[0:37] All right, is it's now four o'clock? I will call the order, call the city of Prince

[0:42] Albert Executive Committee, regular meeting, council meeting to order at four o'clock.

[0:51] Before we begin, of course, we will start that we recognize that Prince Albert is located

[0:55] within the tree six territory and is the homeland of Dakota and Métis. We extend our respect to

[1:00] all indigenous people for their valuable past and present contributions, and recognize

[1:04] and respect the culture of diversity within the City of Prince Albert.

[1:10] With that, we do have the approval of the agenda on the screen.

[1:15] There is one change as the verbal presentation for four units as a right under 7.2.

[1:22] We'll be by Director Craig Gillinger, Director of Community Development, not listed as Michael

[1:31] Nelson.

[1:35] Councilor Ring?

[1:36] Yes, I'll move the approval of the agenda.

[1:38] Thank you.

[1:41] Any discussion?

[1:44] I see none.

[1:53] That vote is now open,

[2:01] and that vote passes unanimously.

[2:05] Thank you. Any next on the agenda is the Declaration of Conflict of Interest, and I think

[2:11] called Members of Council know what that's about. Has anyone have anything to declare on today's agenda?

[2:20] Okay. I see none. Thank you.

[2:24] adoption of minutes.

[2:39] Sorry,

[2:48] Councillor Brown. Thank you, Deputy Mayor, I'll move the minutes.

[2:53] Thank you, sir. Any discussion on the minutes?

[3:03] Okay, that vote is now open and

[3:10] that also passes

[3:11] unanimously.

[3:20] All right. Next is reports of administration and committees.

[3:26] What is the

[3:26] the will of council.

[3:30] Sorry. Oh, I missed consent agenda. My apologies. Consent agenda.

[3:36] What is the will of council?

[3:42] Council pronto. I'll move the one item on the consent agenda.

[3:50] Thank you. Any discussion?

[3:56] Moving right along.

[3:59] That vote is now open and

[4:04] that also passes

[4:05] as you know, honestly.

[4:08] And now, reports of administration committees,

[4:11] 7.1, chief funding application,

[4:14] project approval, report 25-363.

[4:17] We have a PowerPoint presentation

[4:18] by Director of Public Works, Jeff De Silva.

[4:22] Thank you, Director.

[4:24] I'll get that ready for you in a second.

[4:37] Okay, Director, it's ready.

[4:40] Good evening, Mayor and Council.

[4:42] I'm happy to give you a quick presentation tonight

[4:45] on our request for approval to submit two projects forward on shift funding.

[4:51] And as this application also relates to the second item on the agenda tonight,

[4:56] I'm happy to give a little bit of context for the rationale and

[5:01] reasons why we think is administration that we need to be applicable for shift funding.

[5:09] So let's start with a very brief history of the city's wastewater treatment plant.

[5:13] The original portion of the plant was built in 1972 that was able to provide basic primary

[5:20] treatment with subsequent add-on projects in 1999 and 2009 to add secondary treatment

[5:27] and UV disinfection respectively.

[5:31] The oldest portions of the plant are now reaching 53 years of age with virtually every part

[5:38] of the plant now beyond normal service life, as well as being beyond standard upgrade timelines.

[5:50] So over the years, there have been some major failures of critical components of the plant,

[5:55] requiring significant budget asks as well as, you know, posing the potential for risks to the

[6:03] environment. So in preparation for these upgrades that were planning to apply for,

[6:09] For operations has been doing prioritized maintenance in order to ensure the plant is in good operating condition for staff, operations, as well as to be prepared for significant upgrades.

[6:21] As this facility is well beyond the normal time for upgrades, this will ultimately mean that any delays to upgrades are going to lead to further infrastructure degradation, as well as significantly increase costs to rehabilitate any degraded work.

[6:42] So here's an upgrades overview.

[6:44] The project was broken into three phases,

[6:47] likely to take most of a decade to complete.

[6:51] Phase one is reaching 90% design.

[6:55] So this includes the headworks building,

[6:58] the surge pond, generator building,

[7:00] as well as some tunnels to house various piping and processes.

[7:06] Tender and award could occur as early as summer or fall,

[7:10] All 2026, depending on funding and operational readiness.

[7:19] We're working with a total project estimate of $80 million for completion.

[7:23] This will include construction, some vital contingency, as well as construction management and oversight.

[7:32] Should the city be successful in obtaining shift funding, this would provide a combined $36.7 million in federal and provincial funding.

[7:42] Our view with the remaining to be funded through the city's utility.

[7:48] Our view is that funding is absolutely critical as it will result in a significant savings

[7:53] to utility customers estimated to be in the range of $2.8 million annually.

[8:00] Additionally, with high level projection to complete upgrades in the $150 to $250 million range,

[8:08] is important that the city secure and direct as much external funding as possible for mandatory upgrades.

[8:20] So in addition to the capital construction submission that we're proposing, we're also proposing to submit on funding for,

[8:28] I should say, for subsequent phases of design.

[8:33] So it's estimated to be in the range of $4 to $6 million in design fees.

[8:39] This design would occur at the same time as the Phase I construction in order to be prepared for subsequent funding opportunities as well as to pick up at the end pick up with subsequent construction at the end of the Phase I construction.

[9:00] With that, I'm happy to take any questions from Council for executive committee.

[9:04] Thank you, Director. I'll open up the floor to Council.

[9:09] will start with Councillor Leeowicz,

[9:15] when you're answer.

[9:16] Chair and question through to the director.

[9:19] So you just for clarification, utility fund is funded by the water bills, right?

[9:24] Correct.

[9:24] How much per year typically goes in there and what's sitting in that account right now, do you

[9:28] know?

[9:30] What's the total operational budget?

[9:32] Yeah.

[9:33] Oh, jeez.

[9:34] I think we're talking total operational budget in the, oh my goodness, I'd be giving you

[9:41] number that I'd have to pull out of there.

[9:43] We can get that later.

[9:46] In the report, states that we have the capacity

[9:49] to treat 40 million liters of sewage per day.

[9:52] Do you know roughly how much we actually do treat per day?

[9:56] On average, you'd probably be treating about half of that.

[10:00] But what you need to be able to design for is for surges.

[10:03] So peak days that would occur.

[10:06] When we get big storms through the city,

[10:09] those tend to increase the flow to the waste water treatment plant considerably.

[10:14] You could easily see flows in excess of double that amount at a given time,

[10:21] hence the addition of a surge pond at the headwork's end of the facility.

[10:27] Yeah, no good. I just, I know from my work history,

[10:30] typically when we look at things like that,

[10:33] that you want to run your maximum at 150% of your typical capacity, so that's good to

[10:38] work about half that.

[10:43] So for all three phases, looking around that 250 million mark, is that like just renovations

[10:49] to the current facility?

[10:50] Are there additions?

[10:51] Is that an entirely new build to portions of it?

[10:54] So what would be, what would be planning to add as a third stream?

[10:57] So currently there's two two process streams. So when it comes in it's split into two to go through the entire plant

[11:04] With the exception of the UV at the back end. So we in the end what we would add on is a third stream

[11:11] To be able to handle higher flows as well as to be able to handle future development and growth for the city

[11:18] Okay, and with these new additions how how much capacity does that add to our

[11:26] That part hasn't been designed yet so what we're tackling is the front end right now as well as the worst so we're kind of we've staged it for worst first for our design.

[11:36] One of the biggest components that we have as a challenge is meeting those peak flows during storm events.

[11:41] as well as our our head works is is basically really requires

[11:47] upgrade and some TLC on it so okay and then we had conversations in earlier

[11:56] meetings about one of the roofs out at the water treatment plant I believe was

[12:03] that or am I we both repairs to a roof at the water treatment plant yeah that was

[12:11] That was put in for budget this year, just as an under run operating budget.

[12:14] Okay, so that won't fall within any of these, okay?

[12:19] And then once phase one is completed, I'm just thinking in the sense where we run into issues with funding.

[12:27] Once phase one construction is complete, does that kind of lock us into phase two and

[12:31] three, or is that an upgrade that can run on its own while we figure out the funding?

[12:38] Yeah, they'll be separate, they'll be separate distinct projects.

[12:42] In the end, the facility is at a state where it really shouldn't sit between.

[12:48] Hence why we want to get design going so that we can be in a position for funding.

[12:53] Any time that the parts of the plant that we aren't tackling for upgrades sits for longer.

[13:00] You're going to see infrastructure degradation and that's just going to lead to growth of costs.

[13:04] So, but they are distinct so we will be able to utilize the new construction of phase one, well phase two and three are in design design, okay, perfect, thank you.

[13:18] Thank you, Councillor Laywitz. Next in the queue we have Councillor Head.

[13:23] Thank you, Deputy Mayor. And thank you, Director De Silva, for the information and the PowerPoint presentation here. And you made a good point.

[13:30] I thought the other motion or the other piece of business would have happened before this one because I as I understand it this application is dependent upon and agreeing or

[13:41] Changing our by-laws to include the four units as a right

[13:44] So I thought maybe the two should have been presented before this one

[13:48] But nonetheless because it's one of those things that it's a Hobson's choice. We don't really have a choice here

[13:52] This has been on the radar at least since 2020 and maybe longer

[13:56] So happy, I'm happy to finally see some funding model come forward to this.

[14:01] But I guess the question I do have is, what guarantees that we have that we're going to get this funding?

[14:07] If we make the changes, I know I'm preempting the next motion, but is there any guarantees that we have here?

[14:14] I mean, it's subject to funding approval as any of our other.

[14:19] So it's not guaranteed that we're going to get the funding?

[14:21] No, but it is specifically, it is the type of project that is specifically called out within the program for funding approvals.

[14:28] And that's another thing, I'm looking at the program Canada's Housing Infrastructure Fund.

[14:32] So now here we are talking about a wastewater treatment plant, not necessarily about housing.

[14:36] And I guess that's the come, but it's weird how they rolled this out this program.

[14:40] But I'm happy to see that, that we're able to look at moving and

[14:45] making some changes to our wastewater treatment plant because I know it's been a concern for quite some time.

[14:49] Now, you mentioned about 90% of the design rates.

[14:53] Is that for phase one you're talking about?

[14:55] That's right.

[14:56] And does that include, I guess, the costing model?

[15:00] We'll be getting a cost estimate as part of our 90% design submission from our consultant.

[15:07] Okay. And I guess you mentioned in the report, I also see the Canadian Community's Building

[15:15] Fund as well mentioned that we can divert. And I guess, you know, maybe to the city manager,

[15:19] where is that fund? Because I know we have it earmarked this year and possibly for next

[15:23] as well, is there plans that that fund will be ongoing to pass that or any information

[15:29] on that. Yeah, there's already a motion on the floor that the $12 million is earmarked

[15:36] for our current leisure center, but that's for our first five years. The second five years

[15:41] is not earmarked because we don't know that distinctive amount of money yet. Just to follow

[15:47] a question, when, how long is that earmarked to, to 2027 or is it? It's five years, so it's

[15:53] It started 2025, like 24-25, and then for five years.

[15:58] Thanks.

[16:01] I have another question I thought.

[16:03] But maybe it's more related to the next motion as well.

[16:06] So thank you for those answers and responses.

[16:08] And thanks for the report.

[16:11] Thank you, Councillor Head.

[16:12] And next we have Mayor Polonski.

[16:15] Thank you, Deputy Mayor, and thank you, Director.

[16:17] I would have kind of circled back into Councillor Heads and Councillor Laywood's questions.

[16:24] The first question I'm asking is when we're over capacity are we releasing sewage into

[16:34] the environment?

[16:36] At some point when the surge reaches above a certain capacity and point, then yes, it does

[16:44] have to go to the environment.

[16:45] And that makes admission critical, really.

[16:47] The second question I have is to the director of finance or to the mayor.

[16:54] What are our current levies, generate annually?

[16:58] Do we know that amount?

[17:04] Current levies are utility bills?

[17:06] Or utility bills, sorry.

[17:08] Yeah, I'm not sure if the director did that.

[17:12] We don't have that number for you, we don't have to get that.

[17:16] Okay, now I also understand that on some of the media information there is also the potential

[17:24] of another $13 million to the project, which would increase our grant funding to 50.

[17:31] And I've forgotten what fund that is, but is that in the works as well?

[17:40] In previous discussions, it was possibly up to $50 million that we'd be getting in funding

[17:47] that we can apply to this project?

[17:50] So for this round of shift funding, the total approved project value is up to $50 million.

[17:59] Okay.

[17:59] So then the $36.7 million is the provincial and federal share of that.

[18:07] Okay, and I'm sorry, where is the balance?

[18:09] So then the balance above that for the remainder of the project cost comes from the would have to be funded through the utility.

[18:16] I see. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Director, for those answers. Next in the queue, we have Councillor Kilmer.

[18:24] Thank you very much. And thank you very much for the presentation and the report. Very clear.

[18:31] Just to answer the question, it wasn't really a question, but wondering that Councillor Head had originally the government did the federal government did come through with this funding, but it was housing only did not include infrastructure.

[18:47] infrastructure and through work through Suma and FCM, they were able to get them to shift

[18:54] to have an understanding that infrastructure you can't have housing without infrastructure,

[18:58] and so they did change it, then I just don't know the year.

[19:04] But I am actually willing to move this recommendation, but I would like to add a point three.

[19:10] Go ahead.

[19:11] So,

[19:13] that admin administration prepare a communication plan that includes a video explanation

[19:26] or includes video explaining the connection between the chief eligibility, zoning amendments

[19:34] and infrastructure funding.

[19:36] Can you get you to repeat that, please, Councillor?

[19:38] So that admin prepare or develop a communications plan that includes video I

[19:56] guess to explain chip

[20:01] eligibility funding

[20:06] comma zoning amendments and

[20:14] infrastructure planning and infrastructure can just be infrastructure.

[20:24] Thank you.

[20:31] The motion is as you want to know. Thank you.

[20:36] Okay. So we did have that moved in our queue. We do have Councillor Edwards followed by Councillor

[20:41] Brown.

[20:43] Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Thanks, Jeff, for the report. And I appreciate number

[20:48] three there. I think it's very important to explain to the public what's going on with both

[20:53] of these motions.

[20:56] So, Jeff, we have been doing a lot of repairs to the wastewater treatment

[21:04] plan and that's been in the budget for several years and increasing. So with this first part,

[21:11] first phase, how much will we save? Do we know how much we'll save on the repairs that we're

[21:18] currently doing?

[21:21] So the repairs that we've currently been doing aren't mostly aren't items that are

[21:27] covered by phase one construction. What they are is to ensure that the plant is stable and ready

[21:33] For when we do construction because at certain points of the of the construction you will have to take a

[21:40] Treatment stream down and you want we want we want to ensure that the plant as it is

[21:46] Can handle that through the extent of the of the repair

[21:52] Subsequent phases of the construction will touch on the clarifiers and the binary actors et cetera

[21:58] Once those are upgraded or rehabilitated, then in the end, yes, your maintenance costs

[22:07] will go down considerably.

[22:10] So the first phase here is to create that new stream, once that's end to incorporate

[22:16] growth, but the growth isn't there.

[22:18] So are we able to operate just on the, you know, with this one that we're building and another,

[22:25] and then we'll should save money over time

[22:30] because the growth isn't there, can we shut the one down?

[22:34] So the first phase really deals with the plants' headworks

[22:39] is one of the items that requires an upgrade first.

[22:45] The surge pond will enable us to be able to handle peak events

[22:50] during rainfalls.

[22:52] and by virtue of having that ability to divert to a surge pond you will

[22:58] increase your capacity through that plant through the plant overall because

[23:03] anything that goes above what we can currently treat will be

[23:06] diverted into the surge pond. It isn't it isn't specifically phase one isn't

[23:11] specifically required to handle growth I guess. Okay okay but once the phase one is

[23:18] done, we're not saving money on the maintenance.

[23:20] You will be saving money on the components that have been either made obsolete, like the

[23:26] head works of the plant.

[23:30] And then as the upgrades continue, you will see operational savings for items that don't

[23:36] need nearly as much maintenance work.

[23:39] All right.

[23:40] Okay.

[23:40] Thank you.

[23:44] Councillor Browell.

[23:46] Yes.

[23:47] Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

[23:48] there.

[23:50] To the Mr. Decivil. Council agrees to meet legislative standards, meet the

[23:59] terms and gist. Everything under number two there. What does all that mean? I'm looking

[24:06] at it. It seems to me that all of its tied to 7.2 where we have to agree to 7.2 that

[24:15] to do all this stuff, pardon my ignorance, but I don't know what all of number two means.

[24:23] Could you explain that to me?

[24:24] Yeah.

[24:25] So, in order to be able to submit for this funding application, administration requires

[24:32] a motion of council that speaks to those items specifically.

[24:37] Yeah, I understand that asking you for this approval somewhat goes ahead of the zoning change

[24:45] that makes this eligible for the funding, but I did want to give you the context of the

[24:51] reason and rationale behind why we feel that funding is really important for the waste

[24:57] water treatment plan.

[24:58] I get to funding part, but there is a lot of stuff that says Council agrees to, and I don't

[25:05] know what these legislators standards mean, and all the other stuff with the CHIF program

[25:14] So, I don't really like voting on this one prior to meeting the four units as a right because it seems to me that the federal government is kind of making us do something to get funding.

[25:32] On my opinion as a voter and everything else, you know, the federal government works for me.

[25:40] but they're telling me you have to do this if you want to funding so it's a hard

[25:47] pill to swallow for from my opinion I don't like the way this whole thing reads

[25:54] I'm having a lot of struggles with with the way this is all coming out so I was

[26:10] Sorry, options to recommendations that administration proceed with the waste water treatment plant upgrades and design.

[26:20] Without applying for this CHIF funding, why wouldn't we go with their option?

[26:30] Is there other than financial, is there something why why we wouldn't the main the main reason that we would want to achieve funding?

[26:39] is the financials. It's a significant difference in the total debt payment that the utility will

[26:48] have to fund for this phase of an upgrade. So the way I'm reading into this is it's a 2.8 million

[26:56] dollar difference but without them forcing us to agree to a different thing, right? Like where do you

[27:06] You put $2.8 million rather than getting bullied from the federal government.

[27:12] That's where I'm struggling, I think they're just bullying us over money.

[27:18] I don't agree with what they're doing, so other than the financial benefit.

[27:26] Go ahead, Mayor.

[27:30] Sorry.

[27:32] Go ahead.

[27:32] My understanding of getting a report from the member of the public for administration

[27:37] So that we can ask questions that will help us understand the report more clearly.

[27:43] I feel what Councillor Brown is doing is engaging in a debate with the presenter and I feel that that should be reserved for after the motion.

[27:52] Thank you.

[27:54] Thank you.

[27:57] I can speak to the funding.

[28:01] So the ship.

[28:04] Oh, sorry.

[28:06] Thank you, Mayor, for your point of procedure.

[28:09] I do find that the Council of Brown is close to the center of this and I do think we need

[28:18] to get back to more of the point of the motion that's before us.

[28:23] With some latitude, of course, I think Council of Brown, you're around the topic.

[28:29] It's just not quite a hundred percent on point, so.

[28:32] So, I do, if you'd like to take the liberty to finish.

[28:38] Yeah, I would like to finish like, I'm just wondering where we put a money value in front

[28:45] of the federal government saying you either do this or you don't get the money and that's

[28:50] just my point.

[28:51] Right.

[28:52] So, that's more of a statement than a question, right?

[28:54] Well, um, so my question would be, uh, Mr. D'Souva, should we continue on the way we're going,

[29:03] or should we just take the money and move forward rather than them bullying us into doing what

[29:11] they want us to do? Councillor Brown, I can answer that instead of the director. So, I mean, that's

[29:21] That's actually a decision for Council, or for executive committee, not for the director.

[29:28] But so, chiff funding is one form of funding.

[29:31] This is one funding stream that has come out from the federal government.

[29:37] As administration, we're bringing this forward saying, we could use the chiff funding for

[29:44] funding the wastewater treatment plant.

[29:45] And the phase one is $80 million that is a large amount of money to complete phase one.

[30:00] Or possibly get from chief.

[30:03] The utility bills would have to pay for the $80 million. So interest on the borrowing plus the principle payment. So the utility bills would have to pay for that. What we're staying in this report is basically we have an opportunity. This chief funding has come from the federal government. It is an option executive committee could use the chief funding if they feel

[30:29] that they want to wait for a different funding that could possibly be coming from the federal government you could wait

[30:36] Or you could fund it completely from utility bills. We feel that

[30:42] This is a good option and that's why it's being brought forward. It's basically you're saving $2.8 million a year on interest payments

[30:52] between borrowing $80 million or

[30:57] $80 million minus what you would get from the chief funding.

[31:03] You would save $2.8 million a year on utility bills.

[31:08] That's what we're saying here.

[31:10] But it is completely up to executive committee if they decide to ask for

[31:16] the chief funding or to wait for other funding that might come.

[31:20] Or to pay for the entire $80 million, proceed with the upgrade, pay for the entire $80 million from the utility.

[31:28] That's what, that's the option that you're being given.

[31:33] Okay, I'm just going to go back to Councillor Brown, because it finishes point.

[31:40] And then we'll move on to Councillor Edwards and the Mayor.

[31:44] Yes, thank you, Deputy Mayor.

[31:46] thank you to the city's manager. I'm fairly new to this and I get it. I'm just I feel like I'm

[31:54] getting bullied into making a decision with the federal government making us do something. So

[32:01] that's all my point was thank you. I appreciate that Councillor Brown and just some extent I agree

[32:07] with you that either we do this or we have to pay the full 80 million on on the backs of our utilities

[32:13] and so that is something that you can consider in how you vote, of course.

[32:19] So thank you, Councillor Edwards.

[32:23] Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

[32:26] I am in support of applying for a large sum of money because it's going to be a large

[32:35] hit to our residents if we don't, and this upgrade certainly is required and we need

[32:43] to take money where we can get money, for sure.

[32:47] Now, that being said, I don't disagree with Councillor Brown

[32:50] of what he's saying, but that's the next motion

[32:55] which I expect full debate on the next motion.

[32:58] This is just simply an application for funds

[33:01] and it doesn't really, it does tie to the next motion

[33:06] but it doesn't, we're applying for money, let's get it.

[33:08] But let's talk about the next motion, next.

[33:14] Thanks.

[33:15] Thank you, Councillor Edwards.

[33:16] That's a good point and it may help us as we work ourselves through this conversation.

[33:22] Mayor Polinski.

[33:24] I'm just taking a quick look.

[33:26] 2018-21 or actual revenue for a sewer was $4.5 million.

[33:31] 2022-4.3.

[33:35] 2023 was $4.4.

[33:37] and 4.4 at the time of the budget was done 4.4 million for 2024.

[33:46] So obviously the funding is mission critical.

[33:50] If we have a 10 year plan and with our current rates, it's going to be a long time before

[34:00] we pay off $250 million.

[34:02] dollars. So I guess we have a really big big sale or we go after the funding from the

[34:10] federal government but I really feel that the motion is a good motion and that we go ahead

[34:21] as Councilor Edward said and make application for this particular fund. So thank you.

[34:28] Thank you, Mayor, and last in the queue, we have Councillor Liowitz.

[34:34] Thank you, Deputy Mayor, and I guess the question or clarification of the Mayor, did you

[34:41] say it was a little over $4 million in revenue or profit?

[34:45] I have a question to Department of Finance.

[34:52] What was the profit in those years from the water bills versus revenue?

[35:05] Director of Financial Services.

[35:07] Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

[35:09] Thank you, Councilor, for the question.

[35:10] But I would have to look into that and get back to you.

[35:13] I can offer a bit of information to one of your points previously asked was how much money

[35:18] is there set aside, in the end there isn't any, the utility isn't a deficit to the general fund.

[35:25] We have been working a great deal towards reducing that, both in changing the model of how we deliver on the water side.

[35:35] That's yielded considerable surpluses, but those surpluses currently are going towards just the deficit component of the utility to the general fund.

[35:46] Okay, so if we see if we get the funding, we then have an annual debt payment of $3.3 million

[35:53] Are we gonna have to

[35:55] Raise some some water bills to be able to cover that. Yes. That's what it's looking at. Yes. It will come through on the the utility rates on the waste water

[36:04] Charge component of that do we have like an estimated significance because that's only for phase one

[36:10] right? Yeah, I I have been working on

[36:13] a 10-year projection for the utility and we will be working in a funded model and an unfunded model but that's going to be coming forward with the utility budget and sort of those early presentations.

[36:29] Okay, are we going to be, you know, obviously we'll see this again at City Council.

[36:35] Will we get that information before we have a finalized vote on this?

[36:39] because we should know how much is going to affect our rate payers before we give it a thumbs up.

[36:48] Yeah, I can pull together some projections and see what makes the most sense to provide.

[36:53] I mean, some of that's contingent on subsequent decisions of council, but sure, yeah.

[36:59] Okay, no, thank you.

[37:01] Yeah, so the motion today is whether we're going to apply for the shift funding.

[37:06] So, relatively, I think it's either we pay $3 million or $6 million on funded.

[37:13] That's about as much information as we're going to have to either support or not support

[37:18] the application and we'll see what the will of council is if I sum that up correctly.

[37:24] Thank you, Director.

[37:26] I think we're ready for the vote and

[37:39] that vote is now open so your motion is on.

[37:44] Okay, and that vote does pass 8 to 1,

[37:57] okay, thank you.

[37:59] Okay, so next up on our agenda we do have 7.2 as most council has already indicated this is highly related to item 7.1, but different.

[38:09] And so four units as of right, Canada Housing Infrastructure Funding Application, create Gilleinger Director of Community Development is going to give a verbal presentation when you're ready, Director.

[38:22] Thank you, Deputy Mayor and thank you members of Council.

[38:25] So now you've got a good idea of the project that we're applying for under the CHIF funding.

[38:30] What I'm presenting on this afternoon is the implications and the requirements from this

[38:35] federal program, namely for units as of right.

[38:40] So essentially what for units as of right means is that every residential zone across the city

[38:46] needs to adopt zoning by-law amendments to allow for up to four units in the zoning by-law.

[38:54] And that permit approval is administrative, so they would not be forwarded to City Council

[38:59] on an individual basis.

[39:03] Where this comes from earlier this year, the federal government initiated a $6 billion

[39:07] cross-nation program called the Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund of that fund, about 190 million

[39:15] or so was earmarked for the province of Saskatchewan and then the province is also kicking in

[39:21] the balance for a total of $320 million. In order to qualify for the funding, you have to have

[39:27] a population of over $30,000. 30,000 people, pardon me, we've met internally. We've discussed

[39:35] the number of projects and the wastewater treatment plant was barred on the most critical piece of

[39:41] infrastructure that the City of Prince Albert needs to address our shortage of housing.

[39:48] Like Councillor Kilmer said, if you've got land that's great, if you've got housing

[39:51] that's great, if you've got a plan for the housing that's great, but if you don't have

[39:54] the infrastructure to support it, it kind of becomes a moot point.

[39:59] So the wastewater treatment plant is a project as our director of public works presented on

[40:04] that we've earmarks for this funding.

[40:10] So, in approving zoning bylaw amendments, we've also come up with a robust communication

[40:15] plan.

[40:16] I appreciate the additional motion made as well, and we'll work with our communications team

[40:20] and our public work department to make sure that's rolled out in an adequate time frame.

[40:25] Coming up on October the 7th, we've already prepared some zoning bylaw changes.

[40:30] Those will be presented for first reading.

[40:32] and then following up on that on November the 17th for second and third reading.

[40:37] We've had one intake in the spring for this program, which we weren't prepared to do because it's such an important subject matter.

[40:45] And second intake is this fall with a date, a due date on November the 28th.

[40:50] So it is a very quick turnaround with some fairly static dates that have no flexibility.

[40:57] So, we are, once we get this approved, we are moving ahead quite quickly.

[41:02] We did a media release on October the 10th, which I'm sure you would have seen.

[41:05] We had a press conference as well, the same day and provided that information to our media

[41:11] partners.

[41:12] And this is an important topic.

[41:14] So we're also prepared to provide public notification to everyone located in the zones

[41:19] affected.

[41:20] So that would be our low density to high density zones.

[41:24] in our zoning by-law is R1, R2, R3, R4, and also our residential mixed-use zone, which is the zone right adjacent to downtown that has some commercial and residential properties.

[41:37] You will note that this amendment does not include our country residential properties north of the river simply because they are not part of city infrastructure.

[41:47] They're on their own well in septic systems so that wouldn't be adequate, and that is something that we flagged for the federal government and they've agreed to.

[41:55] We prepared some draft zoning changes already, and those have been presented at the province.

[42:00] And they have forwarded those to the federal government for discussion.

[42:05] And right up until last week we've been dialoguing with the federal and the provincial government just to get a better understanding of what the flexibility means and what the implications are of this program.

[42:16] because it does have, it does certainly have an impact on our community.

[42:20] One thing that is very clear is that four units as of right is a non-negotiable.

[42:26] It is required as part of the program and that it is something that in order to qualify and

[42:30] get funding for, you need to adopt four units as of right in the zoning bylaw.

[42:37] However, I'll also touch very briefly on the benefits to this program.

[42:43] beyond the obvious wastewater treatment plan infrastructure.

[42:48] We do, and we've had a housing needs assessment done earlier this year, and it identified

[42:53] some real shortcomings in our city housing needs.

[42:57] On our website, we call that the missing middle, right?

[43:00] We've got a lot of really high end housing, but there's a real housing need for

[43:05] that kind of entry level housing deficit to the tune of about 1,400 units.

[43:10] That's not something that happens overnight, in order to meet some of those thresholds which I think the housing needs assessment identified about 60 units per year that we need to complete we do need help from different levels of government and sometimes that comes in the form of agreements and programs so this does definitely tick a box and it's a it's a big one and if done properly it can have a big impact on our housing needs assessment and start pushing some of the right direction so that is a significant

[43:39] significant benefit of this program for sure.

[43:43] Now, there might be concerns in the community that all of a sudden they'll be four plexes

[43:48] and triplexes and do plexes popping up all over the city.

[43:51] We do have one very important tool in our toolbox to manage that and that is our zoning

[43:56] by-law.

[43:57] Our zoning by-law, as you know, regulates development.

[44:02] So although four units as of right, we'll be located in the zoning by-law as it permitted

[44:06] use in all of our residential zones.

[44:08] Please note that parking requirements still have to be met.

[44:13] Our setbacks still need to be met so the distance from the building to the property lines.

[44:17] Our minimum landscaping requirements still need to be met or lot width requirements still need to be met.

[44:25] So just those requirements alone will make a lot of the properties in the city simply not qualify.

[44:31] Because in order to meet all of those regulations, you won't be able to fit anything above a single family home.

[44:37] So that is something to note, and that is something that as is reflected in the motion that we continue to take reasonable steps to minimize the impact on established neighborhoods.

[44:47] We'll continue to dialogue with the province and we'll continue to dialogue with the federal government.

[44:53] We'll continue to look at what other cities are doing.

[44:56] thing.

[45:00] The minimum standards are met with the federal government. Our zoning bylaw is not a static document. It can be flexible. It can change. So we'll continue to monitor the impact of the program and the impact of the regulations we put in place. And there's certainly nothing stopping us from bringing amendments back to tighten it up as best as we can. And we're certainly committed to that. So when we look at next steps, again, November 17th is second and third reading.

[45:27] we've worked really closely with our communications team who have done an excellent job of establishing a number of questions on our website.

[45:35] If you do get questions, it's really important for the public to understand, but I think the website does a really good job of breaking down those questions in simple form for the community to understand.

[45:45] So just on our website, it's front and center, CDPA.ca. I'd like to refer members of the public to our kind of Q&A page, because I believe it answers most of those questions.

[45:56] But in a nutshell, that's what the four units as the right program is.

[46:01] As early as October the 27th, you'll see what the zoning changes look like.

[46:05] And as early as November 17th is when we'll have those that zoning by our finalized.

[46:10] So with that, I'll pass it on to you and I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

[46:14] Okay.

[46:15] Q is lighting up.

[46:16] So are there any questions for administration before the motion is placed on the floor?

[46:23] Councillor Browne.

[46:24] Yes, thank you, Deputy Mayor, and to the Director of Planning.

[46:29] What was the rationale for not having the four units as of a right prior to the CHIF funding?

[46:41] So the rationale for four units as of right is not necessarily a new concept.

[46:45] It's been around for a very, very long time.

[46:48] From a planning perspective, there are different ways to achieve densities throughout

[46:52] in neighbourhood. As we've spoken to and the housing needs assessment identified there

[46:58] is a continuum of housing and from a planning, a professional planning perspective you

[47:03] can achieve that in different ways. So you can zone areas of the city to include pockets

[47:07] of higher density development which we feel does achieve some of those standards that we need

[47:14] to meet as established in the housing needs assessment. However, with the chief funding and the

[47:19] The focus of our current government on housing and getting more housing units fast.

[47:26] Chiff, and the house or four units as the right is probably one of the more aggressive forms of getting that done.

[47:30] So up until this point, we felt we met the need of that higher density housing.

[47:36] But the federal government has asked that we kind of take the next step and

[47:40] take more of a aggressive approach.

[47:42] Okay, thank you for the answer.

[47:45] My next question is, does y'all empty lots in the city, like specifically in the West

[47:53] Flat?

[47:55] Does that is that taken into account on the sewer need, because there is a lot of empty

[47:59] lots.

[48:00] There are in my ward with that not being used to full capacity, does that have any intake

[48:10] or would you call it an impact on the situation?

[48:16] Yeah, absolutely, I appreciate the question.

[48:18] So when we added number two to the motion, where it says,

[48:22] or where additional density cannot be reasonably supported,

[48:26] that was a very conscious decision, right?

[48:29] We don't want to add units where our infrastructure can't handle it.

[48:33] So if we're adding four plexes or a high rise apartment or something like that,

[48:37] and we're kind of forced to approve it.

[48:39] But on the other hand, our infrastructure can't support it.

[48:41] that puts us in a really tough spot.

[48:43] So similar to our country residential properties,

[48:46] where their infrastructure can't support higher density,

[48:49] something that we want to keep in mind

[48:51] when approving our zoning regulations,

[48:53] is that we go through a proper review

[48:56] to make sure that if density is added,

[48:58] that our infrastructure,

[48:59] underground infrastructure can't support it.

[49:01] Okay, and then I guess my final question is

[49:04] if we do expand to bind a,

[49:07] the, wherever the, um, Victoria Hospital, if we do make more subdivisions, does that impact

[49:15] on the size of the pipe or how does that articulate to the regular guy like, is it a bigger

[49:22] pipe, like a bigger sewer line or is it just a standard thing we use?

[49:27] Yeah, thanks for the question.

[49:28] I'm giving a very simplified answer and certainly if our director of public works would like

[49:32] to chime in.

[49:34] So when planning for neighborhoods, the short answer to your question is yes, right?

[49:40] When you add units, it creates impact on our systems.

[49:45] So we have to make sure that when we do create additional units, our systems can handle it.

[49:50] So in neighborhood like West Hill, for example, when you've got new developments, something that we're looking at right now is our West Hill master plan, making sure that it can support development.

[49:58] So, again, to your point, the addition of number two, where that additional density cannot

[50:04] be reasonably supported, is going to be taken very seriously as part of this program.

[50:08] Perfect. Thank you.

[50:10] Thank you, Councillor Brough. Excellent points. Councillor Kilmer.

[50:13] Thank you. And thank you for the presentation. I've got two questions about zoning, particular

[50:18] zoning. The first is you said minimum landscaping. So, my thought or questions that I'm getting

[50:26] from residents involves the four plex takes up the entire part of the lot and therefore

[50:35] runoff ends up for the neighbor, right, and causes problems for that neighbor.

[50:43] So what exactly do you mean by minimum landscaping and does it hit what I just said?

[50:48] Yep, nope, thank you for the question.

[50:49] So, our zoning by-law right now says that a site cannot be covered by more than 50% by buildings.

[50:57] So, everything that is not covered by buildings normally would be covered by landscaping or something like a driveway, pavement concrete, which has an impact on storm water management.

[51:07] Our zoning by-law currently does not manage storm water.

[51:10] We do have some other policy language in the city that do, but that has been flagged in the past, not as for units as the right.

[51:18] But different areas that we potentially need to look at to make sure, you know, necessary updates are made to not

[51:24] Adversity effect neighboring properties. So the language in our zoning by-laws not being changed at this time for that scenario

[51:31] But it has already been flagged as something that will lead to address and that is covered in a by-law

[51:36] Is what I'm hearing you say that there is a by-law about the amount of cement that can cover a property?

[51:41] Right now there is yes, okay. Thank you. And then my second

[51:46] And question about zoning is about shadow, anything about shadows.

[51:53] So, you know, people they're worried is they have their house, they're nice yard, and

[51:59] now they have a four levels coming beside them and now creates a shadow that absolutely

[52:08] changes their properties, is there anything in regard to shadowing?

[52:13] Yeah, thank you for the question.

[52:13] And so we don't have any specific language that speaks to shadowing.

[52:17] However, a culmination of regulations does have an impact on shadowing.

[52:21] So for example, we have a maximum building height.

[52:24] So a building can only be a certain height.

[52:28] Setbacks from a property line need to be met.

[52:31] A common front line of the buildings need to be met.

[52:34] And we'll do what we can to manage what we can.

[52:37] But to be frank and to be totally forthcoming, right?

[52:42] But if you're allowing for units, we cannot control the orientation of the building,

[52:47] or whether it's how the units fit onto a site, right?

[52:52] So in some cases, especially in infill neighborhoods, there is a potential likelihood that some out of the box designs could impact things like shadowing,

[53:03] or lighting, or sight lines in established neighborhoods for adjacent property owners.

[53:08] But I did hear you say that part of the zoning is the setback all of that impacts the design correct and

[53:16] Yeah, thank you very much.

[53:21] Thank you councilmember. Next we have Mayor Polanski

[53:25] Thank you deputy mayor. Thank you director Gettinger

[53:29] I just need clarification on a couple of points one of them

[53:35] And parking is also a requirement of this particular zoning bylaw that we have.

[53:42] So is that on-street parking or is that driveway access parking or?

[53:48] Yeah, thanks, Marit's a great question.

[53:49] So yeah, parking has a big impact on the viability of these types of projects.

[53:53] So simply put, every unit requires one on-site parking stall, not on the street on-site.

[54:01] So, for example, a four unit building will require four onsite parking stalls, and with the minimum dimensions of those parking stalls, with the maximum size of a crossing, that will very much limit the neighborhoods and the lots that can accommodate four units.

[54:18] Okay, so the second part of my question is, I understand that it's two, three, four application, two, three, four housing units.

[54:30] units, like a duplex, a triplex, or a fourplex, and of course, I think a lot of people

[54:36] just zero in on the fourplex, but does this also include townhouse, rowhouse, condo,

[54:46] fourplex stacked, all of those are all of those options under this plan?

[54:52] Yeah, thanks for the question.

[54:54] So, yeah, four units can take different forms, whether it's, you know, a duplex with basement suites, whether it's four, you know, row townhouses, whether it's kind of a walkup, you know, small apartment with two units up top and two units at the bottom, it can look different ways.

[55:10] So, basically, anyway, you can accommodate four units as long as it meets those regulations in our zoning by the good account for that change in or could account for the program.

[55:20] So it does have to have for units and the development.

[55:26] Every zone has to allow up to four units.

[55:29] So yeah, if someone in one of our low density zones would only like to apply for a duplex

[55:34] or that's all that the site can accommodate, that would be allowed as well under the program.

[55:37] Okay.

[55:38] So it's not, as some of the reports have been, it's not restricted or solely focused on

[55:47] the four.

[55:47] It's up to four.

[55:49] Yes.

[55:49] I have to do more than a single so that it'd be a two to four, right?

[55:53] Right, yeah.

[55:53] Thank you.

[55:55] Okay, thank you, Mayor.

[55:57] Councillor Layowicz.

[56:00] Thank you, Deputy Mayor, and a question through the Chair

[56:03] to the Director.

[56:06] So I worry about some of our single family homes

[56:10] that are on some pretty big lots

[56:11] in some of our older areas of the city.

[56:14] You know, a lot of dimensions kind of used

[56:16] to be pretty significant size.

[56:18] And that's one of the things that attracts people to those areas.

[56:21] And that's an attractive part of our city is that we have some nice, big lots with some older homes.

[56:28] You've covered the conditions that would deny an application in some aspects.

[56:33] What's the application process for demolishing an existing house?

[56:40] Yeah, thanks for the question.

[56:41] So it's a fairly standard process similar to our building construction, building permit.

[56:49] So you apply with our community development department for a demo.

[56:54] You need a demolition plan, you have to apply for a permit.

[56:56] You have to make sure that all the shut-offs are done with crown utilities.

[57:00] And ultimately that business licensing and those sorts of things are in place are land full approvals.

[57:06] and then approval is given to demolish the home.

[57:10] And that's strictly an administration process?

[57:13] Yes. Yes.

[57:15] Yeah, no, I just, I worry a little bit if this goes through

[57:18] that we're going to see some of our older communities

[57:22] changing very quickly and having investors come in

[57:25] and level out some old, beautiful character homes

[57:28] or wartime homes or whatever,

[57:29] just to utilize that lot size.

[57:32] I feel like it might target some areas of town more than others, but that's it for me.

[57:40] Thank you.

[57:42] Thank you, Councilor Lee.

[57:43] What's fair points again, Councillor Hitt?

[57:46] Thank you, Deputy Mayor, and thank you to the Director for the presentation and the information

[57:50] provided today.

[57:51] Thank you.

[57:52] You went through some benefits and yes, right off the top, wastewater treatment plant of

[57:56] this grant, benefits of the grant is the wastewater treatment plant and the housing needs.

[57:59] And of course, we have that assessment done which highlights just how behind we are in the city at 1,400 units, 60 units per year is kind of affordable housing is critical for a healthy vibrant community for sure.

[58:14] I'm not a big fan of how this grant came forward but we definitely need this money's in our community and I'm hearing some of the answers you've answered some of that.

[58:24] But the biggest one was, you know, how do we mitigate some of the changes that this could

[58:29] have fact, and you touched on it in your report, saying that you're going to, you know,

[58:34] you can highlight some of those zoning bylaws, parking requirements, setbacks, minimum,

[58:42] a lot with and minimum, minimal, oh geez, thank you, you know, assessing the grass

[58:53] and other weeds on the property. But I guess the biggest question I have is, is this

[58:58] for new builds only, and so there's been some talk about, you know, existing properties,

[59:03] is this grant only for the new builds? So that's the first question. I can stop there if

[59:08] Do you like it?

[59:09] Yeah, no, it's a great question.

[59:11] So it can be for a retrofit as well.

[59:14] However, it is worth noting that it's not as simple as just

[59:19] converting a four bedroom home into four units, right?

[59:22] There's still a pretty onerous building permit process

[59:25] that you have to follow.

[59:26] Building code still applies,

[59:28] separations, heating, all those types of things.

[59:30] So retrofitting a large home would definitely take some work

[59:35] and would definitely take some costing

[59:37] and would still require building permits and approvals by the city.

[59:41] So what about, and it's kind of mentioned empty lots, because we have a variety of them throughout the city.

[59:49] Can we expect possibly four plexes popping up on those do lots without any kind of say with this council?

[1:00:00] You know, again, if all regulations are met, what I will say, though, with the little aspects is, like, a lot has to be a real fair size in order to accommodate something like a fourplex. And some of our neighborhoods with 33-foot lots, even 40-foot lots, which is some of our more historic neighborhoods, it would be very difficult to meet all of our regulations and fit even a duplex, something like achieving, you know, approval with our crossing by law in itself.

[1:00:29] would be very difficult, allowing for parking stalls in front of a building that just backs out onto a 50 foot crossing onto a street would not be permitted.

[1:00:40] So while they could be part of the program and people can inquire on them and they are zoned appropriately, it would be very difficult to say that our existing neighborhood lots, vacant lots right now would qualify.

[1:00:57] I think would take some real specific circumstances.

[1:01:00] Okay, thank you for that.

[1:01:02] And then the last, one of the last questions I have, I guess there may be more, but for now.

[1:01:06] You said one intake for this in the spring, and then maybe this fall, there will be another intake.

[1:01:12] What did you mean by the one intake?

[1:01:13] There was some interest already in the community.

[1:01:15] Yeah, sorry, and thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

[1:01:18] So the program was approved just at the beginning of 2025, and the federal government and the province,

[1:01:23] in conjunction with the province, opened up applications in the spring for one application intake.

[1:01:30] And now they've opened up another one in November here by the end of the month.

[1:01:35] So that was a federal intake for the program and provincial intake for the program, not necessarily controlled by the news value.

[1:01:41] So there is some interest already and we possibly once making this change, we could see some of these developments happen fairly quick within our city, I would assume.

[1:01:48] Thank you. The last one I guess I

[1:01:53] think I'll stop for now but you've answered some of my questions. I'll stop there and maybe there'll be a few others that will clarify.

[1:02:02] Thank you Councillor Heddin. Next in the queue we have Councillor Pronto.

[1:02:07] Thank you Deputy Mayor. A little while ago we were just talking about areas in the city where the infrastructure might not support a higher density.

[1:02:15] have we kind of identified some of those areas in the city where the infrastructure might not be able to handle several four-plex units, that type of thing.

[1:02:25] Thank you for the question. We haven't done an analysis of all empty lots or anything like that.

[1:02:31] What I will say is that although a approval will not be required by city council, every application that we get goes through a,

[1:02:40] kind of a development permit, inter-departmental review process, so it will go to our Department

[1:02:46] of Public Works for comment on the infrastructure needs, our director of park check and culture,

[1:02:52] for example, to identify what those pinch points, if any, what those issues might be that impact

[1:02:58] their areas of expertise.

[1:03:01] So we haven't identified exactly which lots may or may not qualify, but we've got a system

[1:03:06] in place it'll make sure that that is caught if, you know, as it comes up.

[1:03:10] Okay, that's what I was looking forward to.

[1:03:12] As it comes up, it's kind of how it's going to work, so.

[1:03:15] Okay, and my second question is we just passed a new build tax rebate program.

[1:03:23] Is there any kind of synergies between, you know, two, three, four units and the rebate?

[1:03:31] I appreciate the question.

[1:03:32] And so the new construction, commercial and residential construction program was specifically for five units end up.

[1:03:39] So four units, what we're contemplating today would not qualify for that program.

[1:03:43] Perfect, thank you.

[1:03:44] You're welcome.

[1:03:45] Good question again.

[1:03:47] Councillor Browne.

[1:03:49] Yes, thank you, Deputy Your Worship.

[1:03:55] I guess my question is, can we appeal to the federal government to give us funding without the amendment

[1:04:03] for a for for for units as a right.

[1:04:07] Thank you for the question, Councillor Brown.

[1:04:10] So that the program is set, it's a 10-year program.

[1:04:13] We've I know there's already been applications made by across the country.

[1:04:17] So I don't believe there's an opportunity to appeal to change this program.

[1:04:22] Obviously there's nothing stopping us or you as city councilors of sharing your concerns or writing letters or things like that.

[1:04:28] But to amend the program to eliminate the four units as of right.

[1:04:32] We've explicitly asked that question and some flexibility in how that is applied and we're quite

[1:04:38] Quite confident that the approach we're taking is what is required

[1:04:42] Yeah, so just to give you a just to give you an example because remember that this requirement is for populations over 30,000

[1:04:51] So any

[1:04:53] municipality that has less than 30,000 does not have to make these changes to their zoning value, right? So

[1:04:59] So I do know for a fact City, Regina, City of Saskatoon and the City of

[1:05:05] Moisture have already made these amendments to their zoning by-law.

[1:05:10] So really, it is only the City of PA that would not be eligible for funding under the

[1:05:18] CHIF program if we decided not to change the zoning by-law in Saskatchewan.

[1:05:24] So that's the 320 million that has been set aside.

[1:05:27] So, we would be the only ones.

[1:05:30] Well, if I may, I would like to move the option for the recommendation and there that there is the option not to pursue the zoning changes and allow for four units as of right and low density residential zones.

[1:05:45] questions.

[1:05:48] I would like to go with the option. I don't believe we should be bullied

[1:05:53] in to something just monetarily wise. I don't think that's right.

[1:06:01] So I'm just checking if she knows what you're reading the option for the recommendation.

[1:06:06] I would prefer to move the recommendation than the recommendation.

[1:06:15] And if I get a second

[1:06:16] I'll explain. That's executive. So. Oh, well,

[1:06:24] we just need clarification on what the motion is. So we're waiting until you clerk patiently.

[1:07:19] Do you have a couple in the queue or three? Do we want to debate this motion or do we want to go to vote on it?

[1:07:26] If I may give a rationale.

[1:07:35] Okay, well I guess then we will move on to debate.

[1:07:38] This is, this motion is except to you, Councillor Browne.

[1:07:41] Yeah.

[1:07:41] That's the one.

[1:07:42] Yeah and if I may explain why I would prefer to do this, there was a reason why we didn't

[1:07:49] do it before I guess and I don't like the federal government bullying us into doing something

[1:07:58] for a monetary value in exchange for us changing a bylaw. I don't think that's correct.

[1:08:04] I think the federal government works for us and we don't work for them. So, for them

[1:08:09] to bully us into changing our bylaws strictly for a financial gain, I don't find that correct.

[1:08:17] So, thank you.

[1:08:19] Okay. Thank you, Councillor Brown.

[1:08:23] Next in the queue, we have Councillor Edwards.

[1:08:24] Thank

[1:08:27] you, Deputy Mayor. I have a couple of questions to the director before I proceed to debate this motion.

[1:08:37] Have we considered, I mean, we have a housing needs assessment that we're, I think it was 14 to 1600, is it units that were?

[1:08:45] Yeah, correct.

[1:08:46] Have we considered all of the boarded up houses in that formula because if we've addressed some of those issues, that amount must go down.

[1:08:55] Yeah, thanks for the question, Councillor Edwards.

[1:08:59] So to your point, that 1,400 units, if those boarded up houses were brought back into

[1:09:06] the inventory and made more viable, those would lessen that 1,400 units, so those would

[1:09:11] have a positive impact.

[1:09:13] Yeah, and a positive impact on the lower amount of four units that we require.

[1:09:20] So are we working on all of them?

[1:09:22] I know it's a different topic, but it's the same topic.

[1:09:24] So are we working on putting some of these, or all of the boarded up housing back into circulation somehow or whether they're demolished or what because it's not a good situation?

[1:09:38] Yeah, thanks for the question.

[1:09:40] So when we talk about, you know, that is a community safety well being and a bylaw initiative.

[1:09:44] When we talk about pieces of the puzzle, I can say that yes, we do have, you know, we have an action table that's focused on not only landlords but

[1:09:53] boarded up houses, and we've got a few initiatives to give us the tools to be a little bit more aggressive with how we approach boarded up houses to get those boards off and get them rentable again.

[1:10:04] So short answer is yes, we're working on that.

[1:10:08] Okay.

[1:10:10] Okay, so that's my questions for the director now. I'll go on to the debate here. I'm not going to vote in favor of this motion.

[1:10:18] I don't like the original motion either, but to throw away tens of millions of dollars

[1:10:26] down the tube because of something that we don't appreciate or don't like is not the

[1:10:31] smart way to do things for food.

[1:10:34] We're not going to win that fight.

[1:10:36] I don't like the fact that the federal government can say, hey, do this or no money for you.

[1:10:42] That's a ridiculous way to do business, but that's the way they chose.

[1:10:46] and we need to move forward with it, they're pressuring us and I don't like it either and I want to make sure we voice in communication pieces out there that we were pressured into support this.

[1:11:04] I don't want big units all over the city, but I think you've clarified a lot, the fact that we're not going to see that necessarily, but we will see an impact to our community,

[1:11:15] where some of these will be popped up and it's they're going to look out of

[1:11:19] place. I don't think we can protect the entire city on that. As long as our city

[1:11:25] knows that we were forced into this and they should because the city will be

[1:11:32] saying soon they'll be comments all over the place that the city's ridiculous.

[1:11:40] The making decisions like this while we don't have a choice. We don't have a choice.

[1:11:44] We can't throw away millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars and then try and collect from our public.

[1:11:54] Hey, we denied this. We got to collect from you because we need that infrastructure money. How can we do that?

[1:12:01] We were faced with a large tax increase last year. Let's deny all of these millions of dollars and see what the increase is when we need that infrastructure.

[1:12:12] Well, that's just not smart way to do business at all.

[1:12:17] So as much as I don't appreciate it,

[1:12:19] I'm not going to let my pride get in the way

[1:12:21] of accepting millions of dollars in possible funding.

[1:12:26] However, if we apply for the last motion

[1:12:29] for what we just approved, the chief money,

[1:12:35] if we don't get it, I anticipate someone in this chamber

[1:12:39] and I will do it personally to withdraw this motion.

[1:12:43] Absolutely.

[1:12:43] We've got no issues with that whatsoever

[1:12:45] if we don't get funding.

[1:12:47] Hey, you're going to force us,

[1:12:48] well, show us the money.

[1:12:51] It's critical.

[1:12:52] Because if we don't get the money,

[1:12:54] then we can take this down as quick as it came up.

[1:12:59] So that's why I'm going to support the original motion,

[1:13:02] but I won't be supporting this motion.

[1:13:06] Okay, thank you, Councillor Edwards.

[1:13:07] So I'm just going to make a couple of comments on the question as I haven't had an opportunity to do so yet.

[1:13:12] So going back to the original for you and says, right, I did have a question around.

[1:13:18] And you've done a really good job directing in terms of explaining different options.

[1:13:22] And you really don't know a lot about some things, but lot sizes and other things could be limited.

[1:13:27] One thing that did occur to me though that I've seen happen in other municipalities is garage conversions.

[1:13:34] And whether you have two separate buildings possibly on a property, would that be an option under the four units as of right?

[1:13:43] Yeah, thanks for the question, Deputy Mayor, that would be an option with four units as of right.

[1:13:50] There are other considerations as well.

[1:13:52] It does get a little bit more complicated for servicing, because you potentially have two service connections.

[1:13:57] So, again, to point number two, not all areas of the city would be able to allow for that story in the previous motion,

[1:14:06] because servicing a property like that has impacts as well.

[1:14:12] But simply put, garage conversions like they allow us to as an example would potentially qualify.

[1:14:18] Again, given everything else that you've already said, that would make some sense.

[1:14:22] So, and around lot size, I think you will re-explain, you know, we do have a lot of lots of 33 feet wide or 40 feet wide and they're not going to accommodate a four-plex unless they're like 400 feet long.

[1:14:34] Correct, we don't have any of those while we wait a couple of those. But okay, no, I appreciate that.

[1:14:40] When I look at the motion, I do think that the federal government is making us do this under a bit of dress, but I do think that our community needs the water treatment plant.

[1:14:51] So for trading that for something I guess or some help towards the water treatment or sorry waste water

[1:15:00] We have to go. Nobody here is going to like that. But if the money doesn't come through as Councillor Edward said, I don't think there would be any support for this at all. So I will move along in the queue back to next up is Councillor Head. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. And thanks all my colleagues for their questions. It's helpful. I do have a couple of questions and in a comment on this one. So I guess just to follow up, and I think you mentioned it, Director, already, how long do we have to make these changes for? You said it's a 10-year program. I'm assuming that.

[1:15:29] that has to align with our changes?

[1:15:33] Yeah, thanks to the question, Councillor Head.

[1:15:34] Yes, it's a 10-year program and you have up to 10 years to utilize the funds.

[1:15:39] So after all those funds are utilized, I expect the council could revisit or look at the impacts

[1:15:47] and report back in those types of things.

[1:15:49] Yeah, no, that's helpful.

[1:15:50] Also, guarantees.

[1:15:51] What guarantees do we have to get this grant?

[1:15:54] Is there any?

[1:15:54] I mean, we're going to put the application in, but do we have any guarantees as well

[1:15:58] all that this can benefit our city.

[1:16:01] Yeah, thanks for the question.

[1:16:02] No, I can't guarantee you'll get the program.

[1:16:05] I can provide guarantees in the fact that it will be

[1:16:08] applying for a project that qualifies

[1:16:10] and remediating all of the criteria,

[1:16:12] but there is only a certain amount of funding

[1:16:15] being provided to the province

[1:16:17] and it does depend on the total monetary value

[1:16:22] of all of the applications being made

[1:16:24] in those types of things.

[1:16:25] So unfortunately there's no guarantees

[1:16:27] when it comes to the amount or whether it will be successful.

[1:16:30] No, that's fair, and that's kind of what was my next question around what other cities,

[1:16:33] so there's already a couple cities that are in front of us and likely accessing this funds.

[1:16:37] And, you know, I hope I don't see a reason why we wouldn't qualify for this grand funding.

[1:16:41] So I'm hopeful we are, but that was the next question I had around other cities.

[1:16:45] And then you also said something that I'm really happy to hear as well, unrelated to this,

[1:16:48] but boarded up houses working on and taking a very aggressive approach.

[1:16:51] I know that's been a concern in all the wards that we'd like to see address.

[1:16:56] So we're looking forward to hearing that report now on this motion.

[1:16:59] You know, I get the frustration I too feel like there's reasons why municipalities engage in planners and we go through, you know, all this work to ensure a city looks a certain way in neighborhood looks, you know, drives with the next neighborhood.

[1:17:10] And so I get I get the frustration when we're told it doesn't matter make the change in order to get the funding.

[1:17:16] However, to the points made today, we can say to those one of those hops and choices again, we can't say no to these things and so it's going to benefit the community if approved, of course.

[1:17:24] But also, it's, you know, it addresses some of our housing needs we have in the city and it's tough to say, you know, this is something that we're engaging in because of some of the rules you put in place.

[1:17:36] It's something that it's necessary for the city. It's unfortunate that the government have taken these positions, but, you know, we're all on board with the monies coming into our community, so I'm very happy to that.

[1:17:45] And I'm going to be voting no against this motion and yes to the original motion. Thank you.

[1:17:49] Thank you, Councillor Hedges. Just to follow up question to Councillor Hedges' point.

[1:17:54] So we submit an application. What's the typical turnaround time? Or is there a typical

[1:17:58] turnaround time when would we hear back? Yeah, we have, they haven't announced phase

[1:18:04] one of the program. It usually does take several months. But yeah, that's a question that

[1:18:11] we will be following up and get a better idea of when we'll be hearing back.

[1:18:15] So we would probably have an idea by next construction season more than likely I know you can't give me any certainty to that

[1:18:23] Yeah, so for example, it was a spring application for the first phase of Chiff and I believe that those

[1:18:32] Those individuals haven't been advised yet. So that was in the spring. We're now in the fall. So

[1:18:39] I'm not sure when they're even going to be advising the phase one

[1:18:43] individuals of their application so it is very hard to indicate when it might be it could be an

[1:18:50] entire year. Thank you for the response. Next we have Mayor Polinsky. Thank you Deputy and thank

[1:18:59] your colleagues and I agree with Councillor Brown in terms of it feels like we're being forced in

[1:19:06] in the ideal world we would get money from the government, no strings attached, certainly

[1:19:14] not the environment that we live in these days or probably never did.

[1:19:22] So if it was open season with no restrictions, that would be awesome.

[1:19:28] It's not unusual.

[1:19:29] In fact, it's the common practice for any program of the government runs to put conditions.

[1:19:35] and we have a choice as Councillor Brawins illustrated, you know, we can express a concern

[1:19:41] and say, well, we choose not to participate and that's fair. As Councillor Edwards pointed

[1:19:48] out, we would have a certain amount of accountability to about 2.8 million and annual servicing costs

[1:19:55] for debt only or only the interest. The other thing is I want to encourage us not to get caught

[1:20:03] on the weeds on this. I mean, there's there's principle, which means I feel I'm being bullied, but there's a practicality, and that practicality goes back to the fact that yes, there are restrictions, but yes, this fits with our housing needs survey, it fits with the desire that we have alongside the federal government to increase housing stock, to increase affordable housing, to respond to obviously what our, you know, our needs are, and it aligns

[1:20:33] It's very well with what the federal government is putting out at the moment.

[1:20:39] The other thing I've done is I've taken a look at the official community plan, is indicated

[1:20:44] by Dr. King or in the report, you know, 6.313, so it's promoted a mix of uses in each neighborhood

[1:20:55] so that each is complete with a range of residential densities, amenities, parks, commercial

[1:21:03] units. So we've already committed in a community plan, an official plan to look at implementing

[1:21:11] this type of housing approach. So, you know, all programs require conditions, and that's

[1:21:19] given, but I think what we really need to do is elevate the thinking, not feeling with

[1:21:24] hurt feelings that, you know, we're being pushed around, simply put, we have an official community

[1:21:32] plan, we have a housing need survey, everything aligns up so I certainly, you know, with respect, I can't support this motion but I can certainly support the initial motion. Thank you.

[1:21:47] Thank you, Mayor. Councillor Pronto.

[1:21:50] Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I, and maybe I'll hear from some of my residents but I don't feel bullied by this.

[1:21:59] I think you know funding from all levels of government have always had some sort of string

[1:22:04] and I think it would be a dream of municipalities or provinces to have no strings at any point

[1:22:10] in time but they always exist governments have priorities and you know bullying would be

[1:22:17] we're forced to do this but we're not we're not being forced we want the funding so we do have

[1:22:24] choices in front of us, one choice is to not change the zoning by-law, which is the

[1:22:31] motion on the board, which I definitely won't be supporting.

[1:22:34] But there's a couple of things that I'm thinking about.

[1:22:37] I think we're on the cusp of growth right now.

[1:22:40] You know, when I'm driving around the city, I'm seeing development all over the place.

[1:22:45] Cranes up.

[1:22:46] You know, today I drove by two cranes at the hospital and a mini crane by the McDonald's

[1:22:51] house.

[1:22:53] I'm seeing new apartment buildings, you know, with the fresh, fresh pavement all around it.

[1:22:58] You know, the free market in an economy like this where things are growing, I think is maybe the best way to go.

[1:23:05] It could be maybe the neighborhood that I chose to live in, but the neighborhood that I choose to live in, and many of my fellow citizens live in, is already quite, quite mixed.

[1:23:18] So it could be just maybe the kind of person I am and the kind of communities that lots of us live with live in in the middle of the city

[1:23:25] But I don't feel bullied in and I definitely will be supporting

[1:23:30] Emotion that looks like the the first one that was put before us

[1:23:36] Okay, thank you. We have four left in the queue and then we'll go to vote. So council Brown

[1:23:42] Yes, thank you, Deputy Mayor. I guess um my question for all of my colleagues um

[1:23:50] What are we here for if not to fight against being pressured into doing something we know is not right?

[1:23:57] You know who who is going to be the first to stand up against the government and say no what you're doing is wrong.

[1:24:04] I didn't run for federal politics or provincial politics. I ran for the West flat and you know what?

[1:24:12] I'm a voice of the common man and you know what? I don't agree with what they're doing to us. So

[1:24:18] So if it's not a guarantee, this money, they're just throwing in front of our face like

[1:24:24] a carrot and we're going to be a horse chasing it down the road.

[1:24:28] Why not fight an arm and it's a 50-50 chance?

[1:24:33] But at least we will be seen as fighting for what's right.

[1:24:37] You know what?

[1:24:37] You guys want to be trailblazers in the country or whatever.

[1:24:42] You want to fight for the facility there to rank the Cultural Advanced Center.

[1:24:53] You know what? Let's get on the national stage. Let's say, hey, what you guys are doing is wrong.

[1:25:00] We're not going to fall for it. Don't threaten us with not giving us money because we're not going to change our bylaws.

[1:25:07] We're in municipality and we're growing municipality. Let's fight for our citizens. I

[1:25:15] Know some of you guys don't agree with me, but hey, you know what? I'm coming at it as a guy from the West Flat

[1:25:22] Trying to speak some common sense into us. I'm not a politician you guys. I know I'm not right most of the time after time some of the time

[1:25:29] But you know what this is wrong and I'm gonna argue with you guys

[1:25:35] bill the end of the time that let's do what's right. Let's not cave in to pressure. This is a democracy. This is not this thing where the federal government just tells us hey, this is what you're doing.

[1:25:50] You're going to get the COVID shot. This is the way it is. You know, let's stop it. Let's say no. You guys work for us. I work for the citizens.

[1:26:01] Do you have a point coming, Councillor?

[1:26:02] Yeah, my point is pretty much we're being blackmailed and I don't like it.

[1:26:10] So I'm going to speak my mind and that's just the way it is so those were just my points.

[1:26:18] Thank you.

[1:26:19] We have a point of privilege of being called,

[1:26:23] Councillor Pronto.

[1:26:25] I do recall that we're really not supposed to speak ill of provincial or federal governments

[1:26:32] So I think that there's some lines that are coming very close to being crossed here.

[1:26:38] Thank you. I would tend to agree with that and Councillor Brown is done with this comments

[1:26:43] and we'll move on to the next and just keep that in mind moving forward. Councillor Brown,

[1:26:46] we do have that in our, you can make points, but it has to be very balanced, right? So.

[1:26:54] Thank you. And thank you for the point of privilege, Councillor.

[1:26:59] Councillor, Councillor Pronto. Next we have Councillor Leewoods.

[1:27:07] Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I too don't appreciate kind of what's going on.

[1:27:14] I didn't like the original, but in regards to funding, all funding comes with conditions.

[1:27:21] I don't like the fact that it's kind of carte blanche the whole city.

[1:27:26] The whole city has to fall to this.

[1:27:31] We do have a housing approach, but we should have things in line to protect certain areas.

[1:27:39] My question to the director, is there any form of kind of contingency that we can put

[1:27:47] in place like this goes through on the condition, will come into effect when the funding is approved?

[1:27:56] And will that satisfy the federal government that this will come into effect once that funding

[1:28:02] is approved?

[1:28:06] Yeah, thank you for the question, Councillor Layow.

[1:28:08] It's a point well taken, the federal government application process requires approval of the

[1:28:17] program.

[1:28:18] So the zoning by-law needs to be amended and changed as part of our application package.

[1:28:24] As spoken to earlier, if we don't get the funding or the funding dollars don't equate to it doesn't cross that threshold where we're comfortable, of course a report can be brought back to revisit the zoning by-law amendment but to your question it needs to be approved and inserted into the by-law.

[1:28:44] Okay, if the funding for phase one isn't approved this year, it's a 10 year program.

[1:28:50] Will it be reapplied for next year?

[1:28:53] Phase one.

[1:28:54] Yeah, thank you the question.

[1:28:55] It does depend a little bit on the intake for the program and the projects that are approved.

[1:29:01] It is a finite number, right, $6 billion across the country.

[1:29:04] So right now, we know that there's a second intake for the program, and that's what we're focused on.

[1:29:09] We haven't been told what next steps are for the program itself.

[1:29:12] whether there's going to be a third intake or a fourth intake.

[1:29:15] If the money is allocated after the second intake, that's the full amount across the country to all provinces, then that would be it.

[1:29:25] Okay, yeah, I just don't want to see a continued denial for funding.

[1:29:30] Well, we have one, two, three, four years of this going on.

[1:29:36] But no, I guess that was my question is whether or not we could have a contingency in there, but thank you for the answer.

[1:29:41] Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. It's Councillor Ring.

[1:29:46] Sorry, there you go. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I've been fairly silent because all the

[1:29:51] questions that I had had been answered by other questions. I really have-

[1:30:00] We've had up to this point, but I definitely will not be supporting this particular motion on the screen. I think both motions are one and the same. If you defeat the first motion, you're voting for this motion. So it's kind of a root point. I think we should go back to the original motion. Or once we defeat this one, we will go back to the original motion. And if people want to support this motion, they'll vote down the original motion.

[1:30:29] So it's kind of one and the same, but with that, I do have one question for the director.

[1:30:37] Of all the, what we're referring to here and with this change in by law is only affecting R1 and R2.

[1:30:48] How many vacant and or developed properties are there that fall under that by law?

[1:30:56] Yeah, thank you for the question, Councillor Ring.

[1:31:00] I can't give you a number, but I can give you an idea.

[1:31:02] So our entire Crescent Acres city on development on the east, east side of the city, right?

[1:31:07] That equates to, you know, there's 100 plus lots and more lots to come as they get developed.

[1:31:14] Our entire West Hill neighborhood that you're seeing at Lake Estates, et cetera, et cetera,

[1:31:19] is, it would affect those areas, those are the new areas that would be impacted.

[1:31:25] You're correct, though, our current zones zoned are three and are four already allow for

[1:31:32] You know, right anything above and beyond for units as the right so our R1 and R2 zones

[1:31:38] Undeveloped right now are primarily those two areas and there are sporadic vacant lots

[1:31:44] And there's pockets in those

[1:31:47] Neighborhoods that are zoned are three and are four correct

[1:31:50] So it's not affecting all of them, and you've got the safeguards within the zoning bylaws anyways with setbacks and parking and site coverage and everything that are protecting.

[1:32:02] Kind of our interest in those neighborhoods that you're not going to see these as people have referred to monstrosities being built on there because they just can't.

[1:32:14] And the biggest one is site coverage and number one, parking.

[1:32:19] You pretty much need a rear lane to put anything more than three units on a site in order

[1:32:28] to meet your parking requirements.

[1:32:30] So I have no problem with the original motion.

[1:32:35] I'm in support of it.

[1:32:37] I get the fact that we are kind of feeling kind of bullied.

[1:32:42] but not really. It's our choice to vote it down. So they're not telling us just put it in place

[1:32:50] without debating it and we are debating it. And I think all the questions have been answered. I'm

[1:32:56] in full support of the original motion, but this one I just don't see the reasoning behind it because

[1:33:04] that's where we'd go if we defaded the first motion. So it's kind of a moot point.

[1:33:10] That's all I've had, hopefully we can move on and vote how we will and move on to the

[1:33:18] motion.

[1:33:19] Thank you.

[1:33:20] Councillor Kilmer.

[1:33:22] Whoops.

[1:33:23] There we go.

[1:33:24] Thank you very much and I want to thank all my colleagues for the points that they brought

[1:33:28] up and a really good discussion.

[1:33:30] and I really appreciate that the federal government's commitment to housing because we have

[1:33:40] a commitment to housing and the housing need as well.

[1:33:44] I would prefer it to be a little less prescriptive, a little less directive.

[1:33:50] I would prefer a little bit more leeway because of the unique circumstances that we feel each

[1:33:55] of our communities have, but that is not the case with this particular program.

[1:34:02] So because of that, I am going to vote against the current motion and for the motion that

[1:34:11] was originally, or it was not a motion but the next motion.

[1:34:19] Thank you.

[1:34:19] And just before we go to a vote, I just want to conclude the debate with a comment that

[1:34:25] We all care for our community deeply and we all come from our different

[1:34:29] words or different areas of the city and we come together for common issues.

[1:34:33] And this is a common issue that affects the entire community.

[1:34:36] And when we come with different perspectives and different points of debate,

[1:34:42] that's positive.

[1:34:43] We're building up a more thought-out and rounded decision.

[1:34:47] And I think the debate that happened or this has been very good.

[1:34:51] and just want to, you know, make sure that it reminds everyone that we are here to work together even though we may not have the same point of view, and with that, I think we're going to take it to a vote.

[1:35:02] So thank you.

[1:35:13] Okay, so we're voting on the zoning by-law changes to allow for use of a right and all residential zones not be pursued. That is the motion.

[1:35:30] Okay, and that is defeated 8 to 1.

[1:35:39] Council, can I please have a motion?

[1:35:41] I

[1:35:48] need to move her though.

[1:35:50] Councilor Ring.

[1:35:51] I'll move the original motion.

[1:35:54] Thank you.

[1:35:57] Any further discussion or debate?

[1:36:03] Mayor Polensky.

[1:36:04] Oh, thank you for bringing that motion forward.

[1:36:07] And I was sitting here thinking about how you define a bully.

[1:36:12] And my experience growing up as a bully takes your lunch money.

[1:36:16] And this is the case of somebody taking our lunch money

[1:36:20] it's somebody who's saying if you do this I'll do this for you. So thank you.

[1:36:27] Okay, any other discussion?

[1:36:32] Seeing none. See Clerk is it prepared? Not quite yet.

[1:37:03] Okay, that vote is open.

[1:37:07] Okay, and that

[1:37:08] passes eight to one.

[1:37:12] Well thank you for again the vibrant discussion and we have no one finished

[1:37:16] business and Councillor Brown.

[1:37:23] Thank you, sir.

[1:37:35] And that vote is now open.

[1:37:43] Okay, that passes unanimously. And with that we will know we closing the session and the in-camera

[1:37:52] will come back in ten minutes please at 5.45.

Executive Committee Regular Meeting

Agenda

Transcript