[00:00:03] >> I WILL CALL OUR MEETING BACK TO ORDER AND I [Opening Statement] ENJOY THAT WE STARTED OFF WITH SOME MONTY PYTHON REFERENCES. WITH THAT, WE WILL START WITH GOING BACK TO THE THREE CAPITAL ITEMS [2026 Budget Deliberations. ] THAT WERE OUTSTANDING FROM LAST NIGHT BEFORE WE MOVE TO OUR O&M. FIRST, WE HAVE ON PAGE 120, IF EVERYBODY WANTS TO JUMP BACK TO THERE. WE HAD THE FUEL TANK REPLACEMENT COMMUNITY ARENA IN CITY HALL. MR. VAN DINE, CAN I JUST TURN IT OVER TO YOU? >> FOR SURE. THEN I MAY CALL ON SOME COLLEAGUES FOR ASSISTANCE. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK INTO THIS A LITTLE FURTHER. THAT IS A FUN BACKGROUND. I MAY HAVE TO LOOK AT CHANGING THAT. WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK INTO IT A LITTLE BIT DEEPER, AND SO I BELIEVE THE REFERENCE TO THE 120 REFERS TO EXPENDITURES PROPOSAL. >> DIFFERENT ONE, WE'RE ON THE FUEL TANK. WE'RE ON THE 1.215 MIL FOR THE FUEL TANKS. WE'RE ON PAGE 120 AS OPPOSED TO $120,000. >> EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE ASSIST. WITH RESPECT TO TO THE FUEL TANKS. WE DID HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK INTO IT. I THINK THAT THERE WAS A REPORTING AND THE DOCUMENTATION THAT COUNSEL RECEIVED BEFORE THAT REFERRED TO ESSENTIALLY BOTH TANKS BEING I THINK SURFACE. IN FACT, AS WE'VE LEARNED AND THROUGH THE DISCUSSION LAST NIGHT, WE LEARNED THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY ONE TANK THAT IS SURFACE, AND THAT IS AT THE ARENA AND THE SECOND TANK IS SUBSURFACE, AND THAT IS UNDER CITY HALL. THAT WAS A MISPRINT IN THE MATERIAL THAT WENT TO COUNSEL, SO APOLOGIES FOR THE MISUNDERSTANDING. WITH RESPECT TO THE AMOUNTS THAT HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED, WE HAVE HAD THE CHANCE TO LOOK INTO THE COST STRUCTURE, THE COST STRUCTURE FOR THE SURFACE TANK AT THE ARENA HAS BEEN FULLY COSTED INTO THE NUMBER THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT. THE COST FOR THE STRUCTURE UNDERNEATH THAT CITY HALL INCLUDES, AS COUNSEL HAS POINTED OUT, IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE, INCLUDES REPLACEMENT WITH A SUBSURFACE, ANOTHER SUBSURFACE. IN LOOKING INTO THE MATTER FURTHER, MR. WHITE HAS BEEN ABLE TO GET A LITTLE MORE GRANULARITY ON RELATIVE COSTS WITH A PERHAPS PROCEEDING WITH SURFACE REPLACEMENT ON BOTH. I'LL JUST INVITE MR. WHITE TO WALK US THROUGH THE RELATIVE COSTS THAT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING TANK UNDER THE GROUND AND WHAT OUR RELATIVE COST STRUCTURES WOULD BE TO JUST MAINTAIN IT AT A SURFACE LEVEL. MR. WHITE? >> GO AHEAD, MR. WHITE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. VAN DINE. THE REVISED BUDGET ESTIMATE FOR TWO SURFACE MOUNTED FUEL TANKS AT THE YK ARENA AND CITY HALL IS $1.074 MILLION. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYTHING ELSE, MR. VAN DINE, BEFORE I MOVE TO ANY QUESTIONS FROM COLLEAGUES? >> YEAH. IF I MAY ADD, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO INTO ANY GREAT DETAIL LAST EVENING, BUT CERTAINLY IN THE ESTIMATE THAT WE HAVE THERE, IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT SORT OF THE EXCAVATION OF A TANK, OF THE REMEDIATION THAT WOULD NEED FOR ANY LEAKAGE THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF THE RECOVERY OF THAT TANK, AND THEN THE REPLACEMENT OF ALL OF THE MATERIALS AND THEN THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW TANK. I THINK LAST NIGHT, WE ALSO DESCRIBED TO SOME DEGREE, THAT THERE MAY BE SOME COSTS WITH THE FACADE OR SOME AESTHETIC TO MAKE SURE THAT IT CONFORMED WITH THE LANDSCAPING AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE LIKENESS OF THE CURRENT CITY HALL SO THAT WOULD HAVE A COST. WE KNOW THAT THE RELATIVE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH STICKING WITH SURFACE IN THE SECOND MODEL COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE SOME SAVINGS, BUT CLEARLY, IT'S A SUBSTANTIAL COST TO RECOVER, REMEDIATE, AND REPLACE. THAT'S WHAT I'LL CONCLUDE WITH. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS FROM COLLEAGUES? COUNSEL WARBURTON. [00:05:03] >> ONE MORE. JUST WHEN WE DO FIELD REPLACEMENT IN THE CITY, DO WE DO SECONDARY CONTAINMENT AS WELL OR IS IT JUST SAME FOR SAME? >> MR. VAN DINE. >> THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION. MR. WHITE, I THINK WE'RE JUST FOR STRAIGHT REPLACEMENT, BUT I'LL ASK YOU TO CONFIRM. >> MR. WHITE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THE REFERENCE TO THE SIZE OF THE TANK OR IS IT TO A FUNCTION? >> YEAH, SORRY FOR CLARITY. SECONDARY CONTAINMENT IS ITS LIKE A VERSION. ONE VERSION WOULD BE LIKE IT SITS IN A TUB OF EQUAL OR GREATER VOLUMES. IF THE TANK LEAKS, IT DOESN'T LEAK ON THE GROUND. THERE'S VARIOUS WAYS TO DO THAT BUT, SECONDARY CONTAINMENT IS AN OPTION WHEN YOU DO IN FIELD. >> MR. WHITE? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AS WE MENTIONED LAST NIGHT, THERE ARE NEW REGS COMING OUT IN 2026, AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT, OF COURSE, WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW ALL THE NEW REGS AND SECONDARY CONTAINMENT, I'M SURE IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE PRIME THINGS THAT IS GOING TO BE DETAILED. THANK YOU. >> ANYTHING FURTHER, DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON? >> NO QUESTIONS FOR THE MOTION IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS ONE. >> I'LL SEE IF THERE ARE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. ANY MORE QUESTIONS? WELL, THEN IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S BACK TO YOU, DEPUTY MAYOR. >> A MOTION WOULD BE TO REDUCE THIS DOWN TO THE 1.074 MILLION AND TO HAVE THE REPLACEMENT BE SURFACE TANKS. >> SURE. YEAH. SECOND. SECONDED BY COUNCIL FERRET BEFORE I EVEN ASKED, SO THAT'S EASY ENOUGH. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM ANYONE, I WOULDN'T ASSUME SO. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. THAT'S UNANIMOUS. PERFECT. NEXT ITEM WE HAD WAS ON PAGE 131 OF THE CAPITOL. THAT IS IT'S CALLED PARK DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT'S THE PILOTS MONUMENT STAIRS. MR. VAN DINE, I'LL THROW IT OVER TO YOU AGAIN. >> WE HAD A REQUEST LAST EVENING TO LOOK IN AT CLASS D ESTIMATES AND ALSO TO CLARIFY AN ADDITIONAL EXPENSE THAT WAS PROJECTED FOR 2028 TO THE TUNE OF ABOUT 120K. I'M JUST OPENING UP, SWITCHING TO THE RIGHT PAGE. WE WERE ABLE TO CONFIRM THAT. I'M JUST GOING TO INVITE MR. WHITE TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY NEW INFORMATION ON THE CLASS D ESTIMATE BEFORE WE GO TO THE OTHER EXPENDITURE QUESTION. >> MR. GRANT WHITE, OVER TO YOU. >> THANK YOU. THERE'S NO CHANGE TO THE NUMBER THAT WE DISCUSSED LAST NIGHT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER ITEM, THAT ITEM WAS REDUNDANT OR POTENTIALLY AN ENTRY THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED WHEN THE NEW ENTRY WAS PUT IN FOR THE REPLACEMENT POST ACCIDENT. AS PART OF OUR REGULAR CAPITAL UPDATE, MR. CHAIR, WE HAD ANTICIPATED AN EXPENDITURE TO UPKEEP THE STAIRS AS OUR NORMAL COURSE OF ASSET PLANNING FOR FOR THE STEPS. SINCE THE ACCIDENT, THAT THAT NUMBER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED OR THAT AMOUNT IS NO LONGER REQUIRED FOR THAT PURPOSE AND IN THAT YEAR BECAUSE WE'LL BE DOING OTHER CHANGES TO THE STEPS. WE REGRET THAT THAT ENTRY WAS MAINTAINED, BUT IT'S ONE THAT CAN BE REMOVED. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCIL COCHRANE. >> THANKS SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR. I APPRECIATE THE CLASS D BEING 320,000, BUT IS THIS THE CATALAC OF ESTIMATES OR IS THIS LIKE ARE WE GOING DOWN TO THE MINIMALIST HERE? I'M STILL HAVING A HARD TIME COMPUTING THE FACT THAT IT'S 320,000 FOR STAIRS HERE. IF WE CAN GET AN ELABORATION ABOUT WHAT THE CLASS D ESTIMATE AND THE FULL COST WITHIN ASSOCIATED AND THE PROJECT. >> MR. VAN DINE. >> CERTAINLY WE WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MAKING SURE WE'RE GETTING VALUE FOR MONEY FOR YELLOWKNIFERS, I THINK THE BENEFIT OF THAT CLASS D ESTIMATE, I'LL INVITE MR. WHITE TO ELABORATE FURTHER, BUT ESSENTIALLY, WE WERE LOOKING TO GET AN INDICATION OF WHAT THE BASE MODEL WOULD BE. DURING THE COURSE OF BUDGET DELIBERATIONS LAST NIGHT, AND THAT WAS THE NUMBER WE WERE ABLE TO GET, HENCE THE CLASS D. IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS THE FINAL ESTIMATE, WE'D HAVE TO REFINE IT. OBVIOUSLY, CLASS D IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE LOWEST LEVELS OF CONFIDENCE IN NUMBERS. I WOULDN'T PUT A LOT OF CONFIDENCE IN THAT CLASS D, THAT'S ORDER OF MAGNITUDE. THEN OF COURSE, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO TENDER AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. BUT PERHAPS, I'LL JUST PAUSE AND INVITE MR. WHITE TO ELABORATE FURTHER, IN CASE HE'S HAD MORE INFORMATION ON THE DETAILS OF WHERE WE GOT THAT CLASS D FROM. [00:10:04] >> MR. WHITE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE CLASS D ESTIMATE WOULD BE THE PROJECT IN ITS ENTIRETY INCLUDING, DESIGN AS WELL AS THE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION AND PERMIT COSTS. THANKS. >> COUNCIL COCHRANE. >> PURELY JUST FOR THE STAIRS. IT'S NOT ADDING THE VIEWING PLACEMENT ON THE TOP OR ANY OF THE ACCESSIBILITY RAMP. THIS IS JUST PURELY FOR THE STAIRS. >> MR. WHITE? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DURING OUR DISCUSSIONS LAST NIGHT, WE WERE ASKED TO LOOK AT A DIFFERENT PRICE OTHER THAN WHAT WE PROVIDED, AND THAT WAS JUST TO BASICALLY REPLACE WHAT WE HAVE IN THE SAME CONFIGURATION THAT'S EXISTING. THANKS. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR WHITE. MY MOTION WILL REMAIN FOR 320,000 FOR NOW, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT MY COLLEAGUES SAY. >> NEXT, WE HAVE DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON. >> THANK YOU. GOING BACK, IT'S A BIG CIRCLE WE'VE GONE IN. BACK TO THE 560. THIS INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE STAIRS, BUT ACCESSIBLE ACCESS, NEW PLATFORM, I'M USING A RAMP, A NEW VIEWING PLATFORM. THAT 560 IS NOT MAINTAINING, IT'S IMPROVING THE SITE TO HAVE MORE ACCESSIBILITY AND IT'S KIND OF THAT IN VERSION, RIGHT? JUST TO BE CLEAR THAT 560 INCLUDES ALL THOSE THINGS. >> MR. WHITE? >> THANK VERY MUCH. THE 560 CONTEMPLATES A SET OF STAIRS THAT COMPLIES WITH COUNCIL'S POLICY ON ACCESSIBILITY. WE'VE ASKED FOR TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. ONE WOULD BE ACCESSIBILITY FROM TOP TO BOTTOM, AND ONE WOULD BE ACCESSIBILITY PART WAY UP WITH VIEWING AT THE MOST OPPORTUNE SPOT TO, I GUESS, TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF THE VISTAS THAT ARE AVAILABLE. THANKS. >> DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON. >> THE 560 IS FOR WHICH ONE? >> MR. WHITE. >> RIGHT NOW IT'S CONCEPTUAL. THE 560 WOULD BE FROM TOP TO BOTTOM, ACCESSIBILITY. YEAH, THANK YOU. >> DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON. >> THANK YOU. THIS IS A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION FOR ME NOW UNDERSTANDING THE 120 IS NOT ON TOP OF EVERYTHING ELSE; 320 FOR JUST STAIRS IS A LOT, 560 FOR ESSENTIALLY NEW STAIRS AND A HIGHER LEVEL OF SERVICE. THAT'S DIFFERENT FOR ME. I SHOULD ALSO JUST HEAR WHAT OTHER COLLEAGUES HAVE TO SAY HERE, BUT I AM NOT AS KEEN TO CUT THIS AS I WAS YESTERDAY. >> FAIR ENOUGH. NEXT, WE HAVE COUNSEL FOOTE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. CONSIDERING THAT THE $320,000 IS TO BASICALLY REPLICATE THE CURRENT STATE, WHAT'S ALREADY THERE, WOULD THERE BE A NEED FOR FURTHER ENGINEERING OR COULD WE USE DRAWINGS ON FILE? I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT COST PAIRED DOWN A BIT FOR JUST THE BARE BONES. >> MR. VAN DINE. >> YEAH, I'M NOT TRYING TO BE OBTUSE, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THE CLASS D COULD COME DOWN FROM WHAT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS THE AMOUNT THAT'S BEEN LISTED. IT DOES TAKE ALL OF THOSE FACTORS IN. TAKING ENGINEERING OFF OFF THE SHELF FROM SOMETHING THAT WE MAY HAVE HAD FOR THAT SITE IN THE PAST, I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND. IN LIGHT OF THE HIGH VOLUME OF ACTIVITY THAT WE HAVE THERE, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MAINTAIN HIGHEST OR AT LEAST REASONABLE SAFETY STANDARDS FOR ONE OF OUR MOST PRIZED LOCATIONS IN THE CITY FOR TOURISTS. I'M SURE IT CAN BE ADJUSTED. WE'LL HOPEFULLY FIND QUALIFIED CONTRACTORS THAT CAN PROVIDE THE SURFACE AT A NUMBER THAT'S NO HIGHER THAN WHAT'S LISTED THERE. I GUESS I WOULD OFFER IN TERMS OF THE PERHAPS SHIFTING A LITTLE BIT TOWARDS COUNSEL WARBURTON'S REMARKS. WE'VE ALSO LOOKED A LITTLE CLOSER AT SOURCES OF FUNDS, AND IN THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT THAT WAS PRESENTED LAST NIGHT, I DON'T BELIEVE WE REFERENCED THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ACCESSIBILITY FUNDING THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, AND AS OTHERS HAVE OBSERVED, IT DOES HAVE SOME CARRY FORWARD. DEPENDING ON WHICH CONCEPT WE GO WITH AND WHAT COUNSEL'S APTITUDE IS ON THIS ITEM, WE CAN GO ON THE BASE MODEL THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TONIGHT, UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S CLASS D AND THAT MORE WORK WOULD NEED TO BE ACQUIRED SUBSEQUENT TO ENSURE THAT THAT NUMBER IS NOT ANY HIGHER. [00:15:03] THEN IF COUNSEL IS OF THE VIEW THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO EXPLORE A LONGER LASTING AND HIGHER LEVEL OF SERVICES IN THE WORDS OF COUNSEL WARBURTON, THE 560 OPTION, WE WOULD LOOK TO POTENTIALLY OFFSET SOME OF THAT COST THROUGH ACCESSING SOME OF OUR ACCESSIBILITY DOLLAR CARRY FORWARD ON THAT. IF COUNSEL IS INTERESTED IN WHAT AMOUNT THAT MIGHT BE, WE CAN SHARPEN OUR PENCILS AND GIVE COUNSEL A SENSE OF WHAT THAT MIGHT BE IF THAT'S OF INTEREST. >> COUNSEL FOOTE. >> THANKS FOR THAT. JUST FOR THE FOUR PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE LISTENING. I JUST WANT TO SHOW THAT WE'RE BEING THOUGHTFUL. IT'S PRESENTING A BIT OF A DICHOTOMY, A REALLY EXPENSIVE CHEAP OPTION OR A VALUE AD FOR A COUPLE DOLLARS MORE. INTERESTING. >> THANKS. I GUARANTEE THERE'S MORE THAN FOUR PEOPLE WATCHING BECAUSE I'VE HAD MORE PEOPLE TODAY TELL ME THEY'RE WATCHING IT ALWAYS SURPRISES ME EVERY YEAR. BUT WITH THAT, COUNCIL MCGURK. >> THANK YOU. I'M CURIOUS IN THE CLASS D FOR THE STAIRS, JUST THE STAIRS, THE 320. HOW MUCH OF THAT IS RESERVED FOR ENGINEERING AND DESIGN? >> MR. VAN DINE. >> I'LL INVITE MR. WHITE TO RESPOND AND POSSIBLY WITH AN ASSIST FROM MR. GREENCORN, GIVEN HIS EXPERIENCE ON PROJECTS OF SIMILAR NATURE. SORRY, MR. GREENCORN, TO THROW YOU INTO THE MIX. >> I'LL GIVE IT TO MR. WHITE FIRST, AND I'LL LET HIM PASS IT OFF TO MR. GREENCORN AS NECESSARY. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I DIDN'T GET A NOD. THE ANTICIPATED ENGINEERING COST IS APPROXIMATELY 10% OF THE OVERALL PROJECT COST. THANKS. >> COUNCIL MCGURK. >> I WILL DELETE THE LAST QUESTION. I EXPECT IT TO BE HIGHER CONSIDERING THE PRICE. >> JUST TO JUMP IN. GENERAL RULE OF THUMB IS ENGINEERING COSTS ON ANY PROJECT ARE GENERALLY SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THE 10 AND 15%. DEPENDS ON WHAT COMPLEXITY YOU GET IN. IF YOU WANT TO GET INTO AN AQUATIC CENTER, FOR EXAMPLE, ARCHITECTURAL CAN GENERALLY BE IN THE REALM OF 20%, BUT FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS, I WOULD EXPECT A SIMPLE SKETCH WITH A CODE REVIEW PROCESS AND A SET OF DRAWINGS FOR A CONTRACTOR SHOULDN'T BE ANY MORE THAN THAT. >> COUNCILOR MCGURK. >> I THINK THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE, BUT I GIVEN THE AMOUNT. AGAIN, I THINK EVERYBODY KNOWS HOW INCREDULOUS I FEEL ABOUT THIS. I CANNOT SUPPORT SPENDING OR ALLOCATING $320,000 FOR A SET OF WOODEN STAIRS. I DID A LITTLE BIT OF AFGHAN MATH LAST NIGHT AND IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. I THINK THAT IF WE ARE LOOKING AT 560 FOR A VERY ATTRACTIVE, ACCESSIBLE, GREAT TOURIST AUGMENTATION OF AN ALREADY GOOD TOURIST ATTRACTION. THAT CAN ALSO POSSIBLY BE SUPPORTED BY THE ACCESSIBILITY FUNDING. I'M HAPPY TO KEEP THIS IN THE BUDGET. I DON'T WANT THAT 320. >> THANK YOU FOR THE SENTIMENT. NEXT WE HAVE COUNCILOR FEQUET. COUNCILOR FEQUET SUMMED IT UP. IT SEEMS LIKE A CRAZY AMOUNT OF MONEY, OR AS COUNCILOR MCGURK REITERATED. I'M LEANING TOWARDS KEEPING IT IN AS WELL, RECOGNIZING THAT IT'S ACTUALLY 200 LESS THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET THROUGH THE FUNDING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THE 50, 50, UP TO 200 K MAX, SO IT'S ACTUALLY 360 FOR THIS FANCY ACCESSIBLE NEW STAIRS. IT IS CAPITAL, AGAIN, IT DOESN'T HAVE A DING ON TAXES DIRECTLY FOR FOLKS, SO I'M LEANING TOWARDS KEEPING IT IN AS WELL. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT WE HAVE, COUNCILOR ARDEN-SMITH. >> THANK YOU. I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS, KEEPING IT IN THE BUDGET AS IS. LOOKING IT FROM A TOURISM LENS, WE JUST HAD A BEAUTIFUL PRESENTATION BY SPECTACULAR YELLOWKNIFE, AND WE, AS YELLOWKNIFE SHOULD BE PUTTING OUR BEST FOOT FORWARD TO ENSURE THAT THOSE THAT ARE COMING HERE. IT DOESN'T JUST BENEFIT TOURISM COMPANIES, IT BENEFITS YELLOWKNIFE AS A WHOLE, AS A PLACE THAT PEOPLE WANT TO COME TO VISIT, TO LIVE. EVEN FOR RESIDENTS THAT GO TO THE PITS MONUMENT, SOME OF THE THINGS I HEARD WAS, I HOPE THESE ARE UNIQUE STAIRS THAT GO ALONG WITH THE UNIQUE MONUMENT THAT IT IS. I THINK THIS IS MONEY WELL SPENT. IF WE WANT TO GO ON STAIRS, IF ANYBODY CAN REMEMBER THOSE WONDERFUL STAIRS SITTING OUT FRONT OF CITY HALL HERE, THE COST ON THOSE WASN'T CHEAP EITHER. [00:20:02] I AM IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THIS AS IS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT, WE HAVE COUNCILOR PAYNE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I HAVE A QUESTION. IF WE HAD APPROVED THIS IN THE BUDGET FOR 560 AND THIS JOB CAME IN AT IF IT WAS FAIR 200 OVERLY FAIR. WHAT HAPPENS TO THE OTHER $360,000? DOES IT GO BACK INTO THE GENERAL FUND? IS IT KEPT IN DEPARTMENT'S BUDGETS FOR VARIANCES? WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT MONEY? >> MR. VAN DYNE. >> I'LL INVITE MR. PENDE TO RESPOND TO THAT. >> MR. PENDE. >> JUST ONE SECOND. I'M JUST HAVING SOME TROUBLE WITH MY BINDER. ULTIMATELY, THE QUESTION THOUGH, IS AN ISSUE SPECIFIC. IT'S MORE THE BROAD PHILOSOPHICAL POINT OF IF WE HAVE A CAPITAL EXPENSE AND THE FULL CAPITAL EXPENSE ISN'T SPENT, WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO? DOES IT STAY IN THE CAPITAL? DOES IT GO TO GENERAL? >> IT DEPENDS ON THE WHERE IT'S GETTING FUNDED, BUT FOR THIS ONE, IT GOES BACK IN THE CAPITAL FUND. >> THERE YOU GO. >> [OVERLAPPING] GO AHEAD. >> CAPITAL STAYS WITH CAPITAL. SORRY TO INTERRUPT. I WAS JUST MAKING SURE THAT MR. PENDE BINDER WAS WORKING. >> YES. >> THE PRACTICE IS IF WE DO HAVE SURPLUS FUNDS OR FUNDS LEFT OVER THAT GOES BACK INTO CAPITAL FOR THE CAPITAL BUDGET, CAPITAL HAS TO STAY WITH CAPITAL, WHERE MR. PENDES ALLUDED TO THAT DEPENDS ON HOW IT'S FUNDED, IF IT'S TIED WITH FEDERAL OFFSETS THEN IT BECOMES MORE COMPLICATED. GENERALLY, THAT THE MONEY GOES BACK TO CAPITAL. DOES PROVIDE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO REMIND COUNCILOR THAT, PART OF THE WORK OF GENERAL ASSET CAPITAL ADMINISTRATION MEANS THAT WE NEED TO MAINTAIN OUR CAPITAL BUDGETS FOR REPLACEMENT OVER TIME. THAT'S WHY WE'RE RELUCTANT TO MOVE CAPITAL BACK INTO THE GENERAL FUND OR OFFSET IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT ENOUGH CAPITAL OR SUFFICIENT CAPITAL, I SHOULD SAY, TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR URGENT NEEDS ARE MET. IN THIS CASE, AS COUNCILOR PAYNE HAS POINTED OUT, IF WE DID GET A PRICE DELIVERED OR A PRODUCT DELIVERED FOR LESS THAN WHAT WAS BUDGETED, THEN THAT BUDGET WOULD GO BACK BACK INTO CAPITAL. THANK YOU. >> COUNCILOR PAYNE. >> I APPRECIATE THE ANSWER. IN MY MIND, IF I WAS A CONTRACTOR AND I SEEN THIS OUT THERE THAT WE WERE GOING TO ACCEPT $560,000 OR $320,000 FOR A SET OF STEPS. GUESS WHAT, WE'RE PAYING 320 OR 560. THAT'S WHAT WE WILL BE PAYING FOR. IT'S MASSIVELY OVERPRICED MASSIVELY. THERE'S NOT ONE BONE IN MY BODY THAT BELIEVES THAT A SET OF BASIC STAIRS GOING UP TO PILE MONUMENT IS GOING TO COST 320,000, 560 IS WAY BEYOND. THAT'S A DREAM FOR A CARPENTER OUT THERE TO GET THAT JOB. I DON'T LIKE THE WAY WE DO THINGS. THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT ONE ITEM. THIS IS ABOUT MOVING FORWARD, LIKE WE SET EXPECTATIONS IN THE PUBLIC ABOUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PAY FOR THINGS. THAT'S WHY WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT PUTS OUT TENDERS, WE GET OVERCHARGED. LOOK AT THE LIF STATION. IF THAT WAS A PRIVATE THING, IT WOULDN'T COST 41 MILLION. WE'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT IT. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING 320, DEFINITELY NOT 560. I GUESS I'LL BE IN DEFIANT OPPOSITION OF WHATEVER IS PUT OUT FOR THIS PROJECT. I KNOW WE HAVE TO GET STAIRS DONE AND I'M PRETTY SURE IT'S GOING TO PASS, BUT IT WON'T BE PASSING WITH MY SUPPORT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILOR PAYNE. NEXT WE HAVE COUNCILOR MCLENNAN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST LOOKING TO GET EDMUND'S FEEDBACK, WHAT WOULD THE REPERCUSSIONS BE IF IF COUNCILOR JUST CHANGED THIS, THE BUDGET TO REPLACE THE STAIRS AS THEY ARE WOOD STAIRS AND JUST BUDGETED $150,000. >> MR. VAN NDAE. >> FIRST AND FOREMOST, COUNCILOR HAS IN THE PAST, DECIDED TO SET PRICES IN MOTIONS IN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT INSTANCES, SOMETIMES WITH ADMIT ADVICE, SOMETIMES WITH OUT. THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT IS THAT WE [00:25:03] WOULD GO TO A TENDER PROCESS OR A PROCUREMENT PROCESS WITH THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY IN PLACE. WE WOULD SEE WHAT WOULD COME UP WITH THAT AMOUNT AND THEN WE WOULD THEN MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO WORK. IF WE COME BACK WITH NO BIDS, THEN OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK OR IF WE GET BIDS THAT COME BACK THAT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY NORTH OF THAT, SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS WE WOULD COME BACK TO COUNCILOR AND SAY, LOOK, WE JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY IN THE BUDGET THAT YOU'VE APPROVED AND WE'LL NEED TO GET IT ADJUSTED WE'LL ASK YOU TO CONSIDER GET ADJUSTING IT. THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE WAY IT WOULD FOLLOW. I'LL PAUSE. >> COUNCILOR MCLENNAN. >> THANKS. UNDERSTOOD. I GUESS UNDERSTOOD THAT IN SOME WAYS. I DON'T KNOW, IT'S TERRIBLE OR THE MIGHT BE ON ITS WAY. IT WAS A NUMBER IN THE BUDGET. I THINK I WOULD BE TEMPTED TO DO THAT AND THEN HOPE THAT THERE'S A CONTRACTOR THAT SEES THAT PROFIT MARGIN AS SUFFICIENT AND IS WILLING TO DO THAT PROJECT, 320 IS RIDICULOUS. I DON'T KNOW. IT'S A TOUGH ONE. I THINK I WOULD SUPPORT JUST PUTTING $150,000 IN THE BUDGET AND SEEING IF THERE'S A CONTRACTOR THAT WOULD DO THAT PROJECT FOR THAT. ON THE 560, I'D NEED SOME MORE TIME TO THINK. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S ROUND 1. ROUND 2, I ALREADY HAD COUNCILOR COCHRANE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. I'M GOING TO RESCIND MY MOTION. I DON'T LIKE IT. THIS WHOLE THING DOES MAKE ME RELATIVELY UNCOMFORTABLE. I HAVE HEARD VERY GOOD ARGUMENTS MADE BY WHERE THE 560 CAN GO WITH THE VIEWING PLATFORM. I'M MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE FACT THAT WE'LL HAVE THE ACCESSIBILITY CARRY OVER, BUT I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO A FUTURE AMENDMENT TO OUR PROCUREMENT POLICY BECAUSE THE FACT THAT THIS HAS TO BE MADE PUBLIC IS A GOOD WAY FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR CURRENT VIDDING PROCESS. I WORRY ABOUT PUTTING 150,000 AS OUR MOTION BY THE FACT THAT WE WOULD GET A FAILED BID, KNOWING THAT IT COULD COME BACK AND WE'D PROBABLY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN. AT THAT POINT, I WILL RESCIND MY MOTION AND WE WILL SEE WHAT HAPPENS. >> ANYBODY DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON? >> MORE OF A COMMENT. A LOT OF THIS IS BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW, A LOT OF QUESTIONS ARE AROUND THE LACK OF DETAIL. FOR FUTURE BUDGETS, IF SOMETHING COMES UP LIKE THIS, A THREE SENTENCE DESCRIPTION ON ALMOST $600,000, I DON'T THINK IS ADEQUATE. SOME MORE SCOPING AND SO WE CAN PREEMPT A LOT OF THESE CONVERSATIONS WOULD BE SUPER HELPFUL. IF THAT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT IT WAS ACCESSIBLE WITH PLATFORMS AND IF THAT WAS THE IDEA. THAT'S A VERY DIFFERENT DESCRIPTION THAT'S WHAT'S IN THIS BUDGET ITEM. IN THE FUTURE, I DON'T MIND IF THIS BINDER IS TWICE AS THICK IF IT HAS GOOD RELEVANT INFORMATION IN IT. ESPECIALLY CAPITAL PROJECTS. THAT'S JUST A COMMENT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENT. YOU BEAT ME TO WAY ENDING COMMENT WAS GOING TO BE. THANK YOU FOR THAT. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IF IT WASN'T FOR A QUESTION FROM COUNCILOR MCGURK YESTERDAY ON THE SCOPING OF THIS, WE WOULDN'T HAVE GOT TO THE ACCESSIBILITY ASPECT. WHICH I AGREE WITH YOU ON. BUT WITH THAT, DOES ANYBODY KNOW I'VE HEARD A LOT OF COMMENTS OF POTENTIAL MOTIONS, POTENTIAL IS ANYBODY ACTUALLY MOVING A MOTION? >> COUNCILOR PAYNE. >> I'LL PUT A MOTION FORWARD THAT WE CUT THIS DOWN TO $200,000. THAT'S 50,000 MORE THAN WHAT I THINK THE JOB IS WORTH, $200,000 FOR A SET OF STEPS TO GO TO THERE I THINK IS MORE THAN ENOUGH. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S A MOTION. GOING TO GET A SECOND OR IF THERE IS ONE. COUNCILOR COCHRANE, COUNCILOR PAYNE, DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE? >> I THINK WE BEAT THIS DEAD HORSE A LOT, SO NOTHING MORE TO SAY. >> IT'S USUALLY ME MAKING THAT REFERENCE, SO I APPRECIATE SOMEBODY ELSE. ANY COMMENTS FROM MY COLLEAGUES OR QUESTIONS? THEN TO THE MOTION. COUNCILOR ARDEN-SMITH. >> I THINK WITH A LACK OF EXPERIENCE BEING CONTRACTORS OTHER THAN A FEW THAT ARE HERE. WE DON'T HAVE THE EXPERIENCE TO BE ABLE TO JUST PUT A BLANKETED COST ON SOMETHING, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS A HUGE ASSET LIKE THAT. I THINK JUST PUTTING A RANDOM NUMBER OUT THERE IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR US TO BE DOING. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COLLEAGUES? SEEING NONE, THEN TO THE MOTION TO REDUCE THIS ITEM TO $200. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. THAT'S COUNCILOR PAYNE, COUNCILOR COCHRANE, COUNCILOR MCLENNAN. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, COUNSELOR WARBURTON, COUNCILOR MCGURK, MYSELF, [00:30:01] COUNCILOR ARDEN-SMITH AND COUNSELOR FOOTE AND COUNCILOR FEQUET. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE BUDGET, IF WE MOVE TO PAGE 141. IS THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN. THIS WAS MY QUESTIONS, AND I ACTUALLY GOT ALL OF THEM ANSWERED ANNOYINGLY AFTER BUDGET, BUT BASICALLY THE SUMMARY FOR EVERYBODY WAS THAT IF YOU'RE INTERESTED, AND YOU WERE FOLLOWING ME YESTERDAY, THE PIECE IN THE PROJECT DETAILS WAS A CARRYOVER EXPLANATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN. THAT WAS THAT PIECE. IT WAS JUST A MISUNDERSTANDING BETWEEN WHAT WAS WRITTEN AND WHAT IS CURRENTLY BUDGETED, SO THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU TO THE MANAGER OF BUDGET AND THE MANAGER OF CORPORATE SERVICES FOR EXPLAINING THAT. MY OUTSTANDING QUESTION FOR MR. VAN DYNE, IS WHEN WILL THE DESIGN STANDARDS HAPPEN AND DO WE ALREADY HAVE THE FUNDS NECESSARY WITHIN CURRENT RESOURCES? BECAUSE AS WE HAD SAID YESTERDAY, THAT WAS DESCRIBED AS SOMETHING TO HAPPEN AS PART OF BUDGET 2025 ITEM SO OVER TO YOU. >> THANK YOU. I'LL INVITE MR. GREENCORN TO RESPOND TO THAT. >> MR. GREENCORN? >> THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. JUST TO REITERATE THE 2025 BUDGET WAS TO ACTUALLY ESTABLISH AND DEVELOP THE PLAN AND $2026 FOR IMPLEMENTATION TASKS. THE NEXT STEPS JUST FOR EVERYONE'S KNOWLEDGE IN THE PROCESS IS URBAN SYSTEMS WILL FORWARD A DRAFT OR THEIR FINAL REPORT AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. COUNCILOR WILL GET TO WEIGH IN HEAVILY ON THAT SECTION OF THE REPORT. FROM THERE, THIS IS WHERE DESIGN STANDARDS MAY OR WILL CHANGE BASED ON COUNCILOR AND COMMUNITY FEEDBACK. FROM THERE YOUR INPUT, THE REPORT WILL BE FINALIZED, AND THEN THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, ALL THAT WAY IN WILL MOVE FORWARD. THEN THE HIGH LEVEL PLAN AND ITS ASSOCIATED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN WILL MAKE ITS WAY INTO ANNUAL BUDGET DOCUMENTS. HOPEFULLY THAT MAKES SENSE. BUT ONCE WE GET THEIR FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, COUNCILOR WILL GET TO PUT YOUR STAMP AND YOUR OPINION ON IT, THEN WE WILL DRAFT THE STANDARDS, AND WE ANTICIPATE THAT IT'S A RELATIVELY SMALL PART OF THIS WHOLE ENTIRE PROCESS AND WE ANTICIPATE THAT THE CURRENT RESOURCES ARE ADEQUATE FOR THAT PART OF THE WORK. >> PERFECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE RESPONSE. I HAVE NOTHING ELSE ON THAT ONE. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT ONE? SEEING NONE. THAT'S THE WRAP ON THE CAPITAL. WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE GENERAL FUND. IF WE GO BACK UP TO THE START OF THE BUDGET BINDER, WE'RE STARTING AT PAGE 23 FOR THE TOTAL OVERVIEW. >> THEN WE'LL GET INTO THE FIRST SECTION OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL, BUT JUST DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS ON THE OVERVIEW, COUNCIL MCLENNAN? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE ALLOCATION OF EMERGING ISSUES RESERVE, MONEY TO REDUCE THE TAX INCREASE. $2 MILLION OF THE EMERGING ISSUES RESERVE WAS USED TO DO THAT. I'M JUST LOOKING FOR A RATIONALE AND SOME CLARITY FROM ADMIN ON WHAT PROCESS OR JUSTIFICATION WAS USED TO DO THAT. >> SURE, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ELABORATE. IN THE PREPARING OF THE DRAFT BUDGET, WHICH IS A DRAFT BUDGET, AND IT WON'T BE A BUDGET UNTIL COUNCIL APPROVES THE BUDGET. IT'S STILL A BUDGET UNDER CONSTRUCTION. WE PREPARED, ESSENTIALLY, THIS DRAFT FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION, RECOGNIZING THAT THERE WOULD BE A PUBLIC REACTION TEST. AS WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE NUMBERS FOR THE MOST PART, AT A GENERAL LEVEL, NOT TRYING TO GET OUT AHEAD OF COUNCIL IN MAKING DECISIONS ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY, WE DID LOOK AT THE EMERGENT ISSUES COMPONENT OF THE GENERAL FUND. AS HAS BEEN NOTED, WE HAVE YET TO ESTABLISH A POLICY ON HOW TO ESTABLISH SUCH A RESERVE AT THIS POINT. IT IS NOW JUST A BUDGET NOTATION. IN THAT DISCUSSION, WE LOOKED BACK AT THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT WENT INTO SETTING THAT ORIGINAL AMOUNT, THE 3 MILLION. THOSE SET OF ASSUMPTIONS WERE BASED ON EXPERIENCES FROM THE 2023 SITUATION, AND THE 2023 SITUATION ARGUABLY WAS A UNIQUE SITUATION, AND WE REALIZED THAT WE NEEDED TO GENERALLY IMPROVE OUR OVERALL POSTURE WITH RESPECT TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GENERALLY, WHICH WE'VE BEEN DOING. THEN IT TOOK US TO WHETHER WE CAN REFINE OUR NUMBERS WITH RESPECT TO HAVING AN EMERGENT ISSUES FUND. WE BELIEVE HAVING A CONTINGENCY OR AN EMERGENCY ISSUES FUND IS A WISE PRACTICE. THE THRESHOLD OF 3 MILLION WAS NOT QUITE ARBITRARY, BUT IT WAS CERTAINLY BASED ON A RELATIVELY LOOSE SET OF ASSUMPTIONS. [00:35:02] WHEN LOOKING AT THE OVERALL BUDGET, AND AS WE WERE TRYING TO BRING THAT BUDGET TO COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 4, WE HAD A DISCUSSION INTERNALLY AND THOUGHT THAT HAVING A NOTIONAL RESERVE AT A DIFFERENT AMOUNT AND CUTTING IT IN HALF WOULD NOT BE A MATERIAL IMPACT ON THE OVERALL FINANCES OF OR READINESS, I SHOULD SAY OF THE CITY WITH RESPECT TO AN EMERGENT ISSUE, SHOULD IT ARISE, BUT IT WOULD HAVE A MATERIAL IMPACT ON WHAT OUR PROPOSED TAX RATE WOULD BE FOR THE COMMUNITY. OUR IN FULL TRANSPARENCY AND DISCLOSURE. WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE BROUGHT THAT FORWARD ON NOVEMBER 4, TO MAKE SURE THAT COUNCIL WAS AWARE THAT THAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION FROM COUNCIL WAS TO REDUCE THAT AMOUNT TO MAINTAIN SOME LEVEL OF EMERGENT ISSUE CAPACITY WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND JUST FOR UNFORESEEN AND THE ABILITY TO ACCESS AND TO CONTINUE TO DO SOME WORK AROUND A POLICY THAT WE'VE NOT QUITE COMPLETED YET, GIVEN SOME OTHER PRESSURES. BUT THE RATIONALE WAS TO HAVE A MORE BALANCED APPROACH TO A PROPOSED TAX RATE AT THAT TIME, AT 7%. THAT WAS THE THINKING THAT WENT IN AT THAT TIME. >> COUNCIL MCLENNAN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH. NO DISSECT INTENDED, AND SORRY TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF AN ASS. BUT IT WAS 3.5 MILLION THAT WAS IN. >> JUST THE LANGUAGE. KEEP GOING. >> FUND. TWO MILLION WAS USED FOR THE TAXES PROVES MY POINT ABOUT THE MUDDINESS OF THIS AND HOW THIS MONEY IS USED AND WHAT IS THERE AND WHAT ISN'T, AND HOW IT'S BEING ALLOCATED. WITH THAT, I'D HAVE A MOTION. I'D LIKE TO MOVE. >> OKAY. GO AHEAD. >> SO I'D MOVE A MOTION TO SCRAP THE EMERGING ISSUES RESERVE IN ITS CURRENT FORM AND LEAVE THE 1.5 MILLION IN THE GENERAL FUND. >> ANY SECONDER. COUNCIL FEQUET, ANYTHING FURTHER? COUNCIL MCLENNAN ON YOUR MOTION? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH. BEFORE I START, I'D LIKE TO SAY CLEARLY, I MEAN NO DISRESPECT TO STAFF AND DO NOT MEAN TO IMPLY OR BELIEVE THERE'S ANY NEFARIOUS ACTIONS BEING UNDERTAKEN BY STAFF. MY LANGUAGE IS A LITTLE BIT STRONGER THIS YEAR AFTER HAVING THE THIRD BUDGET OF HAVING THIS MONEY HERE, WITH NO CLARITY AROUND IT. IN ITS CURRENT FORM, THE EMERGING ISSUES RESERVE IS SIMPLY A MEANS TO ADHERE TO THE STABILIZATION FUND POLICY ON PAPER. THE RESERVE IS PRESENT IN ITS THIRD BUDGET, YET THERE'S NO CLARITY ON HOW THE MONEY CAN BE USED OR ITS SPECIFIC PURPOSE. IN FACT, THE MONEY WAS USED IN THIS DRAFT BUDGET, JUST AS EXTRA MONEY IN THE GENERAL FUND HAS BEEN USED IN THE PAST TO REDUCE THE TAX INCREASE. THIS ILLUSTRATES THAT THE RESERVE IN ITS CURRENT FORM IS A PAPER TIGER. THE IDEA IS USEFUL. HOWEVER, COUNCIL SHOULD DEBATE AND APPROVE A POLICY BEFORE ALLOCATING MONEY. THE FOLLOWING IDEAS SHOULD BE EXPLORED DURING THIS DEBATE. WHAT CAN THE MONEY FROM THE EMERGING ISSUES RESERVE BE USED FOR? HOW MUCH SHOULD BE IN THE RESERVE? WHY ANOTHER RESERVE AND NOT ADJUST THE STABILIZATION FUND POLICY TO HOLD MORE MONEY IN THE GENERAL FUND? CAN ADMIN SPEND MONEY WITHOUT COUNCIL APPROVAL, ET CETERA? THIS NEED FOR COUNCIL TO WEIGH IN AND APPROVE THE CONCEPT IS PARTICULARLY RELEVANT, GIVEN THIS IS OUR COUNCIL'S LAST BUDGET. THIS CONCEPT WAS CREATED IN OUR TERM, AND I BELIEVE IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO CLEARLY AND TRANSPARENTLY MANAGE THE PUBLIC'S MONEY. IN MY VIEW, LEAVING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THE GENERAL FUND WITH NO CLARITY ON WHAT IT'S TO BE USED FOR HOW IT IS TO BE USED, FOR THE THIRD YEAR IN A ROW IS NOT MEETING THIS RESPONSIBILITY. THE EMERGING ISSUE RESERVE IN ITS CURRENT FORM IS MISLEADING AND NOT SERVING THE ROUGHLY STATED PURPOSE. STAFF'S WORK IS VERY MUCH APPRECIATED TO BRING CLARITY TO THIS IDEA. IT IS ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDABLE THAT THE POLICY REGARDING THIS RESERVE HASN'T COME FORWARD, GIVEN OTHER CHALLENGES AND CAPACITY ISSUES. IT'S MY STRONG BELIEF THAT AFTER THREE BUDGETS IN LIMBO, WE NEED TO SCRAP THIS RESERVE AND ENSURE CLARITY IN ITS PURPOSE BEFORE ALLOCATING MONEY TO A MISUNDERSTOOD OR NOT UNDERSTOOD PURPOSE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCIL MCLENNAN. FIRST UP IS COUNCIL FOR FEQUET. >> THANKS, MR. CHAIR. YEAH, EVERYTHING TOM SAID. THE REASON I SECONDED THE MOTION IS BECAUSE I HAD A SERIES OF QUESTIONS ABOUT, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT MATTERS RIGHT NOW THAT WE HAVE THIS RESERVE AND OBVIOUSLY TRACKING IT AND CREATING A POLICY FOR IT IS JUST EXTRA WORK, AND WE KNOW STAFF IS VERY OVERWHELMED AND BURDENED RIGHT NOW WITH MANY IMPORTANT THINGS, IT SEEMS LIKE A COUPLE LESS THINGS THAT STAFF HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT. I ALSO WONDER AND POSE SOME QUESTIONS TO ADMIT ABOUT THE GENERAL BUDGET POLICY, THAT THRESHOLD OF TEN TO 15% THAT WE HOLD IN THE GENERAL FUND ACCORDING TO OUR POLICY. I WANT TO, OBVIOUSLY, I THINK WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY IS FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT PERCENTAGE IS THE RIGHT RANGE. I GUESS A QUESTION FOR ADMIN IS, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE OBVIOUS IMPLICATIONS IF THAT POLICY RANGE WERE TO CHANGE, [00:40:05] IF IT WAS EIGHT TO 10%, SAY IN THE GENERAL FUND, OR IT WAS 15 TO 20%? WHAT ARE SOME OF THE OBVIOUS BENEFITS OR DISADVANTAGES OF ONE OR THE OTHER? I APPRECIATE THE BACKGROUND CONTEXT THAT WAS PROVIDED IN OUR PRE-BUDGET QUESTION IN THE COMMENTS. >> MR. VANDANE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. I JUST WANT TO GET ON THE RECORD, STAFF IS NOT OVERWHELMED. WE'RE DELIVERING SERVICES FOR THE COMMUNITY ON A DAILY BASIS, AND I THINK WE'RE DOING A FAIRLY GOOD JOB. WE DO HAVE A VERY LARGE WORKLOAD, AND WE'RE DOING IT WITH TECHNOLOGY THAT'S LESS THAN ADEQUATE, THAT WE HAVEN'T REPLACED OR INVESTED IN. BUT REST ASSURED THAT WE ARE SERVING [INAUDIBLE] TO A VERY HIGH PROFESSIONAL STANDARD, AND WE CONTINUE TO DO SO ON A REGULAR BASIS. BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE PERCENTAGE IN THE GENERAL FUND. THOSE RATES HAVE SOME LEGISLATIVE PARAMETERS, AND I'LL INVITE MR. PANDOO TO ELABORATE AND PERHAPS GIVE SOME INFORMATION ON HOW WE'RE MANAGING WITHIN THOSE THRESHOLDS AND HOW THEY'RE SET. >> MR. PANDOO. >> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, LOADED QUESTION. BUT I WOULD SAY, JUST GOING BACK TO THE QUESTION AROUND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF IT'S SIX TO 8% AND WHY IT'S TEN TO 15%. NOW, WE DO FOLLOW THE GFA GUIDELINES, WHICH THEIR PRACTICE IS TO RECOMMEND A GENERAL FUND BALANCE OF AT LEAST TWO MONTHS, WHICH IS AROUND 16.7% OF REGULAR GENERAL FUND OPERATING REVENUES OR EXPENDITURES. THIS IS RIGHT FROM THE WORD GO. THIS IS WHAT THEY RECOMMEND TO HAVE ENOUGH OF, AT LEAST OPERATIONAL MONEY. TWO MONTHS, 16.7%. TEN TO 15%. I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT LOGIC OR EXACT ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE WHEN THE TEN TO 15% WAS SET UP, BUT I CAN COMFORTABLY SAY THAT WAS PROBABLY THE BASIS OF THE START OF THAT POLICY. NOW, HAVING SAID THAT, DO THE POLICY NEED TO BE REVIEWED? THEY DO. I'M NOT SURE HOW LONG AGO THEY PUT IN PLACE, BUT LOOKING AT ALL THE DYNAMICS AND THE VOLATILITY AS TO HOW WE ARE PREPARING BUDGETS, THE COMPLEXITY OF THE FINANCIAL MARKETS. I THINK IT IS TIME TO REVIEW THEM, BUT I WOULD NOT SAY TEN TO 15% IS OUT OF NORM. >> COUNCIL FOR FEQUET. >> THANK YOU. THAT WAS SUPER HELPFUL. APOLOGIES FOR MY CHOICE OF WORDS. I DIDN'T MEAN YOU WAS OVERWHELMED IN A NEGATIVE SENSE. ABSOLUTELY APPRECIATE ALL THE AMAZING WORK YOU GUYS DO, MORE MEANT THERE'S PROBABLY BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN THESE COUPLE OF TESTS. BUT YEAH, THAT IS ACTUALLY VERY ENLIGHTENING. MR. PANDOO, THANK YOU, BECAUSE OUR RANGE IS TEN TO 15%, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THAT ASSOCIATION IS ACTUALLY FOR US, TWO MONTHS EQUALS 16%. OUR POLICY IS LOWER THAN TWO MONTHS OF OPERATING EXPENSES. YEAH. IT MAKES ME WANT TO KEEP IT NEAR THE TOP END OF THAT UNTIL WE GET A CHANCE TO REVISIT IT. THANK YOU FOR THAT FOR THAT REASON, AGAIN, I DEFINITELY WANT TO KEEP THIS MONEY IN THAT GENERAL FUND. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCIL PAINE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT TO SAY ABOUT THIS. I DIDN'T AGREE WITH THIS FUND WHEN IT FIRST GOT APPROVED. I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO PUT THIS MONEY BACK IN THE GENERAL FUND. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYTHING ELSE FROM ANY OTHER COLLEAGUES? COUNCIL COCHRANE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. THIS IS A TOUGH ONE FOR ME BECAUSE I DO WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING FOR THE MANEUVERABILITY OF OUR MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION, ESPECIALLY NOT ONLY FOR WHAT WE DEALT WITH STOAGEDIN, AS COUNCILOR ARDEN SMITH SO ELOQUENTLY PUT IT YESTERDAY. BUT ALSO THROUGH WHAT WE FACED IN 2023, I COULDN'T EVEN IMAGINE WHAT KIND OF FINANCIAL MAGIC HAD TO BE PULLED OFF TO BE ABLE TO MOVE MONEY AROUND AT THAT TIME. HAVING THAT SITTING THERE MAKES SENSE. BUT THE FACT THAT THE POLICY ISN'T CREATED, AND THAT THE RESERVE IS PUT FORWARD, IS REALLY THE WINNING ARGUMENT FOR ME ON THIS. I WILL SUPPORT THIS, GOING BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NO MAGIC, JUST HARD WORK AND GOOD ACCOUNTING, AND GOOD ADVOCACY TO OUR TERRITORIAL PARTNERS AND FEDERAL PARTNERS FOR TRANSFERS, BUT FAIR ENOUGH. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM COLLEAGUES? FOR MYSELF, I WON'T BE IN SUPPORT OF GETTING RID OF IT ENTIRELY. I WOULD IF THIS DOES FAIL, BUT IT MAY NOT PROPOSE TO REDUCE IT BY AN EXTRA 500,000, [00:45:05] I THINK, AND JUST KEEP IT AT $1 MILLION UNTIL WE GET A BUDGET POLICY IN PLACE. I APPRECIATE THE SENTIMENT OF YOURSELF, COUNCIL MCLENNAN AND BRING THIS FORWARD. I DO ACTUALLY AGREE TO A DEGREE OF NOT KEEPING IT ALL. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT'S IN OUR WORK PLAN, AND IN A SECOND, I'M GOING TO ASK ADMINISTRATION ON THE STATUS OF THAT. BUT IT'S IN OUR WORK PLAN TO GET THIS DONE. I KNOW WORK HAS BEEN HAPPENING ON IT. PERSONALLY, AND IT GETS TO WHAT COUNCIL COCHRANE YOU WERE JUST SAYING AROUND THE WILDFIRES IN 2023, WE'VE LIVED THROUGH AN EXPERIENCE WHERE HAVING SOME FLEXIBILITY IN OUR FINANCIAL CAPACITY WOULD HAVE BEEN SUPER IMPORTANT. I WOULD BE CONCERNED TO GET RID OF THIS AT THIS POINT. TO MY MIND, JUST LIKE I KEEP A RESERVE AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND I KNOW WE'RE LIKE THE ONE LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT THAT ACTUALLY OPERATES LIKE A HOUSEHOLD. THE GOVERNMENT SAY THAT POLITICIANS SAY THAT EVERYWHERE. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD OPERATE LIKE A HOUSEHOLD. WE ACTUALLY ARE THAT LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT. FOR ME, THAT'S THE COMPARATIVE. BUT WITH THAT, I'LL JUST PUT A QUESTION WITH MAN, WHEN DO WE ACTUALLY EXPECT TO SEE THE DRAFT POLICY AND HOW MUCH WORK HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE ON THAT TO DATE? MR. VANDANE. >> THANK YOU. JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS, AND I'LL INVITE MR. PANDOO TO ADD IN A MOMENT. LET ME JUST SAY THAT WE HAD A FAIRLY AMBITIOUS AND ROBUST FINANCIAL POLICY AGENDA FOR THE CITY THAT WE'VE ADVANCED SIGNIFICANTLY OVER THE PAST YEAR. THE WATER RATE POLICY WAS NOT A SMALL ENDEAVOR. OUR MILL RATE POLICY WAS NOT A SMALL ENDEAVOR. OUR VACANT LAND POLICY WAS NOT A SMALL ENDEAVOR. WHEN WE WERE MANAGING WORKLOAD AND COMPLEXITIES AND UNFORESEEN. WE DID, ARGUABLY AND TRANSPARENTLY, THROUGH OUR QUARTERLY UPDATES, NOTE THAT THIS PARTICULAR POLICY WAS SLOWING DOWN, AND SO IT DID SLOW DOWN FOR SOME OF THE REASONS THAT I ALLUDED TO. IT'S STILL ON THE WORK PLAN. WE ARE HOPING TO DO A BIT OF AN UPDATE. THOSE POLICIES THAT I'VE JUST MENTIONED ARE NOW A LITTLE BIT BEHIND US NOW, AND WE'RE GRATEFUL THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE SOME PROGRESS IN THOSE SPACES AND ON THOSE TOPICS. WE'LL BE ABLE TO DIVERT A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME. THE PRESSING MATTER FOR ME, AS A CITY MANAGER, AS WE WERE APPROACHING THE WORKLOAD THIS PAST YEAR AND GAUGING THE LEVEL OF DEMANDS ON THOSE OTHER POLICY INITIATIVES, WE WERE GETTING FURTHER AND FURTHER INTO THE INTO THE WILDFIRE SEASON, AND THAT POLICY WAS NOT GOING TO BE DONE BY THE TIME THAT THIS PAST WILDFIRE SEASON WAS THROUGH US. WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN TRY AND GET THIS POLICY IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE NEXT WILDFIRE SEASON. THAT'S THE GENERAL PLAN IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE AFTER THIS BUDGET, FOCUS A LITTLE BIT MORE ATTENTION ON THAT, SO THAT WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT SEASON. WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS, BUT THAT WILL BE THE CONVERSATION WE'LL HAVE WITH YOU IN JANUARY OR EARLY IN THE FIRST QUARTER WITH RESPECT TO A WORK PLAN UPDATE. >> ON THE OTHER MATTERS RELATED TO THE EMERGENT ISSUE FUND AND ITS TREATMENT, I'LL INVITE MR. PANDOO TO ADD. MR. PANDOO. >> THANK YOU, MR. VAN DINE. IF I MAY JUST PAUSE A LITTLE BIT, GO BACK TO THE HISTORY AS TO HOW THIS CAME ABOUT. THAT CAME DIRECTLY OUT OF THE STAFF DEBRIEF THAT HAPPENED OUT OF THE 2023 WILDFIRES. ONE OF THE CHALLENGE AT THE TIME, I WASN'T HERE. I WAS THE FIRST DEBRIEF WAS MY FIRST MEETING. ONE OF THE CHALLENGE AT THE TIME THAT WAS HIGHLIGHTED WAS A LACK OF CLARITY AT THE TIME, HOW MUCH MONEY DO WE HAVE TO, COMBAT THIS. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WHEN YOU ARE FACED WITH AN EMERGENCY SITUATION THAT YOU NEED TO ASK THAT QUESTION. IS IT BECOMES IRRELEVANT. SUBSEQUENTLY AFTER THAT, WHEN WE'VE HAD AT DIFFERENT TIMES, HAD DISCUSSION AROUND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS IN TERMS OF TRYING TO TAKE PROACTIVE MEASURES, PROACTIVE MAINTENANCE, ACTIONS, THE QUESTIONS ALWAYS CAME ABOUT AS TO HOW MUCH DO WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT YELLOW KNIFE. THIS QUESTION IS LEGITIMATE, AND I THINK WHETHER WE AGREE ON THE AMOUNT IS A DIFFERENT DEBATE. I WOULD PERSONALLY NOT RECOMMEND CUTTING OUT THIS RESERVE ALTOGETHER. I DO THINK BASED ON THE FEEDBACK, THERE IS VALUE IN KEEPING IT. AS MR. VAN DINE SAID, [00:50:02] THE POLICY IS PROBABLY AROUND 70, 75% COMPLETE. WE JUST NEED TO GO BACK TO IT BECAUSE ONE WORKLOAD AND SECOND. THERE HAS BEEN WE HAVE TO PAUSE BECAUSE RECENTLY THERE WAS CHANGES TO THE NWT EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACT. WE HAD TO PAUSE A BIT TO MAKE SURE WHATEVER WE'RE DOING DOES ALIGN HOLISTICALLY TO EVERYTHING. THESE ARE ONE OF TWO REASONS WHY IT HAS BEEN IN THE PIPELINE FOR SO LONG. BUT IF I WOULD RECOMMEND TO KEEP IT FOR NOW, WE CAN DEBATE ON THE AMOUNT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH. I MEAN, WHEN I JUST THINK ABOUT IT, I GO BACK TO AND MR. PANDOO, MR. VAN DINE WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE REVIEW FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL. I THINK BACK TO OUR OWN, WE DID THE KPMG EXTERNAL REVIEW OF THE RESPONSE PART OF IT WAS IN BETWEEN THAT AND OUR OWN COUNSEL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING. ALL OF THAT CAME TO OUR JOB AS COUNSEL IS MAKING SURE THE POLICY STRUCTURES ARE IN PLACE, STRATEGIC STRUCTURES ARE IN PLACE, AND THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT IS IN PLACE TO RESPOND TO EMERGENCIES. TO ME, GETTING RID OF THIS ENTIRELY I WOULD FEEL LIKE I'M NOT RESPONDING TO THAT. AGAIN, I'M OKAY DROPPING IT TO A MILLION BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE HAVE FULL CLARITY YET. WHEN I HAVE POSE THIS QUESTION IN THE PRE BUDGET, SEEM LIKE EDMAN DIDN'T TOTALLY BALK AT THAT SUGGESTION. I FEAR THAT IF WE'RE CLOSE TO HAVING A POLICY IN PLACE, MEETING ALL OF THOSE REASONS THAT I JUST DESCRIBED. IF WE SCRAP IT ENTIRELY, THEN WHEN IT COMES TO BUDGET 2027 OR 28, WE'RE GOING TO BE HAVING TO PUT ALL OF THAT MONEY BACK IN, WHICH ACTUALLY HAS A BIGGER TAX INCREASE HIT DOWN THE LINE. WE'RE JUST DELAYING THE INEVITABLE. IF WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT POLICY PATH FORWARD. IF SOMEBODY BELIEVES THAT IT'S NOT THE RIGHT POLICY PATH FORWARD, FAIR ENOUGH. BUT FOR ME, THAT'S MY LOGIC IS. I DO THINK THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT POLICY PATH FORWARD. THEREFORE, WE HAVE THE MONEY ALLOCATED ALREADY. I'D AGAIN BE FINE DROPPING IT TO 1 MILLION, BUT I WOULDN'T PERSONALLY BE OKAY WITH JUST GETTING RID OF IT ENTIRELY. THAT'S FOR ME. WITH THAT SECOND ROUND TO ANYBODY, COUNSEL MCGURK. >> THANK YOU. I THINK I GUESS I WANT TO AND BELIEVE WE HAVE TO TRUST STAFF AND ALSO TRUST THAT NEXT COUNCIL WILL HOLD ADMINISTRATION TO ACCOUNT IN THE NEXT PUT OF DELIBERATION. I'M COMFORTABLE LEAVING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IN BUT WOULD ALSO BE OKAY WITH REDUCING IT TO A MILLION. I THINK IF THIS POLICY COMES OUT AND IT IS VERY APPARENT THAT WE NEED TO PUT BACK THAT 0.5, THEN I DON'T WANT THE NEXT COUNCIL TO BE FACED WITH THAT CHOICE. [LAUGHTER] I WANT IT TO BE JUST THERE. BUT, I DON'T SUPPORT CUTTING IT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNSEL CAT. >> THANKS, MR. CHAIR. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY TWO THINGS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE'RE HAVING THREE DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS HERE. >> WE'RE ALLOWED TO UNDER. THAT'S MOTION, BUT THAT'S OKAY. >> YEAH. IN MY MIND, THE THREE CONVERSATIONS WE'RE ACTUALLY HAVING ARE. ONE IS WHETHER WE WANT THIS FUND OR NOT FOR EMERGING ISSUES, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE A POLICY FOR CURRENTLY, AND CURRENTLY THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOW THAT MONEY IS SPENT BECAUSE EDMAN WOULD NEED TO COME TO COUNSEL TO SPEND IT, SAME AS THE GENERAL FUND. SECOND, WE'RE HAVING A RISK MANAGEMENT CONVERSATION. ANY ORGANIZATION I'VE EVER VOLUNTEERED WITH OR SERVED ON, WE ALWAYS HAVE THREE MONTHS OF OPERATING. BASED ON MR. PANDOO'S DIGITS SERVE 16%, THREE MONTHS WOULD BE 24%, WHICH IS A CRAZY BIG GENERAL FUND, AND THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY THE CITY IS HOLDING ONTO AND NOT SPENDING FOR ITS RESIDENTS. THAT'S A RISK MANAGEMENT CONVERSATION AND MAYBE WE FEEL LIKE WITH EVERYTHING GOING ON IN THE WORLD, WE WANT TO HAVE THAT THREE MONTHS OF BEING ABLE TO RUN THE CITY IF THE WORLD IS ENDING. BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION. THEN JUST TO CONFIRM, THERE'S THE MONEY CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER WE KEEP THE FUND OR NOT? WE CAN ALSO PUT THE MONEY IN THE GENERAL FUND AND THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY A TAX DIFFERENCE FOR FOLKS NEXT YEAR BECAUSE THAT WE STILL HAVE THAT MONEY. IT'S JUST IN THE GENERAL FUND. THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY A TAX IMPLICATION EITHER WAY. WE STILL HAVE THE MONEY, WE STILL NEED TO BE ASKED TO SPEND IT. SOUNDS LIKE THE QUESTION WE'RE ASKING RIGHT NOW, IS THERE'S A POLICY, THREE QUARTERS OF THE WAY DONE? DO WE WANT TO KEEP THE CONCEPT OF A RESERVE? WHETHER THERE'S MONEY OR NOT ACTUALLY DOESN'T MATTER RIGHT NOW. THAT'S A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW MUCH TO PUT IN IT OR HOW MUCH OF A GENERAL FUND? DO WE WANT TO TO COVER THE CITY'S OPERATING EXPENSES FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF MONTHS? [00:55:03] IS THAT CORRECT, MR. CHAIR? [LAUGHTER]. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I WASN'T I WAS FOLLOWING EVERYTHING. >> IT IS CORRECT. IT'S THE PHILOSOPHICAL. I MEAN, IT'S ALSO FOR MYSELF, KEEPING IT TIED TO THAT MEANS THAT WE DON'T POTENTIALLY APPLY ELSE GOING FORWARD. >> WHETHER THROUGH THESE DELIBERATIONS OR FURTHER INTO THE YEAR, ADMIN COMES BACK TO US WITH A DIFFERENT ASKER. SOMEBODY HAS A DIFFERENT IDEA AND SAYS, WE WANT TO APPLY FOR SOMETHING OR WE WANT TO SPEND IT ON SOMETHING, THEN IT'S ALREADY ALLOCATED TO HERE. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCES. FOR ME, IT'S KEEPING IT TIED TO THIS BECAUSE PERSONALLY, PHILOSOPHICALLY, I SEE THE VALUE FROM A RISK MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE, TYING IT TO THIS, WAITING FOR THE POLICY TO BE DEVELOPED. HOWEVER, SOMEBODY ELSE, AND IT'S A FAIR POINT THAT YOU BRING UP, AND YES, IT WOULD JUST GO BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND. IT JUST COULD BE APPLIED ELSEWHERE. IT'S 100% OF PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCE. NO DIFFERENCE. YEAH, EVERYBODY COULD LOOK AT IT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY. COUNSEL FEQUE. >> RIGHT NOW, THE 1.5 MILLION THAT IS PROPOSED TO REMAIN IN THIS FUND, CAN CONFIRM IF THEIR UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S JUST FOR A WILDFIRE RELATED RESPONSE OR IT'S FOR ANY EMERGING ISSUE OR EMERGENCY EVENT THAT MIGHT HAPPEN? >> AGAIN, POLICY IS STILL BEING DRAFTED, BUT AS DISCUSSED IN THE PAST, BUT I'LL PASS OVER TO MR. VAN DINE. SECOND. AS DISCUSSED IN THE PAST, IT WOULD LIKELY BE A BROADER SCOPE THAN JUST THAT, BUT MR. VAN DINE,. >> NO, THAT'S 100% RIGHT. THE ORIGINAL HISTORICAL PARAMETERS OF US IN THE ORIGIN STORY OF ESTABLISHING THAT AMOUNT WAS RELATED TO WILDFIRE. MY CHOICE IN TERMS OF PRIORITY SETTING AS TO WHERE WE WERE PUTTING MR. PANDOO POLICY ENERGIES, I SAW I POINTED TO THE SEASONALITY OF WILDFIRES AS PASSING US BY. THEREFORE, IT BEING, POTENTIALLY NOT WHERE WE WOULD PUT THE ENERGY, BUT YOU ARE CORRECT, MR. CHAIR, YOU ARE CORRECT. COUNSELOR FACET, THE EMERGENT ISSUES FUND IS MORE THAN JUST A WILDFIRE RESPONSE. IT'S FOR ANY EMERGENT ISSUE THAT WOULD ARISE COLD WEATHER RELATED OR OTHERWISE. THAT IS CORRECT. >>COUNSEL FEQUE, ANYTHING FURTHER? ANYONE ELSE FOR QUESTIONS YET. YOU CAN WRAP IT UP, COUNSEL MCCLENNAN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS FROM MY COLLEAGUES. I THINK JUST TO MAKE MY POSITION CLEAR. I APPRECIATE COUNSELOR FORCES WRAP UP OF THE MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS. FOR ME, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I WOULD SUPPORT AN EMERGING ISSUES RESERVE OR HOW MUCH MONEY IN THERE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WOULD BE USED FOR. FOLLOWING 2023 IN THE RESPONSE TO THAT, I BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS SOME LEEWAY TO BE GIVEN IN HAVING SOME MONEY AVAILABLE AND WAITING FOR A POLICY AFTER THREE BUDGETS AND DELIBERATING OVER THE LAST OF MY ELECTED TERM. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I CAN SUPPORT USING THIS MONEY FOR THAT PURPOSE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PURPOSE IS. I WANT THE MONEY TO BE AVAILABLE IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR WHATEVER WE DEEM APPROPRIATE, IF IT'S LEAVING IT THERE, IF IT'S USING FOR SOMETHING. BUT SPENDING ANOTHER YEAR AND MOVING INTO A PLACE WHERE I DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY YAY OR NAY TO HOW THE MONEY IS ALLOCATED AND WHAT THE PURPOSE OF IT IS FOR. I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE LEAVING THE MONEY ANOTHER YEAR IN A IN A POT THAT I MAY OR MAY NOT SUPPORT ITS USE. >> THAT'S A WRAP ON THAT ONE. TO THE MOTION TO REDUCE THE SIZE OR SORRY, THAT COUNSEL SCRAP THE EMERGING ISSUES RESERVE IN ITS CURRENT FORM AND LEAVE THE 1.5 MILLION IN THE GENERAL FUND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. COUNCIL MCCLENNAN, COUNSEL PAINE, COUNSEL FEQUE, ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THAT'S THE REST OF US. NO, I MIGHT COME BACK TO IT LATER IN OUR CONVERSATIONS, BUT THANK YOU, COUNCILOR COCHRANE. COUNCILOR COCHRANE WAS REFERRING TO MY REFERENCE THAT WHETHER OR NOT TO REDUCE IT TO A MILLION DOLLAR, BUT I WANT TO SEE HOW THE REST OF OUR CONVERSATION GOES OVER THE REMAINDER OF TONIGHT AND GET TO THE REST OF IT. IF WE THEN ARE LOOKING AT RESERVE SHIFTS, WHETHER WE NEED TO MOVE MONEY FROM HERE TO THE GENERAL FUND GENERALLY AND THEN MAYBE WE MOVE THINGS AROUND. BUT LET'S GET THROUGH THE REST OF THE BUDGET. WITH THAT, QUESTION. YES. GO AHEAD, COUNSEL WARBURTON. >> IT'S A QUESTION ON RESERVES AND THINGS TO WAIT TO THAT SECTION OR? >> IT DEPENDS. WHICH RESERVES ARE YOU GOING FOR? >> IT'S IN GENERAL. BASICALLY, HOW MUCH DID WE DRAW DOWN ALL THE RESERVES, VARIOUS RESERVES AND PREPARE THE BUDGET. >> FAIR ENOUGH. MR. VAN DINE. [01:00:01] >> MR. PANDOO, TO WALK US THROUGH HOW WE TREATED THE RESERVES IN THE PREPARATION OF BUDGET 2026 DRAFT. >> MR. PANDOO. >> THAT'S A VERY DIFFICULT QUESTION. IT JUST DEPENDS ON THE RESERVE. IF I CAN JUST GIVE YOU ONE EXAMPLE FOR IT RESERVE. WE KNOW WE DO FOLLOW A PROACTIVE APPROACH OF LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT IN TERMS OF THE REPLACEMENT OF ALL OUR INTERNAL ASSET, NOT THE ASSETS, THE IT SOFTWARES AND HARDWARES, SO THERE IS 400,000 THAT GETS DRAWN FROM THE RESERVE THAT GOES FOR USE EVERY YEAR. THAT'S ONE EXAMPLE AS TO HOW WE DICTATE A LITTLE BIT OF HOW WE TRANSFER THOSE RESERVES. I WOULD SAY MOST OF IT DOES FOLLOW A LITTLE BIT THAT PATTERN. I DO HAVE IN MIND, THE MOF RESERVE, WHICH IS AGAIN DICTATED BY THE LIFE CYCLE REPLACEMENT COST OF THE FLEET. >> SORRY, I'LL BE MORE SPECIFIC. WERE ANY OF THE RESERVES OUTSIDE OF THOSE NORMAL TRANSFERS BETWEEN RESERVES TO CAPITAL FUND, WERE ANY OF THOSE RESERVES DRAWN DOWN TO DECREASE THE TAX BURDEN, SIMILAR TO THE EMERGING ISSUES REFUND WHERE WE JUST DREW DOWN 2 MILLION BUCKS, ESSENTIALLY WE MOVED IT OVER. WERE ANY OF THE RESERVES USED THAT WAY TO DECREASE THE TAX IMPACT? >> MR. PANDOO? >> SORRY. COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION, PLEASE? >> GO AHEAD, COUNSEL WARBURTON. WE CITY MANAGER SAID, THE EMERGING ISSUES FINE WAS DECREASED, AND THAT WAS USED TO BASICALLY OFFSET, BRING THE TAX NUMBER PERCENTAGE DOWN, ESSENTIALLY. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF THAT COMMENT. >> CORRECT. >> WERE ANY OTHER RESERVES SIMILARLY TREATED AND WERE THEY USED TO DECREASE JUST PURELY DECREASE THAT TAX BURDEN AS OPPOSED TO THE NORMAL TRANSFER AS PER NORMAL. >> THANK YOU. NO. THE ANSWER IS NO, BECAUSE THE HOW WE USE THE RESERVE IS DICTATED ALREADY BY THE TERMS OF WHEN THE RESERVES WERE SET UP. WE CANNOT USE THEM TO DECREASE TAXES. THE REASON THE EMERGING ISSUES RESERVE BETWEEN INVERTED COMMAS WAS USED BECAUSE IT IS STILL PART OF THE GENERAL FUND. THE GENERAL FUND IS THE ONLY FUND THAT IS A BIT FLEXIBLE, THAT COUNCIL HAS HISTORICALLY USED AS WELL TO REDUCE TAXES, AND THAT'S THE ONLY RESERVE. AWESOME. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW WE GET INTO THE MEAT OF THE ON. COUNCIL MCCLENNAN, GO FOR IT. >> THANK YOU. ONE MORE OVERARCHING WHOLE BUDGET QUESTION, OPERATIONAL QUESTION. JUST NOTING, SO I WENT THROUGH AND COMPARED THE OVERALL INCREASE OF THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES WERE GIVEN, SO WAGES AND BENEFITS, GENERAL SERVICES, MATERIALS, MAINTENANCE, ETC, BETWEEN THE 2018 BUDGET AND THE 2026 BUDGET, JUST TO SEE WHAT'S INCREASING THE MOST, AND IT'S GENERAL SERVICES AT 89% INCREASE, WHEREAS WAGES AND BENEFITS ARE A 63%, MAINTENANCE, 65%, POWER, 32%. READING THE BUDGET, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO KNOW WHAT'S BEING SPENT EXACTLY AND WHAT'S GOING IN AND WHAT VALUES BEING PROVIDED TO RESIDENTS IN THE GENERAL SERVICES CATEGORY. JUST LOOKING FOR A COMMENT FROM ADMIN ON WHAT WE'RE DOING TO CONTROL THOSE INCREASES, JUST GIVEN THAT THAT'S SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN ALMOST ALL EVERYTHING ELSE. THE ONLY ONE GREATER JUST FOR CONTEXT WAS FUEL AT 97%, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE WAS 60%. >> MR. VAN DINE. >> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ELABORATE. I THINK MR. PANDOO'S PRESENTATION ON NOVEMBER 4TH WENT INTO THAT TO SOME DEGREE, AND THIS IS AN IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITY TO REMIND COUNCIL AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT MAY BE WATCHING THAT THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE IS ALSO A TAKER OF COST INCREASES LIKE FAMILIES ARE AND BUSINESSES ARE. IN MANY INSTANCES, WE HAVE LIMITED ABILITY. WE HAVE TO TAKE THE PRICES THAT WE'RE GIVEN IN MANY CASES, WHETHER IT'S SUPPLIES, FUEL, ELECTRICITY. ALL THE THINGS THAT HOMEOWNERS AND FAMILIES ARE HAVING TO DEAL WITH, WE TOO. THAT COMES AND BEARS ON OUR COSTS. WE, AS A MUNICIPALITY WE ARE ARGUABLY MORE TRANSPARENT IN MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE SHOWING WHERE THOSE COST INCREASES ARE OCCURRING, [01:05:01] WHEN THEY'RE OCCURRING, AND WHAT THEY MAY MEAN FOR ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESSES, AND WHAT THAT MIGHT MEAN FOR THE OPPORTUNITY FOR COUNCIL TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE COST INCREASES. BUT IN TERMS OF THE GENERAL SERVICES AND THE POINTS MADE, YOU REFERENCED IN PASSING WAGES AND THAT THE RELATIVE INCREASES THERE, THOSE ARE OBVIOUSLY DRIVEN BY COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS AND THE SUCH. THERE ARE ALL DRIVERS TOWARDS THAT. THE CITY ITSELF DOES HAVE A VERY LIMITED ABILITY TO CONTROL THOSE COSTS, SO I DO APPRECIATE THE ANXIETY THAT IT CREATES WHEN YOU'RE SEEING, SINCE 2018 TO NOW, THE DRAMATIC INCREASES IN CERTAIN AREAS. IT IS A LITTLE BIT DISCONCERTING AND STRESS-MAKING, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU GOT TO TRANSLATE THAT INTO MEETING OUR LEGISLATIVE OBLIGATIONS OF A BALANCED BUDGET. IT'S NOT EASY. WITH RESPECT TO THOSE INCREASES AND WHAT WE'RE DOING TO CONTROL, WE ARE TRYING TO IMPROVE OUR ASSET MANAGEMENT, WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE FOLLOWING PROCUREMENT PROCESSES THAT ALLOW US TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE FINDING A FAIR PRICE. WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT THE PROCESSES THAT WE ARE FOLLOWING FOR MANAGEMENT AND EXPENDITURE ARE BEING DONE CORRECTLY, AND THEREFORE BEING SUBJECT TO AUDIT. WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT IF WE ARE MAKING A MISTAKE, WE ARE MAKING A MISTAKE QUICKLY AND IN PUBLIC SO THAT IT CAN BE CORRECTED IF THOSE MISTAKES ARE MADE, WHICH IS A PART OF THE ACCOUNTABILITY PROCESS. WE'RE WORKING HARD TO MAKE SURE THAT THE EXPENDITURE AND THE USE OF THOSE DOLLARS ARE GOING TO THE BEST PLACES WITH THE PARAMETERS AND THE LEGISLATIVE GUIDELINES THAT WE NEED TO FOLLOW. BUT MR. PANDOO, ON GENERAL SERVICES, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? >> MR. PANDOO. >> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. NOT SPECIFICALLY, BUT I WOULD SAY 2018 WAS A LONG TIME AGO, PRE-PANDEMIC, AND I WOULD USE TWO LINES, TWO WORDS THAT COUNCILOR MCLENNAN PROBABLY LOVE. PRICE ELASTICITY OF DEMAND AND PRICE ELASTICITY OF SUPPLY. THEY'VE GONE BONKERS SINCE 2020. YOU COULD HAVE REASONABILITY IN ESTIMATING COST AND COST CONTROL MEASURES THAT YOU CAN PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE PANDEMIC. AFTER THAT, IT HAS BECOME EVEN MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT TO DO THAT. BUT DO REMEMBER, THERE'S TWO ASPECT TO IT. THERE'S INTERNAL ASPECT TO THE PRICE CONTROLS AND THERE'S EXTERNAL ASPECT TO IT. WE ARE TRYING AS MANY THINGS AS WE CAN. MR. VAN DINE DID TOUCH ON SOME OF THE PROCUREMENT PRACTICES THAT WE'RE DOING INTERNAL REVIEWING AT EVERY QUARTER THAT WE DO INTERNALLY. BUT THERE'S ALSO THAT BIGGEST ELEMENT, WHICH IS THE EXTERNAL FACTOR THAT WE DO NOT CONTROL. IT NOW BECOMES VERY DIFFICULT TO GET ALL PRICING IN CONTROL. THANK YOU. >> COUNCILOR MCLENNAN. >> THANKS VERY MUCH FOR THE ANSWER AND THE WORK TO DO, MAKE THOSE CHOICES AND CONTROL EXPENSES. THANKS TO THE ANSWERS TO ALL OF COUNCIL'S QUESTIONS BEFOREHAND AND ALL THE NOTES IN THE BUDGET. THE NOTES ARE AMAZING FOR PUBLIC TO SEE WHAT MONEY IS BEING SPENT ON AND SEE THROUGH SOME BIG NUMBERS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW WE GET INTO THE MEAT OF THINGS. IF WE GO TO PAGE 27, WE'RE UP FIRST, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, WE HAVE THE OVERVIEW. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS? COUNCILOR MCLENNAN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'D LIKE TO MOVE A MOTION. >> BY ALL MEANS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'D MOVE A MOTION TO INCREASE COMMUNITY GRANT FUNDING BY $46,800 FROM 2026 ONWARD. THIS INCREASE WOULD BE SPLIT IN THE CURRENT PROPORTIONS BETWEEN MULTI-YEAR SPONSORSHIP AND COMMUNITY GRANTS, ALTHOUGH I'M NOT SET IN THE RATIO, AND THAT'S A 10% INCREASE OVERALL. >> I DIDN'T THINK OF THIS, AND I APOLOGIZE. JUST BEFORE WE GET TO SECOND. I'M THINKING IF YOU JUST FOCUS ON INCREASING IT OVERALL, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THE POLICY ALLOWS THE GRANT REVIEW COMMITTEE TO ALLOCATE IT AS THEY WANT. IF YOU JUST STICK TO INCREASE THE COMMITTEE GRANTS BY, IS IT $46,800? PERFECT. RATHER THAN GETTING INTO THE ALLOCATIONS. SECOND, IF THERE IS ONE. COUNCILOR FEQUET. COUNCILOR MCLENNAN, IF YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS DO A LOT OF THE HEAVY LIFTING IN OUR CITY, AND THAT HELPS MAKE THE PLACE WE LOVE AN ENJOYABLE AND HEALTHY PLACE TO LIVE. [01:10:05] IT'S GREAT THAT RESIDENTS THROUGH THEIR TAX DOLLARS HELP SUPPORT THESE ORGANIZATIONS. HOWEVER, THE SUPPORT HAS NOT INCREASED SINCE 2016 PRE-PANDEMIC AND PRE-ALL THOSE COST CHANGES. THIS TIME, INFLATION HAS INCREASED 27%. THIS IS FORCING THE GRANT REVIEW COMMITTEE TO REJECT SOME APPLICATIONS, LOWER THE FUNDING ALLOCATED TO SOME APPLICANTS, AND HOLD FUNDING STUDY ACROSS THE BOARD DESPITE VERY REASONABLE AND SOMETIMES NECESSARY REQUESTS FOR INCREASES. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS MOTION? COUNCILOR MCGURK. >> I'M FULLY IN SUPPORT. I'VE WORKED IN NONPROFIT SINCE I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL, AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE A COMMUNITY THAT WE WANT TO LIVE IN WITHOUT THE VARIOUS PEOPLE WHO PUT A LOT INTO OUR COMMUNITY. I THOUGHT THAT I WOULD EVEN RAISE IT MORE. [LAUGHTER] I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. >> WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO AMEND IT. [LAUGHTER] COUNCILOR PAYNE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. QUESTION FOR ADMIN, DOES THIS FALL IN LINE WITH OUR POLICY, THIS AMOUNT. >> MR. VAN DINE? >> I'M GOING TO MAYBE REQUIRE SOME ASSISTANCE. >> IF YOU WANT, I COULD EVEN GIVE YOU THE ASSISTANCE. I SUPPOSE I COULD HAVE ANSWERED IT BEFORE MR. RANDA. >> I WAS JUST CHECKING ANOTHER BUDGET ITEM, SORRY. >> NO, YOU'RE FINE. ULTIMATELY, THE AMOUNT IN THE RESERVE POT, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, IS ULTIMATELY UP TO COUNCIL. THEN WHAT IS IN THE POLICY IS HOW YOU CAN ALLOCATE IT. THE COMMUNITY GRANTS, SPONSORSHIP GRANTS, AND MULTI-YEAR FUNDING, AND THAT HAS DIFFERENT LEVELS THAT YOU CAN CAP IT AT. I THINK I MIGHT GO TO MR. WHITE ON THIS ONE, WE LOOKED AT THIS THE OTHER DAY, BUT IF YOU WANT TO SPECIFICS, WE CAN GET IT LATER, BUT IT'S I THINK 20% UP TO $10,000 OR 20% UP TO $30,000 FOR THE COMMUNITY GRANT OR SPONSORSHIP. BUT IN TERMS OF THE ACTUAL AMOUNT, THAT'S COUNCIL'S DECISION, HOW IT'S ALLOCATED IS WHAT'S IN THE POLICY. BUT COUNCIL COULD DECIDE TO PUT $20,000 IN THIS RESERVE. >> I JUST THOUGHT WE HAD A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF OUR TAX REVENUE THAT WE PUT INTO THIS FUND. >> IT CAN'T BE MORE THAN 2%. >> CAN'T BE MORE THAN 2%. >> CORRECT. >> WITH THE ADDITION OF THE $46,000, DOES THAT LIE WITHIN THAT 2%? THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. >> NOW I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. THAT I BELIEVE SO, BUT MR. VAN DINE, I'M GOING TO PASS THAT ONE TO YOU. COUNCILOR MCLENNAN SEEMS TO HAVE HIS OWN ANSWER, SO COUNCILOR MCLENNAN. >> LAST YEAR, IT WAS ABOUT 0.8%. THIS INCREASE, I WOULD HAVE TO DO THE MATH. IF IT'S 10%, THAT WOULD BE 0.92. THERE YOU GO. >> THANK YOU. I LIKE IT. THANK YOU FOR THE QUICK MATH, EVERYBODY. COUNCILOR FEQUET'S UP FIRST AND THEN COUNCILOR COCHRANE. >> I FULLY SUPPORT IT. I THINK EVERYBODY KNOWS THE NOT-FOR-PROFIT AND CHARITABLE SECTOR IN OUR COMMUNITIES IS REALLY THE LIFELINE, AND WE TALKED A LOT IN THE BEGINNING OF OUR TERM ABOUT LEVERAGING ORGANIZATIONS AND INITIATIVES AND ENERGY WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY. THE $46,000 THAT WE KNOW WHEN WE HAND THAT OUT TO DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS ARE GOING TO PUT THEIR OWN MONEY AND APPLY FOR OTHER MONEY AND IT'S JUST GOING TO ANTE UP. THAT'S HOW THIS WORKS, AND I WOULD ALSO HAVE SUPPORTED A HIGHER INCREASE, BUT I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THIS. >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR CALL? COUNCILOR COCHRANE, APOLOGIES. GO FOR IT. >> NO, I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING SO FORGETTABLE. [LAUGHTER] ALMOST EVERYBODY ON THIS COUNCIL HAVE SERVED IN A BUNCH OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS, WHETHER AS A VOLUNTEER OR AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD. I KNOW HOW FAR A LOT OF THESE GRANTS GO TO BE ABLE TO NOT ONLY WORK WITHIN THE OPERATIONS, BUT ALSO KEEP THE ORGANIZATIONS GOING. I THINK THE 10% INCREASE IS A VERY REASONABLE ASK, AND I WILL FULLY SUPPORT THAT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE, THEN TO THE MOTION TO INCREASE THE COMMUNITY GRANTS BY $46,800. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT IS UNANIMOUS. WITH THAT, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON PAGE 27? SEEING NONE, PAGE 28 AND 29 ARE ACTUALLY GOING OVER THE GRANTS, SO WE CAN SKIP THOSE. NEXT, WE HAVE THE ADMINISTRATION SECTION ON PAGE 33. [01:15:03] ANY QUESTIONS ON THE STAFFING PAGE? SEEING NONE. IF I'M GOING TOO FAST AT ANY TIME, ANYBODY, YELL AT ME, YOU CAN TELL ME TO GO BACK. WE WON'T GO OVER THE TOP LINE ON 35, SO WE'LL GO TO PAGE 36, WHICH IS THE CITY MANAGER BUDGET PAGE. ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILOR COCHRANE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I SHOULD HAVE PROBABLY ASKED THIS PRIOR WHEN I WAS GOING THROUGH. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT GOT ME WHEN WE DID TWO FOR MATERIALS ON PAGE 37 WAS LONG SERVICE BONUSES EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIPS. CAN YOU DEFINE TO ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIPS? >> MR. VAN DINE. DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT PAGE? >> YEAH, I DO. >> FIRE AWAY. >> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIPS, WE'VE GOT SOME TERMINOLOGY, BUT ESSENTIALLY IT'S THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL STAFF GATHERINGS, SOME OF THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE DO FOR OUTREACH, AND IN SOME CASES, THE AWARDS CASES. WE DO HAVE SOME OF THAT THAT'S BEING DONE THROUGH HR, BUT THERE IS SOME IN THE CITY MANAGER'S BUDGET FOR SUCH THINGS. >> COUNCILOR COCHRANE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. NO, I JUST FOUND IT RELATIVELY AMBIGUOUS, SO I SUPPOSEDLY LOOK FOR CLARITY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> NOTHING UNTOWARD, THAT'S FOR SURE. >> ALWAYS GOOD TO ASK A QUESTION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE CITY MANAGER BUDGET? SEEING NONE, THEN WE HAVE THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION. SEEING NONE, EXECUTIVE AND STRATEGIC SUPPORT DIVISION. SEEING NONE, NEXT, WE HAVE GENERAL FUND FISCAL SERVICES, PAGE 39 OF THE DOCUMENT. ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE. I'M JUST MAKING SURE THAT I'M CATCHING UP TO MYSELF HERE, FOLLOWING MULTIPLE PAGES. NEXT, WE HAVE PAGE 41. WE HAVE THE START OF COMMUNITY SERVICES, AND WE HAVE THE OVERALL STAFFING SUMMARY ON PAGE 42. ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILOR MCLENNAN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY QUESTION IS ABOUT THE DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT INITIATIVE. WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE LOOKING TO ACHIEVE WITH THIS, AND HOW WILL WE QUANTIFY SUCCESS OR FAILURE? >> MR. VAN DINE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS WHOLE PACKAGE INCLUDES A FEW THINGS. ONE OF THE ITEMS WE SPOKE ABOUT LAST NIGHT WITH THE QUICKER PICKER PER SNOW REMOVAL APPARATUS. THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE BROADER UMBRELLA OF DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT. IT ALSO INCLUDES COMPONENTS HERE IN COMMUNITY SERVICES, WHICH IS WHERE WE IDENTIFIED AN INCREASED SERVICE LEVEL FOR BASICALLY WASTE REMOVAL, GARBAGE PICKUP IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. RESIDENTS CERTAINLY SEE A HIGHER LEVEL OF SERVICE THAN THEY MIGHT SEE IN THE WINTER MONTHS THROUGH THE SUMMER, AND WE HAVE BEEN MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE THIS CITY PRESENTED AS POSSIBLY IN THE BRIGHTNESS OF 24-HOUR SUNLIGHT AND ACTIVITIES THAT HAPPEN IN THE DOWNTOWN AND WE SEEM TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE A CERTAIN LEVEL OF AESTHETIC IN THE DOWNTOWN DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS. TURNING TO THE DOWNTOWN IN THE WINTER MONTHS, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE WAS AN INTEREST IN CERTAINLY SOME SEGMENTS OF THE POPULATION OR PUBLIC THAT WOULD BRING TO OUR ATTENTION THROUGH CLICK AND FIX AND OTHER THINGS, HIGHER LEVELS OF GARBAGE AND REMOVAL. WHEN WE MADE THE SHIFT TO TRY AND MAINTAIN THAT SERVICE LEVEL FOR THE DOWNTOWN, IT DID PRESENT A BIT OF A MATERIAL CHANGE IN TERMS OF WHAT FTE COMPOSITION WE MIGHT MEAN. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO CAPTURE HERE. WE CAN ELABORATE MORE ON THAT SINCE WE'VE HAD QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION IN THE LAST FEW DAYS. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE HE'S TEEING YOU UP TO ASK FURTHER QUESTION ON ELABORATE MORE, BUT I'LL LET YOU DECIDE. >> JUST SEEMS SO HARD TO JUDGE SUCCESS. [01:20:01] WHAT HAPPENS IF WE AREN'T LIKING HOW IT'S GOING, HOW ARE WE GOING TO ADJUST TO THAT? >> THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT, AND THANK YOU AND THAT I LET THE THREAD GET A LITTLE BAR AT THE END OF MY RESPONSE AROUND PERFORMANCE MEASURES. GLOBALLY SPEAKING FOR THE ENTIRE DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT PACKAGE. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE WILL NEED TO BE MONITORING AND EVALUATING ON EACH OF ITS COMPONENTS. LAST NIGHT, MR. GREENORN SPOKE ABOUT HOW WE WOULD BE MONITORING LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE AND THE METRICS THAT THEY WOULD BE KEEPING WITH RESPECT TO SNOW REMOVAL. I THINK WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO THAT THROUGH SOME OF THE PRACTICES THAT PUBLIC WORKS DOES IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF METERS OF SNOW REMOVED IN A PERIOD OF TIME, WHICH IS THE MEASURE I THINK THAT WAS COMMUNICATED LAST NIGHT ON SERVICE STANDARD FOR USING THIS SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT. IN THE CASE OF MUNICIPAL ENFORCEMENT, WHICH IS ALSO A COMPONENT PART, WE'LL GET TO THAT IN THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPONENT, BUT WE ARE ASKING FOR TWO MED OFFICERS TO ENHANCE PRESENCE AND AVAILABILITY AND SERVICE IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, GIVEN THAT IT'S AN AREA OF FOCUS IDENTIFIED BY RESIDENTS AS BEING AN AREA REQUIRING ATTENTION. THERE, MR. MCCLEAN IS WORKING QUITE A DILIGENTLY TO TRY AND MAINTAIN REGULAR REPORTING ON A HOST OF THINGS RELATED TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE ABLE TO REPORT TO COUNSEL. AN ELEMENT OF THAT WAS CERTAINLY DONE THIS PAST SPRING WHEN WE BROUGHT IN OUR INCREASED MED PRIORITIES, WHICH DID INCLUDE THE DOWNTOWN. WE'LL CONTINUE TO REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL ON EACH OF THESE COMPONENTS. ON THE COMMUNITY SERVICES SIDE, IT IS A DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO SERVICE STANDARDS OF GARBAGE AVAILABILITY. AGAIN, CLICK AND FIX AND OTHER THINGS HAVE POINTED TO RESIDENTS A BIT OF AN UPTAKE, I WOULD SAY, BASED ON THE CALLS THAT I RECEIVE AND THE EMAILS THAT I GET DURING THE WINTER MONTHS WITH RESPECT TO GARBAGE IN THE DOWNTOWN IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO ADDRESS THROUGH THIS PROPOSAL, AND THAT WE'VE ASKED FOR INCREMENTAL RESOURCES TO ALLOW US TO DO THAT PARTICULAR COMPONENT. BUT ON YOUR GENERAL QUESTION ABOUT DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT AS A PACKAGE ON ALL OF THOSE ELEMENTS I'VE DESCRIBED, WE WILL NEED TO MAINTAIN METRICS, BRING IT BACK TO COUNSEL AND GIVE COUNSEL THE ABILITY TO AT ANOTHER BUDGET, DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO CONTINUE FUNDING AT THOSE LEVELS. APPRECIATING THAT ONCE YOU GET INTO THE WORLD OF POSITIONS AND PYS AND FTES, THEN IT BECOMES COMPLICATED BUT NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN'T UNDO IF THAT WAS THE WILL OF COUNSEL. >> COUNCIL MCCLEAN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH, PASS IT TO COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR THOUGHTS AND THEN POTENTIALLY COME BACK AFTER. >> DEPUTY MAYOR WARD IS NEXT. >> ON THE FTES. WE HAD A PRESENTATION ON THAT WHICH HAD TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT IN THOSE POSITIONS, SO IT WAS THE FULL TIME POSITIONS AND THE PART TIME POSITIONS IN THE SUMMER. CAN I JUST GET THAT AMOUNT AGAIN FOR THOSE FTES? MR. VAN DYNE. >> I'M NOT NAVIGATING AS QUICKLY AS [OVERLAPPING]. >> IF YOU WANT TO HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. >> YEAH. GO AHEAD. >> IT IS 99,540 IN YEAR 1 FOR ONE INDIVIDUAL. ONGOING OUT TO 2028 IS UP TO 105, 345, SO MULTIPLY THAT BY FOUR. AROUND 400 GRAND. >> DOES THAT INCLUDE THE PART TIMERS OR NO? >> NEVER. >> THAT I PASS TO MR. VAN DYNE. >> I'LL HAVE TO ASK MR. WHITE WHETHER OR NOT THAT THAT'S ALL IN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THERE WILL BE SOME CASUAL HOURS THAT WOULD SUPPLEMENT THE FULL TIME HOURS. WE BASICALLY HAVE TWO SETS THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER MONTHS FROM MAY UNTIL SEPTEMBER. WE WOULD HAVE FOUR FULL TIME CASUALS AT 20, 80 HOURS FOR ALL FOUR OF THOSE, AND THEN WE WILL ALSO HAVE CASUAL HOURS THAT WILL WORK FOR THE REMAINING MONTHS, AND THEY AGAIN ARE 2,560 HOURS. [01:25:02] >> I WANT TO APOLOGIZE. I WAS READING A DIFFERENT ITEM, BUT IT WEIRDLY IS WITHIN FIVE GRAND OF WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. I WAS LOOKING AT THE PLANNERS, WHICH WAS 105. THIS IS ACTUALLY 96,730, BUT YOU'RE STILL TALKING AROUND 400,000. >> THANK YOU. CURRENTLY DOWNTOWN, WHAT WE'RE DOING IN THE WINTER IS GARBAGE IS TWICE A WEEK IS MY UNDERSTANDING. THESE POSITIONS WE DO I KNOW SEVEN DAYS A WEEK DOING GARBAGE, THE WRITE UP HEAD SNOW REMOVAL, JUST SOME SPECIFICS ON WHAT THOSE FOLKS WILL BE DOING IN THE WINTER MONTHS, PLEASE. >> MR. VAN DYNE. >> IN BUILDING THE PACKAGE, WE WANTED TO REPLICATE AND ADAPT A SIMILAR LEVEL OF SERVICE, RECOGNIZING THAT WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE ALL OF THE LEVEL OF ACTIVITIES IN THE WINTER MONTHS THAT WE WOULD A SUMMER MONTHS, INCLUDING POWER WASHES AND AIR PRESSURE WASHING AND THE LIKE. WE WOULDN'T BE DOING THAT. THIS WAS A VERY BASIC BACK OF THE NAPKIN IF WE WERE TO PROVIDE DAILY SERVICE SIMILAR IN THE WINTER MONTHS. WHAT WOULD THE RELATIVE COST BE? I WOULD OFFER THAT IN LIGHT OF SOME OF THE EXTRA PRESSURES ON COUNCIL ON THE COMMUNITY AND ON THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE THAT IN LOOKING AT THESE NUMBERS AND THE NUMBER OF FTES, WE FOUND OURSELVES NOT TO GO INTO MUCH OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE WEEDS. WE FOUND OURSELVES HAVING TO UNDERSTAND AND MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD EYES WIDE OPEN WITH RESPECT TO MOVING FROM ONE SERVICE ARRANGEMENT TO AN EXPANDED SERVICE ARRANGEMENT. UNDER THE CURRENT SERVICE ARRANGEMENT IN THE SUMMER MONTHS, A FOUR MONTH PERIOD, IN A BUSY PERIOD THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR A PARTICULAR SET OF ACTIVITIES, WE'VE GONE WITH A CONTRACTING OPTION, AND THE QUESTION IS IN DOING THAT CONTRACT OPTION, WE BELIEVE THAT WE'RE ACHIEVING THE PURPOSE AND WE'RE WORKING WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF OUR HR OBLIGATIONS TO MANAGING WORK AND WORK FLOW. ONCE WE SHIFT INTO A HIGHER LEVEL OF SERVICE, IT DOES LOOK AT THE QUESTION AS BEING AN ONGOING SERVICE OR FULL TIME SERVICE, AND THOSE ARE THE COSTS THAT MR. WHITE HAS DESCRIBED, AND THEN IT DOES MOVE INTO A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION FOR THE CITY IN TERMS OF HOW WE'RE SUPPORTING THAT. COUNCIL WARBURTON DID CORRECTLY POINT OUT THAT THE CURRENT SERVICE LEVEL FOR NOW IN THE DOWNTOWN UNDER CURRENT STAFF REQUIREMENTS IS TWO SERVICES A WEEK, AND IN DISCUSSIONS OVER THE LAST 24 HOURS OR SO WITH DIRECTOR WHITE AND WITH SOME OF OUR COLLEAGUES, WE WERE ASKING OURSELVES, CHALLENGING OURSELVES TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT WE NEEDED TO OUR ORIGINAL ASSUMPTIONS OF DAILY SERVICE TO THE DEGREE THAT WE HAVE IN THE SUMMER ADAPTED SLIGHTLY BASED ON THESE SETS OF NUMBERS THAT WE ORIGINALLY PUT IN THE BUDGET, ARE THEY ACTUALLY AS ACCURATE OR AS NEEDED, IF YOU HAVE ARGUABLY LESS TRAFFIC, YOU WILL HAVE LESS PEOPLE TRAFFIC, PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC IN THE WINTER MONTHS THAN YOU WOULD IN THE SUMMER, THEN YOU MAY HAVE LESS GARBAGE. DO YOU NEED DAILY SERVICE, AND ARE WE COSTING THAT DAILY SERVICE APPROPRIATELY IN THIS CASE? TESTING OUR ASSUMPTIONS. ALL THIS TO SAY IS THAT IF WE WERE TO IMPROVE OUR SERVICE LEVEL FROM FROM TWO DAYS A WEEK, WHICH IS PRESENT AND INCREASE IT BY PERHAPS AN ADDITIONAL DAY PER WEEK TO SEE WHERE THAT ACHIEVES OUR INTEREST IN PUTTING THE DOWNTOWN AS A PRIORITY AREA FOR IMPROVEMENT. IF WE WERE TO SHIFT FROM A TWO DAY TO A THREE DAY PER WEEK SERVICE LEVEL, KEEP AN EYE ON WHAT THAT MIGHT MEAN, WOULD WE BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THAT WITHIN EXISTING RESOURCE LEVELS WITH RECOGNIZING THAT THERE MAY BE TO BE DETERMINED IMPACT ON OTHER SERVICES THAT WE OFFER WITHIN THE GROUP, AND SO WITH THAT DISCUSSION, I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN PUT ON THE TABLE TODAY FOR COUNSEL'S CONSIDERATION, AND INCREASED SERVICE LEVEL FOR THE DOWNTOWN WITHIN EXISTING RESOURCES TO INCREASE THAT TO ONE ADDITIONAL DAY AND WAIT AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED TO INCREASE THAT TO A DAILY REQUIREMENT. WITH THAT, MR. CHAIR, I INVITE COUNSEL TO MAYBE PROBE FURTHER, [01:30:02] BUT AT THIS POINT, IF COUNSEL'S DESIRE WOULD BE TO REMOVE THIS PARTICULAR COMPONENT OF DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT, ASK ADMINISTRATION TO INCREASE ONE ADDITIONAL DAY OF GARBAGE REMOVAL SERVICE IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA AS PART OF AN INCREASED LEVEL OF SERVICE TO THE DOWNTOWN AT THIS JUNCTURE. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT COUNSEL COULD CONTEMPLATE BASED ON WHAT I'VE SHARED WITH YOU TONIGHT. >> THANK YOU, MR. DYNE, IF THAT'S NOT A T UP FOR A MOTION DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS. >> IT'S ESSENTIALLY A TWO PARTNER BECAUSE THEY GO TOGETHER. MOTION IS TO COUNSEL CUT THE FOUR MAINTAINER POSITIONS. I GUESS IT'S MORE THAN FOUR. IT'S ESSENTIALLY THE FOUR MAINTAINER FULL TIME AND THERE'S FOUR PART TIME IN THE SUMMER. WE ARE WE GOING TO WORD THAT? CUTTING THOSE, AND THEN ALSO, COUNSEL INCREASES THE CONTRACT FOR DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT MAINTENANCE TO 250,000. AN EXTENDED SERVICE PERIOD FROM APRIL 1, OCTOBER 31ST, FROM THE CURRENT CONTRACT WINDOW. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SECONDER, COUNCILOR FOOTE. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM ANY, SORRY, YES, COUNSELOR YOU CAN SPEAK TO IT. >> THANKS. OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE HEARING IMMENSE PRESSURE FROM THE PUBLIC. THEY WANT TO IMPROVE THE DOWNTOWN THE CONDITION OF IT. WE GOT REALLY GREAT FEEDBACK LAST SUMMER FROM CONVERTING OUR PROGRAM INTO A CLEANING CONTRACT. I WANT THAT TO CONTINUE. HOWEVER, WE'VE ADDED OVER 50 POSITIONS IN OUR TERM, AND POSITIONS AS WE KNOW, ONCE THEY'RE THERE, THEY ARE FOREVER. THE QUESTIONS AROUND HOW DO WE GAUGE METRICS? WELL, IF IT'S NOT WORKING, THEN WE'RE CUTTING POSITIONS, WHICH IS A MUCH BIGGER CONVERSATION. I THINK WE CAN EXTEND THE BIG IMPACT TIME, INCREASE THE BUDGET FOR IT TO VOTE 250, SO 100 MORE, INCREASE THE WINDOW A TIME, AND THEN SEE HOW THAT GOES. THEN WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THAT WAS IN THE MOTION, BUT INCREASING THE SERVICE LEVEL FOR GARBAGE ONE MORE DAY IN THE WINTER, BECAUSE IT'S NOT WORKING, THEN WE JUST CHANGE THE CONTRACT. IF WE SEE THAT IT'S GROSSLY UNDERPERFORMING AND MAYBE NEEDS STAFF IN THE FUTURE, WE CAN DO THAT. BUT THIS IS MUCH MORE DYNAMIC AND IT DOESN'T BURDEN US WITH THIS CONTINUED INCREASE OF FTES. JUST WILL NEVER GO AWAY IF WE KEEP ADDING FTES WHEN WE SHOULD TRY OTHER THINGS, I THINK FIRST BEFORE GOING TO FULL TIME STAFF. THANKS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON OR ADMINISTRATION? NO, MY ONLY QUESTIONS IS JUST AROUND THE SPECIFICS. I'M FULLY IN SUPPORT OF REMOVING THE POSITIONS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. FORD MIN, THE PROPOSAL TO ADD IN THE $250,000, MY TAKEAWAY FROM WHAT YOU WERE SAYING IS THAT WITHIN EXISTING RESOURCES, WE WANT TO GIVE THIS A SHOT THAT WE DON'T ACTUALLY NEED TO ADD ANYTHING TO THE CONTRACT TO GIVE WHAT YOU WERE DESCRIBING AS A GO, CORRECT? SORRY, MR. VAN DYNE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IN ESSENCE, BY REMOVING THOSE POSITIONS FROM THIS, WHAT WE WOULD BE DEFAULTING BACK TO IS THE EXISTING SERVICE LEVEL IN THE SUMMER MONTHS USING THE EXISTING CONTRACTING LEVEL, AND WE WOULD BE LOOKING DURING THE WINTER MONTHS INCREASING WITH EXISTING AVAILABLE STAFF RESOURCES TO DO THAT ADDITIONAL DAY. YOU ARE CORRECT, MR. CHAIR, IN TERMS OF HOW THAT COULD SHAKE OUT IN THAT SCENARIO. >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE CURRENT AMOUNT WE'RE SPENDING THAT CONTRACT IS 150, IS THAT CORRECT? >> MR. VAN DYNE? >> I'LL JUST MAYBE DEFER TO MR. WHITE TO MR. PENDU TO JUST DOUBLE CHECK THAT NUMBER FOR US. >> MR. WHITE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE BUDGETED AMOUNT FOR THAT WORK IS $100,000. THANK YOU. >> DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON I WOULD JUST LIKE TO KEEP IT AT 250 BECAUSE WE'RE EXTENDING THE HOURS OF CONTRACT, AND THOSE FOLKS DID GREAT WORK. BUT I KNOW IT WAS A STRUGGLE FOR THEM TO STAFF THAT FOR THAT. THAT WAS A BIG STRUGGLE FOR THEM THIS YEAR. I'D LIKE TO MAKE AN AMOUNT ATTRACTIVE AND IT GETS A GOOD LEVEL OF SERVICE AND WE GIVE IT A GOOD TRY OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME. >> JUST A FURTHER QUESTION, MR. VAN DYNE, THE ADVISABILITY OF, AND I KNOW I WAS THE ONE WHO HAD DRAFTED THIS ORIGINALLY, SO I APPRECIATE COUNCIL WARBURTON BRINGING UP THE MOTION. BUT NOW I'M JUST MAKING SURE BECAUSE BACK TO RESOURCES AND WHAT YOU WERE DESCRIBING. I WANT TO MAKE SURE IN TERMS OF, WHETHER EXTENDING THE CONTRACT MAKES SENSE, I APPRECIATE COUNCIL WARBURTON'S PROPOSAL ON THE INCREASING OF THE CONTRACT AMOUNT [01:35:02] POTENTIALLY TO INCREASE WITHIN EXISTING RESOURCES DOING THAT ANOTHER WAY. BUT JUST TO CHECK ADVISABILITY OF EXTENDING THAT CONTRACT. >> ADVISABILITY. THAT'S INTERESTING. I'LL TAKE A PAGE OF MR. PENDU'S RESPONSE. IT DEPENDS. ESSENTIALLY, WE DO HAVE A FOUR MONTH CONTRACT PERIOD. I BELIEVE MR. WARBURTON SUGGESTION WOULD POTENTIALLY EXTEND THAT CONTRACT TO AN ADDITIONAL MONTH IF I'VE JUST CHECKED THE DATES FROM WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE. >> IT WOULD BE ANOTHER TWO MONTHS. >> I MEAN, WE'RE AN ORGANIZATION THAT OBVIOUSLY SUPPORTS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS. WHEN WE START GETTING INTO EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME, WE THEN RUN OUR RISK OF RUNNING CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT AND THE INTENT OF SOME OF OUR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING COMMITMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS TO OUR MEMBERS IN THAT COMMUNITY. WE WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THAT. WE WANT TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT. WITH THE CURRENT FOUR-MONTH SERVICE STANDARD. WE DO GET WHAT WE REQUIRE TO MR. COUNSEL WARBURTON, DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON'S COMMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY OF THAT OF ATTRACTING CONTRACT REASES FOR THE CURRENT FOUR-MONTH PERIOD. WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK AT THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT AND SEE IF THAT CAN BE ADJUSTED FOR THAT PURPOSE. AT THIS POINT, EXTENDING IT FOR AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS AT THIS POINT, IN THE ABSENCE OF HAVING A BUSINESS CASE OR A STRONG SERVICE STANDARD CASE FROM PRESENTED TO US, WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO RECOMMEND EXTENDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE REASONS I MENTIONED EARLIER, I JUST PUTS US POTENTIALLY IN A DIFFICULT POSITION WITH OUR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING COLLEAGUES AND OUR COMMITMENT TO MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE APPLYING THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF WORK TO THE APPROPRIATE TYPE OF RESOURCE HUMAN RESOURCE TO ACHIEVE THAT OCA. I TRY TO SEPARATE THE TWO, IF YOU DON'T MIND. I MEAN, WE CAN THAT THE FOUR MONTH I WOULDN'T WANT TO RECOMMEND GOING BEYOND THE FOUR MONTHS. AS STATED IN MY EARLIER ANSWER, WE WOULD ASK MR. WHITE TO WORK WITH HIS TEAM TO INCREASE THE SERVICE LEVEL AND THE NON-SUMMER MONTHS TO AN ADDITIONAL DAY OF WEEK, AND WE WOULD TRACK THAT WITH EXISTING RESOURCES. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON. IS THAT WE JUST CHANGE IT TO ELIMINATING THE FACILITIES MAINTAINERS, AND THE CASUAL LABORERS THAT ARE ALL IN THERE. WE JUST STICK TO THAT FOR NOW AND THEN MAYBE DURING OUR BREAKS, WE CAN CONFER WITH STAFF AROUND THESE OTHER POTENTIAL. ARE WE WHETHER INCREASING IT IS WORTH IT AND CHEW ON THAT BEFORE WE GET TO THE END OF BUDGET? >> YEAH. I'M HAPPY TO JUST TO CUT THE POSITIONS FOR NOW, AND WE CAN HAVE SOME MORE DISCUSSION AROUND THE HOW AND THE CONTRACTING PART. >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, COUNCILOR MCCLELLAN? >> JUST FOR UNDERSTANDING, WHAT IS THE VALUE OR THE MONEY OF THOSE POSITIONS, WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF CUTTING THEM? FINANCIALLY. >> LIKE THE FINANCIAL VALUE? OKAY. IF WE GO TO THE PY, I MAYBE ASK MR. PANDO I SEE THE MANAGER OF BUDGET ALL OVER IT FOR A SECOND. I'M GOING TO GO TO MR. PANDO, AND THEN YOU TWO CAN ANSWER IT IN A SECOND. IF YOU WANT, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE'RE AT OUR 90-MINUTE MARK ANYWAY. LET'S TAKE OUR 90-MINUTE MARK BREAK, TEN TEN-MINUTE BREAK. WE'LL COME BACK AT 7:19, AND THAT'LL GIVE FINANCE A CHANCE TO DO THIS WORK TOO. TAKE OUR TEN-MINUTE BREAK. OKAY, EVERYBODY, AND WE WILL COME BACK TO ORDER. WE WILL GO TO THE DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE SERVICES ON THE LAST QUESTION ABOUT THE IMPACT OF POTENTIALLY CUTTING THOSE POSITIONS, DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE SERVICES. >> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. THE TOTAL WAGES AND BENEFITS WOULD BE 534,666. >> 534,666. PERFECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I BELIEVE THAT WAS A QUESTION FROM COUNCILOR MCCLELLAN. YES. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING ON THIS MOTION FROM DEPUTY MAYOR WARTON? SEEING NONE. SORRY. COUNCILOR MCCLELLAN. [01:40:03] >> WE'RE VOTING ON CUTTING THE POSITIONS IN ONE MOTION, AND THEN POTENTIALLY ANOTHER ONE. REFRESH MY MEMORY. >> RIGHT NOW ON THE FLOOR IS THE MOTION TO CUT THESE POSITIONS. WHETHER ANOTHER MOTION COMES UP IS INDEPENDENT OF THAT, BUT RIGHT NOW, THAT IS THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. THUMBS UP. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE. THEN TO THE MOTION TO CUT THESE POSITIONS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. ON THE COMMUNITY SERVICES STAFFING PAGE, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE STAFFING PAGE? >> NO. >> NEXT, WE HAVE COUNCILOR FEQUET. >> I JUST WANT TO SAY I AM IN FULL SUPPORT OF THE INCREASED HOURS FOR THE AQUATIC CENTER, GIVEN THAT WE SEEM TO HAVE A PRETTY HIGH [OVERLAPPING]. >> SORRY. >> PRETTY HIGH RISK BASED ON THE INFORMATION WE GOT IN OUR PRE-BUDGET QUESTIONS, ABOUT A THIRD OF OUR HOURS ARE RELYING ON PART-TIME STAFF OF 633 PROGRAM HOURS AND THAT'S A PRETTY HIGH RISK. DEFINITELY SUPPORT THOSE HOURS. I'M JUST WONDERING FOR THE FUTURE, AND WE TALKED ABOUT. I KNOW THERE'S A NEW SERVICE LEVEL COMPARED TO THE RUTH INCH MEMORIAL POOL, BUT ARE THERE FORECAST FOR FUTURE PROGRAMMING OR FUTURE INCREASE BECAUSE THESE ARE CASUAL HOURS RIGHT NOW, AND I'M JUST WONDERING HOW WE'RE MANAGING FULL-TIME POSITIONS MOVING FORWARD. >> MR. VAN DIN. >>I'LL INVITE MR. WHITE TO ELABORATE SOME MORE, BUT I'LL BEGIN BY SAYING, YOU KNOW, SIF HAS PROBABLY COME TO REALIZE THIS IS A PHENOMENAL FACILITY. OUR NUMBERS ARE FAR HIGHER THAN WE EXPECTED. OUR REPORTS OUT THAT, IF YOU'LL INDULGE, I ASKED MR. WHITE TO PULL OUT A FEW OF THE POSITIVE RAVES THAT WE PICK UP IN THE CITY OF LLAMA DOES NOT ALWAYS GET RAVES ON RANT AND RAVE, BUT IN THIS CASE, WE'VE GOT ONE OR TWO, JUST TO MAYBE PULL THOSE OUT AND HAVE THOSE HANDY. BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE LEVEL, AND WE'VE SAID THIS BEFORE TO COUNCIL, WE REALLY DO NEED TO GET A FULL YEAR UNDER OUR BELT UNDER THIS FACILITY TO CHECK ALL OF THE DEMANDS, THE PUSH THE EQUIPMENT, THE OPERATIONS, INCLUDING DEMAND FROM THE PUBLIC. THE OTHER PIECE THAT I OFFER IS THAT IT, IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT WORK SETTINGS, PART TIME IS A VERY SPECIFIC MEETING IN A 9-5 OR A 7.5 HOUR WORK DAY OPERATION, AND THE USE OF THAT IS SOMETIMES SEEN AS BEING, AN INDICATOR THAT, OF AN EMPLOYER MAYBE NOT WANTED TO MAKE A COMMITMENT TO FULL TIME WORKERS WHEN IN FACT, THE HOURS PRESENT ARE JUSTIFIABLE. IN THIS CASE, GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE OPERATION AND THE HOURS THAT IT RUNS, PART-TIME IS OUR HARD-WIRED COMPONENT OF RUNNING A FACILITY LIKE THIS. I WOULD JUST OFFER THAT WHILE THOSE NUMBERS MAY BE INCREASING, AND WE NEED TO MANAGE THAT RESPONSIBLY THAT INCREASING THE HOUR OF PART-TIME IN NO WAY AT THIS JUNCTURE SUGGESTS THAT WE'RE AVOIDING MAKING LONGER-TERM COMMITMENTS TO FULL-TIME STAFF. WITH THAT, I'LL INVITE MR. WHITE TO ADD. >> PARDON ME, MR. WHITE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I GUESS IF YOU'LL INDULGE ME FOR A FEW MINUTES. WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE NUMBERS THAT MR. VAN DIN REFERRED TO EARLIER. KEEPING IN MIND THAT THE RUTH INCH MEMORIAL POOL, ON AVERAGE, HAD FOUR, SOMETIMES 5,000 PEOPLE A MONTH. I'LL RUN THROUGH BUNCH OF NUMBERS, THEY'RE GOING TO BE ROUNDED. MAY, WE HAD 15,500, JUNE 14,000, JULY 15,200, AUGUST 15,000, SEPTEMBER 10,005, OCTOBER 10,000, NOVEMBER 10,005. THOSE ARE THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE VISITING THE FACILITY AND USING IT ON A REGULAR BASIS. OUR FLEXI PASSES. I DON'T HAVE ANY COMPARISON BECAUSE WE CHANGED FROM ONE BOOKING SOFTWARE REGISTRATION FACILITY BOOKING SOFTWARE TO ANOTHER, AND WE LOST ALL THE HISTORY. SINCE WE OPENED PRIOR TO MAY, FOR JANUARY, WE HAD 123, 101, [01:45:02] 111 MARCH, APRIL WAS 59, AND THEN WE OPENED IN MAY, AND WE SOLD 333, JUNE 276, JULY 256, AUGUST 217, SEPTEMBER 225, AND SOMETHING HAPPENED IN OCTOBER, WE'RE NOT QUITE SURE WHAT I WENT DOWN TO 51. I THINK WE'RE JUST SHORT SOME NUMBERS ON THERE. OUR REVENUE ON OUR PASSES IS WAY UP. OUR VISITORS ARE WAY UP, AND AS MR. VAN DIN MENTIONED, OUR RANT AND RAVES ARE FANTASTIC. IF ANY OF YOU GUY HAVE SEEN ONE, SEEN ANY OF THEM? I COULD READ THEM IF YOU'D LIKE. WELL, BIGGEST RAVE EVER TO THE NEW AQUATIC CENTER [OVERLAPPING]. I'LL READ WHAT? I HAVE ZERO COMPLAINTS AND 100,000 PRAISES. MY NEW FAVORITE PLACE IN TOWN. WE GET THOSE REGULARLY. >> YOU'RE TRUE. IT IS TRUE I'VE SEEN SCREENSHOTS BECAUSE I REFUSE TO GO ON RANSOM RAPES FOR MY MENTAL HEALTH, BUT I GET SCREENSHOTS OF THEM, AND I HAVE SEEN THOSE, SO THAT'S POSITIVE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, COUNSEL FORK? >> NO. SORRY TO GET TO THE QUESTION. THE QUESTION WAS WITH THE AMOUNT OR THE NUMBER OF CASUAL STAFF. THE WAY THAT OUR PROGRAMMING WORKS, OF COURSE, IS WE HAVE OUR FULL-TIME STAFF THAT ARE THERE FOR TEACHING AND GUARDING. THEN ALL OF OUR PROGRAM STAFF, WHICH ARE THE MAJORITY OF THE CASUAL STAFF, THEY GO IN AND AROUND, AND THEY FILL ALL THE SPOTS. WE CANNOT RUN OUR FACILITY WITH ANY OF OUR FACILITIES WITHOUT OUR PART-TIME STAFF, PARTICULARLY IN THE AQUATIC CENTER. THEY ARE INTEGRAL TO US OFFERING AND DELIVERING OUR HIGH-QUALITY AND THE HIGH NUMBER OF PROGRAMS THAT WE'RE ABLE TO ACHIEVE. THANKS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNSELOR K. ALL GOOD. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS? SEEING NONE. WE WILL JUMP AHEAD TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR BUDGET ON PAGE 45. ANY OVERALL QUESTIONS? >> COUNSEL OR DEPUTY MAYOR WARTON. >> SORRY. NO. I GET A MOTION, BUT I'LL WAIT COUNCILOR MCCLELLAN. >> I ALSO HAVE A MOTION, BUT QUESTION FIRST. I BELIEVE IN GENERAL SERVICES, PAGE 45, THERE WAS $140,000 FOR DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT INITIATIVE STARTUP COSTS. IS THAT STILL RELEVANT OR NEEDED, GIVEN THE CUTTING OF THE POSITIONS? >> MR. VAN DIN. >> LET'S JUST RUN TO THAT NUMBER. WHICH PAGE IS THAT, SORRY. >> THIS IS PAGE 45 OF THE BUDGET DOCUMENT. >>THANK YOU. >> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO WEIGH IN? >> PLEASE DO. >> THANK YOU. THE $140,000 WAS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS PART OF THE DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT PACKAGE. IT INCLUDED THE PURCHASE OF QUAD, TRAILER, PRESSURE WASHER, GENERATOR. IF WE ARE REMOVING THE STAFF FROM THAT, WE WOULD NOT NEED THIS $140,000. >> THERE YOU GO, COUNCILOR MCCLELLAN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST READING THE ANSWERS GIVEN TO COUNSEL BEFOREHAND. THIS ORIGINALLY WAS ON PAGE 45, BUT SHOULD BE ON PAGE 50, THE PARKS DIVISION. I WILL HAVE A MOTION AT THAT POINT. [LAUGHTER] >> WE'LL HOLD IT TILL THE PARKS. PERFECT. >> BUT I HAVE A DIFFERENT MOTION FOR THIS PAGE, BUT I'LL LET COUNSEL TO. >> BOTH BE OVERLY POLITE TO EACH OTHER. >> MY MOTION WOULD BE FOR THAT COUNSEL MAKE STREET OUTREACH A THREE-YEAR CONTRACT INSTEAD OF A ONE-YEAR CONTRACT. >> IS THERE A SECOND [INAUDIBLE]. I ALWAYS LOOK LEFT WHEN SOMEBODY PROPOSES A MOTION OVER THERE. SORRY, COUNCILOR MCCLELLAN, YOU CAN SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. FIRST OFF, INCREASED AND MULTI-YEAR FUNDING WAS RECOMMENDATION 1.1 OF THE STREET OUTREACH REVIEW. WELL, I'M NOT SEEKING TO INCREASE FUNDING. I DO BELIEVE MAKING OUR EXISTING FUNDING MULTI-YEAR WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR ALL PARTIES INVOLVED. THE RECENT CHANGE IN SERVICE PROVIDER DEMONSTRATED THIS. THE NEW PROVIDER HAD TO GET UP TO SPEED AND BEGIN LEARNING THE JOB. PHONE NUMBERS HAD TO BE CHANGED, STAFF RECRUITED AND TRAINED, RESIDENTS AND USERS HAD TO ADJUST TO A NEW PROVIDER, AND WE AS THE FUNDER, HAD TO SPEND A INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME AND ENERGY MANAGING THAT CHANGE. NOW WE'RE DISCUSSING BUDGET. THE CHALLENGES OF THIS CHANGE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN OVERCOME. HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTS ABOUT TO RUN OUT. [01:50:01] THIS FUNDING HAS BEEN APPROVED BY MULTIPLE COUNCILORS OVER MANY YEARS. I BELIEVE IT SERVES EVERYONE'S INTERESTS TO AWARD A CONTRACT FOR THREE YEARS. THIS LETS THE SERVICE PROVIDER BUILD EXPERIENCE, LEVERAGE, KNOWLEDGE GAINED, AND PROVIDE MORE CERTAINTY TO POTENTIAL STAFF. THIS LETS USERS AND RESIDENTS KNOW WHO AND HOW TO CALL, AND IT LETS US AVOID REPEATED DIFFICULT CHANGE MANAGEMENT. >> QUESTIONS. >> I'M TRAPPED WITH IT. >> YOU'RE IN CONFLICT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU CAN HEAD ON OUT. THANK YOU FOR NOTING THAT. >> JUST FOR ANYBODY INTERESTED, COUNCILOR PAYNE IS A BOARD MEMBER OF HOME BASE. IS THE CURRENT PROVIDER OF THAT CONTRACT, SO THANK YOU TO COUNCILOR PAYNE FOR NOTING THAT. QUESTIONS. WE HAD COUNCILOR FOOT, I BELIEVE, UP FIRST. >> I JUST WANT TO STATE THAT I'M WHOLLY IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. MULTI-YEAR FUNDING WILL PROVIDE MUCH-NEEDED CONTINUITY FOR THAT RESOURCE, WHICH IS A GREAT BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCILOR FEQUET. >> THANKS, MR. CHAIR. JUST TO CONNECT A DOT FOR ANYBODY WHO MAY NOT BE AWARE. THERE WAS A REPORT STRENGTHENING THE NOT-FOR-PROFIT AND CHARITABLE SECTOR EXTERNAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FULL DISCLOSURE, I WAS ON THAT. BUT THAT REPORT WAS SENT TO THE PREMIER IN 2023 AND WITH THREE RECOMMENDATIONS. IT WAS A COLLECTION OF A WHOLE BUNCH OF NOT-FOR-PROFITS, AND ONE OF THE BIGGEST RECOMMENDATIONS IN IT WAS ABOUT MULTI-YEAR FUNDING. IF A PROGRAM OR SERVICE IS ONGOING, IT'S TO BE FUNDED THROUGH A MULTI-YEAR AGREEMENT SAYS THAT'S ALLOWED BY THE PROGRAM MANAGERS FINANCIAL GUIDE FOR FUNDING NGOS WITH THE GMAT. WE SHOULD DEFINITELY FOLLOW SUIT THAT WAS NOTED AS ONE OF THE BIGGEST IMPACTS TO THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT OF DOING THIS NOW AND ENCOURAGING OUR ADMINISTRATION TO DO THIS WHEREVER THEY CAN AND WHEREVER IT MAKES SENSE TO SUPPORT THE SUSTAINABILITY OF OTHER ORGANIZATIONS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCILOR MCGURK AND COUNCILLOR COCHRANE. >> JUST WANT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR. I THINK THE OTHER CONSIDERATION IS THAT IT ALLOWS OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS THAT MIGHT BE INTERESTED TIME TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD LIKE TO APPLY. IT ALSO LIKELY WIDEN THE POOL OF AVAILABLE POTENTIAL APPLICANTS FOR FUTURE CONTRACTS BECAUSE THERE IS MORE SECURITY IN A THREE-YEAR CONTRACT. IN GENERAL, IT'S GOOD FOR EXISTING ORGANIZATION AND POTENTIAL FUTURE ORGANIZATIONS, AND YEAH IN SUPPORT, GENERAL. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILLOR COCHRANE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. FIRST QUESTION, COUNCILOR MCCLELLAN, ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU WANT THE NEXT CONTRACTING PERIOD TO BECOME A THREE YEAR, OR ARE YOU LOOKING FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE CURRENT CONTRACT? >> COUNCILOR MCCLELLAN? >> NO. THE NEXT ONE WOULD BE THREE YEAR. THE EXISTING ONE IS SIGNED. THE NEXT CONTRACT TO GO OUT WOULD BE FOR THREE YEARS. >> I JUST WANTED CLARITY ON THAT QUESTION TO THE ADMINISTRATION, HOW MUCH OF THE CURRENT CONTRACT IS MADE UP OF REACHING HOME FUNDING? >> MR. VAN DIN. >> I'LL DIRECT THAT QUESTION TO MR. WHITE. I BELIEVE THE CITY COUNCIL FROM RECOLLECTION HAD INVESTED A COMPONENT PART OF THAT. I BELIEVE LAST YEAR WAS A YEAR WHERE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S INCREMENTAL INCREASES ALLOWED THE CITY TO NO LONGER HAVE TO CHIP IN, BUT I'LL LEAVE IT TO MR. WHITE TO CORRECT ME AND TO ELABORATE. >> MR. WHITE? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WERE VERY SUCCESSFUL ON OUR MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING APPLICATION. THAT WAS IN THE AMOUNT OF JUST OVER $800,000. THERE IS $200,000 FROM REACHING HOME THAT IS IN THE CURRENT AMOUNT. THANK YOU. >> COUNCILOR COCHRANE? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE REST OF IT IS MADE UP OF THAT APPLICATION THROUGH THE MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING, SO 600 OR SO. FORGIVE ME FOR THE ENTIRE PROGRAM, 200 FROM THAT, 400 FROM THAT. IT'S ALMOST ALL FEDERAL GRANTS. WHEN DO WE HAVE TO REAPPLY FOR THE HEALTH FUNDING, AND WHEN DO WE HAVE TO REAPPLY FOR THE REACHING HOME? >> MR. VAN DINE, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO PUSH THAT TO MR. WHITE? MR. WHITE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING HAS COME AND GONE, AND WE HAVE FUNDING FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS FROM THE REACHING HOME FUNDING. THAT WILL BE UP TO CAB TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON HOW COUNCIL WANTS TO ALLOCATE THAT. THANKS. >> COUNCILOR COCHRANE? >> HERE LIES MY PROBLEM, [01:55:01] IS THAT IF WE'RE COMMITTING INTO A THREE-YEAR CONTRACT, WE ARE GOING BEYOND THE CURRENT FUNDING LEVELS OF WHAT WOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE FEDS. THEN WE'RE COMMITTING A FUTURE COUNCIL INTO AN ALLOCATION OF MONEY THAT COULD BE OUTSIDE OF THE PURVIEW OF WHAT IS 100 PERCENT PROVIDED. I'M NOT ENTIRELY COMFORTABLE AT THIS TIME TO SUPPORT THAT, JUST BECAUSE OF THE PARAMETERS. IF WE DECREASE THAT SIZE TO MAYBE A TWO-YEAR, BECAUSE AGAIN, I DO FEEL WHERE COUNCILOR FEQUET IS COMING FOR MULTI FUNDING, BUT THAT'S WHEN IF WE WERE DOING 100 PERCENT FUNDING OURSELVES. THE FACT THAT ALL OF IT IS MADE UP OF FEDERAL GRANTS PUTS US INTO A BIT OF A HOLE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FROM ANY OTHER COUNCILORS BEFORE WE GET TO ROUND 2? I OBVIOUSLY VERY MUCH AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SENTIMENT. IN FACT, THAT'S WHY, BEFORE I TOOK ON THIS ROLE, THAT WAS ONE OF THE PUSHES I DID AS CHAIR OF CAB WAS TO PUSH US TOWARDS MULTI-YEAR FUNDING, AND SO WE DID OUR FIRST EVER MULTI-YEAR FUNDING TWO YEARS AGO. THAT'S ACTUALLY JUST COMING TO AN END. BUT FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT COUNCILOR COCHRANE HAS NOTED, JUST BECAUSE IT'S FEDERAL FUNDING, WE DON'T ALWAYS KNOW WHEN IT'S COMING UP AGAIN. I THINK THERE'S MAYBE A BROADER DISCUSSION. IT'S SIMILAR TO HOW WE HAVE OUR COMMUNITY GRANT POLICY, AND WE HIT MULTI-YEAR FUNDING UNDER THAT POLICY. I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT WE HAVEN'T GRAPPLED WITH WHERE OUR FUNDING COMES FROM, FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND WHAT WE HAVE FULL CONTROL OVER GOING FORWARD. I WOULDN'T BE IN SUPPORT OF IT JUST BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND ALL THE POTENTIAL RAMIFICATIONS. OBVIOUSLY, I'M VERY MUCH IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SENTIMENT, THOUGH, AGAIN, AS CAB HAS ACTUALLY BEEN MOVING TOWARDS THAT MULTI-YEAR FUNDING IDEA ANYWAY. BUT WITH THAT SAID, WE'LL GO TO ROUND 2. YOU'LL GET TO WRAP IT UP, COUNCILOR MCLENNAN. YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR ME. WELL, ROUND 2 IS YOURS THEN. START IT. GO. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY UNDERSTANDING IS CLEAR. IF IN 2026, WE WERE TO ISSUE A TWO-YEAR CONTRACT, THAT FEDERAL FUNDING WOULD BE SECURE FOR 2026, 2027, A TWO-YEAR, THE NEXT CONTRACT TO BE TWO YEARS. IS THAT CORRECT? >> MR. VAN DINE, SHALL I PUSH IT TO MR. WHITE? >> SURE. I JUST SAY THAT I THINK WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED FROM THREE TO A TWO-YEAR PERIOD IS JUST RISK MANAGEMENT. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT THERE'S ANOTHER FUNDER. THE YEARS MAY BE BEYOND THE LEVEL OF RISK TOLERANCE FOR SOME, GIVEN THAT WE DON'T HAVE THAT CERTAINTY WITH RESPECT TO FEDERAL FUNDING, AND TWO YEAR MAY BE A LITTLE BIT LESS, BUT I'LL LET MR. WHITE GIVE US THE DEFINITIVE WORD ON WHETHER WE CAN HAVE HIGH CONFIDENCE IN A TWO-YEAR SOURCE OF FUNDING. CAN WE MAKE THAT TWO-YEAR COMMITMENT? >> MR. WHITE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CURRENTLY, THE CONTRACT EXPIRES ON MARCH 31ST OF 2026. WITHIN OUR CURRENT 2026 ALLOCATION ON THE CITY COFFERS, THERE'S $365,000 IDENTIFIED. THAT WOULD BASICALLY BE FOR THE FOLLOWING EIGHT MONTHS. WITHOUT HAVING SECURED ANY FUNDING, OTHER THAN WE KNOW WE HAVE THE REACHING HOME, IT WOULD TAKE REACHING HOME MONEY TO TOP UP THE 365 TO EITHER THE CURRENT LEVEL OR TO AN ALTERNATE LEVEL OF FUNDING FOR THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE. THANKS. >> THANK YOU, MR. WHITE. JUST BEFORE WE GET INTO ANY QUESTIONS, THE OTHER POTENTIAL OPTIONS OR OPTION IS, ULTIMATELY, CAB IS A COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL, SO COUNCIL COULD GIVE OUTSIDE OF BUDGET. WE COULD DECIDE TO GIVE DIRECTION TO CAB, THAT OUR PREFERENCES AS YOU'RE MAKING YOUR DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL, THAT WE'D LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER MULTI-YEAR FUNDING IF THE DESIRE IS AROUND THIS ISSUE SPECIFICALLY. CAB [INAUDIBLE] IS ALREADY THINKING THAT WAY. BUT IF WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS DIRECTION GIVEN, THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER WAY OF APPROACHING THIS, OUTSIDE OF DIRECTING IN BUDGET WHERE WE'RE NOT SURE. BUT I'LL JUST GIVE IT BACK TO COUNCILOR MCLENNAN BECAUSE IT IS HIS MOTION, AND THEN I'LL KEEP GOING WITH QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE. COUNCILOR MCLENNAN. >> MAYBE I'M MISUNDERSTANDING. EARLIER, THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT FEDERAL FUNDING WAS SECURED FOR TWO YEARS. WAS THAT 2025 AND 2026, OR IS THAT TWO MORE YEARS? >> MR. WHITE. >> THE FEDERAL FUNDING THAT WE HAVE SECURED TO DATE IS OUR REACHING HOME FUNDS, WHICH EXPIRE ON MARCH 31ST, 2028. >> BUT THAT'S NOT FOR THE SPECIFIC ALLOCATION TO STREET OUTREACH AT THIS MOMENT. WE'D BE GOING IN FRONT OF CAB AND ALLOCATING THIS MONEY, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. [02:00:06] DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? COUNCILOR MCLENNAN, DO YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS? I'M NOT PRESUPPOSING ANYTHING. DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE WITH YOUR MOTION? PULL YOUR MOTION? IT'S TOTALLY UP TO YOU. I'M JUST ASKING. >> I'M COMFORTABLE. I THINK THIS CONTRACT NEEDS TO BE MULTI-YEAR. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A PROCESS TO ALLOCATE FEDERAL FUNDING, AND THAT IS THE IDEAL WAY TO GO. I'M NOT ON CAB, SO MY ONLY RECOURSE IS THROUGH BUDGET. I'M COMFORTABLE. I THINK THIS CONTRACT NEEDS TO BE MULTI-YEAR. IF THAT MEANS THAT THE CITY HAS TO PAY MORE IN THE FUTURE IF FEDERAL FUNDS RUN OUT, THEN I'M OKAY WITH THAT. I WILL STICK WITH MY MOTION. >> SORRY. FIRST, WE HAVE COUNCILOR FEQUET FOR A FURTHER QUESTION, I BELIEVE. COUNCILOR FEQUET. >> THANKS, MR. CHAIR. I THINK WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT HERE IS MAYBE A CONTRACTING QUESTION THAT HOPEFULLY ADMIN CAN HELP US OUT WITH, BECAUSE I THINK WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE CITY IS ALWAYS LOOKING FOR FUNDS FROM DIFFERENT FEDERAL AND TERRITORIAL POTS TO SUPPORT ALL OF OUR DIFFERENT PROGRAMMING, SERVICE DELIVERY, AND CAPITAL PROJECTS WHEREVER WE CAN. WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO BE RUNNING INTO CONTRACTS ENDING, DIFFERENT FUNDING POTS, STOPPING, AND STARTING. MAYBE IF ADMIN COULD SPEAK TO THE ADVISABILITY OR HOW IT MIGHT MANAGE A MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT, WHETHER IT'S TWO OR THREE, GIVEN THAT AT SOME POINT THERE'S GOING TO BE DEADLINES AND FUNDING POT SHIFTING. IF YOU COULD JUST SPEAK TO THAT, THAT WOULD BE I THINK HELPFUL TO INFORM ME, AT LEAST. >> MR. VAN DINE. >> EXCELLENT QUESTION. I WOULD SAY THAT WHATEVER CONTRACT THAT WE ENTER INTO, WE WOULD HONOR. IF COUNCIL'S DIRECTION WAS TO GIVE US THE FUND, THEN WE WOULDN'T ENTER INTO A CONTRACT UNLESS WE HAD FUNDS IDENTIFIED. THAT'S A BIT OF A PRINCIPLE. IF COUNCIL IS PREPARED TO TAKE THE RISK, WHILE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE FUNDED THIS IN THE PAST, ARE THEY REASONABLY ASSURED THAT THEY'LL CONTINUE TO FUND IT IN THE FUTURE, AND THAT THE FINANCIAL HEALTH OF THE CITY IS SUCH THAT WE'RE ABLE TO CARRY A FEW MONTHS OF UNCERTAINTY UNTIL SUCH THINGS HAVE FALLEN INTO PLACE, THEN THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD ADMINISTER ON COUNCIL'S BEHALF. IT REALLY ISN'T AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHALLENGE PER SE FOR US TO ENTER INTO A COMMITMENT, BUT WE ARE OBLIGATED TO DISCLOSE TO COUNCIL THE FINANCIAL RISK THAT WE'D BE CARRYING, NOT TO SAY THAT IT'S NOT MANAGEABLE. THAT'S FOR COUNCIL TO DECIDE WHEN IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE PUTS AND TAKES IN A BUDGET PROCESS. BUT FROM A CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION POINT OF VIEW, AS HAS COME UP IN THE PREVIOUS QUESTION, A RENEWAL OF THE CONTRACT, WE'D SEE THIS CONTRACT THROUGH. WE WOULD GO THROUGH A COMPETITIVE PROCESS FOR A NEW CONTRACT. IF THE DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL WAS TO ASSUME A LEVEL OF RISK TO ALLOW US TO GO TO A THREE-YEAR CONTRACT, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD DO. WE'D MANAGE ACCORDINGLY. WE HAVE A VERY GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR FUNDERS WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA. THEY'VE BEEN EXCELLENT WORKING WITH [INAUDIBLE] AND HIS TEAM WITH RESPECT TO UPDATES, AND SO THE ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONSHIP IS GOOD, BUT IT'S JUST THAT. IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONSHIP. IF THEIR FUNDING DRIES UP, WE'LL CERTAINLY KNOW ABOUT IT SOON OR SOONER, I SHOULD SAY. IF SIGNALS ARE SUCH THAT MONIES ARE COMING, THEY'RE PRETTY GOOD AT GIVING US A HEADS-UP. WE WOULD MANAGE THE RISK BASED ON OUR WORKING RELATIONSHIPS AND OUR FINANCIAL HEALTH OF THE CITY AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS AND THE DIRECTION OF COUNCIL. BUT IT REALLY ISN'T A QUESTION OF LEGAL QUESTION. WE WOULD DEFINITELY MEET OUR LEGAL OBLIGATIONS IN ANY CONTRACT THAT WE HAD ENTERED INTO, AND WE WOULDN'T ENTER INTO A CONTRACT UNLESS WE HAD DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL AND A SOURCE OF FUNDS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCILOR FEQUET, ANYTHING FURTHER? >> YEAH. THANKS FOR THAT RESPONSE. YOU GAVE ME A NUGGET WHEN YOU SAID AT THE BEGINNING THAT, OF COURSE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT THAT WE DON'T HAVE MONEY FOR, SO I'LL JUST SHARE MY ASSUMPTION OR MY UNDERSTANDING. EVEN IF THERE'S NO MORE FUNDING TOMORROW AND IT'S ONLY THE $360,000 THAT COUNCIL IS PUTTING INTO THIS, [02:05:01] IT'S STILL A BENEFICIAL LEVEL MULTI-YEAR AGREEMENT. THE SERVICE PROVIDER KNOWS THAT THAT'S COMING AND THEY CAN PLAN ACCORDINGLY. WE ALL KNOW HOW HARD THE STAFFING, THE SERVICES, THE EQUIPMENT, AND ALL OF THAT IS. TO THE OTHER POINT, MORE RELATED TO MY ASSUMPTION, REGARDLESS OF IF THE MONEY EBBS AND FLOWS, THE CONTRACT IS GOING TO BE WRITTEN IN SUCH A WAY, WHETHER IT'S TWO YEARS OR WHETHER IT'S THREE YEARS, THAT'S GOING TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT EBB AND FLOW THAT WE ARE NOT COMMITTING ANY MONEY THAT WE DON'T HAVE GUARANTEED AND COMMITTED. TO ME, IT'S NOT REALLY A PROBLEM. IT'S NOT A RISK AT ALL BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO MANAGE THAT THROUGH THE CONTRACT CONDITIONS THAT PROVIDE THE CORE AND PROVIDE MORE IF IT'S ALLOCATED BY CAB. IT'S NOT REALLY A QUESTION BECAUSE WE CAN'T COMMIT TO SOMETHING WE DON'T HAVE. BUT THAT'S MAYBE JUST AN ASSUMPTION THAT I'M SHARING, SO YOU CAN, OF COURSE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. >> COUNCILOR MCGURK, YOU'RE UP NEXT. >> THANK YOU. WHEN CAN THE ADMINISTRATION TELL US WHEN WE STARTED CONTRACTING THE STREET OUTREACH PROGRAM? >> MR. VAN DINE. >> MY RECOLLECTION, THIS FEBRUARY. MR. WHITE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE A BETTER LINE OF SIGHT ON THAT. >> COUNCILOR MCGURK, DO YOU MEAN OVERALL OR ON THIS CONTRACT IN PARTICULAR? >> OVERALL. >> MR. WHITE? >> I BELIEVE IT'S 2017 IS THE FIRST TIME THAT WE HAD OUR STREET OUTREACH PROGRAM. >> COUNCILOR MCGURK. >> WHAT IS THE GENERAL PUBLIC RECEPTION TO THE PROGRAM? >> THAT'S NOT REALLY FOR MR. WHITE TO GET IT. WE'RE THE ELECTED OFFICIALS. IT'S NOT FOR MR. WHITE AS DIRECTOR TO ANSWER THE PUBLIC'S VIEW. >> WHAT'S THE FEEDBACK? A LOT OF ADMINISTRATION HAS GIVEN A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM THE PUBLIC RESPONSES TO US. >> WE'VE DONE A REVIEW OF STREET OUTREACH, AS WE KNOW. THE FEEDBACK IS OBVIOUSLY VERY POSITIVE. RESIDENTS APPRECIATE IT MOSTLY. THERE'S ALWAYS EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE. I'M ANSWERING ON MR. WHITE'S BEHALF WITHOUT PULLING UP ALL THOSE PAST REPORTS. BUT YEAH, WE KNOW THAT THE FEEDBACK IS APPRECIATED IN OUR COMMUNITY. >> YES. I JUST WANTED THAT ON THE RECORD. [LAUGHTER] >> YEAH, OF COURSE. THAT'S FAIR. GET BACK TO QUESTIONS. >> WELL, WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. I DON'T THINK THE PUBLIC EXPECTS US TO STOP OR WANTS US TO STOP. I'M PERFECTLY COMFORTABLE PONYING UP CASH IF IT MEANS YOU HAVE TO CONTINUE THIS. I DO BELIEVE I'VE SAID IT PREVIOUSLY TO OUR COUNCIL THAT THIS SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT IS MORE INTEGRATED INTO OUR SERVICE DELIVERY. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT MAKES SENSE TO ME. BUT I KNOW IT'S MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT. ANYWAY, IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE A LOT BETTER FOR EVERYBODY. WE JUST ENTERED A THREE-YEAR AGREEMENT BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO PAY FOR IT ANYWAY, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC WANTS IT. IT'S A GOOD THING THAT IS GOOD FOR OUR CITY, SO HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILOR MCGURK. COUNCILOR FOOTE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. JUST A FEW OBSERVATIONS HERE. HAPPY TO LIVE WITH A LITTLE BIT OF RISK ON THIS BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE'RE CURRENTLY DISCUSSING A FUTURE CONTRACT. IT'S NOT GOING TO REALLY IMPACT THE ONE THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY UNDERTAKING. AS SOMEBODY WHO WORKS IN PROCUREMENT FOR A LIVING, WE SEE ALL SORTS OF CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENTS COME ACROSS OUR DESK, AND THERE IS LANGUAGE TO PUT IN FUTURE CONTRACTS THAT GIVE YOU A TERMINATION CLAUSE IF VARIABLE FUNDING DECREASES. THAT WOULD MAYBE BE COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDATION TO ADMINISTRATION, IS JUST TO INCLUDE CLAUSE LIKE THAT FOR FUTURE CONTRACTS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILOR FOOTE. COUNCILOR COCHRANE. >> I UNDERSTAND WHERE EVERYBODY'S COMING FROM. I REALLY DO, AND I DO SUPPORT THIS IN PRINCIPLE. FIRST OFF, THIS IS NOT STREET OUTREACH ANYMORE. THIS IS LINE DRIVE OUTREACH, A WHOLE DIFFERENT PROGRAM THAT DOES A WHOLE BUNCH OF DIFFERENT THINGS AS WELL. WHERE THE MONEY WOULD BE MADE UP OF THROUGH REACHING HOME ALSO PROVIDES THROUGH OTHER PROGRAMS LIKE SHELTER STABILIZATION. WHERE WE'D HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE MONEY. YOU'RE COMING TO A GOOD QUESTION. BUT WHERE NOT THE ONES WHO WOULD HAVE TO COME UP WITH THIS DECISION, YOU'RE HOLDING FUTURE COUNCILS INTO AN AUTOMATIC APPROPRIATION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT'S NECESSARILY WITHIN OUR RIGHTS TO DO WITHIN A CONTRACT. YOU CAN THINK YOU CAN, BUT, AGAIN, YOU'D BE STICKING THEM TO A FUTURE CONTRACT, AND I WILL SAY THIS. WE ARE THROUGH CAB, [02:10:01] AS IT'S CHAIR, WE ARE APPLYING THROUGH A BUNCH OF FUNDING. THERE IS NO GUARANTEED IN THIS CURRENT ECONOMIC CLIMATE THAT WOULD HAPPEN. A TERMINATION CLAUSE COULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED. I'M NOT DENYING THAT, BUT I JUST DON'T KNOW I'M VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE IDEA OF SAYING TO A COUNCIL TWO YEARS DOWN THE LINE, YOU'RE STUCK HAVING TO FIELD AND FIND THE FUNDING FOR THIS THROUGHOUT IF WE RUN OUT OF FEDERAL FUNDING. AGAIN, IN PRINCIPLE, VERY MUCH SUPPORT THIS, BUT THERE IS JUST A QUESTION OF APPROPRIATION THAT MAKES ME RELATIVELY UNCOMFORTABLE. I DO THINK AGAIN, LETTING CAB COME INTO THIS CONVERSATION, SEE WHAT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO BECAUSE IN JANUARY, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION OF WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO MOVE AROUND OUR REACHING HOME FUNDING AND WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE ALSO GOING TO GET A BUNCH OF MORE ANSWERS FOR OTHER ALLOCATIONS. I WOULD SAY LET THE COMMITTEE GO THROUGH THIS AND THEN COME BACK TO A RECOMMENDATION FOR COUNCIL THAT WE CAN ALL THEN SUPPORT ON THAT. AGAIN, FULLY HEAR WHERE YOU GUYS ARE AT, MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME, BUT AT THIS TIME, I CAN'T SUPPORT IT. >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL COCHRANE. DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON. >> THANK YOU. I DO THIS IN MY DAY JOB ALL THE TIME. I CAN COMMIT TO LONG TERM CONTRACT, AND I CAN BUILD OUTS IF I DON'T HAVE THE MONEY. I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE RISK HERE. IT IS A BIT OF A RISK. I TRUST OUR LEGAL TEAM IS ADAPT AT REALLY GREAT CONTRACTS SO WE DON'T COMMIT FUNDS IN THE FUTURE. I'M OKAY WITH THE THREE YEAR CONTRACT. >> THANK YOU, AND I WILL WRAP IT UP ON THIS ONE. AGAIN, I APPRECIATE THE SENTIMENT. IT'S NOT EVEN THE ISSUE OF RISK SPECIFICALLY WITH THE CONTRACT OR NOT FOR ME. FOR ME, IT'S THE PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION WE'VE ALWAYS COME BACK TO ON WHAT IS G&WT HOUSING AND SOCIAL SERVICE RESPONSIBILITY? WHAT IS MUNICIPAL RESPONSIBILITY? AND THE REASON THAT WE EVEN HAVE STREET OUTREACH IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY ADMINISTERS IS BECAUSE OF FEDERAL FUNDING ONLY AT THE MOMENT. I KNOW WE STARTED IT OFF WITH SOME MUNICIPAL FUNDING, BUT I REALLY DO STRUGGLE ON THAT. AGAIN, I ALSO STATE SO THERE'S THAT PIECE, BUT I ALSO STATE LIKE COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD IS ALREADY FOCUSED ON MULTI YEAR FUNDING. THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT I WAS WORKING ON AS CHAIRPERSON. IT HAS COME TO COUNCIL AND BEEN APPROVED WITH MULTI YEAR FUNDING. IT HAS BEEN STATED BY MEMBERS OF CAB AND RECIPIENTS AS HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS. I JUST AM NOT COMFORTABLE LOCKING THIS CONTRACT INTO A THREE YEAR CONTRACT WHEN THERE'S OTHER VARIABLES THAT CAN POP UP. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. COUNCIL MCLENNAN, IT'S YOUR MOTION, YOU TO WRAP UP. >> NO, YEAH. THANK YOU TO EVERYONE, STAFF, COLLEAGUES FOR THE VARIED OPINIONS. UNDERSTAND THAT IT CARRIES SOME RISK AND IS COMMITTING FUTURE COUNCILS TO A SERVICE DELIVERY. WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME WITH A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS, AND I BELIEVE THIS IS, AN ESSENTIAL SERVICE THAT WE PROVIDE, AND I MAINTAIN THAT THIS SHOULD BE A MULTI YEAR CONTRACT, AND THAT WILL SERVE EVERYONE'S INTERESTS. >> TO THE MOTION THEN THAT COUNCIL MAKE A STREET OUTREACH A THREE YEAR CONTRACT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. THAT IS COUNCIL FOOT, COUNCIL FIQUET, COUNCIL MCGURK, COUNCIL MCLENNAN, AND DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON, ALL AS OPPOSED. COUNCILLOR COCHRANE, COUNCILLOR STACEY DON SMITH, AND COUNCILLOR MYSELF, MAYOR HENDRICKSEN. THAT WAS A WEIRD ONE ON THAT ONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCILLOR PAYNE, IF YOU CAN HEAR ME, YOU'RE WELCOME BACK. >> WENT HOME. >> AREAS. NO, HE'S JOTTING RIGHT BACK IN HERE. ON THE OVERALL COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR BUDGET. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON. >> I'LL DO A MOTION. I CAN EXPLAIN IT. IT DOESN'T DIRECTLY IMPACT THE BUDGET, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT. THE MOTION IS DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE RECOMMENDATION. THAT COULD ALSO, I GUESS BE THROUGH OUR FACILITIES STUDY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TO BRING COUNCIL OPTIONS TO DIVEST OF THE MINE TRADING BUILDING. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SECONDED BY COUNCIL FIQUET. SPEAK TO IT. >> THANK YOU. THIS WILL TIE INTO SOME MORE FACILITIES AS WE GO LATER DOWN THE LINE HERE. THE ISSUE IS WE THE NEW POOL IS BEAUTIFUL. OUR OPERATING COSTS WENT UP BY OVER THREE MILLION, SO WE'RE NORTH OF $5 MILLION ON A FACILITY. EVERY TIME WE ADD A FACILITY, WE FOCUS ON THE CAPITAL, WE NEVER FOCUS ON THE OP COSTS. WE HAVE THIS PROPERTY HAD IT FOR A LONG TIME. IT'S BEEN WELL USED BY NON-PROFIT. I SEE NO REASON FOR THIS TO BE IN OUR LINE ITEM. IS SOMETHING THAT WE COVER IT DOESN'T COST AS A LOT OF MONEY, BUT I DON'T SEE ANY ACCOUNTING HERE ANYWHERE AS [02:15:02] OUR ASSET PLAN DOES FOR THINGS LIKE ROOFS AND BOILERS AND ALL THE VERY EXPENSIVE THINGS. I THINK IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO START DECREASING SOME OF OUR CITY BUILDINGS, AND THIS ONE I THINK HAS A USE THAT IS VERY NON CITY FOCUSED, AND WE COULD MOVE IT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? COUNCIL PAINS ALL OVER IT. OH, YOU HAVE ANOTHER. ACTUALLY, NO, YOU'RE NOT. LET ME. YES, YOU PROBABLY ARE. [LAUGHTER] WE'LL SEE YOU AGAIN SHORTLY, COUNCILLOR PAYNE. IT'S LOVELY TO HAVE YOU HERE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON OR ADMINISTRATION ON THIS MOTION. COUNCIL FIQUET? >> JUST LOOKING MAYBE FOR SOME INSIGHT FROM ADMINISTRATION ON THE ADVISABILITY OF THAT. >> MR. VAN DYNE. >> IT'S NOT A QUESTION THAT WE'VE TURNED OUR ATTENTION TO RECENTLY. ARE WE ABLE TO STUDY THE QUESTION FOR A LITTLE BIT AND PERHAPS GET BACK TO YOU ON THE ADVISABILITY. I BE HARD PRESSED TO PUT STAFF ON THE LINE. BUT I WOULD SAY, AS A GENERAL STATEMENT THAT ASSET MANAGEMENT AND CITY FACILITIES REVIEWS, AS WE SAID LAST EVENING, ARE THINGS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF REDUCING OUR OVERALL, ASSET LOAD THAT AND WE ARE LOOKING INTO OPPORTUNITIES TO APPLY OUR RESOURCES MORE EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY. WE ARE LOOKING TO PROCEED, AS MENTIONED LAST NIGHT FOR FOUR FACILITIES ON OPTIONS ON HOW TO EITHER LOOK AT EITHER JOINT OPERATIONS OR COMBINED FACILITIES OR PUBLIC PRIVATE OR SOME OTHER OR SELLING OFF. WE'RE HOPING TO GET THAT RFP OUT. THIS PARTICULAR SITE IS NOT INCLUDED IN THAT SUITE. IT MIGHT TAKE A MINUTE OR TWO FOR US TO CONSIDER WHAT THAT MIGHT MEAN. UNLESS SOMEONE IN MY TEAM IS CHOMPING AT THE BIT THAT I CAN'T SEE. >> NO. I WOULD SAY TOO THAT ULTIMATELY THIS IS NOT ABOUT ANY IMMEDIATE ACTION. IT'S LOOKING FOR RECOMMENDATIONS. THIS WOULD ULTIMATELY BE A MOTION THAT WOULD GET ADDED TO OUR WORK PLAN AND THEN WE'D BE PRIORITIZING WITHIN OUR WORK PLAN JUST FOR EVERYBODY. BACK TO MR. VAN DYNE, YOUR POINT WELL TAKEN ABOUT YOU HAVEN'T PUT YOUR SIT ON IT YET. TOTALLY FAIR AND UNDERSTANDABLE, OBVIOUSLY. BUT JUST FOR EVERYBODY'S CONSCIOUSNESS, THAT'S THE WHOLE IDEA BEHIND THIS MOTION. FOR MY UNDERSTANDING, DEPUTY MAYOR JUST PUT FOCUS IT. >> I CAN CHANGE IT SO ADD IT TO YOUR FACILITIES STUDY YOU'RE DOING ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING THOSE THINGS. IF THAT'S EASIER, THEN IT'S ALREADY IN YOUR WORK PLAN. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. JUST ADD THIS BUILDING TO THAT LIST OF THINGS YOU'RE CONSIDERING WHAT TO DO WITH. >> MR. VAN DYNE, WOULD THAT MAKE SENSE? >> YEAH, SURE. [LAUGHTER] I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL AND WHETHER WE GET IT INTO THIS RFP OR WHETHER WE GET IT INTO ANOTHER ONE MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OF A DISTINCTION DEPENDING ON TIMING, BUT CERTAINLY WE CAN MAKE BEST EFFORTS TO LOOK AT AND ASSESS IT, GET BACK TO COUNCIL ON WHEN WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO EXPLORE OPTIONS FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE. >> I BELIEVE I SAW A BUNCH OF MY COLLEAGUES POINTING THAT MAYBE THERE WAS A DIRECTOR WHO WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING, BUT I MISSED IT. DIRECTOR WHITE, GO AHEAD. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST A FEW NUMBERS IN REGARDS TO THE BUILDING. RIGHT NOW, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, WE MANAGE THE LEASE FOR THAT BUILDING. EVEN THOUGH IT'S A FACILITY, WE THROUGH OUR LAND ADMINISTRATION BY LAW ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR LEASES AND DISPOSALS AND ACQUISITIONS. THIS WOULD FALL BOTH UNDER THE LEASE. I'D HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE TERM OF THE LEASE AND WHEN IT COMES DUE, AS WELL AS THE DISPOSAL THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE AN APPRAISAL. THERE'S A FULL PROCESS WE GO THROUGH TO DISPOSE OF LAND, AND IT'S EITHER APPRAISED VALUE OR THE MARKET VALUE. THEN IF SAY IT DOESN'T EXPIRE FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, THEN WE HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. IT'S NOT A YES OR NO. WE CAN SELL IT TOMORROW ANSWER. WE CAN LOOK INTO IT. AS THE CITY MANAGER SAID YOU WANTED TO PUT THAT IN THE RFP, I WOULD LOOK TO OTHERS WHO ARE WORKING ON THE RFP IF THAT MAKES SENSE, OR IT CAN BE DONE INDEPENDENTLY, EITHER WAY, BUT THE LAND ADMINISTRATION BY LAW IS WHAT WOULD HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED HERE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST FOR CLEANLINESS. I'D SAY PROBABLY KEEP IT TO YOUR ORIGINAL MOTION, AND THEN THAT'S JUST, FROM MY OWN PERSPECTIVE, IS JUST KEEP IT TO THAT BECAUSE FROM WHAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED, THIS IS NOT REALLY FACTORING IT INTO ALL THE OTHER EQUATIONS, [02:20:04] BUT [OVERLAPPING] SPECIFICALLY LOOK INTO IT. LET'S SEE IF WE CAN DIVEST. >> GIVE ME OPTIONS AND THEN HOW YOU WANT TO DO THAT, I LEAVE TO YOU. IF IT DOES MAKE SENSE IN THIS RFP, LIKE I DON'T CARE WHAT HAPPENS AND JUST WANT IT TO BE ON A COUNCIL MOTION THAT THAT'S LOOKED AT. >> THANK YOU. COUNCIL FIQUET, YOU WOULD HAVE THE ORIGINAL QUESTION. DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS ONE? SEEING NONE THEN TO THE MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR WARBURTON TO DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE A RECOMMENDATION OUR COUNCIL ON OPTIONS TO DIVEST THE MINE TRAINING BUILDING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AND THAT IS UNANIMOUS. NO. THAT'S GOOD. >> WHAT'S STEVE ON NEXT? >>COUNCIL PAYNE, YOU'RE WELCOME BACK AGAIN. HE'S MOVING. I SEE HIM COMING BACK. WELCOME BACK, COUNCIL PAYNE. ANYTHING ELSE ON THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTORATE BUDGET? COUNCIL PAYNE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. IT'S ON PAGE 44. WILDCAT. >> WE'RE GETTING TO THAT. THERE'S A PAGE ON THAT SO WE'LL COME TO THERE. THANK YOU, THOUGH. NOTHING ELSE ON THE DIRECTORATE PAGE. PAGE 46, WE HAVE FACILITIES DIVISION ARINAS. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS? SEEING NONE. PAGE 47, WE HAVE THE ELLIE CURLING CLUB BUDGET. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS? SEEING NONE. PAGE 48, FACILITIES DIVISION, CITY HALL. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS? SEEING NONE. NEXT, WE HAVE THE FIELDHOUSE. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR MOTIONS? ON THIS ONE, THEN, I WILL PASS THE CHAIR DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE A MOTION. >> THANK YOU, AND GO AHEAD. >> BACK TO ME. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT COUNCIL PERMANENTLY REMOVE THE ADMISSION FEE FOR THE FIELDHOUSE TRACK AND PLAYGROUND STARTING IN 2026. IT'S YOU. YOU GOT TO TAKE THE SECOND. SORRY. >> SECOND, COUNCIL MCGURK. IS THERE A SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? >> YEAH. I BRING THIS MOTION FORWARD AS SOMEBODY WHO ACTUALLY VOTED AGAINST MAKING THIS A FREE FACILITY LAST YEAR, AND I THINK THAT SAYS WHERE MY HEAD'S COMING AT IS SOMETIMES YOU LEARN WHEN YOU'RE WRONG, AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE INSTANCES FOR ME. THE USER CHARGES FOR THE FIELDHOUSE WAIVED IN BUDGET 2025 REPRESENTED A DECREASE OF $97,000 TO OUR TOTAL REVENUE, BUT WHEN WE LOOK AT THE LOSS OF REVENUE WITH THE INCREASED NECESSARY COSTS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF GETTING THAT REVENUE IN, IT'S ABOUT A $71,000 DIFFERENCE TO OUR OVERALL BUDGET. THROUGHOUT THIS YEAR, I HAVE HEARD THE POSITIVE IMPACT OF THIS FACILITY ON RESIDENTS. FROM ST. VINCENT TO PAUL SOCIETY, TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST OVER THAT ACCESS FOR ALL THRESHOLD, AND THEREFORE, THE WALKING TRACK AND THE INDOOR PLAYGROUND, BEING A LIFELINE TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO OTHER CITY FACILITIES TO JUST TODAY BEING AT THE YELLOW KNIFE SENIOR SOCIETY, AND THEM HEARING ABOUT THEIR ADVOCACY THAT THEY HAD BEEN DOING TO US FOR YEARS TO EXPAND THEIR ACCESS. BUT THEN THEM NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT THEIR OWN ACCESS, BUT THE ADDITIONAL ACCESS THAT THEY SEE YELLOW NAFERS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF. SEEING NEW YELLOW NAFERS BEING ABLE TO ACCESS CITY FACILITIES. LONG THE SHORT OF IT IS, I THINK, YOU LIVE, YOU LEARN. I'VE LEARNED. I THINK KUDOS TO ALL OF YOU WHO VOTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS LAST YEAR. I JUST THINK THAT FOR THE TOTAL RELATIVELY NET DIFFERENCE OF $71,000 $72,000 THAT WE ESTIMATE FOR 2026, AND THEN ONGOING, TO KEEP THE WALKING TRACK AS A FREE FACILITY AND TO KEEP THE INDOOR PLAYGROUND AS A FREE FACILITY IS REALLY MEANINGFUL TO YELLOW NAFERS. THEN YOU TACK ON THE FACT THAT EVERY SUMMER FOR THE LAST SEVERAL SUMMERS, WE'VE ALSO BEEN OPENING THE WALKING TRACK FOR FREE BECAUSE OF SMOKE. YOU TACK ON ALL OF THESE ISSUES, AND THAT $72,000 IS ALSO SMALLER BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE MANAGING HR ISSUES, YOU'RE MANAGING SCHEDULES, YOU'RE MANAGING ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT PIECES. I JUST THINK THIS IS A SMALL PRICE FOR A HUGE BENEFIT IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY. THAT'S MY RATIONALE FOR BRINGING FORWARD THE MOTION. >> THANK YOU. THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS. COUNCILLOR FIQUET. >> MORE, JUST A COMMENT. RECENTLY STARTED VOLUNTEERING FOR AURORA MINOR SOCCER LEAGUE, [02:25:02] SO WE ARE IN THE FIELDHOUSE A COUPLE OF HOURS EVERY WEEK. I HAVE SEEN A NET BENEFIT TO THE AMOUNT OF PARENTS THAT ARE UTILIZING THE WALKING TRACK WHILE THEIR KIDS PLAY SOCCER. I'VE HEARD ANECDOTALLY FROM STAFF THAT IT'S INCREASED ACTUAL REVENUE FROM RENTALS OF THE FIELDHOUSE FACILITIES LATER ON DOWN THE ROAD, SO TOTALLY IN FAVOR. >> THANK YOU. COUNCIL MCLENNAN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE POSITIVE BENEFITS ACROSS THE COMMUNITY AND THE THOUGHT BEHIND THE MOTION. I VOTED O POST THIS LAST YEAR AND I REMAIN OPPOSED. I THINK THAT THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT HAVE THE ABILITY TO PAY. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE WITH ACCESS FOR ALL AND THERE HAS TO BE A THRESHOLD SOMEWHERE. SOME PEOPLE JUST MISS OUT AND THOSE PEOPLE VERY MUCH BENEFIT FROM ACCESS TO FACILITIES LIKE THIS. I THINK THE SOLUTION THERE IS TO INCREASE THE THRESHOLD FOR ACCESS FOR ALL. I THINK YOU APPLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY SPECIFICALLY TO PEOPLE WHO STRUGGLE TO AFFORD ACCESS, YOU WILL HAVE THAT BENEFIT AND MORE AS OPPOSED TO WIDELY MAKING A FACILITY FREE FOR EVERYONE. THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR THE G&WT AND WHO HAVE THE ABILITY TO PAY. I THINK IF WE WERE TO MAKE ANY CITY FACILITY FREE FOR ANY PERIOD OF TIME, WE'D GET AMAZING FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY. WHILE I APPRECIATE THAT IT IS LOVED AND THAT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS. I THINK PHILOSOPHICALLY THAT MONEY SHOULD BE DIRECTLY APPLIED TO THE PEOPLE WHO NEEDED AND TO EXPAND THEIR ACCESS RATHER THAN MAKE THE FACILITY FREE FOR EVERYONE AND A MAJORITY OF WHICH CAN AFFORD TO PAY. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WITH QUESTIONS? COUNSEL PAYNE. >> THANK YOU, MR. ACTING CHAIR. DO WE HAVE A ROUGH IDEA OF HOW MUCH THE FACILITY WAS USED FOR THE FREE WALKING TRAIL? >> GO AHEAD, SIR. >> THE QUESTION WAS, DO WE HAVE AN IDEA OF HOW MUCH THE FACILITY WAS USED BEFORE THE FREE WALKING TRAIL? THE ANSWER IS [OVERLAPPING]. >> NO. >> HOW MUCH HAS BEEN USED IN THE LAST YEAR? DO WE HAVE ANY ROUGH IDEA? >> YES. THERE WAS AN ANSWER IN OUR PRE-BUDGET. >> YOU CAN JUST SAY A LOT. >> NO. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY A LOT [LAUGHTER]. >> DIRECTOR WHITE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IN 2025, DURING FREE ACCESS, THERE WERE 37,531 ACCESSING THE TRACK AND 06,396 FOR THE PLAYGROUND. >> THANK YOU, MR. MAN DIN. ARE YOU GOOD? I SAW YOUR HAND GO UP AND THEN DOWN. >> NO. I JUST WOULD INVITE IF THE CHAIR WILL INDULGE ME TO JUST ELABORATE ON THE COSTS, THE FULL COSTS IMPLICATED AS A RESULT OF THIS DECISION, NOT TO SWAY COUNSEL ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I JUST THE INFORMATION THAT I THINK THAT'S BEEN REPORTED IS A CHUNK OF IT, BUT IT MIGHT NOT BE ALL OF IT. BUT IF MR. PANDU, MISS [INAUDIBLE] COULD JUST MAYBE JUST TAKE A SECOND AND TALK ABOUT FINANCIAL IMPACT OF PERMANENTLY CANCELING IT FOR THE MOMENT. >> WHILE THEY'RE DOING THAT, YOU ADMIT. ANY MORE QUESTIONS? COUNSEL PAYNE. >> MR. WAS RIGHT. I DIDN'T SUPPORT THIS LAST YEAR, BUT I'M OF THE SAME MIND AS BEEN. IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY YEAR WE TAKE FROM TAXPAYERS, AND THIS IS JUST SOMETHING THAT WE CAN GIVE BACK. I'M DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT OF DOING IT FREE. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DO IT IN DETERMINATELY. I THINK WE SHOULD REVISIT THIS EVERY YEAR BUDGET. THINGS CHANGE YEAR TO YEAR. RIGHT NOW, IT SEEMS LIKE A GOOD TIME TO DO THIS. THE NEWS IS SAYING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE OF OUR COLDEST WINTERS IN A WHILE, SO IT'S A GOOD YEAR. MAYBE NEXT YEAR, WE'LL HAVE ONE OF OUR WARMEST WINTERS IN A WHILE FOR YOU GUYS THAT THINK CLIMATE CHANGE IS ALL THIS. >> THANK YOU, COUNSELOR PAYNE. I DO BELIEVE MR. PANDU HAS AN ANSWER. [02:30:04] >> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. WE HAVE ESTIMATED REVENUE OF 169,000 AND IF WE REDUCE THAT AMOUNT BY 20,000, WHICH IS THE COST OF HAVING THE FIELD HOUSE BOOKING CLERK FOR 560 HOURS, THAT WOULD GIVE US A NET OF 149,000 OF TOTAL REVENUE THAT WE BE FORGOING. >> FOR AROUND ONE. ANY MORE QUESTIONS. COUNSEL FEQUET. >> THANK YOU, MR. ACTING CHAIR. I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT NUMBER BECAUSE I THINK THERE WAS SEVERAL QUESTIONS IN THE PRE BUDGET QUESTIONS AND THE NUMBER THAT CAME BACK THAT MAYOR HENDRICKSON QUOTED OF 97,000 AS REVENUE MINUS THE 20,000 AS THE COST FOR THE BOOKING CLERK. JUST TO CONFIRM THOSE NUMBERS IN THE RESPONSES ARE NOT CORRECT. >> MR. VAN DUN. >> I'M INVITING MR. PANDU TO CLARIFY. >> SORRY. THERE'S JUST BEEN ONE CHANGE TO THAT. THE AMOUNT REPORTED IN THE DRAFT BUDGET BOOK IS 72,000. WHEN WE WENT BACK AND HAVE REVIEWED THAT THERE WERE FEES AND CHARGES, THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT'S CHANGING. I WAS 97 EARLIER. >> IT'S GONE UP 97-260. >> 69, CORRECT. >> COUNSEL MCGURK, GET YOUR CHANCE, MR. MAYOR. >> IS THAT PROJECTED REVENUE BASED ON CURRENT USER NUMBERS FROM 2025, OR IS THAT PROJECTION ANTICIPATING THAT THERE IS LIKELY GOING TO BE A DROP IN USERS IF WE START CHARGING AGAIN. >> MR. VAN DUN. >> THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION. WHAT ARE THE BASIS OF THE NUMBERS, MR. PAYNE? >> PREVIOUSLY IN 2025, WE WERE BUDGETING AROUND 97,000. THAT NUMBER WE HAD FOREGONE WHEN WE MOVED TO MAKING THE ACCESS FREE. NOW ASSUMING THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE FREE ANYMORE THIS YEAR, WE HAD TO BRING BACK THAT NUMBER UP AT THE SAME TIME BUDGET FOR 2026. THOSE NUMBERS MAKE IT THE 169 NOW. [OVERLAPPING] MR. MAYOR I WOULD LIKE TO PASS IT ON TO MRS. TREFO WHO WILL EXPLAIN THE NUMBERS A LITTLE BIT BETTER. >> WHEN WE PROPOSE, SORRY, THANK YOU [INAUDIBLE] I DON'T KNOW [LAUGHTER]. SORRY. I'M NOT USUALLY ALLOWED TO TALK [NOISE]. WHEN WE PROPOSED THE DRAFT BUDGET, WE ADDED BACK THE INITIAL 97, WHICH WAS THE REDUCED AMOUNT FROM THE PREVIOUS BUDGET. IN DOING THAT, WE WENT BACK TO OUR TABLES AND LOOKED FOR AREAS WHERE THE FEES AND CHARGES MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ADEQUATELY BUDGETED AS PART OF THE EFFORTS TO FINALIZE AND FINE TUNE OUR BUDGET NUMBERS. THIS INCREASE IS A COMBINATION OF BOTH OUR INCREASED FEES AND CHARGES OVER TIME FOR ACCESS TO THE FACILITIES. USING INCREASED NUMBERS OF VISITS LESS A MARGIN OF CONTINGENCY FOR THOSE PEOPLE THAT WILL NOT GO IF THERE IS A INCREASE OR RETURN OF THE FEES. WE DID CONSIDER THIS IN OUR RE-ESTIMATION. IT IS DATA DRIVEN WITH UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE A MARGIN THAT YOU DON'T KNOW. WE USE THE DATA WE HAVE, WITH THE DATA WE USED TO HAVE, WITH THE DOLLARS OF FEES AND CHARGES INCREASING TO GET THIS NEW ROUND NUMBER. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARITY. MAYOR, DO YOU STILL HAVE A QUESTION OR? >> NO. THAT'S GOOD. >> GOOD. ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS. TO THE MOTION TO MAINTAIN. [OVERLAPPING] >> NO, CAN I WRAP IT. >> WRAP IT UP. >> JUST QUICK WRAP UP IS, EVEN WITH THOSE ADDITIONAL FACTORS, I AM STILL IN SUPPORT OF MOVING THIS MOTION. I THINK THERE'S THOSE THINGS THAT WE DON'T KNOW. ULTIMATELY, AS COUNSEL PAYNE SAID, WE CAN ALWAYS REVISIT THIS. THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN ALWAYS REVISIT. BUT FOR NOW, AGAIN, [02:35:03] I SAW THE IMPACT THIS YEAR FROM RESIDENTS. I HEARD IT PLAINLY AND CLEARLY. IT CONVINCED ME THAT I WAS INCORRECT IN MY MIND FOR MYSELF. I FELT THAT I WAS INCORRECT IN HOW I VOTED LAST YEAR. I'D LIKE TO REMEDY THAT TO A CERTAIN DEGREE GOING FORWARD. AGAIN, I STAND BY THAT. THANKS. >> POINT OF CLARITY. THEN FOR YOUR MOTION, YOU WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO REMOVE THE TERM PERMANENTLY, WOULDN'T YOU? >> NO. I BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE PERMANENT, BUT I'M SAYING COUNSEL CAN ALWAYS REVIEW THESE THINGS. >> I SAY NO. [OVERLAPPING]. >> FAIR POINT. >> YES. SUPREMACY OF COUNSEL. >> THERE'S NO MORE COMMENTS. QUESTIONS. TO THE MOTION TO REMOVE THE FEES FOR 2026 FOR THE WALKING TRACK AND PLAYGROUND. >> FOR CLARITY. NOT JUST FOR 2026. THAT COUNSEL PERMANENTLY REMOVED THE ADMISSION FEE FOR THE FIELDHOUSE TRACK FOR THE PLAYGROUND STARTING IN 2026. >> COUNSEL PERMANENTLY REMOVED THE FEE FOR THE FIELDHOUSE TRACK AND PLAYGROUND IN 2026. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THAT PASSES WITH COUNSELOR PAYNE, COUNCIL MCLENNAN AND MYSELF IN OPPOSITION. I'LL PASS THE CHAIR BACK TO THE MAYOR. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYTHING ELSE ON THE FIELDHOUSE? WE MOVE TO PAGE 50. WE HAVE THE PARKS. ANY QUESTIONS? [LAUGHTER] COUNCIL MCLENNAN, LIKE A SHOT [LAUGHTER] GO FOR IT, COUNCIL MCLEN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'D LIKE TO MOVE A MOTION. >> GO AHEAD. >> THAT COUNCIL CUT $140,000 FOR DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT INITIATIVE STARTUP COSTS. >> APPRECIATE YOUR LOOK. I COULDN'T SEE A SECOND OR FAST ENOUGH. I'LL GO WITH COUNCIL FOOT ON THIS ONE. COUNCIL MCLENNAN, IF YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION. >> YEAH. IF WE DON'T HAVE THE STAFF, WE DON'T NEED TO THE QUIT. >> EASY PIZZY. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THAT ONE? THEN ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. THAT'S UNANIMOUS. ANYTHING ELSE ON THE PARKS ITEM, DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON? >> ONE SECOND HERE. I THINK THIS IS WHERE. I'M SORRY. LOOK AT MY MOTION. JUST GOING TO READ IT. NO. ONE SECOND. >> IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE MOTIONS IT'S THE NEAR THE TOP OF PAGE 2 OF THE PROPOSED DRAFT MOTIONS DOCUMENT. >> I JUST HAD TO FIND IT THERE. CONSEQUENTLY, WE CUT THOSE POSITIONS FOR DOWNTOWN. IN HERE FOR PARKS, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD IN COUNSEL INCREASE THE CONTRACT FOR DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT MAINTENANCE TO 175,000 AND EXTEND THE SERVICE IN LINE WITH CURRENT CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS. >> IS THERE A SECOND FOR THIS MOTION, COUNSEL FEQUET, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION [INAUDIBLE]? >> YES. WHILE I DIDN'T SUPPORT ADDED STAFF POSITIONS, I DO THINK THIS PROGRAM WAS VERY EFFECTIVE LAST YEAR. I THINK IT NEEDS A LITTLE MORE JUICE TO MAKE SURE IT RUNS EVEN BETTER THIS YEAR. THEN I THINK AT END OF THIS YEAR, IF WE CAN GET A REALLY GOOD SUMMATION OF HOW THAT WENT, AND THEN SOME THOUGHTS ON EXPANDING IT, HOW IT CAN RUN BETTER. THEN IN CONJUNCTION, I THINK WITH ADDING AN EXTRA DAY OF GARBAGE IN THE WINTER. ALSO COGNIZANT, I KNOW THE DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT HAD A WHOLE SECTION ON THOSE STAFF DOING SNOW CLEARING THINGS. I THINK OUR MASTER PLAN AND OUR APPROACH TO SNOW MOVE IS GOING TO BE COVER THAT THAT OFF. I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE. I HEARD LOTS OF GOOD FEEDBACK. FOLKS DOWNTOWN LOVED IT. IT WAS CLEAN FOR ONCE. YOU'RE WALKING DOWNTOWN. WASH PRESSURE, WASH SIDEWALKS IS EXCITING. I WANT TO ADD THIS MAKE SURE THIS IS IN THERE AND INCREASED. I JUST DON'T THINK THE NUMBER WE HAD LAST YEAR WAS QUITE ENOUGH TO DO IT WELL. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS TO THE MOTION, COUNSEL PAYNE. >> THANK YOU. I WON'T BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION. I REALLY DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO SEE HOW IT'S GOING TO GO WITH THE EXTRA DAY OF GARBAGE COLLECTION [NOISE] WITH NO IMPACT ON OUR BUDGET. IF WE CAN'T KEEP UP NEXT YEAR FOR BUDGET, WELL, I WON'T BE HERE. POSSIBLY. [LAUGHTER] MAYBE SOMEBODY WILL PUT THAT IN THE BUDGET FOR NEXT YEAR. >> I APPRECIATE THAT META ANALYSIS THERE [LAUGHTER]. IT'S VERY DEEP. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM ANYBODY ON THE MOTION? COUNSEL FEQUET. >> SAME AS THE WALKING TRACK. [02:40:02] THIS WAS THE OTHER THING THAT I CONSTANTLY HEARD DIRECTLY FROM RESIDENTS ABOUT. SEEING PEOPLE, THOSE FOLKS WHO WERE CLEANING UP OUR DOWNTOWN WERE LITERALLY THERE BEFORE, ON MY WAY TO WORK AND ON MY WAY HOME. THEY WERE DOING A GREAT JOB AND YEAH, I HOPE WE GIVE THEM THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF COMPENSATION FOR THEIR WORK AND ALSO EXPAND THE PROGRAM AS MUCH AS WE CAN WITHIN THAT DOLLAR FIGURE. I'M DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT OF THIS BECAUSE AGAIN, I RECOGNIZE THAT THE DOWNTOWN IS A PART OF THIS COMMUNITY WHERE MANY PEOPLE WORK AND LIVE AND TRAVEL THROUGH. I THINK THIS IS A SMALL DROP IN THE BUCKET TO HELP CONTINUE SOMETHING THAT SEEMS TO BE WORKING VERY WELL AND VERY CURIOUS AND EAGER TO GET SOME MORE DATA AFTER ANOTHER SEASON TO SEE IF IT'S HAVING THE IMPACT WE THINK IT IS AND WHAT PEOPLE ARE TELLING US IT IS. I DEFINITELY SUPPORT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY COUNSEL COCHRANE? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. I'M ALSO IN SUPPORT OF THIS. I WORKED RIGHT BESIDE 54 AA FOR A VERY LONG TIME SEEING THEM FIRSTHAND OF WHAT THEY WERE DOING. NOT ONLY DID I HEAR A LOT OF COMPLIMENTS, I COMPLIMENTED THEM ON A DAILY BASIS ANYTIME I WENT BY THEM. I DEFINITELY FEEL THEY NEED TO BE PAID MORE OR HAD ANOTHER PERSON TO THEIR ROSTERS, THEREFORE, TOTAL SUPPORT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. REMEMBER ULTIMATELY CONTRACTS WITHIN ADMINISTRATION, BUT I APPRECIATE SENTIMENT. ANY OTHER THING ELSE ON THIS? DEPUTY MAYOR, I'M BACK TO YOU TO FINISH OFF. >> THANK YOU. I THINK IT'S ALSO ALIGNS, WE HAD A MEETING WITH DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES, AND WHILE SECURITY WAS A BIG PART OF THE FOCUS. THIS WAS SEEN AS SOMETHING WE'RE DOING AS A CITY. WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT REVITALIZING OUR DOWNTOWN AND ATTRACTING INVESTMENT, AND THIS IS ACTUALLY DOING THAT. IF WE CAN ENHANCE IT EVEN JUST A LITTLE BIT, I THINK THAT'S RESPONDING TO WHAT PEOPLE ARE CLEARLY TELLING US IS WORKING, AND SO WE CAN DO BETTER. THANKS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THEN WITH THAT TO THE MOTION, THAT COUNSEL INCREASE THE CONTRACT FOR DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT MAINTENANCE FROM $100,000 TO $175,000 AND EXPAND THE SERVICE IN LINE WITH CURRENT CONTRACT FOR OBLIGATIONS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. THAT IS EVERYONE IN FAVOR EXCEPT FOR COUNSELOR PAYNE. ANYTHING ELSE ON THE PARKS PAGE? SEEING NONE. WE MOVE TO PAGE 51 AND THE WILDCAT CAFE, AND I'M GOING TO COUNSEL PAYNE. I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN CHOMPING AT THE BIT HERE. >> I WOULDN'T SAY CHOMPING. >> YOU'RE READY TO GO. WILDCAT CAFE. SHOULD WE AS A CITY BE OWNING THIS FACILITY, OR SHOULD WE HAND IT OVER TO ONE OF THE HERITAGE HISTORICAL HISTORICAL SOCIETIES OR SOMEBODY ELSE TO RUN THIS. I DON'T THINK THAT WE DO, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY WE DON'T DO A GOOD JOB. I THINK WE DO A GREAT JOB IN RUNNING IT, BUT SOMEBODY ELSE COULD DO A BETTER JOB. IS THERE ANY DESIRE ON COUNSEL TO SUPPORT GETTING RID OF THIS? >> QUESTION TO YOUR COLLEAGUES AS OPPOSED TO ADMIN?. NO. THAT'S FAIR. MAKING SURE I SEE YOUR HANDS GOING UP SO GO FROM LEFT TO RIGHT, COUNSEL FEQUET, AND THEN I'LL GO DOWN. >> YEAH, I THINK FOR ME, THE SUGGESTION EARLIER THAT WE ALREADY HAVE FOUR MAJOR FACILITIES THAT ARE BEING LOOKED AT TO DECIDE HOLISTICALLY WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH OUR ASSETS, BOTH FROM THE LENS OF ASSET MANAGEMENT BUT ALSO LEVERAGING OUR COMMUNITY IN THE PROFESSIONAL AND ENERGY AND SERVICES THAT THEY CAN OFFER. PEOPLE CAN DO THESE THINGS DIFFERENTLY AND IT'S LESS THINGS FOR US TO DO. RECOGNIZING THAT THESE ARE VALUABLE ASSETS AND LAND IN SOME CASES. I MEAN, I WOULD BE DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT OF LUMPING THIS INTO THAT LARGER PROJECT TO LOOK AT OUR ASSETS HOLISTICALLY. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNSEL MCGURK. >> YEAH, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS BUILDING [LAUGHTER]. >> AND I KNOW WHAT THIS CURRENT STATE. SO I KNOW THAT IT IS AN ASSET THAT NEEDS A LOT OF CONSIDERATION. AND AS WE HAVE NOT GIVEN IT VERY MUCH CONSIDERATION, IT IS CERTAINLY ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT HAS NOT IN THE PAST COST THE CITY ENOUGH FOR COUNCIL TO CARE. BUT NOW BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T CARED, IT IS GOING TO COST US A LOT OF MONEY. I AM SUPPORTIVE INCLUDING IT IN THAT CONVERSATION OF OUR GENERAL REVIEWS OF OUR FACILITIES. BUT I WOULD SAY THAT IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT SITUATION BECAUSE IT IS A HERITAGE BUILDING. IF WE WANT TO MAINTAIN THAT AND WE WANT TO MAINTAIN ITS STATUS AS A HERITAGE BUILDING OR THAT IT'S BEING HELD IN THAT REGARD, [02:45:07] THEN WE NEED TO EITHER BE THE ONES RESPONSIBLE FOR IT OR PASS IT OFF TO A HERITAGE ORGANIZATION. AND IF WE PASS IT OFF TO A HERITAGE ORGANIZATION, WE'RE PASSING OFF A HUGE LIABILITY BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED THAT WERE UNCOVERED THROUGH THE FIRE THAT HAPPENED. WELL, YEAH, I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT THIS BUILDING. I'VE ACTUALLY THOUGHT WE SHOULD LOOK AT THIS BUILDING BEFORE THE FIRE. BUT AGAIN, IT WAS TOO SMALL OF A DEAL TO REALLY THINK ABOUT NOW THAT WE SEE IT ON OUR BUDGET AS HAVING INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY. YEAH, WE WILL HAVE TO RE-EXAMINE IT. FOR INSTANCE, OUR FP, I THINK IT'S A MINIMUM OF $2,000 A MONTH RENT FROM WHOEVER'S OPERATING IT, AND IT'S ONLY A TWO YEAR CONTRACT, AND ALL OF THAT IS VERY OLD AND DOESN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE, THAT IT'S ALSO NOT A VERY ACCESSIBLE SPACE FOR PEOPLE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AS A RESTAURATEUR. IN GENERAL, I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED AS A PROGRAM. BUT I GUESS ALL OF THAT RAMBLING IS MORE TO SAY, ON A PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLE LEVEL, DOES COUNCIL WANT TO KEEP THIS AS A HISTORICAL SITE? I THINK WE CAN'T GET RID OF IT AND MAINTAIN IT AS A HISTORICAL SITE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK ANY HISTORICAL ORGANIZATION IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO MAINTAIN IT. >> SO I WOULD JUST GO BACK TO SIMILAR TO THE MINE TRAINING SOCIETY BUILDING. ONE, I WOULD SAY, KEEP THIS SEPARATE FROM THE OTHER WORK THAT WE'RE DOING ON FACILITIES BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THAT WORK IS RELATED TO STAFFING, SPACE, OPERATIONAL SPACE, ALL THAT. WILDCAT DOESN'T FIT INTO THAT CATEGORY. SO I WOULD SAY IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO MOVE A MOTION AND REMINDER, THERE IS NO MOTION ON THE FLOOR YET. BUT IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO, I'D SAY SIMILAR IN VAIN TO THE MOTION THAT DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON HAD, WE CAN GET THERE TOO, DON'T WORRY. BUT SIMILAR TO WHAT DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON HAD DONE AROUND THE MINE TRAINING BUILDING. DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE, A RECOMMENDATION FOR COUNCIL ON OPTIONS TO DIVEST BECAUSE THAT ULTIMATELY IS ABOUT ADMIN LOOKING AT IT FOR US. THEN IT'S STILL A DETERMINATION OF US IN THE FUTURE OF WHETHER OR NOT TO DO SOMETHING. IT WOULD FACTOR IN ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED, COUNCILOR MCGURK, AND CAN WE MAINTAIN HERITAGE STATUS? HOW DOES THAT WORK? ALL OF THOSE SORTS OF THINGS, IT'S DONE AROUND THE WORLD, SO I DON'T THINK IT'S IMPOSSIBLE, BUT IT'S JUST A MATTER OF MAKING SURE. I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE THAT CONTEXT. BEFORE WE GET TO YOU, ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW IT. WE'LL FINISH THIS FIRST ROUND AND THEN I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO YOU, COUNCILOR PAYNE. GO AHEAD, COUNCILOR COCHRANE. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR. I WOULD SUPPORT ASSESSING IT. THE DIFFICULTY IS THIS IS HISTORICAL AND A MUNICIPAL HISTORIC SITE. IT'S ACTUALLY PROTECTED BY BY-LAW NUMBER 3635, SO WE WOULD HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO AMEND THAT. THING IS WITHIN THE HISTORY OF THIS SITE TO, UP UNTIL THE EARLY 1990S, THIS ACTUALLY WAS OWNED BY A HISTORIC SOCIETY, AND WE HAD TO ABSORB IT BECAUSE IT WAS SUCH A MESS. SO SIMILAR TO WHAT AS THE MAYOR WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT, I THINK WE COULD FIGURE OUT HOW TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS. FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE THE POST OFFICE IS A HISTORIC SITE THAT IS RAN AND OWNED BY DENENDEH, THEY HAVE TO COME AND ASK IF THEY WANT TO HAVE SOME PERMISSIONS TO CHANGE SOME STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDING OR DO NEW THINGS, BUT I THINK WE COULD KEEP IT TO THE WAY THAT WE HAVE IT NOW BECAUSE I WOULD REALLY HATE TO SEE OUR FIRST CAFE, ONE OF OUR FEW HISTORIC BUILDINGS EVER HAVE TO GO AND BE TORN DOWN TO BECOME SOME OSTENTATIOUS OLD TOWN CONDO. SO I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT TO ASSESS THIS. BUT I AM ALSO VERY MUCH HESITANT THAT THIS COULD EVEN BE DONE WITHIN THE LIFESPAN OF THIS COUNCIL. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THAT HAS TO BE DONE AROUND THIS TO SEE WHAT WOULD HAVE TO BE CHANGED OF THE BY-LAWS. SO SIMILAR TO WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE MINE TRAINING SOCIETY, I WILL SUPPORT IT THAT WAY. >> FAIR ENOUGH. NEXT WE HAVE COUNCILOR MCLENNAN, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING? I WASN'T SURE IF YOU ARE ON THE LIST OR NOT. COUNCILOR WARBURTON. >> YES, SAME IDEA AS THE MINE TRAINING BUILDING, BUT I'LL GIVE IT BACK TO COUNCILOR PAYNE. >> GO TO COUNCILOR ARDEN-SMITH FIRST. NO, YOU'RE FINE. >> THAT'S BECAUSE I'M SO QUIET. I THINK THERE'S NEEDS TO BE A LARGE CONVERSATION WITH THE WILDCAT. I THINK PREVIOUS COUNCIL DID A MASSIVE DISSERVICE FOR THE WILDCAT MAKING IT ONLY USABLE DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS, AND IT NEEDS TO BE A YEAR ROUND IN ORDER FOR IT TO PRETTY MUCH GIVE BACK TO THE COMMUNITY AND ALLOW IT FOR ANYBODY WHO DOES HAVE A CONTRACT IN IT, [02:50:02] HAVE A FULSOME USE OF IT. SO I THINK A LARGER CONVERSATION NEEDS TO BE AROUND THE WILDCAT, NOT JUST WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED TO KEEP IT OR GIVE IT OFF TO SOMEBODY ELSE. I THINK THIS DESERVES A MORE FULSOME DISCUSSION. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILOR PAYNE. >> THANK YOU. I AGREE. LIKE MY INTENT FOR THIS WAS TO TAKE IT FROM THE BUDGET THIS YEAR. I'D LIKE FOR THIS CONVERSATION TO GO BACK TO GBC. I THINK THAT THIS IS DEFINITELY AN HOUR CONVERSATION FOR SURE. I UNDERSTAND WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE A DECISION ON SELLING ITS BUDGET TIME. WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS WITH THE RESPECT THAT THE WILDCAT DESERVES. IT'S THE OLDEST OPERATIONAL BUILDING IN THIS CITY, BIG PART OF OUR HISTORY. I THINK THAT WE SHOULD PUT IT BACK TO GBC. SO MY MOTION WOULD BE TO CUT THIS AMOUNT FROM THE BUDGET FOR THIS YEAR, BRING IT BACK TO GPC, AND THEN WE CAN HAVE A FULL CONVERSATION. >> SO JUST RELAX, EVERYBODY. SO I WOULD JUST SAY IN TERMS OF CUTTING IT FROM THE BUDGET, THAT MEANS BASICALLY THE WILDCAT DOESN'T OPEN, WE'D STILL NEED SOMETHING IN ORDER TO OPERATE IT TO SOME DEGREE IN 2026, SO JUST ON THAT PIECE, JUST FOR CLARITY. BUT ON THE GPC PIECE, I TOTALLY TAKE YOUR POINT. I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD ONE IS THAT WE PERHAPS BRING THIS DISCUSSION TO GPC IN THE FUTURE. BUT I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. SO IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR ADMINISTRATION? >> YEAH. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR ADMINISTRATION. WHAT WOULD BE THE MINIMUM AMOUNT RIGHT NOW TO PUT INTO THE WILDCAT TO GET IT OPERATIONAL FOR THE SEASON? >> MR. VAN DINE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I BELIEVE THAT THE SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES DEALING WITH A NUMBER OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE AREA, BUT I'LL INVITE MR. WHITE TO TALK TO US MORE ABOUT THE SPECIFICS. WE MAY HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU WITH A DIFFERENT NUMBER. BUT MR. WHITE, DO YOU MIND SPEAKING TO THIS? >> MR. WHITE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. FIRST OFF, I SHOULD MENTION THAT WE'RE UNDER A CONTRACT FOR THE 2026 OPERATIONAL SEASON. MOVING FORWARD, I CAN'T GIVE YOU EXACT DOLLAR FIGURE TODAY. BUT SOME OF THE WORK THAT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ONGOING WORK WITH OUR REFRIGERATION SYSTEM. SOME OF OUR MECHANICAL WORK IN THAT BUILDING IS STARTING TO TAKE MORE, 10 OR 11 [INAUDIBLE] KEEP GOING. SO REALLY BASIC MAINTENANCE ON ALL OF OUR FACILITY COMPONENTS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. >> SO BASIC MAINTENANCE IS $153,000 FOR, LIKE YOU SAID, REFRIGERATION AND OUR MECHANICAL SYSTEM? >> MR. WHITE? >> THANK YOU. AND I WOULD ADD THAT ALSO TO MAKE SURE THERE'S ALWAYS SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING ALONG WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MEET OUR FACILITY REQUIREMENTS TO OPERATE AS A RESTAURANT. THANKS. >> ANYTHING FURTHER, COUNCILOR PAYNE? I CAN ALSO PASS IT ON TO ANOTHER COUNCILOR FOR THE [OVERLAPPING] >> YEAH, PASS IT ON RIGHT NOW. >> COUNCILOR FEQUET. >> YEAH. JUST TO CLARIFY FROM COUNCILOR PAYNE'S QUESTION AND LOOKING AT THE PRE-BUDGET RESPONSES ABOUT THAT EXACT QUESTION. I UNDERSTOOD. YEAH, THE RESPONSES, DEEP FRYER, RANGE HOOD, REFRIGERATION SYSTEM, AND ALL OUR REQUIRED UPGRADES TO MEET THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGULATIONS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE WILDCAT DID NOT PASS ITS INSPECTION PREVIOUSLY. SO IS THIS JUST CONFIRMING I UNDERSTAND THIS LIST, THESE ARE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO GET IT UP TO SPEC WHERE IT HAS TO BE FOR NEXT YEAR, SO WE CAN MEET OUR CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS, AND IT CAN ACTUALLY BE OPERATIONAL? >> MR. VAN DINE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. JUST SOME THOUGHTS ON I THINK THE BUDGET IS A POLICY DOCUMENT. IT EXPRESSES THE DIRECTION OF WHERE COUNCIL WANTS TO PUT ITS EFFORT AND RESOURCES. AND IN A POLICY VEIN, SOMETIMES THERE'S BIG TICKET ITEMS THAT REINFORCE THE STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS OF THE DOCUMENT, BUT AS WE ALL KNOW, WE GET INTO THE NITTY GRITTY AND SOMETIMES VERY OPERATIONAL. I WOULD OFFER THAT GIVEN THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY COUNCILOR SMITH AND OTHERS AROUND THE TABLE, THIS PARTICULAR ASSET IS ONE THAT IS A BIT OF A NOTABLE PIECE IN THE COMMUNITY. [02:55:03] I WOULD CERTAINLY SEE THE VALUE IN COUNCIL EXPRESSING ITS DESIRE ON THIS PARTICULAR FACILITY TO HAVE A CLOSE LOOK AT IT TO SEE IF THERE ARE OTHER ALTERNATIVE MEANS BY WHICH TO MANAGE RELATIVE FINANCIAL RISK TO THE COMMUNITY, HOW TO ENHANCE ITS OFFER, SEE HOW IT CAN BE BETTER POSITIONED. ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS ARE REASONABLE QUESTIONS AND ARE GOOD POLICY QUESTIONS TO RECEIVE DIRECTION FROM IN A BUDGET DISCUSSION. WHAT I WOULD CAUTION IS JUMPING AHEAD OF THE WORK OF THOSE EXPLORING THOSE QUESTIONS AND ARRIVING AT A BUDGET DECISION IN A CURRENT YEAR OR THE NEXT YEAR IN THE ABSENCE OF HAVING DONE THAT WORK. THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF OPERATIONAL PREDICTABILITY, CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS THAT DIRECTOR WHITE HAS POINTED TO, AND WHILE THAT INTEREST AND DIRECTION THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED IS OF HIGH VALUE, I WOULD JUST ADVISE THAT THERE COULD BE SOME UNINTENDED OPERATIONAL IMPACTS OF GETTING INTO A MID DECISION MAKING PROCESS BY CUTTING RESOURCES PREMATURELY IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT WORK BEING DONE. >> THANK YOU, MR. VAN DINE. YEAH, I TAKE YOUR POINT. I THINK I AGREE WITH COUNCILOR PAYNE IN TERMS OF BRINGING THIS TO GPC IN THE NEW YEAR. AND I THINK THAT TO EXPRESS WHAT I BELIEVE IS COUNCIL'S OR MAJORITY OF COUNCIL'S SEEMING STATEMENTS HERE, IT WAS JARRING FOR ALL OF US TO SEE A BUDGETED 2024 OF 26,000 ACTUALS OF 51, BUDGET IN 2025 OF 44, ACTUALS OF 82, AND NOW A BUDGET OF 190,000. SO IT'S THAT JARRING JUMP THAT HAS MADE US ALL BLUSH AND START TO GO, IS THIS THE ASSET WE'VE ALWAYS LOOKED AT AND MANAGED? AND AT LEAST THAT WAS MY LOOK AT OF THINGS, BUT I WOULD, JUST ONE SECOND, COUNCILOR FEQUET. I PERSONALLY TAKE YOUR POINT, BUT I'LL DO ONE MORE ROUND FROM COUNCIL, UNLESS A MOTION GOES ON THE TABLE, ONE MORE ROUND FROM COUNCIL ON THIS. BUT OTHERWISE, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE WHAT MR. VAN DINE IS SAYING IS, MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, BRING THIS TO GPC AND HAVE A MORE IN DEPTH BOTH COMMUNITY DISCUSSION, BUT ALSO LOOK AT ONGOING. NO, WE DON'T NEED TO DO A MOVE TO BRING IT TO GPC. WITH THAT, ONE MORE ROUND, EVERYBODY, UNLESS THERE'S A MOTION OR DEPUTY MAYOR, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A MOTION HERE? >> YES. >> OKAY. THEN I'LL JUST GIVE IT TO YOU THEN. >> OKAY. DID COUNCILOR PAYNE NOT PUT A MOTION FOR ALREADY? I THOUGHT [OVERLAPPING] >> NO. [OVERLAPPING] ACTUALLY END UP DOING THE MOTION. >> OKAY. SO THE MOTION I'LL PUT FORWARD IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE ONE I DID FOR THE MINE TRAINING BUILDING. DIRECT ADMINISTRATION, PREPARE A RECOMMENDATION FOR COUNCIL AND OPTIONS TO DIVEST AT THE WILDCAT. >> IS THERE A SECOND THERE? COUNCILOR PAYNE, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO IT? >> YEAH. SO THIS SPEAKS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THIS GIVES DIRECTION TO DO THAT WORK. I HAD NOT CONTEMPLATED CUTTING THIS BUDGET, EVEN THOUGH IT IS A MASSIVE JUMP IN COST. NO MATTER WHAT WE DO WITH IT, IT DOES NEED TO BE IN GOOD CONDITION WHEN WE DO THE THING WITH IT. SO IF WE TOTALLY SHUT IT DOWN AND DON'T REPAIR THINGS, IT'LL ACTUALLY MAKE OUR OPTIONS LESS, NOT MORE IN THE FUTURE. SO I DON'T WANT TO CUT THIS. IT IS A LOT, BUT FOR THE SCOPE OF WORK THEY'RE DESCRIBING, I PROFESSIONALLY KNOW THAT THIS NUMBER ACTUALLY, I THINK MIGHT BE A LITTLE LOW. SO MECHANICAL IS EGREGIOUS IN YELLOWKNIFE SO I AM OKAY KEEPING THAT NUMBER IN THERE FOR NOW AND THE MOTION IS TO JUST COME BACK WITH SOME OPTIONS FOR THIS IN THE FUTURE. SO HOPEFULLY WE DON'T HAVE FUTURE YEARS WITH MASSIVE BUDGETS ON THIS BUILDING. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE MOTION? MY ONLY ONE IS IT'S JUST THE SPECIFICITY OF SAYING DIVEST OF IT AS OPPOSED TO LOOKING MORE BROADLY, AND THAT'S WHERE I JUST WANT TO TAKE IT BACK TO GPC PERSONALLY. SO YOUR SENTIMENT IS DEFINITELY SPOT ON. I'LL JUST VOTE AGAINST IT FOR THAT REASON, BUT I'LL MAKE SURE IT GETS ON GPC. BUT THAT'S MY LOGIC. SO WITH THAT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? NO. THEN TO THE MOTION TO DIRECT ADMIN TO PREPARE A RECOMMENDATION FOR COUNCIL ON OPTIONS TO DIVEST THE WILDCAT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? COUNCILORS WARBURTON, MCLENNAN, STACIE ARDEN-SMITH, WHY DO I SAY YOUR FIRST NAME EVERY TIME? COUNCILOR ARDEN-SMITH, COUNCILOR FOOTE AND COUNCILOR PAYNE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, COUNCILOR COCHRAN, COUNCILOR MCGURK, MYSELF AND COUNCILOR FEQUET. SO THE FAVORS HAVE IT. SO THE MOTION PASSES. ANYTHING ELSE ON THE WILDCAT? SO BASICALLY JUST FOR CLARITY, WE'LL GET A MEMO TO GPC AT SOME POINT. ANYTHING ELSE IN THE WILDCAT? NO? YES, COUNCILOR MCLENNAN. [03:00:03] >> NOT ON THE WILDCAT, BUT I MISSED A MOTION I WANTED TO BRING FORWARD ON THE PREVIOUS PAGE. >> ON THE PARKS? >> YES. >> ON THE PARKS? OKAY. GO FOR IT. >> THANK YOU. SO IT WOULD BE TO INCREASE BURIAL PLOT FEES SUCH THAT AN ADULT BURIAL PLOT AND BURIAL PERMIT FEE COVER 50% OF THE COST OF A PLOT. THE FEES WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS, ADULT 703.25 AND THE REMAINDER INFANT, MILITARY, AND CREMATION, AND COLUMBARIUM, 421.75. >> IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? COUNCILOR FEQUET. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR COUNCILOR MCLENNAN OR ADMINISTRATION? WAS THAT A HAND UP, COUNCILOR MCGURK? >> YEAH. >> GO FOR IT. >> I THINK THAT THAT SEEMS PRETTY REASONABLE. I JUST FIGURED I WOULD ASK ADMINISTRATION TO WEIGH IN ON THEIR THOUGHTS. >> MR. VAN DINE. >> WELL, I BELIEVE MR. WHITE TALKED ABOUT THE ACTUAL COSTS THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY AND THE LEVEL THAT WE'RE COLLECTING AND SUBSIDIZE. MAYBE IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL JUST FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR HIM TO REITERATE WHAT THE IMPACT OF THE MOTION WOULD BE BASED ON CURRENT FEES AND CHARGES. >> MR. WHITE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I BELIEVE OFF TOP OF MY HEAD WITHOUT, I HAVE TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH HERE, BUT THOSE ARE HALF THE COSTS AS WE SPOKE OUT THE OTHER DAY. WOULD THIS BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1ST, AS TYPICALLY WE BRING IN OUR FEES IN SEPTEMBER OF THAT YEAR? >> COUNCILOR MCLENNAN. >> I WOULD DEFER TO ADMIN. I THINK THAT GIVEN THE COST WE WILL INCUR TO EXPAND THE CEMETERY, I PRESUME WILL BE THE SUMMER. I THINK SEPTEMBER 1ST FOR THE NEW FEES TO COME IN, I THINK WOULD BE REASONABLE. >> CAN I JUST ASK A QUESTION TO HIM AND THEN WHEN WE DO THE FEES AND CHARGES BYLAW CHANGE IN JANUARY, WHAT'S THAT CHANGING THEN IF FEES AREN'T CHANGING UNTIL SEPTEMBER? MR. VAN DAN? >> WE HAVE TWO UPDATES, AND I'LL JUST ASK MR. PENDU TO REMIND US WHEN WE DO THOSE UPDATES, AND JUST THE PACKAGES THAT COME THROUGH ON THOSE UPDATES. >> MR. PENDU. >> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. THERE'S MULTI DATES, IF YOU LOOK AT THE MEMO, THAT DOES COME FORWARD AROUND BUDGET TIME, SOME OF THEM DO GO IN EFFECT IN JANUARY, BUT SOME OF THEM DEPENDS IN SEPTEMBER AS WELL, THAT WOULD BE PREDOMINANTLY THE COMMUNITY SERVICES FEES. >> GOT YOU. WE COULD DO JANUARY 1ST OR SEPTEMBER 1ST. IT'S JUST WHAT'S THE NORMAL. COUNSEL MCLENNAN, BACK TO YOU, I'D JUST SAY MAYBE IN YOUR MOTION, THEN, YOU COULD DECIDE, DO YOU WANT TO BE CLEAR? >> SURE. IT'S NOT A DEAL BREAKER FOR ME EITHER WAY JUST LOOKING AROUND THE ROOM. I WOULD SAY SEPTEMBER JUST TO GIVE PEOPLE SOME HEADS UP, BUT IF ANYONE'S KEEN ON JANUARY, I WOULD SUPPORT THAT AS WELL. >> SORRY. THANK YOU. COUNSEL COCHRANE WAS HIGHLIGHTING MY MICE WAS ON. I WAS JUST SAYING MAYBE JUST ADD TO IT AND BECOME EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2026 BECAUSE OTHERWISE, WE PASSED THE MOTION, IT'S LIKE IMMEDIATE EFFECT. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? NONE. TO THE MOTION, INCREASED BURIAL PLOT FEES SUCH THAT AN ADULT BURIAL PLOT AND BURIAL PERMIT FEE COVER 50% OF THE COST OF A PLOT, THE FEES WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS, ADULT $703.25, INFANT $421.75, MILITARY $421.75, CREMATION IN COLUMBARUM, $421.75 TO BE MADE EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2026. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. THAT IS UNANIMOUS EXCEPT FOR COUNSEL ARDEN SMITH. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. COUNSEL ARN SMITH [LAUGHTER]. THE MOTION PASSES. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE THROUGH THE PARKS, WE ARE THROUGH THE WILDCAT. WE ARE ONTO THE LIBRARY. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR MOTIONS, COUNSEL COCHRANE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. SINCE THIS IS THE LAST TIME I WILL BE ABLE TO SAY IT, AND AS PER TRADITION, AND BY THE FACT THAT I MIGHT HAVE TO GO BACK AND TRY TO GET A JOB THERE, I LOVE THE LIBRARY [LAUGHTER]. >> OH, COUNSEL COCHRANE, THAT IS A GOOD ONE. ANYTHING ELSE? NO. ON THE AQUATIC CENTER? ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR MOTIONS, [INAUDIBLE] THE AQUATIC CENTER? DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON? >> YEAH, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS IS A SHINY EXAMPLE OF FOCUSING HIGHLY ON THE ASSET AND NOT ON THE OPERATIONS. [03:05:02] I WAS IN TOWN WHEN WE HAD THE DISCUSSION ON THE ON THE POOL, I GOT SUPPORTED, I SUPPORTED IT. THERE WAS VERY LITTLE TO NO CONVERSATION AROUND THE OPERATIONAL IMPACT. I WILL NOTE THAT THIS IS THREE MILLION DOLLARS MORE A YEAR AND A BIT MORE THAN THE [INAUDIBLE] WAS. IN THE FUTURE, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FACILITIES AND ASSETS, I ENCOURAGE COUNSEL AND FUTURE COUNSELS NOT TO THINK ABOUT THE CAPITAL MONEY. THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT WHAT BOTHERS ME. IT'S THE OPERATIONAL COSTS FOR TILL THE END OF TIME THAT WE ARE DECIDING ON. I SUPPORT THIS, OBVIOUSLY, I SUPPORT THE POOL, BUT JUST LET'S BE COGNIZANT OF THE ACTUAL DECISION WE'RE MAKING WHEN WE SAY YES, TO MORE FACILITIES. >> AS SOMEBODY KNOWN TO BE VERY FRUGAL. I APPRECIATE THAT SENTIMENT, BUT YES, IT IS A GREAT FACILITY AND ALL OF THAT. BUT YES, THANK YOU FOR THAT SENTIMENT. COUNSEL MCGURK. >> JUST WANT TO ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE REVENUE IS ALSO UP TOO. >> [LAUGHTER] COUNSEL MCCLENNAN? >> HERE TO COUNSELOR WARBURTON. >> COUNSEL FOOTE? >> WHAT IS THE LIFE CYCLE, THE ANTICIPATED LIFE CYCLE OF THE NEW POOL. >> THE AQUATIC CENTER. I'VE BEEN CORRECTED PLENTY OF TIMES. >> MR. BANDY. >> LONG LIVE THE AQUATIC CENTER. MR. WAITE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GENERALLY SPEAKING, WHEN WE PUT TOGETHER FACILITIES SUCH AS THIS, WE PLAN ON A 50 YEAR LIFESPAN. OF COURSE, WITH A ROBUST ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN, IT'S EASY TO SURPASS THAT. THANKS. >> THANK YOU, MR. WAITE. >> COUNSEL FOOTE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. FORGIVE MY IGNORANCE, BUT WHERE IS THE RECENT SPA? IT'S YOUR SHIP DEAL REFLECTED AS FAR AS REVENUE? >> MR. VAN DAN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION. I WAS HOPING YOU COME FORWARD. IT IS NOT REFLECTED HERE BECAUSE THE DEAL IS NOT YET SET. WE DID REACH AGREEMENT PRINCIPLE AND WE'RE JUST FINE TUNING IT, BUT THAT REVENUE OFFSET IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE NUMBERS THAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU TODAY. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. VAN DAN. ANYTHING FURTHER, COUNSEL FOOTE? I SUSPECT. THANK YOU FOR THAT. JUST FOR CLARITY, AS WE GET THE INITIAL TAX, WE'LL APPROVE IT. AS PART OF BUDGET, FIRST NOTICES GO OUT TO RESIDENTS. THERE'S A READJUSTMENT HALFWAY THROUGH. IF AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, THAT WOULD THEN BE REFLECTED IN ANY POTENTIAL READJUSTMENT THAT MAY COME ALONG WITH A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER THINGS THAT CAN HAVE AN IMPACT THROUGHOUT A YEAR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS ON THE AQUATIC CENTER, SEEING NONE. COMING TO THE LAST PAGE OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES, WE HAVE RECREATION, ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR MOTIONS. SEEING NONE. WE ARE FOUR MINUTES AWAY FROM OUR 90 MINUTE MARK. I MIGHT SUGGEST WE JUST TAKE OUR 10 MINUTES NOW. TAKE OUR 10 MINUTES NOW. WE WILL BE BACK AT TWO MINUTES TO NINE. MR. VAN DAN, IF YOU COULD THROW YOUR CAMERA ON WHEN YOU'RE READY? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. CALL OURSELVES BACK. COUNSEL ARDEN SMITH WILL BE WITH US SHORTLY. OUR NEXT ITEM IS CORPORATE SERVICES. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE STAFFING SUMMARY FOR CORPORATE SERVICES? SEEING NONE. THEN GO MOVE ON TO PAGE 58, WHICH IS CORPORATE SERVICES DIRECTORATE BUDGET. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS, SEEING NONE. AGAIN, FEEL FREE TO EVER STOP ME. BUDGETING AND TAXATION DIVISION. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS. NOTHING. NEXT, WE ARE ON PAGE 60, FINANCIAL SERVICES DIVISION, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS. SEEING NONE. NEXT, WE MOVE TO PAGE 61, PROCUREMENT AND SUPPLY SERVICES. ANYTHING FROM COLLEAGUES, COUNSELOR COCHRANE. SEE, I WAIT LONG ENOUGH SOMETIMES. >> SINCE I DON'T WANT ALL OF CORPORATE SERVICES, JUST GO WITHOUT ANY COMMENTS. ONE THING I WILL SAY, AND AS I REITERATE FROM EARLIER IS, I LOOK FORWARD TO CHANGES TO PROCUREMENT POLICY, AND I KNOW IT'S ON ITS WAY, AND I THINK IT'S IN DIRE NEED. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COUNSELOR COCHRANE. NODE OF AGREEMENT FROM MR. PENDU. NOTHING FURTHER FOR PROCUREMENT SUPPLY. NEXT, WE HAVE PAGE 62, INFO TECH DIVISION, ANYTHING COUNSEL FOOTE'S GOT A SQUINCH ON HIS FACE, NO, BUT HE'S GOOD. NEXT, WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK IF SOMETHING POPS UP. PAGE 63, WE HAVE ASSET MANAGEMENT AND GO, AM I GIS. [03:10:01] SAYING THE WHOLE THING. DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON. >> THANK YOU. TWENTY FIVE WE BUDGETED SIX FORECAST IS ACTUALLY 547, SO QUITE A BIT MORE. WE'VE OUT THE BUDGET A LITTLE BIT. JUST WANT TO KNOW IF THAT WAS A BLIP. IF THE FOUR OH FIVE IS SUFFICIENT. MR. VAN DAN. >> I'LL INVITE MR. PENDU TO RESPOND TO THAT. >> MR. PENDU. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. NO. I MEAN, I WOULDN'T SAY IT WAS A BLIP, BUT WE WERE ANTICIPATING A LITTLE BIT MORE WORK TO BE DONE. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE WERE THINKING WE WERE GOING TO HIRE A LITTLE BIT MORE STAFF TO SUMMER STUDENTS MOSTLY TO DO SOME OF THE DATA CLEAN UP WORK, THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. BUT FOUR OR FIVE IS THE NORMAL WAGE. >> DEPUTY MAYOR, THUMBS UP. ANYTHING ELSE FROM ANYBODY? SEEING NONE. NEXT, WE HAVE. PARDON ME. WE MOVE ON TO ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES AND INVESTMENTS ON PAGE 65. ANY QUESTIONS ON THE STAFFING SUMMARY, COUNSEL MCGURK? >> JUST A COMMENT. LOVE THE ADDITION OF A COMPOSITION. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS ON THIS? SEEING NONE. NEXT, WE MOVE ON TO THE ACTUAL OVERALL DEPARTMENT PIECE, THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES INVESTMENTS ON PAGE 66. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? YEAH. COUNSEL FOOTE. >> THANKS, MR. CHAIR. I'VE LOOKED AT THE CITY'S BUDGET CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE VISITOR CENTER FOR YEARS PAST. I CAN SEE THE LINE ITEM CLEARLY UP UNTIL ABOUT 2016 WHEN NORTHERN FRONTIER WAS THE OPERATOR AND IT OBVIOUSLY SHUT DOWN. IN MORE RECENT BUDGETS UNDER THE NEW OPERATOR, I DON'T HAVE THE SAME LINE OF SIGHT. COULD ADMIN CLARIFY WHAT THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTIONS HAVE BEEN SINCE THE NEW LOCATION OPENED AND WHERE THOSE AMOUNTS ARE REFLECTED IN THE BUDGET. >> MR. VAN DAN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS IS A REALLY POSITIVE STORY, I THINK FOR THE CITY AND FOR THE VISITOR CENTER IN TERMS OF WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING THERE SINCE THE TRANSITION, WHICH COINCIDED A LITTLE BIT OVER THE COVID PERIOD TWO, WHERE TOURISM EVERYTHING WAS DOWN. SINCE MOVING TO THE NEW LOCATION, WE DID WELCOME OUR 100,000 VISITOR AND THE COMMENTS THAT WE'RE GETTING IN TERMS OF THE NEW LOCATION FROM THE VISITORS IN TERMS OF THE UPGRADES THAT THE TEAM HAS INVESTED IN, BEFORE MY ARRIVAL, TO THE AURORA IMAGES, THE ROTATING ARTWORK THAT WE BRING IN, THE WELCOMING SPACE, AND THE HOURS OF OPERATION. WE'VE BEEN RECEIVING QUITE A FEW POSITIVE COMMENTS. BUT I'LL TURN IT QUICKLY OVER TO DIRECTOR THISTLE TO ELABORATE FURTHER AND TALK ABOUT THE THINGS THAT COUNSEL FOOTE IS INTERESTED IN HEARING ABOUT. >> DIRECTOR THISTLE. >> THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFIC BREAKDOWN. I CAN COME BACK WITH THAT BECAUSE THERE'S MANY FACTORS THAT GO INTO THAT. THE CITY HAD A CONTRIBUTION, AS YOU'VE INDICATED, ON A LINE ITEM IN THE BUDGET, AND THAT WAS INDEXED EVERY YEAR FOR THE MUNICIPAL PRICE INDEX, I BELIEVE IS HOW FINANCE INDEXED IT. THE DNBT'S CONTRIBUTION IS $161,000 A YEAR. THEN WE SECURE FUNDING IN OTHER WAYS. SOMETIMES WE APPLY FOR FUNDING TO OFFSET PROJECT OR UPGRADES. FOR EXAMPLE, THE UPGRADES TO THE AURORA VIEWING SECTION OF THE VISITOR CENTER WAS DONE WITH FUNDING THAT WE RECEIVED FROM ITI WITH THE DNBT. THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLICATED THAN JUST ONE NUMBER. >> COUNSEL FOOTE. >> THANKS FOR THAT. YEAH, I IMAGINE IT'S LIKE A FAIRLY NEW FACILITY, AND IT'S MORE THAN JUST OPERATIONS. THERE'S SOME OTHER OUTLAY THERE TOO. THANK YOU FOR THAT. I'D ALSO LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A MOTION IF THAT'S OKAY. >> IT IS, OF COURSE, YOU CAN MOVE A MOTION. YEP. >> I REALIZE THAT CHANGE TO THE GRANT STRUCTURE, THE GRANT AMOUNT GIVES ADDITIONAL PATHWAY, BUT I MOVE THAT COUNCIL INCLUDES $25,000 FOR A CITY ARTIST AND RESIDENCE PROGRAM THAT IS MANAGED BY A THIRD PARTY ORGANIZATION. TO SUPPORT THE 2022 ARTS AND CULTURE MASTER PLAN AND COUNCIL STRATEGIC DIRECTION COMMITMENT TO AMPLIFY OTHERS TO MEET DIVERSE COMMUNITY NEEDS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MOVE BY COUNSEL FOOTE. [03:15:02] IS THERE A SECOND COUNCIL DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON, OVER TO YOU, COUNSEL FOOTE, FOR ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS YOU WANT TO MAKE ON YOUR MOTION? >> THANK YOU FOR THAT, MR. CHAIR. I REALIZE I'M COMMITTED TO SUPPORTING THE ARTS COMMUNITY BECAUSE WHILE SPORTS, RECREATION, RECEIVE SIGNIFICANT FUNDING AND ATTENTION, NOT EVERYONE IN ALL AND IF IDENTIFIES WITH THOSE ACTIVITIES. ARTS AND CULTURE ARE EQUALLY VITAL TO CREATE A LIVABLE, INCLUSIVE CITY. THEY PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CREATIVE EXPRESSION, CULTURAL CONNECTION, AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TO REFLECT THE DIVERSITY OF OUR RESIDENTS AND COMMUNITY. THE MOTION PROPOSES ALLOCATING $25,000 TO ESTABLISH A CITY ARTIST AND RESIDENTS PROGRAM MANAGED BY A THIRD PARTY ORGANIZATION. THE PROGRAM DIRECTLY SUPPORTS COUNCIL'S STRATEGIC DIRECTION TO AMPLIFY OTHERS AND ADVANCES THE GOALS OF THE ARTS AND CULTURE MASTER PLAN, WHICH CALLS FOR FORMALIZING SUCH A PROGRAM UNDER ITS LEADERSHIP AND SUPPORT PILLAR. IT WILL PROVIDE ARTISTS WITH SPACE, RESOURCES, AND VISIBILITY, WILL FOSTERING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND CULTURAL EXCHANGE. INVESTING IN THE PROGRAM IS A MODEST BUT STRATEGIC STEP TOWARDS STRENGTHENING [INAUDIBLE] ROLE AS A CULTURAL HUB FOR THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES. IT RESPONDS TO COMMUNITY FEEDBACK THAT IDENTIFIED A LACK OF OPPORTUNITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ARTISTS, AND IT PROMOTES INCLUSION, ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION, AND TOURISM. THE INITIATIVE ENSURES THAT ARTS AND CULTURE RECEIVE THE SAME LEVEL OF COMMITMENT AS OTHER SECTORS, CREATING A MORE BALANCED AND VIBRANT COMMUNITY. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNSEL FOOTE. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR ADMIN OR OUR COLLEAGUE COUNSEL FOOTE, WILL GO WITH COUNSEL COCHRANE FIRST AND THEN COUNSEL MCLENNAN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. I MUST SAY I DO SUPPORT THIS IN PRINCIPLE. I'M A VERY ARTY GUY, AS YOU MIGHT HAVE REALIZED BY NOW. BUT I THINK THERE ARE OTHER AVENUES THAT WE CAN GET THIS DONE STRUCTURALLY. I HOPING TO BE ABLE TO SEE SOMETHING WITHIN THE NEW YEAR WHERE ONE OF OUR WE'LL SAY ASSETS WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION WOULD BE ABLE TO FULFILL THIS COMMITMENT. BUT I CAN'T SUPPORT THE MOTION AS IS AS I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK IT SHOULD BE THIS OPERATIONAL QUESTION WHEN THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION TO ADDRESS THIS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNSEL COCHER. NEXT, WE HAVE COUNSEL MCLENNAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY QUESTION WAS JUST TO ADMIT IN TERMS OF HOW THIS WOULD FIT INTO THE WORK PLAN OR JUST THOUGHTS LIKE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, IT SEEMS LIKE A RELATIVELY EASY ONE TO PASS THROUGH THE MONEY TO A THIRD PARTY ORGANIZATION, BUT JUST WANTED TO CHECK MY ASSUMPTION. >> MR. VAN DAN. >> THERE MIGHT BE A FEW FOLKS THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO COMMENT ON THIS. ONE IS THAT WE DO, AS COUNCILOR MCLENNAN KNOWS, WE DO HAVE A GRANT PROGRAM CURRENTLY. WHICH IS DOES OFFER THE OPPORTUNITIES TO CONSIDER. WHETHER ADDITIONAL MONIES ARE ADDED TO THAT AND WHETHER THAT BECOMES THE MECHANISM TO CONSIDER THIS IDEA. THAT'S ANOTHER AVENUE TO CONSIDER. WE ALSO HAVE SOME DOLLARS THAT I KNOW THAT OUR DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, MISS WHITE WOULD BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO, WE SOMETIMES GET REQUESTS THROUGH THE HERITAGE FUND FOR THINGS THAT ARE NOT THAT ARE HERITAGE ADJACENT, MAYBE, I PUT IT THAT WAY. THERE ARE THINGS THAT COME TO US FROM TIME TO TIME ON THIS FRONT. THEN, OF COURSE, AS THIS MOTION IS SPEAKING TO THE AREA OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES AND INVESTMENT, THERE ARE DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS THAT WE DO RECEIVE. OFTEN, THOUGH, WE DO TRY AND SEEK FUNDING IF WE DO HAVE AN INDICATION OF A PROGRAM NEED IN THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THE AGRICULTURE SUPPORT PROGRAMS THAT WE DO, WE OFTEN WORK WITH ITI TO ACCESS DOLLARS TO OFFER THOSE FUNDING AND CAN FOR OTHERS. WE DO NOT HAVE A LINE OF SITE, TO MY KNOWLEDGE. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO OFFER ONE OF ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE TEAM, WHETHER THEY'RE AWARE OF OTHER GOVERNMENT, PROGRAMMING OPPORTUNITIES WHERE WE MIGHT WANT TO PURSUE AND THEN ADMINISTER THAT FUNDING UNDER THIS. BUT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, AND AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, THERE'S PROBABLY A COUPLE OF WAYS TO DO THIS, AND AT THIS POINT, WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO BE ALLOCATED THROUGH THIS BUDGET PROCESS. UNLESS, OF COURSE, THERE IS OFFSETS THAT WE CAN FIND FROM OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT. BUT I'LL PAUSE THERE AND THEN MAYBE INVITE DIRECTOR THISTLE TO BE FIRST OFF TO [03:20:04] OFFER OR TO REDIRECT IT IF NECESSARY. >> DIRECTOR THISTLE. >> THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. WE CURRENTLY WORK WITH LOCAL ART GROUP TO CURATE THE NONCOMMERCIAL GALLERY ART SPACE. IF WE WERE TO HAVE A $25,000 BUDGET FOR ARTISTS AND RESIDENTS PROGRAM, THEN THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE ONE OPTION OR ROUTE TO PROVIDE THE PROGRAM. WE HAVEN'T PUT THOUGHT INTO THIS. THE ARTS AND CULTURE MASTER PLAN WAS DONE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES, AND MY DEPARTMENT WAS WORKING WITH THAT DEPARTMENT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED, AND AS I'VE INDICATED, THE VISITOR CENTER HAS THE NONCOMMERCIAL GALLERY ART SPACE. WE HAVE RUN PROGRAMS IN THE PAST, SUCH AS THE TRANSFORMER ART PROGRAM, WHERE WE PAID ARTISTS LOCALLY TO TRANSFORM THE TRANSFORMERS BY MAKING THEM PIECES OF ART. YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN THEM ALL THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND ALL THE STREETS. WE'VE RUN DIFFERENT PROGRAMS LIKE THAT. WE'VE ALSO RUN THE BANNER PROGRAMS WHERE WE'VE RUN A CONTEST AND HAD PEOPLE SUBMIT, AND THEN THE BANNERS THAT YOU USED TO SEE AROUND BEFORE WE CHANGED THEM TO THE RECONCILIATION BANNERS WERE DONE BY LOCAL ARTISTS. WE HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE IN THIS, BUT WE HAVEN'T RUN AN ARTIST AND RESIDENT PROGRAM. I DON'T KNOW IF MR. WHITE HAS ANYTHING TO ADD. >> MR. WHITE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOTHING REALLY, DAD, JUST TO, I GUESS, MAKE MENTION THAT CURRENTLY THE ARTS AND CULTURAL MASTER PLAN IS IN THE GARDEN PLOT, WAITING FOR, I GUESS MORE FERTILIZER AND SOME MORE DIRT TO BE ADDED. THANKS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> I GUESS I COULD ADD AS WELL. IN LAST YEAR'S BUDGET, COUNCIL ALLOCATED $25,000 TO OUR DEPARTMENT WITH RESPECT TO GROW, THE AGRICULTURE PLAN. WE UTILIZED THAT FUNDING TO CONTINUE WITH THE AGRICULTURE PROGRAMMING THROUGH A PRIVATE CONTRACTOR. AGAIN, WE HAD EXPERIENCE IN DISPERSING THAT MONEY THAT COUNCIL ALLOCATED LAST YEAR. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYTHING FURTHER, COUNCIL MCLENNAN? >> MAYBE JUST A QUICK FOLLOW UP. SOUNDS SORT OF LIKE MAYBE JUST A FURTHER COMMENT. LIKE, THE MOTION SPEAKS SPECIFICALLY TO SEEKING A THIRD PARTY ORGANIZATION TO MANAGE. NOT NECESSARILY, LIKE A PROGRAM THAT THE CITY WOULD MANAGE. JUST LOOKING TO UNDERSTAND, LIKE THE TIME COMMITMENT THAT THAT WOULD TAKE RATHER THAN SORT OF US RUNNING THE PROGRAM AS WAS ALLUDED TO THERE. >> MR. VAN DYNE. >> I'LL INVITE MISSILE TO RESPOND. >> DIRECTOR THISTLE. >> THANK YOU, I DON'T IMAGINE WE WOULD RUN THE PROGRAM. IF WE HAD $25,000 IN FUNDING, THEN WE WOULD SEEK OUT A THIRD PARTY THAT COULD ASSIST US WITH THAT, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID WITH GROW AND THE $25,000 THAT WAS ALLOCATED LAST YEAR. THERE'S SOME TIME INVOLVED, BUT NOT AN ABUNDANCE OF TIME. COUNCIL CLEON. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> NEXT IS COUNCILOR KET. >> JUST A QUESTION FOR COUNSEL FOOT. NO, WORRIES. JUST A QUESTION. JUST TO CLARIFY THE INTENT, IT SAYS, LIKE FOR A CITY ARTIST AND RESIDENCE PROGRAM. IS THE MOTION INTENDED TO BE SPECIFIC ABOUT HOW OR WHERE OR IS IT JUST THAT THE CITY DEDICATES $25,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN ARTIST AND RESIDENCE PROGRAM MANAGED BY A THIRD PARTY ORGANIZATION TO WHETHER IT GOES, LIKE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO GROW OR A DIFFERENT PATH THAT WAS NOT YOUR INTENT TO SPECIFY ANY OF THAT? >> COUNSEL FEQUET. THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE. >> JUST, LIKE AN RFP IS PERFECT. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY INTENT THAT THE CITY MANAGES THE PROGRAM ITSELF. IT IS A WELL, TO USE THE WORD SEED APPLY IS TO GROW IN CULTURE AND MAYBE LEVERAGE MORE FUNDING FROM OTHER NGOS AND PRIVATE INVESTORS TO MAKE AN INVESTMENT IN THE ARTS COMMUNITY. I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. COUNSEL FEQUET. >> IN GENERAL, IT'S A SMALL DROP IN THE BUCKET. I REALIZE WE DID PARK THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE ARTS AND CULTURE MASTER PLAN. BUT I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION GENERALLY BECAUSE WHAT THE MONEY WOULD BE FOR IS HELPING TO BUILD CAPACITY WITHIN THE ARTIST COMMUNITY AND SIMILAR TO THE GROW MOTION, AND I'M SURE WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT HERE IN A SECOND. IT'S A VERY SMALL DROP IN THE BUCKET TO TRY TO SPREAD AROUND TO HELP BUILD CAPACITY. [03:25:06] IF IT WAS FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE, I MAY SAY MAYBE NOT RIGHT NOW, BUT I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY A GOOD BANG FOR OUR BUCK. I'D BE HAPPY TO SUPPORT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNSEL FEQUET. NEXT WE HAVE COUNSEL MCGURK. >> AS AN ARTIST MYSELF, WHO FREQUENTLY TRAVELS TO DO ART. I LOVE ARTIST RESIDENCIES. I THINK THEY'RE VERY IMPORTANT, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A LOCAL RESIDENCY FOR ARTISTS, BUT I ACTUALLY THINK THAT IT WOULD BE MORE PRUDENT TO BLANKET THROW $25,000 TOWARDS SUPPORTING DARCON CULTURE MASTER PLAN RATHER THAN PIGEON HOLLING, JUST ARTIST RESIDENCIES. ALSO AS SOMEONE WHO'S INVOLVED IN THE LOCAL ART SECTOR AND WHO HAS WORKED ON PROJECTS. THAT ON VARIOUS PROJECTS LOCALLY, WE WILL OFTEN BRING IN ARTISTS FROM OUT OF TOWN TO WORK WITH LOCAL ARTISTS. IF WE WERE TO ONLY DESCRIBE THIS AS A RESIDENCY PROGRAM, THE MAJORITY OF THE FUNDING WOULD HAVE TO BE SPENT ON A SOUTHERN ARTIST, WHEREAS IF WE EXPANDED THE PARAMETERS OR IF IT WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE BROAD, MORE MONEY COULD GO TO THE LOCAL ART. AS MUCH AS I WOULD LOVE TO SEE DEDICATED RESIDENCY, I THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT POSSIBLY COULD BE SOUGHT BY AN ORGANIZATION FROM THE CITY THROUGH THE HERITAGE COMMITTEE. I THINK THAT CAN BE FOCUSED AS A PIECE OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE IN YELLOWKNIFE. BUT I THINK THAT THE GENERAL SUPPORT FOR THE LOCAL ART SECTOR IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN JUST RESIDENCIES. I THINK THAT'S A VERY PROJECT BASED PROJECT BASED THING. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNSEL MCGURK. NEXT, I'M GOING TO GO TO COUNSELOR PAYNE AND THEN I'LL COME BACK TO YOU, COUNSEL FICKE. >> THANK YOU. I GET WHAT'S BEING ASKED AND I DO APPRECIATE IT. I SEE WHERE HE'S COMING FROM. IT WAS JUST THIS WEEK THAT WE HAD LAST WEEK THAT WE HAD SOMEBODY REQUESTING $25,000 FOR THE ARTIST RESIDENCY PROGRAM. THE THING ABOUT PUTTING IT TO AN RFP, I MEAN, IT'S GOING TO TAKE STAFF TIME AT COST, STAFF TIME COST MONEY. I WOULD BE MORE APT, I GUESS, TO DIRECT THE PROPONENT TO APPLY TO THE GRANT COMMITTEE AND HERITAGE OR THE HERITAGE COMMITTEE. I WOULDN'T SUPPORT THIS MOTION AS IT STANDS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNSELOR PAYNE. COUNSEL FOOT, YOU HAD A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. >> I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF COUNSEL FOOT WOULD CONSIDER SO MUCH TO THE GROW MOTION THAT WE HAVE IN OUR LIST PUTTING THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY GENERALLY TOWARDS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ARTS AND CULTURE MASTER PLAN IN WHATEVER WAY ADMIN CAN I GET THE MOST VALUE FROM RECOGNIZING THAT THERE'S LOTS FOR CLARITY, THAT'S MORE THAN JUST A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. >> THAT'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE CHANGING THE SCOPE FROM A SPECIFIC THING. BROAD IMPLEMENTATION, SO IT WOULD BE MORE OF A MOTION OFF THE LIST AND PUT A NEW MOTION ON THE TABLE. >> YEAH $25,000 TO SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ARTS AND CULTURE MASTER PLAN, JUST CURIOUS IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WOULD CONSIDER. >> COUNSEL FOOT. >> THANKS FOR THAT QUESTION. GIVEN THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROPONENTS TO ACCESS FUNDING. I WOULDN'T SAY NO TO THAT. I WOULD DEFINITELY LOOK AT RESTRUCTURING THE I THINK THE BOTTOM LINE HERE IS THAT WE JUST REALLY NEED AN IMPEDE US TO ADVANCE ARTS AND CULTURE A LITTLE MORE IN THE COMMUNITY. YEAH, I'D BE OPEN TO THAT FOR SURE. >> OKAY, BEFORE WE POTENTIALLY REMOVE MOTION OR ANYTHING. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COLLEAGUES? COUNCILOR COCHRANE, ARE YOU. NO. FOR MYSELF. YEAH, I'M ACTUALLY IN AGREEMENT WITH COUNSELOR PAYNE ON THIS. I LOVE THE IDEA, BUT I THINK YOU KNOW, WE JUST EXPANDED THE GRANTS PROGRAM BY 10%. THE SYSTEMS ARE THERE. YEAH, THAT'S ULTIMATELY IT. I THINK THERE'S PLACES FOR THESE TYPES OF THINGS TO ALREADY GO. BUT I A I APPRECIATE THE SENTIMENT IN THAT IN BRINGING FORWARD THE MOTION. THAT'S ME. FOR A SECOND ROUND, ANYBODY? THEN COUNSEL FOOT, IT'S BACK TO YOU BECAUSE THERE'S A BIT OF CONVERSATION BETWEEN YOURSELF AND COUNSEL FOOT, [03:30:02] IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT US TO VOTE ON THIS CURRENT MOTION, DO YOU WANT TO RETRACT THIS MOTION AND PUT IN PLAY A DIFFERENT MOTION THAT IS JUST FOR OVERALL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ARTS AND CULTURE MASTER PLAN? IT'S OVER TO YOU TO WRAP IT UP AND DECIDE HOW YOU WANT TO PROCEED. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I'M NOT SEEING ENOUGH APPETITE FROM MY COLLEAGUES TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE MOTION AS WRITTEN, BEING A ROOKIE IN THIS BUDGET SESSION, I MAYBE DEFER TO YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, TO PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER TO ADVANCE THE ARTS AND CULTURE MASTER PLAN. >> DON'T WORRY. THIS ISN'T A ROOKIE THING. I'M IN MY FOURTH BUDGET, AND IT'S STILL ALWAYS A BIT OF A GUESSING GAME. I MEAN, ULTIMATELY YOU GOT TO GO WITH YOUR GUT. I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU DOING THAT IN TERMS OF BRINGING SOME FORWARD THAT YOU'RE PASSIONATE ABOUT, AND ULTIMATELY IT'S YOUR GUT ON WHETHER OR NOT TO PROCEED WITH IT. IF YOU'RE NOT WANTING TO PROCEED, PULLING THE MOTION BACK. WITH THAT THEN, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES AND INVESTMENTS FILE? WE HAVE TWO. WE HAVE MC COUNCIL MCCLENNAN FIRST AND THEN COUNCILOR WARBURTON. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I HAVE A MOTION IN MIND, BUT JUST TO ASK A QUICK QUESTION TO ADMIT. LAST YEAR, PUT FORWARD A MOTION TO ADD 25,000 TO SUPPORT GROW STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION. IS THERE ANY MONEY IN THE BUDGET AS IT STANDS FOR GROW IMPLEMENTATION? >> DIRECTOR MCLENNAN. >> I'LL DIRECT THAT QUESTION TO DIRECTOR THISTLE. DIRECTOR THISTLE? >> NO, THERE IS NOT. COUNCIL MCLENNAN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THEN I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE A MOTION. >> BYMING? >> I WOULD MOVE THAT COUNSEL ADD $25,000 TO SUPPORT GROW STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION. >> SECONDED BY COUNSEL FOR KETS. COUNCIL MCCLELLAN? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS IS THE SAME MOTION AS PROPOSED LAST YEAR. THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW ACTIONS WE'RE TAKING IN RESPONSE TO OUR GROW STRATEGY. THIS WAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN THAT WE HAD A ONE ROUND AT DISCUSSING AND ARE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER ONE. THAT WAS A SPECIFIC GOAL. WITH THE GOAL OF FORWARDING LOCAL FOOD PRODUCTION. I THINK THAT'S ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT GIVEN CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR SUPPLY CHAINS. AGAIN, I THINK PUTTING A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY TO GO CAPACITY AND IMPLEMENT SOME OF THE STUDIES THAT WE'VE PAID FOR AS KEY, AND THIS HELPS SUPPORT POPULAR PROGRAMS THAT HAS THE AMOUNT OF GARDENS AROUND HOUSES NOTICEABLY INCREASE IN THE TEN YEARS I'VE BEEN IN YELLOWKNIFE. >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MCCLELLAN. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATION OR COUNCIL MCCLEON, COUNSEL MCGURK. >> SUPPORT LAST YEARS FOR THIS YEAR, WOULD HONESTLY LIKE TO SEE IT GENERALLY IN THE BUDGET THAT WE SUPPORT GROW. >> IT'S A SINTON SUITE. I LIKE IT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL MCCLEAN OR BEN? SEE NONE, THEN TO THE MOTION THAT COUNSEL ADD $25,000 TO SUPPORT GROSS STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AND THAT IS EVERYBODY EXCEPT FOR ALL THOSE OPPOSED, COUNSELOR PAYNE. THE MOTION IS PASSED. ANYTHING ELSE, WE HAVE DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON. I SAW YOUR HAND UP AFTER COUNCIL MCLENNAN. YES. >> NO MOTION IS THE QUESTION. UNDER GENERAL SERVICES, 258 BUDGET 569, AND WE ACTUALLY SPENT 902, WHICH IS THE DIFFERENCE OF $333,000, WHICH IS A BIG DIFFERENCE. AND THEN NOW WE'VE ADJUSTED UP TO CENTURY THAT NUMBER FOR 918 FOR BUDGET 2026. THERE WAS NO NOTES ON THAT LARGE DOLLAR AMOUNT. JUST LOOK AT SOME CLARITY, WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THAT NUMBER? >> MR. MCLENNAN. >> THANK YOU. I'LL JUST INVITE MR. PANDO TO WALK US THROUGH THAT IF HE'S GOT IT AT HIS FINGERTIPS. >> MR. PANDO. >> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I THINK THE JOB IS PRIMARILY ATTRIBUTED TO AN INCREASE IN SECURITY REQUIREMENTS AT THE VISITORS CENTER AND THE OFFICE RENT FOR THE PRECAMBRIAN BUILDING. >> COUNCIL OR DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON. ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO. THANK YOU. >> PERFECT. ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT ITEM, EVERYONE? SEEING NONE. NEXT, WE GO TO GOVERNANCE AND LEGAL SERVICES, AND ANY QUESTIONS ON THE STAFFING SUMMARY, OR COMMENTS OR MOTIONS? [LAUGHTER] SEEING NONE. NEXT WE MOVE TO PAGE 69, THE GOVERNANCE LEGAL SERVICES DIRECTORATE BUDGET. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS? SEEING NONE. NEXT, WE HAVE THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK DIVISION. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS, SEEING NONE. [03:35:03] NEXT, WE GO ONTO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE THE STAFFING SUMMARY. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS. JUST TAKE IT. WHEN I SAY ONE OF THEM, NOW, YOU CAN JUST TAKE IT FOR ALL OF THEM, DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON. >> THANKS. WE DID ASK SOME PRE BUDGET QUESTIONS, BUT IT IS ESSENTIALLY AN ADDITIONAL PY IS MY READ AND JUST SOME CLARITY THAT OF THE FUNDING WAS COMING FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES, SO IN SOME CLARITY ON WHERE THAT'S COMING FROM FOR THAT POSITION. >> MR. VAN DINE. >> THAT POSITION WAS A POSITION THAT WE HAD ALREADY. I IT'S BEING REGULARIZED. I'LL JUST ASK DIRECTOR WHITE TO COMMENT ON THE DOLLARS AND CENTS AND WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM, BUT IT'S REGULARIZING AN EXISTING POSITION WITH DOLLARS THAT WE'VE PREVIOUSLY SPENT ON IT. I THINK IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE. BUT DIRECTOR WHITE, DO YOU MIND SPEAKING MORE DIRECTLY TO THE QUESTION? >> DIRECTOR WHITE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS WAS A TERM POSITION, WHICH WAS FUNDED 100% THROUGH THE LAND ADMINISTRATION FUND. MOVING FORWARD, ACTUALLY, AND I'LL SAY, WAS TO SUPPORT ALL THE LAND APPLICATIONS, PLUS INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND JUST THE SUBDIVISION CREATION FOR THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS. THAT WORK IS GOING TO BE CONTINUING PLUS ADDITIONAL WORK THAT WE HAVE STARTED WITH ADDITIONAL REQUESTS FOR COMMISSIONERS LAND. NOW THE 100% FUND IS NOW GOING TO BE 60% FROM THE LAND FUND, AND THEN THE REMAINDER WOULD COME FROM THE GENERAL FUND. IT'S A 60 40 SPLIT RATHER THAN 100%. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, DEPUTY MAYOR. >> WHAT IS THE REASON IT CAN'T STAY 100% FUNDED FROM THE LAND FUND VERSUS NOW ON WHICH IS GENERATED BY LAND SALE REVENUE VERSUS NOW TAXPAYER DOLLARS? >> MR. VAN DINE? >> I BELIEVE MISS WHITE CAN SPEAK TO THAT. >> DIRECTOR WHITE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SO THERE IS TWO POSITIONS, ACTUALLY. ONE WE'VE HAD FOR A WHILE, AND THAT IS FUNDED 60% FROM THE LAND ADMINISTRATION AND 40% FROM THE GENERAL FUND. THERE ARE OTHER THINGS ADMINISTRATIVE WISE THAT THEY DO, THAT IS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED AND ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE LAND FUND. THAT'S WHY IT'S A 60 40 SPLIT. THAT'S REALLY THE ANSWER. THANKS. [LAUGHTER]. >> DEPUTY MAYOR. >> IS THERE ANY TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE RESERVE FUND? IS THERE ANY BARRIER FOR US IF WE WANT TO KEEP THAT 100% FUNDED THERE OR IS IT JUST THIS IS NORMAL OPERATIONS, OR IS THERE A POLICY REASON THAT WE COULDN'T MAINTAIN THAT 100%? >> MR. VAN DINE. >> DIRECTOR WHITE. I'LL JUST INVITE HER TO CONTINUE AND THEN JUMP IN IF YOU NEED IT. >> GO AHEAD, DIRECTOR WHITE. >> GREAT. THANK YOU. THERE'S TWO I'LL CALL POLICIES AND OR BYLAWS, I BELIEVE THAT ARE PERTINENT HERE. THE FIRST ONE IS THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION BY LAW, WHICH OUTLINES THE DIFFERENT FUNDS AND HOW THEY CAN BE USED AND FOR WHAT THEY CAN BE USED FOR. THAT DESCRIBES WHAT THE LAND ADMINISTRATION FUND CAN BE USED FOR. ONE OF THE REASONS [NOISE] IN THERE IS FOR THE DIRECT DEVELOPMENT OF LAND, AND THEN IT LISTS WHAT THAT EXACTLY MEANS. THESE POSITIONS COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO THAT. WHAT I WILL ALSO JUST NOTE SO THAT EVERYBODY IS AWARE IS THAT THE LAND ADMINISTRATION FUND CURRENTLY ALSO FUNDS OTHER POSITIONS ACROSS THE MUNICIPALITY. THERE'S A SPREAD IN TOTAL, IT'S ABOUT $118,000 EACH YEAR THAT COMES OUT OF THE LAND ADMINISTRATION FUND INTO THE GENERAL FUND TO SUPPORT OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS. THEY'RE PARTED OUT PERCENTAGE WISE OF WHAT THEY DO RELATED TO LAND ADMINISTRATION. I'LL USE FINANCE AS AN EXAMPLE. SOME OF THEM ARE 10%, SOME OF THEM ARE 20%. THEY HELP WITH CONTRACTS, LAND SALES, ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS. RIGHT NOW, IT'S JUST THE WAY THAT WE HAVE DONE IT THROUGH TIME, MY POSITION, I BELIEVE IS 20% FUNDED THROUGH THE LAND FUND. TO HAVE THESE 100%, I GUESS WHERE IS THE LINE BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER POSITIONS THAT DO AS WELL. IT'S JUST THE WAY THAT WE APPORTION THAT AMOUNT. DOES THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> DEPUTY MAYOR. >> THANKS. I DON'T THINK IT HAS A BUDGET CONVERSATION I GUESS AT THIS POINT, BUT I THINK WE'LL CIRCLE BACK THIS NEXT YEAR AROUND SOME OF THE POLICY STUFF AROUND THE LAND. JUST QUICK. WHAT'S THE BALANCE CURRENTLY IN THE LAND FUND? >> DIRECTOR, I'LL JUST GO TO DIRECTOR WHITE ON THIS ONE BECAUSE [LAUGHTER] MR. VAN DINE NODDING HIS HEAD VIGOROUSLY. [LAUGHTER] >> GIVE ME ONE SECOND. >> THE CURRENT? >> SORRY, THE NUMBERS IN THE BOOK ARE FROM AUGUST. [03:40:04] I'M JUST GETTING THE UPDATED NUMBER [OVERLAPPING] 17.272 MILLION? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR MOTIONS? NO. NEXT, WE GO TO PAGE 73, WHICH IS THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BUDGET. ANY QUESTIONS? COUNSEL COCHRANE. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH JUST FOR THE HERITAGE COMMITTEE EXPENSES AND OFFICE OVERHEAD. CAN YOU ELABORATE UPON WHAT THAT IS BEING THAT I DON'T THINK THERE'S AN OFFICE FOR THE HERITAGE COMMITTEE? >> MR. VAN DINE. [OVERLAPPING] >> THANK YOU. I'LL INVITE MISS. THISTLE TO RESPOND TO THAT DIRECTLY, PLEASE. THANK YOU. >> DIRECTOR WHITE. >> DIRECTOR WHITE. >> SORRY, DIRECTOR WHITE. >> THAT'S FINE. WE GOT IT. DIRECTOR WHITE. [LAUGHTER]. >> I MEAN, IF MISS. THISTLE WOULD LIKE TO, SHE SURE CAN. [LAUGHTER]. >> BASED ON MISS. THISTLES FACE TODAY. DIRECTION. I WAS GOING TO SAY IT IS DIRECTOR WHITE. >> NO PROBLEM. AGAIN, TALKING ABOUT APPORTIONMENT. THIS IS ACTUALLY RUN THROUGH THE MANAGER OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT, PLUS ONE PLANNER, PLUS THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS. WHEN WE SAY OFFICE, IT'S NOT PHYSICAL OFFICE, IT'S THE OFFICE THAT WE ATTRIBUTE TO THE PEOPLE WHO DO THE WORK. >> COUNSEL COCHRANE? >> THANK YOU. BASICALLY, THIS IS JUST PARTIALLY PAYING FOR SOME OF THE SALARY OF SOME OF THE PEOPLE. >> DIRECTOR WHITE. >> SALARY OVERHEAD FOR HEAT, COMPUTERS, PHONES, ALL THOSE THINGS BUNDLED INTO A PROPORTION. >> COUNSEL COCHRANE,. >> AND PLAQUES. [LAUGHTER]. >> DO YOU ACTUALLY WANT TO QUESTION ANSWER TO THAT? ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO. >> ANYTHING FURTHER FROM ANYBODY ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE. NEXT, WE GO TO PAGE 74. WE HAVE PLANNING ENVIRONMENT DIVISION. ANY QUESTIONS, COUNCIL MCLENNAN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST LOOKING TO SEE HOW MUCH MONEY IS ALLOCATED IN BUDGET 2026 FOR CLIMATE ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION. >> MR. VAN DINE. >> I BELIEVE WE HAD THAT QUESTION PREVIOUSLY, AND I JUST DON'T WANT TO RISK MISQUOTING. DIRECTOR WHITE, DO YOU MIND RESPONDING TO WHAT OUR IMPLEMENTATION PLANS ARE ON THAT FRONT? >>DIRECTOR WHITE. >> YOU'RE NOT ACTUALLY GOING TO SEE IT ON THESE PAGES, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IT IN THE CARRY FORWARD. IN TOTAL, IN ADDITION TO THE WAGES THAT YOU SEE ON THIS PAGE, WHICH ARE FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE ACTION COORDINATOR, AS WELL AS A PORTION OF MY TIME AND THE MANAGER'S TIME. THERE'S ALSO CARRYOVER COMBINED TOGETHER, IT'S IN EXCESS OF ABOUT $250,000 BUDGETED FOR NEXT YEAR, OF WHICH I THINK THERE'S $100 AND I'M JUST LOOKING HERE, $138,000 FOR DIRECT IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION ITEMS IN THE PLAN, THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THOSE WAGES. >> COUNCIL MCLENNAN? >> THANK YOU. >> ANYTHING FURTHER ON THIS? SEEING NONE. NEXT, WE HAVE PLANNING ENVIRONMENT DIVISION HOUSING ACCELERATOR FUND. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR MOTIONS ON THIS? SEEING NONE, DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON, I WAS WAITING FOR YOU. >> BUT KEEP GOING. >> QUESTION ON THE GRANTS. THAT IS JUST THE GRANTS FOR HOUSING ACCELERATOR FUND. WHAT IS OUR TOTAL GRANTS THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY EITHER HAVE IN MOTION OR HAVE AVAILABLE? >> MR. VAN DINE. >> RELATED TO THE HOUSING ACCELERATOR FUND EXCLUSIVELY AND OR FROM THE DEVELOPMENT OF INCENTIVES AND THE WHOLE SHOOTING MATCH. WHAT'S? >> THE WHOLE SHOOTING MATCH, EVERYTHING. >> DIRECTOR WHITE, CAN YOU RESPOND TO THAT? >> DIRECTOR WHITE. >> AGAIN, YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR ME SAY A PORTIONED. WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IS A PORTION OF THE AMOUNT THAT WE GET FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT COVERS THE WAGES AND OFFICE AND OVERHEAD AND ALL OF THAT STUFF. ADD THIS TO THE REMAINDER. WE GET ABOUT $2.1 MILLION A YEAR MINUS THIS EQUALS THE REMAINDER THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IN THE OTHER SECTION FOR CAPITAL. >> APOLOGIES WRONG SECTION. >> ALL GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS? SEE NONE. NEXT, WE HAVE LANDS AND BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS? DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON. >> THANK YOU. AGAIN, WAGES AND BENEFITS, BUDGET 690. WE ACTUALLY SPENT 250. I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS DUE TO SOME STAFFING PROBLEMS WHICH ARE NOW FULL, [03:45:01] SO JUST SOME CLARITY ON GOING FORWARD. DO WE ANTICIPATE THAT TO BE A BIT MORE EVEN? >> MR. VAN DINE. >> WE'RE EXPECTING IT TO BE A BIT MORE EVEN. I'LL LET DIRECTOR WHITE ELABORATE ON HOW WE'RE DOING THAT. BUT SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT A NUMBER OF OPTIONS, INCLUDING CONTRACTING SOME LEVEL OF SERVICES TO ENSURE THAT THOSE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED USING THE FUNDS THAT WE'RE RECEIVING FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO OFFSET, BUT PERHAPS DIRECTOR WHITE CAN ELABORATE. >> DIRECTOR WHITE? >> JUST TO CONFIRM WE'RE ON PAGE 76. THAT IS NOT RELATED TO THE FEDERAL FUNDING, JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR. THIS IS THE LANDS AND BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION OF WHICH WE HAVE BEEN OPERATING FOR ALMOST THREE YEARS NOW UNDERSTAFFED, WHICH IS WHY YOU SEE THAT HUGE DEFICIT IN THE WAGES. WE ARE CURRENTLY USING A CONTRACTED SERVICE PROVIDER WITH REGARD TO SOME OF THE MATERIALS THAT WE'RE DOING HERE. THIS HAS BEEN A CHALLENGE ACROSS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NOT JUST SPECIFIC TO LANDS AND BUILDING SERVICES. WHAT I CAN SAY IS IN 2025, WE HAVE HIRED SIX NEW STAFF AND WELCOMED THEM TO OUR TEAM, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO HOPEFULLY IN 2026, ADDING ANOTHER FOUR TO FILL ALL THE POSITIONS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE. THANK YOU. >> DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON. >> GOOD TO HEAR. THANK YOU. >> COUNCIL MCGURK HAS TAKEN US TO A POETRY SLAM WITH THE CLICKING. [LAUGHTER] NEXT WILL GO AND MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENTS. ANY PAGE 178, IF ANYBODY'S LOOKING. ANY QUESTIONS ON THE STAFFING SUMMARY? SEEING NONE. NEXT, WE MOVE ON TO PASS THE OVERALL. NEXT TO MOVE ON TO PAGE 81. STEVE. COUNSEL PAYNE, [NOISE] APOLOGIES. >> THANK YOU. THE TWO POSITIONS FOR DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT INITIATIVE. CAN YOU CAN I GET SOME EXPLANATION ON THAT ONE? >> MR. VAN DINE. >> AS WE HAD BEEN TALKING OF IT BEFORE, IT'S PART OF A PACKAGE MEANT TO PUT A BIT OF EMPHASIS ON DOWNTOWN SERVICE AND INCREASE THE ENJOYMENT, THE ACCESSIBILITY, AND I GUESS, THE AESTHETIC IN TERMS OF CLEANLINESS AND WHATNOT. WE DID HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE FROM THE SPRING IN DIRECTOR MCLENNAN DID BRING FORWARD THE MED PRIORITIES, WHICH DID HIGHLIGHT INCREASED LEVEL OF VISIBILITY IN THE DOWNTOWN, AND WE DID RECEIVE SOME POSITIVE FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE, PLUS INCREASED COOPERATION AND COORDINATION WITH THE RCEP AND THE DOWNTOWN. WE REALIZED THAT MEASURE NEEDED TO BE EVALUATED, I GUESS TO A DEGREE, SO WE KEPT SOME MEASURE OF STATISTICS TO INDICATE LEVEL OF ACTIVITY AND IMPACT TO WHICH WE'RE ALWAYS GETTING A LITTLE BIT BETTER REPORTING. BUT TO SUFFICE IT TO SAY IS THAT THE RESPONSE THAT WE RECEIVED WAS QUITE POSITIVE. NOW, WHEN WE DO THOSE THINGS, IT DOES COME OUT WITHIN EXISTING RESOURCES. IT DOES COME WITH AN OPERATIONAL IMPACT, ANOTHER SERVICE LEVEL OF SERVICES ACROSS THE COMMUNITY. WHETHER THAT'S INSPECTING SCHOOL ZONES OR WHETHER THAT'S RESPONDING TO OTHER COMPLAINTS THAT HAPPEN ACROSS THE CITY. BUT WE BELIEVE THAT THERE'S SUBSTANTIAL DEMAND AND FOR ONGOING MUNICIPAL ENFORCEMENT PRESENCE IN THE DOWNTOWN. THESE RESOURCES ARE DEDICATED TO ALLOW FOR THAT OR PROVIDE FOR THAT. THIS WOULD WORK IN COOPERATION WITH OTHER BYLAWS THAT WOULD BE ADMINISTERED IN THE DOWNTOWN WITH RESPECT TO LITTER, WITH RESPECT TO SNOW REMOVAL, RESPECT TO OTHER THINGS THAT MIGHT OCCUR, AND AS WELL AS THE VISIBLE PRESENCE OF THEM, WHICH WE HAVE HEARD FROM ANECDOTALLY AND THROUGH SOME INTERACTIONS WITH THEIR MUNICIPAL ENFORCEMENT TEAM TO RESPOND TO COMMUNITY INTERESTS IN THE AREA. WE'RE LOOKING AT TWO. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'LL ADD AND I WANT TO CERTAINLY ACKNOWLEDGE THE HARD WORK THAT MR. MCLENNAN AND HIS TEAM HAS DONE THROUGH A VARIETY OF WHAT I WOULD CALL UNCONVENTIONAL REQUESTS OF THEM THROUGH VARIOUS THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON IN THE DOWNTOWN ADJACENT TO THE QUESTION OF DOWNTOWN BEHAVIORS AND GARBAGE AND OTHER ACTIVITIES HAS BEEN THE FACT THAT WE ARE NOT INCLUDING EQUIPMENT, [03:50:01] SIMILAR TO THE OTHER PROPOSAL THAT WAS BROUGHT IN THROUGH COMMUNITY SERVICES AROUND THIS. YOU WON'T SEE ANY ADDITIONAL REQUESTS IN THIS POINT FOR FLEET OR FOR OTHER EQUIPMENT. WE ARE TRYING TO MANAGE THAT JUST THROUGH EXISTING BUDGETS ON THAT SIDE. WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS AS BEING RELATIVELY FRUGAL BUT IMPORTANT INVESTMENT IN THE DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY. WE ARE GIVEN THE SCALE OF RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AT HERE. >> IT'S BEEN ASSESSED BY DIRECTOR MCLANE AND THROUGH WORK WITH HIS TEAM, THAT MED 2 WOULD BE THE LEVEL THAT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE GIVEN THE SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES AND THE LOCAL FOCUS THAT WOULD BE EXPECTED HERE IN THIS CASE. WITH THAT, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS WOULD PROVIDE AN IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION TO DOWNTOWN LIVABILITY AND SENSE OF SAFETY AS WELL AS SECURITY FOR OUR PERSONNEL WORKING IN THE DOWNTOWN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILOR PAYNE. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT. THE TWO NEW POSITIONS, AND THEY WILL BE PRIMARILY WORKING THROUGH DOWNTOWN, SO DOING FOOT PATROLS, DOING PATROLS IN VEHICLES. DO WE KNOW WHAT THE ANTICIPATED DIFFERENCE WILL BE IN? WELL, I KNOW THAT'S PROBABLY HARD, BUT WHAT TOOLS ARE WE GIVEN THESE GUYS? WHERE ARE WE WITH THE LOITERING BY LAW THAT WE'RE WORKING ON? BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE. I DON'T THINK THAT WHAT'S HAPPENING DOWNTOWN RIGHT NOW IS GOING TO START BEING CURBED BY SOME PATROLS. >> MR. VAN DYNE. >> WELL, IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE SKEPTICAL MAY BE THE WORD, BUT CAUTIOUS MAYBE IS A MORE APPROPRIATE WORD ON LEVEL OF IMPACT, BUT CERTAINLY THE RESPONSE THAT WE'VE RECEIVED SO FAR SEEMS TO BE QUITE POSITIVE. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS AN AREA WORTH COUNCIL CONSIDERING AN INVESTMENT IN. WE'LL CERTAINLY NEED TO BE MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE BEING ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE RESOURCES THAT WE'RE PUTTING THERE AND THE PERFORMANCE STATUS THAT WILL CONTINUE TO GET BETTER TO DEMONSTRATE TO COUNCIL FOR VALUE FOR MONEY. WITH RESPECT TO SOME OF THE OTHER MEASURES THAT WE ARE PURSUING. THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS. CERTAINLY, WITH RESPECT TO ADVICE TO COUNCIL, WE ARE ON RECORD TO BRING FORWARD ADVICE TO COUNCIL ON QUESTIONS AROUND, IT'S POTENTIAL CONSIDERATION FOR BEHAVIOR BY LAWS IN THE DOWNTOWN, AND THAT IS UNDERWAY, AND WE HOPE TO BRING THAT FORWARD. THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE ANOTHER ADJACENT PART TO SUPPORT ACTIVITIES AND DUTIES OF THE OFFICERS IN THE DOWNTOWN. THE OTHER PIECE THAT WE ARE WATCHING VERY CLOSELY IS, OF COURSE, THE TRESPASS LEGISLATION THAT THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT IS PURSUING AT LIGHT SPEED. WITH THAT LEGISLATION IN THE QUEUE COMBINED WITH OTHER THINGS THAT WE'D LIKE TO BRING FORWARD TO COUNCIL, WE BELIEVE THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME INCREMENTAL TOOLS IN THE TOOLKIT FOR MUNICIPAL ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO HAVE AT THEIR DISPOSAL TO DO. WE DO TAKE A COMPLAINT BASED APPROACH TO THE WAY THAT WE OFFER AND APPLY OUR RESOURCES IN THE MED SPACE. IF AS COMPLAINTS GO DOWN IN THE DOWNTOWN, MAYBE, WE'LL SEE A NEED TO REVISIT THE AMOUNT OF RESOURCES ALLOCATED FOR THAT PURPOSE, BUT CERTAINLY AT THIS STAGE, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE VISIBILITY, THE SENSE OF SAFETY THAT IS PROVIDED BY OUR PEOPLE IN UNIFORM BEING AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, CALL LINE DRIVE, WHEN APPROPRIATE CALL RCP, WHEN APPROPRIATE BE EYES AND EARS ON THE GROUND, BEING ABLE TO ASK ANSWER QUESTIONS, BE VISIBLE TO THE TOURISTS IN THE DOWNTOWN TO KNOW THAT THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF PEOPLE IN THE DOWNTOWN IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE. IT'S HARD TO PUT DOLLAR FIGURE TO THAT OR A MEASURE OF PERFORMANCE OF SENSE OF SAFETY, BUT WE CERTAINLY ARE RECEIVING THAT FEEDBACK. I DON'T KNOW IF DIRECTOR MCLANE HAS MORE TO ADD. >> DIRECTOR MCLANE. >> I'LL USE THE QUOTE THAT OUR COUNCIL COLLEAGUES OFTEN USE. YOU TOOK MY ANSWER. [03:55:02] NO, I THINK WE NEED TO FOCUS ON IS THAT AND MR. VAN DYNE FOCUSED ON THIS AND THAT WE ARE A COMPLAINTS RESOLUTION PROCESS UNDER COUNCIL BY LAW ENFORCEMENT POLICY. HAVING THE ENHANCED CORE HANDLING OF SNOW COMPLAINTS THAT WE RECEIVE SLIPPERY SIDEWALKS IN THE SPRINGTIME, GRAVEL, SANDY SIDEWALKS, GARBAGE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, UNSIGHTLY LANDS COMPLAINTS THAT WE DEAL WITH. IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO US TO CONSISTENTLY IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE EXPECTATION THAT CITIZENS HAVE OF WHAT THE DOWNTOWN LOOKS LIKE AND WHAT THEY CAN EXPECT WHEN THEY'RE IN THAT AREA. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILOR PAYNE. >> THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO LOOK AT THIS THIS ALLOCATION OF TWO STAFF IN A DIFFERENT WAY. I'D LIKE TO START WITH ONE. I WOULD BE WILLING TO PUT A MOTION FORWARD TO CUT ONE OF THESE POSITIONS AND JUST TRY THE EXTRA POSITION FOR A YEAR. IF WE SEE SOME POSITIVITY OUT OF IT, THEN HOPEFULLY NEXT YEAR, WE CAN ADD ANOTHER ONE. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT RIGHT NOW. I WOULD PUT A MOTION FORWARD TO CUT ONE OF THESE MED POSITIONS AND JUST KEEP IT TO ONE. >> IS THERE A SECOND? COUNCILOR COCHRAN. OVER TO YOU, COUNCILOR PAYNE, IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? >> NO. I DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT MORE TO ADD. I'M JUST INSTEAD OF ONCE WE HIRE PEOPLE, WE HAVE THEM. I'D RATHER START OFF WITH ONE TO SEE IF THIS IS GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. IT'S NOT AS BIG OF A BITE. >> ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? COUNCILOR COCHRAN AND THEN DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON? >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR. I DO AGREE WITH A LOT OF WHAT COUNCILOR PAYNE HAS SAID ABOUT THIS, ESPECIALLY TESTING IT AS A PILOT. QUESTION, THOUGH, AS WITHIN THE PY. IT DID TALK ABOUT AN OPERATIONAL DIVISION SHIFT OF SEVEN DAYS A WEEK. OBVIOUSLY, BY REDUCING IT DOWN TO Y, WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO REDUCE THAT TIME FROM SEVEN DOWN TO SOMETHING LIKE FIVE. >> MR. VAN DYNE. >> YOU'RE MUTED. >> THANK YOU. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO DIRECTOR MCLANE IN A MOMENT, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT I UNDERSTAND COUNCILOR PAYNE'S VIEW ABOUT PROCEEDING CAUTIOUSLY, AND IF YOU'VE GOT TWO, WHY NOT TRY ONE JUST FOR PRUDENCE AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. THE CHALLENGE HERE AND I'LL OFFER THIS AS A LAY, NOT AS A SECURITY PROFESSIONAL. I'M NOT A SECURITY PROFESSIONAL. I THINK I WOULDN'T WANT TO PRETEND TO BE ONE. BUT IN TERMS OF WHAT I UNDERSTAND OF THE FIELD, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE POWER OF TWO EACH AND EVERY TIME. TWO IS A SHIFT, TWO IS A UNIT WITH WHICH YOU'RE ABLE TO DEPLOY THE RESOURCES IN A SAFE AND RESPONSIBLE MANNER. ONE IN THIS SPACE IS A RISK AND IS A MODEL THAT CREATES DISRUPTION FOR THE REST OF THE TEAM AS IT WERE. BUT AS PROMISED, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO DIRECTOR MCLANE JUST TO TALK ABOUT THE OPERATIONAL IMPACTS OF ONE VERSUS TWO AND WHAT THAT MIGHT MEAN GIVEN THIS PROPOSAL. >> DIRECTOR MCLANE. >> THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. I'LL BRING THIS BACK TO THE CONVERSATION WE HAD LAST YEAR WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ADDITIONAL MED OFFICERS, AND COUNCIL HAD OFFERED ONE UP, AND ONE IS NOT PARITY. WE HAVE TWO SHIFTS AND TO HAVE ONE ON A SHIFT CREATES DISPROPORTIONAL ABILITY TO OPERATIONALLY TASK STAFF OUT. MR. VAN DYNE WAS VERY ACCURATE FROM OUR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFE REQUIREMENTS. WE WORK IN TEAMS OF TWO. WHEN WE HAVE TO AND WE WORK IN TEAMS OF ONE, OUR WORKING ALONE POLICY COMES IN. IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT SEVEN DAY COVERAGE BECAUSE WE WORK TWO OPERATIONAL SHIFTS. THAT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY SEEKING TO CHANGE WHILE MEETING THE INTENTS OF OUR COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT, SEEKING TO CHANGE THE SHIFT SCHEDULING TO ADHERE TO THIS. THERE ARE SOME NUANCES IN THERE AND THE WAY THAT WE OPERATIONALLY TASK THEM THAT PROBABLY ONE IS NOT GOING TO ACCOMPLISH JUST DUE TO SOME OF THE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND SOME OF THE PARITY THAT WE NEED TO MAINTAIN. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILOR COCHRAN. >> VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT I FULLY GET THE OPERATIONAL CHANGE. THERE NOT A WAY TO TAKE ONE OF OUR CURRENT OFFICERS [04:00:03] AND THEN OPERATIONALLY REASSIGN THEM TO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WITH THE ADDED OF THE ONE? >> I MEAN, WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT, I'LL BE QUIET. MR. VAN DYNE. >> I THINK WHAT MR. MCLANE IS LAID OUT AND PERHAPS ME LESS EFFECTIVELY, IS THAT, THEY HAVE AN ORGANIZATIONAL SERVICE MODEL AT THE MOMENT THAT THEY ARE APPLYING THE TWO PERSON SAFETY MODEL IN ALL OF THE WORK THEY DO, AND WHEN THEY DO HAVE ISOLATED SITUATIONS IN WHICH ONE HAS TO BE THERE, THERE ARE PROTOCOLS IN PLACE. THAT'S NOT THE PRACTICE TO SUSTAIN A LEVEL OF SERVICE OFFER IN TERMS OF HAVING A SINGULAR OFFICER FOR A MAIN PIECE OF BUSINESS. IT'S MORE SITUATIONAL. IN THE PROPOSAL THAT'S BEING CONTEMPLATED, THAT ONE IS CERTAINLY BETTER. THIS ISN'T THE SPINAL TAP REFERENCE COMES TO MIND GOING TO 11, IT'S ONE MORE, AND THEREFORE, IT'S BETTER. THIS IS NOT THAT. WE DO ACTUALLY NEED TWO. IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE LEVEL OF SAFETY, THE DISRUPTION FACTOR, I THINK IS WHAT MR. MCLANE WAS OFFERING IN HIS PREVIOUS ANSWER WITH RESPECT TO THE ONE IN TERMS OF TRYING TO BRING ONE OVER TO AUGMENT THE ONE THAT'S THERE. SEEING THAT THE OTHER PACKAGE THAT INCLUDES SNOW REMOVAL THAT DOES INCLUDE THE MED OFFICERS THAT DOES INCLUDE THE IMPROVED OR INCREASED SERVICE LEVEL OF GARBAGE WORKING TOGETHER IN CONCERT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES OF ALL OF THOSE THINGS NEST AROUND THE MED MODEL. IF THERE IS OBVIOUSLY A SENSITIVITY TO ADDING MORE POSITIONS TO THE ORGANIZATION. I DO APPRECIATE THAT. I DO UNDERSTAND THAT. OUR GENERAL TREND LINE HAS BEEN LOWER THAN PREVIOUS YEARS IN PART BECAUSE OF THE SPIKE THAT'S HAPPENED AS A RESULT OF THE AQUATIC CENTER, BUT WE HAVE BEEN TRENDING DOWNWARDS. THE OVERALL HR REQUEST FOR THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE THIS YEAR IS DOWN FROM PREVIOUS YEARS, AND I THINK LOWER THAN OUR FOUR YEAR AVERAGE. IF WE WERE TO INVEST IN FTE RESOURCES, CERTAINLY THE PUBLIC SAFETY AREA IS AN AREA WHERE I THINK THERE IS A RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT WORTH MAKING. >> COUNCILOR COCHRAN. >> NIGHT FULLY, AGAIN, UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT WASN'T REALLY WHAT I WAS GETTING AT. I WAS WONDERING IF WITHIN OUR CURRENT STAFFING SITUATION, WE COULD OPERATIONALLY REASSIGN ONE OF OUR CURRENT MED OFFICERS TO SERVE WITH THE OTHER NEW MED OFFICER TO WORK WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT INITIATIVE SHIFT. >> MR. VAN DYNE, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO SEND THAT TO DIRECTOR MCLANE? >> SIR, I OBVIOUSLY FUMBLED IT, SO I'LL ASK MR. MCLANE TO HELP ME. [LAUGHTER] >> DIRECTOR MCLANE. >> THANK YOU. WHEN YOU CONTEMPLATE THOUGH WHERE YOU TAKE FROM ONE, YOU REDUCE THAT CAPACITY IN THAT AREA, SO COULD YOU DO THAT? YES. ARE YOU GOING TO ACHIEVE YOUR GOAL? NO, BECAUSE AS YOU STRENGTHEN ONE AREA, YOU WEAKEN THE OTHER, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. YOU'RE ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL, AND THEN WHERE YOU'RE MEETING A SERVICE LEVEL ON ONE SIDE, THE OTHER SIDE IS WEAK AND CAN'T MEET THAT SERVICE. THEN HOW DO YOU APPLY THAT? ONCE AGAIN, THE PARITY, WHICH SHIFT DO YOU TAKE FROM? WHO GETS MORE WORK, WHO GETS LESS WORK? THERE'S SOME CONTEMPLATIONS THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE IN THERE ABOUT WORKLOAD, INDICATORS, AND TRAINING CAPACITY, AND APPROVED LEAVES THAT MAY OCCUR. THERE'S A LOT OF NUANCES IN THERE. WHAT I TOTALLY RESPECT YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS ON THAT. I THINK THE APPLICATION OF THAT TYPE OF A MODEL WOULD CREATE MORE INEFFICIENCIES THAN IT WOULD SUPPORT, I THINK, WHAT THE OVERALL SERVICE LEVEL THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PRESENT HERE. THANK YOU. >> COUNCILOR COCHRAN. >>THANK YOU TO BOTH YOU DIRECTOR MCLANE AND MR. VAN DYNE, I FULLY UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION. >> DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON. >> THANK YOU. AS A FORMER PEACE OFFICER, I FULLY UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR TWO. I WOULD NEVER ASK SOMEONE TO WALK AROUND DOWNTOWN IN A PEACE OFFICER BY THEMSELVES. I FULLY TRUST THAT OPERATION, YOU TELL ME THERE'S TWO PEOPLE FOR SAFETY, THAT IS TRUE. I WON'T SUPPORT CUTTING IT DOWN TO ONE. TWO OR NONE FOR ME. [04:05:03] BUT QUESTION AROUND CAME ON OPERATIONS. THESE ARE BEING JUSTIFIED AS A DOWNTOWN INITIATIVE. BUT WILL THESE TWO ROLES BE THAT'S SPECIFIC JOB DESCRIPTION? THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE FOCUSED ON, OR IS THIS JUST TWO MORE POSITIONS, MED 2, AND THEN JUST ASSIGNED DAILY. MAKE SURE IT'S CONCERN, I GUESS, WHAT I'M WONDERING ABOUT IS, I WORKED IN CROS FOR 10 YEARS, AND THEY WOULD OFTEN WHEN THINGS THAT WERE SHORT, THEY WOULD PULL PEOPLE FROM THEIR SPOTS TO BACKFILL. I HATE FOR THIS TO BE FUNDED AS A DOWNTOWN THING, AND THEN WE START USING THOSE POSITIONS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY, BECAUSE OPERATIONALLY, YOU CAN DECIDE DAY TO DAY WHAT YOU'RE DOING. JUST SOME CLARITY ON HOW WE'RE CERTAIN THAT THIS WOULD ACTUALLY INVOLVE TWO PEOPLE DOWNTOWN ALL THE TIME. >> MR. VAN DYNE. >> THANK YOU. THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION AND SO THE PACKAGE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING THROUGH BUDGET 2026 ABOUT STRENGTHENING THE COMMUNITY IS ALL ABOUT DOWNTOWN SERVICE ENHANCEMENT. WE ARE COMMITTING THROUGH APPLYING THESE RESOURCES FOR DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT. WE'LL NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE AND TRACKED FOR THE PERFORMANCE STATISTICS, THE HOURS, THE REPORTS, THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS RESPONDED TO. ALL OF THOSE THINGS WE'LL BE CONDUCTING. THERE IS A LARGER BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY BY MAKING THIS INVESTMENT. THAT LARGER BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY IS THAT BY HAVING THIS INCREASED SERVICE LEVEL, AND THIS IS A SERVICE LEVEL INCREASE FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA. WE ARE THEN ABLE TO TAKE WHAT WE CURRENTLY ARE DOING TO TRY AND COBBLE TOGETHER A MODEST INCREASE IN THE DOWNTOWN TO A DEDICATED DOWNTOWN SERVICE, WHICH MEANS THAT WE'RE DRAWING LESS. IT'S ALMOST THAT REVERSE MODEL THAT DEPUTY WARBURTON IS REFERRING TO. WE'RE ACTUALLY ALLOWING THOSE RESOURCES THAT WE'VE TAKEN FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY AND OUR OPERATION AND OUR COMPLAINTS TO RESPOND TO DOWNTOWN AND NOW THAT WE'RE FILLING THAT WITH THESE RESOURCES, POTENTIALLY WITH COUNCIL'S APPROVAL, WE'RE ACTUALLY ABLE TO RETURN TO A SERVICE LEVEL STANDARD THAT THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO MEET AS A RESULT OF NOT HAVING THESE RESOURCES. THAT'S THAT'S THE BUSINESS CASE, IF YOU WILL, IN TERMS OF OPERATIONAL IMPACT IS TO ALLOW THAT THE ABILITY OF THE CITY TO RESPOND TO ALL OF ITS SERVICE REQUIREMENTS THROUGH A COMPLAINT-BASED PROCESS BY MAKING SURE THAT WE'VE GOT A DEDICATED SET OF RESOURCES FOR THE DOWNTOWN SERVICE DELIVERY SO THAT OTHER SERVICES ARE ABLE TO MEET THEIR EXPECTATIONS AND SERVICE DEMANDS THAT THE PUBLIC IS EXPECTING US. >> DEPUTY MAYOR. >> THANKS. I HEARD IN THERE REPORTING AND TRACKING. I'M GOING TO HOLD YOU TO THAT THAT COUNCILS KEPT UP TO DATE ON SPECIFICALLY THOSE ROLES DOING THE THINGS THAT WE FUNDED THEM FOR. I KNOW HOW SCOPE CREEP HAPPENS, AND I JUST WOULD HATE TO SEE THOSE CONSUMED IN. I GUESS IT'S ON US TO MAKE SURE THAT'S HELD ACCOUNTABLE. LIKE I SAID, I WOULDN'T SUPPORT THE MOTION TO GO DOWN TO ONE. WE HAD A MEETING WITH BUSINESSES AND THE COMMUNITY DOWNTOWN A FEW MONTHS AGO. THE ANGER AND THE FRUSTRATION ON THE CITY APPEARING TO DO NOTHING IS VERY HIGH. WILL THEY BE ABLE TO ENFORCE LIKE POLICE OFFICERS? DO PRESENCE MATTER? YES. I THINK THIS IS AGAIN, WE CAN'T SAY THAT WE CARE ABOUT THIS ISSUE. WE WANT TO FIX IT IF WE DON'T START PUTTING RESOURCES BEHIND IT. I WOULD SUPPORT THE TWO POSITIONS, NOT THE ONE. THANKS. >> THANK YOU, DEPUTY MAYOR. >> COUNCILOR FEQUET. THANKS, MR. CHAIR. I JUST WANTED SOME CLARITY ON A COUPLE OF THINGS. I RECALL AFTER COUNCIL ADJUSTED ITS PRIORITIES FOR MED EARLIER THIS YEAR TO FOCUS FIRST, AND PRIMARILY ON THE DOWNTOWN AND SECONDARILY ON THE SCHOOL ZONE MONITORING, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY AMONGST ALL OF MED'S OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES. WE RECEIVED A GRAPH, I RECALL AND MAYBE THERE WAS A DATA GLITCH IN IT, BUT IT SEEMED LIKE THE FOCUS THAT MED TOOK AT THAT TIME RESULTED IN LESS COMPLAINTS, MORE PRESENCE DOWNTOWN NOT IN A VEHICLE, LIKE ON A BIKE OR A FOOT PATROL. COULD YOU SPEAK TO SOME OF THE CHANGES SINCE THAT FOCUS CHANGED AFTER COUNCIL SET THOSE PRIORITIES? >> MR. VAN DINE, OR DO YOU WANT ME TO KICK IT TO DIRECTOR MCCLEAN? >> DIRECTOR MCCLEAN. >> DIRECTOR MCCLEAN. >> I'LL GIVE YOU A GENERAL RESPONSE BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC DATA IN FRONT OF ME. [04:10:02] OUR GENERAL FEEDBACK FROM PEOPLE WE ENGAGE WITH THAT OUR PRESENCE IS ACKNOWLEDGED. THERE HAS BEEN POSITIVE FEEDBACK ON SOME OF THE WORK WE HAVE BEEN DOING AROUND BUSINESSES OR PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BUILD UP OF LITTER OR GARBAGE, WHETHER THAT'S WIND DISPERSED OR PERSON DISPERSED OR PROPRIETARY TO THE PROPERTY IN THE CONDITION. WE HAVE RECEIVED POSITIVE FEEDBACK AROUND THAT. OUR COMPLAINTS THAT WE'VE HAD PREVIOUS YEARS ARE BELOW THIS YEAR, SORRY, 2025 ARE BELOW WHAT WE HAD COMPARABLE TO PREVIOUS YEARS. I'D BE HAPPY TO SHARE THAT SPECIFICS WITH YOU IF YOU'RE INTERESTED. BUT OVERALL, OUR GENERAL INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE AS A DIVISION IS THAT PEOPLE ARE ACKNOWLEDGING AND APPRECIATING THE ENGAGEMENT THAT WE'RE DOING IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. THANK YOU. >> COUNCILOR FEQUET. >> THANKS. I REMEMBER SEEING THAT CHART THAT WAS PROVIDED EARLIER THIS SUMMER AND IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WAS A LOT OF POSITIVE RESULTS FROM THE SHIFT IN FOCUS THAT MED HAD TAKEN AND FOR ME, OBVIOUSLY THE DOWNTOWN IS CERTAINLY A PRIORITY AND ALL OF THE FRUSTRATIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED. BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO GET I GUESS CLARITY ON RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE OBVIOUSLY MED STAFF. WE HAVE A MANAGER AND I GUESS 10 STAFF AT MED 1 AND TWO POSITIONS THAT WORK SEVEN DAYS A WEEK. ARE WE SAYING THAT RIGHT NOW THEY ARE NOT FOCUSING IN THE DOWNTOWN SEVEN DAYS A WEEK? >> MR. VAN DINE, TO DIRECTOR MCCLEAN. >> WHAT I THINK THIS PROPOSAL SO WE ARE MEETING THE SERVICE STANDARDS THAT WE HAD SET OUT FOR AND ACCORDING TO THE PRIORITIES. WHAT WE'RE CONVEYING TO COUNCIL IS THAT BASED ON THE BUT THAT'S COME AT A COST. THAT'S COME AT A COST WHERE WE'VE REDUCED LEVEL OF SERVICE IN OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY TO DO THAT. DO WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT REDUCTION LEVEL OF SERVICE HAS CAUSED A CATASTROPHIC EVENT TO OCCUR IN ANOTHER PART OF THE CITY? NO, WE DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION, THANK GOODNESS. BUT WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT THE DOWNTOWN, WHICH IS THE CENTRAL POINT WHERE THE MAJORITY OF OUR TOURISTS COME AND EXPERIENCE WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE DOWNTOWN, AND THE MAJORITY OF OUR RETAIL BUSINESSES AND STORE OWNERS THAT ARE OPERATING IN THE DOWNTOWN, HAVE SIGNALED TO US EITHER THROUGH HOTEL OPERATORS OR THROUGH BUSINESS OWNERS DIRECTLY OR THROUGH THE CHAMBER DIRECTLY AND THROUGH RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THE DOWNTOWN, THAT THEY DO HAVE THERE IS A PUBLIC SAFETY PERCEPTION AND ACTUAL ISSUE THAT THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT, AND THAT ADDITIONAL MED PRESENCE DOES SEEM TO HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT. THE QUESTION IS, DID WE LEARN FROM THE STATS THAT WE'VE PROVIDED? I WOULD SAY THE ANSWER IS YES. BASED ON THOSE STATS, WE'RE MAKING A CASE TO COUNCIL TO CONSIDER FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION, WHETHER THEY CHOOSE TO VALUE THE SAFETY QUESTION IN THE DOWNTOWN OR WHETHER THEY CHOOSE TO VALUE A SAFE TO REALLOCATE RESOURCES ELSEWHERE. >> MR. VAN DINE JUST FOR CLARITY, THE QUESTION WAS SPECIFICALLY, IS THEIR PRESENCE IN THE DOWNTOWN SEVEN DAYS A WEEK? >> OH, SORRY. I MISS IT, I UNDERSTAND, YES. COUNCILOR MCCLEAN, DO YOU WANT TO JUST CONFIRM THAT FOR COUNCIL, PLEASE. >> MCCLEAN. >> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. WITH THE CURRENT OPERATIONAL TASKING, THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT IS A HIGH PRIORITY FOR US. WE HAVE OFFICERS IN THE AREA. BUT OFFICERS ARE STILL REQUIRED TO UNDERTAKE SOME OF OUR NO FAIL PRIORITIES AND TASKS WHICH HAVE IMMEDIATE AND A DIRECT, REAL THREAT TO LIFE AND PUBLIC SAFETY ACROSS THE SCOPE OF OUR COMMUNITY. THE PERCEPTION FOR SOME PEOPLE, AND I'M NOT IMPLYING FOR COUNCIL, BUT FOR A LOT OF RESIDENTS IS WE NEED TO BE EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME, AND THAT'S SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE WITH THE NUMBER OF STAFF THAT WE HAVE. WE CANNOT BE EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME. WE'RE STILL REQUIRED TO ATTEND TO COMPLAINTS, PROVIDE SUPPORTS, AND ACTIONS OUTSIDE OF COUNCIL PRIORITIES, AND WE NEED TO ADVANCE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE COUNCIL ENFORCEMENT SORRY, EXCUSE ME, THE COUNCIL BY LAW ENFORCEMENT POLICY. WE'RE FOCUSED ON PEDESTRIAN INTERSECTION SAFETY AND SCHOOL ZONES. A LOT OF THOSE SCHOOLS ES AREN'T OBVIOUSLY IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. THERE ARE IN OTHER PORTIONS OF THE CITY. WE NEED TO BE IN THOSE AREAS. WHAT WE DO HAVE IS A DEPLOYMENT STRATEGY THAT SCHEDULES AND TASKS, [04:15:01] OFFICERS DAILY IN THE DOWNTOWN WITH KEY SUCCESS INDICATORS. ONE KEY SUCCESS INDICATOR YOU MAY SEE THAT IF YOU HAVEN'T, I'M HAPPY TO PROMOTE IT, AND THAT IS FOUR LANE ENFORCEMENT FROM 430 IN THE AFTERNOON UNTIL 630 AT NIGHT. WE ARE HEAVY IN THAT AREA TO KEEP TRAFFIC FLOWING AND SAFE TO MAKE IT SO THAT PEOPLE AREN'T RUNNING RED LIGHTS, LOT OF PEDESTRIANS WALKING TO AND FROM AREAS IN THE DOWNTOWN. BETWEEN THOSE HOURS, THAT'S OUR FOCUS AREA. WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE MEMBER IN THAT AREA PATROLLING. THOSE ARE THE STRATEGIC SCHEDULING THAT WE'RE DOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE OFFICERS. THAT'LL BE NO DIFFERENT FOR THIS PIECE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE'VE HEARD THROUGH WE'VE HEARD THROUGH WHAT WE HEARD REPORT. ONE OF THE COUNCILORS MENTIONED IT FROM THE ON LIFE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, AND PARTICIPANTS IN THAT GROUP, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR BIKE PATROLS. THEY'RE LOOKING FOR PRESENCE AND INCREASED VISIBILITY AND PROACTIVE SAFETY IN THE DOWNTOWN. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEKING TO DO. WE WANT TO BE OUT IN THE STREET. WE WANT TO BE TALKING TO PEOPLE. WE WANT TO BE VISIBLE. WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN A VEHICLE JUST DRIVING AROUND A BLOCK. BUT I'M A FIRM BELIEVER THAT VISIBILITY IS A DETERRENCE, AND I THINK IF WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY WITH COUNCIL'S BLESSING TO TAKE ON THIS INITIATIVE, WE CAN CREATE SOME REAL CHANGE IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MCCLEAN, COUNCIL. MR. VAN DINE. >> NO, I JUST AGAIN, I THINK CRAIG AND I ARE CHANNELING EACH OTHER ON THIS. I JUST WANT TO OFFER SO TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT SEVEN DAYS OF COVERAGE AT THIS MOMENT, IT'S A QUALIFIED YES. YOU KNOW, IT'S A QUALIFIED YES AND OUR CONSISTENCY ON THAT SEVEN DAYS IS BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT DIRECTOR MCCLEAN HAS OFFERED. I WOULDN'T WANT TO PRESENT MISREPRESENT THE LEVEL OF ACTIVITY, BUT THE ANSWER IS YES, WE GOT SEVEN DAYS WORTH OF COVERAGE SUBJECT TO THE POLLS THAT DIRECTOR MCCLEAN HAS DESCRIBED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCILOR FEQUET. MAYBE JUST TO WRAP IT UP. I THINK THE REASON COUNCIL CHOSE THOSE PRIORITIES IS BECAUSE THEY ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH PRESENCE DOWNTOWN AND THE VALUE AND ADDRESSING THE FRUSTRATIONS. FOR ME, IT'S EITHER ZERO OR TWO. I JUST RECOGNIZE WE'RE DOING OTHER THINGS LIKE TAKING AWAY THE GARBAGE PROBLEM TO SOME EXTENT AND OTHER INITIATIVES. MY HESITANCY WITH THESE TWO POSITIONS IS REALLY JUST ONCE WE HAVE THEM, WE'RE NOT GOING BACKWARDS, BUT I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WE NEED TO INVEST IN OUR DOWNTOWN, I'LL TAKE THE LEAD FROM MY COUNCIL COLLEAGUES. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCIL MCCLENNAN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST ON THE VEIN OF CAN'T BE EVERYWHERE OR DO EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE. IS THE PRIMARY GOAL OF ADDING THESE POSITIONS TO IMPROVE OR BOLSTER BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OR IS IT TO ADDRESS PUBLIC SAFETY DOWNTOWN? >> MR. MCCLENNAN. >> IT'S BOTH. THE PUBLIC SAFETY DOWNTOWN IS, IF PEOPLE ARE AFFECTED BY PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOT MAINTAINED AND WELL KEPT, THEN THERE'S A BYLAW THAT'S ATTACHED TO THAT THAT YOU CAN ATTRACT A PUBLIC SAFETY QUESTION TO IT. IF THE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT'S WE'RE WRESTLING PEOPLE TO THE GROUND IN ORDER TO KEEP GET THEM OFF THE STREETS THING, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY WHAT WE'RE DOING, BUT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE VISIBLE AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO RESPOND TO ISSUES, WHICH IS A PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERN. PUBLIC SAFETY AND BY LAWS ACTUALLY GO HAND IN HAND. THAT'S THAT'S THE ROLE AND THE TOOLS THAT WE HAVE. PUBLIC SAFETY AND BY LAWS AND MUNICIPAL ENFORCEMENT GO HAND IN HAND. >> COUNCILOR MCCLENNAN? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. A CHALLENGING ONE. I UNDERSTAND WE ASK A LOT OF MED AND WE WANT TO SUPPORT AND UPHOLD MANY BY LAWS THE CITY HAS. WE TALK A LOT ABOUT WHEN WE GET TO DIFFERENT ASPECTS, WHETHER IT'S HOUSING OR HOMELESSNESS ABOUT NOT TAKING ON G&T OR FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITIES. PUBLIC SAFETY IS NOT THE CITY'S JOB. THAT'S THE JOB OF THE RCMP AND TO PROVIDE HOUSING TO PEOPLE AS G&T. MD OFFICERS ARE NOT THE MOST EFFECTIVE USE OF RESOURCES TO EFFECT TO ADDRESS THE ROOT CAUSES THAT ARE MAKING PEOPLE FEEL UNSAFE DOWNTOWN. [04:20:04] I THINK IT MIGHT MAKE PEOPLE FEEL BETTER OR LOOK LIKE THE CITY IS DOING SOMETHING, BUT TO ME, IT'S NOT ADDRESSING THE UNDERLYING CAUSE. IF THESE ARE POSITIONS TO ADDRESS CITY OF YELLEN NIF BY LAWS, THAT'S ONE THING, BUT IF IT'S UNDER THIS IDEA THAT MED IS GOING TO IMPROVE PERCEPTION OR THE FEEL OF PEOPLE'S PUBLIC SAFETY DOWNTIME. TO ME, THAT'S RCMP AND THEY SHOULDN'T BE BUYING MAD MAX VEHICLES. THEY SHOULD BE GIVING MORE MONEY OR PUTTING MORE MONEY INTO DOING THOSE THINGS. I THINK THE RESOURCES HERE WOULD BETTER AFFECT THE UNDERLYING ROOT CAUSES IN OTHER AREAS THAN IN MED POSITIONS. I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFICULT JOB THAT THEY HAVE AND THE ASK TO ENFORCE BYLAWS. PART OF ME WANTED TO SUPPORT THESE POSITIONS FOR THAT REASON, BUT IT JUST KEEP GETTING IT MIXED UP AND ASKING THEM TO BE THE POINT TO IMPROVE PUBLIC SAFETY DOWNTOWN. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE MOST EFFECTIVE USE OF THESE RESOURCES. >> COUNCILOR MCGURK. >> COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN TOOK THE WORDS RIGHT OUT OF MY MOUTH, ESPECIALLY THE REFERENCE TO THE MAD MAX VEHICLE. ACTUALLY, I FIND THAT QUITE A SHAME THAT SO MUCH OF OUR FEDERAL DOLLARS WENT TOWARDS THAT THAT WE ALSO TERRITORIALLY CONTRIBUTE TO. YEAH, IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS, IT SHOULD BE TWO ADDITIONAL OFFICERS. I UNDERSTAND THAT SAFETY ELEMENT. I DON'T LOVE THE IDEA OF ADDING OFFICERS, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE MEETING SERVICE STANDARDS. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE DIVISION IS DOING WELL AND WE ARE NOT LACKING, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE NOT COLLECTED ENOUGH DATA BECAUSE WE HAVE ONLY JUST IMPLEMENTED THESE NEW MEASURES TO SAY THAT WE NEED THESE POSITIONS. IF WE ARE GOING THROUGH THIS BUDGET, TO TRY TO ESTABLISH WHAT IT IS WE NEED AND NOT SPEND MORE TAX DOLLARS THAN WE NEED TO. WELL, THIS DOESN'T REALLY SCREAM NEED TO ME AND IF WE ARE VERY SERIOUS ABOUT ADDRESSING ISSUES IN THE DOWNTOWN THAT MAKE PEOPLE FEEL UNSAFE, THEN I WOULD RATHER PUT THIS MONEY TO ANOTHER FACET LIKE STREET OUTREACH, WHICH HAS A DIRECT IMPACT THAT IS FOUNDATIONAL INSTEAD OF JUST SURFACE LEVEL. IT SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE ADDRESSING COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND THAT WE NEED TO GATHER MORE DATA TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO OUR CURRENT SERVICE STANDARDS BEFORE WE ACTUALLY MOVE FORWARD IN THESE POSITIONS. IF NOBODY ELSE IS GOING TO PUT THE MOTION FORWARD, I WOULD PUT THE MOTION FORWARD TO REMOVE THESE TWO POSITIONS. >> RIGHT NOW WE'RE STILL DEALING WITH COUNCILLOR PAYNE'S MOTION. ANYTHING ELSE ON COUNCILLOR PAYNE'S MOTION? SEEING NONE. FOR MYSELF, I AM IN SUPPORT OF LEAVING THESE POSITIONS IN THE BUDGET. AS COUNCILLOR DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON SAID, WE DID HOLD A SESSION IN CHAMBER WITH THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY THIS SUMMER. COUNCILLOR MCGURK, I'M SPEAKING RIGHT NOW. THAT IS ONE ASPECT. RESIDENTS ARE ALSO SEEKING ACTION IN OUR COMMUNITY. TO THE POINT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, I WOULD ARGUE THAT THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT THOSE ASPECTS. I HAVE SEEN NOW THAT BEING IN CITY HALL ON A REGULAR BASIS, THE MUNICIPAL ENFORCEMENT DIVISION WORKING WITH OUR UNDER HOUSED AND HOMELESS COMMUNITY IN ORDER TO KEEP THEM SAFE AS WELL IN TERMS OF FIRE SAFETY, IN TERMS OF BUILDING SAFETY, AND STRUCTURE SAFETY, ALL OF THOSE ASPECTS. I DON'T SEE THIS AS STRICTLY PUBLIC SAFETY IS ONLY AN ENFORCEMENT OF HOMELESSNESS OR HOUSING. THIS IS KEEPING RESIDENTS REGARDLESS OF THEIR HOUSING OR HOMELESSNESS SITUATION SAFE. WE NEED TO DECOUPLE, AS MR. VAN DINE IN FAIRNESS HAS SAID MULTIPLE TIMES IN PAST MEETINGS, DECOUPLE THE QUESTION OF HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS FROM PUBLIC SAFETY BECAUSE THEY ARE TWO DISTINCT THINGS. FOR ME, WE'VE ALSO, AS A COUNCIL, ON STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS THIS YEAR, ASKED FOR MORE ACTION IN OUR DOWNTOWN CORE. IT'S HARD TO DO THAT, AS DIRECTOR MACLEAN SAID, WHEN THEY ALSO GET PULLED OFF TO OTHER THINGS WHEN THEY'RE CONTACTED BY RESIDENTS TO ENFORCE OUR BYLAWS, BECAUSE UNDER COUNCIL POLICY, THEY ENFORCE OUR BYLAWS WHEN RESIDENTS FLAG THEM FOR US. ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT FACTORS, I AM IN SUPPORT OF KEEPING THESE BOTH IN THE BUDGET. [04:25:02] WHILE I AM CONCERNED ABOUT INFLATION OF POSITIONS GENERALLY, THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE ALREADY DISCUSSED ON THE MAINTAINER POSITIONS, WHICH IS MULTIPLE POSITIONS. WE DON'T HAVE CLARITY ON WHAT THE PURPOSE IS. ALL THAT. THIS HAS STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS BACKING THEM UP FROM OURSELVES. IT HAS A CLEAR PURPOSE, WHICH IS MEASURABLE, AS DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON SAYS, WE CAN HOLD TO ACCOUNT. IT'S ALSO TWO POSITIONS THAT THROUGH ATTRITION, IF WE DECIDE WE WANT TO GO BACK IN FUTURE YEARS, IF WE SEE TWO POSITIONS IS EASIER RELATED TO ATTRITION THAN THE PREVIOUS MULTIPLE POSITIONS WE WERE LOOKING AT ON THE MAINTAINER SIDE OF THINGS. FOR ME, FOR ALL OF THOSE REASONS, I WILL BE SUPPORTING KEEPING IN THE BUDGET. I WON'T SUPPORT THIS CURRENT MOTION, AND I WOULDN'T SUPPORT ANY OTHER MOTION TO REMOVE THESE FROM THE BUDGET. THAT'S ME. ANYBODY ELSE ON COUNCILLOR PAYNE'S MOTION TO REDUCE TO ONE. SEEING THAT, THEN TO THE MOTION THAT COUNCIL CUT ONE MUNICIPAL ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. SOMEBODY ELSE, SORRY. COUNCILLOR PAYNE. >> THANK YOU. LOTS OF CONVERSATION. THAT'S GREAT. I DID GET PULLED OVER LAST WEEK BY ONE MED OFFICER AND HE WAS VERY NICE. I HAVE NO BAD THINGS TO SAY ABOUT HIM. HE'S PERFECT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ADVISABILITY. THIS IS JUST A QUICK QUESTION. THE ADVISABILITY ON DOING THIS AS A TERM. WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT WE'D EVER LOOK AT? I WANT SIX WORD ANSWER ON THIS, MR. VAN DINE. >> MR. VAN DINE. YOU CAN COUNT ON YOUR FINGERS IF YOU CAN, BUT IT GETS SUCCINCT, I THINK IS THE KEY HERE. >> I CAN'T BE, SO I'M GOING TO ASK MR. MACLEAN TO BE. >> DIRECTOR MACLEAN. >> SORRY, I JUST MAKE SURE MY MIC WORKED HERE. WITHOUT HAVING THE SPECIFICS, I MEAN, IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A ONE YEAR TERM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING, BUT IF THE GOAL IS TO IMPACT SOME TEMPORARY MEASURE AND MONITOR THAT ON THE EFFECTIVENESS AND THEN COME BACK WITH SOME INFORMATION TO IDENTIFY THE FUTURE OF IT. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD DO. I MEAN, I'D HAVE TO WORK WITH MR. PANDOO AND HIS TEAM TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. >> WE COULD ALSO JUST WITH HAVING HAD THE DISCUSSION, TABLE IT UNTIL TOMORROW AND THEN MOVE ON THROUGH THE PUBLIC SAFETY OR WE COULD JUST HAVE THE VOTE. >> IT'S UP TO YOU, COUNCILLOR PAYNE. >> NO, IT SEEMS LIKE I DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF SUPPORT FOR TERMINATING ONE OF THESE POSITIONS. I WILL WITHDRAW MY MOTION, BUT I THINK THAT IN THE NEW YEAR, TRAFFIC CAMERAS IN SCHOOL ZONE SHOULD BE A CONVERSATION. >> FAIR ENOUGH. MIGHT BE SOMETHING FOR CAPITAL 2027. THAT MOTION IS REMOVED, DO WE WANT TO HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR? I SAW SOME OF MY COUNCILLOR COLLEAGUES, IT'S UP TO YOU? I'LL GIVE YOU, COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH. I'M GENERALLY NOT IN FAVOR, BUT THE TERM IDEA TO SEE AND GIVE THE GROUP SOME TIME TO SHOW DATA AND STATS ABOUT IT, AND YEAH, PROVE ME WRONG. THEN I WOULD PUT FORWARD A MOTION TO MAKE THE TWO NEW MED TWO POSITIONS A TWO YEAR TERM PENDING THE ADVICE OF ADMINISTRATION. >> I'LL SEEK A SECONDER AND THEN I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT CONSIDERING IT'S 20 AFTER 10 AT NIGHT THAT MAYBE WE GET A SECONDER AND THEN TABLE IT UNTIL TOMORROW, THAT ALSO THEN GIVES ADMINISTRATION TIME TO COME BACK TO YOU FOR A PROPER DISCUSSION TOMORROW. BUT WITH THAT SECONDER FROM COUNCILLOR MCGURK, COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO IT NOW OR SAVE IT TILL WE COME BACK TOMORROW TO SPEAK ON IT? >> YEAH, I THINK I'D BE PUSHING MY MENTAL FACULTIES TO SPEAK ELOQUENTLY TO IT RIGHT NOW. >> FAIR ENOUGH. WE'LL TABLE THAT MOTION, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT TOMORROW. WITH THAT, WE GOT 10 MINUTES MORE UNTIL WE HIT OUR 90 MINUTE MARK. LET'S SEE IF WE CAN DO A BIT OF MORE DAMAGE ON THE PUBLIC SAFETY SIDE OF THINGS. IF WE MOVE TO PAGE 81, PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR OF BUDGET, ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? WE'RE NOT DONE YET, COUNCILLOR PAYNE. STOP PACKING UP ALREADY. SEEING NONE. COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN. >> YEAH. HERE WE GO. PUSHING THEM. [04:30:02] HOW MUCH FUNDING HAVE YOU RECEIVED FOR 2023 WILDFIRE COSTS? IS THAT AMOUNT WHAT WE EXPECTED AND DO WE EXPECT TO RECEIVE ANY MORE? JUST LOOKING FOR AN UPDATE LIKE LAST YEAR. >> MR. VAN DINE. >> I'LL INVITE MR. PANDOO TO UPDATE ON THAT. WE'VE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF RECEIVABLES, BUT I'LL LET MR. PANDOO SPEAK TO THE NUMBER. >> MR. PANDOO. >> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. TO DATE, WE HAVE RECEIVED 9.5 MILLION, AND WE ARE EXPECTING APPROXIMATELY 2.2 MILLION MORE. BUT JUST TO NOTE, WE ARE BECAUSE INITIALLY, JUST TO GO BACK, THE TOTAL COSTS WERE 13.2 MILLION. OUT OF THAT, WE HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED 9.5. WE ARE EXPECTING TO RECEIVE 2.2. HOWEVER, AROUND 1.5 WILL MOST LIKELY BE DENIED BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE DEEMED INELIGIBLE. >> COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST A QUICK COMMENT ON WHY THEY WOULD BE DEEMED INELIGIBLE? >> MR. PANDOO. >> THANK YOU. I THINK THIS HAS MORE TO DO WITH, BECAUSE PART OF THE REFUND CRITERIA, YOU DO HAVE SOME CONDITIONS THAT YOU NEED TO MEET. THEY WOULD NOT BE MEETING THOSE CONDITIONS. >> COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN. >> THANK YOU. >> I ALMOST SAID, COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN. COUNCILLOR FEQUET. >> I WAS JUST TRYING TO LOOK UP THE NUMBER REALLY QUICK, BUT MAYBE MR. PANDOO CAN HELP ME. CAN YOU CONFIRM WHETHER THAT ALIGNS WITH WHAT WE'RE EXPECTING FROM THE AUDIT COMMITTEE? I REMEMBERED A NUMBER OF 400K THAT WE THOUGHT WAS GOING TO BE INELIGIBLE, 1.5 MILLION IS HIGHER, BUT MAYBE I'M GETTING MY NUMBERS MIXED UP. >> MR. PANDOO. >> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I THINK THEY DO ALIGN. WE MIGHT HAVE SOME TIMING DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF BECAUSE THE REVIEW IS ONGOING. AS AND WHEN SOME OF THE EXPENSES ARE BEING DEEMED ELIGIBLE OR UNELIGIBLE, SO THAT MIGHT HAVE AN EFFECT, I GUESS, ON THE AMOUNT THAT YOU KNEW AT THE TIME WAS ELIGIBLE OR WE'RE GOING TO BE RECEIVED. BUT TO THE BULK OF IT, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET WHAT WE WERE EXPECTING. >> COUNCILLOR FEQUET YOU GOT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR OF BUDGET? SEEING NONE, EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DIVISION. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR MOTIONS? SEEING NONE. WE HAVE THE FIRE DIVISION. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR MOTIONS, SEEING NONE. WE COME TO THE LAST PAGE, WHICH IS THE MUNICIPAL ENFORCEMENT BUDGET OVERALL QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? YEAH, COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST LOOKING FOR AN UPDATE ON THE DOG POUND SITUATION AS WE WENT A DIFFERENT WAY THAN WHAT WAS REQUESTED LAST YEAR. JUST LOOKING FOR HOW THAT'S AFFECTING OFFICERS TIME AND COSTS VERSUS EXPECTATIONS. >> MR. VAN DINE. >> YEAH. NO, THANK YOU. THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO UPDATE. I BELIEVE THAT THE TEAM HAS ACTUALLY REALLY DUG IN AND COME UP WITH A WORKABLE SET OF SOLUTIONS TO DEAL WITH AN IMPORTANT AREA OF PUBLIC CONCERN, BUT I'LL LET MR. MACLEAN WALK US THROUGH WHAT WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED IN THE PAST YEAR. >> DIRECTOR MACLEAN. >> THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. YES, SO WE ESTABLISHED A SERVICE CONTRACT WITH THE SPCA. THEY ARE OUR OFFICIAL DOG POUND FOR THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE. THE SERVICE THAT THEY PROVIDE IS DIFFERENT FROM HISTORICAL IMPOUND SERVICES THAT THE CITY HAS HAD IN THE FACT THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH THEM MORE SO WITH DOG CARE AND HOUSING AND THE INTERACTION WITH RESIDENTS ON REPATRIATING THE DOGS WITH THEIR OWNERS IS MORE IN THE MUNICIPAL ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS NOW. WHERE IT USED TO BE, OUR PREVIOUS PROVIDER WOULD ENGAGE WITH THE RESIDENTS AT THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS AND REPATRIATE THE DOG WITH THE OWNER. DUE TO THE NUANCE IN THE SERVICE, THAT ENDS UP NOW BEING ON ONE OF THESE SERVICES THAT OUR OFFICERS PROVIDE IN THAT, THE PAYMENT AND THE REPATRIATION OF THE ANIMAL HAPPENS THROUGH OUR OFFICERS. THEY WILL PICK UP THE DOG FROM THE SPCA AND REPATRIATE IT WITH THE OWNER. SOMETIMES THAT'S HERE. [04:35:03] I'M NOT SURE WE'RE DOING DOGGIE DELIVERY PER SE, BUT WE ARE REPATRIATING THEM. WHILE WE DO HAVE THE SERVICE PROVIDER, WE ARE SEEING INCREASED DEMANDS AND STAFF TIME TO TAKE ON A SERVICE ASPECT THAT HISTORICALLY WE'VE NEVER HAD TO PROVIDE. THANK YOU. >> COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN. >> THANK YOU. THEN MAYBE JUST A COMMENT ON ANY RESULTS OF THE CHANGE TO THE IMPOUND FEE. >> MR. VAN DINE OR DIRECTOR MACLEAN? >> DIRECTOR MACLEAN. PLEASE. >> DIRECTOR MACLEAN. >> THANK YOU. AS YOU REMEMBER, LAST YEAR, THE IMPOUND FEE WAS INCREASED BETWEEN 2-400 PERCENT. WHILE WE'RE SEEING LESS NUMBERS IN DOGS, THE INCREMENTAL COST INCREASES ON THE IMPOUNDMENT FEES IS ACTUALLY WORKING OUT TO BE MORE DOGS AT LOWER PRICE VERSUS FEWER DOGS AT A HIGHER PRICE, WHICH EQUALIZES ITSELF OUT. THANK YOU. >> COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> WITH THAT, EVERYBODY, WE'RE THREE MINUTES AWAY FROM OUR 90 MINUTE MARK. I'M GOING TO SUGGEST WE PUT A PIN IN IT FOR THE EVENING AS I SEE PEOPLE'S EYES DROOPING AND ALL OF THAT. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> WHAT? WE'LL BE WITH YOU TOMORROW, DIRECTOR GREEN CORN. I APPRECIATE YOUR ENTHUSIASM, THOUGH. >> YOUR FIRST THING. >> WE WILL RESET. WELL, OUR FIRST THING TOMORROW WILL BE THIS MOTION THAT'S TABLED. WE'LL COME BACK TOMORROW. WE'LL GET INTO THE TABLE MOTION, AND THEN WE'LL PROCEED. IT LOOKS LIKE WE STILL HAVE AN HOUR OR TWO AHEAD OF US. GOOD NIGHT, EVERYBODY. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.