[1:14] Hereby call the City of Law and Minister of Governance and Priorities Committee meeting from Monday, August 11th, 2025, to order. City of Law and Minister and Council of Law and Minister would like to acknowledge that we are meeting on traditional lands of the Treaty 6 territory, the traditional lands of First Nations and Métis people. We will now pause for a silent moment of personal reflection.

[2:00] As a reminder, all members of Council are obligated to declare a conflict of interest or a financial interest as per section 133 of the Law and Minister Charter regarding

[2:09] Regarding any item on this agenda, moving on to item number two, I'll look for direction from council regarding the agenda that's provided.

[2:17] Councillor Whiting.

[2:19] I move that the agenda deed at August 11, 2025 be approved.

[2:23] Thank you very much.

[2:23] Secondary councilor Taylor, thank you very much.

[2:26] Is there any further discussion on the motion of the floor?

[2:30] Seeing any, I'll call the question all in favor.

[2:33] Opposed, carried.

[2:35] Moving on to item number three.

[2:36] I'll look for direction from council regarding the proofing, the moving of the previous meeting minutes, council waiting.

[2:44] I move that the Governance and Priorities Committee meeting minutes stated July 14th, 2025 be approved.

[2:49] Thank you, councilor Taylor. Thank you for seconding. Is there any further discussion on the motion on the floor?

[2:55] No, it's seeing any? Call the question, all in favor? Opposed? Carried to me.

[3:02] Moving on to item number four, administrative reports, city manager.

[3:05] Good afternoon, the leadership and council for item 4.1, the VickJuba community

[3:09] theater, concerts agreement. I'll ask the executive manager Tracy Simpson to present.

[3:15] Good afternoon, your worship and council. Good afternoon, executive manager Simpson.

[3:20] Today administration is here to present and propose a partnership agreement with the VickJuba community

[3:25] theater to provide concert services at the Sinowis Energy Hub.

[3:30] Today in the audience, I also have Jim McConnell, the general manager from the VickJuba community

[3:34] who's also available to answer any questions if you have on the

[3:38] item for them.

[3:40] This ANOVA Center's you have facility, his approaching completion, and

[3:43] administration is in the process of planning upcoming events, including

[3:46] concerts for 2026.

[3:49] Over the last year, just over a year, administration and the

[3:52] Vickjuba Community Theater Management have been discussing a partnership to host

[3:58] concerts at the facility, utilizing the technical expertise and overall industry

[4:03] that the feeder has that they can support the city in the success of this facility.

[4:09] The administration and the feeder management have been in negotiations and are ready to present a draft agreement with the following terms.

[4:16] The agreement will be a three-year term starting in January of 2026.

[4:21] The feeder and the city are committing to hosting up to three concerts annually within the facility.

[4:28] The payment structure will include an annual payment of $31,000, payable to the theatre

[4:35] from the city for concert support.

[4:38] This is to compensate ongoing support with concert attraction, contract negotiation,

[4:43] access to industry connections, as well as management and planning of all the technical

[4:48] requirements for hosting a concert including audio, visual, and lighting.

[4:52] This also includes the development and support for advertising and marketing as well as access

[4:57] to their ticketing sales software and the management of artists throughout the process.

[5:03] Additionally, there will be a per-concert payment of another $23,000 to compensate for technical

[5:09] support services on the day of, as well as the development of that technical package that

[5:14] will include all the variety of production services required.

[5:17] This would also include, it also included, and this is access to the volunteers through

[5:22] the VickJuba community theater to support with ushering and ticket access points within

[5:28] the facility, as well as support with will call and green room support and volunteer management

[5:35] day of the concert.

[5:38] Following every event, there's opportunity for profit sharing.

[5:41] Up to 20% of net profits for each concert will be paid to the theater if a concert is

[5:46] profitable, and that profit will be after all direct expenses, including our investment

[5:51] through the VIKJUBA's costs per concert are recovered for the city, so be pure net

[5:56] profit. As part of the agreement, we'll be establishing a concert working group, which

[6:01] will involve city administration as well as theater staff, and the sole focus of this group

[6:07] will be attracting artists, negotiating contracts, developing operational plans, as well as

[6:13] event budgets and then marketing plans, communication strategies, as well as selling sponsorship

[6:18] for each individual event.

[6:20] The goal of the agreement with the VickJuba community theatre is to collaborate with an

[6:25] already established partner in our community to bring concerts to our new facility and utilizing

[6:30] their expertise to ensure success for our community.

[6:34] Next steps in this process will include administration bringing the item forward to Council at a future

[6:38] meeting for approval.

[6:39] This will be following the theaters approval at a board meeting, hopefully this month in August.

[6:47] I'll turn back to you, Your Worship for any questions.

[6:49] Thank you very much, Executive Manager.

[6:51] Questions or comments, Council.

[6:55] Councilor Vance?

[6:56] Thank you, Your Worship.

[6:58] Just curious on some of the history on how administration and the big jube came to make this

[7:04] agreement at like $23,000 per concert plus the revenue sharing of the net profits.

[7:11] And if what it would look like if we did maybe like a lower base rate, but a higher percentage in that profits like where how did you guys settle on these numbers?

[7:23] Yeah, thank you for the question, Councillor Vance. We went back and forth quite a bit on the split of the numbers.

[7:28] We wanted to avoid just a lump sum. We wanted to ensure that there was milestones for success and that payment would match those milestones.

[7:36] in terms of the split, we recognize that the, to support this initiative fully, the

[7:41] Vickduba is going to require a little bit extra staff, and so there's a little bit larger

[7:45] up front to ensure that that staff is in place, and so that the attraction of events and

[7:49] the establishment of those technical plans are in place for concerts.

[7:52] Okay.

[7:53] And is there any other guarantees for the city with regards to concerts like, are there any

[7:59] thresholds of must meet 50% capacity of the sellable seats or anything like that?

[8:05] Yeah, thanks for the question. We've been working on some guiding principles and how we manage the budgets for the the concerts will be bringing for a bit more information to counsel in the future on some of those guiding post but we will be looking at when we're looking at attracting a concert or an artist we want to make sure that those concert budgets are as thorough as possible and establishing ticket prices that we think are reasonable and affordable in our market and then we want to set a realistic goal and a typical industry standard is

[8:35] break even at 70% of ticket sales, and then you'd profit above that.

[8:39] Okay.

[8:40] Okay.

[8:40] Thank you.

[8:43] Councillor Tiller.

[8:45] Thank you, Mayor.

[8:46] Seeing that we're going to use their ticketing process, if there was, like, a traveling show

[8:53] that was coming through, are we able to, is there agreement that we could potentially use

[8:57] their ticketing service to sell those tickets as well, or how would that, is there an opportunity

[9:03] to use their ticketing service or other events outside of concerts.

[9:06] Well, that's a great question. I'm going to ask Jen to come up and answer that.

[9:08] Sure.

[9:16] Your worship council. Thank you.

[9:17] Good afternoon, Jen. So sorry, Councillor Taylor, just to clarify the question,

[9:21] are you seeing if a rental client came through?

[9:23] Yeah, like a third party, just to be consistent for purchasing tickets, right?

[9:26] Because we're going to have other users of that facility.

[9:29] I think if anything, just as a person that might be buying tickets,

[9:31] you know, it would be nice to have one area to go through that we could use above and beyond our own

[9:36] concerts if we are hosting. Yeah so we would definitely entertain that just a

[9:41] bit of industry background so typically venues will dictate where the

[9:45] ticket sales do you have to take place but there are in the larger tour routes

[9:49] pre-established ticketing agreements in place so a lot of the really big names

[9:55] which probably would be bigger than what we'd have with our seating capacity at

[9:58] the arena would use ticket master and things like that who we would definitely

[10:01] work with any rental clients that came through to see if we could service their

[10:06] ticketing needs for that consistency factor as well as it would generate additional revenue

[10:10] for us as well as we could cover the costs of setting that up for it.

[10:14] Yeah, giving the information to sell the tickets.

[10:16] Yes.

[10:16] I'm assuming right now, 100% of the cons is to go through the big Juba user ticketing services.

[10:21] We have it in the contract that they have to and that allows us to control capacity, safety,

[10:26] just the messaging, all that kind of stuff.

[10:28] Oh, yes.

[10:28] Good.

[10:28] Thank you.

[10:32] Thank you.

[10:34] away, Jen. Don't go away. Thank you, worship. I just had a question about your capacity as

[10:43] Vick Juba. I know that you take on a whole roster of shows throughout the year. You plan

[10:49] far ahead. Do you see taking this piece as an initiative as being too much, just enough?

[10:59] enough, we can handle more. And how do you see that capacity in your ability to offer

[11:07] shows while not taking away from the Victuba itself?

[11:11] Excellent question. So, as Tracy mentioned, we've been negotiating this over a years

[11:16] period. And so, we've had to really evaluate our capacity at the theater. In 2023, actually,

[11:22] we had already started this model of programming outside of our walls when we did Brett Kissle

[11:27] at the exhibition. So that was kind of a test run for us to see if we could scale up our

[11:33] operations for that level of arena style shows. And so something that we're doing proactively

[11:39] is already adding to our staffing compliments. So we have quite a few casual technicians.

[11:44] We're going to elevate them with additional hours to create part-time positions, more

[11:48] gainful employment positions as well for that specialized knowledge to attract those individuals.

[11:52] as well as we've in planning for this have already strategically blacked out

[11:58] certain sections of our regular rental spaces to say that we anticipate that

[12:02] we'll be doing programming off-site therefore we won't have programming

[12:05] within our walls or if we do accept programming at that time it'll be for like the

[12:08] school divisions where it's a Christmas concert or something that's a minimal

[12:12] production level so then we can have two tiered teams manning bull

[12:17] locations if we had to. Because that was going to be my other pieces. Are we taking away like,

[12:24] is it's a some cost that we'd pull for you from your own venue and that means you lose shows

[12:29] so that you can do it over at the arena or if you're able to coordinate it, you're not losing out.

[12:36] I just don't want to victory, but I lose because you do a concert over here. Yeah, and that's what we've

[12:40] really wanted to collaborate on versus compete. I know a lot of people in the community think that

[12:45] We're going to be competition for each other when we're saying this partnership really helps us collaborate and ensure strategic planning happening and we've known for a while our staffing strategy over the next three years has always been to get to this model anyhow given that our business is growing within the walls of the big.

[13:01] So we feel that we've done a calculated risk of where we add the staff required so that we have two operating teams as well as the expertise needed for those particular arena shows.

[13:11] Yeah, I love that. I love the collaboration of it and I love the the leveraging what we already have so perfect. Thank you

[13:19] Councilor Dajak. Thank you worship. I became a member of the board and proud to serve on a virtue of a community board

[13:25] virtue of a theater board pardon me and so a couple things that I think were really important for me as I

[13:31] Sitting in on just as the negotiations or sort of part way through and happening one is that when you look at the money

[13:36] Part of the recognition is that we're really buying a lot of the knowledge that certainly Jen and the staff have available

[13:42] Secondly, when they host the show, and I think as you pointed out, Councilor, when they're

[13:47] doing a show for us over at the event center, typically it's a three-day event, one day to

[13:51] set up, one day to do the thing, it's the third day to take down.

[13:54] If we do three days, it takes only nine days of revenue, potentially, away from the Victuba

[13:57] Theater.

[13:58] So there's a lot of discussion around exactly to the point of making sure that this contract

[14:04] isn't intended to take away from the Juba Theater.

[14:06] It's intended to sort of work hand in hand so we can have this partnership.

[14:09] And so there's been a lot of discussion around that and then some of it is risk and reward who has a risk who has a reward and I think where you know

[14:15] This may not be exactly perfect, but we're really really close. I think where

[14:19] Both parties are are can live with it for a lack of a better word in terms of going forward

[14:23] But certainly what I what I can send behalf of the board and and what I've seen the gen is that they're really excited about doing this because there's

[14:30] There's such a capacity to add you know to the arts in the community and have these

[14:34] acts, whatever they are, big small meeting, whatever we're capable of handling and really

[14:39] adding to, I think, you know, to culture the city.

[14:42] So, it's been fun to watch this, clip my nails a few times, thinking about all these

[14:48] pieces that are in there.

[14:49] But it is a complicated process, and I think in the end this will be, I think, a real benefit

[14:54] to the city and certainly that partnership between the two bodies.

[14:57] And in the end, it's a partnership with ourself because

[15:00] So, it's kind of an interesting relationship and dynamic as we work through this. So, I'm quite pleased to throw we are in this one. Thanks, Councillor Taylor. Yeah. And just going to go off. Councillor Dite took seeing there.

[15:14] With your expertise and seeing a venue of this size in our area, obviously this contract isn't something that was made up overnight. You were thinking about this and going back and forth for a while. I've had some questions in the public just with the changing landscape in traveling shows.

[15:29] in those types of things. Can you give us a little background in what not I'm not asking for specific

[15:34] what's coming for shows or what you're thinking but are you seeing maybe a trend in these types

[15:38] of shows and these sizes of venues again in our area or is this going to be something kind of

[15:43] that we're going to try to create. Just I've had some public ask me just because we don't see a lot

[15:47] of shows of this size come through so you know I guess is there any excitement around what what you're

[15:53] we're seeing in the industry.

[15:57] Excellent question, so we are part of a prairie regional presenters coalition, and that's

[16:01] a group of about 25 venues across British Columbia to Manitoba.

[16:05] We meet by weekly, and some of those venues such as Medicine Hat, Esplanade, they also program

[16:10] Medicine Hat Co-op Place, as well as Moosja with the Temple Gardens Event Center.

[16:15] Those are kind of the groundwork that we've been trying to lay in terms of rooting arenas

[16:21] of this size.

[16:22] and so being a similar venue size, they're very excited for us to have the hub online

[16:27] and be able to have those conversations because it makes a more natural fit for us to root with venues

[16:32] like that size than it would to say in Saskatoon or Edmonton. A lot of radius clauses come in that case,

[16:39] whereas in this one if we partner with venues of that size and that distance from us,

[16:44] then we'll have success in the names that we're going to attract. So in the industry it's all over the

[16:51] map in terms of what the ticket buyer is looking for, but definitely seeing demand

[16:55] for a larger higher caliber level of artist, especially in this community. Even at the

[17:02] theater, we program differently now in the last three years since I've been managing

[17:06] them. We haven't passed in that we know what the community wants. Typically, it's country

[17:10] music. It's, you know, 90s hits those kinds of things. So definitely, I think there's

[17:16] going to be uptake. Once we get everything online, and I do believe that our citizen and

[17:20] and the region area will be excited to travel to Lightminster instead of Edmonton, Saskatoon,

[17:26] for these kinds of events.

[17:29] You worship of Regis and I think one of the things that the city saw as a benefit to the

[17:34] partnership is two things I haven't mentioned is one is the success the feeders had over

[17:38] the last few years under Jen's leadership.

[17:40] We've gone from seeing a feeder that struggled to break even or at minimum on shows to being

[17:46] profitable across the board for the most part.

[17:48] And so that's giving us a lot of confidence that they understand the market of what people here in Lodman

[17:52] start looking for, and they're going to bring in the right people, but also some of the technical staff at the Vick Juba have

[17:59] arena experience. They've gone on tours with bands and things like that, and so there's they're not just theater people, they're large-show people,

[18:08] and so we're confident that they're going to be able to deliver in the new facility.

[18:12] Yeah. Councillor Lopez. Thank you, Mayor. Just a quick question. So, like, do we have

[18:19] roles and responsibilities like what the responsibilities are for the Vic Juva and what for the city staff?

[18:24] Because I know we have an event coordinator that's hired specifically for the energy hub. I just,

[18:29] I didn't see it in here that like the Vic Juva was going to be, like, these are going to be the

[18:33] city responsibilities. Is the Vic Juva's responsibilities? Yeah, that's correct. In the agreement we lay out

[18:38] are each of our roles and responsibilities.

[18:40] At a high level, the theater is responsible

[18:42] for all the technical, concert-related details,

[18:45] anything that's in industry detail.

[18:47] And our event coordinator and our facility manager

[18:50] and their staff will be responsible

[18:51] for the facility requirements.

[18:52] So ensuring setups and access to equipment

[18:56] and all that kind of stuff is available.

[18:57] So it's, yeah, we've divided the labor

[18:59] into parts that we feel comfortable.

[19:01] So like putting down the concert floor

[19:04] would be the city's responsibility.

[19:05] taking out the glass, setting up the chairs,

[19:09] providing lifts, those kinds of things.

[19:11] And then the Vick Juba, like on a concert,

[19:13] the three days of the concert,

[19:14] they'd be managing the rigging and the sound and lighting

[19:17] and establishing all those things.

[19:19] So now those costs are they in the cost of what the

[19:24] concert goes into or are those, they just were like.

[19:28] Those will be contractor costs per concert.

[19:31] So depending on the concert and the requirements of the artist,

[19:33] Yes, they'll fluctuate slightly, but those will be built into the budget of the concert

[19:37] that we'll set our recovery take costs for.

[19:40] Okay, perfect.

[19:41] Thank you.

[19:43] Councillor Wendy.

[19:45] Yeah.

[19:46] Thank you.

[19:47] I very much supportive of this agreement and the working relationship between the two parties

[19:51] and how it, I do see it as very much a benefit to both.

[19:58] I think it just comes down to kind of a little bit of what Councillor Lopez was talking about

[20:04] and just ensuring that we,

[20:10] when I think about the different concerts that might come,

[20:14] I do think that there could be a higher level of technical on one,

[20:18] and then maybe one is a little bit simpler.

[20:20] I don't know, I don't know these concerts very well.

[20:22] So I guess part of me is a little bit hesitant,

[20:26] with just a flat rate of 22,000 per concert,

[20:30] not knowing exactly what's built into that,

[20:32] So not knowing, you know, here's a number and we'll just, we'll just pay that and what that consists of and and hearing a bit more helps to clarify some of that which is, you know, you'll be out let's say nine days of concert support at the

[20:49] But if things are scheduled right, potentially that doesn't take away from any big shows it could hopefully land in amongst with the smaller things that wouldn't then take away from from higher dollar shows.

[21:04] So in some ways I think of it as you know.

[21:07] The big juba has all the knowledge has all the expertise is all the volunteer has the ticket and and should it be more of like a consulting service that each time has more of a specific cost.

[21:18] the cost worked out per concert and a contractor sort of thing that helps to be a little bit more specific on the dollars versus just a flat.

[21:29] And maybe 23,000 in the end is short than what it actually costs and we do pay more. But at least that way, I can say exactly look back and go, OK, that was exactly the costs coming from this vendor.

[21:41] the big Juba knowing that everything was invoiced at the correct amount from the dollar to the, you know, broke down and that sort of thing. So that's that's really my only concern. I think the 31,000 per year is a is a nice

[21:57] working relationship dollar value to for the victory, but to use to go ahead with with researching, procuring, identifying the market and everything that comes around with bringing something into a new venue.

[22:10] So there's that I'm okay with that just I think just a little bit wanting to know a little bit more

[22:16] details when it comes to dollar value and we're looking at per concert and that sort of thing and

[22:20] and then knowing that this is very new for our new arena that you know I think this is a three year

[22:28] contract was it or was it just is it three year yeah yeah so I didn't see that and so then maybe

[22:35] maybe a little bit hesitant also into stepping into a three-year contract when we're still

[22:41] maybe should be a one-year with possible extensions and that's where it's at.

[22:45] Thank you just add a couple things. I think the biggest challenge is the unknown, right?

[22:49] So we negotiated to a fee structure that we're both comfortable knowing that there's maybe some things we don't know.

[22:56] We felt like three years would give us enough time to really get our feet into the industry

[23:02] without making kind of shotgun decisions after just one or two concerts.

[23:07] But we also have language in our agreement that if we think it's really offside and we've

[23:11] done a year of concerts and it's just not working out then there's an opportunity to take a pause

[23:17] and evaluate it, make sure it's good for both sides.

[23:22] Yeah, I agree with that. I think we want everybody to have a good amount of time to kind

[23:28] of work out the peak values of a new everything. Yeah, I just, I don't know, I guess part of me

[23:34] just would like to see a little bit more specific numbers when it comes to the cost of event

[23:40] because that's where we're unknown and maybe, again, like I said, the 23,000 could be a small

[23:48] all not enough amount and we end up paying more per event because that's what's needed.

[23:53] So the, it's just to clarify and make sure we're on the same page, the money we're giving

[23:58] the big juba community leaders for their in-house skills, anything that we would have to contract

[24:02] would obviously be still an expense we'd have to pay outside of that.

[24:05] Next week at council, we're bringing forward some more detailed concert budgets to start

[24:10] talking about procurement of artists and so you will see a little bit more of what

[24:14] was into building the budget and that's so we've used some of that as well but this is for

[24:21] generally negotiations provided some details of what are some of the potential costs that they

[24:25] have versus the potential loss in revenue but the good thing about the music industry is

[24:32] you book really far in advance and so we think we can get to a place where our schedule and their

[24:37] schedule is well collaborated and so they don't have downtime and we're fitting it in to make sure

[24:41] we all get what we want but the numbers were based on costs that the

[24:46] theater believe that they're going to expense.

[24:52] I think that it's got some great

[24:53] benefits and I appreciate you talking about you know the value the

[24:57] Vick Juba has and there's been a lot of discussion in the community about you know

[25:01] the new facility replacing the Vick Juba and we're never going to replace the

[25:05] Vick Juba. Vick Juba is built and does a great job with about 550 seats if my

[25:09] numbers correct and you know we've hosted so many great events and we'll

[25:13] continue to host great events that fit that low-cal. But I think as Jen mentioned, you know,

[25:19] Grant Kessel, there's other artists out there that we can't, that the Vic can't make money

[25:24] at 550 seats, not without charging two arms on a leg and people are not prepared to pay for that.

[25:29] So I think that, you know, this is that next step. And it is going to be a learning process. There's

[25:34] no question comes to writing. I think you outlined that. There's questions when I appreciate where the

[25:39] The committee has been at both from the Victuba side as well as the city and I think when importance to I don't want to confuse the issue

[25:47] But the city does support the Victuba and we will continue to support the Victuba

[25:52] I hope from this Council and Council is going forward to ensure its viability

[25:55] So if we do pay a little bit then the 23,000 they make an actual dollar to that'll show up on their bottom line

[26:02] And they hopefully won't be coming with the left hand asking for more money from the city the following year

[26:07] So, it's one way of ensuring the success of the VecJuba, but also ensuring that we have as many tools to succeed with our local tools that we have being the staff, the management, the email list you have for clients to let them know about concerts.

[26:24] So, I think that's where I see some real benefits and the synergies of working together because I know there's been a concern in the community since this was discussed about having another venue in our city, but one much larger.

[26:36] I'm excited to hear that you'll be able to still use the VickJuba certainly for certain

[26:41] events, well, the other facility because again, that was another question, well, why are

[26:46] we having a duplication of services if we're not using the VickJuba?

[26:50] And if you can double your staff or have those trained part-time staff gen, I think that's

[26:54] terrific because people do get sick, people need vacation, you know that and I think anyone

[26:59] that's managed staff realizes that having someone to back up the crew is a good thing.

[27:04] So I see a lot of positives there's always the unknown and there is the unknown from the beginning of this project

[27:11] You know will people come to concerts and all the other things that I I have faith that people will I think when

[27:18] Jen and the city team and the whole team get together and say this is the act that they're going to bring

[27:23] You'll find excitement in our community and certainly you know we will be I don't want to say world class

[27:30] but it will be world-class for our size.

[27:32] I think that's the important part

[27:33] for playing in our league.

[27:35] We're not trying to compete with Saskatoon or Edmonton,

[27:38] but we will do a heck of a job in Lloydminster,

[27:41] as we always do, and I can't think of an event

[27:44] that has not been successful

[27:45] when the community pulls together.

[27:47] Be it summer game, is be it what's going on at the VecJuba,

[27:50] and all sorts of other things from the RBC Cup

[27:53] to the list that's long and endless.

[27:55] So I'm sure if the community comes together

[27:57] this will be very successful. Any other questions or comments?

[28:03] Thank you very much, Jen, for joining us. Thank you very much for bringing that forward executive

[28:06] manager Simpson. Moving on to 4.2 city manager. Thank you, Bishop, for item 4.2 quarterly financial

[28:13] report for period ending June 30, 2025. I'll ask executive manager of Del Walker to present.

[28:19] Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Good afternoon, executive manager, Walker Ruck.

[28:23] The financial report is being presented to City Council for reviewing comments.

[28:29] Once the report is presented, it's posted to the City's website to ensure the public

[28:32] can access the information as part of the City's commitment to delivering open and transparent

[28:37] governance.

[28:38] So let's dive into it.

[28:40] So this is the quarterly financial report for the six months period ending June 30th.

[28:46] Our first statement is the statement of financial position.

[28:50] So this statement can be used to analyze the city's ability to finance future activities and ability to fulfill past commitments.

[29:00] In terms of financial assets, we can see that in comparison to last year at this time, there's about a 13.3 million dollar decrease.

[29:11] So I'll give you some context on that.

[29:13] The city's cash and short-term investments are considerably lower and they're about 36% lower compared to last year.

[29:19] The reason for this is because the city has deferred $25 million of debt draws for the

[29:25] Sonovus Energy Hub by prompting that cash through working capital.

[29:30] So this is a very intentional strategy we're using cash to float the construction costs

[29:36] in order to defer the principal and interest costs on debt to potentially obtain a favorable

[29:42] interest rate closer towards the end of the year.

[29:46] At this time, we've seen our potential return on investments sitting at about 4% and we

[29:52] know right now that the cost of borrowing is about 4.5%.

[29:57] So, in terms of our long-term investments,

[30:00] There's a slight increase in our long-term investments compared to last year.

[30:07] These investments are

[30:08] those that mature and over a year from the reporting date. So in 2026, we have 6 million that were

[30:14] mature from this section, another 6 million 27, and another 11 million in 2028. So this

[30:20] reiterates the importance of constantly monitoring our cash flow and making strategic laddered investments

[30:26] so that we have appropriate cash levels available today to fund certain construction costs, but also

[30:32] also to ensure that we are consistently getting a return on our cash reserves that are available.

[30:40] In terms of taxes receivable, so taxes receivable represents the barriers of taxes owing from tax fares.

[30:49] So $65 million of taxes, including education taxes, were levied in 2025 in May.

[30:55] And as of June 30th, 41 million of those taxes were outstanding,

[31:00] with an additional two and a half in a rears outstanding.

[31:04] By the payment due date of July 25th,

[31:07] over 92% of current year taxes were collected.

[31:10] So this is in line and on par with our historical collection rate,

[31:14] which is quite successful.

[31:18] In terms of trade and other receivables,

[31:22] this is relatively consistent to the prior year,

[31:25] but I just wanted to share a few interesting tidbits.

[31:28] We, on average, collect about 77% of our utility billing, which is part of the trade in other receivables, and we're continuously working on improving that collection rate by encouraging residents to sign up for paperless billing.

[31:44] We've to date in 2025, anticipate saving about 10,500 monthly on postage just based on the current customers that are signed up for paperless billing.

[31:56] So I thought I'd share that interesting stat with everybody while we were talking about

[32:01] utility billing receivables.

[32:04] So the main reason for the increase in 2025 in comparison to 2024 under trade and other

[32:10] receivables is mainly because we have the Alberta government, local government fiscal framework

[32:17] grant, which is $2.1 million receivable, but it's also offset by slight decrease in investment

[32:24] income receivable.

[32:25] So, waiting to get that grant, but we have a little bit less compared to last year

[32:30] in investment income receivable.

[32:33] Moving down to our financial liabilities, there is overall an 8.6 million dollar increase

[32:41] in financial liabilities compared to this point in time last year.

[32:45] I'm just going to cut to the chase and talk about the core reason for this increase.

[32:50] There's two reasons.

[32:52] The first one is you may note that we've moved our offsite levies from reserves over

[33:00] to be under financial liabilities.

[33:02] And so this has increased slightly compared to 2024.

[33:07] But more importantly under long-term debt, there's an increase of 6.4 million compared

[33:13] to last year.

[33:14] That's for the addition of about $10 million of debt for the snobus energy hub.

[33:18] And we repaid 3.6 of our debt overall since that point in time.

[33:24] So an increase of 6.4 million under our non-financial assets.

[33:31] We have an increase of 53.8 million dollars.

[33:36] The core reason for this is mainly because of the work in progress balance.

[33:41] We have for our capital projects, most notably the Snovus Energy Hub.

[33:45] There's 83 million dollars part of that 88 million dollars that's sitting

[33:49] in work in progress, so once the facility is at substantial completion, we will move

[33:55] that over to be under the tangible capital assets category.

[34:01] So this was a very brief overview of our statement of financial position.

[34:05] If I could stop you for a second, executive manager.

[34:08] The asset retirement obligations under financial liabilities increased by just about a million

[34:12] dollars.

[34:13] Can you give a little clarification to that?

[34:15] Absolutely.

[34:16] That's a great question.

[34:17] And we have increased the asset retirement obligation because we have an updated assessment of the cost to require the Centennial Civic Center.

[34:28] And so we felt as we learned that information, it was important to reflect that on our statement of financial position.

[34:34] Thank you.

[34:34] Just like any other facility or any other information that we receive, we will update the statements accordingly.

[34:40] Thank you very much.

[34:44] So I'll move on to our operating budget versus actual.

[34:48] This next statement is depicted by category, so I'll provide maybe a brief overview of what's

[34:55] happened in the quarter and then go into specific sections. So as of Q2, the city levied

[35:03] its property taxes, which increased our revenues substantially. This is normal, this happens

[35:09] every single year at this period in time. Most revenues are in line with projections. Some appear

[35:15] to deviate, but most have to do with timing, it's just the season.

[35:20] For example, under licenses and permits, you'll notice that we do business license

[35:25] renewals at the beginning of the year, so it's going to account for 100% of the business

[35:29] license for renewals.

[35:32] Another comment is around the LGCC memberships, so those are collected at the beginning of

[35:39] the golf season.

[35:40] and another reason why licenses and permits

[35:42] might be higher in comparison

[35:44] to some of the other revenue categories.

[35:49] Overall, in terms of expenses,

[35:51] they're trending a little bit lower

[35:53] for salaries and wages,

[35:55] sitting at about 47%.

[35:58] This is due to vacancies in certain departments.

[36:02] The next two categories,

[36:03] contracted services and goods and materials.

[36:07] This really varies depending on when certain items

[36:10] are purchased throughout the year. I do want to make a quick note on the cost of sales.

[36:16] So the cost of sales is directly correlated to when land sales occur so this could fluctuate

[36:21] depending on which land sales take place. But I will make a quick comment that the land division

[36:26] continues to show strength.

[36:31] There are seven lot deposits outstanding as of June 30th and I'll

[36:34] touch on that a little bit later on as well.

[36:40] Two other quick comments and then I'll dive into some

[36:43] some more detail here is under interest on long-term debt.

[36:47] So it's under budget as the Snovus Energy Hub draw for debt was

[36:53] budgeted to be 20 million, but we've only taken out 10 so far at the end of 2024.

[37:00] And then the wastewater treatment drawn number two, this will be the absolute final draw.

[37:05] We're just waiting for the last tally of the expenses to come through, but

[37:09] So we've also defer this to the end of 2025, for the same cash flow management practice

[37:13] is trying to get the lowest interest rate possible.

[37:19] Last but not least, under utilities, we're sitting at about 47%, so the carbon tax was removed

[37:25] effective April 2025, so we're hopeful that we could see a decrease in the cost of future

[37:31] fuel and utility costs.

[37:35] Oh, and last but not least, our Q2 is typically when we do record our transfers to reserves.

[37:41] It's just a big accounting exercise to record all of those entries.

[37:45] You'll see transfers to reserve are quite significant.

[37:50] There's still a few more to go, but those can't be done until the end of the year once we see

[37:54] what our true financial position is.

[37:56] So,

[38:01] overall, the city is sitting at 77% of revenue as expected to date, and we've spent

[38:08] 46% of our operating budgeted expenses to date.

[38:14] So this has resulted in a surplus of just shy of $35 million, but that's to be expected

[38:20] and to be expended towards the end of the year.

[38:27] Are there any questions on this particular statement?

[38:30] Councillor, and Cheryl's, this isn't it?

[38:32] Sure. Thanks for worship. Can you just shed some light on the revenues of local improvements

[38:37] at 140 percent? What that includes and what's all in there?

[38:43] Yeah. Thank you for the question, Councillor Charles-Gufstisson. I can give you a very clear

[38:47] answer on that. We do let the local improvement taxes and then we just haven't performed

[38:53] the cancellation of certain taxes. So it's looking like a overstated at June 30th, but

[38:58] the cancellations actually took place in July, so it should be matching the exact budgeted

[39:02] amount. It's just a timing difference. Got it. But a lot of timing snapshots. Yeah, I apologize,

[39:08] and that's something that we'll rectify in the future.

[39:14] Certainly, Councillor Whiting. Thanks.

[39:16] You mentioned the cost of sales in which case when a land, a chunk of land a lot or something

[39:22] sells, that's when the cost of sales would increase due to the cost of that land through previous

[39:28] history of development. And then on the flip side of that, the revenue for those, does

[39:32] that come in on the user fees and sales of goods? Is that where that lies? Or where

[39:35] does the sale of land to the land division come in?

[39:39] Yeah, thank you for the question. I know we provide so many statements. It's difficult to

[39:43] understand sometimes where they're categorized. So in terms of land sales on the operating

[39:48] budget versus actual by category, land sales revenue would be categorized under user fees

[39:54] and sale of goods, and then if you're looking on the next statement, which will go through

[39:59] right away here, it would be categorized under planning and development revenue.

[40:16] I think so.

[40:16] There's no other questions.

[40:17] I'll keep going.

[40:18] Please note, hesitate to ask.

[40:21] When it comes to our operating budget versus actual by division, I'll briefly go through

[40:26] each division for revenue and expenses, and then if you have any questions, please let

[40:32] me know.

[40:32] So under revenue, we discussed municipal property taxes, property taxes were levied in May,

[40:39] and then penalties were applied on any outstanding balances on July 25th.

[40:44] So total municipal taxes levied were 49 million, 49 million, almost 50 million.

[40:53] And so we can see that reflected under the general government category.

[40:57] Other notable items worth mentioning under general government are franchise fees.

[41:04] So for the first six months of the year, we're sitting at about 54% of the annual budget

[41:08] for franchise fees.

[41:10] Our investment income is also represented under this category.

[41:14] So to date, we're sitting at 46% of our annual budget.

[41:19] It's been a combination of slightly lower interest rates than we expected, as well as not

[41:24] investing as much available cash, but we are hopeful by the end of the year that will

[41:29] be very close to our budgeted investment income target.

[41:34] Under expenses for general government, currently, we've incurred approximately about 54 percent.

[41:42] Some expenses are incurred once a year and they're paid throughout Q1 and Q2, a good example

[41:48] of this is insurance, and so we do expect to be on budget by the end of the year.

[41:54] Moving on to protective services, we've noticed that our CMP fines are 58% of their annual budget

[42:04] to date, but we have noticed that bylaw fines and photo rate earner fines are sitting a little bit

[42:10] lower bylaw fines at 38% and then photo rate earner fines at 30% of their annual budget.

[42:21] Last but not

[42:22] least under protective services. So, fire has incurred under the expenses, 39% of its annual

[42:31] budget as of June 30th. Just a reminder that the new fire model did not come into effect until

[42:37] July 1st in the later part of the year, so we'll see the expenses completely hit the budgeted

[42:44] target by the end of the year.

[42:48] Under transportation services,

[42:52] we can see our revenue

[42:53] was sitting at 128% of what we had budgeted.

[42:57] This is mainly due to an un- budgeted gain on a disposal of the unit, so I'm not sure

[43:03] if anybody recalls, but there was a unit, a fleet unit that was destroyed in a fire,

[43:09] and so based on the proceeds of that gain on that disposal, we had about $40,000, so that's

[43:18] reflected under the revenues for transportation services.

[43:22] Under this category as well, there are also development levies for roads, road infrastructure

[43:30] of about $560,000.

[43:35] Under expenses for transportation services, relatively on target and expect

[43:40] to be on budget by the end of the year.

[43:44] For environmental services, we're sitting

[43:47] at 52% of our revenue to date. We're seeing a bit of an increase in usage for residential

[43:54] But almost on par for every other type of water type, whether it's commercial water sales, raw water sales, and then with our third party partners terms of expenses currently sitting at about 37% to expenses to date.

[44:13] The majority of this reason is because we don't budget or we don't transfer all of our transfers to reserves until the end of the year for environmental services.

[44:23] So this is a practice that we've, the city has always adopted and we're going to look to move that quarterly just so that Council on the public can better understand the profitability under that fund.

[44:39] First social services. So this is on schedule and as expected social services is sitting at 57% of the revenue budget to date.

[44:50] This is mainly because we've received the first two installments of the annual Alberta FCS grant.

[44:55] but we've also expended.

[44:57] You can see here 66% of...

[45:00] This is the budget to date. This is because we typically transfer out to other organizations. We do 75% up front. And then once those third party organizations complete the outcomes desired for their programs, then they get the remaining 25%. I also want to make a quick note here that under the expenses for, or under, I apologize.

[45:28] Under the expenses, there was a transfer of 172,000.

[45:32] $1,000 to third parties and this is from grant funds that the city successfully received

[45:38] and did not budget for through the building safe community fund so that was an additional

[45:42] expense that we didn't revenue and expense that we didn't have on the books.

[45:50] Under planning and development, we talked a little bit about land sales but we can see

[45:55] we're sitting at 149% of our revenue to date so for land division which is the revenues

[46:02] These are and expenses are represented under this category.

[46:05] There have been four residential and three industrial sales in the first six months of the year.

[46:10] And then the city also has seven deposits on the books for future sales at June 30th.

[46:17] So land division is starting to move.

[46:23] There's a correlation between the land sales and obviously the cost of sales.

[46:27] So you'll see that move up or down depending on how the land division performs.

[46:31] Also represented under this category is true planning and development costs and revenues and expenses.

[46:40] So currently the planning and development team has incurred 49% of their budget expenses

[46:46] to date and expect to be on target towards the end of the year.

[46:52] Or our recreation and culture team.

[46:55] So in the first six months, the major recreation facilities have earned 67% of their annual budget.

[47:03] Some departments see higher revenue in the spring and the summer, some departments will see higher revenue in the fall and the winter.

[47:10] I've noted that the LGCC sells their memberships at the beginning of the year, so we see an increase at the beginning of the year for that reason.

[47:19] There are also accounted under revenues, just over $1 million in transfers from reserves that are supporting the operating budget.

[47:29] This is mainly because as part of our budget, we strategically didn't spend $926,000 in 2024

[47:40] on principal and interest costs for the snobus energy hub and so we transferred that over

[47:46] to 2025.

[47:47] So I just want to be very clear about the majority of that $1 million is related to a strategy.

[47:53] We didn't spend it last year so we're going to include it in this year's budget.

[47:58] Under expenses, to date, 47% of their budget has been expended, and the majority of their transfers to reserves have been recorded.

[48:14] Are there any questions about any particular division?

[48:17] Councillor Opus.

[48:19] Just one question on the planning and development. When we sell a lot, and we, with that builder incentive program on,

[48:24] How do we track the sale of that? Do we put it as a sale, and then put it as revenue, or do we take the revenue once that that house is sold?

[48:32] Yeah, so with accounting practices, we do have to take into account the deposit, and it's recorded as a liability, and until title transfers, we can't record some of the revenue.

[48:42] So I can provide a more specific answer.

[48:46] No, I'm good with that. I just, I didn't know if it was, if because we, you have to correct me if I'm wrong here.

[48:53] But we have to transfer title to them, prior to them paying for it correct, is if they need to get a mortgage or anything like that, they need to have title on that lot.

[49:03] So if it's dependent on when the title is transferred.

[49:09] So when the city holds the title and owns the property, we can't record any revenue.

[49:13] It would be at the time we transfer that title to the owner.

[49:16] Correct. Okay. No, just I just didn't know if it was it was marked as an expanse or if it was in the revenue

[49:22] But no, that makes sense. Thank you

[49:24] Question comes without check. Yeah, thank you

[49:26] So it occurred partway through this this question anyways, but I'm aware of a one property that is trying to be sold

[49:33] But it has one point three million dollars of offsite levied that that haven't been paid to the city

[49:37] How do we account for that in this?

[49:41] Can you repeat that sure? There's a property for sale and in the city and and it was

[49:45] And they still owe us, I think, 1.3 million offsite levies.

[49:49] How do we track that?

[49:50] Or is there a part of this budget, is a separate budget or?

[49:54] So with development levies, just because they are done on a contractual basis,

[49:58] we typically don't budget for them in our operating budget.

[50:02] So you may notice on some of the other statements, I'll point out very quickly here on our operating budget versus actual, the first one.

[50:14] for development levies, you'll notice that the budget in 2025 is zero just because it is based on contractual agreements.

[50:20] Okay.

[50:21] And so within that contractual agreement, obviously if there are amounts due to the city for development levies, then those would be due upon due before any type of other transaction or title could be transferred.

[50:33] Okay, because I mean I know we have arrangements with level A developers or major developers versus others

[50:39] And so I mean, there's multiple tracking as those that simply haven't paid it to those that are paying over time to those

[50:44] Need to pay as they go kind of think so I just wondered where it fit in on with so certainly I am generalizing

[50:49] So it does come down to what is based on the contract. There's also

[50:54] Policies in place depending on the tier of developer but the contract will stipulate in line with the policy how we collect those development levies and

[51:02] in the terms and conditions on how the transaction will be handled.

[51:06] Okay, thank you.

[51:10] There were just even terms of how we budget for land division.

[51:13] So it's showing well right now but we don't always, we only budget for like one commercial lot or one industrial lot and three residential.

[51:22] So it's not like we forecast out for the entire year.

[51:25] So the budget to actual is kind of deceiving in a way because we don't forecast out the seven lots plus the other four.

[51:34] or like the last couple of years we've only sold two to three residential lots so that's

[51:38] kind of why we budget low, obviously hope for high, but just there's a reason why the

[51:44] numbers are low on the budget side compared to what the actuals are.

[51:50] Appreciate that. Any other questions or if we continue to move on? I think we're going

[51:57] to continue, please. Thank you, Mayor. As our financial package, we do offer under Appendix

[52:03] to another way of looking at the operating budget versus actual and that would be by fund.

[52:09] So there are three different statements at the back that show you our taxation fund,

[52:14] the land division fund, as well as the utility fund.

[52:23] I'm going to move on to our reserve forecast.

[52:27] So the reserve forecast ending December 31st, 2025 assumes that all budgeted projects are

[52:34] completed as of December 31st, 2025 means all the work is done and all approved draws to and from reserves occur.

[52:43] Now sometimes life doesn't work out that perfectly, but that's what we assume in our forecast just so

[52:47] that we can have the most conservative approach and understand what our financial position could be.

[52:53] So at December 31st, 2025, we anticipate that restricted reserves will be maintained at $909,846.

[53:02] but we can see under our restricted reserves decline from 58.4 million down to 39.3 million.

[53:14] And so this decrease was anticipated and planned for as part of our strategy to fund not only our operating budget but also our capital work.

[53:23] And we're continuing to work on our strategic use of reserves as we embark on a long-term strategic planning initiative.

[53:30] And as we plan out more of our capital work over the long term, we'll have a better idea on how to plan out our reserves as well.

[53:37] So we look forward to bringing forward a reserve policy this fall that will discuss some of the outcomes of that work.

[53:47] Under our reserve funding verification, our total liquid assets, so that would be our cash and our short-term and long-term investments.

[53:55] As of June 30th, we're sitting at 64, just a little over 64 million.

[54:00] However, the total reserve balance was sitting at $70 million, $70.7 million.

[54:08] So we can see that total liquid assets are just shy of what our total reserve balance

[54:13] this should be.

[54:14] But I'll just remind that this was part of our strategic cash flow management strategy,

[54:20] deferring some of using some of our cash on hand to defer a draw on debt for the Snovus

[54:26] energy hub. And it's just a bit of a timing difference. By July 31st, I can assure you

[54:32] that already we do have the total liquid assets available to cover our reserve balances.

[54:38] So it was a pre-planned and known shortage, but that's just due to the timing of our cash

[54:44] flows. And I can assure you by December 31st, we know that our reserves will be well adequately

[54:49] and well-funded.

[54:57] If there are no questions on that one, I'll move on to our.

[54:59] Councilor Vance.

[55:01] Thank you.

[55:01] Yeah, just regarding that, having the less total liquid assets than the total reserves,

[55:06] is that a common municipality practice that you've seen across the board where they can

[55:13] hold off on expense like that till there's favorable market conditions?

[55:16] Thank you for the question, Councilor Vance.

[55:19] I haven't seen many other municipalities report on whether or not their reserves are funded

[55:23] in this way.

[55:24] Now, we can go and look at their financial statements and see whether or not they have the

[55:28] name available cash balance. Lloyd Minster is a little bit more transparent in putting it

[55:34] out there in this manner. Now most municipalities would manage their cash flow to suit their needs,

[55:39] and so I could put forward some analysis if you wish to evaluate how they manage. But I would say

[55:46] it is very common to manage cash to suit the needs of the business and also keep a close eye on whether

[55:54] there are not those reserves are funded several years ago.

[55:57] The city was not sufficient in adequately funding

[56:01] their reserves and as a consequence,

[56:04] had to write down a lot of their reserve balances.

[56:07] So we like to keep a close eye on it.

[56:08] For sure.

[56:09] Okay, thank you.

[56:17] Okay, moving on to debt.

[56:19] So our debt payments and principal forecast.

[56:22] So the first graph is showing the city's annual debt payments

[56:29] four casted over the next 10 years.

[56:32] So there are three different lines, I'll draw your attention to.

[56:35] The one in brown is the debt service limit.

[56:37] This is set out by legislation and it changes.

[56:40] It's 0.25 times our annual revenue.

[56:43] So as our revenue grows over time or changes over time, we factor that in.

[56:48] And so does our debt service limit.

[56:51] In blue is the existing debt that the city has bylaws on and has currently drawn and then the line in yellow is the existing plus the projected debt.

[57:04] So once we pull that debt, it becomes part of the existing balance.

[57:08] If we haven't pulled on it yet or haven't drawn the debt, it's still part of the blue line.

[57:12] So as of 2025, our debt payment forecast is 5.97 million, and then we anticipate this

[57:22] increasing to 8.76 million in 2026.

[57:29] Now we've outlined below, and I'll go through that in a moment here, but we've outlined below

[57:34] all of the different debentures that are currently existing, as well as the ones that are projected

[57:38] and included in that line item.

[57:40] We'll just briefly go through our debt principal outstanding forecast.

[57:46] So similar to the debt payment limit, the city cannot exceed a total debt outstanding

[57:54] limit which is 1.5 times the consolidated annual revenue excluding capital grants and

[57:59] contributed assets.

[58:01] So the brown line is the legislative debt limit.

[58:04] The city does have a debt management policy that

[58:07] it creates a self-imposed debt limit of 75% rather than 100%.

[58:14] And so that would be the line in green in blue would be our existing debt

[58:20] outstanding over time and then in yellow would be our existing plus projected debt

[58:26] outstanding over time.

[58:27] So, in 2025, at the end of 2025, our current outstanding debt is $58.67 million and then

[58:38] we anticipate if we draw on all of the existing and projected debt, we would be sitting at $106.9

[58:46] million.

[58:53] So, if all the approved projects proceed in 25, we're forecasting to add about $48 million

[59:00] dollars from the following adventures. So just about 3.8 million for the final costs of

[59:06] the wastewater treatment plant. The landfilled building would be 4.6 million. We still have

[59:14] on our books, but no bylaw has been passed yet for the LGCC maintenance shop at 3.1 million,

[59:21] as well as the Northeast effluent line for 6.4 million. And last but not least,

[59:26] based the Snovus Energy Hub for a $30.4 million, which is $30.4 million.

[59:34] So in the last table is our Dependenture Summary.

[59:38] And we've tweaked this just a little bit to be very transparent on the existing debt

[59:43] outstanding and that provides a table of where we forecasted to be by the end of the year.

[59:50] We've also included the debt that has been approved in budget by Council, whether it has

[59:57] a bylaw or not, but because it has been improved as

[1:00:00] Part of the budget, we've included it as part of the table. I will just make a quick note that we will be paying off. One of our adventures this year, and that would be for the outdoor pool. And the total amount board of $350,000 will be completely paid off.

[1:00:21] Any questions?

[1:00:25] Okay. Moving on to our last section. We have our capital budget versus actual overview. So in 2025, there are 10 projects complete that were completed.

[1:00:39] on schedule. We have 103 capital projects are currently in progress. 85 are on schedule and we have

[1:00:50] one project on hold and then under the not started category we have 12 that are on schedule meaning

[1:00:56] that they are take to take place a little bit later this year and then we have seven that are on hold.

[1:01:01] So total of 132 capital projects, the current actual amount to expended to date is 19.8 million

[1:01:11] of our total capital budget of 92 million. So we've effectively spent 22% to date. This is

[1:01:19] very much in line with what we've spent last year. At this point in time last year, about 17% was

[1:01:25] spend to date. So,

[1:01:30] the top projects by dollar value, just to go over briefly and then we'll

[1:01:35] get into some details, is the Snovis Energy Hub for $33.9 million. We have the Northeast

[1:01:44] effluent line for $7.5 million. The landfill operating building entrance and scale house for $4.6 million.

[1:01:53] Lagoon, the wastewater treatment plant, Lagoon de-sludging for 3.9 million.

[1:01:58] And then the Northwest drainage channel phase 4 of 3.6 million.

[1:02:04] So those would be the top five projects by dollar value in 2025.

[1:02:12] So this next section is our capital budget versus actual detailed list by project.

[1:02:20] So we've invited our project managers or leadership who are available to answer any questions

[1:02:26] on any specific projects.

[1:02:29] They can answer questions around their current status, the actual expenses to date.

[1:02:35] So I'll just briefly give a rundown on the legends in the list and then for any questions

[1:02:42] that you may have, Council, we can certainly invite up the project manager who can speak

[1:02:47] best to the project.

[1:02:48] So just as a quick legend, any of the color coded projects that don't have any highlight on them, they are considered complete.

[1:02:58] Any that are highlighted in light blue would be in progress.

[1:03:02] And then any in dark blue would be not started. So it's very easy to see exactly which project is at which state as well as how much has been spent today.

[1:03:13] So now I'll invite if you have any questions about any specific projects, we'll call up

[1:03:18] the relevant individual.

[1:03:22] Seconder manager, you talked about seven projects on hold, I believe this year, and that

[1:03:30] are not started.

[1:03:32] Do we believe that those seven projects may still make it through the budget, or are they

[1:03:37] good chance they're going to get deferred to 2026?

[1:03:39] I think it's dependent on the projects.

[1:03:42] So if there's one in particular, you'd like to ask a question on, then we can go through.

[1:03:46] Okay, so they're hoping to get that's that's the question is do we hope to get to the seven that are on hold right now?

[1:03:53] I think it's dependent on the project.

[1:03:55] Okay.

[1:03:57] Second manager, staying?

[1:03:58] Yeah, thank you, Your Worship.

[1:04:00] Good afternoon, council.

[1:04:01] Just a couple to point out that likely won't the landfill historical closure.

[1:04:08] We've been waiting for funding to support that closure program for multiple years now and not looking like we're going to get that funding again this year so that one won't be going forward as well as the fiber line out at the river intake.

[1:04:26] I do believe that project fell through and there was an opportunity for us to maybe connect to a line.

[1:04:32] I think the main project has been put on hold or putting it off so that one likely won't go forward as well

[1:04:37] So the landfill closure that are we waiting on a provincial grant potentially? That is yeah

[1:04:45] Okay, thank you

[1:04:49] Counselor Charles Gustasson. Hi, thank you. I just wanted to ask if the project list includes

[1:04:55] 2024 uncompleted projects or the projects that were

[1:05:00] Noted in the table in Appendix one or is it just showing 2025s?

[1:05:05] It would be inclusive of any projects that were carried over from prior years.

[1:05:10] So yes, it would include 24 or any years prior to that, that weren't completed.

[1:05:14] I wonder if it would be helpful to know which ones are lagging behind.

[1:05:19] There's 22 not started from 2024, but from the table I'm not able to discern which ones

[1:05:28] are aren't.

[1:05:30] That's a great comment.

[1:05:31] Thank you.

[1:05:31] We'll look at that and see how we can do that a little bit more.

[1:05:37] It would be interesting to know which ones are lagging and then we'd be able to ask the appropriate manager why?

[1:05:45] That's a great question. I will give you a quick tip if you look under the detailed list by project number.

[1:05:52] So the first two digits of the project number indicate the start year of the project.

[1:05:57] Yes, I have been told that before I should have remembered that, but thank you.

[1:06:00] We'll make a little legend in a note.

[1:06:02] It doesn't necessarily 100% mean that though in some cases if the project was given a number say in 2023 but was not approved in the budget until 2024 or 2025 then that project could change the number may not have changed.

[1:06:19] So in general, that comment is correct.

[1:06:22] It's just there is a couple of things in there that may not be 100% accurate for council.

[1:06:33] And also these graphs and charts here, they only include budgetary items correct.

[1:06:38] There's non-budgetary or non-budgetary items aren't included in these projects, or do they get included?

[1:06:45] Can you clarify your question?

[1:06:47] Like, any project that we approved that wasn't originally in the projected budget that we approved throughout the year.

[1:06:57] Did those go into these graphs as well?

[1:06:59] Oh, I totally understand your question. So if council approves a project throughout the year

[1:07:05] But it wasn't as part of the original budget. Is it included in this list? The answer is yes, it is

[1:07:09] So any council approved motions throughout the year up to June 30th would be reflected under the operating budget or reflected under the capital

[1:07:18] Okay, okay. Thank you

[1:07:27] Councillor Charles Gustin

[1:07:29] This is a question for transportation services

[1:07:34] is maybe it's a question of how you do business,

[1:07:37] but why is it that there are so many trucks

[1:07:41] that are, say, in progress,

[1:07:44] but say no, like there's no variance budget,

[1:07:50] showing that this in progress,

[1:07:51] is it a matter of the fact that you buy it at the moment,

[1:07:54] or the fact that you sell it, how does that work?

[1:07:57] Yeah, thank you.

[1:07:57] It's a really good question.

[1:08:00] When we order vehicles or equipment, we mark that as in progress, but we don't actually

[1:08:06] pay the invoice until the equipment is delivered.

[1:08:10] So everything's been ordered and we'll be waiting on deliveries, whether that happens between

[1:08:15] now or in December and sometimes those carry over into the following year depending on delivery

[1:08:21] dates.

[1:08:21] Yeah.

[1:08:22] Follow-up.

[1:08:23] Is there a particular type of year that you normally do that and that's why it's not showing

[1:08:26] just yet?

[1:08:29] I'm looking at 300 transportation service under fleet services and there's all the budgets

[1:08:36] of all the trucks and equipment and nothing in the actual, so I guess it hasn't been spent

[1:08:41] yet.

[1:08:42] But is it just that you usually purchase in Q3, Q4, or it just happened to work out that way

[1:08:49] or?

[1:08:50] Yeah, usually purchases start in Q1, February, March, and then deliveries usually come August, September, October, depending on that.

[1:09:00] They're on order and now they're going to open the fall.

[1:09:02] That's right.

[1:09:03] Got it. Thank you.

[1:09:06] And certainly with fleet, we've just getting a little bit better where we've certainly experienced over the last number of years since COVID deliveries have been more challenging than from the order dates than what we usually experience.

[1:09:22] I just want to go back to, I was having a sidebar with Councillor Lopez on this one.

[1:09:27] The debenture summary list that is there, we see that and I understand that we can approve

[1:09:35] a by-law for borrowing and then they're not actually borrow until the time is actually

[1:09:40] come or needed.

[1:09:41] And I think it's just a matter of kind of formatting and that sort of stuff of the debenture summary

[1:09:45] And maybe a little bit of transparency,

[1:09:50] like the shaded out areas looks like we're maybe hiding something or something like that.

[1:09:54] But there's nothing, it's just because there's nothing in those fields, is that correct?

[1:09:57] And then also because it says amount borrowed as in past tense,

[1:10:00] that it looks like we did borrow it, but we haven't actually borrowed it.

[1:10:04] We've just approved a borrowing by law.

[1:10:07] In which case then it kind of is a bit confusing.

[1:10:10] Thank you, Councillor Wedding. Yes, I appreciate the comments around the formatting.

[1:10:15] We can make some changes to that. You are correct because it is shaded out means that

[1:10:20] we have not borrowed for these amounts. And I appreciate the reference to the being

[1:10:25] under the amount borrowed. It has not been borrowed. So we'll segregate that a little bit differently

[1:10:30] next time.

[1:10:38] Any other questions on the capital list?

[1:10:40] We will likely be getting a third quarter financial guest into likely October, November, and that should hopefully see a lot of the capital purchase certainly, especially for fleet and a lot of the projects getting near project wrap up, I would think other than the last of construction.

[1:10:59] Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. For most of our capital projects, such as

[1:11:03] stream improvement program, wastewater, or waste water. Sorry, that was still in my head.

[1:11:08] But water sewer replacement program, those projects are are doing really well.

[1:11:14] We've had a really good construction season, so we're anticipating those to be

[1:11:18] completed on time prior to season change. There's some other projects that we're

[1:11:24] We're waiting for fall early winter to start those from a storm perspective.

[1:11:31] It gives us a better ability to manage the water inflow, whether those get completed

[1:11:37] prior to December 31st or if they have to carry over into the new year, we'll provide that

[1:11:42] report in a quarter four when that gets reported to council.

[1:11:46] Thank you.

[1:11:47] Just the one question about the Sonoma Energy Hub Zamboni purchase has unstarted.

[1:11:52] We would know we're looking at an opening date of this and that was energy hub.

[1:11:57] Is there been some movement on that purchase towards that boney?

[1:12:04] Sure I can speak to that on your worship through the organizational review of the arenas

[1:12:10] and the equipment currently out there. We are putting that purchase on hold until we can determine

[1:12:17] whether a new unit is required for one of the other arenas. So we're going to wait until we're fully

[1:12:23] operational. It's an over sub. We do have

[1:12:26] Zambonis that are able to maintain all surfaces in the city.

[1:12:30] We'll evaluate that at a later date after they've had some time

[1:12:34] to operate and determine what the second unit is required to be.

[1:12:38] Okay, and that would be through a queue.

[1:12:39] I believe it's fleet services, so it would be.

[1:12:43] Yeah, it was budgeted, but there's the comes through the

[1:12:46] amortization and that's why it's not.

[1:12:48] Because it was a net new ask for fleet, it usually gets

[1:12:51] Molly, it does get budgeted under the department's budget, but still handled and managed by flea.

[1:12:57] No, no problem. Thank you.

[1:13:02] Any other questions on the capital list before we move on.

[1:13:07] Certainly appreciate the work you've mentioned. It's great to see the word of roadwork that's

[1:13:11] going on in the city, water, and sewer replacement, street improvements, and certainly we'll

[1:13:15] hope that the weather stays and it continues to provide that great conditions and we can stay ahead

[1:13:21] the schedule with that. I think you can move on, Executive Manager.

[1:13:27] If there are no further questions on the Capital Budget versus Actual Detailed List,

[1:13:32] that would conclude our quarterly financial report presentation to June 30th, 2025.

[1:13:38] Thank you very much. I think Executive Manager,

[1:13:40] Mark Wreck mentioned at the back, Epinix 2, or three different funds, the Tax Pay Fund Taxation Fund,

[1:13:48] the Land Fund and the Utility Fund, which helps bring this all together as the separation

[1:13:52] that has been established by administration.

[1:13:55] So in particular, the land fund has seen a significant increase,

[1:14:00] and as the city manager outlined, it's budgeted low,

[1:14:03] but subject to the market conditions,

[1:14:05] and certainly we appreciate the fact that seeing the market conditions

[1:14:08] approve in our city and hopefully continue to see that happen

[1:14:10] from an economic development perspective.

[1:14:15] So any other questions regarding the financial reports

[1:14:18] for the second quarter of 2025?

[1:14:23] Thank you very much for the report.

[1:14:26] With that will move on to the manager to 4.3. Please.

[1:14:30] Thank you. Worship for item 4.3 or quarterly procurement record. I'll ask our acting City clerk shane and Rowan to present

[1:14:38] Good afternoon

[1:14:40] Administration is providing the committee with the 2025 Q2 procurement activity report, which contains procurement in which both administration and council have approved awards in accordance with policy

[1:14:53] policy thresholds during quarter two

[1:14:55] Again, if any, there are any questions from Council?

[1:15:00] The project managers are in the room to answer those. Back to your worship for any questions. Thank you very much in clerk.

[1:15:11] Questions or comments?

[1:15:21] Again, we could see more items on this list as we go to the third quarter is less of procurement. If there's any other outstanding procurements, but I think we kind of covered that in the capital purchases already.

[1:15:36] No questions. Thank you very much. In terms of the clerk.

[1:15:43] Let's move on to 4.4 please, the quarterly governance.

[1:15:50] Thank you, Your Worship, for 4.4 quarterly governance document report.

[1:15:53] I'll once again, I'm sharing a room to present.

[1:15:57] Thank you. The Q2 governance document review outlines all governance documents reviewed,

[1:16:02] created, or amended within the second quarter of 2025, as well as any outstanding items.

[1:16:07] As part of the governance document review administration has completed a review of the ethical governance policy and brought forward an additional nine governance documents for council's approval.

[1:16:18] Back to your worship for any questions.

[1:16:20] Thank you. Any questions or comments?

[1:16:24] Councilor Dougic.

[1:16:26] Yeah, thanks for ship. I see we still use colonial park in here.

[1:16:30] And I thought we'd change that name at some point.

[1:16:33] Is that because it's still outstanding and we haven't got to it yet?

[1:16:35] Thank you, Councillor Diatechek. That's exactly the reason. Those will be changed when

[1:16:42] they're updated. We can't make those changes until it's brought forward to Council

[1:16:47] to update it. Thank you.

[1:16:53] Under the Schedule of Governance Document Review Schedule 2025 under Q3, we have a debenture

[1:16:59] by-law outdoor pool upgrades. Is that one that needs to come off the books? Is that one

[1:17:04] I believe it was.

[1:17:08] Thank you worship. Yes, that is the one that executive manager Walker spoke to that would be coming off later this year.

[1:17:15] Okay, I see. Yes, because it adventures paid for it comes off the books. Gotcha. That's exactly correct. Once it's finalized, we can repeal the bylaw.

[1:17:23] Okay. We haven't had that opportunity in my time on this council. So it's it'll be nice to do that. And I see that will happen again in 2026 when the other three bylaw

[1:17:33] three borrowing bylaws that will be paid out will also come off as well.

[1:17:38] Yes, I'm hopeful to see several paid out in the next few years.

[1:17:41] Great, that's excellent. Thank you.

[1:17:47] Any other questions around

[1:17:49] Councillor Charles Gustafson? This is probably more of a newbie procedural part,

[1:17:53] but for the new governance documents like the land use bylaw, those will go into

[1:17:59] a rotation now of when they will be reviewed, right? And so, is it

[1:18:05] appropriate to share when that is going to come up for review or does that come

[1:18:09] in a different report or how does that work? Thank you, Councillor. So within our

[1:18:14] records management by-law those are slotted. By-laws are slotted every four

[1:18:17] years and policies are every three. So we just track them internally and we'll

[1:18:22] bring them back in this format at that time. Okay, good. Thank you.

[1:18:29] Any other

[1:18:30] questions?

[1:18:34] Last call. I think we can move on. Thank you very much for that

[1:18:39] for that report. Moving on to 4.5 city manager.

[1:18:45] Thank you, Worship. For item 4.5, quarterly city manager,

[1:18:48] contingency reserve update, I'll ask Ryan Hill to come forward to present.

[1:18:56] Good afternoon, Marion Council. Good afternoon, Ryan.

[1:18:58] I'm here to provide the committee with an update on the city manager contingency reserve.

[1:19:04] So, a few emergent unexpected items arose in the second quarter of 2025,

[1:19:10] and I've been approved by the city manager

[1:19:12] and funded through the city manager contingency reserve.

[1:19:16] The nature of these expenses relates to various departments

[1:19:19] and should be reallocated from the respective reserves

[1:19:22] and this reserve was last replenished

[1:19:24] on March 10th, 2025.

[1:19:27] So right now, there's currently no requirement

[1:19:29] to replenish the reserve as the amounts are still pretty low

[1:19:33] that have gone through.

[1:19:34] So if we just wanna go to Appendix A,

[1:19:37] We can see what's happened in Q2 2025.

[1:19:42] So only two items went through in 2025.

[1:19:47] Item one was the IT Upgrade Network Connectivity.

[1:19:51] And item two was the Vick Juba Electrical Room AC Replacement.

[1:19:56] This quarter we added some notes at the bottom to give some context as to what actually went on.

[1:20:03] And then in those notes too you'll see what the original budget was.

[1:20:06] And so for the first one, the original budget was $106,000, so $1900 was asked just due

[1:20:14] to cost increase, and the second item was an un-budgeted item just due to electrical distribution

[1:20:21] panel that malfunctioned at the Juba, and so that was un-budgeted, and so $15,000 was

[1:20:27] asked for for that, so not much going on in Q2, which was nice to see, so there's any questions.

[1:20:47] So that's what the 106 was the full amount plus contingency.

[1:20:52] The 106 would have included contingency if there was any in that award.

[1:20:57] So that would be above and beyond the award and potential contingency.

[1:21:02] So that would be the full amount of contingency.

[1:21:02] So above and beyond both of us.

[1:21:05] Thank you.

[1:21:08] Any other questions?

[1:21:13] Thank you very much, Ryan.

[1:21:14] Thank you.

[1:21:15] I appreciate the notes, I think, that really answers, likely answered questions for council

[1:21:20] members around the table.

[1:21:21] I'm really appreciating that.

[1:21:22] Thank you.

[1:21:24] Moving on to 4.6, City Manager.

[1:21:28] Thank you, Bishop.

[1:21:29] For 4.6, 2024 and your report on GFOA submission, I'll ask Leo Pire to come forward to present.

[1:21:36] Greetings, Your Worship and Council, good afternoon,

[1:21:39] Administrations, please, to provide the

[1:21:41] Governance and Priorities Committee

[1:21:43] with the newly published 2024 annual report,

[1:21:45] formerly known as the Report to the Community.

[1:21:48] This document was submitted for the Canadian Award

[1:21:51] for Financial, or sorry, for Excellence

[1:21:53] in Financial Reporting through the Governance

[1:21:55] Finance Officers Association in June 2025.

[1:22:00] Earlier this year, we shared with Council

[1:22:01] that we had received confirmation

[1:22:02] that our 2023 submission had successfully met all requirements for a Canadian award

[1:22:07] for excellence and financial reporting. One of the highest recognitions of fiscal transparency and accountability

[1:22:13] and municipality can receive.

[1:22:16] Well, awards and recognition of this caliber are fantastic. The primary intent to this document has always been to provide

[1:22:22] City Council and the ratepayers of the Lloyd Minster with a comprehensive municipal update that highlights

[1:22:27] good community stewardship and fulfills a shared commitment to providing quality information

[1:22:31] residents, businesses, and other community partners. As in previous years, this

[1:22:36] addition includes messages from mayor and city manager, followed by detailed

[1:22:40] updates from various city service areas including general governance,

[1:22:44] protective services, roads and transportation, social program and services,

[1:22:48] economic development, planning and growth, parks, recreation and culture, and environmental services.

[1:22:54] In the second portion of the document, beginning on page 59, readers will find the financial

[1:22:59] financial section, which includes financial discussion and analysis,

[1:23:02] consolidated financial statements, general and financial statistics.

[1:23:08] The compilation of this document reflects a strong and willing collaboration

[1:23:12] among many city departments, and we would like to offer our thanks to the city of

[1:23:15] limister staff who once again have provided thoughtful and detailed information

[1:23:19] that allowed us to compile what we hope will be another award-winning document in 2025-2026,

[1:23:25] I guess we'll receive word by.

[1:23:27] With that, I would turn it over to your worship and council for questions.

[1:23:31] Thank you very much, Lou. Questions or comments?

[1:23:34] Council budget.

[1:23:35] Thanks.

[1:23:35] Yeah, thanks.

[1:23:36] It's good to see you.

[1:23:37] Victor was included there as one of our properties under our stewardship.

[1:23:43] My other concern as well is the same one we had last year though.

[1:23:47] I find it deeply concerning that our city manager always uses a picture of this 15 years younger than he actually is.

[1:23:53] I'm just wondering when we're going to come to grips with that.

[1:23:56] It is very clear on which picture you want it to use, yeah.

[1:24:02] It's the truth.

[1:24:04] We'll leave it at that.

[1:24:10] Picture's only a year old.

[1:24:15] The other questions are comments.

[1:24:17] Thank you, Mary.

[1:24:18] Yeah, I just want to say how much I appreciate these.

[1:24:21] They're just super easy to read without getting too much in the weeds

[1:24:25] and just have a good review of our economic health

[1:24:29] and just highlights of our achievements throughout the year.

[1:24:32] They're just a nice little handout to show the folks

[1:24:37] that how well we're doing, and yeah, I really enjoy them.

[1:24:41] Thank you.

[1:24:42] I should add this document is available on the City of Limits

[1:24:45] or Website and a limited number of print copies are also available

[1:24:48] because of the volume of pages we didn't do an enormous print run

[1:24:52] but they are available, should anybody request them?

[1:24:56] Councilor Charles-Gustes.

[1:24:58] Thank you, Worship.

[1:25:00] I'm just going to echo Councillor Vance's remarks

[1:25:03] and just say, I think that this is great.

[1:25:07] I was I correct in understanding that maybe in past

[1:25:11] you didn't have the consolidated financial statements

[1:25:14] included or was a summary more than, am I right in that?

[1:25:19] Or was it always the full statements?

[1:25:21] Exactly.

[1:25:22] To make sure to walk correct, feel free to jump in, but yeah, we began this format just

[1:25:27] last year in the last edition.

[1:25:28] I kind of love it, not because I think people are going to sit down with this instead

[1:25:36] of Netflix and go through the consolidated statements, but I really think it's important

[1:25:40] in our lands of mistrust of government to put the stuff on paper and that if people want

[1:25:48] to know how we run our reporting. It is all here and you can enjoy it with a T or a wine

[1:25:56] and there's nothing to hide here. That's very, very important. So I really appreciated that.

[1:26:03] I appreciated you highlighting the award for that type of reporting. Again, you can look in any

[1:26:12] other municipal life and there's a lot of craziness going on in terms of how

[1:26:18] administrations and councils relate to each other and then relate to their

[1:26:20] residents. This shows that we have a commitment that we are committed to

[1:26:25] relating properly to the people that we're supposed to be serving so I enjoy

[1:26:28] that and I do enjoy the pictures and everyone's entitled to use an old picture if

[1:26:40] they feel like it, so that was fine.

[1:26:43] No, I just, for the scale, I love it.

[1:26:46] I think it's great.

[1:26:46] I think it's a receipt to our residents

[1:26:49] who are the customers we serve

[1:26:51] and we need to keep doing it

[1:26:53] and keep winning awards for it.

[1:26:54] That is all, thank you.

[1:26:56] Thank you.

[1:26:58] I think the highlight is the financial report

[1:27:01] and much, we just went through the quarterly report here

[1:27:04] for some time, but there's so much more

[1:27:06] at the back of that report that talks about the finances.

[1:27:09] our debt, the fiduciary interest this council has as well as administration to the taxpayers.

[1:27:15] It lays it out very clearly the cost associated to operate the city as the city because there

[1:27:22] are labor costs, there's material costs, there's debt repayment, and again, remind people

[1:27:28] that we operate on a balanced budget.

[1:27:30] The one level of government in Canada that level works with a balanced budget year in and year

[1:27:35] out.

[1:27:35] We do have debt, but we also have a debt schedule to repay that debt, and it was clearly demonstrated in the quarterly report

[1:27:42] from that perspective if people ask.

[1:27:45] You know, that is what's different from the rest of the country from the two levels of government above us, and it

[1:27:50] it definitely differentiates us, and we will get that opportunity as this council to discuss budgets going into

[1:27:55] 2026 in due time later this fall, but I think that that's an important piece to remember that

[1:28:01] And we have to work under legislation that requires us to deliver a balanced budget.

[1:28:07] And if everything goes well, we are able to have a little surplus which is put back into

[1:28:11] reserves, both operational and capital, to ensure the long term-viped longevity of the

[1:28:17] city, as well as the financial health of the city, which is really the taxpayers that's their

[1:28:23] health for the properties they own and the services they receive each and every day.

[1:28:29] Any other comments?

[1:28:31] Thank you, Leo.

[1:28:32] Great.

[1:28:32] A great project again, and thank you so much for putting it together in your team and all the city administration that have contributed to it.

[1:28:39] I think you're very proud of it.

[1:28:41] I've had the pleasure of sharing it at the Noon Rotary, and it'll be shared tomorrow morning at the Morning Rotary Club.

[1:28:46] I am in my presentation of what they call the State of the Union of the City.

[1:28:53] Thank you for sharing council.

[1:28:54] Thank you.

[1:28:57] So shall we take a short recess and let's take, so move, seconded by Councillor Vance, all in favour?

[1:29:06] Opposed? Carried. We recess, let's try and do it in ten minutes or less if we can, folks.

[1:29:53] I call the meeting, the governance and priorities committee meeting back to order at this time for Monday, August 11th.

[1:30:00] We move on to 4.7, city manager. Thank you, worship for item 4.7. It's the producer responsibility overview. I'll ask Karen DeLaRose to come forward to present.

[1:30:12] Good afternoon, your worshiping council. Good afternoon, Karen. So before each day is a presentation on extended producer responsibility or EPR. So a quick overview of our presentation today.

[1:30:29] So for today, we will be discussing what is extended producer responsibility. We will be looking at comparison of the

[1:30:36] the Alberta and Saskatchewan programs and the implementation and other municipalities.

[1:30:40] And finally, we will look at the recommendation for implementation in Lloyd-Mister and our

[1:30:44] next steps.

[1:30:47] So what is Extender Producer Responsibility or EPR?

[1:30:50] EPR is a policy approach where producers of certain products are held financially responsible

[1:30:56] for their materials, including the end-of-life management or disposal.

[1:31:01] EPR legislation is typically introduced at a provincial level, and it has been an existence

[1:31:05] since in Canada as early as 2009

[1:31:08] with Manitoba as an early adopter.

[1:31:11] EPR requires producers to contribute funds

[1:31:14] for the end-of-life management of their materials,

[1:31:16] effectively shifting the cost of recycling

[1:31:18] from municipalities to producers.

[1:31:21] EPR only applies to residential dwellings,

[1:31:24] so both single-family and multi-family

[1:31:26] and does not apply to commercial properties.

[1:31:32] So in Alberta, EPR legislation was approved in 2022.

[1:31:36] It includes packaging and paper products and single use items.

[1:31:40] Alberta also included EPR for HSP or has reduced and special waste products.

[1:31:45] So these are the batteries, pesticides, flammables.

[1:31:48] In Saskatchewan, EPR started with a shared producer responsibility or a stewardship program

[1:31:55] back in 2013 for paper and packaging.

[1:31:59] This has allowed the city access to funding for recycling programs.

[1:32:03] In 2023, the legislation was amended to full EPR for packaging and paper products.

[1:32:10] Our access to funding from the previous stewardship program ends in 2027.

[1:32:17] So comparing Albert and Saskatchewan, both province's employee approval or producer responsibility

[1:32:23] organization approval is a nonprofit organization that's responsible for implementing the program,

[1:32:29] collecting fees from producers, engaging municipalities, and reporting back to the province.

[1:32:36] And in terms of eligibility, both Alberta and Saskatchewan, for both Alberta and

[1:32:42] Saskatchewan, all the residential dwellings are eligible to receive services through LPR.

[1:32:47] This includes both single family and multi-family. The difference between Alberta and

[1:32:52] Saskatchewan is the definition of multi-family. So Alberta will merit the city's definition.

[1:32:58] So in our curbside program, we service up to two dwellings, so Alberta will marry that.

[1:33:03] Multifamily will be defined as anything that is over two dwellings.

[1:33:08] And in Saskatchewan, Multifamily is defined as anything over five dwellings.

[1:33:13] The other difference in the programs is that for Alberta, Multifamily participation is voluntary.

[1:33:20] So the PRO will be reaching out to property managers to see if they would like to engage them

[1:33:28] for services through EPR and in Saskatchewan,

[1:33:33] the program will provide services to multifamily.

[1:33:36] Karen, can I stop you for just a second there?

[1:33:39] What happens to condos and condos associations?

[1:33:41] Do they fall under residential

[1:33:43] or do they fall under multifamily?

[1:33:45] Those will fall under, so it will depend

[1:33:48] on the number of dwelling units, your worship.

[1:33:52] So if it's for Alberta, if it's more than two dwellings,

[1:33:56] they will fall under multifamily.

[1:33:58] So they will mirror our definition if in Saskatchewan, if they are over five drawings, they will fall under multifamily.

[1:34:05] Okay. Thank you.

[1:34:14] So, so accepted for accepted materials, both provinces have the similar accepted materials.

[1:34:23] However, Alberta has expanded their list to include single use plastic, styrofoam, plastic, film and other items.

[1:34:30] Well, in Saskatchewan, flexible, plastic, and foam will hopefully be introduced at the

[1:34:35] later faces of the implementation.

[1:34:37] Karen, can I stop you for the question?

[1:34:38] So I'm just saying about that.

[1:34:40] So we currently don't take the SRAN wrap.

[1:34:43] We know that the aerosol cans, we're told, no, don't put those in there.

[1:34:46] So we're saying these projects now will take these.

[1:34:49] That is correct, Councillor Dihachek.

[1:34:51] So EPR will be expanding the list of acceptable products that can be put into their cycling

[1:34:56] stream.

[1:34:59] So, in terms of implementation, Alberta will closely mirror our current operations, so

[1:35:06] we can continue collecting or recyclables using blue bags.

[1:35:10] In Saskatchewan, they will try to mirror our current operations, however, they're a

[1:35:15] little bit more prescriptive in terms of collection they will require us to collect using cards.

[1:35:21] And in terms of a participation model, they have the same model, just two different names.

[1:35:25] So we have an opt-in opt-out model with Alberta and Community Lead and Program Lead for Saskatchewan.

[1:35:33] So the opt-in or Community Lead model means that the city will act as a service provider to the pro.

[1:35:41] The opt-out or Program Lead model means that the city will hand over the responsibility of providing recycling services to the pro.

[1:35:49] And we will discuss that a little bit more in the next slides.

[1:35:51] So in terms of compensation, so based compensation for both provinces will be based on participation

[1:35:59] model.

[1:36:00] So if we chose the opt-out or program net model, there will be no compensation to the city

[1:36:06] as EPR will look after all of the collection costs and processing costs for recyclables.

[1:36:12] If we chose the opt-in or community-led model, we will be able to negotiate compensation rate

[1:36:20] with Alberta. In Saskatchewan, the city will be compensated based on a fixed rate. So they have

[1:36:26] a tiered system, rate structure system that's based on your population size, and based on what

[1:36:33] has been related to us, like Saskatchewan Recycles, we will be falling short of cost recovery if we chose

[1:36:39] the opt, if we chose a community key lead model in Saskatchewan.

[1:36:54] So in terms of EPR implementation

[1:36:59] we have surveyed eight municipalities in Alberta and Saskatchewan to gain further understanding on the key considerations, decision drivers, and their communities experience in terms of EPR implementation.

[1:37:13] In Alberta, out of the four municipalities that we surveyed, it's a 50-50 split between

[1:37:19] Octane and Octo.

[1:37:21] And in Saskatchewan, Regina went with a community-led model, while Saskatoon had decided to go with

[1:37:27] a program-led model, but deferred implementation until 2028.

[1:37:32] Two other municipalities that we have surveyed was North Alfred and Muscle, and they, as of

[1:37:38] this time, they have not made a decision yet regarding NPR.

[1:37:41] are. So in summary, no two cities are alike. Decisions were made based on their specific needs

[1:37:48] in situation. However, we have heard some common themes emerge in our discussion regarding

[1:37:53] key considerations. One of them is cost recovery, quality and reliability of service, and also

[1:38:00] the resource requirements for implementing EPR, and as well as penalties for contamination

[1:38:06] or service failures.

[1:38:08] The communities have also alluded to the importance

[1:38:11] of early and effective communication with residents.

[1:38:18] So in our discussions with our minds,

[1:38:20] Saskatchewan Recycles, we have indicated that residents,

[1:38:24] our residents need to have a seamless recycling service

[1:38:27] and customer experience,

[1:38:29] regardless of which side of the border they live in.

[1:38:33] Both have agreed that implementing a single program,

[1:38:35] whether Alberta or Saskatchewan would be the best solution.

[1:38:39] Both have indicated willingness to work collaboratively with best on a solution for light

[1:38:44] minister. So the decision we need to make is whether is which program to register with

[1:38:50] and what type of participation model. So in choosing the program we list in and

[1:38:57] compared a few key considerations and administration recommends that the city register without

[1:39:02] So the Alberta program, if we go with Alberta program and choose the opt-in or community

[1:39:09] led model, it will allow us for rate negotiation and full cost recovery, potentially full cost

[1:39:17] recovery.

[1:39:18] The Alberta program also has a more extensive list of acceptable materials, which will allow

[1:39:24] for higher waste diversion from our life.

[1:39:26] in the film. Alberta will also mirror her current services, so collection through Blue

[1:39:32] Bags, which will allow a more seamless transition, and mitigate any impact to collection of our

[1:39:38] for other waste streams.

[1:39:42] First, Councillor, Karen, I'm just seeing that foam would be included

[1:39:45] in there. I'm just thinking you buy an appliance and you get a ton of foam, right? And so, you

[1:39:51] would be expected to put all that into a Blue Bags? That is correct, Councillor, I check

[1:39:56] that's something that we're going to have to also discuss with the pro once

[1:40:01] out we're fully registered as to what that operation might look like but I

[1:40:05] assume that would be that would be what what they would expect. I know at

[1:40:10] times I don't put my cardboard out because it's windy I'm thinking I don't want

[1:40:13] it to be all over the neighborhood so I'll go drop it off at their places and

[1:40:17] the city can do that so similarly I'm wondering if other agencies will also be

[1:40:20] picking up the styrofoam so that if I if it's windy I don't want it to be across

[1:40:24] the city. I'll go and drop it off myself to ensure I don't create a mess. Is that something that would occur as well?

[1:40:31] What's a question again Councillor? So would other places that are currently taking for instance the

[1:40:36] cardboard and paper would we anticipate they would be willing to take the foam when all these other

[1:40:40] materials as well? You're talking about private research facilities and that I'm not I'm not sure.

[1:40:48] However, as part of this EPR program, we will also register for a depot service.

[1:40:54] So we will be able to continue receiving recyclable materials at the landfill.

[1:41:03] So the other decision that the city needs to make is on the participation model, whether

[1:41:09] we go with the opt-in or the community led model where the city will act as a service provider

[1:41:15] to the pro or we go with an opt-out or the program led model where we transfer the responsibility

[1:41:20] that we are providing recycling services to the PRO.

[1:41:23] So, similar to the previous analysis,

[1:41:25] we listed a few key considerations

[1:41:27] and compared both options.

[1:41:31] Administration recommends

[1:41:32] that the city goes with opt-out or program that model.

[1:41:36] The opt-out model will transfer the full cost

[1:41:38] of providing services, recycling services to the program.

[1:41:43] Choosing opt-out will also eliminate

[1:41:45] the potential risk of penalties

[1:41:47] for unmet contamination thresholds or service level failures.

[1:41:53] The opt-out model will also eliminate the potential need for additional resources to manage the program.

[1:42:00] Instead, the opt-out model will allow the city to reallocate the time spent on recycling services by our staff to other priorities.

[1:42:09] In choosing the opt-out model, the city will no longer have control and

[1:42:14] oversight of their cycling services, which can potentially impact alignment

[1:42:19] with our overall goals and service delivery, however.

[1:42:24] Such measures, we can implement measures such as closely working with the pro and

[1:42:30] GFL during the transition and throughout the life of the program and

[1:42:35] implementing effective communication with residents so that we can ensure that we will continue

[1:42:42] to deliver cohesive and reliable solid waste program across the city.

[1:42:50] So in summary, our

[1:42:53] administration recommends that they'll be registered under the Alberta program,

[1:42:58] under the opt out model, and we introduce an EPR credit on the utility bill.

[1:43:04] So, once the program is implemented, the City of Lloydminster is expected to incur no

[1:43:09] cost for curbside recycling collection and processing.

[1:43:12] So, as a result, the City will see a reduction in contracted services, expenditures, adjustments

[1:43:19] to waste and recycling revenues will be necessary to reflect EPR credit, which is anticipated

[1:43:25] to result in a net decrease in waste and recycling collection utility rate.

[1:43:29] So

[1:43:33] overall, EPR implementation brings significant positive outcomes.

[1:43:38] With EPR, more people can recycle.

[1:43:41] EPR will bring access to recycling to all of our residents, regardless of whether they

[1:43:47] live in a single attached dwelling or an apartment complex.

[1:43:50] And with EPR funding recycling services, it will also eliminate financial barriers to recycling.

[1:43:59] With EPR more can be recycled, so as discussed earlier, EPR has an expanded list of acceptable

[1:44:07] materials compared to current what we currently have, because they have more access to markets.

[1:44:12] The list is standardized to the entire province, so residents will have more familiarity with

[1:44:17] what can and can't be recycled.

[1:44:20] We expect this to result in a cleaner recycling stream and also higher diversion rate from

[1:44:26] our landfill.

[1:44:29] With EPR, as mentioned earlier, this shifts the cost of recycling services

[1:44:34] from municipalities to companies that produce the product. This will effectively reduce

[1:44:39] the utility rate for our residents.

[1:44:46] So after the GPC presentation, administration will

[1:44:49] present a formal recommendation for council's consideration. And following that decision,

[1:44:54] We will continue to work with Alberta and Saskatchewan in terms of delivering a zero.

[1:45:00] We've seen the service for all of our residents. And in September, we anticipate registering for the Alberta EPR program and execute an agreement between circular materials and Saskatchewan musicals in October. And we are hoping to roll out EPR on Council's approval as early as October 2026 or March 2027. Back to your worship. Thank you very much, Karen.

[1:45:28] I'll look to Council for questions or comments, Council Routes.

[1:45:31] Thank you, Mayor.

[1:45:32] Yeah, after reading this, the opt out seems like the better option, especially anytime we can put more money in the pockets of our residents and put more of a burden on the producers.

[1:45:48] You kind of touched on, like we'll be losing a level of control, but

[1:45:56] But you said we'll be kind of working with the contracted services to have a smooth transition

[1:46:01] and kind of make sure that they align with our goals and levels of service.

[1:46:07] That is correct.

[1:46:08] So we will no longer have control on the opt out participation model, however, you can

[1:46:16] continue to work with them in terms of ensuring that there is a seamless transition from the service

[1:46:22] we provide to the service that they will now be providing.

[1:46:25] We will also negotiate to ensure that we have the

[1:46:30] stability of the data so we know what people are

[1:46:33] recycling, how can we do better in terms of the

[1:46:35] other waste streams that we are still managing

[1:46:38] as a city.

[1:46:39] So in terms of the garbage in terms of the organics,

[1:46:42] if we're still seeing a lot of recycling or contamination

[1:46:45] there, we can use that data to basically to tailor

[1:46:50] our communication and our education to still have a

[1:46:53] a very comprehensive program.

[1:46:55] And as far as the level of service our residents will receive,

[1:47:01] it shouldn't change much across the board from going to the off-dote.

[1:47:05] It shouldn't change much.

[1:47:07] However, there is a potential risk that on the onset, if they do procure the services

[1:47:15] and it's another contractor, there might still, there might be some, some,

[1:47:22] I guess, challenges there during the transition, but again, that's something that we can work with them on,

[1:47:27] ensuring that they have the proper information, that the roads, addresses, and whatnot to make sure that that is a seamless transition.

[1:47:34] Right. So, like, still can expect, like, a once a week kind of collection thing.

[1:47:38] and that is correct. However, from that point on, it will be up to the province to decide

[1:47:44] with the level of services. Okay. Thank you very much.

[1:47:48] I think just real quick, that's part of the control we're losing there, right? We're

[1:47:52] not setting that service level anymore that's going into government Alberta to determine, well,

[1:47:58] depending on the negotiation between Alberta and Saskatchewan. So that control about how many times

[1:48:03] for collecting or the types of materials is the loss of control care and it's talking about.

[1:48:10] But on the flip side there are benefits to going to the opt out which include cost liability

[1:48:17] and those types of things, right? So there's a little bit of payoff for going down that option.

[1:48:24] If you have a little more control, it might have some more risk to cost increases due to changing

[1:48:31] programs or changing regulations which we currently experience today so just we're trying

[1:48:39] to balance which one makes the most sense I think from from our initial review and where

[1:48:44] we are today opting out teams like the best option even though we do lose a little bit

[1:48:48] of control on that service delivery yeah for sure but like there might still be a working

[1:48:54] relationship though between the municipality and the contractor just in case there is an

[1:49:00] increase in demand and recycling or whatever and they should be able to satisfy that demand.

[1:49:08] Yeah, I'm assuming that relationship and I'll get Karen to confirm this but I'm assuming

[1:49:12] that relationship would be with the government, government not necessarily the contractor they

[1:49:17] hire, but Karen just real quick on relationship would we have a relationship with the government

[1:49:24] or the contractor with regards to any increased demands

[1:49:29] and stuff like that was the question.

[1:49:30] No, we wouldn't have that type of a relationship.

[1:49:33] So from that point on,

[1:49:36] it will be the province in the Pearl

[1:49:39] who will be managing that entire service from that point.

[1:49:43] Okay, thank you.

[1:49:44] Those were that, check.

[1:49:45] Yeah, two things.

[1:49:46] One, I guess it's that what are our administrations cost now?

[1:49:50] We have GFL picking up the recyclables.

[1:49:52] So, if all we're doing is adding stuff into it, how would our costs go up if we were

[1:49:59] expanding what we're picking up?

[1:50:02] We're anticipating.

[1:50:03] We're anticipating.

[1:50:03] We're anticipating costs.

[1:50:07] We're anticipating costs.

[1:50:07] We're going to go down.

[1:50:08] We're anticipating.

[1:50:09] How would they go down?

[1:50:10] What are we paying for now?

[1:50:11] What?

[1:50:12] Yeah.

[1:50:12] I'll let you care.

[1:50:13] So, right now we're paying for connection in person.

[1:50:15] Okay.

[1:50:16] So, we're paying per household plus a part time rate for purchasing.

[1:50:20] So, those will be removed.

[1:50:22] All those are gone.

[1:50:23] Those are on that is so that would be funded by the province. Okay. Where do our recyclables go now?

[1:50:29] I'm just I guess the part I'm thinking about is that the overall strategy is this like bringing

[1:50:33] environment to generate electricity or all of our recyclables being recyclables being hauled

[1:50:38] hauled summers to a central point as the province is going to manage it so it's not available that

[1:50:43] kind of information. So right now our recyclables are still going to GFLs processing facility in Edmonton

[1:50:49] And from that point, it's being sorted to specific commodity types.

[1:50:56] And it's going to different markets.

[1:51:00] Again, like the way we currently are today,

[1:51:02] we don't really have any control once GFL picks up material.

[1:51:06] I'm just saying about where?

[1:51:07] It's up to them to manage how they deal with that.

[1:51:09] And it would be the same under this context rate

[1:51:11] if the province hires a different contractor.

[1:51:14] It's going to be up to the province and that contractor

[1:51:16] to determine the markets where they're sending it, where they're selling it, where they're

[1:51:20] getting their best buck for that recycle. It doesn't really have any, or any, we don't

[1:51:27] have any say in how that is marketed and where it's going and how it's being used.

[1:51:32] Once it's picked, it's becomes the property of the contractor.

[1:51:38] Now, the only question I still, in the back of my head around this, is that they will still

[1:51:41] come to each individual house and do the pickup because some communities, they have a central

[1:51:46] spot recon you'll take your recyclables. I guess I would hate to see us get to that.

[1:51:51] Yes, so they will maintain the, they will mirror the service standards we currently have. So

[1:51:58] they will still come to every household and pick up recyclables. The multi-family, since

[1:52:04] it's optional for Alberta, they're going to work individually with the property manager to look

[1:52:11] at how recycling can be picked up in that specific property. However as mentioned earlier,

[1:52:16] We would like to register for the depot program too, so we can continue providing that service at the landfill and collecting recyclables there

[1:52:24] Council Opus

[1:52:26] Thank you, Mary. I was one of the ones was the multi-family are they they are they going to require them to have like a

[1:52:32] Nesstra like garbage bin. That's going to just be for recyclables or is it going to be like curbside like what residential?

[1:52:38] So this will only be for recyclables. Yes, and the the solution would be

[1:52:44] be very individualized to the needs of that multifamily.

[1:52:47] So it would be a conversation between the pro and the property managers to how that property

[1:52:53] can be serviced an inefficient manner.

[1:52:56] Oh, okay.

[1:52:56] No, I just wasn't sure if there was a, like, a one-fix solution.

[1:52:59] Like in all reality, GFL could be the same company that's running this program for the city,

[1:53:03] correct?

[1:53:04] Like we don't, like, the city, the government's not going to have their own program.

[1:53:08] They're going to, so, like, we could, in all theory, be still using GFL, correct?

[1:53:12] That is correct.

[1:53:13] So the parole will likely issue a procurement document to service the entire city and then like like depot was like that was one of the things right now

[1:53:23] We have one at the landfill is there an option or a possibility of putting a depot in another location so that again people that don't have trucks or

[1:53:32] Vehicles aren't driving all the way to the landfill and we're not bringing people to landfill. We could have like a depot sort of like what the major

[1:53:38] which centers have where it could be in the Walmart parking lot or one of the other parking lots where you can go and you can throw your recyclables there as well.

[1:53:46] That is something that we can look into once we have registered and have some further discussions with a pro.

[1:53:53] But as of right now, they will only mirror the services we're currently providing.

[1:53:57] So if we were to add additional locations, something that we can be discussed.

[1:54:01] Now how, one last question, how does this work for like E360 or some of these other companies who are picking up garbage in outside of the community and bringing it in that there's recyclables of stuff inside of there?

[1:54:15] Is this like a program that close outside? Like if anyone is bringing things into this city of Lloyd, Mr. Landfill, if do they have to follow this program as well?

[1:54:25] because I'm just thinking, I'm just thinking Sandy Beach.

[1:54:29] Like we've got five dumpsters there.

[1:54:32] Like is there, is that recycle program have like work outside of the community as well?

[1:54:36] Or is that something that, because it's not in the city of Lloyd-Mister, it's exempt from it?

[1:54:42] The program how it's set up is set to service just city residents.

[1:54:46] So just within the city of Lloyd-Mister boundary, we can have some further discussions

[1:54:52] with the sketch and Alberta in terms of that depot service, however I assume they're going to have

[1:55:00] some questions for us regarding data. So, where is it coming from? What the

[1:55:06] tonnage look like in those types of things? Because at the end of the day, this program is for

[1:55:10] just within city boundaries and only for residential. So, we'll need to make sure that those parameters

[1:55:15] are getting checked off when those loads are coming into that.

[1:55:19] I'm guessing Sandy Beach would probably be in that commercial side of things it's not a single family

[1:55:23] Yeah, I'm just thinking of don't my head if they have a contract with a 360 to clock recyclables out there

[1:55:29] Like it this wouldn't have any impact on those recyclables coming in the 360 and 360 still dealing with

[1:55:37] External contracts they currently have

[1:55:40] Maybe I could be corrected on that I guess

[1:55:42] So, I'm just thinking more like if we're going this way with recyclables, are we in a

[1:55:50] point where at the landfill we could have the Saskatchewan government arrowed over at

[1:55:54] a government come into the landfill and say you have X number of tons of stuff that should

[1:55:58] be recycled and now we're liable as a city because we're picking up refuge from the RMS

[1:56:04] or the counties.

[1:56:05] Yeah.

[1:56:06] Can we maybe take that?

[1:56:08] Yeah.

[1:56:08] No.

[1:56:08] A hundred percent.

[1:56:09] way and give you a concrete and maybe when we bring it back to council we'll have a little more

[1:56:13] informed out because I think I want to dig into that just a little bit more of your question

[1:56:17] so I can understand that. Yeah. No I just it was just something that came to my head when I was

[1:56:22] seeing young one. I don't want to get in trouble because we're picking up refuge from the RMS

[1:56:27] and the counties and all that. So sorry Don I just wanted to ask clarify your question. Are you

[1:56:32] talking more of the garbage site and what is recycling in the within the garbage? I'm just thinking

[1:56:37] And if we're going here, I'm guessing the next step is possibly the government's coming

[1:56:43] and saying, you've got things that are in your landfill, I shouldn't be in your landfill

[1:56:46] and now we're getting penalized or we're getting fine for having things in the landfill

[1:56:50] that could be in the recycling and we'd have to be able to prove that it's coming from

[1:56:55] somewhere else.

[1:56:55] That's something that I haven't seen talked about just yet, like a landfill penalty for

[1:57:02] materials that are being mindful that is actually recyclable.

[1:57:08] However, that's something that I haven't seen in discussions.

[1:57:12] Yeah, fair enough.

[1:57:13] Thank you.

[1:57:13] Sorry, I was in my head.

[1:57:16] I was thinking you were talking about a designated recycling bin

[1:57:19] from Sandy Beach coming in and being processed.

[1:57:22] I was going to have to get there, right?

[1:57:24] If it's coming into Lake Mister, do we have to make sure that we're responsible

[1:57:27] that things are not going into the landfill that should not be going in there?

[1:57:30] Let us dig into that.

[1:57:31] Yeah, fair enough to add a response.

[1:57:35] Councilor Whitey.

[1:57:36] Yeah, thank you.

[1:57:38] I don't know why this one took me a lot in my mind to kind of get my head wrapped around

[1:57:43] just to kind of, I think it's a change of terminology for one, like for years, ever since

[1:57:50] we started the recycling program, it's been called the recycling program.

[1:57:55] And now it's, this is called the extended producer responsibility and there's some new

[1:58:01] terminology in here and stuff that has just, it's got me a bit confused, but as I'm hearing

[1:58:08] it, explain a little bit more, then I, you know, it sounds okay, well, this sounds too

[1:58:12] good to be true in some ways, and where all our recycling costs are covered by a province,

[1:58:18] like that, that then sounds too good to be true. And I think it was, it's also the terminology

[1:58:24] of Pro. I've heard Pro a lot, and I see that in here. By Pro, you're meaning the company,

[1:58:34] the contractor that's picking up or is it the...

[1:58:37] No, the Pro will be the non-profit agency that is implementing the program. So they are

[1:58:43] responsible for procuring the contractor who would be providing the service. So that is

[1:58:49] for Saskatchewan, it's Saskatchewan musicals, and for Alberta, it's circular, circular materials.

[1:58:55] Okay, so the the pro is one of those two organizations and because we live on a border,

[1:59:00] we have to deal with both of those organizations. Okay, that sounds good. So then tell me more about

[1:59:08] So opt out.

[1:59:11] So as if we convert to this program, all residents, single family up to two dwellings

[1:59:20] are in automatically, but if they choose to opt out, that would be a request that they

[1:59:26] would have to make.

[1:59:28] No, so opt out means that we're relinquishing the control of the recycling services to the

[1:59:34] province to the pro. So the pro will be providing those services to single family and multi-family

[1:59:40] dwellings. So from a multi-family standpoint, they have the ability to say that yes,

[1:59:47] I want circular management or circular materials to provide recycling services to my apartment

[1:59:53] building. So that will be the decision that is going to be individually based. So that would

[2:00:11] We have a very nice structured schedule where, you know, for myself, it's every Monday evening, Tuesday morning, it's pickup, recycling, organics, waste. Is that, will that be the same, then?

[2:00:29] So the the commitment that we've had from the the pro from circular management is that they will try to mirror our current services or our current operations.

[2:00:40] So it's a seamless transition for our residents. However, should they decide later on the thing to make any changes to the schedule if we opt out.

[2:00:50] So if we do the program that model, we wouldn't have any input on that and that's the level

[2:00:56] of control that executive managers had alluded to that from that point on.

[2:01:01] It will be the pro or the province that is running our curbside recycling program.

[2:01:06] So there is, there is a possibility.

[2:01:09] If a, well, every, every month, there's a, there's a long week and there's statutory holiday

[2:01:14] basically.

[2:01:14] So that statutory holiday regardless of which curbside pickup location in the, in a city

[2:01:20] that they still get the schedule stays the same every Monday of that holiday or whatever, so

[2:01:26] would I could I assume that being that this is a province led would they still require the

[2:01:34] contractors to pick up on a on a stat holiday so we and that's the one of the benefits that I've

[2:01:38] really appreciated is that it is structured it is always the same I always have even on a long weekend

[2:01:43] and August long weekend I still put up the stuff on a Monday for a pickup on a Tuesday and I guess

[2:01:49] That's never changes is are we do we have a worry that that as I remember previous before we started to bend pickups

[2:01:59] That it it shifted so if there was a holiday now here your pick up day shifted in a day because of that holiday and that

[2:02:06] Then you'd have to really pay attention to your

[2:02:09] Calendar so that you knew that okay. This was a long weekend

[2:02:12] So now I'm not putting out on a Monday and put it on Tuesday

[2:02:15] So was that do we have a fear that that schedule me shift because

[2:02:19] As we mentioned earlier, the pros commitment was that they're going to try to mirror what we currently have.

[2:02:27] So I'm not too worried.

[2:02:29] However, at the end of the day, it will be their decision as to whether they maintain that they keep that schedule or not.

[2:02:37] But as executive managers had alluded to, we do lose that level of control.

[2:02:42] However, on the flip side, we also traded off with some risk mitigation, right?

[2:02:48] So if we go with an opt model, we're taking on that responsibility.

[2:02:52] We do have that level of control, but we're taking on the responsibility of

[2:02:56] ensuring our contamination thresholds are met, ensuring the service levels are met.

[2:03:01] And if those things are not met, there's a monetary penalty that's associated with that.

[2:03:05] So there is that tradeoff in terms of the opt in and the opt out option.

[2:03:10] And that penalty so and because it's you know I hate seeing when we have a load of organics or a load of recyclings or something anything that's been contaminated that penalty is

[2:03:25] initiated by the pro and put on to the residents.

[2:03:30] If we were to choose the opt-in, so the community led model, since the city is responsible

[2:03:36] for providing that service, that penalty is initiated by the pro on the city.

[2:03:42] And they will work with us. It's not an outright penalty for every single low contaminated

[2:03:49] load. They will work with us on putting together a corrective action plan and supporting us that way.

[2:03:55] But still, we will be responsible for that if that was the case.

[2:04:00] The update and the option is for us to continue to deliver.

[2:04:04] And they would give us some compensation for the collection of that.

[2:04:09] The risk there is, and we see it every day, if different types of plastics that aren't permitted

[2:04:19] start contaminating the loads at the processing facility, the city will then be invoiced.

[2:04:25] of recyclables.

[2:04:26] Of recyclables.

[2:04:27] The city will then be invoiced for those overdues.

[2:04:30] And I think the percentage, it's 6%, so if over 6% of the load has plastics or items

[2:04:38] that shouldn't be included in there, there's going to be a fee back to the city in the

[2:04:43] opt-in.

[2:04:44] So it's opting into the community running the city, running the program, having control

[2:04:52] of when it gets picked up, who the contractor is, et cetera, et cetera, getting some compensation

[2:04:57] from the provinces to deliver that service, but paying any fees and things that come in over

[2:05:03] and above that contract, or opt out, which is to just say, okay, province of Alberta,

[2:05:10] last Saskatchewan, you guys run a program. You guys are responsible for any contamination that might

[2:05:18] be occurring, you guys are responsible for any costs increases, et cetera, et cetera.

[2:05:24] And we are just removing the costs out of our operating budget.

[2:05:28] So, and that's so that's perfect.

[2:05:30] So then in this opt out model, the fines then for contaminated.

[2:05:37] That would be on that would be on the responsibility of the contractor operating it in conjunction

[2:05:44] with the province.

[2:05:45] It would have nothing to do with city of Louis.

[2:05:47] So the province would then find the contractor?

[2:05:50] Well, the processing facility, it would be the processing facility.

[2:05:56] So if they're the ones picking up the recyclable and it's contaminated,

[2:06:00] they would have to sort out the stuff that shouldn't be in there.

[2:06:02] They'll have to pay for whatever cost it is to take that out and dispose of it appropriately.

[2:06:08] And then they would send the rest to the processing facility.

[2:06:10] So I'm getting a bit of a better picture now.

[2:06:12] So now the so now they're the contractor let's say it's the same one that's doing it now

[2:06:17] DFL takes it they still take would take it to their

[2:06:21] Processing facility to do their sorting that is correct, and then they would take their sorting to the

[2:06:27] To the to the provinces

[2:06:30] DPR. Yeah, they then then they would talk to the

[2:06:34] Sorting to be done properly in order for them not to get signed. It's not necessarily like so the

[2:06:40] I'm just trying to figure out how this might get back on with the fines, get back on to the president.

[2:06:44] Because if we're opting in when the contractors picking up our stuff and it's contaminated,

[2:06:50] they're going to charge us to dispose of the stuff that shouldn't have been in there.

[2:06:54] Versus the government and the contractor to come pick that stuff up, sort it and then bring it to us.

[2:07:00] That's a contractual obligation between the province and the contractor, not with the city.

[2:07:05] And if we were to opt in, they would be conducting audits of our loads, so that is where they're

[2:07:10] going to determine what is the contamination rate of our loads. So that is essentially why

[2:07:17] we, the administration recommends that we opt out. I know there's a lot of concepts and it's hard

[2:07:23] to wrap our mind. It took me a long time as well. I wasn't sure who was just me because I'm slow. No,

[2:07:30] it's not you. And it's a very different than what we're used to doing, what we've done here

[2:07:35] for the last 20, 30 years.

[2:07:37] Okay.

[2:07:39] No, I appreciate all that input.

[2:07:40] And I think I have a clear picture

[2:07:41] and I know that this, it sounds good

[2:07:44] and I appreciate it.

[2:07:45] I just, for me, I want to make sure

[2:07:47] that our level of service is the same

[2:07:48] for the residents.

[2:07:49] And if there's a cost saving, that's a bonus.

[2:07:52] I'm just kind of, I was wondering how

[2:07:54] fines might work if there was someone,

[2:07:56] how that would fall back on the city

[2:07:57] or on to the residents.

[2:07:59] Yeah, and Karen said it a couple of times

[2:08:01] I want to reiterate, our intent

[2:08:03] through this new program

[2:08:05] and would be to have the exact same services we have.

[2:08:08] Like that, that's what we're working with,

[2:08:10] both provinces to provide a seamless service.

[2:08:14] That is exactly how it is provided today.

[2:08:16] I'll be it, if we do opt out,

[2:08:18] that element of control is a little bit of all river hands.

[2:08:23] Although we do have some ability to work and negotiate

[2:08:26] with the contractors to deliver what we need them to deliver.

[2:08:30] And I think that confirmation we're aiming for 100% of the same service.

[2:08:36] And, yeah, and save some taxpayer dollars.

[2:08:39] And if I can add for a comment to that, at the end of the day, the EPR is a funding model.

[2:08:47] So EPR, we will still have recycling services.

[2:08:51] It's just that instead of the services being funded by residents in the municipality,

[2:08:57] it's now being funded by the companies that produce this product. So from a service standpoint,

[2:09:03] the services remain the same, it's just how it's getting funded and it's going to be funded through

[2:09:07] the province.

[2:09:11] Councillor Taylor. Yes, thank you. It seems like a very confusing way to offer the same

[2:09:15] service. Maybe, but hopefully add more, right? Our goal here, that was kind of my question, is the

[2:09:21] a girl, what I'm hearing is just to add a little bit more

[2:09:25] cycling services to our residents,

[2:09:29] ultimately.

[2:09:30] And save money.

[2:09:32] And save money.

[2:09:33] Right, that's really what we're trying to do.

[2:09:35] Yeah, I think both provinces are moving to a different type

[2:09:38] of program for recycling, right?

[2:09:39] So we can either get funding from the provinces,

[2:09:42] which is through the two modes of community led

[2:09:46] or contractor led of getting that funding.

[2:09:50] it's just how does that connect to the existing services we're providing for that.

[2:09:56] So the provinces are moving to this new way of collecting recyclables and the old way

[2:10:02] is kind of feeding out, is a good way to do that.

[2:10:06] And there's some communities that are already in the process of this and operating that way.

[2:10:11] And I believe the last are kind of transitioning 2028, I think was 27.

[2:10:17] is when all the other communities are kind of moving over into the program.

[2:10:21] So it's new programs delivered by the province that relieves the city of the funding obligation

[2:10:28] for processing recyclables to take that on and deliver it differently.

[2:10:35] So we have a choice to either run the Saskatchewan model, run the Alberta model, or run two different

[2:10:41] models, right?

[2:10:42] A different service level and Saskatchewan and a different service level in Alberta.

[2:10:46] We don't believe that's the right thing for our residents so we're trying to find a seamless

[2:10:51] Service delivery that makes most sense for city of loy minister that is as close to what we currently do as possible

[2:10:57] Now the benefit to opting into Alberta is it provides more

[2:11:03] Options for additional types of recyclables to be in that stock that's gonna be collected right now our list is small

[2:11:12] this is expanding a bit, giving residents the ability to put more things in

[2:11:17] risk-right, psychable, so it stays out of our landfill. So it's kind of a lot of

[2:11:20] benefit to the program. So the education piece, I know that we spent a lot of

[2:11:25] time and effort on educating our residents who will take over the education

[2:11:28] side of it to our residents on what is allowed to go in the bags. Yeah, so the

[2:11:32] initial education pieces as we transition will be the city and then going

[2:11:37] going forward the ongoing education will be the pro so it will be it will be the province doing that.

[2:11:43] The province will work with a contractor or as a city to educate what's coming out.

[2:11:51] On the onset of the cost while we're transitioning will be involved as a city in that transition

[2:11:59] but once the service is fully transitioned to the province, then it will be up to them to conduct their own education and promotion programs.

[2:12:11] Gotcha. Yeah, education seems to be a little bit of a hurdle here with all those aspects. How long for Saskatchewan-Wanger? They just opted out into this program. How long have they been doing it?

[2:12:24] most of the communities have only started April 1st.

[2:12:27] Oh, just recently.

[2:12:28] So we won't know where we're just learning how it's working.

[2:12:31] Yeah, we've had conversations with them

[2:12:33] and so far everything is going well.

[2:12:36] The municipalities have talked to that have all to note

[2:12:39] said that they wouldn't have done things any different.

[2:12:44] So there were some lessons there in terms of early communication

[2:12:48] and ensuring residues are in the know.

[2:12:52] very, very early on. But otherwise they seem to be happy with how the program is

[2:12:59] rolling. In those cases did the pro continue with the current contractor? You

[2:13:05] know? In Fort Saskatchewan they did. In Fort Saskatchewan they did in Wainwright

[2:13:14] did not. So Wainwright, it was publicly procured and it was awarded to a different

[2:13:20] contractor. A different contractor. And do you know in Wainwright, then if that changed their schedule for a fit state, it stayed the same.

[2:13:27] Okay. Okay. Yeah, it'd be nice to know if there's this a third party that will end up doing just recycling, you know, make it more about, you know, priority or a specialty, I guess is a better, a better term there.

[2:13:41] Yeah, and that is a reality. Like that might be the first city, Lloyd, Mr. Right. And I would just look at it as, okay, there's two green trucks coming.

[2:13:50] and one for the organics, one for the garbage,

[2:13:52] maybe there's a blue rock coming into the cactus.

[2:13:55] The recent things come in and out of our blue bag

[2:13:57] allowance for years, right?

[2:13:58] So it's nice to go just get a steady stream

[2:14:00] across the province of what we're doing.

[2:14:02] And we have three different streams being collected today.

[2:14:06] So that wouldn't change.

[2:14:07] Yeah, I guess that was one of my first questions.

[2:14:10] When I first read this is what is the goal?

[2:14:12] Is it to get producers to stop or to limit the amount

[2:14:17] a packaging that they're producing, so then ultimately the residents are producing

[2:14:24] less packaging.

[2:14:25] So part of the goal of EPR is to make producers responsible in manufacturing product

[2:14:33] that is easier to recycle, so that's one of the main tenets of EPR and on the same token

[2:14:41] making them responsible for funding and of life management of that material.

[2:14:45] Yeah, as a personal household I know packaging and the curbside recycling side is probably frustrating for everybody when you've got cardboard blowing down, you know, to three bags in front of the houses every week.

[2:14:59] So, you know,

[2:15:00] My goal, as we'd be to see less, and hopefully that becomes not just provincial, but federal where they try to reduce the amount of packaging that's coming into our municipalities that we end up buying as consumers and then put back on the street to be picked up and pay for again. So thank you.

[2:15:17] Your work's just in terms of the care brings up to Councillor Taylor's comments is one

[2:15:22] of the delays in ours is we've had to work with two provinces to figure out what, you

[2:15:26] know, it's one of our unique challenges that we've had.

[2:15:28] So while others have started in April, we're, what care is working hard to find out what

[2:15:34] the provinces work together, how is each one going to work and so that's certainly taken

[2:15:38] some time to get there.

[2:15:39] So care is done a good job of managing that relationship between both provinces, something

[2:15:45] We have to do quite often in kudos to both provinces. They've been very open to discussing and coming up with the Lloyd-Minister build solution

[2:15:53] So that's always good to see you

[2:15:56] That's a change

[2:15:57] I could say that but go from there Councillor Charles-Gostoson

[2:16:01] Thanks here worship. I was much like Councillor Whiting

[2:16:05] I was reading this and my eyes were glazing over and I'm like what with the EP and the PEO and the whatever and so

[2:16:13] So thank you for bearing with us as we learn about our recycling life.

[2:16:18] Listening, I was trying to get my head around what are we actually doing and what I think

[2:16:25] I've got it down to is we are divesting from the business line of recycling.

[2:16:30] We're getting out of the recycling business.

[2:16:32] We are moving it over to our third party.

[2:16:34] The third party happens to be a provincial body that then hires a contractor.

[2:16:40] It gives our residents certain benefits.

[2:16:42] They can do more. They can use the same bags. It's going to be about the same service.

[2:16:46] But we as a city are saving because we are divesting.

[2:16:49] And sometimes that is the best of business decision you can make because it saves on the actual bottom line.

[2:16:54] So thank you for all the discussion while we get down to it.

[2:16:57] The one question I have was about coordination between Alberta and Saskatchewan.

[2:17:00] You were just mentioning how they're open to working together and the different things.

[2:17:04] But if we go into an Alberta contract,

[2:17:08] Is Saskatchewan open to letting our Saskatchewan residents be a part of Alberta without penalizing

[2:17:16] or do they write a certain note of whatever?

[2:17:19] I don't know.

[2:17:20] So the discussions we've had with both Alberta and Saskatchewan is when we're only running

[2:17:25] one program.

[2:17:25] So there's going to be discussions between the provinces in terms of how one provinces compensating

[2:17:32] the other for the Saskatchewan portion of the EPR. And those are the things that we will

[2:17:40] further discuss and collaborate with them once council has made a decision.

[2:17:44] So then it's us facilitating their conversations on how you guys would like to do the money.

[2:17:49] That is correct. And also reporting tenages, how they're going to do the calculation in

[2:17:56] in those types of things between the two provinces.

[2:18:00] Good.

[2:18:00] And then the other question I had was,

[2:18:02] do we pay to enroll in the program in Alberta,

[2:18:04] or are they just saying,

[2:18:05] hey, our door's a wide open, if you want to sign up,

[2:18:07] there's actually no cost to us to be able to involve?

[2:18:09] Yeah, yes, there is no cost to us.

[2:18:12] So we will just need to register for the program,

[2:18:15] so we need a council motion saying

[2:18:18] that council is proving us to register for the program,

[2:18:21] and we will just need to register

[2:18:23] through their own online portal.

[2:18:24] Portal.

[2:18:25] I find that very interesting that they make it very easy for you to enroll in the thing

[2:18:31] and have no costs because that's must be what they really want you to do, right?

[2:18:37] There's the option for the community to lead its own program, but they will then penalize

[2:18:42] you if you're wrong, if you put too much in them, that's contaminated, we're going to penalize

[2:18:45] you there.

[2:18:47] There's definitely a shift, this is the comment, but a shift to the province side to what

[2:18:52] not communities to do it this way, which they're giving us the benefits, so it's something

[2:18:57] definitely I think I would support. I think the last piece was with Councillor Taylor

[2:19:01] were saying in the education portion, I think the risk of, you know, the worry about people

[2:19:07] does my schedule change while I be able to do something, all of that, that's definitely

[2:19:11] an education piece and I think that has to do with how well we are committed to the education

[2:19:18] of our residents, because while the province will in the end educate based on their contractor,

[2:19:25] we can talk to our residents more often in clearer terms, explain why we're doing it,

[2:19:31] especially in the transition phase because that's going to be the clunkiest. That's where that

[2:19:36] are we sure we did the right thing happen? So I think that would be the only thing to keep in mind

[2:19:42] and that as if whatever motion comes through,

[2:19:45] it's going forward to really go,

[2:19:48] how are we going to talk about this

[2:19:50] so that it doesn't seem clunky

[2:19:52] and that everyone knows what to expect?

[2:19:55] Yeah, I think that's a fair comment,

[2:19:58] Councillor, and it's not that we can't

[2:20:02] or will not educate,

[2:20:04] and I think through our website,

[2:20:06] through social media,

[2:20:06] we can inform residents of those things

[2:20:09] and we can adjust as we go right.

[2:20:12] It's going to be lots of upfront, heavy lifting

[2:20:15] to educate on the transition, and then once the transition occurs,

[2:20:20] what does that look like on the other side of that,

[2:20:23] and that's something we'll have to figure out as we move forward.

[2:20:27] Yes, and I think the farther away you get away from the transition,

[2:20:30] if you've done the communication well at that transition point

[2:20:33] and make it less clunky, the less you'll have to talk about it later,

[2:20:36] it'll just be what we do.

[2:20:37] That's right.

[2:20:37] Thank you. Great discussion. I guess I the one or two questions I have. How does this affect our current contract with our provider today because if I recall that was a 10 year contract that was signed with the current contractor that does garbage recyclable and and compost so can we get out of that contract without a financial penalty. So your worship our contract does have provisions for scope changes due to legislation. So we are covered from that perspective.

[2:21:07] In our initial discussions with the contractor, they have indicated that this will likely be a line item

[2:21:15] deletion so it does not affect any of the other services we're providing.

[2:21:21] However, we still need to have further discussions on that and formalize that scope change.

[2:21:28] Good. No one as long as it's being addressed and we'll continue to address it.

[2:21:33] You're talking to talked about the charter has you talked about the by provincial here so the charter is silent on garbage and waste as far as I know so yes

[2:21:43] It is going to end up with two providers or potentially one provider, but two different streams and my question is how does that work with the landfill because the city landfill technically is in

[2:21:54] and Saskatchewan, if we as Councilor Dijak talked about,

[2:21:57] if there's a facility as a resident,

[2:22:01] I wanna take that styrofoam from my big screen TV

[2:22:03] or whatever you buy that's got 17 pieces of styrofoam.

[2:22:07] And where in Alberta resident,

[2:22:09] how do we, are they being, is that in discussion?

[2:22:12] Yeah, so part of that contract between Alberta

[2:22:14] and Saskatchewan is to provide a seamless for Lakeminster.

[2:22:19] So anything within the boundary will be one provider,

[2:22:23] one service level. This stuff that happens behind a senior worship like compensation from

[2:22:30] one province to another tracking, data share, all that kind of stuff is going to have to

[2:22:36] be worked out between the two provinces and doesn't really have anything to do with us.

[2:22:40] So as far as whether you're a Saskatchewan resident or an Alberta resident in a multi-family

[2:22:45] or a single dwelling, your service level should not change and if you have to bring something

[2:22:50] to the depot, whether that's at a city facility or somewhere else, you would have that ability

[2:22:55] to do that within our boundary.

[2:22:58] Okay.

[2:22:58] No, I think that's...

[2:22:59] Or that's the intent.

[2:23:00] The intent.

[2:23:01] So, the one thing we've talked about the province picking up the cost, I stand to be corrected,

[2:23:07] but the intention the province has had when, because this has been an ongoing discussion

[2:23:11] for a number of years at Summa and Alberta beauties and certainly led by both organizations

[2:23:17] was that the enhanced producer, the producer will pick up the costs and I don't know how that's going to get billed back through so we talk about the province.

[2:23:26] The province plays a part in this but the provinces and fork and out tax payers money anymore than they have to to pay for this.

[2:23:33] This will be pushed back onto the producer of the goods which in turn will follow back to the producer to the customer but just so everybody's clear this isn't something that the province decided to write a couple hundred million dollar check to deal with.

[2:23:50] for example.

[2:23:51] Yeah, I guess she wants to

[2:23:56] go to the market and tell me

[2:24:05] what racial abuse is.

[2:24:05] according to what we said

[2:24:05] They are not gonna get

[2:24:06] their car board box, but

[2:24:08] they are not gonna get

[2:24:09] they buy their car board box

[2:24:10] of their car board box.

[2:24:17] We can look forward to this coming back from administration to give us some guidance

[2:24:21] When the opportunity arises unless there's any other questions. We'll move on just confirm. We're opting in to opt out

[2:24:30] Careful now careful

[2:24:32] You'll have us confused if you want to see my mind we're jumping in a top-toat

[2:24:37] That's exactly right. We're jumping in to opt out

[2:24:40] Thank you very much Karen great job. Keep up the good work and we'll look forward to is this progress is because I take it

[2:24:46] This is a year away and I think that's the other piece we've got the media in the room people are watching this

[2:24:51] This isn't going to happen tomorrow there will be more information coming from the city as it moves forward. That is correct. Thank you very much

[2:25:00] Moving on item number five governance priority matters city manager. Thank you worship for item 5.1 draft signing authority policy

[2:25:06] The number 110 dash 120 dash 10. I'll show you on the road to present

[2:25:11] Thank you, City Manager.

[2:25:13] Administration is proposing updates to the signing authority policy 120-10 based on

[2:25:19] recent organizational updates and title changes.

[2:25:22] The signing authority policy provides direction on signing of all city documents with specific

[2:25:27] documents being addressed in Schedule A and thresholds by position in Schedule B. Amendments

[2:25:33] include replacement of CFO throughout with executive manager corporate services, land sales

[2:25:39] agreements will now be signed by the city manager and mayor rather than the city clerk and mayor.

[2:25:44] Land sales coordinator has been updated to coordinator investment.

[2:25:49] City clerk will no longer be required to sign planning documents.

[2:25:53] The assistant fire chief has been added to the approval thresholds and ELT will now approve

[2:25:58] single or sole sources between 10,000 and 25,000 for their respective teams.

[2:26:04] Back to your worship for any questions.

[2:26:06] Thanks.

[2:26:06] Thank you very much.

[2:26:08] Questions or comments?

[2:26:09] Councillor Taylor.

[2:26:10] Thank you, Mayor.

[2:26:11] Under Schedule B, I just had some clarification or a question under that.

[2:26:17] In the approved threshold of mounts, does that mean that in the uppers schedule that everything

[2:26:26] has to come to Council for approval or does each category have signing authority up to that

[2:26:32] out without coming to council. How does that work?

[2:26:36] Thank you, Councillor Taylor. So, what happens is any item over that amount would come

[2:26:42] to council? So, any amount below that can be signed without seeing it?

[2:26:50] That's correct. I mean, it would come forward in the budget and in the procurement updates

[2:26:55] and all the quarterly updates and the financials. Okay.

[2:26:58] But anything under 500,000 there was no changes to the amounts that's been in that's been in the process for

[2:27:07] That's correct. Yeah, but a capital purchase would come through the budget process that might only be $20,000

[2:27:12] We'd see it at budget time or from that perspective, but

[2:27:16] 20,000 basically a supervisor or executive coordinator could approve

[2:27:21] Spending $10,000. That was approved in the budget. Okay. Okay. Thank you

[2:27:29] on the, on the very bottom on the single and this is just my again my brain working as it does single or solar source you got 10,000 and one penny up to 25,000 and then the next one is 25,000,

[2:27:42] up to $499,999. Would it be just simpler for $10,000 up to $25,999 and then $25,000 up to $499,000?

[2:27:56] You know what I mean? Why is it?

[2:27:58] Thank you, Councillor Whiting. So those thresholds are designated within the trade agreements.

[2:28:04] That's why they're written that way.

[2:28:05] So it's not 50,000 in one cent up to 40, you know what I mean?

[2:28:13] I do know what you mean.

[2:28:14] So I can take this back and adjust it, but I know that those have been in place for quite some time

[2:28:20] and it was based on the trade agreement.

[2:28:22] Okay.

[2:28:23] Thanks.

[2:28:24] If I can bring your attention to schedule A under finance,

[2:28:29] that there's two legal financial

[2:28:33] signatories is just looking for

[2:28:36] clarification who determines the

[2:28:38] two legal financial signatories.

[2:28:42] So this is based on our financial

[2:28:44] administration by law.

[2:28:46] Okay.

[2:28:46] And so financial administration by

[2:28:48] law dictates that there are three

[2:28:50] legal financial signatories but only

[2:28:52] two are required to sign.

[2:28:53] Gotcha.

[2:28:54] And this is in compliance with best

[2:28:56] practice of financial institutions

[2:28:58] institutions on on expending funds or dispersing funds.

[2:29:01] Okay, okay, thank you.

[2:29:04] That's where that comes from.

[2:29:05] And at the bottom under the land division,

[2:29:07] it refers to the land division applications

[2:29:10] to city planning department.

[2:29:12] So the position of, as we're now going to know

[2:29:15] in this coordinator of investment

[2:29:16] and economic development officer,

[2:29:18] both need to sign off on that.

[2:29:20] Or would it be and or, that's, I just wondered.

[2:29:24] Thank you, Your Worship.

[2:29:25] That is generally signed by both.

[2:29:27] by both. Okay. Thank you.

[2:29:32] Councillor Whiting.

[2:29:33] On the land sale agreements, it's a city manager and mayor. In these situations,

[2:29:40] does deputy mayor act or can be called mayor then in that situation, that's just behind

[2:29:47] the scenes? Thank you, Councillor Whiting. Yes, in any situation

[2:29:52] where you are delegated the mayor's authority as deputy mayor, then you would be eligible

[2:29:56] Thank you very much.

[2:30:00] Any other questions?

[2:30:07] All good? All right. Let's move on to 5.2, please.

[2:30:12] Thank you. Worship for item 5.2, draft employee code of conduct, policy number 135-04. I'll ask chief staff and we're ready to present. Good afternoon, your worship and council. Good afternoon, chief staff.

[2:30:23] Administration is here today to provide an updated employee code of conduct for your review.

[2:30:30] A little background, Council previously approved the employee code of conduct policy number

[2:30:35] 135-04 in April of 2023.

[2:30:38] The policy was developed to ensure a common baseline standard of acceptable conduct for employees

[2:30:44] to act as responsible representatives of the city.

[2:30:48] As per the records management by-law, Administration is required to review all policies every

[2:30:53] three years or earlier if required.

[2:30:56] So that's what we're doing today.

[2:30:57] Administration has completed a full review

[2:31:00] and is proposing to replace the current policy

[2:31:03] with the updated version that's attached.

[2:31:06] The revisions are highlighted in the draft employee code

[2:31:08] of conduct policy and have been made to align

[2:31:11] with the council code of ethics bylaw

[2:31:13] that received third and final reading in July of 2025.

[2:31:18] The changes are increase the dollar value

[2:31:21] for employee gifts or prize acceptance from $150 to a real or perceived value of $350

[2:31:28] Canadian and any gift or prize accepted by an employee with a real or perceived value

[2:31:34] of over $350 shall be disposed of at the discretion of the city manager unless otherwise directed

[2:31:41] by council. I would like to note when we were doing the review and one of the other items that was

[2:31:46] And it is highlighted in the draft policy with section 8.3 which refers to employees that

[2:31:54] leave the employment of the city and wish to personally bid on or work for a company that

[2:32:00] is bidding on any city contract shall act in accordance with the city's procurement and purchasing

[2:32:05] policy has also been added. That's been in place and there's some reference in the city's procurement

[2:32:11] and purchasing policy relating to employees after their employment. So we thought it was important.

[2:32:16] that that was highlighted in the policy as well.

[2:32:19] A second document that has been shared is the Employee Code of Conduct Handbook.

[2:32:24] It's provided for information purposes only.

[2:32:26] The intent of this document is to provide employees with further guidance,

[2:32:30] recommendations, and frequently asked questions and answers

[2:32:34] to ensure that they have as much information as possible

[2:32:37] to know what the city is expecting of them.

[2:32:40] So it's supplementary to the policy, but we did think it was important that

[2:32:43] Council would see that today and it might help answer any questions that you might have.

[2:32:47] I'll pass it back to you, Your Worship, for any questions or comments.

[2:32:51] Thank you, Chief Staff. Questions? Councillor Taylor.

[2:32:54] Thank you, Mayor. In that change to adding 8.3 for city employees,

[2:33:01] is there a way we could add a quick reference to find what the city's procurement and purchasing

[2:33:07] policy is? Just so, if there's some details in there maybe around time frames or things like that.

[2:33:13] And that's one of the thank you for your question.

[2:33:15] That's one of the things that we were going to put the actual wording in there, but I know that that's up for review.

[2:33:20] I think it's in quarter four of this year, which potentially may change.

[2:33:24] So we didn't want to have the bring up.

[2:33:25] The policy may change or be have additions to you.

[2:33:28] Exactly.

[2:33:28] Okay.

[2:33:29] So yes, so this will pertain to the policy as it sits and as it may change.

[2:33:35] Exactly. That's correct.

[2:33:37] for the council meeting, if this does go forward to the council meeting,

[2:33:40] no, we can certainly ask, share a link to that too, so you can see what the existing wording is as well.

[2:33:45] Yeah, yeah, that'd be great. Thank you.

[2:33:47] Yeah, I think good question, councilor, just helps keep it cleaner, because otherwise,

[2:33:51] we'd be constantly bringing it back for updates if something changes along the line.

[2:33:56] Councilor Dachock.

[2:33:57] Yeah, a couple of things. One is I'm glad to see that I think on page nine and the document handbook,

[2:34:02] it references the city's vision and values, so that's good.

[2:34:05] But I'm just wondering if it's worthwhile, you know, and things to do, I mean, you're basically listing the values of the city, but even making reference to them there and saying that, you know, you would be a representative of the city values.

[2:34:17] Current set of them, whatever, but it just, it sounds trivial, but for me, if anybody typically ends up getting into mischief, it's because they're not acting or behaving in a particular way.

[2:34:29] And they're typically not behaving in a way that the values are set out.

[2:34:33] So we can highlight that in all the safe for sure.

[2:34:36] It's not a big deal, but all

[2:34:40] good, Councillor, Councillor Bounce.

[2:34:43] Thank you, Mayor.

[2:34:44] Yeah, this might be an odd ball question, maybe I'm not reading it right, but as members

[2:34:49] of Council, we have to abide by this code as well.

[2:34:54] There's a separate code of conduct for a council that would definitely be correct.

[2:34:59] Right.

[2:35:00] And it's very similar.

[2:35:00] I think we reviewed the Council Code of Conduct and it's yeah a lot of the

[2:35:06] items are yeah similar in both documents okay that's all thank you council

[2:35:12] chair is gusty thank you worship um I really appreciate these type of

[2:35:17] documents um the one line that I really liked and I don't know who came up with it

[2:35:23] but it said it to embed ethics into daily activity that's what these things are

[2:35:29] for. And so I really appreciated that. I also appreciated the smell test.

[2:35:37] I like the smell test. It's perfect. I love it. And I know that on a previous council meeting

[2:35:43] I had brought up the idea of like a social media policy or that kind of thing. What are we doing

[2:35:48] in order to make sure that city employees are conducting themselves in the proper way even

[2:35:54] on the first time outside? And so I was happy to see the page 32 with the smell test

[2:35:58] with that last line about can my comments on social media be interpreted in such a way and I'm a representative of the city

[2:36:05] So I wanted to highlight that as I'm happy to see that in there and that yeah, I'm fully supportive of this draft and the document itself

[2:36:14] So thank you any other questions or comments

[2:36:19] I'll certainly appreciate all the comments and I think it's very important that

[2:36:23] You know the council sees it. It's available is on now the part of the package public can look at it and say

[2:36:29] What does the city, what are the rules for being, what are city employees expected to be and do outside the regular job, right?

[2:36:37] If you're an always water operator, you do that job, but these are the rules that dictate city employees.

[2:36:43] And I think that it speaks well of the city.

[2:36:46] Again, the transparency from administration to the public through us from that perspective.

[2:36:52] So thank you for bringing it forward.

[2:36:53] forward. Any other questions or comments?

[2:36:58] Not seeing any? Thank you very much. I'll move

[2:37:01] to the inquiries from the media, please.

[2:37:12] Thank you, Your Worship. Attending media

[2:37:14] have our questions speak with yourself, Mayor Albers. Thank you. Thank you very much. With

[2:37:18] that, I'll look for a motion to take a short recess. Councilman Smith, seconded by, Council

[2:37:23] are waiting. Thank you. All in favor? Carried, we are recessed.

Governance and Priorities Committee

Agenda

Transcript