Oct 27, 2025 Council Meetings

>> I WILL CALL OUR COUNCIL MEETING FOR MONDAY,

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

[00:00:05]

I WILL FIRST ASK COUNCILLOR PAYNE IF YOU WILL PLEASE READ THE OPENING STATEMENT.

>> THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT WE ARE LOCATED IN CHIEF DRAGON'S TERRITORY FROM TIME MEMORIAL, IT HAS BEEN THE TRADITIONAL LAND OF THE YELLOWLAND'S DENE FIRST NATION.

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

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILLOR PAYNE.

NEXT, WE HAVE AWARD CEREMONIES AND PRESENTATIONS.

THERE WERE NO AWARD CEREMONIES OR PRESENTATIONS ON THE AGENDA.

NEXT, WE HAVE THE ADOPTION OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS.

[Items 3 & 4]

>> I MOVE THAT MINUTES OF COUNCIL FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2025, BE PRESENTED FOR ADOPTION.

>> CAN I GET A SECONDER? COUNCILLOR MCGURK, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

NEXT, WE HAVE DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF.

DOES ANY MEMBER HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN ANY MATTER BEFORE COUNCIL TONIGHT? SEEING NONE.

NEXT, WE HAVE CORRESPONDENCE AND A PETITION.

THERE WAS NO CORRESPONDENCE OR PETITIONS FOR THE AGENDA.

NEXT, WE HAVE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARINGS.

THERE WERE NO STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE AGENDA.

NEXT, WE HAVE DELEGATIONS PERTAINING TO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.

[8. A presentation from Allan Gofenko regarding Water and Sewer Rates.]

BEFORE WE GET INTO THE PRESENTATION, I HAVE SOME GROUND RULES, I'LL READ FOR MY COLLEAGUES AS WELL AS FOR THE PRESENTERS.

I'LL GO THROUGH IT ALL AND THIS WILL APPLY TO EVERYBODY PRESENTING THIS EVENING.

THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES APPLY TO ALL DELEGATIONS BEFORE THE COUNCIL.

ALL DELEGATIONS SHALL ADDRESS THEIR REMARKS DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDING OFFICER, WHICH IS MYSELF, AND SHALL NOT POSE QUESTIONS TO INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OR ADMINISTRATION OR DEVIATE FROM THE TOPIC OF THEIR PRESENTATION.

EACH PRESENTER SHALL BE AFFORDED 5 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION.

THE TIME ALLOWED TO EACH PRESENTER MAY BE EXTENDED BY UP TO 2 MINUTES BY A SPECIAL RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL.

AFTER A PERSON HAS SPOKEN, ANY MEMBER MAY, THROUGH THE PRESIDING OFFICER, ASK THAT PERSON OR THE CITY MANAGER RELEVANT QUESTIONS.

NO DEBATE SHALL BE PERMITTED ON ANY DELEGATION TO COUNCIL EITHER BETWEEN MEMBERS OR WITH AN INDIVIDUAL MAKING A PRESENTATION.

WE'RE MAKING A PRESENTATION AT THE COUNCIL OR AT STANDING COMMITTEE, OR THE SPECIAL COMMITTEES THIS EVENING.

YOU MUST NOT SPEAK DISRESPECTFULLY OF THE CROWN, ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL, THE PUBLIC OR AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY, USE OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE, MAKE PERSONAL REMARKS ABOUT ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL, THE PUBLIC, OR AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY, REFLECT UPON THE MOTIVES OF MEMBERS WHO MAY HAVE VOTED FOR A PARTICULAR MOTION, REFLECT UPON THE MOTIVES OF ADVICE GIVEN TO COUNCIL BY ADMINISTRATION, REFUSE TO COMPLY WITH THE DECISION OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER REGARDING ANY INTERPRETATIONS OF THIS BY LAW.

ONCE A DELEGATION HAS BEEN HEARD, WE MAY THEN DECIDE HOW TO PROCEED WHETHER THROUGH THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT OR SEND IT BACK TO OUR COMMITTEE.

WITH ALL THE FUN GROUND RULES OUT OF THE PLACE, WE'LL START WITH A PRESENTATION FROM ALLAN GAFFANCO REGARDING WATER AND SEWER RATES.

COME ON UP, ALLAN.

BEFORE YOU START, JUST MAKE SURE THAT YOU HIT THE BUTTON AND THE MIC LIGHTS UP GREEN.

THEN I'LL TIME IT AND LET YOU KNOW WHEN YOU HIT YOUR 5 MINUTES IF YOU DO.

>> CAN I BRING THIS UP TO YOU SO YOU CAN PASS THIS AROUND WHILE I'M SPEAKING, PLEASE?

>> SURE.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. MY NAME IS ALLAN.

I'M A 24-YEAR RESIDENT AND HAVE BEEN ON TRUCKED SERVICES FOR FIVE OF THOSE YEARS.

I'M TAKING THIS OPPORTUNITY TO TRY AND EDUCATE COUNCIL AND CITY ADMINISTRATION, AS WELL AS THE GENERAL PUBLIC, ON WHAT IT IS LIKE TO LIVE ON TRUCKED SERVICES.

IN ADDITION TO ALREADY PAYING HIGHER RATES FOR TRUCKED SERVICES COMPARED TO PIPED, WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH MANY ADDITIONAL REALITIES THAT RESIDENTS ON PIPED SERVICES DO NOT REALIZE.

I'LL START BY POINTING OUT THE ITEM THAT I PROVIDED COUNCIL FOR SHOW AND TELL, WHICH THIS MORNING I USED A SPY VACUUM TO SUCK OUT DEBRIS FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY WATER TANK.

ALL INTERESTING PARTICLES ARE IN THERE, AND THAT FILTER, HAVE A LOOK, SHAKE IT OUT IN THE BOWL.

I ENCOURAGE ANY OF YOU TO TAKE A FEW PIECES OUT OF THE FILTER, ADD IT TO YOUR WATER BOTTLE.

IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A DRINK FROM THAT, THAT'S A REALITY THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH.

THIS PHOTO HERE, THAT'S UP ON THE SCREEN, IT'S A PICTURE OF WHAT MY WATER TANK LOOKED LIKE WHEN I MOVED INTO MY HOME.

PRETTY GROSS LOOKING. PER MARCUS'S RECOMMENDATIONS, WATER TANKS NEED TO BE CLEANED PROFESSIONALLY ONCE PER YEAR

[00:05:03]

CURRENTLY COSTS ABOUT $400 PER YEAR TO HAVE YOUR TANK CLEANED, AND THAT IS IF YOU ARE FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS YOUR TANK WITH PROPER CLEARANCES TO BE ABLE TO CLEAN IT.

HALF THE HOMES IN CON MINE TRAILER PARK HAVE INACCESSIBLE WATER TANKS BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER PUT THE HOMES DIRECTLY ON TOP OF THE TANKS WITHOUT SUFFICIENT SPACE BETWEEN THE BOTTOM FLOOR OF THE HOME AND THE TOP OF THE TANK FOR ACCESS.

AS A RESULT, WE HAVE RESIDENTS WHO CANNOT DRINK THE WATER BECAUSE THE TANK HAS NEVER BEEN CLEANED AND IS UNSAFE FOR CONSUMPTION.

THE PLACEMENT OF THESE TANKS NEVER SHOULD HAVE PASSED CITY INSPECTION, AND I WONDER, DO RESIDENTS ON PIPED SERVICES HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE? MORE REALITIES WITH A FINITE WATER SUPPLY INCLUDE SCHEDULING WHEN YOU HAVE TO DO YOUR LAUNDRY.

LIMITS ON HAVING FAMILY OR FRIENDS RESIDE WITH YOU DUE TO WATER CAPACITY ISSUES, NOT FLUSHING TOILETS, TO PRESERVE ENOUGH WATER FOR DRINKING AND COOKING WHILE WAITING FOR THE NEXT FILL, OR SHELLING OUT UP TO $180 FOR AN EMERGENCY DELIVERY.

DOES ANY OF THIS SOUND CONVENIENT? FORGET ABOUT OWNING A LAWN, YOU'RE LUCKY IF YOU CAN SAVE ENOUGH WATER TO MAINTAIN A SMALL GARDEN, AND YOU'D LIKE TO RATHER WANT TO DRINK WATER THAN RISK WASHING A VEHICLE OUTSIDE AND RUNNING OUT.

I'M GOING TO MOVE THIS TO THE NEXT THING.

THIS IS A PICTURE OF A FROZEN WATER TANK.

MANY OF THE TANKS ARE UNDERNEATH MODULAR HOMES, AND TANKS PLACED OUTSIDE REQUIRE ELECTRICITY TO KEEP THEM FROM FREEZING.

IT ISN'T A BULLETPROOF SOLUTION AND SOMETIMES THE TANK FREEZES, AND YOUR WATER FLOW STOPS WITH IT. NEXT IS A VIDEO.

IF I HIT THIS AGAIN, IT SHOULD PLAY.

LOOK AT THAT FOAM IN THAT WATER BOTTLE.

WATCH IT SLOWLY DISSOLVING. THAT'S NOT NORMAL.

THE VIDEO SHOWS MY WATER AFTER DELIVERY.

YOU SEE THE EXCESS FOAM FORMING AND TAKING A CONCERNING AMOUNT OF TIME TO DISAPPEAR.

THIS HAPPENS RANDOMLY ABOUT FOUR TIMES PER YEAR.

MYSELF, THE CITY, AND WB WATER HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE DESPITE SIGNIFICANT TIME AND MONEY INVESTED BY MYSELF AND WB WATER.

HOW WELL DO YOU THINK THIS WOULD GO OVER IF IT WERE HAPPENING TO RESIDENTS ACROSS THE CITY ON PIPED WATER? THIS IS ONE REALITY OF BEING ON TRUCKED SERVICES.

HOW ABOUT BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RISK OF AN OVERFLOW, CAUSING WATER DAMAGE IF YOUR TANK HAPPENS TO BE INSIDE YOUR HOME, LIKE MANY OF OURS ARE? WHAT ABOUT DEALING WITH THE OVERFLOWING SEWAGE BECAUSE THE PUMP-OUT TRUCK MISSED YOUR HOME, OR HAD AN EMPLOYEE ON HIS PHONE INSTEAD OF PAYING ATTENTION TO THE JOB AT HAND? THESE INCIDENTS HAVE HAPPENED AND WILL CONTINUE TO BECAUSE IT COMES WITH THE INCREASED RISK OF HAVING THESE SERVICES DELIVERED THE WAY THAT THEY ARE.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN MY WATER FILL OR SEWAGE OUTLET PIPES CRACK OR BREAK? I'M RESPONSIBLE TO GET IT REPAIRED, AND THE COMPANIES CANNOT PROVIDE SERVICES UNTIL THOSE REPAIRS ARE COMPLETE, NOR DO THE COMPANIES PROVIDE REPAIRS FOR THESE ISSUES.

I'VE HAD TO REPLACE BOTH MY FILL AND MY PUMP OUT AT MY OWN EXPENSE.

DO RESIDENTS ON PIPED SERVICES HAVE TO DO THIS? NO. WHAT ABOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED TO BE ON TRUCKED SERVICES? A WATER OR SEWAGE TANK COSTS TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.

MY WATER PUMP ALONE IS WORTH 1,000.

IT ALSO REQUIRES ELECTRICITY AND CREATES A LOT OF NOISE.

DOES ANY OF THIS SOUND LIKE SOMETHING YOU CHOOSE OVER PIPED INFRASTRUCTURE? OF COURSE NOT.

BUT HERE WE ARE WITH A PORTION OF THE CITY'S RESIDENTS WITHOUT THE OPTION OF BEING ON PIPED INFRASTRUCTURE, AND A CITY ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDING WE PAY MORE WHEN WE'RE ALREADY PAYING MUCH MORE THAN THOSE ON PIPED.

>> SORRY, ALLAN, YOU'VE HIT YOUR 5 MINUTES, SO JUST MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR CAT SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR ARDEN SMITH, ALL IN FAVOR.

CARRY ON, YOU HAVE ANOTHER 2 MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. UNDERSTAND. CAN YOU START TO SEE AND APPRECIATE WHY SUBSIDIZING THOSE OF US ON TRUCKED SERVICES IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO, GIVEN EVERYTHING HERE? THE STATUS QUO IS NOT FAIR.

WE LIVE IN A CITY IN A TERRITORY FULL OF SUBSIDIES.

IT'S TIME TO ABOLISH UNFAIR AND INEQUITABLE RATES FOR TRUCKED SERVICES.

THAT'S HOW WE TRY TO AFFORD TO LIVE HERE BY HELPING EACH OTHER ACROSS NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY LINES.

COUNCILS BEFORE YOU HAVE CONTINUOUSLY MADE THE CHOICE IN THE PAST TO REFRAIN FROM PUTTING IN WATER AND SEWER LINES, AND ALSO KICK THIS ISSUE DOWN THE ROAD FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO DEAL WITH.

IT ISN'T YOUR FAULT, IT ISN'T THE FAULT OF OUR RESIDENTS.

WHAT IS CLEAR TO US IS THAT WE SHOULD NOT NOW

[00:10:02]

THIS COUNCIL HAS A YEAR LEFT IN ITS MANDATE TO GET THIS PROBLEM SORTED AND DO THE RIGHT THING BY ENSURING THERE IS NO LONGER A SEPARATION OF CLASSES BETWEEN TRUCKED SERVICES AND PIPED SERVICES. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALLAN.

[APPLAUSE]. EVERYBODY, CALM DOWN.

THIS IS COUNCIL CHAMBERS, PLEASE KEEP IT TO A MINIMUM THERE.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? ONLINE, COUNCILLOR MCCLENNAN.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION.

UNTIL VERY RECENTLY, FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS, I WAS A TRUCKED WATER TENANT, SO NOT AN OWNER, BUT A TENANT, SO I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE POTENTIAL ISSUES ON TRUCKED WATER.

I HAVE A QUESTION I'LL ASK FOR ALL THE PRESENTERS; YOU GET TO BE THE GUINEA PIG AND HAVE TO ANSWER ON THE FLY. APOLOGIES FOR THAT.

I THINK MY GOAL IN TERMS OF THIS DECISION IS ABOUT HELPING TO REDUCE A WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM THAT IS SUSTAINABLE AND RELIABLE, AND IS THE LOWEST COST THAT MATCHES THE SERVICE LEVEL EXPECTATIONS OF RESIDENTS.

GIVEN THAT OPTIMAL SYSTEM, HOW DOES SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASING THE SUBSIDY FROM PIPED USERS TO TRUCKED USERS, WHICH IS A LOWER AND MORE COSTLY TO OPERATE SERVICE LEVEL, HELP INCENTIVIZE THIS OPTIMAL SYSTEM TO COME ABOUT IN YOUR OPINION?

>> GO AHEAD, ALLAN.

>> WELL, I THINK THAT IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT, YOU'RE GOING TO CAUSE ISSUES WITH OUR PROPERTY VALUES, PEOPLE NOT WANTING TO LIVE IN AREAS THAT ARE ON TRUCKED WATER, WHEREAS RIGHT NOW, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS SERIOUSLY IDENTIFIED AS AN ISSUE OR A MAJOR EXPENSE DIFFERENCE, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE CURRENTLY PAYING MORE.

SIMILAR TO ME IS FOR ELECTRICITY ACROSS THE NWT, YELLOWKNIFE RATE PAYERS ARE SUBSIDIZING SMALLER COMMUNITIES.

I LOOK AT THIS THE SAME WAY, WHERE THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME EQUALITY ACROSS THAT.

CERTAINLY, IF THE CITY WANTS TO INVEST OUR PROPERTY TAXES IN PUTTING PIPES INTO THE GROUND, WE'RE ALL GAME FOR THAT.

OF COURSE, I WILL ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATION IN THE FUTURE TO STOP GOING THIS WAY WITH TRUCKED SERVICES.

IT'S OBVIOUSLY LESS EXPENSIVE DURING DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT'S JUST AGAIN, CREATING THIS PROBLEM WE FIND OURSELVES WITH TODAY.

>> COUNCILLOR MCCLENNAN, ANYTHING FURTHER?

>> NO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION AND ON-THE-FLY RESPONSE, I APPRECIATE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COLLEAGUES? COUNCILLOR ARDEN SMITH.

>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH, ALLAN, FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THE STRUGGLE AS I'M A CON RESIDENT AND HAVE BEEN FOR 4 YEARS.

IN YOUR OPINION, BASED ON THE LAST GPC, WAS IT GPC? NO, IT WAS THE LAST COUNCIL.

>> GPC.

>> GPC. THE OPTIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE ADMINISTRATION, WHICH ONE IN YOUR OPINION WOULD YOU CHOOSE?

>> GO AHEAD, ALLAN.

>> I DON'T LIKE ANY OF THEM.

STATUS QUO NUMBER 3 IS KICKING THIS DOWN THE ROAD SOME MORE, WHICH APPARENTLY NEEDS TO HAPPEN.

IT SOUNDS LIKE MORE INFORMATION IS REQUIRED, AS THE MAYOR HAS SAID TO ME PRIVATELY.

HOWEVER, I DON'T SEE IT AS A LONG-TERM SOLUTION.

BECAUSE WE'RE JUST PISSING OFF THE PEOPLE ON PIPED WATER, AND WE'RE PISSING OFF THE PEOPLE ON NON-PIPED WATER, WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WHAT ALL THE BARRIERS ARE HERE AND HOW WE CAN MAKE IT WORK ACROSS ALL USERS AND CLASSES OF USERS.

>> FOR CLARITY, JUST PRIVATELY WOULD BE AN EMAIL RESPONSE THAT WAS SENT TO ALL PEOPLE WHO HAVE EMAILED COUNCIL.

BACK TO COUNCILLOR ARDEN SMITH.

>> THANK YOU.

>> COUNCILLOR MCGURK.

>> YEAH, I'VE ASKED THIS QUESTION BEFORE, BUT I WAS HOPING TO ASK AGAIN FOR CLARITY.

CURRENTLY, OUR RATE STRUCTURES, THE UTILITY IS PAID FOR BY THE COLLECTIVE FEES THAT ARE PAID BY USERS AND NOT BY OUR CITY TAXES.

>> MR. VAN DINE.

[00:15:02]

>> THE CURRENT UTILITY AND WATER SEWER LEVY THAT WE COLLECT IS RUNNING A DEFICIT, SO THERE IS A TRANSFER THAT COMES FROM OUR GENERAL FUND TO OFFSET THE COSTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY PROVIDING THIS SERVICE, SO YES, THERE IS A PORTION THAT COMES FROM TAXES. COUNCILLOR MCGURK.

>> THANK YOU. ARE WE BOUND TO SEPARATING UTILITY FROM MUNICIPAL TAXES?

>> MR. VAN DINE.

>> IF WE WERE, WE WOULD PROBABLY BE SENT TO TAX JAIL BY MUNICIPAL COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ALREADY.

NO, BUT IT'S STILL NOT A GREAT PRACTICE.

THE FUNDAMENTALS OF A UTILITY OPERATION, WHETHER IT'S WATER AND SEWER OR ANOTHER TYPE OF UTILITY, ARE TO TRY AND RECOVER THE COSTS FOR THAT UTILITY THROUGH TWO CONCEPTS: ONE IS THE FIXED COST OF THE UTILITY, AND THE OTHER IS UTILIZATION, OR THE VARIABLE RATE, AND SO THAT'S WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED, AMONG OTHER CHANGES, THROUGH THIS PROPOSAL.

>> COUNCILLOR MCGURK.

>> OKAY. THAT'S EVERYTHING FOR ME. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILLOR ROBERT.

>> THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION.

WHAT PERCENTAGE OF OUR CITY OR PROPORTION OF OUR CITIES ON TRUCK VERSUS PIPE SERVICES?

>> MR. VANDI.

>> WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY 4% OF OUR RESIDENTS ARE ON A TRUCK.

>> COUNCIL [INAUDIBLE].

>> THAT'S IT. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? NO. JUST A QUESTION FOR MYSELF, ALLEN, ARE YOU AWARE THAT THROUGH THIS MOTION BEFORE COUNCIL TONIGHT THAT A HOUSEHOLD WITH AVERAGE USE WILL IN THREE YEARS HAVE THEIR BILL INCREASED BY $43 A YEAR, INSTEAD OF THE CONSULTANT RECOMMENDED $627 PER YEAR, AND THAT PIPED RESIDENTIAL USERS WILL ALSO SEE A SLIGHT INCREASE TO THEIR BILL.

>> CAN YOU REPEAT THOSE RATES AGAIN? JUST THE RATES, PLEASE?

>> UNDER THE OPTION IN FRONT OF US, A TRUCK USER HOUSEHOLD WITH AVERAGE USE, WE'LL SEE THEIR BILL IN THREE YEARS BE $43 A YEAR MORE THAN IT IS CURRENTLY.

THAT'S THE ESTIMATE. THIS IS IN THE PAPER FROM COUNCIL TWO WEEKS AGO, AND THAT WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE RECOMMENDED $627 INCREASE FROM THE CONSULTANT.

THAT PIPE RESIDENTIAL USERS WILL ALSO SEE A SLIGHT INCREASE TO THEIR BILL AS PART OF THIS ADJUSTMENT.

>> THE 40 IS OPTION 3, AND THE 600 WAS OPTION 1. FOR TRUCKS [OVERLAPPING].

>> SIX HUNDRED WAS OPTION 2, BUT YEAH.

>> FOR TRUCK USERS?

>> CORRECT.

>> NOT FOR PIPED.

>> PIPED THEY WOULD STILL SEE AN INCREASE OF $22 UNDER THIS PROPOSAL?

>> I WAS AWARE OF THAT.

>> I MISUNDERSTOOD YOU AND THOUGHT YOU WERE SAYING THAT PIPED WOULD GO UP $600.

>> NO.

>> I'M VERY WELL AWARE OF THAT, YEAH.

CAN I CONTINUE WITH THE ANSWER?

>> YEAH.

>> TO SUBSIDIZE A 4% OF SUCH A SMALL MARGIN 22 PEOPLE, I DON'T PAY MORE FOR ELECTRICITY BECAUSE OF WHERE I LIVE IN A CORNER OF TOWN.

I WOULD EXPECT LESS WHEN I'M GETTING WATER OR SEWAGE.

>> YOU NOTED EARLIER, JUST ON THAT.

WE DO IN YELLOWKNIFE SUBSIDIZE THE REST OF THE TERRITORY FOR ELECTRICITY.

ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE ONLY REASON THERE WILL BE AN INCREASE FOR ANY USERS UNDER THE MOTION BEFORE COUNCIL IS BECAUSE WE WILL BE MAKING THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE PAY FOR ITSELF RATHER THAN CONTINUE FOR THE SYSTEM TO BE FURTHER SUBSIDIZED BY PROPERTY TAXES, AS IS CURRENTLY THE CASE. YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT?

>> YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE RATES ARE GOING TO GO UP FOR EVERYBODY HERE TO GET OUT OF THE DEFICIT.

>> OKAY. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME? THANK YOU, ALL.

>> I'LL COME GRAB THAT FILTER.

>> [LAUGHTER] I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S SITTING [LAUGHTER] UP AT THE FRONT HERE.

OUR NEXT PRESENTATION IS FROM JOHN STEVENSON,

[9. A presentation from John Stephenson, President Latham Island Neighborhood Association, regarding Water and Sewer Rates . ]

YOU GOT IT. ONCE A LIGHT SCREEN, YOU'RE GOOD TO GO JOHN AND I'LL TIME YOU AND LET YOU KNOW WHEN FIVE MINUTES HITS IF YOU HIT THERE.

>> GOOD EVENING. MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THANKS FOR THE CHANCE TO SPEAK TO YOU ON THE WATER AND SEWER RATES.

MY COMMENTS ARE FOCUSED ON THE ASPECT OF TRUCK SERVICES.

MY NAME IS JOHN STEVENSON.

I'M SPEAKING TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE LATHAM ISLAND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE OLD TOWN, RELYING ON TRUCK SERVICES.

I'M ALSO DIRECTOR OF FACILITIES FOR THE YK SKI CLUB, A NONPROFIT RECREATION FACILITY WITH TRUCK SERVICES.

I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO COUNCIL, MAYOR FOR THE WORK YOU DO.

I HAVE TREMENDOUS RESPECT FOR FOLKS THAT STEP UP AND TAKE ON ELECTED POSITIONS IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND YOU'VE BEEN DOING SOME HEAVY LIFTING ON THIS PROJECT.

I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.

[00:20:01]

COULD I CALL AN ASSISTANT? KATHY.

>> WE WILL NEED KATHY ON THE AGENDA TO SPEAK IN A BIT.

>> I DON'T WANT HER TO SAY ANYTHING.

>> OKAY. FAIR ENOUGH. GO AHEAD.

>> I WAS HOPING THERE WAS A FLAT SURFACE HERE.

>> UNDERSTOOD. GO AHEAD. SHE'S JUST MY COUNTER.

>> I HAVE TWO BOTTLES OF WATER HERE THERE.

THIS IS A PIPED WATER BOTTLE, BOTTLE FROM PIPED RESIDENT.

THIS IS FROM A TRUCK RESIDENT IN YELLOWKNIFE.

THIS BOTTLE, THE TRUCK BOTTLE, COSTS TWICE AS MUCH AS THE OTHER BOTTLE, SO WE PAY DOUBLE.

WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT INCREASING RATES, YOU'RE INCREASING RATES ON AN ALREADY HIGHER RATE, AND WHEN YOU BUMP UP PERCENTAGES, OF COURSE, THEY GO UP INCREMENTALLY MORE FOR THE HIGHER-PAYING CUSTOMER.

I'LL ALSO HAVE SOME OTHER ASPECTS TO MY PROP HERE.

>> I ONLY HAVE TWO HANDS.

>> THIS IS LIKE WHEN YOU GO TO A PARTY, YOU GOT TO KEEP YOUR DRINK SUPER.

THIS IS A PIPE, AND THIS IS A TRUCKED.

IT'S THE SAME GREAT WATER.

LUCKY US, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRICES FOR WATER AND NOT THE QUALITY OF WATER.

WE HAVE AMAZING WATER COMES FROM THE YELLOWKNIFE RIVER, GOES TO THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT, GETS INTO THE PIPE SYSTEM, AND THEN FOR US ON THE TRUCK SERVICE, IT HAS AN EXTRA JOURNEY WITH THE BLUE TRUCK, AND THEN IT HAS ANOTHER JOURNEY WITH THE RED TRUCK TO GO OFF TO THE SEWAGE.

I WANT TO SAY A BIG THANK YOU TO OUR SERVICE PROVIDERS, KAVANAUGH, AND THE BROMLEY FAMILY FOR DECADES OF DEPENDABLE SERVICE.

IN THE 1970S [OVERLAPPING].

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>> I'LL GRANT YOU AN EXTRA FIVE SECONDS FOR THAT TOO, JOHN, FOR THE APPRECIATIVE WORK OF THE CITY MANAGER.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CITY MANAGER.

IN THE 70S, I WAS LIVING IN TOWN THEN, TOO, AND WE PAID ABOUT $10 FOR A WATER CARD.

WE STUCK IN A WINDOW, AND THAT WAS TO TELL THE WATER SERVICE GUY THAT I WAS IN GOOD STANDING.

THEN FOR SEVERAL YEARS, WE HAD A LICENSE PLATE THAT WE PINNED TO THE WALL OF OUR HOUSE.

THEN ABOUT 30 YEARS AGO, THE CURRENT RATE STRUCTURE WAS PUT IN PLACE, AND I CONSIDER IT A DISCRIMINATORY PUNITIVE RATE.

THE FOLKS IN THE OLD TOWN PAY DOUBLE WHAT THE FOLKS IN THE PIPED SERVICE SAY.

THEN I OFTEN HEAR THIS VOICE.

LIKE THIS VOICE COMING DOWN ON US.

YOU CHOSE WHERE YOU LIVE.

YOU MADE A CHOICE.

WELL, I'M HAPPY WITH MY CHOICE.

I CHOSE YELLOWKNIFE AS MY HOME CITY, AND I CHOSE MY NEIGHBORHOOD ON LATHAM ISLAND.

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT I CAN'T SPEAK UP TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN MY COMMUNITY.

THAT ASPECT OF CHOICE, THIS IS A BIT CHEEKY, BUT PEOPLE LIKE TO READ BOOKS.

WELL, MAYBE THOSE FOLKS SHOULD PAY FOR THE LIBRARY.

PEOPLE LIKE TO SWIM.

MAYBE THEY SHOULD PAY FOR THIS NICE NEW AQUATIC CENTER. PEOPLE LIKE TO SKATE.

MAYBE THEY SHOULD ALL PAY FOR THE ICE SURFACES.

PARENTS, ULTIMATE EXPENSIVE CLIENTS IN OUR COMMUNITY, THEY SHOULD PAY FOR THE SCHOOLS BECAUSE THEY HAVE KIDS. I HAVE KIDS.

I HAVE GRANDKIDS. BUT WE DON'T DO THAT.

WE LIVE IN A MODERN CIVILIZED CANADIAN SOCIETY, WE HELP EACH OTHER OUT, AND WE KEEP STRIVING TO DO BETTER.

TRUCK WATER CUSTOMERS PAY DOUBLE.

WE INSTALL AND MAINTAIN OUR OWN TANKS AND PRESSURE SYSTEM.

YOU HEARD A MORE GRAPHIC DISPLAY FROM ALLEN ABOUT THE JOYS OF LIVING ON TRUCK SERVICES.

WE DON'T HAVE A MUNICIPAL INSURANCE PLAN, SO WE PAY FOR OUR OWN COSTS IF THINGS GO SIDEWAYS, AND WE DON'T HAVE THE SAFETY OF NEARBY FIRE HYDRANTS.

WE ALSO PAY MORE FOR OUR PROPERTY INSURANCE.

WE ARE ASKING FOR YOU TO ABOLISH, JUST GET RID OF THE TRUCK WATER SERVICE.

THIS IS PART OF MY DEMO.

GET RID OF TRUCK WATER.

>> AS YOU EXIT OUT, YOU'VE HIT YOUR FIVE MINUTES.

IF ANYONE WANTS TO GO, COUNCIL MCGURK.

SECONDED BY COUNCIL FOR FEQUET. I WAS IN FAVOR.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> WATER AND SEWER ARE FUNDAMENTAL SERVICES THAT ALL RESIDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO.

IT MUST BE EQUITABLE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CITY.

THE PRICE WE PAY FOR WATER SHOULD BE THE SAME AND NOT JUDGED ON HOW IT GETS TO OUR HOMES OR TO OUR BUSINESSES.

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDS A REVIEW OF THE OLD TOWN SURFACE WATER LINES AS PART OF YOUR MEMO AND THE TRUCK SUBCATEGORIES.

WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU GET ON WITH THAT WORK

[00:25:01]

BUT WE ALSO ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THE FUTURE COST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT.

SOME OF OUR STUFF IS GETTING OLD, AND IT'S GOING TO NEED VERY EXPENSIVE REPLACEMENT.

I REALLY FEEL LIKE THOSE COSTS SHOULD BE FACTORED INTO THE OVERALL COST OF MAINTAINING PIPED WATER SYSTEMS IN OUR COMMUNITY.

LET'S CONTINUE TO WORK TOGETHER.

LET'S CONTINUE TO STRIVE TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITY A BETTER PLACE, AND THANKS FOR THE CHANCE TO SPEAK TONIGHT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JOHN.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? [APPLAUSE] AGAIN, CAN KEEP THE APPLAUSE.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FROM COLLEAGUES? COUNCIL MCGURK. OH, SORRY.

YOU WERE POINTING AT COUNCIL MCLENNAN. COUNCIL MCLENNAN.

>> ANYBODY WANT TO DRINK? WHICH ONE DO YOU WANT? THE MORE EXPENSIVE WATER?

>> GO AHEAD, COUNCIL MCLENNAN.

>> THANK YOU. THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION.

SAME BASIC QUESTION.

JUST LOOKING FOR A COMMENT FROM YOU ON EQUALIZING THE COST OF WATER THROUGH TWO DIFFERENT DELIVERY MECHANISMS, ONE OF WHICH WE'VE HEARD REPEATEDLY IS A LOWER SERVICE STANDARD THAT HAS A BUNCH OF PROBLEMS. WOULDN'T MAKING THE COST OF WATER THE INCENTIVIZE MORE OF THAT DEVELOPMENT AND JUST COMMENT ON THE INCENTIVES CREATED?

>> GO AHEAD.

>> WELL, COUNCIL, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

I THINK THE ACTUAL ASPECT OF DEVELOPMENT OF OUR COMMUNITY IS A BIGGER QUESTION THAN JUST WATER SERVICES.

COUNCILS IN THE PAST HAVE MADE CONSCIOUS DECISIONS TO OPEN UP LANDS IN OUR COMMUNITY AND SAVE ON THE COSTS OF INFRASTRUCTURE, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TRUCK SERVICES.

BUT NOW YOU'RE ON THE CUSP OF INCREASING THOSE COSTS TO THE TRUCK SERVICES.

WAS THERE ANOTHER ASPECT OF YOUR QUESTION, COUNCIL?

>> GO AHEAD, TOM.

>> IT'S JUST MY FEELING THAT EQUALIZING THE COST IT'S IN THE CITY'S INTEREST AND RESIDENT'S INTEREST IN TERMS OF BUILDING. IT'S SO EXPENSIVE.

JUST DO TRUCKED LOTS.

IT'S CHEAPER, EASIER, QUICKER, AND IN THE SHORT TERM, IT'S BENEFICIAL TO EVERYONE.

WITHOUT THAT OPERATIONAL COST BEING REFLECTIVE OF THE TRUE COST, IS THAT A CONCERN, OR HOW DO YOU ANSWER THAT WORRY THAT I HAVE?

>> GO AHEAD, JOHN.

>> WELL, I DON'T THINK IT MATTERS, COUNSELOR ON HOW YOU GET IT TO OUR HOMES.

SOME HAVE A SHORT JOURNEY, SO SOME PEOPLE ARE CLOSE TO THE SOURCE OF THE WATER.

SOME PEOPLE ARE ON REALLY SOLID GROUND AND DON'T COST A LOT TO PROVIDE PIPE SERVICES.

BUT SOME PEOPLE ARE AT THE END OF THE JOURNEY OF THE WATER OR UNSTABLE GROUND.

IT'S NOT AN EQUAL SITUATION ON THE PIPE SERVICES EITHER.

WE HAVE PEOPLE ON PIPE SERVICES FOR A VARIETY OF COSTS, AND WE HAVE PEOPLE ON TRUCK SERVICES WITH A DEFINED COST.

IT'S VERY EASY FOR COUNCIL TO LOOK AT IT, AND THERE'S ONLY TWO LINES ON THE LEDGER FOR THE TWO CONTRACTORS TO PICK OUT THE COST.

BUT THE OTHER COSTS ARE MORE COMPLICATED IN TERMS OF NOT JUST GETTING THE WATER TO THE HOMES, BUT MAINTAINING, REPLACING, REBUILDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE.

I DON'T THINK IT'S A STRAIGHTFORWARD ANSWER, BUT MY BOTTOM LINE IS ONE PRICE, WATER, DOESN'T MATTER HOW YOU GET IT TO MY HOUSE.

YOU BRING IT BY A DONKEY. IT'S THE SAME PRICE.

>> COUNCIL MCLENNAN?

>> THANK YOU.

>> COUNCIL WARBURTON.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANKS FOR PRESENTATION AND THE EXAMPLES ARE VERY HELPFUL.

A BIT SIMILAR TO COUNCIL MCLENNAN'S QUESTION.

THE PRE-TAM, AGAIN, TOUCHED ON A BIT TOO.

FOLKS DON'T WASH CARS, YOU DON'T WATER LAWNS, SO YOUR USAGE IS MORE RESTRICTED AS A TANK.

IF WE WENT TO ONE RATE, WHAT IS THE INCENTIVE FOR FOLKS NOT TO JUST START UPPING THEIR USAGE NOW, BECAUSE THE VOLUME CAN BE HIGHER, THEN THAT'S GOING TO HAVE A LARGE IMPACT ON COSTS, BECAUSE DOING TRUCK SERVICES IS MORE EXPENSIVE.

THAT'S A REAL COST WE GOT TO THINK ABOUT.

HOW DOES GOING TO ONE RATE NOT JUST CREATE AN INCENTIVE FOR THEN HIGHER USES ON TRUCK WATER AND SEWER, THEREBY DRIVING UP COSTS EVEN MORE.

HOW DOES THAT [OVERLAPPING].

>> FAIR QUESTION. COUPLE OF THINGS.

I HEAR DIFFERENT PERCENTAGES OF USERS ARE ON TRUCK SERVICES.

ONE OF THE NUMBERS I HEARD WAS 12% OF US ARE ON TRUCK SERVICES, AND THEN WE USE ABOUT 5% OF THE WATER.

IN MY HOUSEHOLD, AND I KNOW A LOT OF OTHER HOUSEHOLDS,

[00:30:02]

NOT BECAUSE WE'VE GOT SOME HIGHER LOFTY VALUE OVER THINGS, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO RUN OUT OF WATER.

YOU COULD INCREASE YOUR CONSUMPTION, BUT YOU'D NEED TO INCREASE YOUR TANKAGE OR PAY THE EXTRA FEE FOR ANOTHER WATER DELIVERY.

WHEN I HAVE VISITORS IN MY HOME, I GIVE THEM A LITTLE QUIET PLATE, RIOT ACT, HAVE A SHOWER, BUT MAKE IT SHORT.

HEY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO FLUSH EVERY TIME.

I'VE ONLY EVER RUN OUT ONCE.

I HAD SOME VISITORS IN MY HOUSE AND I FORGOT THE RIOT ACT MESSAGE TO THEM AND WE RAN OUT THE DAY BEFORE WATER DELIVERY.

IT WASN'T A DISASTER.

BUT I DON'T THINK THE RATE WOULD GREATLY CHANGE OUR CONSUMPTION BECAUSE WE'RE DEFINED BY THE TANKAGE SPACE THAT WE HAVE.

>> SORRY, COUNCIL WARBURTON, GO AHEAD.

>> THEN I GUESS THE OTHER QUESTION IS, WE'RE NOW GOING TO WAIT FOR INFO ON THE SURFACE WATER LINES, WHICH ARE CURRENTLY UNMETERED, AND THAT IS A MEASURED VOLUME OF WATER.

WOULD YOU WANT THAT TO BE MAINTAINED ON TOP OF RATE SUBSIDIZATION OR HOW DO YOU SEE THOSE THINGS WORKING TOGETHER? BECAUSE THERE IS ALREADY A PORTION OF TIME WHERE THE WATER IS UNMETERED.

TO BE FAIR, YOU DO HAVE A SEWAGE TANK, SO THERE'S A LIMIT TO THE USE.

BUT I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF IN THE FUTURE, IF SEWER WATER LINES MAINTAINED, WOULD YOU WANT BOTH THOSE THINGS TO CONTINUE, I GUESS AT THE SAME TIME?

>> WELL, ABSOLUTELY. WE DID COMMUNICATE TO YOU ON BEHALF OF THE LATHAM NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WHEN THERE WAS INFORMATION ABOUT CANCELING THE SUMMER LINES.

I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT DIDN'T OFFICIALLY COME TO A COUNCIL DECISION, BUT THERE WAS PUBLIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE POTENTIAL OF CANCELING THE SUMMER SURFACE LINES.

THAT'S A BIG DISCUSSION, BUT I WOULD CERTAINLY WANT TO SEE YOU CONTINUE THE SURFACE SUMMER LINES.

I'M HEARING THAT THE COST OF TRUCK SERVICES ARE MORE EXPENSIVE.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT EVEN A SURFACE PIPED SYSTEM WOULD BE CHEAPER FOR THOSE THREE MONTHS THAT WE GET PIPE SYSTEMS TO CONTINUE THAT SERVICE, AND PUT A METER ON IT.

I DON'T MIND. PUT A METER ON MY SURFACE LINES.

>> COUNCIL WARBURTON.

>> I APPRECIATE IT.

>> COUNCIL MCGURK.

>> JUST A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT SOMETHING THAT YOU SAID EARLIER IN YOUR PRESENTATION ABOUT COST RECOVERY FOR OTHER FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS THAT WE SHARE OUT OF ALL OF THOSE ON YOUR LIST, DO ANY OF THEM NOT HAVE A USER FEE PAY?

>> OH, YEAH, BUT NOT NEARLY WHAT IT COSTS.

I PAY SCHOOL TAXES, BUT I THINK OUR SCHOOL TAXES PAY FOR ABOUT 20% OF THE EDUCATION IN OUR COMMUNITY.

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES PAYS FOR 80% OF EDUCATION IN YELLOWKNIFE.

>> COUNCIL MCGURK.

>> WOULD THAT NOT ALSO REFLECT THE FACT THAT THE COST RECOVERY IN THIS INSTANCE, IS A SIMILAR SITUATION?

>> JOHN GO AHEAD.

>> I QUALIFIED AS A CHEEKY COMPARISON, BUT WE DON'T TRY TO BALANCE THE ACCOUNT ON ANY OTHER SERVICE IN TOWN.

MAYBE ELECTRICAL SERVICES, BUT THAT'S NOT A MUNICIPAL SERVICE.

BUT I'M QUITE HAPPY THAT WE HAVE LIBRARIES.

I'M HAPPY THAT WE HAVE RECREATION FACILITIES.

I'M HAPPY TO PAY FOR THINGS THAT I DON'T NECESSARILY USE MYSELF OR MY FAMILY USES BECAUSE IT ADDS TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE, BUT WE DON'T BALANCE THE ACCOUNT ON THE BACKS OF THE USERS FOR ANY OF THOSE FACILITIES.

>> COUNCIL MCGURK.

>> ANYONE ELSE FOR QUESTIONS, COUNCILLOR SMITH.

>> THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO ASK THE SAME QUESTION AS I ASKED ALAN, OUT OF THE THREE OPTIONS THAT WERE PRESENTED BY ADMINISTRATION, IN YOUR OPINION, WHICH ONE WOULD YOU CHOOSE?

>> JOHN.

>> THANKS FOR THAT QUESTION. WHAT I WANT IS OPTION 4.

YOU HEARD FROM MY NEIGHBOR AND FRIEND, KEVIN HODGINS, WITH A PROPOSAL THAT YOU SHOULD CONSIDER GETTING RID OF THE TRUCKED WATER SERVICES AND EQUALIZING THE RATES ACROSS THE BOARD.

HIS INTENTION IN DOING THAT BACK IN SEPTEMBER 22 WAS THAT YOU WOULD TAKE THAT INFORMATION AND ACTUALLY DEVELOP IT AS AN OPTION 4, SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU DID WITH OPTION 1, 2 AND 3.

YOU DIDN'T DO THAT.

YOU DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT COSTS IF YOU GET RID OF THE TRUCKED WATER AND JUST EQUALIZE IT ACROSS THE BOARDS.

NONE OF THEM. GET RID OF THE TRUCK SERVICES AND EQUALIZE OUR RATES FOR WATER,

[00:35:06]

>> THANK YOU. THE REASON I'M ASKING THIS IS SO THAT ADMINISTRATION AND COUNSEL CAN HEAR THE FRUSTRATION FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. THANK YOU, MESSY.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR SMITH.

COUNCILLOR HED, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? NO. JOHN, JUST RELATING TO YOUR LAST QUESTION.

ARE YOU AWARE THAT IF TRUCK AND PIPE CUSTOMERS WERE TREATED EQUALLY FOR THE REVENUE TO COST COVERAGE RATIO AS YOU ARE REQUESTING, THAT THE $43 INCREASE WOULD DROP TO SOMEWHERE BETWEEN $22 AND $43 IN YEAR 3 OF THIS CHANGE?

>> CAN'T QUITE FOLLOW THOSE NUMBERS.

>> BASICALLY, THE PROPOSALS ARE BEFORE US, BECAUSE COUNSEL WE ARE BEHIND THE IDEA OF CHANGING OUR BILLING STRUCTURE, BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE FUNDING THE SYSTEM FULLY AND NOT OFF PROPERTY TAXES.

THAT'S PART OF THIS PROPOSAL.

THAT ONE IS ALL OF COUNSEL HAS AGREED ON PRETTY MUCH SINCE DAY ONE.

THAT'S IN THE OPTION.

IT WAS IN THE PAPER THAT CAME TO US TWO WEEKS AGO.

ASSUMING THAT PART OF THE PUZZLE, AND I AM ASSUMING THAT.

BUT I'M ASSUMING THAT PART OF THE PUZZLE THAT IN OPTION 3, AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS RESIDENTIAL USERS WILL SEE AN INCREASE OF $22 PROPOSED.

THIS IS WHAT I WAS ASKING ALAN ABOUT.

TRUCK USERS WOULD SEE AN INCREASE OF ABOUT $43.

IF EVERYBODY WERE TREATED EQUALLY, IT WOULD FALL SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THAT $22 AND $43 INCREASE.

I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF YOU WERE AWARE OF THAT REALITY.

>> WELL, AS I'M UNDERSTANDING IT, IF YOU INCREASE WE'RE PAYING TWICE.

I GIVE YOU A LITTLE DEMO THERE.

THAT LITER OF WATER FROM MY HOUSE IS TWICE THE COST OF THE LITER FROM A DOWNTOWN HOUSE.

IF YOU INCREASE THE COSTS, YOU'RE STILL OVER TWICE THE COST OF WATER FOR THE SAME PRODUCT IN MY HOME.

IF YOU CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THIS TRUCK SERVICE CATEGORY, FUTURE COUNSELS WILL SIMILARLY BE TEMPTED TO SAY, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO BUMP EVERYTHING UP BY EVEN TWO PERCENT.

WELL, WHEN YOU'RE PAYING MORE ALREADY, TWO PERCENT IS MORE THAN WHAT THE OTHER CUSTOMERS ARE PAYING.

IT'S INTERESTING MATH, BUT OUR RECOMMENDATION IS, SO YOU'VE PUT IN PLACE THIS PREJUDICIAL DISCRIMINATORY, PUNITIVE RATE, REALLY.

YOU GUYS CHOSE TO LIVE IN THE OLD TOWN, YOU GUYS CHOSE TO BUY IN GRACE LAKE, SO YOU PAY MORE FOR YOUR WATER.

I DON'T SEE WHY WE SHOULD.

IT'S THE SAME PRODUCT, IT'S THE SAME SERVICE THAT WE'VE CREATED IT.

NOW IT'S LIKE THEM AGAINST US THING.

IF YOU BRING OUR RATES DOWN TO WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE IS PAYING, IN YEAR 1, WE'LL SEE A REDUCTION, AND THE OTHER FOLKS WILL SEE AN INCREASE, AND THEY WON'T BE HAPPY.

BUT IN FUTURE YEARS, WE'LL ALL BE ON A COMMON PLAYING FIELD, AND THERE WON'T BE THE PENALTY OF A SEPARATE CATEGORY THAT WHEN YOU BUMP UP IT BY PERCENTAGES OR AN AMOUNT, THAT WOULD BE BUILDING ON AN ALREADY DISPARATE SYSTEM.

>> UNDER OUR CURRENT WATER AND RATE STRUCTURE, EVEN IF EVERYBODY WAS ON THE SAME IN THEORY OR IF WE REMOVE TRUCK, AND ONE OF THE PROPOSALS WITHIN OUR MOTION TONIGHT IS TO LOOK AT THIS REALITY.

BUT EVEN IF YOU REMOVE THAT AND MADE EVERYBODY ON THE SAME SYSTEM, WE CURRENTLY ALREADY HAVE RATES FOR RESIDENTIAL, MULTI RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL.

EVERYBODY ALREADY DOESN'T PAY THE SAME EVEN WITHIN THE PIPE SYSTEM.

DIFFERENT TYPES OF USERS PAY DIFFERENT THINGS.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT UNDER WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING, THERE WOULD STILL BE A DIFFERENTIAL.

>> YES. SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE PREFACED MY COMMENTS THAT I WAS ACKNOWLEDGING THAT YOU HAVE, I THINK YOU CALL THEM CLASSES, DO YOU? ABSOLUTELY. YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT CLASS FOR BUSINESS, YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT CLASS FOR MULTI FAMILY HOMES, YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT CLASS FOR RESIDENTS.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT EVERYBODY PAYS EXACTLY THE SAME.

I WAS ACKNOWLEDGING WITHOUT SAYING IT THAT, CONTINUE THOSE CATEGORIES.

>> FAIR ENOUGH. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I WAS CLEAR ON THAT.

>> THANKS.

>> NO, THAT'S GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COLLEAGUES? SEEING NONE. THANK YOU, JOHN.

>> THANK YOU.

>> WE HAVE OUR NEXT PRESENTATION. YOU'RE VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU, EVERYBODY. WE HAVE OUR NEXT PRESENTATION FROM CHRISTINE WEINMAN.

[10. A presentation from Christine Wenman regarding Water and Sewer Rates.]

SAME RULES APPLY, FIVE MINUTES.

I'LL LET YOU KNOW AS WE GET CLOSED.

JUST HIT THE BUTTON SO THE MIC LIGHTS UP GREEN. YOU'RE GOOD TO GO.

>> THANKS VERY MUCH. I WANT TO ECHO JOHN'S COMMENTS FIRST TO THANK EACH OF YOU FOR ALREADY SPENDING A LOT OF TIME DELIBERATING ON THIS ISSUE.

[00:40:04]

WE'RE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. BUT TONIGHT, I'D LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER.

FIRST, I'LL INTRODUCE MYSELF.

I THINK I KNOW MANY IF NOT MOST OF YOU.

MY NAME IS CHRISTINE WEINMAN.

I'M A LONG TIME YELLOWKNIFE RESIDENT.

I'M ALSO A BUSINESS OWNER.

I OWN AND OPERATE PLANET NORTH, WHICH IS A COMMUNITY PLANNING AND COMMUNICATION FIRM.

WE HAVE AN OFFICE DOWNTOWN.

THEN WITH MY HUSBAND, WE OWN AND OPERATE SUNDOG TRADING POST ON LESSARD ISLAND.

TONIGHT, I'D LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO ELIMINATE THE WATER RATES THAT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN SUBCLASSES.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ALL USERS WITHIN A CLASS, WHETHER THEY ARE ON PIPE OR ON TRUCKED WATER, PAY THE SAME RATE, AND THAT THE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IS SEEN AS THE SINGLE COMPLEX AND INTEGRATED SYSTEM THAT IT ACTUALLY IS.

THERE'S TWO REASONS I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS WHY I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT.

THE FIRST IS THAT THE INTER CLASS RATES DON'T ACHIEVE ANY IDENTIFIABLE GOALS OF COUNSEL THAT I CAN SEE.

I THINK NOT ONLY DO THEY NOT ACHIEVE THE RATES THAT I BELIEVE WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE THROUGH THIS RATE REVIEW, AND THIS IS MY SECOND POINT.

THEY ALSO REALLY DON'T ACHIEVE THE BROADER GOALS OF COUNSEL, AS I UNDERSTAND THEM.

I'LL DISCUSS THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE.

FIRST OF ALL, AS BEST AS I CAN UNDERSTAND IT, THE WORK THAT'S HAPPENED SO FAR LOOKING AT THESE RATES SEEMS TO BE ABOUT MODERNIZING RATES, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE BASED ON THE DRIVER THAT THERE IS THIS FUNDING SHORTFALL, AND IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED TONIGHT THAT THERE'S TAXPAYER FUNDING THAT'S GOING INTO THE UTILITY AND ALSO GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS.

AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT'S REALLY THE GOAL OR I BELIEVE IT'S THE PRIMARY GOAL OF THIS WORK IS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO WITH THAT FUNDING SHORTFALL.

I'VE REALLY BEEN STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND HOW TARGETING 12% OF THE CONSUMERS, BUT 12% WHO ARE ONLY USING FOUR PERCENT OF ACTUAL CONSUMPTION IS REALLY GOING TO HELP YOU TO DO THAT.

I THINK IT'S A BIT OF A RED HERRING, AND IT'S STOPPING A MORE CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION, WHICH FOCUSES ON THE DRIVERS OF WHY WE HAVE THESE FUNDING SHORTFALLS IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND WHY WE THINK IT'S GOING TO GET WORSE IN THE FUTURE.

I'VE ALSO HEARD FROM SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS, THIS IDEA THAT MAKING SURE THAT USERS PAY EXACTLY FOR THE PORTION OF THE SYSTEM THAT THEY'RE USING IS GOING TO SOMEHOW SEND MORE EFFICIENT PRICE SIGNALS AND MAKE INVESTMENTS MORE EFFICIENT.

I'VE BEEN RACKING MY BRAINS TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT COULD WORK IN THIS SITUATION.

REALLY, I CAN ONLY SEE IT DOING THE INVERSE BECAUSE BY TAKING THAT PORTION OF THE SYSTEM AND EXTERNALIZING THAT COST AND PUTTING IT ONLY ON THE 12% OF US THAT ARE TRUCKED WATER USERS, THEN THAT PRICE SIGNAL IS GONE FROM THE SYSTEM.

IT'S NOT A COST THAT THE PUBLIC IS BEARING WHEN THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT MAKING INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS.

I AM CONCERNED THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO MAKE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS MORE INEFFICIENT IN THE FUTURE.

I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK THE INITIAL PROPOSAL WHICH HAD THESE VERY EXTREME PRICE INCREASES MET THOSE GOALS, BUT I ALSO DON'T THINK THE STATUS QUO MEETS THOSE GOALS, WHERE TRUCKED DRIVERS ARE ALREADY PAYING TWICE AS MUCH AS PIPED USERS.

BUT I ALSO WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT AS COUNSEL, YOU HAVE A LOT MORE COMPLEXITY IN THE GOALS THAT YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT JUST WORRIED ABOUT WATER RATES AND THE WATER UTILITY.

YOU HAVE A LOT OF GOALS AND STRATEGIES AND POLICIES THAT YOU NEED TO WORK WITH AS COUNSEL, AND I APPRECIATE THAT IT'S CHALLENGING, BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME CONSISTENCY ACROSS THOSE POLICIES.

TWO REALLY KEY ONES, I THINK, THAT CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN IMPORTANT TO ME AS A BUSINESS PERSON AND SOMEBODY WHO'S INVESTED HEAVILY IN THIS COMMUNITY.

>> SORRY, CHRISTINE, I FEEL BAD.

THANK YOU. COUNSEL MCGURK.

SECOND BY COUNSEL KAT. ALL OF US IN FAVOR.

CARRY ON. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

[00:45:01]

>> TWO OF THOSE POLICIES THAT HAVE INFLUENCED ME ARE THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND THE ZONING BYLAW, AND ACTUALLY, I'LL RAISE THE THIRD ONE, WHICH IS THE COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY.

>> CHRISTINE, SORRY, JUST MAKING SURE STICK TO WATER AND SEWER RATES.

>> I'M COMING RIGHT BACK TO IT.

>> BE VERY QUICK.

>> BECAUSE THOSE DOCUMENTS CREATE A VISION WHERE IT SAYS, YOU WANT TO HAVE INCREASED DENSITY IN CERTAIN PARTS OF THE TOWN, INCLUDING OLD TOWN.

YOU WANT TO HAVE COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES THERE THAT ARE PROVIDING SERVICES TO TOURISTS AND THAT ARE MAKING THE WATERFRONT MORE ACCESSIBLE.

IT'S ON THE BASIS OF THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT PEOPLE LIKE ME HAVE MADE SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENTS INTO THIS COMMUNITY.

WHEN SUDDENLY THERE'S INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN POLICIES, AND I'M SEEING PROPOSALS COMING FORWARD FROM ADMINISTRATION THAT SEE WATER RATES GO FROM BEING DOUBLE TO THREE TIMES, AND I HEAR TALK ABOUT NOT INVESTING IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE OLD TOWN ANYMORE, IT FEELS LIKE THE RUG IS BEING PULLED OUT FROM UNDER MY FEET.

I REALLY WANT TO STRESS THAT IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE BUSINESS INVESTMENT, YOU NEED TO HAVE CONSISTENT POLICY, AND IT NEEDS TO BE CONSISTENT ACROSS YOUR POLICIES.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHRISTINE.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION, AND VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE ADDRESSING MY CONCERN ABOUT PRICE SIGNALS.

TAKE YOUR COMMENT FOR SURE.

I THINK PUTTING THAT MAKING THE PRICE SIGNAL CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THE OPERATIONAL COST WOULD BE AND THAT TRUCK WATER WOULD COST MORE.

I THINK IT WOULD JUST MAKE THAT COST CLEAR TO EVERYONE AND EVERYONE CAN MAKE A CLEAR DECISION.

IT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE AN EFFECT ON DEMAND.

BUT THEN RESIDENTS COULD SAY, I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT I'M GOING TO HAVE TO BEAR A HIGHER COST FOR A TRUCKED WATER HOUSE THAT MAY BE A NEW DEVELOPMENT.

THEN EVEN IF THEY MAKE THAT CHOICE, WOULD BE MAKING IT FULLY UNDERSTANDING THE CONSEQUENCES.

THEN THIS DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS IN THE PAST DEBATE WOULDN'T BE AS LOADED OR CHALLENGING.

JUST TO COMMENT ON THAT, DO YOU SEE THAT AS A BENEFIT, OR IS THAT NOT A COMMUNITY PLANNING DECISION THAT YOU THINK IS HELPFUL IN TERMS OF INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT?

>> CHRISTINE, GO AHEAD.

>> I THINK THERE'S A NEED TO CONSIDER IT IN YOUR BROADER POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES.

LET'S SAY THAT YOU DO.

LET'S SAY THE COMMUNITY CHANGES YOUR MIND.

NO MATTER WHAT, IT'S EXPENSIVE.

WE DON'T HAVE GOOD ENOUGH INFRASTRUCTURE IN OLD TOWN.

LET'S NOT INCREASE DENSITY THERE.

LET'S NOT ENCOURAGE COMMERCIAL USES.

WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THAT IN OUR COMMUNITY PLAN.

WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT IN OUR ZONING BY LAW.

WELL, AT LEAST THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FAIRNESS THERE BECAUSE THE EXISTING USES ARE GRANDFATHERED.

YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THAT CHANGE SLOWLY OVER TIME.

WHEN YOU SUDDENLY DO SOMETHING SO DRASTIC WITH RATE CHANGES, YOU'RE CHANGING THE RULES ALL OF A SUDDEN AND YOU'RE CHANGING IT FOR PEOPLE WHO'VE ALREADY MADE THAT INVESTMENT.

THAT'S ONE POINT I HAVE TO MAKE.

BUT THE SECOND IS THAT I DON'T ACTUALLY THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.

I THINK YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO FIND THAT YOU STILL WANT TO ABIDE BY AND STAND BEHIND THOSE OBJECTIVES THAT YOU HAVE FOR DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE ENFE COMMUNITY.

I THINK IT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAT YOU KEEP THE COST INDICATORS IN SO THAT THE CITY IS MAKING GOOD LONG TERM INVESTMENT DECISIONS.

WE HEARD FROM SOMEBODY ELSE ABOUT SOME OF THE CHALLENGES ABOUT NOT MAKING THOSE INVESTMENT DECISIONS UP FRONT AND SOME OF THE NEWER DEVELOPMENTS.

I THINK YOUR ADMINISTRATION CAN TELL YOU, BUT MY GUESS IS IF YOU TRY TO ADD THIS INFRASTRUCTURE IN LATER, IT'S GOING TO BE MORE EXPENSIVE THAN DOING IT UPFRONT.

I THINK YOU WANT TO HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE OPERATIONAL COSTS ARE FOR YOUR WHOLE SYSTEM, NOT JUST ONE PART OF IT, AND YOU DON'T WANT TO TAKE A SMALL PORTION AND EXTERNALIZE THOSE COSTS SO THAT YOU'RE NOT MAKING THOSE LONG TERM DECISIONS UPFRONT WHEN YOU'RE CHOOSING WHAT INVESTMENT TO MAKE FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT.

>> COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN.

>> UNDERSTOOD.

>> I APPRECIATE. I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARILY LIKE EXTERNALIZING THE COST.

IT'S PUSHING THAT COST DONE TO OTHER OTHER USERS IN THE SYSTEM.

MAKING THE COST EQUAL ACROSS THE SAME A LITER OF WATER WOULD COST EVERYTHING WOULD UP THAT COST FOR EVERYONE ON THE PIPE SYSTEM DOWNTOWN AND YOU COULD SAY COULD DISSUADE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

[00:50:05]

>> GO AHEAD, CRISTIE.

>> I UNDERSTOOD THE INVERSE OF YOUR DECISION.

I THINK WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A VERY SMALL INCREASE FOR PIPED USERS AND WE ALREADY HAVE EXTREME COSTS FOR TRUCKED WATER USERS.

WE REALLY CAN'T FIND EVEN WITH EXISTING COSTS, WE CAN'T FIND COMPARATORS IN CANADA OTHER THAN GOING TO A ALLOY.

THAT SAID, THAT'S ONE OF THE MOST REMOTE COMMUNITIES IN CANADA.

THE COSTS ARE EXTREME ALREADY FOR TRACKED WATER USERS, THEY'RE NOT FOR PIPED WATER USERS.

THE OTHER POINT I WANT TO MAKE IS THAT, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CHERRY PICKING IN TERMS OF WHICH COSTS ARE BEING CONSIDERED HERE.

I THINK THAT IF THIS RULE WAS TO BE APPLIED EVERYWHERE, THEN EVERY TIME YOU REPAIR A PIPED WATER DISTRIBUTION NETWORK.

I THINK WE WOULD BE HAVING TAX LEVIES, A NEIGHBORHOOD TAX LEVY PUT ONTO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THEY'VE HAD AN INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT.

I'M PRETTY SURE THAT'S NOT HOW THE CITY OPERATES.

I REALLY AM JUST REALLY STRUGGLING AND I KEEP HEARING THIS UNDERLYING BELIEF THAT HAS BEEN REPEATED TO YOU AND THAT HAS NOW BECOME YOUR ANCHOR IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT THIS SITUATION, BUT THAT TRUCK WATER USERS ARE SUBSIDIZING PIPED WATER USERS.

IT'S JUST A REALLY SMALL PART OF THE STORY.

IT'S NOT TALKING ABOUT THE INITIAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS.

IT'S NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ONGOING REPAIRS TO THAT INFRASTRUCTURE.

I THINK IT'S DIVISIVE, AND I REALLY DON'T SEE WHAT OBJECTIVE IT'S GOING TO ACHIEVE FOR THE CITY.

>> COUNCIL MCLEAN.

>> THANKS VERY MUCH FOR THAT PERSPECTIVE. GREATLY APPRECIATE IT.

I THINK JUST FOR FAIRNESS, WOULD LIKE TO GIVE ADMIN AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THAT IN TERMS OF THAT SUBSIDIZATION QUESTION.

JUST A COMMENT ON THAT LARGER INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBSIDIZATION BETWEEN TRUCK AND PIPE.

>> MR. VAN DUYN.

>> SURE, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT.

THE PROPOSAL HERE DOES A NUMBER OF THINGS.

ONE OF WHICH IS THE FACT THAT THE UTILITY THE WAY THAT IT'S BEEN CREATED OVER THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS, CREATES A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CHARGES, MEASUREMENTS, ASSESSMENTS TOOLS.

IT'S A VERY CUMBERSOME UTILITY.

IT'S NOT A STRAIGHTFORWARD UTILITY.

A NUMBER OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAIN TO HOW TO ORGANIZE THE INFORMATION, HOW TO CHARGE, HOW TO PRESENT BACK.

THERE IS A NON-MONETARY COMPONENT TO THE CHANGES THAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE THAT IS NOT INSIGNIFICANT TO ALLOW THE CITY TO DO PROPER ANALYSIS AND PLANNING GOING FORWARD ON CONSUMPTION, WHETHER OR NOT OR CHARGING, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S ON ONE LINE OF SERVICE OR ANOTHER.

THERE'S A RELATIVELY LARGE BASKET OF GENERAL FORMS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED IN ALL THE OPTIONS.

THE SECOND COMPONENT DEALS WITH THE CONCEPT OF A UTILITY CHARGE DEALING WITH A FIXED IN VARIABLE, AND IN THE PROPOSAL THAT COUNCIL SEEMS TO BE MIGRATING TOWARDS, THE PROPOSAL SEEMS TO BE BLIND TO WHAT THE RATE CHANGE WILL BE, WHETHER IT'S PIPED OR TRUCKED.

THAT HAS BEEN A COMMENT THAT'S BEEN A CONSTANT THEME FROM RESIDENTS SINCE THIS OPTION CAME FORWARD WAS AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT YELLOWKNIFE HAS A UNIQUE HISTORY.

THEREFORE, THAT HISTORY NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

THEREFORE, WHEN YOU'RE ADDRESSING SOME OF THE SHORTFALLS IN THE EXISTING SYSTEM, BALANCE THE INCREASE ACROSS BOTH PLATFORMS, AND THAT IS WHAT COUNCIL SEEMS TO BE MIGRATING TOWARDS AT THIS JUNCTURE.

WITH RESPECT TO OTHER THINGS THAT ARE NOT UTILITIES THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN VARIOUS PRESENTATIONS [NOISE] THIS EVENING, I AM GOING TO RESERVE COMMENT ON TRYING TO MIX APPLES AND ORANGES BETWEEN DIFFERENT SERVICE LEVELS, WHETHER WE'RE PAYING FOR SCHOOLS OR WHETHER WE'RE PAYING FOR AQUATIC CENTERS OR OTHER SUCH THINGS BECAUSE THAT IS I THINK LESS MATERIAL TO THE CONVERSATION THAT'S BEING BEFORE COUNCIL TODAY.

WITH RESPECT TO THE PLANNING OF THE COMMUNITY GOING FORWARD, I THINK RESIDENTS ARE AWARE THAT WE HAVE OUR PLAN 2050 EXERCISE UNDER WAY.

I BELIEVE THAT THE OLD TOWN CONTINUES TO BE A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE COMMUNITY, AND THAT PLAN GIVES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR FUTURE VISIONS OF THAT PART OF THE COMMUNITY TO BE EXPRESSED IN A WAY THAT RESIDENTS WOULD LIKE TO SEE, THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY DETACHING ITSELF FROM ITS HISTORY,

[00:55:03]

WHETHER DENSITY IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IS SOMETHING THAT IS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS TO BE CONSIDERED.

MR. CHAIR, I JUST WOULD CONCLUDE BY SAYING THAT, CHANGE IS HARD.

THE AMOUNT OF ANALYSIS THAT'S GONE INTO THIS QUESTION HAS GONE DOWN TO A BASIC PRINCIPLE OF TRYING TO CREATE A MODERN UTILITY USING A MODERN RATE STRUCTURE THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT MODERN PRACTICES OF A FIXED AND A VARIABLE COST.

THERE WERE THREE OPTIONS ON HOW TO TREAT THAT, AND THAT'S WHAT IS BEING DISCUSSED THIS EVENING.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. FOR EVEN MORE CLARITY, REALLY ONLY ONE OF THOSE THREE OPTIONS IS BEING DISCUSSED THIS EVENING BECAUSE COUNSEL FROM OUR COMMITTEE MOVED FORWARD WITH ONE OF THOSE OPTIONS.

JUST FOR THAT CLARITY. ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANY OF MY OTHER COLLEAGUES.

COUNCILWOMAN, ARDEN-SMITH.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION, AND I'M GOING TO ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION THAT I'VE ASKED THE PREVIOUS, OF ALL THE OPTIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT FORWARD BY ADMINISTRATION TO COUNCIL, WHICH ONE WOULD YOU CHOOSE?

>> GO AHEAD.

>> THANKS. THE THIRD ONE IS THE BEST OF THREE INSUFFICIENT OPTIONS.

I'D LIKE TO SEE OPTION 4, WHICH IS ANALYSIS OF A RATE STRUCTURE THAT ELIMINATES RATE CLASSES TO BE IN LINE WITH STANDARD, REALLY THE STANDARD FOR WATER PRICING ACROSS CANADA.

THERE ARE VERY FEW EXAMPLE OF INTRA CLASS RATES, AND IT MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE IN TERMS OF ACHIEVING COUNCIL'S OBJECTIVES TO JUST STICK WITH CONSUMER CLASS RATES.

>> THANK YOU. I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR ADMINISTRATION WHEN WE'RE DISCUSSING FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS. I CAN'T RECALL.

IT'S TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT HAVE WE EVER CONSIDERED UTILIDORS, IN TERMS OF RATHER THAN HAVING OUR PIPING INFRASTRUCTURE UNDERGROUND UTILIDORS LIKE THEY WOULD IN A NUVIK.

I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT THE PRICING WOULD BE.

IS IT SIMILAR ON PAR? DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

>> CITY MANAGER.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND I INVITE MR. GREEN TO RESPOND TO THAT ANSWER.

>> THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. WE PONDERED UTILIDORS AT MULTIPLE PARTS OF MY 20 YEAR CAREER HERE.

IN MOST CASES, IT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE MAINLY DUE TO LAND TENURE.

YOU HAVE TO OWN THE PROPERTY.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE CITY DOES NOT OWN A LOT OF PROPERTY IN OLD TOWN TO RUN A UTILIDOR ON.

THE THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ARE GROUND MOVEMENT AND DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT AREAS.

IN SAYING THAT, IF IT'S IN THE GROUND, IT UNDERGOES THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, IT HASN'T MADE A LOT OF SENSE IN YELLOWKNIFE, BUT THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT I COULDN'T IN THE FUTURE, DEPENDING ON THE AREA AND DEPENDING ON THE VARIOUS PARAMETERS OR LAND CONSTRAINTS AROUND THE SPECIFIC AREA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

>> COUNCILWOMAN SMITH.

>> SORRY, COST WISE, IS IT SIMILAR?

>> MR. CITY MANAGER?

>> MR. CITY AND ENGINEERING.

>> THE COST OF UTILIDOR, WOULD OBVIOUSLY, AGAIN, DEPENDING ON WHERE IT WOULD BE LOCATED, WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN EXCAVATING EITHER THROUGH UNSUITABLE MATERIAL OR OR BLASTING THROUGH BEDROCK, OF COURSE, BUT THERE'S ALSO OTHER OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE CHARACTERISTICS THAT WE'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH, SUCH AS ABOVE GROUND TEMPERATURES BEING SUSCEPTIBLE TO LET'S SAY, VEHICLES OR OTHER CHALLENGES THAT WE'VE NOT YET ENCOUNTERED IN YELLOWKNIFE IF IN MY TIME.

NOT TO SAY IT COULDN'T HAPPEN, BUT I'D BE REMISS TO JUST FOCUS ON INSTALLATION COSTS ALONE RATHER THAN O&M.

>> AS TO SAY A GOOD CHUNK OF MONEY AND UNSURE. COUNCILWOMAN, ARDEN-SMITH.

>> DEFINITELY. I MEAN, ALL OPTIONS ARE VIABLE UNTIL THEY'RE NOT.

I MEAN, IT PROVIDES A DIFFERENT AVENUE.

REASON I ASK IS BECAUSE THERE'S CONSTANTLY THAT LOOMING AS JOHN HAD INDICATED THAT, WE CHOSE TO LIVE HERE.

WE CHOSE TO BE UNTRUCKED IN WATER.

THERE ARE CERTAIN LOCATIONS WHERE, THAT WAS WHAT WAS OFFERED, AND THERE ARE SOME LOCATIONS THAT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT THAT NO, THOSE IT WAS THE ONLY OPTION.

THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT LIVE OUT IN CON AND SOME OF THE OLDER HOUSES.

CON HAD INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE CITY DIDN'T TAKE IT OVER WHEN CON ENDED UP CLOSING DOWN AND WE WERE FORCED INTO HAVING TRUCK AND WATER AND WE DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE AND STILL DON'T.

HAVING AS MANY OPTIONS OUT THERE AS POSSIBLE AND I SAY NUVIK BECAUSE I LIVED IN NUVIK.

[01:00:06]

THEY'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR A VERY LONG TIME, AND IT WORKS FOR THEM, TEMPERATURE WISE.

>> SORRY, COUNCILWOMAN ARDEN-SMITH. I KNOW IT'S A GOOD POINT.

>> GOOD POINT.

>> QUESTION.

>> THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WHY I BROUGHT IT UP AND DONE.

<< THANK YOU MR. [INAUDIBLE] WE STILL HAVE OUR ACTUAL DEBATE ON THE MOTION, SO YOU CAN STILL GET BACK TO IT IF YOU'D LIKE.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COLLEAGUES? NO, ALL GOOD? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHRISTINE.

>> THANK YOU.

[12. A presentation from Gary Vivian regarding Water and Sewer Rates.]

>> NEXT, WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM GARY VIVIAN REGARDING WATER AND SEWER RATES.

>> WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, GARY. YOU WON'T NEED TO PUT YOUR WATCH ON ME.

>> I WILL, ANYWAY, JUST FOR FAIRNESS, BUT IF YOU BEAT ME, THAT'S GREAT. GO FOR IT.

>> I WILL BE QUICK. GOOD EVENING AND THANK YOU MAYOR AND COUNCIL PEOPLE FOR ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT.

I'VE LIVED IN YELLOWKNIFE FOR FOUR YEARS.

MY NAME IS GARY VIVIAN.

I'M A RESIDENT AND A BUSINESS OWNER, BOTH MY RESIDENCE AND OFFICE BEING ON MCDONALD DRIVE.

IT WAS NOT THE RESIDENTS OF THIS TOWN THAT NECESSARILY CHOSE TO BE ON PIPE CITY SERVICES.

WE WOULD ALL CHOOSE TO BE ON PIPE CITY SERVICE.

IT WAS A CITY THAT HAD THE OPTION AT SOME POINT TO INSTALL PIPE SERVICES IN MANY AREAS OF TOWN, BUT LEAVING OTHER PEOPLE RELIANT ON TRUCK SERVICES.

THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN IN FRONT OF COUNCIL BEFORE AND THE ISSUE WAS BOOTED DOWN THE ROAD.

I IMPLORE YOU TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION THIS TIME AROUND.

ESTABLISHING A TIERED SERVICE IN YELLOWKNIFE IS JUST WRONG.

PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF THE TYPE OF SERVICE THEY ARE ON SHOULD PAY THE SAME RATE.

IN MY OPINION, YOU ARE NOT CREATING A REASONABLE INVESTMENT CLIMATE WHEN THERE IS ESSENTIALLY NO AVAILABLE LAND FOR PIPE SERVICES.

ALMOST EVERYONE MOVING TO TOWN HAS TO EITHER BUY A HOME IN A DEVELOPED PART OF YELLOWKNIFE ON PIPE SERVICE OR PAY A MUCH HIGHER FEE FOR TRUCK SERVICE.

WITH THE OPTIONS IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT, CHOOSE A DECISION THAT USES COMMON SENSE.

THE STATUS QUO IS UNFAIR AND JUST KEEPS BOOTING THE BALL DOWN THE FIELD.

IT PLACES UNJUST AND INEQUITABLE RATES ON TRUCK USERS.

ADMINISTRATION NEEDS TO REVIEW AND DEAL WITH THE STATUS OF SURFACE WATER LINES AND THE SUBCATEGORIES TODAY, NOT IN10 YEARS.

I AM ASKING YOU TO SEND THE THREE OPTIONS BACK TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND CHOOSE A FOURTH TO DO WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE MANY YEARS AGO.

EVERY CITY USER OF WATER AND SEWER SERVICES SHOULD PAY THE SAME RATE.

I DID WANT TO MAKE A SMALL COMMENT WHEN I SAW MR. VAN DUYN PUSH THIS TABLE IN FRONT HERE.

I INTRODUCED STEPHEN AT THE JEWEL SCIENCE FORUM LAST YEAR AS THE NEW AUTO MECHANIC AT THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE [LAUGHTER].

>> WE'RE NOT PAYING YOUR EXTRA STEPHEN. I APOLOGIZE.

[LAUGHTER] YOU START TUNING UP THE VEHICLES.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GARY.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES?

>> COUNCIL MCLEAN.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION. SAME QUESTION.

JUST LOOKING FOR A RESPONSE TO MY CONCERN THAT AN EQUAL COST FOR WATER ACROSS DELIVERY METHODS WOULD JUST CREATE AN INCENTIVE FOR MORE PIPE SERVICE DEVELOPMENT.

>> GO AHEAD, GARY.

>> SORRY.

>> I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.

I THINK IT'S THE SAME ONE HE'S ASKED EVERYBODY ELSE.

>> YOU GOT IT.

>> TO ME IT'S ABOUT A FAIRNESS ISSUE TO BE QUITE HONEST.

WATER AND SEWER SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CITY SHOULD BE A SERVICE THAT'S PROVIDED BY THE CITY AT THE SAME RATE NO MATTER WHERE YOU LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.

I JUST I CAN'T SEE ANY OTHER WAY THAT YOU CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

TO TELL ME THAT I NEED TO PAY MORE FOR A TRUCK WATER SERVICE BECAUSE I LIVE IN THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE, BUT I DON'T HAVE PIPED WATER SERVICES CRAZY.

TO ME, IT'S A SIMPLE QUESTION OF BEING ABLE, TO IT'S NOT SIMPLE.

IT'S COMPLEX, AS MR. VAN DUYN AND THE CITY ENGINEER EXPLAINED EARLIER.

I KNOW THERE'S LOTS OF ISSUES THAT HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN PIPE SERVICES VERSUS TRUCK SERVICES.

BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THERE'S GOT TO BE A MAGIC NUMBER AT THE END OF THE YEAR, WHAT IT COSTS YOU TO RUN THE SERVICE.

IF YOU HAVE TO RAISE THAT ON A EARLY BASIS, EVERYBODY PAYS THE SAME.

>> COUNCIL MCLEAN.

>> THANK YOU.

>> COUNCILWOMAN ARDEN-SMITH.

>> THANK YOU, GARY. I'M PRETTY SURE.

I ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION FROM YOU, BUT I'M GOING TO POSE IT OUT THERE.

OUT OF ALL THE THREE OPTIONS THAT ADMINISTRATION BROUGHT FORWARD TO COUNCIL, WHICH ONE WOULD YOU CHOOSE?

>> AGAIN, I GOT TO THANK YOU GUYS FOR DOING WHAT YOU DO.

I KNOW IT'S TOUGH,

[01:05:02]

THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AN OPTION TO PROVIDE FAIR AND EQUITABLE SERVICES FOR WATER AND SEWER.

EVERYBODY SHOULD BE PAYING THE SAME.

I DON'T CARE IF YOU CALL IT OPTION 4 OR WHATEVER YOU CALL IT.

BUT I JUST THINK THE THREE OPTIONS SHOULDN'T BE THE FINAL ANSWER HERE. COUNCIL SMITH.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GARY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO. THANK YOU, GARY.

NEXT UP, WE HAVE BRUCE FALPE.

[13. A presentation from Bruce Valpy regarding Water and Sewer Rates.]

>> THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO SAY AFTER WATCHING COUNSEL AND CITY ADMINISTRATION FOR THE LAST 45 YEARS OR SO, I'VE ALWAYS FOUND THAT CITY ADMINISTRATION DID A CREDIBLE JOB, AND THAT COUNSEL IS PROBABLY THE MOST TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT WE HAVE IN THE TERRITORY.

HAVING SAID THAT, THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT ROLES IN MY MIND FOR COUNSEL AND CITY ADMINISTRATION.

SOMETIMES THOSE TWO GET CONFUSED.

WHEN THEY DO, THINGS TURN OUT BADLY AND I HAVE SOME EXAMPLES IF SOMEBODY'S INTERESTED LATER ON HISTORICALLY, BUT IN THIS INSTANCE, I'M NOT CONFIDENT OF THIS PROCESS THAT'S GOING ON.

I BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT PROCESS, KEVIN HODGE'S VIEWS WERE NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

EVEN THOUGH I BELIEVE LISTENING TO HIM THE PAST THREE WEEKS, HE HAS CONSIDERABLE EXPERTISE TO BRING TO THE DISCUSSION.

I READ A LOT OF WHAT WAS BEING SENT OUT, AND I HAVE TO CONFESS TO YOU.

IT WAS VERY CONFUSING, AND I WAS RELYING ON KEVIN TO GIVE ME DIRECTION ON THAT AND OTHER PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY.

BUT I DID PICK UP ON THE ENGLISH.

SOME THINGS JUMPED OUT AT ME IN THE CONSULTANTS REPORT THAT IT STATED THAT THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE PROPOSED RATE STRUCTURE APPEARS TO BE MISSING.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS RATHER CURIOUS TO SAY BECAUSE WE'VE HAD AN UNFAIR SYSTEM FOR THE PAST 50 YEARS, AND THERE'S A REAL RISK THAT THIS UNFAIRNESS WILL BE AMPLIFIED TO ASTONISHING LEVELS FOR A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF HOMEOWNERS.

THAT CONCERNS ME THAT THE PROCESS HASN'T BEEN GOING WELL.

THEN THE DOUBLE ASTERISK SAID THE PROPOSAL HAS NOT BEEN FULLY MODELED DUE TO THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES DISCUSSED ABOVE, BUT THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES WERE CRAFTED TO REALLY BE PREJUDICIAL AGAINST ANY OTHER PROPOSAL THAT CAME FORWARD LIKE KEVIN'S, WHICH SEEMS TO ME PERFECTLY CREDIBLE.

I'M NOT CONFIDENT THAT THAT WAS GIVEN THE ATTENTION THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, AND I'M ASKING YOU GUYS TO SEND THE CONSULTANTS TO COME BACK WITH THE FOURTH OPTION.

THAT IS THE ONE THAT WOULD BE A DETAILED UNBIASED ANALYSIS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT ALL USER CLASSES ARE TREATED FAIRLY AND EQUITABLY, SHARING FIXED COSTS AND CONSUMPTION RATES ACROSS THE CITY.

THE ARGUMENTS FOR THAT ARE TO ME SO STRONG FOR GOING FORWARD IN CLARITY FOR EVERYONE, NO MATTER WHERE YOU LIVE, OR IF YOU INTEND TO BUILD OR WHETHER YOU'RE ON TRUCK OR PIPE, YOU'RE PAYING THE SAME.

THAT ENCOURAGES DEVELOPMENT.

IT WON'T GIVE PAUSE FOR DEVELOPMENT AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

I WOULD ASK, DID YOU WORK WITH KEVIN? HE SEEMS TO ME TO BE A REASONABLE PERSON THAT CARES ABOUT HIS NEIGHBOR AND THE CITY.

I THINK THE PROCESS, WHATEVER THE OUTCOME WOULD BE MUCH BETTER AND INSTILL CONFIDENCE.

THAT'S MY OPINION ON THAT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BRUCE. ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? COUNCILOR MCLENNAN?

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SAME QUESTION, JUST ABOUT THE INCENTIVES CREATED BY EQUAL COST.

IT MIGHT ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT.

JUST A RESPONSE TO MY CONCERN THAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S A LOWER SERVICE STANDARD THAT CLEARLY ISN'T ONE DESIRED BY A RESIDENT.

>> I HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE THAT THE DEVELOPERS WILL WORK THAT THROUGH.

THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT GO TO TRUCK SERVICES BECAUSE IT'S TRUCK SERVICES.

IT'S LIKE, WOW, IS THIS THE THIRD WORLD OR WHAT IS IT? IF DEVELOPERS FEEL THAT THERE'S A MARKET FOR THAT AND OBVIOUSLY WITH GRACE LAKE, THERE IS DEFINITELY A MARKET FOR IT.

IT ENCOURAGED DEVELOPMENT.

I DON'T REALLY SEE WHY THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE.

IF I WERE A DEVELOPER AND I WAS GOING, WE'VE SEEN THE OCHERS DO IT VERY SUCCESSFULLY, THEY PROVIDE SERVICES.

[01:10:02]

NOT TO MENTION THOSE OF US WHO BOUGHT INTO THIS CITY 40 YEARS AGO, AND NOW WE'RE FINDING THE GAME HAS CHANGED ON US.

I DON'T SEE THAT AS A PROBLEM.

>> COUNCILOR MCLENNAN?

>> THANK YOU.

>> COUNCILOR ARDEN-SMITH?

>> THANK YOU, BRUCE. SAME QUESTION GOES OUT TO YOU.

OUT OF THE THREE OPTIONS THAT ADMINISTRATION BROUGHT FORWARD TO COUNSEL.

WHICH ONE WOULD YOU CHOOSE?

>> GO AHEAD, MR. VALPY?

>> WELL, WHEN I READ THE CAT AND RADIO STORY, I THOUGHT, WELL, EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE GREAT, BUT THEN I READ THE FLYING PRINT, AND TO ME, SOMEBODY TOLD ME THAT THIS WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE '80S, '86 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I'M THINKING, WELL, LET'S RESOLVE THIS BECAUSE NOBODY'S REALLY GOING TO QUESTION THAT EVERYBODY PAYS FAIRLY, FOR THE CONSUMPTION AND SHARES THE FIXED COST.

TO ME, IT'S A END OF CONVERSATION.

IT ONLY MAKES SENSE TO DO IT THAT WAY.

OTHERWISE, YOU'RE SAYING, WELL, IT'S BECAUSE THESE DECISIONS WERE MADE AND YOU CHOSE TO DO THAT AND ALL OF THIS STUFF.

THEN YOU GET INTO A LOG.

THEN YOU START PARSING WHERE PEOPLE LIVE AND THE DELIVERY SYSTEMS AND DISTANCE AND ALL OF THAT STUFF.

FOR COUNSEL, I WOULD THINK THAT'D BE A BIT OF A NIGHTMARE.

I'D RATHER SAY, HEY, EVERYBODY PAYS THE SAME, THAT'S IT.

NO MATTER WHERE YOU LIVE, NO MATTER WHERE YOU DEVELOP, THAT'S IT. VERY CLEAR.

>> COUNCILOR ARDEN-SMITH?

>> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'M GOING TO HAVE ONE FOR ADMINISTRATION SINCE MR. VALPY BROUGHT UP YOUR MEMO. I WANT TO GIVE YOU THE CHANCE.

IF YOU'D LIKE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO ANY OF THE COMMENTS THAT MR. MR. VALPY BROUGHT UP REGARDING THE MEMO AND THE CONSIDERATION OF WHAT WAS CONSIDERED OPTION 4 IN THAT PAPER?

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I THINK WE SPOKE TO THIS AT THE GPC MEETING.

MR. HUTCHKINS' PROPOSAL WAS CONSIDERED.

WE'VE MET WITH MR. HUTCHKINS MANY TIMES.

WE'VE ASKED OUR CONSULTANTS TO REVIEW MR. HUTCHKINS' REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS SEVERAL TIMES.

THE FUNDAMENTAL DISCONNECT, IF I CAN USE THAT TERM IN THE LAND OF WATER AND SEWER, HAS BEEN THE FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE OF NOT APPLYING A COST TO THE FIXED COST AND THE VARIABLE COST.

THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PREVIOUS COUNCILS COMMISSIONED THIS WORK IN 2017.

IT'S BEEN STUDIED SINCE THAT TIME, WITH ALL THE HISTORY, HAS COME TO A NUMBER OF CONCLUSIONS.

I'LL JUST TAKE A MOMENT SINCE THOSE HAVE NOT BEEN REFERENCED AT ALL.

THE WATER AND SEWER RATE STRUCTURE THAT HAS EVOLVED OVERTIME AND IS VERY COMPLICATED AND HAS BEEN MANY YEARS SINCE A FULL REVIEW HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN.

THERE ARE MULTIPLE FIXED FEE COMPONENTS, THE DEMAND CHARGE, AND THE ACCESS FEE, THE INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY, AND THE INSURANCE CHARGE.

NO OTHER MUNICIPALITY TAKES THIS APPROACH.

THE CURRENT RATE STRUCTURE UTILIZES THE CONCEPT OF AN EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT THAT ESSENTIALLY UTILIZES FOR SPACE IN DETERMINING THE CHARGES OF FOUR COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS.

HOWEVER, THIS CONCEPT DOES NOT TRACK THE TRUE COST OF SERVICE.

FOR EXAMPLE, A BUSINESS WITH SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF FLOOR SPACE THAT HAS ONE BATHROOM AND UTILIZES VERY LITTLE WATER OR SEWER RATES WILL RECEIVE A SIZABLE UTILITY BILL TO WHICH THIS COUNCIL'S HEARD ABOUT.

NO OTHER MUNICIPALITIES REVIEWED TAKE THIS APPROACH.

WHILE THE CURRENT RATE STRUCTURE DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT BOTH TRUCK AND PIPE SERVICES, IT DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WATER AND SEWER SERVICES, MEANING THERE IS NO SPECIFIC CHARGE FOR SEWER SERVICES.

THIS IS IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF SENDING THE RIGHT PRICE SIGNALS AND IN PLANNING FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS.

RATES DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST OF SERVICE TO VARIOUS CUSTOMERS, AND THERE IS A DEGREE OF WHICH COST SUBSIDIZATION THROUGHOUT THE SYSTEM, BUT MOST NOTABLY BETWEEN PIPE SERVICES AND THE MORE EXPENSIVE TRUCK SERVICES.

THE REVENUE COST COVERAGE RATIO FOR COMBINED TRUCK AND SEWER SERVICES IS 64%.

THE RANGE OF REASONABLENESS IS GENERALLY CONSIDERED 90-110%.

IN ADDITION TO THE COST SUBSIDIZATION, THE FULL REVENUE REQUIREMENT TO COVER THE COST IS PARTIALLY COLLECTED VIA NON-RATE REVENUES, AND THIS WAS RAISED EARLIER WITH RESPECT TO THE TRANSFER FROM THE GENERAL FUND.

IN THIS CONTEXT, ALL CUSTOMERS ARE BEING SUBSIDIZED BY OTHER GOVERNMENT FUNDING TO ABOUT 3.8 MILLION IN THE AVERAGE EXAMPLE IN A 2027 FORECAST, AS WELL AS ABOUT 2 MILLION PER YEAR IN NON-RATE REVENUE FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY FUND ON UTILITY BILLS.

THE OPTIONS THAT WERE BEING PUT FORWARD FOLLOWED A NUMBER OF PRINCIPLES,

[01:15:04]

THIS ENSURES THAT THE UTILITY IS SUSTAINABLE IN THE LONG TERM AND NOT UNDERFUNDED OR SUBSIDIZED BY OTHER MUNICIPAL REVENUES, WHICH IS ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES.

RATES SHOULD REFLECT THE COST OF SERVICE TO CUSTOMERS.

RATES AND FEES SHOULD BE TO UNDERSTAND, THIS SPEAKS TO THE USE OF THE COMPLICATED ERU FUNCTION BEFORE.

IT SHOULD INDICATE TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND TO CONSUMERS REGARDING THE COST OF CONSUMPTION.

SIMPLY PUT, THAT THIS PRINCIPLE IS ABOUT USING ACCOMMODATION OF FIXED AND VARIABLE RATES, WHICH IS WHAT IS CONTAINED IN ALL THREE PROPOSALS, AND ENSURE THAT ADMINISTRATIVE EFFICIENCY AND SIMPLICITY IS SOMETHING WHICH DOES NOT EXIST PRESENTLY AND SHOULD IMPLEMENT A SEPARATE RATES AND FEES FOR WATER AND SEWER UTILITIES.

THE GAP WE'RE TRYING TO CLOSE IS THE SEWER COMPONENT, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY NOT A SUBJECT THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS, BUT IT IS A REALITY FOR COST AND FUTURE SUSTAINABILITY.

WE ARE LOOKING AT UNEXPECTED CHANGES TO THE CUSTOMER BILLS SHOULD BE MINIMIZED.

THE PROPOSAL SETS IN MOTION A STRUCTURE THAT LONG PAST MY TIME HERE AND OTHERS, FUTURE COUNCILS AND ADMINISTRATIONS WOULD BE ABLE TO PICK UP WHAT IS CHOSEN AND BE ABLE TO ADJUST MUCH MORE EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY AND SEAMLESSLY THAN WHAT IS THE CASE TODAY.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COLLEAGUES? NO WITH THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BRUCE.

>> THANK YOU.

>> NEXT WE HAVE,

[14. A presentation from Gerry Cheezie regarding Water and Sewer Rates. ]

JERRY CHEESY. WHEN YOU'RE READY, SIR.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M A DENNY FROM FORTH SMITH, BUT I'VE LIVED IN YELLOWKNIFE FOR ABOUT 26 YEARS.

I LIVED DOWN IN DILLON.

DENNY DON'T USUALLY COME TO CITY HALL, BUT WATER HAS DRIVEN ME HERE.

I THANK THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL AND THE ADMINISTRATION ON GIVING ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

I REALLY LIKE JOHN'S PRESENTATION ABOUT THE WATER.

BECAUSE IF I WAS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN PAYING $6 OR $13, I'LL PICK THE $6.

I'VE LIVED ON TRUCK WATER FOR 26 YEARS.

WE HAVE TO BUDGET WATER ALL THE TIME.

IN WINTER TIMES, WE DO OUR LAUNDRY UPTOWN AT THE LAUNDROMAT.

WHILE THE GUYS AT PIPED WATER, DO IT AT HOME.

IF THE TRUCK CAN'T GO UP MY DRIVEWAY, I HAVE TO GET GRAVELED AND I HAVE TO CLEAR THE STONE AT MY COST AND MY EXPENSE.

PIPE GUYS DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT.

THEY JUST TURN ON THE TAP AND IT'S THERE. I PAY MORE FOR IT.

THAT BRINGS IN THE QUESTION OF FAIRNESS.

YOU DON'T SEE A LOT OF OUR PEOPLE HERE TODAY BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A FORUM THAT THEY FEEL COMFORTABLE IN COMING TO.

I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MY NEIGHBORS AS WELL.

THE SUMMER LINES ARE A BLESSING TO US.

THAT'S WHEN WE KNOW FOR SURE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE WATER ANYTIME WE WANT IT.

ANY OTHER TIME OF THE YEAR, WE HAVE TO BUDGET AT ALL TIMES.

I'M NOT SURE IF THE CITY COUNCILS KNOW THIS.

BUT I'VE RUN OUT OF WATER A FEW TIMES, MORE THAN A FEW TIMES.

IF IT'S NOT ON THE SCHEDULE, I HAVE TO PAY OUT A CALL OUT FEE OF 150 BUCKS.

BECAUSE WE HAVE A LIGHT SYSTEM HOOKED UP TO OUR TANK, IF THE LIGHT IS NOT OUT, THE TRUCK DRIVERS CAN DECIDE NOT TO GIVE US WATER.

THERE'S A FEW TIMES THAT I ENCOUNTER THAT PROBLEM, BECAUSE I'M JUST ONE TOILET FLUSH AWAY FROM RUNNING OUT OF WATER,

[01:20:04]

PIPE GUYS DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT.

I REALLY WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE EFFORTS OF KEVIN HUDSON AS WELL.

I'VE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS DEBATE GOING ON IN THE PAST AND CURRENTLY AS WELL.

BECAUSE I'M ON A FIXED INCOME. I'M RETIRED.

A LOT OF OUR PEOPLE DOWN IN DILLON ARE NOT HIGH INCOME EARNERS.

BUT WE GOT TO PAY FOR THE WATER BECAUSE WE GOT TO HAVE WATER.

THERE'S NO GETTING AROUND IT.

WHEN I HEARD THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO CHANGE THE RATES AND CHARGE US MORE, WELL I GOT OFF MY COUCH AND CAME HERE.

I DON'T LIKE ANY OF THE OPTIONS THAT THE CONSULTANT HAS PRESENTED.

I'LL ALSO GO FOR OPTION 4.

I WANTED TO ASK COUNSEL TO RECONSIDER THEIR POSITION ON THIS TO RUN A FAIRNESS.

THE DENNY ARE ORIGINAL LAND OWNERS OF THIS COMMUNITY.

WE ALL LIVE IN ONE LITTLE PENINSULA OUT THERE CALLED DILLON.

>> SORRY, MR. CHEESY, I APOLOGIZE.

YOU'VE HIT YOUR FIVE MINUTES.

WOULD YOU LIKE AN ADDITIONAL TWO MINUTES?

>> YES, PLEASE. SIR.

>> COUNCILOR MCGURK? COUNSEL FOOTE, HENDRIKSEN, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? PLEASE CONTINUE.

>> I GUESS THE LAST THING I WANTED TO SAY IS THAT I'M PRETTY AWARE THAT THE YELLOWKNIFE DENNY IS THROUGH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PAYS THE CITY GRANT IN LIEU OF TAXES.

I'M SURE IT'S A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT.

WHAT DO WE GET FOR THAT SERVICE? WHEN YOU COME DOWN TO DILLON THERE IS NOT A HECK OF A LOT OF SERVICE THE CITY DOES FOR US, BUT WATER IS ONE OF THEM.

WE WANT TO SEE THAT RATE CHANGED SO THAT WE PAY MORE.

IF THAT HAPPENS, WE'RE JUST GOING TO BUY A PUMP AND STICK IT INTO THE LAKE AND PUMP OUR OWN WATER.

I DON'T THINK THE CITY WANTS TO SEE THAT ON CBC NEWS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILOR ARDEN-SMITH?

>> AGAIN, I APPRECIATE IT.

PLEASE, COUNCIL ARDEN-SMITH.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING OUT.

I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

I JUST HAVE A COMMENT FOR YOU, AND THEN I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE ADMINISTRATION.

I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR COMING OUT. YOU'RE CORRECT.

OUR PEOPLE DON'T OFTEN COME TO CITY HALL TO VOICE THEIR CONCERNS.

I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU COMING OUT.

ADMINISTRATION, MY QUESTION ISN'T PART OF WHAT THE PRESENTER HAD BROUGHT FORWARD, FUNDING THAT IS GIVEN BY YELLOWKNIFE'S DENE TOWARDS THE CITY IN TERMS OF SERVICES RENDERED.

DO WE GET A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT? WHAT DOES IT GO TOWARDS? CAN WE GET A BRIEF EDUCATION ON THAT?

>> MR. VAN DINE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. YES, THERE IS SOME DOLLARS THAT TRANSFER FROM MUNICIPAL AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MUNICIPAL AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH RESPECT TO CROWN INDIGENOUS RELATIONS FOR LANDS THAT ARE ADMINISTRATIVELY HELD FOR THE FIRST NATION IS A COMPLICATED RELATIONSHIP.

I CAN ASSURE YOU I WILL GET BACK TO YOU IN TERMS OF THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT IS RECEIVED.

I'M FAIRLY CONFIDENT THAT THE AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED IN QUITE SOME TIME.

I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR YOU TODAY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ANY CROSS-SUBSIDIZATION FROM ANY FUNDS THAT WE RECEIVED FOR THE PROVISION OF SERVICE FOR NDILO TO OTHER SERVICES THAT THE CITY IS CURRENTLY OFFERING.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT TO BE THE CASE.

[01:25:02]

>> COUNCIL ARDEN-SMITH?

>> PERFECT. I AWAIT YOUR RESPONSE WHEN YOU DO HAVE THAT AVAILABLE.

MR. CHIESI, AGAIN, MASSIVE JOY FOR COMING OUT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> COUNCIL MCLENNAN. HE HASN'T LET YOU GO YET, SIR.

NO. [LAUGHTER]

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING AND FOR THE PRESENTATION AND SHARING YOUR THOUGHTS. SAME QUESTION.

JUST LOOKING FOR A COMMENT ON MY CONCERN AROUND BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT COST FOR TRUCK WATER IS LOWER.

IF YOU HAD THE SAME COST BETWEEN PIPED AND TRUCK WATER, JUST LOOKING FOR A COMMENT ON MY CONCERN THAT IT WOULD JUST CREATE AN INCENTIVE TO DEVELOP MORE TRUCK WATER, WHICH IS A SERVICE THAT CLEARLY IS DIFFICULT.

>> GOOD, MR.CHIESI.

>> WELL, I REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT, TO BE HONEST.

LIKE, I LIVED DOWN IN NDILO, AND THERE WAS NO EXPANSION IN NDILO.

WE HAD NO EXTRA LAND TO BUILD ON.

[NOISE] BUT I WOULD ASSUME THAT IF THERE WAS A DEVELOPER DOWNTOWN, AND THE QUESTION WAS BETWEEN PUTTING IN PIPED WATER OR TRUCK WATER.

WE GO WITH PIPED WATER.

FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, BECAUSE WHO'S GOING TO PAY? WHO WANTS TO PAY MORE? THAT'S MY THOUGHT.

>> COUNCIL MCLENNAN.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND THANK YOU FOR COMING.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

NEXT UP, WE HAVE ONE MORE PRESENTATION BEFORE OUR ENFORCED BREAK AT AN HOUR AND A HALF,

[15. A presentation from Jennifer Inch regarding Water and Sewer Rates.]

IF YOU'RE READY, TAKE IT AWAY.

>> I HAVE TO MAKE SURE I CAN SEE WITH OR WITHOUT THE GLASSES. WHICH IS BETTER? NO. IF I STUMBLE, IT'S BECAUSE I'M BLIND.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING.

MAYOR AND COUNCILORS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I WOULD ECHO ALL OF THE THANKS THAT MY PREVIOUS PRESENTERS HAVE GIVEN, BUT I THINK IT WOULD RUN ME OVER TIME, SO I'LL SAVE THEM TO THE END.

I'M JENNIFER INCH, AND MY HUSBAND, VINCE MCCORMACK, AND I LIVE AT 25 MORRISON DRIVE ON LATHAM ISLAND.

VINCE IS UNABLE TO BE HERE THIS EVENING, BUT HE DID SEND AN EMAIL EARLIER.

IT ALSO WOULD NOT HAVE MADE THE FIVE-MINUTE MARK.

I'M 57, A YELLOWKNIFER BORN AND RAISED.

I GREW UP ON THE PIPE SYSTEM UP ON 48TH STREET IN THE GIANT MINE HOUSING BETWEEN WHAT'S NOW BOSTON PIZZA, AND WHAT USED TO BE IN KIT.

I'M A LANDMARK PERSON.

I'M HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE WATER AND SEWER RATE OPTIONS PROPOSED IN THE CONSULTANT REPORT AND CURRENTLY ENDORSED BY CITY ADMINISTRATION, AND UNDER YOUR CONSIDERATION, I REQUEST THAT THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILORS REJECT THE OPTIONS PROVIDED, AS NONE MEET THE REQUIREMENT TO MODERNIZE THE WATER AND SEWER RATES IN A FAIR AND EQUITABLE WAY.

EVEN THE LEAST OBJECTIONABLE OPTION, OPTION 3, MAINTAINS A STATUS QUO, PERPETUATING A RESIDENTIAL COST DISPARITY BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT MODES OF DELIVERY, TRUCKED VERSUS PIPED, WHERE USERS ON TRUCKED WATER PAY TWICE THAT OF PIPED PER LITER OF WATER.

A FAIR AND EQUITABLE WATER AND SEWER RATE STRUCTURE WOULD SEE ACCESS FEES AND CONSUMPTION RATES BEING ESTABLISHED FOR DIFFERENT CLASSES BASED ON THE COSTS OF SERVICE FOR THAT CLASS AS A WHOLE.

CLASSES, SUCH AS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AGRICULTURAL, ET CETERA.

METHOD OF DELIVERY BECOMES IMMATERIAL AND NEUTRAL.

IN THAT PIPED, TRUCKED, AND SURFACE LINE COSTS WOULD BE BLENDED.

YES, I SAID SURFACE LINE.

RECIPIENTS WOULD PAY THE SAME MONTHLY ACCESS FEE FOR WATER AND SEWER, KEEPING IT REASONABLE FOR ALL.

YES, I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT RESIDENTIAL AT THIS POINT, NOT COMMERCIAL, BUT THIS WOULD BE BY CLASS.

IF THERE NEEDS TO BE INCREMENTAL INCREASES OVER TIME TO REDUCE A DEFICIT, THAT SHOULD BE APPLIED AFTER THE RATES ARE LEVELED BY CLASS.

JUST TO CLARIFY, NO SUBCLASSES WOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE METHOD OF DELIVERY.

THERE ARE ALSO THE OTHER COSTS THAT YOU'VE HEARD SOME OF WHICH WERE MENTIONED THIS EVENING, COSTS AND INCONVENIENCES ASSOCIATED WITH BEING ON TRUCK DELIVERY THAT THOSE ON PIPED WATER AND SEWER MAY NOT HAVE CONSIDERED BEFORE TONIGHT.

A NEW SEWAGE TANK IN 2016 FOR A THREE-BEDROOM RESIDENCE COSTS A 35,000 LUMP SUM. ASK ME HOW I KNOW.

IN CONTRAST, IF WE'D LIVED UPTOWN ON PIPED WATER AND THE LINES BETWEEN HOUSE AND MAINS HAD BROKEN, WE'D HAVE HAD INSURANCE COVERAGE FROM THE CITY FOR A SMALL FEE OF I UNDERSTAND ABOUT $15 A MONTH, PERHAPS, AND ONLY PAID A $1000 DEDUCTIBLE.

[01:30:03]

HOME INSURANCE PREMIUMS ARE HIGHER THAN FOR A COMPARABLE PROPERTY UPTOWN BECAUSE THERE ARE NO FIRE HYDRANTS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE PAY MORE FOR ELECTRICITY BECAUSE THERE IS WATER SITTING IN A TANK, AND WE REQUIRE ELECTRIC PUMPS INSIDE TO CREATE PRESSURE EVERY TIME WE TURN ON A TAP OR FLUSH.

WHEN THE POWER GOES OUT, IF WE HAVEN'T ALSO INVESTED IN A GENERATOR, WE HAVE NO WATER FOR THE DURATION. SURFACE LINES.

THEY ARE NOT METERED, BUT WE ARE STILL CHARGED FOR THE WATER OVER THE SUMMER BASED ON OUR METERED USAGE THAT WE HAD IN THE WINTER. IT'S AN AVERAGE.

WE ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REDUCE OUR USAGE IN THE SUMMER.

WE WILL PAY WHAT WE PAID THROUGH THE WINTER.

WHICH IS FINE. THAT'S FAIR.

IF YOU WANT TO METER IT, METER IT, BUT WE DO NEED THAT WATER.

WE DON'T HAVE THE OPTION TO CHANGE THE BASIC SETUP OF A TANK SYSTEM.

THEREFORE, IT'S FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR TO PENALIZE RESIDENTS FOR THESE FACTS BEYOND THEIR CONTROL.

WE ALREADY PAY PROPERTY TAXES INCIDENTALLY, SO THE POTENTIAL VALUE OF ANY HOME IS ALSO NOT A FACTOR IN WATER RATES, AND IT CERTAINLY WON'T BE ONCE THE SYSTEM IS SELF-SUFFICIENT, WHICH IT SHOULD BE.

I AGREE. THE CONSULTANT HAS PROVIDED THREE OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION.

I'D LIKE TO REMIND COUNSEL THAT YOU WERE NOT OBLIGED TO ADOPT ANY OF THEM.

I WOULD, IN FACT, URGE YOU TO REJECT ALL OF THEM AS NONE ARE EQUITABLE.

WATER AND SEWER ARE FUNDAMENTAL SERVICES NOT TO BE MISTAKEN FOR A PROFIT AND LOSS UTILITY BUSINESS.

THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE HERE AFFECT LIVES.

CONSCIOUSLY SETTING ASIDE BIASES, ASKING QUESTIONS, AND THINKING IN TERMS OF WHOLE SYSTEMS AND FOR THE LONG TERM ARE KEY.

I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT A COUNSELOR PUT FORWARD A CLEAR MOTION TO DIRECT CITY ADMINISTRATION TO CALCULATE A WATER RATE STRUCTURE, WHICH IS EQUITABLE, INTENDED TO SHARE THE COSTS EQUITABLY BY EACH CLASS AS A WHOLE, REGARDLESS OF DELIVERY METHOD, INCLUDING THAT PIPED, TRUCKED, AND SURFACE LINE DELIVERY WITHIN EACH CLASS, PAY THE SAME MONTHLY ACCESS FEE FOR WATER, AND SEWER AND THEREBY KEEPING IT REASONABLE FOR ALL.

THAT ACCESS FEES AND CONSUMPTION RATES SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED FOR EACH CLASS BASED ON THE COSTS OF SERVICE FOR THAT CLASS AS A WHOLE.

AGAIN, EXAMPLES OF CLASSES ARE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTS.

>> SORRY, JENNIFER, YOU HAVE HIT YOUR FIVE MINUTES.

JUST COUNCILOR GARETT, SECONDED BY COUNCIL SMITH.

ALL IS IN FAVOR. THERE YOU GO.

CARRY ON, SORRY ABOUT THAT.

>> THANK YOU. JUST AGAIN, THE EXAMPLES OF CLASSES ARE BEING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AGRICULTURAL, ET CETERA, AND NOT SUBCATEGORIZED BY MODE OF DELIVERY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION.

JUST ONE CLARIFYING POINT BEFORE WE GET TO QUESTIONS, IS THE CONSULTANT ACTUALLY ONLY PROVIDED ONE OF THE OPTIONS? IT WAS THE COUNCIL WHO ACTUALLY REQUESTED, AND THEN GOT THE ADDITIONAL OPTIONS PROVIDED TO US.

>> OKAY.

>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCIL SMITH?

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I'M GOING TO POSE THE SAME QUESTION THAT I'VE POSED TO EVERYBODY.

OUT OF THE THREE OPTIONS.

WHICH ONE WOULD YOU CHOOSE?

>> GO AHEAD.

>> AS MY PREVIOUS NEIGHBORS AND FELLOW RESIDENTS HAVE ALREADY STATED, I WOULD PREFER A FOURTH OPTION TO BE FULLY FLESHED OUT TO BE CONSIDERED BY COUNSEL.

IF THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE.

I ALSO AGREE THAT THE STATUS QUO IS PUNITIVE.

IF WE TAKE THE CURRENT INEQUITY, AND WE ADD THE INCREASES BY PERCENTAGE.

THE PERCENTAGE OF $43 IS MORE THAN 3% OF 43 IS STILL MORE THAN 3% OF 22.

OVER TIME, THAT WILL JUST KEEP GROWING AND GROWING, AND THIS COUNCIL HAS A YEAR LEFT.

THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS AND YEARS.

IT WOULD BE REALLY GREAT IF WE COULD GET SOME TRACTION AND DO SOMETHING WITH IT NOW.

I HAVE A LOT OF CONFIDENCE IN THIS COUNCIL.

I'LL VOTE FOR A LOT OF YOU AGAIN.

I'LL MAKE YOU GUESS WHICH ONES, EITHER.

>> GOOD ATTEMPT. [LAUGHTER] COUNCIL ARDEN-SMITH.

>> MUSTY, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANKS, JENNIFER. COUNCIL MCLENNAN.

I'M GOING TO GO TO YOU, THERE YOU GO.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH. SAME QUESTION, JUST ABOUT AN EQUIVALENT RATE ENCOURAGING MORE TRUCK DEVELOPMENT, AND JUST YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT CONCERN?

>> I'M NOT REALLY SURE.

I UNDERSTAND THE DRIVE OF THE QUESTION, AND I'VE HEARD IT MANY TIMES ALREADY.

I THINK THAT WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, CORRECT? IT WOULD PROBABLY DEPEND ON THE AREA BEING DEVELOPED, WHETHER OR NOT IT MAKES SENSE FOR THE DEVELOPER TO PUT IN A TRUCKED OR PIPED.

WHAT'S CLOSER, WHAT'S CHEAPER? A WHOLE BUNCH OF VARIABLES ARE INVOLVED.

I DON'T REALLY SEE A DOWNSIDE IF WE THROW ALL OUR COINS ON THE TABLE TO GET A LARGER PIZZA.

INSTEAD OF EACH SUBCATEGORY TRYING TO SCRAMBLE AND PAY FOR ITS PIECE OR SMALL PIZZA.

[01:35:06]

IF THEY DO SOMETHING THAT'S UP TO CODE, AND IT'S GREAT, THEN THAT'S FINE.

SOMETIMES THE TERRAIN DICTATES THAT.

BUT IF IT'S PIPED, THAT'S FINE TOO.

BUT BECAUSE IT'S ONE SYSTEM AND IT'S AN INTEGRATED RATE SYSTEM FOR WHEN I'M TALKING RESIDENTIAL, THEN I DON'T SEE THE PROBLEM.

MAYBE I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.

>> COUNCIL MCLENNAN?

>> YEAH, I ALSO TRY TO, I THINK, BECAUSE A LOT OF THE PRESENTATIONS WE'RE HEARING ARE COMMENTS ABOUT HOW CHALLENGING THE TRUCKED SYSTEM IS, INSURANCE, COST, LIMITATIONS, ALL OF THIS, AND IT COSTS MORE, SO IS A GOAL THEN NOT TO GET MORE PIPE DEVELOPMENT SO THAT PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH ALL THE CHALLENGES OF THAT TRUCKED SYSTEM?

>> JENNIFER?

>> WELL, SURE.

THE NEW SYSTEMS AND NEW TANKS ARE NOT IDEAL.

BUT THE CITY NEEDS TO GROW.

WE NEED TO HAVE HOUSING.

I HAVE A CO-WORKER WITH A YOUNG FAMILY WHO'S JUST MANAGED TO BUY A PLACE, AND THEY BOUGHT IN KHAN BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY COULD AFFORD.

NOT EVERYBODY CAN AFFORD TO LIVE IN A HOUSE ON FINLAYSON.

IF WE HAVE TO BUILD AND WE HAVE TO USE SYSTEMS THAT ARE DIFFERENT, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO PERPETUATE CHARGING TWICE THE PRICE PER LITER OR UP TO THREE TIMES, BUT SAY YOU'RE NOT GOING THERE UP TO TWICE THE PRICE PER LITER OF THE WATER.

THERE ARE A LOT OF VARIABLES TO DETERMINE WHAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT GOES IN.

I DON'T THINK THE COST OF THE WATER IN AND OF ITSELF IS GOING TO BE THE MAKE-OR-BREAK FACTOR FOR A DEVELOPER.

>> COUNCIL MCLENNAN?

>> PUT IN PIPES WHERE YOU CAN. YES, PLEASE. DO THAT.

AWESOME. BUT IF YOU CAN'T, IF TRUCKED IS THE OPTION, THEN GO WITH TRUCKED, AND MAKE SURE IT'S GOOD.

>> SORRY, JENNIFER. JUST BACK TO COUNCIL MCLENNAN.

NO, YOU'RE GOOD. COUNCIL MCLENNAN.

>> THANK YOU. [LAUGHTER].

>> OKAY. THAT'S THE WRAP ON THAT WAY.

COUNCIL FEQUET.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION, AND THANKS TO EVERYONE ELSE WHO HAS PRESENTED.

I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE ADMIN.

WHEN IS THE NEXT ANTICIPATED UPDATE REGARDING PRIORITIES AND THE CITY'S WORK PLAN?

>> CITY MANAGER.

>> NOVEMBER 17TH.

>> ANYTHING FURTHER? NO. COUNCIL COCHRANE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND THANK JENNIFER AND ALL OTHER PRIOR PRESENTERS.

INCREDIBLY INTERESTING. MATERIAL BROUGHT FORWARD.

I HAVE HEARD FROM YOU AND GARETT ON THE SURFACE WATER LINES ABOUT TRYING TO GET THIS DONE WITHIN THIS BUDGET CYCLE.

QUESTION TO THE ADMINISTRATION, REALISTICALLY, HOW MUCH WORK WOULD HAVE TO GO INTO THE ESTIMATION OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SURFACE WATER LINES?

>> MR. VAN DINE.

>> THAT IS LIKELY NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN HAPPEN WITHIN THIS CALENDAR YEAR OR THE BALANCE ON THE MANDATE OF THIS COUNSEL.

>> I THINK THAT'S BEING GENEROUS, COUNCILOR COCHRANE.

>> I THINK THE CITY MANAGER IS BEING GENEROUS THERE. BUT BACK TO YOU.

>> I ENTIRELY CONCUR.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS PUT ON THE RECORD.

EVEN IF WE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO DO THE WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THIS.

THIS, I KNOW, IS A COMMENT; IT'S JUST NOT POSSIBLE.

THERE WILL BE MORE WORK DONE.

IF THE OPTION 3, THAT IS ONE THING THAT WE ALL CONSIDER THROUGH GPC, IT GOES FORWARD.

THERE'S STILL MORE WORK TO BE DONE, AND MORE CONVERSATIONS TO BE HEARD UPON THAT.

BUT I DO APPRECIATE THE CONTINUED ADVOCACY FROM YOU AND ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF TRUCKED ON THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT MATTER.

>> I APPRECIATE YOU KEEPING YOUR NON-QUESTION SHORT.

[LAUGHTER] THANK YOU, COUNCILOR COCHRANE.

WITH THAT, NO OTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, JENNIFER.

WE HAVE REACHED OUR 90-MINUTE MARK ON THE AGENDA.

WE WILL TAKE A 10-MINUTE BREAK FOR OUR COUNCIL PROCEDURES BY LAW, AND WE WILL COME BACK AT 8:50.

WE'RE CALLING OUR MEETING BACK TO ORDER.

PLEASE SIT DOWN.

[BACKGROUND] TAKE YOUR SEATS, EVERYBODY.

PLEASE TAKE YOUR SEATS.

[BACKGROUND] THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[01:40:09]

[BACKGROUND] PLEASE STOP TALKING IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, EVERYBODY. PLEASE AND THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. NEXT UP, WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM MARIE WILSON REGARDING WATER AND SEWER RATES.

[16. A presentation from Marie Wilson regarding Water and Sewer Rates.]

>> SORRY, MARIE, JUST HIT THE BUTTON THERE SO THE GREEN LIGHT COMES ON THE MIC.

>> GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.

THANKS VERY MUCH FOR THE CHANCE TO SPEAK TO YOU.

THANK YOU, COUNCILOR PAY FOR THE GOOD ACKNOWLEDGMENT YOU ARE DOING AS WELL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.

MY NAME IS MARIE WILSON, MY HUSBAND WHO IS ALSO HERE, STEPHEN INKWELL AND I OWN OUR HOME AT TWELVADO DRIVE.

BOTH OF US ARE OLD ENOUGH TO HAVE QUALIFIED YEARS AGO FOR SENIORS DISCOUNTS.

LIFE HAS BEEN HOME FOR NEARLY HALF A CENTURY.

LIKE YOU, WE ARE HELD BY THE BEAUTY OF THE PLACE AND THE KINDNESS STRENGTH AND DETERMINATION OF ITS PEOPLE, THE SENSE OF COMMUNITY, LIVING IN OLD TOWN.

EVERY DAY WE SEE TOURISTS FLOCK TO THIS PART OF TOWN TO SHOPS, RESTAURANTS, PUBS, CAFES, FLOAT PLAINS, SNOW CASTLES, AND CULTURAL FESTIVALS THAT MARK THE HISTORIC IMPORTANCE AND PRESENT DAY VITALITY OF OLD TOWN.

WE SEE IT'S INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT ROLE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE WING OF OTHER PARTS OF OUR ECONOMY.

IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE AT THE HEART OF YELLOWKNIFE TOURISM INDUSTRY.

ALL OF US, BUSINESSES AND HOMEOWNERS ALIKE RELY ON TRUCK WATER SERVICES.

I'VE BEEN A HOMEOWNER AND TAXPAYER FOR NEARLY 45 YEARS.

THROUGHOUT THAT TIME, I'VE ALSO BEEN A FAITHFUL VOTER.

I VOTED FOR MANY OF YOU.

I BELIEVED IN WHAT MOST OF YOU SAID YOU BELIEVED IN, TO SERVE THE CITIZENS OF YELLOWKNIFE RESPONSIBLY, RESPECTFULLY, AND FAIRLY.

NOT ONE OF YOU SAID YOU ONLY INTENDED TO SERVE SOME PARTS OF THE CITY OR SOME CITIZENS.

WE DO NOT HAVE AN ELECTORAL WARD SYSTEM, AND SO EACH ONE OF YOU HAS BEEN ELECTED TO REPRESENT ALL OF US.

TODAY, YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO PUT THAT PROMISE TO THE TEST.

YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO VOTE ON A SERVICE THAT IS ESSENTIAL FOR LIFE AND ACKNOWLEDGED AS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT, WATER.

THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU IS NOT FAIR.

IT ASKS YOU TO CONTINUE A WATER RATE FORMULA THAT PUNISHES THOSE ON TRUCK SERVICES BY CHARGING MORE FOR THEIR WATER THAN FOR OTHER RESIDENTS WHO ARE ON PIPED WATER DELIVERY.

IT'S NOT BECAUSE WE USE MORE WATER, WE DON'T.

MY KIDS WERE RAISED ON IF IT'S YELLOW RABBIT MELLOW.

THEY KNOW NOT TO WASTE WATER.

YOUR OWN NUMBERS SHOW THAT THOSE ON TRUCK SERVICES ACTUALLY CONSUME LESS THAN THOSE ON PIPE SERVICES, YET WE ALREADY PAY MORE THAN A THIRD MORE FOR WHAT WE CONSUME, AND A CONSULTANT HAS LED YOU TO CONSIDER WHETHER WE SHOULD PAY EVEN MORE.

THIS ISSUE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WATER CONSUMPTION COSTS.

IT HAS TO DO WITH WATER DELIVERY COSTS.

IT'S ALSO ABOUT YOUR PROMISE OF FAIRNESS, AND IT'S ABOUT THE RESPONSIBILITY THAT COMES WITH CONTROL.

HOMEOWNERS DON'T CONTROL HOW THE WATER IS DELIVERED.

THE CITY CONTROLS THAT.

YOU CONTROL THAT.

I REJECT THE LOGIC OF ANY CONSULTANT WHO ABUSES THE MEANING OF FAIRNESS TO RECOMMEND THAT A SMALL MINORITY OF RESIDENTS SHOULD BE INCREASINGLY PENALIZED FOR THE COST OF A DELIVERY SYSTEM THEY HAVE NO CONTROL OF OVER.

HOWEVER WE GET IT, WE SHOULD ALL SHOULDER THE TOTAL COSTS TOGETHER OF DELIVERING IT TO EVERYWHERE IT IS NEEDED.

THAT IS COMMUNITY, SUPPORTING EACH OTHER FOR COLLECTIVE NEEDS AND THE COMMON GOOD.

I'VE WITNESSED MANY CHANGES SINCE THE EARLY DECADES OF THIS TERRITORY AND THIS TOWN.

MY HUSBAND AND I BOTH REMEMBER LIVING THROUGH THE EMBARRASSMENT AND HUMILIATION OF HAVING YELLOWKNIFE PAVED ROADS STOP JUST UP THE STREET FROM US AT THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY WITH NDILO.

IT WAS BLATANT DISCRIMINATION, A HUMILIATING BORDER LINE BETWEEN THOSE DEEMED TO BE WORTH THE COST OF PAVEMENT AND OTHERS NOT.

IT TOOK A COMBINATION OF CITIZENS' VOICES AND MUNICIPAL LEADERSHIP TO PUT AN END TO IT.

THIS MOMENT COULD BECOME ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF CITIZENS' VOICES AND MUNICIPAL LEADERSHIP COMING TOGETHER.

IT SHOULD NO LONGER BE ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF DISCRIMINATION WITH SOME CITIZENS GETTING MORE AND PAYING LESS THAN OTHERS.

IT IS A QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE, OF FUNDAMENTAL VALUES, OF FAIRNESS.

TO THOSE RESOLUTION SAYS, THE STATUS QUO IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR NOW. IT IS NOT.

DO NOT SUPPORT IT OR TOLERATE IT BY SIMPLY DELAYING.

[01:45:04]

OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS HAVE OFFERED BOTH PRACTICAL AND TECHNICAL ADVICE ON HOW TO DO THAT, AND I SUPPORT THE MANY GOOD SUGGESTIONS, BUT I'LL CONCLUDE WITH A QUESTION.

GIVEN OUR ECONOMIC FORECAST, WE MAY NO LONGER BE KNOWN AS THE DIAMOND CAPITAL OF NORTH AMERICA.

HOW DO WE WISH TO BE KNOWN FOR YEARS AHEAD? FAR MORE ENJOYING DIAMONDS.

FOR MY CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN, I WANT US TO BE KNOWN AS A CAPITAL CITY THAT UPHOLDS THE AGE OLD VALUES OF COMMUNITY.

>> SORRY, MARIE HIT YOUR FIVE MINUTES.

COUNCIL MCGURK, SECOND BY COUNCIL AVAN SMITH.

>> AGE OR VALUES OF COMMUNITY.

WE WILL MODERNIZE AND UPDATE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE AS NECESSARY.

WE WILL SUPPORT SOLUTIONS THAT CALL ON ALL CITIZENS OF YELLOWKNIFE TO BEAR THEIR FAIR AND EQUAL SHARE OF THE COST TO DO THAT.

WE WILL REJECT ALL PROPOSALS THAT FRACTURE COMMUNITY AND DEFINE THE MEANING OF AFFAIRS.

WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO THE SAME.

I BESEECH YOU FOR LISTENING AND MAY YOU BE WELL GUIDED IN YOUR DECISIONS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM COLLEAGUES? COUNCIL MCCLELLAN?

>> SAME QUESTION AS TO EVERYONE ELSE.

JUST IF THERE'S ONE RATE FOR WATER AND DEVELOPMENT COST FOR TRUCK IS LOWER, JUST RESPONDING TO MY CONCERN THAT THAT WOULD ENCOURAGE MORE TRUCK WATER DEVELOPMENT.

>> MISS WILSON.

>> I'VE BEEN REALLY STRUGGLING WITH YOUR QUESTION BECAUSE I HAVE TO HONESTLY SAY AS CAREFULLY AS I'VE LISTENED, I'M NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.

>> COUNCIL MCCLELLAN.

>> I THINK IT GOES BACK TO SERVICE LEVEL STANDARDS AND WHAT RESIDENTS EXPECT.

I THINK ONE THING THAT I'VE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR FROM RESIDENTS IS THAT THE TRUCK WATER STANDARD ISN'T WHAT RESIDENTS EXPECT.

THAT THEY EXPECT A BETTER SERVICE STANDARD THAN THAT AND THEY WOULD LIKE A BETTER SERVICE STANDARD THAN THAT.

>> IF THE QUESTION IS BETWEEN TRUCK SERVICE OR PIPE SERVICE, I THINK ANYBODY WHO HAS A CHOICE WOULD CHOOSE PIPE SERVICES FOR SURE, BUT WE LIVE IN A LAND OF ROCK AND PRIMA FROST AND THAT'S NOT ALWAYS POSSIBLE.

I THINK THE POINT THAT I'M MAKING IS ONE THAT OTHERS HAVE MADE WELL AND CLEARLY, AND THAT IS ONE OF FAIRNESS THAT HOWEVER IT IS DELIVERED AND HAS TO BE DELIVERED, THAT THE COST BORNE ARE EQUITABLY SHARED.

I'M NOT A DEVELOPER, SO I CAN'T ANSWER TECHNICAL QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

I JUST DON'T CARE ABOUT EXPERTISE.

>> COUNCIL MCCLELLAN?

>> UNDERSTOOD. I THINK IT OUR DECISIONS IN TERMS OF HOW WE SET RATES DOES HAVE AN EFFECT ON HOW DEVELOPERS MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.

I GUESS I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT PRESENTATION.

>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MCCLELLAN.

WE HAVE COUNCIL WARBURTON AND I SAW YOUR HAND UP UNLESS YOU WANT TO GONE.

HANDS DOWN. COUNCIL AVAN SMITH.

>> OPTION 4. [LAUGHTER]

>> YOU ALREADY KNEW AND WHOEVER HAS THAT AMAZING RING TONE, LOVE IT.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MARIE.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION AND THE PRE ANSWER.

THANK YOU, MARIE WILSON. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> NEXT, WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM KATHY ALOULOE.

[17. A presentation from Cathy Allooloo regarding Water and Sewer Rates.]

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE.

COMING NINTH IN QUEUE, SEVERAL POINTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE THAT I WANTED TO MAKE, BUT HERE WE GO.

MY NAME IS KATHERINE ALOULOE.

I'M A 68-YEAR-OLD GRANDMOTHER OF SIX.

I'VE LIVED IN YELLOWKNIFE 45 YEARS, 34 OF THOSE IN BEAUTIFUL OLD TOWN.

SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, I WROTE TO YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, REMINDING YOU THAT THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME, THE ISSUE OF UNFAIR WATER RATES HAS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE COUNCIL, ALBEIT A DIFFERENT COUNCIL AT THE TIME.

THIS MATTER WAS ALREADY ADDRESSED IN APRIL OF 2017 WHEN FLETCHER FROM THE BREW PUB AND I LINKED ARMS AND SOME OF YOU WERE ON COUNCIL AT THIS TIME, YOU RECALL.

COUNCIL RIGHTLY DETERMINED THAT SEGREGATING TRUCK-WATER USERS FOR PUNISHING RATE INCREASES WAS GROSSLY UNFAIR.

IN FACT, COUNCIL OF THE DAY WENT SO FAR AS TO DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO APPLY REFUNDS TO

[01:50:05]

THAT'S HOW STRONGLY COUNCIL FELT THAT ADMINISTRATION HAD GONE IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.

SOME OF YOU WERE THERE AT THE TIME, YOU REMEMBER THIS DECISION.

I ALSO SENT YOU BACK IN JUNE A COPY OF THE 2017 NEWS/NORTH ARTICLE SUMMARIZING AND PRAISING COUNCIL FOR THIS DECISION.

IN 2017, THE MATTER OF TRUCKING WITH WATER RATES WAS DEFERRED AT THE DIRECTION OF COUNCIL UNTIL ADMINISTRATION COULD RETURN TO COUNCIL WITH THE RATE STRUCTURE THAT IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE FOR ALL YELLOWKNIFE WATER USERS.

THERE WAS A MENTION OF A FUNDAMENTAL DISCONNECT.

I THINK IT HAPPENED BACK THEN.

EIGHT YEARS LATER, ADMINISTRATION HIRES A CONSULTANT TO UNDERTAKE A REVIEW OF THE MUNICIPAL WATER RATES.

NOW, REMEMBER, GENERAL DIRECTION OF COUNCIL HAD BEEN TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING FAIR FOR ALL WATER USERS.

SOMEWHERE IN THE PROCESS, COUNCIL'S DIRECTION WAS DISTORTED FROM FAIR FOR ALL TO FAIR FOR ALL, EXCEPT ONE IDENTIFIABLE GROUP THAT BEING TRUCK-WATER USERS.

IT WAS AS IF ADMINISTRATION WAS DOUBLING DOWN AFTER BEING TOLD BY THE COUNCIL TO GO IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

I'M NOT WAIT IN THE WEEDS ON THE NUMBERS.

OTHERS ARE FAR MORE QUALIFIED THAN THAT.

MY ISSUE, AS HAS BEEN PRESENTED BY MANY OF MY NEIGHBORS, IS THE FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE OF DISCRIMINATING AGAINST A PARTICULAR USER GROUP WHEN PROVIDING SUCH AN ESSENTIAL SERVICE AS WATER.

WHAT COUNCIL NEEDS TO DO NOW IS STEP BACK FROM THE NUMBERS AND ASK, IS THIS PHILOSOPHY, ONE WE WANT TO EMBRACE, DIVIDING OUR COMMUNITY IN THE PROVISION OF SOMETHING SO BASIC AND ESSENTIAL AS WATER? THIS APPROACH WILL BE INCONSISTENT TO OTHER UTILITIES THAT ARE PROVIDED IN OUR COMMUNITY.

IN MY OPINION, IF COUNCIL CHANGES DIRECTION ON THIS, THEY'LL HAVE TO GO ON RECORD AS OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF AN EARLIER COUNCIL, AS WELL AS TURNING THEIR BACKS ON THE MANDATES THAT GOT THEM ELECTED, MAKING OUR CITY MORE ATTRACTIVE, MORE AFFORDABLE, INCLUDING FOR SMALL OR TOWN BUSINESSES, WHICH WILL BE HIT HARD BY THE CHANGE ADMINISTRATION HAS RECOMMENDED.

BY THE WAY, AGAIN, TO GET AHEAD OF MISS SMITH'S QUESTION, NONE OF THE THREE OPTIONS PRESENTED BY THE CONSULTANT REFLECT THE ORIGINAL DIRECTION OF COUNCIL.

AS A RESULT, COUNCIL MEMBERS SHOULD FEEL NO OBLIGATION TO CHOOSE ANY OF THEM.

I SUGGEST IT'S TIME FOR COUNCIL TO MAKE A DECISION THAT WILL UNITE OUR COMMUNITY, NOT DIVIDE US.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I WISH YOU WISDOM IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, KATHY.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MY COLLEAGUES? COUNCIL MCCLELLAN.

>> SAME QUESTION. JUST REFLECTING ON THE INCENTIVES CREATED BY [OVERLAPPING].

>> I'M VERY THANKFUL THERE WERE OTHERS WENT BEFORE ME BECAUSE I SHARE MARIE'S CONFUSION OVER THE QUESTION AND ITS INTENT.

I SEE THIS AS A COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUE THAT I'M SURE COUNCIL WILL DELIBERATE ON AND FIND WAYS TO WORK WITH DEVELOPERS TO MAKE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS THAT ARE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY.

THIS ISSUE IS ABOUT MORE THAN MONEY.

IT'S ABOUT FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT IN MY OPINION, WATER.

I'M SURE THAT COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATION CAN WORK OUT SOME OPTIONS TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF PIPE WATER OVER TRUCK WATER.

THERE'S MORE INVOLVED IN SAY, JUST WATER, THERE'S INSURANCE.

SEVERAL OF MY FRIENDS HERE HAVE PRESENTED HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO MANAGE TRUCK WATER FOR MANY DIFFERENT REASONS.

I COULD SEE THAT PIPE WATER WOULD BE MORE ATTRACTIVE.

PERHAPS PEOPLE WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY MORE FOR A UTILITY THAT GIVES THEM MORE IN RETURN.

I'M NOT SURE IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, AS I SAY, I'M STRUGGLING A BIT WITH THE PREMISE.

>> UNDERSTOOD. THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION AND THAT ANSWER.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> I HAVE STILL TIME, REALLY QUICKLY.

>> UNFORTUNATELY. ONCE YOUR PRESENTATIONS AND THE QUESTIONS HAPPEN, THAT'S THE ORDER OF THINGS. UNFORTUNATELY.

[01:55:01]

>> THAT'S FINE.

>> NOT TODAY, KATHY. APOLOGIES FOR THAT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION, THOUGH.

NEXT PRESENTATION IS FROM HOWL LOGSTAN.

[Additional Item 1]

>> THANK YOU. I'M SURE SOMEBODY IN THIS ROOM KNOWS WHO WON THE BALL GAME TONIGHT AND IF YOU DO, PLEASE DON'T TELL ME, I HAVE A TAPING AT HOME AND I'D LIKE TO BE SURPRISED.

>> SAME HERE, SIR GO AHEAD.

>> MY NAME IS HOWL LOGSTAN.

I CAME TO YELLOWKNIFE 1974.

MY WIFE, BONNIE AND I HAVE ALWAYS LIVED IN WILLOW FLATS IN THE OLD TOWN, WHERE WE RENTED HOUSES, OWNED A HOUSE, DEMOLISHED THAT HOUSE, BUILT A NEW HOUSE.

THE OPTIONS REGARDING WATER AND SEWAGE RATES BEING CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL ARE QUITE CONCERNING TO US BECAUSE ALL THREE OF THE OPTIONS THAT YOU'RE ASKED TO DELIBERATE ON TONIGHT ARE IN OUR OPINION PATENTLY UNFAIR.

THE SUPPLY OF WATER AND DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE ARE FUNDAMENTAL SERVICES THAT IMPACT THE HEALTH AND WELL BEING OF RESIDENTS.

THE EFFICIENT AND EQUITABLE SUPPLY OF THESE SERVICES MUST BE A PRIORITY OF EVERY MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT, BUT DUE LARGELY TO A RAG TAG DEVELOPMENT HISTORY AND THE GEOLOGICAL GEOGRAPHY OF YELLOWKNIFE, TWO DISTINCT MODES OF WATER AND SEWAGE SERVICE HAVE EVOLVED.

ONE RELIES ON THE DELIVERY OF WATER AND DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE BY PIPED INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE CITY.

WHILE THE OTHER PROVIDES FOR THE DELIVERY OF WATER AND REMOVAL OF SEWAGE VIA A TRUCK.

WITH THE STORAGE HEATING AND PRESSURE INFRASTRUCTURE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNER, THE PIPE SYSTEM COSTS ARE CONSIDERABLY LOWER THAN TRUCK SERVICES BECAUSE THE CAPITAL COST OF PIPE WATER AND SEWAGE INFRASTRUCTURE IS NORMALLY CAPTURED THROUGH THE SALE OF A LOT.

A PATCHWORK RATE SYSTEM OVER THE YEARS AND EFFORTS TO RECOVER COST RELATED TO THE MODE OF DELIVERY HAS RESULTED IN TRUCK SERVICE HOUSEHOLDS PAYING MORE FOR A LOWER LEVEL OF SERVICE, AND AS WELL, AN OVERALL DEFICIT FOR THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE ON THE WATER ACCOUNT.

COUNCIL IS NOW BEING ASKED TO APPROVE ONE OF THREE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE COST RECOVERY OF WATER AND SEWER SERVICES TO RESIDENTS.

THE PROBLEM WITH ALL THREE OF THE ALTERNATIVES IS THE INCLUSION OF MODE OF SERVICE AS A SERVICE CLASS AND THE RESULTANT RECOVERY OF COST BY A SERVICE CLASS.

THE INCLUSION OF BILLING CLASSES LIKE RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AGRICULTURE, ETC, CAN BE JUSTIFIED IN MANY CASES AS THE USES OF THE UTILITY ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT.

>> HOWEVER, IT MAKES NO SENSE TO USE THE MODE OF DELIVERY AS A BILLING CLASS.

WATER IS JUST AS IMPORTANT, IS USED IN THE SAME MANNER AND IS JUST AS CRITICAL TO THE WELL-BEING OF A HOUSEHOLD ON LATHAM ISLAND, AS IT IS TO A FRAME LAKE HOUSEHOLD.

COST RECOVERY BY MODE OF SERVICE WILL RADICALLY RAISE FEES FOR TRUCK SERVICE HOUSEHOLDS AND FURTHER WIDEN THE GAP BETWEEN LEVEL OF SERVICE AND FEES BETWEEN PIPED AND DELIVERY CUSTOMERS.

NONE OF THE THREE OPTIONS BEING CONSIDERED TONIGHT ARE FAIR.

IT'S TIME TO ABOLISH SEPARATE RATE CLASSES FOR PIPED AND TRUCK SERVICES AND DESIGN A SIMPLE MONTHLY FEE PLUS A COST PER LITER SYSTEM FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL USERS THAT ELIMINATES THE CURRENT DEFICIT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM COLLEAGUES? COUNCILOR ARDEN SMITH?

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

AGAIN, I POSE THE SAME QUESTION TO YOU.

HOWEVER, YOU DID ALREADY ANSWER, BUT IT'S JUST FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO HEAR.

OUT OF THE THREE OPTIONS, WHAT WOULD YOU CHOOSE?

>> PARDON ME.

>> OUT OF THE THREE OPTIONS PRESENTED BY ADMINISTRATION TO COUNSEL, WHAT WOULD YOU CHOOSE?

>> GOT IT. I THINK ALL THREE OPTIONS, AS I SAID PREVIOUSLY, ARE PATENTLY UNFAIR.

THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM.

THAT IS, THEY'RE USING DELIVERY METHOD

[02:00:02]

THERE ARE A LOT OF WAYS YOU CAN SLICE AND DICE THINGS, BUT THAT ONE JUST SIMPLY ISN'T APPROPRIATE.

WATER IS THE SAME COMMODITY FOR SOMEBODY THAT GETS IT DELIVERED BY A TRUCK AS IT IS BY SOMEBODY THAT GETS IT DELIVERED BY A PIPE.

WHY SHOULD THEY PAY MORE BECAUSE THE COST OF IT IS MORE? IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT THAT WE HAVE ROCK.

IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT THAT WE CAN'T RECOUP THE CAPITAL COSTS LIKE WE CAN WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW SUBDIVISION.

IT'S EASY IF YOU BUILD A NEW SUBDIVISION AND YOU SAY, WELL, WE'RE JUST GOING TO ROLL THE CAPITAL COST OF THE PIPE SERVICE RIGHT INTO THE COST OF A LOT, AND IT'S DONE WITH.

YOU SAY IF THE CITY COMES TO ME AND SAYS, WELL, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE PIPE SERVICES? IT'S GOING TO COST $30,000 FOR YOUR SHARE OF THE NEW INFRASTRUCTURE.

I'M NOT GOING TO BE TERRIBLY EXCITED ABOUT DOING THAT.

IT'S NOT A MONEY THING, IT'S A MATTER OF YOU'VE CUT UP THE LEVEL OF SERVICE IN A MOST INAPPROPRIATE WAY, GIVEN THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SYSTEM.

>> COUNCILOR ARDEN SMITH?

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> JUST ONE QUESTION FOR MYSELF, IT'S SOMETHING, AND I APOLOGIZE YOU THE FIRST ONE I'VE ASKED TOO, BUT IT'S JUST NEAR THE END, AND IT'S SITTING ON MY BRAIN.

PRIOR TO THIS WATER AND SEWER REVIEW COMING TO COUNCIL THIS YEAR, I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM ANY RESIDENTS IN OUR TERM ON COUNCIL ABOUT THIS DISPARITY.

I GUESS MY QUESTION IS THIS, WHAT IS IT ABOUT THESE RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH THE RECOMMENDATION IN THE MOTION IN FRONT OF US IS TO NOT CHANGE THE RATIO BETWEEN ANY USERS? IT'S TO MAINTAIN THAT RATIO.

THE OPTION IN FRONT OF US IS MAINTAIN THE RATIO BETWEEN ALL USERS AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS AND TO THEN DEAL WITH BILLING COMPLICATIONS SO THAT WE ALSO THEN FUND THE SYSTEM FULLY.

I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IN OUR TERM ON COUNSEL SO FAR, WE HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY BRING UP THIS QUESTION OF FAIRNESS, THIS QUESTION OF TRUCK VERSUS PIPE SEPARATE FROM THIS.

I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, WHAT IS IT ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL, THIS MOTION BEFORE COUNCIL, TONIGHT, THAT DOESN'T AFFECT THE RATIO AS IT'S BEEN FOR SEVERAL YEARS THAT IS BRINGING YOURSELF OUT TONIGHT?

>> WELL, IF YOU BASICALLY HIRED A CONSULTANT FOR WHAT I ASSUME IS A FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY TO TAKE A VERY CLOSE LOOK AT THE WAY YOU'RE BILLING FOR THIS COMMODITY.

HE HASN'T REALLY PUT HIS FINGER ON THE PROBLEM.

THAT'S WHAT ANNOYS ME MORE THAN ANYTHING.

IT'S ALWAYS ANNOYED ME TO A CERTAIN EXTENT.

BUT NOW YOU'VE SPENT ALL THIS MONEY TO BASICALLY TRY AND JUSTIFY WHAT YOU'VE ALWAYS BEEN DOING, WHICH IS USING THE WRONG CLASSES OF SERVICE FOR THIS COMMODITY.

IT'S LIKELY TO GET WORSE.

IT COULD POSSIBLY GET VERY MUCH WORSE.

IF ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU DECIDE THAT NEW LOTS ARE GOING TO BE ALL ON TRUCK SERVICES, THEN THE WHOLE THING STARTS TO CUMULATIVELY GET LARGER AND LARGER.

IF YOU DECIDE TO GET RID OF THE SO-CALLED LEGACY SUMMER WATER SYSTEM AND PUT US ON PIPES ON DELIVERY SERVICES FOR 12 MONTHS OF THE YEAR, IT'S GOING TO MAKE IT WORSE.

IT'S NOT JUST THAT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN LIKE THAT, BUT PERPETUATING IT, STUDYING IT, COMING UP WITH THE SAME PROBLEM, INTRODUCING THE SAME PROBLEM ALL OVER AGAIN.

THEN YOU CAN SEE THE STORM CLOUDS ON THE HORIZON.

THAT'S MY BEEF WITH IT.

>> NO, I APPRECIATE THAT.

>> IT'S ALWAYS BEEN UNFAIR.

>> TOTALLY. IT'S A GENUINE QUESTION THAT'S COME UP AS I'VE BEEN LISTENING TO PRESENTATIONS, AND THEN AS YOU WERE TALKING, I POPPED MY HEAD, SO I APPRECIATE THE RESPONSE.

QUESTION FROM ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILOR MCLENNAN?

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL TRY TO MODIFY MY QUESTION JUST TO TRY TO GET AT THE HEART OF IT A LITTLE BIT, AND YOU TALKED ABOUT MORE TRUCK DEVELOPMENT AND THE ISSUE GETTING LARGER IF THE RATES STAY AS THERE.

DO YOU THINK FUNDAMENTALLY THAT THE CITY SHOULD TRY AND PUT IN PLACE INCENTIVES OR DISINCENTIVES AGAINST TRUCK WATER? BASICALLY, SHOULD THE CITY TRY TO BE PUTTING IN CONDITIONS THAT WILL DEVELOP PIPE RATHER THAN TRUCK?

[02:05:02]

>> WELL, I GUESS IT DEPENDS ON THE PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.

I COULD THROW THE QUESTION BACK TO COUNSEL AND SAY WHAT PROMPTED YOU TO PUT TRUCK WATER IN THE GRACE LAKE DEVELOPMENT? NORMALLY, WHEN YOU DEVELOP A NEW SUBDIVISION, YOU INCLUDE THE COSTS OF THE WATER AND SEWAGE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE LOT PRICE, AND YOU RECOUP IT RIGHT UP FRONT.

WHY DIDN'T YOU DO IT IN GRACE LAKE? WHAT FACTORS DID YOU CONSIDER IN THAT DECISION THAT MADE YOU CHOOSE TRUCKED OVER PIPED?

>> COUNCILOR MCLENNAN, IT'S A BIT OF AN UNFAIR QUESTION, CONSIDERING YOU WEREN'T ON COUNSEL AT THE TIME, BUT BACK TO YOU.

>> WELL, I JUST THROW THAT OUT IS [OVERLAPPING] IF YOU WANT TO ANSWER FOR ME, I THINK THE ANSWER IS, IT DEPENDS OF WHAT MAKES SENSE GIVEN THE SITUATION.

IT'S MAYBE THE DISTANCE THAT YOU HAVE TO RUN THE TRUNK LINE OUT TO CONNECT TO HIM.

IT MIGHT BE BECAUSE YOU SIMPLY DON'T THINK YOU CAN MARKET THOSE LOTS IF YOU ADD A CAPITAL COST INTO IT.

THERE MAY BE OTHER FACTORS.

BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S A HARD AND FAST ANSWER.

>> FOR CLARITY, I WASN'T ACTUALLY THROWING THE QUESTION BACK TO YOU, COUNCILOR MCLENNAN, BECAUSE IT'S QUESTIONS FROM YOU TO PRESENTERS, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

BUT I WAS JUST NOTING THAT.

BUT COUNCILOR MCLENNAN, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

>> NO. THANK YOU. I UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION.

I GUESS JUST QUICKLY, DO YOU FEEL LIKE HAVING AN INTER-CLASS RATE, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE RATIO IS, DO YOU THINK THAT HAS AN IMPACT ON DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS THAT DEVELOPERS OR HOME BUYERS MAKE?

>> GO AHEAD, SIR.

>> YES, SIR. I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.

>> DO YOU WANT TO TAKE ANOTHER CRACK AT A COUNCILOR MCLENNAN?

>>SURE. ONE MORE TIME.

IF IT'S CLEARLY KNOWN BY RESIDENTS AND DEVELOPERS THAT TRUCK LOTS WILL BE CHEAPER TO DEVELOP UP FRONT, BUT THEN COST MORE OPERATIONALLY.

DO YOU THINK THAT WILL CHANGE PEOPLE'S DECISIONS OR NOT?

>> FOR THE BUYER OF THE LOT? ARE WE TALKING NEW DEVELOPMENT HERE?

>> THAT'S WHAT COUNCILOR MCLENNAN'S GETTING AT.

>> FOR THE BUYER OF THE LOT?

>> CORRECT.

>> I THINK THE OLD REAL ESTATE ADAGE OF LOCATION, IS THE TRUMP THERE.

THAT'S THE TRUMP CARD.

PEOPLE USUALLY BUY HOUSES BECAUSE OF LOCATION.

THAT BASICALLY TRUMPS OTHER ASPECTS.

I DON'T THINK PEOPLE ARE LOOKING SO MUCH FOR WHAT THE COST OF WATER IS GOING TO BE OR WHETHER OR NOT ONE MODE IS PREFERABLE OVER ANOTHER.

PERSONALLY, I'M QUITE HAPPY WITH MY SYSTEM ON PIPE OR ON DELIVERED WATER, AND I MAINTAIN MY OWN SEWAGE TANK AND MY OWN WATER TANK.

I KNOW HOW TO FIX IT.

I'VE NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEM WITH IT.

I DIDN'T BUILD MY HOUSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH AN EYE TO THAT AT ALL.

>> COUNCILOR MCLENNAN, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

>> NO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

>> THANK YOU.

>> WE HAVE ONE FINAL PRESENTATION FROM ZINA MISKOVICH.

[Additional Item 2]

>> I WILL SET UP MY FIVE MINUTES.

IT APPEARS I'M THE ONLY ONE PIPED SERVICE PRESENTER BECAUSE MOST OF THE PEOPLE THEY DON'T REALIZE THAT TONIGHT IS THE NIGHT WHEN CITY COUNCIL WILL ACTUALLY DECIDE ABOUT HOW TO CHARGE FOR WATER.

THEY WERE SURPRISED AND DIDN'T PAY ATTENTION.

I WANT TO COMMENT ON PROPOSALS REGARDING THE COST OF TRUCKED WATER AND SEWER.

MY COMMENTS ARE BASED ON THE ARTICLE IN CABIN RADIO.

I TRIED TO READ THE CONSULTANT REPORT, BUT I DIDN'T GET FAR, SO I STUCK WITH THE CABIN RADIO.

THERE ARE THOSE THREE OPTIONS.

PLEASE NOTE THAT IT'S MUCH CHEAPER AND FASTER TO DEVELOP BUILDING LOTS WITH TRUCKED WATER AND SEWER THAN THE ONES WITH PIPED WATER AND SEWER.

THERE IS ALSO MORE OPTIONS FOR LOCATIONS, WHICH PEOPLE CHOOSE.

[02:10:02]

THIS DISCREPANCY IS IN THE PRICE OF THE BUILDING LOT CONTINUES INTO TAX ASSESSMENTS.

IF MY FULLY SERVICE LOT IS MORE EXPENSIVE, I WILL PAY ALSO MORE TAXES.

ONE SAVES MONEY ON THE COST OF THE BUILDING LOT, BUT THEN HAS TO SPEND IT ON TANKS AND DELIVERY OF THE WATER.

BUT THE LOCATION MAY DECIDE.

I AGREE WITH COUNSEL OR BARBERTON THAT TRUCKED WATER AND SEWER USERS SHOULD COVER THE COST OF THEIR WATER AND SEWER DELIVERERS 100%.

THESE USERS ENJOYED LOWER COSTS FOR YEARS, PAYING ONLY 68% OF THE REAL COST OF THIS SERVICE.

THIS IS REGARDING THE ARTICLE IN CABIN RADIO.

HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE? WHEN I LOOKED ON THE COST PER CUBIC METER OF WATER, TENT SERVICE IS 456 CUBIC METER OF WATER IS FOR 150 FOOT PIPE.

BUT THE COST FOR THE TRUCKED SERVICE INCLUDES ALSO SEWER.

THEY DON'T JUST DELIVER THE WATER; SOMEBODY HAS TO REMOVE THE SEWER.

MOST PEOPLE WOULD PREFER PIPELINES, BUT SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY FOR IT.

IN LATHAM ISLAND, I BELIEVE, KEVIN HODGINS' ENGINEERS, HE COULD SAY, BECAUSE IT'S POSSIBLE TO USE UTILIDORS.

IF YOU HAVE ROCK SERVICE, YOU COULD USE UTILIDOR.

BUT ALL THIS, IF YOU WANT TO UPGRADE YOUR SERVICES AND YOU'RE NOT HAPPY WITH YOUR TANK SERVICE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO ALL YOUR NEIGHBORS TO AGREE AND AGREE ON THE COST OF BUILDING THIS UTILIDOR.

UTILIDOR IS CHEAPER THAN BURIED WATER PIPE AND SEWER.

THE ACTUALLY DIFFERENCE BEFORE WHEN TRUCKED SERVICE PEOPLE PAY THEIR UTILITY BILL.

THE DIFFERENCE IS ACTUALLY ONLY $35.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS HUGE PAYMENT, HOW MUCH THEY SPEND ON THE TRUCK SERVICES, IS.

BECAUSE WE HAVE TO PIPE WATER, WE HAVE TO PAY $53.50 BEFORE ANY WATER.

THE TRUCK SERVICE HAS TO PAY 88.50.

THE DIFFERENCE IS $35.

IT'S NOT HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS, AND YOU PAY FOR THE LOCATION.

THAT'S WHAT THERE IS TO IT.

BUT I THINK THE PIPE SERVICE PEOPLE WILL BE SURPRISED THAT TONIGHT WILL BE MADE THE DECISION THAT NOBODY LIKE TO PAY $22, THAT'S FROM CABIN RADIO CALCULATION, TOWARDS SERVICES.

THE TRUCK SERVICE, THEY WILL PAY, I THINK LESS 40 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THE THING IS, THE MONEY DOESN'T COME FROM THE HEAVEN, AND IF YOU WANT TO HAVE PIPED SERVICE, SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY FOR IT.

HAVE THE UTILIDOR THEN BUILT.

THE CONSULTANT HAS NOT SENTIMENTAL ISSUE WITH HIS REPORT.

HE JUST STATED THE FACTS.

THE COST SHOULD BE FULLY COVERED.

THEY SHOULD PAY JUST 100% LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

THE LAND SERVICE IS POSSIBLE, BUT IT COSTS MORE, AND SOMEBODY WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.

I HOPE I WAS VERY BRAVE TO STAY UNTIL THE END.

[LAUGHTER]

>> BRAVE AND SLEEPY, BUT YOU'RE GOOD.

>> NO. I GO TO BED, USUALLY, OH, IT'S PAST MY BEDTIME.

[LAUGHTER]

>> BEFORE WE GET THERE, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MY COLLEAGUES?

>> I FORGOT TO SAY I'M 43-YEAR RESIDENT OF YELLOWKNIFE, AND I REMEMBER THAT THE LOT, WHICH WAS ON TANKS, WAS 40,000, AND THE LOT SERVICED WAS 80,000.

IT'S JUST MUCH CHEAPER, BUT THEN LATER YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.

>> COUNCILOR MCLENNAN. QUESTION?

>> MY THING DIDN'T BEEP.

HOW MANY MINUTES DID I USE?

>> YOU HAD 20 SECONDS LEFT.

[OVERLAPPING]

>> BUT I DIDN'T SHAKE IT, SO I DIDN'T WORK. [LAUGHTER]

>> JUST ONE SECOND.

COUNCILOR MCLENNAN HAS A QUESTION FOR YOU.

>> GO AHEAD. COUNCILOR MCLENNAN.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION. SIMILAR QUESTION.

DO YOU THINK THAT THE CITY SHOULD TRY AND CREATE

[02:15:01]

>> GO AHEAD, MA'AM.

>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW.

THE RESIDENTS PROBABLY HAVE TO DECIDE AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD, DO WE WANT PIPED WATER OR BECAUSE THE TRUCKED WATER TAKES MORE PEOPLE TO DELIVER, TO PUMP OUT, SO THERE IS MORE LABOR ACTIVITIES, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW DO YOU WANT TO GET OVER IT.

AS I SAID, THE LOCATION, THE DEVELOPMENT THE LATEST ONE.

I WAS SURPRISED TO FIND OUT THAT THEY HAVE TANKS, BUT THEY WANTED TO HAVE THE VIEW, AND THE LOTS WERE CHEAPER THAN TO HAVE THE PIPES INSTALLED.

I DON'T KNOW HOW IT SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE TO SOLVE THIS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILOR MCLENNAN. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

>> NO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION.

>> ONE MORE QUESTION OR TWO MORE QUESTIONS FROM COUNSEL SMITH AND THEN COUNCILLOR WARBURTON. COUNCILLOR ARDEN-SMITH.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

OF THE THREE OPTIONS THAT ADMINISTRATION BROUGHT FORWARD TO COUNCIL, WHICH ONE WOULD YOU CHOOSE?

>> I WOULD CHOOSE 100% THE FIRST ONE WHICH ROB WARBURTON SAID, JUST PAY FOR YOUR SERVICES AND THEN COMPLAIN.

IF THEY BRING YOU DIRTY WATER, THEN COMPLAIN TO THE CITY OR IF THEY MISS DELIVERY.

I KNOW IT'S NOT EASY, BUT IT'S JUST CHEAPER AND YOU CAN BUILD YOUR HOUSE ALMOST WHEREVER YOU WANT.

YOU CAN BUILD IT ON TOP OF THE HILL RIGHT BY THE LAKE.

WHEN I ASKED ALL THESE PEOPLE, MY NEIGHBORS, THEY WERE FREAKING OUT.

WHAT? WE SHOULD PAY TOWARD THEIR SERVICES, NO WAY, BUT NOBODY SHOWED UP TODAY, ONLY ME.

I DON'T THINK THAT THEY REALIZED WHAT'S ACTUALLY GOING ON.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT COUNCILLOR ARDEN-SMITH.

>> THANK YOU.

>> JUST FOR CLARITY AS WELL, FOR ANYBODY.

WATCHING AND READING PAPERS, IT WAS OPTION 2 AND IT WOULD ONLY ACTUALLY BE UP TO 90%, NOT 100%, BUT JUST FOR CLARITY.

THAT'S THE MOST. THAT'S THE HIGHEST LEVEL, I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE THAT FOR ANYBODY WATCHING.

>> OPTION 1 WAS THE ONE, WHICH WAS FIRST ONE IN CABIN RADIO AND ROB WARBURTON.

>> I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT IT'S NOT 100% IT'S ACTUALLY UP TO 90%.

I CAN SHOW YOU. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR IF ANYBODY'S WATCHING. COUNCILLOR WARBURTON.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, APPRECIATED PRESENTATION, THANK YOU, SOME OF THE CONTEXT, WHAT THE PLANER IS REFERENCING.

I WANT THE SYSTEM TO 100% COVER ITS COST.

IT NEEDS TO DO THAT.

HOW WE DO THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, OR IT'S NOT A CONVERSATION OF, YES, WE ARE GOING TO RECOVER COSTS.

WE HAVE TO EITHER THROUGH TAXATION OR UTILITY CHARGES.

MY COMMENT WAS BASED ON 100% COST RECOVERY.

OUR CONVERSATION AND MY VOTE WAS AROUND HOW.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT.

>> NO, IT'S GOOD. JUST PROVIDING THAT ADDITIONAL CONTEXT.

IT'S IMPORTANT MORE FOR THE PEOPLE FROM CBC AND CABIN RADIO WHO SOMETIMES WATCH AND COMMENT ON THIS.

THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU, MY COLLEAGUES FOR THE QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU AGAIN. WITH THAT, WE COME TO THE END OF OUR PRESENTATIONS.

NEXT, WE MOVE ON TO MEMBER STATEMENTS.

THERE WERE NO MEMBER STATEMENTS FOR THE AGENDA.

ARE THERE ANY MEMBER STATEMENTS FROM THE FLOOR? SEEING NONE.

[Items 20 & 21]

COUNCILLOR PAYNE WILL INTRODUCE THE FOLLOWING REPORTS, GOVERNANCE AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE REPORT FOR OCTOBER 14TH, 2025. COUNCILLOR PAYNE.

>> I MOVE THAT COUNCIL ONE APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE WATER AND SEWER RATE STRUCTURE AND DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO BRING FORWARD THE NECESSARY AMENDING BYLAWS THAT, A, MAINTAIN THE CURRENT REVENUE TO COST COVERAGE, THE RCC RATIO FOR ALL CUSTOMERS WHILE APPLYING AN EQUAL PERCENTAGE RATE ACROSS THE BOARD, B, INCLUDE A 3% INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENT IN 2028, C, SEPARATE WATER AND SEWER RATE, D, SIMPLIFIES RATES BY ELIMINATING THE EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT, THE ERU CHARGE.

SECTION 2A, DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO INCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF SUBSIDIES FOR AGRICULTURAL USES AND MULTI-RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE WORK PLAN GARDEN PLOT

[02:20:01]

FINALLY, B, DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO INCLUDE A REVIEW OF THE FUTURE STATE OF THE SURFACE WATER LINES AND TRUCK SUBCATEGORIES FOR RESIDENTIAL, MULTI-RESIDENTIAL, AND COMMERCIAL IN THE WORK PLAN GARDEN PLOT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILLOR PAYNE.

CAN I GET A SECONDER? COUNCILLOR MCGURK.

ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? COUNCILLOR WARBURTON IS OUT OF THE GATE, YOU'RE UP FIRST.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE MOTION AS PRESENTED, I WON'T BE SUPPORTING.

FOLKS KEEP TALKING ABOUT THIS STARTING 2017.

WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT FOR YEARS AND I THINK THIS MOTION DOES EXACTLY WHAT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WANTS AND IT JUST KICKS IT DOWN THE ROAD AGAIN.

I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS CONSTANT REVISITING OF THIS ISSUE.

I CAN'T.

THIS MOTION JUST DOES THAT.

IT JUST PUSHES IT OFF YET AGAIN, MAINTAINS FISCAL, I THINK IRRESPONSIBILITY GOING FORWARD.

IT JUST DOESN'T ADDRESS THE CORE PROBLEM.

WE'RE JUST PUNTING IT DOWN THE ROAD AGAIN AND I'M NOT DOING THAT, SO I WON'T SUPPORT IT. THANKS.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR WARBURTON. COUNCILLOR MCGURK.

>> THANK YOU. I'VE READ DOZENS AND DOZENS OF EMAILS, SOME COPY PASTE, SOME THOUGHTFUL, EVEN SOME COMPELLING.

WE'VE HEARD PRESENTATIONS, READ REPORTS, REVIEWED OTHER MUNICIPAL POLICIES.

I'VE APPRECIATED THE MEANINGFUL CONTRIBUTIONS OF RESIDENTS THIS CONVERSATION, INCLUDING WHAT WE'VE HEARD THIS EVENING.

THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING.

I'VE TRIED TO REFLECT ON THIS WITH DUE DILIGENCE AND HONESTLY, I'M STILL NOT SURE THAT I WILL MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION.

FAIR WARNING I'M GOING TO SAY THE WORD EQUITY A LOT IN THE NEXT FEW MINUTES.

EQUITY OR SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY IS DEFINED AS A FAIRNESS, OF FREEDOM OF BIAS OR FAVORITISM IN THE WAY THAT PEOPLE ARE TREATED, WHEREAS FORMAL EQUITY IS CONCERNED WITH THE DELIVERY OF EQUAL RIGHTS OR CONDITIONS AND CONCERNED WITH FAIRNESS, JUSTICE, OR ANY PRINCIPLE BEYOND EQUAL SHARE.

WE KNOW THE COST VERSUS IMPACT TO A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF NON HOUSEHOLDERS THAT IS PEOPLE WHO DO NOT OWN A HOME IS MORE THAN THE COST TO TRUCK USERS, REGARDLESS OF WHOSE BILL COMES OUT HIGHER AT THE END OF THE MONTH.

WE CONTRIBUTE MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE TO THESE UTILITIES.

AS AN ASIDE, ANY ARGUMENT THAT THESE PEOPLE DO NOT PAY THEIR OWN UTILITY BILL IS ABSURD.

NO COMMERCIAL LANDLORD IS AFFORDING THEIR TENANTS LUXURY OF FORGOING OPERATIONAL COSTS LIKE UTILITY BILLS AND TAXES.

THE MAJORITY OF RENTERS IN OUR COMMUNITIES USE PIPED WATER, WHILE THOSE WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO PURCHASE HOMES ON TRUCKED WATER HAVE SUFFICIENT MEANS TO OWN LAND.

A HOME IS AN INVESTMENT, AN ASSET, AND UNDER CAPITALISM, IT IS A PRIVILEGE.

IN AN EQUITABLE SYSTEM, YOUR MEANS SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE DO NOT HAVE A MECHANISM WITH WHICH TO MEANS TEST FEE COLLECTION FOR WATER AND SEWER SERVICES.

THE STATUS QUO IS UNQUESTIONABLY PROBLEMATIC ON MULTIPLE FRONTS.

THIS ISSUE FOR ME IS ENTIRELY CENTERED AROUND HOW WE PAY FOR THIS AND THE CURRENT ABSENCE OF A MEANINGFUL WAY TO SET TRULY EQUITABLE AND STANDARDIZED FEES FOR THESE SERVICES.

WHILE YOU SHAKE YOUR HEAD AT MY RADICAL ANTI CAPITALIST RHETORIC, WE STILL LIVE UNDER CAPITALISM.

MY WORRY IS THAT IN ALL OF THIS, THE CRIES FOR EQUITY FROM LIFE RESIDENTS DOES NOT INVOLVE THOSE WITH LESS RATHER THAN THOSE WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO MAKE AN INVESTMENT ON A PROPERTY WITH TENUOUS SERVICE DELIVERY.

VIRTUALLY EVERYONE WHO OWNS A HOME HAS PURCHASED IT AS AN INVESTMENT FINANCIALLY OR OTHERWISE, AND GOVERNMENTS ROLE IS NOT TO GUARANTEE THEIR INVESTMENT IS GOOD FOREVER.

IF THAT'S DISAPPOINTING TO YOU, THEN I AGREE.

[LAUGHTER] I'VE BEEN FEELING VERY UNNERVED AT HOW MY COMMUNITY IS THROWING AROUND THE WORD EQUITY.

THOUGH IT COULD DO, MANY PRESENTERS HAVE ALLAYED SOME OF THAT CONCERN TONIGHT. THANK YOU.

STILL, THE ESSENCE OF WHAT I'VE HEARD IN THIS ROOM AND EMAIL AFTER EMAIL IS A REQUEST FOR FORMAL EQUALITY AND NOT SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY WHICH I DO NOT SUPPORT.

ASKING US TO ELIMINATE TRUCKED WATER FEES WITHOUT DUE CONSIDERATION IS TO ASK US TO INCREASE INEQUALITY TO GREATER NUMBER OF RESIDENTS THAN ARE CURRENTLY RECEIVING TRUCK SERVICES.

ONE PRESENTER OBSERVED THAT THIS CONVERSATION RISKS BECOMING DIVISIVE, MAYBE AFTER THIS, SOME MEMBERS OF MY COMMUNITY WILL QUESTION MY VALUES OR TAKE THIS TO ME AND WE SHARE NO VALUES AT ALL.

AS I'M SPEAKING CRITICALLY, SAYS MORE ABOUT MY CHARACTER THAN HOLDING RESENTMENT OVER THOSE SAME COMMENTS.

ESPECIALLY WHEN MEDIA ISOLATES A SINGLE COMMENT.

LET IT AT LEAST BE A CONVINCING ONE, PLEASE.

WHATEVER CHOICE COUNCIL MAKES HERE, PLEASE UNDERSTAND, WE HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT IT.

WE HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT YOU. WE HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT OTHER RESIDENTS.

WE HAVE WEIGHED MANY VARIABLES.

I HOPE THE PUBLIC CAN APPRECIATE THAT OUR JOB IS TO LOOK AT THIS FROM A BIG PICTURE PERSPECTIVE AND IN THE END, WE ARE STEWARDS OF A LARGE ORGANIZATION.

IT IS HERE TO SERVE THIS COMMUNITY, WHICH MEANS SERVING ITS OWN INTERESTS FIRST HONESTLY.

WE CAN'T HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER.

WE ARE LUCKY THAT IN THAT COMMUNITY, THE QUESTION OF WATER EQUALITY IS ONE OF DOLLARS AND CENTS AND NOT UNWASHED OR CLEAN THIRSTY OR QUENCHED.

FUNCTIONAL OR NOT, OUR ENTIRE SYSTEM OF TAXATION IS PREDICATED ON SHARING THE BURDEN TO LIMIT OF ONE'S OWN RESOURCES. I WILL SHOW UP NOW.

HAVING MADE NO SUBSTANTIAL ARGUMENT IN ONE DIRECTION OR ANOTHER AND WITH A QUOTE, BUT YOU MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW,

[02:25:01]

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILLOR MCGURK.

NEXT, WE HAVE COUNCILLOR ARDEN-SMITH.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO TAKE THIS AND BRING IT BACK TO GPC.

I WANT TO SEE IF ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES HAD THE APPETITE FOR THAT.

>> I NEED TO JUST CHECK WITH THE CITY CLERK BECAUSE THIS MOTION IS CURRENTLY ON THE FLOOR.

DO WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS MOTION FIRST BEFORE? JUST MAKING SURE.

WE'LL SEE HOW THIS ONE GOES.

FAIR. THANK YOU FOR NOTING THAT THOUGH.

NEXT, WE HAVE COUNCILLOR PAYNE.

>> THANK YOU. CAT SAID EXACTLY EVERYTHING I WAS GOING TO SAY.

I APPRECIATE ALL 65 YOU GUYS TALKING TONIGHT, IT WAS GREAT.

THERE WAS A LOT TO TAKE IN.

BUT I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY COMING OUT HERE TONIGHT AND IT SEEMS THAT WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF WORK TO DO.

WE'VE ALREADY HEARD THAT RIGHT NOW ON THE WORK PLAN, WE DO NOT HAVE TIME TO REVISIT THIS AT THIS TIME AND THIS WILL PROBABLY BE FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL IF WE KICK IT DOWN THE LINE.

IT'S GOING TO BE FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL.

RIGHT NOW, WE'RE GOING TO BE STATUS QUO, KEEPING TO WHAT IT IS.

I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION.

LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING THE SEPARATE WATER AND SEWER RATES.

IF IT'S A FINANCIAL BURDEN THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH, THEN I THINK EVERYBODY HAS TO STEP UP AND MAKE UP THAT LOSS.

RIGHT NOW, I REALLY DON'T HAVE MUCH OF, I GUESS THIS IS NOT GOOD NEWS FOR PEOPLE, BUT IT'S JUST WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW.

HOPEFULLY WE CAN JUST KEEP WITH THE STATUS QUO AND WE CAN HOPEFULLY REVISIT AND SEE IF WE CAN DO SOMETHING WITH THAT RATE DOWN THE ROAD. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR PAYNE. COUNSELOR FEQUET.

>> THANKS, MR. CHAIR. I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN TONIGHT TO EVERYONE WHO TOOK THE TIME TO SEND US EMAILS AND PRESENT TODAY WHY THIS IS BEING CONSIDERED, WHAT IT MEANS FOR RESIDENTS AND HOW IT AFFECTS OUR CITY'S FINANCIAL FUTURE AND ULTIMATELY, WHY I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A DECISION THIS EVENING.

WE ALL KNOW THAT OUR CURRENT WATER SEWER BILLING SYSTEM IS COMPLICATED, SHOULD BE SIMPLIFIED FOR TRANSPARENCY SO RESIDENTS CLEARLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE PAYING FOR.

RATES HAVEN'T BEEN UPDATED MORE THAN 20 YEARS.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE IN THIS PREDICAMENT AND WE'RE FACING A $1.9 MILLION DEFICIT IN NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET.

IF RATES AREN'T ADJUSTED PROPERTY TAXES ARE THE MOST LIKELY TOOL COUNSEL WILL HAVE TO MAINTAIN FINANCIAL STABILITY AND THAT AFFECTS EVERYONE.

I RECOGNIZE THAT CITY STAFF DID WHAT WAS REQUESTED OF THEM ALL THOSE YEARS AGO AND RETAINED AN EXTERNAL CONSULTANT TO EXPLORE WHAT OTHER JURISDICTIONS ARE DOING IN THE WATER AND SEWER RATE SPACE, AND THIS HAS BEEN A 78-YEAR ENDEAVOR.

I APPRECIATE THE IMMENSE CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPERTISE OF MR. HUDGINS AS A VOLUNTEER AND MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMATIVE AND HELPFUL IF THE CONSULTANTS WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE IDEA AND THE CONCEPT PRESENTED BY MR. HUDGINS AND DONE THE CALCULATIONS WITH THE DATA THEY HAD AVAILABLE TO THEM BEING REFERRED TO AS THE INFAMOUS OPTION 4.

TO CONVEY WHAT A FLAT RATE BASED ON CONSUMPTION PER LITER WOULD LOOK LIKE SO THAT EVERYONE HAS THAT INFORMATION TO INFORM THESE DISCUSSIONS AND ULTIMATELY COUNCIL'S DECISION.

IT IS ABSOLUTELY A LESSON LEARNED AND SPECIFICITY FOR ME MOVING FORWARD WHEN MAKING REQUESTS.

HOWEVER, THERE ARE THREE PRIMARY REASONS WHY I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT MOVING FORWARD WITH OPTION 3 AT THIS TIME.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, AS COUNCILLOR WARBURTON ALSO REITERATED, THE IMPENDING DRAFT BUDGET WILL BE ARRIVING IN THE COMING DAYS ON NOVEMBER 4TH TO INFORM BUDGET DELIBERATIONS IN EARLY DECEMBER, AND THE CITY IS CURRENTLY ANTICIPATING $1.9 MILLION DEFICIT.

ENSURING THE FINANCIAL STABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY OF THIS CITY IS ONE OF COUNCIL'S TOP RESPONSIBILITIES.

ADJUSTING THE RATES NOW ALLOWS THE CITY TO ENSURE WE HAVE FULL COST RECOVERY FOR THIS FUNDAMENTAL SERVICE INSTEAD OF SIMPLY INCREASING TAXES FOR EVERYONE.

SECONDLY, ADMINISTRATION HAS AN OVERWHELMINGLY FULL WORK PLAN THAT WE ALREADY RECOGNIZE WE HAVE TO TAKE THINGS OFF OF THAT REFLECTS THE RAPIDLY EVOLVING PRIORITIES OF BOTH OUR NORTHERN AND NATIONAL CONTEXT.

I THINK WE ARE FULLY AWARE THAT WHILE WE MAY SEE VALUE IN HAVING CERTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AVAILABLE TONIGHT AND IN THE NEAR FUTURE, FOR BETTER OR WORSE, WE HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS IN THE FACE OF SOME LEVEL OF UNCERTAINTY.

THIRDLY, IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE EMAILS AND THE VOICES, ONLY ONE OF WHICH HAVEN'T BEEN HEARD HERE TONIGHT, HAVE ALSO CHIMED INTO THIS CONVERSATION VIA EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS, AND THOSE RESIDENTS MAKE UP THE OTHER 80% OR SO OF THE COMMUNITY.

AS WAS SAID SEVERAL TIMES, THIS EVENING,

[02:30:03]

OPTION 3 MAINTAINS THE COST RECOVERY RATIO OF 68% AND 110% COST RECOVERY FOR TRUCK AND PIPE WATER SERVICES RESPECTIVELY.

THAT REFLECTS THE UNIQUE HISTORY OF HOW OUR INFRASTRUCTURE HAS DEVELOPED OVER TIME AND THE CHOICES RESIDENTS HAVE ALREADY MADE ABOUT WHERE AND HOW THEY LIVE.

IS PRECISELY FOR ALL OF THE REASONS AND INCONVENIENCES OF THE TRUCKED WATER SERVICE MENTIONED BY PRESENTERS THIS EVENING AND THAT WATER AND SEWER ARE FUNDAMENTAL SERVICES AND HUMAN RIGHTS, THAT I BELIEVE THE MAJORITY OF COUNSEL IS LEANING HARD AWAY FROM THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE CONSULTANT AND AGREES THAT CONTINUED SUBSIDIZATION OF TRUCKED WATER AND SEWER IS APPROPRIATE.

RATHER THAN CREATING NEW OR GREATER DISPARITIES, THIS OPTION APPLIES A 3% INFLATIONARY INCREASE AND THE SAME PERCENTAGE INCREASE TO EVERYONE.

WHILE I FULLY AGREE THAT DELIVERY METHOD WOULD IDEALLY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE RATE RESIDENTS ARE PAYING, THIS APPROACH IS ROOTED IN EQUALITY IN THE SENSE THAT WE'RE ALL CONTRIBUTING TOGETHER TO MAINTAIN THE SUSTAINABILITY OF OUR CITY'S ESSENTIAL SERVICES.

I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT COUNCIL WAS NOT EVEN UNANIMOUS IN ITS SUPPORT OF OPTION 3.

SUPPORTING THIS OPTION TONIGHT WILL AT LEAST HELP US MOVE THE NEEDLE ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE IN SEVERAL WAYS.

I'M ALSO LIKE MY COLLEAGUE, COUNCILLOR ARDEN-SMITH, WILLING TO PUT FORWARD A MOTION IN THE PART OF NEW BUSINESS LATER IN THIS MEETING THAT IN THE FORTHCOMING UPDATE TO THE CITY'S WORK PLAN ANTICIPATED FOR NOVEMBER 17TH, THAT ADMINISTRATION COULD INCLUDE A TASK FOR COMPLETION IN 2026 TO CARRY OUT THE CALCULATIONS FOR THE WATER AND SEWER RATES THAT WOULD BE A FLAT RATE REGARDLESS OF DELIVERY METHOD, IE, NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN TRUCKED AND PIPE SERVICES IF MY COLLEAGUES ARE WILLING. THANKS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNSELOR FEQUET.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COLLEAGUES? COUNCILLOR FOOTE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AFTER REVIEWING THE OPTIONS AND CONSIDERING THE BROADER IMPLICATIONS, I'VE DECIDED TO SUPPORT THE MOTION ON THE TABLE.

I BELIEVE OPTION 3 STRIKES A MORE PRAGMATIC BALANCE IN THE SHORT TERM.

IT ALLOWS THE CITY TO IMPLEMENT KEY STRUCTURAL REFORMS LIKE SEPARATING WATER AND SEWER RATES AND ELIMINATING THE OUTDATED CHARGE ERU CHARGE WHILE MAINTAINING CCR.

THIS APPROACH PROVIDES FINANCIAL STABILITY, AVOIDS SUDDEN RATE SHOCKS, AND CONTINUES TO SUBSIDIZE TRUCK CUSTOMERS.

IMPORTANTLY, IT ALSO SETS A STAGE FOR MORE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF SURFACE WATER LINES, CLASS SUBCATEGORIES, WHICH COUNSEL HAS ALREADY DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION UNDERTAKE.

IN MY VIEW, OPTION 3 IS A RESPONSIBLE AND MEASURED STEP FORWARD THAT BRIDGES A GAP FOR A MORE IMPORTANT STRATEGIC DISCUSSION.

MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT THIS WILL CONTINUE TO BE KICKED DOWN THE ROAD, AND MY SINCERE HOPE IS THAT ADMINISTRATION AND THE NEXT COUNCIL SERIOUSLY LOOK AT A FULL SCALE REVISION OF THE UTILITY STRUCTURE, INCLUDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT BRING EVERYONE UP TO SIMILAR SERVICE LEVELS. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILLOR FOOTE.

WE HAVE COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN NEXT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. FIRST OFF, THANK YOU TO EVERYONE FOR THEIR ENGAGEMENT AND WORK ON THIS ISSUE.

I GREATLY APPRECIATED WHEN DECISIONS HAVE SO MUCH CONTEXT AND ARE SO DIFFICULT AND DEBATED AS THIS ONE.

THIS WATER RATE REVIEW IS ABOUT THE CITY SETTING OUT A CLEAR POLICY ON HOW WATER AND SEWER RATES ARE SET.

THIS PHILOSOPHY SHOULD SUPPORT A SUSTAINABLE UTILITY THAT BALANCES THE LOWEST LIFE CYCLE COST, RELIABILITY, AND SERVICE LEVEL EXPECTATIONS OF RESIDENTS.

I'M CONCERNED THAT THE MOTION DOESN'T CLEARLY ENOUGH ARTICULATE A PHILOSOPHY.

HOWEVER, IT DOES ACKNOWLEDGE DISTINCT COSTS FOR DISTINCT SYSTEMS TO SOME EXTENT WITH ALLOWING SOME SUBSIDIZATION.

I BELIEVE THE PHILOSOPHY, HOWEVER, ARTICULATED THAT CAPTURES DISTINCT COSTS HELPS US REACH BETTER, CLEARER, LONG-TERM INFRASTRUCTURE DECISIONS AND DOES SO AT A PACE THAT IS REQUIRED IN OUR CURRENT WORLD.

WE'RE LOOKING FOR GROWTH AND TO INCREASE HOUSING SUPPLY.

AT THE SAME TIME, WE'RE FACING MELTING PERMAFROST AND RAPIDLY INCREASING COSTS.

THESE PRESSING FACTORS MAKE OUR SYSTEMIC DECISIONS AROUND HOW WE DELIVER WATER AND SEWER SERVICES ONE OF, IF NOT THE MOST CRITICAL, JOBS FOR US AS A GOVERNMENT.

WITHOUT FACING THE ACTUAL OPERATIONAL COSTS OF DIFFERENT METHODS, THESE DECISIONS ARE FAR MUDDIER IN MISSING CONTEXT.

FOR THESE REASONS, I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT THE MOTION AS PRESENTED, PARTICULARLY THE FURTHER REVIEW OF THE AGRICULTURAL AND MULTI-RESIDENTIAL SUBSIDIES AND THE SIMPLIFICATION OF THE RATE STRUCTURE.

I'VE ALTERED THIS STATEMENT SEVERAL TIMES DURING THE MEETING.

IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT DECISION.

THIS IS KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, AND IT'S ONCE AGAIN NOT FULLY UTILIZING THE WORK OF THE CONSULTANT.

THIS REALLY MAKES ME SQUIRM.

HOWEVER, IT IS MOVING FORWARD WITH SIMPLIFICATION, AND IT'S SHINING A HUGE SPOTLIGHT ON HOW WE DEVELOP INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE KNOCK-ON EFFECTS THAT CAN HAVE DECADES AND GENERATIONS INTO THE FUTURE.

[02:35:05]

THANKS AGAIN, [INAUDIBLE] FOR COMING OUT AND COLLEAGUES AND STAFF FOR ALL THE WORK ON THIS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNSEL MCCLEAN. COUNCIL COCHRANE.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. I'M GOING TO KEEP IT RELATIVELY BRIEF.

I DON'T THINK I COULD BE AS ELOQUENT AS SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN HERE ALL STRAIGHT TO THE POINT, AS MORE COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN HERE AS WELL.

HUGE, THANK YOU FOR THE ENGAGEMENT OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS.

THANK YOU TO THE STAFF FOR ALL THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE AND ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE COME FORWARD.

I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION GOING FORWARD.

IT MAKES SENSE AT THIS TIME, NOT ONLY FOR THE SIMPLIFICATION THAT HAS BEEN EXPRESSED PRIOR, NOT ONLY FOR THE FUTURE AGRICULTURAL USE GRANTS, BUT EVEN MORE SO FOR DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO DO WORK UPON THE SURFACE WATER LINES, BECAUSE THAT IS THE BIGGEST ASPECT TOWARDS ME IS THAT THIS WORK IS UNFINISHED.

THERE IS, AS COUNCILLOR MCCLENDON JUST TOUCHED UPON, A LARGER QUESTION TO BE ASKED WITHIN THE COMMUNITY PLAN ABOUT HOW WE WANT THE FUTURE OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE TO GO FORWARD.

I HOPE EVERYBODY WHO IS IN THE CHAMBER TODAY CARRIES ON WITH THAT CONVERSATION TO DIRECT THIS COUNCIL AND THE FUTURE COUNCIL ABOUT HOW THEY WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH THAT.

BECAUSE THERE IS THERE IS A LARGER PLAN THAT WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT ABOUT WHAT WE WANT FOR THE FUTURE OF THE CITY, WHETHER IT BE MORE TRACT, WHICH WAS PRETTY CLEAR THAT NOBODY REALLY WANTS THAT, OR CARRYING ON TO BE ABLE TO DO PIPE, WHICH IS INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE AND IN THE REALITY OF OUR CURRENT FISCAL SITUATION, VERY UNREALISTIC UNLESS WE GET SOME SUPPORT HERE.

I THINK THIS IS THE MOST PRAGMATIC POSITION THAT WE COULD TAKE AT THIS TIME, BUT I DO RECOMMEND THAT A TRANSITION PAPER BE FORMULATED FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL WITH A HIGH RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE OF THE SURFACE WATER LINES IN CONSIDERATION BE BROUGHT FORWARD WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR OF THE NEXT COUNCIL, SO WE CAN FINALIZE THIS.

IN TANDEM WITHIN THE FINISHING OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND IN TANDEM OF TRYING TO FINALLY COME TO A CLOSURE ON ALL OF THIS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILLOR COCHRANE.

ANY RECOMMENDATION LIKE THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHEN WE HIT THE WORK PLAN, SO I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING IT UP NOW, AS WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THAT IN A FEW WEEKS.

FOR MYSELF, AS STATED LAST WEEK, I BELIEVE THAT THE MOTION IN FRONT OF US.

SORRY. YOU WANTED TO STILL SAY SO AND GO AHEAD, COUNCILLOR ARDEN SMITH.

>> [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU SO MUCH.

WITH HEARING MOST OF MY COLLEAGUES IN FAVOR OF GOING AHEAD WITH THE MOTION, I WILL PUT MY SUGGESTION FOR MAKING A MOTION TO SEND THIS BACK TO GPC ASIDE.

I DO APPRECIATE EVERYBODY COMING OUT AND RELAYING THEIR CONCERNS.

I FEEL THE EXACT SAME WAY.

I'VE LIVED ON TRUCK WATER FOR 20 SOME ODD YEARS BEING OUT AND C. I UNDERSTAND THE STRUGGLE, THE COSTS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH IT AND THE LITTLE INCONVENIENCES THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH WHEN A BALL BREAKS, WHEN THE PUMP GOES.

WHEN YOUR FLOOR GOES BECAUSE THE WATER TANK IS TOO HEAVY BECAUSE YOU HAVE IT IN YOUR HOUSE.

IT'S QUITE HORRIFIC THE EXTRA COSTS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

I'M IN FULL SUPPORT OF COUNCILLOR FEQUET PUTTING FORWARD A MOTION TO DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO FIGURE OUT THOSE COSTS THAT WE DON'T HAVE.

IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT RIGHT NOW THE SUN IS SETTING ON OUR TERM, AND THIS IS GOING TO BE AN ITEM THAT DOESN'T GET COMPLETED DURING OUR TIME, BUT IT WILL BE FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL.

I REALLY URGE RESIDENTS TO DISCUSS WITH THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT WILL BE PUTTING THEIR NAMES FORWARD RUNNING FOR COUNSEL TO BRING YOUR CONCERNS FORWARD, LET THEM KNOW THAT THIS IS IMPORTANT.

STILL BRING YOUR CONCERNS FORWARD.

I WAS SO HAPPY TO SEE THE IMMENSE AMOUNT OF E MAILS THAT CAME FORWARD FROM RESIDENTS.

IT'S NOT OFTEN WE SEE THIS MUCH ENGAGEMENT, AND IT'S GOOD TO SEE THAT PEOPLE ARE PAYING ATTENTION.

LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THE MOTION, BUT WE ARE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND EVERYTHING IT'S A WORKING DOCUMENT WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH BYLAWS AND POLICIES BECAUSE AS TIME GOES, THINGS CHANGE AND OUR BYLAWS AND OUR POLICIES HAVE TO CHANGE WITH IT.

WITH THAT, I WILL PUT MY MOTION TO REST AND I WILL BE IN FAVOR OF OPTION 3.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCIL SMITH,

[02:40:01]

AS I WAS SAYING A SECOND AGO, I BELIEVE THAT THIS MOTION BEFORE US BALANCES THE DIFFERENT PUSHING POLES THAT ARE IN THIS DISCUSSION AND DEBATE.

I DON'T AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT THAT WE'RE KICKING THINGS DOWN THE LINE EITHER.

IF WE SUPPORT OPTION 3, WE'RE GRAPPLING TONIGHT WITH THE IDEA OF THE SYSTEM PAYING FOR ITSELF AND HIGHLIGHTING SEVERAL ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN CONSIDERED.

WELL, I WISH THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED ALREADY, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN, AND SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO DO A BIT OF WORK TO IDENTIFY OTHER ISSUES, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING.

AS I SAID IN THE PAST, I BELIEVE THAT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CONSULTANT TO IMPLEMENT A REVENUE TO COST COVERAGE RATIO OF 90%-100% BASED OFF OF WHAT THEY DESCRIBED AS INDUSTRY STANDARDS WASN'T ANCHORED IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE FOR US.

HOWEVER, I ALSO DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD STRAY FROM THE CURRENT REVENUE TO COST RECOVERY RATIO IN ANY DIRECTION, EITHER BY INCREASING OR DECREASING THAT AT THE MOMENT.

WE HAVEN'T YET TACKLED QUESTIONS OF SUBSIDIES FOR AGRICULTURAL USES OR MULTI-RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS, WHICH WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AS A COUNCIL.

WE ALSO HAVE NOT UNDERTAKEN TO UNDERSTAND THE FUTURE COST OR POTENTIAL FUNDING STRUCTURE TO CONTINUE OR NOT CONTINUE SURFACE WATER LINES, AND IF WE DO, HOW WILL THEY BE PAID FOR? WHICH IS A SERVICE ALSO AVAILABLE TO SOME TRUCK USERS AND NOT OTHERS.

WE HAVEN'T LOOKED AT POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF SUB-CATEGORIES FOR RESIDENTIAL, MULTI-RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRUCK RATES.

ALL OF THIS WORK IS WORK THAT COUNCIL HAS EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO UNDERTAKE IN FUTURE, BUT WHICH WE HAVEN'T YET BEEN ABLE TO COMPLETE.

THESE ARE ALL PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ACCESSIBILITY TO WATER AND SEWER SERVICES THAT SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE MENTIONED, AND THAT WILL ALSO IMPACT REVENUE TO COST RECOVERAGE RATIOS.

I ALSO BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO MAKE CHANGES TO ENSURE THAT WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM IN YELLOWKNIFE PAYS FOR ITSELF, AND THAT'S THE OTHER PART OF THIS MOTION, AND THAT WE END THE SUBSIDIZATION OF THE WHOLE SYSTEM PARTIALLY THROUGH THE PROPERTY TAX.

I KNOW THAT USERS ON TRUCK WATER AND SEWER FEEL THAT THE FOCUS HAS BEEN ON YOU IN THIS DISCUSSION.

BUT WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE AS A CITY THAT THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS CURRENTLY SUBSIDIZED.

AT PRESENT, THE SYSTEM ONLY GENERATES REVENUE TO COVER 95% OF THE WHOLE SYSTEM COST.

THE OPTION BEFORE US TO MY MIND ACHIEVES THAT GOAL ALONG WITH ANSWERING IN FUTURE THE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT WE AS COUNSEL HAVE HIGHLIGHTED THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS.

WITH THAT, ANYTHING ELSE FROM ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.? ALL THOSE OPPOSED.

AND THAT'S ALL IN FAVOR EXCEPT FOR COUNCIL WARBURTON WHO IS OPPOSED.

THE MOTION IS CARRIED.

NEXT, WE HAVE NEW BUSINESS.

[Items 22 - 28]

>> THANK YOU, MR. EX CHAIR.

>> GO AHEAD. COUNCIL PAYNE, I GUESS IT'S ME. TO YOU. BACK TO ME.

I BRING A MOTION THAT COUNSEL DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO CANCEL AMNESTY DAYS AT THE SOLID WASTE FACILITIES.

>> DO I HAVE A SECULAR.

COUNCILLOR FEQUET. ANY DISCUSSION?

>> YOU WANT TO GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW.

AGAIN, BRINGING FORWARD THIS MOTION AFTER THE FACT THAT WE VOTED DOWN THE VOUCHER PROGRAM AT OUR LAST COUNCIL MEETING.

ALL OF US HAD SAID WE DON'T WANT THE STATUS QUO TO CONTINUE EITHER WITH THE CURRENT SETUP OF AMNESTY DAYS.

THIS IS THE MOTION THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE LAST TIME.

FOR ME, IT MATCHES OUR STRATEGIC WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN, AS WELL AS OTHER GOALS THAT THE CITY HAS IN TERMS OF WASTE REDUCTION, AND MATCHES OUR CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AS WELL AS OUR OWN STRATEGIC DIRECTION.

THAT'S MY RATIONALE FOR BRINGING THIS MOTION FORWARD.

>> IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? THERE'S DISCUSSION ALLOWED HERE? WHICH ONE ARE YOU GUYS? COUNCILLOR WARBURG.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS.

I KNOW I VOTED FOR THE VOUCHER PROGRAM LAST TIME AND THEN THAT WAS NOT A MAJORITY, SO WE'RE BACK TO HERE.

I'M CONCERNED THAT WE SPENT SO MUCH TIME CIRCLING AROUND BACK TO THE INITIAL RECOMMENDATION OF ADMINISTRATION.

I FEEL AS WE TRAVEL WORK PLAN A COUPLE OF WEEKS, IT'S NOT JUST WORK PLAN.

IT'S THINKING ABOUT ALL THE WAY THROUGH A PROCESS, SO WE DON'T TAKE IT AROUND MULTIPLE TIMES.

I FEEL THIS WAS IN FRONT OF US A LONG TIME AGO, AND WE COULD HAVE MADE A DECISION THERE AND THEN ADMIN BROUGHT MORE OPTIONS FOR VOUCHERS AND THINGS BECAUSE WE REQUESTED IT. THEN WE VOTED IT DOWN.

I CAUTION MY COLLEAGUES OF NOT THINKING ALL THE WAY THROUGH A PROCESS, JUST TO KILL IT DOWN. I'M HAPPY WE'RE DOING THIS.

I'M HAPPY WE'RE BACK HERE AGAIN, BUT I FEEL WE COULD HAVE DONE THIS A LONG TIME AGO.

WE COULD HAVE SAVED A LOT OF WORK HERE IF WE HAD

[02:45:03]

I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS HAVING VOTED AGAINST IT PREVIOUSLY.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR WARBURG. YOU GO AHEAD?

>>THAT WAS MY FINAL MOMENT TO SAY RIP, BUT I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION.

>> IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE COUNCILLOR FEQUET

>> JUST FOR ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WHO ARE LISTENING, WHO WAS WONDERING WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS SO MUCH.

THERE IS A CAP RADIO ARTICLE AND LOTS OF RECORDINGS OF OUR MEETING, SO I'M NOT GOING TO REITERATE ANYTHING HERE TONIGHT.

>> THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR COCHRANE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. TEMPORARY CHAIR.

>> I DON'T THINK I COULD EXPRESS IT ANY BETTER THAN COUNCILLOR WARBURG JUST DID.

I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS, EVEN THOUGH I DID SUPPORT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, HAVING THE VOUCHER AS A TRANSITIONAL PHASE BEFORE WE GOT RID OF THIS.

WE'VE GONE BACK SO MUCH THAT IF WE DON'T DO IT NOW, WE'RE GOING BACK TO THE OLD OPTION, THIS WHICH EXACTLY NOBODY WANTED.

THIS IS THE BEST COMPROMISE THAT WE CAN HAVE RIP AMNESTY DAYS. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? COUNCILLOR FOOTE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I'LL MISS AMNESTY DAYS AS WELL.

I JUST HOPE THAT WE CONTINUE TO PUT FORWARD SOME INITIATIVES ONCE IN A WHILE TO INCENTIVIZE RESPONSIBLE WASTE DIVERSION. THANK YOU.

>> COUNCILLOR ARDEN SMITH.

>> OPTION 4. YES. NO, I'M HAPPY TO SEE THIS COME FORWARD, AND I HOPE ADMINISTRATION, I BELIEVE, IN OUR CONVERSATION SAID THAT THEY WOULD KEEP MONITORING ANY OUTSIDE DISPOSALS, JUST TO KEEP TRACK OF IT.

BUT I'M GLAD TO SEE THIS COMING FORWARD.

>> THANK YOU. FOR MYSELF, I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO REPLACE WITH, BUT I GET IT.

I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION. THANK YOU.

>> I JUST ONE COMMENT AND I APPRECIATE COUNCIL ROBERT AND YOUR POINT AROUND NOT SPINNING AROUND HERE.

I DO KNOW THAT'S DEMOCRACY TOO.

WHO'S AT A MEETING AS WE WORK THROUGH THINGS.

SOMETIMES WE HAVE FIVE MEMBERS HERE, SOMETIMES WE HAVE SEVEN, SOMETIMES WE HAVE NINE LIKE TONIGHT.

I THINK, I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THERE.

BUT THAT'S ALSO WHERE IT COMES DOWN TO VOTES AS WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST WHERE WE'VE TABLED ITEMS TOO.

DEMOCRACY IS AN INTERESTING THING.

DEPENDS ON WHO SHOWS UP.

BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S ENOUGH FOR ME, YOU GO TO A VOTE.

>> ALL IN FAVOR. THAT IS UNANIMOUS.

THE CHAIR IS BACK TO YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

NEXT, WE HAVE A MEMORANDUM REGARDING WHETHER TO APPOINT A MEMBER TO SERVE ON THE HERITAGE COMMITTEE COUNCIL PAYNE.

>> I MOVE THAT COUNCIL APPOINT JESSE REID, A MEMBER AT LARGE TO SERVE TO SERVE ON THE HERITAGE COMMITTEE FOR A TWO-YEAR TERM COMMENCING OCTOBER 28TH 2025, ENDING OCTOBER 27TH, 2027.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CAN I GET A SECOND COUNCIL FOOTE.

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM ANYBODY? COUNCIL COCHRANE.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. I FULLY SUPPORT THE APPOINTMENT OF JESSE REID, TO BE QUITE FRANK.

SHE IS ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS AND WILL BE A GREAT CONTRIBUTION TO THE HERITAGE COMMITTEE AND I LOOK FORWARD TO HER LONG TENURE. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> I'M SURE MISS REID WILL BE VERY HAPPY TO HEAR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

>> THERE YOU GO. COUNCIL WARBURTON THERE.

THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

NEXT, WE HAVE A MEMORANDUM REGARDING WHETHER TO APPOINT A MEMBER TO SERVE ON THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD, COUNCIL PAYNE.

>> I MOVE THAT COUNCIL APPOINT LAUREN KING TO SERVE FOR A THREE YEAR TERM EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 28, 2025 UNTIL OCTOBER 27, 2028 ON THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD.

>> SECONDED BY COUNCIL FEQUET.

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

NEXT, WE HAVE A MEMORANDUM REGARDING WHETHER TO APPOINT MEMBERS TO SERVE ON THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD ON HOMELESSNESS, COUNCIL PAYNE.

>> I MOVE THAT COUNCIL APPOINT THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS TO SERVE ON THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD OF HOMELESSNESS, COMMENCING OCTOBER 28, 2025 AND ENDING OCTOBER 27TH, 2027.

ARTHUR BORK AND MORGAN JOHNSON, TWO REPRESENTATIVES WHO HAVE LIVED EXPERIENCE, AND KIMBERLY DOYLE, ONE REPRESENTATIVE FROM AN ORGANIZATION SERVING SENIORS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SECONDED BY COUNCIL ARDEN-SMITH.

[02:50:02]

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COUNCILOR COCHRANE.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRS. THE CHAIR OF THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD ON HOMELESSNESS.

I FULLY SUPPORT ALL THREE RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THANK YOU FOR MY COLLEAGUES FOR THESE WISE CHOICES OF NEW MEMBERS.

I'VE HAD THE PLEASURE OF KNOWING ALL THREE FAIRLY WELL AND HAVE THE DIRECT PLEASURE OF ACTUALLY BEING WITH MORGAN HERE DOWN WITH COUNCILOR WARBURTON AT THE COMMUNITY OR THE CANADIAN LINES STAND HOMELESSNESS CONFERENCE.

I THINK SHE WILL BE A GREAT CONTRIBUTION, AS I KNOW KIM AND ARTHUR AS WELL. THANK YOU AGAIN.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILOR COCHRANE, AND THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR WORK ON THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD AND ON BOARDING FOR THESE MEMBERS THAT I KNOW WILL BE COMING.

AT THAT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

NEXT, WE HAVE IS THE MOTION

[Additional item 3]

>> I MOVE THAT NOTICE REQUIREMENTS BE DISPENSED WITH PURSUANT TO SECTION 71, SUBSECTION 1C OF COUNCIL PROCEDURES BY LAW NUMBER 4975, THAT A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE TOWN OF INUVIK REGARDING ARCTIC SECURITY AND INVESTMENTS IN NORTHERN MUNICIPALITY BY CANADIAN ARMED FORCES, NORTH AMERICAN AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND AND THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE BE ADDED TO THE AGENDA.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SECONDED BY COUNCIL FEQUET. THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

WE HAVE GO AHEAD.

>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

>> COUNCIL COCHRANE, I APOLOGIZE.

>> THAT'S ALL RIGHT, MR. CHAIR. THE ONLY THING I WAS GOING TO SAY IS I WANT TO SHOUT OUT A HUGE BUNCH OF CREDIT TO YOU IN YOUR ADVOCACY IN GRADING THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MAYOR OF INUVIK AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF INUVIK IN THIS NEW RELATIONSHIP AS WE GO FORWARD, DEALING WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO GET MORE MILITARY FUNDING.

IT'S ALSO A SHOUT TO THE CITY MANAGER AND THE SENIOR LEADERSHIP TEAM FOR ALL THE WORK THEY'VE DONE.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENTS.

THE NEXT WE HAVE, COUNCIL PAYNE IS GOING TO MOVE IN A SECOND, THE WHOLE RESOLUTION.

BUT COUNCIL PAYNE, YOU DON'T NEED TO READ THE WHOLE RESOLUTION FOR OUR SANITY AND YOUR OWN.

YOU COULD JUST SAY THE RESOLUTION AS WAS PRESENTED AT THE GPC MEETING TODAY. OVER TO YOU.

>> THANK YOU. I MOVE THAT COUNCIL ADOPT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION THAT WAS DISCUSSED TODAY AT GPC.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CAN I GET SECOND, COUNCIL FOOTE? THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? BECAUSE YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT, COUNCILOR COCHRANE, YEAH, IT'S TRYING TO CREATE THAT BETTER RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR COLLEAGUES AND IN THIS CASE, THE TOWN OF INUVIK.

WE'VE BOTH BEEN IDENTIFIED AS THE OPERATING SUPPORT HUBS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT AS A CITY OF INUVIK WE WORK WITH OUR COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE TERRITORY AND THAT WE HAVE THAT COMMON VOICE.

THANK YOU FOR RECOGNIZING THAT PIECE OF WORK IF WE SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION.

WITH THAT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

SORRY. WHAT WAS THAT, SALIZA? WAS THAT NOT ALL PART OF THIS RESOLUTION IS ALL PART OF THAT ONE, WAS IT NOT? THAT'S HOW IT'S DRAFTED.

YEAH. WE'RE GOOD. WITH THAT ENACTMENT OF BYLAWS?

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

>> THANKS. YEAH, JUST ASKING COLLEAGUES APPETITE CONSIDERING THE CONVERSATION WE JUST HAD TONIGHT.

I DO RESPECT TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE CHAIR SUGGESTED TO GIVE A NOTICE OF MOTION LATER IN THE MEETING, BUT WHAT I RECOGNIZE IS THAT ON NOVEMBER 17TH, THE WORK PLAN UPDATES THERE IS GOING TO BE A CONVERSATION.

IF WE DO A NOTICE OF MOTION AND WAIT TO TALK ABOUT THIS IN TWO MORE WEEKS, IT'S TWO LESS WEEKS THAT ADMINISTRATION HAS TO THINK ABOUT THIS.

IF COUNCIL IS WILLING TO DISMISS THE ADVANCED NOTICE, THE TIMING THAT COUNCIL PAYNE JUST READ IN ABOUT THE OTHER RESOLUTIONS.

IT WOULD BE SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT ADMINISTRATION CONSIDER THE TIME IT WILL TAKE TO PRODUCE THE CALCULATIONS THAT REFLECT THE WATER AND SEWER RATE THAT REMOVES THE DELIVERY METHOD FROM THE EQUATION, AND JUST INCLUDE THAT IN THE FORTHCOMING WORK PLAN UPDATE ANTICIPATED FOR NOVEMBER 17TH.

COUNCIL CAN CONSIDER THE EFFORT REQUIRED TO ADVANCE THAT CONVERSATION AMONGST ALL OF THE OTHER PRIORITIES THAT COUNCIL WILL BE CONSIDERING AT THAT TIME.

>> IS THERE A SECOND OR COUNCIL ARDEN-SMITH, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION, COUNCIL FEQUET?

>> IT'S SIMPLY TO ASK ADMINISTRATION TO THINK ABOUT WHAT IT WOULD EVEN TAKE SO THAT WE RECOGNIZE THIS ISN'T GOING TO AFFECT THIS YEAR'S BUDGET.

THAT WAS WHY I SUPPORTED OPTION THREE BECAUSE

[02:55:02]

EVEN PAST THIS COUNCIL'S TERM, BUT JUST TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THE EFFORT IS INVOLVED, WHETHER IT'S A CONSULTANT OR INTERNAL, AND THAT BE PART OF THE UPDATE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ON THE WORK PLAN HERE IN THREE WEEKS TIME.

JUST SO COUNCIL, AGAIN, CAN CONSIDER THAT AMONGST THE OTHER PRIORITIES.

IT MAY NOT BE THE TOP PRIORITY.

I FULLY RECOGNIZE THAT AND THAT'S OKAY.

BUT I WOULD LIKE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TIME TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

>> YEAH. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? COUNCIL COCHRANE, THEN COUNCIL MCLENNAN.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR AND THANK YOU, COUNCIL FEQUET FOR INTRODUCING THIS MOTION.

QUESTION TO ADMINISTRATION, BEING THE FACT THAT YOU'VE HEARD THAT FOR CONSIDERATION, ARE YOU PUTTING THIS UNDER CONSIDERATION WITHOUT HAVING TO PUT A MOTION FORWARD?

>> SORRY, I'M GOING TO BEAT ADMINISTRATION THE PUNCH IF I MAY, BUT THEN I WANT TO HEAR FROM ADMINISTRATION TOO.

JUST PROCESS WISE, JUST BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO DIGEST THIS AND WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THE DATES, I WOULD STILL RECOMMEND THAT WE NOT PROCEED WITH THIS MOTION AS IT CURRENTLY IS, ONLY BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD THE CHANCE TO SEE THE DRAFT MOTION YET.

WE'VE BEEN TOLD IT, BUT WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY SEEN IT IN FRONT OF US.

ARDEN HASN'T HAD THE CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT.

WHEN WE LOOK AT THE DATES, NOVEMBER 17TH IS A DATE FOR THE WORK PLAN.

THAT MEANS WE CAN STILL CONSIDER THIS MOTION AND GIVES YOU A CHANCE TO MASSAGE IT ON NOVEMBER 10TH.

ARDEN WILL KNOW YOU'RE BRINGING THE MOTION FORWARD SO THEY CAN STILL PREP A RESPONSE AND WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE A CLEARER GRASP OF WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING BEFORE WE POTENTIALLY GRAPPLE WITH IT RATHER THAN DOING IT AT 10 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT ON THE FLY.

BUT THAT'S MY AS CHAIR, BUT I WANT TO HEAR FROM THE CITY MANAGER. CITY MANAGER.

>> WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THINGS, NOT MY OWN.

>> THANK YOU. I BELIEVE THAT'S A PRUDENT WAY TO GO.

I WOULD JUST USE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSCORE THE PROPOSAL, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, NOT HAVING READ THE MOTION, WOULD BE COMING UP WITH A FLAT RATE ACROSS ALL MEANS.

IF NOT TO BRING US BACK INTO THE PAST REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO COUNCIL.

THAT METHOD IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENTS OF WHAT WE WERE BASING THE FORWARD PLAN AROUND.

I THINK THAT THE CHAIR'S SUGGESTION ABOUT HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO CRAFT THE MOTION IN A MANNER THAT WILL ALLOW US TO SINK OUR TEETH INTO IT A LITTLE BIT, MAYBE DETERMINE WHAT MIGHT BE REQUIRED BASED ON THE FACT THAT THIS WOULD BE QUITE A SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURE FROM THE CALCULATIONS THAT WE'VE DONE BEFORE.

WE CAN CERTAINLY, CONSIDER PUTTING OUR ARMS AROUND THAT AND COME UP WITH AN ESTIMATE FOR COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 17TH.

BUT I WOULD SUPPORT THE CHAIRS SUGGESTION ON HOW TO PROCEED.

>> COUNCIL COCHRANE, ANY FOLLOW UP?

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU TO THE CITY MANAGER.

I HEARD WHAT I NEEDED FROM THE CHAIR.

I ALSO JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT.

I CONGRATULATING EVERY MEMBER OF THIS COUNCIL FOR NOW PARTICIPATING IN THE LONGEST COUNCIL IN OUR TERM OUTSIDE OF BUDGETARY PROCESS.

>> WELL, WE GOT TO HAVE A WIN SOMEWHERE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCIL MCLENNAN.

YOU HAD A QUESTION OR COMMENT?

>> YEAH. THANK YOU. I DON'T PHILOSOPHICALLY AGREE WITH THE BASIS OF THE MOTION.

I FEEL LIKE WE DO NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE TO SOME EXTENT THAT THE SYSTEMS ARE DIFFERENT AND THEY CARRY OPERATIONAL COSTS THAT ARE DIFFERENT AND THAT WE NEED TO FACE THAT IN ORDER TO MAKE THE BEST DECISIONS POSSIBLE FOR LONG TERM INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE CITY.

I WOULDN'T BE IN SUPPORT OF STAFF SPENDING TIME ON IT, THOUGH, I GREATLY APPRECIATE THE EFFORT AND WORK DONE BY RESIDENTS ON BRINGING THAT FORWARD.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCIL MCLENNAN.

ANY OTHER COLLEAGUES? SEEING NONE BACK TO COUNCIL FEQUET.

I GUESS YOUR OPTIONS ARE BASICALLY, DO YOU WANT TO PULL THE MOTION OR DO YOU WANT US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE VOTE ON THE MOTION?

>> YEAH, JUST TO CLIFF, I DIDN'T WANT TO DO A NOTICE OF MOTION BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO WASTE TIME AND EFFORT ON AN AGENDA AND OUR TIME TALKING ABOUT THIS, COUNCIL MCLENNAN'S POINT.

IF FOLKS DON'T EVEN WANT TO HEAR FROM ADMIN ABOUT HOW MUCH WORK THIS MIGHT BE OR IN WHAT DURATION OF YEARS OR MONTHS IT MIGHT TAKE THEM TO DO THIS WORK.

I WAS REALLY LOOKING FOR A STRAW HAT VOTE ABOUT WHETHER THIS IS EVEN SOMETHING THE TEAM IS LOOKING.

>> I THINK THE CHALLENGES IS THAT 10 AFTER 10 AT NIGHT

[03:00:01]

I DON'T HAVE THE ACUITY AT THIS MOMENT TO DIGEST THAT POTENTIAL MOTION.

>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS DO IS I'M HAPPY TO WITHDRAW IT FOR NOW.

I'LL JUST DO A NOTICE OF MOTION TO COVER US IN CASE WE WANT TO HAVE THAT CHAT IN TWO WEEKS TIME AND, THAT'S SO WE'LL GO AHEAD.

>> PERFECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE MOTION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.

NEXT, WE HAVE ENACTMENT OF BYLAWS.

THERE WERE NO BYLAWS FOR THE AGENDA.

NEXT, WE HAVE DEFERRED BUSINESS AND TABLED ITEMS. THERE WAS NO DEFERRED BUSINESS, AND THERE WERE NO TABLED ITEMS FOR THE AGENDA.

IS THERE ANY DEFERRED BUSINESS OR TABLED ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR? I WASN'T EXPECTING ANY.

OLD BUSINESS. THERE WAS NO OLD BUSINESS FOR THE AGENDA.

IS THERE ANY OLD BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR? SEEING NONE.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

[36. Are there any notices of motion from the floor?]

>> SURE, I'LL JUST A NOTE SOME MOTION TO THE TEAM THAT FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, I'LL BRING THIS FORWARD, AND I'LL TALK WITH YOU IN ADVANCE OF THAT. THANK YOU.

>> PERFECT. YOU CAN DRAFT THAT.

YOU CAN DRAFT WHAT YOU HAVE OR EDIT IT OVER THE NEXT WEEK OR SO AND PASS TO THE CITY CLERKS.

NEXT, WE HAVE DELEGATIONS PERTAINING TO ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA.

THERE WERE NO DELEGATIONS PERTAINING TO ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA.

NEXT, WE HAVE ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRIES.

THERE WERE NONE FOR THE AGENDA.

[39. Are there any administrative enquiries from the floor? ]

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. TWO QUICK ONES.

JUST REGARDING THE LIFT STATION PROJECT.

WE KNOW IT'S BEEN VERY DEMANDING ON RESIDENTS IN THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS AND HONESTLY, THROUGHOUT MOST OF THE CITY, YOU CAN HEAR IT.

SO FIRST ONE, IS THE WORKSITE FOLLOWING BEST PRACTICES IN REGARD TO SAFETY FOR RESIDENTS, INCLUDING HEARING DAMAGE.

>> MR. VAN DON.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. WE'VE GOT SOME UPDATES THAT I'LL CALL ON MR. GREENCORN TO PROVIDE US AROUND THE STATUS OF THE PROJECT.

LET ME JUST BEGIN BY SAYING THIS CLEARLY HAS BEEN VERY DISRUPTIVE TO NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA FOR THAT.

WE'VE TAKEN GREAT CARE TO UNDERSTAND AND WORK WITH THE PROJECT CONSULTANT CONTRACTOR TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL STEPS WERE TAKEN TO MITIGATE.

TO ANSWER THE QUESTION IS THE WORKSITE FOLLOWING BEST PRACTICES IN REGARD TO SAFETY FOR RESIDENTS INCLUDING HEARING DAMAGE? THE ANSWER IS YES.

WE'VE ASKED THE CONTRACTOR DID PERFORM A RISK ASSESSMENT PRIOR TO COMMENCING THE PROJECT, FOLLOWING BEST PRACTICES IN THE HIERARCHY OF CONTROLS TO ADDRESS SAFETY RISKS.

THE CONTRACTOR HAS ALSO TAKEN THIS LEVEL READINGS DURING ALL OF THE DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES TO FURTHER DETERMINE THE HEARING PROTECTION REQUIRED FOR THE WORKERS ON THE SITE AND THE RESULTING LEVELS OF THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTS.

AN ACCEPTABLE BEST PRACTICE FOR NOISE LEVELS GENERATED FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS 80 DECIBEL LEVELS, 80 DBA AVERAGE OVER AN EIGHT HOUR PERIOD AT THREE FEET FROM THE RESIDENTS WINDOW.

A NOISE RECORDER HAS NOT BEEN SET UP TO FULLY CAPTURE THE EIGHT-HOUR AVERAGED.

THE POINT IN TIME NOISE READINGS CAPTURED AT THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE WOULD LIKELY SUGGEST THAT THIS BEST PRACTICE IS BEING MET.

HOWEVER, A COMPREHENSIVE ACOUSTICAL EVALUATION HAS NOT BEEN REQUESTED OR UNDERTAKEN.

TO THE OTHER SECOND QUESTION, WHY WERE NOISE DAMPENING BARRICADES DECIDED NOT TO BE USED AND WHAT ENGINEERING CONTROLS ARE IN PLACE TO REDUCE THE HEARING DAMAGE? GENERALLY, NOISE DAMPENING BARRICADES HAVEN'T BEEN SHOWN TO BE EFFECTIVE WITH THIS SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT AND ACTIVITY.

THE MITIGATIVE MEASURE LIKELY INVOLVES FABRICATION OF A CUSTOM CURTAIN OR A SHROUD THAT WOULD BE FITTED OVER THE HEAD OF THE VIBRATORY HAMMER ON THE CRANE REALLY TO DAMPEN THE NOISE GENERATED? THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN A MAJOR DELAY AND A SIGNIFICANT COST.

THE ACTIVITY WAS NEVER GOING TO BE THIS FOR A LONG PERIOD.

HOWEVER, DIFFICULTIES THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERED WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THEIR SHARING SHEET PILES HAS RESULTED IN THIS TAKING LONGER THAN SUSTAINED ACTIVITY WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED.

THAT IS TO SAY THAT WHEN THEY COMMENCED WORK, THEY DISCOVERED THAT IT WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT TO PENETRATE THAN THEY ORIGINALLY FOUND OUT, SO IT'S CONSEQUENTLY TAKING LONGER THAN EXPECTED.

THE VIBRATORY INSTALLATION OF THE SHEET PILES WILL BE COMPLETE SOON AND I'LL ASK MR. GREENCORN TO SPEAK TO THIS IN A MOMENT.

THE ACTIVITY WILL TRANSITION TO DRILLING AND PIPE PILING, WHICH DOESN'T INVOLVE THE SAME VIBRATORY EQUIPMENT, AND I JUST LOST THE REST OF IT. ONE SECOND.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO PASS TO MR. GREENCORN?

>> THIS ACTIVITY WILL TRANSITION DRILLING PILES.

PILING DOESN'T INVOLVE THE VIBRATORY EQUIPMENT AND IS MORE INFREQUENT HAMMER DROP ON THE PIPE.

[03:05:04]

BUT MR. GREENCORN, DO YOU MIND PROVIDING A CURRENT STATE ASSESSMENT?

>> YOU PRETTY MUCH HIT ALL OF THE NAIL ON THE HEAD ON THAT ONE.

WE HAVE MOVED BACK FROM THE 11:00 PM WORK.

THANK YOU TO THE RESIDENTS FOR ENDURING THAT.

I DROVE DOWN AT MYSELF.

IT WAS NOT COMFORTABLE HAVING A FOUR AND TWO-YEAR-OLD MYSELF.

I CAN UNDERSTAND THEIR PLIGHT IN THAT MANNER, AND WE THANK THEM BECAUSE IT'S NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE.

THE SHEET PILES ARE DONE.

THERE IS SOME PILING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE FOR THE RAFT SLAB, WHICH IS UNDERNEATH THE WHOLE BUILDING.

ANYWAY, I WON'T GET INTO THE DETAILS, BUT WE'RE MOVING BACK TO THE 7:00 PM CURFEW AND THEY HAVEN'T PUT IN A REQUEST TO EXTEND UNTIL 11:00 PM.

SO HOPEFULLY, WE'RE OUT OF THE BULK OF IT.

OF COURSE, IT'S STILL A CONSTRUCTION SITE.

THERE STILL WILL BE SOME NOISE, BUT WE EXPECT IT TO BE QUITE A BIT LESS THAN WHAT'S OCCURRED IN THE PAST THREE WEEKS. THANKS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILOR FEQUET.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT DETAILED UP DATE.

I KNOW THE RESIDENTS IN THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE ALL OF THAT INFORMATION AND THEY'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO SOME QUIETER EVENINGS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRIES? SEEING NONE.

MOTION TO ADJOURN. COUNCIL ARDEN-SMITH, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MCGURK.

HAVE A GREAT NIGHT, EVERYBODY.

WELL DONE AND THANK YOU TO RESIDENTS FOR COMING OUT TONIGHT.

>> THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.