[00:00:03]
>> I WILL CALL OUR SPECIAL GOVERNANCE AND PRIORITY COMMITTEE MEETING FOR
[1. Opening Statement]
DECEMBER 1ST TO ORDER, OUR BUDGET MEETING.I WILL START WITH THE OPENING STATEMENT.
THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT WE ARE LOCATED IN CHIEF DRYGEESE TERRITORY.
FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL, IT HAS BEEN THE TRADITIONAL LAND OF THE YELLOWKNIFE DENE FIRST NATION.
WE RESPECT THE HISTORIES, LANGUAGES, AND CULTURES OF ALL OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, INCLUDING THE NORTH SLAVE METIS AND ALL FIRST NATION METIS AND INUIT, WHOSE PRESENCE CONTINUES TO ENRICH OUR VIBRANT COMMUNITY.
NEXT, WE HAVE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.
MR. VAN DINE, HOPE HE ANSWERS NO, BUT IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE AGENDA?
>> THE ANSWER IS NO, MR. CHAIR.
>> LOVELY. NEXT, WE HAVE DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF.
DOES ANY MEMBER HAVE A CONFLICT TONIGHT? CAN ALWAYS BRING IT UP IF IT COMES UP AS WE GO.
[4. 2026 Budget Deliberations. ]
NEXT, WE HAVE 2026 BUDGET DELIBERATIONS.MR. VAN DINE, GOING TO FLIP IT OVER TO YOU BEFORE WE GET INTO THINGS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE A FEW THINGS.
FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU AND COLE KALLIO FOR ACTING IN MY ABSENCE LAST WEEK AND PREPARING FOR TODAY.
THANK YOU FOR THE SUPPORT AND FOR MANAGING THIS REMOTELY.
I LOOK FORWARD TO GETTING INTO THE DISCUSSION TODAY.
IN GETTING INTO THE DISCUSSION TODAY, I JUST WANTED TO REMIND THE COUNCIL THAT WE CAME FORWARD ON NOVEMBER 4TH WITH A PROPOSED BUDGET.
THE START OF THE PROCESS WAS TO PUT THAT OUT THERE AND TO IDENTIFY OUR FINANCIAL POSITION, AS WELL AS SOME KEY INITIATIVES THAT REFLECTED PUBLIC INPUT, REFLECTED THE STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS OF COUNCIL, AND OUR WORK PLAN, AND PROVIDED SOME ADVICE TO COUNCIL ON WHAT WOULD BE A STARTING POINT FOR BUDGET 2026.
DURING THAT PRESENTATION, THERE WAS A COUPLE OF PIECES, ONE IN PARTICULAR THAT WE REPORTED ON THAT WAS STILL IN PROCESS.
THAT WAS THE GENERAL ASSESSMENT.
THE GENERAL ASSESSMENT IS NOW CONCLUDED, AND WE'RE HARVESTING THE RESULTS FROM THAT NOW.
THE SECOND PIECE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW TO COUNCIL'S ATTENTION IS THAT RELATED TO THE GENERAL ASSESSMENT IS THE FACT THAT THE TAX BURDEN OR THE RELATIVE TAX RATE ON RESIDENTS AS PREPARING FOR A TAX PERIOD IS DEPENDENT ON IN PART THE MILL RATE, WHICH COUNCILS RECENTLY PASSED A POLICY WITH RESPECT TO THAT, WHICH WE'RE GRATEFUL.
BUT ALSO THE RELATIVE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES ASSESSED OR THE RELATIVE GROWTH IN THE COMMUNITY.
AS WAS POINTED OUT IN OUR NOVEMBER 4TH PRESENTATION, THE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH OF THE COMMUNITY, THE RELATIVE GROWTH OF THE COMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO NEW DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICULARLY NEW SUBDIVISIONS, HAS NOT OCCURRED FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
AS A RESULT OF THAT, WHAT YOU MIGHT FIND IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY, NOT NECESSARILY THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, BUT IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY, YOU WOULD SEE A RELATIVE GROWTH RATE THAT WOULD POSITIVELY CORRELATE TO POTENTIALLY A LOWER TAX BURDEN BECAUSE OF THE GROWTH THAT'S OCCURRED, MORE PEOPLE TO SPREAD OVER THE BURDEN OVER NEW DEVELOPMENTS, AND OUR RELATIVE GROWTH RATE HAS NOT NECESSARILY BEEN THE SAME AS PERHAPS OTHER JURISDICTIONS IN THE COUNTRY.
ALTHOUGH WE'VE HAD SOME GROWTH, WHICH WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO CALIBRATE IN THIS PARTICULAR GENERAL ASSESSMENT.
THE OTHER PIECE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE IS THAT ON NOVEMBER 4TH, MR. PANDO AND HIS TEAM PUT TOGETHER OUR FINANCIALS, AS WE UNDERSTOOD THEM TO BE AT THAT TIME.
AT THAT TIME, WE KNEW THAT THERE WAS ALWAYS OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADJUSTMENT, AND WE'VE BEEN CONTINUING TO REFINE THE NUMBERS BASED ON OUR ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS THAT WE'VE DONE SINCE NOVEMBER 4TH.
WE'VE ALSO FOUND, AS COUNCIL MAY RECALL, RELATIVELY LATE IN THE YEAR LATER THAN TODAY, WE FOUND OUT LAST YEAR ABOUT THE CARBON REBATE, WHICH THANKFULLY, WE'VE HEARD ABOUT MORE RECENTLY THAN WE DID THIS TIME LAST YEAR.
WITH THAT INFORMATION, I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE MR. PANDO AND HIS TEAM TO PRESENT AN UPDATE ON THE FINANCIALS SINCE WE'VE PRESENTED THEM TO YOU ON NOVEMBER 4TH. IS THAT AGREEABLE?
>> BY ALL MEANS, OVER TO YOU, MR. PANDO.
BEFORE WE START WITH THE PROCEEDINGS TONIGHT, WHICH ARE GOING TO BE VERY EXCITING AS USUAL.
[00:05:01]
I JUST WANTED TO INFORM THE COUNCIL, AS MR. VAN DINE HAS MENTIONED, THAT SINCE WE RELEASED THE 2026 DRAFT BUDGET AT THE START OF NOVEMBER, ADMINISTRATION HAS CONTINUED TO WORK DILIGENTLY ON THE REFINEMENT OF THE 7% PROPERTY TAX INCREASE THAT WAS INITIALLY PROPOSED.WE HAVE INCORPORATED REVISIONS WHERE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS BECOME AVAILABLE TO ENSURE FURTHER ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS.
AS A NOTE, WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING REFINEMENTS AND ADJUSTMENTS THAT WE HAVE MADE IN THE NET REDUCTION OF 27,000 TO THE WAGES AND BENEFITS EXPENSES.
BASED ON UPDATED FACILITY USAGE DATA, INCREASE THE REVENUES FROM USER FEES BY $72,000.
AS AGAIN, MR. VAN DINE MENTIONED, THE BIGGEST ADJUSTMENT IS THE RECORDING OF THE COMMUNITY GOVERNMENT CARBON TAX REVENUE SHARING GROUNDS, 2024/25, IN THE AMOUNT OF 413,000.
WE RECEIVED CONFIRMATION IN THIS RESPECT FROM THE GNWT ON NOVEMBER 18TH.
TWO WEEKS AFTER THE CITY'S INITIAL DRAFT BUDGET WAS RELEASED, BUT WE HAVE NOW UPDATED OUR FORECAST NUMBERS FOR 2025 AND THE 2026 OPENING GENERAL FUND BALANCE ACCORDINGLY.
THESE THREE MENTIONED ADJUSTMENTS TOTALING 512,000 MEANS THAT THE PERCENTAGE PROPERTY TAX INCREASE BEING PROPOSED IS NOW 5.83% FROM THE 7% INITIALLY.
WITH THAT, I'LL PASS IT BACK ON TO MR. VAN DINE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MR. PANDO. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COUNCIL HAD THE LATEST INFORMATION IN ORDER TO START ITS PROCEEDINGS THIS EVENING.
WE'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO GO INTO ANY ADDITIONAL DETAIL OR CLARIFICATION ON ANY OF THE INFORMATION THAT MR. PANDO PRESENTED.
BUT FOR OPENING BALANCE PURPOSES, THE REVISED NUMBER FOR THE PROPOSED TAX RATE FOR BUDGET 2026 IS DOWN FROM 7-5.83.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. PANDO BEFORE WE GET OUT OF THE GATE? SEEING NONE. ANYTHING ELSE, MR. VAN DINE?
>> PERFECT. WITH THAT, EVERYBODY, WE'RE GOING TO CRACK IN, AS I HAD EMAILED IN ADVANCE OF TONIGHT.
WE'RE GOING TO START WITH OUR CAPITAL BUDGET ITEMS. IF YOU GO, YOU CAN START THE LIST; THE FULL LIST STARTS ON PAGE 109, BUT PAGE 112 OF THE BUDGET DOCUMENT IS WHERE WE'RE STARTING TONIGHT.
AS WE GO THROUGH EVERYTHING, KEEP IN YOUR BRAIN THE BALANCE THAT WE ALL ARE DOING INDIVIDUALLY, WHAT WE'VE STRATEGICALLY ASKED ADMIN TO DO, THAT'S WHAT THEY BUDGETED.
ARE THERE THINGS THAT WE THINK ARE OUT OF WHACK WITH WHAT WE'VE STRATEGICALLY ASKED THEM TO DO? THAT'S THE STUFF THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT? ARE THERE THINGS THAT WE DON'T THINK ARE CAPTURED, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS? THIS IS WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO FOR THE NEXT NIGHT OR TWO, OR LET'S KEEP IT TO NIGHT OR TWO.
BUT WITH THAT, WE'LL START AT PAGE 112, AND SO WE HAVE, FIRST, THE ACCESSIBILITY IMPLEMENTATION.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THAT, COUNCIL MCLENNAN?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M NOT ON THIS ONE, BUT I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT A SIGNIFICANT PROJECT, WHICH IS ABSENT FROM THE 2026 PROJECT.
JUST LOOKING TO GET AN UPDATE FROM STAFF ON THE FIRE HALL PROJECT.
>> SORRY, ACCESSIBILITY AROUND THE FIRE HALL PROJECT? OR ARE YOU LOOKING AT THE FIRE HALL SPECIFICALLY?
>> JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT THERE, SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE [OVERLAPPING]
>> FAIR ENOUGH. WE'LL START OFF WITH THAT. MR. VAN DINE.
>> SURE. I'LL INVITE MR. MCLEAN TO REPORT OUT.
BUT AS THE COUNCIL WILL KNOW BY NOW, THE PROPOSED SCALE OF WORK OR PROJECTED WORK FOR 2025 WAS POSTPONED IN PART BECAUSE THE BIDS RECEIVED WERE OVER WHAT WE HAD AUDITED AND WERE APPROVED, AND SO WE'RE IN THE MIDST OF RECALCULATING THAT, AND I'LL JUST INVITE MR. MCLEAN TO ADD WHERE WE STAND ON SUCH THINGS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. AS MR. VAN DINE SAID, WE DID GO REQUEST FOR TENDER THIS SUMMER BASED ON A CAPITAL BUDGET WE HAD AVAILABLE.
THE PROJECT BIDS ON THE TENDER CAME SUBSTANTIALLY IN OVER THAT BUDGET AMOUNT, WHICH LED TO A PRUDENT AND SAFEST PATH FORWARD, WHICH WAS A STRAIGHT CANCELLATION OF THAT PROJECT.
WHERE THAT LEFT US MOVING INTO THE FALL OF THIS YEAR WAS WE NEEDED TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION OF COUNCIL,
[00:10:05]
WHICH WAS MADE ON FEBRUARY 8TH, 2021, WHICH WAS BASED ON ONE OF THE FOUR OPTIONS PROVIDED, AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE OTHER THREE OPTIONS, DEFINING THE MOST ECONOMICAL AND APPROPRIATE PATH FORWARD.SOME THINGS HAVE CHANGED, OF COURSE, IN THE CLIMATE OF THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE SINCE THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION WAS MOTIONED BY COUNCIL.
THAT IS, WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE SOME OTHER FACILITIES IN YELLOWKNIFE THAT MAY BE UNDER THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE THAT MAY NEED SOME ATTENTION AS WELL.
THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES NOW TO PERHAPS LOOK AT COMBINED SERVICES.
WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THIS RIGHT NOW IS THERE'S THREE OTHER OPTIONS THAT MAY FULFILL A PATH FORWARD, THAT IS, SUSTAINING THE EXISTING LOCATION AND COMPLETING RENOVATIONS.
DEMOLISHING THE BUILDING AND BUILDING A COMPLETELY NEW BUILDING ON THE SITE.
SOME ASPECT OF EITHER ONE OF THOSE, AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE RIGHT NOW, IS WE'RE DOING THE EXAMINATION AND ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE BEST APPROACH FORWARD SO THAT WE CAN COME BACK WITH COUNCIL WITH OUR MOST PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION THAT WE CAN PROVIDE. THANK YOU.
>> COUNCIL MCLENNAN, ANYTHING FURTHER?
>> YEAH, THANKS FOR THE UPDATE.
THEN, JUST LOOKING SINCE THERE'S NO NEW MONEY IN THIS BUDGET FOR THE PROJECT, ARE THERE ANY NEXT STEPS? IS THERE CARRY-FORWARD MONEY, JUST AN UPDATE ON THE FINANCES, OR IS THERE GOING TO BE AN ASK IN 2027?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. WE WILL BE, I THINK, TECHNICALLY CARRYING FORWARD FUNDS AS A RESULT OF THE FACT THAT WE'VE NOT PROGRESSED AS ORIGINALLY PLANNED.
THE ADDITIONAL DOLLARS THAT WE'VE GOT.
WE EXPECT TO BE CARRYING FORWARD A BALANCE OF ABOUT 10.5 MILLION FROM THE DATE OF AUGUST 31ST OF THIS YEAR.
WE ARE HAVING SOME CARRY-FORWARD.
AS MR. MCLEAN HAS POINTED OUT, WE'LL HAVE TO ASSESS.
WE ARE NOT MAKING AN INFORMED ASK FOR ADDITIONAL DOLLARS IN THE BUDGET 2026 BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DONE THE FULL ANALYSIS.
AS MR. MCLEAN HAS POINTED OUT, THE NOTION OF COMBINED FACILITIES IS NOW PRESENT IN OUR MINDS, AND SO WE'LL BE LOOKING TO THAT.
THE OTHER ISSUE THAT THE COUNCIL WILL BE AWARE OF IS MAKING SURE THAT THE BUILDING ITSELF REMAINS ABLE TO SUPPORT THE EXISTING FIREFIGHTER COMPLEMENT THERE, AND IT DOES.
ALTHOUGH IF THERE ARE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE NEED TO BE MAKING IN THE INTERIM, WE'LL CONSIDER THOSE AS REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT THE BUILDING MAINTAINS A SAFE OPERATING SITE FOR OUR EMPLOYEES THERE.
BUT AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE DON'T HAVE AN INFORMED NUMBER OR AN ADDITIONAL NUMBER FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER IN BUDGET 2026.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCIL MCLENNAN. YOU'RE ALL GOOD.
THUMBS UP. LET'S FIRE BACK ON TRACK THERE, AROUND THE ACCESSIBILITY IMPLEMENTATION.
AGAIN, IF ANYTHING POPS UP, WE'LL ALSO DO IT AT THE END OF THE CAPITAL, IF ANYTHING IS STILL AVAILABLE OR IN YOUR BRAINS THAT WE HAVEN'T ADDRESSED, YOU CAN ASK YOUR QUESTIONS THEN.
THEN, AT THE END OF EVERYTHING, WE WILL ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO INTO IT.
AROUND THE ACCESSIBILITY IMPLEMENTATION, WE HAD COUNCIL FEQUET FIRST.
>> THANKS, MR. CHAIR. JUST A QUESTION.
JUST RECOGNIZING THIS STUDY WAS LIKE A 10-YEAR ROADMAP, AND THERE WAS ABOUT $5 MILLION WORTH OF WORK.
IF WE SPREAD THAT OVER, THAT'S ABOUT HALF A MILLION A YEAR TO GET EVERYTHING DONE.
MY TWO QUESTIONS ARE, IS THE FEDERAL FUNDING ANTICIPATED TO CONTINUE TO FUND THE COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATION OF ALL THOSE AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS? TWO, JUST RECOGNIZING OVER A TWO-YEAR PERIOD, WE'VE BUDGETED ABOUT HALF OF THAT MUCH ON AVERAGE.
ARE WE ON TRACK TO COMPLETE ALL THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I'LL CALL ON MR. WHITE AND POSSIBLY AN ASSISTANCE FROM MS. THISTLE.
WE DID MEET RECENTLY WITH THE ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO OUR PLANS AND GOING FORWARD WITH RESPECT TO OUR ACCESSIBILITY CAPITAL PLANS.
WE HAVE MADE DOWN PAYMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS THAT PLAN OVER THE YEARS, AND I'LL INVITE MR. WHITE TO GIVE THE MORE DETAILED VIEW AND MS. THISTLE, IF REQUIRED.
YES, I COULD SEE THAT WE'VE BEEN QUITE SUCCESSFUL IN
[00:15:02]
OBTAINING EXTERNAL FUNDING FOR A GOOD CHUNK OF THESE PROJECTS.IF YOU LOOK IN SOME OF THE PAST HISTORY, WE'VE CARRIED OVER QUITE A BIT OF FUNDS FROM YEAR TO YEAR, AND THAT'S A REFLECTION OF THAT SUCCESS. WE ARE ON TRACK.
AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE CURRENT BUDGET RATE UP, WE ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE COMPLETED IN 2027.
HOWEVER, I GUESS THIS TIME NEXT YEAR, AND THEN THE FOLLOWING YEAR, WE'LL HAVE A MUCH CLEARER PICTURE AS TO WHERE WE ARE HITTING ALL THE HIGH SPOTS ON THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE AUDIT THAT WAS DONE IN 2017. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE-CHECK THAT.
IT SEEMED LIKE WE'RE PUTTING LESS MONEY THAN WAS NEEDED TO DO EVERYTHING, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING BY THE END OF 2027 [INAUDIBLE], SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR. THANK YOU.
>> I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSCORE MR. WHITE'S COMMENT WITH RESPECT TO IDENTIFYING OUTSIDE SOURCES OF FUNDING TO HELP US MAKE OUR DOLLARS GO FURTHER LONGER.
THAT'S IN PART WHY IT SEEMS AS THOUGH OUR NUMBERS HAVE BEEN GOING DOWN AND THAT WE'RE STILL GETTING THE WORK DONE.
>> PERFECT. DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON.
>> THANK YOU. REALLY TWEAK THIS ON THE POSITION TODAY.
THIS IS DEVELOPING SUCCESSFUL WAYFINDING SIGNAGE IN THIS BUDGET LINE.
IS THIS GOING TO WRAP INTO THE WORK WE'RE DOING WITH THE TOURISM FOLKS BECAUSE WE MENTIONED WAYFINDING TODAY?
>> I'LL INVITE MS. THISTLE TO RESPOND.
>> WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH COMMUNITY SERVICES, AND THEY HAD ALREADY COMMENCED SOME OF THIS WORK, SO I'M JUST GOING TO PASS IT OVER TO MR. WHITE TO GIVE IT MORE DETAILS.
>> THANK YOU. WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT ACCESSIBILITY, OF COURSE, WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL ACCESSIBILITY.
AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE WAYFINDING SIGNAGE, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT REFLECTS THE PROPER FONT, THE CORRECT COLOR CONTRAST SIZE, THE WHOLE WORK.
AS PART OF THE WAYFINDING, WE'LL BE ABLE TO ADD IN SOME OF THE ACCESSIBILITY MONEY TO ENHANCE THAT. THANK YOU.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? QUESTIONS? NO. CARRY ON.
NEXT, WE HAVE THE ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, COUNCIL MCLENNAN.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WITH REGARD TO ASSET MANAGEMENT, WE'VE BEEN HEARING EVERY YEAR ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT IT IS AND HOW FUNDAMENTAL THE JOURNEY WILL BE TO BUDGET AND TO RESOURCE ALLOCATION.
JUST HAVEN'T SEEN MANY OF THOSE THINGS YET.
JUST WONDERING IF THIS IS ENOUGH IN TERMS OF RESOURCES, AND IF SOME OF THOSE ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS WILL INFORM THE NEXT BUDGET.
>> I'LL INVITE MR. PANDO TO RESPOND TO THAT, MR. CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
WILL IT INFORM BUDGET 2027? YES AND NO, TO A NEXT, YES, BUT IT WILL NOT BE FULLY IMPLEMENTED BECAUSE I DID MENTION IN PREVIOUS GBC THAT WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS, BUT IT IS VERY SLOW PROGRESS BECAUSE OUR STARTING POINT, OUR MATURITY LEVEL WAS NOT WHERE WE HAD ANTICIPATED WE'RE GOING TO START, SO IT'S TAKING LONGER THAN USUAL.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE PROGRESS THAT WE HAVE MADE AND NEXT YEAR, IN EARLY Q1, WE WILL BE COMING TO GBC WITH SOME PRESENTATION AND SHOW YOU AS TO WHAT WE HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY DOING IN THE BACKGROUND BECAUSE, I KNOW IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE LAWS, BUT WE HAVE BEEN DOING PROGRESS, AND WE ARE QUITE EXCITED TO SHOW YOU WHAT WE HAVE DONE SO FAR, AND I THINK WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS IF THAT ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTION. THANK YOU.
>> YEAH, GO AHEAD, MR. VAUGHAN.
>> YES. JUST TO READER, I THINK COUNCILOR MCLENNAN'S COMMENT WAS WHETHER THE FINANCES FOR THIS COMING YEAR WERE SUFFICIENT TO GET THE WORK DONE.
JUST WITH THAT, FROM MR. PANDOO'S PRESENTATION, WE'RE NOT SEEKING ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO ACCELERATE.
I THINK WE'RE PECKING AWAY AT IT, AND WE'RE NOT SEEKING ADDITIONAL FUNDS AT THIS TIME.
>> PICKING AWAY SYSTEMATICALLY, IT SOUNDS LIKE. COUNSEL FEQUET.
>> THANKS, MR. CHAIR. SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION, JUST CURIOUS, ARE WE DOING ALL THIS WORK COMPLETELY IN HOUSE, OR ARE WE BRINGING IN EXTRA HORSEPOWER TO HELP MOVE THIS FORWARD?
>> YES. WE'VE BEEN ENGAGING KPMG TO HELP US.
THEY'VE GOT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF EXPERTISE IN THE SPACE, AND THEY'VE BEEN PROVIDING US THE STRATEGIC GUIDANCE, AND WE'VE COMBINED THAT WITH SOME IN HOUSE RESOURCES TO DEDICATE TO THE PROJECT.
[00:20:04]
I APPRECIATE WE'D ALL LIKE TO SEE THIS MOVE MUCH MORE QUICKLY, BUT WE'VE ADOPTED ESSENTIALLY A HYBRID MODEL WITH A COMBINATION OF INSIDE RESOURCE AND OUTSIDE RESOURCES, AND I'LL INVITE MR. PANDOO TO ADD ANY MORE CLARIFICATION.>> THANK YOU. NOTHING FURTHER TO ADD.
>> THIS IS EASY. COUNSEL FEQUET.
>> THANKS FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE IN MY MIND ABOUT THE REALISTICNESS OF ACCELERATING THIS TO SOME DEGREE, WITH MORE RESOURCES GIVEN TO IT, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE ALREADY RELYING ON EXTERNAL HORSEPOWER TO SOME DEGREE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE.
NEXT, WE MOVE TO THE AQUATIC CENTER.
ANY QUESTIONS? COUNSEL COCHRANE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. MY ONLY REAL QUESTION IS OUT OF CURIOSITY.
WHY WASN'T THE CHLORINE SAFETY EQUIPMENT IMPLEMENTED IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN? IS THAT JUST BECAUSE THIS IS AN UPDATED NEW TECHNOLOGY THAT HAPPENED AFTER THE DESIGN? MR. VAUGHAN.
>> I'LL INVITE MR. WHITE TO RESPOND TO THAT.
>> THANK, MR. VAUGHAN. YES, THAT IS EXACTLY IT.
AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH OUR SAFETY PROTOCOLS AND ALL THE EQUIPMENT THAT WE WERE LOOKING TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE AQUATIC CENTER, THE CHLORINE SAFETY SHUT OFF IS NOT YET AVAILABLE. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU. WITH THAT BEING SAID, DIRECTOR WHITE, WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, DOES IT CURRENTLY MEET SAFETY SPECS?
>> MR. VAUGHAN, PASS TO YOU FIRST, AND THEN YOU CAN DIRECT FROM THERE.
>> I'M GOING TO SAY YES, AND THEN TURN IT OVER TO MR. WHITE TO SAY OTHERWISE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW DOES MEET SAFETY CODE OR WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO OPEN.
WHAT THIS ADDED ENHANCEMENT IS REALLY, IT IS A STAFF AND I GUESS, COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY, WHEREAS AS SOON AS A CHLORINE TANK OR AS SOON AS A CHLORINE ALARM IS SENT, THEN THE TANKS ARE AUTOMATICALLY SHUT OFF.
CURRENTLY, THEY WILL HAVE TO BE SHUT OFF BY STAFF, AND THAT COULD BE ANYWHERE FROM MINUTES.
IF THEY'RE IN THE FACILITY OR IF THERE'S A LEAK AFTER HOURS, THEN THEY HAVE TO ATTEND TO THE FACILITY, AND IT'S A TWO PERSON OPERATION.
IF YOU CAN IMAGINE AT TWO, THREE, FOUR IN THE MORNING, IT WILL TAKE SOME TIME FOR TWO STAFF TO BE ON SITE, DONE THE EQUIPMENT, VENT THE ROOM AND THEN GO IN AND TURN THE TANKS OFF. THANK YOU.
>> IS CHLORINE SPILLS SOMETHING THAT WERE A PROBLEM IN THE PAST?
>> I'LL JUST GO STRAIGHT TO MR. WHITE.
>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE BEEN VERY FORTUNATE, I GUESS, WE HAVE BEEN WELL PLANNED IN OUR MAINTENANCE.
WE HAVE NOT HAD A CATASTROPHIC CHLORINE LEAK OR CHLORINE EXPOSURE TO ANYBODY OR ANYTHING.
AGAIN, THIS IS JUST ONE MORE LEVEL OF SAFETY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TO ENHANCE SAFETY FOR BOTH THE PUBLIC AND OUR STAFF. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. IS THIS THE POINT WHERE WE CAN MAKE MOTIONS?
>> IT IS. I WOULD SAY MAYBE JUST LET COLLEAGUES IF THEY HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS FIRST, BUT YES, AFTER THAT, IT IS.
MAYBE I'LL GO FIRST TO COUNSEL FEQUET, BUT I'LL COME BACK TO COUNSEL PAYNE.
>> THANKS, MR. CHAIR. YEAH, SEEING VANE HAD ASKED THE QUESTION, AND THANK YOU FOR ADMITTING FOR THE RESPONSE THERE IN THE COMMENT TABLE.
OBVIOUSLY, WE WANT TO HAVE YOU KNOW THE VERY BEST SAFETY EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES IN PLACE FOR BOTH OUR STAFF AND THE PUBLIC.
I HAVEN'T HEARD OF MANY OF THESE OF LEAKS ARE HAPPENING AT THIS FACILITY AND IT'S GOOD TO KNOW WE HAVE GOOD PROCEDURES IN PLACE.
FOR ME, THIS FALLS INTO THE CATEGORY OF AT SOME POINT, WE SHOULD PROBABLY DO THIS IN THE CONTEXT OF ASSET MANAGEMENT.
BUT I ASSUME WE HAVE BRAND NEW EVERYTHING UNDER WARRANTY AND IT'S VERY MINIMALLY LIKELY THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE LIKE A LIKELY RISK.
FOR ME, THE PURPOSE OF ASKING THAT QUESTION WAS MORE ABOUT TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, IS THIS SOMETHING WE NEED NOW OR OBVIOUSLY, I APPRECIATE THAT IT'S BEING BROUGHT FORWARD AS SOMETHING WE'VE BECOME AWARE OF THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE THE OPTION OF INCLUDING, BUT IT IS ALMOST HALF A TAX POINT.
FOR ME, IT MIGHT BE A LATER THING, BUT I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR WHAT MY COLLEAGUES THINK.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON AND COUNCIL MCLENNAN.
[00:25:02]
>> I GUESS I'M LOOKING. WOULD WE BE ODD OR WEIRD OR LEGALLY EXPOSED, I GUESS, IF WE DON'T HAVE THIS EQUIPMENT? BASICALLY, WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, DOES IT MEET ALL OUR REQUIREMENTS FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY, OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE ELSE HAS IN THE COUNTRY AND WE DON'T HAVE ON OURS?
>> THANK YOU. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. WHITE MOMENTARILY, BUT SUFFICE IT TO SAY, GRANTED THAT THE FACILITY IS SHINY AND NEW, AND WE HOPE ALL OF THE THINGS WORK THAT ARE IN THERE.
THAT BEING SAID, THIS IS A VERY COMPLEX FACILITY.
THE CHLORINE QUESTION, IT'S NOT A TINY HEALTH AND SAFETY QUESTION.
I APPRECIATE PUBLIC MONIES ARE ONES THAT WE NEED TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OVER.
WHAT I WOULD OFFER THAT IN THE CASE OF AN EVENT OCCURRING, THE ABILITY TO TURN OFF FAST IS HUGE IN TERMS OF COST SAVINGS.
THERE ARE SOME BENEFITS TO MAKING SURE THAT WE'VE GOT THE RIGHT TECHNOLOGY IN PLACE.
THIS IS A BIT OF A LEARNING OPERATION.
THIS IS A BRAND NEW FACILITY OF SIZE AND COMPLEXITY THAT WE HAVEN'T DEALT WITH BEFORE, AND THIS RECOMMENDATION IS BROUGHT FORWARD WITH A VIEW OF MAKING SURE THAT WE PROTECT THAT ASSET AND WE PROTECT THE PUBLIC.
BUT MR. WHITE'S MUCH MORE INVOLVED IN THE TECHNICAL SIDES OF THINGS, AND I'LL INVITE HIM TO ELABORATE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS IS MUCH AKIN TO WHAT WE HAVE AT OUR ARENAS WHERE WE HAVE AMMONIA CAPTURE.
THESE WERE ADDED ON TO THE ICE PLANTS IN THE RECENT YEARS FOLLOWING AN AMMONIA DISASTER IN BC, WHERE IN THE EVENT OF ANY AMMONIA LEAK, IT'S CAPTURED AND IT DOES NOT LEAK TO THE ENVIRONMENT.
THIS IS MUCH AKIN TO THAT WHERE IF THERE'S ANY KIND OF A LEAK WITHIN THE SYSTEM, WHETHER IT'S A TANK OR THE FEEDING MECHANISM ALONG THE HOSES, AS SOON AS THE ALARM GOES OFF, THE TANKS ARE AUTOMATICALLY TURNED OFF.
AGAIN, AS MR. VAUGHAN MENTIONED, THIS IS A HUGE STAFF SAFETY AND A HUGE PUBLIC SAFETY MITIGATION FACTOR.
I GUESS I WILL ADD THAT SINCE THE OPENING ON MAY 5, WE HAVE HAD ONE CHLORINE ALARM THAT I'M AWARE OF.
IT COULD BE MORE, AND THEY'RE NOT UNCOMMON.
THEY JUST LIKE I SAID, PREVIOUSLY, IS THAT WITH OUR SKILLED MAINTENANCE STAFF AND OUR MAINTENANCE PROGRAM, WE HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO JUST SMALL LEAKS TO DATE, BUT CONSISTENT. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON, ANYTHING FURTHER? COUNCIL MCLENNAN?
>> THANKS. YEAH, JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON COUNCILOR WARBURTON'S QUESTION.
IS THIS PARTICULAR TECHNOLOGY COMMON AT AQUATIC CENTERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, OR WOULD THIS BE A HIGHER LEVEL OF SAFETY THAN EXISTS ELSEWHERE?
>> MR. WHITE, WE'VE DONE THE COMPARISON.
>> I'D LIKE TO BRING THIS BACK TOMORROW OR A LATER TIME.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE BRAND NAMES THAT WERE USED.
THE BRANDS THAT WE HAVE, THEY'RE JUST BECOMING AVAILABLE.
THERE ARE ANOTHER BRAND OF CHLORINE EQUIPMENT THAT HAS HAD THIS FOR A WHILE.
I JUST NOT SURE THE PREVALENT AMONGST OTHER COMMUNITIES. THANKS.
>> THANKS VERY MUCH. COUNCIL MCLENNAN, ANYTHING FURTHER?
>> YEAH. I'D BE APPRECIATED JUST TO UNDERSTAND IF WE'RE BUYING A MERCEDES BENZ OR A FORD?
>> SOUNDS GOOD. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GO BACK TO COUNSEL PAYNE? I JUST HAVE ONE.
HAVE WE DONE A RISK ASSESSMENT IN ADVANCE OF INCLUDING THIS ITEM IN THE BUDGET? MR. VAUGHAN, I'LL START WITH YOU.
>> A FINANCIAL RISK OR A TECHNICAL RISK?
>> TECHNICAL, I WAS THINKING SPECIFICALLY AROUND WORKER SAFETY, CONSIDERING THAT SEEMS TO BE A PRIMARY ONE, BOTH, I SUPPOSE, INFRASTRUCTURE GENERALLY, BUT THEN ALSO WORKER SAFETY RISK.
>> I'LL TURN IT OVER TO DIRECTOR WHITE, BUT I BELIEVE YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM AN OFFICIAL OSH ASSESSMENT IS WHAT I GATHER.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE ENTIRE FACILITY, ALL COMPONENTS HAVE HAD A RISK ASSESSMENT, PART OF OUR OPENING PROCEDURES.
>> PERFECT. SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS.
I'M GOING TO GIVE IT BACK TO COUNSEL PAYNE, ALTHOUGH DIRECTOR WHITE, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
SO DEPENDING ON WHAT COUNSEL PAYNE DOES, WE MAY OR MAY NOT TABLE SOMETHING IN A SECOND, BUT COUNSEL PAYNE, GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I DO BELIEVE THAT WE'RE MEETING
[00:30:04]
ALL SAFETY PRECAUTIONS NOW AND TAKING OR DOING WHAT'S NECESSARY.I THINK THIS IS A WANT AND NOT A NEED.
I'M PUTTING FORWARD A MOTION TO CUT THIS FROM OUR BUDGET.
>> CAN I GET A SECOND COUNCILOR COCHRANE, BASED OFF OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF DIRECTOR WHITE TO COME BACK WITH THIS, IS EVERYBODY OKAY, COUNCILOR PAYNE, IF YOU RETABLE THIS UNTIL TOMORROW? OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO VOTE ON IT? ULTIMATELY IT'S YOUR MOTION, SO IT'S UP TO YOU.
>> EVEN IF WE VOTE ON IT NOW, WE CAN STILL BRING IT BACK.
>> SORRY. ONLY THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD VOTE IN THE MAJORITY COULD DECIDE TO CHANGE THE MOTION AFTER THE FACT, SO JUST PUTTING THAT, THERE IS THAT CAVEAT.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO. WE'LL TABLE THAT.
I'M JUST GOING TO TAKE A SECOND AND TYPE THIS IN COUNSEL FEQUET FOR ME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNSEL FEQUET.
WE HAVE THAT MOTION ON THE TABLE NOW. WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT.
DIRECTOR WHITE, IF YOU CAN HAVE THAT INFORMATION FOR TOMORROW, THAT'S GREAT.
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE DOCKET IS THE CEMETERY EXPANSION.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS THERE? COUNSEL COCHRANE?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. THE ONLY THING IS, I'D LIKE TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO MICKEY BROWN AND ALL THE ADVOCACY THAT SHE HAS GONE THROUGHOUT THE YEARS TO BE ABLE TO GET SOMETHING LIKE THIS DONE.
I DO KNOW FROM THE ADMINISTRATION THAT CONVERSATIONS HAVE BEEN HAD WITH HER, AND SQUEAKY WHEEL HAS GOTTEN WHAT IT WANTED SO I'M VERY PLEASED TO SEE THIS COME FORWARD.
>> NEXT,WE HAVE COUNSEL PAYNE AND THEN OVER TO COUNCIL MCLENNAN.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I KNOW WE HAD A CONVERSATION A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO ABOUT WHAT WE CHARGED FOR PLOTS AT THE CEMETERY.
I KNOW WE ARE A CITY OF SUBSIDIES.
FOR $323,000 FOR 200 PLOTS, WHAT ARE WE CHARGING FOR PLOTS RIGHT NOW?
>> WE'RE CHARGING APPROXIMATELY HALF OF WHAT THE COSTS ARE RIGHT NOW, BUT I'LL INVITE DIRECTOR WHITE TO MAYBE GIVE US AN ACTUAL NUMBER SO THAT WE'RE WORKING LESS FROM HYPOTHETICALS.
>> THANK YOU. I'M JUST SCROLLING THROUGH OUR CITY PAGE TO FIND THAT. I'LL BE RIGHT BACK WITH THAT.
>> I WAS LOOKING AT THIS RECENTLY, COUNSEL PAYNE.
IT'S A ROUND HALF OF WHAT OUR SISTER CITY AND WHITEHORSE CHARGES FOR SIMILAR COSTS BUT THE DIRECTOR GET BACK TO OFFICIALLY.
>> IF WHITEHORSE JUMPED OFF THE WHARF, WE GO JUMP OFF THE WHARF TOO?[LAUGHTER]
>> I MEAN IT'S ALWAYS A GOOD STARTING POINT BUT KEEP GOING.
>> RIGHT NOW THAT'S THE COST RECOVERY ON THIS IS $1,600 ROUGHLY PER LOT.
>> I'M JUST WONDERING IF YOU COULD STRETCH THAT QUESTION ANOTHER 30 SECONDS.
>> I THINK COUNCILOR PAYNE DOES GIVE ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK TO A NOTE THAT I HAD NOT GOTTEN TO MY OPENING COMMENTS, AND THAT WAS THE GENERAL CONCEPT OF FEES AND CHARGES.
THIS PARTICULAR BUDGET DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF EMPHASIS ON FEES AND CHARGES.
WE'VE TAKEN MORE OF A TRADITIONAL BALANCED APPROACH ACROSS ALL DIFFERENT SOURCES OF BOTH REVENUE AS WELL AS TAX, AS WELL AS OTHER SERVICES.
IT'S NOT FEES AND CHARGES HEAVY, WHICH IS WHAT I BELIEVE THIS PARTICULAR ITEM WOULD ENTAIL.
IT IS SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL OR THIS COUNCIL OR A FUTURE COUNCIL MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER TAKING A BROADER AND MORE COMPREHENSIVE VIEW OF, THE CITY OF ILLINOIS KEEPING PACE GENERALLY, THAT WE'RE NOT OUT TO TARGET ANY PARTICULAR USER GROUP OR DEMOGRAPHIC WITHIN THE CITY, BUT IS THE CITY BASICALLY KEEPING PACE WITH ACCEPTED PRACTICES IN THE COST RECOVERY AND FEES AND CHARGES? THAT'S A LARGE QUESTION.
IT'S A QUESTION THAT I THINK THIS COUNCIL OR ANOTHER COUNCIL MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER INVESTING SOME TIME AND ENERGY, BUT IT WOULD CAPTURE THE EXACT ISSUE THAT COUNCILOR PAYNE IS RAISING TODAY.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. WHITE, DO YOU HAVE AN ANSWER? GO FOR IT.
>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THE COST OF AN ADULT BURIAL PLOT IS $263, WHICH CAME EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2025.
VETERANS IS THE SAME AS AN INFANT AT 157.75,
[00:35:01]
AND THE COST FOR A CREMATION PLOT OR A NICHE IN THE COLUMBARIUM IS ALSO 157.75. THANK YOU.>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. THAT'S GOING TO BE A CONVERSATION AS WELL, I THINK, DOWN THE ROAD.
BUT WOULD THIS WORK BE DONE IN HOUSE WITH OUR OWN CREW? MR. VAUGHAN.
>> THE WORK OF OPERATING THE CEMETERY IS CITY STAFF.
>> NO. THE WORK OF EXPANDING THE CEMETERY.
>> I'LL INVITE MR. WHITE TO SPEAK ON HOW WE WOULD ENVISION ADDING.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE WORK WOULD BE LARGELY DONE BY CONTRACTORS, INCLUDING SCOPING OUT NEW AREAS, DOING SOME GEOTECH WORK, DOING SOME FENCING WORK, AND THEN, THE LANDSCAPING AS WELL. THANKS.
>> STEVE GOT MY QUESTION, WOULD SUPPORT INCREASING THE FEE, WHETHER AS PART OF BUDGET OR FEES AND CHARGES WHENEVER THAT COMES UP.
>> KEEP IT IN YOUR BRAIN FOR LATER TODAY OR TOMORROW IN TERMS OF FEES OR CHARGES OR A BROADER CONVERSATION FOR WORK PLAN, AS MR. VAN DINE SAID.
COUNCIL MCLANE BACK IN THE GAME, GO FOR IT.
>> I'D PREFER TO DO IT JUST AS A ONE OFF LIKE WE DID AMBULANCE FEES IN A PAST BUDGET INSTEAD OF GETTING A MORE BROADER THING FOR THE WORK PLAN.
>> PUT YOUR THINKING CAP ON FOR A MOTION LATER IN THE DISCUSSIONS.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE.
NEXT, WE MOVE ON TO EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT.
ANY QUESTIONS? ITS PAGE 117, IF ANYONE'S LOOKING.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS? SEEING NONE.
AGAIN, YOU CAN ALWAYS YELL AT ME AND TELL ME TO GO BACK IF YOU THINK OF SOMETHING.
NEXT, WE HAVE FIRE HALL EQUIPMENT.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS? SEEING NONE. NEXT, WE HAVE FLEET MANAGEMENT.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS? I SAW DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON'S HAND, SHOOT UP. GO FOR IT.
>> WE AS IN THE COUNCIL Q&A, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT BEING SUCH A GINORMOUS BUDGET NUMBER, SO WE HAVE VERY LARGE CARRY FORWARDS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT PROCUREMENT HAS TAKEN A VERY LONG TIME FOR SOME OF THESE THINGS, BUT THAT CARRY FORWARD IS GETTING VERY BIG.
I'M WONDERING, IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN BE DOING? IS YOUR PLAN TO START TRYING TO EXPEDITE SOME OF THIS SPEND OR CHANGING OF WHAT WE'RE SPENDING ON?
>> THANK YOU. I'LL INVITE MR. GREENCORN TO RESPOND IN A MOMENT BUT SUFFICES TO SAY TO DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON'S QUESTION, IT'S A GOOD ONE.
IT'S A BIG NUMBER THAT'S EYE CATCHING FOR SURE, BUT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE BETTER CANDIDATES TO BE CAUGHT UP IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN QUESTIONS THAT HAVE POPPED UP SINCE THE PANDEMIC AND INCREASINGLY CAUGHT UP IN SOME OF THE MORE COMPLICATED CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN US SUPPLIERS IN CANADA WITH SOME OF THE EQUIPMENT AND PARTICULAR FLEET ITEMS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THERE HAS BEEN DELAYS AND THE NUMBERS THAT WE HAVE IN THERE IN TERMS OF THE REST REPLACEMENT, ARE TIED TO ACTUAL TRACKING WITH ACQUISITION.
BUT MR. GREENCORN, WANTED TO PERHAPS EXPAND AND GIVE US A SENSE OF THE NUMBERS.
TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY, IS THAT CARRY FORWARD NUMBERED LIKELY? IS IT GOING TO PEAK AT SOME POINT OR ARE WE GOING TO START SEEING IT FLAT LINE OR IS IT GOING TO KEEP GOING THE WAY IT'S GOING?
>> THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ELABORATE.
I WOULD SAY THAT IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 149 OF THE BUDGET IS THE RESERVE FUNDS AND ITS OPENING OR CLOSING BALANCE IN 2026 IS PROJECTED TO BE EIGHT MILLION, BUT THAT'S NOT EXACTLY ACCURATE ON THE BALANCE OF THE MRF FUND, AS MR. VAN DINE SAID.
IN THE SPAN OF OUR LONG LEAD TIME, SOME OF THESE UNITS HAVE BEEN ORDERED MULTIPLE IN THE RANGE OF 24 MONTHS AGO.
IF YOU LOOK BACK ACROSS OUR PAST BUDGETS, IF YOU LOOKED TO 2024, THE OPENING BALANCE OF THE MRF FUND WAS 2.6, WHICH IS A GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE PLACE TO BE, BUT IT'S BALLOONED QUITE A BIT JUST BETWEEN 24 AND 26.
THEY'RE JUST THE LEAD TIMES ARE LONG, AND THEY'RE BIG UNITS.
[00:40:03]
I COULD PROBABLY PRODUCE AN ACTUAL LIST OF ALL THE UNITS IN THE QUEUE.I DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME AS IT'S QUITE COMPLEX, THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS.
IT'S ALREADY CONTEMPLATED IN THE QUEUE, AND THERE'S ALSO A COUPLE BIG UNITS THAT WE HAVEN'T REPLACED YET IN 2025.
ALL THAT TO SAY IS THAT WE DO HAVE A PLAN.
IT'S ALL DETAILED OUT IN OUR ASSET REGISTRY AND UNITS ARE REPLACED AS THEY COME UP DUE ACCORDING TO THE POLICY ITSELF.
I HOPE THAT HELPS. I'M HAPPY TO CONTINUE.
I LOVE TALKING ABOUT FLEET, SO I'M HAPPY TO CONTINUE ANSWERING FOR FOLLOW UPS.
>> EVERYBODY'S GOT THEIR THING. DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON.
>> THANKS. I'M ASSUMING THAT WE HAVE AN ASSET PLAN TO REPLACE A UNIT AND THEN THE LEAVE TIME GETS EXPLODED ARE WE ADJUSTING THE TIME THAT WERE OUR PLACEMENT SCHEDULE TO MATCH THOSE BIG EXTENSIONS? TAKES TWO YEARS VERSUS A YEAR THAT CHANGES THE SCHEDULE FOR REPLACEMENT ON WATER EQUIPMENT.
ARE WE ADJUSTING THAT IN REAL TIME? MAYBE. MR. VAN DINE?
>> THANKS FOR THAT. WHEN WE DID OUR FIRST BRUSH AT OUR FLEET REPLACEMENT PROGRAM IN 2017, WE HIRED A COMPANY CALLED MERCURY CONSULTANTS, AND THEY HELPED US PROVIDE A PATH FORWARD.
WHAT THEY DID AT THAT TIME IS THEY PROVIDED THE NEXT 25 YEARS AND IT WAS NIGHTS AND SMOOTH.
WHAT HAPPENED SINCE THEN IS COVID THE LONG LEAD TIMES. WHAT'S THAT CAUSING? IS THAT SMOOTH CURVE HAS NOW GONE HAD MAJOR PEAKS AND VALUES.
YES, WE ARE ADJUSTING, BUT THAT CAUSES WHEN WE DO ADJUST BOTH SCHEDULES AND BUDGETS.
IT DOES CREATE PEAKS AND VALUES THAT WE HAVE TO THEN TRY TO SMOOTH OUT.
WHAT THAT DOES IS ALSO TAKES VEHICLES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN SCHEDULED FOR THE NEXT YEAR AND DEFER IT EVEN FURTHER.
THE FLEET PROGRAM IS REALLY A MAJOR JUGGLING ACT COMPARED TO THE BUDGETS THAT WERE ALLOCATED EVERY YEAR.
IF COUNCIL GAVE US EXACTLY WHAT WE NEEDED EVERY YEAR, THEN THIS FIGURE WOULD BE MUCH LARGER, I PROBABLY BE MORE IN THE RANGE OF 5-6 MILLION.
GOING BY THE BUDGET BOOK, BUT WE TRY TO SMOOTH THAT CURVE OUT TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT, OVERALL IMPACT ON THE MOBILE EQUIPMENT FUND.
>> THANKS. THEN I KNOW WE'VE HAD THE OLD TOWN CIRCULATION STUDY, A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ROADS AND SAFETY AND BUILDING ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS.
A BIG DRIVER THAT I KNOW IS THE SIZE OF EQUIPMENT WE BUY AS A CITY, SO THAT DICTATES ROAD WIDTHS AND CURVES AND ALL YOU TALKED ABOUT AS NAUSEUM.
WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY ON A FLEET REPLACEMENT, ARE WE ASSESSING AGAINST THOSE THINGS TOO? I DON'T WANT TO BUY SOMETHING THAT'S BIG AND THEN HAVE TO MAKE STREETS WIDER OR CORNERS WIDER.
THIS HAS BEEN A THEME ACROSS NORTH AMERICA'S NOT JUST US.
I JUST IN OUR ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARE WE THINKING ABOUT BECAUSE EQUIPMENT'S GROWING, EVERYTHING'S GETTING MASSIVE AND BIGGER.
I DON'T WANT TO REBUILD A WHOLE CITY TO ADJUST FOR TRUCKS.
WHAT ARE WE DOING TO BUILD THE INTER ASSET PLAN? ARE WE MAKING IT FIT OUR CITY OR ARE WE JUST BUYING THE NEXT BIG THING AND THEN WE'RE ADJUSTING AS WE GO.
>> THANK YOU. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. GREENCORN.
BUT I WOULD OFFER THAT AS COUNSEL IS AWARE, THERE ARE A HOST OF STANDARDS WITH WHICH WE REVIEW AND UPDATE ON AN ONGOING BASIS, INCLUDING THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE WHEN IT GETS ADJUSTED.
I JUST WANT TO ADD A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT THAT WHILE PROCUREMENT IS CERTAINLY ONE COMPONENT PART THAT WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT POTENTIALLY, AS COUNSEL WARBURTON HAS INDICATED, THERE ARE OTHER THERE ARE OTHER INFLUENCES OVER ON THE SHAPES AND SIZES AND WIDTH OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE BASED ON SOME OTHER DRIVERS.
BUT MR. GREENCORN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND TO COUNSEL WARBURTON?
>> SURE. I'LL TAKE A STAB AT IT.
I WOULD SAY THAT THE EQUIPMENT WE USED IS SPECIFIED AND DETAILED FOR ITS INTENDED USE.
WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS GRADERS ARE EXPECT TO DO THE TASK THAT WE EXPECTED TO DO.
IT'S DIFFICULT AND I'M TRYING TO ZONE IN ON THE CONCERN IS THAT THE SIZE OF ROADS AND THINGS ARE NOT ONLY, AND I'M SURE THE COUNCILOR KNOWS, IS NOT ONLY DICTATED BY THE SIZE OF THE EQUIPMENT.
IT'S WHETHER YOU SUBSCRIBE TO THE POLICY THAT EVERYBODY DESERVES TO PARK IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE OR EVERYBODY DESERVES TO HAVE A SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE, ALL DICTATE THE STANDARD ROAD DIMENSIONS AND GEOMETRY IN THE CITY.
IN SAYING THAT, I WOULD ARGUE THAT MOST OF OUR FLEET IS SUITABLE.
[00:45:05]
WE USE HALF TONS WHERE APPROPRIATE.WE USE SUVS WHERE APPROPRIATE FOR EDMUND VEHICLES.
I COULD THROW IT TO MR. MCLANE TO SPEAK TO THE ADEQUACY OR THE ACCURACY OF OUR EMERGENCY UNITS, WHICH ARE ALL BASED AROUND COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENTS THAT ARE DONE ON A REGULAR BASIS.
BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE SPECIFICALLY DO NOT SPECK A CADIAC, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
>> EXCUSE ME. THANKS, MR. CHAIR. NO. THANKS FOR REFERENCING AND THANKS FOR THE RESPONSES IN OUR INTERNAL QUESTIONS.
I WAS JUST WONDERING 2017 STUDY THAT WE RECEIVED A PRESENTATION ON IN FEBRUARY OF 2024, AT THAT TIME, THAT STUDY WAS STILL RELEVANT.
IS IT STILL RELEVANT TODAY? MR. VAN DINE.
>> THAT MIGHT PAYS MY ARRIVAL ON THE SCENE, SO I'LL DEFER TO EITHER MR. GREENCORN OR MR. PANDO.
>> MR. GREENCORN HAD HIS MIC ON ALREADY. HE BEAT THEM.
>> BECAUSE IT PREDATES MR. PANDO.
I WOULD SAY THAT GENERALLY SPEAKING, ASSET MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES, SPECIFICALLY AROUND FLEET ARE PRETTY STANDARD ACROSS INDUSTRY.
YOU COULD ARGUE THAT AN F150 COULD BE REPLACED AT 12 YEARS INSTEAD OF 10.
WE MET INDUSTRY STANDARD WHEN WE SPOKE WITH THE CONSULTANT.
I WOULD SAY THAT THE WAY THAT WE ADMINISTER OUR MOBILE EQUIPMENT FUND IS STANDARD PRACTICE.
I WOULD SAY EVEN SOME OF OUR REPLACEMENT FREQUENCIES ON THE DIFFERENT CLASSES ARE ACTUALLY SUPER CONSERVATIVE AND WE RUN THEM LONGER THAN SOME PARTS OF INDUSTRY.
FOR EXAMPLE, FIRE UNITS SOME ARE IN EXCESS OF 25 YEARS OLD AND INDUSTRY IS 15 YEARS FRONT LINE, FIVE YEARS, SECONDARY LINE.
IN SOME PLACES WE'RE EXCEEDING SOME OF THOSE.
BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, I WOULD SAY WE'RE IN LINE WITH INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES.
IT IS DUE FOR A REVIEW SINCE 2017 IS QUITE FAR IN THE REAR VIEW, BUT THAT'S ON OUR LIST TO DO IN 26, ACTUALLY, INTERNALLY IN PUBLIC WORKS AND THE FLEET DEPARTMENT.
>> THANKS FOR THAT. THE REASON I'M ASKING IS MOSTLY JUST SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID ABOUT THE CITY'S REPLACEMENT CYCLES VERSUS THE TYPICAL INDUSTRY ONES FROM THAT SAME PRESENTATION, WE WERE ALMOST IN EVERY CASE, EXCEPT ONE AT THE TOP END OR BEYOND WHAT THE INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICE IS.
WE'RE ALREADY PUSHING IT WITH ALL OF OUR STUFF AND IT'S FOLLOWING UP WITH COUNSEL WARBURTON'S QUESTION ABOUT GIVEN SUPPLY CHAIN CHALLENGES AND LEAD TIME ISSUES, WE'RE ALREADY PUSHING IT.
WHAT ARE WE DOING FROM A BUDGETARY PERSPECTIVE TO TRY TO REDUCE THAT BURDEN OR THAT INCREASED LIKELIHOOD THAT WE'RE GOING TO RUN INTO PROBLEMS WITH OUR EQUIPMENT?
>> LOOKING FOR MY MUTE BUTTON.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SO WITH RESPECT TO THE GENERAL QUESTION, I GUESS I'D OFFER A COUPLE OF THINGS IN RESPONSE.
WE CERTAINLY LOOK AT ALL OF OUR FINANCIAL STEWARDSHIP AND ASSET OF ALL OF OUR RESOURCES, INCLUDING FLEET, ACCORDING TO ACCEPTED STANDARDS AND THE STUDIES THAT WE RELIED ON BACK IN 2017 WAS JUST ANOTHER INDICATION OF TRYING TO FIND, GOOD ADVICE WITH RESPECT TO HOW TO MANAGE SUCH THINGS.
WE ALSO, AS COUNSEL FOR, WILL KNOW, HAVE A VERY ENERGETIC AUDIT COMMITTEE, AND OUR AUDIT IS DOING A GREAT JOB IN KEEPING US ON OUR TOES WITH RESPECT TO MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE DOING ALL THAT'S EXPECTED OF US, INCLUDING MANAGING THE RECORDS AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION AROUND PROCUREMENT, INCLUDING FLEET.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, AND I'M INCREASINGLY TURNING MY OWN ATTEND TOWARDS RISK MANAGEMENT AND ISSUE MANAGEMENT.
AND UNLESS I SEE SMOKE, I'M I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME IN THE DAY TO GO CHASING WHAT I THINK THERE MIGHT BE SMOKE RATHER THAN OR WHERE THERE COULD BE SMOKE.
I NEED TO ACTUALLY SEE THE SMOKE.
IF THERE IS A SPECIFIC ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO OUR FLEET AND OUR ASSET MANAGEMENT IN REGARD TO TRANSACTIONS, WHETHER THERE'S A PARTICULAR ASSET THAT'S NOW ON THE STREETS OF YELLOWKNIFE THAT PEOPLE DIDN'T EXPECT TO SEE THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO FIT.
[00:50:01]
WE'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO RESPOND TO IT, BUT AT THIS POINT, I BELIEVE ALL OF OUR CHECKS AND BALANCES ON DECISION MAKING WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLOCATION OF EXPENDITURE OF THOSE RESOURCES SEEM TO BE HOLDING UNLESS COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE OTHER INFORMATION THAT THAT WE'RE NOT AWARE OF.IF THERE'S A THERE THERE, I'D LIKE TO JUST MAYBE GET MORE INFORMATION.
>> NO, THINKS OF THAT RESPONSE, AND THERE'S NOTHING SPECIFIC.
I WAS MOSTLY JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF THE SPIKE THAT WE WERE WARNED ABOUT IN 24 AND 26 IN THAT PRESENTATION IN FEBRUARY 2024.
THIS ASK THIS YEAR AND THE PROPOSED ASK FOR NEXT YEAR, SEEM TO BE THOSE SPIKES, AND I ASSUME IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE STILL ON TRACK WITH THAT CYCLE THAT AS DIRECTOR GENORN MENTIONED, MIGHT BE LOOKED AT IN THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO, BUT IT'S STILL HOLDING AND STILL RELEVANT.
THAT WAS REALLY WHAT I WAS TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND AND SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE, SO THAT'S COMFORTING.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS. COUNSEL.
>> THANKS, MR. CHAIR. MY QUESTIONS ABOUT USAGE.
I CAME TO GPC LAST WEEK AND I WAS GRUMBLING TO MYSELF BECAUSE THERE WAS A COUPLE REGULAR CABS JUST PARKED IN THE PARKING OUT FRONT.
WHY ARE WE NOT SCOPING OUT QUAD CABS TO GET PERSONNEL AROUND INSTEAD OF HAVING TWO PEOPLE BRING SEPARATE VEHICLES? MR. VAN DINE.
>> I LOVE THAT QUESTION, BUT I'M GOING TO GIVE IT TO MR. GREENCORN.
>> MR. GREENCORN. I'LL SAY MY JOKES.
THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. IT DEPENDS.
IT DEPENDS ON THE INTENDED USE THE DEPARTMENT THE REPLACEMENT IS REQUIRED IN.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF A UNIT IS EXPECTED TO BE IN THE WATER AND SEWER CREW, WE TYPICALLY DON'T PUT FOUR PEOPLE TO A CAB.
THAT IS A STANDARD TWO PERSON TRUCK, AND IT ALLOWS FOR A BIGGER BED FOR RANDOM THINGS.
IN SAYING THAT WE DO HAVE SOME QUAD CABS.
QUAD CABS ARE RESERVED FOR DIFFERENT USES, PROBABLY SUPERVISORS.
PEOPLE THAT HAVE TO TAKE CONSULTANTS AROUND SUCH AS THE ENGINEERING STAFF.
PLANNING AND LANDS HAVE SOME SUVS.
ADMIN HAS A COUPLE OF SUVS, SO IT REALLY DEPENDS ON THE USE.
WE ARE TRYING TO STANDARDIZE AND NARROW USE, WHICH WILL PROBABLY MEAN THERE MOVING AWAY FROM I GUESS THE SINGLE CAB THAT YOU MENTIONED SO THAT THEY CAN BE PUT DOWN INTO SEASONAL USE EASIER, IF THAT MAKES SENSE FOR SUMMER STUDENTS AND OTHER THINGS.
WE'RE LOOKING AT STANDARDIZING MORE UNITS, GETTING DOWN TO THREE MAYBE FOUR UNITS ACROSS THE CITY FLEET COMPLETELY.
BUT AGAIN, WE TRY TO LISTEN TO OUR FOLKS AND WHAT WORKS BEST FOR THEM, AND THAT'S HOW WE GENERALLY PROCURE A FLEET.
>> COUNSEL FOOT THAT MAKES TOTAL SENSE, SO WOULD YOU SAY THAT IN TOTAL, THE FLEET HAS, SAY AN 80% OR MORE USAGE RATE? LIKE ARE THEY ALWAYS ON THE MOVE OR ARE THEY SITTING?
>> THANKS FOR THAT. I WOULD SAY 80% OR BETTER.
WE DO HAVE A FEW UNITS AT CITY HALL THAT WE CLASSIFY THEM AS LOW USE, AND I WOULD ARGUE, OR NOT ARGUE, I WOULD TELL YOU THAT THOSE DO NOT FALL INTO ANYTHING THAT WE DEEM AS LOW USE ARE NOT REPLACED AT THE SAME FREQUENCY THAT HIGH USE ARE.
FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S OLD BOARD ESCAPE HERE.
IT'S AN OLD UNIT AND IT'S STILL IN GOOD SHAPE, SO WE WILL CONTINUE TO RUN THAT UNTIL MAINTENANCE CROSSES REPLACEMENT COSTS ON YOUR SUPPLY, OR NOT SUPPLY, BUT YOUR DEPRECIATION CURVE.
ANYTHING THAT WE CAN KEEP IN LOW USE AND RUN LOW MILEAGE AND LOW HOURS STAYS OUT HERE, IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.
BUT EVERYTHING ELSE IS GENERALLY REALLY HIGH USE.
THAT'S WHY MD VEHICLES, FOR EXAMPLE, TURNOVER EVERY FOUR YEARS, HIGH KILOMETERS, ROUGH KILOMETERS, ALL WINTER LONG DRIVING.
AGAIN, IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE USE OF EACH DEPARTMENT REQUIRING THE FLEET.
>> THAT'S EVERYTHING. THANKS FOR THAT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS? SEEING NONE, WE CARRY ON.
PAGE 120, WE HAVE THE FUEL TANK REPLACEMENT FOR THE COMMUNITY ARENA IN CITY HALL.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? START WITH COUNCILOR PAYNE THIS TIME.
>> THANK YOU. WHEN WERE THESE TANKS PUT IN?
>> I HAVE TO DEFER TO EITHER MR. WHITE OR MR. GREENCORN FOR THAT ONE.
[00:55:05]
MR. WHITE, DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION?>> MR. WHITE'S MIC WENT ON. GO FOR IT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE STUDY REPORTS ON THESE TWO FIELD TANKS IS THAT THEY ARE APPROXIMATELY 30-YEARS-OLD OR OLDER, WHICH IS ABOUT 10 YEARS PAST THEIR EXPECTED LIFESPAN.
WE ARE FORTUNATE THAT THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO LEAKS, AND WITH THIS PROJECT, WE'RE HOPING TO MITIGATE ANY OF THOSE CONCERNS. THANKS.
>> KEEP IT NO LEAKS, COUNCILOR PAYNE?
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. IS THERE AN OPTION TO KEEP THESE TANKS ABOVE GROUND, WITH THE NEW REPLACEMENT?
>> YES. THAT WOULD BE AN OPTION THAT WE COULD CONSIDER.
AESTHETICS WOULD BE PRIMARY, I GUESS, FOR THE ONE HERE AT CITY HALL, AND NOT SO MUCH FOR THE ONE AT THE COMMUNITY ARENA. THANKS.
>> AESTHETICS ASIDE. LOOK AT ME.
[LAUGHTER] SAFETY WISE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WORD I'M LOOKING FOR, IS IT RECOMMENDED TO HAVE FUEL TANKS ABOVE GROUND NOW?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE PROJECTS, I GUESS, THE WAY TO SAY IT IS THAT WHETHER IT'S ABOVE GROUND OR UNDERGROUND, WE'LL HAVE ALL THE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS, WHETHER THEY'RE VENTING, CAPTURE UNITS.
ALL OF THE SAFETY ASPECTS WILL BE INCLUDED IN EITHER OF THE OPTIONS. THANKS.
>> WHAT ABOUT COST? WOULD COST BE LESS IF IT WAS ABOVE GROUND?
>> THANK YOU. WE DIDN'T CONTEMPLATE ABOVE GROUND.
WE CONTEMPLATED BELOW GROUND AGAIN BECAUSE OF THEIR CURRENT LOCATIONS. THANKS.
>> IS THERE ANY WAY, LIKE TOMORROW, TO GET A ROUGH ESTIMATE OF THE DIFFERENCE IN BEARING A TANK AND HAVING A SURFACE TANK?
>> WELL, I GUESS NOW WOULD BE A TIME AND COUNCILOR FEQUET JUST REMINDED ME.
IN THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED IN ADVANCE, IT SAID THAT THE REPLACEMENT TANKS WOULD BE ABOVE GROUND.
CAN ADMIN JUST CONFIRM THAT IN THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED BY COUNCILOR FEQUET PRIOR TO BUDGET.
PASS IT OVER TO COUNCILOR FEQUET IF HE WANTS, BUT HE HAD ASKED THIS QUESTION, AND THE RESPONSE WAS THAT THE REPLACEMENT TANKS WILL BE ABOVE GROUND TO COMPLY WITH REGULATIONS.
MR. VAN DINE, CAN YOU CONFIRM OR ALTER THAT RESPONSE, PLEASE?
>> THANK YOU. IT'S TOUGH WHEN WE'VE GOT TWO DIFFERENT ANSWERS CIRCULATING.
I'M GOING TO ASK WHETHER THAT, CHECK WITH THE TEAM AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED TO HUDDLE AND GET BACK TO FOLKS, WHETHER DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE ORGANIZATION CONTRIBUTED TO DIFFERENT PARTS OF THAT ANSWER.
>> WHY DON'T WE LEAVE THIS ONE FOR NOW THEN AND WE'LL COME BACK TO IT AFTER BREAK, AT BREAK TIME AT 7:00.
YOURSELVES CAN DISCUSS, AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK TO THAT.
COUNCIL, DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON, YOU CAN HOLD YOUR QUESTION TILL WE COME BACK.
PERFECT. WE'LL COME BACK TO THIS ONE.
SORRY, IT'S JUST ON PAGE 121, 120.
NEXT WE HAVE THE GREAT SLAVE LAKE MONITORING PROGRAM.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. WE HAVE A FEW MONITORING ANALYSIS TYPE THING OVER THE NEXT, SO DIFFERENT TIMES.
THE HYDROGEOLOGICAL IS NEEDED TO BE DONE BEFORE 2027.
WE GOT 12 YEARS THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY GET THIS ONE DONE.
>> NOT THE PRO. LET'S ASK YOU A QUESTION. [LAUGHTER].
>> WHO WANTS TO WITHDRAW THIS? I WOULD SAY GREENCORN.
>> THEY'LL PROBABLY GO THERE, BUT WE'LL START WITH MR. VAN DINE.
>> NO. I'D LIKE THAT DIRECTION, MR. GREENCORN?
THESE ARE, I GUESS, HOW WOULD WE PUT IT, NONNEGOTIABLE ITEMS IN OUR WATER LICENSE REQUIREMENTS.
THIS IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT ON GREAT SLAVE LAKE OF OUR CURRENT TREATMENT SYSTEM.
I WOULDN'T SAY THAT THIS IS ONE THAT WE COULD DEFER OR PUSH DOWN THE ROAD.
BUT THERE ARE MULTIPLE MONITORING PROGRAMS IN OUR WATER LICENSE, AND THIS IS JUST ONE OF THEM.
HAPPY TO ANSWER FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS, BUT WE WOULD WANT TO INITIATE THIS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
[01:00:04]
>> THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE COUNCILOR MCGURK.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT I AM FULLY IN SUPPORT OF SPENDING MONEY ON CAPITAL PROJECTS NOW RATHER THAN LATER, EVEN IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE PRIOR TO EXPIRY LICENSE IN 2037.
THINGS ARE GOING TO GET MORE EXPENSIVE, SO HAPPY TO PAY FOR IT WHILE IT'S LESS EXPENSIVE.
>> THANKS, MR. CHAIR. MAYBE JUST ADD A COMMENT OF CLARIFICATION AND ADMIN CAN JUST CHECK ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT MOSTLY FOR MY COLLEAGUES, SO NO OTHER QUESTIONS COME UP AROUND THIS OR THE SAME QUESTIONS COME UP ON ALL THE OTHER ITEMS. THE LICENSE EXPIRES IN 2037.
THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IN THE LICENSE ARE SPECIFICALLY SEQUENCED AND REQUIRED IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE UNCERTAINTY THAT EXISTS WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE OPERATIONS.
THERE'S LOTS OF REQUIREMENTS. WE ONLY SEE SOME.
THERE'S MANY MORE THAT COST A LOT MORE, AND SO ALL OF THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE STAGGERED, AND THEY DO HAVE TO BE COMPLETED AS A PRETTY HIGH PRIORITY BECAUSE IT'S REGARDING POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT AND LIABILITIES AND RISKS REGARDING BOTH ENVIRONMENT AND FINANCIAL LIABILITY AND RISK.
THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I JUST WANT TO OFFER THAT.
I SEE A THUMBS UP FROM DIRECTOR GREENCORN, JUST TO LET PEOPLE KNOW WHY THESE ARE ALL IN HERE.
>> IT'S ALMOST LIKE YOU'RE A PROFESSIONAL ON THIS SUBJECT.
I GUESS MY ONE QUESTION THAT I WOULD HAVE FOR ADMINISTRATION IS JUST AROUND ISSUES LIKE THIS, WHERE IT IS SOMETHING REQUIRED FOR OUR WATER LICENSE.
WHY PUT IT AS A CAPITAL AND NOT AN OPERATIONAL ITEM? BECAUSE WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THE OPTION OF NOT DOING IT.
WE'LL START WITH MR. VAN DINE.
>> I GUESS IN A FINANCIAL CATEGORIZATION POINT OF VIEW, YOU CAN HAVE AN OPERATIONAL CAPITAL COST.
EXCEPT FROM OUR STANDPOINT, IT'S NOT REALLY DISCRETIONARY OR AT LEAST I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND TO BE DISCRETIONARY BECAUSE IF YOU WERE USING DISCRETION AND NOT DOING IT, THEN YOU WOULD BE IN DEFAULT.
BUT IN TERMS OF WHETHER IT'S A FINANCIAL THRESHOLD OR A PARTICULAR TYPE OF WORK ON WHY THIS FITS THE CAPITAL VERSUS OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, I'LL INVITE MR. GREENCORN ASSISTED BY MR. CABBY TO GIVE YOU PROBABLY THE MORE OFFICIAL VERSION.
BUT IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO HAVE CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS BUILT INTO AN OPERATIONAL SCHEME.
BUT MR. GREENCORN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD?
>> OR MR. PANDOO, WHICH ONE OF YOU WANT TO GO? MR. GREENCORN, YOUR MIC LIT UP FIRST.
>> I'LL TAKE IT. I'LL DO MY OWN.
I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WE COULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.
MY ANSWER IS THE WAY WE'VE ALWAYS DONE IT.
IT'S THE MOST DANGEROUS PHRASE IN AN ORGANIZATION.
I'VE SEEN IT ON A WALL SOMEWHERE.
THAT'S NOT TO SAY WE SHOULDN'T.
I THINK IT SHOULD STILL BE BROUGHT FORWARD IN A BUDGET DOCUMENT IN SOME FASHION, EVEN IF IT'S AN ITEM OR ITEMIZED LIST BY ITSELF THAT IS, I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORDS NOT UP FOR DEBATE, BUT I THINK IT'S RELEVANT INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC DOCUMENT.
BUT I'M GOING TO TAKE THAT AWAY AND MAYBE DISCUSS WITH THE TEAM AND DETERMINE A WAY THAT WE CAN BRING FORWARD REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS IN BOTH THE ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY WORLD ALL TOGETHER IN A NOT FOR CHATTER SECTION, SO TO SPEAK.
I TAKE YOUR POINT, BUT THAT'S MY ANSWER.
>> NO, THAT'S FAIR. IT'S NOT A DIRECTION EITHER.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS? SEEING NONE, NEXT, WE MOVE TO PAGE 122.
WE HAVE THE HAGEL CRESCENT PARK DEVELOPMENT.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS? COUNCILOR FEQUET?
>> THANKS, MR. CHAIR. I GUESS I JUST WANTED TO FLAG, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THE RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS IN OUR INTERNAL DOCUMENT.
MY EXPERIENCE FIRSTHAND, BOTH WITH MY KIDS, BUT ALSO JUST LIVING ADJACENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THE FOREST DRIVE PARK WAS.
I UNDERSTAND THERE WAS A VARIETY OF METHODS AND MAYBE DIFFERENT METHODS THAN WE WERE USING TODAY, LIKE WITH PLAYSPEAK.
BUT I THINK DIRECTOR WHITE, PREVIOUSLY AT A GPC HAD COMMENTED THAT STAFF HAD ACTUALLY GONE AROUND, KNOCKED ON DOORS, TALKED TO PEOPLE, LEFT A NOTE, ABOUT A COMMUNITY MEETING IN THE AREA TO TALK ABOUT
[01:05:01]
THE PLAY STRUCTURE EQUIPMENT AND APPRECIATE THAT IT'S VERY ACCESSIBLE.BUT ONE OF THE BIG DISAPPOINTMENTS STILL THAT EXIST, UNFORTUNATELY, AFTER THE CITY SPENT ALL THIS MONEY IS THAT EVEN THOUGH THE EQUIPMENT FROM THE SUPPLIER WAS AT A CERTAIN RANGE, IT REALLY IS MEANT FOR SMALL KIDS.
I HAVE KIDS WHO ARE LIKE EIGHT AND IT'S WAY TOO SMALL FOR THEM AND IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE 6-12.
IT'S MORE A HEADS UP TO US THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GOING THROUGH GOOD PROCESSES WITH THE COMMUNITY TO ASK THEM WHAT THEY WANT. I EXPECT THAT.
I THINK THAT'S THE EXPECTATION THESE DAYS, BASED ON WHAT COUNCIL HAS DISCUSSED AND PEOPLE HAVE SHARED.
I JUST WANT TO RAISE THAT FLAG THAT EVEN THOUGH WE DID OUR JOB, WE MAYBE GOT THE BAD END OF THE STICK HERE FROM THE SUPPLIER, BECAUSE THEY SAID IT WAS FOR A CERTAIN AGE RANGE AND IT'S CLEARLY NOT.
IT'S WAY TOO SMALL, AND I JUST WANT TO FLAG THAT FOR ADMIN.
THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THOSE COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AROUND HAGEL AND THE ENGAGEMENT AND THAT.
I'M NOT SURE THERE'S A QUESTION THERE FOR YOU GUYS, BUT MOSTLY JUST BE AWARE AND LET'S TRY TO OUTSMART THE SUPPLIERS WHO ARE TRYING TO OUTSMART US.
>> DID YOU GET LARGE CHILDREN LIKE I USED TO BE IN ORDER TO TEST OUT THE EQUIPMENT IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? [LAUGHTER] ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR MOTIONS? SEEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE TO THE HOUSING ACCELERATOR FUND ON PAGE 123. DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON?
>> SHOCKER, I KNOW. [LAUGHTER] QUESTIONS TOO.
THERE WAS SOMETHING ABOUT A ROLLOVER FINE LAST YEAR.
A QUESTION I'D PUT TO ADMIN WAS, WHAT IS THE PLAN? WHAT ARE WE CHANGING OR SHIFTING, BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT CARRY FORWARD FROM LAST YEAR? YOU HAVE THIS YEAR'S ALLOCATION OF MONEY.
WHAT'S THE SHIFT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE OR INTENTION TO DEPLOY ALL THOSE FUNDS IN THIS YEAR SO WE'RE NOT BACK HERE NEXT YEAR WITH, AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND IT'S A THREE-YEAR PLAN AND MONEY CARRIES FORWARD, BUT AT SOME POINT YOU GOT TO SPEND IT ALL BY YEAR 3.
I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE ADJUSTING, IF AT ALL.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I'VE JUST LOST WHICH BUDGET PAGE WE'RE ON.
>> WE ARE ON PAGE 123, THE HOUSING ACCELERATOR FUND.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WITH THAT, I'LL INVITE TRUSTEE WHITE TO RESPOND.
BUT SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT IN THE RECEIPT OF THE FUNDS THAT WE HAD, THE FEDS HAD GIVEN IT TO US IN A PROFILE.
WE'VE BEEN MOVING QUICKLY TO TRY AND DEAL WITH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS THROUGH THAT, INCLUDING THE COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE, INCLUDING SOME OF THE REZONING THAT COUNCIL WOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH PLUS SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES PROGRAMMING.
A LOT OF THAT'S DEMAND DRIVEN.
WE'VE BEEN FULFILLING THAT DEMAND ON AN APPLICATION BASIS.
WE'VE BEEN USING THE FUNDS, BUT IN TERMS OF THE SNAPSHOT TODAY AND WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THE END OF THE THREE YEARS, I'LL INVITE DIRECTOR WHITE TO GIVE US MORE GRANULARITY.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE FIRST PIECE THAT I WANT TO SAY IS IT'S A FOUR-YEAR PLAN, NOT A THREE-YEAR PLAN. THAT'S OKAY.
THE GREAT NEWS IS DEPENDING ON HOW YOU LOOK AT IT, WE ARE SPENDING A TON OUT OF THAT RIGHT NOW.
THE NUMBERS THAT YOU SEE ARE ACTUALLY FROM AUGUST.
THINKING FORWARD, A LOT OF OUR BILLS COME IN AT THE END OF THE YEAR.
SIMILAR, I KNOW YOU'VE HEARD THAT FROM OTHER DIRECTORS.
YOU'RE GOING TO PROBABLY SEE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE THERE.
ANOTHER LARGE SUCCESS THAT WE'VE HAD IS THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES, SINCE THAT'S COME INTO PLAY THIS YEAR ALONE.
WE'RE TALKING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS INTO THE COMMUNITY, INTO THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS ACROSS THE COMMUNITY.
THAT'S EVERYTHING FROM AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS TO SUITES AND PEOPLE'S HOMES TO NEW APARTMENT BUILDINGS.
THERE'S A LOT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE COME OUT THERE AS WELL BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN HAVING SOME, WE'LL CALL IT SIGNIFICANT STAFFING SHORTAGES.
WE HAVE WORKED WITH SOME YELLOWKNIFE BASED CONSULTANTS TO HELP MOVE THE WORK ALONG.
THAT STARTED AS OF SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR AS WELL.
WE ARE TRYING TO ROCK AS MUCH AS WE CAN OUT OF THE HALF GOING FORWARD.
THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU. I SEE THE ALLOCATIONS.
I APPRECIATE THOSE ARE ITEM LINES TO GIVE A NUMBER TO THE FEDS WHERE IT'S GOING.
BUT IF WE ARE SEEING LARGE UPTAKES AND INCENTIVES, IS THERE ANYBODY FOR US TO SHIFT THE FOCUS OF THOSE DOLLARS OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE WE'VE OUTLINED FOR THEM? IT'S GREAT NEWS THAT INCENTIVES ARE REALLY POPULAR, BUT IF WE RUN OUT IN JANUARY OR FEBRUARY, THERE'S MORE TO GO, SO CAN WE REALLOCATE THOSE INTERNALLY WITH THAT FUNDING?
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. WE HAVE ALREADY REQUESTED,
[01:10:03]
AND WE'VE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED A REALLOCATION FOR DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES.THE ANSWER IS, NO, WE CAN'T DO IT INTERNALLY.
WE HAVE TO GET PERMISSION, THAT HAS TO GO TO THE UNDERWRITERS, ETC.
THE ANSWER IS WE'VE DONE IT, AND WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT GOING FORWARD FOR '26 AND '27. THANK YOU.
>> PERFECT. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS HOPING TO HEAR.
THEN I KNOW YOU'VE PROVIDED AN UPDATE TO COUNCIL, BUT LAND HAS BEEN SUPER IMPORTANT TO COUNSEL.
JUST PUBLICLY A BIT OF UPDATE ON WHEN WE CAN EXPECT THE NEXT AREAS OF TOWN TO BE AVAILABLE BECAUSE WE TURNED AWAY 46 PEOPLE, 46 AT THE BALLOTRA, MILLION A POP FOR A BUILD.
THAT'S $46 MILLION IN NON BUILT STUFF.
JUST CURIOUS WHEN THE NEXT LAND IS COMING AND WE CAN HELP THOSE FOLKS OUT.
>> LET'S GO TO MR. VAN DINE FIRST ON THIS ONE.
>> NO, IF I HAD THE CRYSTAL BALL THAT WOULD TELL US WHEN WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ANTICIPATE THE TURN OF DECISION-MAKING FROM OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, I WOULD PROBABLY BE A WEALTHY PERSON DOING OTHER THINGS RIGHT NOW.
BUT I DON'T HAVE THAT ABILITY.
I WILL INVITE DIRECTOR WHITE TO COME BACK ON AND TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE RECENT WORK THAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING TO BRING FORWARD PRIORITY SITES, WHERE WE STAND ON THAT, AND SOME OF THE WORK THAT WE DO EXPECT TO BE HAPPENING VERY SOON, INCLUDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CAPITAL AREA WORKING GROUP.
DIRECTOR WHITE, IF YOU DON'T MIND, JUST GIVING US A STATUS ON OUR CURRENT LAND APPLICATIONS AND WHERE WE SIT WITH THOSE APPLICATIONS. DIRECTOR WHITE.
>> THANK YOU. THAT'S A BIG QUESTION.
I'M GOING TO TALK TO THE SUBDIVISIONS AND PROPOSALS THERE, AND THEN I'LL JUST EXPAND AT YOUR DIRECTION. THANK YOU.
FOR HOUSING, THE NEXT SUBDIVISIONS, AS WE OUTLINED IN THE PLAN, ARE GOING TO INCLUDE TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF NIVEN.
WE'RE STARTING WORK ON THAT, PROBABLY THE END OF 2026, GOING INTO 27.
EARLY 2026, WE ARE LOOKING AT THERE'S A PROPERTY IN BETWEEN BURWASH AND CON, AND AROUND THERE.
THAT'LL BE THE BEGINNING OF 2026.
THEN WE HAVE A COUPLE OTHER PIECES THAT WE IDENTIFIED.
I'M JUST THINKING OF THE MAPPING AS I GO.
THEN WE'RE WAITING FOR LAND TO HELP MOVE FORWARD THE TAYLOR ROAD PIECES.
THAT'S BOTH THE SOUTH SIDE AND THE NORTH SIDE OF TAYLOR ROAD FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
WE HAVE COMING FORWARD TO COUNCIL NOW, MOVING OUTSIDE OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THE NEW COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT, AND AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMING FORWARD EARLY 2026.
THIS IS FOR KAM LAKE 2.0 ENTERPRISE EXTENSION.
EVERYBODY HAS A DIFFERENT NAME FOR IT.
LAND APPLICATIONS THAT WE HAVE WITH THE GNWT, AS I BELIEVE THE LAST PART OF THIS WAS.
WE HAVE APPLICATIONS FOR LAND ADJACENT IN AND AROUND SCHOOL DRAW.
WE HAVE LAND ADJACENT TO THE TAYLOR ROAD AREA THAT WE'VE REQUESTED.
WE HAVE LAND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FRAME LAKE TO MAKE THE CONNECTION ACROSS THE TOP.
I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK, I KNOW I'M MISSING SOMETHING, BUT THOSE ARE ALL IN PROGRESS.
I'M GETTING THUMBS UP, THANKS.
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COUNCIL COCHRANE.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. JUST A COMMENT.
I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF MAKING THE ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THIS PROGRAM A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, AND I GOT TO SAY AFTER HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH SOME OTHER COUNCILORS AND MAYORS ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
THIS IS ONE OF THE GREATEST SUCCESSES BEING IMPLEMENTED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE LAST DECADE.
THE ONLY THING I HAVE TO SAY IS THAT I DO KNOW A FORMER MAYOR AND CABINET MINISTER LIKES TO WATCH THIS STUFF.
IF SHE IS LISTENING, IF SHE COULD ADVOCATE AT THAT TABLE FOR A CONTINUATION OF THIS PROGRAM, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. THANK YOU.
>> GOOD ADVOCACY EMAIL FROM A FORMER COUNCILOR COLLEAGUE IS ALWAYS HELPFUL IN THOSE INSTANCES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM ANYONE? SEEING NONE, WE WILL CARRY ON.
NO, WE'RE NOT BECAUSE THAT WAS THE CONTINUATION OF, WE'RE ON PAGE 125, APOLOGIES.
THE HYDROLOGICAL STUDY AND GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS FIT INTO THE LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT WATER, BUT ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS? SEE THUMBS UP FOR COUNCIL MCGURK, AND NOBODY ELSE PUTTING THEIR HAND UP, SO WE WILL CARRY ON.
[LAUGHTER] WE WILL GO TO PAGE 126, WE HAVE THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR MOTIONS, SEEING NONE.
MR. VAN DINE, THAT MUTE OPTION.
UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S NO BOTHER OF YOURS.
[01:15:02]
SO WE CAN HEAR YOUR BREATHING.IT'S A BIG DARTH VADER ASK, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE MEETING FOR IT TO BE.
[LAUGHTER] IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT.
NEXT, WE'RE ON PAGE 128, THE LANDFILL GAS ASSESSMENT.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR MOTIONS? LET'S NOT ALWAYS ASSUME OTHERS ARE ALL IN THE SAME BOAT, BUT I APPRECIATE THE SENTIMENT.
NEXT, WE'RE ON PAGE 129, THE LIFT STATION NUMBER 1 REPLACEMENTS.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR MOTIONS.
EVERYBODY SIMMER DOWN, GET BACK INTO DECORUM. THANK YOU.
NO QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR MOTIONS, SEEING NONE.
NEXT, WE HAVE THE PARK DEVELOPMENT ITEM, THE OUTDOOR RECREATION PROJECTS.
WE HAVE COUNCIL FEQUET UP FIRST.
>> THERE WAS A BUNCH OF FOLKS WHO ASKED SIMILAR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PILOT'S MONUMENT STAIRS.
OBVIOUSLY, FROM A SAFETY PERSPECTIVE, I JUST WANTED TO CHECK IN BECAUSE IT IS A WHOLE MORE THAN A TAX POINT FOR THESE STAIRS.
I JUST WANTED TO ASK ADMIN ABOUT WHAT'S THE LIFE, THE EXPECTED LIFE OF THE REMAINING STAIRS FOR THEM TO REMAIN SAFE FOR PUBLIC USE, AND RECOGNIZING IT'S A VERY POPULAR TOURIST LOCATION.
ALSO WONDERING IF WE'VE CONSIDERED OR TRIED TO GET FUNDING THROUGH CANOR OR OTHER SIMILAR SOURCES.
>> THANK YOU. THAT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION WITH RESPECT TO SEEKING OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE.
I'LL INVITE DIRECTOR WHITE TO RESPOND TO THE CURRENT STATE AND WHERE WE THINK THE WORK THAT WE'VE RECENTLY DONE TO REPAIR WILL TAKE US, IF HE'S GOT THAT INFORMATION, DIRECTOR WHITE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. VAN DINE.
AS YOU RECALL, IN THE EARLY PART OF THE FALL, THERE WAS A MOTOR VEHICLE INCIDENT THAT CRASHED INTO THE LOWER PORTION OF THE PILOT'S MONUMENT STEPS.
WHEN WE WERE UNDERTAKING THE WORK, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT A BUILDING PERMIT WAS REQUIRED FOR THAT, WHICH THEN NECESSITATED INSPECTION OF THE ENTIRE APPARATUS OR THE WHOLE CONTINUOUS STAIR FROM TOP TO BOTTOM, AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL ASPECTS OF THE STAIRS THAT DO NOT MEET THE CURRENT NATIONAL BUILDING CODE, SO WE HAVE TO BRING IT UP TO STANDARD.
THAT INCLUDES SEVERAL ITEMS LIKE A HANDRAIL, TREAD WIDTH, AND THE STEP HEIGHT.
WE UNDERTOOK TO HAVE AN ARCHITECTURAL FIRM TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
THEY CONFIRM THAT WORK, THAT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL WORK TO BE DONE, AND THE MOST PRUDENT METHOD WOULD BE TO DEMOLISH AND START OVER AGAIN.
THANK YOU. OH, SORRY, ON THE EXTERNAL FUNDING.
WE ARE WORKING WITH THE GNWT ON TWO APPLICATIONS, ONE FOR THE ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT AND ONE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AS WELL.
THOSE APPLICATIONS ARE IN THE WORKS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYTHING FURTHER, COUNCIL FEQUET?
>> JUST THAT I'M THINKING I'M GOING TO PUT A MOTION TO CUT THAT FUNDING BECAUSE WE CAN LOOK FOR IT FOR OTHER PLACES, BUT JUST FOR MY COLLEAGUES.
>> THANK YOU. THE PERSON THAT RAN IN THE STAIRS WAS IT THEIR FAULT? DIRECTOR WHITE.
>> SORRY, I'M NOT PRIVY TO THE RCP REPORT.
>> THERE WAS A QUESTION ASKED IN PRE-BUDGET, AND THE PERSON'S INSURANCE COVERED THE DAMAGE TO THE STAIRS THEMSELVES, BUT THIS WOULD BE IN ADDITION, I MEAN, I WALK UP THEM RELATIVELY REGULARLY.
THEY'RE IN ROUGH SHAPE OUTSIDE OF BEING HIT BY A VEHICLE, BUT BACK TO YOU.
JUST TO ANSWER THE INSURANCE QUESTION, I THINK IT'S WE'VE DONE.
>> I MEAN, JUST THIS IS, IT'S NOT THE SAME, BUT I HAVE A FRIEND THAT JUST HAD A FIRE AT THEIR HOUSE.
THE WORK IS GETTING DONE, BUT THEN IT REALIZED THAT EVERYTHING HAD TO BE BROUGHT UP TO CODE, AND INSURANCE WAS ON THE HOOK FOR THE WHOLE UPGRADE.
WHY IS INSURANCE NOT ON THE HOOK FOR THIS? THAT'S ONE QUESTION.
>> LET'S START THERE. GOES TO VAN DINE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WITH RESPECT TO THAT, I THINK MR. KELLY MAY BE ABLE TO CHIME IN AS TO WHAT OUR RELATIVE LIMITATIONS MIGHT BE WITH RESPECT TO INSURANCE IN THE ACCIDENT, POSSIBLY ASSISTED BY MR. PANDO.
[01:20:01]
>> SURE. I DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFICS TO OFFER YOU, COUNCIL PAYNE.
I COULD LOOK INTO IT AND GET BACK TO YOU, BUT I'M RELUCTANT TO COMMIT TO GETTING ALL THE DETAILS BACK TO YOU IN A PUBLIC FORUM.
LET ME LOOK INTO IT, TAKE IT AWAY, AND GET BACK TO YOU.
>> IF YOU WOULD LIKE, WE CAN ALWAYS DO AN IN CAMERA TOMORROW AT 2:00 TO GET THAT INFORMATION IF NECESSARY. MR. PANDO.
>> NO. SAME ANSWERS, MR. KELLY.
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY BRING BACK THE INFORMATION.
>> THE SECOND QUESTION IS, ARE WE NOT ABLE TO JUST DO? DO WE HAVE TO REDO THE WHOLE THING RIGHT NOW, OR CAN WE JUST WORK ON JUST FIXING THE PARTS THAT NEED TO BE FIXED, OR DOES IT ALL HAVE TO BE DONE?
>> I'LL ASK MR. WHITE TO RESPOND.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE GOT THE STAIRS IN A READINESS FASHION, AND THEY WERE INSPECTED, AND WE'RE CURRENTLY USING THEM.
I THINK THAT THE MEDIUM-TERM PLAN IS TO DO THE REPLACEMENT, AND THAT I THINK WOULD REQUIRE PROBABLY TURNING OFF ACCESS TO THE SITE, BUT MR. WHITE, DO YOU JUST WANT TO ELABORATE ON THE PLAN TO REPLACE?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE CURRENTLY A BUILDING PERMIT THAT IS OPEN FOR, I BELIEVE IT'S A TWO-YEAR PERIOD.
THESE HAVE TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN A TWO-YEAR, I GUESS, BUILDING PERMIT CYCLE.
WE ARE FULLY AWARE AND COGNIZANT OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THESE STAIRS THAT LEAD UP TO THE POST MONUMENT AND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS WITH THE TOURIST INDUSTRY.
EVEN THE SHORT TIME THAT THEY WERE IN A STATE OF DISREPAIR, WE HEARD FROM ONE OR TWO OR MAYBE EVEN THREE TOURIST OPERATORS WHO WERE WANTING TO KNOW WHEN AND HOW FAST IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO GET THEM DONE.
WE WILL PLAN THE WORK THE BEST AS WE CAN AROUND THE HIGH IN THE PEAK TOUR SEASON AND ATTACK THEM FIRST THING IN THE SPRING AND WRAP UP BY SEPTEMBER, IF POSSIBLE. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?
>> OF COURSE. I MEAN, I CAN PRETTY MUCH GUARANTEE THERE'S 50 CARPENTERS IN TOWN RIGHT NOW, CAN'T WAIT FOR THIS TO COME OUT.
THERE ARE LIKE, $560,000 FOR A SET OF STEPS TO PILOT'S MONUMENT.
IT SEEMS LIKE AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT PRICE CAME.
IF THEY'RE OPERATIONAL NOW, I'D BE IN SUPPORT OF RYAN HERE AND CUT THIS.
BUT I'LL SEE WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE HAS TO SAY.
>> VERY GOOD. NEXT, WE HAVE COUNCIL MCGURK.
>> I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE COST OF TRADE LUMBER IS QUITE HIGH, BUT $680,000.
WELL, NO, OVER 2026 AND 2028 INCLUDED.
THE TOTAL PROJECT COST OF 680 SEEMS PRETTY HIGH TO ME.
I'M WONDERING IF THE DIRECTOR COULD SPEAK TO WHAT THE DESIGN IS ASIDE FROM OBVIOUSLY INCREASING TREAD DEPTH, AND LANDING REQUIREMENTS, HANDRAILS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
ARE WE LOOKING AT PUTTING IN METAL TREADS, OR ARE WE GOING TO, OR DOES THIS SIMPLY FOR WOODEN STAIRS, WOODEN STRINGERS? I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT IS.
OTHERWISE, IS IT GOING TO BE A SIMILAR SITUATION AS THE STEPS LEADING UP TO CITY HALL, WHERE WE PULL BRAND CONCRETE STEPS, WHICH WE ALL KNOW HOW THAT WENT?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MR. WHITE, DO WE HAVE DETAILED PLANS, OR IS THAT PART OF THE WORK THAT WE'RE EXPECTING TO HAVE DONE BY THE FUNDING WE HOPE TO RECEIVE FROM THE GNWT? I THINK THE DESIGN IS STILL YET TO BE DONE, BUT CAN YOU CONFIRM?
>> THANK YOU, MR. VAN DINE. WE HAVE AGAIN ENGAGED AN ARCHITECTURAL FIRM TO DO TWO CONCEPTS FOR US.
OF COURSE, EVERY TIME THAT WE LOOK AT A NEW FACILITY OR RETROGRADES, WE LOOK AT ACCESSIBILITY.
WE'RE LOOKING AT ONE CONCEPT THAT WOULD BE TOTAL ACCESSIBILITY UP TO THE TOP.
THEN WE'RE LOOKING AT ANOTHER OPTION THAT WOULD HAVE ACCESSIBILITY TO A PLATFORM, THAT WOULD BE SOMEWHERE PARTWAY UP,
[01:25:03]
AND AROUND TO THE OTHER SIDE, THAT WOULD STILL GIVE THE SAME VIEW AS IF YOU'RE GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP OF THE FACILITY.IN TERMS OF MATERIALS, WE'VE CURRENTLY CONTEMPLATED A WOOD STRUCTURE.
HOWEVER, WE ARE LOOKING AT AGAIN, OPTIONS FOR METAL TREAD SO THAT THERE IS LESS ONGOING MAINTENANCE FOR US. I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. THANK YOU.
>> ANYTHING FURTHER, COUNCIL MCGURK?
>> THE SCOPE OF WORK HERE IS NOT SIMPLY REPLACING THE STEPS.
IT IS TO ALSO INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL VIEWING PLATFORM, AND/OR TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE METHOD OF GOING UP THE HILL OR GOING UP PILOT'S MONUMENT, TWO-POST MONUMENT.
SORRY. I FEEL LIKE THE WAY THAT IT'S DESCRIBED IN THE BUDGET IS MISLEADING IN THAT SENSE BECAUSE, IN MY OPINION, THIS IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PROJECT.
THIS IS NOT BRINGING IT UP TO ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS.
THIS IS CREATING AN ACCESSIBLE PATH TO THE SPACE, WHICH I THINK IS INDEPENDENT OF REPLACING THESE STEPS.
I WOULD SEE THEM AS TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ITEMS PERSONALLY.
I DO UNDERSTAND WHY YOU BUNDLE THOSE THINGS, BUT IS THERE ANY MAYBE OBVIOUSLY, IF WE HAVE AN OPEN BUILDING PERMIT, WE NEED TO APPEASE OURSELVES AND COMPLETE IT, AND I ASSUME THAT THE ADDING OF THESE ACCESSIBILITY OR THESE ACCESSIBLE PLATFORMS OR ACCESSIBLE PATHWAYS ARE NOT A PART OF OUR BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.
WE JUST NEED TO MAKE THE STAIRS UP TO CODE.
IS THE SCOPE CREEP, I GUESS IS THE QUESTION, ARE WE OVERREACHING WITH RESPECT TO A STANDARD OTHER THAN JUST A STRAIGHT REPAIR? WE ARE DEEPLY COMMITTED ACROSS THE CITY AND ALL OF OUR PUBLIC FACILITIES TO MAKE THEM ACCESSIBLE.
WE WOULDN'T WANT TO APPLY A DIFFERENT STANDARD IN DIFFERENT CITY SPACES.
THAT'S WE'RE TRYING TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT GENERAL COMMITMENT.
WHETHER THE THRESHOLD OR THE TRIGGER POINT THAT'S INSPIRED US TO GO ACCESSIBLE, IS IS ONE OF POLICY OR ONE OF BUILDING CODE OR ONE OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION.
I'LL JUST INVITE DIRECTOR WHITE JUST TO GIVE US A BIT MORE INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO WHAT'S LEADING US TO THOSE TWO CONCEPTS.
SUFFICE IT TO SAY THOUGH THAT THIS IS 2025 PRESENTLY, AND THOSE STAIRS HAVE BEEN THERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME AND WHILE THEY'VE BEEN DOING THE TRICK, SO TO SPEAK, THERE IS THERE IS AN IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD FOR THE FUTURE IN MIND AS OPPOSED TO LOOKING BEHIND.
BUT MR. WHITE, DO YOU HAVE SOME MORE INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO WHAT LED TO OUR TWO CONCEPT ASKS?
>> JUST TO NOTE, THERE'S MR. WHITE AND THEN AFTER THAT, DIRECTOR WHITE, OTHER DIRECTOR WHITE ALSO HAD HER HAND UP AS WELL AFTERWARDS. MR. WHITE FIRST.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I GUESS, STEVEN, COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? I GOT LOST IN WHEN IS SENT IT TO THE MARY. I'M SORRY.
>> NO, THAT'S OKAY. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE QUESTION THAT I HAD FROM COUNCIL MCGURK IS ESSENTIALLY, WAS IT THE ACCESSIBILITY POLICY THAT TOOK US TO THE REQUEST OF THE TWO CONCEPTS THAT WE NOW HAVE ON THE GO FOR THE REPLACEMENT, OR WAS THERE OTHER FACTORS THAT DROVE US TO THOSE TWO CONCEPTS.
PERHAPS DIRECTOR CHARLSEY WHITE MAY ALSO HAVE SOME MORE INPUTS TO THIS, BUT OVER TO YOU FIRST, AS TO WHAT TILTED US IN THE DIRECTION OF THOSE TWO CONCEPTS.
WAS IT THE ACCESSIBILITY POLICY OR WAS THERE SOME OTHER REASONS?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE CLARIFICATION AND INSIGHT.
YES, IS ABSOLUTELY OUR VIEW ON ACCESSIBILITY IN ALL OF OUR FACILITIES.
I THINK WE'D BE REMISS IF WE DID BRING A PROJECT FORWARD THAT WAS NOT CONSIDERED ACCESSIBLE.
PERHAPS MY COLLEAGUE, DIRECTOR WHITE COULD ALSO COMMENT ON THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE 2020 AND
[01:30:01]
ITS REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSIBLE SANDERS AS WELL. THANK YOU.>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WITH REGARDS TO THE PERMIT, IT IS OPEN AND THERE IS A TIMELINE ON IT.
THE UPDATE TO THE STAIRS WAS DETERMINED NOT TO BE REQUIRING ACCESSIBILITY AS PART OF THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE.
HOWEVER, AS MR. WHITE SAID, THESE ARE THINGS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED ACCESSIBLE.
WHEN CONSIDERING THAT AND THE MONEY IT BRINGS IN, THEN WEIGHING THE TWO VALUES.
BUT WHERE THE TWO DIFFERENT DESIGNS COME FROM, ONE BEING MEETING THE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS AND ONE BEATING ACCESSIBILITY, THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GETTING THAT DIFFERENT PRICE. THANK YOU.
>> I WISH I COULD JUST BUILD THEM.
>> I APPRECIATE THE SENTIMENT. NEXT, WAVE, COUNCIL COCHRANE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. DO WE HAVE AN ESTIMATE TO JUST GET IT UP TO NATIONAL BUILDING CODE?
>> SORRY. THANK YOU. DO YOU WANT TO DO ANY EXTRA HEAVY BREATHING? THAT'S MORE THAN NECESSARY.
I'LL INVITE MR. WHITE TO RESPOND TO IT.
I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE ASKED FOR THE MINIMAL WHAT I WOULD CALL OR DESCRIBED AS THE MINIMALIST APPROACH, BUT DO WE HAVE THE MINIMALIST APPROACH COSTED?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NO. I'M NOT RIGHT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY BRING THAT FORWARD TOMORROW.
>> I WOULD CERTAINLY WANT TO SEE THAT FOR TOMORROW.
I THINK THAT COULD BE A VERY BIG DECIDING FACTOR ON THIS.
FOR THE TWO FUNDING APPLICATIONS WITH THE GNWT, ONE FOR THE DESIGN, AND ONE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, ARE THEY? I'M ASSUMING BY THE FACT THAT WE'RE IMPLEMENTING THIS AS A CAPITAL COST, THEY'RE REIMBURSABLE.
THEY'RE NOT JUST PURE SUBSIDIZATION.
>> I BELIEVE WE'RE GOING FOR FULL COST RECOVERY, BUT MAYBE MR. PANDOO OR MR. WHITE.
MR. PANDOO SAYS MR. WHITE, SO IT'S OVER TO YOU. [LAUGHTER]
>> THANK YOU. THE FUNDING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS $25.
IF THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT HAS BEEN ASKED.
>> IT IS. WITHIN THESE FUNDING APPLICATIONS, DO WE HAVE A TIMELINE OF WHEN WE WOULD HEAR BACK? THIS IS WHERE I'M FEELING WITH THE COLLEAGUES HERE ABOUT INTRODUCING A MOTION TO PUT THIS AWAY UNTIL WE COULD ACTUALLY HEAR BACK OF WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE WITHIN THESE FUNDING APPLICATIONS AND MAKE A DECISION UPON THE NEXT BUDGET, WHICH, AT THIS POINT, I'D BE MORE THAN WILLING TO ALLOCATE SOMETHING LIKE THIS IF IT WAS 100% REIMBURSABLE.
>> THERE LIES THE RISK. WE HAVE A BUILDING CODE OR A BUILDING PERMIT THAT'S OPEN FOR TWO YEARS AND WE KNOW THAT WE NEED TO GET THE WORK DONE.
WE'RE ASSUMING A LEVEL OF RISK UNTIL SUCH TIME AS WE'VE COMPLETED THE WORK, AND IT'S HARD TO PUT A PRICE ON THAT.
I WOULD REMIND COUNCIL THAT WE FIND OURSELVES A LITTLE BIT IN THE SITUATION THIS TIME LAST YEAR WITH RESPECT TO LIFT STATION NUMBER 1 AND LIFT STATION NUMBER 1, JUST TO REMIND COUNCIL, WE DID PUT IN THE FULL COST INTO BUDGET 2025, AND WE DID PUT A LARGE ASTERIX AROUND THAT LIFT STATION NUMBER 1, BUDGETING, SAYING THAT WE WOULD BE MAKING BEST EFFORT TO SEEK FEDERAL OFFSETS.
THANKFULLY, WE WERE ABLE TO RECEIVE SOME FEDERAL OFFSETS.
IN THIS CASE, WE'D BE LOOKING TO GET TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT OFFSETS, BUT IN BOTH CASES, OF THE LIFT STATION, AND IN THIS CASE, WE ARE A LITTLE BIT AT THE MERCY OF TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT DECISION MAKING OR ANOTHER LEVEL OF GOVERNMENTS DECISION MAKING.
THE MONIES THAT WE'VE GOT ALLOTTED HERE, I BELIEVE, ARE FOR THE FULL SHOT, THE 680, WITH THE HOPE THAT WE'LL GET SOME OFFSETS BACK.
I DON'T KNOW IF MR. PANDOO HAS OTHER SUGGESTIONS ON HOW WE MIGHT WANT TO, MANAGE FINANCIAL BUDGETING FOR THIS ITEM WITH THE UNCERTAINTY WITH RESPECT TO WHEN WE MIGHT RECEIVE FUNDING FROM INDICATION FROM THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT.
I'M CONSCIOUS OF COUNCIL'S NOT WANTING TO INFLATE UNNECESSARILY OUR CAPITAL, KNOWING THAT WE'LL HAVE A REASONABLE CHANCE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE THAT WE MIGHT GET SOME OFFSETS.
THEREFORE, WHY SHOULD WE INFLATE OUR CAPITAL BUDGET HIGHER THAN NECESSARY? MR. PANDOO, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER THOUGHTS ON THEY PICKLE THAT WE FIND OURSELVES IN?
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
IF YOU LOOK AT ON PAGE 131, WE ARE PROPOSING TO FUND THIS PROJECT THROUGH
[01:35:01]
THE COMMUNITY PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING, WHICH IN ITSELF IS UNCONDITIONAL.IT'S FLEXIBLE IN A WAY, CONDITIONAL WOULD BE IT'S VERY FLEXIBLE.
WHENEVER WE DO GET THE OTHER FUNDING, THAT ALLOWS US TO RESHUFFLE THIS MONEY, TIED WITH SOMETHING ELSE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS DOES ADDS VALUE TO THE CONCERN THAT YOU'RE RAISING.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND THANK YOU FOR THE ANSWER FROM THE ADMINISTRATION.
IT DOES PROVIDE SOME MORE CONSIDERATION FOR SURE.
DIFFERENCES AS WE WERE BRINGING UP FOR LIFT STATION 1 AS THE MAXIMAS PROJECT.
PIECE OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE COMPARED TO A TOURISM ORIENTED FACILITY IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT IN MY OPINION.
I WOULD BE PREPARED TO AT LEAST CONSIDER THE MINIMALIST OPTION, AND THEREFORE, I WOULD BE PREPARED TO TABLE THIS FOR NOW SO WE CAN SEE WHAT THE MINIMALIST BEAR ESTIMATE FOR TOMORROW IS AND THEN HAVE THAT AS A CONSIDERATION.
>> FAIR ENOUGH. WE'LL TAKE THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT FOR NOW, COUNCIL WARBURTON.
>> RATES TO THIS. THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO GET BUILDING PERMITS FOR ALL THE WORK THAT IT DOES.
I'M HEARING NODDING HEADS. GOOD. JUST TO BE CLEAR.
I'M GLAD THAT WAS NOT THE SAME YEARS AGO, BUT I'M GLAD THAT'S A CLEAR POINT.
WE SHOULD HOLD OURSELVES TO THE SAME STANDARD AS WE'RE HOLDING OTHER PEOPLE. THAT'S GOOD TO HEAR.
FOR TABLE IT, I'M FINE TO TALK ABOUT IT LATER, BUT WE JUST HAD A PRESENTATION AROUND DMO FOLKS.
THE CITY HAS LITERALLY ALMOST ZERO TO OURS INFRASTRUCTURE.
THIS DRIVES TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THROUGH OUR CITY.
IT IS NOT STAIRS IN FRONT OF CITY HALL THAT IT'S DIFFERENT.
THIS IS AN ECONOMIC DRIVER IN OUR CITY.
IS THIS FACILITY. TABLE IT, WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT WHEN WE GET THE OTHER NUMBER, BUT NO LEVEL GOVERNMENT IN THE TERRITORIES ESSENTIALLY SPENT ANYTHING ON TOURS AND INFRASTRUCTURE.
THE ONE THING THAT EVERYONE GOES AND SEES IF IT'S NOT WORKING, AND IT SHOULD BE BETTER, THEN WE SHOULD THINK OF THAT AS WELL.
THE CITY STAIRS WOULD BE A HARD KNOW FOR ME, BUT THIS IS DIFFERENT FOR ME, SO THANKS.
>> ANYTHING THAT WAS WELL SUMMARIZED FOR MY THOUGHTS TOO, COUNCIL DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON, BUT ANY OTHER THOUGHTS FROM ANY COLLEAGUES? OTHERWISE, WHAT WE'LL DO IS, COUNCIL FOOTE, AND THEN WHAT WE'LL DO IS IT SEEMS LIKE GENERAL AGREEMENT WOULD BE, WE WAIT UNTIL TOMORROW AND GET THAT THE NON ACCESSIBLE NUMBER. COUNCIL FOOTE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I GUESS MY ONLY THOUGHT IS TOWARDS, LIKE THE RISK OF SAY, A WHEELCHAIR BRAKE FAILING HALFWAY UP, LIKE, HAVE WE CONSIDERED THAT?
>> IT'S NOT TERRIBLY WHEELCHAIR FRIENDLY AT THE MOMENT.
WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT AS MR. WHITE HAS POINTED OUT, COUNCIL DID ADOPT AN ACCESSIBILITY POLICY, A PREVIOUS COUNCIL, I BELIEVE, AND THAT ACCESSIBILITY POLICY LED US TO SOME OF THE MORE PRIDEFUL MOMENTS THAT WE HAVE WITH RESPECT TO THE QUALITY OF THE CURRENT AQUATIC CENTER THAT'S OPENED, WHICH HAS BEEN REVIEWED THOROUGHLY OR AT LEAST THOROUGHLY MIGHT BE A STRETCH, BUT AT LEAST ON A FEW OCCASIONS BY THE ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND CERTAINLY HE HAS TICKED ALL THE BOXES.
IT IS ALSO FACILITY THAT IS NOW GENERATING INTEREST BY THE HOTELS IN THE COMMUNITY TO DIRECT GUESTS.
SIMILAR TO COUNCILOR AND DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON'S COMMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE TOURISM ASPECT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF PILOT'S MONUMENT, THE ACCESSIBILITY ELEMENT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD ADVOCATE FOR BOTH TOURISM REASONS AND FOR ACCESSIBILITY REASONS, AND THAT'S WHY THIS BUDGET OR THIS PROPOSAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD.
IN TERMS OF THE CURRENT RISK THE CURRENT STAIRS IN THEIR CURRENT FORMAT, IT WOULD POSE I BELIEVE A MEASURE OF RISK FOR CURRENT WHEELCHAIRS.
BUT DIRECTOR WHITE, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO COUNCILOR FOOTE'S QUESTION?
>> I SEE DIRECTOR WHITE IN THE BACK LOOKING TO GO TO HIS MIKE AND THE OTHER DIRECTOR WHITE NOT MOVING TOWARDS HER.
I'M GOING TO GO TO YOU, MR. WHITE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NO, I HAVE NO SPECIFIC I GUESS INFORMATION OR DETAILS ON WHAT IF SCENARIOS.
ALL OF OUR FACILITIES ARE COVERED BY YOUR INSURANCE.
MAYBE IF THERE WERE INCIDENCES, THEN REPORTS ARE DONE AND ANY MITIGATING WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO, I GUESS PREVENT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN WOULD BE UNDERTAKEN. THANK YOU.
>> THANKS FOR THAT. I JUST MEANING TO CLARIFY IN FUTURE STATE BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY,
[01:40:02]
OUR TOPOGRAPHY IS TERRIBLE.I'M LOOKING AT NATURAL ASSETS AND THAT WOULD BE AKIN TO EVENT I KNOW IT'S OUT OF OUR SCOPE, BUT HAVING TO MAKE CAMERON FALLS TRAIL ACCESSIBLE TO EVERYONE.
IT MUCH AS IT PAINS ME TO SAY IT WE CAN'T ALWAYS MAKE EVERYTHING ACCESSIBLE TO EVERYONE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCIL FOOTE.
ANYBODY ELSE FOR FIRST ROUND WHO HASN'T SPOKEN? NO, THEN BACK TO COUNCIL PAYNE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY UP HERE IS DENYING THE FACT THAT WE NEED TO REPLACE THESE STAIRS.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S IT AT ALL.
MY POINT WITH THIS IS THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY.
THINGS ARE GETTING REALLY EXPENSIVE.
WE GOT PEOPLE THAT CAN'T TO PUT THEIR KIDS IN SPORTS.
WE GOT PEOPLE THAT CAN'T AFFORD HEALTHY FOOD.
WE COME IN HERE. IT'S NOT OUR MONEY, IT'S THE PEOPLE'S MONEY.
I WANT TO SEE A BASIC REPLACEMENT OF STAIRS.
THAT'S WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD.
JUST A BASIC SET OF STEPS TO GO UP THERE TO REPLACE WHAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED.
MAKE SURE IT MEETS BUILDING CODE, NATIONAL BUILDING CODE.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
BASIC. WE DON'T NEED THE PINE, THE SKY VERSION OF ANYTHING. LET'S GO BASIC.
THIS IS A SET OF STAIRS TO A PLATFORM TO SEE THE CITY.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PAYNE, COUNCIL MCGURK.
>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A LITTLE COMMENT ABOUT THE IDEA THAT THIS HAS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND IS, WOULD BE, IS CURRENTLY TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE, AND WHILE I DO AGREE WITH THAT, I DO THINK THAT COUCHING THAT IN THIS PRESENTING IT AS A SIMPLE REPLACEMENT, AS COUNCILOR PAYNE STATED, IT'S A SEPARATE THING.
I THINK THAT WE REALLY DO NEED TO ARTICULATE THAT A LITTLE BIT CLEARLY AND BECAUSE THESE ARE PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS OR WHEN WE ARE MAKING REPLACEMENTS TO THESE THINGS, WHAT ARE ALL THE FACTORS THAT WE'RE WEIGHING IN? ACCESSIBILITY TOURISM.
THEY ARE IMPORTANT TO THE CITY.
OBVIOUSLY, WE VOTED ON THOSE THINGS OR DISCUSSED THEM AND SUPPORTED THEM.
BUT TO ME WHEN I LOOK AT THE ISSUE AT THESE STAIRS, IT'S A SIMPLE CODE COMPLIANCE SITUATION.
YES, IT COULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SOMETHING BETTER.
BUT I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE PRESENTED AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SOMETHING BETTER AND NOT THE BARE BONES REPLACEMENT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCIL MCLENNAN.
>> I JUST WANTED TO SECOND THAT THOUGHT AND WOULD BE INTERESTED TO SEE THE COST BREAKDOWN AND HOW THE ACCESSIBILITY COST COMPARES TO OUR ACCESSIBILITY IMPLEMENTATION LIKE IS THIS DOUBLING OUR ENTIRE ACCESSIBILITY IMPLEMENTATION, JUST LOOKING FOR THAT CONTEXT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT LOOKS LIKE WE WILL TABLE THIS ITEM FOR 12:00 TOMORROW AND ADMIT, IF YOU CAN COME BACK WITH THAT UPDATED NUMBER OF CODE COMPLIANCE FOR REPLACEMENT OF WHAT'S THERE, THEN WE WILL FURTHER DISCUSS THIS ITEM TOMORROW.
WE'LL START OFF WITH THAT. ALSO, WE HAVE REACHED, WE ARE BEYOND OUR 90 MINUTE MARK, SO WE WILL TAKE OUR FIRST 10 MINUTE BREAK AND WE WILL COME BACK AT 7:23.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. RENDON.
EVERYBODY. WE ARE BACK AT IT, AND WE ARE ON PAGE 132 NOW, WHICH IS THE PARK EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS? COUNCIL FEQUET.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. JUST A QUESTION.
COULD ADMIN UPDATE US FIRST, HOW MANY PARKS WILL WE NOW HAVE RECOGNIZING A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.
I REMEMBER IT WAS WE HAD 20 AND THEY HAPPENED TO MAGICALLY ALSO BE ON 20 YEAR.
LIFE CYCLE ROTATIONS WAS ONE A YEAR.
I THINK WE'VE HAD A FEW MORE PARKS SINCE, SO CAN ADMIN JUST UPDATE US ON HOW MANY PARKS WE HAVE CURRENTLY?
>> WE'VE GOT VARIOUS PARKS OF SHAPES AND SIZES AND CLASSIFICATIONS, AND I'LL INVITE MR. WHITE TO WALK US THROUGH THOSE DIFFERENT TYPES AND HOW MANY WE HAVE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF THE QUESTION IS HOW MANY PLAYGROUNDS THAT WE HAVE, I'LL HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU TOMORROW ON THAT OR EVEN LATER TONIGHT.
AS MR. VAN DINE MENTIONED, WE HAVE TOT LOTS, WE HAVE PLAYGROUNDS, WE HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS,
[01:45:02]
WE HAVE REGIONAL PARKS, SIMILAR TO THE ONLY ONE WE HAVE GUESS IS SO MAKE.IF WE GET THE QUESTION NARROWED DOWN, I COULD PROVIDE A MORE SUCCINCT ANSWER. THANKS.
>> SURE. THANKS. I WAS SPECIFICALLY INTERESTED IN JUST KNOWING HOW MANY PLAYGROUNDS, AS FAR AS OUR ASSET MANAGEMENT ROTATION FOR THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT THAT WE WERE REPLACING ONE A YEAR AND I THOUGHT A FEW YEARS AGO WE HAD 20 AND THEY WERE ON A 20 YEAR LIFE CYCLE ROTATION.
>> I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION RIGHT NOW.
ON OUR WEBSITE, PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS, WE HAVE 19 PLAYGROUNDS.
>> APPARENTLY SO UNLESS I'M DOING ANOTHER CHECK.
>> WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THE QUESTION.
IF YOU COULD GET BACK TO US WITH THE EXACT NUMBER THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL BUT MY ASSUMPTION WAS WITH HAGEL AND POTENTIALLY MORE DEVELOPMENT IN OTHER PLACES LIKE TAYLOR OR FRAME LAKE NORTH, THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE PARKS THAT ARE COMING INTO ROTATION.
I JUST WANTED TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT IT MEANS THINKING ABOUT THE ASSET MANAGEMENT, THE LIFE CYCLE OF THESE PARKS, AND HOW OFTEN THEY ACTUALLY NEED TO BE REPLACED.
ARE WE GOING TO BE DOING MORE THAN ONE IN A YEAR BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO START TO HAVE MORE THAN 20 OR IS THE LIFE CYCLE ACTUALLY A BIT LONGER AND WE CAN STRETCH OUT? IT'S STILL ONE PARK EVERY YEAR AND WE CAN STILL MAKE OUR WAY THROUGH ALL OUR PLAYGROUND PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENTS?
>> I'LL TURN IT OVER MR. WHITE IN A MOMENT.
BUT ESSENTIALLY, OUR PROGRAM IS ANNUAL SO EVERY SUMMER, WE TRY AND REVIEW.
I THINK WE DID ONE SIZABLE PIECE OF WORK DOWN DOWN BY THE ROCKET CLUB IN THE FLATS AREA THIS PAST YEAR.
WE'VE DONE PARKS ACROSS THE CITY, AND EACH OF THOSE UPGRADES HAVE BEEN ACCORDING TO OUR ACCESSIBILITY POLICY THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER, WE'RE PICKING AWAY AT IT.
IN TERMS OF OUR POTENTIAL IMPACT ON CITY FINANCES AND OUR SPEED WITH WHICH THAT WE'LL DO THAT, AS I THINK WAS IMPLIED, WHEN WE DO ADD A NEW SUBDIVISION AND WHEN WE ADD A NEW PARK, WE WILL BE ADDING TO TAX BASE SO AS WE ADD TO TAX BASE, WE'LL BE ADJUSTING OUR SERVICES ACCORDINGLY BASED ON THE ADDED GROWTH THAT WOULD COME FROM THAT.
BUT MR. WHITE, DID YOU WANT TO ELABORATE ON OUR SCHEDULE OF PARK UPGRADES AND I DON'T KNOW IF REPLACEMENT IS NECESSARILY THE WORD, BUT AT LEAST THE MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE BEING MAINTAINED AT A USABLE STANDARD?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL START BY SAYING THAT ALL OF OUR PLAYGROUNDS ARE MONITORED AND INSPECTED BY OUR STAFF, WHICH ARE CPSI, CANADIAN PLAYGROUND SAFETY INSTITUTE INSPECTORS.
WITH OUR CLIMATE AND WITH OUR USE, WE HAVE FOUND THAT WITHIN A 20 YEAR SPAN THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED.
IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, THERE WOULD BE 19 ON THE WEBSITE.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE TWO AT PARKER PARK.
SO THAT'S WHERE IT BRINGS UP THE COUNT TO 20.
I BELIEVE THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION. THANK YOU.
>> THAT DOES ANSWER THE QUESTION. COUNCILOR FEQUET.
>> PERFECT. JUST GETTING BACK TO TO TRY TO STRETCH OUR GOLAR IS THE THEME HERE.
LATHAM ISLAND IS UP FOR 2026 TO DO A CONSULTATION AND TO THINK ABOUT THAT PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, AND WE KNOW THAT RESIDENTS IN THE AREA HAVE BEEN PRETTY VOCAL ABOUT SOME OTHER POTENTIAL USES LIKE A SOCCER FIELD OR WHATEVER FOR THE GREEN SPACE.
CAN YOU JUST COMMENT ON OR CLARIFY IF THE ENGAGEMENT WILL BE JUST ABOUT THE EQUIPMENT AND THE USE THERE OR THE WHOLE GREEN SPACE A LITTLE MORE HOLISTICALLY.
>> WE'RE IN TOUCH WITH THE LATHAM ISLAND ASSOCIATION ON A FAIRLY REGULAR BASIS, BUT I'LL INVITE MR. WHITE TO RESPOND TO OUR LAST ENGAGEMENT WITH HIM ENGAGEMENT.
WE'VE GOT PLANNED FOR THE 2026 WORK.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MOVING FORWARD, THE UPGRADE OR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE PLAYGROUND APPARATUS WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOCCER PITCH, WHICH WE ARE STILL IN CONTACT WITH THE ASSOCIATION ON. THANKS.
>> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS REGARDING THE LATHAM ISLAND PLAYGROUND.
YOU NOTED THAT FOR THE ASSET MANAGEMENT OVERALL, A REVIEW OF PLAYGROUNDS, BUT HAVE WE DONE A REVIEW OF THE LATHAM ISLAND ONE IN PARTICULAR, OR IS IT JUST SORT OF THE NEXT UP ON THE DOCKET, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING IT? SORRY, MR. VAN DINE.
[01:50:05]
>> AS MR. WHITE HAS POINTED OUT, WE INSPECT ALL OF THE PARKS ON A REGULAR BASIS AND SO THIS IS NEXT ON DECK.
MR. WHITE, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION YOU'D LIKE TO ADD ON THAT?
>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT ON DECK WOULD INCLUDE AN ASSESSMENT OF NOT ONLY THE AGE, BUT ALSO THE CONDITION AND THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT OUR STAFF NEED TO CARRY OUT TO ENSURE THAT IT CONTINUES TO MEET THE PLAYGROUND SAFETY GUIDELINES. THANKS.
>> THANKS. I GUESS SIMILAR OR FOLLOWING UP ON THAT, ARE WE CONSIDERING AS WE TALK ASSET MANAGEMENT MORE BROADLY? ARE WE THINKING ABOUT THE ASSET MANAGEMENT IMPACTS OF THESE PARKS GOING FORWARD? RIGHT NOW WE'RE ON A 20 PARK, 20 YEAR REVIEW CYCLE AS WE HAVE MORE AND MORE PARKS.
ARE WE STICKING WITH 20 YEAR REVIEW CYCLE? WHEN SOMETHING GOES IN, IT GETS REPLACED 20 YEARS LATER AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A GLUT OF PARKS IN A YEAR WHERE? I'M JUST THINKING AGAIN, THOSE FINANCIAL IMPACTS OVER TIME OF REPLACEMENT, I FEAR THE REPLACEMENT FOR THE SAKE OF REPLACEMENT MENTALITY, WHICH EVEN THOUGH I KNOW IS ASSET MANAGEMENT 101.
IT'S LIKE I'M BALANCING THESE BEING PULLED IN TWO DIRECTIONS ON THIS ONE.
I'M JUST TRYING TO REALLY MAKE SURE THAT THIS LATHAM ISLAND PARK NEEDS TO BE REPLACED BEFORE WE REPLACE IT, AND SIMILARLY WITH FUTURE PARTS, THAT THE 20 YEAR IS A VERY CONSCIOUS THING.
AND EVEN IF WE GO UP TO 30 PARS, THAT 20 YEAR STICKS IF IT'S VERY CONSCIOUSLY THOUGHT OUT, OR HAS IT BEEN MORE OF A CONVENIENT WE REPLACE IT ON THE 20 YEAR CYCLE BECAUSE WE HAVE 20 PARKS.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE, MR. VAN DINE?
>> YEAH NO. I THINK IT ABSOLUTELY MAKES SENSE.
I THINK THE ROOT OF THE QUESTION OR THE NUMBER OF THE QUESTION THAT YOU'RE GETTING AT IS THROUGH EXPERIENCE AND THROUGH THE INSPECTIONS THAT WE'VE DONE, WE'VE COME UP WITH THE 20 YEAR GUIDELINE.
I BELIEVE WHAT MR. WHITE HAS CONVEYED CLEARLY IS THAT IN ITSELF IS A GUIDELINE.
SO 20 YEARS, THERE ISN'T NECESSARILY IN MY ESTIMATION, A MAGIC ALARM CLOCK THAT GOES OFF AND SAYS, OKAY, IT'S 20 YEARS, AND THEREFORE, IT TRIGGERS IF AN INSPECTION REVEALS THAT WEAR AND TEAR AND OTHER THINGS ARE REQUIRED MORE WORK, THEN I BELIEVE THOSE INSPECTIONS THEN DRIVE OUR WORK TOWARDS IT.
BUT I'LL INVITE MR. WHITE TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT WE'VE COME TO THE POINT WHERE IT WAS QUESTIONABLE AT THE END OF THE 20 YEARS, WHETHER WE REALLY NEEDED TO DO IT LIKE, IS THERE, ARE WE OPERATING BY THE 20 YEAR ALARM CLOCK, OR ARE WE OPERATING IT BASED ON THE THE INSPECTIONS WHICH HAPPENED TO AVERAGE A 20 YEAR CYCLE? I LIKE HIM TO ELABORATE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE 20 YEARS IS THE GUIDELINE.
AS A PLAYGROUND STARTS TO APPROACH THAT.
THEN WE HAVE A CLOSE LOOK AT IT AND SEE IF IT ACTUALLY NEEDS TO BE REPLACED OR JUST COMPONENTS OF IT.
JUST BECAUSE OF FACILITY OR AN APPARATUS HITS A 20 YEARS.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE REPLACE IT EXACTLY ON THE YEAR THAT IT TURNS 20. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTION, MOTIONS ON THIS? SEEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE TO THE PATCHING PROGRAM ON PAGE 133.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS ON THIS? SEEING NONE. WE MOVE FORWARD.
PAGE 134, WE HAVE THE PAVING PROGRAM.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR MOTIONS ON THIS? I HAVE A QUESTION.
I'M TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH MYSELF AND MY OWN.
FOR A QUESTION FORMIN, WHAT'S THE PERCEIVED BENEFIT OF PAVING THE REMAINING GRAVEL AREA OF SOMBA K'E PARK? OTHER THAN JUST PAVING IT FOR PAVING SAKE AND HAVING IT ALL PAVED? I GUESS THE FLIP SIDE IS WHAT'S THE DOWNSIDE OF JUST KEEPING IT GRAVEL.
WHAT'S THE NEED ASSESSMENT THAT GOT US HERE? MR. VAN DINE.
>> MR. WHITE IS A POPULAR MAN THIS EVENING SO MR. WHITE DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO OFFER? DO YOU HAVE SOME GRANULAR PERSPECTIVES TO OFFER ON THIS QUESTION?
>> ACTUALLY, I WISH I COULD ACT ON THAT, BUT I CAN'T.
I'LL HAVE TO PASS THIS OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE, MR. GREENCORN.
>> THANK YOU. MULTIPLE THINGS GENERATED THIS.
ONE IS I HAVE A LONG CORPORATE MEMORY, AND I BUILT SOMBA K'E PARK, SO NOT I, BUT WE, I HELPED.
>> IT'S AN AVENGERS MOVIE AS OPPOSED TO A SUPERMAN MOVIE. [OVERLAPPING]
[01:55:02]
>> CORRECT. SORRY, I WAS TOLD TO USE MORE I'S STATEMENTS IN OTHER PARTS OF MY LIFE.
IT'S MIRRORING THE EXISTING PARKING LOT AND FLIPPING IT SO BASICALLY THERE'S MULTIPLE THINGS.
[NOISE] EXCUSE ME. ESTABLISH A PARKING REGIME IN THE AREA BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S A FREE FOR ALL AND MANY PEOPLE USE IT FOR FREE PARKING AND WALK TO WORK EVERY DAY.
IT'S TO ESTABLISH SOME FUTURE ELECTRICAL IN CASE IT TURNS INTO OVERFLOW STAFF PARKING OR A PARKING THAT COULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO SUCH PEOPLE SUCH AS JTFN OR RCMP OR OTHER CUSTOMERS AND IT GETS RID OF THE DUST BOWL IN THE SUMMERTIME.
HOWEVER, IN ANTICIPATING THE QUESTION, WE KNOW THE BREAKDOWN.
WE DID GET AN ENGINEERING ESTIMATE BACK LAST YEAR.
SORRY, THE PAVING PROGRAM IS TWOFOLD.
THE MATANE B ALLEY, WHICH WE'RE COMMITTED TO IN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THROUGH THE AVENS PAVILION, AND TWO WAS THE SOMBA K'E.
WE GOT OUR ENGINEERING ESTIMATES BACK FROM OUR CONSULTANT LAST WEEK AND THE MATANE B ALLEY IS GOING TO BE IN THE RANGE OF 885K.
WE WOULD NEED TO RETAIN AT LEAST 885 OUT OF THAT 1150.
BUT IF COUNCIL SO DESIRED, WE COULD CUT THE REMAINING 265, WHICH WOULD BE LEFT AND LIKELY SHORT FOR THE SOMBA K'E PARKING LOT IF COUNCIL DESIRED.
>> THE CITY WEBSITE NOW HAS AN AMAZING ACTIVE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SECTION, AND THERE IS JUST A PERMIT FOR A VERY, VERY LARGE BUILDING DIRECTLY BESIDE THAT LOT.
I WOULD BE OKAY SUPPORTING CUTTING THIS OR DEFERRING IT IF NO WANTS TO CUT IT IN CONSIDERATION OF MASSIVE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, HOPEFULLY GOING RIGHT BESIDE THAT LOT.
>> DO I HEAR A MOTION ON THAT DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON?
>> DON'T WANT TO STEAL THUNDER HERE, BUT YES, IT WOULD BE A MOTION TO I GUESS JUST CUT THAT 265 FOR THIS YEAR.
>> DO I HEAR SECOND ON THAT, COUNCIL PAYNE? ANY QUESTIONS TO COUNCILOR WARBURTON OR DO YOU WANT TO COMMENT FURTHER?
>> I GUESS THAT'S THE PAVING PORTION, BUT YOU DID REFERENCE OTHER THINGS AROUND PEOPLE PARKING A FREE FOR ALL.
IT'S MAYBE A TAKEAWAY FOR A MINUTE OR A QUESTION OR WE'RE GOING TO TAKE IT.
IS THERE A WAY WE CAN MITIGATE THAT WITHOUT DOING THE PAVING PROGRAM? CAN WE DO SOMETHING THERE TO STOP THE FREE PARKING?
>> THE WORK THAT MR. GREENCORN HAS LAID OUT, ALSO, I BELIEVE, INCLUDES SOME SIGNAGE SO I THINK THAT BUT I'LL INVITE MR. GREENCORN TO RESPOND.
>> I THINK IT WOULD DEFINITELY REQUIRE SIGNAGE TO INDICATE THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT FREE AND USED FOR VERY SPECIFIC RECREATIONAL PURPOSES.
I WOULD HAVE TO GET BACK ON THE OVERALL LOT LAYOUT TO DETERMINE IF WE SHOULD PUT IN SOME CONCRETE BARRIERS TO DELINEATE AREAS.
I WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THAT BACK, BUT YES, THERE'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE BROUGHT FORWARD TO TRY TO REMEDY THE SITUATION THAT EXISTS.
>> JUST CLEAR VIO CITY PROPERTY, SO CITY CAN TICKET AND TO ITS OWN PROPERTY.
I'M SEEING HEAD NODS? GREAT. THANK YOU.
>> I WOULD JUST FOR CLARITY WITH THE MOTION, THOUGH.
IT STICKS TO WHAT WAS CONTEMPLATED, SO THAT I'LL CUT IT AND ANYTHING THAT COMES SEPARATELY, IF YOU WANTED TO ADD ANYTHING IN BEFORE THE END OF BUDGET, WE COULD DO THAT, OR IT JUST FIGURES IT OUT AND WE FIGURE IT OUT ONCE THE CONSTRUCTION.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT SUPER CLEAR.
WITH THAT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FOR COUNCILOR WARBURTON? COUNCILOR FOOTE.
>> QUESTION FORD MAN, OBVIOUSLY.
HAS THE NBT ART CENTER INITIATIVE SIGNAL THAT THEY ARE NO LONGER LOOKING? [OVERLAPPING]
>> IS THIS RELATED TO THE PART IT HAS TO BE RELATED TO THE PAVING?
>> THAT THEY'RE NO LONGER LOOKING AT THAT LOCATION AS A POSSIBLE ART CENTER?
>> I'LL INVITE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DEVELOPMENT WHITE TO RESPOND.
MY INDICATION IS THAT THEY HAVE MOVED ON TO ANOTHER SITE AND THAT ALL THEIR PLANS ARE CONSOLIDATING AND FOCUSED IN ANOTHER PART OF THE CITY.
BUT DIRECTOR WHITE, WOULD YOU LIKE, DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION?
I THOUGHT THEY HAD ANNOUNCED THAT PUBLICLY.
NO THEY'RE LOOKING AT OTHER LOCATIONS. THANK YOU.
>> IF IT'S THE CO HALL SITE THAT THEY'RE FOCUSED ON NOW.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? SEEING NONE, THEN TO THE MOTION.
ALL IN FAVOR? YES, IT'S CUTTING.
THAT'S UNANIMOUS. CUT THAT 265.
[02:00:04]
WITH THAT, WE HAVE THE NEXT UP IS THE RUTH INCH MEMORIAL POOL REPURPOSING PHASE 1.ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS? STEVE COUNCILOR PAYNE FIRST?
>> THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS GOING TO BE A POPULAR OPINION HERE, BUT I DON'T REALLY CARE.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED ANOTHER FACILITY.
I THINK THAT WE NEED TO SELL THIS OR TEAR IT DOWN OR SOMETHING.
I DON'T AGREE WITH PUTTING ANOTHER CENT INTO THIS.
I THINK WE SHOULD PUT IT UP FOR SALE.
WE GOT $5.2 MILLION OVER THREE YEARS FOR THIS FACILITY.
I DON'T AGREE WITH IT. I KNOW THE PUBLIC DON'T AGREE WITH IT EITHER.
>> FOR CLARITY, THOUGH, JUST THE CAPITAL ITEM ITSELF IS ABOUT THE REPURPOSING AND THIS IS JUST PHASE 1 AND 2026 SO YOU'RE PROPOSING FROM 2022. [OVERLAPPING]
>> SO THE OUTCOME, JUST FOR CLARITY, IS THAT IN THE MOMENT, JUST THE BUILDING WOULD JUST SIT THERE THEN AND WE'D STILL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT WHAT TO DO LATER BECAUSE COUNCIL CAN'T JUST DECIDE TO SELL SOMETHING IN THE MOMENT.
I JUST WANT TO BE SUPER CLEAR.
>> 100%. WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THIS FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
IT'S NOT LIKE WE JUST FOUND OUT THAT WE HAVE AN EMPTY FACILITY.
I THINK THAT THE PUBLIC OR SOME PRIVATE BUSINESS COULD PROBABLY TAKE THIS OVER BETTER THAN WE CAN AND I THINK THEY WOULD DO IT A LOT MORE ECONOMICALLY THAN WE COULD.
I WOULD JUST PUT IT ON ICE AND START LOOKING AT OUR OPTIONS TO SELL OR IF ANOTHER GROUP WANTS TO COME IN AND THEY DO THE WORK.
>> THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS SUPER CLEAR IN TERMS OF COMES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? WE HAVE COUNCILOR MCLENNAN FIRST, THEN DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HOW DOES ANY WORK BEING DONE ABOUT REPURPOSING OR STUDIES OR CONTEMPLATION RELATE TO A LARGER REVIEW OF CITY FACILITIES THAT MAY NEED WORK OR REPURPOSING IN SOME WAY?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.
WE DO SHARE THE VIEW THAT HISTORICALLY AND TRADITIONALLY WITHIN THE CITY, WE TEND TO LOOK AT ONE ASSET OR ONE FACILITY AT A TIME AND FOCUS OUR ENERGIES SITE BY SITE.
WE NOW HAVE A COLLECTION OF FACILITIES, AND WE HAVE SOME INTEREST FROM BEING EXPRESSED BY OTHER PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY IN WANTING TO EITHER COMBINE OR TO SHARE OR TO COLOCATE CERTAIN QUESTIONS.
NOW, WE'RE AT A POINT WHERE WE'VE GOT A BIT OF A CRITICAL MASS AROUND FOUR COMMON SUSPECTS THAT POP UP IN ADDITION TO THE ROTH INCH MEMORIAL POOL.
WE'VE HAD QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO OUR VISITOR CENTER.
WE'VE HAD QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ROTH INCH MEMORIAL POOL, AS STATED.
WE'VE HAD QUESTIONS EVEN ABOUT THE LIBRARY, AND WE'VE HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT CITY HALL.
I BELIEVE THERE IS VALUE IN RATHER THAN PUTTING BUDGET ITEMS AGAINST EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE ONES THAT I'VE LISTED FOR FEASIBILITY OR EXPLORATORY, WOULD BE TO BUNDLE AND TAKE NOT A LOT OF MONEY, BUT A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY TO BUNDLE AND LOOK AT THESE FOUR FACILITIES SPECIFICALLY.
TO IMPART, GET TO COUNCILOR MCCLENNAN'S QUESTION ABOUT BEING MORE STRATEGIC, AND TO COUNCILOR PAYNE'S QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT MAYBE SELLING WOULD MAKE SOME SENSE.
WHAT WE WOULD ENVISION WOULD BE, POTENTIALLY, A PACKAGED RFP.
THAT PACKAGED RFP WOULD INVOLVE GETTING A FIRM TO HELP WALK THROUGH, TALK, AND ENGAGE.
YOU WILL SEE LATER IN THE BUDGET A LINE ITEM FOR BOTH CITY HALL AND THE ROTH INCH MEMORIAL POOL.
NOT TO MUDDY THE WATERS, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THE QUESTION BEING POSED TODAY ON THIS PARTICULAR LINE ITEM DOES INVITE US TO LOOK AT THOSE FOUR MORE STRATEGICALLY AND THEN PREPARE AN RFP.
WE DID START A BIT OF THIS CONVERSATION WITH
[02:05:01]
COUNCIL THIS TIME LAST YEAR UNDER THE AUSPICES OF CITY HALL.WE HAVEN'T HAD MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR UP UNTIL MORE RECENTLY TO REFINE OUR THINKING, AND WE DID IDENTIFY SOME SMALL AMOUNTS OF DOLLARS BASED ON LAST YEAR'S ALLOCATION OF CITY HALL REFURBISHING TO PREPARE AN RFP, WHICH WERE ALMOST READY TO PUSH SEND ON.
WE BELIEVE THAT OR I AM OF THE VIEW THAT A MORE HOLISTIC APPROACH AMONG THOSE FOUR FACILITIES TO GET AT THE QUESTIONS THAT COUNCILOR PAYNE AND COUNCILOR MCCLENNAN ARE ALLUDING TO WOULD BE TIMELY.
MY TAKEAWAY FROM THAT IS THAT THE MONEY THAT WAS ALLOCATED LAST YEAR IS SUFFICIENT TO DO THAT MORE BROAD WORK, AND THE ADDITIONAL $200,000 TO FOCUS SPECIFICALLY ON ROTH INCH WOULD NOT BE NEEDED.
>> I THINK THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD TAKEAWAY, BUT WE'LL CONFIRM THAT WITH MR VAN DINE.
>> JUST TAKING A PAGE OUT OF THE BOOK OF MR PANDOO, YES AND NO.
WE'LL HAVE TO SHARPEN THE PENCILS A LITTLE BIT, BUT YES, ESSENTIALLY THE THOUGHT WE WOULD ZERO OUT THAT 200 FOR THE WORK THAT I JUST DESCRIBED.
THAT BEING SAID, THE ORIGINAL FUNDS THAT WE HAD IDENTIFIED TO DO SOME OF THAT WORK, WE'VE HAD TO DIP INTO SIMILAR TO THE ADDITIONAL SPACE THAT WE RENTED FROM THE JAN STIRLING BUILDING.
WE'VE NOW SHIFTED TO A NEW LANDLORD.
THAT'S HAD SOME TRANSITION COSTS, THE FULL CONTEMPLATION, BUT MORE OR LESS WE WOULD ZERO OUT THE 200 IDENTIFIED FOR ROTH INCH, BUT WE WOULD NEED TO JUST DOUBLE CONFIRM THAT WE STILL HAVE DOLLARS LEFT IN THAT ORIGINAL SUM THAT I MENTIONED.
BUT MR PANDOO, DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE?
>> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.
YES, WE STILL HAVE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO THE TUNE OF $300,000.
I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT, BUT ON THE FACE OF IT, THAT SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT.
>> IN THAT CASE, I PUT FORWARD A MOTION TO CUT THE $200,000 TO FOCUS SPECIFICALLY ON RETENTION AND USE THE MONEY THAT EXISTS TO DO A BROAD REVIEW.
>> SECONDER, COUNCILOR COCHRANE.
DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK ANY FURTHER ON THAT? COUNCILOR MCCLENNAN?
>> NO, I THINK CITY MANAGER SPOKE WELL ABOUT THE APPROACH.
JUST THAT ONE COMMENT I WOULD ADD IS THAT IF THERE IS ANY WAY POSSIBLE TO HAVE SOME OF THAT INFORMATION REGARDING A BROAD FUTURE PATH FOR A NUMBER OF CITY FACILITIES AVAILABLE PRIOR TO ELECTION 2026, THAT TIMING COULD BE EXCELLENT ALONG WITH THE NEW COMMUNITY PLAN TO HAVE A VERY IN DEPTH, BROAD FUTURE CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT CITY FACILITIES LOOK LIKE FOR DECADES GOING FORWARD.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL MCCLENNAN OFFER MAIN ON THIS MOTION? DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON?
>> THANKS. HE TOOK MOST OF THE QUESTIONS THERE.
BUT FOR ME, THIS IS WHERE IT SAYS, REPURPOSE ROTH INCH AS A CITY FACILITY.
ON THAT PRESUMPTION ALONE, I CAN SUPPORT THAT 200K.
HE ANSWERED ALL THE REST OF MY QUESTIONS.
>> WHAT WAS THE OBJECTIVE OF INCLUDING THIS IN THE BUDGET IF WE ALREADY HAD FUNDS ALLOCATED FOR THE REVIEW IN GENERAL THAT WE JUST SPOKE ABOUT?
>> WELL, THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION.
WE DID HAVE A DISCUSSION AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS SHOULD BE NOT INCLUDED FOR THE REASONS SPECIFIED.
HOWEVER, THAT WAS AN ADMIN CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD WITHIN AN ADMIN BOARD ROOM, AND WE FELT THAT, GIVEN THE PUBLIC PROFILE OF THE ROTH INCH MEMORIAL POOL, IT WOULD BE MORE BENEFICIAL FOR TRANSPARENCY'S SAKE TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE NOT GETTING AHEAD OF COUNCIL ON THEIR DESIRES WITH RESPECT TO THE ROTH INCH MEMORIAL POOL.
[02:10:02]
>> THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. THANK YOU FOR THE ADMINISTRATION FOR THE CLARITY ON THIS, OBVIOUSLY, SINCE THE SECOND ENTITY SUPPORTS IT.
JUST TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, NOT ONLY WERE THESE FOUR OPTIONS WITHIN CITY FACILITIES WILL BE PURSUED AND ASSESSED THROUGH THE 300,000 ALLOCATED FROM LAST YEAR, BUT WE WILL PUT INTO CONSIDERATION BOTH SELLING THE FACILITY AND P3 AS WELL.
>> WE'LL DEFINITELY ENSURE THAT THE CONSULTANTS KEEP THEIR EARS OPEN FOR THOSE POSSIBILITIES.
WE'RE CERTAINLY OPEN FROM AN ADMINISTRATION POINT OF VIEW.
WE DEFINITELY WOULD NEED TO GET COUNCIL'S SUPPORT BEFORE WE PROCEEDED DOWN ANY OF THOSE PATHS, BUT ABSOLUTELY A PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, COLOCATION, OR SELLING THE ASSET FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE.
THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED ONCE WE GO AND INVITE SOMEONE TO SHOP THESE IDEAS AROUND.
>> BEST USE, COUNCILOR COCHRANE.
>> PERFECT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> ANYTHING FURTHER FROM COLLEAGUES ON THE MOTION? THEN, COUNCILOR WARBURTON.
>> ONLY BECAUSE COUNCILOR PAYNE MENTIONED IT.
THE ONE THING I WOULD NOT EVER SUPPORT IS DEMOLISHING THAT BUILDING.
IT'S BEAUTIFUL. IT HAS A GREAT BENEFIT TO OUR CITY.
I JUST DON'T WANT TO PRESUME IT'S THE CITY THAT NEEDS TO DO THAT.
I'M GLAD TO HEAR WE'RE DOING FACILITY STUFF BECAUSE IF THERE'S A GREAT USE THAT DOESN'T TAKE TAXPAYER DOLLARS, I WOULD LOVE IT, BUT THERE'S NO VERSION OF THAT BUILDING BEING KNOCKED OVER THAT I WOULD BE COOL WITH.
JUST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS, SO WE'RE CLEAR.
I DO NOT SUPPORT DEMOLISHING THAT BUILDING.
>> IT IS ON THE PUBLIC RECORD.
>> YOU TOLD ME RIGHT BEFORE THIS MEETING THAT YOU WOULD AGREE WITH DEMOLISHING THAT BUILDING.
>> BACK TO IT TO THE MOTION, THAT COUNCIL CUT THE ROTH INCH MEMORIAL POOL, REPURPOSING $200,000.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT IS UNANIMOUS.
WE HAVE THE SAMPLING STATION IMPROVEMENTS.
COUNCILOR MCGURK ALREADY GOT THE THUMBS UP.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS? NO. NEXT, WE HAVE THE SNOW BLOWER ON PAGE 137.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS, COUNCILOR PAYNE.
IS THIS PIECE OF EQUIPMENT NECESSARY, OR IS IT JUST BECAUSE IT WAS TALKED ABOUT TO THE PUBLIC?
>> ACTUALLY, I DON'T BELIEVE, IT CAME FROM THAT, BUT MR VAN DINE.
>> I'M HAVING SOME TECHNICAL ISSUES WITH MY BUDGET BOOK, BUT I BELIEVE THIS ITEM REFERS TO OUR DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVE.
CAN I JUST GET A CONFIRMATION?
>> SORRY. SAY THAT AGAIN, MR VAN DINE?
>> I BELIEVE THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF EQUIPMENT WAS PART OF OUR BROADER DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PACKAGE.
>> YES. IT'S THE SECOND SENTENCE IN THE PARAGRAPH IN THE PRESCRIPTION PROJECT DETAILS.
>> FOR SOME REASON, MY BUDGET BOOK NUMBERING IS NOT CORRESPONDING WITH WHAT THE COUNCILOR IS LOOKING AT.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
WITH THAT, MR CHAIR, THE PACKAGE WAS PUT FORWARD TO RESPOND TO A GENERAL DESIRE BY YELLOWKNIFE RESIDENTS OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF SEASONS THAT THE DOWNTOWN, AT TIMES, BECAUSE OF SNOW, WAS LESS ACCESSIBLE AND SO IN SOME OF THE PLENARY WORK THAT WE DID AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL OVER AND WHITEHORSE, NOT TOO LONG AGO, WE DID HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHECK OUT THE EQUIPMENT THAT THEY'VE BEEN USING.
ADMITTEDLY, THE CITY OF WHITEHORSE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS IN THE SNOW REMOVAL PROCESS BASED ON A STUDY THAT THEY HAD DONE A FEW YEARS BEFORE, WHICH BASICALLY REMODELED THEIR APPROACH TO SNOW CLEARING, AND SO THIS MEASURE HAS BEEN PUT IN THIS PACKAGE AS A PRELIMINARY GESTURE OR AT LEAST A DOWN PAYMENT IN WHAT MIGHT BE A MORE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO SNOW REMOVAL.
TO ANSWER THE QUESTION DIRECTLY, THERE WAS NO DIRECT QUERY FOR THE PUBLIC TO SAY BY THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.
FOR THIS PURPOSE IT WAS THE ADMINISTRATION'S ASSESSMENT OF THE PUBLIC MOOD WITH RESPECT TO SNOW CLEARING IN THE DOWNTOWN.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY CAN REMEMBER.
I KNOW IN PREVIOUS COUNCILS, WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS ON REMOVING SNOW WITH SNOW BLOWERS IN THE PAST, AND IT WAS TALKED ABOUT THAT THE SNOW THAT WE HAVE UP HERE,
[02:15:03]
BECAUSE IT GETS HARD-PACKED, IT DOESN'T REALLY WORK FOR THIS TYPE OF EQUIPMENT.CAN ANYBODY REMEMBER THAT CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD BEFORE?
>> MR VAN DINE, BUT I SEE MR GREENCORN'S HEAD IS NOT IN A WAY, SO I'M SURE YOU'LL PASS IT QUICKLY.
>> THANK YOU. YES. THIS CAME UP BEFORE.
WE DID BORROW IN THE PAST MACHINE FROM THE AIRPORT TO MIMIC SNOW REMOVAL ACTIVITIES.
THAT PIECE OF EQUIPMENT AT THE TIME WAS WHOLLY INAPPROPRIATE AND WAS DAMAGED FROM THE HARD PACK.
WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT THROUGH THIS PROCESS, REACHED OUT TO SEVERAL COMPANIES, AND THE ONES EMPLOYED IN WHITEHORSE, IN FACT, THEY'RE MORE HEAVY-DUTY, AND THEY WILL DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO, HOWEVER, AT A FASTER PACE THAN WHAT WE CURRENTLY DO.
>> I'LL RESERVE MORE UNTIL I HEAR FROM MY COLLEAGUES.
>> FAIR ENOUGH. WE HAVE COUNCILOR MCGURK AND THEN COUNCILOR WARBURTON.
>> DIRECTOR GREENCORN IS PROBABLY JUST GOING TO TELL YOU THIS IS WHAT IS WRITTEN HERE.
BUT IF THIS IMPROVES EFFICIENCIES IN CLEARING SNOW, THAT MEANS THAT WE HAVE ONE OF TWO THINGS, WHICH IS EITHER THAT WE HAVE LOWER ASSOCIATED COSTS OR HIGHER SERVICE STANDARDS. YES.
>> THERE ARE SOME EFFICIENCIES THAT WE'RE EXPECTING HERE, AND IMPROVED SERVICE DELIVERY OR SERVICE RESPONSE.
ONE OF THE PIECES THAT WE'VE SPOKEN TO, IT'S A CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT WITHIN ADMINISTRATION.
WE DO KNOW THAT THIS SEASON WAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN PREVIOUS SEASONS, BUT LAST SEASON IN 2024, WE DID HAVE SOMETHING SIMILAR THAT HAPPENED, I THINK, A LITTLE BIT IN 2023, WHICH WAS A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT START TO THE SEASON, A WETTER, HEAVIER, MORE EASTERN CANADA SNOWFALL, WHICH IS, PLAIN AND SIMPLY THE RESULT OF CLIMATE CHANGE, OF COURSE.
BUT TO PUT A MEASURE OF PREDICTABILITY ON HOW LONG THAT TREND IS GOING TO LAST FOR THE OPERATIONAL PERIOD, WE'RE NOT IN THAT SPACE TO MAKE A DRAMATIC CHANGE.
HOWEVER, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS INVESTMENT, TARGETING LARGELY THE DOWNTOWN AREA, WHICH SEEMS TO BE THE BUSIEST AND MOST AREA OF FOCUS FOR RESIDENTS FOR ACCESS TO EITHER BUSINESS, HEALTH, OR OTHER SERVICES IN THE DOWNTOWN WHEN WE HAVE A LARGE EVENT, SEEMS TO BE THE ONE THAT'S THE MOST PROBLEMATIC AND WE BELIEVE THIS PIECE OF EQUIPMENT WOULD BE A HELPFUL PIECE TO HAVE IN OUR SUITE OF EQUIPMENT TO DEAL WITH ACCESSIBILITY, ACCESS TO THE DOWNTOWN AND QUICKER REMOVAL.
THE TECHNIQUES THAT WE DO APPLY DO WORK, AND TO COUNCILOR PAYNE'S REFERENCE TO PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS, ABSOLUTELY, SNOWPACK.
THE TEAM STILL DOES A GREAT JOB IN USING THE EQUIPMENT THAT WE HAVE.
WE'VE ALSO, FOR BUDGET PURPOSES, INCREASED OUR NUMBER OF WEEKS THAT WE ARE NOW BUDGETING FOR SNOW REMOVAL TO HELP WITH OUR EXISTING SNOW EQUIPMENT PROCESSES.
THE TEAM IS FEELING AS THOUGH THEY'VE GOT THE BUDGET POWER TO DEAL WITH WHAT MAY COME FROM A SNOWFALL.
HOWEVER, THE QUICKER PICKER UPPER, IS WHAT I CALL IT, WITH THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF EQUIPMENT, WOULD BE AN ADDITION TO OUR CURRENT SUITE, AND IT WAS BASED ON RELATIVELY RECENT CONCERNS WITH DOWNTOWN ACCESS.
>> NEXT, DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON.
>> THANKS, THIS IS A SNOWBLOWER VERSUS USING A SHOVEL TO LOAD TRUCKS.
THIS IS MORE EFFICIENT USING THE GEAR WE HAVE.
I THINK IT'S VERY ODD THAT NORTHERN CITY DOESN'T HAVE A SNOWBLOWER ATTACHMENT FOR THEIR SNOW REMOVAL SYSTEMS IN THEIR CITY.
EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY HAS THIS.
I DON'T THINK IT'S A VERY ODD CAPITAL ASK.
WE CAN USE, SAME EQUIPMENT WITH THIS ADDITION, AND IT'LL BE WAY MORE EFFICIENT.
I THINK TICKS ALL THE BOXES WE KEEP ASKING FOR, IS HOW CAN WE DO LITTLE WIN? A CAPITAL ASK AS OPPOSED TO STAFFING ASK TO MAKE SNOW MOVE MORE EFFICIENT. I SUPPORT.
[02:20:01]
>> NEXT, WE HAVE COUNCILOR ARDEN SMITH.
>> THANK YOU. WELL, I NO LONGER HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY ANSWERED, BUT I'M IN FULL SUPPORT OF KEEPING THIS ON OUR BUDGET.
I THINK WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST FEW YEARS, ESPECIALLY SINCE OUR BELOVED SNOWMAGEDDON IS THAT WE HAVE AN INCREASE IN SNOWFALL EACH YEAR AS WELL AS CANADA'S NORTH IS WARMING UP AT AN ALARMING RATE, WHICH MEANS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE EVEN MORE SNOWFALL.
I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BECOME A GREAT ASSET FOR US DURING THE WINTER MONTHS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNSEL FIKE.
>> THANKS, MR. CHAIR. THE MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN IS EXPECTED FOR COMPLETION IN 2026 IS THE SCOPE OF THAT WORK IN ANY WAY GOING TO INFORM SNOW CLEARING IN ANY WAY.
>> I'LL INVITE MR. GREENCORN TO RESPOND TO THAT. MR. GREENCORN.
>> THANKS. THE MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN WOULD BE A HIGH LEVEL POLICY DOCUMENT, SO TO SPEAK, AND OUT OF IT, WE EXPECT IT TO GENERATE SEVERAL INITIATIVES FOR CAPITAL PLANNING MOVING FORWARD.
I WOULD SUSPECT THAT BEING A WALKABLE AND ACCESSIBLE CITY WILL INEVITABLY SPIT OUT SOME RECOMMENDATION ON SNOW AND ICE CONTROL, WHETHER IT'S ON SIDEWALKS OR ROADS, INCLUDING BIKE LANES, ETC, OR BOTH.
WE DID INCLUDE IN OUR O&M ESTIMATES, AN ALLOCATION FOR THE SNOW AND ICE CONTROL STUDIES SIMILAR TO WHAT WHITEHORSE DID PREEMPTING THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, AS I BELIEVE IT WILL INCLUDE IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS THAT WE COULD GET A HEAD START ON PRIOR TO THE PLAN.
TALKING IN A BIT OF A CIRCLES.
BUT FOR EXAMPLE, I BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO NEED SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT SIDEWALK, SNOW CLEARING IN THE GREATER CONTEXT IN THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN.
THIS WOULD GET AHEAD OF THAT. WE WOULD ALSO PROBABLY CONTEMPLATE PARKING BANS DURING MAJOR SNOW EVENTS, A SNOW AND ICE CONTROL STUDY WOULD DO THE ANALYSIS AS WELL AS ENGAGEMENT ON THAT.
WE COULD WAIT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN TO BE COMPLETE AND THEN MOVE FORWARD WITH IMPLEMENTATION, OR WE CAN TRY TO GET AHEAD OF IT A LITTLE BIT AND DO SOME OF THIS STUFF THAT WE KNOW IS LIKELY COMING OUT OF IT.
IT'S UP TO COUNSEL DISCRETION, REALLY.
>> THANKS THAT RESPONSE. I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF WHETHER THAT PLAN AND THAT WORK AND THAT ENGAGEMENT WOULD HELP INFORM THIS OR NOT.
FOR ME, I'M IN THE MIDDLE BECAUSE I SEE PROS AND CONS.
I AGREE. IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE VALUE PROPOSITION OF WHAT THE CITY DOES.
IF YOU BASE IT SOLELY ON THE METRIC OF WHAT IS THE TOPIC IN RANSON AVES.
THIS WOULD PROBABLY BE NEAR THE TOP.
BECAUSE IT ISN'T A TAX BURDEN DIRECTLY.
THOSE ARE THE REASONS THAT I WOULD SUPPORT IT, BUT AGAIN, I'D ALSO HAPPILY WAIT, NOT KNOWING IF WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THE SNOW STUDY YET, BUT IF THAT WAS GOING TO GO AHEAD, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT SHOULD INFORM OUR STRATEGY.
I'M LEANING TO PROBABLY KEEPING IT, BUT I WAS IN THE MIDDLE, SO THANKS FOR THAT RESPONSE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COUNSEL COCHRAN?
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR ANSWERING ALL PRIOR QUESTIONS.
YOU'VE GIVEN ME A LOT TO THINK ABOUT HERE.
I THINK COUNCILOR SMITH HIT IT A LITTLE BIT THOUGH AS LIKE DURING SNOWMAGEDDON, WE HAD A 780% INCREASE FROM THE YEAR PRIOR.
WE ARE LIVING INTO AN AREA OF UNPREDICTABILITY AND HAVING THIS PIECE OF EQUIPMENT SEEMS ESSENTIAL.
EVERYWHERE ELSE SEEMS TO HAVE IT.
WHY WOULDN'T WE DECIDE TO ACTUALLY GO FOR THAT.
AS SO ELOQUENTLY PUT BY COUNCILOR FOCKE, AND THE NEED OF RAND AND RAVE, IT'S NOT JUST ON THERE.
HOW MANY E MAILS DO WE RECEIVE ON A REGULAR.
BASIS BESEECHING US TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.
THIS IS SOMETHING THE PUBLIC WANT AND SOMETHING WE CAN IMMEDIATELY DO.
THIS SEEMS LIKE EVERYTHING THAT HITS ON WHAT WE GO FOR A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNSEL COCHRAN.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, COUNSEL FOOT.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SOMEBODY WHO OPERATED ONE OF THESE IN THEIR PREVIOUS LIFE, PRETTY EXCITED TO SEE ONE ADDED TO THE FLEET, THEY ARE A GAME CHANGER.
JUST A WORD A CAUTION THAT IF THE OPERATOR ISN'T FULLY TRAINED, THEY DO SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN THE DOWNLINE WAITING FOR MAINTENANCE.
MAKE SURE WE'RE WIND ROWING AND BREAKING UP ICE BEFOREHAND. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. I GUESS MY ONLY QUESTION IS IN MEN'S DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PROVIDER OF THIS EQUIPMENT, I'M ALWAYS A FAN OF BULK BUYING.
IS THERE ANY LIKE, WITH BIG EQUIPMENT LIKE THIS? NO, BUT WOULD THERE BE A BETTER OPPORTUNITY IF WE KNEW WHAT WE WERE NEEDED NO.
[02:25:05]
BUT IF WE KNEW WHAT WE WERE NEEDED POST TRANSPORTATION PLAN, POTENTIAL SNOW AND ICE STUDY, WE HAVE ONE HERE.IT'S ALWAYS A CATCH 22, DO WE WAIT AND THEN EVERYTHING'S MORE EXPENSIVE ANYWAY.
BUT THEN WE POTENTIALLY HAVE DISCOUNTS WHEN WE ACTUALLY KNOW FULLY WHAT WE ARE NEEDING TO SCOPE OUT.
I GUESS HAS MEN HAD ANY OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS YET OR IS IT JUST BEEN MORE LIKE, MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET SOMETHING IN THIS BUDGET AND MOVE FORWARD? I JUST WANT TO GET A FLAVOR FOR THAT BEFORE KNOWING PART OF ME IS DEBATING, KEEP IT IN, AS THE MAJORITY OF MY COLLEAGUES SEEM TO WANT OR WHETHER TO DEFER IT, BUT SO THAT WE HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
I JUST DON'T REALLY KNOW WHERE I SIT RIGHT NOW. MR. VAN DINE.
>> I'LL ADD MORE FOG JUST TO HELP YOU.
ESSENTIALLY, THE PITCH THE CALCULATION IS THAT YES, THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER BALLS IN THE AIR THAT WE COULD WAIT TO LAND BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD.
OF ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, WE BELIEVE THIS IS A RELATIVELY MODEST RISK TO MAKE THIS CHOICE ON THIS PIECE OF EQUIPMENT FOR MANY OF THE REASONS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID, WHILE WE WAIT FOR THE OTHER PIECES TO FOLLOW.
LET LET'S SAY THAT COUNCIL MAKES THIS CHOICE, WE GO AND WE GO PROCURE THIS.
ON PROCUREMENT, I'LL MAYBE DEFER TO MR. GREENCORN, AND MAYBE MR. PANDO TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DIFFERENT PROCUREMENT OPTIONS OR SITES AND SERVICES THAT ARE AVAILABLE THAT WE'RE EXPLORING, GENERALLY SPEAKING, NOT JUST FOR EQUIPMENT LIKE THIS, BUT FOR OTHER EQUIPMENT THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF TO KEEP PRICES DOWN SO THAT WE CAN BENEFIT FROM THOSE BUYING CLUBS THAT ARE POPPING UP WITH RESPECT TO KEEPING MUNICIPAL COSTS DOWN.
I'LL TURN TO THEM IN A MOMENT.
BUT FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE, BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE, THERE TO COUNSEL WAR BRITON'S POINT, AT THIS IS AN ATTACHMENT TO AN EXISTING PIECE OF EQUIPMENT, AND WHAT WE MIGHT FIND OURSELVES DOING IS BUYING MORE OF THESE LATER, WHETHER OR NOT THERE'D BE ECONOMIES OF SCALE OF US BUYING THIS ONE NOW AND FINDING OUT THAT WE MAY NEED THREE DOWNSTREAM AND WHAT IS THE RELATIVE SAVINGS.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A MATERIAL QUESTION, BUT PERHAPS MR. PANDO AND MR. GREENCORN, CAN DESCRIBE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TO MAKE OUR PROCUREMENT DOLLARS GO FURTHER.
>> JUST FOR CLARITY, THAT IT'S MORE FOGGED, BUT IT ANSWERS WHAT I WAS GETTING AT, BUT I'LL OPEN IT, MR. PANDO.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD, BUT OTHERWISE, I'M GOOD WITH THAT RESPONSE.
>> WE ARE CURRENTLY I HAVE DEALT WITH THIS COMPANY PREVIOUSLY IN PREVIOUS LIFE AND WHAT NORMALLY YOU DO SEE THERE ARE REBATES FOR GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION THAT THESE, WHEN YOU BUY WHETHER IN BULK OR NOT, YOU DO GET GOVERNMENT REBATES ON MUNICIPAL EQUIPMENT.
WE ARE CURRENTLY UPDATING OUR PROCUREMENT POLICIES TO ALLOW US TO GO TOWARDS THESE TYPES OF ARRANGEMENT.
CURRENTLY OUR PROCUREMENT POLICIES ARE QUITE RIGID, JUST SO TO SPEAK.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE AT THE MOMENT.
WE ARE DOING THINGS IN THE BACKGROUND.
HOPEFULLY, WE'RE GOING TO IMPROVE OUR POLICIES HERE.
I SAW COUNCILOR PAYING YOUR HAND WENT UP AGAIN, GO FORWARD.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I'M STILL INCLINED TO, I KNOW I'M NOT GOING TO GET SUPPORTED ON THIS, BUT I'M INCLINED TO PUT A MOTION FORWARD TO CUT THIS.
I THINK THAT THIS IS A WANT AND NOT A NEED.
I THINK THAT WE ARE DOING A GREAT JOB WITH OUR CREW WITH SNOW REMOVAL IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA.
I THINK THAT IT'S STILL UNPROVEN.
UP HERE, AND IT'S NOT THAT SPECIALIZED OF A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT THAT WE GOT TO WAIT A YEAR TO GET IT.
YOU GO DOWN ALBERTA AND YOU CAN GET THIS STUFF ON A FAIRLY REGULAR BASIS.
I DON'T THINK IT'S HARD TO GET.
THAT'S A VARIANCE ON SOME BUDGETS.
I THINK THAT IT'S NOT A LOT OF MONEY, BUT IF YOU DIVIDED THAT INTO TEN AND GAVE IT TO TEN DIFFERENT FAMILIES, IT'D BE LIFE CHANGING.
>> FAIR ENOUGH. THE MOTION ON THE TABLE, DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR IT? [LAUGHTER] COUNSEL FORGET A SECOND, DID IT? YOU CAN SPEAK FURTHER ON IT IF YOU'D LIKE.
I DON'T HAVE MUCH MORE TO SAY.
I JUST THINK THAT IT'S EASY TO, HIT THE CHECK MARK ON A $350,000 PURCHASE BECAUSE IT'S NOT OUR MONEY.
[02:30:06]
I THINK THAT I REALLY DO THINK THAT IT IS A WANT AND NOT A NEED.THINK STEVE UP THERE IS PROBABLY JUST EXCITED TO GET THIS SNOW BLOWER. GOOD FOR YOU.
BUT THAT'S WHERE I'M AT, AND I'M ON THE RECORD.
>> APPRECIATE THAT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, COUNSEL KIT?
>> WHAT I DIDN'T MENTION IN MY PREVIOUS COMMENT ABOUT THE REASON I WAS IN THE MIDDLE ABOUT WHY I WOULD SUPPORT NOT GOING WITH THE SNOWBLOWER IS BECAUSE I THINK THE CITY MANAGER AND DIRECTOR GREENCORN, EXPLAINED THAT THE SNOW CLEARING SCHEDULE BUDGET WAS ADDED LAST YEAR TO EXPAND THE WEEKS OF SNOW CLEARING TO BE EARLIER, BUT THAT ACTUALLY DIDN'T TAKE EFFECT LAST SEASON.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR WHERE WE NOW HAVE EXTRA WEEKS.
TO ADDRESS RESIDENTS CONCERNS BECAUSE I AGREE IT'S SOMETHING THEY WANT AND THEY'RE WILLING TO PAY FOR.
WE'VE HEARD IT LOUD AND CLEAR.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE MORE BUDGET TO SEE IF EXPANDING STARTING EARLIER AND GOING A BIT LATER OR AT LEAST LETTING THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MANAGE THAT EXTRA BUDGET TO DO THAT CLEARING HAS BEEN IN PLACE.
WE ACTUALLY HAVEN'T GIVEN THAT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE IF THAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE THAT PEOPLE WANT.
THAT WAS THE REASON I WAS IN SUPPORT OF NOT GOING AHEAD WITH IT.
I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT. FOR FOLKS INFORMATION.
>> THAT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.
I GUESS, I'M NOT SURE THAT ASK A QUESTION.
IF WE BUY THIS SNOWBLOWER ATTACHMENT, IT WILL INCREASE OUR EFFICIENCY.
CORRECT. YES. NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. WRITTEN.
>> YOU WANT ADMIT TO ANSWERED?
>> WOULD YOU LIKE HIM TO ANSWER?
>> OF COURSE. IF WE INCREASE OUR EFFICIENCY WILL IMPROVE OUR CAPACITY.
I'LL MAKE IT EASIER FOR STAFF TO DO THEIR JOBS.
IT'LL IN GENERAL MAKE YOUR LIVES EASIER? YES OR NO.
>> THE THRESHOLD THAT WE'RE HERE, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO MAKE STAFF HAPPIER, LIFE'S EASIER.
IT REALLY IS RESPONDING TO A SERVICE LEVEL THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT YELLOWKNIFE ARE WANTING US TO MEET.
THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE IN SNOW CONDITIONS.
THE DOWNTOWN DOES BECOME A CONGESTION POINT REALLY FAST, PARTICULARLY IF SNOW FALLS ON A ON A SUNDAY NIGHT HEADING INTO THE START OF A WEEK OR ANYTIME DURING THE WEEK, OUR ABILITY TO MOVE.
THERE ARE SOME OTHER THINGS THAT WE HAVE IN BUDGET 2026 AS A PROPOSAL, BUT AS PART OF OUR DOWNTOWN RENEWAL, INCLUDING THE ENFORCEMENT OF PARKING VANS AND OTHER THINGS OR SNOW REMOVAL ON PRIVATE PROPERTIES THAT WE'RE HOPING TO GET COUNSEL'S ATTENTION TO IN THIS PARTICULAR BUDGET.
BUT REALLY, THE ATTACHMENT HERE IS TO MAXIMIZE EXISTING STAFF AND EQUIPMENT COMPLEMENT BY ADDING AN INCREMENTAL PIECE TO ALLOW HIGHER LEVELS OF EFFICIENCY.
THEN WE'RE ABLE TO HAVE STAFF FOCUS ON THIS, THEN WE'RE ABLE TO HAVE STAFF TIME FREED NOT FREED UP IN THE SENSE TO GO FOR COFFEE, BUT FREED UP TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH OTHER PRIORITIES OF SERVICE FOR YELLOW NIPERS.
THERE'S SOME UPSIDES TO THIS, OR AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PUTTING IN THE WINDOW FOR COUNSEL'S CONSIDERATION TODAY.
>> THANK YOU. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GETTING AT.
IT'S GOING TO MAKE THINGS EASIER ON YOUR END, WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO BETTER DELIVER THE SERVICE IN GENERAL.
I THINK THAT I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THAT, ESPECIALLY IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR COMMENT CORRECTLY.
IT WILL MAKE IT A LOT EASIER FOR US TO CLEAR HIGH PRIORITY AREAS IMMEDIATELY AFTER A LARGE NO FLAW, WHICH I KNOW THAT IT CAN BE DIFFICULT FOR US TO DO OTHERWISE WITH OUR CURRENT OR YOU'RE IMPLYING MAYBE THAT.
IF I'M WRONG, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CORRECT ME, BUT THAT'S ALL I HAVE WITH THAT.
I'LL SUPPORT KEEPING IT IN. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE, COUNCIL MCCLEAN.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST BEFORE I COMMENT, IS IT POSSIBLE TO GET THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC'S WORKS TO COMMENT ON THAT EFFICIENCY QUESTION AS WELL?
[02:35:03]
>> THERE YOU GO, MR. VAN DINE RIGHT WITH ME PUSHING IT TO MR. GREENCORN.
>> LET ME JUST TAKE THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT FOR A MINUTE. NO, OF COURSE.
>> YES. MR. GREENCORN. PLEASE.
>> THANKS. I'M AN EXPECTATIONS GUY.
I WANT TO TEMPER THE CONVERSATION A LITTLE BIT THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE LIFE SHATTERING OR CHANGING FOR THE COMMUNITY.
IT IS INCREMENTAL, AS MR. VAN DINE SAID, AND IF WE WANT TO STEP TOWARDS MORE EFFICIENCIES, THEN WE SHOULD DO THAT.
BUT I DON'T WANT TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT IF THERE'S A BIG DUMP OF SNOW TOMORROW, A SNOWBLOWER IS GOING TO SOLVE FRANKLIN AVENUE PROBLEMS. IT'S JUST NOT. IT'S AN ACCUMULATION PROBLEM.
>> IT'S GOING TO TAKE MORE THAN ONE SNOWBLOWER, IF YOU WILL, TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE DO.
HOW WHITEHORSE DOES IT IS THEY WIND ROW IT TO THE MIDDLE, THE SAME WAY WE DO, AND THEN THEY BLOW IT INTO TRUCKS.
WHEN YOU BLOW IT INTO TRUCKS, YOU NEED MORE TRUCKS.
THE EFFICIENCY YOU'LL GAIN, YOU'LL DO IT FASTER, BUT YOU'LL ALSO HAVE MORE INCREASED COSTS ON THE TRUCKING END.
I JUST WANT TO TEMPER EVERYONE'S EXPECTATIONS WITH THE REALITY THAT IT WILL PROVIDE SOME EFFICIENCIES, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THAT MAGIC BULLET FOR A SNOWSTORM.
IN SAYING THAT, I DO THINK WE HAVE TO ADAPT.
I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE SNOW AND ICE CONTROL STUDY DONE TO INFORM LARGER CONVERSATIONS LIKE THAT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK A SNOWBLOWER IS GOING TO DO IT BY ITSELF.
I THINK A PARKING BAN THAT HELPS WITH THAT BECAUSE PEOPLE PARK IN THE DOWNTOWN, AND WE HAVE ZERO LOT LINES.
SIDEWALK FOLKS ARE REQUIRED TO SHOVEL IT IN THE PARKING LANE, AND THEN WE COME BY AND WE PLOW IT BACK ON THE SIDEWALK.
IT'S THESE BIGGER TYPES OF CAT, AND MOST QUESTIONS THAT WE REALLY WANT TO GET AT, AND THAT'LL BEAR A LOT OF FRUIT.
IN SAYING THAT, WE WILL PROBABLY DEFINITELY NEED SNOW BLOWERS TO GAIN THOSE EFFICIENCIES.
>> THAT'S A GREAT ANSWER AND GOOD FOR TEMPERING PEOPLE'S EXPECTATIONS BOTH UP HERE, ABOUT THE PUBLIC.
THANK YOU FOR THAT, MR. GREENCON. COUNCILOR MCCLENNAN.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE CONTEXT.
I'M IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THIS IN, AND I APPRECIATE THE THOUGHT FROM COUNCILOR PAYNE AND LOOKING TO FIND PLACES WE CAN SAVE MONEY.
I GREATLY APPRECIATE THE APPROACH ON THIS ONE.
I CAN QUIBBLE A LOT WITH STUDIES AS THE ANSWER TO OUR PROBLEMS, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THE APPROACH HERE THAT STAFF HAVE GONE OUT AND LOOKED AT WHAT'S HAPPENING AND LOOKED FOR DIFFERENT WAYS THAT NORTHERN CITIES OPERATE, HAVE FOUND ONE THAT WORKS WITH OUR CURRENT EQUIPMENT, AND CAN START US DOWN A ROAD.
THIS IS A HIGHER LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SURE, AND IT'S ONE THAT THE PUBLIC HAS ASKED FOR REPEATEDLY.
I JUST WANTED TO THANK STAFF FOR THE APPROACH ON THIS ONE, AND THIS IS A PHYSICAL THING THAT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE, NOT A PIECE OF PAPER, SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF IT.
>> I WILL SAY ONE MORE THING TO THE EFFICIENCY SIDE.
ROUGHLY, RIGHT NOW, WHEN WE RIP WITH A GRADER AND LOAD WITH A LOADER, WE'RE DOING ABOUT 800 METERS A NIGHT. THAT'S OUR METRIC.
IF WE CAN EVEN GET THIS DOWN TO 500 METERS A NIGHT, THEN THAT FREES UP 300 METERS OF EXTRA WORK.
THERE IS SOME EFFICIENCIES THERE.
I DON'T WANT TO BE THE DOWNER IN THE ROOM, BUT IT'S ALWAYS TEMPERING EXPECTATIONS. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAD COUNCILOR COCHRANE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, 300 METERS FOR 300,000, YOU'RE SAYING.
[LAUGHTER] WELL, COUNCILOR MCCLENNAN ACTUALLY ASKED MY QUESTION.
I'LL JUST MAKE A COMMENT THAT I DO AS WELL, APPRECIATE COUNCILOR PAYNE, WATCHING THE WALLET.
SOMEBODY'S GOT TO DO IT, AND THIS IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING WAS WORTH THE CONVERSATION.
HAVING THE LARGER CONVERSATION WITH ADMINISTRATION AND THE EXPLANATIONS ABOUT THE INCREMENTAL NATURE OF ALL OF THIS MAKES ME CONTINUE TO BE CONFIDENT IN TAKING THIS INITIATIVE, SO I WILL SUPPORT IT REMAINING IN AS OF NOW.
IF WE NEED TO BUY SOME MORE NEXT YEAR AFTER SOME CHANGES FOR [INAUDIBLE] POLICY OR SOME MORE TRUCKS, WELL, HOPEFULLY, I LOOK FORWARD TO ACTUALLY HAVING THAT DISCUSSION TOO.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILOR COCHRANE.
FOR MYSELF, AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE ALL DRAFT AND SHARE POTENTIAL PROPOSED MOTIONS BEFORE OUR MEETING WITH EACH OTHER SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A THINK ON THEM.
I WAS ACTUALLY HAD PROPOSED CUTTING AND OR DEFERRING THIS, BUT BASED OFF OF THE RESPONSES FROM ADMIN, AND ONE OF MY CONCERNS WAS ABOUT THAT PURCHASING NOW VERSUS ECONOMIES OF SCALE, BUT MR. PANDO ANSWERED THAT QUESTION.
WE'RE A WINTER CITY, AND THERE'S EQUIPMENT WE NEED TO OPERATE LIKE A WINTER CITY.
I THINK IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WE'RE GOING TO GET TO EVENTUALLY ONCE I HAD THAT RESPONSE.
THEN NOTHING ELSE, COUNCILOR FOOTE.
>> SORRY, I WANT TO MAKE ONE MORE STATEMENT ON THIS.
I THINK THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY GET THEM A LITTLE BIT CHEAPER, EVEN WHEN YOU FACTOR IN PDI AND STUFF.
[02:40:02]
IT HELPS THE PUBLIC WORKS CREWS OPERATE IN VERY TIGHT SPACES, WHICH THEY CAN'T RIGHT NOW.BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE FUTURE STUDIES INFORM FUTURE PURCHASES JUST FOR BIGGER CAPACITY.
>> JUST LIKE COUNCILOR FOOTE ON THE WATER ISSUES, THAT'S A PROCUREMENT EXPERT RIGHT THERE.
ON THE PROCUREMENT ISSUE IS A THANK YOU, COUNCILOR FOOTE.
THEN, WITH THAT, TO THE PROPOSED MOTION TO CUT THE SNOW BLOWER FROM THE BUDGET, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
COUNCILOR PAYNE IS LOOKING GOOD THERE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED, AND THAT'S THE OTHER EIGHT OF US.
>> WITH THAT, WE MOVE ON TO PAGE 138, WHICH IS THE TECH INVESTMENTS.
GIVE YOU A SECOND THERE. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR MOTIONS ON THAT? COUNSEL MCGURK, GO AHEAD.
>> JUST A VERY QUICK QUESTION. ANYONE BALKING AT THIS NUMBER OR THESE NUMBERS BECAUSE IT'S OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT THREE YEARS.
REST ASSURED THAT THIS IS A REAL INVESTMENT, UNLESS WE REALLY BUNG IT UP, WHICH I HAVE A LOT OF FAITH IN THE ADMINISTRATION THAT WE DON'T.
RESIDENTS WILL SEE A HUGE RETURN ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE BE COGNIZANT OF THAT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL MCGURK. COUNSEL FEQUET.
>> SIMILARLY, I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK IN STRONG SUPPORT FOR ALL THESE INVESTMENTS BECAUSE I THINK WE RECOGNIZE THE MODERNIZATION, THE GETTING OUR HOUSE IN ORDER, ALL OF THE IMPORTANT SERVICES TO REALLY SERVE THE RESIDENTS OF YELLOWKNIFE, THAT MAYBE FRUSTRATE THEM AT THE CURRENT TIME.
I THINK SOMEBODY FROM THE CITY HAD MENTIONED MAYBE A YEAR AGO THAT WE HAD OVER 100 DIFFERENT IT APPLICATIONS THAT WE USE ACROSS THE CITY, WHICH IS INSANE.
I FEEL BAD FOR THE STAFF WHO HAVE TO MANAGE ALL THAT IN THE BACKGROUND.
I AM ALSO VERY STRONGLY IN SUPPORT FOR THIS INVESTMENT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS? SEEING NONE, THEN WE WILL MOVE TO PAGE 139, AND WE HAVE THE TENNIS COURSE RESURFACING.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR MOTIONS? COUNCILOR PAYNE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I WAS A LITTLE BIT SURPRISED WHEN THE TENNIS CLUB WAS IN LAST WEEK AND I FOUND OUT HOW MUCH PEOPLE WERE PAYING FOR YEARLY MEMBERSHIPS.
IT WAS QUITE ASTONISHING, AND ESPECIALLY FOR THE FACT THAT THEY DIDN'T PAY ANY RENT ON THOSE SPACES AND WE ACTUALLY GAVE THEM MONEY TO OPEN UP AND LOCKDOWN AT THE END OF THE DAY.
MY EXPECTATION WOULD BE IN THE BEGINNING, I WAS GOING TO PUT A MOTION FORWARD TO CUT IT, BUT I WANT TO REDUCE AND I THINK THAT THE TENNIS CLUB SHOULD BE BRINGING SOME MONEY TO THE TABLE AS WELL.
I WOULD DO $100,000 THIS YEAR AND POTENTIALLY NEXT YEAR, 50,000, AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME TO THE TABLE WITH THE OTHER HALF.
>> IT'S AN INTERESTING PROPOSAL.
I JUST WANT TO ADMIN IF WE CUT, THEN I'M NOT ADVERSE TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.
IF WE CUT, THEN THAT MEAN WE ACTUALLY ONLY DO ONE OF THE TWO COURTS VERSUS I THINK ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT'S BUGGING YOU, IF I'M GETTING IT RIGHT, BUT CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IS POTENTIALLY FEES AND CHARGES RELATED TO THE ACTUAL USE OF THESE FACILITIES.
YOU SEE YOUR HEAD NODDING SO I'M GOING TO PASS IT OVER TO MR. VAN DINE, MR. VAN DINE, DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, CONFIRMING QUESTIONS YOU WANT TO ASK COUNCILOR PAYNE, ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS?
>> JUST AS THE PRINCIPLE THAT'S BEING DISCUSSED, I THINK IS AN IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE TO EXPLORE.
THAT IS SHOULD USER GROUPS ASSUME A GREATER RESPONSIBILITY FOR CAPITAL? IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
WE'VE GOT OTHER USER GROUPS THAT WOULD BENEFIT FROM THAT CONVERSATION TOO.
BUT MR. WHITE, MAYBE IF YOU WANT TO RESPOND MORE DIRECTLY WHILE I GET A TRICKLE WATER BECAUSE THE WHOLE SUBJECTS GOT ME ALL CHOKED UP, AND I JUST NEED TO QUENCH MY THIRST FOR A SECOND.
JUST ON THE MERITS, MR. WHITE, WITH RESPECT TO HOW WE WOULD MANAGE A CAPITAL WORK.
I THINK IN PROPOSING A RESURFACING, WE WOULD WANT TO PROBABLY DO THE WHOLE THING IN ONE GO RATHER THAN TRYING TO MAKE IT COST MATCHING DEPENDENT WITH A USER GROUP, OR WHAT WOULD THE IMPLICATION BE IF WE DID? I GUESS IS ANOTHER WAY TO PHRASE IT.
>> MR. WHITE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OF COURSE, WHAT WE'RE CONTEMPLATING FOR 2026 IS THE NIVEN LAKE AND THE [INAUDIBLE] TENNIS COURTS OR NINIVE BEACH.
AS MR. VAN DINE MENTIONED, WE CARRY OUT CAPITAL PROJECTS ON MANY OF OUR INDOOR FACILITIES AND OUTDOOR FACILITIES.
[02:45:02]
OCCASIONALLY, WE WILL GET SUPPORT FROM A SERVICE GROUP, IF YOU RECALL, OUR WATERFRONT WORK AND OUR ROTARY TRAIL THAT WE HAVE BY PARKER PARK.I DON'T SPECIFICALLY KNOW OR RECALL OF ANY PROJECTS WHERE WE'VE HAD A RENOVATION OR CHANGE DONE WHERE WE'VE CALLED UPON USER GROUPS TO KICK IN TO THE FUNDING.
WE HAVE ON LARGE CAPITAL, FOR EXAMPLE, THE MULTIPLEX.
THE SPEED SKATING CLUB WAS EXTREMELY VALUABLE WHEN IT CAME TO ADDING SPECIFIC STORAGE SPACE FOR THEIR MATS.
BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T THINK ANY SUPPORTERS IS A REGULAR THING THAT WE ASKED FOR, AND IT MAY BE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN. THANKS.
>> I REMEMBER TOMMY FORREST BALL PARK A FEW YEARS BACK AND THEY WERE TASKED WITH DOING ALL THE UPGRADES OF THAT PARK.
IT WASN'T A GREAT PARK AND THEY TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES TO START RAISING MONEY.
THEY HAD A VERY SUCCESSFUL CHASE THE ACE AND ENDED UP DOING A REALLY GOOD JOB WITH THAT PARK, AND THEY TOOK INITIATIVE TO DO IT.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE JUST LETTING GROUPS USE CITY FACILITIES WITHOUT PAYING ANYTHING.
AT ONE POINT HAD TO BE PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS.
I THINK THAT THERE'S TOO MANY CASES THROUGHOUT TOWN HERE WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT DEALS WITH DIFFERENT GROUPS.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S STREAMLINED.
I'M STILL OF THE MIND THAT I WOULD REDUCE IT BY HALF AND THEY'LL GET NINIVE BEACH DONE THIS YEAR FOR THE $100,000.
I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE UP TO THE CITY TO FUN.
I KNOW IT'S A CLUB, BUT THE COACHES ARE PAID.
HOCKEY COACHES AREN'T PAID, SOFTBALL COACHES AREN'T PAID.
THIS IS THE THING. THERE'S TWO TIERED SYSTEM HERE SO I'M GOING TO STICK TO WHAT I PROPOSED, AND I'LL WAIT TO SEE WHAT MY COLLEAGUES SAY.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILOR PAYNE. COUNCILOR COCHRANE.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR. DO YOU HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS.
FIRST, OUT OF BETWEEN THE TWO, WHAT IS MORE OF A STATE OF DISREPAIR? BECAUSE WHAT WAS WITHIN THE PRESENTATION, IT DID LOOK LIKE SAMBA KAO OVER MCNIVEN?
>> I'LL JUST INVITE MR. WHITE TO RESPOND TO THAT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
THE SAMBA TENNIS COURTS HAVE I GUESS, MORE DAMAGE THAN THE NINIVE BEACH ONE. THANKS.
>> I WOULD ALSO AGREE WITH THAT.
>> COUNSEL CO, ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THE CLUB?
>> I AM NOT, BUT YOU GO AND PLAY EVERY NOW.
>> ESPECIALLY NOW SINCE THE ARTS FACILITY IS NO LONGER GOING TO BE MOVING IN THAT AREA.
THAT WOULD BE THE ONE THAT I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF BECAUSE I FULLY UNDERSTAND WHERE COUNSEL'S PAIN IS COMING FROM HERE.
THE GOOD FOR THE SOFTBALLER SHOULD BE GOOD FOR THE TENNIS BALLER.
NOW, 350 MEMBERS TO WITHIN THEIR FEES, BUT SOMETHING WE MENTIONED AND WE DIDN'T GET AN ANSWER OF WHEN DURING THE PRESENTATION, I WOULD LIKE CLARITY.
WHAT IS THE STIPEND WE PAY FOR THEM TO OPEN AND CLOSE EACH DAY?
>> I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER AT MY FINGERTIPS.
MR. WHITE, DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT'S $2400.
>> THANK YOU. $2400 PER SEASON OR $2400 A MONTH?
I'M GENERALLY ACTUALLY IN SUPPORT OF THIS, REDUCING IT DOWN TO 100,000, FIXING THE SACCATE TENNIS COURTS.
WE HAVE TALKED THROUGH THE LIFE POINT COUNCIL, THE NEED TO HAVE MORE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THESE KINDS OF FACILITIES, AND I THINK THIS IS A WAY TO INCENTIVIZE THAT.
IF IT WAS SOMETHING MORE OF, HOW DO I PUT THIS? SOMETHING FAR-REACHING BEYOND A CERTAIN SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION THAT PLAYS TENNIS, THEN MAYBE.
I WOULD, BUT THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT THEY HAVE TO PUT WITHIN THE EQUIPMENT TO PURCHASE.
THE FACILITY IN FRONT OF MCNIVEN IS ALREADY GOOD THE ONE LOOKING BY THE PUMP HOUSE ALSO IS FAIRLY WELL.
I COULD GET INTO A WAY WHERE WE CAN HAVE THESE LARGER CONVERSATIONS.
I WOULD SUPPORT REDUCING IT DOWN TO 100,000 WITH THE EMPHASIS AND CHANGE TO THE MOTION AMENDED TO THE MOTION TO SAY THAT WE WOULD THEN FIX A VACAY OVER MCNIVEN.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILOR COCHRANE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? ACTUALLY, SORRY.
[02:50:04]
WE HAD COUNCILOR COCHRANE SMITH. SHE'S BEEN ON MY LIST.SHE'S TOO POLITE NOT TO HAVE YELLED AT ME. GO FOR IT.
>> THAT'S OKAY. I'M GETTING TIRED.
I'M IN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION, ESPECIALLY WITH THE UPGRADES THAT COUNCILOR COCHRANE HAS ADDED TO IT.
THERE'S ABOUT 300 MEMBERS, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY FROM THE PRESENTATION.
WE DID ASK ABOUT FUNDRAISING, TO WHICH THE PRESENTER SAID THEY HADN'T EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT FUNDRAISING.
300 IS STILL QUITE LARGE FOR ANY ORGANIZATION THAT USES THE FACILITIES PRIMARILY DURING THE SEASON.
I WOULD LIKE TO START SEEING A LITTLE BIT MORE FUNDRAISING ON THEIR PART, AS MANY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS DO THE SAME THING IN ORDER TO DO UPKEEPS, AND OTHER EXTRAS FOR THEIR SPORTS, NON-PROFITS, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT, WE HAVE COUNSEL FOR FEQUET.
>> JUST LOOKING FOR SOME CLARIFICATION FROM MIN DURING THE PRESENTATION, WE SAW SOME PICTURES OF THE TENNIS COURTS THAT HAD GIANT CRACKS IN THEM.
CAN YOU CONFIRM WHICH OF THE THREE COURTS THOSE WERE OR THAT STATE IS EXIST IN?
>> I'M GOING TO GO TO MR. WHITE ON THIS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I HEAR FROM MY REVIEW AND UNDERSTANDING, THAT IS, FROM THE SAME COURTS. THANKS.
>> I GUESS, IN GENERAL, WHEN I LOOK AT OTHER FACILITIES LIKE THE ARENAS, WHICH ARE SUBSIDIZED TO THE TUNE OF $2.5 MILLION, OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF PEOPLE PARTICIPATING IN THAT SPORT.
I'M A BIG SUPPORTER OF KEEPING OUR CAPITAL COSTS TO OURSELVES AND MAKING SURE WE REGULATE AND MANAGE THAT LIABILITY.
I WOULD BE FULLY IN SUPPORT OF ALSO MAYBE HAVING MY COLLEAGUES CONSIDER GETTING RID OF THE THIRD COURT.
DO THE TWO THAT WE WERE PLANNING ON DOING? THIS HAS BEEN HERE BEFORE US.
FOR ECONOMIES OF SCALE FOR US.
IT'S OUR ASSET AND HAVING THE LARGER CONVERSATION, WHICH SOUNDS LIKE IS WHAT WE ACTUALLY NEED TO HAVE ABOUT THE EXPECTATIONS OF USER GROUPS.
THE STIPEND WAS NEWS TO ME, AND THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN CURLING AND DIFFERENT GYMNASTICS AND DIFFERENT THAN ALL THE THINGS THAT WE KNOW.
IT IS A LITTLE WEIRD, I GUESS, TO HAVE DIFFERENT SITUATIONS AND ARRANGEMENTS.
BUT THE CITY MANAGER POINTED OUT, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER WE PUT CAPITAL COSTS ON USER GROUPS IS A MUCH LARGER CONVERSATION, WHICH IS SEPARATE FROM THE CONVERSATION ABOUT IS THIS USER GROUP IS ACTUALLY RECEIVING COMPENSATION OR PAYING WHAT THEY SHOULD FOR THE USE OF THESE FACILITIES TOO? THAT'S DIFFERENT, AND I FEEL LIKE THAT'S MAYBE WHERE THE TONE OF THE INTENT AND THE SPIRIT OF THE MOTION IS COMING FROM, WHICH IS THEY SEEM TO BE GETTING A LOT FOR A POTENTIALLY SMALL USER GROUP, AND POTENTIALLY MORE THAN OTHER GROUPS, IT MIGHT BE UNFAIR.
I AGREE THAT THAT IS A CONVERSATION THAT WE SHOULD PROBABLY HAVE.
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL FEQUET. COUNSEL MCGURK.
>> THANK YOU. LEGAL QUESTION, IF SOMEONE WERE TO TRIP ON A CRACK, BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE BEEN TO SACCATE, THEY ARE SUBSTANTIAL AND BREAK THEIR TEETH, WOULD WE BE LIABLE?
>> WE HAVE A DUTY OF CARE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THINGS AT A REASONABLE LEVEL.
I THINK SPACE HAS NOT BEEN RESURFACED IN QUITE SOME TIME.
I THINK THERE WAS QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT SITE MIGHT BE USED FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE, WHICH MAY HAVE FACTORED INTO SOME OF THE THINKING IN BUDGET 2025 ON THIS ISSUE.
BUT I THINK THERE IS THERE IS A DUTY OF CARE THAT WE NEED TO MAINTAIN OUR FACILITIES AT A CERTAIN LEVEL, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF MR. WHITE WANTS TO RESPOND TO THIS OR WHETHER HE WANTS TO KICK IT OVER TO MR. KAL, BUT I THINK WE DO HAVE A DUTY OF CARE.
>> MR. WHITE OR MR. KAL, WHO WANTS IT? MR. KAL.
>> I'LL REITERATE THE CITY MANAGER'S ADVICE.
EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE WILL BE DIFFERENT.
THE EXPECTED ANSWER WOULD BE IT DEPENDS.
>> THANK YOU, MR. KAL. COUNSEL MCGURK.
I WOULD BE OKAY WITH KEEPING BOTH IN THE BUDGET OR KEEPING THIS IN THE BUDGET.
[02:55:01]
I SUPPORT OUTDOOR ACTIVITY.IT DOES MAKE ME FEEL A LITTLE BIT FRUSTRATED OR CONCERNED THAT THERE'S AN ORGANIZATION THAT IS ACCEPTING FUNDS FOR SOMETHING THAT HAS NOT CONSIDERED FUNDRAISING AS AN OPTION, WHEN WE HAVE MANY OTHER SPORTS ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE PROVIDING A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF FREE LABOR AND DOING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FUNDRAISING.
TO MAINTAIN THEIR PROGRAMS. SOMETHING THAT WHILE I FEEL THAT WAY, [LAUGHTER] I DO NOT WANT TO HINDER SAFETY AND ENSURING SAFETY IN OUR FACILITIES.
I'M COMFORTABLE WITH KEEPING THIS IN THE BUDGET FOR THAT REASON.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCILOR WARBURTON.
>> THIS IS HARD, BUT I WOULD SUPPORT KEEPING IT IN BUDGET AT IS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MAINTAINING.
THIS IS THE THING YOU ADD FACILITIES.
THIS IS WHY THE RIMP I REALLY WANT TO CONSIDER, BECAUSE AS SOON AS YOU ADD IT, IT'S NOW YOURS FOREVER.
THIS IS A FACILITY THAT WE'VE SAID THE CITY WANTS.
AS LONG AS WE HAVE IT, WE HAVE A DUTY TO MAINTAIN IT AND JUST FOR NOTE, THE POOL IS BEING SUBSIDIZED BY OVER NORTH OF 4 MILLION.
WE'RE NOT FAVORING ONE GROUP, A TENNIS GROUP FOR 100 GRAND OR 200 GRAND.
WE ARE SUBSIDIZING EVERY RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY IN OUR ENTIRE CITY.
WE'VE ALREADY DECIDED THE POOL, THAT'S MILLIONS, AND HOCKEY, THAT'S MILLIONS.
I DO NOT THINK 200 GRAND TO MAINTAIN SOMETHING, WHICH UNLESS WE WANT TO GET RID OF TENNIS COURTS. THAT'S A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION.
BUT IF WE HAVE THEM, THEY'RE, THEY'RE WORN OUT, AND SO WE SHOULD MAINTAIN THEM.
IF WE HAVE A CONVERSATION AROUND USER GROUPS AND FEES AND THOSE THINGS, 100%, WE CAN DO THAT.
BUT THIS IS AN ASSET, AND IF WE DON'T MAINTAIN IT, IT'S JUST GOING TO GET WORSE, JUST GOING TO COST MORE, AND WE EITHER MAINTAIN IT OR WE GET RID OF IT.
AND SO I DON'T THINK WE CAN SAY, WELL, LET'S NOT TAKE CARE OF IT, BUT LET'S JUST KEEP IT.
I KEEP THE WHOLE AMOUNT IN THE BUDGET. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST ON ROUND ONE.
JUST MY ONE QUESTION FOR MIN IS JUST CONFIRM THE WHOLE IDEA IS 200 GRANDS.
THAT WOULD BE TWO OF THE TENNIS COURTS IN 2026, AND THEN 100 GRAND IS THE THIRD TENNIS COURT IN 2027. MR. VAN DINE?
>> MR. WHITE, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE WAY IT'S SCALED OUT. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> FOR MYSELF, I WOULD BE OKAY SWAPPING THE NUMBERS IF PEOPLE REALLY WANTED TO, ONLY BECAUSE THEN WE COULD HAVE THAT LARGER FEES CONVERSATION.
WE'RE NOT BOUGHT INTO SOMETHING, BUT I WOULD STILL BE WANTING TO COMMIT IN THE BUDGET THAT IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
BUT ULTIMATELY DEPENDING OR GETTING INTO THE CRUX OF WHAT YOU HAD BROUGHT UP AT THE START, COUNCIL PAINT OF THE FAIRNESS QUESTION OF HOW ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THESE SUBSIDIZATION QUESTIONS AND NOT MAKING SURE THAT ONE GROUP ISN'T TREATED DIFFERENTLY WHEN IT COMES TO RECREATIONAL PURPOSES, BECAUSE I THINK YOU'RE DEAD ON IN THAT.
I'D BE FINE WITH DOING THAT SORT OF SWAP OF THE 2026, 2027.
WE HAVE AN EXTRA YEAR TO GET A GRAPPLE ON THAT.
THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. ROUND 2, I SAW COUNCILOR COCHRANE YOUR HAND GO UP.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. IF WE DO IF THE MOTION DOES FAIL, THAT IS HOW I WOULD ALSO WANT TO CHANGE IT AROUND, AS IT WOULD ALLOW US TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.
ONE THING I WILL SAY AS COUNCILOR, FORGET AND COUNCILOR WARBURTON DID BRING UP ABOUT THESE FACILITIES.
THESE ARE MULTI-USE FACILITIES, THE POOL, AND THE ARENA, AND THE MULTIPLEXES.
THE TENNIS COURT IS ONLY USED FOR TENNIS.
WE'RE NOT USING THAT FOR ANYTHING ELSE OTHER THAN SUMMER CUT.
YES, THE ONE OTHER BALL GAME, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE IS WE FOUND MULTI WAYS TO DO IT.
YES, THERE IS A CERTAIN LEVEL OF CARE THAT WE NEED TO PROVIDE.
WITHIN THESE CERTAIN FACILITIES, BUT ONCE WE GET IT UP TO A CERTAIN STANDARD, I GUESS THEN IS WHEN WE CAN HAVE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT KIND OF RESPONSIBILITY COMES BECAUSE WE ARE INCREDIBLY INCONSISTENT, AS JUST DEMONSTRATED, ABOUT WHICH GETS WHAT? WE HAVEN'T EVEN BROUGHT UP THE CURLING CLUB YET, AND THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER BALLGAME.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILOR COCHRANE AND COUNCILOR MCLENNA.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH. VERY INTERESTING ONE, TRYING TO GO THROUGH ALL THE RAMIFICATIONS IN MY HEAD ON THE SPOT, WHICH IS DIFFICULT.
IT'S INTERESTING THE ARENA OR THE POOL OUR FACILITIES THAT ARE CLOSED AND EVERYONE HAS TO PAY TO USE WHEREAS FACILITIES LIKE THE BALL DIAMONDS OR THE TENNIS CLUB, WHERE YOU CAN JUST GO AND USE THEM.
I THINK ONE THING THAT'S THAT I SEE INTERESTING ON OUR WEBSITE SAYS, TENNIS COURTS UNLESS THEY ARE BOOKED BY THE L&I TENNIS CLUB, YOU'RE WELCOME TO USE THE COURTS FREE OF CHARGE AT ANY TIME.
IT SEEMS ODD THAT WE'RE SETTING ASIDE A PUBLIC FACILITY
[03:00:02]
FOR ONE GROUP WHERE THAT IT DOESN'T SAY THAT FOR THE BALL DIAMONDS.I THINK I WOULD SUPPORT THE SWAPPING OF THE 100 AND $200,000 TO HAVE A BROADER CONVERSATION ABOUT ALL THE SUBSIDIZATION AND HOW DIFFERENT GROUPS GET PRIVILEGED ACCESS OR NOT TO FACILITIES.
I AGREE WITH COUNCILOR WARBURTON IN TERMS OF MAINTAINING FACILITIES THAT EXIST.
BUT GIVING PRIVILEGED ACCESS TO A CERTAIN GROUP.
I THINK I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF PAYING TO MAINTAIN THEM AND TAKING AWAY THE PRIVILEGED ACCESS IF THIS COULD BE A FACILITY THAT'S ON OUR BOOKING SOFTWARE LIKE ARENAS ARE NOW AND EVERYONE CAN JUST GO BOOK IT, AND THAT'S ONE THING.
BUT IF WE ARE GIVING PRIVILEGED ACCESS, YEAH, IT'S A DIFFICULT CONVERSATION.
>> COUNCILOR WARBURTON, THEN, COUNCILOR PAYNE.
>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE MOTION JUST TO CUT STRAIGHT 100,000 THIS YEAR, I DO NOT SUPPORT, BUT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SWAPPING, SO WE'RE STILL DOING GOOD ASSET PLANNING WITH ALLOCATION, JUST MOVING THE YEARS, I WOULD SUPPORT THAT.
DEPENDING WHICH MOTION WE'RE DISCUSSING, BECAUSE I JUST BE CLEAR.
>> TO BE SUPER CLEAR, THERE'S NO MOTION ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW, WE'RE JUST DISCUSSING.
NOBODY'S PUT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
>> GOT YOU. I'M OKAY REALLOCATING CHANGING THE YEARS ALLOCATION AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT AND THAT EFFECTIVELY BRINGS US DOWN BY 100 GRAND FOR THIS YEAR WHILE NOT ON PAPER, BECAUSE WE CUT IT.
WE'RE SAYING WE'RE GOING FOR 300 TO 200 OVER 2 YEARS, ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE SAYING.
AND THAT'S NOT GOOD ASSET MANAGEMENT. SWAPPING AND FINE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I'D BE WILLING TO CHANGE MY MOTION, BUT I JUST PUT THIS OUT THERE RIGHT NOW QUICKLY.
WE HAVE A PROPERTY OVER THERE THAT IS PRIME.
I KNOW PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE ART CENTER AT A POTENTIAL ART CENTER, LOOKING AT THAT SPACE OVER THERE AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE LOOKING AT THAT SPACE OR NOT. I'VE HEARD RUMORS.
I'VE HEARD RUMORS THAT IT'S A NUMBER TWO SPACE IN THEIR DECISION. NO CLUE.
BUT IF $100,000 GETS PUT INTO A COURT RIGHT NOW, WE POTENTIALLY WILL LOSE A $50 MILLION PROJECT THAT COULD POTENTIALLY GO RIGHT THERE.
IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO SAMAKE PLAZA HERE.
IT'S A REALLY NICE THING TO HAVE.
IT'S NOT ANYTHING TO DO WITH MY DECISION.
I THINK THAT THEY NEED TO BE CONTRIBUTING TO PAYING A RENT TO THE CITY LIKE A FAIR RENT OR TAKING OVER THE MAINTENANCE OF THE COURTS.
SO I I WOULD CHANGE MY MOTION TO FLIP THE YEARS AND GIVE US A CHANCE TO RE LOOK AT THE CONTRACT THAT THEY HAVE IN PLACE.
>> YOU VERY MUCH. I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE ART CENTER.
ULTIMATELY, THEIR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT HAS BEEN ON THE KO HALL SITE.
WE DEFERRED THIS PROJECT LAST YEAR BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL OF SOMETHING HAPPENING IN 2025.
DEPENDING ON WHAT PEOPLE HAVE HEARD OR NOT, WE'VE GOT TO GO IF WE HAVE AN ASSET.
I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT. BUT YEAH, JUST TO CLARIFY.
YOUR MOTION THEN, THAT COUN I'VE JUST DRAFTED BASED OFF OF WHAT YOU WERE SAYING AND WHAT PEOPLE SEEM TO BE ON BOARD WITH.
BUT THAT COUNCIL BUDGET $100,000 IN 2026 AND $200,000 IN 2027 FOR TENNIS COURT RESURFACING AND RESURFACE SOMBK IN 2026.
>> THAT'S THE MOTION. WE HAD SOME OTHERS.
HELP YOUR COLLEAGUES OUT AND GO WITH THAT ONE.
TO THE MOTION, SECONDARY, COUNCILOR COCHRANE.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO SAY.
YOU'RE GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? COUNCILOR COCHRANE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. MY ONE QUESTION IS, WHERE WOULD WE REMOVE THE STIPEND? AND IF WE DID REMOVE THE STIPEND, WHAT KIND OF SERVICE LEVEL WOULD THAT PUT UPON OUR STAFF?
>> MR. VAN DINE. THIS IS, I BELIEVE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR THE OPENING AND CLOSING OF THE GATES. MR. VAN DINE?
>> I DON'T JUST FROM A PROCEDURES POINT OF VIEW, I JUST WOULD SEEK SOME CLARITY.
I'M NOT SURE IF THAT ANSWERING THE QUESTION IS GOING TO CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE CAPITAL QUESTION.
>> IT WOULDN'T. WELL, I SHOULDN'T SAY.
IT WOULDN'T CHANGE THE MOTION.
IT MIGHT CHANGE A COUNSELOR'S VIEW OF WHAT TO DO WITH A MOTION.
IF HE'S LOOKING FOR THAT INFORMATION.
>> FOR SURE. I'M NOT TRYING TO OBSCURE IT.
BUT MR. WHITE, IT COULD PROBABLY PROVIDE AN ANSWER WITH RESPECT TO WHAT THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON STAFF WOULD BE FOR TAKING OVER THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SEASONAL OPENING IN THE RELATIVE IMPACT OF THAT STIPEND CHANGE IF WE WERE TO DO THAT,
[03:05:06]
MR. WADE, ARE YOU PREPARED TO RESPOND TO THAT THIS EVENING OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE THAT UNDER ADVISOR?>> NO. THANK YOU. I CAN EXPAND ON THAT RIGHT NOW.
I GUESS I WASN'T VERY THOROUGH IN MY FIRST GO AROUND ON WHAT THE STIPEND WAS FOR.
IT ACTUALLY INCLUDES THE MAINTENANCE OF THE TENNIS COURTS AS WELL.
OUR RESPONSIBILITY BASICALLY STOPS IN THE SPRING.
ONCE WE GET THE TENNIS COURTS CLEANED OFF, AND THEY'RE DONE IN COOPERATION OR THEY WERE DONE IN COOPERATION WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
THEY'RE ALL HOSED OFF THOROUGHLY.
THEN FROM THAT POINT ON, IT IS STRICTLY ALL ON THE TENNIS CLUB TO CARRY OUT THE REST OF THE MAINTENANCE, PUTTING UP THE FENCES, THE TENNIS NETS.
I DO BELIEVE THAT WE PUT UP THE WINDSCREEN ONLY BECAUSE OF THE WORK THAT'S INVOLVED WITH THAT.
BUT THE ONGOING MAINTENANCE FROM THE TIME THE SEASON STARTS UNTIL THE SEASON ENDS WITH THE TENNIS CLUB, IT'S ALL ON THEM TO DO THE MAINTENANCE.
IF WE DISCONTINUE WITH THAT STIPEND, THEN OF COURSE, WE HAVE TO OPEN THE FACILITIES AT SEVEN IN THE MORNING, CLOSE AT 11 AT NIGHT TO MATCH THE PARKS BY LAW FOR THE NOISE AND OPENING OR SORRY OPERATIONAL HOURS, AS WELL AS TAKING ON THE ADDED WORK OF PUTTING UP THE NETS, SWEEPING OFF THE COURTS ON A REGULAR BASIS.
I DON'T HAVE THAT OPERATIONAL IMPACT OFF TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW THAT WE DO NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES WITHIN OUR EXISTING FORCES, OR SO WE'D HAVE TO HAVE MORE RESOURCES OR ADJUST PRIORITIES. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. HOW ABOUT WE HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THEM, TALKING ABOUT HOW WE'RE ABOUT TO SPEND $100,000 THIS YEAR, $200,000 NEXT YEAR? MAYBE BY THE SCENT OF BY THE ESSENCE OF THEIR CLUB, THEY COULD JUST TAKE CARE OF IT.
>> WELL, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT MAYBE WE CAN TALK AS COUNSELORS WITH A COMMUNITY GROUP ABOUT.
>> I THINK THAT IS DOWN FOR A FUTURE CONVERSATION.
I WAS MORE WONDERING WHERE WE WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT.
OBVIOUSLY, NOT AT THIS POINT, BUT I ASSUME IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ON THE DEPARTMENT, IF NOT HAVING A CONVERSATION OUTSIDE OF THE BUDGETARY PERIOD.
BUT I WOULD BE CERTAINLY INTERESTED TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.
>> POINT NOTED, COUNCILOR FEQUET.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK JUST FOR A COMPARISON.
YELLOWKNIFE SLOW PATCH YOU USES THE FRIT STEEL PARKS.
THEY DON'T GET ANY STIPEND OR ANY COMPENSATION FOR THE MAINTENANCE, BUT THEY DO THAT THROUGH THEIR USER FEES, AND THEY MANAGE THAT THEMSELVES, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> JUST HAVE MR. WHITE TO CONFIRM THAT.
>> MR. WHITE? THANK YOU. IF WE GO BACK TO COUNCILOR PAYNE'S COMMENTS ON TOMMY FORREST.
THAT IS A CITY OWNED FACILITY THAT IS OPERATED AND MAINTAINED BY YELLOWI FASTBALL.
FRITZ STEEL IS A CITY OF YELLOW FACILITY THAT IS OPERATED AND MAINTAINED BY THE ILLINOIS SLOW PITCH.
THERE'S NO RENT RECEIVED AND THERE ARE NO STIPENDS PAID TO THOSE GROUPS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS RELATED TO THIS MOTION? WITH THAT, TO THE MOTION THAT COUNSEL BUDGET $100,000 IN 2026 AND $200,000 IN 2027 FOR TENNIS COURT RESURFACING AND RESURFACE KASABA K IN 2026.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, AND THAT IS EVERYBODY EXCEPT FOR COUNCILOR FOOT AND COUNCILOR WARBURTON.
DID YOU VOTE FOR IT? OH, YOU WERE LATE.
COUNCILOR FOOT, YOU HAD MESSAGED ME, BUT YOU DIDN'T YELL AT ME.
YOU GOT TO YELL AT ME. THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST I BELIEVE ON COUNCILOR FOOT.
>> I'M JUST DECLARING CONFLICT.
MY BOSS, IT'S ON THE TENNIS BOARD.
>> APOLOGIES FOR THAT, COUNCILOR FOOT.
I WAS AS WE WERE TAKING THE VOTE, I REMEMBERED THAT YOU HAD MESSAGED ME ABOUT THAT.
JUST TO NOTE THAT COUNCILOR FOOT HAD A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND THEREFORE, WASN'T VOTING.
IT'S HIS DECISION ULTIMATELY TO DECLARE THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
HE DIDN'T VOTE ON IT. HE DIDN'T WELL, IN THE ACTUAL MOTION, HE DIDN'T PARTICIPATE IN IT.
>> TO THE NEXT ITEM, WE HAVE TRAFFIC LIGHT UPGRADES.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR MOTIONS ON THIS? COUNCILOR MCLENNAN.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH, I ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT THIS IN THE EXCHANGES EARLIER AND JUST BECAUSE IT'S A LOT OF MONEY.
DOES THIS JUST MAINTAIN THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND ITS OPERABILITY AS IT EXISTS OR DOES THIS UPGRADE THE SERVICE LEVEL OF THE TRAFFIC LIGHT?
>> THANK YOU. I'LL LET MR. GREENCORN ELABORATE, BUT THIS IS BASICALLY NOT INCREASING SERVICE LEVEL TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD.
THIS IS A BIT THE PLAIN JANE VARIETY OF UPGRADES.
I THINK THAT THE LANGUAGE DESCRIBING THIS CAPITAL UPGRADE
[03:10:03]
MIGHT SUGGEST THAT IT'S SOMETHING MORE, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S NOT.THIS IS SORT OF A CORE BASIC SET OF SURFACE UPGRADES.
BUT MR. GREENCORN, DID YOU WANT TO ADD?
>> SURE. IF YOU TAKE NOTE OF THE PROJECTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS OVERALL UPGRADES.
ONE IS FOR TRAFFIC LIGHT SIGNAL MODERNIZATION.
THAT'S THE DETECTION CAMERAS AND CONTROLLERS ALONG WITH THE SOFTWARE AND SOME COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT.
THE SECOND AND THE MOST LARGE PORTION OF THIS BUDGET IS THE INTERNAL RADIO NETWORK.
THAT'S NOT ONLY FOR THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS COMMUNICATING WITH EACH OTHER IN CITY HALL, BUT IT'S ALSO FOR OUR SKATE SYSTEM, WHICH CONNECTS ALL OF OUR PUMP HOSES AND LIFT STATIONS.
THEY ALL RUN ON THE SAME RADIO NETWORK.
THAT'S AN IT QUESTION, SO I WILL FLIP ANY TECHNICAL ON THAT SIDE OF THINGS TO CAVI.
I'M SURE HE IS WELL READ ON IT.
I'M JUST KIDDING CAVI. I'LL SAVE YOU.
>> THE THIRD IS THE REPLACEMENT OF THE SIGNALIZED CROSSWALK AT THE DASHNEY DRIVE AND RANGE ROAD INTERSECTION, WHICH, IF YOU'VE DRIVEN DOWN THERE, IS OLD AND NEEDS TO BE REPLACED, AND WE HAVE PROBLEMS GETTING PARTS FOR IT.
THE ROUGH SPLIT OF THIS BUDGET IS 700 GRAND FOR THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS, 935 FOR THE CALMS GEAR AND ABOUT 283-ISH FOR THE DASHNEY CROSSWALK.
I CAN OFFER THAT THE 700,000 FOR THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS IS THE COMPLETE REPLACEMENT OF THE CONTROLLERS AND THE DETECTION CAMERAS OVERHEAD.
IF DESIRED, WE CAN REDUCE THAT BY 375 GRAND TO ONLY REPLACE THE PROBLEMATIC INTERSECTIONS, BUT WE ARE KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD BECAUSE WE'VE REACHED THE END OF LIFE OF THESE CONTROLLERS AND WE CAN'T REPLACE THEM ANYMORE.
YEAH, WE CAN OFFER THAT, BUT I WOULD LOOK TO COMPLETE THE REMAINING WORK IN FUTURE BUDGETS, AND THAT WOULD ALSO DEFER THE CAMERA WORK, BUT WE NEED THOSE CONTROLLERS.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILOR MCLENNAN.
>> AWESOME. YEAH. THANKS FOR THE CONTEXT.
JUST CURIOSITY, SORT OF, WHAT IS THE LIFESPAN OF SOME OF THIS EQUIPMENT? IS IT FIVE YEARS, 10 YEARS, 20 YEARS? JUST AN ASSET MANAGEMENT SORT OF IDEA?
>> THAT IS DEFINITELY MR. COCHRANE QUESTION.
>> I'M GOING TO SAY IN THE TECH WORLD, ON THE RADIO SIDE OF THINGS, I BELIEVE OUR RADIOS NOW ARE SITTING ABOUT 10 YEARS AND THEY'RE GETTING OLD IN THE TECH WORLD, THE CONTROLLERS ARE REACHING 15 YEARS, I BELIEVE, WHICH ARE GETTING THERE.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT WHEN WE GET HOW DO I PUT IT, LESS THAN DESIRABLE POWER FLUCTUATIONS, IT CREATES HAVOC WITH OUR ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS. WE DO HAVE SOME BACKUP POWER ON THEM, WHICH CAN DAMPEN AND PROTECT THEM SOMEWHAT, BUT WE CAN'T ALWAYS TAKE A BRAND NEW BOX AND PUT IT IN A BOX IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
I WOULD USE 10 YEARS AS A GENERAL RULE OF THUMB IN THE TECH WORLD, AND THAT'S NOT TO SAY THESE ARE 10 YEARS.
>> THAT'S IT. YEAH. THANKS FOR THE CONTEXT AND THE EXPLANATION.
>> NEXT WE HAVE, COUNCILOR FEQUET.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK FOR VALIDATION, I GUESS, CONFIRMATION FROM ADMIN.
OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS IN THE BUDGET FOR 2026.
PRESUMABLY, THE TEAM HAS THE HORSEPOWER TO GET THIS WORK DONE IF IT WAS APPROVED IN THIS BUDGET.
>> YEAH. IT'S BEEN FACTORED AS PART OF OUR WORKLOAD UPGRADE.
>> YEAH, I MEAN, AGAIN, ASSET MANAGEMENT 101, AND ALSO THE WIDESPREAD IMPACT IT HAS ACROSS OUR CITY AT ALL OUR VARIOUS INTERSECTIONS AND THE LIFE SAVING POTENTIAL AND SAFETY IMPLICATIONS IF WE DIDN'T DO THIS, I MEAN, FOR ME, THERE IS A NO BRAINER, SO I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCILOR WARBURTON.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE WE PUSHED TO SIGNALIZED CROSSWALKS ON RANGE LAKE ROAD FROM LAST YEAR.
I KNOW ADMIN HAS SHARED SOME BRIEF IDEAS OF HOW TO IMPROVE THOSE INTERSECTIONS.
I THINK THAT WAS TIME WELL SPENT, SO YEAH, I'M SUPPORT OF ALL THOSE. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? COUNCILOR COCHRANE?
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR. IT SEEMS LIKE A NO BRAINER, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO HAPPEN EITHER NOW OR IN A FUTURE BUDGET, LET'S JUST GET IT DONE. FULLY IN SUPPORT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I MEAN, MY ONLY COMMENT IS WHEN PEOPLE SAY INFRASTRUCTURE IS EXPENSIVE.
THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. SIGNAL LIGHTS, ONE ALMOST $2 MILLION.
IT'S GOT TO HAPPEN, BUT MAN, IT'S EXPENSIVE.
[03:15:03]
THAT'S MY COMMENTARY. OKAY. NOTHING FURTHER ON THAT.THE NEXT ONE, ACTUALLY, WE'VE HIT OUR 90 MINUTE MARK.
WE WILL TAKE OUR NEXT 10 MINUTE BREAK AND ADD OUR 10 MINUTE BREAK.
I WANT TO GET A GAUGE OF EVERYBODY'S SLEEPINESS LEVELS, HOW LONG IF WE GO FOR ANOTHER HOUR OR FOLD ANOTHER 90 MINUTES.
YEAH, WE'LL GO TAKE OUR 10 MINUTES.
OKAY, AND WE WILL CALL THE MEETING BACK.
OKAY, SO WE WILL CONTINUE WITH OUR CAPITAL ITEMS, AND I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT WE ALSO HAVE ANSWERS ON SOME OF THE PREVIOUS ITEMS. WE'LL FINISH OFF THE CAPITAL ITEMS IN FRONT OF US.
THEN WE'LL GO BACK, LOOK AT THE FUEL TANK, THE CHLORINE ITEM, AND THE STAIRS, WHICH WE HAD ALREADY PASSED.
PARDON? NO, THEY HAVE ANSWERS TONIGHT, SO WE CAN GO BACK TO IT.
I HAVE BEEN TOLD OVER THE BREAK THAT WE HAVE ANSWERS ON THOSE THINGS.
YEAH. THE NEXT ITEM ON PAGE 141 IS THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS, COUNCILOR MCLENNAN?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH, I JUST WANT TO SAY I LOVE SEEING MONEY ALLOCATED TO A PLAN.
>> EVERYBODY STOP THE LAUGHING.
LET KIDS MCLENNAN GET THROUGH IT.
>> WE HAD A BIG THING ABOUT THIS LAST YEAR.
YEAH. WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON STUDIES AND NOT SO MUCH ACTUALLY DOING THE THINGS IN THE STUDIES.
LOVE, LOVE, HAVING SOME MONEY TO DO THE THINGS IN THE STUDIES. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILOR MCLENNAN.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS? COUNCILOR PAYNE?
>> THANK YOU. IS THIS JUST TO FUND THE PLAN ITSELF TO GET THE PLAN DONE, OR IS THIS ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED?
>> NO. THIS IS IMPLEMENTATION.
THE PLAN, WE APPROVED FUNDS FOR THAT LAST YEAR, AND THAT WAS $300,000.
>> CAN WE GET LIKE REAL WORDS TO DESCRIBE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH THIS PLAN?
>> COUNCILOR FEQUET, I FEEL LIKE YOU WANT TO ANSWER A QUESTION THAT ADMIN GAVE AN ANSWER FOR, BUT HOW WOULD WE LET ADMIN DO THAT? MR. VAN DINE, IF YOU LIKE TO RESPOND?
>> SURE. I MAY INVITE MR. GREENCORN TO ADD.
TO BE CLEAR, WE HAVE MADE APPLICATION FOR SOME FEDERAL FUNDING TO HELP US WITH OUR PLAN IN ANTICIPATION OF THE PLAN COMING OUT.
THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS THAT WE HAVE IN THERE ARE IN PART, SOME REFERENCE TO APPLICATIONS THAT WE HAVE TO HELP DRIVE OUT THE PLAN ONCE WE EXPECTED TO ARRIVE.
SO WE'RE NOT HOPEFULLY GETTING TOO FAR AHEAD OF OURSELVES, BUT WE DO HAVE SOME PROPOSALS IN MIND THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ADVANCE ON, OF WHICH WE'VE MADE APPLICATION TO.
MR. GREENCORN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ELABORATE?
>> SURE. THERE WAS A BUDGET MOTION PASSED EARLIER THIS YEAR THAT HAD A VERY SPECIFIC SET OF CRITERIA.
I DON'T HAVE THEM ALL IN FRONT OF ME.
I'LL FIND IT, BUT IT WAS PROVIDED IN THE Q&A TO COUNSEL.
THE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS THAT THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN HAD A LOT OF THINGS.
IT WAS TO REVIEW ALL THE PLUS PLANS AND BRING THEM TOGETHER IN A ONE COHESIVE DOCUMENT.
COMPLETE JURISDICTIONAL REVIEWS OF WHAT OTHER AREAS ARE DOING, REVIEW BYLAWS, ASSIST IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE FINAL SCOPE OF A IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.
OF COURSE, CONDUCT PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
WE REALLY WANTED TO HEAR FROM YELLOWKNIFERS ON THIS.
IT'LL LOOK AT MULTIFACETED PARTS OF TRANSPORTATION.
NOT JUST ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION, BUT WALKING, HOW OUR LIGHTS ARE TIMED, FOR EXAMPLE.
CAN THERE BE BETTER THINGS THERE? CAM LAKE ROAD IS CURRENTLY AT A VERY LOW LEVEL OF SERVICE DUE TO BUILD-OUT IN HALL CRESCENT, GRACE LAKE IN THE MORNINGS, THAT MIGHT NEED TO BE TWINNED, NOT NOT TWINNED.
SORRY IS A WRONG CHOICE WORD, BUT LANES ADDED.
IT'LL LOOK HOLISTICALLY AT TRANSPORTATION ACROSS THE CITY AND DEVELOP AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ON A, I BELIEVE IT'S A 25-YEAR PLAN FOR ALLOCATIONS IN THE CAPITAL BUDGET.
YOU'LL SEE THIS SPECIFIC BUDGET WAS FOR PREDOMINANTLY THE FRAME LAKE TRAIL, BUT THEN THE YEARS 28 THROUGH 38, WILL BE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT INITIATIVES THAT COME OUT OF THAT.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT ANSWER.
IF WE END UP GETTING THAT FUNDING, WILL WE BE GOING BACK AND ADJUSTING THE TAX RATE ACCORDINGLY.
>> IN TERMS OF THE TAX, THAT'S A TRICKY QUESTION.
[03:20:03]
IN PART, BECAUSE WE WILL BE IN A POSITION.FIRST OF ALL, LET ME JUST GO BACK TO SAY THAT THE FINAL TAX RATE, AS COUNSEL WILL KNOW, WILL BE DETERMINED NOT UNTIL THE SPRING WHEN WE START ASSESSING AND ACTUALLY SETTING THE TAX RATE.
WE WERE ABLE TO ADJUST THE TAX RATE IN THE FINAL CALCULATION THIS COMING YEAR IN THE LAST MONTH OR TWO BY A FRACTION OF A FRACTION.
IF WE ARE SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING FEDERAL RELIEF, AND IF WE ARE SUCCESSFUL IN OFFSETTING SOME OF OUR CAPITAL, WHAT WE WOULD BE RECOMMENDING IS THAT THE DOLLARS THAT WE'VE SET ASIDE AND CAPITAL GO BACK INTO CAPITAL BECAUSE OUR ALL INDICATIONS ARE THAT WE'RE SUFFICIENTLY DEFICIENT IN OUR OVERALL CAPITAL CAPITAL BUDGET, SO WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE RECOMMENDING A CORRESPONDING 0.4 POINT DECREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF TAX RIGHT OFF THE BAT.
WE'RE JUST NOT IN A POSITION TO OFFER THAT UP TODAY JUST IN LIGHT OF SOME OF THE OTHER FACTORS.
IF WE ARE SUCCESSFUL, AS MR. GREENCORN HAS POINTED OUT, THERE ARE A WIDE RANGE OF PROGRAMS OF WORK THAT ARE BEING ENVISIONED AS A RESULT OF THIS MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN.
THAT WIDE SETS A VARIETY OF WORK THAT WE HAVE ENVISIONED UNDER THAT TRANSPORTATION PLAN ONCE COMPLETED, WILL BE OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS, AND IT'LL ALSO CORRESPOND A LITTLE BIT WITH WHAT WE HOPE TO COME OUT OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS.
WE'RE NOT AS I HOPE I'VE CONVEYED SOMEWHAT AUTHENTICALLY AT THE START OF OUR DISCUSSION THIS EVENING.
ADMINISTRATION IS CONSTANTLY LOOKING AT WAYS WITH WHICH TO LOWER THE PRESSURE ON THE TAX RATE.
ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, SHOULD WE BE SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING THE FEDERAL OFFSET? I'M NOT SURE WE WILL BE ABLE TO COMMIT TO YOU TONIGHT TO SAY THAT THAT WOULD RESULT IN A POINT DIFFERENCE OR A POINT AND A HALF DIFFERENCE, DEPENDING ON THE FINAL AMOUNT.
MR. PANDO, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD?
>> NO. NOTHING FURTHER TO ADD. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILOR PAYNE.
>> THANK YOU. THAT'S DISAPPOINTING TO HEAR.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THE MATH IS DONE AT THE CITY.
BUT ONE WOULD THINK THAT IF WE HAVE A BUDGETED ITEM AND THEN WE GET FUNDING FOR THAT BUDGETED ITEM, THEN IT SHOULD BE AN ADJUSTMENT IN SOME WAY.
I'LL MAYBE GET MY THOUGHTS COLLECTED AND MAYBE SPEAK AFTER MY COLLEAGUES. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILOR PAYNE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, COUNCILOR COCHRANE?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. I DO REMEMBER THE LEVEL OF FRUSTRATION AND PASSION FROM LAST YEAR FROM COUNCILOR MCLENNAN ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE ABOUT UNDER-FUNDING PLANS.
I WAS PRETTY STEADFAST, THE FACT THAT THIS IS SOMETHING ONCE GONE THROUGH IS THAT WE WOULD SUPPORT WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION, AND I LIKE TO KEEP MY MONEY WHERE MY MOUTH IS, SO I AM IN FULL SUPPORT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? FOR MYSELF COUNCILOR MCGURK.
>> I ALSO WANT TO SAY I'M IN FULL SUPPORT.
I THINK THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE STATUS OF THE PLAN IS, WE NEED TO PUT MONEY ASIDE FOR IT, PERIOD.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH, FOR MYSELF, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF IT.
I VERY MUCH IN THE VEIN OF COUNCILOR MCLENNAN.
WE'VE HAD A HISTORY OF PLANS THAT HAVE GONE UNFUNDED, AND I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT WE'RE TAKING THIS APPROACH NOW.
ALSO, I THINK WE GOT OUR FINAL CARBON TAX REBATE FROM THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT LAST WEEK.
ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THAT TYPE OF REBATE IS TO SUPPORT REDUCTION IN CARBON IN OUR COMMUNITIES.
WE HAVE A CLIMATE ACTION PLAN THAT IS, WE DID A FIRST REVIEW OF EARLIER THIS MONTH, THAT LINKS INTO THAT ISSUE.
WE JUST LOOKED AT A CAPITAL AND IT'S JUST THE REALITY OF THE WORLD.
WE JUST LOOKED AT A CAPITAL AND PRETTY QUICKLY APPROVED AN ITEM OF 1.9 MILLION FOR TRAFFIC LIGHTS.
THIS IS ANOTHER PART OF OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
NOW, WITH THAT SAID, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR ADMIN.
[03:25:01]
THE 2025 BUDGET, WEIRDLY ENOUGH, ON PAGE 141, HAD AROUND THE MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN WORK, INCLUDED IN THAT WAS A STATEMENT OF REVISION OF CITY STANDARDS TO INCORPORATE IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING STANDARDS.THAT SAME BULLET POINT IS NOW IN HERE.
I WANT TO CONFIRM, WAS THAT WORK DONE OR IS IT BEING DONE AS PART OF THE 2025 BUDGET AND MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN, OR HAS IT NOT BEEN DONE, AND NOW WE HAVE TO DO IT OUT OF THIS BECAUSE MY CONCERN IS THAT WE BUDGETED FOR SOMETHING, WE HAVEN'T HAD AN UPDATE IF IT DIDN'T HAPPEN OR IF IT'S NOT HAPPENING AND NOW WE'RE PAYING FOR IT TWICE.
I WANT TO GET THAT CONFIRMATION. MR. VAN DINE.
>> JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. GREENCORN, AND MR. PANDO TO ROUND IT OUT.
JUST IN TERMS OF CLARIFYING WE'VE GOT A BUDGET ITEM HERE OF ESSENTIALLY $950,000.
>> WITH THAT AMOUNT IS INCLUSIVE OF WHAT WE HOPE TO BE GETTING FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AT 75% OF THAT AMOUNT OF $718,000 PLUS.
THAT MEANS TO COUNCILOR PAYNE'S POINT, OUR TAX RATE THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY PROPOSING IS INCLUSIVE OF RECEIVING THE FEDERAL MONEY.
I APOLOGIZE IF I MAY HAVE MISLED.
WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE PAYING FOR THAT SAME PIECE OF WORK TWICE TO THE MAYOR'S POINT, WE UNDERTOOK TO DEVELOP THE PLAN IN 2025.
THEN IN 2026, WE'RE LOOKING TO EXECUTE THE PLAN.
ALL OF THE INPUTS FOR THE PLAN CONSTRUCTION HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR AND COSTED IN BUDGET 2025, AND SO THE IMPLEMENTATION IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PUT FORWARD IN 2026, AND THAT DOES REQUIRE A LEVEL OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT.
THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FUND, WHICH I KNOW SEVERAL MEMBERS OF COUNSEL ARE FAMILIAR WITH, WOULD COVER UP TO 75% OF WHAT WE EXPECT TO BE IN THE PLAN IN 2026.
GOING BACK TO YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION ON STANDARDS, I'LL JUST INVITE MAYBE MR. GREENCORN TO TO ANSWER THAT MORE DIRECTLY.
>> MR. GREENCORN, THANK YOU, AND SORRY, IF PREVIOUS WRITE UPS MAY HAVE BEEN A POOR CHOICE OF WORDS.
THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN ITSELF IS THAT HIGH LEVEL POLICY DOCUMENT AND HOPING THAT OUTPUT, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, TRAFFIC CALMING METHODS.
THIS IS WHAT YOU SHOULD DO TO A STREET TO ENHANCE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND CALM TRAFFIC.
THEN WE WOULD TAKE THAT GUIDANCE AND REVISE OUR STANDARDS BASED ON THAT, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
IN ESSENCE, IT DID TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE REVISION OF CITY STANDARDS, BUT THE ACTUAL REVISION OF THE STANDARDS WILL COME UP AFTER THAT WORK.
SORRY, I'M STUTTERING A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO WAIT TO GET THAT DETAIL BEFORE WE CHANGE THE STANDARD. MAKES SENSE?
TO CONFIRM THOUGH, THEN WHEN I LOOK AT THE ANSWER TO I BELIEVE IT WAS COUNCILOR FEQUET'S QUESTION IN OUR PRE BUDGET ABOUT WHAT THE FUNDS WILL BE USED FOR, THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE STANDARDS.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE AGAIN, IS THE STANDARDS THEN NOT BEING FUNDED OUT OF THIS AND THAT'LL BE DONE BY STAFF, OR ARE THE STANDARD REVISIONS GOING TO BE FUNDED FROM THIS.
BECAUSE I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A REAL CLEAR UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE ANSWER GIVEN TO COUNCILOR FEQUET BEFORE BUDGET DELIBERATIONS BEGAN, WHICH HAS A VERY CLEAR BREAKOUT.
I FEEL LIKE THAT'S GOT TO BE IT VERSUS THE BULLET POINTS THAT ARE IN THE BUDGET DOCUMENT NOTES, WHICH ALSO THERE'S A PART OF ME THAT IS A LITTLE QUEASY BECAUSE I SEE MORE STUFF AROUND SOME MORE PLANS, OR MORE MODERNIZATION, OPTIMIZATION, OTHER ONGOING RESEARCH.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A REAL CLEAR UNDERSTANDING.
IS IT THE PIECES THAT ARE IN THE RESPONSE TO COUNCILOR FEQUET, OR IS IT A COMBINATION OF THAT AND THEN WHAT'S IN THE BUDGET DOCUMENT? MR. VAN DINE?
>> THAT MIGHT REQUIRE A COUPLE OF US.
MR. GREENCORN, AND THEN MR. PANDO IS NECESSARY.
[03:30:01]
>> MR. GREENCORN, AND THEN MR. PANDO IS NECESSARY.
>> ONE SECOND. IF IT'S OKAY, I'D LIKE TO TAKE THAT AWAY AND MAKE SURE ALL MY LANGUAGE IS CLEAR IN ALL THE SPOTS.
>> I'M COOL WITH THAT. WE'LL GO, IF ANYBODY ELSE STILL HAS QUESTIONS THEN, AND OTHERWISE, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND COME BACK.
WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK TO IT TOMORROW. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO? SEEING NONE, WE WILL COME BACK THEN TO THAT ITEM TOMORROW FOR THAT.
THAT WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE THAT CLARITY THERE.
>> NO, BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO COME BACK TO THIS JUST LIKE WE DID THE OTHER ITEMS. PERFECT. THANK YOU.
PAGE 142, WE HAVE THE WATER AND SEWER REPLACEMENT PAVING.
ANY QUESTIONS? [LAUGHTER] COUNCILOR MCGIRT ALREADY SHAKING HER HEAD.
I AGREE WITH YOU STEVE, COUNCILOR PAYNE, GO FOR IT.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. DO WE HAVE ANY STANDARDS IN PLACE OR WHAT STANDARDS DO WE HAVE IN PLACE FOR SIDEWALKS ON THOSE STREETS?
>> MR. GREENCORN, DO YOU MIND RESPONDING TO THAT?
>> CURRENTLY, IT'S OUR EXISTING STANDARD, WHICH I BELIEVE IS A TWO METER WIDE SIDEWALK ON ONE SIDE OF THE ROAD, CONCRETE.
BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT MODERNIZING [LAUGHTER] AND ACTUALLY MAKING SURE THAT IT'S MULTIMODAL.
>> THAT LITERALLY TIES INTO THE LAST YEAR ISSUES.
IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T, BUT I SUPPORT WHEN WE UPGRADE STREETS.
THAT'S WHEN I SUPPORT BIKE LANES.
I DON'T SUPPORT TRYING TO FIT SOMETHING IN WHERE IT REALLY ISN'T WORKING.
IF WE CAN GET SOME MULTI USE AREAS THERE ON THOSE STREETS, THAT'D BE GREAT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILOR PAYNE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, MOTIONS? SEEING NONE. NEXT, WE HAVE THE WILD FIRE PREPARATION ON PAGE 143, COUNCILOR MCLENNAN.
JUST A QUESTION ABOUT WHEN THE FIRE BREAKS WERE DONE, SORRY, QUESTIONS ABOUT THEM BEING USABLE AS RECREATION SPACES.
JUST A COMMENT ON THAT IF THAT'S IN OUR PURVIEW AT ALL.
THEN DO WE HAVE ANY PLAN OR IS IT STILL TOO SOON IN TERMS OF MAINTENANCE THAT'LL NEED TO BE DONE ON THESE AND THE COST OF THAT.
>> THOSE ARE GREAT QUESTIONS AND FORWARD LOOKING, AND WE'VE TURNED OUR MIND TO THEM, AND SO WE ARE CONSCIOUS OF THE SCHEDULE OF MAINTENANCE.
WE ARE ALSO LOOKING AT VARIOUS FUNDING SOURCES THAT MIGHT BE AVAILABLE TO ASSIST US.
WE ARE ALSO LOOKING AT WHAT WE CAN LOOK AT.
WE HAVE NOT MADE ANY DECISIONS.
I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. MACLEAN IN A MOMENT TO ELABORATE.
BUT THERE ARE DIFFERENT POSSIBILITIES TO TRY AND USE THE FUEL BRAKE AREAS MORE ACTIVELY FOR ALL PURPOSES THAT COULD SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY AND SOME OF ITS GOALS, BUT MR. MACLEAN WANTED TO PROVIDE COUNCILOR MCLENNAN A BIT OF A SENSE OF WHERE WE ARE IN OUR PLANNING WORK.
>> GO AHEAD, DIRECTOR MACLEAN.
>> THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. I'LL JUST PREFACE MY COMMENTS THAT THIS PIECE THAT'S PRESENTED IN THE BUDGET IS NOT REGARDING FUEL BREAKS, IT'S REGARDING VEGETATION MANAGEMENT FOR WILDFIRE PREVENTION.
BUT TO GO AHEAD AND ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YOU'RE CORRECT.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT USES THAT ARE CONTEMPLATED FOR FUEL BREAKS ACROSS CANADA AND THE US.
WE HAVE NOT TURNED OUR MINDS EYE TO TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT INTERESTS THERE IS IN THE COMMUNITY FOR THOSE FUEL BREAKS.
SOME OF THOSE PARCELS OF PROPERTY ARE NOT OWNED BY THE CITY.
THEN THERE'S DIFFERENT STANDARDS OF FINISHED FUEL BREAKS.
AS YOU KNOW, IN BEHIND NIVN, WE'VE PUT IN A GRAVEL TRAIL, IT'S GRADED, SO THAT APPLICATION AND USE HAS BEEN DETERMINED.
RIGHT NOW, THE STATUS OF OUR FUEL BREAKS IS ARE MONITORING THEM FOR REVEGETATION.
NORMALLY, WHAT WE WOULD SEE REVEGETATE FIRST ARE SMALL WILLOW AND GRASSES AND THINGS LIKE THAT WILL START TO COME UP.
[03:35:01]
SOME OF THEM ARE ALONG EASEMENTS, WHICH WE HAVE PARTNERS WITH OUR UTILITY COMPANIES IN.SOME OF THEM ARE ON COMMISSIONER'S LAND.
THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT PIECES AFTER A COUPLE OF YEARS OF REGROWTH, WE MONITOR THEM.
THERE'S BEEN MINIMAL REGROWTH IN PARTICULAR, CONIFERS COMING UP, WHICH ARE MORE COMBUSTIBLE VEGETATION.
WE'LL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THEM ANNUALLY AND MAKE PLANS TO DETERMINE WHAT NEXT USES AND APPLICATIONS THE COMMUNITY MAY HAVE INTEREST FOR.
>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MACLEAN, COUNCILOR MCLENNAN.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE A QUESTION I ASKED IN THE PRE BUDGET PREPARATION.
JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM JUST FOR FOLKS LISTENING THAT THE PROPOSED EXPENSES THAT THE CITY IS LOOKING AT TO REDUCE AND MANAGE ITS VEGETATION AND FUEL REDUCTION ARE FULLY FUNDED THROUGH THE DISASTER MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION FUND.
>> I'LL TURN OVER TO MR. MACLEAN, BUT SHORT ANSWERS, WE ARE LOOKING AT THAT FUND TO OFFSET ALL OF OUR PLANNING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, BUT MR. MACLEAN.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. THE NUMBERS CONTEMPLATED FOR THE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ARE PROVIDED BY DMA UP TO A TOTAL OF $2.345 MILLION.
THAT FUNDING IS AVAILABLE UNTIL MARCH 31ST, 2033, WHICH MEANS THE LAST POINT IN TIME WHICH WE COULD PROVIDE A SUBMISSION WOULD BE THE FALL OF 2032, WHICH GIVES US SIX YEARS TO EXPEND THAT MONEY FOR THE WORK THAT'S CONTEMPLATED IN OUR COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN. THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILOR FEQUET, SEE IF PHONES UP.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS ON THIS ONE? NO. THEN WE COME TO THE LAST PAGE OF OUR CAPITAL PROJECTS, BUT DON'T GET EXCITED BECAUSE WE HAVE THREE ITEMS WE GOT TO GO BACK TO.
WE HAVE THE WILDFIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS, COLLEAGUES. COUNCILOR WARBURTON.
>> GIVEN [LAUGHTER] OUR TENURE, THIS IS NICE TO SEE WE ARE GETTING MORE EQUIPMENT TO DEAL WITH THIS STUFF.
I'M CURIOUS, WHAT IS A REPLACEMENT CYCLE FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS? IT'S 250 K. IT OBVIOUSLY IS NOT GOING TO LAST FOREVER.
I KNOW IT'S BASED ON USE, BUT IS THIS EVERY FIVE YEARS, 10 YEARS, 20 YEARS? WHAT'S THE USUAL LIFESPAN OF THIS GEAR?
>> NO. THANK YOU. IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
WE'RE STILL REALLY NEW TO ALL THIS AND SO WE HAD IDENTIFIED THIS AS A BUDGET 2026 PRESSURE IN THE COURSE OF THE SEASON THAT WAS IN 2025.
JUST NOT TO TELL TOO MANY TALES AT A SCHOOL, BUT WE WERE WONDERING WHETHER OR NOT THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN A PRESSURE THAT WE MIGHT HAVE PUT AGAINST OUR EMERGENT RESERVE FUNDS THAT WE HAVEN'T ESTABLISHED YET.
WE'RE JUST LEARNING. WE KNOW THAT THERE'S A NEED FOR THIS EQUIPMENT IN TERMS OF PROTECTION AND LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT WITH THIS EXPENDITURE.
I BELIEVE MR. GREENCORN MAY HAVE MORE INSIGHTS TO PROVIDE.
MR. GREENCORN, DO YOU MIND GIVE A SENSE OF HOW REGULAR THIS EXPENDITURE MAY BE REQUIRED?
>> SURE. IF IT'S OKAY, I'M GOING TO ACTUALLY PUNT IT OVER TO MR. MACLEAN.
HE HAS THE EXPERTISE IN HORSE LIFE EXPECTANCY. THANKS.
>> PUNT TO DIRECTOR MACLEAN. GO FOR IT.
>> THANKS. WHAT WE TYPICALLY SEE OF INDUSTRY EQUIPMENT THAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE IS THE MANUFACTURER HAS A RECOMMENDED LIFESPAN OF 10 YEARS.
NOW, TO USE AN ANTIDOTAL EXPRESSION, IT DEPENDS.
IF IT GETS DEPLOYED AND IT GETS BEAT UP, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO SEND IT QUICKER.
IF IT'S DEPLOYED AND IT'S MAINTAINED REASONABLY WELL, AND IT DOESN'T INCUR DAMAGE AND CONDITION ASSESSMENTS ARE DONE ANNUALLY, TO MAKE SURE THAT THE EQUIPMENT IS MAINTAINED, PROPERLY STORED PROPERLY, ETC, IT COULD LAST IN EXCESS OF 10 YEARS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COLLEAGUES, SEEING NONE? I WAS TOLD DURING OUR BREAK BY THE CITY MANAGER THAT WE HAD RESPONSES TO SOME OF OUR PREVIOUS QUESTIONS.
WE WILL GO BACK TO PAGE 115, WHICH IS THE AQUATIC CENTER CHLORINE TANK.
MR. VAN DINE, I'LL PASS IT OVER TO YOU AND TAKE IT AWAY.
[03:40:03]
>> THANK YOU. I'LL INVITE MR. WHITE TO RESPOND TO, I THINK THE SUITE THAT WE HAVE THERE JUST TO KEEP THINGS EFFICIENT AND TIMELY.
MR. WHITE DO UPDATING COUNCIL, PLEASE.
>> YES. THANK YOU. AS I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE QUESTION WAS, HOW PREVALENT ARE THESE SYSTEMS IN CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES? CHLORINE SAFETY CAPTURES ARE ACTUALLY QUITE NEW, AND ARE CURRENTLY NOT THAT PREVALENT AMONGST OTHER CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES THAT OPERATE CHLORINE EQUIPMENT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT RESPONSE.
WITH THAT INFORMATION, COLLEAGUES, I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO YOU.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS.
I MEAN, WE ALWAYS DO IT LATER TOO AT THE END OF THE BUDGET, BUT I'M GIVING YOU YOUR CHANCE NOW.
I'M SEEING A HAND KIND UP BY COUNCILOR PAYNE, SO I'LL COME TO YOU, GO FOR IT.
>> I'D LIKE TO [NOISE] PUT FORWARD A MOTION TO CUT THIS FROM THE BUDGET.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SECONDER. COUNCILOR ARDEN SMITH IS ALL OVER IT.
COUNCILOR PAYNE, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK ANY FURTHER TO YOUR MOTION OR?
>> NO, WE HAD A PRETTY GOOD CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS BEFORE, SO I'LL KEEP IT AT THAT.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, FOR ADMIN, OR COUNCILOR PAYNE FURTHER? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, AND THAT'S UNANIMOUS.
THE NEXT ITEM WE HAD WAS PAGE 120, WHICH WAS OUR FUEL TANK REPLACEMENT QUESTION.
>> I WILL TURN IT BACK OVER TO MR. WHITE ONCE MORE.
>> AND I WILL GO TO MR. WHITE AGAIN. GO FOR IT MR. WHITE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE QUESTIONS WERE WHETHER IT WAS ABOVE GROUND OR BELOW GROUND.
THE BUDGET PROJECT AS CONTEMPLATED IN FRONT OF YOU IS BELOW GROUND, HOWEVER, I'VE BEEN ADVISED THAT IN 2026, THERE'S GOING TO BE NEW REGULATIONS OR GUIDELINES THAT WILL BE COMING FORWARD THAT MAY DICTATE OTHERWISE.
WE'RE REALLY WAITING TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THOSE REGULATIONS. THANKS.
>> ANY QUESTIONS? I WAS LIKE, I'M GLAD SOMEBODY'S HAND WENT UP. DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON.
>> THIS IS A QUESTION. THERE'S NO VERSION OF ME SUPPORTING A BUDGET LINE THAT BURIES FUEL TANKS EVER AGAIN IN THIS CITY.
IS IT A MOTION? I WANT TO SUPPORT THE BUDGET LINE, BUT I ABSOLUTELY DON'T WANT TO BURY THEM.
MAYBE MR. FEQUET HAS A COMMENT WILL HELP THERE.
>> WELL, I'M GOING TO GO TO MR. VAN DINE FIRST.
MR. VAN DINE, DO YOU HAVE ANY CLARITY ON OR AND MIGHT BE MR. WHITE AFTERWARDS, BUT IF WE SEE A REGULATORY CHANGE COMING, DO WE KNOW HOW MUCH IT WOULD COST TO NOT HAVE IT BURIED? I GUESS IS THE SUCCINCT QUESTION.
>> NOBODY BURIES FUEL TANKS ANYMORE.
IT'S VERY ABNORMAL AS A ASSET OWNER TO BURY A FUEL TANK.
I WOULD THINK IT IS FOR SURE WAY MORE RISK THAN JUST HAVING A SURFACE TANK.
REGARDLESS OF REGULATION, I WOULD NEVER SUPPORT BURYING A FIELD TANK.
BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY AND PUT A GROUND, JUST FOR CLARITY.
>> MR. WHITE HAS LAID OUT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OR THE ESTIMATE THAT CAME FROM A PREVIOUS STUDY THAT SAID TO REPLACE SUBSURFACE, AND WE DO HAVE INDICATION, I BELIEVE, THE REGULATION, SO EVERYTHING'S MOVING.
I THINK COUNCIL'S INTEREST IS A GOOD ONE IN TERMS OF NOT ONLY SAVING YELLOWKNIFER'S TAXPAYERS DOLLARS, BUT ALSO TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CONFORMING TO AN ACCEPTABLE STANDARD.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT STANDARD'S GOING TO READ.
HOWEVER, I WOULD OFFER THAT IF IT'S THE WILL OF COUNCIL, THE REPLACEMENT DOES NEED TO HAPPEN, WE DO KNOW THAT.
I RECOMMEND AN ASTERIX, I GUESS, TO THE BUDGET ITEM THAT WE DO HAVE A SOURCE OF FUNDS TO START THE WORK BECAUSE THE WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE AND THAT THE ASTERIX BE CONDITIONAL ON ADHERING TO THE STANDARD ONCE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT STANDARD BE IN 2026.
SIMILAR TO THE BIKE LANE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAD LAST YEAR, IF THERE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE MEMO THAT WE NEED TO BRING FORWARD TO COUNCIL AT A TIME ONCE THAT STANDARD IS KNOWN, EITHER TO SAY THAT THE BUDGET NEEDS TO BE REVISED UP OR DOWN, WE WILL BRING THAT TO COUNCIL AT THAT TIME, BUT I BELIEVE THE WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE.
WE DO NEED AN AMOUNT, AND I RECOGNIZE THAT THAT PUTS COUNCIL IN A DIFFICULT POSITION ON PRECISION OF THAT AMOUNT, BUT I'M NOT SURE HOW ELSE TO ADVISE.
[03:45:08]
>> NO. THAT'S GOOD FOR THE SECOND. COUNCIL FEQUET?
>> I THINK COUNCIL WARBURTON HAS ALREADY SAID IT.
IS THERE ANY CLARITY THAT ADMINISTRATION CAN OFFER AS TO JUST THE CONFUSION WITH THE RESPONSE THAT WAS IN THE BUDGET PREP THAT SAID THE REPLACEMENT TANKS WILL BE ABOVE GROUND? CAN ADMIN CONFIRM THAT THE NUMBER THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT OF 1.25 MILLION IS ACTUALLY FOR AN ESTIMATE FOR IN-GROUND BURIED TANKS?
>> JUST TO THE SECOND QUESTION, MR. WHITE HAD CONFIRMED THAT A SECOND AGO, BUT I'LL FLIP YOUR FIRST QUESTION TO MR. VAN DINE.
>> WELL, WE'RE STILL INVESTIGATING THE CONFUSION BETWEEN THE TWO.
I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT RIGHT NOW, UNFORTUNATELY.
WE DID WORK TO TRY AND CLARIFY THAT SECOND PART FASTER.
AT THIS POINT, I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER AS TO WHY THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT ANSWERS AT THIS POINT.
I'LL GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT, HOPEFULLY, BEFORE THE END OF THE BUDGET DELIBERATIONS.
>> I THINK IT'S JUST EASY IF WE JUST MAKE A MOTION.
MOVE FORWARD WITH REPLACEMENT OF THESE TANKS.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HAS A PROBLEM WITH THAT OR UNDERSTANDS WHY WE NEED TO DO THIS RIGHT AWAY WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY ARE ABOVE GROUND.
THANKFULLY, THIS IS A CAPITAL EXPENSE.
IF THERE'S A VARIANCE FROM WHAT WE'RE APPROVING, ITS CAPITAL DOESN'T AFFECT TAXES ANYWAY, SO I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
>> THANK YOU. COULD WE POSSIBLY JUST TABLE THIS TONIGHT UNTIL TOMORROW AND MAYBE GET A ROUGH ESTIMATE OF WHAT IT WILL COST? I KNOW ABOVE GROUND TANKS ARE A LOT CHEAPER THAN BURIED TANKS.
>> I LIKE THE WAY YOU'RE THINKING BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST IS THAT WHAT'S THE POSSIBILITY, ADMIN, TO GET AN ANSWER BY TOMORROW EVENING ON WHAT THE DIFFERENTIAL WOULD BE, THE DIFFERENCE? MR. VAN DINE?
>> LET'S TAKE THAT AND WE'LL COME BACK TO IT FIRST THING AT THE START, AND AT LEAST WE'RE NOT FLOGGING A HORSE.
WE'LL DO THAT. WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT FIRST THING AT THE START OF TOMORROW.
THE LAST ISSUE WE HAD OUTSTANDING WAS ON PAGE 131, AND THAT WAS THE STAIRS AT PILOT'S MONUMENT. MR. VAN DINE.
>> I'LL OFFER A FIRST PART AND GIVE MR. WHITE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADD.
SOMETHING TO CONSIDER, GOING BACK ON COUNCIL'S DELIBERATIONS ON THIS IS BEING DEFERRED.
FIRST OF ALL, THE QUESTION WAS, WHAT WOULD THE BARE BONES OR THE BASIC COST BE ESTIMATED? WE HAVE A CLASS D THAT MR. WHITE WILL SHARE IN A MOMENT.
THE OTHER PIECE THAT I'D LIKE TO TAKE THIS TIME TO OFFER TO COUNCIL IS, GIVEN THE VALUE OF THAT PARTICULAR SITE IN YELLOWKNIFE, BEING THE ATTRACTION THAT IT IS, WE MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT THE FINANCIAL REQUEST AND THE SITE IN A TWO-STEP FASHION.
THERE IS A BODY OF WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN ORDER FROM A SAFETY COMPONENT.
MAYBE THAT'S WHERE COUNCIL DECIDES IT WANTS TO PUT ITS THOUGHTS AND ATTENTION TO AT THIS JUNCTURE.
BUT I WOULD ALSO INVITE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER ALSO A MEDIUM-TERM ASPECT TO THIS AS WELL, WHICH IS THAT THAT'S NOT WHERE THE STORY ENDS.
THE STORY, I THINK, NEEDS TO INCLUDE ANOTHER CHAPTER AND MAKE BEST EFFORTS TO UPDATE THE FEATURE AS BEING ONE OF THE PRIME LOCATIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE TO SUPPORT OUR TOURISM STRATEGY, AND THEN CALL ON OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT THAT MIGHT BE MORE OF AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-ORIENTED VARIETY TO HELP US WITH THAT ENDEAVOR.
THE REASON WHY I'M SAYING THAT IS IT MAY REQUIRE AN INVESTMENT OF STAFF TIME AND ENERGY TO PURSUE A SECOND CHAPTER ON THIS QUESTION.
BUT I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR COUNCIL TO BE THINKING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT A SECOND CHAPTER ON THIS DECISION AFTER THEY CONSIDER IT.
BUT OVER TO YOU, MR. WHITE, WITH RESPECT TO THE CLASS D ESTIMATE THAT WE'VE GENERATED.
THE CLASS D ESTIMATE TO REPLACE THE STAIRS WITH WOOD AS IS IN THEIR CURRENT LOCATION IS $320,000.
[03:50:03]
I MISSPOKE ON THE CANADIAN TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRIBUTION.IT'S NOT $25 CENTS, IT'S 50/50 SPLIT TO A MAXIMUM OF $200,000. THANKS.
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS ON THIS? COUNCIL PAYNE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. DURING THE MEETING, DURING OUR FIRST DISCUSSION ON THIS, I ACTUALLY HAD A CONTRACTOR REACH OUT TO ME AND SAID, "HEY, I'LL DO IT FOR 150." WE GOT A SAVINGS RIGHT THERE.
I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS OVER.
I THINK THAT WE CAN REVISIT THIS AFTER WE GET THE BASIC STAIRS DONE, SAFE NEW STAIRS.
RIGHT NOW, I DO THINK IT'S A TIME FOR US TO TIGHTEN OUR BELTS.
THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN ASKED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TIGHTEN THEIR BELTS AND TO ACCEPT A LOWER STANDARD OF LIVING.
I THINK THAT OUR CITIZENS HERE IN YELLOWKNIFE HAVE BEEN DOING THAT FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS WITH THE WAY THAT GROCERIES HAVE GONE UP AND FUEL AND EVERYTHING.
I THINK THAT RIGHT NOW, WE PUT IT OUT, GET A PRICE FROM A CONTRACTOR, GET IT DONE, AND THEN WHEN TIMES ARE BETTER, WE REVISIT A SECOND PHASE OF THIS.
RIGHT NOW, I JUST WANT TO GET NEW STAIRS IN, AND I THINK THAT THE PUBLIC WOULD SUPPORT THAT.
>> THANKS, MR. CHAIR. JUST CONFIRMING, FROM ADMIN WHAT I HEARD, 320 OR 340, BUT WE GET UP TO HALF THAT COVERED, UP TO 200 GRAND.
REALLY THAT 340, WE'RE ONLY SPENDING 170 OF THAT BECAUSE WE CAN GET THE OTHER HALF MATCHED?
>> THREE-TWENTY, BUT WE CAN GET DEFINITELY HALF THAT MATCHED BY THAT GRANT OR THAT FUNDING?
>> THAT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING, YES.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS BEFORE I KNOW A MOTION? SORRY. I SEE HIM CONFERRING, SO I'LL GO TO COUNCIL COCHRANE FIRST.
>> WELL, I WAS GOING TO INTRODUCE A MOTION TO REDUCE THIS DOWN TO THE 320,000, AS IS WITH THE CLASS D ESTIMATE.
>> THANK YOU. SECOND THE MOTION, COUNCIL FEQUET.
DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK FURTHER TO THAT MOTION?
>> ABSOLUTELY. I HAVE NO ISSUE REVISITING THIS CHAPTER IN A DIFFERENT SCOPE NEXT YEAR AS IT'S NOT A TERRIBLE PLAN TO BE ABLE TO UPDATE THIS PARTICULAR SITE WITHIN TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE.
IT'S JUST HOW THIS WAS PRESENTED IS NOT WHAT WAS PRESCRIBED, OF WHAT WAS BROUGHT UP HERE.
HAVING THAT CONVERSATION DOWN THE LINE, VERY MUCH OPEN TOO, BUT AS OF NOW, I THINK WE NEED TO FOCUS ON GETTING THIS TO THE BASIC DONE TO MEET OUR PERMIT AND TO MEET OUR NATIONAL CODE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILOR COCHRANE.
ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS ON IT? COUNCIL MCGURK, I MISSED YOU THE LAST TIME, SO I APOLOGIZE. BUT GO AHEAD.
>> I REALLY WISH I COULD KNOW WHO GAVE THAT CLASS D FOR 320,000.
IF WE'RE EXPECTING THAT THE PROJECT OVERALL WOULD BE SHY OF 700,000, I'M NOT SURE HOW THOSE TWO NUMBERS LINE UP.
I DO HAVE A LOT OF INTEREST IN THE SPACE AS IT IS.
IT'S A BEAUTIFUL LOCATION THAT OBVIOUSLY I WOULD LOVE TO SEE ALL RESIDENTS BE ABLE TO ACCESS.
IT'S, I DO THINK, A TOURISM ASSET THAT BRINGS A LOT OF VALUE TO OUR CITY, IF ANYONE IN THIS ROOM HAS PROBABLY TRIED TO GO THROUGH THAT PARKING LOT ON ANY GIVEN DAY IN A BUSY SEASON AND THERE'S BEEN A LINE OF PEOPLE TRYING TO WALK ACROSS TO REACH THE STAIRS.
IT IS VERY OBVIOUSLY A WELL-USED SPACE.
KNOWING THAT THE CLASS D ARE TO REPLACE THEM, IT'S SET AT $320, AND THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD BE PUTTING IN THE BUDGET, WHERE WE BELIEVE THAT TO DO A MORE FULSOME PROJECT THAT WOULD HAVE A HIGH VALUE.
COME UNDER $700,000 FOR THAT ACTUALLY TAKES ME IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION AND MAKES ME MORE SUPPORTIVE OF THE ORIGINAL BUDGET ASK, GRANT THAT ADMINISTRATION BELIEVES THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO SIT WITHIN THAT AMOUNT BECAUSE I THINK THAT $320,000 TO REPLACE THOSE STAIRS,
[03:55:03]
AS BIG AS THEY ARE AND AS EXPENSIVE AS LUMBER IS, AS A CARPENTER, I ABHOR THE IDEA OF SUPPORTING THAT AS A LINE ITEM.[LAUGHTER] THAT'S MY THOUGHT ON THAT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCIL MCGURK.
ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS ON THE MOTION, COUNCIL FEQUET?
>> JUST A QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION FIRST.
THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF 680,000, OF THAT MONEY, WAS IT THE 200,000 THAT WE WERE EXPECTING TO RECEIVE FROM FEDERAL FUNDING TO REDUCE THAT COST DIRECTLY TO THE CITY?
>> I BELIEVE DIRECTOR WHITE CLARIFIED ABOUT $25 CENT ISSUE TO MEAN $50 CENT AND UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 200K.
THAT WOULD BE PART OF THAT REVISED ANSWER.
>> DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COUNCIL FEQUET?
>> YEAH. THE ORIGINAL ASK WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE COST US 480 AND THE NEW ASK IS GOING TO COST US 170.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION AS IS.
IT'S NOT BECAUSE I DON'T 100% AGREE WITH COUNCIL WARBURTON THAT WE HAVE LITTLE TO NONE TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE, AND WE NEED TO DO THIS, BUT I THINK THIS IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT'S EASY TO APPLY FOR CANNOR OR THOSE OTHER INCENTIVES THAT CAN FUND THIS.
THE CITY DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO DO THIS, ALTHOUGH I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT DONE.
THAT'S WHY I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT THE MOTION.
>> ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS TO THE MOTION, COUNCIL MCLELLAN?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST ANOTHER QUESTION FOR CLARITY.
WHY IS $120,000 OFF A COUPLE OF YEARS IN 2028?
>> THE QUESTION IS THE 120K FROM?
>> FOR CLARITY, HE'S LOOKING ON PAGE 131 IN THE ORIGINAL ASK.
IT HAS 560,000 IN 2026 AND THEN $120,000 ADDITIONAL IN 2028.
WHY 560 IN THE FIRST YEAR AND THEN ANOTHER 120 TWO YEARS DOWN THE LINE?
>> THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION, WHY IT'S TWO YEARS.
MR. WHITE, DO YOU HAVE A SAY ON IT?
FOR CLARITY, THE STAIRS REPLACEMENT IS THE $560,000 FOR 2026.
2028, THE 120 IS ANOTHER PROJECT THAT I CANNOT RECALL OFF TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT THEY'RE NOT THE SAME PROJECT.
IT'S ONLY 560 FOR THE STAIR REPLACEMENT. THANK YOU.
>> THE WHOLE PACKAGE, ACCESSIBLE PLATFORM, ALL THAT STUFF, WE GOT A CLASS D ESTIMATE FOR THE TOP OF THE LINE.
EVERYONE CAN ACCESS PILOT'S MONUMENT IS 560, AND WE CAN GET 200 OF THAT COVERED, CORRECT?
>> YES, UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 200K.
>> MY RECOMMENDATION RIGHT NOW, AS CHAIR OF MEETING, IS THAT WE TABLE THIS MOTION AND WE GET CLARITY ON THIS $120,000, AND WE COME BACK TO THIS IN THE START OF TOMORROW.
WE'RE ALL GOOD WITH THAT? CITY CLERK, DO I NEED A MOTION TO TABLE THAT? WE'RE GOOD TO JUST TABLE. THANK YOU.
WITH THAT, WE'VE REACHED THE END OF THE CAPITAL ITEMS. WE HAVE TWO ITEMS THAT WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO START OF TOMORROW, WHICH IS THIS, AS WELL AS THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN.
COLLEAGUES, IT IS 12 MINUTES TO 10:00.
DO WE WANT TO PUT A PIN IN IT FOR TONIGHT, OR DO WE WANT TO HIT THE MAYOR BUDGET AND DO THAT? PUT A PIN IN IT? PIN IN IT.
WE WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW AT 5:30.
HAVE A LOVELY ONE. THANK YOU, MR. VAN DINE. GO GET SOME SLEEP.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.