? WE HAVEN'T WE HAVEN'T STRUGGLED WITH THAT YET. 
          AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW FROM FROM PAST DISCUSSIONS IS,
IS SOMETHING THAT'S REAL IN TERMS OF COST AND FUTURE STATE. 
          [00:45:08]
SO WE HAVEN'T WE HAVEN'T STRUGGLED WITH THAT YET. 
          WE HAVEN'T WHEN I, WHEN I LOOK AT THE, THE MEMO THAT CAME IN FRONT OF US YOU KNOW,
WE HAVEN'T STRUGGLED YET WITH THE AGRICULTURE AND MULTI-RESIDENTIAL USE POTENTIAL SUBSIDY THAT COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN HAD BROUGHT UP THE LAST TIME. 
          NOR SHOULD WE HAVE AT THIS POINT. SO I'M NOT THAT'S NOT AN ADMINISTRATIVE HIT. I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT ADMIN AND THE CONSULTANTS HAVE DONE ON THIS. IT'S JUST I THINK WHEN WE GET TO THE WHAT IS A FUTURE STATE OF SUBSIDY OR NOT SUBSIDY LOOK LIKE,
I FEEL LIKE THERE'S STILL THESE OTHER ISSUES THAT WILL IMPACT WHAT THIS ALL LOOKS LIKE THAT ARE PRETTY KEY FUNDAMENTAL PIECES THAT WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY
GRAPPLED WITH YET. 
          SO BEFORE WE SORT OF THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER AND RESTRUCTURE OUR REVENUE TO
COST RATIOS, I WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THOSE PIECES FIRST. 
          AND SO FOR MYSELF, I'M PERSONALLY ON BOARD WITH THE OPTION THREE MENTALITY OF DO THE
BILLING CHANGES REDUCE THE IMPACT OF THE SUBSIDIZATION FROM THE GENERAL FUND? GET THOSE THINGS MOVING,
BECAUSE THOSE ARE THINGS THAT PAST COUNCILS HAVE SAW AS A PROBLEM, WHICH IS WHY WE GOT TO THIS WORK. AND WHICH IS WHY ADMIN GOT OUT,
YOU KNOW, THE WORK TO CONSULTANTS AND HAVE BEEN DOING ALL OF THIS WORK IN THE BACKGROUND. 
          THAT'S THE KEY FUNDAMENTAL PIECE. AND SO I AM FULLY ON BOARD WITH THOSE FOR MYSELF. 
          I JUST THINK CHANGING THAT RATIO WHEN WE KNOW THAT THERE'S OTHER THINGS OUT THERE AND,
YOU KNOW, AND IT'S AN INTERESTING ONE IN THE MEMO, IT WAS LIKE,
YOU KNOW, PLAYED ME BACK ON MY OWN WORDS. 
          IT'S YOU KNOW, I KIND OF LOOK AT THE WHOLE THE FUTURE OF IF WE MAKE TRUCKED WATER HAVE ITS
TRUE COST THAT DOESN'T LIKE I SEE IT AS LIKE A THE CITY HAS AN INCENTIVE TO JUST GET LAND TO MARKET,
PUT IT ON, TRUCKED. 
          THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT, AS IT RIGHTLY SAYS IN THE MEMO,
IS ALSO, IF WE MAKE TRUCKED WATER HAVE ITS TRUE COST, THEN THERE'S ACTUALLY AN INCENTIVE POTENTIALLY FOR PEOPLE TO BUY CHEAPER PROPERTY AND THEN
JUST BE ON TRUCKED. 
          SO LIKE IT CAN BE PLAYED EITHER WAY. SO I DON'T THINK THAT CHANGING THIS RATIO AT THIS
TIME WHEN WE HAVE THESE OTHER UNKNOWNS STILL FOR ME IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. 
          SO AGAIN, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE OPTION THREE MENTALITY. 
          GET THE BILLING CHANGES DONE, KEEP THE RATIO WHERE IT'S AT RIGHT NOW,
AND THEN LOOK AT THESE OTHER PIECES. 
          SO THE MEMO TALKS ABOUT DIRECTING ADMIN TO INCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF SUBSIDIES FOR
AGRICULTURE AND MULTI-RESIDENTIAL IN THE WORK PLAN I THINK. 
          YES. AND DON'T DO THAT, YOU KNOW, TO BE REVIEWED ONCE THE OVERALL RATE STRUCTURE HAS BEEN
IMPLEMENTED. 
          SO GET THESE CHANGES DONE, THEN DO THOSE PIECES OF WORK. 
          THE OTHER THING I MIGHT, YOU KNOW, PROPOSE IS DIRECTING ADMIN TO INCLUDE A REVIEW OF THE
FUTURE STATE OF SURFACE WATER LINES AND TRUCKED SUBCATEGORIES FOR RESIDENTIAL MULTI-RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL IN THE WORK PLAN AS WELL,
ONCE THESE THINGS HAVE DONE AS WELL, BECAUSE I THINK FOR ME, THESE ARE THE MISSING PIECES THAT SHOULD BE REVIEWED AT SOME
POINT, BUT I'M JUST NOT THERE YET. I YEAH, THAT'S WHERE I LIE. 
          BUT WITH THAT, THAT'S MY RAMBLE. ROUND TWO. COUNCILLOR FEQUET I SAW YOU HAD A ROUND TWO
ALREADY, BUT. YEAH, I JUST COUNCILLOR WARBURTON'S COMMENTS MADE ME THINK OF SOMETHING,
SO I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THEM. 
          AND PS THROWING BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER. THAT'LL COST YOU 150 BUCKS FOR A CALL OUT. 
          [LAUGHTER] YEAH, JUST FOR SOME CLARITY, I MEAN,
AND PRIMARILY AGREEING JUST IN MAYBE A DIFFERENT WAY, I THINK. OF COURSE, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND OUR COST OF SERVICES SO WE CAN MAKE INFORMED
DECISIONS. 
          WE CAN BALANCE BUDGETS SO WE CAN MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS. 
          AND OF COURSE, WE ALL AGREE THAT WE NEED A SUSTAINABLE COST RECOVERY OF THE SERVICE WE ARE
PROVIDING. 
          THE QUESTION, THOUGH, TO BACK IT UP RIGHT, IS WE HAVE TO DECIDE IF ENSURING OUR RESIDENTS
HAVE CLEAN WATER IS THE SERVICE OR IF WE CONSIDER THE METHOD OF DELIVERY, THE SERVICE, ALL OF THE WORK AND ALL OF THE IN THE REPORT TO DATE IS ASSUMING THE LATTER. 
          AND MY POINT EARLIER WAS WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY TALKED ABOUT WHETHER THAT SHOULD MATTER OR
NOT. 
          BECAUSE IF IF OUR, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT ENSURING CLEAN,
SAFE WATER TO RESIDENTS IS ACTUALLY OUR MOST FUNDAMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AS A CITY COUNCIL. 
          SO THE NECESSITY FOR TRUCKED AND WATER AND PIPE WATER METHODS IS JUST,
UNFORTUNATELY, THE UNIQUE REALITY THAT WE IN YELLOWKNIFE ARE FACING. 
          AND SO THAT'S TRUE 100%. WE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THOSE. 
          WE SHOULD MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS. BUT IF PROVIDING THE WATER IS THE SERVICE WE NEED TO
STEP BACK AND FIGURE OUT OUR PEOPLE PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE. 
          AND I AND I DON'T THINK YEAH, I DON'T THINK OPTIONS 1 OR 2 REFLECT THAT. 
          SO THAT'S WHY I'M IN SUPPORT OF OPTION THREE. 
          THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR FEQUET. NEXT WE HAVE COUNCILLOR PAYNE. THANK YOU. 
          I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION. I JUST HAVE HAVE A COMMENT OR MAYBE A COUPLE. 
          [00:50:08]
I LOOK AT WATER DELIVERY IN THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE AS A WHOLE. 
          I DON'T LOOK AT IT AS AS WE DELIVER A CERTAIN WAY FOR,
FOR ONE AREA, IN A CERTAIN WAY FOR ANOTHER. 
          ALL I LOOK AT IS THAT WE DELIVER WATER TO EVERY PERSON IN YELLOWKNIFE,
EVERY HOUSEHOLD, EVERY BUSINESS. 
          I MEAN, WE'RE A CITY OF SUBSIDIES. WE SUBSIDIZE THE HOCKEY ICE TIMES,
DIFFERENT RATES FOR DIFFERENT GROUPS. 
          WE HAVE A SPLIT RATE FOR KIDS. WE HAVE WELL,
A 50% SUBSIDY FOR FOR YOUTH. 
          WE HAVE A SPLIT RATE FOR ADULTS AND YOUTH. SO WE SUBSIDIZE. 
          WE ALWAYS HAVE. THERE'S A LOT OF PARENTS IN THIS TOWN THAT DON'T HAVE KIDS,
BUT THEY PAY SCHOOL TAXES. 
          I'M NOT WILLING TO MAKE AN EXEMPTION ON THIS ONE PART HERE. 
          I THINK THAT THE WATER DELIVERY IN THIS CITY SHOULD BE USED AS A WHOLE,
OR SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AS A WHOLE. 
          AND IF THIS IS A MATTER OF LACK OF REVENUE AND WE NEED TO MAKE UP FOR IT,
WELL, THAT SYSTEM AS A WHOLE NEEDS TO COME UP AND MEET THAT AND THIS IS GOING TO LEAD INTO A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION. 
          IF WE'RE LOOKING AT EVERYBODY BEING TREATED FAIRLY AND EQUALLY,
THAT SURFACE WATER LINE DISCUSSION HAS TO COME UP AS WELL, BECAUSE THERE ARE CERTAIN AREAS OF TOWN THAT ARE GETTING TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHERS. 
          SO, I MEAN, WE CAN'T BE TREATED FAIRLY AND EQUALLY ONLY WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT. 
          SO THAT THAT'S A WHOLE BROAD DISCUSSION AS WELL. 
          SO RIGHT NOW I'M IN SUPPORT OF OPTION THREE. AND I THINK THAT'S THE FAIR WAY OF MOVING
FORWARD FOR THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR PAYNE. NEXT WE HAVE COUNCILLOR COCHRANE. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. IT'S BEEN QUITE AN INTERESTING THOUGHT PROCESS OVER THE LAST FEW
MONTHS. 
          I CAME IN HERE TODAY SIMILAR. AND I DON'T THINK I COULD MAKE ANY BETTER POINT THAN
COUNCILLOR WARBURTON BROUGHT UP WITH THE ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLE OF FULL COST RECOVERY FOR OUR UTILITIES, AS UTILITIES ARE DIFFERENCES OR ARE DIFFERENT FROM SERVICES. 
          BUT THE MAYOR BROUGHT UP SOME INCREDIBLY VALID POINTS ABOUT THE COMPLEXITIES AROUND THE
UNRESOLVED ISSUES, I.E. SURFACE WATER LINES. I AM PREPARED TO COMPROMISE AND SUPPORT OPTION THREE FOR THE
NECESSITY OF BEING ABLE TO REVIEW THAT RATIO ADDED ONCE WE RESOLVE THE OTHER COMPLEXITIES TOWARDS IT IN A FUTURE DATE. 
          NOW, WHETHER OR NOT I WOULD SUPPORT THAT GOING INTO THE CURRENT WORK PLAN,
I DON'T THINK I'M THERE. 
          AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, SOME THINGS CAN ALSO BE DONE FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL AND THIS SEEMS TO
BE AN ISSUE FOR THAT. 
          SO AT THE TIME OR AT THIS TIME, I WILL SUPPORT OPTION THREE GOING FORWARD. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR COCHRANE. AND YEAH,
THAT JUST FOR CLARITY TOO. 
          I AGREE WITH YOU. I DON'T THINK IT'S FOR IT'S FOR THAT GARDEN PLOT AREA OF OUR WORK PLAN
THAT LOOKS TO THE FUTURE. 
          I THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH. AS MR. VAN DINE HAD STATED,
GETTING THIS, GETTING THOSE ADDITIONAL BILLING CHANGES IS GOING TO TAKE A YEAR ANYWAY, WHICH WE'VE RUN THE MILE ON US ANYWAY. AND COUNCILLOR MCGURK. 
          THANK YOU. YEAH, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY. YEAH, I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE. 
          IT'S VERY INTERESTING. A LOT OF MORAL DECISIONS TO MAKE HERE. 
          IS IT FAIR TO TO HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE USING DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SERVICES PAY FOR EACH
OTHER'S SERVICES? I, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT MULTI-RESIDENTIAL UNITS. 
          IT'S THE THING THAT REALLY STILL A STICKING POINT FOR ME,
BECAUSE I THINK SOMETHING THAT IS NOT REALLY FACTORED INTO THIS CONVERSATION IS PROPERTY VALUE. I THINK THERE'S A IT WAS VERY INTERESTING TO CONSIDER THAT THERE WAS A
HUGE DISCREPANCY. 
          FOR INSTANCE HOMES IN GRAYSLAKE HAVE MUCH, MUCH LARGER TANKS THAN IN OLD TOWN OR CON AND SO THERE WHEN YOU WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT THEIR USAGE IS AND WHAT THEIR ACCESS
FEES ARE, IT'S A, IT KIND OF CHANGES THE CONVERSATION FOR ME OR CHANGES MY THOUGHTS ON IT. 
          SO I'M WONDERING, HOW DO WE CHARGE MULTI-RESIDENTIAL ACCESS FEES? IS IT BASED ON NUMBER OF UNITS OR IS IT A ONE TIME LIKE A SINGLE CHARGE FOR SINGLE HOOKUP? MR. VAN DINE. THANK YOU. I WAS JUST GOING THROUGH THE DIFFERENT THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS,
BUT I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MR. NIGHTINGALE JUST TO GIVE US THE INDUSTRY STANDARD ON HOW THAT'S DETERMINED FOR
MULTI-RESIDENTIAL. 
          [00:55:08]
CURRENTLY AND I'LL TURN THE [INAUDIBLE] BUT CURRENTLY WE HAVE THE CONSUMPTION CHARGE AND A
FIXED AFFIX, THE ACCESS FEE. AND IT USES THAT EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT,
WHICH IS. 
          THIS IS AGAIN WHY THE RATES ON THOSE RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE COMING DOWN,
BECAUSE WE'RE ELIMINATING THAT. 
          HYAT BOYD DID I MISS ANYTHING. IN TERMS OF CURRENT CHARGES. 
          NO, YOU DID NOT MISS IT. SO I THINK THE COEFFICIENT THAT IS APPLIED TO THAT,
THAT EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT COEFFICIENT THAT IS APPLIED TO ACCESS FEE I THINK IS DIFFERENT FROM UNIT TO UNIT. SO IT'S NOT LIKE STANDARD ALL ACROSS. 
          BUT YEAH, SO THEY HAVE A VALUE COMPONENT FOR THEIR ACCESS FEES. 
          AND THEN PLUS THE VARIABLE CHARGES IN TERMS OF,
YOU KNOW FROM THE INDUSTRY STANDARD, FROM THE COST SERVICE STANDARD USUALLY, YOU KNOW, THE WAY IT'S COSTS ARE ALLOCATED IS BASED ON THE METER SIZES. 
          SO THE CONNECTION SIZES. RIGHT. SO OF MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WOULD HAVE BIGGER METER
SIZE, OBVIOUSLY, AND THAT'S HOW THEY ACCOUNT FOR THE LOAD THAT THEY IMPOSE ON THIS SYSTEM. 
          SO THAT'S THE TIE TO THE COST OF SERVICE. YEAH. 
          THANK YOU. THAT SORT OF ANSWERS MY QUESTION OR MY THOUGHTS,
WHICH IS THAT IT A MULTI RESIDENTIAL BUILDING MAY HAVE LESS IMPACT. 
          I'M SURE THERE'S A CURVE DEPENDING ON HOW IT WOULD PIPE DIAMETER IS AND HOW THAT HOW WE
NEED TO ADJUST INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          BUT I IMAGINE THAT A MULTI RESIDENTIAL BUILDING,
THE MORE UNITS THERE ARE THE MORE OR THE LESS THE, THE LESS IMPACT THE HOOKUP COST HAS TO OUR INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          SO I'M, I JUST THINK THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK EVERYONE SHOULD KEEP IN MIND. 
          AND I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF THERE BEING A REVIEW THROUGH OF OUR ADMINISTRATION TO ADDRESS
THOSE KIND OF QUESTIONS, BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT USER RATES,
THAT'S ALSO ON THE TABLE. 
          I THINK IF WE IF WE OPEN UP THIS CONVERSATION TO TRUCKED SERVICES HAVING A DIFFERENT RATE
OF USE WHILE OTHER BUILDINGS USE WATER AND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE DIFFERENTLY. SO,
YEAH, THAT'S MY THOUGHT THERE. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCILLOR MCGURK. COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN. YEAH. 
          THANKS, EVERYONE, AND A GREAT DISCUSSION. JUST WANTED TO GIVE A PLUG FOR BEING AS CLEAR
AND FORTHRIGHT AND RESIDENTS REALLY HAVING AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS DISCUSSION AROUND PHILOSOPHY. AND IT SEEMS LIKE,
AT LEAST IN THIS INSTANCE, COUNCIL WANTS SOME PART OF THE WATER RATES TO BE SHARED BY ALL, AND SOME OF IT TO BE MORE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE COST OF SERVICE,
THAT EXACT CUSTOMER. 
          SO, LIKE UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT'S THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE CITY,
AND THAT'S THE PHILOSOPHY OF COUNCIL FOR RESIDENTS, WHEN THEY MAKE DECISIONS, I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT. AND WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO ENSURE THAT
THAT PHILOSOPHY IS CLEARLY ARTICULATED AND UNDERSTOOD IN ALL OF OUR USER CHARGE DELIBERATIONS BE MUCH APPRECIATED. THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY, SO SEEING WITH THE END OF OUR CONVERSATION,
IT SEEMS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE GENERAL WILL SEEMS TO BE IN OPTION THREE THAT ALSO CAPTURES IN THOSE ADDITIONAL
ELEMENTS THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT THERE IN TERMS OF THE REVIEW OF THE SURFACE WATER LINES AND ALSO CATEGORIES FOR OTHER RESIDENTIAL MULTI-RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TRUCKED SERVICES. 
          AND I'LL WORK WITH THE CITY CLERK AFTER THIS TO NAIL THIS DOWN AS BEST AS POSSIBLE. SO
WHEN WE BRING IT FORWARD TO COUNCIL. BUT THEN OF COURSE YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO CRITIQUE IT THEN TOO. BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE THE GENERAL WILL OF COUNCIL. 
          SO WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON UNLESS ANYBODY'S GOT ANYTHING ELSE? NO. OKAY, THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO A MEMO REGARDING THE PUBLIC AND COUNCIL 2026 BUDGET
SUBMISSIONS. 
          [5. A memorandum regarding Public and Council 2026 Budget Submissions.]
AND I'M GOING TO SAY LOOKING AT THE CLOCK, PROBABLY THE PRESENTATION,
AND THEN MAYBE TAKE OUR BREAK BEFORE WE GET INTO CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT. 
          BUT WE'LL GO WITH THAT. SO I'LL HAND IT OVER TO MR. VAN DINE. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO IT IS THAT TIME AGAIN. 
          AND SO THIS IS YOUR FOURTH TIME AT IT. AND SO THIS IS THE,
THE FOUR OF FOUR THAT YOU GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT. 
          SO THIS IS THE ONE WHERE YOU BRING IT HOME SO TO SPEAK. 
          AND SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO DOCTOR PANDOO TO WALK US THROUGH THE,
THE FINANCIALS OF, OF OUR OF THE ANALYSIS THAT WE'VE DONE SO FAR. I WILL NOTE THAT WE WILL BE BACK ON NOVEMBER 4TH
WITH A PROPOSED BUDGET FOR COUNCIL'S DELIBERATIONS AND REVIEW. 
          [01:00:01]
WE ARE HITTING THE TIMELINES THIS YEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE PRECISELY THAN I THINK WE DID
PREVIOUS YEARS. 
          SO I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE AMOUNT OF HARD WORK AND EFFORT THAT STAFF AND THE PUBLIC HAVE
PROVIDED US IN TERMS OF PARTICIPATING IN THE EXERCISE AND THE TIMELINES THAT WE'VE LAID OUT. WITH WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, I WILL PASS IT OVER TO TO MR. PANDOO TO WALK US THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSALS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED FROM YOU
FROM THE PUBLIC AND ONE THAT WE'VE PROPOSED FROM ADMINISTRATION. 
          AND THE CRITIQUE PROCESS THAT WE FOLLOWED TO AROUND RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          SO, MR. PANDOO. 
          THANK YOU, MR. VAN DINE. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. 
          WELCOME TO OUR SECOND INTERACTION ON BUDGET 2026. 
          NOT THE TYPE OF SPEECH YOU WILL EXPECT RIGHT AT LUNCHTIME,
BUT I HAVE PRACTICED THIS SPEECH ABOUT TEN TIMES IN FRONT OF THE MIRROR. 
          SO YOU'RE ABOUT TO SEE THE 11TH ONE AND HOPEFULLY THE BEST VERSION. 
          SO JUST BEAR WITH ME. TO START, ON BEHALF OF ADMINISTRATION,
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO ALL RESIDENTS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR THEIR BUDGET PROPOSALS. IT IS ALWAYS NICE TO SEE A GOOD LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT EVERY YEAR FOR THIS
EXERCISE. 
          I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY ON BEHALF OF THE SENIOR LEADERSHIP TEAM,
TO THANK ALL CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE STAFF FOR THEIR HARD WORK AND DEDICATION IN ADVANCING CITY BUSINESS, INCLUDING BUDGET 2026. 
          A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO THE BUDGETING TEAM, ESPECIALLY MELISSA TRIFFO,
OUR NEW MANAGER, BUDGETING AND TAXATION, FOR HAVING COMPILED THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE PRESENTATION SLIDES. 
          NOW WITH THAT THIS TO THIS COMMITTEE, AS YOU EMBARK ON THIS LAST STRETCH OF YOUR TERM,
PLEASE DO PONDER AS TO WHAT LEGACY DO YOU WANT TO LEAVE BEHIND WITH BUDGET 2026? NOW, LET'S TAKE A MOMENT TO TALK ABOUT THE THEME OF BUDGET AND
WHY IT IS IMPORTANT. 
          A THEME ENSURES THAT THE BUDGET AND THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDES THE RESOURCE ALLOCATION,
ALIGNS PRIORITIES AND FOCUSES EFFORTS ACROSS THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION. OUR COUNCIL WILL REMEMBER THAT THE THEME FOR BUDGET 2025 WAS
FOUNDATIONS FOR GROWTH. 
          THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN DOING OVER THE YEAR WITH OPENING OF THE
AQUATIC CENTER, TENDERING AND BUILDING LIFT STATION NUMBER ONE,
AND LAUNCHING DEEP ENGAGEMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY ON YELLOWKNIFE 2050, OUR TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND OUR CLIMATE ACTION PLAN. 
          OUR WORK CONTINUES ON THIS FRONT AND YOU WILL GET A WORK PLAN UPDATE VERY SOON. 
          NOW, SO WHAT IS THE THEME AROUND WHICH WE ARE PROPOSING TO BUILD BUDGET 2026? YOU ASK? READING FOR READING TODAY FOR A STRONGER TOMORROW. 
          TO HIGHLIGHT THE EFFORT REQUIRED TO BALANCE SHORT TERM ECONOMIC NEEDS WITH LONG TERM
INVESTMENTS IN FUTURE GROWTH AND STABILITY. 
          THIS AT A TIME WHEN THE REALITY OF MINE CLOSURES IS UPON US,
AND THE PROMISE OF ECONOMIC AND SECURITY CORRIDORS AND INCREASED DEFENSE SPENDING IS NOT YET WITHIN REACH. NOW, TODAY'S AGENDA IS LIGHT IN CONTENT,
BUT SO CRUCIAL IN THE DEVELOPMENT BUDGET PROCESS, IN THE BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS,
AS IT SHOWCASES WHAT THE PUBLIC AND COUNCIL WANTS TO SEE INCLUDED IN THE UPCOMING BUDGET. 
          THIS YEAR, IN ADDITION TO BUDGET SUBMISSIONS OF THE PUBLIC AND COUNCIL,
ADMINISTRATION IS MAKING A REQUEST OF ITS OWN. 
          BUDGET 2026 IS THE FINAL BUDGET BEING UNDERTAKEN UNDER THIS COUNCIL'S STRATEGIC DIRECTION. 
          HOWEVER, UNDER THE THEME READING TODAY FOR A STRONGER TOMORROW,
ADMINISTRATION IS COMMITTED IN PRIORITIZING AND COMPLETING PROJECTS AND INITIATIVES THAT ARE REFLECTIVE OF THE VISION OF THIS COUNCIL BEFORE THE END OF THEIR
MANDATE, WITH THE EXPECTED LEVEL OF PRUDENCE AND SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF CITY'S FINANCIAL
RESOURCES. 
          BUT AS YOU WILL SEE IN THE COMING SLIDES, THIS IS EASIER SAID THAN DONE. 
          NOW HERE'S WHY. SO THE 2026 BUDGET PROPOSALS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND
COUNCIL TOTALED A COMBINED 3.5 MILLION. EVEN THOUGH WE RECEIVED 15 LESS SUBMISSIONS THAN LAST YEAR,
THIS COMMITTEE HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITH ALL THE SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC AND COUNCIL AS PART OF TODAY'S MEETING AGENDA. 
          NOW DISSECTING THESE NUMBERS A BIT MORE FROM THE PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS 15 SUGGESTIONS RELATE
TO PUBLIC WORKS. 
          [01:05:03]
WHILE THE MAJORITY OF THE REQUESTS RELATE TO COMMUNITY SERVICES,
FURTHER CONFIRMING THAT RESIDENTS OF YELLOWKNIFE DO TIE A LOT OF IMPORTANCE TO RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES. A TOTAL OF FOUR SUBMISSIONS WERE RECEIVED FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS,
NOTABLY COUNCILLORS FEQUET, WARBURTON, AND MCLENNAN. AND AS PART OF OUR BUDGET PROCESS,
THEY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THEIR INDIVIDUAL SUBMISSIONS. 
          THERE WERE 31 BUDGET PROPOSALS RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC TO BE INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET 2026. 
          PLEASE BEAR IN MIND THAT WHILE SOME PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED WITH
CLASS D ESTIMATES, ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT COSTED THESE PROJECTS PROFESSIONALLY AT OUR END. 
          AMONG THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED, THERE ARE SOME PROJECTS LIKE THE FRAME LAKE TRAIL EXTENSION
THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED BY THE PUBLIC AGAIN THIS YEAR. 
          PROBABLY NOT AS A SURPRISE, BUT THE PROJECT THAT RECEIVED THE MOST NUMBER OF SUBMISSIONS
RELATES TO HAVING A NEW DOG PARK IN THE CITY. 
          ALSO, ONE SUBMISSION THAT WAS RECEIVED WHICH WAS OUT OF THE ORDINARY WAS THE INTERESTING
IDEA OF BITING, I'M GOING TO QUOTE HERE BITING THE BULLET AND RAISING TAXES MEANINGFULLY TO FOCUS ON
SUPPORTING REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE THAT ARE IN DIRE NEED OF REPAIR. 
          AS SEEN, THERE ARE NUMEROUS GREAT IDEAS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY YOURSELF AND MEMBERS
OF THE PUBLIC. 
          NOW WHAT NEXT? MUNICIPAL BUDGET CHALLENGES ARE WHAT THEY ARE,
AND UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S NOT ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO MAKE EVERY BUDGET REQUESTS A REALITY, AND AS SUCH, AFTER CAREFULLY REVIEWING THESE 2026 BUDGET PROPOSALS AND RELATING
THEM TO OUR VARIOUS PLANS AND FUNDING CONSTRAINTS, ADMINISTRATION IS RECOMMENDING TO GROUP THESE BUDGET SUBMISSIONS IN FOUR
CATEGORIES GREEN, YELLOW, RED AND A BONUS ASSESSMENT CATEGORY THIS YEAR ORANGE. 
          SO PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN GREEN LIGHTED ARE PROJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY IN COUNCIL'S
APPROVED WORK PLAN, AND IT INCLUDES THE ALLEY, PAVING AND STORM SEWER INSTALLATION. 
          ON THE OTHER HAND, PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN YELLOW LIGHTED ARE PROJECTS THAT HAVE A
POSSIBLE ALIGNMENT WITH FUTURE WORK PLANS, AND THESE INCLUDES CONSIDERATION FOR A NEW DOG PARK AS WELL AS A TRAIL COUNCIL ON THE
MULTI-USE TRAILS. 
          THE LATTER WILL BE CONTEMPLATED AS PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN THAT IS CURRENTLY
UNDERWAY. 
          LASTLY, PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED IN THE RED LIGHT CATEGORY ARE PROJECTS THAT ARE
NOT ALIGNED WITH CURRENT WORKPLAN, AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE RED LIGHT CATEGORY INCLUDES A LOT OF THESE SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED. 
          THIS IS QUITE DIFFICULT TO, YOU KNOW, WHENEVER THE BUDGETING TEAM OR AND THE
ADMINISTRATION ARE LOOKING AT THIS, IT'S ALWAYS A PAINFUL MOMENT TO, YOU KNOW, PUT THOSE GREAT IDEAS IN THAT RED BASKET. 
          UNDER THE ORANGE CATEGORY, I JUST WANTED TO FLAG THE HIGHLY COMMENDABLE YELLOWKNIFE
COMMUNITY CAFÉ PILOT INITIATIVE, WHICH IS ALSO SUPPORTED IN THE JUNE 2025 SAFETY INITIATIVES. 
          WHAT WE HEARD REPORTS. ALSO, AS THIS PROJECT SUPPORTS COUNCIL STRATEGIC DIRECTION OF
PEOPLE FIRST AND MAKING YELLOWKNIFE A LIVABLE COMMUNITY, IT IS BEING RECOMMENDED TO BE INCLUDED IN BUDGET 2026 BY ADMINISTRATION. 
          HOWEVER, IT IS IN THIS CATEGORY AND NOT GREENLIGHTED BECAUSE THERE ARE MULTIPLE
STAKEHOLDERS AND MANY MOVING PARTS BEFORE THIS PROJECT IS REALIZED, BUT GREEN IN PRINCIPLE FROM ADMINISTRATION. NOW,
COUNCIL'S SUBMISSIONS ARE ALSO PART OF THE ORANGE CATEGORY, AS MORE DISCUSSIONS ARE NEEDED AT THIS POINT IN TIME TO MAKE A FINAL DETERMINATION. 
          LASTLY, ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL FOR BUDGET 2026. 
          IN LIGHT OF COUNCILS AND LOCAL BUSINESSES, CONCERN OVER DOWNTOWN SERVICES AND PUBLIC
SAFETY. 
          ADMINISTRATION IS PROPOSING A DOWNTOWN SERVICES ENHANCEMENT PACKAGE OF 1.4 MILLION,
WHICH INCLUDES AN IMPROVED GARBAGE REMOVAL, STREET CLEANING, SNOW REMOVAL AND INCREASED DOWNTOWN FOOT PATROL BY TWO NEW COMMUNITY
STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. 
          [01:10:07]
ADMINISTRATION BELIEVES THAT THESE MEASURES WILL GO A LONG WAY IN IMPROVING SERVICES AND
AMBIANCE OF OUR DOWNTOWN CORE. 
          IT IS A PROPOSAL BASED ON COUNCIL'S WORK PLAN THAT SAYS THE DOWNTOWN IS IMPORTANT. 
          IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT INCREASING SERVICE LEVELS AT ANY TIME INHERENTLY POSES A HUMAN
RESOURCE CHALLENGE, AND FOR ANY PROGRAM TO BE SUCCESSFUL, IT IS IMPORTANT TO RESOURCE THEM ADEQUATELY. 
          BEFORE WE LOOK AT THE NEW STAFFING NEEDS FOR 2026. 
          I JUST WANTED US TO TAKE A SNEAK PEEK AT OUR HIRING TREND OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS. 
          BECAUSE PY REQUESTS ARE ALWAYS A POPULAR TOPIC OF DISCUSSION AROUND BUDGET TIME,
AND ONE OF THOSE ITEMS WHERE IT IS EASY TO NOT SEE THE FOREST FOR THE TREES. CURRENTLY, WE HAVE 260 POSITIONS ACROSS ALL DEPARTMENTS,
AND OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS, OUR CURRENT WORKFORCE HAS GROWN BY AROUND 17.7%,
MAINLY REQUIRED TO MATCH WORKLOADS. 
          IN PREPARATION FOR BUDGET 2026 THE SENIOR LEADERSHIP TEAM HAS BEEN CAREFULLY REVIEWING
OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND HAVE IDENTIFIED NEW STAFFING NEEDS IN THE AREAS OF COMMUNICATIONS,
MUNICIPAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMMUNITY SERVICES. 
          MORE DETAIL, INCLUDING THE PY REQUEST, WILL BE PROVIDED DURING BUDGET DELIBERATIONS. 
          NOW, BEFORE WE END THIS PRESENTATION, I WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH ONE IMPORTANT QUESTION. 
          BUT BEFORE THAT, I WANTED TO THANK YOU ON BEHALF OF ADMINISTRATION FOR YOUR DEDICATION AND
CONTINUED ENGAGEMENT. 
          EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT YOUR TERM HAS NOT BEEN EASY. 
          YOU HAVE ENCOUNTERED NUMEROUS CHALLENGES THAT YOU DID NOT ANTICIPATE,
BUT YET YOU WERE ABLE TO NAVIGATE THESE DIFFICULTIES AS A SOLID GROUP AND HELP SHAPE A STRONG FOUNDATION FOR THE RESIDENTS OF YELLOWKNIFE AND FOR FUTURE COUNCILS TO BUILD ON. 
          WITH THIS IN MIND, WHAT BALANCE DO YOU WANT BUDGET 2026 TO ACHIEVE TO COMPLETE YOUR
MANDATE AND LEGACY? I BELIEVE MAKING THIS QUESTION YOUR WARHORSE WILL HELP YOU CONCLUDE YOUR MANDATES ON A
HIGH. 
          NEXT STEPS FOR BUDGET 2026 ARE AS FOLLOWS. THE 2026 DRAFT BUDGET WILL BE RELEASED TO THE
PUBLIC ON NOVEMBER 3RD, AND PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS, IF ANY, ON THE DRAFT BUDGET WILL HAPPEN THREE WEEKS LATER. 
          BUDGET DELIBERATIONS HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE FOR DECEMBER 1ST TO THE FOURTH,
AND FINALLY THE 2026 BUDGET, ALONG WITH ANY FEES AND CHARGES. BYLAW AMENDMENTS WILL BE APPROVED ON DECEMBER 8TH. 
          TO CONCLUDE, I WOULD AGAIN UNDERSCORE THE EFFORT AND TIME THAT RESIDENTS,
COUNCIL AND STAFF OF THE CITY PUT IN FOR THE BETTERMENT OF YELLOWKNIFE. 
          YOUR COMMITMENT IS DEARLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU EVERYONE. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. PANDOO. AND SO WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS,
COLLEAGUES. 
          ONE IS TO TAKE OUR BREAK NOW. YEAH, I SEE NODDING HEADS. 
          LET'S TAKE OUR TEN MINUTE BREAK NOW. WE'LL COME BACK AT 1:25 AND WE CAN GET INTO THE
DISCUSSION. 
          THANKS, MR. CHAIR. YEAH, JUST A FEW QUESTIONS. 
          DOES ADMINISTRATION HAVE ANY UPDATE FOR US ON THE FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THE YELLOWKNIFE'S
ACTIVE MOBILITY INTEGRATION PROJECT THAT WE HAD APPLIED FOR PREVIOUSLY. 
          MR. VAN DINE. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. PANDOO IN A MOMENT. 
          BUT AS OF LAST WEEK, WE HAD NO NEW INFORMATION. 
          AND DO WE HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON WHEN WE EXPECT TO HEAR FROM THEM IF WE WERE ACCEPTED OR
REJECTED, AT LEAST. MR. VAN DINE. I DON'T BELIEVE THEY PROVIDED US AN ESTIMATE OF TIME. 
          AS YOU KNOW THAT I THINK THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA HAD GONE THROUGH SOME TRANSITION IN THE
LAST EIGHT MONTHS. 
          SO BUT, MR. PANDOO, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE BEEN GIVEN ANY INFORMATION. 
          YEAH, NO, NOTHING FURTHER TO ADD. OUR APPLICATION IS STILL SHOWING US PENDING. 
          CHEEKY BUT PLAYFUL RESPONSE. [LAUGHTER] COUNCILLOR FEQUET,
THANKS FOR THAT. 
          YEAH. NO, JUST HOPEFULLY WE'LL WE'LL HAVE SOME CLARITY BEFORE WE GO INTO BUDGET BECAUSE
THEN THAT MIGHT OPEN UP SOME DOORS AND WINDOWS AND ALLOW US TO DO DIFFERENT STUFF. SECOND QUESTION. JUST HOPING ADMINISTRATION CAN PLEASE REFRESH OUR MEMORIES,
RECOGNIZING ALL THE EMAILS WE GOT FROM RESIDENTS. 
          JUST PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF CHRONOLOGY, KIND OF ON THE STATUS OF THAT 1.9 MILLION FOR THE
NIVEN LAKE RAVINE MULTI-USE TRAIL, KIND OF WHERE WE CAME AND WHERE WE ARE WITH RESPECT TO THAT WHOLE ISSUE. 
          THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. THANKS, MR. VAN DINE. THANK YOU. 
          SO WE DID RECEIVE THOSE COPIES OF THOSE INPUTS,
INCOMINGS, I GUESS, OVER THE COURSE OF THE WEEKEND. 
          AND SO WE'VE LOOKED INTO IT SINCE THEN. I'VE GOT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT DIRECTORS THAT ARE
IMPLICATED WITH WITH THE FILE. 
          [01:15:06]
SO I'VE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIT DOWN WITH BOTH OF THEM AS OF SINCE SINCE YESTERDAY. 
          SO WITH THAT, WE'LL JUST ASK FOR A LITTLE BIT OF TIME AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE COUNCIL
WITH A FULLY INTEGRATED, UP TO DATE AND HOPEFULLY VERY ACCURATE PICTURE OF THE STATUS OF THAT. 
          WE'LL GO WITH ENGAGED RATHER THAN IMPLICATED,
BUT COUNCILLOR FEQUET. 
          SURE. YEAH. HAPPY TO WAIT FOR AN UPDATE ON THAT ONE. JUST LOOKING AT THE FRAME LAKE TRAIL
EXTENSION INITIATIVE IN THE TABLE THERE. 
          IN THE COMMENTS, IT JUST I'M JUST CURIOUS IS IT IS THE ONLY BARRIER TO MOVING THAT
FORWARD, THE LAND TENURE ISSUE OR IS THERE ANY OTHER BARRIERS FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE? MR. VAN DINE. WELL, THERE'S ALWAYS COST, RIGHT? SO I MEAN, THAT'S THE THAT'S IT'S A BUDGET ITEM. 
          SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL WILL NEED TO CONSIDER. LAND TENURE CAN BE SOLVED WITH
COOPERATION FROM THE LANDOWNER IF WE'RE TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS ON THAT SO THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD NEED TO BE INVESTIGATED AND,
AND AN AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT THERE WAS A SOURCE OF FUNDS. 
          PERFECT. THANK YOU. A COUPLE SPECIFIC ONES. SLIDE 15. 
          THE INCREASE ACCESSIBLE PARKING ITEM THAT'S NOT RECOMMENDED. 
          I JUST NOTE WAS NOTING THAT IN THE COMMENTS. IT SAYS THERE'S WORK PLANNED ALREADY UNDER
THE, YOU KNOW, AS PART OF THAT ACCESSIBILITY AUDIT REPORT THAT PROVIDE ALL THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          AND TYPICALLY AND I THINK IT SAYS IT FORESHADOWING TOO THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE CAPITAL
PROJECT. 
          SO IS THIS ACTUALLY GREEN BECAUSE WE'RE DOING THIS AND WE ARE MAKING CHANGES. 
          I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHY IT'S RED IF IT ALREADY IS PART OF OUR OPERATIONAL WORK PLANS. AND
IT'S TYPICALLY PART OF THE CAPITAL PLANNING PROJECT BUDGET. 
          MR. VAN DINE I'LL TAKE THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT AND AND LOOK INTO THAT. 
          COUNCILLOR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCILLOR FEQUET. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE CLARITY FROM ADMINISTRATION'S PERSPECTIVE ON THE THE COMMUNITY CAFE AND
HOW, IN PRINCIPLE, THAT'S KIND OF GREENLIGHTED, ASSUMING,
OF COURSE, COUNCIL FUNDS IT. APPRECIATE JUST THAT CLARITY. 
          A QUESTION ABOUT THE SNOWFALL. I KNOW LAST YEAR COUNCIL IN APPROVED AN INCREASE IN THE
BUDGET FOR SNOW CLEARING LEVELS. AND I BELIEVE IT WAS TO EXTEND KIND OF OUR SNOW CLEARING WINDOW BY,
I THINK FROM 18 UP TO 22 WEEKS OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE. 
          AND I'M JUST WONDERING SEEING THE REQUESTS IN HERE FOR THE SNOW AND ICE STUDY AND THE SNOW
BLOWER, WHICH I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT AFTER JUST COULD WE COULD ADMINISTRATION JUST SPEAK TO
HOW THAT WENT LAST YEAR? AND IF THAT 22 WEEKS WINDOW WAS ENOUGH OR WE WE NEED MORE TO EXTEND OUR SEASON FOR SNOW
CLEARING. 
          MR. VAN DINE. SO COUNCIL WILL RECALL THAT DIRECTION WAS PROVIDED DURING BUDGET 2025. 
          AND SO WE WERE PARTWAY THROUGH THE SEASON IN BUDGET 2025. 
          SO THE FIRST SEASON, WHICH WILL BE EMPLOYING THE 22 WEEKS,
IS ACTUALLY NOW. 
          SO THIS IS SO WE DON'T HAVE A REPORT OUT. BUT WE DID INCREASE SERVICE ACTIVITY OR
VIGILANCE, I GUESS, OVER THE COURSE OF LAST WINTER SINCE COUNCIL HAS DRAWN ATTENTION TO THE IT BEING
A PRIORITY. 
          AND I WILL ASK MR. GREENCORN JUST TO ADVISE ON HOW WE WRAPPED UP LAST YEAR,
IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. I THINK THE END OF THE YEAR WENT RELATIVELY WELL. 
          AS MR. VAN DINE SAID, WE DIDN'T OUR OUR CHOKE POINT WAS IN THE FALL WHERE WE TRIED TO MEET
OUR 18 WEEK EXPECTED SCHEDULE BASED ON OUR BUDGET PROVIDED AT THE TIME, SEEING AS HOW THAT FELL A LITTLE SHORT IN TERMS OF EXPECTATION,
AS YOU KNOW, AND AS MR. VAN DINE JUST SAID, WE INCREASED THE BUDGET LAST YEAR BY $150,000 TO AUGMENT
THIS COMING FALL. 
          SO OUR OBJECTIVE THIS FALL IS TO START OUR SNOW WEEK,
SNOW REMOVAL PROCESSES EARLIER AND EXPAND THAT 18 WEEK SCHEDULE TO ANYWHERE BETWEEN 20 AND 22 WEEKS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          AND WE'LL BE HAPPY TO REPORT ON THAT PROGRESS DURING BUDGET DELIBERATIONS THIS YEAR. 
          THANK YOU. THANKS. JUST A COUPLE MORE FOR NOW. 
          JUST. YEAH. ON THE SNOW STUDY AND THE SNOW BLOWER,
I GUESS SPECIFICALLY AND THE QUESTIONS ARE MAYBE LINKED. 
          SO THE FIRST IS JUST, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT OBVIOUSLY HAVING THESE APPROVED EXPLICIT
SERVICE LEVELS ARTICULATED AS YOU SAID MR. CITY MANAGER, LIKE COUNCIL HAS DRAWN ATTENTION TO THIS,
AND WE'VE PRIORITIZED IT. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, MORE MONEY WENT INTO IT TO TRY TO DEAL WITH IT,
JUST KNOWING THAT WE'D LIKE TO DO MORE, 
          [01:20:01]
NOT NECESSARILY HAVING A SPECIFIC STANDARD. WE'RE TRYING TO HIT THIS STUDY FOR SERVICE
LEVEL STANDARDS, IS THIS PRETTY TYPICAL OF A STUDY TO DO SERVICE LEVEL STANDARDS FOR ONE AREA RECOGNIZING
ALL THE DIFFERENT AREAS OF SERVICE LEVEL STANDARDS, OR AM I JUST MISUNDERSTANDING MAYBE WHAT THE ASK IS FOR THAT SNOW
AND ICE STUDY? AND THE SECOND IS MORE ABOUT THE SNOW BLOWER. AND IF WE'RE DOING A STUDY,
WHY ARE WE GOING AHEAD AND PURCHASING A BIG PIECE OF EQUIPMENT IF THAT CHANGES OUR APPROACH TO OUR SNOW REMOVAL? SO MR. VAN DINE. 
          SO VERY GOOD QUESTIONS AND HAPPY TO HAPPY TO JUMP IN AND PROVIDE MORE CONTEXT. 
          SO WITH RESPECT TO SERVICE LEVEL STANDARDS, WE'RE DOING SERVICE LEVEL STANDARDS THROUGH
ALL ASSET CLASSES AS PART OF OUR ASSET MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK. 
          AND WE CONTINUE TO HAVE SERVICE LEVEL REVIEWS DEPENDING ON WHAT THE ACTIVITY IS. 
          THIS THIS PARTICULAR STUDY WAS HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SOME RECENT
LEARNINGS AND EXPERIENCE FROM OUR SISTER CITY IN WHITEHORSE, WHICH INVESTED IN A LITTLE BIT OF EFFORT IN BUILDING A DATABASE OR AT LEAST
A PROOF POINTS WITH WHICH TO WHAT SERVICE LEVELS WOULD BE REQUIRED BASED ON SOME EMPIRICAL RESEARCH THAT THEY HAD DONE. 
          WE ARE DRAWING ON THAT, ALSO DRAWING UPON THAT EXPERIENCE WE SAW THAT THE FOLLOWING THE
CONCLUSION OF THAT STUDY THAT THE CITY OF WHITEHORSE SNOW REMOVAL PROCESS AND PROGRAM INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY AS ON THE
BASIS OF THE FINDINGS OF THAT REPORT. 
          WE'RE NOT SURE THAT THAT WILL BE THE CASE HERE IN YELLOWKNIFE. WE'RE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT
CLIMATE. WE'RE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT NEEDS. BUT THAT BEING SAID, WE BELIEVE THAT INVESTING IN A STUDY TO GIVE US MORE CLARITY ON WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE
IN THE COMING YEARS, I THINK WOULD BE WOULD BE USEFUL WITH RESPECT TO WHY PULL THE TRIGGER ON A PIECE OF
EQUIPMENT NOW? WHEN THAT STUDY HASN'T BEEN CONCLUDED JUST GIVEN THE SCALE OF INVESTMENT THAT THE CITY OF
WHITEHORSE HAD IN PLAYED BASED ON THE RESULT OF THAT STUDY, THIS ACTUAL ONE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT IS WE BELIEVE IS A IS A FAIRLY MODEST KIND OF
INCREMENTAL INCREASE TO OUR SERVICE PROVISION GIVEN THE LEVEL OF INTEREST THAT YELLOWKNIVERS HAVE IN HAVING
SNOW REMOVAL. 
          AND TO CLARIFY THAT THIS SNOW REMOVAL STUDY WILL NOT NECESSARILY BE JUST A DOWNTOWN STUDY. 
          IT WILL BE A SNOW BLANKETING YELLOWKNIFE. WHAT DOES YELLOWKNIFE NEED? JUST IN GENERAL TERMS, WE WILL DEFINITELY BE KEEPING A CLOSE EYE ON WHAT THAT MIGHT MEAN
FOR THE DOWNTOWN, BUT I HOPE THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION. THANKS. 
          AND MAYBE THE LAST ONE FOR NOW. THE DOWNTOWN SERVICES ENHANCEMENT PACKAGE,
725 K. 
          I HAD A QUESTION JUST ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE DOWNTOWN STREET CLEANING PROGRAM. 
          THERE'S AN IDEA FROM A DIFFERENT COUNCILLOR AND JUST WONDERING WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE
IF IT WAS EXTENDED. 
          AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF THAT'S ACTUALLY MAYBE ALREADY CAPTURED IN THIS DOWNTOWN SERVICES
ENHANCEMENT IS BECAUSE I SEE SIDEWALK CLEANING AND GARBAGE REMOVAL. 
          I'M JUST WONDERING IF EXTENDING THAT PROGRAM OR LETTING IT OPERATE FOR MORE WEEKS OF THE
YEAR IS SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY PART OF THIS. 
          AND IF YOU COULD ELABORATE ON WHAT ELSE IS PART OF IT,
THAT WOULD BE THAT'D BE HELPFUL TOO. MR. VAN DINE. SO I THINK THE COUNCILLOR MAY BE REFERRING TO THAT. 
          IT'S SORT OF LIKE THE THE REFERENCE COMES UP A COUPLE OF PLACES IN THE PRESENTATION. 
          SO I'LL SPEAK TO THAT DIRECTLY. SO WHAT WE ATTEMPTED TO DO IN THE FTE COUNT IS MAKE SURE
THAT WE'RE QUITE COMPLETE IN THE NUMBER OF FTES BEING REQUESTED BY, BY ADMINISTRATION, GENERALLY WRIT LARGE. AND SO IN THE DOWNTOWN SERVICE ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM, WE ARE CALLING FOR OR SUGGESTING AN INCREASED LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR GARBAGE REMOVAL. 
          WHAT YELLOWKNIVERS MAY NOT BE AWARE IS THAT OUR CURRENT SERVICE OFFER FOR INCREASED OR FOR
THE LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT WE OFFER IN SUMMER VERSUS WINTER, IS LEVERAGED PRIMARILY ON A CONTRACT SERVICE. 
          ONCE WE START TILTING IN THE DIRECTION OF PROVIDING YEAR ROUND SERVICE THE CONTRACT
SERVICE THEN BECOMES A QUESTION THAT WE NEED TO BE LOOKING VERY CLOSELY AT IN TERMS OF OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR BARGAINING AGENTS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A PART TIME OR FULL
TIME SERVICE. 
          AND SO SO THAT IS THAT IS THE I GUESS, THE LINK THAT WE'RE DRAWING HERE. 
          SO IT DOES REQUIRE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WAY OF DELIVERING THAT SAME SERVICE,
EVEN THOUGH WE'RE, WE'RE PROVIDING IT NOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT EXTENDING IT OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME. 
          BUT THAT DOES HAVE SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR FOR ADMINISTRATION. 
          AND JUST TO CONFIRM, GARBAGE REMOVAL AND SIDEWALK CLEANING ARE THE TWO THINGS THAT WILL BE
DONE. 
          THE TWO ACTIVITIES THAT ARE PART OF THAT 725 K ALONGSIDE THE TWO FTE POSITIONS. 
          MR. VAN DINE. JUST WANT TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S IN THAT 725 SINCE IT'S A BIG NUMBER. 
          [01:25:02]
THE SHORT ANSWER IS YES. YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE WE WE WERE IN BUILDING
THIS PROPOSAL, WE HAD CONTEMPLATED IN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS. BUT YES,
THAT'S BASICALLY FOCUSED ON THE GARBAGE AND CLEANUP AND SERVICE ALL YEAR ROUND. 
          BUT BY EXTENSION WE THAT CONTRACT WOULD WE NO LONGER BE FOLLOWING THAT CONTRACT. 
          SO THERE WOULD BE NET RIGHT. SO IT WOULD BALANCE OUT. 
          WE DID NOT INCLUDE THAT NUMBER IN THIS CASE. SOMETHING FOR MAYBE THE PRESENTATION IN
NOVEMBER 3RD TO TO CAPTURE THAT. 
          THAT WOULD BE GOOD. COUNCILLOR OR DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          NOT SURE WHEN YOU WANT ME TO SPEAK ON THE BITS I BROUGHT FOR BUDGET,
BUT I GUESS I CAN DO THAT NOW. 
          SO FOR THE HYDRANT PORTION THERE. ADMIN HAD IT PLUGGED IN AT 750. 
          I APPRECIATE I DIDN'T COST IT BECAUSE IT WAS JUST A CONCEPTUAL HIGH LEVEL. 
          ASK BECAUSE I WAS CURIOUS HOW I WOULD APPROACH IT. 
          JUST CURIOUS. AT 750, WHAT DO YOU ENVISION THAT BEING? IS IT JUST A PLACEHOLDER? KIND OF JUST KIND OF HOW DO YOU SEE KIND OF ADDRESSING THAT
BUDGET? ASK MR. VAN DINE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND I THANK THE COUNCILLOR WARBURTON FOR RAISING
THAT. 
          WE'VE IN OTHER ITERATIONS OF THE PRESENTATION. 
          WE'VE ACTUALLY REMOVED THAT NUMBER 750, BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT WAS A LITTLE BIT POTENTIALLY
MISLEADING IN TERMS OF WHAT IT MIGHT ENTAIL. 
          WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE COSTING IMPACT WILL BE. 
          THAT NUMBER MAY BE FAMILIAR TO COUNCIL AS A NUMBER THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD BY A DEVELOPER
RECENTLY WITH RESPECT TO AN ASK OF COUNCIL. 
          OKAY. SO DISREGARD THAT 750. YEAH. BECAUSE MY BUDGET ASKS IS WHERE I WASN'T KIND OF
LEAVING OPEN ON PURPOSE TO SEE WHAT WOULD LIKE HOW WOULD YOU APPROACH IT? I COMMENTED IN THE ASK THERE ABOUT INEFFICIENT WAY WE'RE APPLYING IT CURRENTLY. 
          HOW COULD WE DO THAT MORE EFFICIENTLY? IS THAT A CAPITAL BUDGET? LIKE, HOW DOES THAT WORK? SO I'LL LEAVE THAT TO YOU TO OUTLINE LATER. 
          AND THEN ON THE FLEET MANAGEMENT, THERE'S ALSO NO ASK THERE. SO I THINK THAT WILL BE
SOMETHING TO DEBATE AT BUDGET. 
          A IF COUNCIL WANTS TO SET A LIMIT, IS IT A MILLION,
IS IT 2 MILLION, WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS. 
          LOOKING AT OTHER PLACES. I FULLY TRUST OUR FLEET MANAGEMENT PLAN. 
          I DON'T WANT TO NICKEL AND DIME ON, YOU KNOW,
OR BUYING THIS PICKUP TRUCK. 
          WHEN WE GET INTO CAPITAL OF, YOU KNOW FIRE TRUCKS AND GRADERS AT A MILE AND A HALF BUCKS
TO NOT DISCUSS THEM, AT LEAST AT COUNCIL, I THINK, IS THAT'S A GINORMOUS NUMBER. 
          THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT. SO IT'S A BALANCE BETWEEN THE PLANNING PART,
WHICH FULLY SUPPORT AND THAT DUE DILIGENCE OF COUNCIL. 
          YOU KNOW, WE'RE GETTING MILLIONS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND IT'S JUST ONE ITEM LINE. I
DON'T PERSONALLY THINK THAT'S ENOUGH TO SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, A PUBLIC TAX IS GOING TO THAT. SO I'D LIKE A LITTLE MORE TRANSPARENCY ABOUT WHAT
THAT MONEY IS SPENT ON. 
          THAT'S ALL. BUT I DON'T WANT TO NICKEL AND DIME IT. SO HENCE MAYBE A THRESHOLD
CONVERSATION. SO QUESTION MORE OF A COMMENT THERE. IN THE FOR THE OLD POOL YOU REFERRED TO A FACILITY STUDY IN 2026. I'M PRESUMING THIS IS A FACILITIES WRIT LARGE IN THE CITY STUDY
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          NOT SPECIFICALLY THE POOL, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          CORRECT. PERFECT. SO TBD ON THAT ONE. WE DID HAVE SUBMISSIONS ABOUT RAISED CROSSWALKS,
LOTS OF CROSSWALKS THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE CITY. 
          I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET INTO BUDGET. WE'RE USING THE SAME LANGUAGE. SO IF I WANT
TO DO CURB BUMP OUTS, RAISED CROSSWALKS, WHATEVER. THE THING IS, IS THIS A DESIGN STANDARD? IS THIS LANDSCAPING LIKE HOW IS THIS REFLECTED IN BUDGET. 
          SO WHEN WE COME TO TALK ABOUT IT, IF I WANT THOSE THINGS ADDED IN,
WE WANT TO ADJUST IT SERVICE LEVEL STANDARD. 
          LIKE WHAT? WHAT NEEDS THE ADJUSTMENT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE HAVING THE SAME CONVERSATION? I KEEP TALKING ABOUT THIS DIFFERENT WAYS AD HOC,
AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALIGNING ON WHERE WE'RE PUTTING THE MONEY COME NOVEMBER 3RD, SO WE'RE GOOD. OH MR. VAN DINE I WAS LIKE,
I'D LIKE TO HEAR LIKE, IS THERE ANY COMMENT? I SUPPOSE IT'S A QUESTION. IT'S LIKE LIKE HOW WHERE ARE THOSE THINGS REFLECTED IN THE
BUDGET? SO WHEN IT COMES TO US, I CAN WE CAN SUSS OUT WHERE THAT IS. 
          UNDERSTOOD. MR.. VAN DINE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          WE'LL ENDEAVOR TO COME UP WITH A KEY ON HOW TO DESCRIBE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF PROJECT,
BUT I THINK JUST GOING BACK FROM OUR DISCUSSION EARLIER TODAY WITH RESPECT TO WATER AND SEWER RATES THE WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT CAPITAL,
RIGHT, THERE'S THINGS CAN GET INTO DESIGN THAT GET IN. SO THERE ARE DIFFERENT COLORS OF ACTIVITY THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY GENERATE A
DISCUSSION AROUND SIDEWALKS, BUMP OUTS AND THE LIKE. I REMIND COUNCIL THAT WE'RE ALSO DOING A TRANSPORTATION MASTER
PLAN. 
          THAT STUDY WILL ALSO GIVE SOME VIEWS TO WHERE WE WANT TO HAVE TRAFFIC CALMING KINDS OF
SITUATIONS. 
          SO THAT'S ANOTHER AVENUE THAT WE WILL BE LOOKING TO FOR GUIDANCE. 
          AND THAT WILL ALSO DEAL WITH ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION QUESTIONS. 
          BUT IN THE SHORT TERM, I'M BELIEVE WE COULD FIND OURSELVES IN A CONVERSATION AROUND THOSE
MATTERS. 
          [01:30:07]
WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SUBDIVISION DESIGN,
WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LAND DEVELOPMENT, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OTHER, OTHER ACTIVITIES. SO I'M NOT TRYING TO EVADE THE QUESTION, BUT I WILL COME BACK WITH A KIND OF A DESCRIPTION AS TO WHERE THOSE ITEMS MIGHT POP UP IN, IN THE BUDGET, DELIBERATION WELL IN ADVANCE SO THAT WE CAN TARGET LASER FOCUS ON ON THOSE
QUESTIONS. 
          THANKS. I ASKED BECAUSE LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT IN SAINT JOE CROSSWALKS LAST YEAR FOR 45
MINUTES, YOU KNOW, WHEREAS WE HAD A DISCUSSION ON DESIGN STANDARD THEN THAT HAPPENS ONCE. 
          NO MORE CALDER CRESCENT SIDEWALK DEBACLES. LIKE I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT ONCE SO IT'S
CLEAR TO EVERYBODY AND THEN WE CAN GO AHEAD WITH IT. 
          PERFECT. AND THEN I KNOW A NOTE ON THE OLDER PORT ROAD CROSSWALK. 
          YOU DIDN'T RECOMMEND IT. AND THE LANGUAGE YOU USED WAS IT'S A SAFETY CONCERN DOWN THERE. 
          SO PEOPLE ARE CROSSING ALREADY, SO THEY'RE ALREADY DODGING CARS. 
          SO. YEAH, I'D LOVE TO HEAR KIND OF WHAT'S THE RATIONALE FOR NOT PUTTING IN SOMETHING OR
THINKING ABOUT SOMETHING IN BUDGET? MR. VAN DINE. MR. GREENCORN. DO YOU WANT TO JUMP INTO THAT? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ONE AT OLD AIRPORT ROAD UP BY RTL. 
          SO THERE IS A THERE IS A MEANS FOR PEOPLE TO CROSS THERE. 
          IT'S ACTUALLY AT THE CONTROLLED INTERSECTION. 
          SO IF YOU COME UP OLD AIRPORT ROAD BY CANADIAN TIRE,
YOU CAN CROSS THE ROAD AT THAT INTERSECTION BY WEST TOWN TIRE AND THEN WALK UP TO MY WORLD AND THOSE AMENITIES ON THAT SIDE OF THE ROAD. 
          I'M NOT A HUGE FAN, NOR WOULD I RECOMMEND PUTTING A PEDESTRIAN ACTUATED CROSSWALK BUTTON
THAT COULD BE ACTIVATED ON A DIME IN THAT TRUCK PATH, BECAUSE RTL TRUCKS WILL TAKE A BIT OF A RUN AT THAT HILL WHEN IT'S SLIPPERY TO GET OUT OF
THEIR SLOPE. 
          THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE THEIR OWN DEDICATED EGRESS AND ACCESS EGRESS LANES. 
          SO TO PUT A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING THERE WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC. 
          SO MY ALTERNATIVE TO THAT WOULD BE ADMITTEDLY IT IS A ROUGH GOING ON THAT SIDE OF THE ROAD
IF YOU WERE PUSHING A STROLLER OR ANYTHING BECAUSE THERE'S IT'S NOT PAVED. SO THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TO PAVE A MULTI-USE
PATH ON THAT SIDE OF THE ROAD. 
          AND I BELIEVE I COSTED THAT OUT AT $350,000. AND THAT WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM COMPLETELY
AND PROPERLY IN MY OPINION. OKAY. SO EXCELLENT. MORE BUDGET THINGS TO CONSIDER. 
          SO AND THEN I THINK WE ANSWERED THE DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENTS ONE. 
          YEAH. THAT'S IT FOR NOW. THANKS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
DEPUTY MAYOR. 
          AND NEXT WE HAVE COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          YEAH. THANKS TO RESIDENTS AND STAFF FOR ALL THE WORK PUTTING THIS TOGETHER. 
          SO JUST FOR CLARITY, THE ITEMS THAT WILL BE IN THE DRAFT BUDGET AS OF NOW ARE THE GREEN
ITEMS AND THE COMMUNITY CAFE. 
          ANYTHING ELSE? MR. VAN DINE? NO. THE BUDGET PROCESS WILL CONTINUE TO EVOLVE OVER THE NEXT
NUMBER OF WEEKS AS WE TAKE ON THE INPUTS. THIS WAS OUR REFLECTIVE OF THE CALL THAT WE'VE RECEIVED FROM THE GENERAL
PUBLIC AND HOW WE'RE CHARACTERIZING THEM. 
          AT THIS POINT. RED IS NOT LIKELY GOING TO BE FOUND FOR THE REASONS SAID HOWEVER,
AS A PUBLIC RECORD AS OF TODAY'S PRESENTATION, AND WHAT COUNCIL HAS BEFORE THEM IN TERMS OF THE INDIVIDUAL SUBMISSIONS COUNCIL,
OF COURSE, CAN REVISIT ANY PROPOSAL AT ANY TIME DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS AND,
AND SPEAK TO WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN BUDGET 2026. 
          JUST ALONG WITH THAT, JUST, YOU KNOW, THE AS WAS MENTIONED,
THERE WAS NOVEMBER 3RD IS SORT OF THE THE MAIN BUDGET, YOU KNOW, PRESENTATION. SO JUST IF THERE'S ANYTHING I WOULD ARGUE WE DON'T NEED TO SETTLE
ANYTHING TODAY. 
          SO IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN THERE THAT YOU WANT TO REFLECT ON OR THINK ABOUT AS DEPUTY MAYOR
WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THINK ON THEM OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS. 
          MAKE THE PITCH ON OCTOBER 27TH AS WELL. YOU COULD BRING FORTH A MOTION TO INCLUDE
SOMETHING IN THE BUDGET. 
          YOU COULD ALSO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S THERE,
PLEASE INCLUDE IT. 
          AND THEN AT LEAST IT GIVES US ALL THE COLLEAGUES AN IDEA OF WHAT THAT BUDGET ASK,
THEN, YOU KNOW, LOOKS LIKE IN TERMS OF POTENTIAL INCREASE AS A RESULT OF INCLUDING SOMETHING THAT ADMIN
WASN'T GOING TO INCLUDE. 
          SO THERE'S A COUPLE WAYS WE CAN TALK ABOUT AFTERWARDS IF ANYBODY'S INTERESTED. 
          BUT YEAH, JUST THIS ISN'T THE ONE AND DONE MOMENT OF TIME WHERE IF IT'S NOT IN TODAY,
IT'S NOT GOING IN. 
          BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT DOES GIVE US ALL THE CHANCE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT'S BEEN OUT THERE
AND REFLECT ON THOSE PIECES. 
          BUT YEAH, BACK TO YOU, COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN. UNDERSTOOD. 
          THANKS FOR THAT. AND I'LL BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE AND NOT SEE. 
          [01:35:01]
SO JUST LOOKING FOR AN UPDATE ON THE EMERGING ISSUES RESERVE POLICY,
WILL THAT BE IN PLACE FOR BUDGET 2026? MR. VAN DINE. WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD AN ITEM TO COUNCIL TO GPC PRIOR TO BUDGET 2026. 
          AWESOME. THAT'S GREAT. YEAH. IF THAT'S THE CASE,
THAT'S GREAT. 
          AND THEN WE CAN DEBATE ALLOCATING MONEY BASED ON THAT POLICY OR NOT. 
          AWESOME. NEXT QUESTION. RUTH INCH POOL FACILITIES STUDY IS AN ANTICIPATED THAT THERE'LL BE
AN AWARENESS OF THE POTENTIAL OPTIONS AND THEIR COST BENEFITS. 
          AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC PRIOR TO NEXT YEAR'S ELECTION. 
          JUST LOOKING TO SORT OF MAKE CLEAR THAT IT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE THAT THAT BE AN ISSUE
THAT COULD BE DEBATED AS PART OF THAT ELECTION AND NOT ONE THROWN TO A NEW COUNCIL IN A BUDGET WITHIN A MONTH OF BEING ELECTED. FAIR QUESTION. 
          MR. VAN DINE. WE SO I UNDERSTAND THE COUNCIL'S DESIRE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR AND
OPEN AND COMPLETED SO THE PUBLIC CAN WEIGH IN AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. WE ARE MOVING TRYING TO MOVE DILIGENTLY TO GET AN RFP OUT RELATIVELY
SOON. 
          DOLLARS HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED AS A RESULT OF BUDGET 2025 THAT WE'RE DRAWING UPON TO ALLOW US
TO DO THAT AND NOT WAIT UNTIL BUDGET 2026 TO TO START THAT WORK. SO SO STAY TUNED. BUT THE CERTAINLY THE DESIRE AND THE AMBITION IS TO HAVE THAT WORK
COMPLETED WELL IN ADVANCE OF ELECTION 2026. AWESOME. GREAT NEWS. THANKS FOR THAT WORK. 
          AND THEN ONE MORE SIMILAR TO COUNCILLOR FEQUET,
I THINK, BROUGHT UP ONE OF THE RED ITEMS THAT SAID IT WAS PART OF THE ACCESSIBILITY WORK AND SHOULD THAT NOT THEN BE GREEN? THE PARK PORTA-POTTIES THAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE
COMMENTS AS BEING THAT WOULD BE WORK AS PART OF THE ACCESSIBILITY INITIATIVE. 
          SO AGAIN, JUST TO PUT A NOTE, SHOULD THAT THEN BE GREEN? NOT NECESSARILY NEED A COMMENT, BUT JUST SIMILAR IN THE VEIN THAT COUNCILLOR FEQUET RAISED
IT. 
          NEXT ON THE P. WISE IN THE PRESENTATION AVAILABLE ONLINE. 
          IT DIDN'T INCLUDE FOUR POSITIONS FOR DOWNTOWN INCREASED GARBAGE REMOVAL AND SIDEWALK
CLEANING. 
          IN THE PRESENTATION WE WERE GIVEN, IT DID HAVE FOUR POSITIONS. 
          AND COUNCILLOR FEQUET AGAIN TRIED TO GET AT THIS. 
          THAT IS A SHIFT IN CONTRACT VERSUS FULL TIME. 
          AND THOSE PY'S ARE PART OF THAT. 750 OR 725 OR NOT. 
          MR. VAN DINE. YES, THEY'RE PART OF THAT. 75025. 
          UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. AND THEN THE WHAT IS IT? IT? COMMUNITY STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. 
          WHAT TRAINING OR QUALIFICATIONS WOULD THOSE POSITIONS HOLD? MR. VAN DINE. THOSE ARE KNOWN BY, MOST GENERALLY TO THE PUBLIC AS MUNICIPAL ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS. 
          SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO HIRE. 
          YEAH. OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. AND. YEAH. THEN I THINK I JUST HAVE COMMENTS. SO I GUESS I'LL DO A QUICK RUNDOWN OF MY PROPOSAL WHICH WAS TO INCREASE
COMMUNITY GRANT FUNDING BY $46,800 FROM 2026 ONWARD. AND SPLIT THAT EVENLY,
OR HOWEVER THE COMMITTEE FEEL FELT WAS APPROPRIATE BETWEEN MULTI-YEAR SPONSORSHIP AND COMMUNITY GRANT FUNDING. 
          AND THIS IS A 10% OVERALL INCREASE. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS DO A LOT OF HEAVY LIFTING WHEN
IT COMES TO MAKING OUR CITY HEALTHY AND ENJOYABLE PLACE TO LIVE. IT'S GREAT THAT RESIDENTS, THROUGH THEIR TAX DOLLARS,
HELP SUPPORT THESE ORGANIZATIONS SO DIRECTLY. 
          HOWEVER, THIS SUPPORT HAS NOT INCREASED SINCE 2016. 
          IN THAT TIME, INFLATION HAS INCREASED BY 27%. 
          LAST YEAR, THE GRANT REVIEW COMMITTEE WAS FORCED TO REJECT SOME APPLICATIONS AND REALLY
TRIAGE IN TERMS OF LOWERING FUNDING TO SOME GREAT ORGANIZATIONS IN TOWN WHO ARE REAPPLYING. 
          AND SO I'M PROPOSING TO INCREASE THIS, AS WE HAVEN'T IN ESSENTIALLY A DECADE IN ORDER TO
GIVE THOSE ORGANIZATIONS THE RESOURCES THEY NEED TO CONTINUE THE GREAT WORK THAT THEY DO. SO THAT'S MY PITCH FOR MY OWN PRESENTATION IN TERMS OF ONES
PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC OR BY ADMIN I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THE LIGHTED CROSSWALK AT HALL AND BOURQUE DRIVE. 
          BEING IN THE BUDGET, SWAGIT FOR THE SAFETY REASONS MENTIONED. 
          I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF A NEW DOG PARK. I UNDERSTAND THAT RESIDENTS FEEL PASSIONATELY ABOUT
THAT AND WOULD GET GREAT ENJOYMENT OUT OF THAT. FOR ME, IT'S NOT AT THE TOP OF MY PRIORITY LIST. 
          [01:40:02]
I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER THINGS I'D LIKE TO SEE ADDRESSED BEFORE A NEW DOG PARK. 
          AND IN TERMS OF THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS,
SIMILAR TO LAST YEAR AND THE TWO MED POSITIONS, I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF THOSE. INSTEAD, WOULD LIKE TO SEE US INCREASE OUR FUNDING TO
NGOS WHO PROVIDE GROUND ON THE GROUND SERVICES TO COMMUNITIES AT RISK AND NEED THE MONEY TO KEEP STAFF AND PROVIDE THE SERVICES THEY DO. 
          AND THE SNOW AND ICE STUDY. I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF IF WE ARE WILLING TO IF WE WANT TO
TRY SOMETHING, IF WE WANT TO ADD A SNOW BLOWER AND CHANGE OUR LEVEL OF SERVICE,
ALL IN FAVOR OF DOING THAT? IN THIS INSTANCE, THE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN WAS THE WHOLE IDEA WAS TO MOVE AWAY FROM
PIECEMEAL STUDIES AND PUT EVERYTHING UNDER ONE ROOF. 
          SO TO MEET THEN THE NEXT YEAR, SPEND ANOTHER $150,000 TO DO A BREAK OFF STUDY THAT,
FOR ME SHOULD BE INCLUDED. 
          IF THE WHOLE IDEA IS TO DO EVERYTHING UNDER ONE ROOF,
THEN LET'S DO THAT. 
          I, WE HAVE A LOT OF STUDIES, AND WE'VE PAID A LOT OF CONSULTANTS FROM CITIES DOWN SOUTH. 
          IF WE'RE GOING TO SPEND SOME MONEY, LET'S JUST CHANGE OUR LEVEL OF SERVICE AND SEE WHAT
HAPPENS. INSTEAD OF MORE PIECES OF PAPER? YEAH. SO THAT'S MY THOUGHTS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          NEXT WE HAVE COUNCILLOR COCHRANE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. CHAIR. I WANT TO THANK THE PUBLIC FOR ALL OF THEIR PROPOSALS AND THE ADMINISTRATION FOR
THEIR INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT WORK. 
          I'M GOING TO START OFF WITH BACK TO THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS OFFICER. 
          JUST TO CLARIFY, IS THAT AN MED1 MED2 MED3 OR IS IT A DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATION THAN THE
MEDS? MR. VAN DINE. I'LL INVITE MR. MCLEAN TO RESPOND TO THAT. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. THESE POSITIONS WILL BE CLASSIFIED THE SAME AS A MUNICIPAL
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TWO POSITION DUE TO THE LEVEL AND COMPLEXITY OF THEIR WORK. 
          THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MCLEAN. THAT WAS EXACTLY THE KIND OF CLARIFICATION I
WOULD NEED FOR THAT. 
          TO THE DOG PARK. I ACTUALLY DO SUPPORT THAT. I THINK PUTTING ONE AT PARKER PARK MAKES A
LOT OF SENSE. 
          AND BEING THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED HUNDREDS OF EMAILS EVERY YEAR AROUND THIS EXACT ISSUE,
THIS IS SOMETHING THE PUBLIC WANTS, AND I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO PLACATE THE PUBLIC ON SOMETHING JUST TO STOP THE EMAILS AND TO
THE CAFE. 
          I DO THINK THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT SUBJECT MATTER. 
          I THINK THIS COULD BE RESOLVED AT THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD FOR HOMELESSNESS WITH
REACHING HOME FUNDING. 
          ONE THING I WILL SAY, THOUGH, IS THIS PROJECT WILL NOT BE SUCCESSFUL IF WE ARE THE ONLY
FUNDERS OF IT. 
          SO IT IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT FOR THE GNWT TO PARTICIPATE. 
          THE FEDS CAN MAKE THE ARGUMENT AS WELL THAT WITH THE REACHING HOME FUNDING THAT WE ARE
PROVIDING THROUGH US, IT IS THE SAME. IT WILL BE THERE FUNDING ANYWAY,
SO WE MIGHT EVEN HAVE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT INCREASING FUNDING OUR SIDE IF THE GNWT IS WILLING TO DO SO. AS SUCH, THOUGH, I DO AGAIN THINK IT'S AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT
PROJECT THAT NEEDS TO GO FORWARD. 
          THE DOG WASTE BINS, I'M ASSUMING WITH ALL OF THE LOGISTICS AROUND THAT THAT WOULD HAVE TO
BE SOMETHING FOR CONSIDERATION IN BUDGET 2027. 
          MR. VAN DINE. WELL, I BELIEVE IT'S CURRENTLY NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE PROGRAM OF WORK AT THIS
JUNCTURE, BUT WE WOULD DEFINITELY NEED DIRECTION AND RESOURCES TO ALLOW US TO DO THAT. 
          YEAH, I'M A LITTLE HESITANT TO FOLLOW SUIT BY PROVIDING RESOURCES FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS
AT THIS JUNCTURE. 
          I THINK A DOG PARK AND THEN GO FOR THE WASTE BINS AFTER MIGHT BE A CONVERSATION TO BE HAD. 
          BUT ANYWAY THE SNOW BLOWER. I'M ASSUMING THAT IS THE SIMILAR TO THE EQUIPMENT THAT WAS
TALKED ABOUT LAST YEAR DURING BUDGET. 
          MR. VAN DINE. YES. SO THIS IS WELL, ACTUALLY,
I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. GREENCORN TO DESCRIBE IT. HE GETS MUCH MORE ANIMATED ABOUT IT THAN I DO. 
          SO. OH, DID YOU OPEN THE DOOR FOR THAT ONE? [LAUGHTER] THE SNOW BLOWER IS A MEANS OF
MOVING SNOW IN A SIMILAR MANNER THAT WE DO NOW, ONLY FASTER. 
          SO REGARDLESS OF WHICH PIECE OF EQUIPMENT WE USE,
WE HAVE TO WINDROW IT TO THE MIDDLE AND THEN PUT IT IN A TRUCK. 
          THIS IS A DIFFERENT AND FASTER MEANS OF PUTTING IT IN THE TRUCK. 
          MAKES SENSE? AND CRYSTAL CLEAR. I'M TRYING TO KEEP MYSELF UNDER CONTROL HERE. 
          YEAH. SO AND YOU DID A GREAT JOB, MR. GREENCORN. 
          SO I WOULD SAY THAT YES, IT IS THE SAME PIECE OF EQUIPMENT THAT WAS NOTED LAST YEAR WHEN
WAS BROUGHT FORWARD TO COUNCIL DURING BUDGET 2025 DISCUSSIONS. 
          [01:45:01]
AND JUST FOR GREATER CLARITY, IT'S AN ATTACHMENT THAT WOULD GO ON TO AN EXISTING VEHICLE
AS OPPOSED TO A SELF-GENERATING PIECE OF EQUIPMENT. SO THIS WOULD BE AN ATTACHMENT. 
          EXCELLENT. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARITY. I ALSO ANSWERS WHETHER OR NOT THERE WOULD BE ANY
IMPLICATIONS FOR THAT. 
          OBVIOUSLY NOT. IF IT IS AN ATTACHMENT OR HEAVY EQUIPMENT,
OPERATORS CAN HANDLE IT. 
          DOWNTOWN THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDING FOR THE DOWNTOWN. 
          JUST CURIOUS WITH THOSE PY POSITIONS, ARE THOSE GOING TO BE COMMUNITY SERVICE OR. 
          OKAY, JUST GOOD. THE NOD WORKS EVEN BETTER THAN GETTING CLARITY. 
          THE MULTI USE PATH ON OLD AIRPORT ROAD THAT WAS JUST BROUGHT UP. 
          I THINK THAT'S A GREAT COMPROMISE. FULLY SUPPORT THAT GOING FORWARD AND HOPE TO SEE THAT
IN THE CAPITAL BUDGET FOR THIS YEAR. I THINK THIS ADDRESSES ALL WHAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED ON THEIR ADMIN PROPOSALS. YES, ALL OF THEM. GOING FORWARD,
I WOULD AT THE VERY LEAST LIKE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION AND SAME THING WITH THE COUNCIL SUBMISSIONS DO SUPPORT ALL GOING FORWARD, BUT NOT NECESSARILY WILL SUPPORT THEM IN THE
FINAL BUDGET. 
          I THINK AS I'VE SPOKEN WITH SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO ARE BRINGING SOME OF THESE FORWARD,
THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT DISCUSSION PIECE WHETHER OR NOT WE ACTUALLY DECIDE TO GO, ESPECIALLY WITH SOMETHING LIKE, WELL, THE GRANT ONES,
THAT'S GOOD. 
          THAT'S EASY. I'LL SUPPORT THAT ONE. BUT THE OTHER THREE,
I THINK THERE ARE LARGER IMPLICATIONS THAT I THINK NEED TO HAVE A BROADER DISCUSSION. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCILLOR COCHRANE. 
          COUNCILLOR MCGURK. A LOT TO SAY OBVIOUSLY, I'M GOING TO TRY TO KEEP IT BRIEF. 
          SEEING AS WE HAVE SOME MORE TIME TO THINK ABOUT THINGS,
I APPRECIATE OTHER COUNCILLOR'S COMMENTS AND ADMINISTRATION FOR CLEARING UP SOME QUESTIONS I ALREADY HAD. I JUST AM WONDERING IF ADMINISTRATION CAN GIVE COLE'S NOTES ON THE FRAME
LAKE TRAIL EXPANSION LAND TENURE ISSUES MOSTLY FOR THIS. 
          SO FOR THE SAKE OF THE PUBLIC, BECAUSE I KNOW THIS IS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE HAVE A LOT OF
INVESTED INTEREST IN, AND IT WOULD BE NICE TO REMIND THEM WHAT THE ISSUE IS WITH. 
          YEAH, WITH LAND TENURE. MR. VAN DINE. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY COMMISSIONERS LAND. 
          AND SO WITH WITH THE COMMISSIONERS LAND OWNERSHIP,
IT DOES RAISE A LITTLE LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY AS TO WHAT THE CITY CAN PROPOSE. SO THE CITY IS WELL ADVISED TO IT MIGHT HAVE GRAND AMBITIONS AS TO WHAT IT WANTS
TO DO. 
          BUT THE LANDOWNER DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE A PART OF THAT PART OF THAT CONVERSATION. 
          SO WE ARE NOT IN ACTIVE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE LANDOWNER ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR PIECE. 
          NOR HAVE WE IDENTIFIED A SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR THAT PARTICULAR PIECE. 
          AND SO IT COULD YOU COULD SEE IT AS A BIT OF A CIRCLE,
WHICH IS MIGHT BE THE WAY THAT ONE WOULD DESCRIBE THE CONVERSATION ON THIS POINT OVER THE LAST LITTLE WHILE. THAT BEING SAID, SOURCE OF FUNDS,
LANDOWNER NEED TO COME TOGETHER. 
          AND WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WHAT THAT COULD LOOK LIKE FOR CLARITY. 
          THE FRAME LAKE TRAIL, AS IT EXISTED, ALSO HAD LAND TENURE ISSUES AT ONE POINT IN TIME. 
          SO THINGS CAN BE FIGURED OUT WHEN THERE'S A PURPOSE. 
          BUT BACK TO YOU, COUNCILLOR MCGURK. YEAH. GREAT. SO THANK YOU. 
          SO IT IS A LITTLE BIT OF A CHICKEN BEFORE CART BEFORE THE HORSE CATCH 22 SITUATION. 
          WE NEED TO HAVE A REASON TO ASK FOR IT. AND WE NEED TO GIVE YOU A REASON. 
          MAYBE IS THE THING FOR US TO CONSIDER? I WAS WONDERING WHAT THE CONCERN ABOUT THE SAFETY CONCERNS WERE WITH ART WALKS,
BECAUSE THAT'S ALL THAT WAS NOTED AS BEING AN ISSUE. 
          THANKS, MR. VAN DINE. SO WITH THE SIDEWALKS AND THE THE ART BASED SIDEWALKS SO I'LL TURN
IT OVER TO MR. GREENCORN, BUT ESSENTIALLY THE CONCEPT, WHICH IS DIFFICULT FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND ALL
OF US TO UNDERSTAND IS WHILE BEAUTIFICATION AND REFLECTING CULTURE AND BEAUTY IS,
IS A LAUDABLE GOAL AND CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO PROMOTE IN MANY INSTANCES ON THE SIDE OF BUILDINGS THAT'S A GREAT PLACE. 
          ARTWORK IN OTHER PLACES IS A GREAT PLACE. WHEN YOU START MIXING IT WITH ROADS THEN IT
BECOMES POTENTIALLY A BIT MORE RISKY IN TERMS OF THE INTERFACE, BUT MR. GREENCORN DID YOU WANT TO ELABORATE? SURE. 
          IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ART ON SIDEWALKS AND,
IT'S WALKABLE AND IT'S SAFE WITH AND NOT DONE WITH I GUESS PAINT THAT'S SLIPPERY AND WOULD CAUSE A PROBLEM,
THEN THAT'S ONE THING. 
          IF IT'S DONE ON A ROADWAY, IT PRESENTS A WHOLE NEW SET OF CHALLENGES,
AND YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT FOLLOWS CERTAIN STANDARDS AND REFLECTIVITY AND THINGS OF 
          [01:50:04]
THAT NATURE TO BE SAFE. WE USE SPECIFIC PAINT. 
          WE ALSO PUT A GRANULAR OR MATERIAL ON IT THAT MAKES IT LESS SLIPPERY. 
          SO THERE'S DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS. IT DEPENDS ON HOW WE DESCRIBE ART AND WHERE WE'RE
GOING TO PUT IT. 
          THE CITY DID AN ARTWORK SIDEWALK ART PROGRAM CALLED TEN YEARS AGO NOW,
MAYBE. 
          AND IT WORKED OUT FINE WHERE PEOPLE JUST PAINTED ON THE SIDEWALK. 
          BUT I GUESS THAT'S HOW I WOULD DESCRIBE THIS WORK OR WHERE IT'S LOCATED IS A KEY PIECE OF
INFORMATION. 
          SO THE SAFETY CONCERNS ARE NOT ABOUT THE. SAFETY CONCERNS ARE AROUND THE EXECUTION AND
WHETHER OR NOT THEY MEET CERTAIN STANDARDS. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. SO LOCATION? YEAH. I GUESS I'M CONFUSED WHY WE RECEIVE A COMMENT LIKE SAFETY CONCERNS IS THE REASON NOT TO GO FORWARD WITH SOMETHING. 
          THIS IS A GENERAL SORT OF COMMENT. IF THERE IS THE ABILITY TO MITIGATE THOSE CONCERNS. 
          YEAH, I'M KIND OF CONFUSED AS TO WHY THE SO THE COMMENT WOULDN'T BE THAT IF WE WERE TO
CHOOSE TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE CERTAIN AN ADDITIONAL COST OR AND THAT WOULD BE NOT ADVISABLE
BECAUSE IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE TO DO AND MAKE HAVE THAT MAKE SENSE. 
          QUESTION FOR ADMIN. YEAH, I GUESS IT'S JUST A COMMENT. 
          IT'S A GOOD COMMENT. YEAH. YOU DON'T WANT TO. YEAH. 
          I'M JUST CONFUSED ABOUT IT. IS THE THINGS WHICH IS WHY IT'S LIKE IT FEELS LIKE A QUESTION
FOR ME. 
          I DO HAVE AN ANSWER. MR. VAN DINE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO IT. 
          THANK YOU. AND SO AND I APPRECIATE THE AMOUNT OF ATTENTION AND FOCUS. 
          SO THIS REPRESENTS, I WOULDN'T READ TOO MUCH INTO THE COMMENTARY. 
          I WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS THE FIRST PASS BASED ON SUBMISSIONS IN. 
          SO WE ARE VERY QUICKLY TRYING TO DO THE SORTING HAT. 
          HARRY POTTER KIND OF THING. IS IT IN THE WORK PLAN? IS IT ALIGNED WITH WHAT WE KNOW TO BE SO? AND SO THE COMMENTS HERE,
IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO, IF WE'RE GOING TO GO TO A DEEP DIVE INTO EACH OF THESE PROPOSALS,
THERE WOULD BE A WHOLE LIST OF QUESTIONS THAT WOULD COME UP AS A REASON. 
          SO THIS IS THE QUICK SORT. COUNCILS BY IS PERFECTLY ABLE TO,
YOU KNOW, INVITE US TO COME BACK TO PARTICULAR PROPOSALS AND ASK MORE DETAILED QUESTIONS TO WHICH WE CAN PREPARE MORE DETAILED RESPONSES. 
          IT'S THE NATURE OF THE PROCESS, BUT I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T TREAT THE COMMENTARY AS THE AS
THE, YOU KNOW, DEEP DIVE ANALYSIS. NO WAY IN HECK KIND OF ANSWER OTHER THAN HERE'S THE THE
ROUGH REVIEW AND OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE WOULD HAVE WITH A PROPOSAL LIKE THIS. SAFETY WOULD BE THE FIRST BOX WE'D WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE
EXAMINING. 
          SO THAT'S JUST A GENERAL COMMENT WITH WITH COUNCIL AND HOPE THAT HELPS AND DOESN'T
CONFUSE. 
          THAT'S GREAT. THANKS. MR. VAN DINE. AND COUNCILLOR MCGURK. YEAH. 
          I GUESS A A COMMENT ON THAT IS THAT I DON'T SEE SAFETY CONCERNS AS BEING THE ANSWER TO
THAT. 
          I THINK THAT THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE, IT WOULD BE THAT THERE IS ADDITIONAL WORK. 
          IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS AS LAID OUT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE CAN MITIGATE THE SAFETY CONCERNS. 
          IT'S AS AND I GUESS MAYBE THIS IS A SORT OF ALSO GOES INTO THIS COMMUNICATION ELEMENT TO
IN THIS DOCUMENT IN THIS PRESENTATION IS NOT REALLY. 
          YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT MAYBE I'LL JUST ABANDON THIS IDEA. 
          IT'S I AM JUST A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED ABOUT THE CHOICES FOR THE LANGUAGE AND I APPRECIATE
WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS SAYING. 
          I ALSO THINK THAT I WANT TO BE ABLE TO TAKE SUGGESTIONS FROM THE ADMINISTRATION AND,
YOU KNOW, USE THEM AS RELIABLE INFORMATION. I DON'T WANT TO PUSH THINGS BACK ONTO THEM. 
          AND, SORT OF AFFECT TRUST AND COMMUNICATION IN THAT WAY. 
          SO I, I WOULD HOPE TO SEE MORE SORT OF LAID OUT OPTIONS,
NOT SO MUCH IN GRANULAR DETAIL, BUT KIND OF A DIRECT SORT OF A LITTLE BIT MORE OF AN EXPLANATION OR MORE OF A YEAH, 
          [01:55:03]
I'M STRUGGLING TO COMMUNICATE THIS, BUT THAT'S I'M GOING TO MOVE ON BECAUSE I JUST WANTED
TO SHOUT OUT WHOEVER PUT THE TAX INCREASE OBVIOUSLY, WE'LL TRY OUR BEST TO BE RESPONSIBLE WITH OUR
TAX INCREASES, BUT IT IS REALLY WORTH NOTING THAT CITY TAXES ON AVERAGE EQUATE TO LESS THAN 2% OF
RESIDENTS ANNUAL EXPENDITURE AND INCREASING CITY TAXES CAN EVEN LOWER COST OF LIVING. 
          FOR INSTANCE, TRANSPORTATION AVERAGES 11% OF RESIDENTS ANNUAL EXPENDITURE AND FOR LESS
THAN 0.5 TAX INCREASE. 
          WE COULD MAKE THE TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORT FREE. 
          AND YOU COULD, IF A RESIDENT SO CHOOSES, MAKE A CHOICE TO DRASTICALLY REDUCE THAT COST. 
          SO I THINK THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT. AND THAT'S I'M VERY MUCH IN SUPPORT OF THE INCREASES TO THE COMMUNITY GRANT PROGRAM,
AND I'D LOVE TO SEE THE COMMUNITY CAFE UP AND RUNNING, BUT OBVIOUSLY THERE'S MORE WORK TO DO THERE. SURE. THANKS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          COUNCILLOR MCGURK. ANYTHING FROM ANY OF MY OTHER COLLEAGUES? NO. OKAY. JUST FOR MYSELF. JUST CLARITY FOR ADMIN ADDING IN THEIR PRESENTATION OR. 
          SORRY, BUDGET PRESENTATION SAID THAT A NEW DOG PARK AT PARKER PARK IS BEING CONSIDERED. I
JUST WANTED TO GET CLARITY. 
          IS ARE YOU CONSIDERING IT AS PART OF BUDGET 2026 OR FOR FUTURE POTENTIAL ADDITIONS IN
BUDGET 2027 OR LATER? I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO GET THAT CLARITY. SO WE WERE USING TODAY AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TO
KNOW WHETHER THE ORANGE SHOULD BE A DIFFERENT COLOR. 
          FAIR ENOUGH. FOR MYSELF, I WOULD ARGUE KEEP IT ORANGE OR KEEP IT FOR A FUTURE AND SEE
WHERE OUR OTHER ASKS AND OTHER BUDGET REQUIREMENTS STICK FIRST. 
          BUT BUT THAT'LL BE AN INTERESTING ONE TO GO OVER. 
          I DO THINK IT'S NEEDED. I THINK AS COUNCILLOR COCHRANE SAID IT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS
DEFINITELY NEEDED. I THINK IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIMING AND WHERE IT FITS IN WITH BIGGER WORK PLANS, AND RIGHT NOW IT HASN'T BEEN ON OUR WORK PLAN. 
          AND THAT'S SOMETHING I'M PRETTY COMMITTED TO AT THIS POINT,
WHICH DRIVES ME TO MY NEXT ONE, WHICH IS TRANSPORTATION PLAN ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FUND APPLICATION,
ALL OF THOSE PIECES. 
          SO WE HAVE AN APPLICATION IN TO THE FEDS AROUND THE FRAME LAKE TRAIL,
WHICH, IF IT WAS APPROVED, WOULD REQUIRE THE CITY TO UPFRONT OR $271,000. 
          SO BETWEEN 270, $275,000 IN ORDER TO SEE THAT APPLICATION BECOME A REALITY. 
          SO IS THERE A PLAN TO INCLUDE THAT MONEY IN THE BUDGET,
ASSUMING THAT WE COULD BE SUCCESSFUL ON AN APPLICATION? AND I SEE SORT OF THE BENEFIT OF THAT IS ONE,
IF WE'RE SUCCESSFUL ON THE APPLICATION, WE HAVE THE MONEY TO DO IT. 
          AND TWO IS IF WE'RE NOT SUCCESSFUL ON THE APPLICATION,
WE HAVE A TRANSPORTATION PLAN COMING, AND THAT WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT POT OF MONEY TO START IMPLEMENTATION OF A NEW PLAN,
WHICH HAS ALWAYS BEEN OUR CHALLENGE OF HAVING A BEST COUNCILLOR, MCLENNAN SAYS. SO WELL, FREQUENTLY OF HAVING A PLAN AND NOT FUNDING IT. 
          SO JUST WANTING TO GET THAT CLARITY OF IF THAT MONEY THAT WE WOULD NEED TO PUT FORWARD AS
PART OF THE APPLICATION WE'VE DONE IS GOING TO BE INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET. 
          MR. VAN DINE SORRY YOU WERE WAITING TO WITH BATED BREATH. 
          SORRY. MR. VAN DINE. AND I WAS WAITING TO SO SO AT THIS JUNCTURE,
IT WOULD BE WE DO NOT HAVE IT PART OF OUR TEN YEAR CAPITAL PLAN. SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A CHOICE THAT COUNCIL
WOULD NEED TO MAKE TO HELP US YOU KNOW, COMMIT TO THAT. OKAY. I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT. 
          WE PROBABLY SHOULD, CONSIDERING WE HAPPEN TO HAVE AN APPLICATION INTO THE FEDS AFTER A
COUNCIL MOTION TO MAKE THAT APPLICATION. 
          SO WE CLEARLY HAVE INDICATED THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IF WE ARE APPROVED WE NEED TO BE
BUDGETING FOR. 
          SO I THINK WE NEED TO CONTEMPLATE WE ARE SUCCESSFUL IN THAT APPLICATION. 
          AND THEN IF WE'RE NOT, WE HAVE THOSE FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN OTHERWISE. 
          BECAUSE AGAIN, THAT COMES FROM A PAST COUNCIL MOTION. 
          I THINK THAT'S IT FOR ME ON QUESTIONS. JUST OVERALL,
THEN I WON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY. 
          BUT I KNOW THERE'S TWO MORE COUNCILLORS AT LEAST,
WHO HAVE A SECOND ROUND. BUT JUST FOR MYSELF, I THINK A COUPLE OF THINGS. 
          AS MR. VAN DINE HAS NOTED, THIS IS OUR FINAL BUDGET AS A COUNCIL. 
          SO WHAT'S ON OUR WORK PLAN AND I APPRECIATE ADMIN,
YOU PUTTING THE LENS OF THE WORK PLAN ON EVERYTHING AS YOU BROUGHT THIS FORWARD. 
          I THINK THAT'S REALLY HELPFUL IS WE HAVE SHAPED THE WORK PLAN TO DATE. 
          WE NEED TO SEE HOW FAR WE CAN GET ON THAT WORK PLAN. 
          AND THEN TIED TO THAT IS AND THIS TIES TO THE TRANSPORTATION PIECE,
AS I WAS JUST MAKING OUTSIDE OF THAT ONE PIECE, 
          [02:00:06]
WHICH TIES BACK TO A PAST COUNCIL MOTION. I THINK UNLESS IT'S SOMETHING TO DO WITH
IMMEDIATE SAFETY OF PEOPLE, I THINK WE DO NEED TO. THIS IS ME SAYING IT OF ALL PEOPLE,
NOT ADD ANYTHING ELSE TO THE BUDGET, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN BEING WORKED ON. 
          AND THE WHOLE IDEA FOR THAT IS TO SET OUT THE PROJECTS IN TERMS OF PRIORITIZATION. 
          SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, UNLESS IT'S A MEDIA, PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERN,
I DO THINK THAT'S THE LENS WE SHOULD BE PUTTING ON THOSE TYPES OF PROJECTS. 
          YEAH. SO THAT'S ENOUGH FROM ME. BACK TO YOU. COUNCILLOR FEQUET. 
          THANKS. JUST A FEW PROCESS QUESTION. THE FOUR COUNCIL GENERATED BUDGET REQUESTS ARE
CURRENTLY CATEGORIZED UNDER MORE INPUT NEEDED. 
          WILL ADMINISTRATION BE REACHING OUT TO REQUEST THAT ADDITIONAL INPUT? JUST LOOKING FOR
DIRECTION ON IF YOU'RE WAITING ON ME AND THE OTHERS OR NOT. 
          FAIR QUESTION. MR. VAN DINE. WE KNOW HOW TO FIND YOU. 
          PERFECT. WITH RESPECT TO THIS, SORRY, THIS IS A SPECIFIC ONE. 
          AGAIN, IT'S GOING BACK TO THE ON PAGE 17 OF THE PDF. 
          THERE'S THE RAISED CROSSWALK AND THE SPEED BUMPS,
AND THEY'RE BOTH THERE AS CAME IN FROM THE PUBLIC. 
          I UNDERSTAND THERE'S NO STANDARDS. COUNCILLOR WARBURTON HAS TALKED ABOUT THAT A LOT. 
          BUT IT DOES SAY NOT APPROPRIATE FOR RESIDENTIAL STREETS. 
          AND WHAT I'M JUST CURIOUS OF IS IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW IF THESE ARE,
AGAIN, TO COUNCIL MCGURK'S QUESTION, IS THERE LIKE THINGS WE CAN DO TO INSTALL THESE THAT JUST MIGHT COST A BIT MORE? OR ARE THEY, YOU KNOW, IN THE OPINIONS OF OUR EXPERT STAFF,
SOMETHING THAT WE JUST CAN NEVER DO UP HERE? GIVEN THE CLIMATIC CONDITIONS. MR. VAN DINE. I BELIEVE THAT SAFETY IS THE NUMBER ONE CONCERN FOR US THESE ARE COMING FROM A VARIETY OF RESIDENTS
THAT HAVE BROUGHT FORWARD ISSUES OF CONCERN AROUND SAFETY. SO I DO UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S AN IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT TOUCHES MANY
YELLOWKNIVERS, PARTICULARLY AROUND SCHOOL ZONES. WHAT WE CAN POTENTIALLY DO IN EITHER PART OF BUDGET
DELIBERATIONS OR IN ADVANCE IS TALK AND PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF BRIEFING AS TO THE,
YOU KNOW, THE PARAMETERS WITH WHICH WE'RE ASSESSING THESE PROPOSALS THROUGH AND WHAT AND WHAT AND OPEN UP A CONVERSATION AROUND MITIGATION MEASURES AND RELATIVE COSTS. 
          AGAIN, AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THIS IS THE FIRST PASS BASED ON THE PROPOSALS THAT HAVE COME
FORWARD IF THESE WERE BROUGHT FORWARD IN THE CONTEXT OF A SUBDIVISION DESIGN AND A DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, WE WOULD BE PROVIDING A HECK OF A LOT MORE INFORMATION AS
TO WHAT COULD BE DONE OR WHAT COULD NOT BE DONE. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. YEAH. AND SO JUST IN THAT VEIN AND,
YOU KNOW, SIMILAR TO WHAT MAYOR HENDRIKSEN JUST SAID, THINGS THAT ARE LIKE PUBLIC SAFETY RELATED CERTAINLY ARE,
I AGREE, SHOULD BE KIND OF AT THE TOP OF THE LIST. 
          AND SO IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW, GIVEN THE MINIMAL COSTS AND THAT,
YOU KNOW, OUR CITY HAS EVOLVED OVER THE TIME IT'S BEEN IN EXISTENCE AT DIFFERENT REASONS, AT DIFFERENT TIMES. AND SO,
YEAH, MAYBE THERE SHOULD BE THOSE RAISED CROSSWALKS AND OR SPEED BUMPS. 
          I HATE THEM, BUT THEY'RE DAMN EFFECTIVE. AND THERE'S PROBABLY A REASON WE HAVEN'T BUILT
ANY TODAY. 
          SO YEAH, ANYTHING YOU CAN OFFER US JUST TO KNOW. 
          BUT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION NOW,
OR JUST KNOW IF THERE'S A REASON NOT TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION IF STAFF HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD. MR. VAN DINE I SEE YOUR DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MAYBE WANTING TO SAY SOMETHING
THERE. 
          MR. GREENCORN, THANKS. I'D LOVE TO PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND ON THAT. 
          THERE'S A REASON WHY WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING THESE AT FORWARD RIGHT NOW IS BECAUSE WE DO
NOT HAVE A STANDARD. 
          I HAVE NO RHYME OR REASON ON WHERE TO PUT THEM. 
          WHY TO PUT THEM BECAUSE SOME ONE PERSON WANTS THEM. 
          I HAVE NO MEANS OF DETERMINING IF I'M GOING TO PULL THEM OUT EVERY YEAR,
OR IF I'M GOING TO PUT THEM BACK IN EVERY YEAR, IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE CONCRETE, IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE ASPHALT,
IF I HAVE TO REDUCE THE KILOMETERS TO 15KM AN HOUR, SIMILAR TO WHAT'S ON BURN ROAD BY THE HOSPITAL. 
          THOSE ARE THE REASONS THEY HAVEN'T BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD YET. 
          HOWEVER, I'M VERY HAPPY AND WILLING TO PUT THEM IN ANY DESIGN STANDARD,
ENGAGE WITH THE PUBLIC AND MOVE FORWARD IN A PLANNED AND CONTROLLED FASHION. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. GREENCORN. COUNCILLOR FEQUET. 
          ANIMATED. VERY ANIMATED. YEAH. AND I THINK JUST MORE IN GENERAL JUST BECAUSE SOME OTHER
COUNCILLORS CHIMED IN, I MEAN, I THINK I APPRECIATE THIS FIRST PASS AND,
YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE A DOG PARK, IN PRINCIPLE, I SUPPORT IT. I SUSPECT IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE ONCE WE SEE ALL THE ASKS AND THE
PRIORITIES. 
          FOR ME, IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE AT THE TOP OF THE LIST,
GIVEN ALL THE PUBLIC SAFETY RELATED AND SUSTAINABILITY RELATED QUESTIONS. 
          [02:05:03]
BUT AGAIN, HAPPY TO SEE IT MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE I DO IN PRINCIPLE SUPPORT IT. 
          AND WOULD LIKE TO JUST SEE HOW THAT, THAT KIND OF WISH LIST ROLLS OUT. 
          AND I GUESS WE'LL TALK MORE ON NOVEMBER AND WAIT FOR THE UPDATE TO ON THE NIVEN LAKE
RAVINE MULTI-USE TRAILS, BECAUSE I RECOGNIZE THAT'S LIKE IN THE RED RIGHT NOW WITH SOME MONEY. 
          BUT MAYBE THAT'S BECAUSE, AGAIN, LIKE THE ACCESSIBILITY,
IT'S ACTUALLY ALREADY BEING SORTED OUT IN A DIFFERENT WAY. SO WOULD LOVE THAT CONTEXT IF IT CAN BE PROVIDED AT SOME TIME THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          MR. VAN DINE DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING THERE OR ARE YOU GOOD? NO,
THERE'S IT'S THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT PIECES OF INFORMATION AND UNDERSTANDING WITH RESPECT TO THE ORIGINS AND THE HISTORY OF THAT PARTICULAR PROPOSAL THAT HAS A LOT OF
PEOPLE'S ATTACHMENT TO IT. 
          AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH A PROPER FACT BASED WHEN WE BRING IT
BACK INTO THIS THIS FORUM. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT. COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH, A QUICK ONE. YEAH. 
          I JUST WANTED TO MENTION SUPPORT FOR THE COMMUNITY CAFE. 
          GREAT IDEA. JUST ECHOING COUNCILLOR COCHRANE THAT OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT GNWT NEED TO
STEP UP ON THAT ONE. 
          AND THEN JUST AS WE WERE TALKING AND TALKING MY COMMENTS ABOUT THE SEPARATE STUDY FOR SNOW
AND ICE AND MR. PANDOO'S COMMENTS ABOUT LEGACY AND LAST BUDGET,
I THINK FOR ME, IF THERE'S ANY EXTRA RESOURCES THAT ARE NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSET MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK IN THE MOST TIMELY MANNER POSSIBLE AND PASS THAT LIKE A VERY
UNDERSTANDABLE AND COHESIVE SERVICE LEVEL STANDARDS OFF TO THE NEXT COUNCIL. I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE BEST PIECE OF INFORMATION AND LEGACY THAT WE COULD
LEAVE TO ANOTHER COUNCIL FOR THEM AND STAFF TO COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY AND DO THEIR JOBS THE BEST THAT THEY CAN. 
          SO JUST A COMMENT THERE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          ANYTHING ELSE FROM ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES? NO. OH,
COUNCILLOR FEQUET. 
          DO WE HAVE A BALLPARK ON WHAT IT WOULD COST TO FINISH THE ASSET MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
BEFORE BUDGET? MR. VAN DINE. OR IN ITS ENTIRETY OR ITS OR IN ITS ENTIRETY, BY WHATEVER DATE IT'S CURRENTLY SCHEDULED TO BE COMPLETED. I THINK THAT MIGHT BE MORE THE
ISSUE IS THE TIMELINE. 
          SO THE AMBITION TO GET IT DONE BEFORE THE FOR BUDGET 2026 IS NOT,
IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. 
          SO BUT WE CAN DEFINITELY REPORT ON WHAT IT WOULD REQUIRE AND WHAT THE TIMELINE WILL BE AT
A, AT A FUTURE OPPORTUNITY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, WITH THAT,
WE WILL CALL IT A WRAP ON OUR GPC MEETING. 
          CAN I GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN? DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON. 
          SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR MCGURK. AND WE WILL SEE YOU ALL TONIGHT. 
          THANKS.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.